Evaluation of Wellbore Stability during

Drilling and Production of Open Hole

Horizontal Wells in a Carbonate Field
Authors: Dr. Hazim H. Abass, Mickey Warlick, Cesar H. Pardo, Mirajuddin R. Khan, Dr. Ashraf M. Al-Tahini, Dr. Dhafer A. Al-Shehri,
Dr. Hameed H. Al-Badairy, Yousef M. Al-Shobaili, Dr. Thomas Finkbeiner and Satya Perumalla

ABSTRACT
Drilling horizontal wells is a common practice for Saudi
Aramco in most of its oil and gas reservoirs in Saudi Arabian
clastic and carbonate fields. The field at hand, with its two
reservoirs, is no exception in regards to these field development plans. While previously all wells in this field were cased
and perforated, during the planning stage for increasing
production, the question was raised whether an open hole
horizontal well completion is feasible over the life of the field
(i.e., when taking near-wellbore drawdown and far field
production-induced reservoir depletion into consideration).
The direct benefit would be that an open hole completion
greatly reduces the development costs for the 300+ production
wells planned for the field.
A rock mechanics study was undertaken to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the wellbore stability of open
hole horizontal wells throughout their life span, from drilling
through production during field development. Two objectives
identified for the study were: 1) assessment of wellbore
stability and critical drawdown rates during production to
avoid well collapse, and 2) the optimal well deviation,
azimuth and required mud weight during drilling to minimize
wellbore instability problems. To increase the accuracy of the
results and greatly reduce uncertainty, cores from both
reservoirs were retrieved to provide representative samples of
the formations of interest. A testing program was undertaken
to determine the static and dynamic mechanical properties,
compressive rock strength, rock failure characteristics and
thick wall cylinder strength. The effect of water on rock
strength was tested as well, to evaluate if water encroachment
poses additional risk to the mechanical integrity of the
formation. In addition, the required geomechanical model in
particular in-situ stress field, magnitude and direction was
determined from several data sources: stress-induced wellbore
failure analyses (from oriented caliper and wellbore image log
analyses), microfrac testing, direct pore pressure measurements, wireline log data, and analysis of the general regional
stress information for the area surrounding the field.
The study showed that an open hole completion is feasible
for most well azimuths in both reservoirs. Although, it was
determined that the tar-bearing intervals of both reservoirs are
not competent enough to be completed open hole due to the
44

FALL 2009

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

risk of wellbore collapse. The recommendation was therefore

to avoid the tar-bearing intervals and to consider casing those
zones as applicable. The rock strength showed minimal effect
as a result of exposure to water; therefore, water flooding will
not be a concern from a wellbore integrity point of view. A
field-specific compressive rock strength-wireline sonic log
correlation was developed and calibrated with results from the
lab tests. The flank wells tolerate more drawdown pressure
than crest wells, due to higher rock strength in the flank.
Additionally, it is recommended that the wells be drilled in the
direction of minimum principal horizontal stress (hmin), to
maximize borehole stability and minimize required mud
weights during drilling and completion. The results from this
extensive study were incorporated into Saudi Aramcos
reservoir management decision tree.

INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability problems are being experienced during the
drilling of horizontal wells in highly stressed formations, such
as shale, unconsolidated sandstone and weak carbonates. The
instability problems can range from a simple washout to total
collapse of the hole, and these problems are related to the
mechanical properties (strength and deformation under stress),
the drilling fluids properties, the in-situ stress field, and timedependent deformation. Open hole completion may be
possible in weak carbonate if the in-situ stress field is not
critical in terms of magnitude and mode (normal, strike-slip or
inverse). For example, a rock mechanics study on a shallow
carbonate formation in Saudi Arabia has revealed unconfined
compressive strengths less than 2,000 pounds per square inch
(psi); however, the results of wellbore caliper monitoring as a
function of production time showed no changes in wellbore
size, and therefore all horizontal wells were completed open
hole1.
Over the past years, drilling extended-reach wells with long
open hole intervals has increased markedly in the industry,
and Saudi Aramco has taken a lead role in these activities. For
the difficult drilling campaigns associated with drilling these
long-reach wells, oil-based mud (OBM) systems have been the
industry choice for difficult drilling. Their application has
been typically justified on the basis of borehole stability, fluid
loss, filter cake quality, lubricity and temperature stability.

Water-based muds (WBM) are attractive replacements from a

direct cost point of view. Past efforts to develop improved
WBM for shale drilling have been hampered by a limited
understanding of the drilling fluid/shale interaction
phenomenon. This limited understanding has resulted in
drilling fluids designed with non-optimum properties to
prevent the onset of borehole instability.
The structure of the oil field analyzed in this study is a
conventional northwest trending asymmetric anticline. To
develop the field to its target production, Saudi Aramcos
reservoir management team planned to drill a number of
horizontal wells to ensure maximum reservoir contact (MRC).
Because the mechanical integrity of the wellbore for an open
hole completion strategy is of critical importance, Saudi
Aramco decided to have a geomechanics evaluation conducted
to understand if and how well integrity can be maximized
through utilization of the right mud weights and well
directions, so that stable conditions during drilling and
production would be guaranteed. The objective was to evaluate
the feasibility of open hole completion; therefore, the wellbore
stability throughout the life span of the well was the focus of
the study. Additionally, it is important to optimize the mud
weights during drilling to minimize wellbore instabilities, and to
recommend optimal well orientations and maximum values for
drawdown and depletion to allow for a stable well throughout
the production phase. Therefore, the objective of the study was
to combine the knowledge of reservoir and material properties
with a detailed analysis of the present-day in-situ stress field to
assess under what conditions, during drilling and production,
mechanical rock failure may occur at the wellbore wall and
become so severe that it would no longer be manageable.

