IADC/SPE 59128

The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and Its Application to High-Risk Well
Construction Projects
Richard Plumb, Stephen Edwards, Gary Pidcock, Donald Lee, Brian Stacey, Schlumberger, SPE Members

Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2325 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC
or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are
subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission
to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and
by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson,
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Many of todays well construction projects are technically and
economically challenging.
Examples include deepwater
exploration wells in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore field
development projects such as Hibernia, Newfoundland, Canada
and onshore field development projects in tectonically active
regions such as the Cusiana field in Colombia. Minimizing
non-productive time associated with wellbore instability and
unexpected pore pressure regimes reduces the risk of
dangerous accidents and is required to complete the well on
time and within budget. Minimizing non-productive time is a
complex task that requires thorough pre-spud planning to
identify drilling risks and geological hazards and to develop
contingency plans for handling those risks. Building a
mechanical earth model during the well planning phase and
revising it in real time has proven to be extremely valuable in
delivering complex wells safely while minimizing unplanned
well construction costs. Monitoring and revising the model
while drilling requires geomechanics expertise, teamwork, data
management and excellent communications among service
companies and their client.
This paper defines a mechanical earth model, explains why it is
important, how it is developed and how it is applied to well
construction and field development. We will discuss sources of
information and the multi-disciplinary team approach required
to: generate, revise and maintain an earth model. Three
examples of the application of the earth model concept are
discussed.

Introduction
More of todays well construction and field development
projects are both technically and economically challenging.
Understanding the geomechanics of well construction is
becoming increasing important in order to drill technically and
economically challenging wells on budget.
Wells with hostile pore pressure and fracture gradient
profiles require a good pre-drill pore pressure and fracture
gradient prediction in order to design a suitable casing
program. A casing program designed on a profile significantly
less hostile than that encountered may compromise the
attainable TD of the well. The cost of materials and rig time
spent running extra casing significantly adds to the cost of the
well. The risk of taking kicks which can be both costly and
dangerous can also be reduced by a more rigorous pre-drill
pore pressure prediction coupled with real-time pore pressure
analysis from LWD measurements. In the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico there are examples of wells which require a good
mechanical earth model (MEM) in order to be drilled at all.
Despite decades of industry attention, wellbore instability is
responsible for many costly stuck pipe incidents. Stuck pipe is
responsible for lost BHAs and considerable NPT spent freeing
pipe, performing additional wiper trips and hole cleaning. In
cases where wellbore stability problems are severe, the
economics of developing a field can become challenging, for
example the Cusiana field in Colombia, S.A. Other fields
where lesser wellbore stability problems may still challenge the
field economics are found where the cost of drilling is very
high, e.g. the Hibernia field offshore Canada and or fields in the
North Sea.
Minimizing the risk of pore pressure or wellbore stability
related problems requires an understanding of the fields
geomechanics. To gain this knowledge and to implement it
successfully requires a process for building a mechanical earth
model and using it to provide timely information to decision
makers. Building a mechanical earth model during the well
planning phase and revising it in real time has proven to be
extremely valuable in delivering complex wells safely while
minimizing unplanned well construction costs and accelerating
learning about the field. Information developed and applied

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

during early field delineation has payback extending over the

life of the field.
This paper defines the mechanical earth model, explains
why it is important, how it is developed and how it is applied to
well construction and field development. Also discussed are
sources of information and the multi-disciplinary team
approach required to generate, revise and maintain an earth
model. Finally, three examples are given where mechanical
earth models have benefited high-technical and high-economic
risk well construction projects.

In the deep water Gulf of Mexico, mechanical earth

models have been used to forecast and revise pore
pressure while drilling.

Offshore Canada, a mechanical earth model helped to

successfully drill the first 6.8 km long extended reach
well in the Hibernia field.

In a fold and thrust belt setting, in S.America a

mechanical earth model was built and revised while
drilling exploration wells. The evolving model helped
to minimize drilling risks, accelerate drilling learning
and to generate valuable knowledge of the reservoir
early in the life of the field.

