Basics of Wellbore Stability

for High Angle Wells

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 1 of 83

1/18
 Objectives

• Define the different types of wellbore instability

• Preventing, Recognizing & Reacting to wellbore
instability

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 2 of 83

2/18
 Types of wellbore instability:

• “Chemical” wellbore instability

• “Classic” wellbore instability (stress related)
• Underbalanced wellbore instability (popping shales)
• Special instability considerations in Shale

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 3 of 83

3/18
 Wellbore Instability
Everything we do is based on the assumption that
the tunnel we are creating is stable
Keeping the tunnel stable is NOT an “optional extra” even though
a short interval.
– Imagine if miner’s considered tunnel stability a “nice to have”…

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 4 of 83

4/18
 Some wellbore instabilities are easy to identify…

Note: This is not a hole cleaning problem!

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 5 of 83
5/18
 Have You Ever Noticed…?
• In some cases, high angle wells require more MW for stability,
than a vertical well in the same formations?

• Some directions are easier to drill than other directions?

• Cavings appear after trips, even if none are seen while drilling
& circulating?

• A lot of problems in the rat hole below a casing shoe, especially

when casing set off bottom

• WBM may require more MW for stability, than SBM/OBM in

the same circumstances?

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 6 of 83

6/18
 General Observations
• Our industry spends vastly more money on wellbore
collapse than on lost circulation
– But Operators tend to be more afraid of lost-circulation than instability

• Typical Comments;
– We can not use “good practices”… this is unstable shale
OR
– “We all agree we need more mud weight, but what if we start having
losses?”

• The industry likes “sexy” technology (remote data centers, wired

pipe, etc.) But place a relatively low priority on the mud
system
– And on the guy who is watching the shakers (entry-level job)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 7 of 83

7/18
 Wellbore Instability

Note:
• It is easy to go down (or right)
• It is difficult to go to the left…
• It is VERY difficult to go up…
Stable Hole

Good Design
Good Practices

Poor Design Poor Design

Good Practices And / or Poor Practices

Unstable Manageable Poor Practices Unstable Unmanageable

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 8 of 83

8/18
 Key Messages
• Many wells are designed to fail!
– Well path & casing points don’t allow necessary MW
– ECDs are not aggressively designed-down, don’t allow
necessary MW

• Instability can be self-induced especially in high

angle wells if appropriate practices are not used
– Swabbing on trips (including wiper trips)
– High ECD fluctuation (fatigue failure)
– Hydraulic hammer during trips (Pumping and pack off)
– Aggressive back-reaming

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 9 of 83

9/18
 Key Messages
• Prevent instability, rather than react to it
– Wellbore instability can never be “repaired”, only managed
– As instability progresses it becomes more and more difficult to
manage

• Success must be designed into the well

– Well path & casing points for necessary MW
– ECDs management to allow necessary MW
– Swab management
– Mud selection

• And if it occurs… patience

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 10 of 83

10/18
 “Chemical” wellbore instability
Water weakening of the Rock by dissolution of cement mineral into the water

Rock in OBM / SBM

doesn’t change with time

But same rock could look like this in WBM

depends on the rock, and the WBM’s inhibition
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 11 of 83
11/18
 “Chemical” wellbore instability
Think of a stone arch The architect or builder has just
discovered that the “walls” are
It’s just civil engineering
not quite strong enough for the
weight of the “roof”
Mud weight is the “bracing” to
compensate for the “weak” walls

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 12 of 83

12/18
 “Chemical” wellbore instability
Generally, we’ve assumed that the rock Let’s assume that one of the
properties don’t change during drilling layers is inert in air, but
chemically reacts with water.

