Relationship Between Horizontal Stress and

Depth in Sedimentary Basins

I.M. Breckels, * SPE, Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium
H. A. M. van Eekelen, SPE. Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie LaborJtorium
Summary
Previous work on establishing a relationship between in-
situ stress and depth is reviewed. On the basis of data
from literature, supplemented by available field data,
equations are proposed to describe the trend of horizontal
stress with depth for nonnally pressured fonnations in
the U.S. gulf coast region. A separate correlation be-
tween horizontal stress and pore pressure allows this
trend to be extended to fonnations containing abnonnal
pore pressures.
Having achieved a good correlation for data from this
well-documented region, we repeat the process for other
parts of the world, using data from hydraulic fracture
treatments and fonnation integrity (leakoff) tests.
Similar relationships between horizontal stress and depth
are found to hold for nonnally pressured areas that are
geologically and tectonically similar to the U. S. gulf
coast. Coupled with regional correlations between
horizontal stress and pore pressure, these relationships
enable horizontal stress levels to be estimated for a given
depth, provided the pore pressure also is known.
Introduction
The instantaneous shut-in pressure (lSIP) recorded dur-
ing or after a fracturing job or during a mini fracture test
provides a good approximation to the minimum principal
in-situ total stress component S Hillin' The vertical total
stress or overburden stress S v (nonnally the maximum
principal in-situ stress) can be derived by integration of
the fonnation density, compensated (FDC) log . In tec-
tonically inactive areas, the intemlediate principal stress,
S Hlllax' can be assumed approximately equal to the
minimum principal stress: SHmin ==SHmax <sv. In the
more general case, when S Hmax > S Hmin' the value of
S Hillax in principle can be derived from the fonnation
breakdown pressure Ph as measured at the start of a frac-
. Now Wllh Shell Winni ng NV. Cairo.
01 19.2136182/0091.0336$00.25
Copyright 1982 Society of Petroleum Engineers 01 AIMt:
SEPTEMBER 1982
turing job. For a fully plastering fluid, for instance,
P /, = 3s Hmin - S Hmax - P c where Pc is the pore pressure.
In practice, however, S Hmax cannot be detennined ac-
curately because the breakdown value will be influenced
by hole geometry, hole integrity, mud-cake properties,
and the extent to which the fluid penetrates into and
pressurizes the pore space around the borehole. Also,
hydraulic fracturing data are often lacking in many areas
of the world. The only remairung way, then, to obtain in-
fomlation relating to in-situ stresses is to analyze the
results of fonnation integrity tests (leakoff tests and
casing-seat tests). In these tests, the pressure at which
the fonnation starts taking fluid may range from S Hmin to
2s IImin - Pc. Therefore. it is the lower end of the range
of values from fomlation-integrity tests that is of interest
for in-situ stress detennination.
Review of Previous Work
The majority of hydraulic fracturing/fOlmation-integrity
test data quoted in literature are from the U.S. gulf coast
and Santa Barbara Channel (CA). From these data, a
number of authors have derived fracture gradient correla-
tions to be used in planning drilling programs.
All correlation methods begin with the writing of the
fracture gradient as follows.
p/ D=Pc ID+k(sv -Pc)/D
=PcID+kavID , .................. . ... (1)
where
P, fracturing pressure,
P (' fomlation pore pressure,
s v vertical or overburden stress, and
a v vertical effective stress.
The parameter k then is correlated with depth. D, over-
hurden gradient. .\' vi D. vertical effective stress, a v' or
Pd", :;it), (fer sh::llcs) The (:'.'rrc!atif'n mll<Jlly i ~ h ~ ~ e
2191
>-
...
0
0
e
:z:
>-
a..
UJ
0
...J
co:
0
>-
<r:
UJ
>
0
2
4
6
8
iO
i2
14
.
\\
0
16
-. 1. MATTHEWS 8 KELLEY
---- 2. ADJUSTED M8KCURVE
i8 00000000 3. PENNEBAKER
--- 4. EATON
5. CHRISTMAN :1
20
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.9 i.O
EFFECTIVE STRESS RATIO
Fig. l-Effective stress ratio curves from varioLlS authors.
on measured or estimated values of s v' plus measured
fracture gradients or lost circulation data. The only ex-
ception is Pennebaker, I who uses ISIP's to derive k(D)
but still applies the result for fracture gradient prediction,
thereby ignoring the difference between fracture initia-
tion and propagation pressures (hoop stress effect). This
difference also is ignored implicitly by other authors,
who use fracture gradients to derive a correlation for k
but interpret k as the horizontal to vertical effective stress
ratio, whereas in fact it lies somewhere above this ratio.
