SPE 150771

Geomechanical Modelling of Thermal Effects on Wellbore Stability using

the Thermo Poro Elastic Model in HPHT Wellbores
Akong Bassey, Adewale Dosunmu, Bukola Olaseinde Usele Lonna, Buduka Stanley & Madu Sebastine
Department of Petroleum & Gas Engineering University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 30 July - 3 August 2011.
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
Wellbore stability is a costly problem, and is especially challenging in high pressure, high temperature wells (HPHT)
resulting in higher NPT during well operations. Also high pressure high temperature wells are wells whose pore pressure
exceeds 0.8psi/ft and at a formation temperature of 400F (150C). Deep and deviated wells are becoming more and more
common. One needs to understand the behavior of formation rock in order to control the stability of such wells. The
responsible factor is the state of stress, which is influenced by mechanical (in situ), hydraulic (pore pressure change), and
thermal effects. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of temperature on wellbore stability under combined
conditions (heat transfer with flowing drilling fluid, heat sources generated by mechanical friction, effect of pore pressure on
formation temperature profile). Thermal effects at the wellbore wall in the absence of pore fluid diffusion (that is for purely
conductive heat flow) can be described to first order using the finite element simulator. Therefore, raising the temperature of
the mud leads to an increase in tangential stress, which enhances the likelihood of breakouts and inhibits tensile fracture
formation, and on the other hand, cooling the mud inhibits breakouts and which increases the likelihood of development of
tensile wall fractures. It is very important that the thermo poro model is used to predict the zones of instabilities as we drill
deep in these wells. The thermal predictions from this model will be used to analyze wellbore temperature during drilling as
a function of depth, bit temperatures over the drilling history, cement temperatures from setting to the end of drilling and
casing temperatures at selected depths over the drilling history. Also failure to recognized ballooning versus well control is a
common mistake made in drilling operations which is one of the leading causes of unnecessary expending casings in narrow
margins as a result of high ECD in this wells. The model will be use as a tool in predicting instabilities in this wells and also
enhancing effective well construction during well planning for good drilling practices thereby reducing NPT

SPE 150771

Introduction
Deliberate access to geological formations bearing petroleum through drilled wells is relatively difficult because most
shallow formations are close to the end of their economic life. Drilling operations have to get access to deeper reservoirs
through deviated bore hole, meanwhile more harsh conditions leading to substantial increase in failure potential. The
consequences of failure are severe: even the most simple bore hole collapse or break down can result in the loss of millions of
dollars in equipment and valuable natural recourses. It was understood through performed geomechanical surveys that well
bore stability problems might be alleviated or often eliminated by pertinent determination of mud weight window. Thus
Kirsch's equation, which was developed one hundred years ago coupled with Mohr-Coulomb failure mechanism were utilized
to compute the safe mud density (Fjaer et al. (1992)). Because wells have become more expensive and complex, both in
terms of well geometry (reach and length) and access to deep, high temperature, high pore pressure, and high stress regimes,
it has become clear that the economic success of field developments can only be assured if geology and tectonics are
understood and field activities are designed with that understanding. Furthermore, constraints on engineering practice based
on environmental and social requirements necessitate specially designed mud formulations and drilling techniques.
Development and application of these solutions depends not only on an understanding of the processes that act within the
earth, but also of the impact of these processes on drilling practice in HPHT wells. The study of these processes, of the
interactions between them and their effect on earth materials is called Geomechanics. Wellbore stability is a costly problem,
and is especially challenging in high pressure, high temperature wells (HPHT) resulting in higher NPT during well
operations. Also high pressure high temperature wells are those pore pressure exceed 0.8psi/ft and at a formation temperature
greater than 400F (150C). Deep and deviated wells are becoming more and more common. One needs to understand the
behavior of formation rock in order to control the stability of such wells. The responsible factor is the state of stresses, which
is influenced by mechanical (in situ), hydraulic (pore pressure change), and thermal effects.
High pressure, High temperature (HPHT) wells construction
Drilling and completing wells in HPHT environment is difficult and dangerous. But as activity in these areas expands,
transferring experience, expertise and knowledge about the best techniques from person to person and well to well is essential
to reduce risks, increase safety, efficiency and ultimately improve financial returns. The principles of well construction in
HPHT wells are not significantly different from those used in less demanding or standard wells, but challenges remain
because of conditions that limit the range of suitable materials and affect equipment performance. The margins for error are
small and the potential consequences of failure are great despite the challenges, interest in these wells has remained high and
the number of HPHT well has grown steadily. Even with growing experience, many aspects of drilling and completing HPHT
wells continue to demand special attention. For example, secondary well control relies on surface equipment being able to

