CADE/CAODC DRILLING CONFERENCE
October 20 & 22, 2003
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project
AUTHOR(S):
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
COPYRIGHT NOTATION: This paper was selected for presentation by the CADE/CAODC Drilling Conference Technical Committee, following a review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Technical Committee and do not necessarily
reflect the position of any or all of the Conference sponsors. Permission to copy is restricted to just this abstract page. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Further permission to copy may be requested from the
CADE/CAODC Technical Chairman, 800, 540 - 5 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0M2.
ABSTRACT:
Wellbore instability has resulted in elevated
operations time and costs on 11 of 18 current development
wells in the Terra Nova Field, offshore Eastern Canada. The
non-productive time associated with wellbore instability
related issues has varied from 2 to 860 hours. In some cases,
multiple sidetracks have been performed to regain a stable
wellbore. The typical problems encountered included
washing/reaming/overpull, stuck bottom hole assemblies
(BHA), fluid losses, sidetracks and casing not going to
bottom. In order to reduce the risk and associated costs of
problems related to wellbore instability, Petro-Canada
partnered with Baker Hughes OASIS and Baker Atlas to
develop a plan incorporating the use of a geomechanics
model and optimized drilling practices during the planning
and drilling phase. A set of well specific guidelines were
then compiled which included measurements to ensure the
effective implementation of the geomechanics model.
The geomechanics model is derived from logging
and leak-off data. It is designed to provide formation
mechanical properties, characterization of in-situ stresses
(orientation and magnitude), identification of wellbore
failure mechanisms and appropriate mud weight windows
for safe drilling operations. The model is based on the
theory of “Controlled Breakout”® (CB), which allows some
amount of hole breakout to occur. The hole breakout is
limited so that the wellbore will stabilize and be stronger in
its breakout geometry than it would be in a perfectly round
geometry.
Once the geomechanics model has been created
and calibrated, it is imperative that the model is applied in a
formal drilling implementation process to ensure that the
guidelines controlling breakout are implemented. If
breakout is occurring, operations must be altered to allow
the excess cuttings/cavings to be circulated out of the
wellbore. Additionally, multiple parameters like torque,
drag, Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) etc. must be
monitored real-time to ensure that any deviation from
PAPER NO.
2003 - 005
Page 1 of 9
calculated and actual trends are explained and that any
required remedies are put in place immediately.
The most significant accumulation of non-
productive time (NPT) due to wellbore instability on a
single well to date is 36 days. Since implementing the
geomechanics model and focused engineering approach,
four wells have been successfully drilled, including a twin
to the problem well mentioned above, with no wellbore
instability related non-productive time.
The successful merger of theory and application
has saved time and money at Terra Nova. It has also given
an improved focus and integration between planning and
execution of the well, and the people performing the
activities.
INTRODUCTION
Drilling the deviated development oil wells in the
Terra Nova Field (Figure 1), offshore Eastern Canada, has
proven challenging. The Fortune Bay shale, located directly
above the reservoir sands, has been identified as one of the
most critical zones from an instability perspective for many
of the wells drilled in the field. Instability in this and other
zones (Figure 2) has lead to the occurrence of NPT on more
than one third of the wells drilled in the field. The issue
surrounding wellbore instability in this formation is one
which originates from physical instability. A mud weight
program is designed to control instability and minimize the
negative effects on rate of penetration (ROP) thus allow
drilling operations to proceed without the significant
occurrence of NPT while reducing the risk of reservoir
damage in the formations below. To add to the challenge,
the appropriate mud weight window varies with the
inclination and azimuth of each well drilled in the field.
To address the issues of wellbore instability, Petro-
Canada partnered with Baker Hughes Drilling Optimization
Services and Geomechanical Services to develop a plan
which incorporated the use of a geomechanics model and
optimized drilling practices for future wells.
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project
AUTHOR(S):
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
BENCHMARKING PAST PERFORMANCE
The first step in improving drilling performance is
measuring current performance and evaluating the entire
sequence of events that has lead to any non-productive time.
Once this step has been completed, recommendations can be
made to plan for the identified improvement opportunities
and the ultimate implementation process to be applied to
upcoming wells.
On the eight wells which exhibited more than 1 day
NPT due to wellbore instability, a total of 1922 hours were
spent trying to overcome related operational issues. The
approximate costs due to wellbore instability related NPT is
