SPE 122631

Understanding Overpressure Trends Helps Optimize Well Planning and Field

Development in a Tectonically Active Area in Kuwait
K. Khan, SPE, Schlumberger, M. Al-Awadi, Q. Dashti, M.R Kabir and R.M Aziz, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for the 2009 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 4-6 August 2009, but was not presented. The author(s) have submitted this
paper for inclusion in the SPE Paper Collection currently available on OnePetro.

Abstract
Sporadic but significant drilling downtime, potentially linked to field-scale pore pressure anomalies, has occurred during
drilling to a deep carbonate reservoir in North Kuwait. Some wells experienced well-control situations while some others
suffered severe mud losses. The field data show that pore pressure can vary between 9 ppg and 19 ppg before a well reaches
its target depth of approximately 15,000 ft (TVD). These observations require the establishment of a good understanding of
the subsurface pore pressure in order to optimize drilling operations, assess reservoir risks and provide input for better well
completions.

Geomechanical studies, utilizing pore pressure and temperature data from downhole measurements, openhole logs, drilling
records and lithological information, were conducted to explain the overpressure mechanisms. Analyses indicate that
overpressure above the reservoir appears to result mainly from hydrocarbon accumulations and subsequent gas generation
during hydrocarbon maturation where pore pressure has been measured to be as high as 15 ppg. However, due to variable
sealing conditions and field-scale faulting and fracturing, the pore pressure can vary within the same field. Pore pressure
close to overburden stress (~20 ppg) observed while drilling through underlying salt and interbedded anhydrite layers is
caused by trapping of water released during gypsum-anhydrite phase transformation. In the reservoir below salt, pore
pressure varying between 16 ppg and 17 ppg can be attributed mainly to hydrocarbon generation and buoyancy effects.
Towards the bottom of the reservoir, pore pressure is slightly low and varies between 14 ppg and 15 ppg. The severity of
vertically and spatially varying borehole breakouts suggests that variations in tectonic stresses are present on the field scale,
which may impact the generation of stress-related overpressure. Moreover, the intermittent presence of anhydrite layers and
stiff intact limestone beds may act as localized seals generating overpressure.

Geomechanical analyses were subsequently used to constrain the contemporary stress state and fracture gradient profile.
These helped explain hole stability issues experienced during drilling and assisted in planning future drilling operations. In
addition, the data provided better quantitative input for reservoir risk analysis and well planning for the field development
campaign.
 [2]

Introduction
The North Kuwait Jurassic Fields (NKJFs), which cover an area of approximately 1,800 sq km, are spatially divided into six
regions (Fig. 1a). To date, 30 wells (mostly vertical) have been drilled and completed in these fields targeting carbonate
formations of Jurassic age. Approximately 70% of the drilled wells are located in the Sabriyah field (on the Eastern side) and
the adjacent Raudhatain field (on the Western side). Among the few deviated wells, the deviation angle in the reservoir
generally varies between 25° and 35°, with one well being close to 50°. The East/West structural cross-section indicates
relatively a flat structure in the central part, with dipping structure on the crests in the Eastern and Western parts (Fig. 1b). A
generalized lithological section of NKJFs, along with the casing points and hole sections, is shown in Fig. 2. Before a well
reaches its target depth at approximately 15,000 ft TVD, several formations are encountered which exhibit varying
lithological characteristics and varying degrees of faulting and fracturing due to structural complexities and active regional
tectonics. The Wara, Burgan and Zubair Formations are clastics, whereas the Hith and Gotnia Formations are evaporites. The
rest of the formations are predominantly carbonates with intermittent shale layers and streaks.

Severe mud losses and pressure kicks during drilling have been reported in several wells, causing drilling delays and non-
productive time (Table 1). The mud weight used during drilling from the top of the 16-in. hole section plotted along depth is
shown in Fig. 3 for three major fields. The shallower hole sections above the Zubair Formation are drilled with mud between
8.5 ppg and 9 ppg and are relatively trouble free. The sharp increases in mud weight shown in Fig. 3 (i.e., wells SA-H, BH-D
and BH-E) indicate the amount of mud weight required to control kicks. Fig. 4a shows available field-scale pore pressure
data from downhole measurements combined with mud weight corresponding to reported mud losses and pressure kicks data
plotted along depth. These data indicate that near the top of the 16-in. hole section, Zubair Formation is normally pressured
across the field while overpressure with lateral variability may exist in the underlying formations (Ratawi Shale, Ratawi
Limestone and Makhul). For instance, well BH-A was drilled with the lowest mud weight of ~12 ppg (Fig. 3) without any
significant drilling problem in the 16-in. hole section, while the nearest offset well (BH-E, at a distance of 1.5 km) required a
mud weight of ~15 ppg to control the well. Pore pressure measurements taken in well BH-E indicated pore pressure of 9.33
ppg in the Zubair Formation and 14.7 ppg towards the bottom of the hole (in the Ratawi Limestone). Similar pressure kicks
have also been observed in several other wells suggesting that an increase in mud weight with depth is required to counter the
potential overpressure in the lower part of the 16-in. hole section. However, excessively high mud weight has also led to
unintentional formation breakdown, causing losses in some wells. For instance, the 16-in. hole section in well RA-G was
drilled successfully, but experienced total losses during logging with a mud weight of 16.7 ppg.

The 12 ¼-in. hole section consists of Hith (anhydrite) Formation near the top and underlying Gotnia Formation (alternating
salt/anhydrite layers), with casing set at the top portion of the Najmah Formation (carbonate). Due to salt creeping, a
significantly higher mud weight (19–20 ppg) is used during drilling, with drilling kicks and mud losses commonly reported.
The majority of these reported incidents occur while drilling through the anhydrite layers. In well RA-A, where the Gotnia
Formation is one salt layer with no intermediate anhydrite layers, a lower mud weight (17–18.6 ppg) was sufficient to drill
through the salt. In well RA-B, the mud weight in the Gotnia Formation was as high as 21 ppg.