If P j is the pressure at which the formation starts
fluid (Sllmin <Pj<2S
llmin
-Pc), the parameter kIn Eq.
I equals the stress ratio aH/aV multiplied by a factor
which, depending on the strength of the hoop stress ef-
fect and on the difference between S IImin and 5 Hmax' may
take on any value between one and two.
Matthews and Kelly
2
assume that the overburden gra-
dient s vlD equals 1.00 psilft. The parameter k is called
the matrix stress coefficient and is correlated with ver-
tical effective stress, a v: k =k(a v). For normally
pressured formations, one then obtains k=k(D) In prin-
ciple it is recognized that k(D) may differ for different
areas and should be determined from fracture data for
each specific area. Example correlations of k(D) are
given for the Texas and Louisiana gulf coasts. Matthews
and Kelly recognize that fracture extension pressures
may be lower than Pr and therefore do not interpret k as
horizontal to verticai effective stress ratio.
Costley 3 also assumes s vlD = 1.00 psi/ft. He uses lost
circulation data in normally pressured fonnations to
determine k(D) for the Louisiana gul f coast. It is as-
2192
17500
6000 20000
1m) (II)
Doplh
400 600
7!500
800 1000
10000 12500 teooo 17500
(pIn
Iroclurino doto
o _Ioninlogrlfy _I dolO
o
Fig. 2-Minimum horizontal stress vs. depth-U.S. gulf coast.
sumed that the same correlation may be used in other
areas by detemlining the depth in the gulf coast area with
an equivalent porosity (by use of a porosity/depth cor-
relation by Dickinson) and by use of the stress ratio k
associated with that depth. Effectively, this means that
parameter k is correlated with porosity, and this correla-
tion is supposed to be universal for nomlally pressured
shales.
Pennebaker I uses actual values of s v' or correlations
with depth s v(D), which vary with geological age. He
correlates k with depth D (although he suggests that a
better correlation may be with overburden gradient
s vlD) and assumes the correlation to be the same for all
areas. He identifies k with the stress ratio a lila v and
derives the correlation k(D) from ISIP's, probably in the
V.S. gulf coast area. Hence, his curve k(D) actually is a
stress ratio correlation, and its application in Eq. 1
should lead to somewhat conservative estimates of frac-
ture gradients since the hoop stress effect is neglected.
Eaton
4
correlates both Sv and k with depth D, the cor-
relations being different for different areas. The correla-
tion s v(D) is obtained from integrated density logs, and
k(D) then is back-calculated from fracture gradient data.
An example is given for the V.S. gulf coast area on the
basis of Costley's lost circulation data and density logs
from many V.S. gulf coast wells. Eaton neglects the dif-
ference between fracture initiation and extension and in-
terprets k as an effective stress ratio. In fact, he writes
k = v/ ( I - v) and plots h is results as a correlation of v with
depth. This is an unnecessary and somewhat dangerous
complication because it might create the wrong impres-
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
sion that k also may be detennined by measuring
Poisson's ratio J! on a core.
Christman 5 also correlates both s v and k with depth
and presents correlations for the Santa Barbara Channel
(only down to 5,000 ft below the mudline). He also in-
terprets k as an effective stress ratio. As an alternative.
Christman presents another correlation for k in the Santa
Barbara Channel, with the (local) bulk density of the
formation.
Pilkington
6
compares the correlations k(D) by
Matthews and Kelly, Pennebaker. Eaton. and
Christman; the curve by Matthews and Kelly is adjusted
for the effect of variable overburden density by applying
Eaton's sv(D) correlation for the U.S. gulf coast. The
spread in the curves turns out to be small (Fig. I). Pilk-
ington then derives an average curve (not plotted), and,
by referring to the s v(D) correlations. finally expresses
the parameter k in overburden gradient s vi D, as follows.
k=3.9 svID-2.88 for and
k=3.2 svID-2.224 for svID>0.94,
where s v is in pounds per square inch and D is in feet.
