Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7


Assessing the Impact of Trajectory on Wells

Drilled in an Overthrust Region
N.C. Last, SPE, and M.R. McLean, SPE, BP Exploration
Drilling in the Cusiana field, located in the tectonically active foot-
hills of the Casanare region of Colombia, has proved to be extremely
difficult. One major contributor to the operational difficulties is
poor hole conditions, which often lead to stuck pipe. However, ex-
perience has shown that performance improves when drilling updip
of the major faults and bedding; downdip and crossdip well trajecto-
ries are the most problematic. Stress modeling of the geological
cross sections indicates that the principal stresses in the Cusiana
field may be rotated significantly from the vertical and horizontal.
After adjusting a conventional wellbore-stability analysis to allow
for stress rotation, a reasonable match is obtained between predic-
tion and field experience on the issue of stability variation with hole
trajectory for wells drilled in the region.
In partnership with Ecopetrol, Total, and Triton, British Petroleum
(BP) has been drilling in the foothills of the Casanare region of
Colombia (Fig. 1) since the late 1980's. Both the Cusiana and Cu-
piagua fields have now been declared commercial. Development-
well drilling in Cusiana began in late 1993. Appraisal wells are cur-
rently being drilled in Cupiagua. An aggressive drilling schedule is
now being pursued, with 10 rigs active. From the earliest well, op-
erational difficulties were encountered. Possibly the biggest prob-
lem associated with drilling wells in this region has been well bore
instability. Ref. I discusses the considerable effort that has gone into
tackling the problems and the improvements that have been made.
Here, the particular aspect of instability variation with well trajecto-
ry is discussed.
Background to Wellbore Stability
Wellbore instability (Fig. 2) can result in lost circulation where ten-
sile failure has occurred and in spalling and/or hole closure in the
case of compressive failure of the rock. In severe cases, hole insta-
bility can lead to stuck pipe and eventual loss of the open hole sec-
tion. Owing to the large costs associated with well bore instability,
it has received considerable attention, as is apparent from the num-
ber of publications on the subject. The extent of the problem is real-
ized to a greater extent in the drilling experiences encountered in the
foothills of the Casanare region of Colombia than elsewhere. For ex-
ample, Fig. 3 shows caliper traces from a Cusiana development
well. Fig. 3a shows a hole drilled with a l2V,-in. bit that has enlarged
to nearly 45 in. in places. The in-gauge section is a sand interval.
Also, as Fig. 3b shows, the large overgauge reading in one caliper
pair accompanied by a relatively in-gauge reading of the other pair
suggests that the stresses may be highly anisotropic.
Selection of mud types and weights to eliminate hole instability of
wells drilled in Cusiana has been found to be impossible. Loss zones,
which necessitate a low mud weight, frequently occur adjacent to col-
lapse zones, which require a high mud weight. Incorporating suffi-
cient intermediate casing strings to isolate each individual problem
zone is unrealistic. Hence, mud-weight selections are made in an at-
tempt to minimize the problems without eliminating them, and it has
been necessary to live with a certain degree of hole instability.1
Copyright t 995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 15. 1996. Revised manuscript received
April 2. 1996. Paper peer approved April 19. 1996. Paper (SPE 30465) first presented at the
1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dattas, Oct. 22-25.
Well bore-stability theory2.3 shows that many factors other than
mud weight are likely to influence the competency of the well bore
wall. Examples are formation pressure, depth, formation strength,
stress state, mudcake efficiency, and time. Of the parameters that
can be controlled by the operator, theory shows that wellbore trajec-
tory has a significant influence on stability.2,4 Field experience from
wells in the Cusiana field also indicates that trajectory has a signifi-
cant influence on hole stability. In cases where optimizing mud
weights alone cannot reduce instability to acceptable levels, then
optimizing well trajectory to reduce further, or at least limit, the ex-
tent of problems is necessary.
Drilling Experiences in Cusiana
Fig. 4 is a schematic of the geological structure. The figure shows the
two main faults, Yopal and Cusiana, their dip and dip direction, and the
dipping nature of the formations. It also shows example wells that de-
fine the meaning of updip, downdip, and crossdip trajectories.
