International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Determination of optimal well trajectory during drilling and production

based on borehole stability
M.R. Zare-Reisabadi n, A. Kaffash, S.R. Shadizadeh
Ahwaz Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 2 August 2011
Received in revised form
12 April 2012
Accepted 24 July 2012
Available online 23 August 2012

Several studies have been done about borehole stability and optimized wellbore direction. However,
the majority of them focused on stability during drilling, and there are only a few studies concerns with
stability during drilling and production and its problems such as sanding simultaneously. This paper
presents an analytical model that estimates collapse pressure in stability analysis during drilling and in
addition determines maximum drawdown pressure to prevent sand production, using the Mogi
Coulomb failure criterion. The results show that in different in-situ stress regimes, the inclination and
azimuth have a signicant role in wellbore stability during both drilling and production. Furthermore,
the results show that the optimum direction for wellbore stability during drilling is also the best
direction for stability of a production well. The analytical model is applied to eld data in order to verify
the applicability of the developed model.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Wellbore stability
Optimal wellbore trajectory
Maximum drawdown pressure
MogiCoulomb failure criterion
Sand production

1. Introduction
In recent years, drilling of complicated well trajectory has been
increased. Multilateral wells, and horizontal and highly deviated
boreholes are drilled frequently. Therefore, borehole stability
becomes more important. When a well is drilled, the surrounding
rock must support the load previously burdened by the removed
material, stresses near the borehole would be redistributed and
causes stress concentration that may lead to formation failure [13].
Borehole stability is mainly affected by in situ stresses, pore pressure
and rock strength. During drilling, there are two different pressures:
initial formation pressure and mud pressure, whereas in production
condition, a pore pressure distribution exists around the wellbore.
Therefore, stress distribution around the borehole in production and
drilling conditions would be different. Numerous works have been
done on wellbore stability during drilling and production, separately. But a few studies have been done to determine the optimum
well trajectory considering drilling and production problems simultaneously in different in-situ stress regimes. The wellbore inclination and azimuth have remarkable effect on sanding potential onset.
Therefore to decrease sand production risk, considering of production problems is required in optimum well trajectory planning of
new wells.
In stability analysis during drilling, Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman
[1,2] developed a 3-D analytical model to study the behavior of

Corresponding author. Tel.: 98 913 2543709; fax: 98 611 5556962.

E-mail address: zare.put@gmail.com (M.R. Zare-Reisabadi).

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.018

the collapse pressure under the different in-situ stress regimes

and different trajectory in drilling conditions. Last and Mclean [4]
show that the highly deviated wells are most stable than the
vertical in an over thrust region by conventional stability analysis.
Moos et al. [5] put forward a method to optimize well trajectories.
Hassan et al. [6] used logs and cores data, and they evaluated the
stability of wellbores with different angle of deviation. Awal et al.
[7] found that respect to the in-situ stress regimes, the optimal
wellbore trajectory can be vertical, directional or horizontal.
Russell et al. [8] analyzed stability of the Tullich eld wells and
concluded the boreholes are drilled parallel to maximum horizontal stress have minimum risk of instability. Recently, Al-Ajmi
and Zimmerman [9,10] developed the MogiCoulomb failure
criterion, according to polyaxial failure data of the variety of
rocks. They concluded that MohrCoulomb failure criterion is
conservative in estimating of collapse pressure during drilling and
using MogiCoulomb failure criterion can minimize the conservative nature of the mud pressure predictions. Zhang et al. [11]
considered stability of wells during drilling of shale formations.
They investigated the effect of well trajectory in a normal stress
regime by using MohrCoulomb failure criterion. Zhang et al. [12]
used the ve strength criteria, with parameters determined based
on the triaxial compression test data, to analyze wellbore stability
of both vertical and inclined boreholes.
In stability analysis during production, Wiprut and Zoback
[13,14] obtain the full stress tensor in Visund eld and used it to
determine the optimal stable trajectory for wellbore stability and
sand production; they just investigated one specic case in strike
slip stress regime. Ewy et al. [15] used hollow cylinder and