Theory, Definitions and Motivation

The mechanical earth model is a numerical representation
of the state of stress and rock mechanical properties for a
specific stratigraphic section in a field or basin. The model is
linked to geologic structure through the local stratigraphy and a
3D seismic cube. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between
components of the model and drilling planning and execution
decisions.
Table 1 - Relationship between drilling decisions and the
mechanical earth model
Drilling
Decision
Well location
Rig selection
and BOP
rating
Trajectory
analysis
Casing design
Safe Mud
weight
Wellbore
stability
Drilling fluids
Drilling
practices
Cementing
Strategy
Bit selection

Earth
Stresses,
pore pressure

Rock Failure
Mechanisms

Rock
Mechanical
Parameters

x
x

x
x

Geologic
Structure
Stratigraphy

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

In its basic form, the MEM consists of depth profiles: of the

elastic and/or elasto-plastic parameters, rock strength and the
earth stresses referenced to the local stratigraphic section.

IADC/SPE 59128

Figure 1 shows a 1-dimensional representation of a mechanical

earth model and links to the stratigraphy and 3D-seismic cube.
From left to right the profiles include: Poissons ratio (),
Youngs modulus (E), unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), friction angle (), pore pressure (Pp), minimum
horizontal stress (h), maximum horizontal stress (H), vertical
stress (v), and the direction of horizontal stress axes.
Lithologic variations in MEM parameters are governed by
the mechanical stratigraphy. Research has shown that rock
strength and earth stresses profiles are modulated according to
the nature of the dominant load-bearing solid phase. The
mechanical stratigraphy is a bimodal textural model of a
stratigraphic sequence1.
The
bimodal
classification
differentiates rocks with clays as the dominant load-bearing
solid from rocks with quartz or carbonate minerals as the
dominant load-bearing solid. Petrophysical models are then
used to transform the mechanical stratigraphy into elastic,
elasto-plastic and rock strength profiles.
Lateral variations in mechanical properties, associated with
geologic structure, are captured by linking the mechanical
stratigraphy to a 3-dimensional (3D) framework model. The
3D-framework model consists of surfaces, such as formation
tops and faults. The surfaces are interpreted from seismic
data, guided by log data and the geologists lithostratigraphic
model.
In its most complete form, the MEM consists of a full 3D
description of pore pressure, stress and mechanical properties.
In practice, the complexity of the model evolves in step with
the acquisition of new information. From exploration to
development, the model evolves from of a sparse set of 1dimensional profiles to a full 3D description of rock properties
and earth stresses. The degree of detail captured by the model
will vary from field to field depending on the perceived
operational risks.
Why Build an Earth Model
The mechanical earth model concept is one of the practical
outcomes of the Cusiana study. However, the need for
information embodied in the earth has been know for many
years. Bradley2 focused attention on the role of earth stress in
wellbore stability analysis. The work of Bell and Gough3,
Zoback et al4, and Plumb and Hickman5 demonstrated
conclusively that wellbore instability was due to borehole
stress concentrations and that the location of the stress
concentrations could be measured using geophysical logs.
Throughout the 1980s the practical theory of wellbore stability
advanced slowly in step with the development of faster
computers and better logging tools, such as sonic and imaging
logs. At the same time geologists and engineers were gaining
experience applying wellbore stability modeling techniques of
various levels of complexity (Anderson et al6., Mclean and
Addis7, Charlez8, Bradford et al9). A breakthrough occurred in
the early 1990s when BP encountered severe wellbore
instability in the Cusiana field in Colombia. The severity of the
wellbore instability problems demonstrated that conventional
approaches to solving wellbore stability problems simply did

IADC/SPE 59128

THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

not work (Last et al10). It took a multi-company team of

geoscientists and engineers almost 1 year to compile enough
geomechanics information about the field to affect an
improvement in the drilling performance. During the time
when the model was being compiled wellbore stability was a
continuing problem This experience motivated the
development of the mechanical earth model.
Fortunately few fields in the world today have suffered
wellbore stability problems as severe as those in Cusiana.
However because of market pressures, operators and service
companies are expected to drill more complex wells in less
time and at lower cost. Under these constraints, even relatively
minor-wellbore stability problems in tectonically quiescent
settings can be extremely expensive (from $100,000 to
$250,000/day offshore). Under these circumstances, the
tendency to design wells based on closeology can lead to
costly surprises. Important lessons from Cusiana that apply
equally well to lower-risk projects include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Balance the complexity of data analysis with available

time and information.

