SPE-175559-MS

Geomechanical Characterization of a Matured Deep Jurassic Carbonate

Reservoir: Explaining stress effects on production induced Fault Slip and
Reservoir Development.
A. Al-shamali, E. A. Al-Mayyas, N. Murthy, N. K. Verma, and I. Al-Sammak, Kuwait Oil Company; C. Zhou,
Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd.; S. V. Perumalla, and A. L. Shinde, Baker Hughes Inc

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 14 –16 September
2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Jurassic carbonate reservoirs in Minagish Field of West Kuwait have undergone significant pressure
depletion (up to 4,000 – 5,000 psi) over the last two decades. However, during the last few years at least
two wells showed sudden and significant reservoir pressure increase despite no injection in the reservoir
for pressure support. The asset team plans to develop these reservoirs with more horizontal wells in order
to increase the reservoir contact and thereby productivity and reservoir recovery. However, drilling and
deepening the infill development wells in this area is becoming increasingly challenging due to uneven
differential depletion across the field. Unprecedented drilling complications including mud-loss, well
kicks, and differential sticking are observed.
This paper discusses how a field scale 3D reservoir geomechanical model integrating all available data
was built and used to evaluate the impact of production induced stress changes on reservoir behaviour.
Furthermore it details how geomechanical characterization provided inputs for the field development
planning. The dynamic 3D reservoir geomechanical modelling of this field integrated: the structural
geological model, well based 1D geomechanical models, rock mechanical test results from core, produc-
tion data, reservoir simulation model as well as selected petrophysical and geophysical data. This model
was initially built at original reservoir pressure. After proper assignment of both stratigraphically verified
mechanical properties and boundary conditions of far field stresses, the finite element stress simulator was
utilized to establish a representative initial stress state within the reservoir and its surrounding formations.
The history matched and future predicted reservoir pressures at various time steps were coupled to the
finite element mechanical simulator to map the changed stresses and strains over the reservoir interval.
The finite element analysis helped to investigate the associated changes of the in-situ stress field, pore
pressure and rock properties across the field and specifically around the planned wells in order to capture
the 3D effect of reservoir depletion such as arching effects. This analysis improved the field development
planning by integrating wellbore stability risk assessment, fault slippage and other related aspects. The 3D
Geomechanical model also distributed the shear-to-normal stress ratios over the interpreted faults/
fractures and explained the dynamic behaviour of certain faults due to depletion. Field scale distribution
2 SPE-175559-MS

of in-situ stress changes provided inputs to risk assessment due to further depletion. Understanding the
stress induced response of reservoir due to depletion helped to plan new infill wells in due consideration
of geomechanical risks and production efficiency.
The 3D Geomechanical modelling approach demonstrated that it is technically feasible to incorporate
the complexity of 3D geological structure of a reservoir, fault network and other variables within the
in-situ stress field. Using appropriate modelling simulations with realistic in-situ conditions, it was
possible to explain the behaviour of pressure in wells, faults and also wellbore stability risks.

Introduction and Objectives of the study

Regional geomechanical knowledge (After Perumalla et.al 2014.,) suggest that the Gotnia Salt is
mechanically decoupling the highly stressed, strong, Jurassic formations from shallower, relatively lower
stressed and weaker Cretaceous formations. The sub-salt Jurassic formations in Kuwait exhibit high
variability in stress orientation across faults as well as in the vicinity of fracture corridors. It was also
found in some parts of Kuwait that these stress anomalies within the Jurassic formations coincide with
associated fault and fracture corridors which appear to be critically stressed.
The Jurassic reservoirs (Figure 1b & 1c) in the subject field have been characterized have undergone
significant depletion of up to 4,000-5,000 psi. At least two wells (shown in Figure 1:anomalously
experienced localized increase in reservoir pressure despite no injection in the reservoir for pressure
maintenance. A total of 20 wells have been drilled in these Jurassic resrevoirs out of which only 2 wells
are horizontal while the rest are vertical or slightly deviated. KOC plans to develop these reservoirs with
more horizontal/multi-lateral wells to increase the reservoir contact in order to enhance reservoir recovery.
SPE-175559-MS 3

Figure 1—(a) Index map showing location of oil fields in Kuwait. (b) Depth Sturctural map of subject field at Jurassic reservoir level ith
location of wells with anomalous pressure increase (Red is structural high, Blue is structural low). (c) Stratigraphy within the subject
field. Gotnia Salt formation is decoupling the stress regime between Cretaceous and Jurassic formations.

