ARMA/NARMS 04-616

A NEW GEOMECHANICS PROCESS REDUCES OPERATIONAL

RISK FROM EXPLORATION TO PRODUCTION
Richard A. Plumb, Patrick Hooyman, and Daan Veeningen
Schlumberger Oilfield Services, Houston Texas, USA
Nadder Dutta
WesternGeco, Houston Texas, USA
Graham Ritchie and Kamel Bennaceur
Schlumberger Oilfield Services, Gatwick, England

Copyright 2004, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6 North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, held in
Houston, Texas, June 5 9, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by a NARMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/NARMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of NARMS,
ARMA, CARMA, SMMR, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA 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 acknowledgement
of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: The discipline of geomechanics is gaining greater recognition in the petroleum industry worldwide. One reason is
application of geomechanics is producing significant financial benefits to drilling operations from exploration to field
development. Continued success will require delivering actionable information to operational challenges faster, better and at lower
cost. Achieving these objectives places significant demands on organizations, technical staff, and software while challenging
conventional approaches to solving geomechanics problems associated with over pressure, subsidence, wellbore stability and sand
production. Central to creating value through application of geomechanics is a closed loop process that links a mechanical earth
model with fit-for-purpose-engineering software, multi-disciplinary teamwork and knowledge management.
This paper describes an integrated geomechanics process and how it benefits operations throughout the field life cycle.
Examples illustrate how the process reduces financial risk during drilling and early field development. Benefits of the closed loop
approach are contrasted with conventional approaches to the same drilling challenges. Geomechanics will reduce field
development risk when reservoir optimization programs incorporate mechanical earth models and establish feedback loops
between the model and predicted performance of fracture stimulation and sand management programs
are required to design and safely drill a stable
1. INTRODUCTION
borehole with minimum risk.
There is a significant financial risk to well
construction or field development projects where Risk is defined as the exposure to chance of
geomechanics information needed for engineering injury or loss. Here we focus on reducing
unexpected financial loss associated with field
designs is inaccurate or is absent altogether. Well
operations that are based on uncertain
known examples include the rig cost associated
with non-productive time spent combating wellbore geomechanics data. The reduction of financial risk
instability, lost circulation or well control. Greater is directly proportional to the quality of information
expenses are incurred if these issues are not or can available to decision makers. A structured process
not be managed. For example the cost of extra for delivering geomechanics information helps to
casing strings, tools lost-in-hole, side tracks or loss mitigate risk by delivering actionable information in
of the entire well can be attributed to an incomplete a relevant time frame.
Successful implementation of geomechanics
geomechanical assessment [1]. Application of a
in field operations requires a process for building a
structured geomechanics process has consistently
enabled high-technical risk and high-economic risk mechanical earth model and using it to deliver
wells to be drilled and completed below AFE. timely information to decision makers. Constructing
Knowledge of in-situ stress and rock mechanical a mechanical earth model during the well planning
properties coupled with engineering software and a phase and revising it in real time has helped deliver
mechanism for delivering information to operations complex wells safely below AFE while accelerating
learning about the field. Performing these tasks in a
timely manner is placing greater demands on
organizations, technical staff, and software while
challenging conventional approaches to solving
such problems.
This paper describes new technology for
applying geomechanics to solve oilfield problems.
We describe the process used to deliver
geomechanics information to field operations. Next
we describe the living Mechanical Earth Model and
its application at various stages in the field life
cycle. At each stage of the field development
process we contrast the operational performance
with and without introducing geomechanics.
Examples focus on well construction in the early
stages of field development where geomechanics
has consistently produced significant financial
benefit and because of there is potential for
geomechanics to add value for life of field (Figure
1).
Fig. 1. Applications of geomechanics for life of field.
2. GEOMECHANICS WORKFLOW
The geomechanics workflow is a structured
approach to mitigating operational risk associated
with unplanned rock deformation such as wellbore
