Scribd
Upload
407 views

Fracture Gradient - Part I

This document discusses methods for determining fracture gradients, which are important for well planning and safe drilling. It describes three theoretical methods - Hubbert and Willis, Matthews and Kelly, and Ben Eaton - and provides an example calculation for each. The results are summarized in a table showing good agreement between the Matthews and Kelly and Ben Eaton methods. Experimental determination via leak-off tests is also discussed.

Uploaded by

jimpont
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
407 views

Fracture Gradient - Part I

This document discusses methods for determining fracture gradients, which are important for well planning and safe drilling. It describes three theoretical methods - Hubbert and Willis, Matthews and Kelly, and Ben Eaton - and provides an example calculation for each. The results are summarized in a table showing good agreement between the Matthews and Kelly and Ben Eaton methods. Experimental determination via leak-off tests is also discussed.

Uploaded by

jimpont
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 37

Fracture Gradients

By
Dr. Eissa shokir
Prediction of Fracture Gradients
4Well Planning
4Theoretical Fracture Gradient Determination
4Hubbert & Willis
4Matthews & Kelly
4Ben Eaton
4Comparison of Results
4Experimental Frac. Grad. Determination
4Leak-off Tests
Well Planning
4Safe drilling practices require that the
following be considered when
planning a well:
4 Pore pressure determination
4 Fracture gradient determination
4 Casing setting depth selection
4 Casing design
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

Given: Well depth is 14,000 ft.


Formation pore pressure expressed in
equivalent mud weight is 9.2 lb/gal.
Overburden stress is 1.00 psi/ft.
Calculate:
1. Pore pressure, psi/ft , at 14,000 ft
2. Pore pressure, psi, at 14,000 ft
3. Matrix stress, psi/ft
4. Matrix stress, psi
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

S = PP+ σ + σ
S =
overburden pore matrix
stress = pressure + stress
(psi) (psi) (psi)
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
Depth = 14,000 ft.
Pore Pressure = 9.2 lb/gal equivalent
Calculations:
Overburden stress = 1.00 psi/ft.

1. Pore pressure gradient


= 0.433 psi/ft * 9.2/8.33 = 0.052 * 9.2
= 0.478 psi/ft
2. Pore pressure at 14,000 ft
= 0.478 psi/ft * 14,000 ft
= 6,692 psig
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

Calculations:
3. Matrix stress gradient,
S =P+σ psi
S P σ
or = + psi/ft
D D D
σ S P
i.e., = − = (1.000 − 0.478 ) psi / ft
D D D

σ / D = 0.522 psi/ft
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

Calculations:

4. Matrix stress at 14,000 ft

= 0.522 psi/ft * 14,000 ft

σ = 7,308 psi
Fracture Gradient Determination

In order to avoid lost circulation while drilling it


is important to know the variation of fracture
gradient with depth.

Leak-off tests represent an experimental


approach to fracture gradient determination.
Below are listed and discussed three
approaches to calculating the fracture gradient.
Fracture Gradient Determination

1⎛ 2P ⎞
1. Hubbert & Willis: Fmin = ⎜1 + ⎟
3⎝ D ⎠
1 ⎛ P⎞
Fmax = ⎜1 + ⎟
2 ⎝ D⎠
where F = fracture gradient, psi/ft
P
= pore pressure gradient, psi/ft
D
Fracture Gradient Determination

2. Matthews & Kelly:

K iσ P
F = +
D D

where Ki = matrix stress coefficient


σ = vertical matrix stress, psi
Fracture Gradient Determination

3. Ben Eaton:

⎛S −P⎞ ⎛ γ ⎞ P
F = ⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +
⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ 1− γ ⎠ D

where S = overburden stress, psi


γ = Poisson’s ratio
Example

A Texas Gulf Coast well has a pore pressure


gradient of 0.735 psi/ft. Well depth = 11,000 ft.

Calculate the fracture gradient in units of lb/gal


using each of the above three methods.

