Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Copyright The British Petroleum Company p.l.c., 1996. All rights reserved.
British Petroleum wishes to acknowledge the contribution of ARCO Exploration and Production Technology in the preparation of these ERD Guidelines.
Acknowledgments
These Guidelines are a collaborative effort. BP acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals, and other parties.
British Petroleum
Fereidoun Abbassian Dave Andrew Mark Aston Kevin Barrington Peter Bern Colin Bowes Brian Chambers Dave Cocking Rob Dallimer Joe Duxbury Martyn Fear Mike Guy Phil Hearn Perry Hill John Henderson Kamal Jardaneh Arnis Judzis Daryl Kellingray Nigel Last Charlie Leslie Yuejin Luo John Martin Mike McLean Samir Modi Rune Olsen Steve Parfitt John Pucknell John Thorogood Allan Twynam Curtis Weddle Hugh Williamson
Statoil
Harald Blikra
OGCI
Mark Brooker Gerald Coulter
Deutag
John Gammage
Anadrill
Andy Hatch
TH Hill Associates
Tom Hill Marc Summers
Halliburton
Nic Jepson Larry Wolfson
Arco
Mike Payne
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2:
OPERATIONS ACHIEVEMENTS
SECTION 3:
Introduction ................................................................................................................................3-1 Trajectory Design and Planning.................................................................................................3-2 Optimum Trajectory..............................................................................................................3-2 Choosing Among Classes of Trajectories ............................................................................3-3 Influence of friction factor () ...............................................................................................3-4 Additional Directional Planning Tips ....................................................................................3-5 Anti-collision Planning ..........................................................................................................3-6 Effect of Build Rate ..............................................................................................................3-6 Directional Drilling Planning and Implementation ......................................................................3-7 Drilling Assemblies...............................................................................................................3-7 Downhole Motor Usage........................................................................................................3-9 MWD/LWD Considerations ................................................................................................3-10 Bit Selection .......................................................................................................................3-10 Tortuosity Issues ................................................................................................................3-11 Influence of Buckling ..........................................................................................................3-11 Wytch Farm Procedure For Sliding A Steerable Motor At Extreme Horizontal Departures .....3-13 References...............................................................................................................................3-14
TOC-1
SECTION 4:
Introduction ................................................................................................................................4-2 Wellbore Considerations............................................................................................................4-4 Planning Well Profile ............................................................................................................4-4 Mud Design & Hole Cleaning Issues....................................................................................4-5 Drilling Reservoir Section.....................................................................................................4-6 Displacements......................................................................................................................4-6 Completion Types ......................................................................................................................4-7 Extended Reach / Horizontal Well Completions for Sand Control .......................................4-9 Gravel Packing / Fracpacking ............................................................................................4-10 Frac Pack Completions ......................................................................................................4-10 Designing Upper Completion .............................................................................................4-11 Running Upper Completion................................................................................................4-11 Damage Removal in Extended Reach / Horizontal Wells ..................................................4-11 Matrix Stimulation...............................................................................................................4-13 Hydaulic Fracturing ............................................................................................................4-13 Well Interventions ....................................................................................................................4-14 Open Hole Logs/RFT .........................................................................................................4-14 Cement Evaluation.............................................................................................................4-14 Perforating..........................................................................................................................4-15 TCP ....................................................................................................................................4-15 Running & Pulling Completions..........................................................................................4-16 Production Logs .................................................................................................................4-16 Water/Gas Breakthrough Management .............................................................................4-16 Coiled Tubing .....................................................................................................................4-16 Artificial Lift...............................................................................................................................4-18 ESPs ..................................................................................................................................4-18 Recommended Additional Reading .........................................................................................4-18 References...............................................................................................................................4-19
SECTION 5:
Introduction ................................................................................................................................5-1 Mechanical Aspects ...................................................................................................................5-2 Planning Stage...............................................................................................................5-3 Drilling Stage..................................................................................................................5-4 Chemical Aspects ......................................................................................................................5-5 Planning Stage...............................................................................................................5-6 Drilling Stage..................................................................................................................5-7 References.................................................................................................................................5-7 Contacts.....................................................................................................................................5-7
TOC-2
SECTION 6:
Introduction ................................................................................................................................6-1 Selection of Fluid Type ..............................................................................................................6-2 Environmental Issues...........................................................................................................6-2 Optimization of Fluid Formulation ........................................................................................6-3 Barite Sag ............................................................................................................................6-4 Wellbore Stability/Inhibition ..................................................................................................6-4 Hole Cleaning Capability......................................................................................................6-5 Mud Lubricity - Torque and Drag Reduction ........................................................................6-5 Filtration Control/Differential Sticking ...................................................................................6-6 Solids Control Management.................................................................................................6-6 Formation Damage Aspects.................................................................................................6-7 General Considerations .............................................................................................................6-7 References.................................................................................................................................6-8 Contacts.....................................................................................................................................6-8
SECTION 7:
ERD Well and Casing Program Design Issues..........................................................................7-1 Severe ERD Casing Running ....................................................................................................7-2 Critical Casing Pickup Loads ...............................................................................................7-3 Critical Casing Slackoff Weights ..........................................................................................7-4 Liner Running and Rotation .....................................................................................................7-11 Casing Wear ............................................................................................................................7-13 Wear Modeling ...................................................................................................................7-13 Wear Management.............................................................................................................7-13 Wear Monitoring and Measurement...................................................................................7-14 Casing/Liner Centralization......................................................................................................7-15 Tubular Design and Running Summary...................................................................................7-16 References...............................................................................................................................7-18
TOC-3
SECTION 8:
CEMENTING
Option Selection - Considerations When Selecting ERD Candidates .......................................8-1 Theory and Introduction .......................................................................................................8-1 Pre-Drill Data Package - Required Prospect Information ..........................................................8-2 Well Planning - Feasibility Through Detailed Drilling Procedures..............................................8-3 Equipment ............................................................................................................................8-3 Slurry Design and Testing Requirements ..................................................................................8-5 Implementation - Operational Issues, Rig Practices ..................................................................8-6 Cement Placement and Mud Removal ................................................................................8-7 Centralization .............................................................................................................................8-9 Setting Cement Plugs in ERD/Horizontal Sections ............................................................8-12 Post Analysis/Performance Measurement...............................................................................8-13 Wytch Farm Case History ........................................................................................................8-14 ERD Stage III Development - Wells F18-F21 and M1-M15 ...............................................8-14 Future Wells .......................................................................................................................8-16 References...............................................................................................................................8-16 Contacts...................................................................................................................................8-16
SECTION 9:
Introduction ................................................................................................................................9-1 Non-Cyclic Load Trends ............................................................................................................9-2 Torque..................................................................................................................................9-3 Tension and Combined Tension/Torsion .............................................................................9-4 Estimating Non-cyclic Loads in a Well .................................................................................9-8 Handling High Non-cyclic Loads ..........................................................................................9-9 Reduction and Redistribution of Non-cyclic Loads.............................................................9-10 Cyclic Loading and Fatigue................................................................................................9-10 Buckling .............................................................................................................................9-11 Cyclic Stress Induced by BHA Sag ....................................................................................9-12 Other Drill String Design Issues...............................................................................................9-13 Annular Velocity and Drill Pipe Size...................................................................................9-13 Hydraulics and Drill Pipe Size ............................................................................................9-13 Casing Wear Issues ...........................................................................................................9-14 Jar Placement ....................................................................................................................9-14 Drill String Inspection Practices .........................................................................................9-15 References...............................................................................................................................9-16
TOC-4
SECTION 10:
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10-1 Torque Projection.....................................................................................................................10-1 Torque Components ..........................................................................................................10-1 String Torque .....................................................................................................................10-2 Bit Torque...........................................................................................................................10-7 String Torque Prediction ....................................................................................................10-9 Torque Monitoring and Management Measures ..............................................................10-11 Drag Projections ....................................................................................................................10-13 Drag Friction Factors and Monitoring...............................................................................10-13 Buckling Behavior ............................................................................................................10-14 Predicting Drag and Buckling Severity.............................................................................10-16 Buckling Impact on the String ..........................................................................................10-17 Drag Monitoring and Management Measures..................................................................10-18 Torque and Drag Projection Summary ..................................................................................10-20 References.............................................................................................................................10-21
SECTION 11:
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................11-1 Hole Cleaning ..........................................................................................................................11-2 Well Plan ............................................................................................................................11-2 Mud Properties...................................................................................................................11-3 Drilling Practices ................................................................................................................11-4 How Cuttings are Transported ...........................................................................................11-9 Cuttings Transport Models ...............................................................................................11-10 Hydraulics ..............................................................................................................................11-13 System Pressure Loss .....................................................................................................11-13 Mud Rheology ..................................................................................................................11-14 Hydraulics Modeling.........................................................................................................11-14 References.............................................................................................................................11-16
TOC-5
SECTION 12:
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................12-1 Rig Sizing.................................................................................................................................12-2 Well Design ........................................................................................................................12-2 Operational Requirements .................................................................................................12-2 Hydraulic Requirements.....................................................................................................12-3 Torque and Drag Predictions .............................................................................................12-4 Equipment Sizing and Specifications.......................................................................................12-5 Efficiencies .........................................................................................................................12-9 Evaluation ..............................................................................................................................12-14 Example .................................................................................................................................12-14 References.............................................................................................................................12-15 Rig Sizing and Selection ........................................................................................................12-16
SECTION 13:
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................13-1 Setting Clear Objectives ..........................................................................................................13-2 Hitting the Target .....................................................................................................................13-2 Anti-Collision ......................................................................................................................13-3 Contingency for Relief Well Drilling....................................................................................13-4 Tools and Techniques........................................................................................................13-4 Magnetic Surveys...............................................................................................................13-4 Magnetic Bias.....................................................................................................................13-4 Magnetic Interference Corrections .....................................................................................13-5 In-Hole Referencing ...........................................................................................................13-6 In-Field Referencing...........................................................................................................13-6 Gyro and Inertial Surveys...................................................................................................13-6 Running Methods ...............................................................................................................13-7 Continuous versus Stationary Tools ..................................................................................13-7 Gyro While Drilling .............................................................................................................13-7 Survey QA Tool Comparison and Learning .......................................................................13-8 Surveying - Principles and Practice .........................................................................................13-8 Setting Objectives ....................................................................................................................13-8 Program Design and Tool Limitations......................................................................................13-9 References.............................................................................................................................13-10 Contacts.................................................................................................................................13-10
TOC-6
SECTION 14:
Severe Vibration ......................................................................................................................14-1 How to Know Severe Vibration is Occurring ......................................................................14-2 Symptomology and Control of Vibration.............................................................................14-2 Controlling Severe Vibration ..............................................................................................14-3 Vibration Monitoring Tools .................................................................................................14-3 Rotary Feedback Systems .................................................................................................14-4 Consideration of Geology...................................................................................................14-4 References...............................................................................................................................14-5
SECTION 15:
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................15-1 Kick Tolerance .........................................................................................................................15-1 Kick Prevention and Detection.................................................................................................15-2 Well Shut-In and Surface Pressures........................................................................................15-2 During Well Shut-In Period ......................................................................................................15-3 Well Kill Techniques.................................................................................................................15-3 Trapped Gas in Inverted or Horizontal Hole Section ...............................................................15-4 References...............................................................................................................................15-4
TOC-7
SECTION 16:
Well Planning - Anticipating Probable Mechanisms.................................................................16-1 Differential Sticking ..................................................................................................................16-2 Formation Related ...................................................................................................................16-4 Geopressured ....................................................................................................................16-4 Reactive .............................................................................................................................16-4 Unconsolidated ..................................................................................................................16-6 Mobile.................................................................................................................................16-7 Fractured/Faulted (tectonic) ...............................................................................................16-8 Inadequate Hole Cleaning..................................................................................................16-9 Wellbore Geometry/Keyseating .......................................................................................16-10 Collapsed Casing .............................................................................................................16-12 Cement Blocks .................................................................................................................16-13 Connections Guidelines .........................................................................................................16-14 Reaming and Back-Reaming Guidelines ...............................................................................16-15 Freeing Stuck Pipe.................................................................................................................16-17 Stuck Pipe Issues ..................................................................................................................16-18 Contacts.................................................................................................................................16-19 References.............................................................................................................................16-19
SECTION 17:
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Drill Strings...............................................................................................................................17-1 High-Strength 165 ksi Drill pipe..........................................................................................17-1 Purpose-Built ERD Drill Pipe..............................................................................................17-2 Composite Drill Pipe...........................................................................................................17-2 Titanium Drill Pipe ..............................................................................................................17-2 Thread Inspection ..............................................................................................................17-3 Lubricant Embedded Hardfacing........................................................................................17-3 Directional Drilling Systems .....................................................................................................17-4 Rotary Steerable Drilling Systems - Inclination Control .....................................................17-4 Rotary Fully Steerable Systems - Inclination and Azimuth Control....................................17-6 Summary..........................................................................................................................17-12 Other Special Equipment .......................................................................................................17-13 Sonic LWD Tools .............................................................................................................17-13 Magnetic Interference Correction Software......................................................................17-13 MWD Gyro System ..........................................................................................................17-14 Inteq / Mitsubishi Drilling Mechanics Sub.........................................................................17-14 Security/DBS Flexible Bit .................................................................................................17-15 Liner Thruster Tool...........................................................................................................17-15 Wireline and Coil-Tubing Tractors....................................................................................17-16 Enhanced Performance (Lo-Torque) Drill Pipe ................................................................17-16 References.............................................................................................................................17-18
TOC-8
Section 1
Introduction
This is the first version of the ERD Guidelines, which has been compiled on behalf of the BP Exploration Extended Reach Drilling Network. The Guidelines are a collaborative effort designed to give each BP Asset the benefits of our past experiences and to provide a base for Assets new to ERD. BP acknowledges the contributions of ARCO Exploration and Production Technology, and the substantial input from BP Exploration Technology Provision, Anadrill, Halliburton, T.H. Hill Associates, Inc., OGCI Management, Inc., Statoil and other parties.
Purpose
These Guidelines were developed to provide Drilling Staff in Assets and shared resource groups with guidance on current best practice. The information contained herein is based primarily on experience in Wytch Farm, the North Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. BP is at the forefront of the industry in the application of ERD, and these Guidelines are intended to help maintain this position.
Strategy
In 1995, the ERD Network developed a strategic plan to develop all aspects of ERD opportunity for the Company. The Network developed a company-wide position that describes the role and capability of the Asset engineers. The Network continues to enhance processes for ERD option selection, well design and planning, implementation, performance measurement, and post appraisal. As would be expected, the Network is taking an active role in the direction and development of industry technology for Extended Reach drilling and production. For Asset managers, the ERD Guidelines partially define "what is possible?."
1-1
Focus
These ERD Guidelines focus on well design, well planning and implementation at the field location. Well planning is an iterative process to determine the optimal mix of wellpath, fluid and tubular requirements, drillstring design, and so on. The information in the Guidelines is organized in a manner that supports this iterative process and highlights inter-relationships between technical components. Because this is a dynamic system both above and below the rotary table, we suggest that you cross reference between sections. No section contains an exhaustive discussion of all inter-relationships. Field implementation will require that you examine the Guidelines within the context of the actual situation.
Format
These Guidelines are just one component of the ERD Network's pledge to increasing BP's ERD capability world-wide. Since 1994 the Network has followed the principles of 'organizational learning', and is committed to promoting the strategic selection of ERD as a development option. This goes hand in hand with the Network's ongoing work in accessing and providing the latest in ERD technology and techniques. This information will be made available in several formats, providing users with various means of access and to facilitate regular updates. Control copies of the Guidelines are available on diskette, but primary access will be via the ERD Home Page. Updates are scheduled throughout 1996. The Guidelines are currently being reformatted to make them available in OLS - the OGCI Organizational Learning System(tm) - which is designed to aid learning within project application. This process format will be available 1Q 1996.
Feedback
The commitment of BP to becoming a learning organization places a requirement on the users of these Guidelines. The Network intends that continuous loop communication will allow the Guidelines to be genuinely live. Contributions from the users are not only valuable, they are essential. For the Network's efforts to continue to reflect the Company's latest understanding and capability, each iteration of ERD option selection, planning and execution should be reported back to provide the Network with the benefits of the learning experienced by those Asset Teams. The reservoir, surface and contractual conditions of each project will challenge and enhance the Guidelines. The more effective each Asset is at putting new information out into the BP public forum, the more effective the Company becomes at maintaining world-wide ERD leadership. Beyond drilling, the Network is actively examining ER completions, interventions and life cycle issues that impact the total value of the technology. Please treat the Guidelines not as a manual but as an active workbook, shared by the ERD community. Annotate and feed back information as often as new experience dictates. With the co-operation of each user, these Guidelines can be improved substantially in the future. Please send feedback or comments to Colin Bowes, Kamal Jardaneh, Arnis Judzis, or your local ERD Network representative.
1-2
Acknowledgements
The ERD Network would like to thank the following people for their contributions to the ERD Guidelines as authors and reviewers: Fereidoun Abassian Mark Aston David Andrew Kevin Barrington Peter Bern Harald Blikra Colin Bowes Mark Brooker Brian Chambers David Cocking Pat Collins Rob Dallimer Joe Duxbury Martin Fear John Gammage Andy Hatch Phil Hearn Perry Hill Tom Hill Kamal Jardaneh Nic Jepson Arnis Judzis Daryl Kellingray Charlie Leslie Yuejin Luo John Martin Mike McLean Rune Olsen Steve Parfitt Mike Payne John Pucknell Marcus Summers John Thorogood Allan Twynam Curtis Weddle Hugh Williamson Larry Wolfson
1-3
Section 2
In this Section...
Definitions of ERD Critical Technologies for ERD Overview of ERD Applications Examples of ERD Costs and Performance The ERD Learning Curve
DEFINITIONS OF ERD
Figure 1 shows current ERD achievements by the industry in terms of TVD and well departure. Also shown are lines which normalize the wells based on Reach/TVD ratios. Given such information, definitions of ERD can be considered from a number of perspectives. A global definition of ERD can be based on the state-of-the-art. As shown, state-of-the-art ERD can be defined in terms of Reach/TVD ratios of 5-to-1 and departures of 8km or 26,000 feet. This definition of ERD quantifies absolute capabilities and promotes consideration of ERD applications which might otherwise be ignored. The state-of-the-art ERD definition will remain dynamic and should be updated as operators expand the ERD envelope.
2-1
Focusing purely on the state-of-the-art, however, can be distorting and has potentially serious disadvantages. ERD wells drilled in specific fields and with specific rigs, equipment, personnel, project teams, etc. do not necessarily imply what may be readily achieved in other areas. Because of the myriad of variables which control drilling mechanics and performance, local ERD definitions should be developed in terms of the extent of experience within specific fields and with specific rigs. As one example aspect, the feasibility of ERD wells is inherently tied to the ability to manage wellbore stability. This topic alone is impacted by local geology, in-situ formation stresses, possible tectonic influences, shale reactivity, proposed well inclinations and azimuthal orientations, etc. The primary means of managing wellbore stability via mud weight, mud chemistry, casing points, etc. are likewise impacted by considerations such as loss circulation zones, permeable zones which may cause differential sticking, environmental constraints affecting mud selection and cuttings disposal, and regulatory requirements and production objectives which constrain hole/casing programs.
1000
Wytch Farm M3
2000
Amoco T12 A'jack Pompano Ula N.Hydro C26 Statoil C2
Niakuk
3000
Standard Technology
Advanced Technology
Wytch Farm
4000
Miller Clyde
5000
6000
7000
The implication of these issues is that ERD should be defined in terms of local operating experience and capabilities. Areas where operating experience has been captured and accumulated will have different definitions for ERD than an area where a high departure well is being considered for the first time. Assets should recognize limitations of prior experience and candidate rigs. Assets should also recognize the investment of engineering and capital upgrades which may be required prior to embarking on an ERD objective. In this sense, ERD should be defined as any drilling that substantially extends local experience. While these guidelines are intended to accelerate the transfer of ERD technology to all operating areas, there is simply no whole substitute for direct experience.
2-2
An attempt to define feasible ERD targets with conventional drilling equipment is also shown in Figure 1 via the envelope labeled Standard Technology. This definition implies conventional drilling equipment such as 5 inch drillpipe, two (2) mud pumps, a standard (30,000 ft-lb) top-drive, 3,000 - 4,000 rig horsepower, water-based drilling fluids, etc. Outside of the Standard Technology envelope (i.e. in the Advanced Technology region), one or more upgrades will likely be required. Such upgrades could include 5-1/2 inch and/or 6-5/8 inch drillpipe, three (3) mud pumps, enhanced solids control, a highcapacity (45,000 ft-lb) top-drive, more generated power, oil-based drilling fluids, etc. Each upgrade must be evaluated technically based on local constraints as identified by prior and ongoing drilling experience. Alternative means of alleviating constraints should also be considered. An example is Statoils drilling of then world-record Well C2 with only two (2) mud pumps. While a third pump would have provided clear advantages for that well, fitting the pump on the platform was not achievable cost effectively. As a result, Statoil planned the well and managed the operation within the constraint of two pumps and used a backreaming program to improve hole cleaning which was flow-rate limited in some hole sections. Thus, clearly establishing ERD feasibility with conventional and enhanced equipment is not simple and assessment of upgrades must be performed on a focused, case-by-case basis. In summary, state-of-the-art definition of ERD is crucial in assessing what may be achievable. Such ERD definitions like 5-to-1 ratios and 8 km (26,000 feet) departures should be publicized. Awareness of these capabilities is critical, particularly where it can impact development planning on major projects. However, equal emphasis must be placed on local ERD experience and rig capability. Extending local capability towards the industrys ever increasing state-of-the-art will require careful attention to the technical and operational considerations conveyed in these guidelines. Thus, local definition of ERD by recognition of experience limits is critical. In brief, if a proposed well involves a higher departure than prior experience, it is an ERD well regardless of absolute departure, Reach/TVD ratio, or other measure.
2-3
2-4
A final ERD aspect warranting discussion is the link between ERD and horizontal drilling. Horizontal wells are now commonplace and can offer advantages in terms of enhanced rates, increased reserve access, increased fracture exposure, lower sandface drawdown, reduced water/gas coning, etc. Despite these advantages and the popular application of horizontal drilling, many horizontal drilling operations are still terminated (or planned too conservatively) because of real or perceived drilling limitations. Recognition of the technological link between ERD and horizontal drilling mechanics has the potential to enable new classes of horizontal wells. Such techniques have notably been applied by Maersk offshore Qatar in two wells which exposed 10,000 feet and 12,500 feet of 8-1/2 inch reservoir section, respectively. Like departure capabilities, the ability to drill massive reservoir sections must be publicized and integrated into reservoir development planning. ERD mechanics should thus be viewed as enabling both Extended-Reach Drilling and Extended Reservoir Drilling.
2-5
2-6
M5 Actual M3 Actual M2 Actual M1 Actual F21 Actual F20 Actual F19 Actual F18 Actual
Depth, mBRT
120
130
140
2-7
2000
500
2-8
One intent of this document is to accelerate transfer of technology into ERD operations including the initial well, if possible. Thus, future multi-well ERD projects may begin higher on the learning curve and hence exhibit less dramatic advances than Wytch Farm. However, due to the many factors which depend on local conditions, a significant learning potential should exist in all major projects. Similar learning achievements occurred in the Statoil ERD operations, however data for quantifying those advances are not fully available.
2-9
10
Detailed discussion of learning curves is beyond the scope of this document. The key issues are that unexpected events should be expected on early ERD wells, but the learning curve must be recognized and integrated into large ERD project planning. Mechanisms for achieving the learning should also be considered in terms of project management and impact on staffing, budgeting, etc. Active updating of guidelines such as these is important, but other mechanisms will be even more critical. Some of these include: Multi-Discipline Project teams comprised by Multi-Company Representation (Operator, Service, Product), Formal lessons learned meetings (Field and office staff) with documentation and follow-up on all actions, Continuity of all personnel to the fullest extent possible, Goal Setting and use of focused Incentive programs to motivate achieving the goals, Close interaction between office and field personnel, Access to specialized technical resources within Sunbury, Aberdeen and other Asset areas, Access to industry service and product sector, Willingness to test new technologies and procedures, etc. ERD wells can be tough, and communication boundaries or mixed objectives are the last things you need in the way of a good operation. Advanced technology is powerful, but it takes good management of people and communication to make it work in practice.
2-10
INDEX OF ABSTRACTS
The reader is strongly encouraged to study the well abstracts in this document to get a sense of the highpoints and lowpoints of key ERD wells in the industry to date. References to more detailed information on the wells is indicated in the abstract where such papers exist. These abstracts will be updated on an ongoing basis. Contents as of Feb-96
Contents as of Feb-96 Operator Amoco Unocal Corp. BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP Forest Oil Norsk Hydro Statoil Statoil Statoil Area UK N. Sea US Offshore UK Onshore UK Onshore UK Onshore UK Onshore UK Onshore UK Onshore UK Onshore Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Norway N. Sea Norway N. Sea Norway N. Sea Norway N. Sea Field Everest Point Pedernales Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Wytch Farm Pompano Amberjack Eugene Island Oseberg Statfjord Gullfaks Statfjord Well 22/10a - T12Z Platform Irene F18 F19 F20 F21 M2 M3 M5 MC 108 A13 MC 108 A27 El 326 A6 C-26A C02 34/10 - B29 B42 TD Date Dec-93
2-11
Amoco UK 22/10A-T12Z South Everest Extended Reach (SEER) Well Summary Introduction
The SEER well was drilled to achieve two main objectives: Early production from the South Everest Field would minimize the loss of reserves into an aquifier common to the North and South Everest Fields. The gas production from T12 would allow future development (subsea facilities or a second platform) to be deferred by two years or more.
The well profile required a sail angle of 76 degrees to a measured depth of approximately 25400 feet MD. The risks associated with drilling such a long (UK and Amoco records), high inclination well, through highly reactive shales reduced the possibility of successfully drilling and completing this well to 50%.
Goals
The well objectives were to: Penetrate the Forties Sandstone of the South Everest field Complete the well for immediate production.
Results
The well was spudded by the Santa Fe Magellan (Monarch Mod V giant jack up) on the 23rd of July, 1993 and reached a total measured depth of 24670 feet (20966 feet departure) on the 24th of December, 1993. During this time, T12 was suspended from the 4th of August to the 30th of September to allow remedial work to be carried out on the existing North Everest wellheads. The original T12 wellbore was sidetracked (becoming T12Z) to TD in 8-1/2 inch hole on the 18th of December after the drillstring became stuck in a ledge at 24076 feet. Once completed and on production tests have shown rates of 59mmscfd and 3500bpd of condensate. Total unscheduled events for the well were 23.8% of which 51% were due to the stuck pipe and sidetrack.
Problem areas included: Losses of 1100bbl of mud on the 13-3/8 inch cement job. This has been a recurring problem on Everest. Further studies will be required for future wells. BHA performance in the 8-1/2 inch section was unexpectedly difficult to control, mainly due to the high inclination in combination with formation dip. Stuck pipe in 8-1/2 inch section due to backreaming into a ledge. With pipe stationary differential sticking quickly exacerbated the situation. Mud wt. required for section was revised and successfully lowered 1.5ppg.
The coiled tubing logging program was shortened for two reasons. Firstly damage to a number of the conductors in the reel during manufacture and assembly reduced the capacity for power transmission and log telemetry. Secondly the extreme depth of the well, combined with the high angle and a hump in the well between 21800 feet and 22700 feet (angle increased from 76 to 81 degrees) caused severe problems running the coil to bottom.
The success of the SEER well has significantly contributed to the Everest Field performance while pushing back the boundaries of what was considered possible in this area. By doing so it should open up other development opportunities to Amoco UK.
DAYS vs DEPTH
DEPTH (FT 000'S)
0
4000
8000
12000
Tertiary
16000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TIME (Days)
TEST BOP/CSG/LOT 1%
;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;;;;;; ;;;; ;; ;;
DRILLING 15% TRIPS 14% MISC 9%
LOGGING/PERF 8% OTHER 2%
WORKING INTREST
AMOCO: 21.14 % BRITISH GAS 57.79 % AMERADA 18.67% PHILLIPS: 1.01 % FINA: 0.87 % AGIP: 0.52 %
CASING PROBS 2%
RIG REPAIR 9%
;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;; ;;;;
;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;; ;;;;;
WEATHER 3% MISC 2%
DIRECTIONAL PROBS 9%
Directional
Rather complicated double build-hold-build-hold trajectory Build rates of 4.5/100 feet to 65 and then 0.51/100 feet to 79 Hold tangent angle of 79 to the reservoir and then build at 3.0/100 feet to 85.5 Hold 85.5 tangent angle through the reservoir target followed by gentle drop to TD Steerable PDM assembly experienced trouble sliding and was rotated most of the time Rotary BHA planning with 2D program was not successful No HWDP or drill collars in the low angle hole section to add available WOB for 17-1/2 inch hole but 2500 feet of HWDP used for 12-1/4 inch hold
0
VERTICAL DEPTH, FT
ACTUAL PLAN
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT, FT
Casing Program
Friction factors for casing included planning for a range of 0.30 - 0.80 Casing flotation device was used to run the 9-5/8 inch casing to bottom Special liner running tool for 7 inch liner and high torque liner connections Liner was rotated at 8- rpm and run in the hole at 100-300 ft/hr Standoff bands were run on 9-5/8 inch casing and 7 inch liner
Mud System
Seawater/gel/sepiolite system for the 17-1/2 inch surface hole. High seawater dilution degraded rheology but with no apparent hold cleaning problems as a result (72 inclination). Seawater/gel/polymer system for the 12-1/4 inch intermediate hole with lubricant additions. Flow rate of 600 gpm and AV of 120 fpm required seawater/high viscosity tandem sweeps Same mud for 8-1/2 inch hole through reservoir as used for 121/4 inch hold. High dilution as a result of losses degraded rheology and required sweeps Best sweep rheology seemed to be with Fann 3 rpm reading of 50100.
0 BLOCK WEIGHT ACTUAL WELL PATH 2000
MEASURED DEPTH, FT
NORMAL RUN
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Drilling Equipment
Large top drive on the rig with 26,500 ft-lb of continuous torque output.
DRILL PIPE BUMPER SUB HYDRAULIC RELEASING TOOL RUNNING HEAD TIE-BACK SLEEVE
SAFTEY JOINT
INFLATABLE PACKER
DRAG RING 7" LINER LANDING COLLAR FLOAT COLLAR FLOAT SHOE
Steering problems in 8-1/2 inch hole section eliminated when used tri-cone instead of PDC bit. Successfully ran 2 ECPs in liner.
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000 $0
1000
9-5/8 inch casing leaked during completion operations. This was due to tungsten carbide hardbanding on the rental drillstring. World record departure at that TVD of 5001m.
2000
3000
4000
5000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Cost (US$)
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (Days)
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
World record length 1650m TCP gun Critical operations now considered to be drag related; - sliding drilling - running 9-5/8 inch - running TCP guns - coil tubing operations
Actual Depth(m) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Time (Days)
Casing Program
Casing
26 20 16 13-3/8 9-5/8 7
Pilot Hole
N/A 17-1/2 14-3/4 14-3/4 N/A N/A
Hole Size
Driven 24 20 17-1/2 12-1/4 8-1/2
Fluid
N/A SW/Sweeps Waterbased Waterbased Petrofree Petrofree
BOP 18%
WEATHER 29%
Casing Program
Casing
26 20 13-3/8 9-5/8 7
Pilot Hole
N/A 12-1/4 12-1/4 N/A N/A
Hole Size
Driven 22 17-1/2 12-1/4 8-1/2
Fluid
N/A SW/Sweeps Waterbased Petrofree Petrofree
Mississippi Canyon 108 A-27 Days vs Depth 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 0 5 10 15 20
D e p t h
Days
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
AFE 45 DAYS
30.7 DAYS/10,000
20000 Cost 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
AFE $4,539,000
COST/FT $307.8
Forest Oil Corp. Eugene Island 326 No. A-6 General Project Background
Well drilled to a shallow reservoir to protect a remote lease as held by production. Reservoir TVD = 2300 feet (701 m) Target HD = 7000 feet (2134 m) from existing platform MD/TVD ratio of 3.1:1 and HD/TVD ratio of 3.04:1. ERD project evaluated versus: 1. Minimal offshore structure (MOSS) - 2X expected ERD cost 2. Subsea - same cost as ERD but problems with mechanical reliability
0
26" D.P. 1 2 13-3/8" 1,107' T.V.D.
1,000
2,000
1. Lost Hole - 20" "NO GO" 2. Lost Hole - Hole Opener Twist Off
MEASURED DEPTH
3,000
4,000
5,000
Directional
Simple build and hold trajectory. Build rate of 6/100 feet with very shallow KOP. Tangent angle of 77at 1389 feet MD (423 m)/1000 feet TVD (305 m). Hold tangent angle to TD at 7169 feet MD (2185 m)/2300 feet TVD (701 m). Friction factors for drill string (seawater-polymer mud): Planned cased hole 0.25 / open hole 0.30 Actual cased hole 0.30 / open hole 0.37
6,000
7,000
8,000
10
20
30
40
50
60
DAYS
ACTUAL CASING PROGRAM DEPTH VS. DAYS
BHAs included a building assembly and a three holding assemblies PDM with 3 bent sub and wireline steering tool to achieve 6/100 foot build rate Slick rotary BHA to hold angle was unsuccessful Steerable PDM assembly was unable to slide below 4411 feet MD (1344 m). Rotary assembly with stabilizers was used to hold angle to TD HWDP and drill collars were run in the low angle hole section to add available WOB.
Casing Program
Could not work 20 inch casing through 6/100 ft dogleg in 26 inch conductor hole. This appears to be related to: Stiffness of the casing and softness of the formation Hole enlargement at the drive pipe shoe, and/or The reduced ID of the drive shoe limiting the movement of the 20 inch casing. It was replaced with 13-3/8 inch casing, thereby changing the entire casing program. A full string of 7 inch casing had to be run rather than the planned liner per government requirements. Friction factors for casing: Planned cased hole 0.33 / open hole 0.30, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.60 Actual average for both cased hole and open hole 0.30 - 0.40 during running
Actual drag values for 9-5/8 inch and 7 inch casing strings while reciprocating on bottom showed negative friction factors. The patented selective flotation device to run the pipe to bottom.
