The Impact of Shale Properties On Wellbore Stability

Copyright
by
Jianguo Zhang
2005
The Dissertation Committee for Jianguo Zhang Certifies that this is the approved
version of the following dissertation:
THE IMPACT OF SHALE PROPERTIES ON WELLBORE
STABILITY
Committee:
Martin E. Chenevert, Supervisor
Mukul M. Sharma, Co-Supervisor
Jon E. Olson
Sanjay Srinivasan
Lynn E. Katz
STABILITY
by
Jianguo Zhang, B.S.; M.Sc.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin

August, 2005
Dedication
To my wife Hongying Cui
To my son Yunfan Zhang

Acknowledgments
It is impossible to complete this dissertation without the inspiration,
encouragement, and technical and financial support from Dr. Martin E. Chenevert during
each phase of my graduate research. His friendship, experience, knowledge, patience, and
humor were essential for this work. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor, Dr.
Mukul M. Sharma, for his valuable assistance. I truly appreciate his sound advice and
careful attention to details. Thanks are also extended to other members of the supervising
committee, Dr. Jon E. Olson, Dr. Sanjay Srinivasan, and Dr. Lynn E. Katz for managing
time out of their busy schedules to read this dissertation and provide valuable comments
and suggestions.
I am indebted to my colleague Talal Al-Bazali for reviewing my manuscript. I
also would like to express my gratitude to my friends, Dr. Guizhong Chen, Dr. Mengjiao
Yu, and Mr. Xingru Wu for their friendship and help.
Appreciation is also extended to the following staff of the Department of
Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, Dr. John Holder, Mr. Glen Baum and Mr. Bob
Savicki for laboratory support, Mr. Tony Bermudez for Machine Shop assistance. The
support and encouragement from other faculty and staff in the department are always in
my heart.
Finally, my special gratitude is to my wife Hongying and my son Yunfan.
Hongying gave me the encouragement and love to complete this journey to a Ph.D., and
Yunfan was able to understand the effort that his father had to go through to achieve this
degree.
v
STABILITY
Publication No._____________
Jianguo Zhang, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2005
Supervisors: Martin E. Chenevert and Mukul M. Sharma
Most wellbore instability problems occur in shales due to their unique properties.
Shales are highly laminated, have a very low permeability, and a high cation exchange
capacity. This dissertation investigates how these properties impact wellbore stability in
shales.
The stress distribution around deviated wellbores in laminated shale/sand
sequences is analyzed to show that failure can occur either along or across bedding
planes, depending on the well trajectory. It is pointed out that both in-situ stresses and
rock strength anisotropies should be considered in order to improve wellbore stability.
A model to predict pore pressure distribution within the shale sample during a
typical compression test is developed. Due to their low permeability, pore pressures often
build up in shales during axial loading, and can greatly influence the measured shale
strength. The effect of strain rate and permeability on pore pressure build-up, and thereby
the compressive strength of shale is assessed. Experimental results show that the
vi
deviatoric strength for soft Pierre I shale decreases, while for highly compacted Arco
shale its strength increases with increasing strain rates. The reasons for these observed
phenomena are analyzed, and their impact on drilling operations is briefly discussed.
A new Gravimetric–Swelling Test (GST), for quantitatively determining water
and ion movement during shale/mud interaction is developed. Results show that water
movement is controlled not only by osmosis, but is also influenced by ionic diffusion and
capillarity.
Experimental results are also presented to show how the compressive strengths
and acoustic velocities of shales change when they are exposed to water-based fluids. By
combining these tests with the results from GST, it is clearly shown that these different
effects correlate well with the movement of water and ions into or out of the shales.
Finally, the changes in shale properties observed in this dissertation are used to
study wellbore stability in shales by taking into account 3-dimensional earth stresses
around the wellbore as well as chemical and thermal effects. Results from this study
indicate that for low permeability shales, chemical and thermal interactions between the
shale and water-based fluids play an important role.
vii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1 : Problem Statement ................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................1
1.2 Properties of Shales...................................................................................1
1.3 Wellbore Instability in Shales...................................................................3
1.4 Scope of the Work ..................................................................................11
Nomenclature*..............................................................................................13
References.....................................................................................................13
Chapter 2: Properties of Shale ...............................................................................20

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................20
2.2 Pierre I Shale...........................................................................................22
2.3 Arco Shale...............................................................................................22
2.4 Moisture Content of Native Shale...........................................................23
2.5 Adsorption Isotherm Tests......................................................................24
2.6 Conclusions.............................................................................................25
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................25
References.....................................................................................................25
Chapter 3 : Wellbore Instability of Directional Wells in Laminated and Naturally

Fractured Shales............................................................................................31
Abstract .........................................................................................................31
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................32
3.2 Wellbore Instability Model in Laminated Formations............................34
3.3 Wellbore Instability Analysis and Discussion ........................................39
3.4 Naturally Fractured Systems in Shale Formations..................................45
3.5 Conclusions.............................................................................................47
Nomenclature*..............................................................................................47
References.....................................................................................................50
viii
Chapter 4 : Effect of Strain Rate on Failure Characteristics of Shales ................. 67
Abstract .............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................67
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................68
4.2 Law of Effective Stress...........................................................................70
4.3 Pore Pressure Build-up Effects on Shale Strength..................................71
4.4 Effects of Strain Rate on Shale Strength.................................................74
4.5 Discussion and Application ....................................................................76
4.6 Conclusions.............................................................................................77
Nomenclature................................................................................................78
SI Metric Conversion Factors .......................................................................80
References.....................................................................................................81
Chapter 5 : A New Gravimetric – Swelling Test for Evaluating Water and Ion Uptake
in Shales ........................................................................................................97
Abstract .........................................................................................................97
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................99
5.2 Gravimetric-Swelling Test (GST).........................................................101
5.3 Results and Discussion .........................................................................103
5.4 Limitations of the GST .........................................................................110
5.5 Conclusions...........................................................................................110
Nomenclatures ............................................................................................110
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................111
References...................................................................................................111
Chapter 6 : The Effect of Ion Movement on Shale Swelling...............................128

Abstract .......................................................................................................128
6.1 Introduction...........................................................................................129
6.2 Mechanisms Controlling the Movement of Water and Ions.................131
6.3 Results and Discussions for Water and Ion Movement Tests...............135
6.4 Effects of Water and Ion Movement on Swelling Property of Shales..140
ix
6.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 142
Nomenclatures ........................................................................................... 143
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................144
References...................................................................................................144
Chapter 7 : Changes in Shale Strength and Acoustic Properties with Exposure to

Water-Based Fluids.....................................................................................159
Abstract .......................................................................................................159
7.1 Introduction...........................................................................................160
7.2 Experimental Testing ............................................................................162
7.3 Results and Discussion .........................................................................164
7. 4 Applications .........................................................................................171
7.5 Conclusions...........................................................................................173
Nomenclature..............................................................................................174
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................174
References...................................................................................................174
Chapter 8 : Stability of Deviated and Horizontal Wells: Mechanical, Chemical and

Thermal Effects...........................................................................................199
Abstract .......................................................................................................199
8.1 Introduction...........................................................................................200
8.2 Stresses Model ......................................................................................201
8.3 Failure Criteria ......................................................................................205
8.4 Wellbore Stability Analysis ..................................................................205
8.5 Conclusions...........................................................................................212
Nomenclature..............................................................................................213
References...................................................................................................215
x
Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions................................................................ 229
Appendix 1: Strength of Non-laminated Rock ................................................... 232
Appendix 2: Strength of Laminated Formations .................................................234
Appendix 3: Stress State Around Wellbore .........................................................235
Appendix 4: An Example to Determine Water and Ion Movement ....................238
Appendix 5: A Model to Predict Pore Pressure Build-up during a Compressive

Strength Test ...............................................................................................240
Appendix 5.1 Model Development.............................................................240
Appendix 5.2 Boundary and Initial Conditions ..........................................242
References............................................................................................................243
Vita .....................................................................................................................260
xi
List of Tables
Table 2-1– Mineralogical composition of Pierre I shale .................................................. 28
Table 2-2 – Composition of interstitial pore fluid for Pierre I shale (cations) ................. 28
Table 2-3 – Composition of interstitial pore fluid for Pierre I shale (anions) .................. 28
Table 2-4 – Exchangeable bases for Pierre I shale ........................................................... 29
Table 2-5 – Mineralogical composition of Arco shale ..................................................... 29
Table 3-1 - Input data for base case .................................................................................. 55
Table 3-2 - Information from Pedernales Field, Venezuela (after Willson et al., 1999) .. 56
Table 3-3 - Formation and fracture properties.................................................................. 56
Table 4-1 - Data used in simulation.................................................................................. 85
Table 5-1 - Pore fluid composition. ................................................................................ 115
Table 5-2 - Dehydrated and hydrated radii of cations (after Pruett, 1987)..................... 115
Table 6-1 – Comparison of ions hydrated radii .............................................................. 149
Table 7-1 - Inoic radii (after Pruett, 1987)...................................................................... 179
Table 7-2 - Strength and Young's moduli used in DRILLER......................................... 179
Table 8-1 - In-situ stress state ......................................................................................... 220
Table 8-2 - Input data (after Yu et al., 2001) .................................................................. 220
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 – Wellbore instability in shales ....................................................................... 19

Figure 2-1– Adsorption and desorption isotherms for Pierre I and Arco shales. ............. 30
Figure 3-1 – Up-, down-, and cross-dip wells. ................................................................. 57
Figure 3-2 – Failure modes for laminated rocks............................................................... 58
Figure 3-3 – Influence of operation angle on compressive strength of laminated rocks.. 59
Figure 3-4 – Well configuration. ...................................................................................... 59
Figure 3-5 – Stress state at wellbore surface. ................................................................... 60
Figure 3-6 – Calculation of principal stresses................................................................... 60
Figure 3-7 – Definition of strike and dip. ......................................................................... 61
Figure 3-8 – Wellbore stability conditions in (a) non-laminated and (b) laminated
formations for a wellbore circumference.................................................................. 61
Figure 3-9 – Wellbore stability conditions in (a) non-laminated, and (b) laminated
formations for a wellbore circumference being along the minimum horizontal stress
( σ h ). ......................................................................................................................... 62
formations for a wellbore circumference being along the maximum horizontal stress
( σ H ).......................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3-11 – Effect of inclination on critical mud weights............................................. 63
Figure 3-12 – Effect of inclination on critical mud weight for wellbore perpendicular to
formation strike......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3-13 – Effect of dip angle on critical mud weight................................................. 64
Figure 3-14 – Effects of attack angle on critical mud weight........................................... 64
Figure 3-15 – Critical mud weight in Pedernales Field. ................................................... 65
Figure 3-16 – A natural fracture around a wellbore ......................................................... 65
Figure 3-17 – Effects of crack half-length on fracture propagation pressure. .................. 66
Figure 4-1 – Effects of strain rate on deviatoric strengths for Kimmeridge Bay Shale
under undrained and drained conditions (after Swan & Cook et al., 1989)............ 86
Figure 4-2 – Effects of temperature and strain rate on strengths of Galena ore (after
Atkinson, 1976)......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4-3 – Effects of temperature and strain rate on strengths of Anhydrite (after Muller
and Briegel, 1978)..................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4-4 – Effects of confining pressure on deviatoric strength.................................... 87
Figure 4-5 – Effects of pore pressure on deviatoric strength............................................ 88
Figure 4-6 – Time-dependent pore pressure build-up....................................................... 88
Figure 4-7 – Effect of strain rate on the pore pressure build-up....................................... 89
Figure 4-8 – Effect of permeability on pore pressure build-up. ....................................... 89
Figure 4-9 – Fracture propagation at high pore pressure.................................................. 90
Figure 4-10 – Strength test equipment.............................................................................. 91
Figure 4-11 – Pore pressure change after applying 5 000 psi confining pressure (Pierre I
shale). ........................................................................................................................ 92
xiii
Figure 4-12 – Pore pressure change after applying 5 000 psi confining pressure (Arco
shale). ........................................................................................................................ 93
Figure 4-13 – Effect of strain rate on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale. ................... 93
Figure 4-14 – Effect of strain rate on peak strengths of Pierre I shale. ............................ 94
Figure 4-15 – Effect of strain rate on pore pressure build-up of Pierre I shale. ............... 94
Figure 4-16 – Effect of strain rate on stress-strain cures for Arco shale. ......................... 95
Figure 4-17 – Effect of strain rate on peak strengths of Arco shale. ................................ 95
Figure 4-18 – Effect of strain rate on pore pressure build-up of Arco shale. ................... 96
Figure 5-1 – Schematic of equipment used to measure linear swelling of shale............ 116
Figure 5-2 – Photo of swelling transducer...................................................................... 117
Figure 5-3 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in NaCl solutions. ............................ 118
Figure 5-4 – Time-dependent water and ion movement for Pierre I shale immersed into
0.85 aw NaCl solution............................................................................................. 118
Figure 5-5 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in simulated pore fluid. .................... 119
Figure 5-6 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in NaCl solutions. ............ 119
Figure 5-7 – Corrected time-dependent water and ion movement Pierre I shale immersed
in 0.85 aw NaCl solution. ....................................................................................... 120
Figure 5-8 – Influence of NaCl concentration on water/ion movement for Pierre I shale.
................................................................................................................................. 120
Figure 5-9 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions. ........................... 121
Figure 5-10 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions. ......... 121
Figure 5-11 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCl solutions. ............................ 122
Figure 5-12 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCOOH solutions...................... 122
Figure 5-13 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCl solutions. ............ 123
Figure 5-14 – Corrected swelling for Pierre I shale immersed in KCOOH solutions. ... 123
Figure 5-15 – Influence of CaCl2 and KCl concentration on water/ion movement for
Pierre I shale. .......................................................................................................... 124
Figure 5-16 – Water activities of CaCl2, NaCl, and KCl solutions at room temperature.
................................................................................................................................. 124
Figure 5-17 – Effects of water activity on water/ions movement for Pierre I shale....... 125
Figure 5-18 – Swelling of Arco shale immersed in NaCl solutions. .............................. 125
Figure 5-19 – Swelling of Arco shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions. ............................. 126
Figure 5-20 – Effect of NaCl concentration on water/ion movement for Arco shale..... 126
Figure 5-21 – Effects CaCl2 concentration on water/ion movement for Arco shale. ..... 127
Figure 6-1 – Osmosis and ion diffusion.......................................................................... 150
Figure 6-2 – Brine water capillary imbibitions............................................................... 150
Figure 6-3 – Weight changes of Pierre I shale during desiccator-immersion-desiccator
test (NaCl)............................................................................................................... 151
test (KCl)................................................................................................................. 151
test (CaCl2).............................................................................................................. 152
Figure 6-6 – Combined adsorption isotherms of Pierre I shale. ..................................... 152
Figure 6-7 – Weight changes of Arco shale during desiccator-immersion-desiccator test
(NaCl). .................................................................................................................... 153
xiv
(KCl). ...................................................................................................................... 153
(CaCl2). ................................................................................................................... 154
Figure 6-10 – Water and ion movement for Pierre I directly immersed in 0.85 aw CaCl2,
0.85 aw NaCl and 0.85 aw KCl solutions............................................................... 154
Figure 6-11 – Water and ion movement for Arco shale directly immersed in 0.85 aw
NaCl and 0.85 aw CaCl2 solutions.......................................................................... 155
Figure 6-12 – Effects of water activity on water movement of Pierre I shale. ............... 155
Figure 6-13 – Swelling of Pierre I shale placed in controlled 85% humidity desiccator.
................................................................................................................................. 156
Figure 6-14 – Swelling properties of Pierre I shale immersed in 0.85 aw KCl solution.156
Figure 6-15 – Comparison of shale swelling when sample is immersed in a 0.85 aw KCl
solution versus placed in a 0.85 aw atmosphere (Pierre I shale). ............................ 157
Figure 6-16 – Correlation of water/ion movement with the swelling of Pierre I shale
exposed to NaCl solutions. ..................................................................................... 157
exposed to CaCl2 solutions. .................................................................................... 158
exposed to KCl solutions. ....................................................................................... 158
Figure 7-1 – Influence of pore pressure increase and formation weakening on wellbore
instability................................................................................................................. 180
Figure 7-2 – Schematic of equipment setup used to measure acoustic velocity............. 180
Figure 7-3 – Equipment for measuring acoustic velocity of shale. ................................ 181
Figure 7-4 – Transducer calibration and face-to-face time determination. .................... 181
Figure 7-5 – Stress-strain curve for Pierre I shale exposure to 19 wt% NaCl solution. . 182
Figure 7-6 – Stress-strain curve for Arco shale exposure to 19 wt% NaCl solution. ..... 182
Figure 7-7 – Effect of NaCl concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale. ......... 183
Figure 7-8 – Effect of CaCl2 concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale......... 183
Figure 7-9 – Effect KCl concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale. ............... 184
Figure 7-10 – Effect of different solution on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale............ 184
Figure 7-11 – Effect of salt concentration on acoustic velocity change for Pierre I shale.
................................................................................................................................. 185
Figure 7-12 – Effects of water movement on acoustic velocity change of Pierre I shale.
................................................................................................................................. 185
Figure 7-13 – Effect of ion movement on acoustic velocity for Pierre I shale............... 186
Figure 7-14 – Effect of NaCl solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale. ........... 186
Figure 7-15 – Effect of CaCl2 solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale........... 187
Figure 7-16 – Effect of KCl solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale.............. 187
Figure 7-17 – Effects of different solution on Young’s moduli of Pierre I shale........... 188
Figure 7-18 – Effect of water activity on deviatoric strength for Pierre I shale. ............ 188
Figure 7-19 – Effects of water movement on deviatoric strength of Pierre I shale. ....... 189
Figure 7-20 – Effect of ion movement on deviatoric strength for Pierre I shale. ........... 189
Figure 7-21 – Relationship between acoustic velocity and compressive strength for Pierre
I shale immersed in various solutions of NaCl, KCl, and CaCl2. ........................... 190
xv
Figure 7-22 – Effect of NaCl concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale........... 190
Figure 7-23 – Effect of CaCl2 concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.......... 191
Figure 7-24 – Effects of KCl concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale........... 191
Figure 7-25 – Effect of different solutions (aw= 0.85) on acoustic velocity of Arco shale.
................................................................................................................................. 192
Figure 7-26 – Effect of salt concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale. ............ 192
Figure 7-27 – Effect of water movement on acoustic velocity for Arco shale. .............. 193
Figure 7-28 – Effect of ion movement on acoustic velocity for Arco shale................... 193
Figure 7-29 – Effect of NaCl solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale................ 194
Figure 7-30 – Effect of CaCl2 solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale............... 194
Figure 7-31 – Effect of KCl solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale.................. 195
Figure 7-32 – Effect of different solutions on Young’s moduli (Arco shale). ............... 195
Figure 7-33 – Effect of salt solution on deviatoric strength of Arco shale..................... 196
Figure 7-34 – Effect of water movement on deviatoric strength of Arco shale. ............ 196
Figure 7-35 – Effect of ion movement on deviatoric strength of Arco shale. ................ 197
Figure 7-36 – Relationship between acoustic velocity and compressive strength for Arco
shale immersed in various solutions of NaCl, KCl, and CaCl2. ............................. 197
Figure 7-37 – Effects of salt solution on mud weight window for Pierre I shale. .......... 198
Figure 7-38 – Influence of salt solution on mud weight window for Arco shale. .......... 198
Figure 8-1 – A typical directional well trajectory........................................................... 221
Figure 8-2 – Effect of inclination and azimuth on MWW under normal faulting stress
regime. .................................................................................................................... 222
Figure 8-3 – Effect of inclination and azimuth on MWW under thrust faulting stress
regime. .................................................................................................................... 222
Figure 8-4 – Effect of well inclination and azimuth on MWW under strike-slip faulting
stress regime............................................................................................................ 223
Figure 8-5 – Effect of cohesion on MWW. .................................................................... 223
Figure 8-6 – Effect of frictional angle on MWW. .......................................................... 224
Figure 8-7 – Effect of Poissons ratio on MWW. ............................................................ 224
Figure 8-8 – Effect of shale permeability on MWW. ..................................................... 225
Figure 8-9 – Effect of pore pressure on MWW. ............................................................. 225
Figure 8-10 - Effect of shale membrane efficiency on MWW ( C df < C s ).................... 226
Figure 8-11 - Effect of ion diffusion constant on MWW ( C df < C s ). ........................... 226
Figure 8-12 - Effect of mud temperature on MWW. ...................................................... 227
Figure 8-13 - Effect of geothermal gradient on MWW. ................................................. 227
Figure 8-14 - Effect of matrix volumetric-thermal-expansion-constants on MWW. ..... 228
xvi
Chapter 1 : Problem Statement
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability is one of the most serious problems in the oil industry. It can
lead to delays in the drilling process, increases in drilling cost, and in some cases even to
abandonment of the well (Bradley, 1979 a, b; Zamora et al., 2000). It is estimated that
this problem costs the oil industry one billion U.S. dollars a year (Chen et al., 2002).
Shales make up about three fourths of drilled formation and over 90% of the
wellbore instability problems that occur in shales (Steiger and Leung, 1992). Even though
shale stability has been studied for several decades, it still a serious problem in not only
the petroleum industry but also in the mining and construction industries (Chenevert,
1970; Carminati et al., 1997; Chenevert and Pernot, 1998). Before any measures are
taken to address this problem, it is crucial that potentially problematic formations and the
mechanisms of wellbore instability be identified. Once the mechanisms are understood,
well planning, drilling fluid design, and drilling operation strategies can be implemented
to ensure wellbore stability.
Due to the unique mechanical and physicochemical properties of shales, it is well-
recognized that wellbore instability in shales is a complicated problem.
1.2 PROPERTIES OF SHALES
Shales are laminated, clay-bearing sedimentary rocks with low permeability. They
typically have a finely laminated structure and are normally inter-bedded with sandstone
or limestone. The thickness of bedding layers can range from a few millimeters to
hundreds of meters (Davidson, 1999). These bedding layers are classified as transversely
isotropic, i.e., the material properties along the bedding planes are different from the
plane perpendicular to the bedding.

1
It is the clay minerals that give shales their unique physiochemical properties
compared to other sedimentary rocks (Sharma, 2004). At the atomic level, clays are
composed of an octahedral aluminum layer with one to two tetrahedral silica layers. The
various combinations of octahedral and tetrahedral layers form different clay minerals.
The unique structures of the various clay minerals result from the substitution of
ions within the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets. For example, the aluminum atoms in the
simple clay structure may be replaced by lower valence cations, such as Mg2+ or K+. This
substitution leads to the presence of excess negative charges on the crystal surface. These
excess negative charges must be countered by cations from the fluid so as to remain
electrically neutral. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a measure of these excessive
negative charges. The presence of charged surfaces in clay minerals results in a complex
electrochemical behavior that is largely responsible for the wellbore stability problems
exhibited by shales. For example, the movement of water/ions during shale/mud
interaction is influenced by the CEC. However, very little information on this subject has
been available until now.
The presence of clay in rocks also affects the acoustic properties of shales. Minear
(1980) found that elastic moduli and acoustic velocity decrease with increasing clay
content. Using experimental results, Tosaya and Nur (1982) derived the following
empirical equation to account for the effects of clay content on compressive velocity,
Vp = 5.8 − 8.6φ − 2.4C (1-1)
Note that the definition of all symbols is given in the Nomenclature at the end of
each chapter.
Han et al. (1985) found that large amounts of clay in a rock can reduce its
compressive velocity by 31% and the shear wave velocity by 38% compared to similar
2
rocks without clay.
Finally, shales consist predominantly of mud-sized (less than 0.006 mm) particles
of silt and clay, therefore, their permeability is very low. For example, the permeability of
Wellington shale is 0.3×10-6 md when measured under 8000 psi effective stress
(Chenevert and Sharma, 1993). Due to the shale’s low permeability, pore pressure cannot
be dissipated easily during the interaction between the shale and the mud. This pore
pressure elevation, that is called an “undrained condition” by Detournay and Cheng
(1988), can lead to reduced effective stress and rock failure (Chenevert, and Sharma,
1993; Chen and Ewy, 2002). During our compressive strength and acoustic testing
(Chapter 7), this undrained phenomenon influences test procedures and strength results.
In summary, three notable characteristics of shales must be included in a wellbore
stability study: 1) lamination; 2) low permeability; and 3) CEC.
1.3 WELLBORE INSTABILITY IN SHALES
The mechanisms of wellbore instability in shales can be grouped into three

categories (Bradley, 1979 a, b):
1) Fractures caused by tensile failure due to excessive wellbore pressure.
This causes lost circulation and often results in well control problems
experienced as a kick or an underground blowout (Figure 1-1 - a);
2) Hole size reductions due to swelling of shales (Figure 1-1 - b), which
results in repeat reaming, or in extreme conditions, stuck drill pipe; and
3) Hole enlargements resulting from compressive failure due to excessively
low wellbore pressure, which causes fill on trips, poor directional control,
and poor cementing (Figure 1-1 - b).
Numerous factors cause the wellbore to become unstable after the borehole is
3
drilled, such as in-situ stress state conditions, well types (vertical or directional), well
trajectories (inclination and azimuth), rock properties (strength, Poisson ratio, modulus
of elasticity, permeability), shale/fluid interactions and thermal effects. Generally
speaking, however, these factors can be classified as mechanical, chemical, and thermal
effects.
1.3.1 Mechanical Effects
In mechanical terms, failure occurs when the local stress exceeds the rock
strength based on a specific failure criterion. Therefore, three aspects of wellbore
instability in shales must be considered: 1) local stress conditions, 2) formation strength,
and 3) a proper strength failure criterion.
Formations located at a given depth, are under in-situ stresses, that include
overburden stress, σ v ; two horizontal stresses, σ H and σ h ; and pore pressure, Pp . Before
a well is drilled, an equilibrium stress state exists. During the drilling process, the
wellbore rock is replaced by drilling fluids. As a result, the stress concentration around
the wellbore is changed, and wellbore failure (both compressive and tensile) occurs if the
rock is not strong enough (Bradley, 1979a, b).
By modeling the formation as an isotropic linear elastic solid in a condition of
plane strain along the axis of borehole, Bradley (1970a, b) calculated the local stress
around the wellbore by using Fairhurst’s work (Fairhurst, 1968). He applied the concept
of stress cloud with the help of the Drucker-Prager failure criterion to evaluate rock shear
failure. Many studies, based on Bradley’s pioneering work, can be found in the literature
(Aadnoy and Chenevert, 1987; Fuh et al., 1988; McLean and Addis, 1990; Zhou et al.,
1996).
By introducing non-linear elastic relationships, Santarelli (1986) obtained a better
fit between the stress and the strain. He suggested that a maximum stress level could
4
occur within the near wellbore formation. This high stress level leads to wellbore failure
not always at the wellbore wall, as predicted by the linear elasticity (Bradley, 1979 a, b),
but at some distance inside the shale.
During the drilling process, due to the extremely low permeability of shales, the
pore fluid cannot flow freely, which causes the redistribution of stresses (Detournay and
Cheng, 1988). This pore pressure storage effect is called “undrained situation”, which can
cause wellbore instability (Chen and Ewy, 2002).
Yew and Liu (1992) introduced poroelasticity theory into the wellbore instability
model in order to study the effects of fluid flow on wellbore stability because this flow
induces additional normal stresses. These additional stresses can lead to borehole failure
in some cases. Recently, Chen et al. (2003) developed a model that included poroelastic,
chemical, and thermal effects.
Besides the local stresses, rock strength needs to be determined in order to
develop a wellbore instability model. As discussed previously, the lamination of shales
contributes to the material anisotropy of shales. This anisotropy modifies the constitutive
equation of rock formations.
Chenevert and Gatlin (1964) found that rock compressive strength was reduced
by as much as 40% when the test sample was oriented at 20o ~30 o to the bedding planes
and tensile strength was lowest when failure occurred along bedding planes.
In most wellbore stability models, the rock is modeled as an isotropic material
(Bradley, 1979a, b; Yew and Liu, 1992). Aadnoy and Chenevert’s (1987) simulator was a
major advance in modeling the wellbore stability in laminated formations. However, two
assumptions limit their simulator’s application, 1) horizontal bedding layers, and 2) zero
shear stress acting on the wellbore wall.
When drilling through laminated shales, bedding plane splitting causes more
5
wellbore instability problems (Okland and Cook, 1998). Numerous wellbore instability
problems have been reported when drilling through laminated and fractured formations
(Last et al., 1995; Okland et al., 1998; Beacom et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2003).
Okland and Cook (1998) pointed out in their paper on page 6 that “It has not yet been
possible to make a good predictive model for this type of failure.”
In addition, many shales are naturally fractured. These fractures also involve a
different mechanism for shale instability and require different measures to tackle
wellbore instability problems in naturally fractured formations. It would seem, therefore,
that further investigations are needed in order to maintain wellbore stability in laminated
and naturally fractured shales, which is one of the main objectives of this dissertation.
Generally, there are two ways to obtain the compressive strength of shales:
laboratory measurement and well log interpretation (Chenevert, 1964; Tixier et al., 1975;
Horsrud, 2001). Although experimental measuring of shale strength is expensive and
time consuming, it is more accurate. A key factor in measuring the compressive strength
of shales is the strain rate used during testing because this strain rate influences the test
results greatly due to the low shale permeability. This low permeability makes it very
difficult to control the pore pressure during experiments which are designed to measure
the mechanical properties under simulated downhole conditions.
Chiu et al. (1983) discussed an appropriate technique for triaxial testing of
saturated soft shale. They defined a critical strain rate below which the pore fluid can
dissipate completely with no pore pressure build-up. If the strain rate is higher than the
critical strain rate, negative pore pressure (caused by dilatancy) is generated, which
causes the pore pressure to decrease and thus the compressive strength to increase. Cook
et al. (1990) discussed the influence of the strain rate on shale strength. They defined an
upper rate below which the strength value is independent of the strain rate because there
6
is no pore pressure build-up. They also claimed that shale deformation and failure were
governed by effective stress at low strain rates, whereas the law of effective stress did
not hold true at high strain rates.
All the above studies are beneficial for understanding the failure characteristics of
shale. However, the dispute on the validity of the law of effective stress remains ongoing.
In this dissertation, the effects of strain rates on the failure characteristics of shale are
presented and the validity of the effective stress law is discussed.
Indeed, experimentally measuring strength is more accurate than well log
interpretation, however, it is impossible to obtain a complete formation strength profile
without performing many tests, which is required for complete wellbore stability
evaluation. Fortunately, well log information, which is considered to be continuous, can
be used to predict the mechanical properties of shale, including its strength. For example,
the elastic constants and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) can be estimated by using
the following relationships (Tixier et al., 1975; Fjaer et al., 1992; Goodman et al., 1997)
(
0.5 − Vs / Vp )2
ν=
(
1 − Vs / Vp )2 (1-2)
G = ρ b Vs 2 (1-3)
2
4 ⎛1+ ν ⎞
⎟ (1 − 2ν )(1 + 0.78C )
− 20 2
UCS = 3.3 × 10 ρ Vp ⎜
⎝1− ν ⎠ (1-4)
Relatively little has been published on acoustic measurements of the mechanical

properties of shale (Davidson, 1999). A similar problem as in the strength test is the
difficulty in controlling the pore pressure during the acoustic test under simulated
downhole conditions due to the extremely low permeability of shale. Uncertainty in
determining the pore pressure has lead to uncertainty concerning the applicability of the
7
elastic properties determined from such measurements in predicting downhole behavior.
In order to study the effects of a single factor, such as salt type, salt concentration, and
water activity on the sonic velocity of different shales, we performed the acoustic test
under atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
After the local stress and rock strength have been determined, whether the
formation will fail or not depends on the strength criterion used. Several compressive
strength criteria are available for studying wellbore instability (Bradley, 1979a, b; Fuh et
al., 1988; Woodland, 1990; Mclean, 1990; Zhou et al., 1996).
In his pioneering work, Bradley (1979a,b) used the Drucker-Prager failure
criterion to evaluate shear failure. Fuh et al. (1988) suggested an extended von Mises
criterion, or a modified Drucker-Prager failure criterion. Zhou et al. (1996) employed a
truncated Desai’s yield function, another criterion that is similar to the Drucker-Prager
failure criterion. Ewy (1999) introduced the modified Lade failure criterion to evaluate
wellbore stability status. In this dissertation, we use the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
It has simplicity and practicality (McLean, 1990).
Once the local stresses and rock strength have been determined, for a preserved
shale, wellbore stability can be evaluated by use of the selected failure criteria. However,
should the shale be contacted by a fluid, the stress and strength might be altered by the
chemical interaction between the drilling fluid and shale. Therefore, chemical effects
must be considered in addition to the above mentioned mechanical effects.
1.3.2 Chemical Effects
One of the main causes of shale instability is believed to be the unfavorable

interactions between the shale and drilling mud (Chenevert, 1970; Bol et al., 1992; van
Oort, 2003). Although such interactions which include chemical, physical, hydraulic,
mechanical, thermal, and electrical phenomena, are very complicated (Maury et al., 1987;
8
Mody et al., 1993; van Oort, 2003), their primary cause is related to the movement of
water/ions into or out of shale. This movement causes alterations in mechanical and
physiochemical properties of the shale, and can lead to wellbore instability problems.
The adsorption of water leads to an increase in pore pressure near the wellbore
formation. This excessive pore pressure is difficult to dissipate due to the low
permeability of shale, which causes a decrease in the effective stress because the effective
stress is equal to the total stress minus the pore pressure. The movement of water from
the drilling fluid into the shale also leads to an expansion (swelling) of clay layers and
consequently a decrease in the interlayer-bonding and shale strength. The decrease in
shale strength resulting from relatively minor increases in water content has been well
documented in the literature (Chenevert, 1970; Hale et al., 1992). Both an increase in
pore pressure and a decrease in strength cause shale to deteriorate.
Many mechanisms, including convection, diffusion, osmosis, and capillary
phenomena are involved in the movement of water/ions (Mody et al., 1993; Lomba et al.,
2000; Simpson and Dearing, 2002). The hydraulic pressure difference between drilling
fluids and shale causes a bulk flow of drilling fluid and is governed by the Darcy
equation. However, this flow is generally considered to be quite low as the result of both
the relatively low pressure differential that typically exists for most drilling operations,
and the extremely low permeability of shales which is in the range from 10-5 to 10-12
darcy (Bol et al., 1992).
Low and Anderson (1958) suggested osmosis as a mechanism for the movement
of water, based on the principle that shale itself acts as a semi-permeable membrane, that
allows the movement of water but restricts the movement of ions. Fritz et al. (1983,
1986) supported the theory of osmosis as the mechanism controlling the movement of
water/ions, but they believed that clays are not “ideal” membranes, and that the ideality
9
of a clay membrane is a function of the CEC, porosity, and concentration of pore fluids.
Mody and Hale (1993) suggested that the membrane efficiency is also a function of
confining pressures. However, Ballard et al. (1992) and Bol et al. (1992) concluded that
osmosis was not observed in their lab experiments.
From the above review, it is seen that the movement of water/ions is critical when
studying wellbore instability in shales. It is of great importance, therefore, to
quantitatively measure the movement of water/ions in the interaction of shale/mud.
Currently, however, there is no simple way to quantitatively measure this movement. In
this dissertation, a new Gravimetric-Swelling Test (GST) is presented for determining the
movement of water/ions into or out of shale.
In addition to chemical effects, thermal effects influence the stress distributions
around the wellbore and the shale’s mechanical properties.
1.3.3 Thermal Effects
Maury and Guenot (1993) found that thermal effects also affected borehole
stability. Later on, Maury (1994) pointed out that thermal effects must always be
considered in stress analysis. He believed that cooling the wellbore was equivalent to an
increase in the mud weight in terms of tangential stresses at the wellbore wall (Maury and
Idelovici, 1995). Tang and Luo (1998) also pointed out that the stress distribution near
the wellbore is altered by thermal stresses driven by a cooler drilling fluid.
Li et al. (1998) presented a thermoporoelastic analysis of the wellbore instability
for directional wells. They discussed the wellbore heating and cooling effects on the
potential of borehole shear and spalling failure. Chen et al. (2003) studied the thermal
effects on wellbore stability. They found that formation cooling allows for a lowering of
the mud weight required for preventing wellbore compressive failure. Besides
compressive failure, thermal effects on tensile failure should also be considered
10
(Gonzalez et al., 2004). Gonazalez et al. (2004) found that cooling the formation is
detrimental to preventing tensile wellbore failure and thus circulation control can be
lost. Therefore, thermal cooling of the wellbore should be used cautiously especially
when drilling through natural fractured formations.
Recently, Yu et al. (2003) developed a three-dimensional wellbore stability model
by coupling the chemical and thermal effects into the mechanical stress state distribution
around the wellbore.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK
From theoretical to experimental aspects, a comprehensive study, including

mechanical, and chemical effects on wellbore stability in shale have been considered in
this dissertation.
As discussed previously, wellbore instability in shales is related to the unique
properties of shales, including low permeability, lamination, natural fractures, and CEC.
Therefore, these notable properties should be included in wellbore stability studies. To
keep this dissertation focused squarely on the wellbore instability of shale, the chapters
have been based on the unique properties of shale in the following way.
The properties of shale used in our test are discussed in Chapter 2. Outcrop
(surface) as well as subsurface shales is included in this study. Their mineralogical
compositions, moisture content, CEC, adsorption, and desorption properties are
presented.
Chapter 3, “Wellbore Instability of Directional Wells in Laminated and Naturally
Fractured Shale” presents a simulator used to model wellbore instability in laminated
shale. The stress distributions around deviated wellbores in laminated shale/sand
sequences is analyzed to show that failure can occur either along or across the bedding
planes depending on the well trajectory. The effects of well inclination and well azimuth
11
orientation relative to the strike and dip of the bedding plane on wellbore instability are
analyzed. Critical mud weight windows are calculated for different well orientations
relative to the bedding planes.
In addition to strength anisotropy due to laminations, the measurement of shale
strength in the laboratory is included. A proper technique to measure shale strength is
discussed in Chapter 4. The effects of strain rate on compressive strength are presented
and the failure characteristics for shale are briefly assessed.
A new Gravimetric-Swelling Test (GST) that allows the quantitative
determination of water/ion movement during shale/mud interaction is presented in
Chapter 5. Experimental protocols and equations are presented that describe how such
measurements can be conducted and interpreted.
Based on the GST, the mechanisms causing the movement of water/ions are
analyzed and presented in Chapter 6. The effects of chemical osmosis, diffusive osmosis,
and capillarity on the movement of water/ions when shales interact with water-based
muds are analyzed. In addition, the effects of such movement on the swelling properties
of shales are also discussed.
Chapter 7 presents the acoustic and strength properties of shale after exposure to
ionic solutions. Experimental results show how the compressive strengths and acoustic
velocities of different types of shale change when they are exposed to water-based fluids.
By combining these tests with the GST, it is clearly shown that strength alteration and
acoustic velocity of shale correlate well with the movement of water and ions into or out
of the shale. The influence of salt type and salt concentration on the strength and sonic
velocity of two shales are investigated.
A comprehensive study including mechanical, chemical, and thermal effects on
the wellbore stability of directional wells is presented in Chapter 8. The effects of
12
borehole configuration (e.g. inclination and azimuth), rock properties (e.g. cohesion,
friction angle, Poisson’s ratio, membrane efficiency and permeability), temperature and
drilling fluid properties (e.g. mud density and chemical concentrations) on wellbore
stability in shale formations have been investigated.
Chapter 9 concludes this dissertation with a brief summary of conclusions.
NOMENCLATURE*
C Clay content in fraction
G Shear modulus [=] m/L-t2
Vp Compressive sonic wave velocity [=] L/t
Vs Shear sonic wave velocity [=] L/t
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength [=] m/L-t2
ν Poisson ratio, dimensionless
φ Porosity in fraction
* [=] means has units of, L is a length unit, m mass, t time, and T temperature
REFERENCES
Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E.: “ Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes “, SPE
Drilling Engineering, December 1987.
Ballard T.J. Beare S.P. and Lawless T.A.: “ Fundamentals of Shale Stabilisation: Water
Transport Through Shales”, IADC/SPE24974, presented at the European
Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18 November, 1992.
Beacom, L.E., Nicholson, H., and Corfield R.I.: “ Integration of Drilling and Geological
Data to Understand Wellbore Instability”, SPE/IADC 67755 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27,
February- 1 March 2001.
Bol, G. M., Wong, S.W., Davidson, C.J. and Woodland D.C.:“ Borehole Stability in
Shales”, SPE 24975 presented at European Petroleum Conference held in Cannes,
France, 16-18, November 1992.
13
Bradley, W.B.: “ Mathematical Concept – Stress Cloud Can Predict Borehole Failure”,
the Oil and gas Journal, February 19, 1979 (a).
Bradley, W.B.: “ Failure of Inclined Boreholes”, Journal of Energy Resources

