2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.09.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of quantitative risk assessment in wellbore stability analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
16
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The results obtained are then calibrated against representative core and field data to ensure that the MEM has sufficient accuracy. Further details of a MEM and geomechanical parameters determined for wellbore stability analysis of vertical and deviated wellbores drilled in isotropic and anisotropic formations are comprehensively discussed in the studies carried out by Gholami et al, (2014Gholami et al, ( , 2015aGholami et al, ( , 2015bGholami et al, ( , 2017.…”
Section: Mechanical Earth Modelling (Mem)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results obtained are then calibrated against representative core and field data to ensure that the MEM has sufficient accuracy. Further details of a MEM and geomechanical parameters determined for wellbore stability analysis of vertical and deviated wellbores drilled in isotropic and anisotropic formations are comprehensively discussed in the studies carried out by Gholami et al, (2014Gholami et al, ( , 2015aGholami et al, ( , 2015bGholami et al, ( , 2017.…”
Section: Mechanical Earth Modelling (Mem)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the method used, without calibration against the field scale measurements such as minifrac or leak-off test (LOT), significant uncertainty will be involved in the calculations of in-situ stress magnitudes (Zoback et al, 2003). Poro-elastic equations are perhaps the most commonly used models for estimation of the magnitude of horizontal stresses based on their proven applications in vertical and directional wells (Gholami et al, 2015a, Gholami et al, 2015b, Gholami et al, 2017Rasouli et al, 2011), although the stress polygon approach has also shown its application under many circumstances (Gholami et al, 2015b). However, stress polygon can only be used in the intervals where the magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress is known from LOT, minifrac or hydraulic frac tests.…”
Section: In-situ Stressesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the log based data analysis, dynamic elastic parameters are often used to predict brittleness. Dynamic elastic parameters can be estimated using the density of rocks together with the velocity of P-and S-waves (Fjaer et al, 2008;Gholami et al 2015). However, due to the variation of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, the results obtained should be normalized by maintaining the trend of the original data.…”
Section: Well Log Based Brittlenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aplin et al 1999). Shale anisotropic characteristics are, on the other hand, needed to have an accurate mechanical earth model for the wellbore stability analysis (Gholami et al 2015) and to correct electrical logs for estimation of water saturation (Bang et al 2000;Wei, 2003). Geomechanical parameters of shale reservoirs should also be estimated for the caprock stability analysis, determination of drilling directions and hydraulic fracture initiations (Nygard et al 2004;Dewhurst et al 2008;Delle Piane et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, due to the uncertainty of formation lithology, the uncertainty of formation pressure, the uncertainty of mechanical properties of rocks, and the unstable wellbore pressure, the input parameters of wellbore stability analysis never can be known precisely. In other words, the input parameters are often uncertain, which might cause an incorrect result [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. In order to quantify the influence of uncertain parameters on wellbore stability and SMWW, it's necessary to utilize reliability assessment method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%