SPE 131718

Mechanical Earth Modeling Improves Drilling Efficiency and Reduces

Non-Productive Time (NPT)
Alireza Moazzeni and Mohammad Nabaei, Islamic Azad University; Omidieh Branch and Khalil Shahbazi, SPE,
Petroleum University of Technology (PUT); Arash Shadravan, Islamic Azad University; and Omidieh Branch, YRC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deep Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Manama, Bahrain, 24–26 January 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of 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 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

As time goes by, increase in world energy demand forced oil and gas companies to drill deeper in order to produce more oil
and gas for quenching the thirst of human needs. This requires drilling layers with various lithologies with variable
characteristics and dealing with more drilling problems as going deeper. Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) should be developed
to bypass drilling problems. This model will be used for analyzing instability of the wellbore wall, selecting optimized azimuth
and inclination for well trajectory, optimized perforation, sand production analysis and stimulation operation design. In this
paper, a mechanical earth model is developed for one of the Iranian fields in Middle East and then drilling data are employed
to optimize well trajectory based on wellbore stability models and higher penetration rate. Theoretical results show remarkable
increase in drilling performance and applying optimized parameters will shorten drilling operation.

Introduction

A reasonable understanding of hydrocarbon reservoir physical and mechanical behaviour could save the cost of drilling and
production to a large extent by preventing some drilling problems. Besides, many enhanced oil recovery procedures use rock
mechanic data and concepts at some stages of reservoir life. Before and while drilling operation taking advantage of rock
mechanical properties for designing and drilling optimization can significantly enhances drilling efficiency. Rock mechanical
properties were most often neglected or humiliated in well design till a decade before. All wellbore instabilities were supposed
to be chemical and more focus has been spent on mud properties to treat or prevent the instabilities especially in shales. In
some cases even with very ideal mud characteristics, instability occured which came another aspect of studies true. This
peephole was actually focusing on stress fileld disturbance and rock failure due to the stress concentration around the borehole.
Underground formations are always under some stresses, mostly overburden and tectonic. When a well is drilled in a
formation, stressed solid material is removed and replaced with a column of mud. Since drilling fluid pressure normally does
not match the stress exactly the stress which the removed solid exerted, there will be an alteration in the stress state around the
well. This stress alteration is important, since large stress deviations may lead to failure in the formation and consequently
large operational problems in the well, it becomes severe when stresses are close to each other. [1]
As well deepens, pore pressure and formation fracture profiles approach to each other and selection of the mud weight
becomes more crucial in order to have safe drilling operation without kick, hole breakout and pack off. On the other hand,
drilling multilateral and deviated boreholes which are favorite to increase production rate, are challenging in hole stability
issues and very sensitive to mud weight and azimuth of the wellbore. Actually occurrence of each drilling problem causes
increase in drilling time and reduced drilling efficiency. These problems can be solved by conduction of the geomechanical
studies.

Drilling cost
A key to succeed in any any drilling well job is to minimize costs along with safety, environmental issues and without drilling
problems. Major part of expences in development of oil and gas fields is related to the drilling phase of the project. To
minimize the cost of the drilling, appropriate drilling parameters should be taken during drilling operation. Each well
according to the geology of the region, top of the target formation, technical waitings and other non-associated waitings may
2 SPE 131718

have a drilling duration from 4 months to years. Sometimes, due to some drilling problems, program may be suspended even
for 2 to 4 years [2]. Drilling cost can be broken down to two distinguishable parts, fixed and variable costs. Formula 1
describes drilling cost:
cost Cb + Cr (tb + tc + tr )
= (1)
ft ΔD
In this formuls, Cb is bit cost ($), Cr is rig operation cost ($/hr), tb is bit running time (hr), tc is connection time (hr), tr is
drilling trip time (hr) and ΔD is drilled interval (ft). Drilling trip time can be roughly estimated by:
3Din
tr = 1 + (2)
1000
Where Din is the length of the drillstring is in the hole [3].
Drilling cost is a critical factor in determining the financial returns from an oil and gas investment. Its critical nature is
particularly true when operating costs are high and when drilling problems may be likely to occur. Drilling optimization is the
key to reduce Non-Productive-Time (NPT) when drilling is ceased [3]. Drilling optimization also will increase drilling
efficiency, safety and helps to protect environment with precise planning of mud weight and required materials. In order to
reduce the total cost, drilling rate should be increased which is attainable with paying attention to how interrelated operational
parameters can affect each other in order to increase rate of penetration.
According to the formula, three different acronyms illustrate role of time in the cost equation. Connection time depends on the
drilling crew efficiency and tripping time also depends on depth and efficiency of the crew on the floor. Bit type controls bit
running time and tripping time. Inappropriate type of bit will cause a decrease in penetration rate and also unripe tripping
which forces drilling operator to pull the bit out of hole. This will waste the time and impose extra expenses to the operator
company.

NPT analysis
Non-productive time is defined as time which drilling is ceased or penetration rate is very low and the fallowings can be
categorized as main features of NPT:
1. Lost circulation (severe and complete losses)
2. Pipe stuck (differential, mechanical and wellbore geometry related stucks)
3. Dealing with kicks and sometimes subsequent complete loss due to narrow mud weight window
4. Wellbore instability issues
5. Formation breakdown (generation of induced fractures) due to high ECD or pressure surges
6. Slow ROP in hard formations
7. Tripping for changing the bit
8. Fishing operation
9. Remedial cementing for increment of primary cementing
Qualitative NPT impact can be classified as follows:
1. Loss of or damage to equipments
2. Financial loss (behind budjet operation)
3. Health, safety and environmental (HSE) issues
4. Waiting for equipment arrival and new technique set up
Dodson in 2004 found that about 40% of non-productive drilling time was caused by both wellbore instability and pore-
pressure issues (e.g. kicks, gas flow, shallow water flow, lost circulation, wellbore instability, sloughing, and stuck pipe) [4].
therefore, in order to optimize drilling operation and reducing total cost, more focus should be spent on reducing these non-
efficient times.

