Analysis, Comparison and Application of Casing while Drilling against Conventional Drilling Operations

Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

By
Abhinav Chaudhary 09BT01101 Prakhar Mathur 09BT01180 Sonez Shekhar 09BT01088 Rohit Kumar 09BT01116 Adarsh Pal 09BT01086 Vinay Varghese 09BT01092 Siddhant Kumar Prasad 09BT01065 Atul Bansal 09BT01179 Srujan Rajuri 09BT01112

Under the supervision of Mr. Vinay Babu

SCHOOL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY PANDIT DEENDAYAL PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled ANALYSIS, COMPARISON AND APPLICATION OF CASING WHILE DRILLING AGAINST CONVENTIONAL DRILLING OPERATIONS submitted by Abhinav Chaudhary (09BT01101), Prakhar Mathur (09BT01180), Sonez Shekhar (09BT01088) , Rohit Kumar (09BT01116), Adarsh Pal (09BT01086) , Vinay Varghese (09BT01092) , Siddhant Kr. Prasad (09BT01065), Atul Bansal (09BT01179) and Srujan Rajuri (09BT01112) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree Bachelor of Technology in Petroleum Engineering at Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University is an authentic work carried out by them under my supervision and guidance. To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the project has not been submitted to any other University / Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

(Mr. Vinay Babu) Supervisor, School of Petroleum Technology Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University Date: 10 April, 2012 Gandhinagar - 382007

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The final work of the B.Tech project titled Analysis, Comparison and Application of Casing while Drilling against Conventional Drilling Operations has been a persistent endeavour from lot of people and so we would like to thank all of them for their support and guidance throughout this session. First of all, we would like to thank Mr. Vinay Babu, mentor of our project who guided us throughout the project work. His guidance helped us to carry out the work smoothly and efficiently. We would also like to thank Mr. Moji Karimi; Application Engineer; Solid Expandables and Drilling with Casing/Liner, Weatherford, for his continuous online guidance. We would like to extend our gratitude to Mr. Nishant Parikh for his valuable inputs and suggestions and last but not the least, we thank Mr. Naveen Velmurugan for helping us with modelling on software. We would also like to thank all the group members and colleagues who were along with us during the entire tenure of the project and worked with us to endeavour through all the phases of our project. The project work was an enriching experience which will be beneficial to us in our professional career. It enabled us to develop technical skills and also helped us in improving our communication and management skills.

Abhinav Chaudhary Prakhar Mathur Sonez Shekhar Rohit Kumar Adarsh Pal Vinay Varghese Siddhant Kumar Prasad Atul Bansal Srujan Rajuri

(09BT01101) (09BT01180) (09BT01088) (09BT01116) (09BT01086) (09BT01092) (09BT01065) (09BT01179) (09BT01112)

i

List of Figures
Fig No. Name Of the Figure Page No.

2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 10.1 10.2 10.3

Modified casing program design, without surge/swab consideration Casing Clamp S-N Curve Forces acting on Individual Casing Segment Drill Lock Assembly Wire line Retrievable BHA Casing Drilling Under reamer Rear Band Hydro Formed Crimp-on Stabilizer Non Retrievable System Casing Drive System Partial Cross-sectional View of the Spear Interior Body Portion Of CwD Bit Outer Surface of CwD Bit Components of the Blade Prototype Design for PDC drillout Bit Thread corner contact Premium connection threads and seal damage Effect of measurement of uncertainty on applied torque

3 8 11 12 15 16 16 17 18 19 21 23 29 30 31 34 44 44 46

ii

10.4

Combined effects of measurements and control uncertainty on applied torque Full coverage die Exaggerated illustration of pipe and die contact Wellbore stability improvement by casing drilling as compared to conventional drilling.

46

10.5 10.6 13.1

49 49 55

13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6

Annular difference between conventional drilling and CWD Plastering Effect phenomena Plastering Effect phenomena Plastering Effect phenomena Wellbore cross section, comparison between Casing Drilling and Conventional drilling

56 57 57 57 59

13.7 13.8 13.9

Contact angle comparison between Casing drilling and Conventional drilling Contact area comparison between Casing Drilling and conventional drilling Penetration depth into the filter cake, comparison between Casing drilling And conventional drilling

60 60 61

13.10 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 16.3

Typical PPT value comparison for mud sample Forces acting on a drilled cutting in a section of annulus Spiral motion of the drilled cuttings as they rise up in annulus Typical relative sizes of cuttings and their distribution

64 67 68 74

Typical Simulated results depicting particles sizes deposited at different depths 75 Typical Piceance well Directional CWD BHA LOT at 9.625 inch shoe and first test after CwD at 3811 76 76 78

iii

16.4

LOT after CwD with 60 rpm and a LOT after CwD with 60 rpm and adding LCM for last half of the stand

79

16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9

LOT after CwD with 80 rpm Case of CwD with 60 rpm Case of Conventional drilling with 60 rpm Case of CwD with 80 rpm Case of Conventional drilling with 80 rpm

79 81 81 82 82

iv

List of Tables
13.1 15.1 16.1 Summary of the successful Plastering effect applications Calculated diameter and residence time Piceance Well Data 58 74 77

Abbreviations Used
API American Petroleum Institute Casing While Drilling Bottom Hole Assembly Equivalent Circulating Density Casing Drive System Cutting Carrying Index Weight On Bit Non-Productive Time Poly-Crystalline Diamond Compact Drill Lock Assembly Unconfined Compressive Strength Lost Circulation Material Particle Size Distribution Permeable Plugging Test Cement Bond Log Variable Frequency Drive Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

CWD BHA ECD CDS CCI -

WOB NPT PDC -

DLA UCS -

LCM PSD PPT CBL VFD -

SAGD -

vi

Contents
Page No. Certificate by Internal Guide Acknowledgement List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations Used i ii v vi

Chapters: 1. 2. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Well Planning 2.1 Introduction 2.2 No Swab and Surge; Wider Operational Mud Weight Window 2.3 ECD versatility 2.4 Hydraulics design: Cutting Carrying Index 2.5 Stiffer Pipe, Better Verticality 2.6 Plastering Effect increases Fracture Gradient 2.7 Cement Job Quality 2.8 NPT (Non Productive Time) Chapter 3: Rig Modification 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Industry Practices Case Study 3.3 3.4 Special Considerations Chapter 4: Casing Design 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Fatigue Life Evaluation of Casing String 4.3 Loads Subjected to Casing Chapter 5: Downhole Assembly 5.1 Casing While Drilling with Retrievable Drilling Assemblies 5.2 Casing Drilling Accessories 5.3 Non-Retrievable BHA Chapter 6: Casing Drive System 1 2

3.

4.

5.

14

6.

20

7.

8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Description of the Casing Drive System 6.3 Description of the Spear (in fig 6.2) 6.4 Description and Actuation of Slips 6.5 Casing Running Process Chapter 7: Drill Bits 27 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Drillable Drill Bit Design 7.2.1 Body Portion 7.2.2 Blade and Cutters Structure 7.2.3 Forces acting on Blades and cutters during drilling operations 7.3 Drill out and Drill ahead 7.4 Prototype Development 7.5 Lab Testing, Field trials 7.6 Drill-out Performance Comparison Chapter 8: Plastering Effect 37 8.1 Introduction Chapter 9: Cementing 38 9.1 Introduction 9.2 How Cementing in CwD differs from conventional practices 9.3 Centralization 9.4 Floating equipments used in cementing in CwD 9.5 Cement excess factor 9.6 Other common Cementing Practices for CwD Chapter 10: Downhole Problems and Solutions 43 10.1 Mechanical Problems 10.1.1 Casing Thread Damage & Solutions 10.1.2 Makeup Monitoring and Control 10.1.2.1 Monitoring 10.1.2.2 Control 10.1.2.3 Solutions 10.1.3 Pipe Body Damage & Solutions 10.1.4 Pipe Handling Logistics & Solutions Chapter 11: Well Control 51 Chapter 12: Advantages and Disadvantages 52 Chapter 13: Plastering Effect: A Qualitative analysis 54 13.1 Introduction 13.2 Occurrence of Plastering Effect 13.3 Mechanism 13.4 Casing drilling pipe geometry

13.5 Various conditions for plastering 13.6 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 13.7 Significance 13.8 Permeable Plugging Test (PPT) 13.9 Conclusion derived from Permeable Plugging Test 14. Chapter 14: Prediction of Particle Size Distribution in CWD 14.1 Principle Involved 14.2 Our Proposed Model 14.2.1 Assumptions 14.2.2 Figure 14.2.3 Derivation 14.3 Some Details 14.4 Observations 15. Chapter 15: Simulated Results 16. Chapter 16: Case study-Piceance well 16.1 Piceance Creek Directional CWD 16.2 Particle Size Distribution Discussion 16.3 Conclusions pertaining to discussed case study 17. Chapter 17: Field Application of CwD 17.1 Casing Drilling Technology 17.2 Drilling Salt Dome Field 17.3 Permafrost Drilling 17.4 Managed Pressure Casing Drilling (MPCD) 18. Chapter 18: Inferences 19. Chapter 19: Further Scope References

66

74 78

85

90 91 92

Chapter 1: Introduction
Casing While Drilling is innovation in action technology that gets casing to bottom by circulating, reciprocating and rotating simultaneously. Every well is drilled and cased at the same time. By using the full capabilities of your rigs top drive, the system is the solution: Casing While Drilling is a proven process after millions of feet drilled, on- and off shore, straight, directional and horizontal wells. Because of its application flexibility, Casing While Drilling can successfully execute anything that can be accomplished with conventional drilling, while delivering operating and labour cost savings, capital investment reductions and faster time-to-targets. With Casing While Drilling, casing is always on bottom, letting you change your bottom hole assembly (BHA) without a trip. The process requires less drilling fluid, further reducing costs and environmental impact: the mechanical characteristics of the casing plaster cuttings into the face of the bore hole, sealing pores in the formation that contribute to lost circulation. Directional and horizontal applications have been proven on- and off shore. Directional Casing While Drilling has been used successfully in difficult shales in North America; in completing complex 3D North Sea wells; and in drilling extended reach wells further examples of the flexibility and adaptability of Casing While Drilling in a wide variety of hole angles, with on-bottom ROPs equal to or better than conventional methods. It requires few adaptations to a standard drilling rig in most cases, just a few hours of rig-up time. Casing While Drilling can be accomplished on nearly any rig with a top drive. Casing While Drilling significantly reduces lost fluids due to this Plastering Effect and enhances reservoir productivity from producing horizons. Improved well control is enhanced with continuous circulation even when tripping. Having casing constantly on the bottom reduces well kicks creating a safer environment. The Casing While Drilling process increases safety because it requires fewer people on the rig floor and less pipe handling than conventional drilling. Casing While Drilling design provides superior strength and rigidity in drilling operations.Casing While Drilling expertise and technology together help control and minimize todays borehole integrity issues and other drilling challenges. From basic casing running procedures to complex drilling scenarios, Casing While Drilling gets the job done with superior efficiency.
1

Chapter 2: Well Planning

2.1 Introduction:
Before initiation of any drilling operations, a thorough planning is done so as to determine many parameters beforehand, like: Well details Well objective Casing Policy Wellhead selection BOP requirements Cementing programme Deviation programme Survey requirements Mud programme Bit and Hydraulics programme Evaluation requirements Estimation of well cost, etc.

