Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Well Drilling
Lesson 22
Prediction of
Fracture Gradients
1
Prediction of Fracture Gradients
Well Planning
Theoretical Fracture Gradient Determination
Hubbert & Willis
Matthews & Kelly
Ben Eaton
Comparison of Results
Experimental Frac. Grad. Determination
Leak-off Tests
Lost Circulation
2
Read:
Applied Drilling Engineering, Ch. 6
HW #12
Casing Design
due Nov. 1, 2002
3
NOTE:
On all HW and Quizzes please put:
4
Well Planning
Safe drilling practices require that the
following be considered when
planning a well:
Pore pressure determination
Fracture gradient determination
Casing setting depth selection
Casing design
Mud Design, H2S considerations
Contingency planning
5
Fig. 7.21
6
7
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
S =S PP +
overburden pore matrix
stress = pressure + stress
(psi) (psi) (psi) 9
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
Depth = 14,000 ft.
Calculations: Pore Pressure = 9.2 lb/gal equivalent
Overburden stress = 1.00 psi/ft.
Calculations:
3. Matrix stress gradient,
S P psi
S P
or psi/ft
D D D
S P
i.e., 1.000 0.478 psi / ft
D D D
/ D = 0.522 psi/ft
11
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
Calculations:
= 7,308 psi
12
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
14
Fracture Gradient Determination
K i P
F
D D
3. Ben Eaton:
S P g P
F *
D 1 g D
16
Example
17
Example - Hubbert and Willis
1 psi
Fmin 1 2 *0.735 0.823
3 ft
18
Example - Hubbert and Willis
Also,
0.823 psi / ft
Fmin
psi / ft
0.052
lb / gal
19
Example - Hubbert and Willis
1 P
1 0.735
1
Fmax 1
2 D 2
= 0.8675 psi/ft
20
Example
P K i
2. Matthews & Kelly F
D D
In this case P and D are known, may be
calculated, and K i is determined graphically.
2,915
Di 5,449 ft
0.535
23
Example -
Matthews and
Kelly
0.685 * 2,915
F 0.735
11,000
0.9165 psi / ft
0.9165
F 17.63 lb / gal
0.052
25
26
Example
Ben Eaton:
S P g P
F *
D 1 g D
S
? g?
D
27
Variable Overburden Stress by
Eaton
At 11,000 ft
S/D = 0.96 psi/ft
28
Fig. 5-5
At 11,000 ft
g = 0.46
29
Example - Ben Eaton
S P g P
From above graphs, F
D D 1 g D
at 11,000 ft.:
S
0.96 psi / ft; g 0.46
D
0.46
F 0.96 0.735 0.735
1 0.46
F = 0.9267 psi/ft
= 17.82 lb/gal
30
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
31
Summary of Results
Note that all the methods take into
consideration the pore pressure gradient.
As the pore pressure increases, so does
the fracture gradient.
32
Summary of Results
33
Similarities
Ben Eaton:
S P g P
F *
D 1 g D
Ki P
F
D D
35
Experimental Determination of
Fracture Gradient
38
39
40
41
Experimental Determination of
Fracture Gradient
Example:
In a leak-off test below the
casing seat at 4,000 ft, leak-off
was found to occur when the
standpipe pressure was 1,000
psi. MW = 9 lb/gal.
EMW = ?
43