5.

The value of real-time information.

The value of data management and good communication.

What Can Go Wrong

Planning and drilling high-risk wells without the aid a
MEM can lead to numerous surprises which, if handled
improperly, could result in operational delays or loss of the
well. Some recent examples of unexpected events on high-risk
projects include:

risks. Figure 2 shows a process that has been used successfully

to minimize drilling risks on high-risk projects. Consider the
case of drilling the first high-angle extended-reach well in a
field.

Use of all available data to develop geomechanics

knowledge of the field.

The value of three specific types of information: failure

mechanisms, state of stress and rock mechanical
properties.

Wellbore instability develops unexpectedly. What action is

required? Raise mud weight? Drop mud weight? Change
drilling fluid? A combination of the above?
High angle extended reach wells can be drilled without
problems northeasterly but not southwesterly. Why?
Pore pressure increases faster than expected. Can the well
reach TD with remaining casing strings?

The well can be drilled without any noticeable drilling

problems but time dependent wellbore failure prevents
casing from reaching bottom. What to do?
Substantial cost overruns occur when the first time these
questions are asked is as the problem develops. An earth model
coupled with a process for planning and monitoring the well
while drilling can minimize the economic impact.
Constructing the MEM
Constructing the mechanical earth model and using it to
generate a wellbore stability forecast helps to reduce drilling

The first step in the process is to build a mechanical

earth model. The MEM represents all geological and
rock mechanics information that currently exists in the
field.
The second step uses information from the MEM to
forecast wellbore stability along the planned well path.
The stability forecast summarizes the expected drilling
performance as a function of measured depth in the
well.
The third step is to monitor the data while drilling and
to test the model predictions for anomalies.
Anomalies in the forecast indicate flaws in the data and
or the MEM.
The anomalies are analyzed to determine the source(s)
of error. If immediate action is required on the rig, it
can be based on informed decisions.
The fifth step is to correct the MEM. Correcting the
MEM may be done before remedial action is taken (e.g.
if the pore pressure was too low, see example 1 below)
or it may be done off-line if the geology or stress
changes drastically.

This process systematically captures potentially valuable

information about the field earlier than would otherwise be
possible. The wellbore stability forecast is revised, as required
by revisions to the model, and the loop continues.
Implementing this process requires team work, excellent
communications (human and electronic) among staff on the
planning team, at the rig site and between the rigsite and the
planning team. The benefits of implementing this process are
fewer unexpected drilling events and accelerated learning about
the field.
Recent experience in a number of high technical and higheconomic risk projects has demonstrated that an initial MEM
can be generated for most fields in about 1 month. Three
projects, described below, indicate that the MEM can be refined
continuously as new wells are drilled. Table 2 shows typical
sources of information used to construct a MEM.
Profile

Logs

Mechanical
Stratigraphy
Pore Pressure
(Pp)

Gamma ray, density,

resistivity, sonic (Vp)
Sonic (Vp), check shot
survey, resistivity ,

Overburden

Bulk density

Stress (v)
Stress Direction

Minimum
Horizontal stress

Oriented multi-arm
calipers, borehole images,
Oriented velocity
anisotropy
Sonic (Vp & Vs), wireline
stress tool,

Other
Cuttings, cavings,
sequence stratigraphy
Interval velocity from
seismic, formation test,
daily drilling reports
Cuttings
Structural maps
3D seismic

