HC Production and Rock Mechanics Application to wellbore stability Technical documentation (5 days courses) - TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION SECTION VII SURFACE EFFECTS AT GREAT SCALE ‘Technical Documentation HC production and Rock mechanics Application to Wellbore Stability 5 days training course V. Maury April 2005cramSPE 20909 Society of Petrotsum Engineers Internal Blowouts, Cratering, Casing Setting Depths and the Location of Subsurface Safety Valves by J.V. Walters, Shell Intl. Petroleum Mij. B.V. The aim of this paper is to promote industry awareness of the potential mechanisms that may take place in the rare event ofa loss of well contro, and how these mechanisms may be assessed for field specific conditions. This is particularly important when exploration/appraisal drilling involves penetrating highly "overpressured accumulations. Depending on the geological burial history, these overpressures may be located in extremely competent or weakly consolidated formations, even at great depth. In-situ stress, and tock strength characteristics will play a major role with respect to the chances of reaching these target horizons successfully. INTRODUCTION One of the most hazardous situations that can be encountered during the driling or completing phases of cilgas wells is a loss of well control, ater an influx of highly everpressured formation thu This may arise through any one of the following events: + The sudden encounter of a highly overpressured interval, giving a significant well kick that causes fracture of the open hole section, probably close to the last casing shoe. This may then lead to significant mud losses to the fracture, further influx of formation fluids, and uncontrolled flow. + Swabbing in the well when tripping out drilstring, allowing influx of formation fluids. + Fracturing of the open hole section by to0 high mudweights, or by mud pressure surges when running in too fast (drillstring or casing) References and Mustain ‘end of paper Tho unsuccessful control of a kick, with further influx of formation fluids, may lead to an external or internal blowout. External blowouts are events that are clearly seen, and nearly always result in significant rig damage apart from the risk of fatal injuries to personnel. The behaviour of internal blowouts is much more difficult to predict, and can range from containment of the overpressured fluids against a sealing layer located close to the blowout point, or result in the migration of high pressure fluids towards the surface, (uncontained internal blowouts), with the potential risk of crater formation, by near surface sediment fluidisation. If this occurs directly below a tig site, loss of the rig is @ possibilty, owing to a loss of the soil load bearing capacity. INTERNAL pLowoUTS The term ‘internal blowout’ refers to the uncontrolled flow of high pressure fluids (usually hydrocarbons, originally contained in an interval underlying a Sealing caprock), along an open hole section, and into lower pressured permeable intervals that become charged and pressurised with hydrocarbons. The key issue in such events Is to determine if the hydrocarbons are likely to remain contained within the shallower interval, or continue to move vertically, for example ‘by rock fracture or the ‘wedging open of fault planes. They may then reach ear surface unconsolidated horizons that can be fluidised by the high hydrocarbon pressures, resulting in crater formation. An example of an ‘onshore uncontained internal blowout is shown in Fig.1. The crater formed immediately below the driling rig, resulting in total rig loss beneath the ground surface, owing to sol fuidisation. The mechanisms that may follow an internal blowout will be governed by a number of si specific parameters, namely: Page 2732 INTERNAL BLOHOUTS, CCRATERING « SPE 20908 364 The hydrocarbon tluid pressure at the blowout depth, The hydrocarbon density. + The length of the open hole section, The in-situ stress values, and the orientation of the minimum stress, The fracture propagation pressure of an induced hydraulic fracture + The location of fault planes and sealing versus nonsealing faults. +The rock strength characteristics at each lithological horizon above the biowout location. + The consolidated intervals + The unconsolidated intervals. ‘Some of the parameters mentioned above can be obtained from drilling and field records. For example: +The location of the