Chapter 2 - Geomachanics in Driling

VIETNAM OIL AND GAS GROUP
PETROVIETNAM UNIVERSITY
DRILLING ENGINEERING
CHAPTER 2
Introduction to Geomechanics
in Drilling
Lecturer : Dr. Nguyen Van Hung

E-mail : hungnv@pvu.edu.vn
Content
CHAPTER 2 – Introduction to the Geomechanics in Drilling
1. Borehole Stability Analysis for Vertical Wells

2. Borehole Stability Analysis for Inclined Wells
3. General Methodology for Analysis of Wellbore
Stability
4. Empirical Correlations
© 2014 – Petrovietnam University (PVU)
Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 2

Purpose of chapter 2
v A Complex Engineering Problem relates to this

chapter, including:
• Wellbore stability in vertical and inclined wells

• The selection of suitable mud weight to enhance
wellbore stability

v Description of the Problem
• Global problem: Stability of boreholes became an

important issue in the early 1980s when long, highly
inclined wells were evolving, to be able to drain large
reservoirs from single offshore platforms
• Constraints of drilling engineering that relates to
borehole mechanics: the stability of the wellbore
• Geomechanical analysis is often conducted for more

complex wells, in order to reduce risk and cost.

Identify the complex petroleum engineering problem
Circulation Loss: Occur when 𝑉!"# $%&"$' < 𝑉!"# ("!( .

Leading to loss of well control and difficulty in cleaning the
borehole
Mechanical borehole collapse: Occur at low borehole

pressure (too low mud weight, circulation losses or if the well
is swabbed in while tripping pipe)
Chemical effects: induce hole enlargement or collapse in

shales.

Time and cost: the complex petroleum engineering problem
Time: 10–20% of the time spent on a well is due to unplanned

events
Introduction to Geomechanics in Drilling 57
TABLE 2.1—EXAMPLE OF UNPLANNED EVENTS

Unplanned Event Time Used to Cure
Mud losses 2.5 days
Tight hole, reaming 0.3 days
Squeeze cementing 2.5 days
Fishing 0.3 days
Total time loss 5.6 days
Percent of well time 5.6 days / 30 days = 19%
Cost: Knowing that the worldwide drilling budgets are many

billion dollars, we understand therefore that borehole
instability is a very costly

Several well problems
Circulation Loss: Loss of well control, resulting in a blowout;

or lead to difficulty in cleaning the borehole, which may
eventually lead to a stuck drillstring
Figure 2.1. Circulation loss
(Source:
https://www.drillingcourse.com/2016/01/challenge
s-related-to-drilling-fluids.html, truy cập ngày
12.8.2021)
Solution to the complex petroleum engineering problem
Circulation Loss: Remedy?

(Source:
12.8.2021)
Circulation Loss: One remedy is to reduce the mud weight,

develop a fracturing model to analyze these problems
(Source:
12.8.2021)
Identify the complex petroleum engineering problem
Mechanical borehole collapse: Occur at low borehole

pressure (too low mud weight, circulation losses or if the well
is swabbed in while tripping pipe)
Figure 2.2. Borehole collapse
(Source: https://drillingfluidexplore.com/tag/fluid-
loss-control/, truy cập ngày 12.8.2021)

Mechanical borehole collapse: Remedy?


Mechanical borehole collapse: The remedy is often to

increase wellbore pressure, usually by increasing the mud
weight

v Units and Equations
• Pressure are defined in terms of the hydrostatic head at a given

depth, or 𝑃 = ρ. 𝑔. 𝑍
)
• Equivalent density instead of pressure: ρ% =
*+
• In metric units, the gradient equation becomes:
" ($%&) /!
γ! (𝑆𝐺) = where γ! =
(.(*+×-(.) /"#$!%

v Constraints: In-Situ Stresses
All rocks are subjected to stresses at any depth

• A vertical principal stress σ, , obtained from bulk
density logs or from the density of cuttings.
• Two principal horizontal stresses, σ- and σ. , obtained
from leakoff data or other measurements


We resume the following stress states:
• In a relaxed depositional-basin environment, normal fault:
σ0 < σ1 < σ2
called normal fault stress state. The two horizontal stresses are often
similar and equal to 70–90% of the overburden stress.
• Tectonic stresses may arise due to faulting or plate tectonics. Two
different states may exist:
ü Strike-slip fault stress state: σ0 < σ2 < σ1
ü Reverse fault stress state: σ2 < σ0 < σ1

• Regarding stresses, Terzaghi (1943) defined the effective stress
principle: σ343%5 = σ6 + 𝑃74&!

Unplanned Event Time Used to Cure
Mud losses 2.5 days
Tight hole, reaming 0.3 days
Squeeze cementing 2.5 days
Fishing 0.3 days
Regarding stresses, Terzaghi (1943) defined the effective stress
Total time loss 5.6 days
principle: σ343%5 = σ6 +
Percent of 𝑃
well
74&!time 5.6 days / 30 days = 19%
Figure 2.3. Illustration of effective stress

Fig. 2.2—Illustration of effective stresses.
(Source: Robert and Stefan 2011)

u Stresses. All rocks are subjected to stresses at any depth. It is a convention in the p
Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics
these stresses as follows: 16
WEEKLY QUIZZES
1.At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG
from density logs. From fracturing data, the horizontal stresses are defined as 1.75
and 1.77 SG. What type of stress state exists in this field?
A. Normal fault stress state
B. Strike-slip fault stress state
C. Reserse fault stress state

WEEKLY QUIZZES
At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG

and 1.77 SG. What type of stress state exists in this field?

WEEKLY QUIZZES
2. Another well is drilled in a tectonic setting. The overburden stress is given as 1.81
SG, whereas the two horizontal stresses are estimated to be 1.92 and 1.64 SG. What
stress state is this?

WEEKLY QUIZZES
SG, whereas the two horizontal stresses are estimated to be 1.92 and 1.64 SG. What
stress state is this?

