SPE/ISRM 78216
Application of Risk Analysis to Assessment of Casing Integrity and Subsidence in
Deepwater Reservoirs
A.S. Abou-Sayed, SPE, Advantek International Corporation; J.E. Noble, SPE, Advantek International Corporation;
Q. Guo, SPE, Advantek International Corporation; F. Meng, SPE, Advantek International Corporation
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held
in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/ISRM 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
International Society of Rock Mechanics and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, International Society of Rock Mechanics, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE/ISRM meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes 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 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
Various geomechanical-modeling approaches, which cover a wide
range of techniques and complexity, have been developed to assess
the stability of a borehole and/or the integrity of well casing. The ability
to confidently use these models can be limited, however, because they
generally do not allow the model user to consider the "real-world"
variability of the input parameters defined in the models. Often, these
geomechanical models do not adequately accommodate the innate
variability of the rock properties (mechanical and petrophysical) of the
target reservoirs. Consequently, this deterministic approach too often
results in uncertainty about the "correct" value of a critical parameter to
use and insecurity in the model results. Decisions based on these
results can later, not surprisingly, be found to be incorrect. Model users
attempting to overcome the limitations noted above have tried various
techniques. Subjective estimation, arbitrary "minimums", grading
techniques, and stepwise estimation have all been commonly used.
Recently, more powerful techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation
and decision analysis have come into popular use. Over the past
decade these two techniques have been extensively used in the
petroleum industry to evaluate and solve a wide range of analytical
problems in reservoir engineering and the geosciences. In this paper,
the application of these techniques to a number of generalized
geomechanical problems will be illustrated. A Monte Carlo simulation
enables the user to identify, measure or estimate, and evaluate
uncertainties in the problems being analyzed. The simulation models
the random behavior of the input variables much like in a game of
chance. That is, the variables have an uncertain value within a known
range for any particular time or event. Numerical model and software
packages are developed based on the Green's function for a nucleus
of strain in the reservoir. The model is coupled with reservoir
simulations to evaluate pressure maintenance and reservoir
development schedule effect on casing integrity, fault stability via
sensitivity studies. The geomechanics solutions would be coupled with
both commercial or in-house developed reservoir simulators. The
results of multiple simulations, done to determine the most likely
outcome of various wellbore solution options, are reported in the
current paper.
Risk Analysis and Uncertainty
Uncertainty about numbers is prevalent in all reservoir management
decisions. How large are the reserves of a proposed new exploitation
project? What will be the average market price for the reservoir
produced? What is the optimum production rate for the project? Each
of these numbers is an unknown quantity. If the profit or pay out from a
proposed project strategy depends on various unknown quantities,
then the final answer can not be computed without making some
prediction of these unknown quantities.
A common approach to this problem is to make a "good-faith" point
estimate for each of these unknown quantities and use these estimates
to compute the possible benefit of each proposed project strategy. But
there is a serious problem with this method because it completely
ignores the inherent uncertainty the project faces. A better approach is
to incorporate uncertainty into the analysis, assess the randomness or
probability distributions for any variable quantities, and analyze these
variables in a spreadsheet model that simulates the project.
When we say that a random variable in a spreadsheet represents
some unknown real quantity, we mean that any event for this simulated
random variable is just as likely as the same event for the real
unknown quantity. For example, if the unknown number of competitive
entrants has a probability 0.10 of being 1, then the random variable in
the spreadsheet should also have probability 0.10 of being 1 after the
next recalculation of the spreadsheet. For any number k, the
probability that the random variable will be less than k after the next
recalculation should be the same as the probability that the real
unknown quantity is less than k.
It should be noted that there have been various geomechanical-
modeling techniques developed in the past to assess the stability of a
borehole and/or the integrity of well casing. McLellan and Hawkes
(1998) have observed that these models cover a wide range of
techniques and complexity. The ability to confidently use these models
can be limited, however, because they typically do not allow the model
user to consider the "real-world" variability of the input parameters
defined in the models. Risk and uncertainty are not considerations in
the models. It is too common that these geomechanical models do not
make adequate allowances for the innate variability of the rock
properties (mechanical and petrophysical) of the reservoirs being
studied. Too often, this results in uncertainty about the "correct" value
of a critical parameter to use and, consequently, insecurity in the
model results. Decisions based on these results can later, not
surprisingly, be found to be incorrect.
Model users attempting to overcome the limitations noted above have
tried various techniques. Subjective estimation, arbitrary "minimums",
grading techniques, and stepwise estimation have been commonly
used techniques. Recently, more powerful techniques such as Monte
Carlo simulation and decision analysis have come into popular use. It
is apparent from the literature that over the past decade these latter
 2 A.S. ABOU-SAYED, J.E. NOBLE, Q. GUO AND F. MENG SPE/ISRM 78216

