SPE 81074

In-Situ Stress State Eastern Cordillera (Colombia)

M. E. Torres, Colombia National University -Schlumberger DCS Bogotá, Colombia, A.J. Gonzalez, Colombia National
University, N.C. Last, BP Exploration

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Introduction
Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April 2003.
The stress field in crustal rocks can be investigated by means
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of of direct measurements methods, which include strain relief
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to overcoring, and hydraulic fracturing techniques, or by using
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at several techniques that describe the orientation and magnitude
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
of the stress tensor. These include borehole breakouts, tensile
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is fractures in the borehole walls and leak off tests. The
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous knowledge of the in situ regional or local stress magnitudes
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. and directions is essential to establish the tectonic stress
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
regimen of the basin and the stress field changes induced for
opened deep construction, excavation in the rock masses and
Abstract drilling petroleum wells. The local stress field is disturbed,
and new stress field is induced in the neighborhood of the
Knowledge of the regional state of in situ stress direction and excavation, therefore the stress tensor is relevant information
magnitude is required to delineate stress provinces, to analyze for the design of the processes and construction of the
intra plate earthquakes, to optimize petroleum recovery and subterranean projects. To study the in situ stress state of the
for the development of civil projects in rock masses. This Eastern Cordillera of Colombia is the subject of the present
paper on rock mechanics and reservoir geomechanics studies investigation. The geological settings and configuration of the
the stress state including the pore pressure that operates in the Eastern Cordillera evidence an active compressive tectonic in
rock mass and the mechanical behavior of the rock, to create the most recent geological times. Two special sites were
an integrated model to study the in situ state of stress in the selected in the foothills located in the Cusiana and Cupiagua
Eastern Cordillera, Colombia. Several measurement fields and the Hydroelectric project in Sogamoso River, where
techniques were used, which include strain-relief overcoring, important engineering projects have been carried out that
hydraulic fracturing techniques, shear fractures in the walls of involve excavations or deep drillings, Torres, M. E.(2001).
the boreholes knows as breakouts, leak off test and induced The Overcoring technique was used inside an exploratory
drilling tensile fracture in the walls of the boreholes. Rock gallery built to 190 m of depth. The 4 remaining methods
mechanics properties are required for the application of these were used in depths between 13.000 and 16.000 feet (3.962 –
methods and laboratory tests were carried out to find elastic 4.878 m), and distributed in tests carried out in the deposits of
constants. The orientation of the maximum horizontal hydrocarbons at the Cusiana and Cupiagua fields of BP
principal stress σHmax is parallel to that of tensile failures Exploration. Hydraulic fracturing was analyzed in two wells
(tensile wall fractures) and perpendicular to that of of the Cusiana field. Borehole breakouts were studied on one
compressive failures (breakouts). The magnitude of the well in the Cusiana field and ten wells within the Cupiagua
minimum principal horizontal stress σhmin is determined field. Hydraulic fracturing and induced tensile wall fractures
from leak off tests (LOT) and hydraulic fracturing, while the were analyzed on two wells in the Cusiana field. The revision
magnitude of the vertical stress σV is simply calculated based of leak off tests performed for fifty-two wells in both the
on the density data collected in several representative wells in Cusiana and Cupiagua fields. In order to use the knowledge of
the Cusiana field. From recent tectonics results are clear that the stress induced around underground excavations, it is
the region in the Eastern Cordillera is characterized by an necessary to have intact rock samples laboratory tested to
active strike-slip / thrust faulting regimen. The actual regional determine the rock mechanics parameters. A series of
state of stress found means that the minimum principal stress mechanical uniaxial and triaxial compression tests and
σhmin (0.65 psi/ft to 0.77 psi/ft) oriented in a NE-SW direction, Brazilian tests were conducted on reservoir rocks from Fm
is less than the vertical stress (1.07 psi/ft), and the maximum Mirador, Fm Barco and Fm Guadalupe. The final results
principal stress σHmax (1.2 psi/ft to 1.7 psi/ft) in NW-SE presents the principal stress tensor σ1, σ2 y σ3 and their
compressional direction is significantly greater than the direction, deduced by each one of the techniques employed.
vertical stress, which therefore is the intermediate principal Stress direction inferred from the induced tensile fractures and
stress. breakouts elongation denoted these stress states according to
2 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

the geological setting.

Stress Measurements Q=
E 
(U 1 + U 2 + U 3 ) −
6d  2
2
[
(U 1 − U 2 )2 + (U 2 − U 3 )2 + (U 3 − U 1 )2 ]
1
2



The in situ stress tensor refers to the three principal stresses in
the Earth’s Upper Crust that lie approximately in vertical and
horizontal planes, the stress tensor orientation refers to the (3)
azimuth of the maximum horizontal stress, one of the principal (U − U 3 ) * 3
φ p = 1 arctg 2
stresses. Any point in the rock mass has an specific state of 2 2U1 − U 2 − U 3
stress generally presented in terms of the magnitude and
orientation of the principal stresses. The different stress
measurements should involve at least six independent Hydraulic fracturing technique
measurements that determine the three normal components
and three shear components of the stress. Several techniques to The use of hydraulic pressure in boreholes to fracture the rock
obtain stress magnitudes can be applied and involve direct and is a major source of knowledge of the state of stress. The
indirect measurements. physics of the process has been evaluated by Hubbert & Willis
(1957), Scheidegger (1962), among others.
Overcoring Technique When a fracture is produced, the magnitude and orientation of
Stress – relief measurements have been developed through the stress tensor in the plane normal to the hole axis can be
many years, Hooker & Bickel(1974), Obert(1966), Larson determined. The magnitude of σhmin is estimated directly from
M.K.(1992). The Technique USBM is described in standard the shut in/clousure pressure, the orientation of σHMax is
ASTM D 4623-86 (1991) Fig A-4. A strain sensor is located evaluated directly from the fracture orientation and the
in a borehole and it records strain when the rock contained in magnitude of σHMax is estimated from the following
the borehole is isolated by overcoring with a bit of a larger expression.
diameter. The borehole deformation gauge, which has all (4)
sensing elements in the same plane, is designed to measure σ = 3σ + τ − kPb − (2 − k ) P
diametral deformations of a 1.5-inch borehole during H h 0 0
overcoring strain relief. The processes consist of the following
steps. Drilling a 1.5-inch – diameter gauge hole (pilot hole) It is essential to estimate the pore pressure Po in the rock
with a diamond bit and reamer, positioning of the borehole mass, k is a poro-elastic constant (often approximately equal to
gauge in the gauge-hole, and finally drilling over the gauge 1.0). The tensile strength can be estimated in the laboratory
with a 6 inch diameter thin walled diamond bit. Deformation through Brazilian test or during the test making the breakdown
readings are taken at the start, during and at the end of the pressure in the first cicle Pb minus the clousure pressure Pc in
overcoring. After the overcoring, the borehole gage is the second cicle, τ0 = Pb-Pc. In any cycle when the pumping
removed and the drilled core is retrieved. The core is tested in ceases, the pressure pauses as it falls at the instantaneous shut
a biaxial chamber to determine the mechanical properties of in pressure (ISIP). If the fracture formed normal to σ3, the
the rock. The mechanical properties and the deformation minimum horizontal stress can be estimated by
measurements from each overcore are used to calculate the (5)
secondary principal stress and their orientation in the plane σ = σ = ISIP
h 3
normal to the axis of the borehole. To determine the stress
Minifracs and Step Rate Tests are a special variation of the
tensors require measurements in three non-parallel holes. In
hydraulic fracturing processes, the primary objective is to
underground situations, the tests are conducted in three holes
obtain values for fracturing pressures, especially the formation
drilled in different directions, preferably as orthogonal as
closure pressure Pc, also provides information on stress
possible. Five or more datasets obtained of each hole and the
relevant to the design of stimulation treatments. The analysis
data from all holes are submitted to a least square analysis to
of this type of tests is essential to evaluate the state of stress in
determine the standard deviation of the calculated stress
the reservoir.
ellipsoid.
Calculation
Secondary principal stresses. The magnitude and direction of Leak off test technique
planar principal stresses are determined by the following
expressions: Leak off tests and hydraulic fracturing stress measurements
(1) share the same theoretical framework. The principal purpose
of the test is to generate information about formation/casing