WEEKLY QUIZZES
1. At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG

and 1.77 SG
SG, whereas the two horizontal stresses are estimated to be 1.92 and 1.64 SG
3.3. If there is normal pore pressure in 1 and 2, compute the effective stresses, also
called the rock matrix stresses.
A. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.71; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

B. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

C. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.65; s’H/s’v=1.14

WEEKLY QUIZZES
1. At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG

and 1.77 SG
SG, whereas the two horizontal stresses are estimated to be 1.92 and 1.64 SG
3.3. If there is normal pore pressure in 1 and 2, compute the effective stresses, also
called the rock matrix stresses.
A. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.71; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

B. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

C. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.65; s’H/s’v=1.14

58 Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering
WEEKLY QUIZZES
3. If there is normal pore pressure in 1 and 2, compute the effective stresses, also called the rock matrix
stresses.
Solution.
1. The stress ratios are
h 1.75 SG H 1.77 SG
0.90 0.91.
v 1.95 SG v 1.95 SG
Because both stress ratios are smaller than 1, we have a normal fault stress state. This is the expected stress
state in a sedimentary basin.
h 1.64 SG H 1.92 SG
2. Now the stress ratios are: 1.81 SG
0.91 1.06.
v v 1.81 SG
In this case, one horizontal stress is smaller than the overburden stress, whereas the other horizontal stress
is larger than the overburden stress. This is a strike/slip stress state, which may be caused by a tectonic
event such as an earthquake.
3. A normal pore pressure is often defined as the density of seawater, 1.03 SG. The effective stresses for 1
and 2 are:
(1.75 1.03) SG 0.72 SG H

1.77 1.03 SG 0.74 SG
h
0.78 0.80
v (1.95 1.03) SG 0.92 SG v

1.95 1.03 SG 0.92 SG
h
(1.64 1.03) SG 0.61 SG H
(1.92 1.03) SG 0.89 SG
= = = 0.78 = = = 1.14
v
(1.81 1.03) SG 0.78 SG v
(1.81 1.03) SG 0.78 SG
We observe that the stress ratios change values but are still within the definition of the stress states. The
effective stresses are the stresses acting on the rock matrix when we exclude the pore pressure. Because
we are concerned with failure of the rock matrix, we have to use effective stresses. This principle will be
implemented in the borehole failure models that follow.

2.1.4 Pore Pressures. Sedimentary rocks are usually porous. The pores usually are filled with water, which is the
v Pore Pressures: Indentify problem
• An important parameter for the production of

hydrocacbons and for determining whether the reservoir
can be produced naturally or if artificial lift is required
• Can be measured directly with logging tools. However,
shales are nearly impermeable, so there exist no direct
methods to measure the pore pressure here. Instead, the
pore pressure is inferred from drilling data and from
various logs

v Pore Pressures: Constraint
There are several different mechanisms that create

abnormal pore pressures. Some mechanisms are:
• Buoyancy, where the lightest fluid moves to the top
and the heaviest to the bottom
• Rock compaction of a closed volume
• Consolidation effects
• Chemical effects

v Pore Pressures: Measurement
• Large uncertainty in the pore pressure prediction of

these indirect methods. In the reservoir, direct
measurements are considered accurate
• Because the pore pressure profile has a direct
bearing on the selection of the casing depths, the
uncertainty should be understood. Remember also
that if a homogeneous tight shale has a high pore
pressure, it cannot flow and therefore cannot lead

to a well-control incident.

Depth (m) Pressure (bar) Fluid
Caprock 1500 (151.4) (Caprock)

1550 170.7 Gas
1. Borehole
Gas
Oil
Stability Analysis for Vertical Wells 1580
1620
1680
172
172.6
173
Gas
Gas
Oil
1700 174.6 Oil
Water 1740 179.5 Oil
1800 182.7 Oil
1850 186.7 Water
v Pore Pressures: Measurement

Introduction to Geomechanics in Drilling
1900 191.8
59
Water
Caprock
Pressure, bar
Fig. 2.3—Trapped hydrocarbons.
Gradient, SG
100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14
Gas 1400 1400
Oil 1500 1500

—Pore Pressure From Measurements. Fig. 2.3 shows hydrocarbons trapped in a sandstone
Water
an arch-shaped caprock. A well is drilled through the reservoir, and multiple pore pressure mea- 1600
1600
made throughout the reservoir. There is full vertical communication throughout the reservoir,
Depth, m
Depth, m
the caprock, which acts as a seal. Table 2.2 summarizes the pore pressure measurements. We 1700
1700
ata and evaluate the results. The results are shown in Fig. 2.4.
1800
Fig. 2.3—Trapped hydrocarbons. 1800
1900 1900
TABLE 2.2—PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
Depth (m) Pressure (bar) Fluid

2000
Pressure From Measurements.
1500 (151.4)
Fig. 2.3 (Caprock)
shows hydrocarbons
2000
trapped in a sandstone
ch-shaped caprock.
1550 A well is drilled
170.7 through theGas reservoir, and multiple pore pressure mea-(b) Gradient plot
(a) Pressure plot
throughout the1580
reservoir. There172 is full verticalGas
communication throughoutOverpressure the reservoir, Normal pore pressure
1620 172.6 Gas
aprock, which acts
1680
as a seal. Table
173
2.2 summarizes
Oil
the pore pressure measurements. We pore pressures.
Fig. 2.4—Plots of measured
d evaluate the results.

1700 The results
174.6are shown in Fig.
Oil 2.4.
1740 179.5 Oil
1800 182.7 Oil
1850 186.7 Water
1900 191.8 Water
TABLE 2.2—PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS (Source: Robert and Stefan 2011)
Depth (m)
Dr. Nguyen Pressure (bar) Fluid
Pressure, bar Van Hung Gradient,Geomechanics
SG 27
ion.
From Fig. 2.5 the following pore pressure gradients are read: 1. Borehole Stability Analysis for Vertical Wells
1.57 SG in point B at a depth of 2350 m
1.50 SG in point A at a depth of 2600 m
v Pore Pressures: Case study (in the North Sea)

Gradient, SG Formation type
0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
TVD (m) TVD (m)
The gradient plot in Fig. 2.5 is from a
well in the North Sea. Assume that the
500
30-in.
500 caprock is located at the 95⁄8-in. casing
Nordland
18⅝-in.
point at 2350 m. Call this location point
1000 Fracture 1000
B.
Utsira
Mud weight
Furthermore, assume that there is
Hordaland
13⅜-in.
vertical communication down to 2600
1500 1500
m. Call this location point A.
Balder
Rogaland 1. Using the pore pressure data,
Shetland
2000 Estimated virgin pore pressure 2000 calculate the density of the oil in the
reservoir in this interval.
9⅝-in. B Statford
2500 Estimated reservoir pressure 2500 S5-LO1 2. Assume that the fluid in the depth
A
L02-L10
interval A–B is not oil, but condensate
3000
of density 0.5 SG. Compute thepore
3000
7-in. pressure in this interval for the new
values of fluid density.
Fig. 2.5—Gradient plot from a well in the North Sea.
(Source: Robert and Stefan 2011)

ion. Example 2.3—Pore Pressure. The gradient plot in Fig. 2.5 is from a well in the North
From Fig. 2.5 the following pore pressure gradients are read: 1. Borehole Stability Analysis for Vertical Wells caprock is located at the 9⅝-in. casing point at 2350 m. Call this location point B. Furtherm
is vertical communication down to 2600 m. Call this location point A.
1.57 SG in point B at a depth of 2350 m
1.50 SG in point A at a depth of 2600 m 1. Using the pore pressure data, calculate the density of the oil in the reservoir in this
2. Assume that the fluid in the depth interval A–B is not oil, but condensate of densit
pore pressure in this interval for the new values of fluid density.
v Pore Pressures: Case study (in the North Sea)
Solution.
Gradient, SG Formation type
0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 1. From Fig. 2.5 the following pore pressure gradients are read:
TVD (m) TVD (m)
• 1.57 SG in point B at a depth of 2350 m
• 1.50 SG in point A at a depth of 2600 m
Introduction to Geomechanics in Drilling 61
500 500 The pressures at these positions are

