544 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion

Sixty Days Ahead of Schedule: Reducing

Drilling Risk at Valhall Using Computational
Geomechanics
Tron Golder Kristiansen, SPE, and Roar Egil Flateb, BP Norge
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 119509) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1719 March 2009, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 21 June 2009. Revised manuscript
received for review 10 April 2010. Paper peer approved 26 April 2010.
Summary
The Valhall field is an overpressured, undersaturated Upper Creta-
ceous chalk reservoir located in the Norwegian sector of the North
Sea. The reservoirs consist of weak chalk. The weak chalk results
in significant reservoir compaction, exceeding 10 m in places, and
corresponding seafloor subsidence, exceeding 6 m above the center
of the field. Previous papers have documented the increasing drill-
ing challenges in the shale overburden at Valhall because of the
subsidence. This paper presents the computational-geomechanics
technology developed and implemented to assist drilling into the
highly depleted and compacted crest from the new water-injection
platform at Valhall. The work focuses on handling the stress changes
occurring in the overburden above a compacting reservoir and not
the more traditional situation associated with depletion-induced frac-
ture-gradient changes in the reservoir itself. The technology is based
on a history-matched full-field finite-element-based geomechanics
model to calculate stresses, strains, and displacements. The results
are exported from the finite-element model (FEM) to a geological
modeling software to perform wellbore-stability calculations using
BP best practices for prediction of wellbore stability. In this environ-
ment, one can also easily use as supporting data 4D seismic from
the permanent life-of-field seismic array at Valhall. By calculating
the operational mud-weight window over a high risk interval in
the overburden, a good correlation to historical nonproductive time
(NPT) was found. The methodology is used in detailed well plan-
ning where moving the well 50 m in one direction is the difference
between problem-free drilling or huge drilling challenges. The paper
presents the first application of this technology on a new water
injector delivered 60 days ahead of schedule with reduced costs of
approximately USD 20 million and with avoidance of a potential
train wreck that could have cost USD 60 million.
Introduction
The Valhall field is an overpressured, undersaturated Upper Creta-
ceous chalk reservoir located in the North Sea approximately 290
km offshore southern Norway in 69 m of water (Fig. 1). Valhall was
discovered in 1975, and the field was originally developed to recover
250 million bbl of oil; but it has to date produced more than twice
this amount, and work is ongoing to recover more than 1 billion bbl
of oil from the Valhall structure. A three-platform complex with 24
slots was installed in 1981 on the crestal part of the field. The 24
slots were extended to 30 on the original drilling platform around
1990. In 1996, a new 19-slot wellhead platform was installed next
to the existing central complex for infill and extended-reach drilling
(ERD). Because of severe drilling problems during ERD, a third
wellhead platform was installed in the south flank in 2002, and a
similar wellhead platform was installed in the north flank in 2003.
In 2004, a new drilling and injection platform was installed on the
crestal part to accommodate waterflooding of the field.
The reservoir is at a depth of approximately 2400 m subsea and
consists of two oil-bearing chalk formations, Tor and Hod. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the oil and the majority of the productivity are
located in the Tor. The effective overburden stress in the crest of
the field was approximately 500 to 1,000 psi at discovery, owing to
significant overpressure (0.82 psi/ft). The chalk is relatively weak
(unconfined compressive strength between 500 to 2,000 psi), and
because reservoir pressure has been reduced during primary deple-
tion from approximately 6,500 psi to 2,500 psi in the crest, the
chalk matrix has compacted more than 10 m in places, resulting in
severe seafloor subsidence. For more details on the reservoir and
field development, see Barkved et al. (2003). The current seafloor
subsidence is approximately 6 m at a rate of 14 cm/yr after a rela-
tive constant rate around 25 cm/yr for most of the production his-
tory. The compaction and subsidence have also resulted in casing
deformations, as observed in other compacting and subsiding fields.
For more details on casing deformations and design, see Kristiansen
et al. (2000) and Pattillo and Kristiansen (2002).
Drilling in the overburden at Valhall has been more challenging
over time because of varying degrees of subsidence in the field. In
the late 1990s, ERD wells to the south and the north of the field
were unsuccessful, and an evaluation of the situation indicated that
a more cost-effective solution would be to drill the flank wells from
platforms in the south and the north of the field. Drilling from these
platforms resulted in sustained best-in-class drilling performance
(Kristiansen 2004).
While the ERD program could be exchanged with the flank
platforms in the north and south part of the field, the off-take in
the crest continued and the crestal part of the Tor formation was
depleted from initial pressure of 6,500 psi to below 2,000 psi in
places; this is well below the water gradient. This depletion results
in the maximum reservoir compaction and, hence, the largest risk
for subsidence-induced changes in the overburden before entering
the much-depleted reservoir. Drilling experience in the crest at
Valhall during the last few years has indicated considerably varying
drilling conditions over fairly short lateral distances. It was decided
to develop a methodology to reduce the risk of wellbore instabil-
ity before landing wells in the depleted crestal area of the field.
