10.0000@Www - Onepetro.org@conference Paper@ISRM ISG 2017 006

77° Simposio Internacional de Geomecánica 2017
Sustainable Heavy Oil Exploitation, Innovation and Geomechanical Contributions

ISRM Specialized Conference, 13-16 March 2017, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Research Group in Applied Geomechanics (Eds.)
© 2017, 7° Simposio Internacional de Geomecánica
GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION FOR AN

UNCONVENTIONAL SHALE RESERVOIR WITH THE
GOAL OF IMPROVING DRILLING EFFICIENCY AND
SWEET SPOTS SELECTION IN A FIELD IN COLOMBIA.
Leonardo Arias Medina
Universidad de América, Bogotá, Colombia, leon.ariass@hotmail.com
Henry Andrey Lozano

Universidad de América, Bogotá, Colombia, Henry_alozano@hotmail.com
Hernán Darío Mantilla

Ecopetrol, Bogotá, Colombia, heranmantilla@gmail.com
Carlos Alberto Espinosa Mora

Universidad de América, Bogotá, Colombia, carlos.espinosa@profersores.uamerica.edu.co
SUMMARY: After the success of the drilling campaigns in unconventional shale reservoir
in the United States, Ecopetrol wanted to replicate their success in Colombia as well. During
the past years a drilling campaign encountered several unique issues for shale plays in
Colombia. With the advances in electrical logging, petrophysics, geomechanical and
geochemical analyses allowed understanding the shale plays in a basin in Colombia.
Geomechanics has been useful in providing the required information for the design of optimal
well trajectories for efficient development of unconventional reservoirs. Additionally,
extensive tri-axial and total carbon organic (TOC) tests in shales have been included in the
study to calibrate the mechanical properties and TOC obtained from the electrical logs. The
concept of critically stressed fractures has been included in the analysis of this geomechanical
model in order to know the conductivity of the natural fractures in shale plays.
The present study displays a methodology for the design of a mud weight window as well as
a geochemical analysis for the sweet spot selection in the shale plays. The geomechanical
model considers transversal vertical anisotropy (TIV) with the use of Stoneley wave from
sonic scanner tool necessary for the determination of the anisotropic mechanical properties
and in-situ principal stresses. The present study includes conclusions and recommendations
for unconventional shale reservoirs in Colombia.
KEYWORDS: Shale plays, Geomechanics, Transversal anisotropy, TOC.
1
INTRODUCTION in the time were an impediment.
Nowadays, they have changed their
Oil companies have always wanted to drill position, as advances in electrical logging,
wells in unconventional fields, but because horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
of their complexity and limited technology technologies have opened new
1
possibilities. Table 1 determines the values using

Geomechanics provides information density log, compressional, shear and
required for the design of horizontal and Stonely waves.
high-angle wells, which enable it to
efficiently develop on fields in
unconventional reservoirs. In addition, the  C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 
determination of mechanical properties is  
 C21 C22 C23 0 0 0 
important to design efficient hydraulic C C32 C33 0 0 0 
fractures that allow the interconnection of C   31 
natural fractures in the shale plays. This  0 0 0 C44 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 C55 0 
study determined the mud weight window  
and optimal well trajectories in shale plays  0 0 0 0 0 C66 
with Mohr-Coulomb and modified Lade (1)
Criteria. The analysis included TOC
results.
2 METODOLOGY Table 1. Stiffness matrix constants values

Constant Value, Mpsi
𝐶33 + 2(𝐶66 − 𝐶44 )
The geomechanical model in this non- 𝐶11 =
conventional reservoir of shale included 𝐶22 = 𝐶11
static elastic anisotropic mechanical 1 2
𝐶33 = 13400 𝜌( )
properties of the rocks, brittleness, pore 𝐷𝑇𝐶
pressure, collapse pressure and fracture
1 2
gradient. The static elastic anisotropic 𝐶44 = 13400 𝜌( )
𝐷𝑇𝑆
properties were calibrated with tri-axial 𝐶55 = 𝐶44
tests results. Furthermore, drilling events, 1 2
𝐶66 = 13400 𝜌( )
hydraulic fracturing tests, image logs and 𝐷𝑇𝑆𝐻
caliper logs calibrated pore pressure, 𝐶12 = 𝐶13
collapse pressure, and fracture pressure 𝐶21 = 𝐶13
𝐶13 = 𝐶33 − 2𝐶44
models. 𝐶31 = 𝐶13
Geochemical and geomechanical 𝐶32 = 𝐶13
analyses determined the type of kerogen of 𝐶23 = 𝐶13
the source rock and TOC to define the
sweet spots. Figure 1 shows the stiffness matrix
constants of the stress tensor calibrated
3 ELASTIC ANISOTROPIC with lab results for the well.
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE
ROCKS
3.1 Stiffness constants of the stress

