A Comprehensive, Practical Approach

For Wellbore Instability Management

X. Chen, SPE, and C.P. Tan, SPE, CSIRO Petroleum, and C.M. Haberfield,
Golder Assoc. Proprietary Ltd. and Monash U.

Summary In addition, because of the presence of bedding planes in shale,

In the northwest shelf, a region of growing importance for oil and wellbore failure may be initiated by shear or tensile failure of the
gas production in Australia, drilling delays and well suspension planes of weakness. Therefore, wellbore stability analysis should
before reaching targets have occurred frequently because of well- incorporate bedding-plane failure.
bore instability. As a result, the economic benefits from new drill- Ideally, a mud-weight program should provide a mud pressure
ing technologies are significantly reduced because of high addi- that can prevent failure of any type. Fig. 2 shows an example of the
tional drilling costs. To improve drilling efficiency and minimize critical mud weights required to prevent both tensile and shear
drilling costs, it is crucial to develop and apply a practical ap- failures of intact rock and bedding planes. The highest lower
proach for optimizing wellbore instability management. bound and the lowest upper bound values define the safe mud-
This paper initially presents guidelines, in the form of design weight window to prevent wellbore instability.
charts, for efficient wellbore stability analysis and wellbore profile However, there can be no safe mud-weight window for certain
design. A comprehensive, practical approach that uses the design wellbores and stress regimes (i.e., one or more types of failure
charts for wellbore profile design is described subsequently. The cannot be avoided). For these wellbores, the adopted mud weight
application of the design charts is demonstrated through field case should provide a pressure that can either prevent the most severe
studies for a range of in-situ stress regimes. failure or reduce the failure scale of any type. Hydraulic fracture
and breakout are the most commonly experienced failure types in
Introduction the field and often have more severe consequences than other types
Drilling delays and suspension of wells before reaching the targets of failure. Hydraulic fracturing may lead to severe mud losses,
have occurred1,2 frequently in the northwest shelf because of well- while breakout failure may lead to pack-off or hole collapse. When
bore instability. A practical approach to optimize wellbore insta- there is no mud weight to prevent both simultaneously, priority is
bility management is developed and applied in this paper to im- normally given to preventing hydraulic fracture propagation while
prove drilling efficiency and minimize costs. minimizing breakout as much as possible.
This approach is presented in three parts: presentation of guide-
lines in the form of design charts, description of the design charts’ Design Charts
use, and their application to field case studies for a range of in-situ
stress regimes. Results from previous works have shown that the factors critical to
The study shows that in-situ stress regime, material strength wellbore stability include orientation and magnitude of in-situ
property, strength anisotropy, and, to a lesser extent, material po- stresses, wellbore trajectory, material poroelastic and strength
roelastic anisotropy and induced pore pressure are critical to well- properties, bedding planes, induced pore pressure, and mud pres-
bore stability. The design charts enable assessments to be made sure.3−7 To design a mud-weight program, a wellbore stability
readily on wellbore drillability, optimum wellbore profile, and the assessment to produce critical mud-weight plots, such as those
influence of various critical factors on wellbore stability; they shown in Fig. 2, needs to be conducted. Such analysis requires
consolidate the factors into a manageable, pragmatic framework. knowledge of all the factors. The extent to which these factors
Understanding the influence of these factors will enable the deter- influence wellbore stability varies dramatically and must be as-
mination of an efficient approach to wellbore stability analysis. sessed. This knowledge will also assist in deciding which param-
Applying the charts to field case studies demonstrates the practi- eters need to be determined accurately.
cality and feasibility of the approach in wellbore profile design for A series of parametric studies has been conducted to investigate
efficient wellbore instability management. the effects of each factor in detail.8−10 The axis conventions of
in-situ stress regime, wellbore trajectory, and material anisotropy
Wellbore Failure and Prevention used in the analyses are shown in Fig. 3. In these studies, the
To better understand the design charts, it is necessary to briefly material was assumed to behave in accordance with poroelasticity
describe mechanical (stress-induced) wellbore failure mechanisms theory, and a range of input parameter values was used. The design
and their prevention. charts developed from the parametric studies are based on all
Drilling a well in a formation changes the initial stress state and in-situ stress regimes that may be encountered in drilling opera-
causes stress redistribution within the rock surrounding the well- tions (see Fig. 4). The range of poroelastic and strength parameters
bore. The redistributed stress state may exceed either the tensile or used in these analyses are given in Tables 1 through 4. The
shear strength of the formation, which leads to failure. The stress detailed description of the analysis conditions and the determina-
state around the wellbore comprises contributions from in-situ tion of the input data is presented in previous publications.8−10
stresses and from the wellbore pressure imposed by the mud col-
umn. Fig. 1 depicts different failure modes in relation to the prin- Effects of In-Situ Stress Regime. The variation of wellbore sta-
cipal stresses imposed on the material. When the mud pressure is bility with in-situ stress regime, which was developed from safe
not sufficiently high to support the wellbore, breakout, toric shear mud-weight windows determined for each of the in-situ stress
failures, and exfoliation tensile failure can occur. However, when regimes and material strength categories (lower bound, mean, and
the mud pressure is excessively high, it can cause helical and upper bound strength), is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that
elongated shear failures and hydraulic fracture. drillability from wellbore stability consideration in relation to the
in-situ stress regime can be divided into three broad areas.
• Area 1 represents those stress regimes in which drilling op-
Copyright © 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers
erations of any trajectory can be conducted without any instability
This paper (SPE 80146) was revised for publication from paper SPE 48898, first presented problems if appropriate mud weights are adopted. The stress re-
at the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, 2−6 November. Original
manuscript received for review 7 September 1999. Revised manuscript received 15 August
gimes in this area are close to hydrostatic; that is, the differences
2002. Paper peer approved 16 August 2002. between ␴v, ␴H, and ␴h are small.

