-
© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress Characterization Mr. Patrick M. Collins, BASc, MSc,
PEng
Petroleum Geomechanics Inc., CalgaryAbstract:
Rock stresses control how our reservoirs will respond to
stimulation and production, whether they be in tight formations or
oilsands and their surrounding formations. The accurate
determination of rock stresses can be essential to a successful
recovery process; their inaccurate determination can be
catastrophic. The intent of this presentation is that attendees
will become cognizant of the geomechanics that constrain stresses
in their own reservoirs to within credible physical limits that are
consistent with the geology and our operations, such that the rock
stresses are accurate and recovery processes successful.
All rock is stressed. These stresses result from the rock’s
depositional history, geomorphology, chemical and physical
alterations such as tectonics, and lastly, by the changes imposed
by us as we stimulate and produce the reservoir. Of these, the
pre-existing rock stresses before any human intervention are the
dominant stresses that affect the performance of the reservoir,
whether it be hydraulic-facture stimulation or high-pressure
injection of steam or solvents.
This presentation will review how rock stresses are developed,
how they are altered by natural and man-made changes, and how they
are determined. Examples from western Canada will be provided as
examples of what one should expect in typical reservoirs.
Presenter’s Biography
Patrick Collins, P.Eng. is the president of Petroleum
Geomechanics Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta. He has a BASc in
Civil Engineering from the University of Toronto and an MSc in
Geotechnical Engineering from the University of Alberta.
After working on the seminal AOSTRA Underground Test Facility’s
SAGD pilots, Patrick consulted in reservoir engineering and
geomechanics in Italy and the UK for several years before returning
to Canada. He has over 35 years’ experience in heavy oil, oilsands,
SAGD, CSS, and CHOPS; and in geomechanics related to drilling and
completions, wellbore stability, caprock integrity, minifrac tests,
rock stress analysis, formation overpressures, hydraulic
fracturing, and sanding.
Patrick consults internationally in heavy-oil recovery and in
geomechanics, and is an expert witness in heavy oil, thermal
recovery, and geomechanics. He is a member of SPE, AAPG, CWLS,
CSPG, CHOA, and APEGA.
-
20171130 SPE Calgary’s Geomechanics Group - Breakfast Lecture
Series 1
Patrick M. Collins, MSc, PEngPetroleum Geomechanics Inc.
Calgary, Alberta
Stress CharacterizationStress Characterization
-
2© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Outline
• how rock stresses are developed• rock’s depositional
history,
geomorphology– chemical – physical alterations such as
tectonics
• stress alteration– natural– man-made changes
• stress determination• examples from western Canada
-
3© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Why are Rock Stresses Important?• they control how our
reservoirs will respond
– drilling– stimulation– production
• accurate determination of rock stresses can be essential to a
successful recovery process
• inaccurate determination can be catastrophic• Objective: you
become cognizant of the geomechanics
– constrain stresses in their own reservoirs to within credible
physical limits
– consistent with the geology and our operations
Rock stresses are accurate Recovery processes successful
-
4© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Basic Mechanics: Scalar vs. VectorScalar quantity has only
magnitude, e.g.:• length, area, volume• speed• mass, density•
pressure• temperature• energy, entropy• work, power
Vector quantity has both magnitude
and direction:
• displacement, direction• velocity• acceleration• momentum•
force• lift , drag , thrust• weight• velocityvolume
veloci
ty
-
5© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Basic Mechanics: Force and Stress
AreaForceStress
AF
""sigma
=
Force
Areax
y
z
3D: Normal Stress
Shear Stress in X-direction
Force
Area =
2D: Normal Stress
Shear Stress
Shear Stress in Y-direction
-
6© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Basic Mechanics: Principal StressesIn 3-D, there are more
surfaces and more shear & normal stresses acting on each
surface:
By rotating the solid there is a unique orientation in which ALL
shear stresses disappear, leaving only Normal Stresses
These are called “Principal Stresses”: 1 > 2 > 3
Usually, one principal stress is in the vertical axis, resulting
in the principal stresses being:
-
vertical stress, v-
maximum horizontal stress, H-
minimum horizontal stress, h
v
H
h
1
2
3
-
7© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Total Stresses vs. Effective Stresses
v
H
h
Total Stress = Effective Stress + Fluid Pressure
borne by rock matrix
′v
′H
′h
borne by fluids in the pore space
= + pf
Generally, as fluid pressure increase, effective stresses
decrease-
hydraulic fracture stimulation, CSS, oilsand dilation, etc.
