IPA, 2012 - 35th Annual Convention Proceedings, 2011

IPA11-E-071

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2011

DRILLING OPTIMIZATION USING MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL IN AN OVER-

PRESSURED FIELD IN EAST JAVA, INDONESIA: A CASE STUDY

M. Khawadja Kamaluddin*
Andi M. Adiwiarta*
Somesh Bahuguna**
Cicik Sukma Setya Wahyu**

ABSTRACT upcoming drilling activities in the field by

The Lengowangi field, located onshore East Java,
Indonesia was discovered in 2006. The main
challenges in this area have been the over-pressured
Lower Ngrayong and Tuban formations. The first
well, L-1, was successfully drilled in 2006 and
currently produces up to 10 MMCFD. The second
well, L-2, was drilled up-dip in 2008, but could not
reach the target because of well control issues
related to high pore pressure. Well was TDd about
2800 ft MD shorter than planned depth.
The third well, L-3, was drilled as twin well near L-
2. To optimize drilling the L-3 well, a detail
geomechanical evaluation study was conducted.
The study utilized the drilling and log data gathered
in L-1 and L-2 and aimed to establish the cause of
overpressure and define the pore pressure profile of
the field. The study concluded that significant
overpressure exists in Lengowangi field.
Subsequently, a Mechanical Earth Model was
constructed for L-3 and safe and stable mud weight
windows were established.
L-3 was spud in early 2010 with study
recommendations taken into account for well
designing and drilling. Postdrill analysis of L-3
showed that pore pressure matched with the upper
limit of the predrill estimate. The highest pore
pressure estimated was 17.1 lbm/gal near the well
bottom. For drilling further, mud weight could not
be increased to recommended value of 17.4 lbm/gal
due to drilling restrictions.
Hence, some flows and connection gas were
observed due to low overbalance. Drilling was
considered a success as well TDd close to plan
with improved borehole stability as compared to L-
1 and L-2. Mechanical Earth Model constructed for
Lengowangi field can now be used for optimizing
* JOB Pertamina Petrochina East Java
** Schlumberger
improving borehole stability,defining the pore
pressure profile and by establishing the safe and
stable mud weight windows.
INTRODUCTION
JOB Pertamina Petrochina East Java planned to
drill well L-3 in the Lengowangi field, located
onshore East Java. Figure 1 shows 2D and 3D views
of the offset wells and planned wells. L-3 was to be
drilled 10 m West of offset L-2, which is located
near the crest of the anticline. L-1 is located down-
dip at the flank of Sekarkorong anticline, about 1.8
km Northeast of well L-2. In order to optimize the
drilling program, we conducted a recent drilling
experience review and used all relevant logs,
drilling and other data to understand the drilling
problems in the offset wells.
As overpressure is the main cause of wellbore
instability in the offset wells and the main source of
uncertainty in the planned well L-3, a Mechanical
Earth Model (MEM) was constructed and a
wellbore stability analysis conducted in order to
recommend the safe and stable mud weights for
drilling the proposed wellsafely and efficiently. In
November 2009, Schlumberger finalized a predrill
geomechanical study for well L-3.
The study was conducted in stages, with addition of
qualified and relevant data as and when available. A
representative predrill MEM for well L-3 was
constructed using data acquired in the two offset
wells, L-1 and L-2. An MEM is a depth based
representation of the rock elastic properties, rock
strength, three principal geo-stresses and the pore
pressure of the subsurface referenced to the
stratigraphic column. The input data includes sonic
log and other open hole logs e.g. density, porosity,
gamma ray, geological and petrophysical
interpretations and drilling reports.
Well L-3 was drilled and completed in March 2010.
Postdrill analysis of well L-3 was conducted and
data acquired was used to update the wellbore
stability evaluation analysis.
The geomechanical study involved the following
phases:
Predrill data collection and review: Integrate
and analyze the existing relevant logs, drilling
and other data from the offset wells, L-1 and L-
2.
Construction of predrill MEM: Determine stress
magnitudes, stress orientations, pore pressures
and formation mechanical properties.
Calibration of the predrill MEM: Calibrate and
refine the MEM, using calipers and drilling
events to constrain and reduce the uncertainties
associated with limitations and availability of
the existing data.
Wellbore stability analysis: Compute safe and
stable mud weight ranges to drill well L-3 that
will minimize or avoid incidents, for example,
lost circulation, tight hole and wellbore
collapse.
Postdrill data collection and review: Integrate