224 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

 4.5

4 Shear rock (lower bound)

3.5 Tensile rock (lower bound)

3 Shear bedding (lower bound)

Mud Weight, s.g.

2.5 Tensile bedding (lower bound)
Safe mud weight window
2 Shear rock (upper bound)

1.5 Tensile rock (upper bound)

1 Shear bedding (upper bound)

0.5 Tensile bedding (upper bound)

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Inclination Angle, degree

Fig. 2—Critical mud weights for wellbores oriented in the direc-

tion of ␴h in a strike-slip faulting stress regime.

• Area 2 represents those stress regimes in which drilling opera-

tions of only certain trajectories can be conducted without any insta-
bility problem. The stress regimes in this area are fairly anisotropic.
• Area 3 represents those stress regimes in which safe mud-
weight windows for wellbores in any trajectory cannot be ob-
tained, and, hence, wellbore instability cannot be avoided. The
stress regimes in this area are highly anisotropic.
The plots (Figs. 5a through 5c) show that the size of Areas 1 and
2 increase with the strength of the material. When the formation
material has higher strength, a larger safe mud-weight window
exists and fewer instability problems will occur. As a result, in-situ
stress regimes that are unfavorable for low-strength material will
become favorable for material with higher strength properties.
Areas 1 and 2 can be further subdivided into five areas based on
the optimum wellbore profile shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 1—Types of mechanical (stress-induced) wellbore instability. • Area A shows that those stress regimes in which wellbores of
low inclinations (close to vertical) and oriented in the direction of
␴H are more stable in comparison with other wellbore direction
and inclination combinations. The stress regimes in this area cor-
respond to reverse faulting and have small differences between ␴H
and ␴h, and the magnitude of ␴h is closer to ␴v in comparison with
the difference between ␴H and ␴v.
• Area B represents those stress regimes in which wellbores of
any trajectory are almost equally stable. The stress regimes in this
area have the smallest differences between ␴v, ␴H, and ␴h in com-
parison with the other areas.
• Area C represents those stress regimes in which wellbores of
low inclinations (close to vertical) and oriented in the direction of
␴h are more stable. The stress regimes in this area correspond to

β
α

Fig. 4—Ranges of in-situ stress regimes encountered in oil and

Fig. 3—Axis conventions. gas fields.