SPE 150771

function reliably under extreme conditions. Blowout preventer (BOP) elastomers and flexible hoses must be rated to
withstand the temperatures and pressures for long enough to evacuate a rig during the worst case scenario (often considered
to be completed expulsion of drilling fluid from the well after loss of well control). Evaluating HPHT wells requires special
logging and testing tools, with downhole mechanical and electrical equipment capable of withstanding harsh conditions of
elevated temperature and pressure, high temperature explosions for perforating and procedures for their successful operation.
This study will evaluate current well control practices that emphasize the application of computer simulations to model
downhole temperatures and wellbore stability issues based on the mudweight in use the hole. When combined with
sophisticated hydraulic models, these simulations help well engineers reliably predict downhole pressures to within 1% of the
actual conditions. Techniques for measurement of drilling fluid parameters at surface to the same accuracy complement the
models, permitting control of fluid properties and ultimately downhole pressures.
Planning success:
Most of the hazards of drilling HPHT wells are related to overpressured formations. Ideally, such wells would be drilled with
enough mudweight to give a comfortable safety margin over pore pressure. The mud engineers job in formulating the mud
would then be relatively straightforward, minimize formation damage and maximize penetration rate. An overpressured
formation becomes a major problem when the formation fracture pressure is close to that in the overpressured zone. This
result in drilling conditions where kicks and wellbore shear failures are easily taken, and where fractures can be inadvertently
initiated, resulting in drilling fluid losses that are difficult to control.
THERMOPOROELASTICITY:
Thermoporoelasticity is the coupling between thermal stresses, pore pressure and temperature with rock mechanical
properties. Thermal energy transfer obeys the same diffusion law as does the movement of pore fluid. Hence, it is
straight forward to model the time dependent effects of wellbore cooling or heating using the same equations as are
used for poroelasticity. This is potentially quite important because cooling a well reduces the circumferential stress
and thereby temporarily decreases the likelihood of breakout formation. Simply modeling the pore pressure and
temperature in HPHT wells is very critical and important, because this will help in the real time evaluation of
narrow mudweight window for effective wellbore strengthening in these wells. However, simply modeling the pore
pressure and temperature dependently will be enough because thermal energy transfer occurs both by conduction
(heat transfer) and by convection (motion of warm or cold fluids). Thus, a fully coupled thermoporoelasticity is
required. The wellbore wall temperature is considered to be equal to the temperature of the drilling fluid in the
annulus. The drilling fluid temperature can be calculated using the steady state method. For constant temperature
at the wellbore wall with the finite element simulator coupled with then 3D Mogi failure criterion and it will be used

SPE 150771

based on the temperature transient superposition approach. The in situ stress state and rock strength are key
parameters in a number of problems concerning petroleum and geothermal reservoir development, particularly in
well stimulation and optimum wellbore trajectory analyses. Inversion techniques utilized to determine the in situ
stress and rock strength based on the observation of borehole failure and its analysis often assume elastic rock
behavior. However, when drilling through high-pressure and high-temperature rocks, coupled poro-thermomechanical processes result in a time-dependent stress and pore pressure distribution around the borehole. In this
work, the poro-thermoelastic effects on borehole failure are studied and their impact on wellbore stability and the
estimations of the in situ maximum horizontal stress and rock strength using wellbore failure data are investigated. It
is shown that coupled poro-thermo-mechanical effects influence both failure mode and potential. Also, when
considering shear failure, neglecting heating and cooling effects will underestimate and overestimate rock strength,
respectively. Therefore, for accurate assessment of wellbore stability and inversion of wellbore failure data,
poroelastic and thermal factors would be considered. Drilling geothermal and HP/HT wells can be more difficult
than drilling standard oil wells because of the unusual high temperatures encountered (as well as other problems
such as lost circulation, high wellbore temperatures strongly affect the performance of drilling fluids, cements, well
casing and tubing, and the elastomers and seals in packers).
Determination of downhole wellbore and earth temperatures is a complex task. Many variables influence temperatures, which
are continuously changing with time. Temperature recording devices have been developed but these provide only isolated
data points for a transient quantity and, furthermore, cannot provide sufficient information to establish the relative importance
of variables influencing temperatures. Therefore, a means of analyzing downhole thermal stresses and mudweight associated
to that in a geothermal wellbore (HP/HT) is needed to determine important design criteria, such as upper, lower and optimum
mudweight window for safe drilling in these wells, since this well possesses narrow and thin mudweight windows. In view of
this, two drilling simulators will be conducted, the first based on the flowing drilling fluid temperature and pore pressure
penetration, and the second which classifies the containment of thin and narrow mudweight window based on wellbore
strengthening procedures. Coupled thermal and mechanical processes play an important role in a number of problems of
interest in geomechanics such as stability of boreholes, permeability enhancement in geothermal reservoirs or high
temperature petroleum bearing formations. When rocks are heated/cooled, the bulk solid as well as the pore fluid tends to
undergo a volume change. A volumetric expansion can result in significant pressurization of the pore fluid depending on the
degree of containment and the thermal and hydraulic properties of the fluid as well as the solid. The net effect is a coupling of
thermal and poromechanical processes when developing geothermal reservoirs. These processes occur on various time scales
and the significance of their interaction and coupling is dependent upon the problem of interest. For example, in drilling

SPE 150771

operations there is a strong coupling between thermal and poromechanical effects that has significant impact on the
stress/pore pressure distribution around the wellbore and thus hole failure and fracture initiation.
physical parameters for thermo-poro-elastic model
Drilling mud density:
The density of the drilling mud is dependent on pressure and temperature. The total mass of the mud in a well will vary with
the temperature distribution in the wellbore. The temperature distribution depends on formation virgin temperature and
drilling history. The active mud volume in an HPHT well may change significantly when circulation starts or stops even
when there is no lost circulation or influx. The reason for the changes may be one or more of the following effects:
1.

Mud expands or contracts due to temperature variations

2.

The mud expands or is compressed due to pressure variations

3.

