1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Formation Strengthening Via Wellbore Cooling; Description and Modeling

Saleh Goodarzian Drilling Eng (MSc); Curtin University of Technology (Australia) / PUT (Iran) Saeed Majidaii Drilling Eng (MSc); Ahwaz University of Technology Ebrahim NasirAhmadi Reservoir Eng (MSc); Petroleum University of Technology (Tehran Faculty)

Abstract: Some formations present rather narrow (or almost non-existent) operational mud weight window. These formations tend to be weak thus requiring high mud weight in order to avoid borehole collapse, while simultaneously exhibiting low fracture gradients. Formation Strengthening is to widen/broaden mud weight window through variety of methods by mainly focusing attention on ways to increase fracture gradient. Decrease in sand/fine particles which inherently reduce nearwellbore permeability, eliminating unnecessary casing strings (especially intermediate strings or drilling liners), reducing time of drilling by decreasing tripping (non-drilling or flat) time and speeding up rate of penetration, through which cost of drilling decreases considerably, are main advantages of this rather newly introduced method. The purpose of this paper is to propose and evaluate the use of wellbore cooling, in combination with more classical strengthening processes, to permanently increase the fracture gradient without the risk of circulation losses inherent in the stress cage method. This approach involves lowering the temperature of the drilling mud; thus, reducing the hoop stress at the borehole wall and then setting the stress cage in the standard manner. Tensile cracks can then be induced at significant lower mud weights. Given the typical thermal conductivity properties of rocks, the tensile stresses induced by cooling (and consequently, the created fractures) will tend to be confined to the near wellbore region.

KeyWords: formation strengthening, stress case, fracture pressure, wellbore cooling, mud weight window, tangential stress

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

1. Introduction: During drilling, the effective circulation pressure should be between collapse pressure and fracture pressure in order to have mechanically stable wellbore, i.e. effective circulation density (ECD) should be in the range of safe or allowable mud weight window. Troublesome formations present the drilling engineer with a scenario where the operational mud weight window to be used is rather limited or sometimes, non-existent. These formations tend to be weak; thus, requiring high mud weights in order to avoid borehole collapse, while simultaneously exhibiting low fracture gradients. Some of these formations are as follows: Unconsolidated formations where there is no strong bonding between grains and the grains are not tightly packed, cemented and consolidated; Highly fractured formations, vuggy or granular zones where pore pressure is so close, in value, to fracture pressure; Depleted reservoirs whereas pore pressure is severely decreased then mud pressure can cause fracturing due to low Pp then these are another examples for low Pff ; Formations with different pressure gradients or zones of different strength, due to rapid fluctuation in Pp and consequently in Pff then we should protect weak zone with lower density mud and resume drilling once that drilled portion is being cased; Underbalanced drilling, effective mud pressure is intentionally less than formation pressure. In such a condition, if collapse pressure is close to pore pressure (or higher), UBD will cause wellbore instability problems such as wellbore collapse, stuck pipe, etc; and last but not least Deep-water drilling offshore deep-water shallow formations are buried under or impregnated with a much greater water hydrostatic, giving them a lower fracture resistance than the same formation at the same sedimentary depth onshore. The presence of water column above the shallow formations reduces equivalent fracture density. Due to lacking regional data (because no leak-off test are conducted), exact fracture and pore pressure gradients are in general unknown and can only be approximated. On the other hand the rock stiffness is poor in open-waters, horizontal stresses will be high and rock is prone to shear failure. So collapse pressure is high.
Fig. 1; Mud weight window (MWW) where collapse pressure is greater than pore pressure

h t p e D

Pressure
CP PP MP FP

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Fig. 2; Mud weight window (MWW) where pore pressure is greater than collapse pressure

