ARMA 15-212

A Practical Log-Based Approach on Assessing and

Preventing Wellbore Instability Considering Both Mechanical and Shale
Swelling Effects
Fatmir Likrama
Halliburton, Houston, TX, USA

Arturo Diaz
Halliburton, Houston, TX, USA
Copyright 2015 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 49th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June1 July 2015
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Various techniques and drilling practices have been developed to remedy drilling problems owing to shale swelling;
however, a quantitative estimation of shale swelling potential has been difficult to establish in the oilfield. The cation exchange
capacity is one parameter that has been shown to control the swelling of shales both qualitatively and quantitatively. A correlation
derived from basic physical principles for the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of shale formations using common log data of
temperature, resistivity, and sonic slowness has been modified using available core and cuttings test data. Cation exchange capacity
is then used to distinguish problematic, smectite-rich shale formations from the trouble-free, illite-rich formations using a threshold
value. An empirical relationship that involves calculated values of CEC and thresholds is then developed to estimate the osmotic
pressure resulting from an imbalance of water activitiesin effect, estimating a higher mud weight needed to stabilize the well.
This methodology was applied to a well drilled in the North Sea combined with mechanical wellbore-stability analysis and shows
good agreement with wellbore enlargement and well events. The technique has multi-fold benefits, including identifying
problematic drilling intervals owing to the abundance of smectite, estimating the minimum mud weight necessary to prevent
drilling problems owing to shale swelling, and ultimately determining whether a well is drillable with a water-based mud system.

1. INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability is a challenge when drilling through
shale formations with a water-based mud. Shale
instability may lead to stuck pipe, shale sloughing, and a
low-quality or even a lost wellbore. Causes of wellbore
instability in shales may be separated into two main
categoriesmechanical and chemical.
Mechanical wellbore instability in shales results from
mechanical failure of weak rock formations owing to
stresses in the vicinity of the wellbore. Shear failure
along weak bedding planesan example of strength
anisotropy that often afflicts shale formationsalso falls
into this category.
The root of the chemical instability in shales, on the
other hand, is the chemical reactions between waterbased drilling fluids and clays present in shale rocks,
which, in turn, cause swelling, weakening, and
destabilization of the wellbore. While various
operational techniques have been developed to remedy
drilling problems resulting from shale swelling, a

quantitative estimation of shale swelling potential has

been difficult to establish in the oil field.
This is because a correct characterization of the shaledrilling fluids interaction phenomenon requires several
parameters, some of which are difficult or impossible to
determine. Synthetic or oil-based mud systems are often
used in dealing with problematic, swelling shale
formations. However, such drilling fluids come at a
greater cost to the operator, and the potential ecological
risks are also higher. Wells drilled using a water-based
mud and oil-based mud exist often not far from each
other in the North Sea, making it clear that with the right
drilling practices, well design, and a good estimate of
necessary mud weight, a water-based mud system also
works. However, a quantitative estimate of the
geopressures and shale swelling potential is necessary.
The cation exchange capacity is one relatively simple
parameter that has been shown to control the swelling of
shales both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Patchett (1975) describes the dependence of shale
conductivity on porosity, temperature, and cation

exchange capacity based on physical principles. A reinterpreted calibration is performed on their test results
to find better-fitting parameters to mathematically
express shale conductivity in terms of laboratorymeasured cation exchange capacities, sonic slowness
from logs, total vertical depth, and formation
temperature.
Laboratory experiments performed by Kulkarni et al.
(2012) suggest that the amount of volumetric shale
swelling is related almost linearly with value of cation
exchange capacity, and experimental work by Al-Bazali
(2005) clearly shows that the membrane efficiency of
shale is directly related to the shales cation exchange
capacity.

2. MECHANICAL WELLBORE STABILITY

MODEL
Wellbore stability modeling aims to provide an estimate
for the annular pressure (i.e., mud weight high enough as
to prevent shear failure at the wall of the wellbore, yet
low enough to prevent tensile failure and losses). To
determine this safe mud-weight window, knowledge of
the below parameters is required.

In-situ effective stress magnitude and

orientation. This implies the estimation of the
vertical stress, minimum and maximum
horizontal stress magnitude and orientation, as
well as in-situ formations pore pressure.

Relevant rock-strength data

Wellbore trajectory for the transformation of farfield stresses to near-wellbore stresses.