The 9 ¼-in. hole section below the Gotnia Formation includes the Najmah and Sargelu Formations (upper reservoir) and the
underlying Dhruma Shale. The lower part of the Najmah Formation is kerogen-rich and considered source rock. Due to good
sealing capacity of the Gotnia Formation, hydrocarbons and mixtures of gases may accumulate at the top portion of the
Najmah (carbonate) below the Gotnia, causing high pore pressure. The mud weight during drilling is usually close to pore
pressure (between 16 ppg and 17 ppg). Some intermittent stiff and strong beds are present that appear to act as localized
pressure seals (if not fractured), creating high pore pressure that sometimes requires even higher mud weight, which can
cause losses in some other intervals with open fractures.

The 6 ½-in. hole section penetrates the lower reservoir (the Marrat Formation) and extends below to the Minjur Formation.
The downhole pressure measurements suggest that average pore pressure is close to 14 ppg (10,900 psi). A slightly higher
pore pressure gradient is observed near the top of the reservoir, likely due to upward migration and accumulation of gas. This
section is usually drilled with a mud weight varying between 15 ppg and 16 ppg (overbalance of 1–2 ppg). The intermittent
presence of anhydrite layers towards the bottom (the Lower Marrat Formation) may act as a pressure seal, creating a
localized increase in pore pressure. Mud losses in faults and fractures and differential sticking have been observed in some
wells. A few early exploration wells were deepened below the reservoir into the Khuff and Unayzah Formations, where pore
pressure in water-bearing zones has been measured to be 16 ppg (representing a pressure difference of approximately 5,000
psi or 1.2 psi/ft relative to the reservoir). Due to varying field-scale fracturing and faulting in the reservoir, it is important to
make a quantitative assessment of the upward water drive in order to optimize field development decisions and reservoir
management.

Pressure kicks data can be correlated to a particular formation and depth interval, as these events usually occur when the bit
penetrates zones of high pore pressure relative to mud weight. However, identification of zones and depth intervals
experiencing mud losses in the long open-hole interval can be difficult. In intervals of open fractures, losses can be associated
 [3]

with overbalance (in which mud weight is higher than the pore pressure). However, if the wellbore intersects fractures that
are closed or partially open, seepage losses may occur. Major losses would be expected when the mud weight is higher than
the minimum horizontal in-situ stress (fracture gradient), causing fractures to open up. Likewise, within intact formations,
losses would occur when mud weight is sufficiently high to overcome the stress concentration and the tensile strength of the
rock in the near-wellbore region, causing uncontrolled breakdown or hydraulic fracture. Geomechanical analysis is required
to develop a fracture gradient profile that takes into account the pore pressure and rock strength variations along depth, which
can provide better quantitative information of potential weak zones in a given hole section where losses could be a risk. The
analysis can help optimize future drilling operations in different hole sections by defining a window of safe mud weight
along depth.

To plan wells better and minimize the risk of losses and pressure kicks in future drilling operations, the available information
was integrated and analyzed to explain the spatial and vertical pore pressure variations. In addition, geomechanical analysis
was performed to build mechanical earth models (MEMs), which helped identify potential weak zones in the given hole
sections and suggested a window of safe mud weight required to minimize losses and gains in the future. Moreover, analysis
suggested that managed pressure drilling (MPD) has potential applications in the western and central part of field, where the
wellbore appears to be more stable than in other areas during drilling. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.

Mechanisms Responsible For Overpressure Generation

Several mechanisms can cause overpressure generation in sedimentary basins, including tectonic stresses, diagenetic changes
that cause water release, mineral precipitation that reduces porosity, fluid expansion due to thermal effects and hydrocarbon
generation (Osborne and Swarbick, 1997; Yassir and Addis, 2002). In addition, the structural and geological framework can
control vertical and horizontal migration of fluids along faults, fractures, permeable beds and dipping layers that can generate
overpressure away from the source (Chilingar et al., 2002). Structural bending, folding, faulting and movement of fault
blocks can cause overpressure due to localized squeezing effects. For overpressure generation, two conditions are necessary:
(1) a source of pore pressure and (2) sufficient sealing conditions. If sealing conditions are poor, pore pressure generated by
one or a combination of the above mechanisms may dissipate and overpressure may not occur. Due to several inter-related
factors of depositional and post-depositional origin, it is possible that more than one mechanisms may be responsible for
generating overpressure in a given basin. The present discussion focuses on explaining anomalies in spatial and vertical
overpressure in the context of the most dominant factors, identifying zones and layers where overpressure may exist, and
defining its limits based on field data for the study fields.

Temperature Gradient in North Kuwait Jurassic Fields

A temperature increase can cause fluid expansion, which increases localized pore pressure if fluid movement or lateral and
vertical transport of the heated fluid is restricted (fluid movement is not restricted, for example, in open fracture systems
and/or along planes of non-sealing faults). In north Kuwait, the gradient of the measured subsurface temperature data (Fig.
4b) varies between a normal value of 10ºF/1,000 ft (Chilingar et al., 2002) and 11ºF/1,000 ft in the Zubair and shallower
formations. In the underlying formations (starting from the Ratawi Limestone), the temperature gradient appears to be
slightly higher, varying between 12ºF/1,000 ft and 13ºF/1,000 ft. These temperature profiles were calculated using average
annual surface temperature of 80ºF (26ºC) for the Gulf region published by Ahmed and Sultan (1991). In the reservoir, the
temperature may vary between 250ºF and 280ºF, with slightly higher temperature (~10ºF) observed in wells located on the
eastern side. As shown in Fig. 4, both downhole temperature and pore pressure data plotted along depth follow a higher
gradient in deeper formations, with a sharp shift starting from the Ratawi Limestone (measured depth = x800 ft) compared
with normal gradients in Zubair and other shallow formations. This suggests that the shale layer in the lower part of the
Zubair Formation and the top portion of the Ratawi Shale acts as a barrier to both pressure and temperature.