Drilling and deepening Jurassic infill development wells in this field have become more challenging
due to differential depletion in the deep Jurassic reservoirs lying below Gotnia Salts & Anhydrites.
Unprecedented drilling complications including mud losses, formation inflow and differential sticking
have been observed at Gotnia intervals. At least two wells showed sudden increase in the reservoir
pressure of up to 2000 psi over few months (Figure 2).
4 SPE-175559-MS

Figure 2—Production History plot indicating the pressure decline in wells drilled across the field. Note that the wells drilled across
major faults have shown compartmentalization. Two wells (MN-X1 and SMN-X1) have shown anomalous pressure increase in very short
time compared to acquifer loading trend.

A comprehensive geomechanical study was designed to address the questions that are critical for the
successful development of these Jurassic reservoirs. The primary objectives of this study were:
1. To investigate and explain possible reasons behind anomalous increase of pressures in two wells.
2. To evaluate stress sensitivity of field-wide system of fracture/fault network and also to provide
recommendations for safe depletion/injection operational envelope without compromising the
integrity of reservoir.
3. To identify trouble zones causing wellbore instability.

Study Workflow
Geomechanical workflows to study the Jurassic reservoir of the subject field were designed based on
availability of data sets and field development objectives. Considering significant pressure depletion in the
reservoir (by 4000-5000 psi), the resultant changes in stress magnitudes can have impact on the
components of reservoir: rock matrix, natural fractures, faults and cap rock. It is important to understand
and quantify the deformation associated with each component of the reservoir, as that understanding will
provide insights on field development.
An integral part of the study is to build a field scale 3D geomechanical model using all available data
and predict the impact of in-situ stress state due to production induced reservoir pressure changes. The
objectives of the study are planned to be met through integration of various geological, geophysical,
petrophysical, reservoir, and drilling data sets as represented in Figure 3.
SPE-175559-MS 5

Figure 3—Study workflow demonstrating integration of various data sets to achieve reservoir objectives.

It was planned to build sound 1D geomechanical models for data rich key wells in the study area. Once
the calibrated 1D geomechanical models are available, use the time-tested 3D static and dynamic models
to populate reservoir pressure and rock properties in 3D geomechanical models.
3D Finite Element based coupled geomechanical model was used to estimate the total stress changes,
displacements, strains, etc as a function of pressure changes with time. 3D geomechanical model was able
to exhibit the state of stress on each and every component of reservoir (rock matrix, fault/fracture plane
etc) to estimate relevant for of deformation: matrix compaction, slippage of faults/fractures.
Rock Mechanics Testing
A total of 22 plugs were selected from 5 offset wells in Jurassic reservoir formations to carry out the rock
mechanics testing program including single stage triaxial tests, thick-walled cylinder tests (TWCs) and
pore volume compressibility tests.
Figure 3 and Table 1 show a summary of single stage triaxial test results. Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) varies from 9,500-27,500 psi, indicating that these rocks are strong. Young’s modulus of
these rocks varies from 1.9 – 5 (⫻106) psi suggesting that these rocks are very stiff. Rock strength
property UCS is correlated to matrix porosity and shows an exponential correlation as shown in Figure
4. This behavior is well compared with similar tight carbonates from published data and shows a reliable
trend.
6 SPE-175559-MS

Table 1—Summary of derived rock strength parameters

Sr. No. UCS (psi) Young’s Modulus (106 psi) Poisson’s ratio Internal Friction

1 27296 5.00 0.21 43°

2 20793 3.40 0.28 23°
3 9592 3.05 0.15 46°
4 9521 1.89 0.21 38°
5 14852 3.28 0.20 40°
6 27513 4.13 0.24 34°

Figure 4 —Summary of Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope plots for Jurassic reservoirs. High cohesion and friction angle indicates
stronger reservoir rocks.

