®

Originally appeared in World Oil OCTOBER 2013 issue, pgs 53-61. Posted with permission.

RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

3D geomechanical modeling, wellbore stability analysis

improve field’s performance
and other challenging environments,
A geological model of Abu
Butabul field.
accurate geomechanical modeling has
become ever more critical for ensuring
safe, cost-effective operations. Com-
ing to the forefront over the last several
years, it seeks to explain, and predict,
changes to the mechanical rock state
brought about by drilling, production
or injection. These changes can be
costly, considering that geomechanical
issues are thought to be responsible for
almost half of all drilling-related, non-
produc- tive time in high-pressure/high-
temper- ature (HPHT), deepwater and
other difficult environments.
As demonstrated in a field These potential risks loom large,
onshore Oman, utilization of when it comes to drilling design.
Subsurface stresses, wellbore stability,
3D geomechanical modeling and pore pres- sures must be understood,
can identify problems in the and modeled, to establish safe mud
potential wellbore path that weight boundaries in deep, complex
can make the difference wells. A modern mechani- cal earth
between financial success model is a numerical representa- tion of
and failure at the wellsite the geomechanical state of a reser- voir,
field or basin. In addition to property
distribution and the fracture system, the
ŝ LI QIUGUO, XING ZHANG and KHALID model incorporates pore pressures, state of
stress, and rock mechanical properties.
AL-GHAMMARI, Schlumberger; and LABIB The ability to identify problems in
MOHSIN, FADI JIROUDI and AHMED AL the potential wellbore path relating to
RAWAHI; Oman Oil Expl. and Prod. LLC com- paction and subsidence, well and
comple- tion integrity, cap-rock and fault-
seal in- tegrity, and fracture behavior,
Although 70 years are just a blip in before they occur, is often the difference
geologic time, they represent the between fi- nancial success and failure.
entire period that oil and gas These advantages can be illustrated
companies have been modeling and with reference to geomechanical simula-
simulating reservoirs. Of course, much tion undertaken for Abu Butabul field,
has changed in terms of the Oman, in which a geomechanical
technology available since the early model- ing study was conducted to
1940s, but the fundamental purpose understand causes of wellbore instability
has remained the same. Critical field problems, and provide recommendations
invest- ment and development decisions for new well locations.
must be based on the best possible
information, predictions and ABU BUTABUL FIELD
intelligence, gained from accurate, Discovered in 1998, the Abu
detailed modeling. Butabul gas-condensate field is
With the increasing requirement onshore, within Block 60, in the
for hydrocarbon exploration and western region of the central Omani
develop- ment in deepwater, desert, Fig. 1. The main reservoir is the
unconventional Cambro-Ordovician clas- tic bank
World Oil® / OCTOBER 2013 1
formation, buried 4,200 m below sea level, with very low porosity and
per- meability. Oman Oil had
experienced in- stability problems
while drilling appraisal wells in the
field, especially in the shal- lower
Natih, Nahr Umr and Gharif forma-
tions, and the deeper Safiq, Ghudun
and Mabrouk formations, Fig. 2.
Abu Butabul is situated on a
regional high, between the two early
Cambrian salt basins that provided
the principal source kitchens for
northern Oman. The Barik sandstone
comprises a prograding, braid delta
plain and shoreface succession. The
top seal is provided by marine
mudstones of the Mabrouk member,
and the base seal is formed by marine
mudstones of the Al Bashair member.
Internal seals are likely to be
associated with intra-Barik marine
flooding surfaces. The Barik
sandstone is the principal reservoir
interval that has been appraised in
the structure.
Wellbore instability—caused by
exces- sive stress concentrations at the
borehole wall and inadequate mud
support—had accounted for
significant non-productive time while
drilling appraisal wells. Oman Oil was
keen to undertake 3D geome-
chanical analysis, to determine the
appro- priate mud weight to maintain
stability for future well trajectories,
prior to drill- ing. A 3D
geomechanical model, once
constructed, would provide essential
geomechanical data for wellbore
stabil- ity analysis, for any location.
In addition, it would reduce the
amount of time re- quired for
wellbore stability calculations and
planning for new well locations.

