SPE/lSRM 47272

An Investigation of Leak-off Test Data for Estimating [n-situ Stress Magnitudes:

Application to a Basinwide Study in the North Sea
S.T. Edwards. P.G. Meredith. S,A. F. Murrell, Rock and I@ Physics Laboratory,
. Department of Geological Sciences,
University College London, Now at Schlumberger 1PM.

CO* !~, S*ky of P*bohum Engin0*r5. Inc equated directly with ~h. From a consideration of the
Thb p~r - ~rkd far prc-ti!ion at SPEfiSRM Eurock W held in Trondheim physical background to the LOP within the theoretical
NoIw8y, S-TO ~Ufyl=
fimework established to analyze HFSM data 34S8,
it is
~ pWr ~8 *h*d for prcsntatkan by an SPE Progmm Commiite folfowl~ review clear that individual LOPS can have a value anywhere
of infonnaVwncvmtriwd h sn bsmcf wMRfed by lhe aumor($) Contents of me mwr, as
~Md, havo nti bmfi rowti by fhe Soq of Psbobum Engineers 8nd are Wqed between oh and the formation breakdo,~n pressure (pb)
to rntibn by fhe author(s) % mt6ft81 *# F?wmad does not .emniy re~d any which can be significantly ~eater than oh .
- of me SO.bfyof Petr.bum gnglnefs ifa Ommm or mambem Papers prec.anted
c! SPE meefinw m Wbpti to ~bi~on -by Editorial Commlm?esof the SOCWVof
Palrokum Engineers Ebtfronlc fmpmduti!on titibutlon or storage of any pati of thrs We have analysed datasets consisting of LOT
~~r for cdmmetil p~ wtfhouf tha wfitbn mn8.nf of Ihe Society of Petroleum
Sngheera b PIutiWed FetmInbn la rewuce b Print m ~ed to n *bstract of WI pressure/volume records and HFSM records from boreholes
mom than 3Q0 WONJS,Inutir*llOn% may not be copied The abtir.cf must conlal
rnnSPkUOIIS tiowhdgment of tiere and by whom the paper -S presented Wte
in which both tests have been performed, From examination
&rIan. sPE, P O %x 633SSS R@hard80n, ~ 7S0S3-3636 U S A fix 01 .972.9S2. of the shapes of the LOT records, two classes of
943s
pressure/volume behavior have been identified. By analogy
Abstract with HFSM studies, the two classes correspond to ( 1)
The Ieak-offtest (LOT) procedure has been examined within formation breakdown where a fracture is initiated in
the theoretical fimework pertaining to hydraulic fracturing previously intact rock, and (2) re-opening of a pre-existing
s&ess measurements (HFSMS). LOT records have then been fracture. It is seen that class I LOPS are signiticandy higher
compared with the results of HFSMS where both than 01,, and that class 2 LOPS are close to ~b. ln some of
measurements have been made in the same boreholes. From these LOTS, two pressurization cycles were performed, and
this comparison, we make recommendations on the use of the second LOP was invariably a better estimate of 6h than
LOT data, and suggest a new method of estimating the the first LOP. It is concluded that class 2 LOPS are good
minimum horizontal stress magnitude (oh) from LOT estimates of oh and that even better results can be obtained
pressure/voIume plots. m-situ stress magnitudes ha~e been by performing two pressurization cycles, Clearly, in order to
investigated by applying these methods to data from over determine if an individual LOP can be used as an estimate of
1000 LOTS in North Sea boreholes. The results of this oh. the full LOT pressure/time or pressure/vohune record
investigation imply that tectonic stress increases must be carefully examined. Where full LOT records are not
significantly with depth in some parts of the North Sea. available a lower bound to the majority of LOPS from a
which is consistent with the mapped distribution of bore hole large (50 or more LOPS) dataset can be used to define the
breakouts trend of ah with depth 1.