consolidated or unconsolidated formations can be inferred from drilling rates, the type of cuttings observed at surface, and logs. + The hydrocarbon pressure can be assessed from the mudweights being used at the time of the initial kiok, and the magnitude of the kick. + If mud losses occurred owing to fracturing of the ‘open hole section, this gives information on the fracture propagation pressure. Other parameters may have to be interred from the local field setting. This will be further dicussed in the next sections. Collectively, the above parameters can be used to determine if significant Vertical movement of high pressure hydrocarbons is likely to occur. es VENENT OF __HVORI Qn ‘The principal mechanisms that may take place following an internal blowout are shown in Fig. 2. ‘These include: + Vertical movement of hydrocarbons by rock fracture. + Rock damage caused by massive shear failure. + Hydrocarbon migration along fault planes, along high porosity/permeable paths ‘or by ‘wedging open faults, + Significant near surface flow causing soil {tuidisation (surface cratering) |_ movernent rb Internal blowouts can be triggered by a loss of formation integrity at one location along an open hole section. This may be the result of high borehole fluid pressures causing fracture of the borehole wall, and tracture propagation. The high fluid pressures may arise from weighting up the ‘mud, in. an attempt to control formation Wud influx, a high pressure kick that exceeds the formation integrity, or by excessive surges in mud pressure. Hole breakdown will be followed by fracture propagation until the borehole fluid pressure Feduces to a value below the fracture propagation pressure (FPP). A reduction in fluid pressure Sulficient to cause fracture arrest will not be realised its + The mudweight required to prevent further hydrocarbon influx has to remain in excess of the FPP, + A reduction in mudweight allows further inflow of hydrocarbons maintaining a pressure at the fractured horizon in excess of the FPP. ‘An induced fracture is likely to be vertical, aligned perpendicular to the minimum in-situ principal Stress, which usually acts horizontally. The current methods for interpreting field micro/minitrac tests, (for example [1]), have revealed FPP's typically Tanging from approximately 300-500 psi in excess of the minimum in-situ total stress. Similar excess pressures would have to be supplied in an internal blowout situation to promote continuous fracture growth. (Note that horizontal fractures could, be induced in compressional tectonic regimes, if local microfrac ata suggests the overburden may be the minimum total stress). ‘The pressure supplied by a hydrocarbon influx at a fracture location is. given by: (Pr-pn ol). ) This can be compared with the downhole mudpressure at which continuous losses occurred, which is given by: Pr Pmud = Pm gO + WHP.. revere) Peagreater than of equal to Pmud will promote additional fracture propagation. Containment of the fracture to the horizon in which the fracture was initiated, or vertical growth into the overlying interval(s) then has to be addressed. ‘The overlying layer will be exposed to the same overpressure supplied by the influxing hydro- carbons. This will arise elther through direct pressure communication via the fracture, when the fracture reaches the intertace, or with time, through pressurisalion of the intake horizon. The high pressure fluid is then in direct communication with the bedding plane between the two lithologies, Fig.3. The bedding plane will not be a smooth planar surface, but will rather contain bedding plane irregularities that can act as nuclel for vertical fracture propagation. Fracture of the sealing layer fa: will occur Pe Gh + Th 3) con is the minimum horizontal total stress in the Sealing layer, and Ty is the sealing layer tensile strength in the horizontal direction. The tensile strength of sedimentary rocks varies approximately between 0 and 15 MPa, and will depend on the —] Page 274SPE 20909 bv. waLtERS effective burial depth and type of grain to grain cementation Equation (3) gives the pressure required to initiate a fracture based on rock strength considerations. The following condition, in addition to eqn. (3) also has to be satistied to separate the tracture walls and allow vertical fluid flow, (2) (1-2y).aP Pr-on (ry (4) 4P refers to the rise in fluid pressure in the sealing layer, and will be nonzera if fluid