ARMA | DGS | SEG: 2nd International Geomechanics Symposium

Attend

Registration Fees

Please contact [email protected] for the below:

• For ARMA/DGS Members Registration
• For Group Registration of 5 and more attendees
• For Student Registrations (please note, all student non-members must submit a copy of their student ID to [email protected] to register for the event)

Single Day Pricing (1/2 day Symposium)
US$140 (member) | US$165 (non-member) 

Super Early Bird Registration Fee (4 x 1/2 day Symposium - must be registered and paid before 15 Sep 2021)
US$390 (member) | US$490 (non-member) 

Early Bird Registration Fee (4 x 1/2 day Symposium - must be registered and paid before 10 Oct 2021)
US$450 (member) | US$550 (non-member) 

Full Registration Fee (4 x 1/2 day Symposium - begins 11 Oct 2021)
US$510 (member) | US$610 (non-member) | US$70 (student member) | US$100 (student non-member)

Written notice received by 30 September 2021 entitles registrants to a full refund of the registration fee minus US$50 for processing. No refunds will be issued after 30 September 2021. Substitutions are permissible with written approval by the event organizers. Notify Anneke de Klerk immediately to request a substitution.

Workshop Schedule

Monday 1 November to Thursday 4 November:
7:00 AM - 12:00 NOON CST | 12:00 – 5:00 PM GMT | 3:00 - 8:00 PM AST | 4:00 - 9:00 PM GST

Who should attend?

• Technology developers, practioners, and researchers from operators, service providers, universities, and institutes.
• Professionals in geology, geophysics, petrophysics, drilling, completion, stimulation, reservoir, and production engineering.

Technical Program

Opening Address

• Opening Address by Aus Al-Tawil, Saudi Aramco
• Opening Address by Naif Al Hadrami, NESR

Training with Fellows

• Prof. Herbert Einstein, MIT - Geothermal Energy and Hydraulic Fracturing
• Prof. Mark Zoback, Stanford University - Geomechanical Constraints on Large-Scale Co2 Sequestration
• Prof. John McLennan, University of Utah - Geomechanical Information Acquired from Drilling

Technical Sessions

Day 1: Training with Fellows

Day 2: In-situ Stress, Rock, and Natural Fracture

• Session 1: In-Situ Stress and Stress-Dependent Rock
• Session 2: Fault and Natural Fractures
• Poster Session: In-situ Stress, Rock, and Natural Fractures

Day 3: Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation

• Session 3: Drilling and Completion
• Session 4: Hydraulic Fracturing
• Session 5: Hydraulic Fracturing
• Poster Session: Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation

Day 4: Field Cases, CO₂ Sequestration and Geothermal, New Technologies

• Session 6: Field Cases
• Session 7: New Technologies
• Session 8: Energy Storage, CO₂ Sequestration, and Geothermal
• Wrap up

Trainings

Day 1 will cover important Trainings with Fellows on the below topics:

• Prof. Herbert Einstein, MIT - Geothermal Energy and Hydraulic Fracturing
• Prof. Mark Zoback, Stanford University - Geomechanical Constraints on Large-Scale Co2 Sequestration
• Prof. John McLennan, University of Utah - Geomechanical Information Acquired from Drilling

Geothermal Energy and Hydraulic Fracturing by Herbert Einstein, MIT (Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering)

The lack of testing standards is a key factor that keeps geophysical methods from being adopted more widely in geotechnical engineering and more general civil engineering. Different from scientific studies, engineering practice often involves public safety and requires standard specifications. ASTM International has included only two geophysical standards test methods, the cross-hole and down-hole seismic testing (ASTM D4428; ASTM D7400). D4428 is overdue for updating while D7400 was last updated in 2019 and is current. Many factors affect the choice of data acquisition and geophysical inversion. Different preferences are adopted by geophysical experts’ judgments, leaving engineers an impression that geophysical methods are very subjective. On one hand, it would be good for promoting the use of a geophysical method if it becomes a testing standard. On the other hand, many geophysicists may not like the idea of “being standardized” as they feel the important scientific judgments are removed from the equation. In this panel discussion, panel speakers will share their views of the necessity or significance of a testing standard, what it takes to become a standard, and the difference between a standard and a standard guide. We will also gather information regarding how standards and technical guides were established and practiced in different parts of the world. Discussions will then be solicited regarding whether it is worthwhile to develop more geophysical methods to be standardized, what methods are matured enough for such developments, and what studies need to be done before they can be standardized.

