Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Abu Butabul Field is located within onshore Oman Block 60 in the Western region of the Central Oman Desert (Figure 1).
Gas-condensate was discovered in the field in 1998. The main reservoir is the Cambro-Ordovician clastic Barik formation,
which is buried over 4200 m below sea level with very low porosity and permeability. Wellbore instability related drilling
problems were encountered while drilling most of the appraisal wells in the field. The problems were mainly in the shallower
Natih and Nahr Umr formations, Gharif formation and deeper Safiq, Ghudun and Mabrouk formations. A geomechanical
modeling study was conducted in the field to understand the causes of the wellbore instability problems and to provide
recommendations for drilling new wells.
Data from nine wells were analyzed and used for the construction of 1-D mechanical earth models. Rock mechanical testing
data on core samples and pressure and stress memasurement were integrated in the models. Wellbore stability analysis of
those wells provided insight into the causes of the wellbore instability problems. To predict wellbore stability at any location
in the field more efficiently and capturing the lateral formation property variation as indicated by the seismic data, a 3-D
geomechanical model was constructed and subsequently used for predicting wellbore stability for new wells to be drilled in
the field and hydraulic fracturing pressures for fracturing stimulation of horizontal wells.
This paper describes the process of constructing the 1-D mechanical earth models, performing wellbore stability analysis for
the appraisal wells, , Integeration of 3D seismic Inversion, constructing the 3-D geomechanical model, predicting wellbore
stability for new wells using data contained in the 3-D model and post-drill wellbore stability analysis of the planned wells.
Introduction
The Abu Butabul discovery is situated on a regional high that lies between the two Early Cambrian salt basins (Ghaba and
Fahud) that provided the principal source kitchens for northern Oman. The Barik Sandstone comprises a prograding, braid
delta plain/shoreface succession. The top seal is provided by marine mudstones of the Mabrouk Member (Lower Ordovician)
and the base seal is formed by marine mudstones of the Al Bashair Member (Upper Cambrian). Internal seals are likely to be
associated with intra-Barik marine flooding surfaces. The Abu Butabul structure is a gentally dipping 3-way dip closure on
the footwall of a down to the west throwing fault. Figure 2 shows the stratigraphy in the block. The Barik Sandstone is the
principal reservoir interval that has been appraised in the structure.
Wellbore instability related drilling problems accounted for a large portion of the non-productive time while drilling. Many
of these wellbore instabilities are induced by excessive stress concentrations at the borehole wall and inadequate mud
support. Geomechanical analysis of rock mechanical properties, pore pressure, stresses in the far field and around the
wellbore can help to determine the appropriate mud weight for maintaining wellbore stability. Rock mechanical properties,
pore pressure and in-situ stresses need to be determined based on data from existing wells before wellbore stability analysis
can be performed. Such analysis helps to understand the borehole failure mechanisms and predict wellbore stability for other
well trajectories. If wellbore stability prediction needs to be conducted for a new well location prior to drilling the well based
on the single well geomechanical model, formation properties at the new well location are typically assumed to be the same
as those at the offset well location. With the advancement of seismic interpretation and geostatistics technology, the lateral
SPE 159091
variation of formation properties can be characterized with seismic data and geological modeling. A 3-D geomechanical
model capturing such lateral variation will bring more accuracy in terms of formation properties to wellbore stability
analysis. Furthermore, stress variations due to formation property changes and geological discontinuities such as faults and
fractures can also be better characterized with a 3-D geomechanical model. The more accurate description of formation
properties and stresses will result in more accurate wellbore stability predictions for any locations in a field prior to drilling.
Once a 3-D geomechanical model is constructed, all geomechanical data required for wellbore stability analysis are available
at any location within the 3-D volume. This will also reduce the amount of time required for predicting wellbore stability for
well planning at new well locations.
The objectives of the Abu Butabul geomechanical modeling study were to characterize rock mechanical properties, pore
pressure and in-situ stresses based on nine appraisal wells, understand wellbore intability mechanisms in those wells with
wellbore stability analysis, construct a 3-D geomechanical model for the field so that wellbore stability prediction can be
performed for any future well in the field with data contained in the 3-D model.
