SPE/IADC 67740
Fracture Gradients in Depleted Reservoirs - Drilling Wells in Late Reservoir Life
M.W. Alberty and M. R. McLean, BP
Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
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
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum 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 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.
Abstract
A key requirement to successful drilling is the selection of a
mud weight that provides sufficient pressure to prevent the
influx of formation pore fluids, while at the same time not
exceeding the fracturing resistance of formations exposed in
open hole. The correct prediction of how pore pressure and
fracture resistance varies through the intervals to be drilled is
critical to designing an appropriate casing program.
In many instances fracture gradient profiles will be well
defined from experiences of drilling offset wells. However, in
cases where casing programs are modified or sub-subsurface
conditions have altered, for example as a result of pressure
depletion, predictive methods are required to extrapolate the
previous measurements and inferences of the fracture gradient.
Conventional wisdom on fracture gradients suggests that
pressure depletion can significantly reduce fracture resistance
and seriously increase drilling difficulty. However, an
alternative theory on fracture gradients, coupled with growing
evidence of its applicability, indicates that sands are not in
general the cause of losses associated with induced fractures.
Despite sands often being under lower in situ stress than
adjacent shale layers, it is in fact the shale that are more likely
to host an induced fracture responsible for large-scale mud
losses. In general, shale has a higher Poisson’s ratio than
sands. In addition, the extent of pressure depletion will be less
in intra-reservoir shale than in the sand layers. Therefore, the
predicted effect of reservoir depletion on the fracture gradient
is much less if based on the shale intervals than if based on the
sands.
Here the theories on fracture gradients and the reasons for
their differences are discussed. Field examples supporting the
more optimistic approach are presented.
Fracture Gradient Determination
The traditional method to measure the fracture gradient of a
subsurface formation is through the use of leak-off tests. A
leak-off test is conducted when casing is set immediately
above the interval to be measured and approximately three
meters (ten feet) of fresh formation is drilled below the casing
shoe in the formation to be tested. Pressure is applied to the
casing and the freshly drilled open hole to measure the
response of the formation. See Figure 1.
Initially, the pressure builds in a linear manner. The initial
slope of the pressure versus time plot is determined by the
pump rate and the compressibility of the system. The majority
of the system compressibility is a result of the fluid
compression, with the casing and short length of open hole
contributing only a minor amount to the overall
compressibility. The pressure continues to build until a
fracture is induced in the formation wall. Once a fracture is
induced the slope of the pressure build up curve decreases in
response to the increased volume associated with the fracture.
The point where the slope changes is traditionally known as
the leak-off point and is often taken to represent minimum
horizontal stress.
As pressure continues to increase the fracture extends
through a ‘disturbed’ near well bore zone where stresses are
typically greater than in situ conditions due to stress
redistribution around the well bore, osmotic effects,
temperature disturbances, clay reactivity with the mud,
interfacial tension etc.
The pressure will typically reach a peak and then decline
rapidly, ultimately settling at a propagation pressure that is
somewhat lower than the peak pressure. There are a number of
plausible explanations for the processes associated with
extending the fracture beyond the peak pressure. A common
view is that the drop from peak pressure is associated with
extending the fracture beyond the disturbed zone and/or
getting sufficient fracture width to transmit pressure easily
down the fracture. Once the fracture has been extended
beyond this region the pressure needs only exceed the
minimum horizontal stress for the fracture to propagate. If the
pump rate is low, which is the case for leak-off tests, the
excess pressure will be small and the propagation pressure will
be close to the minimum in situ stress.
If the test is immediately repeated, the high pressures seen
as the fracture once again breaks through the disturbed zone is
significantly decreased but the fracture propagation pressure
2 M.W. ALBERTY AND M.R. MCLEAN
or minimum horizontal stress is essentially identical. The
process of taking a leak-off test well beyond the initial
departure from linearity, generating a fracture well into the
formation and then reopening it is often termed an extended
leak-off test (Kunze and Steiger1).
In many hydrocarbon basins, the maximum stress is in the
vertical axis and the minimum stress is in the horizontal axis.
In passive basins, or as a simplifying assumption, the
orthogonal principal stresses in the horizontal plane may be
considered isotropic, but in reality they will never be exactly
equal and in some regions they will be significantly unequal
