SPE 129158

Geomechanics, ECD Management and RSS to Manage Drilling Challenges

in a Mature Field
H. Caicedo and M.A. Pribadi, Chevron Indonesia Company, and S. Bahuguna, F. Wijnands, and N.B. Setiawan,
Schlumberger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 20–22 January 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Serang Field, offshore East Kalimantan, Indonesia was discovered in 1973. Production started in 1993. Although it is a
mature field with 120 wells, drilling still faces challenges in the form of severe lost circulation and stuck pipe events. Side
tracks often need to be drilled and drilling budget overruns can be significant. The 2006 drilling campaign of 5 wells saw the
loss of several BHAs and needed 4 sidetracks, due to stuck pipe events.

In order to improve the drilling operation and to uncover root causes of the losses and pack-offs, a detailed geomechanical
evaluation was conducted. The study began with a comprehensive data audit and drilling event review. All the captured
information and log data was then used to create a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) for wellbore stability planning of future
wells.

Key findings of the study were that lost circulation occurred in high permeability zones in shallow carbonates (8-1/2”
intermediate hole section) and were not caused by drilling induced fractures. A contingency plan was developed to drill to
section TD with sea water, should losses occur. Breakouts, aggravated by low mud weights, lost circulation events, high
deviation and slim hole contributed to poor hole cleaning, which caused the packoff incidents in the 6 1/8” sections.

Safe and stable mud weight windows were established to mitigate hole collapse and stuck pipe. Since losses can occur even at
low mud weights but do not usually have severe consequences, the team decided it was more important to focus on avoiding
breakouts and improve hole cleaning with higher mud weights, improved drilling fluids with stress cage system to drill
through depleted reservoirs, controlled drilling, ECD management to prevent formation breakdown and the use of Rotary
Steerables to improve hole cleaning. The recommendations of the study were incorporated during a 3 well drilling campaign in
2009. All 3 wells were drilled and completed within budget and without stuck pipe incidents.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

When Chevron Indonesia were planning to drill deviated well SA-29RD3, they wanted to avoid the problems that had plagued
past drilling in the Serang field, offshore East Kalimantan. Figure 1 shows the Serang field location with respect to other
nearby fields. Many deviated wells drilled in the field faced a variety of drilling complications. The main events were partial
or complete losses, pack offs and tight hole, leading to stuck pipe incidents and ultimately, loss of 6-1/8” hole sections and
BHAs. Hence, Chevron and Schlumberger decided to conduct a study in order to analyze drilling events in the offset wells and
recommend safe mud-weight limits and drilling practices for the planned well.

The main objectives of the study were to review recent drilling experience and use existing relevant logs, drilling and other
data to understand drilling problems and wellbore failure mechanisms. The study included the generation of Mechanical Earth
Models, including stress magnitudes and orientations, pore pressure and formation elastic and mechanical properties,
calibrated as much as possible with the available data. Based on the MEMs, we would then predict the safe mud weight
2 SPE 129158

window for the planned well SA-29RD3, carry out sensitivity analysis on the mud weight window with respect to well
inclination and azimuth and recommend optimum drilling practices for safe and stable well construction.

A geomechanical study of this nature involves the following steps:

• Data Collection and Review: Collect, quality control and catalogue the available data. Integrate and analyze the
existing relevant logs, drilling and other data from the field to understand drilling observations and help define root
causes of observed instability.
• Construction of Mechanical Earth Models (MEMs): Determine rock mechanical properties, stress magnitudes, stress
orientations and pore pressure profiles.
• Calibration of MEMs: Calibrate and refine the MEMs, using LWD or wireline logs and drilling data to constrain and
reduce the uncertainties associated with availability and limitations of the existing data.
• Wellbore Stability Analysis: Compute critical mud weights and ECD ranges that minimize or avoid incidents such as
lost circulation, tight hole and wellbore collapse for the planned well trajectory.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluate and predict potential wellbore stability issues and drilling problems for variations in
wellbore trajectory. Identify which model uncertainties have most influence on the final result and recommend a
strategy to fill important data gaps.

Figure 1. Serang field area. A major normal fault cuts across the field.

WORKFLOW

The study was conducted in three sequential phases. The first phase consisted of a detailed data audit of seven offset wells. All
the drilling incidents in the offset wells were reviewed and captured in Schlumberger’s RiskTRAK database. Logs and drilling
data from these wells were also reviewed and QC-ed. Our aim was to identify key offset wells for which the most appropriate
data types, quality and intervals were available, to form the basis for MEM construction.