There are many well established and proved methods to determine each of the parameters above for conventional drilling. And there are large numbers of industry standards that are set as best practices and are followed rigorously when planning a new well. However, only few people really know the benefits offered by Casing While Drilling technology in achieving these industry standards with minimum input. We would be touching some of the very important aspects of planning a well for casing while drilling application, keeping in mind the conventional method.

2.2 No Swab and Surge; Wider Operational Mud Weight Window:

Swab and surge during tripping can be very problematic because this can cause the pressure to exceed the fracture gradient or fall below the kick tolerance. The CDS eliminates offbottom well control situations and eliminates the possibility of kicks due to the swab pressure while tripping out of the hole. Moreover, the continuous circulation even when tripping prevents surge or swab conditions even when a new BHA is being used. The importance of eliminating swab/surge cannot be overstated, as this frees operators from having to consider the trip margin when drawing the operational mud weight window. Trip margin is an overbalance to compensate for the loss of ECD and to overcome the effects of
2

swab pressure during a trip out of the hole (trip margin is usually 0.5 ppg to 1 ppg). Elimination of trip margins from the operational mud weight window can help set the casing deeper or even eliminates a string.

Fig 2.1Modified casing program design, without surge/swab consideration

2.3 ECD versatility:

We know that ECD (Equivalent Circulation Density) is dependent on 3 factors, they are: Mud weight Flow rate (pump rate) Plastic viscosity Casing Drilling geometry provides a better control on the annulus pressure profile. The small annulus brings about higher friction which leads to higher equivalent circulating density (ECD) in comparison to conventional drilling. Hence the above mentioned 3 factors can be varied to an optimum value which is small and can be easily attained on field, in comparison with the values required for conventional drilling on same project.

2.4 Hydraulics design: Cutting Carrying Index:

It is believed that the small annulus of the Casing Drilling generates a mechanical agitation effect of the casing that helps prevent formation of cutting beds and facilitates cutting transfer. Moreover, due to the elimination of tripping, the well is being circulated most of the time. This eliminates the opportunity for cuttings to settle at the bottom of the wellbore as much as they do with conventional drilling. The higher annular velocity, the casings mechanical agitation, and consistent circulation could be the reason why much less barite sag problems are present in Casing Drilling.

CCI is calculated using the following formula, where Av is annular velocity in ft/min, Mw is mud weight in ppg, and K is the Power Law Constant:

2.5 Stiffer Pipe, Better Verticality:

The stiffer the casing, the less effect stabilization/centralization will have on the directional performance of the casing drilling assembly. When drilling with casing larger than 7 OD, fulcrum or pendulum assemblies become largely unrealistic, as creating the requisite bit tilt requires increasingly large WOB.

2.6 Plastering Effect increases Fracture Gradient:

The unique result of CWD, the plastering effect has important role to play in planning a well. The rotary motion of casing along with very small annulus forms a layer at the wellbore wall. This layer consists of mainly the formation cuttings and some heavier mud additives. These get pressed on walls due to centrifugal force with strengthening taking place due to removal of water. This layer forms a stress layer over surface and hence increases the fracture gradient. This net increased fracture gradient provides flexibility in casing program and/or casing shoe selection.

2.7 Cement Job Quality:

The reason is the casing has filtered the fluid out of the cake so we have a slick cake which will bond with cement very good. also the CWD process creates a more gauged wellbore, hence less cement required to pump, better displacement efficiency, so better cement job. That same plaster also prevents cement filtrate from damaging the formation. Even better can be achieved by rotate/reciprocate the casing while cementing.

2.8 NPT (Non Productive Time):

Unexpected drilling hazards and operational issues result in nonproductive time, which an industry consensus estimates can run as much a much as a quarter of many drilling projects, with about half that figure directly related to drilling troubles that can be directly mitigated with casing drilling. Also, the majority of nonproductive time in any drilling operation comes when you are tripping pipe. That is when most well control problems show up and when well bore stability issues really become evident. If you can avoid tripping pipe, you can sidestep much of the typical NPT.

Chapter 3: Rig Modification

3.1 Introduction
Casing while Drilling is a very simple yet effective technique of drilling complex wells. This is evident from the fact that it requires no or very little modifications to the conventional drilling rig or a special PLC (programmable logic controller) rig.

3.2 Industry Practices

Till date no Casing while Drilling operations have used a Kelly drive rig and hence the only optional equipment required for this operation is a Top Drive System. In some Instances a split block assembly that allows wireline to be used in running and retrieving the Bottom Hole Assembly. There are many operators who use a top drive casing running tool like the Tesco Casing Drive System, Weatherford Overdrive, Volant CRTi, Canrig Suregrip, NOV CRT to make up casing connections using the top drive and a Computer Aided Makeup system instead of using power tongs. Hence, the floor is clear of tongs and there is no need to have anyone working at the stabber board level. These tools are becoming far more widely utilized and will eventually take the place of conventional tongs. To drill with casing, a purpose built rig was constructed. There were four basic changes from a conventional drilling rig.

(a) The first change was to install a wireline winch capable of running and retrieving the BHA. The wireline included an electric line for future tool actuation. Operation of this wireline winch was integrated into the rig PLC control panel. (b) The second change was to install a split travelling block and crown and a top drive in order to facilitate running the wireline down through the casing. (c) The third change was to install a wireline BOP and double pack-off above the top drive in order to seal off around the wireline. (d) The fourth change was to add pipe-handling tools to handle casing instead of a conventional drill string.
6

3.3 Case Study

Tesco Rig 1, specifically designed as a Casing Drilling rig was used for the project. The rig utilizes PLC controlled hydraulically powered rotating, hoisting, and pumping systems. It was originally designed as a platform to assist in developing and testing the Casing Drilling system. The major modifications to the rig were the addition of a second mud pump and improvements to the well control and gas handling equipment. These enhancements assured the rig could safely handle a large influx of gas if the well encountered a virgin pressured natural fracture in the pay zone. This equipment also facilitated the normal handling of reservoir gas while drilling slightly underbalanced. A newly developed Tesco casing clamp, shown in Figure 3.1, was added to the rig to increase the ease and efficiency of drilling with casing. Prior to this, a crossover to the casing thread was used below the top drive to screw into the top of each joint of casing. The threads on each joint of casing were made up and broken out before being made up for the final time, thus increases the risk of damaging the casing threads. The casing clamp handles casing sizes from 3-1/2 to 9-5/8and eliminates the need to make a threaded connection between the top of the casing and the top drive. It incorporates external slips to hold the casing axially and to transmit rotational torque. An internal spear and seal assembly provides a seal without using the casing threads. The casing clamp is hydraulically operated with the top drive controls. After a joint of casing is placed in the mouse hole, a protective full open thread nubbin is screwed into the box, the top drive is extended over the mouse hole and the clamp is lowered over the top of the casing. The clamp is activated and the joint is picked up and stabbed into the stump in the rotary table. The connection is made-up to the thread manufacturers specification with the top drive and Casing Drilling is resumed.

Figure 3.1: Casing Clamp

3.4 Special Considerations

There are some additional considerations when using a top drive casing running tool and that is with respect to the rig alignment. If the rig is poorly aligned then makeup can be difficult. If it is known in advance that one of these tools is to be used then time can be taken to align the rig during rig up. While CWD most operators use these tools, which are already rigged up ready to drill the casing or ream, to make up the casing.

Chapter 4: Casing Design

4.1 Introduction
The design approaches for casing drilling are some where similar to conventional drilling approach. In conventional drilling engineering techniques, the casing is run after the completion of drilling a well. The design criteria for casing in such case are mostly based on maximum load, where emphasis is given primarily to tension, burst and collapse loads. Considerations are also given to account the consequences of borehole stability, well control, casing setting depths, directional planning, and bit selection. Most of these factors affecting Casing While Drilling can be predicted with the concept of conventional drilling engineering techniques. However, fatigue life and endurance limit evaluation for casing in case of Casing While Drilling approach requires special consideration.

4.2 Fatigue Life Evaluation of Casing String

Despite tension, collapse and burst pressure, the successful design of the casing running simultaneously while drilling, as known as Casing While Drilling, requires accurate prediction of different effects primarily torque and drag, and fatigue. The fatigue failure of casing is occurred by repeated or cyclic loads at stress levels well below the elastic strength of its material. The accurate evaluation of fatigue life for Casing While Drilling is a complex task.