With this expression for k, Eq. I is assumed valid for
both normally and abnormally pressured formations in
tectonically relaxed tertiary basins containing plastic
shales with interbedded sands, but not for brittle or
naturally fractured fonnations, including limestones ,
dolomites, and brittle shales. Pilkington also interprets k
as the horizontal/vertical effective stress ratio.
It is somewhat surprising that Pennebaker's correlation
(based on ISIP's) agrees as closely as it does with the
correlations forkeD) by Matthews and Kelly. Eaton. and
Christman (all based on fracture gradients). From this
agreement it would seem that the hoop stress effect in
fracture gradient data is very small and that the stress
ratio a Hl a v and the parameter k in Eq. I scatter around
almost identical trends with depth. This result is not sup-
ported by the data presented in this paper.
Horizontal Stress/Depth Relationships
From the previous discussion it can be seen that the ma-
jority of previous work has been directed toward
establishing values for the fracture gradient by correla-
tion of the parameter kin Eg. I with depth. This correla-
tion then can be used in conjunction with integrated FDC
logs to estimate future fracturing pressures.
In this paper basic data are considered from tests car-
ried out to determine fracturing pressures or ISIP's, to
derive a relationship between minimum horizontal stress
S Hmin and depth. No attempt has been made to relale
SlImin to the vertical stress s v to obtain a correlation be-
tween s Hmin Is v and depth.
U.S. Gulf Coast Region
The number of data available for the U.S. gulf coast is
larger than that for any other single region. For this
reason, all available data from hydraulic fracturing or
fonnation integrity tests for this area (including data
from Refs. 2 and 6 through 14) were considered first:
data of a suspect nature (e.g .. where fracturing or fluid
lcakoff depth was not known) were ignored, while data
(mm kllu", fI Lv be also ...,;ere
SEPTEMBER 1982
temporarily removed from the data set. The remaining
data points (more than 300) have been plotted against
depth in Fig. 2; data from hydraulic fracturing tests have
been plotted with open symbols to distinguish them from
leakoff test data. As already discussed, these latter tests
can give a range of values between 2s Hmin - Pc and
S flmin' where s IImin is the minimum in-situ horizontal
stress. Because of the difficulty associated with assessing
which value applies (which type of failure occurs) in any
particular test, a lower-bound curve to the majority of
data points has been used to obtain an approximate trend
for s flmin as a function of depth .
The solid curve in Fig. 2 forms a lower bound to 93 %
of the data points. It can be defined by two simple
functions:
S Hmin =0.197 D 1 145 for D 11,500 ft , and
S Hmin = 1.167 D-4,596 for D> 11,500 ft,
where S Hmin is in pounds per square inch and D is in feet.
This lower-bound curve may be compared with Pilk-
ington's average curve (see Fig. 3), which can be inter-
preted in tern1S of S Hmin and D as a curve with the
equations
SHmin =0.24IDI 135 for ft, and
SHmin = 1.06ID-I, 986 for D> 7,550 ft.
It can be seen from Fig. 3 that Pilkington's curve fits
the data very well. However, it is likely that the pro-
posed lower-bound curve represents a better correlation
of horizontal stress vs. depth for nonnally pressured for-
mations than does Pilkington's curve. There are two
reasons for this.
I. The majority of data in Fig. 3 are from formation
integrity tests. These tests frequently show some in-
fluence of the hoop stress around the borehole and
therefore lead to an overestimation of the minimum
horizontal stress. In other words, the -small symbols in
Fig. 3 generally represent values somewhat in excess of
sHmin
2. The data set of Fig. 3 predominantly includes points
from nonnally pressured or overpressured fonnations,
known underpressures having been eliminated from the
data set. Consequently. underpressured environments
are underrepresented in this data set. U nderpressured
fonnations generally have lower horizontal total stress
than normally pressured or overpressured formations.
To investigate further the effect of under- or over-
pressures and the hoop stress effect. hydraulic fracturing
data for S Hmin (lSIP's or fracture-propagation pressures)
for which pore pressure data are available were col-
lected. For the U.S. gulf coast, 77 data points were ob-
tained, including those relating to underpressured forma-
tions that have been omitted from Fig. 2. For these data
points, Fig. 4 plots (s Hmin -SH,)/D (the measured
horizontal stress gradient minus the trendline value of
Fig. 2) vs. (Pc -Pcn)/D (actual minus nonnal pore
pressure gradient, nonnal pore pressure for this area be-
ing defined as 0.465 psi / ft).
