SPE

-~~ m@useraafAfhlE

SPE 13210

A New Fracture Gradient Prediction Technique That Shows Good

Results in Gulf of Mexico Abnormal Pressure
by R.M. Brannan and M.R. Annis, Exxon Co. U.S.A.
SPE Members

Copyr@ht1984 Soc@y of Petroleum Engineers of AlME

Thispaper was presented at the 59th AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibnionhetdin Houston,Texas, Saptembar 16-19, 19S4. The material is aub
i@f to corractiin by the author. Permissionto COPYis restrictedto an af=tract of not IIWS than m worde. Write SPE, IX!@ NmffI central EXJWSSSWY,
Drawer 647D6, Dallas, Taxas 75206 USA. Telex 72D229 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
Accurate formationfracturegradient predictionin
abnormally pressured weiis is ar,eof the ‘n.Qs*
critical considerations involved in planning a
successfuldrilling operation. Shallow abnormal
pressure, coupled with deep geologic objectives,
requires an accurate fracturegradient prediction
to insure casing setting depths are correctly
determined in order to carry sufficient mud
weights to successfullyreach the deep objectives.
In an effort to better meet these requirements, a
study of formationfracturegradientawas made for
the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico. As a
result of this study, a new technique was
developed which accurately predicts fracture
gradients in the abnormallypreaauredformations.
This technique is based on an empirical
correlation of Effective Horizontal Stress
Gradient to EffectiveVerticai Stress Wdient.
INTRODUCTION
Aa the drilling of deep abnormallypressuredwells
increases,accurate formation fracture gradient
prediction is important. In an effort to improve
fracture gradient prediction in abnormally
~re~~.~re~ ~edi~en~~ in the Western and cen~al
Gulf of Mexico, we undertook a detailed study of
formation fracture gradients. several existing
industry techniques were checked, but none of
these gave good results. A new technique was
developed,which has shown good results in a broad
range of Exxon Company, U.S.A., Gulf of Mexico
operationa,especiallyin the abnormallypressured
formations.
The new technique is based on an empirical
correlation between the Effective Horizontal
Stres= Gradient (RHAS)and the Effective ~ert,icd
Stress Gradient (EVSG). The correlation of the
two stress componentsappears to be independentof
depth. Effective Vertical Stress Gradient, the
independent variable, is a function of the
overburden pressure gradient and pore pressure
gradient.
The correlation is based on an analysia of 25
abnormallypressuredexplorationwells over a wide
area of the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico.
After compilinga data base on each well, which
included overburdenpressure,pore pressure,and
formation fracture pressures, an analysis was
performed to investigate previously published
After numerous
depth-based correlations.
unsucce~~f~~ ~ttempt~, it wss determinedthat the
primary reasons for poor results were (1) depth to
the top of abnormal pressure varied from well to
well, and (2) the rate of change of pore pressure
with respect to overburden pressure also varied
from well to well. To minimize these effects; the
Effective Horizontal Stress Gradientwas plotted
against the Effective Vertical Stress Gradient.
The result was a correlation between the two
stress components.Applicationof this correlation
provides a fracturegradient predictionsdutiQR.
FRACTURE GRADIENT THEORY
Formation fracture gradient prediction haa been
given a considerableamount of attention over the
past years. The model developed by Hubbert and
Willis in 19571 has provided the foundationfor
the majority of this work. The generalized form
of the equation is as follows:

gf=gp+K(go-gp) ............(1)
Referencesand Illustrationsat end of paper.
 A NEW FRACTURE GRADIENT PREDICTIONTECHNIQUE SPE 13210
THAT SHOWS GOOD RESULTS IN GULF OF MEXICO ABNOW PRESSURE
2 I
sOURCE OF DATA