Reducing NPT
Wellbore instability problems in exploration and development drilling operation cost the drilling industry more than $100
million per month worldwide and possibly as much as one billion dollars annually. The most commonly encountered wellbore
instability is borehole enlargement or collapse due to brittle rock failure of the wall. [5] When the borehole wall starts to break
out, small and large pieces of rock may settele down around the drillstring and pack the annulus off, while larger particles may
go around the bottomhole assembly (BHA) and jam the drillstring which can stick string and prevent its movement. When
drillstring can not be pulled out, freeing operation should be started and spending time for freeing may bring drilling program
behind the schedule. Sometimes many days should be spent by the drilling crew to solve the problem which imposes heavy
expenses to drilling company. Most often pipes will be freed by working on them, but if drill string can not be freed, it should
undergo back off operation. In this operation after determination of free point along the drillstring, drill pipes will be
unscrewed across the nearest tool joint above snag point. Upper section will be pulled out of the hole and operation will be
resumed by running fishing tools to retrieve the stuck part. Fishing operation may last few hours up to many weeks. In Iranian
oilfield due to complicated lithology, stressed zone (under Zagros catena mountain), enormous transverse faults and extreme
over pressure formations in southwest of Iran, frequent kick, loss and pipe sticking scenarios are observed. Major part of
drilling operation in Iranian oilfields is done by National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC). This company has more than 50
SPE 131718 3

rigs (working onshore and offshore), which increase probability of facing drilling problems. Thus freeing may impose
enormous costs to this big company.
Time break down structure of drilling a well is presented in Table 1. Drilling period as is shown can be divided to different
parts namely perfect well time, invisible lost time, time spent to deal with drilling problems, technical waitings and drilling
hazards. Perfect well time is actually the time which well is expected to be finished normally, invisible lost time strongly is
controlled by drilling crew efficiency, occurrence of drilling problems is likely to increase drilling time which can be classified
as lost circulation time, kick removing time and time spent for freeing the pipe. Technical waiting will come true when
operational parameters like pressure exceeds tool capacity and stronger tool should be transited to the location and employed.
Another unpredictable factor influencing NPT is weather condition, big thunders in southwest of Iran sometimes reach to the
earth surface, if one on them strikes to the rig, it can cause inexpiable harm to the assets (human and equipments). Drilling
hazards include issues related to health, safety and environment; it actually can contain facing with well blowout, firing and
leaking H2S from formation to the drilling fluid.

Table 1: Time break down structure of drilling an oil or gas well

Drilling Problems Technical Waiting/other
Invisible Kick Drilling
Perfect Well Time Lost Circulation Work on Stuck Limited Tool Tools Weather
Lost Time Removing Hazards
Curing Time Pipe Capacity Transportation Condition
Time
ÍConventional Normal Well TimeÎ Í NPT Can be Removed By Utilizing Mechanical Earth Model Î

Mechanical Earth Modelling (MEM)

A MEM is an explicit description of the mechanical properties of the reservoir and overburden formations, including rock
strength and elastic properties, the state of in-situ stresses and pore pressure. It forms the basis for any geomechanical analysis,
which includes wellbore stability analysis, sanding prediction evaluation, hydraulic fracture design, mechanical
characterization of fractured formation, fault seal evaluation, reservoir compaction, and subsidence evaluation, etc. [6]
Therefore reliability of stability studies heavily relies on robustness of MEM.
Rock mechanical properties can be obtained from different sources. Laboratory test results are the most accurate ones, but
results are scattered and expensive to carry out. On the other hand, derivation of rock mechanical properties from logs seems
to be better due to continuous survey. If rock mechanical properties are based on rock physical properties, they should be
calibrated with laboratory tests. Since log derived properties heavily rely on sonic wave transit time, loading and unloading
frequency of those waves is very important in final value of elastic properties and actually results are dynamic rather than
static. Dynamic data are almost 2.5 times greater than static properties of rocks (laboratory data) [7]. Thus model should be
modified with real laboratory data to match the reality.
Modeling mechanical properties of formation (MEM) is essential for planning an accurate drilling operation. Planning would
be perfect if all the aspects are included in the design. It is very important to optimize the operation and actually reducing total
cost of the well. From earlist stage of drilling a well (e.g. rig selection and screening), MEM plays essential role, it countinues
in entire drilling operation and even it will not abate in post drilling phase (e.g. complation design, stimulation design). This is
not more than a decade that this versatility of this tool (MEM) is acknowledged in petroleum industry. Nowadays, designer
engineer group implenete rock mechanical properties in MEM style for drilling bit selection, wellbore instability analysis,
optimizing well trajectory (style and orientation), maximizing penetration rate, casing design while drilling and optimizing
perforation orientation, stimulstion design and study on casing collapse phenomenon in post drilling phase of the development.
Below some of the applications are detailed.