[ ]
E  1  integrity. The standard leak-off test (LOT) also called
(U 1 + U 2 + U 3 ) + (U 1 − U 2 ) 2 + (U 2 − U 3 ) 2 + (U 3 − U 1 ) 2
2
P=
2
 formation integrity test is not a stress measurement technique.
6d  2 
It is performed beneath the casing shoe to test the cement
integrity; the leak-off pressure is interpreted as the first
(2) deflection from a linear pressure-volume curve. LOT has been
used for stress estimation, it is assumed that the leak-off
pressure indicates that a fracture is forming and this will give
an approximation of the minimum stress σhmin. A more refined
 81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 3

procedure has been developed to enable an improved Tangential stress

estimation of stresses. Extended leak-off test (ELOT) Kunze (10)
& Steiger (1991) are performed in a similar manner to
 2  4
σ = 12  σ + σ  1 + a  − 12 σ − σ  ⋅ 1 − 3 a  Cose2θ − ∆Pa
standard leak-off test, but repeating the pressurization cycles. 2
θ H h  r2  H h  4
r  r 2
Induced tensile wall fractures technique Shear stress
(11)
 2 a 4 
The tensile fractures are vertical fractures that appear in the 
τ = − 12 σ + σ  1 + 2a − 3  Sen2θ
walls of the vertical well or echelon fractures in deviated rθ H h  r2 r 4 
wells, with an azimuth diametrically opposite one of another
separated 180° and oriented parallel to σHmax. The tensile σr = Radial stress in the r direction
fractures are the result of stress concentration σθ around the σθ = Tangential stress in the θ direction
hole during drilling that exceed the tension strength of the θ =?Maximum stress azimuth
rock. a = Wellbore radius
(6) r = Point Coordinates
σ − Po < −τ ∆P = Differential pressure in the well
θ 0
The maximum horizontal stress magnitude takes into account
The σHmax is calculated in the interval in which the tensile the breakout width when the compressive rock strength is
fracture is identified in a wellbore image UBI (Ultrasonic Bore known, the fundamentals were discussed by Barton et al
Hole Image) or FMI (Fullbore Formation MicroImager). The (1988), and consider the true poliaxial state of stress using Ceff,
minimum tangential stress σθ is defined by the equation the effective rock strength in situ, the maximum angle of
(7) breakout initiation φb, and the tangential stress σθ .
(12)
σ = 3σ − σ − Mw − P 1 + 2Coseπ − 2φ 
 
θ h H 0 Ceff + Pf   b 
σ H max = −σ
1 − 2Cose π − 2φ  h min   
where:  


b  1 − 2Cose π − 2φb 

Mw = Mud pressure
Po = Pore pressure
Rock Failure Criteria and Mechanical Properties
The magnitude of σHMax can be estimate from the following
expression In order to use the stress measurement techniques it is
(8) necessary to have a failure criterion available which will
σ = 3σ − τ − Mw − P predict the response of the rock to a given set of induced
H h 0 0 stresses. The first failure criterion was Mohr–Coulomb in
which the rock mass strength is defined by the cohesive
Breakouts technique strength c´ and the angle of friction φ´. The linear relationship
between the maximum and minor principal stresses, σ1´ and
The mechanism by which stress induced breakouts form in σ3´ for the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is
wells have been discussed by Gough & Bell (1982), Zoback et (13)
al (1985), Haimson and Harrick (1989), Barton et al (1988), σ ` = σ cm + kσ `
Moos & Zoback (1990) among others. For a cylindrical hole 1 3
in a thick, homogeneous, isotropic elastic plate subjected to where σcm is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
two orthogonal principal stresses the Kirsch solution (1898) mass and k is the slope of the line relating σ1´ and σ3´.
modified by Jaeger (1961), is a good estimation of the state of (14)
stress around the well, taken in to account the pressure ∆P, this 1 + Senoφ ' 2C ' Coseφ '
σ ' =σ ' +
pressure is the difference between the fluid pressure in the 1 3 1 − Senoφ ' 1 − Senoφ '
borehole and in the formation. The breakouts are Mohr–Coulomb’s theory assumes that across a plane at a
perpendicular to the hydraulic/tensile-induced fractures failure, the normal σn` and shear stress τ is
orientations in the well, the development of wellbore (15)
breakouts depends on the in-situ stress state and rock strength. τ = C '+σ 'n Tangφ '
The wellbore failure occurs at symmetrical azimuth because
The second failure criterion, Hoek-Brown for the intact rock
the circumferential stress σθ exceeds by the compression
uses the relationship between the principal stresses at failure.
strength of the rock.
For a given intact rock the criterion is defined by two
The Kirsch solution modified by Jaeger &Cook is:
constants, the uniaxial compressive strength σci and the
Radial stress
constant mb. The values of these constants should be
(9)
determined by statistical analysis of the results of a set of
 4 

a 2  a2
− σ  ⋅ 1 − 4 + 3 a  Cose2θ + ∆Pa
 2 triaxial tests.
σ r = 12 σ +σ 
 1− + 12 σ
H h   r 2  H h  r2 r 4  r2
4 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

