STABVi

Adv
ew
ancedWellPl
anningSof
t
TM

war
e
t
oAnalyze:
 Wel
lbor
eSt
abi
li
ty
 SandPr
oduct
ion
 Los
tCi
rcul
ati
on&Fr
act
uri
ng
 Faul
torBeddi
ngPl
aneSl
ip
 STABView™ Version 3.8
Wellbore Stability, Lost Circulation,
Fracturing, Sand Production and
Discontinuity Slip Analysis Software

USER’S MANUAL
November, 2008

© Weatherford International Ltd.

Suite 1200, 333 – 5th Ave. S.W.

Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T2P 3B6
Tel: 1 (403) 693-7530 Fax: 1 (403) 693-7541
Email: software@advgeotech.com
Website: www.advgeotech.com

Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology, Suite 1200, 333 – 5th Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T2P 3B6
Phone: 1(403)693-7530 Fax: 1(403)693-7541 E-Mail: software@advgeotech.com Web: www.advgeotech.com
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual ii November, 2008

TERMS OF USE

This document is confidential and is only distributed to licensees of STABView or organizations

authorized by Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology (AG) to evaluate STABView. Information
in this document is subject to change without notice. No part of this document or associated
software may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, for any purpose other than permitted in the license agreement, without AG’s
expressed written permission. AG assumes no liability whatsoever with respect to the use of
STABView or any portion thereof, including this document, with respect to damages or losses
that may result from such use, including (without limitation) loss of time, money or goodwill that
may arise from the use of STABView (including modifications or updates that may follow). In
no event shall AG be responsible for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages
arising from the use of STABView or this document.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual iii November, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERMS OF USE ..................................................................................................................... ii

TECHNICAL SUPPORT..................................................................................................... vii

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problems You Can Analyze with STABView ...................................................... 1
1.2.1 Drilling Applications.................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Well Control Applications........................................................................... 1
1.2.3 Formation Evaluation Applications ........................................................... 1
1.2.4 Completions Applications............................................................................ 1
1.2.5 Stimulation Applications ............................................................................. 2
1.2.6 Production Engineering Applications ........................................................ 2
1.2.7 New and Novel Applications ....................................................................... 2
1.3 Copyright and Legal Information......................................................................... 2

2. INSTALLING STABVIEW ........................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 System requirements.............................................................................................. 5
2.3 Installation .............................................................................................................. 5
2.3.1 Downloading and Installing STABView .................................................... 6
2.3.2 Installation from a CD-ROM Drive ........................................................... 7
2.3.3 Uninstalling STABView............................................................................... 7
2.3.4 Installing on a Network ............................................................................... 8
2.4 Running STABView ............................................................................................... 8
2.5 Security Features.................................................................................................... 8
2.5.1 USB Hardware Key ..................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 USB Hardware Key (Network)................................................................... 8
2.5.3 Software Security ......................................................................................... 9
2.5.4 Activation...................................................................................................... 9

3. STABVIEW FEATURES ............................................................................................. 11

3.1 Types of Wells....................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Drilling Instability ................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Lost Circulation and Fracturing......................................................................... 11
3.4 Sand Production and Control ............................................................................. 12
3.5 In-situ Stresses ...................................................................................................... 12
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual iv November, 2008

3.6 Planes of Weakness, Faults and Natural Fractures .......................................... 12

3.7 Pore Pressure and Capillarity ............................................................................. 12
3.8 Rock Failure Models ............................................................................................ 13
3.9 Borehole Stresses and Pressures ......................................................................... 13
3.10 Borehole Deformations and Strains.................................................................... 13
3.11 Physico-chemical Effects...................................................................................... 13
3.12 Thermal Effects .................................................................................................... 14
3.13 Integration with Other Software......................................................................... 14
3.14 Database Links ..................................................................................................... 14
3.15 Reports and Graphics .......................................................................................... 14
3.16 Calibration & Validation Options ...................................................................... 14
3.17 Units....................................................................................................................... 15
3.18 Functionality ......................................................................................................... 15
3.19 Operating Systems................................................................................................ 15
3.20 Network Deployment Options............................................................................. 15
3.21 3D Wellbore Visualization................................................................................... 15
3.22 Help & Documentation ........................................................................................ 15

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND............................................................................. 17
4.1 Rock Mechanics Principles and Applications.................................................... 17
4.1.1 Fundamentals ............................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 Stress, Strain and Sign Conventions ........................................................ 17
4.1.3 Rock Yielding Mechanisms ....................................................................... 18
4.1.4 Rock Strength and Mechanical Properties.............................................. 19
4.1.5 Apparent Capillary Cohesion ................................................................... 24
4.1.6 In-situ Stresses and Stress-Depletion Response ...................................... 27
4.2 Prediction of Rock Yielding and Failure Around Boreholes ........................... 31
4.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 31
4.2.2 2D Elastic Models....................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 3D Elastic Models....................................................................................... 36
4.2.4 Plane of Weakness Effects on Stability .................................................... 39
4.2.5 Thermal Effects on Stability ..................................................................... 40
4.2.6 Effect of Swab Pressures on Stability....................................................... 41
4.2.7 Calibration of Elastic Stability Models .................................................... 42
4.3 Elasto-plastic Models for Boreholes and Cylindrical Perforations ................. 43
4.3.1 Borehole and Perforation Yielded Zone Models..................................... 43
4.3.2 Elasto-plastic Models for Hemi-spherical Perforations ......................... 48
4.3.3 Kinematic Considerations ......................................................................... 49
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual v November, 2008

4.3.4 Elasto-plastic Modeling of Borehole Deformations and Liner Loading 51

4.4 Initiation of Tensile Hydraulic Fractures .......................................................... 55
4.4.1 3D Linear Elastic Stress Model................................................................. 55
4.4.2 3D Linear Elastic Stress Model with Deep Fluid Penetration ............... 57
4.4.3 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) Based Model.................... 58
4.4.4 3D Anisotropic Elastic Properties Model for Tensile Fracturing.......... 60
4.4.5 Thermal Effects on Tensile Fracturing.................................................... 60
4.4.6 Effect of Surge Pressures on Tensile Fracturing..................................... 61
4.5 Initiation of Passive Shear Yielding.................................................................... 62
4.6 Near Wellbore Pore Pressure Effects ................................................................. 63
4.6.1 Filter Cake and Wall Coating ................................................................... 63
4.6.2 Capillary Threshold Pressure ................................................................... 65
4.6.3 Effects of a Pressure Drop Across a Liner or Screen ............................. 66
4.6.4 Gas Compressibility and Non-Darcy Flow Effects ................................. 66
4.6.5 Gas Property Correlations ........................................................................ 68
4.7 Physico-chemical Mud Shale Interaction........................................................... 70
4.8 Thermo-hydraulic Hole Enlargement in Permafrost........................................ 72
4.9 Analysis of Slip Tendency on a Weak Discontinuity......................................... 73
4.10 Analysis of Re-opening Tendency on a Weak Discontinuity............................ 75
4.11 Strength Factor as a Measure of Hole Collapse and Fracturing Risks........... 75

5. STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO USING STABVIEW.................................................... 77

5.1 Enter the Basic Model Properties ....................................................................... 77
5.1.1 Analysis Type.............................................................................................. 77
5.1.2 Analysis Mode ............................................................................................ 77
5.1.3 Case Properties........................................................................................... 81
5.1.4 Well Data .................................................................................................... 81
5.1.5 Well Survey................................................................................................. 81
5.1.6 Borehole Sizes............................................................................................. 82
5.1.7 Tubulars...................................................................................................... 82
5.1.8 Stratigraphic Units..................................................................................... 83
5.2 Rock Mechanical and Pressure Data.................................................................. 83
5.2.1 Formation Pressures and In-situ Stresses................................................ 83
5.2.2 Rock Mechanical Properties ..................................................................... 84
5.2.3 Formation Fluid Penetration Properties.................................................. 85
5.2.4 Model Options ............................................................................................ 86
5.3 Additional Functionality Accessed from Menus and Toolbar Icons ............... 88
5.3.1 "File” Menu ................................................................................................ 88
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual vi November, 2008

5.3.2 "Edit” Menu ............................................................................................... 89

5.3.3 “Run” Menu ............................................................................................... 90
5.3.4 "Tools” Menu ............................................................................................. 90
5.3.5 "Windows” Menu ...................................................................................... 91
5.3.6 "Help” Menu .............................................................................................. 93
5.3.7 Drop-Down Menus..................................................................................... 93
5.4 Adding Graphical or Text-based Output Windows .......................................... 93
5.5 Using STABView’s Graph and Reports............................................................. 96
5.5.1 Text Input and Output Reports................................................................ 96
5.5.2 Well Profile Graphs ................................................................................... 97
5.5.3 Depth Profile Graphs................................................................................. 97
5.5.4 3D Well Profile ......................................................................................... 100
5.5.5 Polar Plots................................................................................................. 102
5.5.6 Yielded Zone & Strength Factor Cross-Section.................................... 103
5.5.7 Tornado & Spider Plot ............................................................................ 103
5.5.8 Standard Graphs...................................................................................... 104
5.6 STABView Demonstration Cases...................................................................... 105

6. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS .................................................................... 109

6.1 General Questions .............................................................................................. 109
6.2 Wellbore Stability Related Questions............................................................... 110
6.3 Lost Circulation Related Questions.................................................................. 111
6.4 Sand Production Related Questions ................................................................. 111
6.5 Discontinuity Slip Related Questions ............................................................... 112

7. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 113

7.1 Cited References ................................................................................................. 113
7.2 Advanced Geotechnology Publications ............................................................ 115

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A STABView LICENSE AGREEMENT

APPENDIX B LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
APPENDIX C GLOSSARY OF TERMS
APPENDIX D BOREHOLE ENLARGEMENT IN PERMAFROST
APPENDIX E STABVIEW DEMONSTRATION CASES
APPENDIX F STABVIEW PROBLEM FORM

INDEX
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual vii November, 2008

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology targets to provide a response to all enquires related to its
software products within 12 hours of the contact, during our normal business work week
(Monday to Friday, 8 am to 5 pm Mountain Standard Time). Normally an AG specialist can be
reached by telephone for rapid response during our normal work hours. On weekends and during
holidays the target response time is within 3 days.
Depending upon the nature of the software problem, our response will be email or telephone. In
some cases it may be possible to discuss the problem on the telephone using an internet
accessible version of the software using WebEx.
For software problems of a more serious nature, that may involve code changes or programming,
we attempt to service all clients with current support agreements as quickly as possible, by
sending a patch or software upgrade, if necessary. The typical response time for such
improvements is between 1 and 5 days, but may take more time depending on the complexity of
the issue and amount of work required.
STABView Technical Support
Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology
1200, 333 – 5th Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T2P 3B6

Tel: 1-403-693-7530
Fax: 1-403-693-7541
Email: software@advgeotech.com
Web: www.advgeotech.com
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual viii November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 1 November, 2008

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

Welcome to the User’s Manual for STABView - a software program for wellbore stability, sand
production, lost circulation and discontinuity slip risk analysis. STABView was developed for
technical drilling, completion, production and exploration personnel to conduct rapid parametric
analyses for a wide range of near-wellbore integrity problems. Efficient, rapidly converging,
analytical and semi-analytical algorithms are used to solve the fundamental equations that
describe the stresses, pore pressures, and temperature distributions for near-wellbore problems.
Additional information regarding these models is included in Section 4 of this manual.

1.2 Problems You Can Analyze with STABView

1.2.1 Drilling Applications

1. Optimize a well casing program.

2. Select optimal drilling and completion fluids.
3. Optimize mud chemistry to inhibit clay swelling.
4. Avoid stuck pipe or coiled tubing.
5. Reduce reaming and cleaning time.
6. Avoid drillstring fatigue and failure.
7. Reduce the risk of lost circulation.
8. Improve directional control.
9. Assess suitable candidates for underbalanced drilling.
10. Model hydraulics with realistic enlarged hole sizes.
11. Interpret formation leak-off and in-situ stress tests.
12. Predict borehole deformations or squeezing behavior.
13. Predict borehole enlargement in permafrost zones.

1.2.2 Well Control Applications

14. Assess near-wellbore stress and pore pressure conditions.

15. Evaluate hydraulic fracturing options to intersect a flowing well.

1.2.3 Formation Evaluation Applications

16. Avoid stuck or damaged DST and logging tools.

17. Avoid log interpretation problems due to hole ellipticity.
18. Avoid logging limitations in OBMs.
19. Back-analyze in-situ stresses and pore pressures.
20. Evaluate the most permeable natural fracture sets.

1.2.4 Completions Applications

21. Determine well candidates for barefoot completions.

22. Reduce unnecessary cased and perforated completions.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 2 November, 2008

23. Evaluate expandable sand screen (ESS) candidates.

24. Avoid poor cement integrity.
25. Eliminate the risk of fracturing away cement.
26. Optimize a perforating program.
27. Increase perforation penetration.
28. Eliminate unnecessary sand control.
29. Evaluate the need for a gravel pack in weak sandstones.
30. Evaluate casing deformations or failures due to formation shearing.
31. Design cavity completions for coalbed methane wells.

1.2.5 Stimulation Applications

32. Determine the maximum injection pressure for matrix stimulation.

33. Evaluate the effects of hole trajectory on induced fractures.
34. Assess the potential for linking up induced hydraulic fractures.
35. Estimate the pressure required to re-open or cause slip on natural fractures and faults.

1.2.6 Production Engineering Applications

36. Reduce undesirable sand production.

37. Avoid openhole collapse under drawdown conditions.
38. Optimize drawdown to avoid sand production from perforations.
39. Reduce wellbore skin due to unnecessary sand control.
40. Assess the loading on a liner due to sand deformations.
41. Evaluate the risk of mechanical formation damage.
42. Design to collapse sand and pack it around liners or screens.
43. Optimize the performance of gas storage wells by reducing skin.
44. Design for sand production in heavy oil reservoirs (CHOPS).
45. Reduce water production from induced hydraulic fractures.
46. Calculate the maximum waterflood injection pressure to avoid fracturing.
47. Assess thermally-induced fracturing during waterflooding.

1.2.7 New and Novel Applications

48. Design wells for greenhouse gas sequestration.

49. Optimize horizontal directional drilling for pipelines.
50. Evaluate slurry and solid waste injection options.

1.3 Copyright and Legal Information

Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology (AG) accepts no responsibility or liability for the

correctness of the data, analyses or information generated by any of the modules in STABView,
or any consequences resulting from the use thereof. Any use or misuse of this software is solely
the responsibility of the user. AG accepts no responsibility for damage to computer hardware or
other software resulting from the installation or use of STABView.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 3 November, 2008

Information in this document is subject to change without notice. No part of this document or
STABView software package may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, other than as permitted in the license agreement,
without the expressed written permission of AG.
© Weatherford International Ltd., 2008. All rights reserved. Printed in Canada.

STABViewTM and ROCKSBankTM are trademarks owned by Weatherford International Ltd.

Microsoft and Windows are trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation.

All names of companies, wells, persons or products contained in this documentation or

STABView example files are part of fictitious scenarios and are used solely to demonstrate the
use of this software product.

See the STABView License Agreement in Appendix A of this manual for further legal and
copyright details.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 4 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 5 November, 2008

2. INSTALLING STABVIEW
2.1 Introduction

STABView is currently available as a stand-alone PC version or deployed on PCs within a local

area network (LAN). Installation instructions are provided in this section of the manual for the
stand-alone version of the software only. Please contact Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology
if you would like to install STABView on a network.

2.2 System requirements

STABView requires a minimum of approximately 250 megabytes of hard drive space in order to
install the software and required components. Table 2.1 below outlines the minimum and optimal
system requirements in order to run STABView.

Table 2.1 STABView System Requirements

Requirement Minimum Optimum

Operating System: Windows 2000 SP4/XP/Server/Vista1 Windows XP SP2

Processor: 1 GHz 2 GHz or higher

Hard Drive Space: 250 MB2 250 MB2

RAM: 256 MB 512 MB3

Display Resolution: 800 X 600 1024 X 768

Video Card: VGA DirectX 9.0c compatible video card4

.NET Framework5 2.0 2.0

DirectX5 9.0c June 2007 Release Most recently shipped version

1. Vista Aero theme not currently supported.

2. Varies depending if system has .NET Framework and DirectX already installed
3. May vary depending on installed operating system
4. Check the Microsoft DirectX website for compatible cards
5. Components will be installed or updated as part of the software installation

2.3 Installation

Follow the procedures listed below to install STABView. It is recommended that you close all
other applications before starting the installation procedure. For some systems, the installation
process may be adversely affected if anti-virus software is running in the background. In some
cases you may be required to restart your system after or during installation.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 6 November, 2008

2.3.1 Downloading and Installing STABView

Use the following instructions if you have been provided with a download link, username,
website password and installation password from Advanced Geotechnology.
1. Log on as the primary STABView user, this user should also have local Admin privileges
on the PC.
2. Remove any USB security keys used to run Advanced Geotechnology software from the
PC.
3. Click “Start” -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs.
4. Click “Remove” (uninstall) all previous versions of STABView.
5. Close the Add/Remove Programs dialog.
6. Copy and paste into a web browser the download link provided to you by Advanced
Geotechnology. If Advanced Geotechnology has not provided you with a download link
then you will not be able to install the software in this manner.
7. When prompted for credentials from the website enter the username and password also
provided by Advanced Geotechnology.
8. You will be prompted to Open or Save the file. Save the setup.exe file to a well known
location on your hard drive.
9. After the file has completed downloading double click to launch the setup.exe file.
10. Enter the installation password, again this should have been provided to you by
Advanced Geotechnology.
11. Follow the instructions provided by the setup utility to install STABView.
12. If you do encounter an error during installation (common on Windows 2000) just click
OK to continue.
13. Copy and paste into a web browser or click on the following link to download the version
of DirectX from Microsoft.
http://advgeotech.com/STABViewPrivate/directx_nov2007_redist.exe
(If you are prompted to login use the same credentials as above.)
14. You will be prompted to Open or Save the file. Save the directx_nov2007_redist.exe file
to a well known location on your hard drive.
15. After the file has completed downloading double click to launch the file and follow the
instructions provided by the setup utility to install DirectX.
16. Execute the newly installed version of STABView 3.8 from the shortcut placed on your
desktop or through the “Start” menu.
17. STABView has been developed to run under Windows with the English language. You
may encounter problems if your system is running a different language or has Unicode
support for languages other than English.
18. STABView will prompt you for a new key code. Please copy and send the serial number
and lock code from the registration dialog to software@advgeotech.com or 1(403) 693-
7530. Software support will then issue you a new key code. A single use license permits
you to install STABView on up to three PCs, but you will still be required to contact us
for a new key code for each installation.
Enter the key code we provide you and click “Unlock”. You will then be prompted by an
activation dialog to make sure your PC is connected to the internet. This is required to authorize
and confirm this installation of STABView. Make sure your PC is connected and click
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 7 November, 2008

“Activate”. If you are unable to activate the software you will prompted with a dialog requesting
additional information. Contact software support for further instructions.

2.3.2 Installation from a CD-ROM Drive

Use the following instructions if you have been provided with an installation CD from Advanced
Geotechnology.
1. Log on as the primary STABView user, this user should also have local Admin privileges
on the PC.
2. Remove any USB security keys used to run Advanced Geotechnology software from the
PC.
3. Click “Start” -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs.
4. Click “Remove” (uninstall) all previous versions of STABView.
5. Close the Add/Remove Programs dialog.
6. Insert the STABView installation CD into a drive.
7. This will launch the STABView installation and you will next be prompted with a
password dialog. If the application does not launch right away then use Windows
Explorer to open the CD drive and execute setup.exe. Enter your assigned installation
password that should have been included with the CD. If you are unable to locate the
install password contact software support.
8. Follow the instructions provided by the setup utility to install STABView.
9. If you do encounter an error during installation (common on Windows 2000) just click
OK to continue.
10. When the installation has completed insert the USB security key and launch STABView
11. Execute the newly installed version of STABView 3.8 from the shortcut placed on your
desktop or through the “Start” menu.
12. STABView has been developed to run under Windows with the English language. You
may encounter problems if your system is running a different language or has Unicode
support for languages other than English.
13. STABView will prompt you for a new key code. Please copy and send the serial number
and lock code from the registration dialog to software@advgeotech.com or 1(403) 693-
7530. Software support will then issue you a new key code. A single use license permits
you to install STABView on up to three PCs, but you will still be required to contact us
for a new key code for each installation.
14. Enter the key code we provide you and click “Unlock”. You will then be prompted by an
activation dialog to make sure your PC is connected to the internet. This is required to
authorize and confirm this installation of STABView. Make sure your PC is connected
and click “Activate”. If you are unable to activate the software you will prompted with a
dialog requesting additional information. Contact software support for further
instructions.

2.3.3 Uninstalling STABView

1. From the Windows "Start" button, select "All Programs".

2. Select "STABView 3.8".
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 8 November, 2008

3. Select "Uninstall STABView 3.8".

4. Follow the directions of the Windows Uninstaller utility to remove STABView 3.8 from
the PC.
All of the program files that were copied onto your hard drive during the installation of
STABView will be removed. Uninstall will not remove DirectX or the .NET Framework.

2.3.4 Installing on a Network

Assistance with the installation of a licensed copy of STABView on a local area network can be
provided to licensees as part of their purchase agreement. Please, contact STABView Technical
Support at 1(403)693-7530 or e-mail software@advgeotech.com if you require information or
assistance.

2.4 Running STABView

After successful installation of the software, a new folder with a default name of "STABView
3.8" will be created in the "Program" folder accessed from the Windows "Start" button. This
folder will contain the following shortcuts:
1. STABView 3.8 Manual (PDF)
2. STABView 3.8
3. Uninstall STABView 3.8
Click on "STABView 3.8" to run the program, or select "STABView 3.8 Manual" to access the
STABView documentation. Note that the help file is also accessible from the "Help" menu once
the STABView 3.8 program has been activated.

2.5 Security Features

2.5.1 USB Hardware Key

If your installation of STABView came shipped with a USB hardware key, please make sure to
always have this key inserted into an available USB port when running STABView. When
inserting the USB key please wait a few seconds for your PC to recognize the new hardware
before launching STABView. In the event your USB key becomes lost or damaged please
contact STABView Technical Support at 1(403) 693-7530 or e-mail: software@advgeotech.com
to order a replacement key. A replacement fee will be charged in order to replace any lost or
stolen keys.

2.5.2 USB Hardware Key (Network)

If your installation of STABView came shipped with a network USB hardware key, please see
the documentation that accompanied the network installation package. In most cases you will
need to enlist the aid of your network admin or IT support staff in order to use the software in
this manner.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 9 November, 2008

2.5.3 Software Security

A software security interface will appear when STABView is initially run. The software will not
run until it has been unlocked by entering the required "key" code. This key code can be
obtained by registered users of the software only, by contacting STABView Technical Support.
The STABView software key code is only valid for one personal computer. Additional codes are
required for each computer that STABView is installed on. Single user licensees for STABView
may install the software on up to three computers although it can only be run on one computer at
any time with its USB hardware key. Installations of the software on more than three PCs can be
arranged for an additional fee.

2.5.4 Activation

Some installations of STABView will require that you activate the software over the internet. If
you are prompted to activate the software after unlocking, then please make sure that your PC is
connected to the internet and then click “Activate”. If for some reason you are unable to activate
your installation of STABView please contact your network administrator first to obtain access
to the internet. If there are security or access problems then you should contact STABView
Technical Support at 1.403.693.7541 or software@advgeotech.com.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 10 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 11 November, 2008

3. STABVIEW FEATURES
Note: Technical features marked with an asterisk (*) are currently in development. Contact
Advanced Geotechnology if you require further details.

3.1 Types of Wells

• Vertical, horizontal, or deviated wells

• Offshore or onshore wells
• Single or multiple zone analyses
• Multi-branching wells

3.2 Drilling Instability

• Evaluate instability risks as function of ECD, EMW, BHP, SG, mud density, over-
or underbalance pressures
• 3D linear elastic models
• 2D elastoplastic models
• 3D passive shear failure initiation (borehole ballooning)
• Swab and surge pressure effects
• Underbalanced drilling features
• Calculate a mud density, EMW, ECD or bottomhole pressure required to achieve a
tolerable instability risk, e.g., hole enlargement
• Calculate wellbore instability risks for a specified mud density, ECD, EMW or
bottomhole pressure
• Calculate and display the drilling “mud weight window”
• Thermo-elastic effects due to steady-state conductive heat transfer
• Predict a profile of enlarged hole sizes for hydraulics optimization

3.3 Lost Circulation and Fracturing

• 3D elastic tensile fracture criterion

• Penetrating fluids (water, selected drilling and completion fluids)
• Non-penetrating fluids (cement, some muds)
• Thermo-elastic effects on fracture breakdown due to steady-state conductive or
convective heat transfer
• Analyze packer and sleeve induced fractures
• Fracture toughness-based breakdown criterion (after Morita)
• Specify a critical fracture plugging aperture
• Calculate points of hydraulic fracture initiation and display on borehole cross-sections
and polar plots
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 12 November, 2008

3.4 Sand Production and Control

• 2D elastoplastic models
• 3D linear elastic models
• Extent of horizontal well collapse (rubble fill percentage)
• Near-wellbore skin can be used as an input parameter
• Perforated, openhole, slotted liner, screen and expandable completions can be analyzed
• Cylindrical or hemi-spherical perforation cavities
• Input pressure drop across liners, screens and expandables
• First-order estimate of isotropic loading on liners, screens or expandables
• First-order estimate of borehole wall deformations

3.5 In-situ Stresses

• Biaxial stress state (2D models)

• Triaxial stress state (3D models)
• Correct stresses for reservoir pressure depletion or injection effects
• New poroelastic stress models for different reservoir shapes for reservoir shapes
* Rotated principal stresses, e.g. salt intrusion, thrust fault stress regimes

3.6 Planes of Weakness, Faults and Natural Fractures

• Account for the effects of ubiquitous, weak discontinuities on the risk of borehole
collapse
• Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
• Shear failure and slip tendency analysis for weak bedding planes, faults, natural fractures,
cleats
• Re-opening pressure analysis for weak bedding planes, faults, natural fractures, cleats
* Display log-derived bedding planes faults, natural fractures and cleats on polar plots*

3.7 Pore Pressure and Capillarity

• Steady-state flow with pore pressure gradients into or out of the wellbore
• Capillary threshold pressure for OBMs and pseudo-OBMs
• Apparent capillary strength for weak, partially saturated sands
• Filter cake efficiency model for permeable sandstones
• Wall coating efficiency model for shales
• Effect of an instantaneous BHP change
• Fluid viscosity and permeability effects
• Formation damage and skin effects
• Steady-state non-Darcy flow effects for high rate gas wells and perforations
• Compressible fluid effects in the near-wellbore area
• Skin damage option for underbalanced drilling
• Biot or Terzaghi effective stress
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 13 November, 2008

3.8 Rock Failure Models

2D Elastoplastic strain-weakening
• Mohr-Coulomb Model
3D Linear Elastic Models
• Mohr-Coulomb
• Modified Lade
* Mogi-Coulomb
• Non-linear Hoek-Brown
• Tensile fracture criteria
• Passive shear failure initiation
Other Options
∗ Time-dependent loss or gain of rock strength and elastic properties

3.9 Borehole Stresses and Pressures

(As a function of radial distance)
3D Linear Elastic Models
• Principal stresses (σ1, σ2, σ3)
• Normal stresses (σθ, σr, σz)
• Shear stresses (τrθ, τrz, τθz)
• Pore pressure
2D Elasto-plastic Models
• Pore pressure
• Normal and shear stresses

3.10 Borehole Deformations and Strains

2D Elastoplastic Model for Isotropic Stresses

• Total strains
• Plastic strains
• Total radial displacements

3.11 Physico-chemical Effects

• Osmotic pressure model for reactive clay inhibition effects based on shale and mud
activities (API RP13B specification)
• Handles many common oil-based and water-based drilling fluids
• Database of published shale water activities and membrane efficiencies for a variety of
shales and fluids
• Drilling fluid activity calculator
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 14 November, 2008

3.12 Thermal Effects

• Steady-state conductive or convective heat transfer effects on fracture breakdown

pressure
• Steady-state conductive heat transfer effects on 3D elastic borehole collapse risk
• Time-dependant thawing and hydraulics model for permafrost

3.13 Integration with Other Software

• Export text or graphics files

• Import well survey data
• Cut and paste annular pressure data from actual wells or wellbore hydraulics and
multiphase flow modeling software
• Run in parallel with casing design, pore pressure prediction, hydraulics and other
wellbore software

3.14 Database Links

• Link to ROCKSBank™, AG’s worldwide rock mechanical and petrophysical properties

database
• Link to the World Stress Map (Karlsruhe University)

3.15 Reports and Graphics

• Parameter sensitivity plots available for most stability models

• Tornado and spider plots for multiple input parameter sensitivities
• Scrollable “mud weight window” with rescaling and zoom
• Color contoured polar plots for all 3D collapse and fracture models
• Export graphics to BMP and EMF file formats
• Clipboard support for copying and pasting output graphics and text
• Print to any Windows-supported device
• Single or multi-zone input and output reports
• Print preview capability
• Well plan and profile plots with color-contoured BHP, EMW, ECD, mud density,
drawdown pressure, or other parameters
• Customizable color selection and pattern for lithologies
• Compare yielding size for different rock failure criteria
∗ New export file formats: JPG, GIF, RTF, XLS

3.16 Calibration & Validation Options

• Fix an acceptable BHP, drawdown pressure or mud density based on the performance of
an offset well
• User-defined borehole breakout angle criterion
• Calibration options for borehole collapse and fracture breakdown
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 15 November, 2008

3.17 Units

• US oilfield and SI units

• High precision units for shallow wells and pipeline horizontal directional drilling (HDD)
• Customizable mixed units

3.18 Functionality

• Right-click drop-down menus on most screen output

• Solution algorithms optimized for rapid performance (most calculations in seconds)
• Designed to perform graphical sensitivity analyses
• Preferred user settings saved on exit
• Ability to cancel calculations in progress
• Run button to compute results only when required
• Toolbar buttons for most common tasks

3.19 Operating Systems

• Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/Vista

3.20 Network Deployment Options

• Can license for up to 3 PCs for a single USB security key

• Network version available with one or more concurrent seats
• Customized network configurations

3.21 3D Wellbore Visualization

• Import well surveys and display in plan, profile and 3D views

• Visualize well survey in a rotatable 3D display with zoom and pan capabilities
• Display color-coded stratigraphic tops
• Display casing and/or liner profiles
• Color shaded wellbore for collapse or breakdown pressures
• View principal stress as a function of radial distance
• Ability to move and position the view window as required
• Set the scale of displayed wellbore radius

3.22 Help & Documentation

• Real-time input data validation

• Comprehensive online Adobe Acrobat and hard copy user manual
• Example files for all problem types (17)
• Comprehensive list of related technical publications and references
• Website and email support
• Advanced Geotechnology newsletter “Geotechnology Views”
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 16 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 17 November, 2008

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
4.1 Rock Mechanics Principles and Applications

4.1.1 Fundamentals

Rock mechanical analysis in petroleum engineering involves the assessment of stresses induced
in rock, due to well drilling, completion, fluid injection, temperature changes and the associated
deformations and yielding that may occur. The application of rock mechanics to engineering
design involves the evaluation of these stresses, deformations and yielding events against
established performance criteria. If the predicted rock response fails to meet these criteria, a
more conservative design is often desirable or required. This section provides brief explanations
of the fundamental terms and principles that underlie most rock mechanical models used in
STABView. Readers who are unfamiliar with rock or soil mechanics should consult textbooks
on either of these subjects for more detailed background information, e.g., Fjaer et al, 1992.

4.1.2 Stress, Strain and Sign Conventions

Stress is a measure of the internal distribution of force per unit area within a body that balances
and reacts to the loads applied to it. Stress is a tensor quantity with nine terms, but can be
described fully by six terms due to symmetry: 3 normal stress components (denoted σii, or
sometimes simply σi) and 3 shear stress components (denoted τij). Stress can occur in liquids,
gases, and solids. Liquids and gases support normal stress (pressure), but flow under shear stress.
Solids support both shear and normal stress.
At a given point in the subsurface it is possible to locate three orthogonal planes on which the
shear stress vanishes. These planes are called the principal planes, while the normal stresses on
these planes are the principal stresses.
As illustrated in Figure 4.1, a portion of the total mechanical stress applied to a saturated porous
medium is carried by the pore fluid, while the remainder of the stress is carried by the skeleton of
mineral grains. The latter stress is referred to as the effective stress. Effective stress is defined as
follows:
σ ii' = σ ii − α p (4.1.1)
where:
σ'ii = effective normal stress
σii = total normal stress
α = Biot’s coefficient
p = pore pressure
The value of Biot’s coefficient is often assumed to be very close to 1, which is true for most
weak, porous rocks. Because fluids cannot sustain shear stresses, shear stress components acting
on mineral grains within a porous rock are unaffected by fluid pressure.
For porous media containing pressurized pore fluids, it is the effective stresses that govern most
rock deformation, yielding, and failure conditions.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 18 November, 2008

σii

Figure 4.1: Effective stress concept: fluid pressure within a porous media acts against an
externally applied normal stress, σii, reducing the stress that acts at grain contacts.
Strain is the geometrical expression of deformation caused by the action of stress on a physical
body. Strain is a tensor quantity with nine terms, but can be described fully by six terms due to
symmetry: 3 compressive strain components (denoted εii, or sometimes simply εi) which
represent the change in length of a line, and 3 shear strain components (denoted εij) which
represent the change in angle between two lines.
The geomechanics sign convention, which will be used throughout this manual, is that
compressive stresses are positive and contractile strains are positive.

4.1.3 Rock Yielding Mechanisms

Rock around a borehole or perforation can yield or hydraulically fracture in different ways
resulting in wellbore instability, or total or partial collapse sand production, depending upon the
type of rock, its properties and other factors. See Figure 4.2 for a summary of mechanisms that
can result in sand production. When effective normal stresses become negative, they are said to
be tensile. Tensile stresses act to force a solid body apart. Tensile stresses can develop in
producing wells under drawdown conditions when a steep pressure gradient exists near the
borehole or perforation wall. If they exceed the tensile strength of the rock (which is often very
small), these tensile stresses will result in tensile yielding and concentric shells of rock will
detach from the borehole or perforation wall. Sand production or spalling resulting from tensile
yielding tends to be transient and short-lived in nature, occurring most often immediately after an
increase in drawdown pressure.

In a compressive stress regime, if the largest principal stress component (denoted σ1) is
significantly greater than the smallest principal stress (denoted σ3), large shear stresses will exist
on planes oriented obliquely to these principal stresses. If the shear stresses resulting from this
anisotropic compression exceed the rock’s shear strength, compressive shear yielding will occur.
The type of stress regime required to induce compressive shear yielding exists in most near-well
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 19 November, 2008

Rock Failure Mechanisms Associated With Sand Production

Compressive
τ Shear Failure

large σθ far- field stress +

σ drawdown induced

Tensile Erosion
Failure

Drawdown
σr ’ < 0 Q

Induced
Transient flow induced

1991)

Figure 4.2: Rock failure mechanisms associated with sand production

(after Veeken et al., 1991).

environments; i.e., the radial stress acting normal to the borehole or perforation surface (σr) tends
to be small, while the “hoop or tangential stress acting tangent to the borehole or perforation
surface (σθ) tends to be large. Excessive amounts of compressive shear yielding can result in
severe borehole instability sand or solids productions problems, and potentially catastrophic
collapse of boreholes and perforations.
At high flow rates (e.g., high-rate gas wells), the flowing fluid may induce a sand erosion
mechanism, in which individual grains detach from the rock. In some cases, or if this type of
failure persists for long periods of time, the resultant sand production may be problematic.
Erosion of sand grains is often more of a concern in cases where compressive shear yielding has
occurred, in which case the rock’s susceptibility to erosion is enhanced. As such, the yielding
mechanism that poses the greatest risk for sand production is compressive shear yielding.
Consequently, this yielding mechanism will be emphasized in this section and subsequent parts
of this manual. Sand erosion models are not currently part of STABView.
4.1.4 Rock Strength and Mechanical Properties

Figure 4.3 shows typical axial and radial stress-strain responses measured on a cylindrical rock
sample during a triaxial compression test. Before reaching the peak stress level, the rock behaves
more-or-less as a linear elastic solid. This behavior is described by Young’s modulus (which is a
measure of the axial stiffness of the rock) and Poisson’s ratio (which is a measure of the lateral
expansion of the rock in response to an axial load). Definitions for these parameters are given in
Figure 4.4 and procedures for interpreting them from a triaxial compression test are shown in
Figure 4.5.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 20 November, 2008

Peak strength

Figure 4.3: Typical radial and axial stress-strain response of Blackstone

siltstone during a triaxial compression test.

σa
ε a = ( L − L*) / L
(positive)

ε r = (r − r*) / r
(negative)

Poisson’s ratio:
L L**
−εr
υ=
εa
Young’s’Modulus
r
σa
E=
r* εa

Figure 4.4: Elastic properties of rock: Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
εa denotes axial strain, and εr denotes radial strain.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 21 November, 2008

120
Peak Strength, σp

100
Deviatoric Stress, MPa

80

ν or ν 50 60 50% Peak Strength E or E50 Tangent

Poisson's Young's Modulus
Ratio
40

20

0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Radial Strain, ε r % Axial Strain, ε a %

Figure 4.5: Basic rock elastic properties determined from triaxial compression tests.

10 σ3' σ1' (MPa)

xyz sandstone 0 3
9 2 10

8 peak strength 3 15
5 20
Shear Stress (MPa)

7 c = 0.88 MPa
6 phi = 31°
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Normal
Effective Stress
Normal (MPa)(MPa)
Stress

Figure 4.6: Mohr circles representing the stress states at which compressive shear yielding
occurred in triaxial compression tests conducted at four different confining stresses.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 22 November, 2008

The peak stress level shown in Figure 4.5 occurs when compressive shear yield occurs. For
frictional materials such as rock and soil, this peak stress level tends to increase with increasing
confining stress, as illustrated by the data plotted in Figure 4.6. The shear yield criterion for a
rock is a mathematical function that defines the triaxial stress state at which compressive shear
yielding occurs.
The most commonly used yield criterion for rocks is the linear Mohr-Coulomb criterion, which
is illustrated in Figure 4.7. This criterion is expressed by the following equation:

τ p = c + σ n' tan φ (4.1.2)

where:
τp = shear stress at compressive yield (peak shear stress)
c = cohesion
σ’n = effective normal stress
φ = friction angle

Another commonly used yield condition in rock mechanics is the Hoek and Brown criterion
(Hoek, 2000). This non-linear criterion is illustrated in Figure 4.8, and is defined as follows:
a
⎛ σ' ⎞
σ = σ + UCS ⎜⎜ m 3 + s ⎟⎟
'
1
'
3 (4.1.3)
⎝ UCS ⎠

where:
UCS = unconfined compressive strength
m = frictional strength parameter
s = 1 for intact rock; < 1 for broken rock masses
a = 0.5 for intact rock; < 0.5 for broken rock masses
Several other failure criteria have been used in rock mechanics, some of which account for the
effect of the intermediate principal stress (σ2). An example of such a criterion is the modified
Lade criterion, which has been used for sand production prediction models by Ewy (2001).
According to this criterion, yield occurs when the following conditions are met:

(I1 ' ')3 = 27 + η (4.1.4)

I3

where:

( ) ( ) (
I 1 ' ' = σ 1' + S1 + σ 2' + S1 + σ 3' + S1 ) (4.1.5)
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 23 November, 2008

10
9 τ = c + σ n' tan φ
Slope = tan(φ)
8
Shear Stress (MPa)

7
6

eld
5
4 Yi
d
3 y iel
2 No
1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Cohesion (c) Normal
Effective Stress
Normal (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

Figure 4.7: Linear Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion for the data plotted in Figure 4.6.

25 0.5
⎛ σ3' ⎞
σ 1 ' = σ 3 '+2.79⎜14.6 + 1⎟
xyz sandstone ⎝ 2.79 ⎠
Maximum Effective Stress (MPa)

20 peak strength

15

σ3' σ1' (MPa)

0 3
10 2 10
3 15
5 20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Minimum Effective Stress (MPa)

Figure 4.8: Hoek and Brown yield criterion for the data plotted in Figure 4.6.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 24 November, 2008

( )( )(
I 3 = σ 1' + S1 σ 2' + S1 σ 3' + S1 ) (4.1.6)

Only two rock strength parameters are required for this criterion, which are analogous (and direct
functions of) cohesion and friction angle, as follows:

c
S1 = (4.1.7)
tan φ

4 tan 2 φ (9 − 7 sin φ )
η= (4.1.8)
(1 − sin φ )
As the stress state in a rock approaches its peak level, microcracks begin to develop. At peak
strength, compressive shear yielding occurs as a consequence of these microcracks coalescing to
form a macroscopic shearing surface. Several types of post-peak behavior may occur, depending
on factors such as rock lithology, mean effective stress and temperature. Figure 4.9 illustrates
three idealized post-peak responses, where a more-or-less constant residual stress level is often
reached, due largely to the frictional resistance to sliding along the newly developed shear
surface or surfaces. This residual strength can play an important role in the stabilization of
yielded rocks. Like peak strength, residual strength can be characterized using various yield
criteria. An example of linear Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria for peak and residual strength in a
sandstone is shown in Figure 4.10.
4.1.5 Apparent Capillary Cohesion

Capillary pressures exist within porous rocks containing two or more immiscible fluids. In the
case of a water-wet, primarily gas-saturated, sandstone reservoir, for example, these pressures
exist because the water phase tends to adhere to the mineral grains. These capillary pressures act
to “pull” the mineral grains together, contributing an additional component of strength to the
rock. Although the magnitude of this apparent capillary cohesion will be negligible for many
rocks, it may represent a significant proportion of the cohesive strength of weak, poorly-
cemented, fine grained sandstones and siltstones.
It is reasonable to expect that the magnitude of apparent capillary cohesion should change as
fluid saturations change. Consequently, apparent capillary cohesion has been identified as one
possible mechanism to account for the significant increase in sand production commonly
experienced with increasing water cut. Bruno et al. (1998) demonstrated this effect with
laboratory experiments, and with numerical modeling of a partially-saturated assemblage of disk-
shaped particles using the discrete element method. In spite of the apparent importance of this
effect, practical models are not usually applied for predicting the magnitude and saturation-
sensitivity of apparent capillary cohesion for sandstones.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 25 November, 2008

Residual strength

Residual
strength

Stress
Stress
Stress

-plastic

Residual strength

Strain Strain Strain

Elastic-brittle-plastic Strain softening Elastic perfectly-plastic

Figure 4.9: Types of post-peak stress-strain response

observed in rocks (after Hoek, 2000).

10
9 τ p = c p + σ n' tan φ p
Slope = tan(φp)
8
Shear Stress (MPa)

7
6
5
Slope = tan(φr)
4
3
2 τ r = cr + σ n' tan φr
cp 1
cr 0
0 5 10 15 20
Normal
Effective Stress
Normal (M Pa)
Stress (MPa)
Figure 4.10: Characterization of peak and residual strength for rock using linear Mohr-
Coulomb yield criteria. Subscript p denotes peak, and r denotes residual.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 26 November, 2008

In the discipline of unsaturated soil mechanics, the effects of water-air saturation on the shear
strength of soil has been studied extensively (Vanapalli et al., 1996). Borrowing from this body
of work, and converting to parameters used in petroleum engineering, the following expression is
proposed for predicting apparent capillary cohesion (cc) as a function of water saturation (Sw):

S w − S wi
cc = pc tan φ (4.1.9)
1 − S gi − S wi

where:
Swi = irreducible water saturation (fraction)
Sgi = irreducible gas saturation (fraction)
pc = capillary pressure (see Section 4.6.2)

Figure 4.11 shows a sample calculation of apparent capillary cohesion using equation 4.1.9,
using a weak sand friction angle of 40°. Apparent capillary cohesion is observed to increase
steadily as water saturation begins to drop below its maximum value, reach a relatively constant
value of roughly 3 psi (20 kPa) over the intermediate-low range of Sw, then decreases abruptly as
Sw approaches its minimum value. Given that air-water and methane-water interfacial tensions
are approximately equal, air-water capillary pressure data of the type shown in this example
could be used to calculate apparent capillary cohesion in gas reservoirs.

300
Capillary Pressure, Capillary Cohesion (kPa)

Air-water capillary pressure

250 Apparent capillary cohesion

200

150

100
Swi 1-Sgi

50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a) (b) Water Saturation

Figure 4.11: (a) Distribution of water and gas in a sandstone reservoir, at low water
saturation. (b) Apparent capillary cohesion calculated from air-water capillary pressure
data for a poorly-sorted, medium fine-grained sandstone.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 27 November, 2008

According to the Laplace equation (Bear, 1972) as described in Section 4.6.2 of this manual, the
magnitude of the capillary pressure is inversely proportional to the square of pore throat radius.
As such, the magnitude of this effect is greatest for fine-grained rocks. Further, it is important to
note that these capillary effects are subject to change if the mineral grain structure of a rock is
compressed (e.g., due to elastic compression or consolidation induced by stress or pressure
changes) or loosened (e.g., due to yielding), hence changing pore throat sizes.
4.1.6 In-situ Stresses and Stress-Depletion Response

The native stresses that exist in a reservoir prior to hydrocarbon extraction are referred to as in-
situ stresses. Characterization of the complete in-situ stress tensor requires the determination of
the magnitudes and orientations of three principal stress components, denoted from largest to
smallest, as σ1, σ2 and σ3. In settings with gentle surface relief, a common assumption is that the
ground surface is flat and horizontal. In such a case, one of the principal stress orientations is
approximately vertical. This vertical in-situ stress, denoted by σV, results from the weight of the
overlying rocks, sediments and the fluids contained within them. Due to the orthogonal nature of
principal stresses, the other two principal stresses will be in the horizontal plane. These principal
stresses are denoted by σHmin and σHmax for the minimum and maximum horizontal in-situ
stresses, respectively (see Figure 4.12). Commonly, especially in extensional sedimentary
basins, σV is larger than both σHmin and σHmax. In convergent or compressive basins, however,
lateral compressive forces may result in stress regimes wherein σV is either the intermediate or
the least principal stress.

fa ce
Sur
n d
r ou
G
σ Hmax
σV
σHmin

Figure 4.12: Principal in-situ stresses at a point in the earth’s subsurface

(after Bell et al., 1994).
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 28 November, 2008

The pore pressure changes associated with hydrocarbon production or injection alter the stress
state in and around reservoirs. If a reservoir was a free body, production- or injection-induced
effective stress changes would simply result in reservoir contraction or expansion, without any
change in total in-situ stresses. However, the reservoir is “attached” to the surrounding rock,
within which there is no driving force for displacement because pore pressures are not changing.
Due to this competition between internal driving forces and external constraints, anisotropic
changes in total stress may be induced, as illustrated in Figure 4.13. The relationship between
pore pressure changes and total stress magnitudes is often referred to as the reservoir’s stress-
depletion response. It is important to understand the stress-depletion response of a reservoir for
several practical petroleum engineering problems. For example, a reservoir may initially be
produced sand-free, but at a later time, depending on the magnitude of the depletion-induced
stress changes, it can cross a threshold and begin producing sand.
Normalized stress arching ratios, defined as follow, are useful parameters for characterizing the
stress-depletion response of a reservoir:

∆σ H ∆σ V
γH = , γV = (4.1.10, 4.1.11)
∆p ∆p

Ground
surface

Stress change in
Reservoir rocks surrounding
the reservoir

Stress change
within the
reservoir

Figure 4.13: Illustration of depletion-induced stress changes in and

surrounding a producing reservoir.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 29 November, 2008

where:
γH = horizontal normalized stress arching ratio
γV = vertical normalized stress arching ratio
∆σH = induced change in horizontal stress magnitude
∆σV = induced change in vertical stress magnitude
∆p = reservoir (pore) pressure change (negative for depletion)
For the special case of a laterally infinite reservoir, poroelastic theory predicts the following
expressions for stress arching ratios:

1 − 2ν
γH =α , γV = 0 (4.1.12, 4.1.13)
1 −ν

Adopting the usual assumption that Biot’s coefficient (α) is close to 1 for porous reservoir rocks,
it is evident that production- or injection-induced horizontal stress changes are controlled by
Poisson’s ratio (υ). Horizontal stress arching ratios predicted with equation 4.1.11 have proven
to be consistent with field observations in several sedimentary basins. Specifically, γH tends to
fall in the range from 0.5 to 0.8 (Addis et al., 1996). In published accounts of stress-depletion
response, it has commonly been assumed that the vertical stress arching ratio is zero. Although, it
is reasonable to expect this to hold true in reservoirs with large lateral dimensions, it is not
expected to be true for reservoirs with thicknesses that are comparable to their lateral
dimensions.
Using poroelastic theory, Soltanzadeh and Hawkes (2007) have shown that the normalized stress
arching ratios for a plane strain, elliptical reservoir of width (w) and thickness (h) are defined as
follows:

1 − 2ν 1 1 − 2ν e
γH =α , γV = α (4.1.14, 4.1.15)
1 −ν 1 + e 1 −ν 1 + e
where:
e = reservoir aspect ratio
=h/w
It is also reasonable to expect that contrasts in the mechanical properties of the reservoir and its
surrounding rocks should have an effect on reservoir stress-depletion response. Soltanzadeh et al.
(2007) have recently derived the following equations for stress arching ratios in such conditions,
for a plane strain reservoir that is elliptical in cross-section:

C1 C2
γH = , γV = (4.1.16, 4.1.17)
C3 C3

where:
C1 = α (1 − 2υ * )[ RG [e(1 − 2υ ) + 2(1 − υ )] + e] (4.1.18)
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 30 November, 2008

C2 = α (1 − 2υ * )[ RG [2e(1 − υ ) + 1 − 2υ ] + 1]e (4.1.19)

C3 = RG [2(1 + e) 2 (1 − υ )(1 − υ * ) − 2eυ * (1 − 2υ ) + RG e(3 − 4υ * )] + e(1 − 2υ * ) (4.1.20)

RG = reservoir:caprock shear modulus ratio
= G* / G
υ* = Poisson’s ratio of the reservoir
υ = Poisson’s ratio of the surrounding rock

Sensitivity analyses conducted with equation 4.1.16 and 4.1.17 have lead to the following
observations regarding stress changes within a reservoir:
• Induced stress changes are sensitive to the reservoir aspect ratio (height/width), but not its
absolute size;
• Induced vertical stress changes increase as the reservoir becomes more equi-dimensional
in cross-section;
• Induced horizontal stress changes decrease as the reservoir becomes more equi-
dimensional in cross-section, except for cases where the shear modulus of the reservoir is
less than the “caprock” (i.e., surrounding rock);
• Vertical and horizontal induced stress changes both decrease as the reservoir:caprock
shear modulus ratio increases; and
• Vertical and horizontal induced stress changes increase as the Poisson’s ratio of the
reservoir decreases
• Poisson’s ratio of the caprock has limited effect on induced stresses.

Further to continuum mechanics-based, poroelastic models for predicting stress-depletion

response, another approach which has proven effective in some settings is based on the
assumption of frictional equilibrium on fault surfaces. For example, in a divergent sedimentary
basin, extensional forces result in minimum horizontal stress (σHmin) magnitudes that are low.
The lower limit for σHmin is governed by the yield strength of the strata in the basin. If this limit
is reached, normal faults will develop. Using a linear Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion, σHmin in
such a setting can be calculated as follows (Addis et al., 1996):
(1 - sinφ ) 2sinφ 2c cosφ
σ H min = σ V + α po - (4.1.21)
(1 + sinφ ) (1 + sinφ ) (1 + sinφ )

If pressure depletion occurs in a reservoir located within such a setting, poroelastic effects would
tend to decrease the magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress. However, a limit is placed on
the magnitude of this reduction, as the yield criterion in equation 4.20 must be satisfied. In such a
case, assuming that fault plane cohesion is negligible, the reservoir stress-depletion response is
given by:

2α sinφ
γH = (4.1.22)
(1 + sinφ )
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 31 November, 2008

STABView currently gives the user the choice of using either a “poroelastic” horizontal stress
correction governed by equations 4.1.10 and 4.1.11, or a passive basin, limit equilibrium-based
horizontal stress correction governed by equation 4.1.21. The dialog for “stress depletion”,
which is accessed under the “Advanced Features” tab in “Model Properties”, is shown below in
Figure 4.14. New, general purpose, poro-elastic stress corrections for depletion or injection
processes, based on Soltanzadeh and Hawkes (2007) are in development and will be
implemented in a future version of STABView.

4.2 Prediction of Rock Yielding and Failure Around Boreholes

4.2.1 Introduction

In this section, a number of models for predicting the onset and extent of compressive shear
yielding will be discussed. Many of these models were originally developed to predict yielding
around boreholes. However, none of these models is scale-dependent, so they can all be applied
to any cylindrical cavity in the subsurface. As such, these models can also be used for
perforations that are long and thin, as shown in Figure 4.15. The only differences between a
borehole and a perforation are the radius and the orientation, e.g., perforations are horizontal in a
vertical well. The one exception to be presented here pertains to a sand production model
available in STABView, for hemi-spherical cavities, which can be used for perforations that are
short and fat.

Figure 4.14: STABView dialog showing options available for poro-elastic and limit
equilibrium-based stress corrections to account for depletion effects.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 32 November, 2008

casing

ro
Fluid
cement flow Lp Lp dp

Lp = Perforation length h
dw
φ
D Lp= Perforation diameter
p
p
Dwd=w Wellbore diameter
ro
R0φ = Outer radius

φ = Phase angle

Figure 4.15: Modeling of long, thin perforations using cylindrical geometry

(after Wang et al., 1991).