Pp , leak-off tests,
extended leak-off test,

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

( h )

microfrac, step-rate
injection tests, database,
daily drilling reports,
modeling

Maximum
Horizontal stress,

borehole images, wellbore

stress model

( H )
Elastic
Parameters

Pore pressure, h, rock

strength, database,

Sonic (Vp & Vs ) bulk

density

data base, laboratory

tests on cores, cavings

E, G,
Rock strength
parameters
(UCS, )
Failure
mechanisms

Sonic (Vp & Vs) bulk

density, mechanical
stratigraphy
Borehole image, oriented
multi-arm caliper

data base, laboratory

tests on cores, cavings
Daily drilling reports,
Cavings (digital images)

Table 2 - Sources of information used to build the MEM

Entries under the heading labeled logs can either be
measurements made by wireline tools or logging while drilling
tools. Three of the greatest challenges in building the MEM
are:
1. Compiling data from a wide range of disciplines,
(drilling engineers, exploration geologists, mud loggers,
reservoir engineers etc.).
2. Data management and organizing the data onto a
computer system.
3. Timely processing (editing, splicing data) and
interpreting the data in terms of geomechanics parameters (rock
strength, Pp, earth stresses etc.).
Case Studies
Following are brief descriptions of three high-risk well
construction projects where we have implemented the
integrated process illustrated in Figure 2. Application of this
technology has enabled these and other challenging wells to be
drilled successfully with relatively minor difficulties.
Example 1: Deepwater Exploration. Drilling in deep
water is economically and technically challenging (water depth
>1500 ft). With typical well costs between $30-to $50 million
the financial risk is very high. An accurate pre-drill pore
pressure forecast can reduce this financial risk significantly.
But, pore pressure prediction in deep water remains a challenge
for earth scientists and operators because of the multiplicity of
processes that can cause overpressure and the lack of
subsurface data, particularly with exploration wells. At best, an
inaccurate forecast leads to cost over-runs for extra casing
strings and lost time due to well control problems. Worse, it
might not even be possible to reach the exploration target if the
forecast is seriously in error. Although pore pressure prediction
can be a challenge, there are proven prediction methods where
abnormal pressure results from compaction disequilibrium.
Figure 3 shows a simple pre-drill earth model constructed for
a deepwater exploration well in the Gulf of Mexico by third
parties. The model consists of an overburden stress and two
pore pressure curves. The overburden stress was estimated
using an empirical model11 for the Gulf of Mexico. The lower
estimate of pore pressure was calculated using a standard
compaction disequilibrium model driven by interval transit
times obtained from 3D seismic. The other was based on mud

IADC/SPE 59128

weights from distant (20 miles) offset wells. Notice the two
profiles differ by as much as 3 ppg. The drilling program was
based on the more optimistic pressure profile.
Several thousand feet below the mud line, the well took a
kick indicating an error in the pressure profile. A real-time
pore pressure-monitoring project was then initiated to revise
the pressure forecast and to re-evaluate the drilling program. A
real-time pore pressure analysis was performed using sonic
while drilling (LWD) data as input to the pore pressure model
instead of the seismic interval velocities. The real-time
pressure analysis was calibrated using drilling data (kicks,
losses, cavings type etc.) acquired prior to running the LWD
tools.
Back-analysis of the initial earth model showed that the
seismic-based prediction could be calibrated using drilling data
to provide a look-ahead pore pressure prediction (Figure 4).
At half the planned well depth a decision had to be made
whether or not to continue drilling the well. The higher than
anticipated pore pressure resulted in setting several casing
shoes shallower than planned and the question was: could the
target be reached given the remaining casing strings? On the
basis of the revised model the decision was made to continue
drilling using real-time pressure monitoring and evaluation for
the remainder of the well. The real-time monitoring included a
daily evaluation of the current pore pressure forecast using
LWD measurements of p-wave velocity, resistivity, annular
pressure and gamma ray and a continuous evaluation of the
look-ahead prediction. Using this methodology the well
reached the planned TD safely.
Comparison of the look ahead prediction (shown in Figure
4) with the actual ECD from this well (Figure 5) shows that
the look-ahead was accurate over the 8000 ft between the depth
at which it was made and TD. The above example illustrates the
process shown in Figure 2. This process:

resulted in rapid learning about the pressure profile and

earth stress while drilling the exploration well
established effective communication between the
Geomechanics planning team onshore and the execution
team offshore
created a more complete earth model at the end of well,
including a mechanical stratigraphy and the state of stress
(direction, principal stress magnitudes).

