Basics of Wellbore Stability

for High Angle Wells

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

1/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
This Section Will Cover
• Fundamentals of wellbore stability
• What is the role of the mud system?
• Real-world implications
• How does swab affect things?
• Managing Instability

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

2/92
 Some WBS problems are easy to identify…

Note: This is not a hole cleaning problem!

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

3/92
 Have You Ever Noticed…?
• In some cases, high angle wells require more MW for stability,
than a vertical well in the same formations?

• Some directions are easier to drill than other directions?

• WBM may require more MW for stability, than SBM/OBM in

the same circumstances?

• A lot of problems in the rathole below a casing shoe, especially

when casing set off bottom

• Cavings appear after trips, even if none are seen while drilling
& circulating?
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

4/92
 Key Messages
Everything we do is based on the assumption that
the tunnel we are creating is stable
• Keeping the tunnel stable is NOT an “optional extra”
– Imagine if miner’s considered tunnel stability a “nice to have”…

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

5/92
 Wellbore Instability
Note:
• It is easy to go down (or right)
• It is difficult to go to the left…
• It is VERY difficult to go up…
Stable Hole

• Good Design
• Good Practices

• Poor Design • Poor Design

• Good Practices • or Poor Practices

Unstable Manageable Poor Practices Unstable Unmanageable

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

6/92
 General Observations
• Our industry spends vastly more money on wellbore
collapse than on lost circulation
– But Operators tend to be more afraid of lost-circulation than instability

• Typical Comments;
– We can’t use “good practices”… this is unstable shale
OR
– “We all agree we need more mud weight, but what if we start having
losses?”

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

7/92
 General Observations
• The drilling fluid’s role is often under-estimated,
or misunderstood
– Both Mud Weight, and Chemical Inhibition

• The industry likes “sexy” technology (such as RSS,

remote data centers, wired pipe, etc.)

• But place a relatively low priority on the mud system

– And on the guy who is watching the shakers (entry-level job)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

8/92
 General Observations
• Many wells are doomed from the start
– Wellpath & casing points don’t allow necessary MW
– ECDs are not aggressively designed-down, to allow
necessary MW & prevent fatiguing the formation

• Instability can be self-induced in high angle wells if

appropriate practices are not used
– Hydraulic hammer during trips or pumping / back-reaming
– Swabbing on trips (including wiper trips)
– ECD fatigue failure

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

9/92
 Key Messages
• Prevent instability, rather than respond to it
– Tunnel failure can never be “repaired”, only managed
– It becomes more difficult to manage once failure has started

• Success must be designed into the well

– Wellpath & casing points for necessary MW
– ECDs to reduced allow necessary MW
– Swab management
– Mud selection

• If it occurs… patience

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

10/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
Things we can’t control Things we can control
• In-situ stresses • Well design
• Rock strength • Wellpath, casing design
• Rock (Shale) reactivity • ECD & Swab
• Rock permeability • Mud system
• Pore pressure • Practices
• Weak Bedding Planes

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

11/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
• How is the rock “stressed”?

• What does Mud Weight do?

• What does “Reactive” or “Swelling” shale mean?

• What difference does the mud system make?

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

12/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
σv Vertical or overburden stress
σH Maximum horizontal stress
σh Minimum horizontal stress

• The vertical stress is often the

largest (but not always)

• The stresses in the earth are also

known as in situ stresses or
far field stresses.

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

13/92
 The Four Types of “Faults”
σv
Normal Faults σ σv > σH > σh
h
(Tension) σH
σv
Strike-slip Faults σ σH > σv > σh
h
(Shear) σH
σv
Thrust Faults σ σH > σh > σv
(Compression) H σh

The Mud’s Fault

(Isn’t it Always?)
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

14/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
Consider a piece of rock (say, 10,000’ down),
BEFORE drilling
Weight of over-
This rock “feels” the weight of burden from above
10,000’ of over-burden

Re-active force from

below (from Earth)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

15/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
• The rock wants to shrink vertically due to forces above
& below it…
As rock “squeezes” vertically, it
tries to expand horizontally, to
compensate