Technology, Transaction of ASME, vol. 101, pp. 232-239, December, 1979 (b).
Carminati, S., Brignoli, M., Marco Di A. and Santarelli, F. J.: “ The Activity Concept
Applied to Shales: Consequences for Oil, Tunnelling and Civil Engineering
Operations”, Int. J. Rock Mech. & min. Sci. 34, paper No. 038. 1997.
Chen, G. and Ewy, R.T.: “ Investigation of the Undrained Loading Effect and Chemical
Effect on Shale Stability”, SPE 78164 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
Chen, X., Tan, C.P. and Detournay, C.: “ The impact of Mud Infiltration on Wellbore
Stability in Fractured Rock Masses”, SPE/ISRM 78241 presented at the
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October
2002.
Chenevert M. E. and Gatlin C.: “Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary

Rocks”, presented at 39th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Houston, TX., Oct.11-
14, 1964.
Chenevert, M. E: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, JPT (Sept. 1970), pp 1141-

1147.
Chenevert M.E. and Sharma A.K.: “ Permeability and Effective Pore Pressure of Shales”,
SPE Drilling & completion, March 1993.
Chenevert, M. E and Pernot, V.: “ Control of Shale Swelling Pressure Using Inhibitive
Water – Based”, SPE 49263 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30, September,
1998.
Chiu, H.k., Johnston, I.W. and Donald, I. B.: “ Appropriate Techniques for Triaxial
Testing of Saturated Soft Rock”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
Vol.20, No. 3, pp107~120,1983.
Cook J. M. and Houwen O. H.: “ Effects of Strain Rate and Confining Pressure on the
Deformation and Failure of Shale”, SPE 19944 presented at the 1990 IADC/ SPE
Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texas, February 27 –March 2,1990.
Davidson, J.A.: “ Application of Acoustic Measurements in Shale Stability Research”,

Ph.D Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 1999.
Detournay, E. and Cheng, A.H-D: “ Poroelastic Response of a Borehole in a Non-
14
Hydrostatic Stress field”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
No.25, pp.171-182, 1988.
Edwards, S., Matsutsuyu, B. and Willson S.: “ Imaging unstable wellbore while drilling”,
SPE/IADC 79846 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21, February, 2003.
Ewy, R.T.: “ Wellbore-Stability Prediction by Use of a Modified Lade Criterion” SPE

Drilling & Completion, 14(2), June 1999.
Fairhurst C.: “ Methods of Determining in-situ Rock Stresses at Great Depth”, TRI-68
Missouri River Div., Corps of Engineer, Feb. 1968.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risens, R.: “ Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics”, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992.
Fonseca, C.F: “ Chemical-Mechanical Modeling of Wellbore Instability in Shales’, Ph.D

Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1998.
Fritz, S.J. and Marine, I.W.: “ Experimental support for a predictive osmotic model of
clay membranes”, Geochemistry Cosmochim. Acta 47, 1515-1522, 1983.
Fritz, S.J.: “ Ideality of Clay Membranes in Osmotic Process: A Review”, Caly and Clay
Minmerals, Vol.34, No.2, 214-223, 1986.
Fuh, G.H., Whitfill, D.L., and Schuh, P.R.: “ Use of Borehole Stability Analysis for
Successful Drilling of High-angle hole”, IADC/SPE 17235, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, February 28-March 2, 1988.
Gonzalez, M. et al.: “ Increasing effective Fracture Gradients by Managing wellbore

Temperatures”, IADC/SPE 87217 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference held in Dallas, Texas, USA., 2-4 march 2004.
Goodman, H.E., Perrin, V.P. and Gregory, D.H.: “Volumetric Formation Mechanical
Property Characterization for Drilling Engineering Modeling Applications Using
the Rock Mechanics Algorithm (RMA)”, SPE 39266 presented at the SPE/IADC
Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Bahrain, 23-25 November
1997.
Hale, A. H., Mody, F. K. and Salisbury, D. P.: “ Experimental Investigation of the

Influence of Chemical Potential on Wellbore Stability”, IADC/SPE Paper 23885,
presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana,
Feb. 18-21, 1992.
Han, D., Nur, A., and Morgan, D.: “ Effects of Porosity and Clay Content on Wave
Velocity in Sandstone”, Geophysics V.51, 1985.
15
Horsrud P.: “ Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale From Empirical Correlations”,
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 2001.
Lake, W.L.: “ Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Prentice Hall, 1989.
Last, N., Plumb, R., Harkness, R., Charlez, P., Alsen, J. and Mclean, M.R.: “ An
Integrated Approach to Evaluating and Managing Wellbore Instability in the
Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America”, SPE 30464 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
Li, X., Cui, L., and Roegiers, J.-C.: “ Thermoporoelastic Analysis of Inclined
Boreholes”, presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurick’98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10
July, 1998.
Lomba, R.F.T., Chenevert, M. E. and Sharma, M. M.: “ The Role of Osmotic Effects in
Fluid Flow Through Shales”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 25
(2000) 25-35.
Low P.F., Anderson D.M.: “ Osmotic Pressure Equation for Determining

Thermodynamic Properties of Soil Water”, Soil Science, V.86, 251-258, 1958.
Maury, V.M. and Sauzay, J-M: “ Borehole Stability: Case Histories, Rock Mechanics
Approach, and Results”, SPE/IADC 16051 presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference held in New Orleans LA, March 15-18 1987.
Mclean, M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability: The Effect of Strength Criteria on
Mud Weight Recommendations”, SPE 20405 presented at the 65th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 23-26, 1990.
Minear, M.I.: “ Clay Mode’s and Acoustic Velocities”, presented at the 57th Ann. Mtg.,
Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng. New Orlean, 1980.
Mody, F.K. and Hale, A.H.: “ A Borehole Stability Model to Couple the Mechanics and
Chemistry of Drilling Fluid Shale Interaction”, SPE/IADC 25728, presented at the
1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam 23-25 February 1993.
Okland, D. and Cook, J.M.: “ Bedding Related Borehole Instability in High-Angle

Wells”, SPE 47285 presented at SPE/ISRM Conference on Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Engineering, Eurock’ 98, Trondheim, Norway (1998) 7-10 July.
Ong, Seehong and Roegiers, J.C.: “ Influence of Anisotropies in Borehole Stability”, Int.
J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci., 1993, 30, 7, 1069-1075.
Osisanya, S. O.: “Experimental Studies Of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”, Ph.D

dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August, 1991.
16
Popp, N.G.: “ Acoustic Properties of Shales With Variant Water Activity”, master’s
Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2004.
Santarelli, F. J.: “ Analysis of Borehole Stress Using Pressure-dependent Linear

Elasticity”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 23. No.6.
pp.445-449.1986.
Santarelli, F. J. and Carminati, S.: “ Do Shale Swell? A Critical Review of Available

Evidence”, SPE/IADC 29421, presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Amsterdam, 26 February- 2 March 1995.
Santos, H., Diek, A., Roegiers, C. and Fontoura, S.: “ Can shale swelling be (easily)
controlled?” Eurock’96, Barla(ed) 1996 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410
8436.
Sharma, M.M. “Near Wellbore Problems”, PGE 383 notes, the University of Texas at
Austin, 2004.
Simpson, J.P. and Dearing, H.L.: “ Diffusion Osmosis-An Unrecognized Cause of Shale
Instability”, IADC/SPE 59190 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference held in New Orleans, LA, 23-25 February 2000.
Steiger, R. and Leung , P. K.: “ Quantitative Determination of the Mechanical Properties

of Shales”, SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1992.
Tang, L. and Luo, P: “ The Effects of Thermal Stress on Wellbore Stability”, SPE 39505
presented at the SPE India oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, New Delhi,
17-19 February 1998.
Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson, R.A.: “ Estimation of Formation Strength
From the Mechanical-Properites Log”, Journal of Petroleum Engineering, March,
1975.
Tosaya, C., and Nur, A.: “ Effects of Digenesis and clays on Compressive Velocities in
Rocks:, Geophysical Research Letters, V.9, (1982) 5-8.
Van Oort, Eric: “On the physical and chemical stability of shales”, Journal of Petroleum
Science & Engineering, 38 (2003) 213-235.
Woodland, D.C.: “ Borehole Instability in the Western Canadian Overthrust Belt”, SPE
Drilling Engineering, March 1990
Yew, C.H. and Liu, G. (1992): “ Pore Fluid and wellbore Stabilities” SPE 22381, SPE
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 24-27 March,
pp.519-527.
Zamora M., Broussard P.N. and Stephens M.P.: “ The Top 10 Mud-Related Concerns in
17
Deep Water Drilling Operations”, SPE 59019 presented at the SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Tabasco,
Mexico, 1-3, February 2000.
Zhou, A., Hills, H.H., and Sandiford, M.: “ On Mechanical Stability of Inclined
Wellbores”, SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996.
18
Figure 1-1 – Wellbore instability in shales
19
Chapter 2: Properties of Shale
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is believed that unfavorable interactions between shales and drilling fluids are
the primary cause for wellbore instability. This interaction causes physiochemical and
mechanical property alterations, and can lead to wellbore instability problems. An
analysis of the intrinsic physical and chemical properties of shales can help us understand
the problems and lead to better formulation of drilling fluids (Osisanya, 1991; Breeden
and Shipman, 2004). In many cases, the solutions to wellbore instability problems
developed on the basis of laboratory tests.
Many researchers recognized the importance of laboratory testing of shale and
have come to the conclusion that successful drilling of troublesome shale requires
descriptive and analytical testing of the shale (Darley 1969; Chenevert, 1970a; Chenevert
and Pernot 1998; Chiu et al., 1983; Ballard et al., 1992; Bol et al., 1992; Bostrom et al.,
1998; Breeden and Shipman, 2004; Carminati et al., 2001; Ewy and Stankovich 2002;
Osisanya and Chenevert 1987).
Shales studied by various authors for wellbore stability can be divided into two
categories: surface (outcrop) and subsurface shales. Although outcrop shale is readily
available, this shale does not represent downhole shale. Therefore, results obtained from
outcrop shale should not be directly used to solve problems of downhole shale (Davidson,
1999). On the other hand, many of the problems associated with the subsurface samples
originate from cutting, retrieval, and handling of the core. During the coring operation,
the core experiences significant levels of compression and torque, which can alter its
properties. The physicochemical and mechanical properties of the subsurface shale are
further altered when the core is taken to the surface because of the alterations in stress
20
state and temperature.
During the process of sample storage and preparation, both outcrop and
subsurface samples may encounter surface desaturation to some degree. This desaturation
could lead to irreversible changes in the physiochemical and mechanical properties of
shale (Schmitt et al., 1994; Chenevert and Amanullah, 1997). Although the subsurface
shale may have been fully saturated in-situ, the coring, sampling, and storage can cause
loss of moisture (Chiu et al., 1981).
During laboratory testing, the most important and difficult issue is how to
simulate in-situ stress and temperature conditions. For outcrop shale, its mechanical
properties may be altered when loads higher than its original state are applied. On the
other hand, it is very difficult, if it is not impossible, to reproduce the native stress and
temperature conditions for subsurface shales. Even if the in-situ stress and temperature
can be accurately simulated, the properties of shale cannot be returned to its native state
because of the irreversible alterations caused by coring and sampling. Therefore, when
testing shale, much attention should be given to such items.
In our tests, outcrop as well as subsurface shale was used to evaluate water/ion
movement, acoustic velocity, and strength alterations when exposed to ionic solutions.
Water/ions movement and acoustic velocity were measured under ambient conditions,
and their compressive strength was measured at 5000 psi confining pressure. In this way,
the influences of a single factor on the properties of the shale were studied while keeping
other factors constant.
Keeping the purpose of specific tests in consideration, different sizes of samples
were prepared; 0.5 inch by 0.75 inch by 1 inch for the gravimetric-swelling test (GST),
0.75 inch by 0.75 inch by 1.5 inch for the acoustic and strength tests, and 0.5 inch cubic
for the adsorption and desorption tests. All cut samples were carefully preserved using
21
established laboratory techniques developed in our laboratory that limit alteration by
atmospheric humidity (Chenevert and Amanullah, 1997).
2.2 PIERRE I SHALE
Pierre I shale is an outcrop shale. Its mineralogical and internal pore fluid
composition, and cation exchange capacity are presented below.
2.2.1 Mineralogical composition
X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) was used to determine the crystalline structure and
composition of the shale minerals by determining the angles at which the x-Ray beam is
diffracted (Breeden and Shipman, 2004). The wavelength for an x-Ray is of the range of
0.01 to 100 Ǻ (1 Ǻ = 10-10m). Because the spacing of atomic planes in crystalline
materials is in the order of about 1 Ǻ, this makes x-Rays a useful tool in analyzing
crystalline structure and mineralogical composition of shale (Osisanya, 1991). In this
study, the XRD was performed by OGS Laboratory Inc. (Houston, TX). The results for
mineralogical composition of Pierre I are shown in Table 2-1.
2.2.2 Composition of the interstitial pore fluid
The cation and anion compositions of interstitial pore fluid of Pierre I shale are
presented in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 respectively.
2.2.3 Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of Pierre I shale

As discussed in Chapter 1, the ability of clays to exchange cations with the fluids
in the pore space is an interesting clay characteristic (Lake, 1989). The values of CEC for
Pierre I shale are shown in Table 2-2~ 2-4.
2.3 ARCO SHALE
Arco shale was cored in a well located in Northern USA at about 15,000 feet (see
22
Table 2-5 for its mineralogical composition). The composition of the pore fluid, and
CEC of Arco shale are not available.
2.4 MOISTURE CONTENT OF NATIVE SHALE
Three cut shale samples were used to determine the preserved water content
( C pw ) of a particular set of samples that had been cut from the same core horizon. The
following steps were used to obtain the original water content. The samples having been
stored in a light oil, were removed from the storage can and washed using a non-toxic
commercial form of hexane to remove oil from its surface. These samples were then
weighed to obtain their “preserved” weights ( Wp ). Finally the samples were placed in an
oven and heated to 200oF for 24 hours to obtain their weights after drying ( Wpd ). It is
believed that drying the shales at the modest temperature of 200oF liberates the “free”
water and not the water “bound” to the surface of the clays. From the above two
measurements, the preserved water content (wt %) of the sample was calculated using the
equation.
Wp − Wpd
C pw = × 100% (2-1)
Wpd
As an example, values for one Pierre I shale were, Wp = 4.836 g and Wpd = 4.388
g, and the wt % water was calculated to be:

4.836 − 4.388
C pw = × 100% = 10.21 %
4.388
The same calculation was used to obtain the native moisture content of the other
two samples. The average value among these three samples was considered to be the
native moisture content of that shale. It should be mentioned that this average value is
used in all subsequent calculations of water/ions movement for the various shale-fluid
experiments performed on that zone of Pierre I shale. Similarly it was found that Arco
Shale had an original moisture content of 3.3 wt %.
23
2.5 ADSORPTION ISOTHERM TESTS
Water activity of shale is an important parameter when dealing with wellbore

instability problems because it is a key factor in controlling the movement of water and
ions into and/or out of shale (Fonseca et al., 1998). The water activities of Pierre I and
Arco shales were determined using adsorption isotherm tests.
Richard and Peter (1960) used saturated salt solutions to control the humidity of
biological specimens in their research. Chenevert (1970b) introduced this method to
determine the water activity of shale. Different saturated salt solutions are normally used
to control the relative humidity in the determination of isotherms of shale. The advantage
of saturated solutions is that a constant relative humidity can be easily maintained as long
as salt crystals coexist with its solution. Although the water activity of subsurface shale is
influenced by stress and temperature (Fonseca, 1998), adsorption isotherms can be used
to determine the reactive potential of shale (Osisanya, 1991).
In our studies, pieces of shale were placed on plates in desiccators above different
saturated solutions. Equilibrium was established between the shale sample and the
solutions through movement of water only. In the desiccator, ions do not diffuse into or
out of the shale.
The following chemical materials: KH2PO4 (0.96), KCl (0.85), NaCl (0.755),
MnCl2 (0.56), MgCl2 (0.32), KCOOH (0.215) and ZnCl2 (0.1) were selected to achieve
constant relative humidity (water activity). The values in parenthesis are the relative
vapor pressures for the saturated solution at room temperature.
The adsorption isotherms for Pierre I and Arco shale are shown in Figure 2-1.
From this figure, it was found that the native water activities of Pierre I and Arco shales
were 0.98 and 0.78. This corresponded to native water contents of 10.21 wt % and 3.3 wt
% respectively.
24
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
Two types of shale, Pierre I and Arco, were used in this experimental study. The
high moisture content Pierre I can be used to represent surface shale. The relatively dry
Arco shale was cored in a well at about 15,000 feet, which can be used to represent
subsurface samples.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank OGS Laboratory for supplying the Pierre I shale core used
in this study. Help from Mr. Harry L. Dearing and Mr. Jay P. Simpson is highly
appreciated.
REFERENCES
Ballard, T.J. Beare, S.P. and Lawless, T.A.: “ Fundamentals of Shale Stabilisation: Water
Bostrom, B., Svano, G., Horsrud, P. and Askevold, A.: “ The Shrinkage Rate of KCl-
Exposed Smectitic North Sea Shale Simulated by a Diffusion Model”, SPE/ISRM
47254 presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock, 98 held in Trondhaim, Norway, 8-10
July 1998.
Breeden, D. and Shipman, J.: “ Shale Analysis for Mud Engineers”, AADE-04-DF-HO-
30 presented at the AADE 2004 Drilling Fluids Conference, at the Radisson
Astrodome in Houston, Texas, April 6-7, 2004.
Carminati, S., Del Gaudio L., Del, Piero G. and Brignoli, M.: “ Water- Based Muds and
Shale Interactions”, SPE 65001 presented at the 2001 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 13-16 February 2001.
Chenevert M. E: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, Journal of Petroleum

Technology, Sept. 1970a, pp 1141-1147.
Chenevert, M. E: “Shale Control with Balanced-Activity Oil-Continuous Muds”, Journal

of Petroleum Technology, Oct. 1970b.
25
Chenevert, M. E and Amanullah, Md.: “Shale Preservation and Testing Techniques for
Borehole Stability Studies”, SPE 37672 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6, March, 1997.
Chenevert M. E and Pernot Vincent: “ Control of Shale Swelling Pressure Using

Inhibitive Water – Based”, SPE 49263 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30,
September, 1998.
Vol.20, No. 3, pp107~120,1983.
Darley, H.C.H: “ A Laboratory Investigation of Borehole Stability”, JPT, July, 1969.

Ph.D Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 1999.
Ewy, R.T. and Stankovich, R.J.: “ Shale-Fluid Interactions Measured Under Simulated
Downhole Conditions”, SPE/ISRM 78160 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock
Fonseca, C.F., and Chenevert, M.E.: “ The Effects of Stress and Temperature on Water
Acitivity of Shales”, presented at the 3rd North American Rock Mechanic
Symposium, “ Rock Mechanics in Mining, Petrleum and Civil Works,” Cancum,
Quintana Roo, Mexico, June 3-5, 1998.
Forsans, T. M. and Schmitt L.: “ Capillary forces: The neglected factor in shale
instability studies?” SPE 28029 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August
1994.
Lomba, R.F.T., Chenevert, M. E. and Sharma, M. M.: “ The ion-selective membrane

behavior of native shales”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 25
(2000) 9-23.
Nesbitt, L.E., King, G.P., and Thurber N.E.: “ Shale Stabilization Principles”, SPE 14248
presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineering held in Las Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985.
Osisanya, S. O. and Chenevert, M.E.: “ Rigsite Shale Evaluation Techniques for Control
of Shale Related Wellbore Instability Problems”, SPE 16054 presented at the
Fourth SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 15-18,
1987.
26
Osisanya, S. O.: “Experimental Studies Of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”,
Ph.D dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1991.
Richard, V. B., and Peter, W. G.: “ Saturated Solutions for the Control of Humidity in
Biological Research”, Ecology, January 1960, Vol.41 No.1, 232-236.
Schmitt, L., Forsans, T. and Santarelli, F.J.: “ Shale Testing and Capillary Phenomena”,
Forces May Induce Biased Laboratory Testing”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., 1994, No.5, pp411-427.
Sharma, M.M.: “Chapter 4 Clay Mineralogy and Colloid Chemistry”, notes for PGE 383:
Near Wellbore Problems, The University of Texas at Austin, 2004.
27
Table 2-1– Mineralogical composition of Pierre I shale
Constituent % by weight
Quartz 19
Feldspar 4.0
Calcite 3
Dolomite 7
Pyrite 2
Siderite 1
Chlorite 2.6
Kaolinite 7.0
Illite 12.2
Clay Smectite 10.9
Mixed layer 31.3
Total 64
Table 2-2 – Composition of interstitial pore fluid for Pierre I shale (cations)
Cation
Concentration (meq/100g)
Potassium 0.7
Magnesium 0.4
Sodium 1.6
Calcium 1.0
Table 2-3 – Composition of interstitial pore fluid for Pierre I shale (anions)
Anion
Concentration (meq/100g)
Chloride 1.1
Carbonate 0
Bicarbonate 6.7
Sulfate 0.2
28
Table 2-4 – Exchangeable bases for Pierre I shale
Exchangeable bases
Cation
(meq/100g)
Potassium 0.7
Magnesium 4.4
Sodium 0.4
Calcium 13.9
Table 2-5 – Mineralogical composition of Arco shale
Constituent % by weight
Quartz 23.6
Feldspar 4.0
Calcite -----
Dolomite 1.2
Pyrite 2.4
Siderite 4.1
Chlorite 3.6
Kaolinite 5.7
Illite 15.0
Clay Smectite 11.0
Mixed layer 29.4
Total 64.7
29
9
8 Pierre I
Moisture Content, wt%

Arco Shale
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Relative Vapor Pressure, P/Po
Figure 2-1– Adsorption and desorption isotherms for Pierre I and Arco shales.
30
Chapter 3 : Wellbore Instability of Directional Wells in Laminated and
Naturally Fractured Shales
ABSTRACT
Wellbores drilled into laminated shales or shale/sand sequences are found to be

more unstable than wellbores drilled into similar homogenous isotropic formations. This
is primarily due to the fact that in laminated formations, failure can occur along the
weaker bedding planes.
In this chapter, the stress distribution around deviated wellbores in laminated
shale/sand sequences is analyzed and it is shown that failure can occur either along or
across bedding planes, depending on the well trajectory. It is shown that well inclination
and well azimuth orientation, relative to the bedding plane strike and dip, have a
significant impact on wellbore stability. Critical mud weight windows are calculated for
different well orientations relative to the bedding planes. It is pointed out that both in-situ
stresses and rock strength anisotropies should be factored into wellbore trajectory
optimization in order to improve wellbore stability. Taking these factors into account can
result in significantly improved wellbore stability conditions and improve the mud weight
window within which to drill deviated wells.
It has been reported that the presence of natural fractures is sometimes the
primary factor causing lost circulation. Thus, when drilling through naturally fractured
shales, it is important to avoid pressurizing the fractures. Consequently, the upper level of
mud weight should be kept sufficiently low to prevent a natural fracture from
propagating.
31
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability in laminated and fractured shales is a critical problem in the

drilling industry. Numerous wellbore instability problems have been reported when
drilling through laminated and fractured formations (Last et al., 1995; Okland et al.,
1998; Beacom et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2003). In addition to the unfavorable chemical
interaction between drilling fluid and shales that is covered in other chapters, it is
believed that micro-fractures and weak bedding planes can cause wellbore instability
(Labenski et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2004).
It is well known that shale is laminated and the bedding layers serve as weak
planes that result in strength anisotropy (Chenevert 1965;Yang et al., 1970; Fjaer et al.,
1992; Yamamoto et al., 2002). Chenevert (1965) studied the mechanical anisotropies of
laminated sedimentary rocks experimentally. Aadnoy (1988) developed a simulator to
study the wellbore instability of highly inclined boreholes in transversely anisotropic rock
formations by using Chenevert’s (1965) results. Aadnoy pointed out that an error was
introduced when material anisotropies are ignored. However, two assumptions in
Aadnoy’s simulator limit its application; 1) horizontal bedding layers, and 2) a zero
shear-stress component for the wellbore.
Ong and Roegiers (1993) studied the influence of anisotropies on borehole
stability by using anisotropic strength criterion for assessing compressive failure. They
indicated that wellbore stability was significantly influenced by rock mechanical
anisotropies. Gazaniol et al. (1994) also found that rock strength anisotropy has great
influence on wellbore instability and that a wellbore could fail along the bedding planes if
the trajectory of the well is not properly selected.
In laminated formations, wells can be drilled either up, down or cross-dip, as
shown in Figure 3-1 (Last et al., 1995). Many field cases demonstrate that an up-dip well
32
is more stable than a down- or cross-dip well (Last et al., 1995; Skelton et al., 1995;
Okland et al., 1998).
Last et al. (1995) found that drilling normal to bedding planes was beneficial and
improved wellbore stability in the Cusiana Field. They pointed out that wellbore stability
was affected by the relative angle between the wellbore and the bedding planes. Similar
conclusions were reached by Skelton et al. (1995) who showed that the tangent section
and azimuth of the wellbore should be perpendicular to the bedding dip and strike of the
formation respectively, in order to avoid formation layers from sliding along their
bedding planes. Okland et al. (1998) pointed out that for the Draupne formation the
“angle of attack”, which is defined as the angle between the wellbore and the bedding
planes should always exceed 20o so as to improve wellbore stability.
Willson et al. (1999) noted that bedding-plane slippage could result from an
unfavorable interaction between in-situ stresses, well trajectory, and bedding planes.
They pointed out that the reduced strength (friction and cohesion) acting on the bedding
planes could also result in enhanced and sometimes catastrophic instability. Russell et al.
(2003) found that it was important to determine the relative angle between the well
trajectory and the rock structure because this angle dictates the stability of the formations
when drilling close to the bedding dips or at unfavorable angles to fracture planes.
It has also been established that the existence of natural fractures was one of the
main causes of wellbore instability (Stjern et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2002). Santarelli et al.
(1992) found that an increase in mud weight could not solve wellbore instability
problems in naturally fractured formations.
In summary, two notable mechanisms are known to contribute to wellbore
instability in laminated and fractured formations; 1) slippage along weak bedding layers,
and 2) the existence of a natural fracture system that facilitates pressure transmission
33
from the wellbore into adjacent formations. The latter enhances wellbore sloughing
especially during tripping, because the swab pressure caused by upward pipe movement
decreases the bottom hole pressure.
From the above review, we see that many authors have recognized wellbore
instability problems when drilling through laminated naturally fractured formations.
3.2 WELLBORE INSTABILITY MODEL IN LAMINATED FORMATIONS
When the stress at a point in a wellbore exceeds the rock strength, wellbore
instability problems occur. Strength anisotropy is one of the unique properties of
laminated shales. Therefore, not only the stress state around a wellbore but also the
variable strength properties of laminated formations should be considered in wellbore
stability calculations.
3.2.1 Anisotropic Strength Model in Laminated Formations
In developing this model, it is assumed that under triaxial compressive- strength

drained-test conditions, the pore pressure within the shale sample is zero (therefore the
total stress is equal to the effective stress).
During a typical compressive strength test, a laminated shale sample is subjected
to the stress state as shown in Figure 3-2. The angle between the bedding plane and the
axial stress, β , is defined as the “operation angle”. Depending on the operation angle,
there are two possibilities for laminated rock failure, either across or along the bedding
plane. If the sample fails across the bedding planes, the strength is defined as “normal
strength”, σ1n ' . On the other hand, if it fails along the bedding plane, its strength is
defined as the “bedding plane strength”, σ1b ' at that operation angle.
According to the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the normal strength can be

calculated using following equation (Jaeger and Cook, 1979),
34
(
σ1n ' = σ 3 '+2(C 0 + µσ 3 ')[ 1 + µ 2 + µ ] ) (3-1)
Similarly, the bedding plane strength can be calculated using following equation
(Jaeger and Cook, 1979),
2(C 0 w + µ w σ 3 ')
σ1b ' = σ 3 '+ (3-2)
(1 − tan β ⋅ µ w )sin 2β
Note that the meaning of β here is different from that in the reference.
Differentiating Equation (3-2) with respect to β shows that σ bs ' has a minimum value
when
1
tan 2β w =
µw (3-3)
This minimal value of σ bs ,min is
⎢⎣
(
σ1b,min ' = σ 3 '+2(C 0 w + µ w σ 3 ')⎡ 1 + µ w 2 + µ w ⎤
⎥⎦
) (3-4)
By equating Equations (3-1) and (3-2), two values of operation angle, denoted as
β1 and β 2 ( β1 < β 2 ), can be calculated as;
⎛ a ∓ a 2 − b 2 − 2abµ ⎞
β1 , β 2 = tan −1 ⎜⎜ w ⎟
⎟⎟
⎜ b + 2aµ w
⎝ ⎠ (3-5)
where,
a = (C 0 + µσ 3 ')⎛⎜ 1 + µ 2 + µ ⎞⎟
⎝ ⎠
b = C 0w + µ w σ3 '
The cohesion ( C 0 ) can be determined by using the uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) equation (Jaeger and Cook, 1979):
35
UCS
C0 =
2⎛⎜ 1 + µ 2 + µ ⎞⎟
⎝ ⎠ (3-6)
Application of the above equations is given below by using information from the
Pedernales Field in Venezuela (Willson et al., 1999). This formation is located at a depth
of 5500 ft, has a native internal frictional angle of 31o, a UCS value of 4180 psi, bedding
a plane shear strength ( C 0 w ) value of 300 psi, and a bedding plane frictional angle of
26.6o. Based on the formation depth, it is assumed that the effective confining pressure
( σ 3 ' ) is about 2800 psi. According to the relationship between internal frictional angle
and frictional coefficient, we have µ = tan 31 = 0.6 and µ w = tan 26.6 = 0.5 . Based on
the relationship between UCS and cohesion, defined by Equation (3-6), we have
C 0 = 1183 psi . After substituting all the above information into Equations (3-1), (3-2), (3-
3), (3-4), and (3-5), we get σ1n ' = 12,913 psi , β w = 32 , σ bs,min ' = 8301 psi , β1 = 10 and
β 2 = 53 . These points are plotted in Figure 3-3, along with many other points calculated
in a similar manner.
It is seen in Figure 3-3 that when the operation angle is in the range of (0o, β1 ) or
( β 2 , 90o), the laminated formation has its intrinsic strength and the rock fails across the
bedding planes. However, if the operation angle is in the range of β1 < β < β 2 , the
bedding plane strength is less than the intrinsic strength and the rock fails along the
bedding planes.
In laminated formations, a decrease in strength causes wellbore instability
problems if the well is drilled along an unfavorable operation angle ( β1 < β < β 2 ). In
order to predict the strength in laminated formations, the operation angle should be
determined according to the stress state around the wellbore.
36
3.2.2 Stress Model
3.2.2.1 Stress state at wellbore
As shown in Figure 3-4, the stress state at the wellbore surface can be expressed
as (Fjaer et al., 1992):
⎧σ rr = Pw
⎪
( ) ( )
⎪σ θθ = σ x + σ y − 2 σ x − σ y cos 2θ − 4τ xy ⋅ sin 2θ − Pw
⎪
[( )
⎨σ zz = σ z − ν 2 σ x − σ y cos 2θ + 4τ xy sin 2θ ]
⎪
(
⎪τ θz = 2 τ yz cos θ − τ xz sin θ )
⎪τ = τ = 0
⎩ rθ rz (3-7)
3.2.2.2 Principal stresses

It can be seen from Equation (3-7) that σ rr = Pw is one of the principal stresses in
the (r, θ, z) coordinate system because τ rθ = τ rz = 0 . The other two principal stresses can
be calculated by using the following equation (see Figure 3-5 for the notation).
1
σ1, 2 = (σ θθ + σ zz ) ± τ θz 2 + 1 (σ θθ − σ zz )2
2 4 (3-8)
The direction of these principal stresses can be determined by calculating the

angle, ϕ (see Figure 3-6) as,
2τ θz
tan 2ϕ =
σ θθ − σ zz (3-9)
After the angle, ϕ has been determined, the orientation of the maximum principal
stress ( σ 1 ) can also be determined.
3.2.3 Operation Angle
As discussed previously (section 3.2.1), the strength of a laminated formation is

directly dependent on the operation angle. After the direction of the maximum principal
37
stress has been determined, the orientation of the bedding plane should be identified in
order to determine the operation angle.
Shale planes can be defined in space by their inclination (dip) and their strike,
which is the bearing of the line of intersection of the plane and a horizontal surface, as
shown in Figure 3-7. Notice that the bearing of the projection of the dip on a horizontal
surface is in a direction at right angle to the strike. This is called dip direction.
Based on the coordinate transformation, the normal direction of the bedding
planes can be expressed as,
⎧
⎪l p =
( )
tan(D p ) ⋅ tan S p
⎪
⎪
[ ( )]
1 + tan 2 (D p ) 1 + tan 2 S p
⎪⎪ tan(D p )
⎨m p = −
⎪
⎪
[ ( )]
1 + tan 2 (D p ) 1 + tan 2 S p
⎪n = 1
⎪
⎪⎩
p
[ ( )]
1 + tan 2 (D p ) 1 + tan 2 S p
(3-10)
After the orientations of the maximum principal stress ( σ 1 ) and the bedding
planes are determined, the following equation can be used to calculate the operation
angle,
⎛ lmlp + mmmp + n m n p ⎞
−1 ⎜ ⎟
β = sin ⎜ ⎟
⎜ lm 2 + mm 2 + n m 2 lp 2 + mp 2 + n p 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (3-11)
3.2.4 Attack Angle
In oil field publications, the attack angle, which is the orientation of the wellbore
with respect to the bedding planes, is usually used to evaluate the wellbore stability of
laminated formations (Okland and Cook, 1998; Willson et al., 1999). According to
Okland and Cook’s (1998) definition, the attack angle is equal to 90o when the wellbore
38
is perpendicular to the bedding planes and 0o when the well is parallel to the bedding
planes. However, Willson et al. have a completely different definition of this angle.
They define the attack angle as zero when the well is drilled perpendicular to the bedding
planes, and 90 o when the well lies in the bedding planes. In our discussions, Okland and
Cook’s definition is used.
The orientation of the wellbore can be calculated as:
⎧l w = sin( I w ) ⋅ cos(a w )
⎪
⎨m w = sin( I w ) ⋅ sin(a w )
⎪n = cos(I )
⎩ w w (3-12)
According to the orientations of the wellbore and bedding plane, the attack angle
can be calculated by using the following equation
⎛ lw lp + m w mp + n w n p ⎞
−1 ⎜ ⎟
β a = sin ⎜ ⎟
⎜ lw 2 + m w 2 + n w 2 lp2 + mp2 + n p2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (3-13)
Based on the above strength and stress model, a simulator has been developed
which can be used to perform an investigation of wellbore instability of laminated shales.
Not only the stability condition around a wellbore circumference, but also the critical
mud weights can be determined by using this simulator.
3.3 WELLBORE INSTABILITY ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.3.1 Input Data
The parameters provided in Table 3-1 were used as a base case for performing
calculations using our simulator. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying one
parameter at a time from this base case.
3.3.2 Effects of Well Configuration on Wellbore Stability
Wellbore stability conditions for both non-laminated (strength isotropic) and

39
laminated (strength anisotropic) formations are shown in Figure 3-8.
In Figure 3-8, the irregular line section represents unstable conditions and the
solid line represents stable conditions. It is seen that wellbore failure occurs in both non-
laminated and laminated formations. Starting from the highest point at the wellbore (as
shown in Figure 3-4) and moving anticlockwise, in non-laminated formations failure
occurs from 78o to 127o and from 258o to 307o. For laminated formations, failure occurs
from 73o to 130o and from 253o to 310o. A wider failure window was experienced for
laminated formations due to the fact that strengths in laminated formations are always
lower than in homogeneous, isotropic formations (McLellan and Cormier 1996; Willson
et al., 1999).
In directional wells, drilling along the minimum horizontal stress ( σ h ) is
considered to be beneficial and improves wellbore stability in non-laminated formations

under normal faulting stress regime conditions ( σ v > σ H > σ h ) (Zheng 1998; Awal et
al., 2001). Figure 3-9 shows wellbore stability when the well azimuth is changed from
50o to 90o so as to drill along the direction of minimum horizontal stress.

