ARMA 16-0087

Shale Instability of Deviated Wellbores in Southern Iraqi Fields

Alsubaih, A.A. and Nygaard, R

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA

Copyright 2016 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 June 2016. This paper
was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of the paper by a minimum
of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by
whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Wellbore instability problems are the cause for the majority of nonproductive time in the southern Iraqi
field developments. These drilling difficulties pose potential problems such as mud losses in weak or vugular
formations, stuck pipe in shales or unconsolidated formations. This paper focuses on the most severe problem in terms
of effort and disbursement which is referred to pipe sticking in Tanuma shale formation. Examining the drilling data
revealed that this phenomenon was mostly related to shear failure of the wellbore, which caused an immediate increase
in the stand pipe pressure with no drilling fluid returns when circulating. In this regard, a geomechanical analysis for
southern Iraqi field was performed on field data from 45 deviated. The analysis identified the following areas of
improvement. First, the mud weight being used was not changed properly with respect to variation in wells azimuth and
inclination. Secondly, anisotropic effects of this shale formation caused by the bedding planes should be considered in
wells trajectory design. Due to the lack of published studies regarding wellbore problems in southern Iraqi fields, this
paper could serve as case history for similar fields in that region.

rate or string rotation). Additionally, the stuck pipe may

1. INTRODUCTION
Numerous borehole instabilities were observed in the
drilling operations of deviated wells through shaly
formations in southern Iraqi oil and gas fields. These
problems usually escalate during increased inclination of
the wells, resulting in significant nonproductive time.
Drilling data from various deviated wells designed to
drill the productive interval of limestone (Mishrif
formation) in different inclinations and azimuths from
different slots is shown in Figure 1. Various problems
have been occurred; varying from, stuck pipe, mud
losses, sulfurous water flowing, hole tightening, and
extensive caving. The stuck pipe problems caused wells
to be drilled with more than one side tracks or loss of the
hole in worst case. Whereas other problems could
considerably increase the nonproductive time or well
control issues for severe mud losses. Therefore, the
diagnosis of the root cause of borehole failure is a
necessary procedure in the well constructing and
planning phase. Another possible type of problem is the
collapse failure of the borehole which happens when the
formation around the vicinity of the wellbore wall fails
due to either shear or tensile failure (Fjaer, 2008).
Consequently, the wellbore will be tightened or packed
off if the drilling cuttings are inadequately transported
out of the hole (due to insufficient mud properties, flow
occur when the plastic region around the borehole is
unexpectedly yielded in the case of insufficiently
supported by the borehole pressure (Tare et al., 2002).
However, if the drilling fluid density is greater than the
weakest formation fracture gradient then the drilling
fluid will be lost, and fracture treatments should be
performed. Besides, the high difference between
wellbore pressure and formation pressure could lead to
differential sticking incidents. Pipe sticking is the most
severe problem with the majority of the nonproductive
time. Borehole shear failure could be one of the potential
reasons for this drilling instability.
This paper will focus on the geomechanical analysis of
wellbore instabilities of the Tanuma shale in southern
Iraqi fields. The study aims to address the minimum
required mud weight in order to prevent the onset of
shear failure wellbore for different well paths.
 dominating in the majority of oil fields in the south Iraq
(Almutury et al., 2008; Amin et al., 2014). The
stratigraphy distribution and well design are shown in
Figure 3.

Fig 2. Arabian plate after (Stern & Johnson, 2010).

Fig 1. Summary drilling events in some well in southern Iraq

fields.