INDICATOR WEIGHT (LBSx1000)
-12 0 500 1000 1500
TORQUE
-9
-6
-3
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
Solid body centralizers added significantly to casing drag and were removed except for shoe joints. Standoff bands were run on remainder of 9-5/8 inch casing and 7 inch casing
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 0
SELECTIVE FLOTATION DEVICE PICKED UP
Mud System
FLOATED 7" CASING
Seawater and polyacrylamide with lubricants with high vis pills prior to casing jobs Flow rates comparable to vertical wells in the area.
Drilling Equipment
5000 10,000
TORQUE (FT/LBS)
Platform rig was small (1000 HP drawworks and two 1000 HP triplexes) No top drive on the rig. A rented power sub was used, but its overall length in a small derrick did not allow backreaming a full stand. Its use was considered uneconomical and unsatisfactory.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000 1000
0
1000
1896 2174
1786 2000
3000
1000
North
2000
3000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Norsk Hydro C-26A in Oseberg Field, Norwegian North Sea General Project Background
Giant offshore field with multiple platform requirement. Pressure maintenance with gas cap injection. High angle wellbores near the OWC maximize oil recovery before gas breakthrough. Reservoir consists of fan-delta sandstones of varying thickness and quality. MD = 30,586 feet (9325 m) / TVD = approx. 8850 feet (2700 m) HD = approx. 25,600 feet (7800 m) from existing platform HD/TVD ratio of approx. 2.89:1. ERD project objectives: Eliminate high capital cost of additional offshore structures. Increase percentage recovery of reserves. Delay gas breakthrough.
Directional
Double build and hold trajectory. Build rates of 1.0/100 ft in the 22-3/4 inch hole to about 50 and then 1.5/100 ft in the 17-1/2 inch hole to 79
Measured depth, m
Hold tangent angle of 79 to the reservoir and then build to near horizontal for the reservoir. A DTU PDM assembly was used in the 17-1/2 inch hole providing very precise directional control. A 9-1/2 inch elongated power section PDM was used in the 12-1/4 inch hole to allow more aggressive PDC bit designs to be used. The reservoir navigator tool was used in the 8-1/2 inch hole interval providing improved directional monitoring and reduced tortuosity. Sliding with steerable PDM assembly was successful down to 26,500 feet. A SRO gyro was pumped down to 13,907 feet (4240 m) to verify MWD surveys.
17 1/2-in.
Days
Casing Program
Critical 9-5/8 inch liner job with 2350 psi differential pressure to allow 8-1/2 hole in the reservoir. Used 8-inch drill collars with 6-5/8 inch HWDP in 6-5/8 inch drill pipe running string to offset loss of weight in troublesome formation. Centralizers were used over the 9-5/8 inch casing collars. Used 6-1/2 inch drill collars with 6-5/8 inch and 5-1/2 inch HWDP plus additional 8-inch drill collars uphole in the running string to overcome drag. Aluminum rigid body centralizers (8-inch OD) were used on the 7-inch liner.
Mud System
Seawater/CMC system planned for the 22-3/4 inch surface hole before losses required changing to KCl/PHPA. Pseudo OBM system for the 17-1/2 inch hole for chemical stability in the reactive shales and mud weight increased per schedule to maintain mechanical stability. Used 6-5/8 DP, 1050-1150 gpm flow rates, and pipe rotation at 140-175 rpm for hole cleaning plus high density and high viscosity pills. Friction factor of 0.21 and 0.28 in casing and open hole. Pseudo OBM system for the 12-1/4 inch hole similar to the 17-1/2 inch hole with rotary friction factor of 0.17. Losses due to surge and swab pressures. Used 6-5/8 DP, 750-850 gpm flow rates, and pipe rotation at 140-175 rpm for improved hole cleaning. OBM mud for 8-1/2 inch hole with good mud weight window in stable reservoir sand. The 6-5/8 inch drill pipe was used above the 9-5/8 inch liner top in a tapered drill string. Flow rate was 476 gpm and the string was rotated at 100-140 rpm. Best sweep rheology seemed to be with high density rather than high viscosity.
East
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 0 600 1,200 1,800
27 in. conductor-286m
300 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000 0 600
18 5/8 in. casing-1,690m 13 3/8 in. casing-4,366m 9 5/8 in. casing-7,157m C-26A C-26 7-in. liner C-26A C-26
2,400
1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,600 4,200 4,800 5,400 6,000 6,600 7,200 7,800
Vertical section, m
TRSCSSV at 242 m
7-in. tubing 7-in., 30-ft. polished bore receptacle Flex-lock liner hanger at 5,073 m 7-in tie back seal mandrel
SABL-3 Packer at 6,918 m Sleeve installed at 6,980 m Top of 7-in. liner at 7,079m 9 5/8-in. casing shoe at 7,157 7-in. liner shoe at 9,325 m
South
Results
The well was spudded on the 28th of October, 1992 and ready for production on the 22 of March, 1993. The average inclination, MD, TVD and Horizontal reach of the well was respectively 84, 8761m, 2788m and 7290m. The total cost of the well was $17.73 million and the total number of days used was 144.7. The drilling cost alone was $15.7 million and the number of days used on drilling was 134.1. When drilling through the reservoir an oil zone appeared in the Upper Brent. Production testing showed that the oil zone was produceable, and the well was completed as an Upper Brent oil producer. The well was after one year of production converted to the originally planned water injection well. Total unscheduled events for the well were 9.3% of which 27. 2% were due to drilling.
DYP (mMDRKB)
0
3000
4000
12 1/4" section
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 TID (Dager) Optimal tid AFE-tid Virkelig tid Kompletering
9-5/8 inch liners is a good alternative to 9-5/8 inch casings in long reaching wells with high ECD in the 8-1/2 inch section. It also gives the opportunity to use 5-1/2 inch drillstring above the 9-5/8 inch liner to increase the available torque. The modified 9-5/8 inch Sperrydrill motor with a fixed bent housing and a low bend angle was very suitable and very reliable when the rotation was up to 180 rpm in the drilling mode to improve hole cleaning. The procedures/frequency used for changing the annular BOP should be evaluated when using ester based mud systems. This is due to ester based mud tending to swell rubber compounds and make them wear faster. It was possible to steer at 8100 mMD. It was possible to get MWD signals from 8700 mMD. It is necessary to use low friction centralizers in long reaching wells.
WORKOVER/RECOMPLETE DRILLING 27.2% WELL CONTROL 2.4% TESTING 4.5% RIG 1.7% FISHING 14.0%
TOTAL TIME
COMPLETION 13.7% CASING 20.7%
BOP 2.9% WORKOVER/RECOMPLETE DRILLING 43.9% TESTING 2.4% UNSCHEDULED EVENTS 9.3%
WELL PATH
East
-400
400
800 1200 1600 2000 7600 7200 6800 6400 6000 5600 5200 4800 4400 4000
3600
North
3200 2800 2400 20" Casing 2000 1600 1200 800 13 3/8" Casing 400 0 -400 9 5/8" Casing 7" Liner
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 -250
250
500
750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 7250 7500
TOTAL TIME
COMPLETION 5.8% DRILLING 44.0% CASING 9.7% BOP 3.5% SNUBBING 3.9% RIG 0% PLUGBACK 3.8% EVALUATION 2.4% MOVING 0.2% UNSCHEDULED EVENTS 26.7%
Results
The well 34/10-B29BT3 was ready for production on the 11 of May 1994. The oil production is 2000 Sm3/day. The recoverable reserves is estimated to 12 million barrel oil. During the operation, 3 pilot holes was drilled to optimize the well path regarding the location in the reservoir. The 81/2 inch section in well B-29BT2 had to be plugged due to fish in the hole.
0
24" Section B29
BOP 0.9% DRILLING 74.2% CASING 5.6% SNUBBING 0.2% PLUGBACK 6.6% COMPLETION 1.9% FISHING 3.4% EVALUATION 5.8% WELL CONTROL 1.4%
-1.000
17 1/2" Section B29
The final well, B-29BT3 was 6710m long and turned from 235 to 50 deg and afterwards turned back to 29 deg in the lower part of the well. The measured depth/true vertical depth ratio was 3,4. The total cost of the well was $34.05 million and the total number of days used was 181. The drilling cost alone was $30.54 million and the number of days used on drilling was 169. Total unscheduled events for the well were 26.7% of which 74.2% were due to drilling.
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
12 1/4" Section B29B
-5.000
8 1/2" Section B29BT2
-6.000
8 1/2" Section B29A
-7.000
3510m 13-3/8 inch casing run at max. 83.4o inc. in water based mud. Steering/sliding of the drill string was difficult after a MD/TVD ratio>3.2:1 in the shale formation and 3.0:1 in the sand formation. The well was successfully drilled in the 2000m long 8 1/2 reservoir section to meet the 5 geological targets. 15 kg Ancho Slide/m3 mud (glass beads) was successfully used to reduce the friction. The B29T2 was planned for underreaming from 8-1/2 inch to 9-1/2 inch hole in the reservoir section to improve the cement job. The underreaming assembly broke in a weak x-over. Successful teamwork throughout the project.
WELL PATH
B-29BT3 Wellpath (TD: 6,710m) B-29BT2 Wellpath (TD: 6,863m) B-29B Wellpath (TD: 5,036m) B-29A Wellpath (TD: 5,723m) B-29 Wellpath (TD: 5,580m)
13 3/8 inch
1250
True Vertical Depth (m)
1500
B-29BT3 TD 6,710m
-7 50 -5
T5 B-29BT2 TD 6,863m
T4
00 -2 50
B-29A
0 25 0
00 50 -37 -40
00 -42 50 -45 00
Nor
th (
m)
50 0 0 75
Ea st
00 10
(m )
12 50 00 15
Results
When drilling the 3098m 12-1/4 section, the well had a 110 change in azimuth at an inclination of about 80. The well was completed with a 115m long slotted liner in October 1994. The average MD, TVD and Horizontal reach of the well was respectively 7255m, 2904m and 3214m. The total cost of the well was $11.3 million and the total number of days used was 95. The drilling cost alone was $8.46 million and the number of days used on drilling was 78. Total unscheduled events for the well were 11.1% of which 55.1% were due to drilling.
0
5000
Other experience from the well includes: Successful use of IDF DF 94/004 decreased friction factor from 0.30 to 0.20. Tandem 9-5/8 PDM and Lyng LA325B drilled all of the 3096m in the 12-1/4 section. It is not recommended to rotate through intervals with high dog leg when using Sperry Suns funny nukes MWD tool.
7000
Compl TL
Rotation of liner in high angle wells should not be done before the well is circulated clean and the mud is in good condition. Nodecos new PWP plug system was successfully used while running/cementing the 9-5/8 liner. 9-5/8 liner was run to reduce ECD drilling of the 8-1/2 hole section. Hycalog DS71H bit and tandem PDM motor was used to aid stalling problems while steering in 8-1/2 reservoir sand formations, but is not the solution of this problem. A new Gyro pump down concept was used with success in this well. The gyro was fully displaced down and the displacement plug was collapsed at TD, and the gyro could be pulled out.
TOTAL TIME
COMPLETION 6.9% WORKOVER/RECOMPLET DRILLING 42.1% CASING 13%
0.5%
MOVING 0.8% BOP 3.1% WIRELINE 1.8% SNUBBING RIG 0.5% 11% 4.5% PLUGBACK 2.6% EVALUATION 2.5% COILED TUBING 10.7%
UNSCHEDULED EVENTS
1.7%%
DRILLING
55.1%
Scale 1: 160.00
East
160 480 800 480
-4000 -3680 -3360 -3040 -2720 -2400 -2080 -1760 -1440 -1120 -800 -480 -160
Scale 1: 100.00
-300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 9 5/8 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 13 3/8 B42 1 GP B42 2 GP .1 Tgt B42 3 GP .2Tgt 30
p3627 slot #42 slot #42 B42 B42
B42 Feet P
WELL DATA
18 5/8
svy/prop slot well wellpath
18 5/8
s4002
B42 Feet P
North
-2080 -2400 -2720 -3040 B42 4 GP .3Tgt B42 PLAN -3360 -3680 B42 FINAL SURVEY
Scale 1: 160.00
95
/8
B4
21
GP B4
22
GP
T ,1
gt 3G P, 2
t Tg ,3 T gt
2 B4
B
2900 3100
4 42
GP
1/2
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
Scale 1: 100.00
Vertical Section on 128.26 azimuth with reference 33.53S, 10.76E from structure centre
Section 3
3-1
INTRODUCTION
As with many aspects of ERD applications, the design and implementation of the wellbore trajectory requires continuing engineering compromise between various opposing forces. For trajectory design and planning phase, you must: Achieve the directional objectives - target location, size, orientation Consider full well life cycle issues - evaluation, completion, intervention Address anti-collision requirements Consider wellbore stability - formation tops and types, offset and historical data Understand mud requirements - type, weight, rheology, friction factors
For the planning and implementation of the directional drilling plan, you must cost-effectively mesh these objectives with your capabilities in several areas: Drilling assembly capabilities- build up rate (BUR), tortuosity, rotary -versus- sliding, jar placement Drill string performance - torque and drag, buckling Bit selection - availability and compatibility with bottom hole assembly (BHA) and formations Hole cleaning and hydraulics - inclination, flow rate, rheology Rig equipment limitations - top drive , pumps, setback capacity Surveying - frequency, mode, accuracy Casing wear - low contact forces, mitigation Contingency plans for alternate casing and drilling tool programs
3-2
3-3
Simple, long reaches achievable, low tangent angle Very long reaches possible with low contact forces in upper build Reducing hanging weight below build section reduces contact force in build Flexibility for multiple targets, avoid gas cap Flexibility to handle anti-collision and multiple target requirements
Potentially high contact force in build (torque, casing wear) May require deep steering, High second tangent angle High tangent angle, shorter reach
Higher axial (buckling) loads to push string uphill, deep steering required More curvature means more torque and drag, deep steering may be required, shorter reach
Bu
ild
an
dH
old
Und
erse
Double
ction
Build
nt)
3-4
Another wellbore profile which is frequently discussed is the catenary. In a catenary profile, the rate of inclination build continuously increases with depth to mimic the shape of a hanging cable. Theoretically, a catenary produces very low torque and drag as a result of low contact forces between the string and the wall of the hole. However, catenaries have not been widely used since creating the catenary shape is impractical and cost-prohibitive even with the most modern BHA configurations. The use of the catenary shape as a wellbore profile was first proposed and patented by Dailey Petroleum Services. In choosing among these options, a useful concept to keep in mind is the critical tangent angle. This angle represents the limit beyond which a tool will not slide downhole under its own weight, meaning that it will have to be pushed from above. The critical angle is represented by:
q cos = q sin or tan = 1
(3.1)
where q is pipe buoyant weight, is friction factor and is critical tangent inclination angle. One approach to optimizing the trajectory is to try to position the KOP so that the tangent inclination equals the critical angle. If possible given other constraints, this will allow long reaches with reduced sliding problems.
See Section 10, Torque and Drag Projections, for a more complete discussion of friction effects and friction factors. For trajectory planning, the designer may want to account separately for tortuosity. This can be done by altering the input directional file for the torque and drag study to reflect some random deviations from the optimum plan. Appropriate deviations might be calculated from historical BHA behavior in the area and/or expected uncertainty errors in the surveying system.
3-5
3-6
Anti-collision Planning
Avoid a directional plan which may result in high dogleg severity (DLS) corrections in the shallow portion of the well. You may be paying for it for the rest of the well. Use pragmatic approach regarding deep ERD well intersections. Consider survey uncertainty based upon actual direction of approach and not semi major axis of ellipse.
The use of the normal plane traveling cylinder diagram has proved to be a very effective tool during ERD operations. However, in order to arrive at a workable directional plan and plot, the following points should be noted: Avoid plans that hop over other wells, particularly during the build where there is the highest likelihood of getting behind the line. If the planned build rate cannot be achieved, an unacceptable dogleg could easily result as the well is climbed out over the top in order to avoid well interference. If possible, avoid combined turns and builds in the upper section of the well, particularly if there are potential subsurface collision problems. Although the plan may look good on paper, if the well falls behind the line, again unacceptable doglegs may result as last minute course corrections are made. Always involve the directional driller, particularly if there is a tight exit to be made from a cluster, in order to check that allowable departure from plan (ADP) is realistic.
3-7
Drilling Assemblies
Configure BHAs to be short and light. Minimize non-mag equipment but without sacrificing survey accuracy. Maximize rotary mode drilling and minimize sliding mode drilling in build and tangent sections. Steerable drilling assemblies allow 3D course corrections. Select housing bend to produce adequate DLS while minimizing housing fatigue in rotary mode. A good compromise appears to be about 0.75o. Consider positive displacement mud (PDM) rotor /stator interference to maximize life. Use variable gauge stabilizers to control rotary mode directional tendencies and improve hole cleaning. Optimize flow rate for PDM, measurement while drilling (MWD), and bit while meeting hole cleaning needs. Rotor nozzles may be required to achieve desired flow rate. High drill string RPM assists hole cleaning. Refer to Section 11 - Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics for a detailed discussion. Check top drive torque and RPM capability. Optimize jarring system and placement.
3-8
Currently steerable motor BHAs should be considered as the primary option for drilling extended reach wells due to their flexibility in making small 3D course corrections. To correctly plan and utilize a steerable assembly, these factors must be considered:
BHA Weight The assembly should be as light as possible. Increased BHA weight by the use of drill collars at high inclinations will lead to increased drag and torque and little, if any, increase in available WOB. Run the smallest number of NMDC or NMHWDP in order to achieve adequate magnetic screening both above and below the MWD. Run the smallest number of stabilizers commensurate with directional stability in order to minimize hole drag when sliding. Stabilizers should be of the straight bladed type and have tapered upper and lower blade edges (watermeloned) with minimal wall contact area. However, when considering placement, bear in mind the geometric correction that will have to be applied to MWD survey inclination. Running a stabilizer directly above and below the MWD collar should in most cases reduce this correction to something less than 0.2 degrees. Use caution in selecting and using offset directional BHA response data. Even if good directional reports are available, care has to be used, particularly if the offsets have been drilled with a different mud system to that proposed as it may have an effect on hole gauge and thus formation response. Do not tolerate an assembly that is not performing as it will quickly lead to a well with an unacceptably high degree of curvature and result in excessive torque and drag. Steerable drilling assemblies should be treated as normal rotary assemblies, i.e. if they dont perform directionally, they should be tripped. As a rule of thumb, if youre having to slide an assembly for more than 10% of the tangent footage drilled, it is wrong for the application. During the process of optimizing the directional assembly, change one thing at a time, and this includes the bit type. Target Sizing With increasing departures, drillers targets can become relatively small, particularly where industry standard MWD error ellipses are used. However, it has been demonstrated that by using steerable drilling systems and adhering to good directional planning and drilling practice, target centers can be intercepted without resulting in excessive orienting at depth. A logical approach to define a realistic confidence level to survey uncertainty is critical when sizing the drillers target. The confidence level applied must be commensurate with the uncertainty level of the seismic and geological data.
Stabilization
Offset Data
Assembly Performance
3-9
Housing Bend
PDM Integrity
7500
5000
HI
IN
PR
U SS
C DE
RE
A
RE
D SE
BY
0.
01
0"
R TE
FE
N RE
CE
2500
E NO NT (I
O C ALREN M E R F
R
PEE IS
NG X TI PRO A R P
A
EA 0" ) AR0.02
. D BY 0. 01
0"
0 0 50 100 150
IN
R TE
FE
C EN
IN
CR
E AS
HI
200
M TE
P.
250
300
OPERATING TEMPERATURE ( F )
Figure 3-2
3-10
MWD/LWD Considerations
Flowrate Limitations All tools need to be correctly sized for the maximum anticipated flowrate. Conventional equipment may be limited by excessive fluid velocity/force causing premature failure of telemetry/turbine components. Higher sand content within reservoir sections may exacerbate this problem.
Sensor Wear
Sag of collars between stabilizers may leave surface sensor windows, transmitters, receivers, etc. vulnerable to damage due to borehole contact, particularly in the more abrasive sandstone formations. Placement of circumferential standoffs/wear sleeves may be required to negate this.
Source Retrieval
If an assembly is run with wireline retrievable radioactive sources, the survey program should consider the risk of using pumped survey instruments, whether freefall or on wireline. Optimize the position of sensors relative to the bit. Consider using near bit sensors where possible. Avoid using Beryllium-Copper (BeCu) alloy material as a replacement for Austenitic stainless steels. The BeCu material is most often used for saver subs on MWD/LWD collars.
Sensor Position
Special Materials
Bit Selection
Change bit designs incrementally and maintain compatibility with the BHA. Treat the bit as integral part of the assembly. Different bit designs exhibit different directional tendencies. Ensure string design accommodates weight on bit (WOB) requirements for all bit types to avoid buckling. It is important to work with one design of bit in the early stages of any multiwell development where significant BHA changes may be required to achieve an adequate level of directional performance. As with BHA development, bit design changes should be methodical with one change at a time. In addition, it should be noted that with steerable assemblies, even minor changes in bit design may lead to significant assembly variations in both walkrate and inclination tendency.
3-11
Tortuosity Issues
If the BHA is not producing the planned trajectory, trip it and change it. Do not tolerate a high percentage of sliding and associated high tortuosity from multiple corrections, especially in build sections. Drill in rotary mode as much as possible to maintain smooth BHA response. Additional benefits include higher ROP and improved hole cleaning. Keep DLS low. It is more difficult to drill a smooth build section with high DLS. Typically, more BHA changes in a hole interval means improper BHA response and higher tortuosity. Calculate tortuosity consistently. See reference 1.
Influence of Buckling
Rotary mode drilling minimizes axial component of drag. This reduces buckling tendency. Axial component of drag is highest in sliding mode drilling. This increases buckling tendency. High inclination increases drill string support from the wellbore. This reduces buckling tendency. Increased contact force also increases torque and but associated increase in drag may be less than that due to buckling. Buckling creates an additional drag source which can lead to lock up. If the amplitude of sinusoidal buckling is kept below around 40 degrees then the associated drag due to buckling is negligible. An oversized string to avoid buckling is often less optimum. It is common, while orienting at depth in an extended reach well to have the complete drill string in compression, i.e. the neutral point in the string is at, or even above the rotary table. Although in this situation fatigue is not an issue due to no pipe rotation, buckled drill pipe will never the less result in higher drag and less available WOB downhole. Although buckling in this instance is largely unavoidable, it is rare that full helical buckling will occur; it will almost certainly remain sinusoidal. However, the engineer must attempt to moderate the problem by providing sufficient drill string stiffness within critical areas of the well.
3-12
To achieve satisfactory orientations at depth using a steerable drilling system, these key areas must be addressed: Minimize wellbore axial drag. The amount of mud solids in the well at the time will play an important part in determining this. However, dont always assume that the cleaner the well, the lower the axial drag will be. It will depend very much on the friction generated between the drillstring, casing, formation and mud. The amount and type of solids in the fluid, particularly certain types of LCM, will play a major role in determining this friction factor. Ensure that the drill string is not suffering undue sinusoidal buckling as a result of applied surface loads. Although buckling lockup is unlikely, axial drag will increase significantly even with this lesser form of buckling. Refer to Section 9, Drill String Design. Apply weight to the top of the string by top drive manipulation. Care has to be taken to ensure that any unconstrained pipe buckling above the table is managed. The following formula addresses the amount of drill pipe above the rotary table for a given top drive weight. Refer equation 3.1 shown on the following page. Increase weight of the drill string itself by replacing drill pipe with either heavy weight drill pipe (HWDP) or drill collars (DCs) in the upper vertical part of the well. Points to consider prior to carrying out this technique are: - time to handle DCs versus HWDP - makeup torque versus drilling torque levels - potential problems with HWDP hardbanding while rotating inside casing
3-13
WYTCH FARM PROCEDURE FOR SLIDING A STEERABLE MOTOR AT EXTREME HORIZONTAL DEPARTURES
At extreme well departures it will become progressively more difficult to slide a steerable motor. To facilitate this operation you must apply some or all of these non-conventional techniques: Run HWDP or Drillcollars near surface. Apply the weight of the Topdrive to the string. Use drillstring rotation to break sliding friction, without affecting toolface. These procedures have been shown to yield good results, allowing motor slides at over 7.5km departure: 1. Prior to sliding take torque and drag readings. Use a working single for sliding. 2. Without circulation (if possible), attempt to work the pipe to bottom with no rotation. Observe available downweight. It has been found that drags are generally lowest after a trip without circulation or rotation. 3. Pick up 10 ft. (3m) and establish full circulation. 4. Orient the string to the desired toolface and run to bottom. Drill ahead using the available string and topdrive weight. 5. If the application of all available string and surface equipment weight is still insufficient to allow sliding, then proceed with the following additional steps. 6. Mark the pipe, and with downweight applied put minimal right hand turns in the string to promote downward movement. Closely monitor surface torque. 7. Once downweight has been established, removed the turns by rotating the string the exact same number of turns to the left to bring the mark back to the original orientation. This will leave toolface unaffected. 8. Slack off the available downweight to drill ahead. 9. Repeat steps 6 to 8.
Notes: 1) Pay close attention to the allowable weight which can be applied on top of drillpipe above the rotary table before buckling would occur. Allowable weight versus stickup above rotary for various tubulars can be estimated from equation 3.2 given below:
3-14
REFERENCES
1. Banks, S.M., Hogg, T.W., and Thorogood, J.L., "Increasing Extended-Reach Capabilities Through Wellbore Profile Optimisation", SPE/IADC 23850, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, February, 1992. 2. Eck-Olsen, J., and Drevdal, K.E., "Designer Directional Drilling to Increase Total Recovery and Production Rates", SPE/IADC 27461, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, February 1994. 3. Abbassian F., Mason, C., Luo, Y., Brown C., Payne, M., and Cocking, D., "Wytch Farm 7/8 km Stepout ERD Wells", Internal Report DCB/11/95, May 1995. 4. Abbassian, F, and Mason, C., "M3: Influence of Well Profile on Torque and Drag", DCB File Note, October 1994. 5. SDSS User Manual 6. Guild, G.J., Hill, T.H., and Summers, M.A., "Designing and Drilling Extended Reach Wells", Part 2, Petroleum Engineer International, January, 1995. 7. Payne, M.L., Cocking, D.A., and Hatch, A.J., "Critical Technologies for Success in Extended Reach Drilling", SPE 28293, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September, 1994. 8. Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T., "Designing Well Paths to Reduce Torque and Drag", SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987. 9. Mueller, M.D., Quintana, J.M., and Bunyak, M.J., "Extended Reach Drilling From Platform Irene", OTC 6224, presented at the 22nd Annual OTC, Houston, May 1990.
3-15
Section 4
In this Section...
Wellbore Considerations - Planning Well Profile - Mud Design & Hole Cleaning Issues - Drilling Reservoir Section - Displacements Completion Types - Extended Reach / Horizontal Well Completions for Sand Control - Gravel Packing / Fracpacking - Frac Pack Completions - Designing Upper Completion - Running Upper Completion - Damage Removal in Extended Reach / Horizontal Wells - Matrix Stimulation - Hydraulic Fracturing
4-1
Well Interventions - Open Hole Logs/RFT - Cement Evaluation - Perforating - TCP - Running & Pulling Completions - Production Logs - Water/Gas Breakthrough Management - Coiled Tubing Artificial Lift - ESPs References
INTRODUCTION
The numerous extended reach / horizontal well completion methods available offer varying degrees of efficiency in the ability to manage the reservoir through the wellbore(s). These methods vary from extremely basic to the more complex. It is always important to keep in mind the concerns and practices used in vertical well completions. These concerns relate to drilling through the interval with a mud system that either produces minimum damage or a damage that is easily removed by perforating or low cost stimulation, to having sufficient zone isolation for stimulation and future work in the vertical well. It is important to have these same or greater concerns with extended reach / horizontal wells. The ability to manage the reservoir through these wellbores is important to the success of the well. Table 4-1 points out some of the many variables which are important in obtaining the proper completion and, therefore, production from an extended reach / horizontal well. These are divided into three main areas as shown below: Reservoir Characteristics - These characteristics are divided into primary and secondary importance and both can dictate completion design. Wellbore Considerations - These considerations are divided into the radius of curvature for the well path and diameter of the drilled hole; and wellbore stability. The radius of curvature and diameter of the drilled hole will influence selection of equipment and tools that can be used upon completion and subsequent workovers. Wellbore stability will influence the mud weight and chemistry used to drill the well (and formation damage) and to the wellbore stability at drawdown (production). Completion Type - The selection of completion type will be based upon the reservoir characteristics, wellbore considerations and economics and can become an iterative process. That is, when the expected results are determined and compared to the cost and complexity of the completion, a different approach, perhaps shorter lateral length, assumption of a higher degree of risk (poorer completion design) or even a decision to not drill the well can be considered.
4-2
These variables point out that the process of drilling and completing extended reach or horizontal wells takes into consideration many disciplines. A multidisciplinary team effort is necessary to develop the final guidelines as to how these wells are to be drilled and completed. It is also evident that in many cases there is no definite separation between drilling and completion operations with these types of wells. The final running of the liner and washing the wellbore may also be the completion. The completion method must fit the reservoir characteristics and drilling parameters employed.
TABLE 4-1 ER AND HORIZONTAL WELL COMPLETION CRITERIA
EXAMPLE
Reservoir Characteristics Primary Natural Fracs Water Coning Gas Coning Unconsol High Perm Low Perm KH / KV Thin Beds EOR PP = Pore Pressure R = Radius OB = Overbalanced UB = Underbalanced B = Balanced DD = Drawdown ECP = External Casing Packer SL = Sliding Sleeves OH = Open Hole CH = Cased Hole Secondary Normal PP PP>Normal PP<Normal Carbonate Sandstone Shale Gas Oil Wellbore Considerations Radius/Dia Ultra Short Short Radius Medium R Long Radius Slim Hole Stability Drill OB Drill UB Drill B Stable @ DD Open Hole Slotted Liner Preperfed Liner ECPs / SL Cased Hole Wire Wrapped Screen PrePacked Screen OH Gravel Pack CH Gravel Pack Completion Type
Other factors not shown on the table also influence the completion type. Two of these are the effect of only having a portion of the horizontal wellbore open to production and the pressure drop expected along the horizontal well during production. Partially Opened Wellbore - Goode and Wilkinson reported in their work, that it may not be practical or cost effective to open the entire length of the lateral.
It is possible to open as little as 50% of the lateral without substantial loss of production under certain circumstances Examples of selectively completed horizontal wells are; cemented liner that is subsequently perforated in selective intervals, the use of external casing packers on blank pipe to reduce the amount of screen used, etc Each reservoir situation may be different and an analysis of the expected reservoir performance should be made prior to selecting the completion method.
4-3
Production Pressure Drop - Joshi and Dikken reported work related to the pressure drop expected along the horizontal wellbore during production.
This pressure drop in many cases plays a big role in determining the size of the hole to be drilled and therefore the completion string size (ID/OD). This may influence the economical length of the lateral. These pressures can be significant with high production rates or the flow of highly viscous crudes. If the pressure drop (friction) in the lateral is small compared to the pressure drawdown from the reservoir to the wellbore then the horizontal wellbore can be considered as an infinite conductivity conduit. If the pressure drop in the wellbore is large as compared to the reservoir drawdown then the overall production rate would be influenced. In this case the length of the wellbore could be reduced or the drilling and completion design changed, i.e., larger hole, larger ID liner, etc.
4-4
4-5
The strategy of the design is to first displace the bulk of the OBM in a piston-like manner using a proprietary weighted spacer and viscous Xanvis gel. Simultaneously, pre-cleaning is performed on the casing/formation surfaces by surfactants in the weighted spacer. The brine buffer is used to remove the residual viscous gel, and protect the subsequent solvent from being viscosified which would compromise its turbulent flow cleaning action. In all, the spacer fluid system is designed to: Provide a density-balanced displacement of OBM Promote an interface miscibility with the OBM Protect the integrity of weighted spacer from uncontrolled dilution Accommodate density and viscosity transition Provide fast-acting and turbulent cleaning action
In the displacements for Wytch Farm's ERD wells, a 3-spacer design is used because of the low weight OBM (0.94 sg), which eliminates the need for the weighted spacer. As a result, the weighted spacer and viscous gel are combined into a Xanvis pill weighted up slightly with NaCI and included with the surfactants. Spacer properties and displacement rates are optimized using BP's Cement Placement Simulator. The BP hole cleaning model was used to ensure any cuttings, residues, gelled OBM and other debris were effectively removed from the well during displacement.
Displacements
Move pipe, both rotation and reciprocation. As in drilling open hole, rotation is extremely important to moving solids and heavy muds on the low side. Centralization or standoff will help get the low side cleaned up. Use standoff anywhere along the wellbore that holdup or duning is suspected. Weigh pros and cons of turbulent versus laminar flow characteristics for each spacer in the system. Review for each well in light of the wellbore geometry. Low spots and high rises may influence the choices. Review benefits and disadvantages of weighted versus unweighted displacements for both WBM and SOBM. Wellbore integrity may preclude going to seawater as an intermediate step. Or the risk of contamination of the completion fluid in a weighted displacement may be too costly. For the lead spacer, regardless of the mud being removed, ensure its weight is at least 0.5 ppg more than the mud weight and its viscosity is at least equal to (if not higher than)
4-6
the mud. This will help lift the entire mud column out of the well and reduce tendencies to channel. Thin the mud in the well before pumping any spacers. Be careful to not go too low to cause barite to settle out. A lead thin mud spacer may work well if the mud has been circulated and conditioned. Circulate the mud at least one hole volume to condition before pumping spacers. Drop a carbide lag to check bottoms up. The mud must be in good shape first or the best displacement procedures will not work. The displacement of OBM with seawater can be accomplished in less than 4 hours with clear seawater returns obtained at surface. Samples of fluid returns also indicated a good sweep as evidenced by the many drill cuttings and solids observed. The keys to the success of this type of job are: An effective spacer system Good hydraulic design Close rig site quality control of both mixing and pumping operations Good preplanning for efficient use of available surface volume
This spacer technology has now been licensed to Halliburton, and it has also been applied for optimizing cement spacer systems for OBM with very successful results.
4-7
COMPLETION TYPES
The following presents some of the basic types of ER / HW completions being used in the industry, as well as some of their applications, advantages and disadvantages.
