SPE/IADC 85304
Drilling Fluids Approaches for Control of Wellbore Instability in Fractured Formations
Franck Labenski, Paul Reid SPE and Helio Santos SPE, Impact Solutions Group
Copyright 2003, SPE/IADC
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference & Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 20-22 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The presence of microfractures is now recognized as a
common cause of severe wellbore instability, particularly in
ultra-low permeability rocks such as shales and some
limestones.
In unstable microfractured formations, it is important to
avoid pressurizing the fractures with drilling mud. This paper
examines the rock mechanics aspects of wellbore instability in
microfractured formations, and identifies drilling fluids and
drilling practices that reduce the problem. Improved stability
can be achieved by the use of certain drilling fluid additives
that seal fractures. Limited success is seen with sized solids,
asphalts, gilsonites or conventional lost circulation materials
but a recently developed additive for use in oil- or water-based
muds appears to prevent much of the instability normally
observed.
The mechanism of action of this additive is discussed and
a recent field history presented.
Introduction
Wellbore instability during drilling can be due to one or more
of several reasons and may appear as cavings, tight hole or
hole erosion. The consequences include poor hole cleaning
(sometimes leading to packing off, stuck pipe and, ultimately,
sidetracks), poor quality cementing, poor quality logs,
inefficient perforating, difficulties running in and out of hole,
and poor mud condition.
Before action can be taken to improve stability, it is vital
that the problem formations are located and the mechanisms of
instability identified. Once the causes are understood, an
informed decision can be made on how well planning, drilling
practices and drilling fluid formulations can be modified to
reduce problems and costs.
Of all the rock formations that show severe instability,
shale is widely considered to be the most common and most
problematic. The frequent occurrence of instability in shales is
due to a number of reasons:
More shale footage is drilled than any other type of
rock
Shales are mechanically weak and hence fail under
lower stresses than, for instance, well cemented
sandstones or carbonates
Shales contain clay minerals that can react with some
types of drilling fluids
Many shales are poorly cemented and hence easily
eroded by flowing mud
Shales generally have very low permeabilities, often in
the nanoDarcy range. This means that an effective mud
cake does not form and so the pore pressure is not
protected from the mud overbalance, as it would be in
more permeable rocks such as sandstone1. The pore
pressure will be increased in the near wellbore region2
and will not bleed off because of the very low matrix
permeability; hence the effective stress reduces and the
rock becomes weaker
Because of the low permeability and the often rapid
rates of deposition and burial, shales can become
overpressured with respect to other sediments in the
geological column
Therefore, before a shale instability problem can be
addressed, a number of questions must be asked?
Is it due to pore pressure (or overpressure) in
competent shale? If so, raising the mud weight is a
reasonable approach provided other formations
exposed do not fracture, differential sticking risks in
permeable formations do not become unacceptably
high or if the payzone is to be drilled increased
invasion rates do not cause formation damage.
Is it due to chemical reactions between the drilling fluid
and the shale? If so, can the water-based mud be
modified or should a move be made to oil- or synthetic-
based muds?
Are the shales soft enough to be easily eroded by the
circulating mud? If so, can the bit and fluid hydraulics
be changed to reduce the problem?
Are the shales fractured either naturally or induced by
the drilling process? If the fractures are induced, what
can be done to prevent this happening? If the fractures
are naturally occurring, what can be done to stabilize
these fragile formations?
2 [F. LABENSKI, P. REID, H. SANTOS]
The remainder of this paper discusses the current
understanding of instability in microfractured formations, and
presents recommendations for drilling fluid design and drilling
practices that reduce the severity of the problem. The focus
will be on low permeability formations such as shales and
some limestones, although comparisons will be made with
more permeable rocks where appropriate. Finally, a recent
case history will be presented in support of the arguments and
recommendations
Instability in Low Permeability Microfractured
Formations
Until quite recently, low permeability microfractured
formations were thought to be relatively rare. They were
known to exist in some areas of high tectonic stresses (e.g.
close to the Rocky Mountains), but it was severe problems
experienced in wells drilled near the Andes in Colombia in the
1990s that focused attention on these formations.
Microfractured formations are now known to be common and
widespread3-7.