4.3 Loads Subjected to Casing

In order to derive the stress-life model; it is essential to consider all loads subjected to casing during operations that may contribute to cause failures. In practice, both static loads and fatigue loads can cause to failure of a casing string. The static loads include axial tension load; external pressure (or differential collapsing pressure), equivalent tension from bending, tangential shear from torsion and buckling loads. The static loads subjected a casing have been determined on the basis of design factors being greater than some recommended values. The design factor is defined as the ratio of a limit load to its corresponding applied load as follows:

DF a =

atc (1)

DF r =

pypc prc

DF t =

DF s =

rc

DF vm =

vm

In Eq. 1, DFa, DFr, DFt, DFs and DFvm are design factors against axial, radial, tangential, shear and combined loads (von Misses), respectively. One of the greatest advantages of von Misses stress as combined stress is that the calculated stress can be compared to the yield strength of materials resulting single equivalent design factor. Thus, DFvm takes into account of all other loads subjected to the casing strings. The value of atc is obtained by multiplying the total axial stress, at by the stress concentration factor Ka for axial load. The total axial stress, at is calculated as: atc = Ka at in which;

at = a + b

(2)

a is the axial stress due to weight of casing string only and calculated as Weff/As, in which As is the cross sectional area of casing wall and Weff is the effective tensile load that is estimated based on the total hanging weight of casing string below the section in question, considering the buoyancy effect exerted by drilling mud. b is the tensile bending stress developed at the dogleg calculated by Lubinski's formula :

(3)

where E is the Young's modulus, psi; Do is outer diameter, inch; C is the dogleg severity, radian per unit length; I is the moment of inertia of the casing section, L is the half-length of one casing string between joints. The conventional approach of predicting the fatigue life is based on data presented by S-N curve, which gives the number of cycles (N) at which the pipe fails due to material fatigue for a given repeated maximum stress level (S). The mathematical model that evaluates the fatigue life of casing string can be developed following the local strain model based on Neuber's rule and/or the fracture mechanics model or conventional stress-life (S-N curve)
10

based mode. However, stress-life based model is simpler and provide better prediction. In present work, the fatigue model for casing joints is developed following the stress-life model incorporating the stress concentration factor (K).

Fig 4.1 S-N Curve

For the calculation of shear stress, t, torsional formula for a hollow circular tube can be used as;

t=

(6)

Where T is total torque developed during running the casing string, and J is polar moment of inertia of casing string. The torque developed during running the casing is caused mainly by frictional forces resulted from contact of casing string with the wellbore. The magnitude of such frictional force is the product of normal contact force and the coefficient of friction between the contact surfaces. The magnitude of normal force can be calculated by:
11

FN = [(Fasin)2 + (Fa + WecHsin)]1/2

(7)

Where, Fa is the tensile force contributed from the weight of casing string can be calculated as Fa= WecHcos The incremental torsion over a length segment is then calculated as: T= CfFNDo/2 (9) (8)

Where Cf is the coefficient of friction between the casing string and wellbore surface and Do is the outer diameter of casing. The total torque required at the surface can be calculated by summing up the incremental torques from the point of interest to the surface:

(10) The incremental tension force due to frictional drag during sliding the casing by rotation can be calculated as: Fd = WecHcos CfFN Where the plus or minus sign depends either up or down motion of casing respectively.

Fig 4.2 Forces acting on individual casing segment

12

The use of casing as the drill shoe or drill bit in situ has revealed several limitations inherent in the structure of the casing as well as the methodologies used to load and drive the casing.

The thread form used in casing connections is more fragile than the connection used in drill pipe.

The casing connections have to remain pressure tight once the drilling process has been completed. Additionally, casing typically has a thinner wall and is less robust than drill pipe, especially in the thread area at both ends of the casing where there is a corresponding reduction in section area.

13

Chapter 5: Downhole Assembly

5.1 Casing While Drilling with Retrievable Drilling Assemblies
This drilling system is composed of down hole and surface components that provide the ability to use normal oil field casing as the drill string so that the well is simultaneously drilled and cased. The casing is rotated from the surface for all operations except slide drilling with a motor and bent housing assembly for oriented directional work. A retrievable drilling assembly is attached to the casing inside a proprietary profile nipple located near the casing shoe. The casing is rotated from the surface with a top drive for all operations except when there is a normal operational need to drill without drill string rotation. The drilling fluid is circulated down the casing ID and up the annulus between the casing and well bore. The drilling assembly extending below the casing usually includes an under reamer and a PDC or roller cone pilot bit. These assemblies are retrieved with a wireline at the casing point or at any point in the drilling process when there is a need to change drilling tools. Use of a retrievable system is the only practical choice for directional wells because of the need to recover the expensive directional drilling and guidance tools, the need to have the capability to replace failed equipment before reaching casing point, and the need for quick and cost effective access to the formations below the casing shoe. The retrievable Casing Drilling BHA normally consists of a pilot bit with an underreamer located above it to open the hole to the final wellbore diameter. The pilot bit is sized to pass through the casing and the underreamer opens the hole to the size that is normally drilled to run casing. For example, an 8-1/2 pilot bit and 12-1/4 underreamer may be used while drilling with 9-5/8 36 ppf casing. The retrievable drilling assembly is attached to the bottom of the casing with a special tool, shown in Fig. 1 and referred to as the Drill-Lock-Assembly (DLA). The DLA provides the ability to connect conventional drilling tools with rotary-shouldered connections to the casing and facilitates running these tools in and out of the casing. It has a relatively large, full open bore to minimize pressure losses and to facilitate any wireline operations that might be needed for the drilling BHA suspended below the DLA.

14

The retrievable BHA is attached to the casing with the DLA which axially and torsionally locks and un-locks to the casing, seals in the casing to direct the drilling fluid through the bit, locates the DLA in the profile without relying on precise wireline measurements, and bypasses fluid around the tools for running and retrieving. The BHA can be run and retrieved in deviated wells with inclinations higher than 90o and the DLA can be released with a pump down dart before running the wireline. A releasing and pulling tool is run on wireline to release the DLA and pull the BHA out of the casing in a single trip for vertical and low angle wells. The wireline retrieval system can be used with 13-3/8 and smaller tools, while a drill pipe running/retrieval option is also available for all of the tools for use in special situations.

Fig 5.1: Drill Lock assembly (DLA)

15

Fig 5.2: Wireline retrievable BHA

5.2 Casing Drilling Accessories

1. Underreamers The Casing Drilling system requires that a hole enlarging tool be run below the casing to drill a hole large enough to provide normal circulation around the casing. The feature of Underreamers include the assurance of smooth rotation, minimising the possibility of leaving the parts in the hole and assuring that it get closed when being retrieved.

Fig 5.3: Casing drilling underreamer

16

2. Connections - Connections that are used in Casing While drilling have an adequate axial load rating. Sufficient fatigue tolerance and adequate torque carrying capacity. Multi-lobe torque ring could be inserted into buttress box for increased torque capacity. The use of Casing Drive System reduces the risk of damaging and failure of connections. 3. Wear Bands The Casing coupling wear generally causes by angular misalignment of joints of casing at coupling. For protecting Casing with these wears, a wear band is installed on casing immediately downhole of the coupling. The lower end of the wear bands include tungsten-carbide hard facing material similar to that used for the wear protection of drill pipe.

Fig 5.4: Wear Band

4. Centralizer or Stabilizer The main criteria for a casing drilling centralizer is that it is economical, rugged enough to withstand drilling forces, and it can be attached to the casing without altering the casing performance. A centralizer with blades hydroformed directly on a tubular body was developed as an effective wears of centralising the casing while drilling with it.

17

Fig 5.5: Hydro formed crimp-on Stabiliser.

5. Cementing Equipment Once the retrievable drilling assembly is removed from the casing at the casing point, there is no float equipment in place to prevent back flow of the cement job is completed. In some cases this has been handled by holding pressure on the casing after the cement is pumped until it is begins to set up. In other cases, a relatively expensive composite cement retainer is run and set with wireline. Neither of these solutions is ideal and better suited cementing accessories are being developed.

5.3 Non-Retrievable BHA

Non-Retrievable Casing While Drilling has been popularised in recent years from operators drilling top hole sections. The high value of this technology is in reduction of well construction costs and problem resolution in reactive formations. A non retrievable Casing While drilling bit, the Defyer, has been successful in avoiding lost time in penetrating these trouble zones. In this way of drilling, the BHA is cemented in place through conventional float valve system without additional trip. The Casing drill bits centre is an aluminium alloy crown that is drillable using any PDC or Roller cone bits selected for the next run. This tool utilises Casing Drive tool engaging in the casing string and transmit the rotary torque and weight to the BHA. The drillable drill bit is made up on the Casing string and run to bottom. Drilling commences typically with light WOB (1 5 klbs)
18

and slow rotary speed (40 60 RPM). Flow rate is typically one half to two thirds the flow normally used for the respective hole size. After the pattern has been established, operating parameters are adjusted to optimize performance. In most previous cases, an RPM of less than 80 RPM has delivered excellent penetration rates. Weight on bit is adjusted by the hardness of the formation. Normal weight on bit is typically between what would normally be run on a conventional PDC bit and a roller cone bit in the particular formation.

Fig 5.6: Non retrievable system

19

Chapter 6: Casing Drive System

6.1 Introduction
The CDS, originally designed for Casing Drilling applications, attaches to the top drive API threaded connection and grips the casing without attaching to the casing threads. As part of the load path it provides tensile and rotational integrity between the top drive and the casing and includes a fail-safe system to guard against inadvertent dropping of the string.

