ARMA 13-132

Case Studies on Wellbore Stability of Tight Sand

Formation in West China
Xinpu Shen
Halliburton, Houston, TX, USA

Copyright 2013 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 47 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26
June 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: There are plenty of tight sand gas resources in west China. The depth of the target formation in this kind of resource
is usually as deep as 6000 to 7000 m, and it is usually under salt. Pore pressure prediction and wellbore stability analysis for a set of
wells has been performed. The top-table method was used to derive the pore pressure of the target wells from relevant offset wells.
Results of the pore pressure prediction for the target well with input data from offset wells are shown in Fig.1 in the middle track.
Because the stress pattern in this area is a reverse fault, the overburden gradient is taken as the fracture gradient. SFG calculated for
two different offset wells are shown on the left and right tracks respectively. The values of SFG calculated at the original location
of the offset well are visualized and compared with the value of SFG calculated using the top-table method at the target well. Based
on the resultant solution of SFG and FG calculated with top-table method from two different offset wells, the SFG and FG of the
target well are determined and. This work presents two case studies of safe mud design in sub-salt tight sand gas formations. The
results of the SFG and FG provide a best-practice and a useful reference for wellbore stability analyses in this region.

correlates the pore pressure of offset wells to target wells

1. INTRODUCTION
There are plenty of tight sand gas resources in west
China. The depth of the target formation in this kind of
resource is usually as deep as up to 7500 m, and it is
usually under salt. In addition, wellbore instability such
as stuck pipe and borehole ovalization occur frequently
when drilling in this area. Many researchers have
investigated problems existing in development of tight
sand gas in this area [1][2][3][4][5].
The mechanical properties of salt formations in this area
are significantly different from those found in the Gulf
of Mexico. There is abnormally high pore pressure, and
logging data results for gamma ray and resistivity here
are close to that of non-salt formations. These factors
made it difficult to obtain an accurate and safe mud
weight window. Therefore, an elastoplastic porous
model was used to calculate wellbore stability for deep
tight sand gas formations in this work. Logging data
from 6 offset wells was used to derive pore pressure and
safe mud weight windows for 2 target wells. The drilling
history of 4 offset wells was used to help determine the
safe mud weight window.
Pore pressure prediction and wellbore stability analysis
for a set of wells has been performed. The top-table
method was used to derive the pore pressure of the target
wells from relevant offset wells [6]. This method
in terms of values of pore pressure (PP) and of the
corresponding formation depth interval of the wells
involved. This method was also used to derive the shear
failure gradient (SFG) and fracture gradient (FG) of the
target well.
2. PROBLE DESCRIPTION
Fig.1 and Fig.2 show the two sets of wells, among which
well A0 and B0 are two target wells, and the other wells
shown in these figures are offset wells.
In principle, the top table method uses data of offset well
to deliver information at target well. However, there are
two kinds of choices which can be used in practice:
either use logging data or resultant mechanical data to
analyze wellbore stability at target location. In the
following, both methods mentioned above will be
applied to the sets of wells A0, A1 and A2. Results will
be compared. Geomechanical analysis on the well sets of
B0, B1 and A2 will be performed with the method which
is proved better.
All the wells involved here are vertical well. This area is
reverse fault stress pattern, i.e., over burden stress
gradient (OBG) is the minimum principal stress gradient,
and is thus taken as the upper bound of mud weight
window.

10km
6km
Well A1
Well A2
Well A0

Fig.1. Relative locations of well A1, A2, A0.

Fig.3 Logging data of well A1.

Well A2
15km

Well B1 Well B0

Fig.2. Relative locations of well B1, A2, and B0.

