Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Wellbore strengthening (WBS) offers enabling technology for wells that are drilled in geological
environments with a narrow drilling margin. Through its deployment, costly lost circulation events may
be avoided, casing setting depths may be extended, and, in optimum cases, deeper targets may be reached
with a reduced or slimmed-down casing program.
The elevation of the fracture gradient offered by WBS is a complex issue that involves the growth of
fractures in permeable or impermeable rocks using non-Newtonian drilling fluids that are laden with
solids of varying types and sizes. Several plausible (and sometimes contradictory) models have been
proposed historically to explain the WBS phenomenon, and the only way to assess the correct explanation
is through dedicated experimentation. In this paper, an experimental technique to study WBS under
realistic conditions is introduced, and the results of a series of larger-scale fracturing experiments using
this technique are presented.
The experimental set-up described here consists of a dual flow-loop/ pressure-intensifying system to
carry out high-pressure borehole fracturing tests on cylindrical rock samples while maintaining continuous
circulation of the drilling fluid within the borehole. The system offers full control over pore pressure,
radial confining pressure and, if desired, independent axial pressure. Several injection cycles are performed to characterize the values of the fracture initiation pressure (FIP) and fracture propagation pressure
(FPP) and thereby characterize WBS effects. Typical experimental variables included: the type of base
fluid (water-based, oil- or synthetic-based), the concentration, type, and particle size distribution (PSD) of
lost circulation materials (LCMs) used to achieve WBS effects, and the type of rock tested (sandstone and
shale, i.e. permeable and impermeable rock media). Additionally, post-fracturing techniques such as
thin-section analysis were employed to study the fracture geometry and deposition structure of plugging
solids on the fracture surfaces.
The experiments clearly show that for any rock with a given set of rock strength and failure parameters,
there is an optimum PSD for maximizing WBS effects. Optimum PSD appears to be of primary
importance, almost irrespective of LCM type. The results furthermore show that although a minimum
concentration of LCM bridging agents is required for effective WBS, FPP does not increase significantly
for concentrations above a certain upper threshold value. Moreover, increasing the injection volume
SPE-174976-MS
during WBS squeeze treatments above a threshold value may actually lead to lower FPP values. All of
these findings have important implications for field application of WBS treatments. In addition, petrographic imaging of the fracture after testing show that fracture plugging occurs in the proximity of the
fracture tip and not close to wellbore face, in direct support of the Fracture Propagation Resistance (FPR)
model of WBS, and in disagreement with Wellbore Stress Augmentation/ Stress Cage models.
The results not only confirm information from previous investigations, but also provide new insight
into effective ways to strengthen wellbores in various formations. The experimental results are directly
applicable to improve well construction and to minimize non-productive time on narrow drilling-margin
wells such as (ultra-) deep-water wells by selecting the appropriate mud formulations, LCM materials and
their concentrations, as well as application treatments.
SPE-174976-MS
formulation and additives on rock fracturing behavior. High-pressure fracturing experiments were
performed on large-scale samples under poly-axial stress conditions. The experiments showed FIP to be
independent of mud type and formulation. Furthermore, the FPP was found to be strongly dependent on
the mud formulation and the use of certain additives that could plug fractures. Significant FPP increase
(60%) was observed in sandstone samples by introducing 40 pounds per barrel (ppb) of calcium
carbonate particles in certain size ranges. However, the scope of the experiments was limited in terms of
the concentration, particle size distribution, and type of the WBS materials tested, with some of the
popular present-day WBS materials (e.g. graphite, fiber) not yet available at the time of the investigation.
In addition, it is probably fair to state that with todays inflation in cost, a repeat / extension of the DEA
13 investigation using such large-scale equipment and samples as were used in the 1980s would probably
be cost-prohibitive.
GPRI Project
The GPRI project on Minimizing Lost Circulation in Synthetic Based Mud (Dudley et al., 2000) was
performed with the aim to improve the lost circulation control capabilities of invert oil emulsion muds,
notably synthetic-based muds (SBM). WBS experiments were performed on cylindrical samples under
conditions of isostatic confining stress. The GPRI experiments confirmed the fundamental findings of
DEA 13 investigations on FIP and FPP. Moreover, fracture sealing capabilities of various types of lost
circulation materials such as graphite, calcium carbonate, and cellulosic fibers were also investigated. The
GPRI project postulated two distinct mechanisms for WBS generated by the use of LCMs: (1) fracture
bridging performed by coarser particles, (2) impairment of the fracture hydraulic conductivity using finer
particles. However, rigorous guidelines on how to engineer LCM types, loading and particle size
distributions were not provided. The results merely suggested that the ideal LCM blend should contain
coarse bridging agents to form a seal in the fracture and finer particles to reduce the permeability of the
formed seal. No post-testing analysis was performed on the possible relationship between the geometry
of the formed fracture and the optimum LCM particle size distribution. Due to lack of pressure control
to maintain constant confining pressure during the propagation injection, the fracture propagation
pressures (FPPs) were measured based on single fracture propagation cycles. Relying on single data points
for FPP measurement can be significantly misleading, as will be shown in this paper: a sufficient number
of fracture bridging and re-opening cycles is required to characterize FPP accurately. Additionally, in the
GPRI experiments, the majority of the fracture reopening and propagation cycles were performed under
the same in-situ stress conditions and the effect of confining pressure variation on FPP was not
investigated.