two techniques have been used in the petroleum industry for
evaluating and solving a wide range of analytical problems. Of the
two, the use of the Monte Carlo simulation technique has
predominated. In the following discussion we illustrate the application
of these two techniques to a number of generalized geomechanical
problems. Noted in the reference section of this paper are examples of
how various techniques have been applied by other authors to solve
uncertainty problems.
When each input variable has a range of possible values with an
infinite number of values within that range, the possible values can be
represented by a continuous probability distribution function. The type
of distribution you select is based on the conditions surrounding that
variable. Distribution types typically are characterized as normal,
triangular, uniform, and lognormal (each illustrated in the Figure 3
below). Such distributions may exist from prior analyses or can be
developed using statistical analysis techniques.

A simulation refers to any analytical method used to duplicate a real-

world system. These methods are especially useful when other
analyses are too complex or too difficult to reproduce. A Monte Carlo
simulation enables the user to identify, measure or estimate, and
analyze uncertainties in the problem(s) being analyzed. Typical
problems contain random variables whose values vary spatially and
with time. The term stochastic is often used to describe these
techniques; while deterministic is used to define the analysis of fixed-
value variables. The random behavior in games of chance is similar to
how Monte Carlo simulation selects variable values at random to
simulate a model. When you roll a die, you know that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6
will come up; however, you don't know which one for any particular roll.
It's the same with the variables that have a known range of values but
an uncertain value for any particular time or event.

Probability distributions can be used to describe the distribution of

some unknown quantity. When an unknown quantity has a definite
number of possible values, it can describe using a discrete probability
distribution (Figure 1). These values are often presented in a table that
lists the possible values of the unknown quantity and the probability of
each possible value.

0.35

0.30
Probability of Outcomes

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Possible Outcomes

Figure 1. Discrete Probability Distribution

Using these data, a cumulative probability distribution curve can also

be constructed (figure 2). The cumulative-probability curve is usually
more useful for describing probabilities than point-probability bars. In
fact, point-probability bars cannot be applied to continuous probability
distributions, where there are an infinite number of possible values.
Figure 3. Continuous Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs)

1.00
Using a risk analysis approach, we can illustrate how the deterministic
0.90
and stochastic analyses of subsidence will differ. Using the following
0.80
fixed input variables we first determine a single expected value for
Cumulative Probablity

0.70
subsidence.
0.60

0.50
Pore Volume Compressibility = 38.0E-6 / psi
0.40
Porosity = 30 percent
0.30

0.20
Reservoir Thickness = 200 feet
0.10
Depth to Reservoir Center = 10000 feet
0.00
Reservoir Radius = 2000 feet
1 2 3 4 5 6 Poisson's Ratio = 0.3
Possible Outcomes Depletion = 5000 psi

The calculated amount of estimated subsidence was 3.10E-1 feet.

