SPE 84552

Estimating Fracture Gradient in Gulf of Mexico Deepwater, Shallow, Massive

Salt Sections
J.W. Barker, SPE, and W.R. Meeks, SPE, ExxonMobil Development Company

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers

guidelines that can help in selecting a mud weight when exiting
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and the bottom of a massive shallow salt section.
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
Introduction
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are The U.S. gulf coast basin contains the largest known
subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers deposits of salt in the world. It has been estimated that 80
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
percent of the proven gulf basin reserves are likely related to
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum salt structures.1 Drilling through massive salt sections has
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain been achieved along the gulf coast since the 1940s and is
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
common place on land, on the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) shelf,
and in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater today.
In the mid 1980s the industry began to drill in the deepwater
Abstract
Gulf of Mexico. Salt walls, diapers, and allochthonous salt
Drilling massive salt sections in the deepwater Gulf of
bodies are common in the deeper water depths of the GOM as
Mexico is becoming a frequent occurrence. The abundance of
shown in Fig. 1.2 In many cases shallow salt sheets cover entire
salt and the ability of seismic to image under salt have made
GOM block areas.
drilling massive salt sections common place. It is estimated
In the early 1990s deepwater GOM shallow salt sheets began
that over a hundred wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico
to be drilled in order to reach deeper geologic objectives. New
have penetrated salt at both shallow and deeper well depths.
seismic acquisition techniques and depth migration processing
As the industry gains experience drilling deepwater, shallow
advancements resulted in improved imaging of subsalt clastic
allochthonous salt bodies, several advantages of drilling
formations. In 1990 Exxon spudded the Mississippi Canyon
through, rather than around, salt have emerged. Fracture
Block 211 No. 1 well in 4,352 ft of water depth with the
gradients in shallow salt intervals have proven to be much
objective of exploring subsalt formations. The well was the
higher than in non-salt sediments at a comparable depth. As a
industry’s first find of significant subsalt, deepwater
result of the increased fracture pressure, massive salt sections
hydrocarbons. An apprasial well was drilled in 1997 and the
have been used to extend casing points and eliminate casing
discovery was subsequently developed with three subsea
strings, resulting in greatly reduced well costs through reduced
completions. In 1995 Texaco discovered a subsalt field at
rig time, well tangibles, underreaming, cement volumes, and
Mississippi Canyon Block 292 in 3,400 ft of water and
mud volumes. Many operators are now choosing to drill
developed this field with three wells in 1999. 3
massive, shallow salt sections to take advantage of these
Today operators routinely drill shallow salt layers to explore
benefits. In some cases these cost savings have the potential of
and produce deeper objectives. Drilling shallow salt intervals
making marginal deepwater reserves economically feasible to
has become a preferred option because two issues have been
develop and produce. A reliable estimate of the fracture
overcome in recent years. First, studies have concluded that
gradient in shallow, massive salt sections is needed to design
salt loading on well casings due to salt creep is manageable for
casing strings and plan mud weights for safe and cost
salt formations encountered along the US gulf coast.4 Second,
effective wells.
operational problems experienced while drilling salt sections in
Upon exiting a shallow salt zone, often the formation pore
early wells have been overcome. Shallow GOM salt is typically
pressure and fracture pressure are very close. Typically this
very hard which leads to low drilling penetration rates,
condition results in drilling problems including lost returns,
directional control problems, and excessive vibrations. Early
well control events, etc. The proper choice of a mud weight to
experience with drilling shallow salt zones resulted in average
exit a shallow, massive salt section can be a critical factor for
penetration rates in salt of only 10 to 20 ft/hr. New tools and
both well integrity and cost.
operational practices have permitted drilling salt today at over
This paper describes a method to estimate the fracture
50 ft/hr with minimal directional problems and