Drilling Analysis
Comprehensive drilling anlaysis of 16 offset wells have been carried out from Daily Drilling Reports
(DDRs), trouble summaries and also based on comprehensive discussions with drilling teams experienced
these problems. Some of drilling difficulties are on the increase where over two months of time was lost
due to well control situation (mud losses and well flow/gain). The well was temporarily suspended and
re-entered after one year and cured the losses successfully and further drilled, tested and completed. Upon
careful investigation of wellbore instability troubles from all available information, it was observed that
most of the difficulties encountered were related to high pressure, pressure reversal from Gotnia to Najma,
pressure depletion and pressure differentials which lead to kicks, mud losses, differential sticking as well
as the loss-and-gains well control situations. It was also noticed that high pressured carbonate/Anhydrite
stingers embedded within the Gotnia Salt played significant role in well control situations. In contrast, the
drilling analysis indicated that only minor wellbore instability was encountered (few tight holes) within
Jurassic Carbonate reservoirs which did not contribute to much of Non-Productive Time (NPT). From
rock mechanical test results, it was noticed that the Jurassic reservoir rocks are rather competent
formations (with high unconfined compressive rock strength, UCS) which could be capable of withstand-
ing tectonic stresses to some extent.
SPE-175559-MS 7

Well based 1D Geomechanical Modeling

The principal constituents of the geomechanical model are three principal stresses (vertical stress,
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses), pore pressure and rock mechanical parameters.
Reservoir pressure was interpreted from direct formation pressure measurements. These measurements
helped to constrain the magnitude of pore pressure. Initial reservoir pressure in the Jurassic reservoirs
prior to production was around 18 to 19 ppg equivalent.
Vertical stress was calculated from integration of density log from surface till TD. Few wells have
density log in shallow and intermediate overburden sections. Therefore, density in overburden formations
has been derived from the interval seismic velocity and is used to calculate vertical stress as shown in
Figure 6 (a). Vertical stress is estimated to be around 21 ppg equivalent at the reservoir level.

Figure 5—(a) Cross plot showing rock mechanical property UCS sensitive to matrix porosity of reservoir. (b) Calibrated log based UCS
profile.
8 SPE-175559-MS

Figure 6 —(a) Vertical stress estimated from integration of density log and interval velocities (depth not to scale) (b) A schematic
XLOT/Mini-Frac showing pressure as a function of volume or equivalent time

Minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) can be constrained from results from extended leak-off tests(X-
LOT), Mini-fracs, step-rate tests etc. as shown in Figure 6 (b). When properly conducted, these tests
measure the fluid pressure required to create and propagate hydraulically induced fractures, as well as the
pressure under which these newly created fractures close, which is called the fracture closure pressure
(FCP). FCP counteracts the stress in the rock perpendicular to the fracture plane and thus, this pressure
can be considered equal or lower bound of Minimum horizontal stress (Shmin).
For the current study, some frac data compiled from the field data including regional stress map (After
Perumalla et.al.,) was used which has given reliable estimates of Shmin magnitude. Therefore comparison
with actual drilling mud weights, Equivalent Circulation density (ECD) and formation integrity test results
further helped to validate and constrain the lower bound of Shmin. Upon compiling the field data, current
ECD/drilling information as well as the regional experience, minimum horizontal stress at initial reservoir
pressure was estimated to be around 19.5 ppg which is higher than pore pressure and just lower than the
vertical stress.
Magnitude of Maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) was constrained using Stress Polygon methodology
[After Zoback]. Knowing overburden, Shmin, reservoir pressure, mud weights used t drill a particular
well, mechanical rock properties, breakout position and width it can be possible to estimate the magnitude
of SHmax required cause failure: e.g. breakouts/drilling induced tensile fractures from Stress Polygon.
SHmax was constrained from series of analyses which is consistent with breakouts observed on Caliper
and image logs. Figure 7 shows estimated SHmax magnitude of ~ 24 ppg at a particular depth interval.
Similar simulations were run at different depth intervals of varying breakout widths to validate and
constrain the SHmax magnitude.Table 2 shows the summary of 1D geomechanical model at intial
reservoir pressure conditions.Figure 8 shows 1D geomechanical model for one of the key wells in the
field.
SPE-175559-MS 9

Figure 7—Estimation of SHmax from Stress Polygon methodology for a well where breakouts were observed within the reservoir.