leak-off from the fracture walls takes place. vis Poisson's ratio for drained conditions. The maximum value of AP is siven by, (2): APmax = P= P-P, -e(5) where P is the original pore iluid pressure in the sealing layer, and Pg is the capillary pressure difference between the water wetting phase and the Ronwetting hydrocarbons. If eqn. (4) cannot be satisfied as the maximum change in pressure is, approached in the sealing layer, the fracture walls, will close down. Note however that under such conditions the fracture surface may still act as a conduit for hydrocarbon flow, owing to the fikely mismatch of the fracture surfaces. Bock damage by shear failure When a permeable interval is overlain by a relatively impermeable one, significant charging of the permeable layer may take place following a hydrocarbon influx. Fracturing of the overlying layer will occur if the pressure in the permeable bed reaches the value given by eqn.(3). Significant damage, in the form of massive shear failure, may also occur in the permeable bed below the pressure eqn.(3). To illustrate the Mechanism, referonce is made to Figs.4a-d, Fig.4a shows a permeable bed with an undisturbed horizontal to vertical effective stress ratio given by: ky Dy ©) ‘An influx of high pressure hydrocarbons will give fise to an increase in pore tluid pressure, AP. The vertical effective stress will reduce by the same amount. Owing to poro-elastic effects, and assuming the layer is laterally constrained (no lateral strain), the horizontal effective stress will reduce to a lesser extent, given by: Ach = (14).P .. (7) where yis given by: (1-).(1-2v)1-v), and B= 1 ~ (Kp, ‘The undisturbed maximum and minimum principal effective stresses (oy and Gh respectively are ‘shown in Fig.4b, plotted in the form of stress circles, within a 2D Mofir-Coulomb failure line. The effect of a tise in pore fluid pressure is to move the stresses to the left, but by an unequal amount. The stress cifcle shrinks in size, as the pressure increases. Shear failure of the permeable bed occurs if the stress circle touches the failure line, Fig.4c, or Fig.4d. For the case shown in Fig.4c, the critical AP is given by: Gr.lkg.(1+8ine) - (1-sing)] + 2e.cose OP = NaF +sing) = (1509 )] (8) As a practical example, consider the following situation: Depth = 2000 metres oy = 22.MPa ke 0.333 é 30 degrees c MPa x os Po 2 20 Mpa Minimum horizontal total stress and tensile strength of overlying layer equal to 28 MPa and 2 MPa respectively. From eqn.(8), the citical pressure rise AP is equal to 6.9 MPa, giving a total pressure of 26.9 MPa, which is below the sum ofthe total horizontal stress plus tensile strength in the overying layer. An alternative low angle shear failure could occur for shallow layers having a high ko value, (21), or for small y values, Fig.4d. In this case, the critical AP is given by: ap Sette l4-sing) - (1sing)]- 2e.coss [(1-9).(4-sing) = (t48ing)] (9) As an example, consider the following situation: Depth = 500 metres oy 5.5 MPa ko = 1 ¢ 80 degrees c 05 MPa Y 0s P 5 Mpa From eqn.(9), the critical pressure rise is equal to 5.1 MPa, giving a total pressure of 10.1 MPa. Both of the above examples indicate that shear failure, as @ result of pressure charging of permeable layers is a possible mechanism, before Pressures reach a magnitude sufficient to induce ‘racturing of an overlying sealing layer. Tho implications of massive induced shear failure are: + The drilability of permeable layers exposed to an internal blowout may be quite different from that experienced in wells drilled prior to the blowout. Page 2754 ANTERNAL, BLOMOUTS, GRATERING « Bae SPE 20909 + The layer may lose some of its load carrying capability. It may also compact. + If the permeable layer is also @ hydrocarbon producing horizon, for example, a (weakly) consolidated sandstone, increased sand production from such horizons could be expected, as a result of pressure charging. Jon_alon: Lan ini pen of faults Figure Sa shows a sealing layer traversed by a fault. Fault planes may act as sealing barriors to lateral fluid migration. They may be stronger or weaker than the surrounding host rock, material, land may also act as fluid migration paths If the fault gouge is permeable. An example would be a fault plane containing sandishale streaks allowing along fault and across fault fluid migration, Fig.8b, (see also [2-4]). The latter situation would allow internal blowout fluids to traverse an