Drilling experience in Cusiana showed that wells drilled in the
general updip direction appear to progress more smoothly than ver-
tical wells and are a significant improvement on wells drilled in the
downdip direction, which have proved to be very difficult. Evidence
also exists that crossdip wells are more difficult than nominally ver-
tical wells. The incidence of stuck pipe and the need to sidetrack also
increase significantly for downdip and crossdip wells.
Hole condition is one aspect that updip drilling seems to improve.
Assuming cumulative reaming time is a reasonable indication of the
extent of hole instability, then Fig. 5 can be used to assess the varia-
tion of stability with well trajectory. Fig. 5 plots a number of wells,
showing their step-out and azimuth. The bars against each well show
the number of reaming hours for drilling through the most difficult se-
quence of formations, known as the Carbonera (Fig. 6). In general,
wells in the southeast sector denote updip trajectories (Fig. 4), wells
in the northwest sector downdip trajectories, and wells in the north-
east and southwest sectors crossdip trajectories. Wells with the larger
step-outs in the southeast sector (typically updip wells) require fewer
reaming hours than near vertical wells and considerably fewer ream-
ing hours than wells of similar step-outs in the other three sectors.
Hole breakout and enlargement are also reduced in updip wells, as
measured by the volume of cavings produced at surface and the ap-
parent rugosity of the hole (reduced tripping problems).
Hole condition is not the only issue to consider. For example, the
natural tendency for the bit to attack the formations normal to their
bedding (unless deliberately steered) must be a factor. However, at
least part of the performance improvement in drilling updip is the
result of reduced hole instability. To project the behavior of future
wells planned in the region and to plan trajectories to minimize hole
instability problems require a consistent explanation of the experi-
ences encountered to date. A credible wellbore-stability model
needs to explain the directionally dependent nature of the hole-sta-
bility problems encountered.
Directional Dependence of Hole Stability
For stability to be directionally dependent requires anisotropy in
loading and/or relevant formation properties. The two factors most
likely to contribute to directional dependency of wellbore stability
are anisotropy of formation strength and in-situ stresses.
Effect of Strength Anisotropy. Rock can be anisotropic in its
strength behavior because of sedimentary features, such as bedding
planes and bedding-parallel laminations, or because of deforma-
July 1996 . JlFf
Fig. 1-Location map.
o 4 8
tion-induced features, such as fractures, joints, or cleavage
associated with shear zones adjacent to a fault. Strong evidence ex-
ists for localized occurrences of all of these in the Cusiana overbur-
den, but bedding planes are the most extensive and obvious contrib-
utor to strength anistropy. A number of researchers have studied the
effect of rock-strength anisotropy on wellbore stability.5.6 Similar
approaches to those published are currently under investigation as
a means of improving the backanalysis of past wells and forward
prediction for planned wells in the Cusiana field. However, the in-
depth studies of the stress state alone and its influence on stability
provide valuable insight and form the central theme of this paper.
Effect of Stress State. Formations are subjected to stresses derived
from the weight of the overburden and any regional tectonic loading
that exists. The stresses can be resolved into three principal compo-
nents, which in most cases are the vertical, minimum horizontal, and
maximum horizontal stresses (Fig. 7). In passive sedimentary ba-
sins, such as the North Sea, the vertical stress is usually considered
to be the largest (Fig. 7a). In a geologically active setting, such as
Cusiana, the tectonic forces dominate and the maximum horizontal
stress is the largest of the three components (Fig. 7b). Knowledge
of the stress state is important when diagnosing hole problems and
planning development wells. In a passive basin, a vertical well is
parallel to the maximum stress component, which theory shows to
Gamma Ray
45" 121/4" 121/4" 45"
Caliper 1-3 Caliper 2-4

Fig. 2-Types of stress-induced instability.
be one of the most stable trajectories.
In general, field evidence
from the North Sea also shows that vertical or low-angle wells are
the least problematic and that instability is more associated with
moderate- to high-angle wells.
