Final Report

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 104

Faculty of Science and Technology

Master Thesis
Spring semester, 2014
Study program/ Specialization:

Petroleum Engineering / Drilling Technology Open

Writer: ………………………………
Abdullah Tariq (Writer’s signatures)
Faculty supervisor: Mesfin Belayneh

External supervisor: Hans Joakim Skadsem


Title of thesis:
“Wellbore stability in Shale formations”

Credits (ECTS): 30

Key words:

Shale Pages: 93
Collapse
Chemical +enclosure: 1
Activity

Stavanger, 16.06.2013
Acknowledgements
I would firstly like to thank Mesfin Belayneh; Professor at the University of Stavanger and Hans
Joakim Skadsem; External Supervisor from IRIS for their supervision and support throughout
my master thesis.

Stavanger, 16th June 2014

__________________________

i
Abstract
Well instability in shale formations has been a very major problem due to physiochemical
interactions between drilling fluid and formation. In this thesis, chemical, thermal and diffusion
effects on the well collapse strength are evaluated in order to investigate the dominating driving
forces. A case study on the designed Heidrun well program was also performed in order to study
the dynamics of the collapse pressure during drilling phase due to various driving forces.

ii
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... I

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. II

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. VIII

NOMENCLATURE ............................................................................................................... IX

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem formulation .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3

2 LITERATURE STUDY ON SHALE ................................................................................ 4


2.1 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Oil shale sedimentary deposition ................................................................................. 7
2.3 Shale Geomechanics .................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Petro-physical properties ........................................................................................... 11
2.5 Well instability .......................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Additives and Inhibitors for Shale drilling ................................................................ 15

3 THEORY OF ROCK MECHANICS .............................................................................. 17


3.1 Stress and Strain ........................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Stress Components .................................................................................................... 18
3.3 In-situ Stresses ........................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Vertical Stress ................................................................................................. 19
3.3.2 Horizontal Stresses .......................................................................................... 20
3.4 Stress around the wellbore ......................................................................................... 21
3.5 Stress Transformation ................................................................................................ 22
3.6 Principal Stresses around a wellbore ......................................................................... 23
3.7 Failure modes ............................................................................................................ 23
3.7.1 Tensile failure .................................................................................................. 23
3.7.2 Shear or collapse failure .................................................................................. 24

iii
3.7.3 Creep failure .................................................................................................... 24
3.7.4 Pore collapse or compaction failure ................................................................ 25

4 COLLAPSE MODELING ............................................................................................... 26


4.1 Input parameters for well collapse wellbore modeling ............................................. 26
4.1.1 In-situ horizontal stress ................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Pore Pressure ................................................................................................... 26
4.1.3 Unconfined or uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) ..................................... 27
4.1.4 Poisson’s ratio ................................................................................................. 29
4.1.5 Internal friction angle and inherent shear strength .......................................... 29
4.1.6 Young’s Modulus (E) ...................................................................................... 30
4.2 Collapse Failure models ............................................................................................ 30
4.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb criteria ................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Mogi-Coulomb criteria .................................................................................... 34
4.2.3 Drucker-Prager Criteria ................................................................................... 36
4.2.4 Weakness of plane model ................................................................................ 37

5 CHEMICAL AND THERMAL EFFECTS ON COLLAPSE MODEL ...................... 39


5.1 Chemical Potential ..................................................................................................... 43
5.2 Rock Temperature ..................................................................................................... 45
5.3 Pore Pressure ............................................................................................................. 45
5.4 Stresses induced by chemical and thermal changes .................................................. 46
5.5 Stresses at the wellbore wall ...................................................................................... 47

6 SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR WELL INSTABILITY.......... 48


6.1 Chemical, Diffusion and Temperature effects ........................................................... 50
6.1.1 Chemical.......................................................................................................... 51
6.1.2 Thermal ........................................................................................................... 53
6.1.3 Diffusion.......................................................................................................... 55
6.1.4 Thermal & diffusion ........................................................................................ 56
6.1.5 Thermal & chemical ........................................................................................ 57
6.1.6 Chemical & Diffusion ..................................................................................... 58
6.1.7 Thermal, chemical & diffusion ....................................................................... 60
6.1.8 Discussion and Comparison of different scenarios ......................................... 61

iv
6.2 Effect of different properties ..................................................................................... 63
6.2.1 Wellbore Wall Temperature ............................................................................ 63
6.2.2 Effect of activity values................................................................................... 64
6.2.3 Permeability .................................................................................................... 65
6.2.4 Thermal diffusivity.......................................................................................... 66
6.3 Effect of time ............................................................................................................. 67
6.4 Effect of the inclination of well ................................................................................. 69
6.4.1 Radial Stresses................................................................................................. 69
6.4.2 Hoop Stresses .................................................................................................. 70
6.4.3 Axial Stress ..................................................................................................... 71
6.4.4 Effective Collapse failure ................................................................................ 72

7 CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................... 74


7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 74
7.2 Model used for chemical and temperature ................................................................ 76
7.3 Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................... 77
7.3.1 Activity of shale and mud ............................................................................... 77
7.3.2 Temperature effect .......................................................................................... 79
7.3.3 Temperature and chemical combined effect ................................................... 82
7.3.4 Biot’s constant ................................................................................................. 83
7.3.5 Friction angle................................................................................................... 84
7.3.6 Poisons ratio .................................................................................................... 85
7.3.7 Cohesive strength ............................................................................................ 86
7.3.8 Wall temperature ............................................................................................. 87
7.3.9 Discussion and Comparison ............................................................................ 88

8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 90

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 91

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 93

v
List of figures
Figure 1: Laminated clay minerals in shale (Institute) ................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Laminated shale (Institute) .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Different types of Shale colors (Geoscience) .................................................................. 7
Figure 4:Categories of Oil shale (Dyni 2006)................................................................................ 8
Figure 5:Permeability of different sedimentary rocks (Jefferson 2011) ....................................... 12
Figure 6:Petro-physical properties of shale along the depth (Okiongbo 2011) ............................ 13
Figure 7: Collapse in pressurized shale formation (SWACO)...................................................... 14
Figure 8: Compressive and tensile failure in shale formation (E. Fjær 2008). ............................ 15
Figure 9: Wellington Shale reduction in swelling with different salts (S.O. Osisanya 1996) ...... 16
Figure 10: Atoka Shale reduction in swelling with different salts (S.O. Osisanya 1996) ............ 16
Figure 11: Effect of pore pressure on brittle-ductile transition (E. Fjær 2008) ............................ 18
Figure 12: Three-dimensional stress state of a cube (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011) ............................. 18
Figure 13: Different types of faults in the formations (E. Fjær 2008) .......................................... 20
Figure 14: Position of stresses around a wellbore in the rock formation (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011)
....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 15: Collapse of borehole wall (Mitchell, Miska et al. 2011). ............................................ 24
Figure 16: Principle sketch of stress vs. deformation in a uniaxial compression test (Fjær, Holt et
al. 2008). ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 17: Cohesive Strength as a function of time (Properties taken from Table 6 to plot the
graph on Matlab) ........................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 18: Failure mode for laminated rocks ................................................................................ 37
Figure 19: Loading on laminated rocks ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 20: Comparisons of Arkansas Sandstone Data to Single Plane of Weakness Theory
(Gatlin 1965) ................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 21: Osmosis process over a semi-permeable membrane (CFCF 2013) ............................ 39
Figure 22: Approximate analytical and implicit solution for the temperature and pore pressure
profiles (C. Chen 2001)................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 23:Pore pressure profile when water is being sucked out of shale formation (Mengjiao Yu
2003) ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 24: Pore pressure profile when water is being sucked in the shale formation (Mengjiao Yu
2003) ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 25: Mud weight effect on pore pressure ............................................................................ 50
Figure 26: Pore pressure profile at different times ....................................................................... 51
Figure 27: Pore Pressure graph for chemical effects .................................................................... 52
Figure 28: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical effects .................................................. 52
Figure 29: Effective Collapse Stress graph for no effects ............................................................ 53
Figure 30: Pore Pressure graph for thermal effects ...................................................................... 54
Figure 31: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal effects .................................................... 54

vi
Figure 32: Pore Pressure graph for diffusion effects .................................................................... 55
Figure 33: Effective Collapse Stress graph for diffusion effects .................................................. 56
Figure 34: Pore Pressure graph for thermal and diffusion effects ................................................ 57
Figure 35: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal and diffusion effects .............................. 57
Figure 36: Pore Pressure graph for chemical and thermal effects ................................................ 58
Figure 37: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical and thermal effects .............................. 58
Figure 38: Pore Pressure graph for chemical and diffusion effects .............................................. 59
Figure 39: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical and diffusion effects ............................ 59
Figure 40: Pore Pressure graph for chemical, thermal and diffusion effects ................................ 60
Figure 41: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical, thermal and diffusion effects ............. 60
Figure 42: Pore Pressure graph for all scenarios .......................................................................... 62
Figure 43: Effective Collapse Stress graph for all scenarios ........................................................ 62
Figure 44: Pore Pressure graph for wall temperature effects ........................................................ 63
Figure 45: Effective Collapse Stress graph for temperature effects ............................................. 64
Figure 46: Pore Pressure graph for activity effects ....................................................................... 64
Figure 47: Effective Collapse Stress graph for activity effects .................................................... 65
Figure 48: Pore Pressure graph for permeability effects .............................................................. 66
Figure 49: Effective Collapse Stress graph for permeability effects ............................................ 66
Figure 50: Pore Pressure graph for thermal diffusivity effects ..................................................... 67
Figure 51: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal diffusivity effects .................................. 67
Figure 52: Pore Pressure graph for time effects............................................................................ 68
Figure 53: Effective Collapse Stress graph for time effects ......................................................... 68
Figure 54: Radial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well
....................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 55: Radial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal
well ................................................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 56: Hoop stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well
....................................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 57: Hoop stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal
well ................................................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 58: Axial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well
....................................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 59: Axial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal
well ................................................................................................................................................ 72
Figure 60: Effective collapse stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a
vertical well ................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 61: Effective collapse stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a
horizontal well .............................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 62: Effective collapse stress at different well inclination.................................................. 73
Figure 63: Field location fo Heidrun field (G. Stjern 2003) ......................................................... 74

vii
Figure 64: Prognosis stability plot for a typical Heidrun TLP well (G. Stjern 2003)................... 75
Figure 65: Collapse pressure graph for chemical effects .............................................................. 78
Figure 66: Collapse pressure graph for activity effects ................................................................ 79
Figure 67: Collapse pressure graph for thermal effects ................................................................ 80
Figure 68: Formation and wall temperature profile with respect to depth ................................... 81
Figure 69: Collapse pressure graph for combined thermal and chemical effects ......................... 82
Figure 70: Collapse pressure graph for Biot’s constant effects .................................................... 83
Figure 71: Collapse pressure graph for friction angle effects ....................................................... 84
Figure 72: Collapse pressure graph for Poisson’s ratio effects..................................................... 85
Figure 73: Collapse pressure graph for cohesive strength effects ................................................ 86
Figure 74: Collapse pressure graph for wall temperature effects ................................................. 87
Figure 75: Collapse Pressure graph for change in drilling mud activity ...................................... 89
Figure 76: Collapse pressure graph for different scenarios .......................................................... 89

List of tables
Table 1: Relative characteristics of sedimentary rocks (SWACO) ................................................ 4
Table 2: Mineral composition of a typical shale (Weaver 1965)&(S. Hillier 2006) ...................... 5
Table 3: Mechanical Properties of Shale at different bedding plane angles (Md. Aminul Islam
2013) ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Unconfined Strength with respect of depositional environments (E. Eseme 2012) ....... 10
Table 5: Borehole failure criteria for Mohr-Coulomb (E. Fjær 2008) .......................................... 33
Table 6: Mogi-Coulomb equations for collapse failure (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006) ............................ 35
Table 7: Mogi-Coulomb equations for fracture failure (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006) ............................. 36
Table 8: List of input parameters for modelling (C. Chen 2001) ................................................. 49
Table 9: Formation and wall temperature data at different depths ............................................... 81

viii
List of abbreviations
EM – Scanning Electron Microscope

FI – Failure Index

ix
1 Introduction
This thesis deals with the well bore stability issues of shale formation with special focus on the
transient effect of pore pressure on the well collapse pressure and stress fields. The main driving
forces are chemical, hydraulic and thermal effects. For the analysis, a Heidrun well program case
study was considered (G. Stjern 2003).

1.1 Background
It is reported that shale makeup 75% of drilling formation where 90% of well instability occurs
(Ronald Steiger 1992). Well instability is a major cost factor for the industry. The wellbore
instability problems increase the overall drilling budget by about 10% (Aadnøy 2003). The
wellbore instability problems are basically well collapse and well fracturing. The problems are
caused by shear and tensile failure mechanisms respectively. Several well stability theoretical
and experimental studies have been done in the industry today. Despite the efforts and more
understanding about the subject, the industry is still facing this problem in shales. This is due to
the complex nature of this formation in terms of its transient phenomenon resulting from the
physiochemical interaction of rock and drilling fluid. Several models have been derived in order
to understand these transient effects in order to adjust the mud weight density accordingly. In a
formation where the drilling window is very small, a slight change in pore pressure may cause
well fracturing or well collapse. During a drilling operation, the change in pore pressure is due to
the physio-chemical interaction between the chemistry of drilling fluid, well pressure and
temperatures. This change in pore pressure and temperature causes a change in the stress
concentrations around the wellbore. Therefore the overall effect is modifying the original well
collapse and fracture strength. The hydraulic diffusion, chemical and thermal effects are transient
effects. Therefore, a good model is needed which is capable of predicting these effects. In this
thesis, the linear elastic and poro-elastic based models are reviewed in order to analyze these
transient effects.

1.2 Problem formulation


Due to the low permeability of shale formations, the time it takes for the stress to redistribute
after a new hole is being drilled is very long and hence a failure can occur in the borehole even
after a few days of drilling. This is because the pore pressure prior to drilling in a low permeable

1
formation is very high compared to that of a high permeable formation due to pore pressure not
able to dissipate that easily when in contact with the mud (Jianguo Zhang 2006). Also, for the
chemically-active shale, the water causes the shale to swell which results in a change in the
physical properties of the shale. Experimental studies show changes in strength and young’s
modulus during such chemical interactions (Jianguo Zhang 2006). Effects on the properties of
shale and the critical mud weight density due to temperature is also very important when taking
into account the time delayed or transient changes in the properties of the shale formation. In the
small analysis above, it can be seen that there are a lot of parameters which are taken into
consideration when drilling in the shale formations and these parameters are changing with
respect to time and the human controlled attributes such as the mud weight density are to be
adjusted accordingly when this happens. Also, since due to so much happening at the same time,
coupling all the changes is a troublesome process and an optimal solution is very intricate and
most of the times not possible.

The primary step before drilling is designing of well operation programs. The main objective of
well program is to drill safely without facing well instability problems such as well collapse and
well fracturing. The well pressure should be designed to be within the allowable safe operational
window. The physiochemical rock-fluid interaction effect tends to alter the well program.

This thesis addresses these issues with respect to the collapse pressure gradient and analyses the
following:

• Single effect of hydraulic diffusion, thermal and chemical effects around the wellbore
• Combined effect of hydraulic diffusion, thermal, and chemical around the wellbore
• Dominant driving forces
• Sensitivity analysis of the model parameters with respect to the driving forces

The overall study may assist design well program with respect to drilling fluid chemistry design.
In addition, it will improve understating of time dependent well program conditions.

2
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this thesis is to analyze the transient wellbore instability caused by
different driving forces. The activities are:

• Review the shale and well instability


• Review the theory of linear elastic and poro-elastic rock mechanic theories along with
failure criteria
• Review transient pore pressure changes due to thermo, chemo and hydraulic driving
forces
• Perform sensitivity study at the near and far well field stresses with respect to the
single and combined transient effects
• Present Heidrun field case study

3
2 Literature Study on Shale

2.1 Geology
Sedimentary rocks are a type of rocks that are formed by the deposition of the material on the
earth’s surface or beneath the water bodies. Shale comes under this category of rocks and is
formed by the compaction of silt and clay sized mineral particles commonly known as mud
(Geoscience). They come under the category of mudstones in the sedimentary rocks
classification. Table 1 shows some types of sedimentary rocks with some of their characteristics.

Table 1: Relative characteristics of sedimentary rocks (SWACO)

4
Shales are unique in nature compared to other mudstones due to them having a laminated
structure and that they are fissile. This laminated structure is made of thin layers or beds which
are less than one centimeter in thickness as illustrated in scanning electron microscope picture in
Figure 1 and 2.

Shale consists of clay minerals, which accounts for about 50-60% of shale composition and are
therefore the main reason for many problems when drilling through shale formation (Weaver
1965). Clay minerals consist of illite, kaolinite and smectite. Also, the particles which shale
consists are mainly quartz, chert and feldspar (Geoscience). Additional to the grains and these
minerals, shale structure consists of organic matter, carbonate minerals, iron oxide, sulfide
minerals and other heavy mineral constituents which are often present depending on the
environment in which the shales are being deposited (Geoscience). These minerals mostly decide
the color of the shales which they have. Figure 3 shows some of the different colors and laminar
like structure of shales.

The mineral composition of a typical shale is calculated by various authors is shown in Table 2.
Shaw and Weaver (1965) Hillier (2006)
Quartz 30.8 23.9
Feldspar 4.5 3.7 (K-spar)
2.4 (Plag.)
Carbonate 3.6 7.5 (Calcite)
1.3 (Dolomite)
0.5 (Siderite
Fe-oxides 0.5 0.8
Clay minerals 60.9 47.7 (Di-clay)
7.5 (Tri-clay)
Other minerals 2 0.5 (Pyrite)
Organic matter 1 Not determined
Table 2: Mineral composition of a typical shale (Weaver 1965)&(S. Hillier 2006)

5
Figure 1: Laminated clay minerals in shale (Institute)

Figure 2: Laminated shale (Institute)

6
Figure 3: Different types of Shale colors (Geoscience)

Among the different color of shales, black shales are a source of oil and gas. The black color
they get is from the organic matter they consist of. This organic matter after a certain amount of
time and provided that heat is provide to the rock through natural means changes into oil or gas.
Also, shales which usually yield oil and gas are supposed to contain at least 67% of clay minerals
(Geoscience). Other shales which do not come into this category can be broken into small pieces
to be used as a source of clay that can be used for several purposes such as making objects or the
use in cement as a main constituent.

2.2 Oil shale sedimentary deposition


Oil shales are divided into three categories based on their mineral composition. These are the
carbonate rich shale, siliceous shale and cannel shale (Lee 1990). Carbonate shales have a large
amount of carbonates such as calcite or dolomite. They are generally hard and are resistant to
erosion and weathering. Siliceous shales do not have very large amounts of carbonates but they
do have other minerals such as quartz, feldspar or clay. They are not that hard as the carbonate
shales and are easily weathered or eroded. They are usually black or dark brown in color. Cannel
shales have organic matter which encloses the mineral grains completely in them. This type of
shale has a lot of impurities and hence is not used for any commercial used. They are also
usually dark brown or black in color (Lee 1990).

7
A.C. Hutton categorized oil shales into three sections according to their depositional
environments in 1991 (Dyni 2006). Fluorescent microscopy was used to do so. These three
sections of oils shales were subcategorized into further headings. This tree can be seen in Figure
4. Terrestrial oil shales are composed of lipid-rich organic matter such as resin spores, waxy
cuticles, and corky tissue of roots and stems of vascular terrestrial pants found in coal forming
swamps and bogs. Lacustrine oil shales organic matter is derived from the algae found in the
freshwater or saline lakes. Marine oil shales organic matter is derived from the marine algae
(Dyni 2006). These categories as seen in the Figure 4 can are further divided into more
categories. They are named after the different geological places they were discovered at. For
example Torbanite is named after Torbon Hill in Scotland where it was discovered and so on
(Dyni 2006).

Figure 4:Categories of Oil shale (Dyni 2006)

8
2.3 Shale Geomechanics
Shale is an anisotropic material and the mechanical properties of it vary in different directions of
the load applied to it. Shale as explained above has bedding planes and the properties parallel to
and perpendicular to this bedding plane are different. Hence it is very important to understand
and know the shale properties in different directions as this can alter the results dramatically
while drilling. Also, it will make a key area to look into when deciding the mud weight density
and the direction in which the well is being drilled. Table 3 shows some of the anisotropic
properties of one of the shale samples tested in the laboratory (Md. Aminul Islam 2013). It can
clearly be seen that the maximum Young’s modulus of the sample was when then load was at 90
degrees to the normal of the bedding plane that is parallel to the bedding plane. On the other
hand, lowest value is observed when this angle is 0 degrees. Note that it is the opposite with the
Poisson’s ratio. Poisson’s ratio is maximum when this angle is zero and minimum when it is at
90 degrees.

Another important factor to look into when looking into shale properties is the confinement
pressure due to the presence of pore fluid in the shale. It is observed through an experiment
where the Young’s modulus of the shale is almost 48% less for the drained sample compared to
that of an undrained one (Md. Aminul Islam 2013). Also the Poisson’s ratio is 40% lower in
value compared to the value of the undrained sample and hence is stiffer than the drained sample
(Md. Aminul Islam 2013). Note that these percentages are for a specific sample and the
percentages and the values will change depending on the sample but the general big decrease in
the values will be seen in the undrained and drained samples. Therefore, getting the values of the
mechanical properties at different bedding angles and also getting the undrained and drained
values is very essential when drilling into a formation. Table 4 below also shows some of the
shales and their unconfined strength with their depositional environments and carbon content
percentages with it.

9
Table 3: Mechanical Properties of Shale at different bedding plane angles (Md. Aminul Islam 2013)

Samples Age Depositional Carbonate Organic Principa Unconfined


environment content carbon l clay strength (MPa)
(wt %) content mineral
(wt %)
Posidonia Lower Shallow 24 9.7 kaolinite 63
(PS) Jurassic marine
Posidonia Lower 23 12.1 kaolinite 70
(PN) Jurassic
Himmeto Oligoce lacustrine 2.2 31.3 Illite 57.7
glu (H) ne
Torbanite Permian 1.5 51.3 kaolinite 49
(T)
Condor Miocen 5 12.6 kaolinite 47
(C) e
Messel Eocene 7.7 20.3 smectite 5.3
(M)
Table 4: Unconfined Strength with respect of depositional environments (E. Eseme 2012)

10
2.4 Petro-physical properties
Shales have a very low permeability compared to other source rocks due to narrow pore sized in
the matrix. This can be seen in Figure 5 which shows the permeability of different rock types
(Jefferson 2011). It can easily be se seen in this figure that shale has the lowest permeability
among all of them. Also, shales tend to have low porosities too in general. Another interesting
factor when looking into the petro-physical properties of shale is the change in the permeability
and porosity with the depth. A study was conducted on several wells in North Sea and Figure 6
below shows the results (Okiongbo 2011). It can easily be concluded from Figure 6 that with the
increase in the depth, the porosity of the shale formation tends to decrease due to a large
overburden stress. In general, if porosity decreases, permeability decreases logarithmically with
it (Okiongbo 2011). But another factor which affects the permeability is the pore mean radius
and if the radius increases substantially, it will increase the permeability even if the porosity
decreases. The density of shales is in the range of 2.65-2.8 g/cm3. Note that the density, pore size
and the porosity can be found by different logging tools while drilling into a formation. Once this
data is available, permeability can be found through different models or equations which exist.
The most general equation which is used to find the permeability is the Darcy’s law which states
that the rate at which the fluids flow through a permeable material per unit area is equal to the
permeability. The equation is as below (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011):

𝑢̇
𝑘=𝜇 2.1
∆𝑃
Where

‘k’ is the permeability, ∆𝑃 is the change in pressure per length, 𝜇 is the dynamic viscosity and 𝑢̇
is the fluid velocity.

Note that the above equation is only valid if the flow is laminar and the fluid is viscous. Also, if
the flow is in a different geometry like a circular borehole of a well, a geometry factor is also
needed for the equation. In order to overcome this problem and also for bedded planes structure
shale, Josef Kozeny and Philip C. Carman derived an equation. The equation known as the
Kozeny-Carman equation is as below (E. Eseme 2012):

11
𝑐𝐾𝐶∙Φ3
𝑘𝐾𝐶 = 2.2
𝑆 2 ∙ (1 − Φ)2

where S is the specific surface area (m²/kg) and Φ is the fractional porosity and 𝑘𝐾𝐶 is in 𝑚2 .
The Kozeny–Carman constant cKC including tortuosity and a generalized factor to account for
different pore shapes was taken as 2.064 × 10−13 m6kg−2.

Note that if the flow is not laminar or if the fluid is not non-Newtonian, the above equations will
not be accurate to calculate permeability and other equations and models are used in that case.

Figure 5:Permeability of different sedimentary rocks (Jefferson 2011)

12
Figure 6:Petro-physical properties of shale along the depth (Okiongbo 2011)

2.5 Well instability


The main driving forces for well bore instability are due to mechanical (stress, pressure), thermal
and chemical. The failure mechanisms are tensile and collapse (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011). Shale by
its very nature is of brittle and ductile type. The brittle types of shale fail by fracturing and they
may cause well pack-off and bridging. The ductile nature of the formation behaves like plasticity
and may flow into a well. This may cause drill string sticking. The reactive shale may get
swelled when interacting with water based drilling fluid. This as a result reduces the well size
and may cause drill string sticking. A high pressure formation in shale formation as illustrated in
Figure 7 may cause well collapse. The following are the main causes of instability:

• Mechanical stress.

 Tension failure — fracturing and lost circulation.


 Compression failure — spalling and collapse or plastic flow.
 Abrasion and impact.

13
• Chemical interactions with the drilling fluid.

 Shale hydration, swelling and dispersion.


 Dissolution of soluble formations.

• Physical interactions with the drilling fluid.

 Erosion

Figure 8 illustrate the well instabilities.

Hole instability is seen most often as sloughing and caving shale, resulting in hole enlargement,
bridges and fill. The most common consequences are stuck pipe, sidetracks, logging and
interpretation difficulties, and sidewall core recovery difficulties, difficulty running casing, poor
cement jobs and lost circulation.
All contribute to increased costs, the possibility of losing part of the hole or the entire well or
reduced production.

Figure 7: Collapse in pressurized shale formation (SWACO)

14
Figure 8: Compressive and tensile failure in shale formation (E. Fjær 2008).

2.6 Additives and Inhibitors for Shale drilling


Shale has a tendency to swell when in contact with water. Because of this, many problems occur
while drilling. The most important one is the stuck pipe. In order to solve this problem, oil based
muds are used which are not that reactive to shale and therefore don’t swell the formation. This
was seen in practical when a case study was done on a number of wells in Italy. It was seen that
stuck pipe problems incurred in 4 out 26 wells only when oil based muds were used to drill shale
section. On the other hand 40 out of 74 wells had a stuck pipe problem due to swelling of shale
when water based muds were used (F.J. Santarelli 1995).

It is not always possible to use oil based muds due to environmental and economic concerns as
oil base muds are more prone to environment damage and are also very expensive compared to
water based muds. Hence in order to use water based muds, additives or inhibitors are used to
stop the swelling in shales. Note that the swelling cannot be completely illuminated from the
formation as there is always some hydration in the formation due to contact with water (Oort
2003). Note that different salts can be used in water in order to reduce swelling. Each salt will
have different effect on the swell reduction depending on the diffusivity of the ions in the salt
and the difference in the activity of shale and water base fluid. Also, for different type of shales,
different type of salts will have different effects (S.O. Osisanya 1996). In Figure 9 and 10 below,
it can easily be seen that for different shales, a different salt is good for swell reduction.
Therefore, it is very important to have this type of data when designing a mud for shale
formations.

15
Figure 9: Wellington Shale reduction in swelling with different salts (S.O. Osisanya 1996)

Figure 10: Atoka Shale reduction in swelling with different salts (S.O. Osisanya 1996)

16
3 Theory of Rock Mechanics

3.1 Stress and Strain


Stress is the force per unit area over any surface. If the force applied is normal to the surface, the
stress is called the normal stress and if the force is applied parallel to the surface, stress exerted is
called the shear stress. Strain is the ratio of the change in length of any material to that of its
original length under any load in the direction of the load.

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐹
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐴

𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ∆𝐿
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = =
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝐿

𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝐿
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 = =
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝐴∆𝐿

Any ductile material like steel under a stress will show an elastic behavior. That is the stress will
be directly proportional to the strain till the proportionality limit and on the removal of any load
applied, the material will return to its original position. This is also known as the Hooke’s law.
Once the transition from elastic to plastic takes place, the material goes under the maximum load
known as the ultimate tensile tress. This is the maximum load which can be applied to a material
before its fails. After this point, a material usually becomes weak and fracture. The stress at
which the transition from elastic to plastic region takes place is called the yield point and is
generally the reference point which is taken when noting the strength of the material because
even though ultimate tensile strength is more in magnitude, after this point the material changes
its shape and is not in its original position anymore which is not acceptable for most of the
applications. Figure 11 below shows such behavior of a ductile material. Note that if the material
is brittle such as glass, the material will not show any plastic behavior and will break away right
after the elastic behavior shown. Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of the change in length in the lateral
direction of the force applied to the original length in that direction.

Figure 11 is a typical pore pressure dependent stress-strain behavior of rock material. The curve
shows a complete transition from ductile to brittle behaviour as the pore pressure increased.

17
σ1

σ3

σ1

σ3

Figure 11: Effect of pore pressure on brittle-ductile transition (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011)

3.2 Stress Components


In a three dimensional state, the stress on an object can be defined by nine stress vectors. Among
these nine stress vectors, three of them are the normal stress vector and six of them are the shear
stress vectors. The normal stress vectors are 𝜎𝑥𝑥 , 𝜎𝑦𝑦 and 𝜎𝑧𝑧 and the shear stress vectors are 𝜏𝑥𝑦 ,
𝜏𝑦𝑥 , 𝜏𝑥𝑧 , 𝜏𝑧𝑥 , 𝜏𝑦𝑧 and 𝜏𝑧𝑦 . Note that the index letters with each stress vector shows the direction
and the face on which the stress vector acts. That is the first letter in the index shows axis normal
to the face of the plane and the second letter shows the direction of the stress. Below is a visual
illustration of such stress matrix.

Figure 12: Three-dimensional stress state of a cube (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011)

When the object is at rest, that is it is not rotating in any direction, the shear stresses in opposite
directions become equal as shown below.

𝜏𝑥𝑦 = 𝜏𝑦𝑥 , 𝜏𝑥𝑧 = 𝜏𝑧𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜏𝑦𝑧 = 𝜏𝑧𝑦

18
The stress matrix in three dimensional can be shown as below (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011):

𝜎𝑥 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝜏𝑥𝑧
𝜏
[𝜎] = � 𝑥𝑦 𝜎𝑦 𝜏𝑦𝑧 �
𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝜎𝑧

The above matrix coordinate system can be rotated in a direction such that all the shear stresses
disappear. When this happens, only three stress vectors are left in the matrix. These are the three
normal stresses also known as the principal stresses. Principal stresses are very important for
evaluating rock failure since most shear failure criteria involve two or three principal stresses.
The directions of each of them are mutually orthogonal to each other. In an area without a fault
and heterogeneities in structure, the overburden is usually one of the principal stresses. The two
remaining principal stresses are therefore in the horizontal plane.

3.3 In-situ Stresses


In any formation beneath the earth’s crust, the sediments are in equilibrium until disturbed. At
this equilibrium state, the stresses which are exerted on the sediment are called the in-situ
stresses. They consist of a vertical stress which is due to the overburden of the sediments above,
and the two horizontal stresses which are due to the overburden and the tectonics and geological
depositions.

3.3.1 Vertical Stress


Vertical stress in the sediments increases with the depth as more overburden will be exerted due
to an increase number of sediments. If the formations are homogenous, then the vertical stress is
given by𝜎𝑣 = 𝜌𝑔𝑧. If the formations are not homogenous, then the density will not be the same
and hence the equation below will be used to determine the overburden stress (E. Fjær 2008).

𝐷
𝜎𝑣 = � 𝜌(𝑧)𝑔𝑑𝑧 3.1
0

𝜌 = density of the material, g is the acceleration of gravity, dz = thickness of the formation, 𝜎𝑣 =


vertical stress.

19
3.3.2 Horizontal Stresses
When an overburden stress exists in a formation, it will also push the sediment in the horizontal
direction in additional to the vertical squeezing. This will result in horizontal stresses acting on
the sediment too. Note that it is assumed that the rock is isotropic. Also, if the tectonic
movements are assumed to not exist, then the stresses in the horizontal direction due to them are
also excluded. In this case the horizontal in-situ stress is equal to the equation below (E. Fjær
2008):

𝑣
𝜎ℎ = �𝜎 − 𝛼𝑜 𝑃𝑝 � + 𝛼𝑜 𝑃𝑝 3.2
1−𝑣 𝑣
where 𝜎ℎ = minimum horizontal stress, 𝜎𝑣 = overburden, 𝑃𝑝 = pore pressure, 𝛼𝑜 = Biot –
coefficient (set as 1.0 for unconsolidated sands, and 0.9 in shale and consolidated sands). Figure
13 illustrates the schematic in-situ stress and the associated fault systems.

Figure 13: Different types of faults in the formations (E. Fjær 2008)

Normal Fault Stress State: 𝜎𝑣 > 𝜎𝐻 > 𝜎ℎ

Strike/Slip fault stress state: 𝜎𝐻 > 𝜎𝑣 > 𝜎ℎ

Reverse fault stress state: 𝜎𝐻 > 𝜎ℎ > 𝜎𝑣

In stress relaxed environments, the two horizontal stress tensor components 𝜎ℎ and 𝜎𝐻 are equal.
They will change if tectonic movements are taking place. The stress contribution due to these

20
movement or the faults as shown above in Figure 13 are not known. Generally the effect of these
contributions exits and hence the two horizontal stresses are not equal. If all the in-situ stresses
are known, the type of fault which is occurring in the rock can be easily known from the data
above.

3.4 Stress around the wellbore


Stresses are exerted on the walls of the well when pressure is applied to it. These stresses make
volumetric changes in the well. If the horizontal in-situ stresses are not equal and have different
magnitudes and also the overburden stress is different too, in this case an anisotropic condition
exists. Kirsch introduced the solution for this condition and generated equations for the stresses
around a wellbore in any direction. The equations can be seen below for all directions (Bernt S.
Aadnøy 2011). Note that since the in-situ stresses are not equal shear stresses will also exist and
the equations for the shear stresses were also found by Kirsch. Figure 14 also shows the direction
of these stresses around the wellbore and the coordinate system direction too. (Bernt S. Aadnøy
2011)

1 𝑎2 1 𝑎4 𝑎2
𝜎𝑟 = �𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 � �1 − 2 � + �𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 � �1 + 3 4 − 4 2 � 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃
2 𝑟 2 𝑟 𝑟
𝑎4 𝑎2 𝑎2
+ 𝜏𝑥𝑦 �1 + 3 4 − 4 2 � sin 2𝜃 + 2 𝑃𝑤
𝑟 𝑟 𝑟

1 𝑎2 1 𝑎4
𝜎𝜃 = �𝜎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑦 � �1 + 2 � − �𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 � �1 + 3 4 � cos 2𝜃
2 𝑟 2 𝑟
4 2
𝑎 𝑎
− 𝜏𝑥𝑦 �1 + 3 4 � sin 2𝜃 − 2 𝑃𝑤
𝑟 𝑟
3.3
2 2
𝑎 𝑎
𝜎𝑧 = 𝜎𝑧𝑧 − 2𝑣�𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 � 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃 − 4𝑣𝜏𝑥𝑦 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 → 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑟2 𝑟

𝜎𝑧 = 𝜎𝑧𝑧 → 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠

1 𝑎4 𝑎2
𝜏𝑟𝜃 = � �𝜎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑦 �𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃 + 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃� �1 − 3 4 + 2 2 �
2 𝑟 𝑟
2
𝑎
𝜏𝑟𝑧 = (𝜏𝑥𝑦 cos 𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃) �1 − 2 �
𝑟
𝑎2
𝜏𝜃𝑧 = �−𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃� �1 + 2 �
𝑟

21
Figure 14: Position of stresses around a wellbore in the rock formation (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011)

3.5 Stress Transformation


The in-situ stresses (σh, σH, σv) equations are in the x, y and z directions in a plane. If the well is
oriented and has an azimuth (ϕ) or inclination (γ ) or both, the in-situ stresses can be transformed
into the new coordinate system with the help of the transformation equations below (B.S.
Aadnøy 1987):

σ xx = (σ h cos2 ϕ + σ H sin 2 ϕ ) cos2 γ + σ v sin 2 γ

σ yy = σ h sin 2 ϕ + σ H cos 2 ϕ

σ zz = (σ h cos 2 ϕ + σ H sin 2 ϕ ) sin 2 γ + σ v cos 2 γ


3.4
1
τ xy = (σ H − σ h ) sin 2ϕ cos γ
2

1
τ yz = (σ H − σ h ) sin 2ϕ sin γ
2

1
τ xz = (σ h cos 2 ϕ + σ H sin 2 ϕ − σ v ) sin 2γ
2

22
3.6 Principal Stresses around a wellbore
If the normal and shear stresses are known for a well at the wall of the borehole, the principal
stresses can easily be calculated by the equations below. The stress tensor at the wall of the
wellbore where r = a is given as:

𝜎𝑟 0 0
[𝜎] = � 0 𝜎𝜃 𝜏𝜃𝑧 �
0 𝜏𝑧𝜃 𝜎𝑧𝑧

The equations below show the principal stresses are simply given as (Bernt S. Aadnøy 2011):

σ 1 = Pw

σ2 =
1
(σ θ + σ zz ) +
1
(σ θ − σ zz ) + 4τ θ2z
2
3.5
2 2

σ3 =
1
(σ θ + σ zz ) −
1
(σ θ − σ zz ) + 4τ θ2z
2

2 2

3.7 Failure modes


There are many failure modes which can let a rock fail. It is very important to understand the
mechanism through which the rock fails in order to be prepared for such a failure and take
precautions to prevent it and to keep the risk of the failure to occur as low as possible. The two
main types of these modes are the tensile and collapse failure.

3.7.1 Tensile failure


Tensile failure occurs when the rock effective minimum principal stress reaches its tensile
strength. When this happens, the rock tends to break and fail. Many rocks have a lot of cracks in
them naturally which tend to make the rocks very weak and the tensile strength for such rocks
are set to zero due to this reason. The failure criterion according to Rankine is given as (Fjær,
Holt et al. 2008):

σ 3' = −σ T 3.6

23
3.7.2 Shear or collapse failure
When a rock undergoes a high compressive load, shear failure normally takes place. This failure
takes place due to shear stress along the plane exceeding its shear strength and letting a fault to
create along the plane. This will separate the two planes and slide them against each other. Note
that the shape of the borehole during compressive loading will depend on the loads. That is if the
stresses around the wellbore are uniform and equal, the shape will be like a circle but no changes
will be seen on the shape during deformation as seen in Figure 15. On the other hand, if the
compressive loading is polyaxial, then the shape will also change into an eclipse like shape.
These changes in the wellbore geometry can be observed with the help of the caliper logs.
Collapse failure will occur in both situations. In order to analyze the collapse and other failure
modes, analytical or numerical modeling is used. Two models that are widely used in the
petroleum industry for the collapse failure are Mohr-coulomb criteria and Mogi-coulomb criteria.

Figure 15: Collapse of borehole wall (Mitchell, Miska et al. 2011).

3.7.3 Creep failure


Creep is the tendency of the material to deform permanently under constant high stress loads for
a long period of time. Its severeness changes with the increase in magnitude of this high stress.
Note that the stress here is below the yield point. This deformation phenomenon increases even
more if the temperature is increased. Hence creep failure will be more severe under high
temperature which is a problem in many high temperature wells. There are three stages of creep.
The first stage is called the transient creep. During this stage, small fractures occur and
deformation takes place. Then if the stress is reduced to zero, the cracks tend to disappear and

24
the deformation completely vanishes. Second state of creep is called the steady state creep.
During this stage, the same things happens as in transient creep but on removing the load, the
deformation does not vanishes completely and there remains a small permanent deformation.
The third state is the final stage known as the accelerating creep. During this stage, the
deformation will exceed rapidly on the exertion of stress and will tend to fracture and hence fail
the material instantly.

3.7.4 Pore collapse or compaction failure


This type of failure is mostly seen in the high porosity formations. It happens when the formation
is compressed and the grains in the formations tend to lose or break and fall inside the porous
holes. This results in filing up the void space making the formation more compact and hence less
resistant to failure. Note that this type of failure gets even more importance, when the grain size
is much smaller than the pore spaces in the formations. It occurs mainly because of the excessive
shear forces acting through the grain and grain contacts in the formation.

25
4 Collapse modeling
As explained above, whenever a material goes a shear failure, collapse occurs. In order to predict
the collapse pressure there exist several collapse failure criteria available in literature. One can
then determine a minimum mud weight to help ensure no well collapse during drilling. The
collapse pressure increases and the fracture pressure decreases as the well inclination increases.

4.1 Input parameters for well collapse wellbore modeling

4.1.1 In-situ horizontal stress


Using several fracturing data, Breckels and van Eekelen (I.M. Breckels 1982) have developed an
empirical correlation equation which relates horizontal in-situ stress with depth. For the US Gulf
coast, the authors have presented equation 4.1a and 4.1b.

σ h ( MPa) = 0.0053(D )1.145 + 0.46(Po − p fn ) For Depth ‘D’ < 3500m 4.1

σ h ( MPa) = 0.0264 D(m) − 31.7 + 0.46(Po − p fn ) For D > 3500m 4.2

where pfn = normal pore pressure

p fn = ρ fl gD( water.depth )

4.1.2 Pore Pressure


Oil companies have lost millions of dollar because of not having the accurate information on the
pore pressure. This is due to the loss of the drilling time due to stopping the operations caused by
stuck pipe, kicks and other during drilling problems. A commonly used approximation to find the
pore pressure was given by Eaton’s empirical method and is as below (Eaton 1972):

3
V 
Po = Pobs − ( Pobs − Phyd ) i  4.3
 Vn 

Po = Predicted (shale) pore pressure

Pobs = Overburden pressure (rocks and fluids)

26
Phyd = Hydrostatic pressure (fluids)

Vi = Interval velocity (seismic data)

Vn = normally compacted shale velocity

Note that the Pp, Phyd and Vn are calculated by the empirical values data collected for each well.
‘Vi’ is calculated from the seismic data which is collected during well logging. The pore pressure
can be calculated from seismic data collected from well logging or calculated while drilling and
the mud weight can be adjusted while drilling depending on the pore pressure calculated. Also,
instead of putting in the values for velocity, time interval values can also be put in the above
equation to find the pore pressure. In this case, the above will equation will be expressed as
(Eaton 1975)

3
 dt 
Po = Pobs − ( Pobs − Phyd ) actual 
 4.4
 dt normal 

4.1.3 Unconfined or uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)


It is the strength of the rock when the rock is compressed in the uniaxial direction without any
lateral restraint. A graphical illustration of such a failure can be seen in Figure 16 showing the
three main regions which are the elastic, ductile and brittle behavior region during the uniaxial
loading. This strength can be explained by the equation below. Note that UCS is a very vital
property which should be known as it is used in various failure criteria models (Fjær, Holt et al.
2008).

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 𝐶0 = 2𝑆0 tan 𝛽 4.5


′𝛽′ is the orientation of the failure plane ′𝑆0 ′ is the cohesion strength and is the ability of
adhesive molecules to stick together without getting separated under any tensile loading and
resist any plastic deformation. Note that there is a force which is attracting the two adjacent
molecules in the rock. These forces between the atoms are the cohesive forces.

27
Figure 16: Principle sketch of stress vs. deformation in a uniaxial compression test (Fjær, Holt et al. 2008).

Cohesive shear stress also known as the uniaxial compressive strength can be calculated by two
models derived by Horsud (2001) and Lal et al (1999). They used sonic logs to find the above
strength. The models were as below (Horsrud 2001):

2.93
 304.8 
Per Horsrud (2001): C o [MPa ] = 0.77 
 ∆t (sonic) 

4.6

 304.8 
Lal (1999) : C o [MPa ] = 10 − 1
 ∆t (sonic) 
The cohesive strength also changes with respect to the time. It is as below (Lal 1999):

𝐶 = (𝐶𝑜 − 𝐶𝑒 ) exp(𝑎𝑡) + 𝐶𝑒 4.7


Where ‘t’ is time in days, ‘a’ is a consonant and 𝐶𝑒 is the equivalent cohesive strength. After a
number of days, the cohesive strength of any formation is reduced to this equivalent cohesive
strength. A graph below shows cohesive strength changing with time.

28
Figure 17: Cohesive Strength as a function of time (Properties taken from Table 6 to plot the graph on
Matlab)

4.1.4 Poisson’s ratio


Poisson’s ratio can be calculated from the in-situ stress equation by making the Poisson’s ration
‘v’ is the equation 3.2 as the subject. The equation will be as below:

σh
υ= 4.8
σv +σh

where σ h , v = σ h , v − Po

4.1.5 Internal friction angle and inherent shear strength


Internal friction angle is the angle at which the surface of the rock is at an angle where sliding
takes place without any external load applied on it and the cohesive strength is the shear stress of
the rock without any normal stress applied to it. Cohesive strength ‘𝑆0 ’ of a rock can be
determined in the laboratory by applying a rock to a hydrostatic confining pressure and then to
an axial load until the rock fails. But it is not practically possible to do so along the whole depth
of a well as it will take a lot of time. Therefore empirical models are used which uses the
information from the wireline logs to calculate the cohesive strength and the internal friction
angle. They were derived by Lal (1999). The models can be seen below in Equations 4.9 and

29
4.10 (Lal 1999). ‘ V p ’ below is the sonic wave velocity in km/s and cohesive strength is

measured in MPa.

Vp −1
sin φ = 4.9
Vp +1

5(Vp − 1)
So = 4.10
Vp

4.1.6 Young’s Modulus (E)


Young’s Modulus can also be measured through the help of the sonic wave velocity. This
young’s modulus will take into account the temperature and other changes which might have
changed it down the well. The model to do so was derived by Horsrud in 2001 and is as below
(Horsrud 2001):

E = 0.076V p3.23 4.11

where E is in GPa and Vp is in km/s.

4.2 Collapse Failure models


There are several models to analyze the collapse failure mode and to calculate the minimum mud
weight to ensure wellbore stability. Two of the most commonly used criteria for this mode of
failure are the Mohr-Coulomb criteria and Mogi-Coulomb criteria and both will be explained it
more detail in this section.

4.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb criteria


It is the most common and simplest type of failure criteria for geomaterials due to its simplicity.
For a well borehole, the linear elastic model can be described as below (Lianyang Zhang 2010):

𝜏 = 𝑆𝑜 + 𝜎𝑛′ 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅ 4.12

30
The above equation can also be written in terms of the two principal stresses which are the
maximum and minimum principal stresses. Also, if the pore pressure effect is considered, the
new poro-elastic model for Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria is given as in equation 4.13 (E. Fjær
2008).

σ 1 − α o Po = C o + (σ 3 − α o Po ) tan α 4.13

Where αo is to denote the Biot’s coefficient and Po is the pore pressure and Co is uniaxial
compression strength. The uniaxial compressive strength can be determined from inherent shear
strength and the internal friction angle φ as (Lianyang Zhang 2010):

2S o cos φ
Co = or Horsrud’s empirical model (Eq4.6) 4.14
1 − sin φ

Note that 4.14 is just another way of expressing equation 4.5 for the same property and either can
be used. Some relations are given below in equation 4.15 for different angles that can be used in
the model above (E. Fjær 2008).

1 + sin φ
tan 2 β =
1 − sin φ
4.15

𝛽 = 45𝑜 +
2
𝑡𝑎𝑛2 𝛽 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛼

- So is the inherent shear strength (cohesion) and calculated by Eq 4.10.

- φ is the friction angle and calculated by Eq 4.9.

It can be seen from the above equation 4.13 for this criterion that it does not take into account the
intermediate principal stress. This results in an underestimation of the rock strength which ends
up in a very conservative collapse pressure curve (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006). It is also known from

31
different studies that another failure criterion known as Drucker- Prager does very well with a
material under triaxial loading where 𝜎1 ≠ 𝜎2 = 𝜎3 but when the criterion is applied for
polyaxial loading where 𝜎1 ≠ 𝜎2 ≠ 𝜎3 , the test is not that accurate and the results are not a true
representation of the critical mud weights (Lianyang Zhang 2010).

In order to get the well collapse and fracture equations from this model for well borehole, some
assumptions are made. Firstly, it is assumed that the shear stress in the Kirsch’s equations is zero
as it is usually very small and can be neglected compared to other normal stresses. From the
Equations 3.3 above, the normal and shear stresses are calculated at the wall of the borehole
where ‘a’ will be equal to ‘r’ in the equation and the angle 𝜃 is equal to 𝜋/2 to get maximum
values for the stresses. When these values are inserted in Equation 3.3, the stress components
will be reduced to:

σ r' = Pw − Po
4.16
σ 'θ = 3σ x − σ y − Pw − Po

σ ' z = σ z + 2υ (σ x − σ y ) − Po

τ rθ = τ rz = 0
τθz = −2τ xz

Now since all the stresses are known in terms of in-situ stresses, the principal stresses can be
calculated by inserting these stress equations in the equations 3.4 for principal stresses as shown
above.

Assuming a vertical well, isotropic stresses and negligible shear stresses, the principal stresses
can be given as (E. Fjær 2008):

σ r = Pw

σ θ = 2σ h − Pw 4.17

σz =σv

32
From the above equations, it can easily be concluded that if the pressure of the well will change,
it will have an effect on the radial and hoop stresses and the axial stress will have no effect at all
when the well pressure changes. Also, in order for a collapse to happen, hoop stress has to be
greater than the radial stress. That means there will only be three situations when this can

happen. They are when σ θ > 𝜎𝑟 > 𝜎𝑧 , 𝜎𝑧 > σ θ > 𝜎𝑟 and σ θ > 𝜎𝑧 > 𝜎𝑟 (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006).

Therefore taking these three situations and putting the values of maximum and minimum
principal stresses in the above model, the equations below were derived for well collapse
pressure. Also, for the fracture to happen, the radial stress has to be greater than the hoop stress.
This will again result in only three possible outcomes. A table was formed for all the six
equations.

Cases Borehole failure model

σθ ≥ σ z > σ r 2(σ h − Po ) − C o
Pw ≤ Po +
1 + tan 2 β 4.18

σ z ≥ σθ > σ r σ v − Po − C o
Pw ≤ Po +
tan 2 β 4.19

σ z ≥ σ r > σθ σ v − Po − C o 4.20
Pw ≥ Po + 2(σ h − Po ) −
tan 2 β

σ r ≥ σ z > σθ 2(σ h − Po ) tan 2 β + C o 4.21


Pw ≥ Po +
tan 2 β

σ r ≥ σθ > σ z Pw ≥ Po + (σ v − Po ) tan 2 β + C o
4.22

σθ ≥ σ r > σ z Pw ≤ Po + 2(σ h − Po ) − (σ v − Po ) tan 2 β − C o


4.23

Table 5: Borehole failure criteria for Mohr-Coulomb (E. Fjær 2008)

33
4.2.2 Mogi-Coulomb criteria
Mogi-Coulomb is said to most accurate model for the failure criteria for sedimentary rocks like
shales. It takes into account all the principal stresses, cohesions strength and the angle of friction.
From the studies and experiment conducted on this criterion, it was shown that the intermediate
principal stress has indeed a strengthening effect on the strength of the rock (A.M. Al-Ajmi
2006). It is also observed that this failure criteria is very accurate for polyaxial loadings too
which is realistically a more common situations for the in-situ stresses. This criterion takes into
account the octahedral shear stress and the effective mean stress. It is expressed as below (A.M.
Al-Ajmi 2006):


𝜏𝑜𝑐𝑡 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝜎𝑚,2 4.24

The above values in the equation can be found by the equations below (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006):


𝜎1′ + 𝜎3′
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝜎𝑚,2 =
2
𝑂𝑐𝑡𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝜏𝑜𝑐𝑡
1
= �(𝜎1′ − 𝜎2′ )2 + (𝜎2′ − 𝜎3′ )2 + (𝜎3′ − 𝜎1′ )2
3
4.25
2√2
𝑎= 𝑐 cos ∅
3
2√2
𝑏= sin ∅
3

From the above equations and the equations for the principal stresses, the two tables below are
generated the same way as for Mohr-coulomb criteria. The tables for collapse and fracture are as
below:

34
Borehole failure model (Collapse)

Cases Failure will occur if Pw ≤ Pwb from the following equation

σ z > σθ > σ r Pwb =


1
6 − 2b '2
[(3A + 2b ' K ) − H + 12.(K 2 + b ' AK) ]
4.26

σθ > σ z > σ r
2
1
6
[ 2
]
Pwb = A −  12 (a ' + b ' (A − 2Po ) − 3.(A − 2B) 2 
1

4.27

σθ >σ r >σ z Pwb =


1
6 − 2b '2
[(3A − 2b ' G ) − H + 12.(G 2 − b ' AG) ]
4.28

Where A = 3σ x − σ y , (
B = σ z + 2υ σ x − σ y ,) H = A 2 (4b '2 − 3) + (B 2 − AB)(4b '2 − 12)

K = a ' + b ' (B − 2Po ) , G = K + b ' A

Table 6: Mogi-Coulomb equations for collapse failure (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006)

Borehole failure model (Fracture)

Cases Failure will occur if Pw ≥ Pwb from the following equation

σ r >σθ >σ z Pwb =


1
6 − 2b
[
'2
(3D + 2b ' N) + J + 12.( N 2 + b ' DN) ] 4.29

σ r > σ z > σθ
2
1
6
[ 2
]
Pwb = D +  12 (a ' + b ' (D − 2Po ) − 3.(D − 2E) 2 
1

4.30

σ z >σ r >σθ Pwb =


1
6 − 2b '2
[(3D − 2b ' M) + J + 12.(M 2 − b ' DM) ] 4.31

35
Where, D = 3σ x − σ y , ( )
B = σ z + 2υ σ x − σ y , J = D 2 (4b '2 − 3) + (E 2 − DE)(4b '2 − 12)

N = a ' + b ' (E − 2Po ) , M = N + b ' D

Table 7: Mogi-Coulomb equations for fracture failure (A.M. Al-Ajmi 2006)

4.2.3 Drucker-Prager Criteria


Another failure criteria used widely is the Drucker-Prager Criteria. It is said to be an extended
version of the Von Mises criteria. It is as below (Mengjiao Yu 2003):

𝑒𝑓
4.32
�𝐽2 = 𝐴𝐽1 + 𝐵

𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝐹𝐼 = 𝜎𝑐𝑙


𝑒𝑓
4.33
= −�𝐽2 + 𝐴𝐽1 + 𝐵

where

𝑒𝑓 𝜎𝑟𝑟 + 𝜎𝜃𝜃 + 𝜎𝑧𝑧


𝐽1 = − 𝑝(𝑟, 𝑡)
3
1 2
2
𝐽2 = ((𝜎𝑟𝑟 − 𝜎𝜃𝜃 )2 + (𝜎𝑟𝑟 − 𝜎𝑧𝑧 )2 + (𝜎𝑧𝑧 − 𝜎𝜃𝜃 )2 ) + 𝜎𝑟𝑧 + 𝜎𝑟𝜃
6
2
4.34
+ 𝜎𝜃𝑧
2√2𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑠∅
𝐵=
3 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛∅
2√2𝑠𝑖𝑛∅
𝐴= 3−𝑠𝑖𝑛∅

Failure occurs when the effective collapse stress or the failure index becomes negative
(Mengjiao Yu 2003).

36
4.2.4 Weakness of plane model
Failure model for laminated rocks

Figure 18 shows laminated shale with an angle β, where the weak plane is along this. The shear
collapse failure criteria for laminated layer are different from the non-laminated shales. Figure 19
is the loading on the given laminated rock specimen which consists of plane of weakness
inclined at an angle β from the vertical plane and η is the anisotropic of a rock. The problem of
sliding along a preexisting plane of weakness is illustrated as Figure 18 and 19 (Gatlin 1965).

Figure 18: Failure mode for laminated rocks

Figure 19: Loading on laminated rocks

37
If Sw is the inherent shear strength of the plane of weakness and µw is the coefficient of internal
friction along those planes, then the condition of sliding along these planes can be written as
(J.C. Jaeger 2007):

2(S w + µ wσ 3 )
σ1 = σ 3 +
(1 − cot β .µ w ) sin 2β 4.35

Where 𝜎1 and 𝜎3 are the maximum and minimum principal stresses.

Figure 20: Comparisons of Arkansas Sandstone Data to Single Plane of Weakness Theory (Gatlin 1965)

38
5 Chemical and thermal effects on Collapse Model
Chemical and thermal effects are of immense importance when dealing with shale formations
and they tend to change the collapse and tensile strength significantly when the effects take
place. In the early experiments performed by Mody & Hale (C. Chen 2001), it was seen that the
initial pore pressure was altered due to these effects. The chemical effects were caused due to
osmosis which affects the pore pressure. Osmosis here is the net movement of the solvent into
the area of high solute concentration region through a partially permeable membrane. The
direction in which the solvent moves is the direction of high solute concentration region such
that it tends to equalize the solute concentration between two regions separated by the membrane
(CFCF 2013). Figure 21 below shows a visual illustration of such a process where the container
on left shows the unbalance position and the container on the right shows the concentration of
the solute to be equal on both sides.

Figure 21: Osmosis process over a semi-permeable membrane (CFCF 2013)

Osmosis effects are function of two main attributes which are the membrane efficiency and the
activity of water and formation. Chemical effect due to the difference between the shale water
activity and the drilling mud water activity is to be treated as equivalent to the hydraulic potential
in the system (C. Chen 2001). Also the membrane efficiency is calculated by taking the ratio of

39
the observed osmotic pressure to that of the theoretical osmotic pressure. Osmotic pressure here
is the force per unit area required to prevent the water to pass through the semi permeable
membrane into the area of high solute concentration (CFCF 2013). Note that due to the effect on
the pore pressure, these chemical effects therefore have an influence on the wellbore stresses too
due to wellbore stresses dependent on the pore pressure.

Thermal stresses can also be induced in the wellbore due to thermal changes in the well. These
temperature changes can be due to the injection or production of well where fluids with different
temperatures in the annulus tend to change the all temperature at the wellbore. The pore pressure
can also change because of the volumetric expansion in the rock matric and the pore fluid and is
transient in nature for a low permeable such as shale (Ewy 2005). The thermal and chemical
effects can be coupled into thermoporoelastic equations for a radial system such as a wellbore.
The details of these equations can be seen below in the report.

There are two main equations which have been introduced which take into account the chemical
and temperature effects for a radial system for permeable and non-permeable formations. They
are as below (C. Chen 2001):

𝜕𝑇 𝜕 2 𝑇 1 𝜕𝑇 ′
𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑃 𝜕 2 𝑃 1 𝜕𝑃
= 𝑐𝑜 � 2 + � + 𝑐𝑜 � +𝑇� 2 + �� 5.1
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟

𝜕𝑃 𝜕 2 𝑃 1 𝜕𝑃 𝜕𝑇
= 𝑐� 2 + � + 𝑐′
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑡 5.2

Where c= hydraulic fluid diffusivity; 𝑐𝑜 = thermal diffusivity of the porous medium; 𝑐𝑜′ =
coupling coefficient; 𝑐 ′ = coupling coefficient; T= temperature, P= pore pressure

40
Hydraulic and thermal diffusivity can also be expressed by the equations below (Venkanna
2010) & (Cosse 1993).

𝑘
𝑐=
𝜑𝜇𝑐𝑡 5.3

Where k is the permeability, ϕ is the porosity, µ is the dynamic viscosity and ct is the
compressibility of fluid.

𝑘𝑜
𝑐𝑜 =
𝜌𝑐𝑝 5.4

Where 𝑘𝑜 is the thermal conductivity, 𝜌 is the density and 𝑐𝑝 is the specific heat capacity.

In the equations above, the first terms with the 𝑐𝑜 in equation 5.1 is the temperature change due
to heat conduction. The first term with 𝑐𝑜′ shows the temperature changes due to heat convention
and the second term show the temperature change due to pressure diffusion. In equation 5.2, the
terms with c shows the pore pressure diffusivity due to net hydraulic force and the term with 𝑐 ′
shows the pore pressure change due to temperature variation (Ewy 2005).

In order to generate a less complicated solution to the above equation, some assumptions were
taken to get a simplified solution. Firstly, for low permeable formations such as Shale, the
convection term above in equation 5.1 can be neglected as it is very small. Also, the coupling
coefficient in 5.1 is very small too compared to the thermal diffusivity and hence the whole term
with this coupling coefficient can be neglected (C. Chen 2001). In this case the above equations
can be partially decoupled and can be expressed as equations 5.5 and 5.6. In order to ensure the
validity of the above assumption, a numerically solved solution was plotted for the equations 5.1
and 5.2 and it was compared with their analytical. Figure 22 below shows the visual illustration

41
of numerical and approximated analytical solution generated by Chen & Chenevert (C. Chen
2001). It was seen that the results had an error of only 1% ensuring that the assumptions taken
the heat convection effect and coupling coefficient term equal to zero (C. Chen 2001).

𝜕𝑇 𝜕 2 𝑇 1 𝜕𝑇
= 𝑐𝑜 � 2 + � 5.5
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟

𝜕𝑃 𝜕 2 𝑃 1 𝜕𝑃 𝜕𝑇
= 𝑐� 2 + � + 𝑐′ 5.6
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑡

Figure 22: Approximate analytical and implicit solution for the temperature and pore pressure profiles (C.
Chen 2001)

42
5.1 Chemical Potential
In order to find the chemical potential or the osmotic pressure increase in a system, Mody &
Hale came up with a model which is as below in Equation 5.7 (C. Chen 2001). Note that the
membrane efficiency below is coupled in the equation since shale does not have a permeable
membrane during the interaction with water. Therefore, in order to take into account the partial
membrane of shale, the membrane efficiency is used. The range of 𝐼𝑚 is between 0.01-0.1 for
shale. Note that the direction of water movement in or out of the shale depends on the activity of
the two systems in the well. These are the mud weight water activity and the shale water activity.
The activity here is the ratio of vapor pressure of a given liquid divided by the vapor pressure of
pure water (Soroush 2013). Activity of any fluid can be controlled by the amount of salt content
being put in it which is the salinity. The higher the amount of salt concentration is in a fluid, the
lower will be the activity of it (Soroush 2013). The flow of the water will always will be in the
direction of the higher activity to low activity and hence the values of activity decide on whether
there will be an increase or decrease in pore pressure at the wellbore wall due to the osmotic
effect.

If there is an increase in pore pressure, that will decrease the effective stresses in the wellbore
which will result in reduced collapse strength and if the pore pressure will decrease the result
will be the opposite. Also, if there is an increase in pore pressure due to the chemical effects,
then the pore pressure will tend to increase if moved away from the wellbore but it will
eventually reduce if the pore pressure profile is observed away from the wellbore wall. This is
due to the balancing of the hydraulic effect and the osmotic effect and then the hydraulic effect
surpassing this effect resulting in a decrease in pore pressure (Mengjiao Yu 2003). This combine
effect of hydraulic and osmotic effect can be seen in Figure 23 and 24 below. It can be seen that
when the water is flowing into the formation due to osmotic effect in Figure 24, the pore pressure
tends to increase till a certain point after which it starts decreasing again and then when the water
is coming out, there is just a decrease in pore pressure when moved away from wellbore wall.
Also note that the pore pressure is increased at the wall whenever the mud weight density is
increased due to a higher hydraulic force on the wall due to the difference in the initial pore
pressure and the well pressure.

43
𝑅𝑇 𝑎𝑤𝑚
𝑃𝜋 = −𝐼𝑚 𝑙𝑛 5.7
𝑉 𝑎𝑤𝑠ℎ

Where 𝑃𝜋 is the chemical potential, 𝐼𝑚 is the membrane efficiency, 𝑅 is the gas constant, T is
temperature of the well wall, V is the partial molar volume of water, 𝑎𝑤𝑚 is the activity of
drilling mud and 𝑎𝑤𝑠ℎ is the activity of shale.

Figure 23:Pore pressure profile when water is being sucked out of shale formation (Mengjiao Yu 2003)

Figure 24: Pore pressure profile when water is being sucked in the shale formation (Mengjiao Yu 2003)

44
5.2 Rock Temperature
In order to get a solution for equation 5.5, Carslaw & Jaeger (1959) came up with an analytical
solution for this equation for short time and distance. The solution was as below (C. Chen 2001):

𝑟𝑤 𝑟 − 𝑟𝑤
𝑇(𝑟, 𝑡) = 𝑇𝑜 + (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑜 )� 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐 � � 5.8
𝑟 2�𝑐𝑜 𝑡

Where erfc is the complementary error function, 𝑇𝑜 is the formation temperature, 𝑇𝑤 is the well
wall temperature, 𝑟𝑤 is the well radius, r is the distance away from the wellbore center, t is the
time and 𝑐𝑜 is the thermal diffusivity.

With the use of the above equation, the temperature profile could be known with respect the
wellbore radius and specific radius and at any time for small distances and time. These
temperature changes will have an effect on the effective stresses and hence the collapse strength.

5.3 Pore Pressure


A reduced pore pressure solution as also derived analytically from the equation 5.6 above in
order to get a profile of the pore pressure with respect to the time and the radius of the wellbore
as in equation 5.9 (C. Chen 2001). Note that again the solution here is reduced for short distance
and time as that is the main area of interest (C. Chen 2001). The first part in the equation below
shows the hydraulic diffusivity effect on the pore pressure. It takes into account the net driving
force which is the difference between the well pressure and the sum of chemical potential and
initial pore pressure. The second term takes into account the change in pore pressure profile due
to the temperature effects in the wellbore or the thermal diffusivity. Note that if the wall
temperature is higher than the formation temperature this will tend to increase the pore pressure.

45
𝑟𝑤 𝑟 − 𝑟𝑤
𝑝(𝑟, 𝑡) = 𝑝𝑜 + (𝑝𝑤 − 𝑝𝜋 − 𝑝𝑜 )� 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐 � �
𝑟 2√𝑐𝑡
𝑐 ′ (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑜 ) 𝑟𝑤 𝑟 − 𝑟𝑤
− � �𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐 � �
1 − 𝑐/𝑐𝑜 𝑟 2√𝑐𝑡 5.9
𝑟 − 𝑟𝑤
− 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐 � ��
2�𝑐𝑜 𝑡

Where 𝑝𝑤 is the well pressure, 𝑝𝜋 is the chemical potential and 𝑝𝑜 is the initial pore pressure.

5.4 Stresses induced by chemical and thermal changes


Once the temperature and pore pressure profiles are known, the stresses induced due to
hydraulics of fluid flow and the temperature can be known from equation 5.10 below (C. Chen
2001). Note that in all the equations, the first term is the induced stresses due to fluid flow.
Second term is the induced stress due to the thermal effects and the last term is the stresses
induced due to well pressure. The last term only considers pressure for a cylindrical profile. In
order to get this term in terms of in-situ stresses for a well, the Kirsch’s equation 3.3 above is to
be coupled instead to calculate the induced stresses due to well pressure and in-situ stresses
around a wellbore. Also note that the first two terms in the equations below have a constant term
in the start which depends on the young’s modulus, poisons ratio, volumetric expansivity and
Biot’s constant of the formation.

46
𝑟 𝑟
𝛼(1 − 2𝑣) 1 𝐸𝛼𝑚 1
𝜎𝑟𝑟 = 2
� 𝑝 𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟 + � 𝑇𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟
1−𝑣 𝑟 3(1 − 𝑣) 𝑟 2
𝑟𝑤 𝑟𝑤

𝑟𝑤2
+ 2 𝑃𝑤
𝑟

𝑟
𝛼(1 − 2𝑣) 1 5.10
𝜎𝜃𝜃 =− � 2 � 𝑝 𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟 − 𝑝 𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑡)�
1−𝑣 𝑟
𝑟𝑤
𝑟
𝐸𝛼𝑚 1 𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑓 (𝑟,
𝑟𝑤2
− � �𝑇 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟 − 𝑇 𝑡)� − 2 𝑃𝑤
3(1 − 𝑣) 𝑟 2 𝑟
𝑟𝑤

𝛼(1 − 2𝑣) 𝑓 𝐸𝛼𝑚


𝜎𝑧𝑧 = 𝑝 (𝑟, 𝑡) + 𝑇𝑓 (𝑟, 𝑡)
1−𝑣 3(1 − 𝑣)
Where E = Young’s modulus, αm = volumetric linear thermal
expansion coefficient of rock matrix (K-1)

5.5 Stresses at the wellbore wall


In order to reduce the above equations at the wellbore wall, the integrals above can be removed
from the equation and the above stress equations can be written as below (C. Chen 2001). Again
for the wellbore, the kirsch’s equations in equation 3.3 are to be coupled with equations below to
get final stress fields in wellbore.

𝜎𝑟𝑟 = 𝑝𝑤

𝛼(1 − 2𝑣) 𝐸𝛼𝑚


𝜎𝜃𝜃 = (𝑃𝑤 − 𝑃𝜋 − 𝑃𝑜 ) + (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑜 ) − 𝑝𝑤
1−𝑣 3(1 − 𝑣) 𝑤
5.11

𝛼(1 − 2𝑣) 𝐸𝛼𝑚


𝜎𝑧𝑧 = (𝑃𝑤 − 𝑃𝜋 − 𝑃𝑜 ) + (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑜 )
1−𝑣 3(1 − 𝑣) 𝑤

47
6 Simulation of different scenarios for Well Instability
Since the new pore pressure and stresses around the wellbore can be known from the equations
above, any collapse failure model from above can be used with these new stresses and pore
pressures in order to get a new collapse pressure profile and observe the effects of the hydraulic
diffusion, thermal and chemical changes. For the purpose of this report, Drucker-Prager Criteria
is used. The main objective of the simulation study is to learn the effect of various driving forces
on the failure envelope and around the near wellbore about 1.3 times the radius of the well.
During the study, a single and the combined effects of the driving forces will be evaluated.

In order to see the effects of chemical, diffusion and temperature, the pore pressure variation is
observed away from the wellbore to see how these conditions effects the pore pressure and hence
the failure index or the effective collapse strength as shown in equation 4.33. The data to perform
simulation can be seen in Table 8. The time for all the simulations below was taken to be 10
hours and all the changes in pore pressure are known at this specific time with the help of
equation 5.9 above. Equation 5.9 is a complete solution for the chemical, thermal and diffusivity
effects. It can be divided into three different parts in order to get the solutions for only one effect
or combination of two or all three effects. Also, note that the cohesive strength is to be taken as
8.0695 MPa instead of 8.736 MPa for all simulations at time 10 hours. This is to take into
account the change in cohesive strength with respect to time as explained in equation 4.7 above.
The initial pore pressure is taken as 66.94 MPa and both horizontal in-situ stresses are assumed
to be equal. The mud weight pressure for all simulations is taken to be 78.345 MPa. The well is
also assumed to be vertical for the simulations. The effect on the collapse strength due to change
of inclination will be shown later in the report. All the pore pressure profiles are calculated using
‘Matlab’ and the data is put into excel to make relevant graphs. Matlab codes are attached to the
appendix of this report.

The models presented in the section above for pore pressure and temperature doesn’t take into
account the horizontal stresses. In this thesis, these models as explained above are coupled with
the Kirsch’s equations and the results are generated.

48
Table 8: List of input parameters for modeling (C. Chen 2001)

49
6.1 Chemical, Diffusion and Temperature effects
Simulations in Figure 25 and 26 takes into account all effects which are the chemical, thermal
and diffusion. Initially, the mud weight is increased from the initial mud or well pressure of 78.4
MPa and the effect on the pore pressure at the wall and away from it is observed. It can be seen
that pore pressure at the wall increases as the well pressure is increased and decreases in an
exponential manner until it reaches its initial state of 66.94 MPa at some distance away from the
wellbore wall. The increase in the pore pressure due to well pressure was equal to the increase in
mud well pressure from its initial state.

Figure 25: Mud weight effect on pore pressure

Another simulation was run on Matlab to see the effect of time. It can be seen once the time is
increased, the effects can be seen further away from the wall on the pore pressure and the initial
pore pressure is not even seen at a specific radius of 1.3 for long times as for the case when the
time was 1 minute. At 1 minute, the effects were only seen at the very near wellbore wall and the
pore pressure at any distance away was equal to the initial state.

50
Figure 26: Pore pressure profile at different times

6.1.1 Chemical
In order to observe the chemical effects, equation 5.7 is used. Note that the chemical effects are
only applicable to the wellbore wall and the effect can only be seen when specific radius ‘R/Rw’
is equal to one. This effect can be seen in Figure 27 below. A reduction in initial pore pressure is
seen only on the wall and if moved away from the wall, the pore pressure tends to go back to its
original initial position. Due to the pore pressure decrease at the wall, an increase in the effective
collapse stress is seen in Figure 28. Once the effect is not there anymore, effective collapse stress
graph tends to follow the same path as it had without any effects considered as seen in Figure 29.
Note that since the activity of the formation was higher than the activity of the mud, the
formation fluid was flown out of the formation which resulted in this decrease of the pore
pressure. If the activity would have been higher in the mud compared to that of the shale
formation, an increase in the pore pressure at the wall would have been observed. Such an
observation will be shown below in the report when discussing the effects for different properties
affecting the collapse stress results.

51
67.5

67

66.5
Pore Pressure (MPa)

66

65.5

65

64.5

64
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 27: Pore Pressure graph for chemical effects

15
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

14.5

14

13.5

13

12.5
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 28: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical effects

52
14.4

14.2
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

14

13.8

13.6

13.4

13.2

13
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 29: Effective Collapse Stress graph for no effects

6.1.2 Thermal
In order to evaluate the profile of pore pressure due to the temperature effects, equation 5.9 for
pore pressure is used. Note that only the second term in the equation 5.9 is used since it takes
into account the temperature effects. The pore pressure profile is seen in Figure 30. Near
wellbore temperature is lower than the temperature of the formation which results in the thermal
diffusivity of the pore pressure. This results in a decrease in the pore pressure as the position is
moved away from the wellbore wall. Note that there is no effect at the wall since that is the
starting point of the thermal diffusion effect to take place. That is the pore pressure at the wall is
66.94 MPa at all times. Some effects can be seen even till a specific radius of 1.3 as the pore
pressure at this point has still not reached its initial state showing the existence of still some
temperature effects. An increase in effective collapse stress is seen in the Figure 31 below due to
the decrease in the pore pressure till the specific radius of 1.1 after which the gradient of the
slope of effective collapse stress decreases due to a slight increase in pore pressure until the
specific radius of 1.3.

53
67.5

67

66.5
Pore Pressure (MPa)

66

65.5

65

64.5

64

63.5
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 30: Pore Pressure graph for thermal effects

16

15.5
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

15

14.5

14

13.5

13

12.5

12

11.5
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 31: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal effects

54
6.1.3 Diffusion
In order to observe the hydraulic diffusion affect in the formation, the first part for the equation
5.9 only is taken into account which consist of the net hydraulic force. Since, the well pressure is
higher than the initial pore pressure; an increase in the pore pressure is seen at the wall due to
this hydraulic force. Note that when moved away from the wellbore wall, the pore pressure tends
to reduce exponentially until at a certain point where it equalizes to the initial pore pressure.
Further away from this point, there will be no more diffusivity effect. At 10 hours, this effect
tends to disappear at specific radius of around 1.1. Due to this decrease in pore pressure, the
effective collapse stress is hence increased until the point where this effect takes place after
which the effective collapse curve tends to follow the normal curve. Also, the effective collapse
stress is minimum at the wall due to the increase in pore pressure there and highest in magnitude
at the wall.

80

78

76
Pore Pressure (MPa)

74

72

70

68

66
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 32: Pore Pressure graph for diffusion effects

55
16

14
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

12

10

0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 33: Effective Collapse Stress graph for diffusion effects

6.1.4 Thermal & diffusion


If both thermal and diffusion effects are taken into account, the pore pressure equation above is
used again. Note that the only thing not taken into account when dealing with these two is that
the near wellbore pressure doesn’t involve the chemical potential. The two graphs below were
plotted for the pore pressure and the effective collapse stress. Again, the near well bore which is
an area of interest shows an increase in pore pressure due to hydraulic diffusivity only and no
temperature changes as the thermal effect takes place as moved away from the wall rather than at
the wall.

56
80
78
76
74
Pore Pressure (MPa)

72
70
68
66
64
62
60
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 34: Pore Pressure graph for thermal and diffusion effects

18
16
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 35: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal and diffusion effects

6.1.5 Thermal & chemical


Below is a combination of thermal and chemical effects on the pore pressure and the effective
collapse stress.

57
64.5

64

63.5
Pore Pressure (MPa)

63

62.5

62

61.5

61
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 36: Pore Pressure graph for chemical and thermal effects

17.5
17
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 37: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical and thermal effects

6.1.6 Chemical & Diffusion


An interesting thing seen here is that the diffusion effects cannot be seen that far from wellbore.
This is because the hydraulic diffusivity effects are less dominant in the early times as
permeability is very low for shale and it takes time for this effect to take time compared to the

58
thermal effects that might be taking place more significantly further away in the wall. This is due
to the very low value for hydraulic diffusivity compared to thermal diffusivity resulting in a very
slow propagation of the pressure into the formation.

77
76
75
74
Pore Pressure (MPa)

73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 38: Pore Pressure graph for chemical and diffusion effects

16

14
Effective Collpase Stress (MPa)

12

10

0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 39: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical and diffusion effects

59
6.1.7 Thermal, chemical & diffusion
Below is a pore pressure and effective collapse curve if all the effects are taken into
consideration. They are very similar to the diffusion and temperature graph. The only difference
is a further reduction in pore pressure at the wellbore wall due to chemical change.

78

76

74
Pore Pressure (MPa)

72

70

68

66

64

62
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 40: Pore Pressure graph for chemical, thermal and diffusion effects

18
16
Effective Collpase Stress (MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 41: Effective Collapse Stress graph for chemical, thermal and diffusion effects

60
6.1.8 Discussion and Comparison of different scenarios
From the above results for pore pressure and effective collapse stress under different scenarios,
some observations were made at the wellbore wall. The pore pressure tends to decrease at the
wall only due to chemical change and no effects are seen away from the wall. For the diffusion
effect, an increase in pore pressure is seen due to the net hydraulic force at the wall due to
overbalance drilling mud conditions. This is due to assumption made by M. E. Chenevert that the
wall is completely penetrating and any increase in well pressure will increase by the magnitude
of the difference of the well pressure and the initial pore pressure (C. Chen 2001). In reality, this
is not the case and because of this the results might be overstating the pore pressure at this stage.
Also, there was no change seen due to temperature effects at the wall. On the other hand, the
effects were seen far away from the well even at specific radius of 1.3 due to the temperature
effects. This was not seen in diffusion or chemical scenarios where the effects stopped taking
place just near the wellbore as the pore pressure tend to return to its initial state. Different pore
pressure profiles for different scenarios can be seen in Figure 42 below.

It can easily be seen from Figure 42 and 43 below that the different effects have quite a
prevailing effect on the pore pressure and the effective collapse stress and hence cannot be
ignored when designing the mud weight window. It can be seen that the effects significantly
either reduce or increase the effective collapse strength depending on their respective effects. It
was seen that all the curves with the diffusion effect in it tend to reduce the effective collapse
strength due to increase in pore pressure due to hydraulic diffusion. Whereas temperature and
chemical effects tend to increase the effective collapse strength or decrease the pore pressure.

61
80
78
76
74 chemical
Pore Pressure (MPa)

72 thermal
70 diffusion
68 thermal+chemical
66 thermal+diffusion

64 thermal+chemical+diffusion

62 normal

60
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 42: Pore Pressure graph for all scenarios

19

17
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

15
chemical

13 thermal
diffusion
11 thermal+chemical
thermal+diffusion
9
thermal+chemical+diffusion
7 normal

5
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 43: Effective Collapse Stress graph for all scenarios

62
6.2 Effect of different properties
For the analysis of the effect of different properties, time and inclination of well, all the effects
which are chemical, thermal and diffusion are taken into account when performing simulations.
The normal pore pressure or effective collapse stress is the one which is performed taking initial
parameters which can be seen in Table 8.

6.2.1 Wellbore Wall Temperature


The increase in wall temperature will tend to reduce the temperature difference between the wall
and the formation. This resulted in a reduction of the temperature effect on the pore pressure.
This can be seen in figure 44 below. Once the wall temperature is reduced or cooled down, the
temperature difference increased resulting in a higher decrease in pore pressure and hence a
higher collapse stress at specific radius of 1.1 approximately. Note that the temperature will have
no effect on the effective collapse stress at the wellbore wall as seen in Figure 45 below.

78
76
74
Pore Pressure (MPa)

72
70
Normal Pore Pressure
68
66 Increase in T
64 Decrease in T
62
60
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 44: Pore Pressure graph for wall temperature effects

63
18

Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)


16

14

12 Normal

10 Increase in T
Decrease in T
8

6
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 45: Effective Collapse Stress graph for temperature effects

6.2.2 Effect of activity values


This is one of the most important properties when looking into chemical effects and can affect
the collapse stress results significantly. It was seen that with a change in activity, the flow of the
fluids direction can be controlled. In this case, activity of the water was kept such that it was
higher than the activity of the shale formation which resulted in the pore pressure to increase
considerably at wellbore wall. This resulted in reduced collapse strength at the wall which is an
important area of interest as most of the collapse happens at the wellbore wall. Therefore, if
required the activity of the mud can be always be altered by adding of different solutes in order
to get the desired results and flow direction depending on the formation and situation.

85

80
Pore Pressure

75 Normal Pore Pressure


70 Awm>Awsh

65

60
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 46: Pore Pressure graph for activity effects

64
18

Effective Collpase Stress (MPa)


16
14
12
10 Normal
8 Awm>Awsh
6
4
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 47: Effective Collapse Stress graph for activity effects

6.2.3 Permeability
When the permeability was increased 100 times in order to see the effect on pore pressure and
effective collapse strength, it was seen that the hydraulic diffusivity tends to be more prevailing
now compared to the initial permeability condition. It was seen that the pore pressure tends to
decrease in a smoother manner rather than the drastic change seen in the original curve. The
profile seems to be going a long way away from the wellbore showing that the penetration of this
effect is much higher now. This resulted in evener and reduced effective collapse strength in
nearby wellbore area. The smooth curve of pore pressure tends to increase the pore pressure due
to fluid flowing into formation more easily. Another thing to take into consideration is the
assumptions taken at the start of this report regarding the convection component in the pore
pressure equation 5.1 which was assumed to be zero as the permeability was very low. Since the
permeability is increasing, the convection component might not be very small anymore and
because of this there might be a small error in the analysis below.

65
78
76
74

Pore Pressure (MPa) 72


70 Normal Pore Pressure

68
Permeability Increase 5
66 times

64
62
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 48: Pore Pressure graph for permeability effects


18
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

16

14

12 Normal

10 Permeability Increase
5 times
8

6
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 49: Effective Collapse Stress graph for permeability effects

6.2.4 Thermal diffusivity


The thermal diffusivity was also increased 100 times to see its effect on the pore pressure and
effective collapse strength. It was seen that the change in thermal diffusivity affected the pore
pressure very minutely. An almost same curve was seen for the new diffusivity. Therefore, it can
be concluded that it is a less significant value when dealing with pore pressure effects. The
change in temperature difference plays a more significant role when looking for changes in pore
pressure.

66
78
76

Pore Pressure (MPa)


74
72
70 Normal Pore Pressure

68
Thermal Diffusivity
66 increase 5 times
64
62
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 50: Pore Pressure graph for thermal diffusivity effects


18

16
Effective Collpase Stress

14

12 Normal

10 Thermal Diffusivity
increase 5 times
8

6
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 51: Effective Collapse Stress graph for thermal diffusivity effects

6.3 Effect of time


It can easily be seen that with time the pore pressure tends to go into formation further until
reached a far point away from the wellbore wall. The time also results in a significant reduction
in effective collapse strength away from the wellbore wall. This can be seen in Figure 53 below.
It can be seen that with time the effective collapse stress at the wall remains the same but the
nearby area of well becomes weaker with time. Also, another effect on the effective collapse
strength with time is due to the reduction in cohesive strength as shown below in Figure 53. This

67
effect is due to the hydration of shales which weakens it. It can be calculated at different times
using equation 4.7. It can be seen that the change is at the wellbore wall which can be a worrying
factor when designing the mud weight window. Therefore it is very important to take into
account all the changes with time too in order to avoid any well collapse after days from the
initial point of drilling.

78
76
74
Pore Pressure (MPa)

72
70
Normal Pore Pressure
68
Time (10 days)
66
64
62
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 52: Pore Pressure graph for time effects

18
Effective Collapse Stress (MPa)

16

14
Normal
12

10 Time (10 days)

8
Cohesive Strength
6 effect

4
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
R/Rw

Figure 53: Effective Collapse Stress graph for time effects

68
6.4 Effect of the inclination of well
Inclination of well has a very strong influence on the stresses around the wellbore as well as the
effective collapse stress. In order to observe the changes in principal stresses around a wellbore
and the effective collapse stress, some results were generated. Below in Figure 54, hoop stresses
for well at zero degrees to the vertical is shown with another one (Figure 55) shown at 90
degrees which will be a horizontal well. It can be seen that for a well at zero inclination, the
stresses around the wellbore at a certain radius is same around it at any angle whereas for a
horizontal well the stresses around the wellbore vary with respect to the angle. The angle here is
the angle with respect to the direction of maximum horizontal in-situ stress. All the stresses are
in MPa. All the simulations are done taking into account the chemical, diffusion and thermal
effects.

6.4.1 Radial Stresses


The radial stresses tend to increase as moved away from wellbore. For an asymmetrical result,
almost same results were seen for the vertical and oriental well. The minimal radial stress was
seen at specific radius of one after which the chemical and diffusion effects took place at the wall
increasing the pore pressure significantly which resulted in a reduced effective radial stress.
Once moved away from wall, the radial stress tends to increase significantly and then starts
reducing as moved along the wellbore.

-180
17018020 -170-160
160 -150
150 -140
15
140 -130
130 10 -120 rd=1
120 -110 rd=1.05
110 5 -100 rd=1.1
100 0 -90 rd=1.15
90 -80
rd=1.2
80 -70
rd=1.25
70 -60
rd=1.3
60 -50
50 -40
40 -30
30 -20
20 10 0 -10

Figure 54: Radial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well

69
-180
170 18020 -170-160
160 -150
150 -140
15
140 -130 rd=1
130 10 -120 rd=1.05
120 -110 rd=1.1
110 5 -100 rd=1.15
100 -90 rd=1.2
0 rd=1.25
90 -80
rd=1.3
80 -70
70 -60
60 -50
50 -40
40 -30
30 -20
20 10 0 -10

Figure 55: Radial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal well

6.4.2 Hoop Stresses


The hoop stresses tend to increase as moved away from the wellbore wall due to pore pressure
changes due to chemical, thermal and diffusion effects but once the effects tend to reduce as
moved away from wellbore wall, the hoop stress starts to reduce slowly. For the stresses for the
horizontal well, the hoop stresses are minimum at 0 degrees and maximum at 90 degrees around
the wellbore as expected form the equations.

-180
170180
25 -170-160
160 -150
150 20 -140
140 -130 rd=1
130 15 -120 rd=1.05
120 10 -110
110 5 -100 rd=1.1
100 0 -90 rd=1.15
90 -80
80 -70 rd=1.2
70 -60 rd=1.25
60 -50
50 -40 rd=1.3
40 -30
30 20 -10 -20
10 0

Figure 56: Hoop stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well

70
-180
180 30 -170
170 -160
160 -150
150 25 -140
140 20 -130

130 -120
rd=1
15
120
10
-110 rd=1.05
110
5
-100
rd=1.1
100 -90
0 rd=1.15
90 -80
rd=1.2
80 -70
rd=1.25
70 -60

60 -50 rd=1.3
50 -40
40 -30
30 -20
20 10 0 -10

Figure 57: Hoop stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal well

6.4.3 Axial Stress


Axial stresses tend to show the same behavior as the hoop stress. Only difference is the less
eccentric shape of graph for the horizontal well.

-180
17018025 -170-160
160 -150
150 20 -140
140 -130
130 15 -120 rd=1
120 10 -110
rd=1.05
110 5 -100
rd=1.1
100 0 -90
rd=1.15
90 -80
rd=1.2
80 -70
rd=1.25
70 -60
60 -50 rd=1.3
50 -40
40 -30
30 20 -20
10 0 -10

Figure 58: Axial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well

71
-180
170180
20 -170-160
rd=1
160 -150
150 -140 rd=1.05
140 15 -130
130 -120 rd=1.1
10
120 -110 rd=1.15
110 5 -100 rd=1.2
100 0 -90 rd=1.25
90 -80 rd=1.3
80 -70
70 -60
60 -50
50 -40
40 -30
30 20 -20
10 0 -10

Figure 59: Axial stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal well

6.4.4 Effective Collapse failure


The effective collapse stress for a vertical well tends to have the same magnitude around the
wellbore for a specific well radius. Also, it is minimum at 90 degrees around the wellbore and
maximum at 0 degrees around the wellbore for the horizontal well. Note that eccentricity in all
the graphs is due one of the horizontal in-situ stresses value increase due to inclination.

-180
160 17020 -170-160
150 -150
140 15 -140
130 -130
rd=1
120 10 -120
110 -110 rd=1.05
5 rd=1.1
100 -100
90 0 -90 rd=1.15
80 -80 rd=1.2
70 -70 rd=1.25
60 -60
rd=1.3
50 -50
40 -40
30 -30
20 10 -10 -20
0

Figure 60: Effective collapse stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a vertical well

72
-180
160170
20 -170-160
150 -150
140 15 -140
130 -130 rd=1
120 10 -120
rd=1.05
110 -110
5 rd=1.1
100 -100
90 0 -90 rd=1.15
80 -80 rd=1.2
70 -70
rd=1.25
60 -60
50 -50 rd=1.3
40 -40
30 -30
20 10 -10 -20
0

Figure 61: Effective collapse stresses around a wellbore at different specific radius values for a horizontal
well

Figure 62 below shows the effective collapse stress at all well inclination angles. It can easily be
concluded that for any specific radius away or at the wall, the effective collapse stress is a
maximum at well inclination of zero degrees and minimum at a well inclination for 90 degrees. It
tends to decrease slowly as the inclination of the well is increased to 90 degrees as seen below.

18
16
14
Effective Collapse Stress

rd=1
12
rd=1.05
10
rd=1.1
8
rd=1.15
6
rd=1.2
4
rd=1.25
2
rd=1.3
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Inclination of Well (Degrees)

Figure 62: Effective collapse stress at different well inclination

73
7 Case Study

7.1 Introduction
Heidrun field was discovered in 1985 in the Haltenbanken area offshore Mid-Norway (G. Stjern
2003). Figure 63 below shows the location of this field on a map. The field is located in a very
environmentally vulnerable area therefore the use of oil based mud is not possible (G. Stjern
2003). Water based muds are used on the fields which can be a problem for shale as water tend
to swell the shale formation which exits in this field. Therefore, inhibitive like KCl is used in the
water based mud which acted as reactive clay to drill wells on this field. All the wells were
drilled on a Tension Leg Platform (TLP). Most of wells on the field are extended reach wells
with inclination of wells in the range of 55 to 70 degrees (E. Fjær 2008). Also, the salt content in
the mud was also reduced as this helped drilling a stable borehole. Reducing the salt content
tends to increase the mud activity and a change in chemical effect on the pore pressure. A case
study is initiated in order to see the chemical, thermal and poro-elastic effects on the wellbore
wall on one of the wells on the Heidrun field.

Figure 63: Field location fo Heidrun field (G. Stjern 2003)

74
Before drilling the primary step is the design of the drilling program. The drilling program is
used to avoid well instability problems. These well instabilities are collapse and well fracture.
Figure 64 shows the well program.

Figure 64: Prognosis stability plot for a typical Heidrun TLP well (G. Stjern 2003)

75
7.2 Model used for chemical and temperature
In order to investigate the poro-elastic, chemical and temperature effects on the well collapse
pressure, a model was derived. Initially, Mohr-Coulomb model is used as listed above in
equation 4.18 using stress transformations equation 3.4 to take into account the well inclination
at all depths. In order to take into account the effects, the set of equations in equation 5.11 were
coupled with the model which takes into account all the induced chemical and temperature
stresses. At the wall, there is no change in pore pressure due to temperature. In order to calculate
the change in pore pressure needed for the model, equation 5.9 was used to find the change in
pore pressure. The model derived from for these effects are below for chemical, temperature and
chemical and temperature.

3σ x − σ y − C o − α o P0N (1 − tan α ) − 2ηP0 − 2ηPπ


Pw ≤ 7.1
1 + tan α − 2η

3σ x − σ y − Co − α o P0 (1 − tan α ) + K
Pw ≤ 7.2
1 + tan α − 2η

3σ x − σ y − C o − α o P0N (1 − tan α ) − 2ηP0 − 2ηPπ + K


Pw ≤ 7.3
1 + tan α − 2η

Where

𝐸𝛼𝑚
𝐾= (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑜 )
3(1 − 𝑣) 𝑤 7.4

𝛼𝑜 (1 − 2𝑣)
𝜂=
1−𝑣 7.5

76
7.3 Sensitivity analysis
In order to perform sensitivity analysis and see which properties influence the well collapse
pressure the most, first the data in Figure 64 above was digitized and Mohr-Coulomb collapse
curve was generated using equation 4.18. The reason for choosing this equation out of the other
equations was that the stresses calculated from the digitized date in Figure 64 were in the order

σ θ ≥ σ z > σ r . Once that was achieved, the above poro-elastic models equations were used to
see the effects of chemical and temperature. All the properties for the analysis were taken from
Table 8 above unless stated otherwise. The activity and the temperature values were changed as
for a temperature, a temperature profile was used all along the well depth and for the activity the
values in Table 8 were very high and were giving unrealistic results. Note that the normal
‘Collapse’ line in all the figures below is the line plotted from the equation 4.18 without any
effects and is the reference line to see any effects. Activity was increased and decreased 5% in
order to see the effect of it on the collapse pressure. All other parameters were increased and
decreased by 10% to observe changes on the collapse pressure.

7.3.1 Activity of shale and mud


The chemical effects were investigated using the poro-elastic model for chemical effects only.
The activity of shale and mud were taken as 0.87 and 0.915. The values were reversed to see the
effect of activity on the chemical changes. Figure 65 was generated in excel using the above
values and model. It can be seen that chemical effects change the collapse curve dramatically and
has a big influence on the collapse curve. Since the activity of formation cannot be controlled,
the activity of the drilling mud should be controlled by used of different additives or inhibitive in
order to get desirable results. Figure 66 shows the effect of increasing and decreasing the activity
of drilling fluid. It can be seen from the results that the change in activity have a very big impact
on the collapse pressure.

77
Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure
1000
Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

Collapse new (awm<awsh)


Collpase new (awm>awsh)
Pfrac

1500

2000

2500

Figure 65: Collapse pressure graph for chemical effects

78
Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500
Pore pressure

Overburden

Collapse
1000
Collpase chemical (adf > ash)
Depth (m)

Increase in drilling mud


activity

1500 Pfrac

Decrease in drilling mud


activity

2000

2500

Figure 66: Collapse pressure graph for activity effects

7.3.2 Temperature effect


In order to get the effect of temperature only, the normal mode for Mohr-Coulomb is coupled
with equation 7.4. The linear thermal expansion coefficient was taken as 15E-6 𝐾 −1 for weak
shale (North Sea) and Young’s modulus was taken to be 1000 MPa (E. Fjær 2008). The results
below were achieved. It shows that the wall temperature also has a significant effect on the
collapse pressure and this effect tends to disappear as the temperature difference of the wall and

79
formation reduces down the depth. This is due to the decrease in wall temperature gradient. For
the wall and formation temperature profile along the depth, a temperature profile was generated.
It can be seen in Figure 68. Digitized data used to generate the temperature profile can also be
seen in Table 9 below.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure
1000
Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

Thermal Collpase
Pfrac

1500

2000

2500

Figure 67: Collapse pressure graph for thermal effects

80
Temperature (C)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

500

To
1000
Depth (m)

Tw

1500

2000

2500

Figure 68: Formation and wall temperature profile with respect to depth

Depth
(m) To (°) Tw (°)
500 24 50.895
600 28 53.635
700 32 56.235
800 36 58.695
900 40 61.015
1000 44 63.195
1100 48 65.235
1200 52 67.135
1300 56 68.895
1400 60 70.515
1500 64 71.995
1550 66 72.6825
1600 68 73.335
1700 72 74.535
1800 76 75.595
1900 80 76.515
2000 84 77.295
2100 88 77.935
2200 92 78.435
Table 9: Formation and wall temperature data at different depths

81
7.3.3 Temperature and chemical combined effect
When both results were combined, it can easily be concluded that the chemical effects dominate
the temperature effects at the wall. But in the upper part of the formation, the collapse pressure
exceeds even the fracture pressure due to very narrow mud weight window and high chemical
and thermal effects in that region. Therefore it is very vital to evaluate these changes more
thoroughly when generating the final results in the drill program.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure
Overburden
1000
Collapse
Depth (m)

Thermal + Chemical
Thermal + Chemical 2
Pfrac
1500

2000

2500

Figure 69: Collapse pressure graph for combined thermal and chemical effects

82
7.3.4 Biot’s constant
Biot’s constant value was increased and decreased by10 percent of its initial value to see the
effect of this property on the collapse curve. As seen below in Figure 70, Biot’s constant has a
very strong effect on the collapse curve.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure

1000 Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

biots constant Increase


biots constant decrease
Pfrac
1500

2000

2500

Figure 70: Collapse pressure graph for Biot’s constant effects

83
7.3.5 Friction angle
The effect of friction angle was also seen in Figure 71. It can be seen that the change in friction
angle does not affect the collapse curve that much and is less vital property when evaluating the
collapse curve.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure

1000 Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

angle of friction increase


angle of friction decrease
Pfrac
1500

2000

2500

Figure 71: Collapse pressure graph for friction angle effects

84
7.3.6 Poisson’s ratio
This property tends to show a little effect on the initial collapse curve. But in comparison to the
Biot’s constant, the effect is very small.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure

1000 Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

Poissons Ratio increase


Poissons Rtaio decrease
Pfrac
1500

2000

2500

Figure 72: Collapse pressure graph for Poisson’s ratio effects

85
7.3.7 Cohesive strength
The change is cohesive strength also shows very minute alterations to the collapse curve.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure
1000 Overburden
Collapse
Depth (m)

Cohesive strength increase


Cohesive strength decrease
Pfrac

1500

2000

2500

Figure 73: Collapse pressure graph for cohesive strength effects

86
7.3.8 Wall temperature
Wall temperature of the well was increase and decreased by 20 degrees in order to see the effect
of it. In the upper depths, the increase and decrease had a significant effect in the curve whereas
down the formation, the effect is becoming more and more insignificant.

Pressure (sg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

500

Pore pressure

1000 Overburden
Thermal Collpase
Depth (m)

Wall temperature increase


Wall temperature decrease
Pfrac
1500

2000

2500

Figure 74: Collapse pressure graph for wall temperature effects

87
7.3.9 Discussion and Comparison
It can be seen from results in the case study that the activity of drilling fluid is the most
dominating of all properties in terms of the changes on the collapse pressure. It can be seen that
only a 5% change in this value changes the collapse pressure immensely. Figure 75 shows that if
the drilling fluid activity is decreased, the collapse pressure will tend to return to its original
position where there were no effects. This is because the difference of the formation and drilling
fluid activity is reduced. Once this difference is increased the change in the well collapse
pressure will be increased again. Therefore, even though it is the most dominating parameter, it
can be controlled by altering the activity of drilling mud.

For other parameters, Biot’s constant was proven to be the most dominating parameter as a
change of 10% in this value resulted in large changes in the well collapse pressure. This can be
seen below in Figure 76. Another important factor for the dominance of Biot’s constant is that
the horizontal in-situ stress was calculated from this value using equation 3.2. Therefore, the
results also included the Biot’s constant effect on the in-situ stresses. If the in-situ stresses are
known using other models in equation 4.1 and 4.2, the results can be more accurate and a better
representation of the Biot’s constant effect on the collapse pressure can be known. Temperature
is also a sensitive parameter in the upper depths of the formations where the change in collapse
pressure due to temperature was very high. Figure 76 also included the well collapse pressure
lines for other parameters too. The other properties showed very small changes and didn’t alter
the initial collapse pressure that much. But note that if all the values are overestimated or
underestimated, the combination of the effects even for the small changes can amend the results
greatly resulting in quite affective changes in well collapse pressure.

88
1.2

0.8 Increase in drilling mud activity


Pressure (sg)

0.6 Decrease in drilling mud activity

Collapse chemical initial


0.4 reference
Collapse Pressure
0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth (m)

Figure 75: Collapse Pressure graph for change in drilling mud activity

1.3

1.2 Collapse Pressure


biots constant Increase
1.1
biots constant decrease
Pressure (sg)

1 angle of friction increase


angle of friction decrease
0.9 Poissons Ratio increase
Poissons Rtaio decrease
0.8
Cohesive strength increase
0.7 Cohesive strength decrease
Wall temperature increase
0.6
Wall temperature decrease
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth (m)

Figure 76: Collapse pressure graph for different scenarios

89
8 Conclusion
It was concluded from the simulations performed for different effects that the chemical and
hydraulic diffusion effects were quite dominating at the wall of the wellbore. Both of these
effects could be controlled by using right design for mud weight density for hydraulic diffusion
affects as the higher the well pressure will be the greater will be the increase in pore pressure.
Chemical effects can be controlled by changing the activity of the drilling fluid and can increase
or decrease the pore pressure depending on the formation and drilling fluid activity. Thermal
effects had no influence on pore pressure at the wall even though it was more dominating when
moved away from wellbore wall. Also, cohesive strength reduces with respect to time because of
which the effective collapse strength reduced significantly at the wall. An increase in pore
pressure tends to decrease the effective collapse stress and vice versa.

For the case study, activity of the drilling fluid activity was the most sensitive parameter for the
well collapse pressure. The second parameter that was found to be very sensitive to well collapse
pressure after the activity of drilling fluid was the Biot’s constant. A small increase in this value
changed the well collapse pressure dramatically. Temperature was quite sensitive in the upper
depths where the change in temperature between the formation and the wall was significantly
high. All the other properties analyzed had very small effects on the well collapse pressure. In
terms of chemical and thermal, the case study showed that chemical effects were far more
dominating than the thermal effects for this Heidrun well program.

90
References
A.M. Al-Ajmi, R. W. Z. (2006). "Stability Analysis of vertical boreholes using the Mogi-Coulomb."
International Jounal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43(8): 1200-1211.

Aadnøy, B. S. (2003). "Introduction to special issue on wellbore stability." Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 38: 79-82.

B.S. Aadnøy, M. E. C. (1987). "Stability of highly inclined boreholes." SPE Drilling Engineering 2(04): 364-
374.

Bernt S. Aadnøy, R. L. (2011). Petroleum Rock Mechanics. USA, Gulf Professional Publishing.

C. Chen, M. E. C., M.M. Sharma & M. Yu (2001). Poroelastic chemical, and thermal effects on wellbore
stability in shales. U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Washington D.C, American Rock Mechanics
Association.

CFCF (2013). "Osmosis." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis.

Cosse, R. (1993). Basic of reservoir engineering. France, Editions Technip.

Dyni, J. R. (2006). "Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits." USGS

5294.

E. Eseme, B. M. K., R. Littke (2012). "Evolution of petrophysical properties of oil shales during high-
temperature compaction tests." Marine and Petroleum Geology 31(1): 110-124.

E. Fjær, R. M. H., P. Horsrud, A.M. Raaen & R.Risnes (2008). Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics.
Hungary, Elsevier publications.

Eaton, B. A. (1972). "Graphical method predicts geopressure worldwide." World Oil 182: 51-56.

Eaton, B. A. (1975). "The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs." SPE 5544.

Ewy, G. C. R. T. (2005). "Thermoporoelastic Effect on Wellbore Stability." SPE 10(02): 121-129.

F.J. Santarelli, S. C. (1995). "Do shale swell? A critical review of available evidence." SPE-29421-MS.

91
Fjær, E., et al. (2008). Petroleum related rock mechanics, Elsevier Science.

G. Stjern, A. A., P Horsrud (2003). "Local rock mechanical knowledge proves drilling performance in
fractured formations at the Heidrun field." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38(3-4): 83-96.

Gatlin, C. a. (1965). "Mechanical Anisotropies of laminated sedimentary rocks." SPE 5(1).

Geoscience. "Shale." 2014, from http://geology.com/rocks/shale.shtml.

Horsrud, P. (2001). "Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale from Empirical Correlations." SPE Drilling
& Completion 16(02): 68-73.

I.M. Breckels, H. A. M. v. E. (1982). "Relationship between horizontal stress and depth in sedimentary
rocks." Journal of Petroleum Technology 34(09): 2,191-192,199.

Institute, T. j. H. "Clay minerals."

J.C. Jaeger, N. G. W. C., and R.W. Zimmerman (2007). Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Singapore,
Blackwell Publishing.

Jefferson, A. (2011). "Geology is destiny." from http://all-


geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2011/01/geology-is-destiny-globally-mapping-permeability-by-rock-type/.

Jianguo Zhang, M. Y., T.M. Al-Bazali, Seehong Ong, M.E. Chenevert, M.M. Sharma (2006). "Maintaining
the stability of deviated and horizontal wells." SPE.

Lal, M. (1999). "Shale stability: Drilling fluid interaction and shale strength." SPE 54356.

Lee, S. (1990). Oil Shale Technology. Florida, CRC Press.

Lianyang Zhang, P. C., K.C. Radha (2010). "Evaluation of rock strength criteria for wellbore stability
analysis." International Jounal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 47(8): 1304-1316.

Md. Aminul Islam, P. S. (2013). "An experimental investigation of shale mechanical properties through
drained and undrained test mechanisms." Rock Mechanics rock engineering 46: 1391-1413.

92
Mengjiao Yu, M. E. C., Mukul M. Sharma (2003). "Chemical-mechanical wellbore instability model
instability model for shales." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38: 131-143.

Mitchell, R. F., et al. (2011). Fundamentals of drilling engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Okiongbo, K. S. (2011). "Petrophysical Properties of North Sea Shales." Research Journal of Applied
Sciences 3(1): 46-52.

Oort, E. v. (2003). "On the physical and chemical stability of shales." Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 38: 213-235.

Ronald Steiger, P. R., Leung, K. peter (1992). "Quantitative Determination of the Mechanical Properies of
Shales." SPE 7.

S. Hillier, G. R., I Sims and JC Cripps (2006). "Clay materials used in construction, A mineralogical and
chemical data." Engineering Geology speical publications 21: 449-459.

S.O. Osisanya, M. E. C. (1996). "Physico chemical modelling of wellbore stability in shale formations."
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 35(02).

Soroush, D. H. (2013). Shale Gas Geomechanics. Stavanger, European Association of Geosciences &
Engineers

SWACO, M. Drilling fluids and Engineering handbook.

Venkanna, B. K. (2010). Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. New Delhi, PHI Learning.

Weaver, D. B. S. C. E. (1965). "The mineralogical composition of shales." Journal of Sedimenatry


Reseacrh 35: 213-222.

Appendix
M-file for the equation 5.9 to calculate the thermal, chemical and hydraulic diffusion
effects
function [porep]=porep;

93
po=0.01538*4352.5; % Pore pressure
ppi=-(0.1*0.462*375.7*log(0.78/0.915)); %chemical potential
rw=0.127; % radius of well
r=[0.127 0.13335 0.1397 0.14605 0.1524 0.15875 0.1651]%specific radius
c=3.4e-10; %hydraulic diffusivity
pw=0.0180*4352.5; % well pressure
k=0.124; %coupling coefficient
co=9.54e-7; %thermal diffusivity
Tw=350.7; %temperature of wall
To=375.7; %temperature of formation
t=864000; %time 10 hours
for m=1:length(t)
porep(m,:)=po+((pw-ppi-po).*(sqrt(rw./r).*(erfc((r-
rw)./(2.*sqrt(c.*t(m)))))))-((k*(Tw-To)/(1-(c/co))).*(sqrt(rw./r).*((erfc((r-
rw)./(2.*sqrt(c.*t(m)))))-(erfc((r-rw)./(2.*sqrt(co.*t(m))))))));
end
hold on
plot(r./rw,porep(1,:),'b');
hold off

M-file for the equation 5.9 to calculate the thermal, chemical and hydraulic diffusion
effects at different times
function [porep]=time;
po=0.01538*4352.5;
ppi=-(0.1*0.462*375.7*log(0.78/0.915));
rw=0.127;
r=[0.127:0.001:0.1651];
c=3.4e-10;
pw=0.0180*4352.5;
k=0.124;
co=9.54e-7;
Tw=350.7;
To=375.7;
t=[60 3600 36000 864000];
for m=1:length(t)
porep(m,:)=po+((pw-ppi-po).*(sqrt(rw./r).*(erfc((r-
rw)./(2.*sqrt(c.*t(m)))))))-((k*(Tw-To)/(1-(c/co))).*(sqrt(rw./r).*((erfc((r-
rw)./(2.*sqrt(c.*t(m)))))-(erfc((r-rw)./(2.*sqrt(co.*t(m))))))));
end
%
hold on
plot(r./rw,porep(1,:),'b');
plot(r./rw,porep(2,:),'r');
plot(r./rw,porep(3,:),'k');
plot(r./rw,porep(4,:),'g');
hold off

94

You might also like