The problem can be simply described:
As a wellbore encounters a microfractured formation, the
drilling fluid (at a higher pressure than the formation pore
pressure) invades the fractures almost instantaneously. The
pressure in the fractures is now equal to that of the circulating
mud system and so there is no wellbore support provided by
the drilling fluid in overbalance, as there would be in a non-
fractured formation. The fact that the matrix permeability is
very low adds 2 factors not present if the fractures were in a
more permeable formation:
Because there is no significant leakoff of fluid into the
matrix, the volume of fluid flowing into the
microfractures is too low to allow a filter cake to form
with conventional mud additives: hence the fractures
are not protected by a filter cake.
The elevated pressure in the microfractures does not
bleed off into the matrix, as it would if a filter cake at
the wellbore surface protected a microfracture in
permeable rock.
The effect is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. By forcing the
drilling fluid into the microfractures, not only is the stabilizing
effect of the mud overbalance lost but also the fractures are
forced apart and lubricated by the mud. These events reduce
the friction angle of the fractures and further weaken the
structural integrity of the wellbore8, 9. Unpublished evidence
suggests that the effect may sometimes be worse with oil- or
synthetic-based muds where the base fluid is inherently more
lubricating than most water-based muds; however, to the
authors knowledge no definitive data have been published to
substantiate this.
While the wellbore may fail and become weakened by the
invasion of drilling fluid into the fractures, significant volumes
of cavings may not produced until a further stimulus is applied
to the wellbore. This could, for example, be a drop in wellbore
pressure when mud circulation is stopped, swab pressures
associated with a trip or impacts of the drill string while
rotating. These effects are summarized by Last et al6 who
observed massive cavings events (referring to truck loads of
[SPE/IADC 85304]
cuttings coming to surface) during wiper trips in wells in the
Cusiana Field in Colombia.
In unreactive microfractured formations such as tight
limestones or coal beds, only the mechanical destabilization of
the wellbore as described above need be considered. In a
shale, mudstone or siltstone, however, the possibility of
chemical reactivity must also be bourn in mind. If the shale is
capable of generating significant swelling stresses and / or
softening and dispersing, the choice of drilling fluid must take
these reactions into account; either by resorting to an oil-, or
synthetic-based mud or building sufficient inhibition into a
water-based mud. However, it appears that many
microfractured shales are not highly chemically active. This is
a reasonable general supposition because microfractured
shales are typically compacted and brittle, and are rich in non-
swelling clay minerals such as illite, chlorite and kaolinite.
Smectite-rich shales tend to be softer, plastic and less prone to
fracturing. For instance, in the Carbonera formations in the
Cusiana Field in Colombia, the chemical reactivity of the
shale is low and the mechanism attributed to mechanical
destabilization caused by the invasion of fluid into
microfractures10.
While acknowledging the possibility of chemical
reactivity, this paper only discusses the mechanical failure of
microfractured formations due to mud invasion. We consider
the matrix, and any fracture fill, to be chemically inert and
thus we do not differentiate between shales and limestones.
In summary, the primary mechanism of failure in
microfractured formations is as follows:
1. Microfractures are exposed to a mud in overbalance as
new wellbore is created;
2. Mud invades the microfractures, raising the pressure in
the fractures to that in the main wellbore. No support
from the mud weight is obtained and the formation
integrity is weakened by a reduction in friction angle of
the fracture;
3. The wellbore may spontaneously cave or, commonly,
will remain stable until disturbed by subsequent
activity such as stopping circulation, tripping,
backreaming or drill string impacts.
Planes of Weakness
In the previous section we assumed that a formation is
naturally microfractured before it is drilled. This is believed to
be the case in many situations, including the Carbonera
Formation in Colombia. However, we should be aware that
unfractured, but mechanically weak, formations could behave
in a similar way. For example, Edwards et al9 identify planes
of weakness (such as bedding planes) that readily part when
exposed to a drilling fluid in overbalance, allowing imbibition
of drilling fluid and then formation failure. These authors
indicate that failure along bedding planes is much more of a
problem when the wellbore runs sub-parallel to the bedding
dip. In a separate paper, Okland and Cook11, suggest that
bedding plane splitting occurs where the angle of attack
(relationship between the wellbore angle and bedding planes)
is less than 10 or 20 degrees. Hence it is important, where
possible, to plan well angles and azimuths so that weak,
SPE/IADC 85304][DRILLING FLUIDS APPROACHES FOR CONTROL OF WELLBORE INSTABILITY IN FRACTURED FORMATIONS]
bedded shales are penetrated at a reasonably high angle to
bedding.