Table 2—Summary of 1D Geomechanical Model at initial reser-

voir pressure conditions
Key Geomechanical Parameters Value

Stress Regime Strike-Slip Regime

Initial total vertical stress, Sv (ppg) 20.5 – 21.5
Initial total maximum horizontal stress, SHmax (ppg) 24.0 – 26.0
Initial total minimum horizontal stress, Shmin (ppg) 19.5
Initial reservoir pressure (ppg) 18.0-19.0
Rock strength UCS (psi) 13000 – 28000
Azimuth of maximum horizontal stress, SHmax (deg) 50 – 70

Coupled 3D Dynamic Geomechanical Modeling

In order to model the dynamic mechanical response of the reservoir rock due to depletion induced pressure
changes, Finite Element Method (FEM) technology has been implemented which calculates the total stress
changes as a function of reservoir pressure changes in and around the reservoir. Finite element mesh was
created in JewelSuite software while Abaqus software was used for numerical FEM simulations.
Structural framework modelling involves creating a water tight model with overburden horizons,
reservoir surfaces and faults. FEM involves discretising the triangulated formation surfaces and faults in
finite sizes. In order to avoid numerical artefacts due to boundaries, the model’s boundaries have been kept
far away from the depleting reservoir area on sideways and also extended the model vertically to a depth
of 25,000 ft (7.62 km).
10 SPE-175559-MS

Figure 8 —Typical 1D Geomechanical Model from a well within the reservoir in the area of interest.

Figure 9 —3D Finie Element Meshing Strategy for Field scale geomechanical modelling. Finer meshing was used for area of depletion.
Coarser meshing was used in areas away from depletion.
SPE-175559-MS 11

Figure 10 —Extended volume of rock mass around the depleted reservoir was prepared using finite element meshing for geomechani-
cal simulations. Used around 250,000 second order tetrahedrons elements.

3D FEM geomechanical model has a dimension of 55 km * 37 km * 7.62 km and contains more than
250,000 second order tetrahedrons (i.e. finite elements each with 10 nodes). Size and number of finite
elements is constrained by the geometry and size of tri-meshes. While finite element mesh has been
created with finer resolution close to the area of depletion (12 km * 20 km), coarser resolution was used
for areas away from the depleted zones, as shown in Figure 9.
Linear elastic material properties have been used for overburden, reservoir and underburden formations
1as per rock mechanical database and regional understanding in Kuwait oil fields. Results from Stress Map

(After Perumalla et al.,) have provided logical assumptions wherever data richness is low. Reservoir
pressu1re from reservoir simulator has been mapped to 3D FEM triangular mesh at various time-steps e.g.
pre-production, current and forward prediction. An example of reservoir pressure mapping from reservoir
simulator to 3D mesh has been shown in (b) Figure 11 (b).
12 SPE-175559-MS

Figure 11—(a) Reservoir pressure distribution across the field in recent years. Drastic color changes (pressure distribution) across the
field are due to compartmentalization due to faults. (b) Mapping of pressure from reservoir simulator to Finite Element mesh. It can be
noticed that the undepleted boundaries are extended largely on all sides to accommodate mechanical simulations.

Results: Production-induced stress changes

Stress path is the ratio between the changes in total stresses to the changes in reservoir pressure. 3D FEM
geomechanical model calculates the changes in total stress magnitudes due to changes in reservoir
pressure. It has been observed that horizontal stresses decreased with decrease in pore pressure as shown
in Figure 12. As reservoir pressure decreases due to depletion, the horizontal stresses also reduced at a rate
of 0.6 stress path for Shmin and less than 0.1 for Sv (overburden arching) as shown in Figure 13 That said,
no significant change of vertical stress is estimated with changes in reservoir pressure and hence stress
path for vertical stress is nearly zero.
SPE-175559-MS 13

Figure 12—(a) magnitude of depletion at present day, (b) & (c) changes in maximum and minimum horizontal stress magnitudes due
to depletion as computed by FEM simulator.

