SPE 71368
Drilling Fluid Losses and Gains: Case Histories and Practical Solutions
Uday A. Tare, SPE, Donald L. Whitfill, SPE, and Fersheed K. Mody, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. 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
Identification and resolution of drilling fluid losses and gains
while drilling have gained in importance due to the high cost
of deepwater drilling focusing concern on any delays. Drilling
fluid losses and gains, or wellbore breathing, can be attributed
to several factors. These include the local geological setting,
inherent natural fractures in the formation, well trajectory,
drilling operations, equivalent mud weight, mud rheology and
chemistry, etc. Recurring observations of formation influx
while drilling or during connections oftentimes are interpreted
as a potential well control situation. Therefore significant rig
time can be lost to insure this is not the case. There have been
recent developments in the area of monitoring drilling fluid
losses and gains. A fundamental understanding of the reasons
for mud losses and gains, along with the implementation of
these recent monitoring techniques, would greatly improve
managing this problem.
In this work, mechanisms are provided to explain drilling
fluid losses and gains. Loss and gain situations can occur in a
variety of drilling scenarios: examples would be while drilling
in deeper waters, where the operating window between the
pore pressure and fracture gradient is narrow; drilling
extended reach wells where the problem may be encountered
at higher hole inclination angles; drilling though formations
with abnormally high geothermal gradients, etc. In addition,
case histories are provided where drilling fluid losses and
gains were diagnosed during a borehole stability analysis,
followed by implementation of recommended remedial
measures that resulted in better management of the problem on
later wells. Sometimes potential for mud losses and gains are
interpreted from formation leak-off tests. New solutions,
which include alterations to the drilling fluid composition and
lost circulation sweeps, are proposed to help mitigate the
occurrence of drilling fluid losses and gains.
Introduction
Drilling fluid losses and gains (wellbore breathing)
phenomenon are frequently a problem in deepwater drilling
operations where the difference between the pore pressure and
the fracture gradient is very small. However the loss and gain
situations are not limited to deepwater drilling operations,
other examples would be while drilling extended reach wells
where the problem may be encountered at higher hole
inclination angles; drilling though formations with abnormally
high geothermal gradients, etc. The extent of fluid losses and
gains varies from 25 barrels to more than 350 barrels of
drilling fluid leading to notable pit gains and losses. Factors
that can contribute towards loss and gain events include, the
local geological setting, inherent natural fractures in the
formation, drilling operations, well trajectory, annular pressure
while circulating and during pump-shutdown, drilling fluid
rheology, chemical composition of the drilling fluid, etc.
Symptoms of losses and gains include seepage of drilling
fluid into formations while drilling and formation influx when
the drilling fluid circulating pumps are shutdown and/or when
changes to the fluid system are made. While seepage and
whole fluid losses to the formation should be treated as
potential loss circulation incidences, recurring observations of
formation influx while drilling or during connections are
oftentimes interpreted as potential well control situations. Due
to sensitivity for operational safety, these events are treated
with great concern. Significant rig-time can be lost (thereby
adding to the drilling cost) to insure that the formation influx
(and the often-associated annular pressure build-up) is not a
kick.
Recent developments in the area of monitoring drilling
fluid losses and gains1, along with the implementation of these
recent monitoring techniques2, have greatly improved
managing the problem. In addition, alterations to the drilling
fluid systems have decreased and in some cases completely
eliminated occurrences of losses and gains.
2 U.A. TARE, D.L. WHITFILL, F.K. MODY
Losses and Gains Phenomenon – Conditions and
Mechanisms
Several possible explanations exist for the fluid flow
observed when drilling fluid circulation is stopped (pump
shutdown). Fluid influx (a kick), expansion of fluid due to
pump pressure release in the drillpipe and annulus, change in
the drilling fluid/near-wellbore formation temperature profiles
during “pumps-on” and “pumps-off” are common
explanations.3 Sometimes reversible plastic distension of the
wellbore where the open hole and/or the casing physically
expands while pumping and then when the pumps are
shutdown, the well volume decreases and fluid is expelled is
also proposed as an explanation of fluid flow into the
borehole.4 The magnitude of volume changes expected for
each explanation is primarily dependent on the fluid type and
properties (type of drilling fluid and/or formation fluid). For
commonly used drilling fluids the magnitude of volume
change associated with fluid compression due to pump
pressure is very low, typically in the order of 2-6 barrels.
Volume changes associated with temperature contraction and
expansion of the drilling fluid is primarily related to the rate of
heat transfer and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the
fluids. The plastic deformation of mudstones and shales when