otherwise sealing cap rock at a hydrocarbon pressure well below that fequired for rock fracture. It is therefore exiremely Important in internal blowout Situations to address the proximity of faults, and, to assess, (based on geological and Feservoir engineering evidence), if they are likely to be sealing or nonsealing barriers to internal blowout fluid movement. Ita sealing layer is traversed by a (sealing) faut, then. high pressure fluids will only traverse the layer if + The sealing layer is fractured, as described in an earlier section. + Tho high pressure fluid wedges open the fault plane at 2 pressure below that which will cause fracture of the sealing layer. + The high pressure fluid causes localised shear dilatancy within the fault plane, inducing an increase in fault plane porosity/permeabilty. With reference to Fig.Sc, the wedging open of a fault will occur if the hiydrocarbon pressure exceeds the total normal stress acting across the fault plane, (assuming zero tensile strength across the fault): Pe (10) which in terms of the vertical and horizontal total stresses can be expressed as: Pe 6 605% + Op SiN28 su at) Py must be less than the pressure required to initiate rock fracture (eqn. 3), giving: Gh Tr2 Gy C0S20+ op sin? inserting op = ko, gives: Ty 2 Gy (0080 +k.sin26-k) (13) In an extensional tectonic setting, typical values for @ and k are G=60 degrees, kn0.8 respectively, giving: Th 2 0.08 oy woe (14) indicating that the horizontal tensile strength of a Sealing layer has to be greater than one quarter of the original differential stress (oy-op) it wedging open of a fault is to occur, preferential to rock fracture. “Tho wedging open of faults, as described above, is ‘an exireme condition which requires that the fault normal total stress reduces to zero. In practice, the faull plane will probably experience localised shear failure (in the fault plane proper), as shown in Fig.5d. With reference to Fig.6d, & pressure rise causes tho stross cifcle to move to the left, eventually touching the failure line, indicating shear ‘along planes al angles of 45 + @/2 tothe direction of ‘the maximum effective stross. These shear planes may not be coincident with the fault angle. Shearing can result in local dilation (a porosity/permeability creating process) allowing ‘along fault fluid migration. The critical AP to induce shear is given by: 19) = (1-sing)] + 2e.coso 2sing (18) raterin: Qh: It high pressure hydrocarbons migrate vertically from a doop intemal biowout, to shallow horizons through one or more of the processes described earlier, there will be a potential risk of surface tratering. Cratering is induced by the fluidisation of weakly consolidated rocks or soils. In the classical Soil mechanics definition, {5-7}, soil luidisation is Said to ocour when the vertical effective stress is reduced to zero by the introduction of an additional hydrostatic head at some depth horizon, and provided there is sufficient flow of fluid. High pressure gas, from an internal blowout, may exceed the affective overburden stress at rolatively deep horizons. In order for fluidisation to occur from Such deep locations, it would require that all overlying lithologies possess no or very litle tensile Strength; a scenario that can rarely be expacted in practice, This would suggest that the maximum ratering depth will be dictated by the subsurface location of the first thology that possesses some tensile strength (grain to grain cementation). ‘Although the actual degree of cementation required fo prevent fluidisation is questionable, a low ‘amount will probable suffice. Clough et al [8], for example, have observed that a small degree of cementation may be sufficient to arrest fluidisation. ‘One approach to gain a qualitative assessment of the depth at which consolidated intervals are first encountered, is to examine field specific drilling records, and drill bit cuttings. ‘A moro quantifiable method would require shallow coring, (over the first 100-300 metres sub surface), ‘strength measurements on core samples, and comparisons with scaled experiments on tho fividisation of weakly cemented lithologies. Alternatively, use of mechanical properties logs Page 276SPE 20909 . av + WALTERS could be considered. This necessitates the drilling of pilot holes over the first few hundred metres, and also the calibration of such logs, with respect to Predicting the degree of cementation. 