The straight line in Fig. 4 was obtained by linear
regression, with a c0rrelation C'oeffiC'ient r=O. 79. The
2193
17500
6000 20000
(m) (It)
Oopth
zoo 400 600
7500
800 1000
"_(barl
ZOO
'0000 .Z5OO 15000 .7500
~ Hydraulic frocturi"9 data
o Formation-intqity t.,t doto
interpretation of
Pilki"9ton'. ov,rove
Itr ... rotio lint
(pli)
Fig. 3-Comparison between proposed lowerbound trendline
and average curve interpreted from Pilkington,6 on a
plot showing U.S. gulf coast data.
o . o , o ~
Fig. 4-Effect of abnormal pore pressures on horizontal total
stress (U.S. hydraulic fracturing data) .
o
slope of the line is 0.46, which agrees well with the
value of 0.50 obtained by Salz 12 for the Vicksburg for
mation in south Texas . The intercept value of the line is
almost zero. Since the hydraulic fracturing data of Fig. 4
do not contain a hoop stress effect, this nearzero in-
tercept leads us to conclude that the lower-bound curve
in Fig. 2 constitutes a good average trendline for the
horizontal stress SHlllin in normally pressured formations.
The fact that most data points in Fig. 2 fall above and to
the right of the trendlinc results from the hoop stress ef
feet (in formation integrity tests) and the existence of
overpressures. The horizontal stress in abnormally
pressured formations in the U.S. gulf coast region can be
2194
600
2
7500
10000
12500
"_(bor)
800
10000 (poi)
0
~
...J!
4000
o 0
Jl
(m) (11)
Ooplh
Fig. 5-Minimum horizontal total stress obtained from
hydraulic fracturing data from Venezuela.
-.....
o
bar/,"
0 .05
-0.05
'I 0.56 0.011
c ~ _ . _I",
Fig. 6-Effect of pore pressure changes on horizontal total
stress for data from Block 1, lake Maracaibo,
Venezuela.
estimated by combining the correlations of Figs. 2 and 4
into one single correlation:
S Hillin =0.197D 1.145 + 0.46(P(, -PCI/)
for D ~ 11 ,500 ft. and
S Hillin = 1.167D-4,596+0.46(Pc -P ('1/)
for D> 11,500 ft ,
where P (' /1 is a pressure corresponding to a gradient value
of 0,465 psilft. Note. however, that for depths greater
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
IHlftln (bar)
o 200 400 600 800
__ __
1000
2000
3000
(m)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
5000
7500
10.000
(11)
Oep.h
5000 10.000 (p,ol
TREATMENT VOLUME
\
,,500 bbl,
II TREATMENT VOLUME
> bbl.
Fig. 7-Hydraulic fracturing data from Venezuela converted
to normal pore pressure.
than 11,500 ft this correlation is not supported by
hydraulic fracturing data.
Venezuela
Hydraulic fracturing data from Venezuela are plentiful,
most information being available for Lake Maracaibo
Block I. Nearly all these data were obtained from
stimulation treatments carried out in the C4 and C5 sands
of Eocene formation . They therefore cover only a
relatively small depth range. .
The lSIP values are plotted against depth in Fig. 5.
Also indicated in this figure is the curve established
previously for normally pressured formations in the U.S.
gulf coast region. The Venezuelan data points can be
seen to scatter widely around this line and appear to form
a trend predominantly to the left of the gulf coast curve.
This tendency to lower horizontal stress levels is ex-
plained partly by the low pore pressure in these forma-
tions, many of these wells having been stimulated after
pressure depletion during production. The large scatter is
caused partly by pore pressure differences, but two other
factors also may playa role. First, more than one area is
represented in Fig. 5, and there is evidence to suggest
that the tectonic environment varies from one lake block
to another and even within subregions of Block I. Sec-
ond , the stimulation treatments quoted vary widely in
volume from true mini fractures to treatments in excess of
4,000 bbl. This variation is bound to produce some scat-
ter in the data, 15 and, in addition, large treatments can
produce problems in correctly interpreting the value of
the ISIP. 16
The influence of pore pressure variations can be taken
into account by again plotting the difference between the
measured and (U .S. gulf coast) trendline values of the
horizontal stress gradient, S Hmin -s II ID. VS. actual
r
SEPTEMBER 1982
800
10000 (poll
..