the formation pressure is sufficiently high or in normally
pressured formations where the equivalent drilling fluid
density overbalance is high, is sometimes incorrectly
advanced to explain fluid losses and gains. The modulus of
elasticity of formations calculated from the wellbore
distension explanation is very low (in the order of a few
thousand psi), this is contrary to actual measurements
(modulus of elasticity for rocks at depth typically range from a
few 100,000 psi for softer rocks to a million psi for stiffer
rocks). The above mechanism therefore cannot explain losses
and gains for formations under geotstatic stress even for
highly plastic rocks with relatively low stiffness.
Neglecting presence of natural fractures and fault features
the most likely explanations of causes for the occurrences of
losses (and gains) are provided below.
Near-Wellbore Radial Tensile Failures. Loss and gain
problems in the radial tensile mode of failure can be attributed
to the case where the equivalent circulating density (ECD)
exceeds the near wellbore tangential stress. (Fig. 1)
Considering the solution of the linear-elastic plain strain
problem for failure of inclined boreholes,5 the effective
tangential stress for a vertical wellbore (in a normal faulting
environment) at the borehole wall can be estimated (Fig. 2):
σθ = (σH + σh) – 2(σH - σh) cos2θ - Pw – Po………………(1)
where, θ in a cylindrical coordinate system represents
borehole angle (from 0 to 2π), the normal in-situ earth stresses
(total) are related as σH ≥ σh. If the formation tensile strength,
ST, is incorporated into Equation 1, then the formation
breakdown pressure, Pb, can be expressed as:
SPE 71368
Pb = σθ (θ=0) + ST…………....………………………..…… (2)
The near-wellbore tangential stress varies around the borehole
from a maximum compressive value (direction of least
principle stress, θ = π/2, location 1 in Fig 2) to a minimum
compressive value (in the direction perpendicular to the least
principle stress θ = 0, location 2 in Fig 2). If the equivalent
mud density is increased the effective tangential stress (σθ at θ
= 0) eventually becomes tensile and a hydraulic fracture is
initiated (in the direction of the maximum horizontal stress for
a normal faulting environment).
Radial fractures (aligned with the maximum horizontal
stress) will occur when drilling ahead with an ECD that
exceeds the fracture initiation pressure. The value of the
initiation pressure is dependent on the stress concentrations
around the borehole and the rock tensile strength. In a three-
dimensional stress-state the tangential stess will vary with well
inclination and azimuth. While circulating (pumping), if the
increased pressure due to circulation (ECD) is higher than the
fracture initiation pressure drilling-induced fractures will be
initiated in the formation. These induced fractures open and
accept fluid. Fluid is regained on pump shutdown when the
fractures close, and fluid in the fractures is released back into
the wellbore. Fluid is thus steadily lost during
circulation/drilling and is regained when static/during
connections.
Equations 1 and 2 are valid only in the case of no fluid
penetration.6 Time-dependent alterations in the near-wellbore
pore pressure by mud pressure penetration or osmotic effects
will affect the near wellbore effective tangential stress and the
associated fracture initiation pressure. The magnitude of
loss/gain is dependent on the extent of fracture propagation
away from the wellbore while drilling. In highly inclined
wells the effects of stress anisotropy and time dependency
may lead to the initiation pressure being lower than the
fracture propagation pressure. In such cases partial losses will
occur while drilling, but on pump shutdown a large proportion
of the losses will be regained.
Near –Wellbore Circumferential Tensile Failures. Circum-
ferential tensile fractures are created in very low permeability
formations when there is a large instantaneous pressure drop
from ECD to static mud weight (Figs. 3 and 4). While
drilling, the near-wellbore formation pressure is gradually
elevated due to drilling fluid loss to the formation. If sufficient
exposure time is allowed, the near-wellbore pore pressure may
come to equilibrium with the drilling fluid ECD. Such
conditions can occur in very low permeability formations like
shales, where filter cake is not deposited when exposed to
water-based drilling fluids. Similar conditions can develop in
microfractured formations exposed to oil-based drilling fluids
where the capillary entry pressure may be substantially lower.
If sufficiently long exposure times are allowed with the
aforementioned conditions the mud pressure penetrates deep
into the formation (away from the wellbore), thereby creating
a near-balanced condition while drilling.
SPE 71368 DRILLING FLUID LOSSES AND GAINS: CASE HISTORIES AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
As the near wellbore formation pressure approaches the
drilling fluid ECD the radial stress (i.e., difference between
the equivalent mud weight and the pore pressure) reduces. The
time required for the elevated near wellbore pressure to
dissipate is considerably longer in very low permeability (e.g.,
nano-darcy permeability range) formations. Therefore when
pumps are shutdown (e.g., for connections, trips, etc.)
conditions instantaneously develop where these very low
permeability formations have undissipated pressures that are
higher than the static mud weight. Under such conditions the
radial stress previously compressive in nature goes into
tension and the radial support offered to the formation is lost.