Introduction Almost 200 fill LOT pressure/volume records have been

Quantitative estimations of the complete stress tensor are
very usefuI for a number of geomechanical applications
within the petroleum industry. Stress orientations from
borehole breakouts have been widely studied in sedimentary
basins (discussed below). However. the knowledge of stress
magnitude variation in these rocks has lagged behind. Only
rarely (e.g. prior to reservoir fracturing stimulation) are
stiss magnitude measurements actualIy made. Although the
LOT is not perfiirmed for the purpose of measuring in-situ
stress, it has long been recognized that usefil information
relating to stress magnitudes is contained within LOT
records 2, The large number and widespread distribution of
LOTS in the North Sea constitutes a datset which is more
suitable for a basinwide study of ~h, than the much smaller
HFSM dataset.
Ref. 1 presents empirical evidence which shows that Ieak-
off pressures (LOPS) can be close to, but are on average
around 11% higher than cr~.However the LOP is commonly
357
examined from the North Sea, and the class 2 tests have
been extracted. The mend of oh with depth in the North Sea
estimated from these LOPS has been compared to the trend
defined by the lower bound to a much larger dataset of
single LOPS (where pressure/volume plots were not
available) and a good match between the two trends is seen.
Using both the new method of picking class 2 LOPS and the
previously existing method of fitting a lower bound to large
LOP datasets, we have examined the variation of stress
ma~tudes in the North Sea.
The Physical Background to the LOP.
During a LOT, an open section of borehole ( typically
between 15 and 60 R) is pressurized. This section is between
the base of the casing and the bottom of the hole, and is
therefore effectively an isolated section such that the
process is very similar to the breakdown or re-opening
pressurization cycle of a HFSM. In both the LOT and the
2 S.T. Edwads, PG. Meredith,S.A.F. Murrall
HFSM, the pressure is recorded against either time or
volume pumped (where pumping is at a constant rate). An
outline of the HFSM breakdown and fracture re-opening
proccssm is given beIow. The pressures recorded during a
LOT are then considered (in terns of in-situ stresses) within
this *ework.
HFSM Breakdown During a HFSM, an intact section of
borehole [i.e. one in which no pre-existing fractures exist) is
generally chosen. Pb bm such a test is usua]iy cIearIy seen
as a distinct peak aRer an essentially linear pressure build
up, followed by a rapid pressure drop (Fig. I). Pb is
generally interpreted as the pressure at which a fracture
initiates at the borehole wall and propagates rapidly. The
fact that Pb is higher than the propagation pressure (p,) ~d
closure pressure (Pi) is due at least in part to the stress
concentration ~ the wellbore wall (the hoop stress ), and to
the fact that the intact rock has finite tensile strength (or
mistance to picturing).
Tire value of pb depends on the nature of the borehole wall
and the borehoIe/fluid interface. Therefore various
breakdown equations have been derived according to the
assumptions about the boundary conditions which apply.
At this stage we make some assumptions which we will
apply to all firther considerations of the processes during
HFSM and LOTS considered here. Mre assume that the rocks
m which these tests are pefiormed behave as isotropic, linear
elastic materials, that the borehole walls are smooth and
initially circuIar, and that the boreholes themselves are
vertical and driIled into rock in which one principal stress is
vertical, aud the minimum principal stress is horizontal.
Compressive stresses will be taken as positive
The classical breakdown equation is generally attributed to
Refl 3 and is the breakdown equation which applies to the
case where the borehoie wall is intact, and non permeable.
In this case pb is assumed to be the pressure at which the
effective circumferential stress at the borehole wal~ (the
hoop stress minus the weilbore pressure) becomes less than
the tensile strength of the rock, and is given by:
pb=30h.0.1.p+T ............................................................(l)
Where ~H = maximum horizontal stress, p = pore fluid
~. ~d T = tensile strength,
Another breakdown equation has been derived in ref 4 for
the case in which the borehole wall is again intact, but where
m extra stress compottmt is introduced by the effect of the
weIIbore walI being permeable so that fluid flows radially
into the rock. Again, Pb is assumed to be the pressure at
which the circumferential stress at the borehoie wall
becomes less than the tensile strength of the rock, and is
given by:
pb = [30h-O\{+T - CtP(l-2VY(i-V)] 1 [2- ~(1-2V)/( 1-V)].....(2)
Where ~ = Biots poroelastic parameter, and v = Poissons
ratio
A third breakdown equation is derived in Ref. 8 in which the
boundary conditions allow for the presence of a pre-existing
472R
crack in the borehole wall in an orientation perpendicular to
ah. Here, a fracture mechanics analysis has been used to