30-in.
Nordland
PB = 0.098 × 1.57 SG × 2350 m = 361.6 bar Gradient, SG Formation type
18⅝-in. PA = 0.098 × 1.50 SG × 2600 m = 382.2 bar.
0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
TVD (m)
1000 Fracture 1000 The difference in pressure is TVD (m)
Utsira
PB PA 382.2 bar 361.6 bar 20.6 bar.
Mud weight
Hordaland
13⅜-in. 500 500
30-in.
Nordland
1500 1500 This hydrostatic pressure reduction is caused by the weight of the oil column acting over the depth inter-
val. The relative density of the oil is then
18⅝-in.
Balder PB PA 20.6 bar
1000 Fracture 1000
Rogaland 0.84 SG Utsira
e
0.098( Z B Z A ) 0.098 250 m
Shetland
Mud weight
2000 Estimated virgin pore pressure 2000
Hordaland
13⅜-in.
2. We assume the same gradient and pressure at point A as used above. The pressure here is 382.2 bar. If we
assume condensate of 0.5 SG, the pressure at point B will be
1500 1500
9⅝-in. B Statford PB = 382.2 bar 0.098 × 0.5 SG(2600 m 2350 m) = 370 bar. Balder
2500 S5-LO1 Rogaland
2500 Estimated reservoir pressure
A
Shetland
This corresponds to a gradient of:
2000 Estimated virgin pore pressure 2000
L02-L10 370 bar 1.61 SG

e
0.098 2350 m
9⅝-in. B Statford
3000 3000
2500 S5-LO1
7-in. 2500 Estimated reservoir pressure
A
2.1.5 Fracturing. In this section, we will present the borehole mechanics model used in the oil industry. The first
part assumes simple conditions, as found in relaxed sedimentary basins, such as equal horizontal in-situ stresses L02-L10
and also a vertical borehole. Later we will present more-complex scenarios.

There are two different mechanics approaches
3000 (Source: Robert and Stefan 2011)
used in the oil industry: 3000
7-in.
• Classical mechanics approach. We assume an infinite plate with a hole in the middle. This hole represents
the wellbore. (See Fig. 2.6.) For fracturing and collapse analysis during drilling, this is the method used.
Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics
• Fracture mechanics approach, assuming that a fracture already exists. This is used in stimulation operations
29
where massive fracturing and reservoir stimulation take place, and relates to boreholes that are already
fractured. This will not be pursued in this chapter.
v Fracturing
There are two different mechanics approaches used in the

oil industry:
• Classical mechanics approach: use for fracturing and
collapse analysis
• Fracture mechanics approach: use to stimulation
operations
Fig 1: Classical mechanics approach: an infi nite plate with a hole in the middle
[from Aadnoy (1996)]
v Fracturing
At the borehole wall, for the special case σ. = σ- three

different stresses exist
• The radial stress is given by the mud pressure: σ$ = 𝑃/
• The tangential stress, or hoop stress: σϴ = 2σ. − 𝑃/
• The axial stress, or vertical stress: σ0 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
Fig 2:Stresses
acting on the
borehole wall
[from Aadnoy
(1996)]

v Fracturing
Fracturing is defined as the pressure at which the effective hoop

stress is zero. For a vertical well with equal horizontal in-situ
stresses:
• σ – P = 2σ – P – P = 0
θ o h w o or P = 2σ – P .
wf h o
For unequal horizontal in-situ stresses, the fracturing pressure

becomes
• σ – P = 3σ – σ – P – P
θ o h H w o or P = 3σ – σ – P
wf h H o

v Fracturing
• Leakoff test (LOT): After each casing is installed and cemented in

place, a hydraulic test is performed
• The Optimal Mud Weight: In a typical well, we have a pore
pressure prognosis, an overburden stress prognosis, and several
LOT data. To develop this information into a predictive tool, we
must estimate the horizontal stresses
1
σ1 = (𝑃/2 +𝑃3 )
2

v Fracturing
• The horizontal stress is actually the midpoint between the
fracture pressure and the pore pressure. For this reason, it is
often called the median-line principle
•
Fig 3: Alternative mud-weight

schedules

v Water-Based vs. Oil-Based Drilling Fluids
Ø Water-based drilling fluids:

• Water as the continuous phase
• Additives are used to change density and viscosity and to control
filtrate losses
• Water-based drilling fluids are cheap and good for curing mud losses
( by pumping coarse bridging materials)
• It is believed that the main mechanism is that in water-wet
formations, filtrate losses occur, leaving dense particles in the mud in
the fracture
q Disadvantage:
• Reactive to clays and lead to time-dependent borehole problems.
• The hole size often increases with time in shales

v Water-Based vs. Oil-Based Drilling Fluids
Ø Oil-based drilling fluids:

• Oil as the continuous phase
• Lower well friction and used in long-reach wells where friction is a
critical parameter
• The borehole does not show time-dependent deterioration as with
water-based fluids
• The capillary pressure prevents oil from invading a water-wet rock.
q Disadvantage:
• Difficult to stop the losses if circulation losses arise during drilling

v The Kirsch Equations
4 8! 4 8" 8!
• σ$ = (σ6 + σ7 )(1 − )+ σ6 − σ7 1+3 −4 cos2ϴ +
5 $! 5 $" $!
8" 8! 8!
τ67 1 − 3 +4 sin2ϴ + 𝑃/
$" $! $!
4 8! 4 8"
• σϴ = (σ6 + σ7 )(1 + )- σ6 − σ7 1+3 cos2ϴ
5 $! 5 $"
8" 8!
−τ67 1 + 3 sin2ϴ − 𝑃/
$" $!
8! 8!
• σ0 = σ00 − 2𝑣(σ6 − σ7 ) cos2ϴ − 4𝑣τ67 sin2ϴ
$! $!

v The Kirsch Equations
4 8! 8" 8!
• τ$ϴ = ( σ6 − σ7 sin2ϴ + τ67 cos2ϴ )(1 − 3 +2 )
5 $! $" $!
8!
• τ$0 = (τ60 cosϴ + τ70 sinϴ)(1 − )
$!
8!
• τϴ0 = (−τ60 cosϴ + τ70 sinϴ)(1 + )
$!