The Hoek-Brown failure criterion for intact rock is defined by: Casanare, Colombia. The current tectonic environment is
(16) characterized by active thrusting towards the southeast, with
the front thrust marked by the Cusiana fault and Yopal fault.
0.5 These faults separate the field in three blocks called Yopal


σ' 

σ ' = σ ' +σ  m 3 + 1 Block, Cusiana Block, and Llanos. The Yopal fault located on
1 3 ci  b σ  the west side of the block trends NE-SW and dips towards
 ci 
west.
In order to determine the mechanical properties of the rock,
laboratory tests should be carried out on core samples.
Uniaxial, triaxial and Brazilian testing are the basic tests that Previous state of stress studies
describe the rock strength parameters under compression and The state of stress in the Eastern Cordillera Colombia has been
tension load. It is necessary to conduct a rock characterization studied by many authors in the past. There are many
to provide a quantitative description of the composition, publications related to Cusiana and Cupiagua fields. The main
texture, and mechanical properties. The porosity and clay publications were made by Addis and Roberts (1992), Plumb
contents are petrophysical properties that affect the strength (1994), Jackson et all (1997) GeoMechanics Internacional
and elastic modulus. (1998), Last N, Plumb and Papanastasiou (1998), Last, N.,
Harkness R.M., Plumb (1998), Last, N., Plumb, P Charles, J.
Geological Setting Alsen M.McLean (1995), Zoback M.D., Moss D., Last, N.,
S.M. Wilson (1999), B.Wu., M.A. Addis, Last, N. (1998),
The Colombia Eastern Cordillera lies at the lateral Andes and Charlez, P.A. et al (1998). Different techniques or mechanical
rests directly on Precambrian basement, affected by orogenic models were applied to explain and interpret the in situ state of
events in the Proterozoic and the Paleozoic, igneous events stress.
and sedimentary processes in the Mesozoic and sedimentary This paper presents new data obtained from overcoring tests
processes in the Cenozoic. The basin presents well-defined and rock mechanics tests made in the Cusiana’s reservoir
structural styles, which divide the stratigraphic units along the rocks. Also it uses reservoir and drilling data from Cusiana
structural regional train NE-SW. The development of events and Cupiagua fields and applies basic geomechanic models to
and structural styles in the Eastern Cordillera and Llanos constrain the regional stress tensor.
Foreland basin have been described by Notestein (1944),
Ulloa and Rodriguez (1979), Dengo and Covey (1993), Rock mechanics tests
Colletta et al (1990), Cooper et all (1995). The major tectonic In order to characterize the strength properties of the Cusiana
events include the Bituima and The Salina fault system that reservoir rocks for utilization in all analysis, a series of
separate the Eastern Cordillera from the Magdalena Valley on laboratory triaxial and uniaxial compression tests, and
the west side, the faults system that limit the Santander Massif, Brazilian tests were conducted on cylindrical samples 5.41 cm
and the Guicaramo faults system that separates the Eastern in diameter and 11.2 cm in length. For Brazilian tests,
Cordillera from the Llanos foothills. The Cusiana – Tamara cylinders were used with 1:1 length/diameter ratio. The
faults system separates the Llanos foothills from the foreland triaxial cell used for these tests are described by Hoek and
basin. The characterized present tectonic stress regime Franklin (1968), do not require draining between tests, in this
responds to compressive forces, reflected in the presence of type of cell the specimen is subjected to an axial stress σ1 and
large high angle reverse faults, extensive synclines, and tight to a radial confinement giving σ2= σ3=p, where p is the
anticlines. The fault systems present NE- SW direction, the hydraulic pressure in the cell. The normal test conditions are
Esmeralda and Santa María system fault, put in contact units arranged so that σ1, the major principal stress, acts along the
with different ages. The faults system are associates to the axis of the specimen. Dynamic elastic properties of all
Farallones anticline uplift and puts in contact rocks of the specimens were determined using an ultrasonic pulse
Farallones group and Batá Formation with rocks of the transmission technique.
Caqueza Group. Other reverse thrust faults, Yopal and A rock mechanic software for the analysis of the triaxial test
Guicáramo, separates cretaceous rocks from the upper Tertiary data was used. The high quality triaxial test data usually give a
and Quaternary sequences, also present a NE direction and are coefficient of determination R2 greater than 0.9.
located in the Llanos Foothills. The regional structural section All samples tested were sandstone, some of them saturated
that has been balanced and restored presents a shortening that with oil. Core samples of intact rock specimens from Mirador,
has resulted in a thickening of the crust to as much as 68 Km, Barco, and Guadalupe formation were tested. Thirty-six cores
Coopert et al (1995). Three faults systems, the Guaicáramo from nine wells were selected to characterize rock
system faults, the Arcabuco system Faults, and The Salina – compression strength and 17 cores to characterize tensile
Bituima system faults affected the basin. The first system strength. Mohr Coulomb and Hoek & Brown failure criterions
controls the Cocuy basin and the other two the Tablazo – were used to investigate the mechanical behavior of the rocks.
Magdalena basins. The fold and thrust belt specifically in the These criterions provide a starting point for the analysis of
Llanos Foothills region have been assigned to the Andean rock failure around the wellbore. These results are applied in
Orogein, during the Lower Pliocene to middle Pleistocene, the different stress measure techniques but a depth analysis of
Ulloa et al (1979). The Cusiana and Cupiagua fields are rock strength data versus petrophysical properties was not
located in the foothills on the Eastern side of the eastern performed, the justification for this choice is that the
Cordillera of the Andes mountain range, in the region of fundamental problem was to estimate stress magnitudes by
81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 5