In Phase 2, log data from key offset wells were used to construct MEMs. Wells SA-40, SA-15RD3 and SA-19 were chosen as
main offset wells. Figure 2 shows the trajectories of these offset wells and the planned well. The calibrated Mechanical Earth
Models consist of continuous profiles of the following properties vs. TVD:
SPE 129158 3

• Stratigraphic column
• Properties that define rock failure: Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), Friction Angle and Tensile Strength
• Rock elastic properties: Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s ratio and Biot’s constant
• Pore pressure and in-situ stress (vertical and two horizontal stresses) magnitudes and orientations

Such a MEM can predict various modes of rock failure (i.e. shear and tensile) at the wellbore wall for a given mud-weight and
ECD. It is important to compare predicted failures with observations in the offset wells to make sure that the MEMs are fully
consistent with the field drilling experience.

Figure 2. 3D view of the offset wells and the planned well.

In phase 3, we constructed a MEM and wellbore stability prediction for the planned well SA-29RD3. The calibrated data from
the offset wells were migrated to the planned well location along geological correlation markers. Based on this MEM and the
planned well trajectory, we computed safe and stable mud weight limits and carried out sensitivity analysis at the location of
the planned well.

RESULTS

2006 DRILLING CAMPAIGN REVIEW

In 2006 drilling campaign, Chevron drilled 5 wells in the Serang field. All of these wells ran into major complications. The
most serious problems were related to pack-offs and as a result, four 6 1/8” holes had to be sidetracked. Figure 2 shows the
time depth plot of a well which had to be sidetracked twice. The well was drilled in 35.8 operating days instead of the planned
13.5 days. The well exceeded its AFE by 170%.

Figure 3 shows a breakdown of planned drill time vs NPT (75%) for the 2006 drilling campaign. Other than SA-17RD3, all
the wells had very considerable NPT. An exhaustive drilling event review of the 2006 drilling campaign identified and
characterized all the drilling problems experienced in the field. The drilling risks were cross-referenced to the geomechanical
study to highlight areas of concern, to support and confirm findings and hypotheses based on the geomechanical analysis and
to help understand root causes of observed instability and drilling problems.
4 SPE 129158

Figure 2: Serang field 2006 drilling campaign:

Fig. 3: 2006 campaign planned drill time (red) and NPT (yellow) per well.

Figure 3A shows the frequency distribution of drilling events in the 2006 campaign. In terms of frequency, the main problems
were Lost circulation, Sloughing/Pack-offs and Tight hole/Overpull. Figure 3B shows the frequency of drilling events by well.
SPE 129158 5

Fig 3A (left). Percentage of total number of reported drilling incidents in the 2006 campaign. Fig 3B (right): frequency of drilling
events by well

In terms of severity however, pack-offs, leading to stuck pipe incidents were by far the most severe. 4 BHAs were lost in this
way, all in 6 1/8” sections. Partial or total lost circulation incidents occurred more frequently but could always be managed by
pumping LCM and controlling the ECD.

Additionally, we interpreted LWD drilling mechanics data, ECD logs and mud logs to help identify events and causes for
severe losses and pack offs in 3 wellbores: SA-15RD3, SA-13RD5 and SA-32RD1. In clastics sections, we sometimes
observed increases in the ECD while the ROP remained stable or decreased, suggesting that the annulus was loading up with
cuttings due to inefficient hole cleaning. In SA-15RD3 for example, the ECD increased to 10.7 ppg over a clastics sections, yet
no losses were observed. Conversely, massive losses were sustained in carbonates at 6653ft, even though the ECD read 9.8ppg
(Figure 4). We inferred that losses are related to karst or possibly fracture zones within the carbonates. Mud logs and other
data suggested that losses occurred almost exclusively in such carbonates.

ECD Increasing while

ROP decreasing

Loss @ 1007 bph

1000 ROP 0 9 ECD 11.5
Ft/HR ppg.

Figure 4. Data and drilling events observed in SA-15RD3 well 8.5” hole. Depth based interpretation and curves on the left. The LWD
logs on the right are indexed in time.
6 SPE 129158

Pack-offs and Casing Point Comparison:

Surprisingly, in light of the frequent pack-offs in the intermediate 8-1/2” hole section, we found very little evidence of severe
wellbore breakout and associated large volumes of cavings. Neither could we associate pack-offs with certain depth intervals
or stratigraphies. The vast majority occurred in 6 1/8” hole however, irrespective of depth. As a point in case, no pack-offs
were reported in well SA-15RD3 in the 8 ½” section, although it covered the same formations and was drilled at similar
deviations and mud weights as other wells. The crucial difference seemed to be that all the other wells drilled this section with
a 6 1/8” bit.