In Cusiana, which is in an active overthrust region, the maximum
horizontal stress is greater than the overburden stress; hence, the
faulting seen, the active tectonism, and the evolution of the Andes
mountains. For the overthrust stress state depicted in Fig. 7b, stan-
dard wellbore-stability theory predicts that vertical wells are the
most prone to wellbore instability, while high-angle wells with azi-
muths close to the maximum horizontal stress direction are the least
prone to instability. These theoretical results are reported in a num-
ber of publications.
, 11 However, little or no field evidence has been
published to support or refute the theoretically derived conclusions
for wells drilled in this type of stress environment. In Cusiana (in a
tectonically active region), where the conventional opinion is that
the maximum stress is horizontal, a vertical well is predicted to be
the least stable and high-angle wells drilled subparallel to the direc-
tion of the maximum horizontal stress are predicted to be the most
stable. Field experience from Cusiana shows that trajectory can
=""".-----. (It mO)
Gamma Ray

45" 12114" 121/4" 45"
Caliper 1-3 Caliper 2-4
Fig. 3-Caliper traces from 12
-in. section of a Cusiana well.
JlYl' July 1996 621
Fig. 4-Schematic of structural geology and inferred stress
directions in the Cusiana field.
have a strong influence. However, the trends seen are not consistent
with the standard theory. This apparent mismatch and its resolution
are discussed in the following sections.
Stress Distribution in the Cusiana field
The interpretation of wellbore breakout from caliper logs reveals a
very consistent northwest-southeast direction for the maximum hor-
izontal stress across the Cusiana field,
which is perpendicular to the
mountains and in the regional thrust direction (Fig. 4). The degree
of breakout (e.g., Fig. 3b) suggests a significant difference in the two
horizontal stresses. On the basis of leakoff tests, mud losses, and
step-rate tests, the minimum horizontal stress appears to be surpris-
ingly low (equivalent to 0.7 psi/ft) and therefore horizontal. Hence,
the vertical stress must be intermediate. However, there is evidence
of significant variability in the stress magnitudes with depth and
formation type, which is to be expected.
The expense involved in conducting sufficient field measurements
to define the stress variations reliably throughout the structure would
be prohibitive. Therefore, a predictive stress analysis model has been
used to get trends in the variation of stress with depth and with posi-
tion on the structure. In the model, horizontal loading is applied to a
geometric representation of the structure, which includes lithology
and major faults. The model predicts the spatial variation of stresses,
including both magnitude and directions. We plan to publish details
of the stress-modeling process at a later time. * To date, the results
have been used to determine the stress variation along predicted well
paths for wellbore-stability calculations, leading to mud-weight rec-
However, the predictive modeling has also led to the
observation of another potentially important aspect of the stress field
in Cusiana: the rotation of the principal stresses away from the com-
monly assumed vertical and horizontal axes.
Fig. 6 shows the results from a typical simulation. This figure is
a simplification of the stress-trajectory plot given in Ref. 12. In Fig.
6, each cross represents the magnitude and orientation of the princi-
pal components of stress. The subhorizontal stress is the largest, re-
flecting the effects of the regional tectonics. The minimum horizon-
tal stress is normal to the plane of the diagram and is determined by
the model on the basis of plane-strain conditions. The simulation re-
sult of interest here is that the principal stresses are not uniformly
vertical and horizontal, as is generally assumed. The assumption of
vertical and horizontal principal stresses is reasonable in a normal
sedimentary basin. However, the combined effects of the loading
and structure (faults and dips) produce shear stresses in the overbur-
den that result in a rotation of the principal stresses away from the
vertical and horizontal.
Evaluation of Relative Stability of Directional Wells
Model Description. Standard wellbore-stability analysis tools can
be used to evaluate the effect of well trajectory on hole stability. The
equations presented in the Appendix for determining the elastic
=- 4
=- 0


' - ,

I . - --
--- fUJ '

5 4 3 2
West (1 000 It)


...... 4} fr',- - --u
" '

'- ':J1
IBoltor \ hoI.
2 3
East (1000 It)
Fig. 5-Reaming time as a function of trajectory for wells in the
Cusiana and Cupiagua fields.
stress state around the wellbore are similar to those presented by oth-
er authors, 2,13 except that rotation of the principal stresses from the
commonly assumed vertical and horizontal axes is incorporated. To
assess well bore stability, the computed stress state is compared with
a rock-strength criterion. A number of criteria have been proposed
for elasticlbrittle failure analyses of well bore stability. Here a Mohr-
Coulomb criterion is assumed, Refs. 14 and 15 discuss the effect of
the choice of criterion on computed results.