TYPE / APPLICATION OPEN HOLE / Applicable in stable wellbore environments. No shale or other potentially unstable lithology exposed in the wellbore. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES Reduced initial completion cost Potentially less damage than in other completion methods since time of fluid exposure is less Entire formation face is exposed to wellbore for greater production potential Remedial work can be carried out with inflatable packers, etc Alternate completion method could be utilized later in well life POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES Minimal production inflow / outflow control Difficulty in removing damage Aggressive stimulation treatments, i.e., hydraulic fracturing, difficult and risky Highs and lows in wellbore may allow preferential water and/or gas coning in those areas Plug and abandonment may be more difficult than where zone isolation completions are utilized No production control Difficulty in shutting off unwanted zones Effective stimulation difficult Production crossflow could be a problem Difficulty in obtaining quality production logging data Liner rotation while placing may cause liner failure/slot width deformation There may be difficulty in pulling liner for remedial work Liner collapse potential due to slots or perforations Plug and abandonment may be difficult
SLOTTED OR PREPERFORATED LINER / Liners run in open hole and hung off in production casing. Applicable in formations where wellbore stability is a problem, i.e., unconsolidated formations, exposed shales, etc.
Initial completion cost is low Production potential may be similar to open hole completion Wellbore collapse, sloughing, sand production arrested Liner may be washed in using washdown assembly. Washdown assembly (stinger) may also be used to wash formation face after liner is in place Liner assists in getting workstrings or coiled tubing to end of lateral ( through doglegs, etc) With formation collapse around screen and blank sections zone isolation and stimulation can be performed
4-8
TYPE / APPLICATION LINERS WITH EXTERNAL CASING PACKERS / Applicable as above and where zone isolation is needed
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES Zone isolation enhanced Applicable in naturally fractured reservoirs where cementing liners is normally not done Large numbers of completions exist using ECPs adding confidence to their use ECPs can be inflated with some muds or cement. Cement inflation can provide long term isolation Screens, slotted liners or blank liners with sliding sleeves may be used Flow control, monitoring equipment may be placed in the area of the ECPs or blank pipe sections
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES Cost, where significant zone isolation is required Caliper logs necessary to determine where ECPs can be set. Clean, gauge hole required Inflating packers with cement can be risky Unless proper cement and inflation pressure are used cement inflated packers may contract with time breaking the seal with the wellbore Breakdown (fracture) pressure is normally lower in horizontal wells as compared to vertical wells. ECP setting potentially could cause formation fracturing High permeability wells may allow production around ECP Unconsolidated formations may collapse around ECP resulting in seal loss Cost of initial completion Difficulty with remedial cementing, if necessary Usually limited to nonnaturally fractured reservoirs unless hydraulic fracturing is planned Also, usually limited to consolidated formations. Not many ER/HWs in unconsolidated formations are completed as cased hole gravel packs Limited amount of formation may be exposed due to reducing perforations to reduce completion cost. This may or may not be detrimental
CASED HOLE (Cemented and perforated liner). Applicable where a high degree of wellbore control and reservoir management is necessary. For example, where water or gas coning is a potential problem, where significant stimulation will be carried out, etc.
Zone isolation and wellbore control is obtained Liner collapse resistance is assisted by cement sheath Perforations may penetrate damaged zone Enhanced potential for quality production log diagnostics Stimulation / water shutoff potential is increased over other completion methods Experience with perforating adds confidence to perforated completions in ER/HWs Plug and abandonment is made more reliable with this method Minimal mud losses while perforating/running completion
4-9
4-10
4-11
Flow back Organic solvent/surfactant wash/soak to regain water wet conditions in sandstones. Utilize acids and oxidizers to remove organics after residual OBM has been removed. Use fresher water to remove salt if used. Flow Back Utilize acids and/or oxidizers for washing and soaking. Use fresher water for salt removal Normally used in underbalanced drilling to reduce damage, in low pressure reservoirs, etc
Polymers (CMC, PAC, PHPA, HEC, Guar, X-C, Starch, etc) Calcium Carbonate, Salt
In those situations where filtrate invasion and particulate materials have resulted in formation damage away from the near wellbore area a more aggressive stimulation approach will be needed. This is also true for low permeability formations where hydraulic fracturing will be required. The following relates to some of the issues important in these situations:
Maximize hole size across pay zone to keep tool sizes as large as possible. Small crossover tool do not perform as reliably as larger tools. Maximize hole size across pay zone to allow the use of large work string to minimize friction Maximize hole size across pay zone to allow the use of large sand control devices (i.e.. screen) and provide for sufficient casing screen annulus.
4-12
Long measured depth creates large work string tubular volumes. This results in 1) Large fluid capacities, 2) Long fluid residence time for reactive fluids and 3) reduced efficiency for reverse circulating slurry from the work string. Long perforated sections create difficulty in producing a tight casing screen gravel pack. We currently perforate no more than 275 ft. Long, high angle perforated sections can hide gas produced during completion operations. Long perforated sections create very high fluid loss conditions. Excessive surface treating pressures are created by high friction pressure in ERD wells. The use of large work string is required to avoid high treating pressure. High pressures will cause pipe contraction and may cause crossover tools to shift out of position. The use of weight down tools are recommended. Rupture discs have not proven to be reliable for protecting from surface pressure spikes.
Matrix Stimulation
Zone isolation is important to allow differential pressures sufficient to inject into the sand face. Options: Open hole stimulate using inflatable straddle packers, bridge plugs for isolation on coiled tubing/work string Open hole stimulate using coiled tubing for fluid placement Cased hole stimulate using inflatable packers, bridge plugs, Perforating, Stimulating, Isolation tools for zone isolation Slotted liners / screens with External Casing Packers. Use straddle packers, bridge plugs for zone isolation. ECPs should be closely spaced such that isolated interval can be stimulated at one time. Chemical diversion difficult in sandstones with this completion. Slotted liners / screens with no ECPs. Matrix stimulation difficult unless formation sand has collapsed around screen. If sufficient blank liner sections have been run then zone isolation technique for stimulation could be used.
4-13
Hydaulic Fracturing
Zone isolation important to provide for high pressures and injection rates required. Wells drilled parallel to the minimum horizontal stress, i.e., transverse fractures. In sandstones, the preferred completion is cased hole. Perforations should be clustered in a short interval at the location of each fracture initiation point. Zone isolation would be with bridge plugs and packers. Number of fractures will depend upon reservoir characteristics and economics. In carbonates where acids can be used to generate fracture flow capacity, the completion can be open hole, cased hole or liners with ECPs. The preferred completion is cased hole with mechanical isolation, however, chemical diversion is possible in open hole completions. Wells drilled parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, i.e., axial fractures. In sandstones anticipate the fracture running long distances along the wellbore and potential problems with proppant placement. Normally a high injection rate will be required for successful fracturing. Cased hole completions preferred. In carbonates, completion options exist since acid is a possibility for generating fracture flow capacity and chemical diversion is possible.
4-14
Cement Evaluation
For cased and perforated completions, cement evaluation logs have indicated that even where bond quality is judged to be poor, bond quality in the immediate vicinity of solid blade liner centralizers (e.g. "Spirolisers") remains excellent - the solid centralizers act as mini ECPs. Regular placement (2 per joint) virtually assures channeling will not occur. Both CBL and USI tools have been run on CT in ERD wells at Wytch Farm to evaluate cement bond quality in the liner, and casing wear. Where logging under pressure has been possible, running a USI has been of limited value (See References).
4-15
Perforating
Since most ERW's require the use of a tapered workstring, carefully review the tapers on both liner hangers and work string tools to ensure there are no ledges to stop movement while running tools(wireline) into or out of the well. Be mindful of the potential for large volumes of fluid losses and sand influx due to the length of the pay zone at high angles. Larger than normal kill pills may be required to control fluid losses. Flow back volumes may need to be adjusted downward to arrest sand production. Underbalances may need to be reduced with TCP guns in unconsolidated sands to keep from sanding up the guns on flow back. Any sand or debris that may be in the wellbore will not fall through the sump packer as in a conventional well. More time will be required to cleanout the wellbore and keep it clean. Diligence in this area will circumvent many headaches in the long run.
TCP
Chances of success in getting long lengths of TCP guns to TD in ERD wells can be improved by: Understanding weight loss and buckling tendency - use Super DSS modeling and bench test connections. Use of HWDP and DCs in upper section should be considered. Gun connections can be torqued in preference to using grub screws to add extra stiffness and to mitigate against critical buckling being induced. Use of chemical friction reducers (e.g. Dowell's ID Lube XL, Baroid's TorqTrim-22) should be considered Annulus pressure fired systems with Positrieve rotational set packers have proved to be most reliable arrangements at Wytch Farm. Direct pressure fired systems were relegated to backup because of problems with delay calculations which led to some wells being perforated overbalanced. Post perforation cleanout to remove gun debris should be planned. Use of correct flowrate is almost more important than chemicals used. A staged approach consisting weighted spacer/surfactant (to displace fluid/debris using weight), followed by a viscous gel, followed by brine (to remove gel and prevent solvent from viscosifying) and solvent should be considered. Generally, if long reservoir sections are drilled and subsequently perforated, there are signifcant volumes of perforation debris. Use controlled debris gun systems if large amounts of perforating debris are a concern. For example, Schlumberger's Cleanshot system reduces size distribution of debris for minimal extra cost. If a debris-free well is required, then extensive efforts must be made to remove gun debris.
4-16
Production Logs
Use of new phase velocity tools and lift impedance flow meter tools to measure oil and water flowrates and hold-ups independently should be considered when designing the production logging toolstring. The additional data obtained could to improve the interpretation of conventional production logging (spinner) data in long undulating horizontal wellbore sections. Consideration ought to be given to methods and facilities necessary to deploy some of the new logging toolstrings on CT. These can be longer than 30 meters in length and consideration of pressure deployment methods and associated weak point technology should be reviewed locally.
4-17
Wellhead sampling does not accurately reflect downhole water cuts. Large water cuts bay lead to slug flow in a high angle well.
Coiled Tubing
Use of chemical friction reducers, nitrogen and increasing CT size have provided successful methods of improving CT deployment depths to date. Friction reducer at Wytch Farm (e.g. Dowell's ID Lube XL) has typically reduced friction factors by up to 30% and has demonstrated a lasting effect after 5 days. History matching of actual deployment depths versus prediction for a given profile should be undertaken to establish trends in friction factors and improve predictive modeling. Use of cycle life criteria for CT fatigue evaluation may not be appropriate for ERD applications where failures due to thinning and scoring from external wear can arise. The use of a maximum footage run in hole may be a more relevant criteria for deciding whether to accept a coil for duty on ERD wells or not. On-site butt welding of coiled tubing should not be undertaken lightly. If there is no alternative, strictly controlled conditions should be agreed by BP. These include: The maximum OD to be welded is 1.75". Weld only pipe of similar wall thickness. Butt welds must be placed such that they are deep in the well where pipe stress is lowest. The correct size of chill blocks appropriate to the pipe size must be used and placed 3/8" apart. The absolute maximum fatigue life to be 40%. A test weld should be conducted and tested with radiography and hardness checks to ensure welding procedure is adequate Hardness tests should only be carried out on test pieces as the indentation caused will act as a stress concentration point. Three x-ray shots should be taken 120 deg. apart. Inspection should be on a zero defect basis.
4-18
4-19
REFERENCES
1. Coulter, G. R.; Perez, J. I., Issues Related to Completion of Horizontal Wells. Presented at the International Symposium on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Recovery, St. Petersburg, Russia, Oct 12 -14, 1992. 2. White, C., Formation Characteristics Dictate Completion Design, Oil & Gas Journal, Dec 3, 1990. 3. Fuh, G.F., Loose, P.K., Horizontal Wellbore Stability for Openhole Completions, SPE 19717, Presented at the 64th ATCE of the SPE held in San Antonio, Tx, Oct 8-11, 1989. 4. Lowery, J.P., Ottesen, S., An Assessment of the Mechanical Stability of Wells Offshore Nigeria, SPE Drilling & Completion, March, 1995, pp 34-41. 5. Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J., Inflow Performance of Partially Open Horizontal Wells, SPE paper 19341 presented at the SPE Regional Meeting . Held in Morgantown, West Virginia, Oct 24-27, 1989. 6. Joshi, S.D., Horizontal Well Technology Pennwell Publishing Company, 1991. 7. Dikken, B. J., Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production Performance, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November, 1990. 8. King, G. E., The Effect of High Density Perforating on the Mechanical Crush Resistance of Casing, SPE paper 18843. 9. Morita, N., McLeod, H., Oriented Perforation to Prevent Casing Collapse for Highly Inclined Wells, SPE Drilling & Completion, Sept, 1995, pp 139- 145. 10. Coulter, G.R., Horizontal Well Treatment Method, U.S. Patent 5,197,543; March 30, 1993. 11. Byrom, T.G., Coulter, G.R., Some Mechanical Aspects of Formation Damage and Removal in Horizontal Wells, SPE paper 31145, Presented at the International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Feb 14-15, 1996, Lafayette, Louisiana 12. Ogden, S., Inflatable Packers Provide Options for Horizontal Wells, Petroleum Engineer International, Nov 1991 p37-42. 13. Weirich, J.B., Zaleski Jr., T.E. and Mulcahy, P.M., Perforating the Horizontal Well: Designs and Techniques Prove Successful, SPE 16929, presented at the 62nd ATCE of the SPE, Dallas, Tx, Sept 27-30, 1987. 14. Pardo, C.W., Patrickis, A.N., Completion Techniques Used in Horizontal Wells Drilled in Shallow Gas Sands in the Gulf of Mexico SPE paper 24842, presented at the 67th ATCE of SPE, Washington, D. C., USA, Oct 4-7, 1992. 15. Murphy, P.J., Performance of Horizontal Wells in the Helder Field, Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1990. 16. Browne, S.V., et al, Simple Approach to the Cleanup of Horizontal Wells With Prepacked Screen Completion , Journal of Petroleum Technology, Sept, 1995, pp 794-800. 17. Ryan, D.F., et al, Mud Cleanup in Horizontal Wells: A Major Joint Study, SPE paper 30528, presented at the SPE ATCE in Dallas, Texas, Oct 22-25, 1995. 18. Shale, L., Underbalanced Drilling With Air Offers Many Pluses Oil & Gas Journal, June 26, 1995, pp 33-39. 19. Economides, M. J. and Frick, T.P., Optimization of Horizontal Well Matrix Treatments, SPE Production and Facilities, May 1994, p 93-99. 20. Tambini, M., An Effective Matrix Stimulation Technique for Horizontal Wells, SPE paper 24993, presented at the European Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, Nov. 16 - 18 , 1992.
4-20
21. Yew, C. H. and Li, Y., Fracturing of the Deviated Well, SPE 16930 presented at the 62nd ATCE of the SPE held in Dallas, TX, Sept. 27 - 30, 1987. 22. El Rabaa, W., Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Initiated From Horizontal Wells, SPE 19720, presented at the 64th ATCE of the SPE held in San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8 - 11, 1989. 23. Damgaard, A., Bangert, D.S., Murray, D.J., Rubbo, R.P. and Stout, G.W., A Unique Method for Perforating, Fracturing and Completing Horizontal Wells , SPE 19282, presented at Offshore Europe 89, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sept 5-8, 1989. 24. Use Of Coiled Tubing During The Wytch Farm Extended-Reach Drilling Project - TD Summers, H A Larsen, M Redway, G Hill - SPE 28558, February 1995. 25. Operating Experience With ESPs And Permanent Downhole Flowmeters In Wytch Farm Extended Reach Wells - A Brodie, A Allan, G Hill - SPE 28528, September 1994. 26. Zonal Isolation And Evaluation For Cemented Horizontal Liners - H Gai, T D Summers, D A Cocking, C Greaves - SPE 29981. 27. Continuous Improvement In Well Design Optimises Development - P F Harrison, A W Mitchell SPE 030536, October 1995. 28. Wytch Farm 7/8km Stepout ERD Wells - Wytch Farm 7/8km Interactive Project, XTP, May 1995. 29. Alfsen, T.E., et al, Pushing the Limits for Extended Reach Drilling: new World Record From Platform Statfjord C, Well C2, SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1995. 30. Brodie, A.D., Allan, J.C., Hill, G., Operating Experience With ESPs and Permanent Downhole Flowmeters in Wytch Farm Extended-Reach Wells Journal of Petroleum Technology, Oct 1995, pp 902-906. 31. Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., Coiled Tubing Buckling Implications in Drilling and Completing Horizontal Wells, SPE drilling & Completions, March 1995, pp 16-21.
4-21
Section 5
5-1
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the mechanical and chemical aspects of wellbore stability, with particular emphasis on ERD wells. Hole instability refers to two extremes of formation collapse and formation breakdown (Figure 5-1).
FORMATION BREAKDOWN
LOST CIRCULATION
Wellbore Pressure
Formation collapse can lead to spalling and/or hole closure. A number of factors can be responsible for hole collapse, but the most common reasons are: Insufficient support was provided to the wellbore wall, i.e. the mud weight was too low. The mud chemistry was incompatible with the formation.
BRITTLE SHALE
+ HOLE CLOSURE + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + SALT + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Formation breakdown describes the creation of an induced fracture (or opening of a natural fracture system) leading to massive mud losses. The primary reason for formation breakdown is use of too high a mud weight. The very nature of extending the reach of wells in a given area will often increase the risk of instability. Therefore, greater care during the planning and drilling of an ERD well is required.
COMPRESSIVE
Figure 5-1.
5-2
MECHANICAL ASPECTS
In cases where only one formation type is exposed during drilling, it should be possible to select a mud weight that will prevent hole instability. For example, mud weights up to 18 ppg (2.15 SG) have been used by operators to control hole collapse/closure in shales and salt formations. However, it is seldom possible to select a casing program that will isolate each formation type in turn. In general, hole sections will contain shales/mudstones, which are susceptible to hole collapse, and sands or carbonates, which are susceptible to breakdown and lost circulation. To drill a hole section without instability requires that the maximum mud weight tolerated by the sands/carbonates be greater than the minimum mud weight required to support the mudstones in the same hole section. In extremely difficult drilling regions (e.g. foothills of the Casanare region in Colombia) it is impossible to select a mud weight that will satisfy both criteria simultaneously. In less severe environments a "mud weight window" will exist (Figure 5-2a).
Collapse gradient 13 3/8" L.O.T. Collapse gradient L.O.T.
Drilling window
Drilling window
Fracture gradient
Fracture gradient
Drilling window
Drilling window
9 5/8" 1.0 S.G. 1.5 S.G. 2.0 S.G. 1.0 S.G. 1.5 S.G. 2.0 S.G.
Equivalent Mud Density (a) Drilling window for 12 1/4' hole section of vertical well through given lithology sequence.
Equivalent Mud Density (b) Drilling window for 12 1/4' hole section of ERD well through given lithology sequence.
Provided the mud weight selected fits within the window, the hole section can be drilled relatively problem-free. However, the width of the window depends on a number of operator controlled factors. In particular, increased well inclination usually reduces the width of the window, thus increasing the risk of straying from the region of safe mud weights (Figure 5-2b).
Figure 5-2.
Depth (TVD)
(a)
(b)
ERD wells have hole sections of greater inclination than have previously been adopted for a given setting. Hence, the risk of instability in an ERD well is greater. Factors requiring consideration during the planning and drilling stage of a deviated well (especially ERD) are covered in the following sub-sections.
5-3
Planning Stage
Well Inclination
Typically allow for increases in mud weight of between 0.5 ppg (0.06 SG) and 1.0 ppg (0.12 SG) per 30 degrees inclination through shale/mudstone sections. Only local experience will determine at which end of the scale you need to be. No increase in mud weight with hole inclination is necessary across permeable formations, e.g. sands. Formations with reasonable matrix permeability can be drilled with nominal overbalance, regardless of well trajectory or formation strength. The fracture gradient may reduce with increased inclination. The fracture gradient for a hole section is more likely to be controlled by a carbonate or sand than the shale within which the leak off test (LOT) was performed (see Figure 5-2). Drilling high pressure reservoirs with ERD wells may prove extremely difficult due to a tight mud weight window between taking a kick and getting losses. Carefully consider the extent and effect of ECDs at the planning stage. During appraisal, consider performing micro-frac tests (essentially a LOT taken beyond the point of breakdown) to determine the fracture gradient in formations that may be critical in an ERD well. Process any dipmeter or borehole imaging log data to determine insitu stress directions. This may help to interpret any problems seen during the drilling operation and thus hasten corrective actions. In highly tectonically-stressed regions, drilling up-dip of the major faults may provide a larger mud weight window than drilling down-dip, cross-dip, or vertically. The in-situ stress state near a salt diapir is highly disturbed, such that well trajectories which approach the diapir normal to its surface provide a larger mud weight window than trajectories tangential to its surface. Having planned for an increased mud weight to control shales in an ERD well, assess whether the planned casing setting depths still provide a sufficient mud weight window. In ERD wells, the mud weight required to drill a normally pressured reservoir is often significantly less than that required to prevent collapse in the cap rock. The setting of the production casing should minimize or exclude the presence of cap rock in the reservoir hole section, thus allowing the reservoir to be drilled with a nominal overbalance. Oil-base muds often allow a lower mud weight to be used to prevent collapse in shales. This provides a larger mud weight window. The risk of instability in highly laminated shales may be reduced when adopting a trajectory normal to bedding.
Fracture Gradient
Casing Program
General
5-4
Drilling Stage
Even in normally stressed regions the mud weight window may be influenced by well azimuth. Be prepared to increase the mud weight in wells with azimuths nearly parallel to the maximum horizontal stress direction. Keeping mud filtrate loss to a minimum is particularly important for ERD wells in all hole sections, not just the reservoir section. Swab and surge pressures may trigger instability in weak or highly fractured shales. Particular care is required when running in, and pulling out of, hole sections with such formations. Unless absolutely necessary, do not reduce the mud weight while drilling if a shale is present in the open hole section. Otherwise, the risk of hole instability is greatly increased. If operational difficulties necessitate a mud weight reduction, then the slower this is done the better. The onset of cavings more than a few hours after drilling a shale indicates that the benefit of the initial overbalance has been lost. This is a result of migration of filtrate into the formation, causing near wellbore pressure increases. An increase in mud weight and/or a reduction in fluid loss are likely to help. The onset of cavings from a formation while it is being drilled may indicate inadequate mud weight. An increase in mud weight or a reduction in rate of penetration (ROP) may help. Often, an improvement in LOT value can be observed as the section is drilled. Consider repeating the LOT where low values have been obtained.
5-5
CHEMICAL ASPECTS
Chemical wellbore instability is due to chemical interaction between the formation being drilled and the drilling fluid. This occurs primarily in shales and salt formations. In both cases, it is an interaction with water which causes instability. Thus, chemical instability is always minimized by using oil-base muds. When shales react with water, they can soften, disperse, swell, and crack. These effects can cause a wide range of operational problems, as shown in the table below.
MBT* (meq/1 00g) 20-40 Water Content (wt%) 25-70 Shale/ Clay Density (g/cc) 1.2-1.5
Typical Hole Problems Tight hole due to swelling Hole enlargement due to washout Ledges if interbedded with sandstones Bit balling, mud rings, blocked flowlines Tight hole due to swelling Possible washout Prone to bit balling Occasional cavings Cavings Cuttings beds causing packing off Tight hole in stressed formations Possible stuck pipe Cavings Hole collapse
Firm (deeper)
10-20
15-25
20-30
1.5-2.2
Hard (deep)
3-10
5-15
20-30
2.2-2.5
0-3
2-5
5-30
2.5-2.7
* MBT = methylene blue test - a measure of cation exchange capacity; high MBT equates to smectite rich shale.
To minimize these problems, characterize the shale type at the planning stage of a well, and use an appropriately-designed drilling fluid. In salt formations, chemical instability occurs if the formation is soluble in water. Using an incorrectly formulated fluid will lead to uncontrollable washouts in these situations. Formation types which exhibit this behavior are: Halite ( NaCl) Carnallite (KMgCl3.6H2O) Bischofite (MgCl2.6H2O) Sylvite (KCl) Polyhalite ( K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4.2H2O)
5-6
Planning Stage
Characterizing the Formation
When planning an ERD well, first decide if shales or watersensitive salts will be encountered. Offset well data and mud reports will be particularly useful. Contact your geologist for assistance. Design the casing/well program to minimize the length of time reactive formations are exposed to the mud. Because shales have very low permeability (10-9 - 10-6D), they may appear stable for a time, but water can slowly penetrate, leading to time-delayed effects. Characterize shale types by XRD analysis (contact Sunbury for this). This technique should also be supported by laboratory inhibition tests, which are best done on preserved shale. Watch out for interbedded formations (e.g. salt stringers in shale). A mud system compatible with both formation types will be required. The best way to minimize chemical instability in shales or salt sections is to use an oil-base mud. This should be the first choice. Do not solely rely on chemical-mechanical wellbore stability models to design the mud. There is, invariably, insufficient input data which does not take into account specific chemical reactions. Oil mud salinity must be at least as high as the pore fluid salinity of the shale. This will prevent water entering the shale by osmosis. When drilling salt formations, oil-base mud (OBM) salinity should be high (e.g. 300,000 mg/l chloride) to minimize salt dissolution into the water phase of the mud. Synthetic-oil muds (pseudo-oil muds) should be considered where environmental constraints restrict the use of conventional oil. Shale inhibition is equally effective in these systems. In microfractured shales, use a very low fluid loss mud (HPHT < 3mls), and add fracture sealing additives. Always consult your mud specialist, as systems vary widely in rheological properties, temperature stability, and cost per barrel. If water-base mud is to be used, carry out a screening program at an early stage to allow optimization, and discuss issues with your fluids specialist and the mud companies. In salt sections, match the fluid to the type of salt. Salt saturated muds (NaCl) are used for simple halites; mixed salt systems are available for complex salts such as Carnallite.
Mud Selection
5-7
Obtain specialist advice on these. Use a low fluid loss mud (API < 5ml) in microfractured shales, and add fracture sealing additives.
5-8
Drilling Stage
Monitor mud properties frequently. It is important to maintain additive concentrations to maintain chemical inhibition. When drilling shales, monitor cuttings quality as a qualitative measure of inhibition. Very soft cuttings mean insufficient chemical inhibition. Obtain a fully detailed record (mud report) as this will give invaluable information when planning the next well.
REFERENCES
1. A Drilling Guide to Shales and Related Borehole Problems; M. Aston and P. Reid. BP Sunbury Branch Report DCB/46/93, dated 17 December 1993. 2. Wellbore Stability Guidelines (updated version); M.Aston, J. Hagan and M. McLean. Sunbury, dated 1994. 3. Salt Diapir Drilling Stability Guidelines; M. Addis, J. Roberts and I. Searle. Sunbury manual dated 1993.
CONTACTS
Specialty Geomechanics Name Joe Hagan Nigel Last Mike McLean Dave Roberts Mud Chemistry Mark Aston Bryan Chambers Allan Twynam Location XTP Sunbury BPX Colombia XTP Sunbury PSR Dyce XTP Sunbury PSR Dyce BPX Venezuela Telephone 44 (0)1932 762109 57 1 623 4077 44 (0)1932 764135 44 (0)1224 832285 44 (0)1932 764055 44 (0)1224 833635 582 901 9379 Fax 44 (0)1932 764183 57 1 618 3215 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1224 832827 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1224 833577 582 901 9023/27
5-9
Section 6
INTRODUCTION
The selection and correct implementation of drilling fluid is crucial to the successful drilling of any well. The fact that potentially troublesome formations will be exposed for greater lengths, and for longer time periods, increases the importance of drilling fluid selection for ERD applications. Many fluid related issues, such as hole cleaning, torque, drag, and hydraulics, that present few problems on vertical wells, must be addressed in detail when planning an ERD well.
6-1
The most suitable water-base fluids currently available for ERD drilling when clay inhibition is required are potassium-based, non-dispersed, polymer muds containing glycol or silicates. When inhibition is not required, low solids polymer formulations or Mixed Metal Hydroxides can provide the required hole cleaning and their use, with a suitable lubricant, should be considered. When comparing fluids on a commercial basis, it is not sufficient to merely compare costs per barrel. Consideration must be given to anticipated rig time savings (penetration rates, requirement for wiper trips, etc.), actual usage per foot, buy backs and/or disposal costs (where applicable). For instance, many operators find the use of a relatively expensive pseudo oil-base fluid is readily justified by savings in rig days. High mud costs for the right system are fairly inconsequential in ERD wells when compared to probable wells costs resulting from use of the wrong fluid.
6-2
Lubricity
Reservoir compatibility
6-3
Barite Sag
Barite settlement (sag) is a key issue for high angle wells. The current thinking is that barite sag can never be totally eliminated. In practice the problem needs to be managed. This can be achieved by a combination of mud design and good operational practices. Barite sag in deviated wells can result in: Fluctuations in mud weight in and out Well control problems Downhole mud losses Induced wellbore instability Stuck pipe
Recent studies into the problem demonstrated: Sag is a DYNAMIC phenomenon which may not occur when mud is static Sag is exacerbated by low annular velocities Hole inclinations close to 75 degrees are most critical Drillpipe rotation significantly reduces sag Mud rheology at low shear plays a key role in controlling sag
Wellbore Stability/Inhibition
Borehole instability due to overpressured or water-sensitive formations must be minimized when drilling an extended reach well. Mud/rock interaction must be minimized by careful screening of mud type and properties. A wellbore stability study should be instigated for any initial ERD project in a particular asset. This will address optimum mud weight selection and highlight any possibility of instability. For further information see Section 5, Mechanical and Chemical Wellbore Stability.
6-4
High rotary speeds greatly enhance hole cleaning potential. Discuss limitations of rotary speeds when using downhole motors with the directional drilling company. Trend sheets should be used to log all hole cleaning parameters for future use, i.e. flow rate, rpm, mud rheology vs. depth, and evidence of dirty hole on trips, etc. Trip procedures should be prepared in advance, with guidance on tripping intervals, backreaming rates, and maximum overpull. These procedures can be modified over the well as necessary. See Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics, for more information.
6-5
6-6
Hydrocyclones are not recommended for use with weighted, water-base muds or oil muds of any kind. In these applications, the preferred mechanism for the removal of fines is by centrifuge. High speed centrifuges are required to remove fine solids from viscous mud. In the case of weighted muds, a low speed unit in series with a high speed unit is required. In some cases, it is commercially advantageous to return the barite underflow from the low speed centrifuge to the active system via some mixing equipment. When running in this barite recovery mode, the overflow from the low speed unit is fed to the high speed unit, which is capable of removing some of the fine LGS and barite. High speed centrifuges are rarely capable of processing more than 1.0 bbl/min. Remember this when assessing the requirements for solids removal equipment. To aid in the determination of the suitability and efficiency of solids removal equipment, two spreadsheets, the Super Volume Estimator and the Equipment Performance Evaluation Spreadsheet, have been generated by XTP.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Fluid related aspects of ERD wells require considerably more planning than conventional wells. Consequently, planning must be started at an earlier stage to allow fluid selection, wellbore stability, hydraulics, and rig modifications to be addressed and completed in a timely manner. Run two mud engineers with ERD experience on the rig. Mud systems are large in volume. Treatments take a long time to effect because of this. Do not rely on high rheologies for hole cleaning. Pump hard. High rheologies make casing cementations difficult. It is not unusual to have lost circulation problems when running long casing strings, the tendency to pack off, and ECD values running close to frac gradient. Have a logistics plan to cover losses running the casing. Consider circulating occasionally to reduce gel strengths when tripping long strings of casing.
6-7
6-8
REFERENCES
1. BPX Horizontal Drilling Manual 2. BPX Well Productivity Manual 3. Critical Technologies for Success in ERD - M L Payne et al SPE 28293 (1994) 4. Stuck Pipe Handbook 5. The Super Volume Estimator Spreadsheet 6. The Equipment Performance Evaluation Spreadsheet 7. BP Barite Sag Guidelines, P. Bern, November 1995.
CONTACTS
Specialty Mud Programming Name Bryan Chambers Pete Wilson Torque and Drag Prediction/Monitoring Hole Cleaning Phil Hearn Peter Bern Yuejin Luo Mud Lubricity Torque Reducers Greg Elliot Colin Bowes Kamal Jardaneh Phil Hearn Solids Management Formation Damage Well Clean-Up Paul Page Sarah Browne Dan Ryan Location PSR Dyce XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Dyce XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury Telephone 44 (0)1224 833635 44 (0)1932 763346 44 (0)1932 763226 44 (0)1932 763469 44 (0)1932 762424 44 (0)1932 764213 44 (0)1932 762049 44 (0)1224 833664 44 (0)1932 763226 44 (0)1932 763125 44 (0)1932 762068 44 (0)1932 762859 Fax 44 (0)1224 833577 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1224 833586 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183
6-9
Section 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
Figure 7-1
7-4
Three factors determine the limits of running casing in an ERD well: The maximum available running weight Frictional running weight losses Mechanical running weight losses The maximum available running weight is determined by the "sub-critical" portion of the well or specifically the TVD at which the critical friction angle is encountered. The critical friction angle (c) is defined from the simple inclined block analogy for the wells overall friction coefficient (). Specifically:
1 c = tan 1
(7.1)
Overall lubricity determines the critical angle, thus critical angles vary depending on lithology, mud, and other factors. Critical angles have been reported in the range of 70- 72. At Wytch Farm, the lubricity of the OBM has resulted in a 12-1/4 inch open-hole friction coefficient of 0.21, which results in a critical angle of 78. Lower friction, hence higher critical angles, have been seen on wells using synthetic OBMs. With the critical angle defined for a specific well, the maximum available running weight can be found by the buoyed casing weight at the TVD at which the critical angle is reached:
(7.2)
Above the critical angle, casing requires force to be pushed into the hole. This force constitutes the frictional loss of running weight. Frictional weight loss in a tangent section can be calculated by DSS or with the equation:
(7.3)
7-5
An example of frictional casing resistance for 9-5/8 inch 40 lb./ft casing at various tangent angles with of 0.21 is shown:
7-6
These equations are provided for insight into the governing issues. For projections, DSS can be used to generate a running weight profile. An example profile is shown which illustrates how the maximum running weight and frictional considerations determine running limits:
CASING WEIGHT
DEPTH
Figure 7-3.
Distinct from frictional losses, mechanical losses occur which reduce casing running weight. Mechanical losses can be caused by cuttings, casings, ledging, differential sticking, and centralizers embedding into formations. ERD casing running experiences showed mechanical losses can occur anywhere in open-hole and can be much larger than frictional losses. Mechanical weight losses may be as high as 100 kips while frictional losses may be much lower, i.e. 25 kips.
