SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION OF GEOMECHANICS AND

MUD ENGINEERING AT THE WELLSITE

M. Zamora, Q. Guo, S. Roy, M-I SWACO

th
This paper was presented at the 10 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25, 2011.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2011 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The paper as presented at OMC 2011 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

Geomechanical and mud engineer s share the common g oal of maintaining prop er mud
weights to minimize wellbore instability during drilling. However, their eff orts are often out of
sync with regard to time frame, data resources, uncertainties, responsibilities, and sense of
urgency. Attempts to resolve these issues in the past have encountered mixed results,
primarily because the two groups operate on different tech nology and communication levels.
This paper discusses a successful process developed to in tegrate geomechanics and mud
engineering at the well site, with the goal of mi tigating, diagnosing, and remediating critical
wellbore stability (WBS) issues. Built on an advanced hydraulics software platform already in
use by mud engineers at the wellsite, the new workflow seamlessly (a) con verts field
observations and measurements in to data req uired by a r igorous stability model, and (b)
generates daily WBS reports and interactive 3D visualization models of the downhole
environment.

Wellbore stability planning on cr itical wells is the domain of geomechanical eng ineers who
base their recommenda tions on off set log analyses, well histories, geo mechanical models,
and knowledge of the area. Using these reco mmendations as gu idelines, rig per sonnel
respond to changing and unexpected well conditions by con tinually monitoring and adjusting
mud properties and drilling practice s. However, mud engineers charged with recommending
and maintaining proper mud weights rarely have access, training, or time to execute
geomechanical software as part of their duties. Likewise, geomechanical engineers rarely get
continual updates (unless proble ms are encountered) and their software usually is not
designed to handle important, sometimes fuzzy data pro vided by wellsite drilling personnel.
This systematic approach leverages the respective skill sets and tools of those involved.

INTRODUCTION

Wellbore instability arguably is the p revalent underlying cause of non-pro ductive time during
well construction. While a diversity of parameters affect the instance and degree of instability,
the downhole mud density and ECD profiles invariably play the maj or role, esp ecially in
highly deviated wells. Operators select optimum mud weights based on offset well analyses,
detailed well plans, analyses and interpretation of ongoing well conditio ns, considerations for
different density dependent operations, and recommendati ons from other wellsite personnel
including drilling fluid s (“mud”) engi neers. This multi-pronged approach, often fraught with
uncertainty, loses effectiveness when information and resources are not readily available or
communicated to all tho se involved in making d ecisions and implementing solutions. Efforts
often are out of sync with regard to time frame, data resources, uncertainties, responsibilities,
and sense of urgency.

This paper focuses o n a process that inte grates efforts by geo mechanical and mud
engineers who share the common goal of recommending mud weights to solve wellbore
instability issues such a s those illustrated in Fig. 1. Lost circulation ca n occur when ESDs
(equivalent static densities) and ECDs (equivalent circulating densities) exceed the formation

1
fracture resistance. T ight hole, bre akouts, cavings, and/or destructive hole collapse can
result when ESDs are too low. The greatest difficu lties result when pressur e margins
between fracture and h ole collapse are very lo w, such as those encountered in de epwater
and HTHP drilling.

Fig. 1: Schematic illustrating drilling problems caused by improper ESDs and ECDs
based on the elastic WBS model.

Overly simplified, mud engineers ar e concerned with the “what” (density, rheology, chemical
properties, etc.) and t he “how” (to maintain specified properties), while geomechanical
engineers focus primarily on the “ why”. Most interactions between t he two groups occur
either before spud when mud engineers need geomechanical assistance for supporting mud
programs, or when geomechanical engineers are following an existing or potentia l major
wellbore instability problem.

Geomechanical engineers use their expertise with formation characte rization and pre-drill
WBS studies. They generate boundaries for operating mud windows and recommended mud
weight strategies, based on analyses of off set log data , well histo ries, geomechanical
models, and knowledge of the area. Most g eomechanical engineers work in an office
environment using complex compute r models and/or laborat ory testing techniques t o tackle
stability issues from mechanical and stress perspectives and to conduct in-depth root-cause
analyses.

While mud engineers focus on a wide range of drilling fluid issues at the wellsite, mud weight
for pressure control and WBS rates the highest priority. Pre-drill plan s often are continually
adjusted to address changing drilling condition s and well events observed real-time at the
wellsite. Unfortunately, most mud engineers are not positioned to integrate complex
geomechanical analyses into their normal duties.

