Sand Control

Geomechanics (2nd part) d . 8

e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Manuel BramaoPr

PE-SC-0003
Learning Objectives
UCS
Stress/strain diagram
Example of Yield d . 8
Examples of strengths for different rocks r v e 201
s e un 1,
Obtaining UCS from logs s re 28 - J
h t ay
UCS and Young modulus r i g e-M
l l nc
UCS and shear modulus
T . Aau, F r a
UCS and porosity E x -P
N ouard
Determination of Poisson Ratio and t © Young
r Modulus
i g h ntin D
Wellbore deformation while y r Vale
drilling
o p for
Perforation tunnel statibility
C uced
Fracture orientationProd

2 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Rock Strength - UCS

UCS stands for: Unconfined d . 8

r v e 201
Compressive Strength or s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
Uniaxial Compressive h t ay
r i g e-M
Strength l l nc
T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
 Two methods of N ouard
t © Dr
determination: i g h ntin
r le y or Va
– LaboratoryCRockp
o ed f tests
d uc
– Log derived
Pr UCS
o

3
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Experiment Geometries

Unconfined compression Triaxial compression

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
Jacket g
i ht ay
ll r e -M
nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
gh tin Confining Confining

p yri Va len
o
C ed for pressure pressure
uc
P rod

4
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Typical Stress/Strain Response:
weak rock, 20 MPa confining pressure

d . 8
Yieldingerv
e 01 2
,
r es8 - Jun1

h s 2
t ay
l ig - M
r nce
l
A ra
T . ,F
x au
NEouard -P

t © Dr
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

5
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Yield in a Shale Example

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

6
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Rock Strength

 Unconsolidated sand
d . 8
- UCS < 10 psi e 01 rv n 1, 2
e
- no perforation tunnel r es8 - Ju
h ts ay 2
- high risk of substantial sand productionri(flow g e - Mrate dependent)dd
l l nc
 Weakly consolidated rocks (UCS T . Aaubetween
,F
r a
10 psi and 1000 psi)
x
E ard - P
- Area where a sand production N
t © Droustudy is needed
i g h ntin
 Consolidated rocks y r Vale > 1000 psi)
(UCS
o p for
C ed tunnel
- defined perforation uc
rod
- low risk of substantial
P sand production (failed by stress transported by
flow)

7 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

UCS from Logs

 UCS can be evaluated using logs or log combination

d. 8
rv e 201
e n 1,
 Generally based on correlations between r es8UCS
-J
u and other
h t s ay 2
petrophysical properties rig e - M
All nc
. au, Fra
 Several correlations available:
T
x -P
N E ard
- UCS and Young’s modulust © Dro(from
u sonic logs)
i g h ntin
- UCS and Shearyrmodulusale (from sonic logs)
o p for V
- C
UCS and porosity (sandstone)
e d
uc
rod
- Other logPcombination (Gamma-ray, Neutron…)
 Analysis done by Geomechanics experts

8 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

8
UCS and Young Modulus

 Unconfined compressive strength vs

Young’s modulus
d . 8
 Based on extensive dataset of r v e 201
sandstones s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
 Need to convert Edyn to Estatic h t ay
r i g e-M
 Applicable to sands and shales butAll Franc
T . au,
not to carbonates E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
d
Correlation example: Pro
UCS = 2.280 + 4.1089* YMEstatic
where Estatic= Young's Modulus from core Plumb, Eurock 94. SPE 28022

9
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
UCS and Young Modulus

 Unconfined compressive strength vs

Young’s modulus
d . 8
 Based on extensive dataset of r v e 201
sandstones s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
 Need to convert Edyn to Estatic h t ay
r i g e-M
 Applicable to sands and shales butAll Franc
T . au,
not to carbonates E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntcorrelation!
This is an Example! Not an universal in
p yr or Va le

Couced f
d
Correlation example: Pro
UCS = 2.280 + 4.1089* YMEstatic
where Estatic= Young's Modulus from core Plumb, Eurock 94. SPE 28022

10
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
UCS and Young Modulus

 Unconfined compressive strength vs

Young’s modulus
d . 8
 Based on extensive dataset of r v e 201
sandstones s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
 Need to convert Edyn to Estatic h t ay
r i g e-M
 Applicable to sands and shales butAll Franc
T . au,
not to carbonates E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced Different Units!
d
Correlation example: Pro
UCS = 2.280 + 4.1089* YMEstatic
where Estatic= Young's Modulus from core Plumb, Eurock 94. SPE 28022