Other Relevant Experimental Studies
The Fracture Studies Joint Industry Project is another notable attempt to better understand the WBS
phenomenon and to find practical ways to exploit its benefits. Several papers have been published on the
findings of this Joint Industry Project (JIP) since its start in the mid-2000s (see e.g., Guo et al. (2009 and
2014), Kageson-Loe et al. (2008), and Sanders et al. (2008)). Several experimental set-ups have been used
in the experimental investigations, including a fracture sealing tester and block testing equipment. The
fracture sealing tester contains two parallel aluminum platens with adjustable opening to simulate fracture
faces. Extensive experimental investigations were conducted to study the effect of LCM PSD, type, and
concentration on fracture bridging and reopening. Although the results provide valuable general insights
into the fracture sealing capabilities of drilling fluids and LCM additives, the relatively simplistic
experimental set-up complicates the extension of the results to a real-life rock fracturing scenario. In
addition, fracturing experiments were performed using a block tester to characterize remedial WBS
treatments on drilling induced- and natural fractures (Guo et al., 2014). Compared to the base-mud tests,
measured FPPs for LCM-laden fluids were increased by more than 300 and 400 percent for induced and
natural fractures respectively. These high FPP values for drilling induced fractures even exceeded the
SPE-174976-MS
rocks initial FIP. This seems unrealistically high and generally not in agreement with the previous
investigations. In this paper, we present an independent study on the realistic increase of the magnitude
of the FPP (and thereby of the fracture gradient) that can be expected in field application.
Contreras et al. (2014 a-b) recently investigated applications of nanoparticle-based drilling fluids for
WBS in both permeable and impermeable formations. Fracturing injection tests were performed under
conditions of axial and radial confinement, but without any explanation of the mechanism(s) employed to
control theses stresses during the injection cycles. It was observed that the mud formulation affects the
borehole breakdown pressure (i.e., FIP), and that applying nanoparticles can increase the FIP significantly,
at least in permeable rocks. These observations, however, contradict the findings of almost all major WBS
investigations, including DEA 13 (Onyia, 1994) and the GPRI (Dudley, 2000) studies. No validation tests
were conducted to support the findings. Furthermore, no pressure time-history was presented for axial and
confining stress during the injections, which complicates the identification of artifacts caused by pressure
communication between the borehole and confining pressure prior to fracture initiation. In addition, the
FIP values for permeable rocks (see Contreras et al. (2014 a)) in some experiments were unrealistically
low, possibly due to fluid leakage from the borehole. Fracturing experiments on shale samples showed
that, despite a slightly positive effect, FIP and FPP values are not significantly increased (certainly
insufficiently enhanced to rely on it in an actual field application setting) by the nanoparticles suspended
in the test fluids when considering the experimental error of the performed tests. Nanoparticles at present,
therefore, do not appear to present a clear path to effective WBS in impermeable rocks such as shales.
Experimental
Equipment Set-Up: The UT MudFrac System
A state-of-the-art experimental set-up was designed and manufactured for in-depth WBS investigations
(Figure 1a-b). The UT MudFrac set up is a dual flow-loop/pressure-intensifying system. Cylindrical rock
samples of 4 inch in diameter and 6 inch in length are used. A 9/16 inch borehole is drilled and flow lines
are then inserted 2.5 inch into each end of the sample, leaving a 1 inch section of the rock exposed for
fracture initiation. The flow lines are epoxied to the rock sample to prevent pressure communication
between the borehole and the vessel. The sample is isolated by using two steel end-caps in the axial
direction and a rubber sleeve in the radial direction (Figure 2 a-d).
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 1The UT MudFrac system: (a) photograph with overlay, indicating essential equipment components; (b) schematic of the dual
flow loop set-up.