Geology, Structural Settings and Evidence of Stress Anomalies

The North Kuwait records a complex tectonic history that ranges from the Precambrian assembly of the Saudi Arabian plate
through the present-day Zagros collision. A common theme in the Middle East is that structures developed in earlier events
could be re-activated by later events. Many of the fields throughout the Kuwait region have lineaments and regional
structures have boundaries or geometries that are closely related to basement structures and trends. Similarly, some of the
trends observed in the Sabriyah/Raudhatain survey show similar coincidence with regional structures.

The structural geology for sections below the Hith/Gotnia salt in the Raudhatain and Sabriyah Fields is complex. The salt and
anhydrites accommodate vertical growth of structures underneath, along with detachment folding, and detachment of the sub-
Gotnia sections from the Cretaceous sections above. The complexities seen within the fields reflect all the elements of the
regional history, plus the complexities of the collision between the Arabian and the Iranian plates in the Zagros mountains
belt. It is difficult to assign the genetic origin to all faults. Some of the faults have trends that may be related to the trend of
the Zagros fold and thrust belt or to shear zones that extend out from the thrust front. Some of the faults may be basement
related, although determining which trends are potentially of basement origin is uncertain in northern Kuwait (Michael,
 [4]

2006).

The analysis of image and oriented caliper data indicate the presence of stress-induced wellbore breakouts observed
intermittently along depth, both in the reservoir and shallow formations. The azimuth of observed breakouts generally varies
between N135°E and N150°E, indicating a present-day maximum horizontal stress direction varying between N45°E and
N60°E (Fig. 5), which is consistent with the regional trend in which NE/SW tectonic compression is caused by collision of
the Iranian and Arabian plates in the Zagros mountain belt. Localized rotation of breakouts caused by field-scale faulting and
fracturing is occasionally observed, indicating active tectonic settings of the fields particularly on the crestal parts.

The data analysis from several wells suggests that field-scale anomalies of horizontal stresses exist in the study fields. When
mud weight and rock strength do not vary significantly in wells of the same geometry drilled through the same formations in
a given time, the severity of borehole enlargements (breakouts) can be attributed to varying in-situ stresses. Fig. 6 shows the
mud weight variation and the caliper data over a 3,000 ft interval in the 16-in. hole section for four vertical wells drilled in
the study fields. Wells SA-G and UN-C (located 9 km NE from well SA-G) are located on the crestal part on the eastern side.
Well SA-I is located 3.5 km from well SA-G on the down-dip side towards the west. Well RA-D is located at the farthest
distance from well SA-G (19 km) on the western side. As Fig. 6a illustrates, the mud weight for these wells does not vary
significantly over the interval shown. The measured rock strength in the reservoir section and a comparison of different log
responses suggest that rock strength would not be appreciatively different in these areas. The caliper data shown in Fig. 6b
indicates that more severe breakouts are developed in wells SA-G and UN-C compared with wells SA-I and RA-D. The
severity of breakouts decreases from east to west. This trend was also observed both in the reservoir sections and in other
wells. It appears that the NE/SW tectonic compression is causing higher horizontal stress anisotropy in the eastern part of the
fields, creating more severe breakouts. This part of the field appears to act as a stress shield, protecting the western part of
Sabriyah and the Raudhatain areas from higher tectonic compression. This is further supported by more intense fracturing in
the reservoir formations (as observed in image data and cores) in wells located on the eastern side compared with low
fractures intensity in wells located farther to the west (in western Sabriyah and Raudhatain).

Combining the stress direction and in-situ stress magnitudes with the geometry (dip and azimuth) of faults, appropriate
geomechanical analyses can provide useful information about fault sealing potential over the life of the reservoir and
theoretical hydrocarbon height in fractured reservoirs. Similarly, high tectonic stresses can cause localized squeezing of pore
fluids within fault and fracture systems, which can generate significantly higher pore pressures. However, depending on the
dip and azimuth of the fracture sets and faults, the increase in pore pressure can reach to a limit in which frictional resistance
is overcome and rock shearing along fracture planes may allow pore fluid to escape and pore pressure to drop (Sibson, 1992).

Discussions
To explain spatial and vertical overpressure variations and its practical application in well planning, the analysis of data is
presented for each hole section currently used in the field development campaign. Vertical distribution of data for pressure
kicks and mud losses are shown in Fig. 7, which illustrates a data trend for different formations encountered during drilling.
The variation of these events across the field is shown in Fig. 8, displaying mud losses and kicks data on each well location
where these events were reported. Further analysis of the data is discussed in the following sections.

16-in. Hole Section

The 16-in. hole section covers the Zubair Formation at the top and extends to the top of Hith Formation below. Measured
downhole pore pressure varies between 8 ppg and 9 pgg in the Zubair Formation. The lower pressure is likely due to
depletion in some parts of the Sabriyah and Raudhatain areas in shallow wells producing from the Zubair Formation.
Analysis of drilling reports shows that pressure kicks have occurred in 13 wells drilled in the study fields, requiring a total of
108 days (Table 1) to rectify the problem before drilling ahead. The major pressure kicks and the mud losses are commonly
observed in wells located high on the structure in the western and eastern parts, towards the north and south (Fig. 8a).

Most of the drilling kicks occured with a mud weight of 12 ppg from Ratawi Shale near the top of the hole section, and 15
ppg near the bottom in the Minagish Formation (Fig. 7). The pressure kicks in the Ratawi Shale appear to occur in the
intermittent limestone stringers, where fluid mobility is expected to be high compared with the neighboring shale. Apart from
two events, observed kicks are linked to the entry of pressurized gas into the mud stream, which may originate from gas
generation in shallow formations (Ratawi Limestone and Makhul formations) caused by hydrocarbon accumulations and
subsequent maturation. In Well BH-E (a vertical well), measurements indicate a pore pressure of ~15 ppg in the Ratawi
Limestone. However, the nearby vertical well (BH-A) was drilled with a mud weight of ~12 ppg in the same section. Within
the reservoir, the seismic section indicates that well BH-A has intersected a prominent fault. It is possible that similar features
may be present at shallow depth due to regional tectonic stresses while pore pressure may have dissipated along fault planes
in well BH-A. The overpressure observed in well BH-E follows a general field trend observed in other wells, hence the lower
pore pressure in well BH-A may be a localized exception. A couple of kick events at a mud weight of 16 ppg were also
observed in the Makhul Formation in two wells (BH-E and UN-D) on the eastern flank. It appears that overpressure in the
 [5]

underlying Hith Formation and a potentially high degree of fracturing due to higher tectonic stress on the eastern side of the
field may have caused upward fluid migration and resulting overpressure in the shallower interval of the Makhul Formation.