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR WELLBORE

INTEGRITY ANALYSIS
Creating a circular hole and introducing drilling and
completion fluids to an otherwise stable formation is the
reason for a series of phenomena that can result in wellbore
instability, casing collapse, perforation failure and sand/solids
production. The circular hole causes a stress concentration
that extends to a few wellbore diameters away from the hole.
This stress concentration, which differs from the far-field
stresses, could exceed the formation strength, resulting in
failure. The circular hole also creates a free surface that
removes the natural confinement, which can, depending on
the mechanical properties of the formation, reduce formation
strength and trigger inelastic and time-dependent failure.
Therefore, a circular hole causes several important effects
around a wellbore: 1) creation of a stress concentration field,
2) removal of the confinement condition, and 3) inelastic and
time-dependent displacement caused by creating a free surface.
Additionally, when a wellbore is actively loaded (pressure in
the wellbore is less than the reservoir pressure) or passively
loaded (pressure in the wellbore is higher than the reservoir
pressure), another stress effect could cause wellbore failure.

Wellbore failure that triggers solids production may be

compressive, tensile, cohesive or a combination of all three.
The compressive failure occurs during drilling where the rock
cannot withstand the concentration of hoop stress around the
hole. In addition, when cementation materials deteriorate due
to mud filtrate exposure, the problem can be exacerbated. The
calculation of mud weight to prevent compressive failure will
be presented in this article. Typically, the failed zone is
oriented in a specific direction relative to the in-situ stress
field; therefore, the well orientation can be selected to
maximize wellbore stability during drilling and production.
A geomechanics study was initiated to predict wellbore
stability during drilling, completion and production. The basis
for making successful and accurate predictions lies in the
understanding of a sound geomechanical model. The
constituents of the geomechanical model are three principal
stresses (vertical stress, maximum principal horizontal stress,
and minimum principal horizontal stress), pore pressure and
mechanical rock properties. When the horizontal stresses are
not equal (a frequent condition in the Earths crust), a stress
anisotropy is created, and wellbore instability can be
pronounced as wells are direction and deviation sensitive.
Pore pressure is another important parameter in the
geomechanical model as most failure criteria depend on
effective stress. When all these parameters are known, a
geomechanical model can be created and subsequently utilized
for evaluation of wellbore stability. In this study, data from 11
wells were used to determine the in-situ stress field (magnitude
and direction), and the reservoir pressure. The analyzed data
include in-situ pore pressure tests, wireline logs (including
electrical FMI/FMS image logs) and laboratory results from
rock mechanical tests (triaxial compression as well as thick
wall cylinder tests). The approach for predicting wellbore
stability is then based on a comprehensive understanding of
the present-day geomechanical model of the field, verified and
calibrated against drilling experiences (i.e., indication of
mechanical well instability in wells previously drilled in the
field and target formations). The latter information is acquired
and compiled from drilling and completion reports. Problems
encountered during drilling are classified into different
categories, such as tight hole, pack off, washing, reaming and
more. Based on drilling experience for a specific mud weight
in a given well trajectory, the generated geomechanical model
is verified and calibrated to mechanical failure in the wellbore
(stress induced borehole breakouts, hole washouts, etc.) in
such a way that it robustly and accurately predicts
compressive and tensile failure around given wellbores.

PORE PRESSURE
Pore pressure within the Earths crust plays a vital role in
managing wellbore stability during drilling and production,
governing stress magnitudes (e.g., the fracture gradient,
among others). The overall effect of pore pressure changes is
influenced by the rock behavior, including pore and bulk
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

45

IN-SITU STRESS ORIENTATION

An available electrical image log (i.e., FMI) for this study from
one well was rigorously calibrated, verified and dynamically
normalized to provide optimal image quality. The purpose of
the wellbore image analysis was to identify and characterize
stress-induced wellbore failure, such as stress-induced
borehole breakouts and drilling-induced tensile fractures.
Wellbore breakouts are enlargements of the wellbore wall,
with 180 spacing caused by localized shear failure where the
circumferential hoop stress is most compressive and exceeds
the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the rock. In
vertical wells, breakouts always form in the direction of the
least principal horizontal stress (hmin)2, 3. In deviated wells,
however, the position of breakouts is a function of the
wellbore trajectory and the stresses acting on the well4.
Therefore, when wellbore failures can be detected, their
occurrence and characteristics (i.e., azimuthal width) can be
used to constrain in-situ stress magnitudes, effective rock
strength and stress orientations.
Drilling-induced tensile wall fractures occur where the
circumferential hoop stress may become tensile and exceed the
tensile strength of the rock. They also form symmetrically in
the borehole wall 90 from the orientation of the breakouts
(i.e., in vertical wells in the direction of the maximum principal
horizontal stress, Hmax)5. Statistical analysis of a wellbore
failure indicated a mean value for the orientation of the Hmax
as N25E with a marginal error of 10. This estimated azimuth
for Hmax strikes obliquely to major fault trends found in the
field, and it is consistent with the regional stress trend.

respect to depth taken from many wells revealed an overburden gradient of 1.04 psi/ft at the level of the reservoirs.

MINIMUM HORIZONTAL PRINCIPAL STRESS

Only very limited information on the minimum principal
stress (hmin) was available, since no leakoff tests (LOT) or
extended leakoff tests (XLOT) were conducted in the
reservoirs. One injectivity test was performed in Reservoir B
at 8,265 ft, and we utilized the maximum pressure reached
from this test as a proxy for the least (or minimum) horizontal
principal stress, with an equivalent gradient of 0.75 psi/ft.

MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL PRINCIPAL STRESS

Similarly to the in-situ stress orientation, interpreted borehole
breakouts from the FMI log were utilized to constrain the
magnitude of the maximum principal horizontal stress (i.e.,
Hmax). The analyzed breakout width and orientation, as well
as hmin from the injectivity test and the UCS, were utilized to
estimate the magnitude of Hmax. The analysis resulted in an
average value of 0.97 psi/ft as a lower bound and 1.07 psi/ft
as an upper bound in the field. Therefore, the present-day insitu stress field can be characterized as a transitional normal
to strike-slip faulting system, such that Hmax v > hmin.

ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

For a successful drilling and completion strategy in poorly
consolidated formations, it is vital to determine the
mechanical properties of the formation. The following
properties are needed to provide recommendations on
wellbore azimuth, mud weight window during drilling,
completion design, and wellbore stability prediction during
production: 1) Static and Dynamic Youngs modulus (E)
and Poissons ratio (v), 2) UCS, 3) Cohesive strength (c), 4)
Internal friction angle (), and 5) Hollow cylinder strength
(HCS). An experimental testing program was initiated to
derive some of the parameters listed above. Samples of
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000

Stress (Psi)

compressibility often discussed under stress path response of

reservoir. As pore pressure changes with time during the life
cycle of a field due to production and injection processes,
stress magnitudes (including the fracture gradient) change
accordingly. These production/injection induced stress changes
may influence the stability of a wellbore as well as cause
compaction and subsidence on the field scale in some cases.
The pore pressure in the formations of interest, as derived
from direct measurements in offset wells, at present is
approximately hydrostatic with no significant overpressure
detected. In Reservoir A, current pore pressure is 3,980 psi,
and will be depleted appreciably to 3,000 psi, in 2024 and to
2,000 psi in 2035. In Reservoir B, current pore pressure is
3,832 psi, and it will be depleted to 3,200 psi in 2024 and to
2,500 psi in 2035. The corresponding gradients from these
values were used as the current and future pore pressure
conditions in the two reservoirs for wellbore stability analyses
during drilling and production.

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000

OVERBURDEN
The vertical in-situ stress (v) was derived from bulk density
wireline log data that were acquired from the surface down to
the reservoir levels. Integration of the density data with
46

FALL 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

0
-0.01

-0.005

0.005

Strain
Fig. 1. Stress-strain curves from a single stage triaxial test.

0.01

0.015

Fig. 2. Mohr circles and Coulomb failure line (left) from the samples tested in single stage mode (right) - the resulting rock mechanical parameters are shown in box on top left.

Sample
#
S-02
S-03
S-04
LA-07
LA-08
LA-09
S-06
S-07
S-08
S-10
S-11
S-12
MO-36
MO-26
MO-27
RM-3D
MA-28
MO-32
MA-23
RM-4D
RM-2D
MO-46
MO-47
MO-48
MO-49
MO-50
MO-51

Depth
(ft)
8,153.3
8,153.7
8,153.8
8,212.4
8,213.2
8,213.4
8,335.9
8,336.2
8,336.4
8,369.7
8,370.1
8,370.3
8,734.2
8,734.7
8,734.9
8,735.2
8,735.7
8,736.9
8,739.8
8,742.9
8,743.4
8,765.2
8,765.4
8,765.8
8,807.1
8,807.2
8,807.4

Bulk
Density
(gm/cc)
2.64
2.65
2.67
2.08
2.12
2.10
2.35
2.31
2.25
2.48
2.50
2.44
1.97
2.02
2.10
2.00
2.13
2.06
2.21
2.40
2.37
2.37
2.35
2.42
2.93
2.93
2.91

Confining Young's Poisson

Peak
Friction
Shear
Porosity Pressure Modulus Ratio Strength
UCS
Angle Cohesion Angle
%
PSI
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(Degrees)
(PSI) (Degrees)
2.0
747.9 6.705E+06 0.386
25,466 22,736.8
41.7
5,101.6
65.8
1.5
1,456.7 7.596E+06 0.333 31,424.5
0.8
2,944.2 7.133E+06 0.346 36,887.8
15.4
717.9 6.287E+05 0.358
1,861
237.2
22.8
78.9
56.4
15.0
1,459 8.776E+05 0.265 3,537.1
14.2
2,917.9 9.003E+05 0.324 3,571.2
11.2
722.6 1.333E+06 0.098 4,041.4
2,462.2
21.8
832.8
55.9
11.3
1,463 1.308E+06 0.065 5,659.7
12.5
2,905.9 8.516E+05 0.235 5,085.8
6.5
735.4 4.152E+06 0.201
10,461
9,038.2
25.9
2,827
58
5.9
1,458.5 4.970E+06 0.258 13,448.4
7.7
2,912.9 4.753E+06 0.243 16,254.9
24.3
2,906.3 2.079E+06 0.205 5,509.4
458.8
21.9
155
56
15.9
733.1 1.312E+06 0.201 2,028.3
15.3
1,455.9 1.798E+06 0.223 3,721.6
16.7
729.4 1.011E+06 0.174 2,125.8
830.3
11.3
340.3
50.7
14.5
2,905.6 1.500E+05 0.132
5,111
16.7
153.4 4.968E+05 0.500
975.
8.4
154.4 7.994E+05 0.366 1,251.3
1,803.9
18.7
646.5
54.4
5.6
2,904.3 2.656E+06 0.472 6,690.7
1.4
1,455.2 2.041E+06 0.312 5,445.6
0.1
726
3.127E+06 0.323 7,587.3 15,319.8
42.7
3,357.8
66.3
0.1
1,465.1 2.470E+06 0.246 7,789.2
0.1
2,909.4 3.276E+06 0.245 12,664.8
0.3
724.7 6.807E+06 0.217 19,258.2 15,298
42.7
3,346.1
66.4
0.5
1,454.5 7.105E+06 0.238
22,638
0.8
2,905.4 9.855E+06 0.075 30,523.5