SIIoIo
(ml (III
Depth
Fig. 8-Minimum horizontal total stress obtained from
hydraulic fracturing data from Brunei.
minus normal pore pressure gradient, (P c - P en )/ D,
with the original Eocene pore pressure of 0.433 psi/ft be-
ing taken as the normal pore pressure. Plotting all
available data from Lake Maracaibo in this way reveals
no correlation between the two variables . This is prob-
ably because of location and fracturing treatment volume
mentioned previously.
Excluding data from treatments larger than 1,000 bbl,
we attempted a correlation for data from the C4 and C5
Eocene sands of Block I. Fig. 6 shows a linear regres-
sion based on 45 data points . The straight line has a cor-
relation coefficient of 0.7, a gradient of 0.56, and an in-
tercept of 0.05 psi/ft on the stress axis. This intercept in-
dicates that normally pressured formations in this area
are at a slightly higher stress level than U.S. gulf coast
sediments (the intercept value corresponds to an extra
300 psi at a depth of 6,000 ft).
Fig. 7 shows the original U.S. gulf coast trendline of
horizontal total stress against depth (Curve 2) and the
same curve repositioned for the above intercept (Curve
I). It also plots the hydraulic fracturing data from Block
I (same data as above), after adjustment of each point to
normal pore pressure, with the straight-line relationship
of Fig. 6 (see Appendix). The adjusted relationship ap-
pears to hold reasonably well for the data presented; in-
corporating the pore pressure adjustment for this area,
we obtain the equation for Curve I (Fig. 7):
S Hmin = 0.2 IOD 1.145 +0.56(Pe - P CII)'
where S Hmin' Pc, and P en are in pounds per square inch
and D is in feet. Normal pore pressure corresponds to
0.433 psi /ft.
Note that the data do not support extrapolation of this
trend beyond the Eocene formation of Block I .
2195
.t. SANOST(M.S
SHAL.ES
-0.0%
,.04"_ 0025
"-0.1t9}
OOZ 0.04 00. 0.08 ~ c - .. 'N,/M)
-.-
Fig. 9-Effect of abnormal pore pressures on horizontal total
stress for data from Brunei.
Brunei
An approach similar to that used for the U.S. gulf coast
and Venezuela was adopted for data from Brunei. In this
case data were far less plentiful, and a correlation had to
be attempted from only IS hydraulic fracturing data
points. On the positive side, however, these data were all
from mini fracture tests carried out specifically to deter-
mine stress levels, rather than from large-scale stimula-
tion treatments. The small volumes of fracturing fluid in-
volved increased the reliability of the interpretation of
the ISIP's derived from each test.
Fig. 8 shows the ISIP values plotted against depth,
again with the U.S. gulf coast curve drawn in for com-
parison. The rock type in which each test was carried out
is indicated also. It is clear that the points from this
region lie predominantly to the right of the U.S. gulf
coast curve, but data are too few to discern any mean-
ingful difference between rock types.
If the data are plotted again on a graph of
(SHmin-SH )/D vs. (Pc-Pcn)/D, the influence of ab-
normal p o r ~ pressures can be analyzed. * The straight
line in Fig. 9, which has a correlation coefficient of 0.9,
has a gradient of 0.49 and an intercept on the vertical
axis of 0.11 psi/ft. This intercept value indicates that
normally pressured formations offshore Brunei are (on
the evidence of this small data set) subject to higher com-
pressive stresses than in the U.S. gulf coast region. Ad-
justing the U.S. gulf coast trendline (Curve 2 in Fig. 10)
to take this intercept into account, we obtain Curve I in
Fig. 10. The same figure also shows the IS hydraulic
fracturing data and some formation-integrity test data
(from other Brunei wells), both after adjustment to nor-
mal pore pressure by use of the slope 0.49 of the straight-
line relationship of Fig. 9 (see Appendix). If we again
incorporate the pore pressure adjustment, the full rela-
tionship for Brunei (Curve I, Fig. 10) becomes
S Hmin =0.227D 1.145 +0.49 (Pc -P en).
The North Sea
More than 200 formation integrity (leakoff) test values
are available for the North Sea, if data from offshore The
Netherlands, the U.K. , and Norway are combined (Fig.
11); known or suspected overpressures among these data
are very few.
P
en
is the normal pore pressure corresponding to a gradient value of 0.433 psi/ft .
