SPE 69529
Modeling Aspects of Wellbore Stability in Shales
M. Frydman, SPE, PUC-Rio and S.A.B. da Fontoura, SPE, PUC-Rio
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28 March 2001.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Drilling problems associated with wellbore instability are
normally aggravated when crossing shale layers. Instabilities
in shales may be caused by a complex mechanism of shale-
drilling fluid interaction and by the overstress of the rock
formation. Wellbore stability models that include some aspects
of this coupled phenomenon have already been developed.
However, the use of these models without the knowledge of
the associated simplifications may lead to wrong conclusions.
The present paper discusses the modeling aspects of the
coupled process. Three formulations are compared: an
analytical elastic solution without the diffusion process, an
analytical poroelastic solution and a numerical chemical-
hydro-mechanical model. The objective is to analyze the
applicability of each model.
Introduction
More than three-fourths of the world drilling is done in shales
that are responsible for the major source (90%) of instability
cases and problems associated with the drilling operation.
Cases of instabilities of wellbores drilled through shales have
been reported in the literature for six decades1. Some cost
surveys disclosed in the literature show that over $1 billion
USD per year is spent on stability problems due to non-drilling
unscheduled events. It is easy to conclude that there is a great
economical incentive in identifying the correct source of these
problems in order to apply the appropriate solution.
The increase in the drilling of directional wells and the
elimination of oil-based drilling fluids has imposed great
technical difficulties and higher operational costs for
controlling wellbore instabilities. At the same time, the long,
inclined, openhole sections in shales associated with the
drilling of extended-reach wells have introduced an extra
demand upon the knowledge of how these shales will react to
the increase in exposition time to the drilling fluid.
In this paper, the simulation of stress changes during
drilling of an inclined wellbore in a saturated porous medium
subjected to an anisotropic stress field and a non-isothermal
condition is analyzed. Results of three different models are
compared: an elastic model2,3 without a diffusion process, a
poroelastic model4-6 and a numerical chemical-hydro-
mechanical model7,8.
Mechanisms of shale-fluid interaction
Shale behavior during drilling is defined by a complex
combination of mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, thermal and
electrical processes. The coupled nature of these processes
cannot be fully understood if each mechanism is considered
independent of each other. The possible mechanisms of
drilling fluid – shale interaction can be expressed through the
fundamentals of conduction phenomena in porous media.
Mitchell9 described the flow of water and salts through a
porous medium and the corresponding driving forces. Table 1
summarizes the links between flow components and driving
mechanisms. Even though the thermal and the electrical
potential gradient has been recognized as an important
mechanism for generating water flow in shales6,9,10, the
contribution as a possible mechanism for stabilizing shales
will not be discussed in the present article.
Mathematical Models
In this section, the basic laws and mathematical models that
describe the porous medium system will be presented. The
porous system is visualized as an isotropic, continuum
medium where the variables are treated at a macroscopic level,
i.e., their values are averaged over a representative elementary
volume.
Transport Equations. The complete fluid transport equations
can be obtained adding up the components of advection and
diffusion for the ions transport; Darcy’s equation and chemical
osmosis fluid flow. Frydman and Fontoura11 present an
extensive work on the elements of the coupled chemical-
hydro-mechanical transport equations. The following
equations represent the flow through a porous medium when
considering a physico-chemical interaction:
2 M. FRYDMAN AND S.A.B. DA FONTOURA SPE 69529