gradient for a salt formation below a casing shoe. The method
drillstring vibrations.5,6
is based on experience gained while drilling wells which
penetrated substantial salt sections. Also presented are
2 SPE 84552
Many operators have observed that the achievable fracture
pressure in a deepwater, shallow salt interval is higher than
would be expected in a comparable non-salt formation. In
many cases the fracture gradient of salt below a casing string
was observed to be significantly above overburden.
In order for the well designer to assess the benefit of drilling
shallow salt zones and choose an optimum well site, a method
of estimating the fracture gradient in the salt must be known.
With this information estimating subsequent casing depths can
be better assessed and the benefit of drilling shallow salt zones
can be adequately evaluated.
Also vital to a well planner is an estimate of the mud weight
that will be required when exiting a massive salt layer.
Knowing this will permit the choosing of an optimum location
to exit the salt and will lead to an understanding of how much
drilling can be achieved before setting the next subsequent
casing string.
Geologic Setting
The GOM basin was formed in the late Middle to early
Upper Jurassic as North America separated from South
America and Africa.7 After the basin had formed, evaporate
salt (Louann) was deposited over thousands of years. This salt
underlies most of the present day gulf coast basin except for
some localized areas. During Cenozoic and earlier geologic
time, the gulf coast basin partially filled with sediments and
was molded into a structurally complex region by growth
faults, diaperism, and salt flow. Near the gulf coast land and
shelf margin, the Louann can be 30,000 to 40,000 ft deep (Fig.
2). In deeper GOM water depths, the Louann is shallower and
more often encountered when drilling wells. The reduction in
sediment overburden in deep water is thought to permit
massive amounts of salt to move vertically more easily.
Typically, salt does not change in density with burial depth
as do most clastic sediments. Shallow GOM deepwater
formations are very young geologically, often have a very high
water content, and have fairly low bulk density. Most clastic
sediments increase in density rapidly with burial depth
and overburden.
Many believe that the shallow salt sheet features often seen
in the deepwater GOM are a result of the salt moving upward
until the density of the salt equals the density of the sediments.
The salt in essence “floats” or is in equilibrium with the soil
just above and just below it. After the salt reaches equilibrium,
it often moves horizontally and can actually detach from its
parent salt (allochthonous). These salt sheets can cover many
square miles and often collide and impact other salt sheets. A
area of mixed salt and sand/shale formation may exist in this
zone which many refer to as a suture.
Behavior of Salt as an Engineering Material
Often formations are categorized as “brittle” or “plastic” (see
Fig. 3). The term brittle is typically used to describe hard rock
and plastic or ductile is used loosely to describe soft rock.
Many geologic materials exhibit a brittle stress-strain curve,
which is basically linear, until failure is approached. Salt is a
unique engineering material and its behavior under stress is
much different that other materials such as rocks or metals.
Ductile or plastic materials, such as salt and very
unconsolidated shales, have a limited linear stress-strain curve
at very low stresses only. These materials typically fail
plastically rather than in brittle elastic failures.
At stress levels that can be as low as 10 to 20 percent of its
ultimate strength, salt can begin to deform plastically. The
stress-strain curve for salt is very dependent on temperature,
confining pressures, salt composition, water content,
impurities, prior stress history, loading rate, and other factors.
Salt can be described as a viscoelastic-viscoplastic material due
to the different ways it can behave since its strength is so
dependent on these variables.
The tensile strength of rock will vary from zero for
unconsolidated materials to perhaps several hundred psi for the
strongest rocks. In the real world the tensile strength for most
formations drilled is effectively zero due to joints, bedding, and
laminations. Salt formations typically have a tensile strength of
only a few hundred psi.
Limited data indicates the uniaxial compressive strength of
salt can range from about 1,800 to 3,000 psi. Poisson’s ratio is
the ratio of horizontal to vertical strain. Poisson’s ratio has
been observed to vary from values ranging from 0.25 to 0.5 for
salt. 4,8 Typically lower stress levels result in a higher
Poisson’s ratio in salt.
The salt encountered along the GOM gulf coast is generally
very pure, as high as 94 to 97 percent halite. The pure mineral
