IADC/SPE 167957

A Comprehensive Experimental Study on Wellbore Strengthening

Quanxin Guo, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger company; John Cook, Paul Way, Schlumberger; Lujun Ji, James E.
Friedheim, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger company

Copyright 2014, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2014 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 46 March 2014.

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 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 does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Experimental tests have been performed to investigate the applicability, effectiveness and engineering of various wellbore
strengthening techniques which increase the mud weight window by adding lost circulation materials (LCM) to drilling fluids.
The experimental techniques include fracture sealing of known fracture apertures simulated by two plates, induced or natural
fractures in a sandstone or shale block with a borehole, and a transparent cylindrical LCM particles transport cell, which allows
visualization of how the fracture seal is formed and broken.
In the block tests, two independent stresses are applied to the block faces parallel to the wellbore to simulate horizontal
stress anisotropy. Drilling fluid, with and without LCM, is pumped into the wellbore to simulate formation breakdown, mud
loss, fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. The wellbore strengthening treatments can be continuous in one step or
hesitation squeeze in steps. The various types of tests performed to simulate different operational procedures include:
breakdown tests under different stress anisotropy and magnitude to establish the baseline and to validate the results with rock
mechanics analysis; fracture sealing and remedial treatment of an induced fracture with LCM after breakdown; preventive
treatment with background LCM in the active mud system before breakdown to study the difference between preventive versus
remedial treatments; and fracture sealing and strengthening of natural fractures of different apertures; among others.
Several hundred tests have been performed with different stress conditions and strengthening implementation methods.
Valuable lessons have been learned from this comprehensive experimental study and the results have significantly increased
the success of wellbore strengthening. Due to the large volume of test results and data, this paper focuses more on the various
types of tests performed using the block tester, and gives selected snapshots of test results and modeling work on wellbore
strengthening mechanism and the role of filtercake on sealing quality and strengthening performance. More results will be
presented elsewhere.

Introduction
The mud weight window, the range between the minimum weight to avoid compressive failure and well collapse and the
maximum mud weight to avoid formation breakdown and subsequent tensile fracturing and lost circulation, serves as a critical
design factor for well and drilling fluids design. The mud weight window may be extremely narrow or non-existent under
certain conditions thereby necessitating expensive design changes or even making the drilling of well impractical. An example
of this is drilling through a depleted formation, where the formation pore pressures in producing formations have decreased
since the start of production and the formation total stresses have decreased as a result. At the same time, the neighboring shale
layers may have maintained their pore pressure. As a result, there may not be enough difference between the minimum mud
weight required in the shales to prevent wellbore collapse and the maximum mud weight in the depleted interval to prevent
formation breakdown and lost circulation. In such cases, wellbore strengthening has been employed to increase the breakdown
limit of the formation and allow the well to be drilled.
Wellbore strengthening involves techniques that allow increases in wellbore pressures without causing lost circulation
without additional casing or liner and with minimal disruption to drilling operations. Wellbore strengthening includes chemistry
methods such as settable gels or resins (Aston et al., 2007), high-fluid loss pills (Friedheim et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2013),
and engineered particulate lost circulation materials (LCM), see e.g., Aston et al. (2004), Fuh et al. (2007), van Oort et al.
(2009). This paper only deals with wellbore strengthening techniques using particulate LCM.
2 IADC/SPE 167957

