9

Shale and Wellbore Integrity

J. William Carey1 and Malin Torsæter 2

Abstract
Clay‐rich shale poses substantial challenges to establishing well integrity during drilling, operation and aban-
donment of wells used in oil and gas production, CO2 sequestration, and other waste disposal activities. We
review problems created by shale for borehole stability, zonal isolation, and long‐term (100s of years) integrity.
Shale mechanical weakness and susceptibility to infiltration of drilling fluids can result in hole enlargement and
collapse, stuck drilling tools, and difficulty cementing, among other issues that compromise well integrity. These
problems can be managed by adjusting the drilling mud density and manipulating the drilling mud chemistry
(oil‐based versus water‐based). Loss of zonal isolation in a well results in fluid escape through the cement‐filled
annulus between casing and rock. Experimental studies of bond strength between cement and shale show that
strength is a complex function of the extent of drilling damage to shale and the presence of residual drilling
fluids and filter cake. Mechanical modeling of stresses induced by drilling and well operations can be used to
characterize risk of damaging the integrity of the cement‐shale bond. CO2 sequestration poses new challenges
with the requirement of well integrity over periods of 100s of years. Evidence of chemical reactions involving
CO2, cement and rock that promote self‐sealing of leakage pathways show promise for maintenance of long‐
term integrity. In addition, concerns of degradation of cement and steel over these long periods may be miti-
gated by the capacity of some shale to creep under long‐term stress potentially maintaining zonal isolation as
demonstrated in some wells in the North Sea.

9.1. ­INTRODUCTION ­ ncontrolled or catastrophic flow of subsurface fluids (e.g.,

Shale presents both challenges and opportunities in
establishing well integrity for oil and gas, CO2 sequestra-
tion, and other subsurface applications. Well integrity
­programs begin during well design, and continue through
drilling, completions, operations, and finally well aban-
donment. The primary objectives are to facilitate opera-
tion of the well and to isolate fluids in the subsurface
thereby preventing uncontrolled movement of fluids from
the target reservoir or anywhere along the borehole.
During the drilling phase, well integrity involves preventing
1
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
2
Department of Petroleum, SINTEF Industry, Trondheim,
Norway
u
blowouts), but also ensuring that the resulting borehole
wall has a reasonably uniform geometry and does not cave‐
in prematurely or suffer from washouts (hole enlargement).
During completions (cementing operations and the
installation of production/injection hardware), well
integrity includes uniform placement of cement and the
development of a good bond between the cement and bore-
hole wall that prevents fluid migration. During the opera-
tional phase, well integrity involves ensuring that the
wellbore system (steel casing‐cement‐borehole wall) is
capable of absorbing the mechanical, thermal, and chemical
stresses that accompany production and injection activities
without compromising well safety and zonal isolation.
Finally, abandonment requires that the wellbore system
permanently isolates fluids in the subsurface, protecting
both the environment and other subsurface resources.

Shale: Subsurface Science and Engineering, Geophysical Monograph 245, First Edition.
Edited by Thomas Dewers, Jason Heath, and Marcelo Sánchez.
© 2020 American Geophysical Union. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
145
146  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
Shale comprises more than 50% of the sedimentary
record (Boggs, 2009) and is encountered in almost all
deep drilling operations. In the context of well integrity,
shale is a difficult borehole material because of its reac-
tive chemical and mechanical character. In the sections
that follow, we describe how the properties of shale
impact three key aspects of wellbore integrity: (i) bore-
hole stability during drilling; (ii) zonal isolation; and (iii)
long‐term integrity following abandonment. We close
with a topical discussion of well integrity in relation to
hydraulic fracturing (HF) of shale gas.
We use shale in a generic sense to refer to fine‐grained
sedimentary rock (e.g., particle size < 32 μm) that also
includes mudstone, claystone, and the like. The definition
of shale typically does not specify mineralogy and shale
may range from clay‐rich to carbonate‐rich to quartz‐
feldspar‐rich end‐members. In this review, we focus on
clay‐rich shale as this composition presents the greatest
challenges with respect to chemical and mechanical reac-
tivity. As described in more detail below, clay‐rich shale
impacts well integrity through its relative mechanical
ductility during deformation and, in the case of smectite‐
type clays, swelling behavior in response to chemical
changes and water exposure.
9.2. ­SHALE AND BOREHOLE STABILITY
Successful drilling programs through shale achieve
safe and stable drilling at a satisfactory speed and reach
the target reservoir in a way that optimizes production.
One of the major time thieves and cost drivers of shale
drilling is borehole instability (Mody and Hale, 1993;
Steiger and Leung, 1989; Van Oort, 2003). This creates a
variety of problems that are related to weak rock strength
and infiltration of water into shale including: hole
enlargement (“washouts”), hole collapse, long‐term
creep, rock fracturing (leading to loss of drilling mud or
“lost circulation”), slow drilling rates (“balling”), stuck
tools, difficulty running casing, difficulty pulling and
running the drill stem into the hole (“tripping”), chal-
lenges in cleaning the hole of debris, torque and drag on
the pipe, difficulty cementing, and unwanted deviation
of the well (e.g., Mody and Hale, 1993; Petrowiki, 2016).
Mody and Hale (1993) estimated that more than 90%
of such instabilities occur in shale formations. These
cost the petroleum industry hundreds of million dollars
each year, and amount to 5–10% of the total drilling
costs in exploration and production (Santarelli and
Carminati, 1995).
The key parameters in understanding borehole stability
are the use of mud weight to prevent mechanical damage
and the control of fluid penetration into the shale. Fluids
can enter shale through the pressure difference between
the drilling mud and the formation pore‐pressure and/
or through osmotic pressure gradients (Mody and Hale,
1993). Once fluid penetrates the shale, mechanical insta-
bility can develop by decreased effective pressure in rela-
tion to Mohr–Coulomb mechanical failure or by chemical
responses that result in swelling of clay or changes to
cementation of the shale mineral fabric that modify the
mechanical properties of clay (Van Oort, 2003).
Field experience shows that borehole stability is a spe-
cial challenge when drilling deviated, multilateral, and
horizontal wells; when drilling infill wells into depleted
reservoirs; and when drilling in deep water, tectonically
active areas, or other geologically complex surroundings
(Fjær et al., 2008; Steiger and Leung, 1992). The topic is
thus of increasing importance in today’s petroleum
industry, with a growing demand for more sophisticated
well trajectories through shale formations.
9.2.1. Impact of Mud Weight on Borehole Stability
When it comes to borehole stability, the initial focus of
a drilling engineer is on controlling the mud weight. The
mud column along the well should normally not exert a
pressure higher than the fracturing pressure of the drilled
rock, or lower than the pore pressure of the formation.
Mud weight can be altered by adding “weighting agents,”
such as barite, to the mud to adjust its density and
thereby the pressure exerted on the wellbore. The term
“mud weight window” is used to denote the range of dif-
ferent mud weights allowing safe drilling. If the mud
weight is too low, the borehole can close up around the
drill string (Fig. 9.1a), and if it is too high, the formation
can fracture (Fig. 9.1b).
(a) (b)
Too high
Too low
mud weight mud weight
Mud window
pmin pmax
Figure 9.1 A schematic illustration (not to scale) of: (a) the
inward collapse of the borehole that can occur if the drilling
mud weight is too low and (b) the fracturing of the formation that
can occur if the drilling mud weight is too high.