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 225

226 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Fig. 6—Optimum wellbore profile in relation to in-situ stress
Fig. 5—Wellbore drillability in relation to in-situ stress regime. regime.

normal faulting, with small differences between ␴H and ␴h and a

magnitude of ␴v that is closer to ␴H in comparison with the dif- of ␴h are more stable. The stress regimes in this area are close to
ference between ␴v and ␴h. the boundary between normal and strike-slip faults, with a large
• Area D represents those stress regimes in which wellbores of difference between ␴H and ␴h and a magnitude of ␴v that is closer
high inclinations (close to horizontal) and oriented in the direction to ␴H in comparison with the difference between ␴v and ␴h.
of ␴H are more stable. The stress regimes in this area are close to
the boundary between reverse and strike-slip faults, with a large Effects of Bedding Planes and Strength Anisotropy. Effects of
difference between ␴H and ␴h and a magnitude of ␴v that is closer bedding planes and strength anisotropy are investigated by exam-
to ␴h in comparison with the difference between ␴v and ␴H. ining the safe mud-weight windows of intact rock and bedding
• Area E represents those stress regimes in which wellbores of planes. The strength parameters are categorized in Tables 2
high inclinations (close to horizontal) and oriented in the direction through 4, with Cases 1 to 3 as low, Cases 3 to 6 as intermediate,

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 227

Fig. 7—Effects of strength anisotropy on shear failure in rela- Fig. 8—Effects of strength anisotropy on shear failure in rela-
tion to the in-situ stress regime (lower bound strength). tion to the in-situ stress regime (mean strength).

and Cases 6 to 8 as high strength anisotropy. The results obtained • Although bedding planes also have a larger influence on
from the analyses are shown in Figs. 7 through 9. wellbores oriented in directions close to that of ␴h, for strike-slip
It can be seen that the strength anisotropy effect is governed faulting stress regimes, they have significant effects, even with low
mainly by the in-situ stress regime. strength anisotropy.
• For normal faulting stress regimes, bedding planes with in- • For reverse faulting stress regimes, bedding planes with low-
termediate and high strength anisotropies have a significant effect strength anisotropy also have significant effects on wellbore sta-
on wellbore stability. The influence is larger on wellbores oriented bility but with a larger influence on wellbores oriented in direc-
in directions close to that of ␴h (“close to” means that most sig- tions close to that of ␴H.
nificant effects are in the specified stress direction and decrease The influence of strength anisotropy generally increases in the
considerably away from that direction). order of: reverse>strike-slip>normal faulting regimes.

228 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

 needed when determining the mud weight to prevent hydraulic
fracture. It can be seen that the effects are most significant on
highly inclined wellbores, especially in the reverse faulting region.
In this region, as the stress anisotropy increases, wellbores with
lower inclinations also can be affected by strength anisotropy. In
the normal faulting region, there will be no effect on the failure. In
the strike-slip faulting region, only horizontal wellbores drilled in
the minor horizontal stress direction will be affected. The cross
section of such wellbores will be subjected to vertical and major
horizontal stresses. Because the major horizontal stress is larger
than the vertical stress, hydraulic fracture will be initiated in the
major horizontal stress direction parallel to the bedding planes.
However, in the normal faulting region, the failure will be initiated
in the vertical stress direction, perpendicular to the bedding planes,
and will not be affected by bedding-plane tensile strength.