7-7
Circulation is usually effective in working through mechanical weight losses. As a result, fillup/circulation tools are mandatory on critical ERD casing jobs to ensure that the string can be quickly circulated when problems appear. These tools, available from TAM, Franks, etc., are made up into the top-drive and allow simultaneous circulation and reciprocation of the string. This Wytch Farm casing job shows the effectiveness of circulation in removing excessive drag and restoring the casing running weight to normal levels.
5000
Figure 7-4. Wytch Farm casing job showing the effectiveness of circulation in removing excessive drag and restoring the casing running weight to normal levels.
If local casing running experience indicates that conventional running procedures may pose unacceptable risks in terms of getting to bottom, various modified running techniques and contingency measures are available as discussed below.
Unocal developed techniques for partially floating casings in their Platform Irene ERD operations which are now marketed by Davis-Lynch. Flotation greatly reduces buoyed casing weight and frictional losses. The basis of partial flotation is to float the lower casing section which extends into the long tangent or horizontal section. At some depth, a sub is made-up into the casing which allows filling the casing above the lower floated section with mud. The upper section provides normal buoyant casing weight to push the floated section into the well.
7-8
Although early partial flotation subs were mechanical and required tripping in the casing with DP, the tools are now hydraulic. Their operation is designed in two stages, the first being a release of the seal at one pressure, and the second being a shearing of the tool internals as part of the cement job. The seal release allows venting of the air in the floated section and a complete filling of the string with mud. Circulation is then established, and the casing cemented. A lead or tail cement plug is used to fully shear the sub internals and leave the sub with full drift. Field experience (Hamilton Brothers in Liverpool Bay using Davis-Lynch subs) was, however, that the process was effectively one-step. This was due to the pressure surge from the initial release pressure causing a shearing of the sub internals, with those internals falling to the casing float collar during filling and mud circulation. This outcome had no impact on the operation and the jobs were successful in terms of flotation function of the subs and the cement job. A diagram illustrating the tool and the technique are shown:
14 15 13
28
30 29
30
21 24
23
21 20 19
22
19 5a
19
19
4 3 5 6 7 17
12a
16
7-9
Design issues for partial flotation include: Optimum placement of the flotation sub Shearing pressure margins The releasing pressure must account for the initial hydrostatic imbalance between the mud-filled upper section and the lower evacuated (air-filled) section, and for pressure surges during running. Partial flotation precludes circulation while running, so selecting partial (or full flotation) relies on the prediction that frictional weight losses will dominate mechanical weight losses. In one Gulf-of-Mexico operation, an independent operator applied the Unocal partial flotation technique successfully only to find the casing moved freely after the sub was released and the casing had been fully filled with mud. This observation contradicted the pre-well prediction that the casing would not have remaining weight at the subject depth and, in this case, indicated that partial flotation may not have been required.
ERD casings may also be fully floated. As with partial flotation, casing collapse must be checked and running weights projected. An additional issue is the casing may have little weight or in fact be buoyant. This impacts running equipment such as spiders and back-up tongs. If the projection shows that casing may be buoyant, slips should be acquired which can hold upward loads. On Wytch Farm Well M3, the 9-5/8 inch 40 lb/ft C-95 casing was run to TD at 17,535 ft (5,346m) fully floated in a 10.4 ppg (1.25 SG) mud. This casing was buoyant and was pushed into the well using the topdrive and swivel. A drive-sub comprised of a drive shoulder welded onto a short DP pup was made-up into the top-drive. The drive-sub was lowered into the casing until the drive-sub shoulder contacted the coupling looking up. Top-drive and swivel weight were then applied to push the casing into the well. The M3 casing flotation was performed as a test to determine if the technique would work and to identify constraints and issues for its use on very long reach wells. The test was successful, although improvements were identified. On subsequent ERD well M5, the 9-5/8 inch was run to greater depths, i.e. 19708 ft. (6007m), with conventional mud filling and periodic circulation. Wytch Farm's experience to date has been that with good lubricity from OBM, their 9-5/8 inch casings can be run to bottom with conventional procedures and patience (pipe working) in the lower 12-1/4 inch section. The M3 casing flotation experience also shows that the procedure could be used for even higher departure wells with higher inclination and longer 12-1/4 inch sections.
7-10
Top-Drive Manipulation
As a contingency for unexpected problems while running casing conventionally, or as a planned procedure on very high departure wells (beyond those currently being drilled), procedures can allow topdrive manipulation of the casing to assist running. Top-drive manipulation could include the ability to circulate, reciprocate, rotate, and compress the casing. To provide these capabilities, a cross-over from casing to top-drive, high-torque casing connections and solid-body centralizers is required. The crossovers should be made of integral stock and have at least matched-strength to the casing. Rotation of the casing by the top-drive would provide mechanical assistance in breaking up cuttings beds (and other obstructions) and removing friction. Rotation of filled casing would be limited due to high torque levels, but rotation of floated casing is predicted to be feasible even in deep sections. Compression of the casing by the top-drive provides added running weight, and is applicable to filled or floated casing. Use of top-drive and swivel weight to compress the casing should be pursued only after analysis of the involved load path and component reactions. Analysis of the procedure on the Deutag T47 rig, which has a Varco TDS-4H top-drive suspended under a National P-500 swivel, resulted in several conclusions. These involved the reaction of the load through the top-drive main shaft and into the swivel cover housing and the fact that the limiting structural factor was the swivel cover bolts. As a result, these bolts were changed to a higher strength type. Enhanced casing shoes should also be considered (i.e., the Silver Bullet float shoe developed by BP Colombia). For severe ERD wells, it should be clear that enhanced (ribbed and tapered) float shoes, flotation methods, and top-drive manipulation can be engineered to produce a casing running system capable of flotation and rotation to extreme TDs.
7-11
Actual Adjstd-DSS
7-12
These torque behaviors make the liner and hanger torque capacities critical. To obtain high torque capacities, premium connections with torque shoulders should be used. Most premium connections, i.e. VAM, NK3SB, TC-II, NSCC, etc., have designs which are optimized around a metal-to-metal (M-M) gas seal. These types of premium connections have good torque capacities, but have not been designed for maximum torque capacity, nor are the published make-up torques for these connections their actual maximum sustainable torques. Example: A modified VAM connection (known as VAM-4001) was produced for 5-1/2 inch 17 lb./ft L80 pipe for increased torque capacity. The published optimum make-up torque for this connection is 8,250 ft-lbs. Physical testing showed the connection could sustain torque near 13,000 ft-lbs or nearly 60% above the recommended "maximum." This is one example of the design margins that typically exist on torque capacity of premium M-M seal connections. Wytch Farm has additional experience in the qualification of 9-5/8 inch 40 lb./ft C-95 BOSS to nearly 40,000 ft-lbs, and ARCO has similar experience with high torsional testing of the Hunting/Kawasaki FOX connection. No premium connections have been designed specifically for torque capacity except for the Hydril wedge thread. Hydrils wedge thread involves interlocking pin and box dovetail threads that fully lock at makeup. As a result of the large shouldering area comprised of load flank, stab flank, crest and root areas, the wedge thread has very high torque capacity. Example: Hydrils 521 wedge connection for 5-1/2 inch 17 lb./ft L-80 is rated to about 24,000 ft-lbs for yield torque and has been run with 16,000 - 18,000 ft-lbs of make-up torque at Wytch Farm. These makeup torques have not caused any problems with the connections and are prudent given the above torque behaviors. It is necessary to ensure that proper tongs, dies, etc. are available so the torque can be applied without pipe-body damage. Once a proper liner torque rating has been developed, it should be added to cased hole surface torque taken at the shoe during the last (pre-liner) trip in or out of the well to establish a surface torque limit for the liner job. A final liner issue is the setting of top-set packers above the hanger. Weight-set top set packers (TSPs) require significant compression be applied by the drill string at depth which can be difficult to achieve and measure in extreme ERD wells. An enhanced TSP setting system has been engineered by Nodeco for Wytch Farm which involved a bearing on the TSP setting shoulder. This bearing enhancement allowed the drill string to be rotated at slow RPMs while weight was applied to the TSP. Rotation of the string for this procedure eliminates frictional resistance to the weight application and allows for a more accurate surface assessment of how much weight has been applied.
7-13
Wear Management
Various casing wear management measures are inherent to several aspects of proper ERD well planning and execution and are thus likely to be addressed: Dogleg control Optimal trajectory design Minimizing rotating hours Increased wear tolerance (WT) Increased strength - progressive integrity
Use of Drill Pipe Protectors (DPP) for casing wear avoidance across intervals of probable wear is an additional measure, but more direct means of wear control are recommended. Substantial experience indicates casing wear can be minimized with chromium alloy hardfacings. These materials were identified in joint-industry research and have been field tested by major operators. Despite overwhelming evidence that tungsten carbide hardfacings wear casing even in their most benign forms, tungsten carbide hardfacings remain in use and are repeatedly associated with serious casing wear failures. The success of new hardfacings in avoiding casing wear and the repeated correlation of casing wear with tungsten carbide should be appreciated when planning ERD projects. The cost of hardfacing a drill string is minimal compared to the cost of a single casing wear failure. To date, no casing wear failures have occurred with the new hardfacings anywhere in the world under normal drilling conditions. One casing wear incident was reported in Colombia but involved extremely high rotating hours in the involved hole section due to the challenging drilling conditions in that operation. The bulk of current experience with the new hardfacings is with Arnco-200XT and ArmacorM, but other alloys exist and may also become qualified.
7-14
To minimize steel-to-steel wear caused by contact between the base tool joint material and casing, these hardfacings should be applied proud by 3/32 - 1/8 inch and may be used in the as-welded state. However, these new hardfacings must be applied properly. Parameters for their application, i.e. welding temperatures, etc., vary from tungsten carbide, and shops need to demonstrate that they can provide reliable application. Experience indicates that attempting to apply these hardfacings without proper technical support from the supplier can cause significant problems, including debonding of the hardfacing from the tool joint.
Examination of the metal recovered can help identify the wear mechanism and therefore the severity as galling and machining are two to three orders of magnitude greater in terms of wear rate. For casing wear logging, various tools are available including mechanical multi-finger calipers, such as Schlumberger, Kinley, and Sondex. Ultrasonic inspection tools are available from Schlumberger and Halliburton. Since all casing wear inspection logs can be affected by centralization and calibration issues, nominal remaining thickness should be established by the minimum radius indicated by the tool itself. Wall loss can then be evaluated based on the difference between the maximum and minimum radius indications. Casing wear in ERD wells should be oriented on the high side in the upper section of hole, then transitioning to low-side orientation near the end of the build and throughout the long tangent and horizontal sections.
7-15
CASING/LINER CENTRALIZATION
Centralization for ERD well tubulars is an area of ongoing debate. Claims are made that centralizers reduce casing running friction by providing sleds or skis for the casing to glide in the hole. These claims are controversial but centralizers can often add to frictional running weight losses. This effect is difficult to isolate with field data, but it can be clearly observed in the following figure:
Agostino 34 Dir
Hookload (Metric Tons) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600
Weight in Mud Upstroke (theor.) Downstroke (theor.) Upstroke (actual) Downstroke (actual)
Activated DAC
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Measured Depth (m)
Figure 7-7.
Figure 7-7 shows up and down weights on casing which used downhole-activated centralizers or DACs. Weatherford's DACs are bow-type centralizers which are restrained when run. Downhole, they are released by pressure and expand to normal size. As shown above, as the DACs opened below 800m, they added incremental drag to the casing string. It is considered likely that centralizers will also add incremental drag in ERD wells. Thus, centralization should be minimized and solid-body centralizers are preferred. Bow-type centralizers are not acceptable products for high-inclinations. Although some may argue double-bow or semi-rigid styles are acceptable, these still pose substantially more risk than a solid-body centralizer. Common practice for the intermediate casing is to run only about 6-8 solid-body centralizers in total over the bottom few joints to assist is securing pressure isolation at the shoe. Centralization back up the hole, i.e. around DV tools, inside the previous shoe, or at the wellhead, does not affect runnability of the string and can be pursued per normal policy.
7-16
Set Hanger ?
Drop Dart
Bump Plug
Displace Cement
Pump Cement
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
For ERD liners, centralization should be designed to provide good standoff of the liner. Since the liner should be rotatable during running, solid-body centralizers should be used, and they may be used in greater numbers than for casing. The type of solid-body centralizer used should also be considered. Experience has been related from Shell in the North Sea where a liner was pulled from a high-angle well due to problems with the hanger. Upon retrieval of the liner, severe wear of the aluminum solid-body centralizers was noted. As a result, solid-body centralizers are now offered using zinc-based alloys, which are tougher and more wear resistant than aluminum. As solid-body centralizers are almost all manufactured using casting techniques, zinc-based materials should be available from a variety of manufacturers at minimal premiums compared with aluminum. In some cases, solid centralizers can significantly reduce liner torque.
7-17
Minimal intermediate casing centralization is generally recommended to improve runnability. Liner centralization can be extensive. Casing wear is a serious risk on all ERD wells. ERD drill strings should be rehardfaced with chromium alloy hardfacings. Additional measures are inherent to optimal well design and drilling, and may include the use of non-rotating Drill Pipe Protectors (DPP).
7-18
REFERENCES
1. Ruddy, K. E. and Hill D., "Analysis of Buoyancy-Assisted Casings and Liners in Mega-Reach Wells", IADC/SPE 23878, 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 18-21 February 1992, New Orleans. 2. Bell, R.A., Jr., Hinkel, R.M., Bunyak, M.J., Payne, J.D. and Hood, J.L., III., "Application of Innovative Extended Reach and Horizontal Drilling Technology in Oilfield Development", IADC/SPE 27463, 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 15-18 February, 1994, Dallas, Texas. 3. BPX Hardfacing Specification, BP XTP, August, 1994. 4. BPX Casing Design Manual, Section 10.
7-19
Section 8
Cementing
In this Section...
Option Selection - Considerations When Selecting ERD Candidates - Theory and Introduction Pre-Drill Data Package - Required Prospect Information Well Planning - Feasibility Through Detailed Drilling Procedures - Equipment Slurry Design and Testing Requirements Implementation - Operational Issues, Rig Practices - Cement Placement and Mud Removal Centralization - Setting Cement Plugs in ERD/Horizontal Sections Post Analysis/Performance Measurement Wytch Farm Case History - ERD Stage III Development - Wells F18-F21 and M-1-M15 - Future Wells References Contacts
8-1
OPTION SELECTION - CONSIDERATIONS WHEN SELECTING ERD CANDIDATES Theory and Introduction
Cementing ERD wells is more challenging because of: Generally higher mud weights required for wellbore stability Poor hole cleaning and possible pack off when circulating casing Poor knowledge of hole size Mud losses
The high angle hole and high step-out of ERD wells make it significantly more difficult to displace drilling mud and place cement, than in conventional drilling applications. This makes several factors even more critical in the cementing of ERD wells. These factors include equipment selection, slurry and spacer properties, job design, centralization, and pipe-movement. The success of the entire project can hinge on getting a good cement job. Failure to do so may result in inability to isolate water or thief zones, resulting in poor productivity and potential high treatment costs. An excellent and recommended reference is the BPX Horizontal Well Drilling Manual (1990), the majority of which holds true for the greater part of cementing in ERD wells today. Some slight differences, which account for hole angle variations and recent advances in drilling technology, are covered here. The factors which need attention to detail over-and-above the normal practices for conventional cementing are: Planning Equipment Cement placement Centralization Slurry Designs
8-2
8-3
Planning and an integrated approach are critical. Planning, operational decisions, and changes can significantly impact the success of the cement job, and vice versa. Cement placement simulations and pilot testing should be carried out at least 2-4 weeks in advance, to allow time for any necessary changes to the design. A final slurry test must be done with samples of materials to be used on the actual cementing operation. There may be long lead times for the acquisition of special float shoes, stage collars, and combination plugs (> 6 weeks). These, together with stage tool requirements, should be planned well in advance.
Equipment
Side-Ported Float Shoes
It is good practice to run an extended shoe track on ERD wells, particularly when only top cement wiper plugs are used (e.g. liners). Common practice is to run 3 or even 4 joints to prevent contaminated cement being displaced into the annulus. New developments such as extending and side-ported float shoes, float shoes with hard banding (or even polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) inserts), and hole finding shoes (bullet shoes or Weatherford hole finder) , are particularly useful for washing down casing through long and troublesome sections. The side-ported float shoe also improves all-round cement placement directly at the shoe. A number of these shoes are available (Ray, Davis Lynch, Halliburton, and Weatherford), most of these being PDC drillable. Auto-fill float equipment and spring-assisted valves (not ball types) may be useful in highly deviated sections. Use double float valves where part of the shoe track is to be drilled for liners with one below clean out depth in liner shoe track since cement quality in shoe track of ERD casing strings and liners is usually poor.
Cementing Heads
There are no ERD specific issues. However, there may be issues where tapered strings are used. There may be some benefit from remote release heads on safety grounds and to minimize U-tubing, since plugs can be launched without stopping displacement.
8-4
Plug Systems
Casing - For Subsea launched plugs, the main issues are PDC drillability and anti rotation. Recent success has been achieved using the Halliburton system. However, not that it is not possible to launch Halliburton plugs using a 6-5/8 inch running string. With extended shoe tracks there has been downside in launching top plug only on ERD wells. With 6-5/8 inch by 5 inch tapered running strings, plugs may leave cement in 6-5/8 inch. For surface-released plugs, the main issues are anti-rotation and pressure testing capability. Systems are available from Weatherford and Halliburton (high pressure versions may be needed with Halliburton). Liner - It is not common practice even on very long liners, to use top and bottom wiper plugs. Launch darts are available for use in 65/8/5-inch combination running strings.
ECP
ECPs can be used for additional contingency isolation when cementing long sections. Cement inflated packers are generally more durable than mud inflated. We do not recommend mud inflating an ECP after cementing, as failure of the ECP may impact the cement quality. The main role of ECPs are seen when run in combination with stage or full opening (FO) collars, to prevent fluid migration / cross flow where it has proved impossible to solve in a primary cementing operation (e.g. gas migration, aquifer isolation). Good results have been achieved using Baker (CTC) tools.
Stage Tools
Hydraulic stage tools are preferred because of problems getting opening bombs to land in high angle wells. Liner stage tools are particularly useful for cementing long sections where high ECD may result in losses and poor zone isolation. Care must be exercised when using a hydraulic stage tool on liners with a number of hydraulically operated components, particularly if a loss zone was covered by first stage where an integral stage tool / ECP would be required. For 9-5/8 inch casing jobs, Davis-Lynch stage collars have been used with good success.
8-5
Slurry testing must be carried out with representative samples of cement and additives from the rig, prior to cementing. Use of different cement samples (though the same manufacturer) can result in cemented pipe. By nature, ERD cementing slurry volumes can be large and carry an increased risk of using multiple batches of cement. Where possible, a single batch should be used. Otherwise, all component batches should be tested independently. Slurry density control is also critical, particularly since batch mixing is often not an option with large slurry volumes. Density control during the cement job should be kept to Design density +0.1 ppg/ -0.2 ppg (e.g.. for a 16 ppg slurry 15.8 ppg to 16.1 ppg). Mixing over the design density reduces the available slurry pumping time and risks cemented pipe. Mixing below target density risks poor cement quality (free water, fluid loss, rheology). Lab testing can determine thickening time sensitivity to density changes. Batch mixing is still the best way of controlling slurry density. However, where slurry volumes prevent this, a recirculating mixer should be used (when mixing on the fly, slurry quality is only as good as the bulk supply). If batch mixing slurry, be aware that high shear can significantly reduce thickening time. Once mixed, the slurry should be agitated with low shear paddles and not continually recirculated.
Critical slurries should be designed with zero freewater and low settlement to prevent communication along the topside of the hole. Use the BP settlement test procedure. As a general rule of thumb for horizontal liners, reduction in height of the cement column must be less than 3mm (1 mm preferred) with a change in density gradient from top to bottom of no more than 0.5 ppg.
Design Temperatures
Design temperatures are critical to the success of the cement operation. With high step-outs and long sections, bottom hole circulating temperature (BHCT) is frequently much higher than API tables predict, because the slurry spends more time exposed to formation close to bottom hole static temperature (BHST). Using API tables for design temperatures in ERD can seriously risk flash set of the cement. Measurement while drilling (MWD) temperatures should not be solely relied upon, since these cannot accurately predict temperature at the time of the cement job. Temperature modeling programs are needed to predict BHCT accurately. The BPX recommended simulator is Welltemp by Enertech (a new PC version - Wellcat - is now available). The temperature model in Cemcade also gives acceptable results, though it may be less reliable when fluids (mud and or brine) are in turbulence. BHCT needs to be calculated several weeks in advance to allow for adequate slurry design and testing.
8-6
Thickening time tests need to simulate the job as closely as possibly. API testing procedures are a starting point, but additional testing needs to take into account surface mixing time, placement time, and expected temperature/pressure. Pumping time needs to account for all operations and safety. For lead slurries, there is usually no down side from having thickening time equal to twice the job time on an ERD well (except where gas migration is a consideration). For tail slurries and liners, pumping time should be based on job time (at lowest expected displacement rate assuming total losses) plus time for shutdowns (e.g. setting liner top packer) plus at least two hours safety margin. Lab thickening time (TT) should be performed at expected temperature (see design temperature) and at +/- 15 F (10 C) of design temperature (guideline only) to check for sensitivity to temperature variation. This is critical where temperature recommendations above have not been completed. A second sensitivity test is recommended for retarder concentration. Test at design concentration of retarder and at +/- 0.02 gal/sk or +/-10% of retarder (guideline only). If TT is significantly different between tests, re-design may be necessary using an alternative retarder. If slurries are sensitive and re-design would compromise optimum slurry, precautions must be taken to ensure accurate additive addition (premixing mix water and eliminating the liquid additive system (LAS), re-calibrating the LAS, or using a computer-operated LAS).
8-7
Isolation and good cement placement requires careful planning and optimization of all cementing parameters, including: Good centralization ( >80%) where good zonal isolation is critical Reduced mud viscosity and gels for good mud removal Fastest displacement rate as possible (washes and spacers should be designed for turbulent flow) Pipe movement (preferably rotation) - the impact on pipe make up torque needs to be considered Spacer weighted to halfway between mud and cement Spacer viscosity less than cement but more than mud Conditioning mud prior to the cement job Consideration needs to be given to the impact such parameters might have on other factors such as: ECD (See Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics) Swab and surge pressures (See Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics) Barite sag (See Section 6, Drilling Fluids Optimization) Hole cleaning (See Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics) All Cementing Service Companies and BP (via DEAP) are capable of predicting ECD, surface pressures, and U-tubing during cementing operations. DEAP, BJ Services new version of Cemfacts, and Dowell's Cemcade can model the actual mud displacement process, enabling spacer and cement rheologies and densities to be optimized using engineering criteria.
It is rare to have caliper data on which to base volumes on an ERD well. If calipers are available for offset wells, the degree of washout and excess on gauge hole should be based on the offset data. If no data is available, the recommendation is 20% on 5-1/2 inch - 8-1/2 inch OH geometry and 30% on 7inch - 8-1/2 inch geometry. Where a caliper is available, pump 10% excess on caliper or those on OH, whichever is greater.
8-8
Spacers
Turbulent flow spacers are preferred. Where turbulence cannot be guaranteed because of large annulus and low displacement rates, laminar flow spacers should be designed. These should be thicker than the mud, but thinner than the cement. Single spacers should also be weighted halfway between the mud and cement, to enhance removal of fluids by the buoyancy effect. Spacer trains of two or more spacers can enhance mud removal and/or reduce ECD. For example, using a turbulent water-wetting flush ahead of the weighted spacer, if pore pressures permit. An additional bottom plug is recommended to separate the spacers. However, for liners where no bottom plug is employed, intermixing of spacers is possible, and they should have a minimum volume of 50 bbl. When a wash and a weighted spacer mix, the benefits of both are reduced. With long casing strings in a poorly cleaned hole, pumping a turbulent flow wash ahead may increase the possibility of a pack off. Where fracture gradients are low, large low-density pills (treated water or base oil) ahead of the spacer significantly reduces the ECD during cementing, to reduce losses. Pay attention to well control issues. Chemical compatibility tests should be done to identify optimum spacer selection.
Pipe Movement
Pipe movement greatly increases effective mud removal and cement placement, particularly on the narrow side, and should be used to compliment good centralization. Rotating liner hangers allow the liner to be hung off prior to cement placement. Rotation also causes a swirling effect which reduces channeling. Reciprocation can risk getting stuck, particularly on the up-stroke.
Lubricity
Lubricity additives and friction reducers may also help reduce ECD and rotational pipe torques.
8-9
CENTRALIZATION
Calculating Stand-Off
Stand-off is the parameter used to define the eccentricity of the annulus, where 100% stand-off is a perfectly centralized casing. For critical cement jobs, particularly liners, minimum stand-off should be no less than 70% (preferably 80-85%). Poor stand-off generally results in poor cement placement in the narrow side. The calculation for stand-off is shown as follows: Stand-Off = (W/Rhole-Rcasing )* 100
Legend: W = Minimum gap R = Radius
(8.1)
Casing Center
x-y
100% STANDOFF
STANDOFF = 100[(x-y)/x] %
wellbore
x+y d
casing
centralizer
x-y
Refer to Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines for a discussion of centralizer selection.
8-10
For rigid centralizers, this is easily calculated: An 8-3/8 inch rigid centralizer on 7 inch casing always gives a gap between the casing and hole of (8.375-7)/2 = 0.6875, no matter what the hole size, because the centralizer will always be against the hole as a worst case. Standoff at the centralizer in 8-1/2 inch hole is therefore: (0.6875/0.75) x 100% = 92%. Note this will reduce as hole size increases, e.g. standoff at the centralizer in 9-1/2 inch hole is: (0.6875/1.25) x 100% = 55%. For bowspring centralizers, charts of API restoring force tests must be consulted for the type of centralizer to be used. As an example, the Weatherford charts for a standard 7 inch casing centralizer give a gap of 0.668 for a restoring force of 1120 lbs. Standoff using once centralizer per joint is therefore: (0.668/0.75) x 100% = 89%. Using two centralizers per joint, a restoring force of 1120/2 = 560 will give a gap of 0.723 feet. Standoff will be: (0.723/0.75) x 100% = 96%. Using one centralizer every two joints, a restoring force of 1120 x 2 = 2240 lbs will give a gap of 0.545 feet. Standoff will be: (0.545/0.75) x 100% = 73%.
8-11
Casing will sag to some extent between centralizers, whether rigid or bow. Deflection is calculated using the formula: d = s5*w*sinJ/192*P4/[(s3*t/26*P2) + (h4 - c4) *s * P * 117188] Where: d s = = additional gap from sag effect, ins space between centralizers, ins casing weight, lbs/ft deviation angle of well, deg effective tension in casing, lbs (from DSS) (NB. can be negative, for compression) h c P = = = hole diameter, ins casing diameter, ins Pi
w = J t = =
Standoff between centralizers is then calculated by the formula: Standoff = 100[2(gap at centralizer - d)/h-c)] % (all units in inches) In this example, using 1 bowspring centralizer per joint gives a deflection of 0.081 and minimum standoff of: [2(0.668-0.081)]/1.5 x 100% = 78% Using 1 bowspring centralizer every two joints gives a deflection of 1.269 and a negative minimum standoff, i.e. casing is lying against the side of the hole. For any horizontal 8-1/2 inch hole with 7 inch casing, the same result will apply. So one centralizer every two joints is unacceptable. There is some advantage in placing centralizers half way along a joint instead of close to or over the couplings, as the couplings themselves provide a small amount of standoff and may help to reduce the sag between the centralizers.
8-12
Very high angle and horizontal cement plugs have been successfully placed on several Wytch Farm wells in 8.1/2" hole. The following procedures have been developed from that experience. It should be noted that the mud weight is only 0.94 sg (7.8 ppg) and this probably assists with mud - cement separation. 1. Aim to set a 150m plug. Top of cement is usually found 20 - 40m lower than expected. 2. Use a 220m 2.7/8" DP stinger. 3. Rotate the pipe whilst spotting the slurry. 4. Don't worry too much about trying to balance the plug with the spacer as this is not very critical in high angles. 5. Pump 40 bbls of spacer ahead of the cement at 1.50 sg. Follow the cement with 5 bbl spacer. 6. Displace the lead spacer into the annulus at high rate. 7. Displace the cement slurry into the annulus at a slow rate, 2 bbl/min, rotating the pipe throughout. In order to calculate the displacement volume, use the measured capacity of the drillpipe (preferably by calibrating it experimentally). Our experience is that 5" 19.5 lb/ft pipe is 0.0172 bbl/ft (not 0.01776). Dart type indicators have not been used but should assist if there is doubt over drillpipe capacity. 8. Underdisplacing on its own will not cause cement to fall out the bottom of the pipe. Therefore pump a heavy slug as the final part of the displacement. Also under-displace to prevent U-tubing (say 10 bbl). 9. POOH from cement very slowly at 3-5 minutes per stand (a stopwatch is useful as this is very slow!). 10. Once above the cement, circulate conventionally at a high rate while rotating the pipe (watching closely for losses) to clear cement from the pipe. Do not reverse circulate if there is a danger of initiating losses.
8-13
8-14
WYTCH FARM CASE HISTORY ERD Stage III Development - Wells F18-F21 and M1-M5.
Well F18
Use of 5-1/2 inch liner in 8-1/2 inch hole to reduce ECD, because of low frac gradient. Would prefer 7-inch to allow larger tools inside liner. Cementing policy put together by BP Sunbury for optimizing Liner cementing practices (Wytch Farm specific). Inability to run 9-5/8 inch casing to TD with recommended number of bow type centralizers, probably due to high friction and ledging below the 13-3/8 inch shoe. Casing was eventually run slick apart from two centralizers around stage collar. Intend to run solid undergauge centralizers in future. Dont run many centralizers on 9-5/8 inch. Ran two ECPs on liner as additional water shut-off. Only partial success, with poor inflation indicated. Good Liner CBL.
Well F19 Description/Result F20 F21 M1 Centralizers for 9 5/8 included 5 x semi-rigid and 10 x solid spiral centralizers. Liner utilized 2 spirals per joint. Good 9 5/8 and liner CBL. Underdisplacement on liner cement job of approximately 30bbls, coinciding with time that cement reached liner hanger. Suspected cuttings pack-off at liner packer (cement acting as a viscous pill). Good 9 5/8 and liner CBL. ECP failure. No underdisplacement problems seen on liner. Used 40lb/ft 9 5/8 inch instead of 43.5lb/ft casing at the liner hanger, to give approximately 25% more annular clearance. Used viscous sweep prior to liner cement job to remove any cuttings. Decided not to run additional ECPs on liner, since confidence in cement quality was good. No 8 1/2 drilled.
8-15
M1 Well M2
No 8 1/2 drilled. Description/Result Several problems on liner cement job contributed to cement setting up inside liner and no cement in annulus. Significant change in cement batch properties and consequent testing of non-representative samples, lead to incorrect properties in slurry pumped, resulting in reduced thickening time. Changed out cement manufacturer, added additional cement silo for intermixing batches, and improved sampling and testing procedures. Cement unit pumps failed three times during cement job. Back-up pump unit (truck) recommended in future. Temperature modeling highlighted need to raise test temperatures for 9 5/8 and liner, well above API recommendations, as a result of longer exposure to formation temperature in highly deviated sections. Liner BHCT raised to 141degF (very close to BHST of 146deg F). See Table 10-2, M3 Late Well Data Special case well (Frome), which targeted a shallow depth sand. The horizontal liner was an open hole completion using three cement inflated ECPs. Successful record well. 8km step-out. 2.9km horizontal liner cemented successfully. These practices are recognized as having vastly increased the chances of a successful liner cement job at Wytch Farm: Planning with DEAP CPS - Cement placement simulations helped considerably in optimizing necessary volumes, flow rates and rheologies to reduce ECDs. This was critical for the prevention of losses and ensuring good cement placement in a formation with such a narrow window between the pore pressure (c. 0.92 SG) and the low frac gradient (c. 1.02-1.06SG). Good centralization - Two solid zinc alloy spiral centralizers were run per joint of liner, giving approximately 80% stand-off. Zinc-alloy centralizers are used in preference to aluminum, because they are much harder and resistant to wear in long runs. There is also evidence that zinc-alloy may be a better bearing material. (Reduced friction coefficient) Reduced ECDs - 400 bbls of base oil pill, ahead of a reduced density weighted spacer (1.35SG) helped minimize hydrostatic head and reduce the ECD in the low frac gradient reservoir. Back-up cement pumping unit - A contingency pumping truck was hooked up and ready should the site cement unit have failed during the job. The low frac gradient meant that in the event of a problem, it would not be possible to (reverse) circulate out cement. Good sampling procedures - Written sampling procedures which were strictly followed, including clean, well labeled containers for large samples. Good quality slurry - The slurry was designed for zero settlement (critical), long thickening time, but short strength development, fluid loss <100ml and reasonably low rheology. Rotation - Rotation was maintained throughout the job at torques less than predicted. Torques were reduced by good liner centralization an centralizer type. As low a mud weight and rheology as possible - critical for reducing ECDs. Closely monitor losses throughout the cement job - reduce/increase displacement rate accordingly.
M3 M4 M5
8-16
Table 10-2 M3 - Late Well Data Date of Job 28/12/94 2/1/95 25/1/95 8/3/95 Hole Size 24 inches 17 1/2 inches 12 1/4 inches 8 1/2 inches Casing 18 5/8 13 3/8 9 5/8 (2 stage) 5 1/2 MD (m) 218 854 2210 5338 7259 TVD (m) 218 744 1007 1557 1596 BHST (F) 71 100 112 142 146 BHCT (F) 64 84 105 125 141
With increased step-out and longer liners, there was a need to reduce ECDs. This was achieved by reducing mud density and viscosity, reducing spacer density and volume, and by pumping a large base oil flush ahead of the spacer. Unable to run logging tools on coil tubing due to high step-out.
Future Wells
CBL will not be attempted on future wells, unless a problem is indicated during the cement job (i.e. no rotation/ high losses/ no returns). This is because three CBLs to date have shown good cement quality and there is no indication that cement job quality has changed. There is also the added problem of trying to run logging tools successfully to TD. A large mixwater preparation tank (800bbls) is proposed for future liner jobs, to ensure mixwater consistency throughout the job and to allow testing of the mixwater prior to cementing.