The CDS is hydraulically actuated using a standalone hydraulic power unit (HPU) with the operator and controls positioned near the driller. The CDS accommodates pipe sizes from 20 in. down to 412-in. with working load capacities up to 500 tons, depending on casing size. The Link Tilt attachment provides an automated method of picking up the casing from the V door and conveying it up into the derrick. It provides the added benefit of holding the casing in position as the driller lowers the CDS to grip the casing, eliminating the need for a stabber and stabbing board. Hydraulically actuated single joint elevators attached to the Link Tilt provide further automation, eliminating a man position for latching and unlatching the elevator. This system of tools is not only effective but comes in a kit that is highly portable and adapts to all top drives. The Use of Casing as the rotational drive element to rotate the drill shoe or drill bit in situ has revealed several limitations inherent in the structure of the casing as well as the methodologies used to load and drive the casing: 1. The thread form used in casing connections is more fragile than the connections used in drill pipe and the casing connection has to remain fluid and pressure tight once the drilling process has been completed. 2. Casing typically has a thinner wall and is less robust than the drill pipe, especially in the thread are at both ends of the casing where there is a corresponding reduction in the section area. 3. Casing is not manufactured or supplied to the same tolerances as the drill string and thus the actual diameters and the wall thickness may vary from lot to lot of casing. Despite these limitations the casing is being used to drill bore holes effectively.
20

Fig 6.1 Casing Drive System

6.2 Description of the Casing Drive System

Hence mentioned Casing running and driving system includes a spear or a grapple tool and a clamping head integral to a top drive. In one embodiment, the axial load of tubular lengths being added to a tubular string is held by the spear at least during drilling and the torsional load is supplied by the clamping head at least during makeup And thereafter by the spear , and alternatively by the spear and/or the clamping head. The clamping head assembly may also be used to position a tubular below the spear. In order to enable cooperative engagement
21

of the clamping tool and spear such that the spear inserted into the tubular and the clamping head are mechanically engaged with one another so that torque from the top drive can be imparted to the tubular through the clamping head. Additionally, a casing collar and the clamping head have external support functions to minimize the risk of deforming the tubular when the spear engages the inner diameter of the Tubular. The spear imparts rotary motion to the tubular forming a drill string, in particular where the tubular are casing. A thickness compensation element is provided to enable the spear to load against the interior of the tubular without risk of deforming the tubular. The CDS includes a top drive suspended on a drilling rig above a borehole, a grapple tool or a spear for engagement with interior of tubular such as casing and a clamping head engage able with the exterior of the casing. The clamping head mounts on a pair of mechanical bails suspended from a pair of swivels disposed on the top drive. The bails are generally linear segments having axial, longitudinally disposed slots therein. A pair of guides extends from the clamping heads into the slots and provides support for the clamping head. As shown in the Figure the 6.1 pair of guides rest against the base of the slots when the clamping head is in a relaxed position. The guides are adapted to allow the clamping head to pivot relative to the bails. Bails include a pair of bail swivel cylinders connected between the bails and the top drive to swing the bails about the pivot point located at the swivels. The bail swivel cylinders may be hydraulic cylinders or any suitable type of fluid operated extendable and retractable cylinders. Upon such swinging motion, the clamping head likewise swings to the side of the connection location and into alignment for accepting and retrieving the casing that is to be added to the string of casing in the borehole. The spear couples to the drive shaft of the top drive and is positioned between the bails and above the clamping head when the clamping head is in the relaxed position. During the makeup and drilling operations the clamping head changes its position such that the spear is in alignment with the casing; the spear then enters into the open end of the casing located within the clamping head.

22

Fig 6.2 Partial cross sectional views of Spear.

23

6.3 Description of the Spear (in fig 6.2)

The Spear includes a housing defining a piston cavity and a cup shaped engagement member for engagement with clamping head. A piston disposed within the piston capacity and actuatable therein to in response to a pressure differential existing between opposed sides thereof. A plurality of slips disposed circumferentially about the mandrel and supported in place by slip engagement extension and connector. The Spear enables controlled movement of the slips in the radial direction from and towards the mandrel in order to provide controllable loading of the slips against the interior of the casing. The mandrel defines a generally cylindrical member having an integral mud flow passage there through and a plurality of conical sections around which the slips are disposed. A tapered portion at the lower end of the mandrel guides the spear during insertion into the casing. An aperture forms the end of the mud flow passage such that mud and other drilling fluid may be flowed into the hollow interior or the bore of the casing for cooling the drill shoe and carrying the cuttings from the drilling face back to the surface through the annulus existing between the casing and the borehole during drilling. The spear includes an annular sealing member such as a cap seal disposed on the outer surface of the mandrel between the lowermost conical section and the tapered portion. The annular sealing member enables the fluid to be pumped into the bore of the casing without coming out of the top of the casing.

6.4 Description and Actuation of Slips

Each of the slips includes a generally carved face forming a discrete arc of the cylinder such that the collection of slips disposed about the mandrel forms a cylinder. Slips also include on its outer arcuate face a plurality of engaging members which in combination serve to engage against and hold the casing or other tubular when the top drive is engaged to drill with casing.

24

The position of the slips relative to the conical sections on the mandrel is directly positioned by the location of the piston on the piston cavity. The Slips also include a plurality of inwardly sloping ramps on their interior surfaces that are discretely spaced along the inner face of the slips at the same spacing existing between the conical sections on the mandrel.

In a fully retracted position of the slips, the greatest diameters of the conical sections are received at the minimum extensions of the ramps from the inner face of the slips and the minimum extension of the conical sections from the surface of the mandrel are positioned to the greatest inward extension of the ramps.

To actuate the slips outwardly and engage the inner face of a section of the casing, the piston moves downwardly in the piston cavity, thereby causing the ramps of the slips to slide along the conical sections of the mandrel thereby pushing the slips radially outwardly in the direction of the casing wall to grip the casing.

6.5 Casing Running Process

Individual joints of casing are positioned in either the V-door or pick-up machine in conventional manner. As the drillers lowers the block to run a joint that has just been made up, the operator manipulates the single-joint elevator-link tilt to position the elevators to catch the next joint of casing in the V-door. Then the driller remotely latches the elevators on the new joint from the operators console. These elevators open wide enough and have sufficient power to latch onto the casing even if it is not in line with the elevator. The drive tool is relieved from the stump in the rotary table and the next joint to be run is hoisted as the driller runs the blocks up the derrick. Once the joint is raised sufficiently, the casing running operator rotates the link tilt to swing the new joint of casing over the stump in the rotary table. The pin end of the rotary table is usually tailed into the well center by a rope in the conventional manner. The pipe protector is removed and the joint is doped and stabbed into the stump box. Then the tool is lowered into the top of the joint, and the running tool slips are activated. The link tilt and elevators include features that facilitate holding and positioning the upper end of the casing correctly for the drive tool to be stabbed easily and aligning
25

the casing with the stump in the slips. The feature is more effective than a human stabber and eliminates the need for a person to work in the derrick. The joint is then made up with the top drive to the appropriate torque. Rotation for the entire process is applied smoothly with the top drive to makeup the casing without creating bending forces at the threads. Torque/Turn measurements can be made and recorded, if desired, by the operator. The Stump can be restrained from rotation by power slips or by tongs until sufficient weight (approximately 10 joints) is run so that conventional slips provide adequate torque restraint. Only two people are required to rig up the equipment and operate it during a casing running job. Once the equipment is rigged up, the operators take turns operating the controls to stay alert and attentive to the repetitive casing running process.

26

Chapter 7: Drill Bits

7.1 Introduction
When casing is used as the drill string, any downhole equipment has to be removed as an obstacle from the interior of the casing before the next smaller diameter casing and drill bit is sent to further drill the borehole. There are two mainstream Casing While Drilling (CWD) used in the industry, namely, retrievable and non-retrievable systems, sometimes referred to as the latch system and cement in place system respectively. The latch system as the name indicates locks the bottom hole assembly (BHA) to the end of the first casing string that goes into the borehole. When the desired casing depth is reached, the BHA is retrieved by a wireline to the surface. And the drilled depth is cemented. This system uses conventional drill bits as there is no special task for the drill bit to carry out. The rotary motion to the drill bit is supplied by either a top drive assembly or a motor attached to the bottom hole assembly. The other method is the cement in place method, in this method the drill bit is left in the bottom hole and a second drill bit drills through it and continues drilling further into the formation. The main qualities expected from this kind of drill bits are that they should be drillable and durable. Achieving both these conditions is a very difficult and complex task. There is always a tradeoff between the two, if the drill bit is drillable and a soft material is used to manufacture the drill bit, the drill bit will wear out very quickly as the formation grinds against the body of the drill bit. On the other hand, if a drill bit is designed to be durable; drilling through it to continue further drilling into the formation becomes a difficult task. The drill out bit that is used will wear out while drilling a harder, more durable bit and will have to be replaced by another bit, making this a costly method, and negating the economic benefits of the CWD process. To balance these two requirements of drillable and durable bit, a few bit designs have been suggested and implemented in the industry. One design is as follows; an aluminum body with displaceable PDC cutting structures, this design is widely used.

27

7.2 Drillable Drill Bit Design

7.2.1 Body Portion Fig7.1 describes the body of a CWD drill bit, the structure of the drill bit and its various parts are described in the figure. A detailed explanation of the various parts and their uses is given below. A drillable body portion is attached to the casing shoe, this drillable material is normally an aluminium alloy, over this body potion there are several cutting structures or blades that are fixed to the body in the notches that are incorporated in the design of the body portion. The body portion consists of a main counter bore, which generally ends at a conically concave base from which a mud bore extends inwardly into the backup portion of the body portion which limits the deformation of the drilling sleeve during drilling operations. The mud bore splits into a plurality of mud passages, which terminate at the lower portion of the body portion. The mud bore also consists of a tapered seat section, into which a ball may be seated. The outer surface of the body portion consists of right circular outer face, and an end portion which is profiled and machined to receive a portion of the blades. The outer face of the body includes, at the opening of the counterbore, an extending lip, which sealingly or substantially closely fits to the major diameter of the major diameter bore, as well as at least one axial slot extending along the outer face from the end portion. A pin is secured within the sleeve and extends into the slot and serves to prevent the rotation of the body portion when another drill bit is used to drill out the body portion of the drill bit in use.

28

Fig 7.1 Interior of body portion of CWD bit

7.2.1.1 Blade and Cutters Structure The cutters are configured on blades and attached to the surface of the body portion by notches. The base of the blades consists of projections and slots to fix the blade to the surface of the notch. The projections and slots also help in maintaining the blade in the notch by not allowing the blade to move when the cutters come in contact with the formation and the drilling procedure begins. Generally, the blades are received within a profile which extends along the outer surface of the sleeve and the base of the body portion. An exemplary profile is a notch which is configured to interact with the blade to keep the blade in position on the bit during drilling operations.

29

Each blade is made of a single length of steel, or similar material having the properties of high strength, rigidity and ductility, it is bent to form opposed first and second linear section which are interconnected by curved shoulder segment. A no. of cutters is located on the outer surface of the blades, to be engaged with, and cut into the formation to be drilled.