2. THE TECTONIC EVOLUTION AND

GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF SOUTHERN IRAQ
Iraq is located in NE corner of Arabian Peninsula,
more specifically on the boundary of the Arabian and
Eurasian plates from the Iranian-Turkish side.
Tectonically, an extensional movement of this plate was
induced at the subduction zone along Iraq-Iran border.
This subduction zone provokes a line of seismic
Fig 1. Lithology column and well design in Southern Iraq
activities due to the rifting of the Arabian plate that was fields.
caused by the mid-ocean ridge in both Red Sea and the
Gulf of Aden as illustrated in Figure 2. However, the
tectonic division of Iraq has positioned the majority of
southern part of Iraq in the stable shelf zone (Jassim & 3. WELLBORE INSTABILITY EXPERIENCE
Goff, 2006). The structural geology of the study area has IN TANUMA FORMATION
been designated by plunge asymmetric anticline with no
complicated structure such as a salt dome (Al-Marsoumi Drill string obstructions are frequently observed while
et al., 2005). Ultimately, the normal faulting regime is tripping out of the hole in Tanuma shale formation
which is overlaying the reservoir section as shown in
Figure 4. The rapid increase in standpipe pressure, as Table 1. Stuck pipe diagnostic analysis of 16 stuck pipe
well as no return of the drilling fluid circulation; are two incidents showed similar behavior caused by shear failure. A =
distinctive indications of this problem. Thus, an Stuck Caused by Shear failure, B= Differential Stuck, B=
Stuck Pipe Due to Pack Off
examination of the drilling events in Tanuma intervals
for the wells that have experienced instability incidents
as illustrated in Table 1. This table provides an
explanation based on monitoring of the drilling Symptoms A B C
observations when the stuck pipe events occurred. Primary Shale Formation 2 0 1
Furthermore, three codes have been used to describe the Analysis Permeable Rock 0 0 0
weighted value of certain drilling circumstances on each High Drag and Torque 2 0 2
stuck pipe type to identify the root cause. Thereby, digit String Reciprocating 2 0 1
Pre- Stuck
two in the Table refers to the highest likelihood of a Analysis
Mud Properties Change 0 0 0
symptom occurrence with respect to the stuck type while Large Cutting Size 1 0 1
digit one indicates the event may be less likely to occur Over Sized Hole 2 0 1
with a stuck pipe. Finally, zero digit represents either the No String Rotation 2 1 1
indication is not existent or wasn’t experienced with this No String Reciprocating 2 1 2
Post- Stuck
kind of stuck pipe. As a result, the pipe sticking with the No Circulation 2 0 1
Analysis
highest score is the most likely induced stuck pipe Out of Gauge Hole 2 1 1
mechanism. The field observation indicates that shear Excess Cement Required 2 0 2
Total 19 3 13
failure related pipe sticking is the dominant type in this
formation.
4. METHODOLOGY FOR WELLBORE
STABILITY ANALYSIS
The geomechanical model requires three different input
parameters: pore pressure, in-situ stresses and rock
mechanical properties. Subsurface stresses were
transformed into wellbore principal stress components
using the Kirsch solution for impermeable rock (Aadnoy
& Chenevert, 1987)
4.1. Pore Pressure
In southern Iraq fields, the pore pressure was obtained
from Eaton and/or ratio methods that were eventually
validated by the well test measurements (i.e. repeated
formation tests, and drill stem test) in underlying
carbonate sections (Azian et al., 2013). The measured
pore pressure data was updated with data from formation
pressure while drilling tool FPWD. Figure 5 shows the
pore pressure measurements in the study area.
4.2. Overburden Stress
The overburden stress Sv was estimated from the
integration of the bulk density measurement over depth.
In the upper section where the density log was not
available, the porosity log and lithology description log
were used to determine bulk density based on typical
values of grain density of % of lithology (Peng, 2007).
Fig 2. Drilling performance plot (Stuck pipe in Tanuma shale) Overburden stress has been integrated into the bottom of
Tanuma shale zone.
4.3. Horizontal Stresses
There are limited horizontal stresses data in southern
Iraq region. In this paper the minimum horizontal stress
Sh was calculated from empirical equations ; Hubbert &
Willis, (1972), Matthews and Kelly, (1967), Fairhurst,
(1967), Eaton, (1969), Breckels & van Eekelen, (1982),
Zoback and Healy, (1984), Holbrook, Maggiori et al.,
(1993). Based on overlaying LOTs test results upper
formations, the Breckels & van Eekelen, (1982)
correlation was used in this study.
For maximum horizontal stress SH, empirical
correlations from Peng, (2007) was used and validated
by history matching. By changing the SH value until the
best fit of the model of drilling fluid density with field
drilling density in the stuck-free well is achieved.
Afterward, the orientation of the maximum horizontal
stress has been derived by the same procedure when SH
is fixed.
4.4. Rock Mechanical Properties
Mogi-Coulomb failure criterion predicts the minimum
drilling fluid density to prevent onset shear failure (Ajmi
& Zimmerman, 2006; Gholami et al., 2014; Rahimi &
Nygaard, 2014). Due to the severity of wellbore
instability in the Tanuma formation, several attempts
have been conducted to core this interval. It is frequent
been encountered by a severe jam of the core barrel tool
or fishing operations. Log-derived mechanical properties
from shear wave and a compressive wave of the sonic
log have been employed. The elastic parameters of
Poisson’s ratio and Young modulus have been calculated
from the dynamic derived methods (sonic and density
log) (Fjaer, 2008). The dynamic young modulus was
converted to the static modulus using (Lacy, 1997). The
internal angle of frictional was based on the sonic log by
using empirical equation (Lal, 1999). Finally, the
unconfined compressive strength was calculated from
the sonic log based on (Lal, 1999) correlations.