Compressive wellbore failure (collapse) is typically
referred to by drillers as either a “tight hole” or a “stuck
pipe” incident, while wellbore fracturing is typically
referred to as a “lost circulation” or “mud loss” situation.
Tight hole is identified when the torque on the drill pipe
is so high that it is difficult to rotate or completely stuck.
In weak, deformable shale the situation is generally
caused by reduced borehole diameter. This can be due to
shale swelling or mechanical deformation (e.g., caused by
too low mud weight). Increased borehole size can also
cause tight hole/stuck pipe problems. This typically
occurs in brittle shales, and can be explained by the
creation of localized pockets/washouts where shale cut-
tings end up instead of being transported to surface.
These issues are typically difficult to distinguish from
hole cleaning problems. In any case, sidetracking or
extensive reaming is typically necessary to resolve a stuck
pipe situation, and at worst the drillstring is lost.
Lost circulation/mud loss is a situation where a
significant amount of drilling mud is lost into an existing
or newly created fracture (e.g., caused by too high mud
weight, Figure 9.1). This has an economic impact, since
the mud is expensive, and a safety impact, since loss of
mud can lead to a pressure reduction in the well because
the height of the mud column is reduced. This can allow
pore fluid flow into the well from permeable layers. If gas
is present, this may lead to a quick increase in well
pressure (referred to as a “kick”) and a blowout risk,
thereby representing a threat to lives and equipment. The
desire to avoid such incidents sets an upper limit to the
mud weight. Shale is challenging in this respect because it
may have relatively low mechanical strength and thus is
more susceptible to mud weight‐induced fracturing.
Mitigation of lost circulation is possible using “lost
circulation materials” (e.g., ground minerals and fibers)
that are designed to bridge off or plug fractures.
9.2.2. Impact of Fluid Penetration on Borehole Stability
When drilling through shale, the choice of mud is of
utmost importance. Oil‐based muds (OBMs) are gener-
ally superior to water‐based muds (WBMs) for most
shale types (Mody and Hale, 1993; Van Oort, 2003).
Striking evidence of this was found in a study of Italian
wells, where only 4 wells out of 26 drilled with OBM
had stuck pipe, while 40 out of 74 wells drilled with
WBM had stuck pipe (Santarelli and Carminati, 1995).
However, for environmental reasons, it is often still
necessary to use WBM in many locations, since OBMs
require special authorization and cause expensive cut-
tings disposal procedures (Anderson et  al., 2010;
Santarelli and Carminati, 1995).
The question of exactly why OBMs are superior to
WBMs for shale drilling is still not fully settled. It is likely
Shale and Wellbore Integrity  147
that a combination of effects is at play, but shale swelling
is likely to be of primary importance (e.g., Anderson
et al., 2010). Many shales are rich in clay minerals, some
of which (i.e., smectite minerals) swell when in contact
with water. Swelling has been widely studied by soil scien-
tists using X‐ray diffraction, in which they found that
water adsorption on reactive clay minerals provokes a
reversible but hysteretic volume increase of the mineral
structure that may exceed 80% (Mooney et  al., 1952;
Santarelli and Carminati, 1995). The swelling problem is
most pronounced in Na‐rich smectite (e.g., Na‐montmo-
rillonite; Anderson et  al., 2010). The swelling pressure
can be interpreted as reducing the effective stress and
thus moving the shale into a region of mechanical failure
(Van Oort, 2003). A variety of means have been devel-
oped to control or inhibit swelling through the use of
chemical additives including KCl solutions and various
polymer additives such as polyethylene glycol (Anderson
et al., 2010; Van Oort, 2003).
In addition to hydrostatic pressure, capillary action is
an important mechanism for water uptake in shale. This
is the migration of fluid into narrow spaces due to surface
tension and adhesion. Given the small pore‐size distribu-
tion in shales, capillary forces will cause the threshold
entry pressure for oil displacing water into shale to be
very high (Fjær et al., 2008). This means that oil cannot
easily penetrate into the shale pores, thereby giving excel-
lent wellbore stability. This is in line with early observa-
tions of the beneficial effect of OBMs in hard, low‐reactivity
shale (O’Brien and Chenevert, 1973).
In addition to hydrostatic pressure and capillary
suction, water can also be driven into shale by osmosis. In
this case, the driving force is the difference in the chemical
activity of the water molecules in the borehole fluid com-
pared to the activity of water molecules in the shale
maintained by a semipermeable membrane. Numerous
investigations have shown that shale acts as a semiperme-
able membrane such that water will move from borehole
fluid into shale where the shale fluid is more saline than
borehole fluid thereby causing shale expansion (Mody
and Hale, 1993). Similarly, water moves from shale to the
borehole fluid if the borehole fluid is more saline than
shale causing shale shrinkage. Adding salt to the drilling
mud will, in other words, drive water out of the shale and
hence reduce its pore pressure and improve borehole sta-
bility. This is a commonly used method to prevent and
deal with borehole stability problems today. Onaisi et al.
(1993) conducted experiments in unconfined and con-
fined hollow cylinders of shale and used X‐ray tomog-
raphy to reveal failure patterns in the borehole wall where
the osmotic gradient caused water to infiltrate the shale.
Osmotic transport has been observed both with OBMs
and WBMs, but it is still debated what the semipermeable
membrane is in both these systems (Mody and Hale,
148  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
1993). Ion transport has also been observed in shale,
meaning that the membrane can at best be characterized
as “leaky” (Fjær et al., 2008).
Drilling fluids can also cause chemical transformations
of shale minerals (Van Oort, 2003). Geochemists have
long studied the thermodynamic stability of shale‐forming
minerals contacted by brines. It has been found that
muds  containing potassium are likely to destabilize kao-
linite (Santarelli and Carminati, 1995). Mineralogical
transformations of other shale‐forming minerals have
also been established. For example, exposing Pierre shale
sample to KCl mud resulted in significant illitization of the
smectite up to 12 mm from the shale interface (Santarelli
and Carminati, 1995). The chemical transformation of
minerals can cause changes in the mechanical strength of
shale through changes in cementation. A kaolinite con-
taining shale is weakened by exposure to KCl while shales
without kaolinite show no strength differences (Santarelli
and Carminati, 1995).
9.2.3. Impact of Well Trajectory on Borehole Stability
The inclination of a well (with respect to the bedding
orientation in the shale) is important for borehole sta-
bility. Shale is anisotropic both in stiffness and strength,
and this topic has been widely explored among mining
and tunneling engineers. If a tunnel strikes parallel to a
preferred fracture orientation in the mountain, bolts will
be used to stabilize the rock mass. The drilling engineer
has to rely on overpressure from the drilling fluid instead
of bolts to ensure radial support, making this topic
highly relevant for horizontal (or highly inclined) dril-
ling. Økland and Cook (1998) reported field experience
from Oseberg (North Sea, Norway) on bedding‐related
borehole instability. They had encountered significant
stability problems in highly inclined wells, where
vertical drilling through the same shale section had been
problem‐free. Their study, which included a series of
hollow cylinder tests on core material, concluded that
the borehole stability problems appeared to be caused by
bedding plane splitting. The failure response in the
cylinder tests indicated that holes parallel to bedding
were much weaker than holes normal to bedding. Their
conclusion was that holes drilled with an angle smaller
than 10° away from the bedding plane (nearly parallel to
bedding) resulted in catastrophic borehole instability
and large cavings. A caving is a piece of rock coming
from the wellbore that was not removed by the action of
the drill bit. This finding is in agreement with more
recent studies done by Gabrielsen et  al. (2011) and
Torsæter et al. (2014). They both exposed hollow cylinder
shale samples to drilling conditions and observed that
samples drilled parallel to bedding produced larger cav-
ings than those drilled normal to bedding.
9.2.4. Impact of the Bottom Hole Assembly
on Borehole Stability
The bottom hole assembly is the lowest part of the
drill string, consisting of the drill bit and typically stabi-
lizers and reamers. Stabilizers are used to keep the drill
string in the center of the hole, and they typically have
straight or spiral‐shaped blades. Roller reamers have
multiple cylinders equally spaced in a single transverse
section. They are used to enlarge the borehole to the
desirable size during drilling. Both are schematically
illustrated in Figure 9.2. Their use and type depends on
the planned behavior and steering capability of the bot-
tom hole assembly.
Since shale permeability is low, there may be no filter
cake buildup during drilling (Ladva et  al., 2004). The
borehole wall is thus directly exposed to the rotating
action of the drillstring and the stabilizers/roller reamers.
The blades on the stabilizers (and especially their edges)
have the potential for digging into the borehole wall in
unstable shale. Gabrielsen et  al. (2011) investigated this
phenomenon with a purpose‐built experimental cell,
exposing hollow Pierre shale cylinders to relevant drilling
conditions (mud flow, rotating drillstring with straight
blade stabilizer). They investigated the effect of two dif-
ferent drillstring rotation speeds (80 and 150 rpm) and
mud circulation rates equivalent to about 1500 L/min in
the field. It was found that high stabilizer rotation speed
introduced significantly more damage (microfracturing)
to the borehole wall than low speed. Mud pressure/flow
was also observed to produce some damage, but less than
the stabilizer. Torsæter et al. (2014) conducted a detailed
scanning electron microscopy study of these samples and
reported a smearing of shale fragments back onto the
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 9.2  Schematic illustration of (a) straight blade stabilizer,
(b) spiral blade stabilizer, and (c) roller reamer.
 Shale and Wellbore Integrity  149