Experience gained on this first exploration well was then

applied to successfully drill a second deepwater exploration
well in a different mini-basin.
Example 2: Offshore Continental Margin. Drilling on
continental margins in harsh environments such as the North
Sea and eastern Canada presents other challenges. The
Hibernia field is one such example where high day rates mean
the smallest problem can turn into a large expense. The
Hibernia field is located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, 315 km east
of St. John's, Newfoundland, in 80m water depth. The field
was discovered in 1979 and consists principally of two early

IADC/SPE 59128

THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Cretaceous reservoirs - Hibernia and Avalon - located at

average depths of 3700 and 2400 m respectively. Between
1980 and 1984 nine vertical appraisal and delineation wells
were drilled into the highly faulted structure. Development
drilling began in mid 1997 from a large Gravity Base Structure
located near the top of the structure. The first four wells had a
maximum deviation angle ranging from 30 to 55 degrees and
were aimed at maximizing early production rates. Longer term,
extended reach wells were planned for waterflooding and gas
reinjection were in order to maximize recovery of an estimated
615M bbl of oil.
In economically challenging fields, timely access to fit-forpurpose information is vital for optimizing real-time decisions
on the rig. The Hibernia MEM was built as a contingency for
coping with unexpected wellbore stability problems. All of the
early vertical wells were characterized by elongated, overgauge
wellbores indicating that hole instability was a risk for
directional development wells. A mechanical earth model was
first developed for the Hibernia reservoir section using data
from the vertical delineation wells and the first three deviateddevelopment wells. The regional N-S trend for the minimum
horizontal stress, previously interpreted from caliper logs, was
confirmed using images from LWD. Log derived rock strength
profiles were calibrated to rock strength measurements made
on a representative range of lithologies in the reservoir section.
The minimum stress profile was calibrated to closure pressure
measurements from extended leak-off tests and the maximum
horizontal stress was constrained using forward modeling
techniques 12.
The first application of the MEM was to perform a
wellbore stability (WBS) analysis for a high-angle extendedreach gas injector well, B-16 5 (Table 3). B-16 5 was needed
to re-inject gas for reservoir pressure management. At the time
B-16 5 had the longest measure depth and the longest
horizontal displacement of any well drilled in Canada. The well
has a measured length of 6.8 km and is drilled at an azimuth of
N 25o E at deviation angle of 70 o- to-80 o (Figure 6). The
well was completed successfully with out any wellbore
stability problems following the mud weight recommendations
set out in the wellbore stability forecast (Figure 7). The
wellbore stability analysis would not have been possible in the
available time frame with out the MEM. The MEM has been
used to forecast mud weights on subsequent development
wells, to provide a field wide model of rock strength to support
efforts to optimize drill bit selection and to improve ROP.
The reliability of the mud weight forecasts have been validated
in several cases where instability developed when mud weights
fell below the recommended range (Table 3). The later point
reinforces the value of monitoring the prediction carefully.
Careful monitoring of actual vs. predicted wellbore stability
enables errors in the model to be corrected promoting
accelerated learning and provides confidence in the model
when the well performs as expected. The better the model the
fewer the unexpected wellbore instability incidents and lower
costs related to non-productive time.

WELLBORE STABILITY IMPACT ON LOGGING

Legal Well Name Logs to Bottom Mud Density
B-16 1

Yes

1260

Comments
No WBS Model

B-16 2

No

1230

No WBS Model

B-16 3

Yes

1180

No WBS Model

B-16 4

No

1200

No WBS model, Liner wouldn't go to bottom

B-16 4Z

No

1200

No WBS used

B-16 7

No

1245

No WBS used

B-16 6

Yes

1270

No WBS used

B-16 5

Yes

1340

W B S u s e d

B-16 9

Yes

1280

W B S u s e d

B-16 10Z

Yes

1320

W B S u s e d

B-16 11

Yes

1320

W B S u s e d

B-16 14

Yes

1320

W B S u s e d

B-16 15Z

No

1320

WBS challenged

B-16 16

Yes

1320

W B S u s e d

Table 3 - The impact of wellbore stability modeling on

reservoir evaluation.
Example 3: Fold and Thrust Belt. In addition to providing
short-term benefits for drillers the MEM contains information
that can help to optimize field development:

optimize location of producer-injector wells

define trajectories that jointly optimize wellbore stability
and reservoir productivity
early identification of reservoir compartmentalization and
directional permeability trends.

Our third example is from a fold and thrust belt in a

tectonically active region of South America. The objective of
the earth modeling project was to help reduce the risk of
wellbore instability while drilling the second and third
exploration wells in the field and to develop geomechanics
information that would help optimize field development
planning.
The target formations are located in different fault blocks at
depths ranging from around 15,000 to 17,000 ft. Neither of the
fault blocks had been drilled previously. To reach the reservoir,
wells must penetrate about 10,000 ft of over-pressured shale.
The first exploration well was vertical and had to be side
tracked due to problems in the over-pressured section.
The MEM evolved over a six-month period from starting
one week before the second exploration well spudded. Figure
8 shows a time line indicating when log data were available to
update the model and MEM-based products delivered to
drilling operations.
The overburden stress and pore pressure profiles were the
first parts of the model to be built. A pore pressure forecast
was completed before the 2X well reached the over-pressured
section. Drilling data confirmed the accuracy of the pore
pressure profile when splintered cavings appear near the
predicted top of overpressure. The initial earth model,
consisting of stress and strength profiles, was completed in
time to deliver a wellbore stability forecast before the 2X well
reached the reservoir section. As each hole section was
completed the LWD and wireline logs were processed and used
to refine the MEM.
Note the well 3X spudded before 2X reached TD.
Information gained on 2X enabled a pore pressure forecast and
a wellbore stability forecast to be delivered for the entire well

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

starting with the top of over pressured section. Moreover,

boreholes images, run in the reservoir section of 2X, were used
to refine the MEM in time for application in a wellbore
stability forecast for the 3X reservoir.
Efficient data
management and reliable communications are requirements for
delivering information in near real-time.
Drilling with the support of a wellbore stability forecast
enabled the difficult reservoir section to be drilled with out
inducing any progress hindering wellbore instability. In order
to minimize invasion of drilling fluid into the reservoir, the
mud weight was designed such that the wellbore would be in a
state of failure. That is, a certain amount of shear failure was
predicted to develop in the weaker formations. The objective
was to jointly minimize the magnitude of overbalance and the
amount of damage to the weaker formations. This balancing
act was upset when mud weight had to be lowered below the
initially recommended limit to help control persistent fluid loss
problems. The decision on how much to lower the mud weight
was only taken after the effect of lower mud weight on
wellbore stability was evaluated. Once the decision was taken,
mud loggers were advised to report any increase in cavings and
the rig crew was advised to be prepared to improve hole
cleaning. Having the mechanical earth model in place enabled
both reservoir sections to be drilled successfully without
inducing enough instability for the drillers or mud loggers to
notice. Figure 9 shows that dropping the mud weight below
the recommended minimum did indeed contribute to a
measurable degradation of the wellbore.
The process of developing and revising the mechanical
earth model while drilling exploration wells has accelerated
learning from one well to the next. The faster the learning the
faster the drilling costs reach their minimum value. Figure 10
shows the drilling performance curve for wells drilled on the
structure to date. Brett and Milheim13 have applied learning
curve theory to drilling operations. Compared with 28 fields
analyzed in their paper the rate of learning on this field would
be ranked excellent.
Finally, building and revising the MEM has generated
valuable geomechanical knowledge for field development
planning. The current model contains information from three
wells, widely spaced along the structure. One well is located at
the crest of the structure in the center of the field. The other
two wells are located on the flanks at either end of the
structure. At the end of six months we know:

the distribution of stress direction in the reservoir across

the field
the ordering of the three principal stress magnitudes
horizontal principal stress magnitudes vary significantly
across the structure
at least three fracture sets are present
fractures associated with cross-structure normal faults are
highly permeable

This knowledge is important for:

IADC/SPE 59128

locating producer-injector wells

reservoir modeling
designing extended-reach and multi-lateral development
wells.

