SPE/IADC 37589

Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation

D. P. Postler, SPE, Exxon Company, International
SPE/IADC Member

Copyright 1997, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

sion is resisted by the surrounding rock, which creates hori-
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in zontal stress.1,2
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6 March 1997.
It is important to know the pressure integrity of downhole
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
formations when planning and drilling a well. The well-
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the planning process uses pressure integrities from offset wells to
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC. their calculate formation fracture gradients. Critical drilling deci-
officers, or members . Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
sions such as casing setting depths, mud weights, and well
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the control alternatives are based on these values. The PIT is a
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must relatively simple field procedure to determine fracture gradi-
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
ent. It is also used at times to evaluate the integrity of the ce-
ment at the casing shoe.
Incorrect interpretation of the PIT can lead to a variety of
Abstract problems and/or unnecessary expense on a well. For example,
A Pressure Integrity Test (PIT), sometimes called a leak-off if a low leak-off value is interpreted as a cement channel, the
test, is a field practice used to evaluate cement jobs and esti- operator may conduct a squeeze job in an attempt to increase
mate the formation fracture gradient. Interpretation of the PIT the leak-off pressure. If the low leak-off is simply caused by a
becomes the basis for critical well decisions such as cement lower-than-expected fracture gradient, the operator will have
job evaluation, casing setting depths, mud weights, and well wasted time and money on the squeeze job. Conversely, if a
control alternatives. Incorrect interpretation of the PIT can PIT is interpreted as an indication of a low fracture gradient
lead to unnecessary squeeze jobs, premature setting of casing, when it is really caused by a cement channel, the operator may
lost circulation, or other costly problems that could jeopardize use an unrealistically low value as an upper limit to mud
well progress. weight. This could lead to prematurely setting the next string
The shape of the PIT plot and the leak-off pressure are pri- of casing or improper mud weight choices in a well control
marily governed by the local stresses at the wellbore wall. situation.
However, a number of other factors can distort PIT results and If a PIT is misinterpreted to show a higher leak-off rather
lead to interpretation difficulties. This paper explains how than a correct lower value, an operator may use an unrealisti-
these factors can influence the PIT and shows how to interpret cally high value as a mud weight guideline. This could lead to
PIT plots and differentiate between cement problems and for- lost circulation problems.
mation effects. Field examples are given to demonstrate the An "unusual" PIT may or may not be cause for concern. PIT
practical application of simple guidelines for PIT interpreta- behavior is affected by a variety of factors, the most influential
tion. The paper also presents guidelines for procedures to help of which are discussed below. Almeida presents a good sum-
ensure a valid PIT. mary review of all the factors that influence leak-off pres-
sure.3
Introduction Basic PIT Theory
A pressure integrity test is essentially a measurement of the The same basic procedure is used in all PITs: a BOP is closed
strength of the formation. Formation strength is governed and fluid is slowly pumped into the well. At a certain pres-
primarily by the natural compressive stresses exerted on most sure, the pump is stopped. Shut-in pressure is monitored for a
underground rock.1 Figure 1 illustrates these stresses on an short-time to check for leaks, then is released. The data are
element of underground rock. Vertical stress in the rock is a plotted and interpreted to determine the formation pressure
function of the overburden, or the weight of the earth above. integrity. Drilling operations then resume if the test is accept-
Horizontal stresses are affected by rock properties and vertical able.
stress. Under the influence of vertical stress, rock tends to The plot of a typical PIT is shown in Figure 2. The linear
shrink vertically and expand horizontally. Horizontal expan- portion of the plot represents compression of the drilling fluid
2 D. P. POSTLER SPE/IADC 37589

and elastic expansion of the wellbore: equal volumes pumped sure build-up phase will tend to be non-linear.
cause a constant increase in pressure. Small filtrate losses to
the formation may occur during this time, but these are usually Effect Of The Wellbore - Since most wellbores are cracked
small and relatively constant-rate, so they do not affect the before or during drilling, the leak-off test measures the pres-
linearity of the plot. sure required to re-open a fracture in the formation. During
The "leak-off point" or "PIT limit" at Point A is the point the test, fluid pressure (hydrostatic plus applied pressure) acts
where the data deviate from the straight-line trend by bending to expand the wellbore. Expansion is resisted by the compres-
to the right. At this point, a small, stable fracture in the forma- sive stresses in the rock. A fracture re-opens when pressure
tion has been opened. When the crack opens, fluid is lost in exceeds the rock compressive stress. In effect, the wellbore is
two ways: mud enters the fracture, and filtrate is lost across pushed apart when the fracture fluid exerts a force that op-
the permeable faces of the fracture. These fluid losses lead to
poses and exceeds the minimum compressive stress at the
a smaller increase in pressure as more fluid is pumped, which
wellbore.
accounts for the change in slope of the plot.