borehole wall during drilling. It is likely that different sta- C B A A B C

bilizers/reamers cause different types of failure/smearing
during drilling, but no systematic study has explored this Conductor
topic in detail. Another topic that remains unexplored is casing
how the translational (pulling/drilling) speed of the bot-
tom hole assembly influences the damage pattern in shale.
Surface
9.2.5. Impact on Well Integrity casing

Cement
Borehole instability can create an unknown (and often
irregular) wellbore geometry that creates challenges in
Production
calculating the correct cement volumes necessary to
casing
­completely fill the hole and stabilize the casing. If the
formation wall is fractured or fragmented, bonding of
cement to the wall may be ineffective and leakage can Cement top
occur through this fragmented zone, even if cement is
correctly placed in the borehole. Irregular wellbore geom-
etry can also make it difficult to interpret cement bond
logs, which usually assume a gauge hole with known size Production
that may be used to evaluate proper cement placement. tubing

9.3. ­SHALE AND ZONAL ISOLATION

Zonal isolation prevents fluids from migrating between

subsurface reservoirs and the surface. This is most often
accomplished by sealing the annulus between the bore- Perforations
hole and casing with Portland cement (Fig. 9.3). Failure
of zonal isolation can result in fluids leaking to the sur-
face and contaminating groundwater resources. In rela-
tionship to shale caprock, this can occur because of
incomplete placement of cement or a poor bond between
Figure 9.3 Schematic diagram of production well showing
cement and the shale borehole wall (problems that may
the position of cement, casing, and production tubing. Three
have originated due to borehole instability discussed in
annuli are labeled (A, B, and C).
Section 9.2).
Failure of zonal isolation can be detected by the
presence of elevated gas pressure in one of the well annuli
shown in Figure  9.3. This is known as sustained casing
pressure and has several possible origins including incom-
Cement Shale
plete bonding between cement and caprock (Wojtanowicz,
2008). However, if gas migrates outside surface casing, Washout
then leakage may be observed as elevated gas concentra- Incomplete
tions in the soil surrounding the well (e.g., Erno and cementing
Schmitz, 1996; Watson and Bachu, 2009) and, in a worst‐
Shale fragments
case scenario, in contaminated drinking water aquifers.
The latter events appear to be relatively rare. Kell (2011)
Casing

documented 63 cases of well integrity failure (a rate of Damaged shale

0.1% of wells) in a study covering 25 years of oil and gas
activity in Ohio and 32 cases (a rate of 0.02% of wells) in
Texas over a period of 16 years. Poor bond
Carey (2013) reviewed possible leakage mechanisms
in wellbore systems. Key mechanisms relevant to the
discussion of shale are illustrated in Figure 9.4. These Figure 9.4 Schematic close‐up view of the steel casing‐
revolve around the existence of a poor bond, shale Portland cement‐shale interface and potential leakage
fragments plastered to the borehole wall, washouts, or pathways.
150  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
fractured shale in the borehole wall. The potential for
leakage can be monitored by several wireline‐logging
methods. Although a difficult measurement, the cement‐
rock interface can be interrogated using acoustic and
ultrasonic bond logs (e.g., Loizzo et al., 2013). These pro-
duce signals that can be used to diagnose the presence or
absence of microannulus separating the cement and cap-
rock. More direct methods of assessing leakage potential
behind casing include external mechanical integrity tests
that sense fluid migration outside the casing: (i) tempera-
ture logs that are sensitive to fluids of contrasting tem-
perature; (ii) acoustic logs that listen for the sound of
fluid percolation; and (iii) injection of radioactive tracers
and monitoring for movement up the casing annulus
(McKinley, 1994).
Direct evidence for leakage has been found in a study
of well integrity in a CO2‐enhanced oil recovery field.
Carey et  al. (2007) observed evidence for migration of
CO2 along the interface between cement and the shale
caprock (Fig. 9.5). They obtained samples of cement and
shale by coring through the casing in a region 3 m above
the contact with the reservoir. They observed that
migrating CO2 had reacted with the cement producing an
orange alteration zone that provided an easy means of
identifying the extent of the leakage process. They inter-
preted the leakage as arising from a poor seal that resulted
from either a porous zone formed by shale fragments or
from incomplete removal of drilling mud at the cement‐
Unaltered cement
Orange
carbonated cement
Shale caprock
Carbonate vein
Cement interface
Caprock interface
Figure 9.5 Photograph of wellbore cement and adjacent
caprock showing evidence of CO2 migration along the
cement‐caprock interface in the form of orange‐colored,
carbonated cement. About 1″ across; cf., Carey et al. (2007)
© Elsevier.
casing interface. Crow et  al. (2010) made similar direct
observations of CO2 leakage along the cement‐shale cap-
rock interface in a well from a natural CO2 reservoir.
However, in this case there was no evidence of filter cake
or fragmented shale or other clear signs of a poor bond.
It is clear that shale can complicate the placement of
cement and the attainment of zonal isolation for reasons
discussed in Section  9.2. Mechanical failure of shale
can lead to material sloughing into the borehole that is
difficult to remove during cement placement, borehole
enlargement (washouts) that is difficult to fill with
cement, or a surface that fails to bond with cement.
Unfortunately, we have not found any studies that specif-
ically address well integrity failure rates in terms of cap-
rock lithology.
9.3.1. Bond Strength of Cement‐Caprock
Good bond strength between cement and caprock is a
certainly favorable toward establishing well integrity. The
requirements for bond strength to achieve well integrity,
however, are less clear. In this section, we review what is
known about cement‐caprock on strength as obtained
from experimental studies.
First, we note that the drilling process does not leave a
smooth, bare rock surface. At a minimum the surface is
coated with fluid that may be a water‐based mud (WBM),
an oil‐based mud (OBM), or perhaps a spacer fluid that
flushes the borehole ahead of cement placement. In
addition, a filter cake may be present on the borehole
wall to the extent that permeability of the shale allows
penetration of higher‐pressure drilling fluid into caprock
(e.g., Ladva et al., 2004). The filter cake may consist of
ground rock and bentonite or other additives in the dril-
ling fluid. The impact of filter cake on shale is not clear
because the low permeability of shale may preclude a
buildup of a filter cake. If a filter cake were present,
bonding would be to the filter cake rather than directly
to the fluid‐coated borehole wall and would likely be
quite weak.
The first comprehensive study of cement bonding in a
downhole environment was made by Evans and Carter
(1962). They defined and investigated two failure modes
of the cement bond. The shear bond was defined as the
bond that supports casing/rock within the borehole, and
it fails as a result of stresses causing differential movement
of cement in relation to surrounding rock/pipe. The
hydraulic bond was defined as the bond that prevents fluid
migration between the cement and casing/rock. This fails
as a result of high fluid pressure overcoming the bond
strength and separating the materials in tension. The typ-
ical experimental measurement of the two different bond
strengths is depicted in Figure 9.6. We note that the two

