2009 NATIONAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

formation below a casing shoe. This is achieved by pumping into the wellbore with a closed blowout preventer (BOP) to obtain the needed pressure at a low pump rate. Simultaneously the pumped volume and/or time are recorded during the injection and fall-off. The leak-off pressure is identified when the pressure starts to deviate away from its trend-line (Fig. 1).

AADE 2009NTCE-06-02 Will a Leak-off Test Truly Damage the Wellbore?

Author(s) & Affiliations: Hong (Max) Wang, Halliburton Frank Meng, ConocoPhillips Mohamed Y Soliman, Halliburton . Brian F. Towler, University of Wyoming Zhaohui Shan, Halliburton

Normally the test will be stopped before the pump pressure reaches a peak value that is called wellbore breakdown pressure to avoid generating a large fracture. After the breakdown, continuous pumping in can grow the fracture into the far-field region. There are numerous operational issues to be addressed to achieve a successful test. Due to many factors, the results are not always easy to interpret. Very good discussions and guidelines are available in the published literature for operations personnel and engineers for performing LOT and interpretation. 1,2

Abstract
Pressure Leak-off tests (LOT) are performed to test the pressure LOT containment of the shoe after a cement job to help Breakdown XLOT ensure the new hole has been securely isolated from what has been cased off. A successful LOT can also be used to calibrate the least principal stress, or many Leak-off times the minimum horizontal stress, for geomechanics modeling. This will require initiating a fracture at the wellbore. Due to the near-wellbore stress concentration, for the geo-mechanics calibration Pump Pump purpose, it is preferred to take the leak-off to the farBleed Off Bleed Off Shutdown Shutdown field stress region. To perform this extended LOT (XLOT) a relatively long fracture has to be created. Time Though a LOT is needed for these reasons, some engineers tend to refrain from performing this test in Fig. 1-A Typical Recording of LOT and XLOT. fear that the test may damage the wellbore and consequently cause drilling problems. A well designed and executed LOT can also be used to verify fracture gradient prediction, which is important This paper addresses this issue by to the drilling operation and casing program design. investigating the effect of wellbore damage on Furthermore, many people have realized that results wellbore pressure containment. Various issues are from a simple LOT may misdirect the pressure discussed to help engineers determine when it may or calibration and prediction. This is due to the fact that a may not be a concern. This should give practicing LOT is generally performed by creating a very short engineers the necessary insight into this complex rock fracture that lies in the very near-wellbore area. Stress mechanics issue. The discussions are supported with distribution is significantly different from the far-field. results from analytical and numerical simulations More often than not the LOT results do not accurately based on rock mechanics principles. represent the far-field stress or the fracture gradient. Consequently, extended LOT or XLOT (sometimes Introduction termed ELOT) has been recommended to make sure the fracture is extended into the area controlled by the Leak-off tests are implemented to quality-control a far-field stress3,4. This requires a much longer pump cementing job to verify whether the zonal isolation time and a much larger volume of fluid to be pumped around a casing shoe has met the objective. This to generate a much larger fracture into the far-field. No normally is a pressure test against the exposed new

Page 1 of 7, 92953790.doc

doubt this method can provide much more accurate tests to learn about the far-field stress at the casing point. From the drillers point of view, a LOT or XLOT generates a fracture that may create a weakness in the wellbore, despite the fact that general experience shows that this may not be the case.

strength that holds the wellbore pressure when a high hydrostatic pressure in wellbore is reached. In terms of containing wellbore pressure, there are two lines of stress barriers: near-wellbore stress and far-field stress. The stronger of the two defines the ultimate wellbore pressure containment. Fig. 3 shows the tangential stress around a vertical wellbore. The tangential stress defines the fracture initiation pressure in this case. The tangential stress has the highest value at the wellbore but gradually decreases to the far-field stress after a distance of a few times of the wellbore radius. It is not difficult to imagine that the wellbore pressure has to overcome this near-wellbore stress concentration before lost circulation would occur. In this example, the tangential stress at the wellbore is larger than the far-field stresses, and therefore, it defines the wellbore pressure containment.

It is, therefore, necessary to address this concern by further investigating this topic using a rigorous rock mechanics approach.