Figure 2. Cumulative Probability Distribution
 APPLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS TO ASSESSMENT OF CASING INTEGRITY
SPE/ISRM 78216 AND SUBSIDENCE IN DEEPWATER RESERVOIRS 3

Next, we apply the Monty Carlo simulation approach to calculate an
expected range of values for subsidence and the probability associated
with each value within that range. First, the fixed input variables from
the deterministic analysis above are assumed to be the most likely
value in a triangular probability distribution function of least possible
value, most likely value, and highest possible value for each variable.
These other terms are noted as follows:
Compressibility = {25.0, 38.0, 45.0}E-6
Porosity = {25, 30, 33} percent
Reservoir Thickness = {150, 200, 250 } feet
Depth to Reservoir = {9500, 10000, 10500} feet
Reservoir Radius = {1500, 2000, 2500} feet
Poisson's Ratio = 0.3
Depletion = {4500, 5000, 5500} psi
The cumulative probability of expected subsidence at P90, P50, and
P10 were calculated to be, respectively, 1.97E-1 feet, 2.83E-1 feet,
and 3.85E-1 feet. Instead of a single value being determined, the
risked analysis gives a more useful range of expected subsidence
values with the cumulative probability of each value occurring.
Subsidence Evaluation
While understanding the potential of subsidence occurring is import, it
is the impact of subsidence on well casing and casing integrity that is a
primary concern. Displacements caused by reservoir production and
injection can be computed by coupling reservoir simulation with
geomechanics. Suppose that the reservoir consists of many blocks,
which can be obtained from reservoir simulations. Using
superposition, the displacement ui in the xi–direction (i = 1,2,3), based
on Mindlin and Cheng (1950) solution for source of dilation, can be
obtained as:
G G G G the casing strain components e’zz, e’θθ, e’θz can be computed from
u i (x , t ) = − ∫ ∫ ∫ u i* (x , x ' , t )∆ P (x , t )dx ' dy ' dz '
V
(1)
N
G G G
= −Σ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∆P ( x , t )u (x , x ', t )dx ' dy ' dz '
*
k i
k =1 Vk
where:
N is the total number of reservoir blocks
Vk is the volume of block K
G
R1 = (x − x ' , y − y ' , z − z ')
G
R2 = (x − x' , y − y ' , z − z ')
G
R1 = R 1 = ( x − x ' ) 2 + ( y − y ' ) 2 + ( z − z ' ) 2 (3a)
G
R2 = R2 = ( x − x ' ) 2 + ( y − y ' ) 2 + ( z − z ' ) 2 (3b)
Required data such as porosity, compressibility, initial pressure and
pressure at a given time for each of the blocks can be obtained from
reservoir simulation. Displacement at any location (x,y,z) can be
obtained by performing the numerical integration according to Equation
(1).
Casing Strain Evaluation
Once the displacements are obtained, the induced strains in the rock
formation can be calculated from displacements. The six casing-strain
components can be computed through the continuity conditions along
the interface between the casing and the rock formation. It should be
noted that, casing is not considered in obtaining the
displacements/strains in the rock formation, and strictly speaking, the
calculated displacements/strains only give the upper bound of casing
strain.
The continuity conditions at the interface between the casing and the
formation are that three displacement components and the three
surface traction components across the interface are continuous.
Since ur, uθ and uz (see Figure 1) are continuous across the interface,
strains ezz, eθθ, eθz in the rock formation as:
e’zz = ezz
e’θθ = eθθ (4)
e’θz = eθz
Since the three traction components σrr, σrθ and σrz (see Figure 1) are
continuous across the interface, the casing strain components e’rr, e’rθ,
e’rz can be computed from strains eij (i,j = 1,2,3) in the rock formation
as, assuming elastic deformation both in the casing and in the rock:

∆Pk( t ) = Pk( t ) – Pk( t = 0) is the difference in formation v' G 1 − 2v '  v  α∆P

e'rr = − (eθθ + ezz ) + err + (err + eθθ + ezz ) −
pressure of block K 1 − v' G ' 1 − v'  1 − 2v  2G '
G G e’rθ = G erθ
 R1 R2 6 z ( z + z ' ) G G'
G G
i ( C
u x, x1, t = m
*