different techniques and compare the final results. In terms of fractured 14.677 to 14.725 ft TVD. The SRT was pumped
the Mohr –Coulomb criterion, two parameters pertaining to following the recommended program to identify the fracture
rock strength determine the likelihood of failure and the extension pressure, closure pressure and connectivity with the
maximum principal stress estimation. These are the formation at different pump rates and any pressure drop
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and the angle of around the wellbore. Once the injection is completed, a short
internal friction φ. In terms of the Hoek & Brown criterion for shut in period allowed to estimate fracture closure pressure
estimating the strength and deformability of the rock masses, from the test. The final value was confirmed when analyzing
the properties of the rock that have to be estimated are the the post treatment pressure decline. The breakdown pressure
uniaxial compressive strength σci, for the intact rock pieces, at the level of Gauge Carrier was recorded and converted to
the value of the Hoek-Brown constant mi for this intact rock the test depth and the ISIP was estimated at the level of the
pieces and the tensile strength τ. The rock strength data is test. The results of the stress estimated uses a reservoir pore
reported in the tables A-1 and one example of Mohr-Coulomb pressure gradient 0.43 psi/ft, the pore pressure recorded at the
and Hoek-Brown envelopes for Mirador tests are in the figure same time that the test was performed. The ISIP pressure in
A-1. the injectivity test was 13.381.26 psi which represents a
gradient of 0.90psi/ft, but the Minifrac test results show
Overcoring Test Results gradients of 0.83 psi/ft and 0.71 psi/ft respectively, this stress
value are close to the minimum principal stress σhmin. The
pressure variation can be explained for the form as the test is
The Hydroelectric Sogamoso Project is located in the
northeast of the country in the region of Santander, 50 Km executed. The break down pressure in a continuous test is not
easy to identify because the pumps do not stop and the
from the city of Bucaramanga, west side of the Easter
Cordillera, in the Sogamoso River with a mean flow of 476,6 pressure rises. The point when the pressure falls depends of
m3/s. The basic design consists of a 190 m high gravel dam the rock permeability and porosity, the ISIP pressure could be
higher than the closure pressure. For the maximum horizontal
with concrete face (CFRD). Sandstones interbedded by
claystones constitute, the foundation for this dam, the rocks stress σHmax, the breakdown pressure and the ISIP pressure
are known as La Paz Formation (Lower Eoceno) with a strike obtained in the test were applied in the simplified analytic
of N30°E and dip of 25° and 35° to the NW, whose total process supposed lineally elastic, homogeneity and isotropic
thickness is of 490 m. Quaternary deposits cover partially the behavior, the value estimated for σHmax = 22.804.18 psi that
rocks of the La Paz formation. A programme of overcoring represents a stress gradient of 1.54 psi/ft, coherent value for
rock stress measurements was conducted at an exploratory the Cusiana field.
gallery by ISAGEN Colombia, in sandstones of La Paz The second hydraulic fracturing treatment was performed in
Formation, to obtain the geotechnical information required in the Cusiana 2X in two intervals, at 14,326.7 to 14,338.6 TVD
the project design phase. Two in-situ stress measurement and 14,348.6 to 14,404.5 TVD, in the Mirador Formation. The
programs were executed divided in 49 tests. The boreholes breakdown pressure, closure pressure, and ISIP were recorded
used for the testing were drilled in two different sites in the at the Gauge Carrier; the distance between the Gauge Carrier
gallery, 2 vertical and 4 horizontal. position and the two fracture sections was 2,670.28 ft. All
Typical examples of good strain or deformation relief pressure data were adapted to the test level. With this data the
overcoring distance data for the USBM tests are shown in the ISIP in these intervals were 9,546 psi and 9,565 psi or 0.66
Fig A-2. The net strain relief increments due to the overcoring psi/ft gradient. Other ISIP pressure recorded in SRT was
for all the successful tests, includes the maximum and 8.380 psi or 0.58 psi/ft, a low value, but in the SRT the
minimum secondary principal stress P and Q in the planes extension fracture pressure normally should be lower due to
perpendicular to the borehole axis, the angle θ measured the fracture already existing. The Minifrac test shows a
anticlockwise (looking in to the borehole) from the vertical to pressure of 10,520 psi (0.60 psi/ft). The calculation of the
the direction of P, are given in Tables A-2. Typical examples maximum horizontal stress was done with the ISIP pressure
of strain or deformation pressure data from USBM biaxial and the breakdown pressure. The analytical results shows at
tests are shown in Fig A-3. The values of elastic constants, for this level of σHmax = 27,257.46 psi or 1.20 psi/ft.
modulus obtained form the USBM overcores were 31.4 – 40
GPa, and 0.3 Poisson’s ratio.
The USBM data presented in tables A-2 were reduced using Leak off Test Results
the plane strain solution given by Panek A. and Obert &
Duval. The results are presented in Table A-2 right side To obtain the magnitude of the minimum principal stress σ3 in
include the average principal stress direction and magnitude the Cusiana and Cupiagua fields, the first assumption was that
for both tests. these stresses have a horizontal component, called σhmin. The
Leak Off data used were taken from 1992 to 2000 and were
Hydraulic Fracturing Results stored in the production database of BP. There are 258 tests
reported. This data was selected carefully and only tests that
Two wells were analyzed in the Cusiana field to estimate the reported leaks in the formation were used; therefore, those
in-situ stress tensor by the hydraulic fracturing method. The tests were selected only if they have reached the formation
wells analyzed were Cusiana 1X and Cusiana 2X. In the first fracture pressure. Eighty-four tests to describe leak off were
well one interval in the Upper Mirador formation was taken, distributed along the Cusiana field (Wells Buenos Aires
6 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