Wellbore strengthening has been widely used by many companies, and significant experience has been gained in developing
and applying the technology. A number of different mechanisms have been proposed on how it works, and there are also a
number of different ways of implementing it in drilling operations (Alberty and McLean 2004; Dupriest 2005; van Oort et al.
2009; Morita and Fuh 2011). Success from field practice led the initial development of the technology and the industrys
acceptance. This is a technology for which field practice appears to be ahead of fundamental understanding on how and why it
works.
Case histories and field experience are not sufficient in understanding how wellbore strengthening works and the limit of
the technology. As the industry pushes the frontier of wellbore strengthening to ever more challenging wells, safety and
economic risks and consequences from possible failures become unacceptable. Without the understanding and therefore the
ability to make predictions with confidence, companies cannot sanction drilling programs with potential heavy loss risks, thus
leaving reserves that could in fact be accessed and recovered, or causing increased operational costs by over-designing wellbore
strengthening solutions using excessively large safety factors
Understanding the mechanism and fundamentals of wellbore strengthening under well-controlled laboratory conditions is
more advantageous to field case histories as laboratory studies are more cost effective and results have a higher degree of
certainty and repeatability. A comprehensive experimental program has been designed and conducted in the last several years
to understand the fundamentals of wellbore strengthening. This experimental program includes: a) a low pressure transparent
fracture cell for visualizing LCM particles transport within a fracture to study how the seal is formed and broken; b) a high
pressure fracture sealing tester to evaluate the optimal LCM particle size distribution (PSD) and concentration to seal a given
fracture quickly and strongly; and c) a block tester on real sandstone and shale cubes with a borehole. Some results and findings
from the high pressure fracture sealing tests have been published (Sanders et al. 2008; Kaageson-Loe et al. 2008; and Guo et al.
2009).
This paper focuses more on test results and findings obtained from the block tester than the other tests. This type of test examines
more complex but more realistic situations, with samples of real sandstone and shale, with fractures that are initiated and grown
and thus do not have predetermined widths, and with more realistic stress states and strengthening implementation methods. It
should be pointed out that the block tests are not intended as complete simulations of the downhole environment. They are at
smaller scale and lower stresses and temperatures. More complete downhole simulations would probably give a more realistic
response but such tests are expensive and time-consuming. It was decided that the benefits of running many, many tests on a
well-understood geometry outweighed those of a very few highly realistic experiments. The goal is to complete a large test
matrix with cost-effective what-if studies within a reasonable time-frame for understanding the wellbore strengthening
mechanism and developing predictive models for various geological and operational parameters. Due to the large test matrix
and the volume of test results and data, it is not possible to present all test data, analyses and conclusions fully in a single
paper. This paper concentrates on experimental results on fracture sealing, strengthening mechanisms and a snapshot of
modeling work. More detailed analyses, with different focuses, of the test results to demonstrate and justify fully certain findings
and conclusions will be published separately.

Block Test Equipment Setup and Rock Samples

A block tester was used to generate fractures in a well-controlled manner, and then various wellbore strengthening techniques
and procedures were applied to investigate the effectives of different techniques in sealing the fractures and strengthening the
wellbore. The block tester used in this experimental program is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The rock sample, approximately
150 x 150 x 150 mm with a 25-mm borehole, is stressed independently on the two pairs of faces parallel to the wellbore by two
hydraulic cylinders reacting against a square steel frame. The stress on the third pair of faces of the rock cube, perpendicular
to the wellbore, is provided by two steel plates which are rigidly attached to the sides of the loading platens. The entire rock
cube is completely enclosed by steel, and thus the loads in all three mutually perpendicular directions can be continuously
applied to the rock cube as fractures are created and wellbore strengthening treatments are applied. During a test, the stresses
in the two mutually perpendicular faces parallel to the wellbore are applied and controlled independently, as shown
schematically in Fig. 1b. One key advantage of this block tester is that it is small and convenient to use and thus allows us to
complete a large test matrix with what-if studies cost effectively. So far, we have performed several hundred tests to study
the key operational issues and mechanism of fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. This might be impossible, or would
at least be prohibitively costly, with other larger block testers.
Two types of rocks have been tested so far. The first rock type is Grinshill sandstone and the second is Runswick Bay shale.
The Grinshill sandstone is a relatively homogeneous Triassic sandstone. It is very similar to Berea sandstone in terms of rock
mechanical property, porosity and permeability. For example, Grinshill sandstone has a Youngs modulus of 13.8 GPa and
Poissons ratio of 0.2, while Berea sandstone has a Youngs modulus of 14.4 GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.2. It has a porosity
of about 15% and unconfined compressive strength of about 40 MPa, again, very similar to Berea sandstone.
Runswick Bay shale is a Jurassic shale from the North Eastern coast of Yorkshire in the UK. The shale was cut into
approximately 160 mm cubes and stored in an inert fluid. It is a grey to black rock, mainly illite and kaolinite clays with calcite
and silica silt particles. It is not a swelling shale. Like most non-swelling shale, its depositional planes are clearly visible and it
is highly fractured and brittle, just like most gas shales. There is a large variation in rock mechanical properties, not surprising
for shales. Due to these reasons, most of the block tests were performed on Grinshill sandstone blocks. Fig. 2
IADC/SPE 167957 3

