IADC/SPE 156256

Pre-Drill WBS Evaluation: Plane of Weakness and Well Design - A Case

Study in the South of Mexico
Carlos Perez Tellez, PEMEX, Lucia Alcantara Contreras, Jose R. Cabrera, Detlef Balasejus, Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Tianjin, China, 9–11 July 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE 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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract

Borehole instability mechanisms have been studied in oilwell drilling for many years. Rock behavior has been important
because drilling complexity and risk increase accordingly, leading to the need of more complete risk assessments in well
design. A new need for risk assessment arises in South Mexico where Pemex and Schlumberger have encountered very
challenging areas: a depositional HPHT environment with salt presence, faulted formations, and depleted reservoirs resulting
in high-risk wellbores.

In strong dipping formations, wellbore instability occurred as a result of planes of weakness. Several events that resulted in
stuck pipe due to packing off, losing wellbore sections and downhole tools translated into severe financial impact. Planes of
weakness are directly related to the well´s trajectory. Developing a method was needed to predict the attack angle - during the
design phase. An erroneous appreciation of the instability mechanism could lead to wrong actions, like increasing the mud
density without additional considerations, making problems worse.

Using surface seismic readings and attributes resulted in successfully predicting wellbore instability caused by planes of
weakness. The signal-to-noise ratio of a seismic survey was enhanced. Attributes were applied to get an improved structural
continuity with reliable dip/azimuth results. An innovative methodology to calculate the attack angle from dip/azimuth from
seismic and associated risks of wellbore instability was developed. Three wells drilled in a complex structure affected by a
compressive salt environment were evaluated and compared to well logs, getting a good fit.

A complete risk assessment includes the calculation of the attack angle, fault mapping, and rock strength. Knowing these
allows for a more complete trajectory planning while predicting wellbore instability. Thus, the output provides a valuable
tool to predict failure caused by planes of weakness in the design phase, allowing trajectory modification and operational
prevention/mitigation measures to avoid catastrophic stuck pipe incidents and achieve a hazard-free well construction.

Introduction

Borehole instability mechanisms have been studied in oilwell drilling for many years. Rock strength and its behavior
regarding stress distribution in the earth’s crust and around wellbores has been of much importance as drilling accomplishes
new goals and becomes more complex. The more we develop new technologies, the more we are able to construct wellbores
we could before only imagine and risks and challenges increase accordingly. Risk assessment and special considerations
brought from this complexity must be now included in well design.

One of the factors that affect stability that has not been thoroughly considered in oilwell drilling is that of the planes of
weakness [1, 2, and 3]. This failure mechanism is related to the strength anisotropy of shale, that is, shale is stronger in one
direction than it is in orthogonal directions (mostly due to the presence of laminations) and it has become a consideration in
the oilfield as directional drilling has evolved and a variety of well profiles and increasing horizontal displacements arise.
This failure mechanism has appeared in some of the fields in Mexico South Region (MXS), one of the most challenging areas
for drilling in the world and certainly the most for PEMEX and Schlumberger. Here, rock mechanics and wellbore stability
2 IADC/SPE 156256

analysis are of primary importance and the need for predicting failure of planes of weakness is evident. The development of a
method that could predict the attack angle in a formation that could fail by this mechanism is the only way to measure an
inherent high-risk environment during the design phase, so assessing this risk became a need. The determination of
geological characteristics of formations such as dip and azimuth before drilling can be acquired only by surface seismic
readings.

This study consists of using a surface seismic survey to determine the formation dip and azimuth and calculate the angle of
attack as soon as the design phase is begun. This provides the drilling engineer with a tool to prevent the failure of these
planes by assessing the risk of a given trajectory. Knowing the risk of a well profile in the design phase allows us to make
any pertinent changes in this path that will reduce undesired rock failure.

Furthermore, if a well trajectory cannot be changed due to production considerations, knowing the risk of rock failure before
drilling will then allow us to attack the instability with the correspondent operational procedures while drilling, including
reaming and backreaming procedures, controlling the mud weight and mud additives, among others.

The field-X in MXS resulted in a good candidate to develop and validate such a model due to the failure mechanisms it has
presented before. Even though the quality of the seismic reading is not the best, there are several log dip and azimuth
readings along the Tertiary and Mesozoic horizons suitable to validate the results and obtain some reliability.

The development of the study included enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio of the seismic readings and the use of seismic
attributes and fault interpretation to get to a risk determination output. Even though there was not enough information
available as to build a velocity model, the time-depth conversion of seismic along the drilled wells trajectories with the
seismic attributes revealed a very close result to the log dip and azimuth readings and therefore to the real angle of attack.
Applying the same process to a higher quality seismic reading showed a much clearer similarity and thus better risk
predictions.

Wellbore Instability

Wellbore instability is responsible for many types of stuck pipe and often leads to losses of tools and wellbore sections.
Wellbore instability refers to an unstable wellbore that fails and collapses causing packing off. There are many types of
mechanisms that could destabilize a wellbore being one of them that of planes of weakness. Figure 1 shows a sketch with
these types of mechanics [4]. Note that it is possible for them to act together, in many real cases more than one mechanism
has been identified [3].

A planes of weakness problem in a shale can arise from either the bedding of the rock or from faulting. Geological
deposition and other processes can lead to strength anisotropy, where the shale has different strengths when loaded in
different directions. The strength in some orientations is controlled by the bedding planes - if these are weak, then a well
entering the formation at certain angles can be very unstable [1]"

The effect of those bedding planes on stability is determined by the strength of the bedding and the inclination of the
wellbore relative to bedding, as illustrated by Figure 2 [4]. In-Situ stress anisotropy can make the problem even worse."
IADC/SPE 156256 3

Figure 1. Different instabilities mechanisms need different solutions. Tabular cavings indicates that attack angle is an issue: Need of
plane of weakness characterization. (Holzberg et al, 2009).

Figure 2. Effect of the wellbore attack angle in laminated shales. (After Okland and Cook, 1998).
4 IADC/SPE 156256

Case Study – Mexico Field

Field-X is located in South Mexico, Tabasco. The suggested drilling locations at this field are based on a poststack time
migration cube. The quality of the seismic data is fair and processing reveals velocity and migration issues. Figure 3 presents
some processing results and interpretation, useful to introduce the structural complexity of the field.

Figure 3. Random line indicating the structural complexity of the area.

From the geological point of view, the 12-1/4-in drilling section (the problem zone) can be divided in two “zones”. The
upper “zone” is characterized by a strong west-east dipping younger Tertiary formation, which dipping features change to a
less dipping and parallel direction to the sedimentation (towards east). The lower “zone” is formed by the middle and lower
Tertiary formations, which are characterized by a set of unconformities in the Eocene.

A general interpretation of the faults and unconformity system is illustrated in Figure 4. It should be observed that the large
Tertiary fault “zones” represent drilling issues like the unconformities do. Also, the Oligocene forms a regional
unconformity, which is widely used as overpressured zone indicator. A “fault zone interval” intersects this Oligocene
unconformity that, together with the overpressure zone, produces a complex drilling scenario (two drilling issues acting
simultaneously). Finally, the presence of a salt body in the neighboring and deeper structures needs to be considered. It
impacts the structural development, faulting, and in situ stresses distribution as been published by Dusseault et al, 2004 [5] .

It is very import to note that this type of complexity does not always give serious problems and money losses during drilling
as it has been observed in other similar structures. However, considerable NPT has appeared when problems due to these
characteristics have been observed. This is why such considerations in risk-assessment should be included when designing a
new well. It is not surprising that wellbore instability events have a strong financial impact: they can evolve into catastrophic
events costing millions of dollars.

The clearest example of such a case following the studied mechanism is well-B, located in the field-X. This was the first well
drilled on the field by Schlumberger Integrated Project Management, there was a recent offset vertical well (Well-A) on the
same location that led us to give the well a low-risk category since no major NPT event was reported. However, two pack-off
stuck pipe events of an unexpected rock failure mechanism occurred while drilling the 12-1/4-in hole in Well-B.
IADC/SPE 156256 5

Figure 5 shows the planned well sketch:

Figure 4. A random line shows main structural issues: faults system, unconformities and salt.

20” CSG
@ 1000 m TVD

13 3/8” CSG
@ 3365 m TVD

9 7/8” CSG
@ 5200 m TVD

7” CSG
@ 5970 m TVD

5” CSG
@ 6520 m TVD

Figure 5. Planned Well Sketch

6 IADC/SPE 156256

The following is a summary of the well’s drilling outcome:

Original Borehole

While drilling the 17 !“ hole section to the planned depth, 3280 m, serious instability ended up in a stuck pipe event while
POOH @ 3150 m. All pipe recovery attempts were unsuccessful and the 13 3/8” casing was set 230 m above the planned
depth, over the top of the fish. A sidetrack was drilled after setting this casing that isolated a normal pressure zone from an
abnormal pressure zone to be drilled in the next hole section with a MW of over 1.80 SG. The first approach to determine the
causes of this stuck pipe event was too low mud density, that is, that the casing setting depth was not the most appropriate
and the overpressure zone was penetrated too deep in that section.

First Sidetrack

The next section, 12 "” hole, was drilled after setting a cement plug and sidetracking @ 3050 m. The mud density with
which the section was started was 1.80 SG. The hole was drilled to 3180 m and, while tripping, a stuck pipe attempt occurred
@ 3136 m. This was somehow diagnosed as a breakout instability issue due to low mud weight and the density was raised to
1.87 SG. The same happened again @ 4247 m and again the density was taken to 1.90 SG. The hole section was drilled to
4304 m and, while POOH backreaming at 3984, the pipe was stuck again.

This pack-off was then addressed as hole-cleaning issue, a 21 m/h ROP and low flow rate, as well as ignoring backreaming
indications of an over-loaded annulus were considered as main causes. This second stuck pipe event resulted in another lost
hole and a sidetrack was drilled after several attempts of pipe recovery.

Second Sidetrack

The well was sidetracked @ 3542 m using a 1.90 SG mud weight to prevent the diagnosed instability. The considered hole-
cleaning issues were attacked and drilling parameters were optimized, the fluid was treated, wiper trips were performed
regularly and backreaming procedures were set [6]. Nevertheless, up to 34 ton drag occurred while drilling @ 4435, 4414,
4386 and 4349 m. The density was raised to 1.92 SG and drilling continued with 1.94 SG up to 4599 m. In the next trip, the
hole was circulated clean and got stuck while POOH @ 3810m while backreaming.

Again, all attempts for pipe recovery were unsuccessful. This sidetrack led to suspecting a different mechanism of wellbore
stability. Raising the mud weight had not been the correct approach, hole cleaning was definitely not the main cause. A third
sidetrack was drilled @ 4328 m.

Third Sidetrack

Sidetracking @ 4328 m with a 1.94 SG mud and drilling ahead to 4599 m, TD, with a final density of 1.97 SG, the section
was finished without further instability. The fact that the well was drilled to TD with a higher mud weight than planned
should be noted.

Any analysis at this point resulted inconclusive. Apparently, shear failure was not completely describing all of the events,
they pointed towards something related to the complex geological structure of the field. Cavings analysis was not conclusive
on defining an instability mechanism and special logs were run to determine the causes of the hole collapse.

A radial sonic profile and radial resistivity scanner logs [7-11] (new generation measurements) revealed a failure due to
planes of weakness it is not clear that the anisotropy is caused by the dip of the layers, but in any case, these parameters
reflect an intrinsic anisotropy that for the purpose of geomechanics is associated with planes of weakness.

At some points, this problem is enhanced due to stress anisotropy, which was interpreted from this log analysis. This element
is very important since we are adding an additional component to the problem of planes of weakness by inducing a stress
concentration around the hole due to the differences between the maximum and the minimum horizontal stress of the field. A
complete analysis and details of logs interpretation and root-cause can be found in reference [12]. The final result of this
study is summarized in Figure 7, where stuck pipe problems seem to occur along with a particular attack angle through the
beddings and fault system (Figure2).
IADC/SPE 156256 7

Figure 7. On the top: caliper logs versus MD. Belwo, attack angles versus MD: red zones represent risky sections, as yellow and green zones correspond to
medium-risky to safe conditions (considering the attack angle criteria). At the bottom: drilling chronology (original section of the well-B and two side
tracks). Reference [12]

There was a big financial impact of these events constituting mainly on drilling operational costs and delayed production.

It is clear that the mechanism was detected in a postmortem study and running special logs in the well. This case study is an
example only of how critical is to characterize all drilling considerations before actually drilling the well. In fields like this, a
highly faulted structure and pronounced dipping create a complicated stress distribution and failure mechanisms.

The outcome of this study led to a series of questions: how to characterize these drilling risks during the design phase, and
how to plan effectively to avoid severe finantial impact events? The following approach seeking for the answers to these
questions includes the use of surface seismic data.

Methodology Description

As mentioned above, the need to predict planes of weakness failure is evident in fields like Field-X. The only possible way of
including this in the design phase is by using surface seismic data. Field-X was a good candidate to develop such a model,
because instability was present as described and relevant information was available. Even though the quality of the seismic
data was not the best, there were several log dip and azimuth readings along the Tertiary and Mesozoic horizons suitable to
validate the results and assess reliability.

The seismic survey must be filtered in order to eliminate noise and obtain clean and realistic results. In order to do this, the
signal-to-noise ratio in the seismic cube was enhanced using spatially adaptive wavelet estimation.

Once the noise in the seismic was reduced, a time-depth relationship was established for the wells drilled in the field to be
able to take the data into the depth domain. Later on, seismic attributes were applied to the seismic cube to get a clean,
reliable dip and azimuth data from the seismic survey.

The quality of seismic filtering can be appreciated in the following figures. Figure 8 shows the original seismic survey on the
left and the result on the right after using SAWE* (Space Adaptive Wavelet Equalization), which computes and applies a
spatially varying wavelet correction to seismic data using two input wavelets derived from the analysis of the well ties for the
dataset, improving the signal-to-noise ratio. Figure 9 shows on the left the dip calculated from the seismic survey after
applying the dip/azimuth local structural event dip/azimuth attribute on the original seismic cube. On the right it shows the
same result after applying it in the filtered seismic cube with SAWE*.
8 IADC/SPE 156256

Figure 8. Original seismic cube (left) and filtered seismic cube (after SAWE).

The progressive improvement and closeness to the log data, which we can take as more accurate, indicates how the seismic
filtering gives a quite favorable result.

Figure 9. In blue, dip from RTScanner Logs in well-D in a 17 !” hole. To the left, plotted against the log, the dip computed from the original Seismic, to the
right the dip computed from the filtered seismic cube.
IADC/SPE 156256 9

Other seismic attributes were applied later on the seismic cube to obtain a closer match. These are explained below:

Structural Smoothing: This attribute smoothes the input signal guided by the local structure to increase the continuity of the
seismic reflectors. Since the objective was to compute the structural dip/azimuth, obtaining a more continuous structure is a
good starting point.

Figure 10 Structural Smoothing attribute applied on filtered seismi.c Left: Crossline 10300, right: Randomline on well trajectory azimuth.

Cosine of phase: The cosine of instantaneous phase is also known as normalized amplitude. This helps enhance the definition
of structural delineations since the amplitude of the seismic wave is normalized in values between -1 and 1, showing greater
structural continuity. This attribute was here applied with the same purpose as the above described.

Figure 11 Cosine of Phase attribute applied on seismic cube after structural smoothing. Left: Crossline 10300, right: Randomline on well
trajectory azimuth.
.

Once the seismic was treated like this, the structural dip and azimuth were computed again. The accuracy of the result is
shown in the following figure.
10 IADC/SPE 156256

Figure 12. In blue, dip from RTScanner Logs in well-D in a 17 !” hole. To the left, plotted against the log, the dip computed from the structural
smoothing cube from the filtered seismic. To the right, the dip computed from the cosine of phase cube from the structural smoothing computed
on the filtered seismic.

Note from figures 9 and 12 that the seismic kept on getting a better fit to the log once the attributes were applied. The
acquired result showed coherence with well dip and azimuth logs taken on several wells on the field. Calculating the standard
error of the value deviation of the log dip and azimuth against the seismic dip and azimuth showed an accuracy of 84%
match on the tertiary and 92% match on the Mesozoic eras.

The general workflow within this study is:

IADC/SPE 156256 11

Fault modeling

Several wells in the field have experienced instability when drilling through faults in the tertiary period so the modeling of
these faults was a factor that would complement risk assessment as well. These faults were mapped in Petrel* and added to
the complete risk assessment tool that will be described below.

Angle of Attack Calculation

The angle of attack can be easily calculated with vector algebra, it consists on the computation of the angle between the
wellbore trajectory and the structure’s dip and azimuth.

Risk Assessment

The final output of this study is a risk assessment tool. A Planes of Weakness Risk Assessment Tool shows a graphical
representation of the field’s structure along a well path and gives a final result of a risk measurement categorized as high,
medium or low risk based on the angle of attack calculation.

This risk represents the risk of failure of the rock due to planes of weakness according to the inputs described above.
Basically, three considerations are taken into account: UCS (to make a distinction between different rock strengths), faults
(an extra risk factor) and Angle of Attack (under 45° for Field-X has resulted in wellbore failure).

Note that including the strength anisotropy concept is of a complexity beyond the scope of this work. One of the big
problems is related with the mechanical properties of those planes. It is assumed that if this anisotropy is high enough it
should be reflected in the UCS estimation, so at this point the UCS is used qualitatively in order to detect possible weak
zones.

A simple algorithm adds points in each of the mentioned categories (Attack Angle, Faulting, UCS level) if a set of conditions
is met. If the attack angle is between 0 and 30 degrees, for instance, 3 points are awarded to this category, if t he attack angle
is between 30 and 60 degrees, 2 points are awarded and if it is between 60 and 90 degrees, only one point is added (limits
selected from experience in the field, as mentioned above). The same is done for the other categories and, in the end, codes
“red”, “yellow” and “green” (equivalent to high, medium and low risk) are determined by the points combination at a certain
depth. The following table summarizes the programmed algorithm:

Angle of Attack Points UCS Points Faults Points

0 – 30 degrees 3 Greater than 2500 psi*? 0 Fault within 50 m? 3
30 – 60 degrees 2 Lower than 2500 psi*? 1 Fault at least 50 m away? 0
60 – 90 degrees 1

A high risk will result if:

• There is a very unfavorable angle of attack (3 points) OR there is a fault crossing (1 point) AND UCS is
very low (3 points).

A medium risk will result if:

• There is a very unfavorable angle of attack (3 points) OR there is a fault crossing (1 point) AND UCS is
high (1 points)
• There is an unfavorable angle of attack (2 points) OR there is a fault crossing (1 point) and UCS is low (0
points)

A low risk will result if:

• There is an unfavourable angle of attack or (2 points) AND UCS is high (0 points)

• There is a favorable angle of attack (1 point) AND UCS is low (1 point)
• There is favorable angle of attack (1 point) AND UCS is high (1 point
12 IADC/SPE 156256

The following figure shows a snapshot of the output for the well-B. A high risk is highlighted in the unstable zone signaling
the potentially troublesome areas successfully:

Figure 13. Risk Assessment Log for well-B

This Risk Assessment Log contains the following columns. From right to left:

1. Geological Column
2. UCS
3. Mud Weight
4. Azimuth from logs (when available) and seismic
5. Dip from logs (when available) and seismic
6. Angle of Attack computed from seismic
7. Angle of Attack computed from logs (for comparison purposes)
8. Critical Angle of Attack Spots (spots to focus on)
9. Risk Assessment (Red, Yellow and Green) and Caliper Log

In the end, this provides a by-depth risk evaluation describing a given trajectory according to the related dangers to be
encountered while drilling it. A close-up on the risk assessment shows the value of the assessment. The usage of such
assessment at the right time could have described the danges and stuck-pipe events could have been avoided.
IADC/SPE 156256 13

Figure 8.2 A caved-in hole caliper coincides with a high-risk signaled area marked in red in the first column. The second column shows the critical angle of
attack spots. The third and fourth column show the angle of attack computation from logs and seismic, respectively.