Initially everything is OK …
… But imagine there is a flood

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 13 of 83

13/18
 “Chemical” wellbore instability
“Reactive” refers to how the rock properties
change when exposed to water …

When the waters recede…

Some layers may dissolve, or

become weaker…
This is “time dependant”
• And will require more bracing
(i.e. MW) as the arch-walls
become weaker

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 14 of 83

14/18
 Immersion Tests – Miluveach Shale (Alaska)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 15 of 83

15/18
 Immersion Test- Fresh Water

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 16 of 83

16/18
 Immersion Test – LSND Mud

Note that the

mud affects
only certain
layers

* Low-Solids
Non-Dispersed
Mud

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 17 of 83

17/18
 Immersion Test - HPWBM

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 18 of 83

18/18
 Immersion Test - OBM

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 19 of 83

19/18
 OBM – Calliper
8.5 ppg

WBM - Calliper
9.0 ppg

Both wells have similar bore inclination

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 20 of 83

20/18
 Other Type of Chemical Effects

Shrinkage
SPE 48986

• Running a high Water Phase Salinity (WPS) will results in ion

exchange that will cause a shrinkage of the rock, crumbling of the
rock

• Depend on the concentration of WPS Optimum concentration exist

• This effect can happen with WBM too, if the chlorides are too high

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 21 of 83

21/18
 “Classic” wellbore instability

• How is the rock “stressed”?

• What does Mud Weight do?

• What is effect of the well inclination on Mud Weight?

• How to recognise the classic wellbore failure

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 22 of 83

22/18
 Stress in the earth

sv Vertical or overburden stress

sH Maximum horizontal stress
sh Minimum horizontal stress

• The vertical stress is often the

largest (but not always)

• The stresses in the earth are also

known as in situ stresses or
far field stresses.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 23 of 83

23/18
 Basics of Wellbore Instability
Consider a piece of rock (say, 10,000’ down),
BEFORE drilling
Weight of over-
This rock “feels” the weight of burden from above
10,000’ of over-burden

Re-active force from

below (from Earth)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 24 of 83

24/18
 Basics of Wellbore instability
The rock wants to shrink vertically due to forces above
& below it…
As rock “squeezes” vertically, it
tries to expand horizontally, to
compensate

Rock tries to expand

horizontally, as it is
squeezed from above

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 25 of 83

25/18
 Stress in the earth
• The rock cannot move sideways (because it’s constrained)

• This causes horizontal forces

• Therefore the rock feels:
– High vertical forces
– Lower (usually) horizontal forces
• “Tectonic” stresses may be present:
– Due to faulting, folding, salt domes Horizontal stresses
– These can increase or decrease the may be increased by
horizontal forces tectonic forces and
are not equal

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 26 of 83

26/18
 The Four Types of “Faults”
sv
Normal Faults s
h
sv > s H > sh
(Tension) sH
sv
Strike-slip Faults s
h
sH > sv > sh
(Shear) sH
sv
Thrust Faults s sH > sh > sv
(Compression) H sh

The Mud’s Fault

(Isn’t it Always?)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 27 of 83

27/18
 Classical wellbore deformation
Minimum
Stress
sq min
Hydraulic
Fracture
Wellbore
Mud Failure

sq max

Maximum
Stress

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 28 of 83

28/18
 Well orientation and Mud Weight
Vertical well s
v sH The stress imbalance comes

sV > sH > s h
from the two horizontal
stresses (sv is not
sH contributing to the wellbore
stress)
sh
sv sh

Horizontal well parallel to sh min The stress imbalance

sv sV
sh sH sH
comes from the vertical
and Maximum horizontal
stresses

sH Need More MW than

sh vertical well

Horizontal well parallel to sH max The stress imbalance comes

sv sV from the vertical and
Maximum horizontal stresses
sH
Need More MW than
sh sh
vertical well and Horizontal
well parallel to sH max

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 29 of 83

29/18
 © K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 30 of 83
30/18
 Polar Plots: Inclination & Azimuth & MW
Polar Plot is N
Azimuth
Valid only at a
given TVD
Vertical wells

W E
0
30
All horizontal
60
wells are in
90 this circle

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 31 of 83

31/18
 Sensitivity Analysis – Normal Regime
sv > sH > sh
sv /sh = 1.33
sH /sh = 1.0 Sh
Wellbore stability
MW (ppg)

SH
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 32 of 83
32/18
 Sensitivity Analysis – Normal Regime
sv > sH > sh
sv /sh = 1.33
sH /sh = 1.1 Sh
Wellbore stability
MW (ppg)

SH
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 33 of 83
33/18
 Implication of “Classic” Wellbore Instability

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 34 of 83

34/18
 “Classic” Wellbore Instability severity
The “classic” well bore instability is called “breakout”, Severity of failure is usually
quoted in terms of:

“Angle or
30° degree of 60°
breakout”

Tolerable Not tolerable

Severity depend on hole angle

5% 10%
“Depth of
damage”

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 35 of 83

35/18
 Implication of “Classic” Wellbore Instability

So what are implications for high angle wellbores?