Since the direction of the tensile stresses are radial and if the
formation tensile strength is exceeded, fractures open up
normal to the direction or these stresses. These fractures are
aligned with the wellbore circumference. Formations with
circumferential tensile fractures can now exhibit drilling fluid
losses and gains.
Temperature Effects. An additional parameter affecting the
near wellbore tangential stress is the cooling effect caused by
exposing a cold drilling fluid to a hot formation. Conditions
for losses and gains can occur when formations are subjected
to high magnitudes of temperature changes, from fluid
circulation to static conditions. Such temperature changes are
effected when a hot formation is exposed to a lower
temperature drilling fluid. The resulting reduction in the near
wellbore formation temperature gives rise to contraction
related thermal stresses. These thermal stresses are tensile in
nature due to reducing the formation temperature and
therefore they tend to reduce the near wellbore effective
tangential (hoop) stress, which can be related to losses and
gains. Thus, while circulating there is a net loss of whole mud
into the formation due to formation cooling and when the
circulation is stopped the mud lost to the formation is
recovered as the drilling fluid and formation temperatures
equilibrate.
Equation 3 can be used to quantify the thermal
stresses developed in formations, knowing the formation
bottom hole static temperature and the flow-line temperature.
For shales a stress change can vary from 10 to 50 psi/°F, for a
range of Young’s modulus (psi), coefficient of thermal
expansion (psi/°F), and Poisson’s Ratio. Equation 3 is based
on the concepts of linear elasticity7 and has been shown to
work well in most circumstances.
(Eα )(Tn − T f )
δT = ……………..………………………..(3)
1 −ν
Incorporating thermal stresses Equation 2 can be re-written
as:
Pb = σθ (θ=0) + ST + δT..……………….……………………..(4)
3
(Note: The sign convention being followed is tensile
components are negative and compressive components are
positive in sign.)
Case Histories
The following case histories are from offshore Gulf of
Mexico.
Case History I. In an offshore block the next phase of
development wells were being planned. In the previous phase
of the field development, three vertical wells (maximum
deviation of 6 degrees from vertical) had severe fluid loss and
gain problems in the open hole interval below the 9-5/8 in.
casing shoe. While drilling these intervals a net loss of the
drilling fluid into the formation during circulation was
observed. When the pumps were shut-off, annular pressure
build-up was noted, which was oftentimes interpreted as influx
of formation fluid into the wellbore. Similar problems were
also observed in previously drilled wells in the same block. In
addition to encountering losses and gains a lost circulation
incident was recorded (approximately 960 barrels lost) at 9490
ft true vertical depth (TVD). The loss and gain problems
observed while drilling the three development wells were
thought to be occurring in a sand formation at 9506 ft (located
right below the intermediate casing string) and also in a sand
formation located at 13,019 ft TVD.
During the drilling of the third well a borehole stability
analysis was requested to help improve well planning for the
upcoming phase. In was observed that hot formations were
being exposed to a lower temperature drilling fluid. During
analysis the parameters thought to most influence the
conditions for losses and gains were - the accurate
interpretation of the far-field least principle stress and the
representation of the temperature conditions during drilling.
Based on the area geology a normal faulting environment was
already established. Therefore the least principle stress was
considered to be the minimum horizontal stress intersecting
orthogonal with the wellbore axis. To adequately estimate the
in-situ minimum horizontal stress, leak-off tests (LOTs) and
formation integrity tests (FITs) were analyzed. From the
LOT/FITs the interpreted value for the minimum horizontal
stress, Sh, ranged between 17.9 to 18.0 ppg for the zone of
interest (below the 9-5/8 in. casing shoe).
To get a better representation of the stress concentration
around the borehole wall the effects of temperature change on
the tangential stress were estimated. The bottom hole
temperatures and the flow-line temperatures are provided in
Table 1. Modeling thermal stresses for a composite
temperature profile for the two blocks and applying the results
to the block, the estimated thermal stresses are given in Table
1. The mud weight used to drill the interval below the 9-5/8 in.
casing shoe ranged from 16.9 – 17.0 ppg, the ECD for this
mud weight range was 17.7 ppg.
Based on the input information a stress analysis was
performed for the two problem depths (9500 ft and 13000 ft
TVDs) using an equivalent mud weight of 17.7 ppg. Figs. 5
and 6 show the variation of the effective tangential stress as a
function of radial ratio (r/R, where r/R =1 denotes at the
4 U.A. TARE, D.L. WHITFILL, F.K. MODY
wellbore wall and r/R = 5 denotes 2 ft into the formation).
Figs. 7 and 8 display the distribution of the effective
tangential stress around the borehole circumference (for θ = 0
to 180 degrees). Table 2 provides the near wellbore effective
tangential stress incorporating thermal stresses.
As discussed previously, conditions for losses and gains
(wellbore breathing) may occur when the formation is exposed
to different temperature regimes under static conditions and
while circulating. The drilling induced thermal stresses are
