DRILLING

The Quest for Borehole Stability

in the Cusiana Field, Colombia

Tony Addis David Boulter Luis Roca-Ramisa Dick Plumb

Nigel Last BP Exploration Caracas, Venezuela Cambridge, England
BP Exploration Bogota, Colombia
Sunbury-on-Thames, England

Rock mechanics theory and practice are being stretched to their limit to solve severe borehole stability

problems in the tectonically active Cusiana field of Colombia. The earth scientists’ and drilling engineers’ main

challenge is estimating those most elusive of all earth parameters, subsurface stress and rock strength.

What they find out can influence the entire development strategy of this newly discovered, giant field.

Drilling and maintaining in-gauge hole Earth stresses Borehole stresses

remains one of the driller’s greatest chal-
lenges. In-gauge, stable hole not only means
trouble-free drilling, it also helps ensure that
logs are of high quality, that the cement job
runs smoother, and that every subsequent
action in the well occurs to the operator’s
maximum advantage. Everything in the oil-
field starts with the drillhole, so ensuring the
best hole possible is worth some thought
and expense.
Fighting for hole integrity, the driller must
monitor and juggle two key factors—mud
chemistry and mud weight. Mud and forma-
tion must be balanced chemically, particu-
larly in shales, to prevent the formation
swelling against the drillpipe or sloughing
into borehole. Simultaneously, a mechanical
balance must be achieved to prevent two
well-known phenomena—breakouts and
formation fracturing—and, as experts now
suspect, maybe also a third phenomenon
called shear displacement. This article
focuses on how the mechanical balance is
monitored and achieved, and reviews the
latest theories and measurement techniques
in a case study from the newly discovered
Cusiana field in eastern Colombia.1
Rock in its natural state is stressed in
three principal directions—vertically from
April/July 1993
SV
SH
Sh
the overburden, Sv, and horizontally in two
orthogonal directions. The two horizontal
stresses are generally not equal—the maxi-
mum and minimum horizontal stresses are
expressed as SH and S h , respectively.
As a borehole is drilled, hydraulic pres-
sure of the drilling mud must replace the
support lost by removal of the original col-
umn of rock. But mud pressure being uni-
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Alain
Brie, Schlumberger Wireline, Montrouge, France;
Sue Bruce, Anadrill, Aberdeen, Scotland; Arnaud
Etchecopar, Etudes et Productions Schlumberger, Cla-
mart, France; and Marc Thiercelin, Schlumberger Cam-
bridge Research, Cambridge, England.
In this article, DSI (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager), FMI
(Fullbore Formation MicroImager), IMPACT (Integrated
Mechanical Properties Analysis Computation Tech-
nique), MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester),
RFT (Repeat Formation Tester) and UBI (Ultrasonic
Borehole Imager) are marks of Schlumberger.
Sφ
Sr nHow earth
stresses adapt to
Sθ the borehole as
mud pressure sub-
stitutes for the load-
bearing capacity
of the drilled rock.
form in all directions cannot exactly bal-
ance the earth stress. Consequently, rock
surrounding the borehole is distorted or
strained, and may fail if the redistributed
stresses exceed rock strength (above ).
One failure mechanism is tensile failure.
This occurs when hydraulic pressure of the
mud becomes too high, causing formation
stress at the borehole wall to go into tension
1. For a layperson’s introduction to oilfield rock mechan-
ics, see The Technical Review 34, no. 3 (October
1986): 4-32.
King Hubbert M: Horizontal Fractures: Debunking a
Myth;”
Brown S, Plumb R, Jeffrey R, Roegiers J-C, Thiercelin
M and Swan G: “Basics of Failure Mechanics;”
Ahmed U, Anderson R, Cook J, Detournay E, Roegiers
J-C, Vandamme L, Johnson D, Plumb R: “Fracturing:
Theory Behind the Practice;”
Anderson R, Coates G, Denoo S, Edwards D and
Risnes R: “Formation Collapse in a Producing Well.”
a
Tensile failure
a
Compressional failure
Borehole deviation, degrees

Elastic formations such as

sandstones and shales

Ductile formations
such as salt

80

60

40

20

0
2 4

and exceed the rock’s tensile strength. This

fractures the rock along a plane perpendicu-
lar to the direction of the earth’s minimum
Tensile failure
Compressional
failure

stress, generally one of the horizontal stresses,

and potentially causes lost circulation.
Alternatively, the formation can fail in
compression. This is commonly predicted
using the Mohr-Coulomb model, in which
the factors controlling failure are the mini-
mum and maximum stresses at the borehole