First, consider what ‘tight hole’ looks like…

It’s not the over-sized hole that causes problems…
It’s the gauge hole!

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 36 of 83

36/18
 © K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 37 of 83
37/18
 Implication of “Classic” wellbore instability

Sometimes, the cavings get left in the “wings”.

Normal drilling may not disturb the rubble …

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 38 of 83

38/18
 Implication of “Classic” wellbore instability

But the BHA back-

reaming through this spot
has enough turbulence to
“clean out the wings”

If this occurs, it must be

finished, and it takes a lot
of patience

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 39 of 83

39/18
 Swab Implications on wellbore stability
Let’s re-visit drillstring-generated swab
Remember drillstring-generated swab, when tripping
out AND picking up at connections
• Fluid moves down, along entire length of string

Except this creates a “negative” pressure

• Think of the string as a suction pump

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 40 of 83

40/18
 Swab Implications
Implications of drillstring-generated swab
1. Swab is felt by the wellbore, even when BHA is below that zone
• When picking up at each connections
• When tripping out

2. Swab is felt by the wellbore, even when BHA is long-above that zone
• Even when inside casing

3. High ECD situations likewise mean “high swab” situations

As far as the rock is concerned …

… It’s exactly the same as if the mud weight had been reduced

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 41 of 83

41/18
 © K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 42 of 83
42/18
 Swab Implications

Both short-reach & long-reach wells have same angle (48°) through unstable zone

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 43 of 83

43/18
 Here is calculated collapse & fracture gradients
• for both wells (vs. TVD)
• ≈ 11.5 ppg mud weight necessary for stability
• 11.7 – 11.8 used on short reach without
problems

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 44 of 83

44/18
For short-reach well
• This is the drill-string generated swab, vs pulling speed
• as seen at PWD (BHA)

For short-reach well

• Blue = the drill-string swab … as felt at critical point
• Shows that swab is probably OK

For short-reach well

• This is swab as felt at TD, as BHA is pulled out
• No problems here

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 45 of 83

45/18
 While potentially below
collapse EMW until here

And remember “fast tripping”

usually starts from here …
•Once above critical area

Here is previous swab at collapse zone (for short reach well) And here is same situation for long reach well

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 46 of 83

46/18
 Swab Implications
ERD wells tend to have all the cards stacked against them;
• The MD/TVD ratio amplifies the swab load
• Drill pipe is often bigger for hydraulics
• Mud rheology is often thicker, due to hole cleaning/sag concerns
• MW is often compromised by ECD restrictions

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 47 of 83

47/18
 Recognizing “classic” Instability
During drilling, LWD caliper data can be used for drillers to
1. Diagnose wellbore stability problems
• While drilling
• During & after tripping
2. Visualize the severity of borehole breakout
3. Identify hole quality which may affect running casing/completion

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 48 of 83

48/18
 Recognizing “classic” Instability

Resistivity: Drilling Pass Wiper Trip #1 Wiper Trip #2

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 49 of 83

49/18
 Recognizing Instability

• Hole was gauge on the drilling pass,

showed breakout on the ream pass

• Solution: Increase mud weight on

future wells

Ultrasonic
Drilling Image Reaming Image
calliper
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 50 of 83
50/18
 Cavings vs. Cuttings
Cuttings

Cavings
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 51 of 83
51/18
 Angular Cavings
• These blocks are rock fragments result from shear
failure of the wellbore (breakouts).
• Characteristics
– Irregular shape with rough surface texture
– The surfaces intersect at acute angles.
• Remedial
– If possible, raise the mud weight
– Recognize the need for more patience (hole cleaning
is weakened)
– Improve mud inhibition, if possible

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 52 of 83

52/18
 Instability above cemented intervals
1. At end of job, borehole
feels 9.6 ppg EMW
2. When the packoff is set in
the wellhead, hydrostatic
is isolated
3. Pressure below mudline
eventually equilibrates to
pore pressure
4. Hole collapses above
TOC. Attempts to exit
above TOC fail due to
instability.