Output from wellbore-stability models is typically presented in
terms of minimum mud weights required to prevent collapse and
maximum mud weights required to avoid exceeding the fracture gra-
dient. These allowable mud weights can be presented as functions of
well deviation and/or azimuth.
,16,17 Our experience is that mud-
weight predictions from elasticlbrittle failure models can be overly
and may overstate the sensitivity of hole stability to
well trajectory. Published data from other sources support our experi-
ences,18-20 although the view that an elasticlbrittle failure model is
too conservative is not unanimously supported. Nevertheless, we be-
lieve that presenting model predictions in terms of mud-weight rec-
ommendations without carefully "calibrating" the results could be
misleading and potentially detrimental to the credibility of well bore-
stability studies. Therefore, to avoid these problems the "stability
charts" presented here give only a qualitative guide to the stability of
a well as a function of its trajectory.
To illustrate the model output, Fig. 8 shows the results from an
analysis of the Ula field (Block 7112 in the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea). Ula is in the more conventional passive basin with nom-
inally horizontally bedded formations and therefore it is reasonable
o 5,000 It 10,000 II 15,000 II 20,000 It 25,000 It
sea 0
o sea
5,000 It
2,000 m
15,000 It
20,000 It
2,000 m 4.000 m
'Last, N.C. and Harkness, M.R.: "Stress Distribution in Cusiana Overburden-Evaluation by
Modeling and Field Calibration," unpublished work (1995). Fig. 6-Computed stress vectors in Cusiana field,
622 July 1996 .JIyr
(a) (b)
St ress state typ ical of a passive basi n. Stress state typical of a compressive
tectonically active region.
Fig. 7-(a) Passive and (b) active stress states.
to assume vertical and horizontal in-situ principal stresses. Breakout
of wells in the VIa field show a fairly consistent north-
west-southeast trend for the maximum horizontal stress. The direc-
tion of the maximum horizontal stress entered into the model is indi-
cated by the arrows on the boundary of the polar diagram (Fig. 8).
The stress state in shale formations susceptible to instability is esti-
mated to be defined by the ratio of 1.0: 0.9: 0.8, respectively, for ver-
tical stress, 0v; maximum horizontal stress, 0Hmax; and minimum
horizontal stress, OHmin' The polar diagram in the figure shows the
relative stability of wells as a function of well trajectory at 8,000 ft
total vertical depth (TVD). The center of the diagram represents a
vertical well. The concentric circles represent increasing inclina-
tion, with the outer boundary representing horizontal wells. The ra-
dial lines represent different azimuths. The darker the shading in a
sector, the greater the risk or extent of instability of wells drilled
with that trajectory. Conversely, the lighter the shading the lower the
risk of instability. The "stability numbers" against the shading chart
are a measure of stability relative to a vertical well. Thus, a number
More Stable
Less Stable
Fig. 8-Hole stability vs. well trajectory, Ula field, Norwegian sec-
tor of the North Sea. Depth = 8,000 ft, Ov equivalent to 1.00 psilft,
0Hmax equivalent to 0.90 psi/ft, 0Hmin equivalent to 0.80 psi/ft,
pore pressure gradient = 11.5 Ibm/gal, mud weight = 12.5 Ibm/gal,
and calculated UCS=4,191 psi.
,JlYI' July 1996
less than unity is less stable than a vertical well, and a number great-
er than unity is more stable than a vertical well.
The stability of a vertical well is set to unity by determining a uni-
axial compressive strength (VCS) for the formation so that a vertical
well is predicted to be on the limit between being stable and suffer-
ing hole collapse, assuming an elasticlbrittle failure model. A mud
weight must be selected to enable a VCS to be backed out of the
analysis. The VCS determined from this calculation is unlikely to
match the laboratory VCS, if measured; in general, the computed
VCS will be significantly greater than the laboratory-determined
VCS. Typically, the selected mud weight will be the mud weight
considered to be optimum for the vertical hole section in question.
In extreme cases, such as Cusiana, the optimum mud weight may
not be sufficient to prevent all occurrences of hole collapse. There-
fore, a stability factor of one or greater does not necessarily mean
that there will be no spalling of the borehole wall. Conversely, in rel-
atively easy drilling environments, a stability factor of less than one
does not necessarily mean that there will be hole instability. The ob-
ject of the plots is simply to allow a qualitative assessment of how
the risk of instability varies with well trajectory.
The VCS backed out from the chosen stress conditions and opti-
mum mud weight for a vertical well are then used to determine the
stability factor for all other well trajectories, assuming the mud
weight is kept constant. The stability factor is based on a compres-
sive-failure criterion and is defined as allowable maximum princi-
pal effective stress at the wellbore wall divided by actual maximum
principal effective stress. We can show that for typical overbal-
ances, the stability factor is, in general, given by
Co + (PH - pp)(l + sin rp)/(l - sin rp)
F, = 0 _ P ......... (1)
From Fig. 8, we can see that for VIa, northeast-southwest direc-
tional wells should be less prone to instability than northwest-south-
east wells. These theoretical conclusions are observed in practice in
the VIa field. Wells with trajectories in the least favorable direction
are planned with higher mud weights as a consequence of instability
problems seen early in the development-drilling program.
Model Application to Cusiana. Compared with the VIa field, the Cu-
siana stresses arc different in three important ways: (1) the vertical
stress is not the maximum stress, (2) the ratio of the stresses is much
greater, and (3) the principal stresses are rotated from the vertical and
More Stable
Less Stable
Fig. 9-Hole stability vs. well trajectory, Cusiana field, vertical and
horizontal principal in-situ stresses. Depth = 10,000 ft, Ov equiva-
lent to 1.1 0 psi/ft, 0Hmax equivalent to 1.40 psi/ft, 0Hmin equivalent
to 0.70 psilft, pore pressure gradient=8.5 Ibm/gal, mud
weight=12.0 Ibm/gal, and calculated UCS=19,856 psi.
More Stable
Less Stable
Fig. 1 ~ H o l e stability vs. well trajectory, Cusiana field, principal
in-situ stresses rotated 30 from vertical and horizontal axes.
Depth = 10,000 ft, 0v equivalent to 1.18 psi/ft, 0Hmax equivalent to
1.33 psi/ft, 0Hmin equivalent to 0.70 psilft, TVHmax equivalent to 0.17
psilft, pore-pressure gradient =8.5 Ibm/gal, mud weight = 12.0 Ibm/
gal, and calculated UCS=18,355 psi.
horizontal axes (the minimum principal stress is still horizontal). The
vast majority of well bore instability is seen in the Carbonera sequence
(see Fig. 6). Experience to date suggests that the three in-situ principal
stresses in the Carbonera are in a ratio of 1.4: 1.1 : 0.7, although this
varies with depth and position on structure.
The relative stability of wells drilled through the Carbonera is first
investigated assuming the principal stresses are vertical and horizon-
tal. as per standard approaches to wellbore-stability analysis. Hence,
0Hmax: Ov :OHmin = 1.4: 1.1 :0.7. Fig. 9 shows the predicted effect of
well trajectory at a depth of 10,000 ftTVD [typically 10werCarbonera
above the Yopal fault (Fig. 6)). The predictions are quite different
from the Ula predictions presented in Fig. 8. For Cusiana, hole condi-
tions in wells drilled parallel to the mountains are predicted to be no
worse than nominally vertical wells, and conditions should, in fact,
improve slightly at higher deviation angles. The most stable orienta-
tions are predicted to be in the updip and downdip directions (see Fig.
4); indeed, high-angle wells with these azimuths should be signifi-
cantly more stable than a vertical well. These conclusions are a direct
consequence of the predicted stress ordering and the assumption that
principal stresses are aligned vertical and horizontal.
Experience has shown that while the relative performance gener-
ally improves when drilling updip, drilling downdip results in sig-
nificantly worse hole conditions. Drilling crossdip has also proved
to result in worse conditions than near-vertical wells. Hence, the
predicted effect of trajectory on conditions (Fig. 9) shows little con-
sistency with the actual drilling experiences.
The effect of stress rotation is now incorporated into the analysis.
The previously defined stress state is rotated so that the vertical and
maximum horizontal stresses are rotated 30
clockwise as one looks
at the northwest-southeast section in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, we can see that
significant rotations of the principal stresses are indicated and that a 30
rotation is not unrealistic within the Carbonera above the Yopal fault.
(Below the Yopal fault the stresses in the "repeat" Carbonera sequence
do appear to be more closely aligned to the vertical and horizontal and
the conventional approach may be reasonable here.)
Rotation of the vertical and maximum horizontal stresses is
achieved by applying a shear stress, TVHmax, (see the Appendix).
The shear stress component required to induce a clockwise rotation
of lJ1 is given by
For the stress rotation example, the stresses 0Hmax, 0v, and 0Hmin
are entered as 1.33, 1.18, and 0.7 psi/ft, respectively, and the shear
stress, TVHmax, entered as 0.13 psi/ft. From Eq. 2 we can see that this
provides a 30
clockwise rotation in the principal stresses. The values
of 0Hmax and 0v are now different from those used in the nonrotated
stress case (Fig. 9). This is because 0Hmax and 0v are no longer princi-
pal stresses. However, we can show that the three principal compo-
nents of the in-situ stress state are still in the ratio of 1.4: 1.1 :0.7.
Fig. 10 shows the relative stability of wells as predicted, with
stress rotation incorporated into the analysis. The variation of stabil-
ity with trajectory is now significantly different from that shown in
Fig. 9. Now updip (southwest) wells are predicted to be consider-
ably more stable than downdip (northeast) wells, as observed in the
Cusiana field. The most stable wells are bracketed by azimuths of
100 to 170
and deviations between 40 and 70
These predictions
are consistent with the field observations, as characterized by the
variation in reaming hours with well trajectory (Fig. 5).
I. Field evidence has shown that drilling performance is im-
proved relative to vertical wells when drilling updip of the major
faults and bedding in the Cusiana field.
2. Drilling downdip and crossdip has resulted in greater problems
than drilling of vertical wells in Cusiana.
3. Conventional wellbore-stability analyses assume in-situ prin-
cipal stresses are horizontal and vertical. The application of a con-
ventional analysis to the Cusiana field predicts that high-angle wells
drilled toward or away from the mountains are the most stable and
vertical wells the least stable.
4. Conventional wellbore-stability analysis results are inconsis-
tent with the field experiences from Cusiana.
5. Stress modeling of the structural setting for the Cusiana field
reveals that the normal assumption of the principal stresses being
aligned with the horizontal and vertical axes may not be valid. In the
vicinity of the thrust faults, significant rotation is predicted.
6. When stress rotation is incorporated into the wellbore-stability
model, updip drilling is the most favorable direction.
7. The predicted trends from the modified model are in general
agreement with experiences seen to date in Cusiana.
8. Other factors may contribute to hole condition for directional
wells drilled in thrust regions, such as the angle between the well
and any planes of weakness that may exist (e.g., bedding). This is
currently under investigation. JPT
Co = formation UCS, mlLt
, psi
F" = stability factor
Pp = formation pore pressure, mlLt
, psi
PI\' = wellbore pressure from mud column, mILt
, psi
a = wellbore inclination, degrees
f3 = wellbore azimuth relative to maximum horizontal
in-situ stress, degrees
() = angular location around wellbore wall, degrees
0Hmax = maximum horizontal in-situ stress, mlLt2, psi
0Hmin = minimum horizontal in-situ stress, mILt
, psi
Or ,Go'Oz = radial, circumferential, and axial stresses at well-
bore wall, mlLt
, psi
0v = vertical/overburden stress, mlLt2, psi
Ox,Oy,Ozz = normal stresses from transpose of in-situ stresses
to wellbore-coordinate system, m/Lt2, psi
01 = maximum principal stress at the wellbore wall (see
Appendix), mlLt
, psi
TVHmax = in-situ shear stress (resulting in rotation of in-situ
principal stresses), mlLt2, psi
, T
' T;:x = shear stresses from transpose of in situ stresses to
wellbore-coordinate system, mlLt2, psi
= shear stress at wellbore wall, mlLt2
1> = Mohr-Coulomb friction angle, degrees
lJ1 = rotation of principal in-situ stresses from vertical
and horizontal axes, degrees
T VHmax = V2(0 Hmax - v) tan 2lJ1. . ................... (2) 'Compression is assumed positive throughout.
July 1996 .JIYI'
We thank the management of BP Exploration and partners, Ecopetrol,
Total, and Triton, for permission and encouragement to publish this pa-
per and the many colleagues who participated in the studies described,
in particular, Patrick Collins, consultant; Richard Harkness of South-
ampton U.: and Herve De Naurois of Total.
1. Last, N.e. et al.: "An Integrated Approach to Evaluating and Managing
Well bore Instability in the Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America,"
paper SPE 30464 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
2. Bradley, W.B.: "Mathematical Stress Cloud Can Predict Borehole Fail-
ure," Oil & Gas 1. (Feb. ) 77, No.8, 92.
3. McLean, M.R.: "Analysis of Well bore Stability," PhD dissertation, U. of
London (1988) 43-119.
4. Haiso, C.: "A Study of Horizontal-Wellbore Failure," SPEPE (Nov.
1988) 489; Trans., AI ME, 285.
5. Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E.: "Stability of Highly Inclined Bore-
holes," SPEDE (Dec. 1987) 364; Trans., AIME, 281.
6. Ong, S.H. and Roegicrs, J-e.: "Horizontal Well Collapse in an Aniso-
tropic Formation," paper SPE 25504 presented at the 1993 SPE Produc-
tion Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 21-23.
7. Charlez, P. and Heugas, 0.: "Evaluation of Mud Weight in Soft Shale
Levels," Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science, J-e. Roegiers
(cd.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1991) 1005-14.
8. Wilson. R.e. and Willis, D.N.: "Successful High-Angle Drilling in the
Statfjord Field," paper SPE 15465 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
9. Wong, S-W. et al.: "Optimizing Shale Drilling in the Northern North Sea:
Borehole Stability Considerations." paper SPE 26736 presented at the
1993 Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Sept. 6-9.
10. Ewy, R.T. et al.: "North Sea Case Histories of Wellbore Stability Predic-
tions for Successful High-Angle Nelson Field Wells," paper SPE 27495
presented at the I 994lADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 15-I 8.
I I. da Fontoura, S.A.B. and Santos, H.M.R: "Stability Studies for the Exper-
imental Horizontal Well at Fazenda BeIem (e.E.), Brazil." paper SPE
2 I 064 presented at the 1990 SPE Latin American Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Oct. 10-14.
12. Last, N.e. and McLean, M.R.: "Assessing the Impact of Trajectory on
Wells Drilled in an Overthrust Region." paper SPE 30465 presented at
the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas. Oct.
H m i ~ \
V ---;.,..:....:,.......,.,
(x-axis lies in the Z
horizontal plane)
Fig. A-1-Transposing in-situ stresses.
JlYI' July 1996
13. Leeman, E.R.: "The Determination of the Complete State of Stress in
Rock in a Single Borehole-Laboratory and Underground Measure-
ments," 11111. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geol11ech. Absli: (1968) 5, 31.
14. McLean, M.R. and Addis. M.A.: "Well bore Stability Analysis: A Re-
view of Current Methods of Analysis and Their Field Application." pa-
per SPE 19941 presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.
Houston, Feb. 27-March 2.
15. McLean, M.R. and Addis, M.A.: "Wellbore Stability: The Effect of
Strength Criteria on Mud Weight Recommendations," paper SPE 20405
presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
New Orleans, Sept. 23-26. '
16. Guild. GJ., Jeffery, J.T., and Carter, J.A: "Drilling Extended-Reach!
High-Angle Wells Through Overpressured Shale Formation in the Cen-
tral Graben Basin, Arbroath Field. Block 22/17, U.K. North Sea,"
SPEDC (Sept. 1994) 161; Trans . AIME. 297.
17. Ottensen, S. and Kwakwa, K.A.: "A Multidisciplinary Approach To In-
situ Stress Determination and Its Application to Wellbore Stability Anal-
ysis," paper SPE 21915 presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Con-
ference. Amsterdam, March 11-14.
18. Veeken. e.A.M. et al.:. "Use of Plasticity Models for Predicting Bore-
hole Stability," Proc .. ISRM/SPE IntI. Rock at Great Depth Symposium.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield (1989) 2, 835.
19. Santarelli, FJ.: "Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Stabil-
ity of the Axisymmetric Wellbore," PhD dissertation, U. of London (\ 987).
20. Santarelli. FJ . Brown, E.T., and Maury. v.: "Analysis of Borehole
Stresses Using Pressure Dependent Linear Elasticity," Illti. 1. Rock
Mech. Mill Sci. Geomech. (1986) No. 23,445.
21. Plumb. R.A. and Hickman. S.H.: "Stress-Induced Borehole Elongation:
A Comparison Between the Four-Arm Dipmeter and the Borehole Tele-
viewer in the Auburn Geothermal Well." 1. Geophysical Research
(1985) 90, No. B7, 5513.
Appendix-Modified Wellbore Stability Model
Before determining the stress state at the wellbore wall, it is neces-
sary to transpose the in-situ stress tensor relative to a coordinate sys-
tem with one of its axes parallel to the weIIbore axis and another
which lies in the horizontal plane (see Fig. A-I). The transposed
stress state is given as
- 2rvHmaxsina cos a cos f3, .................. (A-2)
+ 2r \'IImax sin a cos a cos f3, .. . .............. (A-3)
rxv = cos a sin f3 cos f3(a Hmax - aHmin)
(x.axis lies in the Z
horizontal plane)
(1\.- well pressure from mud column)
Fig. A-2-Stress state at wall of deviated wellbore.
- 2r VHmax sin a sin f3 ' (A-4)
+ 2rVHmax cos f3(sin
a - cos2f3), ............. . (A-5)
and r ~ , = sin a sin f3 cos f3{a Hillin - a Hma,)
- 2rVHmax cos a sin f3 . .................... . (A-6)
Fig. A-I defines the inclination angle, a, and wellbore azimuth rela-
tive to stress state, f3.
In the standard analysis approach, where the principal stresses are
vertically and horizontally oriented, then the shear component,
rHmax, is zero. In the more general case, where stresses are rotated
from the vertical and horizontal axes, then rHmax is nonzero and av
and aHmax are not principal stresses. In the structural modeling of
Cusiana aHmin is determined from plane strain conditions and al-
ways taken to be a principal stress.
Having transposed the stress state, then the total stresses at the
wall of the wellbore (Fig. A-2) can now be written as
= PH" ....... . ........... ... ......... . . (A-7)
= ax + a
- 2(0. .. - aJ cos 28 - 4rxy sin 28 - PH"
r 9, = 2( r" cos 8 - r :.1 sin 8). . .................. (A-IO)
The maximum principal stress at the wellbore wall, as used in Eq.
I, is then determined from
; 0.:)2 + r ~ " ........... (A-II)
The stress state must be checked around the complete circumference
of the wellbore (e.g., by incrementing 8 in I ' steps from 0 to 359') so
that the most critically stressed point can be found and selected.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048*
gal x3.785 412
in. x 2.54*
Ibm X 4.535 924
mile x 1.609 344*
psi x 6.894 757
Conversion factor is exact.
E-OI =m
E-Ol =kg
Nigel Last is a senior drilling engineer with BP Exploration Colom-
bia Ltd .. where he specializes in reducing wellbore instability. He
joined BP in 1988 as head of the geomechanics team at BP' s
Technology Provision Center in the U.K. and moved to Colombia
in 1994. Last holds BS and PhD degrees in engineering from the
U. of London. He was a member of the 1993-94 Rock Mechanics
in Petroleum Engineering Program Committee. Michael McLean
is a geomechanics engineer at BP's Technology Provision Center
in Sunbury-on-Thames. He joined BP in 1986 and has worked on
a variety of geomechanical issues, including wellbore stability,
sand production, and cuttings reinjection. He holds BS, MS, and
PhD degrees in engineering from the U. of London.
Last McLean
July 1996. JlY('