Bit selection
The rate of penetration (ROP) depends on many variables including formation properties, mud properties, drilling hydraulic,
bit types and size, etc. these parameters can be devided to the fixed and changeable parameters, within, for example formation
lithology is fixed but others like bit type, drilling hydraulics, weight on bit and rotational speed are changeable parameters.
Among these parameters bit type and its related drilling parameters have pronounced effects on bit and formation interaction
and strongly controls rate of penetration.
Optimizing bit selection is one of the main challenges in drilling operations. There are too many parameters intervening in
drilling bit selection. Therefore, developing a logical relationship between them to assist in proper bit selection is extremely
necessary and complicated though. The point which is common between all of these methods is that, they use offset drilling
bits and well log records in order to select best bits for the nearby wells. The most common methods in relation to bit selection
are cost analysis, offset well dull bit record analysis, offset well log analysis, specific energy analysis of bits and performance
modeling based on mathematical models. These models visibly or invisibly take advantage of mechanical properties of
formations, especially rock strength and elastic modulus.
Cost equation is discussed in previous section. In offset well dul bit analysis approach, the engineer must have a working
knowledge of the types of bits available from major bit manufacturers and how best to use these bits in drilling formations
ranging from very soft to very hard. It is also important that the engineer should know both qualitative and quantitative
4 SPE 131718

description of bit wear from at least two nearby control wells in order to do a good job of selecting bits for the proposed well.
The problem with using offset records for bit selection is that, they contain no lithology or strength information. Bit records
indicate only how bits performed over the intervals drilled and under what conditions they were operated. Logs, not bit
records, are an indicator of what a bit penetrated. Therefore, use of logs for building a geomechanical model will assists
drilling engineer in making economical bit selection. The first attempts to select bits based on logs done in 1964 by W. J.
Hightower [8]; Later investigators [9,10,11] used advantages of sonic and other lithology logs to estimate rock compressive
strength and use of geomechqanical model to select bits.
Since drilling is interplay of bit and formation, mechanical properties of formation will greatly affect bit performance and it is
essential for designing a well to select appropriate bit type, otherwise it should be pulled out before meeting next casing point.
Formation strength plays a versatile role in bit performance and should be considered for bit selection. On the other hand,
mechanical earth model can be used to optimize working time of the bit. It actually will hwlp to know when existing bit is not
efficient in the bottom hole and should be replaced by a new one. Earlier, there was an approach which proposed continuous
monitoring of drilling cost according to time. Graph was contained change in fixed, variable and total cost versus drilled depth.
Optimum time was where minimum total cost occurred [12]. Recently, a better approach called mechanical specific energy is
used for finding optimum POOH (pull out of hole) time to change bit.

Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE)

Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) was first developed as an efficiency indicator and a drillability/cuttability measure.in rock
drilling by Teale [13]. Mechanical Specific Energy is defined as the energy required for drilling a unit volume of rock and is
mathematically defined as:
WOB 120π NT
MSE = + (3)
AB AB ROP
In this approach, AB is the bit surface area in square inch, N is rotary speed in RPM, T is measured torque on bit in lbf-ft and
MSE is mechanical specific energy in psi. In the other word:
1 ⎡ ⎛ 2sin ϕ ⎞⎤
MSE = ⎢UCS + Pe ⎜1 + ⎟⎥ (4)
EFFM ⎣⎢ ⎝ 1 − sin ϕ ⎠ ⎦⎥
ES min
EFFM = × 100 (4.1)
ES
Pe = ( PECD − PP ) Permeable rocks (4.2)
⎛ OB − PECD ⎞
Pe = ⎜ PECD − PP − ⎟ Impermeable rocks (4.3)
⎝ 3 ⎠
PECD = 0.052 M W TVD + ΔPannulus (4.4)
Where EFFM is mechanical efficiency and Esmin is rock shear strength. Pe is pressure difference while drilling which is
described for permeable and impermeable rocks in equations 4.2 and 4.3 respectively. OB in equation 4.3 is overburden stress
of the formations around wellbore and PECD in equation 4.4 is bottomhole circulating pressure. Bottomhole circulating pressure
is due to weight of drilling fluid column plus annular pressure drop while drilling (∆Pannulus) [14].
Above formulas contain rock mechanical properties and lithology. For implementation of mentioned formula a mechanical
earth model is required. It is self evident that to excavate a given volume of rock a certain, theoretically attainable, minimum
quantity of energy is required. This amount will depend entirely upon the nature of the rock and cutting tools. Since any
specific drilling assembly needs a defined amount of energy to remove a unit volume of rock with known physical and
mechanical properties, energy differences between different tools can be used as a comparing criteron to select the optimum
drilling tool and also while utilizing a drilling tool, it can be used as efficiency identifier [15]. Comparing calculated
mechanical energy with real spent enery will show how effective tool is drilling the formation. If energy difference is high, it
shows actually there is some kind of wasting energy. For example this difference can tell the operator, bit should be pulled out
and replaced because of dullness. If drilling is kept up, there will be some invisible financial loss.

Wellbore stability
The simplest way to develop an oil or gas field is drilling vertical wellbores. It does not require sophisticated BHA and survey
equipment. Drilling problems seems to be inconspicuous in comparison with non-vertical wells. But the fact is, deviated and
horizontal wells now play an important role in master development plan of oil and gas fields. Oil and gas fields are usually
drained from several platforms that extensively influence the development costs. The essential number of platforms could be
reduced by adopting utilizing slant and horizontal wells by enlarging the drainage area from a single point. This will increase
the productivity and may subsequently decrease the number of required platforms. In some cases like extended reach drilling
(ERD), deviated boreholes are drilled to reach a substantial distance horizontally away from the drilling location. This is
mainly done to access many parts of the reservoir from one location, which will also reduce the required number of platforms.
Moreover, deviated boreholes are sometimes essential to reach inaccessible locations that are not attaiable through vertical
boreholes. However, drilling non-vertical boreholes brings out new problems, such as cuttings transport, casing setting,
cementing and drill string friction. Torque and drag show dramatical increase as bit recedes from vertical direction and it also
SPE 131718 5