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 2Sample preparation and loading into the vessel: (a) rock sample with end caps; (b) sample mounted in the radial confining
sleeve; (c) sample loaded into the test vessel; (d) test vessel and connection flow lines.
A progressive cavity pump is used to circulate the drilling fluid through the flow-loop. In addition, a
rotary vane water pump is used to saturate the rock sample, to examine the connections for leakage before
running the test, and to flush the flow-lines after each test. Since the pressure required for fracture
initiation and propagation cycles is beyond the working pressure range of the mud pump, a pressure
intensifying system consisting of a fluid accumulator and a positive displacement pump is employed. The
accumulator is essentially a fluid container, which separates the pressurizing fluid (water) and drilling
fluid. The fluid accumulator connects the injection pump to the flow loop. Before each injection cycle, the
accumulator is filled with the drilling fluid while the fluid is circulating through the flow loop. The mud
is always sheared, either before or during the fracturing test, to prevent it from gelling-up (note that
allowing the mud to gel up during the fracturing cycles would create test artifacts). Once the accumulator
is filled with enough fluid to perform the fracture initiation or propagation cycles, pressure is intensified
by shutting in the flow loop and extending the injection pump piston to apply hydraulic pressure to the
borehole.
The UT MudFrac System applies isostatic stress to the sample by compressing the confining fluid
(water). Permeable rock samples were tested under isostatic stress condition. Fracturing experiments on
shale samples were typically performed under 1,500 psi axial stress (in addition to the confining pressure,
which could be varied at will) to avoid rock tensile failure along the lamination planes. All experiments
were conducted at room temperature (a planned upgrade to the equipment will allow the use of elevated
temperature and associated control in the experiments).
SPE-174976-MS
Positive displacement pumps are used to control borehole injection pressure, pore pressure, and
confining pressure. Utilizing Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control algorithms and high performance motion control hardware, the system can accurately control several independent process variables
(e.g., the pressure and flow-rate of injection-, pore-, and confining pumps). In addition, safety shut downs
are hard-coded in the process control system. The data acquisition system records mud density, temperature, pressure and flow rate in real-time.
Rock and Fluid Samples
Two types of rocks were selected to represent permeable and impermeable formations respectively: Berea
Upper Gray Sandstone and Mancos Shale. The material properties of the samples are presented at Table
1. Permeability, porosity, and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) were provided by the supplier of
these rock samples. Berea sandstones elastic moduli (Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio) and fracture
toughness were measured separately. Inhibitive water based-mud (WBM) and SBM were used as the base
fluid systems to which LCM materials were added. Commercial grades of graphites, fibers and gilsonites
that are routinely used in field practice for lost circulation control purposes were used in the investigations.
Rheological properties of the drilling fluids were measured before and after each experiment. Typical
values for plastic viscosity (PV), yield point (YP) and 10 seconds gel strength for the two base mud
systems are presented in Table 2.
Table 1Typical rock properties of the samples in this study
Measured Property
Berea Sandstone
Mancos Shale
Brine Permeability
Gas Permeability
Porosity
UCS
Youngs Modulus
Poissons Ratio
Fracture Toughness
105 md
280-350 md
18 percent
6000-8000 psi
1.5-2 106 psi
0.23-0.3
230 psi
1 nD
1 nD
3.7-7.9 percent
6,300-9,800 psi
SBM
WBM
Plastic Viscosity
Yield Point
Gel Strength (10 sec)
22-26 cP
20-23 lb/100ft2
9 lb/100ft2
39-45 cP
14-20 lb/100ft2
13 lb/100ft2
SPE-174976-MS
was closed by reducing the borehole pressure and increasing the confining pressure to 500 psi (cf. Figure
3). Then, fluid injection was resumed at a rate of 0.1 cc/sec to re-open and propagate the fracture.
Figure 3Fracture initiation and fracture propagation injection: the fracture initiation cycle was performed under 100 psi confining
pressure and atmospheric pore pressure. Note the peak in borehole injection pressure that characterizes fracture initiation, and the
subsequent communication of injection and confining pressure thereafter. The fracture propagation injection cycle was performed
under 500 psi confining pressure. The local injection pressure maxima, marked by the red dotted circles, indicate events where the
fracture re-opens and propagates. Note that the maxima have corresponding peaks in confining pressure due to pressure communication to the outside of the sample during the fracture re-opening/propagation events. FPP is best characterized by taking the overall
average of the propagation pressure values, as indicated in the graph.
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 4 Fracture initiation and propagation: (a) fracture initiation schematic: the created fracture initially propagates in the radial
direction; (b) fracture propagation schematic: fracture propagates along the sample length, the width of the fracture remains relatively
constant along the fracture height; (c) fractured sample unloaded after the fracture initiation injection: note the limited fracture height
at sample mid-length; (d) fractured sample after the fracture propagation injection: the fracture has propagated along the entire length
of the sample.