halite has a density of 2.17 g/cm3; however, in-situ salt density
usually averages about 2.0 to 2.1 g/cm3 in the
deepwater GOM.9
Fracture Gradient – Historical Perspective
The general equation used by most fracture
prediction techniques is 10
Total horizontal stress = K x Total vertical stress.............…(1)
where
K is the total horizontal to total vertical stress ratio.
Over twenty different models have been developed by
industry to estimate the horizontal to vertical stress ratio.
These models assume the stress ratio is a function of many
variables including formation density, Poisson’s ratio,
compaction, depth, and other factors.
For hard brittle rocks that behave elastically, the value of the
stress ratio is typically in the range of 0.3 to 0.5. For soft
materials that behave plastically, such as shallow shales, the
stress ratio can be much higher and can approach 0.8 to
1.0. 10,11,12 Some have concluded that soft soil near the seabed
behaves in a similar manner as deeper rock and that the fracture
pressure of soft soils is basically stress dominated. 13
In 1923 Terzaghi introduced the concept of effective stress.
This concept concluded that the total stress in a rock is
composed of two stresses. The stresses are the pore pressure
and an additional stress in the matrix of the solid part of the
rock, effective stress. This can be written as
Total Stress =Pore Pressure + Effective Stress..…………….(2)
SPE 84552
Since the fluid in the pore spaces pressure is equal in all
directions, it is sometimes referred to as a neutral stress.
Rearranging Eq. 2 results in the following equation:
Effective Stress = Total Stress – Pore Pressure…….……….(3)
In a wellbore drilled in typical clastic formations, the total
stress (vertical) is very nearly equal to the weight of the
overlying material, i.e., the overburden pressure. If pore
pressure were at its extreme, where the pore pressure was equal
to the overburden pressure, the effective vertical stress would
be equal to zero. This is often called a low effective stress
condition. In terms of effective stress, Eq. 1 can be written as
Fracture pressure = K x (Overburden pressure – Pore pressure)
+ Pore pressure…………………..……………………….....(4)
When the stress ratio is near unity, the sensitivity of pore
pressure on fracture pressure is small and fracture pressure is
primarily dependent on overburden.
A shallow below mudline (bml) fracture gradient curve for
shallow formations in the southern Mississippi Canyon area of
the GOM is shown in Fig. 4. This curve was developed from
offset wells in the area and is based on an 85 ft airgap and a
4,275 ft water depth. This curve includes adjustment of the
offset wells for water depth and airgap of the rig. Ref. 11
outlines the methodology used to calculate this fracture
gradient curve. For shallow non-salt formations in the southern
Mississippi Canyon area, this curve has proven to result in
fairly accurate fracture pressure predictions. Note that estimates
of overburden and pore pressure are not required to estimate
fracture gradient with this method.
Fracture Pressure in Salt
There are many references in the literature that cite
examples of the stress ratio in salt formations exceeding two.8
The unexpectedly high horizontal stress states have been
attributed to several factors including residual stresses from
prior tectonic activity and ductility of the formation.
The current day stress in a formation is a very complex
interaction of rock properties, tectonics, burial history, and
temperatures. By adding a term that combines the unknown
horizontal tectonic stress, tensile strength of salt, and other
unknown stresses, then Eq. 1 can be written as
Total horizontal stress = K x Total vertical stress + Additional
non-gravitional stresses........................................................(5)
If the stress ratio is unity for shallow, deepwater plastic
formations as suggested by several authors, then using Eq. 5
and expressing it in terms of effective stress, Eq. 1 reduces to
Fracture pressure = Overburden pressure + Additional non-
gravitional stresses……....................................................…(6)
If the fracture pressure and overburden in a shallow, massive
salt interval are known, this equation can be solved to result in
an estimate of the additional stress due to
non-gravitational factors.
3
The fracture pressure in shallow, massive salt formations has
been elusive. Many operators strive to set a casing shoe at least
500 ft into a massive salt zone and typically will not take a
fracture integrity test to leakoff. Fracture of the salt in a
shallow clastic formation is feared. If this happens, many
believe that the fracture will progress to non-salt areas or that
salt will leach away due to drilling fluids moving along the
fracture path. Formation pressure tests in salt are often limited
to a maximum value of about 1.0 psi/ft to prevent these