tensile in nature due to cooling the formation resulting in
reduction of the near wellbore effective tangential (hoop)
stress. The minimum horizontal stress considered in the
analysis is taken to be 17.9 ppg. Thus when the formation was
exposed to equivalent mud weight of 17.7-17.8 ppg, and
considering the reduction in the near wellbore tangential stress
by 0.6 to 0.7 ppg, the breathing phenomena could be
explained. Already initiated fractures at the borehole wall
during LOT/FIT or drilling operations restricted the maximum
allowable mud weight to 17.9 ppg. The cooling effect induced
by the lower temperature drilling fluid, reduced the near-
wellbore tangential stress, and mud was lost at 17.7-17.8 ppg
equivalent mud weight. However when the pumps were turned
off the formation was exposed to only 17.00 ppg (the static
mud weight) and the near wellbore formation temperature and
the now static drilling fluid temperature equilibrated. Thus
while circulating losses of drilling fluid to the formation were
observed due to formation cooling and when the circulation
was stopped gains were observed where almost all of the mud
lost was recovered.
A mechanistic borehole stability analysis was conducted
for the two identified depths. The results of this analysis
predicted minimum mud weights at angles less than 10
degrees in the range of 16.7 to 16.8 ppg. For future wells,
recommendations were made to drill the intermediate intervals
with an equivalent mud weight below 16.7 ppg with
effectively minimized ECD’s.
Case History II. A well drilled in 350 ft water depth had
encountered several minor losses to the shale formations while
drilling and hole pack-offs during trips into the hole. Loss and
gain incidents and pack-offs were predominantly encountered
in the 12-1/4 in. open hole section going through a pressured
shale interval.
A water-based drilling fluid was used below the 13-3/8 in.
casing shoe (TVD 6500 ft). No real mud losses or borehole
collapse problems were encountered in the near-vertical
sections above 6500 feet. However, as the formation pore
pressure increased from 10 ppg (TVD 6500 ft) to 12.6 ppg
(TVD 8500 ft) the mud weight was raised from 11.9 ppg to
14.5 ppg at the corresponding depths. After 9000 ft minor mud
losses were reported (in the order of 100 to 200 barrels)
followed by fluid gains, in some instances with hole pack-off.
Observations of pressure build-up in the annulus after pump
shutdown prompted an increase in the mud weight on one
occasion at 9656 ft. This only alleviated the loss and gain
SPE 71368
problems for 700 ft of drilling, after which the problems
reappeared.
A borehole stability analysis incorporating mud pressure
penetration effects was performed for the 12-1/4 in. hole
section. Faults intersecting the offset and the planned well
trajectories were identified. A regional overburden stress
gradient of 0.95 psi/ft was used based on an offset well
integrated bulk density log. Since the majority of the losses
and gains and hole pack-off incidents were observed at a TVD
of 11,000 ft the analysis was done for this depth. Input
parameters for the analysis are provided in Table 3.
Fig. 9 provides a graphical representation of the results
and shows the upper and lower limit for a safe mud weight.
For the case where mud pressure penetration effects were
considered the analysis shows that the mud weight window
became narrower with time i.e., higher mud weights were
required over time for the same section to maintain the
borehole open. Therefore the minimum mud weight
requirements to keep the borehole open at a hole inclination
angle of 40 degrees at a TVD of 11000 ft increased from 15.8
ppg to approximately 16.4 ppg at equilibrium conditions. Low
permeability formations like shales (typically in the order of
10-6 to 10-9 D) lack the protection of a filter-cake because they
do not experience normal fluid loss from water based mud at
overbalance. Instead, slow fluid filtrate invasion gradually
(typically on the order of several days) equilibrates the mud
pressure and the near wellbore pore pressure, whereby
effective mud pressure support is lost, resulting in
circumferential tensile fractures (when the tensile strength is
overcome). Development of such conditions can lead to
drilling fluid losses and gains. It is very important to bear in
mind that the mud pressure penetration effects are time-
dependent. When the formation has just been drilled the mud
weight calculated when no mud pressure penetration effects
are considered should be used.
The results from this modeling effort were applied to the
mud weight program for subsequent wells. Along with the
recommended mud weight of 15.5 ppg changes were made in
the drilling practices and the mud rheology to help minimize
the equivalent circulating density and the swab and surge
pressures during trips. The incorporation of these
recommendations resulted in a virtually trouble free drilling of
the 12-1/4 in. section with almost no lost time incidents from
hole pack-offs and mud losses.
Practical Solutions To Losses and Gains
Since loss and gain problems result from the initiation of
fractures that do not continue to propagate, mitigation steps
will be the same as those for lost circulation issues in general.
Though these issues are pertinent to both water base and oil
base drilling fluids, past experience has shown oil base fluids
to be more susceptible to lost circulation.
Debate on the type of material, amount and when to add it
to the active system for lost circulation is on-going and
unending. Positive past experiences generally sway decisions
