SPE-182833-MS

A Comprehensive Geomechanical Study to Understand Drilling Challenges

in the Manifa Field Offshore, Saudi Arabia
Mujahed Ahmed, Schlumberger; Hisham A. Al-Shehri, and Saleh A. Haidary, Saudi Aramco;
Magdalena Povstyanova, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28
April 2016.

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
Saudi Aramco has been producing from the Manifa offshore field in the Arabian Gulf since 2011. By
drilling mainly lateral wells, Saudi Aramco has targeted the main reservoir that belongs to the early
Jurassic period. The pay zone is overlaid with weaker interbedded sand/shale formations and carbonate
formations of the upper and lower cretaceous period.
The main challenges that were encountered while drilling these wells included total/partial mud losses
and severe wellbore instability-related issues across the weaker formations overlaying the reservoir
section (pay zone). An advanced geomechanical study was crucial for understanding the nature of the
existing problems faced during drilling and applying the study’s findings for drilling future extended reach
(ERD) wells successfully.
A comprehensive geomechanical study of the field was conducted by constructing a calibrated
post-drill 1-D Mechanical Earth Model (1D-MEM) for selected vertical wells. The study helped in
providing reliable rock mechanical properties and fracture gradients across the problematic formations, a
lack of which was a limiting factor in understanding the nature of the problems while drilling.
For the current study, an integrated workflow was implemented mainly to perform a root cause analysis
of mud losses and to define well inclination (deviation) limits to drill through the problematic formations
to minimize wellbore instability-related issues. Open hole log data was used to construct the 1D-MEMs.
The developed models were further calibrated using all the available data (drilling observations, results
of well testing, core mechanical testing, etc.). Image data was also analyzed to capture the presence of
fractures/faults or related features along the wellbore.
Based on the analysis results, it was concluded that the mud losses in the overlaid carbonate formations
were attributed to the presence of localized open natural fractures or caverns, or vugs. It was also
concluded that most of the wellbore instability-related issues (hole pack-offs, stuck pipe incidents, etc.)
occurred due to insufficient drilling mud weights that were not able to support the rock on the wellbore
wall. The present study helped in better characterization of the problematic formations and also provided
useful information for planning future extended reach (ERD) wells. Some of the provided recommenda-
2 SPE-182833-MS

tions included acquisition of micro resistivity image logs (to identify nature of fracture), implementation
of real-time geomechanics, and optimization of mud rheology, mud weight program, and casing design.

Introduction
The offshore Manifa oil field was discovered in 1957. It is located in the Arabian Gulf (Figure 1)
approximately 200 km northwest of Dhahran. The entire field measures approximately 45 km in length
and 18 km in width, encompassing both onshore and offshore areas with water depths between 4 and 6
m (Carpenter, 2014). Production began in 1964, but due to low crude oil demand, production was stopped
in 1984, and the facilities were mothballed in 1985. In 2006, development of a mega-project at the Manifa
shallow water offshore oil field was kicked off by Saudi Aramco, and included construction of the
required infrastructure and production facilities (Aldossary, 2015). New technologies were pivotal and
central to the Manifa field development; fit-for-purpose technologies were successfully implemented to
overcome numerous challenges in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner (Xia et al., 2014).
The Manifa reservoir has five main layers, but only two of them are considered as reservoirs targeted for
development. The two intervals contain both heavy oil and relatively lighter crude (Carpenter, 2014). A
typical stratigraphy column (Pollastro et al., 2003) of the Arabian Gulf is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1—Location of the Manifa offshore field in the Arabian Gulf.

SPE-182833-MS 3

Figure 2—General stratigraphy of the Arabian Gulf

Some of the main challenges encountered during the development drilling were represented by
total/partial mud losses and severe wellbore instability-related issues across the weaker formations
overlaying the reservoir section (pay zone). As a result, proper geomechanical understanding was crucial
to address the nature of the existing problems and use it for drilling future extended reach (ERD) wells
successfully. This could be achieved by constructing calibrated post-drill Mechanical Earth Models
(MEMs) for selected wells from the field/area. The key objectives of this study included a review of the
drilling experience to understand the nature of the problems while drilling, identification of root cause(s)
of the mud losses, construction and calibration of the geomechanical models for the problematic (weak,
interbedded) formations and identification of safe mud weight limits for various well deviations.
Geomechanical Analysis
Five wells were selected to conduct the geomechanical study. Figure 3 presents the location of the selected
wells M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, and M-5 along with location of the planned extended reach wells (P-1, P-2,
P-3, P-4, and P-5) to be drilled in the near future.