4π
)  2 + (3 − 4 v ) 2 − 5
R2 e’rz = G erz
 R1 R2 R2 G'
(2)
G Where G’ is the shear modulus of the casing and G is the shear
2K  modulus of the rock; ν' is the Poisson's ratio of the casing. ∆P is the
− 2 [(3 − 4v)( z + z ' ) − z ' ] change of the formation pressure. It should be noted that, for the
R2  convenience of expression, we dropped the prime notation in the
above equations.
where:
α 1+V
Cm = φC p is the uni-axial compressibility
3 1 − Vp
α is the Biot’s coefficient of the reservoir rock
v is rock Poisson’s ratio
φ is porosity of the reservoir rock
Cp is the pore volume compressibility
4 A.S. ABOU-SAYED, J.E. NOBLE, Q. GUO AND F. MENG
r’
θ
z’
Figure 4. Local polar coordinates associated with
casing/wellbore
Risked Casing Analysis
The calculated displacements analyzed by casing risk include the
maximum surface subsidence and the vertical displacement at the
intersection of well casing and the reservoir top. As noted above, these
displacements are caused by reservoir compaction due to pressure
drop inside the reservoir, and the resulting strain components are
calculated at the reservoir top (inside overburden), at both the well
casing location and reservoir flank. While the maximum surface
subsidence occurs at the top the reservoir center, the maximum
displacement normally occurs at the intersection of wellbore and the
reservoir top. The most critical strain will occur at either the intersection
of the wellbore and the reservoir top or at the flank of the reservoir.
This is dependent on the ratio of the reservoir radius to the thickness.
Among the three normal strain components (please see list below), σz'z'
is usually the largest strain component especially at the intersecting
point of the wellbore and the reservoir top of a vertical well.
List of Terms used in Risked Casing Analysis
Pore Volume Compressibility Cp can be determined from laboratory
testing or from logging inferences (for example, the program @Log
TM
can be used). The basis definition is as follows:
1 ∂V p
Cp =
V p ∂ρ
where you are looking at the change in the pore volume as you change
the pore pressure. NOTE: This is not the Compaction Coefficient that
is sometimes used in subsidence calculations.
Porosity is the porosity at the initial in-situ conditions that are being
considered.
Depth to Reservoir Center is the true vertical depth to the reservoir
center.
Reservoir Thickness is the average reservoir dimension in the
vertical direction. Use your judgment for lenticular scenarios. Note that
this will be the net thickness, unless you have included a pore volume
compressibility that accounts for shale dewatering as well as primary
compressibility.
Reservoir Radius refers to the average lateral extent of the reservoir.
Note that since this is a screening tool, it is premised on a uniform
reduction in reservoir pressure throughout the entire reservoir volume.
SPE/ISRM 78216
If that is not the case, or reasonably so, remembering again that this is
a screening tool, you might make some parametric variations.
Overburden Poisson's Ratio is a mechanical elastic property of the
overburden. By definition, it is the negative ratio of the change in strain
in one direction to the strain in an orthogonal direction. If you consider
this in terms of a core test, Poisson's ratio is the negative ratio of the
radial strain divided by the axial strain and loading of the core sample
in the axial direction causes the axial strain. Strictly from elasticity, this
property varies between 0 and 0.5.
Depletion refers to overall reduction in the average reservoir pressure.
Remember, that at a producing well, you will have a drawdown
superimposed on the depletion. In general, you would assume that the
depletion governs the overall subsidence but that the compaction-
related difficulties that a wellbore might experience also need to
consider the drawdown.
Overburden Young's Modulus is a mechanical elastic property of the
overburden material. It indicates how much a material will deform when
it is stressed. A material with a high Young's modulus will not deform
as much as one with a low Young's modulus. Remember that steel has
6
a Young's modulus of 30 x 10 psi. For the Gulf of Mexico, you might
6
assume a default overburden modulus of 1.5 x 10 psi, but this is
something that needs to be evaluated very carefully.
Reservoir Poisson's Ratio is a mechanical elastic property of the
reservoir. By definition, it is the negative ratio of the change in strain in
one direction to the strain in an orthogonal direction. If you consider
this in terms of a core test, Poisson's ratio is the negative ratio of the
radial strain divided by the axial strain and loading of the core sample
