SPE-172693-MS

Challenges and Uncertainties in Reservoir Geomechanical Characterization

for Horizontal Well Planning in Deep Unconventional Reservoirs in North
Kuwait Fields
Mihira N. Acharya, Kuwait Oil Company, Kuwait; Sandeep Chakravorty, Schlumberger, Kuwait;
Abdul Mohsen Al-Mershed, Kuwait Oil Company, Kuwait; Christophe Darous, Schlumberger, Kuwait;
Girija K. Joshi, Mejbel S. Al-Ajmi, and Qasem Dashti, Kuwait Oil Company, Kuwait

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 11 March 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Appraisal of deep unconventional reservoirs through horizontal and high angle drilling campaign in North
Kuwait Jurassic Fields requires the knowledge of in-situ stress regime, particularly orientation and
magnitudes, to provide optimized solution for safe drilling and completion designs. A comprehensive
geomechanical analysis i.e. broader geomechanical framework of the overburden section and a detailed
geomechanical characterization at the reservoir targets for drainhole section, for the best possible
orientations and stability parameters during drilling and completion is a key for the fields with sparse
vertical and deviated wells control and short production history.
This paper outlines the integrated approach adopted and discusses the challenges and uncertainties in
the reservoir geomechanical modelling and characterization. Interpretation of caliper data and borehole
images are used to determine the stress direction for vertical and near vertical wells. The minimum stress
and maximum stress directions are established from orientation of breakouts, maximum ovality from
calipers and from orientation of drilling induced fractures respectively.
Comprehensive integrated geomechanical properties for all the formations units of the unconventional
reservoir sequence are computed. The results indicate that the stress regime varies from strike-slip to
inverse and are found being formation dependent with associated intrinsic rock mechanical properties and
spatial position of the wells under study. 1-D mechanical earth model (MEM) and WBS analysis are also
done to calibrate the results. The stress magnitudes are constrained using data frac job results.
Results of study and knowledge of stress direction and regime are used for the planning and defining
horizontal well trajectories optimization as well as in estimating mud weight window for safe drilling and
optimizing completion designs.

Introduction
Geomechanics plays a vital role in almost every step of appraising unconventional reservoirs, particularly
drilling deviated and horizontal wells. The wellbore stabily in the sub-surface environment depends on the

SPE-172693-MS

strength of the rocks drilled which in turn depends on mechanical properties such as elastic constants
(Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio), and rock strength data including unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) and internal friction angle (f). Previous work by Acharya, et. al. 2012, in the area of interest in
North Kuwait Jurassic Fields shows that calibration of the log-derived mechanical properties and core
measurements in laboratory give crucial input for unconventional kerogen (NJK) and organic rich
laminated (MJM) reservoirs characterization.
During the planning stages of unconventional reservoir appraisal, a thorough knowledge of present day
in-situ stress regime in terms of orientation and magnitudes that the target reservoirs have been subjected
to and broad geomechanical knowledge of the overburden section are essential to select the preferential
directions of drilling high-angle and horizontal wells. Using the predicted mud weight to drill the well and
constant monitoring while drilling are two main inputs for successful drilling of these wells. Borehole
stability during drilling and post drilling phases at the time of well conditioning, testing and production
is critical for a successful horizontal well.
The present paper discusses the workflow adopted during planning and drilling horizontal wells
successfully to appraise the deep, sub-salt unconventional sequence sandwitched between fractured tight
carbonates above and below. Uncertainties and challenges in geomechanical studies for proper assessment
and risk mitigations during the different stages of horizontal well drilling are highlighted. In addition,
lessons learned from the drilling and completion of the first horizontal well have also been documented
and are being implemented in subsequent horizontal well drilling and completion.

General Geology and Unconventional Zone Properties

The general stratigraphy of the study area is provided in Figure-1. The target zone is represented by deep
sub-salt assemblage consisting of tight fractured micritic limestone (NJL), unconventional source-play
type (CKS) and tight fractured massive limestone (SRL). This complete sequence is overlain by thick salt
and anhydrite layers, collectively referred to as GSA. The unconventional part, CKS, has been further
sub-divided into two units, highly organic rich Kerogen (NJK) at the top and laminated Kerogen and
limestone sub-unit (NJM) below. The reservoirs under study are high pressured exceeding 10000 psia and
temperature range of 260 to 290 degF. The total organic carbon (TOC) for NJK unit is very high,
averaging about 12.5 wt %. While the TOC content of NJM unit is comparatively moderate, of the order
of 4.5 wt % (Acharya et.al, 2009). These two units, NJK and NJM, are thought to be the main source rocks
for hydrocarbon generation. The unconventional reservoirs are very tight with matrix porosities varying
between 2 to 4% and matrix permeabilities varying from 0.01md to 1.5 md. The productivity of these
low matrix porosity reservoirs is enhanced by the occurrence of natural fractures for wells producing at
high commercial rates of oil and gas.