In most consolidated rock, this stress is generally higher than
Figure 2 shows pump pressure increasing steadily between
Points A and B. This increasing pressure indicates "stable" the natural minimum compressive stress of the formation be-
fracture growth, which is normal in most PITs. Stable crack cause the wellbore distorts the stress field in the rock. In ef-
growth occurs because of pressure and fluid losses along the fect, the rock surrounding the wellbore must bear the load that
length of the growing fracture.4-7 In essence, pressure at the was previously supported by the removed rock. This stress
tip of the crack remains near the minimum fracture propaga- distortion rapidly decreases with distance from the wellbore,
tion pressure, despite increasing pump pressure at the surface. and approaches the undistorted far-field stress within a few
An increase in pressure at the tip of the crack is required to hole diameters.1,8 As a result, stress near the borehole wall is
initiate unstable crack growth, or breakdown. This can occur higher than in the surrounding rock. This means that the mag-
if sufficient fluid is pumped to overcome losses and transmit nitude of the pressure required to create or re-open a fracture
more pressure to the tip of the crack or when pressure and in the formation is usually greater than the natural minimum
fluid losses in the crack are small. In this case, the pump pres- stress. This implies that fracture initiation or re-opening will
sure will level out or even decline, as shown in Field Example require higher pressure than fracture extension, which agrees
1 later in this paper. well with field observations. In PITs where both stresses can
The pump is stopped at Point B shortly after leak-off, and the be detected, the difference in these pressures is generally in
shut-in pressure is monitored to check for leaks. Shut-in pres- the range of several psi to several hundred psi.
sure usually drops rapidly at first, because of fluid losses in In an unconsolidated sand or in consolidated rock with a low
the open fracture and the loss of pump friction pressure. horizontal stress ratio, wellbore distortion effects can cause the
When pressure drops sufficiently, the fracture closes. The fracture opening pressures to be lower than the propagation
shut-in pressure then declines at a slower rate because of slight pressure.9 A "plastically-strained" zone may be created in the
fluid losses due to permeability. When the shut-in pressure near-wellbore region by the breakdown of intergranular ce-
declines to a nearly constant value, the test is concluded. If mentation bonds during drilling. This zone only exists for a
the leak-off pressure is adequate and no cement channels are short distance around the wellbore.8,9 Therefore, in certain
indicated by the test plot, drilling operations resume. formations there may be two distinctly different stress regions:
a weaker plastic region near the well, and a stronger elastic
Factors That Affect Leak-Off Pressure region farther away.
Unfortunately, many PIT plots do not resemble the classic When these two regions exist, a fracture will not propagate
plot. Leak-off pressure may be higher or lower than antici- throughout the formation at a constant pressure. The fracture
pated, the shut-in pressure decay may be more severe, or the extends only a small distance into the formation because the
build-up data may show several slopes or nonlinear behavior, fracture opening pressure is lower than the far-field stress.9
etc. In these non-classic PIT plots, the leak-off point is not Growth stops when the fracture reaches the boundary between
readily apparent, or it may seem that the fracture has not the plastic and elastic zones, and a further pressure increase is
closed, so the test is more difficult to interpret. An under- necessary to create and extend a fracture into the elastic zone.
standing of the factors that can affect leak-off pressure and the A PIT in this case may show two fracture opening pressures: a
PIT plot can be helpful in interpretation of the test. low one for the plastic zone, and a higher one for the elastic
zone. One field example that shows this effect is discussed in
Elastic Rock - Most rock behaves elastically up to the point of this paper.
fracture, which means that there is a linear relationship be-
tween stress and strain.4 Elasticity and fluid compression Fluid Viscosity - Viscosity of the fracture fluid has a signifi-
account for the linearity of the pressure build-up phase of the cant effect on crack stability. The higher the viscosity, the
test (before leak-off). However, some formations such as salt greater the pressure drop in the fracture. The pressure at the
and unconsolidated clays behave plastically, which means that crack tip can be less than breakdown pressure even though
they can be permanently deformed (up to a point) without los- breakdown pressure is applied at the crack entrance; the result
ing strength. In PITs conducted in such formations, the pres-
SPE/IADC 37589 PRESSURE INTEGRITY TEST INTERPRETATION 3

is stable or no crack growth. Higher applied pressure is neces- these plots and typical PIT plots are obvious.
sary to sufficiently increase the pressure at the crack tip and
cause unstable crack growth. For a PIT, this means that break- Pump Rate - A number of authors have presented theoretical
down is proportional to fluid viscosity, regardless of the frac- and laboratory evidence that breakdown pressure is directly
ture opening pressure. For viscous muds, there is a noticeable proportional to the rate of pressurizing. 6, 12-14 Fracture ini-
delay between fracture initiation (stable) and breakdown (un- tiation pressure should be affected by pump rate in a manner
stable); for water, the delay is significantly less. similar to breakdown pressure. The cause of this effect has
Thus, there is an inherent difference between opening a frac- been attributed to permeability, fluid penetration, and/or time.
ture and formation breakdown. The common fear of "breaking Regardless of the reason for this effect, it emphasizes the im-
down the formation" during the leak-off test is not entirely portance of pump rate in performing the PIT: the faster the
realistic; especially when testing with mud, breakdown is pump rate, the higher the fracture initiation pressure and
readily avoided with proper pump control. breakdown pressure.