34
6 8
Mud pressure

Safe window

10 12
Mud weight, lbm/gal
Circulation lost
through
induced fractures

14
Hole enlargement
through
breakouts

Hole reduction

16 18 20
nVarieties of bore-
hole failure. Tensile
failure (top) occurs
when mud weight
overcomes bore-
hole stresses and
rock strength, pro-
ducing a fracture.
Compressional fail-
ure (bottom) can
occur at high or
low mud weights.
The mode of failure
depends on
mechanical prop-
erties of the rock,
varying from creep
closure in ductile
formations like salt,
to brittle failure in
elastic formations,
like sandstones
and some shales.

nSafe mud-weight
window for trouble-
free drilling in a
conventionally
stressed earth in
which S v > S H ≥ S h.
The blue curves
show the compres-
sional-failure limits
while the red curve
shows the tensile
failure limit. The
window narrows
as well deviation
increases.

wall—the intermediate stress is assumed to

have no effect (see “Criteria for Compres-
sional Failure,” next page ). Compressive
failure may be caused by too low or too
high a mud weight. In either case, formation
caves in or spalls off, creating breakouts.
The debris can then accumulate in the bore-
hole leading to stuck pipe or even hole col-
lapse (above ).
The third, recently discovered mechanism
of mechanical instability is shear displace-
ment. In this, mud pressure is high enough
to reopen naturally existing fractures that
intersect the borehole. As the fracture is
opened, stresses along it are temporarily
relieved, and opposite faces of the fracture
can physically shear, creating a small but
potentially dangerous dislocation in the
borehole. The phenomenon was first identi-
fied by Elf geologists Maury and Sauzy in a
gas field in southeast France.2
The bottom line for the driller striving to
maintain a stable hole is choosing the right
mud weight. First, mud weight must be suf-
ficient to exceed formation pore pressure,
not a mechanical stability issue but essential
for preventing kicks. Second, it must be high
enough to avoid the low mud-weight mode
of compressional failure. Third, it must not
be too high that the formation fails in ten-
sion or in the high mud-weight mode of
compressional failure. Fourth, it must not be
too high to initiate shear displacement.
Steering a middle course would be chal-
lenging enough in a thick, homogeneous
bed, but in reality drillers must maintain sta-
bility over long openhole sections with
varying lithology, strengths and stresses. And
generally speaking, the middle course is
harder to find the more the well is deviated
( below, left ). When the going gets too
rough, casing gets set. But while drilling
continues, all available measurements and
knowledge, particularly experience drilling
nearby wells, must be applied to choose
optimum mud weight.3
The key parameters for evaluating stability
are simply the three principal components
of earth stress and rock strength parameters
defining tensile and compressional failure
(next page, top ). Once these are known,
computer programs speedily calculate the
principal stresses at the borehole wall, and
predictions of failure can be obtained. But
both earth stresses and rock failure are
extraordinarily difficult to assess accurately,
and a successful resolution must use an
integration of all available methods of
obtaining them. Most of these methods have
been brought to bear with some success in
the Cusiana field where drillers have faced
immense drilling problems.
The Cusiana field lies in the eastern
foothills of the Andes. Discovered in 1991
by BP Exploration Company (Colombia) Ltd.
with partners Total Compagnie Française
des Pétroles and Triton Energy Corp., the
field promises to be in the top 50 oil

Oilfield Review
 Mud type and
properties
Chemical

Casing shoe
selection

mechanical causes must be addressed.

Criteria for Compressional Failure

Problem Analysis
• Well histories
• Cores, logs
• Other field data

Monitoring
• Breakouts
• Pull
• Drag
• Mud properties

Theories about compressional failure began

Stability
Evaluation

around 1760, when the French physicist Charles-

Augustin de Coulomb realized that maximum
shear stress occurs on planes at 45° to a com-
pressional load. He observed, however, that frac-
tures tend to be oriented at lesser angles (right).
He concluded that this was caused by internal
a
friction imposed by stress normal to the fracture
plane, and that increased the cohesive strength of
the material. His expression relating shear stress
τ and normal stress σ at failure is still used:
τ = τ0 + µ σ ,
in which τ0 is the cohesive strength at zero
normal stress and µ is the coefficient of internal
friction.
About 1900, German engineer Otto Mohr gener-
alized Coulomb’s criterion, establishing the basis
for today’s analysis of rock fractures. He
expressed failure as simply
τ = function of σ ,