4.2.2 2D Elastic Models

In-situ stresses act within all sub-surface rock formations and it is usually assumed that they do
not exceed the rock strength. However, the act of creating a borehole or perforation induces a
change in the stress state within the surrounding rock. The focus of the following section will be
the analysis of these induced stresses, and whether or not they exceed the rock strength near a
borehole or perforation.
The simplest type of rock mechanical model for assessing the stability of rock around a borehole
or cylindrical perforation is derived assuming that the formation is a homogeneous, isotropic,
linear-elastic continuum. For cases where the borehole or perforation axis is parallel to one of the
principal in-situ stresses, the effective stresses at any point on the borehole or perforation wall
can be found as follows:

σ r' = p w − αp a (4.2.1)

σ θ' = σ Max + σ Min − p w − 2(σ Max − σ Min ) cos 2θ + A p ∆p − αp a (4.2.2)

σ z' = σ V − 2υ (σ Max − σ Min ) cos 2θ + A p ∆p − αp a (4.2.3)

τ rθ = τ rz = τ θz = 0 (4.2.4)
where:
σ r' = effective radial stress
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 33 November, 2008

σ θ' = effective tangential stress

σ z' = effective axial stress
τrz, τrθ, τθz = shear stress components
pw = bottomhole pressure
pa = pore pressure at the borehole (or perforation) wall
po = native pore pressure (sometimes referred to as formation pressure or reservoir
pressure)
∆p = pa - po
α = Biot’s coefficient
= 1 – (Kbulk / Kgrain)
Kbulk = bulk modulus of porous rock
Kgrain = bulk modulus of the mineral grains within a porous rock
Ap = poroelastic constant

=α
(1 − 2υ )
(1 − υ )
υ = Poisson’s ratio
θ = angle (measured counter-clockwise) from the σMax direction to the point of
interest on the borehole (or perforation) wall

An example of the radial, tangential and axial stresses around a borehole is given in Figure 4.16
for the following input parameters, which are representative of an overbalanced drilling case:

σHmin = 2750 psi (19.0 MPa)

σHmax = 3620 psi (25.0 MPa)
σV = 3330 psi (23.0 MPa)
Pw = 1740 psi (12.0 MPa)
Pfm = 1450 psi (10.0 MPa)
Pa = 1450 psi (10.0 MPa)
α =1
υ = 0.3
σMax and σMin represent the maximum and minimum principal in-situ stresses in the plane normal
to the borehole or perforation axis, respectively. For example, to analyze the induced stresses
around a vertical borehole, σMax would correspond to the maximum horizontal stress and σMin
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 34 November, 2008

would correspond to the minimum horizontal stress. Alternatively, to analyze stresses around a
cylindrical perforation tunnel oriented parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, σMax would
correspond to the greater of the vertical stress and the minimum horizontal stress, and σMin would
correspond to the lesser of these two in-situ stresses.
Figure 4.17 graphically depicts the orientations of radial, tangential and axial stress components
at a point on the borehole wall, and illustrates a typical profile of these stresses with increasing
radial distance.
Compressive shear yielding is most likely to occur on the borehole or perforation wall at a point
where the maximum principal stress (which is commonly σθ) is large and the minimum principal
stress (which is commonly σr) is small. As demonstrated by equations 4.2.1 through 4.2.4, and
illustrated in Figure 4.16, this will occur at points that are rotated 90° and 270° from σMax. At
such a point, the effective stresses can be found as follows:

σ r' = p w − αp a (4.2.5)

σ θ' = 3σ Max − σ Min − p w + A p ∆p − αp a (4.2.6)

σ z' = σ V + 2υ (σ Max − σ Min ) + A p ∆p − αp a (4.2.7)

7000
σHmin radial stress
tangential stress
6000
axial stress
σHmax θ
Effective Stress (psi)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Angle from σHmax (°)

Figure 4.16 Example showing the distribution of effective stresses

around the circumference of a borehole.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 35 November, 2008

po

Figure 4.17: Stress concentration induced by drilling a vertical borehole

(Hawkes et al., 2000).
The stresses calculated with equations 4.2.5 through 4.2.7 can be used in conjunction with a
yield criterion to assess if compressive shear yielding of the rock will occur. For example, the
Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion presented in Section 4.1.4 - reworked into a form that uses
principal stresses - can be used to predict the initiation of compressive shear yielding based on
the maximum and minimum effective stresses around the borehole or perforation. Typically, the
maximum and minimum effective stresses are the tangential and radial components, respectively.
Accordingly, this criterion predicts yielding when:

σ θ' = UCS + N pσ r' (4.2.8)

where:
UCS = unconfined compressive strength
φp = peak friction angle
Np = Mohr-Coulomb peak strength parameter
1 + sin φ p
=
1 − sin φ p
Substituting equations 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 into equation 4.2.8, the following equation for the
bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yielding initiates is obtained:

3σ Max − σ Min + A p ∆p − UCS + α (N p − 1) p a

pw = (4.2.9)
N p +1
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 36 November, 2008

Different yield criteria, such as Hoek and Brown (Hoek, 2000) or modified Lade (Ewy, 2001),
can also be used to assess this critical value of bottomhole pressure. However, the basic
principle remains the same. The first step is to calculate the induced stresses, and the second step
is to assess how theses stresses compare to the rock’s strength.

4.2.3 3D Elastic Models

The equations presented in the preceding section are valid for boreholes or perforations that are
oriented parallel to one of the principal in-situ stress components. In cases when the borehole is
not in a principal stress direction (or within a tolerable range), it is still possible to evaluate the
stresses at the borehole or perforation wall analytically, but it is not possible to derive closed
formed solutions for the critical bottomhole pressure at which shear yielding initiates.
A useful pair of coordinate systems for inclined well problems is illustrated in Figure 4.18. A
Cartesian coordinate system that is aligned with the principal in-situ stress directions is used as a
frame of reference. The azimuth (aw) of the borehole or perforation is measured counter-
clockwise from the σHmax direction. The inclination (iw) of the axis is measured with respect to
vertical. All calculations of induced stresses must be conducted in a coordinate system that is
aligned with the borehole or perforation axis. In Figure 4.18, such a coordinate system has been
drawn with the z-axis parallel to the borehole or perforation axis, the x-axis oriented parallel to a
radial line passing through the highest point on the borehole or perforation wall, and the y-axis
normal to the plane define by the x- and z-axes. For such a coordinate system, the in-situ stress
tensor can be evaluated as follows:

σx
σHmax

aw
σy

σHmin

iw

σz
σV

Figure 4.18: Coordinate systems used for in-situ stress tensor transformations
in inclined well problems.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 37 November, 2008

σxx = Lxx2 σHmax + Lxy2 σHmin + Lxz2 σV (4.2.10)

σyy = Lyx2 σHmax + Lyy2 σHmin + Lyz2 σV (4.2.11)

σzz = Lzx2 σHmax + Lzy2 σHmin + Lzz2 σV (4.2.12)

τxy = Lxx Lyx σHmax + Lxy Lyy σHmin + Lxz Lyz σV (4.2.13)

τyz = Lyx Lzx σHmax + Lyy Lzy σHmin + Lyz Lzz σV (4.2.14)

τxz = Lzx Lxx σHmax + Lzy Lxy σHmin + Lzz Lxz σV (4.2.15)

where:
Lxx = cos(aw) cos(iw) ; Lyx = -sin(aw) ; Lzx = cos(aw) sin(iw)

Lxy = sin(aw) cos(iw) ; Lyy = cos(aw) ; Lzy = sin(aw) sin(iw)

Lxz = -sin(iw) ; Lyz = 0 ; Lzz = cos(iw)

Subsequently, the induced stresses at a given point on the borehole or perforation wall can be
calculated as follows (after Aadnoy, 1987):

σ r = pw (4.2.16)

σ θ = σ xx + σ yy − 2(σ xx − σ yy )cos 2θ − 4τ xy sin 2θ − p w + A p ( p a − p fm ) (4.2.17)

σ z = σ zz − υ [2(σ xx − σ yy )cos 2θ + 4τ xy sin 2θ ] + A p ( p a − p fm ) (4.2.18)

τ θz = 2τ yz cos θ − 2τ xz sin θ ; τ rz = 0 ; τ rθ = 0 (4.2.19)

For this inclined well geometry, θ represents the angle counter-clockwise from the x-axis.
Yield criteria are often most conveniently expressed in terms of principal stresses. As such, for a
given bottomhole pressure, in order to evaluate if compressive shear yield occurs at a selected
point on the borehole or perforation wall, it is necessary to determine the principal stress
components at that point. Given that the borehole or perforation wall is bounded by fluid, the
radial stress is, by definition, a principal stress (see Figure 4.19). In the plane normal to the radial
stress (i.e., tangent to the borehole surface), the maximum and minimum principal stresses (σtmax
and σtmin, respectively) can be found as follows:
1
σθ + σ z ⎡ 2 ⎛ σ θ − σ z ⎞2 ⎤ 2

σ t max = + ⎢τ θz + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (4.2.20)
2 ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 38 November, 2008

1
σθ + σ z ⎡ 2 ⎛ σ θ − σ z ⎞2 ⎤ 2

σ t min = − ⎢τ θz + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (4.2.21)
2 ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Before using these stresses to evaluate the yield condition, it is necessary to determine the
relative values of these principal stresses; i.e.,

σ 1 = max(σ t max , σ r ) (4.2.22)

σ 3 = min (σ t min , σ r ) (4.2.23)

Thus, for a given bottomhole pressure, yielding at a point on a borehole or perforation wall is
predicted if:

(σ 1 − αp a ) ≥ UCS + N p (σ 3 − αp a ) (4.2.24)

Principal stresses, as determined using equations 4.2.22 and 4.2.23, can similarly be used in other
yield criteria such as Hoek-Brown and modified Lade. Regardless of the yield criterion, the
determination of the critical bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yield initiates is
solved in STABView in an iterative process. Starting at a low value of bottomhole pressure (pw),
equations 4.2.16 through 4.2.23 are evaluated for 0 ≤ θ ≤ 180°. If yield is predicted at more than
one point, this indicates that pw falls below the critical value then pw is increased by a small
increment, and the process is repeated until a condition is reached where yield is predicted at
only one point.
x
y
Plane tangent to the
borehole surface
θ

σtmin

σr

σtmax

Figure 4.19 Orientation of principal stresses σr, σtmax and σtmin

at a point on the wall of an inclined borehole or perforation.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 39 November, 2008

4.2.4 Plane of Weakness Effects on Stability

Shales, by definition, possess fissile, weak bedding planes. If these bedding planes are closely
spaced relative to the diameter of a borehole (as illustrated in Figure 4.20), shear yielding on
these weak planes can have a severe, negative impact on borehole stability. The effect of
pervasive planes of weakness on borehole stability is accounted for in STABView’s 3D elastic
models are as follows:
1. For a given point on the borehole wall, the complete stress tensor in the borehole
coordinate system (i.e., a Cartesian coordinate system with the z-axis aligned parallel to
the borehole axis) is calculated using equations 4.2.16 through 4.2.19.
2. The critical pressure for the initiation of compressive shear yielding, based on intact rock
strength, is calculated as described in equation 4.2.24. The value of this pressure is stored
as a parameter called pintact.
3. Using 3D stress transformation algorithms available in most rock mechanics textbooks
(e.g., Jaeger and Cook, 1979), the stress tensor is transformed from the borehole
coordinate system into a second coordinate system (x′, y′, z′) in which the z′-axis is
normal to the plane of weakness.
4. The critical bottomhole pressure for the initiation of shear yielding on the plane of
weakness (ppow) is calculated, using the following equations:

• σz′ in the new coordinate system represents the normal stress acting on the plane
of weakness (termed σnpow).

• The maximum shear stress acting on the plane of weakness (τpow) is:

τ pow = τ z ' x ' 2 + τ z ' y ' 2 (4.2.25)

• Assuming a linear Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion for the plane of weakness, with
cohesion cpow and friction angle φpow, the borehole pressure at which the near-well
pore pressure pa satisfies the following condition is found:

τ pow = c pow + (σ npow − p a ) tan φ pow (4.2.26)

This borehole pressure is stored as a parameter called ppow.

5. The larger of pintact and ppow is retained as the critical pressure for shear yield initiation at
the current point on the borehole wall.
6. Steps 1 through 5 are repeated for all points around the circumference of the borehole.
The largest critical pressure found at any point represents the minimum bottomhole
pressure required to prevent yielding.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 40 November, 2008

σnpow

τpow

Figure 4.20: Resolution of stresses acting on a plane of weakness

where it intersects the borehole wall.

4.2.5 Thermal Effects on Stability

When heated or cooled, rock has a tendency to expand or contract. Consequently, in situations
where the fluid temperature in a borehole is greater than the in-situ temperature of the
surrounding rock, an increase in compressive stress will occur in any plane tangent to the
borehole surface, resulting in an increased risk of compressive shear yielding. Conversely, if the
fluid temperature in a borehole is cooler than the surrounding rock, a stress reduction will be
induced and the risk of compressive shear yielding will decrease. As shown in Figure 4.21 both
heating and cooling scenarios may occur during drilling operations. In such cases, when
calculating the critical bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yield initiates, the
equations presented in section 4.2.3 must be corrected as follows:

(σ θ )corr = σ θ + AT ∆T (4.2.27)

(σ z )corr = σ z + AT ∆T (4.2.28)

where:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 41 November, 2008

(a) (b)
Temperature Stress
Hot
T of mud tangential stress

hole wall radial stress

original

Inside thermal front

Cold
tangential stress
hole wall
radial stress

r
Depth
Mud Temperatures Thermal Borehole Stresses
(after Dusseault, 1994)

Figure 4.21 Typical temperature profile while drilling a well and the resultant thermally
induced stress changes around a borehole.
AT = thermoelastic constant
Eα T
=
1−υ
αT = linear thermal expansion coefficient
∆T = bottomhole temperature – formation temperature

Note: Thermal effects are currently only accounted for in STABView for stress calculations
conducted at the borehole wall. As such, when calculating collapse pressures using the default
3D linear elastic model, the thermal option is available. However, when calculating yielding
risks (usually some parameter related to yielded zone size) for a specified bottomhole pressure,
the thermal option is not available.

4.2.6 Effect of Swab Pressures on Stability

During tripping, drill pipe run out of the borehole too quickly can generate a sudden reduction in
fluid pressure referred to as a swab pressure. This swabbing effect reduces the magnitude of the
support pressure that the drilling mud applies to the borehole wall, hence increasing the risk of
compressive shear yielding. For the elastic tensile fracturing models in STABView, it is assumed
that the decrease in pressure (∆pswab) occurs instantaneously, then dissipates rapidly. The
mechanical effect of this swab pressure on near-well stresses is assumed to be instantaneous.
However, it is assumed that there is insufficient time for the short-lived, transient pressure pulse
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 42 November, 2008

to affect fluid pressures within the surrounding rock. Therefore, the near-well pore pressure
regime is assumed to be unchanged.
To account for a swab pressure in calculating the bottomhole pressure at which compressive
shear yield initiates, the stresses given in section 4.2.3 must be corrected as follows:

(σ r )corr = σ r − pswab (4.2.29)

(σ θ )corr = σ θ + pswab (4.2.30)

4.2.7 Calibration of Elastic Stability Models

Predictions made with linear elastic models have a tendency to be too conservative for many
practical well engineering problems. The principal reason for this is the fact that, in many cases,
the initiation of compressive shear yielding alone does not necessarily lead to hole collapse that
constitutes a drilling problem or to sand production that is a serious issue. In order to retain the
relative ease of use of elastic models, while obtaining more realistic predictions, the following
approaches may be used in STABView.

Critical Breakout Angle Criterion: The procedures described in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3
predict the critical bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yielding initiates at
two diametrically opposed points on the borehole or perforation wall. An alternative
approach is to calculate the bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yielding
occurs over a specified portion of the wall. A parameter commonly used to quantify this
type of yielding distribution is the breakout angle (θbrkt), which is illustrated in Figure
4.22. The rationale behind the critical breakout angle criterion is that the borehole or
perforation will be stable as long as there is sufficient unyielded rock on the wall to
provide a stable support structure that prevents catastrophic collapse. Some researchers
have gone as far as to recommend allowing a certain amount of breakout to purposely
restrict the development of a large yielded zone (see Zhang, 1998).
Calibration: If the sand production or borehole collapse pressure for a given depth and
well trajectory is known from previous experience, output from linear elastic models can
be calibrated to provide predictions that are consistent with this experience. One method
is to use a linear multiplier, in which case the ratio of the known pressure to the
theoretical pressure calculated with the selected model is determined. Subsequently, all
of the calculated output is multiplied by this ratio. Alternatively, a linear offset method
may be used, in which the difference between the known pressure and the theoretical
pressure calculated with the model is determined. Subsequently, this difference is
subtracted from all of the calculated output.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 43 November, 2008

Borehole or perforation

Yielded rock

θbrkt

Figure 4.22: Definition of borehole (or perforation) breakout angle (θbrkt).

Users of STABView have the option of selecting a critical breakout angle which is input as the
percentage of yielding on the borehole circumference, or the linear or offset calibration
procedure to “tune” a conservative 3D elastic model prediction to realistic field performance.

4.3 Elasto-plastic Models for Boreholes and Cylindrical Perforations

4.3.1 Borehole and Perforation Yielded Zone Models

The linear elastic models presented in the preceding sections fail to account for an important
factor in determining the stability of a borehole or perforation. After rock has yielded, it may
weaken, yet retain some amount of strength, known as the residual strength. Stresses are
redistributed as yielding occurs, resulting in a low-stress zone of damaged rock near the borehole
or perforation (see Figure 4.23). The load supported in the yielded zone can play an important
role in stabilizing a borehole or perforation.
A method that has proven to provide more realistic wellbore stability and sand production
predictions than linear elastic models involves the use of elasto-plastic model. These models
enable the prediction of the bottomhole pressure at which some rock yielding occurs, yet the
yielded zone size is small enough that borehole or perforation stability is maintained (McLellan
et al., 2000).
For idealized conditions, closed-form solutions are available for predicting yielded zone size
around boreholes or perforations. Figure 4.24 shows an idealized elastic-brittle-plastic material
behavior model (which represents a special class of elasto-plastic behavior), which is a
reasonable approximation of material behavior in many rocks such as poorly cemented
sandstones, stiff shales, coal and microfractured carbonates. For this type of material behavior,
the most important segment of the stress-strain curve is the post-peak portion. As such, linear
elastic behavior is assumed until peak strength is reached. Then, instantaneous strain weakening
is assumed, followed by “plastic” behavior at a constant residual stress level.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 44 November, 2008

σ θ

STRESS
σ r

RADIAL DISTANCE

yielded rock
elastic rock
rw
R

Figure 4.23: Development of a yielded zone and redistribution of stress

around a borehole or perforation.

Several authors, including Wang and Dusseault (1991), McLellan and Wang (1994), and Hawkes
and McLellan (1996) have published closed-form solutions for elastic-brittle-plastic materials,
with pore pressure effects included. Additional assumptions required by their solutions include:
• the borehole or perforation axis is parallel to one of the principal in situ stresses;
• the principal stresses normal to this orientation are equal;
• the peak and residual strengths of the rock can be represented by linear Mohr-Coulomb
criteria;
• plane strain conditions prevail;
• strains are small;
• the material is a homogeneous, isotropic continuum; and
• the rock and pore fluid are at constant temperature.

The general solution for such conditions was obtained by Hawkes and McLellan (1996) by
evaluating the following equation for yielded zone radius, R:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 45 November, 2008

peak strength

Deviator Stress
residual strength

Actual
Idealized

Axial Strain

Figure 4.24: Actual and idealized elastic-brittle-plastic material behaviour.

1 ⎡ ⎤
{σ Ave − α p( R, t )}(1 − N p ) + S p + Ap ⎧⎨ o ( N p − 1) + p( R, t )⎫⎬⎥
p
⎢
N p +1 ⎣ ⎩2 ⎭⎦
N r −1
Sr ⎡ S r ⎤⎛ R ⎞ R
+ − ⎢ pw + ⎥⎜ ⎟ − α p (1 − N r ) R N r −1 ∫ r − N r p (r , t ) dr (4.3.1)
1− Nr ⎣ 1 − N r ⎦⎜⎝ rw ⎟⎠ rw

Ap po
+ σ Ave − =0
2
where Nr and Sr are residual strength parameters defined as follows:

1 + sin(φ r )
Nr = (4.3.2)
1 − sin(φ r )

− 2c r cos(φ r )
Sr = (4.3.3)
1 − sin(φ r )

and:

σAve = in-situ stress in the plane normal to the borehole or perforation axis,
αp = poroplastic coefficient, which is an effective stress parameter for yielded rocks
that is analogous to Biot’s coefficient for elastic rocks. There is limited theoretical
information or laboratory data pertaining to αp, and it is generally assumed to
have a value of 1.0.
rw = borehole radius or perforation radius, (rperf) depending on the completion method
for the well being analyzed.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 46 November, 2008

For complex near-well pore pressure regimes (e.g., transient flow conditions; complex near-well
permeability distributions; compressible fluid flow such as natural gas), the integral in equation
4.3.1 must be evaluated numerically. However, for steady-state radial flow of an incompressible
fluid, equation 4.3.1 simplifies to the following form:

⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
N r −1 (1 − N r )⎢2σ Ave + 2Y ⎜⎜ p a − A ln R ⎟⎟ − Ap po − α BG − UCS ⎥ − (1 + N p )(α p A − S r )
⎛R⎞ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ 2G + λ ⎦
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ =
⎝ rw ⎠ [ ]
S r − α p A + (1 − N r )( p w − α p p a ) (1 + N p )

.................................................................................................................................... (4.3.4)
where the following parameters describe rock mechanical properties:
α (N p − 1) + A p − α p (N p + 1)
Y= (4.3.5)
2
G = shear modulus
E
= (4.3.6)
2(1 + υ )
λ = Lamé’s elastic constant
Eν
= (4.3.7)
(1 + ν )(1 − 2ν )
and the following parameters describe near-well pore pressures:
pa − po
A= (4.3.8)
⎛r ⎞ ⎛r ⎞
k r ln⎜ d ⎟ − ln⎜ w ⎟
⎝R⎠ ⎝R⎠
pa = pore pressure at the borehole (or perforation) wall
po = native pore pressure, formation pressure, or reservoir pressure
B = kr A
ky = yielded rock permeability
ke = elastic (intact) rock permeability
kr = permeability ratio (ky / ke)

The parameters defining near-well pore pressures are shown in Figure 4.25. As illustrated, the
solution given in equation 4.3.4 is capable of handling situations where yielded rock
permeability is different from elastic rock permeability (e.g., permeability increase due to
microcracking during yielding), and where there is a step change in pore pressure at the borehole
or perforation wall (i.e., pw ≠ pa). The latter capability is well-suited to addressing situations
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 47 November, 2008

where residual filter cake, or other types of wellbore skin mechanisms, result in permeability
impairment at the borehole or perforation wall.
Alternatively, the step-change pressure drop feature may be used as a simple means of analyzing
the complex problem of sand production during transient flow conditions. Specifically, in cases
where bottomhole pressure is reduced very suddenly and/or reservoir permeability is relatively
low, very steep pore pressure gradients will initially develop. Numerical or semi-analytical
techniques are generally required to rigorously model this transient stage of fluid flow, during
which there is an increased risk of sand production (albeit this sand production will likely be
short-lived). A simple means of addressing the worst-case scenario for transient flow conditions
is to assume that the bottomhole pressure drop will be applied instantaneously, resulting in a step
change in pressure at the borehole wall. Such a condition can be simulated using equation 4.3.4,
by setting pa = po. This end member of the transient case is available in STABView as an
advanced option.
Strictly speaking, the solutions presented in equations 4.3.1 and 4.3.4 are only valid for cases
where the in-situ stress state in the plane normal to the borehole or perforation axis is isotropic.
However, it has been demonstrated that these equations can be used to calculate the average
radius of the yielded zone for cases where the stress state is anisotropic. In such cases, the
average of the two principal stresses in the plane normal to the borehole or perforation axis can
used. The average yielded zone radius (as illustrated in Figure 4.26) is often adequate as a sand
production risk parameter. Equations for calculating the predicted length and width of the elasto-
plastic yielded zone can be found in Detournay and St. John (1988). An extension to these
equations is used in STABView for estimating elliptical hole sizes and shapes.

⎛r ⎞ ⎛r ⎞
p = pa − A ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ p = po − B ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ rw ⎠ ⎝ rd ⎠

p
po

ky ke

pa
pw
r
rw R rd

Figure 4.25: Near-well pore pressure gradient for steady-state flow of

an incompressible fluid towards the wellbore.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 48 November, 2008

4.3.2 Elasto-plastic Models for Hemi-spherical Perforations

The cylindrical geometry assumed for perforations in the preceding sections is not well-suited
for modeling short, large-diameter perforations. Bratli and Risnes, R. (1981) have derived an
elasto-plastic model wherein perforations are assumed to have a hemi-spherical geometry, as
illustrated in Figure 4.27. Their model assumes elastic perfectly-plastic behavior (i.e., no strain
weakening) and an isotropic in-situ stress state (i.e., σV = σHmax = σHmin = σAve). The radius of the
yielded zone (R) can be evaluated for this model using the following expression:

T +1
⎛ R ⎞
T
3 (σ Ave − po )
⎜ ⎟ = T +3 (4.3.9)
⎜r ⎟ T +1 µQ
⎝ perf ⎠ 4c p tan γ −
T 4πkrperf

where:
rperf = perforation radius
γ = failure angle
π φp
= +
4 2
T = 2{tan 2 (γ ) − 1}
µ = fluid viscosity

rw
R
a

Figure 4.26: Elliptical yielded zone predicted for an anisotropic stress regime,
and the equivalent average yielded zone radius, R.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 49 November, 2008

Q = volumetric flow rate (per perforation)

k = rock permeability

σAve

σ
σr σθ
r rperf σAve
σAv σθ
σr
y
σAve
θ
pw
po
x
po pw

σAv rperf rd
R
r

Figure 4.27: Geometry and typical stress distribution for elasto-plastic modeling of
hemi-spherical perforations (after Bratli and Risnes, 1981).
STABView users have the ability to analyze hemi-spherical perforations using this model by
selecting the perforation stability option under the class of sand production models. Figure 4.28
shows the additional information the user may provide to more accurately characterize the
perforating design. A future version of STABView will display the 3D nature of multiple
perforation tunnels with varying orientations, phasing, size, depth and yielding.

4.3.3 Kinematic Considerations

Horizontal wells which develop an elliptical yielded zone under drilling or production conditions
can result in the detachment of this yielded or failed material due to gravity. This “rubble” will
accumulate on the bottomside of the hole which may or may not have a tubular present such as
drill pipe or a slotted liner, for instance. It is possible to provide a first-order calculation of the
cross-sectional area of yielded rock which may detach and then bulk up by a factor βr . Using
theory developed for the flow of particulates in bins, (Dreschler, 1991) the wedge angle (αw) can
be estimated as a function of the yielded rock’s residual friction angle (φr) and a roughness
angles (φi) which reflects the uneven detachment surface.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 50 November, 2008

Figure 4.28: Options for specifying the characteristics of a perforated

completion in STABView.

π (φ r + φ i )
αw = − (4.3.10)
2 2
Figure 4.29 shows a wellbore cross-section where a slotted liner is depicted on the bottomside of
a borehole, which exhibits a large elliptical yielded area under drawdown conditions. The
yielded shape is predicted with STABView’s 2D elastoplastic model with peak and residual
failure parameters. STABView presently allows the user to calculate the Rubble Fill Percentage
(RFP) for this problem, without accounting of the presence of the liner. RFP is defined as
follows:

A1
RFP = 100β r (4.3.11)
πrw 2

where:

βr = bulking factor (1.0 to 1.4)

A1 = yielded rock in the borehole roof that detaches
rw = original borehole or bit radius
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 51 November, 2008

Yielded Area, A1 Detaches

AREA A1
and Dilates to Form
αw
Slotted rw Wedge

ro
Elastoplastic

Elastic Yielded Detachment

Figure 4.29: Geometry of the gravity-induced failure of yielded material from an

elastoplastic zone above a horizontal well with a slotted liner.
Note that this basic kinematic consideration does not account for the fact that once the yielded
material in the roof of the borehole strains and detaches, in whole or in part, there is a
redistribution of the local radial and tangential stresses above the failed interval. This
redistribution results in a new equilibrium being set-up and the likely development of additional
yielded areas. The prediction of the size and shape of these areas is not possible in the semi-
analytical framework of the STABView’s 2D elastoplastic model. The RFP values predicted
with this model therefore provide only a starting point for evaluating the potential for borehole
roof collapse under gravity effects. Also note that the development of elastic and plastic strains
within the elastoplastic yielded area will further reduce the borehole or annulus size. These hole
closure effects are not accounted for in the RFP model in STABView.
The RFP model is useful for evaluating the risk of stuck pipe in drilling applications and the hole
collapse risk in openhole completions where a critical amount of hole occlusion would impair
future access to horizontal wellbore.

4.3.4 Elasto-plastic Modeling of Borehole Deformations and Liner Loading

In Section 4.3.1, a closed-form solution for predicting yielded zone size around boreholes or
perforations for idealized elasto-plastic material behavior was described. This idealized material
model involves linear elastic behavior until peak strength is reached, followed by instantaneous
strain weakening, then “plastic” behavior at a constant residual stress level. If a constant angle of
dilation (ψd) is assumed during this plastic behavior (see Figure 4.30), it is possible to calculate
the strain and displacement magnitudes at the borehole or perforation wall.
The equations presented below are modified after Wang and Dusseault (1991a) and Kooijman et
al. (1996). Additional assumptions required by their solutions include:
• the borehole or perforation axis is parallel to one of the principal in situ stresses;
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 52 November, 2008

peak strength

Deviator Stress
residual strength

Axial Strain
Volumetric Strain

Expansion
⎛ 2 sinψ d ⎞
arctan ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 − sinψ d ⎠
Axial Strain

Contraction

Figure 4.30: Idealized stress-strain relationship showing dilatant behavior.

• the principal stresses normal to this orientation are equal (i.e., radial symmetry);
• the peak and residual strengths of the rock can be represented by linear Mohr-Coulomb
criteria;
• plane strain conditions prevail;
• strains are small;
• the material is a homogeneous, isotropic continuum; and
• the rock and pore fluid are at constant temperature.

For radially symmetric borehole geometries, radial displacement (u) of any point on the borehole
wall can be calculated as follows:

u = ε θT rw (4.3.12)

where:
ε θT = total tangential strain
rw = borehole (or perforation) radius

( ) ( )
Total tangential strain is the sum of elastic ε θe and plastic ε θp tangential strains; i.e.,

ε θT = ε θe + ε θp (4.3.13)
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 53 November, 2008

The elastic component of tangential strain can be calculated from stresses at the borehole or
perforation wall using Hooke’s law, as follows:

1+υ
ε θe =
E
[ {
(1 − υ ) σ θ' (rw ) − υσ r' (rw ) }] (4.3.14)

where:
υ = Poisson’s ratio
E = Young’s modulus
σ θ' (rw ) = effective tangential stress at rw
σ r' (rw ) = effective radial stress at rw

The plastic component of tangential strain is derived from the compatibility equation and the
plastic flow rule, providing the following result:

ε θp = C1 + C 2 + C3 (4.3.15)

where:
⎡ 2
⎤
(1 − υ ){sin (ψ d ) − 1} [
N r −1+
⎛ ⎞
(N r − 1)σ r' (rw ) − S r + A]⎢⎢1 − ⎜⎜ R ⎟⎟
1− sin (ψ d )
C1 = ⎥ (4.3.16)
{1 − sin (φ r )sin (ψ d )}2G ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

⎡ 2
⎤
−A ⎛ A p ⎞⎢ ⎛ R ⎞ 1−sin (ψ d ) ⎥
C2 = (1 − υ ){sin (ψ d ) − 1}⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟⎢1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎥
(4.3.17)
2G 2 ⎠ r
⎝ ⎢⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎥⎦
2

C3 =
(1 − υ ) (S ⎛ R ⎞ 1−sin (ψ d )
− S p )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (4.3.18)
r
2G ⎝ rw ⎠

and:

ψd = dilation angle
G = shear modulus
E
=
2(1 + υ )
φr = peak friction angle
φr = residual friction angle
cp = peak cohesion
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 54 November, 2008

cr = residual cohesion
1 + sin(φ r )
Nr =
1 − sin(φ r )

− 2c p cos(φ p )
Sp =
1 − sin(φ p )

− 2c r cos(φ r )
Sr =
1 − sin(φ r )

Ap = poroelastic constant
=α
(1 − 2υ )
(1 − υ )
pa − po
A=
⎛r ⎞ ⎛r ⎞
k r ln⎜ d ⎟ − ln⎜ w ⎟
⎝R⎠ ⎝R⎠
pa = pore pressure at the borehole (or perforation) wall
po = native pore pressure, formation pressure, or reservoir pressure
B = kr A
ky = yielded rock permeability
ke = elastic (intact) rock permeability
kr = permeability ratio (ky / ke)
R = yielded zone radius
rd = drainage radius

An algorithm for calculating the stress on a slotted liner or screen is given by Kooijman et al.
(1996). This solution is valid for openhole completions in which elastoplastic deformation of the
borehole wall has closed the gap between the sandface and the slotted liner or screen. The model
makes use of a number of simplifying assumptions, most notably that the slotted liner or screen
is rigid, and that the in-situ stress state in the plane normal to the borehole axis is isotropic
(hence the deformation of the borehole wall is axisymmetric).
In principal, the liner load algorithm is the same as the solutions given above for yielded zone
radius and near-well stresses (Section 4.2.2) and borehole wall deformations (this section). The
only difference is that, when there is contact between the liner and the sandface, the effective
radial stress at the borehole wall is exerted by the liner rather than the borehole fluid(s).
The liner load solution algorithm works as follows:
1. Generate an initial guess for the yielded zone radius (R).
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 55 November, 2008

( )
2. Calculate the effective radial stress at the borehole wall ( σ r rw ).
'

( )
3. Calculate the total tangential strain at the borehole wall ( ε θ rw ).
T

4. Calculate the radial displacement, u = ε θ rw .

T

5. If u is equal to the annular gap between the borehole wall and the slotted liner or screen,
the effective radial stress calculated in step 2 represents the magnitude of the stress acting
on the liner.
6. If u is NOT equal to the annular gap between the borehole wall and the slotted liner or
screen, adjust the guessed value for R and repeat steps 2 through 5 until a solution is
found.

4.4 Initiation of Tensile Hydraulic Fractures

4.4.1 3D Linear Elastic Stress Model

The elastic models presented in Section 4.2 can also be used to predict tensile yielding or
fracture initiation, which may occur while overbalanced drilling, completing or stimulating a
well, or during water injection. An example of the radial, tangential and axial stresses around a
vertical borehole is given in Figure 4.31. These effective stresses were calculated using equations

6000
σHmin
radial stress
5000 tangential stress

σHmax θ axial stress

Effective Stress (psi)

4000

3000

2000

1000
Compression

Tension
-1000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Angle from σ Hmax (°)

Figure 4.31 Example showing the distribution of effective stresses around the
circumference of a borehole in which effective tensile stresses have developed.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 56 November, 2008

4.2.1 through 4.2.3 for the following input parameters, which are representative of a drilling case
with a weighted mud system:

σHmin = 2540 psi (17.5 MPa)

σHmax = 3620 psi (25.0 MPa)
σV = 3330 psi (23.0 MPa)
Pw = 2800 psi (19.3 MPa)
Pfm = 1450 psi (10.0 MPa)
Pa = 1450 psi (10.0 MPa)
α =1
υ = 0.3
Tensile yielding or fracture initiation occurs at the point on the borehole wall where the effective
tangential stress is tensile (i.e., negative), and its magnitude exceeds the tensile strength of the
rock. As shown in Figure 4.31, this is most likely to occur at θ = 0° and θ = 180°.
For a borehole drilled parallel to a principal in-situ stress direction, analytical solutions exist for
the bottomhole pressure at which tensile yielding or “fracture breakdown” initiates. For a non-
penetrating fluid, such as some drilling fluids and cement, the fracture breakdown pressure (pb) is
given by:

pb = 3σ Min − σ max − αpo + σ T (4.4.1)

for a partially-penetrating fluid,

pb = 3σ Min − σ Max − αpo + σ T − (α − Ap )∆p (4.4.2)

and for a fully-penetrating fluid,

3σ Min − σ Max − Ap po + σ T
pb = (4.4.3)
(1 + α − A )
p

In these equations, σT is the rock tensile strength. For partially-penetrating fluids, the magnitude
of the pressure drop (∆p) at the borehole wall can be related to the formation of a filter-cake, or
wall coating as described in Section 4.6 of this manual.
For boreholes that are not drilled parallel to an in-situ stress direction, the equations for borehole
stresses presented in Section 4.2.3 may be used to evaluate fracture breakdown pressure. Using
equation 4.2.21 for σtmin (i.e., the smallest stress in the plane tangent to the borehole surface), the
criterion for fracture breakdown at a given point on the borehole wall is:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 57 November, 2008

1
σθ + σ z ⎡ 2 ⎛ σ θ − σ z ⎞2 ⎤ 2

σ t min = − ⎢τ θz + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ = −σ T (4.4.4)
2 ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

Equation 4.4.13 can be solved for fracture breakdown pressure as follows:

− C B − C B2 − 4C A C C
pb = (4.4.5)
2C A

where:

CA =
1
4
[
(2 A p ε fp − 1 − 2αε fp )2 − 1 ]
C B = C 4 (2 A p ε fp − 1 − 2αε fp ) + C 5

C C = C 42 − C 32 − C 52

C1 − C 2
C5 =
2
C1 + C 2 − 2 A p ε fp p o
C4 = − αp o (1 − ε fp ) + σ T
2

C 3 = 2τ yz cos θ − 2τ xz sin θ

[
C 2 = σ zz − υ 2(σ xx − σ yy ) cos 2θ + 4τ xy sin 2θ ]
C1 = σ xx + σ yy − 2(σ xx − σ yy ) cos 2θ − 4τ xy sin 2θ

and εfp denotes the fluid penetration coefficient, which will be discussed further in Section 4.6.
This parameter ranges from 0.0 for a non-penetrating fluid to 1.0 for a fully-penetrating fluid.
To determine the fracture breakdown pressure at a given depth in a well, equation 4.4.14 is
evaluated over the range 0 ≤ θ ≤ 180°, and the smallest value found is retained as the solution.

4.4.2 3D Linear Elastic Stress Model with Deep Fluid Penetration

The deep penetrating fluid model is similar to the default linear elastic fracture breakdown model
described above. The fundamental difference is that the deep penetrating fluid model is
applicable for cases where the extent of fluid penetration during injection is very large compared
to the thickness of the reservoir, resulting in a poro-elastic response different from the default
model.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 58 November, 2008

The solution for fracture breakdown pressure using the deep fluid penetration option is given as
follows:

− C B − C B2 − 4C A C C
pb = (4.4.6)
2C A

where:

CA =
1
4
[
(2 A p ε fp − 1 − 2αε fp )2 − C 6 ]
C B = C 4 (2 A p ε fp − 1 − 2αε fp ) + C 5 C 6

C C = C 42 − C 32 − C 52

C 6 = −2 A p ε fp + 1

C1 − C 2 − 2 A p ε fp p o
C5 =
2
and the definitions of constants C1 through C4 are identical to those given for the default fracture
breakdown model.
The modified poro-elastic effect for deep fluid penetration was taken from "Waterflooding
Under Fracturing Conditions" by E.J.L. Koning (Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
1988). Note that Koning's equations were derived for vertical wells in horizontal reservoirs. The
same equations have been applied to the general 3D problem in STABView. As such, this model
is most applicable for cases where fluid flow is radially symmetrical about the borehole, and
occurs in a plane normal to the borehole axis.

4.4.3 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) Based Model

This model computes the fracture breakdown pressure for an inclined borehole in a setting with
uniform in-situ horizontal stresses. This model is based on the semi-analytical fracture
mechanics model derived by Morita et al. (1996). This model is useful for borehole fluids that
contain fracture plugging additives, such that fracture breakdown does not occur until a pre-
existing or induced tensile crack at the borehole wall reaches a critical aperture, at which point
whole drilling mud is able to penetrate the crack.
The geometric parameters relevant to this model are shown in Figure 4.32. The solution process
is as follows:
1. An initial guess for the critical crack length (A) is made.
2. For the specified crack length, the fracture breakdown pressure (pb) is calculated.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 59 November, 2008

3. For the specified crack length and fracture breakdown pressure, the aperture of the crack
(W) is calculated.
4. If the calculated crack aperture corresponds to the critical aperture at which whole mud
can penetrate the crack, the fracture breakdown pressure calculated in step 2 is the correct
value and the calculation process is complete.
5. If the calculated crack aperture does not correspond to the critical aperture at which
whole mud can penetrate the crack, a revised guess for crack length is made and steps 2
through 4 are repeated as required.
For relatively short crack lengths, the equation required for step 2 is:

Kc
p b = 3σ Min − σ Max + (4.4.7)
1.215 π ( A − rw )

Where Kc is the fracture toughness of the rock. For longer crack lengths, the equations for pb can
be found in Table 1 of Morita et al. (1996).
The equations required for step 3 are:

W = W1 + W 2 + W3 (4.4.8)

where:

(
W1 = 4 1 − υ 2 ) AG
E
1
σ Min

(
W2 = 4 1 − υ 2 ) AGE (σ
2
Max − σ Min )

(
W3 = 8 1 − υ 2 ) πrE ⎡⎢G
w
3
⎛ A ⎞⎤
+ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ p b
⎢⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠⎥⎦

and the values of the fitting functions G1 through G3 can be found in Table 1 of Morita et al.
(1996).
The version of this model implemented in STABView assumes that no mud pressure penetration
occurs, and that isothermal conditions exist. Variations on this model that account for these
effects are also included in Morita et al. (1996).
Note: For cases where the horizontal stresses are unequal, STABView will calculate fracture
breakdown pressures for this model using the average of σHmax and σHmin.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 60 November, 2008

σMax

σMin

W
pb

po
rw

Figure 4.32 Crack geometry for the linear elastic fracture

mechanics-based model for tensile fracturing.

4.4.4 3D Anisotropic Elastic Properties Model for Tensile Fracturing

This model computes the stresses around a borehole and calculates the bottomhole pressure at
which a tensile fracture will initiate. These calculations are based on the model for a transversely
isotropic medium, as derived in "Stresses Around Horizontal Boreholes Drilled in Sedimentary
Rocks" by B.S. Aadnoy (SPE paper 17119, July, 1987). This model assumes that Young's
modulus is constant in the medium's symmetry plane (e.g., bedding), but different from the value
normal to the symmetry plane. Poisson's ratio is assumed to be isotropic. The model is valid for
wells that are drilled within the symmetry plane. As such, it is suitable for the case of a
horizontal well in flat or dipping strata.

4.4.5 Thermal Effects on Tensile Fracturing

If the temperature in a well is different from the in-situ temperature of the surrounding rock,
thermally-induced stress changes will result. For example, it is common during water injection
for the bottomhole temperature to be lower than the reservoir temperature. As such, the rock
around the borehole will tend to contract, resulting in tensile stress changes. To accurately
predict the fracture breakdown pressure for such cases, it is necessary to account for this thermal
effect.
For the default elastic tensile fracturing model, it is assumed that the temperature change is
confined to the near-well area. This scenario is representative, for example, of a drilling case in a
low-permeability formation, or drilling in a high-permeability formation in which limited leakoff
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 61 November, 2008

occurs due to the development of an effective filter cake. For the default tensile fracturing model,
the tangential and axial stresses at a point on the borehole wall are given as follows:

σ θ = σ xx + σ yy − 2(σ xx − σ yy ) cos 2θ − 4τ xy sin 2θ − p w + A p ( p a − p fm ) + AT ∆T (4.4.9)

σ z = σ zz − υ [2(σ xx − σ yy )cos 2θ + 4τ xy sin 2θ ] + Ap ( pa − p fm ) + AT ∆T (4.4.10)

where:
AT = thermoelastic constant
Eα T
=
1−υ
αT = linear thermal expansion coefficient
∆T = bottomhole temperature – formation temperature

Radial and shear stresses are unaffected by temperature effects, and can be calculated using
equations 4.2.16 and 4.2.19, respectively. The procedure for calculating fracture breakdown
pressure is unchanged from Section 4.4.1, except the constant C4 must be corrected as follows:

(C 4 )corr = C 4 + AT ∆T (4.4.11)

For the linear elastic stress model with deep fluid penetration, it is assumed that the wellbore
fluid flows deep into the surrounding rock, such that the rock temperature becomes equal to the
bottomhole temperature. For this fracturing model, the tangential stress at a point on the borehole
wall is given as follows

σ θ = σ xx + σ yy − 2(σ xx − σ yy )cos 2θ − 4τ xy sin 2θ − p w + 2 A p ( p a − p fm ) + 2 AT ∆T (4.4.12)

Radial, axial and shear stresses are unaffected by temperature effects for this model, and can be
calculated using equations 4.2.16, 4.2.18 and 4.2.19, respectively. The procedure for calculating
fracture breakdown pressure is unchanged from Section 4.4.2, except the constants C4 and C5
must be corrected as follows:

(C 4 )corr = C 4 + AT ∆T (4.4.13)

(C 5 )corr = C 5 + AT ∆T (4.4.14)

4.4.6 Effect of Surge Pressures on Tensile Fracturing

During tripping, drill pipe run rapidly into the borehole can generate large surge pressures in the
borehole-drillpipe annulus which can lead to tensile fracturing of the formation. For the elastic
tensile fracturing models in STABView, it is assumed that the increment in pressure (∆psurge)
occurs instantaneously, then dissipates rapidly. The mechanical effect of this surge pressure on
near-well stresses is assumed to be instantaneous. However, it is assumed that there is
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 62 November, 2008

insufficient time for the short-lived, transient pressure pulse to affect fluid pressures within the
surrounding rock. Therefore, the near-well pore pressure regime is assumed to be unchanged.
To account for a surge pressure in calculating the fracture breakdown pressure using the default
elastic fracturing model, constants C4 and C5 given in Section 4.4.1 must be corrected as follows:
∆p surge
(C 4 )corr = C4 − (4.4.15)
2
∆p surge
(C 5 )corr = C5 − (4.4.16)
2
Similarly, to account for a surge pressure in calculating the fracture breakdown pressure using
the deep fluid penetration fracturing model, constants C4 and C5 given in Section 4.4.2 must be
corrected as follows:
∆p surge
(C 4 )corr = C4 − (4.4.17)
2
∆p surge
(C 5 )corr = C5 − (4.4.18)
2

4.5 Initiation of Passive Shear Yielding

This model computes the stresses around a borehole drilled in an arbitrary orientation, and uses
these results to assess the risk of passive shear failure initiation at the borehole wall. In some
cases, especially for very weak, unconsolidated formations, passive shear failure can occur at
bottomhole pressures lower than the tensile fracture initiation pressure. The creation of a zone of
rock that has yielded in shear can affect tensile fracture initiation. The assumptions and
limitations of this model are similar to the tensile fracture initiation model.
The term passive shear yielding refers to a failure mode in which radial stress is large, and the
minimum stress in the plane tangent to the borehole surface is small, such that compressive shear
yielding occurs. The solution for passive shear yielding is found using equations 4.2.16, 4.2.21
and 4.2.24, substituting σr for σ1 and σtmin for σ3. At a given point on the borehole wall, the
critical pressure for the initiation of passive shear yielding can be found as follows:

− C B − C B2 − 4C A C C
pw = (4.5.1)
2C A

where
Np
C A = C5 −
4
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 63 November, 2008

C B = 2C 4 C 5 + N p2 C 6

(
C C = C 42 − N p2 C 32 − C 62 )
C1 − C 2 − ∆p surge
C6 =
2
2 − 2αε fp + N p (1 − 2 A p ε fp + 2αε fp )
C5 =
2

⎡ C1 + C 2 − ∆p surge − 2 A p ε fp p o ⎤
C 4 = αp o (ε fp − 1) + ∆p surge + S p − N p ⎢ + αp o (ε fp − 1)⎥
⎣ 2 ⎦

and the definitions of constants C1 through C3 are identical to those given for the default fracture
breakdown model (Section 4.4.1).
To determine the critical pressure for passive shear yielding at a given depth in a well, equation
4.5.1 is evaluated over the range 0 ≤ θ ≤ 180°, and the smallest value found is retained as the
solution.
Note: The solution given above accounts for surge pressure effects. Thermal effects are not
currently accounted for in the passive shear yielding model implemented in STABView.

4.6 Near Wellbore Pore Pressure Effects

4.6.1 Filter Cake and Wall Coating

Near-well pore pressures have a strong influence on stresses, deformations and yielding in the
surrounding rock. A convenient parameter for characterizing near-well pore pressures is the filter
cake or wall coating efficiency (εfc). Specifically, this parameter characterizes the extent to
which the pore pressure at the borehole wall increases in response to an overbalance pressure.
Mathematically, the filter cake or wall coating efficiency is defined as follows:

pw − pa
ε fc = (4.6.1)
p w − po

A filter cake or wall coating efficiency of 1.0 indicates that no mud pressure penetration will
occur, whereas a value of 0.0 indicates that no filter cake or wall coating is present. Figure 4.33
illustrates a typical near-well pore pressure profile, for an overbalanced drilling case in which the
filter cake or wall coating efficiency has a value of roughly 0.5.
Equation 4.6.1 can be re-worked to solve for other pressure parameters that have been used in
various models described this chapter. Notable variables of this type include the pressure right at
the borehole wall:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 64 November, 2008

p a = p w − ε fc ( p w − p o ) (4.6.2)

and the pressure increase right at the wall:

∆p = p a − p o = ( p w − p o )(1 − ε fc ) (4.6.3)

The fluid penetration coefficient (εfp), which is specified for fracture or lost circulation problems,
is defined as follows:

pa − po
ε fp = (4.6.4)
p w − po

A fluid penetration coefficient of 1.0 indicates a fully-penetrating fluid, whereas a value of 0.0
indicates a non-penetrating fluid. Numerically, the fluid penetration coefficient is equal to one
minus the filter cake or wall coating efficiency:

ε fp = 1 − ε fc (4.6.5)

εfc or εfp are key inputs for most of the algorithms used in STABView for borehole collapse and
fracture breakdown calculations. They influence the 3D elastic models that assess conditions at
the borehole wall, and they control the boundary conditions for the steady state flow equations
that are solved within the elastic and elasto-plastic models used to predict yielded zone size.

Filter cake

pw
Support

pa

po

rw r
Figure 4.33: Pressure drop across a filter cake.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 65 November, 2008

4.6.2 Capillary Threshold Pressure

The capillary threshold pressure (pc) is the overbalance pressure that must be exceeded before a
non-wetting drilling fluid (typically oil- or synthetic-based) will penetrate a water-wet formation.
As described by the Laplace law, the magnitude of this threshold pressure is inversely
proportional to the radius of pore throats in the rock:

2γ cos ϕ
p cap = p non − wet − p wet = (4.6.6)
r pore

where:
pnon-wet = pressure in the non-wetting fluid phase (e.g., OBM)
pwet = pressure in the wetting fluid phase (e.g., native pore fluid)

γT = interfacial tension
ϕ = contact angle of the fluid interface where it meets the mineral grain surface
rpore = pore throat radius
Large capillary threshold pressures can exist for intact shales with small pore throat radii. If the
overbalance pressure is smaller than the capillary threshold pressure, no mud pressure
penetration occurs (Figure 4.34). Mathematically, this scenario is equivalent to drilling with a
mud that has a filter cake or wall coating efficiency of 1.0. In all of STABView models that use
this parameter, it is assumed that mud pressure penetration occurs (i.e., εfc = 0) once the capillary
threshold pressure has been exceeded.

Figure 4.34: Prevention of mud pressure penetration due to a high capillary threshold
pressure in shale (Hawkes et al., 2000).
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 66 November, 2008

4.6.3 Effects of a Pressure Drop Across a Liner or Screen

The near-wellbore fluid pressure parameter required for geomechanical modeling of sand
production and openhole stability is the pore pressure at the borehole wall or the “sandface”
pressure. For wells completed with slotted liners, screens or pre-packed screens, a pressure drop
will occur across the sand control device as illustrated in Figure 4.35. The magnitude of this
pressure drop may be significant, depending on the dimensions and total cross-sectional area
openings in the liner, screen or pre-pack, and the viscosity and flow rate of the produced fluid.
For analyses that are conducted for a specified bottomhole pressure, it is necessary to add the
liner/screen pressure drop to the bottomhole pressure in order to determine the appropriate
sandface pressure to use in the calculations.
Similarly, when modeling near-well stresses and yield conditions for specified fluid production
rates rather than specified bottomhole pressures, the sandface pressure required to achieve the
target flow rate must be calculated first. Subsequently, the corresponding bottomhole pressure
may be calculated by subtracting the liner/screen pressure drop.
STABView users can specify a value for the additional pressure drop from the formation “sand-
face” to the interior of the wellbore.

Screen Formation

p
po

pa

∆p
pw

r
OD rw

Figure 4.35: Pressure drop across a slotted liner, screen or pre-packed screen gives rise
to a sandface pressure that is different from the wellbore pressure inside the tubular.