will increase the potential for borehole instability during drilling. Hence, a substantial saving in expenditure can be achieved
while avoiding instability problems in non-vertical wells [15]. Although drilling deviated and horizontal wells may bring out
severe instabilities, drilling vertical wells also will not guarantee absolutely stable wellbore, for example Master Development
Plan (MDP) of Wanaea field of the Australian Northwest Shelf proposes drilling deviated and oriented horizontal boreholes to
minimize wellbore instability issues [16].
Swift look on existing failure criteria will prove this idea which stability of the wellbore wall is governed by in-situ state of
stress system and rock strength. As mentioned before, stress alteration is the main reason of instabilities around the borehole.
In order to avoid borehole failure, drilling engineers should adjust the stress concentration properly through altering the
applied mud pressure and the orientation of the borehole with respect to the in-situ stresses. Since borehole allocation (in terms
of orientation) is limited, propper adjusting of mud weight (borehole pressure) will play an essential role in prevention of
drilling problems. Traditionally, 200 psi pressure margin was supposed to prevent flow of the formation to the well (kick)
regardless of formation strength and magnitude of stresses aroung borehole and that was satisfactory in the past. Nowadays, it
is proven that just controlling the flow will not fullfil all aspects of wellbore stability while drilling, and more pressure is
required to support the wellbore wall.
Most frequent drilling problems are kick, lost circulation and induced fractures. Most often, complete loss will occur when
induced fractures take place and subsequently drillstring will be stucked in the borehole. Kick will come into play when in
conventional drilling, well pressure falls below pore pressure and loss would be initiated when well pressure becomes equal or
exceeds least principal stress. Tensile failure comes into play when well pressure roughly becomes greater than tensile strength
of the formation plus least horizontal stress. Figure 1 shows different kinds of wellbore instability.

Figure 1: Different kinds of wellbore instability around wellbore

When speaking about mud weight window it is essential to know what is our intent from the word window, because our
definition from borehole condition while drilling will greatly affect mud weight range. According to figure 2, different
definition of mud window will result in diverse mud weight ranges. Safe and intact mud window is most narrow one which is
very conservative and difficult for implementation in conventional drilling. Drillers or designer engineers with accepting some
risks expand mud weight range to have safe mud window and it is actually prevalent approach in drilling operation. This
approach with signification of borehole breakout, increase the probability of pipe sticking because of separated chips from
borehole wall and settlement around pipes. Ther secure approach for preventing hole pack off is stable mud window. In this
lookout, mud loss is allowed but occurance of borehole breakout is severely prevented. For finding each window, stability
analysis should be conducted to the wellbore which needs building MEM.

Stess and Elastic Properties Magnitude

In mechanical model, overburden stress is calculated from integrating of average formation bulk density along borehole.
Poinssons ratio is calculated from this equation:
2
⎛ Δt S ⎞
⎜ ⎟ −2
1 ⎜⎝ ΔtC ⎟⎠
v= × (5)
2 ⎛ Δt ⎞2
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1
S

⎝ ΔtC ⎠
∆tC and ∆tS are compressional and shear wave transit time respectively in µs/ft. Since in the study area, DSI was just run in
few wells, a linear relationship is used for calculation of shear wave transit time as below: [17]
ΔTS = 1.7891ΔTC + 7.622 (6)
6 SPE 131718

Unconfined rock compressive strength also is derived based on rock lithology:

UCS = 254(1 − 2.7φ ) 2 Sandstone [18] (7)
246.540
UCS = e
−0.633+
Δt Carbonate [19] (8)
UCS = 1.35(304.8 / Δt ) Shale [18]
26
(9)
Ø is prosity and ∆t is compressional sonic transit time. Pore pressure is estimated from resistivity log based on Eaton’s
method. Biot factor (α) which controls effective stress is considered to be 0.7 and in-situ stresses afterward calculated from
below formulas:
v Eε vEε
δH max =
1− v
(δ V − α PP ) + α PP + 1 − vx2 + 1 − vy2 (10)
v Eε vEε
δH min =
1− v
(δ V − α PP ) + α PP + 1 − vy2 + 1 − vx2 (11)
Where v is Poisson’s ratio, E is Young’s modulus in psi, PP is pore pressure in psi, δV is vertical stress around borehole and εx
and εy are very small strains in X and Y directions. The value of least horizontal sress actually is equal to interstitial shut-in
pressure (ISIP) in leak off test or hydraulic fracturing operation. In the lithostatic conditions, horizontal stresses are equal in all
directions which is expected in isotropic condition in the horizontal plane, but in the areas experienced high level of tectonic
activities, situation would be different. In these areas horizontal stress will be greater than overburden stress because in the
figure 3 displacement was taken place in the vertical direction where smaller opposition is againt motion.

Figure 2: Different mud weigth windows

Figure 3: Order of stresses in reverse faulted area

Stress alteration
When a borehole is drilled, actually a volume of solid is removed and displaced with a column of mud. This change will
introduce sort of induced stresses around borehole vanishing trough the formation beyond wellbore. They are actually radial
stress and hoop (tangential) stresses (figure 1). They mathematically can be described by Kirsch’s equations as: [20]
SPE 131718 7

1 ⎡ r2 ⎤ 1 ⎡ r 2 3r 4 ⎤ r2
δ rr =
2
( δ H max + δ H min ) ⎢1 − w2 ⎥ + (δ H max + δ H min ) ⎢1 − 4 w2 + 4w ⎥ cos 2θ − ΔP w2 (12)
⎣ r ⎦ 2 ⎣ r r ⎦ r

1 ⎡ r2 ⎤ 1 ⎡ 3r 4 ⎤ r2
δθθ =
2
( δ H max + δ H min ) ⎢1 + w2 ⎥ − (δ H max + δ H min ) ⎢1 + 4w ⎥ cos 2θ − ΔP w2 (13)
⎣ r ⎦ 2 ⎣ r ⎦ r
Where δrr is radial stress, δθθ is tangential stress, rw is wellbore radius, r is distance from well center to the formation, θ is angle
around wellbore from major horizontal stress and ∆P=PW-PP. since this is elastic solution, maximum value of tangential stress
and minimum value of radial stress will occur on the wellbore wall. Hence deviatoric stress is doer of failure, shear failure is
very likely to occure around wellbore, not in the formation.