Figure 3—Location of the wells selected for the geomechanical analysis (wells M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5). Wells P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 to
P-5 are the planned extended reach wells.
4 SPE-182833-MS

The geomechanical analysis followed the workflow that is explained below.

General Work Flow Implemented for the Current Study
A general schematic workflow implemented in the current study to conduct the geomechanical analysis
is shown in Figure 4. The fundamental approach for any geomechanical analysis is to integrate all
available data or indications of rock strength, deformability, in-situ stress, pore pressure, etc., into a
1D-MEM, then to calibrate it as rigorously as possible using available measurements and observations to
arrive at an internally consistent representation of the key geomechanical properties and parameters
needed for subsequent analyses and engineering designs (Plumb et al., 2000). This MEM can be revised
and updated (Sajjad et al. and Khan et al., 2015) as more data becomes available (i.e., in real-time during
drilling, or after new logs or field measurements are acquired), and it may include some time-dependent
components that reflect geomechanical changes occurring over the life of a field such as pore pressure
changes with production and injection operations etc. In analyzing various datasets, there are a number of
steps that must be followed to fully grasp the quality of data and determine uncertainty in conclusions
drawn from data used. Skipping or ignoring the importance of any one of these steps can lead to
inconsistencies or poor assumptions in the results.

Figure 4 —The geomechanical analysis for the Manifa field: General workflow.

Based on the workflow, 1D-MEMs for five selected vertical wells M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4 and M-5 (from
the Manifa offshore area) were constructed using open hole conventional log data provided by the Saudi
Aramco team. Drilling-related information (data) of other lateral wells were also incorporated in the
present study, to help in identification of a root cause for the losses occurred during the drilling operations.
SPE-182833-MS 5

Data Audit
Building 1D MEM consists of integrating data from various sources to accurately describe the formations
in terms of geomechanical attributes. A data audit, which is the first step in the generation of 1D MEM,
is conducted to identify completeness, correctness, and availability of the input data that is relevant to the
construction of geomechanical models (Bratli et al., 1983).
In general, the dataset provided for the study was more or less complete and of good quality. Table 1
shows the data that was available for the five selected wells.

Table 1—Results of the Data Audit.

The log data necessary for the geomechanical modeling existed in all five analyzed wells. Figure 5
presents the coverage of the open hole logs using the dataset for well M-3 as an example. It included
gamma ray, density, porosity, sonic (compression and shear), resistivity, and caliper.

Figure 5—Well M-3: Open hole logs used as the input for 1D MEM.
6 SPE-182833-MS

Well M-3 was the main well to calibrate the results of the geomechanical analysis since in this well
the following information was acquired and necessary tests took place:
● Image data. Interpretation results of FMI allowed identifying of orientation of the horizontal
stresses.
● Multi-stage and single-stage triaxial tests that were conducted on plugs taken from the Rumaila
(RUML), Wara (WARA), Safaniya (SFNY), Khafji (KHFJ), Shuaiba (SHUB), Biyadh (BYDH),
and Buwaib (BUWB) formations. Most of the plugs were cut from shale intervals, while only a
few plugs came from carbonate and sandstone layers. Using the logs and results of the rock
mechanical tests, correlations to evaluate the elastic and strength rock properties were developed.
● Closure and breakdown pressures from Micro-frac jobs. The closure pressures were utilized to
directly calibrate magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress, while the breakdown pressures
were used for indirect calibration of the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress.
● Formation pressures measured data points were used to calibrate estimated pore pressure.

The shortcoming was that the log data necessary for the geomechanical analysis existed only in vertical
wells.

Analysis of the Drilling Records

In addition to the five selected vertical wells, drilling records from eleven lateral wells were analyzed to
aid in identification of main reasons behind the wellbore instability-related issues while drilling. The
extracted drilling events (stuck pipe, tight spot, losses, etc.) along with used mud weights were organized
into time versus depth (TvD) plots created for all studied wells. Figure 6 shows the TvD plot for one of
the analyzed lateral wells.

Figure 6 —One of the analyzed lateral wells: Summary of the drilling events. The well was drilled with 72 ~ 76 pcf mud weight (OBM).
Partial to total mud losses along with tight hole and hole pack-off incidents were recorded across various formations.