4.6.4 Gas Compressibility and Non-Darcy Flow Effects

The flow equations that are used by default within the elastic and elasto-plastic models for
yielded zone size calculations assume steady-state, radial flow of an incompressible fluid. This
assumption works well for water and oil, for which density variation with pressure is relatively
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 67 November, 2008

small. However, given the highly compressible nature of natural gas, a different flow model is
required.
The radial flow equation for compressible fluids can be linearized approximately by replacing all
pressure terms with the so-called gas “pseudo-pressure”, m(p), which is defined as follows:
p
p
m( p ) = 2 ∫ dp (4.6.7)
p ref
µZ

where:
p = the pressure of interest
pref = a reference pressure (which can be chosen arbitrarily; often standard conditions)

µ = fluid viscosity
Z = gas compressibility factor
Steady-state solutions for radial inflow conditions, cast in terms of gas pseudo-pressure (mp),
have been presented by several investigators (e.g., Butler, 1994):
2
⎛ 2p ⎞⎛ Q sc T ⎞ r 2βMW ⎛ Q sc Tp sc ⎞ ⎛ 1 1⎞
m( p ) = m( p w ) + ⎜⎜ sc ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟ ln + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ (4.6.8)
⎝ Tsc ⎠⎝ 2πkh ⎠ rw RT µ ⎝ 2πhTsc ⎠ ⎝ rw r ⎠
where:
m(pw) = gas pseudo-pressure at bottomhole pressure (pw)
psc = pressure at standard conditions
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions
T = reservoir temperature
Qsc = volumetric flow rate at standard conditions
T = reservoir temperature
k = reservoir permeability
h = reservoir thickness
r = radial distance
rw = borehole radius

β = turbulence factor
MW = gas molecular weight
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 68 November, 2008

R = universal gas constant

µ = average fluid viscosity

For a specified bottomhole pressure, pore pressure at any point around a well is evaluated by
solving equation 4.6.8 at the point of interest, then using an inverse form of equation 4.6.7 to
convert gas pseudo-pressure to gas pressure. To calculate yielded zone size for gas wells using
the 2D elastoplastic model, the integral in equation 4.3.1 is solved using Gaussian quadrature
(Gerald and Wheatley, 1989), wherein gas pressures are calculated at nodal points using the
procedure presented above.
As the rate of fluid flow through a porous medium increases, inertial and/or turbulence effects
become significant. In such cases, Darcy’s law alone does not adequately describe the
relationship between pressure gradient and fluid flow rate. The second term on the right hand
side of equation 4.6.8 accounts for non-Darcy flow effects, which are common for high-rate gas
wells. The relevant parameter in this term is the turbulence factor (β). This rock property
depends on factors such as porosity, pore size distribution, pore shape and tortuosity. Given that
these factors also control permeability, it is not surprising that empirical correlations exist for
estimating β as a function of k. An historical example based on data for several sandstones and
carbonates is given in Butler (1994) is:
ln β = 28.83 − 1.201 ln k (4.6.9)

where β is in ft-1 and k is in millidarcies.

4.6.5 Gas Property Correlations

The gas pseudo-pressure solution given in Section 4.6.4 requires the characterization of gas
viscosity and compressibility factor over a finite pressure range. Although they can be measured
in laboratory tests, these properties are commonly estimated using empirical correlations. The
only input parameter required of STABView users is the gas gravity (γg), which is the ratio of the
molecular weight of natural gas to that of air. The molecular weight of air is normally taken as
28.9625 g/gmol.
Pseudo critical temperature (Tpc) and pseudo critical pressure (ppc) of the gas are estimated from
the user-specified gas gravity using the correlation of Sutton (2005):

Tpc = 91.3 + 198.7 γg – 37.6 γg2 (4.6.10)

ppc = 5126 – 864.0 γg + 40.7 γg2 (4.6.11)

where:
Tpc = pseudo critical temperature, K
ppc = pseudo critical pressure, kPa

γg = gas gravity
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 69 November, 2008

Note: Sutton’s equations are applicable for 0.55 < γg < 2.1 with < 2 mol% CO2, < 2 mol% N2
and < 2 mol% H2S. If non-hydrocarbon components are present, the gas gravity should be
based on the hydrocarbon components only.
The gas compressibility factor (Z) is then estimated using the correlation of Dranchuk and Abou-
Kassem (1975), as presented in Londono et al. (2002):

⎡ A A A A ⎤ ⎡ A A ⎤ 2
Z = 1 + ⎢ A1 + 2 + 33 + 44 + 55 ⎥ ρ pr + ⎢ A6 + 7 + 28 ⎥ ρ pr
⎣⎢ Tpr Tpr Tpr Tpr ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ Tpr Tpr ⎦⎥
(4.6.l2)
⎡ A7 A8 ⎤ 5 ρ pr2 − A11 ρ 2pr
− A9 ⎢ + 2 ⎥ ρ pr + A10 (1 + A11ρ pr ) 3 e
2

⎢⎣ Tpr Tpr ⎥⎦ Tpr

where:
Z = gas compressibility factor
ppr = pseudo reduced pressure = p/ppc
Tpr = pseudo reduced temperature = T/Tpc

ρpr = pseudo reduced density = ρ/ρpc

ρ = gas density at the pressure and temperature of interest
ρpc = pseudo critical density
A1 = 0.3265
A2 = -1.0700
A3 = -0.5339
A4 = 0.01569
A5 = -0.05165
A6 = 0.5475
A7 = -0.7361
A8 = 0.1844
A9 = 0.1056
A10 = 0.6134
A11 = 0.7210
The pseudo critical density term used in equation 3 is, itself, a function of Z-factor as follows:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 70 November, 2008

p pr
ρ pc = 0.27 (4.6.13)
Z ⋅ Tpr

An iterative procedure is used to solve for Z and ρpc that satisfy both equations 4.6.l and 4.6.13.
Finally, gas viscosity is estimated using the correlation of Lee at al. (1966) as reported in Sutton
(2005):

µ = Y1 exp(Y5)/10,000 (4.6.14)
where:
Y1 = (22.65 + 0.03873 MW)T 1.5
(209.2 + 19.26 MW + 1.8 T )
Y2 = 3.448 + 548 + 0.01009 MW
T
Y3 = 2.447 – 0.2224 Y2
Y4 = 0.4222 MW
10,000 Bg
Y5 = Y2 (Y4Y3)

MW = gas molecular weight (hydrocarbon components only) = 28.9625 γg

γg = gas gravity (hydrocarbon components only)

T = temperature, K

µ = gas viscosity, mPa⋅s

Bg = gas formation volume factor, (m3)reservoir / (m3)standard conditions

The gas formation volume factor required for the above correlation is calculated as follows:
Bg = 0.351 Z T (4.6.15)
p

where p denotes reservoir pressure, in kPa.

4.7 Physico-chemical Mud Shale Interaction

The flow of fluid (e.g., pore water or filtrate) and solute (e.g., dissolved ions or molecules) into
or out of shales can have a profound influence on near-wellbore pore pressures, stresses, and
deformations. The models presented in this section account for hydraulically-driven flow; i.e.,
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 71 November, 2008

flow which is driven by fluid pressure gradients. Another mechanism which drives fluid flow,
especially for many shales, is referred to as “chemical osmosis” or simply “osmosis.” The basic
principle of osmosis revolves around the concept of a “semi-permeable membrane,” i.e., an
interface which is permeable to water molecules but impermeable to solute ions or molecules.
As illustrated in Figure 4.36, if a semi-permeable membrane separates solutions having different
solute concentrations, an “osmotic pressure potential” exists. Water will flow through the
membrane from the low concentration solution to the high concentration solution. More
specifically, water will flow from the solution having a high water activity to the solution having
a low water activity. As a consequence, fluid pressure in the concentrated solution will increase
until the counter-flow induced by the newly created hydraulic head balances the flow induced by
the concentration difference. At equilibrium, the latter hydraulic pressure difference is referred to
as the “osmotic pressure” of the fluid membrane system.
The recognition of chemical osmosis in shales has led to the common practice of attempting to
control water flow out of (or into) shales by adjusting the solute concentration of drilling muds.
Traditionally it had been believed that the osmotic process was only applicable for oil-based
emulsion drilling muds. In such cases, the film of emulsifier at the interface between water (or
brine) droplets is believed to act as the semi-permeable membrane. More recently, it has become
apparent that some shales may act to some extent as semi-permeable membranes when contacted
with water-based muds. The exact mechanism by which the shale acts as a membrane is not fully
understood, although it is likely related to the reduced mobility of ions or molecules of a given
size, charge or charge distribution within small clay pores bounded by clay particles having
negative surface charges. The efficiency of the solute exclusion process is not perfect in such
cases, so these shales are referred to as “non-ideal” or “leaky” membranes.

Figure 4.36: Osmotic flow of water through an ideal semi-permeable membrane

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 72 November, 2008

The following equation can be used to estimate the change in pore pressure at the borehole wall
due to chemical osmosis:

RT ⎛a ⎞
∆p osm = M eff ln⎜⎜ mud ⎟⎟
Vw ⎝ a shale ⎠ (4.7.1)
where:

∆p osm = osmotic pressure change

M eff = membrane efficiency (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)

R = universal gas constant

T = temperature (absolute)

V w = partial molar volume of water

a mud = water activity of drilling mud (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)

a shale = water activity of shale (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)

To assess the effect of osmosis on near-well stresses and yielding, the following correction can
be applied to terms used throughout this chapter to characterize pore pressure conditions at the
borehole wall:

( p a )corr = p a + ∆p osm (4.7.2)

(∆p )corr = ∆p + ∆p osm (4.7.3)

STABView users can account for osmotic pressure effects at the borehole wall in both the 3D
elastic and 2D elastoplastic models. A “mud wizard” allows users to calculate the activity of a
select group of water-based drilling fluids, and a database of published shale activities helps
guide the selection as a function of the type of shale. For more details on the osmotic pressure
model and other physico-chemical mud-sale interaction effects readers are referred to the
comprehensive review of the subject prepared by Advanced Geotechnology for the Gas Research
Institute (Hawkes et al, 2000). Additional data on shale activities and membrane efficiencies for
shales from around the world are compiled in Advanced Geotechnology’s ROCKSBank database
(2006).

4.8 Thermo-hydraulic Hole Enlargement in Permafrost

While rock mechanical factors can lead to rock yielding and the eventual detachment of failed
material into a wellbore, there is another significant mechanism for hole enlargement. Borehole
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 73 November, 2008

Permafrost

Interval

T < 0°C

dh

db

Figure 4.37: Schematic showing the mechanism of hole enlargement while drilling
permafrost based on the model of Kutasov and Caruthers (1988).
erosion, due to the action of fluids circulating at sufficient velocity in an annulus, can also cause
intact or yielded rock to detach. The treatment of the hydraulic forces that will result in erosion
is a complicated subject and beyond the scope of this manual. STABView does, however, allow
the user to predict the potential for hole enlargement in the special case of a vertical borehole
through permafrost.

As shown in Figure 4.37 the erosive action of a warm drilling fluid circulating down drillpipe
and back along the annulus between a permafrost-rich formation and the drillpipe can cause the
borehole to “washout” to a new diameter with time. This new diameter is a function of many
factors including: the fluid’s temperature and thermal conductivity, the latent heat of fusion for
ice, the ice saturation and porosity of the formation, the circulation rate of the fluid, and it’s
rheological characteristics.

Appendix D of this manual describes a simple model for permafrost hole enlargement that is
available in STABView. This model is based on the published work of Kutasov and Caruthers
(1988) and Kutasov (1999).

4.9 Analysis of Slip Tendency on a Weak Discontinuity

If elevated fluid pressures in a borehole (e.g., due to drilling with a weighted mud system or due
to fluid injection) migrate into natural fractures or faults, the effective normal stress acting on
these discontinuities is reduced. Such a reduction may result in shear failure or slippage on these
discontinuities, which can negatively impact drilling, completion and production operations,
and/or compromise the hydraulic integrity of a reservoir.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 74 November, 2008

The following 2D stress transform can be used to calculate the normal stress (σnpow) and shear
stress (τpow) acting on a discontinuity inclined at an angle θ from the x-axis, when σx and σy are
principal stresses, and the strike of the discontinuity is parallel with the third principal stress (σz),
as illustrated in Figure 4.38:

σ npow = σ x cos 2 θ + σ y sin 2 θ

(4.9.1)
σ y −σ x
τ pow = sin 2θ
2 (4.9.2)
Assuming that the strength of the discontinuity can be characterized by a linear Mohr-Coulomb
criterion, with cohesion cpow and friction angle φpow, slip will occur when:

τ pow ≥ c pow + (σ npow − p ) tan φ pow

(4.9.3)
Assuming isothermal conditions, and that the localized induced stress changes in the near-well
area have negligible impact on the behaviour of relatively large-scale discontinuities, the critical
pressure required to induce slip (pslip) can be solved from equation 4.9.3:

c pow + σ npow tan φ pow − τ pow

p slip =
tan φ pow
(4.9.4)
STABView includes a model for 3D slip analysis on weak discontinuities. The methodology
used for these calculations follows directly from equations 4.9.1 through 4.9.4. The only
difference is that a general, 3D stress transformation is used to resolve the normal and shear
stresses acting on the discontinuity. Equations for such stress transformations can be found in
most rock mechanics textbooks (e.g., Jaeger and Cook, 1979).

Planar discontinuity

y
σnpow

σx τpow

θ
x

σy

Figure 4.38 Resolution of stresses acting on a planar discontinuity, for the 2D case.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 75 November, 2008

4.10 Analysis of Re-opening Tendency on a Weak Discontinuity

In a manner very similar to the induced slip risks described in Section 4.9, it is also possible to
re-open natural fractures and faults if elevated borehole pressures exceed the magnitude of the
stress component acting normal to the discontinuity plane. Depending on the discontinuity
orientation and the in-situ stress regime, it is possible for this to occur at pressures lower than the
critical slip pressure (pslip).
For the 2D case illustrated in Figure 4.38, the normal stress acting on a weak discontinuity can
be calculated using equation 4.9.1. The critical pressure required to re-open the discontinuity
(popen) is then given by:

p open = σ npow
(4.10.1)
STABView includes a model for fracture re-opening analysis. The methodology used for these
calculations follows directly from equations 4.9.1 and 4.9.4. The only difference is that a general,
3D stress transformation is used to resolve the normal stress acting on the discontinuity.
Equations for such stress transformations can be found in most rock mechanics textbooks (e.g.,
Jaeger and Cook, 1979).

4.11 Strength Factor as a Measure of Hole Collapse and Fracturing Risks

Sections 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9 and 4.10 present the equations and methodologies for calculating the
critical bottomhole pressures at which various types of yielding or failure events initiate (e.g.,
active or passive shear yielding; tensile fracturing; re-opening or slip on weak discontinuities).
An alternative approach for analyzing these yielding and failure events is to calculate the
relevant strength factor for a prescribed bottomhole pressure or mud density. In a general sense,
strength factor is defined as the ratio of rock strength to the stress(es) that drive yielding or
failure. As such, a strength factor less than 1.0 indicates that yielding or failure has initiated.
Various types of strength factors are used in STABView. Their specific definitions are given as
follows:
For compressive shear failure (both active and passive):

σ1f − σ 3
SF = (4.11.1)
σ1 − σ 3

where:
SF = strength factor

σ1 = maximum principal stress

σ3 = minimum principal stress
σ1f = value of σ1 at which compressive shear failure occurs
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 76 November, 2008

For tensile failure:

−σT
SF = (4.11.2)
σ 3 − αp a
where:
σT = tensile strength
α = Biot’s coefficient
pa = pore pressure at the borehole wall

For plane of weakness reopening:

σT
SF = (4.11.3)
pw
where:
σT = tensile strength

For slip on a weak discontinuity:

(σ npow − p w ) tan φ pow + c pow
SF = (4.11.3)
τ pow
where:
σnpow = normal stress acting on the discontinuity
pw = bottomhole pressure
φpow = friction angle of the discontinuity
cpow = cohesion of the discontinuity
τpow = shear stress acting on the discontinuity

For re-opening of a weak discontinuity:

σ npow
SF = (4.11.4)
pw

Note: Given that there is limited practical value in reporting strength factors that are excessively
large, the output generated by STABView is truncated at a maximum value of 10.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 77 November, 2008

5. STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO USING STABVIEW

Creating an analysis case using STABView is usually a three step process as follows:
1. Enter the basic model properties, including wellbore data.
2. Input rock mechanical properties, formation pressure and in-situ stress data.
3. Select graphical or text-based output windows.
When the user elects to create a new problem, the STABView “Analysis Assistant” dialog box is
displayed in order to guide the user through these steps. When the user elects to open an existing
analysis file, the output windows previously generated are displayed immediately. However, it is
possible to return to the model properties and input data forms and change the input parameters
at any time.
Several example files have been included with the program. These files can be found in the
folder where the program files were installed (default location = C:\Program Files\STABView
3.8\Sample Cases). It is recommended that new users open these example files and preview the
basic features of the software before attempting to create new files.
The following sections summarize the details of the three steps required to create and analyze a
new openhole fracturing problem.

5.1 Enter the Basic Model Properties

5.1.1 Analysis Type

The analysis type is the primary input required to define the type of problem the user is asking
the software to solve. Several graphs and options will only be available in a specific analysis
type and/or mode. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 provides a detailed overview of the graphs available for
each analysis type and mode. Table 5.3 briefly summarizes types of analysis available in
STABView.

5.1.2 Analysis Mode

This input allows the user to specify the type of analysis to be conducted, and whether the
objective is to calculate risk factors for specified wellbore pressures (or mud densities) as
opposed to calculating the wellbore pressure required to achieve specified risk parameter values.
A user may switch between analysis modes but when the user switches modes they will be
presented with a warning dialog. Figure 5.1 shows the Switch Analysis Mode warning dialog
that is displayed when a user switches from “Pressure” to “Risk” analysis mode. A similar dialog
is presented when the user switches from “Risk” to “Pressure” mode. A user should take note of
the warnings presented and proceed with caution if they choose to continue. The user should
also note that not all STABView graphs are available in both “Risk” and “Pressure” modes.
After switching analysis mode or type all open graphs will continue to function in the mode and
type they were originally opened in.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 78 November, 2008

Table 5.1: STABView Analysis Types

Type Description Typical Applications

Hole Collapse While Use this analysis type to calculate the collapse Controlled Pressure Drilling
Drilling risks associated with a specified wellbore Underbalanced Drilling
pressure (or mud density) or to calculate a Overbalanced Drilling
wellbore pressure (or mud density) that prevents
hole collapse.

Fracture Breakdown / Use this analysis type to calculate the fracture Overbalanced Drilling
Lost Circulation initiation or breakdown risks for a specified Completions
wellbore pressure or to calculate a wellbore Workovers
pressure that prevents fracture breakdown. This Stimulation
option can also be used to investigate the risk of
fracture re-opening or fault reactivation.

Hole Collapse and Use this analysis type to calculate the collapse Overbalance Drilling
Fracture Breakdown / and fracture breakdown risks associated with a Controlled Pressure Drilling
Lost Circulation specified wellbore pressure or to calculate a
wellbore pressure that prevents hole collapse and
fracture breakdown. This is where a “mud
weight window” can be generated in pressure
mode.

Sand Production / Open Use this analysis type to calculate the sanding Sand Production Prediction
Hole Stability Under risks associated with a specified drawdown Openhole completion
Drawdown pressure or to calculate a drawdown pressure that Cavity completions
prevents or mitigates sanding. Openhole, slotted
liner, screen and perforated completion options
available.

Figure 5.1: Switching Analysis Mode dialog shown when a user switches
from “Pressure” to “Risk” mode.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 79 November, 2008

Table 5.2: Available Graphs in STABView by Analysis Mode, Type and Model - Drilling Applications
Combined - Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Type
Hole Collapse While Drilling Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Model Type Borehole Collapse Models Fracture Models
2D Permafrost 2D Elastoplastic 3D Linear Elastic 3D Linear Elastic 3D Linear Elastic 3D Anisotropic 3D Slip Analysis Fracture Re- Fracture Mechanics
Hole with Mohr- with Mohr- Model for Tensile Model for the Elastic Properties for a Weak opening of a Weak Based Model
Enlargement Coulomb Failure Coulomb , Hoek Fracture Initiation of Passive Model for Tensile Discontinuity Discontinuity Tensile Fracture
Calculation
Criterion Brown or Lade Breakdown with or Shear Yielding Fracture Breakdown
Models Failure Criteria without Deep Fluid ("Borehole
Penetration Ballooning")

Pressure & Flow Borehole Collapse Borehole Collapse Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow
Properties Options Options Properties Properties Properties Properties Properties Properties

Stress Depletion Pressure & Flow Pressure & Flow Fracture Calibration Fracture Calibration Fracture Calibration Fracture Calibration Fracture Calibration Fracture Calibration
Properties Properties

Osmotic Effects Collapse Calibration Collapse Calibration Stress Depletion Stress Depletion Stress Depletion Stress Depletion Stress Depletion Stress Depletion
Available
Model Thermal Effects Stress Depletion Stress Depletion Osmotic Effects Osmotic Effects
Options Temperature Osmotic Effects Osmotic Effects Thermal Effects
Permafrost Thermal Effects Thermal Effects Temperature
Temperature Temperature
Strains &
Deformations

Depth Profile - Collapse Risk//Pressure Depth Profile - with Strength Factor/Fracture Breakdown Pressure

Pressure - Collapse Risk/Pressure Tornado/Spider Plot - with Strength

Factor/Fracture Breakdown Pressure
Pressure - Deformation Risk/Pressure Well Profile - 3D with Strength Factor/Fracture Breakdown Pressure

Radial Distance - Pressure Well Profile - Plan with Strength Factor/Fracture Breakdown Pressure
Radial Distance - Stress and Pressure Well Profile - VS Plane with Strength Factor/Fracture Breakdown Pressure

Tornado/Spider Plot - Collapse

Risk/Pressure
Well Profile - 3D with Collapse
Risk/Pressure
Well Profile - Plan with Collapse
Risk/Pressure
Standard Well Profile - VS Plane with Collapse
Output* Risk/Pressure
Cross-section Yielded Zone

Cross‐section 
Strength Factor
Well Profile 3D with Pressure Window

Well Profile - Plan with Pressure Window

Well Profile - VS Plane with Pressure Window

Depth Profile - Collapse and Fracture Breakdown Pressure

Sensitivity - Pressure Window

Permafrost - Hole Azimuth - Collapse Azimuth - Fracture Breakdown Pitch - Fracture Dip Angle - Slip Polar Plot - Re- Inclination - Fracture
Enlargement Risk/Pressure Risk/Pressure Breakdown Pressure Risk/Pressure opening Breakdown Pressure
Risk/Pressure

Permafrost Well Azimuth - Pressure Window Polar Plot - Fracture

Hydraulics Breakdown Pressure

Inclination - Inclination - Fracture Breakdown Pitch - Well Dip Direction - Slip

Collapse Risk/Pressure Trajectory Risk/Pressure
Risk/Pressure
Inclination - Pressure Window
Additional
Polar Plot - Polar Plot - Fracture Breakdown Polar Plot - Slip
Output Collapse Risk/Pressure Risk/Pressure
Risk/Pressure
Polar Plot - Pressure Window
Radial Distance - Azimuth - Fracture Initiation Angle
Normal Stresses &
Pressure
Radial Distance - Inclination - Fracture Initiation Angle
Principal Stresses &
Pressure
Radial Distance - Polar Plot - Fracture Initiation Angle
Shear Stresses &
Pressure

Option only available in "Risk" mode

Option only available in "Pressure" mode
Option only available in Drilling Hole Collapse / Fracture Breakdown Lost Circulation "Pressure" mode
All other options are available in both "Risk" and "Pressure" modes
* Standard Output for All Models:
Text Report - Multiple Depth Input Report
Text Report - Multiple Depth Output Report
Text Report - Single Depth Analysis
Well Profile - 3D
Well Profile - Plan
Well Profile - VS Plane
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 80 November, 2008

Table 5.3: Available Graphs in STABView by Analysis Mode, Type and Model - Sand
Production Application
Analysis Type Sand Production / Open Hole Stability Under Drawdown
Model Type Borehole or Perforation Collapse Models
Calculation 2D Elastoplastic with Mohr-Coulomb Failure 3D Linear Elastic with Mohr-Coulomb, Hoek Brown
Models Criterion or Lade Failure Criterion
Borehole Collapse Options Borehole or Perforation Collapse Options
Pressure & Flow Properties Pressure & Flow Properties
Collapse Calibration Collapse Calibration
Available Stress Depletion Stress Depletion
Model Options
Completion Type Completion Type
Strains & Deformations Gas Properties
Gas Properties
Depth Profile - Collapse Pressure / Risk**
Depletion - Critical Drawdown
Pressure - Collapse Risk
Pressure - Deformation Risk
Tornado/Spider Plot - Collapse Pressure / Risk
Standard Radial Distance - Pressure
Output* Radial Distance - Stress and Pressure
Well Profile - 3D with Collapse Pressure / Risk**
Well Profile - Plan with Collapse Pressure / Risk**
Well Profile - VS Plane with Collapse Pressure / Risk**
Cross-section Yielded Zone
Cross-section Strength Factor
Azimuth - Collapse Pressure / Risk
Inclination - Collapse Pressure Risk
Additional
Output for Polar Plot - Collapse Pressure / Risk
Boreholes and Radial Distance - Normal Stresses & Pressure
Perforations Radial Distance - Principal Stresses & Pressure
Radial Distance - Shear Stresses & Pressure

Option only available in "Risk" mode

Option only available in "Pressure" mode
All other options are available in both "Risk" and "Pressure" modes
* Standard Output for All Models:
Text Report - Multiple Depth Input Report
Text Report - Multiple Depth Output Report
Text Report - Single Depth Analysis
Well Profile - 3D
Well Profile - Plan
Well Profile - VS Plane
** Available for boreholes only
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 81 November, 2008

Model Properties dialog showing the Analysis Type and Case Properties tabs.

5.1.3 Case Properties

This input form allows the user to specify background information for the current analysis. The
data entered on this form are not used by the STABView calculation algorithms, but they are
listed in the text-based output reports generated by the program.

5.1.4 Well Data

The selection of “Single Depth Analysis” or “Multiple Depth Analysis” for the “Data Entry
Mode” option affects the configuration of subsequent “Model Properties” input forms. The
remainder of this section assumes that the user has selected the “Multiple Depth Analysis”
option, and describes the procedures required to operate in this mode. In cases where the “Single
Depth Analysis” mode is selected, a limited number of model properties are required before
proceeding to the “Input Rock Mechanical and Pressure Data” form.
The selection of an “Onshore” or “Offshore” well location will affect how vertical stress
gradients are calculated (due to the absence or presence of a column of sea-water).

5.1.5 Well Survey

For rapid analyses, the user may specify a simple well trajectory in the form a vertical well, an
inclined well with constant trajectory from surface to total depth, or a horizontal well segment
occurring at a specified vertical depth such as a well branch. For more rigorous simulations of
openhole fracturing risks or more complex well designs, the user can elect to build or specify a
directional well survey. Required inputs for this survey are measured depth, well inclination and
well azimuth. The user can enter these values manually, or paste data generated in or provided
by another application into the input form.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 82 November, 2008

From the three columns of well survey input data STABView calculates by the Minimum
Curvature Method the true vertical depth (TVD), north-south and east-west offset distances and
dogleg severity (DLS).

Well Data and Well Survey tabs from Model Properties Dialog.

5.1.6 Borehole Sizes

The user has the option to specify a uniform borehole diameter for the entire well, or to enter
values in a table that lists the borehole diameters used for different depth intervals of the well.
The borehole diameter data for selected analysis depths are listed in the text-based output reports
generated by STABView.

5.1.7 Tubulars

This input data form allows the user to specify the internal and external dimensions and
measured depth interval for casing strings, liners, screens or production tubulars in the well being
analyzed. These data are not currently used by STABView's calculation algorithms, but they are

Borehole Sizes and Tubulars tabs from Model Properties Dialog.

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 83 November, 2008

displayed in the text-based output reports , depth profile and

3D well profile graphs generated by the program. Some of this
information will be used in a future release of STABView that
will optimize casing setting depths.

Stratigraphic Units tab.

5.1.8 Stratigraphic Units

In this dialog the user first enters names for the stratigraphic
units to be analyzed for a given well with STABView. The
lithology of each unit can be manually entered, or selected
from the drop-down list of pre-defined lithologies. Example
patterns for various lithologies are shown in Figure 5.2. By
clicking on the colored button beside the lithology descriptor,
the user selects a color and pattern for each stratigraphic unit.
Figure 5.2: Example of
The top and bottom depth for each unit can be entered as a lithology patterns and colors
measured depth or a true vertical depth. It is NOT required that available in STABView.
stratigraphic units be specified from the ground surface level
(or sea-floor for offshore wells) to total depth, nor is it required that the bottom depth of a given
stratigraphic unit is equal to the top depth of the underlying unit. STABView will only calculate
borehole collapse and fracture pressures or risks in well intervals for which stratigraphic units
have been defined.

5.2 Rock Mechanical and Pressure Data

5.2.1 Formation Pressures and In-situ Stresses

The user is required to enter in-situ stresses and formation pressures for each stratigraphic unit.
These values can be specified as average gradients or as absolute values. When the gradient
option is selected, the user may choose to enter a constant gradient for each stratigraphic unit by
selecting the “Use Identical Gradient Values at Top and Bottom of Each Unit” check box. If this
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 84 November, 2008

check box is not selected, or if the “Absolute Values” option is selected, the user must enter
stress and pressure values at the top and at the bottom of each unit.
When a formation pressure or in-situ stress is entered as an average gradient, the absolute value
of this parameter is calculated assuming that the gradient specified is with respect to vertical
depth from the kelly bushing (KB) or rotary table. For example, the vertical stress at a given
vertical depth (TVD) is calculated from a vertical stress gradient as follows:
σv = σv gradient x TVD (KB) (5.1)

Note that the same procedure is used in STABView to calculate vertical and horizontal stresses
or formation pressures for offshore and onshore wells. While this calculation will in fact
introduce an error for offshore wells, that depends upon the water depth and the depth of the
target interval below the seabed, the procedure is consistent with the typical practice used by
most service and operating companies. If the user wants a more accurate profile of stresses and
gradients, for example, a deep water case where the initial casing string is the concern, then the
user should enter absolute stress and pressure data into STABView, not gradients.

Formation Pressures and Stresses tab from Input Data dialog.

5.2.2 Rock Mechanical Properties

The user is required to specify values for all of the properties listed for each stratigraphic unit.
The default Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters (peak cohesion and peak friction angle),
static elastic properties (Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus), tensile strength and Biot’s
coefficient are well-known rock mechanical properties. Depending on the model or model
options a user has selected other rock mechanical properties may need to be entered on other
dialogs.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 85 November, 2008

Rock Mechanical Properties tab.

5.2.3 Formation Fluid Penetration Properties

The user is required to specify values for all of the properties listed for each stratigraphic unit.
The capillary threshold pressure is the overbalance pressure that must be exceeded before a non-
wetting drilling fluid (typically oil- or synthetic-based) will penetrate a water-wet formation.
Once the threshold pressure has been exceeded, it is assumed that mud pressure penetration
occurs.
The fluid penetration coefficient (εfp), which is specified for fracture or lost circulation problems,
and was defined in Section 4.6.1, is a measure of how well the pressure penetrates the near well
area. A fluid penetration coefficient of 1.0 indicates a fully-penetrating fluid, whereas a value of
0.0 indicates a non-penetrating fluid.

Fluid Penetration Properties tab.

The filter cake or wall coating efficiency (εfc) is a parameter that characterizes the extent to
which the pore pressure at the borehole wall increases in response to an overbalance pressure.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 86 November, 2008

Mathematically, the filter cake or wall coating efficiency is equal to one minus the fluid
penetration coefficient.
The linear elastic algorithms used for 3D fracture breakdown and borehole collapse calculations
at the borehole wall in STABView are sensitive to the pore pressure within the formation right at
the wall. Pore pressures are actually calculated as a function of radius for steady-state inflow or
outflow conditions. The latter pressures are used for elastic and elastoplastic yielded zone size
calculations.

Model Options tab from Input Data dialog.

5.2.4 Model Options

For any given stratigraphic unit, the user may activate any of a number of modeling options. The
first options pertain to the selection of the type of fracture breakdown or borehole collapse
model. These model types are described in Section 4. The additional input parameters required
for these model types are displayed on the "Model Options" tab once the appropriate model type
has been selected. For certain model types, input parameters specified on the “Rock and Fluid
Properties” input tab are implicitly modified or not used.
The availability of additional model options depends on the selected model type. Once the
model type is selected, only the relevant options are displayed. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 summarizes
the available model options available for each model type. A brief description of all of these
options follows.
Borehole Collapse Options: A number of additional options are available when using the
borehole collapse models. There is an option to specify the amount of maximum tolerable
yielding around the borehole. By default the collapse models used in STABView predict the
initiation of borehole yielding, where in reality some amount of yielding may generally be
tolerated. Other options are available for the calculation of effective stress and analyzing the
effects of a plane of weakness on borehole collapse risks.
Calibration: If the fracture breakdown or borehole collapse pressure for a given depth and well
trajectory is known from previous experience, two options are provided to calibrate
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 87 November, 2008

STABView’s linear elastic models to provide output that is consistent with these observations.
For the Linear Multiplier option, the ratio of the known pressure to the theoretical pressure
calculated with the selected model is determined. Subsequently, all of the calculated output is
multiplied by this ratio. For the Linear Offset option, the difference between the known pressure
and the theoretical pressure calculated with the selected model is determined. Subsequently, this
difference of offset is subtracted from all of the calculated output.
Stress Depletion or Re-pressurization: Formation pressure changes in many reservoirs are
known to alter the total in-situ stress magnitudes within the reservoir. The user may select
whether to estimate these changes using a simple uniaxial strain, poro-elastic model suitable for
passive basins, or using simple plane-strain solutions suitable for normal or thrust-faulted basins.
Formation re-pressurization due to injection may also be accounted for in this option. See Addis
(1997) for more technical details on these options.
Osmotic Pressure Effects: Many shale, mudstone and claystone formations can act as partially
effective osmotic (i.e., semi-permeable) membranes. For such shales, near-well pore pressure
changes can occur as a result of water flows driven by chemical potential gradients which exist
when the chemical activity of water in the borehole is different from the chemical activity of the
formation water. For these conditions, STABView can calculate the osmotically-induced pore
pressure change (which may be positive or negative) at the borehole wall, which is additive to
the pore pressure change caused by fluid leakoff. For a complete review of the subject of
physico-chemical interaction in shales, see the Gas Research Institute report prepared by
Advanced Geotechnology (Hawkes et al., 2000).
Permafrost: The 2D Permafrost Hole Enlargement model requires several additional input
parameters that describe the drilling mud properties, rheological model and hydraulic
parameters. A more thorough discussion of the input parameters and hole enlargement model in
permafrost used in STABView can be found in Appendix D.
Strains and Deformations: If the 2D Elastoplastic model has been selected the user has the
option of analyzing the affects of borehole deformation or liner loading. Further details about
these calculations can be found in Section 4.3.4 Elasto-plastic Modelling of Borehole
Deformations and Liner Loading.
Thermal Effects: The introduction of a borehole fluid with a temperature that is different from
the initial formation temperature results in the generation of thermal stresses in the formation.
When this option is selected, the effect of these additional stresses on borehole collapse and
fracture breakdown pressures is included in the calculated output.
Temperature: When either of the “Osmotic Effects” or “Thermal Effects” advanced options are
selected, wellbore and formation temperatures are required input parameters.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 88 November, 2008

5.3 Additional Functionality Accessed from Menus and Toolbar Icons

Additional capabilities for modifying the properties of output graphs, setting up preferred user
settings and for exporting STABView output to other applications are available from the main
menu, from toolbars buttons and from drop-down menus. This section summarizes these
features.
Other than the standard Windows Toolbar buttons, STABView has additional Toolbar buttons as
listed in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Summary of STABView buttons

Edit the model properties Set user preferences

Edit the rock mechanical and pressure data Switch analysis mode from pressure to risk

Create a new graph or report Switch analysis mode from risk to pressure

Set sensitivity Run the case or a selected graph.

Switch to tornado plot from spider plot Switch to spider plot from tornado plot

Set pressure or risk parameter type Tile the open graph windows

Set scaling Cascade the open graph windows

Set depth plot or 3D graph properties Rotate the viewing window

Position the viewing window Zoom in/out the viewing window

5.3.1 "File” Menu

The “New”, “Open”, “Save”,

“Save As” and “Printer Setup”
menu items function in the same
manner as most other windows-
based applications. Selecting
“Open” from the file menu or
the button on the toolbar opens a
file open dialog as shown in
Figure 5.3. The file open dialog
allows the user to quickly
preview the case properties of
any case by just selecting a
STABView file (bhs file). A
Figure 5.3 Open File Dialog.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 89 November, 2008

file may be opened by selecting

the “Open” or the “Open (No
Graphs) button. By default
STABView will open a case and
regenerate all graphs saved with
the case. The “Open (No
Graphs)” button allows the user
to quickly open a STABView
case and not generate the graphs
saved with a case. This can be
very useful for complex cases
that were previously saved with
time consuming plots.
However, a user should be
cautious when using this option
Figure 5.4 Print File Dialog. since if the case is resaved all
previously generated graphs will
be lost.
The “Print” entry opens a print dialog form as shown in Figure 5.4. The print dialog allows the
user to specify which of the existing output graphs and reports to send to the printer and provides
an inset print preview window of the generated output.

5.3.2 "Edit” Menu

“Copy to Clipboard” places a copy of the currently selected graphic or text into the clipboard, so
it can be pasted into another application.
“Edit the Model Properties” opens the “Model Properties” input data form, allowing the user
to change any of the entries. Once the “OK” button is clicked on this form, any existing output
data windows are re-calculated and refreshed. This capability can also be accessed using the
toolbar button for editing the model properties on the main toolbar.
“Edit the Rock Mechanical and Pressure Data” opens the “Input Rock Mechanical and
Pressure Data” input data form, allowing the user to change any of the existing data entries or
advanced options. Model output is re-calculated and refreshed when the "OK" button is clicked.
This capability can also be accessed using the toolbar button for editing the rock mechanical and
pressure data on the main toolbar.
“Create a New Graph or Report” allows the user to create a new output window that contains
an output graph or text-based report. This capability can also be accessed using the toolbar
button for creating a new graph or report on the main toolbar. See Section 5.4 Adding Graphical
or Text Based Output Windows for more details.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 90 November, 2008

5.3.3 “Run” Menu

“Run Case” allows a user to recalculate the case after changes have been made to model
properties and input data. This menu is enabled by default and allows the user to make several
modifications to case parameters without forcing recalculation. A user may disable the “Run”
menu from the “Tools – Set Run Case Preferences” menu option
“Run Graph” provides the user the option to just generate the output for selected graph. This
can be useful when a user has a number of graphs open and would like to make a change on just
one graph without running the entire case again.

5.3.4 "Tools” Menu

“Define A Custom Units Set” opens a utility that lets the user assign SI Metric or US Oilfield
units for each data type used by the program.
“Set Sensitivity” allows the user to select a
sensitivity parameter or collapse model for
comparison on the current output graph. Graph
sensitivity properties can also be accessed using
the toolbar button for setting sensitivity on the
active graph window toolbar. After selecting the
menu or toolbar option a select sensitivity group
dialog will open as shown in Figure 5.5. This Figure 5.5 Sensitivity Group Selection
dialog allows the user to select from the various Dialog.
sensitivity options available for display on the
selected graph. Figure 5.6 shows the Input
Sensitivity dialog for selecting general input
parameter sensitivities which allows the user to
specify input ranges as absolute values or as a
percentage of the base value.
The current version of STABView provides
support for showing general input parameter
sensitivities and collapse model comparisons.
Future versions of STABView will expand on
this capability and allow the user to add
additional parameters such as calibration, stress
depletion models, fracture models and wellbore
pressures.
Figure 5.6 Sensitivity Input Parameter
“Set Pressure or Risk Parameter Type” Dialog.
allows the user to specify whether the output
should be expressed as a bottomhole pressure, an
average pressure gradient, or an equivalent circulating density (ECD). This feature can also be
accessed using the toolbar button for setting pressure or risk parameter type on the active graph
window toolbar.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 91 November, 2008

“Set Scaling” allows the user to specify the maximum and minimum value for the pressure axis
on the current graph. For polar plots, no data will be plotted for areas where the data values fall
outside the specified range. This feature can also be accessed using the toolbar button for setting
scaling on the active graph window toolbar.
“Set Run Case Preferences” allows the user to disable or enable the “Run” button and menu
“Set Analysis Mode” allows the user to switch between analysis modes quickly. The user
should still be aware of the potential risks as outlined in section 5.1.2.
“Change Well Profile Settings” allows the user to set certain properties for all well profile
plots. The user can adjust the graphics quality and calculation speed of these plots.
“Export Datasets to File” allows the user
to export the raw data for the current graph
window to a text file.
“Export Graphic Image to File” allows
the user to export the current graph
window as an extended metafile (.emf) or
bitmap (.bmp) format graphical image.
“View Datasets in Notepad” dumps the
raw data for the current graph into the
Notepad text editor tool.
“Preferences” displays a dialog (Figure
5.7) that allows the user to customize
global application settings. A detailed
description of the available settings and
options is provided in Table 5.5.
Figure 5.7: Example of Preferences dialog box.

5.3.5 "Windows” Menu

“Tile Output” and “Cascade Output” provide two different methods for organizing and
viewing the output windows. These features can also be accessed using the toolbar button for
tiling the open graphs and the toolbar button for cascading the open graph windows on the main
toolbar.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 92 November, 2008

Table 5.5: STABView Preferences

Preference Description Options Default

General Preferences
Run Case Set case to run automatically after changes are Yes Yes
made on the Model or Input dialogs. No

Default Units Defines the unit set used when generating a new Metric (Modified SI) Metric
case but does not have any effect when opening an US Oilfield (Modified SI)
existing case.
Metric High Precision
US Oilfield-High Precision
User defined units
Well Profile Resolution Sets the resolution all graphs showing a well 1-4 1
profile (i.e., depth profile plot) will be displayed 1 = Best speed
at.
4 = Best graphics

Cross-Sections
Display tubulars and rock Display tubulars and rock deformations if Yes Yes
deformations? available. No

Display complete set of input Display an additional set of parameters on the Yes Yes
parameters? right side of a cross-section. No

Display breakout angle? Displays the breakout angle and draws the angle Yes Yes
on the borehole cross-section for the 3D elastic No
model. The 2D elastoplastic model does not
generate a breakout angle.

Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Use minimum in-situ stress as lower limit for Yes Yes
breakdown pressure? No

Color Display all polar plots in color or gray scale. Plot in color Plot in color
Plot in grayscale
Resolution Sets the resolution a polar plot will be displayed 1-4 1
at. 1 = Best speed
4 = Best graphics
Angles (Apply to wells and perforation tunnels)
Vertical Well Angle Tolerance Near Vertical Wells: For well inclinations greater 0-45° 15°
than this value, cross-sections of the wellbore are
referenced to the top side of the hole. (TOH).

Horizontal Well Angle Near Horizontal Wells: When the difference 0-45° 15°
Tolerance between the well inclination and a horizontal
trajectory is less than this value the top side of the
hole is labeled as the vertical stress direction.

Angular Tolerance for the 2D Maximum inclination and azimuth angle at which 0-45 25°
Elastoplastic Model a well trajectory can deviate from a principal stress
direction and still use the 2D elastoplastic model.
Wells with an inclination angle greater than this
value cannot use this model.

Horizontal Stress Ratio Maximum allowable ratio of the two horizontal in- 5-100% 5%
Tolerance for the 2D situ principal stresses , that will allow a user to use
Elastoplastic Model the 2D elastoplastic model, for a horizontal well
section oriented within the angular tolerance of a
horizontal principal stress
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 93 November, 2008

5.3.6 "Help” Menu

This menu entry provides access to the help file, as well as basic information about the version of
STABView installed on the user’s computer.

5.3.7 Drop-Down Menus

Most of the features described above can also be

accessed from drop-down or right click menus that
are activated by pointing at the output window of
interest and clicking the right mouse button. This
method is generally the easiest and most direct way
to operate the program, once the user is familiar
with its over-all functionality.

5.4 Adding Graphical or Text-based Output Windows

STABView offers considerable flexibility in terms of the quantity and character of output data
displayed. The user can generate practically any number of output windows, each of which may
contain any of a number of graphical or text-based displays. Below is a list of the currently
available output windows in STABView. Note that the availability of these graphs depends on
the analysis mode/type and modeling options that have been selected. Appendix F provides a
detailed overview of the graphs available for each analysis type/mode and options.
STABView Output Graphs and Reports
General Output (all analysis types)
• Text Report – Multiple Depth Input Report
• Text Report – Multiple Depth Output Report
• Text Report – Single Depth Analysis Report
• Well Profile – 3D View
• Well Profile – Plan View
• Well Profile – Vertical Section (VS) Plane View
Hole Collapse While Drilling
General Output (both analysis modes)
• Cross-Section – Yielded Zone
• Cross-Section – Strength Factor (not 2D Elastoplastic Model)
• Pressure – Collapse Risk
• Pressure – Deformation Risk
• Radial Distance – Normal Stresses and Pore Pressure
• Radial Distance – Shear Stresses and Pore Pressure
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 94 November, 2008

• Radial Distance – Principal Stresses and Pore Pressure

• Radial Distance – Pressure
Pressure Mode
• Azimuth – Collapse Pressure
• Depth Profile – Collapse Pressure
• Inclination – Collapse Pressure
• Polar Plot – Collapse Pressure
• Spider Plot – Collapse Pressure
• Tornado Plot – Collapse Pressure
• Well Profile – 3D View with Collapse Pressure
• Well Profile – Plan View with Collapse Pressure
• Well Profile – Vertical Section Plane view with Collapse Pressure
Risk Mode
• Azimuth – Collapse Risk
• Depth Profile – Collapse Risk
• Inclination – Collapse Risk
• Polar Plot – Collapse Risk
• Radial Distance – Stress and Pressure
• Spider Plot – Collapse Risk
• Tornado Plot – Collapse Risk
• Well Profile – 3D View with Collapse Risk
• Well Profile – Plan View with Collapse Risk
• Well Profile – Vertical Section Plane View with Collapse Risk
• Permafrost Hole Enlargement
• Permafrost Well Hydraulics
Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Pressure Mode
• Azimuth – Fracture Breakdown Pressure
• Azimuth – Fracture Initiation Angle
• Depth Profile – Fracture Breakdown Pressure
• Inclination – Fracture Breakdown Pressure
• Inclination – Fracture Initiation Angle
• Polar Plot – Fracture Pressure
• Polar Plot – Fracture Initiation Angle
• Spider Plot – Fracture Pressure
• Tornado Plot – Fracture Pressure
• Well Profile – 3D View with Fracture Pressure (Breakdown, Re-opening, Slip)
• Well Profile – Plan View with Fracture Pressure (Breakdown, Re-opening, Slip)
• Well Profile – VS Plane View with Fracture Pressure (Breakdown, Re-opening, Slip)
• Pitch – Fracture Breakdown Pressure
• Pitch – Well Trajectory
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 95 November, 2008

• Dip Angle – Slip Pressure

• Dip Direction – Slip Pressure
• Polar Plot – Slip Pressure
• Dip Angle – Re-opening Pressure
• Dip Direction – Re-opening Pressure
• Polar Plot – Re-opening Pressure
Risk Mode
• Azimuth – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Depth Profile – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Inclination – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Polar Plot – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Spider Plot – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Tornado Plot – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Well Profile – 3D View with Safety Factor
• Well Profile – Plan View with Safety Factor
• Well Profile – Vertical Section Plane View with Safety Factor
• Pitch – Fracture Breakdown Risk
• Pitch – Well Trajectory
• Dip Angle – Slip Risk
• Dip Direction – Slip Risk
• Polar Plot – Slip Risk
• Dip Angle – Re-opening Risk
• Dip Direction – Re-opening Risk
• Polar Plot – Re-opening Risk
Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Pressure Mode
All of the graphs available for Hole Collapse While Drilling and Fracture Breakdown / Lost
Circulation and the following:

• Azimuth – Pressure Window

• Depth Profile – Pcollapse and Pfrac
• Inclination – Pressure Window
• Spider Plot – Pressure Window
• Tornado Plot – Pressure Window
• Polar Plot – Pressure Window

Risk Mode
All of the same graphs available for Hole Collapse While Drilling and Fracture Breakdown /
Lost Circulation
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 96 November, 2008

Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown

All of the same graphs that are available for Hole Collapse While Drilling, except the permafrost
plots. There is an additional set of plots available for perforation tunnels, which are the same as
those available for Hole Collapse While Drilling, except the Well Profile plots.
One additional plot, called “Critical Drawdown”, is only available for openhole or perforation
stability under drawdown conditions.

5.5 Using STABView’s Graph and Reports

5.5.1 Text Input and Output Reports

The Text Report provides a preview of the input

or output data as it will look when printed.
Figure 5.8 shows an example of a multiple
depth input report. A textbox between the
forward and backward buttons shows the
current page and total number of pages. The
magnification button on the toolbar allows the
user to select from a variety of views.

The Single Depth Analysis text report is

available in all modes and allows the user to
view both input and output results for a single
depth. If the user has defined a multiple depth
well survey then the multiple depth text reports
will be available. Because of the amount of data
displayed, multiple depth analysis reports will
either display input or output data. There
currently is no option in STABView to generate
a custom report.
Figure 5.8: Example Text Report window.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 97 November, 2008

5.5.2 Well Profile Graphs

The Well Profile graphs provide a visual

display of a well survey in either a plan
or, profile view. Figure 5.9 shows an
example of a color shaded well survey
displayed on a vertical section plane.

5.5.3 Depth Profile Graphs

The Depth Profile graph provides a visual

display of pressure or risk data along the
well survey on measured or true vertical
depth scales. Figure 5.10 is an example
showing a calculated Mud Weight
Window for a drilling application, e.g.,
the window of pressure or equivalent
circulating density (ECD) that is above
the collapse pressure but below a selected
fracture pressure. The user may change
Figure 5.9: Example Well Profile the risk or pressure parameter type by
Vertical Section clicking on the pressure gauge toolbar
button as shown in Figure 5.10. When the
user clicks on this button a dialog will open allowing the user to select a different pressure or risk
parameter type. Likewise the user is provided with many options to modify the graph by clicking
the depth properties button, which will open and display the graph properties dialog for the
Depth Profile graph. A user may zoom in or out or scroll through the graph by using the
magnification button or the side scroll bar respectively.

When the user clicks on the depth profile properties button a graph properties dialog will open as
shown in Figure 5.11. The Axis tab on the graph properties dialog allows the user to change the
depth range, the depth type, change the depth and X-Axis scaling, and change the position of the
X-Axis. Any change the user makes will immediately be displayed on the relevant graph.
Clicking the Ok button will accept any changes the user has made and likewise clicking the
Cancel button will cancel any changes.
The Data tab of the graph properties dialog as shown in Figure 5.12 displays all the data series as
generated for the graph type and any sensitivities the user has added. A user may modify the
name, window bounds, visibility and color of any of the available data series.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 98 November, 2008

Figure 5.10: Example of a Depth Profile graph showing a Mud Weight Window.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 99 November, 2008

The user also has the option of adding or

removing sensitivities on the graph by clicking
on the Add Sensitivity or Remove Sensitivity
buttons. After a user adds a sensitivity to the
graph they then must select the base series the
sensitivity will derive from. The base series
represents the base set of data that when
multiplied by the Multiplier will be plotted as
another series on the graph. For example, if a
user wanted to represent a sensitivity equivalent
to 110% of the Fracture
Pressure as shown in Figure 5.12, he would add
a sensitivity based on the Fracture Pressure and
make the Multiplier equal to 1.1. Like the data
series data the user is able to modify the name,
window bounds, visibility and color of the new
line.
Figure 5.11: Depth Profile graph
properties dialog showing the Axis tab. Normally in a drilling problem for which
borehole stability and lost circulation risk is
being evaluated STABView will display a default mud weight or pressure window. This window
is defined by the window bounds property of the data series or sensitivity and may be changed
by the user. Setting the window bounds property of a data series to Min means that the
minimum bound or left side of the pressure
window will be defined by that series.
Likewise, if a series has its window bounds
property set to Max it will be used to define the
maximum bound or right side of the pressure
window. When multiple series are chosen to
define the minimum bounds of the window then
the maximum value at any point along the survey
will be used to define the left side of the window.
Consequently, if multiple series are used to define
the maximum bound then the minimum value at
any point will be used to define right side of the
window.

Figure 5.12: Depth Profile graph

properties dialog showing the Data tab.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 100 November, 2008

The Options tab of the graph properties dialog

as shown in Figure 5.13 allows the user to
modify the look and feel of the graph. Here the
user may alter the graph title, turn on/off the
lithology column, set the width of the lithology
column, and turn on/off the stratigraphic unit
names or boundaries. The user may modify
the mud weight or pressure window by turning
it on or off, or changing the color and opacity.
At the bottom of this tab is the option to turn
the casing profile on or off, display a single or
double sided casing profile, turn the inclination
graph on or off, and set the width of the
inclination graph.

Figure 5.13: Depth Profile graph properties

dialog showing the Options tab.

5.5.4 3D Well Profile

The 3D Well Profile allows the user

to visualize the wellbore or well
section in a configurable 3D
display. Much like other 3D
applications the user has the option
of rotating, positioning and zooming
in the viewing window to generate
virtually any desired view of the
wellbore. Figure 5.14 is an example
of the 3D well profile showing a
wellbore that has been color shaded
based on the calculated collapse
EMW. STABView has several
options for generating color shaded
views of the collapse EMW, ECD
or pressure and the breakdown
EMW, ECD or pressure. A similar
Figure 5.14: Example of 3D Well Profile graph
graph may also be shown for the
showing a close-up view of well survey shaded by the
collapse and breakdown risk.
calculated collapse EMW.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 101 November, 2008

Figure 5.15 shows “Scene Objects” tab on the graph

properties dialog for the 3D Well Profile. As can be
seen the user has several options for customizing the
view. The user has the option to view a transparent or
wireframe well survey, turn on/off shadowing and
scale the wellbore radius larger or smaller. The
defined stratigraphic tops, shown as color coded
transparent planes, may be turned on or off by
selecting the option on the dialog. If the user has
defined a casing profile the user may also turn on or
off viewing by selecting the option on the graph
properties dialog. Although, in most cases the casing
will generally be defined within the radius of the
wellbore and will often not be shown because the
casing is actually rendered inside the wellbore.
Therefore, in order to view the casing an option has
Figure 5.15: 3D Well Profile graph been added to scale the casing profile independently
properties dialog showing the Scene of the well survey. This will allow a cross-section of
Objects tab. the casing profile to be shown outside the wellbore
for informational purposes. Figure 5.16 shows an
example of an over scaled casing profile which
emphasizes the position of the various casing strings.