v The Kirch Equations
At the borehole wall (r=a), the above equations reduce to

• Radial stress: σ$ = 𝑃/
• Tangential stress: σϴ = σ6 + σ7 − 𝑃/ − 2 σ6 − σ7 cos2ϴ
− 4τ67 sin2ϴ
• Axial stress, plane stress: σ0 = σ0 − 2𝑣 σ6 − σ7 cos2ϴ
− 4𝑣τ67 sin2ϴ
• Axial stress, plane strain: σ0 = σ00

• Shear stress: τϴ0 = 2(τ70 cosϴ − τ60 sinϴ)
τ$0 = τ$ϴ = 0
v Deviated Boreholes and Stresses in Three Dimensions
The following equations define all transformed stress

components:
• σ6 = σ- 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 α + σ. 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 α 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 φ + σ, 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 φ
• σ7 = σ- 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 α + σ. 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 α
• σ0 = σ- 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 α + σ. 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 α 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 φ + σ, 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 φ
4
• τ70 = (σ. − σ- )sin2α. 𝑠𝑖𝑛φ
5
4
• τ60 = σ- 𝑐𝑜𝑠 5 α + σ. 𝑠𝑖𝑛5 α − σ, 𝑠𝑖𝑛2φ
5
4
• τ70 = (σ. − σ- )sin2α. 𝑐𝑜𝑠φ
5

3. General Methodology for Analysis of Wellbore Stability
The calculation procedure is as follows:

• Calculate the stresses in the direction of the borehole.
• Insert these data into the borehole stress equations.
• Determine the point on the borehole wall where failure will
occur.
• Implement a failure model.
• Compute borehole pressure at failure.

v Principal Borehole Stresses
At the borehole wall, these are:

• σ4 = 𝑃/
4 4
• σ5 = (σϴ − σ, ) + (σϴ − σ, )5 +4τ5ϴ0
5 5
4 4
• σ9 = (σϴ + σ, ) − (σϴ − σ, )5 +4τ5ϴ0
5 5

v Principal Borehole Stresses
Typical principal stresses are:

• Fracturing: σ4 = 𝑃/
4 4
σ9 = (σϴ + σ, ) − (σϴ − σ, )5 +4τ5ϴ0
5 5
4 4
• Collapse: σ4 = (σϴ + σ, ) + (σϴ − σ, )5 +4τ5ϴ0
5 5
σ9 = 𝑃/

v Borehole Fracturing
• The borehole will fracture when the minimum effective principal

stress reaches the tensile rock strength σ3
σ:9 = σ9 − 𝑃3 = σ&
;!ϴ#
• The critical tangential stress: σϴ = + 𝑃3 + σ&
<# =<$ =)%
• The critical borehole pressure:
τ*ϴ)
𝑃& = σ' − σ( − 2 σ6 − σ7 𝑐𝑜𝑠2ϴ − 4τ67 𝑠𝑖𝑛2ϴ − − 𝑃, − σ+
σ) − σ+ − 𝑃,
• The position on the borehole wall for the fracture defines by:
2τ&'
𝑡𝑎𝑛2ϴ =
σ& − σ'

• If symmetric conditions exist, all shear stress components may
vanish. In these cases, the fracture may take place at one of the
following conditions: σH = σh; γ = 0°; α = 0°, 90°. It is also common
to assume that the rock has zero tensile strength because it may
contain cracks or fissures.
• 𝑃/ = 3σ6 − σ7 −𝑃3 − σ& for σ6 < σ7 and ϴ = 904
• 𝑃/ = 3σ7 − σ6 −𝑃3 − σ& for σ7 < σ6 and ϴ = 04

• Observe that assuming a maximum and a minimum stress normal

to the borehole wall and vanishing shear stresses, the general
fracturing equation becomes
Dr. Nguyen Van Hung

𝑃& = 3σ-./ Geomechanics
− σ-0' −𝑃, − σ+
45
Example: Assume that the following data exist for a well:
• Overburden stress: 𝝈𝒗 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒃𝒂𝒓
• Horizontal stress: 𝝈𝑯 = 𝝈𝒉 = 𝟗𝟎 𝒃𝒂𝒓
• Pore pressure: 𝑷𝒐 = 𝟓𝟎 𝒃𝒂𝒓
• Borehole inclination: 𝝋 = 𝟒𝟎𝒐
• Borehole azimuth: 𝜶 = 𝟏𝟔𝟓𝒐

• Tensile rock strength: 𝝈𝒕 = 𝟎
• Rock Poisson’s ratio: 𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓

Determine the fracture pressure for a vertical well and for the deviated
well given above.
Solution:
§ For the vertical well, the in-situ stresses relate directly to the
borehole direction and become σ= = σ> = 90 bar . The fracture
pressure is 𝑷𝒘𝒇 = 𝟐𝝈𝒙 −𝑷𝒐 = 𝟐×𝟗𝟎 − 𝟓𝟎 = 𝟏𝟑𝟎 𝐛𝐚𝐫
§ For the inclined well, the stresses must fi rst be transformed to
the orientation of the wellbore: 𝝈𝒙 = 𝟗𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 𝒃𝒂𝒓 ; 𝝈𝒚 =
𝟗𝟎 𝒃𝒂𝒓; 𝝈𝒛 = 𝟗𝟓. 𝟖𝟕 𝒃𝒂𝒓; 𝝉𝒙𝒛 = −𝟒. 𝟗𝟐𝒃𝒂𝒓; 𝝉𝒚𝒛 = 𝝉𝒙𝒚 = 𝟎

Solution:
These data are again inserted into the equations for the borehole
stresses, which become
• Radial stress: 𝝈𝒓 = 𝑷𝒘
• Tangential stress: 𝝈𝜭 = 𝟏𝟖𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 − 𝑷𝒘 − 𝟖. 𝟐𝟔𝐜𝐨𝐬𝟐𝜭
• Axial stress, plane strain: 𝝈𝒛 = 𝟗𝟓. 𝟖𝟕 − 𝟐. 𝟎𝟕𝐜𝐨𝐬𝟐𝜭
• Shear stress: 𝝉ϴ𝒛 = −𝟗. 𝟖𝟒𝐬𝐢𝐧𝜭
The fracturing pressure now becomes:
𝑷𝒘 = 𝟑×𝟗𝟎 − 𝟗𝟒. 𝟏𝟑 − 𝟓𝟎 = 𝟏𝟐𝟓. 𝟗 𝒃𝒂𝒓

We observe that the fracturing pressure decreases with increased
borehole inclination. This is a general trend. However, for anisotropic
stress states, this behavior may differ.
v Borehole Collapse
While fracturing occurs at high borehole pressures, collapse is

a phenomenon associated with low borehole pressures.
• The maximum principal stress:
4 4
σ4 = (σϴ − σ0 ) + (σϴ − σ0 )5 +4τ5ϴ0
5 5
and the minimum principal stress:

σ9 = 𝑃/

v Borehole Collapse
If symmetric conditions exist, all shear stress components may

vanish. In these cases, the collapse failure may take place at
one of the following conditions: σH = σh, φ = 0°, α = 0° or 90°,
the borehole pressure causing highest tangential stress is:
• σE = 3σF −σG −𝑃/ for σ6 < σ7 and ϴ = 04

• σE = 3σG −σF −𝑃H for σF < σG and ϴ = 04
or, in general,
σ4 = 3σ!86 − σ!>' −𝑃/

v Drillability Correlations
• The rate of penetration R (m/hr, ft/hr) is modeled as a

function of supplied energy: R = (𝑘)(𝑊𝑂𝐵)(𝑁)
• During drilling, the drillability is also used as an indicator of
pore pressure. Well known is the so-called d-exponent:
𝑅
log( )
𝑑!G7 = 60𝑁
12𝑊
log( )
1000𝑑$

v Drillability Correlations
During drilling, a trend line is established for the d-exponent. If

this starts to deviate from the trend, it can be
associated with some of the following factors:
• Bit wear. Rock bits wears gradually, and the drilling efficiency
may reduce gradually
• If drillability increases relative to the trend line, it may be a
pore-pressure indicator.

v Fracture Pressure Correlations
• Pilkington (1978) used field data and showed that:
𝑃HI = 𝐾 σ2 − 𝑃4 + 𝑃4
• In the early 1980s, wellbore inclination increased, and

because the empirical correlations could not handle this,
continuum mechanics was introduced

v Pore Pressure Correlations
• We need a pore-pressure curve to select mud weights

and casing points
• Pore pressure from logs and other sources is not accurate
unless it is calibrated ( with a pressure measurement)
• Equation 𝑃/2 = 𝐾 σ, − 𝑃3 + 𝑃3 is used to establish a
correlation, the same equation should be used to develop
predictions for new wells
• One should be careful when mixing various correlations

because the results may not be representative for the
actual wells

Summary
We need to know the following knowledge
§ Some problems occur during drilling

§ In-situ stresses ( types of stresses and stress states)
§ The difference between pore pressure and hydostatic
pressure
§ Borehole Fracture and Collapse
§ The calculation procedure for analysis of wellbore stability
§ Fracture and Collapse Pressure Correlations

Case study
Normal and Abnormal Pore Pressure
Normal Pressure Gradients

West Texas: 0.433 psi/ft
2.500 ft Gulf Coast: 0.465 psi/ft
Depth, ft
Abnormal
Pressure
8.500 ft
Gradients
10,000’ ??
Pore Pressure, psig

Case study
Pore Pressure vs. Depth

0
0.433 psi/ft 8.33 lb/gal
0.465 psi/ft 9.0 lb/gal
5,000
Depth, ft
Normal
10,000
Abormal
15,000
20,000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Pore Pressure Equivalent, lb/gal
{ Density of mud required to control this pore pressure }

Case study
Fracture Gradient
Pore Pressure
Gradient

Case study
* Pore
Pressure
Gradients
* Fracture
Gradients
* Casing
Setting
Depths

Case study
Some Causes of Abnormal Pressure
1. Incomplete compaction of sediments

4 Fluids in sediments have not
escaped and are still helping to
support the overburden.
2. Tectonic movements
4 Uplift
4 Faulting
Case study
Some Causes of Abnormal Pressure
3. Aquifers in Mountainous Regions

4 Aquifer recharge is at higher
elevation than drilling rig location.
4. Charged shallow reservoirs due to

nearby underground blowout.
5. Large structures...

Case study
HIGH PRESSURE
NORMAL PRESSURE
Thick, impermeable layers of shale (or salt) restrict the movement

of water. Below such layers abnormal pressure may be found.

Case study
HIGH PRESSURE
NORMAL PRESSURE
Hydrostatic pressure gradient is lower in gas or oil than in water.

7. Abnormal Pressure 661. Drilling Engineering Slide 11

Case study
When crossing faults it is possible to go from normal

pressure
7. to abnormally661.high
Abnormal Pressure Drillingpressure
Engineering in a short interval.
Slide 12

Case study
Well “A” found only Normal Pressure ...

Case study
sob
p sz
sOB = p + sZ
7. Abnormal Pressure 661. Drilling Engineering Slide 14

Case study

Case study
Indications of Abnormal Pore Pressures
Methods:
1. Seismic data
2. Drilling rate
3. Sloughing shale
4. Gas units in mud
5. Shale density
6. Chloride content

Case study
Indications of Abnormal Pore Pressures
Methods, cont’d:
7. Change in Mud properties

8. Temperature of Mud Returns
9. Bentonite content in shale
10. Paleo information
11. Wire-line logs

12. MWD-LWD
Case study
Prediction and Detection of Abnormal

Pressure Zones
1. Before drilling
4 Shallow seismic surveys
4 Deep seismic surveys

4 Comparison with nearby wells

Case study
Pressure Zones
2. While drilling
4 Drilling rate, gas in mud, etc. etc.
4 D - Exponent
4 DC - Exponent
4 MWD - LWD
4 Density of shale (cuttings)
Case study
Pressure Zones
3. After drilling
4 Resistivity log
4 Conductivity log
4 Sonic log
4 Density log

Case study
f = 0.41 e -0.000085 DS

Case study
What is d-
exponent?
Decreasing ROP

Case study
D - Exponent
The Where
drilling rate R = drilling rate, ft/hr
equation: K = drillability constant
N = rotary speed, RPM
D
æWö E = rotary speed expon.
R = K N çç E
÷÷
W = bit weight, lbs
è DB ø
DB = bit diameter, in
D = bit wt. Exponent
or D - exponent
Case study
D
æWö
D - Exponent R = K N çç
E
÷÷
è DB ø
If we assume that K = 1
and E = 1
Then æRö
log ç ÷
D
R æWö è Nø
= çç ÷÷ D=
N è DB ø æWö
log çç ÷÷
è DB ø
Case study
D - Exponent
A modified version of this equation

follows:
æ R ö
log çç ÷÷
è 60 N ø
d=
æ 12 W ö
log çç 6 ÷÷
è 10 DB ø
Case study
Example
Calculate the value of the d - exponent if

the drilling rate is 35 ft/hr, the rotary RPM is
100, and the weight on the 12 1/4” bit is
60,000 lbs.
æ R ö æ 35 ö
log çç ÷÷ log çç ÷÷
è 60 N ø è 60 * 100 ø - 2.2341
d= = =
æ 12 W ö æ 12 * 60,000 ö - 1.2308
log çç 6 ÷÷ log çç ÷÷
è 10 DB ø 6
è 10 12.25 ø
d = 1.82
Case study
Example
What happens to d if R doubles to 70 ft/hr?
æ 70 ö
log çç ÷÷
è 60 * 100 ø - 1.9331
d= = = 1.57
æ 12 * 60,000 ö - 1.2308
log çç 6 ÷÷
è 10 12.25 ø
Note that an increase in R resulted in a decrease in d.