k   k RT  Fluid flow continuity equation. This equation is formulated

j f = − ρ  ∇( p + ρgh)  + ρ w  rni∇C  ..…………(1) considering the mass conservation of a compressible fluid over
µ   µ Ms  a representative elementary volume.
j = C q − D ∇C ……………………………………….(2)  κ κ RT 
∇T  − ρ ∇( p + ρgh ) + ρ w rni∇C  +
In Eq. 1, jf is the fluid mass flux density vector that  µ µ Mw  …….………(4)
corresponds to the fluid mass flowing per unit time through a ∂ε ∂m
φ ρ mT + =0
unit cross-sectional area. The first term corresponds to Darcy’s ∂t ∂t
law, where g is the gravity acceleration, p is the pore-pressure,
k is the intrinsic permeability tensor of the porous medium and In the above equation, the solid phase velocity (rock matrix) is
h is the elevation of the point above some reference level (in related to the volume deformation (εv). ∂m/∂t corresponds to
the direction of g). The second component, osmosis effect, the freely moving fluid mass increase for the porous media.
corresponds to the movement of the solvent from the more Following the definition of connected porosity, the freely
diluted to the more concentrated solution. In the osmosis term, moving fluid mass and its rate of change, can be expressed by:
T is the absolute temperature, R is the gas constant (R=8.314 J
m = ρφ ∂m ∂φ ∂ρ …….….…(5)
K-1mol-1), C is the solute mass concentration (dimension = ρ+ φ
∂t ∂t ∂t
M/L3), Ms is the molar mass of the solute, ni is the number of
particles formed upon dissociation of the salt. As shale is not a In Eq. 5, the term ρ ∂φ ∂t is the fluid mass variation due to
perfect osmotic membrane, the osmotic flow is corrected10,11 modification of porous volume, and φ ∂ρ ∂t corresponds to
through a reflection coefficient r. The bulk fluid properties are the fluid mass density variation.
the density, ρ, and the dynamic viscosity, µ (or in the
combined form of the kinematics viscosity, ν=µ/ρ). It is Rock mechanical behavior. It is assumed herein that the
considered a binary fluid, consisting of two components: water behavior of a porous medium is controlled by the effective
and concentrated salt solution, where the bulk fluid density stress. Eq. 6 presents the definition of effective stress
and viscosity of the mixture present a linear relationship with considering a non-linear behavior.
pore-pressure, temperature and salt concentration The solvent  D m
fluid properties are the density, ρω, and the dynamic viscosity, dσ = dσ '− m − T dp ………………………………(6)
µω.  3K T 
In Eq. 2, j is the salt mass flux density vector that where, for the 3D case, dσ and dσ’ are 6x1 vectors describing
corresponds to the salt mass flowing per unit time through an stress increments, DT is the constitutive tangent matrix that
unit cross-sectional area (dimension M/(TL2)), q is the Darcy’s relate effective stresses to strains, KT is the tangent bulk
filtration velocity (also defined as specific discharge vector) modulus of the solid phase and m is a 6x1 vector that contains
that corresponds to the volume of fluid flowing per unit time elements equal to one, for normal stresses, and equal to zero
through a unit cross-sectional area (dimension L/T) and D is for shear stresses. Eq. 6 reflects the generalized form of Biot’s
the diffusivity tensor (dimension L2/T). Bear25 presents an constant treated, in this fashion, as a vector. The constitutive
extensive work on the elements of the three-dimensional relation between the effective stress increment and the
diffusivity tensor. In the developed computer program, the deformation increment (dε) is formulated as:
general formulation for D is implemented, including terms of
dispersion and diffusion.  D m
dσ = DT dε −  m − T dp ……………………………(7)
 3K T 
Salt mass continuity equation. The salt mass continuity
equation is obtained through the mass conservation of the salt The equilibrium equations relates total stresses (σ) with
mass over a fixed representative elementary volume and it can body forces (b) and is expressed by:
be formulated as an extension of Fick’s second law. As the ∂σ ij
solid phase (rock matrix) is moving, it can be expressed as a ∑ ∂x
j
+ bi = 0 …………………………………….……(8)
function of the particle mass and solid velocities. j