Field evidence of this effect is shown in Figure 5. The rele-
Fluid Penetration And Permeability - Initial formation vance of the pump-rate effect to the PIT is obvious. The leak-
breakdown pressure should be lower for a penetrating fluid off pressure recorded at a high pump rate may not be a safe
than for a non-penetrating fluid.1,5,6,10 The introduction of estimate of the wellbore strength. Lower pressure applied
higher pressure fluid into the pores of a rock will cause a tem- over a longer period of time (as may occur in well control op-
porary increase in the pore pressure in the penetrated area. erations or routine circulating) might also fracture the forma-
Since this pressure opposes compressive stress, there is a tem- tion. Because of this, PIT procedures should use the slowest
porary reduction in the breakdown pressure. For a PIT, this practical pump rate to determine a conservative and safe for-
means that when all other factors are equal, a penetrating fluid mation leak-off pressure.
such as water or an oil-base mud will produce a lower leak-off
pressure than a less-penetrating fluid such as a typical water- Shut-in Pressure
base drilling mud. The shut-in portion of the Pressure Integrity Test is also im-
Using the same argument, permeable rock should have a portant because it can aid the interpreter in identifying the
lower breakdown pressure than impermeable rock under oth- fracture opening pressure and evaluating the test.
erwise identical conditions. Experimental evidence supports Figure 2 shows that the shut-in pressure in the typical PIT
this conclusion.10 In addition to showing a lower leak-off usually has two distinct responses: a rapid decrease followed
pressure, a PIT in a highly permeable formation may also be by a gradual level-off trend. When pumping stops, the pres-
nonlinear during the pressure build-up phase, because of fluid sure drops rapidly for two reasons: the loss of pump friction
losses. As filter cake builds however, nonlinearity will be re- pressure and the loss of fluid to the fracture. When the pres-
duced, and a change may be evident in a repeat PIT. This sure equals the minimum stress acting on the crack, the frac-
change in the pressure build-up behavior distinguishes the ture stops growing and starts closing. The inflection evident at
effects of plasticity and permeability in the PIT. this point in the shut-in pressure plot (Point C) approximates
the Minimum Horizontal Stress (MHS) at the end of the crack.
Pre-Existing Cracks - Another common fear of leak-off tests Since most cracks extend beyond the distorted stress region of
is that wellbore strength is reduced by cracking the rock. This the wellbore, the MHS observed in the PIT is a reasonable
fear is unfounded, since the rock in most wellbores is usually approximation of the minimum undistorted stress of the for-
already cracked, or will become cracked as drilling continues. mation.
Such cracks are normally closed, because of the natural com- Since stress concentrations at the wellbore can increase the
pressive stresses forcing the crack faces together. The leak-off fracture opening pressure by hundreds of psi above the mini-
test measures the minimum compressive stress at the wellbore mum undistorted compressive stress of the formation, the
wall. Since this stress is governed by overburden, it is not af- shut-in pressure in a PIT may drop noticeably if the crack ex-
fected by the leak-off test. tends far enough from the wellbore. In evaluating hundreds of
Because the tensile strength of cracked rock is zero, the pres- leak-off tests, we have noted that the surface gauge pressure at
sure required to open an existing fracture in most rocks down- point C typically ranges between the leak-off pressure (Point
hole will be less than the pressure required to initiate a frac- A) and half that value. In nearly all cases, a PIT plot with a
ture. Figure 3 shows the effect that a pre-existing crack can pressure at point C lower than half the pressure at Point A
have on a hydraulic fracture plot. indicates a leak in the surface equipment or casing or a cement
The size of a preexisting crack can affect fracture opening channel.
pressure. Ishijima and Roegiers confirmed that the length of Pressure losses beyond Point C are usually due to fluid losses
pre-existing cracks does affect the pressure versus time plot.11 caused only by permeability, so the rate of pressure decline is
For four different crack lengths (ranging from less than 0.05 less. In most cases, the pressure gradually levels off after the
times the wellbore radius, R, to more than 2.5 R), their com- MHS and the test is stopped. Point D, the final level-off pres-
puter model showed four different pressure versus time plots, sure, approximates the fracture-closure pressure. At this point,
with varying differences between fracture initiation and permeability losses are limited to the original wellbore; for the
breakdown pressures, Figures 4A-D. The similarities between short time frame of the PIT, these losses are generally very
4 D. P. POSTLER SPE/IADC 37589

small because of filter cake. In our experience, a shut-in pres- the shut-in pressure, below the leak-off of the weaker zone.
sure that did not level off (approximately) above zero was an This may be the MHS of the weaker zone.
indication of a leak in the system or a cement channel and was Figure 6C shows a plugged channel that unplugs during the
not a formation-related effect. test. The plugging material is usually gelled mud. Pressure
communication to the weaker zone is often not immediate.
Effect of Cement Channels Pressure builds at a normal rate until the plugging material is
Cement channels are the most common cause of unusual PIT forced out of the channel. This can occur suddenly or over a
behavior. Cement channels of concern are those that provide a period of time as fluid trickles through the channel.
fluid path through or around the cement at the casing shoe to a The pressure required to unplug a channel can be quite high,
shallower zone with a lower fracture gradient. often approaching the leak-off of the open hole. This can lead
It is important to note that a single PIT plot cannot confirm to confusion in the interpretation. When the channel is un-
the presence of a cement channel. The first plot may indicate plugged, the weaker zone breaks down and pressure drops.
the possibility of a channel, but a repeat test is required to con- The shut-in pressure usually drops significantly because of the
firm it. The repeat test is needed because certain formation- large difference between the final pumping pressure and the
related effects can sometimes cause a PIT plot to resemble that weaker zone's breakdown pressure. In many cases, the shut-in
of a cement channel. The repeat test will usually aid the inter- pressure approaches zero, indicating that the minimum stress
preter in distinguishing between a channel and formation ef- level of the weaker zone is less than the hydrostatic pressure
fects. exerted by the drilling fluid used in the test. Once a channel
Three types of PIT plots that indicate some type of cement becomes unplugged, a repeat PIT would indicate one of the
channel have been identified: other two cement channels described above.
A large, open cement channel, Figure 6A, allows immediate
communication to a weaker zone. Fracture opening occurs in PIT Procedures
the weaker zone at a lower pressure than the stronger zone at While a basic understanding of theory and downhole proc-
the casing shoe. The lower leak-off is the indicator of a ce- esses can be helpful in interpreting a leak-off test, field proce-
ment channel. The shape of the plot is not affected by this dures are critical. The following items are recommended to
type of cement channel, except that the leak-off pressure is conduct a valid PIT:
lower than predicted. The shut-in pressure will be governed
by the strength and permeability of the weaker zone. Reference Guidelines - Before the test, prepare the test graph.
Because of equipment limitations, downhole pressure losses Label the horizontal axis in 1/4-bbl increments and the vertical
due to mud gellation, and errors in predicting the formation axis in 100-psi increments. After labeling the axes, draw
strength, the leak-off pressure determined in the PIT is not guidelines on the graph for reference during the test and sub-
expected to exactly match the predicted value. Our experience sequent interpretation. These guidelines are shown in Figure 7
indicates that a margin of error of ±1/2 ppg equivalent mud and described below:
weight (EMW) is normal. An open cement channel should not a. Predicted Leak-Off Pressure - a horizontal line. The pre-
be suspected unless the leak-off is more than 1/2 ppg EMW dicted value should be based analysis of offset well data
below the predicted leak-off value. The validity of the pre- and/or local overburden and pore pressure gradients, not
dicted leak-off should also be re-evaluated before it is decided guesswork or the "need" for a certain value to reach the
that a PIT has indicated the presence of a channel. next objective. This line acts as a guide during the test; a
Figure 6B shows a small, open channel. A small channel rightward bend in the plot near this pressure probably indi-
acts as a choke and allows only a portion of the pumped fluid cates leak-off. A bend significantly below this line is prob-
to pass through it. When pressure reaches the leak-off of the ably not leak-off, and pumping should continue.
weaker zone, fracture opening (and possibly breakdown) oc- b. Minimum Leak-Off Pressure - a horizontal line equal to
curs there. However, since the small channel restricts flow, the pressure equivalent of the predicted leak-off Equivalent
the pressure in the open-hole section may continue to build, Mud Weight (EMW) minus 1/2 ppg. This line is used in
although at a lower rate. In this case, the test plot shows two the same manner as the predicted leak-off line. The 1/2-
slopes: a normal slope from the origin until breakdown of the ppg difference represents the greatest "error" we have ob-
weak zone, then a lower slope (because of losses through the served in leak-off measurements; this allows for inaccura-
channel) until a fracture opens in the zone at the shoe. cies caused by mud gellation effects, inaccuracies in the
Shut-in behavior can also be used to detect a small open predicted leak-off, and inaccurate measurements of pres-
channel. If a fracture has been opened in the formation below sure, volume, and mud weight.
the casing shoe, the shut-in pressure usually drops to a value c. Maximum Pressure - a horizontal line that represents a "do
between the leak-off pressure and half that value (surface not exceed" number based on equipment limitations or lost
gauge pressures), indicating the Minimum Horizontal Stress. circulation experience.
Subsequently however, the shut-in pressure bleeds towards d. Minimum Volume Line - a diagonal line drawn from the
zero (instead of leveling off) because of fluid losses through origin to the highest pressure/volume data point of the cas-
the channel. In some plots, a second inflection is observed in ing test. This line represents the minimum volume of drill-
ing fluid compression required to reach any pressure with
SPE/IADC 37589 PRESSURE INTEGRITY TEST INTERPRETATION 5

the mud system in use.

e. Maximum Volume Line - a diagonal line used as a lower- Plot Data During the Test - Data must be plotted during the
limit reference during the test. Plotted data that deviate be- test to accurately judge the leak-off point and to determine if
low this line are usually caused by high formation perme- losses due to permeability require a higher pump rate. Record
ability and a too-low pump rate. A higher pump rate and plot data every 1/4 bbl regardless of pump rate.
should be used to overcome the permeability. This line is
drawn from the origin to a pressure/maximum volume data Pumping Guidelines - The slower and the steadier the pump
point. As a rule of thumb, the maximum volume should be rate, the better. Faster pump rates can "mask" the leak-off
twice the minimum volume. For example, if the minimum point and cause breakdown pressure to be reached. Unsteady
volume (from the casing test) was 3 bbl at 1500 psi, the pump rates can confuse the interpretation of the test by mak-
maximum volume data point would be 6 bbl at 1500 psi. ing the slope of the plot change before leak-off. For im-
permeable formations, a rate of 1/4 bpm should be used. For
Proper Rig-Up - Rig up is routine, but several points should permeable formations, rates of 1/2 to 1 bpm may be required
be emphasized. Refer to Figure 8. to overcome filtration losses. Based on our experience, a PIT
a. Cement Pump - use a low-volume high-pressure pump that requires a rate greater than 1 bpm indicates an equipment
such as the cementing pump. Rig pumps generally cannot leak or a cement channel.
maintain the controlled, slow pump rates required for PITs. High pump rates can give erroneously high leak-off pres-
Do not assume the mechanical barrel counter on the pump sures. As described earlier in this paper, fracture opening
is accurate. Pump strokes are more reliable volume indica- pressure is directly related to the rate of pressurizing. The
tors if the pump has been calibrated. If pump strokes can- higher the pump rate, the higher the apparent leak-off. The
not be counted, mark the displacement tanks in 1/4-bbl in- "true" leak-off pressure is the pressure determined at the low-
crements and monitor volume there. est practical pump rate, which is the minimum rate needed to
b. Shut-In Valve - installed between the pump and pressure overcome filtration losses.
gauge. Shut-in is as important to test interpretation as Use the maximum volume line (see Reference Guidelines) to
pressure build-up, so efforts must be made to validate the determine if a higher pump rate is needed. After the minimum
data. Use the shut-in valve rather than relying on the pump expected volume has been pumped, compare the plotted data
to prevent back flow. with the maximum volume line. If the data are not above this
c. Bleed Valve - installed on a tee between the pump and the line, shut down the pump, bleed the pressure to zero, and re-
shut-in valve. Open this valve during the shut-in period to test at a pump rate 1/4 bpm higher than the previous test. Fig-
see if the shut-in valve is leaking. ure 9 shows an example of this procedure.
d. Purge Valve - installed on the test head and used to purge
air from the test lines. Air is a common source of nonlin- When to Stop Pumping - At some pressure, usually within
ear behavior on the test plot. 1/2 ppg equivalent of the expected leak-off value, the plotted
e. Pressure Gauge - the leak-off test is worthless if this gauge data will deviate from a linear trend by bending to the right.
is unreliable or hard to read. In low-pressure tests, a 50-psi Pump a small additional amount to confirm the leak-off, then
difference can influence the acceptance of the test results. stop pumping. Stop pumping any time the pressure decreases.
A good quality cement unit gauge is commonly used and If the leak-off point is not easy to detect, use the following
recommended for PITs. If the cement unit gauge is not of general guidelines to determine when to stop pumping:
good quality, use a gauge that has as many of the following a. Plot Bends Below Minimum Leak-Off - Pump several
features as possible: liquid-filled, 4" or larger, range 25% - more barrels to see if the pressure will resume increasing.
50% greater than maximum test pressure (the lower the Wellbore effects sometimes cause this to happen, as noted
better), 25-50 psi increments (the smaller the better), and earlier. If the pressure resumes its increase, continue
isolated from pump vibrations and pressure surges. pumping until leak-off occurs near the expected value. If
f. Pump Down the Drill Pipe - mud in the drill pipe is more the low leak-off is due to a cement channel, the pressure
likely to be free of gellation and solids than mud in the an- will not increase, but further pumping will do no damage.
nulus. These can affect pressure response at the bottom of b. Curving Plot - When the pressure build-up does not follow
the hole. the normal linear trend, continue pumping until the pres-
sure remains constant for 3 consecutive readings. A curv-
Use Clean, Uniform Mud - Before pulling into the casing ing plot may be caused by high permeability or a plastic
shoe for the test, circulate and condition the mud to stabilize formation. The "leak-off" pressure is the level-off pressure.
properties and clean the hole of all loose fill. Circulate until The decision to stop pumping is always subjective. Knowl-
the shaker is free of cuttings and mud weight out equals mud edge of the expected leak-off pressure and the probable shape
weight in. The objectives in conditioning the mud before the of the PIT plot (through analysis of current and offset well
test are to obtain a column of uniform known density drilling data) will help in making the decision to stop pumping.
fluid, break down gels, build filter cake on the formation, and
circulate out any air bubbles in the system. One "bottoms up" Shut-In Guidelines - Since shut-in is often a key to successful
circulation usually achieves these objectives. interpretation, it is important to do it correctly. We follow two
6 D. P. POSTLER SPE/IADC 37589

important shut-in guidelines: - Gauge pressure at MHS < 1/2 gauge pressure at leak-off;
a. Use the Shut-In Valve - Using this valve rather than the - Shut-in pressure does not level off.
pump will eliminate the possibility of fluid leaking past the A channel is confirmed after a repeat PIT shows no im-
pump during the shut-in period. As further insurance, provement in the above indicators.
monitor the shut-in valve (by means of the bleed valve) 5. When In Doubt, Retest. Use the correct pump rate. If the
and other surface equipment for leaks. pump rate in the original test was acceptable (per "Pump-
b. Monitor Pressure Decline - Shut-In Pressure (SIP) does not ing Guidelines"), do not change it. Retest until no changes
always level off at a value near the leak-off pressure, as the are evident in the plot. Evaluate the final "unimproved"
typical plot in Figure 2 shows. The pressure can level off, PIT.