Validation Experiments
Validation experiments were performed to critically examine sample preparation and test procedure.
Fracture initiation and propagation injection cycles were conducted as described above for various fluid
systems. SBM and WBM fluids without any LCM and a mud density of 12 pounds per gallon (ppg),
achieved with the addition of barite, were used for all baseline tests. Subsequently, WBS experiments
were conducted by adding 20 ppb of a graphite-based LCM blend (developed in a previous study, see van
Oort et al., 2011) to the base muds. Figure 5a shows the fracture initiation curves for the validations tests,
10
SPE-174976-MS
including results for both mud types with and without LCM. FIP was observed to be relatively constant
for these tests taking into account the expected experimental error and the natural variation in strength
among Berea sandstone samples. FIP was clearly independent of drilling fluid type or formulation. This
is in full agreement with the results of the DEA 13 investigations (Onyia, 1994). In addition, these
experiments indicate that adding LCM materials to the base muds does not appear to change the near
wellbore tangential stress (hoop stress). Variation in the injection volume pumped until the FIP value is
reached indicates that there are variations in fluid compressibility between the tests, possibly caused by
such factors as entrainment of some air in the mud formulations upon mixing.
Figure 5Results of validation experiments: (a) fracture initiation curves at 100 psi confining pressure; (b-c) fracture reopening and
propagation curves for confining pressures of 100 psi and 500 psi respectively.
The results of fracture propagation injection cycles at 100 psi and 500 psi confining pressures are
compared in Figure 5b and c. Also, the average FPP values for all validation experiments are presented
in Table 3. Unlike FIP, the mud type and formulation can have a significant impact on FPP. The results
show that a significant increase (50% in our experiments) in FPP was achieved by adding the proper
LCM blends to the base fluid. In addition, the base WBM fluid had a higher FPP than the base SBM,
which is again in agreement with the DEA 13 (Onyia 1994) and the GPRI experiments (Dudley et al.,
2000). As explained by van Oort et al. (2011) WBM shields the pressure communication between the
borehole and fracture tip more effectively than SBM. This is due to the capability of WBM to form an
external filter cake in the vicinity of the fracture tip, which shields the tip better from the full hydraulic
force of the mud than an internal filter cake formed by OBM/SBM.
SPE-174976-MS
11
100
500
SBM, no
LCM
WBM, no
LCM
SBM
LCM
WBM
LCM
486
1127
1424
661
1869
1150
2097
Figure 6 Particle size analysis of various graphite-based LCM blends: (a) LCM blend PSD curves; (b) LCM blend cumulative PSD
curves.
Table 4 Median size (d50) of fine, medium, and coarse LCM
blend
LCM Blend
Fine Blend
Medium Blend
Coarse Blend
90
217
393
The results of fracture propagation cycles in the confining pressure range of 100-500 psi are plotted
and compared with the base SBM result in Figure 7. It was observed that the medium grade LCM blend
maximizes the FPP values compared to the fine and coarse grades, which gave comparable results. This
observation clearly indicates that there is an optimum PSD which maximizes the strengthening effect.
Moreover, the result implies that any deviation from this optimum PSD will lead to a sub-optimum FPP
values and therefore a sub-optimum WBS effect. It is also clear that the optimum LCM blend in this case
has a distinct bi-modal (tri-modal when accounting for barite weighting material) distribution. This
important observation and its implications are explored further in the following sections.
12
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 7Effect of LCM PSD on FIP and FPP: (a) fracture initiation injection curve for 100 psi confining pressure; (b-f) fracture
propagation injection cycles for confining pressures of 100 psi, 200 psi, 300 psi, 400 psi and 500 psi respectively; (g) average FPP for
various LCM blends.
SPE-174976-MS
13
The dependence of the magnitude of the WBS effect on particle size distribution has profound
implications for field application. Not only do the optimum LCM PSD and concentration (see Section
Permeable Rocks: Effect of LCM Concentration below) need to be determined for the mud formulations
and mud weights employed as well as the rock formations drilled, they need to be rigorously managed /
characterized and maintained at optimum levels to achieve optimum WBS benefits. However, most LCM
materials, typically in medium to coarser size ranges, undergo significant size degradation with applied
shear, e.g. by shearing these materials through the nozzles of drill bits. It is important that this degradation
is well-understood in real-time and managed accordingly. This subject will be discussed in more detail in
a future paper (van Oort et al., 2016).