Doubling R decreased d from 1.82 to 1.57
Case study
Example
d may be Corrected for mud density

as follows:
æ mud weight for normal gradient (ppg) ö

dc = d çç ÷÷
è actual mud weight in use(ppg) ø
æ 9 ö æ 9 ö
e.g., dc = d ç ÷ = 1.82 * ç ÷ = 1.37
è 12 ø è 12 ø
Case study
Procedure for Determining Pore

Pressure From dc - Exponent
! Calculate dc over 10-30 ft intervals

! Plot dc vs depth (use only date from
Clean shale sections)
! Determine the normal line for the
dc vs. depth plot.
! Establish where dc deviates from the

normal line to determine abnormal
pressure zone
Case study
No
rm
al
Normal
Depth
Tre
nd
Abnormal
dc - Exponent
Case study

! If possible, quantify the magnitude of the

abnormal pore pressure using
overlays, or Ben Eaton’s Method
1 .2
P S æ S æ P ö ö æç dc calculated ö÷
= - çç - ç ÷ ÷÷
D D è D è D øn ø çè dc normal ÷ø
Pore
Pressure Overburden Normal Pore
Grad. Stress Grad. Pressure Grad.

Case study
In normally pressured
shales, shale
compaction increases
with depth

Case study
Pore Pressure from

Resistivity
Depth
Shale resistivity plots
may be developed
from (i) logs or
(ii) cuttings
What is the pore 10,000’
pressure at the point
indicated on the plot?

[Assume Gulf Coast].
Depth=10,000 ft
0.2 0.5 1 2 3

Case study
From plot, Rn = 1.55 ohms EATON

Robs = 0.80 ohms
From Eaton:
Depth
1 .2
P S æ S æ P ö ö æ R obs ö
= - çç - ç ÷ ÷÷ çç ÷÷
D D è D è D øn ø è R n ø
1 .2
P æ 0.80 ö
= 0.95 - (0.95 - 0.465 ) ç ÷ 10,000’
D è 1.55 ø
= 0.7307 psi/ft = 14.05 lb/gal
P = 0.7307 * 10,000 = 7,307 psi

0.2 0.5 1 2 3
Case study
Prediction of
Abnormal Pore Pressure
! Resistivity of Shale
! Temperature in the Return Mud
! Drilling Rate Increase
! dc - Exponent
! Sonic Travel Time

! Conductivity of Shale

Case study
EXAMPLE
Shale Resistivity
vs. Depth
1. Establish normal
trend line
2. Look for
deviations
(semi-log)

Case study
Pore Pressure
Shale Resistivity (lb/gal equivalent)
vs. Depth 16 14 12 10
1. Establish normal
trend line
9 ppg
2. Look for
(normal)
deviations
3. Use OVERLAY
to quantify
pore pressure
(use with caution)

Case study
Example
8.2 X
7. Abnormal Pressure 661. Drilling Engineering

Why?
Slide 40

Case study
DP = (P2 - P1)1,000
Effect of Differential Pressure

Case study
Typical Drilling Rate Profiles - Shale
Shale The drilling rate in a normally

pressured, solid shale
section will generally
generate a very steady and
smooth drilling rate curve.
The penetration rate will be

steady and not erratic
(normally pressured, clean
shale).
Case study
Typical Drilling Rate Profiles
Any deviation from the expected decrease in

ddilling rate with depth, when you are drilling in a
clean shale, might indicate a transition zone.
Note:
8 If you are drilling overbalanced in a transition it
will be very difficult to pick up the

transition zone initially.
8 This will allow you to move well into the
transition zone before detecting the problem.
Case study
Typical Drilling Rate Profiles
8 This could cause you to move into a permeable

zone which would probably result in a kick.
8 The conditions you create with overbalanced

hydrostatic head will so disguise the pending
danger that you may not notice the small
effect of the drilling rate curve change. This

will allow you to move well into that transition
zone without realizing it.

Case study
Determination of Abnormal Pore
Pressure Using the dc - exponent
From Ben Eaton:
1.2
P S é S æ P ö ùæ d c ö
= - ê - ç ÷ úçç ÷÷
D D ë D è D ø n ûè d cn ø

Case study
1.2
P S é S æ P ö ùæ d c ö
= - ê - ç ÷ úçç ÷÷
D D ë D è D ø n ûè d cn ø
P
Where = formation pressure gradient, psi/ft
D
æPö
ç ÷ = normal water gradient in area
è D øn
e.g., 0.433 or 0.465, psi/ft
S
= overburden stress gradient, psi/ft

D
dc = actual d c - exponent from plot
d cn = d c - exp onent from the normal trend

Case study
Example
Calculate the pore

pressure at depth X using
the data in this graph.
Assume:
West Texas location with
normal overburden of
X
1.0 psi/ft.
X = 12,000 ft. 1.2 1.5
dc

Case study
E.S. Pennebaker
8 Used seismic field data for the

detection of abnormal pressures.
8 Under normally pressured conditions the

sonic velocity increases with depth.
(i.e. Travel time decreases with depth)
(why?)
Case study
E.S. Pennebaker
4 Any departure from this trend is an

indication of possible abnormal
pressures.
4 Pennebaker used overlays to estimate

abnormal pore pressures from the

difference between normal and actual
travel times.
Case study
Depth, ft
Interval Travel Time, µsec per ft

0
Case study
Ben Eaton
also found a way to determine pore pressure
from interval travel times.
Example:
In a Gulf Coast well, the speed of sound is 10,000
ft/sec at a depth of 13,500 ft. The normal speed
of sound at this depth, based on extrapolated
trends, would be 12,000 ft/sec. What is the pore
pressure at this depth?
Assume: S/D = 1.0 psi/ft

( Dt a 1/v )
1
Case study
Equations for Pore Pressure Determination
æ R ö
log çç 60 N ÷
÷
dC = è ø *æç
rNORMAL ö
÷
æ 12 W ö ç è r ACTUAL
÷
ø
log ç
ç 10 6 D ÷ ÷
è B ø
1 .2
P S æS æPö ö æ dc calculated ö
= -ç - ç ÷ ÷ ç ÷
D D ç ÷ ç d normal ÷
èD è D øn ø è c ø
1 .2
P S æS æPö ö æ R obs ö
= -ç
ç - ç ÷ ÷
÷ ç
ç R ÷
÷
D D èD è D øn ø è n ø
1 .2
P S æS æPö ö æ Cn ö
= -ç
çD - ç ÷ ÷
÷ ç
çC ÷
÷
D D è è D øn ø è o ø
3 .0
P S æS æPö ö æ Dt n ö
= -ç
ç - ç ÷ ÷
÷ ç
ç Dt ÷
÷
D D èD è D øn ø è o ø
2
Case study
Pore Pressure Determination