bleed to zero, or bleed to an intermediate point. Different
types of pressure declines are acceptable in different cir-
PIT Examples
cumstances. Monitor the SIP in one-minute intervals until
Several PIT examples are analyzed in the following section.
the pressure levels off or can be reasonably extrapolated to
Some of these show formation-related effects and others dem-
a level-off point. A 10-to-15 minute shut-in is usually suf-
onstrate cement problems.
ficient. In those cases where a shoe squeeze is being con-
sidered and the pressure has not leveled off after 15 min-
Example 1: Two-Stage Crack Growth
utes, it is worth the time to wait until it does level off or
Figure 10 shows three PITs conducted on a 9-5/8" casing
declines to zero.
shoe: an initial test, a retest, and a test following a squeeze job.
The predicted fracture gradient was not listed, but the final test
PIT Interpretation Guidelines
EMW of 16.4 ppg was accepted. These tests clearly illustrate
Evaluation of both the build-up and shut-in portions of the test
two-stage (stable/unstable) fracture growth.
plot, as well as the judicious use of repeat tests, are necessary
In the first test, stable and unstable regions are evident.
for proper PIT interpretation. We have formulated a set of
Leak-off occurs at 850 psi, or 15.9 ppg EMW. Pumping con-
guidelines for interpreting PITs that take into account forma-
tinued until breakdown. The linear pressure build-up between
tion effects, field conditions, and experience. These guide-
fracture opening and breakdown (125 psi per 1/2 barrel) shows
lines direct the test interpreter through the evaluation process
little or no crack growth. Breakdown (unstable crack growth)
and will aid in deciding if a cement channel exists.
occurs at 1,310 psi (17.1 ppg EMW), as indicated by the rapid
1. Estimate The Leak-Off: Draw the "best fit" straight line pressure drop to 1,100 psi.
through the data, ignoring the first data point, since it is of- At shut-in, the pressure immediately drops to 800 psi, indi-
ten affected by air in the mud or irregular pump speed. cating the approximate minimum horizontal stress of the for-
The MINIMUM leak-off is the first point of a permanent mation. The rate of fluid loss abruptly decreases at this point
decrease in slope when compared to the linear trend. This because the crack has stopped growing. The small amount of
is a minimum; the actual leak-off may be higher, as may be fluid loss thereafter is due to permeability. Fracture closure
determined by evaluating the shut-in. occurs between 720-700 psi.
2. Evaluate Leak-Off Pressure: Accept the result if leak-off A second PIT was conducted to check the results of the first
pressure is above the minimum (within 1/2 ppg of the pre- PIT. This plot does not show a large stable crack growth re-
dicted value). If pressure is below the minimum, a cement gion because breakdown occurred in the first test. Re-
channel may exist, so retest to confirm the result. application of pressure re-opens the existing fracture at 840
CAUTION: Predicted leak-off is sometimes wrong. Re- psi, minimum stress is 840 psi, and fracture closure is about
evaluate the prediction before making a major decision 800 psi. The values are essentially the same as in the first test;
based on the leak-off. minor differences can be attributed to filter cake build-up
3. Evaluate Shut-In: The first inflection (or slope decrease) and/or inaccuracies in reading data. Breakdown at 1,000 psi
in the shut-in data indicates Minimum Horizontal Stress. shows that, in the near-wellbore region, the stable fracturing
Compare this pressure with the leak-off determined in step phase is sharply reduced in comparison with the first test.
1. The leak-off pressure must be ≥ MHS. Inflections in This second plot closely resembles a classic test.
the pressure build-up data below the MHS do not indicate The PIT limit of 15.9 ppg EMW was apparently thought to
leak-off, and can be ignored. Accept the result if gauge indicate a cement channel, so the casing shoe was squeezed.
pressure at MHS ≥ 1/2 gauge pressure at leak-off. If gauge The third PIT, conducted after the squeeze with a higher mud
pressure at MHS < 1/2 gauge pressure at leak-off, or if weight, shows that this judgment was probably incorrect; the
shut-in pressure does not level off (approximately) above post-squeeze PIT limit of 16.4 ppg EMW is within 1/2 ppg of
zero, a cement channel may exist, so retest to confirm the the first two tests, and the minimum stress (around 850 psi)
result. and fracture closure pressures (around 730 psi) on this plot are
4. Check For Cement Channels: Channels may be indi- in the same range as the first two tests. The small im-
cated by any one of the following: provements can easily be attributed to permeability reduction
- Leak-off EMW more than 1/2 ppg below predicted due to mud and cement filter cake or inaccuracies in reading
value; pressures, volumes, and mud weights. In general, a squeeze
SPE/IADC 37589 PRESSURE INTEGRITY TEST INTERPRETATION 7

job should not be necessary when the PIT limit is within 1/2 analysis of these PITs further demonstrates the application of
ppg of the predicted value. the guidelines presented in this paper.