The extracted drilling events (Table 2) were used to understand what caused the problems while
drilling. In addition, they were used to calibrate results of the wellbore stability analysis.
SPE-182833-MS 7

Table 2—Summary of mud losses and tight holes/stuck pipe incidents observed in the analyzed vertical and lateral wells.

From the analysis of the drilling reports, the following became evident:
● Partial to complete losses were encountered across a number of formations (Aruma, Wara,
Maudud, Shuaiba, Safaniya, Khafji and Biyadh). To cure seepage/partial losses, lost control
materials (Marble, Fiber, Mica, etc.) were utilized, while for total losses, cements plugs were
placed to ⬙plug⬙ the problematic intervals.
● Occurrence of mud losses, stuck pipe incidents and tight holes did not depend on drilling direction
(Figure 7). The majority of the most severe wellbore instability-related problems were experienced
at wellbore inclinations higher than 60 degrees.
● Mud weights used for drilling vertical and lateral wells in the problematic formations varied
between 70 and 76 pcf. Oil base mud was utilized.
● Many stuck pipe and tight hole incidents, over-pulls, etc. encountered in shaly layers across the
Aruma, Ahmadi, Safaniya, Khafji, Biyadh and Buwaib formations during pulling out of hole
(POOH), can be explained by inadequate mud weights and non-optimum mud salinity.
● The pipes that were stuck were released in most cases either by working the drill pipe, adding
glycol pills, or by using acid.
8 SPE-182833-MS

Figure 7—Analysis of losses (left plot) and stuck pipe (rightplot) incidents. The plots show that the losses observed while drilling do
not depend on wellbore trajectory (azimuth and inclination). Stuck pipe insidents are encountered more often at wellbore deviations
higher than 60 deg.

Mechanical Stratigraphy
The mechanical response and properties of shale and non-shale formations usually differ significantly
(Figure 8). The classification of mechanical stratigraphy enables us to calculate the rock mechanical
properties using different correlations, if needed. In the current study, the lithology included mainly
carbonate, shale, and sandstone. The differentiation of non-shales from shales was achieved by applying
a threshold of 50 gAPI to the gamma ray log in the analyzed wells. The developed mechanical stratigraphy
(can be observed in Figure 9) was also validated with information provided in the available master/mud
logs.

Figure 8 —Simplified mechanical stratigraphy.

SPE-182833-MS 9

Figure 9 —Well M-3: Input logs and rock mechanical properties profiles generated using the core-log correlations. The plot shows theb
results of the laboratory measurements.

Rock Mechanical Properties

Rock mechanical properties are essential parameters for any geomechanical analysis. The basic rock
mechanical properties include Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, unconfined compressive strength (UCS),
and angle of internal friction (FANG). Continuous profiles of these properties give important indication
of natural variation of formation competence and strength in different layers within the interval of interest.
For the current project, correlations to calculate the elastic and strength rock properties were developed
using the log data and results of the geomechanical laboratory measurements available in well M-3 (Table
3). SPE paper 175170 describes the correlations in details.
10 SPE-182833-MS

Table 3—Average elastic and rock strength properties.

The rock properties profiles were estimated for all studied wells. Figure 9 shows the resultant elastic
and strength rock properties for well M-3 as an example.

Vertical (Overburden) Stress

The overburden stress at a given depth below ground surface can be calculated by integrating the density
log for the above formations given by the following equation (it is actually weight of overlying earth
material):
(Equation 1)

Where ␴z is overburden stress at a specific depth ‘z’, ␳ is formation density and g is gravitational
constant.
The overburden stress gradient estimated using the density data in the analyzed wells was close to 1.0
psi/ft.

Pore Pressure
Pore pressure is a vital constituent in 1D MEM, and is critical to the calculation of in-situ horizontal
stresses. In the current study, pore pressure in the shales was estimated by Normal Compaction Technique
(NCT) using Eaton’s method (Figure 10). The main input data was the compressional sonic log. The
normal compaction trend was established based on the analysis of several wells in the area.
SPE-182833-MS 11

Figure 10 —Well M-3: Pore pressure profile calibrated against the available measured pressure points.

In the non-shale formations, the interpolation method was utilized and the resultant profile was
calibrated against the pore pressure measurements. The developed pore pressure model was then applied
successfully to the other studied wells to generate pore pressure profiles.
The estimated average pore pressure gradient was just above the hydrostatic, in the range of 0.47~0.48
psi/ft.

