SPE 159102

Wellbore Pressure Management in Unstable Shales: It’s Not Just About

Rocks
Terry Hemphill, Halliburton

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Much of the drilling in unconventional resource plays occurs in unstable shales, which are usually fractured and can be easily
destabilized. Drilling through them successfully can be difficult at best, and many high-angled holes in these plays are often
lost due to mechanical instability. This paper examines the problems of shale gas drilling from the theoretical perspective of
Wellbore Pressure Management (WPM) and keys in on the effects of equivalent circulating density (ECD) while drilling and
on the effects of equivalent static density (ESD) when there is no circulation.
In this paper the following questions pertaining to drilling a typical fractured shale or highly-laminated weak zone are
addressed from the WPM perspective:
 What mud density do I need to drill a fractured shale?
 Why can a typical shale gas play well be drilled with no drilling problems, yet becomes very unstable on the last trip
out of the hole before wireline logging or running casing?
 Why are drilling problems especially acute in laminated shales or similar weak zones?
 Why is the wellbore unstable while the drilling density is within the range demarcated by the Safe Drilling Window?
 Why does shale instability often not improve significantly when drilling fluid density levels are increased?
 Which tools in the driller’s toolbox are often used that actually make the wellbore stability issue more problematic?

By using a Wellbore Pressure Management approach to understanding instability in fractured shales, the reader can
readily see how to best deal with the problem in the field and hopefully improve stability in future wells.

Introduction
Drilling problems in unstable shales wells typically occurs in fractured or laminated shale zones. These formations are by
their nature weak, and susceptible to pressure fluctuations that occur during the normal course of drilling. They are usually
not chemically-active, as described using Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) tests (low amounts of smectite present) and have
low water content. When they become unstable, cavings begin to appear in the wellbore, often becoming severe to the point
of near total well collapse. Hole cleaning of these wells becomes nearly impossible with the cavings’ large diameters and
packoffs result. To deal with the instability issues, drillers will often rely on backreaming, which often produces more pack-
offs and additional pressure spikes in the circulating wellbore. As a result of the instability, hole intervals are often lost and a
sidetrack or abandonment of the drilling operation often follows. An outcrop of a typical unstable shale of the type discussed
in this paper is seen in Fig. 1.

Description of Unstable Shales

Over the years, many researchers have studied the areas of unstable shales and how to drill them efficiently, usually from
geological and rock mechanics perspectives. In their study of Green River and Permian Basin shales, Chenevert and Gatlin
found in their study of Green River and Permian Basin sedimentary shales were laminated and/or fractured and the rocks
exhibited strength anisotropy (1965). In particular, they found these shales to be weaker in compression and tension and that
shear failure occurred along the shale bedding planes rather than normal to the bedding planes. They also found that their
failure could not be well described by a single plane of weakness, as is usually used in conventional rock mechanics
modeling.
2 SPE 159102

In their 1996 study of unstable shales, Økland and Cook concurred that the problem shales were highly-laminated and
exhibited strength anisotropy. Barton and Zoback found that the weak fractured rocks were made mechanically weaker at the
wellbore wall as they were penetrated in the drilling process (2002). Warren and Root found that these rocks contained what
they called ‘dead-end’ or ‘storage’ pores or discrete volumes of low-permeability matrix rock combined with natural fissures
(1962). These rocks have been characterized as having microfractures, weak bedding planes, and laminations that
contributed to their weakness (Al-Bazali 2009). Lastly, Lorenz found that the fractures within these shales were
‘mismatched’ or ‘unmated’, and that when they closed, large openings were left between the two sides (1999). These
fractures also contained asperities (debris) which served as temporary points of stress concentration when the fractures
closed.