We looked further into the issue of hole size and found that pack-offs were most frequent in 6 1/8” sections drilled with 4”HT-
40 drillpipe but occurred much less in 8 ½” hole or in 6 1/8” hole drilled with DP 4” TM4-39. The latter drillpipe provides
(3/8”) more annular clearance than 4”HT-40 and in 2006 was concluded that this was probably a crucial factor. The pack-offs
probably occurred as a result of imperfect hole cleaning, with cuttings beds building up in deviated hole sections. With
relatively small annular clearance, even minor wellbore breakout can contribute to pack-offs, under these circumstances.

DATA AVAILABILITY

A very significant part of most geomechanics projects is data gathering. Building a Mechanical Earth Model involves
integrating data from many different sources in order to accurately describe the formations in terms of geomechanical
attributes. Key input data to an MEM includes compressional and shear sonic slowness, bulk density, gamma ray, resistivity,
porosity, image logs, multi-arm calipers, clay volume, drilling reports, geology reports, production data and other studies and
interpretations. Bulk density, compressional and shear slownesses are essential log data for the construction of a MEM. These
logs are needed to generate key parameters such as Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio and UCS. Full wave sonic tools provide
the required compressional and shear slownesses. Image logs and multi-arm calipers are often used in geomechanical studies
but were not available for the Serang field. SPE paper 93182 (Ref. 6) may be used as a guide to ensure appropriate data
collection and/or acquisition.

The data available for this geomechanical study included:

• Compressional and shear slowness

• GR, density, neutron porosity
• Mud weight and drilling information
• Pore pressure measurements (RFT)
• FIT and LOT data
• Formation tops
• Location map
• Drilling reports

MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONSTRUCTION

The basic approach to geomechanical analysis is to use what data are available for interpretation of rock strength, stress and
pressure. The key is to ensure an internally consistent approach, and integration and interpretation of all the available data.
Development of a Mechanical Earth Model (Ref. 16) is essential in making the best use of field geomechanics information.
The MEM is a description of strengths, stresses and pressures as a function of depth, referenced to a stratigraphic column.

Elastic Rock Properties

The elastic properties, Young’s modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio are basic inputs for the estimation of the in-situ
stresses, which are then refined and calibrated with other information (Ref. 7, 11).

Dynamic rock properties are systematically different from the equivalent static values needed for geomechanical analyses
(Ref. 14, 19) so empirical methods are usually employed to convert dynamic properties to their static equivalents. We used
Schlumberger proprietary correlations, established from a worldwide database of log and lab measurements on clastics, to
generate continuous profiles of the static Young’s Modulus and static Poisson’s Ratios (Ref. 7).

We needed to develop correlations between static rock properties and log measurements or derived properties that were
available for all the offset wells. Given the limited data availability, we found that the best way to do this was to correlate the
dynamic Young’s Modulus with the estimated total porosity and the Poisson’s Ratio with the computed shale volume. Figure 9
SPE 129158 7

shows a crossplot of the dynamic Young’s modulus vs. total porosity for well SA-40. It shows a reasonable fit with an
exponential trend line, with R2 value of 0.92.

In absence of core mechanical test data, we could not calibrate the static rock properties any further. The resulting uncertainty
is carried forward into the stress model. We achieved consistency between the MEM and the other data by iteratively updating
the MEM parameters and matching forward modelled failure with observed failure, as seen on calipers.

Figure 4. Young’s modulus vs. PHIT for well SA-40.

Pore Pressure

We used MDT and RFT pressure measurements and resistivity trends to estimate pore pressure profiles, which were further
calibrated against drill stem tests, mud weights and drilling events such as kicks and losses. The pore pressures in the Serang
Field are close to the hydrostatic pressure but some reservoir zones are depleted. Some wells drill into depleted reservoirs
however, and have pore pressure as low as 5 ppg. During the pre-drill modelling stages it has not been possible to predict
depletion. To help evaluate the potential consequences of drilling into depleted zones, we considered scenarios with 40%
depletion in one of our models.