Effects of Material Poroelastic Anisotropy. To assess the effects

of material poroelastic anisotropy on wellbore stability, the
anisotropies presented in Table 1 are divided into three groups—
low (Cases 1 and 2), intermediate (Cases 3 and 4), and high (Case
5 and 6). For each group, the significance of the difference be-
tween critical mud weights obtained with isotropic and anisotropic
properties is assessed according to the following criteria.
• 0 to 5% ⳱ insignificant.
• >5 to 10% ⳱ low significance.
• >10% ⳱ high significance.
The analyses were conducted on material with mean strength properties.
As shown in Fig. 13, the effects of material poroelastic anisot-
ropy on the lower bound mud weight of intact rock shear failure
are insignificant for low and intermediate poroelastic anisotropies
(not shown here). For high poroelastic anisotropy, the effects are
of low significance in highly anisotropic stress regimes. Hence, it
can be concluded that the effects of material poroelastic anisotropy
on the lower bound mud weight of rock shear failure are gener-
ally insignificant.
The effects of material poroelastic anisotropy on the upper
bound mud weight of rock shear failure are shown in Fig. 14. It
can be seen that the effects are either insignificant or of low sig-
nificance for normal and strike-slip stress regimes. The effects
become more significant in the reverse faulting region, particularly
the high anisotropic stress regimes.
Similarly, it is also found that the effects of material poroelastic
anisotropy on the upper bound mud weight of rock tensile failure
are only significant in the reverse faulting region, especially the
stress regimes with high anisotropy, as shown in Fig. 15.
Although the effects of material poroelastic anisotropy on bed-
ding-plane tensile failure are highly significant, the safe mud-
weight window is generally governed by intact rock and bedding
plane shear failures (for the strength parameters used in this study).
Hence, the effects of material poroelastic anisotropy on bedding-
plane tensile failures will not be critical in the design charts. It is
also found that the material poroelastic anisotropy has a significant
influence on bedding-plane shear failure for low-inclination well-
bores (ⱕ30°) but is insignificant for high-inclination wellbores
(>30°). Because the failure tends to occur in highly deviated well-
bores4,9 with inclinations greater than 45°, it can be concluded that
the effects of material poroelastic anisotropy on bedding-plane
shear failure will not affect wellbore stability.
Fig. 9—Effects of strength anisotropy on shear failure in rela- In summary, the safe mud-weight window is not significantly
tion to the in-situ stress regime (upper bound strength).
affected by poroelastic anisotropy for the range of material param-
eters used in this study. This finding provides a rational basis for
Figs. 7 through 9 indicate that the effects of strength anisotropy a wellbore stability analysis to be carried out using isotropic po-
increase with strength values. This is because high strength prop- roelastic properties for most applications.
erties result in a broader safe mud-weight window for intact rock
failure than for lower-strength material. However, the increase in Effects of Induced Pore Pressure. Because of the low permeabil-
the safe mud-weight window for bedding-plane failure with an ity of shales, excess pore pressures will be induced in the material
increase in strength is less significant than for intact rock. As a in response to the volume change of the rock matrix during drill-
result, more wellbores drilled in formations with high-strength ing. These excess pore pressures will reduce the effective confin-
properties will be affected by bedding-plane failure. ing pressure applied on the material, leading to a less stable well-
Figs. 10 through 12 show the effects of strength anisotropy on bore condition. The induced pore pressure, ⌬pp, is calculated with
the upper bound tensile failure of bedding planes. These charts are the following equation.10

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 229

Fig. 10—Effects of strength anisotropy on upper bound tensile failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime (lower bound strength).