SPE-172693-MS

Figure 1Generalized stratigraphic section of the area under study. The section highlighted by red comprises of carbonates and
organic rich shale. The organic rich shale zone is highlighted by green rectangle.

The general field development strategy in targeted stratigraphic units and the fracture network scheme
in those units are shown in Figure-2. Till date, mainly vertical (V-1) and few deviated (D-1) wells have
been drilled to depths of 16500ft targeting stacked porous dolomitic limestone clinoforms within thicker
carbonate-dolomite- anhydrite sequence (DLS), the primary target. The primary target is drilled with 6
hole and cased-off with 5 liner. DLS is overlain by laminated shale-anhydrite-limestone sequence (LAS)
and bounded by tight dolomiteanhydrite sequence (DAS). Because of recent interest and focus of
developing the unconventionals to meet Kuwait energy requirements, NKL and CKS are considered to be
secondary targets drilled till now with 9 hole and cased off with 7 5/8 liner. The typical casing plan
isolates the high pressured GSA sequence behind 10 casing as it has pore pressures approaching the
overburden gradient. Presently, each of the unconventional targets, NJL, NJK, and NJM are planned to
be appraised by drilling extended reach horizontal wells (laterals).

SPE-172693-MS

Figure 2Geological Schematic showing profile of wells targeting primary and secondary reservoirs. Also shown are the drain holes
in targeted stratigraphic units with fall back option in deeper primary reservoir targets. The fracture network classes and general
distribution are also provided.

Workflow Steps for Complete Geomechanical Characterization

The complete workflow (Figure-3) for applying geomechanical concepts in appraising and developing the
unconventional resource plays in the study area involves:

Figure 3Geomechanical Characterization Workflow for Horizontal Well Appraisal Campaign in Deep Unconventional Reservoirs

SPE-172693-MS

Pre-Drill Phase

Analyzing and integrating log data, downhole measurements and subsurface information to
construct the Mechanical Earth Models (MEMs) describing profiles of in situ stress magnitudes,
stress orientation, pore pressure and rock mechanical properties in the logged sections in offset
pre-drilled wells.
Characterizing rock strength and rock failure parameters, using available laboratory test data, to be
used as input for current and future geomechanical analyses, particularly for calibration of
log-derived properties.
Calibrate and refine the MEMs using existing observed hole conditions from caliper and image
logs, drilling parameters and associated drilling events and experience so that all the parameters
are internally consistent and representative of downhole conditions as closely as possible for
accurate predictions.
Investigate drilling and borehole stability risks in offset wells to recommend safe mud weight
program for future wells, directional drilling optimization and feasibility of completions design.
Use all the data to generate 3D Geomechanical model incorporating the static model including
major faults to predict stability while drilling.

Drilling and Real Time Updates

Comparison of actal drilling process with the plan to check whether all the predictions match
within the tolerance limit. If the match is good, the plan of followed.
The deviations from the actual plan need to be treated carefully. In such cases, all the informations
need to be properly analyzed, the problems have to be diagnosed and appropriate action plans are
taken to mitigate the risks.
At the same time, the knowledge is captured and used as input to update the existing MEMs and
3D Geomechanical model to reflect the observed changes.
Completion and Production Phase
This phase is generally most difficult to handle, particularly when the target zone in question consists of
unconventional reservoirs.

Prediction of the changes in geomechanical properties, and therefore stability of the borehole
during production and consequent reservoir pressure changes.
The effects of different drawdown ranges on the borehole profile during production and the safe
drawdown window
Finally, optimized completion design to re-inforce wellbore stability and maximize production.

Geomechanical Workflow for Deep Unconventional Reservoirs of North

Kuwait
In this paper, the main discussions will be limited to the work done in characterizing the geomechanical
properties of the unconventional resource plays using existing well data and other informations for
planning and drilling horizontal wells to appraise the potential of the target plays. An attempt will be made
to highlight the main uncertainities involved in such large-scale geomechanical characterization and the
challenges being faced while drilling and completing the horizontal wells. Lessons learned from drilling
the first horizontal well will also be discussed.