F F
(a) (b)
p related to well integrity in CO2 sequestration and HF.
Figure 9.6 Schematic illustration of measure­ment of cement
bond strength with steel casing: (a) shear bond testing mea-
sured by a push‐out experiment, (b) hydraulic bond test by
pressuring a radial channel in the cement. After Evans and
Carter (1962) © American Petroleum Institute).
modes can be combined. Shear failure of the cement
interface can result in lowered hydraulic bond strength
and the leakage of formation fluids.
Several factors affect the bonding strength between
well cement and rock/pipe including: brand/type of
cement, cement additives, curing temperature/pressure,
surface properties of the casing/rock, presence and type
of fluid on the casing/rock face, and the presence or
absence of filter cake on the rock face (e.g., Carpenter
et al., 1992; Carter and Evans, 1964; Evans and Carter,
1962; Ladva et al., 2004). Several studies have found that
roughness of the casing surface, for example, caused by
rust or resin‐sand coating, provided better shear and
hydraulic bond strengths. It was also revealed that while
temperature did not affect hydraulic bond strength signif-
icantly, curing pressure did increase bond strength. A
correlation between shear bond strength and compressive
strength with a ratio of 10% at 1000 psi and 6.5% at
4000 psi was observed (Evans and Carter, 1962). Some
cement additives, like water‐wetting surfactants and high
temperature expansive substances, were also found to
improve cement bonding to pipes. Films of drilling mud,
either water‐based, oil‐based, or inverted oil emulsions,
were all found to degrade the cement bonding quality to
casing steel.
Evans and Carter (1962) found that cement‐bonding
strength to dry rock was excellent and was near 4100 psi
for shear bond strength and 10,200 psi for hydraulic
bond strength using cement type A. However, when
they simulated the development of a filter cake by
squeezing a 6% bentonite‐bearing mud against the for-
mations, they saw a dramatic reduction in strength to
260 and 305 psi for shear and hydraulic bond strengths,
similar in magnitude to those obtained for bonding bet-
ween cement and casing. These results are in agreement
with those found by Ladva et  al. (2004), who showed
Shale and Wellbore Integrity  151
that the presence of a mud film significantly reduced
the cement‐formation shear bond strength from 120
to ≤1 psi.
A renewed interest in the question of cement bonding
is evident from recent papers focusing on questions
Torsæter et  al. (2015) found that failure of a cement‐
sandstone sample occurred both at the interface and
within an interfacial transition zone of lower strength
adjacent to the sandstone. Opedal et  al. (2014) mea-
sured shear bond strength of cement against sand-
stone, chalk, limestone, and three types of clay‐bearing
shale (Mancos, Eagle Ford, and Marcellus) as a
function of the presence of a water film, a water‐based
mud (WBM) film, or an oil‐based mud (OBM) film.
They also used X‐ray tomography to map how much
of the cement was in direct contact with rock (100%
contact equals perfect bonding). For all rock types, a
pure water film yielded complete bonding and relatively
high shear bond strengths (near 500 psi). Both OBM
and WBM reduced the contact area and the shear
bond  strengths for all rock types to 200–400 psi. For
the shale samples in the study, the measured contact
percentages and shear bond strengths are given in
Figure 9.7.
Liu et  al. (2015) proposed a new way to measure the
shear bond strength between cement and rock (Fig. 9.8).
They argue that since the push‐out test does not always
cause failure at the interface when studying bonding to
brittle rocks, a new test methodology is needed. They
demonstrated their setup by measuring the strength bet-
ween Colorado oil shale (no reactive clays, naturally oil‐
wet, 38% quartz) and Portland cement (classes A, C, and
H). The cement‐to‐shale bond strength was measured to
be 950 psi for class A, 500 psi for class C, and 820 psi for
class H. A new method for measuring tensile bond
strength between cement and rocks was also proposed
(Fig.  9.8b). This is an important input for modeling of
cement debonding from its downhole surroundings. They
measured the tensile bond strength between class H
cement and Colorado shale to be 55 psi with a standard
deviation of 7 psi.
Poor bonding between cement and caprock can, at
worst, lead to leakage of formation fluids and should be
avoided. In samples made with intentionally bad cement‐
shale bonding, Opedal et  al. (2015) and Kjøller et  al.
(2016) have investigated worst‐case leakage scenarios of
CO2. They found a correlation between the cross‐sec-
tional area and connectivity of leakage paths and the
amount of leakage. The take‐home message from both
these studies is that a focus on obtaining good cement
bonding along the caprock section will strongly improve
the integrity and the robustness of a well.
152  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
100
80
Cement-shale contact (%)
60
OBM
40
20
0
180 230
Figure 9.7  Cement‐shale contact surfaces and push‐out shear bond strengths measured by Opedal et al. (2014)
for three different shale types. WBM is seen to reduce the shear bond strength significantly, even if the contact
percentage is still high. OBM is seen to reduce both the shear bond strength and the contact percentage. The var-
iability between different shale samples is evident from the results.
F Thiercelin et  al. (1997) and Philippacopoulos and
(a)
F
(b)
Figure 9.8  Methodologies for measuring (a) cement‐rock shear
bond strength and (b) cement‐rock tensile bond strength as
proposed by Liu et al. (2015). The green arrow represents the
force applied to the composite samples.
9.3.2. Mechanical Modeling of the  resulted in increased tendency to tensile failure but
Cement‐Caprock System
Mechanical models are commonly used to analyze
borehole stability during the drilling phase, but have
not been as commonly applied to the type of stresses
that the full casing‐cement‐rock formation system may
experience during the life of the well. These models
are  complex because of the differing material prop-
erties involved (steel, cement, rock, and filter cake),
well ­orientation and bedding geometry, and the uncer-
tainties with respect to the state of stress present in
the  materials around the wellbore following comple-
tion of the well. In the following, we discuss a few
examples of the historical development of modeling to
analyze well integrity.
WBM Pure water
Mancos
Eagle Ford
Marcellus
280 330 380 430 480 530
Shear bond strength (psi)
Berndt (2002) developed analytical and finite‐element
models based on a 2‐D (plane‐strain) representation of
multicased wells and explored the effects of changes in
well pressure and temperature. Their models did not
include poroelastic effects and did not consider inter-
face phenomena. They found that stiffer cements may
be problematic as they generated increased radial com-
pressive stresses in the cement but that hoop stresses
could be either compressive or tensile depending on the
contrast in stiffness between the cement and the rock
formation.
Jo and Gray (2010) considered both tensile and shear‐
failure modes in cement but focused only on deformation
of the cement. They developed a poroelastic model for
inclined wells and addressed the problem of temperature‐
and well pressure‐induced damage to the cement‐sheath.
They compared both analytical and numerical solutions
and found: (i) an increase in stiffness of the cement
reduced shear failure; (ii) an increase in temperature
reduced both tensile and shear failure tendencies; and (iii)
an increase in pressure inside the well increases tensile
failure and reduces shear failure tendencies.
Bois et  al. (2009) provide a very useful summary of
modeling approaches in relation to experimental studies
of well integrity. They emphasize that most models are
not capable of representing the role of plastic deforma-
tion (perhaps chiefly in cement but also in the rock
formation) in the debonding of the cement interfaces.
Their finite element model (FEM) focused on poroelastic
effects and the debonding of the cement interfaces with
cement or rock, in which they identify pressure changes
in the well and cement hydration state as critical parame-
ters. They assume zero tensile strength at the interfaces
 Shale and Wellbore Integrity  153