1 HS _AND BE) VALVI ATION OF In the rare case of an internal blowout during chiling, followed by crater formation below/near to a fig location, damage to the structure and near surface well completions can be expected within the ‘crater zone, since vertical and lateral soil support would be significantly reduced during soil fluidisation. Offshore field developments invariably involve the Grilling of deviated wells {rom a central. platform, often with concurrent driling and production. Safety valves set below the predicted maximum cratering depth would therefore ensure that all production wells closed-in effectively, in the event of a calamity which involved localised seabed fluidisation. The operational aspects of relief well driling would then focus on intersecting a single blowout well. ‘SOME_ASPECTS OF BOREHOLE INTEGRITY AND SASING SETTING DEPTHS ‘As outlined in previous sections, uncontained internat blowouts can occur following loss of well control through borehole breakdown, and subsequent extensive vertical fracture propagation. Although borehole breakdown can best be assessed beforehand by conducting a fracture breakdown test in an open hole section (essentially fa microtrac test), such tests are rarely carried out during drilling because they will nearly always result in a borehole with reduced strength. The exception would be lithologies containing natural fracture systems which may induce mud losses at ‘mud pressures slightly in excess of eithor: The pore pressure (for open, conductive natural fractures), or: ‘The in-situ stress acting across the fracture faces, (closed, but non cemented fracture faces). ‘The maximum permissible borehole fluid pressure during driling is normally based on the last casing shoe strength which is usually measured by conducting: A limit test, oF: Aleak-off test. Both the limit test and the leak-off test can give casing shoe strength values that may be above or below the far field fracture closure and propagation pressures. This is because actual wellbore fracture breakdown pressures are dictated by rock strength, and also the near wellbore stress concentrations which will depend on well deviation, azimuth, prevailing In-situ stresses and mud plastering properties. A leak-off test, for example, indicates the mud pressure at which the formation starts to take fluid, ‘This pressure will be below the fracture breakdown pressure. For equal horizontal stresses, and a good plastering mud, the mud pressure for fracture breakdown is given by: Py = on(8- 60828) - Gy.8IN28 =P 4 Torsnn( 16) Examples of fracture breakdown gradients as a function of wellbore deviation angle are shown in Fig. 8, for normally pressured and overpressured situations, assuming negligible rack tensile strength (T=0). Figure 6 shows that fracture breakdown Pressures in deviated walls can be below the value of the far field undisturbed minimum in-situ stress. ‘The minimum well angle at which this condition may occur will be field specific. Hole breakdown in such cases, induced by pressures below the far field tracture propagation Pressure, will load to. fracture growin that is confined to the near wellbore region, and limited inducsd mud losses. If the open hole section ‘crosses a faut plane, or there aro faut planes in the immediate vicinity, equation (12) should also be applied to ascertain that mud losses to the fault(s) will not occur. If this can be excluded, loss of weil control is most unlikely under these conditions. It would, at the very extreme, result in. some pressure charging of formations contained within the open hole interval. For vertical wells, equation (16) reduces to: 1on- P+T. (47) and for horizontal wells: 1on- Gy =P + T.. (18) For deep targets, containing expected high ‘overpressures, in extensional tectonic settings, the rock tensile strength can play an important role with respect to the mudweight corridor, since the horizontal effective stress may contribute little ‘towards the total stress term in eqn.(17). In extensional tectonic settings for example, a ratio of one third between the horizontal and ‘vertical effective stresses would be a reasonable assumption, also for overpressured intervals. For hard rocks, a lower ratio is possible, ‘The mudweight corridor is defined as the range of allowable mud pressures, outside of which, borehole collapse, influx, or losses will occur. When driling overpressured intervals, the mud Pressure to prevent formation fluid infiux is generally in excess of the value required to prevent borehole collapse. The latter is best confirmed using borehole stability prediction programs that incorporate rock plasticity [9]. Page 2776 INTERNAL BLOWOUTS, CRATERTNG ... 