Rock Strength Properties

The stability of rock under different loading conditions in the subsurface environment during drilling and
production is controlled by the strength of the formation. The formation strength is governed by rock

SPE-172693-MS

mechanical properties including elastic constants (Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio), and rock
strength data such as unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and internal friction angle (f). Log data,
notably compressional and shear slowness and rock bulk density, are utilized to compute rock mechanical
properties trends along depth in a given formation interval. However, as log-based mechanical properties
are dynamic in nature, core-based properties from laboratory measurements are used to calibrate the
log-based properties and generate their static equivalents. Additionally, UCS and friction angle values
cannot be directly inferred from logs without using some correlations between measured values (from
cores) and log parameters (Plumb, 1994). The continuous profiles of calibrated rock properties give
important indication of natural variations of formation competence and the presence of relatively weak
and strong layers along depth for use in drilling and completions optimization.
All the available data and computations are integrated to make a 1D-Mechanical Earth Model (MEM).
Its application to high-risk well construction projects is key to achieve success in drilling and completing
the technically and economically challenging wells on budget (Plumb, 2000). MEM building process
typically includes building geomechanical zonation, mechanical stratigraphy, determination of the elastic
and the rock strength properties, estimation of magnitudes of the pore pressure, overburden, minimum
horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress, as well as the horizontal stress direction. In the final step
wellbore stability analysis is carried out. A wellbore stability analysis is used to calibrate/history match
the 1D MEM parameters (rock strength and stresses) to existing observations of wellbore instability, such
as image logs, caliper logs and drilling record. Figure-4 shows an example of MEM computation that has
been carried out for all the wells with log data in the study area.

Figure 4 Post-drill 1D-MEM computation for offset well over the entire section from surface till TD (left figure) and calibration of
predicted results with borehole image data.

SPE-172693-MS

Core Log Integration of Rock Mechanical Properties

Quite a few core samples collected from NJL, CKS and SRL intervals in well V-1 were tested for rock
mechanical properties using single stage triaxial tests under effective confining pressures ranging between
0 psi and 2175 psi. The correlation between the core-based (static) and corresponding log-based (dynamic)
Youngs moduli follows a linear trend, which was subsequently used to generate continuous profile of
static Youngs modulus in each well. Due to low porosity (less than 6%) of the rocks, the difference
between the static and dynamic Youngs moduli is negligible but correlation between the two is
statistically reliable. In addition, the core-based unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and static
Youngs modulus were correlated showing a linear relationship of UCS as a function of static Youngs
modulus. The resulting correlation was used to generate continuous UCS profile from the static Youngs
modulus profile in each well. The analysis indicates that the UCS in the NJL and SRL formations is
generally high, varying between 12,000 psi and 18,000 psi. In the CKS section, the UCS is low varying
between 4,000 psi and 6,000 psi (Figure-5).

Figure 5(a) Correlation between UCS and static Youngs modulus based on laboratory test measurements conducted on core
samples in the NJL, CKS and SRL formations; (b) Relationship between static (core) and dynamic (log-based) Youngs moduli. Rock
strength profiles calibrated with laboratory strength data (diamond and triangle symbols) for a vertical well in NJL, CKS and SRL
formations representing calibrated static Youngs modulus (red curve, Track 2), dynamic Youngs modulus (brown curve, Track 2),
calibrated unconfined compressive rock strength (magenta curve, Track 3), Poissons ratio (green dotted curve, Track 4) and friction
angle profile.

In-Situ Stress Orientation

The stress direction plays an important role in stability of horizontal and highly deviated wells as well as
stability of perforation tunnels, particularly when horizontal stress anisotropy is large. Knowing the stress
direction and combined with the relative stress magnitudes, there could be some favorable drilling
directions and perforation orientations along which these openings would experience less stress and hence
remain stable. It should be noted that stress direction may change from regional trends due to faulting and