Fig 7.2 OUTER SURFACE OF CWD RILL BIT

7.2.1.2 Forces Acting On Blades and Cutters during Drilling Operations When the drilling operation begins and the drill bit moves along an axis, the blades engage with the formation by an outward movement. There is a force being subjected on the blade by the formation, which pushes the blade inwards, this force tends to cause the blade to rotate within the notch. The configuration of the multifaceted base of the blade and the notch are specifically designed to counter these forces and to keep the blade in place within the notch. As the loading occurs, the sidewall of the blade is pushed against the side face of the notch, the first face of the projection on the notch bears against the adjacent flanks of the slot on the blade to provide lateral support against the primary load of the
30

formation, simultaneously, the face of the projection on the inside of the notch, bears against the coupled moment due to the loading of the blade at the cutters, against the second projection face of the blade, and each of the faces of the blade are loaded with the moment against their respective compression faces on the notch, which prevent the movement of the blade within the notch.

Fig 7.3 Components of the blade

The blade geometry, in addition to the blade profile, helps in maintaining the blade on the sleeve. During the drilling operation, the entire length is never engaged with the formation, specific parts of the first and second linear section are engaged at particular instants of time.

The standoffs on the sleeve of the drill shoe, allows the cutters on the first linear section of the blade to penetrate the formation to a certain extent. When the drill bit is pushing against the bottom of the borehole, the secondary section will be engaged
31

with the formation and other sections may not be engaged. Thus, the forces will be imparted on the second linear section of the blade, tending the blade to tip in the notch. To prevent this from happening, the included angle of the blade, as shown in the above figure is kept less than 90o, also the first linear section and the shoulder segment act as levers and prevent the second linear section from tipping in the notch.

7.2.2 Drill-out, drill ahead

The smaller, conventional bit used for drill-out must not sustain significant damage that would compromise continued drilling. A damaged drill-out bit can reduce ROP in the next hole section, or may have to be tripped and replaced. Damage to the drill-out bit is a particular issue when using a conventional PDC casing bit. In addition to the problematic brittleness of PDC cutters, damage can occur when the cutters chemically react with the iron at high temperatures and revert to graphite. The balance between durability and drillability has been sought with two basic designs: an aluminium bit with a displaceable PDC cutting structure mounted on steel blades, and a steel alloy bit with a fixed PDC cutting structure. Both designs have limitations. Aluminium CWD bits, which displace the cutting structure by pressuring up on a dropped ball and leave only an aluminium plug to be drilled out, are complex, expensive, and limited to formations under 15,000 psi UCS. Steel alloy CWD bits are fundamentally a conventional steel-bodied bit design modified to be somewhat drillable. These bits depend on the strength of the steel to reduce the amount required in the drill-out path. Because they are single-piece steel alloy bodies with no moving parts they are easy to manufacture. But they still have a significant amount of steel in the drill-out path.

7.3 Prototype Development

Several key design requirements were addressed when developing the subject CWD bit. Full PDC cutting structure with the ability to drill long intervals in hard, abrasive formations Fixed, non-displaceable cutting structure Sufficient blade stand-off to limit potential for bit balling when drilling sticky shale/clay formations
32

 Must be easily drillable with any conventional PDC or roller cone bit, without the need for a custom drill-out bit Field replaceable, drillable nozzles. The position of each PDC cutter is optimized to provide an even wear distribution over critical areas of the bit. The blade count and cutter size can be tailored to drill specific intervals and formation types. Wear rate models are used to help ensure that the cutting structure is capable of drilling the required interval, without adding excessive cutters inside the drillout path. The resulting Casing while Drilling bit is shown in Figure 6. This tool incorporates a full PDC cutting structure which is brazed to steel rails (one rail for each blade of the bit). The thickness of the steel rails is sufficient to retain the PDC cutters during drilling operations, while keeping the amount of steel in the drill-out path to a minimum. The nose and blades of the CWD bit are manufactured from a drillable aluminium alloy. The steel rails and PDC cutters are mechanically locked to the aluminium blades. This provides a rigid support structure, enabling the blades to drill hard formations, without hindering the drill-out process. The PDC cutters and rails are supported by drillable aluminium blades, as opposed to steel alloy blades. Because of this, the amount of blade stand-off can be increased to aid in cuttings removal, without the negatively affecting drill-out performance. This feature can be very beneficial when trying to limit the potential for bit balling in clay/shale formations. The aluminum surfaces are protected with a high velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF) tungsten carbide coating to limit fluid erosion. This relatively simple, but rigid design has only a small amount of steel in the drill-out path. As a result, it can be easily drilled-out with any conventional PDC or roller cone bit. Laboratory and field testing has shown only minimal damage imparted to the PDC cutting structure of the drill-out bit after drilling through the subject casing bit.

33

Fig 7.4: Prototype Design for PDC Drillout Bit

7.4 Lab testing, field trials

Laboratory and field testing has shown good ROP and minimal damage to the PDC cutting structure of the drill-out bit after drilling through the subject casing bit. A drill-out test was conducted from a test rig to evaluate performance of a 13 3/8 x 16in. prototype bit with four blades and 16-mm (0.63-in.) PDC cutting structure and using a conventional PDC bit. The unworn DPA prototype was drilled out in 15 min without significant damage to the drill-out bit. Successful testing led to field trials in Malaysia where the operator had extensive CWD experience with steel alloy casing bits. In these applications, the PDC drill-out bits exhibited severe wear after drilling through the CWD bit and the following interval of medium soft formations inter-bedded with hard stringers. Drilling out the shoe track, steel alloy casing bit, and new formation typically required one PDC bit per trip. An easier, less-damaging drill out was sought.

34

For the CWD bit run, a total 41 casing joints were drilled for 341.5 m (1,120.4 ft) to the planned depth of 497.5 m (1,632.2 ft). The DPA bit was rotated 6.56 hours for an average on-bottom ROP of 48.4 m/hr (158.8 ft/hr) for the entire interval, including the hard stringers. The high ROP indicates the PDC cutting structure remained sharp, even after drilling out the 20-in. shoe track and a previously cemented 20-in. casing bit. A conventional PDC bit was used to drill out the 13-3/8 in. shoe track and the drillable casing bit. It then continued drilling 1,488.5 m (4,883.5 ft) of new formation at an acceptable ROP. The CWD bit took only 12 min to drill out. Aluminium and steel shavings from the casing bit were collected from the shale shakers but no PDC cutters were found. It is suspected that the PDC cutters from the drillable bit were either pushed into the borehole wall or were fractured into smaller pieces and circulated to surface. Two additional wells were drilled with the same bit design and they achieved even higher ROP. The DPA bits averaged an overall ROP of 59 m/hr (193.5 ft/hr) or 52% higher than the average 39 m/hr (128 ft/hr) ROP achieved with steel alloy CWD bits. Normalizing the performances of both bit types more than 400 m (1,312 ft) shows the new bit design saved 3.5 hoursequivalent to $35,000 on $240,000 rig spread cost.

7.5 Drill-out Performance Comparison

Ease of drill-out is one of the most sought after properties of any non-retrievable casing bit. Important factors to evaluate are: the time required to drill through the cemented CWD bit, the dull condition of the drill-out bit, and the size of the debris from the CWD bit. The drillable design provides for exceptionally fast drill-out times in the region of 10 minutes, using conventional oilfield PDC bits. There is no need for a specialized/custom PDC drill-out bit, as is evidenced by the good dull grade condition of the drill-out bits. To date, only one of the new, drillable CWD designs has been drilled-out with a roller cone bit. Although seemingly lacklustre compared to PDC drill-out time, the 110 minute drillout time is significantly faster than the average 192 minutes required to drill through a steel alloy CWD bit with a roller cone bit. The size of the debris recovered from the
35

new CWD bit was generally small and in no occasion has caused drilling issues in the next hole section.

7.6 Conclusions
Conventional PDC drill-out bits can sustain severe cutter damage when drilling through a steel alloy CWD bit. The damaged cutting structure can result in poor drilling performance when drilling subsequent hole sections. Minimizing the amount of ferrous (steel alloy) and PDC material in the drill-out path significantly reduces the amount of time required to drill through the casing bit. In addition, less damage is imparted to the drill-out bit. The newly developed drillable PDC CWD bit provides comparable or better drilling performance than steel alloy CWD bits used in offset wells. The subject drillable PDC casing bit can be quickly drilled-out with a conventional PDC bit in less than 15 minutes. After drilling through the subject CWD bit, only minimal damage was imparted to the drill-out bit. There is no requirement for a specialized drill-out bit or a dedicated drillout / mill-out run.

The newly designed casing bit can also be drilled out with a conventional roller cone bit; however PDC drill-out times are significantly faster.

36

Chapter 8: Plastering Effect

8.1 Introduction:Particulate lost circulation material (LCM) effectively prevents fluid loss to the formation. With Casing Drilling, it is possible to drill through low pressure permeable formations with reduced mud loss and minimized usage of particulate LCM. The Casing Drilling process grinds drill cuttings as they travel up the annulus and creates a larger particle size distribution (PSD) profile than conventional drilling operations. These finer cuttings are subsequently smeared into the wellbore face by the mechanical contact of the large diameter casing with the borehole wall. The result is a very high quality, tight, thin, almost impermeable mud cake that isolates the formation from the wellbore. The PSD analysis reveals that the smaller size and wide range of Casing Drilling cuttings make it possible for these particles to readily adhere to the wellbore; This helps seal the pore spaces of the formation and Prevent further solids and filtrate invasion.

Pore throats can most effectively be plugged when the cuttings are in the proper micron size range as any possible gap between the mud and cuttings PSD can be covered by adding minimal amounts of properly sized lost circulation materials. Casing Drilling has proven to be a unique approach in tackling formation damage due to the drilling process. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of plastering effect will be discussed in further chapters.

37

Chapter 9: Cementing
9.1 Introduction
Casing while drilling (CWD) is an emerging technology being introduced in different areas around the world. This new configuration, where the casing is used as a drillstring, presents new challenges for primary casing cementing operations compared to the conventional cementing operations. A full understanding of the required changes of the cementing methodology from conventional drillpipe drilling operations can contribute to the success of any CWD campaign. CWD cementing differs from conventional cementing practices because it is impossible to use standard centralizers attached to the casing while drilling because of extended and faster casing rotation. When more than one bit is required to reach the next casing point, CWD requires full-bore casing access to pull and run bottomhole assemblies (BHA) through the casing. In these instances, conventional floating equipment cannot be used. Wireline logging is normally conducted in cased hole after the cementing job. The cement volumes are calculated with a cement excess factor instead of a caliper log.