The principal in-situ far-field stresses are quite often

assumed with good justification to be oriented vertically
and horizontally. Once their magnitude and azimuth of
the maximum horizontal stress is estimated, the whole
stress field is determined.
The overburden (vertical) is estimated as the integration
of bulk densities with vertical depth as per Equation 1.
=

(1)

is the water
Where, g is the gravitation acceleration,
density, zw is the water depth, is sediments density,
and z is the target depth where the vertical stress is being
estimated.
Common methods for estimating pore pressure include
Eatons and Bowers methods based on the assumed
dependence of porosity indicators, such as sonic,
resistivity, and density logs on effective vertical stress in
shales. Pore pressure is ultimately calibrated to pressure
measurements, mud weights used to drill, and drilling

events, such kicks, an increase in background gas, or an

increase in splintery cavings (Zhang 2011).
The horizontal stresses may be estimated using the
poroelastic uniaxial strain model under the assumption
of constant lateral strains, as in Equation 2.
=

(2)
Where, is Biots poroelastic coefficient, is Poissons
ratio, E is Youngs modulus, and
and
are the
strains in the maximum and minium horizontal stress
directions, respectively.
The minimum horizontal stress is ultimately calibrated
to closure pressures obtained from well testing, such as a
minifrac or extended LOT (Leak Off Test)
One commonly used empirical method to estimate
maximum horizontal stress magnitude in a normal or
strike-slip faulting-stress regime is expressing it in terms
of minimum horizontal and vertical stress, as in
Equation 3.
=

(3)

The value of k varies from 0 (no horizontal stress

anisotropy) to higher than 1 (strike-slip faulting-stress
regime).
The orientation of the horizontal stresses is estimated
from wellbore imaging logs or from oriented multi-arm
caliper data. In a vertical wellbore, break-out occurs in
the azimuth of the minimum horizontal stress, and
drilling-induced fractures occur in the azimuth of
maximum horizontal stress. In the absence of such data,
regional geology and knowledge of major fault types and
strike azimuth can provide an estimate on the degree of
anisotropy and direction of horizontal stresses.
There are many rock-strength property correlations,
which most commonly use sonic slowness in the
formation. Lals (1999) correlations for shales in the
Gulf of Mexico and Horsruds (2001) for the North Sea
shales are two commonly used correlations. Kirschs
solutions for near-wellbore stresses are then used, and a
mud weight to prevent shear failure is estimated using a
failure criterion. Commonly used failure criteria in
sedimentary rocks are the Mohr-Coulomb and ModifiedLade criterion of Ewy (1998). In a post-mortem or
analogue well analysis, this minimum-required mud
weight (called collapse or shear-failure gradient, SFG) is
compared to the mud weight actually used when drilling
the well. A good calibrated wellbore-stability model
estimates an SFG higher than the mud weight used at
depths where preferential enlargement has occurred and
where cavings are observed.

Quite often, it is not possible to build a sufficient

wellbore-stability model that only considers the
mechanical shear-failure mechanism. In the existence of
chemically reactive shale formations, such as in the Gulf
of Mexico and tertiary shales of the North Sea, shale
swelling effects need to be included in the model.

Shale resistivity may be modeled as that of wet sand

with pore space filled with a clay gel. The resistivity of
wet sand is given by Equation 4, as in Archies:
=

or

(4)

In this equation, the shale rock is modeled as a sand

matrix having clay gel in its pores. Resistivity of clay
gels may be expressed as in Equation 5 based on the
work of Cremers and Laudelout (1966), which derived it
using basic physical principles.

(
(

(9)

Sonic slowness is modeled to be a function of porosity

using Equation 10 with b being a calibration constant
and Z vertical depth.

3. SHALE RESISTIVITY MODEL

Equation 9 is used to account for the dependency of the

pore fluid waters resistivity on temperature.

(5)

= (

(10)

Where, b is a parameter fitted to available data, is the

compressive sonic slowness of shale formations
measured by (Logging While Drilling) LWD or wireline
logs,
is the matrix sonic slowness, Z is the (Total
Vertical) TVD depth, and n is also a parameter
determined from regression analysis.
Combining all the equations together gives Equation 11.
= (

(11)

Under the assumptions mentioned above, it may be

possible to estimate shale cation exchange capacity from
common wireline or LWD measurements of resistivity
and sonic slowness. The coefficient, b, and power
exponents, m and n, are to be estimated using lab test
data and regression analysis.