308 SPE 20909 Hence, for overprossured formations, the mudweight corridor is probably defined by the conditions that give rise to either influx or losses. To illustrate the effect of tensile strength and in-situ stress on allowable mudweights in deep drilling environments, two examples are presented below: Hard rock. Depth = 4500 metres Po = 94.0 MPa ch = (95.0 MPa T = 15.0 MPa Using eqn. (17) P= 111.0 MPa In this case, the leeway between the mud pressure to control influx, and that at which breakdown is predicted to occuris 17MPa, (2470 psi) or 0.0038 MPafm, (0.17psit). ° This gives an adequate ‘margin to be able to dill without incurring losses. Weak rock Depth 4500 metres P 94.0 MPa on = 98.0 MPa T = O5MPa Using egn. (17): Po = (87.5 MPa giving a margin of only 9.5 MPa, (508 psi) or 0.00083 MPa/m, (0.037 psi), between control and losses. Note that for horizontal wells, eqn. (18) impli wellbore breakdown can occur at mud pressures significantly below the value required to prevent influx, for overpressured reservoirs. Although a significant number of horizontal wells have been diilled, in hard or weakly consolidated rocks [10], there is no published data that suggests they have been attempted in overpressured reservoirs. Equation (18) indicates it may not be straightforward. Confined near wellbore fracturing may take place concurrent with drilling, and may extend along the whole length of the horizontal section. Whether or not this would lead to severe drilling problems (excessive mud losses, hole stability, drilabilty) is debatable, and will again depend’on field specific conditions. it therefore represents one of the few remaining step-out areas in the driling of horizontal wells. In-situ stresses ‘The successful application of the methods outlined this paper ideally requires sound knowledge of the prevailing in-situ stresses. The overburden stress can be obtained from an integrated density log. Currently, the only reliable method of measuring the minimum in-situ stress is to conduct microfrac tests, [1]. A qualitative indication of the ratios between the intermediate and minimum stresses can be given by Differential Strain analysis (DSA), or Anelastic Strain Recovery (ASR) tests on oriented core, [11] It is an unfortunate fact that the opportunities tor conducting microfrac tests, concurrent with the abandonment of appraisal wells are rarely considered, The data can prove to be extremely valuable, not only with respect to the issues presented in this paper, but also for firming-up asing setting depths, assessment of hole stability in high angle/horizontal drilling, and as an aid in sand production prediction. ‘As an example, Fig.7 shows information on: FOP's and FPP's constructed trom microfrae data. ‘An in-situ stress trend assuming the relationship ‘given in 12} COverburden gradient. Fracture breakdown pressures, (FBP's), based on eqn. (16). Leak-off data. Static gas gradient from a shallow gas reservoir. For this particular shallow reservoir case, it was possible fo set casing at a depth below the point at Which the gas. gradient crosses the FPP curve. This ensures the gas will remain contained to the open hole section, even in the extreme and unlikely seonario of a totally gas filled hole. In deep drilling, involving overpressured targets, this criterion cannot be applied, and one has to rely fon leak-off data, and kick design criteria to define maximum open hole sections. Maximum permissible mud pressures will then probably lie betwen the FPP and the FBP. The necessity for highly experienced mud and driling engineers to ensure stringent quality control cannot be over ‘emphasized. EXAMPLE OF AN UNCONTAINED INTERNAL BLOWOUT. Figure 8 shows a geological cross section indicating the trajectory of an intended production wall. The 12 1/4 inch hole was drilled to target depth at 2300 metres . After logging the open hole section (1485.0-2300.0 metres) the well was inadvertently fractured while running 9 6/8 inch ceasing, and mud losses occurred. The casing stood up at 1615 metres. It was retrieved, and a bit was run to ream the hold-up and control losses. During the reaming operation, the bit became stuck at 1605 metres and total losses occurred. The well kicked (approximately 