$ 28.8 million CDN. The NPT can be broken down into:
washing/reaming/overpull, stuck BHA, fluid loss,
sidetracking due to instability (either around a stuck BHA or
inability to re-enter an existing wellbore) and casing not
going to bottom.
Typical remedies applied in the past to alleviate
these problems include randomly increasing mud density,
additional wiper trips, longer connections to work the hole
clean, extra circulating time for mud conditioning and
density increases, and additional time to clean the hole.
GEOMECHANICS MODEL
With regards to understanding and controlling
wellbore instability, the first step is to create a
geomechanical model. A proper geomechanical model
requires numerous inputs to accurately depict the static
mechanical properties of the rock being drilled and the in-
situ stress tensor of the field. The logging and petrophysical
data required to perform the assessment includes: relative
volumes of sand, shale and fluids, acoustic wave
(compression and shear) and bulk density. From this suite of
logging and petrophysical data, a number of other variables
can be calculated, including: Young’s modulus, Poisson’s
ratio, compressive & tensile strengths, internal friction
angle, Biot’s constant and cohesive strength. In the absence
of any petrophysical data (particularly in the overburden
section), correlations will be used to estimate the required
rock mechanical parameters for the wellbore stability
analysis (Jaeger, and Cook, 1979). Pore pressure is also
determined using the offset logging data.
An important part of the model used in the Terra
Nova Field is the fact that the static mechanical properties
are all generated from logging data, and not from actual
measurement of rock samples. This model is the only one in
current commercial use that applies this method to obtain
rock mechanical properties.
Next, the in-situ stresses and orientation within the
rock are determined. This evaluation is qualified from a
thorough understanding of the faulting environment within
the area, whether the faults are normal, thrust or strike slip.
7KH7HUUD 1RYD )LHOG LV D QRUPDO IDXOWLQJ DUHD  v ! H >
PAPER NO.
2003-005
Page 2 of 9
h). The magnitude of the stresses is determined from
density logs, the synthetic rock properties, leak-off tests (or
extended leak-off tests where available) and borehole
acoustic image log (if breakout is present). The stress
RULHQWDWLRQVIRU HDQG h) can be determined from caliper,
borehole image and acoustic anisotropy logs.
CONTROLLED BREAKOUT®
Beyond the full assessment of the mechanical
properties of the rocks and the stresses within the rocks, an
important part of the success on the Terra Nova Project can
be attributed to the use of the theory of Controlled Breakout
® (CB). CB is a theory which has been established and well
documented (Zheng, 1998). CB is the process of allowing
some of the wellbore to cave in, thereby changing the
geometry of the remaining hole. An example of a wellbore
with breakout can be seen in Figure 3. This new wellbore
shape, which now more closely resembles an oval rather
than a circle, is stronger and will require less mud density to
help support it. In fact, a hole with breakout will be at least
33% stronger than a circular hole (Zheng, 1998). There are
many advantages to drilling wells using the CB theory:
¾ The primary advantage is the use of a lower density
mud. Since some of the wellbore is allowed to cave in,
a lower mud density is required than if the hole were to
be maintained in its perfectly round geometry.
¾ Lower mud density reduces the ROP penalty that is
associated with higher mud density.
¾ The lower mud density also reduces the chances of
formation damage in the reservoir and fluid losses
throughout the well.
CB can also accommodate more challenging well
path trajectories1 and will manage tight tolerance issues with
respect to mud weight, pore pressure, and fracture pressure
considerations. This is accomplished by enlarging the mud
weight window between the fracture gradient and the mud
density required to maintain wellbore stability, applying the
CB concept.
MODEL CALIBRATION/VALIDATION
Once a geomechanics model has been created, it
must be calibrated by matching predicted breakout with the
actual data evaluated using the original rock properties from
the initial model. The validation typically is achieved by
evaluating critical breakout areas observed in offset wells
and a well in which the CB concept has been applied.
Predicted versus actual geometry of the breakout is
evaluated with the mud density used and compared to the
1
A challenging well path can be defined by its combination
of vertical section, inclination, and azimuth in relation to the
orientation of the field wide rock stresses.
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project
AUTHOR(S):
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
output of actual caliper and borehole image logs. Any
differences are noted and the model is revised accordingly.
The rock mechanics model is then used to simulate the new
expected response and is calibrated for modeling future
wells.
There are two primary forward modeling outputs of
the rock mechanics model that are used for drilling future
wells. The first is the mud density requirement versus depth
for a specific planned well trajectory and a given amount of
breakout (Figure 4). This graphical presentation of data
provides an overall picture of the mud weight requirements
at known problem intervals and is used to determine the
depths of casing seats required to successfully drill the well.
The second output is a set of contour plots defined for a
specific breakout angle and created for the critical intervals
identified (Figure 5). Both outputs are used in the planning
phase of a well and are often referenced during wellpath
trajectory changes as required. A contour plot shows, for a
specific depth (typically a depth of instability), the mud
density required for a set amount of breakout at various
inclination and azimuth combinations.
FOCUSED ENGINEERING
The geomechanical model provides the basis for
improving drilling performance in areas where wellbore
instability is a problem. The application of the modeling
results by the drilling optimization services during the
drilling operation is just as critical in providing the overall
solution to wellbore instability.
PLANNING
Controlled Breakout ® is the premise for the model
and engineering solution, and as such there is a volume of
cavings, in addition to the cuttings generated, which must be
accounted for in the planning and drilling phases. For this
reason, a series of parameters are benchmarked and trend
analysis performed to monitor wellbore stability and to
ensure NPT is minimized. The additional volumes of
cavings will have an impact on hole cleaning, equivalent
circulating density (ECD), torque/drag and fluid
volumes/properties used while drilling. To evaluate if the
amount of breakout occurring is as planned, excessive or
lower than planned, it is important to know expected levels
first. This can prove challenging, since the exact geometry
of the hole breakout is difficult to estimate in advance. For
this reason, exact values are not typically used, but trends of
key parameters are tracked as changes to the parameter
trends may signify a potential instability issue.
Hole cleaning is one of the primary parameters
requiring calculated and actual trend analysis. Whether or
not the hole is clean has an impact on nearly every other
parameter being observed. The actual volume of cuttings
PAPER NO.
2003-005
Page 3 of 9
and cavings being removed from the hole must be
accurately estimated. This is to be compared to the expected
volume of cavings which is based on a combination of the
inclination and azimuth, in relation to the far-field stress
orientations and from offset wells with wellbore image logs.
The combination of the original hole, plus the planned
breakout, over the expected section of hole interval where
breakout will occur, give the planned estimated rock volume
to be removed from the hole.
ECD is also estimated prior to drilling the well.
ECD measurements while drilling will give indications of
possible cuttings / cavings build-up in the wellbore
(Hutchinson, Rezmer-Cooper, 1998). ECD is particularly
important to track, as it can give one of the most obvious
and earliest indications of breakout occurring. Additionally,
ECD may reduce if breakout has occurred, as the annular
formation volume will have increased.
Real-time Downhole Pressure Measurement
(DPM) technology is required to capture the ECD data
during the drilling phase. Part of the planning process is to
ensure that the proper tool is selected and evaluation criteria
are in place. The DPM tool used in the Terra Nova drilling
project captures data while drilling and stores data when the
pumps are off. This is important for capturing downhole
pressures from tripping in (surge) or while pulling out of the
hole (swab), when circulation does not take place.
Torque and drag estimates and sensitivity studies
are prepared while planning for a well. The loading and
cleaning of cuttings / cavings from the wellbore will give
variations to the measured pick-up, slack-off and rotating
weights while drilling (Reiber, Vos, Eide, 1999). Knowing
what these variations mean in terms of cuttings / cavings
volumes in the hole is essential when drilling operations
begin.
Fluid volume trends (calculated and actual) in the
active system are also tracked and changes are accounted for
while drilling commences. This is based on a gauge hole,
plus the expected breakout volume through the intervals
where breakout is expected. Variations from this number
can provide indications that breakout is worse or less than
expected.
Fluid properties are evaluated to ensure
compatibility with expected operations. Specifically, fluid
properties are designed to maximize cuttings / cavings
carrying potential. This is particularly important as the
primary problem zones exist near the bottom of the well.
Thus fluid properties require a predictable carrying capacity
given longer distances for cuttings transport and can be seen
as being more critical with large transport distances at high
inclination sections of the wellpath.
Surge and swab calculations are performed for
two different scenarios. The first is for operations when
pulling out of the hole, whether tripping or working a stand
during a connection. The geomechanical model provides a
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project
AUTHOR(S):
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
required downhole pressure to ensure breakout does not
exceed an expected amount. Additional mud density is used
to give a safety factor (swab margin) to allow for operations
which will lower the downhole pressure, such as pulling out
of the hole. This safety factor must be matched with the
geometry of the BHA and the pulling speed when tripping
through the critical sections of the well. Since reducing mud
