T11 Tartan Fracture Field Stress Analysis REV A.pdf

8/20/2019 T11 Tartan Fracture Field Stress Analysis REV A.pdf

1/34

INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS LIMITED14 RUBISLAW TERRACE LANE ABERDEEN AB10 1XF UK

TEL: +44 (0)1224 658695 FAX:+44 (0)1224 658696E-MAIL [email protected]

INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS LIMITED

I E S L

Formation Stress

Analysis for

Fracturing the

Tartan Field

Talisman Energy

Well Engineering

Project Report – WEN007

28th JANUARY 2005

REV A


2/34


3/34

APPROVAL & DISTRIBUTION

This document contains CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY INFORMATION of Innovative Engineering Systems Limited (IESL). This document and the information disclosed herein shall

not be reproduced in whole or in part to others for any purpose including conceptual design, engineering, manufacturing or construction without the written permission of IESL. IESL 2003

REV A Formation Stress Analysis for Fracturing the Tartan Field 28TH

JAN 2005 3

Internal Report Approval

Client Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd

Field Tartan

Well T-11

Report Title Formation Stress Analysis for Fracturing the Tartan FieldProject Number WEN-007

Report Revision DRAFT

Prepared by Craig McK Webster Date 14th January 2005Reviewed by Juan Tovar Date 24th January 2005

Approved by Jeff Callander Date 25th January 2005

Distribution List

Name Company Format Date Revision

R. Burnstad Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd Electronic (PDF) 8/12/04 DRAFT

L. Laird Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd Electronic (PDF) 8/12/04 DRAFT

L. Laird Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd Electronic (PDF) 28/1/05 REV A


4/34

Approval & Distri bution


not be reproduced in whole or in part to others for any purpose including conceptual design, engineering, manufacturing or construction without the written permission of IESL IESL 2003

4 28TH JAN 2005 Formation Stress analysis for Fracturing the Tartan Field REV A


5/34

TABLE OF CONTENT




JAN 2005 5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................7

2. SCOPE OF WORK .........................................................................................9

2.1 Development of Geomechanical Model ...............................................9

3. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................11

3.1 Background .........................................................................................11

4. DATA REVIEW ...........................................................................................13

5. FIELD STRESSES........................................................................................17

5.1 Vertical stress ......................................................................................17

5.2 Minimum Horizontal Stress ................................................................18

5.3 Maximum Horizontal Stress Magnitude.............................................21

5.4 Maximum Horizontal Stress Direction ...............................................23

6. FORMATION STRENGTH .........................................................................27

7. CORE TESTING...........................................................................................29

8. SUMMARY OF RESULTS..........................................................................31

CORE TEST REPORT............................................................................................33


6/34

Table of Content





7/34

Section 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1




JAN 2005 7

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on discussions with Talisman Energy, IESL was requested to develop a benchmark

earth model for assessing the fracturing data inputs for the Tartan field.Initial field stress analysis utilised Leak-Off Test data and pressures from Reservoir modelling.

Subsequent analysis using RFT data from earlier wells and Eaton’s equation, taking into

account effects of non-linear elasticity, provided final data for the minimum horizontal stress

gradient. The horizontal stresses vary slightly across the various six sands due to varying

Poisson’s ratio in the formations. The overlying and undepleted Hot Sands show a higher

minimum stress gradient.

The magnitude of the major horizontal stress was determined based on the minor horizontal

stress, the tensile strength of the formation and the breakout pressure estimated from leak-off

test data. Direction of the horizontal stresses were determined from analysis of the four arm

caliper. The results are summarised in the Table below.

Formationσv

(psi/ft)σh

(psi/ft)σH

(psi/ft)σH Az.

(degrees)

Hot sand 0.680 0.760

D Sand

B/C Sand

A Sand

0.61 0.681

WZS

0.980

0.680 0.760

350 – 10(170 – 190)

Table 1.1 – F ield Stress Summar y

The fracture gradient was calculated using the Matthews and Kelly correlation and was found to

be ~0.764 psi/ft in the overlying Hot Sands, with values of 0.685 psi/ft in the underlying six

sands. These values are in line with those obtained from the major horizontal stress analysis.