9.2 CWD differs from conventional cementing practices in several ways.

1. The use of casing attachments, such as centralizers, to provide good pipe standoff. During CWD operations, centralizers are required to be robust enough to drill the entire openhole section while withstanding the pipe rotation when drilling for extended periods of time. This\ casing hardware must keep its standoff capability while staying in place and in one piece. 2. The float equipment is different than that used in conventional cementing operations. Where the possibility exists for more than one bit to reach the next casing point, CWD must allow full-bore casing access. To pull and run BHAs with wireline instead of pulling out the complete casing string by single joints, this full-bore access is required. In such cases, the float equipment is installed once the casing reaches the casing setting depth.
38

3. When installing the floating equipment with casing on bottom, the float equipment will be exposed to high circulation rates for considerable time while drilling the entire hole section. Damage to the floating valves can be expected. 4. The cement volume for the surface, intermediate, and production casing jobs is estimated using a cement excess value. In CWD, wireline logging for formation evaluation is often conducted in cased hole after the cementing job, so caliper log information is not available. If caliper hole size or openhole evaluation is required, it may be obtained with normal openhole logging equipment once the casing is pulled out of the previous shoe

9.3 Centralization in CWD

In CWD operations, standard bowspring or welded-body centralizers are not recommended. The casing string will be subjected to longer and faster rotation while drilling the entire openhole section, and standard centralizers are not suitable for these conditions. They may cause severe wear damage and may lose their original placement, decreasing pipe centralization. In addition, these standard centralizers attached to the casing can be lost in the hole, causing additional problems when drilling ahead. In CWD, there is no option to place any type of centralizers with an OD larger than the gauge hole size. Bow- type centralizers are desirable where washouts are expected because they provide restoring force to centralize the casing in the hole. The bows on this type of centralizer have lower resistance to casing rotation. A good mud system is essential to minimize the hole washouts. If washouts are unavoidable, the reduced pipe standoff should be compensated by enforcing other best cementing practices, such as providing good mud properties, pumping rates, spacer design, etc.

9.4 Floating Equipments used in cementing in CWD

The use of standard floating equipment installed when the casing string is run will not be suitable when using retrievable CWD tools due to the requirement for full casing-bore access. After pulling the BHA at TD, the casing is now ready to set float equipment. The float equipment needs to be easy and fast to set, and it must be reliable and easy to drill out.

39

In this operation, the advantage of installing the floating device just before the cementing job is to help prevent the potential erosion and failure of the floating valves during the 3-7 days of drilling while maintaining the option of retrieving the BHA via wireline. This floating assembly cement retainer packer is normally set in the middle of the second joint to provide a shoe track volume. The cementing wiper plugs are the same as used in conventional cementing jobs and the bottom and top plug will land on top of the floating assembly. When cementing intermediate casing, the plugs are released on the fly with cement on top to facilitate the drillout process. For the 4 -in. casing, the lines are washed clean before displacement, and the plugs will not be drilled out. A relatively new approach to install float equipment when using CWD has been the development of a pumpdown float. The pumpdown float is preinstalled into a pup joint of casing, then made up to the string on surface. It is then pumped down the casing string, where it will locate and land in a profile nipple placed in the casing string close to the end of the casing. Though this tool is available, it has not had enough runs to be proven reliable.

9.5 Cement excess for casing while drilling

When openhole logs are not required in the production hole, evaluation logs could be performed on cased hole. This method is used to save the involved time to trip the casing in and out to the previous casing shoe by casing singles. Under these circumstances, caliper log information is normally missing for the calculation of the cement volumes. The cement excess factor has been defined from offset wells drilled conventionally with drill pipe where caliper logs are normally available. The cement excess factor has been verified by the top of cement on the CBL log runs to evaluate the zonal isolation. For the surface or intermediate casing cement volumes, the cement excess factor is defined with the same experience factor used for any DP drilling operation. The use of oil-based mud on the production hole section contributes to the improved hole geometry, and minimum wash out are normally observed. This factor will help on the casing standoff considering the lack of bow-type centralizers. If the cement excess needs to be defined or verified, fluid markers or liquid calipers can be considered

40

9.6 Other Best Cementing Practices for Casing while Drilling

Most of the best cementing practices do not differ from conventional drilling and CWD once the casing is on bottom and ready to cement. Spacers and flushes are effective displacement aids because they separate, unlike fluids, such as cement and drilling fluid, and enhance the removal of gelled mud, allowing a better cement bond. Spacers can be designed to serve various needs. Compatibility of the drilling fluid/spacer interface as well as the compatibility of the spacer/cement slurry is of prime importance. There are no additional considerations for spacers for CWD as compared to conventional cementing operations, such as mud erodability or removal capacity, contact time, spacing between mud and cement, compatibility with the drilling fluid, and density. Similar to cementing wells drilled conventionally, the condition of the drilling fluid is one of the most important variables in achieving good displacement during a cement job. A fluid that has excellent properties for tripping and running casing is generally inappropriate for cementing purposes. Low rheology and gel strength is always desirable for cementing. CWD reduces the total amount of static time for the mud in the annulus because there is no tripping time to pull out of the hole with the drilling string, and the casing is already on bottom when TD is reached. The best fluid for cementing is already in the hole with no additional circulating and conditioning time needed. CWD potentially reduces the amounts of gelled mud in the hole before cementing. Decreasing the filtrate loss into a permeable zone enhances the creation of a thin filter cake. A high fluid loss creates a thick, highly gelled mud layer immediately adjacent to the formation wall that is difficult to remove without mechanical or chemical intervention. The fluid loss of the mud should be minimized before running casing and cementing. At last the major factors contributing the success on the cementing operations are:

1. Proper centralization is obtained using helical and hardface blade centralizers, withstanding the longer and faster casing rotation while drilling the entire open hole section.

41

2.

The crimping process has provided a strong attachment of the centralizer to the body of the casing capable of keeping the original placement even under high-torque situations.

3.

The modifications on the cement-retainer packer designs have provided a suitable option for CWD operations, allowing the retrieval of the BHA and reducing the exposure of the floating valve to the drilling mud and reducing the risk of failure.

4.

The cement volumes are normally defined by cement excess factor over gauge hole size because caliper log information is not frequently available. The cement excess has been well defined by the caliper log information and the identified top of cement on the offset wells.

The zero free water and low fluid loss cement designs for the 4 -in. production casing jobs have been successfully pumped through the bit nozzles, and there have been no indications of cement dehydration on the performed jobs.

42

Chapter 10: Downhole Problems and Solutions

10.1 Mechanical Problems:
10.1.1 Casing Thread Damage Casing threads are typically finer and more delicate than tool joint threads. Casing threads are cut on relatively thin walled tubulars, relative to drillpipe, and are required to carry large axial loads. Upset pipe ends increase connection costs and reduce annular clearance, therefore most high capacity casing connections use a low profile, short pitch thread with a low angle load flank. As a result, casing threads are generally finer than drill pipe threads. These factors make casing threads more susceptible to damage than drill pipe threads, particularly during initial engagement. Even if threads are not damaged during engagement, casing connections are less durable than drill pipe connections. The most obvious is wear and damage resulting from engagement with a crossover sub between the top drive and casing thread. Transferring full make-up torque through the casing thread effectively applies one make/ break cycle to the connection before it reaches the rig floor. Even if crossover thread interference is reduced to minimize sliding distance under load, substantial thread contact loads are required for torque transfer. Crossover thread damage is transferred to the casing thread, thereby reducing thread durability and increasing the chance of making a bad connection. The second damage mechanism occurs at the point of initial thread engagement. Casing threads are most vulnerable to damage at this point because misalignment causes localized contact between pin and box thread corners (the transition from crest to flank) to contact, as shown in Figure 1. The third common source of casing thread damage occurs when threads are engaged and rotated while misaligned. Although contact stress is reduced when thread flanks are engaged, the combination of stress and sliding distance is sufficient to induce thread damage, as in fig 2.

43

Fig 10.1: Thread corner contact

damage

Fig10.2: Premium connection threads and seal

Solutions for Casing Thread Damage

Casing thread damage is best managed by minimizing externally applied loads. Stabbing loads, side loads and bending, particularly during initial thread engagement, are the most common causes of thread damage. These loads can be effectively managed with equipment that provides freedom of movement where necessary and isolates casing threads from stabbing loads. Casing thread loads can be relieved either by careful alignment or providing freedom for the top of the pipe to move off the top drive axis. This allows pin and box thread axis to self-align as con- trolled stabbing loads are applied. Bending loads resulting from rig misalignment and out-of-straight pipe are effectively managed in this manner. Side loads resulting from off-axis torque transfer are near-zero when casing threads are initially engaged because applied torque is very small. These side loads become large only when threads are fully engaged and make-up torque becomes large. Fully engaged threads are well suited to reacting side loads without incurring damage.

10.1.2 Make-Up Monitoring and Control Casing connections must be made up to an appropriate degree to ensure structural integrity and seal ability consistent with the design intent. Makeup specification varies between connections. Most premium connections utilize a sealing mechanism that depends
44

on precise damage free engagement of the pin and box for maximum seal reliability. Premium connection make up must therefore be performed with care and strict adherence to specified procedures. 10.1.2.1 Monitoring Premium connection makeup is typically monitored and recorded to detect damage and create a record documenting final assembly of each connection. This documentation serves two primary purposes: verification of connection make-up and demonstration of compliance with recommended practices. Measurement of applied torque, connection rotation or turns and time are the most common recorded parameters. 10.1.2.2 Control The physical process of connection make-up must be con- trolled within acceptable limits to minimize the chance of inducing damage. Galling of mating surfaces is the primary source of connection damage and is affected by several factors controllable at the field level. Some are well known, but others are taken for granted in conventional casing running operations and if ignored, reduce the chance of success. Well-known parameters that must be controlled during connection make-up are: Connection cleaning and lubrication; Rotation speed and, Applied torque. The first two parameters are easily satisfied during top drive casing running operations, but control of applied torque is a more complex challenge. Cleaning and lubrication ensure that mating surfaces are free of foreign material and protected from high friction contact that increases the chance of galling. Throttling rotational speed to ensure compliance with manufacturer recommended limits is also necessary to minimize connection damage. Uncertainty in torque applied to casing connections depends on several parameters that interact to define system capabilities. Measurement uncertainty, shown in Figure 3, is typically the most significant challenge. Electric and hydraulic top drives present different challenges that must be managed to ensure accuracy suitable for the intended application.
45

Fig 10.3: Effect of measurement of uncertainty on applied torque

Fig10.4: Combined

effects of measurements and control uncertainty on applied torque.