11
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
UCS and Shear Modulus

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

12
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
UCS and Porosity – upper bond of strength

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

13
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Determination of Poisson Ratio and Young Modulus

Poisson Ratio and Dynamic Young Modulus can be determined from

sonic travel times .
e d 018
 Poisson Ratio v
er n 1 , 2
r es8 - Ju
2v  v 2 2
vs Shear wave velocity h s 2
t ay 1
 ig - M
s p
r nce vs 

2 v v 2
s
2
p  vp Compressional
x
.
T Pau
l l
Awave ,
a
Frvelocity ts
NEowave
ts Shear a r d -
travel time ( s/ft)
Poisson Ratio ©
t tin Dr
u 1
h
ig t nCompressional wave travel time ( s/ft) vp 
y r Vaple vp
b o 6p for
G  13,474.5 2  C d
10ucepsi  b Bulk density (dimensionless)
t s Prod
Bulk Modulus
E dyn  2G 1
Dynamic Young Modulus

14 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Morales Correlation and Static Young Modulus

c     0.35  c Corrected
. 8
porosity d
e 01
 c  0.35   0.35 e rv n 1, 2
s u
re 28 - J
s
ht ay
r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
.
E sta  2.21  dyn
T au
x - P  0.963 E
E
N uard c
t © Dro
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr



15 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Exercise - UCS

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

16 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Wellbore deformation while drilling – Stress directions

Minimum
Stress
d. 8
rv e 201
e n 1,
Drilling induced fracture r es8 - Ju
h s 2
t ay
(hydraulic fracture
l ig - M
r Breakout
l
A ra n ce
Pmud
T . ,F
x au (shear failure)
NE ard
-P

t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr
Maximum
Stress

17
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Bore hole logging : FMI

Co-existing
shear .failure
e d 018 mud
e v
(insufficient
r n 1, 2
r es8weight)
-J
u
h ts ay 2 and
r i g e - M tensile fractures
l l
A ,F a nc (excessive mud
.
T Pau
r
x
E - weight)
N ouard
t © Dr
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

18 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Mud Weight versus Failure

Vertical
d.
stress

v e 18
er n 1 , 20

r es8 - Ju
h t ays 2
Break out
l ig - M
r nce
l
A ra
T . au, F
E x - P SAF
RISK
DANGE
NY ouard
R
t © Dr E
Pore ig alen h tin
y r MUD h
p or V
Pressure
Couced f
WEIGHT
Pp Sh
rod Too Low
PMW Safe Mud Weight
MW Too High

19
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Perforation Tunnel Stability

Failure when load exceeds strength:

- Vertical - horizontal stresses and pore pressure . 8
d
e 201
- Depletion r v
e un 1,
s
re 28 - J
- Excessive dynamic under balance h s
t ay
r i g e-M
- Completely unconsolidated sand during l l
A ,F aproduction
nc or injection
.
T Pau
r
x
NEouard -
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

20
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Perforation tunnel failure

Load exceeds strength at tunnel

wall
Load – total stress minus pore d . 8
r v e 201
pressure (effective stress) s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
Pore pressure decreases during h t ay
r i g e-M
production (depletion) l l nc
T . Aau, F r a
Total stress increases – E x -P
depletion induced sand t © NDrouar
d

production i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

21 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Stress Anisotropy and Fracture Orientation

Hydraulically induced fractures will develop in directions perpendicular to

the least in situ principal stress. d. 8
r v e 201
Typical of normal drilling s e unof1,a very shallow Well, small
re 28 - J
Typical
conditions, a large v gives a
vertical fracture. v l
l r i h
g e-M
n
c
s
t ayv gives a horizontal fracture.

T . Aau, F r a v

E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr
h

22
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Summary

UCS – Unconfined or Uniaxial Compressive Strength

- Laboratory measurement
d . 8
- Log analysis e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
Principal stresses, pore pressure, rock strengths will res28affect
-J
u
h t ay
- Bore hole collapse in OH completion r i g e-M
l l nc
- Predicting frac direction T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
- Perforation tunnel stability N ouard
t © Dr
- Sand production i g h ntin
y r Vale
p for
- Compaction (subsidence)
o
C ed uc
P rod

23
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
Any Questions?

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

24 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved