Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IPTC 13826 Underbalanced Drilling in Shale - Perspective of Factors Influences Mechanical Borehole Instability
IPTC 13826 Underbalanced Drilling in Shale - Perspective of Factors Influences Mechanical Borehole Instability
IPTC 13826 Underbalanced Drilling in Shale - Perspective of Factors Influences Mechanical Borehole Instability
ABSTRACT
Drilling with a bottomhole pressure less than the formation pore pressure (Underbalanced Drilling, UBD) usually increase
the risk of borehole instability due to yielding or failure of the rock adjacent to the borehole. But evaluation criterion of this
failure mechanism is complex and very often diagnosis did not fit with field operational practices. It is believed that, shear
and radial tensile failures with negligible chemical instability are the common mechanisms to cause mechanical instability in
UBD in shales. In a mechanical borehole instability perspective, UBD causes lots of potential challenges and formation
uncertainities due to facts like:
A detailed workflow in connection within physical, experimental, analytical and numerical investigation is required to
understand and to diagnose borehole stability. Numerous studies have been carried out so far on borehole stability design, but
UBD and shale instability is new research areas where more insight is needed. This paper discuss and presents mechanical
borehole instability both analytically and numerically to quantify borehole collapse risk for inclined wells under in- situ stress
state. In addition produce comparable results and therefore some physical models are also presented for in depth study of
UBD. Results show that the developed analytical and numerical models are enabled to predict borehole collapse risk. Since
several real- life situations were evaluated, the potential applicability of the models is apparent; the results could be used as
cross checks for particular situations in the field.
The generality of this study provided an overview along with standard workflow into borehole collapse assessment which
may helps to obtain proper diagnosis of material failure state with respect to reduction of instability in drilling. Findings of
this study can be useful for further research within the same area.
KEYWORDS:
UBD, shales, mechanical instability, collapse pressure, pore pressure, mud weight window.
IPTC 13475
1.0 Introduction
Underbalanced Drilling (UBD) means the wellbore pressure is intentionally set below the formation pressure. Moreover,
during tripping or tool joint operation in Overbalanced Drilling (OBD), borehole annular pressure also goes through
underbalanced (UB) situation compare to formation pore pressure. Thus, borehole underbalanced circumstances does not
only concern UBD, but also matter for OBD. The consequence of the underbalanced state may lead to borehole instability.
UBD technique has become an art in the modern oil industry, often applied to avoid or mitigate formation damage, reduce
lost circulation risk, enhanced recovery and increase ROP. However, in recent years, several new challenge have appeared,
making the stability issue in shales more difficult to handle, and thus also more important to solve. For operational benefit,
there has been an increasing demand by the industry for better understanding of shale behavior in underbalanced drilling.
Shale is specifically mentioned in this setting, due to the fact that borehole instability is more pronounced in such formations
than any other formation. From field experience, it was found that shale make up more than 75 % of drilled formations, and
more than 70 % of borehole problems are caused by shale instability. In addition, many fields are in a depleting trend, infill
drilling would be a big challenge; the same is true for drilling in tectonically active areas, in deep sea, and in deep and
geologically complex surroundings. In practice, infill drilling operation requires UBD to penetrate heterogeneous formation
pressured zone. For several reasons, UBD can be a good tool in near futures. However; a reliability borehole stability
material models is needed, one that can solve the following possible uncertainities:
Geo-pressured shale which is unstable and tends to slough into the wellbore when the high pore pressure is
alleviated by the lower wellbore pressure;
Hole collapse or wellbore caving due to insufficient support by the wellbore pressure;
All this uncertainities is a result of mechanical borehole instability, it can result in hole enlargements or hole collapse which
causes fill on trips, poor directional control, poor cementing, repeated reaming, or, in extreme conditions, stuck drill pipe.
It is assumed that during UBD in shale, due to lack of mud
support immediate shear failure may occur depending on type
of shale formation and its rock strength. However, if the
borehole would overcome the initial failure risk, instability
risk may be reduced by equilibrating pore pressure
[Chenevert et al 2002, Fjr et al, 2008]. But due to the
extremely low permeability of shales, the pore fluid cannot
flow freely, which causes redistribution of stresses and
possibility wellbore instability [Chen and Ewy, 2002]. So,
knowledge of collapse pressure model in addition to pore
pressure behaviour in shales is considered the most crucial
factors for wellbore design in UBD. Fig.1, presents the
hypothesis of near wellbore stress pattern for UBD
candidates. The critical region is located (blue shaded area)
where shear and radial tensile failure are the resultant
mechanisms. Shear failure of the borehole wall will take
place when the stress concentration around the borehole
exceeds the compressive strength of the rock [Fjr et al.,
2008]. The strategy should therefore be to set the lowest mud
weight possible in shale without collapse and simultaneously
attempt to manage the losses in sand when drilling in
interbedded formations.
UBD is a relatively new technology, but its potential has yet to be fully realized by the industry. Particularly has borehole
stability not been well addressed, as confirmed from a literature survey? It was found that most of the studies (Mody and
Hale 1993, Van Oort 1997, Fonseca 2000, Anthony et al. 2002, Nobuo morita 2004) discussed perational challenges with
potential benefits. Various field trials studied by Davison (2004) in the Brent field, reported that 700-900 psi is the maximum
underbalance pressure for sub horizontal wells in shale which maintain a low risk of failure. This result can be used as
reference, however, will be required a separate and more in-depth study of the zones where UBD is planned. As it is
discussed, borehole collapse risk is the potential challange for UBD; hence for investigation of borehole instability, a suitable
material model is essential to evaluate borehole collapse risk. Up until now, borehole collapse material model is apply on
elastic elastoplastic material model [Fairhurst et al. 1968, Bradely et al. 1987, Adany et al. 1987, 2002 & 2004, Al-Ajmi
et al. 2006, Fjr et al. 2008]. It is observed that in- situ stress assessment and it used as input is the most exemplified weak
IPTC 13475
part in borehole design models. Islam et al. 2009 discussed and presented a standard geomechanical model to assess in-situ
stresses and used it as input in borehole collapse model. The aims of the present work are to explore and explain the physics
behind mechanical borehole instability. The paper will in corporate the effect of stress vector, attacking angle to weak
bedding plane & lamination. It aims also to evaluate the shear failure risk both analytically and numerically. The whole study
is therefore divided into the following phases:
Demonstrate the theoretical and analytical model which implies shales complexicity.
IPTC 13475
will crack or fragments fall into the borehole. On the other hand, slugging shales causes brittle shear failure by producing
cavings. The shape of the cavings is different under shear and radial tensile failure mode [Bradley 1978]. Fig.4 presents
different physical models to explain mechanisms of mechanical borehole instability in UBD. A details investigation and
evaluation of these mechanisms were accomplished at the latter part of this paper.
Fig. 4 Borehole failure mechanisms: shear failure (left), radial tensile failure (middle) and pore pressure equilibriting trend (right).
IPTC 13475
different attacking angles (fig.7). But the material failure risk analysis procedures will be the same as discussed in the
afrosaid model. Most important features will be the attacking angle between the borehole and weak bedding plane. In general,
for any combination of weak beeding plane & hitting angle orientation, evolved shear stress direction along the weak bedding
plane pose a risk for initiating material failure.
Well
Well
b
45
Crack
Shear
stress
450
Shear stress
450
Shear stress
Shear stress
45
Crack
Well
Crack
Fig.6 Well drilled in different angles to bedding plane. a) vertical well but quarter angle with weak beeding plane, b) deviated well along
bedding plane , c) deviated well at an angle 700 with beeding plane and d) horizontal well.
Well
Well
450
Shear
stress
450
Shear
stress
cracking
cracking
IPTC 13475
parameters CP and PP are uncontrollable. Very often predictions of these parameters are associated with uncertainities. Due
to such limitation, very often field observations of borehole instability did not match with physical interpretation. Relibility
of collalpse pressure model is therefore essential for interpreting UBD. Because both Seneario-1 and Seneario-2 satisfy UBD
condition, although aspects of borehole instability are different, both are not equally stable. Seneario-2 seems to be the most
stable one. Pore pressure effects and a collapse pressure predictive model for vertical and horizontal wells in UBD condition
were presented by Islam, et al (2009) through a separate study within the same research project. This paper worked on
collapse pressure model in deviated well.
3.1 Stability Model
Several mechanisms are involved in the borehole instability domain. The following components are in focus:
I. Pore pressure equilibrium trend at borehole
II. Borehole stress
III. Well trajectory ( azimuth and inclination)
I.
Time delayed borehole stability is affected by pore pressure equilibrium. Establishment of pore pressure equilibrium takes
time, and time constant given by the shale permeability. There is an uncertainity of magnitudes of shales permeability which
create difficulties increasing pore pressure equilibrium condition at borehole wall. This time delayed related subject will be
analysed through separate study within this research project. However, for this study a hypothetical mathmatical expression
was developed to evaluate pore pressure at the borehole wall and to use this data in a numerical model (see Fig.9a). The
potential applicability of the results obtained here is apparent; the results of this model could be used as a cross check for
calculations made for more particular situations through existing model and experiment.
Modell assumption:
t=0, everywhere in thr rock then v=0 (water is trapped, since t=0, and water is incompressible),
anisotropic in -situ stress state,
impermeable borehole wall (undrain situation).
homogeneous formation
porous formation with perfect mud cake.
Fjr et al.,(2008) show that the drillout leads to a change in the mean stress. The average change (along a circular concentric
path) is zero. So, at the borehole wall, the change of total volumetric strain is constant and it is followed by the mean
principal stress, which gives V /v 0 , change of effective pressure is also constant:
P P / Pf
(1.1)
Though, P / 0 so; P Pp and at borehole wall, the differential pressure may be express by;
p 1/3.V H h r r, r, z r,
The time dependent pore pressure pattern will be:
P 1 V H h 1 r z p
3
3
Pp, wall Pp Pp 0
(1.2)
(1.3)
Inspection to (1.3) and presenting pore pressure equilibrium trend at the borehole wall in fig.9b within the situation of UBD
and OBD. Data are taken from Table A1. It is found that for UBD conditions, pore pressure at the borehole wall will be
lower than the initial pore pressure, while in case of OBD it will be the opposite. It is well know that the reduced pore
pressure leads to stable borehole which implies favorable condition for UBD. From an operationl point of view pore pressure
used as guideline and pore pressure trend in fig.9b can be used as guideline for further research to establish this methodology
through time delayed pore pressure analysis.
IPTC 13475
Physical Model:
Fig.9a Relationship between far field pore pressure at borehole pore pressure in case of UBD , physical model
-1.0
case III
0.0
Case II
-2.0
Case I
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
1
5
r/Rw
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Case III
Case II
case I
r/RW
Fig.9b Relationship between far field pore pressure at in borehole pore pressure trend instantaniously subject to the function of
borehole radial distance and strength anisotropy ( theta) in case of UBD ( left) and OBD ( right)
Stress anisotropy,
, relative position of horizontal stress at the borehole wall and acting as anisotropic environment,
Borehole azimuth & inclination,
Relative magnitudes of situ stresses
The Kirsch solution is used this study to asses near borehole stresses. Near borehole stress concentrations depend on stress
anisotropy (see fig.10.). For isotropic situ stress state, borehole principal stress is observed as smooth trend from the far field
to the wall but for anisotropic in-situ stress states it is very stiff near the borehole wall. A plastic zone is distinguished in the
anisotropic stress case. For mechanical borehole stability analysis it is required to understand how deep the plastic zones
penetrate. Numerical simulation evaluates the plastic deformation at a latter stage of this paper. Proper knowledge about
plastic deformation is impertial because by adjusting MW, the plastic strain can be minimized.
IPTC 13475
65
56
Sigma
54
Sigma
Sigma
52
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]
60
50
48
46
Sigmar
44
Sigmat
55
50
45
Sigmaz
42
10
r/R
40
10
r/R
Fig.10 Near wellbore stress for vertical wells based on Kirsch equation, a) isotropic horizontal stress, b) anisotropic horizontal stress. Data
from table 1 (case III).
IPTC 13475
stress z is not a function of Pw. Hence, any changes in mud pressure will only affect and r. When Pw decreases,
increases towards the compressive strength where r should be less than or equal to Pw (UBD). Thus the lower limit of the
mud pressure is associated with borehole collapse >r. It is therefore an effective and useful approach to focus on
tangential stress which incorporates borehole failure modes regulated by stress magnitudes, well trajectory, mud pressure and
relative position of horizontal stresses.
For real life drilling operations, the influence of borehole inclination, azimuth and anisotropic stress pattern have to be
considered in borehole design. For a particular NF stress regimes Fig. 11 (g-i) show the changed position of collapse and
fracture initiation points, which are significantly affected by borehole trajectory. From the inspection of Eq. [A-1 & A-2]
and from Fig. 11 (g-i), Fig. 12( g-i) and Fig. 13(g-i), it is shown that hoop stress shifts with well trajectory. For example,
with constant azimuth; 450 (Fig. 11 g) the magnitudes of hoop stress varies with well inclination; however, when both
azimuth & inclination change, initiation of fracture and collapse position also changed (Fig. 11 i).
Minimum mud weight is evaluated based on developed analytical model (Eq. A, appendix A) and part of the result is
presented in Fig.11 ( a-f) for normal in situ stress, Fig.12 (a-f) & Fig.13(a-f) for strike slip and reverse fault condition. It is
seen, how borehole trajectory (azimuth & inclination) determined safe mud weight window. The trend of the minimum mud
weight window is non linear, and azimuth, inclination and cohesion effects are significant. It is also remarkable to notice that
in- situ stress pattern & its magnitudes play an vital roles for mud weight design, because with the same well trajectory, for
case III & case II , the mud weight window is completely different ( Fig. 11 & fig. 12). Both the results showed highly non
linear trend to predict different sensible concern for borehole design in highly inclined wells. The minimum mud weight
window to prevent borehole collapse is become very narrow (Fig.11, case III) when wells reached higher inclination than
400. It may interest to see, well azimuth eventually sets the minimum MW to prevent borehole collapse. For example, Fig.
12d is showed that borehole azimuth with 900 requires gradually increasing trend minimum MW to prevent borehole collapse
but in case with azimuth 3600 its reversed. Another observation is that minimum MW limit is flat when wells trajectory
(inclination) is passed in between 0-40 degree under case II and I (Figs. 12 & 13) which implied, vertical well or less
deviated wells to be required maximum mud weight to prevent borehole collapse during drilling in strong tectonic in - situ
stress regimes. One important feature of our proposed analytical mosels comes up with expression (see Eq. A, marked
with red circle). In discussed solution results obtained by using + expression. However, with using -expression results is
changed lots particularly under case II and III (Fig. not showing). A Fields case study is therefore essential to validate our
proposed analytical solution.
For a case sensitivity analysis, we have done our simulation under in strong tectonic stress regimes in the same depth of
investigation (let say 2500 m, case III). We just altered magnitudes of in- situ stresses to satisfy NF, SS and RF condition.
Simulated results are presented in Fig. 14. Here again showed how in- situ stress dominates on MW. The wellbore direction
along with stability condition is therefore (Islam et al 2009):
Normal fault: Least stable well direction is horizontal along H. The optimum drilling trajectory for preventing
borehole instability is 30-400 in a direction parallel to the minimum in situ stress h (when azimuth, a = 900).
Strike Slip: Least stable direction is vertical. The optimum drilling direction is 20-300 from the direction of the
maximum in- situ stress.
Reverse fault: Least stable direction is horizontal along h or vertical.
This study design employed on Matlab codes to perform rapid parametric analysis input for any range of model associated
parameters. An application of this model is to analyse borehole stresses and minimum mud weight dynamically as per user
requirement. The model would be helpful for design of mud in complex well geometry. The borehole failure position
initiated by borehole principal stresses also could be quantified through this model.