tensors
Shales normally have a transverse

isotropic with a vertical axis of symmetry
(TIV). Equation 1 shows the stiffness
matrix constants of the stress tensor and
2
Figure 1. Stiffness matrix constants of the well.
3.2 Dynamic elastic mechanical

properties of rocks
Table 2 illustrates the approach to

calculate the mechanical properties for
shales with TIV. The analysis included Figure 2. Dynamic elastic mechanical properties of
Thomsen parameter to know the the well.
magnitude of TIV anisotropy in shale
plays. 3.3 Static elastic mechanical properties
Figure 2 shows the dynamic elastic of rocks
mechanical properties calibrated with lab
results: Young´s modulus vertical, The static elastic mechanical properties
Young´s modulus horizontal, Poisson ratio considered the dynamic elastic properties,
vertical and horizontal and Thomson volume of shale, type of rock and tri-axial
parameter of the rocks. test results.
Figure 3 shows the static mechanical
Table 2. Mechanical rock properties and Thomsen properties of the well: Young´s modulus,
parameter cohesion strength, friction angle, UCS,
Mechanical Value, Mpsi and tensile strength of the rocks.
Property
Evert = C132
C33  2
C11  C12
Ehorz = (C11  C12 )*(C11C33  2C132  C12C33 )
C11C33  C132
vvert = C13
C11  C12
vhorz = C33C12  C132
C33C11  C132
 Horz C66  C44
2C44
3
Figure 3. Static elastic mechanical properties of Equations 2 and 3, closure pressure from
the well. minifrac tests and leak off tests at the well
quantified the minimum and maximum
4 MUD WEIGHT WINDOW
horizontal stresses.
Mud weight window requires knowing the
Ehorz vvert E
in-situ stresses magnitudes and directions, h  PP  (v  PP )  horz 2 h 
pore pressure, anisotropic rock properties Evert 1  vhorz 1  vhorz
and collapse pressure of the rocks.
The integral of well density log defined Ehorz vhorz
 H (2)
the vertical stress magnitude (σv). 1  vhorz 2
Compressional waves from sonic logs and
Ehorz vvert E
drilling events allowed determining well H  PP  (v  PP )  horz 2  H 
pore pressure with Eaton´s method. Shale Evert 1  vhorz 1  vhorz
compaction trend considered the
geological faults in the well. Ehorz vhorz
h (3)
1  vhorz 2
4.1 Minimum and maximum horizontal
stress direction at the well 4.3 Collapse pressure gradient
Borehole breakouts observed in image Mohr-Coulomb and Modified Lade
logs established the minimum and criteria defined the collapse pressure
maximum horizontal stress direction at the gradient curve of the well. Mohr-Coulomb
well. criterion had better match with image and
Figure 4 shows the direction of one caliper logs of the well. This study made
wing of the breakouts showing that use of Drillworks software of Halliburton
minimum horizontal stress direction in for the analyses.
close to N-S and the maximum horizontal Figure 5 shows the mud weight at the
stress is E-W. well that includes: pore pressure, vertical
stress, and minimum and maximum
horizontal stress magnitude and collapse
pressure gradient. The geomechanical
model included anisotropic elastic
properties of the rocks in the analysis. The
model shows that the play shales show an
inverse stress regime.
Figure 4. Breakout directions of the well.
4.2 Minimum and maximum horizontal

stress magnitude at the well
4
The volume of total organic content (TOC)