Overburden Stress

We used wireline density logs to compute the vertical- or overburden stress. To estimate the density over intervals of missing
data above the top of logged intervals, we extrapolated an exponential curve that best fit the available wireline data and the
estimated seafloor sediment densities.
Rock Strength

We constructed continuous profiles of unconfined compressive strength (UCS), using a proprietary correlation that relates the
UCS to the elastic moduli. We used a proprietary correlation, based on porosity and clay content, to estimate the Friction
Angle and estimated the tensile strength of the rock to be 1/10th of the UCS.

Horizontal Stress Direction

Due to the absence of image logs, multi-arm calipers or cross-dipole sonic logs, our only recourse to derive the principal stress
directions was to use our geomechanical experience in the Mahakam Delta and to analyze local structural features.
8 SPE 129158

The main structural element manifested in the Serang area is a large normal fault that strikes about -40 degrees (i.e. about NW-
SE). This is consistent, within +/- 20 degrees, with the regional horizontal stresses (Ref. 18). We assumed an azimuth of NW
50 deg for the maximum horizontal stress.

Horizontal Stress Magnitudes

Stress magnitudes cannot be measured directly but can be modeled or inferred from other measurements or indications (e.g.
deformation, strain, pressure, failure etc.). Determining the Minimum horizontal stress (Sh) is relatively straightforward if Sh
is also the minimum principal stress, which we assumed to be the case here.

We used the Poro-Elastic, Bi-axial Strain model (Ref. 3) to compute the horizontal stresses. This model requires values of
horizontal tectonic deformation (εx and εy) as an input. Tectonic deformation cannot be measured directly but useful
calibration data was available in the form of Leak-Off tests in several wells to provide estimates of the minimum principal
stress at discrete depths. We analyzed drilling events and borehole breakout and used our observations to iteratively update the
MEM, finally arriving at values of εx=0.1 and εy=0.4 milli-strain in the deepest reservoirs, decreasing with depth to 0
deformation at the seafloor.

Contrast (anisotropy) between the magnitudes of the maximum horizontal stress and the minimum horizontal stress is
relatively small. The stress regime corresponds to an Andersonian-type normal fault stress regime (Ref. 2) where σv 〉 σH 〉 σh.

PLANNED WELLS

We propagated the MEM along geological correlation markers to planned well locations. Combined with a planned well
trajectory, the propagated MEM allows us to determine the safe and stable mud weight limits for a planned well. Figure 5
shows an example for well SA-29RD3.

Virgin Pore Pressure 40 % Depletion PP

5 lbm/gal 25 5 lbm/gal 25

Figure5. Section of a wellbore stability display for SA-29RD3 with 2 scenarios. At virgin Pore Pressure (Left) and with 40% reservoir
depletion (Right). Recommended lower (green) and upper (blue) mudweight at plotted in the mudweight track.
SPE 129158 9

Figure 5 shows two scenarios (with and without reservoir pressure depletion) for part of the 6 1/8” section of planned well
SA29-RD3. The mud weight window suggests that a mud weight of 9.7 ppg will avoid all but minor amounts of breakout.
Even in the depleted scenario, the fracture gradient in the clastics is at least 13 ppg, leaving the driller enough of a stable mud
weight window to drill this section. As in the offset wells, if karsted or fractured carbonates are encountered, losses can be
expected at any mud weight that exceeds the pore pressure, and need to be managed with LCM and controlled ECD drilling.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 2009 DRILLING CAMPAIGN

Based on the study results, the main recommendation for drilling of planned wells in Serang is to carefully manage wellbore
pressures and hole cleaning. Losses observed in several wells are probably associated with fractured or karsted carbonates. No
evidence was found that losses were associated with preceding spikes in ECD. Losses in carbonates can probably occur at any
mud weight and need to be managed with LCM and controlled drilling. Experience has shown that this can be achieved
without much lost time.

Pack-offs need to be avoided as much as possible. Although severe wellbore breakout was not observed in offset wells, the
mud weight should nevertheless be kept high enough (table 1), to avoid breakout as much as possible, especially in the 6 1/8”
hole sections where even small amounts of cavings may contribute to pack-offs.
We found that drillpipe collar size may also contribute to pack-offs in the 6-1/8” deviated hole sections. Pack-off risk is
exacerbated by small annular clearance between the drill collars and the wellbore wall. DP 4” TM4-39 drillpipe leaves slightly
more annular clearance than HT-40 drillpipe that was used in some offset wells. The BHA design should be adapted
accordingly.

