Table of Content

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Importance of well-bore stability...................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Properties of shales ...................................................................................... 8
2.2 Well-bore instability in shales ................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Resulting of hole instability .............................................................. 10
2.2.2 Well-bore instability reasons ............................................................. 12
2.2.3 Shale instability diagnostic................................................................ 13
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Chemical effect .......................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 Pore pressure increasement ............................................................... 14
3.1.2 Clay swelling ..................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Mechanical effects ..................................................................................... 17
4.2 Uncontrollable Factors of Borehole Instability ......................................... 20
4-3 Rock Mechanics Considerations................................................................ 20
4-3-1 How Can Geomechanics Add Value? ................................................ 21
4.3.2 Static Rock Properties ....................................................................... 21
4.3.2.1 Static Youngs Modulus (E) ........................................................... 21
4.3.2.2 Poissons Ratio ( )....................................................................... 22
4.3.2.3 Bulk Modulus (K) ........................................................................... 22
4.3.2.4 Shear Modulus (G) ......................................................................... 22
4.3.3 Dynamic Rock Properties.................................................................. 23
4.3.4 Dynamic rock properties through Rocklog software ........................ 23
4.4 Stress Determination .................................................................................. 27

1
 4.4.1 Stress distribution around the well-bore............................................ 30
4.4.2 Stress, Strain and Deformation.......................................................... 31
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................. 34
5.1 Borehole Stability Modeling...................................................................... 34
5.2 FLAC Software .......................................................................................... 35
5.2.1 The Explicit Finite Difference Method ............................................. 36
5.2.2 Explicit Formulation and Calculation Cycle ..................................... 37
5.3 Stress-Strain Laws ..................................................................................... 38
5.3.1 Mohr-Coulomb Plasticity .................................................................. 39
5.3.2 GEOMECHANICAL MODEL ......................................................... 39
5.4 Stability Analysis by FLAC Software ....................................................... 40
5.4.1 Criterion for Well-bore Stability ....................................................... 40
5.4.2 Inputs of FLAC Software .................................................................. 42
5.4.3 Output of FLAC software ................................................................. 43
5.5 Application of the plot of yielded block for well-bore stability determining
5.6 Determining of optimal mud weight window............................................ 45
5.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 47
References ................................................................................................................ 48

2
 List of Figures

Fig. 2-1 Structure of three clay [12] ...................................................................................... 8

Fig. 2-2 Mechanical well-bore instability [1] ...................................................................... 11
Fig. 2-3 Mechanical well-bore instability [1] ...................................................................... 11
Fig. 2-4 Pipe stuck resulting from shale sloughing [11] ..................................................... 13
Fig. 2-5 large fragments of shale result from shale sloughing [11]..................................... 13
Fig. 3-1 Effects of pore pressure on deviatoric strength...................................................... 14
Fig. 3-2 Comparison of swelling for type of clay [12] ........................................................ 15
Fig. 4-1 Influence of pore pressure increase and formation ................................................ 18
Weakening on well-bore instability ..................................................................................... 18
Fig. 4-2 Shear yielding occurs for under-balanced conditions due to The absence of a
support pressure on the borehole wall [2] ........................................................................... 19
Fig. 4-3 Radial tensile fracturing occurs due to steep inflow gradient [2] .......................... 19
Fig. 4-4 An example from Rocklog software input ............................................................. 24
Fig. 4-5 An example of density log from Rocklog software ............................................... 25
Fig. 4-6 An example from dynamic rock ............................................................................ 25
Properties determining by running Rocklog software ........................................................ 25
Fig. 4-4 Example mechanical properties Log for Calculation of dynamic rock properties
[10] ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Fig. 4-5 Relationship between static and dynamic .............................................................. 27
Youngs Modulus values for the Travis Peak.[10] .............................................................. 27
Fig. 4-6 Magnitude of principle stresses as a function of depth [10] .................................. 28
Fig. 4-7 Stress concentration around a circular hole [8]...................................................... 31
Fig. 4-8 Uniaxial Stress Test [10]........................................................................................ 32
Fig. 4-9 Changes in rock By increasing stress [10] ............................................................. 32
Fig. 5-1 Grid points (nodes) modeling for The Explicit Finite Difference Method ............ 36
Fig. 5-2 Basic explicit calculation cycle [4] ........................................................................ 38
Fig. 5-3 Geomechanical Model Structure [11] .................................................................... 40
Fig. 5-4 Normalized yielded zone area concept for analysis of borehole stability [2] ........ 41

3
Fig. 5-5 Geomechanical data requirement [11] ................................................................... 42
Fig. 5-6 The plot of yielded block [10] ............................................................................... 43
Fig. 5-7 Results of borehole stability analysis for various BHP [10] .................................. 44
Fig. 5-8 FLAC output showing the extent of shear yielding ............................................... 44
and tensile failure predicted around a borehole [2] ............................................................. 45
Fig. 5-9 Effect of maximum horizontal in situ stress gradient on Normalized ................... 45
Yielded Zone Area (NYZA) for a range of bottomhole pressures [2] ................................ 45
Fig. 5-10 Optimal mud weight window [11] ....................................................................... 46

4
Abstract:
Most well bore instability problems occur in shales due to their unique properties.
Shales are highly laminated, have a very low permeability, and a high cation
exchange capacity (CEC). This seminar investigates how these properties impact
well-bore stability in shales.

In many cases, borehole instability can be made worse when bottomhole pressures
are low. For example in UBD, low bottomhole pressures lead to an increase in shear
stresses acting around the circumference of a well, hence leading to an increased
risk of shear failure. In other hand, excessive mud weight cause tensile failure and
occurring fracture. Inversely very low mud weight cause shear failure and well-bore
collapse ultimately.

In general, three important factors affect on well-bore instability in shales, are

known mechanical, chemical and thermal effect. In this research these factors are
investigated.

5
 CHAPTER 1
1.1 Introduction
Well-bore instability is one of the most serious problems in the oil industry. It can
lead to delays in the drilling process, increases in drilling cost, and in some cases
even to abandonment of the well. It is estimated that this problem costs the oil
industry one billion U.S. dollars a year.

Estimates of Well-bore Instability Costs

AMOCO: $600MM to $1 Billion per Year

ARCO: 17% of Total Well Cost

MOBIL: Min. 10% of Total Well Cost

Western-Atlas: >$6.4 Billion per Year

HES & Shell: ~$8 Bil. 96 & ~30% Total Budget

Soloman Bros: 15% of Total Drilling. Cost in 96

API Survey: 19-24% Holes w/ Sign. Mud Loss

GRI & OGS: $500-750MM/year in Shales

SHELL: >$500MM/year in Shales

BP (123 GOM): $167.6MM 1985-97

Well-bore stability is one of the most considerable cases in each drilling operation,
especially in underbalanced drilling because not only over pressure of drilling fluid
is eliminated and is not imposed any external force to the well-bore for supporting,
but also pore pressure is act as an unfavorable stress for well-bore stability it means
that differential pressure between drilling fluid and pore pressure is also imposed to
the well-bore and caused instability.[5]

Shales make up about three fourths of drilled formation and over 90% of the well-
bore instability problems that occur in shales. Even though shale stability has been
studied for several decades, it still a serious problem in not only the petroleum
industry but also in the mining and construction industries. Before any measures are

6
taken to address this problem, it is crucial that potentially problematic formations
and the mechanisms of well-bore instability be identified. Once the mechanisms are
understood, well planning, drilling fluid design, and drilling operation strategies can
be implemented to ensure well-bore stability. [8]

Due to the unique mechanical and physicochemical properties of shales, it is

recognized that well-bore instability in shales is a complicated problem.

1.2 Importance of well-bore stability

Well-bore stability analysis has been the subject of study and discussion for a long
time. The integrity of the well-bore plays an important role in many well operations
during drilling, completion, and production. Problems involving well-bore stability
occur principally through changes in the original stress state due to removal of rock,
interactions between rock and drilling or completion fluids, temperature changes, or
changes of differential pressures as draw down occurs.
For the particular drilling case, support provided originally by the rock is replaced
by hydraulic drilling fluid pressure; this creates perturbation and redistribution of
stresses around the well-bore that can lead to mechanical instabilities. These
instabilities can cause lost circulation or hole closure in the case of tensile or
compressive failure respectively. In severe situations, hole closure can cause stuck
pipe and loss of the well-bore. The se events lead to an increase of drilling costs.
The causes of instability have been classified into either mechanical or chemical
effects. A significant amount of research has been focused on these two aspects of
instability; the last one mainly oriented to instability in shales. [5]

7
 CHAPTER 2

2.1 Properties of shales

Shales are laminated (Fig. 2-1), clay-bearing sedimentary rocks with low
permeability. They typically have a finely laminated structure and are normally
inter-bedded with sandstone or limestone. The thickness of bedding layers can
range from a few millimeters to hundreds of meters .These bedding layers are
classified as transversely isotropic, the material properties along the bedding planes
are different from the plane perpendicular to the bedding.

Fig. 2-1 Structure of three clay [12]

It is the clay minerals that give shales their unique physiochemical properties
compared to other sedimentary rocks (Sharma, 2004). At the atomic level, clays are
composed of an octahedral aluminum layer with one to two tetrahedral silica layers.
The various combinations of octahedral and tetrahedral layers form different clay
minerals.
The unique structures of the various clay minerals result from the substitution of
ions within the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets. For example, the aluminum atoms
in the simple clay structure may be replaced by lower valence cations, such as Mg2+
or K+. This substitution leads to the presence of excess negative charges on the
crystal surface. These excess negative charges must be countered by cations from
the fluid so as to remain electrically neutral. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is

8
a measure of these excessive negative charges. The presence of charged surfaces in
clay minerals results in a complex electrochemical behavior that is largely
responsible for the well-bore stability problems exhibited by shales. For example,
the movement of water/ions during shale/mud interaction is influenced by the CEC.
However, very little information on this subject has been available until now.[12]
The presence of clay in rocks also affects the acoustic properties of shales. Minear
(1980) found that elastic modules and acoustic velocity decrease with increasing
clay content. Using experimental results, Tosaya and Nur (1982) derived the
following empirical equation to account for the effects of clay content on
compressive velocity:
(1-1)

In this correlation C is clay content in shale.

Han et al. (1985) found that large amounts of clay in a rock can reduce its
compressive velocity by 31% and the shear wave velocity by 38% compared to
similar rocks without clay.
Finally, shales consist predominantly of mud-sized (less than 0.006 mm) particles of
silt and clay, therefore, their permeability is very low. For example, the
permeability of Wellington shale is 0.310-6 md when measured under 8000 psi
effective stress (Chenevert and Sharma, 1993). Due to the shales low permeability,
pore pressure can not be dissipated easily during the interaction between the shale
and the mud. This pore pressure elevation, that is called an undrained condition
by Detournay and Cheng (1988), can lead to reduced effective stress and rock
failure. (Chenevert, and Sharma, 1993; Chen and Ewy, 2002)[1]
In summary, three notable characteristics of shales must be included in a well-bore
stability study:
1) Lamination
2) Low permeability
3) CEC.

9
2.2 Well-bore instability in shales
The oil and gas industry sustains financial losses due to well-bore failure of over
one billion dollars each year. Well-bore instability is a complex problem that
includes rock mechanics, stress analysis, in-situ stress calculations, pore pressure
prediction, and shale/fluid chemical reactions. Borehole stability problem occurs
when the rock stress exceeds rock strength. To prevent the problem, balance
between the stress and strength must be restored and maintained during drilling
through control over drilling fluid composition, mud weight, well trajectory and
many other factors.
Well-bore instability is caused by a radical change in both the mechanical stress and
the chemical and physical environments when a hole is drilled, exposing the
formation to drilling mud. Hole instability is seen most often as sloughing and
caving shale.

The mechanisms of well-bore instability in shales can be grouped into three

categories: (Bradley et al)
1) Fractures caused by tensile failure due to excessive well-bore pressure. This
causes lost circulation and often results in well control problems experienced as a
kick or an underground blowout (Figure 2-2)
2) Hole size reductions due to swelling of shales (Figure 2-3), which results in
repeat reaming, or in extreme conditions, stuck drill pipe
3) Hole enlargements resulting from compressive failure due to excessively low
well-bore pressure, which causes fill on trips, poor directional control, and poor
cementing (Figure 2-3).[1]

2.2.1 Resulting of hole instability

1. Stuck pipe
2. Sidetrack
3. Logging and interpretation difficults
4. Difficulty running casing
5. Poor cementing jobs
6. Lost circulation [6]

10
All contribute to increased costs, the possibility of losing part of the hole or the
entire well, or reduced production. [12]

Fig. 2-2 Mechanical well-bore instability [1]

Fig. 2-3 Mechanical well-bore instability [1]

Numerous factors cause the well-bore to become unstable after the borehole is
drilled, such as:
1. In-situ stress state conditions,
2. Well types (vertical or directional)
3. Well trajectories (inclination and azimuth)
4. Rock properties (strength, Poisson ratio, modulus of elasticity, permeability)
5. Shale/fluid interactions

11
6. Thermal effects.
Generally speaking, however, these factors can be classified as mechanical,
chemical, and physical effects. [9]

2.2.2 Well-bore instability reasons

1. Mechanical stress
A. Tension failure fracturing and lost circulation.
B. Compression failure spalling and collapse or plastic flow.
C. Abrasion and impact.
2. Chemical interaction with the drilling fluid
A. Shale hydration, swelling
B. Dispersion
3. Physical interactions with the drilling fluid
A. Erosion
B. Wetting along pre-existing fractures (brittle shakes)
C. Fluid invasion-pressure transmission

Understanding shale and well-bore instability is of primary importance if the

drilling fluids engineer is to skillfully assess a situation and implement a remedial
plan. A systematic approach integrating several disciplines is necessary for the
evaluation and remedy of well-bore instability. In other words, a mud engineers
expertise is not limited to drilling fluids alone. A good working knowledge of all
areas of the operation, as well as a basic background in mechanics and geophysics,
and water and clay chemistry, are necessary.

Chemical and physical effects are very complex for surveying and little knowledge
about them is available, then we discuss more on mechanical effect in this research.
[7]

12
2.2.3 Shale instability diagnostic
A. Large fragments of shale would be seen at shale shaker. (Fig. 2-5)

B. Pipe stuck due to trapping shale fragments between drill collar annulus and
well-bore. (Fig. 2-4)

Fig. 2-4 Pipe stuck resulting from shale sloughing [11]

Fig. 2-5 large fragments of shale result from shale sloughing [11]

13
 CHAPTER 3

3.1 Chemical effect

3.1.1 Pore pressure increasement
The chemical interaction of shale with water-based fluids may cause serious well-
bore instability problems. It is well known that the pore pressure distribution has a
strong influence on well-bore stability when drilling shale. Because shales are low
permeability formations, the diffusion of ions and water is very slow. This means
that significant pore pressure variations occur near the well-bore wall. Large,
chemically induced, pore pressure gradients can be built up in this small region.
The relationship between deviatoric strength and pore pressure within shale sample is
shown in Figure 3-1. It is seen that the deviatoric strength decreases with an increase in
pore pressure. [5]

Fig. 3-1 Effects of pore pressure on deviatoric strength.

14
3.1.2 Clay swelling
The primary cause of this problem is the unfavorable interactions between shales
and water-based muds (WBMs) (Chenevert, 1969). Although such interactions,
including chemical, physical, hydraulic, mechanical, thermal, and electrical
phenomena, are very complicated, the primary cause is related to the movement of
water and ions into or out of shale. The physiochemical and mechanical properties
of shale around the well-bore, such as permeability, pore pressure, swelling,
strength, and elastic modulus are altered due to such movement. (Fig. 3-2)[12]

Fig. 3-2 Comparison of swelling for type of clay [12]

15
The mechanisms for water and ion movement are convection and chemical activity
driven. The hydrostatic pressure difference between a drilling fluid and the
formation pore fluid causes convective flow. Chemical activity effects include
osmosis, diffusion, and capillary effects (Mody et al., 1993).[5]
The movement of water and ions into or out of shale is critical to well-bore
instability. In this study, we investigated such movement by performing various
gravimetric and swelling experiments using several different shales and ionic
solutions. It was found that all movement was driven by an imbalance in the
chemical activity of water and ions. This includes mechanisms often referred to as
chemical osmosis, diffusive osmosis, and capillary suction. No convection
experiments were performed in this study. [5]

By considering shale as a semi-permeable membrane that allows the movement of

water and restricts the movement of ions, Low and Anderson (1958) presented an
osmotic pressure equation for determining the swelling of soils. Their theory
suggested osmosis as a mechanism for explaining the movement of water and ions
during interactions between shale and a drilling fluid. Chenevert (1970) successfully
used this osmotic pressure theory to explain shale stability control with oil-based
muds (OBMs), using the concept of balanced water activity. Simpson (1971) also
suggested that a shale body in contact with a WBM could act as a semi-permeable
membrane. However, there are no experimental data to justify Simpsons
statements. [6]

16
 CHAPTER 4
4.1 Mechanical effects
In mechanical terms, failure occurs when the local stress exceeds the rock strength
based on a specific failure criterion. Therefore, three aspects of well-bore instability
in shales must be considered:
1) Local stress conditions
2) Formation strength
3) A proper strength failure criterion.
Formations located at a given depth, are under in-situ stresses, that include
overburden stress, v two horizontal stresses, H and h and pore pressure, p .
Before a well is drilled, an equilibrium stress state exists. During the drilling
process, the well-bore rock is replaced by drilling fluids. As a result, the stress
concentration around the well-bore is changed, and well-bore failure (both
compressive and tensile) occurs if the rock is not strong enough. [10]
By modeling the formation as an isotropic linear elastic solid in a condition of plane
strain along the axis of borehole, Bradley (1970a, b) calculated the local stress
around the well-bore by using Fairhursts work (Fairhurst, 1968). He applied the
concept of stress cloud with the help of the Drucker-Prager failure criterion to
evaluate rock shear failure. Many studies, based on Bradleys pioneering work, can
be found in the literature (Aadnoy and Chenevert, 1987).
By introducing non-linear elastic relationships, Santarelli (1986) obtained a better
fit between the stress and the strain. He suggested that a maximum stress level could
occur within the near well-bore formation. This high stress level leads to well-bore
failure not always at the well-bore wall, as predicted by the linear elasticity
(Bradley, 1979), but at some distance inside the shale.
During the drilling process, due to the extremely low permeability of shales, the
pore fluid cannot flow freely, which causes the redistribution of stresses (Detournay

17
and Cheng, 1988). This pore pressure storage effect is called undrained situation,
which can cause well-bore instability. (Fig 4-1) (Chen and Ewy, 2002) [7]

Fig. 4-1 Influence of pore pressure increase and formation

Weakening on well-bore instability

Yew and Liu (1992) introduced poroelasticity theory into the well-bore instability
model in order to study the effects of fluid flow on well-bore stability because this
flow induces additional normal stresses. These additional stresses can lead to
borehole failure in some cases. Recently, Chen et al. (2003) developed a model that
included poroelastic, chemical, and thermal effects.
Besides the local stresses, rock strength needs to be determined in order to develop
a well-bore instability model. As discussed previously, the lamination of shales
contributes to the material anisotropy of shales. This anisotropy modifies the
constitutive equation of rock formations.
Chenevert and Gatlin (1964) found that rock compressive strength was reduced by
as much as 40% when the test sample was oriented at 20o ~30o to the bedding
planes and tensile strength was lowest when failure occurred along bedding
planes.[7]
As mentioned in previous sections under-balanced drilling can have some positive
effects on borehole stability. For example, shale formations containing reactive
clays often suffer from hydration-related mechanical degradation, swelling, and
pore pressure penetration when infiltrated by drilling muds that flow into the
formation at overbalanced conditions. However, in probable cases borehole
instability can be made worse when bottom-hole pressures are low. For example,
low bottom-hole pressures lead to an increase in shear stresses acting around the

18
circumference of a well, hence leading to an increased risk of shear failure (Fig. 4-
2).
Furthermore, the presence of steep inflow pressure gradients around a well can lead
to tensile failure and spalling of the borehole wall (Fig. 4-3). [2]

Fig. 4-2 Shear yielding occurs for under-balanced conditions due to

The absence of a support pressure on the borehole wall [2]

Fig. 4-3 Radial tensile fracturing occurs due to steep inflow gradient [2]

More recent horizontal well innovations include the use of under-balanced drilling,
slim-hole completions, side track or re-entry wells with open-hole build sections,
and multiple laterals from a single vertical or horizontal well-bore. In applying these
new technologies, there are often issues posed during the well planning stage where
the risk of hole collapse in the short or long term must be addressed. In many cases,
the selection of an optimal strategy to prevent or mitigate the risk of well-bore
collapse might compromise one or more of the following other elements of the
overall well design: the rate of penetration; the risk of differential sticking; drilling
cuttings and mud disposal options; hole cleaning abilities; hole size, and

19
consequently the completion and stimulation options available; formation damage
risk; stimulations requirements; the ability to log the hole; and the selection of
surface sand handling facilities (where sand production is anticipated). In many
cases there may be insufficient experience with a given reservoir and the desired
completion; hence the prior performance of vertical wells cannot be used, by itself,
to guide the well design.[3]

4.2 Uncontrollable Factors of Borehole Instability

Uncontrollable or natural factors must be study in a borehole stability analysis
carefully because there is not any method for changing them for a successful
underbalanced drilling operation except of controlling well-bore with mud weight.
These uncontrollable factors are:
1. Natural fractured or faulted zones
2. High pore pressures
3. Weak, low strength rocks
4. High in-situ stresses
Natural fractures mostly are potential for well-bore instability during overbalanced
drilling operation, because the over pressure is caused opening the fractures and
cracking the well-bore walls. In underbalanced drilling operation both hydrostatic
pressure of drilling fluid and equivalent circulation density (ECD) are less than the
gradient fracture, therefore, the fractures will remain close, however, the in-situ
stress that imposed to the well-bore could destroyed it or collapsed.[10]
Other three uncontrollable factors in underbalanced drilling are closely depended on
quality of well-bore rocks and if the well-bore rock is adequate strong for applying
underbalanced drilling or light drilling fluids. Then for a reliable analysis of
stability, rock mechanics properties and the relationship between them and stress
determination and its affects on well-bore rock must be known, it means that using
of rock mechanics, failure criteria, and related softwares in stability analysis is
unavoidable.[10]

4-3 Rock Mechanics Considerations

Borehole stability in underbalanced drilling, as mentioned in last section, is directly
depended on rock strength against in-situ uncontrollable stresses that imposed to it.

20
So for a successful underbalanced drilling operation the in-situ stresses that are
imposed to the borehole rock must be calculated and compared with the rock
strength. For this purpose some definition about the rock mechanical properties is
necessary.
Rock mechanics is the theoretical and applied science of the mechanical behavior of
rock, that branch of mechanics concerned with the response of the rock to the force
field of its physical environment. In order to design an appropriate underbalanced
drilling operation it is necessary to understand the mechanical properties of the
formation and model the expected well-bore rock response to the imposed
stresses.[11]

4-3-1 How Can Geomechanics Add Value?

A. By reducing expensive drilling problems
1. Well-bore instability and Fracture Pressure Prediction
2. Reduce stuck pipe, losses, sidetracks, reaming, etc
3. Underbalanced Drilling Feasibility
B. By increasing reservoir performance
1. Production from Natural Fractures
2. Sand Production Prediction
3. Reduce Casing Shear and Collapse
4. Compaction/Subsidence
C. By reducing exploration risk
1. Fault Leakage Analysis [11]

4.3.2 Static Rock Properties

4.3.2.1 Static Youngs Modulus (E)
Static Youngs Modulus is the ratio of stress to strain under conditions of uniaxial
stress. This is determined in the laboratory using a core and measuring the stress-
strain curve under uniaxial loading. Typically the tangent modulus will be measured
from the linear portion of the stress-strain curve:

21

E = (4-1)

The importance of Youngs Modulus is that it defines the stiffness of the

formation and will greatly influence the width f the created fracture for a given fluid
injection pressure. Typical values of E range from <500,000 psi for soft, partially
consolidated formations; 2 to 6 10 6
psi for sandstones, and 6 to 8 10 6
psi for
limestone formations.[10]

4.3.2.2 Poissons Ratio ( )

Poissons Ratio is the ratio of the lateral expansion to longitudinal contraction of a
rock under conditions on uniaxial stress. This is usually determined in the
laboratory by measuring the lateral strain and axial strain of a core sample under
compression.

= r
(4-2)
y

Poissons Ratio is particularly important to the well-bore instability, because it

defines the amount of the overburden stress translated into horizontal stress.
Variations in will define the stress contrast between one zone and another.
Typical sandstone values are from 0.2 to 0.25. Shale values are from 0.25 to
0.3.[10]

4.3.2.3 Bulk Modulus (K)

The Bulk Modulus is the ratio of hydrostatic pressure to the volumetric strain it
produces. It may be calculated from E and from:
E
K = (4-3)
3 (1 2 )

Note, that the reciprocal of K is the formation compressibility. The Bulk Modulus is
important because the compressibility of the rock is a major factor to instability.[10]

4.3.2.4 Shear Modulus (G)

The Shear Modulus is often used interchangeably in instability analysis with the
Bulk Modulus. It is calculated from E and :[10]
E
G = (4-4)
2 (1 + )

22
4.3.3 Dynamic Rock Properties
The instability analysis is a static process. In the previous section the mechanical
properties were defined with reference to static measurements made by testing core
in laboratory. These measurements should give realistic values for use in instability
analysis. However, in practice, it is easier and faster to measure the dynamic
mechanical properties of a rock. These values are determined from sonic logs. This
has application in both the laboratory (non-destructive dynamic testing) and in the
field-sonic down-hole logging.
The mechanical properties may be determined from the compressional and shear-
wave velocities as:

1 V c2 2 V s2
= (4-5)
2 V c2 V s2

3V 2
4 V s2
E = 2

c
(4-6)
V c
2
V s2

4 V s2
K = V c
2
(4-7)
3

G = = V s
2
(4-8)

For downhole tools it is necessary to have sufficient separation between the

transmitter and receiver in order to determine the shear arrival from the
compressional wave arrival. This was aided by the development of the long-spaced
sonic log (LSS), and more recently been improved on by the full wave and digital
sonic logs. Fig. 4-4 shows an example mechanical properties log for a sand-shale
sequence. [7]

4.3.4 Dynamic rock properties through Rocklog software

Whole of dynamic rock properties are determined by Rocklog software.The inputs
of this software are as follows:
1. Gamma Ray log

23
 2. Density log
3. primary wave velocity log
4. shear wave velocity log
The main outputs of this software are:
1. Dynamic Youngs Modulus
2. Poissons Ratio
3. Dynamic Bulk Modulus
4. Dynamic Shear Modulus

An example from inputs and outputs of this software are illustrated below:

Fig. 4-4 An example from Rocklog software input

24
Fig. 4-5 An example of density log from Rocklog software

Fig. 4-6 An example from dynamic rock

Properties determining by running Rocklog software

25
 Fig. 4-4 Example mechanical properties Log for
Calculation of dynamic rock properties [10]

Unfortunately, there is often a significant discrepancy between dynamic and static

measured properties. Typically, the dynamic modules are higher as much as double

26
the static values. Figure 4-5 shows a cross-plot of dynamic versus static Youngs
Modulus for an especial formation. Calculation of the absolute values of in-situ
principal stresses requires calibration of values determined from dynamic data with
field measured values. While not absolutely accurate, the vibration in properties
between the formation and bounding layers may be used directly used from the
dynamic data.[10]

Fig. 4-5 Relationship between static and dynamic

Youngs Modulus values for the Travis Peak.[10]

4.4 Stress Determination

Figure 6 shows a plot of principle stresses as a function of depth. As seen in these
data, shallow depths the minimum stress is the overburden depth stress. At the
greater depth the minimum stress will be one of the horizontal in nature.
The vertical depth stress ( v ) may be calculated from the weight of the overlaying
rocks:
z
v = ( z ) g dz (4-9)
0

Note that convention, compressive stress is taken as positive and tensile stress is
negative. In practice, the vertical stress is determined from integrating the density

27
log from surface to the depth of interest. Typically, this will give a vertical stress in
the range of 1.0 to 1.1 psi/ft.
The above calculation gives the total vertical stress. This is the pressure being
supported by a combination of the formation matrix and the pore pressure in the
formation. We can define the effective vertical stress ( v' ) at the portion of the
overburden being supported by the rock matrix. Terzaghi defined the effective
stress as:

v' = ( pr ) (4-10)

Where pr is the reservoir pressure, this effect is shown in Fig. 4-6. [10]

In-situ Stress Magnitude

Original Ground
Surface
v -shift
Present Ground
Surface
Depth

Overburden Stress, v = gh
H
h

Fig. 4-6 Magnitude of principle stresses as a function of depth [10]

The above relationship assumes that the formation acts as an undrained material, it
means that there is no flow or movement of fluid associated with the applied load.
In reality a formation will behave in a softer manner with mechanical properties
somewhere between the undrained and drained values. This is taken into account by
the Poroelastic Constant, , (also referred to as Biots constant) which described the
efficiency of the fluid pressure in counteracting the total applied stress:

28
 v' = ( p r ) (4-11)

In the ideal cases where there is no change in porosity with changes of pore pressure
and confining stress, may be calculated from:
K
= 1 (4-12)
K m

Where K is undrained Bulk Modulus, psi, and K m is Bulk Modulus of the matrix
material, psi.
Typically, for petroleum reservoirs, is around 0.7.
Typically, a state of normal stress exists in the ground where both the maximum and
minimum horizontal stresses are less than the vertical stress. It means that:

h < H < v (4-13)

The most common model used for calculation of the stress with depth is the plane
strain model. For the constraint of zero strain at limits of x and y the induced
horizontal stress may be calculated from the vertical overburden load as:

H = ( v p ) + p (4-14)
1

The above calculated value is usually taken as a measure of the minimum horizontal
stress. Typically values for h are 0.6 to 0.7 times the overburden stress. Note that,
there can also be an additional tectonic component in areas of regional or localized
movement. Regionally this can occur in overthrust belts or anywhere that is
tectonically active. Locally, an additional stress component can occur as a result of
residual stress around faults. [10]
There are many more complex models which result in different formula than that
given above. These models include an understanding of burial history, thermal
effects and strain rate. However, the above plane strain solution is still the most
widely used. Therefore, it is possible to calculate a profile of the minimum in-situ
horizontal stress from a full wave sonic log together with an integrated density log.
[11]

29
4.4.1 Stress distribution around the well-bore
The drilling of a well disturbs the in-situ stress field and induces a stress
concentration around the well. According to the Cersh relationships the solution for
the case of the well perpendicular to one of the principal stresses (for example
vertical well) gives solutions for the radial stress ( r ), tangential ( ) and shear
stress ( r ) as a function of distance (a) from a well of radius r:

1 a2 1 4a 2 3a 4
r = ( y + x ) 1 + ( y x 1
) + 4 cos(2 ) (4-15)
2 r2 2 r2 r

1 a2 1 3a 4
= ( y + x ) 1 + 2 ( y x ) 1 + 4 cos(2 ) (4-16)
2 r 2 r

1 2a 2 3a 4
r = ( y x ) 1 + 4 sin( 2 ) (4-17)
2 r2 r

For the case of the borehole wall where r = a, the above equations reduce to:
r = 0 (4-18)

= ( y + x ) 2( y x ) cos(2 ) (4-19)

r = 0 (4-20)

Considering the direction parallel and perpendicular to the minimum horizontal

stress this gives the range of tangential stress as:
( ) =0 = 3 x y = 3 h H (4-21)

( ) =
2
= 3 y x = 3 H h (4-22)

The variation in radial and tangential stress is shown in Fig. 4-7. [8]
Notice how quickly these induced stresses fall away with distance from the well-
bore. The stress concentration is negligible after a distance of 3 times the hole
radius. Therefore, the induced stresses as a result of drilling the well will effect the

30
stability of the well-bore and in weak formation may destroyed the well-bore or be
collapse.

Fig. 4-7 Stress concentration around a circular hole [8]

In fact, the pressure that causes well-bore collapse is obtained from below formula,
so the strength of the rock must be more than it for safety.
Peffective = 3 h H T + pr (4-23)

Where p r , is the pore pressure of the reservoir and T is the tensile strength of the
formation rock. In a well, if Peffective be less than the rock strength, the well-bore is
not stable or is instable, but if Peffective be more than the rock strength, the well-bore is
stable and will not collapse during under-balanced drilling. [8]

4.4.2 Stress, Strain and Deformation

Rocks behavior is more complex, one common method of testing rock behavior is
the unconfined compression test, in which a cylindrical sample of a rock is
subjected to an axial load applied to the ends of the sample. (Fig 4-8) As the axial
stress is increased during the test, the changes in length of the sample can be
measured. [10]

31
 Fig. 4-8 Uniaxial Stress Test [10]

Fig. 4-9 Changes in rock By increasing stress [10]

The changes are plotted in Fig. 4-9, from unconfined compression data the strain at
any instant can be calculated by:
= L L (4-24)

Generalized stress strain curves are constructed from this data and generally yield
three distinct segments. The first segment relates to the closing of microscopic pores
and void space in the rocks as stress is applied at low levels.
In the middle of the curve, the material behaves elastically. The slope of this line
then can be used to calculate the modulus of elasticity, E. [10]

32
The final segment of the curve is most similar to plastic behavior. At the point of
failure where the sample crumbles and loses all resistance to stress, the curve
terminates. [10]

33
 CHAPTER 5

5.1 Borehole Stability Modeling

A wide range of modeling approaches are available for assessing borehole
instability risks. The simplest models calculated the stress state at the borehole wall
assuming the rock is a linear elastic continuum, and compare these stresses to a rock
strength criterion to determine if shear failure or tensile fracturing will occur for
example Bradley. Extensions of elastic models include the calculation of the
borehole breakout angle, the effects of weak bedding planes on rock failure, the
effects of inhibitive drilling mud chemistry on osmotic pressures in shale, and
localized pore pressure and shear stress peaks occurring away from the borehole
wall due to transient poroelastic effects. Linear elastic models are popular because
they are relatively easy to implement, require a modest number of input parameters,
and are capable of assessing borehole instability risks for most well trajectories.[9]
Models based on linear elasticity do not adequately explain the fact that, in many
cases, borehole remains stable even if the stress concentration around the borehole
exceeds the strength of the formation. One option to compensate for this effect is to
implement a calibration factor that corrects model predictions to match observed
field data. Alternatively, elastoplastic models offer the ability to assess the
mechanical integrity of a borehole more realistically. These models recognize that,
even after a rock has been stressed beyond its peak strength level, it does not
necessarily fail completely and detach from the borehole wall. Several authors have
published analytical elastopelastic models that can account for effects such near
well-bore, steady-state pore pressure gradients, anisotropic in-situ stresses, filter-
cake and capillary threshold pressures, and transient pore pressure gradients. A
number of powerful numerical geomechanical models exist which can be used for
advanced borehole stability modeling. These models include finite difference codes,
distinct element codes and finite element codes. These models are capable of very
realistic representations of rock deformation, yielding and fluid flow behavior. 3D
versions of many of these codes are also available. However, these programs tend to
be expensive, they require expert users to run them, computational times are
lengthy, and there are numerous input parameters. These tools have proven to be

34
most useful for research studies or large-scale, high risk offshore drilling projects
where there is economic justification for the comprehensive field and laboratory
testing and wire-line logging required to obtain all of the necessary model input
parameters, in addition to the time-consuming modeling efforts.[9]
Deterministic models for assessing well-bore stability may be grouped into two
groups:
1) Analytical and semi-analytical methods, such as closed form solution with or
without numerical solution procedures where discretization of the problem is not
required.
2) Numerical methods where the problem is dicretized into smaller elements, for
example finite element (FEM), finite difference (FDM), boundary element (BEM)
and discrete element methods (DEM).[8]
There are several Rock Strength/Failure Criterions that applied with everyone of
above methods for modeling the stresses around the well, and determining if the
well-bore is stable or not. The details of these techniques are not covered in this
research.[8]
A software that can be used in modeling of borehole stability is FLAC, this software
is an explicit finite difference code which simulated the behavior of structure built
of soil, rock or other materials which may undergo plastic flow when their yield
limit is reached, the more details are discussed follow.

5.2 FLAC Software

FLAC is a two-dimensional explicit finite difference program for engineering
mechanics computation. This program simulates the behavior of structures frame
works of soil, rock or other materials that may undergo plastic flow when their yield
limits are reached. Materials are represented by elements or zones, which form a
grid that is adjusted by the user to fit the shape of the object to be modeled. Each
element behaves according to a prescribed linear or nonlinear stress-strain law in
response to the applied forces or boundary restraints. The material can yield and
flow and the grid can deform (in large-strain mode) and move with the material that
is represented. The explicit Lagrangian calculation scheme and the mixed-
discretization zoning technique used in FLAC ensure that plastic collapse and flow

35
are modeled accurately. Because no matrices are formed, large two-dimensional
calculations can be made without excessive memory requirements.
The drawbacks of the explicit formulation (i.e., small time step limitation and the
question of required damping) are overcome to some extent by automatic inertia
scaling and automatic damping that do not influence the mode of failure.[4]
Though FLAC was originally developed for geotechnical and mining engineers, the
program offers a wide range of capabilities to solve complex problems in
mechanics. Several built-in constitutive models are available that permit the
simulation of highly nonlinear, irreversible response representative of geologic, or
similar, materials.[4]
Version 5 of FLAC also offers the ability to model ground water flow and
consolidation. These interactions may be combined with any of the mechanical
models. FLAC is also available with modules for thermal and creep calculations, at
an additional cost.[4]

5.2.1 The Explicit Finite Difference Method

FLAC is a general geomechanics numerical modeling which uses the explicit finite
difference method to solve the basic equations of motion. The finite difference
method, in general, involves division of the body to be modeled into a number of
two-dimensional zones (elements) which are interconnected at their grid points
(nodes)(Fig 5-1). At each grid point, the forms of the equations of motion are solved
in a time stepping fashion. It is possible therefore, to see the behavior of a system as
it evolves with time.(Fig. 5-2) [4]

Fig. 5-1 Grid points (nodes) modeling for The Explicit Finite Difference Method

36
Several authors have shown that the equations resulting from the finite difference
and finite element methods are identical for particular simple examples. The finite
difference method is as flexible in use as is the finite element method in that regular
meshes may be used and varying material models or properties and various
boundary conditions may be specified. Particular applications of finite difference to
geomechanics problems are discussed in Cundall (1976).[4]

5.2.2 Explicit Formulation and Calculation Cycle

There are, in general, two methods employed by numerical codes in the solution of
the equations of motion for a particular problem. The implicit approach (used in
many numerical methods to solve static problems) solves for unknown values at all
grid points at one time. In other words, a system of equations is set up which relates
unknown to know quantities such as the relationship of no forces to displacements
via the global stiffness matrix in a finite element model. This system of equations
must be stored and solved, resulting large computer memory requirements. [4]

The explicit method makes use of the idea that for small time steps, a disturbance at
a given grid point is experienced only by its immediate neighbors. As an example,
imagine that the temperature of a grid point is raised to some time value t=0. For a
short period of time, only the neighboring grid points realize that the temperature
has been increased. As time goes on, the effect will spread through the grid,
resulting in higher temperatures at surrounding grid points.
The time step must be chosen carefully to avoid numerical instability in the
solution, for example the time step must be less than the time of propagation of the
phenomenon between two adjacent grid points. In the mechanical version of FLAC,
this time step is governed by the speed of sound through the body; in the thermal
version of the code, the thermal diffusivity and convective heat transfer coefficients
govern the thermal time step. FLAC automatically determines a time step which
ensures numerical stability.[4]
The strain are used in the constitutive law determine the corresponding stress
increment for the zone. Once the stress increments have been determined, the forces
which they produce on the surrounding grid points are summed to determine the
resulting out-of-balance force. The calculation cycle is repeated every time step.
The user may examine the present state of the problem at any step in this process.
Obviously, the dynamic response of the system is numerically damped within the

37
FLAC code to provide a static solution. The damping results in the decay of the out-
of-balance forces to zero as the problem approaches static equilibrium with
increasing time step. The number of time steps required for equilibrium depends on
many factors, including the solution accuracy desired by the user, the extent of yield
in the material, and the size of the problem.[4]

Fig. 5-2 Basic explicit calculation cycle [4]

5.3 Stress-Strain Laws

There are six basic constitutive laws provided FLAC. There are:
1. elastic and isotropic
2. Mohr-Coulomb Plasticity
3. null
4. elastic and transversely isotropic (in case of shales)
5. ubiquitous joint
6. strain-softening
Mohr-Coulomb Plasticity law gives very suitable responses to stresses imposed to
rock in compare to real experiment in laboratory then in this work this law is
applied for stability analysis of borehole, then this stress-strain law is discussed
shortly, other laws are discussed in literatures 4.[4]

38
5.3.1 Mohr-Coulomb Plasticity
The plasticity formulation in FLAC assumes an elastic, perfectly plastic solid in
plane strain which conforms to a Mohr-Coulomb yield condition and non-associated
flow rule.[4]
The yield surface is given by:

f = 1 N 2 + 2C ( N ) 1 2 (5-1)

and the plastic potential function is given by:

g = 1 N 2 + 2C ( N )1 2 (5-2)

Where, N = (1 + sin ) (1 sin ) in this equation is or

C = cohesion (positive sign)

= friction angle

= dilation angle (between 8 and 12)

1 = major principal stress

2 = minor principal stress

5.3.2 GEOMECHANICAL MODEL

The model developed is unique and the information and data utilized represents the
geological, geomechanical and reservoir conditions relevant to a particular basin or
field. The computational engine of the model is a pseudo 3D model extended to
accommodate non-linear rock behavior and poro-elastic effects acting upon a
borehole or perforation cavity at any particular point during the life of the field. The
computational model structure is presented below. (Fig. 5-3)[11]

39
 Fig. 5-3 Geomechanical Model Structure [11]

5.4 Stability Analysis by FLAC Software

A quantitative analysis of borehole stability is based on the determination of the
new fields of stress, strain and pore pressure in the rock mass around the borehole
after the well has been drilled. Careful study and interpretation of those values
allows assessment of the stability condition and the need for modifications to
improve it. In the present case, the only variable that is under the control of the
operator and that can be modified to improve the stability is the unit weight of the
drilling mud (assuming there are no chemical interactions between the mud and the
rock). [2]

5.4.1 Criterion for Well-bore Stability

The combined effect of the variation in total stresses and the increase in pore
pressure in the region close to the diameter of the well-bore causes failure (plastic
flow) in the rock. A criterion based on the initiation of the plastic flow in a point in
the rock is sometimes used to establish limits in the stability of a well. The main
advantage of this criterion is that it can be computed from analytical solutions
assuming an elastic rock. On the other hand, this criterion is too conservative in the
present case, because this condition is not associated with a collapse or an otherwise
dangerous situation in the well. Another criterion (the one followed in this work) is

40
to use the size of the zone that is flowing plastically (failing, or yielded zone) as an
indicator of the general condition of stability.(Fig. 5-4) This criterion also has its
shortcomings because it is difficult to define an accepted size for this plastic zone
unambiguously. Additionally, the size of this zone is a function of the load path
followed in the analysis and the details of the constitutive stress-strain model used
for the rock, particularly in the post-yield regime. By considering other works in
this field, it is found that an elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb [or Mohr-
Coulomb Plasticity] model is a best model for well-bore stability analysis. [49] In
this work a conservative load pass is defined, that is a constant formation pore
pressure in different layers, whereas after drilling and flowing the formation pore
pressure is beginning to increase gradually to a normal stress equal to the mud
pressure (with zero shear stress). The criteria that is applied for determining stability
in a well-bore depending to location and rock properties is changing, but as
mentioned criteria that is used in this field and some other fields, such as
Venezuelan fields, is the ratio of the yielded zone to the volume of the hole, if the
thickness be equal to unit of length then this ratio will be area of the yielded zone to
the area of the hole. This criterion for mentioned fields is 8 percent [49]. It is
resulted of many experiences in different fields, and its responses have been
acceptable and reliable. [2]

Fig. 5-4 Normalized yielded zone area concept for analysis of borehole stability [2]

41
Where the local stresses have exceeded the limiting strength criteria, includes such
processes as extensional splitting, shear collapse, convergence, plastic deformation,
and breakouts, the yielded zone exists. The probability of well-bore collapse in
these zones is high, and if these zones are more than safety factor of stability, well-
bore will be failed. In stronger rocks, like lime stone, about 8 percent or a little more
may be good, but in weaker rocks such as sand stone 8 percent is seems to be
suitable.[2]

5.4.2 Inputs of FLAC Software

Mechanical parameters those have to enter to the FLAC for stability analysis are:
Elasticity Modulus, Poison Ratio, Tensile Rock Strength, Cohesion Rock Strength,
Rock Friction Angle, Density of surrounding rock and Overburden Stress.
Reservoir parameters are: Formation Pore Pressure, Permeability and Porosity.[4]
Fig. 5-5 presents the geomechanical data requirement.[11]

Fig. 5-5 Geomechanical data requirement [11]

42
5.4.3 Output of FLAC software

Stresses along with the X and Y axis, Displacements along with the X and Y axis,
Yielded Blocks or Elements, and some other graphs are output of software. The plot
of Yielded Blocks (Fig. 5-6) is essential for determining of well-bore stability.[10]

Fig. 5-6 The plot of yielded block

[10]

5.5 Application of the plot of yielded block for well-bore

stability determining
As mentioned earlier, lower mud weight results less well-bore stability probability. Results
of borehole stability analysis for various BHP are illustrated in Fig. 5-7

If normalized yielded zone area (NYZA) be less than eight percent of original well-bore
area, then we can result that well-bore will be stable. (Fig. 5-8) By a quick look calculation
can find that criterion is satisfied or not.

43
Fig. 5-7 Results of borehole stability analysis for various BHP [10]

Fig. 5-8 FLAC output showing the extent of shear yielding

44
 and tensile failure predicted around a borehole [2]

5.6 Determining of optimal mud weight window

Fig. 5-9 shows the relationship between NYZA and bottomhole pressure, for over-
and underbalanced conditions, using the base case parameters. The sensitivity of the
solution to the maximum horizontal in situ stress, a poorly constrained parameter, is
also indicated. This plot shows that there is only a relatively small amount of
yielding (e.g., NYZA values less than 1.0) predicted for bottomhole pressures of 2
MPa or less.
Underbalanced drilling, with a foam system, for example, will likely be feasible in
this setting provided adequate hole cleaning can be maintained.

The upper acceptable limit for the bottomhole pressure while drilling was calculated
using the 3D linear elastic fracture breakdown model in FLAC. The criterion for
breakdown is the condition where the effective tangential (or hoop) stress at the
borehole wall exceeds the tensile strength of the rock. (Leak off test)

Fig. 5-9 Effect of maximum horizontal in situ stress gradient on Normalized

Yielded Zone Area (NYZA) for a range of bottomhole pressures [2]

45
Optimal mud weight window versus deviation angle is illustrated in Fig. 5-10

Fig. 5-10 Optimal mud weight window [11]

46
5.7 Conclusion
One of the important factors for successful drilling is selection of appropriate
drilling fluid, which it depends on composition , weight of mud,
1. For inhibition from interaction between shale and drilling fluid, we must
treat mud by using additives. By adding additives, we decrease movement of
ions between mud/shale.(Chemical effect)
2. For investigating of mechanical effect, we must analyze stress
distribution around the well-bore after drilling hole. One way for
analyzing is numerous methods that are called the Explicit Finite
Difference Method.
This work is done with softwares such as FLAC and STABView.

47
 References
1. Jianguo Zhang: THE IMPACT OF SHALE PROPERTIES ON WELL-BORE
STABILITY Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of
Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy

2. P.McLellan, C. Hawkes, Advanced Geotechnology Inc., Bore-hole Stability

Analysis For Under-balanced Drilling, paper presented at the CSPG and Petroleum
Society Joint Convention, Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line, in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 14-18, 1999.

3. Talal Mohammad AL-Bazali, EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE MEMBRANE

BEHAVIOR OF SHALE DURING INTERACTION WITH WATER-BASED
AND OIL-BASED MUDS, Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, The University of Texas at Austin May,
2005

4. Manual of FLAC Software

5. Mengjiao Yu, CHEMICAL AND THERMAL EFFECTS ON WELL-BORE

STABILITY OF SHALE FORMATIONS, Presented to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at
Austin August, 2002

6. Chenevert, M.E., Shale Control With Balanced Activity Oil-continuous Muds;

JPTC, October 1970, pp. 1309-1316.

7. Chris Hawkes and Patrick McLellan, Well-bore Instability in Shales: A Review of

Fundamental Principles, Physico-Chemical Mechanisms in Mud-Shale Interaction
and GRI-Funded Research , Gas Research Institute Report Number GRI-
99/0025.3 December, 2000

8. Alberto Lpez Manrquez, FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF THE

STABILITY OF SINGLE WELL-BORES AND MULTILATERAL

48
 JUNCTIONS, Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University
of Texas
9. Mody, F. and Hale, A.H., Bore-hole Stability Model to Couple the Mechanics and
Chemistry of Drilling-Fluid/Shale Interaction; JPTC, November 1993, pp. 1093-
1101.

10. Mojtaba Goje Hessari, Study of Lost Circulation in Maroun Oilfield and
Investigation of Underbalanced drilling (UBD) Applicability, A thesis submitted
to the Graduate Office in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.Sc.
Degree in Petroleum Engineering (Drilling and Exploitation Field) ,September
2004

11. GeoDRILL Well-bore Stability, Well Engineering Technical Brochure , MARCH

2003

12. Dr,J.Moghadasi, The Drilling Fluids Engineering Manual ,Chapter 16 , Shales

and well-bore instability ,Page : 16.1 -16.21 , Petroleum university of technology

49