-
8© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress vs. Stress GradientStress Gradient is the stress
divided by the true vertical depth (not measured depth)
e.g: 7596 kPa at a depth of 360m is 21.1 kPa/m
• be aware that most depths use the kelly
bushing
(block) as datum, mKB, instead of ground level, mGL– difference
becomes
significant at shallow depths
Kelly Bushing
Ground Level~ 1.2m –
3.4m
-
9© petroleum geomechanics inc.
In Situ Stresses
1.
Vertical Stress (sigV
or v
)
2.
Maximum Horizontal Stress (sigHmax
or H
)• orientation
3.
Minimum Horizontal Stress (sigHmin
or h
)4.
Formation Pressure, Pf• less important than Pinj
except for “thief zones”
-
10© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Vertical StressGenerally: integrate bulk density log
dzz
Bv 0 density varies with • mineralogy• degree of
compaction/consolidation: oilsands vs. deeper sandstones •
porosity, e.g.: vuggy
carbonates
• offshore: depth of water, salinity, high-porosity sea-floor
sediments• onshore: depth of lakes, ponds
-
11© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress Orientations
-
12© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Calliper Logs and Inferred
Wellbore Geometry
1
2
3
4 Hole In-Gauge
Breakout
Keyseat
Cal 1-3Cal 2-4
Washout
4-arm Bit Diameter
Dep
th
Undergauge
-
13© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Borehole Breakout
Maximum Horizontal
Stress
Vertical Wellbore
Minimum Horizontal
Stress
H
H
h
Borehole Breakout
h Breakout Limit
-
14© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Niagara Falls Spillway Tunnel Niagara Falls Spillway Tunnel
--
20092009
-
Borehole Elongations
0
50
100
150
2000
10 2030
4050
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130140
150160170
180190200
210220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310320
330340 350
Well 5333
Breakout Limit = 5 mm
No. of Events = 395
Well Breakouts
Azimuth (degrees)
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
0 90 180 270 360
Well 5333Calliper (mm)
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
175 200 225 250
Dept
h (m
MD)
Well 5333 Well 5333
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
0 50 100 150Gamma Ray
Breakout
Dep
thGR / ResistivityAzimuthCalliper
(6-arm)
Well
Res GR
Bit
-
16© petroleum geomechanics inc.
0
50
100
150
200
010
2030
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140150
160170
180190
200210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320330
340350
Maximum Horizontal Stress Orientation
Hmax
Borehole Breakout
-
17© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Tectonic Stress in North America
www.world-stress-map.org1
Hmax
-
18© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Tectonic Stress in Alberta
www.world-stress-map.org
Hmaxperpendicular to Rocky Mountains
ref. Heidbach, Oliver; Rajabi, Mojtaba; Reiter, Karsten;
Ziegler, Moritz; WSM Team (2016): World Stress Map Database Release
2016. GFZ Data Services. http://doi.org/10.5880/WSM.2016.001
-
19© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Tectonic Stress in Alberta
Hmax
from Borehole Breakouts
PeaceRiver Athabasca
Cold Lake
CalgaryHmax
mechanisms
Thrust fault focal
www.world-stress-map.org
-
20© petroleum geomechanics inc.www.world-stress-map.org
Maximum Horizontal Stress
East Coast, Canada
-
21© petroleum geomechanics inc.
www.world-stress-map.org
Maximum Horizontal Stress
Gulf of Mexico
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7vITIuebXAhViwFQKHZwGAs8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffluid-venting-system.weebly.com%2Fpresentation-with-illustrations.html&psig=AOvVaw3L6Hw5QiqmF--0KcHPGQvJ&ust=1512136462887678
-
22© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress Magnitudes
-
23© petroleum geomechanics inc.