derive Pb, which is now defined as the pressure at which the
stress intensity at the crack tip overcomes the mode 1
ticture toughness of the rock.
pb= I/~b) [KIc + Oflb)+Obg(b)] .................................(3)
Where h, j and g are Rummels stress intensity factors. KIC
= mode 1 fracture toughness and b (normalized crack
length) = 1 + l/A where 1= crack length, a = borehole radius.
For a crack of zero length, equation 3 reduces to an
expression comparable to equation 1. However, for a crack
of length roughly equal to the diameter of the wellbore, and
assuming that this crack is permeable to the pressurizing
fluid prior to fracture opening (i.e. the crack is mechanically
closed but hydraulically open) the Pb is very close to oh.
HFSM Fracture Re-opening. During a HFSM, following
the sequence of breakdown, fracture propagation, and
fracture closure, a second pressurization cycle (the re-frac)
is performed. The re-opening pressure (P,) is generally
defined as the pressure at which the pressure/time curve
deviates from linearity (Fig 1.)
The pressure at which the fracture re-opens (relative to the
in-situ stresses) depends on how much pressure is
transmitted from the borehole to the walls of the fracture.
This is governed by several factors, namely; the
permeability of the ficture, the rate of pressurization and
the viscosity of the fluid. Assuming that for a given
fracturing job, other parameters remain constant, two end-
member re-opening pressures can be measured. the fast re-
fiac pressure and the slow re-frac pressure. The fist re-frac
pressure has been assumed to be equal to the Pb - T. The
slow re-tic pressure on the other hand is generally taken 6
as being a good estimate of ~h, and th$ has been shown
experimentally to be a vaIid assumption . During the slow
re-tic, the pressunsing fluid has time to penetrate the crock
along at least some of its length such that the wellbore
~sure opens the ficture against the stresses acting across
its walls (~b) and is much less influenced by the hoop stress.
LOP in the Framework of HFSM Theo~. During a LOT,
the section of borehole wall that is pressurized may or may
not contain pre-existing fractures. The LOP is defined as the
point at which the pressure/time plot (or pressure volume -
where the pressurization rate is constant) deviates from
linearity (Figs. 2a and 2b). As end member cases, the LOP
can therefore correspond to either pb in the case where the
wellbore wall is intact (i.e. crack length is zero), or to P,
where pre-existing permeable cracks exist. Thus, in practice,
the LOP can have a vsthse anywhere between pb and ~b.
As the LOT generalIy pressm-zes a large section of open
hole which has not been specifically selected to be intact, it
is likely that pre-existing fractures will often ew-st. The
pumping rate during a LOT is typically around 0.25-0.5
barreltirninute which, (taking into account the huge volumes
of open hole during a LOT) corresponds to a slow
pressurization rate in HFSM terms. It seems likely then that
358 in many cases a LOT may correspond to a breakdown with a
SPE 47272 A n Investigaf@nor Leak-offTest Data for EstimatingIn-situStress Magnitudes:Applicationto a BasirrwideStudy in
pre-existing hcture (equation 3 where 1> 2a) or a slow re-
fiac, end thus the LOP will often be close to oh.
A Comparison of LOPS ~ u~ fmm HFSMS.
Original unpublished records have been obtained for 21
leak-off tests from 9 boreholes (of depths up to 1800m
within an area of approximately. 5 km x 5 km) from the
Nirex test site at SeIIafieId. In 5 of these boreholes between
3 and 7 (a total of 28) HFSMS have also been performed 9
epmfically to measure stress magnitudes over a range of
depths (primmly o, has been determined from estimates of
both Pc through pressure decline analysis, and from P, from
step-rate tests). Thus, 21 LOT records exist within a body of
rock in which the magnitude of oh is very well known.
(A &her, aIthough less complete dataset &om 27 boreholes
in the Ravenspum fieIds of the southern North Sea
comprises 27 HFSM (mini-fiat) records and over 50 LOP
has also been examined but are not discussed in detail
here).
Because the LOTS were not performed at the same depths as
the HFSMS, we have perfomted a regression analysis with
depth on the HFSM derived oh values to establish the trend
of oh with depth in this area. A 3D regression analysis was
initiaIIy performed to determine both the lateral variation of
~k and its vmation with Iithology. However, since these
vmations were seen to be very small compared to the
inherent variability in the measurements, a simple 1D depth
regression is considered sufficient,
The pressurelvohsme plots from the 2 I leak-off tests have
been caretily examined. The shapes of the LOT records fall
into two classes, ( 1 and 2), Class i LOT records show a
linear pressure build up. a peak and then a rapid pressure
drop (resembling a Hydro-fiat breakdown pressure/time
curve). Class 2 LOT records show a linear pressure build up
and then a gradual decrease in gradient as the curve rolls
over. foIlowed sometimes by a plateau of almost constant