shows examples of what the fracture surfaces look like after wellbore strengthening testing for a sandstone block and a shale
block. The sandstone fracture surface is much smoother than the shale fracture surface.
Several hundred block tests have been performed during the last few years and there have been many surprises. Wellbore
strengthening block tests are different from conventional block tests. The block test setup with LCM was not trivial, and the
initial test results did not make sense from a rock mechanics point of view. We learned this lesson from the first forty tests
before we improved the test setup and could generate repeatable and meaningful results.

Fig. 1a The block tester, with three mutually perpendicular Fig. 1b Schematic of a rock cube with a wellbore and
pairs of plates for applying three principal stresses. independently applied stresses on the two pairs of faces that are
parallel to the wellbore.

Fig. 2a An example of the fracture surfaces when a Fig. 2b An example of the fracture surfaces when a Runswick
Grinshill sandstone block was opened after the test. Bay shale block was opened after the test.

Wellbore Strengthening of Induced Fractures and Natural Fractures

Block tests were performed to study the differences between induced and natural fractures, in terms of fracture sealing and
wellbore strengthening. Fig. 3 shows an example of how the test was performed to simulate the remedial wellbore strengthening
treatment of an induced fracture on a sandstone block. First, the rock block was stressed to the desired stresses, in this case,
with a h = 200 psi, H = 800 psi. Then, drilling fluid without LCM was pumped into the wellbore at 15 mL/min to breakdown
the formation, in this case, at approximately 870 psi. The fracture quickly propagated from the wellbore to the outer faces of
the block; fluid flowed through the created fractures and seeped out of the block. The pump was then stopped and the wellbore
pressure dropped gradually due to fluid leak off. The pump was started again at time = ~2000 sec to check the fracture re-
opening pressure. A fall-off and pump-in was repeated one more time before the base fluid was replaced with
4 IADC/SPE 167957

base fluid plus 30-lb/bbl graphitic lost circulation materials. The LCM has a nominal PSD of D 10 = 50 m, D50 = 150 m, D90
= 800 m. The pump was started again with the 30-lb/bbl LCM fluid and after which the wellbore pressure could be increased
to almost 1200 psi; while previously the fluid without LCM started to flow through the induced fracture when the wellbore
pressure reached approximately 500 psi (Fig. 3). Since the pump was continuous and the fracture sealing along the wellbore
was not uniform, the weakest point started to break and be plugged again by LCM particles and the wellbore pressure was
increased to break the next weakest spot. This process continued for several times when a final or maximum sealing pressure
was reached, in this case, at about 1700 psi, at which point the test was stopped. In this final phase of the test as the wellbore
strengthening treatment was applied, pumping was continuous at a constant rate until the maximum sealing pressure was
reached. Hesitation squeezes by squeezing the wellbore with LCMs in steps, rather than continuous in a single step, were also
tested to investigate the effectiveness of various wellbore strengthening procedures.
Another type of block tests was fracture sealing and strengthening of natural fractures with known or unknown openings.
Fig. 4 illustrates how the test was performed to study fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening of a sandstone block with a
natural fracture. This test was a hesitation squeeze test in two steps. We first broke a sandstone block with oil-based fluid
without LCM. The fracture surfaces for sandstone blocks are often relatively clean and planar (as shown, for example, in Fig.
2a). This allows us to reassemble the two halves to simulate a sandstone block having a natural fracture along the wellbore. In
some tests, the two halves were shimmed by spacers along the wellbore and the edges to create a natural fracture of a known
opening. Fig. 4 shows data from a sandstone block with an unshimmed natural fracture, h = 300 psi, H = 900 psi. The pump
was started at time = ~500 sec at 15 mL/min and the wellbore pressure rose to about 290 psi, when the pumped fluid began to
leak through the fracture. This was because even though the block was not shimmed, there were still some unknown openings
to the fracture due the fracture roughness; the two halves could not be put together perfectly. This pressure signature for natural
fractures was different from induced fractures, as shown in Fig. 3, where the mud loss pressure is generally a couple hundred
psi higher than the applied minimum in-situ stress (because a higher pressure is needed to initiate a fracture). The base fluid
was then replaced with the base fluid plus 30-lb/bbl graphitic LCM, similar to the test shown in Fig. 3 for an induced fracture.
The pump was started again with the 30-lb/bbl LCM fluid and now the wellbore pressure could be increased to a preset value
of 800 psi. After a short period of holding at 800 psi, the pump was started again until the final and maximum sealing pressure
was reached in this case, almost 1300 psi.