(Plumb et al2). A fracture will take the path of least resistance,
which in general will mean opening up against the least stress,
which leads to propagation orthogonal to the minimum in situ
stress. This is represented in Figure 2.
The peak pressure required to generate a fracture is usually
greater than the propagation pressure. However, the
propagation pressure should serve as the basis for safe well
design as the peak or initiation pressure cannot always be
relied upon. The magnitude and extent of the higher stressed
environment surrounding a well bore may vary as a function
of mud properties and well trajectory. It can be significantly
lower if a pre-existing fracture or fault is encountered, and will
reduce if a surge pressure should temporarily induce a fracture
through this zone
Based on the discussed above a “model” can be formulated
for selecting a mud and casing program that does not
compromise the fracture gradient. The basic principles of this
model are
• A ‘safe’ design fracture gradient is equivalent to the
propagation pressure, which in turn is equivalent to the
minimum in situ stress,
• Therefore, formations with the lowest in situ stress
gradient are the most prone to fracturing.
• Therefore, well design fracture gradient should be based
on the formations with the lowest in situ stress gradient.
Principles of Fracture Gradient Prediction
Overburden stress is borne in a formation by both the fluid and
the rock frame. See Figure 3. Following Terzaghi3, the
overburden, pore pressure and effective (or matrix) stress can
be simply expressed as
Sv = P + σ v
where Sv is the overburden stress,
P is the formation pore pressure,
and σv is the effective overburden stress.
On application of overburden a formation attempts to
compact. The extent of any overpressure built up is dependent
on how quickly the fluid can be expelled from the pores (i.e.
drain away) relative to the speed of loading. Any over-
pressure generated results in an equivalent under-stressing of
the rock matrix.
SPE/IADC 67740
The concept of effective (or matrix) stress as applied to the
overburden is equally applicable in the horizontal direction.
The total horizontal stress is equal to the sum of the pore
pressure and the horizontal effective/matrix stress as expressed
in equation (1) below.
Sh = P + σ h …(1)
where S h is the (total) horizontal stress,
and σh is the effective/matrix horizontal stress.
The magnitude of the effective horizontal stress is
dependent on the lateral conditions. In a passive environment
formations are assumed restrained laterally while undergoing
vertical compaction through deposition. Therefore, the
horizontal effective stress is generated to counteract the
natural tendency of a formation to dilate laterally in response
to vertical loading. See Figure 4. A material’s Poisson’s ratio
measures its tendency to dilate laterally in response to vertical
loading. A high Poisson’s ratio is a measure of high tendency
to dilate and therefore a high effective horizontal stress is built
up in response to vertical loading.
It can be shown that the build up of effective horizontal
stress in a passive environment is given by
µ
σh = ( S v − P) …(2)
1− µ
where µ is the formation Poisson’s ratio.
(The above neglects temperature effects and non-linear
behaviour, both of which may have considerable impact on the
accuracy of a computed horizontal stress from a laboratory or
log determined Poisson’s ratio.)
Combining (1) and (2) gives
µ
Sh = P + ( S v − P) …(3)
1− µ
There are many variations on this relationship. In the more
common variations k , the ratio of horizontal to vertical
effective stress, is substituted for the µ /(1 − µ ) term; in
others a third term is added to describe tectonic stress.
Regardless, the principles are common to each other.
For naturally occurring materials Poisson’s ratio lies
between 0 and 0.5. From equation (3) it can be seen that as
pore pressure drops, so will the horizontal stress (except for
the extreme case of µ =0.5). Also, it can be seen that as
Poisson’s ratio decreases the horizontal stress decreases.
Below are listed the typical ranges of observed Poisson’s
ratios for common lithologies.
SPE/IADC 67740 FRACTURE GRADIENTS IN DEPLETED RESERVOIRS - DRILLING WELLS IN LATE RESERVOIR LIFE
Sands - 0.10 to 0.22.
Silts - 0.15 to 0.30
Carbonates - 0.20 to 0.35
Shale - 0.22 to 0.48
Salt - 0.45 to 0.50
Sand has an average Poisson’s ratio that is significantly
lower than typical shale. Therefore, sand should be expected
to have a lower fracture gradient than shale under similar
conditions of pore pressure and overburden.
When these principles are applied to a reservoir with
declining pressure, the problem of drilling these reservoirs is
easily recognized. Figure 5 shows how sand pressure is
expected to decline as a function of the decline in reservoir
pressure. The initial sand fracture pressure is lower than the
initial shale fracture pressure and the sand fracture pressure
declines at an increased rate relative to the shale fracture
pressure. This is the root of the problem with drilling wells
late in a field’s life. As a function of reservoir depletion, sand
fracture gradient may have declined below the value necessary
to maintain shale stability in adjacent shale and below the
value of un-drained nearby sands.
Evidence for the Convention Model
The “conventional model” to fracture gradient prediction is