The mechanical properties of the formation (E, ν and UCS) were initially determined from logdata (Gamma Ray, Density and Compressional Sonic Wave). These were later validated

through a series of core tests. While the young’s modulus from the testing replicated the values

identified in the log analysis, values of Poisson’s ration were found to be higher than thoseobtained from the log derived VClay model. This is a result of the lack of character shown in the

Gamma Ray response, and thus values of Poisson’s ratio derived from core testing, although

discrete, were used in determining the horizontal stress gradients. The results of the log

analysis and core testing are shown in the tables below.


8/34

Executive Summary

1




UCS(psi)

Poisson’s Ratio Young’s Modulus

(spi)Formation

Min Max Av Min Max Av Min Max Av

Hot Sand 3473 39135 11566 0.139 0.297 0.177 3.9 x 106 11.0 x 10

6 6.3 x 10

6

D Sand 7839 15819 11279 0.103 0.155 0.119 6.0 x 106 8.8x 10

6 7.4 x 10

6

B/C Sand 7086 18076 9868 0.100 0.146 0.126 5.8 x 106 6.1 x 10

6 6.8 x 10

6

A Sand 6794 26793 10926 0.117 0.179 0.138 5.6 x 106 11.1 x 10

6 6.9 x 10

6

WZS 11384 21472 15821 0.164 0.215 0.187 6.6 x 106 9.3 x 10

6 7.5 x 10

6

Table 1.2 – UCS, Poisson’ s Ratio and Young’ s Modulus – Log Deri ved

FormationPoisson’s

Ratio

Young’sModulus

(Mpsi)

Hot Sand 0.230 5.28

D Sand 0.232 7.22

B/C Sand 0.238 6.86

A Sand 0.238 5.86

Table 1.3 –Poisson’ s Ratio and Young’ s Modulus – Core Testing

In addition to mechanical core testing, Dynamic Leak-off Tests were carried out to provide initial

input for the fracture simulation. The tests were carried out under reservoir conditions and

utilising the same fracture fluid proposed for the operations. Results are summarised in the

tabled below.

WellCorePick

Core Box Sand TestPermeabilty

(mD)C3

(fi/min^0.5)Spurt Loss

(gals/100ft^2)

15094.5 7 73 D DLO 406 0.00308 29.4

15264 10 118 B/C DLO 41.7 0.00620 6.67T6

15321 12 133 B/C DLO 0.194 0.00224 0.064

Table 1.4 – DLO Core Testing Resul ts


9/34

Section 2

SCOPE OF WORK 2




JAN 2005 9

2. SCOPE OF WORK

Based on discussions with Talisman Energy, the following scope was developed for assessing

the fracturing data inputs for the Tartan field.

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF GEOMECHANICAL MODEL

The development of a benchmark earth model for the Tartan field will be carried out

n Data gathering, reservoir, drilling and production data review

n Development of in-situ field stress model

n Develop stress profile across the formation sands

n Determination of anisotropy level (magnitude and orientation)

n Determination of formation strengths – log derived

n Preparation of core testing program (Strength and Leak-off)

n Calibration of data with core testing


10/34

Scope of Work

2





11/34

Section 3

INTRODUCTION 3




JAN 2005 11

3. INTRODUCTION

3.1 BACKGROUND

The Tartan field is located in block 15/16 of the UKCS. It is Talisman’s intention to enhance

production through a fracturing part of the contributing reservoir. The producing zones are made

up from the D, B, C and A sands (from top to bottom). All sands have a low permeability, with

the target sands (B/C) having values of ~20 – 30 mD.

The key objective is to fracture the B/C sands without the fracture extending into the overlying

or underlying formations, in particular the overlying D sand, which has a higher permeability.

Consideration as to utilising orientated perforating guns is being made, depending on the level

of anisotropy and direction. A high state of anisotropy would suggest that orientating the guns in

line with the maximum horizontal stress will ensure that the perforations are orientated with thefracture, thus reducing flow tortuosity and drawdown.


12/34

Introduction

3





13/34

Section 4

DATA REVIEW 4




JAN 2005 13

4. DATA REVIEW

Talisman provided logging data as well as drilling and end of well reports and composite logs

that were utilised in the analysis carried out for this report. For the purposes of the analysiscarried out in this study, the data presented in the following tables has been used. Although

data from other wells was made available, its quality was not sufficient for the purposes of this

analysis.