on current applications. Representative laboratory data is
expensive and difficult to obtain due to the scale of the
SPE 71368 DRILLING FLUID LOSSES AND GAINS: CASE HISTORIES AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
experiments. Information obtained from joint industry
experiments (Drilling Engineers Association (DEA) 13) done
on 30 in. cube shale blocks showed prevention of lost
circulation in OBM required the inclusion of adequate levels
of properly sized lost circulation material (LCM) in the
drilling fluid itself, since the fractures were difficult to stop
once propagating past the initiation stage. 8, 9 The theory to go
with the observations is that an adequate loading of properly
sized materials causes “tip screen out” immediately after the
fracture is initiated, preventing further growth and
propagation.
It is a reasonable observation, from rock mechanics and
hydraulic fracture theory, to surmise that it is easier to prevent
fracture propagation than to later plug the fracture and prevent
fluid re-entering. These observations have been verified in the
field and in the DEA 13 studies. One example for a land job
occurred when a consultant did not want to run LCM in the
mud while drilling an area that was prone to lost circulation.
Lost circulation did occur, and could not be stopped. Several
thousand feet of open hole were lost. The well was redrilled
with LCM carried in the mud. It was not without incident, but
was drilled successfully to TD.
It is for these reasons that we propose carrying LCM in the
active SBM drilling fluid when drilling probable lost
circulation zones. In addition, this practice will aid in
preventing seepage losses while drilling as well as provide
mitigation of loss and gain problems.
Pretreatment Materials. Subsequent work, based on these
data and observations, resulted in the development of lost
circulation materials that could be carried in a drilling fluid
without significantly affecting the rheology or being
detrimental to fluid loss.10 Only one of these materials is
currently commercially available.11 One of the more
distinctive characteristics of this graphitic carbon material is
the compressive property, allowing it to pack itself into the
fracture tip, promoting screen-out. If the pressure is released,
the material expands (i.e., returns to its original size), thus
continuing to plug the fracture completely.
The DEA studies also showed sized calcium carbonate to
be an effective lost circulation material. These two materials,
along with micro-fibers, constitute the main materials to be
carried as a pretreatment in the drilling fluid – and are
generally the primary constituents of initial lost circulation
treatments.
In general, 5-10 ppb of graphitic carbon plus 10-15 ppb of
sized calcium carbonate along with 5 pbb microfiber is used as
a pretreatment. A total weight of 20-25 ppb is desirable.
Subsequent Treatment. By premixing these LCM materials,
rather than mixing on the fly, the proper amounts and particle
size distributions can be maintained. It may be possible in
some cases to ease logistics some what by mixing a
“concentrate” that can then be diluted by the active mud on
location to the desired LCM level. The relative ratio of
materials should be normalized based on specific gravity of
5
each, to provide equal volumes, rather than adding them on an
equal weight basis.
Since higher concentrations of materials will aid in
fracture tip screen-out and prevention of further fracture
propagation, it will be more effective to add later treatments to
the drilling fluid system as sweeps. In general, these sweeps
should contain a nominal 50 ppb of the selected materials.
Summary and Conclusion
Conditions and mechanism to help explain drilling fluid losses
and gains have been provided. Neglecting fault features,
formation natural fractures, etc., loss and gain events can be
explained by near-wellbore radial tensile and circumferential
tensile failures. Thermal stresses can also induce losses and
gains in some cases. The two case histories demonstrate that
problems that are properly diagnosed can be mitigated by
altering mud weights, rheology, drilling operations like trip
speed, etc. Practical solutions to loss and gain problems can be
obtained by the pretreatment of the drilling fluid with properly
sized and type of lost circulation materials. Subsequent
treatment of the drilling fluid can be done most efficiently by
adding additional lost circulation material of the proper size
and type in sweeps.
Nomenclature
σ = stress, m/Lt2, psi
θ = borehole angle respect to max. horizontal stress, degrees
P = pressure, m/Lt2, psi
ST= formation tensile strength, m/Lt2, psi
δT= thermal stress, m/Lt2, psi
E = Young’s modulus, m/Lt2, psi
α = coefficient of thermal expansion, L/L/degrees, in./in./oF
T= Temperature, degrees
ν = Poisson’s ratio
Subscripts
H = maximum horizontal stress
h = minimum horizontal stress
w = drilling fluid
o = pore fluid
n = near wellbore
f = formation
b= breakdown
References
1. Ward, C., and Beique, M.: “Kick Detection, Well Control, and
Formation “Flow-Back” Interpretation Now More Effective –
Measurements Address Deepwater Drilling Problems,” Offshore
(July 1999).
2. Power, D. et. al.: “Well Characterization Procedures For Early
Kink Detection and Wellbore Breathing,” paper
ETCE2000/DRILL – 10103 presented at the ETCE/OMAE
Conference, New Orleans, LA, Feb. 14-17.
3. Weddle, C. E. III and Kelly, O. A.: “Is it Normal? – Trend
Monitoring in Pore Pressure and Kick Detection,” 1999 IADC
Well Control Conference of the Americas, Houston, Texas, 1999.
 6 U.A. TARE, D.L. WHITFILL, F.K. MODY SPE 71368