∂ (φC ) ∂ε ...…(3)
∇ (C q ) + ∇ (D ∇C ) −
1 T 1 T 1
=− φm Analytical Models
∂t Rd Rd Rd ∂t
Both analytical solutions, elastic and poroelastic, are based on
In Eq. 3, the solid phase velocity (rock matrix) is related to the a loading decomposition scheme. Let us consider an inclined
volumetric deformation (εv)11, φ is the connected porosity and wellbore drilled through a poroelastic porous material,
Rd is the retardation factor for linear, reversible and subjected to an in situ stress field (σv, σH and σh), a virgin
instantaneous sorption; witch represents the delay in the solute pore-pressure (p0) and internal wellbore pressure (pw). The
velocity due to ion sorption to the rock. system of coordinates (x’-y’-z’) is parallel to the in situ
principal stresses (Fig. 1). For a matter of solution
simplification, the borehole coordinate system (x-y-z) is used
SPE 69529 MODELING ASPECTS OF WELLBORE STABILITY IN SHALES
during problem decomposition. The first step to solve the
problem is to rotate the in situ principal stresses (σv, σH and
σh) to the borehole coordinate system (x-y-z) using a single
stress rotation12.
Fig. 1 shows the in situ principal stresses represented in
the borehole coordinate system (x-y-z). As the direction does
not coincide to the principal stress direction, the presence of
shear stresses (τxy, τyz, τzx) can be observed (Fig. 2). Using the
linearity form of the governing equations, the original problem
can be decomposed into two fundamental problems (Fig. 3): a
plane-strain and an elastic antiplane shear problem.
Analytical elastic model does not recognize the transient
nature of the stresses and pore-pressures around the wellbore.
In this formulation, the fluid and the ions diffusion processes
are not described. The chemical differences between the
drilling fluid and the formation fluid are not taken into
account, and although it uses the effective stress concept (Eq.
6), the fluid flow continuity condition (Eq. 4) is not respected.
The equilibrium equations (Eq. 8) are solved based on the
loading decomposition scheme described above. The elastic
plane strain problem (Fig 3) is solved through the classic
Kirsch’s solution for stress distribution around a circular hole
in an infinite plate. This solution is superposed with the elastic
antiplane shear solution. As the pore-pressure diffusion is not
formulated, the method establishes its distribution4. Two
distributions are normally used: permeable and non-permeable
condition (Fig. 4). The first one uses the steady state
condition, while the second one considers that the initial pore-
pressure does not change with wellbore excavation.
Analytical Poroelastic model. In this formulation, the ions
diffusion processes are not described. The fluid flow
continuity equation (Eq. 4) is solved without taking into
account the salt concentration component. Detournay and
Cheng13 developed the poroelastic, transient, isothermal and
plane-strain analytical solution. Many researchers extended
this solution to other problems using the same proposed
methodology6,14-17. The drilling process is simulated,
considering the instantaneous excavation of the wellbore, and
the coupled equations were solved using the Laplace
transform. To calculate the poroelastic response, numerical
techniques to inversely transform the solution are used. In this
methodology, the problem is divided into three fundamental
modes, two symmetric and another anti-symmetric, and the
fully coupled equations are solved.
Numerical chemical-hydro-mechanical model.
Analytical wellbore stability models that include the physico-
chemical effects have already been developed18-22. However,
some of the models use some simplifications that, in the
authors opinion, cannot be applied to the problem, like
considering shale a perfect ion exclusion membrane18-22 and
not taking into account the pore-pressure diffusion around the
wellbore18-20. In the current work, it is used the numerical
solution developed by Frydman and Fontoura11,23. The
solution is formulated through three balance equations: the ion
3
mass and fluid conservation equations (Eq. 3 and 4) and the
equilibrium equations (Eq. 8). The rock matrix is modeled as
an elasto-plastic material described through a Mohr-Coulomb
model with a non-associated flow rule model. A computer
program has been developed to solve this highly nonlinear
problem. The code verification and model validation were
conducted in two parts. Initially, the hydro-mechanical
problem was verified through analytical solutions24. After that,
the implemented physico-chemical effects were validated with
experimental results. The pressure transmission test, described
by van Oort10, was selected as benchmark to test the computer
program developed using the methodology described above. A
transient analysis was performed, showing an excellent
agreement between the numerical and the experimental results.
Frydman and Fontoura11 present a number of numerical results
of this comparison.
Selected Example
The behavior of an inclined wellbore drilled through a
saturated porous medium subjected to an anisotropic stress
field is analyzed (Fig. 5). The material properties for this
example are described in Table 2. Using the methodologies
described above, a analysis was performed for different
scenarios:
1. Analytical elastic model – The non-permeable condition
will be used for the pore-pressure distribution;
2. Analytical poroelastic model - the differences between the
drilling fluid and the formation fluid will not be taken into
account;
3. Numerical model 1 - the differences between the drilling
fluid and the formation fluid will not be taken into
account;
4. Numerical model 2– considering 538 kg/m3 of CaCl2
solution with an increase of the fluid viscosity with salt
concentration to 5.2 cp.
The analytical elastic model could not represents the
transient behavior around the wellbore, the pore-pressure is
considered constant and equal to the formation pressure. This
deficiency is not observed in the other models. Figs. 7 to 9
show the pore-pressure evolution for the analytical poroelastic
model and the numerical models. It can be noted for the short
time after drilling the presence of underbalance and
overbalance regions in the same cross-section of the wellbore.
This behavior is generated by the volume deformation around