pressure (resembling a hydro-fiat re-opening pressure/time
curve). There were 2 tests in which there is no deviation
from linearity, and thus it is assumed that the LOP has not
been reached. These two tests can be described as limit tests
(LTs). Figs. 2a and 2b show schematic representations of
these classes of LOT record.
The 21 values of the LOPS from the two classes of LOT and
the LTs are plotted together with the best fit linear
regression ofah measurements (from the 28 HFSMS) in Fig.
3. [t is clear that the class 2 LOPS are much closer to the
values of oh from the HFSMS than class 1 LOPS. As
-ted. class 1 LOPS are generally higher, since they
mchsde an element of formation breakdown.
Two-CycIe LOTS. Some of the Nirex LOTS are two-cycle
LOTS. A two-cycle LOT is the similar to a standard LOT
except that a second pressurization cycle is performed
immediately afier the pressure has been bled back to
hydrostatic from the first cycle. In all the two-cycle LOT
records obtained from Nirex, the second LOP is a class 2
LOP. In all cases (including the cases where both the first
and second LOP are class 2 LOPS) the second LOP lies
closer to the HFSM remssion line than the first LOP. Fig. 4
represents a typical (;dealized) two-cycle LOT record: in
the NorthSea 3
which both LOPS are class 2 LOPS, but the second LOP is
lower than the first.
Whew a first LOT yields a class 2 LOP, it is probable that,
although fluid has penetrated a pre-existing crack, there is
still some influence on the LOP from the tensile strength of
the rock, snd the hoop stress. This influence is likely to
decrease with progressive crack opening cycles.
Suggested Empirical Relationship. We have examined the
empirical relationship between Nirex class 2 LOPS and oh
values together with vaiues of tensile strength which have
been measured on core and estimated horn fmt re-fic tests.
Although such a relationship might be better examined in
terms of fracture toughness and crack lengths, such that the
hoop stress effect could be included, we have derived an
empiricaI relationship based on the data that was available.
The nirex data can be described by the following empirical
equation:
LOPch.z = o, + ~T ...........................................................(4)
Where ~ is a coefficient of between O and 1 which will
depend on a variety of factors related to fluid/crack
interaction,
The HFSM and LOP dataset from the southern North Sea
can also be described by equation (4) if typical values of
rock tensile strengths are taken. More data is required to
test and refine equation (4). As rock tensile strengths are
generaity Iow {typical values for sandstones and shaIes are
300-600 psi ) it is clear that the effect of tensile strength
will be of relatively little importance at greater depth.
Recommendations for using LOT Datato Estimate
oh,
In view of the analysis presented above, recommendations
for the use of LOT data for estimating oh are summarised
here.
(I) Where two-cycle LOTS have been performed. use the
second LOP as the estimate of oh. In fact two-cycle LOTS
are rareIy performed 2. (Extended LOTS are occasionally
performed. and these also provide better estimates ofs?h than
standard LOTS).
(2) Where full standard (one-cycle) LOT records are
available pick the LOPS from tests which show a linear
pressure build up foIIowed by a class 2 LOP. Some small
correction can sometimes aJso be made to account for the
rock stren~h using eq, 4.
(3) Where fill LOT records are not available, it is likely that
the lower bound to a Iarge number of singIe LOPS (i.e. those
where only a single pressure value is given as opposed to a
record of pressure/volume) will form a reliable estimate of
the trend of oh with depth. Care should be taken not to
include pressures from LTs.
Stress Magnitudes in the North Sea.
Over 180 LOT pressure/volume plots have been obtained
(from Amerada Hess Ltd. and BP) for the North Sea. A
further 980 single LOPS (i.e. without pressure/volume plots)
359 have been sele;ted from a database of over 2500 North
 4 S.T. Edwards, P.G, Meredith,S.A.F. Murrell
Sea LOTS. Of the 2500, LT and ambiguous values were
removed. These datasets have been divided into subsets
consisting of data from the northern (Viking Graben and
East Shetland Basin). central (Moray Firth. South Halibut
Basin. Mitch Ground and Central Graben) and southern
(Southern North Sea Basin) North Sea
The datasets comprise:
Central North Sea: 100 pressure/volume plots, plus 53o
single LOPS
Not-them nonh Sea: 48 pressure/volume plots, plus 300
aingIe LOPS
Southern North Sea: 32 pressure/volume plots, plus 150
single LOPS -
The LOT pressure/volume plots and single LOPS have been
analysed to estimate oh according to recommendations 2 and
3 (given above) respectively. The data from the central
North Sea is presented as an example as this is where most
of the pressure/volume plots are from.
Of the 100 pressure/volume plots obtained for the central
North Sea 38 were selected in which a class 2 LOP could be
confidently identified. Of the remaining pressure volume