REFERENCES
1. BPX Horizontal Well Drilling Manual, Cementing section (1991). 2. 'BP Settlement Test improves Measurement of Cement Slurry Stability' C. Greaves and A.P. Hibbert (1990) Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 12 1990.
CONTACTS
Specialty Name Robert Dallimer Daryl Kellingray Chris Greaves Location XTP Sunbury PSR Dyce BPX Colombia Telephone 44 (0)1932 764136 44 (0)1224 833571 57 1 623 4077 Fax 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1224 833577 57 1 618 3215
8-17
Section 9
9-1
INTRODUCTION
The primary differences in mechanical design issues that separate ER from more conventional drill string design are: The magnitude of expected drill string loads The need to apply bit weight with normal weight drill pipe Aside from these mechanical issues, several other interdependent considerations come into play when selecting drill string components for an ER well, as shown in Figure 9-1. We use an iterative three-step process to optimize our drill string configuration: 1. Use torque-drag software to estimate the non-cyclic loads that the drill string will experience. 2. Select components that can safely carry these loads. 3. Reduce or redistribute the loads as required by modifying the drill string, the trajectory, the mud properties, or the casing program. Another important mechanical consideration for ER drill string design (not shown on Figure 9-1) is fatigue mitigation. Fatigue is discussed in this section after the discussion of non-cyclic loads.
9-2
HOLE ISSUES HOLE CLEANING HOLE STABILITY HYDRAULICS, ECD CASING WEAR DIRECTIONAL OBJECTIVES
3. VERIFY EACH COMPONENT'S CONDITION RIG ISSUES STORAGE SPACE SETBACK SPACE ACCURACY OF LOAD INDICATORS PUMP PRESSURE/VOLUME CAPACITY TOP DRIVE OUTPUT TORQUE OTHER ISSUES JAR PLACEMENT MUD TYPE & WEIGHT
Figure 9-1. ER well Drill String design is an Iterative process involving variable and often conflicting issues.
In a typical ER well rotary torque loads are higher and tension loads lower than for a vertical well of the same measured depth. This arises from the fact that a large part of the drill string weight is supported by the side of the hole in an ER well, reducing the portion of drill string weight that must be supported by the block. At the same time, friction from this side-wall support of the drill string makes the string more difficult to rotate, increasing the rotary torque load on the string.
36 420
24
Torsion Tension
280 210
18
12 6
140 70
0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Figure 9-2. Drill string loads in a series of 20,000 ft MD wells vary with hole angle.
9-3
30
Torsion (1000 ft-lbs)
350
Figure 9-2 shows the expected surface hanging load and rotary torque to rotate the drill string off bottom in a series of hypothetical wells with a 2 /100 ft (30m) build rate and with tangent angle varying between 0 and 90 degrees. It also shows that rotary torque in an ER well may be a limiting load, especially at higher tangent angles and longer reaches. Figure 9-2 is given only to illustrate the expected drill string load trends as our drilling moves from conventional toward ER, and not to show loads for any particular case.
Given the design constraint that non-cyclic loads may not exceed yield stress tension, rotary torque and their combined effects should be evaluated in appropriate reference materials: Standard DS-1 Drill Stem Design and Inspection BPX Equipment Manual API RP7G
Torque
Key Points:
Torsional capacity of string is typically limited by tool joint capacity Actual tool joint dimensions (box OD, pin ID, and connection type) are required to determine tool joint capacity and makeup torque Rotary torque is limited by makeup torque of the connection Makeup torque can be increased within pin neck tensile load constraints if required "Standard" tool joint dimensions are those which are 80% as torsionally strong as the drill pipe body. Therefore, the tool joint is likely to be the limiting component for typical ERD non-cyclic loads. Contractors often purchase nonstandard tool joints for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it is essential to verify the actual dimensions of the tool joints in the string to be used to ensure that it has adequate torsional strength for the application. Since all API tool joints are made from material having the specified minimum yield strength of 120,000 psi, tool joint torsional capacity is determined only by connection type, pin ID and box OD. Makeup torque is the operating torque limit for a rotary shouldered connection. Table 9-1 lists standard tool joint dimensions for NC-50 tool joints on 5-inch 19.50 ppf, S-135 drill pipe. Also shown are the tool joint torsional capacities and makeup torques using standard thread dope.
Table 9-1 Performance Properties of "Standard" Sized Tool Joints on 5-inch 19.50 ppf Drill Pipe Grade E X G S Standard ID (in) 3-3/4 3-1/2 3-1/4 2-3/4 Standard OD (in) 6-5/8 6-5/8 6-5/8 6-5/8 Makeup Torque (ft.-lb) 22840 27080 31020 38040 Torsional Yield (ft.-lb.) 38060 45130 51700 63400
9-4
If predicted operating torque in an ER well exceeds standard makeup torque, then there are three potential solutions: Increase makeup torque Replace the drill string with one with stronger tool joints Lower the friction forces in the hole
Since the first alternative is always cheaper, it's usually the solution of choice, provided it can be done safely. Always check the remaining pin neck tensile capacity at the increased makeup torque levels by using the combined load curves for tool joints in DS-1 as shown in Figure 9-3.
For stronger tool joint selections and to reduce friction forces in the wellbore, refer to the Handling High Non-cyclic Loads discussion later in this section.
Drill pipe tubes are typically the weak link in tension and combined tension/torsion loading. Simultaneous application of rotary torque loading reduces the tensile load capacity of the string and vice versa. Combined load curves in DS-1 will help define limits. Be aware of combined load situations such as pulling on stuck pipe and backreaming with high drag. Unless we have inadvertently reduced the tool joint tensile capacity by excessive makeup, the tensile capacity or combined tension-torsion capacity of the string will probably be limited by the capacity of the drill pipe tubes. Both of these quantities are given in tables and curves in DS-1. The combined tension/torsion curve for 5-inch, 19.50 ppf drill pipe is reproduced as Figure 9-4. The curves for combined load capacity for tubes and tool joints (Figures 9-3 and 9-4) can be used to estimate the tensile and combined tension/torsion load capacity for the string as a whole. This is easily done by superimposing the combined load curve for the appropriate tube onto the combined load chart for the tool joint. An example is shown in Figure 9-5 for 5-inch 19.50 ppf, grade S tube with a 3-1/4 inch ID NC-50 tool joint.
9-5
These comments refer to Figure 9-5 and illustrate the process. Keep in mind that the torsion axis applied to tool joint capacity refers to makeup torque, while for tubes it refers to externally applied (rotary) torque:
1500
Pin yield
Box O.D.
Box yield Pin I.D.
1250
TENSILE CAPACITY (1000 lbs.)
1000
2-3/4
750
Shoulder separation
3-1/4
500
3-1/2
3-3/4
250
Figure 9-3. Pin neck tensile capacity of a rotary shouldered connection decreases as the applied makeup torque increases. ((DS-1, Figure 2.5i)
600 5" 19.50 lb/ft. 500 S 400 G 300 E 200 X
100
Figure 9-4. Drill pipe combined tension-torsion load capacity may be a concern in an ER well when backreaming a dirty hole. (DS-1, Figure 2.4p)
9-6
1500 5" 19.50 lb/ft. Premium Class Pipe NC50 Tool Joint with 3-1/4 inch ID
A
B
1200
I
1050 KIPS
Tension (KIPS)
900
600
561 KIPS
300
40200 ft-lbs
30800 ft-lbs
0 0 12 24
36
48
60
Torsion (K ft-lbs.)
Figure 9-5. Drill pipe combined tension-torsion load capacity is superimposed over the combined load capacity of the tool joint to estimate the combined capacity of the string as a whole.
These illustrations are for conceptual purposes only. Appropriate safety factors must be applied before using the curves. The following comments refer to Figure 9.5 and illustrate the process. Keep in mind that the torsion axis applied to tool joint capacity refers to makeup torque, while for tubes it refers to externally applied (rotary) torque:
Area Line ABC Description The area above and to the right of this line represents all the conditions of combined external (string) tension and makeup torque that would yield the tool joint pin. The normal makeup torque, and point I is the pin neck capacity to carry external tension at that makeup torque. The tensile capacity of a 5-inch, 19.50 ppf, grade S premium class tube in the absence of applied torsion on the tube. The weaknesses indicated of figure 9.5 (tube weakness in pure tension, tool joint weakness in pure torsion) are typical for common tube/tool joint combinations. The combined load capacity of the tube under simultaneous tension and torsion such as during backreaming with high tensile drags. The absolute limit of makeup torque without reducing the pin necks ability to carry external tension to less than the tensile capacity of the tube.
Point F Point D
Line DE
Point G
9-7
Make the combined load curves for your drill string immediately available to the driller on the rig floor. They should be used to define the drill string load limits for: Pulling on stuck pipe where simultaneous torque is applied Backreaming to clean out cuttings beds with high drag
Use torque and drag programs to predict non-cyclic drill string loads Choose friction factors carefully, based upon mud type and field case histories Torque and drag loads on the string can be estimated by using PC-based torque and drag models as discussed in Section 10, Torque and Drag. Drill string loads estimated in the torque and drag model for an ER well will vary widely depending on the operation being performed and the drill string configuration at the time. Therefore, a summary for each hole section should be used to keep track of the various load conditions as shown in Table 9-3 for a recent North Sea ERD well.
Table 9-3 ER Load Summary (Example 12-1/4 inch Section - North Sea) (Loads at surface, string at casing point except as noted. Drill Pipe: 5-inch, 19.50 ppf, S-135 PC, NC-50, 6-5/8 inch x 3 1/4 inch)
Load Capacities Tube Tensile Cap. (Klbx) No Torsion 561 561 561 561 561 561 561 W/ Torsion 472 561 495 561 482 561 480 TJ Torsion Limit MUT (Kft-lbs) 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Applied Loads Tension Torsion Percent Of Tool Joint Tube
Operation Pickup 1. W/rotation 2. W/O rotation Slackoff 3. W/rotation 4. W/O rotation Drilling 5.W/rotation 6. W/O rotation 7. Rotating off bottom
Assumptions: Measured depth (ft): 21,200 BHA torque (ft-lbs): 3,000 Mud weight (ppg): 14.5 BHA drag (lbs): 30,000 WOB (lbs): 20,000 RPM: 120 Bit torque (ft-lbs) 2,000 Friction factors: 0.17 (casing), 0.2 (open hole)
9-8
Special tool selections can increase the load capacities of the drill string such as tool joints and non-API material grades Consider high friction thread dope to increase makeup torque Enhanced Performance Drill Pipe provides increased critical load capacity for reduced buckling
Non-API Tool Joints
As mentioned previously, the limiting factor in ERD drill string design is often rotary torque. Other tool options may need to be explored if the predicted rotary torque for the well is higher than can safely be achieved by increasing the makeup torque, as discussed earlier. One option is to select a string with proprietary tool joints which have higher torsional capacity. The most commonly used tool joint design for these situations is the Grant -Prideco HT-Series or High-Torque connection. It employs the API NC threadform with a second torque shoulder on the nose of the pin. Makeup torque is typically 40% higher than the comparable API NC tool joint.
High Friction Thread Dope
High friction thread dope can also be used to increase the torsional capacity of the tool joint. With higher friction in the thread dope, a higher makeup torque is required to achieve the standard target stress in the connection. Since makeup torque is the rotary torque limit, a higher makeup torque means a higher rotary torque limit.
Special Tools
Another more exotic solution to increase load capacity may be the use of non-API drill pipe grades. Various drill string materials are discussed in Section 17, Emerging Technologies, such as one with a minimum yield strength of 165 ksi and one made of a titanium alloy. In-situations where high loads are the result of buckled drill pipe, consider the use of Enhanced Performance Drill Pipe. This is essentially stabilized normal weight drill pipe which provides a higher critical buckling load capacity with only a nominal increase in string weight versus regular drill pipe. Additional benefits include improved mechanical agitation of cuttings beds for improved hole cleaning. This drill pipe design is discussed in Section 17, Emerging Technologies.
9-9
High loads can be reduced by choosing lighter materials and smaller sizes for the string. Consider the use of non-rotating string stabilizers to reduce rotary torque. High non-cyclic loads can be reduced by selection of lighter materials and smaller tool sizes. Aluminum drill pipe tubes are one option that have been in limited use for many years, but may not be suitable for some mud systems. Steel tool joints are attached to each end of the aluminum tubes to provide adequate torsional capacity and wear resistance. Another lightweight material option may be composite drill pipe tubes, again with steel tool joints. Composite pipe is discussed in Section 17, Emerging Technologies. Lighter weight strings can also be achieved by reducing the size of the string. The slim-hole option has often been reserved as a contingency hole interval in case of hole problems. However, in many ERD applications and particularly for sidetracks from existing wellbores, it may be the only adequate alternative. High rotary torque loads result from high drill string sideloads as discussed in Section 10, Torque and Drag Projections. Redistribute and reduce these sideloads by using non-rotating string stabilizers such as the Diamant-Boart-Stratabit (DBS) or Western Well Tools (WWT) tools. These tools allow the string to rotate smoothly on a bearing while the non-rotating stabilizer pad provides standoff for the drill string from the casing. This reduces rotary torque, casing wear, and drill string wear.
Prevent simultaneous buckling and rotating of normal weight drill pipe. Configure the drill string to position buckling-tolerant components in the string segments which are expected to be buckled. Buckling will tend to occur in a straight segment of the wellbore immediately above or below a curved segment prior to occurring in the curved segment itself. Avoid fatigue due to BHA sag by adding undergauge stabilizers.
9-10
Drill string fatigue from cyclic loading can be a major concern in an ER well. However, with care in managing bit weights and in BHA design, fatigue will often be less of a problem in an ER well than in a vertical well because of the stabilizing effect of hole angle on drill string components. Fatigue is a complicated mechanism whose control requires concerted attention to material properties, cyclic stress levels, and the corrosiveness of the environment. Our purpose here is only to discuss two fatigue control steps that often require special attention in an ER well. A. Preventing buckling and rotating normal weight drill pipe at the same time. Because of the high hole angles, it's often necessary, while rotating, to apply bit weight with normal weight drill pipe (NWDP) run in mechanical compression. However, as long as the pipe is not buckled, no significant fatigue damage will normally be expected from this practice. In sliding mode drilling, hole friction may cause NWDP buckling while we are attempting to apply weight on bit. In the absence of rotation, no significant fatigue damage is likely. Therefore, our discussion here will concentrate on managing bit weights while rotating in order to stay below the buckling point in NWDP. B. Lowering stress induced by BHA components abruptly sagging toward the low side of a high angle hole.
Buckling
To retard fatigue damage, rotating any buckled drill string component should be avoided. When buckling is unavoidable, (as in the bottom part of the string in vertical and near-vertical hole sections), long practice has established that only more "buckling tolerant" components (drill collars and heavy weight drill pipe) should be run in the buckled zone. In an ER well, high hole angle often means that bit weight can not be efficiently applied with the traditional BHA, and it becomes necessary to mechanically compress the normal weight drill pipe to apply bit weight. Fortunately, the high hole angle helps stabilize the drill pipe and allows a certain amount of mechanical compression. As long as the magnitude of mechanical compression does not exceed the critical buckling load (FCRIT), the drill pipe remains stable. Dawson and Paslay showed that the critical buckling load in a straight wellbore could be predicted by the relationship
FCRIT = 2 EIwKB sin r
(9.1)
If bit weight is applied with normal weight drill pipe in a straight wellbore, the Dawson-Paslay equation predicts the onset of buckling from mechanical compression, and therefore provides a convenient limit for the extent the drill pipe can be used to apply bit weight. The Dawson-Paslay limit is also thought to be conservative when the hole is not enlarged, as the formula does not consider the benefit gained from the presence of tool joints on the drill pipe. Use the Super Drill String Simulator (SDSS) to calculate which segments of the drill string are buckled for given drill string configuration, mud property, and wellbore trajectory combinations.
9-11
Curves that give quick solutions to this equation are also available in DS-1, and an example is shown in figure 9.1. Also note that a curved wellbore section provides additional stability to the string above the critical buckling load predicted by Equation 9.1. Comparison of the predicted buckling loads in a curved section of the wellbore and the straight sections immediately above and below the curve will show that the drill string will tend to buckle in one of the straight hole sections before it will buckle in the curve.
66
90
56
HOLE ANGLE
70
46
40 60 30 50 20
36
26
10
16
6 6
8-1/2 9-7/8
11
12-1/4
16
17-1/2
21
Figure 9-6
9-12
OTHER DRILL STRING DESIGN ISSUES Annular Velocity and Drill Pipe Size
Annular Velocity (AV), is a key factor in hole cleaning. Since, for a given pump rate, AV is directly related to the annular area between the wellbore and drill pipe, AV considerations will figure into drill string design. At moderate build rates, larger pipe will usually be preferable because it will offer lower system pressure drop and higher annular velocities for a given pump rate. As build rate increases however, the higher stiffness of larger pipe may create casing wear problems. Table 9.4 shows the AV for several different drill pipe and hole sizes. The AV figures in this table are based on the assumption that 1100 gpm can be pumped in the 17-1/2 inch or 16-inch hole and 900 gpm for the 12-1/4 inch hole. As Table 9.4 illustrates, going from a 17-1/2 inch hole with 5-inch drill pipe to a 16-inch hole with 6-5/8 inch drill pipe increases the AV from 96 fpm to 117 fpm, or 23%. (Another benefit of a 16-inch hole if hole cleaning is a problem is that it generates 16% less cuttings volume). Going from 5-inch to 6-5/8 inch drill pipe in a 12-1/4 inch hole increases the AV from 176 fpm to 208 fpm, an increase of 18%.
Table 9.4 AV With Respect to Hole and Drill Pipe Size HOLE (in) 17-1/2 16 12-1/4 12-1/4 DP (in) 5 6-5/8 5 6-5/8 FLOW (gpm) 1100 1100 900 900 AV (fpm) 96 117 176 208
9-13
Jar Placement
Placement of jars in the drill string should be evaluated for each string and wellbore configuration using the placement program from the jar company. In general, there are two objectives in jar placement: Place the jar to provide maximum impact to the stuck point, typically in the BHA. Do not place the jar in a drill string segment which is expected to be buckled. Achieving the first objective may require any of a variety of tool configurations:
Description Jar in or near BHA. Explanation This is the traditional choice for jar placement in low inclination wells. The jar is typically run above the neutral point to reduce the chance of it buckling when mechanical compression (WOB) is applied. An accelerator is added to the system to increase the efficiency of impact transmission to the stuck point. The accelerator is placed above the jar with a prescribed length of drill collars separating them. When the jar is tripped, the accelerator helps to reduce the drag on the hammer mass and therefore concentrates the energy near the jar. With the first jar in or near the BHA out in the open hole, the second jar is placed I the string so that it remains in cased hole. This reduces the risk that poor hole conditions will render it non-functional. In the case where the lower jar does not function due to hole conditions, the upper jar can be used to transmit loads to activate the lower jar. Similar to Option 2, the accelerator is placed in the string to improve the efficiency of the nearby jar.
Double jars.
Achieving the second objective requires that a buckling analysis be performed for the string segment adjacent to the jar. Torque and drag predictions are used to determine whether the string is buckled near the jar. Since jars are not buckling tolerant components, they should not be placed in a string segment which is expected to buckle. The primary features which make jars buckling intolerant are the mid-body connections where the jar is disassembled for service. These connections typically have threads with sharp thread roots, making them more prone to fatigue. Buckling the jar increases the stress on these connections and makes them fail more rapidly.
9-14
Inclination of the straight hole section above the kickoff point (degrees) Annular velocity (ft./min) Build rate (degrees/100ft) Young's Modulus (Approximately 30,000,000 psi) Critical buckling load (lbs) Critical buckling load adjusted for mud weight variations (lbs) Moment of Inertia (in4) Buoyancy factor (unitless) Length of a drill string section (ft) Length of a Drilling Assembly (ft) Length of a drill pipe section (ft) Measured depth (ft) Plastic viscosity (centipoise) Radial clearance between pipe and hole (in) Unit weight in air of a drill string component (lb/ft) Unit weight in air of a drilling assembly (lb/ft) Unit weight in air of drill pipe (lb/ft) The total buoyed weight of pipe in a positive build section (lbs) The total buoyed weight of pipe in a positive build section adjusted for mud weight variations (lbs) The total buoyed weight of pipe in a tangent section (lbs) Weight on bit (lbs) Yield point (lbs/100ft2) Hole inclination (degrees) Hole inclination in a straight tangent section (degrees)
9-15
REFERENCES:
1. Guild, G.J., Seymour, D.A., Hill, T.H., Munro, R., Designing Extended Reach Wells, Presented at the 1993 Offshore Technical Drilling Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, November 17, 1993. 2. "Standard DS-1, Drill Stem Design and Inspection", T H Hill Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas, December 1992. 3. Brett, J.F., Beckett, A.D., Holt, C.A., Smith, D.L., "Use and Limitations of Drill string Tension and Torque Models for Monitoring Hole Conditions," SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1989, pp 223229. 4. Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B., Dawson, R., "Torque and Drag In Directional Wells - Prediction and Measurement," JPT, June 1984, pp 987 - 992. 5. Alfsen, T.E., Heggen, S., Blikra, H. and Tjotta, Helge, "Pushing the Limits for Extended Reach Drilling: New World Record From Platform Statfjord C, Well C2", Presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX., 3-6 October 1993. 6. Mueller, M.D., Quintana, J.M., Bunyak, M.J., "Extended Reach Drilling From Platform Irene," SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1991. 7. Kimball III, C.F., Colwell, C.N., Knell, J.W., "A 78o Extended Reach Well in the Gulf of Mexico, Eugene Island 326 No. A-6," OTC 6711, Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX., May 1991, pp 143-156. 8. Hill. T.H., Seshadri, P.V., Durham, K.S., "A Unified Approach to Drillstem Failure Prevention", SPE Drilling Engineering, December, 1992. 9. Rollins, H.M., "Drill Pipe Fatigue Failure", Oil and Gas Journal, April 18, 1966. 10. API RP 7G, Recommended Practice for Drill Stem Design and Operating Limits, Fourteenth Edition, American Petroleum Institute, August 1, 1990. 11. Casner, John A, Drill String Design, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, July 1973. 12. Dawson, R., Paslay, P.R., Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined Holes, Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1984. 13. Schuh, F.J., "The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for Pipe in Inclined Curved Wellbores", SPE/IADC 21942, 1991. 14. Wu, J., Juvkam Wold, H.C., "The Effect of Wellbore Curvature on Tubular Buckling and Lockup", ASME PD-Vol. 56, Drilling Technology-1994. 15. Eck-Olsen, J., Sletton, H., Reynolds, J.T., Samuell, J.G., "North Sea Advances in Extended Reach Drilling", SPE/IADC 25750, 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
16.BPX Equipment Manual 17.BPX Inspection Frequency Guidelines 18.Guild, G.J., Hill, T.H., Summers, M.A., Designing and Qualifying Drill Strings for Extended Reach Drilling, SPE/IADC 29349, 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam
9-16
Section 10
INTRODUCTION
Projecting torque and upward drag for ERD operations is critical to ensuring that the rotary and hoisting equipment of the rig are properly sized and that the drill string is properly designed. Projecting downward drag is critical to evaluating the limits for the abilities to slide oriented motors and run tubulars. Like many engineering tasks, a critical aspect of these projections is to ensure accuracy with some level of conservatism, without incurring excessive overdesign.
10-1
Clearly, separating these torque components allows more accurate definition of friction for torque projections and for prioritizing measures for torque management. With means of predicting bit torque, the implications of using different bit types can be assessed. Dynamic torque can significantly impact operations and should be minimized (see Section 14, Drill String Dynamics). Similarly, mechanical torque sources, such as cuttings beds, stabilizer effects, etc., can be significant and should also be minimized (see Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics and Section 5, Wellbore Stability). Fundamental concepts associated with string torque and bit torque are illustrated as shown:
Axial load
Friction Torque
Hydrostatic pressure Bending Moment Forces due to fluid flow
Wall force
Simulates downhole conditions by analysing the forces acting on each element of the drill string.
Figure 10-1.
10-2
String Torque
Frictional Torque
Frictional drill string torque is generated by the contact loads between the string and the casing or openhole. The magnitude of contact loads is determined by the amount of tension/compression in the drill string, the severity of doglegs, the DP and hole size, the string weight, and the inclination angle. The use of optimized profiles (see Section 3, Trajectory and Directional Drilling Optimization) and the control of dogleg severity are important measures to minimize contact loads. While severe doglegs high in the well (where drill string tension is large) can significantly increase torque, the impact of doglegs deeper in the well is not as critical in terms of torque generation. However, well tortuosity should be minimized and this should be set as a primary performance measure for the directional drilling contractor. When performing pre-well projections or evaluating field torque with an actual survey file, the reduction in open-hole tortuosity by casing should be accounted for. Independent from contact load magnitude, lubricity is another major factor controlling frictional loads. Lubricity is largely controlled by the mud and formation types (see Mud Selection section). Lubricity should be distinctly defined for cased-hole and open-hole intervals of each hole section. Within the openhole section, distinct friction behaviors may be imposed by the different formations and significant torque changes can be seen when certain abrasive formations are encountered. Basic factors controlling frictional torque are shown in Figure 10-2.
Applied Torque
NORMAL
Axial Movement
NORMAL
Figure 10-2.
Specific procedures should be used when defining cased-hole and open-hole friction factors. The casedhole friction factor should be based on cased-hole torque prior to drilling out, and by correlating torque
10-3
measured at the shoe during subsequent bit runs. With the cased-hole friction factor defined, open-hole friction factors can be independently assessed based on the increase of torque in the drilled open-hole section. During drilling, the cased-hole friction factor may increase when cuttings are brought back into the casing. Because many variables impact friction, both cased- and open-hole friction factors should be derived for each hole section in the well, i.e. 12-1/4 inch and 8-1/2 inch sections may behave differently. There are various implications of using inaccurate friction factors. If the open-hole factor is overestimated, torque projected with increasing open-hole length will be excessive and may appear prohibitive. Similarly, if the cased-hole friction factor is overestimated (and hence open-hole underestimated), the torque increases with increasing open-hole length will be underestimated and false confidence could develop. Torque trends are not likely to be very precise, and lower and upper bound trends are suggested, i.e. the variability should be accounted for with proper engineering judgment.
Mechanical Torque Factors
Frictional torque should be viewed as the minimum torque associated with the drill string rotating in a clean wellbore with a specific mud. Other effects aggravate this optimal situation and cause increases to torque, including cuttings beds, sloughing formations, swelling clays, unstable formations, and excessive drill string-wellbore interaction (e.g. stabilizer blades digging into formations, undergauge bits causing working of stabilizers, etc.). These effects are considered mechanical torque sources because they are distinct from simple frictional interaction. Measures can be taken to minimize these mechanical effects. For example, higher flow rates, careful rheology controls and drill string rotation can improve hole cleaning to minimize cuttings beds. Analysis of mechanical and chemical wellbore stability can result in mud weight and chemistry recommendations to minimize instabilities. Identification of excessive torque associated with stabilizers or other equipment can lead to selection of better equipment, with smoother torque behaviors. Bit gauge wear optimization can be pursued, etc. The aggravation of basic frictional torque due to mechanical problems is illustrated in the following figure, which shows the rapid buildup of torque in the 8-1/2 inch section of Wytch Farm Well F21. Although cased-hole torque inside the 9-5/8 inch was only 14 ft-kips at 17225 ft. (5250m) MD, surface torque rapidly increased by 9 ft-kips in the drilling of only 279 ft. (85m). This dramatic torque increase was due to cuttings beds, and demonstrates the significant impact that mechanical effects have in elevating torque levels above simple frictional trends.
10-4
DEPTH (mBRT)
9 5/8" SHOE
5250
8 1/2" RESERVOIR SECTION
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 10-3. F21 8-1/2 inch Section Torque Increase Due to Cuttings Beds
Upper and Lower Bound Trends: 12-1/4" Section Torques, Wytch Farm
25
15
1 1 1
u uo
u Lo
10
(u ) uc o o (u
Lc
0 700
1200
1700
2200
2700
3700
4200
4700
5200
5700
Figure 10-4. Upper and Lower Bound Trends: 12-1/4 Section Torques, Well F21
10-5
35
30
25
20
15
10
0 4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Depth (m)
Figure 10-5. 8-1/2 Section Average Surface Torque: Wells F19, F20, F21, M02
Bit Torque
Bit torque (TOB) is dependent on bit type, the formation being drilled, and drilling parameters. Bit torque models have been developed for both roller cone and PDC bit types, but have largely been based on laboratory measurement of bit torque. The Drill String Simulator (DSS) includes the Warren bit torque model from Amoco. While these lab-based measurements are informative, field torques vary dynamically and substantially during drilling and are influenced by many factors. These include formation characteristics such as shear and compressive strength, polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit design variations, bit wear, and hydraulics. Specific areas where bit torque models can show substantial inaccuracy include: Non-ductile formations such as sandstones and carbonates. In these formations, the ratio of shear to penetration strength varies dramatically from behaviors seen in ductile shales. PDC bit torques have not been as thoroughly studied as tri-cone bits and are generally higher. PDC bits have high torque/weight ratios and torque can be very high in high shear strength formations. Further, PDC bit designs vary considerably in terms of cutter size and orientation, body profile and hydraulic design. Bit torque models currently do not account for bit wear state or bit cleaning due to hydraulic considerations. The implication of these complexities for torque forecasting is that a conservative upper bound for TOB should be selected, preferably from field data. TOB should be monitored in ERD wells using a drilling mechanics sub in the measurement while drilling (MWD). Measurement of TOB (and weight on bit (WOB)) downhole provide various advantages for ERD operations (see Torque Dynamics Monitoring and Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics). Alternately, basic TOB measurements can be taken by
10-6
monitoring off-bottom and on-bottom surface torque, although this is only approximate since the WOB causes variations in the drill string tension/compression profile. To illustrate the variability of TOB, the following figure shows a composite plot of DTOB measurements for 12-1/4 inch PDC bits run at Wytch Farm:
Figure 10-6. F18, F19, F20, F21, M1, M2: 12-1/4 inch Hole Section
In examining Figure 10-7, it should be clear that an upper bound TOB for 12-1/4 inch PDC drilling in these conditions is 8,000 - 9,000 ft-lbs. Use of an upper bound for DTOB is conservative and appropriate for torque forecasting. However, this conservative margin should be kept in mind when comparing projections to field data. The majority of surface torque from the field will be taken with DTOB below this upper bound. Thus, projections can appear inaccurate and result in confusion regarding friction factors unless this "safety margin" is recognized.
10-7
For example, the following 12-1/4 inch torque trend plot from Niakuk Well 23 shows the offset from the tri-cone torque trend of 7-10 ft-kips for a PDC bit run:
45.00 40.00 35.00
10500
11000
11500
12000
12500
13000
13500
14000
14500
15000
Standard default friction factors have been derived from analysis of well data covering normal drilling operations in a range of wells. Torque/drag predictions are typically within 10-15% using the default friction factors provided by DSS:
Mud Type WBM OBM Brine Cased Hole Friction Factor 0.24 0.17 0.30 Open Hole Friction Factor 0.29 0.21 0.30
In certain cases, actual torque can vary substantially from those predicted with these defaults. Specific cases below are highlighted where default friction factors have required adjustments to match field experience. Deviations can occur due to variations in lubricity, hole cleaning efficiency, and surge/swab effects. In choosing among these options, a useful concept to keep in mind is the critical tangent angle. This angle represents the limit beyond which a tool will not slide downhole under its own weight, meaning that it will have to be pushed from above. The critical angle is represented by:
q cos = q sin or tan = 1
where q is pipe buoyant weight, is friction factor and is critical tangent inclination angle.
10-8
Torque trends have been studied extensively in support of the Wytch Farm ERD program. Those analyses have shown substantial variability in torque behaviors. Relative to DSS defaults, torque trends in WF 121/4 inch sections have been below those predicted with the oil-base mud (OBM) defaults. This is attributed to good hole cleaning and the predominant formation in that section- mudstone. By contrast, torque trends in WF 8-1/2 inch sections have been well above those predicted with the OBM defaults and have, in fact, behaved more closely to WBM trends. Detailed analysis of WF torque data indicates that variability in friction occurs even on ongoing operations and even in single-hole sections of a particular well. To quantify this variability, observed field torque were bound by an upper and lower trend. Specific cased- and open-hole friction factors were then derived for these two trends. Results from that analysis are shown in this table:
Wytch Farm Torsional Friction Factors Size 12.25 Lower Bound Upper Bound 8.5 Lower Bound Upper Bound F-18 Csg 0.08 0.35 Csg OH 0.17 0.22 OH F-19 Csg 0.08 0.28 Csg 0.21 0.32 OH 0.14 0.18 OH 0.4 0.4 F-20 Csg 0.22 0.42 Csg 0.11 0.17 OH 0.12 0.16 OH 0.55 0.52 F-21 Csg 0.14 0.34 Csg 0.14 0.19 OH 0.1 0.13 OH 0.09 0.10 M-01 Csg 0.17 0.21 Csg OH 0.09 0.13 OH M-02 Csg 0.07 0.17 Csg 0.17 0.3 OH 0.12 0.15 OH 0.08 0.07
As a final example of the variability of drilling torque depending on local conditions, Wytch Farm drilling data has been compared to data from Niakuk operations in Alaska and from Statoil's C2 well. The data comparison for the respective 12-1/4 inch sections is shown below:
10-9
Clearly, distinct torque trends can be seen in this plot. These are governed by differences in target TVD, trajectory, formations, mud types (Niakuk-WBM, Wytch Farm-MOBM, and Statoil- SOBM), hole cleaning efficiency, and other factors. These torque trends are provided as order of magnitude" bounds on 12-1/4 inch section torque for screening ERD candidates and as a final example of the need for careful and thorough analysis of torque behaviors for specific ERD candidate projects.