Thin-section analysis was conducted to analyze the generated fractures in detail and determine the
location of seals that were created along the fracture surfaces. Fractured samples were first epoxied to
preserve the geometry of the induced fractures after testing. Subsequently, two sections (section A and B)
were extracted along the length of fracture surfaces (i.e., in the radial direction of the cylindrical samples).
Petrographic images were then taken from the sections using the plane-polarized light to delineate the rock
mineralogy and the presence of LCM in the fractures. Plane-polarized images of sections A and B are
shown in Figure 8a-d. Figure 8a-c show section A with different magnifying factors (5X, 10X, 20X). Note
that the borehole is located on the right-hand side of each image, and the fracture tip is on the left-hand
side. Figure 8d shows section B at a 5X magnification.
Figure 8 Plane-polarized petrographic imaging of fracture surface thin section: (a) section A: 5X scale factor; (b) section A: 10X scale
factor; (c) section A: 20X scale factor; (d) section B: 5X scale factor
14
SPE-174976-MS
Void spaces in the images are shown in blue. In Figure 8a and 8d, the clear blue regions within the rock
matrix reflect the induced fractures. Note that the thin sections shown in Figure 8 only represent the small
fractures formed in the vicinity of main planar fracture, which had an average width of approximately 600
microns; it was not possible to take thin sections from this main fracture. The sections were extracted from
a Berea sandstone sample fractured with SBM loaded with a graphite-based LCM blend. Berea sandstone
is mostly composed of quartz and feldspar minerals, which easily can be distinguished in the images.
Organic (carbon-rich) LCMs such as the graphite used in the tests do not reflect plane-polarized light.
Therefore, the dark spots in the images indicate the presence of LCM at places where a seal was formed
along the fracture. In order to investigate the structure of the formed seal, magnified images (Figure 8b-c)
were taken from the zones with the highest concentration of carbon-rich materials. These magnified
images reveal the true nature of the seal structure: in all cases, a bridge is formed by graphite-based LCM
that acts as a dam, while any remaining, smaller flow channels were filled in with smaller-size gray
inorganic particles that were identified to be mainly composed of barium sulfate (barite). Previously
broken seals were identified (see Figure 8b) that ultimately led to new seals to be formed.
Thin section analysis provides several crucial insights into the underlying mechanism of WBS LCM
plugging in fractures:
1. Formed seals are always located in close vicinity of the fracture-tip and never at the borehole face.
In fact, in all of our petrographic image analysis the highest concentration of LCM was observed
close to the fracture tip and NOT at the fracture aperture close to the borehole. Such observations
are in full agreement with the FPR model, which is based on the formation of pressure barriers in
the vicinity of the fracture tip, and in direct contradiction with the stress cage / WSA model, which
attempts to explain WBS by assuming that near-wellbore hoop stress elevation occurs through
particles bridging close to the wellbore (see van Oort and Razavi, 2014, for further discussion).
2. The appearance of the seals confirms a well-known hypothesis on fracture sealing (e.g., Dudley
et al., 2000, Kageson-Loe et al., 2008). According to this hypothesis, two simultaneous mechanisms occur while sealing an induced fracture: (a) fracture bridging happens by deposition of
coarser particles along the fracture width and in relatively close proximity of the fracture-tip, (b)
pressure isolation of the fracture-tip happens by accumulation of finer particles behind the formed
bridge/seal.
3. Several zones with a high concentration of LCM and weighting material were identified (Figure
8a-b) at multiple locations along the length of the fracture. It shows that during fracture
propagation, pressure barriers will temporarily form and subsequently be compromised during
fracture re-opening and propagation. This is due to repeated cycles of fracture bridging -
pressure build-up behind the bridge/seal - breaching of the bridge followed by fracture tip
propagation - formation of a new bridge/seal, etc., as described e.g. by Morita et al. (1990 and
1996).
Permeable Rocks: LCM Type & PSD
To extend the findings on optimum LCM PSD, further tests were conducted with LCM blends that were
not primarily based on graphite. Figure 9a-b show the PSD of two gilsonite-based blends, which were
designed to mimic the PSD of the graphite-based blend. The primary gilsonite blend has a very similar
median size to the graphite-based blend (Table 5). However, unlike the graphite-based blend, the primary
gilsonite blend has unimodal PSD. The modified gilsonite-based blend consisted of both coarse (d50
300 microns) and fine gilsonite particle (d50 120 microns), to provide a broad and bi-modal PSD curve
with a d50 similar to the optimum graphite-based blend.
SPE-174976-MS
15
Figure 9 Particle size distribution of optimum graphite- and gilsonite-based blends: (a) particle size volume concentration, (b) particle
size cumulative volume concentration.