2196
200 400
"_Ibar)
600 900
5000 iOOOO {poi}
iOOO
2000
7!lOO
~ 10.000
(m) (II)
Fig. 10-Data from Brunei converted to normal pore pressure.
From this large data set, a best-fit leakoff curve (Curve
I in Fig. II) emerges that is very similar to the U.S. gulf
coast curve (Curve 2) but lies between 21 % (at 2,000 ft)
and 8 % (at 10,000 ft) to the right of it. Of course, it
should be expected that best-fit curves derived from for-
mation integrity (Ieakoff) test data from tectonically
relaxed environments would fall some distance to the
right of the U.S. gulf coast curve, which was derived
from hydraulic fracturing data. This results mainly from
the hoop stress effect in leakoff tests. While no direct
comparison can be made between results from these two
test types, similarities of trend with a migration toward
higher stresses for the leakoff test values are indicative of
similar stress environments.
A difference in apparent stress level because of rock
type is shown in Fig. 12, where the best-fit line for
shales is seen to fall some 0 to 5% (depending on depth)
to the right of the best-fit line for sandstones. At 8,000 ft
this difference amounts to 280 psi. However, it is doubt-
ful whether this difference of up to 5 % is statistically
significant.
The Netherlands, Onshore
More than 100 leakoff test data are available for The
Netherlands onshore fields. In addition, six hydraulic
fracturing treatments have been carried out. Because of
this small number of hydraulic fracturing data, a separate
correlation has not been attempted, and the data are
shown together with the leakoff test data in Fig. 13.
The scatter in the data in Fig. 13 is somewhat larger
than that seen previously. This can be attributed partly to
pore pressure effects, particularly in the marine Lower
Cretaceous, which was partly depleted by production
before the drilling of the majority of wells from which
data were taken for this study. Abnormal pore pressures
also are known to occur in some of the floating carbonate
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
'Hrnfn (bar)
-NORWAY
Fig. 11-Leakoff test data from the North Sea.
blocks within the Zechstein fonnation, and some 18 data
points for carbonates refer to tests carried out in these
blocks.
As seen in Fig. 13, data from the Carboniferous give
very low apparent stress levels. These cannot be ex-
plained in tenns of pore pressure effects and indicate that
an extensional regime exists in this fom1ation. All data
from the Carboniferous are from wells that penetrate this
fonnation immediately below the Zechstein, and it
would appear that the low leakoff test values seen in
these tests could result from stress reductions induced by
salt movements in the overlying Zechstein. To some ex-
tcnt, the same comment applies to data from the
Siochteren fonnation, which also directly underlies the
Zechstein salt. The deviation from the general
Netherlands sandstone trend is, however, far less pro-
nounced for the Slochteren than for the Carboniferous.
The difference in trend for the different rock types is
indicated by Curves I through 5 in Fig. 13. The U.S.
gulf coast curve is shown for comparison (Curve 6). As
for the North Sea, the Netherlands leakoff curves should
be expected to lie somewhat to the right of the U.S. gulf
coast curve. Three curves are shown for sandstone data:
Curve 5 is a best fit to the Carboniferous points only,
while Curves 3 and 4 exclude the Carboniferous and also
the marine Lower Cretaceous. Curve 3 also excludes
data from the Siochteren fonnation . Finally, Curve 2 is
for the carbonates. and Curve I is for shales. It is seen
that. at a depth of 8,000 ft, a difference of 400 to 1.000
psi exists between apparent stress levels in shales and
sandstones. This difference is significant and may repre-
sent a tme difference in horizontal total stress between
nonnally pressured sandstone and shales. This may have
impl ications for the problem of containment of hydraul ic
. '"
tractures .. ,
SEPTEMBER 1982
z
5000
7500
10000
(m) (II)
Depth
_(liar)
200 400 600 800
5000 10000 (pli)
SA/()STONES
CARBONATES
@ SHALES a CLAYSTONES
Fig. 12-Leakoff test data from the North Sea indicating rock
type.
Relationship Between Leakoff
Test and ISIP Values
The data from Bmnei provide the only opportunity to
compare leakoff with ISIP values obtained during the
same test. On the average , the leakoff values exceed the
ISIP's by II % (with a standard deviation of 9%) for the
14 wells for which both values are known.
Of course, it is somewhat doubtful whether a relation-
ship based on so few points from one location may be ex-
trapolated to other areas in the world. However, it is
noteworthy that Pilkington's curve,6 which is an
average trendline compiled from the work of several
authors and derived mainly from leakoff tests, also falls
between II and 15% above the previously mentioned
U.S. gulf coast curve based on ISIP's in the same depth
range.