Horizontal Stresses Direction

The image data available in well M-3 was processed and interpreted. Figure 11 shows a composite plot
with the results of the interpretation. Among other parameters, it presents orientation of the identified
breakouts. As it is well known, breakouts are developed parallel to the minimum horizontal stress. The
identified direction of the minimum horizontal stress is 110°NE as shown in Figure 12. This is in close
agreement with the available regional stress data of the field.
12 SPE-182833-MS

Figure 11(a)—Well M-3: Image data - Composite plot that shows the static and dynamic images along with open hole logs and 3D
borehole shape.

Figure 11 (b)—Images across Maudud formation (from well M-3) where severe mud losses were reported, no karsification signature
appearance on the image log as the interval was plugged with cement and LCM.Major findings from the image interpretation in well M-3
well are listed below:
● No major structure elements across the whole studied interval were identified.
● Orientation of the minimum horizontal stress was identified as 110° NE.
● Structure dip in the upper part across the Shuaiba Formation all the way to the topmost part of the Wasia showed very gentle dip
magnitude (around 2°) with scattering in dip azimuth.
● Complete losses occurred while drilling Maudud formation, the massive response on the image log could be due to the cement plug
placed across this loss interval to control the well. This loss interval might have been due to the existence of large cavern/karst.
● The Shuaiba Formation did not show any indication that it contributed to the mud losses (due to its massive, non-fractured/non-vuggy
nature).
SPE-182833-MS 13

Figure 12—Well M-3: Image data - Orientation of the identified borehole breakouts.

Horizontal Stresses Magnitude

To compute the magnitudes of the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses, poro-elastic horizontal
strain model (Equations 2 and 3 below) was implemented (Fjaer et al., 1992).
(Equation 2)

(Equation 3)

Here, ␧x and ␧y are the two horizontal strains that may be compressional (i.e., for tectonic compression)
or extensional (i.e., -ve, to represent lateral spreading), and can be treated simply as calibration factors that
can be adjusted to best-match the resulting stress estimates to any leak-off test data or specific modes of
rock failure seen in image logs, etc. (Desroches et al., 1999).
Therefore, the most rigorous process available for estimating the complete state of in-situ stress in the
ground (i.e., magnitudes, order, and directions) at a single well location, and particularly to determine the
magnitude of ␴H, involves some initial estimate of the range of possible stresses (Hyett et al., 1986), as
constrained by limit state or other mechanics considerations, that is then further constrained and refined to
generate a more specific prediction. This is further calibrated by increasing degrees, using as much information
as is available, to achieve a final model that is internally consistent with and calibrated to all available data and
stress indicators (Plona et al., 2002). The complete process is illustrated in Figure 13 (a).
14 SPE-182833-MS

Figure 13—(a) General process for determining in-situ stress magnitudes at a single well location (b) profile of min horizontal stress
magnitude calibrated using micro-frac test data. The track on the right shows profile for in-situ stresses (SigV, Sigh, and SigH).

For the current study, stress modeling started with analysis for well M-3 where measured closure and
breakdown pressures were available from micro-frac tests. The horizontal stress magnitudes were
modeled using Equations 2 and 3. The magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress (Sigh) was calibrated
using the closure pressure that varied between 106 and 120 pcf (0.73 ~ 0.83 psi/ft). The magnitude of
maximum horizontal stress (SigH) was calibrated indirectly using the available formation breakdown data.
Fine tuning of the model was achieved by adjusting the strain terms in the equations for the horizontal
stresses, to best match the breakouts observed on the image and caliper logs in well M-3. The same strains
were applied to obtain stress profiles in the rest of the analyzed wells. The model was further fine-tuned
by matching the results of the modeling with the drilling observations.
Wellbore Stability
For the current study, the wellbore stability analysis was conducted for the following reasons:
● The results of the wellbore stability analysis can tell how good the 1D MEM is by comparing the
predicted wellbore (in)stability with the drilling events and observed hole condition from image
and caliper logs (Bratli et al., 1983). The prediction was compared to actual rock failure shown on
image and/or caliper logs and the drilling events in order to ensure that all model parameters are
well-constrained and are of reasonable accuracy.
● Getting better understanding if there were geomechanics-related reasons behind the instability-
related events (tight holes, stuck pipe incidents, etc.) observed while drilling. The calibrated results
SPE-182833-MS 15

of the wellbore stability analysis allowed to identify reasons behind some of the observed problems
encountered while drilling.
The wellbore stability analysis includes modeling of the shear and tensile failures in the wellbore.
Several methods exist for predicting shear rock failure. The most commonly used failure criterion are
Mohr Coulomb, Mogi Coulomb, and Modified Lade. For the current study, a Mogi Coulomb failure
criterion was used. It used the unconfined compressive strength, modified from the log prediction to
account for plasticity and other effects, and the angle of internal friction to locate the failure envelope. The
equations are:
(Equation 4)