In the process of calculation of SFG, minimum

horizontal stress gradient (ShG) and maximum
horizontal stress gradient (SHG) were also involved. It is
assumed here that
ShG=1.05×OBG; SHG=1.10×ShG (1)
One reason of using well A2 twice in this calculation is
that: it is the 1st well drilled in this area, and thus it has Fig.4 Logging data of well A2.
the best data set of drilling history which can be used in
model calibration. For the sake of brevity, the process of
model calibration is omitted here.
2.1. Geomechanical analysis using top table
method and logging data.
In this section, logging data from Well A1 and A2 will
be used to generate corresponding data at position of
target well A0. Fig.3 shows the logging data obtained at
well A1, and Fig.4 shows that of well A2.
Usually, steps of using top table to do the prediction
include:
(i) Make PP and SFG prediction to well A0 with
logging data at well A1 with top table method;
(ii) Make PP and SFG prediction to well A0 with
logging data at well A2 with top table method;
(iii) Make interpretation of the resultant value of PP
and SFG obtained with top table method in step
1 and 2, and determine the final value of PP and
SFG for well A0 with reference to the relative Fig.5 shows the value of frictional angle of formation of well
spatial relationship A0 derived from logging data of A2.
In above, Fig.5 shows the value of frictional angle FA,
cohesive strength CS and Uniaxial compressive strength
UCS of formation of well A0 obtained with top table
method and the logging data of well A2.
In the calculation process of CS, FA and UCS with
logging data, correlation of Horsrud’s Law is adopted
[7][8]. Fig. 6 shows the PP and SFG at well A0
corresponding to the logging data of offset wells A2.
A0
A2
Fig. 6 PP and SFG at target well A0, along with lithology
column of the well A0 and A2.
In order to verify the accuracy of the procedure used
here, comparison has been for values of PP and SFG of
target well A0 obtained with top table method and the
one at its original position of well A1.
A2
Fig.7. Comparison of values of PP and FG obtained with top
table method at target well A0 and the one at its original
position of well A2.
A1 A0
Salt
Salt
Fig.8. Comparison of values of PP and FG obtained with top
table method at target well A0 and the one at its original
position of well A1.
Calculation in the top table method for the results shown
in Fig. 6 and Fig.7 are based on logging data
interpretation. Fig.8 shows the comparison of the same
kind of results at well A0 and A1.
In Fig.7 it is seen that result of SFG obtained with top
table method is significantly different from the one
calculated at its original position. The difference is so
large that the derived result of SFG at target well A0 is
somehow not reasonable. In Fig.6, it is seen that
formation top for various lithology layers are quite
different from each other for those of the two wells.
From Fig. 8, it is seen that the difference between PP
and SFG at its original well location A1 and the target
well location A0 is not so significant for the same
lithology layer when their TVD values are close to each
other.
It is believed here that the differences of the lithology for
various formation layers are magnified in the process of
calculation by using top table method. Thus, this
calculation procedure results in a set of values of SFG
shown in Fig. 6 to 8 which are not so reasonable.
In order to obtain a better result, another way has been
tested here: using PP, OBG and SFG obtained at original
well location to derive its corresponding values at target
well with top table method.
In the following Fig. 9, it is shown the values of
mechanical variables PP, OBG and SFG are close to
each for the same lithology layer. Calculation with top
table method shifts values of points of the PP, OBG and
SFG curves with reference to the TVD depth only. No
significant variation of values of SFG for the same
lithology points occurred with variation of their TVD
depth in the case of using logging data instead.

Fig. 9 Resultant curves of PP, OBG and SFG with top table
method at A0 and the corresponding values at well A2.
Fig. 10. Resultant mud weight window defined by the two
curves of SFG_def and OBG_def.
With this calculation practice, the steps of using top
table method can be summarized as the following:
In summary, steps of using top table to do the prediction
include:
(i) Compare the difference of lithology column of
the target well with that of the offset wells. If the
two formation of the same lithology have similar
TVD depth for both target well and offset well,
it is OK to use logging data in the calculation of
top table method. If the difference of TVD
values between the same lithology layers for
target well and offset well, than it is necessary to
use PP, OBG and SFG curves calculated at
offset wells for calculation with top table
method.
(ii) Make PP and SFG prediction to well A0 using
data at well A1 with top table method;
(iii) Make PP and SFG prediction to well A0 using
data at well A2 with top table method;
(iv) Make interpretation of the resultant value of PP
and SFG obtained with top table method in step
1 and 2, and determine the final value of PP and
SFG for well A0 with reference to the relative
spatial relationship. For the case when multi-
offset wells being used, the offset well which
has similar value of TVD depth for each
lithology layers should take bigger weighting
factor in the calculation process of final
interpretation process.
2.2. Geomechanical analysis using top table
method and values of mechanical variables.
Calculation of PP, SFG and OBG has been performed
with the top table method described in above section for
well set of B1, A2 and B0. Well B0 is the target well.
Fig.11 shows the logging data of well B1.
Fig.11. shows the logging data of well B2.
In Fig.12, comparisons have been made for the original
SFG and its corresponding value at location of target
well B0. On the left track it is for the data related to well
A2 and B0, and on the right track it is for the data related
to well B1 and B0. It is seen in Fig. 12 that difference of
SFG curves between the one calculated at its original
location with logging data and the one calculated with
top table method at target well location is reasonable.
Fig.13 shows the lithology columns of both target well
B0, offset well B1. It is seen that lithology of these two
wells are very close to each other. Therefore, weighting
factors from results of PP, SFG and OBG obtained with
data from well B1 should be larger than that from well
A2. Resultant values of curves SFG_def and OBG_def
for well B0 is basically determined with reference to this
well B1. Fig.13 shows the mud weight window defined
by curves SFG_def and OBG_def for target well B0
obtained with top table method.