This paper presents the computational-geomechanics technology
developed and implemented to drill into the highly depleted and
compacted crest from the new water-injection platform at Valhall.
The technology is based on a history-matched full-field finite-
element-based geomechanics model to calculate stresses, strains,
and displacements. The results are exported from the FEM to a
geological modeling software in order to perform wellbore stabil-
ity calculations using BP best practices for prediction of wellbore
stability.
A Simple Analytical Model for Compaction,
Subsidence, and 4D Seismic
Before we start on the field case, it is worthwhile to look into the
process of compaction and subsidence using a simple analytical
model. The model for compaction and subsidence is based on work
by Geertsma (1973). The rock-physics model for the shales is based
on work by Holt and Fjr (2003) and Bakk et al. (2006). The mech-
2seis software we use was first presented by Barkved et al. (2005)
and recently, in more detail, by Fjr and Kristiansen (2009).
Fig. 2a shows the vertical displacement over a compacting
elliptical disk-shaped reservoir. The model is three dimensional.
One can see that at the top of reservoir, this corresponds to 3.4 m;
December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 545
it will later be shown that the compaction in the Valhall reservoir
is more than 10 m in some locations. The corresponding change
in seismic two-way travel time (TWT) (in milliseconds) is shown
in Fig. 2b, and the associated change in shear stress is shown in
Fig. 2c. One can see from Fig. 2c that the change in shear stress
occurs fairly close to the reservoir and is more pronounced at the
transition between the compacting part of the reservoir and the
noncompacting part. Fig. 2c also indicates three potential well
Fig. 1The Valhall field is located 290 km off the cost of Norway in 69-m water depth in the Norwegian part of the North Sea.
Fig. 2Output from the semianalytical mech2seis (a) shows vertical displacement above a reservoir compacting 3.4 m at 2400-
m depth; (b) estimates two-way-time shift on the basis of a shale rock-physics model; (c) shows the shear-stress distribution
around the compacting reservoir with three well locations, A, B, and C; (d) shows the stress changes at Well Location A; (e)
shows the stress changes at Well Location B; and (f) shows the stress changes at Well Location C. The stresses shown are
the vertical and two horizontal (x- and y-direction). Also note that the compaction of the reservoir increases the velocity in the
reservoir caused by reduction of porosity.
546 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
locations named A, B, and C. Location A is a well location going
into the compacting part of the reservoir, Location B is toward the
edge of the compacting part of the reservoir, and Location C is in
the noncompacting part of the reservoir. Figs. 2d, 2e, and 2f show
change in the three principal effective stresses along vertical sec-
tions in the three locations. As one can see, the changes in stresses
are quite dependent on the location relative to the compacting part
of the reservoir.
Fig. 3 illustrates this change in stresses by showing results of a
wellbore-stability analysis in the caprock, just before entering into
the reservoir rock in Locations A, B, and C. The results are pre-
sented as minimum mud weight required to avoid causing break-
outs while drilling. The plots represent wells drilled in any azimuth
and with any inclination at the three locations. The three figures in
the top row of Fig. 3 show the initial conditions before compac-
tion and subsidence. They are equal and show a normal-faulting
stress regime, where the largest principal stress is vertical. In this
situation, the mud-weight requirement increases with increasing
wellbore inclination. A vertical well will plot in the center of the
plot, while a horizontal well will plot at the outer circle and require
the highest mud weight. The difference between the two horizontal
stresses is insignificant (essentially zero), but the direction of the
largest horizontal stress is N120E, as illustrated with the black
arrows. Because the difference between the horizontal stresses is
zero, the mud-weight requirement should be a function only of
inclination and not azimuth.
In the lower row of figures in Fig. 3, one can see that the
stress situation, and hence the mud-weight requirements, is com-
pletely changed. In Locations A and B, the stress regime suddenly
becomes one of reverse faulting, with the vertical principal stress
being the least. In Location A, the largest-horizontal-stress direc-
tion is rotated. In Location C, the maximum-horizontal-stress
direction is rotated; although the stress regime is still normal
faulting, the difference between the two horizontal stresses has
increased. The vertical stress has increased. This is because the
noncompacting reservoir below is acting as a stress pillar (i.e.,
taking up some of the vertical load transferred from the overburden
in the compacting reservoir area).
Some of the predicted stress changes in this simple analytical
model in response to 3.4-m vertical displacement (compaction)
at the top of the reservoir will be lower in reality. This is mainly
because of fault reactivation (i.e., shear displacement of favorably
oriented faults). In reality, the reservoir geometries are not as simple
as in this example; therefore, one tends to perform full-field model-
ing using an FEM, which is very effective in dealing with complex
geometries, elastoplastic deformations, and fault reactivation. The
simple example here illustrates the mechanisms one can expect to
encounter in the compacting field (i.e., introducing significant local
stress variations). In the field example that we present in this paper,
the well will be drilled from a central platform over the most-com-
pacting subbasin in the Valhall field, similar to Location A. Then,
the well will be drilled toward the edge of this basin (similar to
Location B) and over a noncompacting reservoir area (similar to