GEOMECHANICAL STUDY
The objectives of the
geomechanical modeling study were
to characterize me- chanical rock
properties, pore pressures, and in-situ
stresses, based on nine ap- praisal
wells. The team also wanted to un-
derstand wellbore instability
mechanisms and predict wellbore
stability for future well trajectories.
To determine formation
mechanical properties, pore
pressures, in-situ stress orientation
and magnitudes, 1D Me-

2 OCTOBER 2013 / WorldOil.com

 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

Fig. 1. Abu Butabul field is located within

Fig. 2. Stratigraphy of Abu Butabul field.
onshore Oman Block 60 in the Western
region of the Central Oman Desert.

Fig. 3. A comparison between log-derived elastic and strength properties, and those
measured on core samples.

chanical Earth Models (MEMs) were Barik and Al Bashair forma-

constructed for the nine Abu Butabul tions included triaxial and
appraisal wells. Each model described unconfined
rock elastic and strength properties
(Fig. 3), in-situ stresses and pore
pressure as a function of depth,
referenced to a strati- graphic column.1
The MEMs consisted of continuous
profiles (Fig. 4) of the follow- ing rock
mechanical data and parameters along
the well trajectories:
• Mechanical stratigraphy, the dif-
ferentiation of clay-supported
rock from grain-supported rock
• Formation elastic properties, includ-
ing dynamic and static Young’s
mod- ulus and Poisson’s ratio
• Rock strength parameters,
including unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), friction angle and
tensile strength
• Pore pressures
• In-situ stress state, including the
azimuth of the minimum
horizontal stress, magnitudes of compression, rock scratch, and Brazilian
vertical stress, minimum and Tensile Strength. Static Young’s modulus
maximum horizontal stresses. was also measured on both vertical and
The team used wireline logs (com- horizontal core plugs. The values ob-
pressional slowness, shear slowness, tained were similar, suggesting that the
bulk density, etc.) to compute rock rock samples were relatively isotropic.
elastic and strength properties, and in- Correlations for calculating static Young’s
situ stresses. Rock mechanical testing modulus, static Poisson’s ratio, UCS, and
data was avail- able from six of the friction angle were established, based
nine appraisal wells. Tests on core on the rock mechanical testing data and
samples taken from the Mabrouk, wireline logs.
 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

STRESS AND PRESSURE

CALCULATIONS
Vertical stress at any point in the for-
mation is equivalent to the weight of the
formation materials above. The team in-
tegrated the bulk density log to calculate
these values. Pore pressure was computed,
using pressure gradients based on mea-
sured pore pressures, and the mud weight
used for appraisal well drilling. Minimum
horizontal stress azimuth was determined
from borehole breakout observations,
and drilling-induced fractures from
the FMI borehole image and dual-
caliper logs. It ranged from S20°E to
S40°E across the field, which is
consistent with the re- gional stress
direction. Minimum and maximum
horizontal stress magnitudes were
determined, using the poro-elastic
horizontal strain model.2 The
minimum horizontal stress was
calibrated, based on data from leak-off
tests, extended leak-off tests, and
closure pressures, interpreted from
hydraulic fracturing pressures.
Since the magnitude of the
maximum horizontal stress cannot be
directly mea- sured, it was inverted
from analyzing fracture initiation
pressures, and verified by conducting
wellbore stability analysis and matching
simulated shear and tensile failures with
observed borehole breakout, and
drilling-induced fractures.
The stress regime in the majority of
the formations was found to be strike-
slip, with the vertical stress being the
interme- diate principal stress. The
mud weight window, and the
agreement between the predicted
borehole breakout and the borehole
enlargement, indicated that wellbore
instability problems during drill- ing
were due to borehole failures, induced
by inadequate mud weight. Borehole
fail- ures occurred mainly in the
Natih, Nahr Umr and Gharif
formations, and the bot- tom part of the
Al Khalata, Safiq, Ghudun and
Mabrouk formations. This was con-
sistent with drilling observations.
INTEGRATING 3D SEISMIC
INVERSION
A simultaneous inversion workflow
was then applied to Abu Butabul
field, to map out good porosity sand
distribu- tion, and obtain elastics
property volumes for use in the 3D
geomechanical model. Next, elastic
rock properties, P-Imped- ance, S-
Impedance, density and Vp/Vs, were
determined from simultaneous in-
version, by applying the full
Zoeppritz equations to the angle of
incidence range response in the
seismic data.
Detailed petrophysical analysis and
rock physics modeling were applied
to correct any existing well log
problems. The amended well logs
were then cali- brated with the
seismic data, to ensure good
sonic and density logs were tied
to appropriate seismic events.
Then, wave- lets were extracted
simultaneously from angle gather
stacks at multi-well locations.
After that, the low-frequency
elastics
Fig. 4. 1D MEM and wellbore stability
analysis.
property volumes for P-impedance,
S- impedance and density were
built, using horizons, stratigraphy
information, and filtered log data.
Finally, the simultane- ous AVO
inversion is run on angle gather
stacks, with their respective
wavelets, to generate P and S-
impedance, and Vp/Vs property
volumes, which were verified by
comparison with the well logs.
With this information in place, the
team could turn to constructing the
3D geome- chanical model in three
stages—model geometry
construction, model properties
definition, and initial stress
modeling.
The geometry of the 3D model
was based on an existing 1.7-
million-cell, 17.2-by-46.7-km,
geological model cov- ering the
surface down to the base of the
Miqrat formation. Depth ranged
from 4,453 m to 5,002 m, subsea
level, with a water depth range of
World Oil® / OCTOBER 2013 55
54.1 m to 198.6 m. It included two
bounding faults that inter- sect overburden
and reservoir, as well as 26 other faults in
the Barik reservoir.
The new model’s finite element mesh
was constructed, based on the existing
grid, with eight-noded brick elements.