As shown by Figure 3-9, the wellbore fails in laminated formations (b) while it
remains stable in non-laminated formations (a). The stress concentration around the
wellbore decreases when the well is drilled along the minimum horizontal stress direction
under a normal faulting stress regime. This improves wellbore stability in non-laminated
formations (Zheng 1998; Awal et al., 2001), whereas the wellbore experiences more
failure in laminated formations due to the unfavorable operation angles caused by the
alteration of well azimuth. Therefore, a significant difference exists between laminated
and non-laminated formations due to well azimuth alteration. In non-laminated
formations, it is beneficial, from a wellbore stability point of view, to drill along the
minimum horizontal stress direction under normal faulting stress regime conditions,
40
whereas drilling along the minimum horizontal stress direction can be detrimental to
wellbore stability in laminated formations. As a result, ignoring strength anisotropy can
be costly and detrimental to wellbore stability during drilling.
It is interesting to note from Figure 3-9 that failures should occur within four
ranges ( 0 ~ 40 , 86 ~ 147 , 180 ~ 220 , and 246 ~ 327 ) around the wellbore
circumference in the laminated formation. Such failures could result in developing a

“square hole” as was observed by Cook et al. (1994) in their lab tests.
Figure 3-10 shows the wellbore stability condition after changing the azimuth to
zero, which makes the wellbore oriented along the maximum horizontal stress direction
( σ H ). It is seen that the wellbore is made unstable by changing the azimuth compared to
the base case in non-laminated formations. This is due to the stress concentration increase
caused by the unfavorable wellbore direction. Meanwhile, the failure window is also
expanded in laminated formations.
3.3.3 Effects of Wellbore Configuration on Critical Mud Weights
Generally, mud weight is adjusted to address wellbore instability problems. It is

agreed upon that there exits a lower bound of mud weight, below which compressive
failure of the wellbore occurs. This mud weight is defined as the “lower critical mud
weight”. On the other hand, mud weight should not be too high because there exists an
upper bound, defined as the “upper critical mud weight”, beyond which wellbore tensile
failure occurs. In naturally fractured shale formations, there is a different meaning for the
upper critical mud weight, which will be discussed later. The lower critical mud weight is
discussed below.
The effect of well inclination on lower critical mud weight for both non-laminated
and laminated formations is shown in Figure 3-11. It is seen that the critical mud weight
increases smoothly with increasing inclinations in non-laminated formations. This mud
41
weight increase means that more wellbore instability problems occur in directional and
horizontal wells than in vertical wells. This wellbore stability deterioration is due to the
higher stress concentration at the wellbore in directional and horizontal wells under the
simulated normal in-situ stress state.
Some interesting phenomena are observed in laminated formations. The critical
mud weight decreases with well inclinations up to 35o, and then it increases with
increasing inclinations. When well inclination reaches about 80o, it decreases again. This
changing pattern of the critical mud weight with well inclinations in laminated formations
is caused by variation in the rock strength with operation angle, as shown in Figure 3-3.
As discussed previously, the operation angle changes with inclination of the wellbore.
It is important to note that all critical mud weights in laminated formations are
higher than those for non-laminated formations at the same inclination due to the strength
decrease in laminated formations. This explains why more wellbore instability problems
occur in laminated formations (McLellan and Cormier, 1996).
Last et al. (1995) and Skelton et al. (1995) found that wellbore stability can be
improved in laminated formations by drilling wells perpendicular to the formation strike.
After changing the well azimuth to make the wellbore perpendicular to the formation
strike, we can see in Figure 3-12 that the effects of inclination on the critical mud weights
for both non-laminated and laminated formations.
Compared with the base case (Figure 3-11), changing the well azimuth does not
affect the critical mud weight greatly in non-laminated formations. As for laminated
formations, significant changes were observed. At low inclination angles (less than 30 o)
or higher inclination angles (greater than 65 o), the critical mud weights decreased due to
the alteration of well azimuth. This means that the alteration of well azimuth is beneficial
to wellbore stability in laminated formations under our simulation conditions. However,
42
when the inclination lies between 30o to 65o, the critical mud weight increases compared
with the base case. Therefore, it can be concluded that changing the well azimuth to be
perpendicular to the formation strike is detrimental to wellbore stability in laminated
formations when the well inclination lies in the range of 30o to 65o. Consequently,
drilling a well through laminated formations perpendicular to the formation strike is not
always a good strategy.
3.3.4 Effects of Dip Angles on Critical Mud Weight
It can be seen in Figure 3-13 that except for the horizontal layers (Dip = 0o) at low
inclinations (less than 20o), the required critical mud weight in laminated formations is
always higher than that in non-laminated formations. In the lower or higher inclinations,
the higher the dip angle, the higher the required mud weight. Under a certain range of
inclination angles, an opposite phenomenon is observed.
When the dip angle equals zero, the bedding plane is horizontal, as in the case
discussed by Aadnoy (1988). The critical mud weight is equal to that in non-laminated
formations when the inclination is less than 20o. This demonstrates that wellbore failure
occurs along the native failure plane when the well inclination is less than 20o. However,
when the inclination is greater than 20o, the mud weight increases significantly with
increasing inclination and the wellbore fails along the bedding planes.
3.3.5 Effect of Attack Angle on Critical Mud Weight
According to many field observations, the wellbore is more stable when the well
is drilled perpendicular to the bedding planes, which means that the attack angle is 90o
(Last et al., 1995; Okland et al., 1998; Beacom et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2003).
Here, it is important to clarify the differences between two angles, operation angle
and attack angle. As discussed previously, we can see that the operation angle is defined
as the angle between the maximum principal stress ( σ 1 ) and the bedding plane, while the
43
attack angle is defined as the angle between the wellbore and the bedding plane. For
example, if the bedding planes are horizontal, then the attack angle is equal to 90o less
the well inclination. This means the attack angle equals 90o for vertical wells while it is
0o for horizontal wells in horizontal laminated formations. However, the operation angle
varies with the well inclination, well azimuth, in-situ stress and the azimuth around the
wellbore. It cannot be easily observed without performing calculations.
From the previous analysis, we can see that it is the operation angle, not the attack
angle that directly affects the strength in laminated shales. In the oil field, it should be
relatively easy to figure out the attack angle based on the bedding planes and the wellbore
trajectory information. Unfortunately, the attack angle, not the operation angle is widely
used in the oil field. The effect of attack angle on the critical mud weight is shown in
Figure 3-14.
It is shown by Figure 3-14 that the critical mud weight is low at high attack angles
(greater than 63o for the base case), which fits field observations very well (Okland and
Cook, 1998). There exists an attack angle (15 o for the base case) under which the mud
weight should be very high to secure wellbore stability, just as Okland and Cook (1998)
stated “Both field experience and laboratory evidence from cylinder collapse tests,
indicate that hole instability in the Draupne Formation, a fissile Jurassic shale, is not a
problem when drilling normal to bedding, or even almost parallel to bedding, but
becomes very serious when the hole is parallel or very nearly parallel to bedding.” Their
hollow cylinder tests suggest this minimum “ attack angle” to be 10o, but field experience
from Oseberg suggests 20o. By using their data, our simulation result suggests this attack
angle to be 15o.
3.3.6 Field Case Study
Willson et al. (1999) studied wellbore instability problems under complex
44
geologic conditions, such as Pedernales Field, Venezuela and Cusiana Field, Colombia.
Table 3-2 shows the data from the Pedernales Field, Venezuela.
After running our simulator using the data shown in Table 3-2, we get the critical
mud weights for cross, up, and down-dip wells (see Figure 3-1 for their definition), as
shown in Figure 3-15.
It is clearly seen from Figure 3-15 that the critical mud weights in up-dip wells
are lower than these in down- or cross-dip wells, especially in high inclination wells.
These results fit well with the field observation by Skelton et al. (1995). Furthermore, it
was pointed out by Willson et al. (1999) that wellbores are predicted to be stable with
mud weights of around 11.5 ppg for up-dip wells, which is almost identical to that
predicted by our model.
From the above analysis, we see that higher mud weights are required to address
wellbore instability problems in laminated formations. However, in laminated naturally
fractured formation, significant mud loss occurs when excessive mud weight is used,
especially when the mud weight is high enough to cause the existing fractures to
propagate. Therefore, the upper critical mud weight should not exceed the existing
fracture propagation pressure.
3.4 NATURALLY FRACTURED SYSTEMS IN SHALE FORMATIONS
In naturally fractured shales, it is important to avoid pressurizing existing cracks

with drilling fluids. In this chapter, the wellbore pressure needed to pressurize natural
fractures is called the fracture propagation pressure.
The stress intensity factor for a uniformly loaded, isolated, plane strain crack (see
Figure 3-16) of length 2a is defined as (Lawn and Wilshaw, 1975; Olson et al., 2001)
K I = ∆σ I π a (3-14)
When the stress intensity factor is equal to or greater than the fracture toughness,
45
the crack begins to propagate
K I ≥ K IC (3-15)
Equation (3-15) can be defined in terms of fracture propagation pressure and

minimum horizontal stress ( σ h ) as
(P − σ h )I π a ≥ K IC
(3-16)
Generally, natural fractures have been formed as a result of Mode I (opening

mode) failure (Close 1993; Ong et. al., 1993). Mode I cracks propagate in the direction
perpendicular to the minimal principal horizontal stress. Based on assumptions of plane
strain, linear elastic formation with thermoelastic effects , that is given by (Blanton and
Olson 1999)
σh =
ν
1− ν
( )
σv − αpP + αpP +
E
2
ε tect +
Eα T ∆T
1− ν
1− ν (3-17)
Combining Equations (3-16) and (3-17), the wellbore pressure required for
fracture propagation can be determined as (Engelder and Lacazette, 1990)
⎛ε ⎞ K
µσ v + E⎜ tect + α T ∆T ⎟ + (1 − ν ) IC
P= ⎝1+ ν ⎠ πa
1 − ν − α p (1 − 2ν )
(3-18)
Equation (3-18) can be used to analyze the influence of fracture length on fracture
propagation with the data listed in Table 3-3.
The effects of crack half-length on fracture propagation pressures are shown in

Figure 3-17. It can be seen that fracture propagation pressure decreases with the increase
of fracture half-length. It decreases significantly when the half-length increases from 2
mm to 20 mm. During drilling of naturally fractured formations, such as coal seams, it is
important to keep the mud hydrostatic pressure below the above calculated fracture
46
propagation pressure in order to avoid pressuring the existing fractures. Once fractures
begin to propagate, it is a self-advancing process, and lost circulation and wellbore
instability may occur immediately. This phenomenon can be used to explain why it is not
proper to indiscriminately increase the mud density to address wellbore instability
problems in naturally fractured formations, as pointed out by Santarelli et al. (1992).
3.5 CONCLUSIONS
1. Changes of hole inclination and azimuth may produce unfavorable wellbore

stress states in laminated formations around the borehole. Depending on
specific conditions, such effects may lead to compressive wellbore failure.
2. A model was developed for coupling the strength of laminated shales with the
stress state at the wellbore wall. This model allows the simulation of wellbore
instability for directional wells in laminated formations.
3. The interaction angle between the wellbore and bedding plane is critical for
the determination of whether drilling through laminated formations will
induce instability along bedding planes.
4. Model mud weight results compared to the Pedernales Field case show an
excellent agreement.
5. Critical mud weights are strongly wellbore orientation dependent.
6. Optimal well trajectory for wellbore stability control must be designed by
considering both the strength and in-situ stress anisotropies of laminated
shales.
7. Mud density should be kept low enough to prevent pressurizing up naturally
fractured formations.
NOMENCLATURE*
a Main crack half-length [=] L

47
aw
Well azimuth [=] degrees
C0 Intrinsic cohesion [=] m/L-t2
C 0w Weak plane cohesion [=] m/L-t2
Dp
Dip angle [=] degrees
E Young’s modulus [=] m/L-t2
iw
Well inclination [=] degrees
KI Mode I stress intensity factor [=] m/t2- L
K IC Fracture toughness or critical stress intensity factor [=] m/t2- L
lm , m m , n m The cosines of the angles between the maximum principal
stress ( σ1 ) and the x’-, y’-, z’- axes, dimensionless
lp m p n p
, , The cosines of the angles between the normal direction of
bedding plane and the x’-, y’-, z’- axes, dimensionless
lw , mw , n w The cosines of the angles between the wellbore axis and the
x’-, y’-, z’- axes, dimensionless

P Fracture propagation pressure [=] m/L-t2
Pp Pore pressure [=] m/L-t2
Pw Wellbore pressure [=] m/L-t2
∆P Swab pressure [=] m/L-t2

r Radius of gas bubble [=] L
Sp Strike azimuth (clockwise from the normal north to strike line) [=] degrees
∆T Temperature at a particular depth minus the ambient surface temperature

[=] T
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength [=] m/L-t2
µ Intrinsic coefficient of friction [=] dimensionless
µw Weak plane coefficient of friction [=] dimensionless
48
σ1 Total maximum principal stress [=] m/L-t2
σ1 ' Effective axial stress for shale failure across bedding plane[=] m/L-t2
σ2 Intermediate principal stress [=] m/L-t2
σ3 Total minimum principal stress [=] m/L-t2
σ3 ' Effective minimum principal stress [=] m/L-t2
σc Confining pressure [=] m/L-t2
σH Maximum in-situ horizontal stress [=] m/L-t2

σh Minimum in-situ horizontal stress [=] m/L-t2
σ1n ' Normal compressive strength [=] m/L-t2
σ1b ' Bedding plane compressive strength [=] m/L-t2
σ bs, min ' Minimum bedding plane compressive strength [=] m/L-t2
σv Overburden stress [=] m/L-t2
σx Normal stress in x-direction [=] m/L-t2

σy Normal stress in y-direction [=] m/L-t2
σz Axial stress [=] m/L-t2

τ xy In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2
τ yz In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2

τ zx In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2
σ rr Radial normal stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
σ θθ Hoop stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
σ zz Axial stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2

τ θz Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
τ rz Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2

τ rθ Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
∆σ I Mode I crack driving stress [=] m/L-t2
49
Φ Naïve internal frictional angle [=] degrees
Φw Bedding plane frictional angle [=] degrees
αp Biot’s constant, dimensionless
αt Thermal expansion coefficient of rock matrix [=] 1/T
β Operation angle between the bedding plane and maximum principal stress
[=] degrees
β1 , β 2 Special operation angles at which the bedding strength
transfers from native to bedding strength [=] degrees

βw Special operation angle at which the bedding strength gets to minimum [=]
degrees
βa Attack angle between the bedding plane and wellbore [=] degrees
ε tect Tectonic strain, dimensionless

θ Angular polar coordinate, degrees
* [=] means has units of, L is a length unit, m mass, t time, and T temperature
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Dr. Seehong Ong for his support, guidance, and encouragement
throughout this work. His friendship, experience, and knowledge were essential for this
work. Special thanks are given to Dr. Mohammed Azeemuddin, Dr. Xianjie Yi, and Mr.
Chris Wolfe for their valuable suggestions.
REFERENCES
Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert M.E.: “ Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes “, SPE
Aadnoy, B.S.:“ Modeling of the Stability of highly Inclined Boreholes in Anisotropic

Rock Formations”, SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988.
Awal, M.R., Khan, M.S., Mohiuddin, M.A., Abdulraheem, A. and Azeemuddin, M.: “ A
50
New Approach to Borehole Trajectory Optimization for Increased Hole
Stability”, SPE 68092 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
Aoki, T., Tan, C.P. and Bamford, W.E.: “ Effects of Deformation and Strength
Anisotropy on Borehole Failure in Saturated Shales”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
& Geomech. Abstr., Vol.30, No.7, pp 105-1038, 1993.
Beacom L.E., Nicholson, H., and Corfield R.I.: “ Integration of Drilling and Geological
Blanton T.L. and Olson J.E.: “ Stress Magnitudes from Logs: Effects of Tectonic Strains
and Temperature”, SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2(1), February 1999.
The Oil and gas Journal, February 19, 1979 (a).

Brudy, M. and Zoback, M. D.: “ Compressive and Tensile Failure of Boreholes

Arbitrarily – Inclined to Principal Stress Axes: Application to the KTB Boreholes,
Germany”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol.30, No.7, pp
105-1038, 1993.
Chen, X. and Tan, C.P.: “ The Impact of Mud Infiltration on Wellbore Stability in
Fractured Rock Masses”, SPE/ISRM 78241 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock
Chen, G., Chenevert, M.E, Sharma, M.M. and Yu, Mengjiao: “ A Study of wellbore
stability in shales including poroelastic, chemical and thermal effects”, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 167-176.
Chenevert M. E. and Gatlin C.: “Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary

Rocks”, presented at 39th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Houston, TX, Oct.11-14,
1964.
Cook J.M., Goldsmith G., Bailey L., Audibert A. and Bieber M.T.: “ X-ray tomographic
study of the influence of bedding plane orientation on shale swelling’, SPE/ISRM
28061 presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
51
Engineering Conference, Delft, Aug. 29-31.
Edwards, S., Matsutsuyu, B. and Willson S.: “ Imaging unstable wellbore while
drilling”, SPE/IADC 79846 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held
in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21, February, 2003.
Engelder, T. and Lacazette, A.: “ Natural hydraulic fracturing”, Rock joints, Barton &
Stepharison (eds), 1990 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBM 90 6191 1095.
Fjaer, E. et al.: “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics”, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992.
Gazaniol, D., Forsans, T., Boisson, M.J.F and Piau, J-M.: “Wellbore Failure Mechanisms
in Shales: Prediction and Prevention”, SPE 28851 presented at the 1994
European Petroleum Conference held in London, Oct. 25-27, 1994.
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: “Fundamental of Rock Mechanics”, third edition,
Chapman andpman and hall, London, 1979
Labenski, F., Reid, P. and Santos, H.: “ Drilling Fluids Approaches for Control of
Wellbore Instability in Fractured Formations”, SPE/IADC 85304 Presented at the
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition held in
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 20-22, October 2003.
Last, N., Plumb, R., Harkness, R., Charlez, P., Alsen, J. and Mclean, M.R.: “ An
Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America”, SPE 30464 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25. (JPT,
July1996)
Last, N.C. and Mclean, M.R.: “ Assessing the impact of Trajectory on Wells Drilled in
an Overthrust Region”, SPE 30465 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25. (J.P.T., July1996)
Lawn, B.R. and Wilshaw, T.R.: “ Fracture of Brittle Solids”, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1975.
Ma. Shanzhou, Huang, Genlu, Zhang, Jianguo and Han, Zhiyong: “ Study on Design of
Extended Reach Well Trajectory”, SPE 50900 presented at the 1998 SPE
International Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, 2-5 November
1998.
Maury, V. and Zurdo, C.: “ Drilling –Induced Lateral Shifts Along Pre-Existing
Fractures: A Common Cause of Drilling Problems”, SPE 27492 presented at the
1994 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Feb.15-18.
52
McLellan M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability: The Effect of Strength Criteria
on Mud Weight recommendations”, SPE 20405 presented at the 65th Annual
McLellan, P.J. and Cormier, K.: “ Borehole Instability in Fissile, Dipping Shales,
Northeastern British Columbia”, SPE 35634 presented at the Gas Technology
Conference, Calgary, Canada, April 28- May 1 1996.
Mohiuddin, M.A, Awal, M. R., Abdulraheem, A., and Khan, K.: “ A New Diagnostic
Approach to Identify the Causes of Borehole Instability Problems in an Offshore
Arabian Field”, SPE 68095 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held
in Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.

Olson, J.E., Qiu, Yuan, Holder, J. and Rijken, P.: “ Constraining the Spatial Distribution
of Fracture Networks in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Fracture
Mechanics and Core Measurements”, SPE 71342 presented at the 2001 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30
September – 3 October 2001.
Olson, J.E., notes for PGE 383: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, The University of Texas
at Austin, Fall 2002.
Russell, K.A., Ayan, C., Hart, N.J., Rodriguez, J.M., Scholey, H., Sugden, C. and
Davidson, J.K.: “ Predicting and Preventing Wellbore Instability Using the Latest
Drilling and Logging Technologies: Tullich Field Development, North Sea”, SPE
84269 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.
Santarelli, F.J., Dardeau, C. and Zurdo, C.: “ Drilling Through Highly Fractured
Formations: “ A Problem, a Model and a Cure”, SPE 24592 presented at the 67th
Annual Technical conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineering held in Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.
Skelton, J., Hogg, T.W., Cross, R. and Verheggen, L.: “ Case History of Directional
Drilling in the Cusiana Field in Colombia”, IADC/SPE 29380, presented at the
1995 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 28 February –March 2
1995.
53
Stjern, G., Horsrud, P. and Agle, A.: “ Improving Drilling Performance in Troublesome
Clay Formations in the Heidrun Field”, IADC/SPE 59219 presented at 2000
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February
2002.
Willson, S.M., Last, N.C., Zobach, M.D. and Moos, D.: “ Drilling in South America:
Stability Approach for Complex Geologic Conditions” SPE 53940, SPE Latin
American & Caribbean Petrol. Eng. Conf., Caracas, April 1999.
Drilling Engineering, March 1990.
Yamamoto K., Shioya Y. and Uryu N.: “ Discrete Element Approach for the Wellbore
Instability of Laminated and Fissured Rocks”, SPE/ISRM 78181 present at the
2002.
Yang J.H. and Gray K.E.: “ Behavior of Anisotropic Rocks Under Combined Stresses”,
SPE 3098 presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, held in Houston TX., Oct. 4-7, 1970.
Zhang, Jianguo, Chenevert, M. M., Talal, AL-Bazali and Sharma, M. M.: “ A New
Gravimetric – Swelling Test for Evaluating Water and Ion Uptake of Shales”,
SPE 89831 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
Zhang Jianguo, Ong Seehong, Chenevert M. E., Sharma M. M., Yi Xianjie and AL-
Bazali Talal: “Effects of Strain Rate on Failure Characteristics for Shale”, will be
presented at the 40th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium June 25-29, 2005
Anchorage Alaska.
Zheng Z.: “ Integrated Borehole Stability Analysis – Against Tradition”, SPE/ISRM

47282, presented at the SPE/ISRM Europe ’98 held in Trondheim, Norway, 8-10
July 1998.
Zoback, Mark D. and Healy, J.H.: “ Friction. Faulting and «in situ » stress”, Geophysics,
1984, 2,6,689~698.
54
Table 3-1 - Input data for base case
Well Depth (ft) 10,000

Well Azimuth (degrees) N50 oE
Inclination (degrees) 60
Mud Weight (ppg) 9.6
Pore Pressure (ppg) 9
Overburden Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 1
Maximum Horizontal Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 0.9
Minimum Horizontal Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 0.8
Maximum Horizontal Stress Direction N0o E
Young's Modulus (106 psi) 1
Native Cohesion (psi) 1000
Bedding Plane Cohesion (psi) 200
Native Frictional Angle (Degrees) 30
Bedding-plane Frictional Coefficient 0.5
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Biot’s Constant 0.8
Strike and Dip N40º E, 20 ºNW
55
Table 3-2 - Information from Pedernales Field, Venezuela (after Willson et al., 1999)

Pore Pressure (ppg) 9
Overburden Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 0.98
Maximum Horizontal Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 1.2
Minimum Horizontal Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 0.92
Maximum Horizontal Stress Direction 315o
Native Cohesion (psi) 1188
Bedding Plane Cohesion(psi) 300
Native Frictional Angle (Degrees) 31
Bedding plane frictional coefficient 0.5
Biot’s Constant 0.8
Strike and Dip N45ºW, 45ºSW
Table 3-3 - Formation and fracture properties
Thermal Expansion Coefficient (10-6/oF) 0.33

Geothermal Gradient (oF/100ft) 1.5
Biot's Constant 0.75
Overburden Stress Gradient (psi/ft) 1
Pore Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) 0.465
Tectonic Strain 0.0013
Fracture Toughness (psi ⋅ in ) 220.5
56
Figure 3-1 – Up-, down-, and cross-dip wells.
57
Figure 3-2 – Failure modes for laminated rocks.
58
13000
12000
11000
σ , psi
10000
s
9000
8000
β1
β2
7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Operation Angle, Degrees
Figure 3-3 – Influence of operation angle on compressive strength of laminated rocks.
σv
z’
y’
aw
x’ σh
σ y
H
i x1
z w
r
x
Highest Point of Wellbore
Figure 3-4 – Well configuration.
59
Figure 3-5 – Stress state at wellbore surface.
Figure 3-6 – Calculation of principal stresses.
60
Figure 3-7 – Definition of strike and dip.
Figure 3-8 – Wellbore stability conditions in (a) non-laminated and (b) laminated
formations for a wellbore circumference.
61
formations for a wellbore circumference being along the minimum horizontal stress
( σ h ).
formations for a wellbore circumference being along the maximum horizontal stress
( σ H ).
62
12
Critical Mud Weight, ppg

Non-laminated
11.5
Laminated
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degrees
Figure 3-11 – Effect of inclination on critical mud weights.
12
11.5 Non-laminated
Laminated
11
10.5
10
9.5
8.5
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 3-12 – Effect of inclination on critical mud weight for wellbore perpendicular to
formation strike.
63
12.5
Nonlaminated

12 Dip=0
Dip=20
11.5 Dip=40
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 3-13 – Effect of dip angle on critical mud weight.
12
Critical Mud Weigh, ppg
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Attack Angles, degrees
Figure 3-14 – Effects of attack angle on critical mud weight.
64
12.5

12
11.5
11
Down-dip
Up-dip
10.5
Cross-dip
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 3-15 – Critical mud weight in Pedernales Field.
Figure 3-16 – A natural fracture around a wellbore
65
22
Fracturing Propagation
20
Pressure, ppg 18
16
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Half Length of Fracture, mm
Figure 3-17 – Effects of crack half-length on fracture propagation pressure.
66
Chapter 4 : Effect of Strain Rate on Failure Characteristics of Shales
ABSTRACT
Accurate strength data are critical when determining safe mud weight windows
during drilling, and also for understanding shale deformation mechanisms. A key factor
in measuring the compressive strength of shale is the strain rate used during laboratory
testing. Two phenomena are attributed to strain rate related strength alteration: pore
pressure build-up and dilatancy hardening.
Due to low shale permeability, pore pressure of high water content shales usually
builds up during high axial loading. Pore pressure greatly influences shale strength. A
theoretical analysis on the influence of confining and pore pressures on the deviatoric
strength of shale is presented in this chapter. Additionally, a model to predict pore
pressure distribution within our shale sample during a typical triaxial compression test is
developed. The effects of strain rate and permeability on pore pressure build-up, and
thereby the compressive strength are assessed.
On the other hand, certain rocks (low water content shales included) experience a
strength increase at high shear rates. This may be due to a form of micro-cracking that
leads to dilatancy and thus pore pressure reduction.
Experimental results for two preserved shale samples obtained from the field are
presented. It is shown that strain rates have different effects on the compressive strength
for the two shale types. The deviatoric strength for the soft Pierre I shale decreases, while
the strength for the highly compacted Arco shale increases with increasing strain rates.
The reasons for these observed phenomena are analyzed, and their impacts on drilling
operations are briefly discussed.
67
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The determination of the compressive strength of shale is a key factor in drilling

operation, bit optimization, and wellbore stability management (Robinson, 1958; Spaar et
al., 1995; McLellan et al., 1996; Ong et al., 2000). A better understanding of the
mechanisms of shale failure is useful in each of these areas.
Generally, there are two ways to obtain the compressive strength of shales: direct
laboratory measurement and indirect well log interpretation (Horsrud, 2001). Although
laboratory experiments are expensive and time consuming, they are more accurate. Our
results are based on laboratory measurements.
A key factor that controls the compressive strength of high water content shale is
its pore pressure. For such shale, pore pressure depends on the strain rate used during
testing. The compressive strength of low water content shales is also affected by strain
rate, but not by pore pressure effects as shown by the work of Swan et al. (1989).
Although many studies have been performed on hard crystalline rocks, relatively
few studies have been performed on the mechanical behavior of soft shale rocks due to
the technical problems involved in sample preparation and shale testing (Cook et al.,
1990; Chenevert and Amanullah, 1997). Shales make up over 75% of drilled formation
and 90% of wellbore instability problems occur in shale formations (Steiger et al., 1992),
therefore there is a need for such studies. Several researchers have theoretically and
experimentally examined this topic for several decades (Chenevert et al., 1964, 1998;
Closmann and Bradley, 1977; Swan et al., 1989; Cook et al., 1990; Yu et al., 2001; Chen
and Ewy, 2002).
By performing triaxial compressive strength tests, Robinson (1958) studied the
effects of pore and confining pressures on the failure characteristics of sedimentary rocks.
He found that the rock strength decreases with increasing pore pressure and it increases
68
with the increase of confining pressure. Chiu et al. (1983) discussed an appropriate
technique for triaxial testing of saturated soft shale. They found that pore pressure
alteration had significant influence on the measured strength and the deformation
properties of the specimen tested. It was found that positive or negative pore pressure
could be generated depending on the strain rates used during testing. They defined a
critical strain rate below which the pore fluid can dissipate completely with no pore
pressure build-up. If the strain rate is higher than the critical strain rate, negative pore
pressure (dilatancy) is generated, and thus the compressive strength to increase. Swan et
al. (1989) investigated the strain rate effects on Kimmeridge Bay shale. Some of their
results are shown in Figure 4-1. It was observed that as the strain rate increases, the
strength first decreases (implying a pore pressure increase), goes through a minimum
strength at about 0.1×10-6/min, then increases (implying a pore pressure decrease).
Cook et al. (1990) discussed the effects of strain rate and confining pressure on
the deformation and failure of shale. They concluded that shale deformation and failure
are governed by effective stress at low strain rates. However, the strength depends on
total pressure at a high strain rate.
Chen et al. (2002) compared the drained and undrained loading effects on
wellbore stability. They concluded that undrained effects cause wellbore instability
problems. This may be the reason why shales are more problematic than sandstone due to
their low permeability.
Several researchers studied the effects of strain rate on the failure mechanism of
non-shale rocks. Brace and Martin (1968) tried to test the principal of effective stress for
crystalline rocks of low porosity by running triaxial compressive experiments at strain
rates from 10-3 to 10-8 S-1. It was found that compressive strength increased with
increasing strain rates due to “dilatancy hardening”. They also found that the law of
69
effective stress was valid only when the loading rate was below some critical value. At
high strain rates, the law of effective stress could not be used to interpret the strength
results. Because there exists discrepancy between the “true pore pressure” and the
“measured pore pressure” (due to the low permeability), their conclusions were doubted
by Ladanyi (1970). The effects of strain rate on the strength and ductility of Solenhofen
limestone at low temperature and confining pressure were studied by Rutter (1972). He
also found that the law of effective stress was applicable under low strain rates.
In 1976, Atkinson ran experiments to study the influence of temperature and
strain rate on the strength of Galena ore and Muller et al. (1978) ran similar experiments
on Anhydrite. Their results are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3 respectively. It is easy to
see that the strength increases with increasing strain rate. They postulated that such
increases can be attributed to a “work – hardening” effect.
All the above studies are beneficial for understanding the failure characteristics of
shale. It can be concluded that strain rate strength alteration is caused by the two
phenomena: pore pressure build-up effect and pore pressure reduction by dilatancy. The
strength of the rock increases with an increase in strain rate due to the dilatancy effects
and it decreases with an increasing strain rate due to the pore pressure build-up effects.
Before a theoretical analysis on the effects of confining and pore pressure on the
compressive strength of shales is discussed, let’s briefly review the law of effective
stress.
4.2 LAW OF EFFECTIVE STRESS
It is well accepted that a wide range of rock properties, i.e., shear strength,
acoustic velocity, electrical resistivity, elastic modulus, thermal conductivity etc., depend
on effective stress (Ladanyi 1970; Ward et al., 1995; Khaksar and Griffiths, 1999). From
a wellbore stability point of view, this implies that the effective stress, rather than the
70
total stress, determines whether or not a rock fails due to external loading. Therefore,
determination of effective stress is crucial when considering rock behavior mechanisms
under external loading.
Through a study on saturated soil deformation behavior, Terzaghi et al. (1923)
introduced the concept of effective stress for porous media (Terzaghi, 1960). In equation
form, the effective normal stress ( σ e ) is equal to the total normal stress minus the
hydraulic pore pressure ( Pp )
σ e ij = σ ij − Pp δ ij
(4-1)
Biot (1941) improved the Terzaghi equation by introducing a Biot’s constant

( α p ) that accounts for effective pore fluid and rock compressibility:
σ e ij = σ ij − α p Pp δ ij
, (4-2)
where,
K fr
α p = 1−
Ks . (4-3)
4.3 PORE PRESSURE BUILD-UP EFFECTS ON SHALE STRENGTH
4.3.1 Theoretical Analysis
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is widely used in rock mechanics due to its
simplicity (Mclean et al., 1990; Horsrud, 2001). It can be expressed as
τ = C 0 + σ ⋅ tan Φ (4-4)
Under triaxial compressive strength test condition, it becomes

1 + sin Φ 2 cos Φ
σ a − α p Pp = (σ c − α p Pp ) + ⋅ C0
1 − sin Φ 1 − sin Φ (4-5)
Therefore the deviatoric strength can be expressed as
71
2 cos Φ 2 sin Φ
σD = ⋅ C0 + (σ c − α p Pp )
1 − sin Φ 1 − sin Φ (4-6)
where
σD = σa − σc (4-7)
It is easily seen from Equation (4-6) that differential strength ( σ D ) increases with
an increase in confining pressure ( σ c ) and decreases with pore pressure ( Pp ). Figure 4-4
shows the relationship between deviatoric strength and confining pressure by assuming
C 0 = 10 MPa , and Φ = 21 , which fits the experimental data obtained by Cook (1990)
very well.
The relationship between deviatoric strength and pore pressure within ashale
sample is shown in Figure 4-5. It is seen that the deviatoric strength decreases with an
increase in pore pressure.
From the above analysis, we can argue that the pore pressure build-up during a
test causes shale strength decreases, and likewise, should the pore pressure decrease, the
strength would increase.
4.3.2 Numerical Simulation
A model to simulate the pore pressure build-up within a shale sample is shown as
follows (see Appendix 5 for derivation, boundary and initial conditions).
2
∂Pp ∂ε z Ck ∂ Pp
= C(1 − 2ν ) +
∂t ∂t α p µ ∂z 2
(4-8)
4.3.2.1 Input data
The data used in simulation are listed in Table 4-1.
4.3.2.2 Time-dependent pore pressure build-up
Figure 4-6 shows pore pressure build-up profile in the core as a function of time
72
during the simulated test when the strain rate is equal to 10-6 S-1. It can be observed that
pore pressure builds up within the sample with time under such conditions.
The top and bottom of the sample (at positions of 0 and 40 mm) are exposed to
constant atmospheric pressure, thus their values are zero during compaction. Therefore,
in order to ensure that the pore pressure within the sample is zero, as required by drained
experiment condition, a lower strain rate may be required, so that pore fluid can bleed off
out of the ends of the sample.
4.3.2.3 Effects of strain rate on pore pressure build-up
Figure 4-7 shows pore pressure within the sample after 1 minute of axial loading
for different values of strain rate. From this figure, we see that the pore pressure is very
sensitive to strain rate. At high strain rates, the rate for pore pressure build-up is higher
than its dissipation rate, so the pore pressure increases with increasing strain rate.
Therefore, one way to test the strength of shales accurately is to load the sample at a low
strain rate, as suggested by Chiu et al. (1983) and Ewy et al. (2001).
4.3.2.4 Effects of permeability on pore pressure puild-up
The effect of permeability on pore pressure build-up for the drained test sample of
Figure 4-10 is shown in Figure 4-8. As expected, pore pressure increases with decreasing
permeability. It is hard for pore pressure contained within low permeability shales to
dissipate quickly.
From the above simulation results, we see that pore pressure builds up during the
compressive strength test under high strain rate. If however micro-fractures begin to
propagate, then pore pressure can leak off and it no longer increases.
73
4.4 EFFECTS OF STRAIN RATE ON SHALE STRENGTH
4.4.1 Strength Test Equipment
The laboratory equipment used to measure the shale compressive strength is

shown in Figure 4-10. In each strength test, a sample was jacked using heat shrink tubing
and surrounded on the vertical surfaces with three layers of 70×70 mesh screen wire. The
purpose of this screen wire is to let the pore fluid flow in radial and vertical directions
and thereby allow pore pressure to dissipate more rapidly. Porous disks were then placed
on the top and bottom of the sample, which were open to the upper and lower flow lines.
These lines were open to air, so pore fluid could exit toward atmosphere pressure during
compression.
Before applying an axial load, a confining pressure of 5000 psi was applied over a
10-minute period, and then kept at this value for one hour to make sure that the pore
pressure within the sample has completely dissipated. This period of time was determined
by running the pore pressure simulator as described in Equation (4-8).
In order to run the simulator, we must first determine the parameters for Equation
(4-8). Young’s moduli for Pierre I and Arco were determined to be 165,000 psi and
262, 000 psi respectively by running a compressive strength test under a low strain rate,
and Poisson’s ratio was assumed to be 0.25 for Pierre I and Arco shales. By using these
data, the axial strain rate applied during the application of confining pressure was
calculated in the following manner.
∂ε Pc 5000 psi
Sr = z = = = 2.02 × 10 −4 s −1 .
∂t E ⋅ γ ⋅ ∆t (165000 psi )(0.25)(10 m. × 60 s/m )
Using the same method, the strain rate for the Arco shale was determined to be
1.27×10-4 S-1. Permeability values of 100 nD and 50 nD were used for the Pierre I and
Arco shale, respectively, as listed in the thesis of Nair (2005). The other information used
74
in the simulation is shown in Table 4-1. The simulation results of pore pressure change
for Pierre I and Arco during applying confining pressure are shown in Figures 4-11 and
4-12 respectively.
From these two figures, we see that pore pressure within the two shales is
approximately zero after maintaining 5000 psi for about 1 hour. For each test run, the
confining pressure was maintained at 5000 psi for about 1 hour before axial stress was
applied. In this way, the pressure had completely dissipated before testing began.
4.4.2 Effects of Strain Rate on Peak Strength of Pierre I Shale
The stress-strain curves at different strain rates for the high water content Pierre I
shale are shown Figure 4-13. From this figure, we see that the peak strength decreases as
the strain rate increases from 1.2×10-5 to 5.9×10-5 S-1 due to pore pressure increase. These
results plus other such tests were performed and plotted in Figure 4-14.
It is seen that the deviatoric strength for the soft, high water content, Pierre I shale
decreased with increasing strain rates. At a certain strain rate, it tended to level off. For
example, when the strain rate was increased to about to 5.0×10-5S-1 and beyond, the
deviatoric strength leveled off between 3600~3,800 psi. This strength decrease with
increasing strain rate is due to pore pressure build-up within Pierre I shale. When the
strain rate was less than 2.0×10-5 S-1, the deviatoric strength had increased to about 5100
psi.
The effects of strain rate on pore pressure build-up within Pierre I samples (Figure
4-15) were obtained by running our simulator. As shown in this graph, pore pressure
increases linearly with increasing strain rate. After regressing these simulation results, we
obtain a regression line. From the intercept of the regression line with the axis of strain
rate, we determine that the pore pressure is zero when the strain rate is 6.2×10-8 S-1,
which is exactly of the same order as suggested by Ewy et al. (2001).
75
4.4.3 Effects of Strain Rate on Peak Strength of Arco Shale
Typical stress-strain curves for the Arco shale are shown in Figure 4-16. It is
seen that as the strain rate increases, there is a definite increase in strength. Figure 4-17
shows the results of six such tests.
We also performed a simulation under the strain rates used in the compressive
strength test to study the effects these strain rates on pore pressure build-up within Arco
samples. The simulation result is shown in Figure 4-18. We see from this figure that pore
pressure increases with increasing strain rates. This pore pressure build-up should cause
the strength of Arco shale to decrease. However, from Figure 4-17, we see a rapid
increase in shale strength at strain rates above 3.7×10-5 S-1. This effect is the inverse of
what was seen for the Pierre I shale. It is assumed here that the increase is due to
dilatancy. Similar effects were seen by Swan et al. (1989) when testing the Kimmeridge
shale. They reported such an increase in strength was due to a “change in the deformation
mechanism from macroscopic fault plane formation at low rates, to distributed shear
micro-cracking at high rates”. Such cracks could provide the voids that promote
dilatancy. Such strength increases with strain rate increase are not uncommon for other
types of rocks as shown in Figure 4-2 by Atkinson (1976) and in Figure 4-3 by Muller
and Briegel (1978).
In addition, from the regression line between the pore pressure and strain rate, as
shown in Figure 4-18, it is determined that pore pressure build-up is zero when the strain
rate is below 3.5 ×10-8 S-1. This value of strain rate for Arco shale is lower than that for
Pierre I shale due to the fact that the permeability of Arco shale is less than the
permeability of Pierre I shale.
4.5 DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION
The strain rate used during a compressive strength test plays a crucial role for
76
proper strength determination. Previous work suggests that low strain rates should be
used in testing the mechanical properties of shale (Chiu et al., 1983; Cook et al., 1990).
However, performing strength tests under low strain rates may take days, even weeks.
We think that the selection of strain rate depends on the purpose of the test. If the result is
used for bit selection (Spaar et al., 1995), high strain rate should be used because the
strain rate during drilling is very high (Cook et al., 1990). However, if the test is used to
evaluate shale wellbore stability, the strain rate should be low enough to reflect shale
wellbore pore pressure behavior.
As to the validation of the law of effective stress, several researchers believe that
it holds true at low strain rates and does not hold true under high strain rates (Brace and
Martin, 1968; Rutter, 1972; Cook et al., 1990). Such a conclusion is doubt, because it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the pore pressure within cracks during failure.
The results from this study can also be used to direct drilling operations. If a soft
shale with high water content and low permeability is encountered, like the Pierre I shale
used in our studies, high weight on bit and rotary speed should be used to increase the
pore pressure and thus the rate of penetration. On the other hand, if hard shale with low
moisture content is encountered, like the Arco shale, low weight on bit and low rotary
speed should be implemented during drilling operation in order to avoid dilatancy effects
on the formation strength.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
1. Two phenomena: pore pressure build-up and dilatancy effects are

attributed to stain rate related compressive strength alteration. The
compressive strength can increase with the strain rate if dilatancy exists,
and decrease with pore pressure build-up.
2. A model is presented to predict pore pressure changes during a test. The
77
simulation results show that pore pressure increases with an increase in
strain rate and decreases with an increase in permeability.
3. Our experimental results show that the compressive strength for soft
Pierre I shale decreases, while the strength for hard Arco shale increases
with an increase in strain rate. In our tests, dilatancy effects are more
dominant in the hard Arco shale and pore pressure build-up effects are
more dominant in soft Pierre I shale.
4. When the strain rate for our drained biaxial compressive strength test is
6.2×10-8s-1 for Pierre I shale and 3.5×10-8s-1 for Arco shale, there is no
pore pressure build-up.
5. During shale compressive strength evaluation, different strain rates
should be selected in accordance with the purpose of the test.
NOMENCLATURE
a Half -length of the crack [=] L
A Cross section area of the sample [=] L2
C, M Elastic moduli required to describe a two-phase medium [=] m/L-t2];
C0 Cohesive strength [=] m/L-t2
G Shear Modulus [=] m/L-t2
Kf Bulk moduli for pore fluid [=] m/L-t2
K fr Bulk moduli of frame [=] m/L-t2
KI Fracture stress intensity factor [=] m/t2-L1/2
K IC Fracture toughness, [=] m/t2-L1/2
78
K s Bulk moduli of solid [=] m/L-t2
k Permeability [=] L2
L Length of rock sample [=] L
Pp Pore pressure [=] m/L-t2
Q Flow rate [=] L3/t
t Time [=] t
u Pore fluid viscosity [=] m/L-t
uf Pore fluid displacement [=] L
us Solid grain displacement [=] L
z Distance from the bottom of sample[=]L
ν Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
σ Normal stress [=] m/L-t2
σa Axial stress at failure [=] m/L-t2
σc Confining pressure [=] m/L-t2
σD Deviatoric strength [=] m/L-t2
σ ij Total normal stress [=] m/L-t2
σ ije Effective normal stress [=] m/L-t2
∆σ I Mode I crack driving stress [= m/L-t2
εx Normal strain in x-direction, dimensionless
εy Normal strain in y-direction, dimensionless
79
εz Normal strain in z-direction, dimensionless
εv Volumetric strain, dimensionless
ζ Strain parameter, dimensionless
φ Porosity, dimensionless
τ Shear stress [=] m/L-t2
Φ Internal friction angle, degrees
αp Biot’s constant, dimensionless
δij Kronecker delta, dimensionless
SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

ft × 3.048* E – 01 = m
gal × 3.785 E – 03 = m3
in × 2.54* E – 02 = m
in2 × 6.452 E – 04 = m2
lbm × 4.54 E – 01 = kg
psi × 6.8948 E – 03 = MPa
* Conversion factor is exact.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Russ Ewy, Dr Guizhong Chen, Dr. Rosana
Lomba and Mr. Ben Bloys for their valuable suggestions. The help from Dr. John Holder
and Mr. Glem Baum is greatly appreciated. Especially, the authors would like to thank
Dr. Mengjiao Yu for his input.
80
REFERENCES
Amanullah, M., Marsden, J.R. and Shaw, H.F.: “ Effects of Rock-fluid Interactions on
the Petrofabric and Stress-Strain Behavior of Mudrocks”, SPE 28030 presented at
the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference held in
Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August 1994.
Atkinson, B. K.: “The temperature and strain rate –dependent mechanical behavior of a
polycrystalline galena ore”, Econ. Geol.71, 513,1976.
Brace W.F. and Martin R.J.: “ A Test of the Law of Effective Stress for Crystalline Rocks
of Low Porosity”, ”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol.5, pp 415-426, 1968.
Chen, G.: “A Study of Wellbore Stability in Shales Including Poroelastic, Chemical, and
Thermal Effects”, Ph.D Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, August 2001.
Chenevert, M.E. and Gatlin, C.: “ Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary

14, 1964.
Chenevert, M.E and Amanullah Md.: “Shale Preservation and Testing Techniques for
Borehole Stability Studies”, SPE 37672 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6, March, 1997.
Chenevert, M. E and Pernot, V.: “ Control of Shale Swelling Pressure Using Inhibitive
Water – Based”, SPE 49263 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30, September,
1998.
Vol.20, No. 3, pp107~120,1983.
Closmann, P. J. and Bradley, W. B. “ The Effect of Temperature on Tensile and

Compressive Strength and Young’s Modulus of Oil Shale” SPE paper 6734
presented at the SPE-AIME 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, held in Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
Cook, J. M., Sheppard, M.C. and Houwen, O. H.: “ Effects of Strain Rate and Confining
Pressure on the Deformation and Failure of Shale”, SPE 19944 presented at the
1990 IADC/ SPE Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texas, February 27 –
March 2,1990.
81
Ewy, R.T., Daniels, E.J. and Stankovich, R. J. “ Behavior of a reactive shale from
12,000 feet depth”, presented at the Proceedings DC Rocks, the 38th U. S. Rock
Mechanics Symposium, 7-10 July 2001, Washington DC.
Fam, M.A., Dusseault, M.B. and Fooks, J. C.: “ Drillingin mudrocks: rock behavior
issues”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38 (2003) 155-166.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risens, R.: “ Petroleum Related Rock
Gray-Stephens D., Cook, J.M. and Sheppard, M.C.: “ Influence of Pore Pressure on
Drilling Response in Hard Shales”, SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1994.
Green, S.J., Griffin, R.M. and Pratt, H.R.: “ Stress-Strain and Failure Properties of a
Porous Shale”, SPE 4242 presented at the Sixth Conference on Drilling and Rock
Mechanics of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME heldin Austin, TX,
Jan.22-23, 1973.

Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: “ Fundamental of Rock Mechanics”, second edition,
Chapman and hall, London, 1976.
Khaksar A., and Griffiths, C.M.: “ Influence of Effective Stress on the Acoustic Velocity
and Log-Derived Porosity”, SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2(1), February 1999.
Klimentos, T., Harouaka, A., Mtawaa, B., and Saner S.: “ Experimental Determination of
the Biot Elastic Constant: Applications in Formation Evaluation (Sonic Porosity,
Rock Strength, Earth Stresses and Sanding Predictions)”, SPE 30593 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, USA, 22-25
October, 1995.
Ladanyi B. “ Discussion of Paper by Brace and Martin: ‘ A test of the law of effective
stress for crystalline rocks of low porosity’”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 7,
pp.123-124 (1970).
Mclean M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability: The effect of Strength Criteria on
Mud Weight recommendations”, SPE 20405 presented at the 65th Annual
82
Muller, W.H. and Briegel, U., “ The rheological behavior of polycrystalline anhydrite”,
Ecol. Geol. Helv., 71, 397, 1978.
Nair, Narayan: “Asphaltic Shale Coating Agents”, Master thesis, The University of Texas
at Austin, 2005.
Olson, J.E., Qiu, Yuan, Holder, J. and Rijken, P.: “ Constraining the Spatial Distribution
Ong, Seehong; Baim, Ahmad Shah; Lbrahim, Mohd Zaki; and Zheng, Ziqiong: “
Geomechanical Analysis for Resak’s Extended- Reach Drilling – A Case
Example”, IADC/SPE 62727 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology held in Kuala, Malaysia, 11-13 September 2000.
Robert S. Carmichael: “ Practical handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and

Minerals”, CRC Press. Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, 1989.
Robinson, L.H.:“ Effects of Pore and Confining Pressure on Failure Characteristics of

Sedimentary Rocks”, presented at 33rd Annual Fall Meeting of Society of
Petroleum Engineers in Houston, TX, Oct. 5-8, 1958.
Rutter, E.H.: “ The Effects of Strain-Rate Changes on the Strength and Ductility of
Solenhofen Limestone at Low Temperatures and Confining Pressures”, Int., J.
Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. Vol.9, pp.183-189, 1972.
Sargand, S.M. and Hazen, G.A.: “ Deformation Behavior of Shales”, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 24. No.6. pp.365-370.1987.
Spaar, J.R., Ledgerwood, L.W., Goodman, H., Graff, R.L. and Moo, T.J.: “ Formation
Compressive Strength Estimation for Predicting Drillability and PDC Bit
Selection”, SPE/IADC 29397 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, 28 February-2 March 1995.

Swan G., Cook J., Bruce S., Meehan R., “ Strain Rate Effects in Kimmeridge Bay Shale”,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.26, No.2 pp. 135-149, 1989.
Terzaghi, K.: “ From Theory to Practice in Soil Mechanics; Selections from the Writings
of Karl Terzaghi”, New York, 1960.
Verruijt, A: “Computational Geomechanics”, Dordrecht, 1995.
83
Vidrine D.J. and Bent E.J.: “ Field Verification of the Effect of Differential Pressure on
Drilling Rate”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1968.
Ward, C.D., Coghill, K. and Broussard, M.D.: “ Brief: Pore- and Fracture-Pressure
Determinations: Effective-Stress Approach”, JPT, February 1995.
Yu, M., Chen G., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M.M.(2001), “ Chemical and Thermal
Effects on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, SPE 71366, New Orleans,
USA, Sept. 30-Oct., 3, 2001.
Yu, M.: “ Chemical and thermal effects on wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, Ph.D
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
84
Table 4-1 - Data used in simulation
Variables Values
Bulk moduli of fluid , Kf 1.45×106psi
Bulk moduli of solid , Ks 58×106psi
Bulk moduli of frame , Kfr 30.5×106psi
Porosity, φ 0.2
Biot constant, α p 1
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.22

Permeability, k 2 nD
Pore fluid viscosity, u 1 cp
Confining pressure, σ c 5000 psi
85
140
Undrained Conditions
Deviatoric Strength,MPa
130 Drained Conditoins
120
110
100
90
80
70
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
-6
Strain Rate, 10 /min.
Figure 4-1 – Effects of strain rate on deviatoric strengths for Kimmeridge Bay Shale
under undrained and drained conditions (after Swan & Cook et al., 1989).
3.5
T=20 C
3 T=200 C
T=300 C
Strength, Kbar
2.5 T=400 C
1.5
0.5
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
-8 -1
Strain Rate, 10 S
Figure 4-2 – Effects of temperature and strain rate on strengths of Galena ore (after
Atkinson, 1976).
86
5
T=300 C
4 T=350 C
Strength, Kbar
T=400 C
3 T=450 C
0
10 100 1000 10000
-8 -1
Strain Rate, 10 S
Figure 4-3 – Effects of temperature and strain rate on strengths of Anhydrite (after Muller
and Briegel, 1978).
120
Deviatoric Strength, MPa
100
80
60
40
Theoretical Results
20 Experimental Results
( COOK, 1990)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Effective Confining Pressure, MPa
Figure 4-4 – Effects of confining pressure on deviatoric strength.
87
70
Deviatoric Strength, MPa

65
60
55
50
45
40
-10 -6 -2 2 6 10
Pore Pressure, MPa
Figure 4-5 – Effects of pore pressure on deviatoric strength.
5
Pore Pressure, MPa
1 t=10 minutes t=20 minutes

t=30 minutes t=40 minutes
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sample Length, mm
Figure 4-6 – Time-dependent pore pressure build-up.
88
2
Pore Pressure, MPa

1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Sr=2e-6 Sr=4e-6
Sr=6e-6 Sr=8e-6
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sample Length, mm
Figure 4-7 – Effect of strain rate on the pore pressure build-up.
2.5
Pore Pressure, MPa
1.5
1 K=1 nD
K=2 nD
K=3 nD
0.5 K=4 nD
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sample Length, mm
Figure 4-8 – Effect of permeability on pore pressure build-up.
89
Figure 4-9 – Fracture propagation at high pore pressure.
90
Porous Disk
Heat shrink Tube Sample

0.75”X0.75”X1.5”
Porous Screen
Porous Disk
Open to Air Open to Air
Figure 4-10 – Strength test equipment.
91
6000 6000
Confing Pressure, psi

5000 5000
Pore Pressure, psi

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, minute
Figure 4-11 – Pore pressure change after applying 5 000 psi confining pressure (Pierre I
shale).
92
6000 6000
Confing Pressure, psi

5000 5000
Pore Pressure, psi

4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, minute
Figure 4-12 – Pore pressure change after applying 5 000 psi confining pressure (Arco
shale).
6000
Sr=1.2E-5
Sr=3.4E-5
Deviatoric Stress, psi
5000
Sr=5.9E-5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Micro-strain
Figure 4-13 – Effect of strain rate on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale.
93
6000
Deviatoric Strength, psi

5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
0 2 4 6 8 10
-5 -1
Strain Rate, 10 S
Figure 4-14 – Effect of strain rate on peak strengths of Pierre I shale.
4000
Pp = 458.35Sr - 2.841
R2 = 1
Pore Pressure, psi
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-6 -1
Strain Rate, 10 S
Figure 4-15 – Effect of strain rate on pore pressure build-up of Pierre I shale.
94
14000
Sr=3.6E-5
12000

Sr=4.1E-5
10000 Sr=5.4E-5
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Micro Strain
Figure 4-16 – Effect of strain rate on stress-strain cures for Arco shale.
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-5 -1
Strain Rate, 10 S
Figure 4-17 – Effect of strain rate on peak strengths of Arco shale.
95
3000
Pp = 455.73Sr - 1.6143
2500 R2 = 1
Pore Pressure, psi 2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8
Strain Rate, 10-5 S-1
Figure 4-18 – Effect of strain rate on pore pressure build-up of Arco shale.
96
Chapter 5 : A New Gravimetric – Swelling Test for Evaluating Water
and Ion Uptake in Shales
ABSTRACT
The primary cause of wellbore instability is the interaction of water-based muds

with shales. The movement of water and ions into or out of a shale can result in large
changes in pore pressure in the vicinity of the wellbore, potentially leading to wellbore
failure.
A new method, the Gravimetric–Swelling Test (GST), for determining the
expansion and movement of water and ion between shale and drilling fluids is presented
in this chapter. Experimental protocols and equations are presented that describe how
such measurements can be conducted and interpreted with relative ease. GST allows for
the determination of the mass of water and ions entering or leaving shale samples. With
additional and separate swelling measurements, the impact of the water and ions uptake
on swelling pressures generated can also be obtained.
In this chapter, results are presented for two preserved shale samples. The
influence of different types of ionic solutions on water and ion movement is presented for
each shale. It is shown that water uptake and swelling of shales is controlled not only by
differences between shale water activity and mud water activity (as assumed in the past),
but ion type and concentration also play an important role. In these tests it is shown that
with increasing salt concentrations water uptake decreases, while the ion adsorption
increases. Different types of cations are shown to have a large influence on water/ion
movement.
This chapter presents a data set showing the influence of ion type and
97
concentration on water uptake by shales. The role of capillary pressure, osmotic effects,
and ionic diffusion on swelling behavior of shales is also discussed. The technique
presented herein may possibly be used at the rig-floor to determine the compatibility of
shales with salt-water drilling fluids.
98
5.1 INTRODUCTION
It is believed that the main cause of shale instability stems from unfavorable
interactions between water - based muds and shale formations (Chenevert, 1970; Bol,
1992; Van Oort, 2003). Shale instability is generally caused by pore pressure changes and
mechanical property alterations around the wellbore, induced by chemical, hydraulic, and
electrical effects. Both pore pressure and mechanical property alterations are caused by
water and ion movement into or out of the shale formations. Chenevert (1970) showed
that differences in water activity could cause an osmotic flux of water into or out of shale.
Ballard et al. (1992) developed an experimental technique using radioactive tracers to
monitor water and ion movement in shale and found it to be a diffusion-dominated
process under zero applied pressure. They suggested that concentration gradients were
the driving force for the transfer of ions into or out of shale. Van Oort (1997) attributed
pore pressure changes to the flux of water and ions.
A considerable body of research concerning moisture adsorption in shales and
clays has shown that absorbed water leads to clay layers expanding (swelling) and
consequently a decrease in the interlayer-bonding and shale strength. The decrease in
shale strength associated with the water adsorption results in eventual material failure. In
the case of a wellbore being drilled through shale, this failure leads to the collapse of the
wellbore wall and often completes borehole failure.
It is also known that the amount of absorbed water, as well as the impact of the
absorbed water on material properties, is altered by the presence of ions in the solution
(Bol, 1986). Yu et al. (2001) developed a model to predict the flux of both water and ions
into or out of shale. They found that the difference in water activity between the drilling
fluid and the shale formation induced water movement, which changes the pore pressure
distribution. In addition to changes in pore pressure distribution, the movement of water
99
and ions also affects the mechanical properties of shales, such as strength, modulus of
elasticity etc. Hale et al. (1992) measured the mechanical properties of shale after
exposure to oil-based muds. They found that shale strength increased when the activity of
the mud was low enough to remove water from shale.
In studying wellbore instability in shale formations, one of the most important and
widely studied problems is shale swelling (Chenevert, 1970; Steiger, 1993). It is widely
believed that shales swell when interacting with drilling fluids due to osmotic effects.
Some researchers have postulated that capillary effects due to the dehydration of shales
cause swelling of shales during coring and sample preparation (Santarelli, 1995;
Carminati, 1997). Other researchers believe that shale swelling is caused by the physio-
chemical interactions of drilling fluids with reactive components present in shales such as
montmorillonite (Norrish, 1954). We believe that understanding the causes of shale
swelling is critical in drilling fluid optimization and wellbore stability control. If shale
swelling is only caused by the capillary effects which are probably not present downhole,
then mechanical effects should be the primary concern during drilling. On the other hand,
if osmotic effects also influence the shale swelling, then drilling fluid chemistry should
be optimized to inhibit such swelling.
It is shown in this chapter that, depending on the laboratory procedures used; both
capillary pressure and osmotic effects can be significant. In addition, it is shown that
ionic diffusion plays a very important role in shale swelling behavior.
From the above review, we can see that the movement of water and ions into or
out of shale when interacting with a water-based fluid is critical for maintaining wellbore
stability. Quantitatively measuring the movement of water and ions during interaction
with a drilling fluid is, therefore, of great importance in studying wellbore instability
mechanisms.
100
Although various authors have measured water movement into and out of shale,
there is currently no simple way to monitor the movement of water and ions. This
chapter presents a Gravimetric-Swelling Test (GST) for measuring the quantity of water
and ions entering/leaving the shale after coming in contact with aqueous solutions or
drilling muds. We believe that this test is important to the proper design of drilling fluids
and the maintenance of wellbore stability because it can potentially be used on the rig
floor.
In addition to presenting the GST method, data showing the influence of ionic
concentration and type on water and ion movement into and out of shales are provided.
5.2 GRAVIMETRIC-SWELLING TEST (GST)
GST consists of performing two independent tests: a gravimetric test and a

swelling test using a single test sample. In doing so, only one sample is needed, instead of
two, and a direct comparison can be made between the two sets of data because sample
variation has been eliminated.
5.2.1 Apparatus
When performing the gravimetric measurements, a top loading balance model GT

410 made by OHAUS Corporation was used. This electrical balance, that has a resolution
of 1 mg, was employed for weighing samples, and it met our accuracy requirements very
well.
For the displacement measurements, a digimatic indicator, Model ID-110 E was
used. Figure 5-1 shows a schematic of the equipment used and a photo of this transducer
is shown in Figure 5-2. The measuring range of the transducer is 10mm, with a resolution
of 0.001mm. This transducer shows good reproducibility and suits this study very well.
The threaded anvil can be adjusted according to the original length of the sample.
101
5.2.2 Experimental Procedures
When performing the GST, the following procedures were followed. A sample
with the dimension of 0.5 "×0.75 "×1.0 " was taken out of the storage can and quickly
washed using “ Skelly-B” to remove all surface oil. Its preserved weight in air (Wp) was
obtained. It was then placed in a small plastic bag. The sample was positioned between
the movable and stationary anvils of the transducer. In order for the sample to be at the
same original stress and to obtain an indication of sample shrinkage, the threaded anvil
was adjusted until it read 1.27 mm (0.05 inch), thereby placing the sample in slight
compression. In this way a minus reading would be recorded if the shale shrank. The unit
was then set on zero. A 50 ml volume of solution was then poured into the plastic bag
and the bag was sealed immediately. As the fluid was poured, a stopwatch was started to
begin recording the elapsed time. Normally there was a roughly linear relationship
between swelling and the logarithm of time. The early stage readings were taken quite
frequently and then the interval became longer. Normally a complete test lasted for 24
hours. By dividing the displacement readings by the original length of the sample and
multiplying by 100, we obtain the linear swelling percentage. The sample was then taken
out of the solution and blotted dry with a paper towel before its “altered” weight (Wa)
was measured. Finally, it was dried at 200 ºF for 24 hours in an oven and weighed again.
Its “altered-dried-weight” was represented as Wad. After such information was obtained,
the ion and water movement during the interaction of the shale and the solution was
determined using equations (5-1) to (5-4).
Water and ion transport can be calculated using the equation:
Wwt = Wa − Wad − Wp + Wpd
(5-1)
Wit = Wad − Wpd

(5-2)
102
In summary, the following equations can be used to calculate the weight percent
of water and ions gained or lost using the GST technique (see Appendix 4 for more
detailed information).
Wa − Wad − Wp + Wpd
W % wt = × 100%
Wp
(5-3)
Wad − Wpd
W % it = × 100%
Wp
(5-4)
The definitions of the various terms used in our calculations are:

Wp = Weight of preserved sample in air
Wpd = Weight of preserved sample after drying
C pw = Preserved water content, weight percent
Wa = Altered weight of sample after immersion in solutions

Wad = Dry weight of altered sample
Wwp = Weight of water in preserved sample = Wp × C pw
Wwa = Weight of water in altered sample

Wwt = Weight of water transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale
W % wt =Normalized water transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale, %
Wit = Weight of ions transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale
W % it =Normalized ions transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale, %
5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.3.1 Swelling Test Results for Pierre Shale Immersed in NaCl Solutions
Typical swelling test data obtained from the GST method for Pierre I shale
immersed in NaCl solutions are shown in Figure 5-3. It can be seen from this figure that,
all tests showed swelling during the first 30 minutes followed by shrinkage at later time.
103
Such a response raised the question: “What caused Pierre I shale to swell at early times
despite the fact that the shale had a higher water activity than the salt solutions?”
To better understand this early time swelling phenomena, we employed our new
GST method.
5.3.2 Time-dependent Gravimetric Test
Using the GST technique, the time-dependent response for Pierre I shale was
measured. Different samples were placed into 0.85 activity NaCl solutions. At different
times, each of these samples was taken out of the solution and weighed and dried for 24
hours in an oven. Water and ion movement at various times were calculated. Results for
Pierre I are shown in Figure 5-4.
From Figure 5-4, we see that the Pierre I shale lost water and gained ions over
time. It can also be seen that at early time it gained water even though its water activity
(0.98) was higher than the water activity of the NaCl (0.85). This observation is
consistent with our swelling test results (Figure 5-3). The early time swelling and weight
gain must be caused by water uptake by the shale. Since there is no osmotic pressure
gradient driving the water into the shale (in fact, osmosis should be extracting water out
of the shale under those conditions), the water uptake observed gravimetrically and in the
swelling tests must be caused by surface capillary effects.
5.3.3 Experimental Confirmation of Early-Time Capillary Effects.
In order to check our hypothesis that capillary pressure effects were causing the
initial swelling, we ran a swelling test with a Pierre I shale immersed in a simulated pore
fluid that was formulated based on pore fluid compositional data as shown in Table 5-1.
The result is shown in Figure 5-5.
It can be seen from Figure 5-5 that Pierre I shale experienced significant swelling,
especially at early time, when immersed in simulated pore fluid. Since the simulated pore
104
fluid has nearly identical ionic composition and water activity, as does the shale, one can
assume that osmosis and ionic diffusion effects are negligible. Therefore, the early time
swelling behavior observed is probably due to capillary effects. The presence of capillary
effects is because the sample surfaces have been altered during the sample preparation
process. Such effects can distort the data and lead to false conclusions. Capillary effects
are probably not present in downhole shales since they are usually fully saturated.
Therefore, it is important to eliminate capillary pressure effects from our laboratory data
in order to better analyze the results. This was done as follows.
The simulated pore fluid was used as a base line to correct for capillary effects in
all our data for Pierre I shale. This base line swelling was subtracted from all of our
swelling measurements to obtain the “true” swelling due to osmotic effects.
Figure 5-6 shows results of correcting Figure 5-3 for capillary effects. It can be
seen from Figure 5-6 that, except for deioned water, Pierre I shale shrank when exposed
to NaCl solutions because of osmotic effects, as was expected based on osmotic concepts.
After correcting Figure 5-4 for capillary effects, the time dependent water and ion
movement for the 19 wt % NaCl test is shown in Figure 5-7. Water was removed while
the ions were adsorbed because of osmotic and ionic diffusion effects. More water is
removed and more ions are adsorbed with time. Such corrected results are consistent with
osmotic fluid transfer theory.
5.3.4 Influence of NaCl Solutions on Water/Ion Movement
After correcting for capillary surface effects, the influence of NaCl solutions on
water/ion movement into/out of Pierre I is shown in Figure 5-8. It can be seen that when
the salt concentration increases, free water is removed because of osmotic effects and
ions are added due to diffusion effects. It is interesting to note that, this may explain why
high salinity salt-water muds often act in an inhibitive manner.
105
5.3.5 Swelling Properties of Pierre I Shale Immersed in CaCl2, KCl and KCOOH
Solutions
The swelling behavior including capillary and osmotic effects, for Pierre I shale
exposed to CaCl2 solutions is shown in Figure 5-9. It can be seen that, the Pierre I shale
experienced early time swelling when exposed to CaCl2 solutions. According to our
earlier analysis, we believe that capillary effects caused this early time swelling (about 30
minutes).
After correcting Figure 5-9 for capillary effects, Figure 5-10 was obtained, which
shows the swelling due only to osmotic and ion diffusion effects.
It can be seen that, as expected, Pierre I shale shrank at the beginning of the test
and then it swelled. Once the shale was exposed to the CaCl2 solution, water was
extracted because the water activity in the shale is higher than that in the solutions.
Meanwhile, ions are entering the shale due to diffusion effects. The water extraction
causes the shale to shrink, while ion adsorption causes shale expansion. This is because
of the large hydrated calcium ions, as shown in Table 5-2. However, the rate of water
extraction is much higher than the rate of ion adsorption, which makes the sample shrink.
Some time later, the water activity difference is reduced because of the water and ion
movement and the swelling behavior of the shale become dominated by ion diffusion.
Therefore, the shale exhibited expansion with the ions that were adsorbed. When Pierre I
shale was exposed to low concentration CaCl2 solutions, expansion occurred after about
two hours. This demonstrates the time-dependent wellbore instability phenomena. It is
plausible that when shale is exposed to salt water muds, it is stable at first because of
water extraction, then, some time later, ionic diffusion dominates the swelling behavior
of shale.
Many authors have published on the effect of potassium ions on wellbore stability
(Clark et al., 1976; Walker et al., 1984; Pruett, 1987; Bostrom et al., 1998; Van Oort
106
2003). It is shown herein that the exchange of the sodium and calcium ions on the clay
surfaces with potassium can minimize clay swelling and thereby strengthen the shale,
which is beneficial for wellbore stability (Pruette 1987; Bostrom et al., 1998). Two
potassium salts, KCl and KCOOH were used in our tests.
The swelling behavior, including capillary and osmotic effects for Pierre I shale
exposed to KCl and KCOOH solutions are shown in Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12
respectively.
Once again, we believe that capillary effects cause the early time swelling. After
correcting Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 for capillary effects by using Figure 5-5, the
swelling behavior of Pierre I shale for KCl and KCOOH solutions is shown in Figure 5-
13 and Figure 5-14. The shale shrinks quickly at early time, and then its shrinkage rate
slows down. Compared to CaCl2 solutions, more shrinkage was observed when the shale
was exposed to KCl solutions under similar water activity conditions. This could be
attributed to the difference in the radius of the hydrated calcium and potassium ions.
Table 5-2 shows that the hydrated radius for potassium ions is smaller than that for
calcium ions. Therefore shale swelling when exposed to potassium salts is smaller than
that when exposed to calcium chloride.
Compared with the NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl solutions, the KCOOH solutions
provided different swelling behavior. Normally, less swelling is found when Pierre I
shale was exposed to more concentrated NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl solutions. However, this
phenomena is not be observed when Pierre I shale was exposed to KCOOH solutions. For
example, Pierre I shale shrank more when exposed to a 10 wt% solution than when
exposed to a 20 wt% KCOOH solution. This phenomenon was also observed by Van oort
(2003). There is no reasonable explanation for this phenomenon, so further study is
needed.
107
5.3.6 Effect of Salt Concentration on Water/Ion Movement
Figure 5-15 shows the influence of CaCl2 and KCl concentration on water/ion
movement into/out of the Pierre I shale after 24 hours of exposure and after correcting for
capillary effects. It can be seen that when the salt concentration increases, free water was
removed because of the osmotic effects and ions were added due to diffusion effects.
Compared with KCl, more water was removed and more ions were adsorbed when Pierre
I shale was exposed to CaCl2 solutions at the same concentration. This occurred because
the water activity of the CaCl2 solution is lower than the water activity of KCl at the same
concentration, as shown in Figure 5-16. Therefore, more osmotic effects took place when
Pierre I shale was exposed to CaCl2 solution, which caused more water to be removed
from Pierre I shale.
5.3.7 Effects of Water Activity on Water/Ion Movement
After correcting for capillary effects, the influence of water activity on water/ion
movement is shown in Figure 5-17.
Just as expected, with decreasing water activity (increasing salt concentration),
more water was removed due to osmotic effects and more ions were absorbed because of
the ionic diffusion effect. Compared to NaCl solution exposure, more water was removed
and more ions were added when Pierre I shale was exposed to CaCl2 solutions at the
same water activity. It is believed that the osmotic effect is the same for both NaCl and
CaCl2 solutions at the same water activity. Ion movement is dominated by the
concentration gradient, which can be expressed by Fick’s law (Bird et al. 2002)
∆C
J = - D×
∆x (5-6)
As shown in Table 5-1, the sodium concentration in the shale pore fluid was
higher than the calcium concentration; therefore the concentration gradient for the CaCl2
108
solution was higher than that for NaCl. This difference in concentration resulted in more
calcium ions being added to Pierre I shale.
5.3.8 Experimental Results for Arco shale
Figures 5-18 and 5-19 show the swelling behavior, including capillary effects,
when Arco shale was exposed to NaCl and CaCl2 solutions of different concentrations.
We were not able to correct for the capillary effects since the pore fluid composition was
unknown. However, it can be argued that some early swelling might have occurred due to
surface capillary effects.
Figures 5-20 and 5-21 show the influence of salt concentration on water and ion
movement during interaction with Arco shale. It is important to mention that capillary
effects have not been corrected for in these figures.
5.3.9 Comparison Between Pierre I and Arco Shales
Compared with Pierre I shale, Arco shale experienced much more swelling when
it was exposed to similar solutions. It can be observed from Figures 5-3 and 5-18, and
Figures 5-9 and 5-19, that Arco shale experienced more early-time swelling. From the
previous analysis, this early-time swelling was attributed to capillary effects. Arco shale
was cored at great depth (15,000 ft), therefore more capillary effects were possibly
introduced during coring and sample processing. Pierre I was an outcrop shale, therefore
less capillary effects were possibly introduced. The increased swelling of Arco shale was
first caused by capillary effects. Secondly, we can see from the adsorption isotherm for
Arco shale that the water activity for Arco shale is 0.78, which is much lower than that
for Pierre I shale (0.98). It has a higher potential to absorb water from ionic solutions, and
therefore swells more.
109
5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE GST
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the GST is a very simple
and effective method to directly measure water and ion uptake by shales immersed in
aqueous solutions. However, it cannot be used for very reactive shales that have high
dispersion tendencies. We tried to use this method to study Gumbo and Speeton shales
but they disintegrated too rapidly to obtain data.
5.5 CONCLUSIONS
1. A new simple method, GST has been developed that allows for the direct
measurement of water and ion movement into or out of a shale sample.
2. During sample preparation, should the shale experience any water loss,
air may enter the shale and thereby introduce capillary suction pressures.
Therefore, it is important to eliminate capillary effects when analyzing
data.
3. Time-dependent data from the GST technique show significant changes
in water and ion movement during the interaction between shales and
drilling fluids.
4. Different types of cations are shown to have different and large influences
on water/ion movement.
5. Combined with other tests, GST can be used to evaluate mud systems.
These tests are simple to conduct and, therefore, can be conducted at the
rig floor.
NOMENCLATURES
C Concentration [=] amount / volume
110
C pw Preserved water content, weight fraction, %
D Diffusivity [=] L2/s
J The mass flux [=] amount / L2-t
Wp Weight of preserved sample [=] m
Wit Weight of ion transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale [=] m
Wpd Weight of preserved sample after drying [=] m
Wa Altered weight of sample by immersion in drilling fluid [=] m
Wwp Weight of water in preserved sample [=] m, Wp × C pw
Wwt Weight of water transferred into (+) or out of (-) shale [=] m
Wad Dried weight of altered sample [=] m
Wwa Weight of water in altered sample [=] m
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are given to Dr. Russ Ewy, Dr Guizhong Chen, Dr. Rosana
Lomba, and Mr. Ben Bloys for their valuable suggestions. The assistance of Dr. John
Holder and Mr. Glem Baum is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to thank Dr.
Mengjiao Yu for his input.
REFERENCES
Ballard T.J. Beare S.P. and Lawless T.A.: “ Fundamentals of Shale Stabilisation: Water
Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N.: “ Transport Phenomena”, Second Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Bol G. M. et al, “The Effects of Various Polymers and Salts on Borehole and Cutting
111
Stability in Water-Base Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 14802 presented at the 1986
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference help in Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.
Bol G. M. et al, “ Borehole Stability in Shales”, SPE 24975 presented at European

Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18, November 1992.
July 1998.
2002.
Chenevert M. E: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, JPT (sept. 1970), pp 1141-

1147.
Chenevert M. E: “Shale Control with Balanced-Activity Oil-Continuous Muds”, Journal

of Petroleum technology, Oct. 1970.
Chenevert M. E and Amanullah Md: “Shale Preservation and Testing Techniques for
Clark, R.K., Scheuerman R.F., Rath H. and Van Laar H.G.: “ Polyacrylamide/Potassium-
Chloride Mud for Drilling Water-Sensitive Shales”, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, June 1976.
Erling, F., Rune M.H., Olav-Magnar Nes and Eyvind F.: “Mud Chemistry Effects on
Time-Delayed Borehole Stability Problems in Shales”, SPE/ISRM 78163
presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas,
20-23 October 2002.
Ewy R.T. and Stankovich R. J. “ Pore pressure change due to shale-fluid interaction:
measurements under simulated wellbore conditions”, presented at the Proceedings
Pacific Rocks 2000, Fourth North American Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Seattle, July 31-Auguest 3, 2000, pp147-154, Balkema, Rotterdam.
112
quintana Roo, Mexico, June 3-5, 1998.

Feb. 18-21, 1992.
(2000) 25-35.
Norrish K.: “ The Swelling of Montmorillonite”, Disc. Of Faraday Soc., V.18, P.120,
1954.
Osisanya, S. O.: “ Experimental Stduies Of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”,

Ph.D dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Auguest, 1991.
Pruett J.O.: “ A Potassium-Base Derivative of Humic Acid Proves Effective in

Minimizing Wellbore Enlargement in the Ventura Basin”, SPE/IADC 16080
presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, L.A.
March 15-18, 1987.
Richard V. Bovbjerc, and Peter W. Glynn: “ Saturated Solutions for the Control of
Humidity in Biological Research”, Ecology, January 1960, Vol.41 No.1, 232-236.