fracturepressure gradient
The equation describes ‘he data used in the analysis was drawn from 25
on pore pressure gradient abnormallypressuredwells.
(gf) as being dependent kxon Company,U.S.A.~
(gP), overburden pressure gradient (g ), and the ;he water depths of the 25 wells ranged from 41
“ ~K).
stress ratio or effective stress ratio .eetto 1247 feet, while the casing seat depths
vhere formation frackure pressure was A evaluated
computer
the vertical stress, has been
Overburdenpressure, ?angedfrom 850 feet to 16,500 feet.
either aaaumed at 1.0 psi/ft19293 or more iata base was established on each ‘ellJ ‘h~~~
correctlY, evaluated from measured formation includedoverburdenpressure, pore PresaUrej
properties (i.e., velocity data from seismic formationfracture pressure.
~l~rvevs.sonic logs, or integration of the bulk .----
den~~[~ 10g). Pore pressure, necessary iii the vertical stress, wa=
Overburden pressure,
onvertingtotal stressesto effective stresses, determinedfrom the formationbulk density log. To
as normal pressure (.44 arrive at the most accurate o.ve.r~urden Pressure
as either been aasumed
si/ft) or~ in the case ‘f abnorma~ ?ressure’ profile in each well, the dlgltlzed density log
formation
valuated from resistivity (conductlvltY)log~> computer for
was integrated by
ctual formation test results, and/or aonlc overburden pressure. Density log data were
To
Measurement. Both variables,overburdenpressure usually unavailablein the shallow ~edlments.
~d pore pressureY can be accuratel$ calculated arrive at the most accurate estimate of the
‘remmeaaured formationproperties. overburdenpressure contribution in the shallow
sediments, soil boring data were used from either
;hisleaves the effective stress ratio (K) tote the well location or the closest offset location.
?valuated. K has been defined as the stress ratio A least squares best fit curve was drawn between
and in fact, has been
]r effective stress ratio, the deepest soil borings and the known bulk
~iven the most attention in previous fracture densitY (electric log ‘ata). ‘igure 1 ‘~ an
gradientresearchwork. The variable K is usually example of the techniquedescribed for a tYPlcal
Ieveloped as an empirical fun~tionof depth. The
calculated by well. Note the amount of data which falls below
effective stress ratio 15
-.— 2.3 gin/cc(1 psi/ft). The best fit curve was then
rearrangingequation (l): used to evaluate density in the sections. of the
hole where bulk density data was unavailable.
gf-gp . .. .............(2.) Interval density was converted to an overburden
~- ‘- ----.-,..mAmam+ @ SUgmed to the depth of
K= go - .gp pressure, llleLulu&Jv..-...-
intereat and converted to a gradient. The
. EffectiveHorizontalStress Gradient associated seawater overburden pressure was
included to account for water depth.
EffectiveVertical Stress Gradient
Formation pore preS5Ure,necessary in converting
The horizontalto vertical ef~ective stress r~tio, total stresses to effective stresses,These was
defined by equation (2), re~ulres an analysls of determined from conductivity log Plots:
formation fracture g~~en~~~ctur~eg~~~~~ test
included plots were calibrated based on <orm~tlon
typically results (productiontest data or wlrellne tests)then
evaluationare: (1) lost returns, (2) caying seat and known mud weights. The pore preaaurewas
leak-off tests, and (3) hydraulic fracturingdata. In the shallow
determinedat each caaing seat.
These data require an evaluationfor the type of sediments, pOre pressure ‘as ‘etermined by
lithology being fractured, (i.e.~ sandstone o; assuming a linear gradient ‘f ‘.eayater‘o(Abnorm~l
‘he ‘op
shale for the Gulf of Mexico area) and.fyrt.her! of abnormal pressure transition.
distinctionmade between (1) fracture lnltlatlon pressure in this study is defined as a gradient in
....n”m..T-
ylc”eu.u,a and (2] fracture propagationpressure.
.. .. - .~,--. --..:.rmen+. weight.)
~u~

excess of ~.u ~olgaL C~’’’*-&”-&”

Fracture initiation pressure9 the lafger ~i ~ne
twO pressures and of most concern in drllllng
Formationfracture gradient was tests
determined from I
operations, when applied as gf in equation (2)> actual casing
seat leak-off (pressure
results in a greater Effective Horizontal Str:ss integritytests). The test pressure used in this
Gradient and a subsequently larger stres~ ratio, the
study was the fracture initiation pressure>
as compared to the results obtained us~n: the
maximum pressure achieved (formation breakdown) Each
fracture propagation pressure. The.additional
pressure increase above the propagationpressure prior to the formationac~eptingwhole mud.
leak-off test data point was evaluatef for
can beattributed to near wellbore stress effects
accuracy,aa well as, the type of lithologym the
including~ but not restricted‘o? ‘oop ‘tress and rathole (open hole below casing shoe); if a ‘and
~eES~le strength. .-*- ---- inn+++
cad NOte that the
was present, ~ne aaba waa VU,* .. ..-.
2,3,4,596 fracture pressure during PIT operationa was
$s a result of previous research wor!, evaluated at an RKB depth and converted to a
severalhorizontal to VertiCal effeCtlve stress
,atio versus depth curves ‘a~tb~~~hd~~~~~~~~ subsea gradient.
each being slightlydifferent> The
a general method to evaluate the va~iab~e K.
curves have been developed primarily In normal
pressure and all asymptoticallyapproach a stress
ratio of 1.0 with increasingdepth.