Table 1. A summary of rock-mechanical testing results

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

47

Equation 1 shows three components: cohesion (c), effective

normal stress (n) and friction (tan ). Shear failure breaks the
rock along shear planes. Equation 1 may be described in
terms of the principal stresses as follows:
(2)
The factors UCS and are coefficients for the linearization
and should be determined experimentally. The failure envelope
is determined from many Mohr circles. The envelope of these
circles represents the basis of this failure criterion, Fig. 2. A
summary of the rock mechanical testing results of core
samples taken from both reservoirs are shown in Table 1.

THICK WALL CYLINDER (TWC) TESTING

Thick wall cylinder tests were performed on core samples of
1 diameter with a 0.5 diameter hole drilled exactly in the
center. The axial and confining stresses are simultaneously
increased during the test (i.e., the sample is loaded
hydrostatically). The axial stress, confining pressure, axial
strain and radial strain are monitored during the test. Loading
continues until complete sample failure occurs or the
maximum loading stress (governed by the loading frame) is
reached. The thick-walled cylinder test provides a simulated
condition of the near wellbore formation being stressed as the
near wellbore reservoir pressure is decreased. The resulting
elastic/plastic deformations around the wellbore as a function
of the effective-stress increase can be modeled to determine
the critical reservoir pressure at which wellbore failure is
initiated. Figure 3 shows selective thick wall cylinder tests.
The lowest failure stress of about 4,000 psi was observed
in tar-bearing samples, as shown in the top right graph of
Fig. 3, which depicts a collapse of the inner hole. Therefore,
two tests were performed: environmental scanning electron
48

FALL 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

It is important to characterize an entire formation in terms

of its compressive rock strength to evaluate wellbore stability
during drilling, completion and production. Figure 5 shows
lab result correlations between the UCS and porosity, or the
UCS and the inverse of compressional velocity. Since core
plugs are generally obtained from a limited portion of the
reservoir only, it is imperative to establish empirical
correlations between rock properties (as determined in the
laboratory) and log data to obtain tools for formation
strength characterization along the entire reservoir in a given
wellbore. Sonic log data and the UCS lab results were
utilized to obtain a transform for rock strength, which
provides a continuous rock strength profile of the reservoir
section, Fig. 6. The following transforms were the basic
relations for the functions appearing in Fig. 6:
UCS = 366,842 e(-0.0624t) (Reservoir A)
UCS = 20.244 (t)2 3302 (t) +135,741 (Reservoir B)
The units for UCS are in psi and t (compressional sonic
interval transit time) is in sec/ft. Although the strength model
is derived based on one well, it can be applied to other areas
5,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
Axial Strain
Radial Strain

Confining Pressure, psi

(1)

ROCK-STRENGTH MODEL

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

Axial Strain
Radial Strain

0
0

0.001

0.002

0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Strain

Strain
25,000

20,000

Confining Pressure, psi

Weak samples were tested in a single stage, conducted on

three plugs, Fig. 1. The triaxial testing results were modeled
by Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This criterion postulates
that failure occurs when shear stress at a given plane reaches a
critical value related to the formation frictional resistance, and
is given by:

Confining Pressure, psi

Triaxial Compression Tests

microscope (ESEM) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) tests,

to understand the nature of these samples. The results
revealed that high-sulfur tar was mainly found between the
oolites, and no tar was found in the micropores of CaCO3
within the oolites, Fig. 4. The tar seems to be like
cementation materials to the oolitic groups; thereby reducing
the mechanical strength of the formation. Therefore, the tarbearing zones are not competent enough to be completed
open hole due to the risk of wellbore collapse. The
recommendation is to avoid as much as possible the tarbearing intervals or consider casing those zones as applicable.

Confining Pressure, psi

1 diameter by 3 length were plugged horizontally from

a full core (4 diameter) and tested in a single and
multistage fashion. Confining pressures for these tests were
selected to simulate the stress and pressure conditions in
the vicinity of the wellbore (i.e., 5 MPa, 10 MPa and 15
MPa). The multistage procedure implies that an earlier
loading cycle is unloaded when the rock sample
approaches failure at a given confining pressure and the
same sample is reloaded under the subsequent higher
confining pressure.

20,000
15,000
10,000
Axial Strain

5,000

Radial Strain

0
0

0.002

0.004

Strain

0.006

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0

0.001

0.002

Strain

Fig. 3. Four thick wall cylinder tests performed on selective samples.