WellDrillingReport

CaliperData

LogData

CoreTesting

Other

15/16-1 • 15/16-2 • 15/16-3 •

15/16-4a • 15/16-5 • 15/16-6 • 15/16-7 • 15/16-8 • 15/16-9 •

15/16-13 • 15/16-17 • 15/16-18 • 15/16-19 • 15/16-20 • 15/16-T3 • • •

15/16-T4a • 15/16-T5 • 15/16-T6 • • • 15/16-T7 •

Table 4.1 –Tar tan Data Uti li sation

The offset wells machining the T11 well are considered to be T3 and T6. These were utilised as

the base case for the analysis.

WellD Sand

(MDRKB / TVDSS)B/C Sand

(MDRKB / TVDSS)A Sand

(MDRKB / TVDSS)

T3 15093.5 / 11898.5 15184.0 / 11964.3 15355.0 / 12088.0

T6 15206.0 / 12037.3 15278.5 / 12091.1 15435.0 / 12205.1

T11 16097.5 / 11988.5 16134.0 / 12021.5 16279.9 / 12153.0

Table 4.2 – Tar tan Formation Tops


14/34

Data Review

4




Pore pressure analysis was based on the following data set taken from reservoir modelling

results:

Well FormationFormationMid PointTVDSS (ft)

Pore Pressure(psi)

Six Sand D 11931 1244

Six Sand B/C 12026 1271T3

Six Sand A 12132 1296

Six Sand D 12064 1304

Six Sand B/C 12148 1333T6

Six Sand A 12244 1375

Table 4.3 – Pore Pressures

Plotting Pore pressure against TVDSS gives the pore pressure gradient through the Six Sand.

Note that the equation shown on the graph is for the Six Sand only, and cannot be applied to

other formation layers or used as a pressure gradient to surface.

Pore Pressure = 0.4074 x TVDSS - 3622

R2 = 0.9153

1220

1240

1260

1280

1300

1320

1340

1360

1380

1400

11900 11950 12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250

TVDSS (feet)

P o r e P r e s s u r e ( p s i )

F igure 4.1 – Pore Pressure Gradient in the Six Sands


15/34

Data Review

4

This document contains CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY INFORMATION of Innovative engineering Systems Limited (IESL). This document and the information disclosed herein shall


REV A Formation Stress Analysis for Fracturing the Tartan field 28TH

JAN 2005 15

Using Data from RFT results in earlier wells (3. 5. 6. 11 and 19), the pore pressure gradient

(undepleted) to surface was determined. This is shown in Figure 4.2.

Pr = 0.4657 x TVDSS

9000

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

12500

13000

4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000

Pore Pressure (psi)

T V

D S S ( f t )

F igure 4.2 – Pore Pressure Gradient i n the Hot Sands

These gradients are utilised in the determination of total and effective stresses described in the

following Section.


16/34

Data Review

4





17/34

Section 5

FIELD STRESSES 5




JAN 2005 17

5. FIELD STRESSES

In order to enhance the modelling of the 3D fracture simulation, a detailed review of the in-situ

field stresses was carried out. As seen from the table in the previous section, a large number ofdata points were utilised to provide the information for the determination of the in-situ stresses.

The in-situ stresses in the Tartan field are typical of those in the North Sea: that is with the

vertical stress (overburden) being the highest stress. The horizontal stresses show a limited

amount of anisotropy, and this is further validated from the results of the four-arm caliper data

thus:

h H v σσσ ≥>

Equation 5.1 – I n-Situ Stress State in the Tartan F ield

5.1 VERTICAL STRESS

The vertical stress or overburden (σv) is determined through integration of the density logs, Inthe absence of this data (i.e. above the logged interval) a vertical stress gradient of 1.0 psi/ft

has been assumed. Density logs were provided for wells T3 and T6. Integrating the density

through these sections, and adding the overlying sea depth results in the gradient shown in

Figure 5.1

σv = 0.9799 x TVDSSR2 = 0.9962

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700

11800

11900

12000

12100

12200

12300

11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400TVDSS (feet)

O v e r b u r d e n ( p s i )

F igure 5.1 – Overburden Gradient


18/34

F ield Stresses

5




5.2 MINIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS

The minimum horizontal stresses (

σh) are derived from drilling and reservoir data – in particular

FIT, LOT and Extended Leak off test data. In the case of the Tartan field, no Extended Leak off

Tests were carried out. Table 5.1 below shows the data utilised for the determination of the

minimum horizontal stress gradient.