4.5. Thermal, Chemical Effect On Stresses And

Bedding Related Strength.
Thermal, the chemical effect on stresses and bedding
related strength was included uncoupled into the
analysis. Thermal and chemical induced hoop stress, as
well as axial stress, was based on (Chen et al. 2001). The
bedding related strength was based on (Jeager, 1960;
McLamore, 1966).
LOT
Fig 5. In situ stresses and pore pressure in southern Iraq,
LOT test was overlaid on the Sh in different zones.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The minimum and maximum drilling fluid density have
been estimated base on the geomechanical analysis and
drilling data investigations. Figure 5 presents the in-situ
stresses profile and pore pressure in the field of study.
The rock elastic and strength parameters, as well as the
required model variables, are summarized in Table 2.
According to the results, the drilling fluid density to
prevent onset shear failure in Tanuma interval has been
displayed in the polar plots in Figures 6, 7. These two
plots demonstrate the difference between the models
predicted drilling fluid density without and with
wellbore stresses and strength perturbation effects
(thermal, chemical and anisotropic). The polar plot
shows the optimum mud weight distribution for each
inclination and azimuth. Including anisotropy of rock
strength expected due to the bedding planes in Tanuma
formation requires a higher drilling fluid density for
deviated. Furthermore, the wells drilled in the direction
of minimum horizontal stress are more stable while the
wells drilled along the maximum horizontal stress are
less stable. Hence, the fluid density should be adjusted
with respect to well trajectory parameters. It also can be
observed that the modeled drilling fluid density values
are lower than the magnitudes of formation integrity test
at the last casing setting point and it also less than the
maximum drilling fluid density to induce tensile failure
in upper Sadi formation as illustrated in Figure 8. These
plots represent both the lower and upper limits of the
safe mud window for production section in the field.
Table 3 shows a comparison between the field static /
dynamic drilling fluid density and the modeled density.
It shows that the modeled density is higher than actual
static density especially for the wells that have reported
instability. A few wells (X-21, X-24, X-25, X-26) have
been predicted to have drilling fluid density slightly less
than the field density. However, extensive analysis for
such wells has been revealed by two facts. Some of these Fig 7. Polar plot of the model mud weight to prevent shear
wells do not have wellbores failure in Tanuma failure in Tanuma FM (Including effects- thermal and
formation, or the wells suffered from instability after the chemical induced stress as well as strength anisotropy).
entire section was drilled and exposed for a longe time.
This means a time dependent failure was the likely cause
failure for those wells. Increasing the drilling fluid
density and reducing the shale exposed time proposed as
improved drilling practices.

Fig 8. Polar plot of the model mud weight to prevent tensile

failure in Upper Sadi FM.