Figure 13—(a) & (b) Stress path for vertical and horizontal stress magnitudes

Fault Stability Assessment

During reservoir depletion for years in this reservoir, the fault surfaces have also undergone in-situ stress
changes continuously. These stress changes on faults are modelled with 3D geomechanical modelling at
all the time-steps as per pressure changes calibrated in the reservoir simulation model. At each time-step
of depletion, risk of slip on every fault segment is evaluated. Due to changes in reservoir pressure and
resultant changes in horizontal stress magnitudes, parts of any fault or a complete fault can become
critically stressed. Effective normal stress, shear stress and “Tau ratio (␶ratio)” are computed at every time
14 SPE-175559-MS

step over each and every fault plane. Background on ␶ratio parameter is shown in Figure 14 (a). ␶ratio is
the ratio of “shear stress at any particular point on a fault” to “maximum possible shear stress on a fault”.
Value of ␶ratio can vary from 0 to 1. When ␶ratio reaches to 1 or above at any fault segment, it indicates
possible shear slip and that fault/segment is likely to experience reactivation.

Figure 14 —(a): Failure criterion for fault stability analysis. Tau Ratio (␶ratio) is a valid measure to characterize reactivation potential of
a fault.

All the faults in the field are in stable condition at initial in-situ stresses and reservoir pressure
conditions as shown in Figure 14 (b). ␶ratio of all the faults is less than 1.

Figure 14 —(b): Fault Stability analysis at initial (pre-production) reservoir pressure and stress conditions: indicates that all faults
interpreted from seismic data are mechanically stable with ␶ratio in the range of 0.1 – 0.5.

Figure 15 shows fault stability analysis after depleted reservoir conditions. As observed, few faults
(F53 and F58) which are optimally oriented to in-situ stress regime have exhibited higher ␶ratio(ⱖ 1). That
SPE-175559-MS 15

said, these particular faults / fault segments seem to be either slipped or on on the verge of shear failure.
The wells (MN-X1 and SMN-X1) located within the proximity to these critically stressed faults (F53 and
F58) have experienced rapid increase in the reservoir pressure.

Figure 15—Fault Stability analysis at final reservoir pressure and stress conditions after significant depletion in recent years: indicates
that certain faults (red) have become critically stressed with ␶ratio ⴝ1. Wells near to these faults / fault segments have experienced
sudden increase in reservoir pressure.

3D Geomechanical model estimates possibility of extensional movement around faults due to uneven
depletion boundary at South-Western corner of the field. This severe imbalance of reservoir pressure
distribution across these faults seems to be responsible for increase of ␶ratio to 1. Overall, the reason behind
sudden pressure increase in few wells is very likely due to enhancement of permeability through few faults
which seem to have been critically stressed due to uneven depletionѠ

Results: Reservoir Compaction

The maximum estimated reservoir compaction is ~15 cm at reservoir level when depletion reaches ~5,800
psi as per the simulation model (Figure 16). This insignificant compaction is expected mainly due to high
stiffness of the reservoir carbonate rock and relatively smaller thickness of depleting reservoir compared
to lateral extent.
16 SPE-175559-MS

Figure 16 —Changes in vertical displacement (compaction) at reservoir level. This compaction magnitude is insignificant compared to
the overall reservoir thickness.

Conclusions
3D Geomechanics modeling study has contributed to the improved understanding of the impact of
depleting pore pressures on the stress changes with potential implication on the reactivation of faults/
fractures. 1D geomechanical models calibrated to the drilling events helped in understanding the nature
of wellbore instabilities. 3D FEM analysis helped in calculating the displacements and total stress changes
as a function of pore pressure changes. Both the horizontal stresses were found to be reducing with
reduction in pore pressure by stress path of 0.55-0.60, whereas no significant change in the vertical stress
was predicted.
Effective normal and shear stresses were projected on fault/fracture planes at various time-steps from
3D geomechanical model and Tau Ratio was calculated for all major fault planes to evaluate its stability.
Analysis showed that at least some faults were critically stressed and on the verge of shear failure. Two
of the wells MN-X1 and SMN-X1 which showed anomalous pore pressure increase lie very close to the
critically stressed faults which might have reactivated leading to the increased pore pressure in the areas
adjoining these faults.