78

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

modied Lade failure criterion to obtain maximum drawdown

during production before well collapsed. Palmer et al. [16]
prepared a stress based model for shear failure around the
perforation and an open hole wellbore according to Mohr
Coulomb failure criterion, which measure strength of rock with
TWC (Thick Walled Cylinder strength) laboratory core tests. This
model was conservative in prediction of bottom hole pressure.
They conclude that observed drawdown is two times predicted
value, as a rule of thumb. Oluyemi and Oyeneyin [17] developed a
new time coupled analytical failure model according to Hoek
Brown failure criterion to analysis sanding potential prediction.
They concluded that HoekBrown failure criterion can help to
overcome the inherent problems in MohrCoulomb criterion and
performs better in sanding onset prediction. Khaksar et al. [18]
presented a Geomechanical study for hole stability and sanding
potential in Malay Basin eld. They only investigate the Normal
stress regime case.
Recently, Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [9] developed 3-D Mogi
Coulomb failure criterion. This failure criterion has been justied
by experimental evidence from triaxial tests as well as polyaxial
tests. They applied this failure criterion to analyze stability of
vertical and deviated wells during drilling. Based on their study,
the MogiCoulomb criterion leads to the best prediction of
required mud weight to prevent borehole collapse. In this paper,
MogiCoulomb failure criterion is used to model: (1) the optimum well trajectory during drilling and production operations
simultaneously, (2) collapse pressure during drilling operation
and (3) maximum pressure drawdown during production operation, (4) nally the developed model was applied to the eld data
of two different region and applicability of model was veried.

2. Methodology
Assuming that the formation behaves like brittle rock, stability
analysis in drilling or production condition, required to compare
principal stress around the borehole with an appropriate failure
criterion to see if conditions for a wellbore collapse will be
fullled or not. Using the stress transformation equations, the
virgin formation stresses expressed in Cartesian wellbore coordinate becomes [19]:

sx sH cos2 a sh sin2 a cos2 i sv sin2 i, sy sH sin2 a sh cos2 a

sz sH cos2 a sh sin2 a sin2 i sv cos2 i, txy 0:5sh sH sin2a cos i

txz 0:5sH cos2 a sh sin2 asv sin2i, tyz 0:5sh sH sin2a sin i
1
where i is inclination and a is the azimuth angle due to the
maximum horizontal stress (sH) direction, and sH and sh are the
maximum and minimum horizontal in situ stresses. It is easier to
express stresses in a cylindrical system (r, y and z). Based on
linear elasticity, maximum stresses, occur in the wellbore wall.
Therefore, failure is expected to initiate at the borehole wall. The
total stress component assuming plane strain condition in drilling
situation, at the borehole wall becomes [19]:

sr pw, sy sx sy 22sx 2sy cos2y4txy sin2ypw

sz sz 2n2sx 2sy cos2y4txy sin2y, tyz 2tyz cosy2txz siny
2
where, y is the angular position around the wellbore circumference and n is Poissons ratio.
In production conditions, well pressure is lower than formation pressure and this cause that formation around the borehole
shrinks and hence tangential and axial stress decrease. This
reduction is proportional to drawdown pressure. Assuming linear

poroelasticity, total stresses at the borehole wall become [15]:

sr pw sy sx sy 22sx 2sy cos2y4txy sin2ypw b0 pw 2pf



sz sz 2n 2sx 2sy cos2y4txy sin2y b0 pw 2pf

tyz 2tyz cosy2txz siny
b0

12n
b
1n

3
4

where pw is wellbore owing pressure, pf is current average

reservoir pressure, and b is Biots poroelastic constant. Usually
radial stress is minimum principal stress, and maximum and
intermediate principal stress determined by following equation
[20]:
q
s1,2 0:5sy sz 7 sy sz 2 4t2yz
5
To predict shear failure, various failure criteria have been
developed, among which MohrCoulomb is much referred and
used in practice. But it is usually conservative in predicting shear
failure, because it does not consider the effect of intermediate
principal stress. Recently, Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [9] developed
the three-dimensional MogiCoulomb failure criterion. Based on
the Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [10] study, the MogiCoulomb
criterion leads to the best prediction of required mud weight to
prevent borehole collapse. According to this criterion:
 0