To reduce the impact of boundary con-

straints on simulated stresses in the 3D
model, 20 additional rows of cells were
added to each lateral direction, as well
as an additional 25 layers underneath.
Material elastic and strength proper-
ties needed to be defined before initial
stress modeling could be performed.
The team used the Mohr-Coulomb
constitutive model to simulate forma-
tion yield and plastic deformations, with
properties taken from the 1D MEMs.
Material properties were populated us-
ing a co-kriging algorithm. Acoustic im-
pedance from a seismic inversion study
was used to guide property distribution.
Formation property variation between
well locations was characterized, using
the seismic information, as well as mod-
el-area well data.
Fault material properties were defined
separately, based on the mechanical prop-
erties of the intact rock surrounding the
faults and existing data sources. Proper-
ties include normal stiffness, shear stiff-
ness, cohesion, and friction and dilation
angles. Fault element material properties

56 OCTOBER 2013 / WorldOil.com

 altered in the vicinity of field at the time, the initial stress state
Fig. 5. A comparison of stresses at the well
location from 1D and 3D solutions. TZSP
was also the present day stress state,
is vertical stress, TXSP is minimum allowing the 3D geomechanical model
horizontal stress, and TYSP is maximum to be used in wellbore stability analysis
horizontal stress from 1D MEM. Total P1 is
minimum principal stress, Total P2 is for additional appraisal and developmental
intermediate principal stress, and Total P3 well drilling.
is maximum principal stress from the 3D
geomechanical model.
WELLBORE STABILITY
PREDICTION
After the 3D geomechanical model was
constructed, it was used to predict
wellbore stability for several planned
developmental wells in Abu Butabul field.
Rock mechani- cal properties, pore
pressure, and stress tensor components for
cells intersected by the planned well
trajectory were extracted from the model.
Mud weight windows, comprising pore
pressure, fracture gradi- ent (from
minimum principal stress), bore- hole
breakout and fracture initiation pres- sure
gradients, were then calculated, based on
extracted data for the planned well, Fig.
7. The team observed that formations
predicted to require higher mud weight,
to prevent borehole breakout, were similar
to those seen in the appraisal wells—
mainly Khuff, Gharif and Safiq. A mud
weight of
were also calculated, using both intact 1.3 to 1.35 g/cc was required to drill
rock properties, and equivalent with- out significant borehole breakout.
material properties methodology.3 The fracture initiation pressure gradient
Pore pressures in the 3D model was as low as 1.5 g/cc in the Al Khalata
were calculated, using pressure forma- tion, meaning hydraulic fractures
gradients es- timated from the 1D might be induced, if the Equivalent
MEMs. To simu- late the initial in-situ Circulating Den- sity (ECD) exceeds that
stresses, horizon- tal stresses were figure while drill- ing or tripping.
applied to the model boundaries. However, since the fracture gradient was
Horizontal stress gradients were then 1.65 g/cc, significant losses were not
determined from the hori- zontal expected—even if hydraulic frac- tures
stresses contained in the MEMs. could be induced near the wellbore.
Applied stresses, at the base of the With the designed mud weight fol-
model, were based on the gravity lowing the mud weight windows, the
load- ing computed, using the density subsequent developmental well drill-
in all the elements. ing proved to be successful, in terms of
Initial stresses were then simulated, wellbore stability. No significant bore-
Fig. 5. The team validated the results hole instability-related drilling problems
by comparing principal stresses in the were encountered.
ele- ments along the trajectories of the Petrel geomechanics modeling soft-
nine appraisal wells, with the stresses ware was used to build a 3D
con- tained in the 1D MEMs. geomechan- ical model of Abu Butabul
Agreement be- tween the two field, incor- porating 1D MEM data,