Rock tries to expand

horizontally, as it is
squeezed from above

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

16/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
• The rock cannot move sideways (because it’s constrained)

• This causes horizontal forces

• Therefore the rock feels:
– High vertical forces
– Lower (usually) horizontal forces
• “Tectonic” stresses may be present:
– Due to faulting, folding, salt domes
– These can increase or decrease the Horizontal stresses
horizontal forces may be increased by
tectonic forces and
are not equal

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

17/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
• Consider a vertical wellbore, drilled next to this rock:

• The wellbore removes the rock to the

side that was constraining left-wards
movement

• The mud column must therefore

provide a stabilizing force to
compensate for this loss

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

18/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
Think of a stone arch The architect or builder has just
discovered that the “walls” are
It’s just civil engineering
not quite strong enough for the
weight of the “roof”
Mud weight is the “bracing” to
compensate for the “weak” walls

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

19/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
How much MW is necessary?
• The mud doesn’t have to provide
the full amount of the missing
restraining force
– Because the rock has some inherent
strength, and internal friction

• The weaker the rock, the more

“bracing” that is required to
compensate

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

20/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
Again, think of our stone arch What if one layer of the bricks
is made from weaker material ?

Extra bracing (more MW) is

necessary to take the weight

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

21/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
• Up to now, this is just ‘civil’ engineering
– Managing forces, loads, etc
– If the material + bracing is “strong enough” to support the
load today, then it is strong enough to support the load a year
from now (assuming the load doesn’t change)

• This is NOT “reactive” or “swelling” shale.

• So what does “reactive” or “swelling” shale mean?

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

22/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
So far, we’ve assumed that the Let’s assume that one of the
layers is inert in air, but
rock properties don’t change chemically reacts with water.

Initially everything is OK …
… But imagine there is a flood

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

23/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
“Reactive” refers to how the rock properties
change when exposed to water …

When the waters recede…

Some layers may dissolve, or

become weaker…
This is “time dependant”
• And will require more bracing
(i.e. MW) as the arch-walls
become weaker

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

24/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
• This is where “inhibition” of the mud comes in
With normal OBM / SBM, there is effectively NO chemical
reaction with the rock

Rock in OBM / SBM

doesn’t change with time

But same rock could look like this in WBM

depends on the rock, and the WBM’s inhibition
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

25/92
 Immersion Tests – Miluveach Shale

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

26/92
 Immersion Test- Fresh Water

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

27/92
 Immersion Test - LSND

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

28/92
 Immersion Test - HPWBM

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

29/92
 Immersion Test - OBM

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

30/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability
Have you noticed that a higher MW may be needed with
WBM than SBM / OBM ?
• If the rock weakens, the mud
column has to supply progressively
more of the missing restraining force
• The rock is weakened if it absorbs
water
• Weakening is prevented by properly
designed & maintained chemical
inhibition (extreme is SBM / OBM)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

31/92
 © K&M Technology Group - 2013

32/92
 Other Types of Chemical Effects

Drilling Fluid Water Phase Salinity (WPS):

• With OBM/SBM, the idea is to balance the activity of the water
phase with that of the formation drilled
• There is a tendency to run too-high WPS shallow in wells, which
results in dehydration (and crumbling)
• This effect can happen with WBM too, if the chlorides are too high

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

33/92
 Horizontal Wellbore Stability
• Why is more MW often necessary in high angle
wellbores ?
• The mud column is now
having to provide the missing
restraining force from below
– It is now counter-acting a bigger
force (the over-burden)
• It must also counter the
compressive forces along the
sides of the wellbore

Higher MW than a vertical

well to counter the large
overburden force
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

34/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
• How the walls of the hole fail

• How does the magnitude of the stresses in the earth

effect the mud weight required to support the hole?

• What influence does inclination and direction have

on mud weight requirements?