Where

␴1, ␴2 and ␴3 are three principal stresses, ␸ is angle of internal friction and UCS is the unconfined
compressive strength.
The maximum tensile stress criterion predicts failure as soon as the minimum effective stress in the
wellbore vicinity reaches the tensile strength (TSTR) of the rock.
(Equation 5)

The results of the wellbore stability analysis were organized into mud weight window. Figure 14 shows
the mud weight window for well M-3 as an example.
The wellbore stability analysis results suggested the following:
● The predicted rock failure overall agreed well with the caliper log and wellbore instability-related
drilling events.
● The shale layers present in the Aruma, Ahmadi, Wara, Safaniya, Biyadh, and Buwaib formations
were characterized by relatively lower strength. The breakouts observed in the formations could
be explained by inadequate mud weight (being on low side).
● The mud losses in the Mauddud Formation were due to presence of open fractures and/or caverns.
The mud weights used to drill this formation were not expected to either create drilling-induced
fractures or open any closed natural fractures.
16 SPE-182833-MS

Figure 14 —Well M-3: Mud weight window. The plot shows the measured pore pressure, closure and breakdown pressures.

Sensitivity Analysis
A mud weight window includes four parameters: kick pressure (equals pore pressure), breakout pressure,
seepage losses pressure (equals minimum in-situ pressure) and breakdown pressure. The breakout and
breakdown pressures are trajectory-dependent, meaning that they will change with a change in trajectory
and inclination.
To evaluate the impact of deviation and azimuth on the trajectory-dependent parameters of the mud
weight window, sensitivity analysis was conducted on critical depths across the problematic formations
(especially shale and weak sandstone). Fig. 15 (a) shows the mud weight window versus well inclination
for single depths in the Wara and Buwaib formations. Fig. 15 (b) presents stereo plots for the Aruma
formation.
SPE-182833-MS 17

Figure 15 (a)—Well M-3: Mud weight window for a single depth.

Figure 15 (b)—Well M-3: Stereonet plot of breakout and breakdown mud weight vs. orientation and deviation.

Below are the conclusions drawn from the sensitivity analysis.

● The safe mud weight window becomes narrow in wells with deviation above 60° in the Biyadh and
Buwaib formations.
● In the shallow shale formations like Aruma, Ahmadi, and Wara, the mud weight window becomes
narrow for inclinations above 40°.
● No significant effect of wellbore azimuth on breakout mud weight was observed (because of the
low stress contrast).
● Relatively higher breakdown mud weights are expected for wells drilled in direction of the
minimum horizontal stress with inclinations ⬎60° compared to wells drilled toward the maximum
horizontal stress direction, but it possess more challenges in terms of hole cleaning and tripping.
● The safe mud weight window in the Biyadh and Buwaib (inclination ⬎60°) is relatively narrow.
Surge and swab should be avoided. Hole cleaning and tripping practices should be optimized to
minimize wellbore instability-related issues while drilling.
It should be highlighted that the sensitivity analysis results may have high degree of uncertainty, as the
1D modeling was based only on data from vertical wells, since log data was not available in any lateral
well. To further validate the modeling results, it is highly recommended to analyze and model at least one
highly deviated well using actual log data.
18 SPE-182833-MS

Geomechanical Modeling for Planned Extended Reach (ERD) Wells

The Saudi Aramco team was planning to continue developing the field using ERD wells. The planned
wells were split into five categories depending upon length of the lateral well sections and casing design.
General information on the ERD well categories is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 —General information of various well categories for planned ERD wells.

Saudi Aramco provided trajectories and formation tops for five planned wells (P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, and
P-5) and requested to have optimized mud weight programs for safe drilling. Based on the results of the
current geomechanical analysis, geomechanical modeling was conducted for the planned trajectories and
recommendations for safe and stable drilling were issued (Figure 16). Table 5 shows the mud weight
recommendations that can help to minimize the wellbore instability-related issues while drilling through
the problematic zones.
SPE-182833-MS 19

Figure 16 —Planned ERD wells: wellbore inclinations and azimuths along with recommended mud weights.