Austin, 2004.
Steiger, R. and Leung , P. K. (1991), “ Consolidated undrained triaxial test procedure for
shales”, in Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Steiger, R.P. “ Advanced Triaxial Swelling Tests on Preserved Shale Cores”, presented at
the 34th U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (June 27-30, 1993) and to be
published in the Int.J. Rock Mech. Min. & Geomech. Abstr. (1993).
Van Oort, E.: “ Physico-chemical Stabilization of Shales”, SPE paper 37263 presented at
1997 International Symposium on Colloid Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, Feb.
113
18-21.
Walker, Thad O., Dearing, H.L. and Simpson, J.P.: “ The Role of Potassium in Lime
Muds”, SPE 13161 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
Yousif K. Kharaka and Willard C. Smalley: “ Flow of Water and Solutes through
Compacted Clays”, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
V. 60, No. 6 (June 1976), P.973-980.
Yu, M., Chen G., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.: “Chemical and Thermal Effects
on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, SPE71366, New Orleans, USA, Sept.
30-Oct. 3, 2001.
114
Table 5-1 - Pore fluid composition.
Cations/Ions Amount (meq/100 g)

Potassium (K+) 0.7
Magnesium (Mg2+) 0.4
Sodium (Na+) 1.6
Calcium (Ca2+) 1.0
Chloride (Cl-) 1.1
Carbonate (CO32-) 0
Bicarbonate (HCO3-) 6.7
Sulfide (S2-) 0.2
Table 5-2 - Dehydrated and hydrated radii of cations (after Pruett, 1987)
Dehydrated Hydrated (Angstrom)

Ions (Angstrom)
Li 0.78 10.03
Na 0.98 7.9
K 1.33 5.32
NH4 1.43 5.37
Mg 0.78 10.8
Ca 1.06 9.6
115
Figure 5-1 – Schematic of equipment used to measure linear swelling of shale.
116
Figure 5-2 – Photo of swelling transducer.
117
0.6
0.5
Swelling Percentage, %
aw=1 Deioned water
aw=0.95 NaCl
0.4 aw=0.85 NaCl
aw=0.75 NaCl
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-3 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in NaCl solutions.
2
Water
Water/Ions Gain/Loss (%)
Ions
1.5
Net
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-4 – Time-dependent water and ion movement for Pierre I shale immersed into
0.85 aw NaCl solution.
118
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-5 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in simulated pore fluid.
0.1
aw=1 Deioned water
0 aw=0.95 NaCl
aw=0.85 NaCl
-0.1 aw=0.75 NaCl
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-6 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in NaCl solutions.
119
1.5
Water/Ions Gain/Loss, %
1
Water
Ions
Net
0.5
-0.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-7 – Corrected time-dependent water and ion movement Pierre I shale immersed
in 0.85 aw NaCl solution.
2
Water & Ions Movement, %
Water
1.5 Ions
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Salt Concentration, %
Figure 5-8 – Influence of NaCl concentration on water/ion movement for Pierre I shale.
120
0.5
0.4
aw=0.95 CaCl2
0.3
aw=0.85 CaCl2
aw=0.75 CaCl2
0.2
0.1
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-9 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions.
0.1
-0.1
aw=0.95 CaCl2
-0.2 aw=0.85 CaCl2

aw=0.75 CaCl2
-0.3
-0.4
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-10 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions.
121
0.5
10 % KCl
0.4 20% KCl
25.5 % KCl
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-11 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCl solutions.
0.4
10% KCOOH
0.3 20% KCOOH
Shale Expansion, %
30% KCOOH
0.2
40% KCOOH
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-12 – Swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCOOH solutions.
122
0
10 % KCl
-0.1 20% KCl
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-13 – Corrected swelling of Pierre I shale immersed in KCl solutions.
0
10% KCOOH
-0.1 20% KCOOH
30% KCOOH
-0.2 40% KCOOH
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-14 – Corrected swelling for Pierre I shale immersed in KCOOH solutions.
123
3
KCl, Water
Water/ Ions Gained/Loss

2.5
KCl, Ions
2 CaCl2, Water
1.5 CaCl2, Ions
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 5-15 – Influence of CaCl2 and KCl concentration on water/ion movement for
Pierre I shale.
1
CaCl2
0.8 NaCl
Water Activity
KCl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Salt Concentration, w%
Figure 5-16 – Water activities of CaCl2, NaCl, and KCl solutions at room temperature.
124
2.5
Water/ Ions Gained/Loss, %

1.5
CaCl2, Water
CaCl2, Ion
0.5
NaCl, Water
NaCl, Ion
-0.5
-1.5
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 5-17 – Effects of water activity on water/ions movement for Pierre I shale.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
aw=1 Deioned Water
0.4 aw=0.95 NaCl
0.2 aw=0.85 NaCl
aw=0.75, NaCl
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-18 – Swelling of Arco shale immersed in NaCl solutions.
125
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
aw=0.95 CaCl2
0.4
aw=0.85 CaCl2
0.2 aw=0.75, CaCl2
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 5-19 – Swelling of Arco shale immersed in CaCl2 solutions.
3
NaCl, Water
Water/Ions Movement, %
2.5
NaCl, Ions
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 5-20 – Effect of NaCl concentration on water/ion movement for Arco shale.
126
3
2.5 CaCl2, Water
2 CaCl2, Ions
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 5-21 – Effects CaCl2 concentration on water/ion movement for Arco shale.
127
Chapter 6 : The Effect of Ion Movement on Shale Swelling
ABSTRACT
The movement of water and ions into or out of shales causes physiochemical and
mechanical property alterations, and can lead to wellbore instability problems.
This chapter presents three series of experiments which analyze the effects of
chemical osmosis, diffusive osmosis, and capillary suction on water and ion movement
when shales interact with salt solutions. Results show that water movement is not only
controlled by chemical osmosis (water activity), but is also influenced by diffusive
osmosis and capillary suction. It was found that the immersion of shale into salt solutions
changes the chemical composition of the shale due to ion movement, and thus its
physicochemical and mechanical properties are altered. By applying the gravimetric-
swelling test (GST) to the various tests presented here, a deeper insight into the
relationship between water flow, ion flow, and swelling is obtained.
128
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability in shale formations has been a significant problem for many
years. As discussed in Chapter 5, the primary cause of this problem is the unfavorable
interactions between shales and water-based muds (WBMs) (Chenevert, 1969; Bol, 1992;
Carminati, 2001; Ewy et al., 2002; van Oort, 2003). Although such interactions,
including chemical, physical, hydraulic, mechanical, thermal, and electrical phenomena,
are very complicated (Maury et al., 1987; Mody et al., 1993; van Oort, 1997; Chen et al.,
2003), the primary cause is related to the movement of water and ions into or out of a
shale. The physiochemical and mechanical properties of shale around the wellbore, such
as permeability, pore pressure, swelling, strength, and elastic modulus are altered due to
such movement (Chenevert, 1969; Hale et al., 1992; Carminati, 2001).
The mechanisms for water and ion movement are convection and chemical
activity driven. The hydrostatic pressure difference between a drilling fluid and the
formation pore fluid causes convective flow. Chemical activity effects include osmosis,
diffusion, and capillary effects (Mody et al., 1993; Lomba et al., 2000; Ewy et al., 2000;
Simpson et al., 2002).
By considering shale as a semi-permeable membrane that allows the movement of
water and restricts the movement of ions, Low and Anderson (1958) presented an
osmotic pressure equation for determining the swelling of soils. Their theory suggested
osmosis as a mechanism for explaining the movement of water and ions during
interactions between a shale and a drilling fluid. Chenevert (1970) successfully used this
osmotic pressure theory to explain shale stability control with oil-based muds (OBMs),
using the concept of “balanced water activity”. Simpson (1971) also suggested that a
shale body in contact with a WBM could act as a semi-permeable membrane. However,
there are no experimental data to justify Simpson’s statements. Hale et al. (1992)
129
conducted an experimental study on the effects of chemical potential on wellbore
stability. They concluded that the difference in chemical potential between shales and
OBMs is one of the fundamental driving forces for the movement of water into or out of
shale.
Although it is well accepted that an OBM has excellent semi-permeable
membrane components, it has always been a point in dispute whether or not the shale can
act as an effective membrane that can control water and ion movement when contacted
by a WBM. Using radioactive tracers, Ballard et al. (1992) investigated water and ion
transport through shales and concluded that the shales and fluids they studied did not act
as semi-permeable membranes and that ions can freely diffuse through them. Bol et al.
(1992) came to the same conclusion after performing other experiments. However, the
shales used in both studies had a high permeability and therefore did not represent typical
highly compacted shales found in highly stressed environments.
Fritz et al. (1983, 1986) supported osmosis as a possible mechanism for
controlling water and ion movement, and they recognized that clays are not “ideal”
membranes. They felt that the ideality of a clay membrane is a function of cation
exchange capacity (CEC), porosity, and the concentration of ions in the pore fluid. Mody
and Hale (1993) found in their study that the shale’s membrane efficiency was also a
function of confining pressures. Recent work concluded that membrane efficiencies of
shales were in the range from 0.18 % to 4.23% when contacted by WBMs (AL-Bazali,
2005).
The movement of water and ions into or out of shale is critical to wellbore
instability. In this study, we investigated such movement by performing various
gravimetric and swelling experiments using several different shales and ionic solutions. It
was found that all movement was driven by an imbalance in the chemical activity of
130
water and ions. This includes mechanisms often referred to as chemical osmosis,
diffusive osmosis, and capillary suction. No convection experiments were performed in
this study.
6.2 MECHANISMS CONTROLLING THE MOVEMENT OF WATER AND IONS
In a general sense, all movement of water and ions is governed by the imbalance
of water and ion chemical potentials as reflected in their chemical activities. Although the
literature often refers to various mechanisms for such movement, the basic chemical
property involved is activity.
6.2.1 Chemical Osmosis
By definition, the chemical potential of an aqueous system is the partial molar

free energy of the water with respect to a given component at constant pressure and
temperature. It is this coefficient that describes the way the Gibbs free energy of a system
changes per mole of component if the temperature, pressure, and number of moles of all
components are held constant. For a system in equilibrium, the chemical potential of each
component must be the same in all phases.
It is difficult to directly measure the chemical potential of a system, however, the
chemical potential of the water phase can be closely estimated through its water activity.
It is most difficult to independently measure the chemical potential of the ions, however,
their effect on water activity is well known.
By definition, the water activity ( a i ) of a shale is related to the free energy by the
equation:
µ i = µ i 0 + RT ln(a i ) (6-1)
The water activity of the shale is an excellent indicator of the shale’s state of
hydration and its potential to absorb water. Unfortunately, this parameter cannot be
131
measured directly. In the laboratory, it is determined by measuring the relative aqueous
vapor pressure of the atmosphere above the shale using the following relationship
(Chenevert, 1970)
P
a w ,shale ≅
P0 (6-2)
Using thermodynamic principles and the classical concept of an osmotic cell, Low
and Anderson (1958, 1987) derived the following equation to determine the osmotic
pressure that could develop between a shale and a mud.
RT ⎛⎜ a w ,shale ⎞⎟
Pπ = − ln
Vw ⎜⎝ a w ,mud ⎟⎠
. (6-3)
It should be pointed out that for an osmotic pressure to develop that is equal to the
theoretical osmotic potential defined by the above equation, a perfect membrane
restricting ion movement must exist. As discussed previously, studies have shown that a
shale does not act as a perfect semi-permeable membrane when contacted by a WBM, so
a membrane efficiency term ( I m ) is introduced to correct for the “non-ideality” (Fritz et
al. 1983, 1986). The non-ideal osmotic pressure equation becomes;

RT ⎛⎜ a w ,shale ⎞⎟
Pπ = − I m ln
Vw ⎜⎝ a w ,mud ⎟⎠
(6-4)
The membrane efficiency term ( I m ) has been discussed in detail in the
dissertation of AL-Bazali (2005).

As shown in Figure 6-1, the following cases can be highlighted from Equation (6-
4):
1) a w , shale < a w ,mud , chemical osmosis flow of water into the shale
increases the water content and the pore pressure near the wellbore wall, and
thus destabilizes the wellbore;
132
2) a w , shale = a w ,mud , no aqueous chemical osmosis flow; and
3) a w , shale > a w ,mud , chemical osmosis flow out of the shale is beneficial
in terms of wellbore stability because this back flow reduces the near
wellbore pore pressure and thereby “strengthens” the shale.
6.2.2 Diffusive Flow
Although the movement of ions is restricted due to cation exchange and

negatively charged clay surfaces, a shale cannot completely prevent such movement
because it does not act as a perfect semi-permeable membrane. The diffusion of ions with
their associated water is dominated by a concentration gradient that can be expressed by
using Fick’s law (Bird et al., 2002)
⎛ C i,shale − C i,mud ⎞
J = - D si ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ∆x ⎠ (6-5)
Here D si is the diffusion coefficient of the ith ion in the shale. In general thi will
be smaller than the bulk diffusion coefficient.

Similarly, the following cases can be highlighted from Equation (6-5):
1) C i,shale < C i,mud , diffusive flow of hydrated ions into shale;
2) C i,shale = C i,mud , no diffusive flow; and
3) C i,shale > C i,mud , diffusive flow of hydrated ions out of shale.
6.2.3 Capillary Suction
When a wetting phase, such as pore water, comes into contact with a non-wetting
phase, such as air, surface tension forces, σ w−a , develop at their interfaces (Schmitt et
al., 1994). These surface tension forces give rise to capillary pressures, which can be
expressed as:
133
2σ w -a cos θ
∆P = Pc = Pa − Pw =
r (6-6)
In classical capillary pressure diagrams, such as shown in Figure 6-2, the rise of
liquid level from the dish into the capillary tube is governed by Equation (6-6). These
surface tension forces result in the reduction of the vapor pressure of the water just above
the meniscus ( Pm ) relative to the vapor pressure of the water in the solution ( Ps ). Thus
we have an aqueous activity imbalance that governs this capillary rise, i.e., a wm < a ws
P P
where a wm ≅ m and a ws ≅ s (Chenevert, 1970).
P0 P0
There has been much discussion regarding the mechanisms whereby water is
driven into a shale. One camp has postulated that it is driven by the presence of clays and
ions that results in a reduced water activity environment (Norrish 1954; Chenevert,
1970). The other camp insists that such surface forces could not exist, and the water flow
is driven by capillary suction only (Santarelli et al., 1995). It is very difficult, if not
currently impossible, to settle this conflict from direct experimental observations because
of the complexity of shale composition, and the submicroscopic site of such clay surfaces
and capillarities. It should be pointed out that such arguments are not important and that
the key is water activity. The intensity of water moved by either mechanism is reflected
in its activity. Thus, the measurement of the net water activity of shale reflects the
intensity of the driving forces regardless of being caused by clay surfaces, ions, or
capillaries.
6.2.4 Convective Flow
Convective flow is governed by the Darcy equation (Bird et al., 2002):

k
v0 = − (∇p − ρg )
µ (6-7)
134
where ∇p is pressure gradient between hydraulic mud pressure and pore pressure. This
flow is quite slow as the result of a relatively low-pressure gradient ( ∇p ) that typically
exists for most drilling operations and the extremely low permeability (k) of shale. This
well-known mechanism for water and ion movement will not be discussed in this chapter.
6.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS FOR WATER AND ION MOVEMENT TESTS
The first series of experiments was performed in order to study the mechanisms
controlling the movement of water and ions when shales interact with various ionic
solutions.
6.3.1 Desiccator-Immersion-Desiccator Test
The following experimental steps are designed to study the effects of chemical
osmosis, capillary suction, and diffusive flow on the movement of water and ions into or
out of shales:
Step 1: Three Pierre I and three Arco shale samples were placed in a
controlled relative humidity environment of 85% (aw = 0.85)
desiccator, weighed and recorded as W0.85−1 after equilibrium was
achieved.
Step 2: The above “conditioned” samples were then immersed into 0.85 aw
KCl, 0.85 aw NaCl, and 0.85 aw CaCl2 solutions separately for 24
hours, and then removed, weighed, and their altered weights recorded
as Wa .
Step 3: These samples were then placed back into a 85% controlled relative
humidity desiccator until equilibrium was reached. Their weight was
recorded as W0.85−2 .
Step 4: The final step consisted of drying them out, by placing them in a
200ºF oven for 24 hours. Their “dried” weight was recorded as Wad .
135
We will first discuss the result of one Pierre I shale sample, then later discuss the
results for all tests as a group.
6.3.1.1 Result for Pierre I shale/NaCl solution test
In order to determine the water and ion weight change during each step of the
process, it was necessary to know the initial water content of the Pierre I and Arco shales.
This was done by drying one separate native sample of Pierre I and one Arco shale in a
200ºF oven overnight, as discussed in Chapter 2. We will refer to these as native weight
(Na) and dried weight (Nd).
Using such measurements, it was possible to obtain the change of weight (relative
to dry weight) of the Pierre I when it interacted with 0.85 aw NaCl solution during the
above four steps (shown in Figure 6-3).
In Figure 6-3, “Na” represents the native state of a Pierre I sample. After this
native sample was dried, it lost 10.2 wt% of water and turned into a dried state. This dried
weight was selected as the base weight, so its weight change is zero, shown as “Nd” in
Figure 6-3. For the native Pierre I shale equilibrated in the 0.85 aw atmosphere, it lost 4.1
wt% water, so its weight change is 6.1 wt% compared to the dried weight, as shown in
“Step 1”. In this state, equilibrium was reached by means of “gaseous osmosis”. Under
such conditions, the Pierre I sample was not brought into contact with liquid water, so
water molecules moved by means of the third phase - gaseous phase. Equilibrium was
established between the shale and the solution through their vapor pressure. Since there
was no ion movement, the atmosphere can be taken as a perfect semi-permeable
membrane, and water movement is caused by chemical osmosis. This amount of water
loss (4.1 wt%) was driven by the water activity difference between the 0.98 aw Pierre
shale and the conditioned 0.85 aw atmosphere.
After Step 1, the Pierre I sample was immersed into a 0.85 aw NaCl solution. Its
136
weight increased by 11.8 wt% as shown in “Step 2” of Figure 6-3. This weight increase
(including water and ion movement) was primarily caused by ion and water diffusion.
After Step 2, water was removed from the sample in two steps, first it was placed
in a 0.85 aw atmosphere (Step 3), and then it was dried out in an oven (Step 4). In Step 3
we see that it has a larger weight change as compared to Step 1, even though the sample
was exposed in Step 1 to a 0.85 atmosphere and in Step 2 to a 0.85 aw NaCl solution.
From this comparison, we concluded that hydrated ions must have been diffusing into the
shale.
By drying the shale in Step 4, we observe that ions have definitely entered the
shale, its weight has increased by 0.64 wt% as compared to the dried native weight, “Nd”
in Figure 6-3.
6.3.1.2 Results for Pierre I shale/ KCl and CaCl2 tests
The results for Pierre I shale interacted with 0.85 aw solutions of KCl and CaCl2
are shown in Figures 6-4 and 6-5 respectively.
Comparing the amount of water loss in “Step 1” among the three Pierre I shale
samples, we see that they lost nearly the same amount of water (4 wt%) after they were
equilibrated in the 0.85 aw atmosphere. This demonstrates that the native water contents
of these three samples are nearly identical.
Comparing the amount of water loss in “Step 3” among the three Pierre samples,
we see that the amount of water loss for the CaCl2 solution is more than that for the NaCl
and KCl solutions. This can be explained by the diameter difference between the
dehydrated and hydrated ions, as shown in Table 6-1. The diameter of the hydrated
calcium ion is ten times larger than the dehydrated ion, therefore the associated water
carried by these ions is easily lost.
Comparing “Nd” with “Step 4” in Figures 6-3 ~ 6-5, we see that the Pierre I shale
137
gained ions when immersed in ionic solutions. This ionic gain raised the question: “ is
such ionic transfer sufficient to significantly alter the chemical properties of the shale?”
To answer this question, adsorption isotherms were developed for the immersed shale
sample (step 4) and compared to the adsorption isotherm for native Pierre I shale. The
results are shown in Figure 6-6.
It is seen from Figure 6-6 that the amount of moisture adsorbed was highest for
the samples immersed in 0.85 aw CaCl2 solution and least for the samples immersed in
0.85 aw KCl solution. This result can be used to demonstrate that the adsorption of ions
has changed the chemical properties of the shale. The difference in behavior between the
samples immersed in CaCl2 and KCl solutions was probably due to the fact that the
adsorption of K+ ions led to the collapse of the spacing between the clay platelets, thus
reducing the amount of water adsorbed (Osisanya, 1991).
6.3.1.3 Results for Arco shale/ NaCl, KCl and CaCl2 tests
Tests similar to the above Pierre I tests were carried out for the Arco. Results are
shown in Figures 6-7 ~ 6-9. We see that the three Arco shale samples gained water after
they were equilibrated in the 0.85 aw atmosphere. This amount of water gain is caused by
the chemical potential difference between the 0.78 aw Arco shale and the 0.85 aw
atmosphere.
Comparing the amount of water loss in “Step 3” among the three Arco shale
samples, we again observe that the water loss for the CaCl2 solution test is greater than
that for NaCl and KCl solutions. Once again, this can be explained by the difference in
diameter between the dehydrated and hydrated ions.
Comparing “Nd” with “Step 4” in Figures 6-7 ~ 6-9, we see that the Arco shale
samples also gained ions when they were immersed into ionic solutions. This amount of
ion adsorption has altered the chemical properties of the shale. Due to a lack of samples,
138
it was not possible to develop adsorption isotherms for the Arco shale, as was done for
the Pierre I shale.
6.3.2 Test of Direct Exposure to 0.85 aw Solutions
A second series of experiments were performed in order to study the movement of

water and ions for native Pierre I shale interacting with different ionic solutions with the
same water activity.
The native 0.98 aw Pierre I shale samples were directly immersed into 0.85 aw
solutions of CaCl2, NaCl and KCl without removing water in a 85% relative humidity
desiccator, as was done in the first series of experiments. The movement of water and
ions during the exposure of native Pierre I shale to such salt solutions were determined by
using the gravimetric method as discussed in Chapter 5. The results of such movement
are shown in Figure 6-10.
In these tests, capillary, osmotic, and diffusive processes are acting
simultaneously. If the movement of water and ions was only caused by capillary effects,
the shale should absorb the whole solution fluid (water and ions) simultaneously.
However, it is seen from Figure 6-10 that these native Pierre I shale samples lost water
after immersion into 0.85 aw solutions of CaCl2, NaCl and KCl. This demonstrates that
osmosis also caused the water and ion movement.
For the native Arco shale directly exposed to 0.85 aw NaCl and CaCl2 solutions,
the results of water and ion movement are shown in Figure 6-11. It is seen that Arco shale
absorbed 1.16 wt % water and 0.7 wt% ions for the CaCl2 solution, and 0.9 wt% water
and 0.3 wt% ions for the NaCl solution. Such movements are reasonable because of the
large imbalance of water activity and ion concentration between the 0.78 aw Arco shale
and the 0.85 aw salt solutions. As discussed previously, this amount of water and ions
movement is probably driven by capillarity, diffusion, and chemical osmosis.
139
6.3.3 Test of Direct Immersion to Solutions with Different Water Activities
The above tests were repeated using CaCl2, NaCl, and KCl solutions of other
water activities, namely 0.75, 0.85, and 0.95. The results are presented in Figure 6-12. It
is easily seen that as expected the amount of water loss increased at the lower water
activities. It is also shown in Figure 6-12 that there exist differences among these three
types of ionic solutions. These differences in water movement demonstrated that in
addition to osmosis (driven by water activity), the movement of water and ions is
influenced by ionic diffusion.
6.4 EFFECTS OF WATER AND ION MOVEMENT ON SWELLING PROPERTY OF SHALES
From the above discussion, it is easily seen that water and ions moved into or out
of the shale when it interacted with ionic solutions. This movement alters the
physiochemical and mechanical properties of the formation. The effects of such
movement on mechanical and acoustic properties of shales will be discussed in detail in
Chapter 7. The focus of this chapter is to study the effects of water and ion movement on
swelling properties of shales.
In order to investigate the effects of water and ions movement on swelling
properties of Pierre I shale, a third series of experiments were performed. The results for
these experiments are discussed below.
6.4.1 Effects of Water Movement on Swelling Properties of Pierre I Shale
This test was developed to investigate the effects of water movement on swelling
property of Pierre I shale. A preserved Pierre I shale sample with dimensions
0.5′′ × 0.75′′ × 1.0′′ , was taken out of the storage can and quickly washed using “Skelly B”
to remove all surface oil. It was then positioned between the movable and stationary
anvils in a swelling transducer and then placed in a controlled 85% humidity environment
and its swelling behavior measured. As shown in Figure 6-13, the shale shrank
140
continuously due to the loss of water only.
6.4.2 Effects of Water and Ions Movement on Swelling Properties of Pierre I Shale
The following swelling test was performed differently from the above test in that
the sample was immersed directly into 0.85 aw KCl solution. The procedure for this
experiment consisted of: 1) washing the sample with “Skelly B”; 2) placing it in a small
plastic bag and positioning it in the swelling transducer; and 3) pouring 50 ml 0.85 aw
KCl solution into the bag and measuring the swelling properties. The result is shown in
Figure 6-14.
It is shown in Figure 6-14 that the sample swelled at early time and sometime
later it began to shrink. It is postulated that the early swelling is caused by a surface
capillary effect (Zhang et al., 2004). After correcting Figure 6-14 for capillary effects
(see Chapter 5 for this correction technique), the comparison of the swelling properties of
Pierre I shale placed in a 0. 85 aw atmosphere and immersed into a 0.85 aw KCl solution
is shown in Figure 6-15.
It is seen that the sample shrank after it was exposed to the 0.85 aw KCl solution.
The sample experienced more shrinkage when it was placed in a 0.85 aw atmosphere than
when immersed into the 0.85 aw KCl solution. It is postulated that, for the immersion test
the movement of ions into the shale lowers the water activity of the shale, thus reducing
the osmotic driving force, and swelling percentage.
6.4.3 Swelling of Pierre I Immersed in Different Ionic Solutions
The swelling percentages of Pierre I shales were measured after they were
immersed into salt solutions that had different water activities. After the swelling test was
completed, the movement of water and ions was determined by the GST technique
discussed in Chapter 5. In this way, the effects of water and ion movement on swelling
percentages of Pierre I shale were studied.
141
The effects of water and ion movement on swelling percentage of Pierre I shale
after they were exposed to NaCl solution of different concentrations are shown in Figure
6-16.
It is seen from Figure 6-16 that as water enters the shale and ions are leaving, the
shale swells. By using this figure, we are able to demonstrate the net effect of ion
movement on the swelling properties of Pierre I shale. For example, after the Pierre I was
immersed into the 0.95 aw NaCl solution, it lost 0.1 wt% of water and gained 0.1 wt % of
ions. With this amount of water loss and ions gain, the Pierre I shale had a resulting
expansion of about 0.3%. The sample had expanded even with water loss, which clearly
demonstrated that ion absorption can cause the shale to swell.
The results for Pierre I shale immersed in CaCl2 and KCl solutions with various
concentrations are shown in Figures 6-17 and 6-18 respectively. Effects very similar to
those seen with NaCl solution can be observed from these figures.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
1. The new simple method, called the Gravimetric – Swelling Test, that
measures water and ion entering or leaving a shale sample provides a good
way to study water and ions movement and the effects of such movement on
the swelling properties of shales.
2. After the native Pierre I shale samples immersed in 0.85 aw solutions, they lost
water and gained ions. However, they gained both water and ions if the Pierre
I shale samples were equilibrated in a controlled relative humidity
environment of 85% before immersed in 0.85 aw solutions.
3. Both the native and the conditioned Arco shale gained water and ion after they
were exposed to 0.85 aw solutions.
4. The transport of water is not only controlled chemical osmosis, but also
142
affected by ionic diffusion and capillary effects under zero hydraulic pressure
difference.
5. The immersion of shale samples into salt solutions alters the chemical
composition of the shale due to ions movement.
6. The swelling of the shale is influenced by both water and ion movement.
7. Combined with other tests, the Gravimetric–Swelling Test can be used to
evaluate mud systems.
NOMENCLATURES
a w ,d Water activity for desiccator, dimensionless
a w ,mud Water activity of a mud, dimensionless
a w ,shale Water activity of a shale, dimensionless
C i,mud Concentration of species i in mud [=] amount/volume
C i,shale Concentration of species i in pore fluid in shale [=]
amount/volume
D Diffusivity [=] L2/t
g Gravitation acceleration [=] L/t2
J Mass flux [=]
k Permeability [=] L2
Im Membrane efficiency, dimensionless
P Vapor pressure of shale at temperature T [=] m/L-t2
P0 Vapor pressure of pure water at temperature T [=] m/L-t2
Pa Pressure air phases [=] m/L-t2
Pc Capillary pressure between water and gas phases [=] m/L-t2
Pm Vapor pressure of water above the meniscus [=] m/L-t2

Ps Vapor pressure of water above in the solution [=] m/L-t2
143
∇p Pressure difference gradient between the mud hydraulic pressure
and pore pressure [=] m/L2-t2

∆P Pressure difference between air and water phases [=] m/L-t2
r Tube radius [=] L
R Gas law constant, 8.31451×103 kg ⋅ m2 / S2 ⋅ Kg − mole⋅ K ;
T Absolute temperature [=] T

ui Chemical potential of ith component
µ Viscosity of drilling fluid [=] m/L-t
v0 Bulk flow velocity [=] L/t
Vw Molar volume of water, 0.018 m3/mol
Wn Native weight [=] m
Wnd Native dried weight [=] m
ρ Density of drilling fluid [=] m/L3

σ w−a Interfacial tension [=] m/t2
θ Contact angle between the fluids interface and the solid
surface [=] degree
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Special thanks are given to Dr. Russ Ewy, Dr Guizhong Chen, Dr. Rosana Lomba
and Mr. Ben Bloys for their valuable suggestions. The assistance of Dr. John Holder and
Mr. Glen Baum is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
AL-Bazali, T.M.: “Experimental Study of the Membrane Behavior of Shale During
Interaction with Water-Based and Oil-Based Muds”, Ph.D dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 2005.
Ballard, T.J., Beare, S.P. and Lawless, T.A.: “ Fundamentals of Shale Stabilisation:
Water Transport Through Shales”, IADC/SPE24974, presented at the European
144
Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N.: “ Transport Phenomena”, Second
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Bol, G.M., “ The Effects of Various Polymers and Salts on Borehole and Cutting
Stability in Water-Base Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 14802 presented at the 1986
Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E. and Young, F.S.: “ Applied Drilling
Engineering”, Chapter 6, SPE Textbook Series, Vol.2, 1991.
Carminati, S., Del Gaudio L., Del, Piero G. and Brignoli, M.: “ Water- Based Muds and
2002.
Chenevert, M. E: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, SPE 2401 presented at the

SPE Fourth Conference on Drilling and Rock Mechanics held in Austin, Texas,
Jan. 14-15,1969.

Ewy, R.T. and Stankovich R. J. “ Pore pressure change due to shale-fluid interaction:
145
Ewy, R.T. and Stankovich R.J.: “ Shale-Fluid Interactions Measured Under Simulated
Forsans, T. M. and Schmitt, L.: “ Capillary forces: The neglected factor in shale
1994.
Fritz, S.J.: “ Ideality of Clay Membranes in Osmotic Process: A Review”, Clay and Clay
Minerals, Vol.34, No.2, 214-223, 1986.
Hale, A. H., Mody F. K. and Salisbury, D. P.: “ Experimental Investigation of the

Feb. 18-21, 1992.
(2000) 25-35.
Low, P.F., Anderson, D.M.: “ Osmotic Pressure Equation for Determining

Newsham, K. E., Rushing, J. A. and Lasswell, P.M.: “ Use of Vapor Desorption Data to
Characterize High Capillary Pressure in a Basin-Centered Gas Accumulation with
Ultra-Low Connate Water Saturations”, SPE 84596, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U. S. A., 5-8
October.
Norrish, K.: “ The Swelling of Montmorillonite”, Disc. Of Faraday Soc., V.18, P.120,
1954.
146
Olsen, H.W., Yearsley, E.N. and Nelson, K.R.: “ Chemico-Osmosis Versus Diffusion-
Osmosis”, Transportation Research Record 1288.
Osisanya, S. O.: “Experimental Studies Of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”, Ph.D

dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August, 1991.
Pernot, Vincent: “ Troublesome Shale Control Using Inhibitive Water-Base Muds”,

master’s thesis, the University of Texas at Austin, May 1999.
Santarelli, F.J. and Carminati S.: “Do Shale Swell? A Critical Review of available
Evidence”, IADC/SPE Paper 29421, presented at the 1995 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference in Amsterdam, 26 Feb. 26-2 March, 1995.
Santos, H., Diek, A., Roegiers, C. and Fontoura, S.: “ Can shale swelling be (easily)
8436.
Santos, H., Diek ,A., Fontoura, S. and Roegiers, C.: “ Shale Reactivity Test : A Novel
Approach to Evaluate Shale-Fluid Interaction”, Int., J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci.
34: 3-4, paper No. 268.
Santos, H.: “ What Have We Been Doing Wrong in Wellbore Stability?”, SPE 69493
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March 2001.
Schlemmer, R., Friedheim, J.E., Growcock, F.B., Bloys, J.B., Headley, J.A., and
Polnaszek, S.C.: “ Membrane Efficiency in Shale – An Empirical Evaluation of
Drilling Fluid Chemistries and Implication for Fluid Design”, IADC/SPE 74557
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26-28
February, 2002.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1994, No.5, pp411-427.
Simpson, J.P.: “ Drilling Fluids – Today and Tomorrow”, Journal of Petroleum

Technology, November 1971.

147
Tan, C.P., Amanullah M., Mody, F.K. and Tare, U.A.: “ Novel High Membrane
Efficiency Water-Based Drilling Fluids for Alleviating Problems in Troublesome
Shale Formations”, IADC/SPE 77192 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 9-11 September 2002.
Tare, U. and Mody, F.: “ Stabilizing Borehole While Drilling Reactive Shale Formations
With Silicate-base Drilling Fluids”, Drilling Contractor, May/June 2000.
Van Oort, E., Hale, A.H., Mody, F.K. and Roy, S.: “ Critical Paramters in Modeling The
Chemical Aspects of Borehole Stability in Shales and in Designing Improved
Water-Based Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 28309 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 25-28,
September, 1994.
Van Oort, E., Hale, A.H. and Mody, F.K.: “ Manipulation of Coupled Osmotic Flows for
Stabilisation of Shales Exposed to Water-Based Drilling Fluids”, SPE 30499
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas,
U.S.A., 22-25 October, 1995.
Van Oort, E.: “Physico-chemical Stabilization of Shales”, SPE paper 37263 presented at
1997 International Symposium on Colloid Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, Feb.
18-21.
Van Oort, E.: “On the physical and chemical stability of shales”, Journal of Petroleum
Wong, S.W., Kenter, C.J., Schokkenbroek, H., Bordes, P.D and Regteren, J.V.: “
Optimizing Shale Drilling in the Northern North Sea: Borehole Stability
Considerations”, SPE 26736 presented at the Offshore Europe Conference held in
Aberdeen, 7-10 September 1993.
Yousif K.K. and Willard C.S.: “ Flow of Water and Solutes through Compacted Clays”,
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, V. 60, No. 6 (June
1976), P.973-980.
Yu, M.: “ Chemical and thermal effects on wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”,
Ph.D dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
148
Table 6-1 – Comparison of ions hydrated radii
Dehydrated Diameter Hydrated Diameter

(Angstrom) (Angstrom)
Sodium 1.9 5.5-11.2

Potassium 2.66 4.64-7.6
Cesium 3.34 4.6-7.2
Magnesium 1.3 21.6
Calcium 1.9 19
149
Figure 6-1 – Osmosis and ion diffusion.
Figure 6-2 – Brine water capillary imbibitions.
150
12
10
Weight Change, wt% 8
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

test (NaCl).
12
10
Weight Change, wt%
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

test (KCl).
151
16
14
10
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

test (CaCl2).
14
Native
Moisture Content (wt%)
12 NaCl
KCl
10 CaCl2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Relative Vapor Pressure, P/Po
Figure 6-6 – Combined adsorption isotherms of Pierre I shale.
152
6
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

(NaCl).
5
Weight Change, wt%
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

(KCl).
153
6
0
Na Nd 1 2 3 4

(CaCl2).
2.4
Water
Water/Ion Movement, wt%
2
Ions
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
-0.4
-0.8
CaCl2 NaCl KCl
Figure 6-10 – Water and ion movement for Pierre I directly immersed in 0.85 aw CaCl2,
0.85 aw NaCl and 0.85 aw KCl solutions.
154
1.2
Water/Ion Movement, wt%

Water
1
Ions
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
CaCl2 NaCl
Figure 6-11 – Water and ion movement for Arco shale directly immersed in 0.85 aw
NaCl and 0.85 aw CaCl2 solutions.
0.4
CaCl2
Water Movement, wt%
0.2
NaCl Native Shale
KCl
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 6-12 – Effects of water activity on water movement of Pierre I shale.
155
0
-0.5
Swelling Strain (%)

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 6-13 – Swelling of Pierre I shale placed in controlled 85% humidity desiccator.
0.3
Swelling Strain (%)
0.2
0.1
-0.1
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, Minutes
Figure 6-14 – Swelling properties of Pierre I shale immersed in 0.85 aw KCl solution.
156
0
Swelling percentage, %
-0.5
-1
With Ions and Water Flux
-1.5
No Ion Flux
-2
-2.5
Above KCl Desiccator, aw=0.85
-3
Dipped into aw=0.85 KCl Solution
-3.5
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 6-15 – Comparison of shale swelling when sample is immersed in a 0.85 aw KCl
solution versus placed in a 0.85 aw atmosphere (Pierre I shale).
0.6
Water
0.5
Ions
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
exposed to NaCl solutions.
157
0.6
Water
0.5 Ions
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
exposed to CaCl2 solutions.
0.6
Water
0.5
Ions
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.6 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4
exposed to KCl solutions.
158
Chapter 7 : Changes in Shale Strength and Acoustic Properties with
Exposure to Water-Based Fluids
ABSTRACT
Experimental results are presented in this chapter to show how the compressive
strengths and acoustic velocities of different types of shale change when they are exposed
to water-based fluids. The acoustic velocity and compressive strength of a soft, high
water activity, Pierre I shale increased after exposure to different ionic solutions, while
for the lower water activity Arco shale, acoustic velocity and strength decreased. By
combining these tests with a new gravimetric test that quantitatively determined the flux
of water and ions into or out of the shale, it was clearly shown that these different effects
correlated well with the movement of water and ions. In every case, water adsorption
weakened, while ion adsorption strengthened the shale.
The influence of salt type and salt concentration on the strengths and acoustic
velocities of two shales was also investigated. It was seen that the ionic content of water-
based fluid had a significant effect on the changes in shale properties. It was also shown
that the changes in acoustic velocity and compressive strength were highly correlated.
This suggests that it may be feasible to use acoustic logging data to determine changes in
the mechanical properties of shale.
Finally, the impact of the reported changes in the mechanical properties of the
shale and wellbore stability was demonstrated through the use of Driller, a 3-d wellbore
stability analysis program.
159
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Wellbore instability problems in shale formation have plagued the petroleum

industry since it began over one hundred years ago. These problems often occur when
water or saline fluids come into contact with shales. The primary cause of such problems
is the interaction between the drilling fluid and shale formations. This interaction may
cause pore pressure and mechanical property alterations around the wellbore formations,
thereby leading to wellbore collapse.
One method for visualizing the effects of such alterations on wellbore stability is
through the use of Mohr-Coulomb failure diagrams. Referring to Figure 7-1, we see that
if the pore pressure increases, the Mohr circle shifts to the left approaching the
safe/failure boundary. Simultaneously, if the strength of the formation decreased due to
interaction between shale and mud, this safe/failure boundary shifts downwards. Once the
Mohr circle contacts the safe/failure envelope due to these shifts, wellbore instability
occurs. Therefore, wellbore stability can be achieved by preventing pore pressure
propagation and by reducing formation weakening. Many studies have been done on
preventing pore pressure build-up around wellbores caused by the interaction between
shales and drilling fluids (Bol et al., 1992; Van Oort et al., 1994, 1995; Caminati 1999;
Ewy et al., 2000; Tare et. al., 2000; Schlemmer et al., 2002). In our work, we focus on
the selection of drilling fluids that maintain shale strength.
Chenevert (1969, 1970) studied shale alteration by water adsorption and measured
the linear swelling of shale in various muds which had different water activities (salt
concentrations). He found that the higher the water activity, the higher the swelling. Hale
et al. (1992) measured the mechanical properties of shale after being contacted with oil-
based muds. They found that the shale strength increased when the water activity of the
mud was lower than that of the shale. Although oil-based muds provide a solution to the
160
shale/mud problem, cost and environmental concerns often restrict their use (Clark et
al., 1976).
In their studies, Mody et al. (1993) and Yu et al. (2002) developed models that
coupled mechanical and chemical interactions between the shale and the drilling fluid. In
addition to chemical and mechanical effects, Chen et al. (2001) considered thermal
effects on wellbore stability.
Generally speaking, wellbore instability occurs when the local stress exceeds the
rock strength. Therefore, the rock strength plays an important role in determining
wellbore stability. Two methods: direct laboratory measurement, and indirect well
logging interpretation are used to determine rock strength. The direct method is more
accurate, but expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, it is difficult to obtain a
complete formation strength profile without running many tests. The indirect method
predicts rock strength by using acoustic log data and log/strength correlations. One
limitation of this method is that it requires accurate experimental data to establish
correlations between strength and acoustic velocity (Horsrud, 2001).
The most valuable information is obtained by testing native shale at its in-situ
stress and temperature conditions. However, it is nearly impossible to know its original
state accurately. Even if outcrop shale samples are used, their properties would be altered
as they are processed during sample preparation, no matter what measures are taken
(Chenevert, 1969). With this in mind, we performed experiments under ambient
controlled stress conditions and studied the influence of a single factor on the properties
of the shale while keeping other factors constant.
The purpose of this study is to find a relationship between water activity, acoustic
velocity, and compressive strength of shale. If there is a close relationship among these
properties, it is hoped that we can determine shale strength using logging methods.
161
Another aim is to study the role of water and ion transport on shale strength and acoustic
velocity.
7.2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
The basic test procedure consisted of first measuring the acoustic velocity of a
shale sample as it absorbed water and/or ions from a solution, then secondly placing this
altered sample into a biaxial test chamber and measuring its compressive strength under
elevated stress conditions.
7.2.1 Acoustic Velocity Test
7.2.1.1 Ultrasonic propagation system
The schematic of the equipment setup used to measure the acoustic velocity of
shale is shown in Figure 7-2. It consists of a pulser-receiver and an oscilloscope. The
pulser-receiver creates an electrical pulse, which is transformed into acoustic energy by a
transmiter transducer. The acoustic energy travels through the rock sample and is then
converted back into electrical energy by a receiver transducer. If necessary, the electrical
signal may be amplified after it reaches the input of the pulser-receiver. The signal is then
displayed on a digital oscilloscope and is recorded.
The pulse generator used in studying the acoustic properties of shale is a
Panametrics High Voltage Pulser-Receiver, Model 5058. This model is very flexible. We
can adjust the repetition rate, damping, and pulse height of the initial signal in order to
enhance the display on an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope used in this study is a Tektronix
TDS3000 Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope (Figure 7-3). This digital oscilloscope uses an
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to convert the measured voltage into digital
information. The oscilloscope receives a series of wave samples, and stores these samples
until it accumulates enough wave samples to create a waveform (Popp, 2004). When
162
using this equipment, extra care was taken to pick the first arrival time in the waveform
in order to avoid introducing errors.
7.2.1.2 Transducer calibration and face-to-face time determination
During the operation, transducer calibration and face-to-face time determination

were accomplished by using Lucite plates that had different thickness. The calibration
results are shown in Figure 7-4. As shown in this graph, there exits a linear relationship
between the thickness of the Lucite plate and the transmitted time. After regressing these
experimental results, we obtain a regression line. From the slope of this regression line,
the acoustic velocity of Lucite was determined to be 2720 m/s. The published acoustic
velocity for Lucite is 2680 m/s (Reference 41). Therefore, we have concluded that our
equipment and experimental set up is accurate enough to be used for measuring the
acoustic velocity of shale. The face-to-face transmited time between the two transducers
was determined to be 0.1043 microseconds by using the intercept of the regression line
with the axis of transmitted time.
7.2.1.3 Acoustic velocity test
After a 0.75 "×0.75 "×1.5 " shale sample was taken out of the storage can, its
original velocity was measured and designated “original sample velocity”. This sample
was then washed with “Skelly B” to remove the oil from its surface, and then placed into
a plastic bag fixed between the transmitter and receiver transducers (Figure 7-3). A test
solution was then poured into the bag. As the solution interacted with the sample, the
transit time was recorded over time until equilibrium was reached. Normally, equilibrium
took about 24 hours. From such measurements, the alteration of acoustic velocity with
time was obtained for shale sample exposed to different salt solutions. After determining
the acoustic velocity, the sample was placed into a test cell and a compressive strength
test performed.
163
7.2.2 Compressive Strength Test
For details on the compressive strength test equipment and the determination of
the strain rate applied during the test, please refer to Chapter 4: “The Effects of Strain
Rates on Failure Characteristics of Shales.”
During the compressive strength test, two failure mechanisms were observed:
brittle failure and plastic failure. An obvious failure stage was observed when the shale
failed in a brittle manner, as shown in Figure 7-5. After this failure stage, the stresses
decreased with increasing strains. If the shale failed in this brittle manner, the peak value
was chosen as the compressive strength. On the other hand, if the shale failed in a plastic
manner, there is no obvious failure stage and the stresses increased continuously with
increasing strains, as shown in Figure 7-6. For plastic failure, the shale strength value is
chosen at a strain offset of 2 % (Robinson, 1958; Chenevert et al., 1998).
7.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.3.1 Acoustic Properties of Pierre I Shale
The effects of salt concentrations of NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl on the acoustic
velocities of Pierre I shale are shown in Figures 7-7, 7-8, and 7-9 respectively.
It can be seen from these figures that except for deioned water, the acoustic
velocity of Pierre I shale increased with time after it was exposed to various salt
solutions. Such results suggest that Pierre I shale is giving up pore fluid and taking water
when exposed to a “more fresh” solution. When it reacts with salt solutions, the more
concentrated the solution, the higher the increase of acoustic velocity.
Figure 7-10 shows the effects of different salt solutions with the same water
activity on acoustic velocities of Pierre I shale. It can be observed that the acoustic
velocity for 0.98 aw Pierre I shale increased after it was exposed to 0.85 aw NaCl, CaCl2
and KCl solutions. The acoustic velocity for Pierre I shale increased by 7.0 % after
164
exposure to the KCl solution, 5.8 % to the NaCl, and 4.9 % to the CaCl2.
We define the relative acoustic velocity change as,
Vf − Vi
Vcr = × 100%
Vi (7-1)
Note: A positive value of Vcr represents an acoustic velocity increase and a negative
value represents an acoustic velocity decrease.