The separation between hydrostatic pore pressure in the Zubair Formation and overpressure measured in the underlying
formations suggests that the bottom Zubair/top Ratawi Shale serves as a pressure seal. Similarly, the relatively thicker shaly
part of the bottom of the Makhul Formation may also occasionally act as a seal against overpressure in the Hith Formation,
particularly in the western part for the field where tectonic stress appears to be less compressive, hence probably less
fracturing has occurred. Due to better sealing conditions and relatively less fracturing in the western part, isolated pockets of
pressurized gas may be causing high pressure kicks in wells located on the western side.

While mud weight has been increased to counter potential overpressure, this has resulted in mud losses in some wells. These
losses were mainly observed in seven wells located on the southern (Bahrah) and western (Raudhatain) parts of the field (Fig.
8a). Curing of losses resulted in 27 days of nonproductive time (NPT). Most of the NPT was related to a few events in which
the mud weight was between 15.2 ppg and 16.7 ppg. For example, well RA-G was drilled successfully but experienced total
mud losses during logging. Similarly, a couple of other wells experienced losses during cementing. The exact depth of mud
losses was not known due to the long open-hole section. Geomechanical modelling predicts that the most likely zone of
potential losses in the 16-in. hole section is in the Zubair Formation, due to mud seepage and formation breakdown
(discussed further below).

From the analysis it can be concluded that, in vertical wells, the 16-in. hole section may be drilled with 12 ppg from the top
of Zubair Formation. Mud weight should be gradually increased with depth between 15 ppg and 15.5 ppg, with partial mud
losses expected. Further increase in mud weight should be made only if significant overpressure is encountered. In some
instances, the wellbore may intersect isolated pockets of pressurized gas, which may be circulated out and further increases of
mud weight may be avoided. Mud weight above 16 ppg could cause losses due to formation breakdown in the Zubair
Formation or by reopening pre-existing fractures in the near-wellbore region.

12 ¼-in. Hole Section

The 12 ¼-in. hole section covers approximately 500 to 1,000 ft of the Hith Formation (anhydrite) near the top, as well as the
underlying Gotnia Formation (alternating salt/anhydrite layers) and usually 10 to 15 ft of the underlying Najmah Limestone.
Occasionally, only one salt layer has been observed in the Gotnia Formation, as in wells UN-A (in northeast part) and RA-A
(on the west). While no downhole pore pressure measurements are available in this hole section, pressure kicks and mud loss
data from drilling suggest that pore pressure is generally close to or slightly less than the overburden stress. Drilling kicks
were reported in a total of 13 wells with mud weight between 17 ppg in the Hith Formation and varying between 19.2 and 20
ppg in the Gotnia Formation. Spatially, these events are more commonly observed in wells located structurally high on the
eastern and western sides (Fig. 8b). The pressure kicks indicate an influx of mixed gas, water and H2S and occur commonly
while drilling through the anhydrite layers. Similarly, mud losses have been reported in 12 wells corresponding to mud
weights between 19.3 ppg and 20.2 ppg. In a couple of wells, a mud weight of about 20.5 ppg is used. The cumulative
drilling NPT is higher for curing losses (154 days) compared with NPT of 92 days related to pressure kicks.

According to Osborne and Swarbick (1997), the phase transformation from gypsum to anhydrite reduces volume by 39%
accompanied by the release of water. As both salt and anhydrite (if not fractured) offer good sealing, the released water may
become trapped and generate significant overpressure, which can increase further due to the squeezing effect of salt creep.
According to Osrborne and Swarbick, the gypsum-anhydrite phase transformation takes place at temperatures between 40ºC
and 50ºC (compared with an estimated temperature of 225ºF or 107ºC in the Gotnia Formation), and this phenomenon,
according to them, may not be responsible for overpressure generation at great depths. Their argument may be true where
anhydrite is overlain by relatively permeable beds. However, the Gotnia Formation has anhydrite at the base and salt at the
top, with alternating salt/anhydrite layers in the middle. It may be possible that water released from gypsum-anhydrite
transformation is trapped below the overlying layer and between the middle salt layers, causing the overpressure.

Due to the viscoelastic nature of salt, stress within the salt is assumed to be isotropic and close to the overburden stress,
approximately 20–20.5 ppg (1–1.06 psi/ft) in our case. The salt has the tendency to creep into the wellbore with time. The
amount of creep depends on the downhole temperature, differential pressure (the difference between the mud weight and the
overburden stress) and the chemical composition of the salt. Based on an elastic and visco-plastic solution of salt creep
analysis proposed by Infante and Chenevert (1989), a minimum mud weight of 18 ppg is required to drill through the Gotnia
salt. In their study, Infante and the Chenevert focused on the Louann salt in United States, which is largely sodium chloride in
composition, found at a depth of 12,250 ft, and may be considered a representative analogue for the Gotnia salt. The mud
weight used in well RA-A where the Gotnia Formation is composed of only one salt layer (without anhydrite) compares very
well with the predicted value. However, due to the presence of anhydrite layers and carbonate stringers in the Gotnia
Formation, overpressure may occur, hence the mud weight required to drill through the Gotnia is controlled more by the pore
pressure in the anhydrite layers than by the salt creeping effect.
 [6]

High pore pressure in the 12 ¼-in. hole section may have damaging effects on the cement bond, causing upward and
downward fluid leakage behind casing (Maurice, 2000). Due to the creeping nature of salt layers, however, the annulus space
between the casing and the cement may be closed, serving as a reasonably good seal even when the quality of the cement
bond is not ideal. To date, there is no solid evidence of cement leaking and allowing communication above and below.
However, H2S mixed with water can accelerate the casing corrosion. In addition, the stiff nature of anhydrite layers and
occasional presence of limestone stringers may act as point loads of high stress concentration at the points of contact with
casing, causing damage to casing particularly if corrosion has weakened the casing material. For these reasons, it may be
beneficial to include the 12-¼ in. hole section as a part of routine casing checks and corrosion logs during workover
operations.