Pore Pressure Collapse Pressure

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 53 of 83

53/18
 Wellbore Instability of Rat Hole
What happens when casing is set off-bottom?

While drilling, mud column

exerts hydrostatic column (say,
12.0 ppg EMW)

When casing is set off bottom,

and cement sets up, the lower
wellbore no longer sees the
upper hydrostatic pressure …

12.0 ppg EMW throughout

Now, this point is only seeing

pore pressure gradient

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 54 of 83

54/18
 Underbalance Wellbore Instability
When underbalanced, low mud pressure can produce
“cylindrical” tensile failure
– The tensile cracks are concentric with the wellbore.
– The cracks do not have any directional preference, they occur all
around the wellbore.
This produces splintered cavings
– “Cupped” surface on the cavings
– Typically seen in low-permeability shale.
– Entire circumference of the wellbore may be damaged.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 55 of 83

55/18
 Bedding plane Instability
Bedding or Fracture Plane Weakness
• This occurs when the wellpath’s “angle of attack” is near
parallel to the bedding plane
• A difference of only 1o – 2o angle can make the difference
between “no problem” and an un-manageable problem

Angle of attack
OK – no problems

Bang … possibly severe problems

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 56 of 83

56/18
Bedding plane Instability Field Example

• Clair field, North Sea

• Deviated wells through Lower cretaceous shale

Claire Field geographic location

Borehole drilled
•Mud Weight (sg)

0.2 sg ~ 1.7 ppg successfully

0.1 sg ~ 0.8 ppg “classic”

wellbore stability
Model’s

Borehole Lost

Borehole with problems

Well inclination (deg)
Field data published in SPE 124464

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 57 of 83

57/18
 Bedding Plane Instability (a lab example)
Fissile rocks or bedding planes or fractured
rock can cause severe instability depending
on well direction

Wellbore stable perpendicular to bedding

Oops (same rock, parallel to bedding)

This is not a stress issue.

Cook et al, SPE47285, SPE53940, SPE28061

Draupne shale / Kimmeridge shale, Upper
Jurassic, North Sea

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 58 of 83

58/18
Bedding Plane Instability and Mud invasion
S. Wilson, et al, BP, SPE Real-time
Wellbore Stability Workshop, May 2002

Cross section of
Mud Invasion

Mud invasion in the fissile / pre fractured rock makes it fail easier …
• The mud infiltration lubricates the bedding make it easier to fail
• The rocks have no ability to resist being split apart by the mud pressure
• The rock is then “super-charged” … and will fail when the ECD is relieved (at a connection)

But the rock is weak and needs support from mud weight (field examples)
It is about a balance between high Mud and controlled ECD
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 59 of 83
59/18
 Bedding Plane Instability is catastrophic

Packing off is now hard to avoid,

since gravity is pulling the roof down

On top of that imagine what rotating drillpipe

(or BHA) does on the bottom of the hole …
• It will trench / key-seat very fast

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 60 of 83

60/18
Bedding Plane Instability as a secondary mechanism

But bedding plane failure often occurs as a secondary mechanism

Once “classic instability” has gotten to a critical point … bedding plane failure occurs
As arch support is lost, top fails due to “buckling” of roof members
And then becomes self-sustaining
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 61 of 83
61/18
 Recognizing Bedding Plane Instability

Classic Instability Bedding Plane Instability

(“Bart Simpson”)
A multi-arm caliper (or azimuthal LWD caliper) would see the
difference in these two different mechanisms…

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 62 of 83

62/18
 Recognizing Bedding Plane Instability
• Bedding plane instability have a very
distinct type of caving…
• Characteristics
– Not random gravel shapes
– Flat, parallel faces
• Remedial
Bedding Planes Natural Fractures
– Minimize changes to wellbore
pressure (mud weight and ECD)
– Recognize the need for more patience
(hole cleaning is weakened)
– Minimize shocks and vibrations
– Back-reaming slow (but full rotation
and flow)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 63 of 83

63/18
 Dealing with Instability
Design Issues
• Plan MW to balance stability & risk of exceeding FG
– Check for directional instability factors in offsets
– Aggressive ECD design solutions to allow required MW
– However, be aware that brittle formations with natural planes of
weakness may require very different solutions
• Provide a mud system with adequate inhibition
– Can WBM be used, or is SBM/OBM necessary?
• Design mud & drill string to minimize ECD fluctuations
– Esp. important for brittle formations with natural weakness planes