founded on equation (3) or a derivative of it. This leads to the
concept that (a) formations with a low Poisson’s ratio are at
greatest risk and that (b) reservoir depletion can significantly
reduce the fracture gradient, particularly in formations with a
low Poisson’s ratio (based on the assumption that the
reduction in fracture gradient is synonymous with the
reduction in the minimum horizontal stress).
The evidence for the conventional theory is built upon
rock/soil mechanics principles and decades of experience and
has been demonstrated to work well in many cases.
Compelling evidence can be observed in water injector wells.
The pressure to inject the water is well recorded and
temperature logs provide evidence that fractures have occurred
in sands. Additionally, fracture pressure is observed to drop
with decline in reservoir pressure.
In propped fracture treatments, fractures are contained
within sand layers demonstrating that shale have higher stress.
As in the injector case, fracture pressure drops with pressure
depletion in accordance with sand Poisson’s ratio.
Finally, laboratory measurements and logs both confirm
the lower Poisson’s ratio in sand relative to shale.
An Alternative Model
Given the conventional model described above, the
expectations would be that drilling losses would
predominantly occur in sands near the last casing shoe. The
use of measurement while drilling (MWD) resistivity devices
in real time and in measurement after drilling (MAD) in oil
base and synthetic mud provide the ability to recognize
3
drilling induced fractures. The real time measurement
establishes a base line resistivity profile that can be compared
against MAD logs to determine where the highly resistive mud
has entered fractures in the formation. Repeated use of these
logs over the past ten years have demonstrated that most lost
circulation events occur in shale. So perhaps the conventional
model does not hold up under drilling conditions.
A flaw in applying the conventional model is the
assumption that the generation of a fracture necessarily leads
to major drilling losses. Figure 6 depicts the propagation of a
fracture in a porous, permeable formation. As the fracture
opens and whole mud moves along the fracture face, the
filtrate of the mud invades into the adjacent formation
dehydrating the mud as it travels down the fracture.
Ultimately, the mud slurry becomes so dehydrated that it
becomes immobile, blocking the fracture and preventing
further fracture growth. Additionally, the dehydrated mud in
the fracture creates a displacement between the two fracture
faces that raises the stress field in the near well bore
environment. In this manner the near well bore stress
environment is incrementally raised relative to the original
conditions. This process is well documented in the analogous
problem of propped fracture stimulation and known as fracture
“screen-out” (e.g. Smith et al4).
The increase in near well bore stress state as a result of a
fracture screen-out will raise the pressure necessary to re-
fracture the formation. Successive re-fracturing and screen-out
will further increase the local stress state (Moschovides et al5).
Ultimately, the adjacent shale will become easier to fracture
than the sand. At this point further fracturing can lead to
massive mud losses as the dehydration of the mud is
insufficient in shale to screen-out and block the fracture.
It is important to recognize that the far field minimum
horizontal stress in the sand is still lower than the far field
minimum horizontal stress in the adjacent shale. However, the
pressure in the borehole is unable to penetrate through the high
near well stress zone, so substantial losses do not occur in the
sand.
It is also important to recognize that shale inter-beds
within the sand and immediately adjacent to the sand will
dewater into the sand slowly if sand pressure is reduced below
the virgin shale pressure. This reduction in shale pore pressure
will reduce the fracture pressure of the shale as discussed
earlier. Therefore, the expectation should be that losses would
most likely occur in shale inter-beds and shale immediately
adjacent to sand where pressure depletion is occurring. If
inter-bedded shale is the point where losses occur, it may be
difficult to recognize those loss zones on MWD resistivity
logs because of the masking effect of the highly resistive pay
sands that are being pressure depleted.
Evidence For the Alternative Model
The potential for the screen-out effect in association with
drilling sands was recognized in the early 1990’s. Morita et al6
published evidence from laboratory results that showed that
fracture resistance increased in sands when particle-laden mud
4 M.W. ALBERTY AND M.R. MCLEAN
was used as the fracture invading fluid. Field evidence was
presented (Fuh et al7) and a patent secured (Fuh et al8) for
optimizing fluid properties to enhance the screen-out process.
Further evidence for the process is found in analogous
technologies of (a) water injection where a loss of injectivity
can be noted if particulates in the water are not removed
before injection, (b) screen-out in propped fracture treatments
(Smith et al4), and (c) cuttings re-injection where preferential
fracture propagation occurs in low permeability strata when
juxtaposed to permeable sand (Willson et al9).
Common drilling practices indicate that predictions based
on sands being the weakest link under-estimate the appropriate