Summarize the results in tabular form, showing


answers, in units of lb/gal and also in psi/ft.
Example - Hubbert and Willis

1 ⎛ 2P ⎞
1. Hubbert & Willis: Fmin = ⎜1 + ⎟
3⎝ D ⎠
P psi
The pore pressure gradient, = 0.735
D ft

1 psi
Fmin = (1 + 2 *0.735) = 0.823
3 ft
Example - Hubbert and Willis

Also,
0.823 psi/ft
Fmin =
⎛ psi/ft ⎞
0.052 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ lb/gal ⎠

Fmin = 15.83 lb/gal


Example - Hubbert and Willis

1 ⎛ P⎞
= (1 + 0.735 )
1
Fmax = ⎜1 + ⎟
2 ⎝ D⎠ 2

= 0.8675 psi/ft

Fmax = 16.68 lb/gal


Example

P K iσ
2. Matthews & Kelly F= +
D D
σ be
In this case P and D are known, may
calculated, and Kisi determined graphically.

(i) First, determine the pore pressure gradient.


P
= 0.735 psi / ft (given )
D
Example - Matthews and Kelly

(ii) Next, calculate the matrix stress.

S=P+σ ⎧S = overburden , psi ⎫


⎪σ = matrix stress , psi ⎪
⎪ ⎪
σ=S-P ⎨ ⎬
= 1.00 * D - 0.735 * D ⎪P = pore pressure , psi ⎪
⎪⎩D = depth , ft ⎪⎭
= 0.265 * D
= 0.265 * 11,000
σ = 2,915 psi
Example - Matthews and Kelly

(iii) Now determine the depth, D , where,


i under
normally pressured conditions, the rock matrix
stress, σ would be 2,915 psi.

Sn = Pn + σn n = “normal”
1.00 * Di = 0.465 * Di + 2,915
Di * (1 - 0.465) = 2,915

2,915
Di = = 5,449 ft
0.535
Example -
Matthews and
Kelly

(iv) Find Ki from the


plot on the right, for

Di = 5,449 ft
For a south Texas
Gulf Coast well,

Ki = 0.685
Example - Matthews and Kelly
K iσ P
(v) Now calculate F: F = +
D D

0 . 685 * 2,915
F = + 0 . 735
11,000
= 0 . 9165 psi / ft
0 . 9165
F = = 17 . 63 lb / gal
0 . 052
5,449
Depth, Di

0.685

Ki
Example

Ben Eaton:

⎛S −P⎞ ⎛ γ ⎞ P
F = ⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +
⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ 1− γ ⎠ D

S
=? γ=?
D
Variable Overburden Stress by Eaton

At 11,000 ft
S/D = 0.96 psi/ft
Fig. 5-5

At 11,000 ft
γ = 0.46
Example - Ben Eaton

From above graphs, ⎛ S P ⎞⎛ γ ⎞ P


F = ⎜ − ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +
⎝ D D ⎠⎝ 1 − γ ⎠ D
at 11,000 ft.:
S
= 0 . 96 psi / ft; γ = 0 . 46
D

⎛ 0 . 46 ⎞
F = (0 .96 − 0 . 735 ) ⎜ ⎟ + 0 .735
⎝ 1 − 0 .46 ⎠
F = 0.9267 psi/ft
= 17.82 lb/gal
Summary of Results

Fracture Gradient
psi.ft lb/gal
Hubbert & Willis minimum: 0.823 15.83
Hubbert & Willis maximum: 0.868 16.68
Mathews & Kelly: 0.917 17.63
Ben Eaton: 0.927 17.82
Summary of Results
4 Note that all the methods take into
consideration the pore pressure gradient.
As the pore pressure increases, so does
the fracture gradient.

4 In the above equations, Hubbert & Willis


apparently consider only the variation in
pore pressure gradient. Matthews &
Kelly also consider the changes in rock
matrix stress coefficient, and in the
matrix stress ( Ki and σi ).
Summary of Results

4 Ben Eaton considers


variation in pore pressure gradient,
overburden stress and
Poisson’s ratio,

and is probably the most accurate of the


three methods. The last two methods
are actually quite similar, and usually yield
similar results.
Similarities

Ben Eaton:

⎛S −P⎞ ⎛ γ ⎞ P
F = ⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +
⎝ D ⎠ ⎝ 1− γ ⎠ D

σ Ki P
F = +
D D

Matthews and Kelly:


Experimental Determination of
Fracture Gradient

The leak-off test

4 Run and cement casing


4 Drill out ~ 10 ft
below the casing seat
4 Close the BOPs
4 Pump slowly and
monitor the pressure

You might also like