instability or sand production. Figure 2 shows the
process for delivering geomechanics analysis and
modeling (Figure 2). Four key elements of the
process are the data audit, the mechanical earth
model (MEM), a closed loop feedback system and
software that supports implementation of the
process over the field life cycle (Figure 3).
2.1. Data Audit
The first step in the process is a data audit. The
purpose of the data audit is twofold: 1) to gain an
understanding of the geomechanics issues facing the
asset team that impact the operational risk and 2) to
determine what information is and is not available
to mitigate this risk. The value of the audit depends
on the audit teams ability to locate and synthesize
all relevant geomechanics data. The time it takes to
conduct a data audit is dependent upon the quantity
and organization of the geological, petrophysical,
geophysical, geomechanics and drilling data. The
time required for an audit ranges from a few days
for organizations with a well-structured knowledge
management infrastructure to a few months where
information is scattered among boxes, filing
cabinets and personal computers. The audit
determines the most effective way to utilize existing
information consistent with the available time,
project objectives and budget.
Fig. 2. Geomechanics process.
A data audit is valuable even if no further work is
done. Knowing what information exists, its
location and whether further processing is needed is
valuable for speeding reaction time to unplanned
operational events. However the most effective
audits lead to development of an MEM and
applying it to support ongoing field operations.
This task is facilitated by software that produces 3-
D visualizations of audit results and by running
drilling simulators to determine the financial impact
of missing information (Figure 3).
2.2. Mechanical Earth Model
The mechanical earth model is a numerical
representation of the state of stress and rock
mechanical properties for a specific stratigraphic
section in a field or basin [2]. In its most basic
form, the MEM consists of depth profiles of earth
stresses and rock mechanical properties along an
arbitrary well path referenced to the local
stratigraphic section. A simple 1-D MEM includes
profiles of: Poissons ratio (), Youngs modulus
(E), unconfined compressive strength (UCS),
friction angle (), pore pressure (Pp), minimum
horizontal stress (h), maximum horizontal stress
(H), vertical stress (v), and the direction of the
principle stress axes. In its most complete form, the
Fig.3. Engineering software integrated with an ME.
2.3. Evolving Geomechanics Model
From exploration to development, the complexity
and predictive power of the MEM evolves in step
with acquisition of information. Before the first
exploration well is drilled all geomechanics
information comes from basin models, seismic
data constrained by rock physics and possibly
geomechanics analogs obtained from the corporate
knowledge management system. A predrill MEM
can include a 3D structural framework model, a
shallow water hazards analysis and a prediction of
the pore pressure and fracture pressure trends.
This basic MEM is adequate for running drilling
simulators to estimate probabilisitic well costs and
relative operational risk. See example 1. Once the
first well begins, it is possible to start revising and
expanding the scope of the MEM and to have a
fully calibrated MEM along the trajectory to TD.
After the first 3 or four wells have been drilled,
the model can evolve to a calibrated 3-D MEM.
MEM consists of a full 3-D description of these
variables (Figure 3). Sources of information in the
field development phases are described in Table 1.
The scenario continues as more data are acquired
until the 3-D calibration covers the entire field. In
practice the degree of detail captured by the MEM
varies widely according to the availability of data
(Table 1). Table 1 illustrates how an MEM can
evolve from exploration to enhanced recovery. It
shows the evolution of available data and some
risk mitigation strategies that support value
creation at
each development phase. The size and utility of
the geomechanics model increases as uncertainty
is reduced.
2.4. Feedback System
Technology for building geomechanics models
has been available for more than a decade [3,4].
However the value of early technology was often
limited by the inability to obtain the inputs to
geomechanics software and/or to deliver
geomechanics products to operations in a timely
manner, as well as the absence of powerful
collaborative visualization techniques. Take for how the inputs were generated only that they exist,
example Cusiana. Bad hole condition prevented hence the reason for an MEM.
the acquisition of wire line logs. Coring was The geomechanics workflow is
limited to the more stable reservoir sections. implemented in three phases: planning, execution
Software and techniques for building 2-D and 3-D and revision (Figure 2). Consider planning an
geomechanics models were experimental. Today exploration well after completion of the Data
geomechanics software requires the same input
Audit.
parameters but the software is not dependent upon

Table 1. Evolution of an MEM through the field life cycle.