Recommendations
It is recommended to appy the knowledge of stress changes and their impact on the fault compartments
to effectively develop the field. Achieving better understanding of sealing, no-sealing faults and reservoir
compartments combined with geomechanical modeling should enable prediction of potential faults
compartment breaches and reservoir pressure recharges to achieve uniform depletion and improved
recovery besides better placement and safer drilling of the infill producer wells.
SPE-175559-MS 17

Following are the key recommendations including data acquisition for improved reservoir development
and monitoring:
1. Consider acquiring micro-seismic events to monitor the reactivation of faults/fractures. Once
micro-seismicity events observed and identified, pore pressure (depletion/injection) should be
controlled and any concerns reported immediately.
2. Acquire InSAR data for monitoring surface deformation over time. This would help to calibrate
the 3D Geomechanical model and check the risk of integrity failure due to compaction/inflation.
3. Acquire minimum horizontal stress measurements at different depletion stages to minotor changes
in horizontal stresses with changes in pore pressure. This would be an excellent field calibration
of stress path.
4. Acquire wide azimuth seismic data (with wide offset) and subsequent 3D-friendly processing for
detailed mapping of faults, fractures and fracture corridors in order to understand detailed reservoir
architecture including anisotropy. Even slight changes in the dip/strike of the faults can have
significant impact on Tau Ratio and stability calculations.
5. Regular monitoring of downhole pressure is recommended to ensure the model calibration and
updation such that the planned depletion in the model matches the downhole reservoir behaviour.

References
Al-Ammar, N., Hussain, R., Mulyono, R., Al-Fares, A., Al-Kandary, A., Al-Naeimi, R., Perumalla,
S.Regional In-situ Stress In Northern Kuwait – Implications for the Oil Industry. SPE 163366.
Ali Edris, M.A., Haggag, M., Al Benali, K., Shinde, A.L., Ghadimipour, A., Perumalla, S.V., Hartley,
L.J., Baxter, S. Implementation of Coupled 3D Geomechanics and Discrete Fracture Network
(DFN) Models in Field Development Optimization: A Case Study from Carbonate Reservoir, Abu
Dhabi. SPE-171858.
Anderson, E. M. (1951). The Dynamics of Faulting. Oliver and Boyed, Edinburgh, 206 p.
Byerlee, J.D. (1978). The friction of rocks. Pure Applied Geophysics, 116, 615–626.
Holland, M., Brudy, M., van der Zee, W., Perumalla, S. and Finkbeiner, T. 2010. Value of 3D
Geomechanical Modeling in Field Development – A new Approach using Geostatistics. SPE-
136930.
Perumalla, S., Al-Fares, A., Husain, R., Mulyono, R. et al,. 2014. Regional In-Situ Stress Mapping:
An Initiative for Exploration & Development of Deep Gas Reservoirs in Kuwait. IPTC 17632.
Richard Hillis 2000. Pore pressure/stress coupling and its implications for seismicity 2000. Explora-
tion Geophysics (2000) 31, 448 –454.
Schutjens, P., Snippe, J.R., Mahani, H., Turner, J., Ita, J., Mosspo, A.P. 2012. Production-induced
stress changes in and above a reservoir pierced by two salt domes: A Geomechanical model and
its applications. SPE 131590.
Sirat, M., Shinde, A.L., Naeimi, R., Perumalla, S.V. Fault Seal Assessment of a Fractured Carbonate
Reservoir using 3D Geomechanical Characterisation, Abu Dhabi, IPTC-18225-MS.
Verma, N.K., Al-Medhadi, F., Franquet, J.A., Maddock, R., Natarajan, D., Al-Mayyas, E. 2007.
Critically-stressed fracture analysis in naturally fractured carbonate reservoir – A case study in
west Kuwait. SPE 105356
Wiprut, D. and Zoback, M.D., (2000). Fault reactivation and fluid flow along a previously dormant
normal fault in the northern North Sea. Geology, 28:595–598.
Zhang, X. and Sanderson, D.J., (1996). Numerical modeling of the effects of fault slip on fluid flow
around extensional faults. Journal of Structural Geology, 18:109 –119.
Zoback, M.D., (2007). Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press.