and analyze the existing relevant logs, drilling
and other data from well L-3.
Construction of postdrill MEM: Determine
stress magnitudes, stress orientation, pore
pressure profile and formation mechanical
properties.
Calibration of the postdrill MEM: Calibrate and
refine the MEM, using calipers and drilling
events to constrain and reduce the uncertainties
associated with limitations and availability of
the existing data.
METHOD
Predrill Data Collection and Review
A very significant part of most geomechanics
projects consists of data gathering. Building a MEM
involves integrating data from many different
sources in order to accurately describe the
formations in terms of geomechanical attributes.
Key input data to a MEM includes compressional
and shear sonic slowness, bulk density, gamma ray,
resistivity, hole caliper, petrophysical values
porosity and clay volume, drilling reports and other
relevant data. Bulk density, compressional and
shear slownesses are essential log data for the
construction of a MEM. These logs are needed to
generate key rock mechanical parameters such as
Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) and geo-stress profile.
Dipole shear sonic tool provides the required
compressional and shear slownesses.
In wells L-1 and L-2, gamma ray, resistivity,
density and neutron logs were available over most
of the interval. Noticeably, compressional slowness
data was absent over some sections in the offset
wells and shear slowness log was not available in
the wells. This is because the sonic data was
acquired using Bore Hole Compensated sonic tool
(BHC) which, in general, gives poor acoustic data
in bad boreholes and slow formations. In addition, it
cannot provide shear slowness measurement in slow
formations. Hence, the shear slowness log was
synthetically modelled using a lithology model
derived from the formation evaluation package.
Basic petrophysical analysis produced volumetric
lithology, porosity and fluid volumes. These
volumes became part of the input data for
geomechanical modeling.
Drilling events related to geomechanics were
extracted from drilling reports. This information
helped in identifying and characterizing the drilling
problems experienced in the field. These drilling
problems were then cross-referenced to the
geomechanical study to highlight areas of concern,
to support and confirm findings and hypotheses
based on the geomechanical analysis, and to help
understand root causes of observed instability or
drilling problems. The main events that occurred in
offset wells, L-1 and L-2, were trip gas, kick/ pit
gain/ flows, gumbo and tight hole. This indicates
presence of overpressure and insufficient
overbalance.
Predrill Mechanical Earth Model Construction
The basic approach to geomechanical analysis is to
use the available data for interpretation of rock
strength, stress and pressure. The key is to ensure an
internally consistent approach, and the integration
and interpretation of all data. By examining the
available data and understanding the key issues
previously encountered in drilling, testing or
production, we can focus efforts on specific issues
that will have the greatest impact on exploration and
field development.
In analyzing geomechanics for a field, there are a
series of steps that must be followed in order to
fully grasp the quality of data and determine the
amount of uncertainty in the conclusions that are
drawn from the data. Skipping or ignoring the
importance of any one of these steps can lead to
inconsistencies or poor assumptions in the results.
Development of a MEM (Plumb et al., 2000) is
essential in making the best use of field
geomechanics information.
Rock elastic properties represent the deformation
behaviour of the rock. The stress-strain behaviour of
rock is dependent upon the type of rock. For
isotropic elastic materials, the stress-strain
behaviour can be described by two parameters,
typically Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio.
Rock elastic properties are basic inputs to the
computation of rock strength and in-situ stresses.
The static properties can be determined from the
stress-strain curves of laboratory compressive tests.
Dynamic elastic properties can be calculated if
compressional slowness and shear slowness are
available. Since compressional slowness data was
absent over some sections in the offset wells and
shear slowness log was not available, synthetic
compressional and shear slowness logs were
derived in order to get the complete data set. In this
pre-drill study, rock elastic and strength properties
were constructed in offset well L-1 and was then
propagated to plan well L-3 along the correlation
markers.
Wireline density logs were integrated with respect
to depth to compute the vertical or overburden
stress in planned well, L-3. To estimate the density