The diameter of the casing and open hole sections increases or decreases (ballooning).

Thermopysical properties:
Calculations of dynamic temperature profiles require information about specific heat and thermal conductivity of materials
represented in the well, well fluid, steel, formation, cement, water and mud. Except for the well fluids, these properties may
be obtained from several sources. Little or no data is available for HPHT drilling fluids that are mixtures of several
components with different properties.

Hole problems associated with HPHT wellbores

The hole problems associated with HPHT wells include;

1.

Formation fracturing

2.

Lost circulation

3.

Hole enlargement

4.

Hole ballooning

5.

Pipe sticking

6.

Hole spiraling.

Theoretical background
Borehole stability can be explained as a balance between the formation rock strength and the near wellbore stresses. When
the near wellbore stresses exceed the formation strength (either in compressive and tensile modes), the resulting in balance
leads to wellbore failure. The several factors which impact both the wellbore stresses and formation strength i.e., drilling

SPE 150771

fluid/formation interaction, temperature, drilling operations, etc. therefore, to solve borehole instability problems for a
specific drilling project, one has to know the mechanical properties and composition of the rock formations, subsurface in
situ stresses and the planned wellbore trajectory. In addition, an adequate stress model to determine the near wellbore stresses
and an appropriate rock failure criterion are required to formulate the model and conduct a Thermoporoelasticity borehole
instability analysis.

Geomechanical (Thermoporoelasticity) Model Procedure

Stage 1: first step is to build up the model based on the correlation wells available which are sited next to the studied well
and have similar behavior respect to it. This well must have much information as possible to obtain the geomechanical
model. This means well logging (density log, sonic log, gamma ray log, resistivity log, and porosity log), drilling reports and
formation tests.

Stage 2: the second stage is model calibration, which is the replication of drilling conditions on the correlation wells, based
on the following information: formation test data, drilling reports, and experimental data (both petrophysics and
Geomechanics data).

Stage 3: at last, the model is extrapolated to the exploratory well by taking into account geologic features, well
configurations and different drilling conditions occurred at correlation wells. In order to update the model, the behavior of
rock is observed while drilling. And this may help to support the decision making on the operation

Stresses at borehole wall in anisotropic stress field in HPHT wells:

In a linear elastic material, the largest stress concentration occurs at the borehole wall. Therefore, borehole failure is expected
to initiate there. For wellbore instability analysis, consequently, stresses at the borehole wall are the ones that should be
compared against a failure criterion. These stresses are determined for deviated, vertical and horizontal wellbores in the
following sections for the HPHT well.

Typically, Geomechanics and borehole stability support to a field development project involves the following:
1.

Conducting a review of offset well drilling operations

2.

Compiling subsurface data such as in situ stresses, temperature and pore pressure, estimation and or measurement
of formation rock properties.

SPE 150771

3.

Optimization of drilling fluid (type and composition)

4.

Performing mudweights analysis to determine safe operating window.

5.

Provide real time monitoring of drilling operations to manage borehole instability related issues.

Stage 1: first step is to build up the model based on the correlation wells available which are sited next to the studied well
and have similar behavior respect to it. This well must have much information as possible to obtain the geomechanical
model. This means well logging (density log, sonic log, gamma ray log, resistivity log, and porosity log), drilling reports and
formation tests.
Building the geomechanical model (thermoporo elastic model) ARETwell.
The elements of the geomechanical model that form the basis for analysis of wellbore stability are the state of stresses (the
orientation and magnitudes of the three principal stresses), the pore pressure penetration, temperature effect and the rock
properties, including strength (which can be anisotropic, particularly in consolidated shales). Below are the various ways in
determining the different geomechanical input parameters.
Pore pressure modeling analysis:
Equation method has been formulated and applied by Eaton to determine the estimated pore pressure in the different zones.
The equation has been formulated by dividing the observed resistivity and sonic log values by the normal trend value.
Resistivity method:
The general form of equation for predicting pore pressure from resistivity is given as thus;
. 1.0
Sonic method:
The general form of equation for predicting pore pressure from sonic is given as thus:
.. 2.0
Maximum horizontal stress modeling:
Constraining the maximum horizontal stress is a very important thing in Geomechanics; usually this is done either through
breakout width analysis or empirical models depending on the fault regimes in consideration. In this study the empirical
approach is considered in different stress regimes.
Normal faulting regimes (NF):
For normal faulting the correlation is as shown below;
0.5

.3.0

SPE 150771

Reverse and strike slip regimes (RF/SS):

For reverse and strike slip regimes the correlation is as shown below:
,

.4.0

Overburden stress modeling:

Onshore environment:
In this study the overburden stress is modeled using the sand lithology net/gross ratio and the rock (formation bulk density).
0.433

. .5.0

Offshore environment (HPHT):

For offshore environment mostly in HPHT environments, the overburden stress is modeled as thus;
0.433

0.433

6.0

Inlet mud temperature modeling:

The wellbore wall temperature can be considered to be equal to the temperature of the drilling fluid in the annulus. The
drilling fluid temperature is calculated using a steady state method coupled with the linear temperature profile or using the
transient approach for constant temperature at the wellbore wall and the far field formation boundary. The initial conditions
and boundary conditions are considered; this simplified approach only applies for large distance and long time, under which
temperature reaches pseudo steady state distribution. Hence this can be solved using the coupled finite element analysis
with the pseudo steady state as thus;
,0
,
,
,
,
,
For transient wellbore wall temperature, the superposition approach is used in view of the fact that the axial stress is
estimated based on a plane strain assumption.
,