Figure 5.16: Example of 3D Well Profile showing exaggerated casing profile.

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 102 November, 2008

The “Window” tab on the graph properties dialog as

shown in Figure 5.17 allows the user to set the
windows text and colors. Text for the title and legend
can be changed as required by the user, STABView
will always provide a default value for the title and
legend based on the graph type and selected units.
By clicking one of the color buttons, a color dialog
will open allowing the user to select or define their
own custom color. The background, text, legend text,
grid, grid text, lighting and compass elements may
have a custom color set. After changing a color the
graph will immediately refresh and display the new
color selection. This allows the user direct visual
feedback on their color selection. The user may
cancel any of their current changes by clicking the
Figure 5.13: 3D Well Profile graph Cancel button on the Graph Properties dialog; this
properties dialog showing Window will cancel all the current edits.
tab.

5.5.5 Polar Plots

Polar plots are used in STABView to
display either colour-contoured
pressure data or calculated risk for
various well trajectories, or to display
stereographic projections of poles to
discontinuities. Figure 5.18 shows an
example of a typical polar plot used for
a drilling problem. The users base case
well is shown as the ¤ symbol on the
plot. The centre of the plot represents a
well at an inclination and azimuth of
0°. Moving out from the centre each
ring represents a change in well
inclination of 30°. The outermost ring
at 90° represents all possible horizontal
wells. Likewise, the top of the plot
marked with an N designates north or
an azimuth of 0°. Each of the radial Figure 5.18: Example Polar Plot.
lines drawn from the centre of the plot
to the edge represents a change in the
well’s azimuth by 30°.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 103 November, 2008

5.5.6 Yielded Zone & Strength

Factor Cross-Section

The Yielded Zone & Strength

Factor Cross-Section plots allow a
user to visualize the predicted
amount of yielding for a particular
depth of interest. Figure 5.19 shows
an example initial yielded zone
cross-section graph with multiple
yielded zones predicted for the
available failure criteria models
within STABView. This allows the
user to make direct visual
comparisons between the effects of
one failure criterion model and
another for the same depth of
interest. Figure 5.19: Example of Yielded Zone
Cross-Section.
Borehole breakout angles can also
be predicted for the 3D elastic models and can be shown on the plot. An option is provided on
the Preferences dialog that will disable drawing of the breakout angles. (see Table 5.5).
Clicking the associated toolbar button at the top of the graph will allow the user to add additional
failure criteria models or input parameter sensitivities to the plot.

5.5.7 Tornado & Spider Plot

The tornado and spider plots in

STABView, as shown in Figure
5.20, allows the user to view the
effects of a range of uncertainty
for a selection of model input
parameters. Much like setting
sensitivities in other STABView
graphs the user must choose from
a selection of relevant inputs and
their respective minimum, default
and maximum values. An
example of the input selection
dialog is shown in Figure 5.21.
This dialog is accessible by
clicking the sensitivity button at Figure 5.20: Example Tornado & Spider Plots.
the top of any tornado or spider
plot graph. For the tornado plot
STABView calculates the output
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 104 November, 2008

Figure 5.21: Sensitivity Parameter Selection Dialog

for each of the selected inputs’ minimum, maximum and default values. The spider plot is
generated in a similar way but also does calculations for a number of points in between the
minimum and maximum values. The results of these calculations are then summarized, ranked
and displayed for each parameter as an output range shown as a bar graph or line graph. Note
that the basic tornado and spider plots do not permit one to assess the effects of inter-dependence
of some input parameters. A more comprehensive quantitative risk analysis module is in
development for STABView that uses Monte Carlo simulation methods and can show input
interdependence on a tornado plot.

5.5.8 Standard Graphs

STABView provides the user with a wide selection of standard graph types for output as detailed
in Section 5.3. Figure 5.22 shows an example of two such graphs. Typical of the standard
graphs in STABView is the depth bar on the left side of the graph. This depth bar provides a
high level view of the stratigraphic units and their lithologies along the well survey. The arrow
indicator as seen in Figure 5.22 represents the depth at which the graph is rendered. At any time
the user may change the point of calculation and create a new graph by clicking above or below
the point indicated by the arrow. A user may also change the point of calculation by entering a
Depth value in Calc Depth text box and press the return key. The depth bar may be changed to
MD or TVD by clicking the appropriate radio button. Hovering the mouse over the depth bar
will provide a small popup window with information about the current depth and the collapse
and/or fracture models being used in the zone.
The toolbar at the top of all standard graphs displays a collection of buttons that will allow the
user to customize and/or change the default graph. Table 5.6 summarizes the available icons
and their function.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 105 November, 2008

Table 5.6: STABView buttons available on a standard graph.

Allows the user to change or set a sensitivity for the graph.

Allows the user to change the pressure or risk parameter being graphed.

Allows the user to set the graphs scaling.

Figure 5.22: Example of two graphs generated in STABView for a 3D

wellbore stability problem.

5.6 STABView Demonstration Cases

Table 5.7 summarizes the STABView demonstration cases which are normally shipped with the
program. These example files should be examined and re-run to evaluate and test the capabilities
of the software. For some STABView licensees a different set of demonstration cases have been
installed, depending upon the user requirements. Please contact us at software@advgeotech.com
if you have any problems with these cases.
 STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 106 November, 2008

Table 5.7: STABView well planning sample cases typically included with STABView as demonstration files
No. STABView Type of No. Zones Analysis Analysis Well Options/Features Selected Comments
Sample Case Model Type Mode Trajectory
Name
1 3D Drilling 3D - elastic single Hole Pressure inclined Effect of a plane of weakness on Evaluation of the effects of a fissile shale on wellbore stability
Collapse Case collapse wellbore collapse. Collapse with a calibrated 3D elastic model.
with Weak while calibration.
Bedding drilling
2 3D Hole 3D - elastic multiple Hole Risk inclined Failure criteria sensitivity. Depth Pseudo-yielded zone calculation for an inclined well based on
Enlargement collapse profile. the extent of the failed zone determined from the default 3D
Model while linear elastic model. It is interesting to compare the results
drilling obtained when Modified Lade and Hoek-Brown failure criteria
are used.
3 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- single Sand Risk horizontal Steady - state pore pressure gradient Horizontal sand production case to decide if a slotted liner,
2D Sand plastic production effects. Depletion induced stresses. screen or gravel pack are required. Yielded zone size and
Production Risk Barefoot openhole completion. deformations predicted for various sensitivities, e.g. dilation
Calculation of the rubble fill angle, peak cohesion, residual cohesion.
percentage.
4 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk horizontal Liner, screen or pre-packed screen Horizontal sand production case to assess if hole closure results
with Liner plastic stability/ completion. Calculation of in contact between the formation and a stiff slotted liner or
sand formation stresses on a stiff screen screen used to complete this well.
production or liner due to hole closure.
Calculation of plastic strain at the
wellbore wall.
5 Extended Reach 3D - elastic multiple Hole Pressure build plus Collapse calibration. Shale-mud Determine safe range of EMW and ECD to prevent borehole
Well with collapse and horizontal interaction and osmotic pressure collapse and fracture breakdown in the build section of the well
Horizontal Leg fracture (survey) effects on wellbore collapse. Mud and within a depleted reservoir section of a horizontal well.
breakdown weight window.
6 Inclined Well 3D - elastic multiple Fracture Pressure survey Steady - state thermal effects on lost Effect of cool fluid injection on fracture breakdown pressure
with Cold Fluid breakdown circulation and fracturing risks. for an open hole completion in a directional well.
Injection
7 Injection Well 3D - elastic single Lost Pressure vertical 3D slip risk analysis on a weak Analysis to determine if elevated pore pressures during water
Slip Pressure Circulation discontinuity, e.g., natural fractures, injection will cause shear failure on weak natural fractures or
Analysis faults or bedding. bedding planes.
8 Permafrost Hole 2D - single Hole Risk vertical 2D permafrost hole enlargement Example of a vertical well drilled through permafrost
Enlargement permafrost collapse model.
erosion while
model drilling
9 Permafrost Hole 2D - multiple Hole Risk vertical 2D permafrost hole enlargement Example of a vertical well drilled through rich, weak erodable
Enlargement permafrost collapse model. permafrost intervals in the Mackenzie Delta, N.W.T., Canada.
Multi - Zone erosion while
model drilling
10 Underbalanced 3D – elastic multiple Hole Pressure survey Steady - state pore pressure gradient Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended
Drilling in Fissile and 2D collapse effects. Depletion induced stresses. reach underbalanced well penetrating a fissile shale at angle.
Shale elasto-plastic while Effects of a plane of weakness on Case takes several minutes to run 2D elasto-plastic and 3D
drilling wellbore collapse. Collapse elastic models compared for high angle penetrations.
calibration. Mud weight window.
 STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 107 November, 2008

Table 5.7: STABView well planning sample cases typically included with STABView as demonstration files (Cont.)
No. STABView Type of No. Zones Analysis Analysis Well Options/Features Selected Comments
Sample Case Model Type Mode Trajectory
Name
11 Underbalanced 2D - elasto- multiple Hole Risk survey Steady - state pore pressure Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended
Drilling plastic collapse gradient effects. Stress depletion reach underbalanced well. Bottomhole pressure profile used as
while model for changing reservoir input.
drilling pressures. Yielded zone
predictions.
12 Vertical Gas Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk vertical Barefoot openhole completion. Vertical gas well with barefoot open hole completion. The user
Open hole plastic stability Effects of gas properties, has input a gas flow rate, from which STABView calculates the
Completion under temperature and non-Darcy flow bottomhole pressure for its use in a borehole collapse model.
drawdown rates on openhole stability.
13 Vertical Oil Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk vertical Perforated liner completion with Vertical well with perforated completion. User has specified a
plastic stability cylindrical perforation cavities. liquid production rate, from which STABView calculates the
under Calculation of the perforation bottomhole pressure based on the steady-state radial flow
drawdown stability for the most critical equation for an incompressible fluid.
perforation orientation.
14 Vertical Well with 2D - elasto- multiple Hole Risk vertical Steady - state pore pressure 2D elasto-plastic analysis of the yielded zone size for a vertical
Collapse Risk plastic collapse gradient effects (two-zone mobility well drilled overbalanced through multiple zones.
while model).
drilling
15 Inclined Well 3D - elastic single Sand Risk/ inclined Effect of well trajectory and Calibrated 3D analysis model for cylindrical and hemi-spherical
with Perforations production Pressure perforation orientation on fracture perforation cavities. Assess the value of oriented perforating.
breakdown pressures and sand
production risk
16 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- multiple Sand Pressure survey Effect of reservoir depletion on the 2D elastoplastic analysis model used for examining the effects
with Effects of plastic Production sand production critical bottom of reservoir depletion for a range of critical bottom hole
Depletion 2D hole pressure or drawdown pressures.
17 Complex Multi- 2D multiple Hole Pressure survey Demonstrates using a combination A complex drilling case showing multiple zones and models
Zone Offshore elastoplastic & collapse and of 2D/3D analysis models in a used to calculate wellbore stability collapse and fracture
Well 3D elastic fracture drilling problem in order to pressures for an offshore well.
breakdown determine a safe operating mud
weight window.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 108 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 109 November, 2008

6. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

6.1 General Questions

Q: How does STABView differ from other commercial wellbore stability programs
available on the market?
A: Drawing on a combined total of more than 30 years of experience in solving industry
geomechanics problems, Advanced Geotechnology has developed several unique approaches to
wellbore stability, lost circulation and sand production risk assessment. STABView was
primarily designed for technical drilling, completion and production engineers. We have
evaluated and tested many approaches to integrating the theoretical and practical aspects of well
construction, drilling fluids engineering, production optimization and oilfield operations.
STABView combines the best of these approaches into a user-friendly interface with rapid
analysis capabilities.
The following are some of the unique features and capabilities in STABView:

• mud-shale physico-chemical interaction (osmotic pressures)

• capillary threshold pressure model for oil-based and psendo oil-based muds
• filter cake and wall-coating effects
• 2D elastoplasticity with pore pressures
• modified Lade failure criterion for 3D elastic models
• non-linear Hoek-Brown failure criterion for 3D elastic models
• field calibration procedures for wellbore stability and lost circulation analyses
• kinematic considerations for failed rock detachment in horizontal wells
• database wizard for physico-chemical mud-shale interaction properties
• prediction of the size and shape of the zone of rock yielding
• in-situ stress changes due to reservoir depletion
• flexible output graphics designed for rapid sensitivity analyses
• flexible “mud weight window” or operating pressure window plots with depth
Q: What choices do I have for units in STABView?
A: The user can select from modified SI, U.S. Oilfield or customizable units. It is also possible
to switch from one unit system to another at any time. Higher precision unit sets are also
available for shallow wells and pipeline directional drilling problems.
Q: What is the technical support policy for licensed users of STABView?
A: Companies who purchase STABView without a maintenance and support agreement will
have access to technical support for problems pertaining to the initial installation of the software,
as well as any technical problems encountered when initially running the program. STABView
licensees are strongly encouraged to purchase support and maintenance for the software for at
least two years. These companies will receive the highest priority for technical assistance, and
extensive technical support when addressing problems or bugs in STABView. It also entitles
such companies to intermediate upgraded versions of STABView as they become available,
including code improvements, bug fixes and new features. New releases of STABView with
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 110 November, 2008

major program additions will be available to current licensees for an upgrade price. Companies
purchasing the support and maintenance option will also receive a discount on in-house or
external short courses on borehole stability and sand production offered by AG. If you are
interested in more details, contact STABView Technical Support at software@advgeotech.com
to receive a current list of software purchase, maintenance and training options.

6.2 Wellbore Stability Related Questions

Q: How does STABView evaluate the risk of borehole collapse while drilling?
A: STABView has two primary classes of models for evaluating borehole collapse risk. Both of
these model classes assess the mechanical integrity of the rock around the circumference of the
borehole. STABView's 2D model evaluates the size of the zone of yielded rock around the
borehole using the theory of elastoplasticity, including pore pressure effects during over- or
underbalanced drilling. This model is useful for vertical wells, or for horizontal wells that are
approximately parallel to either the maximum or minimum horizontal in-situ stress. STABView's
3D elastic model evaluates the bottomhole pressure, static mud density or equivalent circulating
density (ECD) at which shear yielding or tensile hydraulic fracturing initiates on the borehole
wall using linear elastic theory. When calibrated based on drilling experience for offset wells,
this model has been shown to reliably predict the bottomhole pressure mud density or ECD at
which catastrophic hole collapse will occur.
Q: How can STABView help determine drilling parameters that will result in a more stable
well?
A: STABView can evaluate the sensitivity of borehole instability risks to a large number of
controlling parameters. The most notable of these parameters are the drilling mud's equivalent
mud weight or circulating density, or its bottomhole pressure, the effectiveness of filter cake or
wall coating additives for preventing mud pressure penetration into the formation, and the
trajectory of the wellbore relative to the principal in-situ stresses and weak bedding or fracture
planes. Other controllable factors which can be assessed with STABView include capillary
threshold pressure effects for oil-based or pseudo oil-based drilling muds, the effects of high
salinity muds on shale inhibition, and the consequences of sudden decreases in bottomhole
pressures due to swabbing effects. Casing setting depths may also be optimized with
STABView using the software’s “Mud Weight Window” graph.
Q: Can I use STABView to assess borehole collapse risks for drilling wells underbalanced?
A: Yes. Both the 2D elasto-plastic and 3D elastic models in STABView are capable of assessing
borehole collapse risks for conditions where the bottomhole pressure is less than the pore
pressure of the formation being drilled. The effects of steady-state drawdown pressures in the
near-borehole area on the stability of the rock are accounted for in STABView. It is also
possible to include the effects of an external or internal filter cake at the borehole wall which has
not been removed or destroyed. Transient pressures in the near-borehole area, which may be
relevant in low permeability rocks are not currently accounted for in STABView. It is however
possible to investigate the most severe transient case at initial drawdown or instantaneous
drawdown conditions, i.e., where there is a step-change from the borehole pressure to the
formation pressure, and there is no reduction in the formation pressure near the well.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 111 November, 2008

Q: Can I use STABView to assess wellbore instability risks for directional and horizontal
wells?
A: Yes. The 3D linear elastic model in STABView is capable of assessing wellbore instability
risks to hole collapse or lost circulation for all possible well trajectories. The 2D elasto-plastic
model is capable of assessing borehole instability risks for wells that are within a specified angle
of a principal in-situ stress orientation. As such, slightly deviated wells and horizontal wells that
are sub-parallel to the horizontal in-situ stresses can be simulated using the 2D model.

6.3 Lost Circulation Related Questions

Q: How does STABView evaluate fracture breakdown risks?

A: The primary 3D fracture breakdown model in STABView calculates the bottomhole pressure,
mud density or equivalent circulating density at which a tensile hydraulic fracture develops in an
openhole at the borehole wall, as calculated with linear elastic theory. Fluid penetration, thermal
stress, capillary pressure and osmotic pressure effects can be assessed with this model. A
passive shear failure initiation criterion is also available.

6.4 Sand Production Related Questions

Q: How does STABView evaluate sand production or openhole stability risks?

A: STABView has two different model classes for evaluating sand production and openhole
collapse risks. Both of these models assess the mechanical integrity of the rock around the
circumference of the borehole or a perforation tunnel. The 2D model evaluates the size of the
zone of yielded rock around the borehole or perforation as a function of drawdown pressure
using the theory of elastoplasticity with steady-state pore pressure effects. It is this yielded
material that is most susceptible to detaching from the borehole or perforation wall and falling
into or being carried to the well. The 3D model evaluates the bottomhole pressure at which shear
yielding initiates on the borehole or perforation wall using linear elastic theory. When calibrated
based on actual sand production experience for offset wells, this model can predict the
bottomhole or drawdown pressure at which unacceptable sand production or catastrophic hole
collapse will occur.
Q: What are the well completions options available for sand production analyses?
A: Different modeling options are available, including openhole completions with or without a
slotted liner or screen, and perforated completions with cylindrical or hemispherical perforation
cavities.
Q: What are the options available for characterizing reservoir fluid types and properties
for a sand production problem?
A: Steady-state flow solutions are used in STABView for liquid and gas-saturated reservoirs.
The algorithms used for gas reservoirs account for non-ideal gas behavior and non-Darcy flow
effects when turbulent flow velocities are reached, e.g., at the entrance to a perforation.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 112 November, 2008

6.5 Discontinuity Slip Related Questions

Q: What features are available for assessing slip or re-opening risks on weak planes or
discontinuities such as faults, bedding planes, natural fractures or cleats?
A: Two models are available for assessing these risks. One model predicts the bottomhole
injection pressure or equivalent circulating density at which shear failure will occur on weak
planes. The second model predicts the pressure at which a discontinuity will re-open, assuming
no cohesion remains on the plane. These models are useful for identifying the maximum
injection pressure that can be used for waste liquids or solids disposal in the subsurface,
waterflooding, sand or slop waste injection or gas storage wells.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 113 November, 2008

7. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
7.1 Cited References

Aadnoy, B.S., Stresses Around Horizontal Boreholes Drilled in Sedimentary Rocks, SPE
paper 17119, unsolicited manuscript submitted July, 1987.
Aadnoy, B.S. and Chenevert, M.E., Stability of Highly Inclined Boreholes, SPE Drilling
Engineering, December, 1987, pp. 364-374.
Aadnoy, B.S., Stresses Around Horizontal Boreholes Drilled in Sedimentary Rocks, Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 349-360, 1989.
Addis, M.A., The Stress-Depletion Response of Reservoirs, SPE 38720, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997.
Advanced Geotechnology Inc., ROCKSBank Rock Mechanical and Petrophysical Properties
Database, User’s Manual, Version 2.0, May 2006.
Bear, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1972,
764 p.
Bradley, W.B., Failure of Inclined Boreholes, Journal of Energy Resources Technology /
Transactions of the ASME, 1979, pp. 232-239.
Bratli, R.K. and Risnes, R., Stability and Failure of Sand Arches, SPE Journal, April, 1981,
pp. 236-248.
Butler, R., Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen: Monograph Number
2, CIM Petroleum Society, Calgary, 1994, 228 p.
Detournay, E. and Fairhurst, C., Two-dimensional Elasto-plastic Analysis of a Long,
Cylindrical Cavity Under Non-hydrostatic Loading, International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
Mining Science, and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1987, pp. 197-211.
Detournay, E. and St. John, C.M., Design Charts for a Deep Circular Tunnel Under Non-
uniform Loading, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 21, 1988, pp. 119-137.
Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H., Calculation of Z-Factors for Natural Gases Using
Equations of State, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 14, July-Sept. 1975, pp.
34-36.
Drescher, A., Analytical Methods in Bin-Load Analysis, Elsevier, 1991.
Ewy, R.T., Wellbore Stability Predictions Using a Modified Lade Criterion, SPE Paper
47251, Presented at SPE/ISRM Eurock’98, Trondheim, Norway, July 8-10, 1998.
Fjaer, E., Holt, R., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A. and Risnes, R., Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics,
Elsevier, New York, 1992, 337 p.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 114 November, 2008

Gerald, C.G. and Wheatley, P.O., Applied Numerical Analysis, Addison Wesley, Don Mills,
Ontario, 1989, 679 p.
Hawkes, C.D., McLellan, P.J., Ruan, C.G. and Maurer, W.C., Wellbore Instability in Shales: A
Review of Fundamental Principles, Physico-Chemical Mechanisms in Mud-Shale
Interaction and GRI-Funded Research, CD-ROM, Part 1: Wellbore Instability in Shales: A
Review of Fundamental Principles and GRI-Funded Research, Part 2: Review of Physico-
Chemical Mechanisms in Mud-Shale Interaction and their Effects on Wellbore Stability, Gas
Research Institute Report No. GRI-99/0025.3, December, 2000.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F., Support of Underground Excavations in Hard
Rock, Balkema, 1995, 215 p.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., Underground Excavations in Rock, Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, 1980, 527 p.
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Chapman and Hall, London,
1979, 593 p.
Koning, E.J.L., Waterflooding under Fracturing Conditions, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands, 1988.
Kutasov, I.M. and Caruthers, R.M., Hole Enlargement Control During the Arctic Drilling,
SPE 17442, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 1988.
Kutasov, I.M., Applied Geothermics for Petroleum Engineers, Elsevier, 1999.
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E., The Viscosity of Natural Gases, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, August 1966, pp. 997-1000.
Londono, F.E., Archer, R.A. and Blasingame, T.A., Simplified Correlations for Hydrocarbon
Gas Viscosity and Gas Density – Validation and Correlation of Behavior Using a Large-
Scale Database, SPE 75721, Presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, AB,
April 30 – May 2, 2002.
Mody, F.K. and Hale, A.H., Borehole-Stability Model to Couple the Mechanics and
Chemistry of Drilling-Fluid/Shale Interaction, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November,
1993, pp.1093-1101.
Morita, N., Fuh, G.F. and Black, A.D., Borehole Breakdown Pressure with Drilling Fluids -
II. Semi-analytical Solution to Predict Borehole Breakdown Pressure, International Journal
of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences, and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1996,
pp. 53-69.
Risnes, R., Bratli, R.K. and Horsrud, P., Sand Stresses Around a Wellbore, SPE Journal,
December 1982, pp. 883-898.
Soltanzadeh, H. and Hawkes, C.D. Semi-Analytical Models for Stress Change and Fault
Reactivation Induced by Reservoir Production and Injection, manuscript submitted to the
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, publication anticipated in 2007.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 115 November, 2008

Sutton, R.P., Fundamental PVT Calculations for Associated and Gas/Condensate Natural
Gas Systems, SPE 97099, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, Oct. 9-12, 2005.
Wang, Y. and Dusseault, M.B., Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fracture Initiation in Poorly
Consolidated Rock Strata - Part I. Impermeable Media, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences, and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1991, pp. 235-246.
Wang, Y. and Dusseault, M.B., Borehole Yield and Hydraulic Fracture Initiation in Poorly
Consolidated Rock Strata - Part II. Permeable Media, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Sciences, and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1991, pp. 247-260.

7.2 Advanced Geotechnology Publications

McLellan, P.J., Hawkes, C.D., Comparison of Methods for Modeling Borehole Instability
and Its Consequences, SPE 78178. Presented at the SPE 2002 Oil Rock Conference, Irvin,
Texas, October 20-22, 2002.
McLellan, P.J., Hawkes, C.D., Smith, S., Coupled Modeling of Borehole Instability and
Multiphase Flow for Underbalanced Drilling, SPE 74447 presented at the IADC
Underbalanced Technology Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, Nov. 27-28, 2001 and at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, Feb 26-28, 2002.
McLellan, P.J., and Hawkes, C.D., Practical Risk Assessment Techniques for Evaluating
Borehole Instability, Presented at the CADE/CAODC Drilling Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
October 23-24, 2001.
McLellan, P.J., and Hawkes, C.D., Sand Production and Control in Horizontal Wells for Gas
Storage Reservoirs, SPE 65510, presented at the 2000 SPE/CIM International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, November 6-8, 2000.
Hawkes, C.D., McLellan, P.J., Ruan, C.G. and Maurer, W.C., Wellbore Instability in Shales: A
Review of Fundamental Principles, Physico-Chemical Mechanisms in Mud-Shale
Interaction and GRI-Funded Research, CD-ROM, Part 1: Wellbore Instability in Shales: A
Review of Fundamental Principles and GRI-Funded Research, Part 2: Review of Physico-
Chemical Mechanisms in Mud-Shale Interaction and their Effects on Wellbore Stability, Gas
Research Institute Report No. GRI-99/0025.3, December, 2000.
Hawkes, C.D. and McLellan, P.J., A New Model for Predicting Time-dependent Failure of
Shales: Theory and Application, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 38, No. 12,
49-55, December 1999.
McLellan, P.J., Hawkes, C.D., and Yuan, Y., Minimizing Borehole Instability Risks in Build
Sections Through Shales, Presented at the 7th SPE/CIM One Day Conference on Horizontal
Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, November 3, 1999.
Hawkes, C. and McLellan, P.J. Borehole Stability Analysis for Underbalanced Drilling, Paper
99-07, Presented at the Joint CSPG/Petroleum Society Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 14-18,
1999.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual 116 November, 2008

McLellan, P.J. and Hawkes, C.D., User-Friendly Borehole Stability Software for Designing
Horizontal and Deviated Wells, Paper 99-101, Presented at the CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, April 7-8, 1999.
McLellan, P.J. and Hawkes, C.D., Applications of Probabilistic Techniques for Assessing
Sand Production an Borehole Instability Risks, SPE/ISRM Paper 47334, Presented at
SPE/ISRM Eurock ’98, Trondheim, Norway, July 8-10, 1998.
McLellan, P.J., Assessing the Risk of Wellbore Instability in Inclined and Horizontal Wells,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 35, No. 5, 21-32, May 1996.
Hawkes, C. and McLellan, P.J., Transient Poro-elasto-plastic Modeling of Yielded Zone
Enlargement Around an Unstable Wellbore, Presented at the 2nd North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium - NARMS ‘96, Montreal, Quebec, June 1996.
McLellan, P.J. and Cormier, K., Borehole Stability in Dipping Fissile Shales, Northeastern
British Columbia, SPE 35634, SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, April, 1996.
Hawkes, C.D., Effects of Pore Pressure Penetration on the Extent of the Yielded Zone
Around a Wellbore, Ph.D. thesis, University of New Brunswick, July 1996.
Warren, B.W., McLellan, P.J., and Pratt, K., Wellbore Stability and Drilling Fluids Design for
Horizontal Wells in Peace River Oil Sands, Alberta, SPE/IADC 29426, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, Feb. 1995.
McLellan, P.J., Wang, Y., Predicting the Effects of Pore Pressure Penetration on the Extent
of Wellbore Instability: Application of a Versatile Poro-Elasto-plastic Model, SPE/ISRM
28053, EUROCK 94 - Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, A Joint SPE/ISRM Meeting,
The Hague, Netherlands, August 1994.
Bell, J.S., Price, P.R., and McLellan, P.J., In-Situ Stress in the Western Canada Sedimentary
Basin, Chapter 29 in the Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin,
ISPG/ARC/CSPG, 1994.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual A-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX A

STABView LICENSE AGREEMENT

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual A-2 November, 2008

STABView Software License Agreement

BY DOWNLOADING OR INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE, CLICKING “I ACCEPT”, AND/OR SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ ALL THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND
BY ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS DESCRIBED HERE, YOU
MUST NOT DOWNLOAD OR INSTALL THE SOFTWARE.
This is a legal agreement between the individual, corporation, or organization downloading or installing this software (the
"Licensee") and Advanced Geotechnology (A Division of Hycal Energy Research Laboratories Ltd.) and its successors ("AG"). This
License Agreement states the terms and conditions upon which AG is providing the STABView software together with all related
documentation and accompanying items including, but not limited to, executable programs, test versions of the software,
demonstration versions of the software, drivers, libraries, printed materials, graphics, images, animations and data files associated
with such programs (collectively, the "Software").
1. Grant of License. In consideration of downloading or installing the Software and the fees paid to AG hereunder, AG
hereby grants to the Licensee a non-exclusive, irrevocable and royalty-free license to use the Software subject to the terms of this
License Agreement. This License Agreement is the Licensee's proof of license to exercise the rights granted herein and must be
retained by the Licensee. As between the Licensee and AG (and, to the extent applicable, its licensors), AG retains all title to and
ownership of the Software and reserves all rights not expressly granted to the Licensee. AG grants to the Licensee the right to use
all or a portion of this Software provided that (a) the Software is not distributed for profit to other parties; (b) the Software may NOT
be modified, copied or decompiled; (c) all copyright notices, proprietary notices, legends and logos are maintained in the Software;
and (d) the Licensee, and its contractors, consultants and its end users agree to be bound by the terms of this License Agreement.
The specific options applicable to this license and the Licensee shall be set out in the Invoice or letter rendered by AG to the
Licensee which accompanies and forms a part of this License Agreement.
2. For Demonstration Use (Demo Option). If the Licensee has licensed the demonstration version of the Software, it may
be used only on a single computer by a single user at any time, for internal demonstration purposes only, for the specified limited
time set out in the attached letter. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Licensee may not make any back-up copy of
the Software and may not use the Software for any commercial purpose, other than to determine the suitability of the Software for
the Licensee.
3. For Use on a Single Computer (Single User Option). If the Licensee has licensed the single user version of the
Software it may be used only on a single computer by a single user at any time. The Licensee may transfer the machine-readable
portion of the Software from one computer to another computer, provided that (a) the Software (including any portion or copy
thereof) is erased from the first computer, and (b) there is no possibility that the Software will be used on more than one computer at
a time. The Licensee agrees to report the location of all copies of the Software to AG at AG's request. This version of the Software
cannot be installed or used on an Application Service Provider (ASP) nor on a network where multiple users can access it. These
limitations also apply to a Licensee who possesses two or more stand alone PC licenses to the Software.
4. For Use on a Network (Network Option). If the Licensee has licensed the network version of the Software with a defined
number of seats it may only be used on a network by the same defined number of users at any time equal to the number of seats
licensed, as set out in the Invoice. The maximum authorized number of potential Software users for a network seat is 10. The
Licensee may only transfer the machine-readable portion of the Software from one installation to another installation provided that
(a) the Software (including any portion or copy thereof) is erased from the first network, and (b) there is no possibility that the
Software will be used on more than one network at a time. The Licensee agrees to report the location of all copies of the Software to
AG at AG's request. This version of the Software cannot be installed or used on an ASP.
5. For Use on an ASP (ASP Option). If the Licensee has licensed the ASP version of the Software, with a defined number
of seats, the Software may only be hosted with AG or an ASP approved by AG, and may only be accessed by the same defined
number of users at any time equal to the number of seats licensed, as set out in the Invoice. The Licensee may only transfer the
machine-readable portion of the Software from one host to another host provided that (a) the Software (including any portion or copy
thereof) is erased from the network of the first host, and (b) there is no possibility that the Software will be used with more than one
ASP at a time. The Licensee agrees to report the location of all copies of the Software to AG at AG's request.
6. Stand-Alone Basis. If the Licensee has licensed the stand-alone version of the Software, the Licensee may use the
Software only on a stand-alone basis, such that the Software and the functions it provides are accessible only to persons who are
physically present at the location of the computer on which the Software is installed. The Licensee may not allow the Software or its
functions to be accessed remotely, or transmit all or any portion of the Software through any network or communication line.
Licenses for multiple stand-alone users, local area network (LAN) use, or ASP use can be purchased from AG and are subject to a
separate or amended license agreement.
7. Copyright. The Software is owned by AG and is protected by Canadian and United States copyright laws and
international treaty provisions. The Licensee may not remove the copyright notice from any copy of the Software or any manuals or
written materials accompanying the Software.
8. No Merger or Integration. The Licensee may not merge any portion of the Software into, or integrate any portion of the
Software with any other program, except to the extent expressly permitted by the laws of the jurisdiction where the Licensee is
located or if permission to do so has been obtained from AG. Any portion of the Software merged into or integrated with another
program will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, and the Licensee must reproduce on the
merged or integrated portion all copyright and other proprietary rights notices included on the originals of the Software.
9. Attribution. The Licensee agrees to provide attribution to AG in any and all public-domain publications or presentations in
which results obtained from the Software are described, printed or presented.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual A-3 November, 2008

10. Transfer of License. The Licensee may not sell, or transfer the license of the Software to a third party without AG's
written permission. The recipient must agree to the terms of this License Agreement.
11. Restrictions on Use.
a. Except to the extent expressly permitted by this License Agreement, or by the laws of the jurisdiction where the Licensee
acquired the Software, or for back-up purposes, the Licensee may not copy or modify the Software or make any derivative works
from the Software.
b. The Licensee may not sell, transfer, sublicense or distribute the Software or any part thereof to other parties;
c. The Licensee acknowledges that the Software contains trade secrets and other proprietary information of AG and its licensors.
Except to the extent expressly permitted by this License Agreement or by the laws of the jurisdiction where the Licensee is located,
the Licensee may not decompile, disassemble or otherwise reverse engineer the Software, or engage in any other activities to
obtain underlying information that is not visible to the user in connection with normal use of the Software. In particular, the Licensee
agrees, unless otherwise stipulated in writing from AG, not for any purpose to (i) transmit the Software or display the Software's
object code on any computer screen or to make any hard copy memory dumps of the Software's object code; and (ii) transmit or
display the Software to any of the following direct software competitors of AG: Advantek International, Geomechanics International,
Inc., International Technology Consultants, GeoScience Limited, Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Maurer Technology,
and any other firms who develop or market a competing product to this Software.
12. Request for Information. If the Licensee believes it requires information related to the inter-operability of the Software
with other programs, the Licensee shall not decompile or disassemble the Software to obtain such information, and the Licensee
agrees to request such information from AG. Upon receiving such a request, AG shall determine, in its sole judgment, whether the
Licensee requires such information for a legitimate purpose and, if so, AG will provide such information to the Licensee within a
reasonable time and on reasonable conditions. In any event, the Licensee will notify AG of any information derived from reverse
engineering or such other activities, and the results thereof will constitute the confidential information of AG that may be used only in
connection with the Software.
13. Maintenance and Support. If the Licensee has purchased the maintenance and support option from AG as set out in the
Invoice, then AG will provide the maintenance and support services set out in Schedule “A”. Except to the extent specified in
Schedule “A” (if applicable), AG shall not be obliged to provide the Licensee with major new software releases, updates,
modifications, or enhancements to the Software.
14. Verification Rights. AG reserves the right, with reasonable notice and during regular business hours, to audit the
facilities, systems and records of the Licensee to audit and verify compliance with the terms of this license. In the event any such
audit or review discloses any breach of the terms of the License, AG may, at its option, terminate the license, and/or seek any other
remedy available under this Agreement or at law.
15. Termination. The Licensee may terminate this License Agreement at any time by destroying the installed version of the
Software (including any backup copies and/or portions thereof) then currently in the Licensee's possession or control. The Licensee
must provide a letter to AG stating that it has destroyed the Software and any copies, should this agreement be terminated. The
license will also terminate automatically upon notice from AG in the event the Licensee fails to comply with any term or condition of
this License Agreement. The Licensee agrees that upon any such termination, it will destroy the Software (including any backup
copies and/or portions thereof). Upon termination, AG may also enforce any and all rights provided by law. The provisions of this
License Agreement that protect the proprietary rights of AG will continue in force after termination.
16. Limited Warranty and Remedies. (a) AG warrants that AG holds title to the Software and has the right to grant this
license (b) AG represents and warrants that to the best of its knowledge, the use of the Software, in compliance with the terms and
conditions of this License Agreement, will not infringe any Canadian, United States or European Union patent or copyright of any
third party. (c) AG warrants the media on which the Software is furnished to be free from defects for a period of ninety days from the
date of receipt. (d) The Licensee assumes full responsibility for the selection of the Software to achieve its intended results, and for
the downloading, use and results obtained from the Software. (e) AG does not warrant that the functions contained in the Software
will meet the Licensee's requirements or that the operation of the Software will be uninterrupted or error-free. (f) AG does not
warrant that the operation of the Software will not be interrupted by reason of any defect or that AG can or will correct all errors or
render all improvements requested. (g) The Software is provided “AS IS” and AG makes no other representation or warranty,
express or implied, and specifically excludes the implied warranties and conditions of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose.
17. No Liability for Damages, Including Without Limitation Consequential Damages. Except as otherwise provided
herein, AG and its licensors shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, incidental, direct, indirect,
or consequential damages, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or other
pecuniary loss) arising out of the use or inability to use this Software, even if AG or its licensors have been advised of the possibility
of such damages In no event will AG’s liability for any claim made or arising during the first 12 months of the term of this Agreement,
whether for breach of contract or warranty, negligence or otherwise, exceed the fee paid by Licensee for the Software that is the
subject of such claim. After the first 12 months, Licensee’s only recourse or remedy for any such claim, damage or loss will be the
termination of this license.
18. Indemnification. The Licensee hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend AG from and against any and all
claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees and costs that arise, resulting from or are connected with the use or distribution of the
Software in violation of this License Agreement.
19. Confidentiality. AG agrees that in the event that it becomes privy to proprietary information or data that the Licensee
considers confidential and Licensee advises AG in writing of the confidential nature of such information, it will not disclose any such
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual A-4 November, 2008

information or data to any third party without the Licensee's written consent, unless: 1. The information is already publicly available;
2. The information was already in AG’s possession prior to the effective date of this Agreement, 3. The information has already been
lawfully and legitimately disclosed to AG by a another source. Confidential information supplied by AG to the Licensee with respect
to the Software’s algorithms, code structure, security and all other information are to be treated as trade secrets of AG, and cannot
be disclosed to other third parties.
20. Security. The Licensee will take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent unauthorized access to and the use of the
Software and its data from any points of access that are under the Licensee’s control.
21. Activation. The license right granted under this Agreement requires activation over the internet when the Software is first
installed and used, or in the event of computer hardware modification, reinstallation, or running multiple instances of the Software. In
the event that the Software is unable to be activated, the Software may fail to execute and the Licensee is required to contact AG
directly.
22. Payment of Applicable Fees. In consideration of AG providing this license and (if applicable) the support and
maintenance services for an agreed upon period of time, the Licensee will pay AG the agreed upon license fee and other fees
according to the terms specified in the Invoice sent to the Licensee. Invoices for this Software must be paid in full before the
Software can be properly activated on an end-user’s computer. AG reserves the right to uninstall the Software by physical removal
or by placing a time limit on the license, should an invoice not be paid on time. Terms of payment are included in the Invoice.
23. General. This License Agreement is binding on the Licensee, its employees, consultants, contractors and agents, and on
any successors, partners and assignees. Neither the Software nor any information derived from it from may be exported except in
accordance with the laws of Canada, the U.S. or other applicable provisions. This License Agreement is governed by the laws of the
Province of Alberta without regard to its conflict of laws rules, and the federal laws applicable therein. The Licensee agrees that AG
will not have any liability for any untrue statement or representation made by its agents or anyone else (whether innocently or
negligently) upon which the Licensee relied upon entering this License Agreement. If any provision of this License Agreement is
deemed invalid or unenforceable by any country or government agency having jurisdiction, that particular provision will be deemed
modified to the extent necessary to make the provision valid and enforceable, and the remaining provisions will remain in full force
and effect. For questions concerning this Agreement, or for product or technical matters, contact AG software support.
24. Compliance with laws. Licensee agrees to comply with all applicable laws, including export controls and economic
sanctions laws imposed by the Governments of Canada and/or the United States. Without limiting the foregoing, licensee agrees
that it shall not export or re-export this Software or any product incorporating this Software without first obtaining all necessary
licenses or approvals. Licensee acknowledges that shipments of this software are subject to the export control laws of the United
States, and accepts that this product may not be exported or re-exported to Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan or other countries subject to
U.S. economic sanctions.

WEATHERFORD ADVANCED GEOTECHNOLOGY

1200, 333 - 5th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T2P 3B6
Phone: 1-403-693-7530
Fax: 1-403-693-7541
Email: software@advgeotech.com
Web: www.advgeotech.com
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX B

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-2 November, 2008

APPENDIX B

List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Acronyms

amud water activity of drilling mud (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)
ashale water activity of shale (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)
aw well azimuth
A distance from borehole centre to the tip of an existing or induced fracture
A1 – A11 constants in gas compressibility factor correlation
Ap poroelastic constant
=α
(1 − 2υ )
(1 − υ )
Bg gas formation volume factor
cp peak cohesion
cr residual cohesion
cpow cohesion of a weak plane or discontinuity
C1, C2, C3 constants
C4, C5, C6 constants
CA, CB, CC constants
dgrain diameter of sand grains
E Young’s modulus
e reservoir aspect ratio
=h/w
GL ground level
h reservoir height (i.e., thickness)
iw well inclination
I1′′, I3′′ stress invariants, used in modified Lade strength criterion
k intrinsic permeability
KB kelly bushing
Kbulk bulk modulus of porous rock
E
=
3(1 − 2υ )
Kgrain bulk modulus of the mineral grains within a porous rock
l, m, n direction cosines
m Hoek-Brown criterion strength parameter
m(p) gas pseudo-pressure
Meff osmotic membrane efficiency (expressed as a fraction ranging from 0 to 1)
MW molecular weight
MWD measurement while drilling
Np Mohr-Coulomb peak strength parameter
1 + sin φ p
=
1 − sin φ p
Nr Mohr-Coulomb residual strength parameter
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-3 November, 2008

1 + sin φ r
=
1 − sin φ r
OBM oil-based mud
p fluid pressure (within wellbore, perforation, tubular, etc.); pore pressure
pa pore pressure at the borehole or perforation wall
pc capillary threshold pressure
pintact critical bottomhole pressure at which compressive shear yield initiates in intact
rock
pnon-wet pressure in the non-wetting fluid phase of a two-phase system
po native pore pressure, formation pressure, or reservoir pressure
popen critical pressure to re-open a discontinuity
ppc pseudo critical pressure
ppow critical bottomhole pressure at which shear yield initiates on a weak plane
ppr pseudo reduced pressure = p/ppc
pref reference pressure, used for gas pseudo-pressure calculations
psc pressure at standard conditions (i.e., standard atmospheric pressure)
pslip critical pressure for slip on a weak plane or discontinuity
pw bottomhole pressure
pwet pressure in the wetting fluid phase of a two-phase system
∆p difference between pore pressure at the borehole (or perforation) wall and native
pore pressure (or formation pressure or reservoir pressure)
= pa - po
∆posm near-well pressure increase induced by chemical osmosis
∆psurge surge pressure; increase in pressure while running drill pipe into a well.
∆psawb swab pressure; decrease in pressure while running drill pipe out of a well.
Q volumetric flow rate
Qsc volumetric flow rate measured at standard pressure and temperature
R average radius of yielded zone
R universal gas constant (0.0822 litre·atm/mol·K; 8.314 J/mol·K)
rd drainage radius
rperf radius of perforation cavity
rpore pore throat radius
rw borehole radius
s Hoek-Brown criterion strength parameter
SB seabed
SF strength factor
T shear strength parameter for hemispherical cavity sanding model
{ }
= 2 tan 2 (γ ) − 1
T temperature
Tsc temperature at standard conditions (15.5°C)
Tpc pseudo critical temperature
Tpc pseudo reduced temperature T/Tpc
TVD true vertical depth
UCS unconfined compressive strength
u radial displacement
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-4 November, 2008

vcrit critical velocity for mobilizing sand grains

Vw partial molar volume of water (0.018 litres/mol; 1.8×10-5 m3/mol for dilute
solutions)
W fracture aperture (width)
WBM water-based mud
w cross-sectional width of reservoir
Y1 – Y5 constants in gas viscosity correlation
z distance parallel to the wellbore axis
Z gas compressibility factor

Greek Symbols:
α Biot’s coefficient
=1 – (Kbulk / Kgrain)
αp poroplastic coefficient
αw wedge angle
β turbulence factor (for non-Darcy flow conditions)
Br bulking factor (1.0 to 4.0)
εfc filter cake efficiency
εfp fluid penetration coefficient
ε θT total tangential strain
εθe elastic tangential strain
ε θP plastic tangential strain
ψd dilation angle
γ failure angle
π φp
= +
4 2
γg gas gravity
γH horizontal normalized stress arching ratio
γT interfacial tension
γV vertical normalized stress arching ratio
ϕ contact angle of the fluid interface where it meets the mineral grain surface
µ fluid viscosity
µ average fluid viscosity
υ Poisson’s ratio
ρ fluid density
ρpc pseudo critical density
ρpr pseudo reduced density=ρ/ρpc
Ò1 maximum principal stress
σ2 intermediate principal stress
σ3 minimum principal stress
σ1f value of σ1 at which compressive shear failure occurs
εfc filter-cake or wall-coating efficiency
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-5 November, 2008

φp peak friction angle

φr residual friction angle
φpow friction angle of a weak plane or discontinuity
θbrkt borehole (or perforation) breakout angle
σHave average horizontal stress
σHmax maximum horizontal stress
σHmin minimum horizontal stress
σMax maximum principal stress in the plane normal to the borehole or perforation axis
σMin minimum principal stress in the plane normal to the borehole or perforation axis
σtmax maximum principal stress in the plane tangent to the borehole or perforation wall
σtmin minimum principal stress in the plane tangent to the borehole or perforation wall
σθ tangential stress
σr radial stress
σV vertical (overburden) stress
σi normal stress component in the i-direction
σx effective normal stress component in the x-direction
= σx - α·p
σnpow normal stress component on a weak plane or discontinuity
σz axial stress
σT tensile strength
τp peak shear stress, at which yield occurs
τij shear stress component in the j-direction in the plane normal to i
τpow shear stress component on a weak plane or discontinuity

Subscripts and Indices:

e elastic rock
y yielded rock
gas gas property
oil oil property
water water property
x, y, z axes in a cartesian coordinate system
r, θ, z axes in a cylindrical polar coordinate system
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual B-6 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-2 November, 2008