Understanding the fracturing process requires more work:

Theoretical and experimental research conducted in rock fracturing by our group started with classic slope and tunnel stability problems but has also moved into the hydraulic fracturing domain during the past decades.  A reasonably unique combination of visual observations using high speed- and high -resolution imaging together with the recording of acoustic-emissions (microseisms) allows us to interpret that fracturing process.  The process can be quite complex consisting of tension- and shear fracturing.  Relating the direct visual observations to the microseisms in the laboratory can form the basis for field interpretation where only indirect microseism observations are possible. 

Geomechanical Constraints on Large-Scale Co2 Sequestration by Mark Zoback, Stanford University (Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus)

The next several decades pose enormous challenges, and opportunities, for the global oil and gas industry. While oil and gas will continue to be used for decades to come, it is now recognized that enormous quantities of CO₂ have to be stored in subsurface geologic formations to reach global decarbonization goals. In this talk, I will focus on a number of geomechanical issues that have to be considered to ensure long-term storage efficacy. While it has been long recognized that changes in reservoir pressure should not exceed the pressure at which hydraulic fracturing might occur of seal formations, this presentation will focus on a number of other issues have not been sufficiently addressed. First, it is important to identify potentially active faults to limit the possibility that injection-related increases in pore pressure could induce seismic, or aseismic, slip on known faults. Also, as existing evidence shows that potentially active faults (and the damage zones that surround them) are permeable, the presence of potentially active faults represent possible leakage pathways that should be avoided, even when injection-related pressure changes are too small to induce fault slip. Second, when utilizing depleted oil and gas reservoirs for long-term storage of CO₂, it is important to understand both the mechanical changes of the reservoir rocks and the stress changes that resulted from depletion. Such knowledge is required to predict how pressure associated with CO₂ injection will affect the reservoir. Finally, from the perspective of induced seismicity, it is critically-important to identify reservoirs with both top seals and bottom seals to avoid pressure communication to potentially active faults in the basement.

Geomechanical Information Acquired from Drilling: The Bit as a Laboratory by Prof. John Mclennan, University of Utah (Professor, Chemical Engineering)

We sometimes overlook the value of drilling information in constraining geomechanical properties. Don’t forget that in many forensic (and real-time) scenarios, we rely heavily on drilling reports and measured drilling parameters such as ROP, WOB, torque – Was there caving? What was the mud weight? Were losses experienced – can formation pressure be inferred? What can I generically say about the stresses and the formation pressure? Are there tight spots and why would those exist? Does ROP variation reflect different lithologies? These qualitative to semi-quantitative observations are useful. We overwhelmingly rely on logging data (velocities, imaging) to forecast more quantitative properties, including inferences of moduli, Poisson’s ratio, in situ stress, and natural fracture morphology. More formalized injection testing (LOT and XLOT) can be considered part of drilling operations and provides quantitative estimates of the in-situ stress field. However Bit, BHA, and near-bit performance provides useful supplementary information.

Until recently, it has been difficult to unravel bit performance and separate dysfunctions that can override the signature of geomechanical properties. This is somewhat surprising since concepts of energy requirements for drilling date back to the 1960s. Work by experts in the geomechanics and drilling communities has made using bit parameters more feasible – not only to identify and overcome limiters to drilling but for identifying geomechanical properties. The well-known concepts – and a little history – of Mechanical Specific Energy as one of the guiding signatures in drilling are summarized. Some of the historical data correlating mechanical properties to bit performance are summarized. Some examples are provided – mostly from geothermal drilling - showing correlations between MSE and strength properties. The possibilities of using measurements of near-bit vibrations to infer mechanical properties are highlighted. Challenges and opportunities for future use of the “bit as a laboratory” are presented.

Sponsorship Opportunities

To maximize exposure and visibility for our partners, we offer an array of unique sponsorship opportunities designed to suit a range of budgets with specific target audiences for optimum return on investment. For a list of sponsorship opportunities, and benefits, please refer to the form located under Important Documents or contact us at [email protected].