In Situ Stress State
z
Hmax
Hmin
-
24© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Eaton Equation
fpfpVH
1
pfH H
ref. Eaton (1969) JPT
V
-
25© petroleum geomechanics inc.
In Situ Stress: North Sea
In-Situ Stresses
Pf
Horz. Stress
Vertical
Sim. Horz. Stress
NE1
ND
NE2
RANNOCH 1,2,3
ETIVE 1 & 2
BROOM
DUNLIN
NE3NF1
T1
HEATHER
10700
10800
10900
11000
11100
11200
6750 7000 7250 7500 7750 8000 8250 8500 8750 9000 9250 9500 9750
10000 10250 10500 10750 11000 11250 11500
Stress (psi)
Dept
h (ft
TVD)
Pf
Avg. Pf
Horizontal Stress
Vertical Stress
Avg. Horz.Avg. Vertical
RFT
Horz. Stress from Lab v
Simulation Horz. Stress
Stress (psi)
Dep
th (f
tTVD
SS) V
pf
Ho
-
26© petroleum geomechanics inc.
PLANNING
• Location of the Microfrac Well(s)– Geology– Stress state
• Geophysical logs– dipole sonic
• Well completion– Cased vs. uncased
• Perforating• Fracturing fluid
– salinity
-
27© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Wireline
Unit & Pumper
-
28© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Tests to Determine Rock Stresses
• Step-rate too coarse• Pump-in/shut-in• Pump-in/flow-back
-
29© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Hydraulic Fractures1.
Hydraulic fracture stimulations, (“HF”), propped or unpropped,
can be massive and are intended to enhance a well’s deliverability
by:– creating flowpaths from the wellbore into the reservoir, –
transecting zones of lower permeability connecting zones–
intersecting natural fractures – reducing flow concentrations near
the wellbore (gas)
2.
Minifracture (“minifrac”) is loosely defined – miniature
non-propped hydraulic fracture, i.e. a scaled-down
treatment – “data frac”: the small, non-propped fracture
performed
immediately preceding a hydraulic fracture stimulation – inject
20 -
150 m3– calibration
3.
Microfrac– no proppant– 0.1 to 100 l/min, with injected volumes
of 1 to 1000 litres. – “minifrac”
-
30© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Kirsch distribution of radial and tangential stresses before
fracturing
(assuming uniform stress)
Tangential
Radial
Pw
Wellbore
Radius
Pres
sure h
ar
Pw
- h
Pw
- hAt the wellbore, it is the Tangential stress that falls to
zero fracture
initiation should be axial (along the wellbore)away from the
wellbore, it will rotate to be
perpendicular to the minimum in situ stress
r
t
-
31© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Pump-in/Shut-in
Time
Formation breakdown
Fracture extension
ISIP
Fracture re-opening
Fracture closure
Pumping Rate
Pressure
Injection ~6h ~20min
~1h
-
32© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Pump-in/Flow-back
FCP FCP FCPFRP FRP
Flow-back Rate
FCP = Fracture Closure PressureFRP = Fracture Re-opening
Pressure
Time
Time
Pres
sure
-Rat
e +
Pump-in Rate
* Flow-back rate must
be constant!
-
33© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Variable Post-Closure with Flow-back
Is it fracture closure?
Flow-back RateTime
Pres
sure
-Rat
e +
Pump-in Rate
* Flow-back introduces uncertainty but saves time in tight
zones
TimeTime
?high rate
low rate
-
34© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Microfracture Interval Selection
2 zones in oilsands1.
stress calibration• Comparable to mudstones
2.
transmissibility2 zones in caprock• plus additional caprock
formations?