plots from this subset. approximately 15 clearly showed
class 1 LOPS, whi Ist many of the others were probably class
2 but were slightly ambiguous, or showed no leak-off.
Equation 4 has not been applied to the data presented here.
A best fit through the 38 class 2 LOPS (as opposed to a
lower bound) has been added. This data is presented in Fig.
5.
Fig. 5 also shows the single LOPS selected tiom the Central
North Sea data with a lower bound fitted to 98?0 of the data.
The LOPS which fall below this lower bound probably
represent tests in which an apparently low LOP was
obtained either through fluid loss to a poor cement seal or to
a highly permeab[e formation and are therefore thought to
be spurious.
Second order polynomials have been used here to describe
both the lower bound to the single LOP data and the best tit
to the class 2 LOPS, although other functions (e.g. a power
law relationship) are also capable of reasonably describing
these trends.
~ ba~e shown that there is a clear
Previous studies r
correlahon between ah and pore pressure, with higher values
of crh in over pressured formations. In order to avoid
ambiguities, data tiom over pressured formations have been
removed from both datasets presented in Fig. 5.
It can be seen &om Fig. 5 that these two methods (2 and 3)
of estimating the trend of stress with depth yield results
which are in good agreement. If values of tensile strength
for these rocks were known (or reasonable estimates were
taken). the application of equation 4 to the class 2 LOPS
wotid further improve this match.
It should be noted that, in order to most clearly illustrate the
way in which the lower bound can be deiined in a dataset, ,
the LOPS dispIayed in Fig. 5 are horn a variety of Iithologies
(mainly shales and some san~~ones). As oh is often seen to
vary according to Iithology , it would be expected, and 360
47272
has been shown0 that an even better agreement between the
two methods would be obtained if data tiom only a single
Iithology were used,
The Trend of ah with Depth in the North Sea, a
Discussion. Trends of o,, with depth are best investigated by
examining the gradients of ah with depth. The gradient of oh
can be expressed either as a tangent gradient (the first
derivative of the lines of best. fit in Fig, 5) or (as is more
common e.g. the fracture gradient) as a secant gradient,
which is simply the value of any LOP or ~b magnitude
divided by depth. Gradients discussed here are secant
gradients.
It is clear from Figure 5 that the gradient of ah in the central
North Sea increases with depth. Horizontal stress in
relaxed sedimentary basins is generated by the weight of
overburden or rather the vertical stress (c,). The North Sea
is general Iy thought to be a relaxed sedimenta~ basin and it
would therefore be expected that the trends in ma~itude of
oh with depth could be explained by trends in the magnihlde
of c, with depth.
Vertical Stress, Magnitudes of a, have been calculated
down to the depths of all the LOPS for which
pressure/volume plots are available. The calculations have
been performed using a combination of density and sonic
logs which were obtained for a total of 80 wells born the
northern. central and southern North Sea
In the northern and central North Sea. the gradient of a, is
clearly seen to increase from average values of around 0.95
psi/ft at depths of around 3.000 ft, to values of around 1.05
psi/ii at depths of :iround 12,000 ft. In the southern North
Sea, the gradient of cr, is also seen to increase. but, the
amount of increase is less. with typical values being close to
1 psi/fi. The increase in IS, with depth is easily explained by
compaction. The large thicknesses of Cenozoic sediments in
the central and northern North Sea compact rapidly with
depth yielding significant increases of o, gradient with
depth. whereas in the southern North Sea. most of the rocks
at shallow depths are of Mesozoic age. and have generally
been buried. compacted and brought back to the surface
through basin inversion processes.
ah /a, Ratios. The increase of o, gradient with depth goes
some way to explaining the increase in 6h gradient with
depth, However, in order to investigate if the trend of oh
with depth can be entirely explained by the effects of
compaction. the ratios of crh/m,have been investigated. ~h/~\
ratios have been derived by combining the results of
analysis using methods 2 and 3 (above) with log derived
vertical stress calculations.
Fig. 6 shows the best fit trends to the ratios of otirs, for the
northern. central and southern North Sea. The increase in the
value of ~h/~, with depth in the northern and centraI North
Sea could be explained by either (1) Changing rock
properties with depth such that the vertical stress generates
more horizontal stress, or (2) The presence of a component
of stress additional to that generated by the o,, such as a
tectonic component of stress.
Explanation ( I ) requires that some rock prOpeW mUst
SPE 47272 A n Investigation of Leak-off Test Data for EstimatingIn-situStress Magnitude: Applicationto a Basinwide Study in the Noflh Sea 5