10-10
6500 4000 2100 2600 3100 3600 4100 4600 5100 5600 6100 6600 7100
DEPTH (M MD)
Torque reduction should not necessarily be pursued if the operation has an adequate drill string and rotary and power capacity to handle high torque. Attempts should always be made to reduce cyclic torque, i.e. slip-stick. In cases where specific limits are being approached, various measures exist which may be pursued to reduce torque or to improve the capacity of the limiting equipment. Such measures include: Optimization of drill string strength and effectiveness. Substantial increases in nominal torsional capacity of existing drill strings can be obtained through tool joint stress-balancing and high-friction thread compounds. Where options exist for specific drill string design, selection, or even rental, consideration should be given to the use of hightorque (double-shoulder) tool joints and to the use of high-strength (higher than S-135) material grades. Aside from strength, Enhanced-Performance Drill pipe is available with integral blades which can enhance hole cleaning and thereby reduce mechanically induced torque from cuttings. See Drill String Design (Section 8) and Emerging Technologies (Section 17) for more information.
10-11
Reduction of mean and dynamic torque. Cased-hole torque reduction can be achieved with non-rotating DP protectors (e.g. Western Well Tool's plastic sleeve DPP). Open-hole torque reduction can be achieved with tools such as the DBS open-hole torque sub which involves a non-rotating metal sleeve mounted on bearings. Torque reduction can also be pursued with lubricants, lubricating beads, and optimization of mud lubricity. Forthcoming releases of DSS will include the ability to optimize placement, estimate torque reduction, and assess ERD envelope extension as a result of torque reduction tools. LCM. At Wytch Farm, dramatic open-hole torque reductions of up to 30% have also been observed through the use of high concentrations of fibrous Lost-Circulation Materials (LCM). These LCM appear to form a low-side bed which exhibits much reduced friction on the drill string as opposed to direct contact with the sandstone and casing. Actual drilling limits determined by rotary stalling can be controlled by torsional dynamics. Thus, monitoring for torsional dynamics and implementation of rotary feedback control systems should be considered. See Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics and Section 14, Drill String Dynamics for more information. To achieve such large torque reductions requires the continual addition of 5-10 sacks per hour to the active system. This can become extremely expensive, and a simple LCM recovery system is used to keep consumption down. The coarse top screen discharge is almost all LCM and this is fed back to the active. The bottom screen discharge is all cuttings and is dumped. It can often take 8-12 hours after starting to add LCM before the torque reductions are observed. Occasional LCM pills have also proved very effective at carrying large volumes of cuttings from the well, and are often used prior to trips and intervals of slide drilling. The best results have been achieved with Barafibre and Sandseal.
10-12
DRAG PROJECTIONS
Like torque prediction, drag prediction is influenced by various factors including: Trajectory design Drill string design Mud and formation lubricity Wellbore condition Tortuosity
An issue unique to drag prediction is the potential buckling of the string under axial compression. Buckling is an important consideration in severe ERD wells because while tripping in or sliding, the drill string and other tubulars (liners, workstrings, tubing, TCP guns, coiled tubing, etc.) are subjected to compressive forces. These forces can exceed the critical buckling load and lead to sinusoidal (moderate) or helical (severe) buckling. The wall forces resulting from buckling create additional drag which, in severe cases, can cause string lock-up. When predicting drag, it is therefore important to quantify the extent and severity of buckling when it occurs.
0.4
Friction Factor
LO
0.3
0.2
0.1
LC
Figure 10-10 Example from WF showing change in FFs from well to well
10-13
Analogous to torque monitoring, drags should be carefully monitored to highlight problems when hookload measurements deviate from simulated trends. Clear deviations from predicted drag trends have been seen on trips and in ERD casing running hookloads (see Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines).
Buckling Behavior
When the critical buckling load is exceeded at a given location, the string first buckles into a sinusoidal geometry along the low side of the hole. At higher compression loads, the pipe coils up against the wellbore, in a state known as helical buckling. These buckling severities are shown below:
Sinusoidal Buckling Helical Buckling
10-14
Sinusoidal buckling can be tolerated as it does not cause large wall forces. Buckling severity is quantified by defining how far above the low-side of the hole the string is displaced. This is measured in degrees from the low-side of the hole, with a 180 buckling displacement correlating to full helical buckling to the high-side, as shown below:
Buckling Amplitude
Figure 10-12.
10-15
An example of SDSS analysis for an operation with buckling is shown in the following figure, from Wytch Farm.
Wytch Farm 1M-02SP: Buckling Amplitude While Sliding in 8-1/2" Section (7123 m MD) 100 90 DO
5 1/2" DP 5" DP BHA
Buckling Amplitude ( )
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Measured Depth (m)
Buckling Amplitude
Figure 10-13 Wytch Farm IM-U2SP: Buckling Amplitude While String in 8-1/2 inch Section
DSS and SDSS will be merged in the next release of DEAP so that drag analyses with buckling can be properly handled.
If the buckling amplitude remains below 40, the buckling is generally tolerable and does not cause great increases to drag. However, more severe sinusoidal buckling and helical buckling should be avoided as it can cause dramatic increases in wall forces and can lead to string lock-up. Both sinusoidal and helical buckling impose additional stresses in the string when sliding or tripping in the hole. Due to wellbore confinement, the string remains elastic and does not get damaged (i.e. come out of the hole yielded or "corkscrewed") unless the hole section is heavily washed out.
Rotating
When rotating, string-wellbore axial friction is virtually eliminated, hence string buckling becomes less likely. However, if the string is buckled, rotation should not be initiated until the buckling is relieved by pickup then reaming back to bottom. Rotating a buckled string is not recommended and can lead to very high cyclic bending stresses, severe dynamics, and possible fatigue failures.
10-16
In one of the Statoil ERD wells, drill string buckling was detected while rotary drilling the deep high angle (75o) 17-1/2 inch sections. This is one of the only reported cases of buckling while rotating and resulted in higher than normal torque. When the buckling occurred, a 17-1/2 inch tri-cone bit with high WOB was being used. To complete the section while avoiding further buckling, a PDC bit which could drill with a lower WOB was picked up. The presence of buckling in the rotating string in the Statoil 17-1/2 inch section is shown below:
36000 34000 32000 30000 28000 26000 24000 22000 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 1200
Rockbit PDC bit
Torque (Nm)
Measured torque Buckling Theoretic torque with 5 ton weight on bit (WOB).
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
10-17
0 STORQ 20
ROP 100 M/hr
SURFACE RPM
150
0 0
FRIC % API GR
100 200
80
0 DTORQ 20
3150m
3150m
10-18
Measures exist to reduce drag and to develop improved or alternative means of achieving the desired operation. Techniques to directly reduce drag include: Lubricating mud additives and lost circulation materials (LCMs) Optimizing the well trajectory (see Directional Drilling and Trajectory Optimization) Bullet shape casing shoes with side jets String design to minimize the extent of buckling Casing flotation (see Tubular Design section) Non-rotating dill pipe protectors used to reduce torque may reduce drag, hence buckling tendencies and severities due to lower friction.
Techniques to assist in achieving the desired operation, i.e. overcoming the existing drag, include: Use of drill-collars and/or HWDP in the near vertical well section Extensive hole-cleaning and pipe working prior to slides Use of thrusters or bumper subs to improve WOB delivery while sliding Use of extended or double power section motors to increase stalling resistance Application of traveling equipment weight to push the drill string or casing down Qualifying the subject string (liner, completion string, TCP string) for rotation Use heavier tubulars in areas of expected buckling
10-19
10-20
REFERENCES
1. Payne, M. L., Cocking, D. A., and Hatch, A. J., "Critical Technologies for Success in Extended Reach Drilling", SPE 28293, presented at the 69th Annual SPE Fall Conference, 25-28 September, 1994, New Orleans. Reprinted as SPE 30140 Brief by editorial selection, Journal of Petroleum Technology, February 1995. 2. Child, A. J. and Cocking, D. A., "Drill string Simulator Improves Drilling Performance", Oil & Gas Journal, 28 August 1989, pp. 41-47. 3. Belaskie, J. P., McCann, D. P. and Leshikar, J. F., "A Practical Method to Minimise Stuck Pipe Integrating Surface and MWD Measurements", IADC/SPE 27494, 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 15-18 February, 1994, Dallas, Texas. 4. Aarrestad, T. V. and Blikra, H., "Torque and Drag - Two Factors in Extended Reach Drilling, Journal of Petroleum Technology, September 1994, pp. 800-803. 5. Abbassian, F., Mason, C., Luo, Y., Brown, C. and Payne, M., "Wytch Farm 7/8 km Stepout ERD Wells", Internal Report DCB/11/95, May 1995. 6. Abbassian, F. and Mason, C., "Buckling Simulation for Gun Running and Hole Cleaning Operations in 2 km Reservoir Section of M2 Well", DCB File Note, November 1994. 7. Mason, C., "Buckling Simulation for Gun Running and Hole Cleaning in 3 km Reservoir", Wytch Farm 1M-03SP ERD Well, Internal Report, DCB, February 1995. 8. Super Drill string Simulator User Manual, BP Exploration Technology Provision, Sunbury, England. 9. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S. and Logan, J. L., "Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packer", Journal of Petroleum Technology, June, 1962. 10. Paslay, P. R. and Bogy, D.B., "The Stability of a Circular Rod Laterally Constrained to be in Contact with an Inclined Circular Cylinder", ASME Transactions, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Volume 31, 1964. 11. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P. R., "Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined Holes", SPE 1167, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September, 1982. 12. Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y.H., and Cheatham, J. B., "Tubing and Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells", Journal of Petroleum Technology, February 1990. 13. Chen, Y. C. and Cheatham, J. B., "Wall Contact Forces on Helically Buckled Tubulars in Inclined Wells", Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Volume 112, June 1990. 14. Kyllingstad, A., "Buckling of Tubular Strings in Curved Wells", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 12, pp. 209-218, 1995. 15. Mitchell, R. F., "Effects of Well Deviation on Helical Buckling", SPE 29462, presented at the Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, April 1995. 16. Hearn, Phil, "Drill String Simulator (DSS) - Application for Completion Operations", BP XTP, Sunbury, England. 17. Justad, T., Jacobson, B., Blikra, H., Gaskin, G., Clarke, C., Ritchie, A., Extending Barriers to Develop a Marginal Satellite Field from an Existing Platform, SPE 28294.
10-21
Section 11
11-1
INTRODUCTION
Removal of cuttings from the wellbore is essential to the drilling operation. Failure to effectively transport the cuttings can result in a number of drilling problems including: Excessive overpull on trips High rotary torque Stuck pipe Hole pack-off Formation break down Slow rate of penetration (ROP)
The key to optimizing hole cleaning in ERD wells is integrating a good well plan, with good mud properties, and good drilling practices supported by careful monitoring and observation at the rig site.
11-2
Hole Angle
As a hole angle increases from vertical, cuttings transport becomes more difficult. The flow rate required to carry cuttings out of the hole increases rapidly from 0o to 60o. Above 60o the rate of flow rate increase levels off. Hole angles between 45o and 60o frequently present the most problems because cuttings tend to slide back down the annulus and pack-off. Sections where the wellbore is enlarged are more difficult to clean. This applies to washed out open hole sections as well as liner tops. Cuttings tend to accumulate in pockets where the annular velocity is significantly reduced. Every effort should be made to avoid enlargement of the open hole. Common causes are: insufficient mud weight, chemically reactive formations, and wellbore erosion. In situations where enlargement exists, mud flow rates need to be increased to compensate for the reduction in annular velocity. The mud flow rate is the most important factor for hole cleaning in deviated wells. Mud pumps and liner sizes should be selected to ensure a sufficiently high flow rate when drilling ERD wells. Pump pressure is often the limiting factor for achieving the required flow rate. Consideration should be given during the bottom hole assembly (BHA) design and bit nozzle selection to reduce pump pressure. The frictional pressure drop in 6-5/8 inch pipe is approximately half the value for 5-inch drill pipe.
Hole Size 17-1/2 in 12-1/4 in 8-1/2 in Typical Flow Rates Aim for 1100 gpm. Some rigs achieve 1250 -1400 gpm. Typically 950 - 1150 gpm. If not available, ensure that tripping procedures are in place for probable dirty hole. Aim for 500 gpm.
Hole Enlargement
Movement of the drill pipe (rotation and/or reciprocation) will mechanically disturb cuttings beds and assist hole cleaning. Rotation is more effective since this helps equalize fluid velocities on the low and high side of the hole. The influence of drill pipe rotation is more pronounced in viscous muds and in smaller holes (<17-1/2 inch). In cases where the pipe is not rotated (e.g. slide drilling), cuttings beds are more difficult to remove. Under these special circumstances, increased flow rate or changes in operation practices (e.g. rotary wiper trips) may be necessary to improve hole cleaning.
11-3
Mud Properties
Mud Chemistry Wellbore Stability Flow Regimes Mud Rheology Pump Rate Ensure chemical compatibility to prevent cuttings swelling Avoid hole enlargement (washout and break-out) Generally use thick muds in laminar flow (unless ECD is critical) Select muds with high YP/PV ratios and enhanced low shear viscosity Use DEAP hydraulics to determine minimum mud flow rate
Mud Weight
Increasing mud weight provides buoyancy and reduces the effective weight of cuttings. Effective transport will occur at lower annular velocities. In practice, the selection of mud weight is generally governed by other drilling considerations (e.g. well control, wellbore stability and losses). Heavy weight mud can be used in small volume pills to assist hole cleaning. The influence of mud rheology on cleaning deviated wells depends upon the annular flow regime. In laminar flow, increasing mud viscosity (YP) will improve hole cleaning by raising fluid drag and causing cuttings to slide. By contrast, in turbulent flow, lowering fluid viscosity increases turbulent intensity. This provides a greater lift force to transport cuttings by saltation. The properties for the mud in circulation should always be optimized to provide adequate hole cleaning. Under certain conditions, it may be necessary to supplement hole cleaning with viscous pills. Excessive use of pills should be avoided since they can contaminate the mud system. Generally a high viscosity (and preferably high weight) pill is effective at removing accumulated cuttings. Low viscosity pills can also be effective in smaller hole sizes (12-1/4 inch and below). Low and high viscosity pills can also be pumped in tandem. The maximum volume of the pills should be based on hole size and changes in hydrostatic. Similar improvements in hole cleaning have been achieved using lost circulation material (LCM) pills. It is recommended that DEAP hydraulics and hole cleaning simulations are run for all ERD wells. This enables mud properties and flow rates to be optimized to provide adequate hole cleaning in all sections of the well.
Mud Rheology
11-4
The table below gives typical ranges of fluid properties for a selection of hole sizes. The values are specified by either the Yield Point (based on Bingham Model) or the Power Law Index (n).
Hole Size 17-1/2 inch 12-1/4 inch 12-1/4 inch 8-1/2 inch 8-1/2 inch Recommended 2 YP Limits (lb/100 ft ) 28 Min 21 Min 5 - 10 Max 22 Min 5 - 12 Max Recommended n Range 0.5 - 0.7 0.5 - 0.75 0.5 - 0.95 0.5 - 0.7 0.5 - 0.9 Flow Regime Laminar Laminar Turbulent Laminar Turbulent
Drilling Practices
ROP Pump Failure Slide Drilling Viscous Pills Dense Pills Tripping Overpull Backream Control instantaneous drill rate to avoid overloading annulus with cuttings Stop drilling and circulate until full pump capacity is restored Conduct rotary wiper trip after prolonged periods of sliding Use only when essential. Take special care with lo-vis pills to maintain high flow rate Use only when essential. Limit volume to avoid fracturing formation Circulate the hole clean with rotation prior to tripping. A single bottoms up is not sufficient Pull through tight spots ensuring the pipe is free to go down. Work gradually up to predetermined maximum overpull limit Only when essential. Use DEAP to control maximum backreaming rate
ROP
Increasing ROP will result in more cuttings being generated at the bit and so increase the cuttings loading in the annulus. Higher penetration rates require higher flow rates to clean the hole. It is good practice to maintain steady ROPs and to avoid high instantaneous penetration rates. Mud properties and flow rates should be adjusted to ensure the hole is cleaned as fast as it is drilled. This is a primary criteria (total pump capacity) to consider when selecting the rig. There are a number of rig site indicators that should be used to monitor the hole condition. These should normally be examined for trends and sudden departures rather than absolute values. The shape and size of the cuttings coming over the shaker should be regularly monitored. Small rounded cuttings indicate that cuttings have been spending extended periods downhole being reground by the BHA. The cuttings return rate at the shakers should also be measured and compared with the volume predicted from ROP. Torque and drag can be used to determine whether cuttings beds are adding to the wellbore friction. Simulations should be conducted in advance using the DSS part of the DEAP program. Deviations from
11-5
the normal trend line can be indicative of cuttings beds forming. Erratic signals in torque or SPP can also be an early warning of cuttings beds. Record pickup, slackoff and off-bottom rotating torque regularly at connections to establish actual trends for comparison to predicted trends.
Cutting size & shape Cuttings Return Torque & Drag Erratic Torque / SPP Trend Analysis Hole Fill
Rounded cuttings indicate poor carrying capacity Use ROP to estimate anticipated cuttings rate at shakers Use DEAP to predict torque and drag. Look for deviations from trend Look for indicators of cuttings beds & packing-off Compare drag trends on subsequent trips to indicated presence of cuttings beds Monitor string weight for indications of fill on bottom
Operational Practices
Successful hole cleaning relies upon integrating optimum mud properties with best drilling practices. When difficulties are encountered, it is essential to understand the nature and causes of the problem. This allows options to be focused to determine the most appropriate actions. This list below should be used as a guide to identifying possible courses of action: Poor hole cleaning will result in high cuttings loading the annulus. When circulation stops these cuttings can fall back and pack-off the BHA. When packing-off occurs, the flow rate is too low or the well has not been circulated for sufficient time. Typical volumes (50+bbl for 17-1/2 inch; 30-50 bbl for 12-1/4 inch; 20 bbl for 8-1/2 inch). It is not advisable to use low viscosity pills in weakly consolidated formations.
Limit the use of viscous pills to supplement hole cleaning. Control the mud in circulation properties to provide sufficient hole cleaning. Typical Volumes:
Hole Size 17-1/2 inch 12-1/4 inch 8-1/2 inch Volume 50+bbl 30-50 bbl 20 bbl
11-6
Treat the hole gently. Avoid sudden mechanical or hydraulic shocks which may cause cuttings to avalanche. Control tripping rates to avoid pulling rapidly into a cuttings beds or causing excess swab/surge pressure. Pulling through tight spots is OK, provided the pipe is free going down. Agree to a maximum allowable overpull in advance with the Company Man/Drilling Superintendent. Do not go immediately to the maximum overpull, but work up progressively ensuring that the pipe is free to go down on every occasion. Stop and circulate the hole clean if overpulls become excessive. Avoid precautionary backreaming - only backream when essential from torque and drag trends. Use DEAP to determine the maximum allowable backreaming rate. Anadrills on-line drillstring simulator using data from the drilling mechanics sub is capable of calculating the variations in friction factors and can provide early indications of hole cleaning problems.
The use of downhole torque and downhole WOB at Wytch Farm has proved to be an important tool in qualitatively assessing hole cleaning efficiency. Trend analysis can clearly indicate the condition of the hole while drilling, as well as the effectiveness of any remedial action such as reaming, circulating and wiper tripping. The response of these parameters to hole cleaning efficiency is very dependent upon the formation drilled. It has been established that while drilling mudstones inefficient hole cleaning is indicated by an increasing drag trend with very little increase in drilling torque as shown in the following figure. However, both torque and drag will increase with poor hole cleaning while drilling the Sherwood sandstone resevoir section. Analysis is not always straightforward though, as a decrease in wellbore lubricity with increasing amounts of sandstone cuttings may play a significant role in determining the drillling mechanics response.
11-7
0 DRAG 100 0 0
DWOB DWOB
80 1 80
ROP 100 M/hr
STORQ
20
SURFACE RPM
150
0 0
FRIC % API GR
100 200
0 DTORQ 20
3150m
3150m
Normal range of drill pipe RPM's is typically 90-180 rpm (up to 120 rpm on bottom, up to 180 rpm off bottom). In practice, there needs to be a balance between good effects for hole cleaning versus possible detrimental effects (e.g. vibration causing premature failures of downhole equipment). High rpm should also be avoided in unstable formations since the string action can knock off loose sections of the wellbore. Limitations on downhole tool components (e.g. downhole motors) can also restrict the maximum allowable rpm.
11-8
ZONE 3
y ; y ; y ; ; y ; y y ;
ZONE 4
30
90
In holes inclined less than 30o , the cuttings are effectively suspended by the fluid shear and beds do not form (Zones 1 and 3). For such cases conventional transport calculations based on vertical slip velocities are applicable. For these shallow angles, annular velocity requirements are typically 20-30% in excess of vertical wells. Beyond 30o, the cuttings form beds on the low side of the hole which can slide back down the well, causing the annulus to pack-off. Cuttings which form on the low side of the hole can either move en-masse as a sliding bed (Zone 4), or alternatively may be transported at the bed/mud interface as ripples or dunes (Zone 2). Drill pipe movement (rotation and reciprocation) can help mechanically disturb the cuttings beds and distribute them in the faster flowing mud towards the high side of the hole.
11-9
Flow patterns in the annulus depend strongly upon flow rate and mud rheology. Thin fluids with low YPs tend to promote turbulence and cuttings saltation. Thick fluid with high YPs increase the fluid drag force and causes the cuttings beds to slide. The ideal zones for good cuttings transport are Zones 1 and 2. Zone 5 is virtually a guarantee of tight hole problems.
Allows for rheology and flow regime Models washed-out hole Takes account of drill pipe rotation Predicts flow rate requirements with changing ROP
11-10
The model demonstrates that either thick or thin muds can be used to clean high angle sections. Intermediate viscosity muds provide the worst conditions and should be avoided. In-situations where ECD is not a limiting factor, thick muds with high YP/PV ratios are preferred. These results agree qualitatively with recent models developed by Tulsa University and Exxon.
EFFECT OF YIELD POINT ON CRITICAL FLOW RATE (8-1/2" Hole at 60 deg., ROP-20m/hr, PV=19cP and 1.45 sg Mud) 600 Turbulent flow 500 Critical 400 Flow Rate (gpm) 300 200 100 Laminar flow
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
The figure above shows how increasing the mud yield point causes the flow mechanism to change from turbulent to laminar. Intermediate values of YP should be avoided since they produce the worst conditions for cuttings transport. In general the higher YP (and hence laminar flow) regime is preferred because the higher viscosity mud provides better cuttings suspension and improved transport in the near vertical regions of the well. Under conditions where ECD is a limiting factor, the use of thin muds in turbulent flow should be considered. Thin fluids reduce annular frictional pressure drops, and hence result in lower ECDs. Turbulent flow in the annulus should be avoided with weakly consolidated formations.
The BP model simply predicts the minimum flow rate required for adequate cuttings transport. No predictions are available for the rate at which cuttings are removed. Because the cuttings move more slowly than the circulating mud, it is essential that sufficient bottoms-up are circulated prior to tripping. A SINGLE BOTTOMS-UP IS NEVER ENOUGH! The minimum on bottom circulation time prior to tripping will be influenced by hole size, inclination and flow history (i.e. mud properties and flow rate). These factors will affect the height of any residual cuttings beds. Recent work by Exxon has indicated that the volume of cuttings left behind during normal drilling operations can be considerable. They recommend selection of bits/BHAs with large bypass areas to facilitate tripping out of the hole.
11-11
Before tripping, monitor the shakers to ensure the cuttings return rate is reduced to an acceptable background level. The figures in the table below are guidelines based on simple slip velocity considerations and field experience:
WELL INCLINATION RANGE 0 - 10
o o o
SECTION LENGTH FACTOR 17-1/2 inch HOLE 1.5 1.7 2.5 3.0 12-1/4 inch HOLE 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.0 8-1/2 inch HOLE 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7
Procedure
Example
Since in practice not all of the section back to surface will be deviated at the same angle, the overall minimum circulation time prior to tripping should be apportioned in direct relation to the relative lengths of section at each angle. This is illustrated in the following example for tripping out of 17-1/2 inch hole at 7,710 ft. (2,350m). Number of circulations
850m x 1.5 (0 deg)
=
18 5/8 csg 300m x 1.7 (10-30 deg)
= 2.2 * B/U
11-12
The BP cuttings transport model is accessible through the DEAP Hydraulics application program. For critical wells, the model should be used ensuring the most appropriate range of input data. Factors such as cuttings density, cuttings size, and hole washout should be based on best available local knowledge. A simplified version of the model is available through a series of simplified charts. These charts are based on average input data for North Sea conditions. Caution should be exercised when applying these results to areas elsewhere. The charts are available in the BP Stuck Pipe Handbook and in IADC/SPE 27486.
HYDRAULICS
For ERD wells it is essential to balance the hydraulic requirements at the bit with the flow rates necessary to keep the hole clean. Another important factor in high step-out wells is the increase in Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) which can result in mud losses. In the extreme case of a horizontal well the ECD increases with section length, whereas the fracture gradient remains constant since it is a function of true vertical depth (TVD). System hydraulics depend upon: Flow rate Mud density Mud rheology Geometry
11-13
Mud Rheology
Most drilling muds are shear thinning. This means they are non-Newtonian fluids whose viscosity reduces with increasing shear rate. Most muds are "viscoplastic". This means that a certain pressure needs to be exceeded before the mud can flow. There are many mathematical models that can be used to describe the flow behavior of drilling muds. It should be remembered however that these are simply mathematical descriptions of ideal behavior. In practice, most muds fall somewhere between "Power Law" and "Bingham Plastic" behavior. The DEAP hydraulics model allows hydraulics predictions for both Power Law and Bingham Plastic fluids. In general, the Bingham Plastic calculations will give the higher pressure drop predictions. The DEAP program also provides the option of using the Yield Power Law Model (referred to as Herschel Bulkley). This exhibits intermediate behavior between the Power Law and Bingham and gives pressure predictions somewhere between the two extremes. The Yield Power Law model requires a minimum of three (3) Fann viscometer readings to compute the flow parameters. It is recommended that a minimum of six (6) values over a range of shear rates be used. Mud rheology is a sensitive function of temperature. Generally muds get thinner as temperature increases. With oil muds and synthetics, increases in confining pressure cause the viscosity to increase. This affect also occurs in water-base muds, but to a lesser degree. Mud gels are important to help suspend barite. Ideally, these should be fragile (non-progressive). Excessive gel strengths can lead to high intermittent pressure surges to break circulation. These effects can be minimized by rotating the drill string prior to establishing circulation. High gels are also detrimental for swab-surge pressures.
Hydraulics Modeling
There are many published methods for calculating pressure drops of non-Newtonian fluids in complex geometries. In laminar flow, it is possible to derive exact analytical solutions. In turbulent flow, all correlations for non-Newtonian fluids are based on empirical correlations. The DEAP model uses a different turbulent flow correlation depending upon whether the mud is oil-base or water-base. Oil muds give rise to higher pressure losses under comparable conditions (typically 20% above WBM).
11-14
The influence of mud properties, flow rate and geometry on pressure loss vary depending upon flow regime. These principles apply to specific areas of the circulating system: Drill Pipe and Surface Pipework Flow will always be turbulent. Pressure loss is a strong function of flow rate ( approx flow rate squared) and pipe internal diameter (approx diameter raised to fifth power). For example, pressure loss in 6-5/8 inch drill pipe is approximately half the value of conventional 5-inch drill pipe. Pressure loss increases linearly with increasing mud density, but is only a weak function of mud rheology. Motors and MWD Tools Pressure losses here are generally turbulent. Flow rate and mud density affect pressure drop, mud rheology does not. Service company literature is available which provides hydraulic performance of the various tools. These are included within the DEAP hydraulics program. Bit Nozzles Flow is highly turbulent with shear rates approaching 10 ^ 5 reciprocal seconds. Pressure loss is purely due to changes in inertia (flow velocity and density). Flow velocity is directly related to mud circulation rate and nozzle size (open flow area). Mud viscosity does not influence pressure loss at the bit. Annular Pressure For most common cases, flow in the annulus is laminar. Under these conditions pressure loss is less sensitive to flow rate, but is a very strong function of mud rheology. Mud density does not affect the frictional loss in the annulus. The overall accuracy of the DEAP model generally falls within 10-15% for the total circulating system. This is adequate for well planning purposes. During the actual drilling phase it is important to fine tune the predictions based on actual SPP. This allows the optimum balance between nozzle selection and hydraulic requirements for hole cleaning. Also remember that the DEAP program does not take account of changes in rheology with temperature and pressure. This, combined with the uncertainties in drill pipe eccentricity, can lead to errors in predicting the annular pressure loss. This is important in-situations where ECD is critical. In these situations, it is important to accurately monitor mud volumes to ensure the fracture gradient is not exceeded. If necessary, trends from the DEAP predictions should be used to modify operating parameters to reduced ECDs.
11-15
REFERENCES
General 1. Applied Drilling Engineering - K Millheim et al SPE Textbook Series 2. Theory and Application of Drilling Fluids Hydraulics - Exlog 3. BP Rigsite Handbook - Stuck Pipe Prevention (1992) 4. Hole Cleaning Charts - Y. Luo & P. Bern (1992) 5. Unique Hole Cleaning Capabilities of Ester-Based Drilling Fluid Systems - P. Kenny et al SPE 28308 (1994)
Flow Loop Studies 1. Practical Analysis of Drilling Mud Flow in Pipes and Annuli - M Zamora & D Lord SPE 4976 (1974) 2. Hole Cleaning in Full Scale Inclined Wellbores - T.R. Sifferman & T.E. Becker SPE 20422 (1990) 3. Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in Directional Wells - J.J. Azar et al SPE 12123 (1983) 4. Cleaning Deviated Holes; New Experimental & Theoretical Studies - N.P. Brown et al SPE 18636 (1989) 5. Cuttings Transport in Inclined Boreholes - J.T. Ford et al SPE 20421 (1990)
Mathematical Models 1. Simple Charts to Determine Hole Cleaning Requirements - Y. Luo et al IADC/SPE 27486 (1994) 2. Transport of Cuttings in Directional Wells - M. Martin et al SPE./IADC 16083 (1987) 3. A Model for Transport of Cuttings in Highly Deviated Wells - A. Gavignet & I. Sobey SPE 15417 (1986) 4. Hole Cleaning in Large Angle Wells - M. Rasi IADC/SPE 27464 (1994) 5. A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport - R. Clark & K. Bickham SPE 28306 (1994)
Field Monitoring of Hole Cleaning 1. Field Measurement of Circulating Pressure Drops - R Minton & P Bern SPE/IADC 17242 (1988) 2. Hole Cleaning and Pump Pressure Projections for Wytch Farm - Y Luo DCB Report (Jan 1995) 3. Uses and Limitations of Drill String Tension and Torque Models for Monitoring Hole Conditions - J.F. Brett et al SPE Drilling Engineer (September 1989) 4. Hole Cleaning Program for Extended Reach Wells - G.J. Guild et al SPE/IADC 29381 (1995) 5. Problem Detection During Tripping Operations in Horizontal and Directional Wells - J.V. Cardoso et al SPE 26330 (1993)
11-16
Section 12
INTRODUCTION
Recent successes in extended reach projects have resulted in drilling engineers being asked questions like: Can the rig drill this target? How far can it reach? What rig upgrades or specifications are required to develop this field?
The answers to these questions are not straight forward - many factors affect the answer.
12-1
RIG SIZING
The rig sizing process can be divided into these sections: Well Design - specify drilling, evaluation, completion, and well servicing requirements. Operational Requirements - define the hydraulic, torque, and hoisting requirements based on the well design. The requirements are based on a combination of modeling and historical data, and are specified in terms of force, velocity, pressure, flow rate, torque, and RPM. Equipment Sizing and Specification - determine the equipment specifications based on operational requirements. Evaluation - review the equipment specifications to determine if objectives were met. This process is not unique to ERD wells. The differences are in the results - the equipment requirements for a 30,000 ft. (9144m) ERD well will be different than for a 30,000 ft conventional well. Well control and monitoring are not discussed in this Section. They are important in ERD operations, but are outside the scope of this document or discussed in other Sections. Since these systems are part of the drilling rig, they must be compatible with other rig systems.
Well Design
The first step in determining the performance requirements of a rig is to specify the well design. The well design must consider evaluation, completion and well intervention requirements as well as drilling needs. These requirements must be reasonable and necessary; requirements that are too restrictive will result in over-stated rig specifications and higher well costs. Critical issues regarding equipment sizing may be identified during the rig sizing process. Changes to the well design may resolve them. For example, it may be determined the drill pipe is inadequate for various reasonsinadequate flow rates, high pipe body stresses, or excessive tool joints loads. Each situation may have a different solution, which affects the well design and rig requirements differently. It's up to the drilling engineer to evaluate the alternatives and determine the best solution for their project.
Operational Requirements
Operational requirementshydraulic, torque and hoistingare specified in terms of loads, speed, pressure, flow rate, torque, and RPM. For conventional wells, these requirements are determined from offset well data, rules-of-thumb, or simple calculations. For ERD wells, offset data may not be available or apply to the well design, and rules-of-thumb and simple calculations may not be adequate. This section discusses how the Drill String Simulator (DSS) and the Hydraulic Model applications in DEAP are used to determine the operational requirements. However, offset well data, rules-of-thumb, etc. should not be ignored. This information can be useful in defining friction factors, ripple factors, flow rates, etc. Comparisons with wells of similar hole size and measured depth will give a "reality" check even if the directional plans are different. Significant variations should be evaluated to determine if valid assumptions were made in the modeling process.
12-2
Table 121 lists the well information needed for DEAP modeling. Much of the data is based on the well design, but some operational data is requiredbit type, total flow area (TFA), weight on bit (WOB), anticipated rate of penetration (ROP), etc. As with the well design, it may be necessary to modify these during the rig sizing process.
Table 12-1 Requirements for DEAP Modeling Casing Program Hole size and depth Casing size & weight Directional Program Directional plan BHA MWD/LWD Mud Program Type Density Rheology Operation Data Bit type/TFA WOB RPM Flow rate Pressure drop in downhole tools ROP
Hydraulic Requirements
Meeting the hole cleaning and hydraulic requirements can be the most difficult part in rig sizing. So many factors are involved a unique solution doesn't exist: minimum flow rates are determined from hole angle, ROP, annulus size, mud properties, cuttings size and density, and drillpipe rotation. (Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics). Pressure losses are determined from hole size and drill string dimensions, length of pipe and annular sections, number and type of downhole tools, TFA, and mud properties. Pumps are limited by pressure ratings and horsepower. Many solutions are possiblein certain cases reduced ROPs, low flow rates, and backreamming may be a better solution than high ROPs and flow rates. Use DEAP Hydraulic Model to determine the flow rate and circulating pressure at TD of each hole section, or that part of the hole where the hydraulic requirements are greatest. If the minimum flow rate is not obtainable then some changes must be made. Determine the limiting or critical criteriaROP, maximum allowable flow rate, maximum surface pressure, etc. Modify the criteria easiest to change, usually the mud properties, ROP, liner size, and TFA. If the pump pressure is the limiting factor, eliminating downhole motors or MWD/LWD may allow reaching TD. Major changes may be required to meet the hydraulic requirementsadditional pumps, large diameter (5-1/2 and 6-5/8 inch) drill pipe and high pressure (6,0007500 psi) pumps and surface lines.