fracture gradient for drilling a section. Hole sections with
sands open are routinely withstanding borehole hydrostatic
pressures that should induce fractures under conventional
wisdom. In the high pressure environment of the Gulf of
Mexico deep water, mud weights are routinely used that are
within 0.5 PPG of the leak-off at casing shoes without
breaking down the sands near those shoes and when losses are
occurring, they are almost always in the shale rather than the
sands. However, lack of major losses in over-pressured sands
is not conclusive evidence that losses have been prevented by
screen-out of any induced fractures.
The examples that follow are associated with sands that are
depleted or under-pressured relative to overlying formations.
Some losses did occur, but they occur at a fracture gradient
that is completely consistent with the alternative model and
are strong support for the theory that the sand fracture gradient
has been elevated through screen-out processes.
Drilling Example 1.
In the southern Caspian Sea the Balakhany sands are
associated with a major pressure regression immediately
below the regional high-pressure seal. The presence of the seal
above these sands and the occurrence of a high pressure sand
below create a drilling environment where high mud weights
are required to drill these low pressure sands cost effectively.
Figure 7 is a display of the lithology, pore pressure, actual
mud weight, leak-off, and formation integrity test data. The
calculated fracture gradient for both sand and shale under the
traditional theory is also displayed.
The high formation integrity test (FIT) at 3600 meters
(11,812 feet) is a result of regional tectonic stress observed in
this and offset wells at this level. This test exceeds
overburden, shows minimal fluid compressibility, and displays
a strictly linear pressure build-up curve. No leak-off or
induced fractures have occurred at the reported pressure.
There is no doubt that shale is exposed during this test. This
tectonic stress is significantly reduced once the fault at 3900
meters (12,796 feet) is crossed as displayed on the subsequent
measures of formation strength. This reduction is substantiated
by a lost circulation event that occurs immediately below the
fault.
The mud weight is increased to cover the high-pressure
sands, denoted with their measured pore pressures, in the
pressure ramp at 4000 meters (13,124 feet). This mud weight
SPE/IADC 67740
is maintained as the hole is deepened into the pressure
regression below 4500 meters (14,764 feet) and into the low-
pressure sands below. Once drilling into these sands, returns
are lost at exactly the pressure predicted by the new theory and
well above the fracture pressure predicted by the conventional
theory.
This example clearly shows that the apparent fracture
gradient in sands is substantially higher than the conventional
theory would indicate.
Drilling Example 2
The second example is taken from the Judge Digby field in
south Louisiana Shaughnessy and Fuqua10). The “A” sands are
highly pressured (1.92 sg, 16 ppg) water bearing sands as
shown in Figure 8. The “B” sands are gas-bearing sands that
have been depleted by production. Subsequent to their
depletion, Amoco purchased the lease and pursued deeper
targets. The highly pressured “C” sands were discovered some
183 meters (600 feet) below the depleted “B” sands.
Considerable savings could be made if the depleted “B” sands
could be isolated behind the same casing string used to isolate
the “A” sands. A study was conducted and the alternative
model applied.
The alternative model suggests that the sands could
withstand slightly above 1.92 sg (16 ppg) mud although the
drilling margin would be very narrow. The zone was drilled
with 1.92 sg mud with some minor losses while circulating
and no losses with the mud pumps off.
The conventional theory predicts that these sands would
have a fracture gradient on the order of 1.02 sg (8.5 ppg). The
sands were subjected to 1.92 sg (16 ppg) mud with no losses.
Clearly the conventional theory significantly under estimates
fracture resistance in sands when drilling with a conventional
mud system.
Limitations
The process of screening out sands requires a mud that loses
filtrate to the fracture face to accommodate dehydration and
ultimately blockage of the fracture. In many instances the
process occurs effectively without any particular changes to
conventional mud design. However, in clay rich or silty sands
getting early dehydration of the mud close to well bore may be
more difficult. Similarly, the proposed fracture blocking
mechanism would be difficult to achieve with high density,
low solids concentration drilling fluids such as formates. In
these cases greater effort in mud design may be required.
Currently there are some JIP’s in place to try to determine the
relationship between mud properties and fracture induced fluid
losses.
As a result of the high differential and the multiple
fractures that will be induced in the near well bore
environment, significant formation damage should be
expected. In all the empirical cases observed by the authors,
none were in potential productive zones, so no measurement
of damage was ever observed. The use of acid soluble
particulates may be required if the principle is to be applied in
SPE/IADC 67740 FRACTURE GRADIENTS IN DEPLETED RESERVOIRS - DRILLING WELLS IN LATE RESERVOIR LIFE 5