Fig 6. Polar plot of the model mud weight to
prevent shear failure in Tanuma FM.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a case study of severe wellbore
instabilities of a shale formation in southern Iraq oil
fields. It has been shown that the problem is mostly
related to the shear failure of the wellbore wall. As a
result, the appropriate drilling fluid selection with
respect to well inclination and azimuth are expected to
mitigate. The model and field data are in agreement that
the drilled wells in the direction of minimum horizontal
stress are more stable. Hence, the well trajectory should
be designed to avoid the maximum horizontal stress
direction, or the drilling fluid density should be high
enough to keep the mechanical stability of wellbore. The
anisotropic nature of the rock strength parameter should
be considered in the drilling fluid density calculation as
can be observed from the polar plots. Finally, the shale
exposure time to the drilling fluid might potentially
deteriorate the wellbore stability status.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to appreciate South oil company
managements for their permission to use the data. My
deep thanks to Dr. Mohammed Al Dushaishi, Mr. Reza
Rahimi, and two anonymous reviewers for help
improving this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Aadnoy, B. S., & Chenevert, M. E. (1987). Stability
of Highly Inclined Boreholes (includes associated
papers 18596 and 18736 ). SPE Drilling Engineering,
2(4).
2. Al-Ajmi, A., & Zimmerman, R. (2006). Stability
analysis of deviated boreholes using the Mogi-
Coulomb failure criterion, with applications to some
oil and gas reservoirs. Proceedings of the IADC/SPE
Asia Pacific Drilling.
3. Al-Marsoumi and Abdul Wahab
2005.Hydrogeochemistry of Yamama Reservoir
Formation Water- an oil Field-southern Iraq. Basrah
Journal of Science.Res.23:10-20
4. Almutury, W.Gh. and Al Asadi M., 2008 .
Tectonic history of Mesopotamian passive Margin
during Mesozoic. And Cenozoic, South Iraq. Journal
of Kirkuk University - Scientific Studies,Res.03:31-
49.
5. Azian, I., Azree, N., Waguih, A., Rojas, F., Fey, S.,
Subroto, B., … Conference, U. O. (2013). Integrating
FPWD Measurements With Managed-Pressure
Drilling, (April), 120–123.
6. Azar, J. J., Samuel, G. R., & ebrary, I. (2007).
Drilling engineering. Tulsa, Okla.: PennWell Corp.
7. Breckels, I. M., & van Eekelen, H. a. M. (1982).
Relationship Between Horizontal Stress and Depth in
Sedimentary Basins. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 34(September).Res.34:2191-2199
8. Amin, F, and Al-Bahadily, A, 2014, Gravity and
Magnatic Surveys to Delineate Subsurface Strctures
In HOR-ALHiwazah Area, south Iraq. Iraqi Bulletin
of Geology and mine.Res.10:59-85.
9. Chen, G., Chenevert, M. ., & Sharma, M. M. (2001).
Poroelastic chemical, and thermal effects on wellbore
stability in shales. The University of Texas at Austin.
10. Eaton, B. A. (1969). Fracture Gradient Prediction and
Its Application in Oilfield Operations. Journal of
Petroleum Technology.Res.21:1353–1360.
11. Fjar, E., Holt, R. M., Raaen, A. M., Risnes, R., &
Horsrud, P. (2008). Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics: 2nd Edition. Elsevier Science.
12. Jaeger, J. C (1960) Geological Magazine.
Res.97:65-752
13. Horsrud, P. (2001). Estimating Mechanical Properties
of Shale From Empirical Correlations. SPE Drilling
& Completion.Res :10-2118-56017.
14. Holbrook, P.W., Maggiori, D. A. et al. (1993). Real-
time pore pressure and fracture gradient evaluation in
all sedimentary lithologies, SPE 26791.Offshore
European Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
15. Hubbert, M., & Willis, D. (1972). Mechanics of
hydraulic fracturing. Underground Waste
Management and Environmental Implications.
16. Jassim, S. Z., & Goff, J. C. (2006). Geology of Iraq.
Printing, Mosul, Iraq.
17. Kadyrov, T., & Tutuncu, A. N. (2012, November 4).
Influence of Anisotropic Stress and Formation
Property Use in Wellbore Stability Analysis and
Field Development Plans: A Case Study for West
Kazakhstan Field. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists
18. Lacy, L. L. (1997). Dynamic Rock Mechanics
Testing for Optimized Fracture Designs. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition.
19. Lal, M. (1999, January 1). Shale Stability: Drilling
Fluid Interaction and Shale Strength. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
20. Matthews,W. R. and Kelly, J. (1967). “How to
predict formation pressure and fracture gradient.” Oil
and Gas Journal, February, 92–106.
21. McLamore, Roy T., 1966, Strength-Deformation
Characteristics of Anisotropic Sedimentary Rocks.
Ph.D. thesis,Unversity of Taxas,Austin
22. Rahimi, R., & Nygaard, R. (2014). What Difference
Does Selection of Failure Criteria Make in Wellbore
Stability Analysis? 48th U.S. Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium.
23. Stern, R. J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Continental
lithosphere of the Arabian Plate: A geologic,
petrologic, and geophysical synthesis. Earth-Science
Reviews, 101(1–2), 29–67.
24. Peng, J. Z. (2007). Engineering Geology for
Underground Rocks. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.
25. Tare, U. A., Mody, F. K., & E, S. I. (2002). AADE-
02-DFWM-HO-31 Managing Borehole Stability
Problems : On the Learning , Unlearning and
Relearning Curve. Managing elastic chemical, and
thermal effects on wellbore stability in shales. The
University of Texas at Austin.
26. Eaton, B. A. (1969). Fracture Gradient Prediction and
Its Application in Oilfield Operations. Journal of
Petroleum Technology,. Res.21:1353–1360.
27. Goodman, R. E. (1989). Introduction to Rock
Mechanics, 2nd Edition.
28. Hubbert, M., & Willis, D. (1972). Mechanics of
hydraulic fracturing. Underground Waste
Management and Environmental Implications.
29. Zoback, M. D. and Healy, J. H. (1984). “Friction,
faulting, and “in situ” stresses.” Annales
Geophysicae, 2, 689–698.
 APPENDIX

