CAPROCK INTEGRITY STUDY IN KASHAGAN

D.Ybray, G.Galiyeva, F.Ibragimov, agip kco

th
This paper was presented at the 10 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25, 2011.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2011 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2011 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this study is to develop a control scheme to maximise the bottom hole
injection pressure without risking overpressure of the reservoir.
Scope of the study is the identification of the characteristics of a monitoring system to be
deployed in the Kashagan field. The monitoring program will be aimed to study the cap rock
integrity, in presence of massive gas injection, in terms of:
• Detection of fractures
• Fracture growth with time
• Identification of gas flood front movement

The study investigates the technical aspects of Kashagan field and proposes possible
monitoring design scenarios.
The most suitable monitoring strategy to be adopted depends strongly on the philosophy of
the cap rock integrity problem: the level of effort and the quantity of resources dedicated to
monitoring increase with the necessity to detect fractures as early as possible at the
beginning of their development and before they reach the cap rock layer.

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses a number of challenges around the caprock integrity of the Kashagan
field situated in the North Caspian

The Kashagan field is a highly pressured sour carbonate oil reservoir with a bottomhole
pressure of 777 bars at 4,300 m. The reservoir contains light oil and huge quantities of
associated gas (including >15% H2S and 5% CO2). The elevated percentage of H2S
contained in the gas presents a most critical HSE challenge, should it reaches the surface
without control. The sealing role played by the cap rock is fundamental under the stated
conditions during the reservoir development.

This paper covers reservoir geo-mechanical studies aimed to identify the approaches
estimation the reservoir cap rock integrity and provides an overview on the collected stress
data and the downhole injection pressure monitoring procedures considering also the
facilities control scheme to outline the safe injection pressure limit and the monitoring
strategy with its relative failure mitigations.

CAPROCK

The Kashagan cap rock is probably composed of different formations, Artinskian Shale,
Basal Anhydrite and the Salt (Figure 1). These layers are always present in all the wells
drilled so far, furthermore their thickness can vary from 30 to 90 meters. Salt thickness rises
up to 2000 m, nevertheless there is no direct correlation of salt thickness on a stress
distribution as well as cap rock integrity.

1
 Cap rock is represented by basal Anhydrate and Artinskian shale

Fig 1: Cross - section visualization (N-S)

MINI / MICRO FRAC TESTS

The mini and micro frac tests are used to measure the in situ stress in the reservoir and in
the cap rock formations. In a classical test, the pressure-time curve should be linear until
initiating and propagating a fracture, causing the pressure decline until stabilizing at a certain
level between the breakdown pressure and the fracture closure pressure as shown on Figure
2. The breakdown pressure measures the “Fracture Initiation Pressure”. The “Fracture
Closure Pressure” corresponds to the minimum horizontal stress and can be obtained from
the pressure decline curve after shut-in the well, at least when the formation is permeable. In
impermeable rocks, shale for instance, the fracture cannot be closed and it is necessary to
flow back to reach fracture closure.

Breakdown
Pressure Propagation Propagation
Pressure
ISIP Re-Opening
Pressure
Pressure

Closure Closure
Pressure = σmin
Net
Pressure

Injection Rate

Time

Fig 2: Typical Pressure-Time curve during hydraulic fracturing.

The test procedure for mini and micro frac is similar, the difference being related to the
volume of fluid injected; more robust for the mini frac (~100bbl) and consistently less for the
micro frac (1bbl). In Kashagan field, to reduce the risk of cap rock breach the mini frac tests
have been performed on the reservoir section while the micro frac tests have been
performed in the cap rock.

The mini and micro frac tests have been performed in 17 wells in Kashagan, however data
from 4 wells have low quality and are not reliable. The figure 3 presents the analysis of the
these tests, which brought to the definition of an injection pressure limit set at 827 bar at
4300 m datum depth.

2
 Fracture re-opening pressures of tested wells
Bottom hole pressure (barg)
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100
3,800

3,900 frac tests in cap rock

CAP ROCK BOTTOM

4,000
RESERVOIR TOP
4,100
Depth (mTVSS)

Pore pressure
grad. 0.6 bar/10m
4,200 frac tests in reservoir

4,300

827 bar gas injection

pressure (downhole) fracture reopening pressure
4,400
0.47 bar/10m gradient 2.14 bar/10m
(injection gas gradient)
Reservoir injectivity tests (& 1 mini-frac) Reservoir fracturing pressure
4,500
Injection point
cap rock tests data
4,600

Fig 3: Cap Rock and Reservoir interpreted fracture re-opening pressures from all the
wells. The yellow squares on the plot refer to the cap rock (Artinskian shale) data
while the blue triangles refer to the data in the reservoir.

Mainly, two criticalities have been identified from the mini frac tests results:

1. Low minimum horizontal stress under high salt thickness (>1000 m).
2. High minimum horizontal stress under small salt thickness (<50 m).