冦冧
⌬␴1 The effects are the same for materials with different degrees of
⌬␴2 poroelastic anisotropy (see Fig. 18). The significance of the effects
is largely dependent on the in-situ stress regime and generally
⌬␴3 significant for high anisotropic stress regimes.
⌬pp = 兵b1 b2 b3 0 0 0其 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
⌬␶23
⌬␶31 Guidelines for Optimum Wellbore Profile and
Efficient Wellbore Stability Analysis
⌬␶12
The design charts presented in the previous section have been
in which b1, b2, and b3 ⳱ Skempton’s pore pressure coefficients in developed for use as guidelines in determining the optimum well-
three material directions (b1 ⳱ b3 for transverse isotropic material). bore profile and in conducting efficient wellbore stability analyses.
In assessing the effects of induced pore pressure on wellbore The critical mud weights for the mud program are required to be
stability, the material poroelastic anisotropies are divided into determined by wellbore stability analysis with analytical or nu-
three groups—low (Cases 1 and 2), intermediate (Cases 3 and 4), merical methods4,11 together with field data.
and high (Cases 5 and 6). For each group, the significance of the As shown in Fig. 5, there are three areas representing different
difference between undrained and drained critical mud weights is wellbore drillabilities (with respect to wellbore stability). Hence,
assessed according to the following criteria. the procedure of mud-weight program determination for each area
• 0 to 5% ⳱ insignificant. will be different. Based on drillability, two approaches that use the
• >5 to 10% ⳱ low significance. design charts presented in the previous section have been developed.
• >10% ⳱ high significance. The practical procedure of the approaches is described in Fig. 19.
The analyses were conducted on material with mean strength properties. After characterizing the in-situ stress regime, formation pres-
Although it is found that the effects of induced pore pressure sure, and properties for a field, the wellbore drillability can be
are highly significant for intact rock and bedding-plane tensile failures assessed with Fig. 5. The optimum wellbore profile for the field is
and bedding-plane shear failure in low-inclination wellbores (ⱕ 30°), provided by Fig. 6. Hence, a wellbore trajectory either without or
they are not taken into consideration in developing the design charts with less severe instability problems can be determined in con-
for the reasons given previously. Hence, only the effects of induced junction with other factors, such as geological constraints. Once a
pore pressure on intact rock shear failure are presented. wellbore trajectory has been selected, Figs. 7 through 18 can be
Results show that the required safe mud weights under drained used to determine whether various factors, such as strength and
conditions are always lower than those under undrained condi- poroelastic anisotropies and induced pore pressure, need to be
tions. The effects of induced pore pressure on the lower and upper included in the wellbore stability analysis.
bound mud weights for intact rock shear failure in relation to the For drilling operations conducted in Area 1 (see Fig. 5), as long
in-situ stress regime are shown in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. as the required material poroelastic and strength parameters are
It can be seen that the effects are small for in-situ stress regimes available, determination of a safe mud-weight window can be
close to the isotropic stress field. The effects increase with po- conducted by simply referring to Figs. 7 through 9, 13 and 14, and
roelastic anisotropy and are more significant in the reverse faulting 16 and 17. The determined critical mud weights can be calibrated
region than in the strike-slip and normal faulting regions. It should with field observations11 and incorporated into the well plan.
be pointed out that although Fig. 17b shows the same significance Mud-weight program planning for Area 3 is much more com-
of induced pore pressure on wellbore stability for intermediate and plicated. Figs. 7 through 18 are required to determine the effects of
high poroelastic anisotropies, the difference between the two strength and poroelastic anisotropies and undrained conditions on
drainage conditions for materials with high anisotropy are larger critical mud weights. In this area, no safe mud-weight window can
than for those with intermediate anisotropy. be determined because the upper and lower bound mud-weight
The previous analyses show that pore pressures induced under curves overlap (refer to Fig. 2). In this case, the critical mud weight
undrained conditions are affected by both in-situ stress and po- should be selected based on the principle of minimizing wellbore
roelastic anisotropies. The combination of the two anisotropies instability severity. For this purpose, Fig. 20 has been developed to
increases the magnitude of the induced pore pressures signifi- help determine the optimum mud weight. The adopted mud weight
cantly. This suggests that it is necessary to conduct wellbore sta- should prevent hydraulic fracture propagation and reduce the ex-
bility analysis under undrained conditions, especially for wellbores tent of shear failure at the same time. If the lower bound mud
drilled in low-permeability formations with high poroelastic an- weight for shear failure (LS) overlaps only the upper bound mud
isotropy and/or subjected to highly anisotropic in-situ stresses. weight for hydraulic fracture initiation (FI), LS will be adopted if
The effects of induced pore pressure on the upper bound mud it is less than the minimum in-situ principal stress. This is because
weight of intact rock tensile failure were also examined in detail. the initiated fracture will not propagate against the minimum stress. If

230 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 11—Effects of strength anisotropy on upper bound tensile Fig. 12—Effects of strength anisotropy on upper bound tensile
failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime (mean strength). failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime (upper bound
strength).
LS overlaps the upper bound mud weight for shear failure (US), the
average value of the two mud weights will be adopted if it will not It must be emphasized that because the size of each area in
result in fracture propagation. The average value is used to minimize Figs. 5 and 6 varies with material strength, extra caution must be
the severity of both types of shear failures around the wellbore. taken in using the charts for stress regimes close to the boundaries
If the selected wellbore profile in Area 2 is within the optimum between the three areas.
trajectory range, there will be no instability problem if the appro-
priate mud program is used, just as in Area 1. In this case, the Application—Case Studies
procedure of determining the safe mud-weight window is the same Case studies for two fields in the North West Shelf of Australia are
as for Area 1. However, if wellbore instability cannot be avoided, the presented to demonstrate the application of the design charts. The
same wellbore stability analysis procedure as for Area 3 must be used. information on wellbore profile, in-situ stress conditions, drilling

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 231

Fig. 13—Effects of poroelastic anisotropy on lower bound mud
weight of rock shear failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime.

experience, and mud weight used is summarized in Table 5. The

material properties of the analyzed sections are given in Table 6.