in a rock is an important factor in a rock to
fabricate hydrocarbons. TOC can be
measured at the lab with Rock-Eval
pyrolysis or with electrical log with Passey
method. Passey method includes a
relationship between total organic carbon
(TOC) and source rock maturity.
Figure 7 shows TOC of source rock
measured in the lab results with Rock-Eval
pyrolysis (brown dots in track 4) and
determined with Passey method
(continued line in track 4). Gamma ray,
Figure 5. Mud weight window of the well. sonic/resistivity logs are in track 2 and 3,
respectively. The volumes of TOC are
4.4 Optimal well trajectories higher than 4% in weight, and it means that
the source rocks can generate
Figure 6 shows that the optimal hydrocarbons.
trajectories of the well are in the E-W
direction. That means that difference
between the collapse pressure gradient and
the minimum horizontal stress gradient is
bigger in the E-W direction than in the N-
S direction.
Figure 7. TOC Rock-Eval pyrolysis and Passey

method.
Figure 8 shows the Van Krevelen

diagram for a shale play to determine the
Figure 6. Optimal well trajectories in the field.
type of kerogen in the source rock. In this
analysis, the source rock has kerogen type
5 SWEET SPOTS I, II and III. It means that the source rock
can generate oil and gas.
Sweet spots selection in shale plays
includes the analysis of total organic
carbon (TOC), critically stressed fractures,
rock brittleness index, and minimum
horizontal stress.
5.1 Total organic carbon (TOC)
5
Figure 8. Van Krevelen diagram for a shale play.
5.2 Critically stressed fractures

Figure 10. Integration of geomechanics and
Figure 9 shows a 3D Mohr diagram with geomchemical analysis in shale plays.
the Coulomb frictional failure line. The
point represents a particular set of 5.4 Sweet spots selection
fractures with the in-situ stresses, and it
shows that these sets of fractures are not Sweet spots selection in shale plays
critically stressed, because the point lies included the following criteria: rock
below the Coulomb failure line. The shale brittleness higher than 34%, volume of
plays did not show critically stressed shale lower than 40%, minimum
fractures, and it means that the fractures horizontal stress lower than the
are not conductive. overburden, and close to rocks with TOC
higher than 4%. Figure 11 shows 5 sweet
spots selected in this study in a field in
Colombia.
Figure 9. Critically stressed fractures.
5.3 Rock brittleness
Figure 10 illustrates an integrated analysis

Figure 11. Sweet spots selection in shale plays.
of geomechanics and geochemical
analysis in shale plays. Gamma ray log in 5 CONCLUSIONS
track 2, volume of shale in track 3, TOC in
track 4, in-situ stresses in track 5, and rock 1. The well in general has an inverse stress
brittleness index in track 6. The rock regime (σv <σh <σH) in the formations of
brittleness specifies values close to 36%.
6
interest (Formations G and E). The Hydraulic fractures are required in this
average magnitudes of the calculated in type of reservoirs, but under reverse stress
situ stresses are: vertical stress 1 psi/ft, regime will usually generate horizontal
minimum horizontal stress 1.08 psi/ft and fractures, which may have a low
maximum horizontal stress at 1.23 psi/ft. effectiveness.
2. The Mohr Coulomb failure criterion 3. Drill directional wells before drilling
suggests that drilling Formation E with a horizontal wells to further understand the
fluid density from 15 ppg to 16.5 ppg can distribution of natural fractures and
improve mechanical stability. fragility of shale plays observed in G and
3. Geomechanical analysis performed E Formations. Additionally, it is
indicates that Formations G and E are necessary to generate a learning curve
more mechanically stable with larger mud related to mechanical instability and
windows between pore pressure and drilling costs reduction.
fracture gradient when drilled in the 4. Consider the design of horizontal wells
direction of the maximum horizontal in the minimum horizontal stress direction,
stress, such as the W-E direction which allows the generation of transversal
4. No critically stressed fractures are hydraulic fractures and interception of the
observed in the G Formation, which is greatest number of natural conductive
possibly related to the stress regime. fractures. Transverse hydraulic fractures in
5. There is concordance between the TOC horizontal wells allow a greater number of
calculation and Passey method with the natural fractures to be connected than
laboratory results. Reports of TOC longitudinal hydraulic fractures.
measurement in the laboratory of source
rocks in the G and E formations, reach ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
values close to 10% in weight.
6. The laboratory results indicate that G The authors express their thankfulness to
Formation has Type I, II and III kerogen, Ecopetrol and Universidad de America to
corresponding to good, very good rocks of allow the publication of this article.
oil and gas respectively. Formation E has
Type III kerogen, a gas-generating rock NOMENCLATURE
rather than oil. Formation G presents better
characteristics of source rock than E Roman symbols
Formation.
Cij = Stiffness matrix constants of the
6 RECOMENDATIONS stress tensors, Mpsi
E = Young’s Modulus, psi
1. Test the selected sweet spots in G
Formation, which have a greater Greek symbols
probability of success than E Formation, Ν = Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
because of its rock fragility characteristics,
shale volume, minimum horizontal stress σh = Minimum horizontal stress
and TOC. magnitude, psi
2. Continue the search for unconventional
reservoirs in G and E Formations, which σV =Vertical stress magnitude, psi
present a TOC greater than 4% in areas
with normal stress regimes or strike slip. ά = Biot constant, dimensionless
7
εh = Deformation of the rock in the