Table 5—Summary of the mud weight recommendations for planned ERD wells (based on the sensitivity analysis and review of the
drilling experience).

*Note: The above recommendations are based on casing the shallow shaly formations till the Wara
20 SPE-182833-MS

Conclusions and Recommendations

Main conclusions from the geomechanics modeling and wellbore instability study are summarized below:
● The observed mud losses were most likely due to presence of open fractures and/or caverns. The
mud weights used to drill these formations were not expected to either create drilling-induced
fractures or open closed natural fractures.
● In the analyzed wells, majority of the stuck pipe, tight hole, over-pull incidents were observed
during pulling out of hole (POOH) across the Aruma, Ahmadi, Safaniya, Khafji, Biyadh, and
Buwaib. These incidents were tackled by working the drill pipe, adding glycol pills or by
performing acid job. These difficulties while drilling can be explained by inadequate mud weights
and non-optimum mud salinity.
● In the lateral wells for which the drilling records were analyzed, no impact of wellbore azimuth
and deviation on mud losses were observed.
The conducted sensitivity analysis gave the following information that could be applied to drilling
future wells successfully:
● Relatively higher breakdown mud weights were expected for wells drilled towards minimum
horizontal stress direction (for well inclinations higher than 60°) compared to wells drilled toward
maximum horizontal stress direction.
● To minimize borehole breakouts across critical shale sections, the recommended mud weight range
(Pamu down to Wara) for inclinations up to 30° is around 76 to 80 pcf, while hole inclinations
higher than 40° will require higher mud weights (85 to 90 pcf).
● The recommended mud weight is in the range of 80 to 85 pcf for the Biyadh and Buwaib
formations for well inclinations higher than 60°. Drilling practices need to be monitored carefully
to avoid surge and swab while drilling these formations.
● Mud weight recommendations for various categories of planned wells (well designs) have been
provided. In general, higher mud weight is required for wells in category CAT-3, CAT-4, and
CAT-5 to drill from the Pamu down to Wara and Biyadh down to Buwaib formations.
Recommendations for drilling future wells:
● Based on the sensitivity analysis of the critical shale sections, preferred orientation to drill highly
deviated wells (inclinations higher than 60°) is along the minimum horizontal stress (110° NE).
This direction will provide relatively wider mud weight range for safe and stable drilling.
● It is also recommended to cover the Pamu to Wara formations by setting the casing in the Wara
to isolate the problematic shale formations.
● Optimize the mud recipe to avoid time dependent instability across the shale formations.
● In case losses are encountered, control equivalent circulating density (ECD) by reducing annulus
pressure/friction losses. Minimize or control losses by using proper lost circulation materials
(LCM) pills.
● Use minimal flow rate required for optimum hole cleaning so as to minimize hydraulic impact and
erosion of failed materials on the wellbore wall.
● Optimize hole cleaning (flow rate, rpm, mud rheology, and reciprocation) to avoid tight hole,
pack-off and stuck pipe/tool/casing incidents.
Recommendations for data acquisition and further studies:
● Acquire micro resistivity image log (such as with a fullbore formation microimager or oil-base
microimager) along with acoustic image log (such as ultrasonic borehole imager) in problematic
SPE-182833-MS 21

formations to identify presences of natural fractures and distinguish between open or closed
fractures.
● Acquire sonic, density, caliper and resistivity logs in 12 ¼ inch section in lateral wells and conduct
pre-drill wellbore stability analysis for at least one of the upcoming wells.
● Construct pre-drill wellbore stability analysis for at-least one of the upcoming wells.
● Implement real-time geomechanics (RTGM) monitoring to update pre-drill MEM in real time (this
will require logging while drilling sonic, density, caliper logs are required).
● There are uncertainties where the sensitivity analysis results are concerned, since the modeling was
based only on datasets from vertical wells and to calibrate the model better than necessary to
analyze and model at least one highly deviated well.
● Perform geomechanical lab tests on rock samples to obtain rock properties and strength for the
Aruma, Rumaila, Ahmadi, and Safaniya formations.
● Using the available techniques, it is recommended to identify presence, type and dimensions of
fractures or vugs. Based on the data generated, LCM material can be properly sized for curing mud
losses.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their thanks and appreciation to Saudi Aramco for granting permission
to publish this material and to the Schlumberger’s Geology team for providing feedback on the image
interpretation.