solutions was achieved at all nine well which revealed that the majority of the
locations, indicating that a borehole en- largement and wellbore
representative stress state in the 3D instability drill- ing problems in the
geo- mechanical model had been appraisal wells were caused by shear
established. The team also discovered formation failures, due to inadequate
that faults were having significant mud weights. The 3D geo- mechanical
impact on the distri- bution of stresses model constructed using 1D MEMs—
—both magnitude and direction were the existing geological model and
seismic inversion results—proved to be
essential in characterizing the lateral
variation of mechanical properties, pro-
faults, Fig.
6.
Since there was no production in
the
required for preventing borehole
Stresses simulated in the model, breakout; P3 (light blue) is the fracture
us- ing the software’s finite element gradient and
model- ing tools, showed good breakdown (black) is the maximum mud
weight that can be applied before drilling-
agreement with the stresses shown induced fractures are created on the
in the 1D MEMs at the appraisal well borehole wall.
locations, allowing the team to
conclude that this was represen- 500
tative of the in-situ stresses in the PP
Breakout
field. The 3D model also revealed 1,000 P3
Breakdown
the extent to which faults effected
stress state, clari-
1,500
Fig. 6. Stress magnitude and
direction alteration in the faulted
region. 2,000
2,500
MD, m
3,000
3,500
4,000
Fig. 7. Predicted mud weight windows
for a development well, based on the 4,500
3D geomechanical model. PP (blue)
is pore pressure gradient; breakout
(red) is the minimum mud weight 5,000
viding better prediction throughout 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.
the
Mud weight window, g/cc
full field.
 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

fying that both stress magnitudes and

stress direction were altered in the
vicin- ity of faults.
Intelligence from the 3D model
ulti- mately enabled the team to
efficiently an- alyze wellbore stability
for planned wells in Abu Butabul field.
The resulting mud weight
recommendations were used to
reliably maintain borehole stability, and
ensure drilling success.

REFERENCES
1.Plumb, R. A., S. Edwards, G. Pidcock, and D. Lee,
“The mechanical earth model concept and its
application to high-risk well construction projects,”
SPE paper 59128, presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, La., Feb. 23-25,
2000.
2.Fjaer E., R. M. Holt, P. Horsrud, A. M. Raaen and
R. Risnes, Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2nd
Edition, Elsevier, 2008.
3. Zhang X., N. Koutsabeloulis, T. Kristiansen, K. Heffer,
I. Main, J. Greenhough and A. M. Hussein,
“Modelling of depletion-induced microseismic
events by coupled reservoir simulation: Application
to Valhall field, SPE
paper 143378, presented at the SPE
EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, May 23-26, 2011.

LI QIUGUO is a principal geomechanics

engineer at Schlumberger. He joined the
company in 1998, after obtaining an MS degree
in petroleum engineering.

DR. XING ZHANG is a geomechanics advisor

at Schlumberger, with experience in leading,
or
advising on, more than 50 major geomechanics
projects worldwide. Dr. Xing holds an
engineering PhD from UST, Beijing, and a
geoscience PhD from Imperial College, UK.

KHALID AL-GHAMMARI is recruiting and

training manager for Schlumberger in the
Middle East. He graduated from Sultan Qaboos
University in Oman with a BS degree in
geophysics.

LABIB MOHSIN holds a bachelor's degree in

geophysics. He joined Schlumberger in 2003 as
a wireline engineer. Since 2010, he has worked
as petroleum engineering operation team lead
in Oman Oil Exploration and Production.

AHMED AL RAWAHI joined OOCEP in 2010 as

a geophysicist in Oman, responsible for
seismic interpretation and reservoir
characterization.
 Article copyright © 2013 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
World Oil® / OCTOBER 2013 57
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.