The terms in the Equation 5 are as follows:

Rg: resistivity of clay gel
K: a constant in the equation for determining
formation factor (F), such as = 1 +
Rw: resistivity of electrolytepore water

4. OSMOTIC PRESSURE MODEL

: specific surface conductance of the clay

Assuming that the shales are acting as leaky, non-perfect

membranes, the difference, , between the applied
fluid pressure and equilibrium shale pore pressure is
given by Equation 12.

S: surface area of clay

It has been demonstrated by Patchett (1975) that the
value for resistivity in Equation 5 does not depend
strongly on the value of porosity and salinity for ranges
of shales in the subsurface. At low porosity values, gel
resistivity becomes independent of porosity and salinity.
As 0,

(6)

Equation 7 expresses the resistivity as being related to

the clay surface area by a factor, Kt, dependent on
temperature.

(7)

Clay surface area, on the other hand, can also be linearly

related to the cation exchange capacity of shales based
on the work of Street (1962). Equation 6 then may be
expressed as Equation 8 with a re-defined Kt.

(8)

ln

(12)

Where, R is the ideal gas constant, T is the absolute

temperature, V is the molar volume of water, and aws and
awf are the water activities of the shale pore fluids and
drilling fluid, respectively.
Im is called the membrane efficiency or, sometimes, the
reflection coefficient. It is controlled by the relative
mobility of water and ions through shale. The property
of shale rocks to have semi-permeable membranes arises
from the presence of diffused double layers on the clay
surfaces (Keijzer et al. 1999). The cation exchange
capacity of shales is a measure of the intensity of the
negative charge environment between clay platelets.
High cation exchange capacity indicates strong electrical
repulsion of anions. It is expected then that the cation
exchange capacity should affect the shale membrane
efficiency and, in effect, the induced osmotic pressure.
Experimental work by Al-Bazali (2005) clearly shows

that shale membrane efficiency is directly related to the

shales cation exchange capacity. Thus, shale membrane
efficiency increases when the cation exchange capacity
increases.
The work of Kulkarni et al. (2012) on the final
volumetric swelling of shales shows that the final change
in volume is also dependent on cation exchange
capacity. The relationship they report is of the power law
form:

(13)

The value of the power exponent, B, is close to 1; hence,

the relationship may be approximated as linear.
The clay swelling potential depends on the mineralogy
and crystalline structure. Montmorillonite, a member of
the smectite family, is a highly reactive shale and has
values of cation exchange capacity between 80 and 100
meq/100 g for smectite. The CEC of the shale formation
may be assumed to be a linear combination of the weight
fraction of each of the clay minerals present. Assigned
values of the CEC for the clay minerals are 110
meq/l00 g of Kaolinite, 25 meq/100 g for illite, and 80
meq/100 g for smectite (Ramirez 1990).
In this paper, we propose Equation 14 as a first-order
approximation of the smectite family clay content in
shale rocks:
=(

(14)

The above formula is analogous to the shale index using

the gamma-ray log, which is often used to estimate the
shale volume. CECmin and CECmax serve as the baselines
for smectite-free shale and all-smectite shale similar to
the sand and shale baselines on the gamma-ray log.
Taking Equation 12 a step further, we can relate the
osmotic swelling pressure of the shale formations
linearly to its smectite content, as in Equation 15:

(
(

ln (

(15)
This swelling pressure converted to a gradient is then
added to the mechanical shear-failure gradient to
estimate the minimum mud weight necessary to drill the
formations trouble free. A justification of the above
claim can be found in detail by Chenevert (1998). As
water is drawn into the shale, its osmotic potential
becomes more positive and is reflected as a positive
swelling pressurean increase in the pore pressure of
the formation. Ultimately, this swelling pressure will
have to be calibrated to the observed drilling events and
caliper data in analogue wellssimilar to the
mechanical shear-failure case. Parameters that need to be
calibrated are CECmin, CECmax, and membrane

efficiency, I. As such, if a prediction or real-time

monitoring of a planned well is being conducted, it is
important to have good analogue wells for a previous
calibration of the model.