FIELD DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Exploration
Pre-Drill While Drilling Deliniation Exploitation Enhanced Recovery

Production history,
Data

Seismic 2-D or 3-D, Seismic while 4-D seismic, Reservoir Wireline logs,
Basin Model, drilling, Check shots, VSP, pressure distribution, Interference tests, Data
Geomechanics LWD/MWD/Wireline LWD/MWD/Wireline Production data, NFR?, Fracs, Stress
Analogs data, Cores data, Cores Data Fracs measurements
Type of MEM

Pre-Spud MEM:
Framework model,
Geohazards, Enhanced Resolution
Sequence Near well 3-D MEM, Living-field-scale 3-D Reservoir MEM, includes
Stratigraphy, Seismic Locally calibrated pre- Field-scale MEM calibrated to logs fractures and detailed
Attributes, Sv, Pp, FG spud MEM probabalistic MEM and core facies distribution

Continuous monitoring- Well location,

Mitigation

RT Monitor/Analysis, pressure, temperature, producer/injectors,

Risk

RT Monitor/Analysis, Laboratory studies, fluids, solids; MEM Monitor stimulation jobs

Stress measurement, MEM revision, Stress revison, Reservoir stress and fluid movement,
Data Audit Fill data gaps, PSWI measurement, PSWI management Stress measurement

2.5. Planning Phase traditional multi-step and iterative well

The first step is to build a mechanical earth model construction design.
[2]. Uncertainty in the pre-drill MEM is identified 2.6. Execute Phase
and its impact on field operations is
The third step is to monitor operational data while
communicated to the asset team. Data acquisition
drilling and to identify anomalies by comparing
options are identified and prioritized according to the actual data with the forecast. Anomalies in the
the perceived risk to the project. forecast indicate flaws in the data and or the
The second step uses information from the MEM. Anomalies often are precursors to kicks,
MEM and other data to estimate well cost, pack offs, stuck pipe or lost circulation, etc. When
determine casing points, identify geological detected, anomalies are analyzed to determine the
hazards and forecast wellbore stability along the source(s) of error. A rapid and accurate diagnosis
planned well path. The stability forecast is best made when all of the relevant information
summarizes the expected drilling performance as a is readily available, for example the information
function of measured depth in the well. The used to construct the MEM and FORECAST.
forecast represents the best pre-drill estimate of
A fast and accurate diagnosis is the basis for
the expected performance while drilling. It forms informed decisions at the rig site. Often the most
the basis of comparison with actual drilling costly decisions are made in the shortest period of
performance. Without this baseline, it is easy to time (Nigel Last, personal communication 1993).
miss precursors to problems and more difficult to Without an MEM, the efficacy of a real time
diagnose their casues. Integrated drilling
diagnosis is compromised.
simulators now provide the capability of
simulating well construction and potential 2.7. Revise Phase
scenarios, significantly improving over the When anomalies are detected, the source(s) of the
error is determined or at least constrained and the
MEM and FORECAST are revised as soon as One was based on mud weights from distant (~30
possible. Incremental, but frequent, improvements km) offset wells. The other was based on interval
in the MEM and FORECAST improve the real transit times obtained from 3D seismic. The well
time diagnostic capabilities of both. Errors in the took two kicks between 2347m and 3658 m
MEM may be corrected even if remedial action at indicating the initial well plan was optimistic. At
the rig is not needed at the time (e.g. if the pore this point the geomechanics process was initiated
pressure was slightly low, or sub seismic fault was and the pore pressure forecast was revised using
crossed without incident). LWD logs to calibrate the seismic velocity profile.
The decision was taken to drill ahead based on the
2.8. Feedback Cycle Time
revised Pp forecast and predictions of casing
The feedback cycle time depends on the rate of
information flow between the modelers and field points and mud weights. From 3566 m TVD to
operations. Short cycle times are measured in TD, pore pressure and hole cleaning were
minutes to hours. Cycle times, measured in continuously monitored and the mechanical earth
minutes can exist when LWD and rig data are model was periodically revised. The safe wellbore
continuously monitored. Cycle times are measured pressure window decreased from 1.5 ppg to less
in days, when rig information is delivered in daily than 1.0 ppg over this interval but continuous
surveillance of the Pp and wellbore pressure
reports (e.g. drilling, mud logging, geological
enabled the well to reach TD safely. Albeit with
etc.). Cycle times can extend to weeks when the
only feedback comes after a logging run. Today, some difficulty and four more casing strings than
such long cycle times are less common. The originally planned.
following examples illustrate the impact of this
Table 2 compares estimates of relative risk and
process at work.
cost for different well designs calculated by a
drilling simulator.
3. FIELD EXAMPLES
Table 2. Relative risk and cost for different well design
The following field examples illustrate how the scenarios calculated by a drilling simulator.
geomechanics workflow has reduced operational
risk in the early phases of field development. Basis of Well Relative Relative Relative # Casing
Design Risk-Total Risk-Kicks Cost Strings
Benefits of the closed loop approach are compared
Prespud
to conventional approaches to the same field Seismic to
problems. Examples correspond to different 5029 m 1 1 1 4
starting points in the life of field cycle and reflect Prespud
Offsets to
different attitudes toward data acquisition, 5029 m 1.36 2.93 1.16 5
processing and geomechanics modeling. Actual well at
5029 m 1.44 3.21 1.23 7
3.1. Example 1: Deepwater Exploration Well
Prespud
Our first example is a deepwater exploration well seismic to
drilled in 1998 to a planned depth greater than 5486 m 1.04 1.07 1.2 4
5486 m [2]. This example illustrates a well Look Ahead
planned only using seismic data. It illustrates the Forecast at
3566 m 1.48 3.21 1.37 8
risk of not having an accurate pre-spud MEM but Actual well at
it also demonstrates the value of entering the 5486 m 1.48 3.21 1.37 8
process while drilling. Geomechanics was not
actively engaged in the planning of this well Simulator calculations have been
beyond conducting a data audit several weeks normalized to the prespud design based on the
before the well spudded. The audit indicated seismic Pp prediction. Notice that this design was
considerable uncertainty in the pore pressure the most optimistic. Also notice that the revised
forecast and recommended that LWD sonic and well design based on the calibrated MEM
resistivity logs be run in the top hole section to available from 3566 m provided a reliable
refine the pore pressure forecast and casing estimate of the final number of casing strings and
design. The initial casing design and mud weight relative well cost.
program were based on two independent studies.