-
35© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Analytical Methods1.
fracture re-opening
2. ISIP (instantaneous shut-in pressure)
3. pressure vs. square root of shut-in time
4. tandem square root or linear flow plot
5. log(pressure) vs. shut-in time
6. log(dp) vs. log (dt)
7. Horner plot
8. G-function plot
9. step-rate test
10.
pressure derivatives (detect highest frac closure)11.
compliance plot of pressure vs. flowback time
-
36© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Typical Oilsand Microfrac
P vs Time
Downhole Gauge (kPaa)290m
10061
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Time (minutes)
BH
P (k
Paa)
-
37© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Pressure vs. Sqrt(Tshutin)
P vs TimeDownhole Gauge (kPaa)
290m
10061
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Time (minutes)
BH
P (k
Paa)
P vs. Sqrt(shut-in)
7600
6380
5100
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 5 10 15 20
Sqrt(Time)
6390 kPaa 21.7 kPag/m5100 kPaa 17.2 kPag/mMultiple frac sets are
closing
-
38© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Minifrac Test Cycle
P vs T imeDow nhole Gauge (kPaa)
1.144000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Tim e (m inute s)
P vs. Sqrt(shut-in)
6360
79708580
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
0 5 10 15 20
Sqrt(Time)
G function
6270
79208840
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
P vs Log(Shut-in Time)
6000
81008660
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Log-Time (minutes)
P vs. Sqrt(total time-0.5*Tshutin)
6450
79308500
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
3 5 7 9 11 13Sqrt(minutes)
Log(P) vs. Log(shut-in)
P= 8027P= 9639
P= 5744
100
1000
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
log(shut-in time), log(seconds)
m=0.5 LinearFlow
m=1 WBstorage
(caprock)
-
39© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Flow Characteristics for a Well with a Single Finite
Conductivity Fracture
bi-linear flow formationlinear flow
wellbore storage
slope m=1
m=0.5
m=0.25m=0.5
m=constantWellbore
Fracture
fracture linear flow
pseudo-radial flow
Log
(pre
ssur
e dr
op)
Log (shut-in time)
fracture closes
pseudo-plateau for microfracs
bi-linear flow formationlinear flow
wellbore storage
slope m=1
m=0.5
m=0.25m=0.5
m=constantWellbore
Fracture
fracture linear flow
pseudo-radial flow
Log
(pre
ssur
e dr
op)
Log (shut-in time)
fracture closes
pseudo-plateau for microfracs
bi-linear flow formationlinear flow
wellbore storage
slope m=1
m=0.5
m=0.25m=0.5
m=constantWellbore
Fracture
fracture linear flow
pseudo-radial flow
Log
(pre
ssur
e dr
op)
Log (shut-in time)
fracture closes
pseudo-plateau for microfracs
-
40© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Apparent Tensile Strength
Test Interval #2: 408 - 410 mKB in oilsand
cycle 2
cycle 1
cycle 3
4
6
8
10
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (hours)
Pres
sure
at D
ownh
ole
Gau
ge, M
Paa
0
10
20
30
Tem
pera
ture
at G
auge
, °C
-
41© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Thermally Induced PressuresCycle 1, Wabiskaw mudstone
350
400
450
500
550
600
2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00
Time (hours)
Wel
l Hea
d Pr
essu
re (k
Pag)
18
20
22
24
26
28
Wel
l Hea
d Te
mpe
ratu
re (d
egC
)
WHP
°C
-
42© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Common Minifrac Pitfalls
• Insufficient pressure range (terminated early)
• Non-constant flow-back• No real data: measured data
replaced
by smoothened data• Misidentifying fracture closure • Extraneous
thermal effects
-
43© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Example of Test Ended Prematurely
Overburden Stress
Injection
Pressure
14h shut-in
What can be said about the stresses below the end
pressure?NOTHING!
Solution: reduce injected volume, lengthen shut-in period
End of Test
-
44© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Conclusions
• microfracture tests measure rock stresses
• proper design & execution• correct analysis is critical•
fractures initiate axially Pc• avoid pitfalls
-
45© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Formation Pressures
-
46© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Fluid Pressure• regional drainage is lateral • transmissible
formations are acting as lateral drains
Clearwater
Aquifer
Aquitard
Aquiclude
Result: McMurray/Wabiskaw and other formations are
underpressured
ref: Bachu & Underschultz(AAPG 1993, fig. 12)
-
47© petroleum geomechanics inc.
