TECHNOLOGY TODAY SERIES

Pore-Pressure and Wellbore-Stability

Prediction To Increase Drilling Efficiency
Shuling Li, Jeff George, and Cary Purdy, SPE, Landmark Halliburton

Abstract
Pore pressure and wellbore stability pose
significant challenges to exploration
drilling, particularly in regions featuring weaker rocks or subsalt formations.
A lack of accurate pore-pressure prediction and wellbore-stability analysis
brings many problems, such as blowouts,
kicks, hole washouts, wellbore breakout, and stuck pipe. Wellbore instability
also adds to drilling time and increased
costs, and sometimes leads to abandoning the well before it reaches its objective. Estimates put the cost of these issues
at approximately 10% of total drilling
time on average. Ending wellbore-instability problems begins with the ability
to predict conditions accurately and to
reduce the chance of running into trouble. In this paper, commonly used methods for analyses of pore pressure, in-situ
stress, and borehole shear failure are
evaluated for their strengths and weaknesses. Examples are provided that demonstrate that the integration of predrill
pore-pressure and geomechanics analyses with real-time monitoring consistently provides an effective way to mitigate predrill uncertainties and improve
well-construction efficiency.

Introduction
Formation pore pressures in most petroleum basins are at overpressured levels
and can even reach to 95% of the overburden stress. These abnormal pore pressures can increase drilling risks dramatically and cause serious drilling incidents,
such as well blowouts, kicks, and fluid
influx, if the pressures are not predicted
accurately. The lack of pore-pressure prediction can lead to erroneous mud-weight
design, which could also cause wellbore
instability. Wellbore instability can result

98

in borehole breakouts and in hole closure,

packoff, and collapse in cases of compressive and shear failures. A lack of an accurate pore-pressure and wellbore-stability
prediction also can lead to mud loss and
lost circulation by unintentionally inducing hydraulic fractures as a result of tensile failures. In severe cases, borehole
instability can lead to a lost borehole. A
study of deepwater fields in the Gulf of
Mexico showed that incidents associated
with pore pressure and wellbore instability accounted for 5.6% of total drilling time in nonsubsalt wells and 12.6% of
drilling time in subsalt wells (York et al.
2009). Clearly, pore-pressure prediction
and wellbore-stability analysis are vital to
reducing drilling-trouble time and avoiding drilling incidents.
Fig. 1 illustrates the relationship of
mud weight (or mud pressure), pore pressure, and wellbore stability to various
borehole failures. When the mud weight,
or equivalent circulating density (ECD), is
less than the pore pressure, the wellbore
experiences splintering failure or spalling. In this case, wellbore washouts or
fluid kicks resulting from underbalanced
drilling may occur. Formation-fluid influx
or blowout occurs when the ECD is less
than the pore pressure and a permeable
formation is encountered. A well may not
have fluid kicks in an underbalanced-drilling scenario if impermeable formations
are penetrated. When the mud weight or
ECD is less than the shear-failure gradientor borehole-collapse-pressure gradientthe wellbore experiences shear
failure (or wellbore elliptical enlargement,
breakout, or collapse). Wellbore fracturing occurs when mud pressure exceeds
the capacity of near-wellbore rock to bear
tensile stress and the drilling fluid creates
hydraulic fractures. The drilling-induced

fractures may cause drilling-fluid losses and even a total loss of drilling-fluid returns (lost circulation). Maintaining
wellbore stability and preventing these
costly problems require an accurate prediction of the conditions that cause wellbore failures, including pore pressure and
safe-mud-weight operating window.

Pore-Pressure Prediction
Pore pressure is the fluid pressure in
the pore space of the formation. Porepressure values range from hydrostatic
pressure to severe overpressure (48 to
95% of the overburden stress). Porepressure analyses include three aspects:
predrill pore-pressure prediction, porepressure prediction while drilling, and
post-well pore-pressure analysis. Predrill
pore pressure can be predicted by use
of seismic interval-velocity data in the
planned-well location, and by use of geological, well-logging, and drilling data in
offset wells. In cases where a predrill prediction exists, real-time pore-pressure
updates while drilling are recommended
to reduce uncertainty. Real-time porepressure analysis generally relies on logging-while-drilling (LWD) or measurement-while-drilling (MWD) data, measured drilling parameters, and mud-logging data. The post-well analysis investigates pore pressures in previously drilled
wells considering all available data to
build a pore-pressure model that can be
Copyright 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 144717. Technology Today Series articles
are general, descriptive representations that summarize the
state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics
discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the
area, these articles provide key references to more definitive
work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general readership of recent
advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.