and Cusiana) and in the Cupiagua field (Wells Cupiagua). calculation. The maximum horizontal stress gradient in this
The set of data was analyzed in two groups, the first group well was 1.4 psi/ft.
corresponds to data between 1,000 ft to 2,100 ft and the
second group corresponds to depths between 8.000 ft to16.000 In a second well, Cusiana 4X, stress induced wall fractures
ft. The data analyzed by lineal distribution and leak off were analyzed in UBI wellbore image data recorded into
pressures versus depth was charted. producing hydrocarbon reservoirs (Mirador, Barco and
Twenty-two Buenos Aires wells were analyzed, where leak of Guadalupe Formations). This sandstone reservoir was
tests were performed. The lineal distribution is reported in the mechanically characterized in the laboratory, the tensile
Figure A-5 and the lineal regression where Y is the depth and strength for each set of formation core samples were
X , the pressure is according to the equation: measured. Four fracture sets were selected as stress indicators,
one in the Barco Formation (average tensile strength 3.6 MPa)
2
Y = 1.3094X ; R = 0.9809 with a 46 ft length, two in the Mirador Formation (average
This means that the minimum stress gradient is approximately tensile strength of 2.7 MPa) with lengths of 10 and 24 ft, and
0.77 psi/ft. only one in the Guadalupe Formation (average tensile strength
In Cusiana field, 9 wells reported leak off tests between 1.000 of 1.6 MPa) and 45 ft of length. The stress tensor calculation is
ft to 1.800 ft and 11.000 ft to 14.000 ft. The distribution is shown in the Table A-3 and Fig. A-7. The maximum
reported in the Figure A-5 and the lineal regression is: horizontal stress gradient in this well was 1.46 to 1.50 psi/ft
and the maximum horizontal principal stress direction was N
2
Y = 1.5258X ; R = 0.9933 75° W ± 5°.
Therefore, the minimum stress gradient is approximately 0.65 Breakouts technique results
psi/ft.
Finally, 21 wells in Cupiagua field were selected and the same
methodology was applied, the intervals were 1.000 ft to 2.100 The breakout technique was applied to investigate two
ft and the other group of data was 6.500 ft to 16.000 ft. The parameters, stress magnitude and stress direction. For stress
figure A-5 shows the lineal distribution and the lineal magnitude, one well in the Cusiana field and another in the
regression: Cupiagua field were selected, because in both wells UBI
image and hole shape analysis (HOSANA), were previously
Y = 1.2986X
2
; R = 0.9775 performed, making information on hole shape deformation
available. The borehole deformation could be used to apply
The minimum stress gradient for these wells is 0.77 psi/ft. breakout width measurements, required to compute stress
magnitudes.
The way the leaks off tests were used is considered as a The UBI image ran in the well BA-3X was used in the
measurement of the fracturing pressure of the formation. The analysis, between depths of 13.824 to 14.535 ft, in the
relation between leak off pressures and minimum in-situ Mirador, Los Cuervos and Guadalupe formations. Only
stress, shows that the leak-off values generally are higher that breakouts recorded in sandstones were used. The pore pressure
the corresponding in-situ stress, but is a good estimation of the information from MDT data, mud weight pressure from RFT
minimum principal stress. data, and rock confined strength obtained from the triaxial test
simulating the reservoir confine stress were used. The angle
of breakout width obtained in the deformation analysis
Induced tensile wall fractures results software was measured carefully. Many measurements were
necessary to obtain the more representative value of the
To identify tensile well fractures, wellbore images (FMI and breakout width. The Kirsch solution with the Zoback (1985)
UBI), were reviewed along the Cusiana Field, following the methodology was applied. The table A-4 and Fig A-9 resumes
criterion proposed by Barton (2000). In one well BA-3X, FMI the parameters and the stress results using this technique. The
image is present along the Mirador Formation (average tensile maximum horizontal stress gradient for this well was 1.44 to
strength of 2.7 MPa), ten sets of induced tensile fractures 1.50 psi/ft.
arranged at both sides of the wellbore wall separate at 180°, The well Cupiagua 1X has hole shape analysis in the
the hole diameter is 8.5 inches. The depth at which fractures stratigraphic sequences of the Barco and Guadalupe
appear is between 14.700 to 15.200 ft. The reservoir pore Formation. The same methodology was applied and the
pressure, mud weight, tensile strength, fracture length, fracture triaxial tests results of these formation were used. The results
azimuth, and horizontal stresses magnitudes, are presented in are resume in the table A-5. The maximum horizontal stress
the table A-2 The maximum horizontal stress direction, gradient for this well was 1.50 to 1.69 psi/ft.
estimated by the azimuth of the tensile fracture was N 45° W ± BP has an extensive database of breakout azimuths recorded
5°. The stress direction is consistent through the well BA-3X from Caliper data and/or image data. The stress directions
in all tensile fractures and is a good indicator of the maximum were analyzed in 11 Wells of the Cupiagua Field and 1 well of
horizontal stress direction. The results of the leak of tests and the Cusiana field. This information was evaluated
hydraulic fracture tests for minimum horizontal stress and the statistically; frequency histograms with breakouts information
tensile strength of the Mirador core samples in the laboratory represent the stress direction tendency in both fields. The
Brazilian test were applied for the maximum horizontal stress principal conclusion is that the in situ stress tensor has a
81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 7

maximum horizontal stress at N 55° W ± 15° direction but Nomenclature

horizontal stress direction in some wells present stress rotation σv = Vertical total stress psi – MPa
due to plane of weakness effect or failure mechanisms σhmin = Minimum horizontal total stress psi – MPa
associated to the active faults out of sequence in the basin. . σHmax = Maximum horizontal total stress psi – MPa
The horizontal stress direction values σHmax in Cupiagua field σ1 = Major principal stress
are present in the Fig A-8 and Fig A-9.
σ2 = Intermediate principal stress
σ3 = Minor principal stress
σn = Normal stress
Conclusions
σθ = Tangential stress
σr = Radial stress
In order to constrain the regional stress tensor in the Eastern P = Major secondary principal stress MPa
Cordillera, five measurements techniques were selected. All Q = Minor secondary principal stress MPa
techniques indicate that the minimum principal stress σ3, is E = Modulus of deformation of the rock GPa
contained in the horizontal plane, this stress is known as σhmin. d = Borehole diameter overcoring test
The evaluated magnitude of the σhmin based on leak off test U1 = Diametral deformation across diameter 1,2,or 3 at
data and hydraulic fracture data, results in a stress gradient 60° intervals of the 1.5” overcoring hole
from 0.65–0.77 psi/ft (0.015-0.018 MPa/m). The intermediate θp = Orientation of the major secondary principal stress
principal stress σ2 corresponds to the vertical stress magnitude measured counterclockwise from U1 to P.
σV associated to the overburden stress, integrated with density τo = Shear stress on the fault, MPa.
logs suggested that the vertical stress gradient is 1.07 psi/ft P0 = Pore Pressure
(0.024 MPa/m), and the major principal stress σ1 is in the φ = Internal friction angle of the intact rock
horizontal plane. This stress is named σHmax and was evaluated ν = Poisson’s ratio.
using breakouts, hydraulic fracture, and induced tensile φb = Breakout width.
fractures technique. The magnitude of the maximum Ceff, = Effective rock strength in situ.
horizontal stress σHmax ranges between 1.2-1.7 psi/ft (0.028- C´ =Rock cohesion
0.039 MPa/m). The three principal stresses are mutually
perpendicular. These results indicate that the actual tectonic
stress regimen in the Eastern Cordillera is Strike Slip Faulting. References
Stress direction indicates that the Eastern Cordillera presents a
regional maximum horizontal stress direction σHmax of N 45° 1. Torres, M.E. “Determinación de esfuerzos in-situ en la
W ± 5° . Regional tectonic features are in an orthogonal plane Cordillera Oriental de Colombia”. Colombia National
and confirmed this stress direction. The in situ stress may be University, unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, 252 p. VI
rotated with respect to the regional stresses field due to major appendix (2001).
faults or into a stresses rock mass by underground openings. 2. Hooker V.E., and Bickel D.L. “Overcoring equipment and
Measurements of intact rock strength made on sand rock techniques use in rock stress determination”. US Bureau
samples from Mirador, Barco, and Guadalupe formation cores, of Mines Department of the interior, IC8618, Washington,
were utilized for determination of the stress magnitudes in (1974) 32 pp
each technique. The Mohr Coulomb criterion shows that the 3. Obert L.A. “Triaxial method for determining the elastic
Barco Formation has an angle of internal friction φ = 44°, constants of stress relief cores;with appendix on thick-
cohesion of 7 MPa, Mirador Formation has φ = 47°, cohesion wall cylinder subject to radial pressures and axial strain
of 12 MPa and Guadalupe Formation has φ = 39°, cohesion of by W.I.Duvall” U.S. Bureau of Mines Department of the
15 MPa. The Mirador and Barco quartzite sandstones have interior RI 6490 Washington, (1964) 22 p
similar elastic constants. Young Modulus for Barco formation 4. Larson, M.K., 1992 “STRESsOUT A data reduction
is between 36-44 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.20 – 0.22. program for inferring stress state of rock having isotropic
Young Modulus for Mirador formation is between 41-48 GPa material properties”. Bureau of Mines Information
and Poisson’s ratio of 0.24 – 0.28. The Guadalupe sandstone Circular 9302.USA.
presents low values for Young Modulus 27-31 GPa and 5. ISAGEN. Estudios técnicos proyecto hidroeléctrico Río
Poisson’s ratio of 0.23 – 0.27. Sogamoso, SEDIC Ing Consultores, Medellin (1995)
6. Hubbert,M. and Willis D. “Mechanics of hydraulic
Acknowledgments fracturing”. Trans.Am.Ins.Min.Engrs. 210,(1957) 153-168
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration and partners, 7. Scheidegger A.E. Stresses in the Earth’s crust as
ECOPETROL, TOTAL and TRITON, for sponsor and provide determined from hydraulic fracturing data. Geologie
technical information to this research and permission to Bauwes.27 (1962) 45-60
publish. To ISAGEN Medellin Colombia for providing 8. Kunze,K.R. and Steiger,R.P. “Extended leak off tests to
Overcoring information, and to Colombia National University measure in situ stress during drilling. In (ed). J.C.
for laboratory testing within the Geomechanics Master of Roegiers, Proceedings 32nd US rock mechanics
Science program. conference, rock mechanics multidisciplinary science 35-
44. (1991).
8 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