References
Ahmed, S., Khan, K., Omini, P., Abdulaziz, A. A., Ahmed, A., Yadav, A. S., and Mohiuddin, M. A. (2014). An Integrated
Drilling and Geomechanics Approach Helps to Successfully Drill Wells along the Minimum Horizontal Stress
Direction in Khuff Reservoirs, Paper SPE-171755.
Aldossary, G. 2015. Manifa Oil Field Development Program – Onshore and Offshore Shallow Water Development.
Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 4 –7 May. OTC-25663-MS
Bratli R.K., Hosrud P. and Risnes R., (1983). ⬙Rock Mechanics Applied to the Region Near a Wellbore.⬙ In: Proc. 5th Int.
Congress Rock Mech., Melbourne, April 1983.
Carpenter, C. 2014. Saudi Arabia’s Manifa Offshore Field Development: The Role of Technology. J Pet Technology 66
(11): 148 –150. SPE-1114-0148-JPT.
Chang, C., Zoback, M. D., and Khaksar, A. 2006. Empirical Relations Between Rock Strength and Physical Properties in
Sedimentary Rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 51: 223–237.
Desroches, J. and Kurkjian, A.L. 1999. Applications of Wireline Stress Measurements. SPE Res Eval & Eng 2 (5):
451–461. SPE-58086-PA.
Eaton, B. 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. Presented at the Fall Meeting of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, Texas, USA, 28 September–1 October. SPE-5544-MS.
Fjaer E., Holt R.M., Horsurd P. et al 1992. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics. Elsevier, Developments in Petroleum
Science 33.
Haidary, S.A., Shehri, H.A., Abdulraheem, A. et al 2015. Wellbore Stability Analysis for Trouble Free Drilling. Presented
at SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference, 11–14 October. SPE-175170-MS
Hottman, C. E., and Johnson, R. K. 1965, Estimation of Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties. J Pet
Technology 17 (6): 717–722. SPE-1110-PA.
Hyett, A. J., Dyke, C. G., and Hudson, J. A. 1986. A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts Associated with the
Measurement of In-Situ Stress. Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Stress & Rock Stress Measurement: 387–397.
Khan, K., Abdulaziz, A. A., Ahmed, S., Ahmed, M. 2015. Managing Wellbore Instability in Horizontal Wells through
Integrated Geomechanics Solutions: A Case Study from a Carbonate Reservoir Presented at the Middle East Oil &
Gas Show and Conference, 8-11 March, Manama, Bahrain. SPE 172550-MS.
Plona, T. J., Kane, M. R., Sinha, B. K. et al 2002. Evaluating Stress-Induced Anisotropy and Mechanical Damage from
Cross-Dipole Sonic Data Using Dispersion Analysis. Presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving,
Texas, USA, 20 –23 October. SPE-78233-MS.
22 SPE-182833-MS

Plumb, D., Krabbe, H., Rasmus, J., Bratton T., Bornemann T., and Li Q 1999. Logging-While-Drilling Images for
Geomechanical, Geological and Petrophysical Interpretations. Presented at the SPWLA 40th Annual Logging
Symposium, Oslo, Norway, 30 May–3 June. SPWLA-1999-JJJ.]
Plumb, R. A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G. et al 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its Application to High-Risk
Well Construction Projects. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25
February. SPE-59128-MS.
Pollastro, R. M., Norton, G. A., and Groat. C. G. 2003. Total Petroleum Systems of the Paleozoic and Jurassic, Greater
Ghawar Uplift and Adjoining Provinces of Central Saudi Arabia and Northern Arabian-Persian Gulf. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 2202-H.
Sirat, M., Ahmed, M., and Zhang, X. 2015. Predicting Hydraulic Fracturing in a Carbonate Gas Reservoir in Abu Dhabi
Using 1D Mechanical Earth Model Uncertainty and Constraints. Paper presented at the Middle East Unconventional
Resources Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 26-28 January. SPE-172942-MS.
Xia, G., Bilak, R., Marika, E. 2014. Performance Assessment of Cuttings Re-Injection (CRI) Operations at the Manifa
OilField, KSA. Presented at the ISRM Conference on Rock Mechanics for Natural Resources and Infrastructure,
Goiania, Brazil, 9 –13 September. SBMR-2014-032.