The above term take into account the temperature fluctuations within the wellbore walls for cooling and heating of the
wellbore in conjunction with the elastic stresses. Hence the normalized temperature for inlet mud temperature evaluation is
given as thus;
100

.6.0

Mechanical rock properties modeling:

Poissons ratio: the Poissons ratio is modeled from primary and secondary wave velocities, which is given as thus;

SPE 150771

Rock strength: the rock strength is modeled from primary wave as thus;

Rock cohesive strength:

This is modeled from the unconfined compressive strength and the rock internal friction angle, and is given as thus;

Rock tensile strength:

This is modeled from rock cohesive strength and the internal friction angle.

Youngs modulus:
The youngs modulus is modeled from the Poissons ratio as thus;

Stresses around boreholes in anisotropic stress field:

Underground formations are subjected to a vertical compressive stress caused by the weight of the overlying strata, and
horizontal stresses due to the confining lateral restraints. Under the action of these in situ stresses, prior to drilling a borehole,
the rock mass is in a state of equilibrium that will be destroyed by the excavation. When a borehole is drilled, the load carried
by the removed rock is then taken by the adjacent rock to re-establish equilibrium. As a result, a stress concentration is
produced around the well, and so the in situ stresses are modified. If there is no support pressure introduced into the borehole,
failure in the formation may take place. Therefore, maintaining equilibrium in the field to prevent rock failure requires the
use of a support pressure which is usually provided by a pressurized fluid called mud.
To assess the potential mechanical and thermal instability of a borehole, a constitutive model is needed in order to know the
magnitude of the local and thermal stresses around a borehole. Using the stress transformation equation, the virgin formation
stresses expressed in the (x, y, and z) co-ordinate system become:
1.0

.6.0

10

SPE 150771

VERTICAL HPHT WELLBORE FAILURE ANALYSIS

In order to determine the stresses at wall of a vertical borehole, we set the inclination angle equal zero, for simplicity, we
orient the horizontal axes so that the direction equal zero is parallel to maximum horizontal stress. It was noted in the course
of this study that tensile fracture formation will occur more easily if the ECD is significantly above the pore pressure or if the
drilling mud is significantly cooler than the rock. The effect of temperature on stresses around the wellbore is obviously time
dependent, in the sense that the longer the rock is in contact with wellbore fluid the further away from the hole the
temperature perturbation will propagate. To simplify this problem, one can assume that the rock is impermeable, and
relatively simple integral equations can be written for the magnitudes of tangential and radial stresses as a function of radial
position r and time t. although the exact solution for the temperature distribution near a constant temperature wellbore is a
series expansion coupled with the finite element analysis. Note also that in a vertical well for HPHT environment, breakouts
occur at the azimuth of minimum horizontal stress and have a consistent orientation within a given well or field.

Hence the thermal tangential stress for cooling and heating of the wellbore is as shown below;

Secondly rock stresses are affected by thermal diffusion between the drilling mud and the formation. Thermal effects cannot
be neglected but are seldom considered as an alternative approach to maintain wellbore stability since neither the drilling
fluid temperature nor the rock temperature is easily manageable. Therefore the thermal component for stress variation is
calculated as thus for vertical wells considering HPHT wellbores.

Collapse failure envelope analysis

In view of illustrating these borehole pressures, common to this is the difference between the radial and tangential effective
stresses. This stress contrast give rise to shear stresses, hence the following conclusion is drawn;
-

For lowest borehole pressure gradient, the difference between the radial and tangential stress will be large as it can
be seen with later in this study.

For highest borehole pressure gradient, the difference between the radial and tangential stress will be small.

SPE 150771

11

For the two scenarios above, it will be observed that the lowest and highest borehole pressures will either lie above
or below the failure showing the instability and stability of different wells, as this will be apply in this study.

Table 2.0 showing the fracture and collapse gradient models for vertical wells in NF regimes.
Scenarios (NF)

Collapse gradient(shear failure)

Fracture gradient (tensile failure) (psi/ft)

(psi/ft) vertical wells

Vertical wells ( i = 0)

Scenario 1
Scenario 2

f is the normalized function for collapse, fracture gradient analysis in HPHT wells. The mathematical details for the
procedure in evaluating the collapse and fracture gradient as a function of pressure and temperature in a thermo poro
elastic model. This equation was proposed by Kutasov and modify by Babu taking into consideration the co efficient of
thermal expansion. The equation is a normalized function to correct for temperature and pressure fluctuations within the
wellbore.