Both hydraulic and electric top drives have greater rotational inertia than power tongs. Torque required to decelerate rotating components should be considered when quantifying measurement uncertainty. This effect increases with the square of rotational speed and therefore becomes more significant during faster connection make-up. Uncertainty in torque that will be applied to a connection depends on both measurement accuracy and the ability of the control system to stop at a preset torque value. If torque measurement is uncertain, even the best controller cannot arrest make-up at a value that is
46

more certain than the input. As shown in Figure 4, controllers introduce incremental uncertainty that must be considered together with measurement uncertainty in the application context.

10.1.2.3 Solutions for Make-Up Monitoring and Control

Casing connection monitoring and control system selection depends on the intended application. Connections with a wide range of acceptable make-up interference that are used in non-critical applications can usually be made up without special monitoring, recording or control equipment. However, make-up practices must still protect threads from damage that could compromise sealing performance and structural integrity. Many rigs are equipped with electronic drilling recorders that monitor and record many parameters including torque and quill rotational speed. These signals are often filtered heavily to improve readability during drilling operations where average values are more meaningful than instantaneous readings. In addition to slow response time to sudden change, electronic drilling recorders typically record data at a frequency inadequate to characterize premium connection make-up. Detecting connection damage and accurately identifying key events, such as shoulder engagement of premium connection, during make-up are very difficult using equipment intended for recording drilling activity. Signal response time and recording frequency must be considered when evaluating instrumentation suitability for casing connection make-up monitoring. Even when built-in instrumentation is adequate for the application, suitability must be determined for each rig and may change if transducers are damaged or top drive control parameters are modified. Fundamentally, top drive instrumentation and controls are designed for drilling and tool joint make-up which have requirements different from casing connection make-up. Rig instrumentation and controls may perform well for drilling and even some casing connections, but typically fail to deliver the accuracy and precision necessary to run all casing successfully. Fully understanding connection monitoring and control requirements is the key to matching equipment to applications. Failure to manage this aspect of top drive casing running can create downhole liabilities (i.e., poorly made connections) that reduce the value of the well.
47

10.1.3 Pipe Body Damage

Casing material is selected for strength and corrosion resistance to fit the application. Casing system performance requirements include: containing internal pressure resisting external pressure carrying axial loads and, Remaining circular enough to facilitate access to the wellbore. Just as pressure vessel material is treated carefully to preserve the design intent, so must casing material. Care must be taken to complete final assembly (make-up) and installation (lowering into the hole) of the casing system in a manner that enables the material to perform as intended. Gripping the pipe directly avoids thread damage, but die-based casing grips typically penetrate the casing surface and may glob- ally deform the pipe body. Global pipe body deformation is a second potential pipe body damage mechanism. Rigid die-based grips do not conform to the pipe and so cannot distribute radial load perfectly uniformly. However, if die coverage approaches full coverage, as shown in Figure 5, the pipe nearly fully supported and load distribution is much more favorable than for partial coverage dies, as shown in Figure 6. Dies that cover less of the pipe circumference do not support the casing body as well as full coverage dies. Because casing walls are thin, flexural yielding will occur at the edge of die contact (as shown in Figure 6) when bending stresses exceed pipe strength. Consideration must be given to the effect of the resulting non-circular cross-section on the reliability of downhole tools designed to run and set in circular pipe and on collapse resistance of the casing system. Knowledge of the relationship between applied load and pipe body deformation, together with operator sensitivity to out- of-round pipe, provides a basis for evaluating a particular tool for the application at hand.

48

Figure 10.5: Full coverage die

Figure 10.6: Exaggerated illustration of pipe and die contact

Solutions for Pipe Body Damage Tolerance to pipe body damage is driven mainly by operational considerations. The consequence of creating die marks on the in- side of the casing is very low on non-critical wells with low grade casing, but can be severe for critical sour service wells utilizing corrosion resistant alloy casing. When uniform contact pressure is applied over a sufficiently large contact area, radial load magnitude is large enough to transfer torsion and hoisting loads even with relatively low friction coefficients. Modest friction coefficient requirements eliminate the need to indent the pipe surface and so reduce the risk of creating stress cracking initiation sites.

10.1.4 Pipe handling logistics

Conventional pipe handling operations have evolved over many years to improve safety and efficiency of power tong-based casing running. Top drive casing running presents unique pipe handling requirements that must be managed to avoid introducing new rig floor hazards Top drive casing running operations require: Pipe grip engagement Casing thread engagement Casing connection make-up and, Casing string installation in the wellbore. Although these requirements are not unique, failure to address each in the appropriate
49

context, at best, compromises available benefits and, at worst, wrongly discredits new technology. Because improved efficiency is a significant benefit available through top drive casing running, any operation that uses time unnecessarily detracts from potential value. Positioning tasks, such as stabbing the casing thread, that require careful human control with low error tolerance present a common challenge. Because errors have high consequences operators must take the time necessary to perform sensitive tasks without damaging equipment or casing threads. Although casing for most vertical wells is hoisted and lowered into the hole, slant wells frequently require the casing to be pushed into the hole. Slant wells are commonly used in shallow Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) applications to limit curvature required to reach the horizontal section. Rigs are constructed with pull-down capabilities and compressive load must be transferred to the top of the casing string during installation. Pipe grip design must prevent damage to the casing thread and remain securely engaged with the casing string. Solutions for pipe Handling Logistics Running procedures and equipment must address the unique challenges presented by top drive casing running. Top drives are heavy compared to joints of casing and casing threads are delicate compared to drill pipe threads. Isolating the top drive weight from the casing ensures that thread stabbing, bending and side loads are managed effectively. Deploying equipment that protects casing threads from damage during sensitive operations when the threads are most vulnerable improves connection make-up quality.

50

Chapter 11: Well Control

In casing while drilling as there is no need of tripping so the risk associated with losing well control in quite less and we can control well by our conventional methods using the proper drilling mud. So to control a CWD well we have to design mud very effectively. However, one additional aspect of well control is to design casing that is unique to drilling with casing is the matter of casing collapse. One normally would consider that collapse occurs only near the bottom of a casing string, but that may not always be the case when the drilling also is used for drilling. Suppose that, while drilling a well with casing, we experience a gas kick. Now to kill the kick we utilize the same method used in conventional drilling. We mix a kill-weight mud and circulate the gas bubble out, holding enough back pressure on the choke to keep the annular bottom- hole pressure slightly above the formation pressure. But, what do we do when we get kill-weight mud to the bottom of the drill string? We normally stop the pump to be sure that surface drill string pressure goes to zero. Now in casing while drilling our drill string is casing instead of drill pipe, so the internal-volume to annular-volume ratio is quite different than in a conventional scenario. In this case, we likely already have gas to the surface by the time kill-weight mud is at the bottom of the casing string. Is the combined tension and collapse strength of the casing string sufficient in this case? This is something that should be considered in our casing design as at this time casing collapse could be disastrous and well can goes out of control. Casing while drilling affords further flexibility because drill bits and other downhole tools can be efficiently tripped inside the casing by wireline, latched to the bottom-most joint of casing for drilling, and retrieved through the casing when necessary. And since CASING DRILLING allows circulating while the BHA is being run in or retrieved, greater well control is maintained. Some remarks on well control are:

Better control of equivalent circulating density. Overall better well control while drilling. Lower circulating rates and pressure

51

Chapter 12: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

1. It eliminates at least one trip (at casing point). 2. It significantly reduces down hole trouble time, while at the same time eliminating certain practices used for trouble avoidance when drilling 3. Lost circulation and well control incidents have been almost eliminated in the wells drilled with the casing while drilling system. 4. Hidden cost and time in the activities such as making a short trip or unconditioning trip while drilling or running casing , dealing with lost circulation for wells in which it routinely occurs, may be eliminated with the CWD system, when it is considered in use. 5. Casing drilling reduces the risk of losing excess fluid to a low pressure pay section and damaging production so that an uneconomical conventional prospect becomes viable. 6. CWD enable operations where the risk weighted economics are unattractive for a well when drilled conventionally. 7. Incorporating the casing while drilling system into a purpose built rig may further improve the efficiency of the overall drilling process. 8. Rigs designed around the Casing While Drilling system are lighter, faster moving, more energy efficient and better mechanised. 9. Casing drilling eliminates the need to purchase, maintain and haul around drill pipe and drill collar. 10. The rig mast and substructure can be smaller because it is not needed to trip and stand back many thousand feet of pipes. 11. The power system, hoisting system and pumping system can be made significantly smaller because there is little parasitic fluid pressure loss compared to pumping down small diameter drill pipe and there is no requirement for high horsepower to rapidly hoist heavy loads while tripping. 12. The fuel economy is improved, with a 40% fuel reduction compared to conventional rigs drilling similar well. 13. Safety is improved by eliminating most pipe tripping automating the pipe handling process and eliminating many of the hazards associated with the normal casing running process.

52

Disadvantages
1. In case of long Casing While Drilling sections, Casing can be exposed to harder and abrasive formations for extended time which potentially could result in casing wear/damage. 2. Limited dogleg tolerance (depending on casing size) 3. Conventional openhole wireline logging not possible 4. There may be poor penetration rate when encountering very hard dolomitic limestone Stringers.