Table 5Median size of optimum graphite-based LCM, primaryand modified-gilsonite based blend
LCM Blend Type
217
242
170
In a series of tests, 20 ppb of the primary and modified gilsonite-based materials were added to the base
SBM and the results of fracture propagation tests are compared with the graphite-based blend (Figure 10
b-f). It was observed that both gilsonite blends increase FPP significantly in comparison with the base
SBM with no LCM. However, the modified gilsonite blend shows better sealing properties at all confining
pressures (100-500 psi) in comparison with the primary gilsonite blend. It was observed that a combination of coarse and fine particles provides a superior strengthening effect: coarse particles form a bridge
and fine particles impair the hydraulic conductivity along the fracture. In fact, the modified gilsonite blend
provides strengthening benefits that are almost identical to the optimum graphite-based blend. These
experiment results show that the magnitude of the WBS effect is primarily determined by PSD and to a
much lesser extent by the type of LCM material. This may be the reason why different parties have
reported good WBS results with a variety of different LCM materials: the type of material may be
irrelevant (or at least less important) as long as PSD is optimized.
16
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 10 Fracture initiation and propagation injection cycles for graphite- and gilsonite-based LCM blends: (a) fracture initiation
injection curves; (b-f) fracture propagation injection curves for confining pressures 100 psi, 200 psi, 300 psi, 400 psi and 500 psi
respectively; (g) average FPP for tested LCM types note that the modified gilsonite blend closely mimics the optimum graphite blend
in performance.
SPE-174976-MS
17
18
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 11Effect of LCM concentration on FIP and FPP in Berea sandstone tested with 12 ppb SBM: (a) fracture initiation curve; (b-f)
fracture propagation curves for confining pressures 100 psi, 200 psi, 300 psi, 400 psi and 500 psi respectively; (g) average FPP for
tested confining pressures.
SPE-174976-MS
19
Figure 12Effect of injection volume on FPP: fracture re-opening/propagation cycles with 100 psi confining pressure. Note the
downward trend in the first squeeze cycle (blue curve) after 30 ccs of injection volume. High propagation pressure is recovered with
a second squeeze (red curve), but its propagation values appear to be declining as well after 50 ccs if injection volume.
In summary, these results indicate that: (1) squeezing excess volume beyond an optimum value lowers
the FPP, in agreement with earlier theoretical work (van Oort and Razavi, 2014); (2) if a squeeze
technique is used to achieve WBS, the squeeze volume should be kept at a minimum; (3) if the fractures
are wide (e.g. in a field setting when a natural fracture is encountered), it may be beneficial to carry out
repeat squeezes and layer material in the fracture, particularly if the first squeeze has not delivered an
optimum result.
20
SPE-174976-MS
Figure 13Fracture initiation and propagation injection for Mancos shale samples: (a) fracture initiation curves; (b,c,d) fracture
propagation injection curves for confining pressures at 100 psi, 300 psi, and 500 psi respectively, as indicated.
Figure 14a shows the average FPPs obtained from the preliminary shale experiments. The results show
that in shale samples, WBMs do not appear to provide higher FPPs than SBMs. The results from the
various tests are within a relatively tight band, with variations attributed to sample variability. Also, Figure
14b compares the FPPs in sandstone and shale samples for base tests on SBM (no LCM) and for
strengthening test (SBM with 20 ppb graphite-based LCM). Adding LCM to the drilling fluid had only
minor effects on FPP enhancement in shale samples, whereas the effects on sandstone was very
significant. As explained by Morita et al. (1990) and van Oort and Razavi (2014), induced fractures in
shale are highly unstable due to pore pressure build-up and lack of fluid leak-off through the rock matrix.
The lack of fluid leak off also prevents formation of effective pressure barriers along the fracture surfaces.
More research work is currently ongoing to find viable WBS techniques for impermeable formations such
SPE-174976-MS
21
as shales. This work revolves around approaches that do not (solely) rely on fracture plugging by particles
to achieve effective WBS.
Figure 14 (a) Average Mancos shale FPP for various mud systems, with variations in FPP dominated by rock property variation and
experimental error with little discernable fluid effect; (b) average FPP in sandstone and shale samples for SBM, showing clear
strengthening effects achieved with LCM in sandstone (blue curves), but no discernable effect in shale (orange curves).