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
advection: The process by which solute ions or molecules are transported by the motion of
flowing pore water.
apparent capillary cohesion: The small increment of strength in weakly cemented geomaterials
that is attributed to capillary pressures when two fluid phases are present, e.g., water and gas.
axial stress: The normal stress component that acts parallel to the axis of a wellbore or a
cylindrical rock sample.
balanced activity mud: Drilling mud with a water activity equal to the water activity of the
shale being drilled.
Biot coefficient: A constant which determines the magnitude of the total stress component that is
supported by the hydraulic pressure of fluid(s) within the pores of a rock or soil. The magnitude
of this coefficient is a function of the bulk stiffness of a rock or soil relative to the stiffness of its
constituent mineral grains or particles.
Biot effective stress: Total stress minus (pore pressure times the Biot coefficient). This is the
default option for borehole collapse calculations in STABView.
borehole ballooning: Radial expansion of a borehole, typically experienced in shales and
mudrocks in response to high bottomhole pressures that result in yielding or fracturing.
breakout angle: The angle from a borehole centre that subtends the limits of shear failure on
half of the borehole wall.
capillary threshold pressure: The overbalance pressure that must be exceeded in order for a
non-wetting fluid such as oil to penetrate a water-wet rock or soil.
chemical diffusion: The process by which dissolved ions and molecules move from areas of
higher concentration to areas of lower concentration when there is no barrier or membrane.
chemical osmosis: The movement of water through a semi-permeable membrane which
separates solutions of unequal water activities.
claystone: A fine-grained sedimentary rock consisting predominantly of clay minerals, which
displays no lamination or fissility.
cloud point: The critical temperature (which is affected by the salinity of the solution) at which
an emulsion of insoluble glycol droplets in water develops. The resulting emulsion has a cloudy
appearance, as light is scattered by the fine droplets.
compressibility: The change in volume per unit volume per change in pressure for a fluid, rock
or soil (inverse of bulk modulus).
compressive stress: A normal stress tending to shorten a body in the direction in which it acts.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-3 November, 2008

contact angle: The angle of intersection of the interface between two fluids at a solid surface.
Used in the estimation of capillary threshold pressure.
convection: The process by which fluid moves from areas of higher hydraulic pressure to areas
of lower hydraulic pressure (also see hydraulic diffusion).
dielectric constant: The factor by which the force between two charged particles is decreased
due to the presence of a solid, liquid or gas in the space between the particles.
diffusion osmosis: The movement of solute and associated water through a non-ideal semi-
permeable membrane which separates solutions of unequal solute concentrations.
discontinuity: A collective term for all fractures or planar features in a rock mass such as weak
bedding planes, faults, natural fractures and joints having little or relatively low tensile strength.
drilling fluid: The fluid phase of a drilling mud, including any emulsified liquid phases and/or
dissolved solutes (e.g., salts).
drilling mud: A suspension, usually in water but sometimes in oil or synthetic non-polar liquids,
typically circulated down the drill pipe, through the drill bit, and back to surface through the
annulus between the drill pipe and the borehole wall. Common additives include bentonitic
clays, dissolved ions such as salts, weighting agents such as barite, and polymers.
drilling mud filtrate: The drilling mud constituents that are able to permeate formations
surrounding a wellbore.
Drucker-Prager failure criterion: A three dimensional failure criterion for frictional materials
that is popular in materials engineering. Its rupture surface is a cone in principal stress space.
ductile: A property of a material that can sustain permanent deformation without losing the
ability to sustain load.
effective salinity of a shale pore fluid: The salt concentration in a pure aqueous solution that
would result in a water activity equal to the true value for the pore fluid. The latter value can be
affected not only by dissolved ions, but also by clays, non-ionic solutes, and any other
components present in the shale.
effective stress: The average normal force per unit area transmitted from grain to grain in a rock
or soil mass. Effective stress is equal to the total stress less the pore pressure in most soils and
many rocks.
elasticity: Property of a material that returns to its original form or condition after the applied
force is removed.
electro-osmosis: The movement of liquid through a semi-permeable membrane under the
influence of an applied electric field.
equivalent circulating density (ECD): The density of a fluid which includes a component that
accounts for friction losses due to circulation, and swab or surge pressures.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-4 November, 2008

equivalent mud weight (EMW): In this software EMW is defined as the static mud density plus
or minus a swab or surge pressure. It does not apply to dynamic situations where the fluid is
being circulated.
fabric: The spatial and geometrical configuration of the grains, particles, crystals and cement of
which a sedimentary rock is composed.
factor of safety: See safety factor.
failure: The condition of a material or structure that can no longer adequately support the forces
applied to it or otherwise perform its engineering function.
failure criterion: Specification of the mechanical condition under which materials fail by
fracturing or by deforming beyond some specified limit. This specification may be in terms of
stresses, strains, stress rates, strain rates, or some combination of these quantities in the
materials.
filter cake efficiency: This parameter characterizes the extent to which pore pressure at the
borehole wall penetrates into the formation through a filtercake in response to an overbalance
pressure.
fissility: The tendency to split easily along closely spaced, parallel planes. Shales, by definition,
possess fissility but claystones or mudstones do not.
fluid penetration coefficient: Parameter used to describe the ability of a fluid to penetrate into
the surrounding formation.
formation pressure: The hydraulic pressure of fluid(s) within the pores of a rock formation.
fracture breakdown pressure: The hydraulic pressure at which a tensile fracture initiates at the
wellbore wall. Sometimes called the fracture initiation pressure.
fracture closure pressure (FCP): The fluid pressure in a hydraulic fracture just at the point
where the fracture closes. This pressure is equal to and counteracts the minimum principal stress
in the rock perpendicular to the fracture plane.
fracture propagation pressure (FPP): The fluid pressure required to extend an existing
hydraulic fracture. It is greater than the fracture closure pressure and depends on the size and
shape of the fracture, the roughness of the fracture, the fluid rheology and other factors.
friction angle: The rate of increase in the shear strength of a geomaterial with increasing normal
stress.
fugacity: A thermodynamic function defined by the equation dG = RT d ln f , where G is the
Gibb’s free energy, R is the universal gas constant, T is absolute temperature and f is the
fugacity. Fugacity is expressed in units of pressure.
Gibb’s free energy: A thermodynamic state function related to the enthalpy, temperature and
entropy of a system.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-5 November, 2008

glycol: The common name for 1,2-ethanediol, also known as ethylene glycol, which is an
alcohol containing two OH groups. Glycol drilling muds are often based on more complex
polyglycol structures.
hoop stress: Same as tangential stress.
Hoek-Brown failure criterion: A non-linear empirical rock strength criterion to describe the
brittle failure of intact rock and/or fractured rock masses.
hydration: The movement of water into the interlayer sites within clay particles.
hydrational stress: The mechanical stress that develops as a consequence of hydration.
hydraulic diffusion: The process by which fluid moves from areas of higher hydraulic pressure
to areas of lower hydraulic pressure (also see convection).
hydraulic flow: See hydraulic diffusion.
hydraulic pressure: The force per unit area exerted by a fluid.
hydrostatic pressure: The pressure exerted by a fluid at rest at a given depth.
hydrostatic stress: A state of stress in a material in which the normal stresses acting on any
plane are equal and where shearing stresses do not exist.
inhibition: The arresting or slowing of the hydration, swelling and disintegration of reactive
clays in claystones, mudstones and shales.
in-situ stress: The state of stress in a rock formation prior to disturbance by drilling or
production activities.
interfacial tension: The surface tension at the interface between two fluids.
interlayer water: The water molecules located between clay platelets. Interlayer water that is
able to move due to hydraulic gradients is referred to as “free” water, and water that is adsorbed
onto clay platelet surfaces and is restricted from flow in normal conditions is referred to as
“bound” water.
instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP): The fluid pressure in a hydraulic fracture immediately
after shut-in; i.e., after pumping has ceased.
ion exchange: A process by which an ion in the crystal structure of a mineral is replaced by
another ion that was present in an aqueous solution.
linear elasticity: A specific type of elasticity in which the strain in a material is linearly
proportional to the applied stress.
lost circulation: The loss of a drilling mud, cement or completion fluid into natural or induced
fractures, vugs or high-porosity zones, resulting in the inability to circulate fluids to surface.
maximum principal stress: The largest of the three principal stress components.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-6 November, 2008

maximum horizontal in-situ stress: The larger principal stress component acting in a horizontal
plane within the earth’s crust.
membrane efficiency: A parameter related to the relative mobility of solvent and solute
particles through a semi-permeable membrane. It is defined numerically as the ratio of the
observed osmotic pressure which develops across a semi-permeable membrane separating
solutions of unequal water activities to the osmotic pressure predicted for an ideal semi-
permeable membrane.
methyl glucoside: A polyol monomer which has a compact, two-tiered cyclic structure that is a
component in some low activity drilling fluid systems.
minimum principal stress: The smaller of the three principal stress components.
minimum horizontal in-situ stress: The smaller principal stress component acting in a
horizontal plane within the earth’s crust.
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion: A linear rock failure criteria characterized by a friction angle
and a cohesion intercept. The rupture surface forms an irregular pyramid in principal stress
space.
moisture content: The weight of water contained in the pore space of a rock divided by the
weight of solid material.
mud pressure penetration: A process by which high hydraulic pressures in a wellbore diffuse
into the rock formations surrounding the wellbore, resulting in a near-well increase in pore
pressure.
mudstone: A fine-grained sedimentary rock which displays no lamination or fissility and
contains approximately equal proportions of clay and silt.
non-linear failure criterion: A failure criterion where the maximum principal stress upon
yielding is non-linearly related to the minimum principal stress.
normal strain: The change in length per unit length normal to a given plane.
normal stress: The stress component normal to a given plane.
oil-based emulsion: A fluid consisting of a continuous oil phase with emulsified water or brine
droplets.
oil-based mud (OBM): A drilling mud in which the external phase is an oil-related product,
such as diesel oil or mineral oil.
osmosis: The movement of water from one aqueous system to another through a semi-permeable
membrane driven by activity differences between the two systems.
osmotic membrane efficiency: See membrane efficiency.
osmotic pressure: The hydraulic pressure difference across a semi-permeable membrane
resulting from a difference in water activities of the solutions on either side of the membrane.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-7 November, 2008

osmotic pressure coefficient: The ratio of the observed osmotic pressure which develops across
a semi-permeable membrane separating solutions of unequal water activities to the osmotic
pressure predicted for an ideal semi-permeable membrane (also see membrane efficiency and
reflection coefficient).
overbalanced drilling: Drilling when the pressure in the wellbore exceeds the pressure of fluids
in the formation. This excess pressure prevents reservoir fluids (oil, gas or water) from entering
the wellbore
overbalance pressure: The difference between the hydraulic pressure in the wellbore and the
formation pore pressure, for cases where the former is greater than the latter.
overburden stress or pressure: (See vertical in-situ stress).
partial molar volume: The volume of a given component in 1 mole (6.02×1023 molecules) of a
solution.
peak strength: The maximum shear stress that a rock can sustain under a given set of
conditions.
physico-chemical interaction: A process or reaction in which matter and/or chemical energy are
exchanged between substances.
plastic: The property of a material whose deformation is not recoverable when the applied load
is removed.
Poisson’s ratio: An elastic property that is a measure of the deformability of a material
perpendicular to the applied stress. It is expressed as the ratio of the lateral to the longitudinal
strain in a test sample.
pore: The volume between mineral grains and clay particles in a rock or soil mass.
pore pressure: The hydraulic pressure at a given point of fluid(s) within the pores of a rock or
soil mass.
pore throat: A narrow channel, where mineral grains or particles are in close contact,
connecting larger interstitial pore volumes.
principal stress: A stress acting normal to one of three mutually perpendicular planes
intersecting at a point in a body, on which the shearing stress is zero.
radial stress: The normal stress component that acts in a direction pointing radially outward
from the centre of a wellbore or a cylindrical rock sample.
reflection coefficient: (See membrane efficiency).
relative humidity or relative water vapor: The vapor pressure of water in a solution, drilling
mud or shale divided by the vapor pressure of pure water at the same temperature. This ratio is
usually expressed as a percentage.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-8 November, 2008

residual strength: The minimum shear strength that a rock drops to after the peak strength has
been exceeded.
rock failure: The process where the maximum strength of a rock, or the stress or strain
requirement of a specific design, is exceeded.
rock yielding: The process where rock undergoes deformations which are not recovered when
the applied stress is removed.
safety factor: The ratio of the strength of a material to the stresses acting at a point in that
material. Many specific forms of safety factors exist, depending on the type of failure criterion
used, both for shear and tensile yielding.
semi-permeable membrane: An interface which is permeable to water (or some other solvent)
but impermeable to solute ions or molecules.
shale: A fine-grained detrital sedimentary rock which has a finely laminated structure and
exhibits fissility.
shear strain: A measure of the amount by which parallel lines have been sheared past one
another by deformation. The ordinary or engineering definition of this parameter is the tangent of
the change in angle between initially perpendicular lines. The infinitesimal-strain theory
definition is half the tangent of the change in angle between initially perpendicular lines.
shear stress: The component of stress acting tangential to a given plane.
solute: The minor component of a solution, or the component that is solid in its pure state.
solution: A homogenous mixture of two or more substances.
solvent: The major component of a solution, or the component that is liquid in its pure state.
stiffness: The deformation of a rock specimen divided by the normal or shear stress that caused
the deformation.
stress: The force per unit area acting within a rock mass.
stress-depletion: The pore pressure changes associated with hydrocarbon production or injection
which alters the stress state in the reservoirs.
support pressure: The hydraulic pressure drop across the wellbore wall, which acts as a radially
oriented normal stress that mechanically supports the rock around the wellbore.
surface tension: The force per unit length that acts across any line in a surface, tending to pull
the surface open.
surge pressure: A wellbore pressure increase caused by a downward pipe movement in a well.
swab pressure: A wellbore pressure decrease caused by an upward pipe movement in a well.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-9 November, 2008

swelling: A volume increase resulting from the hydration of clay or other water-absorbing
minerals.
swelling pressure: The stress required to prevent swelling when a water-sensitive rock or soil is
contacted with a fluid that has a different chemical composition than its pore fluid.
tangential stress: The normal stress component that acts in a direction tangential to the
circumference of a wellbore at a given point.
tectonically stressed: A condition where the large-scale deformations occurring in the upper
crust of the earth have resulted in elevated in-situ stresses in a region, especially the maximum
horizontal in-situ stress.
tensile stress: A normal stress tending to lengthen a body in the direction in which it acts.
tensor (second order): A mathematical entity expressed as a 3×3 matrix which describes the
relationships between two vector entities. In the case of stresses, one set of vectors describes the
three orthogonal planes for a chosen reference orientation, and the other set of vectors describes
the magnitudes of the stresses which act in normal and shear directions on these planes.
Terzaghi effective stress: Total stress minus pore pressure, where the Biot coefficient is equal
to 1.0.
total stress: The total force per unit area acting within a mass of rock, which includes both the
intergranular or effective stress and the pore pressure.
triaxial strength test: A test in which a cylindrical specimen of rock encased in an impervious
membrane is subjected to a confining pressure and then loaded axially to failure.
unconfined compressive strength (UCS): The peak strength of an axially loaded rock or soil
specimen with no lateral confinement.
underbalanced drilling (UBD): Drilling when the pressure in the formation exceeds the
pressure of fluids in the wellbore.
underbalance pressure: The magnitude of the difference between the fluid pressure in a
wellbore and the formation pore pressure, for cases where the former is less than the latter.
vapor pressure: The pressure exerted by a vapor in equilibrium with its liquid (or solid) phase.
vertical in-situ stress: The principal stress component oriented vertically within the earth’s
crust, generated by the weight of the overburden.
water activity: The ratio of the vapor pressure of water in a solution, drilling mud or shale pore
to the vapor pressure of pure water at the same temperature. [Note: The strict definition of
activity is in terms of fugacity, but for practical purposes vapor pressures are sufficiently
accurate.
water-based mud (WBM): A drilling fluid in which water or brine is the major liquid phase and
the wetting (external) phase.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual C-10 November, 2008

water-wet shale: A shale in which the wettability of mineral grain and particle surfaces is
greater for water than for other liquids such as oil.
wellbore failure: A condition where a wellbore is no longer able to perform its intended
operational purpose.
wellbore instability: A condition where rock around a wellbore is undergoing yield and/or
failure.
wettability: The preference of a solid to contact one liquid or gas, known as the wetting phase,
rather than another.
yield: The condition where a solid material begins to undergo irreversible deformation.
yield criterion: Specification of the mechanical condition under which solid materials begin to
undergo irreversible deformation. This specification may be in terms of stresses, strains, stress
rates, strain rates, or some combination of these quantities in the materials.
Young’s modulus: An elastic property that is the ratio of longitudinal stress to longitudinal
strain.
________________________________________________________________________
Sources Consulted for this Glossary
American Association for Testing and Materials, Standard Definitions of Terms and Symbols
Relating to Soil and Rock Mechanics, ASTM D 653 – 80, 1981.
American Geological Institute, Glossary of Geology, R.L. Bates and J.A. Jackson (eds.),
American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, 1980, 751 p.
American Geological Institute, Dictionary of Geological Terms, R.L. Bates and J.A. Jackson
(eds.), Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York, 1984, 571 p.
Fetter, C.W., Applied Hydrogeology, 3rd edition, Maxwell Macmillan, Toronto, 1994, 691 p.
Giancoli, D.C., Physics: Principles with Applications, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Toronto, 1985,
811 p.
Gillespie, R.J., Humphreys, D.A., Baird, N.C. and Robinson, E.A., Chemistry, Allyn and Bacon,
Toronto, 1986, 891 p.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX D

BOREHOLE ENLARGEMENT IN PERMAFROST

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-2 November, 2008

APPENDIX D
ANALYSIS OF BOREHOLE ENLARGEMENT IN PERMAFROST
D.1 Model Description
When drilling through permafrost, a problem arises when ice contained in the pores of the
formation melts as a consequence of circulating drilling fluids with a higher temperature. To
estimate the maximum borehole enlargement due to permafrost melting, the model developed by
Kutasov and Caruthers (1988) has been implemented in Advanced Geotechnology’s STABView
software. Additional background on this class of problems can be found in Kutasov (1999) and
Kudryashov and Yakovlev (1983). The following equations were programmed as shown on the
flowchart, Figure D.1, to calculate K, the washout coefficient.
Laminar Flow
2
1 ⎛1 ⎞ Tm k m t
K= + ⎜ − 1 ⎟ + 57.6 × 10 6 (D.1)
D ⎝D ⎠ L S i φ f ρ i d 2b

Turbulent Flow

B Tm k m t
57 .6 × 10 6 = F ( KD ) − F ( D ) (D.2)
L S i φ f ρ i d p2

where:
5 10
F (x) = ( x + 1) 2 . 8 − ( x + 1) 1 .8 (D.3)
14 9
0 .8 0 .4
⎛ 4 × 10 9 q ⎞ ⎛ υK ρ C ⎞
B = 0 . 046 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (D.4)
⎜ πυ d ⎟
⎝ K p ⎠ ⎝ 1000 k m ⎠

C = drilling fluid specific heat (kJ/kg·C°) ρ i = ice density (kg/m3)

db= bit diameter (mm) υ K = kinematic viscosity (mm2/s)
dh= hole diameter (mm)
Si = ice saturation (%)
dp= drill pipe outer diameter
K = washout coefficient (dh/db)
ρ = drilling fluid density (kg/m3)
km= thermal conductivity (W/m·C°) ρ i = ice density (kg/m3)
L = latent heat of fusion for ice (kJ/kg) υ K = kinematic viscosity (mm2/s)
q = drilling fluid flow rate (m3/s) Si = ice saturation (%)
t = time of mud circulation (hours) φ f = formation porosity (%)
Tm= drilling fluid temperature (C°)
ρ = drilling fluid density (kg/m3) D = bit diameter to drill pipe outer
diameter ratio (db/d
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-3 November, 2008

Input Parameters

Y
NRe>2100

Y
N Calculate washout.
Laminar Flow (Eqn. D.1)
ti < t

Turbulent Flow Calculate washout

(Eqn. D.2) N

Create Hole Enlargement Chart

Create Reynold’s Number Chart

End

Figure D.1: Flowchart showing the permafrost hole enlargement routine in STABView.
The criterion used to define the flow regime is based on Reynolds Number (NRe). Using
Kutasov’s approach the flow is considered turbulent when NRe ≥ 2100 and laminar for NRe
<2100. Reynolds Number is calculated as follows:

v(d h − d p )
N = (D.5)
1000 υ
Re
K

where: v = velocity (m/s)

Newtonian or non-Newtonian fluids can be used in the calculation routine as follows:
Newtonian Fluids

vd = υ K / ρ (D.6)

where: vd = dynamic viscosity

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-4 November, 2008

Non-Newtonian Fluids (Bingham Model)

τ o (d h − d p )
µe = µ p + (D.7)
12000 v

where: µ e = equivalent viscosity (mPa·s)

µ p = plastic viscosity (mPa·s)
τ o = yield point (Pa)

D.2 Model Assumptions and Limitations

1. Ice is considered the only cementing material within the permafrost interval. Once the ice
melts, the soil is assumed to washout and become part of the mud. This is a conservative
assumption for any materials with appreciable cohesion or cementation. Furthermore, in
permeable materials drilled overbalanced, a filter cake will build which also provides
support to the wellbore wall, preventing collapse and/or washout. To assess this mode of
failure an elastoplastic borehole stability analysis could be run in STABView to predict
the size of the potential yielded zone and the related deformations.
2. The initial formation temperature is assumed to be 0°C. This is clearly a limitation of the
Kutasov approach for colder permafrost.
3. While drilling, thawed material is entrained in and removed from the borehole by the
drilling fluid. Hole cleaning calculations are not accounted for since the model assumes
that all of the dislodged material can be lifted from the hole despite the low annular
velocities that result in the ever increasing hole size.
4. These equations were developed for a vertical well.
5. Additional turbulence developed by pipe rotation has not been accounted for.
6. Scour due to hydraulic jet impact forces at the bit has not been included.
7. Erosion due to shearing at the fluid - wall contact is assumed to be 100% efficient, i.e., all
of the material is removed or melted and becomes part of the drilling fluid.
8. In this implementation of STABView we have assumed that the permafrost interval is
100% saturated with ice, i.e., no appreciable unfrozen water or gas is present.
The following improvements would make the model more suitable for practical applications:
1. Include additional drilling fluid rheological properties, i.e., Power Law and Hershel
Buckley models.
2. Include variable permafrost temperatures below 0 ºC.
3. Include turbulence effects due to pipe rotation by considering the Taylor number.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-5 November, 2008

4. Develop a new option for back-analyses that will use a time history of various input
parameters such as the drilling fluid temperature, rheological properties, fluid thermal
properties, and pumping rate.

D.3 Example STABView Permafrost Case

To illustrate the application of the permafrost thawing and hole enlargement routine in
STABView 3.0, a case was developed using readily available data from the 1998 Mallik 2L-38
well (Dallimore et al., 1999). Table D.1 summarizes the input and output data for a calculation
made at a depth of 100 mKB in the Iperk Sequence.
Mud thermal conductivity and specific heat values were selected from typical values in the
literature. A 10ºC temperature was selected to match the upset inlet temperature at Mallik 2L-38.
Mud density, dynamic viscosity, circulation rate, and circulation time were similarly selected as
representative of the initial conditions at Mallik 2L-38.
Figure D.2 shows a plot of the predicted washout zone diameter as a function of time and mud
temperature. Note the progressive increase of the hole size until about 9 hours in the 10ºC mud
case. The rate of change in the thaw diameter decreases dramatically after this point in time
when the flow regime in the annulus changes from turbulent to laminar. After 20 hours, a
washout zone diameter of approximately 750 mm is predicted for mud inlet temperatures ranging
from 8ºC to 13ºC.
Figure D.3 shows the change in Reynold’s Number with time as the predicted hole size
increases. Note the value drops to 2100 and very gradually decreases thereafter once laminar
flow is achieved. Additional sensitivities can be investigated with the model to assist in the
selection of optional circulation rates, mud properties or exposure times.
D.4 References

Dallimore, S.R., Uchida, T., and Collett, T.S., Scientific Results from JAPEX / JNOC / GSC
Mallik 2L-38 Gas Hydrate Research Well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories,
Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 544, 1999.
Dallimore, S.R., Laframboise, R.R., Fotiou, M.J., and Medioli, B.E., JAPEX / JNOC / GSC
Mallik 2L-38 Gas Hydrate Research Well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories,
Canada: Interactive Data Viewer, GSC Open File D3726, CD-ROM, November,
1999.
Kudryashov, B.B., and Yakovlev, A.M., Drilling in Permafrost (translated from Russian),
Nedra Publishers, Moscow, 318p, 1983.
Kutasov, I.M., Applied Geothermics for Petroleum Engineers, Elsevier, 1999.
Kutasov, I.M. and Caruthers R.M., Hole Enlargement Control During Arctic Drilling, SPE
17442, SPE California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, 1988.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-6 November, 2008

Table D.1: Example input and output from STABView 3.8 for
a hole enlargement case in permafrost
CASE DATA
Case Title Hole Enlargement in the Permafrost Section at 100 mKB
Well Name Research Well Mallik 2L-38, Mackenzie Delta, NWT
Company Advanced Geotechnology Inc.
Client Geological Survey of Canada
User name GS/PM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 7.1 m
Well Survey Vertical Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Iperk Sequence
Lithology unconsolidated sediment
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA

Calculation Depth (TVD) 100.0 m KB

Borehole Diameter 216 mm
ADVANCED OPTIONS & PROPERTIES

Drilling Mud Properties for 2D Permafrost Model:

Mud Thermal Conductivity 0.680 W/m·°C
Mud Specific Heat 3.957 kJ/kg·°C
Mud Temperature 10 °C
Mud Density 1080 kg/m³
Circulation Rate 0.013 m³ / s
Drill Pipe Outer Diameter 127 mm
Circulation Time 20.00 hours
Formation Porosity 53 %
Drill Bit Diameter 216 mm
Newtonian Fluid Rheological Model:
Dynamic Viscosity 10.0 mPa·s
BOREHOLE WASHOUT OUTPUT CALCULATION

Normalized Washout Zone Radius 3.45

Normalized Washout Zone Area 10.90
Washout Zone Diameter 745 mm
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-7 November, 2008

Figure D2: Predicted hole enlargement due to permafrost melting for

an example case at 100 mKB.

Figure D3: Predicted Reynold’s number with time in the permafrost interval
at 100 mKB for the example problem.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual D-8 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual E-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX E

STABView DEMONSTRATION CASES

 STABView 3.8 User’s Manual E-2 November, 2008

Table E.1: STABView well planning sample cases typically included with STABView as demonstration files
No. STABView Type of No. Zones Analysis Analysis Well Options/Features Selected Comments
Sample Case Model Type Mode Trajectory
Name
1 3D Drilling 3D - elastic single Hole Pressure inclined Effect of a plane of weakness on Evaluation of the effects of a fissile shale on wellbore stability
Collapse Case collapse wellbore collapse. Collapse with a calibrated 3D elastic model.
with Weak while calibration.
Bedding drilling
2 3D Hole 3D - elastic multiple Hole Risk inclined Failure criteria sensitivity. Depth Pseudo-yielded zone calculation for an inclined well based on
Enlargement collapse profile. the extent of the failed zone determined from the default 3D
Model while linear elastic model. It is interesting to compare the results
drilling obtained when Modified Lade and Hoek-Brown failure criteria
are used.
3 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- single Sand Risk horizontal Steady - state pore pressure gradient Horizontal sand production case to decide if a slotted liner,
2D Sand plastic production effects. Depletion induced stresses. screen or gravel pack are required. Yielded zone size and
Production Risk Barefoot openhole completion. deformations predicted for various sensitivities, e.g. dilation
Calculation of the rubble fill angle, peak cohesion, residual cohesion.
percentage.
4 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk horizontal Liner, screen or pre-packed screen Horizontal sand production case to assess if hole closure results
with Liner plastic stability/ completion. Calculation of in contact between the formation and a stiff slotted liner or
sand formation stresses on a stiff screen screen used to complete this well.
production or liner due to hole closure.
Calculation of plastic strain at the
wellbore wall.
5 Extended Reach 3D - elastic multiple Hole Pressure build plus Collapse calibration. Shale-mud Determine safe range of EMW and ECD to prevent borehole
Well with collapse and horizontal interaction and osmotic pressure collapse and fracture breakdown in the build section of the well
Horizontal Leg fracture (survey) effects on wellbore collapse. Mud and within a depleted reservoir section of a horizontal well.
breakdown weight window.
6 Inclined Well 3D - elastic multiple Fracture Pressure survey Steady - state thermal effects on lost Effect of cool fluid injection on fracture breakdown pressure
with Cold Fluid breakdown circulation and fracturing risks. for an open hole completion in a directional well.
Injection
7 Injection Well 3D - elastic single Lost Pressure vertical 3D slip risk analysis on a weak Analysis to determine if elevated pore pressures during water
Slip Pressure Circulation discontinuity, e.g., natural fractures, injection will cause shear failure on weak natural fractures or
Analysis faults or bedding. bedding planes.
8 Permafrost Hole 2D - single Hole Risk vertical 2D permafrost hole enlargement Example of a vertical well drilled through permafrost
Enlargement permafrost collapse model.
erosion while
model drilling
9 Permafrost Hole 2D - multiple Hole Risk vertical 2D permafrost hole enlargement Example of a vertical well drilled through rich, weak erodable
Enlargement permafrost collapse model. permafrost intervals in the Mackenzie Delta, N.W.T., Canada.
Multi - Zone erosion while
model drilling
10 Underbalanced 3D – elastic multiple Hole Pressure survey Steady - state pore pressure gradient Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended
Drilling in Fissile and 2D collapse effects. Depletion induced stresses. reach underbalanced well penetrating a fissile shale at angle.
Shale elasto-plastic while Effects of a plane of weakness on Case takes several minutes to run 2D elasto-plastic and 3D
drilling wellbore collapse. Collapse elastic models compared for high angle penetrations.
calibration. Mud weight window.
 STABView 3.8 User’s Manual E-3 November, 2008

Table E.1: STABView well planning sample cases typically included with STABView as demonstration files (Cont.)
No. STABView Type of No. Zones Analysis Analysis Well Options/Features Selected Comments
Sample Case Model Type Mode Trajectory
Name
11 Underbalanced 2D - elasto- multiple Hole Risk survey Steady - state pore pressure Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended
Drilling plastic collapse gradient effects. Stress depletion reach underbalanced well. Bottomhole pressure profile used as
while model for changing reservoir input.
drilling pressures. Yielded zone
predictions.
12 Vertical Gas Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk vertical Barefoot openhole completion. Vertical gas well with barefoot open hole completion. The user
Open hole plastic stability Effects of gas properties, has input a gas flow rate, from which STABView calculates the
Completion under temperature and non-Darcy flow bottomhole pressure for its use in a borehole collapse model.
drawdown rates on openhole stability.
13 Vertical Oil Well 2D - elasto- multiple Open hole Risk vertical Perforated liner completion with Vertical well with perforated completion. User has specified a
plastic stability cylindrical perforation cavities. liquid production rate, from which STABView calculates the
under Calculation of the perforation bottomhole pressure based on the steady-state radial flow
drawdown stability for the most critical equation for an incompressible fluid.
perforation orientation.
14 Vertical Well with 2D - elasto- multiple Hole Risk vertical Steady - state pore pressure 2D elasto-plastic analysis of the yielded zone size for a vertical
Collapse Risk plastic collapse gradient effects (two-zone mobility well drilled overbalanced through multiple zones.
while model).
drilling
15 Inclined Well 3D - elastic single Sand Risk/ inclined Effect of well trajectory and Calibrated 3D analysis model for cylindrical and hemi-spherical
with Perforations production Pressure perforation orientation on fracture perforation cavities. Assess the value of oriented perforating.
breakdown pressures and sand
production risk
16 Horizontal Well 2D - elasto- multiple Sand Pressure survey Effect of reservoir depletion on the 2D elastoplastic analysis model used for examining the effects
with Effects of plastic Production sand production critical bottom of reservoir depletion for a range of critical bottom hole
Depletion 2D hole pressure or drawdown pressures.
17 Complex Multi- 2D multiple Hole Pressure survey Demonstrates using a combination A complex drilling case showing multiple zones and models
Zone Offshore elastoplastic & collapse and of 2D/3D analysis models in a used to calculate wellbore stability collapse and fracture
Well 3D elastic fracture drilling problem in order to pressures for an offshore well.
breakdown determine a safe operating mud
weight window.
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual E-4 November, 2008
Case Title: 3D Drilling Collapse Case - Weak Bedding 1 of 4 Andes Exploration S.A.

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Borehole Collapse Model Type Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:18

Case Title 3D Drilling Collapse Case - Weak Bedding

Well Name NN
Company AGI
Client Andes Exploration S.A.
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Effects of fissile shale on wellbore stability using a calibrated 3D elastic model for an inclined
well trajectory
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Highest
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Highest
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 35°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 15.09 ft
Well Survey Inclined Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Shale
Lithology shale
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (TVD) 11998.00 ft KB
Borehole Diameter 8.74 in
Azimuth 45.00 °
Inclination 40.00 °
Length of Well Section 10.00 ft
IN-SITU STRESSES AND PRESSURES
Azimuth of Minimum Horizontal Stress 30 °
Vertical Stress Gradient 1.06 psi/ft
Vertical Stress 12702 psi
Max Horz Stress Gradient 1.06 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 12718 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.88 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 10558 psi
Formation Pressure Gradient 0.44 psi/ft
Formation Pressure 5279 psi
ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Peak Cohesion 290 psi
Peak Friction Angle 35 °

Filename: Case 1 - 3D Drilling Collapse Case with Weak Bedding Effects.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:18
Case Title: 3D Drilling Collapse Case - Weak Bedding 2 of 4 Andes Exploration S.A.

Poisson's Ratio 0.30

Young's Modulus 0.70 E+06 psi
Tensile Strength 0 psi
Biot's Coefficient 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
Capillary Threshold Pressure 0 psi
Filter Cake or Wall Coating Efficiency 1.00
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Bedding Dip 35 °
Bedding Dip Direction 300 °
Bedding Cohesion 29 psi
Bedding Friction Angle 20 °

Calibrate Borehole Collapse Pressure Based on the following Well:

Inclination 40 °
Azimuth 45 °
Vertical Depth 11998.00 ft
Calibration Method: Linear Multiplier
Borehole Collapse Type: EMW at Borehole Collapse
Calculated Calibration Ratio 0.74

BOREHOLE COLLAPSE OUTPUT CALCULATION

Calibrated
Initiation Borehole Collapse Pressure Gradient 0.58 psi/ft
Initiation Borehole Collapse Pressure 6996 psi
Initiation Borehole Collapse ECD 11.22 ppg

Filename: Case 1 - 3D Drilling Collapse Case with Weak Bedding Effects.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:18
Case Title: 3D Drilling Collapse Case - Weak Bedding 3 of 4 Andes Exploration S.A.

Effect of Bedding Friction Angle

(Inclination=40 °, TVD=11998.00 ftKB)
25 ° 20 ° 30 °
Analysis Mode: Pressure
12.0 Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 11998.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 40 °
Well Azimuth = 45 °
Calibrated Collapse ECD, ppg
Formation: Shale
Lithology: shale

11.5 Model: 3D Linear Elastic

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.88 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 30 °
11.0 Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Pó = 5279 psi

Äçä = 1.00
cñ = 290 psi
Åñ = 35 °
E = 0.70 E+06 psi
10.5 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

Plane of Weakness
Dip = 35 °
Dip Direction = 300 °
cç = 29 psi
Åç = 20 °
10.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Well Azimuth, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 45 °)

Effect of Bedding Friction Angle

(Azimuth=45 °, TVD=11998.00 ftKB)
25 ° 20 ° 30 °
Analysis Mode: Pressure
12.5 Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 11998.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 40 °
Well Azimuth = 45 °
Calibrated Collapse ECD, ppg

Formation: Shale
12.0 Lithology: shale

Model: 3D Linear Elastic

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
11.5 Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.88 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 30 °
11.0 Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Pó = 5279 psi

Äçä = 1.00
cñ = 290 psi
10.5 Åñ = 35 °
E = 0.70 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00
10.0 Plane of Weakness
Dip = 35 °
Dip Direction = 300 °
cç = 29 psi
Åç = 20 °
9.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Well Inclination, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 40 °)

Filename: Case 1 - 3D Drilling Collapse Case with Weak Bedding Effects.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:18
Case Title: 3D Drilling Collapse Case - Weak Bedding 4 of 4 Andes Exploration S.A.

Effect of Well Trajectory on Calibrated Collapse EMW

N
Analysis Mode: Pressure 12.07
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 11998.00 ftKB

Formation: Shale
Lithology: shale 11.59
90°
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb 60° ¤
Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft 30° 11.11
Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.88 psi/ft W E
Òüîêï Azi = 30 °

Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft 10.62

Pó = 5279 psi

Äçä = 1.00
cñ = 290 psi
Åñ = 35 ° 10.14
E = 0.70 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30 ppg
À = 1.00

Plane of Weakness ¤ Base Case

cç = 29 psi
S Òüîêï
Åç = 20 °
Plane of Weakness
Dip = 35 °
Dip Direction = 300 °

Tornado Plot for Calibrated Collapse EMW Input Value Range

(TVD=11998.00 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Bedding Friction 15 20 25 °
Angle

Bedding Dip 225 300 15 °

Direction

Bedding Cohesion 0 29 200 psi

Bedding Dip
26 35 44 °

Base Case EMW = 11.22 ppg

9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0
EMW, ppg
Analysis Mode: Pressure Formation: Shale Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft Äçä = 1.00 Plane of Weakness
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse Lithology: shale Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft cñ = 290 psi Dip = 35 °
Òüîêï grad = 0.88 psi/ft Åñ = 35 ° Dip Di recti on = 300 °
Depth TVD = 11998.00 ftKB Model: 3D Linear Elastic Òüîêï Azi = 30 ° E = 0.70 E+06 psi cç = 29 psi
Well Inclination = 40 ° Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft Í = 0.30 Åç = 20 °
Well Azimuth = 45 ° Pó = 5279 psi À = 1.00

Filename: Case 1 - 3D Drilling Collapse Case with Weak Bedding Effects.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:18
Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 1 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:23

Case Title 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well

Well Name FX-35
Company ABC Drilling
Client Hornet Exploration Ltd.
User Name Rob Smith
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Pseudo-yielded zone calculation for an inclined well based on the extent of the failed zone
determined from the default 3D linear elastic model. It is interesting to compare the results
obtained when Modified Lade and Hoek-Brown failure criteria are used.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 35°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 16.40 ft
Well Survey Inclined Well
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 35.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.0
4005.12 35.00 25.00 3280.80 2082.01 970.86 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 4005.12 8.66
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
* No tubular data were entered for this case.
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Interval 1 dolomite 3684.66 3905.01 3018.30 3198.80

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 2 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA

No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Interval 1 3684.66 3018.30 135 1.06 1.06 1.02 1.02 0.80 0.80 0.42 0.42
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Top Top Wellbore Wellbore
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth Pressure (Top) Pressure (Btm)
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi psi
1 Interval 1 dolomite 3684.66 3018.30 1450 1450
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi
TVD
1 Interval 1 dolomite 3684.66 3018.30 290 35 0.30 1.16 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating
psi Efficiency

1 Interval 1 dolomite 3684.66 3018.30 0 1.00

MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: dolomite (Top MD = 3684.66 ft ; Top TVD = 3018.30 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
* No Model Options selected.

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 3 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:23

Case Title 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well

Well Name FX-35
Company ABC Drilling
Client Hornet Exploration Ltd.
User Name Rob Smith
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Pseudo-yielded zone calculation for an inclined well based on the extent of the failed zone
determined from the default 3D linear elastic model. It is interesting to compare the results
obtained when Modified Lade and Hoek-Brown failure criteria are used.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 35°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: dolomite, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criterion)

3684.70 3018.33 1.10 0.20 1.17 1.17 9.48 9.5 165

3686.14 3019.51 1.10 0.20 1.17 1.17 9.49 9.5 166
3687.62 3020.72 1.10 0.20 1.17 1.17 9.49 9.6 167
3689.10 3021.94 1.10 0.20 1.17 1.17 9.49 9.6 168
3690.58 3023.15 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.49 9.6 169
3692.06 3024.36 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.50 9.7 170
3693.54 3025.57 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.50 9.7 171
3695.02 3026.78 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.50 9.7 172
3696.50 3027.99 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.51 9.8 174
3697.97 3029.20 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.51 9.8 176
3699.45 3030.41 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.51 9.9 180
3700.93 3031.63 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.52 9.9 180
3702.41 3032.84 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.52 9.9 180
3703.89 3034.05 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.52 10.0 180
3705.37 3035.26 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.53 10.0 180
3706.85 3036.47 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.53 10.1 180
3708.33 3037.68 1.10 0.21 1.17 1.17 9.53 10.1 180
3709.81 3038.89 1.10 0.22 1.17 1.17 9.54 10.1 180
3711.28 3040.11 1.10 0.22 1.17 1.17 9.54 10.2 180
3712.76 3041.32 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.17 9.54 10.2 180
3714.24 3042.53 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.17 9.55 10.2 180
3715.72 3043.74 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.17 9.55 10.3 180
3717.20 3044.95 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.17 9.55 10.3 180
3718.68 3046.16 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.56 10.4 180

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 4 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

3720.16 3047.37 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.56 10.4 180

3721.64 3048.59 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.56 10.4 180
3723.11 3049.80 1.10 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.57 10.5 180
3724.59 3051.01 1.11 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.57 10.5 180
3726.07 3052.22 1.11 0.22 1.16 1.18 9.57 10.5 180
3727.55 3053.43 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.58 10.6 180
3729.03 3054.64 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.58 10.6 180
3730.51 3055.85 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.58 10.6 180
3731.99 3057.07 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.59 10.7 180
3733.47 3058.28 1.11 0.23 1.15 1.18 9.59 10.7 180
3734.95 3059.49 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.59 10.8 180
3736.42 3060.70 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.60 10.8 180
3737.90 3061.91 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.60 10.8 180
3739.38 3063.12 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.60 10.9 180
3740.86 3064.33 1.11 0.23 1.16 1.18 9.60 10.9 180
3742.34 3065.55 1.11 0.23 1.15 1.18 9.61 11.0 180
3743.82 3066.76 1.11 0.23 1.15 1.18 9.61 11.0 180
3745.30 3067.97 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.61 11.0 180
3746.78 3069.18 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.62 11.1 180
3748.26 3070.39 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.62 11.1 180
3749.73 3071.60 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.62 11.1 180
3751.21 3072.81 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.63 11.2 180
3752.69 3074.03 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.63 11.2 180
3754.17 3075.24 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.63 11.2 180
3755.65 3076.45 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.64 11.3 180
3757.13 3077.66 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.64 11.3 180
3758.61 3078.87 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.64 11.4 180
3760.09 3080.08 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.65 11.4 180
3761.57 3081.29 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.65 11.4 180
3763.04 3082.50 1.11 0.24 1.15 1.18 9.65 11.5 180
3764.52 3083.72 1.11 0.25 1.15 1.18 9.66 11.5 180
3766.00 3084.93 1.12 0.25 1.15 1.18 9.66 11.5 180
3767.48 3086.14 1.12 0.25 1.15 1.18 9.66 11.6 180
3768.96 3087.35 1.12 0.25 1.15 1.18 9.67 11.6 180
3770.44 3088.56 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.67 11.7 180
3771.92 3089.77 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.67 11.7 180
3773.40 3090.99 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.67 11.7 180
3774.87 3092.20 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.68 11.8 180
3776.35 3093.41 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.68 11.8 180
3777.83 3094.62 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.68 11.8 180
3779.31 3095.83 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.69 11.9 180
3780.79 3097.04 1.12 0.25 1.14 1.18 9.69 11.9 180
3782.27 3098.25 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.69 11.9 180
3783.75 3099.46 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.70 12.0 180
3785.23 3100.68 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.70 12.0 180
3786.71 3101.89 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.70 12.0 180
3788.18 3103.10 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.71 12.1 180
3789.66 3104.31 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.71 12.1 180
3791.14 3105.52 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.71 12.2 180
3792.62 3106.73 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.71 12.2 180
3794.10 3107.94 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.72 12.2 180
3795.58 3109.16 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.72 12.2 180
3797.06 3110.37 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.72 12.3 180
3798.54 3111.58 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.73 12.3 180
3800.02 3112.79 1.12 0.26 1.14 1.19 9.73 12.4 180
3801.49 3114.00 1.12 0.27 1.14 1.19 9.73 12.4 180
3802.97 3115.21 1.12 0.27 1.14 1.19 9.74 12.4 180
3804.45 3116.42 1.12 0.27 1.14 1.19 9.74 12.5 180
3805.93 3117.64 1.13 0.27 1.14 1.19 9.74 12.5 180
3807.41 3118.85 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.75 12.5 180
3808.89 3120.06 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.75 12.6 180
3810.37 3121.27 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.75 12.6 180
3811.85 3122.48 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.75 12.6 180
3813.32 3123.69 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.76 12.7 180
3814.80 3124.90 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.76 12.7 180
3816.28 3126.12 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.76 12.7 180
3817.76 3127.33 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.77 12.8 180
3819.24 3128.54 1.13 0.27 1.13 1.19 9.77 12.8 180
3820.72 3129.75 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.77 12.9 180

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 5 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

3822.20 3130.96 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.78 12.9 180

3823.68 3132.17 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.78 12.9 180
3825.16 3133.38 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.78 12.9 180
3826.64 3134.60 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.78 13.0 180
3828.11 3135.81 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.79 13.0 180
3829.59 3137.02 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.19 9.79 13.0 180
3831.07 3138.23 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.79 13.1 180
3832.55 3139.44 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.80 13.1 180
3834.03 3140.65 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.80 13.2 180
3835.51 3141.86 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.80 13.2 180
3836.99 3143.08 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.81 13.2 180
3838.47 3144.29 1.13 0.28 1.13 1.20 9.81 13.3 180
3839.94 3145.50 1.13 0.29 1.13 1.20 9.81 13.3 180
3841.42 3146.71 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.81 13.3 180
3842.90 3147.92 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.82 13.4 180
3844.38 3149.13 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.82 13.4 180
3845.86 3150.34 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.82 13.4 180
3847.34 3151.56 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.83 13.5 180
3848.82 3152.77 1.13 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.83 13.5 180
3850.30 3153.98 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.83 13.5 180
3851.78 3155.19 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.83 13.6 180
3853.25 3156.40 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.84 13.6 180
3854.73 3157.61 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.84 13.6 180
3856.21 3158.82 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.84 13.7 180
3857.69 3160.04 1.14 0.29 1.12 1.20 9.85 13.7 180
3859.17 3161.25 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.85 13.7 180
3860.65 3162.46 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.85 13.8 180
3862.13 3163.67 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.85 13.8 180
3863.61 3164.88 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.86 13.8 180
3865.08 3166.09 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.86 13.9 180
3866.56 3167.30 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.86 13.9 180
3868.04 3168.52 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.87 13.9 180
3869.52 3169.73 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.87 14.0 180
3871.00 3170.94 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.87 14.0 180
3872.48 3172.15 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.87 14.0 180
3873.96 3173.36 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.88 14.1 180
3875.44 3174.57 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.88 14.1 180
3876.92 3175.78 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.88 14.1 180
3878.39 3177.00 1.14 0.30 1.12 1.20 9.89 14.2 180
3879.87 3178.21 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.89 14.2 180
3881.35 3179.42 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.89 14.2 180
3882.83 3180.63 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.89 14.3 180
3884.31 3181.84 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.90 14.3 180
3885.79 3183.05 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.90 14.3 180
3887.27 3184.26 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.90 14.4 180
3888.75 3185.47 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.91 14.4 180
3890.23 3186.69 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.91 14.4 180
3891.70 3187.90 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.91 14.4 180
3893.18 3189.11 1.14 0.31 1.12 1.20 9.91 14.5 180
3894.66 3190.32 1.15 0.31 1.11 1.20 9.92 14.5 180
3896.14 3191.53 1.15 0.31 1.11 1.20 9.92 14.5 180
3897.62 3192.74 1.15 0.31 1.12 1.21 9.92 14.6 180
3899.10 3193.95 1.15 0.32 1.12 1.21 9.93 14.6 180
3900.58 3195.17 1.15 0.32 1.12 1.21 9.93 14.6 180
3902.06 3196.38 1.15 0.32 1.11 1.21 9.93 14.7 180
3903.54 3197.59 1.15 0.32 1.11 1.21 9.93 14.7 180
3904.98 3198.77 1.15 0.32 1.11 1.21 9.94 14.7 180

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 6 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Effect of Max Horz Stress Gradient

(Inclination=35 °, MD=3684.88 ftKB)
0.77 psi/ft 1.02 psi/ft 1.10 psi/ft
Analysis Mode: Risk
16 Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 3018.47 ftKB

Depth MD = 3684.88 ftKB
Well Inclination = 35 °
Well Azimuth = 25 °
Formation: Interval 1
Percent Overgauge, %

Lithology: dolomite
14
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
12
Pó grad = 0.42 psi/ft
Pó = 1268 psi
Pø = 1450 psi
¿P = +182 psi

Äçä = 1.00
10 cñ = 290 psi
Åñ = 35 °
E = 1.16 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

8
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Well Azimuth, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 25 °)

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↑ High Side Òüîâù grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 3030.11 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Depth MD = 3699.08 ftKB
Well Inclination = 35 ° Pó grad = 0.42 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 25 ° Pó = 1273 psi
Formation: Interval 1 Pø = 1450 psi
Lithology: dolomite EMW = 9.21 ppg
¿P = +177 psi
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Äçä = 1.00
NYZA = 0.21 cñ = 290 psi
R/rw = 1.10 Åñ = 35 °
R = 4.76 in E = 1.16 E+06 psi
rw = 4.33 in Í = 0.30
a = 5.07 in À = 1.00
b = 4.34 in
a/b = 1.17
a/rw = 1.17 / Original Borehole
b/rw = 1.00 / Yielded Zone
Breakout Angle = 180 ° / 3D LE (Hoek Brow n)
/ 3D LE (Lade)
(Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 3D Elastic Yielded Zone Analysis for an Inclined Well 7 of 7 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Tornado Plot for R/rw Input Value Range

(MD=3684.66 ftKB,TVD=3018.30 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Peak Friction Angle 26 35 44 °

Peak Cohesion 218 290 363 psi

Max Horz Stress 0.77 1.02 1.28 psi/ft

Gradient

Azimuth of Min
90 135 180 °
Horz Stress
Base Case R/rw = 1.10

1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25

R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk Formation: Interval 1 Ò÷ grad = 1.06 psi/ft Pó grad = 0.42 psi/ft Äçä = 1.00
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse Lithology: dolomite Òüîâù grad = 1.02 psi/ft Pó = 1268 psi cñ = 290 psi
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft Pø = 1450 psi Åñ = 35 °
Depth TVD = 3018.30 ftKB Model: 3D Linear Elastic Òüîêï Azi = 135 ° ¿P = +182 psi E = 1.16 E+06 psi
Depth MD = 3684.66 ftKB Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Í = 0.30
Well Inclination = 35 ° À = 1.00
Well Azimuth = 25 °

Filename: Case 2 - 3D Hole Enlargement Model.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:23

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 1 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Borehole Collapse Model Type 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:24

Case Title 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk

Well Name Titan 11-17
Company Weatherford International Ltd.
Client ABC Oil and Gas
User Name M.C.H.
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Sand production analysis case for a horizontal well to decide if a liner or screen is required or
whether an openhole completion is feasible. Depending upon how significant the yielded zone
is we may require a gravel pack. STABView can be used to investigate the sensitivity of the
elastoplastic yielded zone predicted with its 2D model, and the consequences of higher
drawdown pressures, stronger rock, depletion, etc..
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 35°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 25°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 30.00 ft
Well Survey Horizontal Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Eocene Sand
Lithology sandstone
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (TVD) 4000.00 ft KB
Borehole Diameter 8.75 in
Azimuth 315.00 °
Inclination 90.00 °
Length of Well Section 10.00 ft
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
Tubular Type sand screen
Top Depth 0.00 ft
Btm Depth 13827.19 ft
ID 0.24 in
OD 0.28 in
IN-SITU STRESSES AND PRESSURES
Azimuth of Minimum Horizontal Stress 45 °
Vertical Stress Gradient 0.97 psi/ft
Vertical Stress 3851 psi
Max Horz Stress Gradient 0.93 psi/ft

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 2 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

Max Horz Stress 3720 psi

Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.80 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 3200 psi
Formation Pressure Gradient 0.40 psi/ft
Formation Pressure 1600 psi
Wellbore Pressure (Top) 700 psi
Wellbore Pressure (Btm) 700 psi
Wellbore Pressure 700 psi
ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Peak Cohesion 800 psi
Peak Friction Angle 40 °
Poisson's Ratio 0.30
Young's Modulus 0.20 E+06 psi
Tensile Strength 30 psi
Biot's Coefficient 1.00
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Residual Cohesion 220 psi
Residual Friction Angle 33 °
Fracture Roughness Angle 10 °
Rubble Bulking Factor 1.20

In-situ Stress Regime: Normally Faulted Basin

Fault Friction Angle 30 °
Depleted Formation Pressure Gradient 0.22 psi/ft
Depleted Formation Pressure 880 psi
In-situ stresses after depletion:
Max Horz Stress Gradient 0.82 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 3288 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.68 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 2720 psi

Pore Pressure Effects:

Formation Fluid Viscosity 0.5 cp
Fluid Viscosity in Yielded Zone 0.5 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 200 md
Yielded Rock Permeability 400 md
Producing Interval Length 50.00 ft
Pressure Drop Across Liner 20 psi
Dilation Angle 25 °
BOREHOLE COLLAPSE OUTPUT CALCULATION
Average Normalized Yielded Zone Radius, R/rw 1.30
Average Yielded Zone Radius, R 5.68 in
Normalized Yielded Zone Area, NYZA 0.63
Normalized Yielded Zone Length, a/rw 1.28
Normalized Yielded Zone Width, b/rw 1.28
Yielded Zone Ellipticity, a/b 1.00
Rubble Fill Percentage, RFP 39.0 %
Radial Displacement 0.18 in

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 3 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=90 °, Azimuth=315 °, TVD=4000.00 ftKB)
600 psi 800 psi 1000 psi Critical R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk
1.5 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
Formation: Eocene Sand
Normalized Yielded Zone
Lithology: sandstone
1.4
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rw

Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
1.3
Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1600 psi
Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft
Pó(new) = 880 psi

cñ = 800 psi
Åñ = 40 °
1.2 có = 220 psi
Åó = 33 °
E = 0.20 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

1.1
500 600 700 800 900

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Sand Production
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 315 ° Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Formation: Eocene Sand Pó = 1600 psi
Lithology: sandstone Pó grad(new ) = 0.22 psi/ft
Pó(new ) = 880 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic Pø = 700 psi
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb ¿P = -180 psi
NYZA = 0.69
R/rw = 1.30 cñ = 800 psi
R = 5.68 in Åñ = 40 °
rw = 4.38 in có = 220 psi
a = 5.68 in Åó = 33 °
b = 5.68 in E = 0.20 E+06 psi
a/b = 1.00 Í = 0.30
a/rw = 1.30 À = 1.00
b/rw = 1.30 / Original Borehole
Defm = 0.19 in / Yielded Zone
RFP = 39.0 % / Rubble Detachment Sfc.
/ Deformed Borehole
/ Liner or Screen OD
(Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 4 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

Effect of Dilation Angle

(Inclination=90 °, Azimuth=315 °, TVD=4000.00 ftKB)
10 ° 25 ° 30 °
Analysis Mode: Risk
0.26 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB

Ave. Total Radial Displacement, 0.24
Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
0.22 Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
0.20 Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
in

Òüîêï Azi = 45 °

Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft

0.18 Pó = 1600 psi
Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft
Pó(new) = 880 psi

cñ = 800 psi
0.16 Åñ = 40 °
có = 220 psi
Åó = 33 °
E = 0.20 E+06 psi
0.14 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

0.12
500 600 700 800 900

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Effect of Pressure Drop Across Liner

(TVD=4000.00 ftKB)
5 psi 20 psi 100 psi
Analysis Mode: Risk
860 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 90 °
840 Well Azimuth = 315 °
Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone

820 Model: 2D Elastoplastic

Pore Pressure, psi

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft

800 Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
780 Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1600 psi
Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft
760 Pó(new) = 880 psi
Pø = 700 psi
¿P = -180 psi

740 cñ = 800 psi

Åñ = 40 °
có = 220 psi
Åó = 33 °
720 E = 0.20 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

700
0 5 10 15

Normalized Radial Distance (R/rw)

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 5 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

Stress and Pore Pressure

(TVD=4000.00 ftKB)
Pore Pressure Radial Stress Tangential Stress
Analysis Mode: Risk
6000 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB

Calculated for an equivalent circular yielded zone Well Inclination = 90 °
Total Stress and Pore Pressure, Well Azimuth = 315 °
Formation: Eocene Sand
5000 Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
4000 Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
psi

Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
3000 Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1600 psi
Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft
Pó(new) = 880 psi
Pø = 700 psi
2000 ¿P = -180 psi

cñ = 800 psi
Åñ = 40 °
có = 220 psi
1000 Åó = 33 °
E = 0.20 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

0
0 5 10 15

Normalized Radial Distance (R/rw)

Effect of Residual Cohesion

(Inclination=90 °, Azimuth=315 °, TVD=4000.00 ftKB)
165 psi 220 psi 275 psi
Analysis Mode: Risk
60 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 90 °
55 Well Azimuth = 315 °
Formation: Eocene Sand
Rubble Fill Percentage, %

Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
50 Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft
45 Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °

Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft

40 Pó = 1600 psi
Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft
Pó(new) = 880 psi

cñ = 800 psi
35 Åñ = 40 °
có = 220 psi
Åó = 33 °
E = 0.20 E+06 psi
30 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

25
500 600 700 800 900

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D Elastoplastic Analysis of Sand Production Risk 6 of 6 ABC Oil and Gas

Tornado Plot for R/rw Input Value Range

(TVD=4000.00 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Peak Cohesion
600 800 1000 psi

Residual Cohesion
165 220 275 psi

Pressure Drop
5 20 100 psi
Across Liner

Base Case R/rw = 1.30

1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45

R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk Formation: Eocene Sand Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft cñ = 800 psi
Analysis Type: Sand Production Lithology: sandstone Òüîâù grad = 0.93 psi/ft Pó = 1600 psi Åñ = 40 °
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft Pó grad(new) = 0.22 psi/ft có = 220 psi
Depth TVD = 4000.00 ftKB Model: 2D Elastoplastic Òüîêï Azi = 45 ° Pó(new) = 880 psi Åó = 33 °
Well Inclination = 90 ° Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Pø = 720 psi E = 0.20 E+06 psi
Well Azimuth = 315 ° ¿P = -160 psi Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

Filename: Case 3 - Horizontal Well 2D Sand Production Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:24

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 1 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:26

Case Title 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner

Well Name Titan 11-17
Company Weatherford International Ltd.
Client ABC Oil and Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Horizontal sand production case to assess if hole convergence results in contact between the
formation and a slotted liner or screen used to complete this well. Elastic and plastic strains,
and deformations at the original wellbore wall are computed for a range of drawdown
pressures. Isotropic loading of the liner or screen is also computed assuming a perfectly stiff
liner or screen. Information on the entire wellbore trajectory is included with this problem,
although the analysis focuses only on the horizontal leg of the well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 15.00 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 315.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4017.75 70.00 315.00 3940.13 137.34 -137.34 24.6
3624.05 0.00 315.00 3624.05 0.00 0.00 0.0 4214.60 90.00 315.00 3974.14 273.73 -273.73 10.9
3755.29 20.00 315.00 3752.64 16.03 -16.03 16.4 5600.00 90.00 315.00 3974.14 1253.35 -1253.35 0.0
3886.52 40.00 315.00 3865.71 62.19 -62.19 16.4

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 4015.01 12.00
2 5600.00 8.50
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 casing 0.00 4015.01 9.00 9.60
2 slotted liner 4015.01 5600.00 6.60 7.00

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 2 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Eocene Sand sandstone 4000.00 5600.00 3930.06 3974.14
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Eocene Sand 4000.00 3930.06 45 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.40 0.40
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Top Top Wellbore Wellbore
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth Pressure (Top) Pressure (Btm)
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi psi
1 Eocene Sand sandstone 4000.00 3930.06 950 950
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Apparent Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Capillary Ratio Modulus Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle Cohesion E+06 psi
TVD psi
1 Eocene Sand sandstone 4000.00 3930.06 650 40 0.00 0.30 0.15 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating
psi Efficiency

1 Eocene Sand sandstone 4000.00 3930.06 0 0.00

MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Eocene Sand, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 4000.00 ft ; Top TVD = 3930.06 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 145 psi
Residual Friction Angle 35 °
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 0.5 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 200 md
Producing Interval Length 10.01 ft
Pressure Drop Across Liner 100 psi
Dilation Angle 25 °

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 3 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:26