I
 I

R. M. BRENNAN
SPI?13210 M. R. ANMs 3

DEVELOPMENTOF CORRELATION
-L. As can be seen in Figure 3, the amount of scatter
C :-:+:.1
111 ALLAu&aJ.-----r- in using the data from our 25
~++.owmt.
a~~~~iated with low Effective Vertical Stress
wells was to evaluate the effective stress ratio
Gradients is minimal, while at the higher
concept by applicationof equation (2). The plot
Cf effective stress ratio versus below mudline EffectiveVertical Stress Gradientathere tends to
be a larger degree of scatter. The points
depth (Figure2) provided inconclusiveresults.Aa
associated with the higher Effect%ve Vertical
can be seen in the plot, numerous effective stress
Stress range (> 0.35 psi/ft) are all normal
ratios can be found at a given depth. Also of
pressure data. Lack of good data on pore
interest, numerous data points, primarilY the pressures, overburden pressures, and leak-off
have effective stress
;~:~~~e~;:~;n ;&~,8 tests in this interval combine to cause the
scatter. Note that when the data was evaluated,a
few cas%ng seat I.eak-d? tes.t.s were run in the
These data having stress ratios greater than 1.0,
rathole which contained sand. These data points
indicate that the Effective Horizontal Stress not
had reduced fracture gradients and were
Gradient are in excess of the Effective Vertical Based on this
included in the correlation.
Stress Gradient (fracture gradient greater than
overburden pressure gradient). Considering minimal amount of data, if a sand is exposed in
the rathole a reduced fracture gradient can be
previous research work, which this result is in
expected.
direct contrast to, and the significantnumber of
values above the expected l“imit of 1.0, the
results may be due to the additionalnear wellbore
INTERPRETATIONOF DATA
stress fields. Further, defining Effective
HorizontalStress Gradient in terms of fracture
initiation pressure actually takes into account a
The relationships found in the low Effec%ive
combination of horizontal and near wellbore
Vertical Stress range (< 0.35 psi/ft) are as
stresses, and may possibly be better defined as
I!theeffectivenear wellbore stress gradient.’? follows:

● On a given well, increasingpore pressure does

After analysia of the data, it was determinedthat reduce EffectiveVertical Stress and results in
the primary reasons for the poor correlation of
higher formationfracture gradient.
stress ratio with depth was a result of (1) the
depth to the top of the abnormal pressure varied
● The fracturegradient values associated with
from well to well, and (2) the rate of change of
the pore pressure with respect to overburden the data plotted in Figure 3, exist along the
pressure varied from well to well. curve in a random fashion, depending only on
These
the relationship of EffectiveVertical Stress
conclusions impact both locai anfi Tegiorlzl
Gradient and pore pressure gradieat.
offshore Gulf of Mexico areas, making the
horizontal to vertical effective stress ratio
,. - --l
:--l.?
- ● The slope of a line from the origin to any
versus depth reiationsnlpinapp~Luuu~c.
given point on the ecr’:~ re?re~ents a
horizontal to vertical EffectiveStress ratio
To minimize these effects, Effective Horizontal At low Effective Vertical Stress
(K).
Stress Gradient versus EffectiveVertical Stress
Gradients, K is nearly constant and does not
Gradient was plotted (Figure 3). By plotting effectivelycorrelatewith depth.
effective stress gradients,the depth problem was
eliminatedand pore pressure effects minimized.
● of the 57 data points used to generate the
empirical correlation, 27 data points had
The relationship described by the empirical
fracture pressures greater than overburden
correlation (least squares fit) defines Effective
pressure. This appears to be the result of
Horizontal Stress Gradient as a function of
defining Effective HorizontalStress Gradient
EffectiveVertical Stress Gradient. Solving for
in terms of the fracture initiationpressure.
fracture pressure gradient, the following solution
is obtained:
● The average accuracY/errorof fracturegradient
gf ‘gp + 1.35 (go -gp) - 1“40 (go - gP)2 ““””(3) measured to fracturegradient predicted by the
curve is 2.25 ppg.
(for gradients expressed inpsi/ft)