It is reasonable to assume that there is no flux of water due to the same osmotic
effects after exposure to salt solutions with the same water activity. Therefore, we believe
that the difference in the alteration of acoustic velocity is caused by ion diffusion between
salt solution and pore fluid and by cation exchange at the clay surfaces.
The effects of different salt solutions on acoustic velocity change for Pierre I
shale are shown in Figure 7-11. From this figure, we see that the higher the concentration
of the salt solution, the higher the increase in the acoustic velocity. After Pierre I shale
was exposed to concentrated salt solutions, water was extracted which caused the
porosity of the shale to decrease. The decrease in porosity caused the acoustic velocity to
increase.
According to the time average equation presented by Wyllie et al. (1958),
1 φ 1− φ
= +
VM VF VR (7-2)
After rearranging the above equation, we have:

VF ⋅ VR
VM =
φ(VR − VF ) + VF (7-3)
Normally, the velocity in a rock matrix ( VR ) is greater than the velocity of the
pore fluid ( VF ). Therefore, it is easily seen from Equation (7-3) that the velocity of the
shale increases with decreasing porosity.
165
Using our “Gravimetric-Swelling Test” (GST), described in Chapter 5, water
and ion movement during shale/salt interactions were determined. The effect of water
movement on acoustic velocity alteration for Pierre I is shown in Figure 7-12. It can be
seen that the loss of water increased the acoustic velocity for Pierre I shale. For the same
amount of water movement, different ionic solutions had various influences on acoustic
velocity. For example, under zero water movement, the acoustic velocity increased by 1.8
% for KCl, 6% for NaCl, and 0% for CaCl2 solutions. This difference in acoustic velocity
change demonstrates that in addition to water transport, the type of ion and ion movement
have an influence on the acoustic velocity of the shale. The effect of ion movement on
acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale is shown in Figure 7-13.
It is seen from Figure 7-13 that the acoustic velocity increased with increasing ion
adsorption. From Figures 7-12 and 7-13, we conclude that the acoustic velocity is altered
by both water and ion movement.
7.3.2 Strength Properties of Pierre I Shale
Figures 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16 show the stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale
exposed to NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl solutions with different salt concentrations. From these
figures, we see that the strength of Pierre I increased after exposure to ionic solutions,
while it decreased after exposure to deioned water due to water and ion movement.
We also see that the failure mechanism of Pierre I shale changed from brittle to
plastic after it was exposed to ionic solutions. Pierre I shale failed in a brittle manner at
low salt concentration or in its native condition, whereas it failed in a plastic manner
when it was exposed to concentrated salt solutions. This was possibly caused by the
alteration of the shale fabric structure by the adsorption of ions (Amanullah et al., 1994;
Simpson et al., 2000). The bonding force between particles can be strengthened with the
adsorption of ions, which can change the failure mode of the shale. Compared with NaCl
166
and CaCl2 solutions, Pierre I shale exhibited much higher plastic deformations after it
was exposed to KCl solutions. This may be because the ionic solutions (particularly K+
ions) provide a reduction in intergranular friction. This allows grains to slip over each
other as the stress is increased leading to plastic failure.
In summary, failure mechanisms for Pierre I shale were influenced by exposure to
the brine, which induced plastic deformation and enhanced its ductility. Amanullah et al.
(1994) reached similar conclusion.
After the stress-strain curves were obtained during the strength tests, the Young’s
moduli were determined. The influence of different solutions on the Young’s moduli of
Pierre I shale is shown in Figure 7-17. It is seen that for NaCl and CaCl2 tests, the
Young’s moduli decreased with an increase in the water activity. Once again, we see that
exposure to KCl solutions greatly increased the Young’s modulus of elasticity of Pierre I
shale.
We obtained the strength values by using the method discussed in Section 7.2.2.
The overall effect of various salt solutions on the deviatoric strength of Pierre I is shown
in Figure 7-18.
Using the GST discussed in Chapter 5, it was possible to determine the movement
of water and ion that produced such strength alteration. Figures 7-19 and 7-20 show these
effects.
Note that for the KCl test, the final strength of 9500 psi was the result of the shale
losing 0.5 wt% water, and gaining 1.8 wt% ions. In general, it is seen that for all tests,
when water is removed and ions are added, the strength increases, and the inverse is true,
when ions are removed and water is added, (the strength decreases).
Zhang et al. (2004) found that water was extracted out of the Pierre I shale, and
ions were added after it was immersed into concentrated salt solutions. The higher the
167
concentration (lower water activity), the more water is extracted and the more ions are
added into the shale. Water extraction under high salt concentration causes the strength
to increase (Chenevert, 1969; Hale et al., 1992). We see from Figure 7-19 that at the
same amount of water movement, different types of salt have various influences on
strength of Pierre I shale. For example, under zero water movement, the strength
increased to 6500 psi for NaCl, 5900 psi for CaCl2, and 8900 psi for KCl. This difference
in strength increase suggests that in addition to water movement, ion movement has an
impact on shale strength.
Figure 7-20 shows the effects of ion movement on deviatoric strength of Pierre I
shale. In this figure, we see that ion adsorption (coupled with water removal) can increase
the shale strength to a large degree. It is worth noting that ion adsorption is coupled to
water extraction from the shale (as shown here and Chapter 5). An interesting question
arises; is the strength enhancement caused by ion adsorption or by water extraction?
There is no doubt that water extraction strengthens shale (Chenevert, 1969; Hale
et al., 1992). We believe that the effects of ions adsorption on mechanical properties
alteration depend on their physical and mechanical characteristics. Table 7-1 shows the
hydrated radius for different ions. We can see that there is a difference in the hydrated
radius for different ions. When the larger ions are displaced by smaller ions, the shale
shrinks. On the contrary, smaller ions are exchanged with larger ions, and the shale
swells. On the other hand, there are differences among bonding forces between ions and
clay surfaces. It was reported that the bonding force for potassium is much larger than
that of other ions (Walker et al., 1984; Pruett 1987). Our data show that the adsorption of
potassium coupled with water removal can strengthen the Pierre I shale to a great degree.
168
7.3.3 Relationship between Acoustic Velocity and Compressive Strength of Pierre I
Shale
The relationship between the acoustic velocity and strength for Pierre I is shown
in Figure 7-21. It is seen from this graph that there is a close relationship between the
strength and acoustic velocity and that compressive strength increases with the acoustic
velocity. Therefore, it is possible to use acoustic well log data to deduce formation
strength and detect mechanical property alteration due to shale/mud interaction in wells.
7.3.4 Acoustic Properties of Arco Shale
The effects of salt concentrations of NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl on the acoustic velocity
of Arco shale are shown in Figures 7-22, 7-23, and 7-24 respectively. From these figures,
we see that the acoustic velocity of Arco shale decreased after exposure to NaCl and
CaCl2 solutions. The acoustic velocity decreased when Arco shale was exposed to low
concentrations of KCl, and it increased after exposure to KCl solution that had high
concentration.
The effects of different salt solutions with the same water activity (aw=0.85) on
the acoustic velocity of Arco shale are shown in Figure 7-25. It is seen that the acoustic
velocity of Arco shale decreased after exposure to NaCl and CaCl2 solutions, but it
increased when exposed to KCl solutions. In that all salt solutions had the same water
activity, it is reasonable to assume that the aqueous osmotic effects are the same.
Therefore, we believe that the difference in acoustic velocity is caused by ion diffusion
between the pore fluids and salt solutions, and cation exchange between the pore fluid
and clay surfaces.
The effects of different salt solutions on acoustic velocities of Arco shale at
equilibrium are shown in Figure 7-26. It is seen that the higher the ionic concentration is,
the less decrease in acoustic velocity of Arco shale. Once again, the effects of ionic
169
solutions on acoustic velocity can be explained by water and ion movement during the
interaction between the shales and solutions. Figures 7-27 and 7-28 show such effects.
Because of the limited amount of Arco shale, we could not run GST with KCl
solutions. It is seen from Figure 7-27 that the acoustic velocity decreased with water
adsorption. For the same amount of water movement, this decrease for NaCl is higher
than for CaCl2. This difference in acoustic velocity decrease between NaCl and CaCl2
solutions demonstrates that in addition to water transport, ion movement has an influence
on acoustic velocity of the shale, as shown in Figure 7-28.
7.3.5 Strength Properties of Arco Shale
The effects of NaCl, CaCl2 and KCl concentrations on the stress-strain curves for
Arco shale are shown in Figures 7-29, 7-30 and 7-31 respectively. It can be seen from
these figures that the strengths of Arco shale decreased after exposure to NaCl and CaCl2
solutions. The lower the concentration, the larger the strength reduction. Comparing with
NaCl and CaCl2 solutions, we see that there is a completely different reaction for Arco
shale exposure to KCl solutions. The strength for Arco shale is enhanced after exposed to
KCl solutions, although there is no clear trend with respect to concentration. Similar
phenomena were observed by Horsrud et al. (1998). Maybe this is the reason why many
people are interesting in potassium fluids (Clark et al., 1976; Bostrom et al., 1998;
Horsrud et al. 1998; Kjosnes et al., 2003).
Young’s moduli of Arco shale are obtained from the stress-strain curves. The
effects of water activity of salt solutions on Young’s moduli of Arco shale are shown in
Figure 7-32. It is seen from this figure that the Young’s moduli of Arco shale decreased
after it was exposed to NaCl and CaCl2 solutions and the higher the water activity, the
larger the decrease. However, the Young’s moduli of Arco shale increased after it was
exposed to KCl solutions.
170
The overall effects of various salt solutions on the strengths of Arco shale are
shown in Figure 7-33. The movement of water and ions that produced such alteration is
shown in Figures 7-34 and 7-35.
As shown, the largest weakening of the shale was produced when the sample
gained 2.4 wt% water and lost 0.6 wt% ions. The strength of Arco shale decreased from
6000 psi to 1500 psi after it was exposed to deioned water. This pattern is exactly what
was observed for the Pierre I shale.
The movement of water and ion as measured in our tests exactly follows the
principle of osmotic flow. When a sample of shale is placed in a salt solution of lower
water activty, water is removed, and vice versa. What is interesting to note is that there is
another part of the reaction and that is ion flow. This ion flow is always going in the
opposite direction of water flow.
7.3.6 Relationship between Acoustic Velocity and Compressive Strength for Arco
Shale
The relationships between the acoustic velocity and compressive strength for
Arco shale are shown in Figure 7-36. Once again, it is seen that that there is a good
relationship between the strength and acoustic velocity and that compressive strength
increases with the acoustic velocity for both shales.
7. 4 APPLICATIONS
The wellbore stability software, DRILLER that was developed by the University
of Texas (Yu, 2001, 2002) was used to study the influence of salt concentration on
wellbore stability. We assumed a vertical well was drilled. The strengths and Young’s
moduli used are listed in Table 7-2. Other data such as the thermal and mechanical
information are obtained from Yu’s (2001) paper.
171
7.4.1 Effects of Salt Solutions on Mud-Weight-Window (MWW) of Pierre I Shale
The influence of the sodium and calcium chloride solutions on MWW of Pierre I
is shown in Figure 7-37. Three points can be observed from this figure. First, the more
concentrated the solutions, the wider the MWW. Secondly, calcium chloride is more
effective than sodium chloride at the same water activity for the Pierre I formation.
Finally, the formations were strengthened after exposure to different solutions except for
deioned water. During our calculations, the tensile strength was assumed to be
unchanged.
7.4.2 Effects of Salt Solutions on MWW of Arco Shale
The influence of the sodium and calcium chloride solutions on MWW of Arco
shale is shown in Figure 7-38. There are also three points that can be seen from this
figure. First, the MWW narrowed significantly after exposure to different solutions
because of the strength decrease. When exposed to deioned water, width of the MWW
was essentially zero, which means that it is impossible to avoid wellbore instability
problems when deioned water is used as a drilling fluid. Secondly, the MWW would be
wider with an increase in salt concentration. Finally, sodium chloride is more effective
than calcium chloride when exposed to Arco shale at the same water activity.
Comparing Figure 7-37 and Figure 7-38 we can draw several interesting
conclusions. First, the MWW of Pierre I shale would be wider after exposure to ionic salt
solutions because of strength enhancement due to water loss. This is also the reason why
the acoustic velocity increased after exposure to salt solutions. Shales react differently to
various salt solutions. Because of its low native water activity, the Arco shale has a
different response and it is weakened. Meanwhile, its acoustic velocity decreased after
exposure to salt solutions. Also the influence of different solutions on the MWW is
different. From the wellbore stability point of view, calcium chloride is more effective for
172
Pierre I shale, while sodium chloride is more effective for Arco shale at the same water
activity. Therefore, we need to optimize the mud formulation according to different
types of shale. In our study, we did not find any single drilling fluid that would maintain
wellbore stability for all types of shale.
7.5 CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions reached from this chapter are as follows:

1. Acoustic velocity, shale strength, and Young’s moduli for Pierre I shale
(aw=0.98) increased after interaction with ionic solutions. The more
concentrated the solution, the higher the acoustic velocity increase.
2. Acoustic velocity, shale strength, and Young’s moduli for Arco shale
(aw=0.78) deceased after exposure to both sodium and calcium chloride
solutions. The higher the water activity, the larger the reduction in shale
strength.
3. Adsorption of potassium ions greatly increased the strength of Pierre I shale.
4. The results from the “Gravimetric-Swelling Test” can be used to explain the
alteration of the mechanical properties of shale during interaction with fluids.
5. The loss of water increases the acoustic velocity and strength for Pierre I shale
and the uptake of water decreases the acoustic velocity and strength for Arco
shale.
6. We believe that shale fabric structure is altered after it is exposed to salt
solutions. Intergranular friction is reduced so that grains can slide past each
other to accommodate increasing stress. This lead to ductile failure.
7. There is a good relationship between the acoustic velocity and the mechanical
properties of shales. Therefore, it is feasible to use acoustic well logging data
to predict the mechanical properties of shale.
173
NOMENCLATURE
Vcr Relative acoustic velocity change, %;
Vf Final acoustic velocity after exposure to ionic solution [=] L/t

VF Velocity of the pore fluid [=] L/t
Vi Initial acoustic velocity [=] L/t;
VM Measured velocity [=] L/t
VR Velocity in rock solid
φ Porosity, %
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We greatly acknowledge the financial support provided by the companies

supporting Drilling Research Consortium.
REFERENCES
Amanullah, M., Marsden, J.R. and Shaw, H.F.: “ Effects of Rock-fluid Interactions on
Bol G. M.: “ The Effects of Various Polymers and Salts on Borehole and Cutting
Stability in Water-Based Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 14802 presented at the 1986
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.
Bol G. M. and Woodland D.C.:“ Borehole Stability in Shales”, SPE 24975 presented at
European Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18, November 1992.
Boonen, P., Bean, C., Tepper, R. and Deady, R.: “ Important Implications from A
Comparison of LWD and Wireline Acoustic Data From A gulf of Mexico Well”,
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998.
July 1998.
Carminati, S., Del Gaudio L., Zausa, F. and Brignoli, M.: “ How do Anions in Water–
Based Muds Affect Shale Stability?”, SPE 50712 presented at the 1999 SPE
174
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 16-19
February 1999.
Carminati S., Daudio L. Del and Brignoli M.: “ Shale Stabilisation by Pressure
Propagation Prevention”, SPE 63053 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
Carminati S., Gaudio L. Del, Piero G. Del and Brignoli M: “Water based Mud and Shale
Interaction”, SPE 65001 presented at the 2001 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 13-16 February 2001.
Chen G.“A Study of Wellbore Stability in Shales including Poroelastic, Chemical and
Thermal Effects ”, Ph. D dissertation, The University of Texas At Austin, 2001.
Chenevert M. E: “Shale Alternation by Water Adsorption”, ” SPE 2401 presented at the

SPE Fourth Conference on Drilling and Rock Mechanics held in Austin, Texas,
Jan. 14-15,1969.
Chenevert M. E: “Shale Control With Balanced-Activity Oil-Continuous Muds”, Journal

of Petroleum Technology, Oct. 1970.
Chenevert M. E. and Pernot Vincent: “ Control of Shale Swelling Pressure Using

Inhibited Water-Base Muds”, ” SPE 49263 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30
September 1998.
Clark, R.K., Scheuerman R.F., Rath H. and Van Laar H.G.: “ Polyacrylamide/Potassium-
Cook J. M. and Houwen O. H.: “ Effects of Strain Rate and Confining Pressure on the
Deformation and Failure of Shale”, SPE 19944 presented at the 1990 IADC/ SPE
David R. Lide: “ Handbook of Chemistry and Physics”, 73rd Edition, 1992~1993.
Daniel Garcia Gavito: “ A new Rock Strength Model and Its Practical Applications”, SPE
paper 35322 presented at the international Petroleum Conference and Exhibition
of Mexico held in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico, March 5-7, 1996.
Ewy R.T. and Stankovich R. J. “ Pore pressure change due to shale-fluid interaction:
Ewy R.T. , Daniels E.J. and Stankovich R. J. “ Behavior of a reactive shale from 12, 000
175
feet depth”, presented at the Proceedings DC Rocks, the 38th U. S. Rock
Fam M.A. and Dusseault M.B.: “ Shear Strength and Stiffness of Clay-Rich Sediments
during Drilling Operations”, SPE/ISRM 47257 presented at the SPE/ISRM
Eurock 98 held in Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July 1998.
Fam, M.A., Dusseault, M.B. and Fooks, J. C.: “ Drillingin mudrocks: rock behavior
Fonseca C.F. and Chenevert, M. E. “ The effect of Total Stress and Temperature on
Water Activity of Shales”, presented at 3rd North American Rock Mechanic
Symposium, Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, June 3-5,1998.

Feb. 18-21, 1992.
Horsrud P., Bostrom, B., Sonstebo, E.F., Holt, R.M.: “ Interaction Between Shale and
Water – Based Drilling Fluids: Laboratory Exposure Tests Give New Insight into
Mechanisms and Field Consequences of KCl Contents”, SPE 48986 presented at
the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27-30, September, 1998.

Kjosnes, I., Loklingholm, G., Saasen, A., Syrstad, S.O. and Agle, A. “ Successful water
Based Drilling Fluid Design for Optimizing Hole Cleaning and Hole Stability”,
SPE/IADC 85330 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference & Exhibition in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 20-22 October 2003.
Osisanya, S. O.: “ Experimental study of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”, The

University of Texas at Austin, Ph.D Dissertation, August, 1991
Pruett J.O.: “ A Potassium-Base Derivative of Humic Acid Proves Effective in

Minimizing Wellbore Enlargement in the Ventura Basin”, SPE/IADC 16080
presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, L.A.
March 15-18, 1987.
Richard V. Bovbjerc. and Peter W. Glynn : “ Saturated Solutions for the Control of
Humidity in Biological Research”, Ecology, January, 1960, Vol.41 No.1, 232-
176
236.

Schlemmer, R., Friedheim, J.E., Growcock, F. B., Bloys, J.B., Headlley, J.A. and
Polnaszek, S.C.: “ Membrane Efficiency in Shale-An Empirical of Drilling Fluid
Chemistries and Implication for Fluid Design”, SPE 74557 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February 2002.
Tare, U.A., Mese, A.I. and Mody, F.K.:“ Interpretation and Application of Acoustic and
Transient Pressure Response to Enhance Shale (In)Stability Predictions”, SPE
63052 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
Van Oort, E., Hale, A.H. and Mody F.K.: “ Manipulation of Coupled Osmotic Flows for
Stabilisation of Shales Exposed to Water-Based Drilling Fluids”, SPE 30499, SPE
Annual Technical conference & Exhibition, Dallas, U.S.A., 22-25 Oct., 1995.
Walker, Thad O., Dearing, H.L. and Simpson, J.P.: “ The Role of Potassium in Lime
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., and Gardner, L.W.: “ An Experimental Investigation of

Factors affecting Elastic Wave velocities in Porous Media”, Geophysics, V. 23,
459-493 (1958).
Yarlong Wang and Baoping Lu: “ Fully Coupled Chemico-Geomechanics Model and
Applications to Wellbore Stability in Shale Formation in an Underbalanced Field
Conditions”, SPE 78978 presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology
Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 4-7 November 2002.
Yu, M., Chen G., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.(2001), “ Chemical and Thermal
Effects on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, SPE 71366, New Orleans,
USA, Sept. 30-Oct., 3, 2001.
Yu, M.: “ Chemical and thermal effects on wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, Ph.D
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
177
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/soundv.html
178
Table 7-1 - Inoic radii (after Pruett, 1987)
Ions Dehydrated Hydrated (Angstrom)

(Angstrom)
Li 0.78 10.03
Na 0.98 7.9
K 1.33 5.32
NH4 1.43 5.37
Mg 0.78 10.8
Ca 1.06 9.6
Table 7-2 - Strength and Young's moduli used in DRILLER.
Shale Type Strength Young’s Modulus

(Psi) (105 Psi)
Native 5500 1.65
Water 4934 1.38
Pierre I 0.95 aw NaCl 5789 1.44
0.85 aw NaCl 6556 1.83
0.75 aw NaCl 8948 2.13
0.95 aw CaCl2 6258 1.56
0.85 aw CaCl2 8061 1.98
0.75 aw CaCl2 9600 2.12
Native 6000 2.62
Water 1600 1.28
0.95 aw NaCl 2600 1.40
Arco 0.85 aw NaCl 4600 2.31
0.75 aw NaCl 4700 2.47
0.95 aw CaCl2 2650 1.12
0.85 aw CaCl2 3300 1.92
0.75 aw CaCl2 3590 2.02
179
Figure 7-1 – Influence of pore pressure increase and formation weakening on wellbore
instability.
Figure 7-2 – Schematic of equipment setup used to measure acoustic velocity.
180
Figure 7-3 – Equipment for measuring acoustic velocity of shale.
10
t = 0.3667Th+ 0.1043
R2 = 0.9996
Transmit Time, us
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Thickness, mm
Figure 7-4 – Transducer calibration and face-to-face time determination.
181
7000
Brittle Failure
6000

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Micro-Strain
Figure 7-5 – Stress-strain curve for Pierre I shale exposure to 19 wt% NaCl solution.
7000
6000
Plastic Failure
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 20000 40000 60000
Micro-Strain
Figure 7-6 – Stress-strain curve for Arco shale exposure to 19 wt% NaCl solution.
182
2700
Deioned
Water
2650 8.0 wt % NaCl
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s

2600 19.0 wt% NaCl
2550
2500
2450
2400
2350
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-7 – Effect of NaCl concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale.
2650
2600
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s
2550
2500 Deioned Water

10.1 wt% CaCl2
18.8 wt% CaCl2
2450 24.8 wt% CaCl2
2400
2350
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-8 – Effect of CaCl2 concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale.
183
2600
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s

2550 Deioned Water
10 wt% KCl
20 wt% KCl
2500
25.6 wt% KCl
2450
2400
2350
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-9 – Effect KCl concentration on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale.
2650
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s
2600
2550
2500
aw=0.85 KCl
2450 aw=0.85 NaCl
aw=0.85 CaCl2
2400
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-10 – Effect of different solution on acoustic velocity of Pierre I shale.
184
10
NaCl
Sonic Velocity Change, %

8 CaCl2
KCl
6
-2
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Salt Concentration, w%
Figure 7-11 – Effect of salt concentration on acoustic velocity change for Pierre I shale.
10
NaCl
8
CaCl2
6 KCl
0
Native Shale
-2
-4
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Water Movement, %
Figure 7-12 – Effects of water movement on acoustic velocity change of Pierre I shale.
185
10

NaCl
8
CaCl2
6 KCl
-2
Native Shale
-4
-0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
Ions Movement, %
Figure 7-13 – Effect of ion movement on acoustic velocity for Pierre I shale.
10000
8000
6000
4000
Deioned Water
19 wt% NaCl
2000 26 wt% NaCl
Native
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-14 – Effect of NaCl solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale.
186
10000

8000
6000
4000
10.1 % CaCl2
18.8 % CaCl2
24.8 % CaCl2
2000
Native
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-15 – Effect of CaCl2 solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale.
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
10 % KCl
20 % KCl
2000 25.6 % KCl
Native
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-16 – Effect of KCl solution on stress-strain curves for Pierre I shale.
187
3
NaCl
Young's Modulus, 105 psi

2.5 CaCl2
KCl
2
1.5
1
Native Shale
0.5
0
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-17 – Effects of different solution on Young’s moduli of Pierre I shale.
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000 NaCl
CaCl2
5000
KCl Native Shale
4000
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-18 – Effect of water activity on deviatoric strength for Pierre I shale.
188
10000
NaCl

9000 CaCl2
KCl
8000
7000
6000
Native Shale
5000
4000
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Water Movement, %
Figure 7-19 – Effects of water movement on deviatoric strength of Pierre I shale.
10000
NaCl
9000 CaCl2
KCl
8000
7000
6000
5000
Native Shale
4000
-0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
Ion Movement, %
Figure 7-20 – Effect of ion movement on deviatoric strength for Pierre I shale.
189
10000
Strength = 3*10 Vp5.4121
-15
Deviatric Strength, psi

9000 R2 = 0.7366
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700
Sonic Velocity, m/s
Figure 7-21 – Relationship between acoustic velocity and compressive strength for Pierre
I shale immersed in various solutions of NaCl, KCl, and CaCl2.
3600
Deioned Water
3500 8.0 wt % NaCl
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s
19.0 wt% NaCl

26.0 wt% NaCl
3400
3300
3200
3100
3000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-22 – Effect of NaCl concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
190
3600
Deioned Water
3500 10.1 wt% CaCl2
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s

18.8 wt% CaCl2
24.8 wt% CaCl2
3400
3300
3200
3100
3000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-23 – Effect of CaCl2 concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
3600
3500
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s
3400
3300 Deioned Water

10 wt% KCl
20 wt% KCl
3200
25.6 wt% KCl
3100
3000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-24 – Effects of KCl concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
191
3600
3550
Sonic Veloctiy, m/s

3500 aw=0.85 KCl
aw=0.85 NaCl
3450
aw=0.85 CaCl2
3400
3350
3300
3250
3200
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time, minutes
Figure 7-25 – Effect of different solutions (aw= 0.85) on acoustic velocity of Arco shale.
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10 NaCl
CaCl2
-12 KCl
-14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Salt Concentration, wt%
Figure 7-26 – Effect of salt concentration on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
192
0

NaCl
-2
CaCl2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Water Movement, %
Figure 7-27 – Effect of water movement on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
0
NaCl
-2 CaCl2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-0.8 -0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 1
Ion Movement, %
Figure 7-28 – Effect of ion movement on acoustic velocity for Arco shale.
193
7000
6000

5000
4000
3000
Deioned Water
2000 8 wt% NaCl
19 wt% NaCl
26 wt% NaCl
1000 Native Shale
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-29 – Effect of NaCl solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale.
7000
6000
Deviatoric Stres, psi
5000
4000
3000
2000 10.1 wt% CaCl2

18.8 wt% CaCl2
1000 24.8 wt% CaCl2
Native Shale
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-30 – Effect of CaCl2 solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale.
194
12000
10000
Deviatoric Stress, psi 8000
6000
4000
10 wt% KCl
20 wt% KCl
2000 25.6 wt% KCl
Native Shale
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Micro Strain
Figure 7-31 – Effect of KCl solution on stress-strain curves for Arco shale.
5.5
NaCl
Young's modulus, 105 psi
5 CaCl2
4.5 KCl
4
3.5
Native Shale
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-32 – Effect of different solutions on Young’s moduli (Arco shale).
195
12000

10000
Native Shale
8000 NaCl
CaCl2
6000 KCl
4000
2000
0
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-33 – Effect of salt solution on deviatoric strength of Arco shale.
6000
Native Shale NaCl
5000 CaCl2
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Water Movement, wt%
Figure 7-34 – Effect of water movement on deviatoric strength of Arco shale.
196
6000

5000 Native Shale
NaCl
CaCl2
4000
3000
2000
1000
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0
Ions Movement, wt%
Figure 7-35 – Effect of ion movement on deviatoric strength of Arco shale.
5000
-19 6.3082
Strength = 2*10 Vp
2
4000 R = 0.9217
3000
2000
1000
0
2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500
Sonic Velocity, m/s
Figure 7-36 – Relationship between acoustic velocity and compressive strength for Arco
shale immersed in various solutions of NaCl, KCl, and CaCl2.
197
20
Break Down
18
Mud Weight, ppg

16 Native Shale
Safe Region
14
12
NaCl
10
CaCl2
Collapse
8
6
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-37 – Effects of salt solution on mud weight window for Pierre I shale.
19
Break Down
17
Mud Weight, ppg
15 CaCl2
Safe Region
13
11
NaCl
9
Native Shale
7
Collapse
5
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
Figure 7-38 – Influence of salt solution on mud weight window for Arco shale.
198
Chapter 8 : Stability of Deviated and Horizontal Wells: Mechanical,
Chemical and Thermal Effects
ABSTRACT
Wellbore instability (particularly in shale) is regarded as a major problem in oil

and gas drilling operations. Many factors, such as rock properties, in-situ stresses,
chemical shale/fluid interactions and thermal effects, should be considered in well
trajectory designs and drilling fluid formulations in order to reduce wellbore instability
problems.
A comprehensive study of wellbore stability in shale formations that takes into
account the 3-dimensional earth stresses around the wellbore as well as chemical and
thermal effects is presented in this work. The effects of borehole configuration (e.g.
inclination and azimuth), rock properties (e.g. cohesion, friction angle, Poisson’s ratio,
membrane efficiency and permeability), temperature and drilling fluid properties (e.g.
mud density and chemical concentrations) on wellbore stability in shale formations have
been investigated.
Results from this study indicate that for low permeability shales, chemical
interactions between the shale and water-based fluids play an important role. Not only is
the activity of the water important but the diffusion of ions is also a significant factor for
saline fluids. Cooling drilling fluids is found to be beneficial in preventing compressive
failure. However, decreasing the mud temperature can be detrimental since it reduces the
fracture pressure of the formation, which can result in lost circulation problems. The
magnitude of these thermal effects, depend very much on shale properties, earth stresses
and wellbore orientation and deviation.
Conditions are identified when chemical and thermal effects play a significant
role in determining the mud-weight-window when designing drilling programs for
199
horizontal and deviated wells. The results presented in this chapter will help in lowering
the risks associated with wellbore stability and thereby lower the overall well drilling
costs.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
With the development of drilling technologies, directional, horizontal, and

extended-reach wells are becoming routine operations (Ottesen and Kwakwa, 1991; Ong
et al., 2000). However, one of the critical problems that has hampered the lowering of
drilling costs is wellbore instability. When combating this problem, a comprehensive
study must be undertaken due to the unique properties of shales, as discussed in previous
chapters.
Formation mechanical properties that affect wellbore stability include in-situ
stress state, compressive strength, internal frictional angle, elastic modulus, and Poisson
ratio. After analyzing 450 drilling records in the western Canadian Over-thrust Belt,
Woodland (1990) pointed out that borehole instability is a rock mechanics problem.
Ottesen et al. (1991) studied the mechanical effects on the wellbore stability of the first
horizontal well in the U. K. sector of the North Sea. They found that determining in-situ
stress is of great importance in studying wellbore stability in horizontal wells. Chen et al.
(1996) concluded that rock strength was much more important in wellbore stability than
rock elastic properties, drainage conditions and bedding planes.
Based on analyzing the in-situ stresses and rock properties, Moos et al. (1998) put
forward a method to optimize well trajectories. Awal et al. (2001) found that the
optimized trajectory can be vertical, directional, or horizontal, depending on whether the
region is tectonically relaxed or active and also whether or not, the prevailing in-situ
stress is normal, thrust, or of a strike-slip faulting type. When a vertical well is drilled
into a normal faulting stress regime ( σ v > σ H > σ h ), such as was done in the Ula Field a
200
stable wellbore resulted (Last et al., 1996). However, under a strike-slip faulting stress
regime ( σ H > σ v > σ h ), such as is found in the Cusiana Field, directional and
horizontal wells are more stable than vertical wells. Russell et al. (2003) recommended
that the wellbore should not be drilled parallel to the maximum horizontal stress ( σ H ) in
the Tullich Field, North Sea.

From the above review, we see that an optimal well trajectory is one of the key
factors for successfully drilling through shales. In wellbore stability terms, optimal well
trajectory can be obtained by considering both strength and in-situ stress anisotropies
(Ong et al., 1993).
Several types of well trajectories, such as build-and-hold, S-shape etc. are
available (Ma et al., 1998). Normally, the build-and-hold trajectory, as shown in Figure
8-1, is chosen (Ma, et al 1998; Ong et al. 2000). This trajectory is also referred to as a
“three-section” trajectory as it includes a vertical section, a build section, and a hold
section. As with any wellbore profile, two key parameters in the tangent section: azimuth
( Φ a ) and inclination ( α t ) define the wellbore trajectory. Therefore, the well trajectory
optimization is based on the selection of these two parameters.

