IADC/SPE 167957

A Comprehensive Experimental Study on Wellbore Strengthening

Quanxin Guo, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger company; John Cook, Paul Way, Schlumberger; Lujun Ji, James E.
Friedheim, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger company

Copyright 2014, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2014 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 4–6 March 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Experimental tests have been performed to investigate the applicability, effectiveness and engineering of various wellbore
strengthening techniques which increase the mud weight window by adding lost circulation materials (LCM) to drilling
fluids. The experimental techniques include fracture sealing of known fracture apertures simulated by two plates, induced or
natural fractures in a sandstone or shale block with a borehole, and a transparent cylindrical LCM particles transport cell,
which allows visualization of how the fracture seal is formed and broken.
In the block tests, two independent stresses are applied to the block faces parallel to the wellbore to simulate horizontal
stress anisotropy. Drilling fluid, with and without LCM, is pumped into the wellbore to simulate formation breakdown, mud
loss, fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. The wellbore strengthening treatments can be continuous in one step or
hesitation squeeze in steps. The various types of tests performed to simulate different operational procedures include:
breakdown tests under different stress anisotropy and magnitude to establish the baseline and to validate the results with rock
mechanics analysis; fracture sealing and remedial treatment of an induced fracture with LCM after breakdown; preventive
treatment with background LCM in the active mud system before breakdown to study the difference between preventive
versus remedial treatments; and fracture sealing and strengthening of natural fractures of different apertures; among others.
Several hundred tests have been performed with different stress conditions and strengthening implementation methods.
Valuable lessons have been learned from this comprehensive experimental study and the results have significantly increased
the success of wellbore strengthening. Due to the large volume of test results and data, this paper focuses more on the various
types of tests performed using the block tester, and gives selected snapshots of test results and modeling work on wellbore
strengthening mechanism and the role of filtercake on sealing quality and strengthening performance. More results will be
presented elsewhere.

Introduction
The mud weight window, the range between the minimum weight to avoid compressive failure and well collapse and the
maximum mud weight to avoid formation breakdown and subsequent tensile fracturing and lost circulation, serves as a
critical design factor for well and drilling fluids design. The mud weight window may be extremely narrow or non-existent
under certain conditions thereby necessitating expensive design changes or even making the drilling of well impractical. An
example of this is drilling through a depleted formation, where the formation pore pressures in producing formations have
decreased since the start of production and the formation total stresses have decreased as a result. At the same time, the
neighboring shale layers may have maintained their pore pressure. As a result, there may not be enough difference between
the minimum mud weight required in the shales to prevent wellbore collapse and the maximum mud weight in the depleted
interval to prevent formation breakdown and lost circulation. In such cases, wellbore strengthening has been employed to
increase the breakdown limit of the formation and allow the well to be drilled.
Wellbore strengthening involves techniques that allow increases in wellbore pressures without causing lost circulation
without additional casing or liner and with minimal disruption to drilling operations. Wellbore strengthening includes
chemistry methods such as settable gels or resins (Aston et al., 2007), high-fluid loss pills (Friedheim et al. 2012, Murray et
al. 2013), and engineered particulate lost circulation materials (LCM), see e.g., Aston et al. (2004), Fuh et al. (2007), van
Oort et al. (2009). This paper only deals with wellbore strengthening techniques using particulate LCM.
2 IADC/SPE 167957

Wellbore strengthening has been widely used by many companies, and significant experience has been gained in
developing and applying the technology. A number of different mechanisms have been proposed on how it works, and there
are also a number of different ways of implementing it in drilling operations (Alberty and McLean 2004; Dupriest 2005; van
Oort et al. 2009; Morita and Fuh 2011). Success from field practice led the initial development of the technology and the
industry’s acceptance. This is a technology for which field practice appears to be ahead of fundamental understanding on how
and why it works.
Case histories and field experience are not sufficient in understanding how wellbore strengthening works and the limit of
the technology. As the industry pushes the frontier of wellbore strengthening to ever more challenging wells, safety and
economic risks and consequences from possible failures become unacceptable. Without the understanding and therefore the
ability to make predictions with confidence, companies cannot sanction drilling programs with potential heavy loss risks, thus
leaving reserves that could in fact be accessed and recovered, or causing increased operational costs by over-designing
wellbore strengthening solutions using excessively large safety factors
Understanding the mechanism and fundamentals of wellbore strengthening under well-controlled laboratory conditions is
more advantageous to field case histories as laboratory studies are more cost effective and results have a higher degree of
certainty and repeatability. A comprehensive experimental program has been designed and conducted in the last several years
to understand the fundamentals of wellbore strengthening. This experimental program includes: a) a low pressure transparent
fracture cell for visualizing LCM particles transport within a fracture to study how the seal is formed and broken; b) a high
pressure fracture sealing tester to evaluate the optimal LCM particle size distribution (PSD) and concentration to seal a given
fracture quickly and strongly; and c) a block tester on real sandstone and shale cubes with a borehole. Some results and
findings from the high pressure fracture sealing tests have been published (Sanders et al. 2008; Kaageson-Loe et al. 2008; and
Guo et al. 2009).
This paper focuses more on test results and findings obtained from the block tester than the other tests. This type of test
examines more complex but more realistic situations, with samples of real sandstone and shale, with fractures that are
initiated and grown and thus do not have predetermined widths, and with more realistic stress states and strengthening
implementation methods. It should be pointed out that the block tests are not intended as complete simulations of the
downhole environment. They are at smaller scale and lower stresses and temperatures. More complete downhole simulations
would probably give a more realistic response but such tests are expensive and time-consuming. It was decided that the
benefits of running many, many tests on a well-understood geometry outweighed those of a very few highly realistic
experiments. The goal is to complete a large test matrix with cost-effective “what-if” studies within a reasonable time-frame
for understanding the wellbore strengthening mechanism and developing predictive models for various geological and
operational parameters. Due to the large test matrix and the volume of test results and data, it is not possible to present all
test data, analyses and conclusions fully in a single paper. This paper concentrates on experimental results on fracture
sealing, strengthening mechanisms and a snapshot of modeling work. More detailed analyses, with different focuses, of the
test results to demonstrate and justify fully certain findings and conclusions will be published separately.

