IPA11-E-223

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2011

DRILLING OPTIMIZATION USING GEOMECHANICS AIDES IN SUCCESSFUL DRILLING

CAMPAIGN IN HPHT FIELD IN SOUTH SUMATRA, INDONESIA: A CASE STUDY

Gustioro Purwagautama*
Idi Yusuf Afandi*
Nova Kristianawatie*
Dino Akbar*
Ngurah Beni Setiawan**
Somesh Bahuguna**
Leo Anis**

ABSTRACT The wells were drilled successfully without

Foreknowledge of upcoming drilling challenges in
an HPHT environment is the best way to optimize
drilling. Compounded with drilling high angle wells
in such environment with narrow drilling margin
necessitates a geomechanics study. Such study
should present before drillers the drilling risk
associated with drilling these wells and should be
able to predict formation sensitivity to variation in
drilling trajectory and mud weights. This paper
describes one such geomechanics study which aided
2009 HPHT drilling campaign by MEDCO E&P
Indonesia, one of the largest oil and gas operators in
Indonesia.
In this campaign, two HPHT wells – high angle and
horizontal were to be drilled through overpressured
Gumai shales and landed in overpressured Baturaja
formation – a naturally fractured carbonate
reservoir, in South Sumatra. Under this study, two
vertical wells drilled about 10 years ago were
reviewed and several NPT events – pack-offs,
losses and high gasses due to low overbalance, were
observed. Hence, managing the wellbore instability
in high pressure wells, with limited drilling margin
and high inclination, by means of optimizing the
wellbore annulus pressure as well as the well
trajectory was the main concern.
A fit-for-purpose Mechanical Earth Model was
generated using limited available data. This served
as an input for predrill wellbore stability analysis
which identified drilling hazards in plan wells.
Suitable recommendations were made to optimize
drilling plan to reduce the drilling risks.
* Medco E&P Indonesia
** Schlumberger
significant NPT related to formation pressure and
hole instability. Postdrill analysis confirmed drilling
events observed were as per study’s prediction. The
study was updated with data recorded this campaign
and the analysis was updated for drilling drain hole
of one of the plan wells. The overall benefit
recognized by Medco is efficient drilling
complimented with better production and hence
achieving the campaign’s objectives.
INTRODUCTION
The S Field located within Lematang Block, South
Sumatra Province was discovered in 1997 by
MEDCO E&P by drilling two vertical exploration
wells S-1 and S-2 (Figure 1). These wells identified
the field as High Pressured High Temperature
(HPHT) and tested gas in Baturaja carbonates. The
field was revisited in 2009, by drilling two wells –
high angle and horizontal. The wells were planned
to be drilled through overpressured Gumai shales
and land in overpressured Baturaja formation – a
naturally fractured carbonate reservoir. The
challenge laid in ensuring wellbore stability in the
deviated wells in an HPHT environment with
limited information of subsurface. Due to
limitations of well planning, the wells had to be
kicked off below 8000 ft followed by a high dogleg.
This adds to the complexity to the drilling
campaign.
The 1997 drilling campaign was affected by drilling
challenges like tight hole/over pull, high pressures
and high temperature. It was expected that these
Non Productive Time (NPT) events would magnify
in case of highly deviated wells. Therefore,
ensuring wellbore stability became the main
concern. Proper planning and upfront engineering
was required to ensure success of 2009 campaign. A
Geomechanics study was conducted for the S Field
in order to optimize the drilling and to identify risks
associated with drilling highly deviated wells. The
study was designed to generate optimum drilling
parameters to ensure wellbore stability and to
recommend mitigation measures for the drilling
team.
Under the workflow adopted, the Geomechanics
study was conducted in phases which included
construction of predrill models for the two plan
wells followed by update of predrill model during
the drilling campaign. The postdrill analysis
conducted for wells S-3 and S-4 adds to the current
geomechanics understanding of the sub-surface.
The following lists the workflow and objectives of
each phase in detail:
Phase-1: Predrill modeling for the 2009 drilling
campaign
• Review the drilling events occurred in S-1 and
S-2 offset wells, and extract relevant
information from drilling data for mechanical
earth modeling and wellbore stability
analysis.
• Integrate and analyze the existing relevant
logs, field and other data, to generate
Mechanical Earth Model (MEM), describing
stress magnitudes, stress orientations, pore
pressures and rock mechanical properties, for
S-1 and S-2 wells.
• Calibrate and refine the MEM, using existing
caliper and drilling data, to constrain and
reduce uncertainties associated with limitations
and availability of the existing data.
• Use the data contained in the MEM to evaluate
wellbore stability for the offset and the planned
wells.
• Develop mud weight stability profiles and
critical mud weight contour plots for the
planned wells i.e. S-3 Horizontal and S-4
Deviated.
• Recommend best drilling practices for drilling
performance improvement.
Phase-2: Model update for well S-4 (reservoir
section) using information from postdrill review of
well S-3 and S-4
• Drilling event review for wells S-3 and S-4
• Postdrill model for wells S-3 and S-4
• Update model for reservoir section of S-4 for 2
possible trajectories.
The remaining section of this paper will discuss the