SPE-172693-MS

fracturing which can impact fractures permeability, faults sealing potential and faults stability during life
of field which can be studied using coupled 3D geomechanics approach.
The drilling process in subsurface rock formations results in the removal of an already stressed in-situ
rock material. As a result, the stress originally carried by the removed rock mass is redistributed in the
surrounding rock around the wellbore. This stress redistribution causes a stress concentration, which is
higher than the original in situ earth stresses. If induced stresses in the vicinity of the wellbore exceed
strength of the surrounding rock, the wellbore wall failure occurs. This stress induced wellbore failure can
be compressive (breakouts) or tensile (drilling induced tensile cracks) in nature. The existence or absence
of stress induced wellbore failure and its severity along logged interval is used as a key input for MEM
calibration and constraining the magnitude of maximum horizontal stress.
Oriented calipers and/or good quality wellbore image data provide evidence of presence or absence of
stress induced wellbore failure. The stress-induced wellbore failure is illustrated in Figure-6a, which
shows the unwrapped wellbore image on the left for a vertical well. The schematic of the stress-induced
failure at the wellbore (while looking from top) is shown on the right in the same figure which is also for
a vertical well. Compressive failure (breakouts) is characterized as symmetrical hole enlargements aligned
along the minimum horizontal stress direction while drilling-induced tensile fractures, if develop, are
parallel to the maximum horizontal stress direction. Depending upon the relative stress magnitudes (i.e.,
anisotropy) of horizontal principal stresses, rock strength and mud weight used during drilling, one or both
of the stress induced failures may be present or absent or their severity (breakouts, washouts) can vary.
The direction of maximum ovality from the orthogonal calipers is also the direction of minimum
horizontal stress for a vertical well. In deviated wells, due to stress rotation, the observed stress induced
wellbore failure does not directly give the stress direction; additional modeling is required to invert the
data for stress direction.

Figure 6 Stress orientation determination from drilling-related features observed on borehole images. The borehole breakouts and
drilling-induced fractures can be obtained from acoustic images and are aligned towards minimum and maximum horizontal stress
direction respectively in a vertical well. The ovality calculated from orthogonal calipers also indicate minimum horizontal stress
direction.

SPE-172693-MS

Caliper logs and image measurements, from which borehole failures can be observed, were used for
determination of stress direction (Figure-6b) in the area of interest. The analysis was carried out for all
wells with available borehole image data across individual formations. Figure-7 shows the stress map for
CKS formation. These directions have been used for planning horizontal wells targeting CKS. In general,
the maximum horizontal stress follows a NE/SW regional trend. There are some local variations to the
stress direction influenced by faults and structural trend near the well locations.

Figure 7Stress orientation determination from drilling-related features observed on borehole images for CKS formation. The rosette
plots show the direction of maximum horizontal in-situ stress direction for all the wells having image logs.

Stress regime Determination

Following assumption that one of the principal axes is vertical, only two parameters are required to define
the stress tensor orientation. These two parameters are:

Stress regime: which principal stress is vertical

Azimuth of the maximum horizontal stress.

An inverse algorithm, stress damages orientation on borehole images allow to determine following
fundamental parameters

Azimuth of the maximum horizontal stress.

Q ratio, the value of which ranges from 0 to 3.
1.
2.
3.

0 Q 1: 1 is vertical (i.e., vHh) which represents Normal Faulting

1 Q 2: 2 is vertical (i.e., Hvh) representing strike-slip stress regime
2 Q 3: 3 is vertical (i.e., Hhv) which represents Reverse Faulting.

10

SPE-172693-MS

Figure-8a explains the stress regime determination using three orthogonal stress directions. Such stress
solutions can be obtained by integrating borehole image drilling related information and stress magnitudes
estimates for at least two wells, one of them should be deviated. Inverse algorithm and stress damages
orientation was solved for following two cases: a) one vertical well and one deviated well in a sector of
the study area and b) two deviated wells in an adjoining sector. The results are shown in Figure-8b and
Figure-8c, which indicates that the stress regime within the study ares varies from strike-slip to inverse
stress regime.

Figure 8 Stress regime determination using the stress magnitudes for three orthogonal stresses and borehole breakout directions
from one vertical and one deviated well and from two vertical wells. The analysis shows that the study area is affected by strike-slip
to reverse stress regime.

Frac Results to validate Stress Magnitudes & 1D MEM

Ambitious gas production target from the study area in Kuwait is dependent on the producibility of these
unconventional gas resources stored in CKS formation. Some production from wells with perforated
intervals across this formation have been achieved, but are thought to be coming from fracture corridors
and not from the source rocks themselves. In addition, propped fracs is considered a must to establish
productivity from such rocks. The first data frac was done in a vertical well, selected based on its current
completion status and cement bond quality, to perform a series of independent stress tests in the CKS and
in the lower and upper bounding units named respectively SRL and NJL.
The stress tests were designed to combine Breakdown, Re-opening, Step Rate Tests (SRT), flow-back
and rebound in order to better understand leak-off mechanisms, hydraulic fracture propagation, establish
closure pressure and eventually assess reservoir pressure. Figure-9 illustrates the sequence of tests. The
main findings from these tests are as follow:

SPE-172693-MS

11

Figure 9 First extensive data frac results carried out across the CKS unconventional formation along with NJL and SRL formations
above and below in a vertical well.