In the first PIT plot, pressure builds at a normal rate up to
Example 2: Plastic/Elastic Zones In Same Formation 600 psi. At that point there is a noticeable decrease in the
The PIT plot in Figure 11 shows a plastic zone in the near- slope. Pressure continues to rise in a straight line at the re-
wellbore region. The drilling process can create a lower- duced slope up to 1,000 psi, where it levels off.
strength plastic zone near the wellbore; however, the forma- There are several plausible explanations for the two slope
tion retains its strength away from the wellbore. This example behavior, but the shut-in pressure indicates that a small chan-
shows two apparent leak-offs: the first at 850 psi indicates nel is the most likely cause of the irregular plot. On shut-in,
fracture opening within a plastic zone. The plastic zone frac- the pressure quickly drops to 600 psi, indicating the minimum
ture propagates from 850-900 psi. At 900 psi, the fracture stress of the stronger zone (leak-off at 1,000 psi, 16.4 ppg
reaches the stronger elastic zone boundary and growth stops. EMW). The pressure momentarily levels off, then resumes
Normal pressure build-up resumes until fracture opening oc- declining. The test was stopped at 450 psi shut-in pressure,
curs in the elastic zone at 1,100 psi. Normal stable crack before the minimum stress of the weaker zone (leak-off at 600
growth follows until the pump is stopped after 11 barrels. psi) was observed.
Shut-in pressure behavior also supports the hypothesis of The decrease in the shut-in pressure after the inflection at
separate plastic and elastic zones. The two slope changes at 600 psi indicates a loss of fluid that can only be attributed to a
900 psi and 800 psi seem to indicate the minimum stress in the cement channel or a surface leak. The latter case is ruled out
elastic and plastic zones, respectively. These stress values, by the two-slope behavior of the pressure build-up plot.
both below the measured fracture opening values, are consis- The shoe was retested to confirm the first test. This plot re-
tent with theory. sembles the first in both the build-up and shut-in phases, con-
The higher leak-off value (17.3 ppg) should be used in evalu- firming the interpretation above. The pressures are higher in
ating the PIT. Since the predicted leak-off was 18.0 ppg, there the second test primarily because of the faster pumping rate
is a chance that a cement channel existed. The decision was (3/4 bpm vs. 1/2 bpm). Filter cake build-up also contributes to
made to drill ahead, either because of some doubt about the the higher pressures.
predicted value, or there was no reason to squeeze the shoe. The casing shoe was squeezed and retested with a higher
Both possibilities should be considered when a critical deci- mud weight, and the resulting PIT plot is the last figure in the
sion is made on the basis of a leak-off test. example. In this test, the pressure build-up was normal and
the shut-in pressure leveled off quickly. Both of these facts
Example 3: Uncracked Wellbore indicate that a cement channel had been repaired and that fluid
The plots in Figure 12 show evidence of a wellbore with no was not lost to the weaker zone.
pre-existing cracks. An uncracked wellbore should not show a The final leak-off at 16.1 ppg EMW is in the same range as
separate fracture initiation, but would instead show a sudden the upper leak-off seen in the first test. This is 1.4 ppg below
breakdown and loss of pressure while pumping (Figures 3A the predicted value of 17.5 ppg and could reasonably be sus-
and 4A). pected as a sign of a typical channel. However, the obvious
This is seen in the initial test. The pressure builds in a linear improvement resulting from the squeeze job can also be rea-
fashion until breakdown occurs at 2,250 psi. Breakdown was sonably viewed as a sign that a cement channel was repaired.
not recognized and pumping continued for another three bar- There are two possible explanations for the large difference
rels. As predicted by theory, the pressure continued to de- between the predicted PIT limit and the measured PIT limit:
crease and began to approach the fracture propagation pres- the predicted PIT limit is wrong, or two channels existed be-
sure. Shut-in pressure shows a minimum stress level of 1,530 fore the squeeze, and only one was repaired.
psi and fracture closure at 1,490 psi. At this point, either explanation is possible, and a decision to
The plot of a repeat test is also shown. This test was inten- squeeze the shoe again "just to be safe" might have been con-
tionally stopped at 1,900 psi, but it does show that the well- sidered. In this case, it was decided not to squeeze and to ac-
bore strength has not been significantly reduced by the frac- cept the 16.1 ppg PIT limit. A retrospective analysis of the
ture created in the first test. This test also demonstrates that a well showed that this was probably the right decision, since all
pressure equal to the minimum stress at the wellbore wall, and of the measured fracture gradients were 1 ppg or more lower
not the far-field stress or the fracture closure pressure, is re- than predicted.
quired to re-open an existing fracture. This example illustrates the difficulty encountered on the rig
when attempting to interpret a PIT. The decision to squeeze
Example 4: Small Cement Channel or drill ahead is not always obvious, especially when one
The three plots in Figure 13 show evidence of a small cement squeeze job has already been done and the predicted PIT limit
channel. This type of channel acts as a choke, so pressure can is suspect, as it can be on exploratory wells.
be applied to two zones at once: the weaker zone, via the
channel, and the casing shoe zone. The resulting PIT plot has CONCLUSIONS
two distinct slope changes, representing leak-off in each of the The downhole processes that occur during a PIT have been
two exposed zones. Although this is not a common result, explained in this paper. Theoretical and laboratory studies
8 D. P. POSTLER SPE/IADC 37589

were cited to show how leak-off pressure and the shape of the
test plot can be affected by downhole conditions and test pro- References:
cedures. Irregular plot shapes do not always indicate cement 1. Hubert, M. K., and Willis, D.G., "Mechanics of Hydraulic
problems; natural formation conditions can often lead to un- Fracturing," Trans. SPE of AIME, 1957, Vol. 210, pp
usual test plots. Specific conclusions critical to understanding 153-168.