Field A. As seen in Table 5, the in-situ stress regime for Field A

is close to the boundary between normal and strike-slip faulting
regions and relatively close to the isotropic stress regime. Because
the strength values of the formation (see Table 6) are close to the
mean strength values used in the development of the design charts
(see Table 3), Fig. 5b should be used. With ␴h/␴v⳱0.78 and ␴H /
␴h⳱1.33 in Fig. 5b, it is found that wellbore instability problems
can be prevented in the field if the appropriate mud weight is used
because the stress regime is located close to the boundary between
Areas 1 and 2.
From Fig. 6b, it can be determined that high-inclination well-
bores drilled in the direction of minor principal horizontal stress
are the optimum trajectories for the field. The information of Well
1 in Field A (given in Table 5) indicates that the well was drilled
very close to the optimum trajectory. Hence, it can be expected
that no drilling problem related to wellbore instability will occur if
the appropriate mud weight is used.
However, wellbore instability-related problems were experi-
enced while drilling this well. Wellbore stability analyses, per-
formed based on the strength values of the intact rock given in Table
6, show that the recommended mud weight is similar to that used in
the drilling. Hence, it is possible that wellbore instability may have
been caused by other factors, such as bedding-plane failure.
Fig. 8c shows that for the in-situ stress regime present in this
field, strength anisotropy has an effect on the stability of wellbores
with inclinations greater than 45° and drilled in directions close to
the minor principal horizontal stress. It is clear, therefore, that
bedding-plane failure of the formation should be considered in the
wellbore stability analyses.
Wellbore stability analyses incorporating bedding-plane failure
have been conducted with a relatively high strength anisotropy,
which is the same as for Case 6 in Table 2. The values used are
presented in Table 6. The analyses showed that the mud weight of Fig. 14—Effects of poroelastic anisotropy on upper bound mud
1.32 s.g. required to prevent bedding-plane failure is significantly weight of rock shear failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime.
higher than the value required for preventing intact rock failure.
The design charts for the effects of material poroelastic anisot- wellbore instability. Hence, Fig. 5b should be used. The stresses in the
ropy and induced pore pressure (see Figs. 13 and 16c) suggest that field (␴h/␴v⳱0.75 and ␴H /␴h⳱1.25) indicate that wellbore instabil-
the two factors have either insignificant or low impacts on the well. ity can be prevented as long as the appropriate mud weight is used.
Fig. 6b shows that it is more favorable to drill high-inclination
Field B. As shown in Table 5, the in-situ stress regime is in the wells in the direction of the minor principal horizontal stress. The
normal faulting region, relatively close to the isotropic stress re- information on Wells 1 through 6 in Field B, given in Table 5,
gime. The strength values of the formation vary significantly, as indicates that wellbores with a range of trajectories have been
shown in Table 6. Its minimum strength values are close to the drilled in this field. Almost all the wells were drilled without
mean strength, while its maximum values approximate the upper significant problems with the exception of Well 4.
bound strength used in the development of the design charts. How- Among the six wells, Well 3 is regarded the safest because its
ever, the minimum strength materials will be most susceptible to trajectory is closest to the optimum direction. Hence, the lowest

232 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 15—Effects of poroelastic anisotropy on upper bound mud Fig. 16—Effects of induced pore pressure on lower bound mud
weight of rock tensile failure in relation to the in-situ stress weight for rock shear failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime.
regime.
even though the lowest mud weight was used. Well 6 also was
mud weight will be required for this well in comparison with the drilled without experiencing any instability problems, but a much
other five wells. Higher mud weights will be required for Wells 4 higher mud weight was used. Wells 1, 2, and 5 were successfully
and 6 because they are highly inclined and were drilled close to the drilled with mud weights either equal to or greater than the lowest
direction of the major principal horizontal stress. Hence, the mud mud weight used. However, the mud weight used in Well 4 is only
weight required for the two wells must be at least equal to the slightly higher than the lowest value in Well 3, but is much lower
value used for Well 1, and the mud weight required for Well 4 than that in Well 6. Field observations and drilling experience are
should be at least equal to the value for Well 6. consistent with the trends shown in the design charts. Therefore, it
The drilling experience in Table 5 shows that Well 3 was can be concluded that the instability problem experienced in Well
drilled without encountering any wellbore instability problems, 4 is largely attributed to insufficient mud weight.