above mentioned workflow in detail.
METHODOLOGY
The basic product of any geomechanical study is
referred to as Mechanical Earth Model (MEM). A
MEM is a numerical representation of the state of
stresses, pore pressure and rock elastic and
strength properties for a specific stratigraphic
section in a field or basin. It contains all the
relevant geomechanics information for the
analysis of any geomechanics-related
applications, such as wellbore stability analysis,
sand production prediction, hydraulic fracture
design, 3D stress modeling, compaction and
subsidence evaluation etc. Figure 2 illustrates the
workflow of MEM construction and the failure
analysis.
Phase 1: Geomechanical processing and predrill
modelling
As the first step of the study, data audit was
conducted at existing well location i.e. well S-1 and
S-2. The goal is to diagnose the root cause of the
drilling problems related to geomechanics by
reviewing the daily drilling reports (DDR), well log
and any relevant information e.g. formation
pressure test, Leak-off Test (LOT) or Formation
Integrity Test (FIT). Reviewing drilling reports
revealed that tight hole/over pull and mud loss are
the main problems experienced while drilling in
Muara Enim coal, Gumai shale and Baturaja
carbonate formation in well S-1 and S-2. The
presence of coal in Muara Enim is suspected to be
root cause of the tight hole. Naturally fractured coal
can easily fall into bore hole and increase the risk of
tight hole, stuck pipe etc.
Elastic and strength properties of the rock in the
formation were derived from density, sonic and
petrophysical analysis logs. It is important to note
that elastic properties estimated from log data,
referred as dynamic elastic properties, can be 2 or 3
times larger than the actual formation elastic
properties. For geomechanical purposes, static
elastic properties are required. Schlumberger’s
proprietary correlation’s based on worldwide
catalogue of log and laboratory measurement, were
used to generate static Young’s modulus, Poisson
ratio and other key MEM parameters i.e.
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and angle
of internal friction.
Formation pore pressure is an important constituent
of MEM, in that they are used in the estimation of
horizontal stress and in subsequent analyses for
wellbore stability. Pore pressure can be measured
directly in permeable zone however, in shale due
low permeability; pore pressure has to be estimated.
In this study, pore pressure had been estimated
based on compressional sonic log using normal
compaction trend line method over the clastic
section. Over the reservoir section, the method is
not valid hence the pore pressure estimation was
based on the available well test analysis; interpreted
drilling events e.g. pit gain, gas show in
correspondence with the mud weight. It is found
that the pore pressure ramp starts upon entering
Gumai shale and reaches as high as 16.8 lbm/gal
over the reservoir section.
The most challenging task in stress modeling is to
determine the tectonic component of the horizontal
field. Poro-Elastic Horizontal Strain model is
employed to estimate the magnitude of minimum
and maximum horizontal stress. The process
involved an iterative workflow in order to find the
best estimate of minimum horizontal stress
constrained with the LOT at each casing depth in
each well. Later by means of conducting wellbore
stability analysis the stress model is constrained
further in an iterative process.
At the final stage of the predrill modeling, a
wellbore stability analysis was carried out for well
S-1 and S-2 by generating Mohr-Coulumb failure
model using MEMs of respective wells. The
primary objective is to get a consistency between
actual drilling data and the predicted failure/event
from the failure modelling in an iterative process by
adjusting the input MEM parameters in a consistent
manner. This is to ensure that the uncertainty is
minimized. Borehole shear failure, drilling mud loss
and borehole breakdown was computed and
compared with caliper log and breakdown and leak-
off pressure from LOT. Qualitative validation can
also be done by comparing the model with drilling
experience such as severe hole collapse in incline
section might lead to tight hole/over pull, excessive
circulating density leads to drilling mud loss, high
connection gas or pit gain due to low overbalance.
Once the consistency achieved in well S-1 and S-2
the MEM is ready to be used for the planned well S-
3 and S-4.
Based on relative closeness to plan wells and the
data and log quality, the MEM of well S-1 was
migrated to the planned well locations along
correlation markers to estimate the properties along
planned well trajectory. Figure 3 plots the
correlation markers between the offset and plan
wells. Earth stress and wellbore stability analysis
was again modelled using the same parameters
established in the offset wells. Figure 4 illustrates
the stability window for well S-3 and S-4 and its
appropriate mud weight design and proposed casing
setting depth.
Based on the predrill safe and stable mud weight
windows, risks associated with drilling wells S-3
and S-4 were analysed. In general, the drilling risk
and its proposed action plan can be summarized as
follow:
• Well flow/ kick. The risk is associated with
high pore pressure observed at Gumai shale and
Baturaja carbonate. It was recommended to
gradually increase the mud weight when
entering Gumai shale from 13 lbm/gal to 17
lbm/gal at Baturaja carbonate. High gas
concentration while drilling and while making
connection should also be monitored closely on
regular basis.
• Tight hole and over pull. The risk is associated