over intervals of bad or missing data, for example,
above the top of logged interval, an exponential
curve that best fit the available log data was
extrapolated to ground surface.
Pore pressure can be measured directly in
permeable zones. Pore pressure measurement from
Drillstem Test (DST) conducted at one depth
interval was available in well L-1. A continuous log
estimate of Pore pressure was made using Eatons
method and it was calibrated using the DST data
and with pore pressure events reported during the
drilling of the well. The pore pressure in well L-2
could not be estimated by using logs because of
poor log quality. In this well, the mud weight was
regularly increased to control high gas readings.
Hence, mud weight has been taken as an upper limit
of pore pressure estimate in well L-2. Since planned
well is up-dip of the offset wells, buoyancy
correction has been applied to pore pressure
estimate. It was reasonably assumed, based on
seismic profiles, that the planned well would be
drilled through the same hydraulically continuous
gas bearing sands as were the L-1 and L-2. Pore
pressure estimates based on connection gas, kicks,
and gas flows in well L-1 were corrected for
buoyancy effect to estimate the upper limit of pore
pressure over the sands (prognosis) in well L-3.
Table 1 shows the buoyancy computation which
acted as upper limit of pore pressure estimate in the
up-dip L-3. Therefore, the change in pressure in the
continuous sand body will follow the gas gradient
(assumed to be 0.15 g/cc). Up-dip, this will yield
higher pressure in the reservoirs compared to the
bounding shales. Buoyancy inclusion affects not
only pore pressure in the particular sand, but also
the fracture gradient, stress magnitudes and
wellbore stability analysis. Figure 2 shows the pore
pressure estimate for planned well, L-3.
Minimum horizontal stress direction was acquired
by analyzing breakouts in the resistivity image of a
nearby well and was found to be about N 125o E.
Stress magnitudes cannot be measured directly but
can be modeled or inferred from other
measurements or indications (e.g. deformation,
strain, pressure, failure etc.). Determining the
Minimum horizontal stress (h) is relatively
straightforward if h is also the minimum principal
stress, which was the case here. The horizontal
stress magnitudes were modeled using computed
rock elastic properties generated earlier during the
MEM construction. A Poro-elastic Horizontal Strain
Model was used to compute the horizontal stresses.
This model required values of horizontal tectonic
deformation (x and y) as input. Tectonic
deformation cannot be measured directly but useful
calibration data was available in the form of Leak-
Off tests in several wells to provide estimates of the
minimum principal stress at discrete depths. We
analyzed drilling events and borehole breakout and
used our observations to iteratively update the
MEM. The anisotropy between the maximum and
minimum horizontal stress for planned well was
small. Based on the modeling it was estimated that
the stress regime corresponds to thrust (H > h >
v).
Using the propagated MEM as described in the
previous section, wellbore stability analysis was
conducted for the well L-3. Figure 3 shows the mud
weight stability plot for well L-3. Based on the mud
weight window generated for L-3,
recommendations were made for upper and lower
limit of drilling mud weights. Since, there was a
possibility of high pore pressure in sand zones due
to buoyancy effect (red diamonds), upper bound
mud weight (red curve) were recommended in order
to avoid kicks. The synthetic image associated with
predicted wellbore failure for the given
recommended mud weight range is plotted in Track
8. Some breakouts (borehole enlargements) were
observed over the depth of 620 ft 1400 ft MD,
mainly in the shale interval. These were expected to
be minor and could be managed by good borehole
cleaning practices. Based on real-time experiences
while drilling L-2, the mud weights were to be
adjusted within the recommended range.
Execution
Well L-3 was spud in January 2010. The main
drilling problem encountered in this well was the
over pressure in shale formation as predicted by the
predrill modelling. Over pressure events such as
kick, gain, connection gas and trip gas were
observed mainly in the Lower Ngrayong and Tuban
formation. Mud weight was gradually increased
from 16 to 17.1 lbm/gal over this section but still
had to be kept lower than recommended value of
17.4 lbm/gal near the section. For drilling further,
mud weight could not be increased to recommended
value due to drilling restrictions.
Postdrill Data Collection and Review
Compressional and shear slowness was logged
using Dipole Shear Sonic Imager*** (DSI) over the
7-in and 5-in cased hole. Noticeably, density was
logged only over 7-in cased hole which had an