April/July 1993
Mechanical

Casing
Design
Pore
pressure
Earth
stresses

Stability profile

Mud weight
selection

Casing shoe
selection

nOverall strategy in overcoming borehole stability problems. Both chemical and

Rock
strength

in which the function depends on rock type and is

possibly nonlinear. Mohr explored the nature of
this function by compressing samples under vary-
ing degrees of stress with maximum principal
stress, σ1, always greater than the other two
principal stresses, σ2 and σ3. To keep the experi-
ment two-dimensional, he kept σ2 and σ3 equal.
Mohr observed that the failure function could be
described as the envelope to all circles drawn
using as diameter the maximum and minimum
stresses at failure, the so-called Mohr circles.
In the 1920s, Terzaghi identified the role of
fluid pressure in the failure of porous materials.
He experimented with pairs of similar samples,
giving one a high pore pressure and the other
zero pore pressure. He found that the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion worked as long as pore pres-
sure was first subtracted from the stress, σ – Pp .
This parameter has since become known as
effective stress.
a
reserves of the world. Drilling the discovery
wells, though, proved a driller’s nightmare
with mechanical stability problems causing
stuck pipe, damaged casing and sidetracks.
BP estimates that approximately 10% of
well cost is spent coping with bad hole.
Average rig time to reach the oil-bearing
sediments at more than 14,000 ft [4200 m]
has been 10 months.
Although both chemical and mechanical
factors inevitably contribute to bad hole in
the Cusiana field, the operators had no
doubt that mechanical stability was the
prime cause. The field lies on the eastern
flank of the Oriental Andes cordillera, an
area being actively compressed by the east-
ward thrust of the Pacific “Nazca” plate and

2. Maury VM and Sauzy J-M: “Rupture de puits provo-

quée par glissement sur faille: Cas vécu, mécanisme,
remèdes, conséquences,” in Maury V and Fourmain-
traux D (eds): Rock at Great Depth. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Balkema, 1989.
Also:
Héliot D, Etchecopar A and Cheung P: “New Devel-
opments in Fracture Characterization From Logs,” in
Maury V and Fourmaintraux D (eds): Rock at Great
Depth. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema, 1989.
3. McLean MR and Addis MA: “Wellbore Stability Anal-
ysis: A Review of Current Methods of Analysis and
Their Field Application,” paper IADC/SPE 19941, pre-
sented at the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA, February 27-March 2, 1990.
McLean MR and Addis MA: “Wellbore Stability: The
Effect of Strength Criteria on Mud Weight Recommen-
dations,” paper SPE 20405, presented at the 65th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
Shear stress, τ

Plane of
maximum
shear

0
τ

σ3
σ

Sh
ea r fa

σ2
Shear stress, τ

ilure

Normal stress, σ

nBasis of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.

Fa

τ0
ilur
e
tan-1µ

Normal stress, σ

σ1

35
the more southeasterly thrust of the
Caribbean plate (below ). Three fault blocks
are being compressed in the Cusiana region
with faults striking parallel to the
cordillera—the Yopal block under the
cordillera, the Cusiana block containing the
reservoir, and the Llanos block under the
plains to the southeast. The reservoir is situ-
ated in the Cusiana block between the
Yopal and Cusiana thrust faults.
Generally, in quiescent geological areas,
vertical stress caused by the weight of the
overburden is greater than either of the two
horizontal stresses. Geologists suspected
this might be the case in the Yopal block,
where there seemed to be enough minor
faulting to relieve the large horizontal stress
induced by tectonic deformation. But in the
Cusiana block and particularly the Llanos
block, it was thought that horizontal stress
in the northwest-southeast direction was still
high, almost certainly greater than the verti-
cal stress.
Drillers became convinced of this as
severe drilling problems developed in the
Carbonera formations in the middle of the
Tertiary zone. The Carbonera formation is
an interbedded sequence of sands, mud-
stones and shales comprising eight units. As
a result, a task force comprising BP, Total,
NW
0 miles 2 COLOMBIA
Triton and Schlumberger experts was con-
vened to measure and understand the
Cusiana stress field and attempt to resolve
the drilling problems.
The techniques that are being used to
evaluate the Cusiana stress field are multi-
farious. Some remain to be implemented,
others already have been. They include:
•computer simulation of the region’s tec-
tonic deformation
•analysis of breakouts on caliper logs to
determine the direction of minimum hori-
zontal stress
•analysis of oriented cores to evaluate stress
direction and possibly magnitude
•use of extended leakoff tests to evaluate
horizontal stress magnitudes and calibrate
an earth stress model.
BP’s computer simulation of tectonic defor-
mation in the three blocks confirmed that in
most of the region, horizontal stress in the
direction of tectonic compression—that is, in
a northwest-southeast direction, normal to
the cordillera—was the maximum stress.
Using FLAC code running on a personal
computer, they modeled several northwest-
southeast sections with two-dimensional
finite-difference nets comprising several hun-
dred elements each (next page, bottom ).4
SE
These nets were first loaded with only
overburden weight, with resulting horizon-
tal stresses computed assuming a simple
elastic-plastic model of the subsurface and
slippage along the faults whenever the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was
reached. Then, horizontal tectonic move-
ment was introduced—the Yopal thrust fault
was moved 100 m [330 ft] eastwards and
the Cusiana thrust fault 20 to 25 m [65 to 82
ft]. This ratio of displacements matched the
observed fault-throw ratio on the surface.
For all the sections, one result was
clear—greatest stress was horizontal in the
northwest-southeast direction, S H nw-se . Ver-
tical stress, S v , was dictated by the density
of the overburden, while horizontal stress
normal to the sections, Sh sw-ne , depended on
the degree of compression imposed normal
to the sections. With no compression, verti-
cal stress was greater than the normal hori-
zontal stress—that is, SH nw-se >S v >S h sw-ne
(next page, top ). But with some compres-
0 miles 500
N Caribbean
Sea
VENEZUELA
Cusiana
Bogota field
Pacific
Ocean

Yopal
block
Cusiana
block

Llanos block

nLocation, geologic cross section and tectonics of NW Bogota SE

the Cusiana field, eastern Colombia. The active Foothills
Pacific and Caribbean plates provide ample north- Plain
west-southeast compression to the entire area, Pacific Ocean
increasing horizontal stresses significantly above Regional
compression Tecton
normal levels. i
c
pla
te

36 Oilfield Review
 NW SH nw-se SE
sion, normal horizontal stress increased,
eventually becoming larger than the vertical
stress—SH nw-se >S h sw-ne ≥S v . With a lot of
normal compression, it was possible to get
S v significantly lower than S h sw-ne .
In the field, the direction of least horizon-
tal stress can be confirmed by observing
breakouts using caliper logs. Breakouts,
caused by the borehole being in compres-
sional failure, have been observed world-
wide to cause ovalization of the borehole
with the oval’s long axis parallel to the mini- NW SV SE
mum stress. In several Cusiana wells, break-
outs have been evaluated using the dual-
caliper and borehole drift measurements of
dipmeter and resistivity imaging tools. The
caliper pairs, oriented at 90°, provide infor-
mation about borehole enlargement. The
tools’ navigation system measures orienta-
tion and deviation of the borehole and
establishes tool azimuth.
Breakouts can be picked automatically
from logs using the Breakout Orientation
Log (BOL) program. This reviews the NW Sh sw-ne SE
caliper pairs and flags zones where one
pair is close to bit size while the other is
significantly larger. Furthermore, their dif-
ference has to materialize quickly versus
depth to distinguish potential breakouts
from irregular washout. Once flagged, the
long axis of the breakout can be oriented
with the borehole drift and tool azimuth
measurements. The results in the Cusiana
field have a striking consistency, showing
breakout and therefore direction of mini- Increasing stress
mum horizontal stress oriented between 30
and 60°—that is, southwest-northeast,

4. FLAC stands for Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, nBP’s finite-difference simulation of Cusiana-field stresses. Analysis was
a software developed by the ITASCA Consulting made on sections oriented northwest-southeast, parallel to the tectonic com-
Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. pression. The maps show the three principal stress magnitudes for one of the
sections. In general, SH nw-se > Sv > Sh sw-ne .

Yopal Cusiana Llanos

nFinite-element net used by BP to simulate stress development in the Cusiana region

along a northwest-southeast section. Small displacements between the Yopal thrust block
(left) and the Cusiana block (middle) were imposed to simulate tectonic compression.

April/July 1993 37
agreeing with the predictions of BP’s finite-
difference model (below ).
A recent addition to Schlumberger’s open-
hole wireline tools promises more detailed
verification of breakouts. The UBI Ultra-
sonic Borehole Imager tool represents a new
borehole televiewer technology that pro-
vides a 360°-sweep of the borehole wall in
both acoustic transit time and reflected
acoustic amplitude. Images of both parame-
ters offer a quicklook identification of frac-
tures, faults and other wellbore phenomena,
while plots of transit time versus azimuth for
a given depth in the well provide a direct
view of the borehole’s cross section. A UBI
log run in an exploration well close to the
Cusiana field produced cross sections that
clearly reveal both breakouts and keyseats
(next page ).
The UBI log also promises to confirm the
new shear displacement theory, that reiniti-
ated fractures can be relieved of their stress
and as a result shear across the borehole.
This would be expected to provide a bore-
Depth, ft
Borehole Differential Caliper
Profile
-1 in.
Breakout
XX000
XX100
XX200
XX300
XX400
XX500
38
hole cross section comprising two circles,
corresponding to the borehole above and
below the shear point, slightly displaced
from each other. Sure enough, such a phe-
nomenon was observed on the previous
UBI log (page 40 ). Shear displacement in
the Cusiana field may explain some
drilling-related problems, but confirmation
awaits UBI logs in wells drilled in the field.
With stress orientation determined, the
next step in the field is establishing stress
magnitude. At least one stress is relatively
easy to determine, the vertical stress, Sv .
This can be estimated by deriving the cumu-
lative density of overlying sediments using a
density log. The main challenge in the field
is determining horizontal stress magnitudes.
Horizontal stress magnitude can be
attacked on various fronts. One is through
analysis of cores using a technique pio- nCore sample covered with strain gauges
neered by Dowell, Schlumberger’s cement- and embedded in a silicone jacket in
preparation for differential strain analysis,
ing and stimulation company, and called
a laboratory technique to estimate in-situ
differential strain analysis (DSA).5 When a earth stress magnitudes and directions.
core sample is removed from the earth’s
stress field, microcracks develop preferen-
nBreakout Orienta- tially in a direction perpendicular to the in-
tion Log from the situ principal stresses. In the laboratory,
Azimuth of Cusiana field, strain gauges are attached to the sample
Enlargement obtained by com- (above ), and the assembly is embedded in a
14
paring the two hole flexible silicone jacket. The assembly is then
diameters from four-
arm logging tools compressed hydrostatically. The sample
such as the dipme- strains nonlinearly until the cracks close.
ter or FMI Fullbore From the strains measured while the cracks
Formation MicroIm- are closing, the ratio of the principal stresses
ager tool. Breakouts
are flagged when can be determined. With an estimation of
the two diameters overburden, values for horizontal stress can
are significantly be calculated. If the core is oriented, stress
different, indicating orientation can also be estimated. DSA tests
hole ovalization. by Dowell on three nonoriented cores from
Orientation of the
greater diameter, a Cusiana exploration well have proved
shown by the inconclusive. Currently, Total is planning
azimuth rosettes, more of these tests, so the jury is out on
shows breakout application of this technique in this area.
direction and direc-
tion of minimum A more common and certainly more reli-
horizontal stress. able method of measuring earth stress is
through extended leakoff, or minifrac, tests.
Normal leakoff tests are systematically per-
formed by drillers to investigate rock
strength integrity after casing is set. The
hole is drilled out several feet below casing
and borehole fluid pressure is increased by
pumping small quantities of additional mud
5. Ren N-K and Roegiers J-C: “Differential Strain Curve
Analysis: A New Method for Determining the Pre-
Existing In-Situ Stress State From Rock Core Measure-
ments,” 5th International Congress on Rock Mechan-
ics, Vol. 2. The Netherlands: A. A. Balkema (1983):
F117-127.
Thiercelin MJ, Hudson PJ, Ren N-K and Roegiers J-C:
“Laboratory Determination of the In-Situ Stress Ten-
sor,” presented at the International Symposium on
Engineering in Complex Rock Formations, Beijing,
China, November 3-7, 1986.
Oilfield Review
 Ultrasonic Borehole Image

Amplitude Borehole Radius

Upper 25% Upper 25%

Depth, m
Median Median

Lower 25% Lower 25%

0° 360° 0° 360°

Breakout
XX08 Top of
borehole N

XX09

XX10

Keyseat
XX59 Top of
borehole N

XX60

XX61

nImages and hole cross sections measured by the new UBI Ultrasonic
Borehole Imager tool in a well near the Cusiana field. The hole cross
sections, indicated by black dots, are obtained by plotting acoustic
travel time versus azimuth for one depth in the well. The colored arcs
are exact circles that most closely fit the data. The cross sections
clearly indicate both breakouts (top) and keyseats (bottom). Directions
of top of borehole and north are indicated on each cross section.

April/July 1993 39
 Ultrasonic Borehole Image

Amplitude Borehole Radius

Upper 25% Upper 25%

Depth, m
Median Median

Lower 25% Lower 25%

0° 360° 0° 360°

Closing
Top of
borehole N

XX15

XX16

XX51
Opening
Top of
borehole N

XX52

XX53

nSchematics of shear displacement and actual hole cross sections

measured by the UBI tool. The top example shows hole closing under
compression, while the bottom shows hole enlargement. Again, black
dots are data and colored arcs are best-fit circles.

into the well. At first, the pressure builds up
linearly. But when formation at the borehole
wall cracks and mud begins to leak off,
pressure increases less fast. The point where
this change occurs gives the leakoff pres-
sure, plo . In the Cusiana field, BP has so far
performed 35 leakoff tests in 11 wells.
The extended leakoff test is a riskier exer-
cise for the driller and one not contem-
plated during the trials of drilling the current
Cusiana wells. As before, mud is pumped
until initial failure of the formation at the
borehole wall (next page, top ). But then
more mud is pumped to create a full frac-
ture—this occurs at the slightly higher
breakdown pressure, pb d. As the fracture
forms, pressure usually drops. After the frac-
ture is extended for a while, pumping is
stopped, and pressure is carefully monitored
as the fracture closes. At the very moment of
closure, the pressure levels off slightly. Pres-
sure at that point exactly equals the mini-
mum horizontal stress, S h . In a second
cycle, mud can be pumped again to reopen
the fracture. The difference between pbd
and the pressure required to reopen gives
the tensile strength of the formation, T0.
Basic borehole stability theory shows that
in the case of initiating a vertical fracture,
leakoff pressure, plo , is
plo = 3Sh – SH + T0 – Pp ,
where Pp is formation pore pressure, mea-
surable using RFT Repeat Formation Tester

40 Oilfield Review
or MDT Modular Formation Dynamics
Tester tools. Thus, the extended leakoff-test
measurements of plo , Sh , and T0 also pro-
vide an estimate of S H . The horizontal
stresses are thus determined.
With only basic leakoff tests available in
the Cusiana field, however, there is cur-
rently no choice but to equate plo with Sh
although it is obviously a poor approxima-
tion—depending on the in-situ stress situa-
tion and rock type, plo may be greater or
smaller than Sh.6 The above equation then
simplifies to
SH = 2plo + T0 – Pp .
At 8500 ft [2590 m] in one of the Cusiana
wells, a leakoff pressure of 14.4 lbm/gal was
recorded—effective mud weight is used
here instead of absolute pressure. Pore pres-
sure was known to be equivalent to 8.96
lbm/gal and the formation was assessed as
being very weak so T0 was ignored. The
above equation then gives that SH equals
19.84 lbm/gal. Integrating the density log in
the well provided a vertical stress of 20.2
lbm/gal, so it appears in this case that SH ≈
Sv > Sh .
This is slightly at odds with the finite-ele-
ment modeling that predicted SH > Sv . One
reason for the mismatch may be inherent
uncertainty in the input parameters used for
the simulation. But the discrepancy may also
arise from the approximation of equating plo
with Sh. Another possibility is that the elastic,
brittle rock failure enshrined in basic rock
mechanics theory is wrong. For many rock
types, several mechanisms such as work-
hardening and plastic deformation are sus-
pected to occur prior to failure. Researchers
are pursuing these ideas.
Stress estimates from leakoff data are
obtained at sporadic depths only, so the
next step is interpolating them to obtain a
continuous estimate versus depth. This is
achieved in two steps. First, the stress esti-
mates are used to calibrate a simple earth
model that relates horizontal stresses to the
vertical stress. Second, with log data as
input, the model is used to evaluate the hor-
izontal stresses foot by foot down to reser-
voir depth.
Several models are available. One
assumes the earth behaves elastically,
squeezed vertically by the overburden and
April/July 1993
nSequence of
Breakdown, pbd events in an
extended leakoff
test or minifrac. A
Leakoff, plo Tensile strength, T0 full test can reveal
the magnitude of
Bottomhole pressure
the two principal
horizontal stresses
and the rock’s ten-
sile strength.
Closure
pressure, Sh
Time
laterally by tectonic forces; another assumes
that as overburden increases, the earth con-
tinually fails according to the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion. In all these models, hori-
zontal and vertical stresses are related via
the formation’s elastic constants, and these
are derivable only from wireline logs of
density and compressional and shear acous-
tic velocity. Dipole
Density and compressional acoustic receiver stations
velocity have long been standard wireline
measurements, but only recently has a shear
velocity logging measurement been feasible
in all types of formation—previously it
could be measured in hard formation, but
not in soft formation such as shales, mud-
stones and sands.
Conventional sonic logging tools employ
a monopole energy source that produces an
omnidirectional pressure pulse in the mud Monopole
transmitter
that excites both compressional and shear
waves in the formation. But the shear waves
Dipole
are detectable in the borehole only if their transmitters
velocity is faster than the acoustic velocity
of the mud, not the case when logging soft
formations. In the new DSI Dipole Shear
Sonic Imager tool, a dipole source displaces
the borehole horizontally to create both
shear and flexural waves in the formation
nSchematic of the
DSI Dipole Shear
(right ). Together, these provide a measurable Sonic Imager tool
shear velocity in any formation type. showing dipole trans-
After earth stress versus depth is evalu- mitters and array of
ated, the next step toward assessing safe dipole receivers.
mud weight is estimating rock strength, in
both compression and tension. This can be Other logging measurements to further
achieved in the laboratory with destructive evaluate porosity and/or shale content may
testing of core samples or, in the absence of also be needed.
cores, using correlations from logging mea- Facilitating the earth model calibration,
surements. Several correlations are used. In the foot-by-foot stress evaluation and the
one, compressive strength is made a func- rock strength estimation is the IMPACT Inte-
tion of porosity, in another it is a function of grated Mechanical Properties Analysis
the rock’s shear modulus. In all cases, the
same three logging measurements—density, 6. Ervine WB and Bell JS: “Subsurface In Situ Stress Mag-
compressional acoustic velocity and shear nitudes From Oil-Well Drilling Records: An Example
From the Venture Area, Offshore Eastern Canada,”
acoustic velocity—are usually required. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 24 (September
1987): 1748-1759.
41
Computation Technique program (bottom, Combined Model
right ).7 With these phases complete, the
IMPACT program can then be invoked to Min. Safe Mud 0 p.u. 100

calculate the stress field at the borehole Weight/Shear

Bound Water
wall, given well inclination and direction. In
a final step, it applies tensile and compres- Max. Safe Mud Clay
sive failure criteria to establish safe mud Poisson’s Ratio Weight/Shear
Silt

Depth
weights everywhere in the borehole. The Hole Profile
0 5
result is a borehole stability log. Max. Safe Mud Quartz
A borehole stability log over 4000 ft Young’s Modulus Weight / Tensile
Oil
[1200 m] of troublesome formations in one 0 106 psi 10
of the Cusiana wells is shown with highly Moved Water
Shear Modulus Mud Weight
compressed vertical scale ( right ). The
caliper log in track 1 shows severe washouts -25 in. 25 0 10 6 psi 5 Water
in the top half of the section and slightly
better hole condition in the lower half.
Track 2 shows three elastic parameters cal-
culated from density and acoustic measure-
ments. The high Poisson’s ratio of 0.30 and
relatively low Young’s modulus of 3×10 6 psi
indicate that all formations are fairly weak.
1000 ft

Track 4, on the right, displays the openhole

volumetric interpretation of lithology and
pore fluids.
The mud weight guidelines, shaded
green, are in Track 3. The dashed curve on
the left represents minimum mud weight
signaling onset of compressional failure,
while the two curves to the right represent
two criteria for maximum safe mud weight.
The solid curve is for tensile failure, the dot- nBorehole stability logs (above and next page, top) from the Cusiana field, indicating
ted curve for compressional failure. The safe mud window in green. Actual mud weight used is shown in red. Out-of-specifica-
actual mud weight used to drill the well is tion mud weight—that is, when the red line falls outside the green window—can be
in red. In hindsight, it easy to see why mud seen to correlate well with higher incidence of washouts.
weight adjustments halfway through the
section dramatically improved the wellbore.
Initially, mud weight is significantly below Log Acquisition
the minimum acceptable limit. Once mud
weight is increased and pulled into the
green zone, caving becomes less serious. A Acoustic Bulk volume
borehole stability log run in another logging analysis analysis
Cusiana well shows dramatic correlation ρb
∆tcompr. ∆tshear Mineral and fluid
between breakouts and mud weight falling volumes
outside the safe window (next page, top ).
As the Cusiana field gets developed, BP IMPACT
nSequence of
computations in
drillers continue to wrestle with bad hole, the IMPACT pro-
Elastic moduli
fine-tuning their drilling strategy and jug- gram, which helps
gling the numerous data at their disposal. the rock mechan-
Two basic questions remain. The first con- Rock strength ics specialist
cerns the homogeneity or heterogeneity of analyze borehole
stability, design
stresses in the field. Given the difficulty of fracture jobs and
assessing stress, how likely is it that hard- Stress predict sanding.
computations
won results from one well can be extrapo-
lated elsewhere in the field?
The second concerns the relative magni-
tude of vertical stress, Sv . Is it close to the Failure
criteria
minimum horizontal stress, Sh , or, as some
geologists suspect significantly less than Sh?
This has important consequences for field
development. Because of logistics, the Borehole stability:
Hydrofracturing: critical mud weight Sanding:
Cusiana field is being developed from a few frac geometry critical drawdown
and well deviation
land sites, each planned to comprise many

42 Oilfield Review
 Combined Model dramatically different SH nw-se and Sv . The
evidence so far suggests that the first sce-
Min. Safe Mud 0 p.u. 100 nario is the most likely, meaning wells can
Weight/Shear
Bound Water be deviated in any direction giving maxi-
mum reservoir coverage from each platform.
Max. Safe Mud Clay In addressing these questions, rock
Poisson’s Ratio Weight/Shear mechanics theorists strive to improve their
Silt
Depth

Hole Profile understanding of borehole failure. Several

0 5
Max. Safe Mud Quartz areas of investigation beckon. As men-
Young’s Modulus Weight / Tensile tioned above, failure models based on the
Oil
0 106 psi 10 behavior of elastic, brittle rock do not apply
Moved Water to all rocks, for example, shales that behave
Shear Modulus Mud Weight
plastically. More sophisticated failure mod-
-25 in. 25 0 106 psi 5 Water els are needed. Currently, there is no way
of assessing the seriousness of breakout—
small breakouts do not bother the driller
while large volumes of breakout might be
threatening. Interpretations such as those
provided by the IMPACT program do not
take into account other factors such as how
the drilled borehole is affected by heating
as hot mud from deeper drilling circulates
up the annulus. The newly recognized
shear displacement phenomenon also
needs further research.
Slowly, mechanical stability is revealing
1000 ft

its secrets. It is tough cases like the Cusiana

field that force the pace of understanding.
—HE, SM

7. Besides aiding borehole stability analysis, the

IMPACT program also addresses fracture design and
sanding prediction.
Bruce S: “A Mechanical Stability Log,” paper
IADC/SPE 19942, presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, February
27-March 2, 1990.
Fleming NH, Ronaldi R, Bruce S and Haryanto J:
“The Application of ‘Mechanical’ Borehole Stability
Theory to Development Well Planning,” paper
IADC/SPE 19943, presented at the 1990 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, February
27-March 2, 1990.

deviated wells tapping the reservoir in all

directions. What directions can be consid-
ered safe depends crucially on the answer
to the second question. SH > Sh ≈ SV SH > Sh >> SV
In general, stability problems are mini-
mized when the two principal stresses nor- SH Sh
mal to the borehole trajectory are nearly Stable Stable
equal. If Sv is close to Sh—in the Cusiana SV
field, the case when SH nw-se > Sh sw-ne ≈ Sv— SH
a well that starts off vertically without prob- NE Stable Less stable
lem can probably be safely steered toward NW
the horizontal in any direction (right ). If it SV
goes northwest-southeast, the two normal
Sh
stresses become the nearly equal Sh sw-ne and SW Stable Stable
Sv . If the well goes southwest-northeast, the
SE
normal stresses become SH nw-se and Sv, simi-
lar to the SH nw-se and Sh sw-ne pairing experi- nPrognosis for safe drilling
enced in the vertical section. However, if Sv during the development of
the Cusiana field.
is significantly less than Sh , the southwest-
northeast direction may become more prob-
lematic, for then the normal stresses are the

April/July 1993 43