Far-Field Stresses
When the formation is essentially horizontal, it is possible that principal stresses at a certain depth in subterranean formations can be considered as one vertical stress and two horizontal stresses. The vertical stress, Sv, is generally considered as the weight of the overburden. The two horizontal stresses due to rock deformation caused by the vertical stress and the tectonic stresses are Sh and SH respectively. These stresses sometimes are called far-field stresses, compared with the disturbed stresses near a wellbore. The formation pressure is Po. (Fig. 2).

Sv Vertical stress (overburden)

SH Maximum horizontal principal SV stress

Fig 3-Minor Principal Stress for a Vertical Wellbore when SH = Sh. The near-wellbore stress concentration may not always provide such a large barrier for wellbore pressure. For example, Fig. 4 shows the residual stress against fracture initiation around a highly deviated wellbore in an isotropic stress environment when the wellbore pressure is at the fracture initiation level. Due to the high stress anisotropy, the wellbore pressure (10.90 ppge) required to initiate a fracture is lower than the far-field minimum horizontal stress (11.54 ppge). Therefore the near-wellbore stress concentration will not have any direct contribution to the ultimate wellbore pressure containment in this case and the wellbore pressure containment should be defined only by the far-field stress, the minimum horizontal stress in this case.

Po SH

Sh

Sh Minimum horizontal principal stress

o Fig. 2-Subterranean Principal Stresses.

P Pore pressure

Near-Wellbore Stress Concentration and Wellbore Pressure Containment

When a borehole is created in the subterranean rock formations, the stress distribution around the wellbore will be altered. If the compressive strength of the rock together with the wellbore pressure is large enough, the circular wellbore will be self-supporting. On the other hand, the stress concentration may also contribute to the containment of the wellbore pressure. Due to the low tensile strength of the sedimentary rock, it is essentially the rock stress rather than

Equivalent Stress around a Wellbore when the Wellbore Presure is at the Fracture Initiation Pressure
4.50 4.00 Equivalent Mud Weight, ppg 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 20 40

Rock shrinkage (e.g., cooling or water outflow) Increased near-wellbore pore pressure (e.g., fluid invasion) Strength loss (e.g., rock matrix strength loss)

Fracture Initiation, ppg Sv, ppg SH, ppg Sh, ppg Deviation, deg SH Azimuth, deg Wellbore Azimuth, deg
60 80 100

10.90 19.23 11.54 11.54 45 53 255

120 140 160 180

The factor most pertinent to LOT is the borehole shape. Here the most frequently studied borehole shape factor in fact is a circular wellbore with hydraulically conductive cracks. Based on the nature of LOT, the study seems to be perfect for understanding whether LOT will damage the wellbore.

Angles around the Wellbore Wall (0~180 deg)

Fig. 4-Residual Stress against Fracture Initiation for a Wellbore when SH = Sh and Deviation = 45o For further discussion, two parameters should be defined: the near-wellbore pressure and the far-field wellbore pressure containment. These two parameters are defined by the near-wellbore stress concentration and the far-field least principal stress respectively.

Wellbore Weakened by Hydraulically Conductive Cracks and LOT

The weakening effect of hydraulically conductive cracks to a circular wellbore for pressure containment has been studied with numerical analysis6. In that study, the fracture pressure was assumed to be the same as the wellbore pressure to simulate a no-sealing fracture. In one example with SH = Sh=2000 psi, when the hydraulically conductive micro-crack has a length of only 0.3 in., the fracture starts to become unstable and ready to propagate. The simulated wellbore diameter is only 8.5 in. and 0.3 in. is less than 10% of the wellbore radius. In this case, the wellbore pressure is only 3000 psi; however, its ideal near wellbore pressure containment for this case is 4000 psi. The crack indeed lowers the near-wellbore pressure containment by about 1000 psi in this case. In another example with SH =2Sh=4000 psi, with the same wellbore pressure of 3000 psi, when a hydraulically conductive micro-crack has a length of only 0.1 inch, the fracture is unstable and ready to propagate. In other words, stress anisotropy makes it worse for near wellbore pressure containment when hydraulically conductive fractures exist. Details of the study can be found in literature 6,7.

