SPE 142022

The Role of Geomechanics in Diagnosing Drilling Hazards and Providing

Solutions to the Northern Iraq Fields
I. Abalioglu, SPE, Genel Enerji A.S., H. Legarre, SPE, C. Garland, SPE, B. Sallier, SPE, Addax Petroleum, J. Gao,
SPE, M. van Galen, SPE, Q. Chou, SPE, B. Neil, SPE, Weatherford Geomechanics Services, H. Soroush, SPE, H.
Qutob, SPE, Z. Mahli, SPE, Weatherford International
Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September 2011.

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
The integrity of the wellbore plays an important role in petroleum operations (e.g., drilling, completion, production). Hole failure
problems cost the petroleum industry several billions of dollars each year. Prevention of wellbore failure requires a strong
understanding of the interaction between formation strength, in-situ stresses, and drilling practices. As in-situ stress and rock
strength cannot be easily controlled, adjusting the drilling practices (i.e., selecting optimal trajectory and bottom-hole pressure) is
the usual way to inhibit wellbore failure.
Drilling in the problematic Kolosh formation in Kurdistan has always been associated with several wellbore stability problems
(e.g., hole washout, stuck pipe, extra cuttings/cavings, tight holes). This has caused large amounts of non-productive time to
drilling programs and the drilling of sidetracks in some of the wells in this field. A review of the drilling reports and dual-caliper
logs from offset wells in the area revealed large amounts of washouts in the middle Kolosh section. These indicators demonstrated
the requirement for performing a geomechanical modeling and wellbore stability study to mitigate such problems in future drilling
operations.
In this paper, local in-situ stress magnitudes, orientations, and formation pressures were characterized. For this purpose, data
was analyzed from offset wells (e.g., borehole breakout data, bulk density logs, wireline formation tests, drillstem tests, pressure
build-up tests, formation pressure data in this area). The mechanical properties of the formation (including dynamic and static
Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, and rock strength) were evaluated using sonic, density, and gamma ray logs. A rock mechanical
properties database and data management software was applied to correlate the calculated dynamic elastic properties to the most
appropriate static rock strength and stiffness parameters for a base case wellbore stability model and subsequent sensitivity
analyses. 2D elastoplastic and 3D linear elastic models were used to back-analyze the hole collapse and enlargement in the
selected offset wells to evaluate and calibrate the geomechanical model. Wellbore stability software was used for this purpose.
Finally, a mud weight window was defined, and the optimum profile of the mud weight was recommended for drilling through the
Kolosh formations. Due to a narrow mud weight window, additional potential problems were investigated including the possibility
of fracturing at the top of Kolosh formation. Finally, relevant solutions were presented.

Introduction
The oil field of interest is located in northern Iraq (Jassim S. Z. and Goff J. C., 2006). It is composed of an anticline structure or a
convex fold that is part of the greater Zagros Fold and Thrust Belt along the Iraq-Iran border. The field’s anticline is NW-SE
trending with a longitudinal length of ~ 30 km and a width of ~ 10 km. Figure 1 displays two cross-sections through the field
anticline: A-A’ (NE-SW) and B-B’ (SE-NW). The longitudinal cross-section, B-B’, shows that the head of the anticline plunges
more steeply to the NW and dips more gently to the SE. The strata within the anticline range from Pliocene/Miocene to Triassic
age at depth. From geological information of the region, it is assumed that Quaternary top soil deposits on the anticline are
minimal, although soil-like deposits weathered from Pliocene and/or Miocene rock formations are likely present. Upon review of
the drilling reports from wells drilled in this field, it was evident that wellbore stability problems were the main cause for
increasing the duration of drilling operations for some of these wells. The stability problems were experienced mainly in the
Kolosh, Kolosh Aliji, Kolosh Siltstone, and Lower Kolosh formations. Further study of caliper logs from these wells showed
excessive hole enlargement through these formations.
An analysis was conducted on several wells in the field that penetrated these shale and siltstone sections to determine the
geomechanical factors that contributed to reported incidents of hole collapse and related drilling problems. In addition, analysis
2 SPE 142022

was also performed on these wells for fractured carbonate sections to determine the geomechanical factors that contributed to
incidents of lost circulation to determine potential candidates for underbalanced drilling (UBD).
Geology characteristics, drilling operation records, and caliper logs indicate that wellbore instability was the main cause for
drilling problems in this field. A systematic geomechanical study on wellbore stability can significantly prevent these problems
from future drilling operations (McLellan and Cirmier, 1996; Zoback, 2007; Fjaer et al., 1992). Borehole enlargement and reported
collapse problems while drilling vertical wells through the Kolosh formations are believed to have resulted primarily from a mud
weight that was too low to sustain tolerable wellbore stability. The sensitivity analyses indicated that uncertain values of the peak
cohesion have the most significant impact on borehole stability in the Kolosh formations. For deviated wells through the Kolosh
formations, higher mud weights were also determined to maintain an acceptable tolerance for wellbore collapse.
Recommendations were provided for field operations to avoid some of the problems associated with wellbore collapse while
drilling. Suggestions were also provided for future data collection and testing to improve the wellbore stability model for the field.

Figure 1: Geological cross sections of oil field.

Methodology
The rock mechanical properties and in-situ stresses were calculated using various sources. A back analysis was performed and a
model was assembled for a previously drilled section using the calculated input parameters and the drilling conditions. The model
predictions for breakout and stability were compared to the caliper and drilling data. The calculated input parameters can be
adjusted to create a good match with actual results. Subsequently, a new model was created to represent a future well. Finally, a
wellbore stability forecast was performed using a range of operating conditions to find the optimum conditions.
Available drilling reports and completion records from offset wells previously drilled in the field were reviewed to compile
data on, e.g., hole collapse, kicks, lost circulation, stuck pipe. The drilling-related stability problems in the field area were
summarized for the analysis.
Using compressional and shear sonic logs, and bulk density (ρb) logs from the local area, the relevant dynamic elastic
properties of the formation were calculated. A rock mechanical properties database (ROCKSBank, 2008) was applied to correlate
the calculated dynamic elastic properties to the most appropriate static rock strength and stiffness parameters to use in a base case
wellbore stability model and subsequent sensitivity analyses. Dynamic rock properties were calculated from well-established
equations. The dynamic Poisson’s ratio (νd) was calculated from wireline measured compressional and shear wave sonic interval
transit times (∆tc and ∆ts, respectively).
For this study, the static Young’s modulus and the unconfined compressive strength were estimated from lithology-dependent
equations that were derived from laboratory measurements. The peak cohesion was estimated assuming a range of probable peak
friction angles from laboratory measurements.
SPE 142022 3

Local in-situ stress magnitudes, orientations, and formation pressures were characterized by analyzing available data that
included bulk density logs, wireline formation tests, drillstem tests, pressure build-up tests, borehole breakout from offset wells,
previously published in-situ stresses, and formation pressure in this area. 2D elastoplastic and 3D linear elastic wellbore stability
back-analyses of hole collapse and hole enlargement in selected offset wells in the area was then conducted using the input
parameters determined from the geomechanical earth model using a wellbore stability software (STABView, 2008). Best-fit rock
strength, formation pressure, and in-situ stress parameters that matched the observed caliper logs and instability observations in the
wells were then determined and used for a wellbore stability forecast analysis for a planned deviated well with the 2D elastoplastic
and 3D linear elastic models for the Kolosh formations. The sensitivity of hole collapse risk to the plausible range of key input
parameters (e.g., equivalent mud weight for over-balanced conditions, well trajectory, and rock mechanical properties) was
assessed.
Practical recommendations for the mud weight window to drill this formation while mitigating the risk of severe hole collapse
and/or lost circulation were also provided. A mud weight window analysis for the Kolosh formations for a typical well in the
setting was then prepared.

Drilling Problem Summary for Previously Drilled Wells in the Field

The main drilling problems included lost circulation in the carbonate formations and wellbore collapse problems in the
shale/siltstone formations. Drilling operations lasted ~ 80 to ~ 130 days to drill and case each of the three wells.

Geomechanical Model
Wireline logs, pressure data, leak off tests and formation integrity tests from several offset wells were analyzed to create the
geomechanical model for the field setting.

Rock Mechanical Properties

Compressional sonic, shear sonic and bulk density logs were used to calculate mechanical properties over the Kolosh formation.
The dynamic elastic properties were calculated with equations assuming isotropic elastic rock properties. The rock-specific
empirical relationships required to estimate the static Young’s modulus (Es) and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) were
determined from a rock mechanical properties database (ROCKSBank, 2008). Peak cohesion (fp) was calculated using a range of
plausible peak friction angles.
Compressional and shear data was available from well J for determining the dynamic rock mechanical properties for the
Kolosh set of formations. Because only compressional velocities were available for the remaining wells in the field, a
compressional to shear velocity relationship was created based on the data available from well J to determine the rock mechanical
properties for wells M and X.
Figure 2a displays the relationship between the conventional sonic compressional and shear velocities (Vs and Vp, respectively)
and gamma ray (GR) from 900 to 1605 mKB MD (measured depth from kelly bushing) from well J covering all 3 Kolosh
formations. The coefficient of determination (R2) for the linear regression indicates how well the relationship corresponds to the
actual data. To improve the correlation of the Vs to Vp relationship, data from enlarged hole or bad hole sections were removed
from the regression analysis. As a result, R2 increases from ~ 0.31 to ~ 0.60, which is considerably better than when the bad hole
section is included (Figure 2b).
To determine the most accurate rock mechanical properties for the Kolosh formations, the dynamic Young’s modulus (Ed)
calculated from wireline logs was corrected to an equivalent rock mechanical laboratory test result conducted on core from those
formations. This produces a static Young’s modulus (Es). In this case, rock mechanical testing was not conducted on core from the
Kolosh, Kolosh Aliji, or Kolosh Siltstone formations.
Rock mechanical property profiles were plotted for three wells. The profiles from wells W and M were used to build the
geomechanical model for analysis of a vertical well, and well N was used for the geomechanical model for the planned deviated
well in this field, due to their proximity. Table 1 lists the rock mechanical properties summary for the Kolosh formation in well W,
derived from well logs with the empirical correlations from a rock mechanical properties database (ROCKSBank, 2008).

TABLE 1 - ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES SUMMARY FOR THE KOLOSH FORMATION OF WELL W
Measured Calculated Empirical Calculated Peak Cohesion
Mudstone
Formation ∆tc ρb Vp Vs Ed Es UCS fp=25° fp=30° fp=35°
Thickness Vp/Vs νd
(ms/m) (g/cm3) (m/s) (m/s) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(m)
Min 157 2.214 3293 1799 1.83 0.29 20.6 13.0 22.5 7.2 6.5 5.9
Max 304 2.849 6376 2720 2.34 0.39 55.7 38.3 53.1 16.9 15.3 13.8
Kolosh 343
Mean 220 2.637 4639 2201 2.10 0.35 35.0 23.4 35.1 11.2 10.1 9.1
StDev 31 0.058 654 196 0.11 0.02 7.2 5.2 6.3 2.0 1.8 1.6
Min 182 1.522 2071 1434 1.44 0.04 8.3 4.2 11.8 3.8 3.4 3.1
Kolosh Max 483 2.824 5492 2456 2.24 0.37 46.8 31.9 45.4 14.5 13.1 11.8
122
Siltstone Mean 319 2.388 3177 1764 1.79 0.27 19.4 12.2 21.5 6.9 6.2 5.6
StDev 38 0.152 396 118 0.10 0.04 4.2 3.0 3.7 1.2 1.1 1.0
4 SPE 142022

VS = 1108.668+(0.2289577*VPc); R2 = 0.31

(a)

VS = 815.95456+(0.2986932*VPc); R2 = 0.57

(b)
Figure 2: Relationship between conventional sonic compressional and shear velocities: (a) using all data; and (b) excluding data from bad
hole sections.

In-situ Stresses and Formation Pressures

To determine the horizontal principal stress orientations, resistivity image logs were available for several wells in the field.
Selected sections of these wells were analyzed for hole breakout orientation (for minimum horizontal stress orientation) and for
vertical drilling induced tensile fractures (for maximum horizontal stress orientation). Drilling induced fractures are present on
image logs analyzed for three wells. An example of a drilling induced fracture is displayed in Figure 3. From these drilling
induced fractures, the maximum horizontal stress orientation is estimated as ~ 43°. To summarize, Figure 4 displays that the
average maximum horizontal stress orientation is estimated as ~ 35° from all drilling induced fractures identified on the image logs
in the three wells in the field. This value is used as the maximum horizontal stress orientation for the wellbore stability analyses in
this study.
SPE 142022 5

Drilling-Induced
Fractures

Figure 3: Drilling-induced fractures for one sample study well, indicating maximum horizontal stress orientation as ~ 43°.

Figure 4: Drilling induced fractures of three wells in the field, indicating maximum horizontal stress orientation as ~ 35°.

Figure 5 displays an example of in-situ stress induced breakout characteristics. These breakout characteristics were generated
with petrophysics log interpretation software (Petrolog, 2008) based on caliper logs. From the breakout orientation, the minimum
horizontal stress azimuth is estimated as ~ 136°. This result is consistent with the maximum horizontal stress orientation from
drilling induced fracture analyses.
A review of the calipers and bulk density correction through the Kolosh formations indicated that there was significant hole
collapse, and that the bulk density values through these sections were of poor data quality. Due to these wellbore conditions, the
bulk density had to be corrected before use in determining the vertical stress magnitude and gradient in the field. Only one well
used in this study exhibited good data quality and hole conditions through these formations. A relationship between the
compressional travel time and the density was then created and used to correct the bulk density values over the collapsed sections
through the Kolosh formations for the other offset wells. Bulk density logs from three wells were used to determine the vertical
stress gradient.
6 SPE 142022

Figure 5: Breakout characteristics induced by in-situ stresses, based on original caliper logs.

Table 2 lists the minimum horizontal stress analyzed from leak-off test and data from formation integrity tests in the field. It
also shows that the stabilized values reasonably represent the minimum horizontal stresses in this field. The average value of these
stabilized values is adopted as the minimum horizontal stress magnitude for this study.
To constrain the maximum horizontal stress magnitude, reliable and accurate rock mechanical properties are required;
specifically rock strength. One triaxial compressive test was available for the Qamchuqa limestone, which provides the best data in
the field for this purpose. Based on the triaxial test results and weak limestone properties, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was
generated assuming a friction angle of 30°. This information was used to determine the maximum horizontal stress magnitude by
back-analysis using wellbore stability software (STABView, 2008). The in-situ stress induced breakouts in the Qamchuqa
formation are displayed in Figure 6. Based on the laboratory rock mechanical properties, the determined minimum horizontal
stress, the calculated vertical stress, formation pore pressure, and the in-situ stress induced hole cross-section in the Qamchuqa
formation (Figure 7), the maximum horizontal stress gradient is estimated as ~ 20.4 kPa/m; confirming a normal pore pressure
regime.

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF LEAK-OFF TESTS AND FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS IN THE FIELD
Recorded
Fluid Surface Calculated Minimum
Depth Leak-off
Well Formation Density Pressure Horizontal Stress Gradient Notes
(m) Test Result
(ppg) (psi)
ppg kPa/m (ppg)
536 Pilaspi 10.5 505 16.07 18.97 16.1 Ballooning
J Suspected pore pressure depletion
1642 Shiranish 9.5 450 11.12 13.12 11.1
effect from well F production
Transition
520 9.7 750/355 18.23/13.74 21.51/16.21 18.3 Leak-off value/Stabilized value
K Beds
1644 Shiranish 8.9 620 11.13 13.13 11.1 Suspected natural fracture leak-off
Transition
L 560 9.7 480/400 14.77/13.93 17.43/16.43 14.8 Leak-off value/Stabilized value
Beds
519 Lower Fars 9.5 309 12.99 15.32 13.0 Stabilized value
W Lower
1591 9.1 1200 13.52 15.96 13.5 Stabilized value
Kolosh

Formation pressure measurements recorded in the different wells throughout the field were analyzed to estimate an average
expected formation pressure gradient for each formation. Most of the formation pressures are very close to a normal pressure
gradient of water apart from two exceptions. A somewhat lower pressure was recorded during testing in well J, which can be
explained as a depletion effect due to several years of production in nearby well F. Somewhat higher pressures were recorded
during some of the wireline formation tests in well L. By analyzing these tests, it was observed that the pressures are building up
SPE 142022 7

close to the pressure present in the wellbore, which might be a sign of a leakage along the pad and therefore a lack of isolation of
the tested intervals. Since there are no abnormal pressures present in the tested intervals, it is assumed that the formations that were
not tested exhibit a normal pressure gradient of ~ 8.47 ppg.

Figure 6: Wellbore breakouts induced by in-situ stresses in the Qamchuqa Formation of well N for back-analysis to constrain maximum
horizontal stress.

Figure 7: Geomechanical back-analysis at depth of 2130 mKB TVD (true vertical depth from kelly bushing) in Qamchuqa formation to
constrain maximum horizontal stress.

Wellbore Stability Analyses

Vertical Well Through the Kolosh Formations

A 3D linear elastic model is used to calculate the critical wellbore collapse pressure and fracturing pressure. Figure 8 displays a
safe mud weight window for the Kolosh formation, including the formation pressures and in-situ principal stresses. The tolerated
wellbore circumference yielding of 30 to 40% was considered for the calculation of the collapse pressure. This amount of yielding
was chosen based upon the observed amount of hole enlargement through the Kolosh Formations in offset wells. The yellow
shaded area refers to the mud weight window for the vertical wells in the Kolosh formation. In addition, a sensitivity analysis on
input data was performed, with the results displayed in a tornado plot in Figure 9. This tornado plot indicates that the uncertainty
8 SPE 142022

of peak cohesion, tolerable yield circumference and peak friction angle have the most significant impact on the accuracy of the
study for hole instability in the Kolosh Formation.
Wellbore collapse equivalent mud weight (EMW) for all well trajectories in the Kolosh Siltstone Formation with a wellbore
breakout circumference tolerance of 40% is displayed in Figure 10. The origin indicates a vertical well, the outside circle indicates
horizontal wells with all different orientations, and the inner two circles refer to a well inclination of 30° and 60°, respectively. The
required EMW to sustain a stable wellbore in the Kolosh Siltstone Formation is displayed by color shading. The preferred
orientation and deviation for a well in this field, based on the geomechanical model, is a vertical or near-vertical well with a NE-
SW orientation.

Figure 8: Wellbore collapse pressure, fracturing pressure, formation pressure, and in-situ principal stresses generated with 3D linear
elastic model for Kolosh Formation. Yellow shaded area indicates safe mud weight for Kolosh formation.

Figure 9: Tornado plot of wellbore stability sensitivity, indicating that peak cohesion, tolerable yield circumference and peak friction angle
have most significant impact on hole instability in Kolosh Formation.
SPE 142022 9

Figure 10: Wellbore collapse equivalent mud weight (EMW) for all well trajectories in Kolosh Siltstone Formation predicted with 3D linear
elastic model with wellbore breakout circumference tolerance of 40%.

Planned Deviated Well in the Field

A wellbore stability analysis was conducted for a planned deviated well drilled in the Kolosh formations based on calibration to an
offset well. It was observed that the percentage of hole enlargement through the Kolosh and the Kolosh Siltstone Formations
ranged from ~ 5 to 10% and ~ 40 to 60%, respectively.
Based on our experience with formations of similar lithology, the wellbore stability model for the planned deviated well was
calibrated to acceptable breakout tolerances (30 to 40%) for the intersected formations.
Another key factor for calibrating wellbore stability to the amount of hole enlargement is the amount of planned deviation
through the Kolosh Formations. To optimize the mud weight for wellbore stability, rate of penetration (ROP) and hole cleaning
through these build sections, the amount of hole enlargement was chosen as 40%. This provides a mud weight aimed at keeping
hole enlargement, ROP and hole cleaning to an tolerable level through this section of the well. Based on previous experience, a
critical build angle exists to drill through shale and siltstone formations. The critical build angle to drill through a formation such
as the Kolosh is ~ 45 to 50o. As this build angle increases, it becomes more difficult to clean the hole; cavings fall and collect on
the low side of the hole, therefore increasing the risk of stuck pipe.
The mud weight window for the planned deviated well is displayed in Figure 11. Included are the wellbore collapse pressure,
the fracture pressure, formation pressures, and the in-situ principal stresses. The mud weight window is predicted using the 3D
linear elastic model in the wellbore stability software (STABView, 2008). The yellow shaded area representing the mud weight
window indicates that a mud weight of ~ 9 ppg is recommended for the formations above the Kolosh, ~ 11.5 ppg for the Kolosh
section, ~ 13 ppg for the upper Kolosh Siltstone section (down to 5000 ft), and ~ 13.5 ppg for the lower Kolosh Siltstone section
and the Tanjero Formation. UBD is suitable for the formations below the Tanjero. However, reliable and accurate rock mechanical
properties determined from core are required to optimize the conditions of UBD operation.
Finally, to show the effect of potential weak bedding planes on wellbore stability in the Kolosh Siltstone Formation of the
planned deviated well, a polar plot was generated from the 3D linear elastic model (Figure 12) in the geomechanics well planning
software (STABView, 2008). A bedding dip of 2° and a dip direction of 54° were estimated from the structural cross section of the
field. The weak bedding plane is assumed to have a peak cohesion of 1 MPa with a friction angle of 25°. The results indicate that
weak bedding planes can dramatically deteriorate wellbore stability and cause severe problems for drilling operation.
10 SPE 142022

Figure 11: Safe operating mud weight window designed with 3D linear elastic model for planned deviated well.

Figure 12: Polar plot generated with 3D linear elastic model, indicating impact of weak bedding planes on wellbore stability in Kolosh
Siltstone Formation of planned deviated well.
SPE 142022 11

Conclusions and recommendations

In addition to the previously discussed results, the reviewing of the available data and the wellbore stability analysis provided the
following conclusions:
• The mud weight of ~ 9.6 ppg that was used to drill the Kolosh Formation was the main factor causing serious
wellbore collapse in this well.
• The sensitivity analyses indicate that peak cohesion has the most significant impact on hole stability in the Kolosh
Formation. This implies that clay hydration can dramatically reduce the peak cohesion of rocks in the Kolosh
Formation which will likely result in serious tight hole and hole collapse.
• Natural fractures are a concern and can cause lost circulation throughout the drilling operation.

Following these conclusions, it is recommended that:

• For the vertical wells, a minimum mud weight of ~ 11 ppg is recommended for the Kolosh and the Aliji sections, and
~ 11.5 ppg for the Kolosh Siltstone and the Lower Kolosh sections.
• For the deviated wells, the mud weight window can be predicted with the wellbore stability software (STABView,
2008) based on the specific well trajectory.
• Static rock mechanical properties tests are strongly recommended for the Kolosh Formation so that a more accurate
geomechanical prediction can be conducted in the future.
• There is a potential to perform UBD operations in the lower limestone formations. To evaluate further the risk to
complete this type of drilling operation, more reliable rock mechanical data in these formations are required to
conduct future geomechanical studies.
• Setting an intermediate casing at the bottom of the Kolosh Formation before drilling the Kolosh Siltstone Formation
should be considered.
• Drilling with casing through the limestone, shale, and siltstone formations should be considered. Special consideration
will have to be given to the build section of this deviated well.
• Weak bedding can have a significant impact on the wellbore stability of the Kolosh and Kolosh Siltstone Formations.
Direct shear rock mechanical testing should be conducted to determine the rock strength parameters, peak cohesion
and friction angle for bedding within the Kolosh Formation.
• Static rock mechanical property testing on reservoir rocks of the field is strongly recommended. This will allow a
more detailed wellbore stability assessment to optimize a UBD operation. This can prevent lost circulation and
reservoir formation damage, as well as eliminate or reduce wellbore collapse.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to TTOPCO and Weatherford International Ltd. for providing the permission and the means to publish this
paper. The authors also thank the many individuals within TTOPCO and Weatherford who have contributed to this work.

References
Jassim, S.Z. and Goff, J.C. (2006), Geology of Iraq Geology of Iraq. P.341, GSL.
McLellan, P.J., Cirmier, K. (1996), Hole Instability in Fissile, Dipping Shales, Northeastern British Columbia. SPE 35634.
Zoback, M. (2007), Reservoir Geomechanics. 2007, P. 445, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P, Raaen, A.M., and Risnes, R. (1992), Petroleum related rock mechanics. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology (2008), STABView Well Planning Software User’s Manual, Version 3.5. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Advanced Geotechnology Inc.(2008), ROCKSBank Rock Mechanical and Petrophysical Database, Version 2.3. 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Weatherford International (2008), Petrolog Petrophysics Log Interpretation Software, Version 10.5.3, Perth.

Conversion Factors
acre × 4.046 856 E-01 = ha
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
lbm/ft3 × 1.601 846 E+01 = kg/m3
mile × 1.609 344 E+00 = km
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
psi × 6.894 757 E-03 = MPa
psi × 6.894 757 E-06 = GPa
psi/ft × 2.262 059 E+01 = kPa/m
*Conversion factor is exact.