Case Title 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner

Well Name Titan 11-17
Company Weatherford International Ltd.
Client ABC Oil and Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Horizontal sand production case to assess if hole convergence results in contact between the
formation and a slotted liner or screen used to complete this well. Elastic and plastic strains,
and deformations at the original wellbore wall are computed for a range of drawdown
pressures. Isotropic loading of the liner or screen is also computed assuming a perfectly stiff
liner or screen. Information on the entire wellbore trajectory is included with this problem,
although the analysis focuses only on the horizontal leg of the well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Eocene Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

4000.03 3930.08 1.53 1.35 1.00 1.53 13.04 53.4

4021.62 3940.79 1.58 1.50 1.00 1.58 13.45 58.2
4043.24 3944.53 1.58 1.51 1.00 1.58 13.46 58.3
4064.87 3948.27 1.58 1.51 1.00 1.58 13.47 58.5
4086.49 3952.00 1.59 1.52 1.00 1.59 13.48 58.6
4108.11 3955.74 1.59 1.52 1.00 1.59 13.49 58.7
4129.73 3959.47 1.59 1.52 1.00 1.59 13.51 58.9
4151.35 3963.21 1.59 1.53 1.00 1.59 13.52 59.0
4172.97 3966.94 1.59 1.53 1.00 1.59 13.53 59.2
4194.60 3970.68 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.54 59.3
4216.22 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4237.84 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4259.46 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4281.08 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4302.70 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4324.32 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4345.95 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4367.57 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4389.19 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4410.81 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4432.43 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4454.05 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 4 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

4475.68 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4

4497.30 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4518.92 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4540.54 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4562.16 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4583.78 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4605.41 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4627.03 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4648.65 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4670.27 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4691.89 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4713.51 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4735.14 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4756.76 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4778.38 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4800.00 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4821.62 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4843.24 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4864.87 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4886.49 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4908.11 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4929.73 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4951.35 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4972.97 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
4994.59 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5016.22 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5037.84 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5059.46 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5081.08 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5102.70 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5124.32 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5145.95 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5167.57 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5189.19 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5210.81 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5232.43 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5254.05 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5275.68 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5297.30 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5318.92 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5340.54 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5362.16 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5383.78 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5405.41 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5427.03 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5448.65 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5470.27 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5491.89 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5513.51 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5535.14 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5556.76 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5578.38 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4
5599.97 3974.14 1.59 1.54 1.00 1.59 13.55 59.4

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 5 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=76 °, Azimuth=315 °, MD=4080.93 ftKB)
435 psi 650 psi 725 psi
Analysis Mode: Risk
0.8 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 3951.04 ftKB

Ave. Total Radial Displacement, Depth MD = 4080.93 ftKB
Well Inclination = 76 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
0.7 Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

0.6 Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft
in

Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft

Òüîêï Azi = 45 °

Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft

0.5 Pó = 1580 psi

cñ = 650 psi
Åñ = 40 °
có = 145 psi
Åó = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
0.4 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

0.3
500 600 700 800 900 1000

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Sand Production
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 3951.04 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
Depth MD = 4080.93 ftKB
Well Inclination = 76 ° Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 315 ° Pó = 1580 psi
Formation: Eocene Sand Pø = 950 psi
Lithology: sandstone ¿P = -630 psi

Model: 2D Elastoplastic cñ = 650 psi

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Åñ = 40 °
NYZA = 1.51 có = 145 psi
R/rw = 1.59 Åó = 35 °
R = 6.74 in E = 0.15 E+06 psi
rw = 4.25 in Í = 0.30
a = 6.74 in À = 1.00
b = 6.74 in
a/b = 1.00
a/rw = 1.59 / Original Borehole
b/rw = 1.59 / Yielded Zone
Defm = 0.44 in / Deformed Borehole
/ Liner or Screen OD
(Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 6 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

Well Profile - Vertical Section Plane

(Plane Azimuth=315.00 °)
500

500

1000
TVD (ft)

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Horizontal Distance (ft)

Effect of Apparent Capillary Cohesion

(Incl.=86 °, Az.=315 °, MD=4175.49 ftKB)
10 psi 0 psi 30 psi
Analysis Mode: Risk
2.0 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 3967.38 ftKB

Depth MD = 4175.49 ftKB
Normalized Yielded Zone Area

Well Inclination = 86 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
1.8 Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
1.6
Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
1.4
Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1587 psi

cñ = 650 psi
1.2 Åñ = 40 °
có = 145 psi
Åó = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
1.0 À = 1.00

0.8
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 7 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

Effect of Pressure Drop Across Liner

(Incl.=86 °, Az.=315 °, MD=4175.49 ftKB)
0 psi 100 psi 250 psi
Analysis Mode: Risk
2.2 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 3967.38 ftKB

Depth MD = 4175.49 ftKB
Normalized Yielded Zone Area Well Inclination = 86 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
2.0 Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
1.8
Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
1.6
Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1587 psi

cñ = 650 psi
1.4 Åñ = 40 °
có = 145 psi
Åó = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
1.2 À = 1.00

1.0
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Effect of Residual Friction Angle

(Incl.=74 °, Az.=315 °, MD=4054.16 ftKB)
25 ° 35 ° 30 °
Analysis Mode: Risk
600 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 3946.42 ftKB

Depth MD = 4054.16 ftKB
Well Inclination = 74 °
Well Azimuth = 315 °
500 Formation: Eocene Sand
Lithology: sandstone
Liner Stress, psi

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
400
Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 45 °
300
Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1579 psi

cñ = 650 psi
200 Åñ = 40 °
có = 145 psi
Åó = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
100 À = 1.00

0
0 500 1000 1500

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: 2D EP Analysis of Convergence on a Liner 8 of 8 ABC Oil and Gas

Tornado Plot for R/rw Input Value Range

(MD=4000.00 ftKB,TVD=3930.06 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Residual Friction 25 35 30 °
Angle

Peak Cohesion 435 650 850 psi

Pressure Drop 0 100 250 psi

Across Liner

Apparent Capillary
10 0 30 psi
Cohesion
Base Case R/rw = 1.58

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk Formation: Eocene Sand Ò÷ grad = 0.95 psi/ft Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft cñ = 650 psi
Analysis Type: Sand Production Lithology: sandstone Òüîâù grad = 0.95 psi/ft Pó = 1572 psi Åñ = 40 °
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft Pø = 1050 psi có = 145 psi
Depth TVD = 3930.06 ftKB Model: 2D Elastoplastic Òüîêï Azi = 45 ° ¿P = -522 psi Åó = 35 °
Depth MD = 4000.00 ftKB Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Well Inclination = 66 ° Í = 0.30
Well Azimuth = 315 ° À = 1.00

Filename: Case 4 - Horizontal Well with Liner.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:26

Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 1 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:49

Case Title Extended Reach Horizontal Well

Well Name HW-1
Company AGI
Client ABC Oil & Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Determine safe range of mud densities to prevent borehole collapse and fracture breakdown
in the build section and within a depleted reservoir section of a horizontal well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 16.40 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 10170.48 40.00 22.00 8533.66 4469.39 1805.75 0.0
196.85 0.00 22.00 196.85 0.00 0.00 0.0 10813.52 40.00 22.00 9026.26 4852.63 1960.59 0.0
393.70 0.00 22.00 393.70 0.00 0.00 0.0 10925.06 42.00 27.00 9110.46 4919.14 1990.97 3.7
590.54 0.00 22.00 590.54 0.00 0.00 0.0 11121.91 45.00 34.00 9253.32 5035.62 2059.85 3.1
787.39 0.00 22.00 787.39 0.00 0.00 0.0 11318.76 49.00 41.00 9387.63 5149.50 2147.59 3.6
984.24 0.00 22.00 984.24 0.00 0.00 0.0 11515.61 53.00 47.00 9511.56 5259.27 2253.91 3.4
1115.47 1.00 22.00 1115.47 1.06 0.43 0.8 11712.46 57.00 52.00 9624.49 5363.79 2376.55 3.1
1312.32 3.00 22.00 1312.18 7.43 3.00 1.1 11909.30 61.00 57.00 9725.90 5461.58 2513.91 3.2
1509.17 5.00 22.00 1508.54 20.16 8.15 1.1 12106.15 66.00 61.00 9813.73 5552.14 2664.89 3.4
1706.02 6.00 22.00 1704.48 37.66 15.21 0.5 12303.00 70.00 65.00 9887.48 5634.88 2827.48 3.0
1902.86 8.00 22.00 1899.85 59.90 24.20 1.1 12499.85 75.00 69.00 9946.68 5708.11 3000.23 3.4
2099.71 10.00 22.00 2094.27 88.45 35.73 1.1 12696.70 80.00 73.00 9989.29 5770.59 3181.87 3.5
2296.56 12.00 22.00 2287.49 123.27 49.80 1.1 12893.54 85.00 76.00 10014.98 5822.69 3369.86 3.2
2493.41 14.00 22.00 2479.28 164.33 66.39 1.1 13090.39 90.00 80.00 10023.57 5863.54 3562.12 3.5
2650.89 15.00 22.00 2631.74 200.88 81.16 0.7 13188.82 90.00 80.00 10023.57 5880.64 3659.05 0.0
2755.87 17.00 22.00 2732.66 227.71 92.00 2.1 13385.66 90.00 80.00 10023.57 5914.82 3852.91 0.0
2952.72 21.00 22.00 2918.74 287.12 116.00 2.2 13582.51 90.00 80.00 10023.57 5949.00 4046.77 0.0
3149.57 25.00 22.00 3099.90 358.42 144.81 2.2 13779.36 90.00 80.00 10023.57 5983.18 4240.63 0.0
3346.42 29.00 22.00 3275.26 441.26 178.28 2.2 13976.21 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6017.37 4434.48 0.0
3543.26 33.00 22.00 3443.96 535.25 216.25 2.2 14173.06 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6051.55 4628.34 0.0
3740.11 37.00 22.00 3605.17 639.91 258.54 2.2 14369.90 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6085.73 4822.20 0.0
3894.31 40.00 22.00 3725.84 728.90 294.50 2.1 14566.75 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6119.91 5016.06 0.0
4265.04 40.00 22.00 4009.83 949.85 383.76 0.0 14763.60 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6154.10 5209.91 0.0
4921.20 40.00 22.00 4512.48 1340.91 541.76 0.0 14960.45 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6188.28 5403.77 0.0
5577.36 40.00 22.00 5015.13 1731.97 699.76 0.0 15157.30 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6222.46 5597.63 0.0
6233.52 40.00 22.00 5517.78 2123.03 857.76 0.0 15354.14 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6256.64 5791.49 0.0
6889.68 40.00 22.00 6020.42 2514.09 1015.76 0.0 15550.99 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6290.83 5985.34 0.0

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 2 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
7545.84 40.00 22.00 6523.07 2905.15 1173.76 0.0 15747.84 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6325.01 6179.20 0.0
8202.00 40.00 22.00 7025.72 3296.21 1331.76 0.0 15944.69 90.00 80.00 10023.57 6359.19 6373.06 0.0
8858.16 40.00 22.00 7528.37 3687.27 1489.75 0.0
9514.32 40.00 22.00 8031.02 4078.33 1647.75 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 820.00 36.00
2 1970.00 16.00
3 9840.00 12.25
4 15944.69 8.50
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 surface casing 0.00 804.00 28.75 30.00
2 casing 0.00 1952.00 12.40 13.40
3 casing 0.00 9826.00 8.65 9.60
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Tertiary Mudstone mudstone 3280.80 7500.10 3216.81 6488.03
2 Cretaceous Shale shale 7500.10 11318.75 6488.03 9387.62
3 Reservoir Unit A sandstone 11318.75 11909.30 9387.62 9725.90
4 Reservoir Unit B limestone 11909.30 12303.00 9725.90 9887.48
5 Reservoir Unit C sandstone 12303.00 15944.60 9887.48 10023.57
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Tertiary Mudstone 3280.80 3216.81 40 0.93 0.99 0.77 0.84 0.69 0.75 0.44 0.44
2 Cretaceous Shale 7500.10 6488.03 40 0.99 1.02 0.84 0.87 0.75 0.79 0.44 0.44
3 Reservoir Unit A 11318.75 9387.62 40 1.02 1.02 0.87 0.88 0.79 0.80 0.44 0.44
4 Reservoir Unit B 11909.30 9725.90 40 1.02 1.02 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.81 0.44 0.44
5 Reservoir Unit C 12303.00 9887.48 40 1.02 1.02 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.44 0.44
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Tensile Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Strength Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi psi
TVD
1 Tertiary Mudstone mudstone 3280.80 3216.81 350 30 0.35 0.29 15 1.00
2 Cretaceous Shale shale 7500.10 6488.03 400 35 0.33 0.40 20 1.00
3 Reservoir Unit A sandstone 11318.75 9387.62 580 30 0.30 0.73 45 1.00
4 Reservoir Unit B limestone 11909.30 9725.90 1500 40 0.20 0.58 100 0.80
5 Reservoir Unit C sandstone 12303.00 9887.48 725 35 0.25 0.44 75 0.90
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake Fluid
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall Penetration
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating Coefficient
psi Efficiency

1 Tertiary Mudstone mudstone 3280.80 3216.81 0 0.30 0.70

2 Cretaceous Shale shale 7500.10 6488.03 0 0.30 0.70
3 Reservoir Unit A sandstone 11318.75 9387.62 0 0.90 0.10
4 Reservoir Unit B limestone 11909.30 9725.90 0 0.80 0.20
5 Reservoir Unit C sandstone 12303.00 9887.48 0 0.90 0.10
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Tertiary Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone (Top MD = 3280.80 ft ; Top TVD = 3216.81 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 3 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Calibrate Borehole Collapse Pressure Based on the following Well:
Inclination 0 °
Azimuth 0 °
Vertical Depth 6400.00 ft
Calibration Method: Linear Multiplier
Borehole Collapse Type: EMW at Borehole Collapse
Calculated Calibration Ratio 0.73

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous Shale, Lithology: shale (Top MD = 7500.10 ft ; Top TVD = 6488.03 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Calibrate Borehole Collapse Pressure Based on the following Well:
Inclination 0 °
Azimuth 0 °
Vertical Depth 9000.00 ft
Calibration Method: Linear Multiplier
Borehole Collapse Type: EMW at Borehole Collapse
Calculated Calibration Ratio 0.72

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit A, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 11318.75 ft ; Top TVD = 9387.62 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Calibrate Borehole Collapse Pressure Based on the following Well:
Inclination 0 °
Azimuth 0 °
Vertical Depth 9515.00 ft
Calibration Method: Linear Multiplier
Borehole Collapse Type: EMW at Borehole Collapse
Calculated Calibration Ratio 0.73

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit B, Lithology: limestone (Top MD = 11909.30 ft ; Top TVD = 9725.90 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
* No Model Options selected.

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit C, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 12303.00 ft ; Top TVD = 9887.48 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
In-situ Stress Regime: Passive Basin
Depleted Formation Pressure Gradient 0.37 psi/ft
Depleted Formation Pressure 3658 psi
In-situ stresses after depletion:
Max Horz Stress Gradient 0.84 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 8286 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.76 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 7495 psi

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 4 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:49

Case Title Extended Reach Horizontal Well

Well Name HW-1
Company AGI
Client ABC Oil & Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Determine safe range of mud densities to prevent borehole collapse and fracture breakdown
in the build section and within a depleted reservoir section of a horizontal well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED FRACTURE BREAKDOWN PRESSURE
Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Tertiary Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

3280.83 3216.84 2443 0.76 14.61 5691.83 5102.82 4246 0.83 16.01
3582.18 3475.83 2698 0.78 14.94 5993.21 5333.69 4471 0.84 16.13
3883.56 3717.42 2951 0.79 15.28 6294.59 5564.56 4700 0.84 16.25
4184.94 3948.47 3161 0.80 15.40 6595.96 5795.42 4932 0.85 16.38
4486.31 4179.34 3372 0.81 15.52 6897.34 6026.29 5167 0.86 16.50
4787.69 4410.21 3586 0.81 15.65 7198.72 6257.16 5404 0.86 16.62
5089.07 4641.08 3803 0.82 15.77 7500.07 6488.01 5645 0.87 16.74
5390.45 4871.95 4023 0.83 15.89

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous Shale, Lithology: shale, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

7500.13 6488.06 5743 0.89 17.03 9682.19 8159.61 7554 0.93 17.81
7772.86 6696.98 5962 0.89 17.13 9954.95 8368.56 7790 0.93 17.91
8045.62 6905.93 6183 0.90 17.23 10227.71 8577.50 8027 0.94 18.01
8318.38 7114.87 6407 0.90 17.33 10500.47 8786.45 8267 0.94 18.11
8591.14 7323.82 6632 0.91 17.42 10773.23 8995.40 8509 0.95 18.20
8863.90 7532.77 6859 0.91 17.52 11045.99 9198.22 9094 0.99 19.02
9136.67 7741.71 7089 0.92 17.62 11318.72 9387.60 9718 1.04 19.92
9409.43 7950.66 7320 0.92 17.72

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit A, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 5 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
11318.78 9387.65 11462 1.22 23.49 11656.21 9592.22 11426 1.19 22.92
11360.93 9414.18 11468 1.22 23.44 11698.39 9616.42 11417 1.19 22.85
11403.11 9440.73 11468 1.21 23.38 11740.57 9638.97 11404 1.18 22.77
11445.30 9467.29 11465 1.21 23.30 11782.75 9660.70 11389 1.18 22.68
11487.48 9493.85 11459 1.21 23.23 11824.94 9682.43 11373 1.17 22.60
11529.66 9519.62 11451 1.20 23.15 11867.12 9704.17 11357 1.17 22.52
11571.84 9543.82 11444 1.20 23.07 11909.27 9725.88 11342 1.17 22.44
11614.03 9568.02 11435 1.20 23.00

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit B, Lithology: limestone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

11909.33 9725.91 12735 1.31 25.20 12134.27 9824.27 12587 1.28 24.65
11937.42 9738.44 12718 1.31 25.13 12162.39 9834.80 12568 1.28 24.59
11965.54 9750.99 12699 1.30 25.06 12190.51 9845.34 12549 1.27 24.53
11993.66 9763.54 12680 1.30 24.99 12218.64 9855.88 12530 1.27 24.46
12021.79 9776.09 12662 1.30 24.92 12246.76 9866.41 12511 1.27 24.40
12049.91 9788.64 12643 1.29 24.85 12274.88 9876.95 12492 1.26 24.34
12078.03 9801.18 12625 1.29 24.79 12302.97 9887.47 12473 1.26 24.27
12106.15 9813.73 12606 1.28 24.72

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit C, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

12303.03 9887.49 11050 1.12 21.51 14383.91 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
12563.11 9960.37 10794 1.08 20.85 14644.03 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
12823.23 10005.80 10573 1.06 20.33 14904.14 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
13083.34 10023.26 10358 1.03 19.89 15164.26 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
13343.46 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87 15424.37 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
13603.57 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87 15684.49 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
13863.69 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87 15944.57 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87
14123.80 10023.57 10353 1.03 19.87

OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE PRESSURE

Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Tertiary Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Criterion)

3280.83 3216.84 1439 0.45 8.61 5691.83 5102.82 2865 0.56 10.81
3582.18 3475.83 1664 0.48 9.21 5993.21 5333.69 3032 0.57 10.94
3883.56 3717.42 1889 0.51 9.78 6294.59 5564.56 3200 0.58 11.07
4184.94 3948.47 2050 0.52 9.99 6595.96 5795.42 3369 0.58 11.19
4486.31 4179.34 2211 0.53 10.18 6897.34 6026.29 3540 0.59 11.30
4787.69 4410.21 2372 0.54 10.35 7198.72 6257.16 3711 0.59 11.41
5089.07 4641.08 2536 0.55 10.51 7500.07 6488.01 3884 0.60 11.52
5390.45 4871.95 2700 0.55 10.66

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous Shale, Lithology: shale, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criterion)

7500.13 6488.06 3640 0.56 10.80 9682.19 8159.61 4802 0.59 11.33
7772.86 6696.98 3783 0.56 10.87 9954.95 8368.56 4950 0.59 11.38
8045.62 6905.93 3927 0.57 10.94 10227.71 8577.50 5098 0.59 11.44
8318.38 7114.87 4072 0.57 11.01 10500.47 8786.45 5247 0.60 11.49
8591.14 7323.82 4217 0.58 11.08 10773.23 8995.40 5396 0.60 11.54
8863.90 7532.77 4363 0.58 11.14 11045.99 9198.22 5587 0.61 11.69
9136.67 7741.71 4509 0.58 11.21 11318.72 9387.60 5818 0.62 11.93
9409.43 7950.66 4655 0.59 11.27

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit A, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Criterion)

11318.78 9387.65 4730 0.50 9.70 11656.21 9592.22 4941 0.52 9.91
11360.93 9414.18 4757 0.51 9.72 11698.39 9616.42 4966 0.52 9.94
11403.11 9440.73 4784 0.51 9.75 11740.57 9638.97 4990 0.52 9.96

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 6 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
11445.30 9467.29 4811 0.51 9.78 11782.75 9660.70 5013 0.52 9.99
11487.48 9493.85 4838 0.51 9.81 11824.94 9682.43 5036 0.52 10.01
11529.66 9519.62 4865 0.51 9.83 11867.12 9704.17 5059 0.52 10.03
11571.84 9543.82 4890 0.51 9.86 11909.27 9725.88 5082 0.52 10.05
11614.03 9568.02 4916 0.51 9.89

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit B, Lithology: limestone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Criterion)

11909.33 9725.91 4694 0.48 9.29 12134.27 9824.27 4832 0.49 9.46
11937.42 9738.44 4712 0.48 9.31 12162.39 9834.80 4846 0.49 9.48
11965.54 9750.99 4730 0.49 9.34 12190.51 9845.34 4860 0.49 9.50
11993.66 9763.54 4748 0.49 9.36 12218.64 9855.88 4874 0.49 9.52
12021.79 9776.09 4766 0.49 9.38 12246.76 9866.41 4888 0.50 9.53
12049.91 9788.64 4784 0.49 9.40 12274.88 9876.95 4901 0.50 9.55
12078.03 9801.18 4801 0.49 9.43 12302.97 9887.47 4915 0.50 9.56
12106.15 9813.73 4818 0.49 9.45

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir Unit C, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Criterion)

12303.03 9887.49 6050 0.61 11.77 14383.91 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
12563.11 9960.37 6174 0.62 11.93 14644.03 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
12823.23 10005.80 6256 0.63 12.03 14904.14 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
13083.34 10023.26 6295 0.63 12.08 15164.26 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
13343.46 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09 15424.37 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
13603.57 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09 15684.49 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
13863.69 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09 15944.57 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09
14123.80 10023.57 6295 0.63 12.09

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 7 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Effect of Filter Cake or Wall Coating Efficiency

(Az.=35 °, MD=11154.72 ftKB)
0.15 0.30 0.60
Analysis Mode: Pressure
15 Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 9275.70 ftKB

Depth MD = 11154.72 ftKB
Calibrated Collapse EMW, ppg Well Inclination = 46 °
Well Azimuth = 35 °
14 Formation: Cretaceous Shale
Lithology: shale

Model: 3D Linear Elastic

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
13
Ò÷ grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.87 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.79 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 40 °
12
Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Pó = 4081 psi

Äçä = 0.30
11 cñ = 400 psi
Åñ = 35 °
E = 0.40 E+06 psi
Í = 0.33
À = 1.00
10

9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Well Inclination, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 46 °)

Effect of Well Trajectory on Calibrated Collapse EMW

N
Analysis Mode: Pressure 13.02
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 9275.70 ftKB

Depth MD = 11154.72 ftKB
Formation: Cretaceous Shale 12.41
Lithology: shale 90°
¤
Model: 3D Linear Elastic 60°
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
30° 11.79
Ò÷ grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.87 psi/ft W E
Òüîêï grad = 0.79 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 40 °
11.18
Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Pó = 4081 psi

Äçä = 0.30
cñ = 400 psi 10.56
Åñ = 35 °
E = 0.40 E+06 psi ppg
Í = 0.33
À = 1.00
¤ Base Case
S Òüîêï

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well ABC Oil & Gas
8 of 9

Well Profile with Borehole Collapse - V/S Plane

(Plane Azimuth=45.06 °)
EMW
1000
12.09

2000

3000 11.22

4000
10.35
5000
TVD (ft)

6000 9.48

7000
8.61
8000 ppg

9000

10000

11000

12000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
-1000 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000

Horizontal Distance (ft)

Mud Weight Window

Equivalent Circulating Density (ppg)
Fracture Pressure Borehole Collapse Pressure
Formation Pressure Minimum Horizontal Stress Wellbore
Vertical (Overburden) Stress Maximum Horizontal Stress Inclination
0 10 20 30 0° 30° 60° 90°
0
Ground Level
1000

2000

3000
Tertiary Mudstone
Measured Depth (ft KB)

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000 Cretaceous Shale

9000

10000

11000
Reservoir Unit A
12000 Reservoir Unit B
Reservoir Unit C
13000

14000

15000

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 9 of 9 ABC Oil & Gas

Well Profile with Borehole Collapse - Plan View

7000 N
EMW
12.09
6000 N

11.22
5000 N
North/South Axis (ft)

10.35
4000 N

9.48
3000 N

2000 N 8.61
ppg

1000 N

1000 S
0 2000 E 4000 E 6000 E
1000 W 1000 E 3000 E 5000 E 7000 E

East/West Axis (ft)

Filename: Case 5 - Build and Horizontal Well EMW Window.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:49
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 1 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:27

Case Title Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown

Well Name North Sea - Injection Well 22/11-N2
Company AGI
Client CRX Oil and Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Effect of cool fluid injection on fracture breakdown pressure for an openhole completion in a
directional well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Offshore
KB Height (relatitive to water level) 60.00 ft
Water Depth 300.00 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 266.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 6712.29 18.00 273.00 6655.62 33.10 -631.64 0.5
609.84 0.00 273.00 609.84 0.00 0.00 0.0 7167.01 21.00 275.00 7084.22 43.88 -783.01 0.7
802.71 0.00 273.00 802.71 0.00 0.00 0.0 7274.95 22.00 275.00 7184.65 47.33 -822.41 1.0
1159.86 0.00 273.00 1159.86 0.00 0.00 0.0 7655.91 24.00 277.00 7535.31 62.99 -970.42 0.6
1439.91 0.00 273.00 1439.91 0.00 0.00 0.0 8125.85 26.00 277.00 7961.20 87.20 -1167.53 0.5
1726.29 1.00 273.00 1726.28 0.13 -2.50 0.4 8363.74 28.00 277.00 8173.16 100.36 -1274.72 0.9
2014.12 2.00 273.00 2014.00 0.53 -10.02 0.4 8295.86 31.00 277.00 8114.08 96.29 -1241.55 -4.8
2295.77 3.00 273.00 2295.38 1.17 -22.29 0.4 8516.53 34.00 277.00 8300.17 110.73 -1359.22 1.5
2578.64 4.00 273.00 2577.72 2.07 -39.53 0.4 8574.37 37.00 279.00 8347.25 115.43 -1392.47 6.0
2861.48 4.00 273.00 2859.87 3.10 -59.24 0.0 8647.24 40.00 279.00 8404.27 122.52 -1437.26 4.4
3065.81 5.00 273.00 3063.57 3.94 -75.25 0.5 8735.59 43.00 279.00 8470.44 131.68 -1495.08 3.7
4351.88 5.00 273.00 4344.75 9.81 -187.18 0.0 8805.01 45.00 276.00 8520.38 137.95 -1542.88 4.5
4824.42 6.00 273.00 4815.10 12.18 -232.41 0.2 8885.06 45.00 273.00 8576.99 142.39 -1599.30 2.9
5294.39 8.00 273.00 5281.55 15.18 -289.60 0.5 9083.42 45.00 273.00 8717.25 149.73 -1739.37 0.0
5767.94 13.00 273.00 5747.02 19.69 -375.75 1.1 9317.47 45.00 270.00 8882.77 154.06 -1904.77 1.0
6240.48 16.00 273.00 6204.45 25.88 -493.89 0.7

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 1968.50 16.00
2 8038.00 12.25
3 9317.47 8.50

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 2 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 casing 0.00 1903.00 12.40 13.35
2 casing 0.00 7972.00 8.50 9.40
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Pliocene - Oligocene mudstone 1640.00 4921.00 1639.99 4910.96
2 Eocene shale 4921.00 8005.00 4910.96 7851.68
3 Forties Formation sandstone 8005.00 9317.50 7851.68 8882.77
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Pliocene - Oligocene 1640.00 1639.99 10 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.44 0.44
2 Eocene 4921.00 4910.96 13 0.99 0.99 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.44 0.44
3 Forties Formation 8005.00 7851.68 15 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.44 0.44
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Poisson's Young's Tensile Biot's
Depth Depth Ratio Modulus Strength Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB E+06 psi psi
TVD
1 Pliocene - Oligocene mudstone 1640.00 1639.99 0.35 0.22 30 1.00
2 Eocene shale 4921.00 4910.96 0.30 0.44 75 1.00
3 Forties Formation sandstone 8005.00 7851.68 0.25 0.70 100 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Fluid
Depth Depth Penetration
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Coefficient

1 Pliocene - Oligocene mudstone 1640.00 1639.99 0.20

2 Eocene shale 4921.00 4910.96 0.30
3 Forties Formation sandstone 8005.00 7851.68 0.80
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Pliocene - Oligocene, Lithology: mudstone (Top MD = 1640.00 ft ; Top TVD = 1639.99 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
* No Model Options selected.

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Eocene, Lithology: shale (Top MD = 4921.00 ft ; Top TVD = 4910.96 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
* No Model Options selected.

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Forties Formation, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 8005.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7851.68 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Steady-state Thermal Effects:
Thermal Expansion Coefficient 20.0 E-06/°F
Temperature Data:
Surface Temperature 41 °F
Wellbore Temperature (Top) 110 °F
Wellbore Temperature (Btm) 110 °F
Formation Temperature (Top) 140 °F
Formation Temperature (Btm) 140 °F

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 3 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:27

Case Title Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown

Well Name North Sea - Injection Well 22/11-N2
Company AGI
Client CRX Oil and Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Effect of cool fluid injection on fracture breakdown pressure for an openhole completion in a
directional well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED FRACTURE BREAKDOWN PRESSURE
Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Pliocene - Oligocene, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

1640.03 1640.02 1356 0.83 15.91 3417.21 3413.63 2790 0.82 15.73
1776.71 1776.68 1467 0.83 15.88 3553.92 3549.82 2900 0.82 15.72
1913.42 1913.34 1577 0.82 15.86 3690.63 3686.01 3011 0.82 15.72
2050.13 2049.97 1688 0.82 15.84 3827.33 3822.19 3121 0.82 15.71
2186.83 2186.55 1798 0.82 15.83 3964.04 3958.38 3231 0.82 15.71
2323.54 2323.10 1909 0.82 15.81 4100.75 4094.57 3341 0.82 15.70
2460.25 2459.55 2019 0.82 15.80 4237.46 4230.76 3452 0.82 15.70
2596.96 2595.99 2129 0.82 15.78 4374.17 4366.93 3562 0.82 15.69
2733.67 2732.37 2240 0.82 15.77 4510.88 4503.01 3671 0.82 15.69
2870.38 2868.74 2350 0.82 15.76 4647.58 4639.08 3781 0.82 15.68
3007.08 3005.02 2460 0.82 15.75 4784.29 4775.16 3891 0.81 15.68
3143.79 3141.25 2570 0.82 15.74 4920.97 4910.93 3999 0.81 15.67
3280.50 3277.44 2680 0.82 15.73

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Eocene, Lithology: shale, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

4921.03 4910.99 4354 0.89 17.06 6591.50 6540.12 5731 0.88 16.86
5049.50 5038.50 4464 0.89 17.05 6720.00 6662.89 5834 0.88 16.85
5178.00 5166.03 4575 0.89 17.04 6848.50 6784.01 5932 0.87 16.83
5306.50 5293.45 4684 0.88 17.03 6977.00 6905.13 6030 0.87 16.81
5435.00 5419.76 4791 0.88 17.01 7105.50 7026.25 6129 0.87 16.78
5563.50 5546.07 4897 0.88 16.99 7234.00 7146.55 6225 0.87 16.76
5692.00 5672.38 5003 0.88 16.97 7362.50 7265.24 6319 0.87 16.74
5820.50 5797.90 5107 0.88 16.95 7491.00 7383.52 6414 0.87 16.72

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 4 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
5949.00 5922.29 5212 0.88 16.94 7619.50 7501.80 6509 0.87 16.70
6077.50 6046.69 5316 0.88 16.92 7748.00 7618.77 6604 0.87 16.68
6206.00 6171.08 5420 0.88 16.90 7876.50 7735.23 6699 0.87 16.66
6334.50 6294.36 5524 0.88 16.89 8004.97 7851.65 6793 0.87 16.65
6463.00 6417.24 5628 0.88 16.88

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Forties Formation, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture
Breakdown)

8005.03 7851.71 6786 0.86 16.63 8715.94 8455.72 7193 0.85 16.37
8059.69 7901.24 6830 0.86 16.63 8770.63 8495.64 7217 0.85 16.35
8114.38 7950.80 6873 0.86 16.63 8825.31 8534.73 7248 0.85 16.34
8169.06 7999.70 6915 0.86 16.63 8880.00 8573.41 7290 0.85 16.36
8223.75 8048.43 6956 0.86 16.63 8934.69 8612.08 7325 0.85 16.37
8278.44 8097.15 6997 0.86 16.63 8989.38 8650.75 7360 0.85 16.37
8333.13 8145.88 7038 0.86 16.63 9044.06 8689.42 7394 0.85 16.38
8387.81 8191.62 7045 0.86 16.55 9098.75 8728.09 7430 0.85 16.38
8442.50 8237.74 7081 0.86 16.54 9153.44 8766.77 7467 0.85 16.39
8497.19 8283.86 7117 0.86 16.53 9208.13 8805.44 7505 0.85 16.40
8551.88 8328.94 7139 0.86 16.49 9262.81 8844.11 7544 0.85 16.41
8606.56 8372.44 7154 0.85 16.44 9317.47 8882.77 7581 0.85 16.42
8661.25 8414.77 7173 0.85 16.40

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 5 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

Effect of Thermal Expansion Coefficient

(Inclination=26 °, MD=8058.32 ftKB)
10.0 E-06/°F 20.0 E-06/°F 30.0 E-06/°F Minimum
Stress Analysis Mode: Pressure
Analysis Type: Fracture Breakdown

0.94 Depth TVD = 7900.00 ftKB

Depth MD = 8058.32 ftKB
Well Inclination = 26 °
Well Azimuth = 277 °
Fracture Breakdown Pressure
0.92 Formation: Forties Formation
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 3D Linear Elastic

0.90 Default Tensile
Gradient, psi/ft

Ò÷ grad = 0.99 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.91 psi/ft
0.88 Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 15 °

Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft

Pó = 3476 psi
0.86
Äçñ = 0.80
cñ = 0 psi
Åñ = 0 °
0.84 E = 0.70 E+06 psi
Í = 0.25
À = 1.00

0.82

0.80
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Well Azimuth, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 277 °)

Effect of Well Trajectory on Fracture Breakdown Pressure

N
Analysis Mode: Pressure 9750
Analysis Type: Fracture Breakdown

Depth TVD = 8799.96 ftKB

Depth MD = 9200.37 ftKB
Formation: Forties Formation 9110
Lithology: sandstone 90°

Model: 3D Linear Elastic 60°

Default Tensile
30° 8471
Ò÷ grad = 0.99 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.91 psi/ft W ¤ E
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 15 °
7831
Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Pó = 3872 psi

Äçñ = 0.80
cñ = 0 psi 7192
Åñ = 0 °
E = 0.70 E+06 psi psi
Í = 0.25
À = 1.00
¤ Base Case
S Òüîêï

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Effects of Cool Fluid Injection on Fracture Breakdown 6 of 6 CRX Oil and Gas

Well Profile with Fracture Breakdown - V/S Plane

(Plane Azimuth=274.62 °)
Pres. Grad.
0
0.89

1000
0.87
2000

3000 0.85
TVD (ft)

4000
0.83

5000
0.81
6000
psi/f t

7000

8000

9000

10000
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Horizontal Distance (ft)

Effect of Wellbore Temperature

(Inclination=44 °, MD=8769.73 ftKB)
167 °F 110 °F 257 °F Minimum
Stress Analysis Mode: Pressure
Analysis Type: Fracture Breakdown

1.3 Depth TVD = 8495.00 ftKB

Depth MD = 8769.73 ftKB
Well Inclination = 44 °
Well Azimuth = 278 °
Fracture Breakdown Pressure

Formation: Forties Formation

Lithology: sandstone
1.2
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Default Tensile
Gradient, psi/ft

Ò÷ grad = 0.99 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.91 psi/ft
1.1 Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 15 °

Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft

Pó = 3738 psi
1.0
Äçñ = 0.80
cñ = 0 psi
Åñ = 0 °
E = 0.70 E+06 psi
Í = 0.25
0.9 À = 1.00

0.8
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Well Azimuth, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 278 °)

Filename: Case 6 - Inclined Well with Cool Fluid Injection.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:27
Case Title: Shear Slip Analysis for Weak Natural Fracture Planes 1 of 3 Black Oil International

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Fracture Model Type 3D Slip Analysis on a Weak Discontinuity
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:28

Case Title Shear Slip Analysis for Weak Natural Fracture Planes
Well Name Water Disposal Well Ls-2
Company AGI
Client Black Oil International
User Name B. Smith
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Analysis to determine if elevated pore pressures during water injection will cause shear failure
on weak natural fractures or bedding planes.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 16.40 ft
Well Survey Vertical Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Nisku
Lithology dolomite
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (TVD) 9900.00 ft KB
Borehole Diameter 8.50 in
Azimuth 0.00 °
Inclination 0.00 °
IN-SITU STRESSES AND PRESSURES
Azimuth of Minimum Horizontal Stress 135 °
Vertical Stress Gradient 1.15 psi/ft
Vertical Stress 11366 psi
Max Horz Stress Gradient 1.17 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 11583 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.95 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 9405 psi
Formation Pressure Gradient 0.36 psi/ft
Formation Pressure 3564 psi
ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Peak Cohesion 0 psi
Peak Friction Angle 0 °
Poisson's Ratio 0.22

Filename: Case 7 - Injection Well Slip Pressure Analysis.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:28

Case Title: Shear Slip Analysis for Weak Natural Fracture Planes 2 of 3 Black Oil International

Young's Modulus 4.40 E+06 psi

Tensile Strength 75 psi
Biot's Coefficient 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
Capillary Threshold Pressure 0 psi
Fluid Penetration Coefficient 1.00
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Natural Fracture Dip 70 °
Natural Fracture Dip Direction 10 °
Natural Fracture Cohesion 75 psi
Natural Fracture Friction Angle 35 °

FRACTURE BREAKDOWN OUTPUT CALCULATION

Slip Pressure Gradient 0.97 psi/ft
Slip Pressure 9640 psi
Slip ECD 18.74 ppg

Filename: Case 7 - Injection Well Slip Pressure Analysis.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:28

Case Title: Shear Slip Analysis for Weak Natural Fracture Planes 3 of 3 Black Oil International

Effect of Natural Fracture Friction Angle

(Dip Dir. = 10 °, TVD=9900.00 ftKB)
25 ° 35 ° 45 ° Minimum
Stress Analysis Mode: Pressure
Analysis Type: Fracture Breakdown

12000 Depth TVD = 9900.00 ftKB

Well Inclination = 0 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Nisku
11500 Lithology: dolomite

Model: 3D Slip Analysis

Critical Pressure, psi

11000 Ò÷ grad = 1.15 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 1.17 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
10500
Pó grad = 0.36 psi/ft
Pó = 3564 psi

10000 Plane of Weakness

Base Case
Dip = 70 °
Dip Dir. = 10 °
9500 cç = 75 psi
Åç = 35 °

9000

8500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Natural Fracture Dip, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 70 °)

ECD in a Natural Fracture Required to Cause Slippage

N
Analysis Mode: Pressure 22.70
Analysis Type: Fracture Breakdown

Depth TVD = 9900.00 ftKB

Formation: Nisku
Lithology: dolomite 21.26
90°
Model: 3D Slip Analysis
60°
Ò÷ grad = 1.15 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 1.17 psi/ft 30° 19.81
Òüîêï grad = 0.95 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 135 ° W E
Pó grad = 0.36 psi/ft
Pó = 3564 psi 18.36

16.92
Strength of Planes of Weakness
Base Case ¤ ppg
cç = 75 psi
Åç = 35 °
Dip = 70 ° ¤ Base Case
Dip Dir. = 10 °
S Òüîêï
Lower Hemisphere Plot Shows Poles to Planes of Weakness

Filename: Case 7 - Injection Well Slip Pressure Analysis.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:28

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Single Zone) 1 of 3 Arctic Exploration Corp.

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Borehole Collapse Model Type
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:29

Case Title Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Single Zone)

Well Name Polar Ice I
Company Weatherford
Client Arctic Exploration Corp.
User Name PM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Example permafrost hole enlargement case from Mallik, Mackenzie Delta, NWT, Canada.
Thermo-mechanical erosion predicted for laminar and turbulent flow in the drillpipe-formation
annulus.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 7.10 m
Well Survey Vertical Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Iperk Sequence
Lithology unconsolidated sediment
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (TVD) 110.00 m KB
Borehole Diameter 438.0 mm
Azimuth 0.00 °
Inclination 0.00 °
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Drilling Mud Properties for 2D Permafrost Model:
Mud Thermal Conductivity 0.565 W/m·°C
Mud Specific Heat 4.187 kJ/kg·°C
Mud Temperature 2 °C
Mud Density 1000 kg/m³
Circulation Rate 0.002 m³ / s
Drill Pipe Outer Diameter 127.0 mm
Circulation Time 110.00 hours
Formation Porosity 44 %
Drill Bit Diameter 438.0 mm
Newtonian Fluid Rheological Model:
Dynamic Viscosity 1.5 mPa·s

Filename: Case 8 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:29

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Single Zone) 2 of 3 Arctic Exploration Corp.

BOREHOLE WASHOUT OUTPUT CALCULATION

Normalized Washout Zone Radius 1.60
Normalized Washout Zone Area 1.57
Washout Zone Diameter 702.8 mm

Filename: Case 8 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:29

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Single Zone) 3 of 3 Arctic Exploration Corp.

Effect of Circulation Rate

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, TVD=110.00 mKB)
0.001 m³ / s 0.002 m³ / s 0.003 m³ / s

2.2

2.0
Normalized Washout Zone

1.8
Radius

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
0 50 100 150

Time (hours)

Effect of Circulation Rate

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, TVD=110.00 mKB)
0.001 m³ / s 0.002 m³ / s 0.003 m³ / s

5000

4500

4000
Reynolds Number

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000
0 50 100 150

Time (hours)

Filename: Case 8 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:29

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone) 1 of 5 Arctic Exploration Corp.

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:30

Case Title Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone)

Well Name Polar Ice I
Company Weatherford
Client Arctic Exploration Corp.
User Name PM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Example permafrost case from the Malik Site, Mackenzie Delta, NWT, Canada. Thermo-
mechanical erosion predicted for laminar and turbulent flow in the drillpipe-formation annulus
for two zones.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 7.10 m
Well Survey Vertical Well
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30 mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30
TVD m m m TVD m m m
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
150.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
m KB MD mm
1 150.00 438.0
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
* No tubular data were entered for this case.
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
m KB MD m KB MD m KB TVD m KB TVD
1 Holocene unconsolidated 100.00 110.00 100.00 110.00
sediment
2 Iperk Sequence unconsolidated 110.00 150.00 110.00 150.00
sediment

Filename: Case 9 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement Multi-Zone.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:30

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone) 2 of 5 Arctic Exploration Corp.

INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA

No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
m KB MD m KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m
1 Holocene 100.00 100.00 55 20.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 10.0
2 Iperk Sequence 110.00 110.00 55 20.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 10.0
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Top Top
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth ECD (Top) ECD (Btm)
m KB MD m KB TVD kg/m³ kg/m³
1 Holocene unconsolidated sediment 100.00 100.00 1000 1000
2 Iperk Sequence unconsolidated sediment 110.00 110.00 1000 1000
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Coefficient
m KB MD m KB MPa Angle GPa
TVD
unconsolid
1 ated
Holocene sediment 100.00 100.00 0.5 25 0.35 0.20 1.00
unconsolid
2 ated
Iperk Sequence sediment 110.00 110.00 0.2 35 0.35 0.50 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
m KB MD m KB TVD Pressure Coating
MPa Efficiency

unconsolidated
1
Holocene sediment 100.00 100.00 0.0 0.30
unconsolidated
2
Iperk Sequence sediment 110.00 110.00 0.0 0.30
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Holocene, Lithology: unconsolidated sediment (Top MD = 100.00 m ; Top TVD = 100.00 m)
Borehole Collapse Model Type:
Drilling Mud Properties for 2D Permafrost Model:
Mud Thermal Conductivity 0.565 W/m·°C
Mud Specific Heat 4.120 kJ/kg·°C
Mud Temperature 1 °C
Mud Density 1000 kg/m³
Circulation Rate 0.002 m³ / s
Drill Pipe Outer Diameter 127.0 mm
Circulation Time 140.00 hours
Formation Porosity 50 %
Drill Bit Diameter 438.0 mm
Newtonian Fluid Rheological Model:
Dynamic Viscosity 1.5 mPa·s

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Iperk Sequence, Lithology: unconsolidated sediment (Top MD = 110.00 m ; Top TVD = 110.00 m)
Borehole Collapse Model Type:
Drilling Mud Properties for 2D Permafrost Model:
Mud Thermal Conductivity 0.565 W/m·°C
Mud Specific Heat 4.187 kJ/kg·°C
Mud Temperature 2 °C
Mud Density 1000 kg/m³
Circulation Rate 0.002 m³ / s
Drill Pipe Outer Diameter 127.0 mm
Circulation Time 110.00 hours
Formation Porosity 44 %
Drill Bit Diameter 438.0 mm
Newtonian Fluid Rheological Model:
Dynamic Viscosity 1.5 mPa·s

Filename: Case 9 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement Multi-Zone.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:30

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone) 3 of 5 Arctic Exploration Corp.

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:30

Case Title Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone)

Well Name Polar Ice I
Company Weatherford
Client Arctic Exploration Corp.
User Name PM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Example permafrost case from the Malik Site, Mackenzie Delta, NWT, Canada. Thermo-
mechanical erosion predicted for laminar and turbulent flow in the drillpipe-formation annulus
for two zones.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
mKB MD mKB KB mm Overgauge Angle
TVD
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Holocene, Lithology: unconsolidated sediment, Model Type: 2D Permafrost Hole Enlargement

* No yielded zone dimensions have been calculated for this interval.

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Iperk Sequence, Lithology: unconsolidated sediment, Model Type: 2D Permafrost Hole Enlargement

* No yielded zone dimensions have been calculated for this interval.

Filename: Case 9 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement Multi-Zone.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:30

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone) 4 of 5 Arctic Exploration Corp.

Effect of Circulation Rate

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=133.33 mKB)
0.001 m³ / s 0.002 m³ / s 0.003 m³ / s

2.2

2.0
Normalized Washout Zone

1.8
Radius

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
0 50 100 150

Time (hours)

Effect of Circulation Rate

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=110.00 mKB)
0.001 m³ / s 0.002 m³ / s 0.003 m³ / s

5000

4500

4000
Reynolds Number

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000
0 50 100 150

Time (hours)

Filename: Case 9 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement Multi-Zone.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:30

Case Title: Permafrost in a Vertical Well (Multi-zone) 5 of 5 Arctic Exploration Corp.