problems and formation integrity tests are seldom run
to fracture.
Case Study Central Mississippi Canyon
In early 1990 Exxon drilled the first deepwater subsalt well
in 4,352 ft of water in Mississippi Canyon Block 211. A
shallow salt layer covers the entire block with the top of salt
near 6,000 ft and the bottom of salt near 9,000 ft. The initial
exploration well was drilled roughly 500 ft into the top of the
salt with a saturated brine drilling fluid which was discharged
at the mud line as drilling progressed. After setting the 20 in.
casing, a formation integrity test was performed to 10.6 ppg-
equivalent mud weight (emw) with no leakoff. This test was
about 115 psi higher than the predicted fracture gradient at this
depth if salt were not present.
Drilling progressed to 8,030 ft where a string of 16 ½-in.
casing was set. A formation integrity test was run to 12.2 ppg-
emw with no leakoff, which was about 200 psi more than the
expected fracture pressure if salt were not present. This string
was set primarily because of the uncertainty of the pore
pressure that would be encountered under the salt and the
uncertainty with the integrity of the salt just below the 20 in.
casing. After the salt was exited, drilling continued to 10,010 ft
where a string of 13 5/8-in. casing was set.
An appraisal well was drilled in this field in late 1997. The
20 in. casing was set about 550 ft into the top of the salt. A
formation integrity test was performed below this string (in the
top of the salt) to a maximum 11.8 ppg-emw with no leakoff.
This test was about 500 psi higher than the predicted fracture
gradient at this depth if salt were not present. The clastic
formation was drilled for almost a thousand feet below the salt
before the next casing string was set. Data gathered from the
original exploration well was used to confirm the ability to drill
the salt and exit the salt with only the 20 in. casing set. The
savings from eliminating a string of casing in salt is estimated
to be seven to eight rig days. Note that the mud weight used
when exiting the salt was 88 percent of the estimated fracture
gradient. Fig. 5 shows the mud weight and pore pressure data
for the well with the estimated fracture gradient for non-salt
formations in the southern Mississippi Canyon.
Three additional subsea development wells were drilled in
the field starting in the fall of 2000. The 20 in. string was set
into the top of the salt. The salt formation at the casing shoe
was tested to 11.8 ppg-emw without exceeding leakoff. This
test was about 500 psi greater than the estimated fracture
gradient if salt were not present and 1.2 ppg higher than the
formation integrity test performed on the exploration well.
Drilling progressed through and below the salt and the next
string was set about 400 to 700 ft below the bottom of the salt.
4 SPE 84552
At this depth mud weight was raised due to increasing
pore pressure.
This case history occurred before a good method was
available to estimate the fracture gradient in a shallow salt
interval. We now believe the formation integrity at the top of
salt would be higher than the 11.8 ppg-emw test, perhaps as
much as 13.0 ppg-emw. The maximum mud weight required to
drill all the objectives in a development well is 11.8 ppg. This
indicates it may be possible to eliminate the intermediate string
of casing used in previous development wells provided lost
returns and hole problems are not encountered. Elimination of
the intermediate casing string would save seven to eight
rig days.
Case Study Southern Mississippi Canyon Well
In the winter of 2001 ExxonMobil drilled a subsalt well in
the southern Mississippi Canyon area of the GOM. The well
was in 6,700 ft of water and salt was encountered from 10,100
ft to 15,495 ft. Since the top of the salt was just over 3,300 ft
below the mudline, a 22 in. string was set at 10,185 ft.
Operational limitations permitted the 22 in. shoe setting depth
to be only 85 ft below the top of the salt.
A fracture integrity test at the 22 in. shoe resulted in a very
low leakoff pressure and the shoe was squeezed cemented three
times. The final formation integrity test was run to leakoff and
a 13.8 ppg-emw was indicated. This test was performed to
values that were significantly over the predicted formation
fracture pressure had salt not been present. Fig. 6 is the final
formation integrity test performed just before drilling the
balance of the salt interval.
The salt was exited at 15,560 feet while drilling with a 12.8
ppg mud weight. After drilling to 15,560 ft, mud losses started
but drilling was able to continue to 15,805 ft. At this depth
mud losses became extreme even when not drilling or
circulating. A string of 13 5/8-in. casing was eventually set in
the salt at 15,160 ft in a 12.7 ppg mud weight. The formation
integrity test at the 13 5/8-in. shoe, with clastic formations open
below the salt, was run to leakoff and resulted in a 13.6 ppg-