Fig. 4. Operational risk analysis output from the drilling
simulator.
This example illustrates the value of
implementing a risk mitigation strategy earlier in
the well construction process. Lessons learned
from this project include: (1) The value of a data
audit; (2) The potential value of premium seismic
processing for accurate seismic velocity data-
particularly near salt where strong lateral velocity
variations may exist; (3) The value of LWD sonic
for calibrating unconstrained seismic-based pore
pressure predictions; (4) Recognition that real-
time monitoring of pore pressure has limited value
without a pre-spud forecast and vice-versa; (5)
The value of actively monitoring of actual vs.
expected Pp at the earliest opportunity on high-
risk wells.
Figure 4 shows two graphical
representations of drilling risk categories for the
actual well configuration. The upper figure shows
a bar chart relative risk among the different risk
categories. The lower graph is a cross plot
showing the calculated (actual) risk vs. potential
risk. If an operator decides his maximum relative
risk tolerance is, say, 21 he can iterate on the well
design to try and bring the high relative risk
categories down to an acceptable level. The MEM
and wellbore stability are two of the risk factors
included in the analysis that can change the overall
well risk.
Table 3. Drilling performance for example 2
Well Days % Improvement
Benchmark 187 N.A
1 130 20
2 106 43
3 97 48
3.2. Example 2: Deviated Land Exploration
wells
The second example is from a fold and thrust belt
in a tectonically active region of South America
[2]. Geomechanics was introduced to help drill
two deviated-exploration wells after the first
vertical exploration well was sidetracked after
suffering a blowout. Objectives of the
geomechanics modeling were to develop an MEM
for the structure that would minimize risk of
another blowout, minimize wellbore instability,
and generate geomechanics information to help
optimize field development. Over a six month
period two exploration wells and one geological
sidetrack were drilled. The geomechanics process
enabled engineers located in Houston to provide
wellbore stability forecasts and while-drilling
support to two rigs drilling different parts of the
structure simultaneously. Geomechanics support
enabled both rigs to manage mud losses in the
reservoir sections while maintaining in-gauge
wells suitable for wire line logging. Table 3
shows the drilling performance for wells drilled
across the structure.
The drilling program generated
geomechanics information that could benefit field
development planning. At the end of six months it
was known that stress direction varied little across
the field. The ordering of the principle stress
magnitudes was established, as was their variation
across the structure. Three natural fracture sets had
been identified including a highly permeable set
associated with cross-structure normal faults. This
information has the potential to affect decisions on
completion design, location of producer injector
wells, injection pressures and how to deal with
fluid losses while drilling and reservoir modeling.
However at the time, the wells were completed,
reservoir engineers considered the information to
premature. The future risk for field development
is that this information could be lost without
adequate knowledge management.