and calculate, for example, microannulus formation and elliptical borehole shape that are interpreted as arising
aperture as a function of the magnitude of pressure and from far‐field stresses (Zoback et al., 2003). In addition,
temperature changes in the well. the action of drilling induces stresses that can generate
Nygaard et  al. (2014) constructed a FEM and exam- damage in the rock (Torsæter et al., 2014). The fractured
ined the effects of temperature and pressure within the caprock can weaken the cement‐rock bond strength but
casing. However, they also considered debonding of can also itself represent a leakage path for fluids outside
interfaces and damage of the rock. They also found that of the cemented annulus.
increasing cement’s Young’s modulus as well as Poisson’s
ratio increased the risk of tensile hoop stresses and the
formation of radial cracks. They note that assuming that 9.4. ­SHALE AND LONG‐TERM WELL INTEGRITY
the cement has an initial hydrostatic stress (zero effective
Over long time periods, new issues in well integrity
stress) results in increased susceptibility to debonding of
arise including the geochemical compatibility of cement,
the cement‐rock interface or radial crack development in
caprock, and steel; the impact of creep or borehole
the cement.
­closure; and the potential for self‐healing behavior. Direct
Kelkar et al. (2014) examined the impact of changes in
sampling of wellbore materials has occurred at a few
reservoir pressure on integrity of the overlying cement‐
sites, primarily in the context of CO2 sequestration,
caprock interface. They used a coupled geomechanics
providing insight into performance over time periods of
and flow simulator using a continuum modeling approach
decades. Carey et  al. (2007) obtained a sidetrack core
in which the poroelastic response of the reservoir to fluid
through a 55‐year‐old well with 30 years of operation as a
injection or depletion generated shear stress at the
CO2 injector and producer (Fig.  9.5). They found evi-
cement‐formation interface. Using a Mohr–Coulomb cri-
dence of CO2 migration at both the cement‐casing and
terion for failure, they found that in the case of injection
cement‐shale interfaces but otherwise concluded that the
into the reservoir and a weak cement‐caprock bond that
well continued to provide effective zonal isolation. They
the interface failed and a high‐permeability zone propa-
also observed chemical reactions at the cement‐shale
gated slowly upward.
interface including self‐healing through carbonate‐­
Lecampion et  al. (2013) considered debonding of the
precipitation. Crow et al. (2010) obtained sidewall cores
cement‐casing and cement‐rock interfaces driven by
from a 30‐year‐old well completed in a natural CO2 reser-
hydraulic pressure in the well annulus. They developed a
voir. They also observed evidence of CO2 migration but
theoretical analysis of the stresses for partial and
again found that cement maintained a low‐permeability
complete debonding and distinguished self‐limiting and
barrier in the annular space between casing and shale
self‐propagating fracture fronts governed by the contrast
caprock. Scherer et  al. (2011) studied a 19‐year‐old oil‐
in fluid pressure within the debonded microannulus and
producing well and found evidence of sulfate attack
the “clamping” stress across the interface. The model pre-
where cement was adjacent to a sandstone and decalcifi-
dicts the rate of progress of the fracture front and finds
cation where cement was adjacent to dolomite. Although
that for self‐propagating conditions debonding will pro-
it can be envisaged that steel and cement may persist
ceed to the surface (e.g., in 40 days for one set of condi-
indefinitely in the subsurface, the gradual deterioration
tions). They validated the model with a set of experiments
of these materials is a significant possibility and the
in a simulated well containing aluminum casing epoxied
question remains as to the whether zonal isolation per-
into an acrylic block. Direct visual observations showed
sists during these changes.
hydraulically driven debonding consistent with their the-
oretical description.
These examples show that modeling the full complexity 9.4.1. Chemical Reactions and Long‐Term Integrity
of the casing‐cement‐formation system is a significant of Cement‐Shale Wellbore Systems
challenge. The representation of the geometry itself
(deviated wells, eccentric casing location, and inclined Studies of the chemical compatibility of cement‐shale
bedding) creates difficult boundary conditions in FEMs. have been conducted in nuclear waste repository studies
A lack of knowledge of the stress state of the cement where similar issues of long‐term behavior exist in rela-
and  the bonding between cement‐casing and cement‐ tion to concrete structures built in shale storage facil-
formation creates uncertainty in the conditions that ities. As described by Gaboreau et  al. (2012), the
would generate failure of cement or interface bonds. chemical environments of cement and shale are quite
Perhaps more relevant to this review is that most models different: high pH in cement (12.5–14) compared with
represent the borehole as circular and smoothwalled. shale (7–9) will drive dissolution and precipitation
Observations of boreholes frequently show fractures in reactions in both shale and cement as diffusion processes
the borehole walls and rock breakout that create an mix the pore fluids. Additional important chemical
154  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
factors include contrasting oxidation potentials and the
potential for carbonation reactions in cement induced
by diffusion of HCO3−/CO3= species from the shale into
the cement.
Read et al. (2001) studied reactions between Boom clay
and cement as part of the HADES underground research
laboratory (URL) in Belgium. The experiments were con-
ducted at 25 and 85 °C for periods of 12 and 18 months
and showed dissolution of portlandite and precipitation
of carbonate in the cement and dissolution and alteration
of clay minerals in the Boom clay. Gaboreau et al. (2012)
obtained 6–7‐year‐old cement‐shale samples from the
Andra URL in France. A porous calcium carbonate crust
formed at the cement‐shale interface and mineral alter-
ation in both cement and shale was observed to depths of
less than 0.5 mm. Iron hydroxides were formed in the
shale from pyrite and siderite, while carbonate and Mg‐
phases formed in the cement from portlandite and other
cement phases. In these relatively short‐term studies, the
depth of penetration of chemical reactions was limited.
None of the chemical changes described in these two
studies and applied to wellbore systems would necessarily
imply decreased well integrity.
9.4.2. Temporal Evolution of the Permeability
of the Cement‐Caprock Interface
There are a number of field and experimental studies
providing measurements of the permeability of the
cement‐caprock interface. This can be done along a
limited length of cement‐caprock outside of the well
using a downhole‐logging tool that creates one or two
perforations in the casing and measures either pressure
decay or pressure communication (Schlumberger’s tools
are called a cased‐hole formation tester, CHFT, and a
Vertical Interference Test, VIT, respectively). Crow et al.
(2010), Gasda et  al. (2011), and Hawkes and Gardner
(2013) used the VIT method and found permeability
values ranging from 0.01 to 5 mD, which is generally
higher than pristine cement or caprock but adequate for
wellbore integrity. Duguid et al. (2014) also used the VIT
method but found a region with very high permeability
that apparently lacked competent cement illustrating the
potential for defective sections of wellbore systems.
Manceau et al. (2015) studied a short‐length replica of a
borehole system at the Mont Terri URL in Switzerland.
They monitored the effective permeability of the cement‐
caprock system as a function of time (1 year) and applied
thermal load (17–52 °C) and increases in fluid pressure.
They found that the elevated temperature reduced the
effective annulus permeability from a high of 20 to
0.01 mD. They also found that jump increases in fluid
pressure resulted in jump increases in permeability, which
decayed over the course of a few days. These results
implied flow through interfaces or fractures that were
opened by fluid pressure but then closed as the system
relaxed.
The self‐sealing behavior observed by Manceau et al.
(2015) has been found in laboratory‐scale studies of
cement‐caprock systems (see reviews by Carey (2013)
and Carroll et  al. (2016)). Newell and Carey (2013)
observed a decrease in permeability of a gouge‐filled
interface between cement and siltstone caprock during
flow of supercritical CO2 and water in a coreflood
experiment. They attributed the drop in permeability to
the migration and precipitation of cement alteration
products. Walsh et  al. (2013) studied the interface bet-
ween a calcite‐cemented quartz sandstone caprock
and cement. They textured the cement surface to create
a permeable pathway and used X‐ray computed tomog-
raphy to characterize the interface following flow of
CO2‐saturated brine. They found that leaching of
calcium‐bearing phases from the cement was counterbal-
anced by mechanical softening of the residual, siliceous
cement. This resulted in closure of the interface under
the confining stress used in the coreflood experiment
and  a decrease in permeability. Buzzi et  al. (2007) also
studied the effect of normal stress on the permeability of
water at the cement‐shale interface. They were able to
completely close the interface in some sample configura-
tions with normal stress of 5–11 MPa. In contrast, Cao
et  al. (2013) found an increase in permeability during
coreflooding with CO2‐saturated brine through a cement‐
sandstone interface. Their experiment began with large
aperture channels at the cement‐sandstone interface
­suggesting that self‐sealing is more effective in narrow
aperture defects (see Brunet et al., 2015).
9.4.3. Fate of Wellbore Systems
The performance of the cement‐shale system over hun-
dreds to even thousands of years has been a subject of
nuclear waste repository studies (e.g., Bradbury et  al.,
2014) but there has been little work in the of area of well-
bore integrity. This issue was recognized in the context of
CO2 sequestration (Metz et al., 2005) but there has been
little work on a conceptual framework for wellbore integ-
rity. At issue is an open question as to the behavior of
wells over hundreds of years when the chemical and
mechanical integrity of the wellbore system is in doubt.
The issue can be illustrated schematically through the
concept of risk as shown in Figure 9.9. The conceptual
model (Benson, 2007) is that project risk during an injec-
tion is low before any fluids are injected and rises as more
and more fluid fills the reservoir. As the reservoir is being
pressured, the driving force for leakage is increasing and
the region affected by the injection plume or pressure
front is increasing. If all goes well, the risk begins to