Stress orientation
Borehole instability analysis requires orientation and magnitude of the in situ stresses, pore pressure and a failure criterion for
the rock. The values of the in situ stresses are probably the most important input parameters. However, these are usually
insufficiently known. Figure 1 shows different possible failures around borehole. Borehole breakout is a frequent phenomenon
where well pressure cannot support wellbore wall. Breakout is a shear failure and takes palce when tangential stress roughly
exceeds uniaxial rock strength and effect of radial stress (Mohr-Coulumb criterion). The likelihood of occurrence of shear
failure is in the direction of minimum horizontal stress (θ-90). Based on this fact and using image logs, orientation of
horizontal stresses can be scandalized. Sometimes when image log is not accessible or is not run in the field, azimuth angle of
maximum horizontal stress can be derived from World Stress Map (WSM) data. In this paper for analyzing wellbore stability,
two wells with same inclinations and different azimuths in Ahwaz oilfield (southwest of Iran) are selected and analyzed.
According to worls stress map in figure 4, this area has tectonically actived in millions of years ago which causes generation of
numerous faulted zones. Stress ragim was also in the way which causes reverse faults in the study area. World stress map data
base showed the average azimuth of N20E (figure 5).

270 90

180

Figure 4: Stress orientation in Ahwaz-Iran [21] Figure 5: Orientation of maximum horizontal stree in Ahwaz
oilfield

Failure Criteria
Lots of failure criteria can be utilized for analyzing instability initiation. Mohr-Coulumb is the first and simplest criterion can
be used in geomechanical studies. It actually is combination of uniaxial strength, minimum and maximum principal stresses,
but it does not contain mean principle stress effect. Another recent efficient criterion is called Mogi-Coulumb. This is actually
a 3D failure criterion that can consider the effect of intermediate stress. This can be utilized to optimize well orientation and
minimizing well problems based on wellbore allocation and if expressed indetails by Al-Ajmi et al. [5]. They have
investigated different inclinations/azimuths and showed that less mud weight is required for maintaining integrity of the
wellbore in the direction of major horizontal stress for non-vertical wells. Stability of inclined wellbores looks more essential
when drilling in tectonically overstressed formations. In these areas like the Southwest of Iran (with high reverse fault
intensity) horizontal stress is larger than vertical stress and causes lots of instability problems if inappropriate drilling
condition is selected. In this area, pipe stuck, tight hole, borehole collapse and severe mud loss are frequent experienced
8 SPE 131718

drilling problems in these areas. According to the Al-Ajmi and et al. work, best trajectory for drilling a well in over stressed
formations is in the direction of maximumhorizontal stress. Precision of this pretension is proved when looking on different
well trajectories drilled in Ahwaz oilfield till now. Below is a case study on well trajectory based drilling problems in Ahwaz
oilfield.

Case Study
The Ahwaz field is located near the Ahwaz city. This field, one of the largest hydrocarbon bearing structures in the world, is a
large northwest-southwest trending anticline. It is composed of Aghajari, Mishan, Gachsaran, Asmari, Pabdeh, Gurpey and
Sarvak formations. Aghajari formation is made up of mainly red marls and minor layers of grey marl, siltstone and calcareous
sandstone. Mishan formation mostly consists of low weathering grey marl and some layers of red marl and limestone.
Gachsaran formation has been divided into seven members. Ghachsaran member 1 is the cap rock which conformably overlies
the Asmari. It consists of alternating thick anhydrite beds and thin limestones associated with bituminous shales. It is an
important unit separating high pressures encountered in the Gachsaran formation from the lower pressures zone of the Asmari.
This formation mainly consists of limestone that underlying shale and the basal anhydrite are included in the Pabdeh
Formation. [22]
As mentioned before, beased on wellbore stability approach, the best practice is drilling in the direction of the maximum
horizontal stress, so well A and B from this field are selected to prove this cliam. These wells are drilled for production of a
same target formation. Their inclination is equal and about 30 degree but their azimuth are so much different. One of them is
drilled near the optimized plane (plane containes δHmax) and another well is about to be perpendicular to this direction. Below
is short description about drilling history of these wells.

Well A
This well was planned to be drilled with 29 degree inclination and N87E degree Azimuth. Top hole was drilled with and
surface casing was run and cemented in place shortly after rig up. Drilling of the next phase was initiated with bentonitic mud
to the kick-off point (KOP) in 1055m MD (measured depth). Drilling was kept on to the depth 1746 m and then mud weight
was increased due to tight hole problem, this also caused intermediate casing to be set in this point. No cement return was
observed and about 168 bbl cement slurry then pumped to the annulus.
The 12 1/4" borehole was initiated with 135 pcf water based mud with 29.5 degree inclination and 91 degree azimuth. As
drilling proceeded mud weight was increased to 138 pcf like nearby wells in the setting point of 9 5/8" production casing.
The 8 1/2" borehole was drilled with water based mud of 68 pcf up to 2632 m MD. Mud weigh then increased to 70 pcf to deal
with severe tight holes in 8 1/2" borehole. Drilling mud then was replaced by an oil based drilling fluid with 72 pcf density,
but actually this was not enough to withstand against borehole wall and tight hole again occurred. Mud weight then was
increased to 73 pcf up to about 3400 m with a minor mud loss. In this depth while connection, drill string got stuck and drilling
crew started working on pipes. They increased mud weight to 76 pcf and freed the pipes with over pull. Well conditioning
afterward resumed for cleaning the wellbore from cuttings, and drilling went ahead to the setting poing of the 7" liner with
suffering from tight hole, mud weight again increased to 78 pcf. While tripping out, about 200 m above liner point drillstring
got stuck probably because of tight hole. Drilling crew started working on pipes with reducing mud weight to 68 pcf,
drillstring was freed and wellbore conditioning resumed with 73, 75 and 77 pcf drilling mud.
The next borehole was drilled with 78 pcf mud weight and no major drilling problem. Well then was completed and rig was
released. Blue wing in Figure 6 shows azimuth changes of this borehole and red wing represents orientation of maximum
horizontal stress. Direction of the wellbore is likely to be normal to the optimized plane and in the direction of least horizontal
stress, this caused occurrence of numerous drilling problems were documented in the drilling history of this well.