with borehole wall failure which might lead to
excessive cuttings accumulation in the annulus.
The risk would magnify as it enters the inclined
section. Proposed recommendation was to
optimize the hole cleaning by using minimal
flow rate to minimize the hydraulic impact and
erosion of failed materials on the wellbore wall.
• Stuck pipe due to high dogleg. The risk is
associated with the planned to kick off the well
at 8000 ft and followed by high dogleg.
• Drilling mud loss was expected while drilling
through naturally fractured Baturaja carbonate.
Additionally, a lower fracture gradient was also
expected due to thermal effect which might lead
to drilling mud loss.
All the possible risks and its associated action plans
for well S-3 and S-4 including the planned
trajectory, proposed mud weight and casing depth,
and mud weight window were tabulated and
presented in a comprehensive plot DrillMAP*,
which can be easily followed by the drilling
engineer in the field. Figure 5 shows the DrillMAP
for well S-3. Based on the plan mud weight and
casing setting depths, the risk of encountering
breakouts, kicks and tight hole/pack off in Gumai
and Baturaja formations was categorised as
‘serious’. Recommendations were made for proper
hole cleaning and employing Managed Pressure
Drilling (MPD) services.
Phase 2: Drilling execution and postdrill analysis
MEDCO drilling engineers used the above
mentioned DrillMAPs as guidance while planning
and drilling the two plan wells. Since S-3 is located
only 15 m away from S-4, the well was drilled by
moving the rig from S-3 to S-4 interchangeably
after completing one section.
Under Phase-2, the DDR of well S-3 and S-4 were
reviewed and relevant geomechanics related events
were extracted. The predrill model was calibrated
and updated using the drilling experiences and the
actual trajectory. Limited basic logs e.g. gamma ray
and resistivity could be acquired in reservoir section
due to high temperature ~400°F (~200°C), as it
exceeded the tool operational limit. Hence the
postdrill analysis and model update is based on
drilling experience only. The execution and the
postdrill analysis for each well are presented in the
following section.
S-3 horizontal well
Well S-3 was spud in February 2010 with the
planned kick off at YY00ft to horizontally
penetrated Baturaja carbonate. The actual trajectory
of this well slightly differs with the planned
trajectory and the 9 5/8-in and 7-in casings were set
at shallower depth. Figure 6 plots the trajectory of
the S-3 well.
The 17½-in section was drilled with 10 lbm/gal oil-
based mud (OBM) through Muara Enim and Air
Benakat formation. Predrill model predicted a
minor hole collapse and the pore pressure is slightly
higher than hydrostatic. At least 5 tight spot
incidents were reported after 3 to 4 days drilling
while pulling out of hole through Muara Enim
formation. Time-dependant shale stability is
suspected to cause the events. It is believed that
such problems are generally observed while drilling
with water-based mud (WBM). However,
incompatible water phase salinity of OBM could
also result in time-dependant shale stability
problem. In this well, the tight hole could also have
been caused by excessive accumulation of cuttings
in the annulus due to the collapse of coal in Muara
Enim formation. This analysis is supported by the
observation of coal cavings in the shaker. The 13
3/8-in casing was set 6 ft deeper than planned.
Figure 7 plots the postdrill wellbore stability plot
for well S-3 along with key drilling events.
Gumai shale was drilled with 12¼-in bit with
gradual increase in pore pressure from 10 lbm/gal to
14.3 lbm/gal in as predicted by MEM. The section
was drilled with adequate mud weight increasing
from 11.3 lbm/gal to 15.4 lbm/gal at section TD.
The well was kicked off at YY20 ft MD and the
angle was gradually built to 47.8° till section TD.
At least 3 connection gas (CG) was reported
indicating near balance between the pore pressure
and the static mud pressure in the annulus while
making connection. Series of tight hole and packoff
events were reported in the build-up section till
section TD. This is most likely because in some
intervals the mud weight used is less than the
breakout limit predicted by the MEM over the
inclined section. Additionally, at more than 40° well
inclination and limited pump rate of around 450
gpm, insufficient hole cleaning could have been
contributed to cause the tight hole and pack offs.
The 9 5/8-in casing was set Y38 ft shallower than
planned at YYY22 ft MD.
Prior to drilling the next hole section, LOT was
performed at 9 5/8-in casing shoe using 14.9
lbm/gal mud. The open hole section was pressurized
up to 2193 psi without any indication of formation
breakdown as shown in Figure 8. LOT, if conducted
properly, can be used to estimate the minimum
horizontal stress in an area. Valuable information
such as minimum horizontal stress can be obtained
by analyzing the declining pressure trend after
pumps are switched off with closed annulus.
However, sometimes operators stop the pumping
even before the breakdown pressure is reached.
Possible reason is due to casing burst pressure
limitation. The pressure may only reach the leak-off
pressure (LOP) or the test may be concluded earlier
as an FIT. In general, LOP is usually the upper
bound of minimum horizontal stress. Hence, the
reported LOT of 18.58 lbm/gal was considered as
the upper limit of minimum horizontal stress.
Figure 9 shows all LOTs in well S-3 and S-4 which
are about 1 lbm/gal to 2 lbm/gal higher than the
predicted minimum horizontal stress. This is