Fig. 5. 3-D visualization of historical drilling problems
shown in relation to the geology.
3.3. Example 3: Deviated Development Wells
The Camisea field is located in the tectonically
active foothills of Peru. Pluspetrol was awarded
operator of the field in 2000. Because of its remote
and environmentally sensitive location, Camisea
was developed by drilling deviated wells from a
single surface location. Previous companies had
drilled exploration wells to depths up to 2500 m
TVD. The only deviated well drilled in the region
had a TVD of 3500 m and achieved an average
drilling rate of 29.8 days/km. Pluspetrol had less
than a year to plan and implement a development
drilling program. A data audit determined the
nature, location and severity of previous drilling
problems. A 3-D visualization of historical
drilling problems helped Pluspetrol and its
partners understand their drilling challenges and
convinced them to include geomechanics
modeling in their field development program
(Figure 5).
Table 4. Drilling performance in example 3.
Well Days/1000m Improvement (%)
Benchmark 29.8 N.A.
1 26.2 12
2 24.4 18
3 17.2 42
4 15.9 47
5 16.2 46
Drilling began in 2002 following the
process described in figure 2. To date, 5 deviated
wells have been drilled successfully. The
feedback loop was supported 24 hrs a day by a
multidisciplinary and geographically distributed
team comprising drilling engineers on location and
in Lima, and geomechanics support in Bogota and
Houston (Figure 6). Geomechanics modeling
helped an operator new to the region achieve a
12% improvement in drilling time to TD
compared to previous operators. The first well
was drilled and completed 8 days ahead of the
AFE. As drilling time to TD has improved the
AFE days were reduced. Nevertheless all wells
have been drilled for less than the AFE.
Geomechanics information from the MEM
developed to support drilling operations is now
helping to optimize completion and reservoir
stimulations designs. For a more complete
description of this project see Lee et al., 2003 [5,
6].
3.4. Example 4: Deepwater Extended Reach
Wells
The Petronius field is located in the Viosca Knoll
area of the Gulf of Mexico, at the boundary
between the shelf and deep waters. At a water
depth of 533 m, the Petronius platform is the
Fig. 6. Communication system supporting the Camisea
drilling operation.
deepest fixed platform in the in the Gulf of
Mexico. In 2000 the operator, ChevronTexaco,
began planning a series of extended reach wells
with horizontal displacements greater than 5800
m. Less-aggressive well profiles had experienced
problems with tight hole, pack offs, lost
circulation and tools lost-in-hole (Table 5).
Problems became worse as hole inclination
increased. Geomechanics modeling began with Continuous monitoring and regular
predrill planning for the first extended reach well calibration of the MEM using real time
in the series (well 5, Table 5). The drilling target leakoff test and cavings data
was located down dip at a water depth of 975 m. Regular updating of the wellbore stability
The objective was to test potential reservoir strata forecast
that other wise would require a drill ship to reach. A multidisciplinary team, located offshore
Challenges for geomechanics modeling and onshore in Houston, provided 24-hour
included: (1) Unstable poorly-consolidated technical support
formations; (2) Unknown geology towards the end
of each well; (3) Depleted reservoir sections; (4) A Table 5. Drilling performance on Petronius ERD wells.
tight wellbore pressure window (<1 ppg in places). Well Depth Stepout Inclination Actual Improvement
over AFE
A mechanical earth model and wellbore stability
(m, MD) (m) Max. (deg.) ft/d (%)
forecast were developed from data acquired earlier
1 3,932 1,692 43 207 N.A.
in the life of the field (Figure 7). While drilling,
2 4,846 2,896 58 143 N.A.
the forecast was continuously monitored and
3 5,060 3,228 58 97 N.A.
revised while maintaining internal consistency 4 5,364 3,520 64 78 N.A.
with the field-scale model. The first well was 5 7,313 5,700 71 146 24
drilled successfully 24% under the AFE and 28% 6 6,828 5,090 70 171 25
fewer days than the previous well (Table 5). Well
6 targeted a totally different part of the field and ChevronTexacos application of the closed-loop
was drilled 25% under AFE. geomechanics process avoided the cost of a
drillship and subsea completions. For a complete
description of this project see the paper by
Smirnov et al. in this conference [8,9].