the wellbore after the excavation. Considering the coupled
effect, hydraulic flow and stresses, the volume increase will
reduce the pore-pressure, at the same time; volume reduction
will increase the pore-pressure. As shale is a low permeability
rock, this mechanism dictates the transient stability behavior.
The pore-pressure increase is associated to the reduction of the
confining effective stress (Eq. 6) and, consequently, reduction
of the strength. The size and magnitude of the underbalance
and overbalance regions depends on stress contrast at the
cross-sections, i.e., the importance of the borehole geometry
and in situ stress field.
4 M. FRYDMAN AND S.A.B. DA FONTOURA
Between the coupled models, it is also noted some
differences in the pore-pressure diffusion process. For the
elastic case, both, the analytical poroelastic method and the
numerical model 1 are expected to give the same results.
However, in this example a plastic area is formed (see Figs 10
and 11), the plastic deformation generates a volume increase,
due to the dilatancy effect, and consequently a reduction of
pore-pressure (see Figs 7 and 8). Comparing the plastic area
generated for both cases (Figs 10 and 11), it can be noted that
the analytical poroelastic model, as it does not redistribute the
stresses after plastification, under-estimate the plastic area.
Because that, it is not recommended the use of an analytical
poroelastic model beyond the elastic range.
The effect of the salt concentration on the drilling fluid can
be noted in Figs 8 and 9, where fluid flow generated due the
salt concentration gradient (osmosis), generates a faster
reduction of the pore pressure along y-axis and a slower
increase along x-axis. This characteristic gives to the saline
fluid a smaller plastic zone that can be observed in Fig. 12.
Conclusions
Most of the many wellbore stability simulators currently being
used in practice by the industry are based on the elastic
analytical method, which is a very simple modeling of the
wellbore problem: simple boundary conditions, simple stress-
strain behavior of the rock formation and no drilling fluid-
shale interaction model. To investigate the effects of this
simplification, results of this methodology were compared to
the ones obtained with an analytical poroelastic method and a
numerical chemical-hydro-mechanical model. It has been
shown that the behavior around the wellbore during drilling
through shale is a transient problem, and cannot be described
without a fluid diffusion process. In the selected example, the
analytical elastic model pointed out to a safe mud pressure,
with a very small plastic area, while the more consistent
models show a transient failure of the wellbore.
It has been shown the evaluation of underbalance and
overbalance zones around wellbores drilled through shale that
have not being identified before. This mechanism is generated
due to the coupled hydo-mechanical effect and dictates the
transient stability behavior. The methodology also allows the
evaluation of the plastic zone, eventually developed around
the wellbore, with time. This feature is important to indicate
the possibility of delayed failure around the wellbore without
any swelling stress-strain relationship. More investigation into
this question is needed. Both numerical and the analytical
poroelastic models can predict this behavior. However,
analytical poroelastic model under-estimate the size of the
plastic area. Because that, it is not recommended the use of an
analytical poroelastic model beyond the elastic range.
The effect of the drilling fluid salt concentration was also
investigated. The salt concentration affects the diffusion of
pore fluid pressure and improves the wellbore stability.
Methodologies that not take this mechanism into account are
conservative.
SPE 69529
Finally, more work is necessary to understand the
important problem of establishing the role of water based
muds in to the stability of wellbores drilled through shales.
Future studies should consider the effects of temperature of
the drilling fluid on top of all the effects mentioned herein.
Nomenclature
C = particle mass concentration, M/L3
D = diffusivity tensor, L2/T
DT = constitutive tangent matrix, M/LT2
g = gravity acceleration, L/T2
h = elevation of the point, L
j = particle mass flux density vector, M/TL2
k = intrinsic permeability tensor, L²
Kp = particles volumetric strain modulus, M/LT2
KT = tangent bulk modulus of the solid phase, M/LT2
MS = molar mass of the solute
m = fluid mass, M
p = pore-pressure, M/LT2
q = Darcy filtration velocity, L/T
R = gas constant
Rd = retardation factor for linear sorption
T = temperature
t = time, T
εv = volumetric deformation
φ = connected porosity
µ = dynamic viscosity, M/LT
ρ = fluid density, M/L3
ρω = solvent density, M/L3
σ = stresses, M/LT2
σ’ = effective stresses, M/LT2
References
1. Halbouty, M.T. and Kaldenbach, N.A.: “Heaving shales”, Oil
Weekly (1938), October.
2. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura,S.A.B.; "Bore-3D - User's
Manual", research report, Rock Mechanics Consortium,
University of Oklahoma (July 1994).
3. Kempp, R.E, Frydman, M., Pastor, J.A.S.C. and da Fontoura,
S.A.B.; "SEST – Wellbore stability system – Version 3.1 for
Windows 95/NT- User’s Manual", CENPES-PETROBRAS
(May 1999).
4. Pastor, J.A.S.C., Frydman, M. and da Fontoura,S.A.B.;
"SEST – Wellbore stability system – Version 3.0 -
Theoretical Manual", CENPES-PETROBRAS (June 1998).
5. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura,S.A.B., "BOrehole Stability
Simulator – Analytical Poroelastic Formulation (BOSS-APF)
Version 2.02 User’s Manual”, Drilling through Shales - Joint
Industry Projec, PUC-Rio (September 1999).
6. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura, S.A.B.: "Wellbore Stability
Considering Thermo-Poroelastic Effects ", presented at the
Rio 2000 Oil & Gas Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
October 16-19.
7. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura,S.A.B., "BOrehole Stability
Simulator – Numerical Poroelastic Formulation (BOSS-NPF)
Version 2.0 User’s Manual”, Drilling through Shales - Joint
Industry Project, PUC-Rio (September 1999).
8. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura, S.A.B.: "Applications Of A
Coupled Chemical-Hydro-Mechanical Model To Wellbore
SPE 69529 MODELING ASPECTS OF WELLBORE STABILITY IN SHALES 5