1-D Mechanical Earth Model
A 1-D Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) is a description of rock elastic and strength properties, in-situ stresses and pore
pressure as a function of depth, referenced to a stratigraphic column (Plumb et al, 2000). In order to determine formation
mechanical properties, pore pressures, in-situ stress orientation and magnitudes, 1-D MEMs were constructed for nine
appraisal wells in the Abu Butabul field. The MEM consisted of continuous profiles of the following rock mechanical data
and parameters along the well trajectories:
Mechanical stratigraphy, the differentiation of clay-supported rock from grain-supported rock.
Formation elastic properties, including dynamic and static Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio.
Rock strength parameters, including unconfined compressive strength (UCS), friction angle and tensile strength.
Pore pressures.
In-situ stress state, including the azimuth of the minimum horizontal stress, magnitudes of vertical stress, minimum
and maximum horizontal stresses.
Wireline logs including compressional slowness, shear slowness, bulk density, gamma ray etc. were used to compute logderived rock elastic and strength properties and in-situ stresses. Rock mechanical testing data were available from six of the
nine appraisal wells. These tests include triaxial compression tests, unconfined compression tests, rock scratch tests and
Brazilian tensile strength tests. The core samples tested were taken from Mabrouk, Barik and Al Bashair formations. Static
Youngs modulus were measured on both vertical and horizontal core plugs, the values obtained were similar which
demonstrated that the rock samples were relatively isotropic. Correlations for calculating static Youngs modulus, static
Poissons ratio, UCS and friction angle were established based on the rock mechanical testing data and wireline logs as
shown in Equations 1 to 4. Figure 3 shows the Comparison between log-derived elastic and strength properties and those
measured on core samples for Well ABB-7.
(1)
Where Esta is static Youngs modulus, Mpsi, Edyn is dynamic youngs modulus, Mpsi and is total porosity.
(2)
Where sta is static Poissons ratio and dyn is dynamic Poissons ratio.
(3)
Where UCS is unconfined compressive strength, MPa and G is dynamic shear modulus, GPa.
(4)
Where FANG is friction angle, degrees, is total porosity and VCL is volume of clay, fraction.
Vertical stress at any point in the formation is equivalent to the weight of the formation materials above and it was computed
by integrating the bulk density log. The pore pressure was computed based on measured pore pressures and the mud weight
used while drilling the well. The minimum horizontal stress azimuth was determined based on the observation of borehole
breakout and drilled induced fractures from FMI* borehole image and dual caliper logs. It ranges from N140E to N160E
across the field, which is consistent with the regional stress direction. The magnitudes of the minimum and maximum
horizontal stresses were determined using the poro-elastic horizontal strain model as shown in Equations 5 and 6 (Fjaer et al,
SPE 159091
2008). The minimum horizontal stress was calibrated based on data from leakoff tests, extended leakoff tests and closure
pressures interpreted from hydraulic fracturing pressures. The magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress cannot be directly
measured. It was inverted from analyzing fracture initiation pressures and verified by conducting wellbore stability analysis
and matching simulated shear failures and tensile failures with observed borehole breakout and drilling induced fractures.
The stress regime in majority of the formations was found to be strike-slip with the vertical stress being the intermediate
principal stress. Figure 4 shows the 1-D MEM and wellbore stability analysis for Well ABB-2. The mud weight window and
the agreement between the predicted borehole breakout and the borehole enlargement as can be seen from the caliper log
indicate that wellbore instability related drilling problems were due to borehole failures induced by inadequate mud weight.
Borehole failures mainly occurred in Natih, Nahr Umr, Gharif, the bottom part of Al Khalata, Safiq, Ghudun and Mabrouk
formations. This is consistent with the drilling observations.
H
Where
1 2
E
E
Pp
H
2 h
1
1
1 2
1 2
E
E
Pp
H
2 h
1
1
1 2
Poissons ratio,
(5)
(6)
is static
Formation mechanical properties and in-situ stress magnitudes were also obtained for the other appraisal wells. Wellbore
stability analyses for these wells revealed similar borehole failure characteristics.
Integeration of 3D seismic Inversion
The Simultaneous Inversion workflow was applied on Abu Butabul Field in order to map out the good porosity sand
distribution as well as getting the elastics property volumes to be integrated in the 3D geomechanical model.