interval of only 317 ft. Hence, data correction and
editing was required to obtain a complete data set
for updating the MEM.
The frequent events that occurred in this well are
flow, gain, trip gas, connection gas and kick, which
all reflect the presence of overpressure and
insufficient drill mud weight. Based on the Drilling
chronology summary (figure 4), overpressure events
(kick, connection gas and flow) were observed
mainly in the 7-in section. Dynamic and partial
losses occurred primarily in the 5-in section,
probably due to presence of carbonate streaks or
natural open fractures. Lost Circulation Mud (LCM)
was pumped to manage losses.
Postdrill Mechanical Earth Model Construction
The postdrill Mechanical Earth Model was
constructed in order to update the predrill model.
The newly estimated elastic and rock strength
properties differed from predrill estimate within the
uncertainty range. For example, Poissons ratio was
about 0.05 higher than predrill estimate on average.
This is because predrill estimates were derived
using synthetic shear slowness from well L-1.
*** Schlumberger tool
The pore pressure estimation in well L-3 was
calculated using Eatons Method based on sonic log
and was calibrated with pore pressure related
events, for example, flows, connection gas etc.
Figure 5 shows pore pressure analysis for well L-3.
Pore pressure increased with depth across Ngrayong
shale formation and reached its highest value of
17.1 lbm/gal in Tuban formation near the well TD.
Since drill mud weight used was very close to pore
pressure and less than the recommended value,
some flows and connection gas events were
observed. Annular pressure was not recorded
downhole, so a conservation estimate of Equivalent
Circulating Density (ECD) is made by adding 3% to
the drill mud weight. Some partial and dynamic
losses probably occurred due to high ECD which
was close to mud-loss gradient. As a comparison,
predrill pore pressure and recommended mud
weight are also plotted. Postdrill pore pressure
estimate shows a good match with predrill pore
pressure upper limit estimate.
Figure 6 shows postdrill wellbore stability analysis
for well L-3. The safe mud weight window
between the pore pressure gradient and the
minimum horizontal stress gradient is less than 1
lbm/gal over the Tuban section. Mud weight used
and the estimated ECD was also plotted. The well
was drilled and completed close to plan TD with
much improved borehole stability compared to L-1
and L-2.
CONCLUSIONS
Predrill and postdrill MEMs and wellbore stability
models for well L-3 were generated and validated,
which include stress magnitudes and orientations,
pore pressure and formation elastic and strength
properties. The predrill study indicated a narrow
mud weight window based on assumption that
targets were being drilled at an up-dip location
compared to offset well. The model gave drillers
enough inputs to optimize the casing depths and the
mud weights within reasonable uncertainty. While
drilling the well, the recommended mud weight was
used as a guide. Planned TD could not be reached
due to drilling restrictions as mud weight could not
be increased up to recommended value. However,
the well could be drilled deeper than the offset well
and penetrated its reservoir targets.
The postdrill update of the MEM for well L-3
shows that over pressure related events like kicks,
flows occurred because drill mud weight was close
to the formation pressure. The mud weight could
not be increased because the safe drilling mud
weight window is less than 1 lbm/gal. Partial and
dynamic losses probably occurred while drilling
over carbonate streaks or over pre-existing fractures
which opened when the ECD came close or
exceeded the minimum horizontal stress gradient.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank JOB Pertamina Petrochina
East Java and Schlumberger for allowing us to
publish this work.
REFERENCES
Bratton T., Bornemann T., Li Q., Plumb R., Rasmus
J., and Krabbe H., 1999, Logging Interpretations:
Proceedings of 40th SPWLA Symposium.
Chardac O., Murray D., Carnegie A., and Marsden
J. R., A Proposed Data Acquisition Program for
Successful Geomechanics Projects, SPE 93182.
Eaton B., 1975, The Equation for Geopressure
Prediction from Well Logs, SPE 5544.
Fjaer E., Holt R. M., Horsrud P., Raaen A. M., and
Risnes R., 1992, Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics Developments in Petroleum Science, 33.
Plumb R. A., 1994, Influence of Composition and
Texture on the Failure Properties of Clastic Rocks,
SPE/ISRM 28022.
Plumb R. A., Edwards S., Pidcock G., and Lee, D.,
2000, The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its
Application to High-Risk Well Construction
Projects, SPE 59128.
TerraTek Inc., 1998, The Difference Between Static
and Dynamic Mechanical Properties, TerraTek
Standard Publications.