potential productive horizons.
Conclusions
Conventional fracture theory predicts that sands have a lower
horizontal stress than shale at similar overburden and pore
pressure. This theory is demonstrated as correct when clear
non-particulate fluids are used as the fracturing fluid.
However, when particulate laden fluids are used fractures will
screen-out or block the fluid progress along the fracture,
significantly increasing the fracture resistance of sands.
The increased fracture resistance in sands results in shale
being the more likely loss zone associated with low pressure
or depleted sands.
The conventional model takes no account of the ‘healing’
properties associated with sands resulting from the screen-out
effect. As a result, the conventional model will lead to overly
pessimistic assessments of drill ability, particularly in depleted
reservoirs. Here, the alternative model advocated in this paper
clearly distinguishes between an unchanged fracture pressure
at the borehole wall, compared with the reduction in minimum
horizontal far-field stress (as predicted by the conventional
model). There is significant field evidence to support the
alternative model, first suggested in the early 1990’s.
Significant formation damage should be expected when the
screen-out principle is applied to highly overbalanced sands.
Mud formulation may be important to get the screen-out
effect, particularly in silt zones.
4. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K. II, and Haga, J. (1987). Tip screenout
fracturing: A technique for soft unstable formations. SPE Pet.
Eng., May, pp.95-103.
5. Moschovidis, Z. A., Gardner, D. C., Sund, G. and Veatch, R. W.
(1993). Disposal of Oily Cuttings by Downhole Periodic
Fracturing in Valhall, North Sea: A Case Study and Modelling
Concepts. SPE/IADC 25757.
6. Morita, N., Black, A.D., and Fuh, G-F. (1990). Theory of lost
circulation pressure. SPE 20409.
7. Fuh, G-F., Morita, N. Boyd, P.A. and McGoffin, S.J. (1992). A
new approach to preventing lost circulation while drilling.
8. Fuh, G-F., Morita, N., Whitfield, D.L. and Strah, D.A. (1993).
Method for inhibiting and propagation of formation fractures
while drilling and casing a well. US Patent 5,207,282.
9. Willson, S.M., Steiger, R.P., Moschovidis, Z.A., Abou-Sayed,
A,.De Bree, Ph., and Sirevag, G. (1990). Laboratory
investigation of drill cuttings reinjection disposal by downhole
injection. 37th US Rock Mech. Symp., Vale, Co., June.
10. Shaughnessy, J. and Fuqua, R. (2000). Successfully drilling
highly depleted sands. SPE 67744