Fig. 3 An example of a wellbore strengthening test of an Fig. 4 A wellbore strengthening test of a natural fracture by
induced fracture in a sandstone block. putting the two halves from a pre-fractured block back together,
with no shimming of the fracture.

Several dozen block tests have been performed on fracture sealing and strengthening of induced and natural fractures to
study the sealing mechanism, the difference between sealing of induced and natural fractures, and how to apply the wellbore
strengthening pumping procedures to achieve a quick and strong seal. Analysis of the test results indicate that there is a
minimum LCM concentration required to form a seal quickly and strongly for a given fracture aperture. The minimum LCM
concentration strongly depends on fracture aperture, LCM PSD and strengthening implementation methods such as preventive
or remedial treatments. LCM PSD and blend requirements are more forgiving for small fracture apertures (< 1 mm), but they
are much more difficult and important for large fracture apertures.
Another interesting lesson learned from the many tests under different conditions is the mechanism of fracture seal
formation and breaking. The fracture sealing along the 150 mm long wellbore is not uniform, so at some pressure the weakest
point breaks and begins to leak high volumes of fluid into the fracture. This means that the wellbore fluid quickly transports
LCM particles to the leaking spot or pinhole, the pinhole is sealed again and the wellbore pressure increases until the next
weakest spot is reached. This process continued for several times until a final or maximum sealing pressure was reached.
IADC/SPE 167957 5

This pinhole forming and breaking process could be clearly identified from the pressure signature, as indicated by the oscillating
wellbore pressure (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, for example). Tracking this process and making sense of the pressure signature is only
possible under well-controlled lab conditions with down-hole pressure gauges. This pinhole forming and breaking process can
also be heard during the tests. This mechanism of fracture sealing and breaking will be illustrated by more visual evidences
later in this paper.

Remedial Wellbore Strengthening Treatment and Preventive Treatment

Besides tests to study how to repair and strengthen an induced fracture or remedial wellbore strengthening treatment, tests
were also performed to understand the difference between remedial and preventive treatment. Some people refer to preventive
treatment as strengthening while drilling or dynamic wellbore strengthening. Preventive treatment involves adding LCM in the
active drilling fluid system while drilling the anticipated loss zone, to increase breakdown or mud loss pressures and thus to
avoid losses. Preventive treatment is especially effective in drilling through highly depleted formations when the anticipated
loss zone is known and any losses from induced fractures will be large in volume. Several dozen tests have been performed to
compare the advantages of preventive treatment versus remedial treatment and how to optimize the LCM design with respect
to formation permeability and pressure depletion. The findings from these comparison tests are great value to drilling operations
and project planning when losses are anticipated.
Fig. 5 shows an example of a preventive treatment test on a sandstone block. In this test, the sandstone block was stressed
to h=300 psi, H=900 psi. The pump was started at 15 mL/min and the drilling fluid contained 20-lb/bbl graphitic LCM from
the start of the pumping. The wellbore pressure was able to reach to 2500 psi, the block testers limit, without clear formation
breakdown. One might conclude the block had not fractured from the pressure signature. In fact, when the block was removed
from the load frame, it was clearly fractured to the edge of the block, as shown in Fig. 5b. It seems that fractures were created
or initiated but were immediately sealed by the LCM in the active mud system and caused no mud loss. Preventive treatment
tests demonstrated that one cannot detect fracture initiation from the pressure signature, even with a down-hole pressure gauge
as in the lab tests, let alone from surface pressure response. This can be understood from the rock mechanics modeling presented
in a later section.
Based on several dozen tests, preventive treatments with a low concentration of LCM can be more effective than remedial
treatments with twice the LCM concentration. This is particularly true for strengthening of depleted formations as the potential
loss zones are known. Fractures can be created in preventive treatments without mud loss. In other words, appropriately
designed particles in the active mud system can significantly raise the fracture gradient.