Well B
This well was planned to be completed in the same formation as well A with about 31 degree inclination and 231.2 degree
azimuth. Drilling of the top hole started with bentonitic mud and surface casing was set on 59 m MD. Drilling was resumed in
the new hole with previous mud (63 pcf) up to 128 m and then process continued with cycle C (open system) to 1270 m MD.
Afterward mud weight increased to 69 pcf in 1433 m MD and operation proceeds by another increase in mud weight (71 pcf)
in 1572 m MD without lost circulation. In 1856 m MD mud weight was increased from 75 to 77 pcf due to tight hole and
required wash and ream operation. Drilling was continued to the intermediate casing setting point in the Gachsaran member 7
formation.
The next borehole should pass high pressure formation called Gachsaran (members 6 to 1) with a mud weight as high as 136.5
pcf. Drilling was performed from previous casing point to 2208 m without mud loss. This is actually kick-off point (KOP) for
this well. Drillstring pulled out and then ran back in hole with special tools to make deviation. Drilling resumed with water
based mud of 137 pcf and then due to undulation of calcium ion, mud weight was increasd to 142 pcf and operation was kept
up to the next casing point in the cap rock.
The 8 1/2" borehole was then penetrated by 67 pcf water based mud and then mud was replaced with a 68 pcf oil based mud
which gradually increased to 70 pcf according to nearby wells. Logging operation was performed and when running back in
the hole, a severe tight hole occurance forced drilling crew to increase the mud weight to 72.5 pcf. Drilling was maitend with
no loss till setting point of 7" liner.
SPE 131718 9

Next hole was then initiated with previous mud weight and continued with no mud loss. Afterward coring operation was
administered. While coring due to light flow to the wellbore, drilling crew increased mud weight to 74.5 pcf up to total depth
with no major problem.
Blue wing in the figure 7 shows azimuth changes of this well and red wing describes orientation of optimized drilling plane
(direction of δHmax). This well was drilled in the direction near to optimized drilling plane and according what was illustrated
above, in comparison with well A, no severe drilling problem was experienced in this well. This proves this idea that the best
trajectory in tectonically stressed area with reverse faults is drilling in the direction of major horizontal stress.
δHmax δHmax

Drilled
Azimuth

Drilled
Azimuth

Figure 6: Well A and maximum horizontal stress orientation in Figure 7: Well B and maximum horizontal stress orientation in
Ahwaz oilfield Ahwaz oilfield

Drilling Rate
Drilling models are mathematical description of inter related operational parameters affecting bit-rock interaction
performance. Drilling is actually the process of crumbling and removing rocks under bit, so bit type and specification is one of
the parameters control rate of penetration. On the other hand, main rock property acting against bit, is rock strength. As rock
becomes harder, drilling decreases because more energy is required for excavation of rock, besides bit wear also causes
reduction of penetration rate and increases while drilling hard and abrasive formations. Other operational parameters like
weight on bit (WOB), rotational speed (RPM), bit size, jet impact force (JIF), mud viscosity, differentional pressure between
formation and drilling fluid likewise lithology affect drilling rate. Different approaches have been developed to describe
penetration rate based on operational parameters. The most famous ones are Bingham [23], Borguyne and Young, Warren [24]
and Ceicedo’s model [25].
Further modification on Warren method had been perfomed to include effect of bit wear, drilling fluid efficiency on hole
cleaning and chip-hold down effect. Final version of this formula is as below:
−1
⎛ ⎛ aS 2 Dbit
3
b ⎞ c ρμ Dbit ⎞
ROP = W f ⎜ f c ( Pe ) ⎜⎜
⎜ 2
+ ⎟⎟ + ⎟
⎟
(14)
⎝ ⎝ RPM .WOB RPM .Dbit ⎠ F jm ⎠
The first term of the equation 14 defines the rate at which rock is broken into small chips by the bit (drilling rate, ROP). The
second term modifies the predictions to account for the distribution of the applied WOB to more teeth as teeths penetrate
deeper into the rock due to increase in WOB. The third term accounts for the efficiency of the cutting-removal process, based
on hydraulics. Wf highlites the effect of bit wear in reduction of penetration rate, fc(Pe) includes the effect of differential
pressure, S is apparent rock strength (ARS), Dbit, RPM and WOB are bit size, rotational speed and weight on bit respectively.
The coefficients a, b and c are characteristic of the bit design. ρ is mud weight, besides µ and Fjm are mud viscosity and jet
impact force respectively. Detailed description shall be addressed to reference [24]. ASR in this formula is actually confined
compressica strength which is reciprocal to drilling rate. The effect of mud weight in this formula is increasing confining stress
on the rock and its compressive strength. Thus the higher the mud weight, the higher confined compressice strength would be
which will decrease penetration rate.
Another important approach is using mechanical specific energy (MSE) to describe drilling rate. This concept is decribed
mathematically in equation 3. Ceicedo et al. (2005) combined mechanical efficiency, bit sliding coefficient (µ), mechanical
efficiency (EFFM) and confined compressive strength (CCS) and proposed anew ROP model as below:
10 SPE 131718

13.33μ N
ROP =
⎛ CCS 1 ⎞ (15)
DB ⎜ − ⎟
⎝ EFFM .WOB AB ⎠
N is rotational speed (RPM), DB is bit diameter in inches, WOB is weight on bit in lbf and AB is bit exposure area in square
inches. µ is bit coefficient sliding factor and EFFM as described in equation 4.1 is mechanical efficiency. This model includes
positive effect of mud weight on increasing rock strength (confined stress).
Mentioned model can not include the effect of well trajectory orientation on the penetration rate. In the other word these
models can not directly predict the effect of inclination and azimuth on the rate of penetration. Effect of stress path is not
known when using above approaches, so selecting the best orientation for wellbore in order to have higher penetration rate
besides more stability. Since there are a lot of inter related parameters affecting ROP, it is better to use artificial intelligence
for prediction of drilling rate.

