The Estimation of Horizontal Stresses at Depth in Faulted Regions and Their 
Relationship to Pore Pressure Variations

Addis, M.A.; Last, N.C.; Yassir, N.A.

doi:10.2523/28140-ms

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Cornet and Burlet, 1992;Addis et al, 1996;Khan et al, 2011;Meixner et al, 2014;Roche and Van der Baan, 2015). In this paper we focus on tectonic forces in combination with the vertical variation in rock properties while disregarding other potential effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model explicitly excludes compressive regimes (Jaeger et al, 2009;McGarr, 1988). At best it shows qualitative agreement with stress measurements but rarely an accurate prediction, while in other cases, stress measurements are in contradiction to the model (Warpinski et al, 1985;McLellan, 1987;Whitehead et al, 1987;Ahmed et al, 1991;Plumb et al, 1991;Thiercelin and Plumb, 1994;Addis et al, 1996). However, its main advantage is that horizontal stresses are easy to compute since only knowledge of the density, pore pressure, and Poisson's ratios are required.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The overburden stress σ v creates a uniaxial horizontal stress σ u due to the lateral extension of the medium that is impeded by non-deformable walls (i.e., no lateral strains). In an elastic isotropic rock, we obtain (Engelder and Fischer, 1994;Addis et al, 1996;Blanton and Olson, 1999) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeling of the in situ state of stress in elastic layered rock subject to stress and strain-driven tectonic forces

Roche

Baan

2017

Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this study we describe and compare eight different strategies to predict the depth variation of stress within a layered rock formation. This reveals the inherent uncertainties in stress prediction from elastic properties and stress measurements, as well as the geologic implications of the different models. The predictive strategies are based on well log data and in some cases on in situ stress measurements, combined with the weight of the overburden rock, the pore pressure, the depth variation in rock properties, and tectonic effects. We contrast and compare stresses predicted purely using theoretical models with those constrained by in situ measurements. We also explore the role of the applied boundary conditions that mimic two fundamental models of tectonic effects, namely the stress-or strain-driven models. In both models, layer-to-layer tectonic stress variations are added to initial predictions due to vertical variation in rock elasticity, consistent with natural observations, yet describe very different controlling mechanisms. Layer-to-layer stress variations are caused by either local elastic strain accommodation for the strain-driven model, or stress transfers for the stressdriven model. As a consequence, stress predictions can depend strongly on the implemented prediction philosophy and the underlying implicit and explicit assumptions, even for media with identical elastic parameters and stress measurements. This implies that stress predictions have large uncertainties, even if local measurements and boundary conditions are honored.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling of the in situ state of stress in elastic layered rock subject to stress and strain-driven tectonic forces

Roche

Baan

2017

Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the An-derson's classification based on relative magnitude of formation principal stresses in different structures, the magnitude of three principal stresses in thrust fault controlled structure is: maximum horizontal principal stress > minimum horizontal principal stress > vertical principal stress [12,13]. However, in many in situ stress tests the vertical principal stress is generally intermediate principal stress, and the minimum horizontal principal stress approximately is equal to or slightly less than the vertical principal stress in piedmont structures.…”

Section: The In Situ Stress Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on Wellbore Stability and Instability Mechanism in Piedmont Structures

Tan¹,

Yu²,

Deng³

et al. 2015

TOPEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Piedmont tectonic belts are rich of oil and gas resources, however the intense tectonic stress and broken formation may cause great drilling problems in piedmont structures such as borehole collapse, lost circulation and gas cutting. Through analysis of in situ stress properties, bedding structure and mechanical characteristics, wellbore instability mechanism was expounded from rock mechanics, chemistry of drilling fluid and drilling technology. The high tectonic stress, formation strength decreasing and fluid pressure rising after mud filtrate seepage are main reasons for borehole collapse. The methods of calculating collapse and fracture pressure and determining drilling safety density window were put forward based on mechanical analysis. In order to reduce drilling problems in piedmont structures, some countermeasures should be taken from optimizing well track and casing program, using proper mud density, improving inhibitive and sealing ability of drilling fluid. Good sealing ability can reduce seepage and cut off pressure transmission, enhancing the effective support force. This is the key technology of maintaining wellbore stability in hard brittle shale in piedmont structures.

show abstract

“…In basins located within an orogenic thrust belt horizontal stresses can exceed geostatic pressure, creating excess pore pressure (Yassir and Bell, 1994;Addis et al, 1996;Yassir, 1999). The fluid pressure is then better correlated with a level of horizontal rather than vertical stress.…”

Section: Roles Of Various Factors In the Formation Of Overpressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Occurrence and Nature of Overpressure in the Sedimentary Section of the South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan

Feyzullayev

Lerche

2009

Energy Exploration & Exploitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two basic factors are identified that contribute to overpressure in different sedimentary basins of the world, including the South Caspian Basin (SCB): tectonic stress and subsurface temperature. Two overpressure zones are identified in the SCB: 1. An upper zone (depth interval 600-1200 m), conditioned by disequilibrium rock compaction (undercompaction) and 2. A lower zone (zone of decompaction) conditioned by hydrocarbon generation (depth below 5 km). The lower overpressure zone is the most intense and depends on the thickness of the shale sequence, the content and type of organic matter, and the temperature conditions of kerogen transformation to hydrocarbons. In this zone the greatest risk is associated with gas generation at depths greater than 9 km, due to both more intense thermal breakdown of kerogen and the cracking of liquid hydrocarbons generated earlier. Overpressure is a major cause of diapirism and mud volcanism in SCB.

show abstract

The Estimation of Horizontal Stresses at Depth in Faulted Regions and Their Relationship to Pore Pressure Variations

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Modeling of the in situ state of stress in elastic layered rock subject to stress and strain-driven tectonic forces

Modeling of the in situ state of stress in elastic layered rock subject to stress and strain-driven tectonic forces

Study on Wellbore Stability and Instability Mechanism in Piedmont Structures

Occurrence and Nature of Overpressure in the Sedimentary Section of the South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About