If the relationship between ISIP and leakoff values
detennined from the data for Brunei is assumed to apply
generally. one might expect to find a best-fit leakoff
curve that falls about II % to the right of the U,S. gulf
coast (ISIP) curve-i .e.,
leakoff pressure =0.219D 1.145 for D 11,500 ft.
In Fig. 14 this relation (Curve 2) is compared with Pilk-
ington's correlation (Curve 3) and with the best-fit
curves for leakoff test data from The Netherlands for all
fonnations except the Carboniferous (Curve 4) and from
the North Sea (Curve 5):
leakoff pressure=0.332D 1.104 (Netherlands).
leakoff pressure = 0. 353D 1.091 (North Sea).
The agreement between Curves 2 through 5 in Fig. 14 is
2197
2
3
lQooo
(m) (tI)
Deplh
400
Fig. 13-Leakoff test data from onshore Netherlands indicating
rock type.
sufficiently close that we can be fairly confident in using
the U. S. gulf coast curve (Curve 1) to describe the trend
of horizontal stress with depth in tectonically relaxed
areas such as the North Sea and The Netherlands (ex-
cluding the Carboniferous) for normally pressured
formations.
Conclusions
Hydraulic fracturing data from the U.S. gulf coast,
Venezuela, and Brunei have been analyzed to give rela-
tionships between horizontal total stress and depth for
these regions. If we take into account the effect of abnor-
mal pore pressures, these relationships become as
follows.
u. S. Gulf Coast.
s Hmin =0.197D I . )45 +0.46(P
c
-P en)
for D< 11,500 ft.
S Hmin = 1.167 -4,596+0.46(Pc - Pen)
for D> 11,500 ft.
Venezuela.
s Hmin =0.2IOD 1.145 +0.56(P c -Pc,,)
for 5,900 ft<D<9,200 ft.
Brunei.
sHmin =O.227DI 145 +0.49(pc -P
cn
)
for D< 10,000 ft.
It should be emphasized that, while the U.S. gulf coast
curve is probably fairly reliable over the depth range of 0
2198
2
3
tOOOO
(ml (fl)
Depth
200
5000
400
SHmin(bor)
BOO
10000 (psi)
I Gulf Coast ('SIp) Curve
2 Gulf Coast curve + 11 %
3 PilkIngton's correlation
4 Netherlands onshore
5 North Sea
Fig. 14-Comparison of trend lines for U.S. gulf coast, the
North Sea, and onshore Netherlands.
to 11,500 ft and the Brunei curve is reliable for 0 to
10,000 ft. the Venezuelan data cover only sandstones
within the Eocene formation of Lake Maracaibo Block I .
Extrapolation of the above relationship beyond this for-
mation cannot be supported by the available data.
Extrapolating a relationship between leakoff values
and ISIP's determined from data for Brunei, we modified
the U.S. gulf coast ((SIP) curve to enable comparison
with formation-integrity (Ieakoff) test data from the U.S.
gulf coast (Pilkington's curve), the North Sea, and The
Netherlands. Good agreement between the four eurves
was achieved, indicating a close similarity between the
horizontal total stress trends with depth for these three
areas. This implies that the U.S. gulf coast curve of Fig.
2 can be used with a fair degree of confidence to describe
the horizontal total stress as a function of depth in nor-
mally pressured formations in tectonically relaxed areas
such as the North Sea and The Netherlands (excluding
Carboniferous).
Nomenclature
D = depth, ft (m)
k = parameter in Eq.
P b = formation breakdown (fracture initiation)
pressure, psi (MPa)
Pc = pore pressure, psi (MPa)
Pen = normal pore pressure, psi (MPa)
PI = fracturing pressure, psi (MPa)
PIp = fracture-propagation pressure, psi (MPa)
s Hmin = minimum horizontal total stress, psi (MPa)
s Hmax = maximum horizontal total stress, psi (MPa)
s H, = trend line value of minimum horizontal total
stress , psi (MPa)
s v vertical total stress (overburden stress), psi
(MPa)
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
(J H minimum horizontal effective stress, psi
(MPa)
(J v vertical effective stress, psi (MPa)
1> porosity, %
References
I. Pennebaker, E.S.: "An Engineering Interpretation of Seismic
Data," paper SPE 2165 presented at the SPE 1968 Annual
Meeting, Houston, Sept. 29-0ct. 2.