Artificial Neural Network Modeling

Artificial neural networks overtrued in the mid 1980's after major advances had been made in neuroscience. Artificial neural
networks (ANNs) are non-programmed adaptive information processing systems which can develop operational capabilities in
response to an information environment and are mostly designed to perform nonlinear mapping between two sets of inputs and
outputs [26].
In this study a 2 layers feed forward back propagation neural network with 20 neurons in first layers is utilized for prediction
of penetration rate in difernt azimuths. This network possesses TRAINLM for training function and LEARNGDM for
adaptation learning function. TANSIG function is used for first layers and PURELIN is utilized in the last layer. Operational
parameters from deviated offset wells like measured depth (MD), weight on bit (WOB), rotational speed (rpm), bit diameter
(DB), total flow area of nozzles (TFA), bit type (IADC code) and its specifications, pump rate (Q) and pump pressure (SPP),
BHA configuration, mud weight, inclination and deviatoric azimuth, rock strength (UCS), three principal stresses away from
the well (δob, δHmax and δHmin) and pore pressure (expected pore pressure gradient times TVD in different formations) are fed
to the network while penetration rate is target data. Network results are graphically shown in figures 8 to 10.
2
Training R =0.92
35

30

25

20
Actual ROP

15

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Predicted ROP
Figure 8: Training results of network
SPE 131718 11

Validation results, R2=091

30

Actual ROP
20

10

0
0 10 20 30

Predicted ROP
Figure 9: Validation result of the network

Testing Results, R2=0.89

35

30

25
Actual ROP

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Predicted ROP

Figure 10: Test result of the network

According to figures 8 to 10, network is well trained now it is ready to predict penetration rate in different azimuth and
inclinations. Simulated data afterward will be processed by genetic algorithm to find azimth angles based on the highest
penetratin rate. Genetic algorithm is an intelligence to find the minimum value of the function is fed, if function is multiplied
by a negative sign, algorithm will find values with maximum amount. Although variable in this stage is penetration rate,
finally azimuthangle will be as deliverable in rose diagram.
Processing all data resulted in an indistinct rose diagram with different distribution. This was cause because data were mixed
from different formations. So, for clarification, data are categorized based on depth and every data point is related to a specific
formation. Since well trajectory optimization will be done below kick off point, some formations maybe missed during
optimization process. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate how bit tends to deviate in the specific direction where less resistance and
rock strength allow them to penetrate faster and further in the formation.
12 SPE 131718

0 0

270 90 270 90

180 180

Figure 11: Optimized azimuth for drilling in Gachsaran formarion Figure 12: Optimized azimuth for drilling in Asmari formation

Conclusion
Mechanical earth modeling is very essential for conducting geomechanical studies and also is very helpful for designing a well
trajectory. MEM can be utilized for drilling bit selection, stability analysis of vertical and deviated boreholes and drilling
optimization. Drilling optimization was conducted to select optimize well trajectory to minimize drilling problems and actually
non-productive time (NPT). Based on this approach, direction of maximum horizontal stress was the best choise. On the other
hand, well trajectory optimized based on higher penetration rate. Since majority of ROP models cannot consider effect of
stress profile and well direction, data for assessing the effect of inclination and azimuth were generated by an ANNs model.
Then genetic algorithm (GA) comes into play for screening data according to higher ROP. Azimuth angle from GA resultant
data showed that, in the maximum horizontal direction, higher ROP can be experienced. Thus the best orientation for drilling a
well in this oilfield is in the direction of maximum horizontal stress.

Recommendation
The main function of the drilling engineer is to recommend drilling procedures that will result in the successful completion of
the well as safely and cost-effectively. So it is strongly recommended to build mechanical model of the feild before drilling
initiation. Optimized well trajectory selected based on geological issues and wellbore stability studies. Drilling problems are
most often related to rock mechanics, so it is better that drilling crew have sufficient information about rock mechanics.

Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC) for permission to publish this paper and also we
would appreciate Mr Abbas Roohi from National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) for his fabulous consultations.

Nomencluture
a, b, c Bit coefficients (hr.rpm.in/ft)
AB Bit area (in2)
CCS Confined compressive strength (psi)
Cb bit cost ($)
Cr rig operation cost ($/hr)
Dbit Bit diameter (in.)
Din Length of drillstring in the hole (ft)
ΔD drilled interval (ft)
EFFM mechanical efficiency
ES min Rock strength (psi)
ES Consumed energy (psi)
E Young’s Modulus (psi)
Fjm Jet impact force (lbs)
f c ( Pe ) Effect of pressure difference
SPE 131718 13

MSE Mechanical specific energy (psi)

WOB Weight on bit (lbs)
N Rotational speed (rpm)
OB Overburden pressure (psi)
Pe Dynamic pressure difference in the bottomhole (psi)
PECD Dynamic drilling fluid pressure on bottomhole (psi)
PP Pore pressure (psi)
ΔP Pressure difference between pore pressure and mud pressure (psi)
ROP Rate of penetration (ft/hr)
rw Wellbore radius (ft)
r Distance from wellbore in radial direction (ft)
S Apparent rock strength (psi)
T Torque (lb-ft)
tb bit running time (hrs)
tc connection time (hr)
tr drilling trip time (hr)
UCS Unconfined compressive strength (psi)
v Poisson’s ratio
Wf Wear function
ϕ Internal friction angle
ΔtC Compressional wave transit time (µs/ft)
Δt S Shear wave transit time (µs/ft)
φ porosity
δV Overburden stress (psi)
δH max Maximum horizontal stress (psi)
δH min Minimum horizontal stress (psi)
α Biot’s factor
εx Strain in X direction
εy Strain in Y direction
δ rr Radial stress (psi)
θ Angle from maximum horizontal stress direction around wellbore
ρ Mud weight (ppg)
μ Mud viscosity (cp)