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 64 of 83

64/18
 Dealing with Instability
Implementation Issues
• Optimize Operational Practices –focus on hole
cleaning for additional cavings & enlarged hole

• Tripping practices
– Avoid wiper trips unless added value outweighs the “cost”
– Minimize surge & swab pressures
• Tripping speeds
• Bit / BHA design for adequate bypass area
• Mud rheology & gel strengths

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 65 of 83

65/18
 What do we mean by losses ?
• Serious losses are not about ‘seepage’ to permeable sands

• Serious losses are taken in vugs or “propped” open fractures:

 Losses will occur if wellbore pressure is more than PP

• Serious losses are taken in man-made fracture:

 High pressure in the wellbore creates new fracture
 Losses in “closed” pre-existing fractures:
 Fractures that only become a problem if pressure open them up

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 66 of 83

66/18
 Losses in vugs or “propped” open fractures
Loss of fluid as we drill into
Vugs or popped open fractures:
 shallow depth
 stiff rocks (carbonates)

Losses will occur if wellbore

pressure is higher than PP

Sudden losses that, do not

decrease over time!

Remedy:
Drill underbalance
Drill with losses
LCM

Pore pressure
© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 67 of 83
67/18
 Losses in “man made” fractures

There are 2 stages of fracturing around the wellbore

– Initiation
• Fracture length is small (usually < wellbore diameter, a few inches)
• It will not causes losses unless connected to fractures
– Propagation
• Fracture length is now a lot longer (bigger volumes, bigger chances to
connect to natural fractures)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 68 of 83

68/18
 Let’s re-visit our stone arch
Again, …this is simply civil (tunnel) engineering
All bricks are in compression
• But some are more compressed than others

In a normal stress environment

• Compression load is highest at base of the arch
• Where the bricks bear the weight of the whole
structure

• And least at the top

• Where the bricks are merely leaning on each other

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 69 of 83

69/18
 Imagine we pressure up the inside of our arch …
• What does it take to open a fracture ?

The fracture will open where the

compression is the least
• I.e. where it takes the least effort to
separate the bricks

Pressure acts
equally in all
directions

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 70 of 83

70/18
 Leak-off test

Start pumping

Pump rate

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 71 of 83

71/18
 Leak-off test

Fluid leaks into formation. No fracture yet.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 72 of 83

72/18
 Leak-off test

Formation fractures. Fluid leaks

from both wellbore and fracture
faces.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 73 of 83

73/18
 On rock mechanics plots, this is the FG
curve (also known as break-down’, or
FG-initiation)

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 74 of 83

74/18
 For the scenario, where pre-existing fractures are present,

In this case, not all the fracture are

cemented

As always, the fracture that requires the

least effort will be the weak link
• The blue fracture will open before the red before
the yellow one
• To open the yellow fracture, we must lift the
weight of the overburden 19. 2 ppg …

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 75 of 83

75/18
 This is the pressure required to initiate a
fracture

On our rock mechanics plots, this is the

‘potential losses’ curve

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 76 of 83

76/18
 Summary - Elements Required for Losses

Can not be removed

Volume to take the Mud
Depleted Porous sands / Vugs / Fractures

MUD
Wellbore strengthening
ECD management
Path to the volume
LOSSES
Differential pressure
• Induced fractures
• Break down
• Pre-existing fractures
• Minimum horizontal stress

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 77 of 83

77/18
 Leak-off test

Start pumping

Pump rate

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 78 of 83

78/18
 Leak-off test

Fluid leaks into formation. No fracture yet.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 79 of 83

79/18
 Leak-off test

Formation fractures. Fluid leaks

from both wellbore and fracture
faces.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 80 of 83

80/18
 Leak-off test

Fracture propagates away from

wellbore. Pumping stops.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 81 of 83

81/18
 Leak-off test

Immediate drop in pressure - ISIP

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 82 of 83

82/18
 Leak-off test

sh
sh P

Leak-off allows fracture to close.

At closure, flow pattern changes
sh from “frac + wellbore” to “wellbore
only” - can be seen in P/t data.
Closure stress is sh.

© K&M Technology Group 2015 Page 83 of 83

83/18