0.019 MPa/m) and full ‘communication was established along the open hole section, from the overpressured gas in the doep reservoir sands (circa 2290 metres) to the 13 38 inch casing shoe. ‘The well was killed by pumping cement through the drillstring. This operation was thought to be successiu, but efter a further eleven days, eruption of effiuent (a mixture of oll, gas, water and possibly Grilling mud was observed at’surface some 600 ‘metres from the rig. Page 278SPE 20909 JV. WALTERS z As will be shown below, this case history serves as {an example for contributing to our understanding of the events that may take place following an internal blowout. It also firms-up some of the mechanisms oullined in this paper. Microfrac test data from the field had indicated that the in-situ minimum total stress was non-vertical, at least at depths above 1830 metres. Losses were assumed to have occurred at around 1615 metres ‘The overburden gradient at this depth was 0.022 MPa/m, giving a total overburden stress of 35.5 MPa. ‘The minimum total stress’ at this depth, based on fracture closure pressures obtained from microfrac tests previously conducted in the field was calculated to be 26.7MPa, The original formation fiuid pressure at 1615 metres was 16.6 MPa, Conditions at the time of the blowout, ‘The mudweight required to ‘control’ the well after the well had been fractured gave an equivalent mud pressure at 1615 metres which was approximately 2.48MPa in excess of the minimum total stress. Microfrac data from the field had indicated fracture propagation pressures (in sand or shale sequences) of around 2.07MPa. This data Indicates that uncontained fracture propagation probably occurred at the time of the mud losses, with the fracture being oriented vertically. After the cementing operation, the induced fracture was exposed to the gas pressure from the deeper horizons, and further fracture growth would have taken place. The induced fracture would be oriented perpendicular to the direction of the minimum total stress. The orientation of this stress had not been meaured in the field AA straightforward initial approach was to assume that the prevailing stress directions were consistent with those at the time of faulting. In this case, the Induced fracture would have propagated parallal to the fault strike, with both wings of the fracture intersecting the frst fault above the point where the well was fractured (fault ‘A’, Fig. 8), potentially over a large lateral extent. ‘The gas pressure then reduced the horizontal and total vertical effective stresses in the fault plane by an equal amount. The pressure increase due to the gas Was estimated to be around 12.75 MPa. The horizontal and vertical effective stresses in the fault plane, before and after the blowout, can be used to ‘construct the stress circles shown in Fig.9. Fault ‘A’, Fig.8 has a dip angle of around 56 degrees ‘across the depth interval 1310-1615 metres. Shear failure in a direction parallel to the fault plane would have occurred if an angle of friction of 28 degrees is assumed as shown in Fig. This friction angle is quite reasonable for the fault plane, since it probably consists of interbedded sand/shale sequences. From Fig. 9 itis predicted that the fault plane normal effective ‘stress reduced to zero at the time of the internal blowout. This probably caused dilational shearing along parts of the fault plane, allowing gas ration along/up the fault, with eventual gas breakthrough at surface. This mechanism also explained the observed charging of intervals on the downthrown side of the fault, which could have been caused by along/across fault migration of gas in sand streaks. Following the blowout, and the observed rise in fluid pressure in the shallow reservoir intervals, it was decided to maintain sufficient production from these reservoirs to ensure they were kept at pressures equal to those prevailing prior to the blowout. At a later stage, the pressures in the shallow reservoirs were allowed to rise (based on reservoir engineering considerations), albeit to values tar bolow those which gave rise to the crater. At overpressures of approximately 5.8MPa, (compared with 12.8MPa at the time of the blowout), efflux was again observed at the crater. This was explained by a reduction in fault plane strength after the blowout, caused by the shear failure predicted to have taken placo in the fault zone. It was possible, for example, that