s s0
6
tMogi a b 1 3
2

toct

1
3

q
s01 s03 2 s01 s02 2 s02 s03 2

where a and b are coefcients that can be determined according

to MohrCoulomb strength parameters:
p
p
2 2
2 2
s0 cosj, b
sinj
a
8
3
3
when toct 4 tMogi, shear failure happens and critical bottom hole
pressure can be determined.
Regarding the fact that radial, tangential and axial stresses are
functions of wellbore pressure, Pw, the principal stresses are
therefore also functions of well pressure. Moreover, when applying these principal stresses in different failure criteria, effective
principal stresses must be used, i.e., wellbore pressure subtracted
from the principal stresses. So an iterative loop should be applied
to obtain critical bottom hole pressure. In this study, a computer
program is developed to obtain the critical bottom hole pressure
that causes the wellbore collapse and determines the best wellbore trajectory. This program using several input parameters,
including: in situ stresses (vertical stress, maximum and minimum horizontal stresses), rock strength parameters (cohesion,
friction angle and Poison ratio), well inclination and azimuth,
initial formation pressure and Biots poroelastic constant. In
drilling situation wellbore pressure increase from initial formation pressure to minimum horizontal pressure to determine
minimum pressure that prevents wellbore collapse. In production
condition wellbore pressure decrease from initial formation
pressure until the condition for wellbore collapse satised. This
pressure is named critical bottom hole owing pressure (CBHFP).
Maximum sand free drawdown (MSFDD) could be determined by
following equation:
MSFDD Currentreservoirformationpressure2CBHFP

These analyses have been done for different well inclination

(i 01 to i901) and azimuth (a 01 to a 1801) in several cases of
in-situ stress regimes. Based on the results the optimum wellbore
trajectory which has maximum stability in both drilling and

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

borehole instability decreases with increasing the inclination

angle. The optimum drilling azimuth is still parallel to the
minimum horizontal stress. Therefore, a horizontal borehole that
is drilled in the minimum horizontal stress direction is the
best one.
In Case 3, the formation is in the strike-slip regimes. It is
obvious from Fig. 3 that a horizontal well is the most stable one.
As Fig. 3 depicts, in this case drilling in the direction of maximum
horizontal stress, regardless of the inclination, need the lowest
hydrostatic pressure to avoid borehole collapse (opposite of the
before cases) in drilling condition. As Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman
[1,2] and Wirput and Zoback [13,14] mentioned, in this case, the
most stable orientation is a wellbore drilled horizontally in the
direction of the maximum horizontal stress. Contrary to Case 1, in
Case 3 the collapse pressure is not sensitive to inclination in all
directions. In the direction of minimum horizontal stress, sensitivity is low. But the collapse pressure is highly sensitive to
inclination in the direction of maximum horizontal stress.

production condition could be determined regarding different

in-situ stress regimes.

3. Results and discussion

Table 1 shows ve cases of different stress regimes and the
input parameters for mechanical stability analysis for a well in
drilling condition. According to these data minimum bottom hole
pressure that mud weight must be provided to prevent well
collapse determined. Furthermore, optimum well trajectory that
indicates the best stable drilling direction for stability obtained
for each case.
Case 1. indicates a normal stress regime. Fig. 1 shows the 3-D
plot of collapse pressure as a function of inclination and wellbore
azimuth for Case 1. The vertical axis is collapse pressure in psi,
and horizontal axes indicate wellbore inclination and azimuth.
It reveals the collapse pressure of a vertical borehole is less than
the horizontal borehole, so the vertical boreholes are more stable
than the horizontal boreholes and almost all the deviated wells.
It is also obvious that drilling in the direction of minimum
horizontal stress (where a 901), regardless of the inclination, is
better to avoid borehole collapse. So drilling parallel to the
minimum horizontal stress direction is the most stable state in
this case. Moreover, it shows that the collapse pressure is highly
sensitive to the inclination in all direction or azimuth.