Project risk
Risk Well risk
?
? and Williams et  al. (2009) proved that the inward
Time
Figure 9.9  Schematic diagram of project and well risk during
a CO2 sequestration project. Risk grows with time as CO2 is
injected and declines after injection ceases. After Benson
(2007). Well risk may also decline but material degradation
could result in increasing risk late in the project.
drop  after injection ceases as various geological factors
lead to the gradual reduction of injection pressure and
the immobilization of the injected fluids. Implicit in this
model is that risk due to wellbore leakage lies within this
risk envelope. Many studies have identified wellbore risk
as an important component of CO2 sequestration project
risk so this is a significant proportion of the total risk
that might occur (e.g., Pawar et al., 2015).
The project risk model implicitly predicts that the risk
of well integrity will also go down with time (Fig. 9.9). In
part, this may be driven solely by the immobilization of
CO2. But in cases where CO2 is injected into a structural
trap, mobile CO2 may persist for very long periods of
time as observed in natural CO2 reservoirs (e.g., Gilfillan
et  al., 2008). In this case, it is an open question as to
whether well integrity risk over the long term decreases.
For long‐term well integrity the primary concerns are
that the steel casing may corrode and the Portland cement
may degrade such that these eventually lose their struc-
tural integrity and capability of maintaining zonal isola-
tion. What remains following degradation is unknown. It
may be a hole filled with porous and permeable frag-
ments, or the hole may close as the caprock system col-
lapses into the well.
All rocks have some tendency to creep and this is par-
ticularly true of some shale (e.g., Sone and Zoback,
2013). As the wells age, the caprock will tend to creep into
the low‐pressure sink that is the well. As the wellbore
materials degrade, caprock deformation may begin to
press into the degrading materials and thereby provide
compaction and the preservation of zonal isolation.
Conceptually, this model suggests that despite material
degradation, creep of the rock mass will tend to compress
the wellbore and maintain at least a low porosity and
reduced permeability zone in the wellbore.
The potential for creep of shale to close and seal off
wellbore annuli was demonstrated in field studies of
Ardila et al. (2009) and Williams et al. (2009). They note
that in many environments bond logs show solid material
Shale and Wellbore Integrity  155
in contact with casing in uncemented regions of wells.
These regions are typically located in the same intervals
that have borehole stability problems where reactive shale
exists (see Section 9.2). The conclusion is that shale has,
through a combination of mechanical failure and creep,
closed off the external well annulus. Ardila et al. (2009)
movement of shale established zonal isolation using
CHFT tests in which they observed that the shale inter-
vals were not in pressure communication with the reser-
voir. They used the CHFT measurements to successfully
petition the Norwegian Continental Shelf regulatory
agency that cementing was not needed to isolate these
intervals.
Clearly, annulus closure depends on the mechanical
properties of the shale. However, given sufficiently long
periods of time, creep may very well limit fluid trans-
missivity through open annuli. We are not aware of
­similar studies conducted on the potential for rock creep
to consolidate and isolate deteriorated cement‐casing
intervals. Nonetheless, this appears to be a promising
approach to characterizing long‐term behavior of the
casing‐cement‐formation system (e.g., Cerasi et al., 2017;
Fjær et al., 2016).
9.5. ­SHALE AND WELL INTEGRITY ISSUES
IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
There has been significant discussion of the possible
environmental impacts of shale gas development and HF
(e.g., Jackson et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2015; King, 2012;
Zoback et al., 2010). The potential for migration of either
injected hydraulic fluids or mobilized methane and
hydrocarbons has been one of the principal environ-
mental concerns. Because of the depth of many HF oper-
ations and the confinement of microseismic activity to
regions far below drinking water aquifers, some have
argued that environmental concerns are not related to the
generation of fractures themselves. Instead, a variety of
studies have concluded that in cases of environmental
contamination (principally methane leakage), the most
likely avenue for migration is through defective wells
(Darrah et al., 2014; Davies et al., 2014; Ingraffea et al.,
2014; Jackson, 2014; Osborn et al., 2011).
If this is the case, it is not HF extending out of the
shale reservoir that is the principal concern but rather it
is the behavior of shale during drilling, cementing, and
subsequent operations that drives leakage risk. The
issue of whether the challenges of developing good well
integrity in shale as playing a direct role in HF environ-
mental issues has been little explored. These challenges
may be a result of cement placement or bonding issues
caused by borehole instability discussed in Section  9.2
or may be related to the mechanical behavior of the
156  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
steel‐cement‐shale system during HF ­ injection pres-
sures. In a numerical study, Kim et al. (2016) find that
high HF pressures can propagate shear failure along the
casing‐cement interface where cement‐casing cohesion
is weak or cement coverage is low. The rate of shear
failure propagation is rapid (on the order of tens of
minutes) with fracture extent depending on the degree
of cohesion (a maximum of 90 m was reached in the
simulations).
Ingraffea et  al. (2014) analyzed statistical evidence
reported to regulatory agencies of higher failure rates of
unconventional (shale gas) wells compared with conven-
tional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. Whether this was
due to the particular practices of HF in Pennsylvania or
due to the properties of Pennsylvania shale are not clear.
Nonetheless, it may be reasonable to assume that com-
pleting wells in shale reservoirs, particularly horizontal
and deviated sections, poses increased challenges in
achieving well integrity. These challenges are likely to be
playing a role in the occurrence of methane leakage from
defective wells.
9.6. ­CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed well integrity issues related to drilling,
completing, and abandoning wells within shale caprock.
Clay‐bearing shale, particularly those containing swelling
clays (smectite), presents many difficulties that originate
with the reactivity of shale with water (a tendency to swell
and to mechanically weaken) and the more general
mechanical weakness and anisotropy of shale. These
properties lead to borehole instability that creates drilling
problems including collapsed holes, enlarged holes, and
lost circulation. These further create difficulties in achiev-
ing complete cement coverage and good bonding between
cement and shale that are necessary to establish zonal iso-
lation in the subsurface. Recent environmental issues in
HF associated with poor well integrity may be aggravated
by shale behavior. In the long term, however, the tendency
of shale to deform plastically and collapse into the bore-
hole may provide a barrier that prevents fluid flow on
timescales of hundreds of years.
­ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL) under Grant Number FE‐371‐14‐FY16, which
is managed and administered by Los Alamos National
Laboratory and funded by DOE/NETL and cost/sharing
partners. We sincerely thank the U.S. Department of
Energy for funding this research. Funding has also been
granted by the Research Council of Norway and industry
sponsors through two projects: CO2 Permeability along
Fragmented Shale Interfaces (255572) and Shale Barrier
Toolbox: Designing future wells for efficient completion
and simpler P&A (280650).
­REFERENCES
Anderson, R. L., Ratcliffe, I., Greenwell, H. C., Williams, P. A.,
Cliffe, S., and Coveney, P. V. (2010). Clay swelling: a challenge
in the oilfield. Earth‐Science Reviews, 98:201–216.
Ardila, M., Achourov, V., Gisolf, A., and Williams, S. (2009).
Formation testing, completion integrity evaluation and geo-
mechanical applications using a wireline cased‐hole formation
tester. In SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference,
Aberdeen, UK, 8–11 September 2009, p. 10. SPE 125106.
Benson, S. M. (2007). Carbon dioxide capture and storage:
research pathways, progress and potential. In Global Climate
and Energy Project Annual Symposium, Stanford, California,
1 October 2007.
Boggs, Jr., S. (2009). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Bois, A.‐P., Garnier, A., Rodod, R., Saint‐Marc, J., and
Aimard,  N. (2009). How to prevent loss of zonal isolation
through a comprehensive analysis of microannulus formation.
In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 4–7 October 2009, p. 19.
Bradbury, M., Berner, U., Curti, E., Hummel, W.,
Kosakowski, G., and Thoenen, T. (2014). The long term geo-
chemical evolution of the nearfield of the HLW repository.
Nagra, Technical Report 12‐01.
Brunet, J.‐P. L., LI, L., Karpyn, Z. T., and Huerta, N. J. (2015).
Fracture opening and self‐sealing: critical residence time as a
unifying parameter for diverging cement fracture evolution
under carbon sequestration conditions. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control, 47:25–37.
Buzzi, O., Hans, J., Boulon, M., Deleruyelle, F., and Besnus, F.
(2007). Hydromechanical study of rock‐mortar interfaces.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32:820–831.
Cao, P., Karpyn, Z. T., and Li, L. (2013). Dynamic alterations
in wellbore cement integrity due to geochemical reactions
in  CO2‐rich environments. Water Resources Research,
49:4465–4475.
Carey, J. W. (2013). Geochemistry of wellbore integrity in CO2
sequestration: Portland cement‐steel‐brine‐CO2 interactions.
In DePaolo, D. J., Cole, D., Navrotsky, A., and Bourg, I., edi-
tors, Geochemistry of Geologic CO2 Sequestration, Reviews in
Mineralogy and Geochemistry 77, chapter 15, pp. 505–539.
Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, DC.
Carey, J. W., Wigand, M., Chipera, S., WoldeGabriel, G.,
Pawar, R., Lichtner, P., Wehner, S., Raines, M., and Guthrie,
Jr., G. D. (2007). Analysis and performance of oil well cement
with 30 years of CO2 exposure from the SACROC Unit, West
Texas, USA. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
1:75–85.
Carpenter, R., Brady, J., and Blount, C. (1992). The effects of
temperature and cement admixes on bond strength. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 44:936–941.
Carroll, S., Carey, J. W., Dzombak, D., Huerta, N., Li, L.,
Richards, T., Um, W., Walsh, S., and Zhang, L. (2016).