JPT FEBRUARY 2012

PP

SFG

FG

Tensile failure

MW low

MW high
Collapse

Breakout

Functional

Mud weight

Too low

Mud loss

Lost
circulation

Too high

line tml=135 sec/ft, travel time in the

matrix tm=74 sec/ft, and incompressibility =0.00015 psi1. The pore pressures obtained from resistivity and sonic
logs yield excellent pore-pressure calculations compared with measured formation pressures, as shown in Fig. 3.

Wellbore-Stability Analysis

Splintering/washout

Shear failure

In-gauge

Hydraulic fracture

Fig. 1Schematic relationship of mud weight and wellbore failures

(Zhang et al. 2008). MW=mud weight, PP=pore pressure, SFG=shearfailure gradient, FG=fracture gradient.

used for predrill pore-pressure predictions for planned wells in the same basin.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the pore-pressureprediction workflow. Seismic data (i.e.,
interval velocity, geologic structure),
regional geology, and well-log data (e.g.,
resistivity, sonic travel time/velocity, and
bulk density) are needed for pore-pressure analysis.
Pore-Pressure Prediction From Well
Logs. In some young sedimentary basins
where undercompaction is the major
cause of overpressure, the well-log-based
resistivity method (Eaton 1975) can be
Seismic
interval
velocity

Offset-/
analog-well

Regional
data

3D-seismic
cube

Geology,
well logs,
drilling data

Basin
modeling

Pore-pressure
transform

Pore
pressure

Transfer
to target
well

Predrill porepressure
prediction

LWD,
MWD, Dx,
mud log
Real-time
pore-pressure
update

Fig. 2Schematic of workflow

for pore-pressure analysis. Dx=D
exponent.

JPT FEBRUARY 2012

used to predict pore pressure. Bowers

(1995) proposed that the seismic interval
velocity and effective stress have a power
relationship. On the basis of this relationship, pore pressure can be obtained
from interval velocity. The pore pressure can be obtained with Millers sonic
method also (Zhang et al. 2008). The
advantage of Millers method is that the
effects of both the matrix and mudline
velocities are considered in pore-pressure prediction.
Pore-Pressure Analysis in Subsalt FormationsCase Application. Pore-pressure prediction has many uncertainties
in subsalt formations that may have high
salinity or much lower resistivity. Furthermore, salt intrusion might cause a
change in the normal compaction trend.
In addition, the surface-seismic velocities
in the subsalt formation are not reliable.
Well-logging data, therefore, is important for pore-pressure prediction. In this
case study, a deepwater well drilled in
subsalt formations in the Gulf of Mexico
was examined [see Zhang et al. (2008)
for the field description]. Pore-pressure
gradients in subsalt formations were calculated with Eatons resistivity method
(with a normal pressure Png =8.75 lbm/
gal and exponent n=1.2) and Millers
sonic method by carefully analyzing the
normal compaction trend lines. In Millers sonic method, the following parameters are used: travel time in the mud-

Drilling perturbation causes the stresses

around a wellbore to redistribute as the
excavated rocks are replaced by drilling
fluid. This can lead to either shear or tensile failure in a wellbore if the mud weight
is not planned appropriately. If the mud
weight is too low, the stresses on the surrounding rock will be too large and shear
failure (or wellbore breakout) can occur.
Conversely, if the mud weight is too high
(higher than the fracture gradient), there
is a danger of mud loss or lost circulation.
Image log and multiarm calipers can be
used to identify wellbore failures. Fig. 4
shows borehole breakouts (an elliptical
wellbore shape or enlargement in one
direction) and washout (enlargements in
all directions) caused by low mud weight.
Combining the resistivity image and sixarm-caliper logs, the wellbore enlargement can be determined and its causes
can be analyzed, which can be used for
mud-weight planning in future drilling
programs. In the image log, the two dark
bands along the depth direction represent wellbore breakouts. The breakouts
and washout calculated from the six-armcaliper-log data are displayed on the right
track. In addition, oriented caliper data
can be used to analyze the minimumhorizontal-stress direction (or breakout
direction/azimuth), which is shown as
green dots in the right track.
Minimum-Mud-Weight Determination. The purpose of wellbore-stability modeling is to create a safe operating window of mud weight such that the
designed mud density will be high enough
to ensure wellbore stability and low
enough that drilling-mud losses do not
occur, as shown in Fig. 1. To determine
the minimum mud weight, the following
workflow and required inputs (Fig. 5) are
used for the geomechanics modeling.

99

TECHNOLOGY TODAY SERIES

Fig. 3Pore-pressure estimates from resistivity and

sonic transit time in subsalt formations. The gamma
ray and shale lines are shown in the left track; the
resistivity (Res), filtered shale points (SHPT Res),
and normal compaction trend line are plotted in the
second track; the sonic transit time (DT) and filtered
shale points (SHPT DT) are plotted in the third track;
and the calculated pore pressures from the resistivity
(PP res) and transit time (PP dt) are shown in the farright track with a comparison to mud weight (MWIN),
the measured formation pressures (MDT), and fluid
influx (fluid gains annotated).

The stresses around a wellbore can

be calculated analytically from Kirschs
elastic solution. The shear-failure gradient or the minimum mud weight can
be obtained (Peng and Zhang 2007) by
applying a failure criterion to the wellbore stresses. The minimum mud weight
is heavily dependent on the pore pressure, and it also depends on the rock
strength (stronger rock needs lower
mud weight). When drilling downdip
into weak bedding planes, a wellbore is
more likely to experience instability, thus
more-sophisticated models are needed
[e.g., Lang, et al. (2011)].
The minimum and maximum horizontal stresses, the pore pressure, and
the rock strength are the most basic
inputs in wellbore-stability analysis. The
following section describes how to determine these parameters.
Determining Inputs for WellboreStability Analysis. Typically, the minimum stress is equal to the fracture-closure pressure, which can be measured
with a leakoff test or calculated from
a uniaxial-strain model. However, there
is significant uncertainty in determin-

100

Fig. 4Image (XRMI) and six-arm-caliper logs and

wellbore-shear failures. Image log is shown in the left
track; hole diameters from caliper log in the second
and third tracks; borehole breakouts/washout in the
fourth track; the calculated borehole-breakout angle
and azimuth and processed wellbore-breakout cross
sections in the right track.

ing the maximum horizontal stress.

Recently, Li and Purdy (2010) proposed
an improved method to determine the
maximum horizontal stress from observations of vertical-borehole-breakout
width. Rock strengths are obtained preferably from laboratory core tests and
secondarily from compressional-wavevelocity correlations. Normally, the compressive strength of the shale is lower
than that of other rocks (e.g., sandstones
and carbonates); therefore, shear failures occur mainly in shales. In this case,
shale strengths can be used to calculate
the minimum mud weight. Lal (1999)
presented the strength correlation for
shales in the Gulf of Mexico, and this correlation is applicable for some Tertiary
shales in the Gulf of Mexico. For different petroleum basins, different strength
correlations are needed for wellbore-stability modeling.
Wellbore-Stability Analysis in the Offset Wells. Post-drilling analysis in offset wells is important for predrill well
prediction and well planning. The caliper and image logs and drilling events
must be analyzed to reveal wellbore-sta-

bility problems, including highly overgauged hole sections, tight hole, cavings,
packoff, and mud losses. To understand
the failure mechanism, pore-pressure
and wellbore-stability models need to be
built in the post-drill wells by reconciling
wellbore failures that were encountered.
If the calculated shear and tensile failures match the drilling observations, this
indicates a correctly calibrated model
that can be used for modeling future
wells in the same area.
Predrill Pore-Pressure and WellboreStability Prediction. Without a predrill
wellbore-stability prediction to guide the
selection of mud weight, the alternative
often is a trial-and-error approach that is
based on simple mud-weight correlations
to analog wells. This practice is risky and
involves waiting to observe failures (e.g.,
wellbore cavings, tight hole, stuck pipe,
mud losses, or even a formation-fluid
influx or kick) to make an adjustment.
To avoid wellbore failures and reduce
nonproductive time in the planned well,
a pore-pressure and wellbore-stability
model should be built for input to well
planning, including optimal mud-weight
ranges and a casing program.

JPT FEBRUARY 2012

Determining the safe-mud-weight range

is critical to improve well planning, prevent wellbore-stability problems, and
reduce borehole drilling-trouble time in
the oil and gas industry. Accurate predrill pore-pressure prediction and wellbore-stability analysis are key to improv-

References
Bowers, G.L. 1995. Pore Pressure Estimation
From Velocity Data: Accounting for
Overpressure Mechanisms Besides
Undercompaction. SPE Drill & Compl 10
(2): 8995. SPE-27488-PA. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/27488-PA.

Eaton, B.A. 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. Paper SPE
5544 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
28 September1 October. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/5544-MS.
Lal, M. 1999. Shale Stability: Drilling Fluid
Interaction and Shale Strength. Paper SPE
54356 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, 2022 April. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/54356-MS.
Lang, J., Li, S., and Zhang, J. 2011. Wellbore
Stability Modeling and Real-Time
Surveillance for Deepwater Drilling
to Weak Bedding Planes and Depleted
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 139708 presented
at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, Amsterdam, 13 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/139708-MS.
Li, S. and Purdy, C.C. 2010. Maximum
Horizontal Stress and Wellbore Stability
While Drilling: Modeling and Case
Study. Paper SPE 139280 presented at
the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Lima, Peru, 13 December. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/139280-MS.
Peng, S. and Zhang, J. 2007. Engineering
Geology for Underground Rocks. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
York, P.L., Prichard, D.M., Dodson, J.K. et al.
2009. Eliminating Non-Productive Time
Associated with Drilling through Trouble
Zones. Paper OTC 20220 presented at
the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 47 May. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4043/20220-MS.
Zhang, J., Standifird, W., and Lenamond,
C. 2008. Casing Ultradeep, Ultralong
Salt Sections in Deep Water: A Case
Study for Failure Diagnosis and Risk
Mitigation in Record-Depth Well. Paper
SPE 114273 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, 2124 September. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/114273-MS. JPT

Shuling Li is a geomechanics specialist

with Halliburton. She holds an MS
degree in rocks and minerals from China
University of Geosciences and an MS
degree in statistics from the University
of Colorado.

Jeff George is Product Manager

for Drillworks software suite for
Halliburton Landmark. He holds a
degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Oklahoma.

Cary Purdy, SPE, is Manager of

Geomechanics and Petrophysics for
Halliburton Landmark. He holds
degrees in physics and geology from
Bowling Green State University.

In-situ stresses
Pore pressure

Geomechanics
Wellbore
stresses
Failure
criteria

Core test or
velocity/DT data

Real-time update

Correlations

Rock
strength
Model

Application/
prediction

Calibration

Drilling
events

Image,
caliper logs

Fig. 5Schematic of workflow in wellbore-stability analysis.

The first step in pore-pressure and

wellbore-stability prediction for a proposed well is to develop a pore-pressure
estimate. Then, the shear-failure gradient (minimum mud weight) and fracture
gradient (maximum mud weight) are predicted on the basis of offset-well analysis (refer to Fig. 5) for well planning. The
safe mud weight then can be determined
(should be between the fracture gradient
and shear-failure gradient). To reduce
uncertainties in the predrill prediction,
real-time pore-pressure and wellborestability monitoring is recommended,
particularly for wells with high risk and
when drilling in difficult geologic conditions/formations. Real-time prediction
helps to constrain and update the predrill
model while providing real-time advice
for drilling operations (Lang, et al. 2011).

ing drilling efficiency and reducing risks

and costs. Seismic data, regional geology
data, formation-pressure measurement,
and well-log data from offset wells can be
used for predrill pore-pressure prediction. Pore-pressure profile, in-situ stress,
rock strength, image log, caliper log, and
drilling events in offset wells can be used
to obtain a valid wellbore-stability solution for predrill wells. Real-time analysis
can be performed while drilling, either
on site or remotely, to update the predrill
model, reduce uncertainty, avoid drilling
incidents, and increase drillingefficiency.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management
of Halliburton for permission to publish this paper. We thank Tegwyn J. Perkins for providing and interpreting the
imagedata.

Conclusions

JPT FEBRUARY 2012

101