part of the {ault plane lost its cohesive strength, but retained a similar angle of internal friction. ‘As shown in Fig.9c, the pressure rise of 5.8 MPa was sufficient to induce fault reactivation. Following this reoccurrence, all shallow reservoirs were maintained as close as possible to pro- blowout pressures. No other incidents were subsequently reported. conciusions 4. The mechanisms that may follow an internal blowout have been discussed and appear to be supported by field evidence, 2. Allowable mud corridors when drilling deep overpressured intervals will be dictated by Porepressure (minimum value) and fracture breakdown pressure. The latter depends on in-situ stress and rock strength. In weak intervals, which are possible at great depth if pore pressure generation was concurrent with burial, the corridor defining losses and gains may be quite small. 3. Subsurface safety valves set below the estimated maximum cratering depth give added safety in the unlikely event of an uncontained internal blowout 4, _ The logistics of drilling horizontal welts in overpressured reservoirs represents a step-out still to be tried in horizontal well technology. Theory suggests that significant problems associated with hole fracture, and mud losses may be encountered, depending on fisid specific conditions. 5. —_Quantifiable statements relating to the above issues rely heavily on the availability of in-situ stress data, which in many cases can be collected uring the abandonment of appraisal wells at litle extra cost. Page 279INTERNAL BLOWOUTS, CRATERING .. SPE 20909 NOMENCLATURE Rock cohesive strength D Total depth from surface FBP Fracture Breakdown Pressure FCP Fracture Closure Pressure FPP Fracture Propagation Pressure @ Gravitational constant H Depth interval k Ratio of horizontal to vertical total stress Ko Ratio of horizontal to vertical etfective stress Km Compression modulus of rock matric Ke Compression modulus of rock grains P Pore fluid pressure Pe Capillary pressure Pi Fracture breakdown pressure Pug Mud pressure T Rock tensile strength Tn Tensile strength in horizontal direction WHP Well Head Pressure B Seotext aP Pressure change Rock angle of internal friction y See text @ Hole deviation or fault angle from vertital p Density © Total stress o Effective stress » Poissons ratio ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The Author wishes to thank Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij B. publish the paper. for permission to 10. " 12, REFERENCES De Bree, P. & Walters, J.V., "Micro/Minitrac Test Procedures And interpretation For In- Situ Stress Determination” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol26, No.6, pp. 515-521, 1989. Mandl, G., "Mechanics Of Tectonic Faulting: Models And Basic Concepts". Developments in Structural Geology.t. Sories Editor HJ. Zwart. Elsevier press, 1988. Mandl, G., De Jong, L.NuJ., & Maltha, A., "Shear Zones in Granular Material: An Experimental Study Of Their Structure And ‘Mechanical Genesis". Rock Mechanics 9, pp. 95-144, 1977. Weber, K.J., Lehner, F.K., Mandl, G., Pilar, W.F., & Precious, F.G.,"The Role Of Faults In Hydrocarbon Migration And Trapping In Nigerian Growth Fault Structures". Offshore Tech. Cont. , Houston, Tex., Vol. 4 pp. 2643-2653, May 1978. Sinth.G.N., "Elements Ot Soil Mechanics For Civil And Mining Engineers”. Crosby Lockwood Staples, 1974. Scott, C.R., "An Introduction To Soil Machanies and Foundations”. Applied Science Publishers, 1976. Terzaghi, K., "Soil Mechanics In Engineering Practice”. John Wiley, 1967. Clough, G.W., Iwabuchi, J., Shafi Rad, N. & Kuppusamy, T., "Influencs Of Cementation On Liquefaction Of Sand”. J. Geotech. Eng., Vol 115, No. 8 1989. Veeken, C.A.M,, Walters, J.V., Kenter, CJ. & Davies, D.R., "Use Of Plasticity Models For Predicting Borehole Stability”. Rock At Great Depth, Maury & Fourmaintraux (Eds.) pp 835-844 Balkema Rotterdam. Mortis, G., “Horizontal Drilling Scores More Successes". Oil & Gas Journal Spocial, Feb. 26 1990, pp. 53-64. Teutel, L.W., “Determination Of In-Situ Stress From’ Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements On Oriented Core". SPE/DOE 11649, 1984. Breckels, |.M., & van Eekelen, H.AM., “Relationship Between Horizontal Stress And Depth In Sedimentary Basins SPE 10336, 1981. Page 2804NOMO1 IWNYALNITNY ONIMOTIOS NOLLVAHOS HALVHO JO 31dWVXS “} “Old Page 281BFL Page 282peta mannose) SRA As tee Page 283eprpe pam son seers yaaa mi Page 284