10
IPTC 13475
Case III: Ultra Deep , with most common normal in- situ stress condition.
a)
b)
Sigma
55
Sigma
50
45
Sigma
60
Sigma
55
Sigma
2
3
50
45
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
1.66
1.64
0
d 0
w
45
90
158
216
295
360
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
g)
1.72
1.68
1.7
1.68
1.66
45
1.74
1.72
1.7
1.68
1.66
1.64
0
d 0
w
45
90
135
180
270
360
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
h)
i)
d 45 -d 90
@d 45 deg.
i 0
i 0
Hoop Stress [MPa]
15
30
45
60
70
90
100
95
90
60
300
360
15
30
45
60
70
90
100
95
90
85
0
10
105
105
Hoop Stress [MPa]
1.72
f)
@ d 90 deg.
85
0
15
30
45
60
70
90
1.76
1.74
1.7
1.74
1.64
0
e)
1.76
Min. Mud Weight [s.g]
i 0
65
40
0
d)
1.76
Min. Mud Weight [s.g]
Sigma
60
40
0
c)
70
300
360
i 45
w
i 60
i 70
w
-5
-10
0
60
i 30
i 90
w
60
300
360
Fig. 11
Evaluation of principal stresses at borehole coordinates with the effect of
a) Variable well inclination and fixed borehole azimuth, 900, b) Variable borehole azimuth but fixed well inclination 450.
IPTC 13475
11
b)
70
Sigma
55
Sigma
50
45
40
35
30
Sigma
60
Sigma
50
40
30
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
1.5
d 0
1.45
45
90
158
216
295
360
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.2
1.15
45
d 0
45
90
135
180
270
360
80
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0
1.5
60
1.4
40
1.3
20
1.2
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
h)
100
200
300
Azimuth [Degree]
i)
@d 45 deg.
w
d 45 -d 90
w
100
100
Hoop Stress [MPa]
15
30
45
60
70
90
80
70
60
300
360
i 0
i 0
90
1.5
1.3
1.25
f)
@ d 90 deg.
60
0
1.4
1.45
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
g)
15
30
45
60
70
90
1.35
1.1
0
15
30
45
60
70
90
90
80
70
60
0
60
300
360
1.1
0
i 0
1.5
1.45
e)
Min. Mud Weight [s.g]
d)
Min. Mud Weight [s.g]
Inclination [Degree]
Sigma
Sigma
60
65
25
0
c)
30
20
i 30
10
i 45
i 60
-10
i 70
-20
i 90
w
w
w
w
w
-30
0
60
300
360
Fig. 12
Evaluation of principal stresses at borehole coordinates with the effect of
a) Variable well inclination and fixed borehole azimuth, 900, b) Variable borehole azimuth but fixed well inclination 450.
12
IPTC 13475
b)
Sigma
Sigma
30
25
20
35
Sigma
30
25
20
0.96
d 0
0.92
45
90
158
216
295
360
0.88
0.84
0.8
0.76
0.72
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
0.96
d 0
0.92
45
90
135
180
270
360
0.88
0.84
0.8
0.76
0.72
0
0.8
0.76
45
0.95
80
0.9
60
0.85
40
0.8
20
0.75
100
200
300
Azimuth [Degree]
d 45 -d 90
w
i 0
300
0.84
360
15
30
45
60
70
90
55
50
45
40
0
60
12
60
0.88
0
0
15
30
45
60
70
90
60
@d 45 deg.
i 0
40
0
15
30
45
60
70
90
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
45
0.92
@ d 90 deg.
50
i 0
f)
60
55
0.96
0.72
0
e)
Min. Mud Weight [s.g]
Sigma
15
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination [Degree]
d)
300
360
35
Sigma
40
Inclination [Degree]
Sigma
45
40
15
0
c)
i
8
i 30
w
i 45
i 60
w
w
i 70
-4
i 90
w
-8
-12
0
60
300
360
Fig. 13
Evaluation of principal stresses at borehole coordinates with the effect of
a) Variable well inclination and fixed borehole azimuth, 900, b) Variable borehole azimuth but fixed well inclination 450.
a)
b)
c)
IPTC 13475
13
Inclination [Degree]
80
60
1.7
40
1.65
20
0
0
100
200
300
Azimuth [Degree]
Inclination [Degree]
1.75
80
1.68
60
1.66
40
1.64
20
1.6
1.62
0
0
1.6
100
200
300
Azimuth [Degree]
Fig. 14 Minimum MW to prevent borehole collalpse at same depth under in different in situ stress pattern, a) NF,
b) SS, and C) RF. Data is used from case III, Table A1.