density below the minimum required mud weight for a
stable wellbore is a concern, swab pressures prove to be a
key control parameter while ensuring breakout does not
exceed the planned values. The planning process ensures the
proper tools will be available to measure the required values
while drilling. The DPM technology is used to capture the
actual surge / swab pressures which are compared to the
planned values and benchmarked for the planning of future
wells.
The ideal scenario is to drill the wells with the
lowest possible mud density to maximize rate of penetration
(ROP), however in reality it is the wellbore instability that
dictates the required mud densities. Another issue to
consider is the potential for lost circulation when running
casing in higher mud density. Therefore surge pressures are
analyzed to give appropriate running speeds for running
casing (casing strings are typically tapered in the Terra
Nova Field, so running speeds will vary throughout the
process of running casing).
All of these items are planned for and monitored
while the well is ongoing with the goal of maximizing ROP.
Due to the highly interbedded nature of the Terra Nova
Field, ROP will vary significantly throughout a well.
However, the goal is to maximize ROP in each section of
the well and still control any possible wellbore instability
issues.
The logging program is the final issue that
requires considerable attention in the planning phase. The
primary focus at this point is to run the appropriate
“advanced technology hole image logging” and other
pertinent logging technology to characterize the CB
concept. Since the geomechanics model is only as good as
the data used in the model, ensuring that complete, accurate
and relevant data sets are added is important to the
continued integrity of the model. For this reason, part of the
planning process is ensuring the proper logging data will be
collected over the appropriate intervals of the well. The
most important log to ensure the proper characterization of
the wellbore is an acoustic borehole image log (Figures 6
and 7). The geomechanical model is designed to produce a
fixed amount of breakout in the least stable section of the
well. The only way to determine the degree of conservatism
of the model is to have an actual measurement of the
breakout, which occurred when drilling the well. The only
decisive way to quantify the existence of breakout is with a
hole image log. The existence of breakout can be qualified
by caliper data, but it is impossible to use that data to
PAPER NO.
2003-005
Page 4 of 9
quantify the angle of breakout which exists. This is due to
the fact that the shape of a breakout can change
considerably, based on the wellbore trajectory in relation to
the orientation and anisotropy of the far-field stresses.
Additionally, the other logs listed previously as input for the
geomechanics model should also be collected so they may
be added to the model for calibration purposes.
IMPLEMENTATION
Once the planning phase is completed and the
required detail is included in the design files for the well,
drilling commences. The focus is then totally on the
engineering program that has been prepared. In an ideal
service situation, there will be two “drilling optimization
service engineers” on the rig site to monitor the previously
mentioned values and trends2. This way, all deviations are
noted as they occur and remedies can be implemented
immediately. Another engineer will be in town with the
drilling team, to interpret and share the plots generated
offshore as the well is drilled.
The importance of the implementation phase
cannot be overemphasized. While many of the real-time
measurements on the rig can be observed by others on the
well site, it is the sole focus of the optimization engineers on
controlling wellbore instability which is essential to the
success of the project. It is easy enough for the driller to
notice that torque and drag values are erratic over the course
of a well and for the mud engineer to notice a slow increase
in pit volume above the normal active mud system.
However, with someone on the rig focused on wellbore
instability, trends are analyzed to see if there is a
relationship between these items.
Since surge and swab pressures are so important to
the end result of this process, the engineers will be on the
rig floor during trips in and out of the hole with BHA’s and
casing strings. The engineer will also spend a significant
amount of time in the shaker room, analyzing cuttings and
cavings, and the geometry and volume of each, being
removed from the hole. The rest of the pertinent data is
constantly uploaded from the mud logging database as the
well is being drilled.
Once drilling is completed, and the BHA is pulled
out of the hole, the engineer remains heavily involved
during the logging program in order to analyze the results as
soon as they are available. Significant deviation from
expected values, particularly with the caliper and wellbore
image log, can instigate a clean-out run or the need to
increase mud density, prior to running casing.
2
Due to the complete buy-in and support from the rig-based
personnel, currently only one “drilling optimization service
engineer” is required during the implementation phase.
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project
AUTHOR(S):
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
POST WELL
After casing has been successfully run it is time to