in the axial direction causes the axial strain. Strictly from elasticity, this
property varies between 0 and 0.5.
Angle of Well is the angle of the hole from the vertical.
• Calculated displacements include the maximum surface
subsidence and the vertical displacement at the intersection
of a well trajectory and the reservoir top.
• The displacements shown are estimates and are caused by
reservoir compaction alone.
• The strain components reported are at the reservoir top (just
inside of the overburden), both at the reservoir center and at
a point on the reservoir's flanks.
• εz'z' is the normal strain along the wellbore axis.
• εr'r' is the normal strain in the direction vertical to the wellbore
axis.
• εΦ'Φ' is the third normal strain which is perpendicular to
εz'z'and εr'r'
• ∂r'z' is the shear strain in the plane perpendicular to the "r' "
direction and the plane perpendicular to the wellbore axis.
• The maximum displacement normally occurs at the
intersection of the wellbore and the reservoir top. For this
symmetric prediction, the maximum surface subsidence
occurs above the reservoir center.
• The most critical strain that a completion will be exposed to
in the overburden immediately above the reservoir often
occurs at the intersection of the wellbore and the reservoir
top or at the flank of the reservoir depending the ratio of the
reservoir radius and the thickness. Buckling and crushing in
the reservoir itself may be equally severe problems, or
possibly more so.
• Among the three normal strain components, εz'z' is usually
the largest, especially at the wellbore for a vertical well.
 APPLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS TO ASSESSMENT OF CASING INTEGRITY
SPE/ISRM 78216 AND SUBSIDENCE IN DEEPWATER RESERVOIRS
References
1. Baris, G. and Home, R.N. : “Uncertainty Assessment of
Well Placement Optimization,” paper SPE 71625 presented
at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 30-October 3.
2. Bruno, M.S.: “Geomechanical Analysis and Decision
Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing
Damage,” paper SPE 71695 presented at the 2001 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, September 30-October 3.
3. Charles,T., Guéméné, J.M., Corre, B., Vincent, G., and
Dubrule, O.: “Experience with the Quantification of
Subsurface Uncertainties,” paper SPE 68703 presented at
the 2001 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 17-19.
4. Geertsma, J., 1973, “A Basic Theory of Subsidence Due to
Reservoir Compaction: the Homogeneous Case,”
Verhandelingen Kon. Ned. Geol. Mijnbouwk. Gen., Vol.
28, pp. 43-62.
5. Hegdal, T., Dixon, R.T. and Martinsen, R.: “Production
Forecasting of an Unstable Compacting Chalk Field Using
Uncertainty Analysis,” paper SPE 64296 was revised for
publication SPEREE (June 2000). Original manuscript SPE
50644 presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, October 20-22.
6. Jonkman, R.M., Bos, C.F.M., Breunese, J.N.,
Morgan,D.T.K., Spencer, J.A., and Søndenå, E.: “Best
Practices and Methods in Hydrocarbon Resource
Estimation, Production and Emissions Forecasting,
Uncertainty Evaluation and Decision Making,” paper SPE
65144 presented at the 2000 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Paris, France, October 24-25.
5
7. Keilty, I.D. and Rabia, H.: “Applying Quantitative Risk
Assessment to Casing Design,” SPE paper 35038 presented
at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana, March 12-15.
8. Manceau, E., Mezghani, M., Zabalza-Mezghani, I. and
Roggero, F.: “Combination of Experimental Design and
Joint Modeling Methods for Quantifying the Risk
Associated With Deterministic and Stochastic Uncertainties
- An Integrated Test Study,” paper SPE 71620 presented at
the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, La, September 30-October 3.
9. McLellan, P.J. and Hawkes, C.D.: “Application of
Probabilistic Techniques for Assessing Sand Production
and Borehole Instability Risks,” paper SPE 47334
presented at 1998 SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim,
Norway, July 8-10.
10. Mindlin, R.D., and Cheng, D.H., 1950, “Thermoelastic
stress in a semi-infinite body,” J. of Appl. Physics, Vol. 21,
pp. 931-933.
11. Proehl, T.S.: “Pore Pressures, Fracture Gradients, and
Drilling Economics,” paper SPE 27493 presented at the
1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas,
February 15-18.
12. Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Mezghani, M. and Blanc, G.:
“Constraining Reservoir Facies Models to Dynamic Data -
Impact of Spatial Distribution Uncertainty on Production
Forecasts,” paper SPE 71335 presented at the 2001 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, La, September 30-October 3.