A2 B1
Fig. 12. Comparisons of SFG curves between the one
calculated with logging data at well A2 and the value obtained
with top table method for location of target well B0.
B0 B1
Fig. 13. Results of mud weight window defined by curves of
SFG_def and OBG_def.
3. ENDING REMARKS
Top table method is a simple and effective tool for
derivation of mud weight window at target well location
with given data from offset wells. Logging data is the
data set usually used in the kind of calculation.
However, due to the differences of data between the
target and that of the offset wells, it is necessary to pay
extra attention to the data chosen for this calculation.
It is found that resultant curves of PP, OBG and SFG
will be reasonable if lithology column of target well is
similar to that of the offset wells. But accuracy of
resultant curves of PP, OBG and SFG will be rather poor
if lithology column of target well is significantly
different from the offset wells. In this later case, logging
data should not be used in the calculation of top table
method. Instead, the values of curves of PP, OBG and
SFG calculated at its original location with logging data
of offset wells should be used to derived the related
values of curves for target well.
Two sets of wells have been analyzed here. Results 0f
PP, OBG and SFG obtained by top table method for the
two target wells have been illustrated. Comparison of
using two kinds of input data, i.e. logging data and data
of PP, OBG and SFG, for calculation of top table
method have been made.
A practical procedure has been summarized for using top
table method to derive mud weight window of target
well with given data of offset wells. This procedure
includes the following 4 steps:
(i) Choose input data of offset wells: either logging
data or data of PP, OBG/FG and SFG.
(ii) Make PP, OBG/FG and SFG prediction to target
well A0 using data from each offset wells.
(iii) Make interpretation of the resultant value of PP,
OBG/FG and SFG obtained with top table
method in step (ii), and determine the final value
of mud weight window for target well with
reference to the relative spatial relationship and
lithology similarity between target well and each
offset wells.
REFERENCES
1. Liu, Yimou, Juyong Yang, Xianghao Liang, Youhui
Huang and Yi Zhou. 2008. Seismic acquisition
techniques in complex mountainous areas: case study in
Kuqa foreland basin, western China. SEG-2008-0139,
1-5. 2008 SEG Annual Meeting, November 9 - 14,
2008, Las Vegas, Nevada.
2. Liu, Xiangjun, Pingya Luo, Hong Liu and Dachuan
Liang, Faqian Luo. 2009. Keeping shale formation
stability by optimizing drilling fluids, in Yangta oil
field, western China. SPE 13313-MS. International
Petroleum Technology Conference, 7-9 December
2009, Doha, Qatar.
3. An, Wen Hua, Teng Xue Qing, Yang Xiang Tong, and
Bai Deng Xiang, C. Ponton and D. Durst. 2012.
Embracing the Challenges - Installation of the Deepest
Level 4 Multilateral Cemented Junction. SPE-155532-
MS. 2012 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 July 2012, Tianjin,
China
4. Zhang, Minli, Zengyan Tian, Shaoying Xu, Dong
Dianbin, Yin Da, Zuo Fengjiang, Wang Changshu, Yin
Li, Ren Liang. 2012. Research and application of BH-
ATH (Anti-three high) drilling fluid system.
SPE156191-MS .IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
 Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 July
2012, Tianjin, China
5. Kang, Y. and L. You,X. Xu and Z. Liao. 2012.
Prevention of formation damage induced by mud lost in
deep fractured tight gas reservoir in western Sichuan
Basin. SPE131323-PA.Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 2012, 51(1):46-51.
6. Zhang, Fuxiang, Che Mingguang, Yang Xiangtong,
Zhou Fujian,Yuan Xuefang. 2012. Adding sand
fracture stimulation technology in Tarim ultra-deep and
high stress sandstone gas reservoir. SPE155732-MS.
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 July 2012, Tianjin,
China
7. Jones, J., M.D. Matthews, and W. Standifird. 2007.
Novel approach for estimating pore fluid pressures
ahead of the drill bit. Paper SPE 104606 presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 20–22 February.
8. Horsrud, P. 2001. Estimating mechanical properties of
shale from empirical correlations. SPE 56017-PA.
Journal SPE Drilling & Completion. Volume 16,
Number 2 Pages 68-73.