Wellbore breakout is not only a function of mud weight but can also be affected by formation exposure time and drilling mud
properties. Extra attention should be given to hole cleaning in case wellbores remain uncased for longer than usual, for
whatever reason.

Rotary Steerable assemblies have the capacity to simultaneously improve hole cleaning and decrease drilling time for long
deviated sections and are therefore preferred over mud motors

Careful management of wellbore pressures can reduce the risk of hydraulically fracturing the rock or opening of pre-existing
fractures. Staging pumps on/off at connections, slower buildup to full RPMs and optimized hole cleaning will all help to
minimize pressure shocks. Monitoring wellbore pressures with APWD measurements will assist in monitoring and controlling
downhole conditions and safe drilling.

Table 1. Recommended Mud weights

Planned Section Start Stop Recommended
MW
ft MD ft MD ppg.
8½” 3300 10042 9
6 1/8 “ 10042 13325 9.7

2009 DRILLING CAMPAIGN REVIEW

Following completion of the study, Chevron drilled three more wells in the Serang field in 2009. The drilling team followed
the recommendations of the study (higher mud weight to drill the 6-1/8” hole) along with the following:
• Use of Rotary Steerable System (RSS) to improve hole cleaning.
• Improved drilling fluids to provide a better filter cake quality (thinner),
• Stress cage mud system to drill through depleted sands,
• Controlled drilling and ECD management so that it does not exceed 2 ppg over mud weight, and
• Best drilling practices (back ream only tight spot, at well TD sweeps: 40 bbls Hi-vis then 1.5 BU followed by 40 bbls
Hi-vis pill and 2 bottoms up).

The 3 planned wells were drilled in about 17 operating days each, compared to an average of 23 during the 2006 campaign.
Figure 5 shows the depth vs. time curve for 2009 well SA29RD3. All the wells were drilled and completed within the planned
10 SPE 129158

drilling days and budgets. There were no stuck pipe events. The average NPT was 13.3% but none of it was related to wellbore
instability.

4” DP HT-40 along with RSS showed that tool joint OD was not the contributing factor for pack-offs and stuck pipes in 2006.

Because of improved borehole conditions, Chevron was also able to run wireline pore pressure surveys (MDT) in the wells,
which had proved impossible in wells drilled during the 2006 campaign.

Well: Serang SA-29RD3 Start Date: 11-Apr-09

Type: Development Spud Date: 11-Apr-09
Rig: MTR-2 Depth vs Time Curve Release Date: 27-Apr-09

1,000

Perfect AFE
2,000

3,000 Actual

4,000

5,000
Measured Depth (feet)

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(Days)

AFE Drilling Days: 13.1 AFE Operating Days 18.8 Total AFE Cost $6,205,909 Drawn: HUC 13-Feb-09
Checked: 13-Feb-09
Actual Drilling Days Actual Operating Days 15.96 Actual Well Cost Approved: 13-Feb-09

Figure 6: Serang 2009 drilling campaign: SA29RD3 Depth vs. Time curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Serang is a mature field, with a large number of wells, the usual drilling practices proved insufficient to overcome
severe wellbore instability issues. Chevron adopted a practical, proactive and ultimately successful approach to overcome the
drilling challenges experienced in earlier campaigns. A careful review of available drilling data highlighted specific drilling
risks and showed which drilling challenges caused the most severe problems. A geomechanical study, based on all the
available relevant data, allowed the joint Schlumberger/Chevron team to identify and understand the root causes of wellbore
instability and lead to a new set of drilling recommendations and best practices for the field.

The study revealed that mud losses could occur in highly permeable carbonate sections at practically any mud weight but
could usually be managed without catastrophic consequences. Pack-offs and associated stuck pipe events were the most
damaging type of drilling incident while drilling the 6-1/8” hole. The study showed that pack-offs can be avoided by a
combination of appropriate mud weights, BHA designs, real-time monitoring, improved drilling fluids with stress cage system,
the use of best drilling practices and the use of rotary steerable assemblies, to achieve better hole cleaning and faster drilling.

By putting the study recommendations into practice, Chevron achieved a marked reduction in drilling days and well
construction costs during the 2009 drilling campaign of 3 wells. While many past wells needed one or more sidetracks, the
2009 campaign finished without a single stuck pipe incident and all the wells drilled within budget.