Case 4. reveals a formation which is in the boundary between

strike-slip and reverse fault regimes. Fig. 4 shows that a horizontal borehole which, is drilled parallel to the maximum horizontal
stress is the best trajectory. Here also the risk of borehole
instability decreases with increasing the borehole inclination.
When the intermediate principal in situ stress is equal to the
maximum in situ stress (sH sv, NFSS stress regime) the best
azimuth is 901, and gradually decreases to be 01 when the
intermediate in-situ stress reaches the minimum in situ stress
(sh sv, SSRF stress regime).

In Case 2, the formation is in the boundary between normal

fault and strike-slip regimes. Fig. 2 shows that, the horizontal
boreholes are more stable than the vertical or all deviated boreholes in all directions. In addition, it is obvious that the risk of

Finally Case 5 indicates a formation in the reverse fault

regimes with anisotropic horizontal stresses. Fig. 5 shows that
the optimum drilling inclination is close to the horizontal well.
In this case, the optimum drilling direction is parallel to the
maximum principal in situ stress.
As mentioned before, wellbore trajectory should be optimized
considering both drilling and production conditions. Previous
studies such as Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman [1,2] only focused on
stability during drilling. Wirput and Zoback [13,14] obtain the full
stress tensor in Visund eld and used it to analyze wellbore
stability during drilling and production. Their study conned just
to the strike-slip regime, but our study presents the optimum
trajectory during drilling and production simultaneously in different

Table 1
Input data for stability analysis in different stress regimes.
Case Stress Depth sv
sH
sh
n
Pf
regime (ft)
(psi/ft) (psi/ft) (psi/ft) (psi/ft)

S0
j
(psi) degree

1
2
3
4
5

900
900
900
900
900

6000
6000
6000
6000
6000

1
0.9
0.85
0.85
0.85

0.9
0.9
1
1.1
1.1

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.85
0.9

0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44

0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35

35
35
35
35
35

3150
3100
3050
3000

Pw(psi)

NF
NFSS
SS
SSRF
RF

79

2950
2900
2850
2800
2750
2700
90

80

70

60
50
Inclination(de

40
gree)

30

20

10

20

40

60

120
100
80
)
ee
gr
de
h(
Azimut

Fig. 1. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in NF stress regime (Case 1).

140

160

180

80

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

2830
2820
2810

Pw(Psi)

2800
2790
2780
2770
2760
2750
2740
180

160

140

120

100
80
Azimuth
(degree
)

60

40

20

80

90

60

70

50

atio
Inclin

40

n(deg

30

20

10

ree)

Fig. 2. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in NFSS stress regime (Case 2).

3150
3100
3050
3000

Pw(psi)

2950
2900
2850
2800
2750
2700
2650
90

80

70

60
50
40
Inclinatio
n(degree

30

20

10

20

40

60

120
100
80
gree)
Azimuth(de

140

160

180

Fig. 3. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in SS stress regime (Case 3).

case of in-situ stress regimes. In addition, the new 3-D failure

criterion (MogiCoulomb) was used for sand production prediction
for rst time. Table 2 shows input parameters of ve different cases
for mechanical stability analysis during the production conditions in
a sandstone formation. By using developed program and input data,
maximum sand free drawdown pressure (MSFDD) is determined.
Furthermore, optimum wellbore trajectory that indicates the best
direction for stability of a production well obtained for each case.
Fig. 6 shows the 3-D plot of MSFDD pressure of the wells with
different inclination and azimuth in Case 1. It is concluded that
the MSFDD pressure of a vertical borehole is greater than the
horizontal borehole, so the vertical boreholes have less potential
for sanding than the horizontal boreholes and almost all the
deviated wells. In this case, the best drilling trajectory is a well
with i 401 and a 901. It is also obvious that, drilling parallel to
the minimum horizontal stress direction is the best trajectory in
this case. In addition, it shows that the MSFDD pressure or
sanding potential is highly sensitive to the inclination in all
direction or azimuth.