Review: role of chemistry, mechanics, and transport on well
integrity in CO2 storage environments. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control, 49:149–160.
Carter, L. B. and Evans, G. W. (1964). Study of cement‐pipe
bonding. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 16:157–160.
Cerasi, P., Lund, E., Kleiven, M. L., Stroisz, A., Pradhan, S.,
Kjøller, C., Frykman, P., and Fjær, E. (2017). Shale creep as
leakage healing mechanism in CO2 sequestration. Energy
Procedia, 114:3096–3112.
Crow, W., Carey, J. W., Gasda, S., Williams, D. B., and Celia, M.
(2010). Wellbore integrity analysis of a natural CO2 producer.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4:186–197.
Darrah, T. H., Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N. R., and
Poreda, R. J. (2014). Noble gases identify the mechanisms of
fugitive gas contamination in drinking‐water wells overlying
the Marcellus and Barnett Shales. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 111(39):14076–14081.
Davies, R. J., Almond, S., Ward, R. S., Jackson, R. B., Adams, C.,
Worrall, F., Herringshaw, L. G., Gluyas, J. G., and Whitehead, M. A.
(2014). Oil and gas wells and their integrity: implications for shale
and unconventional resource exploitation. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 56:239–254.
Duguid, A., Carey, J. W., and Busch, R. (2014). Well integrity
assessment of a 68 year old well at a CO2 injection project.
Energy Procedia, 63:5691–5706.
Erno, B. and Schmitz, R. (1996). Measurements of soil gas
migration around oil and gas wells in the Lloydminster area.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 35:37–46.
Evans, G. W. and Carter, L. G. (1962). Bonding studies of
cementing compositions to pipe and formations. Drilling and
Production Practice, New York, New York, 1 January, pp.
72–79.
Fjær, E., Folstad, J. S., and Li, L. (2016) How creeping shale
may form a sealing barrier around a well. In ARMA 482,
2016. American Rock Mechanics Association, 50th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, Texas,
26–29 June.
Fjær, E., Holt, R. M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A. M., and Risnes, R.
(2008). Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2nd edition.
Developments in Petroleum Science 53, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Gaboreau, S., Lerouge, C., Dwonck, S., Linard, Y., Bourbon,
X., Fialips, C. I., Mazurier, A., Prêt, D., Borschneck, D.,
Montouillout, V., Gaucher, E. C., and Claret, F. (2012). In
Situ interaction of cement past and shotcrete with claystones
in a deep disposal context. American Journal of Science,
312:314–356.
Gabrielsen, G. K., Stenebråten, J., Nes, O‐M., Horsrud, P.,
Naumann, M., and Saasen, A. (2011). Improved under-
standing of the effects from drill string RPM in shale through
dedicated hollow cylinder laboratory tests. In ARMA 11‐504,
2011. American Rock Mechanics Association, 45th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, USA,
26–29 June.
Gasda, S. E., Wang, J. Z., and Celia, M. A. (2011). Analysis of
in‐situ wellbore integrity data for existing wells with long‐
term exposure to CO2. Energy Procedia, 4:5406–5413.
Gilfillan, S. M. V., Ballentine, C. J., Holland, G., Sherwood
Lollar, B., Blagburn, D., Stevens, S., Schoell, M., and Cassidy,
M. (2008). Natural CO2 gas reservoirs from the Colorado
Shale and Wellbore Integrity  157
Plateau and Rocky Mountain provinces, USA as CO2
storage  analogues: 1. Noble gas geochemistry. Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta, 72:1174–1198.
Hawkes, C. D. and Gardner, C. (2013). Pressure transient test-
ing for assessment of wellbore integrity in the IEAGHG
Weyburn‐Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 16,
Supplement 1:S50–S61.
Ingraffea, A. R., Wells, M. T., Santoro, R. L., and Shonkoff, S.
B. C. (2014). Assessment and risk analysis of casing and
cement impairment in oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania,
2000–2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 111(30):10955.
Jackson, R. B. (2014). The integrity of oil and gas wells. Procee­
dings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111:10902–10903.
Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Carey, J. W., Davies, R. J., Darrah,
T. H., O’Sullivan, F., and Pétron, G. (2014). The environ-
mental costs and benefits of fracking. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 39:327–362.
Jo, H. and Gray, K. E. (2010). Mechanical behavior of concen-
tric casing, cement, and formation using analytical and
numerical methods. In 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 27–30 June, p. 210.
Kang, M., Baik, E., Miller, A. R., Bandilla, K. W., and Celia M.
A. (2015). Effective permeabilities of abandoned oil and gas
wells: analysis of data from Pennsylvania. Environmental
Science and Technology, 49:4757–4764.
Kelkar, S., Carey, J. W., Dempsey, D., and Lewis, K. (2014).
Integrity of pre‐existing wellbores in geological sequestration
of CO2: assessment using a coupled geomechanics‐fluid flow
model. Energy Procedia, 63:5737–5748.
Kell, S. (2011). State oil and gas agency groundwater investiga-
tions and their role in advancing regulatory reforms. A two‐
state review: Ohio and Texas. Technical Report August 2011,
Ground Water Protection Council.
Kim, J., Moridis, G. J., and Martinez, E. R. (2016). Investigation
of possible wellbore cement failures during hydraulic
­fracturing operations. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 139:254–263.
King, G. E. (2012). Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every
­representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor,
university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know
about estimating frac risk performance in unconventional
gas  and oil wells. In SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 6–8
February 2012, pp. 80.
Kjøller, C., Torsæter, M., Lavrov, A., and Frykman, P. (2016).
Novel experimental/numerical approach to evaluate the per-
meability of cement‐caprock systems. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control, 45:86–93.
Ladva, H. K. J., Craster, B., Jones, T. G. J., Goldsmith, G., and
Scott, D. (2004). The cement‐to‐formation interface in zonal
isolation. In Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–15 September, pp. 369–382.
Lecampion, B., Bunger, A., Kear, J., and Quesada, D. (2013).
Interface debonding driven by fluid injection in a cased and
cemented wellbore: modeling and experiments. International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 18:208–223.
158  SHALE: Subsurface Science and Engineering
Liu, X., Nair, S. D., Cowan, M., and van Oort, E. (2015). A
novel method to evaluate cement‐shale bond strength. In
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 13–15 April 2015.