Breakdown pressure is significantly higher in SRL compared to CKS, which is coherent with the
rock strength properties.
In CKS and SRL, most coherent estimate of closure is provided by re-opening, that is also
consistent with postclosure analysis.
The estimation of closure in the 3 intervals suggests that the minimum horizontal stress is smaller
in CKS than in NJL and SRL bounding units. The stress contrast is around 400 psi.
Figure-10 shows the final calibration of the stress magnitudes and stress orientations estimated from
1D-MEM with different sets of datasets. First, the mud-weight used to drill this well was plotted across
the mud-weight window showing predictions of intervals where borehole breakouts will develop. The
acoustic borehole image across the same interval later showed breakouts across exactly those areas.
Second, the estimations of minimum horizontal stress magnitudes from the frac test are in coincidence
with the log derived from MEM computaions. Third, stress solution obtained taking the stress magnitudes
and orientations of the breakouts for this vertical well indicated strike-slip stress regime, which also
matches with one of the two solutions derived for the field of study.

12

SPE-172693-MS

Figure 10 Calibration of minimum horizontal stress magnitudes for CKS and SRL computed from 1D-MEM computation. In addition,
the predicted borehole breakouts using the drilled mud weight matches perfectly with the data shown by acoustic image data.

Relevant Geomechanical Learning from First Horizontal Well

Drilling Phase
The first horizontal well in the study area was drilled in the lower sub-unit (NJM) comprising of laminated
alternations of unconventional kerogen and fractured carbonates as a Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC)
type well after drilling a highly deviated pilot mother-bore. Summary of breakout and ovality/enlargement
analysis in 3 offset deviated wells are provided in Table-1 and shown in hemispherical/stereo plot
(Figure-11a). Geomechanical model and wellbore stability study has been carried out using logs and
laboratory measurements on core plugs from offset wells to predict the pore pressure, safe mud window,
and preferred drain-hole orientation recommendations for the drilling phase (Figure-11b). The actual has
got a reasonable match in terms of actual pore pressure and stable mud weight window for drilling with
prediction. The entire horizontal section was drilled without many issues except for inadvertently entering
upper NJK zone for around 150ft MD. Total losses were encountered at two intervals after exiting NJK
and entering again NJM. Well control concerns due to losses, indicating either good open fracture
corridors or a medium to large scale fractures of the conceptual fracture model, resulted in earlier TD of
the horizontal well.

SPE-172693-MS

13

Figure 11Borehole breakout summary for offset deviated wells for target stratigraphic units in 9.25 hole sizes (a) and geomechanical
study prediction showing hemispherical plot with mud weight prediction for stable well bore condition and preferred trajectory
orientation for optimum fracture intersection (b) for SW-A (horizontal well). Composite plot of OH logs, fractures interpreted from
borehole images, pre-DST and post-DST borehole profile (BHP) from caliper and interpreted lithology and completion option for drain
hole in SW-A well.

Well Activation Phase

The main concern arose during barefoot completion and short open-hole drill stem test activation. Coiled
tubing was RIH while displacing 16.2 ppg OBM (used as the drilling fluid) with diesel in an attempt to
activate the well. The well kicked in after about 9200 ft mud column displacement with diesel. For well
control, CT was pulled out of hole. By the time the CT reached surface the WHP dropped to around 200
psi and the well ceased to flow. CT was attempted to run in hole again but got held up at around 6200
ft from surface. Repeated attempts to clear the restriction by spotting and jetting with diesel and
hydrochloric acid could not progress beyond 7800 ft. So CT milling was mobilized and cleared the DST
string to 14200 ft when the well got activated. This brought more debris to the tubing from the formation
and got plugged again at 12800 ft confirmed by another CT run. The well was displaced with 16 ppg OBM
using CT. The DST string was punctured and restored the circulation between casing/tubing to unset the
packer. The DST string was retrieved. Few joints of tubing were found plugged with collapsed pieces of
formations especially very large pieces from the kerogen rocks. The plugged cased hole part and plugged
heel part of the OH drain hole section was cleaned and conditioned using bit to the TD and the post DST
four-arm powered positioning caliper (PPC) data was acquired on drill pipe (TLC). The composite plot
of open-hole logs, fractures interpreted from borehole images, pre-DST and post-DST borehole profile
(BHP) from caliper and interpreted lithology and proposed completion option for drain hole is shown in
Figure-11c.