emw. Drilling resumed with a 12.6 ppg mud weight which was
maintained while exiting the salt. While drilling, mud weight
was raised to 12.9 ppg at 15,900 ft and to 13.1 ppg at 16,465 ft
as pore pressure increased. In total, over 13,000 barrels of the
synthetic base mud were lost to the well from the time salt was
exited until reaching 16,465 ft where an 11 7/8-in. liner
was set.
After setting the 11 7/8-in. liner, an integrity test was run to
leakoff and indicated a 13.8 ppg-emw. The shoe was squeezed
cemented and a second formation integrity test was run to
leakoff. It indicated a 14.0 ppg-emw. A formation pressure
later obtained with wireline logging indicated a 13.5 ppg pore
pressure at 16,500 ft. Drilling of the well continued to 26,000
ft with one additional liner set near 22,600 ft in the well. This
well required a total of 89 drilling days from spud to reaching
total depth.
It is thought that the formation integrity obtained at the 22 in.
shoe of 13.8 ppg-emw was impacted by the three cement
squeeze attempts. The more likely formation integrity at the 22
in. shoe in salt is thought to be near 12.8 ppg. This is the mud
weight where massive lost returns occurred after exiting the
salt. Assuming a 12.8 ppg-emw formation integrity at the 22
in. shoe, the formation fracture pressure would be roughly
6,700 psi. The estimated fracture pressure for clastic
formations at this depth is near 5,700 psi. This leaves about
1,000 psi for additional stress in the salt due to non-
gravitational factors.
Fig. 7 shows the pressure vs. depth data for the well with the
basic assumption that non-gravitational stress in the salt is
1,000 psi. Note the very narrow margin between mud weight
and formation integrity at the bottom of the salt in this case
history. Only about a 0.5 ppg existed between the fracture
pressure and the mud weight at the 13 5/8-in. shoe when the 11
7/8-in. liner was subsequently set. The mud weight required to
drill just under the salt was about 95 percent of the estimated
fracture gradient.
Well Design in Shallow Salt Sections
At shallow, below mudline well depths, the non-gravitational
stresses in a salt formation will increase the formation fracture
pressure significantly. As well depth increases, the impact of
non-gravitational stresses in salt on fracture pressure decreases.
This is shown in Fig. 8. This is the reason shallow salt zones
have such a high fracture pressure as compared to the
overburden than is observed in deeper salt intervals. To the
well planner, the benefit of setting a casing shoe in a shallow
salt interval is higher than setting a casing shoe in a deeper
salt zone.
The gain in formation integrity from non-gravitational
stresses in salt formations can be compromised in some cases.
When drilling a salt interval that is fractured or when sutures
are encountered, lost returns often occur. Therefore, well
planners should avoid these geologic features when drilling
in salt.
After exiting a shallow salt zone and entering typical
formations, the increased fracture strength of a salt zone is lost.
As a result, there is a drop in formation integrity. In many
cases, the formation integrity just under the salt will be a well
design constraint. A high formation strength at the top of the
salt may not have much value if formation strength just under
the salt is low.
Obviously, the longer the section of salt drilled, the further
hole sections can extend and the potential for reducing casing
string increases. From a purely drilling and cost perspective,
the optimum length of salt drilled would be that length of salt
where the salt is exited when the fracture gradient at the top of
the salt is very near the fracture gradient in the formations just
below the salt.
In the above case histories, the mud weight when exiting the
salt was between 88 to 95 percent of the estimated formation
integrity just below the salt. Exiting the salt with a mud weight
in this range has proven successful when drilling massive,
shallow salt zones in the Mississippi Canyon area of the GOM.
It is thought that exiting salt with lower mud weight will often
result in being underbalanced to pore pressure. Resulting hole
problems are often attributed to a rubble zone rather than being
underbalanced to pore pressure. A mud weight higher than
SPE 84552
about 95 percent of formation fracture strength will likely
result in lost returns or a ballooning formation.
When a casing string is set into the top of a salt interval, the
presence of the salt will affect the design of the casing. Since
the fracture pressure in salt is higher than a comparable non-
salt formation, the casing must be designed to safely handle
the pressures resulting from well control incidents which can
be encountered in the salt or below the salt.
Conclusions
1. Formation integrity in shallow GOM salt formations has