In Case 2, formation is in the boundary between normal fault

and strike-slip regimes. Fig. 7 shows that horizontal boreholes
have less potential for sand production than the vertical or all
deviated boreholes in all directions. Also, it is obvious that the risk
of sanding onset decreases with increasing the inclination angle.
A horizontal borehole which is drilled in the minimum horizontal
stress direction is the best one. On the other hand, the tolerance
between maximum and minimum MSFDD in all directions is less
than 200 psi. Therefore, MSFDD pressure is not sensitive to
inclination and azimuth in all directions.
Case 3. depicts a formation in the strike-slip regime. It is obvious
from Fig. 8 that the horizontal boreholes have less potential for
sand production than the vertical and deviated boreholes in all
directions. As Fig. 8 shows, in this case the best direction is a
horizontal borehole close to the maximum horizontal stress
direction same as Wirput and Zoback [13,14] studies. Contrary
to Case 2, in Case 3 the MSFDD pressure is sensitive to inclination
and azimuth in all directions. In the direction of minimum

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

81

3500
3400
3300

Pw(psi)

3200
3100
3000
2900
2800
2700
90

80

70

60

Inclin

50

ation

40

(degre

30

e)

20

10

20

60

40

80

Azimuth

100

(degre

120

140

160

180

e)

Fig. 4. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in SSRF stress regime (Case 4).

3500

3400

Pw(psi)

3300

3200

3100

3000

2900

2800
90

80

70

60
50
Inclinatio

40
n(degre

30

e)

20

10

20

40

60

120
100
80
degree)
Azimuth(

140

160

180

Fig. 5. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in RF stress regime (Case 5).

Table 2
Input data for sanding onset analysis in different stress regime.
Case Stress
regime

sv

sH

sh

(psi)

(psi)

Pf
(psi)

(psi)

1
2
3
4
5

4095
3600
3600
3600
3150

3600
3600
4095
4095
4095

3150
3150
3150
3600
3600

2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

NF
NFSS
SS
SSRF
RF

S0
(psi)

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

35
35
35
35
35

b0

degree
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8

horizontal stress sensitivity is low. But the MSFDD pressure is highly

sensitive to inclination in the direction of maximum horizontal stress.
In Case 4, formation is in the boundary between strike-slip and
reverse fault regimes. It is concluded from Fig. 9 that the optimum
well pattern is a horizontal boreholes drilled parallel to the maximum
horizontal stress direction. Here also the risk of sanding potential
decreases with increasing the borehole inclination.

Finally Case 5 indicate a formation in the reverse fault regimes

with anisotropic horizontal stresses. Fig. 10 shows in the production situation the highly inclined wells are more stable than the
vertical ones. In this case, the optimum direction is parallel to the
maximum principal in situ stress, sH and the largest MSFDD
pressure is associated with 601 deviated borehole.
Regarding Table 3 comparing these ve cases reveal that the
optimum wellbore trajectory to prevent shear failure is the same for
both drilling and production condition. For example, in Case 1, wells
are drilled near to vertical are more stable than horizontal ones. Also
in this case, drilling in the direction of minimum horizontal stress
provide the maximum safe mud window for drilling situation and
maximum safe drawdown for production condition.
Principal stresses difference, plays a key role in shear failure of
the rocks. In all cases, the best drilling direction in point of stability
is perpendicular to the plane which there is minimum difference
between principal stresses. For example in NF regime (sv s1,
sH s2, sh s3) a vertical well (in NF regime vertical well direction
will be perpendicular to the s2s3 plane) will be more stable than

82

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

Fig. 6. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in NF stress regime (Case 1).