Fig. 7. Example wellbore stability forecast used on Petronius
wells showing drilling risks and mitigation strategy (A);
Seismic curtain section along the well path (top) and
variation of overburden stress (bot.) (B); wellbore stability
forecast monitored while drilling (C).
Since then three additional ERD wells have been
drilled in different azimuths and all targets have
been met. Results averaged over five wells show
an 18% savings of AFE days.
Geomechanical factors contributing to success
on Petronius include:
An earth stress model that accounted for
change in water depth (Fig. 7)
Real time monitoring and analysis of time
lapse resistivity for drilling induced
fracture identification [7]
Real time monitoring of annular pressure,
cavings, torque and drag, drillstring shocks
4. DISCUSSION
Case studies summarized above represent fields at
different stages if the field life cycle-exploration
to late development. The geology ranges from
weakly-consolidated normally-pressured and
overpressured sediments from the deepwater the
Gulf of Mexico to higher-strength higher-stress
formations in the fold and thrust belts of South
America. Well profiles included vertical and
deviated exploration wells, deviated development
wells and extended reach development wells.
Challenging wells in each of these settings were
drilled with significantly less non-productive time
with the aid of a predictive Mechanical Earth
Model and the proactive application of the model
while drilling.
Over the last five years new software has
been developed that supports this workflow and
integrates geomechanics and the MEM directly
into engineering design software (drilling
simulator, wellbore stability, sand management
etc. Fig. 3). Better communications with remote
locations and real-time borehole images enable the
feedback loop. New diagnostic tools such as time
lapse resistivity and borehole caliper interpretation
have had a great impact on real-time decisions [7,
8,9].
Practical implementation of the
geomechanics workflow requires an integrated
software and communication system to function
efficiently. Geomechanics modeling software
must support 1-D, 2-D or 3-D models, model
updating in real time and output directly into
engineering applications (Figure 3). Engineering
software, such as a drilling simulator, must
support multiple interpretation loops given data of
decreasing uncertainty (Figure 8). Output of the
software must provide actionable information
consistent with uncertainty of input data, including
streaming data from operations. The need for
fewer people to support more rigs simultaneously
requires a secure communications infrastructure
providing continuous access to operation data in
remote field locations and planning centers
(Figure 6). The increasing complexity of input
data and models requires the development of a
more rigorous approach to uncertainty analysis
and the development of a Probabilistic MEM
which is currently being implemented by the
Fig. 8. Drilling planning workflow incorporating an MEM.
authors and others [10]. The growing awareness of
the value that geomechanics brings to drilling is
resulting in the technology moving downstream to 5. REDUCING FIELD DEVELOPMENT RISK
development and even infill drilling [Petronius]. A new challenge for the geomechanics community
This move will put increasing pressure on people is to have a greater impact on reducing field
and companies to deliver high-quality results development risk. Better characterization of earth
faster. stresses and rock mechanical properties has
Figure 8 shows an example of a drilling proven valuable for drilling operations where the
planning workflow that incorporates benefits are seen continuously. While most of the
geomechanics. Constraints imposed on the well drilling engineering has traditionally focused on
design by the MEM, results in a better evaluation the sections above the pay interval, minimizing
of a wells risk (e.g. field example 1). drilling and completion damage in the reservoir