and interpreting PITs are: 2. Eaton, B. A., "Fracture Gradient Prediction and Applica-
tion," Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Salt−Northern Ohio Geo-
1. Many PIT plots show the classic shape - a linear pressure logical Society, 1974, Vol. 2, pp. 153-175.
increase up to a clear leak-off pressure. However, it is 3. Almeida, M. A. "Computer-Aided Analysis of Formation
common to find PIT curves that are quite different from Pressure Integrity Tests used in Oil Well Drilling," Ph. D
this ideal. These irregular plots do not always indicate ce- Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1986.
ment problems; they can arise from formation conditions 4. Jaeger, J. C., and Cook, N. G. W., Fundamental of Rock
as well. Mechanics, 3rd Ed., 1979, Chapman and Hall Ltd, Lon-
2. At leak-off, small, stable fractures are opened in the forma- don.
tion. Formation breakdown generally occurs at a higher 5. Zoback, M. D., and Pollard, D. D., "Hydraulic Fracture
pressure and is characterized by rapid, unstable crack Propagation and the Interpretation of Pressure-Time Re-
growth and a high rate of fluid loss. Local stresses and cords for In-Situ Stress Determinations," Proc. 19th
rock properties govern fracture opening and breakdown Symp. on Rock Mech., 1978, pp. 14-22.
pressures. 6. Rice, J. R., and Cleary, M. P., "Some Basic Stress Dif-
3. Leak-off is governed by the minimum stress at the well- fiusion Solutions for Fluid-Saturated Elastic Porous Me-
bore wall, and fracture closure is governed by the lower dia with Compressible Constituents," Rev. Geophysics
stress at the tip of the crack. Stress at the wellbore wall is and Space Physics, 1976, Vol. 14, No.2, pp. 227-241.
usually increased by the drilling process over the far-field 7. Abou-Sayed, A. S., Brechtel, C. E., and Clifton, R. J., "In-
stress, so leak-off pressure is generally higher than the Situ Stress Determination by Hydrofracturing − A Frac-
minimum undistorted stress of the formation. A fracture ture Mechanics Approach," J. of Geophysical Research,
begins closing when wellbore pressure drops to the stress 1978, Vol. 83, No. B6, pp. 2851-2862.
level at the tip of the crack, but it will not re-open until the 8. Risnes, R., Bratli, R. K., and Horsrud, P., "Sand Stresses
leak-off pressure is reapplied. Around a Wellbore," SPE 9650, presented at Middle East
4. Pre-existing formation cracks can affect fracture opening Tech. Conf., Manama, Bahrain, March, 1981.
and breakdown pressure. In general, the longer the crack, 9. Horsrud, P., Risnes, R., and Bratli, R. K., "Fracture Initia-
the lower these pressures. Uncracked rock will show no tion Pressures in Permeable Poorly Consolidated Sands,"
evidence of separate fracture opening and breakdown. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr., 1982,
Fracture opening and breakdown pressures in intact rock Vol. 19, pp. 255-266.
will be higher than in rocks with pre-existing cracks. 10. Haimson, B., and Fairhurst, C., "Initiation and Extension
5. Test fluid characteristics and formation permeability can of Hydraulic Fractures in Rocks," SPE Jornal, Sept. 1967,
also affect the leak-off pressure. Leak-off is lower for pp. 310-318.
penetrating fluids than for non-penetrating fluids. Leak-off 11. Ishijima, Y., and Roegiers, J. C., "Fracture Initiation and
is lower in permeable formations than in impermeable Breakdown Pressure − Are They Similar?," Proc. 24th U.
formations. S. Symp. on Rock Mech., 1983, pp. 761-772.
6. Fracture opening and breakdown pressures are directly 12. Griggs, D. T., "Deformation of Rock Under High Confin-
related to the rate of pressurization. The higher the pump ing Pressures," J. Geol., 1963, Vol. 44, pp. 541-577.
rate, the higher the leak-off. 13. Jaeger, J. C., and Cook, N. G. W., "Pinching-Off and
7. Different types of cement channels show different PIT Disking of Rocks," J. of Geophysical Research, 1963,
responses. Repeat PITs can usually be used to differentiate Vol. 68, No. 6, pp. 1759-1765.
between cement problems and formation-related effects. 14. Haimson, B., and Fairhurst, C., "In Situ Stress Determina-
8. Careful preparation and field implementation will aid in tion at Great Depth by Means of Hydraulic Fracturing,"
gathering useful PIT data. Proc. 11th Symp. on Rock Mech., AIME, 1969, pp. 559-
9. PIT interpretation will be aided by application of guide- 584.
lines presented in this paper. Engineering judgment is still
required in some situations, however.

Acknowledgments
I thank my many colleagues in drilling organizations through-
out Exxon Corporation and its affiliates for their support and
assistance in the development of our PIT guidelines, and I
thank Exxon Company, International and Exxon Production
Research Company for permission to publish this work.