2
The value of planning by geo mechanical engineers is evident, even if mud engineers
themselves have a long history of recommendi ng proper mud weights even before the level
of technology and information required for toda y’s critical wells was ava ilable. Clearly, many
complex wells are high ly dependent on detaile d geomechanics st udies, and perh aps could
not be drilled without proper planning. However, no plan can anticipate well conditions to the
extent that instability pr oblems are effectively and consiste ntly mitigated. Some pa rameters
are at best an educated guess during planning . This is where wellsite mud engine ers (and
other support personnel) can play key roles.

This paper presents a process developed to integrate geomechanical and mud en gineering
WBS workflows, targeting wellsite mud engineers because of their proximity to drilling
operations and their re sponsibilities as first responders. Built on an a dvanced hydraulics
software platform (Zamo ra 1997) already in use by mud engineers at t he wellsite, the new
workflow seamlessly (a) converts field observations and me asurements into data required by
a rigorous stability model, and (b ) generates daily WBS reports and interactive 3D
visualization models of the downhole envir onment. The approach minimizes the extra effort
required in the field to generate useful WBS analyses and information.

INTEGRATED WORKFLOW

The flowchart in Fig. 2 presents the new integrated workflow. The goal of the path starting on
the upper left side (yellow path labeled “Proj Engr”) is to generate a geomechanical Well Plan
for delivery to the oper ator. The lo wer green path of the figure start ing with “Mud Engr”
represents the workflow for mud engineers that combine geomechanics plans with wellsite
measurements, observations, and calculations to address stability issues. The go al of th is
workflow path is to prov ide the daily WBS reports for delive ry to wellsite and operator staff
personnel.

Fig. 2: Flowchart illustrating a process to integrate geomechanics and mud engineering

workflows for mitigating wellbore instability issues.

3
Two notable elements in Fig. 2 are the shared “WBS Engine” and the “Input Processor” in
the mud en gineering workflow. The intent is for both disciplines to use the same analytical
engine. However, the number of complex input parameters require d by geomechanica l
software models has p reviously been a persistent problem and barrier for those not well-
versed in geomechanics theories and principles. Mud engineers rarely have access, training,
or time to execute sophisticated geomechanical models and software as part of their duties.

The “Input Processor” shown in the center of the figure a ccepts typical mud engineering
observations and measurements as inputs. It t hen automatically uses information from the
well plan a nd fuzzy lo gic methods to generate the very i nput values required to drive the
geomechanics software engine regardless of it s complexity. Results subsequently can be
provided to rig supervisory personnel as a daily report and also shared with operator project
managers and geomechanical eng ineers responsible for the drilling and geomechanical well
plans.

The integrated geomechanical app roach introduced in this paper now allows the project
engineer to plan these operating windows based on the be st available pre-drill assessment
of earth stresses. The same software applicat ion then allows mud engineers to use the pre-
drill assessment as a starting p oint, and combine it with current data and wellsite
observations to uniquely adjust the operating window at the wellsite as drilling progresses.

For the workflow to succeed, the Well Plan must be fully integrated into the hydraulics
software. This permits access from the wellsit e module and greatly minimizes duplication of
data entry and complex processin g such as ESDs and ECDs. The drilling flu ids project
engineer, while probably not an expert in geomechanics, is well-positioned to generate the
Well Plan. However, operator and quality offset well infor mation generally are n ecessities.
Understandably, assistance from resident experts and information from third-party data and
geomechanical studies typically run on critical wells are highly beneficial. Ot her useful
techniques also are available for cases where pre-drill studies are not available.

WBS SOFTWARE PLATFORM

The platform for the i ntegrated geomechanics process is based on an existing software
simulation package designed for ad vanced hydraulics analyses at the wellsite. Originally
developed for office use by project engineers, the hydraulics package is now routinely used
by wellsite fluids engineers for simulations involving downhole ESDs, ECDs, pump
pressures, temperature profiles, h ole-cleaning, surge-swab, and other drilling en gineering
operations and issues.

Techniques and strategies used in t he hydraulics engine also are well suited for co nducting
detailed geomechanical analyses. The finite-difference scheme used to sub-divide wells into
short segments, each with its own set of properties, allow s easy integration of parameters
specific to WBS analyses, in cluding earth str esses, rock properties, and pore pressures.
Combined with the effects of temperature and pressure on downhole drilling fluid density and
rheology, simulated ECD profiles can now be combined with rock-failure models to determine
the state of wellbore integrity based on current operating conditio ns. Important to this
determination is the ability to translate contextual and fuzzy inputs into p arameters required
for the geomechanical model using the Input Processor described previously.

A primary application of the adva nced hydraulics software is to simulate the equivalent
density profile based on current operating co nditions and time-dependent downhole fluid
properties. Positioning the ESD and ECD profiles within defined operating windows based on
pore pressures and fracture gradients during any well-construction o peration help ensure
wellbore integrity. This task has been routinely performed as an integral part of both office-
based project and wellsite engineer ing workflows during planning and operational stages,
respectively.