Although failure of these planes of weakness is induced by
drilling, the considerations are the same as for natural
fractures; the requirement is to prevent invasion of fluid into
nascent fractures.
Control of Instability in Microfractured Formations
Three approaches must be used to minimize instability in low
permeability microfractured formations:
1. Design the well profile and casing plan to minimize
exposure of the microfractured formations.
2. Design the drilling fluid to keep the amount of fluid
entering the microfractures as low as possible.
3. Adopt drilling practices that minimize disturbance of
the fragile formations
Point 1. Well Design
We do not address Point 1 in this paper other than to observe
that proper well design is critical and must be done with a
detailed knowledge of the local geology and stress
environment. If planes of weakness are identified (e.g.
bedding planes) wells should, where possible, be designed to
maximize the angle of attack: intersecting the weak planes
close to perpendicular is most stable, while drilling close to
parallel to these planes is most likely to cause instability.
Problem formations should be cased off as soon as is practical
so as to limit the time they are exposed to the drilling
operation.
Point 2: Drilling Fluid Design
The key is to avoid invasion of microfractures by drilling
fluids12. We first assume that no microfractured formation is
stable enough to allow it to be drilled in underbalance;
therefore, by using a fluid in overbalance, fracture invasion is
always likely. We can consider 2 approaches to eliminate or
reduce the effects of this invasion:
1. Use drilling fluids that chemically react to cement
microfractures and restore structural strength to the
formation
2. Use additives that stop fluid invasion
Several water-based fluids have been proposed that have
the potential to cement and strengthen a microfractured
formation. In general these are what can be termed reactive
anion fluids that contain silicates, phosphates or aluminium
complexes.
To our knowledge, these have not been used successfully
in microfractured shales, although they have been used to
varying degrees of success in chemically active shales13, 14.
Perhaps the reason they have not seen widespread use in
microfractured shales is that, because of the low spurt volumes
into the microfractures, insufficient material can be placed to
form an effective cement. It may also be that the chemical
reaction to cement the microfractures is significantly slower
than the invasion and lubrication that destabilizes the
formation; hence the formation fails before the cement can
take effect.
3
The main thrust in controlling microfractured formations
has been to attempt to block the entrance to microfractures,
preventing invasion of the drilling fluid. The various materials
that have been used or suggested include micas, fibres, sized
solids and deformable materials such as gilsonite and asphalts.
Each material suffers some drawbacks:
Micas work by bridging at the fracture opening and
need to be used at a sufficiently high concentration to
work quickly. This high concentration can have an
adverse impact on the mud rheology, increasing the
equivalent circulating density (and therefore possibly
increasing invasion). Also, an imperfect seal is formed
and so continued filtrate invasion is not prevented.
Fibres will form bridges over some microfractures but
will not produce a low permeability barrier. Hence they
will not prevent fluid invasion and wellbore instability.
Sized solids, such as calcium carbonate, have seen
considerable success in forming protective filter cakes
on permeable formations where there is sufficient spurt
loss to allow a cake to form. Since there is much less
spurt loss into a microfracture, it is unlikely that a
protective cake will be produced. To be fully effective,
the carbonate should be sized for the specific fracture
size: this is a particular problem in these formations
where the fracture widths are generally not known.
Sized solids often need to be used in high
concentrations (30ppb or higher); this can adversely
impact mud rheology and rates of penetration.
Deformable particles such as gilsonite and asphalts
have probably been the most successful additives in
controlling instability in microfractured formations to
date. These materials have some ability to deform into,
and plaster over, the fracture openings of variable size
and hence can confer some wellbore stability.
However, they have by no means solved the problem.
One issue is that some of these materials need to be
used at temperatures above their softening points, and
these temperatures are not reached in many
microfractured shale formations. Also, these materials
can exhibit fluorescence which can interfere with
geological interpretation, and there are some concerns
over the formation damaging characteristics of these
materials should the mud also be planned for use in
payzones.
Alternative Materials
Given our improved understanding of the characteristics and
failure mechanisms in microfractured formations, the industry
is in a good position to define the properties of mud additives
that give improved wellbore stability.
First, these additives must be present in the mud system at
all times so that microfractures are contacted immediately the
drill bit exposes them. They will not be effective if used as a
pill treatment to stabilize a formation that has already begun to
fail.
The additives must also work rapidly and at an effective
concentration that is both economical and does not adversely
affect other mud properties.