5.0 Numerical 3-D Finite Element Materials Model Employed in UBD Condition
5.1 Analysis of material behavior under different stress state
ABAQUS/CAE is used to construct the simple 3-D material model for both linear- elastic and elasto- plastic materials. It is a
cubic block of rock with a borehole drilled through its center. Due to symmetry consideration, only a quarter of the structure
(90 degrees on the horizontal plane) was modeled. To minimize boundary effects, the cubic model was designed with a side
length of 2.75 m, a depth of 5.50 m and a wellbore radius of 0.150 m. The final structure used for this study is shown in
fig.15 with 3 dimensional stress fields. This model has not employed gravity effect. The simulated wellbores were rotated at
0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 degrees from the vertical axis, in a plane perpendicular to H to quantify the borehole inclination
effect on the materials state. The differential stress is maximum on this particular plane ( 1-3) and probably it can be the
worse case. UBD criterion is applied to simulate this model.
V
Boundary Condition:
i)
ii)
iii)
No displacements were allowed at the nodes of the bottom face of the cube.
That mean the floor of the cube is fixed in all direction. ii) The top face (roof) of
the model was fixed in x and y directions which did not allow for any horizontal
displacements.
Implicitly Assumption: i) homogeneous formation; ii) contact between the
modeled rock, and both the underlying and the overlying rock were fixed, i.e.,
horizontal displacements at the top and bottom boundaries were neglected.
Modeled rock formation and overlying/underlying rocks are of same stiffness.
The mechanical properties of both types of rock and stress magnitudes of the
simulated rock are found in Appendix A.
Cases I through III were evaluated for both types of materials, and for inclinatios ranging
from 0 to 90 drgrees. Several parameters were analysed in order to obtain the effects of
changes both in stress field and in borehole inclination. Fig.17 presents a comparision of the
maximum values of stress at the wellbore wall for all cases at different angles. A marked
increment in stress magnitudes was observed at an angle of 45 degrees for all the cases and
types of material. This behaviour coincides with the results obtained analytical solutions in
fig.11. The simulation run with UBD condition gave borehole plasticity and mareial
deformation effect adjacent to the borehole wall (see fig.17). However, the FEM approach
showed plasticity effect and region. However, it could not evaluate material failure point
x
Fig.16 Boundary condition in a
in order to find the exact material failure state and failure point, a discreite particle
horizontal plane.
element model is required. Another observation is that the simulation based on EFM
modeling in ABAQUS always assumes magnitudes of cohesion as constant as initial
values of rock strength. Materials will never collapse until or unless, cohesion becomes zero. When material goes in to the
14
IPTC 13475
90
elastic
80
ep
elastic
70
ep
60
elastic
50
ep
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Borehole Inclination, degree
80
90
a)
b)
Borehole Stress
Borehole Displacement
10000
-10000
D is p lac em e n t, s train
0
8
radial
tangential
-20000
Plasticity effect
-30000
-40000
-50000
-60000
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
-0.01
-70000
Radial distance
c)
P o re P re s s u re , K P a
2
3
4
5
Radial Distance to Borehole
IPTC 13475
15
6.0 Conclusions:
All physical models in this study give an overview of mechanisms of mechanical borehole instability and key
parameters involved in shale instability during UBD. It may help to support in-depth study for UBD & borehole
instability research projects.
A complete set of analytical solutions is solved by using M-C model to develop a standard borehole collapse model
for complex well trajectory design. This model worked in well design for maximum principal stress acting at the
borehole wall. The model is enabled to predict the minimum mud weight to prevent borehole collapse in different
in- situ stress regimes. The considerable leading feature of this model is to evaluate and to provide more accurate
borehole geomechanical analysis which will be useful in complex well trajectory design and well placement in
geologically complex surroundings. The potential applicability of this model need to be further verified for more
particular situations in the field and compared results with othors publications within the similar case studies.