12-3
Drilling Backreaming
Predictions should be made for drilling with both PDC and conventional bits Generally uses the most power since hoisting is also required. Use a high hoisting speed1020 ft/min. Evaluate tripping operations at total depth (TD) of the open hole section and again just inside the casing shoe. Assume cased hole hoisting speeds (60120 ft/min) are twice open hole (3060 ft/min). Evaluate pulling on stuck casing at TDtypically 100 kips overpull. Evaluate torque and/or drag requirements for rotating liner during cementing operations, if applicable. Evaluate pulling on stuck casing at TDtypically 100 kips overpull.
Tripping
Casing Liner
Fishing
12-4
Drill Line
Size Type Design factors for drilling, casing and fishing operations Rating Input power Drive efficiency or configuration Maximum line pull Size, type Input power Drive-Independent, etc. Hanging capacity Number, size, type Input power per pump Driveindependent, etc. Liner sizes and maximum operating pressure
Drawworks
Rotary/Top Drive
Pumps
Rig Power
Prime mover type and power rating Generator type and output rating Grid power capability Capacity Solids control system Surface circulating system size, length and pressure rating OBM capability (HSE)
Mud System
Substructure
Racking capacitylength and size of tubulars Setback capacity Combinedcasing plus setback Length, size, weight, grade, connection, condition
Drill String
The next three pages include equipment inventories which are representative of rigs that have successfully drilled significant ERD wells.
12-5
Helmerich & Payne IDC Rig 100 Derrick Lee C. Moore bottleneck derrick, 170' x 30' base, rate @ 1,500,000# static load with 14 lines strung to traveling block. Setback load 940,000#, Rotary 1,500,000#. Rotary & Setback loads or Hook & Setback loads may be simultaneous. Lee C. Moore crown block (8 sheaves) Oilwell 650 ton traveling block (7 sheaves) BJ 750 ton model 5750 Dynaplex hook 1-5/8" EIPS drill line (breaking strength = 264,000 lbs) Oilwell E-3000 driven by three GE 752 electric motors, equipped with one Elmagco 7838 electric brake and sandreel. Oilwell B 37-1/2" rotary table with independent drive and provisions to be chain driven from the drawworks. Varco TDS-4H top drive drilling system with one GE 752 Hi-torque Series motor; PH-85 pipe handler rated at 85,000 ft-lb make-up/break-out torque; video system, raised backup system; top drive rated @ 50,900 ft-lb continuous torque. Varco SSW-30 pipe spinners. Varco AR3200 Automatic Roughneck capable of breaking 3-1/2" to 9-3/4" connections up to 5' - 1" above the rig floor, make-up torque 100,000 ftlbs, break-out torque 120,000 ft-lbs. Four Caterpillar D-3516 diesel engines each rated @ 1615 HP and each driving Kato 1535 kW AC generator. One Cat. D-399 auxiliary engine rated @ 1215 HP driving a Kato 1050 kW AC generator all feeding a five-bay Ross-Hill SCR system. (Total System Power = 7675 HP, 7190 kW). Three Gardner-Denver PZ-11 pumps each rated @ 1600 HP and driven by two GE 752 electric motors. 11" stroke, 115 max spm, 5000 psi fluid end rating, White Rock nonmaintenance suction and discharge dampeners, pump synchronization device. Digital gauges are used to monitor standpipe and choke manifold pressures. Liner sizes and operating pressures: 5-1/2"/5000 psi, 6"/47000 psi, 6-1/2"/400 psi, 7"/3450 psi. Drilling: 710 bbl Active mud tank, 150 bbl Processing tank, 386 bbl Reserve mud tank (Total Tank Volume = 1,246 bbl). 660 bbl Base Oil Storage tank. Three Derrick Sandwich shakers cascading into three Derrick Flo-Line Cleaners. Swaco Degasser. Swaco Desander with three 12" cones. (Rented Derrick Mud-Cleaner). Completion: 832 bbl Dedicated Completion tank (rig equipped with dedicated completion standpipe and kelly hose also). Substructure Drill String Substructure & Skid base equipped with two Lee C. Moore double acting ram jacks, 120 ton pull, 140 ton push capacity with 33" stroke. 17,325' of 5" S-135, 19.5 lb/ft, 4-1/2 IF conn., Premium drill-pipe 930' of 5" Hevi-wate drill-pipe. 6-1/4" and 8" drill-collars are standard. 12,000' of 6-5/8" S-135, 26.2 lb/ft, HT65 conn., Premium drill-pipe (BP's) 620' of 6-5/8" Hevi-wate drill pipe (BP's). One Unit 10,000 hydraulic crane, 100' boom One Link Belt 218A mechanical crane, 90' boom One Link Belt 108B mechanical crane, 80' boom Diverter: ABB Vetco Gray KFDJ-J, 2,000 psi fixed diverter. 20/3-4" 3,000 psa single ram preventers, One 20-3/4" 3,000 psa single ram preventer (BP's). 13-5/8" Stack: One Hydril GL type 13-5/8" 5,000 psi annular preventer, One Cameron type "U" 13-5/8" 10,000 psa double ram preventer, One Cameron type "U" 13-5/8" 10,000 psi single ram preventer. Koomey model 330-11SZ type 80 closing unit, 8 station with outlets to four additional stations, remote panel with eight stations. Additional Two deep well pumps rate @ 1200 gpm, Mathey Standard Suveyor unit with 25,000' of .092 wire line. Three story quarters/heliport with 82 personnel capacity. Rig floor office and mud laboratory. Non-skid stair covers throughout the rig.
Overhead String
Pipe Handling
Rig Power
Pumps
Mud System
Cranes
BOP Equipment
12-6
Statfjord 'C' platform Derrick Traveling Equipment NPC/Foster 160' x 40' x 40' 597 ton derrick Dreco 650 ton crown block National 760H-650 ton traveling block Normally 12 lines 38mm drill line Drawworks Rotary/Top Drive 426 ton rating 2 x 600kw motors Varco TDS4 745kw continuous input power 500 ton rating Pumps 2 / 16000 HP / National 12-P-160 1200 kw 7", 6-1/2", 6" and 5-1/2" liners Maximum 320 bar operating pressure Rig Power Bulk Capacity Mud System 2 x 4 MVA - 13,8kw transf. prime mover Bulk stor. 200m3 / 120m3 cement 676 m3 pit capacity 345 bar pressure rating Shakers: 4 eq. GM 2000-H Cuttings injection, enclosed mud pits for OBH Substructure Racking capacity - 4000 m 6-5/8" (inc. dc fingers), Max 6870 m 5-1/2" dp or 7320 m 5" dp 297 tonnes setback capacity 947 tonnes combined casing plus setback Drill String - 6-5/8", 25.2 lb/ft, S135, FH, Premium - 5-1/2", 21.9 lb/ft, S135, FH, Premium - 5", 19.5 lb/ft, S135, NC 50, Premium
12-7
Magellan Jack-up Drilling Unit Derrick Drawworks Rotary Table Top Drive 160 ft. x 40 ft. Dreco, rated at 2,000,000 lbs. GNC & 1,600,000 lbs. static hook load with 16 lines. National-Oilwell E-3000, driven by three GE 752 Hi-Torque electric DC motors, with National-Oilwell universal hydraulic disc brake and a Baylor 7838 electric brake. National-Oilwell hydraulic motor driven non-drilling 49-1/2. Varco BJ model TDS-6S, with two GE 752 Hi-Torque motors; closed loop cooling system; PH-85 pipe handler rated at 85,000 ft./lb. makeup/brakeout torque; integral 7,500 psi CWP swivel, video system, TDS/Block retraction system; top drive rated at 60,000 ft./lb. continuous drilling torque and 1,500,000 lb. hoisting capacity. Varco BJ PHM-31, 30,000 ft. racking cap, complete with integrated iron roughneck capable of braking connections up to 20 ft. above floor, makeup torque 100,000 ft./lbs., brakeout 120,000 ft./lbs. Three National Oilwell 14-P 200 triplex pumps, each driven by two GE 752 hi-torque shunt wound DC motors, driving through a Kevlar V-belt drive system. Liquid Mud: 2,900 bbl. (dependent on mud weight and variable load conditions. Base Oil: 850 bbl. Brine: 900 bbl. Bulk Material: 17,400 cu ft. BOP Equipment Diverter: Drilquip 500 psi fixed diverter with a 2,000 psi pressure rated housing and two 16 in. diameter outlets located on each side of the housing with straight runs to either side of the drill floor. 21-1/4 system: One Hydril type GL 5,000 psi annular preventer, one Hydril 5,000 psi double ram preventer, one Hydril 5,000 psi single ram preventer, both rams with 4-1/16 in. 15m outlets 13-5/8 system: One Hydril type GX 10,000 psi annular preventer. Two Hydril 15,000 psi double ram preventers configured with 4-1/16 in. 15m outlets. Cranes Tender Mode Conductor Tension Unit Three Sea King, Model SK3500 cranes, with 120 ft. booms and rated for 32 tons at 65 ft, radius. Drill floor/substructure can be skidded from cantilever subbase onto adjacent jacket structure, up to 80 ft. beyond maximum cantilever reach. 600 kip C.T.U. suspended from cantilever beams can apply tension at any point within drilling envelope.
Pipe Handling
12-8
Efficiencies
Several of the rig componentsdrawworks, rotary and mud pumpsare rated by input power. However, power calculations based on operating parameters determines the component output power. (Note: DEAP calculates output power.) The input power is determined by the ratio of output power to the efficiency of the component. Efficiencies can be defined by function (References 121, 122): Transmission Efficiency (Et) Efficiency of the power transmission system and depends on the rig power system. This includes generators, silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) converter, wiring and drive motors for electric rigs; and torque converter and mechanical or hydraulic couplings for mechanical rigs.
Table 12-3 - Transmission Efficiency Power - Transmission Electric - SCR Electric - DC/DC Mech - Torque Converter Mech -Hydraulic Coupling Efficiency (Et) 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.98
Efficiency from the output of the transmission to the input shaft of the rig component. Depends on the number chains and shafts making up the drive system, which differ for.
Table 12-4 - Drive Efficiency Component Efficiency (Ed) Mechanical Rig Drawworks Top Drive Rotary - Indep Drive Rotary Pumps 0.83 0.75 0.90 Electric Rig 0.87 0.96 0.94 0.79 0.94
Efficiency of the crown block, traveling block, and drilling line and depends on the number of lines supporting the traveling block.
Table 12-5 - Hoisting Efficiency Number of Lines 8 10 12 14 16 Efficiency (Eh) 0.842 0.811 0.782 0.755 0.728
12-9
Design Factors
Uncertainty is a fact of life and needs to be considered when sizing a drilling rig. The uncertainty discussed here applies to the assumptions made regarding the well design, mechanical and electrical efficiencies, historical information and modeling. How well these assumptions match reality is unknown until we've drilled and completed the well. Even with "perfect knowledge" circumstances, Murphy's Law may change the requirements. Apply appropriate design factors when sizing the equipment in this section. Use caution when specifying design factors to ensure that "hidden" design factors are not already in place. This effectively compounds the applied design factor and may result in over stating the rig requirements. Values generally range from 1.1 to 1.25 and depend on how certain you are of your assumptions.
Derrick/Mast
The crown load determines the derrick/mast capacity and is based on the maximum hook load (including traveling equipment) and the number of lines strung. The number of lines can vary with drilling and casing operations, therefore, the maximum hook load for drilling (typically fishing) and casing operations are evaluated with the number of lines used or required. The crown load is calculated from this equation :
N + 2 CL = HL N
Where:
(12.1)
12-10
Drawworks
A drawworks is typically rated on input power. However, single line pull also determines the capability of the drawworks to hoist a load. Simply put, input power is a measure of tripping capability, single line pull is a measure of the maximum hook load capacity of a drawworks. Tripping the drillstring usually determines the power requirements of the drawworks. Use the hook loads calculated in the Torque and Drag Predictions section for tripping in open hole and cased hole at appropriate hoisting speeds. The nominal rating of large drawworks is established for hook speeds in the range of 90120 ft/min with eight lines to the traveling block. The high drag in ERD wells will most likely dictate lower. The input power to the drawworks is determined from the power at the hook plus power losses due to friction of bearings, chains and the wire line that make up the hoisting system (see Efficiencies). The power output at the hook is calculated by:
PHook =
Where:
HL S 33, 000
(12.2)
PHook = power output at the hook, hp HL = hook load, lbs S = hoisting speed, ft / min
Note: This is the drawworks power calculated by DSS. Input power to the drawworks is determined by dividing the power output at the hook by the drawworks drive efficiency and hoisting efficiency:
PInput =
Where:
PHook HL S = Ed Eh 33,000 Ed Eh
(12.3)
12-11
Rotary/Top Drive
Rotary requirements are based on the maximum torque and input power. A major limiting factor in ERD operations is the surface torque requirement (which can be calculated with DSS). Rotary power is a function of both surface torque and rotary speed, and is also calculated by DSS. Input power is determined from the rotary power and appropriate drive efficiency. The procedure for sizing top drives and rotary tables is identical. Refer to the manufacturers documentation for performance specifications. The rotary table must also be large enough to accommodate the largest casing size or tool and support the heaviest hang-off load.
Mud Pumps
Mud pumps are rated on input horsepower, which is a function of flow rate and pump pressure. Determine the flow rate and pressure requirement for each hole section from the Hydraulics Model. Input power requirements are determined from the flow rate, pump pressure, and various efficienciesdrive, mechanical, and volumetric. DSS calculates a hydraulic power requirement, but results from the Hydraulics Model are more accurate. Use these predicted values to determine the number, horsepower rating, and liner sizes of mud pumps required.
Rig Power
In ERD wells, the maximum drilling power requirement generally occurs while backreamming the 12 1/4 inch hole. Determine the maximum drilling power from the sum of the input power of the drawworks, rotary system, and pumps for any operation. The rig generating power requirements is the sum of the maximum drilling power requirements, auxiliaries and hotel loads, taking into consideration the transmission efficiency of the rig power system.
12-12
Substructure
The substructure must have the setback capacity to support the drill string at the TD. There must also be sufficient capacity in the derrick/mast for the drill string. The substructure must support the maximum casing plus drill pipe setback load corresponding to the casing stringnormally the 9 5/8 inch casing plus the drill string used to drill the 12 1/4 inch hole.
The mud processing system must have sufficient capacity to handle the high volume and flow rates encountered in ERD wells. Oil-base muds play an important part in ERD wells, and the capability to process these mud systems should be considered (see Section 6, Drill Fluids Optimization). The size and pressure rating of the surface circulating system should also be considered to maximize the hydraulic requirements.
Drill String
Drill string requirements are based on hydraulic, torque, and hoisting requirements determined from the DEAP simulation. Use the results of these simulations and refer to Section 9, Drill String Design to determine the drill string requirements.
12-13
EVALUATION
The results of the rig sizing process should be evaluated to determine if the objectives were met. Can the rig drill the proposed well? Is there excess capacity? What modifications are required? Are the specifications achievable and cost effective? Keep in mind when specifying a new rig or requesting modifications to an existing rigthe systems are not independent and a change to one system may require a change to another. Be aware of the "hidden" costs of these modificationsadditional solids control equipment to handle the high flow rates; larger drill pipe may require modifications to the pipe handling system, top drive and monkey boards are just a few. Finally, the rig sizing process is iterative. Consider the factors effecting critical or marginal rig components. Determine if your assumptions were reasonable or overly conservative. Evaluate the well requirements and design to determine how changes may affect the rig specifications.
Lower design requirements100 kip overpull on casing and stuck pipe. Additional factors such as number of wells, geologic uncertainty, timing, availability, logistics, mobility and deck loading must also be considered. The rig sizing is based on engineering principles and will yield a quantitative result based on many assumptions. When making these assumptions it's important to be aware of the objectives and constraints of the ERD project. Can the project handle the cost of a major rig upgrade? Is it more cost effective to drill at a reduced ROP? A large development project may justify upgrades but a single well project may be completed successfully with less than ideal equipment. Some of these assumptions will result in equipment requirements that are costly or difficult to obtain. However, that specification may be costly. but a clear understanding of the project objectives is necessary. However, the objective is to determine reasonable operational data to use in sizing rig components, not optimize the well design.
EXAMPLE
An Excel spreadsheet has been developed to summarize the DEAP runs and perform the necessary calculations. Attachment 12-1 is an example of the results.
12-14
REFERENCES
1. Rig Sizing UK Land Wells - Kelso, Gary, BPX Internal Report, June 1989. 2. Drawworks Depth Ratings: How to Evaluate and Apply Them - Cordrrey, R. N., IADC Drilling Technology Conference Transactions, 1980. 3. Fitting Drilling Rigs to Their Job...Whether Rig is New or Old - Crake, W. S., SPE Reprint Series, 1973. 4. How To Determine Your Rig's Depth Limit - L'Espoir, John, Petroleum Engineering International, April 1984. 5. API RP9B, Recommended Practice on Application, Care and Use of Wire Rope for Oilfield Service, May 1986.
12-15
12-16
Section 13
13-1
INTRODUCTION
You can drill a perfectly good ERD well without good wellbore surveys - but chances are it will be in the wrong place. Errors which can be safely ignored for most wells, take on real significance when trying to hit distant targets. Several factors work together to magnify the effects of small errors: Systematic errors accumulate over a longer distance Instrument errors are generally greater at high inclination Targets appear smaller when approached at high inclination There is the additional problem of getting wireline tools to bottom in high-angle hole. And, of course, surveys in long wells take longer and cost more. With all these difficulties to overcome and considering the cost of incorrect well placement, the importance of careful survey management in ERD wells is clear. Stick to these basic principles: Set clear objectives Put together a plan to meet them. This is survey program design which must take account of each tool's limitations Monitor performance with Quality Assurance checks and tool comparisons Don't miss opportunities to learn
13-2
In practice, most targets are defined as horizontal despite the increasing difficulty of hitting them at high inclination. The maximum entry inclination for a horizontal target varies from well to well. For Wytch Farm M05, a Driller's target was successfully defined at an entry inclination of 81.
Drillers Targets in High Angle and ERD Wells
Horizontal targets approached at high inclination are greatly foreshortened due to survey errors H cos(incl) H cos(incl)
H = highside uncertainty
In Northern latitudes, magnetic survey bias will deflect the Drillers target to the North.
At high approach angles a vertical target may be more realistic - and easier to hit
Well Direction
Target before sizing Drillers Target Horizontal section must be inside this volume
Anti-Collision
ERD wells are frequently planned to pass close to existing exploration wells near the reservoir. Since the survey uncertainties involved are large, conventional anti-collision rules imply the need for large well separations. In reality, such rules are often grossly over-conservative. In many cases, the probability of a collision is so small that it can safely be ignored. DEAP/DDSS can perform this calculation automatically. To get an approximate value manually, use the equation:
dp + dd
Probability of collision =
exp
D2 2 2
Where
d p , d d are the diameters of the planned and drilled wells, D is the separation between the wells and = 2p + 2 p , d d
are the semi-major axis uncertainties in the planned and drilled wells at 1
13-3
Magnetic Surveys
Being solid state and therefore robust, measurement while drilling (MWD) and electronic multishot (EMS) tools are physically suited for extended reach applications. Another strong point is the ability to check one instrument against another. MWD tools and collars should be changed out on every trip, and electronic multishots should be run in stacks of at least two (preferably three) probes. On the down side, all magnetic tools have two fundamental weaknesses: They rely on an accurate knowledge of the Earth's magnetic field They are susceptible to interference from other magnetic fields
Magnetic Bias
Despite the use of non-magnetic collars, magnetic survey sensors are always influenced to some extent by magnetization of the drill string. Theory suggests that in northern latitudes the resulting error will generally be to the north, and a study of surveys in Alaska confirms this. The latest estimate is that magnetic surveys will lie north of gyroscopic surveys 77% of the time. The effect is certainly present in Alaska and the North Sea, but has not been studied properly in mid, low, and southern latitudes. This "bias" of magnetic surveys to the north has two effects: Where the gyro survey lies say 1-3 to the North of the MWD, both should be regarded with more suspicion than if the gyro lies say 1-3 to the South. To reduce the chances of missing the geological target, aim slightly north of center. The DDSS target sizing routine takes account of this. Used "stand-alone", magnetic surveys seldom meet the accuracy requirements of ERD wells. The techniques mentioned below are means of enhancing this accuracy.
13-4
In-Hole Referencing
In-hole referencing is a technique which helps compensate for uncertain knowledge of the Earth's magnetic field, hence reduces systematic errors over long tangent sections. The method involves running a gyro several hundred meters into open hole to establish a baseline for subsequent correction of MWD and EMS. [1] has more details. In-hole referencing has long been established in BP's UK operations, but has only recently been adopted in Alaska. The method potentially offers significant accuracy gains at little extra cost, but is critically dependent on the quality of the gyro reference survey. The first instrument used was the Schlumberger GCT, which at the tangent angles then common in the North Sea (45-60), could be run slick below the 13-3/8 inch casing and usually produced smooth, reliable surveys. More recently, tangent angles have increased and the GCT has been withdrawn. The reference survey is now usually a Gyrodata or SDC Finder tool run inside drill-pipe. The quality of these surveys is variable, but following the general rules in [1] and in the JORPs will help ensure success. In-hole referencing can only be applied over tangent sections. Normally, the in-hole reference interval will be at the start of the tangent. In Wytch Farm, the wells continue to build through the interval, hence invalidating the inclination correction - a BHA sag correction was applied instead.
In-Field Referencing
In-field referencing is a technique developed and patented by Sperry Sun for correcting MWD and EMS data using real-time values of the local magnetic field. It was tried (June/July 1995) at Wytch Farm with encouraging results [3]. On land, the method is cheap and easy to run. Development of a system for use offshore is feasible, but is awaiting confirmation of reasonable market. At the high latitudes of Alaska, the complexity of magnetic field variations probably precludes use of this method.
13-5
Running Methods
The only way to get a quality survey with a high degree of confidence is to run the tools free-fall in casing (centralized or low-side). The maximum inclination achieved can vary from under 50 to over 80. Undisturbed cuttings beds, viscous mud, and severe doglegs are sure ways of making the tool hang up early. Pumping a wireline tool down the drill pipe is a well-established means of surveying at high angle and into open hole, but typically gives erratic azimuth results which make selection of reliable in-hole reference intervals difficult. Surveys in Wytch Farm and Pompano have also indicated the presence of unexplained systematic inclination errors resulting in large TVD discrepancies. Gyrodata has a battery-powered version of their tool which can be run in on slickline and seated in an orienting shoe. The line is then released and withdrawn and the survey taken while tripping out. A version of the tool capable of withstanding a free-fall into drill pipe is due for testing in 1996. Pumping down a wireline tool inside casing is a promising technique first tried by Statoil with the Schlumberger GCT. The tool is run with a cement plug connected to the bottom with a weak link. Statoil has had some success with this method, but a trial on Gyda using the Inteq RIGS tool highlighted a potential problem - the wireline must be kept in tension while the tool is pumped to maintain accurate depth control. Wireline operators experienced with this technique would be an advantage.
13-6
Yes Can you reasonably run another survey ? No Request the multishot Wellsite QA Summary Sheet and all the MWD benchmark and check shot data
Decide which survey to accept as definitive Dont let it rest once the pressure is off - an error without an explanation will occur again No Has the cause of the discrepancy been identified ? Yes Ask the survey company to suggest a change in procedures that will prevent its recurrence Decide which survey to tie-in to
No
Is there another hole section for which you need to choose a tie-in ? Yes Which survey would you choose to play it safe ?
Yes
No
13-7
SETTING OBJECTIVES
Target Definition: The target should reflect the geological. Target Sizing: Establish contingencies for missing target. Anti-Collision: Evaluate separation rule versus costing by doing a risk analysis. Relief Well Contingency: Establish relief well contingencies for locating the wellbore.
Definitive concatenation: Gyro multishot MWD (or EMS) with IHR MWD
13-8
13-9
REFERENCES
1. "BPX Directional Survey Handbook, v1.0", XTP-DTG, July 1993. 2. "DDSS User Guide, v2.3", Hugh Williamson, XTP-DTG, July 1995. 3. "In-Field Referencing Trials at Wytch Farm", Hugh Williamson, XTP-DTG, September 1995. Copies of JORPs can be obtained direct from the Survey Company (MWD: Inteq, Sperry Sun, Halliburton, Anadrill; Survey: Inteq, Sperry Sun, SDC, Gyrodata).
Contacts
Specialty XTP Survey Specialist BPX Drilling Global Consultant Name Hugh Williamson John Thorogood Trevor Hogg Location XTP Dyce PSR Dyce BPX Colombia Telephone 44 (0)1224 833694 44 (0)1224 833585 57 1 623 4077 Fax 44 (0)1224 833586 44 (0)1224 832827 57 1 618 3215
13-10
Section 14
SEVERE VIBRATION
Severe vibration is defined as vibration events which can cause rapid damage to the bit, drill string, and the bottom hole assembly (BHA) components. Drilling vibration which is normally present and which causes string failure by slow fatigue crack growth (usually within 200-400 drilling hours) is not classified here as severe vibration.
14-1
Severe vibration should be minimized/eliminated via proper rig site vibration monitoring and control. Non-severe drilling vibration should be quantified through proper drill string fatigue inspection.
Cutter impact damage (usually on the bit nose). Impact damage to bit gauge pads. Increased MWD shocks. High frequency lateral/torsional vibration (detectable downhole). Repeated slow build-up/abrupt drop in surface torque.
Localized tool joint wear. Increased MWD shocks. Erratic surface torque.
Reduce RPM and/or increase WOB. Higher lubricity mud. Use non rotating stabilizers and tool joint protectors. Use roller stabilizers. reamers rather than
Large surface vibration (obvious in shaking of equipment). Large WOB fluctuations. Bit damage, usually tricones in hard formations.
Use shock sub. Adjust drilling parameters (often to higher RPM and/or lower WOB).
Each vibration type can trigger other types of vibration. Therefore, more than one vibration type is usually occurring. Note that many of the vibration suppression techniques in the table are cures for one type of vibration only (e.g. running an anti-whirl bit will not normally cure slip-stick.) Slip-stick and bit whirl commonly occur with drag (PDC) bits while bit bounce is usually only found with tri-cone bits. In ERD wells and wells with high tortuosity, slip-stick torsional vibration can become very common due to additional string-wellbore interaction.
14-2
Some symptoms (e.g. MWD shocks) can occur with more than one vibration type, hence to correctly identify the prevailing vibration type we often need to detect more than one symptom.
14-3
ROTARY FEEDBACK ON
Consideration of Geology
Many types of vibration are closely related to formation type and properties. Slip-stick for instance is often more severe in hard limestones or sandstones than in more drillable lithologies like shale. The presence of such formations in planned ERD wells should be taken as a warning indicator of potentially severe vibration problems, and vibration suppression techniques planned into the drilling program.
14-4
REFERENCES
1. Abbassian F., "Drill String Vibration Primer", BP Exploration, January 1994. 2. Brett, J.F., Warren, T.M., and Behr, S., "Bit Whirl: A New Theory of PDC Bit Failure", SPE Drilling Engineering, 275-281, December 1990. 3. Kyllinstad, A., and Hasley, G.W., "A Study of Slip-Stick Motion of the Bit", SPE 16659, presented at the 62nd Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, September 1987. 4. Fear M., and Abbassian, F., "Experience in the Detection and Suppression of Torsional Vibration from Mud Logging Data", SPE 28908, presented at Europec Conference, London, October 1994. 5. Payne, M.L., Abbassian, F., and Hatch, A.J., "Drilling Dynamic Problems and Solution in ExtendedReach Operations", presented at the ASME Energy-Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, January 1995. 6. Zannoni, S.A., Cheatham, C.A., Chen, D.C.K., and Golla, C.A., "Development of Field Testing of a New Downhole MWD Drill String Dynamics Sensor", SPE 26341, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1993. 7. Dufeyte, M.P., and Henneuse, H., "Detection and Monitoring of Slip-Stick Motion: Field Experiments", SPE/IADC 21945, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 1991. 8. Macpherson, J.D., Mason, J.S., and Kingman, J.E.E., "Surface Measurement and Analysis of Drill String Vibrations While Drilling", SPE 25777, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 1993. 9. Altred, W.D., and Sheppard, M.C., "Drill String Vibrations: A New Generation Mechanism and Control Strategies", SPE 24582, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, October 1992. 10. Rewcastle, S.C., and Burgess, T.M., "Real-Time Downhole Shock Measurements Increase Drilling Efficiency and Improve MWD Reliability", SPE 23890, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, February 1992. 11. Warren, T.M., Brett, J.F., and Senor, L.A., "Development of a Whirl-Resistance Bit", SPE Drilling Engineering, December, 1990. 12. Brett, J.F., "The Genesis of Torsional Drill String Vibration", SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1992. 13. Dunayevsky, V.A., Abbassian, F., and Judzis, A., "Dynamic Stability of Drill Strings under Fluctuating Weight on Bit", SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1993. 14. Vandiver, J.K., Nicholson, J.W., and Shyu, R.J., "Case Studies of Bending Vibration and Whirling Motion of Drill Collars", SPE 18652, presented at the SP/IADC Conference, New Orleans, 1989. 15. Jansen, J.D., "Whirl and Chaotic Motion of Stabilized Drill Collars, SPE 20930, presented at Europec Conference, The Hague, October 1990.
14-5
Section 15
INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes the key differences in well control procedures/techniques for drilling high angle and horizontal wells. Please consult the relevant sections in the BP Well Control Manuals (Vol. 1 and 2) for more details.
15-1
KICK TOLERANCE
The BP Excel Well Control Toolkit (Excel Toolkit) should be used to calculate the kick tolerance for a high angle or horizontal wells. In a high angle or horizontal well, the kick tolerance volume should be checked against the maximum allowable surface pressure, based on the rated pressure of the well control equipment and the casing. This can be done using the Excel toolkit. The surface pressure safety factor should include: Choke operator error (100-150 psi) Annular pressure loss from casing/liner shoe or openhole weak point to surface The pressure loss through choke line (if not compensated for during kill) The pressure losses can be estimated using the Excel Toolkit.
15-2
15-3
15-4
If the above procedures fail to remove the trapped gas, consider bullheading the gas back into the formation. Since the trapped gas should be near the kicking formation, bullheading is more likely to succeed in an inverted hold section. However, this should be assessed against the following factors: The rated pressure of the well control equipment and casing Risk of formation breaking down at the openhole weak point Damage to reservoir formation
REFERENCES
1. BPX Well Control Manual 2. The Super Volume Estimator Spreadsheet 3. The Equipment Performance Evaluation Spreadsheet
15-5
Section 16
16-1
Each hole interval of the well plan should be evaluated for its stuck pipe risks and tools and procedures should be put in place to avoid stuck pipe occurrences. ERD can increase the risk of these sticking mechanisms over low-inclination wells: Differential sticking Formation related: Geopressured, Reactive, Unconsolidated, Mobile, Fractured/Faulted Inadequate hole cleaning Wellbore geometry/ keyseating Collapsed casing Cement blocks ERD does not have a significant effect on the incidence of the remaining sticking mechanisms: Junk Undergauge hole Green cement Stuck pipe risks in each hole section should be identified during the planning phase. Consider having the team assemble for Stuck Pipe Prevention training to discuss potential changes in practices to minimize these risks. Action plans to avoid stuck pipe should be prepared for each hole interval.
16-2
DIFFERENTIAL STICKING
Summary Points: Equipment - stabilize the bottom hole assembly (BHA), minimize drill collars Wellbore stability - higher mud weight (MW) may result in high overbalance in permeable zones Fluids Issues - maintain fluid loss control and optimum overbalance where possible Operations- keep pipe moving, monitor trends: torque/drag Differential sticking is caused by concurrent existence of six situations in the wellbore: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A permeable formation is exposed in the open hole Overbalanced condition at the permeable formation Thick filter cake accumulation at the formation face String is in contact with the filter cake Insufficient string movement Lack of circulation between the string and the cake
The effect of drilling high angle wells can make some of these situations worse: High inclination through the reservoir results in long hole sections with high permeability formations exposed Higher mud weights required for mechanical wellbore stability may result in higher than normal overbalance. In many instances, OBM or SOBM is used where thick filter cake is not a major issue. High inclination results in more contact between the string and the wall of the hole. Sliding mode drilling reduces string movement. High low-end rheology may reduce circulation between the string and the wall of the hole. In an ERD well, permeable formations, particularly the target reservoir, are typically penetrated at high inclination. This high inclination often requires increased mud density to counteract in-situ forces and provide adequate mechanical wellbore stability. (This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 5, Mechanical and Chemical Wellbore Stability.) Care should be taken to maintain a mud density which will provide appropriate overbalance as these formations are drilled so that high differential pressures can be avoided. If a high mud density is required, the risk of differential sticking is increased and the focus should be on the following issues. The filtration properties of the mud should be closely controlled to minimize fluid flow into the formation. The polymers and solids in the mud should be efficient cake builders to provide a thin, impermeable cake. Mud type selection and properties optimization is discussed in detail in Section 6, Drilling Fluids Optimization. If using WBM, consider having a premixed tank of spotting fluid available on site which can weighted up quickly. This will help minimize the time before freeing operations can begin if the pipe should become stuck.
16-3
The configuration of the string should be designed to minimize wall contact, particularly in segments where annular clearance is already reduced like the BHA. The length of the drill collar section should be minimized and replaced with drill pipe or heavy weight drill pipe (HWDP) where applicable. The tool joints on these components help to minimize the wall contact area by providing standoff for the tubes from the wall. Drill collars should also be appropriately stabilized to provide standoff from the wall of the hole while achieving directional objectives. Special operations such as coring should be planned carefully since they typically occur in a high permeability reservoir and the annular clearance is reduced. Core barrels should be stabilized to minimize wall contact. The trajectory of an ERW should also be optimized to minimize dogleg severity. Reduction of curvature, other things being equal, will reduce the wall contact forces by the string. Trajectory optimization is discussed in Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines. From an operational practices viewpoint, the most important rule is to keep the pipe moving. This is critical in low angle wells and is even more important in ERW applications to avoid differential sticking. Minimize the time spent with the pipe stationary during connections. Consider rotating the pipe slowly in the slips during connections, but only if absolutely necessary. When pulling slips, always initiate pipe movement in a downward direction. Also monitor torque and drag trends on connections and trips to evaluate whether hole conditions are improving or worsening.