9. Zoback, M.D., Moos, D., Mastin, L., and Anderson, R.N., Colombia South America” SPE 30464 (1995) p 147-160.
, Well bore breakouts and in situ stress: Journal of 23. Last, N.C., Plumb, R., Papanastasiou, P. Constraining the
Geophysical Research, v. 90, no. B7, p. 5523-5530. state of stress in tectonically active settings.(1998) SPE
Discusssion and reply in 1986, Journal of Geophysical 47240.
Research, v. 91, no. B14, p. 14,161-14,164. Later 24. Last, N.C., Plumb, R., Harkness, R. Charlez, P., Alsen, J.
reprinted in 1990, in Borehole imaging reprint volume: McLean, M., “A integrated approach to evaluating and
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, (1985) p. 399- managing wellbore instability in the Cusiana Field
406. Colombia South America”, SPE 30464 (1995) p 147-160.
10. Barton, C.A., and Zoback, M.D., “Determination of in 25. Last, N.C., M.R. McLean “Assessing the impact of
situ stress orientation from borehole guided waves” trayectory on wells drilled in an overthrust region” (1996)
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. B93, no. 7, (1988) p. SPE 30465
7,834-7,844. 26. Last, N.C., Willson, S.M., Zoback, M-D., Moss, D.,
11. Barton, C.A., and Zoback, M.D., Stress perturbations “Drilling in South America. A wellbore stability approach
associated with active faults penetrated by boreholes; of complex geologic conditions” (1999) SPE. 53940
possible evidence for near-complete stress drop and a new 27. Peska, P., and Zoback, M.D., 1995, Compressive and
technique for stress magnitude measurement: Journal of tensile failure of inclined well bores and determination of
Geophysical Research, v. B99, no. 5, May 10, (1994) p. in situ stress and rock strength: Journal of Geophysical
9373-9390. Research, v. 100, no. B7, July 10, p. 12,791-12,811.
12. Jaeger, J.C. Cook N.G.W. Fundamentals of rock 28. Peska, P., and Zoback, M.D., “Observations of borehole
mechanics. London Chamman and Hall. (1969) breakouts and tensile wall-fractures in deviated boreholes-
13. Hoek, E., “Estimating Mohr-Coulomb friction and -a technique to constrain in situ stress and rock strength”
cohesion values from de Hoek – Brown failure criterion” in Daemen, J.J.K., and Schultz, R.A., Rock mechanics;
Int. Journ. Rock. Mech. & Mining Sci. And Geomecha. proceedings of the 35th U.S. symposium: A.A. Balkema,
Abstracts. 12. (1990) 227-229. Rotterdam, (1995) p. 319-325.
14. Hoek, E., Brown, E.T. The Hoek – Brown failure 29. Plumb, R.A., and Cox, J.W., Stress directions in eastern
criterion. –a 1988 update In Rock engineering for North America determined to 4.5 km from borehole
underground excavation, poc. 15 th Canadian rock mech elongation measurements: Journal of Geophysical
sympo. 1988 31-38 Toronto Dept Civil Engineering. Research, 1987, v. 92, no. B6, May 10, p. 4805-4816.
Univ. Toronto. 30. Rylance, M., Jackson, M.R., Acosta. L.G., Hydraulic
15. Notestein,F.B.,C.W.hubman and J.W.Bowler, “Geology fracturing of high productivity in a tectonically active
of the Barco concession, Republic of Colombia:GSA area. SPE 38608.
Bulletin, 1944, V55,p1155-1218. 31. Torres, M.E., Jaramillo, L., Roa. E., “Relaciones
16. Ulloa, C., Rodriguez, E., “Geología del cuadrángulo K-13 estratigráficas entre las unidades arenosas del paleógeno-
Tauramena” Inf. No. 1706 Ingeominas Bogotá. (1976) paleoceno de la Cordillera Oriental de Colombia” (1993)
17. Ulloa, C., Rodriguez, E., “Mapa geológico del Dep. Geolg. Unv. Nacional Bogota Colombia.
cuadrángulo K-12 Guateque” Boletín geológico 22 1 32. Torres, M.E., Higuera, C., Jaramillo, A.,Otero, M., Roa,
Ingeominas Bogotá. (1975) E., Silva, M., “Relaciones estratigráficas de las unidades
18. Cooper, M.A, et al “Basin development and tectonic del Piedemonte Llanero, parte media de la Cordillera
history of the Llanos Basin , Eastern Cordillera, and Oriental y el valle del Magdalena para el intervalo
Middle Magdalena valley, Colombia” AAPG Bulletin Vol. Cretácico Superior (Maastrichtiano)-Paleogeno. (1994)
79/10 (1995) p 1421-1443. Internal Report B.P. Exploration.
19. Addis, M.A., Last, N.C., and Yassir, N.A., “The 33. Torres, M.E., Higuera, C., Jaramillo, A.,Otero, M., Roa,
estimation of horizontal stresses at depth in faulted E., Silva, M., “Proyecto estandarización de la
regions and their relationship to pore pressure variation” nomenclatura estratigrafica de las cuencas petrolíferas de
in Rock mechanics in petroleum engineering, Eurock '94 Colombia. Fase I. Diagnostico area piloto Piedemonte
proceedings: A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, (1994) p. 887- Llanero” 1993 ECP-ICP, Grupo Scout, Ingeominas.
895. Later published in 1996: SPE Formation Evaluation,
v. 11, no. 1, p.11-18.
20. Charlez, P.A., Bathellier, E., Tan, C., Francois Altran
“Understanding the present day in-situ state of stress in
the Cusiana Field Colombia” (1998) SPE 47208.
21. Last, N.C., Addis, M.A., Wu,B., “Stres estimation in
faulted regions: The effect of residual friction” SPE
47210/ISRM Euro Rock98 trondheim Norway. (1998)
22. Last, N.C., Plumb, R., Harkness, R. Charlez, P., Alsen, J.
McLean, M., “A integrated approach to evaluating and
managing wellbore instability in the Cusiana Field,
81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 9