Well TypeTVDSS(feet)

EMW(ppg)

15/16-1 Test Formation 3673 13.5

15/16-2 Test Formation 5639 13


15/16-4a LOT 6216 12.415/16-5 Test Formation 7314 12


15/16-7 Seat Test 4697 13



15/16-AF(13) LOT 7888 13.5

15/16-AF(13) LOT 10674 13.5

15/16-AM (17) LOT 7213 15.5

15/16-AM (17) FIT 9298 16.5

15/16-AV (18) LOT 1974 10.1

15/16-AV (18) LOT 7594 15.715/16-AV (18) LOT 10864 13.3

15/16-AW (19) LOT 1994 9.1

15/16-AW (19) LOT 7169 14.9

15/16-AW (19) Limit 12159 17.3

15/16-AX (20) LOT 1998 9.5

15/16-AX (20) LOT 7601 13.1

15/16-AX (20) LOT 10518 15.2

15/16-T1P LOT 7565 11.5

15/16-T2 (TF) LOT 8199 13.5

Table 5.1 – Horizontal Stress Determinati on Parameters

Utilising the pore pressure gradient, derived from RFT data (0.4657psi/ft) the initial minimum

horizontal stress gradient was determined. The gradient takes into account the average sea

depth over the field area. The results are shown in Figure 5.2.


19/34

F ield Str esses

5




JAN 2005 19

LOT = 0.7493 x TVDSS

R2 = 0.9272

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

8 2008 4008 6008 8008 10008 12008 14008

TVDSS (feet)

L O T ( p s i )

F igure 5.2 –Leak-Of f Tests Gradient

Correlations between the overburden and the horizontal stress can be made based on

equations developed by Eaton and Whitehead. These were used to validate the LOT derived

minimum stress gradient. The equations used are shown below:

Rvh P +

⋅

−= σ

ν

νσ

1

Equation 5.2 – Eaton H ori zontal Stress Correlation

Comparing the LOT derived and Eaton derived horizontal stresses for the overlying Hot Sands,

the stress gradient are shown in Figure 5.3. LOT derived gradient = 0.63 psi/ft while the Eaton

derived gradient is 0.68 psi/ft. The use of FIT and Formation tests in the data set for the LOT

derived horizontal stress results in the lower values observed for this stress gradient. It is

recommended that the higher Eaton derived stress gradient be used for fracture analysis.


20/34

F ield Stresses

5




The Eaton equation utilised Poisons ratio from core tests which were considered more

representative than those derived from log data, where a synthetic shear wave was developed

from correlations.

11450

11500

11550

11600

11650

11700

11750

11800

11850

11900

11950

7000 7200 7400 7600 7800 8000Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi)

T V D S S ( f e e t )

LOT Derived

Eaton Derived

F igure 5.3 –LOT & Eaton M in H ori zontal Stress – Well T3

The impact of depletion through the Six Sands resulted in particularly low figures for the LOTderived horizontal stress, since σh = f (LOT, PR). Utilising the Eaton equation, and taking intoaccount the large variation in pore pressure and non linear elasticity of the formation, a gradient

of σh = 0.61 psi / ft was determined. The variation shown in the gradient on the following page isa result of changes in the Poisson’s’ ratio used from core testing. The step corresponds to each

of the 3 Six Sand sections.


21/34

F ield Str esses

5




JAN 2005 21

11850

11900

11950

12000

12050

12100

12150

122007000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700

Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi)

T V D S S

( f e e t )

T3 - Eaton

F igure 5.4 – T3 Horizontal Stresses in the Six Sands

Similar results were obtained for the T6 well, and the minimum horizontal stress gradient are

summarised in the table below:

Formationσv

(psi/ft)

σh

(psi/ft)Hot sand 0.680

D Sand 0.592

B/C Sand 0.610

A Sand 0.630

WZS

0.980

0.680

Table 5.2 – M inimum Hori zontal Stress Gradient

5.3 MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS MAGNITUDE As there is no extended leak-off test data it is difficult to determine the magnitude of any

anisotropy and therefore the maximum horizontal stress. The North Sea however is typically

under a normal stress regime, (i.e. σv > σH > σh). This can certainly be assumed based on thedepth of the formation, and indications of ovality in the core tests.

To calculate the maximum horizontal stress, an estimation of the breakout pressure was made

from drilling data of 500 psi above the leak-off pressure. The tensile strength used in the

determination of the maximum horizontal stress was based on 1/12 th of the log derived UCS.


22/34

F ield Stresses

5




The figures below show the minimum horizontal stress derived from leak-off data and the major

horizontal stress for well T3. From these curves, the magnitude of the major horizontal stress

was calculated to be 0.760psi/ft in the Hot Sands and 0.681 psi/ft in the Six Sands.