section has become a significant target, specially
in unconsolidated formations (examples 2 and 4
respectively). A 3-D geomechanics model
developed to support drilling can only reduce
uncertainty about geomechanical inputs to
engineering software used to optimize hydraulic
fracture stimulations in tight reservoirs or reduce
risk of sand production in high porosity
formations.
Over 20,000 wells are fraced annually at a
cost of over $3 billion. Two thirds of US wells are
considered not to meet production expectations
and only 1% of these are optimized for increased
field recovery (GRI via U. Ahmed personal com.
2001). At the other end of the porosity range, sub-
optimal completions generally result in lower
production rates. It is estimated that 70% of world
oil production comes from unconsolidated or
weakly consolidated formations [11]. Production
is reduced if a well is gravel packed needlessly.
In non-gravel packed wells, production may be
restricted intentionally to limit sand production. In
the extreme case production goes to zero when a
well fills with sand. Similarly, a number of
hydraulic fractures end-up propagating into the
water transition zone or even the aquifer, and/or
the gas cap, with the risk of jeopardizing well
productivity. In those situations there is an
opportunity for geomechanics to reduce field
development risk where production optimization
is applied to the entire reservoir rather than a
single well.
Commercially available reservoir
simulators now perform fully coupled fluid flow
rock deformation calculations [12, 13, 14]. In low
permeability reservoirs these simulators can help
optimize the location of producer injector wells as
a function of reservoir depletion. In reservoirs
prone to sand production these simulators can
predict where and when sand production may
occur.
Introduction of a feedback loop will be a
key for geomechanics to add greater value to field
development. Several techniques have been
designed to improve geomechanical data
acquisition in the reservoir, from coring or direct
field measurements (mini-fracturing, impulse tests
etc.)[15]. Tiltmeters and passive seismic provide
the feedback signal during fracture stimulation
[16, 17]. Permanent downhole sensors and flow
control valves could provide the required feedback
signal for active sand management [18, 19]. The
value of geomechanics to field optimization will
be seen where the process shown in figure 2 is
transferred from drilling to reservoir performance.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Implementing a structured geomechanics process
reduces financial risk while drilling, primarily by
reducing non-productive time caused by wellbore
instability. Key elements of the geomechanics
process are a living mechanical earth model, a
closed loop feedback system designed to test
predictions and multidisciplinary teamwork.
Continuous comparison of the actual vs. expected
drilling performance, established in the pre-drill
wellbore stability forecast, enables potential
problems to be avoided and the MEM and forecast
to be refined.
The greatest present and future value of
geomechanics to operations comes from
delivering the process not individual components.
An MEM without a predrill wellbore stability
forecast has little or no value for drilling.
Similarly, real-time data monitoring without an
MEM and a forecast is not much better than the
normal reactive mode of drilling.
The geomechanics process represents a
proactive approach to managing drilling risk. The
process guides a multidisciplinary team to
optimally apply technology and to make
operational decisions faster and more accurately.
A similar approach is now needed for field
development planning.
It is predicted that geomechanics can
reduce operation risk over the entire field life
cycle on projects where geomechanics is
introduced early in field development planning
and an actively managed MEM is integrated with