Failure at the Wellbore Wall

Yamamoto et al (2002) described the failure of highly-fractured shales in the Arabian Gulf area. Here the Nahr Umr
formation is notorious for presenting instability problems to drillers. They found that in deviated wellbores shear stress was
induced on the bedding planes while drilling and the resulting failure caused the shale to be displaced at the fracture planes.
This in turn led to increased permeability of the fracture itself. The authors also found that the failure of the fractured shales
was time-dependent, and with increased exposure time while drilling the hole enlargement worsened. In deviated wellbores
there is a relationship between wellbore trajectory and bedding planes, and that the ‘angle of attack’ (the angle of drilling
with respect to the angle of the bedding planes) (Al-Bazali 2009). When the angle of attack is low (often less than 30°), more
severe stability problems could occur than at higher angles of attack (Willson 1999, Willson 2007). In their study of shale
instability in Colombia, Willson et al described the failure mechanism as ‘bedding parallel shear’, in which blocks of shale
could fall into the wellbore while tripping or during a swab while pulling out of the hole (1999). A drop in radial tension at
the wellbore wall (as occurs when fluid density in the wellbore is reduced) can lead to detachment of the rock at the wellbore
wall (Bol 1994). When stability problems occurred in the wellbore, cavings from the fractured shales fall into the wellbore,
and that mechanical action at the wellbore wall (drill pipe rotation, BHA design, drilling practices, etc.) can further
destabilize weak shale (Fontana 2007).

Fracture Considerations
In any study of shale instability in highly-laminated or fractured zones, the characteristics of the fractures need to be
considered. With regard to drilling fluid chemistry, a chemical mismatch between the drilling fluid and the shale could
exacerbate the stability problems (Al-Bazali 2009). Accordingly the drilling fluid should have a ‘balanced’ chemical activity
between the shale pore fluid and the drilling fluid itself. However, in this study, the shales are not considered to be
chemically reactive and hence fluid chemistry is not considered a major contributor to the shale instability.
With pressure penetration into the fractures, the fractures can dilate and reduced effective stress occurs (Lorenz 1999).
Any applied shear stress now can more easily initiate slipping across the bedding planes. Use of rock modeling showed that
any pressure penetration from the wellbore fluid into the fractured rock increased the local pore pressure to the point where
the pore pressure and the drilling fluid pressure would equilibrate (1994). In poroelastic modeling, this same principle is
used to describe rock pore pressures at the wall (Vinh 2009). Any increase in wellbore pressure can increase the pressure in
the fracture to increase, thereby allowing fracture permeabilities to increase 10 to 100 times the original in situ value
(Warpinski 1991). Any fracture dilatancy near the wellbore wall increases fracture permeability and that this dilation
transfers stress to an outer region further away from the wellbore wall that in effect reduces permeability there (McLennan et
al 2002). Hence the effect of fracture dilation with increased pressure is limited in distance from the wellbore wall. Fractures
and faults are natural pathways or conduits for fluid flow, and this flow in and out of fractures can be determined through
interpretation of imaging logs (Barton et al 2002).

Mud Weight and Hydraulic Effects

There is as yet no consensus on the role drilling fluid density plays on stabilizing/destabilizing fractured or laminated shales.
Several researchers have made the case that increased drilling fluid density penetrates the fractured shale more easily, and
this increase in pressure in the fractures (and the resulting lubrication of the bedding planes) serve to lower the effective
stress that leads to shale failure (Last et al. 1995; Labenski et al 2003; Zhang et al. 2008). On the other hand, others have
made the case that increases in drilling fluid density increased stability (Santarelli et al. 1992; Gallant et al. 2007; Ottesen
2010). Santarelli also claimed that improved stability was seen when the drilling fluid viscosity was increased. Dowson et al
found that in their extended-reach (ERD) wells in Alaska, sometimes increasing the drilling fluid density mitigated stability
problems, while at other times it led to more instability (1999).
Many researchers have commented on the effects of changes in wellbore hydraulics with regard to unstable shales. As
stated earlier, Bol found that wellbore pressure equilibrates with pore pressure in the fractures. With the shale having reduced
support pressure, any swab event could make the stability problem worse. Økland and Cook found that problem shales were
drilled with an ECD 0.8-1.6 lbm/gal higher than mud density, and rates of penetration were 200 ft/hr at times, yet the failure
of the shales could not be explained by neither mud weight nor by use of single plane of failure modeling alone. As
SPE 159102 3

previously mentioned, Willson (1999) attributed wellbore failure to tripping and/or swabbing events. Yamamoto linked
wellbore stability problems in the fractured Nahr Umr shale to hole cleaning problems and/or wellbore pressure surges, thus
pointing out the need for control over drilling fluid density while drilling. Dowson attributed some of the instability to
pressure cycling, or flexing, in the wellbore when the mud pumps were turned on and off. They claimed the fluctuations
produced circumferential tensile failure at the wellbore wall. While these authors tried to link hydraulic effects with wellbore
instability, they offered neither a thorough nor consistent theoretical explanation for what was happening in the fractured
shales.