A state-of-the-art experimental set-up (UT-MudFrac) was developed for the cost effective evaluation of WBS under realistic test conditions. The equipment offers full control over borehole mud
flow and pressure, pore pressure, axial and radial confining pressures for fracturing cylindrical
rock samples. Validation results were in very good agreement with those of earlier investigations
(notably the DEA 13 and GPRI studies), showing FIP to be independent of mud type, and
indicating that FPP can be greatly enhanced using appropriate types and levels of LCM material.
Optimum PSD appears to be of overriding importance in maximizing WBS effects and achieving
elevated FPP values in permeable rock. The type of LCM seems to be of lesser importance. This
observation may explain why different parties historically have favored different WBS materials:
22
SPE-174976-MS
whether one favors calcium carbonate, graphite or gilsonite may simply be a matter of personal
preference (usually inspired by prior success with a particular material or treatment) as long as the
selected PSD is close to optimum. The optimum PSD is dependent on the rock properties that
govern fracture dimensions, and will therefore vary for different rock types. It needs to be carefully
assessed for each particular case.
For blends with similar median size (d50) values, those with a bi-modal distribution (tri-modal
when accounting for weighting material, which also plays an active part in WBS) have a clear
strengthening advantage in permeable rock over unimodal blends. The reason seems to be related
to the underlying mechanism of seal formation in the fractures: the main structure of these seals
is generated by coarser bridging agents, with finer particles deposited behind these coarser solids,
apparently to reduce the permeability of the formed seal and thereby pressure-isolating the fracture
tip. This is consistent with thin section observations.
Thin section analyses of fractured samples also show that seals that have formed in fractures were
located in the close vicinity to the fracture-tip and not at the borehole face. These observations are
in contradiction with the stress cage wellbore stress augmentation approach to wellbore strengthening, which relies on hoop stress elevation caused by near-wellbore fracture widening and
plugging. The results, however, are fully supportive of the fracture propagation resistance
approach to wellbore strengthening, showing that WBS happens deeper within induced or natural
fractures.
As expected, a higher concentration of a blend of LCM materials that is optimum for WBS
purposes will lead to higher FPP in permeable rocks. However, it appears that FPP does not
significantly increase above a certain threshold value. This more is not necessarily better
observation has important consequences for optimum economic field application of WBS treatments. For any WBS treatment, there will be an optimum in LCM concentration that balances
performance and cost. It should be noted that LCM materials, particularly those in medium to
coarse size range tend to degrade in the field under the influence of shear. This degradation,
which affects PSD and optimum concentrations, should be carefully quantified and managed in
order to maintain optimum WBS results.
Increasing the injection volume of an LCM-laden fluid does not result in higher FPP, on the
contrary. The FPP value typically reaches an optimum value after a limited volume has been
injected. Injecting excess fluid beyond this volume, however, may actually reduce the FPP. The
important field implication for WBS treatments that are delivered by squeeze techniques is that
lower-volume squeezes are likely going to be more successful in delivering meaningful WBS
effects than high volume squeezes. Moreover, the test results indicate that repeat squeezing may
be effective in layering LCM material in wider fractures.
Conventional WBS techniques based on solids plugging are not effective in impermeable formations (e.g., shale), which require a radically different approach. New experimental work using the
UT MudFrac equipment is currently underway to achieve WBS in shales using approaches that do
not rely or do not rely exclusively - on particle plugging.
Acknowledgements
The UT MudFrac equipment and the experiments done with it would not have been possible without an
enabling donation by Schlumberger and the active involvement of Susan Rosenbaum and Jim Friedheim,
to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude. The authors would like to sincerely thank ConocoPhillips and
Schlumberger as the lead sponsors of this R&D project. Our very special thanks for their guidance and
support go out to Dave Beardmore, Greg Mullen, Bob Pantermuehl, Gary Collins, Bret Borland, Ernie
Onyia, Son Pham and Kyle Fontenot, either formerly or currently with ConocoPhillips; Jim Friedheim,
Steve Young, and Quan Guo with Schlumberger; and to Greg Vardilos, Robert Joha, Oswaldo Nunez, and
SPE-174976-MS
23
the rest of the support staff at Metarock Laboratories. Additional financial support was provided by
American Gilsonite Company, with special thanks to Dwight Strickland, Ted Stevens and Dario Montes.
Nomenclature
d50
DEA
FIP
FPP
FPR
FRP
LCM
OBM
PSD
PV
SBM
UCS
WBM
WBS
WSA
YP
References
Abrams, A. (1977, May 1). Mud Design To Minimize Rock Impairment Due To Particle Invasion.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/5713-PA
Alberty, M. W., & McLean, M. R. (2004, January 1). A Physical Model for Stress Cages. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/90493-MS
Andreasen, A. H. M. and Andersen, J., Ueber die Beziehung zwischen Kornabstufung und Zwischenraum in Produkten aus losen Krnern (mit einigen Experimenten), Kolloid-Zeitschrift 50 (1930)
217228.