Table A-1, Cusiana field, laboratory tests results on reservoir core samples- (Uniaxial-Triaxial-Brazilian tests)

Fig A-1, Hoek & Brown and Mohr-Coulomb envelops in typical triaxial test. Below a photograph of a set of samples tested
10 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

SD-O-1 N 47 E SD-O-2 N 61 W SD-O-3 Vertical Upward

U1 µin 1762 1020 699 2614 2899 1953 1406 1047 1297 PRINCIPAL
AZIMUTH DIP
STRESS
U2 µin 752 1153 1277 1054 1263 1282 4527 2934 4538
(MPa) (Deg) (Deg)
U3 µin 1105 1842 1862 4507 2953 2910 2817 5521 4704
P (Mpa) 34.31 36.53 36.84 80.82 63.81 54.97 86.82 100.88 105.04 σ1 42.269 72.5 -15.5
Q (Mpa) 22.00 25.94 22.88 39.32 40.75 35.34 49.31 46.97 58.94 σ2 18.287 158.2 14.9
θP (grados) 169.92 115.68 105.07 133.41 149.21 132.09 73.43 107.56 91.23 σ3
^6
14.581 26.4 68.2
E X 10 (PSI) 4.40 5.09 4.49 4.40 5.33 4.13 4.24 4.86

σ1 32.366 92.3 -61

SD-O-4 N 30 E SD-O-5 N 690 W SD-O-6 Vertical Upward
U1 µin 1383 1560 1858 1397 1181 1398 674 1768 1183 σ2 22.296 124.0 25.2
U2 µin 1201 827 743 452 340 826 777 728 420 σ3 18.796 27.6 13.3
U3 µin 2179 1571 2209 100 1629 1128 1413 1397 1646
P (Mpa) 54.21 44.99 57.64 24.69 62.12 32.05 33.65 45.54 40.16
Q (Mpa) 41.73 34.75 39.28 8.59 35.02 25.19 24.04 32.89 25.31
θP (grados) 125.02 149.65 143.39 187.62 170.92 164.07 116.30 160.31 139.03
E X 10^6 (PSI) 5.62 5.85 5.83 5.54 4.59 5.52 6.22 5.86

Table A-2 Left - Overcoring 1 and 2, strain relief increments, secondary principal stress magnitudes and elastic modulus evaluated in
the USBM biaxial test. Right – Principal stress results.

OVERCORING TEST
6000

Deformímetro U1= K1 x R1
5000

Deformímetro U2= K2 x R2
DIAMETRAL STRAIN ( µin)

4000
Deformímetro U3= K3 x R3

3000

N
2000

1000

-1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
OVERCORING DISTANCE (cm)

Fig. A-2 Left-Typical USBM overcoring deformation-distance response. Right-Retrieving the core from the hole after completion the
test

BIAXIAL CHAMBER TEST

250

R1

R2
200
R3
BIAXIAL PRESSURE (Kg/cm2)

150

100

50

0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060
STRAIN (m m )

Fig. A-3 Left - Typical USBM biaxial test results. Right-Biaxial test to define the elastic modulus.

Fig A-4 Bore Hole Deformation Gage

81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 11

CUSIANA WELLS CUPIAGUA WELLS

Pressure Fracture (psi) Pressure Fracture (PSI)
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
0
0
2,000 2,000 Leak
y = 1.2986x
Leak Off 2
4,000 4,000 R = 0.9775
y = 1.5258x
2 Gradient = 0.77 psi/ft
R = 0.9933
6,000 Gradient = 0.65 psi/ft 6,000
Depht (Ft)

Depth (Ft)
8,000
8,000
10,000
10,000 Leak Off
12,000
12,000 Leak Off Linear (Leak Off)
14,000
Linear (Leak Off)
14,000
16,000

16,000 18,000

13000.0
Buenos Aires Wells
Pressure Fracture (PSI)
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 12500.0
0
Leak Off

Downhole Pressure (psi)

2,000 y = 1.3094x
R2 = 0.9809 12000.0
4,000 Gradiente = 0.77 psi/ft

6,000
11500.0
Depth (Ft)

8,000

LEAK OFF
10,000
11000.0
Linear (LEAK OFF)
12,000

14,000
10500.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
16,000
Barrels Pumped (bbl)
18,000

Fig A-5 Leak Off tests data from Cusiana and Cupiagua wells. In the corner typical LOT, pressure recorded 12.914 psi in a Cupiagua
well at TVD 16.094 ft.