Wellbore Pressure Containment, Fracture Gradient, Minimum Horizontal Stress and LOT
Among wellbore pressure containment, fracture gradient and minimum horizontal stress, what directly concerns a driller is the wellbore pressure containment. Wellbore pressure containment is often described with a fracture gradient measured by LOT. Several approaches (sometimes empirical correlations) are used to correlate the vertical stress to the horizontal stress and to finally obtain a frequently so-called minimum horizontal stress and the fracture gradient. Since LOT is only about the near-wellbore effect, it is clear that the driller is most likely referring to the nearwellbore effect and the geo-mechanist the far-field. The drillers fracture gradient could be much different from the geo-mechanists. This is also why directly using a LOT value to calibrate a fracture gradient makes the geo-mechanist uncomfortable. The ELOT value, which is truly for the far-field, is preferred.

Wellbore Weakening Factors

Wellbore weakening is a relative term. In a previous paper5, ideal wellbore pressure containment (WPC) was defined as a benchmark for comparison and discussion. Ideal WPC is defined as for a perfectly circular wellbore with impermeable wellbore wall at the reservoir temperature. Wellbore weakening factors are mainly the following: Borehole shape (e.g., hydraulically conductive cracks)

Wellbore Strengthening by Sealing or also Propping Hydraulically Conductive Cracks

Wellbore strengthening studies5-10 have found that sealing or also propping induced hydraulically conductive fractures has a strengthening effect on the wellbore, which means that the flawed wellbore can be fixed by either sealing the cracks or also further propping the cracks. In other words, by sealing and propping these cracks, the wellbore can contain the same pressure as before it is cracked. Furthermore, the analysis shows that the wellbore can even contain pressure higher than before it is cracked. Figs. 5 and

6 show the tangential stress around a vertical wellbore after sealing or also propping the cracks. Here sealing means that fracture pressure is isolated from the wellbore pressure so that it can remain low for a stable fracture.

(LCM) has been gradually accepted since it was introduced in 1990s11-16. After understanding the mechanism, it becomes clear that even a regular mud without LCM may still have some strengthening effect though the effect may be small and not very much noticeable. Conventional drilling fluids may contain fine particles such as clay. This clay may block the entrance of the fracture and stop further mud invasion. This can serve as a pressure seal. If mud invades into the created fracture, and if the formation is permeable, mud cake may form inside the fracture. This also would create a pressure sealing and propping effect or the wellborestrengthening effect. This may mean that the wellbore in this condition has a self-healing function.

Tangential Stress along the Wellbore Wall

20000 Tangential Stress, psi
Sh =3000 psi rw =4.25 inch Pf =2000 psi E=1,090,000 psi =0.225

15000 Pw=6000 psi Lf=6 inch 10000 5000 0 -5000 -10000 0 10 20 30 40 50

o

60

70

80

90

( 0 90 )
W Frac, SH=Sh W Frac, SH=2Sh W/O Frac, SH=Sh W/O Frac, SH=2Sh W Frac, SH=1.5Sh W Frac, SH=3Sh W/O Frac, SH=1.5Sh W/O Frac, SH=3Sh

Fig. 5-Wellbore Strengthening by Sealing Fractures.

Tangential Stress along the Wellbore Wall
30000 Tangential Stress, psi 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50
o

Sh =3000 psi Lf=6 inch Pw =4000 psi E=1,090,000 psi Pf=2500 psi =0.225 rw =4.25 inch

The high peak of a test pressure or wellbore breakdown pressure after the leak-off point is believed to be created at least partially due to the testing fluid inaccessibility of the narrow fractures. In other words, the wellbore breakdown pressure seen from a leak-off test may be from a wellbore strengthening effect. Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that a higher wellbore breakdown pressure may be achieved with a properly designed strengthening fluid. However, it should not raise the leak-off point since it is independent of wellbore fluid properties if fluid pressure penetration is not considered. Based on the wellbore strengthening theory5-10, it appears difficult, though not impossible, to repair the cracks in shale or other impermeable formations with inert particulate LCM. However, it is possible to strengthen these formations with chemical methods including cementing 17. Also given enough time, pressure differential and filtration area, shale may also be viewed as permeable and formation of a mud cake inside a shale fracture may be possible.