4 [F. LABENSKI, P. REID, H. SANTOS]
If a material could be found that forms a robust low
permeable barrier, it would isolate the fluid in the
microfractures from the wellbore pressure. This would protect
the formation and allow the mud overbalance to be raised
without causing instability or lost circulation in the fragile
formation. Hence, if a barrier could be formed, mud weight
could be used as it is in unfractured formations to manage
wellbore instability.
After reviewing the performance of additives frequently
used in microfractured formations, the following checklist of
preferred properties was generated. The product should:
Contain deformable particles of a sufficiently broad
size distribution to seal a range of microfracture
openings
Form a very low permeability seal as quickly as
possible to prevent damaging amounts of fluid (and
hence pressure) entering the microfractures
Be effective at economical concentrations
Be compatible with a wide range of mud systems,
preferably water- oil- and synthetic- based.
Be easy to mix and maintain in a mud system
Function in the presence of chemical shale inhibitors
should a combined sealing and chemical approach be
required
Have low formation damaging characteristics
Meet current and anticipated health, safety and
environmental requirements
The search for a material that satisfies the above criteria
identified one promising product. This is a blend of polymers
modified to provide components with a range of water and oil
solubilities (i.e. the blend contains polymers with a wide range
of HLB values). When added to a water-based fluid, some of
the polymers in the blend dissolve to provide fluid loss control
similar to many conventional additives. However, other
species only partially solvate because of their oil-loving
characteristics; these polymers organize into deformable
aggregates or micelles (micelles are assemblages of molecules
that group together in solution to form microscopic spheres,
rods and plates). It is claimed that these micelles have the
ability to form rapidly a low permeability seal over pore
throats and microfractures, thereby greatly limiting fluid
invasion. The mechanism is depicted in Fig. 3.
Particle size analysis (Fig. 4) suggests that the micelles
range from a few microns to close to 1000 microns in diameter
(the d50 is around 60 microns, the d10 is 9 microns and the d90
340 microns). The material provides excellent invasion
control by quickly forming a very low permeability layer rich
in micelles. This greatly reduces any further ingress of solids
or fluid. The micelles in the layer are deformable so, if the
pressure is raised, they compress and reduce the barrier
permeability even further.
In some respects, the micelles act like the water droplets in
invert emulsion oil muds; these water droplets are known to
concentrate in the filter cake where they make a major
contribution to the invasion control seen with oil muds. The
major difference, and benefit, of the micelles is that they are
more deformable and cover a much wider size range; hence
[SPE/IADC 85304]
they are better sealing agents and work over a much wider
range of pore sizes and permeabilities.
Because of the range of oil and water solubilities in the
blend, the additive works equally well in oil- and synthetic-
based muds as in water-based; in hydrocarbon fluids, the oil
soluble components dissolve instead of forming micelles while
the water-soluble entities form the micelles a reversal of the
roles in a water mud.
By functioning as a very low permeability barrier, the
additive also has the ability to protect weak formations against
pressure transmission and fracturing. This effective increase in
fracture gradient widens the safe drilling window and has
great potential for improving drilling performance, not only in
microfractured formations but also in depleted zones,
unconsolidated sands, etc.
Cleanup of the protective barrier in reservoir applications
is simple, because the micelles only exist above a critical
concentration of polymers in the fluid. Therefore when
contacted by a wash fluid or completion brine free of the
polymers, or when contacted by reservoir fluid as the well is
brought on production, the layer simply disperses and is
removed in the wellbore fluid. However, a cautionary note is
that, if an effective seal is formed over microfractures and the
concentration of the polymers is allowed to deplete below a
critical value before the well is drilled and cased, the seal may
break up and the stabilizing properties lost.
Effective concentrations are between 3 and 8ppb. The
optimum within this range depends on the base fluid
properties and the permeability of the formations being drilled
(e.g. higher concentrations would typically be required to
protect very permeable formations and to give good invasion
control in low solids fluids and in high salinity brines).
Laboratory testing to confirm a fluids ability to seal
microfractures in a low permeability material is difficult. It is
possible to construct slots of 100 microns or below in steel
cylinders, but while it is easy to carry out tests with free flow
through the slot, this is not what happens in a microfracture
where the flow volume is small, and presumably almost stops
once the pressure in the microfracture increases to that of the
wellbore. It is difficult to mimic the rapid increase in pressure
accompanied only by a small spurt loss and, at the same time,
determine the crack blocking potential of fluids. To do this
effectively, a much larger scale experimental set-up with small
but controlled fluid leakoff into a long slot would be required.