5. FIELD APPLICATION
The above concepts were applied in a post-mortem and
pre-drill prediction wellbore stability analysis in the
North Sea drilled with a water-based mud. A wellborestability model, including both mechanical and shale
chemical effects, was possible because of a complete set
of wireline logsgamma ray, density, sonic, resistivity,
and wellbore images, as well as lab test results of cation
exchange capacity and mechanical triaxial tests on shale
cores.
The overburden stress was determined by Equation 1,
and the pore pressure was determined using Eatons
method on resistivity, sonic, and density logs, and
calibrated to well events and pressure measurements.
Rock dynamic elastic properties were determined using
sonic compressive and shear slowness and density logs.
A correlation was established to relate static-rock elastic
properties to the dynamic properties using lab triaxial
test results. Rock-strength parameters, unconfined
compressive strength, and friction angle, on the other
hand, were estimated using an exponential law on sonic
compressive slowness calibrated to mechanical test data.
A normal stress regime was assumed based on
experience and geology of the area. The minimum
horizontal-stress regime was estimated with the plain
strain poroelastic model using Equation 2 and calibrated
to LOTs. The maximum horizontal-stress regime was
estimated using Equation 3 and calibrated to the breakout angle determined from wellbore image log data.
Using these inputs and the modified Lade failure
criterion, a mechanical shear-failure gradient was
determinedone that ignores the swelling of shale
formation. The shear-failure gradient (collapse gradient)
is defined as the minimum mud weight needed to
prevent shear failure in the wellbore wall.
The first step of the shale chemical reactivity wellbore
stability model was estimating the parameters of the
relationship between well logs and cation exchange
capacity of the shale formations. The parameters, b, m,
and n, of Equation 11 were determined using the original
data from tertiary rocks in Louisiana used in the study by
Patchett (1975). A somewhat different set of these
parameters was observed to provide a better correlation
than those originally reported. Figure 1 shows the labmeasured cation exhange capacity values and those
estimated by Equation 11. An error histogram between
the measured and computed CEC values is shown in

Figure 3 shows lab measurements of cation exchange

capacity from the North Sea well. Even though Equation
7 was calibrated to lab data from cores in a completely
different environment, the agreement between lab data
and correlation is good, as shown in track 2 of Figure 4.

Sample ID Depth (m) MD CEC (meq+/100g)

Upper Miocene
229353
970
20
229355
980
17
229356
1010
24.5
229357
1020
23
229358
1030
23
Middle Miocene
229359
1080
229360
1090
229362
1100
229364
1110
229367
1120
229369
1130
Lower Miocene
229602
1170
229606
1180
229611
1190
229613
1200
229614
1210
229616
1220

Cation Exchange Capacity

15

23
26
25.5
29.5
28
32
35
30
30
30
25
25

Upper Oligocene
229618
1470
229619
1480
229623
1490
229625
1500
229627
1510
229629
1520
229631
1530

24
25
24
24
25
26
26

Balder Formation
229635
2276
229637
2282
229639
2285
229641
2288

32
32
24
24

20

CEC (meq/100g)
25
30

35

40

800

1000

1200

1400
Depth (m)

Figure 2 in which 90% of the error values are less than

10 meq/100 g.

Upper Miocene
Middle Miocene

1600

Lower Miocene
Upper Oligocene

1800

Balder Formation

2000

2200

2400

Figure 3: Cation exchange capacity determined in the lab from

cuttings (Courtesy of Baroid).

Figure 1: Lab CEC and calculated CEC. Data used are from
Patchett (1975).

Figure 4: Illustration of derivation of CEC in a well in the

North Sea and its effect on wellbore stability
Figure 2: Error histogram between the measured and
computed CEC values.

The mud water activity was considered equal to that of

the 8% potassium-chloride solution based on mud
reports from the drilled well. The shale water activity is
assumed to be equal to the typical values for the
formation water salinity in the North Sea (Table 1),
which varies with depth according to formation water

salinity, pressure, and temperature following the relative

humidity equation for low-concentrated solutions.
Table 1: Salinity and water activity and density of shale water
in the North Sea and of the water-based drilling fluid.