Stability In Shales", presented at the Rio 2000 Oil & Gas

8
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 16-19. Table 1 - Flow and driving forces through porous medium
9. Mitchell, J.K.: Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. John Wiley & Force → Hydraulic Chem. Temperatur Electric
Flow ↓ gradient, ∇p potential e gradient, potential
Sons, Inc. (1976). gradient, ∇µ ∇T gradient, ∇E
10. Van Oort, E., Hole, A.H., Mody, F.K. and Roy, S.: Hydraulic
Fluid Chemical Thermo- Electro-
“Transport in Shales and the Design of Improved Water- (water)
conduction
osmosis osmosis osmosis
Based Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE Drilling & Completion (Darcy’s law)
Solute Diffusion Thermo- Electro-
(September 1996). (ion)
Advection
(Fick’s law) diffusion phoresis
11. Frydman, M. and Fontoura, S.A.B.; “Algorithms for Thermal
Wellbore Stability Simulation in Shales: Analytical Heat
Isothermal
Dufour effect
conduction
Peltier effect
formulation”, Research Report, JIP – Drilling Through heat transfer (Fourier’s
law)
Shales, PUC-Rio (July 1999). Thermo-
12. Fjaer, E., Holt, R. M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A. M. and Risnes, Electric
Streaming Diffusion electricity
Current conduction
R.: Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, Elsevier Science current current (Seebeck
(Ohm’s law)
Publishers (1991). effect)
13. Detournay, E. and Cheng, A. H-D., “Poroelastic response of
a borehole in a non-hydrostatic stress field”, International
Journal for Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Table 2 - Data set used in the simulation
Geomechanics Abstracts (1988) 25, pp. 171-182. DESCRIPTION VALUE
14. Wang, Y. and Papamichos, E.; “Conductive Heat Flow and Young Modulus (E) 1850 MPa
Thermally Induced Fluid Flow Around a Well Bore in a Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.22
Poroelastic Medium”, Water Resources Research (1994) Grain bulk modulus (Ks) 36000 MPa
30(12), pp. 3375-3384. Intrinsic permeability(k) -5
10 mDarcy
15. Cui, L; Cheng, A.H-D.; Abousleiman, Y; “Poroelastic Unconfined compressive strength 20 MPa
solution for an inclined borehole”, Journal of Applied Friction angle (φ) 30°
Mechanics, ASME (1997) 64, pp. 32-38. Dilatancy angle (ψ) 30°
16. Cui, L, Ekbote, S., Abousleiman, Y, Zaman, M. and Rogiers,
Initial porosity 0.3
J.-C.; “Borehole Stability Analyses in Fluid Saturated
Pore-fluid viscosity (µ) 1 cp
Formations with Impermeable Walls”, Int. J. of Rock Mech.
Fluid volumetric strain modulus (Kf) 3300 MPa
& Min. Sci. (1998) 35 (4-5). -10 2
Coefficient of molecular diffusion (Dm ) 1.34 10 m /s
17. Li, X., Cui, L. and Roegiers, J.-C.; “Thermoporoelastic Longitudinal dispersivity (αL) 0.0025 m
Modelling of Wellbore Stability in Non-Hydrostatic Stress Transverse dispersivity (αT) 0.00025 m
Field”, Int. J. of Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. (1998) 35 (4-5). Molar mass of the solute (Ms) 110.98 10 kg/mol
-3