1540
1520

MSFDD(Psi)

1500
1480
1460
1440
1420
1400
1380
90
80
70
60
Incli
natio 50
40
n(D
egre
e)

120
100 110

30
20
10
0

130 140

150 160

170 180

90
70 80
egree)
50 60
(D
th
40
u
30
Azim
10 20

Fig. 7. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in NFSS stress regime (Case 2).

1600
1400

MSFDD(Psi)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
90
80
70

Incl

60
50
inat
ion(
40
Deg
ree
)

30
20
10
0

20

40

60

80

(Deg
Azimuth

100

120

ree)

Fig. 8. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in SS stress regime (Case 3).

140

160

180

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

83

1800
1600

MSFDD(Psi)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
90
80
70
60
Incli
natio 50
40
n(D
egr
ee)

30
20
10
0

40

20

60

120

100
80
ree)
g
e
(D
zimuth

140

160

180

Fig. 9. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in SSRF stress regime (Case 4).

1600
1400

MSFDD(Psi)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
90
80
70
60
Incli

50
natio
40
n(De
gree
)

30
20
10
0

40

20

60

120

100

80

Azimuth

(Degre

140

160

180

e)

Fig. 10. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in RF stress regime (Case 5).
Table 3
Optimum wellbore trajectory in different cases for drilling and production condition.
Cases

Optimum trajectory in drilling

condition
Optimum trajectory in
production condition

Close to vertical wells,

parallel to sh
Close to vertical wells,
parallel to sh

Horizontal wells
parallel to sh
Horizontal wells,
parallel to sh

Horizontal wells,
parallel to sH
Horizontal wells,
parallel to sH

Horizontal wells,
parallel to sH
Horizontal wells,
parallel to sH

Highly deviated wells

parallel to sH
Highly deviated wells
parallel to sH

the horizontal one, as the presented model predict. In addition, in

this regime, drilling of a deviated well in sh direction will cause a
stress difference of (s1s2) whereas it will be higher value (s1s3)
when a deviated well is drilled in direction of sH. Therefore, drilling
parallel to sh will be better than sH direction, as the model predict.

4. Field case study

The developed analytical model will be applied to the two
deviated wells in Ahwaz oileld for stability analysis during

drilling and also stability analysis during production will be run

in Malay Basin eld, offshore Malaysia for a horizontal well. Wells
AZ-A and AZ-B are two deviated wells with same drilling conditions that produce oil from Bangestan reservoir in Ahwaz oileld
(one of southern Iranian eld in the Middle East). Based on a
resultant Geomechanical model by Zare et al., data in Table 4 was
used to do stability analysis during drilling in Ahwaz oileld. The
direction of maximum horizontal stress in this region is NS to
N201E. As Figs. 11 and 12 show, well AZ-A and AZ-B are in same
condition except of the well trajectory. Well AZ-A was drilled at
351 deviation in a direction of N301 whilst Well AZ-B is drilled at

84

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

Table 4
Input data for case studies.
Well

Stress regime

Depth (ft)

C (psi)

u (deg)

rv (psi/ft)

rH (psi/ft)

rh (psi/ft)

Po (psi/ft)

I (deg)

a (deg)

AZ-A
AZ-B
AA

RF
RF
NF

11,152
11,152
6,760

1100
1100
1500

0.29
0.29
0.25

43
43
35

1.03
1.03
1

1.2
1.2
0.93

1.1
1.1
0.9

0.46
0.46
0.433

35
30
90

30
90
190

Fig. 11. Trajectory of well AZ-A.

301 deviation in a direction of N901E. Therefore, the well AZ-A has

a drilling direction (a) in the range of around 101301 from the
maximum horizontal stress. But well AZ-B has a drilling direction
in the range of 701901 [21] (see SPE 136989 for more details).