h t p e D

Pressure
CP PP MP FP

As it is believed that decreasing pore pressure is not practical, the oil industry has developed various technologies to increase fracture pressure and decrease collapse pressure; i.e. widening the mud weight window. This method has been known as formation strengthening. Looking at the mud weight window (Fig. 1&2), strengthening causes the FP line to go upward and CP line to go downward and hence the mud weight window to be wider. The larger tolerance between collapse pressure and fracture pressure causes wider pressure margins and safer drilling operations. [1] Formation strengthening prevents unwanted fluid or gas flow into or out of the wellbore by decreasing permeability and porosity and improving rock mass mechanical properties including tensile strength, compressive strength, and shear strength. Strengthening has obvious advantages including lower drilling costs by eliminating unnecessary casing string, reduction of unwanted influx, providing possibility to drill larger diameter production hole, increase in fracture pressure, increase in rock mechanical properties, reduction of sand production, and higher rate of penetration. 2. Existing Methods of Strengthening: In different scenarios, formation strengthening roles are mainly to: (1) eliminate or reduce lost circulation, (2) increase rock strength, and (3) eliminate or reduce sand production. These goals are achieved by using special materials and appropriate processes. [1] Generally, lost circulation material (LCM) or lost prevention material (LPM) are in forms of bridging, gelling, or cementing agents. They can be part of drilling fluids or separate slurries. There are different types of agents for each operational phase of the well. Bridging agents, cementing agents, gelling agents, designer mud, organic fibers, and resin treatments can be mentioned as general categories whereby strengthening process can be done.

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

2.1 Stress Cage: Stress cage has been defined as a near wellbore region of high stress induced by propping open and sealing shallow fractures at the wellbore/formation interface. The concept is increasing hoop stress with widening the fractures to form a flexible pressure seal which increases bottom-hole pressure integrity. It is generally accepted that inducing higher compressive hoop stress can increase rock ability to withstand a higher tensile pressure before failure. The properties that control the development of stress cage are the diameter of the borehole, the width of fractures induced in a formation, the range of particle sizes, the sealing properties of the mud, and formation permeability. [1] This concept has been successfully developed and used in highly permeable formations; however, it is rather ineffective in low permeability rocks. An alternative has also been introduced to create a similar stress cage and strengthen the borehole by inducing secondary thermal stresses generated by cooling the drilling mud. 3. Wellbore Cooling; Long-term Formation Fracture Pressure Increase: Stress cage concept, albeit very efficient in permeable formations, has however proven rather ineffective when applied to low permeability rocks. [1] This paper proposes a new procedure for creating such stress cage in low-permeability formations (e.g. shaly sands). In this novel method, changes in temperature are induced in the formation to be treated, before setting the stress cage. Drilling fluid is used to cool down the formation in order to reduce the tangential stress at the borehole wall. The magnitude of this temperature change is determined by the required increment in fracture resistance, which also establishes the opening of the fractures in the stress cage. Subsequently, the stress cage is set up following normal procedures. The idea of controlling the stress acting on a rock via altering its temperature is not a novel concept. As early as the Bronze Age, people used fire setting as a method for rock extraction from underground mines. In this technique, a fire was set up against a rock face, inducing thermal stresses; then the rock either crumbled naturally or was shattered by water quenching. The advantages of this new technology is that it broadens the application of the stress cage technique, without creating formation damage, as could be one of the drawbacks of the sealing fluids injection method. In the physical model [2], a fracture is induced and propped open by solid particles at the wellbore wall (Fig. 3). Fluid leak-off into the formation being treated allows the fracture to close and the solid particles to be locked in place at the mouth of the fracture. The presence of an open fracture increases the tangential stress around the wellbore, effectively rising the fracture gradient of the rock. However, in low permeability formations, low leak-off conditions would prevent the fracture from closing; thus, leaving an open hydraulic conduit between the wellbore and the fracture tip. This creates the conditions for further fracture propagation if additional energy is provided (i.e. if the well pressure increases). In addition, negative variations of the equivalent circulating density, as normally found during a drilling operation, would provide the conditions for fracture fluid flow-back and probably for dislodging the stress cage (see Fig. 4)

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Fig. 3; Physical model of stress cage [2]

Fig. 4; Possible mechanism for particle dislodging and stress cage removal in low permeability formations [2]

3.1 Thrust of the Idea: [3] The rock in its original condition is subjected to an initial value of tangential stress at the wellbore wall (i.e. = 1 ). Once the formation undergoes a certain degree of cooling, the value of the tangential stress at the borehole wall decreases (i.e. = 1 T ). This translates into a lower fracture gradient. The stress cage is set in place by creating a small hydraulic fracture. The entrance of the fracture is kept open by using proppant material; the final result is an increase in the fracture gradient (i.e. = 1 T + cage ). At this point, the cooling profile allows the creation of the fracture at pressures lower than if the formation remained at its original temperature. By the same token, the temperature profile limits the fracture propagation to the cooled region around the wellbore. The rock is allowed to go back to its original temperature

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

(i.e.