The above equation is a transient equation coupled with the finite element analysis for normalizing the optimum mudweight
for safe drilling to avoid drilling with joints. And by using this function one can determine a priori how a specific temperature
distribution will affect the variation in downhole mudweight with density as it has been incorporated into the Aretwell model.
Deviated HPHT wellbore failure analysis
With recent advances in drilling technology, wells are drilled in more difficult environments are becoming more complex.
Despite the existing technical challenges, the drilling deviated wellbores is routinely carried out in oil and gas fields. This is
mainly applied to enlarge the drainage area from a production platform, which may also reduce the number of platforms
required to produce the field. There is consequently a large potential to minimize the costs of the production wells by
developing deviated wells. However, the present of wellbore instability will significantly increase the already high well costs.
It is therefore essential to perform deviated wellbore failure analysis, in order to drill cost effective wells.
Principal stresses at the collapse of deviated wellbores
With the drilling of the wellbore, the in situ stresses are modified and stress concentration is generated around the wellbore.
The determination of stresses around a deviated wellbore depends mainly on the in situ stress magnitudes and orientations,
the pore pressure, the thermal fluctuations and the constitutive behavior of the rock. For a rock obeying linear elastic
behavior, the largest stress concentration occurs at the wellbore walls. Therefore, borehole failure is expected to initiate there.

12

SPE 150771

For wellbore instability analysis, consequently, stresses at the borehole wall are the ones that must be against a failure
criterion.

The stress states above should be used in conjunction with the failure criterion determine the lower limit of the mud pressure,
meanwhile the upper limit of mud pressure should be set equal to the LOT pressure.
Calibration models
In the course of this study two important calibration models is developed to show various uncertainties in estimating the
collapse stress gradient based on the geothermal gradient of the formation and then relates with the caliper log when
failure has already occurred.
The collapse within a particular section of the hole for calibration and is a new parameter that dominates the extent of the
collapse and it is proportional to the thickness of each lithological group during calibration. Is given as thus;

Where X = the geometrical factor.

The uncertainty within the collapse stress gradient is given as thus;
Uncertainty = collapse @ 0o inclination collapse @ 0o azimuth.

Field Applications
Mudweight window prediction for well 34xx using aretwell
In the new model developed in (ARETWELL 1.0), unlike the other approaches, three different limits are proposed. As in
previous models the upper and lower limits are fracture pressure and collapse pressure respectively. The intermediate limit
act as a border line (optimum mudweight), if the well pressure becomes greater than this limit, drilling without joints will be
gained. Otherwise, as the well pressure becomes less than this limit, joints and discontinuities will form around the wellbore.
Consequently to reach stable drilling it is necessary to keep the well pressure between upper and lower limits as it is shown in
Fig. 6 and 7. In the Appendicies.

Collapse stress gradient as a function of wellbore radial distance

In this study the collapse stress gradient for a specific radial distance is presented in Figure 8
(Appendicies). In a normal faulting regime the lowest collapse stress gradient appears at the wellbore

SPE 150771

13

wall rather than inside the formation, which illustrate that, under a particular predicted mudweight, the
wellbore is expected to be at a point of intact or potential collapse failure. Also in view of the wellbore
radial distance application the effect of wellbore cooling can be observe. This is because an increase in
pore pressure occurs in the near wellbore area when thermal cooling is neglected, this shows that
thermal effects are able to raise the near wellbore collapse stress gradient because of the contribution of
thermal effects on pore pressure and normal stresses. If pore pressure tends to decrease monotonically
from the wellbore wall to far field formations, or if it reaches the maximum at the wellbore wall,
results from inspecting only the wellbore stability can be used as the critical mudweight. However, in
some cases where pore pressure reaches a maximum value inside the formation, the entire near wellbore
area needs to be inspected for stability. The displacement of the critical mudweight positions from the
wellbore wall into the near wellbore formations has been included in this study. The radial position
distance evaluation with respect to critical mudweight sensitivity is shown below for WELL - 34XX
Geomechanical drilliability coupling model analysis
In geomechanical drilliability evaluation illustrated in Figure 11, 12 and 13 of the appendicies, the drill
bit is at the very bottom of the hole. If we can utilize the drill bit information we will instantly know
changes as they occur. Also, the drilling information is an under utilized source of information with
large potential for relations. We know that the drilling rate (ROP) depends on the loading and rotary
speed and this is shown below. However, in this study ROP is used to define the drilliability, which is
actually a scaling factor for the coupling between the rock and the drill bit. The in situ stresses is
increasing with depth as with the case of casing stress check as can be seen in Figure 4 and 5. There is of
course a coupling between the stress state and the rock properties, also that the drilling time increases
with depth means that the drilling rate decreases with depth. An established coupling between drilled
depth, drilling rate and time can be established. In view of geomechanical evaluation, the overburden
stress gives a reasonable magnitude of the general stress state at any depth, and this shows that it
increases with depth as ROP decreases as will be apply with Aretwell model during well operations and

14

SPE 150771

well integrity evaluation Figure 4 and 5. In this coupling, penetration rate is a function of several
variables such as sediments compaction, pore pressure, bit weight, rotary speed, impact force, bit
hydraulics; cutter wear. It has been stated that the drilling fluid is probably the most important variable
to be considered in drilling optimization. Drilling fluid density or MW has a considerable effect on the
DR. It is one of the variables inversely proportional to the DR. It has been observed that the DR
generally increases with decreasing equivalent circulating density (ECD) as is shown below. One way to
decrease ECD is to reduce the MW, and the other is to reduce its viscosity. Hence, in this study the
drilliability equation has been modeled to take into consideration the effect of mudweight on drilling
rate with inclusion of formation strength to avoid shear or tensile failure while circulating.
Thermal effects prediction for well 34xx
Thermal stresses effect:
Thermal effects are generated by the temperature imbalance between the drilling fluid and drilled formations, and increase as
the temperature imbalance increases. Cooling the formation is found to be helpful in lowering collapse pressure, resulting in a
more stable borehole. However, it is also found that a formation is more vulnerable to fracture because cooling also lowers
the breakdown pressure. A higher mud weight is required to fracture the formation when hot drilling fluid is used because
hotter fluids increase the breakdown pressure. Also, a higher mud density is needed to prevent a wellbore from collapsing
when a hotter fluid is being circulated through it. The model presented in this study is useful for wellbore stability analysis
for deep wells (HPHT) and deep water applications where mud temperature and thermal stresses varies significantly along
the well path. Figure 14, 15 and 16 illusrate this phenomena.