11450

11500

11550

11600

11650

11700

11750

11800

11850

11900

11950

8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000Minimum Horizontal Stress (ps i)

T V D

S S ( f e e t )

Figure 5.5 – T3 H orizontal Stresses in the Hot Sands

11850

11900

11950

12000

12050

12100

12150

12200

7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000

Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi)

T V D S S ( f e e t )

Figure 5.6 – T6 H orizontal Stresses in the Six Sands


23/34

F ield Str esses

5




JAN 2005 23

The fracture gradient was calculated using the Matthews and Kelly correlation and was found to

be ~0.764 psi/ft in the overlying Hot Sands, with values of 0.685 psi/ft in the underlying six

sands. These values are in line with those obtained from the major horizontal stress analysis.

5.4 MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS DIRECTION

The maximum horizontal stress azimuth was determined from analysis of four arm caliper logs.

Identification of ovality in the borehole provides an indication of the direction of the horizontal

stresses. The following graph shows the two caliper sizes and the azimuth of pad 1 for well T3.

In order to determine the direction of the breakout, firstly the breakout PAD was identified (i.e.

C1 or C2). If the breakout PAD is C1, then the orientation of the breakout is given by the C1

azimuth (H1AZ) otherwise the breakout direction is H1AZ + 90°. (In some cases this results invalues higher than 360º, in which case 180º is subtracted to obtain the azimuth.

Since small variation in the PAD size are not indicative of the ovality, variations in C1 and C2

were limited to enhance the resolution of the direction. A minimum variation of 0.5” was used.


24/34

F ield Stresses

5




12500

12750

13000

13250

13500

13750

14000

14250

14500

14750

15000

15250

15500

15750

16000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Caliper (in)

M D R K B ( f e e t )

12500

12750

13000

13250

13500

13750

14000

14250

14500

14750

15000

15250

15500

15750

16000

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Pad 1 Azimuth

Pad 1

Pad 2

Pad 1 Azimuth

F igur e 5.7 – T3 4-Arm Caliper

The orientation of the larger of the pad responses was determined, for instances where the

difference was greater that 0.5”. The results are shown in Figure 5.8 below. The curve shows

the direction of the ‘breakout’ and hence the direction of the minimum horizontal stress. Similar

results for wells T4a, T5 and T7 were observed.


25/34

F ield Str esses

5




JAN 2005 25

12500

12750

1300013250

13500

13750

14000

14250

14500

14750

15000

15250

15500

15750

16000

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Breakout Orientation (degrees)

M D R K B

( f e e t )

F igur e 5.8 – Well T3 Br eakout Or ientation

10900

11000

11100

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Breakout Orientation (degrees)

M D R K B

( f e e t )

F igur e 5.9 – Well T4a Breakout Or ientations


26/34

F ield Stresses

5




The results show that the orientation of the major horizontal stress lies from 10/350 to170/190

degrees or from N / NNE to S / SSW, i.e. at 90º to the orientation of the breakouts.


27/34


28/34

Core Testing

6




In addition to UCS, Poisson’s ratio and Young’s Modulus were also calculated. Values for these

are given in the Table below.

UCS(psi) ν

E(psi)Formation


Hot Sand 3473 39135 11566 0.139 0.297 0.177 3.9 x 106 11.0 x 106 6.3 x 106

D Sand 7839 15819 11279 0.103 0.155 0.119 6.0 x 106 8.8x 106 7.4 x 106

B/C Sand 7086 18076 9868 0.100 0.146 0.126 5.8 x 106 6.1 x 106 6.8 x 106

A Sand 6794 26793 10926 0.117 0.179 0.138 5.6 x 106 11.1 x 106 6.9 x 106

WZS 11384 21472 15821 0.164 0.215 0.187 6.6 x 106 9.3 x 106 7.5 x 106

Table 6.1 – UCS, Poisson’ s Ratio and Young’ s Modulus


29/34

Section 7

CORE TESTING 7




JAN 2005 29

7. CORE TESTING

Core testing was carried out on a selection of points from wells T3 and T6. Confineed Elastic

Properties Testing was carried out in order to determine the Young’s Modulus and Poisson’sratio for the Hot Sands and Six Sands. Selections were based on information from composite

logs and from inspection of the core. The table below identifies the picks.