 TABLE 1

THE BUOYANCY POINTS WHICH ACT AS UPPER LIMIT OF PORE PRESSURE ESTIMATE
IN WELL L-3

Pressure gradient Pressure gradient
Type L-1 (ft TVD) L-3 (ft TVD)
(lbm/gal) (lbm/gal)
Connection Gas xx61 11.2 xx98 14.07
xx30 13.2 xx57 16.62
Kick xx28 13.6 xx53 16.64
xx98 14.1 xx23 16.92
xx13 12.81 xx40 16.14
Well Flow
xx65 13.07 xx90 16.27

 L3 L2
L1

L1

L2 L3

Figure 1 - 2D and 3D view of the offset wells and planned well.

 XXX
Overburden
Pressure

XXX

Upper estimate
Pore Pressure
XXX

XXX

Lower estimate Pore

Pressure
XXX

Pore Pressure
Buoyancy
XXX

XXX

Figure 2 - Pore pressure estimate in planned well L-3. The red diamonds define the gas buoyancy points at
well L-3 after applying gas buoyancy effect for key events in well L-1 (see Table 1). Green pore
pressure gradient curve defines the upper estimate pore pressure in well L-3.
 L-2 Csg.
XXX

L-2
LOT

XXX

XXX

XXX Upper Limit MW

Lower Limit MW

XXX

PP Buoyancy
XXX

XXX

XXX

Figure 3 - Wellbore stability analysis in planned well L-3. Track 1 through 4 show formation name,
measured depth, litho-column and vertical depth. Track 5 shows computed stresses, pore
pressure and minimum horizontal stress direction. Track 6 shows computed rock strength (UCS
magenta curve, friction angle dark green curve, tensile strength blue curve), Poissons ratio
(light green curve). Track 7 shows mud weight window including following shaded areas: kick
(brown), shear failure or breakout (red), losses (blue) and breakdown (black). Recommended
lower bound mud weight is shown in light green curve, while recommended upper bound mud
weight is shown in red curve. Buoyancy points shown as red diamonds. LOT from well L-2
(magenta diamond) is also plotted. Track 8 shows synthetic failure image.
 L3
DrillingChronology
Time(Date)
1/12/10 1/17/10
XXX 1/22/10 1/27/10
XXX 2/1/10 2/6/10
XXX 2/11/10 2/16/10
XXX 2/21/10 2/26/10
XXX 3/3/10 3/8/10
XXX
0
XXX UpperNgrayong 18
30" FIT@XXXft Depth(ft)
20" EMW13.12ppg Kick
17
XXX
500 PartialLoss
TightHole
16
XXX
1000 13.375" ConnectionGas
Kick@XXXftduring
Seriesof Flow
LOT@XXXft circulation 15
TripGas Flowduring
EMW18.09ppg TightHole@1780ft DynamicLoss
XXX
1500 pumpoutofhole
Gumbo 14 Slougingcutting
9.625" LOT@XXXft
@XXXft
Casing
MD(ft)

LOT@XXXft EMW21.63ppg
2000
XXX 13
EMW20.295ppg Gumbo
7"
Gain
12
2500
XXX Overpullduring Lower Overpull
reamandwash Ngrayong
FIT
down 11
XXX
3000 LOT
Tuban 10 TripGas

XXX MW
3500 SeriesofPartialLosses
5" 9
duringdrillinginto
formation
XXX
4000 8

Figure 4 - Drilling chronology for well L-3

 400 us/ft 40

XXX 13 ppg 18

DTCO

Overburden
XXX

Drill MW

Recommended
MW

XXX
Post-drill PP

Pre-drill PP
Lower Limit

Pre-drill PP
XXX Upper Limit

Figure 5 - L-3 pore pressure estimation. Tracks 1 through 5 show formation name, TVD and casing points,
lithology and MD respectively. Track 6 shows compressional slowness (blue curve). The
postdrill pore pressure profile is shown in Track 7 as blue curve and it is calibrated with
connection gas (black diamond) and flow (green diamond) recorded in daily drilling report.
Predrill pore pressure lower limit (pink curve) and upper limit (dashed blue curve) are also
plotted as comparison. Yellow circle indicated some events during circulation.
 XXX

NO DATA AVAILABLE

Estimated ECD

XXX

Drill MW Connection
Gas

Flow

XXX

Partial and
dynamic
losses

Figure 6 - Postdrill wellbore stability analysis for well L-3. Track 1through 4 show formation name,
measured depth and casing points, litho-column and vertical depth. Track 5 shows overburden
pressure (red curve), minimum (light green curve) and maximum (dark blue curve) horizontal
stress, pore pressure (light blue curve), and LOT (brown diamond). Track 6 shows computed
rock strength (UCS magenta curve, friction angle dark green curve, tensile strength blue
curve), Poissons ratio (dashed green curve). Track 7 shows mud weight window including
following shaded areas: kick (brown), shear failure or breakout (red), losses (blue) and
breakdown (black). Drill mud weight is shown in light green curve, while estimated ECD is
shown in dark green curve. Some unexpected breakdown (black shaded) were observed due to
spiky data. Track 8 shows synthetic failure image. Track 9 and 10 show drilling events recorded
by DDR.