Barkman, J. H., & Davidson, D. H. (1972, July 1). Measuring Water Quality and Predicting Well
Impairment. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/3543-PA
Black, A, et al DEA 13 (Phase I) Final Report. Investigation of Lost Circulation Problems and
Apparent Fracture Gradient Reduction Encountered in the Field with Oil-Based Drilling Fluids During
Large-Scale Laboratory Fracturing Experiments. December 1985. Prepared by Drilling Research Laboratory, Inc.
Chellappah, K., & Aston, M. S. (2012, January 1). A New Outlook on the Ideal Packing Theory for
Bridging Solids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/151636-MS.
Contreras, O., Hareland, G., Husein, M., Nygaard, R., & Alsaba, M. (2014a, September 10). Wellbore
Strengthening In Sandstones by Means of Nanoparticle-Based Drilling Fluids. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/170263-MS
Contreras, O., Hareland, G., Husein, M., Nygaard, R., & Alsaba Mortadha T. (2014b, October 27).
Experimental Investigation on Wellbore Strengthening In Shales by Means of Nanoparticle-Based
Drilling Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/170589-MS
DEA 13 (Phase II) Final Report (Volume 1). Investigation of Lost Circulation Problems with Oil-Base
Drilling Fluids. March 1988. Prepared by Drilling Research Laboratory, Inc.
Dupriest, F. E. (2005, January 1). Fracture Closure Stress (FCS) and Lost Returns Practices. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/92192-MS
24
SPE-174976-MS
Dudley, J. W., Fehler, D. F., and Zeilinger, S. Final Project Report of GPRI 2000 Project DC3:
Minimizing Lost Circulation in Synthetic Mud. 2000. Shell International Exploration and Production,
Inc. Bellaire Technology Center. Houston, TX
Gradishar, J., Ugueto, G., & van Oort, E. (2013, March 5). Setting Free The Bear: The Challenges And
Lessons Of The Ursa A-10 Deepwater ERD Well. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/
163525-MS
Guo, Q., Roy, S., Simpkins, D., and Zamora, M. 2009. A Practical Design Tool for Wellbore
Strengthening. AADE 2009-NTCE-12-05, AADE Fluids Conference, New Orleans, 8-9 April.
Guo, Q., Cook, J., Way, P., Ji, L., & Friedheim, J. E. (2014, March 4). A Comprehensive Experimental
Study on Wellbore Strengthening. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/167957-MS
Jacobs, T. (2014). Pushing the Frontier through Wellbore Strengthening. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 66(11), 64 73.
Kageson-Loe, N. M., Sanders, M. W., Growcock, F., Taugbol, K., Horsrud, P., Singelstad, A. V., &
Omland, T. H. (2008, January 1). Particulate Based Loss-Prevention MaterialThe Secrets of Fracture
Sealing Revealed! Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/112595-MS.
Karimi Vajargah, A., & van Oort, E. (2015, March 17). Automated Drilling Fluid Rheology
Characterization with Downhole Pressure Sensor Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/
173085-MS
Morita, N., Black, A. D., & Guh, G.-F. (1990, January 1). Theory of Lost Circulation Pressure. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/20409-MS
Morita, N., Black, A. D., Fuh, G.-F. Borehole breakdown pressure with drilling fluidsI. Empirical
results, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
Volume 33, Issue 1, January 1996, Pages 39 51, ISSN 0148-9062
Onyia, E. C., Experimental Data Analysis of Lost Circulation Problems During Drilling With
Oil-Based Mud. SPE Drilling & Completion. Volume 9, Number 1. Pages 2531. March 1994. DOI:
0.2118/22581-PA.
Sanders, M., Young, S. and Friedheim, J. E. 2008. Development and Testing of Novel Additives for
Improved Wellbore Stability and Reduced Losses. AADE-08-DF-HO-19, AADE Fluids Conference,
Houston, 8-9 April.
van Oort, E., Friedheim, J. E., Pierce, T., & Lee, J. (2011, December 1). Avoiding Losses in Depleted
and Weak Zones by Constantly Strengthening Wellbores. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/
125093-PA
van Oort, E., & Razavi, O. S. (2014, March 4). Wellbore Strengthening and Casing Smear: The
Common Underlying Mechanism. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/168041-MS
van Oort, E., Hoxha, B. B., Yang, L., & Hale, A. H.: Automated Drilling Fluid Analysis using
Advanced Particle Size Analyzers, paper in preparation, 2016