Wellbore stability should not be studied without considering chemical and
thermal effects because they affect both local stress distributions and rock mechanical
properties. From Chapter 7, we see that strength and acoustic properties of shales are
altered by the chemical shale/mud interaction. In addition, Fam et al. (2003) found that
the compressive strength can be reduced by 10% for an increase in temperature from 20
to 60oC.
8.2 STRESSES MODEL
The local stress distribution around a wellbore are controlled by in-situ stresses,
chemical, thermal, and hydraulic effects.
201
8.2.1 Local Stresses Induced by In-situ Stresses and Hydraulic Effects
The total stress states around a wellbore as governed by in-situ stresses and
hydraulic effects are expressed as follows (Fjaer et al., 1992):
⎧ ⎛ σ x + σ y ⎞⎛ rw 2 ⎞ ⎛ σ x − σ y ⎞⎛ rw 4 rw 2 ⎞⎟
⎜
⎪σ rr = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎪ 2 ⎟⎜1 − r 2 ⎟ + ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜1 + 3 r 4 − 4 r 2 ⎟ cos 2θ
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
⎪
⎪ ⎛ rw 4 rw 2 ⎞⎟ r
⎪ ⎜
+ τ xy 1 + 3 4 − 4 2 sin 2θ + w Pw
⎜ r r ⎠ ⎟ r
⎪ ⎝
⎪
⎪ ⎛ σ x + σ y ⎞⎛ rw 2 ⎞ ⎛ σ x − σ y ⎞⎛ rw 4 ⎞⎟
σ = ⎜ ⎟⎜ 1 + ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1 + 3 cos 2θ
⎪ θθ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ r 2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ r 4 ⎟
⎪ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
⎪ ⎛
⎪ r 4⎞ r
− τ xy ⎜1 + 3 w4 ⎟ sin 2θ − w Pw
⎪ ⎜ r ⎟⎠ r
⎪ ⎝
⎨
⎪ ⎡ rw 2 rw 2 ⎤
σ
⎪ zz = σ z − ν ⎢ (
2 σ x − σ )
y 2
cos 2 θ + 4 τ xy 2 sin 2 θ ⎥
⎪ ⎢
⎣ r r ⎥⎦
⎪
⎪τ = ⎛⎜ σ x − σ y ⎞⎟⎛⎜1 − 3 rw + 2 rw ⎞⎟ sin 2θ + τ ⎛⎜1 − 3 rw + 2 rw ⎞⎟ sin 2θ
4 2 4 2
⎪ rθ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ r4 r 2 ⎟⎠
xy ⎜
r4 r 2 ⎟⎠
⎪ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎝
⎪ ⎛ 2⎞
( )
⎪τ θz = − τ xz sin θ + τ yz cos θ ⎜1 + rw ⎟
⎜
⎪ ⎝ r 2 ⎟⎠
⎪
⎪ ⎛ r 2⎞
( )
⎪τ rz = − τ xz cos θ + τ yz sin θ ⎜1 − w2 ⎟
⎜
⎪⎩ ⎝ r ⎟⎠
(8-1)
At the wellbore wall ( r = rw ), the above equations can be expressed as (see
Appendix 3 for derivation):
202
⎧σ rr = Pw
⎪
( ) ( )
⎪
[( )
⎪
(
⎪τ = τ = 0
⎩ rθ rz (8-2)
8.2.2 Local Stresses Induced by Chemical and Thermal Effects
Local stresses induced by chemical and thermal effects can be expressed as (Yu et
al., 2001)
⎧ α p (1 − 2ν ) 1 r f Eα m 1
r
⎪σ rr = ∫
P (r , t )rdr + ∫ T f (r, t )rdr
⎪ 1 − ν 2
r r
p
3(1 − ν ) 2
r r
⎪ w w
⎪ α p (1 − 2ν ) ⎡ 1 f ⎤
⎪σ θθ = − ⎢ Pp (r, t )rdr − Pp f (r, t )⎥
⎪ 1− ν ⎣r 2
⎦
⎨
⎪ ⎡ r ⎤
Eα m ⎢ 1
⎪ − T (r, t )rdr − T (r, t )⎥
∫
f f
⎪ 3(1 − ν ) ⎢ r 2 ⎥
⎣ rw ⎦
⎪
⎪ α p (1 − 2ν ) f Eα m f
⎪σ zz = Pp (r, t ) + T (r, t )
⎩ 1− ν 3(1 − ν ) (8-3)
Pp f (r, t ) = Pp (r, t ) − Pi
(8-4)
T f (r, t ) = T(r, t ) − Ti (8-5)
In Equation (8-3), the first term accounts for the chemical and the second term for
thermal effects.
At the wellbore wall ( r = rw ), Equation (8-3) can be expressed as
203
⎧
⎪σ = 0
⎪ rr
⎪⎪ α p (1 − 2ν )
⎨σ θθ = − (Pw − Pi ) + Eα m (Tw − Ti ) (8-6)
⎪ 1− ν 3(1 − ν )
⎪ α p (1 − 2ν )
⎪σ zz = (Pw − Pi ) + Eα m (Tw − Ti )
⎪⎩ 1− ν 3(1 − ν )
8.2.3 Pore Pressure and Temperature Profiles
It can be observed from Equation (8-6) that the pore pressure and temperature
profiles need to be determined in order to calculate the stress distribution around a
wellbore. The pore pressure profile is altered by water and ion movement into or out of
the shale due to hydraulic, chemical, and electrical potentials. The electrical effects are
beyond this discussion. Pore pressure caused by hydraulic and chemical potentials can be
calculated as (Lomba et al., 2000):
∂P K I 2 nRTK II ∂C s
− ∇ P− =0
∂t c f D eff c f ∂t (8-7)
The solute concentration profile ( C s ) in the above equation can be calculated by
the following diffusivity equation (Yu et al., 2001):

∂C s
− D eff ∇ 2 C s = 0
∂t (8-8)
Boundary and initial conditions for solute concentration and pore pressure can be
expressed as
⎧C s (r,0) = C i ; Pp (r,0) = Pi
⎪⎪
⎨C s (rw , t ) = C df ; P p (rw , t ) = Pw
⎪
⎪⎩C s (∞, t ) = C i ; Pp (∞,0) = Pi
(8-9)
For a radial system, the formation temperature equation can be described as (see
204
reference by Chen et al., 2003 for derivation and more detailed discussion)
∂T ⎛ ∂ 2 T 1 ∂T ⎞
= c0 ⎜ 2 + ⎟
∂t ⎜ ∂r r ∂r ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (8-10)
The initial and boundary conditions are as follows

⎧T(r,0 ) = Ti
⎪
⎨T(rw , t ) = Tw
⎪T(∞, t ) = T
⎩ i (8-11)
Pore pressure and temperature profiles can be obtained by solving Equations (8-
7), (8-8) and (8-10) with their corresponding initial and boundary conditions.
8.3 FAILURE CRITERIA
8.3.1 Compressive Failure
In this chapter, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is used to evaluate

compressive failure (Fjaer et al., 1992):
(σ1 − α p Pp ) ≤ C0 + (σ3 − α p Pp )tan 2 Φ (8-12)
8.3.2 Tensile Failure
When the minimum effective principle stress at the wellbore is less than the
tensile strength of the formation (assuming compression is positive), tensile failure
occurs. Therefore, the tensile criterion can be expressed as:
(σ3 − α p Pp ) ≤ − σ t (8-13)
where, σ t is the tensile strength of the rock.
8.4 WELLBORE STABILITY ANALYSIS
8.4.1 Input Data
Three types of in-situ stress regimes are considered in this chapter: normal
205
faulting, thrust faulting, and strike-slip faulting. The data for in-situ stresses used in our
simulation are shown in Table 8-1.
Other information, including mechanical, chemical, and thermal properties is
listed in Table 8-2.
8.4.2 Mechanical Effects on Wellbore Stability
8.4.2.1 In-situ stresses
Under a normal faulting stress regime, the effects of well azimuth and inclination
(0o for a vertical well and 90o for a horizontal well) on the mud-weight-window (MWW)
are shown in Figure 8-2. The figure contains three pairs of lines, which represents three
well directions ( A = 0 for a well along the σ H , A = 90 along σ h , and A = 45 between
σ H and σ h ). In this figure, the lower set of lines stands for the lower critical mud weight
below which compressive failure occur, and the upper set of lines indicates upper critical
mud weight beyond which tensile failure occurs.
It is seen from Figure 8-2 that when A = 0 , the lower critical mud weight
increases (from 10.1 ppg for a vertical well to 12 ppg for a horizontal well), while the
upper bound decreases (from 19.1 ppg for a vertical well to about 18 ppg for a horizontal
well) with an increase of inclination. This is due to the fact that under a normal faulting
stress regime, the stress concentration increased with well inclination. This requires
higher mud weights to prevent compressive failure.
Comparing the three cases: A = 0 , A = 45 , and A = 90 , we see that the lower
critical mud weight is the lowest, while the upper critical mud weight is the highest at the
same inclination when A = 90 . Therefore, under the simulated normal faulting stress
regime, the optimized directional well trajectory is along σ h with low inclinations.
The effects of well inclination and azimuth on the MWW under a thrust faulting
stress regime ( σ H > σ h > σ v ) are shown in Figure 8-3. It is seen from this figure that
206
when A = 45 , both lower and upper critical mud weight decreases with increasing
inclinations. This means that directional wells are less apt to have compressive failure,
and easier to have tensile failure than vertical wells.
Comparing the three cases: A = 0 , A = 45 , and A = 90 , we see that the lower
critical mud weight is the lowest, while the upper critical mud weight is the highest at the
same inclination when A = 0 . Therefore, under our simulated thrust faulting stress
regime, the optimized directional well trajectory is along σ H with high well inclinations.
Figure 8-4 shows the effects of well inclination and azimuth on the MWW under
strike-slip faulting stress regime. It is seen that the lower critical mud weight decreases
while the upper critical mud weight increases with the increase of well inclination in all
three cases. This means that under strike-slip faulting conditions, directional and
horizontal wells are more stable than vertical wells. The effects of well azimuth should be
considered in two ways. If the wellbore instability problem is dominated by compressive
failure, then drilling along σ H ( A = 0 ) results in more stable boreholes. On the other
hand, if the wellbore instability problem is dominated by tensile failure, then drilling
along the direction between the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses ( A = 45 )
will result in more stable boreholes. The specific direction will be determined by the
magnitude of the in-situ stresses.
From the above analysis, we see that the in-situ stress state plays a critical role in
the determination of a suitable well trajectory for maintaining wellbore stability.
Different optimal well trajectories should be determined according to the various in-situ
stress conditions.
In addition to the in-situ stresses, other mechanical properties of rocks that affect
wellbore stability will be discussed below. In the following discussion, we only consider
the normal faulting stress regime.
207
8.4.2.2 Cohesive strength
As discussed in Chapter 7, we see that the compressive strength is altered due to

the interaction between shales and water based muds. Generally, in such cases, the
cohesive strength of the formation decreased (Chen et al., 2003). In order to study the
effects of cohesion on wellbore stability, we assumed the wellbore inclination to be 60˚,
well azimuth 30˚, and tensile strength to be constant. Other information used is shown in
Table 2. The effect of cohesion on the MWW is shown in Figure 8-5.
As shown in Figure 8-5, the lower critical mud weight increases with decreasing
cohesion. For example, we noted in Chapter 7 that the deviatoric compressive strength of
Arco shale decreases from 5950 psi to 2600 psi after it was exposed to a 0.95 aw NaCl
solution. By using the Griffith crack propagation theory, we have
σD2
C0 =
(σ D + 2 ⋅ σ c ) (8-14)
After substituting the deviatoric strength and confining stress into the above
equation, we are able to obtain cohesion values to be between 2220 psi and 540 psi for
5950 psi and 2600 psi deviatoric strengths. Therefore, the cohesion decreased from 2220
psi to 540 psi after the Arco shale was exposed to the 0.95 aw NaCl solution. From Figure
8-5, we see that the mud weight must be increased from 11.1 ppg to 14.5 ppg in order to
maintain wellbore stability in the Arco shale when a 0.95 aw NaCl solution is used.
8.4.2.3 Frictional angle
In addition to cohesion, the frictional angle is altered by mud/shale interactions

(Chen et al., 2002a). It is seen in Figure 8-6 that the lower critical mud weight increases
significantly with a decreasing internal frictional angle. For example, lower critical mud
weights increased from 10 ppg to 13.5 ppg when the internal friction angle decreased
from 40˚ to 20˚.
208
8.4.2.4 Poissons ratio
The effects of the Poisson ratio on the MWW are shown in Figure 8-7. It is seen
that the upper critical mud weight decreases with an increase in the Poissons ratio, while
the influence of Poissons ratio on the lower critical mud weight is small. Generally, the
mud density is determined based on the lower critical mud weight, so the effects of
Poissons ratio on wellbore stability is negligible. This result matches the observation by
Ottesen and Kwakwa (1991).
8.4.3 Chemical Effects in Wellbore Stability
8.4.3.1 Shale permeability
The effect of permeability on critical mud weight is shown in Figure 8-8. It can be
seen from this figure that the lower critical weight increases, while the upper critical mud
weight decreases with decreasing permeability (assuming all other parameters remain the
same). This is because the effective stress in a lower permeability formation is lower at
any given time compared to that of a high permeability formation, which causes wellbore
instability problems (Yu et al., 2001). For example, when the permeability is equal to 2
nd, the upper critical mud weight reaches the lower critical mud weight. This means that
wellbore instability problems cannot be avoided when drilling through such low
permeability formations.
8.4.3.2 Pore pressure
Pore pressure plays a crucial role in wellbore stability. The chemical effects,
involving water and ion movement into or out of shale formations, and thermal effects
can change the pore pressure distribution around the wellbore, which may cause wellbore
instability problems. The effects of pore pressure on MWW are shown in Figure 8-9.
We see from Figure 8-9 that the lower critical mud weight increases, while the
upper critical mud weight decreases with an increase in pore pressure. This means that
209
both compressive and tensile failures easily occur due to an effective stress decrease
with increasing pore pressure. Therefore, it is of great importance to prevent pore
pressure increases around a wellbore so as to improve wellbore stability.
8.4.3.3 Membrane efficiency
The effects of membrane efficiency (KII) on MWW are shown in Figure 8-10.
Here, it is important to note that KII is a negative value; therefore, a higher absolute value
represents a larger membrane efficiency.
It can be seen from Figure 8-10 that the lower critical mud weight increases,
while the upper critical mud weight decreases with increasing KII. This demonstrates that
when the concentration of the drilling fluid is less than that of the pore fluid, the semi-
membrane properties of shale is detrimental to wellbore stability. From this result, we are
able to predict that wellbore stability can be improved when high ionic concentration
drilling fluid is used to drill shale formation with high membrane efficiency.
8.4.3.4 Diffusion coefficient
The effects of the ionic diffusion constants on the MWW are shown in Figure 8-
11. It is seen that the lower critical mud weight decreases while the upper critical mud
weight increases with increased diffusion coefficient when the concentration of the
drilling fluid is lower than that of the pore fluid. From our discussion on water and ion
movement in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, we know that the movement of water and ion
occurs simultaneously and that the movement of water is hampered by the movement of
ions. When the ion concentration in the drilling fluid is lower than that in the pore fluid,
ions diffuse from the pore fluid into the drilling fluid and water moves in the opposite
direction. For a high diffusion coefficient, diffusion of ions from the pore fluid into the
drilling fluid helps prevent more water movement into the formation. This, in turn,
prevents a high pore pressure increase, which improves wellbore stability.
210
8.4.4 Thermal Effects on Wellbore Stability
8.4.4.1 Mud in-let temperature
The effects of the mud inlet temperature on the MWW are shown in Figure 8-12.
It should be noted that the effects of temperature on strength (tension and compressive)
are not considered in this analysis.
It is seen that both lower and upper critical mud weights decrease with decreasing
mud inlet temperature due to the fact that a lower compressive stress is generated when
the mud temperature is lowered. This demonstrates that although mud cooling is
beneficial to prevent compressive failure, it is detrimental to tensile failure. Therefore in
formations with low fracture pressures, we should avoid mud cooling.
8.4.4.2 Geothermal gradient
Figure 8-13 shows the effects of the geothermal gradient on MWW. As shown in
this figure, both lower and upper critical mud weights decrease with an increase in the
geothermal gradient. This means that in high geothermal gradient formations, care should
be taken to avoid tensile failure, while in low geothermal gradient formations,
compressive failure is more likely and should be avoided.
8.4.4.3 Volumetric-thermal-expansion-constant
The volumetric-thermal-expansion-coefficient (sometimes simply called thermal

expansion coefficient) is a thermodynamic property of a substance given by
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ ∂ρ ⎞
β = −⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟ (8-15)
⎝ ρ ⎠⎝ ∂T ⎠ ρ=const ,
Volumetric-thermal-expansion-coefficients for different rocks vary from 2.4×10-5

o –1
F for basalts to 5.5×10-5 oF-1 for sandstones (Yu et al., 2002). The effects of
volumetric- thermal-expansion-coefficients of the rock matrix on the MWW are shown in
211
Figure 8-14.
It can be seen from Figure 8-14 that both lower and upper critical mud weights
decrease with increasing matrix volumetric-thermal-expansion-constants. Since the
bottom hole mud temperature is less than the formation temperature, a lower thermal
compressive stress is generated when the matrix volumetric thermal expansion constant is
high, which causes both lower and upper critical mud weights to decrease.
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
1. Well trajectory optimization for wellbore stability purposes should be based

on the in-situ stress state. Under normal faulting stress regime conditions, a
vertical well is more stable than a directional or a horizontal well. However,
directional and horizontal wells are more stable than vertical wells in thrust
faulting stress regions. Under strike-slip faulting stress regime conditions, the
determination of the well inclination and azimuth should be based on the
magnitude and direction of the stress state.
2. Formation permeability has a significant effect on wellbore stability in shales.
More wellbore instability problems are expected in low permeable shales than
in high permeability shales (all else being the same).
3. Cooling drilling fluids is found to be beneficial for preventing compressive
failure. However, decreasing the mud temperature can be detrimental since it
reduces the fracture pressure of the formation, which can result in lost
circulation problems.
4. The thermal expansion coefficient of the rock matrix is a crucial controlling
parameter when studying thermal effects on wellbore instability. In formations
with a low thermal expansion coefficient, the thermal effect is not significant.
5. In weak and low permeability shale formations, besides the mechanical
212
properties, chemical and thermal effects should be considered when
addressing wellbore instability problems.
NOMENCLATURE
az Well azimuth [=] degree
c0 Thermal diffusivity [=] L2/t
Cf Fluid compressibility [=] t/m
C0 Cohesive strength [=] F/L2
Cdf Drilling fluid solute concentration [=] mol/L3
Ci Initial pore fluid solute concentration [=] mol/L3
Cs Pore fluid solute concentration [=] mol/L3
D eff Effective solute diffusion coefficient [=] L2/t
iw Well inclination [=] degrees
KI A parameter related to permeability [=] L3-t/m
K II A parameter related to membrane efficiency [=] L3-t/m
K fr Bulk modulus of the skeleton material [=] m/L-t2
Ks Bulk modulus of the dry rock [=] m/L-t2
n Number of molars of constituent of dissociating solute [=] amount
Pp
Pore pressure [=] m/L-t2
Pi Initial pore pressure [=] m/L-t2
213
Pw Wellbore pressure [=] m/L-t2
P f (r, t ) Pore pressure fluctuation [=] m/L-t2
r Near wellbore position [=] L
rw Wellbore radius [=] L
R Ideal gas constant [=] m-L2/t2-amount-T
t Time [=] t
T Formation temperature [=] T
T0 Initial formation temperature [=] T
Tw Wellbore wall temperature [=] T
∞ Far field position [=] L
θ Point location angle [=] degrees
Φ Internal frictional angle [=] degrees
σ1 Maximum principle stress [=] m/L-t2
σ2 Medium principle stress [=] m/L-t2
σ3 Minimum principle stress [=] m/L-t2
σh Minimum in-situ horizontal stress [=] m/L-t2
σH Maximum in-situ horizontal stress [=] m/L-t2
σt Tensile strength [=] m/L-t2
σv
Overburden stress [=] m/L-t2
214
σ rr Radial normal stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
σ θθ Hoop stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
σ zz Axial stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
σx Normal stress in x-direction [=] m/L-t2
σy
Normal stress in y-direction [=] m/L-t2
σz Axial stress [=] m/L-t2
τ θz Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
τ rz Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
τ rθ Shear stress at wellbore [=] m/L-t2
τ xy
In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2
τ yz
In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2
τ zx In-situ shear stress in (x, y, z) coordinated system [=] m/L-t2

αp
Biot’s constant, dimensionless
Φz Well azimuth in target section [=] degrees
REFERENCES
Awal, M.R., Khan, M.S., Mohiuddin, M.A., Abdulraheem, A. and Azeemuddin, M.: “ A
New Approach to Borehole Trajectory Optimization for Increased Hole Stability”,
SPE 68092 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 17-
20 March 2001.
215
Chen, X., Tan, C.P. and Haberfield, C.M.: “ Wellbore Stability Analysis Guidelines for
Practical Well Design”, SPE 36972 presented at the 1996 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference held in Adelaide, South Australia, 28-31 October 1996.
2002a.
Chen, X., Tan, C.P. and Haberfield, C.M.: “ A Comprehensive, Practical Approach For
Wellbore Instability Management”, SPE Drilling and Completion December
2002b (SPE48898 & SPE 80146)

1147.
Chenevert M.E. and Sharma A.K.: “ Permeability and Effective Pore Pressure of Shales”,
SPE21918 presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amersterdam. 11-14 March 1991.
Dowson, S.L., Willson S.M., Wolfson L., Ramos G.G. and Tare U.A.: “ An Integrated
Solution of Extended-Reach Drilling Problems in the Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part I
– Wellbore Stability Assessment”, SPE 56563 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
Fam, M.A., Dusseault, M.B. and Fooks, J. C.: “ Drilling in mudrocks: rock behavior
Fjaer, E. et al: “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics”, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992.
Forsans, T. M. and Schmitt L.: “ Capillary forces: The neglected factor in shale
216
1994.
Klimentos, T., Harouaka, A., Mtawaa, B., and Saner S.: “ Experimental Determination
of the Biot Elastic Constant: Applications in Formation Evaluation (Sonic
Porosity, Rock Strength, Earth Stresses and Sanding Predictions)”, SPE 30593
USA, 22-25 October, 1995.
Ladanyi, B. “ Discussion of Paper by Brace and Martin: ‘ A test of the law of effective
pp.123-124 (1970).
Last, N.C. and Mclean, M.R.: “ Assessing the impact of Trajectory on Wells Drilled in an
Overthrust Region”, SPE 30465 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25. (JPT, July1996)
Last, N.C., Harkness, R.M. and Plumb, R.A.: “From Theory to Practice: Evaluation of
the Stress Distribution for Wellbore Stability Analysis in an Overthrust Regime
by Computational Modeling and Field Calibration”, SPE/ISRM 47209 presented
at the SPE/IRSM Eurock’ 98 held in Trondhelm, Norway, 8-10, July 1998.
(2000) 25-35.
Ma, Shanzhou, Huang, Genlu, Zhang, Jianguo and Han, Zhiyong: “ Study on Design of
1998.
Maury, V. and Guenot, A.: “ Practical Advantages of Mud Cooling Systems for Drilling’,
SPE/IADC 25732 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, Feb.23-25.
Maury, V.: “ Rock failure mechanisms identification: a key for wellbore stability and
reservoir behavior problem”, SPE 28049 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Delft, The Netherlands,
29-31 August 1994.
Maury, V. and Idelovici, J.L.: “ Safe Drilling of HP/HT wells, The Role of the Thermal
Regime in Loss and Gain Phenomenon”, SPE 29428 presented at the 1995
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 28 February- 2 March 1995.
Mclean M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability: The effect of Strength Criteria on
Mud Weight recommendations”, SPE 20405 presented at the 65th Annual
217
Mohiuddin, M.A, Awal, M. R., Abdulraheem, A., and Khan, K.: “ A New Diagnostic
Moos, D., Peska, P. and Zoback, M.D.: “ Predicting the Stability of Horizontal Wells and
Multi-Laterals- The Role In Situ Stress and Rock Properties”, SPE 50386
presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-4 November 1998.
Onaisi, A., Locane, J. and Razimbaud, A.: “ Stress Related Wellbore Instability Problems
in Deep Wells in ABK fields”, SPE 87279 presented at the 9th Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 15-18
October 2000.
Ong, Seehong; Baim, Ahmad Shah; Lbrahim, Mohd Zaki; and Zheng, Ziqiong: “
Geomechanical Analysis for Resak’s Extended- Reach Drilling – A Case
Example”, IADC/SPE 62727 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology held in Kuala, Malaysia, 11-13 September 2000.
Ottesen, S. and Kwakwa, K.A.: “ A Multidisplinary Approach to In-situ Stress

Determination and Its Application to Wellbore Stability Analysis”, SPE 21915,
presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 11-14
March 1991.
Russell, K.A., Ayan, C., Hart, N.J., Rodriguez, J.M., Scholey, H., Sugden, C. and
Davidson, J.K.: “ Predicting and Preventing Wellbore Instability Using the Latest
Drilling and Logging Technologies: Tullich Field Development, North Sea”, SPE
84269 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.
Tan, C.P.; Rahman, S.S.; Chen, X.; Willoughby, D.R.; Choi, S.K.; and Wu, B.:
“Wellbore Stability Analysis and Guidelines for Efficient Shale Instability
Management”, IADC/SPE 47795 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology ’98 Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 7-
9 September 1998.
Tare, U.A., Mody, F.K. and Mese, A.I.: “ Understanding Chemical-Potential Transient
Pore-pressure Response to Improve Real-Time Borehole (In)Stability
Predictions”, SPE 65514 presented at the 2000 SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November 2000.
218
Willson, S.M., Last, N.C., Zobach, M.D. and Moos, D.: “ Drilling in South America:
Drilling Engineering, March 1990. (SPE 17508).
Yu, M., Chen G., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.: “Chemical and Thermal Effects
on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, SPE 71366, New Orleans, USA,
Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001.
Yu, M., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.: “Chemical-mechanical wellbore

instability model for shales: accounting for solute diffusion”, Journal of
Bazali Talal: “Effects of Strain Rate on Failure Characteristics for Shale”, to be
Anchorage Alaska.
219
Table 8-1 - In-situ stress state
Stress State σv σH (psi/ft) σh (psi/ft)

(psi/ft)
Normal faulting 1.0 0.9 0.85
Thrust faulting 1.0 1.1 1.05
Strike-slip faulting 1.0 1.05 0.95
Table 8-2 - Input data (after Yu et al., 2001)
Variables Values
Model Type Poroelasticity
Failure Criteria Mohr-Coulomb
Well Depth 10,000 ft
Equivalent Pore Pressure 9 lbm/gal
Mechanical Biot’s Constant 0.9
Young’s Modulus 106 psi
Cohesion 2000 psi
Frictional Angle 30o
Tensile Strength 100 psi
KI 2×10-19
KII -5 ×10-18 m3s/Kg
Chemical Drilling fluid concentration 0.1M
Pore fluid concentration 1M
Fluid compressibility 10-6
Diffusion constant 4.9×10-11 m2/s
Geothermal gradient 1.1ºF/100ft
Thermal diffusivity constant 1.5×10-3in2/s
Volumetric thermal expansion of 5×10-51/oF
matrix
Volumetric thermal expansion of fluid 5×10-41/oF
Thermal Inlet mud temperature 100 oF
Earth surface temperature 60 oF
Drilling fluid heat conductivity 1 Btu/hr-ft-ºF
Drilling fluid specific heat 0.4 Btu/lb-ºF
Earth conductivity 1.3 Btu/hr-ft-ºF
Earth specific heat 0.2 Btu/lb-ºF
Overall heat transfer coefficient in 30 Btu/hr-ft2-ºF
drill pipe
Overall heat transfer coefficient in 1 Btu/hr-ft2-ºF
annulus
220
Figure 8-1 – A typical directional well trajectory.
221
22
20
Mud Weight, ppg 18 A=0, Collapse

A=0, Breakdown
16 A=45, Collapse
A=45,Breakdown
14 A=90, Collapse
A=90, Breakdown
12
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degree
Figure 8-2 – Effect of inclination and azimuth on MWW under normal faulting stress
regime.
26
24
Mud Weight, ppg
22
A=0, Collapse
20
A=0, Breakdown
18 A=45, Collapse
A=45,Breakdown
16 A=90, Collapse
A=90, Breakdown
14
12
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degree
Figure 8-3 – Effect of inclination and azimuth on MWW under thrust faulting stress
regime.
222
24
22
20
Mud Weight, ppg
A=0, Low
18 A=0, High
A=45, Low
16 A=45,High
A=90, Low
A=90, High
14
12
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degree
Figure 8-4 – Effect of well inclination and azimuth on MWW under strike-slip faulting
stress regime.
19
18
17
Mud Weight, ppg
Collapse
16 Breakdown
15
14
13
12
11
10
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Cohesion, psi
Figure 8-5 – Effect of cohesion on MWW.
223
19
18
17
Mud Weight, ppg
Collapse
16 Breakdown
15
14
13
12
11
10
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Internal Friction Angle, degree
Figure 8-6 – Effect of frictional angle on MWW.
19
18
Mud Weight, ppg
17
16 Collapse
15 Breakdown
14
13
12
11
0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
Poissons Ratio
Figure 8-7 – Effect of Poissons ratio on MWW.
224
19
18
Mud Weight, ppg

17
Collapse
16 Breakdown
15
14
13
12
11
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Permeability, nanodarcy
Figure 8-8 – Effect of shale permeability on MWW.
19
18
Mud Weight, ppg
17
16
Collapse
15 Breakdown
14
13
12
11
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Equivalent Pore Pressure, ppg
Figure 8-9 – Effect of pore pressure on MWW.
225
19
18
Mud Weight, ppg

17
Collapse
16 Breakdown
15
14
13
12
11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
3
KII, m s/Kg
Figure 8-10 - Effect of shale membrane efficiency on MWW ( C df < C s ).
18
Collapse
17 Breakdown
16
15
14
13
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diffusion Constant, 10-11m2/s
Figure 8-11 - Effect of ion diffusion constant on MWW ( C df < C s ).
226
19
18
Mud Weight, ppg

17
Collapse
16
Breakdown
15
14
13
12
11
100 120 140 160 180 200
Mud Inlet Temperature, OF
Figure 8-12 - Effect of mud temperature on MWW.
18
17
Mud Weight, ppg
16
15 Collapse
14 Breakdown
13
12
11
10
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
Geothermal Gradient, OF/100 ft
Figure 8-13 - Effect of geothermal gradient on MWW.
227
19

18
17
16 Collapse
15 Breakdown
14
13
12
11
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Volumetric Thermal Expansion
Constant of Rock, 10-5 OF -1
Figure 8-14 - Effect of matrix volumetric-thermal-expansion-constants on MWW.
228
Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions
Based on analyzing the unique properties of shales, the problems related to

wellbore instability in shales are formulated and some solutions are presented. From
theoretical analysis to laboratory testing, a comprehensive study of mechanical effects,
chemical effects, and thermal effects is covered in this dissertation.
A model is developed for coupling the strength of laminated shales with the stress
state at the wellbore wall. This model allows the simulation of wellbore instability for
directional wells in laminated formations. In laminated shales, the interaction angle
between the wellbore and bedding plane is critical for the determination of whether
drilling through laminated formations will induce instability along bedding planes.
Critical mud weights are calculated for different well orientations relative to the bedding
planes. Results show that critical mud weights are strongly wellbore orientation
dependent. Therefore, optimal well trajectory for wellbore stability control can be
planned by considering both the strength and in-situ stress anisotropies in laminated
shales. Model results when compared to the Pedernales Field mud weight case show
excellent agreement.
A model was presented to predict pore pressure changes during a shale
compressive strength test. The simulation results show that pore pressure increases with
an increase in strain rate and decrease with an increase in permeability. Two phenomena,
pore pressure build-up and dilatancy effects are attributed to strain rate related
compressive strength alteration. The compressive strength can increase with the strain
rate if dilatancy exists, and decrease if pore pressure builds up. Our experimental results
show that the compressive strength for soft Pierre I shale decreases, while the strength for
hard Arco shale increases with increase of the strain rate. In our tests, dilatancy effects
229
are more dominant in hard Arco shale and pore pressure build-up effects are more
dominant in soft Pierre I shale. It was pointed out that during shale compressive strength
testing, different strain rates should be selected in accordance with the intended
application of the test.
A new simple method, called the Gravimetric–Swelling Test (GST), has been
developed that allows for the direct measurement of water and ion movement into or out
of a shale sample. Time-dependent data from this GST technique show significant
changes in water and ion movement during the interaction between shales and drilling
fluids. It was also shown that different types of cations have different influences on
water/ion movement. Combined with other tests, the GST can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of mud systems. These tests are simple to conduct and, therefore, can be
conducted at the rig floor provided that shale samples (cm size drill cuttings) are
available.
Based on the GST results, this dissertation presents a set of experiments which
analyze the effects of osmosis, ion diffusion, and capillarity on water and ion movement
when shales interact with water-based muds. Results show that water movement is not
only controlled by osmosis (water activity), but is also influenced by ion diffusion and
capillary phenomenon. A method is presented for correcting for capillary effects, which
are not present downhole.
Experimental results are presented to show how the compressive strength and
acoustic velocities of different types of shale change when they are exposed to water-
based fluids. The acoustic velocity and compressive strength of a soft, high water
activity, Pierre I shale increased after exposure to different ionic solutions, while for the
lower water activity Arco shale, sonic velocity and strength decreased. By combining
these tests with GST results, it is clearly shown that these different effects correlate well
230
with the movement of water and ion into or out of the shale. In every case studied, water
adsorption weakens the shale, while ion adsorption strengthens the shale.
The influence of salt type and salt concentration on the strength and sonic velocity
of the two shales was also investigated. It was found that adsorption of potassium ions
greatly increased the strength of Pierre I shale. It was seen that the ionic content of a
water-based fluid has a significant effect on changes of shale properties. It is shown that
the changes in sonic velocity and compressive strength are highly correlated. This
suggests that it may be feasible to use sonic logging data to determine changes in the
mechanical properties of shale.
Finally, a modeling study of wellbore stability of shale formations is presented. It
takes into account earth stresses around the wellbore as well as chemical and thermal
effects. It is pointed out that well trajectory optimization for wellbore stability purposes
should be based on formation lamination as well as the in-situ stress state. For a normal
faulting stress regime, a vertical well was found to be more stable than directional and
horizontal wells. However, directional and horizontal wells are more stable than vertical
wells in thrust faulting stress regions. In the strike-slip faulting stress regime, the
determination of well inclination and azimuth should be based on the magnitude and
direction of the stress state. Results from this study indicate that for low permeability
shales, chemical interactions between the shale and water-based fluids play an important
role. Not only is the activity of the water important but the diffusion of ions is also a
significant factor. Cooling drilling fluids is found to be beneficial in preventing
compressive failure. However, decreasing the mud temperature can be detrimental since
it reduces the fracture pressure for the formation, which can result in lost circulation. The
magnitude of these thermal effects, depend very much on shale properties, earth stresses,
and wellbore orientation and deviation.
231
Appendix 1: Strength of Non-laminated Rock
Based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, for nonlaminated (strength

isotropic) formations, rock failure occurs when the combination of the normal and shear
stresses at the failure plane meets
τ ≥ C 0 + σ tan Φ (A1-1)
Normal and shear stresses at the failure plane can be calculated as

⎧ 1
⎪⎪ τ = (σ ns − σ 3 )cos Φ
2
⎨
⎪σ = 1 (σ + σ ) − 1 (σ − σ )sin Φ
⎪⎩ 2
ns 3
2
ns 3
(A1-2)
Substituting Equation (A1-2) into (A1-1) yields

1
σ ns = σ 3 + 2(C 0 + tan Φ ⋅ σ 3 )
1 / cos Φ − tan Φ (A1-3)
There exists the following relationship between the cosine and tangent functions
of the internal frictional angle
1
= 1 + tan 2 Φ
cos Φ (A1-4)
Substituting Equation (A1-4) into (A1-3) and arranging, we have:
( )
σ ns = σ 3 + 2(C 0 + tan Φ ⋅ σ 3 )[ 1 + tan 2 Φ + tan Φ ]
(A1-5)
In the above equation, the angle of internal friction, Φ is related to the coefficient
of internal friction, µ by
µ = tan Φ (A1-6)
Substituting (A1-6) into (A1-5) yields
232
( )
σ ns = σ 3 + 2(C 0 + µσ 3 )[ 1 + µ 2 + µ ] (A1-7)
233
Appendix 2: Strength of Laminated Formations
Referring to Figure 3-2, the rock fails along the bedding plane if the combination
of normal and shear stress at the bedding plane meets the following condition,
τ = C 0 w + σ tan Φ w
(A2-1)
Normal and shear stress at the bedding plane can be calculated as

⎧ 1
⎪⎪τ = 2 (σ bs − σ 3 )sin 2β
⎨
⎪σ = 1 (σ + σ ) − 1 (σ − σ )cos 2β
⎪⎩ 2
bs 3
2
bs 3
(A2-2)
The internal friction angle of a bedding plane, Φ w is related to the internal

frictional coefficient of the bedding plane, µ w by
tan Φ w = µ w
(A2-3)
Substituting the Equation (A2-2) and (A2-3) into (A2-1) yields

2(C 0 w + µ w ⋅ σ 3 )
σ bs = σ 3 +
(1 − tan β ⋅ µ w )sin 2β (A2-4)
234
Appendix 3: Stress State Around Wellbore
Referring to the well configuration in Figure 3-4, we assume that the principle
stresses in the virgin formation are: the vertical stress, σ v ; the maximum horizontal
stress σ H ; and the minimum horizontal stress, σ h . A coordinate system (x’, y’, z’) is
oriented so that x’ is parallel to σ H , y’ is parallel to σ h , and z’ is parallel to σ v . This in-
situ stress can be expressed in coordinated system (x’, y’, z’) as

⎡σ H 0⎤
[σ]( x ', y ',z ' )
= ⎢⎢ σh ⎥
⎥
⎢⎣ 0 σ v ⎥⎦
(A3-1)
The stresses in the vicinity of the wellbore are most conveniently described in a
co-ordinate system (x, y, z) where the z-axis is parallel to the wellbore (Fjaer et al.,
1992).
A transformation from (x’, y’, z’) to (x, y, z) can be obtained in two operations: 1)
a rotation of a z around the z’-axis, and 2) a rotation of i w around the y’–axis. The angle
i w represents the wellbore inclination (deviation). The angle a z can be used to represent
the well azimuth based on the direction of the maximum horizontal principle stress, σ H .
This transform matrix can be expressed as

⎡cos i w 0 − sin i w ⎤ ⎡ cos a z sin a z 0⎤
[T] = ⎢⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎢− sin a z cos a z 0⎥⎥
⎢⎣ sin i w 0 cos i w ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1⎥⎦
⎡cos i w cos a z cos i w sin a z − sin i w ⎤
= ⎢⎢ − sin a z cos a z 0 ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ sin i w cos a z sin i w sin a z cos i w ⎥⎦
(A3-2)
Expressed in the (x, y, z) co-ordinate system, the formation in-situ stresses,

235
σ H , σ h , and σ v become
⎡σx τ xy τ xz ⎤
( x , y ,z ) ⎢ ⎥
[σ] = ⎢τ yx σy τ yz ⎥ = [T ][σ](x ', y',z ') [T ]T
⎢ τ zx τ zy σ z ⎥⎦
⎣ (A3-3)
After submitting Equations (A3-1) and (A3-2) into (A3-3), we obtain the
following equation
⎡σ x ⎤ ⎡cos 2 a z cos 2 i w sin 2 a z cos 2 i w sin 2 i w ⎤
⎢σ ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ y ⎥ ⎢sin a z cos 2 a z 0 ⎥ ⎡σ ⎤
⎢σ z ⎥ ⎢cos 2 a z sin 2 i w sin 2 a z sin 2 i w cos 2 i w ⎥⎢ H ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ ⎢σ h ⎥
⎢τ xy ⎥ ⎢− sin a z cos a w cos i w sin a z cos a z cos i w 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢τ yz ⎥ ⎢− sin a cos a sin i sin a z cos a z sin i w 0 ⎥ ⎣σ v ⎦
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 z w w ⎥
⎢⎣τ zx ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣cos a z sin i w cos i w sin 2 a z sin i w cos i w − sin i w cos i w ⎥⎦
(A3-4)
Bradley (1979) derived stress induced by the in-situ stress as
236
⎧ ⎛ σ x + σ y ⎞⎛ rw 2 ⎞ ⎛ σ x − σ y ⎞⎛ r 4 r 2⎞
⎪σ rr = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎜1 − ⎟+⎜ ⎟⎜1 + 3 w − 4 w ⎟ cos 2θ
⎪ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎜
⎠⎝ r 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎜
⎠⎝ r4 r 2 ⎟⎠
⎪
⎪ ⎛ rw 4 rw 2 ⎞⎟
⎪ + τ ⎜
xy ⎜ 1 + 3 − 4 sin 2θ
4 2 ⎟
⎪ ⎝ r r ⎠
⎪
⎪ ⎛ σ x + σ y ⎞⎛ rw ⎞ ⎛ σ x − σ y ⎞⎛
2
rw 4 ⎞⎟ ⎛ rw 4 ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎜
⎟ 1+ ⎟ −⎜ ⎜
⎟ 1+ 3 ⎜
⎪σ θθ = ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ r 2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ r 4 ⎟
cos 2θ − τ xy 1 + 3 4 sin 2θ
⎜ r ⎟⎠
⎪ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝
⎪ ⎡ ⎤
rw 2 rw 2
⎪
( )
⎨σ zz = σ z − ν ⎢2 σ x − σ y 2 cos 2θ + 4τ xy 2 sin 2θ⎥
⎪ ⎣⎢ r r ⎦⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎛ σ x − σ y ⎞⎛ rw 4 rw 2 ⎞⎟ ⎛ rw 4 rw 2 ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜
⎪τ rθ = ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜1 − 3 r 4 + 2 r 2 ⎟ sin 2θ + τ xy ⎜1 − 3 r 4 + 2 r 2 ⎟ sin 2θ
⎪ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎪ ⎛ 2⎞
(
⎪τ = − τ sin θ + τ cos θ ⎜1 + rw ⎟
⎪ θz
) ⎜ r 2 ⎟⎠
xz yz
⎪ ⎝
⎪ ⎛ r 2⎞
( )
⎪τ rz = − τ xz cos θ + τ yz sin θ ⎜1 − w ⎟
⎜
⎪⎩ ⎝ r 2 ⎟⎠
(A3-5)
Substituting r = rw into the above equation, we obtain the following equations for
calculating the stress state at the wellbore surface:

⎧σ rr = Pw
⎪
( ) ( )
⎪
[( )
⎪
(
⎪τ = τ = 0
⎩ rθ rz (A3-6)
237
Appendix 4: An Example to Determine Water and Ion Movement
As an example, a sample of Pierre I shale exposed to a 26 weight % solution of

sodium chloride had the following values:
Wp =13.350 g, Wa =13.503 g and Wad =12.305 g.
The first step is to determine the weight of water in the shale after alteration
( Wwa ). This was done by subtracting the “altered –dried-weight ( Wad ) from the shale’s
altered weight ( Wa ) after immersion.
Water content of altered shale: Wwa = Wa − Wad .
For example, for the Pierre I sample, Wwa = Wa − Wad =13.503 g-12.305 g
=1.198 g.
The next step is to determine the amount of water transferred into (or out of) the
shale ( Wwt ) during immersion. This was done by subtracting the water content of the
original preserved shale W p × C pw from the altered shale ( Wwa )
Water transferred during immersion = Wwt = Wwa - Wp × Cpw
i.e., Wwt =1.198 g-13.350 g× 9.263/100 = -0.038 g

Note: A positive value of Wwt represents water uptake and a negative value
represents water removal.