engineering software.
Experience shows that the return on
investment in this geomechanics process is at least
10:1.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Don Lee, Violeta
Ivanova, Justin Nash, Chris Luppens and Charlotte
Sodolak for technical contributions to this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Last, N., Plumb, R.A., Harkness, R., Charlez, P.,
Alsen, J., McLean, M., An Integrated Approach to
Managing Wellbore Instability in the Cusiana Field,
Columbia, South America, SPE 30464, Dallas 22-
25 Oct., 1995.
2. Plumb, R.A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., Lee, D.,
Stacey, B., The Mechanical Earth Model and its
Application to High-Risk Well Construction
Projects, SPE 59128, IADC/SPE, New Orleans,
23-25 February 2000.
3. Brie, A., Bratton, T., "Impact: A Geomechanical
Wellbore Evaluation System", International Society
for Rock Mechanics News Journal , 1993.
4. Goodman, H.E., Formation Mechanical Property
Characterization for Engineering and Earth Science
Modeling Applications using the Rock Mechanics
 Algorithm (RMA), Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 17. Maxwell, S.C., Urbancic, T.I., Steinsberger, N.,
34:3-4, paper No. 108, 1997. Zinno, R., Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic
Fracture Complexity in the Barnett Shale, SPE
5. Lee, D., Cassanelli J.P., Frydman, M., Palacio, J.,
77440, ATC, San Antonio, TX, 29-Sept. to 2-Oct.
Delgado, R. Using a Dynamic Mechanical Earth
2002.
Model and Integrated Drilling Team To Reduce
Well Costs and Drilling Risks in San Martin Field 18. Baker, A., Jeffery, J., Thomas, A., Unneland, T.,
SPE 84557, ATC, Denver, CO, 5-8 October 2003. "Permanent Monitoring: Looking at Lifetime
Reservoir Dynamics", Oilfield Review, pp 3246,
6. Ali et al., Watching Rocks Change: Mechanical
Winter 1995.
Earth Modeling ,Oilfield Review, Summer 2003.
19. Eck, J., et al, "Downhole Monitoring: The Story So
7. Bratton, T., Rezmer-Cooper, I.M., Desroches, J.,
Far", Oilfield Review, Winter 1999/2000, pp. 20
Gille, Y.M., Li, Q., McFayden, M., How to
33.
Diagnose Drilling Induced Fractures in Wells
Drilled with Oil-Based Muds with Real-Time
Resistivity and Pressure Measurements, SPE
67742, SPE/IADC, Amsterdam, 27-Feb. to 1-Mar.
2001.
8. Smirnov, N., Tomlinson, J., Brady, D., Rau III, B.,
Advanced modeling, real-time model updating
improve extended reach drilling success, Oil and
Gas Journal, pages 39-49, January 27, 2003,
9. Smirnov, N., Lam, R., Rau III, W, Process of
integrating Geomechanics with well design and
drilling operation paper #AADE-03-NTCE-28 and
presentation for AADE Conference, Houston, USA,
April 2003.
10. Doyen, P.M. , Malinverno, A., Prioul, R.,
Hooyman, P., Noeth, S., den Boer, L., Psaila, D.,
Sayers, C.M. and Smit, T.J.H. Seismic pore
pressure prediction with uncertainty using a
probabilistic mechanical earth model, 73rd SEG
Annual Meeting, Extended Abstracts, 2003.
11. Han, G., Rock Stability under Different Fluid
Flow Conditions Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 196, 2003.
12. Stone, T., Marsden, R.M., Maalac, E., Fuller, J.A.,
Fang, Z., Coupled Geomechanical Simulation of
Stress-Dependent Reservoirs, SPE 79697, Jan.
2003,
13. Stone, T., Bowen, G., Papanastasiou, P., Fuller, J.,
Fully Coupled Geomechanics in a Commercial
Reservoir Simulator, SPE 65107, Paris, 24-25
October, 2000.
14. Samier, P., Onaisi, A., Fontaine, G., Coupled
Analysis of Geomechanics and Fluid Flow in
Reservoir Simulation, SPE 79698, Houston, TX ,
Febuary 2003.
15. Vinegar, H.J., Wills, P.B., DeMartini, D.C.,
Schlyapobersky, J., Deeg, W.F.J., Adair, R.G.,
Woerpel, J.C., Fix, F.E., Sorrells, G.G., Active and
Passive Sesimic Imaging of a Hydraulic Fracture,
SPE 22756, 66th ATC, Dallas, 6-9 October, 1991.
16. Thiercelin, M.J., Plumb, R.A., Desroches, J.,
Bixenman, P.W., Jonas, J.K., Davie, W.R., A New
Wireline Tool for In-Situ Stress Measurements,
SPE Formation Evaluation, v.11, n. 1, pp. 19-26,
March 1996.