Given the overburden pressure gradient and pore

pressure gradient, a di~ect solution can be made
for the fracturepressure gradient.
 A NEW FHACTUREGRADIENT PREDICTIONTECHNIQUE
~ THAT SHOWS GOOD RESULTS IN GULF OF MEXICO ABNOti PRESSURE SPE 13210

In the higher Effective Vertical Stress region Use of this technique requires evaluation of
(>~.~~ psi/ft), the pore pressure is essentially overburdenpressure and pore pressure only. both
constant (normal pressure] as The cJ\cA .-mk.,-Aan
.U&uu.. Of w~~@ canbe obtained site specifically”o’rfrom
pressure gradient increases linearly with depth. geologicallysimilar offset well informatiorl.
Increases in the overburden pressure gradient
results in increaaes in the Effective Vertical
Stress Gradient with a relativelysmall change in N-CLATURE
the EffectiveHorizontalStress Gradient (.30 to
.32 psi/ft.). Adding the constant pore pressure Ds = Depth subsea (ft)
gradient to this value results in minor changes in
the fracturepressure gradient. Fracturegradient at rotary
Fgm =
kelly bushing datum - (lb/gal)
It is importantto note that this correlation has
been developed on a subsea datum and the resulting K= Stress ratio or horizontalto
fracture gradient solution represents a subsea vertical effective stress ratio
gradient. The subsea fracturegradient requires
a correctionfor the additional hydrostatic mud z= Elevationof mud return flowline
pressure due to the elevation of the mud return above subsea datum (ft)
flowline above the subsea datum. This additional
mud pressure is significant at shallow casing ~f = Subsea fracturegradient - (psi/ft)
depths ~ should be consideredin determiningthe
fracture gradient at a rotary kelly bu~kiag (?.!) . Subsea overburdenpressure gradient-
go
datum.4 (psi/ft)

gf x Ds ............(4) .gp = Subsea pore pressure gradient (psi/ft)

F&’RKB = .052 (Ds + Z)

Applicationof this techniqueI.eiitis

itself %@ well ACKNOWLEDGES
planning and casing seat leak-off test evaluation
(feasibility of squeeze cementing for leak-off The authors thank Exxon Company, U.S.A., for
test improvement). permissionto publish this paper.

An applicationof the fracturegradient prediction

techniquecan be seen in Figure 4. This type of
graphical representation can be used as a well
planning tool or as a followup to an active
drilling operation. As can be seen in the figure,
application of the fracture gradient technique
provides a method to evaluate formationintegrity
along the entire wellbore.

An example exercise in fracture gradient

calculationcan be found in the Appendix.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis of 57 casing seat leak-off

tests in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico,
an empirical correlation was developed. The
correlation of Effective Horizontal Stress
Gradient to EffectiveVerticai ERreas G~adie~t is
independentof depth. Effective Vertical Stress
Gradient, the independent variable,at any given
depth is a function of overburden pressure
gradient and pore pressure gradient only.

Formationfracture gradient can be solved, once

the actual measured formationpropertieshave been
determinedas follows:

gf = &?p+ 1.35 (go - Izp) - 1.40 kcl -L?p)z

This equation describes a solution to formation

fracture gradient prediction in Gulf of Mexico
abnormallypressuiietishales. The result obtained
by application of the equation is indicativeof
the subsea formation fracture initiation pressure
gmdieiit.
 .
R. M. BRENM”
SPE 13210 M. R. ANNIS 5

REFERENCES APPENDIX

1. Hubbert, M. King and will~a, D. G.: WLE APPLICATIONOF THE STRESS

l!&~hanicsof Hydraulic Fracturing,” Trans. RATIO CORRELATIONFOR
AIME (1?57)210, 153-166. FRACTURE GRADIENT PREDICTION