4. Gill, J.A.: “Charged Shales: Self-Induced Pore Pressures,” paper Table 3 List of model input parameters for Case History II.
IADC/SPE 14788 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling TVD (ft): 11000
Conference, Dallas, TX, Feb. 10-12. Overburden Stress (psi/ft): 0.949
5. Bradley, W.B.: “Failure of Inclined Boreholes,” J. Energy Res. Max. Horizontal Stress (psi/ft): 0.900
Tech. (Dec. 1979) 232: Trans., ASME, 101. Min. Horizontal Stress (psi/ft): 0.879
6. Detournay, E., McLennan, J.D., and Roegiers, J.-C.: “Poroelastic Azimuth with respect to Max. Horizontal Stress (deg): 0
Concepts Explain Some of the Hydraulic Fracturing
Mechanisms,” paper SPE 15262, 1986.
Pore Pressure (psi/ft): 0.789
7. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity, 3rd Poisson’s Ratio: 0.23
edition, McGraw Hill (1982) 567. Cohesion (psi): 548
8. Morita, N, Black, A. D., and Fuh, G. F.: “Theory of Lost Friction Angle (deg): 21
Circulation Pressure,” paper SPE 20409 presented at the 65th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA.,
Sept. 23-26, 1990.
9. Onyia, E. C.: “An Analysis of Experimental Data on Lost
Circulation Problems While Drilling with Oil-Base Mud,” paper
SPE 22581 presented at the 68thAnnual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6-9, 1991.
10. Fuh, G. –F., et. al.: “A New Approach to Preventing Lost
Circulation While Drilling,” paper SPE 24599 presented at the
67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
D.C., Oct. 4-7, 1992.
11. Allemon, J., et. al.: "Multi-functional solid lubricant reduces
friction/prevents mud loss,” World Oil (Sept. 1998) 87-90.
Figure 1. Near-Wellbore Radial Tensile Failure. Loss and gain
SI Metric Conversion Factors problems can develop in this mode when the drilling fluid
equivalent circulating density (ECD) exceeds the near wellbore
cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s tangential stress.
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
ft2 × 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
ft3 × 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. × 2.54* E+00 = cm
lbf × 4.448 222 E+00 = N
md × 9.869 233 E-04 = µm2
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.