UTF Pore Pressure Profile
Oilsand ChannelMudstone
Devonian
Oilsand Channel
Oilsand X-Trough
U.McM
Mudstone
Sand & Mudstone
P A Y
Depth = 122mGL x 9.81 kPa/m = 1200 kPag (hydrostatic)Measured
Pressure = 130 kPag
1070 kPa (underpressured)
ref: Chalaturnyk (1996) © petroleum geomechanics inc.
Wabiskaw SandsClearwater Shale
-
48© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Rock Stresses & Fluid Pressures
Importance:• the existing stresses in the rock are
the major loads on the rock, even after injection begins
• the pore pressure determines the minimum effective stress,
which controls the rock strength & stiffness
-
49© petroleum geomechanics inc.
… Rock Stresses & Fluid Pressures
• changing stresses & pressures in the rock control each
formation’s mechanical response to the injection process
• when the new stresses exceed the strength of the rock, failure
will occur
• if rock failure develops and progresses within the shale
caprock, mechanical integrity could be compromisedwe need the rock
stresses & pressures
-
50© petroleum geomechanics inc.
TECTONICS
-
51© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress Alteration
Fractures
Salt
FOLDING
FAULTING
HALOKINETICSDissolution
-
52© petroleum geomechanics inc.
y
Lateral Strain under Semi-Confined Conditions
0
0
z
y
x increases
z
=0
x xxz
x
xy
Ex
1
)1( 2
y
Constraints:•x strains laterally•y constrained•z free to
displace
ref. Jaeger & Cook“Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics”
pg.113
yx
z
-
Stresses due to
a Uniform
Lateral
Strain
v
Pf
h
0 50 100 150 200 250Stress (MPa)
x = 0.003y
= 0E
E
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4Poisson's Ratio
Dep
th (m
)
0 20 40 60E (GPa)
shale
sandstone
shale
0 20 40 60 80Stress Gradient (kPa/m)
HG
FE
D
I
AB
C
Unit:
(mod. after Gretener , 1969)
v
is minimum
0
1000
2000
4000
5000
6000x
x
y
y
12
-
54© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Implications of Tectonics for Induced Fractures
• orientation of fracture propagation• increase in fracture
closure stress• fracture containment
-
55© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Implications of Tectonic Strains
• horizontal stresses can be very different from Eaton’s
equation
• tectonic stresses vary from formation to formation (stiffer
strata being much more affected)
• stress in the
direction transverse to the tectonic strain will also change
-
56© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Typical Oilsand Stresses
-
57© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Typical Athabasca
Pressure Profile
RFT100
0 m
200
500 10000 kPa
Oilsand
Surface Till
Limestone
Wabiskaw
Siltstone
Hydrostatic
Pay
LateralDrainage
Oilsand or
“Aquitard”
ClearwaterClearwater
-
58© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Typical Stresses
sig Hmin
sig Hmax
Pf
Stress or PressureD
epth
(mK
B)
Vertica StresslPfsig h with tectonicssig H with tectonics
Hydrostatic Gradient
sig Vert•log-derived stresses•corrected for tectonic strain
•sigV
from RHOB profile•Pf from RFTs, etc.•sigHmin
from minifrac•sigHmax
estimated from minifrac and logs
Note the absence of a strong stress contrast above the
reservoir! containment?