Effect of Mud Density

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=110.00 mKB)
750 kg/m³ 1000 kg/m³ 1250 kg/m³

1.8

Normalized Washout Zone

1.6
Radius

1.4

1.2

1.0
0 50 100 150

Time (hours)

Filename: Case 9 - Permafrost Hole Enlargement Multi-Zone.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:30

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 1 of 7 Weatherford

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:35

Case Title UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale

Well Name AA-25-S1
Company AGI
Client Weatherford
User Name CDR
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended reach well to be drilled in an
underbalanced condition. Required bottomhole pressures to prevent collapse are predicted
with a 2D elastoplastic model in the depleted sandstone reservoir units. The required EMW to
drill a fissile shale zone at a high angle penetration is predicted with a calibrated 3D elastic
model using a ubiquitous plane of weakness.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Offshore
KB Height (relatitive to water level) 135.00 ft
Water Depth 280.00 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 7000.00 63.43 135.00 5001.45 -2011.66 3088.82 0.4
1400.00 0.00 42.00 1400.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 8500.00 63.43 140.00 5672.73 -3000.34 3994.77 0.3
1500.00 5.79 41.84 1499.83 3.76 3.37 6.2 10000.00 63.43 145.00 6344.00 -4064.22 4811.11 0.3
1600.00 6.94 43.95 1599.21 11.87 10.93 1.3 11500.00 63.43 150.00 7015.28 -5195.19 5531.63 0.3
1800.00 8.68 69.20 1797.41 25.93 33.43 2.0 12607.57 63.43 155.00 7510.94 -6073.47 5988.83 0.4
2000.00 11.46 84.23 1994.34 33.29 67.32 2.0 12700.00 67.49 160.00 7549.34 -6151.13 6020.93 7.1
2200.00 14.71 93.10 2189.14 33.92 112.46 2.1 12800.00 71.89 163.00 7584.05 -6240.04 6050.64 5.6
2400.00 18.17 98.74 2380.95 27.80 168.65 2.0 12900.00 76.29 165.00 7611.46 -6332.46 6077.13 5.2
2600.00 21.74 102.61 2568.92 14.97 235.65 2.0 13000.00 80.68 167.00 7631.42 -6427.51 6100.81 5.2
2800.00 26.26 103.68 2751.58 -3.59 314.82 2.4 13300.00 80.68 167.00 7680.00 -6715.96 6167.41 0.0
3000.00 31.26 106.00 2926.86 -28.37 407.76 2.8 13700.00 80.68 167.00 7744.78 -7100.57 6256.20 0.0
3200.00 36.26 109.00 3093.09 -61.95 513.64 2.8 14000.00 80.68 167.00 7793.36 -7389.02 6322.79 0.0
3400.00 41.26 112.00 3249.01 -105.95 630.79 2.9 14300.00 80.68 167.00 7841.95 -7677.47 6389.39 0.0
3600.00 46.26 115.00 3393.43 -161.22 757.51 2.9 14600.00 80.68 167.00 7890.53 -7965.92 6455.98 0.0
3800.00 51.26 118.00 3525.25 -228.43 891.96 3.0 14900.00 80.68 167.00 7939.12 -8254.38 6522.58 0.0
4000.00 56.26 121.00 3643.46 -307.94 1032.22 3.0 15200.00 80.68 167.00 7987.70 -8542.83 6589.17 0.0
4200.00 61.26 124.00 3747.17 -399.87 1176.31 3.0 15500.00 80.68 167.00 8036.28 -8831.28 6655.77 0.0
4286.77 63.43 127.00 3787.45 -444.51 1238.85 4.3 15771.43 80.68 167.00 8080.24 -9092.26 6716.02 0.0
5800.00 63.43 130.00 4464.43 -1286.89 2297.87 0.2

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 2 of 7 Weatherford

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 650.00 16.00
2 2500.00 12.25
3 12900.00 8.50
4 15771.43 6.00
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 casing 0.00 650.00 11.80 13.00
2 casing 0.00 2500.00 8.50 9.50
3 liner 2450.00 12900.00 6.00 7.00
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Rotliegendes 1 sandstone 13000.00 14100.00 7631.42 7809.56
2 Lower Cretaceous shale w/ siltstone 14100.00 14400.00 7809.56 7858.14
3 Rotliegendes 2 sandstone 14400.00 15771.00 7858.14 8080.17
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Rotliegendes 1 13000.00 7631.42 162 0.90 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
2 Lower Cretaceous 14100.00 7809.56 162 0.90 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
3 Rotliegendes 2 14400.00 7858.14 162 0.90 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi
TVD
1 Rotliegendes 1 sandstone 13000.00 7631.42 400 45 0.32 0.20 1.00
shale w/
2
Lower Cretaceous siltstone 14100.00 7809.56 300 35 0.35 0.15 1.00
3 Rotliegendes 2 sandstone 14400.00 7858.14 800 45 0.30 0.40 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating
psi Efficiency

1 Rotliegendes 1 sandstone 13000.00 7631.42 0 0.80

2 Lower Cretaceous shale w/ siltstone 14100.00 7809.56 0 0.40
3 Rotliegendes 2 sandstone 14400.00 7858.14 0 0.80
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Rotliegendes 1, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 13000.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7631.42 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 150 psi
Residual Friction Angle 40 °
In-situ Stress Regime: Passive Basin
Depleted Formation Pressure Gradient 0.44 psi/ft
Depleted Formation Pressure 3458 psi
In-situ stresses after depletion:
Max Horz Stress Gradient 0.68 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 5325 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.68 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 5325 psi

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Lower Cretaceous, Lithology: shale w/ siltstone (Top MD = 14100.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7809.56 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 3 of 7 Weatherford

Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Percentage of the Hole Circumference
Tolerable Yield Circumf., % 60.00
Bedding Dip 20 °
Bedding Dip Direction 340 °
Bedding Cohesion 75 psi
Bedding Friction Angle 30 °
Calibrate Borehole Collapse Pressure Based on the following Well:
Inclination 0 °
Azimuth 0 °
Vertical Depth 7850.00 ft
Calibration Method: Linear Multiplier
Borehole Collapse Type: Bottomhole Borehole Collapse Pressure
Calculated Calibration Ratio 0.79

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Rotliegendes 2, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 14400.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7858.14 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 300 psi
Residual Friction Angle 40 °

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 4 of 7 Weatherford

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:35

Case Title UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale

Well Name AA-25-S1
Company AGI
Client Weatherford
User Name CDR
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis for an offshore, extended reach well to be drilled in an
underbalanced condition. Required bottomhole pressures to prevent collapse are predicted
with a 2D elastoplastic model in the depleted sandstone reservoir units. The required EMW to
drill a fissile shale zone at a high angle penetration is predicted with a calibrated 3D elastic
model using a ubiquitous plane of weakness.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE PRESSURE
Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Rotliegendes 1, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

13000.03 7631.42 3951 0.52 9.96 13595.83 7727.91 4004 0.52 9.97
13045.83 7638.84 3955 0.52 9.96 13641.67 7735.33 4008 0.52 9.97
13091.67 7646.26 3959 0.52 9.96 13687.50 7742.75 4012 0.52 9.97
13137.50 7653.68 3963 0.52 9.96 13733.33 7750.18 4016 0.52 9.97
13183.33 7661.11 3967 0.52 9.96 13779.17 7757.60 4021 0.52 9.97
13229.17 7668.53 3971 0.52 9.96 13825.00 7765.02 4025 0.52 9.97
13275.00 7675.95 3975 0.52 9.97 13870.83 7772.44 4029 0.52 9.97
13320.83 7683.37 3979 0.52 9.97 13916.67 7779.87 4033 0.52 9.98
13366.67 7690.80 3984 0.52 9.97 13962.50 7787.29 4037 0.52 9.98
13412.50 7698.22 3988 0.52 9.97 14008.33 7794.71 4041 0.52 9.98
13458.33 7705.64 3992 0.52 9.97 14054.17 7802.14 4045 0.52 9.98
13504.17 7713.06 3996 0.52 9.97 14099.97 7809.55 4049 0.52 9.98
13550.00 7720.49 4000 0.52 9.97

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Lower Cretaceous, Lithology: shale w/ siltstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-
Coulomb Failure Criterion)

14100.03 7809.56 4016 0.51 9.89 14262.50 7835.87 4030 0.51 9.90
14112.50 7811.58 4017 0.51 9.89 14275.00 7837.90 4031 0.51 9.90
14125.00 7813.61 4018 0.51 9.89 14287.50 7839.92 4032 0.51 9.90
14137.50 7815.63 4019 0.51 9.90 14300.00 7841.95 4034 0.51 9.90
14150.00 7817.66 4020 0.51 9.90 14312.50 7843.97 4035 0.51 9.90

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 5 of 7 Weatherford

Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
14162.50 7819.68 4021 0.51 9.90 14325.00 7846.00 4036 0.51 9.90
14175.00 7821.70 4022 0.51 9.90 14337.50 7848.02 4037 0.51 9.90
14187.50 7823.73 4023 0.51 9.90 14350.00 7850.04 4038 0.51 9.90
14200.00 7825.75 4025 0.51 9.90 14362.50 7852.07 4039 0.51 9.90
14212.50 7827.78 4026 0.51 9.90 14375.00 7854.09 4040 0.51 9.90
14225.00 7829.80 4027 0.51 9.90 14387.50 7856.12 4041 0.51 9.90
14237.50 7831.83 4028 0.51 9.90 14399.97 7858.14 4042 0.51 9.90
14250.00 7833.85 4029 0.51 9.90

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Rotliegendes 2, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

14400.03 7858.15 4202 0.53 10.29 15142.63 7978.41 4286 0.54 10.34
14457.12 7867.39 4208 0.53 10.29 15199.75 7987.66 4292 0.54 10.34
14514.25 7876.65 4213 0.53 10.29 15256.88 7996.91 4297 0.54 10.34
14571.38 7885.90 4219 0.54 10.30 15314.00 8006.16 4303 0.54 10.34
14628.50 7895.15 4225 0.54 10.30 15371.13 8015.41 4308 0.54 10.34
14685.63 7904.40 4241 0.54 10.32 15428.25 8024.66 4314 0.54 10.35
14742.75 7913.65 4246 0.54 10.33 15485.38 8033.92 4320 0.54 10.35
14799.88 7922.90 4252 0.54 10.33 15542.50 8043.17 4325 0.54 10.35
14857.00 7932.15 4258 0.54 10.33 15599.63 8052.42 4331 0.54 10.35
14914.13 7941.40 4263 0.54 10.33 15656.75 8061.67 4337 0.54 10.35
14971.25 7950.66 4269 0.54 10.33 15713.87 8070.92 4342 0.54 10.35
15028.37 7959.91 4275 0.54 10.33 15770.97 8080.17 4348 0.54 10.35
15085.50 7969.16 4280 0.54 10.34

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 6 of 7 Weatherford

Well Profile - Plan View

1000 N

1000 S
North/South Axis (ft)
2000 S

3000 S

4000 S

5000 S

6000 S

7000 S

8000 S

9000 S

10000 S
2000 W 0 2000 E 4000 E 6000 E 8000 E
1000 W 1000 E 3000 E 5000 E 7000 E 9000 E

East/West Axis (ft)

Effect of Peak Friction Angle

(Azimuth=167 °, MD=14101.00 ftKB)
26 ° 35 ° 44 °
Analysis Mode: Pressure
11.0 Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 7809.72 ftKB

Depth MD = 14101.00 ftKB
Calibrated Collapse EMW, ppg

Well Inclination = 81 °
Well Azimuth = 167 °
Formation: Lower Cretaceous
Lithology: shale w/ siltstone
10.5
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Allowed Yield
Circumference = 60.0 %

Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.72 psi/ft
10.0 Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 162 °

Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft

Pó = 4061 psi

Äçä = 0.40
9.5 cñ = 300 psi
Åñ = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.35
À = 1.00

Plane of Weakness
Dip = 20 °
9.0 Dip Direction = 340 °
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90cç = 75 psi
Åç = 30 °

Well Inclination, Degrees (¤ Base Case = 81 °)

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: UBD Wellbore Stability Analysis with Fissile Shale 7 of 7 Weatherford

Effect of Well Trajectory on Calibrated Collapse EMW

N
Analysis Mode: Pressure 10.02
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse

Depth TVD = 7825.75 ftKB

Depth MD = 14200.00 ftKB
Formation: Lower Cretaceous 9.91
Lithology: shale w/ siltstone 90°

Model: 3D Linear Elastic 60°

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Allowed Yield 30° 9.80
Circumference = 60.0 %
W E
Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft
Òüîâù grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft 9.69
Òüîêï Azi = 162 °

Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft

Pó = 4069 psi
9.58
Äçä = 0.40
cñ = 300 psi ppg
Åñ = 35 ° ¤
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.35 ¤ Base Case
À = 1.00
S Òüîêï
Plane of Weakness Plane of Weakness
cç = 75 psi Dip = 20 °
Åç = 30 ° Dip Direction = 340 °

Tornado Plot for Calibrated Collapse EMW Input Value Range

(MD=14250.00 ftKB,TVD=7833.85 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Peak Friction Angle 26 35 44 °

Bedding Friction 25 30 35 °
Angle

Bedding Cohesion 25 75 150 psi

Peak Cohesion
225 300 375 psi

Base Case EMW = 9.90 ppg

9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4
EMW, ppg
Analysis Mode: Pressure Formation: Lower Cretaceous Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft Äçä = 0.40 Plane of Weakness
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse Lithology: shale w/ siltstone Òüîâù grad = 0.72 psi/ft cñ = 300 psi Dip = 20 °
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft Åñ = 35 ° Dip Direction = 340 °
Depth TVD = 7833.85 ftKB Model: 3D Linear Elastic Òüîêï Azi = 162 ° E = 0.15 E+06 psi cç = 75 psi
Depth MD = 14250.00 ftKB Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft Í = 0.35 Åç = 30 °
Well Inclination = 81 ° Allowed Yield Circ. = 60.0 % Pó = 4074 psi À = 1.00
Well Azimuth = 167 °

Filename: Case 10 - Underbalanced Drilling in Fissile Shale.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:35

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 1 of 8 Weatherford

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:37

Case Title North Sea UBD Stability Analysis

Well Name UBD-1
Company Advanced Geotechnology Inc.
Client Weatherford
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Multi-zone borehole stability analysis for an offshore, extended reach well to be drilled in an
underbalanced condition. The size of the yielded zone and potential hole enlargement in two
sandstone reservoir units, separated by a weak shale are investigated in this analysis for the
design botomhole pressures predicted by a multi-phase flow software. Note the high risk of
hole enlargement in the shale unit, which necessitates using a different borehole size for flow
modeling and bottomhole pressure prediction. STABView's 2D elastoplastic model was used
to make these predictions for this near-horizontal well section.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Offshore
KB Height (relatitive to water level) 135.00 ft
Water Depth 280.00 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 7000.00 63.43 135.00 5001.45 -2011.66 3088.82 0.4
1400.00 0.00 42.00 1400.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 8500.00 63.43 140.00 5672.73 -3000.34 3994.77 0.3
1500.00 5.79 41.84 1499.83 3.76 3.37 6.2 10000.00 63.43 145.00 6344.00 -4064.22 4811.11 0.3
1600.00 6.94 43.95 1599.21 11.87 10.93 1.3 11500.00 63.43 150.00 7015.28 -5195.19 5531.63 0.3
1800.00 8.68 69.20 1797.41 25.93 33.43 2.0 12607.57 63.43 155.00 7510.94 -6073.47 5988.83 0.4
2000.00 11.46 84.23 1994.34 33.29 67.32 2.0 12700.00 67.49 160.00 7549.34 -6151.13 6020.93 7.1
2200.00 14.71 93.10 2189.14 33.92 112.46 2.1 12800.00 71.89 163.00 7584.05 -6240.04 6050.64 5.6
2400.00 18.17 98.74 2380.95 27.80 168.65 2.0 12900.00 76.29 165.00 7611.46 -6332.46 6077.13 5.2
2600.00 21.74 102.61 2568.92 14.97 235.65 2.0 13000.00 80.68 167.00 7631.42 -6427.51 6100.81 5.2
2800.00 26.26 103.68 2751.58 -3.59 314.82 2.4 13300.00 80.68 167.00 7680.00 -6715.96 6167.41 0.0
3000.00 31.26 106.00 2926.86 -28.37 407.76 2.8 13700.00 80.68 167.00 7744.78 -7100.57 6256.20 0.0
3200.00 36.26 109.00 3093.09 -61.95 513.64 2.8 14000.00 80.68 167.00 7793.36 -7389.02 6322.79 0.0
3400.00 41.26 112.00 3249.01 -105.95 630.79 2.9 14300.00 80.68 167.00 7841.95 -7677.47 6389.39 0.0
3600.00 46.26 115.00 3393.43 -161.22 757.51 2.9 14600.00 80.68 167.00 7890.53 -7965.92 6455.98 0.0
3800.00 51.26 118.00 3525.25 -228.43 891.96 3.0 14900.00 80.68 167.00 7939.12 -8254.38 6522.58 0.0
4000.00 56.26 121.00 3643.46 -307.94 1032.22 3.0 15200.00 80.68 167.00 7987.70 -8542.83 6589.17 0.0
4200.00 61.26 124.00 3747.17 -399.87 1176.31 3.0 15500.00 80.68 167.00 8036.28 -8831.28 6655.77 0.0
4286.77 63.43 127.00 3787.45 -444.51 1238.85 4.3 15771.43 80.68 167.00 8080.24 -9092.26 6716.02 0.0
5800.00 63.43 130.00 4464.43 -1286.89 2297.87 0.2

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 2 of 8 Weatherford

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 650.00 23.00
2 2500.00 16.00
3 7500.00 12.25
4 12900.00 8.50
5 15771.43 6.00
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 casing 0.00 650.00 19.00 20.00
2 casing 0.00 2500.00 12.42 13.38
3 casing 0.00 7500.00 8.68 9.63
4 liner 7470.00 12900.00 6.18 7.00
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Reservoir 1 sandstone 13000.00 14100.00 7631.42 7809.56
2 Cretaceous shale w/ siltstone 14100.00 14400.00 7809.56 7858.14
3 Reservoir 2 sandstone 14400.00 15771.00 7858.14 8080.17
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Reservoir 1 13000.00 7631.42 77 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
2 Cretaceous 14100.00 7809.56 77 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
3 Reservoir 2 14400.00 7858.14 77 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Top Top Underbalance Underbalance
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth Pressure (Top) Pressure (Btm)
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi psi
1 Reservoir 1 sandstone 13000.00 7631.42 500 400
2 Cretaceous shale w/ siltstone 14100.00 7809.56 400 350
3 Reservoir 2 sandstone 14400.00 7858.14 350 200
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi
TVD
1 Reservoir 1 sandstone 13000.00 7631.42 400 45 0.32 0.20 1.00
shale w/
2
Cretaceous siltstone 14100.00 7809.56 300 35 0.35 0.15 1.00
3 Reservoir 2 sandstone 14400.00 7858.14 800 45 0.30 0.40 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating
psi Efficiency

1 Reservoir 1 sandstone 13000.00 7631.42 0 0.80

2 Cretaceous shale w/ siltstone 14100.00 7809.56 0 0.40
3 Reservoir 2 sandstone 14400.00 7858.14 0 0.80
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir 1, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 13000.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7631.42 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 150 psi
Residual Friction Angle 40 °
In-situ Stress Regime: Passive Basin

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 3 of 8 Weatherford

Depleted Formation Pressure Gradient 0.44 psi/ft

Depleted Formation Pressure 3458 psi
In-situ stresses after depletion:
Max Horz Stress Gradient 0.76 psi/ft
Max Horz Stress 5954 psi
Min Horz Stress Gradient 0.68 psi/ft
Min Horz Stress 5325 psi
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 2.0 cp
Fluid Viscosity in Yielded Zone 2.0 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 500 md
Yielded Rock Permeability 500 md

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous, Lithology: shale w/ siltstone (Top MD = 14100.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7809.56 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 150 psi
Residual Friction Angle 35 °

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir 2, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 14400.00 ft ; Top TVD = 7858.14 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 300 psi
Residual Friction Angle 40 °

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 4 of 8 Weatherford

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:37

Case Title North Sea UBD Stability Analysis

Well Name UBD-1
Company Advanced Geotechnology Inc.
Client Weatherford
User Name PM
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments Multi-zone borehole stability analysis for an offshore, extended reach well to be drilled in an
underbalanced condition. The size of the yielded zone and potential hole enlargement in two
sandstone reservoir units, separated by a weak shale are investigated in this analysis for the
design botomhole pressures predicted by a multi-phase flow software. Note the high risk of
hole enlargement in the shale unit, which necessitates using a different borehole size for flow
modeling and bottomhole pressure prediction. STABView's 2D elastoplastic model was used
to make these predictions for this near-horizontal well section.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir 1, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

13000.03 7631.42 1.54 1.38 1.43 1.84 9.40 54.1

13045.83 7638.84 1.54 1.37 1.43 1.84 9.39 54.1
13091.67 7646.26 1.54 1.37 1.43 1.84 9.39 54.0
13137.50 7653.68 1.54 1.37 1.43 1.84 9.39 53.9
13183.33 7661.11 1.54 1.37 1.43 1.84 9.38 53.9
13229.17 7668.53 1.54 1.37 1.43 1.84 9.38 53.8
13275.00 7675.95 1.54 1.36 1.43 1.84 9.38 53.8
13320.83 7683.37 1.54 1.36 1.43 1.84 9.37 53.7
13366.67 7690.80 1.54 1.36 1.43 1.84 9.37 53.6
13412.50 7698.22 1.54 1.36 1.43 1.84 9.36 53.6
13458.33 7705.64 1.53 1.36 1.43 1.84 9.36 53.5
13504.17 7713.06 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.84 9.36 53.4
13550.00 7720.49 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.84 9.35 53.4
13595.83 7727.91 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.84 9.35 53.3
13641.67 7735.33 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.83 9.34 53.2
13687.50 7742.75 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.83 9.34 53.2
13733.33 7750.18 1.53 1.35 1.43 1.83 9.34 53.1
13779.17 7757.60 1.53 1.34 1.43 1.83 9.33 53.1
13825.00 7765.02 1.53 1.34 1.43 1.83 9.33 53.0
13870.83 7772.44 1.53 1.34 1.43 1.83 9.33 52.9
13916.67 7779.87 1.53 1.34 1.43 1.83 9.32 52.9

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 5 of 8 Weatherford

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

13962.50 7787.29 1.53 1.34 1.43 1.83 9.32 52.8

14008.33 7794.71 1.53 1.33 1.43 1.83 9.32 52.8
14054.17 7802.14 1.53 1.33 1.43 1.83 9.31 52.7
14099.97 7809.55 1.53 1.33 1.43 1.83 9.31 52.7

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous, Lithology: shale w/ siltstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria

14100.03 7809.56 1.85 2.41 1.59 2.33 11.38 84.8

14112.50 7811.58 1.85 2.41 1.59 2.33 11.38 84.7
14125.00 7813.61 1.85 2.41 1.59 2.33 11.38 84.6
14137.50 7815.63 1.85 2.41 1.59 2.33 11.37 84.6
14150.00 7817.66 1.84 2.40 1.59 2.32 11.37 84.5
14162.50 7819.68 1.84 2.40 1.59 2.32 11.36 84.4
14175.00 7821.70 1.84 2.40 1.59 2.32 11.36 84.3
14187.50 7823.73 1.84 2.40 1.59 2.32 11.35 84.3
14200.00 7825.75 1.84 2.39 1.59 2.32 11.35 84.2
14212.50 7827.78 1.84 2.39 1.59 2.32 11.34 84.1
14225.00 7829.80 1.84 2.39 1.59 2.32 11.34 84.0
14237.50 7831.83 1.84 2.38 1.59 2.32 11.33 84.0
14250.00 7833.85 1.84 2.38 1.59 2.32 11.33 83.9
14262.50 7835.87 1.84 2.38 1.59 2.32 11.33 83.8
14275.00 7837.90 1.84 2.38 1.59 2.32 11.32 83.7
14287.50 7839.92 1.84 2.37 1.59 2.31 11.32 83.7
14300.00 7841.95 1.84 2.37 1.59 2.31 11.31 83.6
14312.50 7843.97 1.84 2.37 1.59 2.31 11.31 83.5
14325.00 7846.00 1.83 2.37 1.59 2.31 11.30 83.4
14337.50 7848.02 1.83 2.36 1.59 2.31 11.30 83.4
14350.00 7850.04 1.83 2.36 1.59 2.31 11.29 83.3
14362.50 7852.07 1.83 2.36 1.59 2.31 11.29 83.2
14375.00 7854.09 1.83 2.35 1.59 2.31 11.28 83.1
14387.50 7856.12 1.83 2.35 1.59 2.31 11.28 83.1
14399.97 7858.14 1.83 2.35 1.59 2.31 11.27 83.0

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Reservoir 2, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

14400.03 7858.15 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.75 12.0

14457.12 7867.39 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.74 11.9
14514.25 7876.65 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.74 11.9
14571.38 7885.90 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.74 11.9
14628.50 7895.15 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.73 11.8
14685.63 7904.40 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.73 11.8
14742.75 7913.65 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.73 11.8
14799.88 7922.90 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.73 11.7
14857.00 7932.15 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.72 11.7
14914.13 7941.40 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.72 11.7
14971.25 7950.66 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.72 11.7
15028.37 7959.91 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.72 11.6
15085.50 7969.16 1.12 0.25 1.37 1.30 6.71 11.6
15142.63 7978.41 1.12 0.24 1.37 1.29 6.71 11.6
15199.75 7987.66 1.12 0.24 1.37 1.29 6.71 11.5
15256.88 7996.91 1.11 0.24 1.37 1.29 6.71 11.5
15314.00 8006.16 1.11 0.24 1.37 1.29 6.70 11.5
15371.13 8015.41 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.70 11.4
15428.25 8024.66 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.70 11.4
15485.38 8033.92 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.69 11.4
15542.50 8043.17 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.69 11.3
15599.63 8052.42 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.69 11.3
15656.75 8061.67 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.69 11.3
15713.87 8070.92 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.68 11.2
15770.97 8080.17 1.11 0.24 1.38 1.29 6.68 11.2

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 6 of 8 Weatherford

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 7712.39 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 77 °
Depth MD = 13500.00 ftKB
Well Inclination = 81 ° Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 167 ° Pó = 4011 psi
Formation: Reservoir 1 Pó grad(new ) = 0.44 psi/ft
Lithology: sandstone Pó(new ) = 3394 psi
Pø = 2939 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic EMW = 7.33 ppg
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb ¿P = -455 psi
NYZA = 1.35
R/rw = 1.53 Äçä = 0.80
R = 4.60 in cñ = 400 psi
rw = 3.00 in Åñ = 45 °
a = 5.51 in có = 150 psi
b = 3.85 in Åó = 40 °
a/b = 1.43 E = 0.20 E+06 psi
a/rw = 1.84 / Original
Í = 0.32Borehole
b/rw = 1.28 / Yielded
À = 1.00Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 7825.75 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 77 °
Depth MD = 14200.00 ftKB
Well Inclination = 81 ° Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 167 ° Pó = 4069 psi
Formation: Cretaceous Pø = 3686 psi
Lithology: shale w / siltstone EMW = 9.06 ppg
¿P = -383 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Äçä = 0.40
NYZA = 2.39 cñ = 300 psi
R/rw = 1.84 Åñ = 35 °
R = 5.53 in có = 150 psi
rw = 3.00 in Åó = 35 °
a = 6.96 in E = 0.15 E+06 psi
b = 4.39 in Í = 0.35
a/b = 1.59 À = 1.00
a/rw = 2.32 / Original Borehole
b/rw = 1.46 / Yielded Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis Weatherford
7 of 8

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 7955.31 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 77 °
Depth MD = 15000.00 ftKB
Well Inclination = 81 ° Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 167 ° Pó = 4137 psi
Formation: Reservoir 2 Pø = 3852 psi
Lithology: sandstone EMW = 9.32 ppg
¿P = -284 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Äçä = 0.80
NYZA = 0.25 cñ = 800 psi
R/rw = 1.12 Åñ = 45 °
R = 3.35 in có = 300 psi
rw = 3.00 in Åó = 40 °
a = 3.89 in E = 0.40 E+06 psi
b = 3.00 in Í = 0.30
a/b = 1.30 À = 1.00
a/rw = 1.30 / Original Borehole
b/rw = 1.00 / Yielded Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Average Normalized Yielded Zone Radius, R/rw

Borehole Collapse Risk Well
Incl.
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 0° 30° 60° 90°
12900
Reservoir 1
13100

13300

13500
Measured Depth (ft KB)

13700

13900

14100
Cretaceous

14300
Reservoir 2
14500

14700

14900

15100

15300

15500

15700

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: North Sea UBD Stability Analysis 8 of 8 Weatherford

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=81 °, Azimuth=167 °, MD=14200.00 ftKB)
100 psi 300 psi 500 psi Formation
Pressure Analysis Mode: Risk
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
2.6
Depth TVD = 7825.75 ftKB
Depth MD = 14200.00 ftKB
Well Inclination = 81 °
2.4 Well Azimuth = 167 °
Formation: Cretaceous
Normalized Yielded Zone

Lithology: shale w/ siltstone

2.2 Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rw

2.0 Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 77 °
1.8
Pó grad = 0.52 psi/ft
Pó = 4069 psi

1.6 Äçä = 0.40

cñ = 300 psi
Åñ = 35 °
1.4 có = 150 psi
Åó = 35 °
E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Í = 0.35
1.2 À = 1.00

1.0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Equivalent Mud Weight (EMW), ppg

Tornado Plot for R/rw Input Value Range

(MD=14400.00 ftKB,TVD=7858.14 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Residual Friction 25 35 40 °
Angle

Residual Cohesion 100 150 200 psi

Peak Friction Angle 25 35 45 °

Formation 0.47 0.52 0.57 psi/ft

Pressure Gradient

Peak Cohesion 225 300 375 psi

Base Case R/rw = 1.83
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk Formation: Cretaceous Ò÷ grad = 0.90 psi/ft Pó grad = 0.52 psi /ft Äçä = 0.40
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse Lithology: shale w/ siltstone Òüîâù grad = 0.80 psi/ft Pó = 4086 psi cñ = 300 psi
Òüîêï grad = 0.72 psi/ft Pø = 3736 psi Åñ = 35 °
Depth TVD = 7858.14 ftKB Model: 2D Elastoplastic Òüîêï Azi = 77 ° ¿P = -350 psi có = 150 psi
Depth MD = 14400.00 ftKB Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Åó = 35 °
Well Inclination = 81 ° E = 0.15 E+06 psi
Well Azimuth = 167 ° Í = 0.35
À = 1.00

Filename: Case 11 - Underbalanced Drilling.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:37

Case Title: Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion 1 of 5 Rob Smith

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:38

Case Title Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion

Well Name K-12
Company Hornet Exploration Ltd.
Client Rob Smith
User Name CDC
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Vertical gas well with barefoot openhole completion. For this case, the user has input a
predicted gas inflow rate, from which the bottomhole pressure is calculated for use in the
borehole collapse model. The risk of collapse and sand production is assessed for varying flow
rates and rock cohesion strength. Non-Darcy turbulent inflow and compressible gas effects are
accounted for in the near wellbore area.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 5.00 m
Well Survey Vertical Well
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30 mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30
TVD m m m TVD m m m
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1000.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
m KB MD mm
1 1000.00 216.0
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
m KB MD m KB MD mm mm
1 casing 0.00 900.00 140.0 152.0
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
m KB MD m KB MD m KB TVD m KB TVD
1 Interval 1 sandstone 900.00 1000.00 900.00 1000.00

Filename: Case 12 - Vertical Gas Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:38

Case Title: Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion 2 of 5 Rob Smith

INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA

No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
m KB MD m KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m
1 Interval 1 900.00 900.00 135 24.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 18.0 18.0 7.5 7.5
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Gas Gas
Top Top Production Production
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth Rate (Top) Rate (Btm)
m KB MD m KB TVD E+06 m³/Day E+06 m³/Day
1 Interval 1 sandstone 900.00 900.00 10 10
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Apparent Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Capillary Ratio Modulus Coefficient
m KB MD m KB MPa Angle Cohesion GPa
TVD kPa
1 Interval 1 sandstone 900.00 900.00 5.0 45 0.00 0.25 15.00 0.75
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
m KB MD m KB TVD Pressure Coating
MPa Efficiency

1 Interval 1 sandstone 900.00 900.00 0.0 0.00

MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 900.00 m ; Top TVD = 900.00 m)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 3.8 MPa
Residual Friction Angle 35 °
Producing Interval Length 5.00 m
Ideal Gas Properties:
Turbulence Coefficient 0.30 /m
Gas Gravity 0.70
Standard Pressure 101 kPa
Standard Temperature 289 °C

Filename: Case 12 - Vertical Gas Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:38

Case Title: Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion 3 of 5 Rob Smith

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:38

Case Title Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion

Well Name K-12
Company Hornet Exploration Ltd.
Client Rob Smith
User Name CDC
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Vertical gas well with barefoot openhole completion. For this case, the user has input a
predicted gas inflow rate, from which the bottomhole pressure is calculated for use in the
borehole collapse model. The risk of collapse and sand production is assessed for varying flow
rates and rock cohesion strength. Non-Darcy turbulent inflow and compressible gas effects are
accounted for in the near wellbore area.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
mKB MD mKB KB mm Overgauge Angle
TVD
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

900.01 900.01 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.7 8

901.35 901.35 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.7 8
902.70 902.70 1.08 0.18 1.16 1.17 234.9 8
904.05 904.05 1.08 0.18 1.16 1.17 234.9 8
905.41 905.41 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.1 9
906.76 906.76 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.1 9
908.11 908.11 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.3 9
909.46 909.46 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.4 9
910.81 910.81 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.5 9
912.16 912.16 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.6 9
913.51 913.51 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.7 9
914.86 914.86 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 235.8 9
916.22 916.22 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 235.9 9
917.57 917.57 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.0 9
918.92 918.92 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.1 9
920.27 920.27 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.2 9
921.62 921.62 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.2 9
922.97 922.97 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.0 9
924.32 924.32 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 236.0 9
925.68 925.68 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 235.9 9
927.03 927.03 1.09 0.19 1.16 1.17 235.8 9
928.38 928.38 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.7 9
929.73 929.73 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.6 9

Filename: Case 12 - Vertical Gas Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:38

Case Title: Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion 4 of 5 Rob Smith

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

mKB MD mKB KB mm Overgauge Angle
TVD
931.08 931.08 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.5 9
932.43 932.43 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.4 9
933.78 933.78 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.3 9
935.14 935.14 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.2 9
936.49 936.49 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.1 9
937.84 937.84 1.09 0.18 1.16 1.17 235.1 9
939.19 939.19 1.08 0.18 1.16 1.17 234.9 8
940.54 940.54 1.08 0.18 1.16 1.17 234.9 8
941.89 941.89 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.8 8
943.24 943.24 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.7 8
944.59 944.59 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.6 8
945.95 945.95 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.5 8
947.30 947.30 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.4 8
948.65 948.65 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.3 8
950.00 950.00 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.17 234.3 8
951.35 951.35 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.16 234.1 8
952.70 952.70 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.16 234.0 8
954.05 954.05 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.16 234.0 8
955.41 955.41 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.16 233.9 8
956.76 956.76 1.08 0.17 1.16 1.16 233.8 8
958.11 958.11 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.7 8
959.46 959.46 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.6 8
960.81 960.81 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.5 8
962.16 962.16 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.4 8
963.51 963.51 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.4 8
964.86 964.86 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.3 8
966.22 966.22 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.2 8
967.57 967.57 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.1 8
968.92 968.92 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 233.0 8
970.27 970.27 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 232.9 8
971.62 971.62 1.08 0.16 1.16 1.16 232.8 8
972.97 972.97 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.7 7
974.32 974.32 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.7 7
975.68 975.68 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.6 7
977.03 977.03 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.5 7
978.38 978.38 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.4 7
979.73 979.73 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.3 7
981.08 981.08 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.3 7
982.43 982.43 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.2 7
983.78 983.78 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.16 232.1 7
985.14 985.14 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.15 232.0 7
986.49 986.49 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.15 231.9 7
987.84 987.84 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.15 231.8 7
989.19 989.19 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.15 231.7 7
990.54 990.54 1.07 0.15 1.16 1.15 231.6 7
991.89 991.89 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.6 7
993.24 993.24 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.5 7
994.59 994.59 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.4 7
995.95 995.95 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.3 7
997.30 997.30 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.2 7
998.65 998.65 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.2 7
999.99 999.99 1.07 0.14 1.16 1.15 231.1 7

Filename: Case 12 - Vertical Gas Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:38

Case Title: Vertical Gas Well with Barefoot Completion 5 of 5 Rob Smith

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone - Effect of Peak Friction Angle

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 24.0 kPa/m
Analysis Type: Sand Production
↑N Òüîâù grad = 22.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.0 kPa/m
Depth TVD = 994.54 mKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Depth MD = 994.54 mKB
Well Inclination = 0 ° Pó grad = 7.5 kPa/m
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó = 7.5 MPa
Formation: Interval 1 Pø = 1.7 MPa
Lithology: sandstone ¿P = -5.7 MPa

Model: 2D Elastoplastic cñ = 5.0 MPa

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Åñ = 45 °
NYZA = 0.36 có = 3.8 MPa
R/rw = 1.17 Åó = 35 °
R = 126.2 mm E = 15.00 GPa
rw = 108.0 mm Í = 0.25
a = 136.1 mm À = 0.75
b = 117.0 mm
a/b = 1.16 Peak Friction Angle
a/rw = 1.26 / 40 °
b/rw = 1.08
// 45 °
35 °

/ Original Borehole
/ Yielded Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=959.99 mKB)
4.0 MPa 5.0 MPa 3.0 MPa
Analysis Mode: Risk
0.40 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 959.99 mKB

Depth MD = 959.99 mKB
Normalized Yielded Zone Area

0.35 Well Inclination = 0 °

Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Interval 1
Lithology: sandstone
0.30
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

0.25 Ò÷ grad = 24.0 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 22.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
0.20
Pó grad = 7.5 kPa/m
Pó = 7.2 MPa
0.15
cñ = 5.0 MPa
Åñ = 45 °
có = 3.8 MPa
0.10 Åó = 35 °
E = 15.00 GPa
Í = 0.25
À = 0.75
0.05

0.00
6 7 8 9 10 11

Gas Production Rate, E+06 m³/Day

Filename: Case 12 - Vertical Gas Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:38

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 1 of 6 Travis Oil

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:39

Case Title Perforated Vertical Oil Well

Well Name F-22
Company AGI
Client Travis Oil
User Name Sam Smith
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Vertical well with perforated completion. User has specified a liquid production rate, from
which STABView calculates the bottomhole pressure based on the steady-state radial flow
equation for an incompressible fluid.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 4.00 m
Well Survey Vertical Well
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30 mKB MD ° ° mKB KB Distance Distance deg/30
TVD m m m TVD m m m
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
800.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
m KB MD mm
1 800.00 220.0
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
m KB MD m KB MD mm mm
1 casing 0.00 700.00 140.0 152.0
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
m KB MD m KB MD m KB TVD m KB TVD
1 Interval 1 sandstone 700.00 800.00 700.00 800.00

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 2 of 6 Travis Oil

INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA

No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
m KB MD m KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m kPa/m
1 Interval 1 700.00 700.00 135 23.0 23.0 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 10.0 10.0
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Liquid Liquid
Top Top Production Production
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth Rate (Top) Rate (Btm)
m KB MD m KB TVD m³/Day m³/Day
1 Interval 1 sandstone 700.00 700.00 14.0 14.0
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Apparent Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Capillary Ratio Modulus Coefficient
m KB MD m KB MPa Angle Cohesion GPa
TVD kPa
1 Interval 1 sandstone 700.00 700.00 4.0 35 0.00 0.30 8.00 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
m KB MD m KB TVD Pressure Coating
MPa Efficiency

1 Interval 1 sandstone 700.00 700.00 0.0 0.00

MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 700.00 m ; Top TVD = 700.00 m)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 1.0 MPa
Residual Friction Angle 30 °
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 50.0 mPa·s
Elastic Rock Permeability 500 mD
Producing Interval Length 10.00 m

Cylindrical Perforation Cavities:

Perforation Diameter 20.0 mm
Perforation Penetration 200.0 mm
Perforation Density 12.0 shots/m
Perforation Phasing 0 °

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 3 of 6 Travis Oil

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:39

Case Title Perforated Vertical Oil Well

Well Name F-22
Company AGI
Client Travis Oil
User Name Sam Smith
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments Vertical well with perforated completion. User has specified a liquid production rate, from
which STABView calculates the bottomhole pressure based on the steady-state radial flow
equation for an incompressible fluid.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rperf NYZA a/b a/rperf Diameter Percent Breakout
mKB MD mKB KB mm Overgauge Angle
TVD
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Interval 1, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

700.01 700.01 1.15 0.14 1.41 1.22 20.8 15

701.35 701.35 1.15 0.14 1.41 1.22 20.8 15
702.70 702.70 1.15 0.14 1.41 1.22 20.9 15
704.05 704.05 1.15 0.14 1.41 1.22 20.9 15
705.41 705.41 1.15 0.15 1.41 1.23 20.9 15
706.76 706.76 1.15 0.15 1.41 1.23 21.0 15
708.11 708.11 1.15 0.15 1.41 1.23 21.0 15
709.46 709.46 1.15 0.15 1.41 1.23 21.0 15
710.81 710.81 1.15 0.16 1.41 1.23 21.1 15
712.16 712.16 1.15 0.16 1.41 1.24 21.1 15
713.51 713.51 1.15 0.16 1.41 1.24 21.2 15
714.86 714.86 1.15 0.16 1.41 1.24 21.2 15
716.22 716.22 1.15 0.17 1.41 1.24 21.2 15
717.57 717.57 1.15 0.17 1.41 1.25 21.3 15
718.92 718.92 1.15 0.17 1.42 1.25 21.3 15
720.27 720.27 1.15 0.17 1.42 1.25 21.3 15
721.62 721.62 1.15 0.17 1.42 1.25 21.4 15
722.97 722.97 1.15 0.18 1.42 1.25 21.4 15
724.32 724.32 1.15 0.18 1.42 1.26 21.4 15
725.68 725.68 1.15 0.18 1.42 1.26 21.5 15
727.03 727.03 1.15 0.18 1.42 1.26 21.5 15
728.38 728.38 1.15 0.19 1.42 1.26 21.5 15
729.73 729.73 1.15 0.19 1.42 1.26 21.6 15
731.08 731.08 1.15 0.19 1.42 1.27 21.6 15
732.43 732.43 1.15 0.19 1.42 1.27 21.6 15

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 4 of 6 Travis Oil

Depth Depth R/rperf NYZA a/b a/rperf Diameter Percent Breakout

mKB MD mKB KB mm Overgauge Angle
TVD
733.78 733.78 1.15 0.20 1.42 1.27 21.7 15
735.14 735.14 1.15 0.20 1.42 1.27 21.7 15
736.49 736.49 1.15 0.20 1.42 1.27 21.7 15
737.84 737.84 1.15 0.20 1.42 1.28 21.8 15
739.19 739.19 1.15 0.21 1.42 1.28 21.8 15
740.54 740.54 1.15 0.21 1.42 1.28 21.8 15
741.89 741.89 1.15 0.21 1.42 1.28 21.9 15
743.24 743.24 1.15 0.21 1.42 1.29 21.9 15
744.59 744.59 1.15 0.22 1.42 1.29 21.9 15
745.95 745.95 1.15 0.22 1.42 1.29 22.0 15
747.30 747.30 1.15 0.22 1.42 1.29 22.0 15
748.65 748.65 1.15 0.22 1.42 1.29 22.0 15
750.00 750.00 1.15 0.23 1.42 1.30 22.1 15
751.35 751.35 1.15 0.23 1.42 1.30 22.1 15
752.70 752.70 1.15 0.23 1.42 1.30 22.1 15
754.05 754.05 1.15 0.23 1.42 1.30 22.2 15
755.41 755.41 1.15 0.24 1.42 1.30 22.2 15
756.76 756.76 1.15 0.24 1.42 1.31 22.2 15
758.11 758.11 1.15 0.24 1.42 1.31 22.3 15
759.46 759.46 1.15 0.24 1.42 1.31 22.3 15
760.81 760.81 1.15 0.25 1.42 1.31 22.3 15
762.16 762.16 1.15 0.25 1.42 1.31 22.4 15
763.51 763.51 1.15 0.25 1.42 1.32 22.4 15
764.86 764.86 1.15 0.25 1.42 1.32 22.4 15
766.22 766.22 1.15 0.26 1.42 1.32 22.5 15
767.57 767.57 1.15 0.26 1.42 1.32 22.5 15
768.92 768.92 1.15 0.26 1.42 1.32 22.5 15
770.27 770.27 1.15 0.27 1.42 1.33 22.6 15
771.62 771.62 1.15 0.27 1.42 1.33 22.6 15
772.97 772.97 1.15 0.27 1.42 1.33 22.6 15
774.32 774.32 1.15 0.27 1.42 1.33 22.7 15
775.68 775.68 1.15 0.28 1.42 1.33 22.7 15
777.03 777.03 1.15 0.28 1.42 1.34 22.7 15
778.38 778.38 1.15 0.28 1.42 1.34 22.8 15
779.73 779.73 1.15 0.28 1.42 1.34 22.8 15
781.08 781.08 1.15 0.29 1.42 1.34 22.8 15
782.43 782.43 1.15 0.29 1.42 1.34 22.9 15
783.78 783.78 1.15 0.29 1.42 1.35 22.9 15
785.14 785.14 1.15 0.30 1.42 1.35 22.9 15
786.49 786.49 1.15 0.30 1.42 1.35 23.0 15
787.84 787.84 1.15 0.30 1.42 1.35 23.0 15
789.19 789.19 1.15 0.30 1.43 1.35 23.0 15
790.54 790.54 1.15 0.31 1.43 1.36 23.1 15
791.89 791.89 1.15 0.31 1.43 1.36 23.1 15
793.24 793.24 1.15 0.31 1.43 1.36 23.1 15
794.59 794.59 1.15 0.32 1.43 1.36 23.2 15
795.95 795.95 1.15 0.32 1.43 1.36 23.2 15
797.30 797.30 1.15 0.32 1.43 1.37 23.2 15
798.65 798.65 1.15 0.32 1.43 1.37 23.3 15
799.99 799.99 1.15 0.33 1.43 1.37 23.3 15

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 5 of 6 Travis Oil

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=799.99 mKB)
2.0 MPa 4.0 MPa 3.0 MPa
Analysis Mode: Risk
1.6 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 799.99 mKB

Depth MD = 799.99 mKB
Well Inclination = 0 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Normalized Yielded Zone
Formation: Interval 1
1.5 Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Radius, R/rperf

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 23.0 kPa/m

1.4 Òüîâù grad = 18.5 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.5 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °

Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m

Pó = 8.0 MPa
1.3
cñ = 4.0 MPa
Åñ = 35 °
có = 1.0 MPa
Åó = 30 °
E = 8.00 GPa
1.2 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

1.1
0 5 10 15

Liquid Production Rate, m³/Day

Stress and Pore Pressure

(MD=799.99 mKB)
Pore Pressure Radial Stress Tangential Stress
Analysis Mode: Risk
25 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 799.99 mKB

Calculated for an equivalent circular yielded zone Depth MD = 799.99 mKB
Total Stress and Pore Pressure,

Well Inclination = 0 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Interval 1
Lithology: sandstone
20
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 23.0 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 18.5 kPa/m
MPa

Òüîêï grad = 18.5 kPa/m

Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
15
Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m
Pó = 8.0 MPa
Pø = 7.3 MPa
¿P = -0.7 MPa

cñ = 4.0 MPa
10 Åñ = 35 °
có = 1.0 MPa
Åó = 30 °
E = 8.00 GPa
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

5
0 5 10 15

Normalized Radial Distance (R/rperf)

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Perforated Vertical Oil Well 6 of 6 Travis Oil

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=0 °, Azimuth=0 °, MD=700.00 mKB)
3.5 MPa 4.0 MPa 3.0 MPa Formation
Pressure Analysis Mode: Risk
Analysis Type: Sand Production

1.5 Depth TVD = 700.00 mKB

Depth MD = 700.00 mKB
Well Inclination = 0 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Interval 1
Normalized Yielded Zone

Lithology: sandstone
1.4
Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rperf

Ò÷ grad = 23.0 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 18.5 kPa/m
1.3 Òüîêï grad = 18.5 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °

Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m

Pó = 7.0 MPa
1.2
cñ = 4.0 MPa
Åñ = 35 °
có = 1.0 MPa
Åó = 30 °
E = 8.00 GPa
1.1 Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

1.0
4 5 6 7 8

Bottomhole Pressure, MPa

Cross-Section - Initial Perforation Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 23.0 kPa/m
Analysis Type: Sand Production
↓ Ò÷ Òüîâù grad = 18.5 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.5 kPa/m
Depth TVD = 799.99 mKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Depth MD = 799.99 mKB
Well Inclination = 0 ° Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó = 8.0 MPa
Formation: Interval 1 Pø = 7.3 MPa
Lithology: sandstone ¿P = -0.7 MPa
Perforation Inclination* = 90 °
Perforation Azimuth* = 135 ° cñ = 4.0 MPa
*Most critical perforation Åñ = 35 °
có = 1.0 MPa
Model: 2D Elastoplastic Åó = 30 °
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb E = 8.00 GPa
NYZA = 0.33 Í = 0.30
R/rperf = 1.15 À = 1.00
R = 11.5 mm
rperf = 10.0 mm
a = 13.7 mm / Original Perforation
b = 10.0 mm / Yielded Zone
a/b = 1.37 (Drawn to Scale)
a/rperf = 1.37
b/rperf = 1.00

Filename: Case 13 - Vertical Oil Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:39

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 1 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:43

Case Title Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well

Well Name Hornet No. 9
Company Weatherford
Client Hornet Exploration Ltd.
User Name CDC
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments 2D elastoplastic analyses of yielded zone sizes in three rock types for a vertical well drilled
slightly overbalanced through multiple zones. Representative of a managed pressure drilling
(MPD) operation.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Highest
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 16.40 ft
Well Survey Vertical Well
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
3280.80 0.00 0.00 3280.80 0.00 0.00 0.0

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 600.00 12.25
2 3280.80 8.67
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
* No tubular data were entered for this case.
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Paleocene Mudstone mudstone 656.10 1640.40 656.10 1640.40
2 Cretaceous Shale shale 1640.40 2788.60 1640.40 2788.60
3 Jurassic Reservoir sandstone 2788.60 3280.80 2788.60 3280.80

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 2 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA

No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Paleocene Mudstone 656.10 656.10 130 0.97 0.97 1.02 1.02 0.80 0.80 0.44 0.44
2 Cretaceous Shale 1640.40 1640.40 135 0.99 0.99 1.04 1.04 0.82 0.82 0.44 0.44
3 Jurassic Reservoir 2788.60 2788.60 135 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.06 0.84 0.84 0.40 0.40
WELLBORE PRESSURE OR PRODUCTION RATE DATA
Top Top
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Depth Depth EMW (Top) EMW (Btm)
ft KB MD ft KB TVD ppg ppg
1 Paleocene Mudstone mudstone 656.10 656.10 9.00 9.00
2 Cretaceous Shale shale 1640.40 1640.40 9.00 9.50
3 Jurassic Reservoir sandstone 2788.60 2788.60 9.50 10.00
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi
TVD
1 Paleocene Mudstone mudstone 656.10 656.10 290 25 0.35 0.50 1.00
2 Cretaceous Shale shale 1640.40 1640.40 510 30 0.30 1.00 1.00
3 Jurassic Reservoir sandstone 2788.60 2788.60 580 35 0.30 2.00 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating
psi Efficiency

1 Paleocene Mudstone mudstone 656.10 656.10 500 0.20

2 Cretaceous Shale shale 1640.40 1640.40 800 0.30
3 Jurassic Reservoir sandstone 2788.60 2788.60 20 0.80
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Paleocene Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone (Top MD = 656.10 ft ; Top TVD = 656.10 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 75 psi
Residual Friction Angle 15 °
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 0.5 cp
Fluid Viscosity in Yielded Zone 0.5 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 0.001 md
Yielded Rock Permeability 0.01 md
Maximum Swab Pressure 20 psi

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous Shale, Lithology: shale (Top MD = 1640.40 ft ; Top TVD = 1640.40 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 220 psi
Residual Friction Angle 20 °
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 0.5 cp
Fluid Viscosity in Yielded Zone 0.5 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 0.001 md
Yielded Rock Permeability 0.005 md
Maximum Swab Pressure 20 psi

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Jurassic Reservoir, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 2788.60 ft ; Top TVD = 2788.60 ft)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 220 psi
Residual Friction Angle 28 °
Fracture Roughness Angle 45 °
Rubble Bulking Factor 2.00
Pore Pressure Effects:
Formation Fluid Viscosity 0.5 cp
Fluid Viscosity in Yielded Zone 0.5 cp
Elastic Rock Permeability 100 md
Yielded Rock Permeability 200 md

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 3 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Maximum Swab Pressure 20 psi

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 4 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse While Drilling
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:43

Case Title Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well

Well Name Hornet No. 9
Company Weatherford
Client Hornet Exploration Ltd.
User Name CDC
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments 2D elastoplastic analyses of yielded zone sizes in three rock types for a vertical well drilled
slightly overbalanced through multiple zones. Representative of a managed pressure drilling
(MPD) operation.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Highest
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE RISK
Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout
ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Paleocene Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria

656.13 656.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.22 0.0

697.11 697.11 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.62 0.0
738.13 738.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 6.02 0.0
779.14 779.14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 6.43 0.0
820.15 820.15 1.01 0.01 2.05 1.06 6.85 0.5
861.16 861.16 1.02 0.03 2.05 1.13 7.26 1.6
902.18 902.18 1.03 0.06 2.05 1.19 7.69 3.0
943.19 943.19 1.05 0.10 2.05 1.26 8.11 4.7
984.20 984.20 1.07 0.14 2.05 1.32 8.54 6.8
1025.21 1025.21 1.09 0.19 2.05 1.39 8.97 9.1
1066.23 1066.23 1.12 0.25 2.05 1.46 9.41 11.7
1107.24 1107.24 1.15 0.31 2.05 1.53 9.85 14.5
1148.25 1148.25 1.18 0.38 2.05 1.59 10.29 17.6
1189.26 1189.26 1.21 0.46 2.05 1.66 10.73 20.9
1230.28 1230.28 1.24 0.55 2.05 1.73 11.17 24.4
1271.29 1271.29 1.28 0.64 2.05 1.80 11.62 28.1
1312.30 1312.30 1.32 0.74 2.05 1.87 12.07 32.0
1353.31 1353.31 1.36 0.85 2.05 1.94 12.52 36.2
1394.33 1394.33 1.41 0.98 2.05 2.01 12.97 40.6
1435.34 1435.34 1.45 1.11 2.05 2.08 13.42 45.3
1476.35 1476.35 1.50 1.26 2.05 2.15 13.87 50.2
1517.36 1517.36 1.55 1.41 2.05 2.22 14.33 55.2
1558.38 1558.38 1.60 1.56 2.05 2.29 14.79 60.1
1599.39 1599.39 1.65 1.72 2.05 2.36 15.24 65.1

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 5 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Depth Depth R/rw NYZA a/b a/rw Diameter Percent Breakout

ft KB MD ft KB TVD in Overgauge Angle

1640.37 1640.37 1.70 1.89 2.05 2.43 15.70 70.0

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Cretaceous Shale, Lithology: shale, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

1640.43 1640.43 1.02 0.04 1.68 1.13 7.81 2.1

1688.24 1688.24 1.03 0.05 1.69 1.15 7.92 2.7
1736.08 1736.08 1.03 0.06 1.70 1.17 8.04 3.2
1783.93 1783.93 1.04 0.08 1.71 1.19 8.15 3.7
1831.77 1831.77 1.04 0.09 1.73 1.21 8.26 4.3
1879.61 1879.61 1.05 0.10 1.74 1.22 8.37 4.8
1927.45 1927.45 1.05 0.11 1.75 1.24 8.47 5.4
1975.29 1975.29 1.06 0.12 1.76 1.26 8.58 6.0
2023.13 2023.13 1.07 0.14 1.77 1.28 8.68 6.6
2070.98 2070.98 1.07 0.15 1.78 1.30 8.77 7.2
2118.82 2118.82 1.08 0.16 1.79 1.31 8.87 7.7
2166.66 2166.66 1.08 0.17 1.80 1.33 8.96 8.3
2214.50 2214.50 1.09 0.19 1.81 1.34 9.05 8.9
2262.34 2262.34 1.09 0.20 1.82 1.36 9.14 9.4
2310.18 2310.18 1.10 0.21 1.83 1.37 9.22 10.0
2358.03 2358.03 1.11 0.22 1.83 1.39 9.31 10.5
2405.87 2405.87 1.11 0.23 1.84 1.40 9.38 11.1
2453.71 2453.71 1.12 0.25 1.85 1.42 9.46 11.6
2501.55 2501.55 1.12 0.26 1.86 1.43 9.54 12.1
2549.39 2549.39 1.13 0.27 1.87 1.44 9.61 12.6
2597.23 2597.23 1.13 0.28 1.88 1.46 9.68 13.1
2645.08 2645.08 1.14 0.29 1.88 1.47 9.75 13.6
2692.92 2692.92 1.14 0.30 1.89 1.48 9.81 14.1
2740.76 2740.76 1.15 0.31 1.90 1.49 9.88 14.5
2788.57 2788.57 1.15 0.32 1.91 1.50 9.94 15.0

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Jurassic Reservoir, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure
Criteria

2788.63 2788.63 1.04 0.07 1.45 1.15 8.45 3.7

2809.11 2809.11 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.15 8.46 3.7
2829.62 2829.62 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.46 3.7
2850.13 2850.13 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.47 3.8
2870.63 2870.63 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.47 3.8
2891.14 2891.14 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.48 3.8
2911.65 2911.65 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.48 3.8
2932.16 2932.16 1.04 0.08 1.45 1.16 8.49 3.9
2952.67 2952.67 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.49 3.9
2973.18 2973.18 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.49 3.9
2993.68 2993.68 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.49 3.9
3014.19 3014.19 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.49 4.0
3034.70 3034.70 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3055.21 3055.21 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3075.72 3075.72 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3096.23 3096.23 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3116.73 3116.73 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3137.24 3137.24 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.16 8.50 4.0
3157.75 3157.75 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.17 8.50 4.0
3178.26 3178.26 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.17 8.50 4.0
3198.77 3198.77 1.04 0.08 1.46 1.17 8.50 4.0
3219.28 3219.28 1.04 0.08 1.47 1.17 8.50 4.0
3239.78 3239.78 1.04 0.08 1.47 1.17 8.50 4.0
3260.29 3260.29 1.04 0.08 1.47 1.17 8.50 4.0
3280.77 3280.77 1.04 0.08 1.47 1.17 8.50 4.0

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 6 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.99 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↑N Òüîâù grad = 1.04 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.82 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 2700.00 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Depth MD = 2700.00 ftKB
Well Inclination = 0 ° Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó = 1188 psi
Formation: Cretaceous Shale Pø = 1328 psi
Lithology: shale EMW = 9.46 ppg
¿P = +140 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic Pôøâã = 20 psi
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Päâñ = 800 psi
NYZA = 0.30
R/rw = 1.14 Äçä = 0.30
R = 4.95 in cñ = 510 psi
rw = 4.34 in Åñ = 30 °
a = 6.43 in có = 220 psi
b = 4.34 in Åó = 20 °
a/b = 1.48 E = 1.00 E+06 psi
a/rw = 1.48 / Original
Í = 0.30Borehole
b/rw = 1.00 / Yielded
À = 1.00Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↑N Òüîâù grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 1449.38 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 130 °
Depth MD = 1449.38 ftKB
Well Inclination = 0 ° Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó = 638 psi
Formation: Paleocene Mudstone Pø = 678 psi
Lithology: mudstone EMW = 9.00 ppg
¿P = +40 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic Pôøâã = 20 psi
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Päâñ = 500 psi
NYZA = 1.16
R/rw = 1.47 Äçä = 0.20
R = 6.37 in cñ = 290 psi
rw = 4.34 in Åñ = 25 °
a = 9.12 in có = 75 psi
b = 4.45 in Åó = 15 °
a/b = 2.05 E = 0.50 E+06 psi
a/rw = 2.10 / Original
Í = 0.35Borehole
b/rw = 1.03 / Yielded
À = 1.00Zone
(Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well Hornet Exploration Ltd.
7 of 8

Average Normalized Yielded Zone Radius, R/rw

Borehole Collapse Risk

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

500

700 Paleocene Mudstone

900

1100
Measured Depth (ft KB)

1300

1500

1700 Cretaceous Shale

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700
Jurassic Reservoir
2900

3100

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Cross-Section - Initial Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 1.02 psi/ft
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
↑N Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.84 psi/ft
Depth TVD = 3199.97 ftKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Depth MD = 3199.97 ftKB
Well Inclination = 0 ° Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó = 1280 psi
Formation: Jurassic Reservoir Pø = 1649 psi
Lithology: sandstone EMW = 9.92 ppg
¿P = +369 psi
Model: 2D Elastoplastic Pôøâã = 20 psi
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Päâñ = 20 psi
NYZA = 0.08
R/rw = 1.04 Äçä = 0.80
R = 4.51 in cñ = 580 psi
rw = 4.34 in Åñ = 35 °
a = 5.05 in có = 220 psi
b = 4.34 in Åó = 28 °
a/b = 1.17 E = 2.00 E+06 psi
a/rw = 1.17 / Original
Í = 0.30Borehole
b/rw = 1.00 / Yielded
À = 1.00Zone
Skin = 0.01 (Drawn to Scale)

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Enlargement Analysis for a Vertical Well 8 of 8 Hornet Exploration Ltd.