The risk associated to point 1 is that the minimum horizontal stress could reach even lower
value compared to the ones shown by the mini frac tests, where the salt thickness is higher.
It would result in a faster reservoir fracturing during the injection phase. In this situation the
fracture containment should be assured by the higher minimum stress in the cap rock layer
and possibly by the thick column of salt on the top.
The risk associated to point 2 is that due to very high stresses, rock could be locally
damaged. Even if the overall over pressure in the field is an indicator of the sealing role of
the cap rock, the presence of damaged zones, in correspondence of zero salt thickness,
could facilitate the fracture propagation towards the surface. Further confirmation from tests
and stress data acquisition are required in the future in this type of area.

As emphasized by studies, further points to be fully assessed are whether the stress contrast
exists between the Artinskian shale and the reservoir, and in the reservoir between the
vertical layers and, also, if the stress measurements within the reservoir are sparse or
organized following the salt thickness. The stress contrast between the cap rock and the
reservoir constitutes a big issue because it has a strong influence on the fracture propagation
from the reservoir to the cap rock.

GEOMECHANICAL STUDIES

Several geo-mechanical studies have been carried out in Kashagan by different entities, the
common objective has been the evaluation of the stress distribution at the present day and
prediction during and after the gas re-injection phase. There are two different families of
studies can be defined:

ƒ Some studies are mainly focused on the evaluation of the present stress in situ and,
consequently, on the present potential fracture distribution in the field.

3
ƒ Other studies have the intent to predict the effect of the injection phase over the stresses,
the induced fracture localization and the fracture propagation.
Additional study has been performed to take into account the influencing parameter of the
fluid and formation parameter like viscosity, Biot coefficient, tip stress etc., in order to model
properly the fracture initiation in the formation under a high pressure injection scenario. The
conclusion confirmed the previously stated safe injection pressure of 827 bar at 4300m. This
value is the one adopted in the last Kashagan proposals to guarantee the cap rock integrity
of the investigated injection scenario and reservoir state.

CAP ROCK INTEGRITY MONITORING

The management concept in the Kashagan field will allow several monitoring systems
covering surface and subsurface control points with possibility of alarms settings and system
responses upon specific operation conditions. According to the well and reservoir
surveillance plan the potential controls points and parameters concerning the cap rock
integrity include:

9 Reservoir temperature profiles (will be potentially available at the end of EP phase),

9 Bottom hole pressure and temperature,
9 Surface control scheme,
The monitor of Bottom Hole Pressure will be done with both permanent downhole pressure
gauge and tubing head pressure gauge. It will provide continuous monitoring and real time
pressure movement in surface and bottom hole during injection. The installation of
permanent downhole pressure gauge dual gauges mode will provide more robust input for
the monitoring in term of calibration and reliability of measured pressure data.

The potential incorporation of DTS will provide real time injectivity index along the reservoir
section. The other benefit of this fiber optic DTS installation is the possibility of integration
between permanent downhole pressure gauge and DTS in single fiber-optic cable providing
total monitoring of injection pressure and injectivity index in a safer environment due to
reduction of leaking path to the surface.

The surface control scheme will be based on the pressure transmitters installed in the
surface facilities, before and after the RGI compressor machines and especially those
located between the re-injection compressors and every single injector well to ensure that
the maximum bottom hole injection pressure will not be exceeded under any circumstance.
These surface transmitters are preferred compared to the bottom hole one for the pressure
control as they should be more robust and reliable, even if less accurate. The required inputs
to the surface pressure transmitters will be taken from bottomhole measurements after
proper modeling and calibration with specialized software, considering periodical updates
over the time.
Moreover, in case of the risk of cap rock breach, if the injection limit of 827 bars is exceeded,
the proposed mitigation actions are:

ƒ Apply high injection rate only when significant stress contrast exists between Artiskian
and top reservoir.
ƒ Limit the duration of the high injection rate.
ƒ Inject in Lower Reservoir especially if the stress is lower.
ƒ Balance locally production and injection.
ƒ Test the Injector wells to estimate:
a. Stress distribution in the reservoir and in the cap rock.
b. Injection rate for extension of fracture.

4
CONCLUSIONS

This paper presented the results of reservoir geo-mechanical studies aimed to identify the
approaches estimation the reservoir cap rock integrity and provides an overview on the
collected stress data and the downhole injection pressure monitoring. All the performed
studies developed since now revealed that there is still an uncertainty in the measurement of
the stresses in the field and, at the same, they highlighted the importance to acquire new
data.

The measurement of the in situ stresses in the reservoir and in the cap rock becomes then
an important issue so the guide lines for the future are:

ƒ Future mini/micro frac tests acquisition/interpretation is important to define the stress

state in the reservoir and in the cap rock.
ƒ Integration of new data for the definition of the field stress distribution. Use of sector
models to study pre-defined critical zones of high stress concentration (fractured zones).
ƒ Integration of new data for a more accurate and eventually not uniform definition of the
safe injection pressure to prevent the cap rock breach.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the extended team who have contributed to the various
studies discussed in the paper.

REFERENCES

C.Guiducci, P. de Montleau, L.Granado, “Safe Injection Pressure Limit Definition and

Pressure Monitoring for Cap Rock Integrity”, agip kco internal report, 2009.