60

70

80

90

( 0 90 )
SH=Sh, COD=0.04 inch SH=1.5Sh, COD=0.04 inch SH=2Sh, COD=0.04 inch SH=3Sh, COD=0.04 inch SH=Sh, COD=0.06 inch SH=1.5Sh, COD=0.06 inch SH=2Sh, COD=0.06 inch SH=3Sh, COD=0.06 inch

Fig. 6-Wellbore Strengthening by Sealing and Propping Fractures.

Discussions on LOT
Since the fractures created from LOT are very likely to be longer than the fractures in the above discussed analysis, it is therefore believed that LOT would damage a wellbore substantially in terms of nearwellbore pressure containment if the created fracture remains hydraulically conductive after the test. A good example of this may be a test done with clear fluids such as brine or sea water.

Further Discussions on LOT Lower Near-Wellbore Pressure Containment

A LOT will not damage the far-field wellbore pressure containment. This is because the far-field wellbore pressure containment is controlled by the least principal stress, which will not vary substantially during the relatively short period of drilling. A wellbore will not be weakened further if the near-wellbore pressure containment is lower than its far-field pressure containment. At least wellbore deviation and stress anisotropy may affect the near wellbore pressure containment of a wellbore enough so that the nearwellbore pressure containment is actually lower than its far-field wellbore pressure containment. The wellbore deviation effect on the fracture initiation pressure has been demonstrated in Fig. 4. Similarly, in a stress anisotropic environment, the stress against

Though creating fractures may damage a wellbore, the wellbore strengthening theory also provides foundations for repairing the wellbore for pressure containment. This can be achieved by sealing the fractures or also propping the fractures. Wellbore strengthening with particulate lost circulation materials

fracture initiation pressure is also not uniformly distributed even around a vertical wellbore. When the stress contrast is high enough, this stress at some points around the wellbore will define a near-wellbore pressure containment that is lower than the far-field wellbore pressure containment. Fig. 7 illustrates such an example. In this case, the fracture initiation pressure is only 9.01 ppge; however, the minimum horizontal stress is 11.54 ppge.

Equivalent Stress around a Wellbore when the Wellbore Presure is at the Fracture Initiation Pressure
16.00 14.00 Equivalent Mud Weight, ppg 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Angles around the Wellbore Wall (0~180 deg)

Fracture Initiation, ppg Sv, ppg SH, ppg Sh, ppg Deviation, deg SH Azimuth, deg Wellbore Azimuth, deg

9.01 19.23 17.31 11.54 0 53 255

Fig. 8-Leak-Off Test and Retest Done in a High Stress Anisotropy Area.

Summary

Fig. 7-Residual Stress against Fracture Initiation for a Vertical Wellbore when SH > Sh. Fig. 8 shows a field example of LOT for a vertical well in a highly anisotropic stress environment. There were two tests performed with brine for the same depth. The two tests generated two significantly differing leak-off pressure values. The first LOT value (15.87 ppge) is much lower than the second one (18.15 ppge). Analysis of the tests shows that the strong stress anisotropy created uneven stress distribution around the wellbore, and this uneven stress distribution resulted in lower near-wellbore pressure containment than the far-field. The first LOT indicates the fracture generation in the near-wellbore region and the retest indicates that the fracture reached the far-field region. Details of the analysis can be found in literature 18.

Based on the above discussion, we may conclude that LOT should not lower the wellbore pressure containment if one of the following conditions is satisfied: 1) The near-wellbore pressure containment is not larger than the far-field wellbore pressure containment; or 2) The LOT test does not go beyond the wellbore breakdown pressure and the same or a better sealing fluid used after the test; or

3) The near-wellbore fracture is self healing (pressure isolation inside fractures). Nomenclature
E Lf Pf Po Pw rw SH Sh = Youngs modulus, psi = Fracture half length (one wing), inch = Pressure inside Fracture, psi = Pore pressure, psi = Wellbore pressure, psi = Wellbore radius, inch = Total maximum horizontal stress, psi = Total minimum horizontal stress, psi

Sv

= Total vertical stress, psi = Poissons ratio = Angle around a wellbore, degree

BOP COD deg ELOT EMW ISIP LCM LOT ppg ppge PSI WPC XLOT

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Blow-Out Preventer Crack Opening Displacement degree Extended Leak-Off Test Equivalent Mud Weight Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure Lost Circulation Materials Leak-Off Test Pounds per Gallon Pounds per Gallon Equivalent Pounds per Square Inch Wellbore Pressure Containment Extended Leak-Off Test

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Halliburton for sponsoring the study and for granting permission to publish the paper.