While we are aware that the small-scale slot tests have
been used to evaluate sized solids, we do not believe micellar
systems have been evaluated and, from the arguments above,
would question the validity of any such measurements.
The micellar systems have, however, been tested on
permeable sand beds where their ability to form a low
permeability barrier and prevent deep invasion has been
demonstrated. Figs. 5a and 5b show sand bed invasion tests
on a hematite-weighted field water-based mud from Colombia
and the same mud containing 5ppb of the micelle-forming
polymer blend. The massive reduction in invasion in a 20 / 40
frac sand is clear. The ability for a single additive to bridge
pore throats in different grades of sands of widely differing
permeabilities is impressive and can, we contend, be
extrapolated to microfractures. This flexibility should be
contrasted with a sized calcium carbonate fluid where a
SPE/IADC 85304][DRILLING FLUIDS APPROACHES FOR CONTROL OF WELLBORE INSTABILITY IN FRACTURED FORMATIONS]
different size distribution would be needed to bridge pores
effectively in different sand grades. The pore sizes also need
to be known before the optimum sized solids fluid could be
designed and, as previously discussed, the sizes of
microfractures are rarely, if ever, known.
Hence, based on the above considerations, flexible
micelles or polymer aggregates were determined to be
excellent drilling fluid additives for managing instability in
microfractured formations.
Point 3. Drilling Practices
It must be remembered that, even if the microfractured
formation has been strengthened through the use of an
effective fluid system, the rock will still be significantly
weaker than unfractured shale.
Good engineering practices are therefore essential if
wellbore instability is to be controlled.
Drilling Hardware: It is important to ensure that the fractured
formations are not subjected to excessive drill string impacts.
This can be achieved through proper bottom hole assembly
design, correct bit selection and controlled weight on bit.
These factors will combine to give a good rate of penetration
(itself of great utility15) in drilling microfractured formations,
thus limiting the open hole time and so problems with time-
dependent wellbore stability.
Hole Cleaning: Good hole cleaning is another important
factor. Keeping the hole free of cuttings accumulations will
minimize ECDs and so minimize the pressure shock
transmitted to a fractured formation when circulation is
stopped and started.
A build up of cuttings beds also increases the risk of stuck
pipe; the freeing operations associated with stuck pipe will
greatly increase the risk of destabilizing the wellbore, leading
to further cavings, poor hole cleaning and additional stuck
pipe problems. This is potentially a vicious circle that can end
in loss of a hole section and the need to sidetrack.
Some hole enlargement must be expected when drilling
most microfractured formations and this increases the need for
good hole cleaning; not only must the mud be able to suspend
cavings but it must be able to transport these cavings through
overgauge sections where hole cleaning efficiency is low.
Mud rheologies, flow rates, circulation times and the possible
need to control the rate of penetration must all be carefully
considered. The problem of hole cleaning is, of course, made
easier if the hole can be kept near to gauge by use of an
effective mud system from the outset.
Tripping: Tripping practices have a major influence on
instability in microfractured formations. The study by Last et
al6 in Colombia concluded that the appearance of major
volumes of cuttings at surface coincided with wiper trips: the
swab effects while pulling out of hole were enough to cause
collapse of the failed wellbore.
This points to the importance of carefully controlling trips.
Excessive trip speeds should be avoided and backreaming
should be done only when absolutely necessary. Before
starting a trip, sufficient circulation time must be allowed to
5
ensure the hole is clean; this may be several multiples of the
mud bottoms-up time.
Good drilling practices, combined with good well planning
and an effective drilling mud will help solve wellbore
instability in microfractured formations. The result will not
always be a problem-free wellbore and, as concluded by Last
et al6, often the problem must be managed because it cannot
be cured completely. However, most wells can then be drilled
in a cost-effective way and without major incident.
Field Experience
A field case history of the use of the micelle-based drilling
fluid additives is briefly presented here. A more detailed
description will be presented elsewhere.
Microfractured shale and limestone, Colombia, S. America
In the first quarter of 2003 a major operator drilled an
exploration well in a field north of Bogota. The target was a
fractured limestone reservoir at approximately 8500 feet TVD.
The original well plan was to set 9 5/8 casing at 5400 feet
(MD) and then drill 8 at approximately 35 degrees to 7550
feet (MD) before completing the well in 6 hole at 9200 feet.