because the LOT was estimated from the highest
pressure observed during pressurizing the annulus
before formation breakdown achieved. Hence the
reported values cannot be directly compared with
the predicted minimum horizontal stress and should
be treated as the upper limit.
The 8½-in hole section was drilled with MPD
technique in which the effective mud weight is
maintained close to the pore pressure. The predrill
model in this section predicted a gradual increase in
pore pressure from 14.3 lbm/gal to 15.9 lbm/gal at
section TD. Moderate hole failure was predicted
over this inclined section. Dynamic LOT was
subsequently performed in stages from 17 lbm/gal
to 18.1 lbm/gal at YYY05 ft MD to ensure upper
drilling margin. The LOT was conducted in an 842
ft open hole section with 40 ft into Baturaja
carbonate. It was confirmed that leak-off was not
achieved and ballooning was observed while
pumping out the mud into the annulus. This
ballooning effect might indicate a partial opening of
pre-existing natural fractures during pumping,
which bled off while the pumps were stopped.
Later kicks were induced to free the drillstring
which got stuck at 85° inclination due to operational
reasons. In the ensuing operation, 17.4 lbm/gal kill
mud weight was circulated to control the kick at
YYY35 ft MD. The highest ECD reported was 17.4
lbm/gal and it is indicated by black diamond in
Figure 10. It can be concluded that the predrill
predicted pore pressure of 16.8 lbm/gal is slightly
lower than pore pressure measured by MPD which
is 17 lbm/gal. The drilling continued without any
significant problem and well was TD’d earlier than
planned at YYY25 ft MD.
S-4 directional (J-shape) well
The S-4 was spud in March 2010. The challenges in
S-4 remain the same as S-3 where high formation
pressure and hole collapse over the inclined section
were the major concern. In this well, the plan was to
drill a vertical section till YY8300 ft MD and then
directionally enter Gumai shale and Baturaja
carbonate at 49° inclination until well TD at
YYY89 ft MD.
However, the actual well trajectory differs from the
planned. The actual maximum deviation is higher
than planned and is about 69° in Gumai shale and
Baturaja carbonate. The risk would magnify and
more problems are expected as the well inclination
increases, assuming all other parameters are the
same. However, driller was successfully
implemented a good hole cleaning practice and
supported by higher pump capacity compare to well
S-3. Last track in Figure 7 compares the pump
performance of wells S-3 and S-4. As shown by the
red arrows in the plot, it can be seen that at higher
well inclination, even though the risk of generating
breakouts was higher, the problem in well S-4 is
less than what had been reported in well S-3.
Unlike in well S-3, mud losses were observed while
drilling through Muara Enim coal in this well as
shown by blue arrow in Figure 7. While penetrating
the coal, the mud weight used was 10.5 lbm/gal but
then increased to 11.5 lbm/gal which probably led
to the mud losses. Mud loss was no longer observed
after reducing the mud weight to 10.5 lbm/gal.
While drilling with 11.5 lbm/gal the mud equivalent
circulating density (ECD) could have been
exceeded the value of fracture re-opening of the
coal in Muara Enim. The predrill model predicted a
13.4 lbm/gal limit for seepage losses which is close
to ECD value for 11.5 lbm/gal drilling mud. This
lesson learned was implemented while drilling
through Muara Enim in well S-3 where the mud
weight was limited to maximum 10.5 lbm/gal.
Hence mud losses were not observed.
CONCLUSION
MEDCO acknowledged the importance of having
upfront information prior to the 2009 drilling
campaign. Although the challenges remain the
same, MEDCO was confident to drilled two high
angle wells by having proper and comprehensive
analysis. Detail geomechanical analysis was
conducted to find the root cause of events that
occurred in the previous drilling campaign and
constructed the most representative fit for purpose
MEM to determine the best scenario to complete the
plan wells.
Considerable NPT improvement related to wellbore
stability is achieved in deviated/horizontal wells S-3
and S-4 during the 2009 drilling campaign
compared to the vertical wells drilled in previous
wells. The ROP at Baturaja carbonate was
significantly improved from 5 ft/hr in previous
campaign to around 40 ft/hr. High pore pressure in
Gumai shale and Baturaja carbonate was managed
properly by having foreknowledge of associated
risks based on predrill DrillMAP.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank MEDCO E&P for the
cooperation during the study and the permission to
publish this study.
REFERENCE
Plona T. J., Cook J. M. (1995); Effects of Stress
Cycles on Static and Dynamic Young’s Moduli in
Castlegate Sandstone; Rock Mechanics (Damen &
Schultz, Ed.); Publ. Balkema, Rotterdam.
TerraTek Inc. (1998); The Difference Between
Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties;
TerraTek Standard Publications, June 1998.
Bowers, G. L., Exxon Production Research Co.;
Pore pressure estimation from velocity data:
Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms besides
Undercompaction; SPE Drilling & Completion,
June, 1995.
Plumb R, Edwards S., Pidcock G., & Lee, D.
(2000); The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and
its Application to High-Risk Well Construction
Projects; SPE 59128.
Tan C. P., Povstynova M., Mohiuddin M. A.,
Rahim M. H. A. R., Schlumberger and Qadami A.,
Al-Khafji Joint Operations; Fluid Design Solves
Shale Instability Problem; HART E&P, November
2009.
 S Field