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

35/92
 Tunnel Failure
How a wellbore fails is due to
the stress on the wall

All of the perimeter is under

compression
(i.e. being squeezed / crushed)

But the loading is highest

on the sides…

While the stress is least on the

top & bottom
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

36/92
 Wellbore Instability
Why?… again, think of our arch
While these bricks are being
squeezed the least
So if wellbore is over-pressured, this
is where it splits first…
•Lost circulation occurs top & bottom

It’s the bricks on the bottom that

are under the most load
So if the bricks aren’t strong enough…
this is where failure occurs
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

37/92
 Tunnel Failure
The hole will attempt to self-stabilize
If the mud weight is not quite if MW is close …
adequate, it fails at the sides But deteriorates if MW is still too low

If not corrected,
the roof collapses
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

38/92
 Tunnel Failure
This failure is called “breakout”
Severity of failure is
usually quoted in terms 30°
of “angle or breakout”
or “degree of breakout” 30° breakout looks like this

30° breakout is often

considered maximum tolerable

60°
60° breakout looks like this
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

39/92
 Tunnel Failure
So what are implications for high angle wellbores?

First, consider what ‘tight hole’ looks like…

•It’s not the over-sized hole that causes problems…
•It’s the gauge hole!

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

40/92
 © K&M Technology Group - 2013

41/92
 Tunnel Failure
Sometimes, the cavings get left in the “wings”.
• Normal drilling may not disturb the rubble …

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

42/92
 Tunnel Failure
But the BHA back-
reaming through this spot
has enough turbulence to
“clean out the wings”

If this occurs, it must be

finished, and it takes a lot
of patience
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

43/92
 Wellbore Instability
What happens when casing is set off-bottom?

While drilling, mud column

exerts hydrostatic column (say,
12.0 ppg EMW)

When casing is set off bottom,

and cement sets up, the lower
wellbore no longer sees the
upper hydrostatic pressure …

12.0 ppg EMW throughout

Now, this point is only seeing

seawater gradient
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

44/92
 Basics of Wellbore Stability
• How the walls of the hole fail

• How does the magnitude of the stresses in the earth

effect the mud weight required to support the hole?

• What influence does inclination and direction have

on mud weight requirements?

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

45/92
 The Earth’s Stress Effect on WBS
σv
Normal Faults σ σv > σH > σh
h
(Tension) σH
Let’s focus on the “normal”
σv faulting environment

Strike-slip Faults σ σH > σv > σh

h
(Shear) σH
σv
Thrust Faults σ σH > σh > σv
(Compression) H σh

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

46/92
 Vertical Wellbore Stability

σV = 100
• σv = 100, σmax = 50, σmin = 30
• Then need MW of 20 (50 less 30)

σH
Max =50

σH Min = 30
• How did we come to that conclusion?
• The stress imbalance comes from the two horizontal
stresses (σv is not contributing to the hoop stress)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

47/92
 Horizontal Wellbore Stability
σ
v

σh σH

Is it better or worse to drill…?

– Parallel to HMax
– Or across HMax

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

48/92
 Effect of Drilling Direction
Let’s consider horizontal wells drilled in the
parallel or perpendicular to Hmax /Hmin.

The probability of failure will be compared

with a vertical well.

In a normal regime (σv > σH > σh)

– Drilling parallel to σH
– Drilling parallel to σh

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

49/92
 In a Normal Regime
σv
σΗ σV = 100
•End-on view:
σh
• Differential = 70
σHMin = 30
• (i.e. σV – σHmin)
PARALLEL to Hmax

Drilling parallel to σHmax

• Collapse (shear failure) is more likely than for Vertical. •Need MW of “70”
• Need more MW
• Vertical well was 20
• But fracture (tensile failure) is more likely than Vertical.
• Can’t tolerate as high MW.

• This is the worst scenario because it closes the MW window.