References

[1] Ali A. H. A., Brown T., Delgado R., Lee D., Plumb D., Smirnov N., Marsden J. R., Prado-Velarde E., Ramsay L., Spooner D.,
Stone T., & Stouffer T., (2003); Watching Rocks Change – Mechanical Earth Modeling; Oilfield Review; Summer 2003, Volume
15, Number 1, pp. 22-39.
SPE 129158 11

[2] Anderson E. M. (1951); The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation; Publ. Oliver & Boyd, 1951.
[3] Blanton T. L., & Olson J. E., (1999); Stress Magnitudes from Logs – Effects of Tectonic Strains and Temperature ; SPE 54653.
[4] Bowers G. (1995); Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides
Undercompaction. SPE 27488.
[5] Bratton T., Bornemann T., Li Q., Plumb R., Rasmus J. & Krabbe H. (1999); Logging – Interpretations; Proc. 40th SPWLA
Symposium, June 1999.
[6] Chardac O., Murray D., Carnegie A., Marsden J. R.; A Proposed Data Acquisition Program for Successful Geomechanics Projects;
SPE 93182.
[7] Coates G. R., & Denoo S. A. (1981); Mechanical Properties Program Using Borehole Analysis and Mohr’s Circle; 22nd SPWLA
Ann. Logging Symp.; Mexico City, June 1981.
[8] Deere D. U., & Miller R. P., (1969); Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock; DOE/AFWL Technical
Report, pp. 65-116, 1969.
[9] Dyke C. G. (1988); In-situ Stress Indicators for Rock at Greater Depth; Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, University of London.
[10] Eaton B. (1975); The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. SPE 5544.
[11] Fjaer E., Holt R. M., Horsrud P., Raaen A. M., & Risnes R. (1992); Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics Developments in
Petroleum Science, 33; Elsevier; 1992.
[12] Foster, J. B. & Whalen, H. E. (1966); Estimation of Formation Pressures From Electrical Surveys-Offshore Louisiana. SPE 1200.
[13] Hyett A. J., Dyke C. G., & Hudson J. A. (1986); A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts Associated with the Measurement
of In-Situ Stress; Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Stress & Rock Stress Measurement; Stockholm; pp. 387-397.
[14] Plona T. J., & Cook J. M. (1995); Effects of Stress Cycles on Static and Dynamic Young’s Moduli in Castlegate Sandstone; Rock
Mechanics (Damen & Schultz, Ed.); Publ. Balkema, Rotterdam.
[15] Plumb R. A. (1994); Influence of Composition and Texture on the Failure Properties of Clastic Rocks; SPE/ISRM 28022.
[16] Plumb R, Edwards S., Pidcock G., & Lee, D. (2000); The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its Application to High-Risk Well
Construction Projects; SPE 59128.
[17] Stone T. W., Chenggang X., Fang Z., Manalac E., Marsden J. R., & Fuller J. (2003); Coupled Geomechancial Simulation of Stress
Dependent Reservoirs; SPE 79697.
[18] Syarifuddin N., & Busono I. (1998); Regional Stress Alignments in the Kutai Study; Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 17, pp. 122-
135.
[19] TerraTek Inc. (1998); The Difference Between Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties; TerraTek Standard Publications, June
1998.
12 SPE 129158

Nomenclature

Abbreviation Description
α Biot Poro-elastic coefficient
υ Poisson’s ratio
φ Friction angle
ρ Formation bulk density
εx Strain in the minimum horizontal stress direction
εy Strain in the maximum horizontal stress direction
σ1 ’
Effective maximum principal stress
σ3’ Effective minimum principal stress
σh Minimum horizontal stress
σH Maximum horizontal stress
σv Vertical stress
σveff, σv’ Vertical effective stress
g Gravitational acceleration
z True vertical depth
Δtc Compressional slowness, us/ft
Δts Shear slowness, us/ft
E Young’s Modulus
G Shear Modulus
K Bulk Modulus
APWD Annular pressure while drilling
DSI Dipole Shear Sonic Imager
ECD Equivalent circulating density
FG Fracture gradient
FMI Fullbore Formation MicroImager
FPWD Formation Pressure While Drilling
LCM Lost Circulation Material
LOT Leak-off test
LWD Logging While Drilling
MDT Formation Modular Dynamic Tester
MEM Mechanical Earth Model
MWD Measurement While Drilling
NPT Non-Productive Time
Pp Pore pressure
ROP Rate of Penetration
RSS Rotary Steerable System
SG Specific Gravity
SPE 129158 13

TD Total depth
TSTR Formation Tensile Strength
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength
VSP Vertical Seismic Profile

Subscripts Description
dyn Dynamic
sta Static