All Days 2005
DOI: 10.2118/93605-ms
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Downscaling Geomechanics Data for Thin Beds Using Petrophysical Techniques

Abstract: Thin-bed sequences, especially those made up of alternating weak and strong sand layers with thickness of less than 1-ft, present a particular challenge in the generation of mechanical earth models (MEMs) for geomechanics design and analyses. Because these beds are thinner than the tool resolution, their heterogeneity and the variations between adjacent layers are often undetected by logging tools normally used to acquire geomechanics data. In other words, these tools cannot resolve the existence of alternatin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…43 However, all these elastic properties are termed dynamic, and sanding prediction analyses require static moduli. 42 One proprietary correlation was found to give static moduli that, on average, provided a satisfactory match to the static data from the laboratory tests conducted on the Messla cores. Figure 3 shows that the log-derived static Young's modulus (shown as a red log trace in the plot) is consistent with core data from the laboratory test (pink squares).…”
Section: Building a Memmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…43 However, all these elastic properties are termed dynamic, and sanding prediction analyses require static moduli. 42 One proprietary correlation was found to give static moduli that, on average, provided a satisfactory match to the static data from the laboratory tests conducted on the Messla cores. Figure 3 shows that the log-derived static Young's modulus (shown as a red log trace in the plot) is consistent with core data from the laboratory test (pink squares).…”
Section: Building a Memmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…It can also: account for plasticity effects that modify the strength behaviour of sands surrounding open-holes and perforations, thereby removing the uncertainty and conservatism otherwise seen in simple elastic models, account for scale (i.e., size) effects that dramatically impact the relative stabilities of different sized perforations and boreholes, provide a significant improvement and predictive capability over simple empirical methods, by providing a computation solution that can be applied across different environments and settings, achieve all of the above and provide increased accuracy without needing a complex or extensive laboratory programme to determine advanced rock mechanics properties. Since this model has already proven successful and accurate in field tests and numerous applications, including previous sanding studies for other AGOCO fields, 42 it was selected for the Messla sanding investigation. The remaining challenge in the project was therefore to minimize uncertainty in the input data that would be used with this model.…”
Section: What Is a Required Sanding Prediction Model From The Field?mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The '1D' in '1D MEM' stands for that the MEM is built along the wellbore trajectory, which can be either vertical or deviated. The procedure used to build a 1D MEM has been documented elsewhere (Qiu et al 2005, Qiu et al 2006) and is not covered here. This paper presents only the results of the final 1D MEM from the two study wells in the XG field.…”
Section: Building 1d Memmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having laboratory test data available to this study allowed more reliable MEMs to be generated. 9,10 A geomechanical laboratory test program and selection of core plugs should be carefully designed to maximize the value of the laboratory tests. Owing to a limitation of the number of core plugs to be tested, representative core plugs should be optimally selected for the laboratory tests.…”
Section: Geomechanical Laboratory Testmentioning
confidence: 99%