Key Factors
After review of previous work in this area, the following are seen as key factors in understanding the instability of fractured
and laminated shales:
 There has to be a zone of weak rock, either a fractured shale or laminated zone. These reports of instability
generally do not occur in intact shale. Moreover, this zone of weak rock can lie anywhere in the open hole, not
necessarily at the bottom of the wellbore.
 The shales are not chemically reactive, and hence have low smectite content and low water content. These shales
are not plastic and show relatively little interaction with water.
 The existence of bedding planes exacerbates the problem, especially if the borehole is drilled at a low angle of attack
in reference to the bedding planes.
 There has to be a microfracture or fracture network in the shale zone through which drilling fluid filtrate, and
especially pressure, can be transmitted.
 Pressure fluctuations are required to destabilize the shale. These fluctuations can come from several sources: swab
events, turning the mud pumps on and off, mud weight increases/decreases, etc.

Drilling Fluid Density Prediction and Geomechanical Modeling

Typically, before a well is drilled, the operator engages in a wellbore stability study in order to identify the ranges of the Safe
Drilling Window. This window describes the density required to maintain stability in an interval for a given hole angle and
azimuth, if the downhole formation pressures in the drilling plane are anisotropic in magnitude. Wellbore stability modeling
is usually done using the downhole formation pressures (maximum and minimum horizontal stresses), pore pressure, and
rock mechanical properties for a formation at a known True Vertical Depth (TVD).
In Fig. 2, a polar chart is shown from a typical wellbore stability scenario for compressive shear failure of a formation at a
given TVD. Here the overburden was greater than the maximum horizontal stress as is common in relaxed sedimentary
rocks. Hole angles are shown in 10° increments from the center toward the outer edge, and azimuthal direction starts from 0°
north clockwise around to 360° back at true north. From this kind of modeling, the density required to maintain a borehole
stable with compressive shear is identified for all possible hole angle and azimuthal combinations. A second simulation can
be easily done for pressures required to initiate fractures. Multiple scenarios for the range of hole angle from 0–90° deviation
from vertical can then be run to produce a typical Safe Drilling Window for an unstable shale near interval total depth (TD).
As Fig. 3 shows, the Safe Drilling Window is bound on the top by pressure to initiate a fracture and on the low side (usually)
by the pressure required to initiate hole collapse. In vertical/near-vertical wellbores, the formation pore pressure can exceed
the hole collapse pressure, and thereby can serve as the lower bound on the Safe Drilling Window for these type wells.
It can be also seen from Fig. 3 that the magnitude of the Safe Drilling Window narrows with increasing hole angle, and,
as in this particular North Sea case, can become quite narrow in a horizontal / near-horizontal drilling case. At 30° deviation,
the window width is approximately 6 lbm/gal equivalent, while at 85° deviation, it is only 0.4 lbm/gal equivalent. Hence in
order to avoid hole instability while drilling this shale, it should be drilled keeping the downhole pressures within this Safe
Drilling Window. The densities predicted by the Safe Drilling Window can be converted to pressure in field units (lbf/in2)
by:
P = 0.052 · MW · TVD………………………………………………………………………………………………………...(1)
In 1963, problems with laboratory testing of highly-fractured rock were identified. Cores from fractured reservoirs
usually had poor recovery percentages, and their testing in the laboratory was very complicated (Warren 1962). Over the
years, rock specialists have concentrated more on the testing of mechanics parameters of intact shales, not the highly-
fractured ones. In a recent work, the strength of fractured shale in particular was discussed. It was shown that fractured or
laminated shale should not be modeled using peak Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) value, but rather its ‘residual’
strength value, which can be significantly lower in magnitude (Ottesen 2010). Because of the inherent weakness of
laminated and fractured shales, laboratory strength tests are usually done on intact rock, which gives elevated strength values.
Use of a ‘residual’ strength however implies some borehole compressive shear failure (breakout) is acceptable. If no breakout
is allowed, then mud densities higher than the residual strength value will be required to stabilize the shale.
4 SPE 159102

Downhole Pressures
Since pressures from the wellbore have been identified as pertinent to the understanding of instability of fractured shale,
some explanation of the types of downhole pressures is warranted. While drilling, the circulating mud system is exerting
pressure on the wellbore wall. For a given drilling or fracturing fluid density (MW), the fluid is circulated through the
wellbore, consuming extra pressure as needed to push the fluid up the annulus. This extra pressure is frictional pressure, and
at the bottom of the hole is added to the system MW to give equivalent circulating density (ECD). If a compressible drilling
fluid (oil-based or synthetic-based fluid or the like) is being used, then the fluid compressibility and thermal expansion
should be taken into account, depending on the downhole circulating temperature and pressure profiles, in order to determine
the actual downhole MW, or what is usually called the equivalent static density (ESD). The resulting ECD is the pressure
exerted by the mud column on the wellbore wall while circulating, and the ESD is the pressure exerted by the mud column
when the fluid is static. There is always a differential between ECD and ESD caused by the friction at the conduit walls
during circulation. These two pressure parameters exact value at a given TVD can be easily read from output of downhole
annular pressure tools.
In Fig. 4, the consequences of ECD on the Safe Drilling Window shown in Fig. 3 are demonstrated. With an ECD level
of approximately 13.5 lbm/gal equivalent, circulating pressures would be high enough to initiate fractures if the formation
were drilled at an angle of 70° from vertical or higher. Hence any plans to drill a horizontal well in this formation would not
be successful, and the wellpath would have to be redrawn to enter the formation at a lower angle of inclination than 70°.

Wellbore Pressure Management

In order to better analyze the observed failure of inherently-unstable shales while drilling, it is necessary to understand the
role of pressure fluctuations in fractured and/or laminated formations. Here the term ‘Wellbore Pressure Management’, or
WPM for short, is used to describe the process. Key to the scenarios proposed to explain the instability are the ECD and
ESD of the drilling fluid while the mud pumps are on and off respectively. In Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, the proposed scenarios for
the instability in these shales are drawn. The laminations and/or bedding planes fractures are drawn horizontally in the two
diagrams (but do not have to be necessarily horizontal in the field).
Fig. 5 represents the normal drilling scenario when the mud pumps are operating. While drilling ahead, the ECD from the
circulating system is the pressure the wellbore wall and a short distance beyond experience. Filter cake and any available
sealing materials have been deposited at the borehole wall where there is permeability, thereby reducing the volume of mud
filtrate into the wall. Over time, any fluid in the fractures or between the bedding planes becomes pressurized equivalent to
the ECD. Any ‘dead end’ or ‘storage pores’ referred to earlier4 are also now pressure-activated. As a result of the ECD, the
fractures are slightly more dilated compared to the static case, as indicated by the heavy black lines. After the initial uptake
of pressure into the fractures, there are no changes in pressure that the wellbore hoop experiences until the ECD level changes
to a new level. The hole appears stable while drilling.
Things can change dramatically with deliberate changes in wellbore pressure, as is drawn in Fig. 6. When the mud
pumps are stopped, as while making connections or during long trips out of the hole, the pressures in the microfractures and
fractures equilibrate over time with the open system, and the bulk of the extra pressure returns to the wellbore given
sufficient time. In short, the pressure takes the path of least resistance, a consequence of the fractured shales’ permeability
anisotropy. Admittedly, some of the pressure in the fractures may dissipate into the far field. In this scenario, the excess
pressure that was in the fractures now equilibrates given enough time with the ESD. This change is primarily a high
pressure/low volume pressure change. The release of excess pressure in the fractures causes the fractures to return to their
lower pressure state, as indicated by the smaller black lines in Fig 6. This pressure reversal happens every time a connection
is made when the mud pumps are turned off, but the short time to make connections often masks the effect. On long trips out
of the hole, especially after the first hour of tripping, the pressure reversals manifest themselves in terms of tight hole, pack-
offs, etc. The asperities or debris that can accumulate in the dilated ‘mismatched’ or ‘unmated’ fractures can act to delay the
transfer of pressure from the fractures to the wellbore, but eventually the pressures will equilibrate. In addition, accumulated
pressure in ‘dead end’ pores will take some time to drain. If the ECD/ESD differential is kept within tight limits, the
resulting ΔP will be fairly small. The magnitude of the overall pressure change can be calculated with Eq. 1 using the
ECD/ESD differential value and TVD for a particular depth. On some ERD wells, the calculated ΔP can be as high as 1000 -
2000 psi.
With the pressure reversals, any weak rock at the wellbore wall is subject to increased pressure from behind by the ΔP as
it pushes toward the wellbore. As Willson stated, the tangential hoop stress can help to push the rock in the wellbore, but
now the weak rock also has pressure pushing from behind. In Fig. 7, a portion of the laminated rock in Fig 1 is magnified
with a circulating system superimposed on the side. It is not hard to envision the deteriorating process of instability in these
types of rock.
If any small pieces of weak rock are present at the wellbore wall, large pressure reversals can dislodge them. Any piece
falling into the wellbore creates a larger throat in the fracture opening that increases fracture permeability, which facilitates
subsequent pressure and fluid invasion. With time and more pressure fluctuations, other pieces begin falling, and the
instability becomes more serious, as is drawn in Fig. 8. Any rock that is pushed into the wellbore destabilizes the rock lying
immediately above it on the wellbore hoop, as this rock has now lost its mechanical support from underneath. Over time the
SPE 159102 5

problem gets worse, and the time-dependent hole enlargement problem becomes more serious, as in the Nahr Umr hole
enlargement case described by Yamamoto. With cavings accumulation reaching high levels in the wellbore (especially in the
higher angled sections), pack-offs from cavings begin to occur, further exacerbating the pressure spikes that perturb the
weaker laminated rock. These pressure spikes can be quite large in magnitude (16-18 lbm/gal equivalent), as measured by
downhole annular pressure tools.
As a consequence of the accumulation of cavings in the wellbore, the driller often takes action to better clean the
wellbore, either by increasing pump rate or by backreaming the problem zone(s). In this proposed scenario, the problem will
get worse as the ECD/ESD differential will increase, rather than decrease. In short, the wellbore stability deteriorates, and
often increases in mud weight are seen as negative rather than positive. But it is neither the MW nor the ESD that is causing
the instability problem, but rather the ΔP (differential between ECD and ESD).
In order to reduce the severity of the wellbore instability problem, some way must be found to reduce the ECD/ESD
differential. Reductions in excessive flow rates, drill pipe rotation speeds, and/or lower rates of penetration can be
investigated, along with secondary tools such as high-density sweeps to remove the larger-sized cavings from the wellbore.
Consistent drilling practices must be employed to remove cuttings and cavings from the wellbore without the occurrence of
more pressure spikes from pack-offs or use of backreaming as a cleaning tool. Hence effective wellbore pressure
management (WPM) is necessary to successfully drill wells in these types of rock.

Conclusions
The following conclusions for understanding wellbore instability while drilling weak fractured or laminated shales or those
with weak bedding planes can be offered:
 The literature is filled with many conflicting causes and conclusions for wellbore instability in mechanically-weak
zones. In the scenario presented in this paper, the integrated geomechanics and hydraulic mechanism is outlined.
Also, the consequences of overlooking the basic causes of the instability are demonstrated.
 The instability in these wells is the result of pressure fluctuations in the wellbore. The greater the pressure
fluctuations, the greater the initial severity of the problem.
 These pressure fluctuations are the result of pressure differentials between Equivalent Static Density (ESD) and
Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD). Increases in mud weight, or ESD, are not solely the cause of or major
contributor to the instability.
 Any pre-well wellbore stability modeling for these zones should employ the shale residual strength and not the shale
intact strength.
 These weak shales may not lie at the interval TD, but rather may be further uphole and overlooked by researchers.
The weakest exposed zone can be the first to begin destabilizing given sufficient pressure differentials.
 Any measurement of mechanical properties of cores taken from fractured or laminated shales should be tested with
the fractures intact in order to get better results for use in geomechanical modeling. Admittedly, this is not an easy
task.
 Understanding the fractured and laminated shale instability problem requires investigation involving rock mechanics
as well as hydraulics. Any investigation involving only one of these two components will give only a partial
understanding.
 Effective wellbore pressure management (WPM) is key to reducing the risks associated with drilling in fractured or
highly-laminated zones. Effective WPM involves more than just rocks.

References
Al-Bazali, T., Zhang, J., Wolfe, C., Chenevert, M., and Sharma, M. 2009. Wellbore Instability of Laminated and Naturally Fractured
Shales..Journal of Porous Media 12 (2), 119-130.
Barton, C. and Zoback, M. 2002 Discrimination of Natural Fractures from Drilling-Induced Wellbore Failures in Wellbore Image Data –
Implications for Reservoir Permeability. SPEREE.
Bol, G., Wong, S.W., Davidson, C., and Woodland, D. 1964. Borehole Stability in Shales. SPEDC.
Chenvert, M. and Gatlin, C. 1964. Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary Rocks. Paper SPE 890 presented at the 39th Annual
Fall Meeting of the SPE, Houston, Texas, USA, 11-14 October.
Dowson, S., Willson, S., Wolfson, L., Ramos, G., and Tare, U. 1999. An Integrated Solution of Extended-Reach Drilling Problems in the
Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part I – Wellbore Stability Assessment. Paper SPE 56563 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 October.
Fontana, H., Paris, M., and Ong, S. 2007. Borehole Stability (Geomechanics) Modeling and Drilling Optimization Practices Improve
Drilling Curves in Naturally-Fractured Shale – A South Argentina Experience. Paper SPE/IADC 107474 presented at the SPE Middle
East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 22-24 October.
6 SPE 159102

Gallant, C., Zhang, J., Wolfe, C., Freeman, J., Al-Bazali, T., and Reese, M. 2007. Wellbore Stability Considerations for Drilling High-
Angle Wells Through Finely Laminated Shale: A Case Study from Terra Nova. Paper SPE 110742 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibitino, Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14 November.
Labenski, F., Reid, P., and Santos, H. 2003. Drilling Fluids Approaches for Control of Wellbore Instabilty in Fractured Formations. Paper
SPE/IADC 85304 presented at the SPE Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 20-22
October.
Last, N., Plumb, R., Harkness, R., Charlez. P., Alsen, J., and McLean, M. 1995. An Integrated Approach to Evaluating and Managing
Wellbore Instability in the Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America. Paper SPE 30464 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October.
Lorenz, J. 1999. Stress-Sensitive Reservoirs. JPT, 61-63.
McLennan, J. and Abou-Sayed, A. 2002. Some Advances in Near Wellbore Geomechanics. Paper SPE/ISRM 78194 presented at the
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas, USA, 20-23 October.
Økland, D. and Cook, J. 1996. Bedding-Related Borehole Instability in High-Angle Wells. Paper SPE/ISRM 47285 presented at Eurock
’96, Trondheim, 8-10 July.
Ottesen, S. 2010. Wellbore Stability in Fractured Rock. Paper IADC/SPE 128728 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2-4 February.
Santorelli, F., Dardeau, C., and Zurdo, C. 1992. Drilling Through Highly Fractured Formations: A Problem, A Model, and a Cure. Paper
SPE 24592 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, USA, 4-7 October.
Vinh, N., Abousleiman, Y., and Hoang, S. 2009. Analysis of Wellbore Instability in Drilling Through Chemically-Active Fractured-Rock
Formations. SPEJ, 286-301.
Warpinski, N. 1991. Hydraulic Fracturing in Tight, Fissured Media. JPT.
Warren, J. and Root, P. 1962. The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Paper SPE 426 presented at the Fall Meeting of the SPE,
Los Angeles, California, USA, 7-10 October.
Willson, S., Last, N., Zoback, M., and Moos, D. 1999. Drilling in South America: A Wellbore Stability Approach for Complex Geologic
Conditions”, paper SPE 53940 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas,
Venezuela, 21-23 April.
Willson, S., Edwards, S., Crook, A., Bere, A., Moos, D., Peska, P., and Last, N. 2007 Assuring Stability in Extended-Reach Wells:
Analyses, Practices, and Mitigations. Paper SPE/IADC 105405 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February.
Yamamoto, K., Shioya, Y., Matsunaga, T., Kikuchi, S., and Tantawi, I. 2002. A Mechanical Model of Shale Instability Problems Offshore
Abu Dhabi. Paper SPE 78494 presented at the 10th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Engineering Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-
16 October.
Zhang, J., Rojas, J., and Clark, D. 2008. Stressed-Shale Design Strategy - Water-Activity Design Improves Drilling Performance.
SPEDC,385-393.

Nomenclature
CEC = Cation exchange capacity
ECD = Equivalent circulating density of drilling fluid (dynamic)
ERD = Extended-reach drilling
ESD = Equivalent static density of drilling fluid (static)
MW = Mud weight of drilling fluid or fracturing fluid (lbm/gal)
P = Calculated hydrostatic pressure
TD = Total depth
TVD = True vertical depth (ft)
UCS = Uniaxial compressive strength
WPM = Wellbore pressure management
ΔP = Pressure differential between ECD and ESD
SPE 159102 7

Figures
16
15
ECD

M u d W e ig h t [lb m
14

Safe
13
12
11 Drilling
10 Window
9
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
H o le A n g le [ d e g r e e s ]

C o lla p s e F r a c tu r e Po r e Pr e s s

Fig. 4—An Example Safe Drilling Window with the effect of

Fig. 1—Outcrop example of unstable shale. ECD inserted.

Critical Mudweight Polar Charts -- Shear Failure -- Collapse

Model: Isotropic; Elastic; Impermeable; Distance into formation (r/R) = 1.05
Vertical Stress = 7500.0 PSI (1.000 PSI/feet) Cohesion = 1600.00 PSI; Friction Angle = 34.0
Max Hor Stress = 7050.0 PSI (0.940 PSI/feet) 0 Failure Criterion = Mohr-Coulomb
Min Hor Stress = 6525.0 PSI (0.870 PSI/feet)
SHmax No BreakOut Angle
Pore Pressure = 3825.0 PSI (0.510 PSI/feet) 30
330
True Vertical Depth = 7500 feet
Alw ays Stable
(MW < 0. 00)
Alw ays Fai l

With ECD
)
eg

(MW > 19.25)

(d
uth

(l b/gal)
Shmin
im

300 60
10.068
Az
le
Ho

10.019

9.971

9.922

9.873
∆P ∆P
Hole Inclinati on 9.825
Angl e 270 90
9.776

9.728

9.679

9.630

9.582

240 120 9.533

Shmin
9.484

9.436
N
9.387

210 150 W E 9.339

SHmax 9.290
180 S

© PBORE-3D 7.25, 2010

Fig. 2—Predicted densities required to prevent compressive

shear failure for a given scenario. Fig. 5—Drilling ahead in weak shale with ECD.

16
15
M u d W e ig h t [lb m

14
13
12 With ESD
11
10
9
∆P ∆P
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
H o le A n g le [d e g r e e s ]

C o lla p s e F r a c tu r e Po r e Pr e s s

Fig. 3—An example Safe Drilling Window for a North Sea

unstable fractured shale.
Fig. 6—Scenario when circulation is stopped, as while
making connections or tripping out of the hole.
8 SPE 159102

Wellbore
Circulation

Weak Rock

Fig. 7—Zoom image of rock in Fig. 1 with annulus schematic.

With ESD

∆P ∆P

Fig. 8—A scenario of the failure of weak rock caused by

pressure fluctuations.