Figure 1 - Location of S field and planned trajectory for well S-3 and S-4.

Figure 2 - Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) building workflow.

 Plan well Offset well

S‐3 S‐4 S‐1

Figure 3 - Correlation markers between the offset and plan wells

 Well S‐3 Well S‐4

Predicted Predicted
hole failure hole failure

Figure 4 - Predrill mud weight window for well S-3 and S-4. Proposed mud weight is as shown by blue
line in 4th track. Brown-shaded area indicate the kick zone, red-shaded area indicate breakout or
hole collapse zone, blue-shaded area indicate seepage loss zone or fracture re-opening pressure
and black-shaded area indicate formation breakdown or hydraulic fracture zone.
Figure 5 - DrillMAP for well S-3. It defines drilling risks based on the wellbore stability model and plan
mud weights and casing setting depths. The risks plotted against depth and are colour coded
depending on their severity. Recommendations for mitigating drilling risks are made in the right
most columns.
Well S-3 Well S-4

Figure 6 - Actual versus planned trajectory for well S-3 and S-4.
Figure 7 - Postdrill wellbore stability of well S-3 (left) and well S-4 (right). Pump performance (GPM) is
shown in the last track. Green-line indicates pump rate in well S-3 while blue-dots indicate
pump rate in well S-4.
 Leak‐off Test result at 9‐5/8”

Maximum pressure 2193 psi Shut‐in pressure

Stop pump

Figure 8 - Leak-off Test (LOT) pressure versus volume plot in well S-3 at 9 5/8-in casing shoe using 14.9
lbm/gal mud.

Predicted vs. Actual
24 LOT S‐4
FIT S‐4
Measured LOT/FIT ‐ lbm/gal

22 LOT S‐3
FIT S‐3
20

18

16

14

12

10
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Predicted min. Horizontal  stress ‐ lbm/gal

Figure 9 - Leak-off Test (LOT) in well S-3 and well S-4 compared with the predicted minimum horizontal
stress.
 5 lbm/gal 25

Predicted  Total
failure gas

Well Connection
deviation gas

Dynamic. LOT

Pore pressure Kill MW

Kick MW

Figure 10 - Postdrill analysis for well S-3 over 8½-in section. Black diamond in 3rd track shows the ECD
recorded while drilling the section.