Effect of inclination on wellbore stability

In carrying out the sensitivity for the effect of inclination on WELL 34XX wellbore stability it was found that, the well
trajectory goes in accordance with the well profile for each of the mudweight predicted using the ARETWELL by taking into
consideration the following;

1. When the difference between in-situ horizontal stresses is high, low inclination wells are more
stable than highly inclined boreholes.
2. Sensitivity to inclination is higher in the case of high difference between the in-situ horizontal
stresses.

SPE 150771

3.

15

When drilling low inclination and highly inclined wells parallel to the minimum in-situ
horizontal stress, the collapse pressure is only a function of overburden stress and maximum
horizontal stress and it is independent of minimum horizontal stress.

4. In the case of high difference between the in-situ stresses, the optimum path for a well is a low
inclination and an intermediate azimuth.
5. Drilling the well parallel to the minimum in-situ stress gives the lowest instability instances.
6. In carrying this, stability of the well will also have been monitored based on the uncertainty
within the collapse stress gradient.
In achieving the above objective the well azimuth at each section of the hole will be fixed while varying
the inclination angle from 0 90deg. In drilling this well the stability decreases as the inclination
increases, because in respect to geomechanics, stress concentration increases as the inclination increases.
From the plot any inclination above 60deg for this well, the well will automatically fail and hole
cleaning will be a problem on the course of drilling this well. This can be seen in Figure 8 and 9.
Case studies where thermopoelasticity was successfully adopted.
The case studies cited in this study, are places in the world where successes of thermoporoelastic models
help in curbing wellbore instability issues most especially in HPHT wells that posseses a narrow
window.
Devenik HPHT well North Sea.
Spring 2001, BP Aberdeen was in the planning process of the Devenik HPHT well in the North Sea. Rogaland Research was
contacted with a request of performing some wellbore stability modeling for this particular well. The well was classified as
an HPHT well with a reservoir temperature of 150 C, and a planned TD at 4613 m TVD. A 1000 m long horizontal section
through the reservoir was planned. One of the concerns was an expected high pressure zone leading to excessive kicks just
above the reservoir formation, which could cause well control incidents and had a direct impact on the casing design. The
well was initially planned with OBM of 12ppg, and instabilities becomes so critical, and later the constraining of the local

16

SPE 150771

and thermal stresses by evaluating the rock strength assisted BP in achieving their goal and stability was maintained up to
4000m.

wellbore stability and pore pressure modeling in HPHT wells for dipping sands in Gulf of Mexico.
Challenge: Drill 20,500-ft well in high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) environment, preventing
lost-time incidents.
There were three main drilling challenges. It was important to find the optimal depth for the 13 5/8-in casing; if it were set
too shallow, it would be difficult to drill into the anticipated overpressured zone without experiencing losses and wellbore
instability problems. This was especially important since all the offset wells had geomechanics-related NPT including kicks,
losses, and wellbore instability in this hole section. Optimizing the mud-weight program and planned equivalent circulating
density (ECD) was important to minimize wellbore instability in the 9 7/8- and 8 1/2-in hole sections, which had a narrow
~1.0-ppg safe mud-weight window. Finally, insufficient offset data were available to calibrate the predrill model in the 8 1/2in hole section, where temperature reached >300 degF and pressure reached ~18,500 psi. The operator had previously used
in-house pore pressure prediction consultants and other service companies to drill low-risk development wells with good
offset well data, but this HPHT well posed new challenges. In view of this the well could not be completed because of the
thermal stresses encountered downhole by the BHA.

Enhanced Mechanical Earth Modeling and Wellbore Stability Calculations Using Advanced Sonic MeasurementsA
Case Study of the HP/HT Kvitebjorn Field in the Norwegian North Sea.

The Kvitebjorn field is an HPHT gas/condensate field, operated by Statoil ASA in the Norwegian North
Sea. Reservoir formations comprise the Brent and Dunlin Groups. They consist of elastic materials,
subjected to reservoir pressures of 77MPa and temperatures of 150oC. The field is intensively faulted,
with a predominant fault trend in NE-SW direction. High resolution sonic data sets were obtained in
several wells, from which one field example is shown here. Numerous theoretical and experimental
works have been undertaken in the recent past to understand the complexity of high pressure high
temperature fields. HPHT means oilfield operations are technically challenging, and have high costs;
with the North Sea including some of the most highly overpressured reservoirs in the world. Therefore it