N N

W E W E

Induced Tensile Induced Tensile

Fractures Fractures
S
S

Fig A-6 Induced tensile fractures . Right-UBI image between 14,096-14,120 ft Buenos Aires well, Mirador Formation. Left-FMI
image between 14,784-14,789 ft. Buenos Aires well, Mirador Formation.
12 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 81074

INTERVAL (ft) σh (psi) σh σΗ (psi) σH σV σV Pp (psi) M w (psi) σ tb

(MPa) (MPa) (PSI) (MPa) (MPa)
14.754,8 - 14.756,6 11,361.20 783.92 20,964.86 1,446.58 15,935.18 1,099.53 5,371.41 7,811.32 2.7
14.769,4- 14.773,4 11,372.44 784.70 20,992.42 1,448.48 15,950.95 1,100.62 5,373.30 7,815.59 2.7
14.779,0- 14.782,0 11,379.83 785.21 21,008.32 1,449.57 15,961.32 1,101.33 5,375.31 7,819.86 2.7
14.784,0- 14.789,4 11,383.68 785.47 21,013.27 1,449.92 15,966.72 1,101.70 5,376.70 7,825.07 2.7
14.795,2- 14.802,0 11,392.30 786.07 21,062.09 1,453.28 15,978.82 1,102.54 5,378.16 7,800.66 2.7
14.810,0- 14.811,6 11,403.70 786.86 21,074.85 1,454.16 15,994.80 1,103.64 5,382.29 7,817.96 2.7
14.831,4- 14.835,0 11,420.18 787.99 21,089.98 1,455.21 16,017.91 1,105.24 5,388.91 7,845.64 2.7
14.836,8- 14.838,6 11,424.34 788.28 21,098.18 1,455.77 16,023.74 1,105.64 5,389.73 7,849.10 2.7
14.853,4- 14.854,2 11,437.12 789.16 21,141.44 1,458.76 16,041.67 1,106.88 5,397.32 7,836.59 2.7
14.874,0- 14.876,0 11,452.98 790.26 21,138.21 1,458.54 16,063.92 1,108.41 5,415.50 7,869.23 2.7
14.899,2- 14.902,6 11,472.38 791.59 21,172.43 1,460.90 16,091.14 1,110.29 5,420.91 7,887.81 2.7
14.921,4- 14.925,0 11,489.48 792.77 21,231.46 1,464.97 16,115.11 1,111.94 5,416.34 7,884.63 2.7
15.056,4- 15.058,2 11,593.43 799.95 21,611.93 1,491.22 16,260.91 1,122.00 5,286.12 7,946.23 7.6

Table A-3 Stress tensor evaluated by Induced Tensile Fractures technique, well BA-3X
INTERVAL (ft) σh (psi) σh σΗ (psi) σH σV σV Pp (psi) Mw (psi)
σ tb (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (PSI) (MPa)
14.015 – 14.025 10,795.40 744.88 21,101.50 1,456.00 15,422.00 1,064.12 4,606.90 7,069.10 2.7
14.096 - 14.120 10,857.00 749.13 21,179.60 1,461.39 15,510.00 1,070.19 4,670.70 7,112.04 2.7
14.210 - 14.240 10,941.70 754.98 NO NO 15,631.00 1,078.54 4,787.90 7,313.80 NO
14.830 - 14.876 11,426.80 788.45 21,939.50 1,513.83 16,324.00 1,126.36 5,359.20 7,503.40 3.6

Table A-4 Stress tensor evaluated by Induced tensile fractures technique, well CU-4X

STRESS TENSOR CUSIANA WELL BA-3X STRESS TENSOR CUSIANA - CU4X

STRESS (PSI)
STRESS (psi)
5000 9000 13000 17000 21000 25000 4,000.00 9,000.00 14,000.00 19,000.00 24,000.00
14700 14,000.00

14800
DEPTH (pies)

DEPTH (FT)

14900
14,500.00
15000

15100
15,000.00
Pp Sh Sv SH
Pp Sh Sv SH

Fig. A-7 Complete stress tensor vs depth in two Cusiana wells BA-3X and CUS-4X

INTERVAL Pp Mw Azimuth Fricc USC Conf. Breakout Length (ft) Kirsch

TVD (psi) (psi) Breakout Coef. (psi) Strenght Width (2φβ) Solution σHmax
(ft) (psi) (psi)
13,764.73 4,607.70 6,963.71 174.4 1.04 6,900 72,173.91 54 1 35,127.44
13,823.66 4,670.68 6,974.35 22.9 1.04 6900.0 72,246.38 36 0.3 31,030.58
13,847.64 4,670.00 7,008.02 43.8 1.04 6900.0 72,246.38 59 0.7 36,900.33
13,850.63 4,670.00 7,008.02 24.3 1.04 6900.0 72,246.38 27 0.8 29,857.71
14,694.34 5,355.96 7,408.30 21 0.72 5797.1 47,826.09 28 0.4 21,216.57
14,709.24 5,361.35 7,415.74 39.4 0.72 5797.1 47,826.09 42 0.6 22,312.87
15,179.71 5,607.98 7,645.97 18.8 0.72 5797.1 47,826.09 47 0.8 22,920.97
15,192.70 5,612.38 7,651.97 32.3 0.72 5797.1 47,826.09 47 1.1 22,923.08

Table A-5 Stress tensor evaluated by breakout technique well BA-3X

INTERVAL Pp Mw Azimuth Fricc USC Conf. Breakout Length (ft) Kirsch

TVD (psi) (psi) Breakout Coef. (psi) Strenght Width (2φβ) Solution σHmax
(ft) (psi) (psi)
15,572.84 6,577.16 8,422.61 5 1.11 6,521.74 55,072.46 45 1 35,127.44
15,702.41 6,640.89 8,495.91 8.4 0.72 5,797.10 47,826.09 58 0.9 24,476.72
15,755.65 6,664.55 8,526.19 6.4 0.72 5,797.10 47,826.09 51 0.7 23,414.32
16,224.07 6,741.20 8,840.07 124.7 0.72 5,797.10 47,826.09 78 0.9 30,004.07
15,888.83 6,629.35 8,590.11 10.1 0.72 5,797.10 47,826.09 69 0.9 26,943.18

Table A-6 Stress tensor evaluated by breakout technique well CUP-1X

81074 TORRES, M.E., GONZALEZ, A.J., LAST, N.C. 13

Fig A-8 Breakouts azimuth distribution in four wells Cupiagua Field. σHmax direction NW

Fig A-9 . Hole shape analysis used to evaluate breakout width in the UBI image. Right- Mirador formation TVD 13,823 ft, φb = 36°,
Ceff= 72.246 psi, breakout azimuth 22.9° - Left-Barco Formation TVD 15,572 ft, φb = 46°, Ceff= 55.072 psi, breakout azimuth 5°.

σy

σH Esfuerzo Tangencial
Mínimo
(σθ = 3σh - σH )
y σr
τrθ
(r, θ) σθ θb τ0
r
θ φb
σx σh r σh
x
a

Esfuerzo Tangencial
Máximo
(σθ = 3σH - σh )
σH
Fig A-10 Geometric relations used to apply breakout technique and the Kirsch solution