14

SPE-172693-MS

Testing and Production Phase

Considering the severity of wellbore collapse across the softer source rock sections when mud support was
removed and effective drawdown of about 4500psi is applied during mud displacement by diesel in the
well activation stage, the drain hole was decided to be secured with production liner. Almost half of the
washed out drainhole length was decided to be put behind blank pipe, and slotted liner was set across the
stable limestone with fractures. From the study it was also recommended not to use HCl acid for
breakdown stimulation, as that will further deteriorate the WBS. A deliberate decision was taken to test
the well only through lower choke sizes as part of strategic reservoir management and the well flowed
commercial quantity of gas.

Conclusion
Mechanical earth modeling has been very useful for planning and drilling horizontal wells. The integration
of logs and core studies indicates that the UCS in the NJL and SRL formations is generally high, varying
between 12,000 psi and 18,000 psi. In the CKS section, the UCS is low varying between 4,000 psi and
6,000 psi. The maximum horizontal stress follows a NE/SW regional trend in the study area. There are
some local variations to the stress direction influenced by faults and structural trend near the well
locations. The stress regime varies from strike-slip to inverse and are found being formation dependent
with associated intrinsic rock mechanical properties and spatial position of the wells under study.
Ignoring the geomechanical impact in all phases of the well activities starting from azimuth selection,
drilling, geosteering and well placement to completion and well activation leading to production phase,
can be very costly and detrimental to the expected outcome from the well. The first horizontal well
showed that the unconventional rock properties in the fractured CKS formations are very sensitive to
geomechanical stability during well conditioning for testing. Balancing the mud support during drilling,
post drilling activities such as pre-completion well conditioning, casing or liner setting, activation during
testing and completion are critical and need close monitoring. Failure in any such sensitive stages may
trigger unwanted WBS situation of losses, differential stuck pipe scenario and may geopardise the entire
business objective.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kuwait Oil Company for giving permission to publish this paper. The Gas
Field Development Studies, Field Development Gas and Deep Drilling Engineering team members are
gratefully acknowledged for contributing to the paper.

References
Al-Saeedi M.J., Al-Fayez F.A., Al-Enezi D., Mahesh V.S., Saxena A.K., Chimirala V., McKinnell
D.C, 2012, Planning and Well Design for Kuwait Oil CompanyCs first North Kuwait Jurassic
Horizontal Well C Case History, SPE paper 151953-MS presented at the SPE Middle East
Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, 23-25 January 2012, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Palchik V., 2011, On the Ratios between Elastic Modulus and Uniaxial Compressive Strength of
Heterogeneous Carbonate Rocks, Int. J of Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:121128.
Acharya M. N., Al-Awadi M. A., Al-Ajmi S. A., and Al-Eidan A. J., 2009, Characterization of
Kerogen Reservoirs by Organic Richness From Well Logs: A New Approach for Gas and
Condensate Reservoirs in Najmah Formation, North Kuwait. Paper SPE 125276-MS presented at
the SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, 19-21 October 2009, Abu
Dhabi, UAE.

SPE-172693-MS

15

Acharya M. N., Al-Awadi M. A., Aziz R. M., Al-Eidan A. J., 2009, Organic Richness and Productivity
Index relationship in Dual Porosity flow-system of gas and condensate Kerogen reservoirs of
Najmah Formation, North Kuwait, Paper SPE 121811-MS presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, 8-11 June 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Palchik V., 2007, Use of stress-strain model based on Haldanes distribution function for prediction
of elastic modulus. Int. J of Rock Mech Min Sci 44(4):514 524
Plumb R. A., Edwards, S., Pidcock G., Lee D., 2000 -The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its
Application to High-Risk Well Construction Projects., Paper SPE 59128 presented in IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, 23-25 February 2000, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Plumb R. A., 1994 - Influence of Composition and Texture on thee Failure Properties of Clastic
Rocks., Paper SPE 28022 presented in Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, 29-31 August
1994, Delft, Netherlands