SPE 150771

17

is imperative to examine all the available data, and apply all the current knowledge and new technology
to assess stresses, and rock properties. Instabilities become the order of the day as well operations had a
major set back. In view of this a 3D earth model was constrained to handle cases of
thermoporoelasticity to access this ugly trend before the well was drilled successfully to 1800ft with a
specify mudweight of 12ppg.
Capabilities of the proposed thermoporoelastic model for HPHT wells
In the course of this study the proposed model is expected to perform the following function based on
the input data available and its well integrity analysis.
1. 3D passive shear failure initiation for borehole ballooning during expansion and contraction of
the wellbore.
2. Calculate wellbore instability risks for a specified mudweight based on shear and tensile failure
3. Accurate pore pressure modeling from sonic and resistivity logs
4. Accurate wellbore temperature modeling in vertical and deviated wells for HPHT wells.
5. Elasto plastic analysis for filter cakes and cuttings management in highly deviated wells
6. Accurate estimation of maximum horizontal stress
7. Proper estimation of in situ stresses for stress check in casing setting optimization.
8. Accurate and proper geomechanical- drilliability evaluation to predict ROP while drilling
9. 3D modeling of thermal stress for cooling and heating of wellbore.
10. Accurate and optimal determination of uncertainty within the collapse stress gradient, and also
predict the optimal well path for well direction and placement.

18

SPE 150771

Conclusion.
1. The optimum mudweight for safe drilling was normalized with a function that takes into
consideration the thermal expansion co efficient of inlet mud and the rock
2. In this model the issue of wellbore cooling and warming was taking into consideration based on
geothermal gradient of the formation. This is because formations with high geothermal gradient
are prone to tensile failure and those with low geothermal gradient are prone to compressive
failure.
3. The collapse stress gradient was modeled with the elasto plastic component, which ordinary is
the first over it kinds in the study of wellbore stability
4. In view of looking at the drilliability issues, the normalized drilling rate was proposed to
handle the issues of overbalance at the bottom of the hole at different hole angles
5. Finally, the model will fit for purpose when data is made available.
Acknowledgement
The Authors are greatly indebted to the Well 34XX work team., we appreciate the effort of the geomechanical research
unit of shell Aret Adams chair in petroleum engineering University of Port Harcourt. We also use this opportunity to
thank the SPDC Wells and shell University Liaison unit for their contribution in the area of data gathering for over one
year. Thank you all.

Nomenclature
PARAMETER
Depth
Vertical stress overburden pressure.
Minimum horizontal stress
Pore pressure
ROCK PROPERTIES
Friction angle
cohesion
Poisons ratio
BOREHOLE ORIENTATION DATA
Range of azimuth (0 360)
Range of inclination (0 90)
LOG DATA
Compressive seismic velocity
Shear seismic velocity
Shale content
Normal transit time
Observed transit time

UNIT
Ft
Psi/ft
Psi/ft
Psi/ft
degrees
Psi/ft
degrees
degrees
sec/ft
sec/ft
%
sec
sec

SPE 150771

19

References

1. Aadnoy, B. S., 1988. Modeling of the stability of highly inclined boreholes in anisotropic rock
formations. SPE Drilling Eng, September, 259-268.
2. Aadnoy, B. S., 1989a. Author's reply to discussion of modeling of the stability of highly inclined
boreholes in anisotropic rock formations. SPE Drilling Eng, June, 188.
3. Aadnoy, B. S., 1989b. Stresses around horizontal boreholes drilled in sedimentary rocks. J Petrol
Sci Eng, 2[4], 349-360.
4. Aadnoy, B. S., 1990. Inversion technique to determine the in-situ stress field from fracturing
data. J Petrol Sci Eng, 4[2], 127-141.
5. Aadnoy, B. S., Ong, S., 2003. Introduction to special issue on Borehole Stability. J Petrol Sci
Eng, 38[3-4], 79-82.
6. Aadnoy, B. S., Rogaland, U., and Chenevert, M. E., 1987. Stability of highly inclined boreholes.
In: Proc SPE/IADC Drilling Conf, New Orleans, March 15-18. SPE 16052.
7. Amadei, B. and Robinson, M., 1986. Strength of rock multiaxial loading conditions. In: Proc
27th US Symp Rock Mech, 47-55.
8. Amadei, B. and Stephansson, O., 1997. Rock Stress and its Measurement, Chapman & Hall
London.
9. Anderson, E. M., 1951. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Applications to
Britain, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
10. Anthony, J. L. and Crook, J. Y., 2002. Development of an orthotropic 3D elastoplastic material
model for shale. In: Proc SPE/ISRM Rock Mech Conf, Irving, Texas, October 20- 23. SPE
78238.
11. Aubertin, M., Li, L., and Simon, R., 2000. A multiaxial stress criterion for short- and long-term
Strength of isotropic rock media. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 37[8], 1169-1193.