Location C) and then will enter a new compacting subbasin (similar
to Location B) before continuing in the reservoir.
Full-Field FEM
For a complex compaction and subsidence case such as Valhall, the
best approach is to construct a full-field geomechanical computa-
tional model based on the FEM. The starting point in developing
a numerical model for a compacting and subsiding field such as
Valhall is an adequate characterization of the rock formations in
the reservoir and the overburden; see Kristiansen (1998). The mod-
eling approach used here is the one by Kristiansen and Plischke
(2010) and is similar to the one presented by Pattillo et al. (1998)
for Valhall earlier. The model is built in special purpose-made
software developed to handle various geomechanical problems in
the oil and gas industry. The main difference between our work
and that of Pattillo et al. (1998) is that we use a more advanced
elastoplastic constitutive model for calculating the reservoir com-
paction. This new model includes the effect of water weakening,
repressurization, and creep. In addition, our model also includes
major faults in the reservoir and the overburden. In addition, the
increased computer power has been used to model the field with
the same element size as the reservoir flow model, which is down
to 50 50 m in the crestal area. A grid of the full-field model is
Fig. 3Wellbore-stability calculations in terms of minimum required mud weight to avoid wellbore collapse for the three differ-
ent well locations in Fig. 2. The top row shows the initial conditions for all well locations, and the lower row shows the results
after the compaction and subsidence that are shown in Fig. 2a. In addition to changes in minimum mud-weight requirements,
the normal stress state has changed to also include strike/slip and reverse faulting and the stress directions are rotated.
December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 547
shown in Fig. 4. The model consists of 11 layers in the overburden,
14 layers in the reservoir, and 5 layers in the underburden.
The model is then populated with rock deformation properties for
the advanced elastoplastic constitutive model, the transverse isotro-
pic overburden, and the isotropic elastic underburden. The underbur-
den could have been treated as transverse isotropic, but because of
insignificant impact on the results, the underburden was simplified.
The sideburden is extended layers laterally from the main model, and
these have the same constitutive behavior as the layers in the main
model. The model is then initialized with the initial pore pressure
and the initial stress state as boundary conditions. The next step is to
predict the reservoir compaction at various locations in the reservoir
with time. This is achieved by reducing the pore pressure from initial
pore pressure according to the reservoir-flow-model prediction. The
water weakening is determined by the change in water saturation
from the initial water saturation. The water weakening results in
more compaction at constant stress. If the repressurization in front of
the water front is strong enough, the water weakening will not take
place before a potential blowdown of the reservoir. Because we are
mostly interested in the historical production time scale and the near
future, we did use only a one-way coupling between the reservoir
flow model and the FEM. This was assessed to be adequate because
the flow model closely matches the observed field pressures in the
history-matched time period. The reservoir-flow-model compaction
tables were, however, based on the geomechanics-model stress/strain
response. More-advanced methods have to be used for forward
prediction of reservoir pressures and production and will provide a
more straightforward history match in the future, as demonstrated
by Pettersen and Kristiansen (2009).
On the basis of the changes in pore pressure and water satura-
tion as received from the reservoir flow model, the FEM calculates
changes in stress and resulting strain and displacements. Examples
of the compaction predicted at top Hod and Tor reservoirs and the
subsidence at the seafloor in January 2008 are shown in Fig. 5.
645,631 nodes
176,460 elements
1,936,893 degrees of
freedom
4200m
Fig. 4Grid of the full-field FEM used to generate the input data to the workflow. The grid extends from the seafloor to 4200-m
depth, with the top of reservoir located near 2400 m. The grid is also extended far from the field outline in the densely meshed
region to avoid boundary effects.
Fig. 5Compaction maps for the top of Tor and Hod reservoirs. Tor hence includes both Hod and Tor compaction. The maps
are from the full-field FEM shown in Fig. 4.
548 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
A Geological-Modeling-Software Model
At selected timesteps (yearly or biennially) ASCII files were written as
x-, y-, z-coordinates and property values for import into a geological
model for wellbore-stability analysis. The x, y, and z are the universal
transverse mercator coordinates and depth, respectively, with attributes
of stresses, strains, and displacements. An example grid is shown in
Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows the vertical displacement between production
startup in 1982 and 2006. The vertical displacement at the top reservoir
central in the crest exceeds 8 m, while at the seafloor it approaches 6 m.
One can also note the local variations at the top reservoir level.
Fig. 6Overview of the geological-modeling-software grid based on the full-field FEM grid. The reservoir model is covisualized
inside the grid for reference.
Fig. 7Example of property grid in a geological modeling software based on the full-field finite-element-based geomechanics
model. The reservoir model is displayed with vertical sections showing the large-scale vertical displacement between production
startup in 1982 and 2006. One can see that the local compaction exceeds 8 m in the crest, and at the seafloor below the central
platforms, subsidence approaches 6 m.