0.003

WELLBORE STABILITY DURING DRILLING

(UNDEPLETED AS WELL AS DEPLETED CONDITIONS)
The geomechanical model previously developed and discussed
was utilized as a basis to predict minimum required mud
weights during drilling and completion of the reservoir
Rock Strength Correlation - UCS-Porosity
16,000

12,000

UCS, psi

within the reservoir. Therefore, the sonic log is a tool that can
be used as a proxy for rock strength at any location. The logbased strength correlations can be statistically evaluated to
find average wells as minimum/maximum values and
distribution functions of rock strength. Based on the
developed correlations, it was found that Reservoir B appears
relatively weaker than Reservoir A. Furthermore, there is a
trend of increasing rock strength from the crest to the flanks.
Reservoir B exhibits narrow P10 (10th percentile) and P50
(50th percentile) ranges 2,000 psi to 3,000 psi and 2,500 psi to
4,950 psi, respectively, while the same range for Reservoir A is
2,500 psi to 4,500 psi and 3,750 psi to 7,700 psi. Figure 7
shows the UCS distribution functions across Reservoirs A and
B as derived using sonic log velocities and lab strength data.
Great variability depicting rather strong (UCS >10,000 psi) as
well as rather weak (UCS < 2,000 psi) intervals are apparent.
Also, Reservoir A appears generally stronger than Reservoir B.

8,000

4,000

0
0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

70

80

Porosity
15,000

UCS, psi

12,000
9,000
6,000
3,000
0
40

50

60

Inverse Com pression Velocity, micro-sec/ft

Fig. 4. Tar-bearing sample showing the dark phase, which is tar between the oolites.

Fig. 5. Lab-data correlations of UCS as a function of porosity (top), and 1/Vp

(bottom).

Fig. 6. Continuous UCS profiles for Reservoir A (left) and Reservoir B (right).

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

49

Fig. 7. UCS distribution functions across Reservoir A (left) and Reservoir B (right).

formation under present-day pore pressure conditions. We

conducted the wellbore stability analysis also for depleted
pressure conditions assuming a depletion development
scenario. The plan predicts a decrease of Reservoir As porepressure from an average current value of ~3,980 psi to
3,000 psi in 2024 (P = 980 psi) in response to production
(as discussed above).
As reservoir pressure declines due to production, the total
horizontal stresses decline as well. Commonly, the stress path
(i.e., change of stress with change of pore pressure) in a given
reservoir can be established with repeated extended leakoff or
minifrac tests. Since these data were not available, we
calculated the stress changes by assuming poroelastic reservoir
behavior. This poroelastic model is two-dimensional and
assumes a relatively flat, extensive (i.e., length >> width)
reservoir with constant overburden stress. For the horizontal
principal stress changes, we consider coupling between pore
pressure and total stress depending upon the value of Poissons
ratio as well as Biots coefficient. This results in S/P = 0.67
for Poissons ratio of 0.25 and Biots coefficient of 1.0.

MINIMUM MUD WEIGHT PREDICTIONS

For the stability analysis, we constructed lower hemisphere
stereographic projections, Fig. 8, that enables the prediction of
minimum required mud weights for wells of arbitrary
deviation and orientation to maintain well integrity at a
specific depth. The colors indicate failure tendency in terms of
required mud weights to restrict wellbore failure to a critical
breakout width (i.e., 90 for vertical wells and 30 for the
horizontal wells; for intermediate hole inclinations, it is linearly
interpolated). Warm colors indicate orientations and deviations
50

FALL 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

with a high tendency for failure, while cool colors show a low
failure tendency. These diagrams are constructed at an average
depth for Reservoir A. Figure 8 also shows an example of this
diagram assuming average rock strength, UCS = 8,000 psi, for
the initial Reservoir A pressure of 3,980 psi and at a depleted
condition of 3,000 psi. Generally, highly deviated and
horizontal wells oriented along Hmax (i.e., N25E) require
higher mud weights than those drilled normal to hmin (i.e.,
N115E). In addition, wells deviated up to 30 can be drilled
in any direction with more or less the same mud weight (i.e.,
less sensitive to well azimuth). The directions of horizontal
wells with special focus are shown by the white circles: N25E,
N55E, N70E, N85E and N115E. The color scale in the
diagrams was set so that it spans the same range of mud
weights to better compare the changes in mud weights as a
result of production. We also indicate the direction of Hmax.

WELLBORE STABILITY DURING PRODUCTION

If the reservoir pressure is reduced in response to depletion,
the effective stress within the rock formation increases
according to the effective stress concept. A Mohr-Coulomb
material with strain hardening model was developed to be
used in the finite element modeling. Triaxial tests that
exhibited shear failure without compaction, characterized by
an increase then a decrease in volumetric strain, were selected
to establish the material model which describes the entire
loading part of a sample in the elastic and plastic domain until
the peak stress at failure.
This material model was then used to simulate the thick
wall cylinder tests to construct a generic material model that
describes the weakest parts of the reservoir. The empirical

relationship between Youngs Modulus and UCS was obtained

from the results of lab tests and incorporated in the finite
element model to evaluate rock plastic strains under different
pressure drawdown scenarios. A critical total plastic strain
was considered as a criterion to evaluate wellbore integrity
under a given depletion mode. A critical total plastic strain
was determined and calibrated with the thick wall cylinder
tests. The failure criterion derived indicated that failure
initiation occurs at a plastic strain of 15 millistrain, and
complete hole failure (i.e., collapse) results when the plastic
strain is 20 millistrain. The P10 rock strength value was
selected in the finite element simulation, which is 4,500 psi for
Reservoir A and 2,000 psi (Crest well) to 3,000 psi (Flank
wells) for Reservoir B. The simulations were conducted
utilizing present-day pore pressure values as well as those
predicted for 2024 and in 2035. We ran simulations for well
azimuths parallel to Hmax, and hmin, as well as intermediate
azimuths between Hmax and hmin directions of N85E,
N70E and N55E. Furthermore, we investigated three
different pore-pressure levels of Reservoir A: 3,980 psi
(present day), 3,000 psi and 2,000 psi.
In general, we found that the most favorable well
orientation under any drawdown and depletion condition is
N115E, which is parallel to hmin and the least favorable well
orientation under any drawdown and depletion condition is
N25E, which is parallel to Hmax.