WellCorePick

Core Box Sand Test

15071.0 6 66 CEP

- - - CEP

15091.5 7 72

Hot Sand

CEP

15094.5 7 73 DLO

15125.5 8 80 CEP

15147.2 8 86 CEP- - -

DCEP

15191 9 98 CEP

15220 9 106 CEP

15264 10 118 DLO

15301 12 127 NO TEST

15321 12 133 DLO

- - - CEP

15355 13 142

B/C

CEP

- - - CEP

15365 13 145 CEP

15381 13 149 NO TEST

T3

15448 15 168

A

CEP- - - CEP

15283 3 12 CEP

- - - CEP

15364 4 32 CEP

- - -

B/C

CEP

- - - CEP

T6

15422 5 46 A

CEP

Table 7.1 – Tar tan Core Test Points – Well T3 and T6

The results of the confined elastic properties are given in table 7.2 below. The final report isincluded in Appendix A.


30/34

Core Testing

7




WellCorePick

Core Box Sand Test E ν

15071.0 6 66 CEP 4.94 0.238

15091.5 7 72

HotSands CEP 5.62 0.223

15125.5 8 80 CEP 6.90 0.233

15147.2 8 86D

CEP 7.54 0.232

15191 9 98 CEP 6.13 0.235

15220 9 106 CEP 5.64 0.238

15355 13 142 CEP 6.42 0.252

15365 13 145 CEP 5.42 0.249

T3

15448 15 168

B/C

CEP 5.40 0.259

15283 3 12 CEP 9.27 0.207

15364 4 32B/C

CEP 6.87 0.258T6

15422 5 46 A CEP 6.75 0.207

Table 7.2 – CEP Core Testing Resul ts

The results shown in the table above were based on the following parameters for testing:

n Estimated Frac Gradient 0.75 psi/ft

n Estimated Pore Pressure 1500 psi

In addition to the Confined Elastic Properties, Dynamic Leak-off Tests (DLO) were carried out.

These provided the leak-off coefficient (C3) and the spurt loss. Table 7.3 below outlines the

results.

WellCorePick

Core Box Sand TestPermeabilty

(mD)C3

(fi/min^0.5)Spurt Loss

(gals/100ft^2)

15094.5 7 73 D DLO 406 0.00308 29.4

15264 10 118 B/C DLO 41.7 0.00620 6.67T6

15321 12 133 B/C DLO 0.194 0.00224 0.064

Table 7.3 – DLO Core Testing Resul ts


31/34

Section 8

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 8




JAN 2005 31

8. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The following table summarises the results of the analysis.

Formationσv

(psi/ft)σh

(psi/ft)σH

(psi/ft)σH Az.

(degrees)

Hot sand 0.680 0.760

D Sand

B/C Sand

A Sand

0.61 0.681

WZS

0.980

0.680 0.760

350 – 10(170 – 190)

Table 8.1 – F ield Stress Summar y

UCS(psi)

Poisson’s Ratio Young’s Modulus

(spi)Formation


Hot Sand 3473 39135 11566 0.139 0.297 0.177 3.9 x 106 11.0 x 10

6 6.3 x 10

6

D Sand 7839 15819 11279 0.103 0.155 0.119 6.0 x 106 8.8x 10

6 7.4 x 10

6

B/C Sand 7086 18076 9868 0.100 0.146 0.126 5.8 x 106 6.1 x 10

6 6.8 x 10

6

A Sand 6794 26793 10926 0.117 0.179 0.138 5.6 x 106 11.1 x 10

6 6.9 x 10

6

WZS 11384 21472 15821 0.164 0.215 0.187 6.6 x 106 9.3 x 10

6 7.5 x 10

6

Table 8.2 – UCS, Poisson’ s Ratio and Young’ s Modulus – Log Deri ved

FormationPoisson’s

Ratio

Young’sModulus

(Mpsi)

Hot Sand 0.230 5.28

D Sand 0.232 7.22

B/C Sand 0.238 6.86

A Sand 0.238 5.86

Table 8.3 –Poisson’ s Ratio and Young’ s Modulus – Core Testing


32/34

Summary of Resul ts

8





33/34

Appendix A

CORE TEST REPORT A




JAN 2005 33

Core Test Report


34/34

Core Test Report

A

T11 Tartan Fracture Field Stress Analysis REV A.pdf

Documents

Transcript of T11 Tartan Fracture Field Stress Analysis REV A.pdf