This algorithm is a valuable aid in decision making. Choosing a trajectory above others now can include this geological risk
characterization, which is a crucial point to consider in fields like Field-X.

A risk measurement is a fundamental base for decisions regarding:

• Trajectory re-design
• Operational measures
• Mud Weight Control
• Mud Properties and Additives!

This approach to the use of existing technology has not yet been developed and applied for well design. The candidate fields
in which this analysis can be applied are fields with pronounced dipping above the reservoir, several fields with these
characteristics can be found in South Mexico.

Future Development

This methodology could be perfected by using better quality and depth migrated seismic. Other applications can also be
explored, such as directional control in reservoirs with pronounced dips.

Conclusions

As a conclusion, the development of this study provided a risk assessment method regarding bedding-related WBS. A
standard error calculation showd an up to 92% match against real log data. Results (qualitative) are very promising for use in
a design stage of wells considering that the quality of seismic readings could be improved.

The value of this methodology is the availability of using seismic as a way to evaluate instability in the design phase and
being able to take the appropriate mitigation measures avoiding surprises.

The methodology will be further evaluated with better seismic quality and similar structural characteristics to determine more
precisely the use of seismic data in this type of drilling issues.
14 IADC/SPE 156256

References

1. Okland and Cook (1998): "Bedding-Related Borehole instability in High-Angle Wells", SPE/ISRM 28061.
2. Willson, S., Last N.C, Zoback, and M, Moos (1999): "Drilling in South America: A Wellbore Stability Approach for Complex
Geologic Conditions", SPE 53940.
3. Edwards S., Masutsuyu B. and Willson S. “Imaging Unstable Wellbores While Drilling”, SPE 79846. 2002.
4. Holzberg, Bruno and Cabrera, Jose. ¨RT Scanner: A fast way to characterize Attack Angles and Potential Wellbore Instabilities¨.
InTouch#4764194.
5. Dusseault, M.B., Maury V., Sanfilippo. F., Santarelli, F. J., (2004): “Drilling Around Salt: Risks, Stresses, and Uncertainties”.
ARMA/NARMS 04-647
6. G. Yarim, G.M. Ritchie, R.B. May. (2008): “A Guide to Successful Backreaming”, SPE 116555.
7. Plona, T., Sinha, B., Kane, M, Shenoy, R., Bose, S., Walsh, J., Endo, T., Ikegami, T., Skelton O. (2002): “Mechanical Damage
Detection and Anisotropy Evaluation Using Dipole Sonic Dispersion Analysis”, 43rd SPWLA Symposium
8. Sinha, B. K., Norris, A. N. and Chang, S. K. (1994): “Borehole flexural modes in Anisotropic formations”, Geophysics 59.
9. Sinha, B. K., and Kostek, S (1996): “Stress-induced Azimuthal Anisotropy in Borehole Flexural Waves”, Geophysics 61.
10. Sinha, B. K.,Kane, M. R, Borland, W. H. (2002): “Analyses of Sonic Data in an Indonesian Well for Formation Damage,
Stresses and Bedding”, SPE/ISRM 78232
11. Wang, H., Barber, T., Morriss C., SPE, Rostha, R., SPE, Hayden R., SPE, and Markley M. (1996): “Determining Anisotropic
Formation Resistivity at Any Relative Dip using a Multiarray Triaxial Induction Tool”, SPE 103113.
12. Martin Salazar, SPE, Pemex E&P, Jose R. Cabrera SPE, Claudio J. Coletta SPE, Bruno Holzberg, Detlef Balasejus, Cesar A.
Cortes, SPE, Schlumberger IPM/DCS “Anisotropy Identification During a High-Pressure, High-Temperature (HPHT) Drilling
Operation in a “Salt-Related” Structure – Real Case in South Mexico. SPE 122745.
13. Mitchell, John, “Trouble-Free Drilling, Volume 1 Stuck Pipe Prevention”, Drilbert Engineering Inc., 2001.