4
Deviations from the Well Plan or unexpected occurre nces can be quickly and easily
incorporated into the WBS analysis to help achieve wellbore inte grity. Fig. 3 gives an
example of how unplanned events are superimposed over graphical snapshots to visually
demonstrate integration of geomechanical re sults and hydraulics an alyses to p resent a
comprehensive view of wellbore stability. More conventional companion summary reports
also are generated and submitted daily to rig supervisors.
Depth Geometry Inclination WBS Density Downhole Stresses Pressure Profile Comments
(ft) MD/TVD Csg OD/ID (°) (lb/gal) (lb/gal) (lb/gal)
(ft) (in) 0 45 90 9 12 15 18 9 12 15 18 9 12 15 18

1000

2000

2500 20.000
2500 19.124
3000

4000

5000

6000 6000 13.375

5397 12.347

7000

8000 8000 11.750 L

6625 10.682 Tight Hole
9000

10000

11000

12000 12000 9.875

Lost Circulation
7526
Mud Weight Min Min Horiz Stress (Sh) Pore Pressure
ECD ECD
13000 Max Stable MW Overburden Gradient (Sz) Fracture Gradient

Fig 3: Graphical WBS analysis report generated daily at the wellsite showing wellbore
instability events superimposed over geomechanical and hydraulics analyses.

Calculated downhole stress fields a lso can be added to the interactive 3D visualization used
to examine the inside of virtual wellbores while navigating the well from surface to TD using a
standard PC and a gamepad or joystick (Z amora and Simpkins 2005). In Fig. 4, 3D
perspectives show radial stress distributions and the position and extent of breakouts around
the wellbore at depths o f interest. They are superimposed over internal and side projections
of well tortuosity, cuttin gs beds, drillstring (in cluding eccentricity), annular velocity profiles,
downhole engineering parameters (temperature, ESDs, etc.), and downhole tools. This
permits mud engineers and other personnel not closely aligned with geome chanical
intricacies to easily ap preciate and visualize the scope and nature o f wellbore i nstabilities
and to quickly evaluate the impact and effectiveness of necessary adjustments.

SHARED WBS ENGINE

The mud weight window serves as a crit ical design factor for the design of both the well and
drilling fluid system. It d efines the range between the minimum weight to avoid we ll collapse
(compressive or shear failure) and t he maximum mud weight to avoid formation breakdown
(tensile failure). Compressive or sh ear failure depends on the boreho le stress a nd rock
strength or failure criterion, while tensile failure or fracturing depends on the borehole stress
and formation fracture gradient.

When a well is drilled, t he rock surrounding the hole must take the load that was previously
supported by the removed rock. As a result, an increase in stress aro und the wall of the
borehole, a stress concentration, is produced. If the rock is not strong enough or if the mud
weight is not high enough to support the wellbore, the borehole may fail in she ar in the form
of tight hole, sloughing (rock fragments break off from the wall and fa ll in the wellbore), or
caving and hole enlargement as shown in Fig. 1.

5
 Fig 4: 3D visualization of a geomechanical analysis showing location and extent of
breakouts, and stress distribution around a wellbore.

When the borehole pressure is too high, i.e., higher than the fracture gradient, then fracturing
or splitting of the borehole occur s, resulting i n mud loss and possibly well-control issue s.
Fracture gradients typically are determined based on fracturing data (such as lea koff and
formation integrity tests). However, formation fracture gradients a lso depend on well
deviation and trajectory. Wellbore stability models are req uired to evaluate well te sting or
drilling event data and to extrapolate or predict look-ahead scenarios.

Wellbore stability models vary widely with regard to capabilitie s and complexities. The
current WBS engine uses a linear elastic model that addresses deviated wellbores under
anisotropic stresses (Aadnoy and Chenevert 1987, and Fuh et al. 1988). It is ade quate for
most cases since it is easy to use and interpre t results, and it also ad dresses many of the
drilling events observed at the wellsite, such a s fracturing, loses of mud, tight hol es, and
cavings.

The WBS engine uses the modified Lade failure criterion, since experience has shown that it
consistently works well under field conditi ons. The modified Lade criterion is a three-
dimensional failure criterion that requires only two empirical constants to be determined from
triaxial tests (Ewy 1999).