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

50/92
 In a Normal Regime
σv Drilling parallel to σhmin
• Collapse (shear failure) is still more likely than a Vertical well
σΗ • Need more MW than Vertical,
• But not as much as parallel-HMAX.
• AND fractures (tensile failure) less likely
• Better than both Vertical & parallel-HMAX
σh
• Better to drill parallel to σh for a horizontal well in a normal regime.
PERPENDICULAR to Hmax

σV = 100 •Need MW of “50”

• Vertical well was 20
• Parallel HMAX was 70
σH Max =50 •End-on view :
• Differential = 50
• (i.e. σV – σHmax)
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

51/92
 The Safe Drilling Window

Safe Window
(Swab, MW, ECD)

Pore Collapse Shmin Breakdown

pressure Pressure Pressure

Note: Collapse is sensitive to Note: Breakdown is sensitive to

inclination and direction. It is inclination and direction. It is
possible for collapse pressure to be possible for breakdown pressure to
greater or less than pore pressure be greater or less than Shmin

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

52/92
 Polar Plots
N
Azimuth

Vertical wells

W E
0
30
All horizontal
60
wells are in
90 this circle

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

53/92
 Sensitivity Analysis – Normal Regime
sv > sH > sh
sv /sh = 1.33
sH /sh = 1.0 Sh Sh
Breakout Breakdown
MW (ppg) MW (ppg)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013 SH SH

54/92
 Sensitivity Analysis – Normal Regime
sv > sH > sh
sv /sh = 1.33
sH /sh = 1.1 Sh Sh
Breakout Breakdown
MW (ppg) MW (ppg)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013 SH SH

55/92
 Sensitivity Analysis – Normal Regime
sv > sH > sh
sv /sh = 1.33
sH /sh = 1.2 Sh Sh
Breakout Breakdown
MW (ppg) MW (ppg)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013 SH SH

56/92
 Sensitivity Analysis – Reverse Regime
sH > sh > sv
sH /sv = 1.33
sh /sv = 1.0 Sh Sh
Breakout Breakdown
MW (ppg) MW (ppg)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013 SH SH

57/92
 Determining Shmin from XLOT

Pressure
FBP
LOT = Leak Off Test
FIT = Formation Integrity Test
SLOT FPP FBP = Formation Breakdown Pressure
LOT FPP = Fracture Propagation Pressure
ISIP
ISIP = Instantaneous Shut In Pressure
FIT FCP FCP = Fracture Closure Pressure = SHmin
SLOT = Stop conventional LOT

Volume
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

58/92
 Swab Implications
Let’s re-visit drillstring-generated swab
Remember drillstring-generated swab, when tripping
out AND picking up at connections
• Fluid moves down, along entire length of string

Except this creates a “negative” pressure

• Think of the string as a suction pump

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

59/92
3/21/07 0:00

Normal ECD Fluctuation

3/22/07 0:00

POOH (swab effect)

3/23/07 0:00

ER Well Example
3/24/07 0:00 - 11 ¾” @ 16,500’ MD
- Drilling to 23,000’ MD
- 10 ⅝”x12 ¼” Hole
- 5 ⅞”x5” dp
3/25/07 0:00
- 9.7-10.5 ppg OBM
- 6rpm = 13-15

3/26/07 0:00

3/27/07 0:00

3/28/07 0:00
© K&M Technology
1.00 1.10 Group
1.20- 2013 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80

60/92 ECD (sg)

 Swab Implications
Implications of drillstring-generated swab
1. Swab is felt by the wellbore, even when BHA is below that zone
• When picking up at each connections
• When tripping out

2. Swab is felt by the wellbore, even when BHA is long-above that zone
• Even when inside casing

3. High ECD situations likewise mean “high swab” situations

As far as the rock is concerned …

… It’s exactly the same as if the mud weight had been reduced

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

61/92
 © K&M Technology Group - 2013

62/92
 Swab Implications

Both short-reach & long-reach wells have same angle (48°) through unstable zone

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

63/92
 Here is calculated collapse & fracture gradients
• for both wells (vs. TVD)
• ≈ 11.5 ppg mud weight necessary for stability
• 11.7 – 11.8 used on short reach without problems

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

64/92
For short-reach well
• This is the drill-string generated swab, vs pulling speed
• as seen at PWD (BHA)

For short-reach well

• Blue = the drill-string swab … as felt at critical point
•Shows that swab is probably OK

For short-reach well

• This is swab as felt at TD, as BHA is pulled out
• No problems here

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

65/92
 While potentially below
collapse EMW until here

And remember “fast tripping”

usually starts from here …
•Once above critical area

Here is previous swab at collapse zone (for short reach well) And here is same situation for long reach well

