Master Thesis Hadi Tranggono

FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MASTER’S THESIS
Study program / Specialization: Spring semester, 2019
Petroleum Engineering / Well Engineering Open access
Writer: Hadi Tranggono

………………………………….
(Writer’s signature)
Supervisor: Bernt Sigve Aadnøy & Eirik Kårstad
Thesis title:
Wellbore Collapse Failure Criteria and Drilling Optimization
Credits (ECTS): 30
Keywords: Pages : 122

Pore Pressure + enclosure : 20
Fracture Pressure
Insitu Stress
Rock Mechanics
Collapse Pressure Formation
Casing Design
Cutting Transport & Hydraulic Methods Stavanger, 15 June 2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This master's thesis is completed as one of the requirement to accomplish master degree in
Petroleum Engineering with specialization in Well engineering in University of Stavanger,
Norway.
I would like to express my thankfullness to God Almighty for giving me the opportunity and
bless me to finish my study in Well Engineering. It is not easy to complete master degree in
different environtment and far away from my country (Indonesia) but God have a different
ways to help His children.
I would like to thank to my family that give me a freedom to continue my study. I would like
to thank to my fiance, Anggi Novia Regina that support and help me to finish my master's
thesis.
Special thank to my internal supervisor, Bernt S. Aadnøy that always have a time to meet and
discuss about my master thesis. I also would like to thank to my external supervisor, Eirik
Kårstad that help me to finish my master thesis.
Last but not least, I would like to thank to indonesian community in Stavanger for their
support during my study in Stavanger.
i
ABSTRACT
Design and planning in drilling a well are a key for successful before to execute drilling
operation. A good understanding of wellbore stability, design mud, casing, cementing, BHA
& drillstring, drilling bit, hole cleaning & hydraulic are an important process in well
planning. Good design and planning can keep drilling activity on track based on schedule and
it can avoid non-productive time during drilling.
By knowing the rock mechanics properties is important in the drilling design. Many problems
happen during drilling relate to rock mechanics. One of the problem during drilling relates to
rock mechanics is wellbore instability. Before drilling, rock in equilibrium condition but after
drilling, there is a disturbance in the rock formation and it changes stress distribution.
Knowing the insitu stresses (vertical stress, maximum horizontal stress, minimum horizontal
stress) and stresses around the borehole wall (radial stress, axial stress and tangential stress)
are important. With knowing these parameters, wellbore collapse caused by shear stress can
be avoided. In this thesis will analyze the sensitivity of the failure criteria with respect to
horizontal stress anisotropy and depth, in order to evaluate which failure criteria to
recommend under which stress conditions. Mohr-Coulomb, Modified Lade and Stassi d' Alia
models will be used to figure out the failure criteria. The result of these models is used to
estimate critical mud weight to prevent wellbore collapse.
This study also will analyze drilling optimization through casing design, hole cleaning and
hydraulic design, drillstring and bottom hole assembly (BHA) design. Landmark drilling
software is used to design drilling optimization. With a good well design, it is expected that it
can manage drilling on the track based on budget and it can mitigate problems during drilling.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................... x
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Thesis Objective ................................................................................................................. 2
2. BASIC THEORY WELLBORE COLLAPSE FAILURE CRITERIA ............................................................ 3
2.1 Rock Mechanical Properties ............................................................................................... 3
2.1.1. Stress ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2. Strain.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.3. Young’s Modulus ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1.4. Poisson Ratio .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.5. Angle of Internal Friction ............................................................................................ 6
2.1.6. Cohesive Strength ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1.7. Unconfined Compressive Strength, UCS...................................................................... 8
2.2 Insitu Stress........................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1. Vertical Stress........................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2. Minimum Horizontal Stress ...................................................................................... 10
2.2.3. Maximum Horizontal Stress ...................................................................................... 13
2.3 Stresses Orientation in Three Dimension .......................................................................... 14
2.4 Stress At Borehole Wall .................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1. Radial Stress ............................................................................................................. 16

2.4.2. Axial Stress ............................................................................................................... 17
2.4.3. Tangential Stress ...................................................................................................... 18
2.4.4. Shear Stress .............................................................................................................. 18
iii
2.5 The Geometry of Borehole Shear Failure .......................................................................... 19
2.5.1. Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (SSKO) .................................................................... 19

2.5.2. Shear Failure Wide Breakout (SWBO) ...................................................................... 20
2.5.3. Shear Failure High-Angle Echelon (SHAE) ................................................................. 20
2.5.4. Shear Failure Narrow Breakout (SNBO) .................................................................... 20
2.5.5. Shear Failure Deep Knockout (SDKO) ....................................................................... 21
2.5.6. Shear Failure Low-Angle Echelon (SLAE)................................................................... 21
2.6 The Geometry of Borehole Tensile Failure ........................................................................ 22
2.6.1. Tensile Failure Cylindrical (tcyl) ................................................................................. 23

2.6.2. Tensile Failure Horizontal (thor) ............................................................................... 23
2.6.3. Tensile Failure Vertical (tver) .................................................................................... 23
2.7 Wellbore Stability Monitoring .......................................................................................... 24
2.8 Wellbore Collapse Failure Criteria Model ......................................................................... 26
2.8.1. Mohr - Coulomb ....................................................................................................... 26

2.8.2. Modified Lade .......................................................................................................... 28
2.8.3. Stassi d' Alia.............................................................................................................. 29
3. BASIC THEORY WELL OPTIMIZATION ........................................................................................ 30
3.1 Wellbore Stability............................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1. Pore Pressure ........................................................................................................... 32

3.1.2. Fracture Pressure ..................................................................................................... 34
3.1.3. Collapse Pressure ..................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Casing Design ................................................................................................................... 39
3.3 Hole Cleaning and Hydraulic Design ................................................................................. 43
4. CASE STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 48
4.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 48
4.2 Pore Pressure Calculation................................................................................................. 50
4.3 Fracture Pressure Calculation ........................................................................................... 60
4.4 Rock Mechanic and Insitu Stress Calculation .................................................................... 64
4.5 Insitu Stress Calculation ................................................................................................... 65
4.6 Wellbore Collapse Calculation .......................................................................................... 69
iv
4.6.1. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Mohr Coulomb.................................... 69
4.6.2. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Modified Lade ..................................... 71
4.6.3. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Stassi D' Alia........................................ 73
4.7 Sensitivity Analysis in Wellbore Collapse Pressure ............................................................ 75
4.7.1. Sensitivity Analysis toward Inclination ...................................................................... 76

4.7.2. Sensitivity Analysis toward UCS ................................................................................ 76
4.7.3. Sensitivity Analysis in Relaxed Basin toward Horizontal Stresses ............................... 77
4.7.4. Sensitivity Analysis in Tectonically Basin toward Horizontal Stresses ......................... 78
4.8 Casing Design ................................................................................................................... 79
4.8.1. Casing Design Surface Casing 20" .............................................................................. 80

4.8.2. Casing Design Intermediate Casing 13-3/8" .............................................................. 82
4.8.3. Casing Design Intermediate Casing 9-5/8" ................................................................ 85
4.8.4. Casing Design Liner 7" .............................................................................................. 88
4.9 Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design ........................................................................... 90
4.9.1. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design in Hole Section 17-1/2" ............................... 91
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 106
5.1 Wellbore Failure Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................... 106
5.2 Wellbore Stability........................................................................................................... 107
5.3 Casing Design ................................................................................................................. 110
5.3.1. Discussion in Surface Casing 20" ............................................................................. 110

5.3.2. Discussion in Intermediate Casing 13-3/8" .............................................................. 111
5.3.3. Discussion in Intermediate Casing 9-5/8" ................................................................ 112
5.3.4. Discussion in Liner Casing 7" ................................................................................... 113
5.4 Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design ......................................................................... 114
5.4.1. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design Discussion in Hole section 17-1/2" ............ 114
5.4.2. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design Discussion in Hole section 12-1/4" ............ 117
5.4.3. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design Discussion in Hole section 8-1/2" .............. 119
6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 121
7. FUTURE WORK....................................................................................................................... 122
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 123
v
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 124
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 127
A. Wellpath T-2 Using Calculation Method: Minimum Curvature ............................................ 127
B.1 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 17-1/2" ........................................................ 130
B.2 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 12-1/4" ........................................................ 131
B.3 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 8-1/2" .......................................................... 132
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Stresses acting on the cube (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011) .......................................................... 3
Figure 2 Typical stress-strain behavior of a material (Amoco, 2010) ................................................... 4
Figure 3 Stress-strain diagram showing linear elastic deformation (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011) ............. 5
Figure 4 Core test laboratory (Amoco, 2010) ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 Cohesion and internal friction data for a variety rocks (Carmichael, 1982) ............................ 7
Figure 6 Stress Vs Deformation in Uniaxial Compression test (Zoback, 2010) ...................................... 8
Figure 7 Fault Classifications (SPE 99644) .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 8 Overburden Stress(Amoco, 2010) ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 9 Extended Leaks off Test (After Gaarenstroom et al., 1993) ................................................. 11
Figure 10 ISIP Determination (Zoback, 2010).................................................................................... 12
Figure 11 Closure Pressure Determinations (Zoback, 2010) .............................................................. 12
Figure 12 SHmax Orientations and Breakout (Baker, 2012) ............................................................... 13
Figure 13 SHmax magnitudes from breakout width (Zoback, 2010) ..................................................... 14
Figure 14 Deviated Boreholes in an Anisotropic Stress Field (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011) ..................... 15
Figure 15 Stress Distributions around Borehole Wall (Amoco,2010) ................................................. 16
Figure 16 Variations of Wellbore Stresses Away from the Wellbore Wall (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 17 Stress Acting on the borehole wall (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011) ............................................ 17
Figure 18 Radial Stress Resisting Shear Stress (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .................................... 18
Figure 19 Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ......................................... 19
Figure 20 Shear Failure Wide Breakout (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .............................................. 20
Figure 21 Shear Failure High-Angle Echelon (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ....................................... 20
Figure 22 Shear Failure Narrow Breakout (Sugar Land Learning Centre)........................................... 21
Figure 23 Shear Failure Deep Knockout (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .............................................. 21
Figure 24 Shear Failure Low-Angle Echelon (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ........................................ 22
Figure 25 Extended Leaks off Test (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ...................................................... 22
Figure 26 Tensile Failures Cylindrical (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .................................................. 23
Figure 27 Tensile Failure Horizontal (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ................................................... 23
Figure 28 Tensile Failure Vertical (Sugar Land Learning Centre)........................................................ 24
Figure 29 Tabular Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .................................................................. 25
Figure 30 Angular Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ................................................................. 25
Figure 31 Splintered Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre) .............................................................. 26
Figure 32 Three Principal Stresses and the Mohr Circles (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ..................... 27
Figure 33 Mohr- Coulomb Shear Failure Criterions (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ............................. 27
Figure 34 Modified Lade Criterion (SPE 56862) ................................................................................. 29
Figure 35 Maintaining Balance in Wellbore Stability (Amoco, 2010) ................................................. 30
Figure 36 Design Safe Mud Weight Window (Sugar Land Learning Centre) ...................................... 31
Figure 37 Normal Formation Pressure (Amoco, 2010) ...................................................................... 32
Figure 38 Abnormal Formation Pressure (Amoco, 2010)................................................................... 32
vii
Figure 39 Interval Velocity (www.xsgeo.com) .................................................................................. 33
Figure 40 Figure 3.5 Leak Off Test (Zoback, 2010) ............................................................................ 34
Figure 41 Wellbore Failure (Amoco, 2010) ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 42 Collapse Pressure Determination ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 43 Cutting Bed in Directional Well (Lecture Note, Mesfin)...................................................... 44
Figure 44 Output from Cutting Transport and Hydraulic System Calculation..................................... 47
Figure 45 Interval Velocity Model from X Field ................................................................................. 48
Figure 46 Lithology of X Field ........................................................................................................... 49
Figure 47 Vertical Section Well T-2................................................................................................... 49
Figure 48 Plot DT Vs. RHOB from Well T-1 ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 49 Density Profile Well T-1 .................................................................................................... 51
Figure 50 Overburden Pressure Profile Well T-1 ............................................................................... 52
Figure 51 Vint and Vnct Profile Well T-1 ........................................................................................... 53
Figure 52 Plot Log VES Vs Log Vint ................................................................................................... 54
Figure 53 Pore Pressure Profile Well T-1........................................................................................... 55
Figure 54 Vint and Vnct Profile Well T-2 ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 55 Density Profile Well T-2 .................................................................................................... 57
Figure 56 Overburden Pressure Profile Well T-2 ............................................................................... 58
Figure 57 Pore Pressure Profile Well T-2........................................................................................... 59
Figure 58 Shear Velocity from Data LOT Well T-1 ............................................................................. 60
Figure 59 Poisson Ratio Well T-1 ...................................................................................................... 61
Figure 60 Fracture Pressure Profile Well T-1 ..................................................................................... 62
Figure 61 Fracture Pressure Profile Well T-2 ..................................................................................... 63
Figure 62 Gamma Ray Log from Well T-1 ......................................................................................... 64
Figure 63 Estimation Rock Mechanics Properties Well T-2 ................................................................ 65
Figure 64 Insitu Stress Well T-1 ........................................................................................................ 66
Figure 65 Corrected Insitu Stress Well T-1 ........................................................................................ 67
Figure 66 Insitu Stress Well T-2 ........................................................................................................ 68
Figure 67 Mohr-Coulomb Collapse Pressure Well T-1 ....................................................................... 70
Figure 68 Mohr-Coulomb Collapse Pressure Well T-2 ....................................................................... 71
Figure 69 Modified Lade Collapse Pressure Well T-1......................................................................... 72
Figure 70 Modified Lade Collapse Pressure Well T-2......................................................................... 73
Figure 71 Stassi d' Alia Collapse Pressure Well T-1 ........................................................................... 74
Figure 72 Stassi D' Alia Collapse Pressure Well T-2 ........................................................................... 75
Figure 73 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward Inclination ........................................................... 76
Figure 74 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward UCS ..................................................................... 76
Figure 75 Sensitivity Analisis toward SH in Relaxed Basin .................................................................. 77
Figure 76 Sensitivity Analisis toward Sh in Relaxed Basin .................................................................. 77
Figure 77 Sensitivity Analisis toward Sh in Relaxed Basin .................................................................. 78
Figure 78 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward Horizontal Stresses .............................................. 79
Figure 79 Well Schematic................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 80 Burst Profile Surface Casing 20"........................................................................................ 81
Figure 81 Collapse Profile Surface Casing 20" ................................................................................... 81
Figure 82 Axial Profile Surface Casing 20" ........................................................................................ 82
Figure 83 Burst Profile Casing 13-3/8" ............................................................................................. 83
viii
Figure 84 Collapse Profile Casing 13-3/8"......................................................................................... 84
Figure 85 Axial Profile Casing 13-3/8" .............................................................................................. 85
Figure 86 Burst Profile Casing 9-5/8" ............................................................................................... 86
Figure 87 Collapse Profile Casing 9-5/8" .......................................................................................... 86
Figure 88 Axial Profile Casing 9-5/8" ................................................................................................ 87
Figure 89 Burst Profile Liner Casing 7" ............................................................................................. 88
Figure 90 Collapse Profile Liner 7" ................................................................................................. 89
Figure 91 Axial Profile Liner 7" ......................................................................................................... 90
Figure 92 Wellbore Schematic Hole Section 17-1/2" ......................................................................... 92
Figure 93 Minimum Flowrate Hole Section 17-1/2" .......................................................................... 93
Figure 94 Component Pressure Losses Hole Section 17-1/2" ............................................................. 94
Figure 95 Hydraulic Horse Power Calculation for Hole Section 17-1/2" ............................................. 95
Figure 96 Jet Impact Force Calculation for Hole Section 17-1/2" ....................................................... 95
Figure 97 Wellbore Schematic Hole Section 12-1/4" ......................................................................... 97
Figure 98 Minimum Flowrate Hole Section 12-1/4" .......................................................................... 98
Figure 99 Component Pressure Losses Hole Section 12-1/4" ............................................................. 99
Figure 100 Hydraulic Horse Power Calculation for Hole Section 12-1/4" ........................................... 99
Figure 101 Jet Impact Force Calculation for Hole Section 12-1/4" ................................................... 100
Figure 102 Wellbore Schematic Hole Section 8-1/2" ....................................................................... 102
Figure 103 Minimum Flowrate Hole Section 8-1/2" ........................................................................ 103
Figure 104 Component Pressure Losses Hole Section 8-1/2" ........................................................... 104
Figure 105 Hydraulic Horse Power Calculation for Hole Section 8-1/2" ........................................... 105
Figure 106 Jet Impact Force Calculation for Hole Section 8-1/2" ..................................................... 105
Figure 107 Summary in Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................... 107
Figure 108 Wellbore Stability Design Well T-2 in Psi ....................................................................... 108
Figure 109 Wellbore Stability Design Well T-2 in EMW ................................................................... 109
Figure 110 Triaxial and Design Factor Surface Casing 20" .............................................................. 111
Figure 111 Triaxial and Design Factor Casing 13-3/8" .................................................................... 112
Figure 112 Triaxial and Design Factor Casing 9-5/8" ...................................................................... 113
Figure 113 Triaxial and Design Factor Liner 7" ............................................................................... 114
Figure 114 ECD for Hole Section 17-1/2" ........................................................................................ 116
Figure 115 ECD for Hole Section 12-1/4" ........................................................................................ 118
Figure 116 ECD for Hole Section 8-1/2" .......................................................................................... 120
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Exponential (N) Properties Well T-1 ..................................................................................... 53

Table 2 PVT Analysis Data................................................................................................................ 54
Table 3 Synthetic Shear Velocity (Vs) from LOT ................................................................................ 60
Table 4 Input Data Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................. 75
Table 5 Input Data Sensitivity Analysis in Tectonically Basin ............................................................. 78
Table 6 Design Factor ...................................................................................................................... 80
Table 7 Cementing Data for Surface Casing 20" ............................................................................... 80
Table 8 Cementing Data for Casing 13-3/8" ..................................................................................... 82
Table 9 Cementing Data for Surface Casing 9-5/8"........................................................................... 85
Table 10 Cementing Data for Liner 7" .............................................................................................. 88
Table 11 Mud Pump Specification .................................................................................................... 90
Table 12 Hole Section 17-1/2" Data ................................................................................................. 91
Table 13 Drillstring Data for Hole Section 17-1/2" .......................................................................... 91
Table 14 Input Parameter for Cutting Transport Hole Section 17-1/2"............................................. 92
Table 16 Drillstring Data for Hole Section 12-1/4" .......................................................................... 96
Table 17 Input Parameter for Cutting Transport Hole Section 12-1/4"............................................. 97
Table 19 Drillstring Data for Hole Section 8-1/2" ............................................................................ 101
Table 20 Input Parameter for Cutting Transport Hole Section 8-1/2" .............................................. 102
Table 21 Casing Setting Depth Well T-2.......................................................................................... 110
Table 22 Casing 13-3/8" Configuration .......................................................................................... 111
Table 23 Casing 13-3/8" Configuration .......................................................................................... 112
Table 24 Hydraulic Optimization Result in Hole Section 17-1/2" ..................................................... 115
Table 25 Bit Nozzle Optimization for Hole Section 17-1/2" ............................................................. 115
Table 26 String Analysis for Hole Section 17-1/2" ........................................................................... 116
Table 28 Bit Nozzle Optimization for Hole Section 12-1/4" ............................................................. 117
Table 29 String Analysis for Hole Section 12-1/4" ........................................................................... 118
Table 31 Bit Nozzle Optimization for Hole Section 8-1/2" ............................................................... 119
Table 32 String Analysis for Hole Section 8-1/2" ............................................................................ 120
x
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Wellbore instability is one of serious problems during drilling in oil and gas company. Based
on Bernt S. Aadnøy (Aadnøy, 2003), the overall drilling cost is increase by 10 % due to
wellbore instability problems. Two kinds of wellbore instability problems are wellbore
collapse and fracture. Wellbore collapse is happen when mud weight in the wellbore does not
enough to support external pressure from formation (collapse pressure) so that wellbore under
compression. On the other hand, wellbore fracture is happen when mud weight is larger than
fracture pressure so that wellbore in tension condition.
Rock formation remain stable and in equilibrium condition before drilling. After drilling,
there is a disturbance and it change the stability condition. Wellbore stability is dominated by
insitu stress system. When drilling a well, the rock surrounding the wellbore must take the
load that was previously taken by the removed rock. As a result, the insitu stress is change in
the borehole wall. This stress can lead to rock failure. This problem can be avoided by adjust
the mud density so that stress concentration around the borehole wall can be managed to
minimize borehole failure.
In this study will use three models to analyze shear failure criteria, they are Modified Lade,
Stassi d' Alia and Mohr Coulomb. Modified Lade and Stassi d' Alia methods using three
principal stresses where where σ1 ≠ σ2 ≠ σ3. On the other hand, Mohr-Coulomb method using
two principal stresses where σ1 ≠ σ2 = σ3. The value of these stresses (σ) are different with
depth so that in this thesis will analyze the failure criteria with respect to stress anisotrophy
and depth.
In this study, the data are derived from seismic interval velocity, logging data and well data.
These data are used to calculate pore pressure, fracture pressure, rock mechanic properties,
stress distribution and collapse pressure formation. From all of these data, the optimum mud
weight to avoid wellbore failure can be estimated. By generating mud safe window, problems
during drilling related to wellbore instability can be avoided.
Furthermore, data from this wellbore stability can be used as an input to estimate casing
setting depth, casing design, cutting transport and hydraulic system design. Landmark drilling
software like Compass, Stress check, Wellplan are used to analyze casing design, cutting
transport and hydraulic system design. With good planning and design of wellbore, problem
during drilling can be avoided and it can minimize drilling cost.
1
1.2 Thesis Objective
The main objective of this thesis are:
1. Calculate pore pressure and fracture pressure
2. Calculate insitu stresses
3. Calculate rock mechanics Properties
4. Analyze wellbore failure criteria using Mohr-Coulomb, Modified Lade and Stassi d'
Alia.
5. Calculate formation collapse pressure
6. Drilling Optimization using Landmark drilling software to design casing, hole
cleaning & hydraulic systems.
2
2. BASIC THEORY WELLBORE COLLAPSE FAILURE CRITERIA
2.1 Rock Mechanical Properties
2.1.1. Stress
Stress is defined as force acting over an area. The SI unit is Pascal (N/m2) and the field unit is
pound per square inch (psi). Stress is not dependent on the size and shape of a body
but it is dependent on its orientation (Aadnøy and Looyeh, 2011). Mathematically, stress
is defined as below :
(1)
Where
σ = Stress (Pound per square inch, psi)
F = Force (Pound, Lb)
A = Surface Area (Square inch, inch2)
There are two types of stress. Stress that acts perpendicular to the plane, it is called normal
stress (σ) and stress that act parallel to the plane, it is called shear stress (τ). this stress can be
seen in the figure below.
Figure 1 Stresses acting on the cube (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011)
Based on figure above, there are nine components that act on the cube, these are :
Normal stresses : σx, σy, σz
Shear stresses : τxy, τyx, τxz, τzx, τyz, τzy
According to the Newton's second law, all forces acting on the body can cancel each other
when the stress body reamin at rest. There is no translation or rotation force acting on it so
that it can be simplified like this :
τxy = τyx (2)
τxz = τzx (3)
τyz = τzy (4)
3
And the stress tensor becomes :
(5)
The stresses consist of three normal stresses and three shear stresses now. Generally in rock
mechanics, compressive stresses is defined as negative value and tensile stresses as positive
value.
2.1.2. Strain
Strain is the ratio of the change in length per original length due to an applied load. Strain is
determined by applying load to the body of material and the change in dimension is
measured.
Mathematically,
Ɛ= (6)
Where,
Ɛ = strain
l = new length
lo = original length
In elastic deformation, the rock deforms as stress is applied but it will come to the original
shape when stress is relieved. In elastic deformation, the strain is proportional to the stress
(Hooke's Law). The plastic deformation is formed when applied stress reaches the elastic
limit. In plastic deformation, the rock only partially returns to its original shape when stress is
relieved. If more stress is applied, the fractures will be formed and the rock become fails
(ultimate failure). Rock become fail in brittle condition in low confining stress and it will
become in ductile condition in higher confining stress. The Ultimate tensile strength is the
maximum load where the material can be exposed to before it fails. The yield point is the
stress at transition zone between elastic and plastic zone.
Figure 2 Typical stress-strain behavior of a material (Amoco, 2010)
4
2.1.3. Young’s Modulus
Young’s modulus (E) measure the stiffness of material. Young’s modulus can be applied only
in the elastic region.
Mathematically,
(7)
Young’s modulus also can be calculated from linear slope in relation between stress and
strain as shown in figure below
Figure 3 Stress-strain diagram showing linear elastic deformation (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011)
Young’s modulus (E) also can be calculated from field data using compressional velocity
(Vp), shear velocity (Vs), and bulk density (ρ). Mathematically, Young’s modulus (E) can be
obtained as :
(8)
2.1.4. Poisson Ratio

Poisson ratio is ratio between lateral strains to axial strain. It can be calculated through
laboratory test with this equation:
(9)
Poisson ratio also can be determined using log data with this equation :
(10)
Where
Vp = compressional waves
5
Vs = shear waves
2.1.5. Angle of Internal Friction

PoissonThe angle of internal friction is defined as “a measure of the ability of a unit of rock
or soil to withstand a shear stress. It is the angle (ϕ), measured between normal force (N) and
resultant force (R), that is attained when failure just occurs in response to a shearing stress
( ). Its tangent ( /N) is the coefficient of sliding friction. Its value is determined
experimentally” (Allaby and Allaby, 1999a). This angle of internal friction is used to
calculate coefficient of friction ( ) with this equation:
= tan ϕ (11)
The angle of internal friction (ϕ) are obtained from conducting laboratory tests on core
samples or from logging data. There are many empirical equations to calculate internal
friction of angle. These are some empirical equation to calculate angle of internal friction:
1. Chang and Zoback, 2003

(12)
ϕ
ϕ is in degrees and Vp is in km/sec
2. Manohar Lal correlation (Lal et al., 1999)

(13)
ϕ

3. Horsruds correlation (Horsrud et al., 2001)
(14)
2.1.6. Cohesive Strength

Cohesive strength (So) is the bond strength between the grains in the rock. The frictional
resistance between the grains is the product of the coefficient friction ( ) and the effective
compressive stress (σ). If the shear stress greater than cohesive strength and the frictional
resistance between the grains ( σ) so the rock will fail.
Shear Stress = Cohesive strength + Frictional Resistance

(15)
6
Several core tests in laboratory are needed to determine the failure envelope. The higher the
confining pressure, the greater compressive stress is needed to fail the rock. This figure below
expresses how to get cohesive strength and the angle of internal friction from core test in
laboratory.
Figure 4 Core test laboratory (Amoco, 2010)
Generally, weak rock with low cohesive strength have relatively high angle of internal
friction and higher young's modulus. The relationship of this paramater can be seen in the
figure below.
Figure 5 Cohesion and internal friction data for a variety rocks (Carmichael, 1982)
Cohesion (S0) is not a physically measureable parameter. This parameter can be determined
using correlation between coefficient of internal friction ( ) and unconfined compressive
strength (C0).
(16)
7
2.1.7. Unconfined Compressive Strength, UCS
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) is defined as “The strength of a rock or soil
sample when crushed in one direction (uniaxial) without lateral restraint” (Allaby and Allaby,
1999b). Mathematically, it can be written with this equation :
UCS = C0 = 2S0 tan β. (17)
where
β = the orientation of failure plane (Fjaer et al., 2008)
Figure 6 Stress Vs Deformation in Uniaxial Compression test (Zoback, 2010)
Unconfined compressive strength also can be determined using log data. UCS can be
estimated using some correlation or equation based on types of lithologies. Some of the
correlation that are used in this thesis are :
1. Horsrud, 2001 create an equation to calculate UCS for mosltly high porosity,
tertiary shales using sonic log
(18)
2. Mc Nally, 1987 derive an empirical relationship in sandstone for fine grained,

both consolidated and unconsolidated sandstone with wide porosity range
(19)
3. Militzer, 1973 derive an empirical relationship to calculate UCS for limestone

using sonic log
(20)
Unit used for above calculation : UCS in MPa, Δt in (µs/ft)
8
2.2 Insitu Stress
The insitu stress, it is also called as far field stress is stress of rock formation in its original ,
relaxed and undisturbed position, before drilling a well. generally this stress under
compression in nature due to the weight of the overburden. The earth stress are related to a
number of some parameter including :
 Tectonic setting
 Depth
 Pore pressure
 Lithology
 Temperature
 Structure
The relationship between stress and some parameters above is complicated due to local
geographical differences between basins and interdependence of the above parameters.
However, it can be simplified like this :
a. Intrabasin stress variations are correlated with lithology and pore pressure
b. Interbasin stress variations are correlated with tectonic setting and diagenesis
(consolidation and cementation).
Insitu stress consist of vertical stress, minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal
stress. Based on insitu stress magnitudes and tectonic setting, Anderson (1951) classified into
three categories :
a. Normal fault regime, the vertical stress (σv) is the maximum principal stress (σ1).
σv > σ H > σh
b. Thrust (reverse) fault regime, the horizontal stress (σ H) is the maximum principal
stress (σ1).
σH > σ h > σ v
c. Slip fault regime, the horizontal stress (σH) is the maximum principal stress (σ1).
σH > σ v > σ h
Figure 7 Fault Classifications (SPE 99644)
9
2.2.1. Vertical Stress
Vertical stress also called as overburden stress. Overburden stress is stress that caused by
overlaying of weight from rock matrix and fluid above that depth. Factors that influence the
over-burden stress are porosity, fluid density and rock density. Overburden stress can be
calculated with this equation :
(21)
Where
σv = Overburden stress
ρsediment = Density of sediment
Δz = Depth
Figure 8 Overburden Stress(Amoco, 2010)
Most formation are formed from sedimentation or compaction. Density of the formation may
vary from the earth's surface to the certain depth. Generally with increasing the depth, the
rock is compacted and the density trend is increase.
Overburden stress can be calculated using data from density log. If the density log data is
missing, the overburden stress can be estimated using Eaton's variable density curve or Wylie
time average equation using sonic travel time, bulk density and porosity. Typically the
overburden stress is 1 psi/ft.
2.2.2. Minimum Horizontal Stress

As the overburden squeezes the vertically, this stress also will push the sediment in horizontal
direction and by constrain from the surrounding rock can create horizontal stress. In
relaxaxed formation, two horizontal stress are same (σ h = σH). But in the salt domes area or in
the tectonic areas, minimum horizontal stress is not same with maximum horizontal stress (σ h
≠ σH).
10
Generally minimum horizontal stress normally determined from extended leak off test
(XLOT). Minimum horizontal stress also can be estimated from other data like leak off test,
minifrac, lost circulation and balooning.
Figure 9 Extended Leaks off Test (After Gaarenstroom et al., 1993)
From figure above, leak off point (LOP) is identic with fracture pressure. During extended
leak off test, mud is pumped to the wellbore with low flowrate, for example 1 barrel per
minute (1 BPM) and pressure is plotted versus cumulative volume. Pressure where there is a
distinct departure from a linier increase with increasing cumulative volume is called leak off
point. Formation break-down pressure (FBP) is a peak formation where it form fracture
propagation. At formation break-down pressure, fluid will flow faster from wellbore to
formation than pump rate and pressure become drops. If pumping continues at constant pump
rate, pressure will drop to relatively contant value and it is called fracture propagation
pressure (FPP). The Instantaneous shut in pressure (ISIP) is determined from deviation in the
rate of rapid pressure decrease to a more gradual decay on the linear plot of pressure as a
function of time.
11
Figure 10 ISIP Determination (Zoback, 2010)
Whereas fracture closure pressure (FCP) is determined from deviation from the deviation
from the linearity surface pressure versus t 0.5 as shown by figure below.
Figure 11 Closure Pressure Determinations (Zoback, 2010)
The minimum horizontal stress (Sh) is the first point after permanent decrease after ISIP in
the slope and this value usually equal to or less than LOP. But in some case the the value of
leak off pressure (LOP), fracture propagation pressure (FPP), and instantaneous shut in
pressure (ISIP) approximately are same and can be used to determine the magnitude of
minimum horizontal stress.
Minimum horizontal stress also can be estimated using empirical method by Zoback and
Healy (1984) in normal faulting area:
(22)
12
2.2.3. Maximum Horizontal Stress
Maximum horizontal stress can be seen in salt formation, in active tectonic area or in active
geological structure. In north sea, the tectonic activity or geological structure is not too active
so that the magnitude of maximum horizontal stress is almost same or not too far with
magnitude minimum horizontal stress. The orientation of maximum horizontal stress can be
determined from breakout using image log. The orientation of maximum horizontal stress is
perpendicular with breakout. Breakout is happen when the stress concentration around the
wellbore exceeds the rock strength. Breakout is happen in the direction of minimum
horizontal stress. Whereas tensile failure or fractue is happen in the dirention of maximum
horizontal stress.
Figure 12 SHmax Orientations and Breakout (Baker, 2012)
Zoback et al. (1998) proposed a methodology to calculate S Hmax with assumption that the
stess concentration at the edge of a breakout is in equillibrium with the rock strength.
(23)
This figure below will explain how to determine θb
13
Figure 13 SHmax magnitudes from breakout width (Zoback, 2010)
The magnitude of maximum horizontal stress also can be determined using frictional faulting
theory in strike-slip and reverse faulting stress states using this equation :
- In strike-slip faulting
SHmax ≤ hmin - Pp )[( 2 + 1)0.5 + ]2 + Pp (24)
- In reverse faulting
SHmax ≤ (Sv - Pp )[( 2 + 1)0.5 + ]2 + Pp (25)
2.3 Stresses Orientation in Three Dimension

Many wells in development field are drilled using deviated well or horizontal well to exploit
hydrocarbon and to get big drainage radius. In deviated well, these stresses orientation must
be transformed into a new coordinate system x, y and z. The well have direction and
orientation with inclination (γ) from vertical and azimuth (φ) so the stress orientation can be
transformed using this equation:
H cos φ h sin φ
2γ
v sin γ
2 2 2 (26)
x
y H sin2φ h cos2 φ (27)

z H cos2φ h sin2 φ 2γ
v cos
2 γ (28)
yz = h - H φ γ (29)
τxz = (σH cos2φ + σh sin2 φ - σv) sin2γ (30)
τxy = (σh - σH) sin(2φ) cos γ (31)
14
Figure 14 Deviated Boreholes in an Anisotropic Stress Field (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011)
A brief explanation from figure above:

- x' is parallel with σH
- y' is parallel with σh
- z' is parallel with σv
- x is parallel to the low side of the hole
- y is perpendicular to x (and perpendicular to the axis of the borehole)
- z is parallel to the axis of the borehole
2.4 Stress At Borehole Wall

Before drilling a well, rock stress is described by the insitu stresses. But after drilled a well,
stress distribution around wellbore are change. The support which provided by rock is
removed and replaced by hydrostatic pressure. Stress around the wellbore are described as
radial stress, hoop (tangential) stress and axial stress. There are additional shear stress
components that called as σrθ, σrz, σθz. These stress are perpendicular to each other.
15
Figure 15 Stress Distributions around Borehole Wall (Amoco,2010)
Density of mud also determine the magnitude of stress distribution around the wellbore wall.
Low mud density can cause tangential stress (θt) in the wellbore wall become high and high
density mud can cause radial stress (θr) around the wellbore wall become higher.
Figure 16 Variations of Wellbore Stresses Away from the Wellbore Wall (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.4.1. Radial Stress

Radial stress is a stress that acting along the radius of the wellbore. Radial stress can be
calculated using Kirsch equation with assumption that rock remain linear elastic and the
wellbore fluid pressure (Pw) does not penetrate the rock, it means that there is a mud cake in
the borehole wall.
(32)
where
a = radius of the hole
r = position radially outwards from the center
16
θ = angle between a point on the circumference of the wellbore and the direction
of maximum horizontal stress
v = poisson's ratio
These notation can be explain with the figure below :
Figure 17 Stress Acting on the borehole wall (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011)
At the borehole wall (r=a), the equation can be simplified to :

σr = P w (33)
At the far distance from the borehole wall ( r→ ∞ and →0), the radial stress can be
simplified to :
σr = (σH + σh) + (σH - σh) cos 2θ (34)
This stress show that the wellbore stress diminish rapidly from the borehole wall converting
to far field stress. This is make sense because at large distance from the wellbore, the rock is
in an unperturbed condition.
For example
at θ = 0 (cos 2θ = 1) And then σr = σH
at θ = 900 And then σr = σh
2.4.2. Axial Stress

Axial stress is a stress that acting parallel to the well path. Axial stress can be calculated
using Kirsch equation.
(35)
At the borehole wall (r=a), the equation can be simplified to:

σa = σv - 2(σH - σh) cos2θ (36)
At the far distance from the borehole wall ( r→ ∞ and →0), the axial stress can be simplified
to :
σa = σ v (37)
17
For example
at θ = 0 (cos 2θ = 1) And then σa = σv
at θ = 900 And then σa = σv
2.4.3. Tangential Stress

Tangential (hoop) stress is a stress that acting around the circumference of the wellbore.
Tangential stress can be calculated using Kirsch equation.
(38)
At the borehole wall (r=a), the equation can be simplified to:

σθ = (σH + σh) - 2(σH - σh) cos2θ - Pw (39)
At the far distance from the borehole wall ( r→ ∞ and →0), the radial stress can be
simplified to:
σθ = (σH + σh) - (σH - σh) cos 2θ (40)
For example
at θ = 0 (cos 2θ = 1) And then σθ = σh
at θ = 900 And then σθ = σH
2.4.4. Shear Stress

Generally the stresses are comressive and create shear stress within the rock. If these stress
are equal so the rock will be stable. For example radial stress is resisting shear caused by the
hoop stress.
Figure 18 Radial Stress Resisting Shear Stress (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
Mathematically, shear stress can be calculated using Kirsch equation as below :
18
(41)
(42)
(43)
Shear stress at borehole wall (r=a), the above equation can be simplified as below :
(44)
(45)
2.5 The Geometry of Borehole Shear Failure

The geometry of borehole shear failure can be categorized into 6 based on the magnitude of
axial stress (σa), radial stress (σr) and tangential stress (σθ):
a. Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (ssko) where σa > σθ > σr
b. Shear Failure Wide Breakout (swbo) where σθ > σa > σr
c. Shear Failure High-Angle Echelon (shae) where σa > σr > σθ
d. Shear Failure Narrow Breakout (snbo) where σr > σa > σθ
e. Shear Failure Deep Knockout (sdko) where σr > σθ > σa
f. Shear Failure Low-Angle Echelon (slae) where σθ > σr > σa
2.5.1. Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (SSKO)

This shear failure criteria is happen when σa > σθ > σr . The failure will occure in the radial /
axial plane because the maximum (σa) and minimum (σr) stresses are oriented in this plane (a
vertical plane). The orientation of shear failure shallow knockout (ssko) failure can be
encountered in the direction of minimum horizontal stress (σh). In image log, ssko can be
seen ass dark vertical feature with narrow width (around 200).
Figure 19 Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
19
2.5.2. Shear Failure Wide Breakout (SWBO)
This shear failure criteria is happen when σθ > σa > σr . This mode of failure occur in the
radial / tangential plane. It also called as breakout because the failure covers a large arc, from
30o to 90o. The orientation of swbo failure is in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. In
image log, it can be seen as dark vertical features with wide width ( around 30o to 90o).
Figure 20 Shear Failure Wide Breakout (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.5.3. Shear Failure High-Angle Echelon (SHAE)

This shear failure criteria is happen when σa > σr > σθ . This failure occur in axial / tangential
arc. Shae form high-angle fractures that cover up to a quarter of the borehole circumference.
The orientation of shae can be determined when σa is maximum with θ = 90o and σt is
minimum with θ= 45 o or originate at σH and extending away at angle. In image Log, it
appears as dark feature inclined at high angle (>50o).
Figure 21 Shear Failure High-Angle Echelon (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.5.4. Shear Failure Narrow Breakout (SNBO)

This shear failure criteria is happen when σr > σa > σθ. This failure occur in radial / tangential
plane. Snbo also called as breakout and it is generally narrow because the failure covers an
20
arc about less than 30o. The orientation of snbo is in the direction of maximum horizontal
stress (σH). In Image log, it appears as dark vertical feature with narrow width (around 20 o).
Figure 22 Shear Failure Narrow Breakout (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.5.5. Shear Failure Deep Knockout (SDKO)

This shear failure criteria is happen when σr > σθ > σa. Sdko occur in the radial / axial plane.
The orientation of sdko is in the direction of maximum horizontal stress (σH). In Image log, it
appears as dark vertical feature with narrow width (around 20o).
Figure 23 Shear Failure Deep Knockout (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.5.6. Shear Failure Low-Angle Echelon (SLAE)

This shear failure criteria is happen when σθ > σr > σa. Slae occur in the axial / tangential
plane. This failure forms low-angle fractures. The orientation of slae is determined when σ t is
maximum with θ = 90 o and σa is minimum with θ = 0 o. This is the reason why the high -
angle echelon failures are spread over a larger circumferential area than knockouts or
21
breakouts. The orientation of this failure is in the sirection of minimum horizontal stress (σ h)
and it extend away at low angle.
Figure 24 Shear Failure Low-Angle Echelon (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.6 The Geometry of Borehole Tensile Failure

Tensile failure will occur when tensile stress are applied in the formation and consequently
grains will be pulled apart in the direction of the tensile stress. Because formation fails under
tension, crack will appear perpendicular to the tensile stress. Tensile strength of formation
can be estimated from extended leak off test (XLOT). Usually, tensile strength of formation
(T0) less than 10% of the unconfined compressive strength (C0).
Figure 25 Extended Leaks off Test (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
There are 3 types of tensile failure geometry when tensile stress exceed the tensile strength of
formation (T0) :
22
a. Tensile failure cylindrical (tcyl) when σr ≤ - T0
b. Tensile failure horizontal (thor) when σa ≤ - T0
c. Tensile failure vertical (tver) when σθ ≤ - T0
2.6.1. Tensile Failure Cylindrical (tcyl)

This failure occure when radial stress lower than the negative of tensile strength formation (σ r
≤ - T0). Tcyl is concentric with borehole wall and it does not appear in image log.
Figure 26 Tensile Failures Cylindrical (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.6.2. Tensile Failure Horizontal (thor)

This failure occure when axial stress lower than the negative of tensile strength formation (σa
≤ - T0). In image log, this failure can be seen as a thin black horizontal line throughout all
azimuthal orientations.
Figure 27 Tensile Failure Horizontal (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.6.3. Tensile Failure Vertical (tver)

This failure occure when tangential stress lower than the negative of tensile strength
formation (σθ ≤ - T0). The orientation of tver is in the direction of maximum horizontal stress
(σH). In image log, this tensile failure appears as dark vertical feature with very width (more
than 20o).
23
Figure 28 Tensile Failure Vertical (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.7 Wellbore Stability Monitoring

The openhole wellbore must be kept in good condition so it can allow drilling and casing can
be run. Monitoring in wellbore stability is very important. During drilling, design wellbore
stability can be compared with the real time drilling data and can be updated and analyzed to
avoid drilling problems during drilling. This monitoring data from real time data can be used
as lesson learn to design the next well.
In wellbore stability monitoring can use some of drilling data parameters. These are some of
drilling data parameters to control wellbore stability :
a. Surface signature :
 Caving analysis - Wellbore failure
 Cutting volume - Hole cleaning
 Pit volume - Mud gains (overpressured zone), mud losses
 Surface drilling parameters
b. MWD Data :
 Downhole drilling parameters
 DWOB, DTORQ - Friction / drag
 ECD behaviour - Hole cleaning, pack off
c. LWD Data :
 Gamma ray, resistivity - To identify zone of potential instability
 Sonic - Pore pressure prediction
 Caliper measurements - if pattern is forming in some intervals
The easy ways to observe wellbore stability is by caving analysis. There are three types of
caving :
a. Tabular caving
Tabular caving happen in natural fractures or weak planes. It is caused by wellbore
pressure exceeds the minimum horizontal stress, resulting in mud invasion of fracture
network around the wellbore. This caving can be characterized by its form like flat,
parallel, faces caving.
24
Figure 29 Tabular Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
b. Angular cavings
These caving are formed as the consequence of breakout. Angular caving can be
characterized by curved faces with a rough surface structure.
Figure 30 Angular Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
c. Splintered cavings
These caving have form as two nearly-parallel faces with plume structures. Its happen
due to tensile failure (tcyl) and occure parallel to borehole wall. Splintered caving
normally happen in over pressure formation and with wellbore pressure a slightly or
almost same with pore pressure.
25
Figure 31 Splintered Cavings (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
2.8 Wellbore Collapse Failure Criteria Model

Failure criteria on the material depend on the type of material (brittle or ductile). If the
material is ductile, the stresses are compared to the yield strength since the permanent
deformation can cause failure. And if material is brittle, this material does not have yield
point so the stresses are compared to the ultimate strength of the material. This rule is
applicable to almost for all materials, but you will find an exception (Aadnøy and Looyeh,
2011).
Rock failure happens when stress exceeds the formation strength of rock . The failure criteria
are different in the different lithologies. Sandstone will fail in shear, while a claystone may
fail due to plastic deformation. Aadnøy and Looyeh (2011) highlighted some of the
mechanisms which can affect the wellbore stability and eventually lead to rock formation
failure as follows:
 Rock formation part due to Tensile failure
 Shear failure without appreciable plastic deformation
 Plastic deformation that may result to pore collapse
 Erosion or cohesive failure
 Creep failure which may lead to a tight hole situation during drilling
 Pore collapse or complete failure which may occur during production
There are many failure criteria model but in this thesis will presents three failure criteria
models, they are Mohr - Coulomb, Modified Lade and Stassi d' Alia. Each model will be
explained briefly separately.
2.8.1. Mohr - Coulomb

Shear failure occurs when the shear stress along a plane is too large. The Mohr-Coulomb
criterion makes an assumption that shear stress (τ) is a linear function of stress (σ). From this
relationship, Mohr-Coulomb describes a curve (function) that separates a safe region from the
failure region.
26
Figure 32 Three Principal Stresses and the Mohr Circles (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
From the figure above, if σ1 is increased, the circle connecting σ1 and σ3 will expand and
consequently touch the failure curve causing a failure. The value of intermediate principal
stress σ2 does not affect this process. it means that if σ2 is increased up to a maximum value
of σ1 but not exceed σ1 so based on that figure, it does not affect the failure. By these
experiments, Mohr-Coulomb model failure criterion only depends on the minimum principal
stress (σ3) and maximum principal stress (σ1). The failure condition will happen if the
difference between minimum principal stress (σ3) and maximum principal stress (σ1) become
larger (the diameter of the hemisphere is increased).
Based on Coulomb (1773), a rock will undergo failure if the shear stress (τ) has a magnitude
that exceeds the inherent shear strength of the rock (S 0) plus the opposing friction force (µσn).
Mathematically this is can be written as :
τ = S0 + µσn (46)
Figure 33 Mohr- Coulomb Shear Failure Criterions (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
27
In this thesis, Mohr - Coulomb failure criterion model is only used for fundamental
understanding to figure out Modified Lade failure criterion and Stassi d' Alia failure criterion.
2.8.2. Modified Lade

Modified Lade requires requires same parameters for rock strength (cohesion and friction
angle) as Mohr-Coulomb criterion but in this models involves the influence of intermediate
principal stress (σ2). In Modified Lade for rock failure criterion, the three principal stress are
not same (σ1 ≠ σ2 ≠ σ3). This corrective model give a better results in rock failure criteria. The
Lade failure criterion is given by :
(47)
where
I 1 = σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 (48)
and
I3 = (σ1) (σ2) (σ3) (49)
σ1 , σ2 , σ3 are the three principal stresses and Pa is atmospheric pressure. The parameters η1
and m are the material constants.
Ewy (1999) develope modified Lade criterion with set parameter "m" equal to zero. If "m" is
zero so that equation will become linear equation and this relationship can be used to predict
a linier shear strength with mean stress (I1/3). To handle materials with cohesion or non-zero
tensile strength so the stress axes be shifted into the tensile region by a dimensionless
constant multuplied by Pa. For this reason, a shift constant with units of cohesion is more
applicable and this will be defined as S1. Pore pressure also must be substracted in order to
handle effective stress. Performing these changes and defining appropriate stress invariant I 1"
and I3", the equation for modified lade criterion is developed :
(50)
Where
I1" = (σ1 + S1 - p0) + (σ2 + S1 - p0) + (σ3 + S1 - p0) (51)
I3" = (σ1 + S1 - p0) (σ2 + S1 - p0) (σ3 + S1 - p0) (52)

S1 and η are material constant and p0 is pore pressure. The invarians I1" and I3" can also be
computed using the following equation :
I1" = (σx + S1 - p0) + (σy + S1 - p0) + (σz + S1 - p0) (53)
I3" = (σx + S1 - p0) (σy + S1 - p0) (σz + S1 - p0) + 2τxy τyz τzx - (σx + S1 - p0)
(54)
τ2yz - (σy + S1 - p0) τ2zx - (σz + S1 - p0) τ2xy
The parameter S1 is related to the cohesion of the rock and η represents the internal friction.
These parameters are obtained with this equation :
S1 = S0 / tan ϕ (55)
η = 4tan2 ϕ (9 - 7 sin ϕ) / (1 - sin ϕ) (56)

where S0 is cohesion and ϕ is friction angle.
28
Figure 34 Modified Lade Criterion (SPE 56862)
2.8.3. Stassi d' Alia

Stassi d' Alia developed the rock failure criterion based on the tensile strength and uniaxial
compressive strength. This model is mostly used in the north sea to figure out shear failure
criterion. This criterion is expressed as below :
(σ1 - σ3)2 + (σ1 - σ2)2 + (σ2 - σ3)2 = 2 (C0 - T0)( σ1 + σ2 + σ3) + 2C0T0 (57)
where C0 is the uniaxial compressive strength, T0 is the uniaxial tensile strength and σ1, σ2,
σ3 are the three principal stresses. The tensile strength (T0) is commonly set equal to zero to
avoid unexpected and peculiar effect which may happen if the tensile strength is increased.
So the equation above can be simplified as below:
(σ1 - σ3)2 + (σ1 - σ2)2 + (σ2 - σ3)2 = 2C0 (σ1 + σ2 + σ3) (58)
The results of shear failure calculation from this equation is used to design mud weight when
drilling a well.
29
3. BASIC THEORY WELL OPTIMIZATION
3.1 Wellbore Stability

There are two causes where wellbore instability can happen in the wellbore, it can be caused
by mechanical stability or chemical stability. Mechanical stability related to insitu stress and
rock strength of formation whereas chemical stability related to control of drilling fluid/rock
formation, usually most problematic when drilling in shales. This study will learn about
wellbore instability caused by mechanical stability where the impact of chemical stability can
be neglected with the selection of appropriate drilling fluid and this drilling fluid is
compatible with formation without causing problems with formation. For example, using KCl
polymer or oil-based mud as drilling fluid to prevent reactive shale during drilling a wellbore.
Wellbore instability caused by mechanical stability can be obtained by controlling stability
problems. There are many controls in mechanical stability that can provide for a stable
wellbore. Maintaining a balance between rock stress and rock strength is very important to
reach wellbore stability.
Figure 35 Maintaining Balance in Wellbore Stability (Amoco, 2010)
Maintaining a stable wellbore is important during drilling because it can avoid many
problems related to wellbore instability and it can reduce drilling cost. These are some
problems related to wellbore instability :
 Pack offs (formation failure leading to excess of cuttings)
 Excessive trip and reaming time
 Mud losses
 Stuck Pipe and BHAs → Loss of equipment / Fishing / Sidetracks
30
 Inability to land casing, casing collapse
 Poor logging and cementing conditions
These are some ways to design wellbore stability :
 Optimizing mud weight and mud properties
 Minimizing casing strings
 Optimizing wellbore trajectory
 Optimizing surface location
In case of optimizing mud weight, it is very important to design mud weight located in safe
mud weight window to avoid problems from shear failure and tensile failure. This
explanation can be seen in the figure below :
Figure 36 Design Safe Mud Weight Window (Sugar Land Learning Centre)
From figure above, it can be seen that if the mud weight is in the yellow area so shear failure
wide breakout (swbo) can occur and the cavings from the wellbore will fall into the wellbore
leaving a washed out zone (in the direction of σ h). On the other hand, when there are natural
fractures, using mud weight too high and above minimum horizontal stress (σh) can trigger
lost circulation. Furthermore, if mud weight exceed minimum horizontal stress (σh), so it can
trigger shear failure high angle echelon (shae), tensile failure vertical (tver), shear failure
narrow breakout (snbo) and shear failure deep knockout (sdko). Design mud weight with too
low mud weight also can trigger some rock failure problems like shear failure low angle
echelon (slae), shear failure shallow knockout (ssko) and tensile failure cylindrical (tcyl). So
it is very important to determine mud weight window to avoid wellbore instability problems.
31
3.1.1. Pore Pressure
Pore pressure is a pressure caused by the weight of the fluid that fills the cavity of the rock
pores. Pore pressure is also called formation pressure. Pore pressure has psi units in field
units. As long as the increase in overburden pressure does not exceed the rate at which fluid
can escape from the pore so the fluid connection exists from surface to the depth of interest.
this pressure equal to hydrostatic pressure of water (0.465 psi / ft).
Figure 37 Normal Formation Pressure (Amoco, 2010)
If the fluid can not escape the pore so the the fluid will urge in all direction and pore pressure
will increase. In certain circumstances, sometime the value of formation pressure is greater
than the pressure of the fluid that fills the pore cavity, this pressure is called abnormal
pressure. Meanwhile, if the formation pressure is smaller than the hydrostatic pressure of the
fluid that fills the cavity in the rock, it is called subnormal pressure. The magnitude of this
pore pressure which deviate from the normal are caused by the height of hydrocarbons
column in the reservoir rock and because of the sedimentation process too fast.
Figure 38 Abnormal Formation Pressure (Amoco, 2010)
32
Formation pore pressure prediction is a highly specialized process. Seismic data from interval
velocity can be used to predict pore pressure. Interval velocity (VInt) is the velocity in a single
layer and it can be calculated from root mean square velocity (V RMS) where VRMS calculate
the velocity to the bottom of the layer. This is the equation to determine interval velocity
from VRMS :
Vint2 (Zi) = [(Vrms2 (Zi) x Zi – Vrms2(Zi-1) x Zi-1)] / (Zi – Zi-1) (59)
Figure 39 Interval Velocity (www.xsgeo.com)
Interval velocity can be used to detect abnormal pressure or subnormal pressure after. If the
interval velocity is greater than normal compacted trend velocity (V nct) so pore pressure in
this formation can be estimated as subnormal pressure. On the other hand if interval velocity
is less than normal compacted trend velocity (V nct) so pore pressure in this formation can be
estimated as abnormal pressure. Normal compacted trend velocity (V nct) can be determined
from compacted shale as shallow as possible in the the formation. At normal compacted trend
velocity (Vnct), the pore pressure is same with the pressure gradient of water formation (0.465
psi / ft).
This interval velocity is used to predict pore pressure in the formation as function with depth
using Eaton's equation.
(60)
Where :
PP = Pore pressure (psi)
OBP = Overburden pressure (psi)
HP = Hydrostatic pressure (psi)
Vint = Interval velocity (m/s)
Vnct = Normal compacted velocity (m/s)
N = Exponential factor
Overburden pressure is obtained from integral of bulk density from surface to depth of
interest. Hydrostatic pressure can be obtained from formation water density for example 8.4
ppg. Exponential factor (N) can be obtained from plot between Log vertical effective stress
(VES) Vs Log Vint from exploration well. From linier function plot between Log VES Vs
Log Vint , exponential factor (N) can be calculated where N = 1 / slope. From all of these
parameters, pore pressure profile from surface until depth of drilling target can be estimated.
33
While drilling, several MWD / LWD log give real time data to estimate pore pressure. By
using this tools, the pore pressure can be determined precisely.
3.1.2. Fracture Pressure

Fracture pressure is the maximum pressure that can be applied to the formation without
breaking the formation. The magnitude of fracture pressure depends on several parameters
like overburden pressure, pore pressure, and rock strength conditions. In drilling, fracture
pressure can be obtained from leak off test data. This test is applied to determine the strength
of rock formation. Leak off test is done through drill out formation about 10 feet after
installed casing and cemented casing. During the test, the well is shut in and mud is slowly
pumped into the formation with rate 0.25 barrel per minute. The pressure will gradually
increase during pumping mud. A plot between surface pressure vs a number of barrel mud
pumped to the formation will give information about fracture pressure. In leak off test,
fracture pressure is leak off pressure where there is a deviation line from plot surface pressure
vs a number of barrel mud pumped to the formation.
(61)
where :
FP : Fracture presure (ppg)
LOP : Leak off pressure (psi)
TVD : Total vertical depth (feet)
MW : Mud weight that used during leak off test (ppg)
Figure 40 Figure 3.5 Leak Off Test (Zoback, 2010)
Leak off test only knows at a certain point of fracture pressure at a certain depth. In this
thesis, Tarzaghi's equation is used to estimate fracture pressure profile from surface to depth
target of drilling.
(62)
(63)
(64)
Where :
FP = Fracture pressure (psi)
34
PP = Pore pressure (psi)
HES = Horizontal effective stress
VES = Vertical effective stress
= poisson's ratio
3.1.3. Collapse Pressure

Determining collapse pressure formation to prevent rock failure is important in wellbore
stability. By determining collapse pressure formation, appropriate mud weight window can
be generated to prevent rock failure. Rock failure can happen in shear failure and tensile
failure. In shear failure, the rock under compression and high compression in one side can
make a breakout. On the other side, tensile failure happens when rock under tension and this
can trigger for lost circulation.
Figure 41 Wellbore Failure (Amoco, 2010)
In this study use three models to calculate collapse pressure to prevent rock failure. They are
Mohr Coulomb, Modified Lade and Stassi D' Alia. Basen on Kirch equation with assumption
θ = 900, it means that there is no breakout in the borehole wall because breakout is avoided
during drilling or can be minimalize as small as possible to reach wellbore stability. So stress
around borehole wall can be described as below :
σθ = 3σx - σy - Pwc (65)
35
σa = σzz + 2υ (σx - σy) (66)
σr = Pwc (67)
τθz = -2 τzx (68)

Rock failure is governed by principal stresses and the solution for principal stress are below :
(69)
(70)
(71)
The way how to calculate collapse pressure can be simplify using chart in the figure below:
Figure 42 Collapse Pressure Determination
3.1.3.1.Collapse Pressure Using Mohr Coulomb Model

In Mohr Coulomb failure model only use maximum and minimum principal stress. The
failure model can be described below :
(72)
where
(73)
(74)
(75)
Combining this equation together to get
( (76)
36
(77)
Because Mohr Coulomb only use two principal stress so :

(78)
(79)
a. Vertical Well
τθz = 0 (80)
σ1 = σθ = 3σx - σy - Pwc (81)
σ3 = Pwc (82)
3σx - σy - Pwc - P0 (83)

(84)
From previous equation
(85)
(86)
(87)
b. Directional Well
σθ = 3σx - σy - Pwc = R - Pwc (88)
σa = σzz + 2υ (σx - σy) (89)
(90)
σ3 = Pwc (91)
(92)
(93)
Substitute σθ and σa into above equation to get equation in Pwc :

(94)
The equation above can be simplified with this equation:
37
ax2 + bx + c (95)
where
(96)
σ σ µ (97)
(98)
The above equation have a solution :
(99)
3.1.3.2.Collapse Pressure Using Modified Lade Model

This model assume that there is no communication between the wellbore pressure and pore
pressure. It means that a stable mud cake is formed at the borehole wall. The collapse
pressure (Pwc) to prevent wellbore instability is given by :
(100)
Where
(101)
(102)
(103)
(104)
(105)
(106)
(107)
3.1.3.3.Collapse Pressure Using Stassi D' Alia Model

Stassi D' Alia use three principal stress (σ1, σ2, σ3) to estimate wellbore failure criteria where:
(108)
(109)
(110)
Beside three pricipal stress, Stassi D' Alia also use uniaxial compressive strength (C0) and
tensile strength (T0) in his calculation. Tensile strength (T 0) can be estimated using modified
Griffith equation where:
38
(111)
From all of these parameters, wellbore collapse pressure can be obtained using this equation :
(112)
The equation above can be simplified with this equation
ax2 + bx + c (113)
where
(114)
(115)
(116)
(117)
This equation have a solution :

(118)
3.2 Casing Design

Casing shoe should be set in shale formation to reach the integrity criteria and to make sure
that gas does not migrate through casing shoe in case there is a gas kick during drilling in
open hole section below casing shoe. There are some parameters to determine casing shoe
depth and the number of casing strings :
 Regulatory requirements
 Kick tolerance
 Zonal isolation
 Hole stability and rock strength
 Well trajectory and wear consideration
Casing must have enough mechanical strength to withstand burst, collapse and tension loads.
Burst in pipe is happen when internal pressure inside casing is bigger than pressure at the
outside and this pressure difference exceed the mechanical strength of casing. On the other
side, collapse is happen when the external pressure is bigger than internal pressure inside the
casing and this pressure difference exceed the mechanical strength of casing. And the next
criteria is tension which tension failure will occure when the axial load exceed the material
strength of casing.
According to Bernt S. Aadnøy (Aadnøy, 2003), there are some situations where burst can
occure in the casing :
a. The hydrostatic mud pressure inside the casing exceeds the formation pressure or
hydrostatic pressure outside the casing.
b. During well shut-in, the differential borehole pressure allows formation fluid to
enter the wellbore.
c. A gas bubble, caused by a kick, is allowed to migrate up the casing with or without
39
limited expansion.
d. During kick circulation.
e. The casing is filled with gas migrating up the wellbore during a temporary
abandonment or disconnect in an emergency situation.
f. During testing or production a leak occurs in the tubing just below the wellhead.
g. Temperature expansion of fluid in closed annuli between casing strings.
h. When squeeze cementing.
In simulation using stress check (Landmark) software, burst will occure when the difference
between internal pressure and extrenal pressure exceed the mechanical strength of casing.
This is the parameter that are used for internal pressure and external pressure in stress check
software :
a. Internal pressure :
 Displacement to gas
(119)
(120)
 Gas kick profile
(121)
 Fracture at shoe with gas gradient above
(122)
 Lost return with water
(123)
 Surface protection (BOP)
(124)
(125)
 Pressure test
(126)
 Green cement pressure test
Internal pressure profile from hanger to the float collar
(127)
Internal pressure profile from float collar to the casing shoe
(128)
(129)
b. External pressure :
 Mud and cement mix-water
External pressure profile from hanger to top of cement :
(130)
External pressure profile from top of cement to casing shoe :
40
(131)
(132)
 Minimum formation pore pressure
(133)
 Pore pressure with seawater gradient

(134)
 Fluid gradient with pore pressure

(135)
Only for production casing, the internal pressure for production load in stress check software
consist of :
 Tubing leak
(136)
(137)
 Stimulation surface leak
If the shoe is deeper than the packer
(138)
 Injection down casing

(139)
 Gas migration
(140)
If Pshoe > Pfracture

(141)
Otherwise
(142)
In the other hand, casing collapse also can occure in some of situations. These are situations
where casing collapse occure in the well :
 Lost circulation where mud level inside the casing is drop until wellbore pressure
equivalent with pore pressure.
 During cement squeeze job through perforation where high pressure may arise behind
the casing
 Drilling through salt formation
 The casing string is not properly filled with mud
 Temperature expansion on closed liquid-filled annuli between casing string
In simulation using stress check software, the internal and external pressure consist of some
parameters :
41
a. Internal profile
 Fluid or partial evacuation
(143)
 Lost return with mud drop

(144)
(145)
 Cementing
(146)
b. External profile
 Mud and cement mix-water
(147)
(148)
 Mud and cement slurry

External pressure profile from hanger to top of cement :
(149)
External pressure profile from top of cement to casing shoe :

(150)
(151)
 Fracture at prior shoe with gas gradient above

(152)
 Fluid gradients with pore pressure

(153)
(154)
For collapse calculation in production casing, the internal profile consist of :

 Full evacuation
(155)
 Above / below packer

(156)
 Gas migration
(157)
If Pshoe > Pfracture
42
(158)
Otherwise
(159)
Tension failure can occure because of the material strength can not withstand some of tension
load. These conditions are some parameters which cause tension failure :
a. Dynamic forces or shock loads
b. Movements to free stuck pipe may induce considerable tensional loads
c. Pressure testing
d. The static weight of the casing string
e. Bouyancy that reduce the effective weight of the string so that it will reduce tension
f. Bending loads due to dog-leg severities
g. Drag forces
Axial load can be calculated based on weight of casing:
(160)
Where
wa = Weight of casing (ppf)
L = Length of casing (feet)
BF = Bouyancy Factor
The casing also need to check for triaxial stress to make sure that casing yield strength can
withstand from three principal stress (radial stress, tangential stress and axial stress). Triaxial
stress often called as Von Mises equivalent stress (VME stress). Von Mises stress can be
calculated using this equation:
(161)
where
(162)
3.3 Hole Cleaning and Hydraulic Design

Cutting transport or hole cleaning is very important during drilling a well. Cutting must be
transported to the surface. Poor hole cleaning will cause serious problem in drilling. These
are several problems during drilling that caused by poor hole cleaning :
 Low rate of penetration (ROP)
 High drag and torque, it will impact on drillstring design
 Stuck pipe
 Difficulty in casing landing
 Problems during cementing, for example channeling
 Difficulty during run in hole logging tools
Cutting transport will be more difficult in directional well or horizontal well. If fluid flowrate
does not enough to transport cutting to the surface, cutting will accumulate in the high angle
of well and it will form cutting bed. On the other hand, if fluid flow rate too high, it will
43
cause higher equivalent circulating density (ECD), subsequently If ECD more than fracture
pressure of formation, it will cause well fracturing. So to optimize hole cleaning, it is
important to consider about mud properties like plastic viscosity (PV), yield point (YP),
density, etc.
Figure 43 Cutting Bed in Directional Well (Lecture Note, Mesfin)
In this thesis, cutting transport calculation using wellplan software (Landmark, Halliburton).
These are step by step in cutting transport calculation using wellplan software :
a. Calculate n, k,τy and Reynold's number
(163)
(164)
(165)
(166)
b. Calculate concentration based on ROP in flow channel

(167)
c. Calculate fluid velocity based on open flow channel

(168)
44
d. Calculate coefficient of drag around sphere
If Re < 225
then
(169)
else,
CD = 1.5
e. Calculate mud carrying capacity
(170)
f. Calculate slip velocity

If VA < 53, then
Vsv = (0.00516)VA + 3.0006 (171)
If VA ≥ 53, then
Vsv = (0.02554)(VA - 53) + 3.28 (172)
g. Calculate settling velocity in the plug in a mud with a yield stress

(173)
where
a = 42.9 - 23.9n
b = 1-0.33n
h. Calculate angle of inclination correction factor
(174)
i. Calculate cutting size correction factor

(175)
j. Calculate mud weight correction factor

If ρ < 7.7 then Cm = 1
else
Cm = 1 - 0.0333 (ρ - 7.7) (176)
k. Calculate critical wall shear stress

(177)
where
a = 1.732
45
b = -0.744
l. Calculate critical pressure gradient
(178)
m. Calculate total cross sectional area of the annulus without cutting bed
(179)
n. Calculate dimentionless flow rate

(180)
Where
a = 16
b=1
o. Calculate critical Flow Rate (CFR)
(181)
p. Calculate correction factor for cuttings concentration

(182)
q. Calculate cutting concentration for a stationary bed by volume

(183)
After calculate the minimum flow rate to transport cutting to surface, the next step is to
determine the optimization of hydraulic system by choosing the equipment to keep pressure
losses at minimum in the drillstring and maximum in the drilling bit. The optimization of
hydraulic system can be determined by these methods :
 Select the optimization methods : impact force or hydraulic horse power
 Determine the optimum flow rate
 Adjust flow rate to meet the requirements or limit
 Determine total flow area in the bit (TFA)
Generally, there are two methods in hydraulic optimization, they are jet impact force and
maximum hydraulic horse power (HHP). The jet impact force can be maximized with
maximize the momentum. Generally this occur when bit losses are about 49 % of the
available pump pressure. On the other hand, the maximum horse power can be reached when
the energy dissipated at the bit is maximized. Generally, this occur when 65% of pump
46
pressure is dissipated at the bit. Mathematically jet impact force and hydraulic horse power
can be expressed as below :
 Impact Force (lbf) = (184)
where ρ = Density of fluid (lb / ft 3)

Q = Flow rate (ft 3 / s)
gc = Gravitational constant (32.17 ft / sec2)
V = Velocity through the bit (ft / sec)
= (185)
 Bit Hydraulic Horse Power (hp) = (186)
where Q = Flow rate (gpm)

Pb = Pressure loss across bit nozzles (psi)
Pressure loss across the bit nozzle can be calculated using this equation
(187)
where ρ = Density of fluid (lb / ft 3)

V = Fluid velocity (ft / s)
Cd = Nozzle coefficient (0.95)
gc = 32.17 (ft / sec2)
P = Pressurem (lb / ft 2)
Determination about the output from cutting transport and hydraulic system calculation can
be simplified using chart below:
Figure 44 Output from Cutting Transport and Hydraulic System Calculation
47
4. CASE STUDY
4.1 Background
In this thesis use case study from X field. During the simulation, seismic interval velocity is
used to estimate pore pressure. In propose well, well trajectory is made based on target
reservoir that will be drilled. Interval velocity of this well can be exported to excel file from
the interval velocity models. Pore pressure and fracture pressure can be calculated using this
interval velocity and well logging from exploration wells.
Figure 45 Interval Velocity Model from X Field
The formation of this field consists of shale, sand and limestone formation. The shale
formation in this field is not reactive so using KCl polymer mud is enough to prevent
swelling.
48
Figure 46 Lithology of X Field
In this case, data from offset exploration well T-1 is used to estimate wellbore stability
parameter for directional well T-2. Figure below is vertical section for directional well T-2:
Figure 47 Vertical Section Well T-2
49
4.2 Pore Pressure Calculation
Pore pressure is estimated using Eaton equation. Eaton equation can be implemented in the
compacted shale formation. In this case, it uses logging data from well T-1. This well is
exploration well with vertical trajectory. To make sure that Eaton equation can be used in this
well or in this field so it needs to plot density log (RHOB) vs. sonic log (DT). In compacted
formation, density formation tends to increase with increasing depth and the value of the
sonic log will decrease.
Figure 48 Plot DT Vs. RHOB from Well T-1
From figure above, it can be seen that Eaton equation can be used to estimate pore pressure in
this field using this equation :
(188)
Overburden pressure (OBP) can be calculated from density log and integrate it from surface
until depth of interest.
50
Density (gr/cm3)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0
500
1000
Depth (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure 49 Density Profile Well T-1
51
Overburden Pressure (Ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
1000
Depth (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure 50 Overburden Pressure Profile Well T-1
Normal compacted trend velocity (Vnct) can be obtained through draw a line of interval
velocity in compacted shale.
52
4500
4000 y = 1440.5e0.0005x
3500
3000
Form 2
Vint (m/s)
2500
Form 3
Form-1
y = 1605.6e0.0004x
2000 Vnct 2
Vnct Form.1
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Depth (MSL)
Figure 51 Vint and Vnct Profile Well T-1
Eksponential (N) is calculated based on properties from table below :
Table 1 Exponential (N) Properties Well T-1

Log Log
Depth PP OBP PP OBP Vint VES
VES Vint
(MSL) Ppg Ppg Psi Psi m/s Psi
750.179 8.780 16.411 1123.710 2100.461 2097.489 976.752 2.990 3.322
1664.973 9.113 17.542 2588.651 4983.119 3198.973 2394.468 3.379 3.505
53
From table properties above and then plot Log VES Vs Log Vint
3.6
3.5 y = 0.4707x + 1.9143
3.5
Log Vint
3.4
3.4
3.3
2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Log VES
Figure 52 Plot Log VES Vs Log Vint
The value of exponential (N) is obtained from the slope
The value of HP can be estimated based on the density of water formation in this field. Based
on the measurement , the water formation density has value 8.4 ppg.
From all of the parameter that defined above, pore pressure profile for well exploration T-1
can be estimated based on the value of interval velocity. Pore pressure based on calculation is
corrected with mud density during drilling so that this method will give pore pressure value
near real condition. For reservoir section, pore pressure is calculated based on pressure
survey data at certain depth and fluid density from PVT analysis data. Table below show the
mesurement of pore pressure in the reservoir section and PVT analysis data:
Table 2 PVT Analysis Data
Depth Pressure Fluid Density

meter psi gr/cm3
2198 4002 0.82
From PVT anaylis data, pore pressure in the reservoir section can be calculated. Figure below
show the output of the pore pressure profile from well T-1.
54
Pressure (psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0
500
1000
Pore Press.
TVD (MSL)
Overburden Press.
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure 53 Pore Pressure Profile Well T-1
The same procedure can be followed to design the next well in this field. In this case, the
propose T-2 well will be drilled to exploit oil and gas from this field. T-2 is directional well.
Interval velocity from well T-2 is exported from the interval velocity model based on the
trajectory from this well. Normal compacted trend velocity (Vnct) is estimated based on
interval velocity profile in this well and it started to pick it up from compacted shale.
55
5000
4500
4000 y = 1,596.79701e0.00043x
3500
Form 2
3000 Form 4
Vint (m/s)
y = 156.8x0.4055
Form-3
2500
Form-1
2000 Vnct1
1500 Vnct2
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth (MSL)
Figure 54 Vint and Vnct Profile Well T-2
Overburden pressure for well T-2 is obtained from the density model of this field and then
the value of density is extracted based on well trajectory.
56
RHOB (gr/cm3)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0
500
1000
TVD (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
Figure 55 Density Profile Well T-2
57
Overburden Pressure (Ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
1000
TVD (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
Figure 56 Overburden Pressure Profile Well T-2
58
From interval velocity data well T-2 and the other parameters so pore pressure for well T-2
can be estimated.
Pressure (Psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
500
1000
Pore Pressure
TVD (MSL)
Overburden Press.
1500
2000
2500
Figure 57 Pore Pressure Profile Well T-2
59
4.3 Fracture Pressure Calculation
In this study, fracture pressure is estimated using Tarzaghi equation.
(189)
Poisson ratio (υ) is estimated based on data from sonic velocity (V p) and shear velocity (V s).
Because there is no shear velocity data (Vs) from well T-1 so shear velocity can be estimated
using the relationship between sonic velocity and leak off test (LOT) data from well T-1.
Table 3 Synthetic Shear Velocity (Vs) from LOT

Depth LOT PP HES VES HES/VES poisson Vp Vs
MSL Ppg Ppg Ppg Ppg m/s m/s
750 12.162 8.689 3.473 7.733 0.449 0.310 2097.489 1100.858
1665 12.562 9.327 3.234 7.632 0.424 0.298 3198.973 1717.078
From 2 points LOT above and then Vp and Vs is plotted to get the relationship equation and
to get synthetic shear velocity (Vs) from surface to depth of interest.
2000
Vs = 0.6002Vp - 158.62
1500
Vs
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Vp
Figure 58 Shear Velocity from Data LOT Well T-1
60
Poisson Ratio
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
500
1000
Depth (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure 59 Poisson Ratio Well T-1
From poisson's ratio data and data from the previous calculation, fracture pressure can be
estimated using Tarzaghi equation.
61
Pressure (psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0
500
1000
Pore Press.
Overburden Press.
1500
Fracture Press.
TVD (MSL)
2000
2500
3000
Figure 60 Fracture Pressure Profile Well T-1
With the same procedure, using poisson's ratio data from well T-1 and then can be estimated
fracture pressure for directional well T-2.
62
Pressure (Psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
500
1000
Pore Pressure
Overburden Press.
TVD (MSL)
Fracture Press.
1500
2000
2500
Figure 61 Fracture Pressure Profile Well T-2
63
4.4 Rock Mechanic and Insitu Stress Calculation
To calculate rock mechanics properties like cohesive strength (S0), unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), angle of friction, etc., it is important to know about the type of rock
formation (shale, sand or limestone). The type of rock formation can be known from gamma-
ray log and it can be corrected with drilling cutting. In this calculation, it is used logging data
like gamma-ray log and sonic log to determine rock mechanics properties.
Gamma Ray (GAPI)

0 50 100 150
0
500
1000
TVD (MSL)
1500
2000
2500
Figure 62 Gamma Ray Log from Well T-1
64
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) is determined using empirical equation based on
type of rock. Horsrud's equation is used to determine UCS in shale formation. Mc Nally's
equation is used to determine UCS in sandstone formation. Militzer's equation is used to
determine UCS in limestone formation.
The other rock mechanic properties is angle of internal friction (µ). These properties are
calculated using Chang and Zoback equation. After UCS and µ are calculated, cohesive
strength (S0) can be calculated. Sonic logging data from well T-1 is used to estimate rock
mechanic properties in well T-2. The results of these calculation can be seen in the figure
below:
Figure 63 Estimation Rock Mechanics Properties Well T-2
4.5 Insitu Stress Calculation

Insitu stress consists of vertical stress (σ v), minimum horizontal stress (σh) and maximum
horizontal stress (σH). Vertical stress (σv) is same with overburden stress and can be
calculated from the density log. Minimum horizontal stress (σh) can be estimated using
Zoback and Healy equation. Maximum horizontal stress (σH) can be estimated using Zoback
equation with assumption σΔT = 0 and θb = 900, it means that in this case to prevent breakout
happen during drilling. From this calculation, σH is plotted together with σh and σv.
65
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
1000
TVD (MSL)
Sv
Sh
SH
1500
2000
2500
Figure 64 Insitu Stress Well T-1
Maximum horizontal stress (σH) from figure above also can be estimated using relationship
ratio σH / σh and choose the biggest ratio σH / σh to make the value of σH become smoothly.
This method is chosen because the biggest ratio σH / σh will give the worst case scenario
during wellbore collapse failure criteria. From calculation ratio σ H / σh, it is obtained σH =
1.25 σh. This value is plotted again with the other value insitu stress and convert these value
into equivalent mud weight (EMW) in pound per gallon (ppg).
66
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
1000
Sv
TVD (MSL)
Sh
SH
1500
2000
2500
Figure 65 Corrected Insitu Stress Well T-1
The same procedure is used to calculate insitu stress for directional well T-2.
67
EMW (Ppg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
0
500
1000
Sv
TVD (MSL)
Sh
1500
SH
2000
2500
Figure 66 Insitu Stress Well T-2
68
4.6 Wellbore Collapse Calculation
Wellbore collapse happens when borehole wall under compression. Because wellbore takes
any orientation so it needs to transform stress distribution into the new cartesian coordinate
system (x, y, z). The new stress stresses transformation become σ x, σy, σz. From these
cartesian stresses and then it can be estimated stress around the borehole wall (σ a, σr, σθ).
As wellbore failure condition is governed by the principal stresses so it needs to define three
principal stresses (σ1, σ2, σ3). From these three principal stress, wellbore collapse can be
predicted. In this study will evaluate wellbore collapse failure criteria using three different
methods, they are Mohr-Coulomb, Modified Lade and Stassi D' Alia. To prevent wellbore
collapse, drilling activity should use mud weight greater than wellbore collapse equivalent
mud weight. By knowing the wellbore collapse parameter, drilling problems related to
wellbore instability can be avoided.
4.6.1. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Mohr Coulomb

Mohr Coulomb only involves two principal stresses, they are maximum principal stress (σ 1)
and minimum principal stress (σ2). In this calculation are used one exploration well which is
vertical well (well T-1) and one directional well (well T-2). The figure below is the
estimation of wellbore collapse using this method.
69
EMW (ppg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0
500
Pore Press.
Fracture Press.
1000
Sv
TVD (MSL)
Sh
1500
SH
Pwc(Mohr-
Coulomb)
2000
2500
Figure 67 Mohr-Coulomb Collapse Pressure Well T-1
70
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
Pore Press.
1000
Fracture Press.
Sh
TVD (MSL)
Sv
SH
1500
Pwc(Mohr-
Coulomb)
2000
2500
Figure 68 Mohr-Coulomb Collapse Pressure Well T-2
4.6.2. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Modified Lade

In Modified Lade, it involves three principal stress to calculate wellbore collapse. They are
σ1, σ2 and σ3. Modified Lade assumes that there is communication between wellbore and
formation, it means that there is stable mud cake between this boundary. The results of
collapse pressure formation to prevent well failure can be seen in the figure below.
71
EMW (ppg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0
500
Pore Press.
Fracture Press.
1000
Sv
TVD (MSL)
Sh
1500
SH
Pwc(Mod.Lade)
2000
2500
Figure 69 Modified Lade Collapse Pressure Well T-1
72
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
Pore Press.
1000
Fracture Press.
Sh
TVD (MSL)
Sv
SH
1500 Pwc (Mod.Lade).
2000
2500
Figure 70 Modified Lade Collapse Pressure Well T-2
4.6.3. Wellbore Collapse Pressure Prediction Using Stassi D' Alia

Beside three principal stresses, Stassi D' Alia also uses uniaxial compressive strength (C0)
and tensile strength (T0) in his calculation to predict wellbore failure criteria. The result
calculation of wellbore collapse pressure from these well can be seen in the figure below :
73
EMW (ppg)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0
500
Pore Press.
Fracture Press.
1000
Sv
TVD (MSL)
Sh
1500
SH
Pwc (Stassi d'Alia)
2000
2500
Figure 71 Stassi d' Alia Collapse Pressure Well T-1
74
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
Pore Press.
1000
Fracture Press.
Sh
TVD (MSL)
Sv
SH
1500 Pwc(Stassi d'Alia)
2000
2500
Figure 72 Stassi D' Alia Collapse Pressure Well T-2
4.7 Sensitivity Analysis in Wellbore Collapse Pressure

In this topic will analyze the impact of inclination, unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
and horizontal stresses in wellbore collapse pressure using Mohr-Coulomb, Modified Lade
and Stassi d' Alia methods. This is the input data that used to do the sensitivity analysis.
Table 4 Input Data Sensitivity Analysis
TVD Azimuth PP ϕ UCS S0 σv σH σh

MSL Degree Psi Psi Psi Psi Psi Psi
1482 238.1 2348.5 0.29 29.81 0.573 1678 486.2 4233 3726.6 2981.3
75
4.7.1. Sensitivity Analysis toward Inclination
Data from data from tabel 3 is used to do sensitivity analysis toward inclination from 0
degrees to 90 degrees. These results of the calculation can be seen in the figure below :
14
12
Required Mud Weight (ppg)
10
8
Mod. LADE
6
Mohr. Coulomb
4 Stassi D'Alia
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Hole Angle (Degree)
Figure 73 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward Inclination
4.7.2. Sensitivity Analysis toward UCS

Data from table 3 with Inclination 20 degree is used to predict wellbore shear failure toward
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from 0 Mpa to 50 Mpa. The results of this
calculation can be seen in the figure below:
12
Required Mud Weight (ppg)
10
Mod. LADE
6
Mohr. Coulomb
4 Stassi D'Alia
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
UCS (Mpa)
Figure 74 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward UCS
76
4.7.3. Sensitivity Analysis in Relaxed Basin toward Horizontal Stresses
Data from table 3 with inclination 20 degree in hole angle are used to calculate wellbore
collapse pressure. Firstly, the sensitivity is done toward σH = σh = 2981.3 psi up to σH = σv =
4233 psi. The results of this sensitivity toward maximum horizontal stress can be seen in the
figure below:
3000
2500
2000
Mohr Coulomb
Pwc (Psi)
Mod.Lade
1500 Stassi d'Alia
Shmin
1000 Sv
500
0
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
SH (Psi)
Figure 75 Sensitivity Analisis toward SH in Relaxed Basin
Secondly, the sensitivity analysis will be done toward σh = 2981.3 psi up to σh = σH = 3726.6
psi. The result of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
3000
2500
2000
Mohr Coulomb
Pwc (Psi)
Mod.Lade
1500 Stassi d'Alia
Shmin
1000 SHmax
500
0
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sh (Psi)
Figure 76 Sensitivity Analisis toward Sh in Relaxed Basin
77
4.7.4. Sensitivity Analysis in Tectonically Basin toward Horizontal Stresses
Table 5 Input Data Sensitivity Analysis in Tectonically Basin
Azimuth PP ϕ UCS S0 σv σH σh
Degree Psi Psi Psi Psi Psi Psi
238.1 2348.5 0.29 29.81 0.573 1678 486.2 2981.3 4233 2981.3
Data from table 4 with inclination 20 degree are used to do sensitivity. The procedure
analysis toward horizontal stresses are same with sensitivity analysis in relaxed basin. Firstly,
the sensitivity is done toward σH = σh = 2981.3 psi up to σH = 4233 psi. The results of this
sensitivity toward maximum horizontal stress can be seen in the figure below:
3000
2800
2600
2400
Mohr Coulomb
Pwc (Psi)
2200
Mod.Lade
2000
Stassi d'Alia
1800 Shmin
SHmax
1600
1400
1200
1000
3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
SH (Psi)
Figure 77 Sensitivity Analisis toward Sh in Relaxed Basin
Secondly, the sensitivity analysis will be done toward σh = 3726.6 psi up to σh = σH = 4233
psi. The result of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
78
3500
3000
2500
Mohr Coulomb
Pwc (Psi)
2000 Mod.Lade
Stassi d'Alia
1500
Shmin
SHmax
1000
500
0
3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
Sh (Psi)
Figure 78 Well Failure Sensitivity Analysis toward Horizontal Stresses
4.8 Casing Design

The well schematic for well T-2 can be seen in the figure below:
Figure 79 Well Schematic
79
In this case, the type of casing will be selected based on calculation from burst, collapse,
axial load. Burst and collapse load line are calculated based on the greatest differential
pressure between internal pressure and external pressure profile. On the other hand, the axial
load line is calculated based on the maximum load between axial load profile with bending
and axial load profile without bending. Triaxial load line is based on the greatest load line
between burst, collapse and axial load. Finally, the design load line is calculated from load
line multiply with design factor. The table below shows design factor for this calculation:
Table 6 Design Factor
Pipe Body
Burst 1,1
Axial Tension 1,3
Compression 1,3
Collapse 1,1
Triaxial 1,25
Connection
Burst 1,1
Axial Tension 1,3
Compression 1,3
4.8.1. Casing Design Surface Casing 20"

The initial condition for the basic calculation in this section can be seen in the table below:
Table 7 Cementing Data for Surface Casing 20"
Mix-Water Density (ppg) 8.4

Lead Slurry Density (ppg) 13.7
Displacement Fluid Density (ppg) 8.8
Float Collar Depth (m) 270
In this calculation, geothermal gradient is 1.50 / 100 ft with surface ambient temperature 800
F. This initial condition and the others parameters like pore pressure, fracture pressure and
well path are used to calculate burst, collapse and axial load with different scenario using
wellplan software. The results of this calculation can be seen in the figures below:
80
Figure 80 Burst Profile Surface Casing 20"
From figure above, burst actual load line is generated from the differential pressure between
internal pressure (green cement pressure test) and external pressure (pore pressure with sea
water gradient). Burst design load line is calculated by multiply actual burst load line with
safety factor (1.1). In this case, casing 20" grade J-55, 106.5 ppf is safe because burst pipe
rating is greater than burst design load line.
Figure 81 Collapse Profile Surface Casing 20"
81
From figure above, collapse actual load line is calculated from the differential pressure
between external pressure (mud and cement slurry) and internal pressure (full or partial
evacuation). In the worst case, collapse will happen when mud loss until at certain depth
where wellbore pressure is same with pore pressure. Collapse design load line is calculated
by multiply collapse actual load line with safety factor (1.1). In this case, casing 20" grade J-
55, 106.5 ppf is safe because collapse pipe rating is greater than collapse design load line.
Figure 82 Axial Profile Surface Casing 20"
From figure above, native / apparent axial load line is generated from service load line profile
with bending. This service load line is calculated with included effect of self weight,
bouyancy, thermal strain due to temperature, piston force at end areas, pick up or slack-off
loads, buckling and bending. Design load line is calculated by multiply native / apparent loan
line by 1.3. Based on calculation, 20" grade J-55, 106.5 ppf is safe and it can withstand from
this axial load.
4.8.2. Casing Design Intermediate Casing 13-3/8"

Table 8 Cementing Data for Casing 13-3/8"

Tail Slurry Density (ppg) 15.83
Tail Slurry Length (m) 400
82
In this calculation, geothermal gradient is 1.5 0 / 100 ft with surface ambient temperature 800
Figure 83 Burst Profile Casing 13-3/8"
internal pressure (green cement pressure test from depth 469 meter to 1200 meter and with
case in fracture at shoe with gas gradient above from surface to depth 469 meter) and external
pressure (pore pressure with sea water gradient). Burst design load line is calculated by
multiply burst actual load line with safety factor (1.1). Casing 13-3/8" grade C-95, 72 ppf is
safe because burst pipe rating is greater than burst design load line.
83
Figure 84 Collapse Profile Casing 13-3/8"
by multiply collapse actual load line with safety factor (1.1). In this case, casing 13-3/8"
grade C-95, 72 ppf can not withstand from collapse design load from surface until depth 1200
meter so it need casing with grade greater than casing grade C-95, 72 ppf. Based on analysis,
it is decided to use casing 13-3/8" grade P-110, 72 ppf from depth 1100 meter to 1200 meter
and use casing 13-3/8" grade C-95, 72 ppf from surface to depth 1100 meter. These casing
combination can withstand from collapse load because collapse casing rating from these
casing are greater than collapse design load line.
84
Figure 85 Axial Profile Casing 13-3/8"
From figure above, native / apparent axial load line is generated from axial load profile when
running in hole. This load profile is depend on some factors like bouyed weight, wellbore
inclination and bending caused by dogleg severities. Design load line is calculated by
multiply native / apparent loan line by 1.3. Based on calculation, combination casing 13-3/8"
grade C-95, 72 ppf and casing 13-3/8" grade P-110, 72 ppf can withstand from this design
axial load.
4.8.3. Casing Design Intermediate Casing 9-5/8"

Table 9 Cementing Data for Surface Casing 9-5/8"

Tail Slurry Density (ppg) 15
Tail Slurry Length (m) 500
In this calculation, geothermal gradient is 1.50 / 100 ft with surface ambient temperature 800
85
Figure 86 Burst Profile Casing 9-5/8"
internal pressure (fracture at shoe with gas gradient above) and external pressure pressure
(pore pressure with sea water gradient). Burst design load line is calculated by multiply actual
load line with safety factor (1.1). In this case, casing 9-5/8" grade N-80, 40 ppf is safe
because burst pipe rating is greater than burst design load line.
Figure 87 Collapse Profile Casing 9-5/8"
86
by multiply collapse actual load line with safety factor (1.1). In this case, casing 9-5/8" grade
N-80, 40 ppf can not withstand from collapse design load from surface until depth 2080
meter so it need casing with grade greater than casing grade N-80, 40 ppf. Based on analysis,
it is decided to use casing 9-5/8" grade P-110, 43.5 ppf from depth 1400 meter to 2080 meter
and use casing casing 9-5/8" grade N-80, 40 ppf ppf from surface to depth 1400 meter. These
casing combination can withstand from collapse load because collapse pipe rating from these
casing are greater than collapse design load line.
Figure 88 Axial Profile Casing 9-5/8"
line by 1.3. Based on calculation, combination casing 9-5/8" grade N-80, 40 ppf and casing 9-
5/8" grade P-110, 43.5 ppf can withstand from this design axial load.
87
4.8.4. Casing Design Liner 7"
Table 10 Cementing Data for Liner 7"

Lead Slurry Density (ppg) 15
Top of Cement (m) 2010
Packer Fluid Density (ppg) 9
Packer Depth (m) 1870
Perforation Depth (m) 2200
Gas Gravity (sg) 0.3
In this calculation, geothermal gradient is 1.5 0 / 100 ft with surface ambient temperature 800
Figure 89 Burst Profile Liner Casing 7"
internal pressure (green cement pressure test) and external pressure (pore pressure with sea
water gradient). Burst design load line is calculated by multiply burst actual load line with
safety factor (1.1). In this case, liner 7" grade N-80, 26 ppf is safe because burst pipe rating is
greater than burst design load line.
88
Figure 90 Collapse Profile Liner 7"
between external pressure (mud and cement slurry) and internal pressure (above or below
packer). In the worst case, collapse will happen when during completion or workover
operations where packer or workover fluid is exposed to a depleted zone. In this case fluid
drop may occur corresponding to the hydrostatic head of the fluid equillibrating with the
depleted pressure at the perforation. Collapse design load line is calculated by multiply
collapse actual load line with safety factor (1.1). In this case, liner N-80, 26 ppf is safe
because collapse pipe rating is greater than collapse design load line.
89
Figure 91 Axial Profile Liner 7"
line by 1.3. Based on calculation, liner N-80, 26 ppf is safe and it can withstand from this
axial load.
4.9 Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design

In this calculation will analyze cutting transport and hydraulic design for hole section 17-
1/2", 12-1/4" and 8-1/2". This simulation using geothermal gradient 1.50 / 100 ft and the other
parameters like cutting density, cutting size, etc used in this simulation based on the condition
of formation. Mud pump is used to transport cutting from wellbore to the surface and.
Maximum pump pressure should facilitate all of the pressure loss in the drillstring and
annulus. This is the mud pump specification that used in this simulation :
Table 11 Mud Pump Specification
Maximum Pump Pressure 6000 Psi

Maximum Pump Power 1600 HP
Maximum Pump Rate 737 Gpm
Surface Pressure Loss 100 Psi
90
4.9.1. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design in Hole Section 17-1/2"
Table 12 Hole Section 17-1/2" Data
Eff. Hole Vol.

Section MD Length OD ID FF Items Description
Diameter Excess
Type
m m in in in %
Grade N-80, 40
2080 2080 9-5/8 8.835 13.137 0.25 15
Casing ppf
Open
2620 540 8.5 8.915 0.3 10
Hole
Table 13 Drillstring Data for Hole Section 17-1/2"

Length Depth Body Stabilizer / Tool Joint
Avg
Type (m) (m) OD ID Joint Length OD ID Weight Material Grade
Length
(in) (in) (m) (m) (in) (in)
CS_API
Drill Pipe 934 934 6.625 6 9.14 0.48 8.5 4.25 29.63 S Class 1
5D/7
Heavy CS_1340 1340
165 1099 6.625 4.5 9.14 1,219 8.3 4.5 73.5
Weight MOD MOD
CS_API 4145H
Jar 6 1104 6 2.25 5.54 53.73
5D/7 MOD
Heavy CS_1340 1340
28 1132 5 3 9.14 1,219 6.5 3,063 51.1
Weight MOD MOD
CS_API 4145H
Sub 1 1133 7.92 3 0.91 147
5D/7 MOD
Drill SS_15- 15-15LC
28 1161 8 2.5 9.14 152.8
Collar 15LC MOD (2)
SS_15- 15-15LC
MWD 5 1166 8 3.25 5.2 141.1
15LC MOD (1)
Drill SS_15- 15-15LC
28 1194 8 2.5 9.14 152.8
Collar 15LC MOD (2)
CS_API 4145H
Stabilizer 3 1197 9.5 2,375 2.51 363.6
5D/7 MOD
CS_API 4145H
Sub 1 1198 7.92 3 0.91 147
5D/7 MOD
Mud SS_15- 15-15LC
7 1205 11.3 3 7.01 273.9
Motor 15LC MOD (1)
Bit 0.31 1205 17.5 0.3 565
91
Figure 92 Wellbore Schematic Hole Section 17-1/2"
Table 14 Input Parameter for Cutting Transport Hole Section 17-1/2"
Rate of Penetration 30 m / hr
Cuttings Diameter 0.3 inch
Bed Porosity 36%
Rotary Speed 100 RPM
Cuttings Density 2 sg
Mud Density 8.8 ppg
Plastic Viscosity 15 cp
Yield Point 20 Lbf / 100 ft²
GS 10 Second 4 lbf / 100 ft²
GS 10 Minute 10 lbf / 100 ft²
92
Figure 93 Minimum Flowrate Hole Section 17-1/2"
Based on the minimum flowrate calculation in this hole section, it needs a minimum flowrate
1,453.5 gallons per minute to clean this wellbore. With this flowrate, it needs two mud pumps
to facilitate this flowrate. By using two mud pump and drillstring configuration, it needs to
optimize the hydraulic design using jet impact force and hydraulic horsepower methods. The
figure below shows the result of calculation using this method.
93
Figure 94 Component Pressure Losses Hole Section 17-1/2"
94
Figure 95 Hydraulic Horse Power Calculation for Hole Section 17-1/2"
Figure 96 Jet Impact Force Calculation for Hole Section 17-1/2"
95
Eff. Hole Vol.

Diameter Excess
Type
m m in in in %
13- Grade K-55, 94
1200 1200 12.62 18.767 0.25 15
Casing 3/8 ppf
Open
2087 887 12.25 13.137 0.3 15
Hole

Avg
Length
(in) (in) (m) (m) (in) (in)
Drill Pipe CS_API S Class

2,020 2020 5 4.28 9.14 0.43 7 2.75 22.6
5D/7 1
Jar CS_API 4145H
10.2 2030 6 2.25 10.18 53.73
5D/7 MOD
Heavy CS_1340 1340
Weight 27.9 2058 5 3 9.14 1,219 6.5 3 51.1
MOD MOD
Sub CS_API 4145H
0.69 2058 5.4 2.76 0.69 59.71
5D/7 MOD
Drill 15-15LC
SS_15-
Collar 7.51 2066 8 2.5 9.14 152.8 MOD
15LC
(2)
MWD 15-15LC
SS_15-
6.84 2073 8 3.25 6.84 141.1 MOD
15LC
(1)
Drill 15-15LC
SS_15-
Collar 3.06 2076 8 2.5 9.14 152.8 MOD
15LC
(2)
Stabilizer CS_API 4145H
1.73 2077 6.5 1.75 1.73 76.92
5D/7 MOD
Sub CS_API 4145H
0.81 2078 7.92 3.24 0.81 142.8
5D/7 MOD
Mud 15-15LC
SS_15-
Motor 8.51 2087 8 2.5 8.51 126.9 MOD
15LC
(1)
Bit 0.31 2087 12.25 0.3 267
96

Bed Porosity 36%
Cuttings Density 2.2 sg
Mud Density 10.5 ppg
PV 15 cp
Yp 19 Lbf / 100 ft²
97
Based on minimum flowrate from calculation to transport cutting from wellbore to surface, it
needs minimum 801.5 gpm to make sure wellbore clean from the cuttings. This flowrate
needs two mud pump to facilitate hole cleaning in this hole section. By using two mud pumps
and drillstring configuration, it needs to optimize the hydraulic design using jet impact force
and hydraulic horsepower methods. The figure below shows the result of calculation using
this method.
98
99

Eff. Hole Vol.

Diameter Excess
Type
m m in in in %
Grade J-55, 54.5
270 270 20 19.12 27.805 0.25 15
Casing ppf
Open
1205 935 17.5 18.652 0.3 15
Hole
100
Avg
Length
(in) (in) (m) (m) (in) (in)

1692 1692 5 4,276 9.14 0.43 6,625 2.75 22.6
5D/7 1
700 2392 4.5 3.64 9.14 0.43 6,625 2,875 23.22
5D/7 1
Heavy CS_1340 1340
Weight 165 2557 5 3 9.14 1,219 6.5 3,063 51.1
MOD MOD
Jar CS_API 4145H
5.34 2563 6 2.25 5.34 53.73
5D/7 MOD
Heavy CS_1340 1340
Weight 27.9 2591 5 3 9.14 1,219 6.5 3,063 51.1
MOD MOD
Drill 15-
Collar SS_15- 15LC
9.47 2600 6.75 3 9.14 96.71
15LC MOD
(1)
MWD 15-
SS_15- 15LC
5.99 2606 6.75 2,875 5.99 100.8
15LC MOD
(1)
Drill 15-
Collar SS_15- 15LC
3.02 2609 6.75 3 9.14 96.71
15LC MOD
(1)
Stabilizer CS_API 4145H
2.03 2611 4.75 1 2.03 62.43
5D/7 MOD
Sub CS_API 4145H
0.82 2612 6.72 2.4 0.82 105.1
5D/7 MOD
Mud 15-
Motor SS_15- 15LC
7.83 2620 6.75 1.5 7.83 87.5
15LC MOD
(1)
Bit 0.23 2620 8.5 0.23 90
101

Bed Porosity 36%
Cuttings Density 2.6 sg
Mud Density 11.7 ppg
PV 15 cp
Yp 22 Lbf / 100 ft²
102
Based on minimum flowrate calculation, it needs a minimum flowrate 378 gallons per minute
to clean this wellbore from the cuttings. Using this flowrate, it needs only one mud pump.
The next step is to calculate the optimum hydraulic system using one mud pump and this
drillstring configuration. The results of component pressure losses, hydraulic horsepower and
jet impact force can be seen in the figure below :
103
104
105
5. DISCUSSION
The results of the calculation in part 4 will discuss more details in this part. Rock mechanics
properties are obtained from exploration well T-1 and these properties are used to estimate
wellbore failure or wellbore collapse formation in directional well T-2. In this study will
analyze more details in directional well T-2 because drilling in the directional well is more
difficult than a vertical well. Furthermore, this study also will discuss about design drilling
optimization in well T-2.
5.1 Wellbore Failure Sensitivity Analysis

This study will discuss wellbore failure sensitivity toward unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) and inclination. UCS is the measure of the material's strength. It means that the bigger
value of UCS, the stronger rock will be.
From the well Failure sensitivity analysis toward UCS chart, it can be seen that with
increasing UCS value, the required mud weight become smaller. It means that to reach
wellbore stability need less mud weight. From the three models to estimate wellbore collapse
pressure, Stassi d' Alia gives the smallest value whereas Mohr-Coulomb gives the highest
value. On the other side, Modified Lade gives the middle value between of them.
On the other hand, with increasing inclination, it needs more required mud weight. It means
that wellbore will be easier in shear failure condition in higher inclination well than in
vertical well. In higher inclination needs higher mud weight to keep wellbore stability. Using
three methods in inclination sensitivity, Mohr coulomb gives the highest required mud weight
to keep wellbore stability compare to the other methods. Whereas Stassi D' Alia gives the
smallest required mud weight to keep wellbore stability compare to the other methods.
Modified Lade give the middle value required mud weight.
Sensitivity toward horizontal stresses in relaxed basin where σ v > σH > σh give the results that
wellbore collapse pressure (Pwc) is decrease with increasing the value of SH. On the other
hand, wellbore collapse pressure (P wc) is increase with increasing the value of minimum
horizontal stress (σh) even the increasing value is sharply. In wellbore stability application by
using this analysis, drilling parallel to minimum horizontal stress is safer when drilling with
high inclination or horizontal well because it need less mud weight to avoid from wellbore
collapse.
In other case, sensitivity toward horizontal stresses in tectonically basin where σ H > σh > σv
give the results that wellbore collapse pressure (Pwc) is increase with increasing the value of
SH. On the other hand, wellbore collapse pressure (P wc) is increase with increasing the value
of minimum horizontal stress (σh) even the increasing value is sharply.
In wellbore stability application by using sensitivity analysis in horizontal stresses, drilling
parallel to minimum horizontal stress is safer than drilling parallel to maximum horizontal
stress. It means that when drilling with high inclination or horizontal well, it need less mud
weight to avoid from shear failure or wellbore collapse.
The results of these sensitivity analysis in this case can be seen easier through chart below:
106
Sensitivity Analysis
Stassi
d'Alia
Sh(Tectonically)
SH (Tectonically)
Sh (Relaxed Basin)
Mod.Lade
SH(Relaxed Basin)
Inclination
UCS
Mohr.
Coulomb
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage Increasing / Decreasing toward Pwc
Figure 107 Summary in Sensitivity Analysis
Based on figure above show that unconfined compressive strength (UCS) gives the dominant
effect in wellbore shear failure. It means that with higher UCS, it need less than mud weight
to prevent shear failure. Maximum horizontal stress (S H) in tectonically stressed basin gives
the smallest effect in this sensitivity analysis using Modified Lade and Stassi d' Alia methods
where these method involve three principal stresses whereas Mohr - Coulomb only involves
two principal stresses.
5.2 Wellbore Stability

It is very important to avoid wellbore instability. An unstable wellbore is related to shear
failure where borehole wall under compression. An unstable wellbore is happened when
wellbore pressure is less than formation collapse pressure (Pwc). Consequently, wellbore will
collapse and produce so much failed material from around the wellbore and sometimes these
cutting materials have a bigger size and it is difficult to circulate out of wellbore. If these
cutting cannot be circulated out of wellbore, it will cause hole pack off and subsequently it
will cause pipe stuck.
In designing wellbore stability, a stable wellbore can be reached with increasing mud weight
more than collapse pressure formation (Pwc) or by altering the well trajectory. In relaxed
basin like in this case where σv > σH > σh , it is safer to drill a well with inclination more than
700 parallel to the minimum horizontal stress. In this case, calculation data from well T-2 will
be used to design wellbore stability with keeping wellbore pressure greater than collapse
pressure formation. Data from a previous calculation are plotted together to get the optimum
mud weight in wellbore stability design. In this study will analyze the wellbore stability for
directional well T-2. Data is normalized from original depth of reference (meter sea level) to
depth of rotary kelly bushing (RKB). The elevation of kelly bushing in the rig is 13.7 meter.
The results of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
107
Pressure (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

0
500
1000
Pore Press.
Fracture Press.
Sh
MD (MRKB)
1500 Sv
SH
Pwc (Mod.Lade).
Pwc(Mohr-
2000
Coulomb)
Pwc(Stassi
d'Alia)
2500
3000
Figure 108 Wellbore Stability Design Well T-2 in Psi
108
EMW (ppg)
0 5 10 15 20
0
500
1000
Pore Press.
Fracture Press.
Sh
1500
MD (MRKB)
Sv
SH
Pwc (Mod.Lade)
2000 Pwc(Mohr-
Coulomb)
Pwc(Stassi d'Alia)
2500
3000
Figure 109 Wellbore Stability Design Well T-2 in EMW
From figure above, it can be seen that Mohr-Coulomb give the highest wellbore collapse
pressure compare to the others because Mohr-Coulomb only uses minimum and maximum
principal stress. On the other hand, Modified Lade and Stassi D' Alia use three principal
stresses (σ1, σ2 and σ3). From the calculation above also can be seen that in rock formation
with higher cohesive strength like limestone, the value of wellbore collapse formation tends
to smaller than pore pressure. It means that in a strong rock formation, there are no problems
related to wellbore instability. Besides that, underbalanced drilling also can be applied in this
formation without any problems related to wellbore instability as long as wellbore pressure
greater than collapse pressure formation.
109
With knowing wellbore stability design, it will be easier to design mud weigh and design
casing setting depth. In this case, will use data from calculation directional well T-2 using
Modified lade method to determine the optimum mud weight to prevent wellbore instability
problems during drilling. From wellbore stability design and analysis in type of formation,
casing setting depth for directional well T-2 can be determined. The table below shows
design casing setting depth for well T-2.
Table 21 Casing Setting Depth Well T-2
Casing Hole
Depth Remarks
Size Size
inch inch M RKB
30 36 30 Conductor Casing
20 26 270 Set to cover surface water

Set in shale Formation to give casing
13⅜ 17 ½ 1200
integrity to drill next sect.
Set in shale Formation to give casing
9⅝ 12¼ 2080
integrity to drill next sect.
Liner casing to cover production zone.
7” 8½ 2620
TOL @1870 mRKB
5.3 Casing Design

Based on fluid composition from formation, H2S and CO2 contents are low so the effect of
corrosion that will decrease casing strength can be negligible. The results from the calculation
will be used to choose the appropriate casing where this casing can withstand all of the design
load. The discussion for types of casings will be explained separately.
5.3.1. Discussion in Surface Casing 20"

Before installing casing 20", conductor casing 26" is installed at depth 30 meters. The
purpose to install casing 20" at depth 270 meter is to protect the water table. Based on the
calculation with consider in worst case scenario, Casing with grade J-55, 94 pounds per feet
(ppf) can withstand from burst, collapse and axial load.
Casing J-55, 94 pound per feet (ppf) needs to check in triaxial load and safety factor check.
The results of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
110
Figure 110 Triaxial and Design Factor Surface Casing 20"
From figure above, pipe yield strength casing J-55, 94 pounds per feet (ppf) greater than
triaxial design. In the design limit, this casing also located in safe window between API
design limit and Von Misses design limit so this casing is safe to be used and can withstand
from all of the loads.
5.3.2. Discussion in Intermediate Casing 13-3/8"

The purposes to install 13-3/8" is to isolate loss circulation zone so that drilling for the next
hole section will be safe from total loss circulation. Based on the calculation with consider in
worst load case scenario, casing with grade C-95, 72 pounds per feet (ppf) cannot withstand
from burst, collapse, axial load calculation from the surface to depth of interest so that it
needs a partial section with casing grade above casing C-95, 72 ppf specification. Based on
the analysis, casing P-110, 72 ppf can withstand all of these loads so that the casing
configuration for this section can be seen in the table below:
Table 22 Casing 13-3/8" Configuration
Top, MD (m) Base, MD (m) OD (in) Weight (ppf) Grade

0 1100 13-3/8 72 C-95
1100 1200 13-3/8 72 P-110
These casings configuration need to check in triaxial load and safety factor check. The results
of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
111
Figure 111 Triaxial and Design Factor Casing 13-3/8"
Based on figure above, these casings configurations are safe because this pipe yield strength
is greater than triaxial design load line and these casing are located in a safe window between
API design limit and Von Misses design limit.
5.3.3. Discussion in Intermediate Casing 9-5/8"

The main goal to install casing 9-5/8" at 2080 meter is to provide formation integrity
purposes and to isolate formation before entering production zone so that it will be safe when
drilling in the production zone. Based on the calculation with consider in worst load case
scenario, casing with grade N-80, 40 pounds per feet (ppf) cannot withstand from burst,
collapse, axial load from the surface to depth of interest so that it needs a partial section with
this casing specification. Based on the analysis, casing P-110, 72 ppf can withstand all of
these loads so that the casing configuration for this section can be seen in the table below:
Table 23 Casing 13-3/8" Configuration
Top, MD (m) Base, MD (m) OD (in) Weight (ppf) Grade

0 1400 9-5/8 40 N-80
1400 2080 9-5/8 43.5 P-110
These casings configuration need to check in triaxial load and safety factor check. The results
of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
112
Figure 112 Triaxial and Design Factor Casing 9-5/8"
5.3.4. Discussion in Liner Casing 7"

The main goal to install liner 7" is to provide formation integrity and to isolate the zone of
production. Based on the calculation with consider in worst case scenario, liner 7" with grade
N-80, 26 pounds per feet (ppf) can withstand from the burst, collapse and axial load. This
liner is hung at depth 2010 meter.
Liner 7", N-80, 26 pounds per feet (ppf) need to check in triaxial load and safety factor
check. The results of this calculation can be seen in the figure below:
113
Figure 113 Triaxial and Design Factor Liner 7"
5.4 Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design

Hole cleaning or cutting transport is a complex process that involves many parameters like
fluid rheology, cutting loading parameters, etc. Higher mud density, plastic viscosity, yield
point have a positive impact in hole cleaning and make hole cleaning become easier. On the
other hand, with higher of these parameters will give impact in higher equivalent circulating
density (ECD) while pumping and the worst case this ECD will exceed fracture pressure. If
ECD more than fracture formation, loss circulation will happen and this is very dangerous in
drilling operation. In this thesis, ECD will be kept above collapse pressure and below
minimum horizontal stress (σh) to avoid formation failure like a breakout. To reach this goal,
the optimum flowrate rate must be selected. The selection of optimum flowrate also has to
consider in the optimization of hydraulic design so that this is can enhance bit performance
and to avoid bit balling. In this thesis, the optimization in hydraulic design will analyze in
their hole section, they are hole section 17-1/2", 12-1/4" and 8-1/2". Every hole section will
be discussed separately.
5.4.1. Cutting Transport and Hydraulic Design Discussion in Hole section 17-1/2"
Based on cutting transport calculation, jet impact force and hydraulic horse power graphs, the
optimum flowrate 1465 gallon per minute is chosen. The results calculation using this
optimum flowrate can be seen in the table below :
114
Table 24 Hydraulic Optimization Result in Hole Section 17-1/2"
Bit
Bit Bit
Flowrate SPP Impact BHP HSI
Size Press.Loss
Force
hp /
inch gpm psi psi lbf hp
in2
17-1/2 1465 4984.23 1919.46 3297.8 1640.34 6
Using this high flowrate, the optimization in jet impact force will give maximum impact
force at the bit and will enhance bit performance. To optimize Jet impact force, Based on jet
impact force graph can be chosen total flow area (TFA) for bit nozzle. The table below gives
the information output in determination total flow area :
Table 25 Bit Nozzle Optimization for Hole Section 17-1/2"
Bit Total Flow Nozzle

Nozzle Size
Size Area Velocity
iinch in2 ft /s
2 x 20
17-1/2 0.952 493.8
1 x 21
Using this optimum flow rate, it is very important to maintain equivalent circulating density
less than fracture pressure formation to avoid formation break and consequently to avoid loss
circulation. Moreover, in this case, ECD will be kept greater than collapse pressure formation
and less than minimum horizontal stress to maintain wellbore stability and to avoid wellbore
failure from shear failure. Using software wellplan, equivalent circulating density (ECD) can
be seen in the figure below:
115
Figure 114 ECD for Hole Section 17-1/2"
In this section does not discuss detail about torque and drag, but in this section just only make
sure that drillstring in this section is safe to be used in drilling. Table below shows the
analysis results using wellplan software using weight ob bit (WOB) 15 Klb.
Table 26 String Analysis for Hole Section 17-1/2"
116
Based on cutting transport calculation, jet impact force and hydraulic horsepower graphs, the
optimum flowrate 830 gallons per minute is chosen. The results calculation using this
Bit
Bit Bit
Size Press.Loss
Force
inch gpm psi psi lbf hp hp/in2
12-1/4 830 4950.54 1919.50 2040.9 929.36 6.9
Using this high flowrate, the optimization in jet impact force will give maximum impact
force at the bit and will enhance bit performance. To optimize Jet impact force, Based on jet
impact force graph can be chosen total flow area (TFA) for bit nozzle. The table below gives
the information output in determination total flow area :

Nozzle Size
Size Area Velocity
inch in2 ft /s
12-1/4 0.589 3 x 16 452.1
117
sure that drillstring in this section is safe to be used in drilling. Table below shows the
analysis results using wellplan software using weight ob bit (WOB) 15 Klb.
118
Based on cutting transport calculation, jet impact force and hydraulic horsepower graphs, the
optimum flowrate 400 gallons per minute is chosen. The results calculation using this
Bit
Bit Bit
Size Press.Loss
Force
inch gpm psi psi lbf hp hp/in2
8-1/2 400 5517 2844 1263.7 663.5 10.6
Using this flowrate, the optimization hydraulic horsepower method will give maximum
energy dissipated at the bit and this will enhance bit performance. To optimize hydraulic
horsepower, based on optimizing hydraulic horsepower graph can be chosen total flow area
(TFA) for bit nozzle. The table below gives the information output in the determination total
flow area :

Nozzle Size
Size Area Velocity
inch in2 ft /s
2 x 10
8-1/2 0.246 521.2
1 x 11
119
sure that drillstring in this section is safe to be used in drilling. The reason using drillpipe 4-
1/2" above heavy weigh drillpipe is to avoid fatigue by reducing contact angle between
casing and drillpipe because if it is used drillpipe 5" above heavy weight drillpipe, it can
cause fatigue. Table below shows the analysis results using wellplan software using weight
ob bit (WOB) 18 Klb
120
6. CONCLUSION
Based on the calculation and analysis in wellbore failure criteria and drilling optimization
using landmark software, it can be concluded that:
 Wellbore will be easier in failure condition in weaker formation (lower cohesive

strength or lower unconfined compressive strength). It means that it is needed the
higher mud weight or wellbore pressure to prevent shear failure in formation.
 The higher inclination, it requires higher mud weight to prevent shear failure in
formation.
 Sensitivity in horizontal stresses in relaxed and tectonically stressed basin give the
results that sensitivity in minimum horizontal stress (σ h) needs higher pressure to
avoid wellbore failure or wellbore collapse than sensitivity in maximum horizontal
stress (σH). In wellbore stability application, it means that drilling parallel to
minimum horizontal stress (σh) is safer than drilling parallel to maximum horizontal
stress (σH) because when drilling parallel to minimum horizontal stress needs less
wellbore pressure to keep wellbore from failure condition.
 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) give the dominant effect in wellbore failure
sensitivity. On the other hand maximum horizontal stress (S H) in tectonically stressed
basin gives the smallest effect.
 Stassi d'Alia method gives the smallest value in formation collapse pressure
calculation. Mohr-Coulomb method gives the highest value in formation collapse
pressure calculation and Modified Lade method give a value between of them.
 Based on drilling data and final well report from offset well T-1, Modified Lade give
the best result and give near real value in using mud weight in predicting wellbore
collapse failure criteria so that design wellbore stability to drill directional well T-2
use Modified Lade method to avoid wellbore problems.
 Wellbore stability problems also time dependency so it need to avoid open hole
exposure time too long especially when drilling using water based mud.
 Casings configuration for well T-2 below are designed based on worst case scenario
and these casing can withstand from burst, collapse, axial and triaxial load
Top, MD Base, MD OD Weight

Grade
(m) (m) (in) (ppf)
Surface
0 270 20 94 J-55
Casing
Intermediate 0 1100 13-3/8 72 C-95
Casing 1100 1200 13-3/8 72 P-110
Intermediate 0 1400 9-5/8 40 N-80
Casing 1400 2080 9-5/8 43.5 P-110
Liner 2010 2620 7 26 N-80
121
 The results of cutting transport and hydraulic optimization calculation for well T-2
can be summarized in table below:
Bit
Bit Nozzle Nozzle Flow
Impact BHP
Size Size Velocity Rate
Force
inch ft /s gpm lbf hp
2 x 20
17-1/2 493.8 1465 3297.8 1640.34
1 x 21
12-1/4 3 x 16 452.1 830 2040.9 929.36
2 x 10
8-1/2 521.2 400 1263.7 663.5
1 x 11
 The optimization in hole section 17-1/2" and 12-1/4" use jet impact force method
where by using high flowrate and optimization in bit nozzle size can maximize bit
impact force and increase bit performance.
 The optimization in hole section 8-1/2" use hydraulic horse power (HHP) method
where by using optimum flowrate and optimization in bit nozzle will maximize horse
power loss at drilling bit and increase bit performance.
 The optimum flowrate is used to transport cutting from wellbore to surface where the
optimum flow rate must be greater than minimum flow rate to transport cutting from
wellbore to surface.
 It is very important to keep wellbore pressure during circulation using the optimum
flow rate so that equivalent circulating density (ECD) during pumping located in
between collapse pressure formation and minimum horizontal stress to prevent shear
failure formation or collapse formation.
7. FUTURE WORK
Based on calculation and analysis in this thesis, below are several recommendations for
future study which will be useful in the University of Stavanger:
 By knowing rock mechanic properties like cohesive strength and unconfined

compressive strength can be used to design optimization in weight on a bit so that
drilling optimization can be optimized.
 Study about maximum horizontal stress so that the value of maximum horizontal
stress can be determined precisely.
122
REFERENCES
1. Aadnøy, B. S. & Hansen, A. K. , 2005. Bounds on In-situ Stress Magnitudes Improve Wellbore
Stability Analyses. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pp. 115 - 120.
2. Aadnøy, B. S., 2003. Introduction to Special Issue Wellbore Stability. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, pp. 79-82.
3. Aadnøy, B. S., 2010. Modern Well Design. 2 ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/ Balkema .
4. Aadnøy, B. S. & Chenevert, M. E., 1987. Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, pp. 364-374.
5. Aadnøy, B. S. & Looyeh, R., 2011. Petroleum Rock Mechanincs . s.l.:Gulf Professional
Publishing.
6. Zoback, M. D. , 2010. Reservoir Geomechanics. Stanford University.
7. Amoco, 2010. Drilling handbook : Wellbore Stability"
8. Ewy, R.T., 1999. Wellbore-Stability Prediction by Use of a Modified Lade Criterion. Journal SPE
Drilling & Completion. SPE-56862. Res. 14: 85-91.
9. Stassi D' Alia, F. 1967. Flow and Fracture of Materials According to a New Limiting Condition of
Yielding. J. Mechanica. Res. 2: 178-195
10. Velocity analysis in Practice. Retrived from www.xsgeo.com
11. Clark, R. K., Bickham, K. L. A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport. SPE paper 28306
presented at the SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September
25–28.
12. Luo, Yuejin and P. A. Bern, BP Research Centre; and D. B.Chambers, BP Exploration Co. Ltd.
Flow-Rate Predictions for Cleaning Deviated Wells. IADC/SPE 23884.
13. Luo, Yuejin, P. A. Bern, D. B.Chambers, BP Exploration. Simple Charts to Determine Hole
Cleaning Requirements in Deviated Wells. IADC/SPE 27486.
14. Peden, J. M., Heriot-Watt U., Yuejin Luo. Settling Velocity of Various Shaped Particles in
Drilling and Fracturing Fluids. SPE/IADC 16243.
15. Rabia, H. Rig Hydraulics. Entrac Software: Newcastle, England (1989): Chapter 5.
16. Scott, K. F. A New Approach to Drilling Hydraulics. Petroleum Engineer. September 1972.
17. Rahimi, R. & Nygaard, R., 2014. What Difference Does Selection of Failure Criteria Make in
Wellbore Stability Analysis?. ARMA 14-7146.
18. G. Stjern. 2000. Improving Drilling Performance in Troublesome Clay Formation in Heidrun
Field. IADC / SPE 59219.
123
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
θ Angle, degree
ϕ Angle of Internal Friction, degree
DH Annulus diameter, inch
VA Average fluid velocity for annulus, ft/s
σa Axial Stress, psi
DB Bit diameter, inch
ρ Bulk Density, gr/cm3
BHP Bit hydraulic power, hp
a, b, c Coefficients
Coefficient of Friction
So Cohesive Strength, psi
Vp Compressional Velocity, m/s
K Consistency factor
Vafv Critical transport fluid velocity , ft/s
ρc Cuttings density, gr / cm3
DC Cuttings diameter, inch
Vav Cuttings travel velocity, ft/s
z Depth, m
Differential pressure, psi
EMW Equivalent mud weight, ppg
Fe Effective stress, psi
n Flow behavior index
ρ Fluid density, ppg
F Force , lb
ri Inside radius, inch
σ2 Intermediate Principal Stress, psi
Δt Interval Transit Time, µs/ft
Vint Interval Velocity, m/s
σH Maximum Horizontal Stress, psi
SH Maximum Horizontal Stress, psi
σ1 Maximum Principal Stress, psi
124
MD Measured depth, m
MSL Meter sea level, m
σh Minimum Horizontal Stress, psi
Sh Minimum Horizontal Stress, psi
σ3 Minimum Principal Stress, psi
τy Mud yield stress
l New Length, m
σn Normal Stress, psi
σx Normal Stress in Plane X, psi
σy Normal Stress in Plane Y, psi
σz Normal Stress in Plane Z, psi
lo Original Length, m
Vso Original slip velocity, ft/s
ro Outside radius, inch
Re Particle Reynolds number
Dp Pipe diameter, inch
PV Plastic viscosity, cp
Poisson Ratio
ppf Pound per feet
P0 Pore pressure, psi
Ppg Pound per gallon
Power law geometry factor
σr Radial Stress, psi
Vr Rate of penetration, m/hr
Ra Reynolds number
Vrms Root Mean Square Velocity, m/s
RKB Rotary kelly bushing
τ Shear Stress, psi
Vs Shear Velocity, ft/s
Vsv Slip velocity, ft/s
Ɛ Strain
σ Stress, psi
A Surface Area, inch2
125
σt Tangential Stress, psi
Tangential Stress, psi
T0 Tensile Strength, psi
β The Orientation of Failure Plane
DTJ Tool joint diameter, inch
VTc Total cuttings velocity, ft/s
TVD Total vertical depth, m
C0 Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi
σv Vertical Stress, psi
Sv Vertical Stress, psi
σy Von Mises stress, psi
Pwc Wellbore collapse pressure, psi
YP Yield point, lb/100ft
E Young’s modulus, psi
126
APPENDICES
A. Wellpath T-2 Using Calculation Method: Minimum Curvature

MD INC AZ TVD DLS AbsTort RelTort VSect NS EW Build Walk
(m) (°) (°) (m) (°/100ft) (°/100ft) (°/100ft) (m) (m) (m) (°/100ft) (°/100ft)
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
30,00 0,00 0,00 30,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
89,00 0,00 60,00 89,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
189,00 0,00 120,00 189,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
276,00 0,50 220,00 276,00 0,18 0,06 0,00 -0,29 -0,29 -0,24 0,18 0,00
277,00 0,50 220,00 277,00 0,00 0,06 0,00 -0,30 -0,30 -0,25 0,00 0,00
284,50 0,18 330,87 284,50 2,39 0,12 0,00 -0,31 -0,31 -0,28 -1,30 450,58
325,00 2,39 243,33 324,99 1,80 0,33 0,00 -0,64 -0,64 -1,06 1,66 -65,88
354,00 5,66 238,18 353,91 3,45 0,58 0,00 -1,66 -1,66 -2,82 3,44 -5,41
382,82 9,14 236,47 382,49 3,69 0,82 0,00 -3,68 -3,68 -5,93 3,68 -1,81
411,81 12,09 236,35 410,98 3,10 0,98 0,00 -6,63 -6,63 -10,38 3,10 -0,13
440,42 14,14 237,86 438,84 2,21 1,06 0,00 -10,15 -10,15 -15,84 2,18 1,61
469,07 17,01 237,44 466,44 3,06 1,18 0,00 -14,27 -14,27 -22,33 3,05 -0,45
497,65 19,64 237,90 493,56 2,81 1,27 0,00 -19,07 -19,07 -29,93 2,80 0,49
526,48 22,29 239,44 520,48 2,86 1,36 0,00 -24,43 -24,43 -38,74 2,80 1,63
555,13 24,58 238,74 546,77 2,45 1,42 0,00 -30,28 -30,28 -48,51 2,44 -0,74
584,00 27,57 238,26 572,70 3,16 1,50 0,00 -36,91 -36,91 -59,33 3,16 -0,51
613,00 30,50 238,32 598,05 3,08 1,58 0,00 -44,31 -44,31 -71,30 3,08 0,06
641,00 33,40 238,78 621,81 3,17 1,65 0,00 -52,04 -52,04 -83,94 3,16 0,50
670,00 36,05 238,27 645,64 2,80 1,70 0,00 -60,67 -60,67 -98,03 2,79 -0,54
699,00 37,34 238,71 668,89 1,38 1,68 0,00 -69,72 -69,72 -112,80 1,36 0,46
720,00 37,66 239,04 685,55 0,55 1,65 0,00 -76,33 -76,33 -123,75 0,46 0,48
731,00 37,33 239,00 694,28 0,92 1,64 0,00 -79,78 -79,78 -129,49 -0,91 -0,11
756,00 36,10 240,75 714,32 1,97 1,65 0,00 -87,28 -87,28 -142,41 -1,50 2,13
761,00 36,08 240,80 718,36 0,22 1,64 0,00 -88,72 -88,72 -144,98 -0,12 0,30
784,00 36,01 241,05 736,96 0,22 1,60 0,00 -95,29 -95,29 -156,81 -0,09 0,33
813,00 36,33 240,87 760,37 0,35 1,56 0,00 -103,60 -103,60 -171,77 0,34 -0,19
842,17 36,55 239,45 783,83 0,91 1,53 0,00 -112,22 -112,22 -186,80 0,23 -1,48
871,00 36,55 239,45 806,99 0,00 1,48 0,00 -120,95 -120,95 -201,59 0,00 0,00
127
900,00 38,37 239,25 830,01 1,92 1,50 0,00 -129,94 -129,94 -216,76 1,91 -0,21
926,85 38,26 240,26 851,08 0,72 1,47 0,00 -138,33 -138,33 -231,14 -0,12 1,15
956,68 37,77 240,72 874,58 0,58 1,45 0,00 -147,38 -147,38 -247,13 -0,50 0,47
985,48 37,96 240,82 897,32 0,21 1,41 0,00 -156,01 -156,01 -262,56 0,20 0,11
1014,07 38,00 241,18 919,85 0,24 1,38 0,00 -164,54 -164,54 -277,94 0,04 0,38
1042,75 38,84 241,03 942,32 0,90 1,36 0,00 -173,15 -173,15 -293,55 0,89 -0,16
1071,48 38,55 241,24 964,75 0,34 1,34 0,00 -181,82 -181,82 -309,28 -0,31 0,22
1100,00 38,28 241,47 987,09 0,33 1,31 0,00 -190,32 -190,32 -324,83 -0,29 0,25
1110,00 38,60 241,20 994,93 1,10 1,31 0,00 -193,30 -193,30 -330,28 0,98 -0,82
1129,00 39,20 240,69 1009,71 1,09 1,30 0,00 -199,09 -199,09 -340,71 0,96 -0,82
1157,57 39,89 240,31 1031,74 0,78 1,29 0,00 -208,05 -208,05 -356,54 0,74 -0,41
1186,05 39,81 239,01 1053,61 0,90 1,28 0,00 -217,27 -217,27 -372,29 -0,09 -1,39
1214,61 40,46 238,85 1075,44 0,70 1,27 0,00 -226,77 -226,77 -388,06 0,69 -0,17
1243,17 41,21 238,32 1097,05 0,88 1,26 0,00 -236,50 -236,50 -404,00 0,80 -0,57
1271,75 41,49 237,66 1118,51 0,55 1,24 0,00 -246,51 -246,51 -420,01 0,30 -0,70
1300,49 41,90 237,31 1139,97 0,50 1,23 0,00 -256,79 -256,79 -436,13 0,43 -0,37
1386,39 40,02 237,10 1204,83 0,67 1,19 0,00 -287,28 -287,28 -483,46 -0,67 -0,07
1415,00 40,12 237,09 1226,73 0,11 1,17 0,00 -297,29 -297,29 -498,93 0,11 -0,01
1443,48 40,30 237,25 1248,48 0,22 1,15 0,00 -307,26 -307,26 -514,38 0,19 0,17
1472,07 40,29 237,30 1270,28 0,04 1,13 0,00 -317,25 -317,25 -529,93 -0,01 0,05
1500,63 40,38 237,33 1292,05 0,10 1,11 0,00 -327,24 -327,24 -545,49 0,10 0,03
1529,12 39,11 237,76 1313,96 1,39 1,12 0,00 -337,01 -337,01 -560,86 -1,36 0,46
1557,69 37,80 237,84 1336,33 1,40 1,12 0,00 -346,48 -346,48 -575,89 -1,40 0,09
1586,20 36,84 237,95 1359,00 1,03 1,12 0,00 -355,67 -355,67 -590,53 -1,03 0,12
1614,76 36,82 237,90 1381,86 0,04 1,10 0,00 -364,76 -364,76 -605,04 -0,02 -0,05
1643,49 36,85 237,89 1404,86 0,03 1,08 0,00 -373,91 -373,91 -619,63 0,03 -0,01
1672,09 37,35 237,96 1427,67 0,53 1,07 0,00 -383,07 -383,07 -634,25 0,53 0,07
1700,72 38,01 238,11 1450,33 0,71 1,07 0,00 -392,34 -392,34 -649,10 0,70 0,16
1729,42 38,38 238,06 1472,88 0,39 1,05 0,00 -401,72 -401,72 -664,16 0,39 -0,05
1758,18 38,15 238,14 1495,46 0,25 1,04 0,00 -411,13 -411,13 -679,28 -0,24 0,08
1786,86 37,94 238,28 1518,05 0,24 1,03 0,00 -420,44 -420,44 -694,30 -0,22 0,15
1793,00 38,93 238,76 1522,86 5,13 1,04 0,00 -422,43 -422,43 -697,56 4,91 2,38
1814,43 42,40 240,29 1539,11 5,13 1,09 0,00 -429,51 -429,51 -709,59 4,94 2,18
128
1843,02 41,69 239,73 1560,34 0,86 1,09 0,00 -439,08 -439,08 -726,18 -0,76 -0,60
1871,70 41,12 239,36 1581,86 0,66 1,08 0,00 -448,69 -448,69 -742,53 -0,61 -0,39
1900,43 40,46 239,02 1603,61 0,74 1,08 0,00 -458,31 -458,31 -758,65 -0,70 -0,36
1929,38 39,75 238,63 1625,75 0,79 1,07 0,00 -467,96 -467,96 -774,61 -0,75 -0,41
1957,95 39,54 238,30 1647,75 0,32 1,06 0,00 -477,49 -477,49 -790,14 -0,22 -0,35
1986,52 39,14 237,66 1669,85 0,61 1,05 0,00 -487,10 -487,10 -805,50 -0,43 -0,68
2015,00 38,76 237,43 1691,99 0,44 1,05 0,00 -496,70 -496,70 -820,61 -0,41 -0,25
2043,56 38,44 237,44 1714,31 0,34 1,04 0,00 -506,29 -506,29 -835,62 -0,34 0,01
2072,12 37,88 237,29 1736,77 0,61 1,03 0,00 -515,81 -515,81 -850,48 -0,60 -0,16
2087,00 38,21 237,20 1748,49 0,69 1,03 0,00 -520,77 -520,77 -858,19 0,68 -0,18
2100,26 38,50 237,12 1758,89 0,68 1,02 0,00 -525,23 -525,23 -865,11 0,67 -0,18
2129,44 38,79 236,73 1781,68 0,40 1,02 0,00 -535,18 -535,18 -880,38 0,30 -0,41
2158,12 37,74 236,49 1804,20 1,13 1,02 0,00 -544,95 -544,95 -895,21 -1,12 -0,26
2186,70 37,29 236,38 1826,87 0,49 1,01 0,00 -554,58 -554,58 -909,71 -0,48 -0,12
2215,34 36,52 236,65 1849,77 0,84 1,01 0,00 -564,06 -564,06 -924,05 -0,82 0,29
2243,95 36,61 237,21 1872,75 0,37 1,00 0,00 -573,36 -573,36 -938,34 0,10 0,60
2272,43 37,38 237,26 1895,49 0,82 1,00 0,00 -582,64 -582,64 -952,75 0,82 0,05
2301,02 37,74 237,98 1918,16 0,61 0,99 0,00 -591,97 -591,97 -967,47 0,38 0,77
2329,58 37,82 238,26 1940,73 0,20 0,98 0,00 -601,21 -601,21 -982,32 0,09 0,30
2358,07 37,72 238,65 1963,25 0,28 0,98 0,00 -610,34 -610,34 -997,19 -0,11 0,42
2386,64 37,94 239,22 1985,81 0,44 0,97 0,00 -619,38 -619,38 -1012,20 0,23 0,61
2415,20 37,73 239,73 2008,37 0,40 0,96 0,00 -628,28 -628,28 -1027,29 -0,22 0,54
2443,93 37,25 240,44 2031,17 0,69 0,96 0,00 -637,00 -637,00 -1042,45 -0,51 0,75
2472,53 36,62 241,00 2054,03 0,76 0,96 0,00 -645,41 -645,41 -1057,44 -0,67 0,60
2501,16 36,20 241,47 2077,07 0,54 0,95 0,00 -653,59 -653,59 -1072,34 -0,45 0,50
2529,92 35,99 242,17 2100,31 0,49 0,95 0,00 -661,59 -661,59 -1087,27 -0,22 0,74
2558,60 35,35 243,09 2123,61 0,89 0,95 0,00 -669,28 -669,28 -1102,12 -0,68 0,98
2578,00 34,91 243,23 2139,47 0,70 0,94 0,00 -674,32 -674,32 -1112,08 -0,69 0,22
2587,10 34,70 243,29 2146,95 0,71 0,94 0,00 -676,65 -676,65 -1116,72 -0,70 0,20
2589,30 34,66 243,28 2148,75 0,56 0,94 0,00 -677,22 -677,22 -1117,84 -0,55 -0,14
2603,00 34,43 243,24 2160,04 0,51 0,94 0,00 -680,71 -680,71 -1124,78 -0,51 -0,09
2620,00 34,14 243,19 2174,09 0,52 0,94 0,00 -685,03 -685,03 -1133,32 -0,52 -0,09
129
B.1 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 17-1/2"
130
131
132

Master Thesis Hadi Tranggono

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Hadi Tranggono

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Hadi Tranggono

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Study program / Specialization: Spring semester, 2019

Petroleum Engineering / Well Engineering Open access

Writer: Hadi Tranggono

Supervisor: Bernt Sigve Aadnøy & Eirik Kårstad

Wellbore Collapse Failure Criteria and Drilling Optimization

Keywords: Pages : 122

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Thesis Objective ................................................................................................................. 2

2. BASIC THEORY WELLBORE COLLAPSE FAILURE CRITERIA ............................................................ 3

2.1 Rock Mechanical Properties ............................................................................................... 3

2.1.1. Stress ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1. Vertical Stress........................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Stress At Borehole Wall .................................................................................................... 15

2.4.1. Radial Stress ............................................................................................................. 16

2.5.1. Shear Failure Shallow Knockout (SSKO) .................................................................... 19

2.6.1. Tensile Failure Cylindrical (tcyl) ................................................................................. 23

2.8 Wellbore Collapse Failure Criteria Model ......................................................................... 26

2.8.1. Mohr - Coulomb ....................................................................................................... 26

3.1 Wellbore Stability............................................................................................................. 30

3.1.1. Pore Pressure ........................................................................................................... 32

3.3 Hole Cleaning and Hydraulic Design ................................................................................. 43

4. CASE STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 48

4.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 48

4.2 Pore Pressure Calculation................................................................................................. 50

4.3 Fracture Pressure Calculation ........................................................................................... 60

4.4 Rock Mechanic and Insitu Stress Calculation .................................................................... 64

4.5 Insitu Stress Calculation ................................................................................................... 65

4.6 Wellbore Collapse Calculation .......................................................................................... 69

4.7.1. Sensitivity Analysis toward Inclination ...................................................................... 76

4.8.1. Casing Design Surface Casing 20" .............................................................................. 80

5.1 Wellbore Failure Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................... 106

5.2 Wellbore Stability........................................................................................................... 107

5.3 Casing Design ................................................................................................................. 110

5.3.1. Discussion in Surface Casing 20" ............................................................................. 110

7. FUTURE WORK....................................................................................................................... 122

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 123

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 127

A. Wellpath T-2 Using Calculation Method: Minimum Curvature ............................................ 127

B.1 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 17-1/2" ........................................................ 130

B.2 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 12-1/4" ........................................................ 131

B.3 Minimum Flowrate Vs ROP in Hole Section 8-1/2" .......................................................... 132

Table 1 Exponential (N) Properties Well T-1 ..................................................................................... 53

2.1 Rock Mechanical Properties

Figure 1 Stresses acting on the cube (Aadnøy & Looyeh, 2011)

Figure 2 Typical stress-strain behavior of a material (Amoco, 2010)

2.1.4. Poisson Ratio

2.1.5. Angle of Internal Friction

1. Chang and Zoback, 2003

2. Manohar Lal correlation (Lal et al., 1999)

ϕ is in degrees and Vp is in km/sec

ϕ is in degrees and Vp is in km/sec

2.1.6. Cohesive Strength

Shear Stress = Cohesive strength + Frictional Resistance

Figure 4 Core test laboratory (Amoco, 2010)

Figure 6 Stress Vs Deformation in Uniaxial Compression test (Zoback, 2010)

2. Mc Nally, 1987 derive an empirical relationship in sandstone for fine grained,

3. Militzer, 1973 derive an empirical relationship to calculate UCS for limestone

Unit used for above calculation : UCS in MPa, Δt in (µs/ft)