change with depth. The ;~~k property in question depends T = Tensile Strength
on what stress model is assumed to describe the a = Biots Poroelastic parameter
relationship between u, and oh, i.e. an elastic model (e.g. the v = Poissons Ratio
uniaxia3 strain model) or a failure model (e.g. the Mohr- h. f g = Rummels Stress Intensity Factors
Codomb normal faulting filure model), The elastic model b = Normalised Crack Length ( 1 + / /a)
wotdd require Poissons ratio to increase with depth, and the / = Crack Length
ftilure model wodd require the friction angle to decrease a = borehole diameter
with depth to explain the observed ratios. These changes are ~ = Empirical coefficient (0<~<1 ) of Tensile Strength
broadly equivalent to the rock becoming less stiff or
weaker with depth, which seems intuitively unlikely, Acknowledgments
We thank Atnerada Hess, BP. Petroleum Information Erico,
Explanation (2) seems intuitively obvious, Deeper in the and Nirex for providing the data used in this study, We also
crust of the northern and central North Sea. the rock is more thank the following individuals who provided valuable
closely coupled to the underlying lithosphere in which advice and discussion. Graham Dean, Mike McIean, Stuart
tectonic stresses are transmitted. The shalIow rocks of the Thomas, Pip Squire, Hans de Pater, Keith Katahara, Tony
southern North Sea, having been generally buried and Batchelor.
inv~ed, and are thus more strongly coupled to underlying
crust. ~is explanation is consistent with the pattern of References
borehole breakouts mapped throughout the North Sea lX9. t Breckds, I.M & van Eekelen, H.AM Relationship between
In the southern North Sea and in the deeper rocks of the horizontal stress and depth in sedimentary basins. SPEPaper
northern and centra[ North Sea. breakouts show a uniform 10336 Presented at t he 56[h Annual Fall Te~nicaI
orientation which is consistent with the pattern of tectonic Conference a nd hhibition of the Soaety of Ps!roleum
Enginrers. San ,4rtonio, Tmas 5-7 October, 1981
stress mapped throughout most of NV Europe and is clearly
2 Bell, J S Invesrigatirrg stress regirms in sedimentary basins
seen to be dir~~tly related to the present day plate tectonic using informaticar f rom oil industry wireline logs and
configuration Whereas in the shallow rocks of the drilling records. In. HURST, A. LOW M.A & MORTON.
northern and central North Sea. the breakout direction is AC. ( eds.) (ieolog~al &plwaIIotIs o j Wirelitte Logs I
~y~ influenced by local slruct ural feat ures and other factors Geolo~cai Socidy, London, Special Publicatirsr, 199048,
305.
3. Hubbert, M & Willis. D.G. Mechanics of h ydraulic
Conclusions fracturi rig. Traitswtiot)s a f the SocIery of Pciroltrtm
1. We have presented a method of estimating o,, from filgitlwrs o~fl~j I957210, 153
4 Haimson B C & Fairhurst C. Initiation and extension of
individual LOT records, where the LOT pressure~volurne
hydraulic fractures in rocks. Sfw/e/y ofpe/ro/e/mr etjgftjeer.s