Table 1. Estimated thermal stresses for Case History I.

Formation Modulus of Elasticity, psi= 1 × 106
Co-efficient of Thermal Expansion, in/in/ F= 3 × 10-6
o

Poisson’s Ratio (Drained)= 0.22

TVD Formation Flow-line Estimated

(ft) Temp. Temp Thermal Stress Figure 2. Location (1) where the tangential stress is maximum
(Fahrenheit) (Fahrenheit) [-ive = tensile] compressive and location (2) where the tangential stress is least
(psi) compressive. Where the normal in-situ earth stresses (total) are
9500 194 116 -300 related as σH ≥ σh .
13000 269 140 -496.15

Table 2 Temperature effects on near wellbore tangential stress for

a 17.7 ppg mud weight.
TVD Effective Tangential Stress σθ @ θ Reduction in
(ft) = 0 deg (17.7 ppg equivalent mud near wellbore
weight) tangential
Neglecting Including stress, σθ, due
thermal Stresses thermal stresses to cooling
(psi) (psi) (ppg)
9500 1900 1600 0.607
13000 2600 2104 0.733
SPE 71368 DRILLING FLUID LOSSES AND GAINS: CASE HISTORIES AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS 7

Figure 5. Effective tangential stress as a function of radial

distance, 9500 ft TVD.

Figure 3. Development of near-wellbore circumferential tensile

failures (A)- while drilling near-wellbore formation pressure is
gradually elevated by drilling fluid loss and (B) - near-wellbore
pore pressure equilibrates with ECDs. Thus, any instantaneous
pressure drop would lead to circumferential tensile failures
causing losses and gains.

Figure 6. Effective tangential stress as a function of radial

distance,13000ft TVD.

Figure 4. Image of Gulf of Mexico shale core after a borehole

collapse test. Circumferential tensile fractures are clearly
observed due to a large pressure drop from near wellbore pore
pressure to borehole pressure.
8 U.A. TARE, D.L. WHITFILL, F.K. MODY SPE 71368

Figure 7. Effective tangential stress varying borehole angle (θ), Figure 8. Effective tangential stress varying borehole angle (θ),
9500 ft TVD. 13000 ft TVD.

18.5
M in. M ud W t. to keep the borehole open M in. M ud W t. to keep the borehole open

Fracturing M ud W t. Fracturing M ud W t.
Equivalent Mud Weight (ppg)

18

17.5

17
Profile with m ud pressure M ech an ic al M u d W eight Predictions
p enetration eff ects (E arly T im e)

16.5

16

15.5

15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Hole Angle (deg)

Fig - 9. Effect of Hole Inclination Angle on Mud Density Incorporating Mud Pressure Penetration
Effects, TVD(ft)= 1100