compare all of the planning and actual values from the well.
If all trends and results are reflecting the planned values, the
model is verified and carried forward to the next well.
If there are variations from the expected and actual
values seen on the well, detailed analysis of the two values
is performed. All of the assumptions made during the
planning phase are addressed and either supported or
revised. If the assumptions are correct, but there is still
variation between the model and the actual wellbore
geometry seen, then these differences are captured and
entered into the database which forms the model. The model
is updated, and again verified against the existing actual
data to be used on forward well planning.
RESULTS
Since implementing the process of combining
geomechanics modeling and a focused engineering
approach, four wells have been drilled in the Terra Nova
field. The first well was very similar to the typical wells
drilled in the field, with inclination up to 38q and a drop
section to 25q prior to reaching the critical problem
formations. There was no intermediate casing on this well,
so the critical risk section was open for a longer period of
time. There was no amount of NPT related to wellbore
instability on this well. Analysis of fluid and cuttings
volumes actually indicated less breakout than expected.
However, due to logistical problems, no hole image log was
run and the amount of breakout could not be definitively
quantified.
A second well was drilled utilizing the new
wellbore stability approach. This well was a twin to the
offset well with the most NPT related to wellbore instability
in the Terra Nova field. The offset well had two sidetracks
and the tapered production casing string had to be pulled as
it would not go to bottom, due to wellbore instability. The
new well was designed to build to an inclination of 49.8q
followed by a tangent section and a drop to 25q prior to the
critical formation. The reduced hole angle through the
critical zone was done purposely in order to avoid excessive
mud weight requirements for wellbore stability. Due to the
historical instability problems and the proximity to a
delineation well that provided reasonable geological
certainty, intermediate casing was planned for this particular
well. The offset well experienced a total of 36 days of NPT
due to wellbore instability. The twin well did not suffer any
wellbore instability related NPT in this intermediate section.
Drilling cost savings on this well when comparing to its
‘sister-well’ are in the order of several million dollars CDN.
The third and fourth wells both were sidetracks (re-entry)
from an existing well. As these wells are in a different fault
PAPER NO.
2003-005
Page 5 of 9
block within the field, the original geomechanics model was
not directly applicable. However, with no model available
specific to this fault block, key information (sonic, pore
pressures etc.) for both areas were evaluated and provided
sufficient initial justification to apply the original
geomechanics model to these two wells. Both wells were
drilled successfully with no indication of wellbore
instability and no NPT related to instability was experienced
during the drilling phase. One additional wiper trip was
required before running casing on the fourth well due to
some minor instability during logging in a zone not
identified as critical by the original geomechanics model.
As a result, an additional geomechanics model, specific to
this fault block, will be developed as subtle differences
between the different parts of the field exist.
FUTURE PLANS
With the successful implementation of this new
service, Petro-Canada has decided to apply it to future
drilling in all fault blocks within the Terra Nova Field. As
mentioned, this will initially include one possibly two
additional geomechanics studies to determine the rock
properties and stresses in the different fault blocks.
This commitment to the future focus of the
wellbore stability concerns has also introduced changes
during the well planning phase. There is more
communication and a better understanding about items
related to wellbore stability, which has affected the drilling,
geology and reservoir departments.
There is also a potential to introduce three-
dimensional presentation/visualisation as part of the service
depending upon future drilling plans. This progressive step
will allow a better translation of the existing geomechanics
models and actual field results in the planning of future
wells. This will be done by capturing the far-field stress
regimes, assessing the faults in the field and their affects on
wellbore stability, and the magnitude of breakout with
relation to wellbore trajectory and mud density on existing
wells.
CONCLUSIONS
ƒ The assimilation of rock mechanics modeling with
specific drilling procedures has been important to the
overall success of the Terra Nova project. Either
component of the wellbore stability approach may add
value and savings to the Terra Nova project, however in
combination it has shortened the learning curve and
increased the savings by reducing NPT.
ƒ Running the “advanced technology hole image log” is
vital to calibrating the rock mechanics model versus
actual field results. Otherwise, only qualitative
learnings will be captured.
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization PAPER NO.
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project 2003-005
AUTHOR(S): Page 6 of 9
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience

ƒ Rig-site “drilling optimization service engineers”

provide round the clock observation, significantly
improving response time to deviations from planned
trends. With complete buy-in and support from rig
based personnel, only one drilling optimization
engineer is required for the implementation phase.
ƒ Preparation and use of specific required mud density
versus depth plots remove ambiguity that can
accompany the use of contour plots alone. This has lead
to improved results and reduced NPT.
ƒ Observing and analyzing the rig-captured data real-
time, as it relates to wellbore stability, does lead to
improve measurement quality and reporting of drilling
parameters.
ƒ Teamwork is a vital component of the process
presented and has resulted in the success of the project
to date. Engineers in the office review the benefits of
this approach to overall well planning, while operations
also need to be included to ensure that implementation
goes as planned.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Petro-Canada and Baker
Hughes for permission to publish this paper. Thanks are also
extended to Roger Dugal of Petro-Canada and Greg Szutiak
of Baker Hughes OASIS for their contributions to this
paper.

REFERENCES
1. Jaeger, J. and Cook, N.G.W. Fundamentals of
Rock Mechanics, 3rd edition, Chapman and Hall, London,
1979.
2. Zheng, Z.: “Integrated Wellbore Stability Analysis
– Against Tradition”, SPE 47282, Proc. Eurock ’98,
SPE/ISRM joint conference, 8-10 July 1998, Trontheim,
Norway,
3. Hutchinson, M. and Rezmer-Cooper, I.: “Using
Downhole Annular Pressure Measurements to Anticipate
Drilling Problems”, SPE 49114, 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 September
1998, New Orleans, USA
4. Reiber, F., Vos, B.E. and Eide, S.E.: On-line
Torque & Drag: A Real-Time Drilling Performance
Optimization Tool”, SPE/IADC 52836, 1999SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, 9-11 March 1999, Amsterdam,
Holland
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization PAPER NO.
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project 2003-005
AUTHOR(S): Page 7 of 9
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
Figure 1 – Field Map Terra Nova

Area covered by Original

Geomechanics Model

Figure 2 – Stratigraphic Cross-Section Terra Nova

Critical zones:

¾
¾
Middle/Lower Hibernia
Fortune Bay
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization PAPER NO.
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project 2003-005
AUTHOR(S): Page 2 of 9
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
Figure 3 – Borehole Breakout – Oval Wellbore

Figure 4 – Mud Weight Program – Based on 0 / 60 / 90 degree

breakout, fracture gradient and wellbore inclination

Mud weight program to

control breakout
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization PAPER NO.
Practices Reduce Drilling Cost – Terra Nova Project 2003-005
AUTHOR(S): Page 3 of 9
Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada
David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS
Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
Figure 5 – Contour Plot - For 75º breakout in critical Fortune Bay
Marker

Well-X
Inclination / Azimuth
@ Fortune Bay Marker

Figure 6 – Acoustic Wellbore Image Offset Well Figure 7 – Acoustic Wellbore Image – Offset Well
60-90 degree breakout 80 – 100 degree breakout