Formation

Salinity

Activity

Density

Cenozoic

125,000 ppm

0.914

1.091

Cretaceous

162,000 ppm

0.874

1.120

Jurassic

196,000 ppm

0.840

1.146

Drilling
Fluid (8%
KCl)

80,000 ppm

0.960

1.052

The osmotic pressure is then calculated using Equation

15. CECmin is taken to be 18 meq/100g. This estimated
osmotic pressure is then added to the shale in-situ pore
pressure, and a new shear failure gradient is calculated.
Figure 4 shows lithology on the first track, calculated
cation exchange capacity and the 18 meq/100g threshold
value in the second trackgreen dots are the CEC lab
measured data from cuttingsand the 3rd track shows
the estimated gradients. The thick black curve is the mud
weight used, and the orange curve is the estimated shearfailure gradient. Both wellbore enlargement and drilling
events fit very well qualitatively with the modeled shearfailure gradientenlargement and drilling problems are
observed at depth intervals where the shear-failure
gradient is modeled as higher than the mud weight.
Figure 5 shows an illustration of a prediction for a target
well planned to be drilled in the same area. Two
scenarios are considered: oil-based and water-based
mud. A higher mud weight is required if a water-based
mud system is used for drilling the well, especially in the
smectite-rich shale formations of the overburden. In this
case, there is a mud-weight window to drill the well
using a water-based mud; however, that window is very
narrow, between 800 and 1,000 ft TVD. Good wellbore
cleaning practices and monitoring of ECD are required
to drill this interval if a water-based mud is used.

Figure 5: Illustration of minimum-required mud weights using

OBM and WBM (dotted line) for a planned well in the North
Sea.

6. SUMMARY
A wellbore-stability model that also considers the
chemical interaction between shale formations and
drilling fluid is possible using common log data. Cation
exchange capacity has proven to be both a qualitative
and quantitative indicator of shale reactivity. Cation
exchange capacity can be used to distinguish
problematic shale formations from the trouble-free ones
using a threshold value. In addition, it may be used to
differentially infer other possible causes of wellbore
instability, such as weak bedding planes. An empirical
relationship that involves calculated values of CEC and
thresholds is developed to estimate osmotic pressure
resulting from an imbalance of water activities. This
methodology was applied to a well drilled in the North
Sea combined with mechanical wellbore-stability
analysis and shows good agreement with wellbore
enlargement and well problems while drilling. The
method identifies potentially problematic intervals and
also provides a quantitative estimate of mud weights
necessary to drill the well safely. A further risk-cost
analysis may then be applied to obtain a better decision
on what drilling fluids system would work best.

REFERENCES
1.

Patchett, J.G. 1975. An Investigation of Shale

Conductivity. The Log Analyst. November-December,
1975.

2.

Kulkarni, S. et al. 2012. Mathematical Modeling of

Shale Swelling in Water-Based Muds. Paper SPE
163352 presented at the SPE Kuwait International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Kuwait City,
Kuwait, 1012 December.

3.

Al Bazali, T.M. 2005. Experimental Study of the

Membrane Behavior of Shale During Interaction with
Water Based and Oil Based Muds. PhD Dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

4.

Zhang, J. 2011. Pore pressure prediction from well

logs: methods, modifications, and new approaches.
Earth Science Reviews, 108: 5063.

5.

Lal, M. 1991. Shale stability: Drilling fluid interaction

and shale strength. Paper SPE 54356 presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 April.

6.

Horsrud, P. 2001. Estimating mechanical properties of

shale from empirical correlations. SPEDC, 16: 6873.

7.

Ewy, R.T. 1998. Wellbore stability predictions using a

modified Lade criterion. Paper SPE 47251 presented at
the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 810 July.

8.

Archie, G.E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an

aid in determining some reservoir characteristics.
Petroleum Transactions of AIME, 146: 5462

9.

Cremers, A.E. and Laudelout, H. 1965. On the

Isoconductivity Value of Clay Gels. Soil Science, 100:
298.

10. Street, N. 1962. On the Isoconductivity Value of Clays.

Soil Science, 95: 367.
11. Keijzer, Th.J.S., Kleingeld, P.J., and Loch, J.P.G. 1999.
Chemical osmosis in compacted clayey material and the
prediction of water transport. Engineering Geology, 53:
151159.
12. Chenevert, M.E. and Pernot, V. 1998. Control of Shale
Swelling Pressures Using Inhibitive Water-Based
Muds. Paper SPE 49263 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 2730 September.
13. Ramirez, M.O. 1990. Cation Exchange Capacity Data
Derived From Well Logs. Paper SPE 21097 presented
at the SPE Latin America Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1419 October.