IMPLEMENTATION

A key component of the workflow is the captur ing and archiving of WBS-related events and
observations made by the mud eng ineer, and their subseq uent use to calibrate WBS model
parameters critical for the analyses. This near-real-time update to the geomechanics model
elevates the process pr esented in t his paper to a level higher than traditional app roaches
where geomechanics experts often do not participate or interact wit h wellsite p ersonnel
during the drilling phase. The archived events and observations can be presented daily or on
demand to wellsite per sonnel, and can a lso be used f or end-of-well analyses and better
planning of subsequent wells drilled in the region.

Examples of key WBS-related events captur ed in the software application in clude lost
circulation, tight hole, washouts, hole collapse, and wellbore influx. Key data associated with
the event can then be used to ad just geomechanical model parameters using fuzzy and

6
contextual data. For example, a severe lost circulation zo ne can indicate deficie ncies in
accurately modeling stress regimes, or weaker than expected rock pro perties. However, this
information combined with bit parameters such as mechanical specific energy (MSE) can be
used to distinguish stress regime and rock property effects. Integration of the geomechanical
analyses into the hydraulics application also allows interact ive investigation of the impact of
one on the other, such as the impact of flow rat e increases that assist with hole cle aning but
also affect ECD profiles and st ability concerns. Another e xample is how changes in mud
density maintain adequate ESDs impact ECDs and maximum flow rates t o prevent
exceeding lost cir culation limits a nd hole-cleaning guidelines. These simulations can be
easily and quickly performed at the wellsite t o ensure tha t optimum drilling conditions are
maintained.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The new process and software currently are in the early stages of deployment at this time.
Nevertheless, opportunities to improve the process and update the WBS model already have
been identified. One example is be tter use of available mud engineer ing and mud loggin g
data to characterize wel lbore response to differ ent drilling operations and transformation of
“fuzzy” observations into engineering values to drive the analytical model. Another is the use
of real-time drilling data to elevate this process to the next level.

The current linear elastic model is relatively easy to update to con sider poro-elasticity,
thermal and chemical effects on stresses near the wellbore. This fits well into the concept of
this integrated process, since wellsite mud engineers, unlike most geomechanical engineers,
already are well versed in chemical interactions and generating temperature profiles. While
complex models invariably require a variet y of additional rock properties and empirical
constants for input, much of the necessary supporting information already is simulated.
Others can be incorporated through the Input Processor.

As newer models and inputs are developed and calibrated, other geomechanics modules or
utilities can be added with minimal difficulty. One example is fracture- width prediction that
can lead to selection o f lost-circulation materials blends a nd concentrations for wellbore
strengthening applications.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Geomechanical and wellsite mud engine ers share the common goal of
recommending mud weights to ef fectively mitigate, diagnose, and remediate critical
wellbore stability issues; however, benefits of their efforts invariably can be
maximized if their sep arate workflows are integrated and synchronized by the
process presented in this paper.
2. The process gives par ticular attention to fir st-responder mud engineers, with fu ll
consideration of their la ck of time, r esources, and training to apply complex method s
for analyzing geomechanical conditions at the wellsite.
3. Integration of wellbore-stability soft ware tools i nto an advanced hydraulics progra m
already in use has made it possible, with minimal additional effort, to execute rigorous
stability analyses enhanced by observations and measurements made at the wellsite.
4. Additional benefits have been achie ved by incorporating wellbore stability analyses
into an interactive system that models and visualizes changing downhole conditions.
5. Significant opportunities remain fo r future developments, especially with regard t o
improved methods to convert field observa tions and real-time drilling measurements
into parameters required by high-end wellbore stability models.

7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank M-I SWACO management for supporting this e ffort and for giving
permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E. “Stability of Highly Inclined Bore holes.” SPE Drilling
Engineering, (December 1987) 364-374.
Ewy, R.T. “Wellbore-Stability Prediction by Use of a Modified Lade Criterion.” SPE Drilling &
Completion, Vol. 14, No. 2, (June 1999) 85-91.
Fuh, G.F., Whitfill, D.L., and Schuh, P.R. “Use of Borehole Stability Analysis for Successf ul
Drilling of High-Angle Hole.” SPE 1 7235, 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Texas, February 28 - March 2, 1988.
Hubbert, M.K., and Willis, D.G. “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Petroleum Transactions,
AIME, vol 210, (1957) 153-168.
Zamora, M, “Virtual R heology and Hydrauli cs Improve Use of Oil and Synthetic-Based
Muds,” Oil & Gas Journal, March 3, 1997.
Zamora, M and Simpkins, D. “Development and A pplication of a 3D-Wellbore Visualizat ion
System for Hydraulics Analyses.” SPE 923 38, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, February 23-25, 2005.
Zamora, M. “New Met hod Predicts Fracture Gradient.” Petroleum Engineer International
(September 1989) 38-47.