9 ¼-in. Hole Section

The 9 ¼-in. hole section covers the Najmah Formation (at the top), as well as the Sargelu and Dhruma Formations. The upper
part of the Najmah Formation just below the Gotnia Formation consists of limestone with a thickness of 40 ft to 50 ft. The
middle kerogen-rich interval of the Najmah Formation acts as the source rock. Due to good sealing of the Gotnia Formation,
gas accumulated in the Najmah limestone is under high pressure. No downhole formation pressure measurements are
available but build-up tests indicate that pore pressure in the Najmah Formation can vary between 16 ppg and 17 ppg. The
laboratory testing of samples in these formations indicates the presence of strong thin beds, which may act as localized
pressure seals below the Gotnia Formation. The drilling of the 9 ¼-in. hole section is relatively trouble-free, with occasional
losses or pressure kicks. The pressure kicks were reported in five wells having a cumulative NPT of seven days, while mud
losses were observed in six wells with NPT of only two days (Table 1, Fig. 8c).

6 ½ in. Hole Section

In the lower reservoir, the measured formation pore pressure in the Middle Marrat Formation varies between 10,900 psi near
the top and 11,200 psi towards the bottom indicating an equivalent mud weight between 13.8 ppg and 14 ppg (fluid gradient
of 0.2–0.22 psi/ft). Most of the kicks and mud loss events occurred in wells located on the crestal parts (Fig. 8d). Pressure
kicks were reported in 9 wells with a total NPT of 21 days. These kicks were observed mainly in the bottom of the middle
Marrat and the top of the lower Marrat formations (Fig. 7). Anhydrite layers in this zone (Fig. 2b) appear to act as pressure
barriers, causing gas and fluid accumulation and associated localized overpressure below the anhydride layers. When
overpressure zones are intersected during drilling, the mud weight is raised to suppress gas entry. By doing so, losses may
occur in open fractures in shallower zones where pore pressure is lower. The mud losses were reported in a total of 11 wells
with a cumulative non-productive time of 27 days. However, 90% of this non-productive time is related to four wells (UN-A,
UN-C, SA-F and SA-G) located on the eastern side of the field. The available image and core data indicate more intense
fracturing in wells located on the eastern side, probably due to high tectonic stress from the northeast (discussed above). In
fractured intervals, fluid mobility is high and when mud weight is below the formation pressure, kicks are observed. On the
other hand, if mud weight is increased to control the kicks, the risk of losses is also high because mud cake at the wellbore
wall cannot be developed. A dynamic pressure control mechanism is required to manage drilling operations in this hole
section more efficiently.

Geomechanical Modeling for Defining Safe Mud Weight Window

The window of safe mud weight varies between the pore pressure and the fracture gradient. To avoid drilling kicks and mud
losses, the mud weight should be kept above the formation pressure and lower than the fracture gradient. The lower limit of
the mud weight could be increased if compressional failure of the formation in the near-wellbore region creates severe
breakouts, which may cause drilling problems like tight hole, pack-off, stuck pipe and excessive reaming, and so on. When
mud weight is excessively high, preexisting fractures in the near-wellbore region can open up or the wellbore in weaker
formation intervals may fail in tension, causing mud losses during drilling. Using geomechanical analysis, various data sets
can be integrated to build MEMs for given hole sections and formation intervals. The results of such analysis can be
subsequently used to identify the safe mud weight range for each hole section and formation.

A MEM is a numerical representation of the state of in-situ stresses, pore pressure and rock mechanical properties for a
specific stratigraphic section in a field or basin (Plumb et al., 2000). The analysis can be used to define limits of wellbore
pressure corresponding to pressure kicks, breakouts, mud losses and formation breakdown. A simplified workflow of MEM
construction is illustrated in Fig. 9. Construction of a MEM begins with a quality assessment of available data. Construction
progresses in a hierarchal order of steps in which each step serves as the basis for the subsequent step. In addition, drilling
parameters, drilling–related events and experience can be used as input for model calibration and refinement. A detailed
description of the process and the workflows is discussed by Ahmed et al., (2009) and Plumb et al., (2000).

Results of geomechanical analysis for one of the study wells are shown in Fig. 10. The figure summarizes the model input
parameters (Tracks 1–3), the model predictions (Tracks 4–5), and the actual observation of hole ovality/breakouts (Tracks 6–
7). Track 4 quantitatively displays downhole pressure conditions (in ppg), in which the dark brown shade represents the kick
 [7]

limit and suggests that if mud weight is less than pore pressure (the upper limit of the brown shade), pressure kicks may
occur. The red shade represents the breakouts limit. If wellbore failure under compression (i.e., breakouts) is excessive, the
mud weight can be raised above the kick limit to maintain the breakouts within tolerable limits (Track 5). Further increase of
mud weight may cause seepage losses (blue shade in Track 4). The black shade in the same track represents the breakdown
limit, in which formation failure in tension may occur in the near-wellbore region and cause major losses. The green curve in
Track 4 represents the actual mud weight used during drilling of the well. The analysis suggests that in the 16-in. hole section
(Track 4 in Fig. 10), the potential interval of mud losses lies in the Zubair Formation, which was previously not known with
certainty in some of the wells that experienced severe mud losses during drilling of the 16-in. hole section. The analysis
further shows that at a mud weight of 15 ppg and slightly higher, seepage losses may occur and a further increase of mud
weight may cause total losses due to formation breakdown.

The mud weight in the 12 ¼-in. hole section would be largely controlled by the pore pressure in the anhydrite layers. Pore
pressure close to overburden stress is expected but anomalies may exist, depending on anhydrite thickness in different parts
of the field. Further analysis and mapping of anhydrite distribution may be useful to establish overpressure trends and drilling
experience in different parts of the field. Due to high pore pressure, the operating mud weight window between pressure
kicks and mud losses is very narrow for the Gotnia Formation. Real-time pore pressure monitoring combined with dynamic
adjustment of mud weight based on downhole pressure response can be used to minimize the loss/gain situation.