2. Matthews, W. R. and Kelly, John: ‘!Howto An example of the application of the stress
Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture gradient correlation for fracture gradient
Gradient,il Oil and Gaa Journal (Feb. 20> predictionis given below.
1967) 92-106.
If we assume an imaginary well in the offshore
3. Costley, R. D.: llHa~ard~and Costs ~t by Gulf of Mexico, 100 foot water depth, 100 foot
p~a~.ned~i~~ing Programa,‘!World Oil (Oct. water line to mud return flowline height, and
1967) 93-96. donth-
casing set a% GO@3 feet s’ub~ee-.=..., we can
predict the formation fracture gradient knowing
4. Christman, Stan A.: !lOffshore Fracture
the overburdenpressure.gradientand pore pressure
Gradient,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 19’73) gradient.
Ylo-wo
Given subsea overburden pressure grafiieat is
5. Pennebaker, E. S.: II
An Engineering
equivalent to .90 psi/ft and pore pressure
T-+--2re~etionof
L..
“=. Seismic Data,” paper SpE gradient is equal to .65 psi/ft we can calculate
2165 presented at the SPE 1968 Annuai EffectiveVertical Stress Gradient (E!KM3).
Meeting, Houston, Sept. 29 -Oct. 2.
EVSG = go - gp
6. Eaton, B. A.: ttFract~eGradient Prediction
. 7* - ~G. in Operations,”
+i,mm
ana Jts AppA.ua..w... .. Oilfield
. ‘ .90 - .65 = .25 pai/ft
J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-1360.
Using the stress gradient correlation and the
7. Breckels, I. M. and van Eekelen, H. A. M.: fracturegradient solution,we can calculate the
I!RelationshipBetween HorizontalStress and subsea fracturegradient.
Depth in SedimentaryBasins,” J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1982) 2191-2199.
gf = gp +~”35 (go -gp) - l’f+oh30-%)2
8. McPherson, L. A. and Berry, L. N.: s .65 +1.35 (.25) - 1.401 (.25)2
Itpredictiobof Fracture Gradients from Log
Derived Elastic Moduli,fi Tine Log kc~lyat = ,65 + .338- .088 = .90 psf/ft
{sePt./oct.1972) 12-19.
gf
Fgs =x

. .90
= 17.3 ppg
x
Taking into account the elevation of the mud
return flowline above the subsea datum, we can
then solve for the fracture gradient at an RKB
datum.

Fg =
gf (Ds)
.052 (D5 + Z)

.90 (8000)
.
.052 (8oOO + 100) = 17.lppg
 2 c1 c1
m
3 •ma~ 0
■
4 ■ m%. o_
Q

5 u 0
0 ❑ o

““:::%
f!iih%;tj<:;: e
7
a
❑
Cloon
❑ n

(3
❑
c1

o
o

+ +
0
9

Y k~ual Density
10
11
10

•1
o

/
•1
ls
Formation Density Log
13
14
1.0 ++
++ soil Borin~ 15
1.7 ~
+
Density Data 1s
Wi
I
.4
“mm
1.6 ml
inllll,,,~ 7ooowmlm
Olom 2otlosaoo 4000--
OS@ ‘OtOW Mudtirt$ - Ft

~.t-ExMwscI=s-bIIk~w GMLdo@fw@-h~~du~-

0.s
~ ActtIall Pit

1000 1, ‘*\ - ~m predkted Pit

“<b --- Ovorb,urdon

L
2000 \ %, — poro Pressure

l+! 0.4 x

4
\ %.%.nnn Mud Weight
xx x 3000
x
4000

I 0.2 -- x
x
xx
~ :Z
b 20-

>,$”
u-.--mm
●

+;:b,
“%”h

1
3m - /
x
7000
~ Sooo >13 3/s”

I 1000O
i. $,
II

I
,“,
al 11OOO s 51s”

YA40(K%+1.=W) 12000 7 s/s- \ o {

I 13000 -
Ell- ~~m
l!j lS 17 1s 19
0 0.2 0.4 I s IB 9 10 11 12 ‘3
14
0 0.1 0.2 Pn9sw00Htwt-ppQ
~. &Gmphkd app!kaw d meIradumW- ~~ ~~w