Loizzo, M., Miersemann, U., Lamy, P., and Garnier, A. (2013).
Advanced cement integrity evaluation of an old well in the
Rousse field. Energy Procedia, 37: 5710–5721.
Manceau, J. C., Tremosa, J., Audigane, P., Lerouge, C., Claret,
F., Lettry, Y., Fierz, T., and Nussbaum, C. (2015). Well integ-
rity assessment under temperature and pressure stresses by a
1:1 scale wellbore experiment. Water Resources Research,
51:6093–6109.
McKinley, R. M. (1994). Temperature, radioactive tracer, and
noise logging for injection well integrity. Technical Report
EPA/600/R‐94/124, Environmental Protection Agency.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M., and Meyer,
L. (2005). IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
New York.
Mody, F. K. and Hale, A. H. (1993). Borehole‐stability model to
couple the mechanics and chemistry of drilling fluid/shale
interactions. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 45:1093–1101.
Mooney, R. W., Keenan, A. G., and Wood, L. A. (1952).
Adsorption of water vapor by montmorillonite. II. Effect of
exchangeable ions and lattice swelling as measured by X‐ray
diffraction. Journal of the American Chemical Society,
74:1371–1374.
Newell, D. L. and Carey, J. W. (2013). Experimental evaluation
of wellbore integrity along the cement‐rock boundary.
Environmental Science and Technology, 47:276–282.
Nygaard, R., Salehi, S., and Lavoie, R. (2014). Effect of dynamic
loading on wellbore leakage for the Wabamum Area CO2
Sequestration Project. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 53:69–82.
O’Brien, D. E. and Chenevert, M. E. (1973). Stabilizing sensitive
shales with inhibited, potassium‐based drilling fluids. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 25:1089–1100.
Økland, D., Cook, J., and others (1998). Bedding‐related bore-
hole instability in high‐angle wells. In SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Trondheim, Norway,
8–10 July.
Onaisi, A., Audibert, A., Bieber, M., Bailey, L., Denis, J., and
Hammond, P. (1993). X‐ray tomography vizualization and
mechanical modelling of swelling shale around the wellbore.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 9:313–329.
Opedal, N., Todorovic, J., Torsæter, M., Akervoll, I., and
Jafarzade, G. (2015). Filter cake behavior during leakage at
the cement‐rock interface in wellbores. In 49th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco,
California, USA, 28 June to 1 July 2015.
Opedal, N., Todorovic, J., Torsæter, M., Vrålstad, T., and
Mushtaq, W. (2014). Experimental study on the cement‐
formation bonding. In SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, 26–28 February 2014, p. 12.
Osborn, S. G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. R., and Jackson, R. B.
(2011). Methane contamination of drinking water accompa-
nying gas‐well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 108:8172–8176.
Pawar, R. J., Bromhal, G., Carey, J. W., Foxall, B., Korre, A.,
Ringrose, P., Tucker, O., Watson, M., and White, J. (2015).
Recent advances in risk assessment and risk management of
geologic CO2 storage. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control, 40:292–311.
Petrowiki (2016). Borehole instability. http://petrowiki.org/
index.php?title=Borehole instability&oldid=48080. Accessed
16 April 2016.
Philippacopoulos, A. J. and Berndt, M. L. (2002). Structural
analysis of geothermal well cements. Geothermics, 31:657–676.
Read, D., Glasser, F. P., Ayora, C., Guardiola, M. T., and
Sneyers, A. (2001). Mineralogical and microstructural
changes accompanying the interaction of Boom Clay with
ordinary Portland cement. Advances in Cement Research,
13:175–183.
Santarelli, F. J. and Carminati, S. (1995). Do Shales Swell? A
Critical Review of Available Evidence. In SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 28 February to 2
March.
Scherer, G. W., Kutchko, B., Thaulow, N., Duguid, A., and
Mook, B. (2011). Characterization of cement from a well at
Teapot Dome Oil Field: implications for geological seques-
tration. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
5:115–124.
Sone, H. and Zoback, M. D. (2013). Mechanical properties of
shale‐gas reservoir rocks: Part 2: Ductile creep, brittle
strength, and their relation to the elastic modulus. Geophysics,
78:D393–D402.
Steiger, R. P. and Leung, P. K. (1989). Lecture: Predictions of
wellbore stability in shale formations at great depth. In
ISRM International Symposium, Pau, France, 30 August to
2 September.
Steiger, R. P. and Leung, P. K. (1992). Quantitative determina-
tion of the mechanical properties of shales. SPE Drilling
Engineering, 7(3):181–185.
Thiercelin, M. J., Dargaud, B., Baret, J. F., and Rodriguez, W. J.
(1997). Cement design based on cement mechanical response.
In Proceedings of the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5–8 October,
1997, pp. 337–348.
Torsæter, M., Todorovic, J., and Lavrov, A. (2015). Structure
and debonding at cement–steel and cement–rock interfaces:
effect of geometry and materials. Construction and Building
Materials, 96:164–171.
Torsæter, M., Todorovic, J., Stenebråten, J., Fjær, E., and
Gabrielsen, G. K. (2014). Shale smearing at the borehole wall
during drilling. In American Rock Mechanics Association,
48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
Minneapolis, USA, 1–4 June 2014.
Van Oort, E. (2003). On the physical and chemical stability of
shales. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
38:213–235.
Walsh, S. D. C., Du Frane, W. L., Mason, H. E., and Carroll, S. A.
(2013). Permeability of wellbore‐cement fractures following
degradation by carbonated brine. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 46:455–464.
Watson, T. L. and Bachu, S. (2009). Evaluation of the potential
for gas and CO2 leakage along wellbores. SPE Drilling and
Completion, 24(1):115–126.

Williams, S., Carlsen, T., Constable, K., and Guldahl, A. (2009).
Identification and qualification of shale annular barriers
using wireline logs during plug and abandonment opera-
tions. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 17–19 March 2009, p. 8. SPE
119321.
Wojtanowicz, A. K. (2008). Environmental control of well
integrity. In Orszulik, S. T., editor, Environmental Technology
in the Oil Industry, pp. 53–75. Springer, Dordrecht.
Shale and Wellbore Integrity  159
Zoback, M., Kitasei, S., and Copithorne, B. (2010). Addressing
the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development.
Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
Zoback, M. D., Barton, C. A., Brudy, M., Castillo, D. A.,
Finkbeiner, T., Grollimund, B. R., Moos, D. B., Peska, P.,
Ward, C. D., and Wiprut, D. J. (2003). Determination
of  stress orientation and magnitude in deep wells. Inter­
national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
40:1049–1076.