3
Case study
EXAMPLE 3 - An Application...
Mud Weight = 10 lb/gal. (0.52 psi/ft)

Surface csg. Set at 2,500 ft.
Fracture gradient below surf. Csg = 0.73 psi/ft
Drilling at 10,000 ft in pressure transition zone
* Mud weight may be less than pore pressure!
DETERMINE Maximum safe underbalance

between mud weight and pore pressure if well
kicks from formation at 10,000 ft.
4
Case study

5
Case study
DP Casing Seat depth

Depth, ft
After Kick and

Stabilization
Before Kick
Kick at X ft DP
Wellbore Pressure, psi

6
Case study
Prediction of Fracture Gradients

4Well Planning
4Theoretical Fracture Gradient Determination
4Hubbert & Willis
4Matthews & Kelly
4Ben Eaton
4Comparison of Results
4Experimental Frac. Grad. Determination
4Leak-off Tests
4Lost Circulation
4Gas Cut Mud
7
Case study
Well Planning
4Safe drilling practices require that the
following be considered when
planning a well:
4 Pore pressure determination
4 Fracture gradient determination
4 Casing setting depth selection
4 Casing design
4 H2S considerations
4 Contingency planning
8
Case study
Fig. 7.21

9
Case study

0
Case study
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
Given: Well depth is 14,000 ft.

Formation pore pressure expressed
in equivalent mud weight is 9.2 lb/gal.
Overburden stress is 1.00 psi/ft.
Calculate:
1. Pore pressure, psi/ft , at 14,000 ft
2. Pore pressure, psi, at 14,000 ft

3. Matrix stress, psi/ft
4. Matrix stress, psi

1
Case study
S =S = PP+ s+ s
8. Fracture Gradients PETE 661 Drilling Engineering Slide 8

2
Case study

Depth = 14,000 ft.
Pore Pressure = 9.2 lb/gal equivalent
Calculations:
Overburden stress = 1.00 psi/ft.
1. Pore pressure gradient

= 0.433 psi/ft * 9.2/8.33 = 0.052 * 9.2
= 0.478 psi/ft
2. Pore pressure at 14,000 ft

= 0.478 psi/ft * 14,000 ft
= 6,692 psig

3
Case study
Calculations:
3. Matrix stress gradient,
S =P+s psi
S P s
or = + psi/ft
D D D
s S P
i.e., = - = (1.000 - 0.478 ) psi / ft

D D D
s / D = 0.522 psi/ft
4
Case study
Calculations:
4. Matrix stress at 14,000 ft
= 0.522 psi/ft * 14,000 ft

s = 7,308 psi

5
Case study
Fracture Gradient Determination
In order to avoid lost circulation while

drilling it is important to know the variation
of fracture gradient with depth.
Leak-off tests represent an experimental

approach to fracture gradient determination.
Below are listed and discussed three

approaches to calculating the fracture
gradient.
6
Case study
1 æ 2P ö
1. Hubbert & Willis: Fmin = ç1 + ÷
3è D ø
1 æ Pö
Fmax = ç1 + ÷
2 è Dø
where F = fracture gradient, psi/ft

P
= pore pressure gradient, psi/ft
D
7
Case study
2. Matthews & Kelly:
K is P
F = +
D D
where Ki = matrix stress coefficient

s = vertical matrix stress, psi
8
Case study
3. Ben Eaton:
æS -Pö æ g ö P
F = ç ÷ * çç ÷÷ +
è D ø è 1- g ø D
where S = overburden stress, psi

g = Poisson’s ratio
9
Case study
Example
A Texas Gulf Coast well has a pore pressure

gradient of 0.735 psi/ft. Well depth = 11,000 ft.
Calculate the fracture gradient in units of lb/gal

using each of the above three methods.
Summarize the results in tabular form, showing

answers, in units of lb/gal and also in psi/ft.
0
Case study
Example - Hubbert and Willis
1. Hubbert & Willis: 1 æ 2P ö

Fmin = ç1 + ÷
3è D ø
P psi
The pore pressure gradient, = 0.735
D ft
1 psi
Fmin = (1 + 2 *0.735) = 0.823
3 ft
1
Case study
Also,
0.823 psi/ft
Fmin =
æ psi/ft ö
0.052 çç ÷÷
è lb/gal ø
Fmin = 15.83 lb/gal

2
Case study
1 æ Pö 1
Fmax = ç1 + ÷ = (1 + 0.735 )
2 è Dø 2
= 0.8675 psi/ft
Fmax = 16.68 lb/gal

3
Case study
Example
P K is
2. Matthews & Kelly F = +
D D
In this case P and D are known, s may be
calculated, and K i is determined graphically.
(i) First, determine the pore pressure gradient.

P
= 0.735 psi / ft (given )
D
4
Case study
Example - Matthews and Kelly
(ii) Next, calculate the matrix stress.
S=P+s ìS = overburden, psi ü

ïs = matrix stress, psi ï
ï ï
s=S-P í ý
= 1.00 * D - 0.735 * D ïP = pore pressure, psi ï
ï ï
= 0.265 * D îD = depth, ft þ
= 0.265 * 11,000
s = 2,915 psi
5
Case study
(iii) Now determine the depth, D i , where,

under normally pressured conditions, the
rock matrix stress, s would be 2,915 psi.
Sn = Pn + sn n = “normal”
1.00 * Di = 0.465 * Di + 2,915
Di * (1 - 0.465) = 2,915
2,915
Di = = 5,449 ft
0.535
6
Case study
Example -
Matthews and
Kelly
(iv) Find Ki from

the plot on the
right, for
Di = 5,449 ft
For a south Texas

Gulf Coast well,
Ki = 0.685

7
Case study

K is P
(v) Now calculate F: F = +
D D
0.685 * 2,915
F = + 0.735
11,000
= 0.9165
psi / ft
0.9165
F = = 17.63 lb / gal
0.052
8
Case study
5,449
Depth, Di
0.685
8. Fracture Gradients PETE 661 Drilling Engineering Ki Slide 25

9
Case study
Example
Ben Eaton:
æS -Pö æ g ö P
F = ç ÷ * çç ÷÷ +
S
=? g=?
D
0
Case study
Variable Overburden Stress by
Eaton
At 11,000 ft
S/D = 0.96 psi/ft

1
Case study
Fig. 5-5
At 11,000 ft
g = 0.46

2
Case study
Example - Ben Eaton
From above graphs, æ S P öæ g ö P

F = ç - ÷çç ÷÷ +
è D D øè 1 - g ø D
at 11,000 ft.:
S
= 0.96 psi / ft; g = 0.46
D
æ 0.46 ö
F = (0.96 - 0.735 ) ç ÷ + 0.735
è 1 - 0.46 ø
F = 0.9267 psi/ft
= 17.82 lb/gal
3
Case study
Summary of Results
Fracture Gradient
psi.ft lb/gal
Hubbert & Willis minimum: 0.823 15.83
Hubbert & Willis maximum: 0.868 16.68
Mathews & Kelly: 0.917 17.63