Tornado Plot for R/rw Input Value Range

(MD=1421.68 ftKB,TVD=1421.68 ftKB) Min
Value
Base
Value
Max
Value
Units

Peak Cohesion 160 290 360 psi

Peak Friction Angle 20 25 30 °

Residual Cohesion 50 75 100 psi

Max Horz Stress 0.98 1.02 1.10 psi/ft

Gradient

Min Horz Stress 0.70 0.80 0.82 psi/ft

Gradient

Residual Friction 13 15 20 °
Angle Base Case R/rw = 1.44

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

R/rw
Analysis Mode: Risk Formation: Paleocene Mudstone Ò÷ grad = 0.97 psi/ft Pó grad = 0.44 psi/ft Äçä = 0.20
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse Lithology: mudstone Òüîâù grad = 1.02 psi/ft Pó = 626 psi cñ = 290 psi
Òüîêï grad = 0.80 psi/ft Pø = 665 psi Åñ = 25 °
Depth TVD = 1421.68 ftKB Model: 2D Elastoplastic Òüîêï Azi = 130 ° ¿P = +39 psi có = 75 psi
Depth MD = 1421.68 ftKB Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb Pôøâã = 20 psi Åó = 15 °
Well Inclination = 0 ° Päâñ = 500 psi E = 0.50 E+06 psi
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Í = 0.35
À = 1.00

Effect of Filter Cake/Wall Coating Eff.

(Incl.=0 °, Az.=0 °, MD=3188.20 ftKB)
0.50 0.80 0.90 Critical R/rw Formation
Pressure
Analysis Mode: Risk
Analysis Type: Drilling Collapse
1.4
Depth TVD = 3188.20 ftKB
Depth MD = 3188.20 ftKB
Well Inclination = 0 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Jurassic Reservoir
Normalized Yielded Zone

Lithology: sandstone
1.3 Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rw

Ò÷ grad = 1.02 psi/ft

Òüîâù grad = 1.06 psi/ft
Òüîêï grad = 0.84 psi/ft
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
1.2
Pó grad = 0.40 psi/ft
Pó = 1275 psi
Pôøâã = 20 psi
Päâñ = 20 psi

Äçä = 0.80
1.1 cñ = 580 psi
Åñ = 35 °
có = 220 psi
Åó = 28 °
E = 2.00 E+06 psi
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

1.0
7 8 9 10 11

Equivalent Mud Weight (EMW), ppg

Filename: Case 14 - Vertical Well with Collapse Risk.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:43

Case Title: Perforation Sand Production Problem 1 of 4 Static Oil Company

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate borehole instability risks for specified bottomhole pressures or mud densities.
Borehole Collapse Model Type Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:45

Case Title Perforation Sand Production Problem

Well Name Asgard T1
Company Weatherford
Client Static Oil Company
User Name PJM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments 3D Perforation example showing sensitivity to stress state, failure model, depletion and
perforation trajectory.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Low
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Offshore
KB Height (relatitive to water level) 30.00 m
Water Depth 400.00 m
Well Survey Horizontal Well
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Vulcan sand
Lithology sandstone
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (TVD) 1500.00 m KB
Borehole Diameter 216.0 mm
Azimuth 0.00 °
Inclination 90.00 °
Length of Well Section 10.00 m
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
Tubular Type casing
Top Depth 0.00 m
Btm Depth 2000.00 m
ID 157.0 mm
OD 177.0 mm
IN-SITU STRESSES AND PRESSURES
Azimuth of Minimum Horizontal Stress 135 °
Vertical Stress Gradient 25.0 kPa/m
Vertical Stress 37.5 MPa
Max Horz Stress Gradient 22.0 kPa/m
Max Horz Stress 33.0 MPa
Min Horz Stress Gradient 18.0 kPa/m

Filename: Case 15 - Inclined Well with Perforations.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:45

Case Title: Perforation Sand Production Problem 2 of 4 Static Oil Company

Min Horz Stress 27.0 MPa

Formation Pressure Gradient 9.0 kPa/m
Formation Pressure 13.5 MPa
Drawdown Pressure (Top) 3.0 MPa
Drawdown Pressure (Btm) 3.0 MPa
Wellbore Pressure 10.5 MPa
ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Peak Cohesion 3.0 MPa
Peak Friction Angle 35 °
Poisson's Ratio 0.30
Young's Modulus 1.00 GPa
Tensile Strength 0.0 MPa
Biot's Coefficient 1.00
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Producing Interval Length 100.00 m

Cylindrical Perforation Cavities:

Perforation Diameter 10.0 mm
Perforation Penetration 200.0 mm
Perforation Density 10.0 shots/m
Perforation Phasing 0 °
Percentage of Open Perforations 100 %
Collapse Risk Calculated for User-Specified Perforation Orientation:
Perforation Rotation Angle 0 °
Perf. Azimuth for Specified Perforation Rotation Angle 90 °
Perf. Inclination for Specified Perforation Rotation Angle 0 °
PERFORATION COLLAPSE OUTPUT CALCULATION
Average Normalized Yielded Zone Radius, R/rperf 1.23
Perforation Radius, rperf 5.0 mm
Average Yielded Zone Radius, R 6.1 mm
Normalized Yielded Zone Area, NYZA 0.60
Normalized Yielded Zone Length, a/rw 1.29
Normalized Yielded Zone Width, b/rw 1.24
Yielded Zone Ellipticity, a/b 1.06
Breakout Angle 180 °

Filename: Case 15 - Inclined Well with Perforations.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:45

Case Title: Perforation Sand Production Problem 3 of 4 Static Oil Company

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=90 °, Azimuth=0 °, TVD=1500.00 mKB)
2.0 MPa 3.0 MPa 5.0 MPa
Analysis Mode: Risk
1.35 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 1500.00 mKB

Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Vulcan sand
Normalized Yielded Zone
Lithology: sandstone
1.30
Model: 3D Linear Elastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rperf

Ò÷ grad = 25.0 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 22.0 kPa/m
1.25 Òüîêï grad = 18.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °

Pó grad = 9.0 kPa/m

Pó = 13.5 MPa
1.20 cñ = 3.0 MPa
Åñ = 35 °
E = 1.00 GPa
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00
1.15

1.10
1 3 5 7 9 11

Drawdown, MPa

Cross-Section - Initial Perforation Yielded Zone

Analysis Mode: Risk Ò÷ grad = 25.0 kPa/m
Analysis Type: Sand Production
↑N Òüîâù grad = 22.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.0 kPa/m
Depth TVD = 1500.00 mKB Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 0 ° Pó grad = 9.0 kPa/m
Formation: Vulcan sand Pó = 13.5 MPa
Lithology: sandstone Pø = 10.5 MPa
Perforation Rotation* = 0 ° ¿P = -3.0 MPa
Perforation Inclination = 0 °
Perforation Azimuth = 0 ° cñ = 3.0 MPa
* CCW WRT TOH Åñ = 35 °
E = 1.00 GPa
Model: 3D Linear Elastic Í = 0.30
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb À = 1.00
NYZA = 0.50
R/rperf = 1.23
R = 6.1 mm
rperf = 5.0 mm
a = 6.3 mm / Original Perforation
b = 5.9 mm / Yielded Zone
a/b = 1.06 (Drawn to Scale)
a/rperf = 1.25
b/rperf = 1.18
Breakout Angle = 180 °

Filename: Case 15 - Inclined Well with Perforations.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:45

Case Title: Perforation Sand Production Problem 4 of 4 Static Oil Company

Effect of Perforation Rotation Angle

(Incl.=90 °, Az.=0 °, TVD=1500.00 mKB)
45 ° 0° 90 °
Analysis Mode: Risk
1.27 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 1500.00 mKB

Well Inclination = 90 °
Well Azimuth = 0 °
Formation: Vulcan sand
1.26
Normalized Yielded Zone
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 3D Linear Elastic

Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rperf

1.25 Ò÷ grad = 25.0 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 22.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.0 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 135 °
1.24 Pó grad = 9.0 kPa/m
Pó = 13.5 MPa

cñ = 3.0 MPa
Åñ = 35 °
1.23 E = 1.00 GPa
Í = 0.30
À = 1.00

1.22

1.21
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Drawdown, MPa

Filename: Case 15 - Inclined Well with Perforations.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:45

Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 2D with Depletion 1 of 3 ABC Oil & Gas

STABView Single Depth Analysis Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Sand Production / Openhole Stability Under Drawdown
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Borehole Collapse Model Type 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:46

Case Title Extended Reach Horizontal Well 2D with Depletion

Well Name HW-1
Company Weatherford
Client ABC Oil & Gas
User Name PM
Unit Type Metric (Modified SI)
Comments 2D elastoplastic analysis model used for examining the effects of reservoir depletion for a
range of critical bottom hole pressures.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Onshore
KB Height (relative to ground level) 5.00 m
Well Survey User Defined Survey
FORMATION DATA
Stratigraphic Unit Reservoir Unit C
Lithology sandstone
Top Depth (TVD) 2995.00 m KB
Bottom Depth (TVD) 3055.20 m KB
SINGLE DEPTH ANALYSIS DATA
Calculation Depth (MD) 3713.32 m KB
Calculation Depth (TVD) 3000.00 m KB
Borehole Diameter 215.9 mm
Azimuth 62.55 °
Inclination 67.55 °
IN-SITU STRESSES AND PRESSURES
Azimuth of Minimum Horizontal Stress 80 °
Vertical Stress Gradient 23.1 kPa/m
Vertical Stress 69.2 MPa
Max Horz Stress Gradient 19.9 kPa/m
Max Horz Stress 59.7 MPa
Min Horz Stress Gradient 18.1 kPa/m
Min Horz Stress 54.3 MPa
Formation Pressure Gradient 10.0 kPa/m
Formation Pressure 30.0 MPa

Filename: Case 16 -Horizontal Well with Effects of Depletion 2D.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:46
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 2D with Depletion 2 of 3 ABC Oil & Gas

ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Peak Cohesion 9.0 MPa
Peak Friction Angle 40 °
Poisson's Ratio 0.25
Young's Modulus 3.03 GPa
Tensile Strength 0.5 MPa
Biot's Coefficient 0.90
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Residual Cohesion 3.0 MPa
Residual Friction Angle 35 °
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Average Yielded Zone Radius (R/rw)
Tolerable Yield Zone, R/rw 1.50

In-situ Stress Regime: Passive Basin

Depleted Formation Pressure Gradient 5.0 kPa/m
Depleted Formation Pressure 15.0 MPa
In-situ stresses after depletion:
Max Horz Stress Gradient 16.9 kPa/m
Max Horz Stress 50.7 MPa
Min Horz Stress Gradient 15.1 kPa/m
Min Horz Stress 45.3 MPa

Pore Pressure Effects:

Formation Fluid Viscosity 10.0 mPa·s
Elastic Rock Permeability 100 mD
Producing Interval Length 1110.00 m
BOREHOLE COLLAPSE OUTPUT CALCULATION
Borehole Collapse Pressure Gradient 0.6 kPa/m
Borehole Collapse Pressure 1.8 MPa

Filename: Case 16 -Horizontal Well with Effects of Depletion 2D.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:46
Case Title: Extended Reach Horizontal Well 2D with Depletion 3 of 3 ABC Oil & Gas

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=68 °, Azimuth=63 °, MD=3713.32 mKB)
6.8 MPa 9.0 MPa 11.3 MPa Zero
Drawdown Analysis Mode: Pressure
Analysis Type: Sand Production

35 Depth TVD = 3000.00 mKB

Depth MD = 3713.32 mKB
Well Inclination = 68 °
Well Azimuth = 63 °
Critical Bottomhole Pressure,
30 Formation: Reservoir Unit C
Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
25 Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb

Ò÷ grad = 23.1 kPa/m

Òüîâù grad = 19.9 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.1 kPa/m
MPa

20
Òüîêï Azi = 80 °

Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m

Pó = 30.0 MPa
15 Pó grad(new) = 5.0 kPa/m
Pó(new) = 15.0 MPa

cñ = 9.0 MPa
10 Åñ = 40 °
có = 3.0 MPa
Åó = 35 °
E = 3.03 GPa
5 Í = 0.25
À = 0.90

0
0 10 20 30 40

Reservoir Pressure, MPa

Effect of Peak Cohesion

(Inclination=68 °, Azimuth=63 °, MD=3713.32 mKB)
6.8 MPa 9.0 MPa 11.3 MPa
Analysis Mode: Risk
1.9 Analysis Type: Sand Production

Depth TVD = 3000.00 mKB

Depth MD = 3713.32 mKB
Well Inclination = 68 °
Well Azimuth = 63 °
Normalized Yielded Zone

Formation: Reservoir Unit C

1.8 Lithology: sandstone

Model: 2D Elastoplastic
Failure Criteria: Mohr Coulomb
Radius, R/rw

Ò÷ grad = 23.1 kPa/m

1.7 Òüîâù grad = 19.9 kPa/m
Òüîêï grad = 18.1 kPa/m
Òüîêï Azi = 80 °

Pó grad = 10.0 kPa/m

Pó = 30.0 MPa
1.6 Pó grad(new) = 5.0 kPa/m
Pó(new) = 15.0 MPa

cñ = 9.0 MPa
Åñ = 40 °
có = 3.0 MPa
1.5 Åó = 35 °
E = 3.03 GPa
Í = 0.25
À = 0.90

1.4
5 7 9 11 13 15

Drawdown, MPa

Filename: Case 16 -Horizontal Well with Effects of Depletion 2D.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:46
Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 1 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Input Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:47

Case Title Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well

Well Name Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Well 1
Company Weatherford
Client ABC Oil Ltd.
User Name ML
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments A complex drilling case showing multiple zones and models used to calculate wellbore
collapse and fracture pressures for a deep water offshore well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
WELL DATA
Offshore/Onshore Offshore
KB Height (relatitive to water level) 73.00 ft
Water Depth 9627.00 ft
Well Survey User Defined Survey
WELL SURVEY
Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
10950.00 0.00 0.00 10950.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 17700.00 66.90 241.71 16853.81 -681.18 -1724.89 2.7
14500.00 0.00 0.00 14500.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 17800.00 68.57 239.70 16891.70 -726.47 -1805.59 2.7
14600.00 2.50 249.08 14599.97 -0.78 -2.04 2.7 17900.00 70.25 237.72 16926.87 -775.09 -1885.57 2.7
14700.00 5.00 249.08 14699.75 -3.11 -8.15 2.7 18000.00 71.96 235.79 16959.26 -826.96 -1964.68 2.7
14800.00 7.50 249.08 14799.14 -7.00 -18.31 2.7 18100.00 73.69 233.90 16988.79 -881.97 -2042.79 2.7
14900.00 10.00 249.08 14897.97 -12.43 -32.52 2.7 18200.00 75.43 232.04 17015.41 -940.02 -2119.73 2.7
15000.00 12.50 249.08 14996.04 -19.40 -50.74 2.7 18300.00 77.18 230.21 17039.09 -1001.00 -2195.36 2.7
15100.00 15.00 249.08 15093.17 -27.88 -72.94 2.7 18400.00 78.95 228.40 17059.77 -1064.79 -2269.53 2.7
15200.00 17.50 249.08 15189.17 -37.87 -99.08 2.7 18500.00 80.73 226.62 17077.41 -1131.27 -2342.10 2.7
15300.00 20.00 249.08 15283.85 -49.35 -129.10 2.7 18600.00 82.52 224.86 17091.97 -1200.32 -2412.95 2.7
15400.00 22.50 249.08 15377.04 -62.29 -162.96 2.7 18700.00 84.32 223.11 17103.43 -1271.79 -2481.93 2.7
15500.00 25.00 249.08 15468.57 -76.67 -200.57 2.7 18800.00 86.12 221.37 17111.77 -1345.56 -2548.91 2.7
15600.00 27.50 249.08 15558.25 -92.46 -241.88 2.7 18901.94 87.96 219.60 17117.03 -1422.99 -2615.00 2.7
15700.00 30.00 249.08 15645.91 -109.64 -286.81 2.7 19000.00 87.96 219.60 17120.52 -1498.50 -2677.47 0.0
15800.00 32.50 249.08 15731.40 -128.16 -335.26 2.7 19100.00 87.96 219.60 17124.08 -1575.50 -2741.17 0.0
15900.00 35.00 249.08 15814.54 -147.99 -387.15 2.7 19200.00 87.96 219.60 17127.64 -1652.50 -2804.87 0.0
16000.00 37.50 249.08 15895.18 -169.11 -442.38 2.7 19300.00 87.96 219.60 17131.20 -1729.50 -2868.57 0.0
16100.00 40.00 249.08 15973.16 -191.45 -500.84 2.7 19400.00 87.96 219.60 17134.76 -1806.51 -2932.28 0.0
16200.00 42.50 249.08 16048.34 -214.99 -562.42 2.7 19500.00 87.96 219.60 17138.32 -1883.51 -2995.98 0.0
16300.00 45.00 249.08 16120.57 -239.68 -627.01 2.7 19600.00 87.96 219.60 17141.88 -1960.51 -3059.68 0.0
16400.00 47.50 249.08 16189.71 -265.47 -694.48 2.7 19700.00 87.96 219.60 17145.44 -2037.51 -3123.38 0.0
16500.00 50.00 249.08 16255.65 -292.32 -764.70 2.7 19800.00 87.96 219.60 17149.00 -2114.52 -3187.08 0.0
16600.00 52.50 249.08 16318.23 -320.16 -837.55 2.7 19900.00 87.96 219.60 17152.56 -2191.52 -3250.79 0.0
16700.00 55.00 249.08 16377.36 -348.96 -912.87 2.7 20000.00 87.96 219.60 17156.12 -2268.52 -3314.49 0.0
16800.00 57.50 249.08 16432.91 -378.64 -990.53 2.7 20100.00 87.96 219.60 17159.68 -2345.52 -3378.19 0.0
16900.00 60.00 249.08 16484.78 -409.17 -1070.38 2.7 20200.00 87.96 219.60 17163.24 -2422.53 -3441.89 0.0

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 2 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS Depth Incl. Azimuth Depth N/S E/W DLS
ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100 ft KB MD ° ° ft KB TVD Distance Distance deg/100
ft ft ft ft ft ft
16955.70 61.39 249.08 16512.04 -426.51 -1115.75 2.7 20300.00 87.96 219.60 17166.80 -2499.53 -3505.59 0.0
17000.00 61.39 249.08 16533.26 -440.39 -1152.07 0.0 20400.00 87.96 219.60 17170.36 -2576.53 -3569.30 0.0
17100.00 61.39 249.08 16581.14 -471.74 -1234.08 0.0 20503.17 87.96 219.60 17174.03 -2655.97 -3635.02 0.0
17200.00 61.39 249.08 16629.03 -503.09 -1316.08 0.0 20600.00 87.96 219.60 17177.48 -2730.54 -3696.70 0.0
17300.00 61.39 249.08 16676.91 -534.43 -1398.08 0.0 20700.00 87.96 219.60 17181.04 -2807.54 -3760.40 0.0
17355.34 61.39 249.08 16703.41 -551.78 -1443.46 0.0 20800.00 87.96 219.60 17184.60 -2884.54 -3824.10 0.0
17400.00 62.08 248.08 16724.56 -566.15 -1480.08 2.7 20900.00 87.96 219.60 17188.15 -2961.54 -3887.81 0.0
17500.00 63.66 245.90 16770.16 -600.94 -1561.98 2.7 21003.17 87.96 219.60 17191.83 -3040.99 -3953.53 0.0
17600.00 65.27 243.78 16813.27 -639.31 -1643.64 2.7

BOREHOLE PROPERTIES
Bottom Borehole
No. Depth Diameter
ft KB MD in
1 9633.00 36.00
2 14250.00 16.00
3 17355.00 12.25
4 21003.17 8.50
TUBULAR PROPERTIES
No. Tubular Type Top Depth Btm Depth ID OD
ft KB MD ft KB MD in in
1 surface casing 0.00 9833.00 35.25 36.00
2 casing 0.00 14250.00 15.50 16.00
3 casing 0.00 17355.00 9.00 9.65
4 casing 0.00 18902.00 8.00 8.50
STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Pattern Top Depth Btm Depth Top Depth Btm Depth
ft KB MD ft KB MD ft KB TVD ft KB TVD
1 Mud mudstone 10950.00 12650.00 10950.00 12650.00
2 Sand sandstone 12650.00 14121.00 12650.00 14121.00
3 Mudstone mudstone 14121.00 18142.12 14121.00 17000.00
4 Sand sandstone 18142.12 18600.00 17000.00 17091.97
5 Sand sandstone 18600.00 19125.00 17091.97 17124.97
6 Shale shale 19125.79 21003.17 17125.00 17191.83
INITIAL FORMATION STRESS AND PRESSURE GRADIENT DATA
No. Stratigraphic Unit Top Top SHmin Sv Sv SHmax SHmax SHmin SHmin Pr Pr
Depth Depth Azi. Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad Grad
ft KB MD ft KB TVD (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm) (Top) (Btm)
psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft
1 Mud 10950.00 10950.00 110 0.49 0.54 0.48 0.54 0.48 0.53 0.44 0.48
2 Sand 12650.00 12650.00 110 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.57 0.53 0.55 0.48 0.49
3 Mudstone 14121.00 14121.00 110 0.58 0.65 0.57 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.49 0.55
4 Sand 18142.12 17000.00 110 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.55
5 Sand 18600.00 17091.97 110 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.55 0.53
6 Shale 19125.79 17125.00 110 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.53 0.50
BASIC ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Peak Peak Poisson's Young's Tensile Biot's
Depth Depth Cohesion Friction Ratio Modulus Strength Coefficient
ft KB MD ft KB psi Angle E+06 psi psi
TVD
1 Mud mudstone 10950.00 10950.00 262 21 0.43 0.05 0 1.00
2 Sand sandstone 12650.00 12650.00 525 19 0.42 0.16 0 1.00
3 Mudstone mudstone 14121.00 14121.00 550 22 0.40 0.20 0 1.00
4 Sand sandstone 18142.12 17000.00 700 22 0.38 0.27 0 1.00
5 Sand sandstone 18600.00 17091.97 700 22 0.38 0.27 0 1.00
6 Shale shale 19125.79 17125.00 1030 19 0.36 0.27 0 1.00
FLUID PENETRATION PROPERTIES
No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake Fluid
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall Penetration
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating Coefficient
psi Efficiency

1 Mud mudstone 10950.00 10950.00 0 0.30 0.70

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 3 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

No. Stratigraphic Unit Lithology Top Top Capillary Filter Cake Fluid
Depth Depth Threshold or Wall Penetration
ft KB MD ft KB TVD Pressure Coating Coefficient
psi Efficiency

2 Sand sandstone 12650.00 12650.00 0 0.90 0.10

3 Mudstone mudstone 14121.00 14121.00 0 0.30 0.20
4 Sand sandstone 18142.12 17000.00 0 0.90 0.10
5 Sand sandstone 18600.00 17091.97 0 0.90 0.10
6 Shale shale 19125.79 17125.00 0 0.30 0.70
MODEL OPTIONS & PROPERTIES
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mud, Lithology: mudstone (Top MD = 10950.00 ft ; Top TVD = 10950.00 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 100 psi
Residual Friction Angle 15 °
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Average Yielded Zone Radius (R/rw)
Tolerable Yield Zone, R/rw 1.50

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 12650.00 ft ; Top TVD = 12650.00 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 150 psi
Residual Friction Angle 16 °
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Average Yielded Zone Radius (R/rw)
Tolerable Yield Zone, R/rw 1.50

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone (Top MD = 14121.00 ft ; Top TVD = 14121.00 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 3D Linear Elastic Model with Modified Lade Failure Criterion
Modified Lade Cohesive Strength Parameter 1361 psi
Modified Lade Frictional Strength Parameter 6.66
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Percentage of the Hole Circumference
Tolerable Yield Circumf., % 50.00

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 18142.12 ft ; Top TVD = 17000.00 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Percentage of the Hole Circumference
Tolerable Yield Circumf., % 50.00

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone (Top MD = 18600.00 ft ; Top TVD = 17091.97 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 100 psi
Residual Friction Angle 22 °

Unit No. 6 - Stratigraphic Unit: Shale, Lithology: shale (Top MD = 19125.79 ft ; Top TVD = 17125.00 ft)
Fracture Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)
Borehole Collapse Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria
Residual Cohesion 100 psi
Residual Friction Angle 22 °
Maximum Tolerable Wellbore Instability Failure Criteria: Average Yielded Zone Radius (R/rw)
Tolerable Yield Zone, R/rw 1.50

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 4 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

STABView Multiple Depth Output Report

STABView Well Planning and Analysis Software

Developed, sold and supported by Advanced Geotechnology, a Weatherford brand of consulting and software services.
STABView is a trademark belonging to Weatherford International Ltd.
©Weatherford International Ltd. - All Rights Reserved.

STABView Version: 3.8 (Build 200)

CASE PROFILE
Analysis Type Hole Collapse and Fracture Breakdown / Lost Circulation
Analysis Mode Calculate required bottomhole pressures or mud densities to achieve tolerable borehole
instability risks.
Date and Time 26-Nov-2008, 14:47

Case Title Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well

Well Name Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Well 1
Company Weatherford
Client ABC Oil Ltd.
User Name ML
Unit Type US Oilfield
Comments A complex drilling case showing multiple zones and models used to calculate wellbore
collapse and fracture pressures for a deep water offshore well.
CASE PREFERENCES
Well Profile Resolution Medium
Cross-Sections
Display Tubulars & Rock Deformations Yes
Display Input Parameters Yes
Display Breakout Angle Yes
Polar Plots
Fracture Breakdown Pressure Limit Set No
Color/Grayscale Color
Graphic Resolution Medium
Tolerance Angles
2D Elastoplastic Model Inclination Tolerance 25°
Vertical Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
Horizontal Well Inclination Tolerance 15°
OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED FRACTURE BREAKDOWN PRESSURE
Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mud, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

10950.03 10950.03 5391 0.49 9.47 11870.83 11870.83 6144 0.52 9.96
11020.83 11020.83 5448 0.49 9.51 11941.67 11941.67 6204 0.52 10.00
11091.67 11091.67 5504 0.50 9.55 12012.50 12012.50 6264 0.52 10.03
11162.50 11162.50 5561 0.50 9.59 12083.33 12083.33 6324 0.52 10.07
11233.33 11233.33 5618 0.50 9.62 12154.17 12154.17 6385 0.53 10.11
11304.17 11304.17 5675 0.50 9.66 12225.00 12225.00 6446 0.53 10.15
11375.00 11375.00 5733 0.50 9.70 12295.83 12295.83 6507 0.53 10.18
11445.83 11445.83 5791 0.51 9.74 12366.67 12366.67 6569 0.53 10.22
11516.67 11516.67 5849 0.51 9.77 12437.50 12437.50 6630 0.53 10.26
11587.50 11587.50 5907 0.51 9.81 12508.33 12508.33 6692 0.54 10.30
11658.33 11658.33 5966 0.51 9.85 12579.17 12579.17 6755 0.54 10.33
11729.17 11729.17 6025 0.51 9.88 12649.97 12649.97 6817 0.54 10.37
11800.00 11800.00 6084 0.52 9.92

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

12650.03 12650.03 7134 0.56 10.85 13446.79 13446.79 7724 0.57 11.05
12711.29 12711.29 7179 0.56 10.87 13508.08 13508.08 7770 0.58 11.07
12772.58 12772.58 7223 0.57 10.88 13569.38 13569.38 7816 0.58 11.08
12833.88 12833.88 7268 0.57 10.90 13630.67 13630.67 7862 0.58 11.10
12895.17 12895.17 7314 0.57 10.91 13691.96 13691.96 7909 0.58 11.12
12956.46 12956.46 7359 0.57 10.93 13753.25 13753.25 7955 0.58 11.13
13017.75 13017.75 7404 0.57 10.94 13814.54 13814.54 8002 0.58 11.15
13079.04 13079.04 7449 0.57 10.96 13875.83 13875.83 8048 0.58 11.16
13140.33 13140.33 7495 0.57 10.98 13937.13 13937.13 8095 0.58 11.18

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 5 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
13201.63 13201.63 7540 0.57 10.99 13998.42 13998.42 8142 0.58 11.19
13262.92 13262.92 7586 0.57 11.01 14059.71 14059.71 8189 0.58 11.21
13324.21 13324.21 7632 0.57 11.02 14120.97 14120.97 8236 0.58 11.22
13385.50 13385.50 7678 0.57 11.04

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

14121.03 14121.03 8165 0.58 11.13 16299.11 16119.92 10081 0.63 12.03
14288.55 14288.55 8312 0.58 11.19 16466.65 16233.66 10196 0.63 12.09
14456.09 14456.09 8460 0.59 11.26 16634.20 16338.45 10300 0.63 12.13
14623.64 14623.55 8610 0.59 11.33 16801.75 16433.82 10391 0.63 12.17
14791.19 14790.38 8762 0.59 11.40 16969.29 16518.55 10469 0.63 12.20
14958.73 14955.57 8915 0.60 11.47 17136.84 16598.78 10545 0.64 12.22
15126.28 15118.40 9070 0.60 11.54 17304.39 16679.01 10620 0.64 12.25
15293.83 15278.00 9224 0.60 11.62 17471.93 16757.36 10656 0.64 12.24
15461.37 15433.21 9377 0.61 11.69 17639.48 16829.28 10672 0.63 12.20
15628.92 15583.60 9528 0.61 11.77 17807.03 16894.17 10684 0.63 12.17
15796.47 15728.38 9676 0.62 11.84 17974.57 16951.02 10694 0.63 12.14
15964.01 15866.16 9819 0.62 11.91 18142.09 16999.99 10701 0.63 12.11
16131.56 15996.89 9954 0.62 11.97

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

18142.15 17000.01 10813 0.64 12.24 18390.14 17057.73 10795 0.63 12.18
18161.20 17005.08 10812 0.64 12.23 18409.22 17061.40 10794 0.63 12.17
18180.28 17010.16 10810 0.64 12.23 18428.29 17064.76 10792 0.63 12.17
18199.35 17015.24 10809 0.64 12.22 18447.37 17068.13 10791 0.63 12.17
18218.43 17019.78 10808 0.64 12.22 18466.45 17071.49 10790 0.63 12.16
18237.51 17024.29 10807 0.63 12.21 18485.53 17074.86 10789 0.63 12.16
18256.59 17028.81 10805 0.63 12.21 18504.61 17078.08 10787 0.63 12.15
18275.67 17033.33 10804 0.63 12.21 18523.69 17080.86 10786 0.63 12.15
18294.75 17037.85 10803 0.63 12.20 18542.77 17083.64 10784 0.63 12.15
18313.82 17041.95 10801 0.63 12.20 18561.84 17086.42 10782 0.63 12.14
18332.90 17045.89 10799 0.63 12.19 18580.92 17089.20 10781 0.63 12.14
18351.98 17049.84 10798 0.63 12.19 18599.97 17091.97 10780 0.63 12.14
18371.06 17053.79 10796 0.63 12.18

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

18600.03 17091.98 10780 0.63 12.14 18884.38 17116.13 10632 0.62 11.95
18621.88 17094.48 10766 0.63 12.12 18906.25 17117.19 10625 0.62 11.94
18643.75 17096.99 10751 0.63 12.10 18928.13 17117.96 10621 0.62 11.94
18665.63 17099.49 10737 0.63 12.08 18950.00 17118.74 10618 0.62 11.94
18687.50 17102.00 10723 0.63 12.07 18971.88 17119.52 10614 0.62 11.93
18709.38 17104.22 10710 0.63 12.05 18993.75 17120.30 10611 0.62 11.93
18731.25 17106.04 10699 0.63 12.04 19015.63 17121.08 10607 0.62 11.92
18753.13 17107.86 10688 0.62 12.02 19037.50 17121.86 10603 0.62 11.92
18775.00 17109.68 10676 0.62 12.01 19059.38 17122.63 10600 0.62 11.91
18796.88 17111.51 10665 0.62 11.99 19081.25 17123.41 10596 0.62 11.91
18818.75 17112.73 10657 0.62 11.98 19103.13 17124.19 10592 0.62 11.90
18840.63 17113.87 10649 0.62 11.97 19124.97 17124.97 10589 0.62 11.90
18862.50 17115.00 10640 0.62 11.96

Unit No. 6 - Stratigraphic Unit: Shale, Lithology: shale, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model for Tensile Fracture Breakdown)

19125.82 17125.00 10189 0.59 11.45 20142.71 17161.20 10139 0.59 11.37
19204.01 17127.78 10186 0.59 11.44 20220.93 17163.98 10135 0.59 11.36
19282.24 17130.57 10182 0.59 11.44 20299.15 17166.77 10131 0.59 11.36
19360.46 17133.35 10178 0.59 11.43 20377.38 17169.55 10127 0.59 11.35
19438.69 17136.14 10174 0.59 11.42 20455.60 17172.34 10123 0.59 11.34
19516.91 17138.92 10170 0.59 11.42 20533.82 17175.12 10119 0.59 11.34
19595.13 17141.71 10166 0.59 11.41 20612.05 17177.91 10115 0.59 11.33
19673.36 17144.49 10162 0.59 11.41 20690.27 17180.69 10111 0.59 11.32
19751.58 17147.28 10158 0.59 11.40 20768.50 17183.47 10107 0.59 11.32
19829.81 17150.06 10155 0.59 11.39 20846.72 17186.26 10103 0.59 11.31
19908.03 17152.84 10151 0.59 11.39 20924.95 17189.04 10099 0.59 11.31
19986.26 17155.63 10147 0.59 11.38 21003.14 17191.83 10095 0.59 11.30
20064.48 17158.41 10143 0.59 11.37

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 6 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD Depth Depth BHP Pressure ECD
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft

OUTPUT DATA - CALCULATED BOREHOLE COLLAPSE PRESSURE

Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft
Unit No. 1 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mud, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

10950.03 10950.03 4681 0.43 8.23 11870.83 11870.83 5483 0.46 8.89
11020.83 11020.83 4740 0.43 8.28 11941.67 11941.67 5546 0.46 8.94
11091.67 11091.67 4799 0.43 8.33 12012.50 12012.50 5597 0.47 8.97
11162.50 11162.50 4858 0.44 8.37 12083.33 12083.33 5661 0.47 9.01
11233.33 11233.33 4918 0.44 8.42 12154.17 12154.17 5725 0.47 9.06
11304.17 11304.17 4978 0.44 8.47 12225.00 12225.00 5789 0.47 9.11
11375.00 11375.00 5038 0.44 8.52 12295.83 12295.83 5854 0.48 9.16
11445.83 11445.83 5099 0.45 8.57 12366.67 12366.67 5919 0.48 9.21
11516.67 11516.67 5172 0.45 8.64 12437.50 12437.50 5971 0.48 9.24
11587.50 11587.50 5233 0.45 8.69 12508.33 12508.33 6037 0.48 9.29
11658.33 11658.33 5295 0.45 8.74 12579.17 12579.17 6103 0.49 9.34
11729.17 11729.17 5357 0.46 8.79 12649.97 12649.97 6169 0.49 9.38
11800.00 11800.00 5420 0.46 8.84

Unit No. 2 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

12650.03 12650.03 5740 0.45 8.73 13446.79 13446.79 6347 0.47 9.08
12711.29 12711.29 5783 0.45 8.76 13508.08 13508.08 6407 0.47 9.13
12772.58 12772.58 5827 0.46 8.78 13569.38 13569.38 6453 0.48 9.15
12833.88 12833.88 5871 0.46 8.80 13630.67 13630.67 6499 0.48 9.17
12895.17 12895.17 5929 0.46 8.85 13691.96 13691.96 6545 0.48 9.20
12956.46 12956.46 5973 0.46 8.87 13753.25 13753.25 6591 0.48 9.22
13017.75 13017.75 6018 0.46 8.90 13814.54 13814.54 6638 0.48 9.25
13079.04 13079.04 6062 0.46 8.92 13875.83 13875.83 6700 0.48 9.29
13140.33 13140.33 6107 0.46 8.94 13937.13 13937.13 6746 0.48 9.31
13201.63 13201.63 6166 0.47 8.99 13998.42 13998.42 6793 0.49 9.34
13262.92 13262.92 6211 0.47 9.01 14059.71 14059.71 6840 0.49 9.36
13324.21 13324.21 6256 0.47 9.04 14120.97 14120.97 6887 0.49 9.39
13385.50 13385.50 6302 0.47 9.06

Unit No. 3 - Stratigraphic Unit: Mudstone, Lithology: mudstone, Model Type: 3D Linear Elastic Model with Modified Lade Failure Criterion

14121.03 14121.03 6814 0.48 9.29 16299.11 16119.92 8761 0.54 10.46
14288.55 14288.55 6962 0.49 9.38 16466.65 16233.66 8886 0.55 10.53
14456.09 14456.09 7111 0.49 9.47 16634.20 16338.45 9002 0.55 10.60
14623.64 14623.55 7262 0.50 9.56 16801.75 16433.82 9107 0.55 10.66
14791.19 14790.38 7418 0.50 9.65 16969.29 16518.55 9201 0.56 10.72
14958.73 14955.57 7576 0.51 9.75 17136.84 16598.78 9281 0.56 10.76
15126.28 15118.40 7731 0.51 9.84 17304.39 16679.01 9361 0.56 10.80
15293.83 15278.00 7885 0.52 9.93 17471.93 16757.36 9434 0.56 10.83
15461.37 15433.21 8038 0.52 10.02 17639.48 16829.28 9501 0.56 10.86
15628.92 15583.60 8190 0.53 10.11 17807.03 16894.17 9558 0.57 10.89
15796.47 15728.38 8340 0.53 10.20 17974.57 16951.02 9606 0.57 10.90
15964.01 15866.16 8486 0.53 10.29 18142.09 16999.99 9650 0.57 10.92
16131.56 15996.89 8626 0.54 10.38

Unit No. 4 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: Default (3D Linear Elastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion)

18142.15 17000.01 9601 0.56 10.87 18390.14 17057.73 9629 0.56 10.86
18161.20 17005.08 9602 0.56 10.87 18409.22 17061.40 9630 0.56 10.86
18180.28 17010.16 9604 0.56 10.86 18428.29 17064.76 9633 0.56 10.86
18199.35 17015.24 9607 0.56 10.87 18447.37 17068.13 9636 0.56 10.86
18218.43 17019.78 9611 0.56 10.87 18466.45 17071.49 9634 0.56 10.86
18237.51 17024.29 9615 0.56 10.87 18485.53 17074.86 9637 0.56 10.86
18256.59 17028.81 9613 0.56 10.86 18504.61 17078.08 9638 0.56 10.86
18275.67 17033.33 9619 0.56 10.87 18523.69 17080.86 9641 0.56 10.86
18294.75 17037.85 9620 0.56 10.87 18542.77 17083.64 9638 0.56 10.86
18313.82 17041.95 9621 0.56 10.86 18561.84 17086.42 9641 0.56 10.86
18332.90 17045.89 9625 0.56 10.87 18580.92 17089.20 9644 0.56 10.86
18351.98 17049.84 9628 0.56 10.87 18599.97 17091.97 9644 0.56 10.86
18371.06 17053.79 9629 0.56 10.86

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 7 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW Depth Depth BHP Pressure EMW
ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg ft KB MD ft KB TVD psi Gradient ppg
psi/ft psi/ft

Unit No. 5 - Stratigraphic Unit: Sand, Lithology: sandstone, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

18600.03 17091.98 9608 0.56 10.82 18884.38 17116.13 9509 0.56 10.69
18621.88 17094.48 9604 0.56 10.81 18906.25 17117.19 9507 0.56 10.69
18643.75 17096.99 9601 0.56 10.81 18928.13 17117.96 9506 0.56 10.69
18665.63 17099.49 9575 0.56 10.78 18950.00 17118.74 9483 0.55 10.66
18687.50 17102.00 9572 0.56 10.77 18971.88 17119.52 9482 0.55 10.66
18709.38 17104.22 9569 0.56 10.77 18993.75 17120.30 9481 0.55 10.66
18731.25 17106.04 9544 0.56 10.74 19015.63 17121.08 9480 0.55 10.65
18753.13 17107.86 9542 0.56 10.73 19037.50 17121.86 9479 0.55 10.65
18775.00 17109.68 9539 0.56 10.73 19059.38 17122.63 9478 0.55 10.65
18796.88 17111.51 9537 0.56 10.72 19081.25 17123.41 9477 0.55 10.65
18818.75 17112.73 9513 0.56 10.70 19103.13 17124.19 9476 0.55 10.65
18840.63 17113.87 9512 0.56 10.69 19124.97 17124.97 9453 0.55 10.62
18862.50 17115.00 9510 0.56 10.69

Unit No. 6 - Stratigraphic Unit: Shale, Lithology: shale, Model Type: 2D Elastoplastic Model with Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria

19125.82 17125.00 9029 0.53 10.15 20142.71 17161.20 8959 0.52 10.05
19204.01 17127.78 9028 0.53 10.14 20220.93 17163.98 8959 0.52 10.04
19282.24 17130.57 9028 0.53 10.14 20299.15 17166.77 8936 0.52 10.02
19360.46 17133.35 9028 0.53 10.14 20377.38 17169.55 8936 0.52 10.02
19438.69 17136.14 9005 0.53 10.11 20455.60 17172.34 8936 0.52 10.01
19516.91 17138.92 9005 0.53 10.11 20533.82 17175.12 8914 0.52 9.99
19595.13 17141.71 9005 0.53 10.11 20612.05 17177.91 8913 0.52 9.98
19673.36 17144.49 9004 0.53 10.11 20690.27 17180.69 8913 0.52 9.98
19751.58 17147.28 8982 0.52 10.08 20768.50 17183.47 8913 0.52 9.98
19829.81 17150.06 8982 0.52 10.08 20846.72 17186.26 8891 0.52 9.95
19908.03 17152.84 8982 0.52 10.08 20924.95 17189.04 8890 0.52 9.95
19986.26 17155.63 8960 0.52 10.05 21003.14 17191.83 8890 0.52 9.95
20064.48 17158.41 8959 0.52 10.05

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well ABC Oil Ltd.
8 of 9

Mud Weight Window

Equivalent Mud Weight (ppg)
Fracture Pressure Borehole Collapse Pressure
Formation Pressure Minimum Horizontal Stress Wellbore
Vertical (Overburden) Stress Maximum Horizontal Stress Inclination
5 15 0° 30° 60° 90°
10000

11000 Mud

12000
Measured Depth (ft KB)

Sand
13000

14000
Mudstone

15000

16000

17000

18000
Sand
Sand
19000
Shale

20000

21000

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

Case Title: Complex Multi-zone Offshore Well 9 of 9 ABC Oil Ltd.

Well Profile with Borehole Collapse - V/S Plane

(Plane Azimuth=232.43 °)
EMW
9000
10.92

10000
10.25

11000
9.57
12000
TVD (ft)

13000 8.90

14000 8.23
ppg
15000

16000

17000

18000
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Horizontal Distance (ft)

Well Profile with Borehole Collapse - Plan View

1000 N
EMW
10.92
500 N

0 10.25
North/South Axis (ft)

500 S
9.57
1000 S

8.90
1500 S

2000 S 8.23
ppg
2500 S

3000 S

3500 S

4000 S
4000 W 3000 W 2000 W 1000 W 0
4500 W 3500 W 2500 W 1500 W 500 W 500 E

East/West Axis (ft)

Filename: Case 17 - Complex Multi-Zone Offshore Well.bhs 26-Nov-2008 14:47

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual F-1 November, 2008

APPENDIX F

STABView PROBLEM FORM

STABView 3.8 User’s Manual F-2 November, 2008
 STABView Problem No.
Severity
(AG Use only)

STABVIEW PROBLEM FORM

Customer Data

Found by: Dated Reported:

Organization:
Phone: Fax:
Email: PC Processor/RAM:
PC Operating System:

STABView Data Version and build number*:

PROBLEM Description/Comments:

* To determine the complete STABView version and build number, please check under Help Æ About STABView 3.8, e.g., Version
3.8 (Build 201). This last build number is very important.

Please attach a sample STABView input and/or output file or printed output that produces the problem.

E-mail or fax this error form and attachments to:

Weatherford Advanced Geotechnology Tel: +1 (403) 693-7530
1200, 333 – 5th Ave. S.W. Fax: +1 (403) 693-7541
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3B6 E-mail: software@advgeotech.com
Web: www.advgeotech.com

AG Use Only

Reviewed by: Date:

Comments:
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual I-2 November, 2008
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual I-3 November, 2008

INDEX

Discontinuity, 73, 75
Aadnoy, B., 37 Discontinuity slip, 112
Addis, T., 29 Drilling applications, 1
Advanced Geotechnology, vii Drilling instability, 11
Analysis mode, 77 Dusseault, M., 44
Analysis type, 77
Anisotropic elastic properties, 60 Effective axial stress, 33
Anisotropic stress regime, 48 Effective radial stress, 32
Apparent capillary cohesion, 24, 26 Effective stress, 17, 18
Average yielded zone radius, 48 Effective tangential stress, 33
Axial strain, 20 Elastic models, 13, 32, 36
Axial stress, 34 Elastic properties, 20
Elastic-brittle-plastic material, 43, 45
Barefoot openhole completion, 106, 107, 2, 3 Elasto-plastic model, 13, 43, 48
Bear, J., 27 Elasto-plastic modeling, 49
Bedding planes, 39 Elasto-plastic yielded zone, 47
Biot’s coefficient, 17, 33, 84 Emulsifier, 71
Borehole deformations and strains, 13 Equivalent circulating density, 110
Borehole radius, 45 Ewy, R., 22, 36
Borehole sizes, 82 Extended reach well, 107, 3
Borehole stresses and pressures, 13 External filter cake, 110
Bottomhole pressure, 33, 35
Bratli, R., 48 Failure angle, 48
Breakout angle, 42, 43 Fault(s), 12, 75
Bruno, M., 24 Filter cake, 47, 63
Butler, R., 67 Filter cake efficiency, 85
Buttons, 88 Fissile shale, 106, 2
Fluid penetration coefficient, 85
Calibration, 14, 42, 86 Fluid viscosity, 48
Capillarity, 12 Formation evaluation applications, 1
Capillary pressures, 24 Formation fluid penetration properties, 85
Capillary threshold pressure, 65 Formation pressures, 83
Cartesian coordinate system, 36 Fracture breakdown, 106, 111, 2
Case properties, 81 Fracture initiation, 55, 56
Chemical effects, 13 Fracture re-opening tendency, 75
Chemical osmosis, 71 Fracturing, 11
Cohesion, 22 Friction angle, 22
Collapse calibration, 106, 2 Fully-penetrating fluid, 56
Completions, 1
Compressive shear yielding, 21, 31, 34 Gas Compressibility, 66
Coordinate systems, 36 Gas compressibility factor, 67, 69
Copyright, 2 Gas formation volume factor, 70
Critical breakout angle, 42 Gas gravity, 68
Cross section, 103 Gas property correlations, 68
Cylindrical perforation, 107, 3 Gas Research Institute, 72
Gas viscosity, 70
Database(s), 14
Deep fluid penetration, 57 Hawkes, C., 29, 31, 44
Demonstration cases, 105 Help & Documentation, 15
Depletion induced stresses, 28, 106, 2 Hemi-spherical cavities, 31
Depth profile, 97 Hemi-spherical perforations, 48, 107, 3
Detournay, E., 47 Hoek and Brown yield criterion, 22, 23, 36, 106, 2
Directional wells, 111 Hoek, E., 36
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual I-4 November, 2008

Hole collapse, 106, 2 Passive shear yielding, 62

Hoop stress, 19 Peak cohesion, 84
Horizontal in-situ stresses, 27 Peak friction angle, 35, 84
Horizontal stress, 29, 84 Perfectly-plastic behavior, 48
Horizontal wells, 111 Perforation, 31, 107, 111, 3
Perforation radius, 45
Incompressible fluid, 46, 47, 107, 3 Permafrost, 72, 87, 106, 2
Induced stresses, 32 Permeability, 49
In-situ stresses, 12, 27, 83 Permeability ratio, 46
Installation, 5 Physico-chemical mud shale interaction, 70
Instantaneous strain weakening, 43 Plane of weakness, 12, 39, 106, 2
Internal filter cake, 110 Poisson’s ratio, 19, 20, 33, 84
Polar plot, 102
Kelly bushing, 84 Pore pressure, 12, 33, 46, 63, 86
Koning, E., 58 Poroelastic, 31
Poroplastic coefficient, 45
Lade yield criterion, 22, 36 Post-peak stress-strain response, 25
Lamé’s elastic constant, 46 Preferences, 91
Laplace equation, 27 Pre-packed screens, 66
leaky membranes, 71 Pressure, 66, 106, 2
LEFM, 58 Pressure analysis mode, 77
Linear elastic model, 106, 2 Pressure data, 83
Linear elastic stress model, 55, 57 Pressure drop, 66
Linear multiplier, 42, 87 Principal in-situ stresses, 17, 27, 33, 38
Linear offset, 42, 87 Principal planes, 17
Liner, 106, 2 Pseudo critical pressure, 68
Lost circulation applications, 11, 111 Pseudo critical temperature, 68
Pseudo-pressure, 67
Maximum shear stress, 39
McLellan, P., 43, 44 Radial coordinates, 34
Membrane efficiency, 72 Radial strain, 20
Model options, 86 Reports, 96
Model properties, 77, 89 Reports and graphics, 14
Modified Lade yield criteria, 106, 2 Re-pressurization, 87
Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters, 22, 35 Residual strength, 25, 43
Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria, 23, 25, 35, 39, 44 Risk analysis mode, 77
Mud pressure penetration, 85 Risnes, R., 48
Mud weight window, 110 Rock elastic properties, 21
Multi-zone wellbore stability analysis, 106, 2 Rock failure mechanisms, 19
Rock failure models, 13
Natural fractures, 12 Rock mechanical analysis, 17, 83
Network installation, 8 Rock mechanical properties, 84
Network options, 15 Rock mechanics principles, 17
Non-Darcy flow, 111 ROCKSBank, 3, 14, 72
Non-Darcy turbulent flow, 66 Rubble fill percentage, 106, 2
Non-penetrating fluid, 56 Run Command, 90
Normal stress, 17, 74
Sand control applications, 2
Oil-based emulsion drilling muds, 71 Sand erosion, 19
Open hole completion, 106, 2 Sand production, 18, 106, 111, 2
Open hole stability, 106, 107, 2, 3 Sandface, 66
Osmosis, 71 Sandface pressure, 66
Osmotic pressure effects, 87, 106, 2 Scaling, 91
Osmotic pressure potential, 71 Screens, 66
Semi-permeable membrane, 71
Partially-penetrating fluid, 56 Sensitivity analysis, 90
STABView 3.8 User’s Manual I-5 November, 2008

Shale-mud interaction, 106, 2 Tornado plot, 103

Shear modulus, 46 Transient pressures, 110
Shear stress, 74 Triaxial compression test, 19, 20, 21
Sign convention, 18 Tubular, 66
Slip risk analysis, 106, 2 Tubulars, 82
Slip tendency, 73 Turbulence factor, 68
Slotted liners, 66 Turbulent flow, 111, 2
Software activation, 9
Software security, 9 Unconfined compressive strength, 22, 35
Soltanzadeh, S, 29, 31 Underbalanced drilling, 106, 2
Solute, 70 Uninstalling STABView, 7
Spider plot, 103 Units, 15, 109
St. John, C, 47 USB hardware key, 8
Steady-state flow, 47
Stimulation, 2 Vanapalli, 26
Strain, 18 Vertical stress, 29, 84
Strains and deformations, 87 Viscosity, 12, 66
Stratigraphic units, 83
Strength factor, 75 Wall coating, 63
Stress, 17 Wall coating efficiency, 85
Stress arching ratio, 28 Wang, Y., 44
Stress concentration, 35 Water activity of drilling mud, 72
Stress depletion, 87 Water activity of shale, 72
Stress transformation, 74 Water saturation, 26
Stress-depletion response, 28 Water-based muds, 71
Stress-strain response, 20 Well control, 1
Well data, 81
Tangential stress, 19, 34 Well profile, 91, 97, 100
Technical support policy, vii, 109 Well survey, 81
Temperature, 87 Wellbore stability, 110
Tensile fracturing, 60
Tensile hydraulic fractures, 55 Yielded rock permeability, 46
Tensile strength, 84 Yielded zone, 44, 48
Tensile stresses, 18 Yielded zone radius, 44
Tensile yielding, 56 Yielded zone size, 43
Theoretical background, 17 Yielding, 31
Thermal effects, 14, 40, 60, 87, 106, 2 Young’s modulus, 19, 20, 84
Thermo-hydraulic hole enlargement, 72
Threshold pressure, 85 Zhang, Z., 42
Tools menu, 90