The numerical model is able to capture the effect of plasticity with a certain limit, but it did not quantify material
anisotropy both in stiffness and strength. An orthotropic 3-D elastoplastic material model for shale is required to
ensure directional anisotropy effect of shales to compare real borehole stability case studis. Simulation result
inferred that elasto- plastic rock is able to store more energy through deformation. This will ensure more stable
borehole under the same loading conditions than a normal elastic rock. The same conclusion has been seen from
Ivan Gil et al. 2002.
The physical, analytical and numerical models predicted the critical borehole inclination and well direction which
caused borehole instability and come up with similar results. In some others perspect, although the numbers from
analytical and numerical approach are slightly different, the study gave confidence in the conclusion that OBD or
UBD is not limited only by well inclination. Should underbalanced drilling of the shale be required, it is
recommended to do a separate and more in-depth study of the zones where this is planned.
7.0 Nomenclature
Symbol
V
h
H
z
r
Pp
Pfh
Pw
Co
To
D or h
r
Rw
CPP
MW
E
Meaning
Vertical stress
Min. horizontal stress
Max. horizontal stress
Tangential or hoop stress
Axial stress
Radial stress
Pore pressure
Hydrostatic pressure
Wellbore pressure
Poisons ratios
Cohesion strength
Tensile strength; Pa
Shear stress
Orientation of failure angle
Material friction angle
Depth
Radial distance
Borehole radius
Collapse pressure prediction
Mud weight
Young modulud
Unit
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
Degrees
Degrees
m
m
m
s.g
GPa
Abbreviation:
GMM
CPP
CP
UBD
OBD
OP
HC
CPM
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Geomechanical Model
Collapse Pressure Prediction
Collapse Pressure
underbalanced drilling
Over Balanced Drilling
Over Pressure
Hydrocarbon
Collapse Pressure Model
16
IPTC 13475
8.0 Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank NTNU for supporting and giving permission to write this paper. We would like to express our
appreciation to Prof. Rune. M. Holt and Valipour Shokohi Samad for their time to discuss critical issues in this work.
9.0 References
Aadnoy BS, Rogaland U, Chenevert ME. Stability of highly inclined boreholes. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling
conference, New Orleans, March 1518, 1987. SPE 16052.
Aadnoy BS. Stresses around horizontal boreholes drilled in sedimentary rocks. J Petrol Sci Eng 1989;2(4):34960.
Aadnoy, B., Hareland, G and Kustamsi, A. Borehole Failure Related to Bedding Plane. In Proceedings of the ARMA ,
Conference, Asheville, North Carolina, June 28 th July 1, 2009.
Anthony J.L Crook, Jian- Guo Yu, Stephen M. Willson Development of an Orthotropic 3D Elastoplastic Material Model
for Shale presented in the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Texas , 20-23 October 2002.
Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Relationship between the parameters of the Mogi and Coulomb failure criterion. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2005;42(3):4319.
Al-Ajmi, A.M.,Sultan Qaboos U,; and Zimmerman, R.W. Stability Analysis of Deviated Boreholes Using the MogiCoulomb Failure Criterion, With Applications to Some Oil and Gas Reservoirs presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Bangkok, Thailand, 13-15 November 2006.
Bradley WB. Mathematical concept-stress cloud can predict borehole failure. Oil & Gas J 1979;77(8):92102.
Chenevert E, Mengjiao Yu, Mukul M Sharma Chemical mechanical wellbore instability model for shales: accounting for
solute diffusion center for petroleum and geosystems engineering, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003)
131-143.
Fjr E, Holt M., Hoursrud P., Raaen M Petroleum related rock mechanics 2nd addition,
Hoursrud, P., Holt M., and E. F. Sonstebo, & Bostrom B., Time dependent borehole stability: laboratory studies and
numerical simulation of different mechanisms in shale presented at the Eurock SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August 1994.
Ewy RT, Ross GD, Gast MR, Steiger RP. North Sea case histories of wellbore stability predictions for successful high-angle
Nelson Field wells. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling conference, Dallas,
Fairhurst C. On the determination of the state of stress in rock masses. In: Proceedings of the Annual AIME meeting,
Chicago, February 1418, 1965. SPE 1062.