For horizontal wells parallel N115E (in direction of hmin),

we find:
At present-day reservoir pressures, horizontal wells
parallel to N115E (in direction hmin) are predicted to
have solids-free production and a stable borehole even
at 2,500 psi drawdown.
When reservoir pressure reaches 3,000 psi, horizontal
wells parallel to N115E (in direction of hmin) will
produce solids free if drawdown is limited to 900 psi;
borehole collapse, however, is not expected unless the
drawdown exceeds 2,500 psi.
When reservoir pressure reaches 2,000 psi, horizontal
wells parallel to N115E (in direction of hmin) are
predicted to produce some solids at any drawdown;
borehole collapse, however, is not expected unless the
drawdown exceeds 800 psi.
For horizontal wells with azimuth N70E - N250E, we find:
At present-day reservoir pressures, horizontal wells parallel
to N70E are predicted to produce solids free if drawdown
is limited to 1,875 psi; borehole collapse, however, is not
expected unless drawdown exceeds 2,500 psi.
When reservoir pressure reaches 3,000 psi, horizontal
wells parallel to N70E are predicted to produce some
solids at any drawdown; borehole collapse, however, is
not expected unless drawdown exceeds 1,850 psi.

Fig. 8. Lower hemispheric projection showing required mud weights to prevent excessive wellbore failure and collapse for wellbores of arbitrary deviation and orientation
drilled into Reservoir A with an assumed rock strength of UCS = 8,000 psi at an initial condition of reservoir pressure = 3,980 psi (left), and at a depleted condition of
reservoir pressure = 3,000 psi.
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

51

 When reservoir pressure reaches 2,000 psi, horizontal

wells with N70E azimuth are predicted to collapse at
any drawdown.
Following are results for horizontal wells with azimuth
N25E - N205E (in direction of Hmax), the least favorable
well orientation under any drawdown and depletion:

At present-day reservoir pressures, horizontal wells

parallel to N25E (in direction of Hmax) are predicted
to produce solids free if the drawdown is limited to 900
psi; borehole collapse, however, is not expected unless
the drawdown exceeds 2,500 psi.
When reservoir pressure reaches 3,000 psi, horizontal
wells parallel to N25E azimuth (in direction of Hmax)
are predicted to produce some solids at any drawdown;
wellbore collapse, however, is not expected unless the
drawdown exceeds 900 psi.
When reservoir pressure reaches 2,000 psi, horizontal
wells with N25E (parallel to Hmax) azimuth are
predicted to collapse at any drawdown.
Figure 9 shows the results as highlighted above in terms of
plastic strain vs. drawdown for the different pore pressure
conditions and well azimuths.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The geomechanical model for the Reservoir A field is a
transition between normal and strike-slip faulting
systems (Hmax v > hmin), with vertical stress of ~150
pcf - 151 pcf, minimum horizontal stress (hmin)
estimated to be ~106 pcf, maximum horizontal stress
estimated to be ~145 pcf - 155 pcf and hydrostatic pore
pressure level (64.4 pcf) at reservoir level. A rock
strength correlation between UCS and sonic velocity has
been established.
2. The mud weight required to prevent breakout generation
and maintain wellbore stability during drilling was
determined, as it is important to obtain a gauged hole
during drilling for a maximum wellbore stability during
production. Minimum mud weights required to drill a
horizontal well in Reservoir A at initial reservoir pressure
are 64 pcf - 65 pcf for a well parallel to hmin direction
and 68 pcf - 70 pcf for a well parallel to Hmax direction.
These mud weights will proportionally reduce when the
reservoir is depleted to 3,000 psi. The minimum mud
weights required to drill a horizontal well in depleted
conditions are 56 pcf - 57 pcf for a well parallel to hmin
direction and 61 pcf - 62 pcf for a well parallel to Hmax
direction.
3. The tar-bearing zones are not competent enough to be
completed open hole due to the risk of wellbore collapse.
The recommendation is to avoid as much as possible any
tar-bearing intervals or consider casing those zones as
applicable.
Fig. 9. Plastic strain vs. drawdown for five different well azimuths considered in
this project (shown with different colors). The orange and red horizontal lines,
respectively, represent the critical plastic strain values for which solid production
initiates and becomes severe (i.e., hole is predicted to collapse). (a) Present-day pore
pressure of 3,980 psi, (b) Reservoir pressure of 3,000 psi, (c) Reservoir pressure of
2,000 psi.

52

FALL 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

4. Open hole completion is possible in non-tar zones

and the most favorable well azimuth is N115E,
which is the direction of hmin . A horizontal well
drilled at this direction will be stable even at 2,500
psi drawdown at present-day pore pressure conditions
in Reservoir A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Saudi Aramco management for
their support and permission to present the information
contained in this article.