minimum horizontal stress direction,
dimensionless
εH = Deformation of the rock in the

maximum horizontal stress direction,
dimensionless
ρ = Density, gr/cc
Subscripts
vert= Vertical
horz= Horizontal
ij= 1,2,3
REFERENCES
Higgins, S., and Goodwin, S. (2008). Anisotropic
Stress Models Improve Completion Design in
the Baxter Shale, Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, SPE, Denver, CO, USA, p. 2-3.
McCarthy, K., and Niemann, M. (2012). Basic

Petroleum Geochemistry for Source Rock
Evaluation, Oilfield Review, Schlumberger,
Vol. 23, Issue 2, p. 5-9.
Passey, Q. R., and Creaney, S. (1990). A Practical

Model for Organic Richness from Porosity and
Resistivity Logs, The American Association of
Petroleum Gologists Bulletin. Vol. 74, p. 3-8.
Zoback, D. M. (2007). Reservoir Geomechanics,

1st ed., Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, USA, p. 93-101.
Zoback, M.D., and Barton, C.A. (2003).

Determination of Stress Orientation and
Magnitude in Deep Wells, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences. Vol. 40, p. 5-18.

10.0000@Www - Onepetro.org@conference Paper@ISRM ISG 2017 006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.0000@Www - Onepetro.org@conference Paper@ISRM ISG 2017 006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

77° Simposio Internacional de Geomecánica 2017

Sustainable Heavy Oil Exploitation, Innovation and Geomechanical Contributions

GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION FOR AN

Henry Andrey Lozano

Hernán Darío Mantilla

Carlos Alberto Espinosa Mora

KEYWORDS: Shale plays, Geomechanics, Transversal anisotropy, TOC.

possibilities. Table 1 determines the values using

2 METODOLOGY Table 1. Stiffness matrix constants values

3.1 Stiffness constants of the stress

Shales normally have a transverse

Figure 1. Stiffness matrix constants of the well.

3.2 Dynamic elastic mechanical

Table 2 illustrates the approach to

Figure 4. Breakout directions of the well.

4.2 Minimum and maximum horizontal

The volume of total organic content (TOC)

Figure 7. TOC Rock-Eval pyrolysis and Passey

Figure 8 shows the Van Krevelen

5.1 Total organic carbon (TOC)

Figure 8. Van Krevelen diagram for a shale play.

5.2 Critically stressed fractures

Figure 9. Critically stressed fractures.

5.3 Rock brittleness

Figure 10 illustrates an integrated analysis

εh = Deformation of the rock in the

εH = Deformation of the rock in the

McCarthy, K., and Niemann, M. (2012). Basic

Passey, Q. R., and Creaney, S. (1990). A Practical

Zoback, D. M. (2007). Reservoir Geomechanics,

Zoback, M.D., and Barton, C.A. (2003).

You might also like