plot indicates fracture re-opening (class 2 ) behavior,
,I[>ttr)tal, Sept 1967, 310
Estimates of ah using this method are more accurate than 5. Zoback, M.D. & Haimson, B.C. Status of tbe hydraulic
simply equating a single LOP (i,e a single \alue where no fracturing method for in-situ stress measurements
presstsrefwlurne record is a~ailable) with Isl,. Pr(xeedlttgs of the 23rd [IS Sympoxltfrn ott Rack Me~hat)!cs,
2. Two-cycle LOTS are rarely performed but for a small 1982. 143.
amount of additional time and effort they can yieId 6. Econotides, M. J,& Noltq K.G 1989 Rese!~arr S/iml~/affo)/
significantly better estimates ofo,, than standard LOTS, Schlufierger Educational %rvices, Wuston, T=as
3. If LOT pressure/voIume plots are not available. the lower 7. Ito, T. & Hayashi. K Relationship hewn r e-opening
bound to a large dataset of single LOPS defines the trend of pressure and tedonic stresses for hydraulic fracturing
tectonic s tress measurements Tratlsmtio)ls qf Japat)ese
oh with depth.
Sociey q~h{echmticol fitgmeers. 199158,72
4. 180 LOT pressure/voIume plots. 950 single LOPS and
8. Rummel. F. Fracture mechanics approach to hydraulic
vertical stress profiles from 80 wells throughout the North fracturing stress measurements. In. Atkinson. B.K. (Ed.).
Sea ha~e been analysed. The ratio of al,la, increases !.ract!trt mechatilcs o~ rock. Academic Press London. 1987
significantly with depth in the central and northern North 217.
Sea rmd otdy slightly in the southern North Sea. This can be 9. Nlrex Report The geology and hydrogeolcgy of the
explained by a component of tectonic stress which increases Sellafield area. Nlrexreport tIo, 524. 1993,4
with depth in the centraI and northern North Sea, but is 10 Edwards. ST. 1997. A study of[n-dtu Stress Magnitudes in
significant at aIl depths within the southern North Sea. This the Ncrrh Sea fmm Borehole Measurements. [ir)pl/b/ished
explanation is consistent with the distribution of borehole Ph.D. The.sI.s,University ofLondon 1997.
breakout orientations mapped throughout the North Sea. 11 Lama, RD.. & Vutukuri. VS Hattdb(nk 011 mechatlical
properties [) f rwk.s. 2 T rans Tech Publications, 1 978
Germany.
12. Batchelor, AS. (GeoScienm, UK) Penonal Connnunication
Nomenclature 1998.
LOT = Leak-offtest 13. Kunze, K.R., & Stiger, R.P. Extended leak-off tests to
LOP = Leak-off pressure measure in-situ stress during drilling, Praceedmgs of the 32tsd
HFSM = Hydrtiic Fracturing Stress Measurement (JS Rock Mechattics Sympost(tm, Rock Mechatlics as a
~h = Minimum Horizontal Stress Magnitude mldldlsctphtflav sctetlce, 199 I, 33.
UH= Maximum Horizontal Stress Magnitude 14. Enco. The North Sea Pressure Atlas Press?{re Sit(dies 1,2
O,= VerticaI Stress Magnitude and5. 1993-1995 Petroleum Information (Enco) Ltd. Uk
15 Plumb, R A Variation oft he least horizontal sfsess
pb = Bre&down pressure
magnitude in sedimentety recks. Procetii)?gs of dse firsr
P,= Re-opening Pressure 361 North Americntt fick Mechatrics Sy~ossttm, Austin.
p = pore ~ssure
 s