been observed to be reliably higher than the fracture
pressure expected in a non-salt formation. For this to
occur, salt must have stresses opposing fracturing that are
due to non-gravitational stresses. It is thought that these
stresses in salt are attributable to the limited tensile
strength of salt and residual stresses due to tectonics or
other factors.
2. Experience in the deepwater GOM indicates that shallow
salt has approximately 1,000 psi of non-gravitational
stress. This stress can be relied upon to increase formation
integrity when in salt.
3. Drilling shallow salt zones in deepwater GOM wells has
proven a method to reduce the number of casing strings in
a well and reduce well costs.
4. When exiting shallow salt formations, a mud weight of
about 88 to 95 percent of estimated formation integrity just
below the salt has proven to be successful.
5. The difficulties of drilling massive, shallow salt zones
have been overcome with improved technology. As a
result, many operators now seek out massive, shallow salt
intervals as a way to reduce drilling costs.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge ExxonMobil Drilling
management including Pete Altimore, Carl Sandlin and Miles
Peroyea who supported this paper being written. We would
also like to acknowledge Fred Dupriest who offered many
valuable suggestions that improved this paper.
5
References
1. Halbouty, M.T.: Salt Domes, Gulf Region United States and
Mexico, Second Edition, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, 1979.
2. Diegal, F.A. et al: "Cenozoic Structural Evolution and Tectono-
Stratigraphic Framework of the Northern Gulf Coast
Continental Margin," Salt Tectonics: A Global Perspective,
M.P.A. Jackson, D.G. Roberts and S. Snelson, eds., AAPG
Memoir 65, (1995) Chap. 6, 109-151.
3. Cromb, J.R.: “Deepwater Subsalt Development: Directional
Drilling Challenges and Solutions,” paper IADC/SPE 59197
presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana 23-25, February.
4. Willson, S.M. and Fossum, A.F.: “Assessment of Salt Loading
on Well Casings,” paper SPE/IADC 74562 presented at the
2002 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas 26-28,
February.
5......Whitson, D. and McFadyen, K.: “Lessons
Learned in the Planning and Drilling of Deep, Subsalt Wells in
the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico,” paper SPE 71363 presented at
the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana 30 September - 3 October.
6. ..Meize, A. et al: “Record Achieved on Gulf of
Mexico Subsalt Well Drilled with Synthetic Fluid,” paper
SPE 59184 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana 23-25 February.
7. Worrall, D.M. and Snelson, S.: “Evolution of the Northern Gulf
of Mexico, with Emphasis on Cenozoic Growth Faulting and the
Role of Salt,” The Geology of North America, Vol. 1. The
Geology of North America – An Overview, The Geology
Society of America, 1989, Chapter 7, 97-138.
8. Hardy, R.H. et al.: Theoretical and Laboratory Studies Relative
to the Design of Salt Caverns for the Storage of Natural Gas,
American Gas Association, Arlington Virginia (1982).
9. Barker, J.W., Feland, K.W., and Tsao, Y.H, “Drilling Long
Salt Sections Along the US Gulf Coast,” SPE Drilling and
Completion, (September 1994), 185.
10.....Warpinski, N.R. and Smith, M.B: “Rock Mechanics
and Fracture Geometry,” Recent Advances in Hydraulic
Fracturing, J.L. Guidley et al (eds.) Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardson, Texas (1989), vol. 12, 57-80.
11. Barker, J. W.: “Estimating Shallow Below Mudline Deepwater
Gulf of Mexico Fracture Gradients,” paper presented at the
1997 Houston AADE Chapter Annual Technical Forum, 2 - 3
April.
12. Rocha, L.A. and Bourgoyne, A.T.: “A New Simple Method To
Estimate Fracture Pressure Gradient,” SPE Drilling &
Completion (September 1996) 153.
13. Aadnoy, B. S.: “Geomechanical Analysis for Deep-Water
Drilling,” paper IADC/SPE 39339 presented at the 1998
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas 3 - 6 March.
6 SPE 84552

Fig.1. Structural summary map of the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin. Black areas are shallow salt bodies. From AAPG
Memoir 65, Diegal, F.A., et al.: AAPG©1995, "reprinted by permission of the AAPG whose permission is required for
further use".

Fig. 2. General geologic cross section of Gulf Coast Basin.

SPE 84552 7

Fig. 3. Typical stress-strain curves.

Fig. 4. Estimated non-salt formation fracture gradient, Fig. 5. Central Mississippi Canyon well pressure vs. depth.
deepwater central and southern GOM.
8 SPE 84552

Fig. 6 - Southern Mississippi Canyon well, formation integrity test at 22 in.

shoe in salt.

Fig. 7 - Southern Mississippi Canyon well pressure vs. depth.

SPE 84552 9

Assumption: Added Assumption: Added

Salt stress = 1,000 psi Salt Stress 1,000 psi

Salt: 13,500 - 16,000 ft

Fig. 8 - Impact of salt depth on estimated fracture gradient.