= 1 + cage ). As the formation regains temperature, the tangential

stress acting on the fracture faces increases; thus, locking the particles in place along the fracture length. It is expected that most of the particles will remain in the region connecting the wellbore and the fracture (at the crack entrance). Of the main advantages of using this new technique is that the particles are locked in place by thermal effects instead of by pressure release/fluid leak-off; therefore, reducing the risk of particle flow-back. Another benefit of this new approach is that the formation may be fractured at lower mud pressures than in the standard technique. At least in theory, one could cool down the formation, set the stress cage, and continue drilling without decreasing the applied pressure on the borehole wall. As time progresses, the temperature of the treated formation face will increase and the stress cage will be locked in place. It is evident that hydraulic communication between the wellbore and the fracture tip needs to be as restricted as possible. It is proposed here that the proppant particle size distribution be made as wide as possible and that deformable solids be used in order to reduce the permeability of the bridge at the fracture entrance. 3.2 Modeling: 3.2.1 Linear Elastic Solid Material: In a wellbore, changes in formation temperature trigger thermal stresses that may dramatically change the stress field of the rock wall. Cooling the formation face tends to cause the rock to shrink; thus, reducing the surrounding tangential stress. This change in tangential stress may be calculated by the following equation [4]

T . .E 1

(1)

Where = change of tangential stress; .T = change in temperature (C); = thermal expansion coefficient (C-1); E = Youngs modulus (MPa), and v = Poissons ratio. It should be pointed out that this approach is purely elastic; i.e. the effects on the pore fluid are not considered. Hence, in this limited approach the problem of calculating the change in formation temperature as a function of time and distance to the wellbore wall is defined by the general equation for heat diffusion [5]

Div k f grad (T f ) = Cf f
Where

dT f dt

(2)

T f = formation temperature; k f = thermal conductivity of the rock; C f =

formation heat capacity, and

f = bulk density of the rock. Taking into account the

axis-symmetrical geometry of the problem, and neglecting any vertical heat flow inside the formation, equation (2) may be rewritten as

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

2T f r
2

1 T f C f f dT f = r r kf dt

(3)

Three boundary conditions are necessary to complete the definition of this problem. At very early times (for t 0 ), it may well be assumed that the entire formation remains at its original temperature, Tf0; thus, defining the initial condition as:

lim T f = T f 0 When t 0

(3a)

For rock located away from the borehole (for r ), the temperature may be assumed to be constant at all times; this condition may be expressed as:

lim

Tf = 0 When r r

(3b)

The remaining boundary condition may be obtained by assuming that, at the borehole wall, the rock and the fluid temperature are constant and have the same value:

T f = Tw at r = rw
Where

(3c)

rw = borehole radius; and, TW = fluid temperature inside the wellbore. The

analytical solution of equation (3) for the borehole wall involves the use of Laplace transforms. [4] They presented a final equation, which is both tedious to solve and limited to the borehole wall. Simpler integral equations have been presented for the magnitudes of = rr as a function of radial position r and time t. [6] While the exact solution for the temperature distribution near a constant temperature wellbore is a series expansion [7], solutions may be used, which approximate the temperature using the first two terms of the expansion, to give sufficiently accurate results close to the wellbore [8] Fortunately, currently available technologies, such as the finite element method, allow for alternative solutions of equations (2) and (3) without the limitations of the analytical method. This paper used this type of technologies to analyze the problem and prove the application of the concept in wellbore strengthening operations.

3.3 Numerical Solution: A two-dimensional model representing the wellbore and the surrounding formation was created to simulate the problem. In order to represent the behavior of a wellbore drilled in typical tight/shaly sandstone; the values of the input parameters used for the simulations in this study were chosen as follows:

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

k f = 1.352 (Btu/hr.ft.F)

f = 137.34 (lbm/ft3)
Cf = 0.213 (Rock heat capacity, Btu/lb. F) Depth = 10,000 ft Tf0 = 225 (Initial formation temp,F) Tw = 150 (Wellbore fluid temp.,F) ro = 3.75 (Outer radius, ft) rw = 0.75 (Wellbore radius, ft) In the field, it will be necessary to obtain the largest effect in the shortest period of time. Thus, the simulations were run to define an optimum cooling time, after which the formation temperature changes only very slowly. The results are presented in Fig. 5. As it can be easily observed that after five hours, the temperature profile changes very little; thus, further cooling beyond this point was deemed fruitless.