20

SPE 150771

12. Awal, M. R., Khan, M. S., Mohiuddin, M. A., and Abdulraheem, A., 2001. A new approach to
borehole trajectory optimisation for increased hole stability. In: Proc SPE Middle East Oil Show,
Bahrain, 17-20 March. SPE 68092.
13. Bell, J. S., 2003. Practical methods for estimating in situ stresses for borehole stability
Applications in sedimentary basins. J Petrol Sci Eng, 38[3-4], 111-119.
14. Besuelle, P., Desrues, J., and Raynaud, S., 2000. Experimental characterisation of the
localisation phenomenon inside Vosges sandstone in a triaxial cell. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci,
37[8], 1223-1237.
15. Bieniawski, Z. T., 1967. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock: Part Itheory of the fracture
process. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr, 4[4], 395-404.
16. Bieniawski, Z. T., 1996. Milestones in Rock Engineering - the Bieniawski Jubilee Collection,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 438 p.
17. Bradford, I. D. R., Aldred, W. A., Cook, J. M., Elewaut, E. F. M., Fuller, J. A., Kristiansen, T. G.,
and Walsgrove, T. R., 2000. When rock mechanics met drilling: effective implementation of real-time
wellbore stability control. In: Proc IADC/SPE Drilling Conf, New Orleans, 23-25 February. SPE 59121.
18. Bradley, W. B., 1979. Mathematical concept-stress cloud can predict borehole failure. Oil Gas J,
77[8], 92-102.
19. Brady, B. H. and Brown, E. T., 1999. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, 2nd edn, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 571 p.
20. Charlez, Ph. A., 1991. Rock Mechanics. Vol. 1 Theoretical Fundamental, Editions Technip, Paris,
360 p.
21. Charlez, Ph. A., 1997. Rock Mechanics. Vol. 2 Petroleum Applications, Editions Technip, Paris, 704
p.

SPE 150771

21

22. Chen, X., Tan, C. P., and Haberfield, C. M., 1996. Wellbore stability analysis guidelines for
practical well design. In: Proc SPE Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 2831 October. SPE 36972.
23. Chen, X., Tan, C. P., Haberfield, C. M., 2002. A comprehensive, practical approach for wellbore
instability management. SPE Drilling Comp, 17[4], 224-236.
24. Cheung, L. S., Haimson, B. C., 1989. Laboratory study of hydraulic fracturing pressure datahow
valid is their conventional interpretation? Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr, 26[6], 595-604.
25. Chen, W. F. The continuum theory of rock mechanics. In: Chong, K. P., Smith, J. W. (Eds):
Mechanics of Oil Shale. Elsevier, 1984. P. 71126.
26. Fairhurst, C., 1965b. On the determination of the state of stress in rock masses. In: Proc annual
AIME Meeting, Chicago, Feb.14-18. SPE 1062.
27. Fairhurst, C., 1968. Methods of determining in situ rock stresses at great depths. TRI-68, Missouri
River Div Corps of Engineers.
28. Fairhurst, C., 2003. Stress estimation in rock: a brief history and review. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci,
40[7-8], 957-973.
29. Fjaer, E., Holt, R. M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A. M., and Risnes, R., 1992. Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 338 p.
30. Fjaer, E., Ruistuen, H., 2002. Impact of the intermediate principal stress on the strength of
heterogeneous rock - art. No. 2032. J Geophys Res-Solid Earth, 107[B2].
31. Fleming, N. H., Ronaldi, R., Bruce, S., and Haryanto, J., 1990. The application of "mechanical"
borehole stability theory to development well planning. In: Proc IADC/SPE Drilling Conf, Houston,
February 27-March 2. SPE 19943.
32. French, F. R. and McLean, M. R., 1992. Development drilling problems in high-pressure reservoirs.
In: Proc SPE Int Meeting Petrol Eng, Beijing, 24-27 March. SPE 22385.

22

SPE 150771

33. Gandi U and Perska 1999, in situ stress determination and continuum theory of rock mechanics
Elsevier, 1999. P. 71126.
34. Mogi, K., 1967. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure. J Geophys Res, 72, 51175131.
35. Mogi, K., 1971a. Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite and limestone.
Tectonophysics, 11[11], 111-127.
35. Mogi, K., 1971b. Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J Geophys Res, 76[5],
1255-1269.
36. Moos, D., Peska, P., and Zoback, M. D., 1998. Predicting the stability of horizontal wells and Multilaterals the role of in situ stress and rock properties. In: Proc SPE Int Conf Horizontal Well Tech,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-4 November. SPE 50386.
37. Morita, N., 2004. Well orientation effect on borehole stability. In: Proc SPE Ann Tech Conf Exh,
Houston, 26-29 September. SPE 89896. Relation between the Mogi and the Coulomb failure criterion A,
M. Al Ajmi and R. W Zimmerman, int J. Rock mechanics, vol. 42, PP. 431 39, May 2006.
38. Jincai Zhang, Casing ultra - long salt sections in deep water: a case study for failure diagnosis and
risk mitigating in record depth well: Proc SPE Ann Tech Conf Exh Houston, 13 14 September. SPE
114273.

SPE 150771

23

APPENDICIES

Figure 1 show the model launch window.

Figure 3. show the model characterization window

Figure 2. Show the batch depth simulation window.

24

SPE 150771

Figure 4. show the input data from Well 34XX.

Figure 5. Show the simulated result from Well 34XX using Aretwell model.

SPE 150771

Figure 6. show the mudweight window from simulated results @ 400degF. Figure 7. Mudweight window at 400degF.

Figure 8. show wellbore radial distance as a function of collapse gradient. Figure 9. Effect of inclination on stability.

25

26

SPE 150771

Figure 10. inclination vs. Collapse stress gradient. For uncertainty check. Figure 11 depth vs. ROP

Figure 12. minimum overbalance vs. Drilling rate.

Figure 13 mud pressure vs. Drilling rate.

SPE 150771

Figure 14. wellbore pressure vs. Thermal stress variation

Figure 16. ROP vs. Thermal stress variation.

27

Figure 15. Depth vs. Thermal stress variation.