Fig. 5b Although no breakdown was seen from the pressure

response, the sandstone block was fractured. The fracture was
Fig. 5a An example of a preventive treatment tests on a sealed by the LCM in the testing fluid and thus no mud loss was
sandstone block. observed.

Sandstone versus Shale

The industrys experience is that it is easier to strengthen a sandstone formation than a shale formation. A limited number of
block tests have been performed on the Runswick Bay shale blocks. We demonstrated that the industrys experience is true
from the lab tests too. Two challenges for laboratory work are that, firstly, it is not easy to have a representative shale block
the rock properties can vary widely from one shale block to another; and secondly, it is almost impossible to obtain a
homogenous shale block.
Fig. 6 shows a highly laminated and fractured shale block before and after a remedial wellbore strengthening test. The shale
block in this test was subjected to the stresses h=300 psi, H=450 psi. When the block was opened after the test, many fractures
were observed. Some fractures were sealed by the graphitic LCM and some fractures were not sealed. One surprising
observation from the limited number of shale block tests under relatively small stress anisotropy of h=300 psi,
6 IADC/SPE 167957

H=450 psi is that even though the shale blocks were not homogenous and had pre-existing fractures, the main induced fractures
were approximately perpendicular to the minimum applied stress direction. Secondary fractures might, however, be present
and the fracture surfaces might be very rough and tortuous, as shown in Fig. 7 as an example. The half-block on the left-hand
side clearly shows a fracture along the borehole at right angles to the main fracture i.e., its plane is perpendicular to the
maximum applied stress direction. This has been seen in other shale tests, but it is not known why this fracture forms. Fig. 8
shows the wellbore pressure response for this test. It is quite different from the pressure response for a typical sandstone block
test as shown in Fig. 3. There appears to be multiple formation breakdowns shown in Fig. 8. Again it is not known what the
apparent multiple breakdown signature means.

Fig. 6a Laminated and fractured shale block before the test. Fig. 6b The shale block after the test. The main fracture was
The wellbore axis is perpendicular to the bedding plane of the perpendicular to the minimum stress direction.
shale.

Fig. 7 The appearance of the fracture surface in the shale test shown in Figure 6, with secondary fractures and a very rough and
tortuous primary fracture. Note, in the left-hand half, the fracture along the wellbore that is perpendicular to the maximum applied
stress, and also the bedding plane partings.
IADC/SPE 167957 7

Fig. 8 Wellbore pressure response for the shale block shown Fig. 9 An example of showing fracture sealing near the
in Figs. 6 and 7. It is quite different from the pressure response wellbore from the strengthening test of a natural fracture
for a sandstone test, for example, shown in Fig. 3. detailed in Fig. 4.