REFERENCES
1. Salamy, S.P., Faddagh, H.A., Ajmi, A.M., Lauten, W.T. and
Mubarak, H.K.: Methodology Implemented in Assessing
and Monitoring Hole Stability Concerns in Open Hole
Horizontal Wellbores in Carbonate Reservoirs, SPE paper
56508, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1999.
2. Zoback, M.D., Moos, D., Mastin, L. and Anderson, R.N.:
Wellbore Breakouts and In-Situ Stress, J. Geophys. Res.,
Vol. 90, 1985, pp. 5,523-5,530.
3. Moos, D. and Zoback, M.D.: Utilization of Observations
of Wellbore Failure to Constrain the Orientation and
Magnitude of Crustal Stresses: Application to Continental,
Deep Sea Drilling Project and Ocean Drilling Program
Boreholes, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 95, 1990, pp. 9,3059,325.
4. Peska, P. and Zoback, M.D.: Compressive and Tensile
Failure of Inclined Wellbores and Determination of In-Situ
Stress and Rock Strength, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 100, No.
7, 1995, pp. 12,791-12,811.
5. Ahmed, M.S., Finkbeiner, T. and Kannan, A.: Using
Geomechanics to Optimize Field Development Strategy of
Deep Gas Reservoirs in Saudi Arabia, SPE paper 110965,
presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Technical Symposium,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 2007.

BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Hazim H. Abass is a Petroleum
Engineering Consultant at the
Exploration and Petroleum
Engineering Center - Advanced
Research Center (EXPEC ARC) of
Saudi Aramco. His research area of
interest is applied rock mechanics in
petroleum engineering, especially in hydraulic fracturing,
wellbore stability, sand production, perforation and stress
dependent reservoirs.
Before joining Saudi Aramco in 2001, he worked for 2
years at the North Petroleum Company in Iraq, 1 year at the
Colorado School of Mines, 9 years at the Halliburton
R&DC in Duncan, OK and 5 years as Halliburtons
representative to the PDVSA R&DC in Los Teques,
Venezuela. Hazim holds nine U.S. patents, has authored
more than 35 technical papers and contributed to three
industrial books. He is a member and the Technical Editor
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Production &
Facilities and is a member of the International Society for
Rock Mechanics (ISRM). Hazim received the 2008 SPE
Middle East Regional Award of Production and Completion.
In 1977, Hazim received a B.S. degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 1987 in Petroleum
Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
Mickey Warlick is a Petroleum
Engineering Specialist with the Manifa
Reservoir Management Division and has
been with Saudi Aramco for 7 years. In
1981, he received his B.S. in Petroleum
Engineering from the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology at
Socorro, NM. Mickey joined Chevron USA Inc., and began
work as a Reservoir Engineer in the Permian Basin located in
west Texas and eastern New Mexico. There, he worked on
diverse reservoirs ranging from shallow 2,000 ft oil reservoirs
to 30,000 ft deep gas reservoirs. Mickey gained experience in
working on primary, secondary and even CO2 tertiary
processes. He then moved to the Over Thrust area of
Wyoming where he gained firsthand experience in dealing
with 20% H2S gas reservoirs that required utmost safety in
drilling and workover operations. Later Mickey moved on to
La Habra, CA where he worked in Chevrons international
operations developing and deploying new field technologies.
Just before his move to Saudi Arabia, Mickey transferred
to Houston, TX where he worked as a Reservoir Simulation
Engineer in Chevrons International Reservoir Simulation
department. While in Houston, he earned his M.S. degree in
Petroleum Engineering from the University of Houston,
Houston, TX in 2001. Mickey joined Saudi Aramco in 2002,
working as a Reservoir Engineer in the Zuluf field. When
Saudi Aramco decided to bring the Manifa field on as one of
its major increments, he was transferred there and is
currently Team Leader for the Manifa reservoir of the Manifa
field development.

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

53

Cesar H. Pardo has 22 years of

experience with E&P companies. He
joined Saudi Aramco in 2006 and
worked for 1 year for the Gas
Reservoir Management Department
(GRMD) as a Senior Reservoir
Engineer. In April 2007 Cesar was
moved to the Manifa Reservoir Management Division
(MRMD) where he currently works as a Petroleum
Engineer Specialist. In 1987 he began working at Ecopetrol
(the Colombian state company) where he worked for 4
years in drilling, workover and production technology
engineering.
In 1990 Cesar joined Shell Colombia (Hocol) as a
Workover Engineer. In 1992 he was promoted to a
Production Technology Engineer and successfully designed
and implemented a fracturing campaign for 30 producer
wells and an ESP and gas lift campaign for over 70 wells.
In 1996 Cesar was promoted to a Reservoir Engineer,
working in Classical Reservoir Engineering and Numerical
Reservoir Simulation with Eclipse, and he performed an
OFM study, identifying new infill drilling and workover
opportunities. In 2002 he was promoted to a Senior
Reservoir Engineer and given the additional responsibility
as a Team Leader (Asset Manager Deputy), he prepared
and coordinated the Field Development Plan (FDP) for a
heavy oil field. In 2004 Cesar was promoted to Reservoir
Engineering Network Leader for the whole company in
Colombia, he coordinated and prepared the new Hocol
books for forecast and reserves, coordinated calculation
procedures and coordinated the annual reserves review and
auditing for 2 years.
Cesar received his B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering
from the Universidad de America, Bogot, Colombia.
Mirajuddin R. Khan is a Geologist
working in the Exploration and
Petroleum Engineering Center Advanced Research Center (EXPEC
ARC). Since joining Saudi Aramco in
1991, he has been serving as the Senior
Rock Mechanics Laboratory
Experimentalist.
Mirajuddin received his B.S. degree in 1984 and his M.S.
degree in 1985, both in Petroleum Geology from the
University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. His interests are
rock mechanics applications in petroleum engineering.
Mirajuddin is a member of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) and has published several technical papers.
Before joining Saudi Aramco, Mirajuddin worked as
Teaching Assistant for 1 year and then received a Research
Scholarship to work as a Research Scholar for 2 years at
the University of Karachi.
His awards include the 2004 Recognition Award of the
Engineering & Operations Services of Saudi Aramco.

