Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes



Mark D.  Zoback
Professor of  Geophysics



Week 3 Lecture 6
Rock Strength Chapter 4 Part 2

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Overview

2
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Outline

Section 1
Friction and Fault Strength
Critically-Stressed Crust

Section 2
Predicting Stress Magnitudes

Section 3
Rate and State Friction
3
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Coulomb Criterion Frictional Sliding

Sliding occurs when:

Coefficient of Friction

= (sliding friction)

n
Equation 4.39 pg.123

Coulomb Failure Function:

(So 0)

CFF = - n

Equation 4.40 pg.124

Effective Normal Stress:

n = Sn -Pp

4
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Injection Triggered Seismicity

Waste Injection

Denver Arsenal

Fluid Injection

Rangely Oil Field

5
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Maximum Friction for a Variety of Rock Types

6
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Highly Stress in Intraplate Areas
Hydrostatic Pore Pressure

Townend and Zoback (2001)

How Faulting Keeps the Crust Strong

7
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Lithospheric Dynamics and the
Critically Stressed Crust

8
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 The Context of Concern: In Most Places, The
Brittle Crust is in Frictional Failure Equilibrium

1. Intraplate Earthquakes Occur Nearly Everywhere

9
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Reservoir Induced Seismicity

2. Seismicity is Often Triggered by the Extremely

Small Pressure Perturbation Associated with
Reservoir Impoundment
10
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 3. Deep Borehole Stress Measurements

Zoback and Harjes (1997) 11

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Are Stress Magnitudes Lower in Stable Areas?

Reservoir Triggered Seismicity No!

12
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Slip on Active Faults Perturb Stress Field
at Multiple Scales

13
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Modelling Fault-Induced Stress at the Wellbore Wall

Shamir and Zoback (1992)

 Fractal-like Stress Fluctuations - SAFOD

depth (m)

-90 0 90 -90 0 90 -90 0 90

SHmax azimuth
15
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Cumulative Gutenberg-Richter Relation

log ( N M) = a bM
Compares quantity of
earthquakes vs. magnitude
Cumulative Number (NM)

Southern

~20

California

b-value related to mechanics
of earthquake scaling;
5.5
typically, b1 for natural
events

Magnitude

Southern California, 1944-1990 (Knopo, 2000)
16
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Cumulative Gutenberg-Richter Relation

log ( N M) = a bM
Compares quantity of
earthquakes vs. magnitude
Cumulative Number (NM)

Southern

4.5

California

b-value related to mechanics
of earthquake scaling;
typically, b1 for natural
events

Magnitude

Southern California, 1944-1990 (Knopo, 2000)
17
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Stress Fluctuations Scale Like Earthquakes

Amy DayLewis, Mark Zoback and Stephen Hickman, Scaleinvariant stress orientations
and seismicity rates near the San Andreas Fault, Geophys. Res. Lett, v. 37, L24304, doi:
10.1029/2010GL045025, 2010

18
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 What Does a Critically-Stressed Faults Mean for
Fluid Injection?

19
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 A Recent Increase in Intraplate Seismicity

Prague, OK

Prague, OK*
3 M5+ Eqs

Nov.
Nov., 2011
2011
M 5.7

Zoback (2012)

About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US

20
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
Why the Increase in Seismicity?

 A Recent Increase in Intraplate Seismicity

Prague, OK

Prague, OK*
3 M5+ Eqs

Nov.
Nov., 2011
2011
M 5.7

Zoback (2012)

Ellsworth (2013)

About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US
21
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Why the Increase in Seismicity?

 State of Crustal Stress in Frictional Equilibrium
Maximum stress difference in a sizeable volume of rock is controlled by:
Frictional strength of well oriented pre-existing faults
Maximum differential stress in-situ cannot exceed fault strength

22
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Relationship Between Stress State and Fault Slip

Normal faults
trend parallel to
Normal
SHmax

Strike-slip faults
trend about
Strike-Slip
30 from SHmax

Reverse faults
trend
Reverse perpendicular
to SHmax

Modified Figuren 5.1

23
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Triggered Earthquakes Guy, Arkansas

24
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Outline

Section 1
Friction and Fault Strength
Critically-Stressed Crust

Section 2
Predicting Stress Magnitudes

Section 3
Rate and State Friction
25
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Frictional Faulting Theory

Friction

defines both
limiting
stress
magnitudes
and
orientation of
faults likely
to slip

26
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 State of Crustal Stress in Frictional Equilibrium

Maximum stress difference in a sizeable volume of rock is controlled by:

Frictional strength of well oriented pre-existing faults
Maximum differential stress in-situ cannot exceed fault strength

1 ! 2 #2
= +1 + $ = 3.1 for = 0.6
3 "
27
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Frictional Strength of the Crest

28
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Stress States Associated with
Faults in Frictional Equilibrium

Frictional Faulting Theory: 1 S1 Pp " 2 $

2

Equation 4.43 pg.132

= = # +1 + %
3 S3 Pp

Reverse Faulting: SH max Pp " 2 $

2
= # +1 + %
Equation 4.47 pg.133
Sv Pp

Normal Faulting: Sv Pp " 2 $

2
= # +1 + %
Equation 4.45 pg.133
Sh min Pp

Strike-Slip Faulting: SH max Pp " 2 $

2
= # +1 + %
Equation 4.46 pg.133
Sh min Pp
2
! 2 +1 + # = 3.1 for = 0.6
" $
Equation 4.44 pg.132
29
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Range of Stress Magnitudes

Hydrostatic Pp

Critical SHmax

Critical Shmin

Critical SHmax

S v Pp
= 3.1
Sh min Pp
SHmax Pp
S v Pp = 3.1
Sh min = + Pp Sh min Pp
3.1 SHmax Pp
Sh min 0.6S v ( )
SHmax = 3.1 Sh min Pp + Pp
S v Pp
= 3.1

( )
SHmax = 3.1 S v Pp + Pp
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu


 Stress Magnitudes at Depth as Constrained by
Frictional Strength of the Crust

Figure 4.31 a pg.138

31
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Limiting cases Andersons Classification
Radial Extension Normal faulting (NF)
Sv >> SHmax = Shmin Sv > SHmax > Shmin

Intermediate cases
Normal/Strike-Slip faulting
Sv = SHmax > Shmin

Strike-slip faulting (SS)

SHmax > Sv > Shmin

Strike-Slip/Reverse faulting
SHmax > Sv = Shmin

Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

SHmax >> Shmin = Sv SHmax > Shmin > Sv
 Stress Magnitudes are
Dependent Upon Pore Pressure

Figure 4.30 pg.136

33
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Stress Magnitudes are Dependent Upon
Pore Pressure

Figure 4.31 b pg.138

34
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Range of Stress Magnitudes
Overpressure at Depth

Critical SHmax

Critical Shmin
Critical SHmax

Sv Pp
= 3.1
Sh min Pp
Sv Pp SH max Pp
Sh min = + Pp = 3.1
3.1 Shmin Pp SH max Pp
= 3.1
SH max = 3.1(Shmin Pp ) + Pp Sv Pp
SH max = 3.1(Sv Pp )+ Pp

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Limiting cases Andersons Classification
Radial Extension Normal faulting (NF)
Sv >> SHmax = Shmin Sv > SHmax > Shmin

Intermediate cases
Normal/Strike-Slip faulting
Sv = SHmax > Shmin

Strike-slip faulting (SS)

SHmax > Sv > Shmin

Strike-Slip/Reverse faulting
SHmax > Sv = Shmin

Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

SHmax >> Shmin = Sv SHmax > Shmin > Sv
 Outline

Section 1
Friction and Fault Strength
Critically-Stressed Crust

Section 2
Predicting Stress Magnitudes

Section 3
Rate and State Friction
37
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Slowly Slipping Faults During Hydraulic Fracturing
Microseismic fault patches

MW
-1.0
MW
-1.5
MW
-2.0
4000 ft

~100 m

~200 m

N
~100 m

Map View Typical rock volume influenced
by one fracturing stage

4000 ft
Das, I. and M.D Zoback (2013), Long-period, long-duration seismic events during hydraulic
stimulation of shale and tight gas reservoirs Part 1: Waveform characteristics, Geophysics,
v.78, no.6, p. KS107KS118.
 Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events

SHmax

Recording
Well 2

Slowly Slipping Faults

Recording 39
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
Well 1 SHmax
 Rate and State Friction

Kohli, A. H. and M.D. Zoback (2013), Frictional properties of shale reservoir

rocks, Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, v. 118, 1-17, doi:
10.1002/jgrb. 50346
40
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

 Rate and State Friction
3
x 10
1
Haynesville Light Haynesville Dark
Barnett Light Barnett Dark
Eagleford Light Eagleford Dark
0.8
10
Coefficient of Friction

0.6

(a - b)
5
0.4
Unstable Stick-Slip/Eqs Stable Sliding/Creep
Stable
0
0.2

0 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Clay + Organic Content (wt%)
41
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu