SPE/IADC 125614

Improving Drilling Efficiency Through Wellbore Stability Analysis in the Gulf

of Suez, Egypt
Marie Van Steene, SPE, Dhruba J. Dutta, SPE, and Ahmed Abu El Fotoh, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2009, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition held in Manama, Bahrain, 26-28 October 2009.

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

Abstract
An increasing number of deviated wells are being drilled to maximize production and hydrocarbon recovery in the mature
reservoirs of the Gulf of Suez (GoS). Successfully drilling a high-angle well in a tectonically disturbed and structurally
complex area like the GoS is very challenging, especially in depleted reservoirs. Selecting the optimal mud weight is
absolutely essential. Stress orientation and magnitude also have a major impact on wellbore stability.
The region poses significant drilling challenges that vary widely from reactive shale and salt creep to stress-related
instability. From the findings of multiple wellbore stability projects we conducted in the GoS, we review the dominant
mechanisms of wellbore instability in the GoS. We provide a summary of the failure mitigation measures and an overview of
stress magnitude and orientation in the region, demonstrating how it impacts the knowledge of the most stable drilling
direction.
Understanding the main causes of rock failure in the GoS resulted in improved drilling efficiency and reduced drilling
costs. We show an example, where a new, nearly horizontal (86) well was successfully drilled through the Asl formation with
less than half a day of non productive time during the entire drilling process.
We conclude that acquisition of new, high-quality data would considerably reduce the uncertainty surrounding drilling
complex wells in the area and reduce their cost.

Introduction
The Gulf of Suez (GoS) is a mature hydrocarbon region of Egypt. Most of the wells were drilled several decades ago, but, to
optimize the hydrocarbon recovery, operators are now drilling increasingly deviated wells. This has led to a rise in the severity
of borehole instability events, adding to the complexity of drilling in the area. In this tectonically active area, numerous
drilling problems are present. They range from salt creep to mud losses in natural fracture networks or subseismic fault zones,
without mentioning borehole failure linked to formation/fluid interactions. Highly depleted reservoirs are encountered, with
sometimes a high uncertainty in the current pore pressure, leading to high uncertainty on the fracture gradient or the mud loss
gradient.
The available data is, however, usually scarce because most of the fields were developed a long time ago. Essential data
like sonic compressional and shear logs can be missing. Mechanical properties from core are rarely available to calibrate the
rock mechanical properties. Little direct information is available about stress magnitudes, as leakoff tests (LOT), extended
LOT (XLOT), and hydraulic fracturing are rarely conducted.
Wellbore stability analysis can, however, deliver crucial information to mitigate failure in complex new well trajectories. A
systematic approach in analysing the causes of borehole instability is necessary to forecast the risks associated with drilling
new wells and to recommend mitigation measures. First, the evidence for formation and borehole failure needs to be gathered
and analyzed from drilling reports. Then a formation geomechanical model must be developed and calibrated so that it can
accurately predict the observed borehole failures in offset wells. Once the model is calibrated, it can be used to predict
borehole failure for any wellbore trajectory, regardless of the well deviation or azimuth. An assessment of the instability risks
associated with a particular trajectory can be carried out, and the analysis can be used to choose the optimum mud weight and
casing design.
This process has been applied in multiple wellbore stability projects that we have conducted in the GoS. After a review of the
general wellbore stability analysis workflow, this paper reviews the main conclusions from the knowledge that we have
2 SPE/IADC 125614

acquired during each of these studies and provides an example of the wellbore stability process applied to the planning of a
successful horizontal well.

Stratigraphy of the Gulf of Suez

The Gulf of Suez, together with the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, are rift arms that make up a large, Y-shaped triple junction
between the major Nubian, Sinai, and Arabian tectonic plates. In fact, they represent the northern branches of the East African
rift system. The Suez graben or rift basin was created by stretching and collapse of the Earths crust.
Structures found in the GoS reservoirs are governed by two major fault trends longitudinal and transverse. Longitudinal
faults, running parallel to the axis of the rift and to the faulted margins of the gulf, are oriented (strike) NNW to SSE. The
transverse faults, which have been described as inherited passive discontinuities trend either E-W (or ENE-WSW) and are
inactive. The effect of tectonism leads to structures that are divided into large fault blocks. The major fault blocks are
generally tilted in one direction within an area, although that direction varies along the gulf (Egypt Well Evaluation
Conference, 1995). Till today, the area is tectonically active, as can be observed from recent seismic activity.
A general stratigraphy column for the GoS is shown as Fig. 1.

Pliocene to
Recent
P. Zeit Fm

Miocene

Oligocene

Eocene

Paleocene
Cretaceous

Jurassic

Triassic

Paleozoic
Precambrian

Fig. 1Stratigraphy of the Gulf of Suez (adapted from Egypt Well Evaluation Conference, 1995).
SPE/IADC 125614 3

Well Data Review

Before starting the geomechanical modeling, it is necessary to gather and evaluate the available data. The quality of the data
used for the analysis will have an impact on the accuracy of the results. Understanding the data limitations allows judgment of
the uncertainty present in the analysis predictions.

Structural Data
Field structural maps and seismic cross-sections provide key information in understanding the stress distribution in the field.
They should describe the position of the faults with respect to the offset and planned well trajectories and to the formation
tops.

Logs
The building blocks of any geomechanical model include the density, sonic compressional, and sonic shear logs. These logs
are essential to compute the rock elastic properties. Another essential type of log includes caliper data. Multiple arm caliper
data is especially useful to identify shear failure (breakout) and to determine stress orientation. Image logs (from wireline or
LWD) provide important information about borehole deformation (shear failure or breakout, tensile failure).
Lithology volumes from formation evaluation provide insight into potential borehole failure mechanisms. Saturation
information is required in the presence of very light hydrocarbons, as they affect the response of sonic compressional logs,
which then need to be corrected by fluid substitution. This is typically not the case in the GoS, as oil is the main hydrocarbon
in this region.
Many of the fields of the GoS were first drilled and developed several decades ago. Hence, data availability is limited most
of the time. Sonic shear data is typically available only for a reduced number of wells in a particular field, if available at all.
Synthetic sonic shear logs are usually generated based on the formation evaluation lithology volumes, after assigning a shear
endpoint to each mineral. The synthetic sonic shear logs are then calibrated for each formation based on the closest offset wells
containing shear sonic data.
Other log information includes records of formation pressure. This is usually provided by wireline formation tester (WFT)
data.
Log data quality must be audited prior to use in any modeling. Bad data should be flagged or edited to avoid erroneous
interpretation at a later stage of the analysis.

Core Data
Rock mechanical properties derived from laboratory measurements on core samples are essential in geomechanical modeling.
At the minimum, elastic properties like static Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio, as well as strength properties like
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and friction angle, should be available for each of the formations intersected by the
planned well (ideally including overburden shales and non-pay sections). They are, however, very rarely available for the
fields of the GoS. Although cores are available for many of the GoS wells, usually the small amount of time available between
the wellbore stability analysis and the drilling of the planned well is not enough to perfom the required laboratory tests.
Availability of core mechanical properties can significantly decrease the uncertainty associated with the wellbore stability
analysis predictions.

Drilling Events and Drilling-Related Information Review

An essential part of any geomechanical study is to gather and review the instability events that were reported during the
drilling of the offset wells. This information is usually compiled from daily drilling reports and end-of-well reports. The key
required information includes depth (MD and/or TVD), mud weight (static mud weight and/or circulating mud weight), mud
type, event instability type (typically for the GoS: seepage/partial/total losses, tight spot/overpull, stuck pipe/tool, cavings,
obstruction, well flow). This information is then reconciled with well deviation and azimuth as well as formation tops, leading
to a better analysis of the instability causes. The interpretation of instability events can be ambiguous. However, when
combined with geomechanical modeling, it can help differentiate different types of deformation mechanisms (for example,
differentiation between breakout and washout).
Table 1 summarizes the drilling instability events that are usually encountered while drilling in the GoS. The Eocene
formations include the Middle Eocene and Thebes formations. The Upper Cretaceous formations are Sudr, Brown Limestone,
Matulla, Wata, Abu Qada, and Raha formations. These events will be discussed in detail in the next sections.
4 SPE/IADC 125614

Table 1Generalised drilling instability events encountered in the Gulf of Suez

Formation Seepage losses Losses Tight spots Stuck

P.Zeit Y Y Y
Zeit Y Y Y
South Gharib Y Y
Belayim Y Y
Kareem Y Y Y
Rudeis Y Y Y
Nukhul
Eocene Fms. Y
Upper Cretaceous Fms. Y
Nubia A Y Y Y
Nubia B Y Y
Nubia C Y

Other essential information extracted from daily drilling reports and end-of-well reports consists in the results of the
formation integrity tests (FIT), LOT, and XLOT. XLOTs provide the most useful data as they allow estimating the minimum
principal stress, but they are rarely performed in the GoS. FITs are available in most wells. However, they only provide a
lower bound for the minimum principal stress. As FITs are commonly done in a competent rock immediately below the casing
shoe, they are commonly not fully representative of the stress properties in the zones of interest.

Other Information
Hydraulic fracturing is rarely performed in the clastic reservoirs of the GoS and hence the useful data it provides regarding the
magnitude of the minimum principal stress is typically not available.

Building the Mechanical Earth Model

The mechanical earth model (MEM) is an explicit description of the mechanical properties and state of in-situ stresses of a
specific stratigraphic section in a field (Plumb et al. 2000). The mechanical properties include static elastic properties
(Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratio) and strength properties (Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), friction angle,and
tensile strength). Fully describing the state of stress of the formation requires pore pressure and principal stresses magnitude as
well as orientation.

Mechanical Properties
The dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratio are computed directly from the density and sonic compressional and shear
logs. Conversion to static properties is performed through the use of correlations, as core data is rarely available for
calibration.
Strength data (UCS, friction angle, and tensile strength) are computed from logs and from the static elastic properties. In
the absence of core data, they are also rarely directly calibrated.
It is now possible to determine rock strength directly from advanced sonic measurements (Sayers et al. 2009). This method
should be tested in the formations of the GoS as it could provide an additional calibration point.

Pore Pressure
Pore pressure is generally normal in the GoS. Conventional depth methods (such as Eatons method) to determine pore
pressure are usually not easily applied in the GoS because the maturity of the sediments makes the presence of massive thick
shales relatively rare. The lithology is in general complex and makes determination of pore pressure trends difficult. Wireline
formation tester (WFT) data provides a more reliable source of pore pressure.
Since many of the fields in the GoS were put on production several decades ago, depletion is common. Production data can
also provide an estimate of the actual pore pressure.
In practice, large uncertainties have sometimes been observed on the current pore pressure levels. This can in turn bring
large uncertainties on the outputs of the wellbore stability analysis, since it could lower the fracture gradient and hence cause
losses at relatively low mud weights, while excessive overbalance could lead to stuck tools.

Stresses Magnitude and Orientation

Principal stress magnitude and orientation need to be determined. One of the stresses is usually assumed to be vertical, but that
is not necessarily the case in the close vicinity of faults, where the stresses can orient themselves parallel or perpendicular to
the fault plane.
SPE/IADC 125614 5

The first method to determine stress orientation is to analyse multiple-axis calipers for shear failure indication (Zoback et
al. 1986; Plumb and Hickman 1985; Plumb and Cox 1987). These logs are typically recorded in conjunction with dipmeters
and electrical borehole imagers. For a wellbore oriented in the axis of the principal stresses, stress redistribution around the
borehole will lead to shear failure at the borehole wall in the direction of the minimum principal stress acting across the
borehole. Hence, if shear failure can be identified from dual-axis calipers, the minimum principal stress direction can be
determined. Shear failure can be recognized by the fact that one axis of the borehole will be engaged while the second one will
be enlarged.
The same principles can be applied to identify shear failure from borehole images. Borehole images also provide
information on tensile failure events (or drilling-induced fractures, DIF), which occur in the plane orthogonal to the minimum
principal stress. Hence, identification of this type of borehole failure also determines stress orientation.
Shear failure determination can be complicated by the presence of other types of failure, like formation failure as chemicals
react with the mud components, leading to enlargements in the borehole axis (washouts). Other methods to determine the
stress direction might then be desirable.
Another common method of stress orientation determination uses sonic shear cross-dipole anisotropy (Alford 1986; Sinha
and Kostek 1996; Winkler, 1996, Plona et al, 1998). However, this technique is rarely applied in the GoS as it requires cross-
dipole sonic data, which has been scarcely acquired in the past.
Direct stress orientation determination from calipers, borehole images, or sonic cross-dipole methods can be applied only if
the borehole is aligned (or nearly aligned) with the principal stresses axis. When that is not the case, more complex techniques
are required. Assuming that one of the principal stresses is vertical, the borehole failure direction will depend, for a given well
deviation and azimuth, on the azimuth of the minimum horizontal stress h, on the stress regime, and on the relative
magnitudes of the principal stresses max, int, min, which can be expressed as the ratio of the stress magnitude R, given by (int-
min)/(max-min). The stress regime and R can be combined within one parameter, Q, in the range 0 to 3. Lets designate the
vertical stress by v, the minimum horizontal stress by h and the maximum horizontal stress by H. If h < H < v, then Q = R
and Q is between 0 and 1. If h < v < H, then Q = 2 - R and Q is between 1 and 2. If v < h < H, then Q = R+2 and Q is
between 2 and 3. Now, two parameters need to be determined to characterize the state of stress: h and Q. They are determined
through an inversion algorithm (Cesaro et al., 2000) using observed borehole and formation failure from borehole images and
calipers as an input.
For one borehole dataset, the inversion solution is not unique. Hence the breakout/drilling induced fractures (DIF)/fault slip
information from at least two boreholes (in the same well or from nearby wells) with different azimuths is required to provide
a unique solution to the inversion. The inversion outputs a crossplot of Q vs. h. Each point on the crossplot represents a
unique set of Q and h, satisfying the orientations provided in the inversion. The color of the points represents the data density.
For each borehole, the points of the crossplot form an S-shaped or an inverted S-shaped pattern. Hence, for a given observed
breakout azimuth, several Q and h solutions exist. At the intersection of the S-shaped patterns, a common Q and azimuth of h
are found; these are representative of the stress state in the area of the analyzed boreholes, leading to the determination of the
stress regime and the stress orientation.
Fig. 2 shows three examples of this inversion process performed for three different locations in the GoS. Fig. 2a shows an
extensional stress regime (Q<1) with a minimum horizontal stress azimuth of N25E. Fig. 2b shows a stress regime ranging
from extensional (Q<1) to strike-slip (1<Q<2), with a minimum horizontal stress azimuth of N15E. Fig. 2c shows a strike-slip
stress regime (1<Q<2) with a minimum horizontal stress azimuth of N50E.

3 3 3

2 2 2

Q Q Q Q=1.5
1 1 Q=1 1 Sh azim.= N50E
Q=0.85 Sh azim.= N15E
0
Sh azim.= N25E 0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

a) h azimuth b) h azimuth c) h azimuth

Fig. 2Output of the stress inversion process, providing a value for Q and h, the azimuth of the minimum horizontal
stress; the results shown above are for three different locations in the GoS, showing a variation of the minimum
horizontal stress azimuth as well as a variation of stress regime, from extensional regime to strike-skip regime.

Fig. 2 provides an overview of what is observed in the GoS in general: the stress regime is ranging from extensional to
strike-slip with the minimum horizontal stress direction ranging from N10E to N50E. This conclusion has important
consequences on the most stable well deviation and azimuth. This will be discussed in the next sections.
6 SPE/IADC 125614

Fig. 3Present day stress map in the Gulf of Suez. The arrows on the map indicate the average direction of the
minimum horizontal stress for various regions of the Gulf of Suez. (North is at the top of the map.)

Fig. 3 shows the present day stress map in the GoS. This information was gathered from failure analysis observed on
vertical and deviated wells using multiple-axis calipers and borehole images (Dutta et al. 2009). Analysis of earthquake data in
the GoS provides a similar picture: the estimated average minimum horizontal stress direction in the GoS is NE-SW (Badawy
2001). This map provides valuable information about stress direction when performing wellbore stability analysis with limited
datasets.
Vertical stress magnitude is typically computed by integrating the bulk density log where available and by extrapolation to
the other zones.
Horizontal stress magnitudes are typically computed using the elastic horizontal strain model. The minimum horizontal
stress is calibrated using FIT, as LOT or XLOT data are rarely available in the region. The FIT provides a lower bound for the
minimum horizontal stress. No direct information is available to calibrate the maximum horizontal stress, so we perform the
calibration by matching the borehole failures predicted by the model and the actual failures (breakout and drilling-induced
fractures) observed in the offset wells. Analyzing the stress through caliper and borehole images analysis by the inversion
technique described above allows constraining the maximum stress magnitude.
Techniques are now available to compute horizontal stress magnitudes from advanced dipole sonic measurements (Sinha et
al. 2006). It would be beneficial to apply these techniques to improve the accuracy of the stress magnitude determination in the
GoS.

General Wellbore Stability Analysis Workflow

After building the MEM for the offset well, the state of stress at the borehole wall is computed and combined with the rock
strength parameters through a failure criterion to provide a forecast of the main types of borehole failure: shear failure (or
breakout) and tensile failure (or drilling-induced fratures). The predicted failures are then compared with the observed failures
(from the borehole images, calipers or events recorded on the drilling reports), and the MEM parameters are adjusted (mainly
the stress magnitudes and the UCS) until the analysis is able to accurately predict the observed failures.
The MEM is then propagated to the planned well by correlating the formation markers and considering the deviation
surveys for both the offset and planned wells.
SPE/IADC 125614 7

A wellbore stability analysis can then be performed on the planned well trajectory to understand the risks that will be faced
during drilling and to recommend mitigation measures. Safe and stable mud weight window boundaries as well as the optimal
mud weight for maximum wellbore stability are also outputs of this analysis.
The minimum limit to the safe mud weight window is given by the pore pressure and the maximum limit by the formation
breakdown pressure (also called fracture initiation pressure). Formation breakdown occurs when the minimum principal stress
around the wellbore exceeds the tensile strength of the rock. At this pressure, the mud hydraulically fractures the rock,
similarly to what happens during a LOT. The drilling process may also generate fractures. This may result in mud loss and
possible loss of well control.
The limits to the stable mud weight are usually more restrictive. The lower limit is formed by the wellbore breakout
gradient. If the mud pressure is less than this limit, it is insufficient to support the borehole wall and shear failure (also called
borehole breakout) will occur. The upper limit is given by the mud loss gradient (close to the minimum in-situ stress gradient).
If this limit is exceeded, the mud pressure can prop open existing fractures in the rock and losses will occur. The mud loss
gradient is generally considered as a conservative value for the fracture propagation gradient.

Discussion of Wellbore Stability and Failure Mitigation Plans

This section provides an overview of the mechanical properties, state of stress, main reasons for failure, and recommended risk
mitigation in the main formations of the GoS, compiled from multiple geomechanical studies performed in the GoS. It cannot
be representative of all the rock properties and stress configurations encountered in the GoS, but it will give a general idea.
For each of the main formations on the GoS, the discussion will be based on a sensitivity of the borehole failure modes to
borehole deviation and azimuth for each formation (see Fig. 4 as an example).
The explanation of the sensitivity plot is given here, as it is will serve as a base for subsequent discussion:
Upper left quadrant (breakout mud weight sensitivity plot): value of the mud weight in pounds per gallon (ppg)
below which shear failure will be initiated, shown as a function of borehole azimuth and deviation. The dot represents
the azimuth and deviation of the studied borehole.
Upper right quadrant (breakdown mud weight sensitivity plot): value of the mud weight in ppg above which
tensile failure will be initiated, shown as a function of borehole azimuth and deviation
Lower left quadrant: mud weight (ppg) sensitivity plot as a function of borehole deviation, for a given borehole
azimuth (marked by the dot in the upper left quadrant figure). The yellow area shows the mud weights for which
shear failure will occur at the borehole wall, the orange area shows the mud weights for which tensile failure will
occur at the borehole wall, and the green area is the stable mud weight window. The line labeled mud kick indicates
the pore pressure gradient. The line labeled mud loss indicates the approximate fracture propagation gradient, close
to the minimum horizontal stress gradient. The safe mud weight window is shown by the mud weights in the green
area, between the mud loss line and the mud kick line. For mud weights exceeding the mud loss gradient, natural
existing fractures might propagate, causing mud losses. For formations with no natural fractures, exceeding the
fracture initiation gradient (entering the orange area), will create drilling-induced fractures, and if the mud weight
exceeds the mud loss gradient, these are likely to propagate and cause severe losses. Hence the mud loss line usually
represents the upper limit of the stable mud weight window.
Lower right quadrant: mud weight (ppg) sensitivity plot as a function of borehole azimuth and for a given borehole
deviation given by the dot in the upper part of the figure. The rest is similar to the lower left quadrant plot.
8 SPE/IADC 125614

P. Zeit and Zeit Formations

In the wells where the Zeit and P. Zeit formations were analyzed, the formations were composed of alternate layers of
feldspathic sand and anhydrite. In the P. Zeit formation, the sandstones are poorly consolidated, and hence their strength is
very low (UCS less than 1,000 psi). For low mud weights, collapse of the formation translates into unstable borehole
conditions and tight spots (as reported on the observed drilling events, see table 1). The stress profiles show essentially an
extensional stress regime in the clastic zones. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the sensitivity of the stable and safe mud weight window
boundaries to borehole deviation and azimuth for the P. Zeit and Zeit formations respectively. In the P. Zeit formation, a
minimum mud weight of 11 ppg is required to avoid breakout in a vertical well and a mud weight of 13 to 13.5 ppg is required
to prevent breakout at higher well inclinations. For the Zeit formation, the breakout gradient ranges from around 7 ppg for a
vertical well to around 9 ppg for a highly deviated well. These values of mud weight allow staying below the mud loss
gradient, which is around 13 to 14 ppg. The Zeit formation being more consolidated than the P. Zeit formation, it explains the
difference between the breakout gradient values for these two formations.
The minimum mud weight at which tensile failure should be initiated is around 16.5 to 17.5 ppg. These minimum values
are predicted for highly deviated wells with an azimuth aligned with the maximum horizontal stress direction. So in general,
drilling-induced fractures are not a problem in these formations because such high mud weights are not required.
Seepage and partial losses are commonly encountered in these formations (see table 1), possibly due to high permeability
streaks or natural open fractures, for which losses can happen as soon as the mud weight exceeds the pore pressure.
Contingent loss control material (LCM) is necessary in these formations to cure the losses, which should be expected. The
mud weight should not be dropped to cure the losses, as it must remain high enough to avoid formation collapse due to shear
failure.
An effective mud cake can help support the borehole wall in the weakly consolidated zones. Minimizing swab and surge,
reducing tripping speed, and using low flow rates to minimize turbulence can also reduce the disturbance to the formation.
Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig.4Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the P. Zeit formation.
SPE/IADC 125614 9

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 5Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Zeit formation.

South Gharib Formation

The South Gharib formation consists of a few very thick salt beds with anhydrite, shale, and sandstone stringers in
between. The thickness of the salt and anhydrite layers varies from place to place in the GoS. The main problem experienced
in this formation is the closing of the borehole due to salt creep, leading to tight spots and stuck pipe. In salt formations, plastic
flow of salt is experienced with mud weights between 9 and 11 ppg. For mud weights between 12 and 17 ppg, high creep rate
is experienced. Low salt creep rate is obtained only for mud weights above 17 ppg. Such high mud weights are never used in
practice because they would exceed the mud loss limit of the nonsalt layers in the adjacent formations drilled in the same
section. Hence, minimizing the time that the salt section is open and running casing shortly after drilling the salt section is the
best mitigation measure.
Ledges can be experienced in this formation because the salt layers dissolve while the anhydrite layers dont. Salt-saturated
mud is recommended to minimize salt dissolution.
10 SPE/IADC 125614

Belayim Formation
The Belayim formation generally consists of salt and anhydrite at the bottom, while sandstone and shales are found at the
top, in the wells that were analyzed. The sandstones have a computed UCS ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 psi. The stress profiles
show essentially an extensional stress regime in the clastic zones. From Fig. 6, the minimum mud weight required to avoid
breakout ranges from 10 ppg in a vertical well to 13.5 ppg at higher well inclinations. These values of mud weight allow
staying below the mud loss gradient, which is around 15 ppg (lower values of 13.5 ppg were found in other wells in this
formation).
The minimum mud weight at which tensile failure will be initiated in the clastic zones is around 17.5 ppg. This value
corresponds to the case of highly deviated wells with an azimuth aligned with the maximum horizontal stress direction. So in
general, drilling-induced fractures are not a problem in these formations because such high mud weights are usually not used.
Although breakout can be experienced in the clastic zone, the main problems experienced in the Belayim formation, like
for the South Gharib formation, are linked with salt creep and ledges, leading to tight spots and stuck pipe. The same
recommendations apply as for the South Gharib formation.
In formations with no natural open fractures, a conservative upper mud weight limit to avoid losses is the mud loss
gradient, for which a conservative value in the Belayim formation would be 13.5 ppg. Hence, like for the South Gharib
formation, salt creep cannot be prevented; instead, it will have to be managed.
Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 6Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Belayim formation.
SPE/IADC 125614 11

Kareem Formation
Across the GoS, the Kareem formation can be shaly with intervals of sandstones or it can be composed of argillaceous
limestone. In the studied wells, the Kareem formation was mostly of clastic nature. Minimum UCS values of around 1,500 psi
are found in the evaluations that were performed. UCS values of up to 15,000 psi are seen in the cemented zones with no
porosity. High variably of the mechanical properties is also found, depending on the rock cementation. The stress profile
indicates on average an extensional stress regime, but in some stronger zones, the stress regime becomes strike-slip, which is
in conformance with the conclusions from the stress analysis based on electric image data.
Because of the high variability of the mechanical properties in that formation, we use the data for the sensitivity plots in the
Kareem formation for two different types of rock to illustrate how the change in the rock properties will influence the stability
of the hole. Fig. 7 shows the sensitivity plot for a rock where the UCS is low (UCS~1,400 psi), while Fig. 8 shows the
sensitivity plot for a rock where the UCS is high (UCS~7,000 psi).

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 7 Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Kareem formation
(UCS~1,400 psi).
12 SPE/IADC 125614

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 8 Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation for the Kareem formation (UCS~7,000
psi).

In the case of the low UCS, the breakout gradient ranges from 10 ppg for a vertical well to 12.5 ppg for a highly deviated
well. In the case of the high UCS, the breakout gradient is lower than the pore pressure gradient, so it has no practical impact
on wellbore stability and shear failure will not be expected in the stronger zones.
The minimum breakdown gradient is 15 ppg for the low-UCS case while it is around 16 ppg for the high-UCS case, so
drilling-induced fractures should not be expected as the use of high mud weights is generally not required.
For stronger rocks, the well inclination that will maximize the width of the stable mud weight window is at around 45,
while for weaker rocks, it is any deviation less than 15. This is because for stronger rocks, a strike-slip stress regime is
observed, while weaker rocks exhibit an extensional stress regime.
The mud loss gradient is around 13 to 13.5 ppg, which should be seen as the mud weight upper limit to avoid propagating
existing natural fractures. Fractures are likely in this formation, so if natural open fractures exist, losses could occur as soon as
the mud weight exceeds the pore pressure. Contingent LCM should be available to cure losses.
Drilling problems are relatively rarer in the Kareem formation than in the overlying or underlying formations. Tight spots
could be related to breakout if mud weight is insufficient, but they could result from time-dependent instability as the
difference between drilling fluid and formation chemical potentials cause changes in pore pressure over time (Tan et al. 1996).
Evidence of time-dependent instability is that tight spots are both reported in wellbores drilled with lower mud weight and in
wellbores drilled with higher mud weights (for similar mud type and borehole deviation). In case of time-dependent instability,
the key mitigation measures include optimizing the mud chemical properties including mud type and mud salinity (Tan et al.
1998), as well as minimizing the time the section is open. The mud weight should be kept low but sufficient to avoid
generating excessive shear failure in the weaker zones.
SPE/IADC 125614 13

Rudeis Formation
The Rudeis formation is essentially composed of shales, marls, and sandstones. Similar remarks can be made about the
Rudeis formation as the ones made about the Kareem formation (they both belong to the Gharandal group of formations). High
variability is observed in the mechanical properties of the Rudeis formation. The stress regime is essentially extensional, with
a trend towards a strike-slip regime for the stronger components of the formation.
From Fig. 9, the breakout gradient ranges from around 9 ppg for a vertical well to around 13 ppg for a highly deviated
well. The minimum breakdown gradient is around 12 ppg for the highly deviated well with an azimuth aligned with the
maximum horizontal stress direction. The mud loss gradient is around 12.5 ppg.
Losses are possible in the Rudeis formation, but most of the drilling-related events are tight spots and stuck pipe. Evidence
for time-dependent instability is similar to the Kareem formation.
Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 9Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Rudeis (UCS~5,000
psi).

Nukhul Formation
The Nukhul formation is also part of the Gharandal group of formations. It can contain both carbonates and shale/sand. In
the wells that were evaluated, very few drilling events were reported in the Nukhul formation.
14 SPE/IADC 125614

Eocene Formations
The Eocene formations include the Middle Eocene and Thebes formations. These carbonates and marls are generally
fractured, and natural fractures commonly lead to losses. Shear failure in some of the weaker marls could lead to tight spots.
However, in general, these carbonate rocks are very competent and breakout or DIF will not be a problem, as shown on the
sensitivity plot on Fig. 10.
Hence mud weights should be kept on the low side to minimize losses, and contingent LCM should be available.
Breakout
The stress regime Mud formations
in these Weight ranges from extensional to strike-slip
Breakdown Mud
in the Weight
most competent intervals.

Fig. 10Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Thebes formation.

Upper Cretaceous Formations

The Upper Cretaceous formations include the Sudr, Matulla, Wata, Abu Qada and Raha formations. They are represented
by alternations of limestones, sandstones and minor shales grading upsection into a chalky series (Sudr formation). The
Matulla formation discussed here has similar mechanical and stress properties as the other formations analyzed in the Upper
Cretaceous.
The Matulla formation is generally composed of shaly and calcitic sandstones intercalated with carbonate and shale layers.
In the cleanest sand zones, the UCS can be as low as 2,000 psi, while it can reach 30,000 psi in the carbonate layers. The stress
regime is also essentially extensional in the weaker zones, while it can be strike-slip in the stronger intervals.
From Fig. 11, the breakout gradient ranges from 8 ppg in vertical wells to 12 ppg in highly deviated wells.
The minimum breakdown gradient is as low as 9.5 ppg for highly deviated wells aligned with the maximum horizontal
stress direction. Hence, for wells deviated more than 60, no mud weight will be stable in the weaker intervals. (A cross-over is
observed between the breakout and breakdown gradient for wellbore deviations over 60.) The most stable wellbores have less
than 30 deviation. Drilling-induced fractures could be possible in highly deviated wells. To avoid propagating them, mud
weight must stay below the mud loss gradient, which is around 11 to 11.5 ppg. This should be the upper mud weight limit.
Minor tight spots are encountered in this formation. They could be linked to time-dependent instability.
SPE/IADC 125614 15

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 11Stable and stable mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Matulla
formation.

Nubia Formations
The Nubia sandstones constitute clean sand reservoirs, intercalated with shale layers. The Nubia B formation is essentially
made up of marine black shales. The Nubia C sandstones are poorly sorted, coarse-grained sandstone directly overlying the
basement.
The UCS ranges between 4,000 and 6,000 psi in the cleaner intervals, while it can reach as low as 2,000 psi in the more
shaly sections. The stress regime is extensional. Two examples of mud weight window sensitivity plots (Fig. 12 and 13)
represent a weaker interval and a stronger interval. For the weaker rock example, the breakout gradient ranges from 8.5 ppg to
12 ppg, while for the stronger rock, it is essentially low enough to have no practical effect on wellbore stability.
The mud loss gradient is around 13.5 ppg. The minimum breakdown gradient is around 16 to 16.5 ppg in both cases for the
highly deviated wells with an azimuth aligned with the maximum horizontal stress. This limit is high and, practically, drilling-
induced fractures should not be expected.
Differential sticking is the biggest drilling problem encountered in the Nubia A formation. Differential pressures between
the borehole and the formation are not necessarily high, but the sands are very permeable, and high amounts of invasion could
be taking place. Optimizing the properties of the mudcake and minimizing filtrate loss mitigate the sticking risk. Improving the
drilling practices can also help reduce sticking by keeping the pipe moving constantly and by rotating it during connections.
The properties of the Nubia C sandstone are similar to those of the Nubia A formation in its stronger intervals.
16 SPE/IADC 125614

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 12Stable and stable mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Nubia A
formation (UCS~1,700 psi).

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 13Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Nubia A
formation (UCS~3,000 psi).
SPE/IADC 125614 17

Fig. 14 illustrates the mud weight sensitivity plot for the Nubia B formation. In the weakest zones, the UCS is less than
1,000 psi, but it doesnt exceed 3,000 psi in the strongest intervals.
The breakout gradient ranges from 8 ppg in a vertical well to 12 ppg in a highly deviated well.
The mud loss gradient is around 15 ppg. The minimum breakdown gradient is around 17.5 ppg for the highly deviated
wells with an azimuth aligned with the maximum horizontal stress.
In the Nubia shales, particularly in the Nubia B, time-dependent instability has been observed. The caliper data from two
wells drilled with the same mud weight but with different mud systems [one was drilled with water-based mud (WBM) while
the other one was drilled with oil-based mud (OBM)] were compared. Wide enlargement was seen on the caliper of the well
drilled with WBM, while the well drilled with OBM showed a nearly perfectly gauged hole. As mentioned previously, the best
mitigation for time-dependent failure is to optimize the mud properties and to minimize the time the section is open.

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Fig. 14Stable and safe mud weight window sensitivity with borehole deviation and azimuth for the Nubia B
formation.

Example of Wellbore Stability Analysis in the Rudeis Formation Applied to a Highly Deviated Well Case
This example from the GoS is shown to illustrate how wellbore stability analysis can improve the drilling efficiency of
complex well trajectories. It also demonstrates that knowledge of the stress orientation is critical while drilling highly deviated
wells in the GoS. In this example, a nearly horizontal well (86) was drilled through the Asl formation (part of the Rudeis
formation). The well objective was to be able to run and cement the 7-in. liner successfully.
The objective of the study was to assess and mitigate the risk of wellbore instability and to recommend the optimum mud
weight.
The trajectories of the offset and planned wells are shown in Fig. 15. Two trajectories were considered for the planned well.
Both were deviated to 86. One was in the direction of N170E (Trajectory 1) and the other one was in the direction of N205E
(Trajectory 2). Trajectory 1 is closer to the maximum horizontal stress direction (N130E), while Trajectory 2 is closer to the
minimum horizontal stress direction N40E.
18 SPE/IADC 125614

Fig. 15Plan view of offset and planned wells with regional stress direction (left), offset and planned wells view vs
TVD (right).

Offset Well Analysis

A review of the logs and the drilling reports for the offset well showed missing critical data like sonic compressional and shear
logs, borehole images, and multiple-axis calipers. No core data was available. Hence, the MEM for the offset well had to be
developed with very little data. Synthetic sonic logs had to be generated on the basis of the petrophysical evaluation and
calibrated against regional sonic data.
No overpressure zones were detected from the analysis, nor reported from the drilling reports. The pore pressure in the
offset well was normal.
We developed a MEM (Fig. 16) for the offset well (deviated at 60) and made borehole failure predictions for shear and
tensile failure. We compared these predictions to the failures actually observed in the well and calibrated the model. We
predicted shear failure in the intervals where the caliper showed enlargement. However, the unavailability of multiple-arms
caliper data complicated efforts to determine whether the hole ovalisation resulted from shear failure or from washout, as shale
time-dependent instability can be expected to occur in the Rudeis formation. The mud weight window shows a narrow stable
range across the reservoir. The analysis shows that staying below the mud loss gradient will make shear failure unavoidable.
SPE/IADC 125614 19

Fig. 16Wellbore stability analysis results for the offset well (1 division = 80 ft MD). The mud weight window shows a
narrow stable range across the reservoir. A good match is observed between the predicted shear failure and the
observed failure on the caliper log.

Planned Well Analysis

From the formation top correlations between offset and planned wells and the trajectory information of the planned wells, the
MEM properties were propagated from the offset well to the planned wells. The pore pressure gradient was assumed to be the
same as for the offset well. The vertical stress was recomputed on the basis of the propagated density log. The horizontal
stresses were recomputed for the planned trajectories.
We carried out a wellbore stability analysis based on the stresses computed at the borehole wall combined with the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criteria for the new trajectories. Safe and stable mud weight limits could then be evaluated. The MEM and the
wellbore stability analysis results for the planned Trajectory 1 are shown on Fig. 17.
20 SPE/IADC 125614

Fig. 17Wellbore stability analysis results and forecast for planned well (Trajectory 1), 1 division = 150 ft MD. No
stable mud weight window exists across the reservoir, although a safe mud weight window exists. Shear failure is
unavoidable in the cleaner sections, as the mud weight will have to stay below the breakdown gradient.

The analysis shows a very narrow safe mud weight window across the reservoir. Shear failure is unavoidable in the cleaner
sections, as the mud weight will have to stay below the breakdown gradient. A maximum mud weight of 9.5 ppg was
recommended. Beyond this value, heavy losses could occur because of the low breakdown gradient. This recommendation was
against the regional knowledge of the area, where the deviated wells were usually drilled with 9.6- to 9.7-ppg mud weight. The
recommendation was to drill the well with 9.3-ppg static mud weight while controling the losses with LCM and slowly
reducing the mud weight in 0.1-ppg steps if required.
In Fig. 18, the mud weight sensitivity plot across the reservoir section (based on the offset well), shows that at the
equivalent depth in the offset well, the deviation and azimuth are respectively 58 and N220E. For the planned Trajectories 1
and 2, deviation and azimuth are respectively 86 towards N171E and 86 towards N204E. The limits of the stable mud
weight window for the planned wells are shown in Fig. 18. Trajectory 2 shows a wider stable window than Trajectory 1, as it
is closer to the minimum horizontal stress direction.
SPE/IADC 125614 21

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Offset well

Planned well,
Planned well, traj 1
traj 2

Planned well,
Traj 2
traj 1 & 2
Traj 1

Offset well Offset well

Fig. 18Stable mud weight window sensitivity plot for the offset well and the two planned trajectories. Trajectory 2
shows a wider stable mud weight window (mainly a higher breakdown gradient) than Trajectory 1, as it is closer to the
minimum horizontal stress direction.

The previous results apply to the case where no depletion is considered. However, depletion was possible in the Asl
reservoir (the pore pressure gradient was possibly as low as 6.7 to 6.8 ppg), but the depleted reservoir pressure wasnt clearly
established. A sensitivity analysis (Fig. 19) was performed on the planned well data to understand the effect of depletion. Fig.
19a shows Trajectory 1 with no depletion being considered. Fig. 19b shows Trajectory 1 with the effect of depletion. Fig. 19c
shows the results of Trajectory 2 with the effect of depletion. Depletion has the effect of reducing the width of the stable and
safe mud weight window. The sensitivity predicts that no stable mud weight window exists in the reservoir zone when the
reservoir is depleted. But the situation is worse for Trajectory 1 than for Trajectory 2, as the breakdown gradient is lower for
Trajectory 1. This illustrates that depletion can have a dramatic impact on the stability of the well and that it can affect the
ultimate decision of whether the well will be drilled or not. Reducing uncertainty on the pore pressure is hence critical.
22 SPE/IADC 125614

Breakout Mud Weight Breakdown Mud Weight

Planned well

a) Planned well traj. 1 (no depletion)

b) Planned well traj. 1 (depletion)

c) Planned well traj. 2 (depletion)

Fig. 19Effect of depletion on mud weight sensitivity window in the reservoir section of the planned well. Depletion
has the effect of reducing the width of the stable and safe mud weight window. The situation is worse for trajectory 1
than for trajectory 2, as the breakdown gradient is even lower for trajectory 1 (which is closer to the maximum
horizontal stress direction)

Post Drilling Evaluation

The objective of the planned wells was reached with less than half a day of nonproductive time (related to borehole stability)
during the entire drilling process. Trajectory 1 was drilled with 9.3-ppg mud weight. Observed seepage losses match very well
what was forecasted by the analysis. Trajectory 2 was successfully drilled with 9.6- to 9.7-ppg mud weight, with no borehole
instability issues.
The analysis was hence crucial in selecting the appropriate mud weight and to revise the conventional plan for this
complex well geometry, resulting in reduced non-productive time and drilling cost and timely achievement of the objective.

Conclusions
The Gulf of Suez is a tectonically active region where an increasing number of deviated wells are being drilled. The
compilation of the results of multiple wellbore stability analyses provides a general picture of the main causes of borehole
failure in the area as well as the main mitigation plans. For each of the main formations present in the GoS, average breakout,
breakdown, and mud loss gradients were given.
The average stress regime observed in the GoS is an extensional regime with a strike-slip component in the stronger rocks.
Hence, in general, the most stable drilling direction (assuming one of the principal stresses is vertical) is the direction of the
minimum horizontal stress (which lies between N10E and N60E). The breakout gradient shows a weak sensitivity to
wellbore azimuth, but it shows a strong sensitivity to wellbore inclination (increasing severity of borehole shear failure with
increasing well deviation), especially in weaker rocks. The breakdown gradient shows strong sensitivity to wellbore inclination
and wellbore azimuth. Tensile failures (drilling-induced fractures) are a problem only in highly deviated wells where the
SPE/IADC 125614 23

breakdown gradient is generally low. For highly deviated wells, the occurrence of tensile failure can be reduced by drilling
close to the minimum horizontal stress direction. Hence, accurate knowledge of the stress direction is important when drilling
highly deviated wells in the GoS.
In weaker rocks, the most stable well deviation (for which the widest stable mud weight window exists) is less than 30.
For stronger rocks, since the stress regime might change to strike-slip, the most stable well deviation is around 30 to 45.
Breakout can be tolerated to some extent, so planning the drilling mud weight to completely eliminate it is not necessary.
The extent to which breakout can be tolerated depends on the well deviation, as cuttings become more difficult to evacuate as
the well deviation increases.
Mud weight should be kept as low as possible as losses are very common in all of the GoS formations. They can be
associated with natural fracture networks but also with faults and subseismic faults, as the GoS is highly faulted. In many
areas, especially the shallow formations, losses and breakout will have to be managed at the same time. It will then be
necessary to evaluate which failure mode poses the highest risk and to address this failure mode in priority while managing the
second failure mode.
In the shallow formations (P. Zeit and Zeit formations), shear failure in consolidated formations and mud losses in high
permeability streaks are very common. Good hole cleaning is necessary, and low flow rates as well as carefully tripping in and
out of the holes are necessary to minimize the disturbance brought to the formation.
In the Ras Malaab evaporites (South Gharib and Belayim formations), the main problems are associated with salt creep.
However, the relatively low mud loss gradient of the non-evaporite sections prevents control of salt creep using a high mud
weight. Hence, salt creep has to be managed, and the casing should be run as soon as possible.
In the Gharandal group of formations (Kareem, Rudeis, and Nukhul formations), variability of the mechanical properties is
high. Insufficient mud weight across the less competent intervals can cause shear failure; natural fractures commonly cause
mud losses. Hence, mud weight should be kept to the minimum possible level and contingent LCM for loss curing should be
available.
Since some of the reservoirs in the Gharandal group of formations have been on production for many years, depletion can
be present and can lead to pore pressure uncertainty, thereby increasing the uncertainty on the stable mud weight window.
Shale time-dependent instability linked to the chemical interaction of the mud with the shales has been observed in these
formations. Adequate cuttings studies can lead to the determination of the optimum mud properties (especially in terms of mud
salinity when WBM is used).
The main problem associated with the Eocene limestone formations is the presence of fracture networks leading to losses.
Keeping the mud weight to a low level and use of LCM are required.
In the Upper Cretaceous formations, keeping the mud weight at sufficient level is required to prevent shear failure.
In the Nubia formations, the main problems are associated with differential sticking in the clean reservoir zones. Mud cake
properties should be optimized for reduced mud cake sticking; mud filtrate loss should be minimized. Improved drilling
practices can also help reduce sticking events. The shale intervals in the Nubia formations are subject to time-dependent
instability, and the mud properties should be optimized.
Table 2 summarises the main causes of wellbore instability, the main causes of failure, and the recommended mitigation
measures for each of the main formations of the GoS.

Table 2 Failure analysis and mitigation measures for each formation of the GoS
Formation Failure/Drilling events Reason of failure Recommendations/Mitigation
Breakout Low UCS (weakly consolidated) Sufficient MW
Tight hole High permeability streaks Contingent LCM for losses curing
P.Zeit/Zeit Fms.
Losses Adequate hole cleaning
Minimize swab/surge, low flowrates, effective mudcake
Tight hole Salt creep Maximize MW (while staying below mud loss gradient)
South Gharib/Belayim Fms. Stuck Ledges Use salt-saturated mud
Minimize time that section is open
Breakout Low UCS Optimum balance bewteen sufficient MW but minimum ECD
Tight hole Time-dependent shale instability Contingent LCM for losses curing
Kareem/Rudeis Fms. Stuck Natural fractures Adequate hole cleaning
Optimize mud properties (salinity)
Losses Minimize time that section is open
Losses Fractures Minimize ECD
Eocene Fms.
Contingent LCM for losses curing
Breakout Low UCS Sufficient MW
Tight hole Time-dependent shale instability Contingent LCM for losses curing
Upper Cretaceous Fms.
Losses Natural fractures Adequate hole cleaning
Optimize mud properties (salinity)
Stuck High permeability Sufficient MW
Breakout Time-dependent shale instability Optimize mud/mud cake properties (reduce filtrate loss)
Nubia Fms Tight hole Low UCS Optimize mud properties (salinity)
Minimize time that section is open
Drilling practices
24 SPE/IADC 125614

Recommendations
In general, data to conduct wellbore stability studies in the GoS is scarce because many of the wells were drilled several
decades ago. Cores are available but are rarely used to determine mechanical properties. Acquiring mechanical properties
(Youngs Modulus, Poissons ratio, UCS, friction angle) from core would considerably reduce the uncertainty on the MEM
and on wellbore stability predictions; this is especially critical for deviated wells.
Uncertainty also exists in the stress magnitudes as no direct data from XLOT or hydraulic fracturing is available. Stress
determination tests could be conducted using wireline formation testers and using recent sonic dipole techniques that allow
stress magnitude to be estimated.
Finally, in order to improve and deliver a sufficiently precise wellbore stability forecast, it is extremely important to
acquire high quality log data from the currently drilled wells. A suitable logging program focused at drilling optimization,
including acquisition of sonic compressional and shear velocity, borehole images and multiple axis calipers, can significantly
reduce the uncertainty on the wellbore stability forecast. Therefore, availability of high quality datasets will ensure that future
wellbore stability predictions can deliver accurate results, thereby improving the drilling efficiency of complex wells and
helping to achieve the well objectives in a cost effective manner.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Chee Phuat Tan, Schlumberger, for his continuous support and advice in the course of the
geomechanical studies performed in Egypt.

References
Alford, R.M. 1986. Shear Data in the Presence of Azimuthal Anisotropy: Dilley, Texas. Expanded Abstracts, 56th SEG Annual International
Meeting, Houston: 476479.
Badawy, A., 2001, The present-day stress field in Egypt, Annali Di Geofisica, 44 (3), pp. 557570.
Cesaro, M., Gonfalini, M., Cheung, P., and Etchecopar, A. 2000. Shaping Up to Stress in the Apennines. Paper presented at the
Schlumberger Well Evaluation Conference, Italy, 2000.
Dutta, D.J., Abu El Fotoh, A., and Juandi, D. 2009. In Situ Stress Pattern and Its Impact in Drilling High-Angle Wells in Gulf of Suez,
Egypt. Paper SPE 122478 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Egypt Well Evaluation Conference. 1984. Schlumberger.
Egypt Well Evaluation Conference. 1995. Schlumberger.
Plona, T.J., Winkler, K.W., Sinha, B.K., and DAngelo, R. 1998. Measurement of Stress Direction and Mechanical Damage Around Stressed
Boreholes Using Dipole and Microsonic Techniques. Paper SPE 47234 presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, 8-10 July.
Plumb, R., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., Lee, D., and Stacy, B. 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its Application to High Risk
Well Construction Projects. Paper IADC/SPE 59128 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23-25 February.
Plumb, R.A. and Cox, R.A. 1987. Stress Directions in Eastern North America Determined to 4.5 km From Borehole Elongation
Measurements. J. Geophysical Research 92: 4805-4816.
Plumb, R.A. and Hickman, S.H. 1985. Stress-Induced Borehole Elongation: A Comparison Between the Four-Arm Dipmeter and the
Borehole Televiewer in the Auburn Geothermal Well. J. of Geophysical Research 90 (B7): 5513-5521.
Sayers, C.M., Russell, C., Pelorosso, M., Adachi, J., Pastor, J., Singh, V., Tagbor, K., and Hooyman. P., 2009. Determination of Rock
Strength Using Advanced Sonic Log Interpretation Techniques. Paper SPE 124161 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4-7 October.
Sinha, B.K., and Kostek, S. 1996. Stress-Induced Azimuthal Anisotropy in borehole flexural Waves. Geophysics 61 (6): 1899-1907.
Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, E., and Skomedal, E. 2006. Horizontal Stress Magnitude Estimation Using the Three Shear Moduli
A Norwegian Sea Case Study. Paper SPE 103079 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas.
Tan, C.P., Rahman, S.S., Chen, X., Willoughy, D.R., Choi, S.K., and Wu, B. 1998. Wellbore Stability Analysis and Guidelines for Efficient
Shale Instability Management,. Paper IADC/SPE 47795 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Tan, C.P., Richards, B., and Rahman, S.S. 1996. Managing Physico-Chemical Wellbore Instability in Shales With the Chemical Potential
Mechanism. Paper SPE 36971 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Winkler, K.W., 1996. Azimuthal Velocity Variations Caused by Borehole Stress Concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. 101: 8615-8621.
Zoback, M.D., Mastin, L.G., and Barton, C. 1986. In Situ Stress Measurement In Deep Boreholes Using Hydraulic Fracturing, Wellbore
Breakouts, and Stoneley Wave Polarization. In Rock Stress and Rock Stress Measurements, O. Stefansson (ed.), Lule, Sweden: Centek
Publishers.