As drilling progressed, it became clear that the formations
were deeper than predicted. 9 5/8 casing was finally set at
7320 feet and the plan was to drill to the reservoir in 8 and
then 6 hole. These last 2 hole sections would penetrate
claystones, shales, and limestones before hitting the limestone
target. Since all these formations, including the reservoir, were
naturally fractured or prone to induced fracturing there
were major concerns about lost circulation, wellbore
instability and stuck pipe, as well as formation damage in the
payzone.
The operator planned to use a dispersed water-based mud
for the upper hole sections and then convert this to a low-
invasion fluid for the 8 and 6 sections by adding the
micelle-forming additive to the mud system.
Fluid Design and Maintenance
After discussions with oil company personnel to identify the
major risks associated with the well, it was decided to convert
the mud from the 12 section to a low-invasion fluid by
maintaining an active concentration of 5-6ppb of the micelle-
forming additive in the active system. The non-invasive
property of the fluid was checked by measuring fluid invasion
into a bed of 20/40 sand at 100 psi. Invasion depth in the sand
bed test was maintained at below 5cm by adding more of the
micelle-forming additive as required.
Field Results
The 14 ppg mud was converted to the low-invasion fluid once
the 9 5/8 casing shoe was drilled out. Drilling proceeded
smoothly through the fractured shales and claystones and mud
properties proved stable and easy to manage. Typical fluid
properties were:
6 [F. LABENSKI, P. REID, H. SANTOS]
Plastic Viscosity: 35-40 cPoise
Yield Point: 30-40 lb/100ft2
Gels (10s/10m): 10-14 / 18-23
Density: 16.4 17ppg
pH: 9.9-10.6
API Filtrate: 3.2 5 ml
HTHP Filtrate: 14 18 ml
MBT: 12.5 20
Invasion, as determined by the sand bed test, was
measured 3 times / day.
As drilling continued it became evident that none of the
anticipated problems were occurring, despite the fact that
these formations had given major problems when drilled
elsewhere.
As the planned 8 casing point was reached, the
excellent hole condition and stable fluid properties persuaded
the oil company to revise the drilling programme. Instead of
setting casing and continuing in 6 hole, the decision was
taken to drill to TD in 8 hole. The well TD was reached 5
days later with no mud losses, pipe sticking or wellbore
instability problems. The hole remained stable and in good
condition throughout a successful 6 day open hole logging
programme.
A key success was the ability to remove a casing string
from the well plan because of the properties imparted by the
low-invasion fluid. As well as the obvious savings in casing
and cementing costs, the entire, deepened 8 section was
drilled in 20 days rather than the 25 days planned for the
original combined 8 and 6 sections. It should also be
noted that 5 of these 20 days were lost due to pipe washouts,
otherwise it is likely that the section would have been
completed in 15 days.
Conclusions
Wellbore instability due to microfractures in low
permeability formations (e.g. shales and limestones) is
now recognised as a much more common source of
drilling problems than was once thought.
Failure occurs when drilling fluid in overbalance
invades the fractures. The pressure in the fractures
quickly becomes equal to the wellbore pressure and
hence the stabilising effect of the mud weight is lost.
Additionally, the fractures are forced apart and
lubricated by the invading fluid, further increasing the
formation instability.
Wellbore collapse does not always occur immediately,
but is often triggered by drilling activity such as trips or
pipe impacts.
Wellbore stability will be greatly improved if the
microfractures can be sealed before pressure and fluid
invasion causes severe damage. This means that
effective sealing agents must be present in the mud
when the fractures are exposed. Spotting pills after
invasion has occurred will be ineffective.
[SPE/IADC 85304]
Additives currently used in drilling fluids to try to
block microfractures all have disadvantages.
After reviewing the requirements for good fracture
blocking it was concluded that flexible particles
capable of forming a low permeability barrier at
fracture openings would be effective stabilisers.
A class of micelle-forming additives that produce a low
permeability barrier is introduced and field evidence
presented to support its effectiveness.
The importance of careful well planning and good
drilling practices is stressed: without these, no drilling
fluid system will be fully effective in stabilizing
microfractured formations.
References
1. Gazaniol, D., Forsans, T., Boisson, M. J. F. & Piau, J-M.
Wellbore Failure Mechanisms in Shales: Prediction and
Prevention J. Petr. Tech., July 1995, pp.589-595.