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

66/92
 Swab Implications
ERD wells tend to have all the cards stacked against them;
• The MD/TVD ratio amplifies the swab load
• Drill pipe is often bigger for hydraulics
• Mud rheology is often thicker, due to hole cleaning/sag concerns
• MW is often compromised by ECD restrictions

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

67/92
 Tunnel Failure
So far we’ve talked about “classic” instability
• More mud weight is needed in order to offset the
imbalance in stress around the hole

• But there are two other mechanisms of instability to be

concerned with (and sometimes mud weight is NOT the
answer)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

68/92
 Tunnel Failure
Underbalance
• When underbalanced, low mud pressure can produce
“cylindrical” tensile failure
– The tensile cracks are concentric with the wellbore.
– The cracks do not have any directional preference, they occur all
around the wellbore.
• This produces splintered cavings

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

69/92
 Tunnel Failure
Bedding or Fracture Plane Weakness
• This occurs when the wellpath’s “angle of attack” is near
parallel to the bedding plane
• A difference of only 1o – 2o angle can make the difference
between “no problem” and an un-manageable problem

Angle of attack
OK – no problems

Bang … possibly severe problems

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

70/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
This is a very different animal
– With completely different behavior
• Complete loss of the well happens fast
• Only solution is different angle-of-attack (wellpath change)
• Cavings usually have a very distinctive shape
• MORE MUD WEIGHT TYPICALLY MAKES IT WORSE

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

71/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
In brittle (“fissile”) rocks, bedding planes &
parallel fracture systems can cause severe
instability depending on well direction

OK at this inclination and azimuth

Oops (same rock, different direction)

This is not a stress issue. Raising MW

may make the problem worse.

Photo’s from John

Cook, Schlumberger

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

72/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
Bedding Plane Instability
looks very different than
normal failure

Obviously, packing off is now hard to avoid,

since gravity is pulling the roof down

But, imagine what rotating drillpipe

(or BHA) does on the bottom of the hole …
• It will trench / key-seat very fast

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

73/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
The “hints” that this is the mechanism of
failure are :
S. Wilson, et al, BP, SPE Real-time
Wellbore Stability Workshop, May 2002 • Distinctly different shape of cavings
(more later)
• Tends to occur at connections

• In this failure mechanism, increasing the

mud weight makes this fail faster …
• The rocks have no ability to resist being
split apart by the mud pressure
• The rock is then “super-charged” …
and will fail when the ECD is relieved
(at a connection)
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

74/92
 But bedding plane failure often occurs as a secondary mechanism
• Once “shear failure” has gotten to a critical point … bedding plane failure occurs
•As arch support is lost, top fails due to “buckling” of roof members
•And then becomes self-sustaining

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

75/92
 Bedding Plane Instability

• A multi-arm caliper (or azimuthal LWD caliper) would see the

difference in these two different mechanisms…
• …however, there is one caveat… in a reverse faulting
environment, the top and bottom of hole get “crushed”

σH > σh > σv

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

76/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
• This mechanism tends to have a very
distinct type of caving…

• Cavings appear to be “man made”

– Not random gravel shapes Bedding Planes

Natural Fractures

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

77/92
 Bedding Plane Instability
• Classic Failure • Bedding Plane Failure
– Often minimal cavings reports when drilling & – Cavings have distinct “plate” look. Usually small.
circulating
– Cavings easily enter into the hole.
– Usually no pack-offs when drilling, after
connections, or when cleaning up for trip – Pack-offs likely very soon after failure.
– But heavy cavings flow (from bottom-up) – Pack-offs common in drilling mode (especially
when back-reaming after connections).
– Can get “rough” with the hole – Driller has to be very delicate. Difficult to “be
gentle enough” when circulating or moving in
– Wellbore failure can exist for long periods zone
before being noticed (usually on trips)
– Only occurs when near-parallel to bedding plane.
– Responds to MW increase • Usually can be ignored as an issue if > 15° AoA.
– Cavings random gravel shapes • Behavior appears erratic and “either not there or
disastrous”, with the only difference between wells
being 2° - 3° AoA with beds
• Will be sensitive to dip of the field
– Get’s worse with increased MW
• MW only helps if bedding failure is a secondary issue