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Postler, D.P. 1997. Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation. SPE/IADC paper 37589, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6 March. Oort, E.V. and Vargo, R. 2007. Improving Formation Strength Tests and Their Interpretation. SPE/IADC paper 105193, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February. Kunze, K.R. and Steilger, R.P. 1992. Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations. SPE paper 24593, presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington, D.C., October 4-7. Okland, D., Gabrielsen, G.K., Gjerde, J., Sinke, K. and Williams, E.L. 2002. The Importance of Extended Leak-Off Test Data for Combating Lost Circulation. SPE/ISRM paper 78219, presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 2023. Wang, H., Towler, B.F. and Soliman, M.Y. 2007: Fractured Wellbore Stress Analysis Can Sealing Micro-cracks Really Strengthen a Wellbore? paper SPE/IADC 104947 presented at

SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February. 6. Wang, H., Towler, B.F. and Soliman, M.Y. 2007. Near Wellbore Stress Analysis and Wellbore Strengthening for Drilling Depleted Formations. Paper SPE 102719 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 1618 April. 7. Wang, H. 2007. Near Wellbore Stress Analysis for Wellbore Strengthening. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 26 March. 8. Wang, H., Towler, B.F. and Soliman, M.Y. 2008. Investigation of Factors for Strengthening a Wellbore by Propping Fractures. Paper IADC/SPE 112629 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, 46 March. 9. Wang, H., Soliman, M.Y., Towler, B.F. and Mukai, D. 2008. Avoiding Drilling Problems by Strengthening the Wellbore while Drilling. Paper ARMA 08-200 presented at the 42 nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd U.S.Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, June 29-July 2. 10. Wang H., Towler B.F., Soliman M.Y., and Shan Z. 2008. Wellbore Strengthening without Propping Fractures: Analysis for Strengthening a Wellbore by Sealing Fractures Alone. Paper IPTC 12280 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 35 December. 11. Fuh, G-F., Morita, N., Boyd, P.A., and McGoffin, S.J. 1992. A New Approach to Preventing Lost Circulation While Drilling. Paper SPE 24599 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., 4-7 October. 12. Aston, M.S. et al. 2004. Drilling Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening. Paper SPE/IADC 87130 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 2-4 March. 13. Alberty, M.W., and Mclean, M.R. 2004. A Physical Model for Stress Cages. Paper SPE 90493 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 26-29 September. 14. Wang, H., Soliman, M.Y., Whitfill, D.L., Towler, B.F. 2008. Case Histories Show Wellbore Strengthening as a Cost-Effective Option for Drilling with Narrow Mud Weight Windows. Paper AADE-08-DF-HO-17 presented at the AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 8-9. 15. Whitfill, D., Jamison, D. E., Wang, H., and Thaemlitz, C. 2006. New Design Models and Materials Provide

Engineered Solutions to Lost Circulation. Paper SPE 101693 presented at the Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 3-6 October. 16. Whitfill, D., Wang, H., Jamison, D. E., and Angove-Rogers, A. 2007. Preventing Lost Circulation Requires Planning Ahead. Paper SPE 108647 presented at the International Oil Conference and Exhibition, Veracruz, Mexico, 27-30 June. 17. Aston, M.S, Alberty, M.W., Duncum, S. Bruton, J.R., Friedheim, J.E. and Sanders, M.W. 2007. A New Treatment for Wellbore Strengthening in Shale. SPE paper 110713, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14 November. 18. Wang, H., Soliman, M.Y. and Shan, Z. 2008. Geomechanics modeling for better drilling performance. World Oil, Vol. 229, No. 6, June 2008, 77-81.