A Snapshot of Test Results on Fracture Sealing and Strengthening Mechanisms

Close to one thousand fracture sealing and block tests have been performed to study the various issues related to fracture sealing
and wellbore strengthening. These tests allow us to draw conclusions on, for example, the optimal LCM particle size
distribution and concentration required to form a strong seal quickly with respect to fracture width, remedial versus preventive
treatment, pressure depletion effects and wellbore strengthening mechanism. In this section, we will focus on the studies and
findings on the fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening mechanism from the test results.
Tests have been performed and analyses, including modeling, have been made to investigate where and how the sealing is
formed, how the sealing is broken, and the mechanism of wellbore strengthening. We visually examine the sealing locations
and characteristics after the end of the test when we open the rock sample or the testing cell, and then carefully analyze and
correlate the observations with pressure responses. We clearly see that sealing is mostly formed near the wellbore. This is true
for preventive treatment, sealing and wellbore strengthening of induced fractures or natural fractures. Fig. 2a shows a typical
example from fracture sealing and strengthening of an induced fracture. Fig. 9 shows the fracture surface after the test shown
in Fig. 4 on sealing and strengthening of a natural fracture. One can clearly see that the seal was formed near the wellbore and
some filtrate has flowed into the fracture near the wellbore.
Alongside this examination of where the seals are formed, various tests have been designed and conducted to investigate
how seals are formed within a fracture and how they are broken. These tests include a cylindrical LCM particles transport
visualization cell made of clear polycarbonate (Fig. 10) to allow videotaping and real-time observation on LCM particles
transport path and speed, how seals are formed and broken and where new seals are formed again. One common observation
from the tests and videos was that breaking of seals was much localized. As the seal broke at its weakest point, fluid flow was
quickly diverted to the localized opening, dragging LCM particles to quickly seal and plug the opening, allowing pump pressure
to increase. As the pump pressure increased, the seal broke at another point and then sealed again.
This visually observed mechanism of seal forming and breaking was confirmed from high pressure fracture sealing tests
and sandstone block tests. In the high pressure fracture sealing tests, a fracture is simulated by two plates with a gap controlled
by a linear-voltage-displacement-transducer. The plates can be permeable or impermeable. The fracture can be perpendicular
to the wellbore as shown in Fig. 11, or parallel to the wellbore (not shown). During the test, mud with LCM is pumped through
the wellbore. If the LCM in the mud is designed correctly with respect to the fracture width, fracture sealing will be achieved
and the wellbore pressure can be increased, to several thousand psi if the seal is good. Effects are seen that are similar to the
seal formation and breakage mechanism from the visualization cell tests; as the seal breaks at its weakest point, LCM particles
quickly flow to the opening and quickly seal and plug the opening, allowing wellbore pressure to increase again.
One test was stopped after the seal was broken, and the fracture cell was carefully opened. The localized opening was
actually found to be a pinhole in the cake rather than a large tear (Fig. 12). This pinhole opening and plugging as the seal
forming and breaking mechanism was also observed from block tests on sandstone rocks (Fig. 13). This was from a water-
based-mud test without LCM; the seal was formed entirely by filtercake on the wellbore surface. This high-magnification view
of a small part of the fracture face shows, from bottom to top, the wellbore itself, then filtercake deposited on the wellbore wall,
then the face of the fractured rock, The image is about 6 mm from top to bottom. A pinhole in the sealing or filtercake can be
clearly seen. There is an approximate correspondence between the number of pinholes or their aftermaths seen in the sample
after a test, and the number of pressure drops seen in the data recorded during the test (such as the pressure drops seen in Fig.
3).
This fracture sealing and strengthening mechanism indicates that LCM particle size distribution is critically important and
that filtercake quality plays a critical role in fracture sealing and wellbore strengthening. This has been demonstrated from lab
tests. This sealing mechanism and the role of filtercake quality on wellbore strengthening may explain why wellbore
8 IADC/SPE 167957

strengthening for highly depleted formations works so much better than the current theory or model can predict. A new model
is being developed to incorporate the mechanism; this new model and some of its early results are described in the next section.

Fig. 10 A visualization cell of varying gap to study how Fig. 11 A high pressure sealing tester (rated to 5000 psi)
sealing is formed and broken. where a horizontal fracture is represented by two parallel
plates.

Fig. 12 Pinhole opening of fracture sealing was observed Fig. 13 Pinhole opening of fracture sealing was observed
from high pressure sealing between two plates. from a sandstone block test.

A Model for Fracturing with Drilling Fluids

A mathematical model has been built to help understand the way that drilling fluids generate and propagate fractures. The
model is based on elastic rock deformation and fracture mechanics, and although it is still under development, it has delivered
some insights into fracturing behavior.
The model as described here assumes that a fracture is generated by pressurizing a wellbore with a fluid that contains fine
mud solids that form a filtercake on the wellbore wall (the rock is assumed to be permeable). At present the model does not
include deposition of filtercake on the faces of the fracture. It can be extended to impermeable rocks and also to large LCM
particles within the mud but this work is not described here. The wellbore axis lies along a principal stress direction in the
formation, so that the two other principal stresses lie at right angles to it. These two stresses may be different. Pre-existing
IADC/SPE 167957 9