Ben Eaton: 0.927 17.82

4
Case study
Summary of Results
4 Note that all the methods take into
consideration the pore pressure gradient.
As the pore pressure increases, so does
the fracture gradient.
4 In the above equations, Hubbert & Willis

apparently consider only the variation in
pore pressure gradient. Matthews &

Kelly also consider the changes in rock
matrix stress coefficient, and in the
matrix stress ( Ki and si ).
5
Case study
Summary of Results
4 Ben Eaton considers

variation in pore pressure gradient,
overburden stress and
Poisson’s ratio,
and is probably the most accurate of

the three methods. The last two

methods are actually quite similar, and
usually yield similar results.
6
Case study
Similarities
Ben Eaton:
æS -Pö æ g ö P
F = ç ÷ * çç ÷÷ +
s Ki P
F = +
D D
Matthews and Kelly:

7
Case study
Experimental Determination of
Fracture Gradient
The leak-off test
4 Run and cement casing

4 Drill out ~ 10 ft
below the casing seat
4 Close the BOPs

4 Pump slowly and
monitor the pressure
8
Case study

9
Case study
45
80
105
120
120
120
120
120
120
40
20

0
Case study

1
Case study

2
Case study

3
Case study
Experimental Determination of
Fracture Gradient
Example:
In a leak-off test below the
casing seat at 4,000 ft, leak-off
was found to occur when the
standpipe pressure was 1,000
psi. MW = 9 lb/gal.
What is the fracture gradient?

4
Case study
Example
Leak-off pressure = PS + DPHYD
= 1,000 + 0.052 * 9 * 4,000
= 2,872 psi
PLEAK -OFF 2,872 psi

=
D 4,000 ft
Fracture gradient = 0.718 psi/ft
EMW = ?
13.8 lb/gal

5
Case study
What is Gas Cut Mud?
After drilling through a

formation containing
gas, this “drilled gas”
will show up in the mud
returns at the surface.
Gas cut mud is mud

containing some gas -
from any source.
6
Case study
Gas Cut Mud
4 Effect of Drilling Rate

4 Effect of Circulation Rate
4 Mud/Gas Ratio at the bottom of the Hole
4 Mud/Gas Ratio at the Surface
4 Density of Gas Cut Mud
4 Reduction of Bottom Hole Pressure

due to Gas Cut Mud
4 Safe Drilling Practices

7
Case study
Note:
It is very important in any drilling operation:
4 To recognize the symptoms of

increasing pore pressure
4 To be able to estimate the magnitude
of the pore pressure

8
Case study
Note cont’d:
4 To know the fracture gradients of the

exposed formations
4 To maintain the drilling practices within
controllable limits
4 To keep in mind that any one symptom of
increasing pore pressure may not be
sufficient to provide the basis for

precise conclusions
4Look at all the indicators...
9
Case study
ROP F.L.Temp DCl - rMUD Dt
d Gas Units rSH YP

0
Case study
What should be done when gas

cut mud is encountered?
(1) Establish if there is any fire hazard. If

there is a fire hazard, divert flow through
mud-gas separation facilities.
(a) Notify any welder in area

(b) Notify all rig personnel of the
pending danger
1
Case study

(2) Determine where the gas came from.

If the casing seat fracture gradient is being
approached, and there is some concern about
raising the mud weight:
Stop drilling and circulate, and observe the

gas response. If source is drilled gas, the gas
rate will decrease.
2
Case study

(a) If the gas units completely return to

the original background gas, it would
probably be safe to resume drilling.

3
Case study
(b) If there has been ample circulation

time and the gas units do not drop back
to the original background level, but stay
at a higher value, this indicates that the
mud weight is approaching the pore

pressure and consideration should be
given to increasing the mud weight.
4
Case study

Establish Where did the gas

come from?
(a) Drilled gas - no increase in mud

weight is required
(b) Increasing pore pressure

- (abnormal pore pressure)
- May have to increase mud weight

5
End of chapter 2

6

Chapter 2 - Geomachanics in Driling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 - Geomachanics in Driling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIETNAM OIL AND GAS GROUP

Lecturer : Dr. Nguyen Van Hung

CHAPTER 2 – Introduction to the Geomechanics in Drilling

1. Borehole Stability Analysis for Vertical Wells

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 2

v A Complex Engineering Problem relates to this

• Wellbore stability in vertical and inclined wells

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 3

v Description of the Problem

• Global problem: Stability of boreholes became an

• Geomechanical analysis is often conducted for more

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 4

Identify the complex petroleum engineering problem

Circulation Loss: Occur when 𝑉!"# $%&"$' < 𝑉!"# ("!( .

Mechanical borehole collapse: Occur at low borehole

Chemical effects: induce hole enlargement or collapse in

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 5

Time and cost: the complex petroleum engineering problem

Time: 10–20% of the time spent on a well is due to unplanned

TABLE 2.1—EXAMPLE OF UNPLANNED EVENTS

Cost: Knowing that the worldwide drilling budgets are many

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 6

Several well problems

Circulation Loss: Loss of well control, resulting in a blowout;

Figure 2.1. Circulation loss

Solution to the complex petroleum engineering problem

Circulation Loss: Remedy?

Figure 2.1. Circulation loss

Solution to the complex petroleum engineering problem

Circulation Loss: One remedy is to reduce the mud weight,

Figure 2.1. Circulation loss

Identify the complex petroleum engineering problem

Mechanical borehole collapse: Occur at low borehole

Figure 2.2. Borehole collapse

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 10

Solution to the complex petroleum engineering problem

Mechanical borehole collapse: Remedy?

Figure 2.2. Borehole collapse

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 11

Solution to the complex petroleum engineering problem

Mechanical borehole collapse: The remedy is often to

Figure 2.2. Borehole collapse

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 12

v Units and Equations

• Pressure are defined in terms of the hydrostatic head at a given

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 13

v Constraints: In-Situ Stresses

All rocks are subjected to stresses at any depth

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 14

v Constraints: In-Situ Stresses

ü Reverse fault stress state: σ2 < σ0 < σ1

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 15

Figure 2.3. Illustration of effective stress

(Source: Robert and Stefan 2011)

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 17

At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 18

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 19

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 20

1. At a given depth in a sedimentary basin, the overburden stress is equal to 1.95 SG

A. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.71; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

B. For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=0.8. For 2: For 1: s’h/s’v=0.78; s’H/s’v=1.14

Dr. Nguyen Van Hung Geomechanics 21