6 S.T. Edwa~s, P.G. Meredith, S.A.F. Mumll 47272

Balk- Rotterdam. 1994,71-78. --

16 Katahara. K.W, Estimationof in-ditu stress protiles from well
logs-. Trsm.su~9tiots~t~ the S[wlery [f lrt~es,vi[)t)ul Well I.og
AtnrIy.Yt.Y ~hir~v Se~,eilth Atmal l.~I~Ing Sympt).vlttm. ,ve w
OFletItI.s.I.UII.VIWU.June 1&19 1996.
I% ~tmcelin, NI.J., & Plumb, R.A A core based prediction of
Iithologic stress contrasts in East Texas Formations. .$l/j
Poprr 2[847 1991.
18. Co~i U. S.M., .Meredith, PG. Murrdl, S AF & Breretm, N.R.
fie orientation ofcrust~ stresses in the No~h Sea mdtheir
GeoIo~cal origin. In. Proc~,tiit)g.s [)] !hti Wc)rk.~h<p tItI rock
.%iresx.s itl {htiiVor/h Sra, Tron dhei m, 1995.202.
19 cowi I1. S.M.. Meredith. PG., Murrdl. S.AF. & Breretms, N.R.
1993 Crustd streses in the North Sea from breakouts and
other borehole data Itltrrtxlt:t)t)ul J ,ntrtla[ c)J Ibck
Akchutnc.s. &lItIttu* .Y~,leftce.sattd (kc]mchutf)cctl A.stract.v,
30.1993.1111
~. ZobacL %!.L. et al. Global Mtems of Teaonic Str6s, ,Vu/IIrti,
341, 1989.291.

Pb

Time
Fig. 1 Schematic pressure/time record from a HFSM showing breakdown pressure (Po),
propagation pressure (PP), closure pressure (Pc) and re-opening pressure (P,).

Volume Volume
(a) b)
Fig. 2 Schematic LOT records illustrating two commonly obsetved classes of pressure
voIume behavior (a) Class 1 LOP and (b) Class 2 LOP.
SPE 47272 A n Investigationof Leak-offTestDataforEstimating
In-situSVessMagnitudes: Applicationto a Basimde Study in the North Sea 7

5000 !
I
4500 I
I I 1
4000 .
Class 1 LOP
I 1 (
3500

g 3000
~ 2500 .- .. .x Class 2 LOP . .. . .

q 2000 -

1500
A LT
1000

500 .- . . . .-

0 Linear (Sh
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 HFSM)

Depth (TVD) / ft
Fig. 3 CIass 1 and class 2 LOPS extracted from Nirex LOT pressure/volume records are
compared in this plot with a linear regression through oh values from 27 Nirex HFSfvlS in
the same boreholes.

1 1st LOP 2nd LOP

\
I .......... ..lj . . . . . . . . . . ..f . . ... ... . . .. . .. . ..l

d
. \

1/
\

x \
I
\
\
1
I
u 1

Volume
Fig. 4 Schematic pressure/volume record from a two-cycteLOT
 ?.
8 S.T. Edwsrds, PG. Merecfith, S.A.F. Murrell 47272
.-
. .

16000

14000

12000
.-
a 10000

4000

2000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Depth (TVDSS) / ft

,
0 Single LOP I
x Class 2 LOP 1
------- Poly. (Lower Bound to Single LOPS) I
$
Poly. (Class 2 LOP) 1

Fig. 5 LOP data from the central NorthSea. A lower bound to single LOPS, and a best fit
to class Mo LOPS.

384
SPE 47272 A n Investigationof Leak-offTest Data for Estimating In-situ Stress Magnitudes: Application to a Basirswide Study in the North Sea 9

-. - -

1
Linear (Northern
North Sea)
0.9
------ .--=

0.8
Linear ( Central
> North Sea)
0.7 .._ .. .
s
m
0.6 .
. ... -. ..- .
---- Linear (Southern
North Sea)
0.5 .. -
. --- ---

0.4
0 5000 10000 15000
Depth / ft
Fig. 6 Trends o~la, (S,/S,) with depth in the North Sea.

365