pore pressure in the rock is taken to be zero for convenience, and the permeability is high enough that fluid flow is rapid and
pore pressure gradients dissipate immediately.
A central feature of the model is that the filtercake can bridge small fractures - with apertures up to a specified fraction of
the filtercakes thickness - and so stop wellbore fluid entering the fractures. As the intact wellbore is pressurized, fractures form
in the wall, behind the filtercake, in the plane perpendicular to the minimum stress, and grow slowly in length (controlled by
the stress intensity at the fracture tip) and width (controlled by linear elastic behavior). Because the filtercake is intact, wellbore
fluid does not enter the fracture, so its length and width are controlled by the fluid pressure acting on the wellbore wall alone.
When, however, the filtercake over the fracture mouth breaks, wellbore fluid can enter the fracture, apply pressure to its faces,
and propagate the fracture hydraulically. The process is modeled with a time-stepping scheme, which is not strictly necessary
for the approach described above but allows it to be extended to include other factors such as pumping rate, fluid viscosity and
LCM additions.
Fig. 14 shows some background behavior. It is the result of a fracture mechanics estimation of fracture length versus
wellbore pressure, when the wellbore pressure has access to a limited length of the fracture using the method of Lee et al.
(2004), and based on the Barenblatt criterion (Barenblatt 1959; Smith 1966). In the legend, a fluid penetration of 0.0 means the
fracture mouth is blocked to fluid flow at the wellbore wall; a fluid penetration of 1.0 means that wellbore pressure acts on the
entire length of the fracture. In the latter situation the fracture length grows to high values as soon as wellbore pressure reaches
the value of the minimum stress, as expected from hydraulic fracturing theory. As the fracture is blocked closer and closer to
the wellbore wall, the length generated by a given pressure decreases dramatically. If increasing fracture length is taken as a
sign of fluid loss and lost circulation, it is clear that restricting fluid access to the fracture has a major beneficial effect.
Fracture length/m

Fig. 14 Fracture length (from wellbore wall to fracture tip) versus wellbore pressure for various penetrations of wellbore fluid into
the fracture. The wellbore radius, minimum and maximum stresses normal to the well axis, and the fracture toughness of the rock are
listed above the chart.

This behavior, together with an algorithm for fracture width (Deeg et al. 2004), can be incorporated into the time-stepping
scheme to show the progress of fracture growth as wellbore pressure is increased. The scheme involves many parameters; some
are more important than others and the effects of two of the most important ones will be shown here. Fig. 15 shows results with
a base case set of parameters. As time progresses, from 0 to 24 seconds, fluid is pumped into the wellbore and the pressure
increases according to its compressibility (with small corrections for leakoff through the pre-existing filtercake (1 mm thick)
on the wall. At about 24 seconds, a crack is nucleated behind the filtercake, without rupturing it, so that the pressure within the
fracture is pore pressure (in this case, 0). This nucleation point is shown by the blue circle in the top panel. The well pressure
continues to increase as pumping goes on, and the fracture length grows very slowly, since the fracture faces are not under
stress. The width also increases. Eventually, at about 27.5 seconds, the width grows beyond the critical width that the filtercake
can sustain (in this case 1/6 of the filtercake thickness) and the filtercake pops, allowing fluid into the fracture. This causes a
rapid increase in length and width of the fracture, and a corresponding decrease in wellbore pressure because of the extra
fracture volume that has become available. As pumping continues, the fracture continues to extend, controlled mainly by the
rate at which fluid enters the system (i.e., the pump rate). Other parameters in the
10 IADC/SPE 167957

simulations were: hole radius 0.108 m, cased hole length 1000 m, open hole length 10 m, pump rate 0.02 m 3s-1, fluid
compressibility 0.5 GPa-1, mud viscosity 0.05 Pa s, mud solids volume fraction 0.02, rock Youngs modulus 10 GPa, rock
Poissons ratio 0.33, rock fracture toughness 0.02 MPa m0.5, pore pressure 0 MPa, initial cake thickness 1 mm, cake permeability
10-21 m2.
Note that the fracture is initiated at around 25.5 MPa, very close to the value predicted by rock mechanics models for the
stress state around the wellbore. The fracture volume generated after this is so small, however, that it is not reflected in the
pressure versus time curve. Only after the filtercake layer pops at about 30 MPa does the fracture become visible in the pressure
signature.
Fig. 16 shows the response for a situation that is identical except for the Youngs modulus (stiffness) of the rock. Because
the modulus is lower, the fracture is wider for a given pressure, and so the filtercake pops at a lower pressure. The initiation
pressure is very similar, dictated by the stress state, but the visible wellbore pressure response, including the breakdown
pressure, is strongly influenced by the rock stiffness.
Fig. 17 shows the response for a stronger filtercake, which at a given thickness is able to bridge a wider fracture (in this
case, a width that is 1/3 of the filtercake thickness). The breakdown pressure is increased to around 36 MPa.
Wellbore pressure MPa
Frac length, filled length (m)
Frac width, critical width (mm)