Summary
Figure 11 shows other locations where we have developed
Mechanical earth models in the past three years. In all cases the
focus of the modeling has been to reduce the risk of nonproductive time due to wellbore instability. The majority of
the cases involve wells that cost more than $10 million. In
such cases the return on investment in the MEM to well
construction projects alone has typically been about 10:1 for
the drilling phase alone. The added value of developing an earth
model for life of field application has not been widely
explored. However, as example 3 suggests, the potential
impact of the MEM on field development planning can be
dramatic.
Conclusions
1. The mechanical earth model concept has been defined
2. Mechanical earth models can be built and refined while
drilling exploration wells.
3. Mechanical earth models are valuable for reducing nonproductive time on high-risk drilling projects. When state of
the art communication and data management techniques are
implemented, information from the MEM can be delivered on
short notice to support real-time decisions on the rig.
4. Mechanical earth models have greatest value to well
construction and field development when they are integrated
into a plan-execute-evaluate and revise process.
5. Geomechanics information developed early in the phases
of field development is valuable for optimizing reservoir
development for the life of the field.
Nomenclature
E = Youngs Modulus
G = Shear Modulus
= Friction Angle
= Poissons Ratio
h= Minimum Horizontal Stress
H= Maximum Horizontal Stress
v= Vertical Stress
Pp = Pore Pressure
Vp = Compressional wave speed
Vs = Shear wave speed
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength
MEM = Mechanical Earth Model
ROP = Rate of Penetration
LWD = Logging While Drilling
NPT = Non Productive Time
References

IADC/SPE 59128

THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

1.

Plumb, R.A., Influence of Composition and Texture on

the Failure Properties of Clastic Rocks, SPE/ISRM
28022, Eurock, (Aug 1994)

2.

Bradley, W.B., Mathematical concept Stress cloud can

predict borehole failure. OGJ, 19, 75 102, (1979)

3.

Bell, J.S. & Gough, D. I., North East -South West

compressive stresses in Alberta: evidence from oil wells
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 45, 475-482,
(1979)

4.

Zoback, M.D, Moos, D., Mastin, L. Well bore breakouts

and in-situ stress. Journal of Geophysical Research, 90,
5523-5530. (1985)

5.

Plumb, R.A. & Hickman, S.H. Stress-induced borehole

elongation: a comparison between the four-arm dipmeter
and the Borehole Televiewer in the Auburn geothermal
well Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, 5513-5521,
(1985)

6.

Anderson,
R.A., Ingram, D.S., and Zanier,
A.M.:Determining Fracture Pressure Gradients From
Well Logs, JPT, 1259, (Nov. 1973)

7.

McClean, M. C. and Addis, M.A., Wellbore stability: The

effect of strength criteria on mud weight
recommendations SPE 20405 (1990)

8.

Charlez, P. A., and Heugas, O., Evaluation of optimal

mud weight in soft shale levels. Proceedings of the 32nd
US symposium on rock mechanics as a multidisciplinary
science (1991)

9.

Bradford, I.D.R. and Cook, J.M., A semi-analytic Elastoplastic Model for Wellbore Stability with Applications to
Sanding SPE ISRM Eurock (Aug 1994)

10. Last, N., Plumb, R.A., Harkness, R., Charlez, P., Alsen, J.,
McLean, M., An Integrated Approach to Managing
Wellbore Instability in the Cusiana Field, Columbia, South
America SPE 30464, Dallas 22-25 (Oct 1995)
11. Traugott, M., Pore/fracture pressure determinations in
deep water Deepwater Technology supplement to World
Oil, August 1997.
12. Plumb, R.A., Papanastasiou, P., Last, N., Constraining
the state of stress in tectonically active settings Eurock,
179 189, SPE/ISRM 47240 (1998)
13. Brett, J.F., and Milheim, K.K., The drilling performance
curve: A yardstick for judging drilling performance SPE
15362, 1986.