Fonseca C.F., Chemical mechanical modeling of wellbore instability in shales. Proceeding of ETCE 2000 and OMAE
2000 Joint Conference: Energy for the New Millenium, Feb. 14 17, 2000, New Orleans, LA.
Gil Ivan and Roegiers, Borehole Design: Stability Considerations presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference
held inving Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
Islam M.A , Skalle P., and Tantserev E., Prediction and evaluation of collapse pressure risk for vertical and horizontal
wells in undervalanced drilling in shales International Conference Proceeding, International Conference of mechanical
Engineering ( ICME,09), Dhaka, 28-30 December 2009.
Islam M.A, Skalle P and Mahmud H., In situ stress pattern and its impact on stable drilling A sensitivity Analysis
Internationa Conference Proceeding, Geoscience for Global Development ( GeoDev, 09) , Dhaka, 26-29 October , 2009.
Jaeger JC, Cook NGW. Fundamentals of rock mechanics. 3rd ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1979.
IPTC 13475
17
McLean M, Addis M. Wellbore stability: the effect of strength criteria on mud weight recommendations. In: Proceedings of
the 65th annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of petroleum engineers, New Orleans, September 2326, 1990.
SPE 20405.
Mogi K. Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite and limestone. Tectonophysics 1971;11(11):11127.
McLean M, Addis M. Wellbore stability analysis: a review of current methods of analysis and their field application. In:
Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling conference, Houston, Texas, February 27March 2, 1990. SPE 19941.
Nobuo Morita, SPE, Waseda University, 2004. Well Orientation Effect on Borehole Stability presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A, 26-29 September 2004.
Sreide O.K., Bostrm, B. And Horsrud, P Borehole stability simulations of an HPHT field using anisotropic shale
modelling, In Proceedings of the ARMA , Conference, Asheville, North Carolina, June 28 th July 1, 2009.
10. Appendix A
Table A1: Stress fields data used in simulation model: data from Gulfask field, North Sea.
Case name
Case-1, 1200 m
H h V
302524
H V h
4641.535
V H h
52.550.546.5
Others parameters
Pp=18 MPa, C0= 5 MPa , To=1 MPa, =0.2 ,
= 300, , = 900
Pp=30 MPa, C0=10 MPa , To=2 MPa, =0.25,
= 300, = 900,
Pp=40 MPa ,C0=10 MPa , To=2 MPa, =0.3 ,
= 300, = 900
NF : 1>2>3
SS: 2>1>3
SS: 2>3>1
The mechanical properties: Used in numerical simulation model
Elastic rock: E = 120 MPa, = 0.3
Elasto- Plastic rock: E = 120 MPa, = 0.3, yield o = 20 Mpa, with p=0, yield = 28 Mpa, with p=0.004
18
IPTC 13475
a)
b)
V
V
h
III
Y*
h
y
II
X*
x
H
h
V
I
z
Z*
Fig. A1 Wellbore orientation vs principle stress direction (a) and vs. an arbitrary stress axis (b)
y sin 2 a. H cos 2 a. h
[A-1]
ii) The stress at the borehole wall based on condition for mechanical equilibrium & impermeable borehole wall:
r Pwell
[A-2]
r rz 0
iii) Proncipal stresses at borehole wall which are orthogonal to each other; these are
1
z 1 z 2 4 2z
2
2
1
1
2 z z 2 4 2z
2
2
3 Pw
[A-3]
[A-4]
[A-5]
1/ C0 3/ tan 2
[A-6]
Where;
1/ 1 f
and
Pw f
/
3
1
r
[A-7]
[A-8]
IPTC 13475
19
The minimum mud weight solution to Prevent Collapse solution will be:
P(a)w, min =
1
Pf
A 2 zz tan 2 2 tan 2 tan 2 Pf C0
2
2
2
2
tan (1 tan )
zz Pf C0
2
2
2
2 Pf C0 C0 tan zz 2C0 A tan 2 zz A tan
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
tan
tan
[Eq. A]