Fig. 15 Results from the time-based simulation using the base case set of parameters. The top panel shows pressure as a function
of time in seconds. The middle panel shows (in blue) fracture length calculated with a fracture mechanics approach, and (in red) the
length to which fluid has invaded the fracture (using a simplified fluid flow model). The bottom panel shows (in blue) the width of the
fracture at the wellbore wall, and (in red) the critical width at which the filtercake can no longer bridge the growing fracture mouth
(this, in fact, changes with time as more filtercake is deposited, but this change is extremely small). At the bottom of the figure are
some of the simulation parameters; the remainder are given in the text.
IADC/SPE 167957 11

40
Wellbore pressure MPa

Crack initiation
30 Crack mouth opening

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac length, filled length (m)

0.8
Fracture length
0.6 Filled length

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac width, critical width (mm)

1
Fracture width
Critical width

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 16 Results from the time-based simulation using the same set of parameters as in Fig. 15, except for a lower Youngs modulus
value of 5 GPa. This means that the fracture mouth width is higher at a given pressure, and so the filtercake pops at about 26 MPa
rather than 30 MPa.
12 IADC/SPE 167957

40
Wellbore pressure MPa

Crack initiation
30 Crack mouth opening

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac length, filled length (m)

0.8
Fracture length
0.6 Filled length

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frac width, critical width (mm)

1
Fracture width
Critical width

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 17 Results from the time-based simulation using the same set of parameters as in Fig. 15, except for a stronger filtercake. The
cake in this case can bridge and seal a fracture mouth whose width is 1/3 of the filtercake thickness (rather than 1//6 as in Fig. 15).
The pressure can therefore be increased to around 36 MPa before the filtercake pops, fluid enters the fracture, the fracture propagates,
and losses begin.

Summary and Conclusions

A comprehensive experimental study has been conducted to investigate wellbore strengthening mechanism, applicability and
effectiveness of various strengthening implementation methods. The experimental techniques include fracture sealing tests of
known fracture apertures simulated by two plates, induced or natural fractures in sandstone or shale blocks with a borehole,
and a transparent cell for visualizing particles transport within a fracture and for studying how the seal is formed and broken.
Several hundred tests have been performed with different stress conditions and strengthening implementation methods Due
to the large test matrix and test results, it is not possible to present all test data, analyses and conclusions fully in this paper.
Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
If the LCM PSD and concentration are designed correctly, fracture sealing pressure achieved with wellbore
strengthening is always higher than the breakdown pressure. In other words, not only can the weak formation
be repaired after fractures are induced, but also it can be strengthened.
IADC/SPE 167957 13

A minimum LCM concentration is required to quickly form a strong seal. The minimum LCM concentration depends
on induced or natural fractures, and strengthening implementation methods such as preventive or remedial treatment.
A preventive strengthening treatment with a low concentration LCM is more effective than a remedial treatment with
twice the LCM concentration. In other words, a low concentration of LCM in the active mud system can significantly
raise the fracture gradient.
Limited numbers of shale block tests have been performed because the tests are much more difficult to perform.
Strengthening of a shale formation is more difficult and different than that of a sandstone formation.
Fracture sealing is mostly near the wellbore, and filtercake plays a strong role in wellbore strengthening mechanism
and performance.
Fracture sealing and strengthening mechanism is by sealing and plugging pinhole openings.
A mathematical model has been built to understand how drilling fluids generate and propagate fractures. The model
has delivered some insights into fracturing behavior and the importance of certain parameters on wellbore
strengthening.