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 233

Fig. 17—Effects of induced pore pressure on upper bound mud weight for rock shear failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime.

Fig. 8b shows that strength anisotropy has no effect on well-

bores drilled in formations with intermediate strength anisotropy in The approach presented in this paper forms an innovative and
the in-situ stress regime of the field. However, with an increase in comprehensive methodology to manage wellbore instability in
material strength properties and strength anisotropy, failure may be the oil and gas industry. It can be easily applied to determine
initiated by bedding planes, as shown in Figs. 8c, 9b, and 9c. These optimum wellbore profiles and mud-weight programs for all
charts suggest that wellbores drilled in the direction of the minor types of drilling operations. Significant wellbore-instability-
principal horizontal stress would be most susceptible to bedding- related lost time and cost can be reduced if the methodology is
plane failure. However, field experience showed that more severe applied appropriately.
drilling problems were encountered in wellbores drilled in the
Nomenclature
direction of the major principal horizontal stress. This would indicate
that the strength anisotropy of the shale is either low or intermediate b ⳱ Skempton’s pore pressure coefficient
and that bedding-plane failure is not dominant in this field. c ⳱ cohesion, MPa
As for Field A, the effects of material poroelastic anisotropy E ⳱ Young’s modulus, GPa
and induced pore pressure (see Figs. 13 and 16) have either insig- f1 ⳱ original ratio of each pair of parameters
nificant or low-significance effects on wellbores drilled in Field B. f2 ⳱ variation factor
f3 ⳱ correction factor
Conclusions
G ⳱ shear modulus, GPa
The study shows that in-situ stress regime, material strength prop- pp ⳱ pore pressure, MPa
erty, strength anisotropy, and, to a lesser extent, material poroelas-
z ⳱ axis of well trajectory
tic anisotropy and induced pore pressure are critical to wellbore
stability. The study also shows that the approach enables assess- ␣ ⳱ inclination angle of wellbore, degree
ments to be readily made on wellbore drillability (with respect to ␤ ⳱ direction angle of wellbore, degree
wellbore stability), optimum wellbore profile, and the influence of ⌬pp ⳱ induced pore pressure, MPa
various field conditions on wellbore stability. The application to ␾ ⳱ angle of internal friction, degree
field case studies demonstrates the practicality and feasibility of ␴ ⳱ normal stress, MPa
the approach in designing a wellbore profile. It consolidates the ␴h ⳱ minor horizontal stress, MPa
various critical factors into a manageable, pragmatic framework ␴H ⳱ major horizontal stress, MPa
that can be used in routine wellbore profile design for efficient ␴r ⳱ radial stress, MPa
wellbore instability management. ␴t ⳱ tensile strength, MPa
␴v ⳱ vertical stress, MPa
␴z ⳱ axial stress, MPa
␴␪ ⳱ tangential stress, MPa
␶ ⳱ shear stress, MPa
␷ ⳱ Poisson’s ratio
Subscripts
b ⳱ bedding plane
i ⳱ intact rock
1 ⳱ direction parallel to bedding plane
2 ⳱ direction perpendicular to bedding plane
3 ⳱ direction parallel to bedding plane
Superscripts
u ⳱ undrained
,
⳱ effective
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper is supported by the Australian
Fig. 18—Effects of induced pressure on upper bound mud weight Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre (through CSIRO Petro-
for rock tensile failure in relation to the in-situ stress regime. leum) and Monash U.

234 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion

 z

Fig. 5

Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Fig. 5

Fig. 6 Fig. 6 Fig. 6

Figs. 7 through 9 Figs. 10 through 12

Figs. 13 through 14 Fig. 15

Figs. 16 and 17 Fig. 18

Fig. 20

Fig. 19—A comprehensive practical methodology for optimum wellbore profile and efficient wellbore stability analysis.

References 2. Tan, C.P. et al.: “Wellbore Instability in the North West Shelf of
Australia,” APEA J. (1994) 34, No. 1, 3.
1. Kingsborough, R.H., Williams, A.F., and Hillis, R.R.: “Borehole In- 3. McLean, M.R.: “Analysis of Wellbore Stability,” PhD dissertation, U.
stability on the Northwest Shelf of Australia,” paper SPE 23015 pre- of London (1988).
sented at the 1991 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Perth, 4. Aoki, T., Tan, C.P., and Bamford, W.E.: “Stability analysis of inclined
Australia, 4−7 November. wellbores in saturated anisotropic shales,” Proc., 8th Intl. Conference

December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion 235

 Fig. 20—Procedure for determining optimal mud weight to minimize wellbore instability.

on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Balkema, Rot- presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Mel-
terdam (1994) 2025. bourne, Australia, 7−10 November.
5. Ong, S.H. and Roegiers, J.C.: “Influence of anisotropies in borehole Xi Chen is currently a research scientist in the Drilling Fluid and
stability,” Intl. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1993) Wellbore Mechanics Group at CSIRO Petroleum Resources,
30, No. 7, 1069. Perth, Australia, involved in research relating to mechanical
6. Aoki, T.: “Stability of Boreholes in Saturated Porous Anisotropic and time-dependent wellbore instability in both continuum
Shales,” PhD dissertation, U. of Melbourne (1996). and fractured rock masses, optimization and development to
7. Chen, X., Tan, C.P., and Haberfield, C.M.: “An Overview on Current manage shale stability, and real-time wellbore stability. e-mail:
Status of Wellbore Stability Analysis,” APCRC Unrestricted Report [email protected]. She previously worked as a research engi-
No. 008, CSIRO Petroleum, Melbourne, Australia (1996). neer for China Natl. Nonferrous Metals Industry Cooperation.
8. Chen, X., Tan, C.P., and Haberfield, C.M.: “Wellbore Stability Analy- Chen holds a BS degree in engineering physics from Chong-
qing U. and a PhD degree in geomechanics from Monash U.,
sis Guidelines for Practical Well Design,” paper SPE 36972 presented Melbourne, Australia. She is currently serving on the SPE Asia
at the 1996 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide, Aus- Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition Committee. Chee
tralia, 28−31 October. Tan has worked as a researcher and manager for CSIRO on
9. Chen, X., Tan, C.P., and Haberfield, C.M.: “Guidelines for Efficient projects ranging from development of time-dependent well-
Wellbore Stability Analysis,” Intl. J. of Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. (1997) bore stability models, wellbore stability analysis tools, novel drill-
34, No. 3/4. ing fluids to rock mechanics, drilling fluid testing, and execution
10. Chen, X., Tan, C.P., and Haberfield, C.M.: “Effects of Induced Pore of major R&D and technical service projects. e-mail:
Pressure on Stability of Wellbores Drilled in Shales,” paper SPE 47297 [email protected]. He has had extensive experience in most
of the major Australian petroleum basins and has worked on
presented at the 1998 SPE/ISRM EUROCK, Trondheim, Norway,
projects in the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Tan holds a BS
8−10 July.
degree in civil engineering and a PhD degree in geomechan-
11. Tan, C.P. and Willoughby, D.R.: “Wellbore Stability Analysis of the ics, both from Monash U., Melbourne, Australia. He is currently
First Horizontal Well Drilled in the Griffin Field,” paper SPE 28775 serving on the program committee for the SPE/ISRM Oil/Rock
2002 Conference, the SPE Applied Technology Workshop on
Real-Time Wellbore Stability, and the SPE Reservoir Geome-
chanics in the Oil and Gas Industry. Chris Haberfield is currently
a principal geotechnical engineer for Golder Assocs. Propri-
etary Ltd and an associate professor in the Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering at Monash U. e-mail: [email protected]. He
previously worked for Coffey and Partners Proprietary Ltd. until
1983, when he joined Monash U. in Melbourne, Australia, as an
associate professor. Haberfield holds a BS degree from the U. of
Sydney in civil engineering and a PhD degree from Monash U.

236 December 2002 SPE Drilling & Completion