Fig. 13 shows the collapse pressure of the well with different

inclination and azimuth in Ahwaz oileld by using data in Table 4
(is same as Case 5 and Fig. 5). It is obvious from Fig. 13 that well
AZ-A has been drilled in the optimum drilling direction (close to

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

85

Fig. 12. Trajectory of well AZ-B.

the maximum horizontal stress direction) but well AZ-B has been
drilled in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. Therefore it
is expected that well AZ-A be more stable with less drilling
problems than the well AZ-B. Refereeing to the drilling reports,
numerous cases of borehole instability, stuck pipe, and borehole
collapse have been stated while drilling well AZ-B. These problems caused highly increasing of drilling operation cost of this
well. However, well AZ-A has been drilled without any serious

problems which conrming the applicability and accuracy of

presented model.
Well AA is an open hole horizontal well in Malay Basin,
offshore Malaysia with sand/shale sequences. The local area is
located in a normal fault stress regime where maximum in-situ
stress is vertical stress. Regional stress data in the Malay Basin
eld indicated that the direction of maximum horizontal stress
follows northsouth or near north eastsouth west trend. Based

86

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

6200
Well
AZB

6150
6100

Pw(psi)

6050
6000
5950

Well
AZA

5900
5850
5800
5750
90

80

70

60

Inclina

50

tion (d

40

egree)

30

20

10

60

40

20

80

120

100

140

160

180

gree)

(de
Azimuth

Fig. 13. Collapse pressure for various wellbore trajectories in in Ahwaz oileld.

1600
1400

MSFDD(Psi)

1200
1000
800
600
400

X:
15l
Wel
Y: 90
AA
Z: 240

200
90
75
60

Inclinati

on(Deg

45

ree)

30
15
0

15

30

45

60

75

Az

90

th(
imu

Deg

105

120

135

150

165

180

ree)

Fig. 14. MSFDD pressure for various wellbore trajectories in Malay Basin eld.

on full scale Geomechanical study which was done by Khaksar

et al. [18], data in Table 4 was used to do stability analysis during
production for this area in sandstone interval.
Fig. 14 shows the MSFDD pressure of the wells with different
inclination and azimuth in Malay Basin eld (is same as Case 1
and Fig. 6). Fig. 14 indicates a MSFDD of 235 psi can be achieved
over the life of eld condition for planned horizontal well AA in
sandstone section. Based on the model prediction, no sand
production will be occurred at the rst stage of production and
no sand control would be needed. The maximum planned drawdown in well AA is 200 psi and it is currently producing sand free,
conrming the accuracy of the sand production model [18].
5. Conclusions
In this study, we present an analytical model that estimates
collapse pressure in stability analysis during drilling and in

addition determines maximum drawdown pressure to prevent

sand production. The MogiCoulomb failure criterion was used to
analyze sand production for the rst time. It was demonstrated
that optimum well trajectory to prevent wellbore collapse in
production condition is same as drilling condition.
It was shown that the best stable well trajectory in drilling and
production condition is highly affected by in-situ stress regimes
and the magnitude of in situ stresses. It was demonstrated that in
the case of the normal fault stress regime, drilling in the direction
of minimum horizontal stress, regardless of the inclination, is the
most stable direction for both drilling and production operations.
In strike-slip and reverse fault stress regime, drilling in the
direction of minimum horizontal stress is less stable than the
other directions. Drilling direction does not affect the horizontal
and highly deviated boreholes stability in the normal stress
regimes, but in the reverse and strike-slip regimes stability of
these wells both during drilling and production, is highly

M.R. Zare-Reisabadi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 56 (2012) 7787