In the reservoir section, it appears that mud losses are mainly controlled by the presence of open fractures and the degree of
overbalance. The formation breakdown limit can vary between 18 ppg and 20 ppg, and the mud weight currently being used
is below the fracture gradient. The risk of losses is higher in the eastern side due to the higher degree of fracturing and
faulting.

Potential Applications for Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD)

The mud weight required during drilling to avoid excessive compressional wellbore failure (breakouts) is a function of both
formation rock strength and in-situ effective stresses. If the formation is competent and/or subjected to less severe in-situ
stresses, it may be possible to drill the formation underbalanced or at a near-balanced condition. The latter refers to the
condition in which mud weight is close to formation pressure, also known as managed pressure drilling (MPD).
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) or MPD reduces formation damage by ensuring that little or no solids or fluids invade the pore
throats of rock and micro-fractures. Both are of practical interest in rocks of low matrix permeability, such as Jurassic
formations in NJKFs. The stability of the wellbore during MPD and UBD operations is of prime concern, and is one of the
main criteria to be met for these operations to be feasible in a given formation for the known in-situ stress state, rock
properties and wellbore geometry (hole inclination and azimuth).

In North Kuwait Jurassic Fields, the initial feasibility of MPD can be assessed by comparing actual mud weight and pore
pressure data and studying the hole condition in wells already drilled. The available data suggest that mud weights used in
three wells (RA-E, SA-D and SA-G) in the Marrat Formation Formation are close to the general trend of the reservoir
formation pressure (Fig. 11a and 11b). Among these wells, well RA-E was drilled with the least overbalance, and the caliper
log (Fig. 11b, right chart) indicates a relatively more stable hole than in the other two wells (Fig. 11a, right chart). Despite
being drilled with higher overbalance, wells SA-G and SA-D undergo larger hole enlargements (2 in. to 3 in. intermittently)
suggesting that these wells may be experiencing higher tectonic stresses, as discussed above. These data suggest that it is
worthwhile to conduct the feasibility of MPD in NKJFs and choose a test case for field trial in the Raudhatain and Western
Sabriyah areas, where wellbore is generally more stable during conventional drilling.

Conclusions
• Downhole measurements indicate that pore pressure in the lower part of the 16-in. hole may be close to 15 ppg,
while in the upper part (the Zubair Formation) pore pressure is near hydrostatic (~9 ppg).
• The gradient of measured subsurface temperature data varies between 10ºF/1,000 ft (normal gradient) and
11ºF/1,000 ft in the Zubair and shallower formations. The gradient is slightly higher (12ºF/1,000 ft to 13ºF/1,000 ft)
in underlying formations (starting from the top of the Ratawi Limestone).
• The separation between normal pressure and temperature trends (in the Zubair) and abnormal trends (in the Ratawi
Limestone and underlying formations) suggests that the shale section at the bottom of Zubair and top of the Ratawi
shale serves as an effective barrier. As a result, overpressure may be expected from the Ratawi shale, in which
intermittent limestone stringers are present.
• The varying severity of wellbore breakout data suggests that present-day maximum horizontal stress in the eastern
part of field is higher than in the adjoining parts on the western part of the field. Relatively more intense fracturing
in the reservoir formations observed in wells located on the eastern side and comparatively less fracturing on the
western side suggest that, historically, the western part of the field was probably also subjected to lower tectonic
stresses.
 [8]

• Geomechanical modelling indicates that mud seepage losses may occur in the Zubair Formation when mud weight is
higher than 15 ppg, and mud weights higher than 16 ppg may cause formation breakdown leading to major losses.
The risk of formation breakdown is greater in the Sabriyah and the Raudhatain fields due to a lower fracture gradient
in the Zubair Formation caused by production-related depletion.
• Overpressured fluids a (mixture of water, H2S and other gases) in the 12 ¼-in. hole section may damage the cement
bond and cause upward and/or downward fluid leakage behind the casing. In addition, the stiff nature of anhydrite
layers and occasional presence of limestone stringers in the Gotnia Formation may act as point loads of high stress
concentration at points of contact with casing, causing damage to casing particularly if corrosion has weakened the
casing material. Therefore, it is recommended to include this section as a part of routine monitoring and surveillance
campaigns and casing/cement bond evaluation programs during workover operations.
• Due to a narrow mud weight window in the Gotnia Formation, real-time pore pressure monitoring and the use of
MPD can help dynamically control the mud weight based on downhole pressure response, to avoid losses and gains
during drilling.
• The majority of losses in the reservoir formations are caused by fluid losses in open fractures when mud weight is
increased towards the bottom of the Lower Marrat Formation, where wells intersect pressurized fluids below
anhydrite layers in the Lower Marrat Formation. The risk of losses is higher in wells drilled on the eastern side and
on crestal parts, where fractures intensity is high.
• During drilling, wellbores are more stable in the Raudhatain and/or Western Sabriyah areas, making these fields
potential candidates for MPD applications.

Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere appreciation to the management of Kuwait Oil Company and the Ministry of Oil, Kuwait
for encouragement and for granting the necessary permissions to present and publish this paper in external publications.