54

FALL 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Ashraf M. Al-Tahini is a Senior

Petroleum Engineer at the Exploration
and Petroleum Engineering Center Advanced Research Center (EXPEC
ARC) of Saudi Aramco. His areas of
interest include geomechanics and rock
physics, as he is currently involved in
leading several vital projects in the area of fracturing and
sand control.
In 1996, Ashraf received his B.S. degree in Chemical
Engineering from King Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. He received
his M.S. degree in 2003 and his Ph.D. degree in 2007, both
in Petroleum and Geological Engineering, from the
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
During the 12 years of his career and education, he has
presented and published many technical papers. Ashraf has
also received many awards, including the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) paper mention award in 2008
for the Reservoir Geology and Geophysics Session, the
second place award for the SPEs U.S. Rocky Mountain
Mid Continent Ph.D. paper contest in 2004 and the
University of Oklahoma Rock Mechanics Award for 2003
and 2006. In 2001, he received the best paper and
presentation award during the Saudi Aramco Technical
Exchange Conference in Dhahran.
Ashraf was the Chairman of the 2009 SPE Saudi Arabia
Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition and currently
he is the Chairperson of the SPE Saudi Arabia Section. He
is a member of SPE, the Society of Exploration and
Geophysics and the American Rock Mechanics Association.
Dr. Dhafer A. Al-Shehri is currently
the Manifa Subsurface Team Leader
with Northern Area Reservoir
Management. Since joining Saudi
Aramco in 1996, he has worked as an
Engineer, an Engineering Supervisor,
and General Supervisor for Drilling &
Workover Engineering, Reservoir Management and
Production Engineering. Dhafer also acted as the Chief
Technologist, Drilling Technology Team, Exploration and
Petroleum Engineering Center - Advanced Research Center
(EXPEC ARC).
Dhafer holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, and a Ph.D. from Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, all in Petroleum Engineering.
Prior to joining the company, he was a Petroleum
Engineering professor at KFUPM. As an active member of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), he has authored
many technical papers on various topics and chaired the
local 1998 SPE Technical Symposium.

Dr. Hameed H. Al-Badairy is a Senior

Laboratory Scientist at the Research &
Development Center (R&DC) of Saudi
Aramco. He received his Ph.D. degree
in Materials Science and Engineering
from Liverpool University, Liverpool,
UK. Hameed has over 15 years of
academic and industrial experience in the fields of materials
science and electron microscopy. Prior to joining Saudi
Aramco he worked for 13 years as a Senior Research
Associate at the Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Liverpool University.
Hameed has published more than 60 technical papers
and is a member of the National Association of Corrosion
Engineering (NACE), Institute of Materials, Minerals and
Mining (IOM3), North West & Liverpool Engineering
Society and the Technical Committee of the 13th Middle
East Corrosion Conference and Exhibition (13MECC). He
has presented his work at over 30 national and
international conferences and has been an invited keynote
speaker in four international conferences.
Yousef M. Al-Shobaili is currently the
Northern Onshore Fields Group
Leader at the Reservoir
Characterization Department. He
joined Saudi Aramco in 1994 after
receiving his B.S. degree in Petroleum
Geology and Sedimentology from King
AbdulAziz University, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. During his
career he has worked in several disciplines of the
Exploration and Petroleum Engineering organizations.
Yousefs experience covers several reservoir aspects,
including reservoir evaluation and assessment, reservoir
management and engineering assessment, petrophysical
integration, reserves estimation and assessment, identifying
new hydrocarbon from old fields, drilling operations and
well planning, reservoir description and geomechanics and
wellbore stability, log analysis and interpretation, and core
description and integration. He has also trained several
summer students, geologists, geophysicists and reservoir
engineers, and he developed an in-house log interpretation
and petroleum geology training course.
Yousef has authored and co-authored 18 technical
papers in reservoir evaluation, reservoir description,
geosteering, rock mechanics, reservoir management and
dynamics, and log/core petrophysics. He is the founder and
the first president of the Saudi Petrophysical Society (SPS).
Yousef attended and passed an intensive six month
petrophysical and log evaluation Schlumberger program.
He was the first worldwide non-Schlumberger employee to
ever join this program.

Dr. Thomas Finkbeiner is the Regional

Technical Advisor (EAME) for
GeoMechanics International (GMI).
He began work there as a specialist in
reservoir geomechanics and a
consultant for the petroleum industry
in wellbore stability and in-situ stress.
In 2001, Thomas was assigned to the Middle East, India,
and Pakistan as Director to develop, coordinate and
manage GMIs services to regional operators and clients. In
the summer of 2004, Thomas relocated to Dubai, U.A.E.
and opened GMIs regional office to run all Europe, Africa
and Middle East operations.
In 1994, Thomas received his M.S. degree in Geophysics,
and in 1998, he received his Ph.D. degree, also in
Geophysics, both from Stanford University, Stanford, CA
under the supervision of Prof. Mark Zoback (a renowned
expert in geo- and rock mechanics).
He has over 10 years of industry experience in
geomechanics and related applications, such as wellbore
stability during drilling and production, fluid migration
and more.
Satya Perumalla is a Senior
Geomechanics Specialist, working with
GeoMechanics International (GMI)
since 2007, and has diverse experience
in making connections between
geomechanics and drilling problems.
He has over 12 years of experience
working in the oil and gas industry as a Consultant,
working at various levels, supporting well engineering and
sub-surface interests of various operators, i.e., Shell, BG
and Total, etc., in the Middle East, Africa and India.
Satya received his M.S. degree in Applied Geology from
the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

FALL 2009

55