Fig. 5; Change in formation temperature as a function of distance to the wellbore for several cooling times

The designed fracture length in most stress cages is about 6 inches (i.e. approximately, r/rw = 1.7 in this particular model), which corresponds to the zone where the temperature drop is most significant. The results of these simulations show that, for this particular example, five hours of cooling will drop the rock temperature from an ambient temperature of 225 F to about 185 F at r /rw = 1.7. Typical values of , v, and E for weak sandstone are 9*10-6 F-1, 0.30 and 1.5*106 psi, respectively. Thus, a simple calculation by using equation (1) shows that at r /rw = 1.0 (i.e., at the wellbore wall) cooling down the rock to 150 F decreases the formation tangential stress by almost 1500 psi (or about 2.8 ppg at the assumed depth). The change in tangential stress as a function of temperature distribution (at a given time) may be calculated [9]

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

T =

E 2 D E rD rDTd rD T 1 1 1
r

(4)

At any given time, curve fitting may be used in Fig. 4 to obtain the equation of temperature ( T f ) as a function of rD (the dimensionless radius, r/rw). Such equation could be replaced into equation (4) to obtain the temperature-induced change in tangential stress. An alternative approximate solution has also been presented which involves the use of error functions to define the profile of thermally-induced stress.

[6]

3.4 Poroelastic Material: The linear elastic analysis presented above is useful as a first approach to modeling the problem. However, given the nature of low permeability formations (e.g. shaly sands), modeling the material as a poroelastic material seems more appropriate. The poroelastic analysis presented herein is based on the work by Li et al. (1998) [10] whose paper presented an analytical solution for the combined pore pressure, temperature and stress distribution for a wellbore. They used superposition to split the problem into three systems: a thermo-poroelastic plane-strain problem; an elastic uniaxial stress problem; and, an elastic anti-plane shear problem. The complete solution of each of the sub-problems, as well as the overall solution is presented, for that reason they are not repeated here. The method developed by Li et al. (1998) [10] was implemented as an additional routine of a program called SFIB (Stress and Failure of Inclined Wellbores); the results presented here were obtained by using this program with the same boundary conditions described by equations (3a)-(3c). In order to run the simulations, the following parameters were used: Depth Tdiff = 10,000 ft

v = 10,000 psi H max = 9000 psi H max AZIMUTH = 145 h min = 7500 psi
pw = 5500 psi Tw = -75 F
Pp = 4500 psi = 0.5 v = 0.30 G = 1.28e6 psi B = 0.4 vundrained = 0.314 Porosity = 0.14

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Permeability = 5e-3

mD Tdiff = 1.5e-6 m2/sec

Rocks thermal expansion coefficient = 3e-6 F-1 Muds thermal expansion coefficient = 1.6e-4 F-1 rw = 0.75 ft Where

v is

the overburden stress,

H max is

the maximum horizontal stress;

h min is the minimum horizontal stress; pw is the fluid pressure within the wellbore,
Tw is the temperature difference between the wellbore fluid and the formation; Pp
is the formation pore pressure; is the Biot coefficient; v is the Poissons ratio, G is the rock shear modulus; B is Skempton coefficient; and, TDiff is the thermal diffusivity of the rock. The simulations evaluate the change in tangential stress, resulting from the cooling process, as a function of time and distance from the wellbore. Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the temperature profiles for both elastic and poroelastic materials, evaluated after 1 and 5 hours of cooling (for rw < r <2rw). It was observed that, with the parameters selected for the simulation, the poroelastic material cooled down at a slower rate than its elastic counterpart did.
Fig. 6; Comparison of the change in the formation temperature as a function of distance to the wellbore for elastic and poroelastic materials [5]

In this simulation it was assumed that the well was vertical; hence, the original magnitude of the tangential stress along the direction of H max was given by,

= 3 h min H max Pp = 7000 psi

Fig. 7 shows the magnitude of the tangential stress around the wellbore (after 5 hours of cooling) for the poroelastic material defined in this study. It also contains along the direction of H max for cooling times of 1, 60, and 300 the profiles of

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

min (i.e. quasi-instantaneous, and after 1 and 5 hours of cooling). It was observed that the magnitude of the tangential stress was reduced by almost 2000 psi at the wellbore wall, and by a little more than 1000 psi at r > 1.5rw. This gives validation to the approach proposed in this paper, as it seems that the cooling effect is large enough to cause an important decrease in the magnitude of the tangential stress around the wellbore. This makes setting of the stress cage feasible at much lower mud weights; once the stress cage is put in place, and the formation regains it original temperature, the particles inside the fracture would be locked in place by virtue of the rock thermal expansion of the rock.