Nomenclature
MPD – Managed pressure drilling
UBD – Underbalanced drilling
ppg – lb/gallon (mud density)
TVD – True vertical depth
Cmin – Minimum caliper reading (in)
Cmax – Maximum caliper reading (in)
MEM – Mechanical earth model
MDT – Modular formation dynamics tester
NPT – Non-productive time
TVD – True vertical depth

References
Ahmad, K. Khan, K, and Hussain, M.A. 2009. Prediction of Wellbore Stability Using 3D Finite Element Model in a
Shallow Unconsolidated Heavy Oil Sand in a Kuwait Field. Paper SPE 120219 presented at the Middle East Oil and
Gas Show Conference abd Exhibition held in Manama, Bahrain, March 15-18, 2009.
Ahmed, F. and Sultan, S.A.R. 1991. Annual Mean Surface Fluxes in the Arabian Gulf and Net Heat Transport Through
the Strait of Hormuz. ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN 29 (1) pp. 54-61, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic
Society.
Chilingar, C.V., Serebryakov, V.A. and Robertson, J.O., Jr. 2002. Origin and Prediction of Abnormal Formation
Pressures. Developments in Petroleum Science, 50; Elsevier; 2002.
Infante, E.F. and Chenevert, M.E. 1989. Stability of Boreholes Drilled through Salt Formations Displaying Plastic
Behavior. SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1989.
Maurice, B.D., Mclcom, M.G., and Pawel, A.N. 2000. Why Oil Wells Leak: Cement Behavior and Long-Term
Consequneces. SPE 64733 presented at SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Beijing,
China, November 7-10, 2000.
Michael, D. 2006. North Kuwait Jurassic Project: Structural Settings and Tectonic Settings. Unpublished Internal report,
KOC, 2006.
Osborne, M.J. and Swarbick, R.E. 1997. Mechanisms of Generating Overpressure in Sedimentary Basins-A Re-
evaluation. AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 81. No.6. (June 1997), P. 1023-1041.
Plumb, R. A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G. and Lee, D. 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its Application to
High-Risk Well Construction Projects. Paper SPE 59128 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 23-25, 2000.
 [9]

Sibson, R. H. 1992. Implications of Fault –Valve Behavior for Rupture Nucleation and Recurrence. Tectonophysics, 211
(1993) 284-293.
Yassir, N. and Addis, M.A. 2002. Relationship Between Pore Pressure and Stress in Different Tectonic Settings. A. R.
Huffman and G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in sedimentary basins and their prediction: AAPG Memoir 76, p.
79–88.

Table 1. Summary of drilling kicks and losses along with non-productive time (NPT) in different hole sections.

Pressure kicks
No. of events occurred during
Hole Section No of Wells NPT Days Drilling Logging Completion
16-in. 13 108 20 1
12 ¼-in. 12 93 22
9 ½-in. 5 7 8 1
6 ½-in. 8 21 8 3 3
Total 229 58 3 3

Mud losses
No. of events occurred during
Hole Section No of Wells NPT Days Drilling Logging Completion
16-in. 6 27 9 1 2
12 ¼-in. 11 154 24 1
9 ½-in. 5 2 7
6 ½-in. 11 27 19 2
Total 210 59 3 3
 [10]

A B
N

IRAQ
RUMAILA

RATQA
SAFWAN

ABDALI
IRAN IRAN
HENDIJAN A B
RAUDHATAIN BAHRGANSAR
L. FARES

SABRIYAH KHOR ALAMAYA

Mutriba MINAALBAKR
deep

NK IRAQ
BAHRAH NOWRUZ

Kra AlMaru
ARDESHIR
KUWAIT KHASHMAN

DHARIF MINAALAHMADI
WK ABDULLIYAH SEAISLAND
IRAN
MINAGISH TERMINAL Dorra N
SEK MINAABDULLAH SOROOSH

UMM GREATER DORRA

ESFANDIAR
GUDAIR BURGAN
S AUDI
ARAB IA
MINASAUD HOUT
Gotnia
Najmah
LULU MARJAN
FIELDS PROSPECTS

Developed Cretaceous WAFRA

Marrat
KHAFJI SAUDI
UnDeveloped Jurassic ARABIA

Cret+Jur ZULUF
SOUTH

Minjur
RAS AL SAFANIYA
FUWARIS KHAFJI
0 40 KM MAHARAH
RIBYAN LAWAH

(b)
(a)

(c)

Fig. 1. Locations of North Kuwait Jurassic Fields spatially divided into six areas (a); The East/West cross-section indicates
thickening (in the central part) and the thinning (at crests) of the Gotnia Formation (b); dipping of the structure at the crestal part
can also be seen; wells shown in 3D on the top Najmah Formation (c).
 [11]

Rumaila
Ahmadi
Wara/Mauddud Dolomite
Limestone
Burgan Anhydrite
Pyrite
Shuaibah Clay
18 5/8-in. casing
Najmah Sargelu
Zubair
Dhruma shale

16-in. hole
16” hole Ratawi Shale Upper Marrat
Ratawi Limestone

Minagish

Middle Marrat
Makhul
13 ½ -in. casing
Hith
12 ¼12-in.
¼” hole
hole Gotnia
9 ¼9-in. hole Najmah/Sargelu
¼” hole Dhrumah 10 ¾ -in. casing
Upper Marrat

Lower Marrat
Mdiddle Marrat
6-in.
6” hole
hole
Lower Marrat 5 -in. casing

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. A generalized stratigraphic column (left) of study area showing casing points and hole sections and the detailed lithological
description of the reservoir formations based on petrophysical interpretation (right). Wara, Burgan and Zubair formations are
clastics while the rest of the formations are carbonates, with the exception of evaporates in the 12 ¼ in. hole section.

Mud weight [ppg] Mud weight [ppg] Mud weight [ppg]

8 12 16 20 24 8 12 16 20 24 8 12 16 20 24
x000

x800

x600
16-in. Hole

x400
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

x200

x000

12 ¼-in. Hole
x800

9 ½-in. Hole
x600

6-in. Hole
x400

Fig. 3. Summary of mud weight along depth in offset wells drilled in three major parts of the field. Approximate depth of casing
points from 16 in. hole section are also displayed. Sharp increase in mud weight in the 16 in. hole sections reflects massive gas
kicks indicative of overpressure requiring increase in mud weight.
 [12]

Stress/pressure [psi] Temperature [deg F]

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 75 150 225 300

Pore pressure Sabriyah

Raudhatain
x800 Pressure kicks North West Raudhatain
Mud losses Bahrah
x600 Overburden stress Temperature gradient

x400
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

x200

x000
16-in. Hole

x800
Reservoir
x600
12 ¼-in. Hole
x400 9 ¼-in. Hole

x200 6 ½-in. Hole

x000

x800

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Summary of measured downhole pore pressure, pressure kicks and mud losses data from different wells across the field
plotted along depth (a); variation of subsurface temperature in different parts of the field (b).