Block Test Equipment Setup and Rock Samples

A block tester was used to generate fractures in a well-controlled manner, and then various wellbore strengthening techniques
and procedures were applied to investigate the effectives of different techniques in sealing the fractures and strengthening the
wellbore. The block tester used in this experimental program is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The rock sample,
approximately 150 x 150 x 150 mm with a 25-mm borehole, is stressed independently on the two pairs of faces parallel to the
wellbore by two hydraulic cylinders reacting against a square steel frame. The stress on the third pair of faces of the rock
cube, perpendicular to the wellbore, is provided by two steel plates which are rigidly attached to the sides of the loading
platens. The entire rock cube is completely enclosed by steel, and thus the loads in all three mutually perpendicular directions
can be continuously applied to the rock cube as fractures are created and wellbore strengthening treatments are applied.
During a test, the stresses in the two mutually perpendicular faces parallel to the wellbore are applied and controlled
independently, as shown schematically in Fig. 1b. One key advantage of this block tester is that it is small and convenient to
use and thus allows us to complete a large test matrix with “what-if” studies cost effectively. So far, we have performed
several hundred tests to study the key operational issues and mechanism of fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. This
might be impossible, or would at least be prohibitively costly, with other larger block testers.
Two types of rocks have been tested so far. The first rock type is Grinshill sandstone and the second is Runswick Bay
shale. The Grinshill sandstone is a relatively homogeneous Triassic sandstone. It is very similar to Berea sandstone in terms
of rock mechanical property, porosity and permeability. For example, Grinshill sandstone has a Young’s modulus of 13.8
GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, while Berea sandstone has a Young’s modulus of 14.4 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2. It has
a porosity of about 15% and unconfined compressive strength of about 40 MPa, again, very similar to Berea sandstone.
Runswick Bay shale is a Jurassic shale from the North Eastern coast of Yorkshire in the UK. The shale was cut into
approximately 160 mm cubes and stored in an inert fluid. It is a grey to black rock, mainly illite and kaolinite clays with
calcite and silica silt particles. It is not a swelling shale. Like most non-swelling shale, its depositional planes are clearly
visible and it is highly fractured and brittle, just like most gas shales. There is a large variation in rock mechanical properties,
not surprising for shales. Due to these reasons, most of the block tests were performed on Grinshill sandstone blocks. Fig. 2
IADC/SPE 167957 3

shows examples of what the fracture surfaces look like after wellbore strengthening testing for a sandstone block and a shale
block. The sandstone fracture surface is much smoother than the shale fracture surface.
Several hundred block tests have been performed during the last few years and there have been many surprises. Wellbore
strengthening block tests are different from conventional block tests. The block test setup with LCM was not trivial, and the
initial test results did not make sense from a rock mechanics point of view. We learned this lesson from the first forty tests
before we improved the test setup and could generate repeatable and meaningful results.

Fig. 1a — The block tester, with three mutually perpendicular Fig. 1b — Schematic of a rock cube with a wellbore and
pairs of plates for applying three principal stresses. independently applied stresses on the two pairs of faces that are
parallel to the wellbore.

Fig. 2a — An example of the fracture surfaces when a Fig. 2b — An example of the fracture surfaces when a Runswick
Grinshill sandstone block was opened after the test. Bay shale block was opened after the test.

Wellbore Strengthening of Induced Fractures and Natural Fractures

Block tests were performed to study the differences between induced and natural fractures, in terms of fracture sealing and
wellbore strengthening. Fig. 3 shows an example of how the test was performed to simulate the remedial wellbore
strengthening treatment of an induced fracture on a sandstone block. First, the rock block was stressed to the desired stresses,
in this case, with a σh = 200 psi, σH = 800 psi. Then, drilling fluid without LCM was pumped into the wellbore at 15 mL/min
to breakdown the formation, in this case, at approximately 870 psi. The fracture quickly propagated from the wellbore to the
outer faces of the block; fluid flowed through the created fractures and seeped out of the block. The pump was then stopped
and the wellbore pressure dropped gradually due to fluid leak off. The pump was started again at time = ~2000 sec to check
the fracture re-opening pressure. A fall-off and pump-in was repeated one more time before the base fluid was replaced with
4 IADC/SPE 167957

base fluid plus 30-lb/bbl graphitic lost circulation materials. The LCM has a nominal PSD of D10 = 50 µm, D50 = 150 µm, D90
= 800 µm. The pump was started again with the 30-lb/bbl LCM fluid and after which the wellbore pressure could be
increased to almost 1200 psi; while previously the fluid without LCM started to flow through the induced fracture when the
wellbore pressure reached approximately 500 psi (Fig. 3). Since the pump was continuous and the fracture sealing along the
wellbore was not uniform, the weakest point started to break and be plugged again by LCM particles and the wellbore
pressure was increased to break the next weakest spot. This process continued for several times when a final or maximum
sealing pressure was reached, in this case, at about 1700 psi, at which point the test was stopped. In this final phase of the test
as the wellbore strengthening treatment was applied, pumping was continuous at a constant rate until the maximum sealing
pressure was reached. Hesitation squeezes by squeezing the wellbore with LCMs in steps, rather than continuous in a single
step, were also tested to investigate the effectiveness of various wellbore strengthening procedures.
Another type of block tests was fracture sealing and strengthening of natural fractures with known or unknown openings.
Fig. 4 illustrates how the test was performed to study fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening of a sandstone block with a
natural fracture. This test was a hesitation squeeze test in two steps. We first broke a sandstone block with oil-based fluid
without LCM. The fracture surfaces for sandstone blocks are often relatively clean and planar (as shown, for example, in Fig.
2a). This allows us to reassemble the two halves to simulate a sandstone block having a natural fracture along the wellbore.
In some tests, the two halves were shimmed by spacers along the wellbore and the edges to create a “natural” fracture of a
known opening. Fig. 4 shows data from a sandstone block with an unshimmed natural fracture, σh = 300 psi, σH = 900 psi.
The pump was started at time = ~500 sec at 15 mL/min and the wellbore pressure rose to about 290 psi, when the pumped
fluid began to leak through the fracture. This was because even though the block was not shimmed, there were still some
unknown openings to the fracture due the fracture roughness; the two halves could not be put together perfectly. This
pressure signature for natural fractures was different from induced fractures, as shown in Fig. 3, where the mud loss pressure
is generally a couple hundred psi higher than the applied minimum in-situ stress (because a higher pressure is needed to
initiate a fracture). The base fluid was then replaced with the base fluid plus 30-lb/bbl graphitic LCM, similar to the test
shown in Fig. 3 for an induced fracture. The pump was started again with the 30-lb/bbl LCM fluid and now the wellbore
pressure could be increased to a preset value of 800 psi. After a short period of holding at 800 psi, the pump was started
again until the final and maximum sealing pressure was reached – in this case, almost 1300 psi.

Fig. 3 — An example of a wellbore strengthening test of an Fig. 4 — A wellbore strengthening test of a natural fracture by
induced fracture in a sandstone block. putting the two halves from a pre-fractured block back together,
with no shimming of the fracture.

Several dozen block tests have been performed on fracture sealing and strengthening of induced and natural fractures to
study the sealing mechanism, the difference between sealing of induced and natural fractures, and how to apply the wellbore
strengthening pumping procedures to achieve a quick and strong seal. Analysis of the test results indicate that there is a
minimum LCM concentration required to form a seal quickly and strongly for a given fracture aperture. The minimum LCM
concentration strongly depends on fracture aperture, LCM PSD and strengthening implementation methods such as
preventive or remedial treatments. LCM PSD and blend requirements are more forgiving for small fracture apertures (< 1
mm), but they are much more difficult and important for large fracture apertures.
Another interesting lesson learned from the many tests under different conditions is the mechanism of fracture seal
formation and breaking. The fracture sealing along the 150 mm long wellbore is not uniform, so at some pressure the weakest
point breaks and begins to leak high volumes of fluid into the fracture. This means that the wellbore fluid quickly transports
LCM particles to the leaking spot or pinhole, the pinhole is sealed again and the wellbore pressure increases until the next
weakest spot is reached. This process continued for several times until a final or maximum sealing pressure was reached.
IADC/SPE 167957 5

This pinhole forming and breaking process could be clearly identified from the pressure signature, as indicated by the
oscillating wellbore pressure (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, for example). Tracking this process and making sense of the pressure
signature is only possible under well-controlled lab conditions with down-hole pressure gauges. This pinhole forming and
breaking process can also be heard during the tests. This mechanism of fracture sealing and breaking will be illustrated by
more visual evidences later in this paper.

Remedial Wellbore Strengthening Treatment and Preventive Treatment

Besides tests to study how to “repair” and strengthen an induced fracture or remedial wellbore strengthening treatment, tests
were also performed to understand the difference between remedial and preventive treatment. Some people refer to
preventive treatment as strengthening while drilling or dynamic wellbore strengthening. Preventive treatment involves adding
LCM in the active drilling fluid system while drilling the anticipated loss zone, to increase breakdown or mud loss pressures
and thus to avoid losses. Preventive treatment is especially effective in drilling through highly depleted formations when the
anticipated loss zone is known and any losses from induced fractures will be large in volume. Several dozen tests have been
performed to compare the advantages of preventive treatment versus remedial treatment and how to optimize the LCM design
with respect to formation permeability and pressure depletion. The findings from these comparison tests are great value to
drilling operations and project planning when losses are anticipated.
Fig. 5 shows an example of a preventive treatment test on a sandstone block. In this test, the sandstone block was stressed
to σh=300 psi, σH=900 psi. The pump was started at 15 mL/min and the drilling fluid contained 20-lb/bbl graphitic LCM from
the start of the pumping. The wellbore pressure was able to reach to 2500 psi, the block tester’s limit, without clear formation
breakdown. One might conclude the block had not fractured from the pressure signature. In fact, when the block was
removed from the load frame, it was clearly fractured to the edge of the block, as shown in Fig. 5b. It seems that fractures
were created or initiated but were immediately sealed by the LCM in the active mud system and caused no mud loss.
Preventive treatment tests demonstrated that one cannot detect fracture initiation from the pressure signature, even with a
down-hole pressure gauge as in the lab tests, let alone from surface pressure response. This can be understood from the rock
mechanics modeling presented in a later section.
Based on several dozen tests, preventive treatments with a low concentration of LCM can be more effective than remedial
treatments with twice the LCM concentration. This is particularly true for strengthening of depleted formations as the
potential loss zones are known. Fractures can be created in preventive treatments without mud loss. In other words,
appropriately designed particles in the active mud system can significantly raise the fracture gradient.

Fig. 5b — Although no breakdown was seen from the pressure

response, the sandstone block was fractured. The fracture was
Fig. 5a — An example of a preventive treatment tests on a sealed by the LCM in the testing fluid and thus no mud loss
sandstone block. was observed.

Sandstone versus Shale

The industry’s experience is that it is easier to strengthen a sandstone formation than a shale formation. A limited number of
block tests have been performed on the Runswick Bay shale blocks. We demonstrated that the industry’s experience is true
from the lab tests too. Two challenges for laboratory work are that, firstly, it is not easy to have a representative shale block –
the rock properties can vary widely from one shale block to another; and secondly, it is almost impossible to obtain a
homogenous shale block.
Fig. 6 shows a highly laminated and fractured shale block before and after a remedial wellbore strengthening test. The
shale block in this test was subjected to the stresses σh=300 psi, σH=450 psi. When the block was opened after the test, many
fractures were observed. Some fractures were sealed by the graphitic LCM and some fractures were not sealed. One
surprising observation from the limited number of shale block tests under relatively small stress anisotropy of σh=300 psi,
6 IADC/SPE 167957

σH=450 psi is that even though the shale blocks were not homogenous and had pre-existing fractures, the main induced
fractures were approximately perpendicular to the minimum applied stress direction. Secondary fractures might, however, be
present and the fracture surfaces might be very rough and tortuous, as shown in Fig. 7 as an example. The half-block on the
left-hand side clearly shows a fracture along the borehole at right angles to the main fracture – i.e., its plane is perpendicular
to the maximum applied stress direction. This has been seen in other shale tests, but it is not known why this fracture forms.
Fig. 8 shows the wellbore pressure response for this test. It is quite different from the pressure response for a typical
sandstone block test as shown in Fig. 3. There appears to be multiple “formation breakdowns” shown in Fig. 8. Again it is
not known what the apparent multiple “breakdown signature” means.

Fig. 6a — Laminated and fractured shale block before the test. Fig. 6b — The shale block after the test. The main fracture was
The wellbore axis is perpendicular to the bedding plane of the perpendicular to the minimum stress direction.
shale.

Fig. 7 — The appearance of the fracture surface in the shale test shown in Figure 6, with secondary fractures and a very rough and
tortuous primary fracture. Note, in the left-hand half, the fracture along the wellbore that is perpendicular to the maximum applied
stress, and also the bedding plane partings.
IADC/SPE 167957 7

Fig. 8 — Wellbore pressure response for the shale block Fig. 9 — An example of showing fracture sealing near the
shown in Figs. 6 and 7. It is quite different from the pressure wellbore from the strengthening test of a natural fracture
response for a sandstone test, for example, shown in Fig. 3. detailed in Fig. 4.

A Snapshot of Test Results on Fracture Sealing and Strengthening Mechanisms

Close to one thousand fracture sealing and block tests have been performed to study the various issues related to fracture
sealing and wellbore strengthening. These tests allow us to draw conclusions on, for example, the optimal LCM particle size
distribution and concentration required to form a strong seal quickly with respect to fracture width, remedial versus
preventive treatment, pressure depletion effects and wellbore strengthening mechanism. In this section, we will focus on the
studies and findings on the fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening mechanism from the test results.
Tests have been performed and analyses, including modeling, have been made to investigate where and how the sealing is
formed, how the sealing is broken, and the mechanism of wellbore strengthening. We visually examine the sealing locations
and characteristics after the end of the test when we open the rock sample or the testing cell, and then carefully analyze and
correlate the observations with pressure responses. We clearly see that sealing is mostly formed near the wellbore. This is
true for preventive treatment, sealing and wellbore strengthening of induced fractures or natural fractures. Fig. 2a shows a
typical example from fracture sealing and strengthening of an induced fracture. Fig. 9 shows the fracture surface after the test
shown in Fig. 4 on sealing and strengthening of a natural fracture. One can clearly see that the seal was formed near the
wellbore and some filtrate has flowed into the fracture near the wellbore.
Alongside this examination of where the seals are formed, various tests have been designed and conducted to investigate
how seals are formed within a fracture and how they are broken. These tests include a cylindrical LCM particles transport
visualization cell made of clear polycarbonate (Fig. 10) to allow videotaping and real-time observation on LCM particles
transport path and speed, how seals are formed and broken and where new seals are formed again. One common observation
from the tests and videos was that breaking of seals was much localized. As the seal broke at its weakest point, fluid flow was
quickly diverted to the localized opening, dragging LCM particles to quickly seal and plug the opening, allowing pump
pressure to increase. As the pump pressure increased, the seal broke at another point and then sealed again.
This visually observed mechanism of seal forming and breaking was confirmed from high pressure fracture sealing tests
and sandstone block tests. In the high pressure fracture sealing tests, a fracture is simulated by two plates with a gap
controlled by a linear-voltage-displacement-transducer. The plates can be permeable or impermeable. The fracture can be
perpendicular to the wellbore as shown in Fig. 11, or parallel to the wellbore (not shown). During the test, mud with LCM is
pumped through the wellbore. If the LCM in the mud is designed correctly with respect to the fracture width, fracture sealing
will be achieved and the wellbore pressure can be increased, to several thousand psi if the seal is good. Effects are seen that
are similar to the seal formation and breakage mechanism from the visualization cell tests; as the seal breaks at its weakest
point, LCM particles quickly flow to the opening and quickly seal and plug the opening, allowing wellbore pressure to
increase again.
One test was stopped after the seal was broken, and the fracture cell was carefully opened. The localized opening was
actually found to be a pinhole in the cake rather than a large tear (Fig. 12). This pinhole opening and plugging as the seal
forming and breaking mechanism was also observed from block tests on sandstone rocks (Fig. 13). This was from a water-
based-mud test without LCM; the seal was formed entirely by filtercake on the wellbore surface. This high-magnification
view of a small part of the fracture face shows, from bottom to top, the wellbore itself, then filtercake deposited on the
wellbore wall, then the face of the fractured rock, The image is about 6 mm from top to bottom. A pinhole in the sealing or
filtercake can be clearly seen. There is an approximate correspondence between the number of pinholes or their aftermaths
seen in the sample after a test, and the number of pressure drops seen in the data recorded during the test (such as the pressure
drops seen in Fig. 3).
This fracture sealing and strengthening mechanism indicates that LCM particle size distribution is critically important and
that filtercake quality plays a critical role in fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. This has been demonstrated from lab
tests. This sealing mechanism and the role of filtercake quality on wellbore strengthening may explain why wellbore
8 IADC/SPE 167957

strengthening for highly depleted formations works so much better than the current theory or model can predict. A new
model is being developed to incorporate the mechanism; this new model and some of its early results are described in the
next section.

Fig. 10 — A visualization cell of varying gap to study how Fig. 11 — A high pressure sealing tester (rated to 5000 psi)
sealing is formed and broken. where a horizontal fracture is represented by two parallel
plates.

Fig. 12 — Pinhole opening of fracture sealing was observed Fig. 13 — Pinhole opening of fracture sealing was observed
from high pressure sealing between two plates. from a sandstone block test.

A Model for Fracturing with Drilling Fluids

A mathematical model has been built to help understand the way that drilling fluids generate and propagate fractures. The
model is based on elastic rock deformation and fracture mechanics, and although it is still under development, it has
delivered some insights into fracturing behavior.
The model as described here assumes that a fracture is generated by pressurizing a wellbore with a fluid that contains fine
mud solids that form a filtercake on the wellbore wall (the rock is assumed to be permeable). At present the model does not
include deposition of filtercake on the faces of the fracture. It can be extended to impermeable rocks and also to large LCM
particles within the mud but this work is not described here. The wellbore axis lies along a principal stress direction in the
formation, so that the two other principal stresses lie at right angles to it. These two stresses may be different. Pre-existing
IADC/SPE 167957 9

pore pressure in the rock is taken to be zero for convenience, and the permeability is high enough that fluid flow is rapid and
pore pressure gradients dissipate immediately.
A central feature of the model is that the filtercake can bridge small fractures - with apertures up to a specified fraction of
the filtercake’s thickness - and so stop wellbore fluid entering the fractures. As the intact wellbore is pressurized, fractures
form in the wall, behind the filtercake, in the plane perpendicular to the minimum stress, and grow slowly in length
(controlled by the stress intensity at the fracture tip) and width (controlled by linear elastic behavior). Because the filtercake
is intact, wellbore fluid does not enter the fracture, so its length and width are controlled by the fluid pressure acting on the
wellbore wall alone. When, however, the filtercake over the fracture mouth breaks, wellbore fluid can enter the fracture,
apply pressure to its faces, and propagate the fracture hydraulically. The process is modeled with a time-stepping scheme,
which is not strictly necessary for the approach described above but allows it to be extended to include other factors such as
pumping rate, fluid viscosity and LCM additions.
Fig. 14 shows some background behavior. It is the result of a fracture mechanics estimation of fracture length versus
wellbore pressure, when the wellbore pressure has access to a limited length of the fracture using the method of Lee et al.
(2004), and based on the Barenblatt criterion (Barenblatt 1959; Smith 1966). In the legend, a fluid penetration of 0.0 means
the fracture mouth is blocked to fluid flow at the wellbore wall; a fluid penetration of 1.0 means that wellbore pressure acts
on the entire length of the fracture. In the latter situation the fracture length grows to high values as soon as wellbore
pressure reaches the value of the minimum stress, as expected from hydraulic fracturing theory. As the fracture is blocked
closer and closer to the wellbore wall, the length generated by a given pressure decreases dramatically. If increasing fracture
length is taken as a sign of fluid loss and lost circulation, it is clear that restricting fluid access to the fracture has a major
beneficial effect.

Wellbore radius 0.108 m; Smin = 1.5 MPa; Smax = 2 MPa; KIC = 2e4 Pa.m0.5
1

0.9

0.8

0.7
Fracture length/m

0.6

0.5

0.4
Fluid penetration
0.3
0.0
0.2 0.25
0.5
0.1 0.75
1.0
0
0 5 10 15
Wellbore pressure/MPa
Fig. 14 — Fracture length (from wellbore wall to fracture tip) versus wellbore pressure for various penetrations of wellbore fluid into
the fracture. The wellbore radius, minimum and maximum stresses normal to the well axis, and the fracture toughness of the rock
are listed above the chart.

This behavior, together with an algorithm for fracture width (Deeg et al. 2004), can be incorporated into the time-stepping
scheme to show the progress of fracture growth as wellbore pressure is increased. The scheme involves many parameters;
some are more important than others and the effects of two of the most important ones will be shown here. Fig. 15 shows
results with a base case set of parameters. As time progresses, from 0 to 24 seconds, fluid is pumped into the wellbore and
the pressure increases according to its compressibility (with small corrections for leakoff through the pre-existing filtercake
(1 mm thick) on the wall. At about 24 seconds, a crack is nucleated behind the filtercake, without rupturing it, so that the
pressure within the fracture is pore pressure (in this case, 0). This nucleation point is shown by the blue circle in the top
panel. The well pressure continues to increase as pumping goes on, and the fracture length grows very slowly, since the
fracture faces are not under stress. The width also increases. Eventually, at about 27.5 seconds, the width grows beyond the
critical width that the filtercake can sustain (in this case 1/6 of the filtercake thickness) and the filtercake pops, allowing fluid
into the fracture. This causes a rapid increase in length and width of the fracture, and a corresponding decrease in wellbore
pressure because of the extra fracture volume that has become available. As pumping continues, the fracture continues to
extend, controlled mainly by the rate at which fluid enters the system (i.e., the pump rate). Other parameters in the
10 IADC/SPE 167957

simulations were: hole radius 0.108 m, cased hole length 1000 m, open hole length 10 m, pump rate 0.02 m3s-1, fluid
compressibility 0.5 GPa-1, mud viscosity 0.05 Pa s, mud solids volume fraction 0.02, rock Young’s modulus 10 GPa, rock
Poisson’s ratio 0.33, rock fracture toughness 0.02 MPa m0.5, pore pressure 0 MPa, initial cake thickness 1 mm, cake
permeability 10-21 m2.
Note that the fracture is initiated at around 25.5 MPa, very close to the value predicted by rock mechanics models for the
stress state around the wellbore. The fracture volume generated after this is so small, however, that it is not reflected in the
pressure versus time curve. Only after the filtercake layer pops at about 30 MPa does the fracture become visible in the
pressure signature.
Fig. 16 shows the response for a situation that is identical except for the Young’s modulus (stiffness) of the rock.
Because the modulus is lower, the fracture is wider for a given pressure, and so the filtercake pops at a lower pressure. The
initiation pressure is very similar, dictated by the stress state, but the visible wellbore pressure response, including the
breakdown pressure, is strongly influenced by the rock stiffness.
Fig. 17 shows the response for a stronger filtercake, which at a given thickness is able to bridge a wider fracture (in this
case, a width that is 1/3 of the filtercake thickness). The breakdown pressure is increased to around 36 MPa.

40
Wellbore pressure MPa

Crack initiation
30 Crack mouth opening

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac length, filled length (m)

0.8
Fracture length
0.6 Filled length

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac width, critical width (mm)

1
Fracture width
Critical width

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 15 — Results from the time-based simulation using the base case set of parameters. The top panel shows pressure as a
function of time in seconds. The middle panel shows (in blue) fracture length calculated with a fracture mechanics approach, and
(in red) the length to which fluid has invaded the fracture (using a simplified fluid flow model). The bottom panel shows (in blue) the
width of the fracture at the wellbore wall, and (in red) the critical width at which the filtercake can no longer bridge the growing
fracture mouth (this, in fact, changes with time as more filtercake is deposited, but this change is extremely small). At the bottom of
the figure are some of the simulation parameters; the remainder are given in the text.
IADC/SPE 167957 11

40
Wellbore pressure MPa

Crack initiation
30 Crack mouth opening

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac length, filled length (m)

0.8
Fracture length
0.6 Filled length

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac width, critical width (mm)

1
Fracture width
Critical width

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 16 — Results from the time-based simulation using the same set of parameters as in Fig. 15, except for a lower Young’s
modulus value of 5 GPa. This means that the fracture mouth width is higher at a given pressure, and so the filtercake pops at about
26 MPa rather than 30 MPa.
12 IADC/SPE 167957

40
Wellbore pressure MPa

Crack initiation
30 Crack mouth opening

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac length, filled length (m)

0.8
Fracture length
0.6 Filled length

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac width, critical width (mm)

1
Fracture width
Critical width

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 17 — Results from the time-based simulation using the same set of parameters as in Fig. 15, except for a stronger filtercake.
The cake in this case can bridge and seal a fracture mouth whose width is 1/3 of the filtercake thickness (rather than 1//6 as in Fig.
15). The pressure can therefore be increased to around 36 MPa before the filtercake pops, fluid enters the fracture, the fracture
propagates, and losses begin.

Summary and Conclusions

A comprehensive experimental study has been conducted to investigate wellbore strengthening mechanism, applicability and
effectiveness of various strengthening implementation methods. The experimental techniques include fracture sealing tests of
known fracture apertures simulated by two plates, induced or natural fractures in sandstone or shale blocks with a borehole,
and a transparent cell for visualizing particles transport within a fracture and for studying how the seal is formed and broken.
Several hundred tests have been performed with different stress conditions and strengthening implementation methods
Due to the large test matrix and test results, it is not possible to present all test data, analyses and conclusions fully in this
paper. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Particle size distribution (PSD) and size of lost circulation materials (LCM) with respect to fracture apertures are
critical in sealing fractures. This is especially true for sealing of fractures with apertures greater than 1 mm.
• If the LCM PSD and concentration are designed correctly, fracture sealing pressure achieved with wellbore
strengthening is always higher than the breakdown pressure. In other words, not only can the weak formation be
repaired after fractures are induced, but also it can be strengthened.
IADC/SPE 167957 13

• A minimum LCM concentration is required to quickly form a strong seal. The minimum LCM concentration depends
on induced or natural fractures, and strengthening implementation methods such as preventive or remedial treatment.
• A preventive strengthening treatment with a low concentration LCM is more effective than a remedial treatment with
twice the LCM concentration. In other words, a low concentration of LCM in the active mud system can significantly
raise the fracture gradient.
• Limited numbers of shale block tests have been performed because the tests are much more difficult to perform.
Strengthening of a shale formation is more difficult and different than that of a sandstone formation.
• Fracture sealing is mostly near the wellbore, and filtercake plays a strong role in wellbore strengthening mechanism
and performance.
• Fracture sealing and strengthening mechanism is by sealing and plugging pinhole openings.
• A mathematical model has been built to understand how drilling fluids generate and propagate fractures. The model
has delivered some insights into fracturing behavior and the importance of certain parameters on wellbore
strengthening.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Schlumberger for the permission to publish this paper. Part of the experimental study was supported by a
Lost Circulation and Wellbore Strengthening Research Cooperative Agreement (RCA) project by 13 sponsors during the
Phase II program and 16 sponsors during Phase III program since 2007. The authors also thank the sponsors’ continued
support and constructive inputs during this RCA project.

References
Alberty, M.W. and McLean, M.R. 2004. “A Physical Model for Stress Cages.” SPE 90493, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Houston,
26-29 September. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/90493-MS
Aston, M.S., Alberty, M.W., Duncum, S., Bruton, J.R., Friedheim, J.E., and Sanders, M. 2007. “A New Treatment for Wellbore
Strengthening in Shale.” SPE 110713, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Anaheim, California, 11-14 November.
www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/110713-MS
Aston, M.S., Alberty, M.W., McLean, M.R., de Jong, H.J. and Armagost, K. 2004. “Drilling Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening.” SPE
87130, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2-4 March. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/87130-MS
Barenblatt, G.I. 1959. “Concerning equilibrium cracks forming during brittle fracture. The stability of isolated cracks. Relationships with
energetic theories.” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 1273 - 1282.
Deeg, W.F.J. and Wang, H. 2004. “Changing Borehole Geometry and Lost-Circulation Control.” ARMA/NARMS paper 04-577, Gulf
Rocks 2004 - 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, Houston,
Texas, 5-9 June.
Dupriest, F.E. 2005. “Fracture Closure Stress (FCS) and Lost Returns Practices.” SPE 92192, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
23-25 February. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/92192-MS
Friedheim, J.E Sanders, M., Arias-Prada, J. and Shursen, R.P. 2012. “Innovative Fiber Solution for Wellbore Strengthening.” SPE 151473,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, San Diego, 6-8 March. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/151473-MS
Fuh, G-F., Beardmore, D. and Morita, N. 2007. “Further Development, Field Testing, and Application of the Wellbore Strengthening
Technique for Drilling Operations.” SPE 105809, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 20-22 February.
www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/105809-MS
Guo, Q., Roy, S., Simpkins, D., and Zamora, M. 2009. “A Practical Design Tool for Wellbore Strengthening.” AADE 2009-NTCE-12-05,
AADE Fluids Conference, New Orleans, 8-9 April.
Kaageson-Loe, N., Sanders, M.W., Growcock, F., Taugbøl, K., Horsrud, P., Singelstad, A.V., and Omland, T.H. 2008. “Particulate Based
Loss-Prevention Material - The Secrets of Fracture Sealing Revealed!” SPE 112595, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida,
4-6 March. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/112595-MS
Lee, D., Birchwood, R. and Bratton, T. 2004. “Leak-off Test Interpretation and Modeling with Application to Geomechanics.”
ARMA/NARMS paper 04-547, Gulf Rocks 2004 - 6th North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics
Across Borders and Disciplines, Houston, Texas, 5-9 June.
Morita, N., and Fuh, G-F. 2011. “Parametric Analysis of Wellbore-Strengthening Methods from Basic Rock Mechanics.” SPE 145765,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October – 2 November. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/145765-MS
Murray, D., Sanders, M., Houston, K., Hogg, H., and Wylie, G. 2013. “Case Study – ECD Management Strategy Solved Lost Circulation
Issues on Complex Salt Diapirs/Paleocene Reservoir.” SPE 166134, 2013 SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, 30
September – 2 October. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/166134-MS
Sanders, M., Young, S. and Friedheim, J.E. 2008. “Development and Testing of Novel Additives for Improved Wellbore Stability and
Reduced Losses.” AADE-08-DF-HO-19, AADE Fluids Conference, Houston, 8-9 April.
Smith, E. 1966. “The effect of a non-uniform internal pressure on crack extension in an infinite body.” International Journal of
Engineering Science, Vol. 4, pp. 671-679.
Van Oort, E., Friedheim, J.E., Pierce, T. and Lee, J. 2009. “Avoiding Losses in Depleted and Weak Zones by Constantly Strengthening
Wellbores.” SPE 125093, SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, 4 -7 October. www.dx.doi.org/10.2118/125093-MS