reservoir
-
59© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Athabasca Stresses
V
Underpressured 850 kPa
Ho
DEP
TH (m
)STRESS AND PRESSURE (MPa)
10.07.5 15.02.5 12.55.00
400
200
100
0
300
500
pf
y
= 0E
= 800MPa
= 0.3
Inapplicable at shallow depths
MI
N
MAX
Hm
ax
Hmin
Hangingstone
UTF%x
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(Cold Lake)
10
-
60© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Change in Stress with
Continuous Injection
-
61© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Change in Horizontal Stress resulting from Increased
Pressure
• slow injection will increase back-pressurebut• increased fluid
pressure reduces rock stresses (Poisson’s effect)• horizontal
stress will increase increased frac pressure• frac pressure
is limited by the overburden stress
yxEE
fpfpVx
22 111
= Biot
coefficient; <
-
62© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Stress Reorientation due to Sequential Hydraulic Fracture
Stages
• microseismic• 4 stage
hydraulic fracturing
• Barnett shale gas reservoir
-
63© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Athabasca River Outcrop of the McMurray Formation Oilsands
Q1:
What is the formation fluid pressure?Q2:
What is the minimum horizontal stress?Q3:
Several km away (walking distance), would Pf be
below/typical/above average?
Q4:
Several km away, would the fracture gradient be
below/typical/above average?
-
64© petroleum geomechanics inc.
Summaryrock stresses: • control how our reservoirs will
respond
– drilling– stimulation– production
• accurate determination of rock stresses can be essential to a
successful recovery process or hydraulic fracture stimulation
• must be within credible physical limits • have to be
consistent with the geology and our operations
-
20171130 SPE Calgary’s Geomechanics Group - Breakfast Lecture
Series 6565
Contact
Information________________________________________________ Mr.
Patrick M. Collins, P.Eng.Petroleum Geomechanics Inc. Calgary,
Alberta, CanadaCanadamobile phone: +1 (403) 874-7066 GMT-7h
telephone & fax: +1 (403) 277-2946 GMT-7h email:
[email protected]
[email protected](> 10 Mb)
[email protected]://www.PetroleumGeomechanics.com/
________________________________________________
Stress CharacterizationOutlineWhy are Rock Stresses
Important?Basic Mechanics: Scalar vs. VectorBasic Mechanics: Force
and StressBasic Mechanics: Principal StressesTotal Stresses vs.
Effective StressesStress vs. Stress GradientIn Situ
StressesVertical StressStress OrientationsCalliper Logs and
Inferred Wellbore GeometryBorehole BreakoutNiagara Falls Spillway
Tunnel - 2009Well BreakoutsMaximum Horizontal Stress
OrientationTectonic Stress in North AmericaTectonic Stress in
AlbertaTectonic Stress in AlbertaMaximum Horizontal Stress �East
Coast,�CanadaMaximum Horizontal Stress �Gulf of MexicoStress
MagnitudesIn Situ Stress StateEaton EquationIn Situ Stress: North
SeaPLANNINGWireline Unit & PumperTests to Determine Rock
StressesHydraulic FracturesKirsch distribution of radial and
tangential stresses before fracturing�(assuming uniform stress)
Pump-in/Shut-inPump-in/Flow-backVariable Post-Closure with
Flow-backMicrofracture Interval SelectionAnalytical MethodsTypical
Oilsand MicrofracPressure vs. Sqrt(Tshutin)Minifrac Test CycleFlow
Characteristics for a Well with a Single Finite Conductivity
Fracture Apparent Tensile StrengthThermally Induced PressuresCommon
Minifrac PitfallsExample of Test Ended
PrematurelyConclusionsFormation PressuresFluid PressureUTF Pore
Pressure ProfileRock Stresses & Fluid Pressures… Rock Stresses
& Fluid PressuresTECTONICSStress Alteration Lateral Strain
under �Semi-Confined ConditionsStresses due to a Uniform Lateral
StrainImplications of Tectonics for�Induced FracturesImplications
of �Tectonic StrainsTypical Oilsand StressesTypical
Athabasca�Pressure ProfileTypical StressesAthabasca �StressesChange
in Stress�with�Continuous InjectionChange in Horizontal Stress
resulting from Increased PressureStress Reorientation due to
�Sequential Hydraulic Fracture StagesAthabasca River Outcrop of the
McMurray Formation OilsandsSummaryContact InformationCollins -
Stress Characterization 20171130 - abstract landscape.pdfStress
Characterization�Mr. Patrick M. Collins, BASc, MSc, PEng�Petroleum
Geomechanics Inc., Calgary