Ux-3

Sx-36

Fig. 5. Summary of present-day maximum horizontal stress direction in North Kuwait Jurassic Fields indicated by red arrows at
individual well locations. Generally NE/SW trend is observed with some localized stress rotations due to field-scale faulting.
 [13]

Mud weight [ppg]

Well SA-I Well SA-G
8 10 12 14 16
UN-C
Well UN-C
SA-G
SA-I Well RA-D
RA-D
Measured depth [3000 ft interval]

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Comparison of mud weight (a) and caliper (scaled 15” to 30”) data (b) over a 3,000 ft interval in 16-in. hole section for four
distant vertical wells. As mud weight does not vary significantly, the varying severity of borehole enlargements suggests that the
eastern part (wells SA-G and UN-C) of the field is subjected to higher tectonic stresses compared to adjoining western (wells RA-D
and SA-I) part of the field.

Kick mud weight [ppg] Mud-loss mud weight [ppg]

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
x000 x000
Ratawi Shale 16” hole section
Ratawi Limestone
Minagish 12 ¼” hole section
x200 Makhul x200 9 ¼” hole section
Hith 6 ½” hole section
Gotnia
16-in. Hole

x400 Najmah x400

Lower Marrat
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

Minjur
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

x600 x600

x800 x800

12 ¼-in. Hole
x000 x000
9 ¼-in. Hole
x200 x200

x400 6 ½-in. Hole x400

x600 x600

Fig. 7. Mud weight corresponding to pressure kicks (left) and mud losses (right) experienced in different wells across the field.
Since formations tops vary in different parts of the field, a vertical depth shift is applied to some data to clearly display the data
trend in different formations and hole sections. Hole sections and casing points are also displayed (see text for details).
 [14]

15 19.3 20.2
14 20
12.76 19.3 17.5 9.6
14.3 19.3
19.8 17.5 19.1
15.2 19.3
19.6
20.5
16.5 20.5
15 19.5
12 16.8 (L) 19.5 19
15.2
14.6 19.5
12.3 19.2
13.2 19.3
14.6
15 10.5
18.7 19.7
12.1 14.8

15.2
19.7
13.4
(b) 12 ¼-in. hole section
(a) 16-in. Hole section

15.7
19.3 16.1
15.8 (L) 15.8
16.7(L) 15.7
14.2
16.4
20 15.8 15.5 15.8
17.1 14.9
18.8 16
18 19.8 16.1 (L)
15.4 (L)
18.5 15.1
16.3 (L) 14.8

16.5
16.1
15.7
14.8
19.3

(c ) 9 ¼-in. hole section (upper reservoir) (d) 6 ½-in. hole section (lower
reservoir)

Fig. 8. Spatial display of mud losses (red dots) and pressure kicks (blue dots) observed during drilling in different wells for different
hole sections. The relative size of dots in each group is proportional to the mud weight value (also displayed next to the dot) when
this event was observed. Losses are more commonly observed in the 12 ¼ in. (Gotnia) and 6 ½ in. (lower reservoir) hole sections.
Kicks are more common in the 16 in. and 12 ¼ in. hole sections.

Fig. 9. Schematic workflow for constructing a Mechanical Earth Model for different geomechanics applications.
 [15]

x000

xx900

xx800
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

xx700

xx600

xx500

xx400

xx300
Track 1 Track 2 Track 3 Track 4 Track 5 Track 6 Track 7

Fig. 10. Summary of geomechanical model input (Tracks 1-3), model predictions (Tracks 4 and 5), and actual downhole condition
(Tracks 6 and 7)

Track 1: Lithology and the formations information. The top part is Zubair Formation.

Track 2: Summary of current in-situ stresses and pore pressure (in unit of psi) profiles, indicating overburden stress (blue curve),
minimum and maximum horizontal stresses (green and red curves, respectively), pore pressure (pink curve) calibrated with MDT
points (blue diamond symbols), and minimum horizontal stress azimuth (pink dashed vertical line).

Track 3: Rock property profiles showing UCS (pink curve) and friction angle (green curve).

Track 4: Summary of different wellbore pressure conditions (in unit of ppg) showing kick limit (brown shade), breakout limit (red
shade), seepage mud loss (light blue shade), breakdown limit (black shade) and actual mud weight used during drilling (green
curve). Notice that there is a risk of losses in the Zubair Formation when mud weight is higher than 15 ppg in the 16 in. hole.

Track 5: Unwrapped view of synthetic image profile showing predicted breakouts from the geomechanical model.

Track 6: Observed hole condition from oriented caliper logs (Cmin and Cmax, scaled 6-35 inch). The comparison of 5th and 6th tracks
serves as model calibration.

Track 7. Hole enlargements (scaled 0-16 inch) from the difference of minimum and maximum calipers (from Track 6). In the shallow
formations, hole enlargements could be between 4 inch and 6 inch. In the reservoir (bottom part), the hole enlargements are less
severe (2 to 3 inch). The calibrated model can be used for defining the window for safe mud weights for planned wells.
 [16]

Well SA-D Well SA-G

Mud weight [ppg]

12 14 16 18 20
x500

x750
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

x000

x250

x500

x750

x000

x250
(a)

Mud weight [ppg]

Well RA-E
12 14 16 18 20
x800

x000
Measured depth [RKB, ft]

Caliper
x200

x400

x600

x800

x000
Bit size

(b)

Fig. 11. Actual mud weight and pore pressure (blue square symbols) data (left charts) and the caliper data (right charts) for selected
wells in Sabriyah (a) and in Raudhatain (b) areas. Well RA-E, despite being drilled with least overbalance compared to wells SA-D
and SA-G, is more stable as suggested by near bit caliper suggesting that the western part (Raudhatain and western Sabriyah) of
the field appears to have less horizontal stress anisotropy and hence more stable hole; better candidate for MPD applications.