16-4
Psi
Psi
P P P
Formation
P P P P P P P P P P P
Mud
16-5
Reactive
CLAY BALLS MUD RINGS
Summary Points: Wellbore stability - chemically inhibit shales, especially over long exposure times Fluids Issues - select proper mud type - OBM or other inhibitive mud Operations - monitor trends: torque/drag, cuttings type, shape, and load Reactive formations, typically shales with a large amount of bentonitic clay, undergo a chemical reaction, usually water in the mud filtrate causing the formation to swell. Exposure time of these formations with the mud filtrate also determines the severity of the problems. In an ERW, the open hole interval may quite long and as a result may see more severe problems. Reactive formation problems are combated by selecting a mud type and mud properties which are inhibitive so that the formation does not chemically react with the mud filtrate. OBM is the preferred inhibitive drilling fluid where it is applicable. Fresh water mud systems are to be avoided if reactive formation problems are expected. Primary operational concerns include torque and drag trend monitoring and changes in mud properties. Be prepared to make regular wiper trips to keep the hole open.
16-6
Unconsolidated
Summary Points: Wellbore stability - monitor cuttings load Fluids Issues - maintain proper overbalance, fluid loss control, rheology (surge/swab) Operations - monitor trends: torque/drag, cuttings type, shape, and load Unconsolidated formations are often loosely compacted or poorly cemented sandstones and conglomerates which can become mechanically unstable. Mechanical disturbance can occur as a result of pipe movement past the formation or surge and swab pressures during trips. A wellbore traversing one of these formations at high inclination could induce mechanical instability on the high side where the formation overhangs the hole.
Rheology, mud density, and filtration control should all be maintained carefully in intervals where unconsolidated formations are expected. In an ERW, it is typical to have very high low end rheology to aid in hole cleaning. High viscosity may increase surge and swab pressures and induce instability in these formations. Mud weight should be controlled closely within normal constraints (influx versus lost circulation) to ensure that the formation is never underbalanced and that it is not unduly overbalanced, possibly leading to fracture or unnecessary losses. Filtration should be kept low to minimize filtrateinduced instability. Refer to Section 6, Drilling Fluids Optimization. Monitor torque and drag trends and cuttings type, shape and load. Problems in an unconsolidated formation can very quickly become a hole cleaning problem. Reduce rate of penetration (ROP) or stop and circulate until the hole cleans up. Use pipe movement to improve hole cleaning. Refer to Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics.
16-7
Mobile
Summary Points: Equipment - Consider enlarging the mobile formation with underreamers/bicenter tools Wellbore stability - counteract encroachment with overbalance/mud type Fluids Issues - maintain proper overbalance Operations - monitor trends: torque/drag, cuttings type, shape, and load
Salt
Salt
Mobile formations such as plastic salts and shales squeeze into the wellbore under in-situ stresses. Encroachment might slowed or stopped with increased MW if other ERW mechanical wellbore stability issues allow. When a mobile formation is encountered, wiper trips should be made regularly to determine the rate of encroachment into the wellbore. Monitor torque and drag as well as the type, shape, and load of cuttings.
16-8
Fractured/Faulted (tectonic)
Summary Points: Wellbore stability - maintain MW within operating window Fluids Issues - maintain proper overbalance, fluid loss control Operations - monitor trends: torque/drag, cuttings type, shape, and load, mud losses Formations which have been fractured and faulted are exposed to in-situ stresses. How the rock behaves in the area around the wellbore depends upon the orientation of the local downhole stresses and the inclination and azimuth of the wellbore. Estimating the wellbore stresses and defining the operating practices to maintain wellbore stability are discussed in detail in Section 5, Mechanical and Chemical Wellbore Stability. When a high inclination hole section is being drilled, torque and drag trends and mud volumes should be monitored closely looking for indications of hole collapse or losses to the formation. The difficulty arises in long sections at high inclination where many formations may be penetrated. The shales may be prone collapse and require higher MW while the permeable sands or carbonates may not tolerate the higher MW and therefore be prone to fracture and mud losses. It is often helpful to maintain low filtration properties in the mud system to make the wellbore more tolerant of the overbalance.
16-9
Planning for adequate hole cleaning involves the interaction of several drilling disciplines including the mud system, the directional trajectory, the BHA and drill string design, hole sizes and casing program, and rig equipment selection. Detailed hole cleaning recommendations are included in Section 11, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics. To prevent a stuck pipe occurrence as a result of inadequate hole cleaning, monitor torque and drag trends on a regular basis each day and compare to predicted values. If torque and drag indicate the hole is not being properly cleaned, several steps can be taken. The ones chosen will depend upon the current situation on the well and what can be done most cost-effectively. Consider: Increasing mud pump rate Increasing drill string rotation/reciprocation (possible BHA change) Increasing low-end rheology of mud Pumping high-vis sweeps Limiting ROP to reduce cuttings load Running larger drill pipe for higher annular velocity (AV) and flow rate
The mud properties should be carefully maintained with low-end rheology within the prescribed range. If possible, increase the flow rate to raise AV and limit ROP until the problem is corrected. This will be especially helpful if there is evidence of hole enlargement, which reduces AV in the localized area. Important tool selections for ERD operations include a rig with a top drive to allow efficient backreaming and large pumps and larger drill pipe to maximize AV. Use pipe rotation and reciprocation to agitate any cuttings beds which may have accumulated on the low side of the hole. This will include regular wiper trips with backreaming through these intervals. Hole cleaning may also be improved by optimizing BHA design to allow maximum drilling in rotary mode. Pumping various pills as indicated in Section 7 may also improve the situation. Monitor cuttings load at the surface as these pills are circulated around to evaluate the hole condition and any beneficial effect from the pills.
16-10
Geometry
Typically ERW curvatures are low enough that wellbore geometry problems seldom occur. However, if trajectory control requires multiple directional correction runs, the wellbore may have excess curvature, or tortuosity, which increases torque and drag. This is also discussed in Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines. Use backreaming trips to reduce torque and drag and smooth excess curvature in the wellbore. Keyseating occurs when a drill string is rotated through a curved section of wellbore under high side loads. If the side loads are high enough and the formation is soft enough, the drill string will wear a groove into the wall of the hole. Monitor torque and drag in the open hole segments of the build section to evaluate whether keyseats may be forming.
A
SECTION A-A
Keyseat
16-11
DRILL COLLAR
Ledges can also form, especially where hard and soft formations are interbedded. In curved wellbore sections and at high inclinations, side forces on the drill string and other mechanical and chemical interactions can cause irregular enlargements in the wellbore along bed boundaries. Again, monitor torque and drag in these sections and make wiper trips as required. Consider simplifying the BHA by omitting some stabilizers and using stabilizers with tapered edges on the top and bottom of the blades.
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SHALE LIMESTONE
SALT
16-12
Collapsed Casing
Summary Points: Equipment - DP protectors, DBS/WWT tools, hardbanding materials Operations - metal in cuttings, position/severity of doglegs, monitor trends: torque/drag When casing is run through a curved wellbore section, the casing bends to conform to the wellbore. Rotating drill strings inside curved casing, especially with high tensile loads and high side loads, can accelerate casing wear. As the wall of the casing is worn away, the collapse capacity of the casing string is reduced. If the external forces on the casing are high enough, the casing will collapse. Casing wear and the chances of casing collapse can be reduced by reducing the side loads on the drill string and by minimizing the damage caused by the drill string under these loads. Refer to Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines for a discussion of casing wear mitigation and drill string hardbanding issues.
Squeezing Salt
Casing
Casing wear can be reduced by lowering drill string side loads, particularly through the curved section of the hole. This is discussed in Section 9, Drill String Design and Section 7, Tubular Design and Running Guidelines. Another alternative is to support the side loads so that the drill string does not rotate against the casing. This can be accomplished with non-rotating components like the WWT and DBS tools. These tools are placed throughout the string to provide standoff for the string from the casing or open hole while allowing the string to rotate with lower torque. The damage caused by the drill string under a given load can be reduced by selecting a hardbanding material for the tool joints which is not as damaging to the casing. This is discussed in Section 9, Drill String Design and Section 10 of the Casing Design manual. Casing collapse is of particular concern when mobile formations are present. Monitor metal content in the cuttings and wear on the drill string as a gauge of casing wear. Consider running a casing caliper to monitor casing wall thickness if necessary.
16-13
Cement Blocks
Summary Points:
CEMENT
Operations - minimize rathole below casing shoe, monitor trends: drag in the casing shoe Blocks of hardened cement can fall into the open hole from the rathole below the casing shoe when they are mechanically disturbed. If the casing shoe is at high inclination, the tendency for this problem to occur is increased. The primary way to reduce the risk of this problem is to minimize the length of rathole below the casing shoe. Monitor drag through the shoe on trips and consider a wiper run through the area if problems arise.
16-14
CONNECTIONS GUIDELINES
There is a history of sticking problems when making connections. These have occurred in 17-1/2 inch, 12-1/4-inch, and 8-1/2 inch hole sizes and have resulted in expensive side tracking operations. These guidelines are being issued to remind everyone of good drilling practices which minimize potential problems during connections. These guidelines assume top drive drilling. All Drillers should be familiar with these connection procedures. Wipe, at least, the last joint prior to making a connection. If erratic or high torque is experienced prior to the connection, clean the hole. At Kelly Down always allow the weight on bit (WOB) to drill off prior to picking up off bottom, especially when drilling with high WOB. Have a single in the Vdoor in case downward motion is required to free the pipe after a connection. Avoid starting and stopping the mud pumps suddenly. This may disturb the wellbore downhole (shock loading effect). Take a whole minute to bring the pumps up to speed. Minimize the period without circulation during a connection. After drilling or reaming, cuttings should be circulated above the BHA prior to picking up to make a connection. If differential sticking is suspected to be a risk; maximize pipe motion, consider rotation of string with slips set while picking up the next stand. Connections should only be made if hole condition is good. Never make a connection with any overpull onto the slips. Set slips high enough to allow downward movement. If hole conditions are sticky, extra stick up may be required, taking care not to bend pipe. Always confirm circulation after a connection prior to moving pipe. Always begin pipe motion downwards once slips are pulled. When using 6-5/8 inch drill pipe with the Varco TDS 3 top drive the pipe needs to be retorqued after the connection has been lowered from the back-up system to tong level. This operation should be treated as a connection and the above guidelines followed.
16-15
16-16
When back-reaming do not overpull the pipe up in the slips to connect the top drive. Reaming operations should be conducted with the same flowrate as drilling. When washing in with a motor in the BHA, rotate the whole drill string at low rpm. When reaming or back-reaming always make sure the hole is clean and the pipe free prior to setting slips. Avoid complacency when running through long open hole sections or intervals prone to generate high cavings volumes. Do not assume that resistance is always at the bit. Stabilizers and drillcollar contact may be indicative of a build up of loose material in the hole and a potential pack-off situation. Coal has been the cause of several stuck pipe incidents. Know were coal seems to exist and be prepared to ream them on first few passes. There was some discussion as to whether reaming and back-reaming should be classed as NPT, as the operation may be necessary and improves well condition. However, the DEAP database automatically classifies all reaming operations as NPT. Freeing procedures are the results of analysis of hundreds of stuck pipe incidents. They should be the first steps taken in a stuck pipe incident by the Driller to avoid actions that may worsen the situation. If no progress is made, and the situation and stuck pipe mechanism are understood, other steps may be taken (under the guidance of the BP Supervisor) that are not specified in the freeing procedures. Recommended rotary speed and WOB while reaming. Comments were received to say that slow rotary should be used to "walk" the bit off of ledges. However, in tight sands higher rotary (160 rpm) was preferred as this "stiffened" the BHA and prevented the bit / NBS jamming geometrically in gauge sands. WOB was also not thought to be as important as keeping the bit moving to avoid "sidetracking" the well. If the annulus continues to flow when the pumps are shut down and pump pressure takes a long time to fall off, this is a good indication of a loaded annulus and possible imminent pack-off. Take time to clean the well bore. This has been more of a problem when 6-5/8 inch drill pipe and 9-1/2 inch drill collars have been used in 12-1/4 inch hole.
16-17
Retrievable sources should be used in LWD tools due to the difficulty in fishing BHAs in extended reach and horizontal hole sections. This will allow the well to be quickly plugged and side-tracked around the fish should that option be chosen. Fishing Due to torque and drag in an ERW, accurate string control for freepoint, backoff, and fishing tool engagement may prove difficult. In fact, at very high inclinations, the wireline tools will not slide to bottom and may need to be pumped down. If a backoff is achieved, the overshot guide may require modification to engage the pipe laying on the low side of the hole.
16-18
UNCONSOLIDATED FORMATIONS
MOBILE FORMATIONS
GEOPRESSURED FORMATIONS
REACTIVE FORMATIONS
SALT
PLASTIC CLAYS
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
-PUMP FRESH WATER -WORK STRING UP & DOWN -INCREASE HYDROSTATIC HEAD
MECHANICAL
DIFFERENTIAL STICKING
KEY SEATING
U/GAUGE HOLE
WELLBORE GEOMETRY
JUNK
CEMENT RELATED
COLLASPED CASING
GREEN CEMENT
CEMENT BLOCKS
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
STRING JAMMED
-SLUMP STRING & ROTATE REDUCE HYDROSTATIC HEAD - SPOT RELEASING AGENTS
WORK STRING UP
16-19
CONTACTS
Stuck Pipe Network Name Colin Bowes Ian Pitkethly Location XTP Sunbury XTP Sunbury Telephone 44 (0)1932 763831 44 (0)1932 762049 Fax 44 (0)1932 764183 44 (0)1932 764183
REFERENCES
1. British Petroleum, Stuck Pipe Prevention Course Workbook and training course 2. British Petroleum, Stuck Pipe Handbook 3. British Petroleum Stuck Pipe Refresher Training - Rig Site modules 4. British Petroleum Hole Cleaning - A Team Approach video 5. British Petroleum Differential Sticking Guidelines 6. British Petroleum Hardbanding Specifications 7. Amoco TRUE Training 8. T H Hill Associates, Inc., Drill String Failure Prevention course book
16-20
Section 17
Emerging Technologies
In this Section...
Drill Strings - High-Strength 165 ksi Drill pipe - Purpose-Built ERD Drill Pipe - Composite Drill Pipe - Titanium Drill Pipe - Thread Inspection - Lubricant Embedded Hardfacing Directional Drilling Systems - Rotary Steerable Drilling Systems - Inclination Control - Rotary Fully Steerable Systems - Inclination and Azimuth Control - Summary Other Special Equipment - Sonic LWD Tools - Magnetic Interference Correction Software - MWD Gyro System - Inteq / Mitsubishi Drilling Mechanics Sub - Security/DBS Flexible Bit - Liner Thruster Tool - Wireline and Coil-Tubing Tractors - Enhanced Performance (Lo-Torque) Drill Pipe References
17-1
17-2
Thread Inspection
Technical Software Consultants (TSC) has developed an entirely new concept for thread inspection aimed at overcoming the practical difficulties of applying conventional non-destructive testing (NDT) to threads. The main objective being to improve the reliability of thread inspection and to reduce the likelihood of downhole failures from thread cracking. The system is called A.T.I. (ACFM Thread Inspection). The system can be configured to suit virtually any thread form and hence is suitable for use on other downhole threaded components such as mud motors. The new ACFM thread inspection technology is advertised as providing rapid, reliable and auditable thread inspection and provide significant cost benefits over existing inspection techniques.
17-3
friction coefficient
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0 5 10 15 20
time (hours)
Figure 17-1. Plot from DEA Phase 1 Test
Further work is needed to assess commercial viability. A Phase II for the project is being pursued, focused on applying the graphite-containing hardfacings to full size tool joints which will be tested by Maurer Engineering. Maurer owns the Drilco casing wear test machine which has been used to establish baseline wear performance of various materials through the DEA-44 project. These tests should give a better comparison of the new materials to existing hardfacings. Further work will be required to assess costs for full-scale implementation. The applications discussed above have been conducted in enclosed chambers with nitrogen or argon as the atomizing gas. New equipment and techniques will be required to implement these application methods by current hardfacing suppliers.
17-4
Such measures are expensive however, particularly when the much reduced rate of penetration (ROP) associated with oriented drilling is accounted for. As a result, systems that allow reduction in oriented drilling requirements are of pivotal importance to ERD operations. Recent advances in systems to reduce or eliminate oriented drilling are described in the following sections.
Variable gauge stabilizers (VGS) have provided partial success in increasing rotary mode drilling by allowing some control over build/drop rates. Unfortunately, VGS systems have had significant limitations. These include limited diameter ranges of 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch and usually only 2 settings, i.e. blades fully expanded or collapsed. Some recent VGS designs allow 3 size settings. This limited size variation limits the VGS' ability to account for changing formation behaviors during long bit/BHA runs. This is true for rotary bottom hole assemblies (BHAs) and even more so for BHAs using positive displacement mud motors (PDMs) since the VGS is run above the PDM and is farther from the bit. In addition, these VGS were set by WOB application that is difficult in severe ERD wells and can lead to bit balling or stuck pipe. If the VGS was being used with a PDM and flow was continued while setting the VGS, the PDM could stall which will lead to a shortened PDM run life. Once set, the VGS imposes a pressure drop as its signal to confirm position. This pressure drop is undesirable in ERD hydraulics. These limitations were recognized and addressed by the development of a new generation highly variable gauge stabilizer (HVGS). This new HVGS provides a larger diameter range and does not restrict drilling parameters for setting or confirmation requirements. The 8-1/2 inch HVGS provides size variations between 7-1/4 inch and 8-1/2 inch. A variable number of size settings can be run within this range, but 1/4 inch size variations are usually provided, meaning six (6) size settings can be used to adjust the build, hold or drop BHA tendencies. The HVGS is set using flow rate signals from the surface. The HVGS has an internal flow switch that times the flow rates to determine which setting is desired. Once the size command is given, the HVGS uses internal hydraulic valves and mechanical stops to establish the size to which the adjustable blades will expand. The blade expansion is achieved by the pressure drop through the bit and (if used) the PDM. The HVGS is full strength and full bore, and imposes no pressure drop on the drilling hydraulics. The HVGS uses its own mud pulse signal to communicate the size setting to surface. HVGS systems are available that operate in an integrated fashion with a measurement while drilling (MWD) tool and as stand-alone systems that are independent of other MWD/LWD systems.
17-5
Pulser
HVGS systems have been successfully applied at Wytch Farm to maximize departure while providing effective and efficient means of controlling inclination. The capability to "tune" a BHA's directional tendency to the formation being drilled is important, particularly when drilling at near horizontal inclinations in layered, dipping reservoirs. Because of the inefficiencies of oriented drilling in ERD wells, drilling systems should be pursued that allow the minimization or elimination of oriented drilling requirements. Inefficiencies aside, HVGS systems that allow rotary drilling and adjustable inclination control will allow farther absolute departures to be achieved, since they eliminate the limitations imposed by steering. Other benefits include minimizing wellbore tortuosity and maximizing hole cleaning through sustained drill string rotation. A diagram of the HVGS system is shown:
Microprocessor
Battery
Control System
Blade
17-6
Cambridge Radiation Technologies rotary steerable system was developed under joint-industry funding. Known as the Automated Guidance System (AGS), the first tool was built for 12-1/4 inch hole and involves a rotating drive shaft enclosed in a non-rotating housing. The non-rotating housing remains in contact with the wellbore via centralizer-type blades. Hydraulic bladders between the outer housing and inner mandrel are inflated to deflect the mandrel up/down or left/right at the bit face, thus allowing both inclination and azimuthal steering. The basic concepts of the AGS are illustrated in the following figure:
ND R CO E SE BILIZ A ST DR ILL
CO
LL
AR
O DR HY EAL S
CO
LATERAL REACTION
AC
TU
AT
OR
BL
OC
LV
EB
LO
CK D
UN
DE
FL
EC
TE
O DR HY EAL S R PE OR TA ECT NN CO
DE
FL
EC
TE
E PIP OR ILL CT DR NE N CO MB S
DR
ILL
BIT
LATERAL FORCE
LATERAL REACTION
DRILLING DIRECTION
In September of 1995, Cambridge Drilling Automation Ltd. carried out an endurance/performance test with the 12-1/4 inch version of the AGS. The AGS kicked off vertically and automatically built inclination at a rate of 1.6o/98 ft. (30m) until its pre-programmed course of 18o Inclination/45o Magnetic was achieved. The system then drilled a tangent section of 328 ft. (100m) in length adhering to this preprogrammed length.
17-7
Following re-programming to 18o Inclination/65o Magnetic, the AGS automatically changed direction until the re-programmed course was achieved. The system then drilled a 269 ft. (82m) tangent section at this course, to total depth (TD). The courses achieved were very accurate, with the readings from the single shot surveys taken in the tangent sections showing the courses realized to be almost identical to those programmed. The section drilled with the AGS was 2087 ft. (636m) in length. The number of circulating hours was 143 and the number of hours rotating on bottom was 125. There was no detectable loss of oil from the AGS during the test, there was no minimal wear of the Systems Anti-Rotation Device Blades, and no detectable degradation of any mechanical feature. A roller cone insert bit and a PDC bit were used alternatively during the test. Although not quantified, vibrational levels with the insert bit were, at times, high. The formation drilled was pebble beds, limestone, and upper/middle/lower coal measures. Weight on bit was generally 20,000 lbs and rpm generally 100. The first full test of the tool was conducted in February 1992 at the Drilling and Production Training Center in Montrose, Scotland. Various problems were encountered in early tests, but were remedied so that the tool operated for a total of 37 drilling hours, drilling a total of 689 ft. (210m). A second test of the tool in November 1992 was abandoned due to hole problems and stuck pipe. The AGS sustained jarring loads during this operation which resulted in failed battery modules. The first field test of the tool were conducted with Shell/SIPM. These tests were apparently not successful but details are not available. A second field test was attempted by Amoco offshore UK. However, the tool did not activate downhole. A critical vibration level is needed to activate the system, (i.e. indicate that drilling has initiated), and this was not reached. As a result, the tool was immediately pulled from the hole. Threads were unfortunately galled upon breakout at surface, which prevented further tests on the subject well. A field test was conducted by BP on Miller Well 16/8b-A14 in April 1994. The AGS was RIH to 13,370 ft. (4,075m) including reaming through a problem interval from 10,836 ft. -11,668 ft. (3303m - 3556m). A total of 745 ft. (227m) was drilled to 14,115 ft. (4,302m). The tool was run with instructions to steer the well to 13.8 inclination and 285.7 azimuth using maximum doglegs of 1.5-2 . During the run, the well was turned from c. 271 azimuth to c. 284 azimuth. However, the assembly displayed an undesired dropping trend as high as 1.8/100 and the well lost inclination from 14.1 to 5.7 . Various theories, such as dynamics, were initially offered as an explanation for the tools inability to control inclination. Data from the well did indicate that shocks as high as 60gs were incurred during reaming while RIH. However, the explanation for the failure was ultimately placed on temperature limitations. Three of the four battery packs failed, reportedly due to temperature (BHCT was 135C or 275 F), and hence a field test was sought with a lower temperature regime. A field trial was conducted by Statoil. In that application, it is reported that the tool failed to steer the well as desired. That failure was due to rotation of the non-rotating portion of the housing, which was in turn put down to the excessive lubricity of the Baroid Petrofree mud system. Although various lessons have been learned in each of these field trials, failures have occurred in each case. Due to the complexity of the involved technology and the need for substantial technical resources for successful development, CRT may need to consider an alliance or technology sale to a major service company to ultimately secure a commercial system.
17-8
yy @@ ;; @@ ;; yy @@ ;; yy
Figure 17-4.
A different approach to rotary steerable systems has been taken which uses "modulated bias" to steer the BHA. Modulated bias refers to the modification of stabilizer blade dimensions and contact pressures in a synchronous fashion as the particular blades pass up/down or left/right of the bit. By applying hydraulic pressure every time the rotating blades pass a specific orientation in the wellbore, this modulated near-bit stabilization forces drilling away from that location. In this way, the BHA can achieve both inclination and azimuthal steering. The system uses a non-rotating control mounted inside the main tool housing that includes pressure-activated stabilizer blades or "paddles". The system was tested in the lab and surface tested on a rig in 1993. In 1994, the fullscale system was used to drill about 640m of hole in about 20 different run modes, i.e. build, build/turn, neutral, etc. The field tests demonstrated the ability of modulated bias to impact BHA steering. Overall, the well trajectory was built from near-vertical to 55 inclination and turned from 65 azimuth to 310. On the basis of these successful concept and prototype tests, continued development of the tool is being pursued. The development testing of the tool is continuing with further test runs to be conducted in Montrose, Scotland, and if successful, runs in commercial wells could begin as soon as Q1-96.
17-9
Directional Sensor
Gamma-Ray
Downhole Electronics
Another approach has been taken by Inteq which uses non-rotating near-bit stabilization to achieve rotary steering. The system is known as the Rotary Closed-Loop System (RCLS). Inteq and Agip, who partially funded the tool's development, have been working with Wytch Farm to test the system. On Well M5, two attempts were made to pickup and function the tools and on both occasions the tools failed to successfully communicate with the surface control system. Thus as yet, the Inteq RCLS tools have yet to even be run to bottom and used. The basis for the RCLS is a non-rotating near bit stabilizer sleeve with three (3) independently actuated blades. Based on the desired directional behavior (build/drop and/or turn) the blades are powered to give a specific force vector to achieve the outcome. The tool includes a near-bit inclination sensor and accelerometers which provide dynamic monitoring up to 50gs. A full MWD/LWD package with inclination, azimuth, gamma ray, and resistivity is included. The tool is approximately 36 feet (11 meters) and can be run with or without a PDM. Inteqs initial preference for field trials is for it to be run in simple
600
Bit
rotary mode without a PDM. The system can operate in either a surface-control mode or an automated drill-ahead mode. In the surface-control mode, an operator defines the desired force vector for the blades. Based on the blades' then current orientation, they are independently hydraulically actuated to achieve the force. In the automated drill-ahead mode, the tool maintains itself within a 0.1tolerance of a set inclination and will adjust the blade pressures automatically to achieve this. Azimuthal changes are not considered in this drill-ahead mode. Inteq has previously engineered other sophisticated drilling systems such as the Thruster for SIPM and the Vertical Drilling System for the German KTB project. Although the brief tests of the RCLS tools at Wytch Farm have been disappointing to date, it is likely that Inteq will persevere to ensure the tools are commercially successful as rapidly as possible. A diagram of the RCLS is shown in Figure 17-5.
17-10
Developed by the Japanese National Oil Corporation (JNOC), RCDOS is a directional drilling system which can freely control the bit axis of the downhole tool (both bend angle and tool face) from the surface by a two way telecommunication system. EM and Sonic thru DP are currently used for the remote control. The system can dynamically and steadily steer the bit towards the course while drilling is in progress with WOB. The current motor steerable RCDOS allows the change of both bend angle and tool face by remote control from the surface, thus reducing the number of trips out of hole for changing BHA and saving the rig time. The build up rate and bend angles are: Build up Rate: 15deg/100 ft @ bend angle of 2.0 deg. Bend Angles: 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.6, 2.0 (5 steps)
Currently EM is the communication used from surface to downhole, and Sonic from downhole to surface. Application of Sonic in two way and Mud Pulse is under research. The system allows steering without the usage of rotary table nor stoppage of drilling operations, thus saving the rig time and smoothing the control of tool face orientation, especially in deep wells and severe downhole conditions. It also allows dynamic steering while drilling is in progress with WOB and creates best control of tool face orientation, thus providing the fine tuning of the course and a smooth gauged hole, minimizing hole tortuosity and permitting an increase in the distance and ROP. Future Rotary Steerable RCDOS (Steering While Rotation) will improve the operational dynamics and reduce the torque and drag, thus creating a smooth hole and permitting an increase in the distance and ROP. You will be able to achieve hole cleaning more efficiently, thus reducing the likelihood of pipe sticking and mitigating formation damage. You will also be able to minimize stick slip problems causing motor stall and loss of tool face orientation, thus saving the rig time. Future Downsized RCDOS will expand the areas where RCDOS can provide services, i.e. reentry wells, slimholes and coiled tubing operations. It will provide the steerable coiled tubing drilling system. RCDOS does not require a wireline tool nor a hydraulic line inside the tubing. RCDOS works in underbalanced operations. Smooth holes help coiled tubing work better.
17-11
Table 17-1 Milestones of RCDOS Development Year 1989* 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Topics Survey and basic research on directional drilling system. Research on basic design on bending mechanism. Basic study on tele-communication commenced. Part of bent housing was manufactured for trial. Basic study on tele-communication was continued. Models of bent housing were manufactured for trial. Basic design of two way communication system was made. Bent housing and communication system were manufactured (not total system yet). Signal transmission in two way were field-tested. Bent housing and communication system were manufactured (not total system yet). Bent housing and communication system were field-tested respectively.
RCDOS
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Similar to the current directional drilling system
SURFACE CONTROL UNIT:-Portable Cabin (2ton W) -EM Transmitter & Sonic Receiver
MWD TRANSMITTER (10m L):-Sensor Subs (Directional, WOB, Torque) -EM Receiver & Sonic Transmitter
17-12
Figure 17-6.
Summary
While none of the fully rotary steerable systems are commercial technology at this time, focused development of distinct systems should lead to one or more viable commercial systems in the near future. At this time, use of the Halliburton HVGS in conjunction with either a conventional or instrumented geosteering PDM provides the most advanced directional drilling system, for ERD and horizontals.
17-13
17-14
17-15
17-16
17-17
Three versions of EPDP are currently available: 5 inch EP DP 5 inch Heavy Wall EPDP 6-5/8 inch EPDP
30 ft 14 in 6 5/8 in 18 8 ft 15 ft 22 ft 8 in 2 in 7 in 6 in 35 10 in 2 13/16 in
17-18
REFERENCES
1. Payne, M. L., Duxbury, J. K., and Martin, J. W., "Drill string Design Options for Extended-Reach Drilling Operations", 1995 ASME ETCE, 30 January - 1 February, Houston, Texas, 2. Underwood, L. D. and Odell, A. C., II, IADC/SPE 27484, "A Systems Approach to Downhole Adjustable Stabilizer Design", presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 15-18 February, 1994, Dallas, Texas. 3. Odell, A. C., Payne, M. L. and Cocking, D. A., "Application of a Highly Variable Gauge Stabilizer at Wytch Farm to Extend the ERD Envelope", SPE 30462, presented at the 70th Annual SPE Fall Conference, 22-25 October, 1995, Dallas, Texas. 4. Cambridge Radiation Technology, Ltd., Crakeside Business Park, Greenodd, Cumbria LA12 7RT, United Kingdom. 5. Cambridge Radiation Technology's Automated Guidance Systems as described by Bell, S., "Innovative Methods Lower Drilling Costs", Petroleum Engineer International, pp.25-26, February 1993. 6. Barr, J. D., Clegg, J. M., and Russel, M. K., "Steerable Rotary Drilling with an Experimental System", SPE/IADC 29382, presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 28 February - 2 March, 1995, Amsterdam. 7. Chur, C. and Oppelt, J., "Vertical Drilling Technology: A Milestone in Directional Drilling", SPE/IADC 25759, presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 23-25 February, 1993. 8. Donati, F., Oppelt, J., Ragnitz, D., Ligrone, A., and Calderoni, A., "New Concept Steerable Drilling Tools for Horizontal and ERD Applications", to be presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Emerging Technologies, 31 May - 2 June, 1995, Aberdeen, Scotland.
17-19
Appendix A
Acronym Glossary
ADP AGS API AV BHA BHCT BHST BOP BUR CBL CT DAC DBS DC DEAP DLS DP DPP DSS ECD ECP EMS EPDP ER ERD ERW FFT FO HRG HVGS HWDP JNOC JORP KOP LAS Allowable Departure from Plan Automated Guidance System American Petroleum Institute Annular Velocity Bottom Hole Assembly Bottom Hole Circulating Temperature Bottom Hole Static Temperature Blow-out Preventer Build Up Rate Cement Bond Log Coiled Tubing Downhole Activated Centralizers Diamont-Boart-Stratabit Drill Collar Drilling Engineering Applications Platform Dogleg Severity Drill Pipe Drill Pipe Protectors Drill String Simulator Equivalent Circulating Density External Casing Packer Electronic Multishot Enhanced Performance Drill Pipe Extended Reach Extended Reach Drilling Extended Reach Well Fast Fourier Transforms Full Opening Hemispherical Resonator Gyro Halliburton Variable Gauge Stabilizers Heavy Weight Drill Pipe Japanese National Oil Corporation Joint Operating Reporting Procedures Kick Off Point Liquid Additive System
A-1
LCM LGS LOT LWD MAC MD MW MWD NDT NPT NWDP OBM OH OOH PACT PBR PDC PDM PV RCDOS RCLS RIH ROP RPM SCR SDSS SICP SIDPP SOBM SPP TD TFA TSP TT TVD VGS WBM WOB WT WWT XRD YP
Lost Circulation Materials Low Gravity Solids Leak Off Test Logging While Drilling Magnetic Azimuth Correction Measured Depth Mud Weight Measurement While Drilling Non-Destructive Testing Non-Productive Time Normal Weight Drill Pipe Oil-base Mud Open Hole Out Of Hole Pump Assisted Coil-Tubing Polish Bore Receptacle Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Positive Displacement Mud Motor Plastic Viscosity Remote Controlled Downhole System Rotary Closed Loop System Run In Hole Rate of Penetration Revolutions Per Minute Silicon Controlled Rectifier Super Drill String Simulator Shut In Casing Pressure Shut In Drill Pipe Pressure Synthetic Oil Base Mud Stand Pipe Pressure Total Depth Total Flow Area Top Set Packer Thickening Time True Vertical Depth Variable Gauge Stabilizers Water Base Mud Weight on Bit Wear Tolerance Western Well Tools X-Ray Diffraction Yield Point
A-2