Elastic rock properties P-Impedance, S-Impedance, density, and Vp/Vs can be detrmined from Simultaneous inversion by
applying the full Zoeppritz equations to the angle of incidence range response in seismic data. Intensive QC steps and
parameters testing were applied through intermediate stages to insure that the output volumes are verified with blind test
wells.
Editing and conditioning well logs is essential to start the workflow with, so detailed petrophysical analysis and rock physics
modeling was applied to correct for all kind of problems well logs might have such as cycle skipping, washouts, missing
intervals, etc. these edited well log were calibrated with seismic to ensure good sonic and density logs that are tied with
appropriate events on the seismic data. Then, wavelets are simultaneously extracted from angle gather stacks at multi-well
location. After that, the low frequency elastics property volumes for P-impedance, S-impedance and density are built using
horizons, stratigraphy information and filtered log data. Eventually, the simultaneous AVO inversion is run on the angle
gather stacks with their respective wavelets and as a result P-Impedance, S-impedance and Vp/Vs property volumes are
generated and verified by direct comparison with the well logs.
SPE 159091
SPE 159091
Conclusions
1. 1-D mechanical earth modeling and wellbore stability analyses for nine appraisal wells revealed that majority of the
borehole enlargement and wellbore instability related drilling problems were caused by shear failures of the
formation due to inadequate mud weight while drilling.
2. A 3-D geomechanical model which was constructed using 1-D MEMs, existing geological model and seismic
inversion results is essential to characterize lateral variation of mechanical properties since it gives better prediction
throughout the full field.
3. Stresses that were simulated in the 3-D geomechanical model with finite element modeling have good agreement
with the stresses contained in the 1-D MEMs at the appraisal well locations, which indicate that the stresses in the 3D model were representative of the in-situ stresses in the field.
4. The presence of faults has a significant effect on the stress state, both stress magnitudes and stress direction are
altered in the vicinity of faults.
5. The 3-D geomechanical model enabled efficient wellbore stability analysis for planned wells in the field.
6. Wellbore stability analyses for planned wells provided mud weight recommendations on drilling these wells and it
was confirmed that those recommendations helped to maintain borehole stability and success of the drilling.
SPE 159091
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Oman Oil Exploration and Development LLC and Schlumberger for permission to publish this
work.
Nomenclature
h
H
v
h,H
E
ECD
FANG
G
MEM
Pp
UCS
VCL
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
References
Fjaer E., Holt R.M., Horsrud P., Raaen A.M. and Risnes R., Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, 2008.
Plumb, R. A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G. and Lee, D., The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its Application to High-Risk
Well Construction Projects, Paper SPE 59128 presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, February 23-25, 2000.
Zhang X., Koutsabeloulis, N., Kristiansen T., Heffer K., Main I., Greenhough J. and Hussein A.M., Modelling of DepletionInduced Microseismic Events by Coupled Reservoir Simulation: Application to Valhall Field, Paper SPE 143378 presented at
the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Veenna, Austria, 23-26 May 2011.
SPE 159091
SPE 159091
Figure 3. Comparison between log-derived elastic and strength properties and those measured on core samples for Well
ABB-7.
SPE 159091
Figure 4. 1-D MEM and wellbore stabilty analysis for Well ABB-2.
10
SPE 159091
SPE 159091
11
12
SPE 159091
Figure 10. Comparison of stresses at the location of Well ABB-5 from 1-D and 3-D solutions. TZSP is vertical stress, TXSP
is minimum horizontal stress, TYSP is maximum horizontal stress from 1-D MEM. Total P1 is minimum principal stress,
Total P2 is intermediate principal stress and Total P3 is maximum principal stress from the 3-D geomechanical model.
SPE 159091
13
Figure 12. Stress magnitude and direction alteration in the faulted region.
Figure 13. Predicted mud weight windows for a development well based on the 3-D geomechanical model. PP (blue) is pore
pressure gradient, Breakout (red) is the minimum mud weight required for preventing borehole breakout, P3 (light blue) is
the fracture gradient and Breakdown (black) is the maximum mud weight that can be applied before drilling induced fractures
are created on the borehole wall.