2. Bol, G. M., Wong, S-W., Davidson, C. J. & Woodland, D.
C. Borehole Stability in Shales. SPE Drilling &
Completion, June 1994, pp. 87-94.
3. Willson, S. M., Last, N. C., Zobach, M. D. & Moos, D.
Drilling in South America: Stability Approach for
Complex Geologic Conditions Paper SPE 53940, SPE
Latin American & Caribbean Petrol. Eng. Conf., Caracas,
April 1999.
4. Wiprut, D. J. & Zoback, M. D. Stress in the Visund Field,
Norwegian North Sea: Consequences for Borehole Stability
and Sand Production Paper SPE/ISRM 47224, SPE/ISRM
Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, 1998.
5. Ramos, G. G., Mouton, D. E., Wilton, B. S. & Leksmono.
Integrating Rock Mechanics with Drilling Strategies in a
Tectonic Belt, Offshore Bali, Indonesia Paper SPE/ISRM
47286, SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, 1998.
6. Last, N.C., Plumb, R., Harkness, R., Charlez, P., Alsen, J.
& McLean, M. An Integrated Approach to Wellbore
Instability in the Cusiana Field Paper SPE 30464, SPE
Annual Drilling Conf. & Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
October 1995.
7. Santarelli, F. J., Dahen, D., Baroudi, H. & Silmak, B.
Mechanisms of Borehole Instability in Heavily Fractured
Rock Media International Journal of Rock Mechanics.
Min. Sci & Geochem. Abs. 1992 (29), pp.457-467.
8. Chen, X., Tan, C. P. & Detournay, C. The Impact of Mud
Infiltration on Wellbore Stability in Fractured Rock
Masses Paper SPE/ISRM 78241, SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics Conf., Irving, Texas, October 2002.
9. Edwards, S., Matsutsuyu, B. & Willson, S., Imaging
Unstable Wellbores While Drilling Paper SPE/IADC
79846, SPE/IADC Drilling Conf., Amsterdam, February
2003.
10. Personal Communication: Plumb, R. to Reid, P. 1997
11. Okland, D. & Cook, J.M. Bedding-related Borehole
Instability in High Angle Wells Paper SPE 47285,
SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, 1998
12. Santos, H. & da Fontoura, S. A. P. Concepts &
Misconceptions of Mud Selection Criteria: How to
Minimize Borehole Stability Problems? Paper SPE 38644,
SPE Annual Technol. Conf. & Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, October 1997.
13. Ward, I., Chapman, J. W. & Williamson, R. Silicate Based
Muds: Chemical Optimisation Based on Field Experience
Paper SPE 55054, SPE Internat. Symp. On Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, February 1999.
SPE/IADC 85304][DRILLING FLUIDS APPROACHES FOR CONTROL OF WELLBORE INSTABILITY IN FRACTURED FORMATIONS] 7

14. Reid, P. I. & Minton, R. C. New Water-based Muds for

Tertiary Shale Control Paper SPE 23077, Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, September 1992.
15. Fear, M. J., How to Improve Rate of Penetration in Field
Operations Paper SPE 35107, SPE/IADC Drilling Conf.
New Orleans, March 1996.

Figures
1

Mud
Pressure
3
Fig. 1 A schematic representation of a microfractured formation.
A drilling fluid in overbalance will invade the microfractures
where they intersect the wellbore. If a permeable formation is
adjacent to a microfractured zone, fluid will also invade via this
formation unless fluid loss into the permeable zone is carefully
controlled.

Fig. 3 A schematic representation of the modified polymers (1)

forming micelles (2) in solution. The micelles form the low
permeability, deformable barrier (3) on the rock surface in the
very early stages of mud filtration.

Fig. 2 The wellbore pressure exceeds the formation pressure by

2ppb. The unstable block is bounded by fractures that will
pressurize to the wellbore pressure unless the drilling fluid
prevents this. Once pressurized, the block is unsupported by the
drilling fluid and is liable to collapse.
Fig. 4 Particle size distribution of the micelle-forming additive in
water (determined by Malvern Mastersizer).
8 [F. LABENSKI, P. REID, H. SANTOS] [SPE/IADC 85304]

Figs. 5a and 5b The left hand figure (a) shows deep invasion of
a hematite-weighted 16.5ppg field water-based mud from
Colombia on a 20/40 grade sand bed. The right hand figure (b)
shows the same mud with 5ppb of the micelle-forming additive
present.