Nomenclature
µ = formation Poisson’s ratio
Sv = overburden stress, m/Lt2, MPa
Sh = (total) horizontal stress, m/Lt2, MPa
σv = effective overburden stress, m/Lt2, MPa
k = ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress
P = formation pressure, m/Lt2, MPa

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BP for allow them to present this
material. The authors would also like to thank BP’s partners in
Shah Deniz and Judge Digby field for allowing us to present
the enclosed well examples. The authors would also like to
recognize Nigel Last, Joe Hagan, Mark Aston, John
Shaughnessy and Ron Fuqua for their contributions in
substantiating the principles presented here and Steve Willson
for checking the technical content and providing useful
contributions.

References
1. Kunze, K.R. and Steiger, R.P. (1992). Accurate in-situ stress
measurements during drilling operations. SPE 245935.
2. Plumb, R., Papanastasiou, P. and Last, N.C. (1995). Constraining
the state of stress in tectonically active settings. SPE 47240.
3. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice., June, pp.676-684.
 Overburden

Peak

Bottom Hole Pressure Shut-in

Leak-
Min. in situ
off
stress
Bleed-off

Min horizontal
stress
Static mud
column pressure
Max horizontal Static mud pressure
Time stress
Figure 1. Leak-off test pressure profile. Figure 2. Effect of stress on fracturing.

Total Overburden Pore Pressure Effective Overburden

Sv P σv

= +

Figure 3. The relationship between pore pressure, effective stress and total stress.
Vert. stress

Unloaded Horiz. stress

Vert. stress

Reservoir Pressure
Fracture Pressure

Shale frac pressure

Sand frac pressure

Uniaxial stress Horiz. stress Reservoir pressure

Time
Vert. stress

Figure 5. Fracture pressure as a function of declining pore pressure.

Horiz. stress
Uniaxial strain
Figure 4. The Poisson’s effect.
SPE/IADC 67740 FRACTURE GRADIENTS IN DEPLETED RESERVOIRS - DRILLING WELLS IN LATE RESERVOIR LIFE 7

Figure 6. Fracture screen out in permeable sands.

Drilling Example - Shah Deniz 2

Mud Wgt Predicted Sand FG
Predicted PP Predicted Shale FG
3000

3500
Leak-off
Depth (m TVDBRT)

Induced losses
4000 Leak-off

4500

5000
Losses
FIT
5500

6000
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Pore Pressure & Frac Gradients (SG)

Figure 7. The SDX-2 drilling example.

8 M.W. ALBERTY AND M.R. MCLEAN SPE/IADC 67740

Drilling Example - Tuscaloosa Parlange No. 11

Depth (m TVDBRT) Mud Wgt
4,000

FG (Shales)
4,500
Pore Pressure

5,000

5,500

Sand FG
6,000 ‘A’ Sands
‘B’ Sands

6,500 ‘C’ Sands

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Pore Pressure & Frac Gradients (s.g.)

Figure 8. The Tuscalosa drilling example.