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

78/92
 Recognizing Instability
Indications of instability in high angle wells:
• Cavings at the shakers
• More cuttings (more rock entering wellbore than drilled)
• Buckling in out of gauge hole
• ECDs lower than predicted (for small hole sizes)
• Divergence of LWD logs from drilling pass

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

79/92
 Recognizing Instability
During drilling, LWD caliper data can be used for drillers to
1. Diagnose wellbore stability problems
• While drilling
• During & after tripping
2. Visualize the severity of borehole breakout
3. Identify hole quality which may affect running casing/completion

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

80/92
 Recognizing Instability

Resistivity: Drilling Pass Wiper Trip #1 Wiper Trip #2

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

81/92
 Recognizing Instability
• Well was lost after trip out

• Shales were gauge on the drilling

pass, showed breakout on the ream
pass

• Solution: Increase mud weight on

future wells
Drilling Image Reaming Image
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

82/92
 Cavings vs. Cuttings
Cuttings

Cavings
© K&M Technology Group - 2013

83/92
 Cavings vs. Cuttings
What are we looking for in cavings analysis?
• What type?
– Angular
– Tabular
– Splintered

• When do they appear ?

– Drilling & Circulating
– After tripping
– After back-reaming

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

84/92
 Angular Cavings
• These blocks are rock fragments result from shear
failure of the wellbore (breakouts).
• Characteristics
– Irregular shape with rough surface texture
– The surfaces intersect at acute angles.
• Remedial
– If possible, raise the mud weight
– Recognize the need for more patience (hole cleaning
is weakened)
– Improve mud inhibition, if possible

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

85/92
 Angular Cavings
Blocky cavings while back-reaming, either…
• Induced by the backreaming process via “hydraulic hammer”
(from pack-offs)
OR
• Disturbance of previously created cavings from the “wings”

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

86/92
 Tabular Cavings
• Are a result of natural fractures of
planes of weakness.
• If the mud pressure exceeds Shmin
mud will invade the fracture network
• This can result in severe
destabilization, due to the lubrication
Bedding Planes
of the rock
Natural Fractures

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

87/92
 Tabular Cavings
• An excessive amount of cavings can be
generated even without exceeding Shmin
• Characteristics
– Flat, parallel faces
• Remedial
– Minimize changes to wellbore pressure
(mud weight and ECD)
– Recognize the need for more patience (hole
cleaning is weakened)
– Minimize shocks and vibrations
– Avoid back-reaming

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

88/92
 Splintered Cavings
Due to tensile failure occurring parallel to the
borehole wall. Commonly occurs in
overpressured zones drilled underbalance.
• Characteristics
– “Cupped” surface on the cavings
– Typically seen in low-permeability shale.
– Entire circumference of the wellbore may be
damaged.
• Remedial
– Raise mud weight (well control hazard)
– Avoid/minimize swab load (ie, wiper trips)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

89/92
 Dealing with Instability
Design Issues
• Plan MW to balance stability & risk of exceeding FG
– Check for directional instability factors in offsets
– Aggressive ECD design solutions to allow required MW
– However, be aware that brittle formations with natural planes of
weakness may require very different solutions
• Provide a mud system with adequate inhibition
– Can WBM be used, or is SBM/OBM necessary?
• Design mud & drill string to minimize ECD fluctuations
– Esp. important for brittle formations with natural weakness planes

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

90/92
 Dealing with Instability
Implementation Issues
• Optimize Operational Practices –focus on hole
cleaning for additional cavings & enlarged hole

• Tripping practices
– Avoid wiper trips unless added value outweighs the “cost”
– Minimize surge & swab pressures
• Tripping speeds
• Bit / BHA design for adequate bypass area
• Mud rheology & gel strengths

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

91/92
 Dealing with Instability
Implementation Issues… continued
• Avoid back-reaming / pumping out if possible
– If cavings start to “unload”, be patient
• Cleaning out the “wings” is a process that must take its course
without rushing (or risk disaster)

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

92/92