The last step consists of determining the weight of ions transferred ( Wit ) during
immersion. This is done by simply subtracting the water intake of the immersed sample
( Wwt ) from the total weight gain of the immersed sample, Ionic transfer =
Wit = Wa − Wp − Wwt
i.e., Wit = (13.503 g-13.350 g) –(- 0.038 g) = 0.191 g
It is convenient to report final results on a percentage basis, by dividing the

weight of water and ion gained (or lost) by the original weight of the shale times 100 %
238
water gained or lost W % wt = Wwt ×100% = − 0.038 ×100% = −0.285% , % ion gained or lost:
Wp 13.350
Wit 0.191
W % it = ×100% = ×100% = 1.431%
Wp 13.350
We thus conclude that the sample immersed in the 26 weight % NaCl solution for
24 hours lost 0.038 g of water and gained 0.191 g of ions.
239
Appendix 5: A Model to Predict Pore Pressure Build-up during a
Compressive Strength Test
APPENDIX 5.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Biot (1962) showed that the pore pressure inside the rock sample during
compaction could be expressed as:
Pp = Cε V − Mζ
(A5-1)
In the above equation, ζ is the volumetric deformation of the fluid relative to that
of the solid. It can be expressed as:
⎛ ∂u ∂u ⎞
ζ = φ⎜ s − f ⎟
⎝ ∂z ∂z ⎠ (A5-2)
According to biaxial experiment condition, we have:

ε x = ε y = −νε z
(A5-3)
Therefore
ε v = ε x + ε y + ε z = (1 − 2ν )ε z
(A5-4)
Substituting Equation (A5-4) into (A5-1), we obtain:

Pp = C(1 − 2ν )ε z − Mζ
(A5-5)
Viscous flow within the rock sample can be expressed by Darcy’s law as:
k ∂Pp
Q = −A
µ ∂z (A5-6)
The flow rate can also be described as the difference between the solid and fluid
displacement rates:
240
⎛ ∂u ∂u ⎞
Q = Aφ⎜ s − f ⎟
⎝ ∂t ∂t ⎠ (A5-7)
Differentiating the Equation (A5-2) with respect to time t yields

∂ζ ∂ ⎛ ∂u ∂u ⎞
=φ ⎜ s − f ⎟
∂t ∂z ⎝ ∂t ∂t ⎠ (A5-8)
Differentiating the Equation (A5-5) with respect to time t, we have:

∂Pp ∂ε z ∂ζ
= C(1 − 2ν ) −M
∂t ∂t ∂t (A5-9)
Substituting Equations (A5-6), (A5-7) and (A5-8) into Equation (A5-9), we have:
2
∂Pp ∂ε z k ∂ Pp
= C(1 − 2ν ) +M
∂t ∂t µ ∂z 2 (A5-10)
According to Biot’s theory,

C K
αp = = 1 − fr
M Ks (A5-11)
Therefore Equation (A5-10) can be converted into:

2
∂Pp ∂ε z Ck ∂ Pp
= C(1 − 2ν ) +
∂t ∂t α p µ ∂z 2
(A5-12)
Where
K fr
1−
Kf Ks
C= ⋅
φ Kf ⎛ K ⎞
1+ ⎜⎜1 − φ − fr ⎟⎟
φK s ⎝ Ks ⎠ (A5-13)
Under drained conditions, the following relationship for the porosity, bulk
modulus of the frame, solid, and fluid holds true:
241
1 1− φ φ
= +
K fr Ks Kf (A5-14)
Substituting Equation (A5-14) into (A5-13), we have:

K s K fr
C=
K s + K fr (A5-15)
Equation (A5-12) is the model used to simulate time-dependent pore pressure

build-up during biaxial compressive strength tests.
APPENDIX 5.2 BOUNDARY AND INITIAL CONDITIONS
Under our experimental situation, the upper and bottom of the shale sample are
open to air (Figure 4-10). So the boundary conditions can be written as
⎧⎪Pp (0, t ) = 0
⎨
⎪⎩Pp (L, t ) = 0
(A5-16)
And the initial condition is

Pp (z,0) = 0
(A5-17)
242
References
Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E.: “ Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes “, SPE
Aadnoy, B.S.: “Modeling of the Stability of highly Inclined Boreholes in Anisotropic

Rock Formations”, SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988.
Abousleiman, Y.; Ekbote, S. and Tare, U.: “ Time-Dependent Wellbore (In)Stability

Predictions: Theory and Case Study”, IADC/SPE 62796, presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malasia, 11-
13 September 2000.
AL-Bazali, T.M.: “Experimental Study of the Membrane Behavior of Shale During

Interaction with Water-Based and Oil-Based Muds”, Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 2005.
Amanullah, M.; Marsden, J.R. and Shaw, H.F.: “ Effects of Rock-fluid Interactions on
Aoki, T.; Tan, C.P. and Bamford, W.E.: “Effects of Deformation and Strength anisotropy
on Borehole Failure in Saturated Shales”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., Vol.30, No.7, pp 105-1038, 1993.
Aston, M.S.; Alberty, M.W.; McLean, M.R., de Jong H.J. and Armagost, K.: “ Drilling
Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening”, IADC/SPE 87130 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling conference held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. 2-4 March 2004.
Atkinson, B. K.: “The temperature and strain rate –dependent mechanical behavior of a
polycrystalline galena ore”, Econ. Geol.71, 513,1976.
Awal, M.R.; Khan, M.S.; Mohiuddin, M.A.; Abdulraheem, A. and Azeemuddin, M.: “ A
New Approach to Borehole Trajectory Optimization for Increased Hole Stability”,
SPE 68092 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 17-
20 March 2001.
Ballard, T.J.; Beare, S.P. and Lawless, T.A.: “ Fundamentals of Shale Stabilisation:
Water Transport Through Shales”, IADC/SPE24974, presented at the European
Beacom, L.E.; Nicholson, H., and Corfield R.I.: “ Integration of Drilling and Geological
243
Bird, R.B.; Stewart, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N.: “ Transport Phenomena”, Second Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002.
Blanton, T.L. and Olson, J.E.: “ Stress Magnitudes from Logs: Effects of Tectonic Strains
and Temperature”, SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2(1), February 1999.
Bol, G. M: “The Effects of Various Polymers and Salts on Borehole and Cutting Stability
in Water-Base Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 14802 presented at the 1986
Bol, G. M.; Wong, S.W.; Davidson, C.J. and Woodland D.C.:“ Borehole Stability in
Bol, G.M.; Wong, S.W.; Davidson, C.J. and Woodland, D.C.: “ Bore Stability in Shales”,
Boonen, P.; Bean, C.; Tepper, R. and Deady, R.: “ Important Implications from A
Comparison of LWD and Wire-line Acoustic Data From A gulf of Mexico Well”,
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998.
Bostrom, B.; Svano, G.; Horsrud, P. and Askevold, A.: “ The Shrinkage Rate of KCl-
July 1998.
Bourgoyne, A.T.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E. and Young, F.S.: “ Applied Drilling
Engineering”, SPE Textbook Series, Vol.2, 1991.
Brace W.F. and Martin R.J.: “ A Test of the Law of Effective Stress for Crystalline Rocks
of Low Porosity”, ”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol.5, pp 415-426, 1968.
The Oil and gas Journal, February 19, 1979 (a).

Breeden, D. and Shipman, J.: “ Shale Analysis for Mud Engineers”, AADE-04-DF-HO-
30 presented at the AADE 2004 Drilling Fluids Conference, at the Radisson
Astrodome in Houston, Texas, April 6-7, 2004.
Brignoli, M.; Santarelli, F.J. and Righetti, C.: “ Capillary Phenomena in an Impure
244
Chalk”, SPE 28135 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Delft, The Netherlands, 29-31 August 1994.
Brudy, M. and Zoback, M. D.: “ Compressive and Tensile Failure of Boreholes

Arbitrarily – Inclined to Principle Stress Axes: Application to the KTB Boreholes,
Germany”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol.30, No.7, pp
105-1038, 1993.
Carminati, S.; Brignoli, M., Marco Di A. and Santarelli, F. J.: “ The Activity Concept
Carminati, S.; Del Gaudio L., Zausa, F. and Brignoli, M.: “ How do Anions in Water –
Based Muds Affect Shale Stability?” SPE 50712 presented at the 1999 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 16-19
February 1999.
Carminati, S.; Del Gaudio L. and Brignoli, M.: “ Shale Stabilization by Pressure
Propagation Prevention”, SPE 63053 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 1-4 October 2000.
Carminati, S.; Del Gaudio L., Del, Piero G. and Brignoli, M.: “ Water- Based Muds and
Charlez, P.A.: “ The Impact of Constitutive Laws on Wellbore Stability: A General

Review”, SPE 28058 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Cheatham, C.A. and Nahm, J.J.: “ Bit Balling in Water – Reactive Shale During Full-
Scale Drilling Rate Tests”, IADC/SPE 19926 presented at the 1990 IADC/ SPE
Chen, G.: “A Study of Wellbore Stability in Shales Including Poroelastic, Chemical, and
Thermal Effects”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, August
2001.
Chen, G.; Chenevert, M.E, Sharma; M.M. and Yu, Mengjiao: “ A Study of wellbore
Chen, G. and Ewy R.T.: “Thermoporoelastic Effect on Shale Stability” , Soil and Rock
245
America 2003, Cambridge, Massachussets, June 22-26.
Chen, X.; Tan, C.P. and Haberfield, C.M.: “ A Comprehensive, Practical Approach For
Wellbore Instability Management”, SPE Drilling and Completion December 2002
(SPE48898 & SPE 80146)
Chen, X.; Tan, C.P. and Detournay, C.: “ The impact of Mud Infiltration on Wellbore
2002.
Chenevert, M. E. and Gatlin C.: “Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary

14, 1964.

1147.

Chenevert M.E. and Sharma A.K.: “ permeability and Effective Pore Pressure of Shales”,
SPE Drilling & completion, March 1993.
Chenevert M.E. and Dwarakanath V.: “Shale Strength Measurements Using a

Penetrometer”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Vol.30, 703~706,1993.
Chenevert M. E and Pernot Vincent: “ Control of Shale Swelling Pressure Using

Inhibitive Water – Based”, SPE 49263 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30,
September, 1998.
Chiu, H.k.; Johnston, I.W. and Donald, I. B.: “ Appropriate Techniques for Triaxial
Vol.20, No. 3, pp107~120,1983.
Clark, R.K.; Scheuerman R.F; Rath H. and Van L.H.G.: “ Polyacrylamide/Potassium-

Closmann P. J. and Bradley W. B. “ The Effect of Temperature on Tensile and

Compressive Strength and Young’s Modulus of Oil Shale” SPE paper 6734
246
presented at the SPE-AIME 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, held in Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
Cook, J. M.; Sheppard, M.C. and Houwen, O. H.: “ Effects of Strain Rate and Confining
Pressure on the Deformation and Failure of Shale”, SPE 19944 presented at the
1990 IADC/ SPE Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texas, February 27 –
March 2,1990.
Cook J.M.; Goldsmith G.; Bailey L.; Audibert A. and Bieber M.T.: “ X-ray tomographic
study of the influence of bedding plane orientation on shale swelling’, SPE/ISRM
28061 presented at the 1994 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Delft, Aug. 29-31.
Darley, H.C.H: “ A Laboratory Investigation of Borehole Stability”, JPT, July, 1969.

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 1999.
Detournay, E. and Cheng, A.H-D: “ Poroelastic Response of a Borehole in a Non-

Hydrostatic Stress field”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., N0.25,
pp.171-182 (1988).
Dowson, S.L.; Willson S.M.; Wolfson L.; Ramos G.G. and Tare U.A.: “ An Integrated
Solution of Extended-Reach Drilling Problems in the Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part I
– Wellbore Stability Assessment”, SPE 56563 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
Edwards, S.; Matsutsuyu, B. and Willson S.: “ Imaging unstable wellbore while drilling”,
SPE/IADC 79846 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-21, February, 2003.
Ewy, R.T.; Ross, G.D. and Steiger, R.P.:“ North Sea Case Histories of Wellbore Stability
Predictions for Successful High Angle Nelson Field Wells”, IADC/SPE 27495
presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 15-
18 February, 1994.
Ewy, R.T.: “ Wellbore-Stability Prediction by Use of a Modified Lade Criterion” SPE

Drilling & Completion, 14(2), June 1999.
Ewy, R.T. and Stankovich R. J. “ Pore pressure change due to shale-fluid interaction:
Ewy, R.T.; Daniels, E.J. and Stankovich R. J. “ Behavior of a reactive shale from 12, 000
feet depth”, presented at the Proceedings DC Rocks, the 38th U. S. Rock
247
Ewy, R.T. and Stankovich, R.J.: “ Shale-Fluid Interactions Measured Under Simulated
Fairhurst, C.: “ Methods of Determining in-situ Rock Stresses at Great Depth”, TRI-68
Missouri River Div., Corps of Engineer, Feb. 1968.
Fam, M.A. and Dusseault, M.B.: “ Shear Strength and Stiffness of Clay-Rich Sediments
during Drilling Operations”, SPE/ISRM 47257 presented at the SPE/ISRM
Eurock 98 held in Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July 1998.
Fam, M.A. and Dusseault, M.B.: “ Borehole Stability in Shales”, SPE/ISRM 47301
presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock 98 held in Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July
1998.
Fam, M.A.; Dusseault, M.B. and Fooks, J. C.: “ Drilling in mud-rocks: rock behavior
Fjaer, E.; Holt, R.M.; Horsrud, P.; Raaen, A.M. and Risens, R.: “ Petroleum Related Rock
Fjaer, E.; Holt, R.M.; Nes, O.M and Sonstebo, E.F.: “Mud Chemistry Effects on Time-
Delayed Borehole Stability Problems in Shales”, SPE/ISRM 78163 presented at
the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October
2002.
Flournoy, C.M.: “ The Optimization of the red Oak infill Drilling Program in the Arkoma
Basin”, SPE 18054, presented at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston, TX, Octorber
2-5, 1988.
Fonseca, C.F: “ Chemical-Mechanical Modeling of Wellbore Instability in Shales’, Ph.D

Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1998.
Fonseca, C.F. and Chenevert, M.E.: “ The Effects of Stress and Temperature on Water
Forsans, T. M. and Schmitt, L.: “ Capillary forces: The neglected factor in shale
1994.
248
Fritz, S.J.: “ Ideality of Clay Membranes in Osmotic Process: A Review”, Clay and Clay
Minerals, Vol.34, No.2, 214-223, 1986.
Fuh, G.H.; Whitfill, D.L. and Schuh, P.R.: “ Use of Borehole Stability Analysis for
Successful Drilling of High-angle Hole”, IADC/SPE 17235, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, February 28-March 2, 1988.
Fydman, M. and Fontoura, S.A.B da: “ Modeling Aspects of Wellbore Stability in

Shales”, SPE 69529 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March
2001.
Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.:“ Thermal Response of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
Cutters Under Simulated Downhole Conditions”, SPEJ April 1985.
Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.:“ Effects of Thermal and Mechanical Loading on PDC
Bit Life”, SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1986.
Gaines, G. L. and Thomas, H.C.: “ Adsorption Studies on Clay Minerals. II. A

Formulation of the Thermodynamics of Exchange Adsorption”, The Journal of
Chemical Physics, Vol. 21, No.4, April 1953.
Gavito, D.G.: “ A New Rock Strength Model and Its Applications”, SPE 35322 presented
at the International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in
Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico, March 5-7, 1996.
Gazaniol, D.; Forsans, T.; Boisson, M.J.F and Piau, J-M. “ Wellbore Failure Mechanisms
in Shales: Prediction and Prevention”, SPE 28851 presented at the 1994
European Petroleum Conference held in London, Oct. 25-27, 1994.
Ghassemi, A.; Diek, A.: “ A Chemo-poroelastic Solution for Stress and Pore Pressure
Distribution around a Wellbore in Transversely Isotropic Shale”, SPE/ISRM
78162 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving,
Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
Gibson, M.T.; Tayler, P.J. and Fuh, Giin-Fa: “ Optimal Applications Engineering and
borehole Stability Analysis Avoids Differential Sticking and Leads to Successful
Openhole Completion of North Sea Horizontal Well”, SPE 24615 presented at the
67th Annual Technical conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Goodman, H.E., Perrin, V.P. and Gregory, D.H.: “Volumetric Formation Mechanical
Property Characterization for Drilling Engineering Modeling Applications Using
249
the Rock Mechanics Algorithm (RMA)”, SPE 39266 presented at the SPE/IADC
Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Bahrain, 23-25 November
1997.
Gray-Stephens D.; Cook, J.M. and Sheppard, M.C.: “ Influence of Pore Pressure on
Drilling Response in Hard Shales”, SPE Drilling & Completion, December 1994.
Green, S.J.; Griffin, R.M. and Pratt, H.R.: “ Stress-Strain and Failure Properties of a
Porous Shale”, SPE 4242 presented at the Sixth Conference on Drilling and Rock
Mechanics of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME heldin Austin, TX,
Jan.22-23, 1973.
Guild, G.J.; Jeffrey, J.T. and Carter, J.A.: “ Drilling Extended Reach/High-Angle Wells
Through Over-pressured Shale Formation in the Central Graben Basin, Arbroath
Field, Block 22/17, U.K. North Sea”, SPE 25749, presented at the 1993
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam 23-25 February 1993.
Hale, A. H.; Mody, F. K. and Salisbury, D. P.: “ Experimental Investigation of the

Feb. 18-21, 1992.
Hanshaw, B.B.: “ Cation-Exchange Constants for Clays From Electrochemical

Measurements”, Twelfth National Conference on Clays and Clay Minerals.
Helstrup, O.A.; Chen, Z. and Rahman, S.S.: “ Time-dependent Wellbore Instability and
Ballooning in Naturally Fractured Formations”, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 43 (2004) 113-128.
Holditch, S.A.: “Completion Methods in Coal-Seam Reservoirs”, JPT, March 1993.
Horsrud P.; Holt, R.M., Svano G. and Bostrom, B.: “ Time- dependent Borehole
Stability: Laboratory Studies and Numerical Simulation of Different Mechanisms
in Shale”, SPE 28060 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Horsrud P.; Bostrom, B.; Sonstebo, E.F. and Holt, R.M.: “ Interaction Between Shale and
Water – Based Drilling Fluids: Laboratory Exposure Tests Give New Insight into
Mechanisms and Field Consequences of KCl Contents”, SPE 48986 presented at
the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27-30, September, 1998.

Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.: “ Fundamental of Rock Mechanics”, second edition,
250
Chapman and hall, London, 1976.
Jordan J.A.: “ Drilling a High-Angle Exploration Sidetrack Down-dip Along Bedding,

Gobe Main Prospect, Papua New Guinea”, SPE 28776 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference held in Melbourne, Australia, 7-10 November
1994.
Kharaka Y.K. and Smalley W.C.: “ Flow of Water and Solutes through Compacted
Clays”, The American of Petroleum Geologies Bulletin, V.60, No.6 (June 1976),
P.973-980.
Kjosnes, I.; Loklingholm, G.; Saasen, A.; Syrstad, S.O. and Agle, A. “ Successful Water
Based Drilling Fluid Design for Optimizing Hole Cleaning and Hole Stability”,
SPE/IADC 85330 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference & Exhibition in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 20-22 October 2003.
Klimentos, T.; Harouaka, A.; Mtawaa, B. and Saner S.: “ Experimental Determination of
the Biot Elastic Constant: Applications in Formation Evaluation (Sonic Porosity,
Rock Strength, Earth Stresses and Sanding Predictions)”, SPE 30593 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, USA, 22-25
October, 1995.
Labenski, F.; Reid, P. and Santos, H.: “ Drilling Fluids Approaches for Control of
Wellbore Instability in Fractured Formations”, SPE/IADC 85304 Presented at the
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition held in
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 20-22, October 2003.
Ladanyi B. “ Discussion of Paper by Brace and Martin: ‘ A test of the law of effective
pp.123-124 (1970).
Lake, W.L.; Bryant, and Araque-Martinez, A.N.: “Geochemistry and Fluid Flow”,
Elsevier, 2002.
Lal, M.: “ Shale Stability: Drilling Fluid Interaction and Shale Strength” SPE 54356
presented at the 1999 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 21-23 April 1999.
Last, N.; Plumb, R.; Harkness, R.; Charlez, P.; Alsen, J. and Mclean, M.R.: “ An
Cusiana Field, Colombia, South America”, SPE 30464 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25. (JPT, July1996)
Last, N.C. and Mclean, M.R.: “ Assessing the impact of Trajectory on Wells Drilled in an
251
Over-thrust Region”, SPE 30465 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
Last, N.C.; Harkness, R.M. and Plumb, R.A.: “From Theory to Practice: Evaluation of
the Stress Distribution for Wellbore Stability Analysis in an Overthrust Regime
by Computational Modeling and Field Calibration”, SPE/ISRM 47209 presented
at the SPE/IRSM Eurock’ 98 held in Trondhelm, Norway, 8-10, July 1998.
Liz-Losada, R.J. and Alejano, L.R.: “ New Safe Mud Weight Window Representation to
Prevent Wellbore Instability”, IADC/SPE 62800 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE
Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11-13
September 2000.
Lomba, R.F.T.; Chenevert, M. E. and Sharma, M. M.: “ The Role of Osmotic Effects in
(2000) 25-35.
Lomba, R.F.T.; Chenevert, M. E. and Sharma, M. M.: “ The ion-selective membrane

behavior of native shales”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 25
(2000) 9-23.
Low P.F. and Anderson D.M.: “ Osmotic Pressure Equation for Determining
Ma, Shanzhou, Huang, Genlu, Zhang, Jianguo and Han, Zhiyong: “ Study on Design of
1998.
Mark, D.; Zoback and John H. Healy: “ Friction. Faulting and «in situ » stress”,
Geophysics, 1984, 2,6,689~698.
Mazumder, S.; Plug, W. J. and Bruining, H.: “ Capillary Pressure and Wettability
Behavior of Coal- Water- Carbon Dioxide Systems”, SPE 84339 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
U.S.A., 5-8 October 2003.
McLamore, R.T.: “The Role of Rock Strength Anisotropy in Natural Hole Deviation”,
JPT, November 1971.
Mclean, M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability Analysis: A Review of Current

Methods of Analysis and Their Field Application”, IADC/SPE 19941 presented at
252
the 1990 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texas, February 27-
March 2 1990.
Mclean, M. R. and Addis M. A.: “ Wellbore Stability: The Effect of Strength Criteria on
Mud Weight Recommendations”, SPE 20405 presented at the 65th Annual
Mese, A.I.: “ Effects of Fluid Saturation and Stress State on the Mechanical and
Chemical Properties of Shales”, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin, 1995.
Mohiuddin, M.A.; Awal, M. R.; Abdulraheem, A. and Khan, K.: “ A New Diagnostic
Muller, W.H. and Briegel, U., “ The rheological behavior of polycrystalline anhydrite”,
Ecol. Geol. Helv., 71, 397, 1978.
Nair, Narayan: “Asphaltic Shale Coating Agents”, Master thesis, The University of Texas
at Austin, 2005.
Newsham, K. E.; Rushing, J. A. and Lasswell, P.M.: “ Use of Vapor Desorption Data to
Characterize High Capillary Pressure in a Basin-Centered Gas Accumulation with
Ultra-Low Connate Water Saturations”, SPE 84596 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U. S. A., 5-8
October.
Norrish, K.: “ The Swelling of Montmorillonite”, Disc. Of Faraday Soc., V.18, P.120,
1954.
Nur, A. and Byerlee, J.D.: “ An Exact Effective Stress Law for Elastic Deformation of
Rock With Fluids”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 76, No. 26, September
10.

253
Olsen, H.W.: “ Osmosis: a cause of apparent deviation from Darcy’s law”, Can.
Geotech. J. 22. 238-241(1985).
Olson, J.E., Qiu, Yuan; Holder, J. and Rijken, P.: “ Constraining the Spatial Distribution
Ong, Seehong and Roegiers, J.C.: “ Horizontal Wellbore Collapse in an Anisotropic

Formation”, SPE 25504 presented at the Production Operation Symposium held
in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., March 21-23, 1993.
Osisanya, S. O.: “Experimental Studies Of Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations”,

Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1991.
Ottesen, S. and Kwakwa, K.A.: “ A Multidisciplinary Approach to In-situ Stress

Determination and Its Application to Wellbore Stability Analysis”, SPE 21915,
presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 11-14
March 1991.
Pashley, R.M.: “ Hydration Forces Between Mica Surfaces in Electrolyte Solutions”,

Advances in Colloid and Interface Surface Science, 16 (1982) 57-62.
Pashley, R.M. and Israelachvili, J.N.: “ DLVO and Hydration Forces between Mica
Surfaces in Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+ and Ba2+ Chloride Solutions”, Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science, Vol. 97, No.2, February 1984.
Richard, V. B., and Peter W. G.: “ Saturated Solutions for the Control of Humidity in
Biological Research”, Ecology, January 1960, Vol.41 No.1, 232-236.

Rutter, E.H.: “ The Effects of Strain-Rate Changes on the Strength and Ductility of
Solenhofen Limestone at Low Temperatures and Confining Pressures”, Int., J.
Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. Vol.9, pp.183-189, 1972.
254
Santarelli, F. J.: “ Analysis of Borehole Stress Using Pressure-dependent Linear
Elasticity”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 23. No.6.
pp.445-449.1986.
Santarelli, F.J., Dardeau, C. and Zurdo, C.: “ Drilling Through Highly Fractured
Formations: “ A Problem, a Model and a Cure”, SPE 24592 presented at the 67th
Annual Technical conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum

Santos, H.; Diek, A.; Roegiers, C. and Fontoura, S.: “ Can shale swelling be (easily)
8436.
Santos, H.: “ What Have We Been Doing Wrong in Wellbore Stability?”, SPE 69493
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March 2001.
Schmitt, D.R. and Zoback, M.D.: “ Poroelastic Effects in the Determination of Maximum
Horizontal Principle Stress in Hydraulic Fracturing Tests- A Proposed Breakdown
Equation Employing a Modified Effective Stress Relation for Tensile Failure”,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 26. No.6. pp.499-506.1989.
Forces May Induce Biased Laboratory Testing”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., 1994, No.5, pp411-427.
Schlemmer, R., Friedheim, J.E., Growcock, F.B., Bloys, J.B., Headley, J.A. and
Polnaszek, S.C.: “ Membrane Efficiency in Shale – An Empirical Evaluation of
Drilling Fluid Chemistries and Implication for Fluid Design”, IADC/SPE 74557
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26-28
February, 2002.
Austin, 2004.
Sherwood, J.D. and Balley L.: “ Swelling of shale around a cylindrical wellbore”, Proc.
R. Soc. Lond. A (1994) 444, 168-184.
Simpson, J.P.: “ Drilling Fluids – Today and Tomorrow”, Journal of Petroleum

Technology, November 1971.
255
Steiger, R. and Leung , P. K. (1991), “ Consolidated undrained triaxial test procedure for
shales”, in Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Swan G.; Cook J.; Bruce S. and Meehan R., “ Strain Rate Effects in Kimmeridge Bay
Shale”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.26, No.2 pp. 135-
149, 1989.
Stawaisz, R.; Taylor, S.; Hemphill, T.; Tare, U.,Morton, K. and Valentine, T.:
“Successfully Replacing Oil-Based Drilling Fluids with Water-Based Drilling
Fluids: “ Case Extended-Reach Well”, IADC/SPE 74545 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February 2002.
Tan, C.P.; Wu, Bailin; Mody, F.K. and Tare Uday A.: “ Development and Laboratory
Verification of High Membrane Efficiency Water – Based Drilling Fluids With
Oil- Based Fluid-Like Performance in Shale Stabilization”, SPE 78159 presented
at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-23
October 2002.
Tare, U. and Mody, F.: “ Stabilizing Borehole While Drilling Reactive Shale Formations
With Silicate-base Drilling Fluids”, Drilling Contractor, May/June 2000.
Tare, U.A., Mese, A.I. and Mody, F.K.:“ Interpretation and Application of Acoustic and
Transient Pressure Response to Enhance Shale (In)Stability Predictions”, SPE
63052 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
Tare, U.A.; Mody, F.K. and Mese, A.I.: “ Understanding Chemical-Potential Transient
Pore-pressure Response to Improve Real-Time Borehole (In)Stability
Predictions”, SPE 65514 presented at the 2000 SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November 2000.
Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson, R.A.: “ Estimation of Formation Strength
From the Mechanical-Properties Log”, Journal of Petroleum Engineering, March
1975.
Van Oort, E.; Hale, A.H.; Mody, F.K. and Roy, S.: “ Critical Parameters in Modeling The
Chemical Aspects of Borehole Stability in Shales and in Designing Improved
Water-Based Shale Drilling Fluids”, SPE 28309 presented at the SPE Annual
256
Technical Conference & Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 25-28,
September, 1994.
Van Oort, E.; Hale, A.H. and Mody, F.K.: “ Manipulation of Coupled Osmotic Flows for
Stabilisation of Shales Exposed to Water-Based Drilling Fluids”, SPE 30499
USA, 22-25 October, 1995.
Verruijt, A: “Computational Geomechanics”, Dordrecht, 1995.
Vidrine D.J. and Bent E.j.: “ Field Verification of the Effect of Differential Pressure on
Drilling Rate”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1968.
Walker, Thad O.; Dearing, H.L. and Simpson, J.P.: “ The Role of Potassium in Lime
Wan, R.G.; Achari, G., Schacter, R., Joshi, R. and McLellan, P.J.: “ Effects of drilling
fluids on shear strength properties of Fernie shales”, Rcok Mechanics, Aubertin,
Hassani & Mitri (eds) @ 1996 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 838 X.
Wang, Yalong; and Lu, Baoping: “ Fully Coupled Chemico-Geomechanics Model and
Applications to Wellbore Stability in Shale Formation in an Underbalanced Field
Conditions”, SPE 78978 presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium and International Well Technology Conference held in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 4-7 November 2002.
Wilkes, T.M.; Watson, R.W. and Graham, R.L.: “ A New Improved Method for the
Design and Field Implementation of Air-Mist Drilling”, SPE 39301 presented at
the 1998 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas 3-6 March 1998.
Willson, S.M.; Last, N.C.; Zobach, M.D. and Moos, D.: “ Drilling in South America:
Wilson R.C. and Willis, D.N.: “ Successful High Angle Drilling in the Statfjord Field”,
SPE 15465 presented at the 61st Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineering held in New Orleans, LA October 5-8, 1996.
Wong, S.W., Kenter, C.J., Schokkenbroek, H., Bordes, P.D and Regteren, J.V.: “
Optimizing Shale Drilling in the Northern North Sea: Borehole Stability
Considerations”, SPE 26736 presented at the Offshore Europe Conference held in
Aberdeen, 7-10 September 1993.
257
Drilling Engineering, March 1990. (SPE 17508)
Yamamoto K.; Shioya Y. and Uryu N.: 23 October 2002.
Yang J.H. and Gray K.E.: “ Behavior of Anisotropic Rocks Under Combined Stresses”,
SPE 3098 presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, held in Houston TX., Oct. 4-7, 1970.
Yew, C.H. and Liu, G. (1992): “ Pore Fluid and wellbore Stabilities” SPE 22381, SPE
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 24-27 March,
pp.519-527.
Yousif K. Kharaka and Willard C. Smalley: “ Flow of Water and Solutes through
Compacted Clays”, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
V. 60, No. 6 (June 1976), P.973-980.
Yu, M., Chen G., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.: “Chemical and Thermal
Effects on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”, SPE71366, New Orleans,
USA, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001.
Yu, M.: “ Chemical and thermal effects on wellbore Stability of Shale Formations”,
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
Yu, M., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M.: “Chemical-mechanical wellbore

instability model for shales: accounting for solute diffusion”, Journal of
Zamora M., Broussard P.N. and Stephens M.P.: “ The Top 10 Mud-Related Concerns in
Deep Water Drilling Operations”, SPE 59019 presented at the SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Tabasco,
Mexico, 1-3, February 2000.
Bazali Talal: “Effects of Strain Rate on Failure Characteristics for Shale”, will be
Anchorage Alaska.
Zheng Z.: “ Integrated Borehole Stability Analysis – Against Tradition”, SPE/ISRM

47282, presented at the SPE/ISRM Europe ’98 held in Trondheim, Norway, 8-10
July 1998.
258
Zhou, A.; Hills, H.H., and Sandiford, M.: “ On Mechanical Stability of Inclined
Wellbores”, SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996.
Zijsling, D.H.: “ Analysis of Temperature Distribution and Performance of

Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits Under Field Drilling Conditions”, SPE
13260 presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
Zoback, M. D.; Rummel, F.; Jung, R. and Raleigh, C. B.: “ Laboratory Hydraulic
Fracturing Experiment in Intact and Pre-fractured Rock”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol.14, pp 49-58, 1977. “ Discrete Element Approach
for the Wellbore Instability of Laminated and Fissured Rocks”, SPE/ISRM 78181
present at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas, 20-
259
Vita
Jianguo Zhang was born in Tongzhou, Jiangsu province of China, on April 9th,
1969, the son of Cheng Zhang and Qiyun Zhou. Jianguo received a Bachelor of Science
degree in Drilling Engineering from the University of Petroleum, China (UPC) in July
1992 and a Master of Science degree in Petroleum Engineering from the same university
in January 1998. From 1992 to 2001, He taught and performed research work in the
Department of Petroleum Engineering at UPC. He taught Drilling Engineering and Basic
Petrophysics for six years. Meanwhile, he participated in several research projects
including Wellbore Stability and Horizontal Well Drilling. In August 2001, he entered
the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin. Jianguo is the author of several
papers and annual reports in petroleum engineering related topics.
Permanent address: #19 Yumin Village

Tongzhou City
Jiangsu Province, 226343
China
This dissertation was typed by the author.
260

The Impact of Shale Properties On Wellbore Stability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Shale Properties On Wellbore Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright

THE IMPACT OF SHALE PROPERTIES ON WELLBORE

Martin E. Chenevert, Supervisor

Mukul M. Sharma, Co-Supervisor

Jianguo Zhang, B.S.; M.Sc.

The University of Texas at Austin

for the Degree of

The University of Texas at Austin

To my wife Hongying Cui

To my son Yunfan Zhang

It is impossible to complete this dissertation without the inspiration,

I am indebted to my colleague Talal Al-Bazali for reviewing my manuscript. I

Yu, and Mr. Xingru Wu for their friendship and help.

Appreciation is also extended to the following staff of the Department of

Finally, my special gratitude is to my wife Hongying and my son Yunfan.

Jianguo Zhang, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2005

Supervisors: Martin E. Chenevert and Mukul M. Sharma

The stress distribution around deviated wellbores in laminated shale/sand

rock strength anisotropies should be considered in order to improve wellbore stability.

A new Gravimetric–Swelling Test (GST), for quantitatively determining water

shale and water-based fluids play an important role.

List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1 : Problem Statement ................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Properties of Shale ...............................................................................20

Chapter 3 : Wellbore Instability of Directional Wells in Laminated and Naturally

Chapter 6 : The Effect of Ion Movement on Shale Swelling...............................128

Chapter 7 : Changes in Shale Strength and Acoustic Properties with Exposure to

Chapter 8 : Stability of Deviated and Horizontal Wells: Mechanical, Chemical and

Appendix 1: Strength of Non-laminated Rock ................................................... 232

Appendix 2: Strength of Laminated Formations .................................................234

Appendix 3: Stress State Around Wellbore .........................................................235

Appendix 4: An Example to Determine Water and Ion Movement ....................238

Appendix 5: A Model to Predict Pore Pressure Build-up during a Compressive

Figure 1-1 – Wellbore instability in shales ....................................................................... 19

mechanisms of wellbore instability be identified. Once the mechanisms are understood,

to ensure wellbore stability.

Due to the unique mechanical and physicochemical properties of shales, it is well-

recognized that wellbore instability in shales is a complicated problem.

1.2 PROPERTIES OF SHALES

plane perpendicular to the bedding.

exhibited by shales. For example, the movement of water/ions during shale/mud

been available until now.

1.3 WELLBORE INSTABILITY IN SHALES

The mechanisms of wellbore instability in shales can be grouped into three

1.3.1 Mechanical Effects

Relatively little has been published on acoustic measurements of the mechanical

1.3.2 Chemical Effects

One of the main causes of shale instability is believed to be the unfavorable

1.3.3 Thermal Effects

1.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK

From theoretical to experimental aspects, a comprehensive study, including

G Shear modulus [=] m/L-t2

Vp Compressive sonic wave velocity [=] L/t

Vs Shear sonic wave velocity [=] L/t

UCS Uniaxial compressive strength [=] m/L-t2

ν Poisson ratio, dimensionless

Bradley, W.B.: “ Failure of Inclined Boreholes”, Journal of Energy Resources

Chenevert M. E. and Gatlin C.: “Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated Sedimentary

Chenevert, M. E: “Shale Alteration by Water Adsorption”, JPT (Sept. 1970), pp 1141-

Davidson, J.A.: “ Application of Acoustic Measurements in Shale Stability Research”,

Detournay, E. and Cheng, A.H-D: “ Poroelastic Response of a Borehole in a Non-

Ewy, R.T.: “ Wellbore-Stability Prediction by Use of a Modified Lade Criterion” SPE