References
1. E. Fjaer, R. M. Holt, P. Horsrud, Arena M. RAAEN and R. Risnes, “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics”, Elsevier, first printing
1992, second impression 1996, chapter 4, page 123.
2. M. Runtuwene, S. Suprihono, and D. Rizka, A. E. Prasetia, J. S. Toralde, and S. Nas, “Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling Drastically
Reduces Non-Productive Time in Soka Field, South Sumatera”, SPE/IADC 125311, 2009, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference & Exhibition.
3. P. Paes, A. Aragao, D.C. Chen, “Cost effective drilling optimization technologies in Campos Basin”, Paper SPE 94785.
4. J. Villatoro, S. Boutalbi, K. Schmigel, H. Qutob, M. van Galen and S. Lakshminarayanan, “Controlled Pressure Drilling (CPD)
Candidate Screening Methodology”, SPE 120035, SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in the Bahrain
International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 15–18 March 2009.
5. Al-Ajmi, A.M. and Zimmerman, R.W., "Stability Analysis of Deviated Boreholes Using the Mogi-Coulomb Failure Criterion,
With Applications to Some Oil and Gas Reservoirs", IADC/SPE 104035, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference
and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 13–15 November 2006.
6. K. Qiu, Y. Gherryo, C. P. Tan and R. Marsden, “Underbalanced drilling of a horizontal well in depleted reservoir: A wellbore
stability perspective”, spe 105215, 2007.
7. V. Rasouli, “Geomechanics and Wellbore Stability Analysis”, lecture 2, Logbased Wellbore Stability, Curtin University of
Technology, Perth, Western Australia, 2008.
8. W. J. Hightower,” Proper Selection of Drill Bits and Their Use”, SPE paper 794, Hughes Tool Co., Midland, Texas, 1964.
9. E. C. Onyla, “Relationship between Formation Strength, Drilling Strength and electric log Properties”, SPE paper 18166, Amoco
Production Co. 1988.
10. J. R. Spaar and L.W. Ledgerwood, Hughes Christensen, and Harvey Goodman, R.L. Graff, and T.J. Moo, Chevron Petroleum
Technology Co.:” Formation Compressive Strength Estimates for Predicting Drillability and PDC Bit Selection”, SPE paper
29397, March 1995.
14 SPE 131718

11. Kenneth L. Mason, “Three Cone Bit Selection Using Sonic Logs”, Paper SPE 13256, Amoco Production Co, June 1987.
12. A. Moazzeni, M. Nabaei, “Drilling Engineering”, volume 1, Kankash publication, ISBN: 978-964-2596-874, pages 138-140.
13. Teale, R.: ”The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 2, pp. 57-73, 1995.
14. B. Rashidi, G.Hareland, and R. Nygaard, Real-Time Drill Bit Wear Prediction by Combining Rock Energy and Drilling Strength
Concepts, spe paper 117109-MS-p , 2008.
15. H. Rabia and M. Farrelly, U. of Newcastle and M.V. Barr,” A New Approach to Drill Bit Selection”, SPE 15894, 1986.
16. Kingsborough, R.H. et al.: “Borehole instability on the Northwest Shelf of Australia”, paper SPE 23015 presented at the 1991 SPE
Asia Pacific Conference held in Perth, Western Australia, Nov. 4-7
17. M. Nabaei, K. Shahbazi, A. Shadravan, A. R. Moazzeni, ”Artificial Neural Network Modelling Enhances Shear Wave Transit
Time”, paper No 12158, 6th International Chemical Engineering Congress and Exhibition, held at 16-20 Nov. 2009, Kish Island,
Iran.
18. A. Khaksar, Z. Fang, T. Kayes, A. Salazar and K. Rahman, " Rock Strength from Core and Logs: Where We Stand and Ways to
Go", SPE 121972, 2009
19. M. Nabaei, K. Shahbazi, A. Shadravan, M. Amani, “Uncertainty Analysis in Unconfined Rock Compressive Strength Prediction”,
SPE 131719, presented at the 2010 Deep Gas Conference in Bahrain 24-26 Jan.
20. J. Whily, “Petroleum Well Construction”, edited by Michael J. Economides, Larry T. Watters, Shari Dunn-Norman, 1997,
Halliburton Energy Services, chapter 5, pages 220-222.
21. World Stress Map released by Heidelberg Academy of Science Humanities, Gheophysical Institute, University of Karlsruhe
22. M. Jafarzadeh and M.h Hosseini-Barzi, "Petrography and geochemistry of Ahwaz Sandstone Member of Asmari Formation,
Zagros, Iran: implications on provenance and tectonic setting", Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, v. 25, núm. 2, 2008, p.
247-260.
23. Bingham, M. G.: “A new approach to interpreting rock drillability,” Oil & Gas Journal. (Nov2, 1964·Apr il 5, 1965).
24. M. Rastegar, G. Hareland et al., Optimization of Multiple Bit Runs Based on ROP Models and Cost Equation: A New
Methodology Applied for One of the Persian Gulf Carbonate Fields, SPE 114665, 2008.
25. A. Al Jarwan, A. Al Menhali, and K. Al Kindi, “Optimization of Drilling Operational Parameters and UBD Feasibility Study in a
Mature UAE Field Wells”, SPE 118082, presented in Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 3–6 November 2008
26. Mohaghegh, S., Arefi, R., Ameri, S., and Rose, D., West Virginia University, “Design and Development of an Artificial Neural
Network for Estimation of Formation Permeability”, SPE 28237, 1994.