December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 549
Wellbore-Stability Analysis
BP has developed several workflows within a geological modeling
software, and one of them is the BP best practices for prediction
of wellbore stability that includes a wellbore-stability analysis for
any trajectory in the 3D volume. The wellbore-stability predictions
are for designing wells and determining optimum mud weights. A
typical result from the wellbore-stability calculation is shown in
Fig. 8. This figure shows the recommended mud weight between
wellbore collapse and formation fracturing (lost circulation) for
a vertical well in the crest of the field. The trends are realistic
and based on field experience (i.e., the intervals with narrow
mud-weight window correspond to challenging intervals), but the
absolute values seem to be a bit low when considering wellbore-
stability and lost-circulation events in the field. This should be
better calibrated in new full-field geomechanics models.
Application of Workflow on Well G-14
The first well on which the new workflow was applied turned out
to be a very challenging one, according to the model predictions.
The G-14 well is a well going from the central water-injection
platform to the northern basin to start the pressure support of the
producers in that basin (Fig. 9). The well did not stand out as a
high-risk well on paper. It had a sail angle of 57 that is normally
acceptable for Valhall (Kristiansen 2004). The stresses and pore
pressure from the full-field geomechanics-model prediction were
transferred into the geological software for wellbore-stability
analysis. When the wellbore-stability calculation was performed,
the mud-weight window [defined by the difference between mini-
mum mud weight, or equivalent circulating density (ECD), to avoid
wellbore collapse and the maximum mud weight (or ECD) to avoid
lost circulation] was very small compared to what was expected
for this well profile. In fact, the wellbore-stability calculation pro-
duced a nonexisting mud-weight window for a significant portion
of the last hole section before entering the reservoir (Fig. 10). If
one investigates the changes along the proposed trajectory, it was
clear that the narrow window was a result of a stress concentration
around a noncompacting ridge between the central and north basin.
This noncompacting ridge resulted in increased shear stress above
it, as illustrated in Fig. 11.
One option would be to try to find a less stressed location
along the ridge, but that was impractical with the given target box
for the well. Another option was to reduce the local shear stresses
around the wellbore by dropping the sail angle. This option was
selected, although this would result in an increased sail angle in
the preceding section. The window in this section is much wider,
WELLBORE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Fig. 8Typical wellbore-stability plot from a vertical well in the
Valhall crest just below the platforms, extracted from the well-
bore-stability calculation. Also note that the absolute values of
the predictions are not accurate, but the trends are.
Fig. 9Illustration of the G-14 trajectory (typical build and hold, see upper right) leaving one of the central platforms (injection
platform) and going into the northern basin. Compaction in a deeper reservoir layer is used for illustration.
550 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
and drilling experience and the model indicated this to be a minor
and acceptable risk increase. Another risk would be the increased
length of the 13
3
8-in. section (2300 m) that would need to be
run, close to the limit of the rig floor, but that was found to be a
manageable risk also.
The modified trajectory is shown in Fig. 11. The new mud-
weight window is shown in Fig. 12. It should be pointed out, again,
that the absolute values of the predicted mud-weight window are
close to field-experience data, but they are not absolutely accurate.
More work on future full field FEM models during the history-
matching stage could potentially give more-accurate absolute val-
ues, but for relative comparison between various trajectory options,
these results are acceptable.
Verifying Model Predictions Using Field
Drilling Data
Because this was the first well on which the new workflow was
applied, it was felt that more-extensive verification of the model
predictions was needed. To do so, we started to examine the his-
torical drilling performance of wells at Valhall. We then had to use
several of the timesteps used in the full-field FEM model of the
Valhall field to perform wellbore-stability analysis for historical
wells. These results take into account both the temporal and the
spatial changes in stress state in the Valhall overburden in response
to the large-scale reservoir compaction below.
Because the absolute values may not be accurate, we calculated
an average mud-weight window across the most critical part of
the last hole section before entering the reservoir. When plotting
this value for a number of historical wells drilled at Valhall, we
could define three groups of wells: one green group with accept-
able NPT related to wellbore instability, one yellow group with
higher NPT, and one red group with unacceptable NPT including
train wrecks.
The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. 13. This was
a very useful figure for the experienced drillers because it gave a
clear verification of the predictions from the workflow. Another
interesting feature with the workflow is that one can check the
change in drilling risk with time for one specific well trajectory
and target box. This is illustrated with Well A-4B, which is the
offset well to G-14. It is clear that it would be best to drill this
well early in field life and that later drilling will be progressively
more challenging. The well was drilled in 1995 and was clearly in
the yellow-to-red group, as can be seen in Fig. 14.
WELL BORE STABILITY ANALYSIS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Stress Logs (ppg)
Z

T
V
D
B
R
T

(
m
)
Overburden (Sv) Pore Pressure
Fracture Gradient Minimum Required Mud Weight
Collapse Mud weight
MW Window: No Go
WELLBORE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Fig. 10The original wellbore-stability results based on the
build-and-hold G-14 trajectory, indicating a nonexisting mud-
weight window at a critical interval approaching the reservoir.
The zig-zag curve pattern is because of the use of a nonoptimal
grid resolution in the geologic modeling tool.
Deviatoric stress
Fig. 11Modified G-14 trajectory entering the shear stress pillar extending up into the overburden. The horizontal plane is the
reservoir pressure at top of the reservoir simulator covisualized as a reference. The yellow lines are faults.
December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 551
On the basis of the encouraging results, we also looked into
the correlation between the average mud-weight window and the
reported days drilling the section. The correlation was not very
good. The reason for this is probably inconsistent decision making
around each individual well incident (i.e., the same operational
action was not taken at the same time for the same type of incident).
This may be because of different interpretation and decision-mak-
ing processes for the various drilling teams. For the same average
mud-weight window, one chain of decisions within a certain time
window may result in limited impact on NPT, while another chain
of decisions may result in severe NPT. More work is needed to
also decipher the impact of decision making and potential small
differences in drilling practices on each well. Therefore, the tradi-
tional drilling-engineering approach using offset drilling data in a
probabilistic analysis may be sufficient, although impact of local
stress changes is currently not included as an impact function.
Verifying Model Predictions With 4D Seismic
The worlds first permanent seismic array was installed over the
Valhall field in 2003 (Barkved et al. 2003). The cables are used to
acquire seismic surveys at regular intervals. To date, 12 surveys
have been acquired since 2003. Comparing the two first 4D-seis-
mic surveys at Valhall, the streamer surveys from 1992 and 2002,
it was clear that the compaction was inducing a strong impact on
the seismic. This impact was not only present at the reservoir level,
but the deformations above the reservoir could be followed many
hundreds of meters in the form of seismic two-way time shifts
(Barkved et al. 2005).
The 4D seismic could be used to verify the full-field FEM
results in the area of the well, as shown in Fig. 15. Fig. 16 also
shows synthetic time-shift data based on the full-field FEM using
an advanced module of mech2seis, presented in an earlier section
(Barkved et al. 2005) and in more detail recently by Fjr and Kris-
tiansen (2009). In this study, the verification of the geomechanics
model consisted in a qualitative comparison of the synthetic time
shifts with the observed ones to make sure that the geomechanics
model was consistent with the local area of the well as seen by
the seismic. If the two did not agree, one would need to modify
the geologic model, the reservoir flow model, or the geomechanics
models until a better agreement could be achieved.
WELLBORE STABILITY ANALYSIS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Stress Logs (ppg)
Z

T
V
D
B
R
T

(
m
)
Overburden (Sv) Pore Pressure
Fracture Gradient Minimum Required Mud Weight
Collapse Mud weight
MW Window: OK
Fig. 12The wellbore-stability results based on the modified build-
and-drop G-14 trajectory, indicating a wider mud-weight window at
a critical interval approaching the reservoir compared to Fig. 9.
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
G
-
1
6
(
P
E
7
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
1
(
I
S
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
A
-
4
B

(
2
0
0
6
)
G
-
1
4
r
e
v
2
6
p
k
G
-
1
9
G
1
(
P
E
8
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
1
1
G
1
(
I
E
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
F
1
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
6
)
F
-
2
F
-
4
A
-
4

B
G
-
1
6
(
P
W
3
4
)
r
e
v
0
6
P
K
G
-
1
6
(
R
A
2
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
-
1
3
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
4
)
F
-
1
8
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
2
)
F
-
1
5
A
-
3
C
F
-
1
F
-
1
6
F
-
3
G
-
2
4
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
0
p
k
G
1
(
P
E
8
B
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
F
-
3
A
G
1
(
R
A
1
1
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
4
p
k
G
-
1
6
(
P
E
3

N
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
6
A
-
2
2
A
G
1
(
W
9
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
P
E
4
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
D
P
E
)
r
e
v
0
0
H
I
B
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
1
p
k
G
1
(
I
S
3
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
F
-
1
9
G
1
(
R
A
1
6
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
1
(
W
1
1
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
P
E
6
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
F
1
3
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
2
2
G
1
(
W
1
0
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
-
6

(
P
W
1
)
r
e
v
0
1
P
K
F
-
6
G
-
1
8
F
-
1
0
G
-
1
5
G
-
6

(
R
F
6
)
r
e
v
1
0
P
K
G
-
1
0
Well
E
C
D

W
i
n
d
o
w

(
p
p
g
)
Red
Yellow
Green
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
N
P
T
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
G
-
1
6
(
P
E
7
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
1
(
I
S
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
A
-
4
B

(
2
0
0
6
)
G
-
1
4
r
e
v
2
6
p
k
G
-
1
9
G
1
(
P
E
8
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
1
1
G
1
(
I
E
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
F
1
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
6
)
F
-
2
F
-
4
A
-
4

B
G
-
1
6
(
P
W
3
4
)
r
e
v
0
6
P
K
G
-
1
6
(
R
A
2
2
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
-
1
3
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
4
)
F
-
1
8
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
2
)
F
-
1
5
A
-
3
C
F
-
1
F
-
1
6
F
-
3
G
-
2
4
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
0
p
k
G
1
(
P
E
8
B
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
F
-
3
A
G
1
(
R
A
1
1
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
4
p
k
G
-
1
6
(
P
E
3

N
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
6
A
-
2
2
A
G
1
(
W
9
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
P
E
4
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
D
P
E
)
r
e
v
0
0
H
I
B
G
-
1
9
r
e
v
1
1
p
k
G
1
(
I
S
3
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
F
-
1
9
G
1
(
R
A
1
6
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
1
(
W
1
1
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
P
E
6
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
1
(
R
F
1
3
)
r
e
v
0
0
P
K
G
-
2
2
G
1
(
W
1
0
)
r
e
v
0
0
T
S
N
G
-
6

(
P
W
1
)
r
e
v
0
1
P
K
F
-
6
G
-
1
8
F
-
1
0
G
-
1
5
G
-
6

(
R
F
6
)
r
e
v
1
0
P
K
G
-
1
0
Well
E
C
D

W
i
n
d
o
w

(
p
p
g
)
Red
Yellow
Green
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
N
P
T
Fig. 13Calculated average mud-weight window (average minimum horizontal stressaverage collapse pressure) for a critical
interval at Valhall for historical wells drilled at Valhall. The wells are divided into green, yellow, and red, where green indicates
an acceptable operational mud-weight window, yellow is challenging, and red is nonacceptable mud-weight window. The coloring
and well fits very well with experienced NPT.
552 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
G
-
1
1
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
6
)
F
-
2
F
-
4
A
-
4

B

(
1
9
9
5
)
G
-
1
3
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
4
)
F
-
1
8
A
-
4
B

(
1
9
9
2
)
F
-
1
5
A
-
3
C
F
-
1
F
-
1
6
F
-
3
G
-
2
4
F
-
3
A
Well
E
C
D

W
i
n
d
o
w

(
p
p
g
)
Red
Yellow
Green
Fig. 14A closer look at some of the wells in Fig. 13. This figure illustrates the changing drilling conditions in the subsiding
overburden at Valhall with time. Well A-4B was the closest offset. One can clearly see that the trajectory becomes more and
more risky to drill with time from 1992 to 1996. A-4B was drilled in 1995 and experienced problems and required a very high
mud weight for wellbore stability.
Results of Drilling the Well
The well was spudded after the trajectory changes had been made
and the well had been replanned. The drilling went very well in
the shallower sections. In the high-risk 12-in. section, an abnor-
mally high pore pressure was experienced. It was necessary then
to weight up quite substantially over the planned mud weight. It is
questionable whether this well could have been controlled with a
mud weight lower than the fracture gradient if a higher sail angle
had been used in this section. If a higher sail angle had been used,
a higher mud weight would be needed to keep the well stable. The
time-vs.-depth curve for the well is shown in Fig. 17. Here one can
see that the well came in 60 days ahead of schedule, largely as a
result of the integration of the new workflow in the well planning
and execution. The shorter drilling time was estimated to have
Fig. 15This shows the 4D static changes (indicating the change in two-way time shifts) in the seismic showing the changes
across the ridge or the horst that Well G-14 had to go over and thus verifying the full-field finite-element-based geomechanics
model-prediction. The two-way time shifts are reduced across the ridge (red) compared to a reduction above the basins (blue).
Also compare with the synthetic results in Fig. 16, although using a reverse color scale.
December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion 553
reduced the cost of the well by approximately USD 20 million. It
was also estimated that the potential-train-wreck avoidance had a
value of USD 60 million.
After this first application, the workflow has been applied on other
wells with continued success. No wells have had the same estimated
high risk as the G-14 well, however, when using this approach to
wellbore stability. The workflow is improved continuously. The next
history-matched full-field FEM will most likely be more accurate in
terms of quantitative values for local wellbore-collapse pressure and
fracture pressure because there will be a greater focus on this during
the history matching. Another improvement that we are working on
is the ability to also predict probabilistic well life, including risk of
fault reactivation for each trajectory. The methodology will be based
on the work by Fossum and Fredrich (2007). Another challenge will
be to model the pore pressure more accurately, not so much in the
shales, but in flaws, fractures, sand, and silt where free-migrating
hydrocarbons dictate the local pressure. This will require a close
integration with 4D seismic and rock physics (i.e., mech2seis and
other seismic-technology developments).
Conclusions
A novel approach using computational geomechanics for predict-
ing local stress changes in the overburden induced by reservoir
compaction and subsidence has been presented.
The workflow prediction was verified by qualitatively calculating
drilling performance for a large population of historical wells
drilled at Valhall using an average mud-weight window (ECD
window) over the most critical interval before entering the res-
ervoir. The calculations show good correspondence to the NPT
experienced.
The theory behind the approach has been demonstrated using
a simple semianalytical model with integrated 4D seismic and
geomechanics based on a shale rock-physics approach.
The application potential for this technology is significant also in
reservoirs with less compaction than Valhall, as in high-pressure/
high-temperature fields and other highly deforming reservoirs in
various settings.
The first application of the developed stress probing technol-
ogy for wellbore stability on a Valhall well resulted in cost
savings of approximately USD 20 million and an estimated
train-wreck avoidance of approximately USD 60 million.
In the near future, results will improve in terms of the quantitative
aspects of stress changes and (we hope) pore-pressure prediction
including the presence of free hydrocarbons in the overburden.
The workflow will also be extended to provide a probabilistic
well-life prediction for fault reactivation for individual trajecto-
ries during well planning.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank BP and the Valhall license partners,
Hess, Shell, and Total, for permission to publish this work. The
conclusions and views presented in this paper are the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Valhall license. We
also need to acknowledge the excellent work by Bertold Plischke,
ISAMGEO GmbH on the full-field FEM.
References
Bakk, A., Fjr, E., and Holt, R. 2006. Simple Model for Lithological
Anisotropy of Shale. Presented at the 68th EAGE Conference & Exhi-
bition, Vienna, Austria, 1215 June.

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Horizontal position [m]
-10.0
-9.5
-9.0
-8.5
-8.0
-7.5
-7.0
-6.5
-6.0
-5.5
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Horizontal position [m]
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
[m] [ms]
Fig. 16This is mech2seis results from the G-14 area. To the left is a plot showing the vertical displacements from the full-field
finite-element-based geomechanics model. The model shows the highly compacting central basin to the left in the figure, then
the noncompacting to lower-compacting ridge, and then the start of the more-compacting northern basin to the right. The right-
hand figure shows the corresponding synthetic two-way time shifts using a shale rock-physics model.
VALHALL IP - WELL 2/8-G-14 T2
Time vs. Depth (Days)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
0 50 100 150 200
Days
D
e
p
t
h
Orig. Trgt. Dur
AFE Dur
Act Dur
Fig. 17Time-vs.-depth curve for G-14 (Act Dur) vs. technical
limit (Orig. Trgt. Dur) and most-likely estimate (AFE Dur).
554 December 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
Barkved, O., Heavey, P., Kjelstadli, R., Kleppan, T., and Kristiansen, T.G.
2003. Valhall FieldStill on Plateau After 20 Years of Production.
Paper SPE 83957 presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 25 Sep-
tember. doi: 10.2118/83957-MS.
Barkved, O.I., Kristiansen, T.G., Fjr, E. 2005. The 4D seismic response
of a compacting reservoirExamples from the Valhall Field, Nor-
way. Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of SEG, Houston, 611
November.
Fjr, E. and Kristiansen, T.G. 2009. An Integrated Geomechanics, Rock
Physics and Seismic Model. Presented at the 71st EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 811 June.
Fossum, A.F. and Fredrich, J.T. 2007. Probabilistic analysis of borehole
closure for through-salt well design. Acta Geotechnica 2 (1): 4151.
doi:10.1007/s11440-007-0023-2.
Geertsma, J. 1973. Land subsidence above compacting oil and gas reservoirs.
J Pet Technol 25 (6): 734744. SPE-3730-PA. doi: 10.2118/3730-PA.
Holt, R.M. and Fjr, E. 2003. Wave velocities in shale: A rock physics
model. Proc., EAGE 65th Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, 25
June, Vol. 1, 7996.
Kristiansen, T.G. 1998. Geomechanical Characterization of the Overburden
Above the Compacting Chalk Reservoir at Valhall. Paper SPE 47348
presented at SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in the Petroleum Industry
(EUROCK 98), Trondheim, Norway, 810 July. doi: 10.2118/47348-MS.
Kristiansen, T.G. 2004. Drilling Wellbore Stability in the Compacting and
Subsiding Valhall Field. Paper SPE 87221 presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, 24 March. doi: 10.2118/87221-MS.
Kristiansen, T.G. and Plischke, B. 2010. History Matched Full Field Geo-
mechanics Model of the Valhall Field Including Water Weakening and
Re-Pressurisation. Paper SPE 131505 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/
EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 1417
June. doi: 10.2118/131505-MS.
Kristiansen, T.G., Barkved, O., and Pattillo, P.D. 2000. Use of Passive
Seismic Monitoring in Well and Casing Design in the Compacting
and Subsiding Valhall Field, North Sea. Paper SPE 65134 presented at
the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, 2425 October. doi:
10.2118/65134-MS.
Patillo, P.D., Kristiansen, T.G., Sund, G.V., and Kjelstadli, R.M. 1998. Res-
ervoir Compaction and Seafloor Subsidence at Valhall. Paper SPE 47274
presented at SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering
(Eurock 98), Trondheim, Norway, 810 July. doi: 10.2118/47274-MS.
Pattillo, P.D. and Kristiansen, T.G. 2002. Analysis of Horizontal Cas-
ing Integrity in the Valhall Field. Paper SPE 78204 presented at the
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, USA, 2023
October. doi: 10.2118/78204-MS.
Pettersen, . and Kristiansen, T.G. 2009. Improved Compaction Modeling
in Reservoir Simulation and Coupled Rock MechanicsFlow Simula-
tion, With Examples From the Valhall Field. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12
(2): 329340. SPE-113003-PA. doi: 10.2118/113003-PA.
Tron Golder Kristiansen is BPs Subsurface and Wells
Geomechanics Advisor. He has worked in several positions in
BP, both within operating and technology groups, and he has
also acted as Geomechanics Network Leader in BP. Kristiansens
responsibilities include quality assurance support to BP assets
and field studies across the globe, and his areas of expertise
include a wide spectrum of geomechanics applications includ-
ing wellbore stability, large scale geomechanics modeling, res-
ervoir management, well management, completions, and spe-
cial casing design for hostile subsurface conditions. He joined
Amoco Norway in 1993 after graduating with a MS degree in
petroleum engineering from University of Stavanger. Kristiansen
has served on committees and acted as chairman for SPE con-
ferences and forums. He was awarded SPE Young Engineer of
the Year in 2000 in Norway. Roar Egil Flateb is a rock mechanics
engineer with BP. His responsibilities include quality assurance sup-
port to BP assets and field studies across the North Sea. Flatebs
areas of expertise include a wide spectrum of geomechanics
applications including wellbore stability, well management, and
completions. He joined BP in 2003 after graduating with a PhD
on chalk liquefaction from University of Stavanger.