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

Strength

Elastic
Stratigraphy

10
0

Structure and Stratigraphy

Youngs
100 0 F.Angle ()
Modulus (E)
Poissons
Ratio ()

20

Stress Direction h
400

UCS

Earth Stress & Pore Pressure

70

Stress

200

MPa

1.0

Grain
Support
Facies

Clay
Support
Facies

fault ?

UCS

Pp

h H

Regional
Trend

Figure 1. Schematic mechanical earth model, showing a

framework model (left), mechanical stratigraphy (center) and
rock mechanical and earth stress profiles (right).

Figure 2 - Integrated Geomechanics Process

IADC/SPE 59128

IADC/SPE 59128 THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

X1000

X2000

X3000

X4000

X5000

X6000

Figure 3. Simple pre-drill pore pressure prediction based on

seismic interval velocity (black curve), distant offset well mud
weights (green curve). Actual mud weights (black log curve) and a
model of the overburden stress (magenta curve) are shown for
comparison.
X1000

X4500

X8000

X11500

X15000

X18500

Figure 4 Pore pressure prediction using calibrated seismic

data (blue curve). Other curves are defined in Figure 3.

10

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

X1000

X4500

X8000

X11500

X15000

X18000

Figure 5 - Comparison of predicted (red curve) and

actual pore pressure (blue curve)

Extended Reach Well

Figure 6 . Simple framework model of the Hibernia field

showing vertical wells, mildly deviated wells and the first
extended-reach gas-injector well drilled in Canada, B-16 5.

IADC/SPE 59128

IADC/SPE 59128 THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Plasticity effect

Figure 7 Example of a Wellbore Stability forecast for the

Hibernia reservoir section. Shown from left to right are the
mechanical stratigraphy, rock strength profiles, earth stress
profiles and the minimum mud weight required to drill a stable
wellbore (black curve ). The recommended mud weight is shown as
a vertical line to the right of the min mud weight curve.

Start of Project
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

2 0 0

Trajectory Analysis

Pp Forecast
2 0 0 0

Pp forecast

4 0 0 0

Wellbore
Stability Forecast

Alert, 9000 ft +,
6 0 0 0

Logs

possible instability

Wellbore Stability
Forecast-Reservoir

1 0 0 0 0

Pp & Wellbore
Stability Forecasts

Logs

8 0 0 0

Trajectory Analysis

Wellbore Stability
Forecast-Reservoir
Model Pp scenarios

Wellbore Stability
Forecast -Reservoir

1 2 0 0 0

Logs

Logs

1 4 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0

Logs

Logs
Logs
Logs

Logs
Logs

1 8 0 0 0

Figure 8 - Time depth curves showing key input from the geomechanics
team. Note that the MEM was supporting two wells that were being
drilled simultaneously. Two-way communication between the field and the
planning team can not be adequately shown in this figure.

11

RICHARD PLUMB,SPE, STEPHEN EDWARDS,SPE, GARY PIDCOCK,SPE, DONALD LEE,SPE, SCHLUMBERGER

Mean Mud Weight Difference

Mean Hole Ovality

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

Well 2X

-0.4
-0.5
-0.6

Well 3X

-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
0

0.5

1.5

Figure 9 - Change in average hole size (inches) with

deviation from the recommended mud weight (ppg).

Days from Spud to TD

12

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1

Sequence Drilled

Figure 10 - Drilling performance curve. Note that, at times,

wells 2-4 were being drilled simultaneously. The learning was
transferred via the wellbore stability forecasts and 2-way
communication with between the Geomechanics team and both
drilling teams

IADC/SPE 59128

IADC/SPE 59128 THE MECHANICAL EARTH MODEL CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION TO HIGH-RISK WELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Geomechanics Projects

Figure 11 - Locations where MEMs have been developed in the

past three years.

13