sensitive to the drilling direction. Drilling a well near the vertical

direction is not always the most stable well trajectory. It is true
only in the normal stress regime.
The results also show that in reverse fault and strike slip stress
regimes, horizontal well provide a larger safe mud window in
drilling condition and larger MSFDD pressure in production mode.
References
[1] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. A new well path optimization model for
increased mechanical borehole stability. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2009;69(1-2):
5362.
[2] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW Stability analysis of deviated boreholes using
the MogiCoulomb failure criterion, with application to some oil and gas
reservoirs. In: proceedings of the IADC/SPE Asia Pacic drilling technology
conference. Bankok, Thailand; 1315 November 2006. Paper SPE 104035.
[3] Mohiuddin MA, Khan K, Abdulraheem A, Al-Majed A, Awal MR. Analysis of
wellbore instability in vertical, directional, and horizontal wells using eld
data. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2007;55:8392.
[4] Last NC, McLean MR. Assessing the impact of trajectory on wells drilled in an
overthrust region. J. Petrol. Tech. 1996;48:6206.
[5] Moos D, Peska P, Zoback MD Predicting the stability of horizontal wells and
multi-lateralsrhe role of in situ stress and rock properties. In: proceedings
of the SPE international conference on horizontal well technology. Alberta,
Canada; 14 November 1998. Paper SPE 50386.
[6] Hassan S, Klimentos T, Badri M, Sengul M, Zeid A Optimizing drilling
performance by wellbore stability evaluation and directional drilling practices. In: proceedings of the IADC/SPE Middle East drilling conference. Abu
Dhabi; 810 November 1999. Paper SPE 57575.
[7] Awal MR, Khan MS, Mohiuddin MA, Abdulraheem A, Azeemuddin MA New
approach to borehole trajectory optimisation for increased hole stability. In:
proceedings of SPE Middle East oil show. Bahrain; 1720 March 2001. Paper
SPE 68092.
[8] Russell KA, Ayan C, Hart NJ, Rodriguez JM, Scholey H, Sugden C, et al.
Predicting and preventing wellbore instability using the latest drilling and
logging technologies: Tullich eld development, North Sea. In: proceedings of
SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Denver, Colorado; 58
October 2003. Paper SPE 84269.

87

[9] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Relationship between the parameters of the
Mogi and Coulomb failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2005;42(3):
4319.
[10] Al-Ajmi AM, Zimmerman RW. Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using
the MogiCoulomb failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2006;43(8):
120011.
[11] Zhang J, Yu M Maintaining the stability of deviated and horizontal wells:
effects of mechanical, chemical and thermal on well designs. In: proceedings
of the SPE international oil & gas conference. China; 57 December 2006.
Paper SPE 100202.
[12] Zhang L, Cao P, Radha KC. Evaluation of rock strength criteria for wellbore
stability analysis. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2010;47:130416.
[13] Wiprut D, Zoback M, Hassen T, Peska P. Constraining the full stress tensor
from observations of drilling-induced tensile fractures and leak-off tests:
application to borehole stability and sand production on the Norwegian
margin. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1997;34:365.
[14] Wiprut D, Zoback M, Hassen T, Peska P. Constraining the stress tensor in the
Visund eld, Norwegian North Sea: application to wellbore stability and
production. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1999;37:31736.
[15] Ewy RT, Ray P, Bovberg CA, Norman PD. Open hole stability and sanding
predictions by 3D extrapolation from hole collapse test. SPE Drill. Complet.
2001;16(4):24351.
[16] Palmer I, Vaziri H, Wilson S, Moschovidis Z, Cameron J, Ispas I Prediction and
managing sand production, a new strategy. In: proceedings of SPE annual
technical conference exhibition. Denver, Colorado; 58 October 2003. Paper
SPE 84499.
[17] Oluyemi GF, Oyeneyin MB. Analytical critical drawdown (CDD) failure model
for real time sanding potential prediction based on Hoek and Brown failure
criterion. J. Petrol. Gas Eng. 2010;1(2):1627.
[18] Khaksar A, Rahman K, Ghani J, Mangor H. Integrated geomechanical study for
hole stability, sanding potential and completion selection: a case study from
South East Asia. In: proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition. Denver, Colorado; 2124 September 2008. Paper SPE 115915.
[19] Hiramatsu Y, Oka Y. Determination of the stress in rock unaffected by
boreholes or drifts from measured strains or deformations. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 1968;5(4):33753.
[20] Brady BH, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground mining. 2nd ed.
Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1999.
[21] Zare MR, Shadizadeh SR, Habibnia B Mechanical stability analysis of directional wells: a case study in Ahwaz oileld. In: proceedings of SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition. Abuja, Nigeria; 31 July7 August 2010.
Paper SPE 136989.