The effect of changing the value of Biot constant should be taken into close account (for example for the range between 0.3 and 0.7.) It was found that as the magnitude of Biot constant was increased, the effect of cooling on the tangential stress was more pronounced. The reason for this dependency, among other things, is that Biot coefficient influences how fluid expansion affects the total stress. If the coefficient of expansion for the fluid is larger than the one for the rock, the thermal stress effect automatically increases as the Biot coefficient increases.
Fig. 8; Left, magnitude of the tangential stress around the wellbore after 5 hrs of cooling (poroelastic material, =0.7). Right, tangential stress profile, for different cooling times, along the direction of

H max

[5]

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Conclusion: Several techniques have been extensively used to strengthen the borehole through creation of a stress cage. These techniques were quite promising in high permeable formations. But with reference to shaly/tight horizons, they come up short to be reliable, perhaps owing to the closure or flow back via the induced fractures. In order to avoid drawbacks of other methods in low permeable formations, an alternative approach is to switch to more reliable method to create a similar stress cage via inducing thermal stresses generated by cooling the drilling mud. It could also be applied in permeable formations to enhance the effect of standard stress cage. Wellbore cooling applied before setting normal stress cage would have a compounding effect driven by the presence of a propped fracture and a thermal component. According to the modeling, the effect of this method is large enough to cause striking reduction on the magnitude of tangential stress at and vicinity of the wellbore. In this case standard stress cage can be set at much lower pressures than normal approach. As the formation regains temperature, the tangential stress acting on the fracture faces increases; thus, locking the particles in place along the fracture length. It is expected that most of the particles will remain in the region connecting the wellbore and the fracture (at the crack entrance) without the need for fluid leakoff that normal technique involves. There should also be some kind of hydraulic integrity between the wellbore and the fracture tip. Therefore the particles should be well-graded (constituting all sizes) and deformable solids in order to reduce the permeability of the bridge at the fracture entrance .

www.petroman.ir

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

References: 1. Soroush, H, SPE, and Sampaio, J.H.B, SPE, Curtin University of Technology; ''Investigation Into Strengthening Methods For Stabilizing Wellbores in Fractured Formations'', presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September 2006 2. Alberty, M. Mclean, M.; 'A physical Model for Stress Cage'', presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 26-29 September 2004 3. Gil, I. Geomechanics Intl. Roegiers, J.-C U. of California. Moos, D. Geomechanics Intl; 'Wellbore Cooling as a means to Permanently Increase Fracture Gradient'', presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September 2006 4. Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959: Conduction of Heat in Solids Oxford University Press, London. 5. Gil, I., and Roegiers, J.-C., 2006a: Wellbore Strengthening in Low Permeability Formations, Proceedings of the International Symposium of the ISRM, Eurock 2006, 9-12 May, Lige, Belgium, pp. 417-420. 6. Stephens. G., and B. Voight, 1982: Hydraulic fracturing theory for conditions of thermal stress, Int. J. RockMech. Min. Set., 19, 279-284. 7. Ritchie, R. H., and A. Y, Sakakura, 1956: Asymptotic expansions of solutions of the heat conduction equation in internally bounded cylindrical geometry Appl. Phys., 27, 1453-1459, 1956. 8. Moos, D., and Zoback, M., 1990: Utilization of Observations of Well Bore Failure to Constrain the Orientation and Magnitude of Crustal Stresses: Application to Continental. Deep Sea Drilling Project, and Ocean Drilling Program Boreholes, Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 95, No B6, pp. 9305-9325 June 10 9. Morita, N., Black, A.D Guh, G-F., 1990: Theory of Lost Circulation Pressure SPE paper 20409, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 23-26 September, New Orleans, Louisiana 10. Li, X., Cui, L., and Roegiers, J.-C., 1998: Thermo-poroelastic Analyses of Inclined Boreholes, SPE paper 47296, presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Eurock 1998, 8-10 July, and Trondheim, Norway

www.petroman.ir