2. Matthews, W.R. and Kelly. J.: "How to Predict Fonnation
Pressure and Fracture Gradient," Oil and Gas 1. (Feb. 20, 1967)
92- 106.
3. Costley. R.D.: "Hazards and Costs Cut by Planned Drilling Pro-
grams." World Oil (Oct. 1967) 93-96.
4. Eaton. B.A.: "Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application in
Oilfield Operations," 1. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-60; Trans ..
AIME. 246.
5. Christman. S.A.: "Offshore Fracture Gradients." 1. Pet . Tech
(Aug. 1973) 910-14.
6. Pilkington. P.E.: "Fracture Gradient Estimates in Tertiary
Basins," Pet. Eng. Iml. (May 1978) 138-48.
7. Taylor, D.B. and Smith, T.K.: "Improved Fracture Gradient
Estimates in Offshore Drilling Operations , " Proc., API. Houston,
TX (March 1970) paper 926-15-L.
8. Matthews, W.R. and Cesmirosky. LJ .: "Programmed Casing
Seats Can Lower Well Costs." Oil and Gas 1. (Jan. 24. (972)
60- 64.
9. MacPherson. L.A. and Berry. L.N.: "Prediction of Fracture Gra-
dients From Log Derived Elastic Moduli," Log Analyst
(Sept.lOct. 1972) 12-19.
10. Anderson. R.A., Ingram. D.S .. and Zanier, A.M.: "Fracture
Pressure Gradients From Well Logs ," 1. Pel. Tech. (Nov. 1973)
1259- 68.
II. Althaus, V.E.: "A New Model for Fracture Gradient." 1. Cdn.
Pel. Tech. (April/June 1977) 98-108.
12. Salz. L.B.: "Relationship Between Fracture Propagation Pressure
and Pore Pressure, " paper SPE 6870 presented at the SPE 1977
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
13. Kehle. R.O.: "The Detcnnination of Tectonic Stresses Through
Analysis of Hydraulic Well Fracturing." 1. Geophys. Res. (1964)
69. No.2. 259-73.
14. Felsenthal. M. and Ferrell, H.H.: "Fracturing Gradients in
Waterlloods of Low-Permeability. Partially Depleted Zones,"
1. Pel. Tech. (June 1971) 727-30.
15. Fast, C.R.: "Injection and Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure
Changes During Hydraulic Fracturing." paper presented at the
30th Annual ASME Petroleum Div. Petroleum Engineering Con-
ference, Tulsa, Sept. 1975.
16. Nolte. K.G.: "Detennination of Fracture Parameters From Frac-
turing Pressure Decline, " paper SPE 8341 presented at the SPE
1979 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas.
Sept. 23-26.
SEPTEMBER 1982
17. Van Eekelen. H.A. M.: " Hydraulic Fracture Geometry: Fracture
Containment in Layered Fonnations, " Soc. Pet. Ellg. 1. (June
1982) 341-49.
APPENDIX
Example of Application of Trendlines
To Assess Horizontal Stress
An example of the application of the total horizontal
stress relationship with depth and pore pressure is given
below. Knowing the pore pressure at the depth of in-
terest, we can select the equation to calculate horizontal
total stress.
If we assume that an imaginary well in the U.S. gulf
coast region encounters a pore pressure of 4,000 psi at a
depth of 7,500 ft, the horizontal total stress can be ap-
proximated by
SHmin =0.197D 1.145 +0.46(P
c
-P
cn
),
with D in feet and S Hmin' Pc, and Pen in pounds per
square inch.
The normal pore pressure gradient for the U.S. gulf
coast is 0.465 psi/ft, so we have
S Hmin =0. 197(7500) 1.145
+0.46[4000-(0.465 x75OO)]
=5388+236=5,624 psi .
The slight overpressure results in a horizontal total
stress 236 psi higher than if the formation had been at
normal pore pressure.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bar x 1.0* E+05 Pa
bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI m
3
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
pSI X 6.894757 E-03 MPa
Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 27, 1981.
Paper accepted for publicalion March 2, 1982. Revised manuscript received June 1 e,
1982. Paper (SPE 10336) first presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Con
ference and Exhibition held in San Antonio Oct . 5-7.
2199