Table 2.Model input data for Tanuma FM based on typical well.

Parameters Value (Unit) Source
Depth 2212 M
Sv 50 MPa
SH 44 MPa
Sh 38 MPa (Breckels & van Eekelen, 1982)
Pp 30 MPa
Internal Friction Angle 0.6
UCS 29.9 MPa (Lal,1999)
Poisson Ratio 0.36
Water Activity 0.94 (Zhang et al., 2008)
Shale Activity 0.82 (Zhang et al., 2008)
Formation Temp. 356 K
Volumetric Thermal Expansion
2.58*10^-6 (Kadyrov & Tutuncu, 2012)
Coefficient
Sh Orientation 335 Degree
Young Modulus 5711 MPa

Table 3. Results analysis,1=stuck, 2=stuck free, 3=caving, 4= Tight spot

Mud
Field Mud Mud Without ECD Azm Inclin. Problems
Well
effects
# Sg Sg Sg Sg Deg. Deg.
X-16 1.25 1.27 1.23 1.41 243 50 1
X-17 1.25 1.31 1.27 1.29 304 38 2
X-18 1.28 1.35 1.31 1.33 97 53 1
X-19 1.3 1.32 1.28 1.38 237 55 1
X-20 1.27 1.42 1.41 1.31 246 70 1
X-21 1.25 1.2 1.19 1.32 120 20 3
X-22 1.28 1.35 1.31 1.3 170 45 4
X-23 1.28 1.3 1.25 1.32 199 31 2
X-24 1.25 1.2 1.19 1.33 329 7 3
X-25 1.25 1.21 1.18 1.3 70 32 3
X-26 1.28 1.21 1.20 1.33 149 15
X-27 1.25 1.28 1.26 1.3 322 33
X-28 1.25 1.35 1.32 1.29 280 53 2
X-29 1.25 1.4 1.38 1.36 317 62 4
X-30 1.25 1.31 1.28 1.35 353 37
X-31 1.25 1.35 1.30 1.34 33 51 2
X-32 1.28 1.36 1.32 1.37 354 47 other
X-33 1.28 1.36 1.32 1.36 37 55 4
X-34 1.25 1.40 1.35 1.34 16 55 4
X-35 1.28 1.37 1.34 1.32 165 51 4
X-36 1.25 1.25 1.32 1.34 135 47 3
X-37 1.25 1.38 1.37 1.39 199 53 3