18. Yew, C.H., Chenevert, M.E., Wang, C.L. and Osisanya, S.O..
Number of particles formed upon 2.601
“Wellbore stress distribution produced by moisture dissociation of the salt
adsorption”, SPE Drilling Engineering (1990), pp 311-316. Temperature (T) 60 °C
19. Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K. e Salisbury, D.P. “The influence of
chemical potential on wellbore stability”, SPE Drilling &
Completion (1993) 8, no. 3, pp 207-216.
20. Mody, F.K. and Hale, A.H.. “A borehole stability model to
couple the mechanics and chemistry in drilling fluid shale σV
interaction”, paper SPE/IADC 25728 presented at 1993
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
21. Sherwood, J. D. “Biot poroelasticity of a chemically active
shale”, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A (1993) 440, pp. 365-
377.
22. Sherwood, J. D. and Bailey, L. “Swelling of shale around a
cylindrical wellbore”, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A (1994)
444, pp. 161-184. σH
23. Frydman, M. and da Fontoura, S.A.B.: "Applications of a
Coupled Chemical-Hydro-Mechanical Model to Wellbore
Stability in Shales", Rio 2000 Oil & Gas Conference, Rio de σh
Janeiro, Brazil, October 16-19.
24. Frydman, M.. Initiation and Propagation of Fractures in Fig. 1. Borehole coordinate system
Petroleum Wellbores, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, PUC-Rio, 1996.
25. Bear, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, American
Elsevier, 1988.
6 M. FRYDMAN AND S.A.B. DA FONTOURA SPE 69529

σz Pw = 25 MPa
P0 T0
Incl = 45°
P ,Tw τzx rw = 5”
τzyw
τxz
τyz σx
τxy
τyx 50 MPa
σy P0=15 MPa 26.7 MPa
x
Fig. 2. In situ stresses in borehole coordinate system y
29.3 MPa x

Problem I + Problem II z

σz
P0 T 0
τzx
Pw Tw
τzy
σ τxz
x
τyz
τxy
τyx Fig. 5. Problem description

σy
Fig. 3. Load decomposition for the inclined wellbore

pw
Pore pressure

Penetrating fluid

p0
Non-penetrating fluid

rw
Radius
Fig. 4. Pore pressure distribution for the analytical elastic model Fig. 6 –Yield factor - Elastic model.

.
Fig. 7 –Pore-pressure evolution – Poroelastic model
SPE 69529 MODELING ASPECTS OF WELLBORE STABILITY IN SHALES 7

Fig.8 –Pore pressure evolution – Numerical model 1.

Fig. 9 - Pore pressure evolution – Numerical model 2.

Fig. 10 –Yield factor evolution – Poroelastic model.

8 M. FRYDMAN AND S.A.B. DA FONTOURA SPE 69529

Fig. 11 –Yield factor evolution – Numerical model 1.

Fig. 12 –Yield factor evolution – Numerical model 2.