53

Chapter 13: Plastering Effect: A Qualitative analysis

13.1 Introduction Casing Drilling is a process in which the well is drilled and cased simultaneously. The original purpose of developing this technology was to eliminate the Non-Productive Time (NPT) associated with tripping out drill pipe and running casing. However, during the early implementation of the technology other benefits were observed while drilling with the casing. Among other benefits of CWD, Plastering effect is the most crucial and indeed is an inherent and unique feature of Casing while drilling that strengthens the wellbore, prevents lost circulation, and mitigates formation damage. Plastering Effect augments the pressure containment of the wellbore by smearing the drilling cuttings and available PSD (Particle Size Distribution) into the formation face, hence sealing the pore spaces. This continuous process creates a low porosity, low permeability filter cake on the wellbore wall reducing or preventing losses to the formation and effectively widening the operating mud weight window. In Casing Drilling operations the casing is used to drill the well so the (pipe size/hole size) ratio will be larger than the ratio when conventional drilling pipe is being used. This feature is a significant contributor creating the Plastering Effect. Casing dynamics is qualitatively compared to drill pipe. Pipe contact angle and area, side force and momentum, and grinding effect, are analyzed to help understand how the benefits of the Plastering Effect are created and answer the question of why it happens in Casing Drilling and not in conventional drilling. 13.2 Occurrence of Plastering Effect Several events can account for the occurrence of Plastering Effect and are listed below: 1. Smooth rotation of the casing grinds and pulverizes the cuttings as they travel up in the annulus, explaining the finer-sized cuttings of Casing Drilling. These small-sized cuttings are smeared into the formation face, and immediately create an impermeable filter cake. In conventional drilling, the contact between the drill pipe and the well bore (by banging the pipe to the wall) is not smooth one: it doesnt have any order,

54

scrapes the mud cake off the wall, damages the drill pipe.

Fig 13.1 Wellbore stability improvement by casing drilling as compared to conventional drilling. 2. The higher ECD of Casing Drilling works effectively by initiating small fractures that are readily plugged by the plastering effect. 3. When drilling through a porous and permeable zone like depleted sands, a very common Casing Drilling application, the drilled sand grains are consistent in size. A layer of sand becomes deposited on the wall as some of the drilling fluid flows into the formation, but a single layer of uniform grains of sand is extremely permeable. Because the grains are the same diameter as the grains in the formation, the wellbore will behave as though there is no filter cake. Fluid continues to flow into the formation and additional layers of sand grains are deposited until the rate of deposition equals the rate of erosion. To make this filter cake less permeable, variety of grain sizes are required. The smaller grains nest in the spaces between the larger grains. Even smaller grains can nest into the pores between the small grains. The pulverized cuttings generated by Casing Drilling can play the role of mentioned grains to plug the free spaces of the filter cake that is much less permeable. 4. The eccentricity of the motion of the casing drilling helps by giving a continuous and smooth contact between the wellbore and drill string allowing the cuttings to be smeared throughout the wellbore.

55

Fig 13.2: The annulus is smaller in casing Drilling in comparison to conventional drilling

13.3 Mechanism With Casing Drilling, the casing movement creates interaction with the formation that positively effects how the well is drilled. Casing works as a mechanical tool to plaster the cuttings into the formation face and further harden it by physical contact. It is also possible that the small annulus and pipe rotation creates a powerful centrifugal force that helps distribute the cuttings and seal the pore spaces. The criterion used in this study to evaluate the annulus geometry is the (Casing OD/Hole size ratio). In this study, the authors take a closer look at the above ratio to analyze the reasons for the obvious benefits using physical and geometrical parameters. This will lead us to why Plastering Effect happens in Casing Drilling and not in conventional drilling. Plastering Effect requires a unique combination of high annular velocity, pipe rotation and casing proximity to the borehole to pulverize and smear drill cuttings against the formation, creating a less porous less permeable wall cake.

56

The Plastering effect is shown through following diagrams:

Fig 13.3: Casing is forced against the bore wall as it advances into the borehole.

Fig 13.4: As mud is smeared into the formation, filter cake builds up on the bore hole wall

Fig 13.5 : Filter cake and cuttings are plastered against the borehole wall, sealing porous formations

57

The following table shows the summary of the (Casing OD/Hole size) for the various successful cases where the Plastering effect is observed. Analyzing the data, it can be concluded that Plastering Effect has been most effective when the Casing OD/Hole size is in the range of 0.75 up to 0.9. This point should be considered while planning the well and determining the casing sizes. It seems that the 0.8 ratio is a reasonable number to consider. If the ratio is lower than 0.75 probably the casing contact is not enough to create the Plastering Effect. The upper limit of this ratio can be determined by the operational capability to avoid the extreme ECD, torque, drag, etc. Case Study Fontenot Lopez Dawson Gallardo 7 13 3/8 20 9 5/8 18 5/8 Beaumont 13 3/8 9 5/8 Watts 7 5/8 7 7 5/8 Sanchez 13 3/8 18 5/8 Rosenberg Torsvoll 8 8 12 Kunning 10 5/8 Casing Size, inch 7 8 17 24 12 22 17 12 9 7/8 8 8 7/8 17 22 7 7 9 5/8 9 5/8 Hole diameter, inch 8 7/8 0.80 0.76 0.83 0.79 0.85 0.76 0.79 0.77 0.82 0.86 0.76 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.91 Ratio 0.79

Table 13.1: Summary of the successful Plastering effect applications

58

13.4 Casing Drilling Pipe geometry The large diameter of the casing is the primary drive for the Plastering Effect of Casing Drilling. Figure below shows the comparison between the pipe size in Casing Drilling and conventional drilling.

Fig 13.6 : Wellbore cross section, comparison between Casing Drilling (right) and conventional drilling (left) R: Diameter of the hole R: Diameter of the drill pipe R: Diameter of the casing : Contact angle of the pipe with the wellbore A: Contact area of the pipe with the wellbore Z: Distance travelled from centre before touching the wellbore

Looking at the schematic the following can be stated : R2/R1 < R3/R1 A1 < A2 Z1>Z2
1 >2

59

13.5 Various Conditions for Plastering

1 >2,

= Contact angle of the pipe with the wellbore

In order for the Plastering Effect to occur, the contact of the pipe with the wellbore should be smooth so that it wont damage the mud cake by cutting through it. This depends on the angle by which the pipe contacts the wellbore wall. In an ideal case, the angle of attack is very close to zero, but in down-hole conditions and considering that the wellbore is not perfectly Circular, the contact angle will be more than zero. As shown in figure, the smaller the diameter of the pipe, the larger the contact angle. This allows the casing to slide more smoothly on the wellbore compressing the filter cake and as a result compacting the rock more effectively.

Fig 13.7 : Contact angle comparison between Casing Drilling (right) and Conventional drilling (left) A1 < A2, A= Contact area of the pipe with the wellbore Plastering happens at the contact area of the pipe with the wellbore, thus the larger the contact area the better. However, there is an operational limit to this fact. As it can be seen in Figure the larger contact area of Casing Drilling helps the Plastering Effect take place faster and more effectively.

Fig 13.8 : Contact area comparison between Casing Drilling (right) and conventional drilling (left).

60

V1>V2, V= Linear speed of the pipe before hitting the wellbore wall In order for Plastering Effect to take place, the pipe should rub on the wellbore wall smoothly. If the speed of the pipe is high before contacting the wellbore, it will damage the mud cake since it will transfer its momentum forcefully at the contact area. Assuming that the rotation rate is the same for both cases and the only difference to be pipe size, it can be concluded that in Casing Drilling the pipe will have a lower speed before hitting the wellbore wall, therefore being less probable to damage the mud cake.

Z1>Z2, Z = Distance travelled from the center The pipe would have to travel a greater distance before hitting the wellbore simply because its smaller. This larger distance takes more time to travel, giving the pipe the opportunity to acquire speed and hit the wellbore wall forcefully. However, when casing is used as the pipe it will smoothly rub and slide on the filter cake without damaging it.

d1> d2, d = Penetration depth into the filter cake In conventional drilling, the pipe penetrates a larger distance into the filter cake as shown in figure. This happens because generally the smaller the pipe the larger the side force and the smaller the area where the force is applied. This makes the pipe contact with the wellbore more damaging to the mud cake.

Fig 13.9 : Penetration depth into the filter cake, comparison between Casing drilling (right) and conventional drilling (left).

61

The greater penetration depth increases the probability of stuck pipe in conventional drilling as opposed to Casing Drilling. This may look in contrast with the differential sticking force equation based on which it is believed that the casing is more probable to stick to the wellbore due to having a larger contact area. F = A. P.f F= Differential sticking force A= Contact area P= Differential pressure f= Friction factor However, it should be ignored that P is smaller for Casing drilling due to high quality of the filter cake and consequently the sticking force will be lower. Moreover the casing is continuously rubbing and sliding on the wellbore so it is less probable to stick at one point in comparison to the erratic fast movements of the pipe in conventional drilling.

62

13.6 Particle Size Distribution The particle-size distribution (PSD) of a powder, or granular material, or particles dispersed in fluid, is a list of values or a mathematical function that defines the relative amount, typically by mass, of particles present according to size.PSD is also known as grain size distribution. The PSD analysis determined that the smaller size and wide range of Casing Drilling cuttings make it possible for these particles to readily adhere to the wellbore; this helps seal the pore spaces of the formation and prevent further solids and filtrate invasion. Pore throats can most effectively be plugged when the cuttings are in the proper micron size range as any possible gap between the mud and cuttings PSD can be covered by adding minimal amounts of properly sized lost circulation materials. Casing Drilling has proven to be a unique approach in mitigating formation damage due to the drilling process. One case study confirms that reservoir sections drilled with casing show enhanced productivity as much as twice the wells drilled conventionally. The Plastering Effect, as an inherent benefit of Casing Drilling, keeps the producing formation as intact as possible and reduces formation damage. 13.7 Significance The PSD of a material can be important in understanding its physical and chemical properties. It affects the strength and load-bearing properties of rocks and drill cuttings. It affects the reactivity of mud participating in chemical reactions, and needs to be tightly controlled in many down hole phenomena. Casing while drilling (CWD) has been demonstrated to stop or significantly reduce lost circulation and improve wellbore strength if a proper particle size distribution(PSD) is selected. If wellbore strengthening can be systematically achieved, then wells can be drilled in known loss areas without contingency strings of casing. In addition, wells drilled in mature fields, where producing horizons have altered pressures either from depletion or pressure maintenance, can be drilled with fewer casing strings. Sidetracks become economical because hole size can be preserved for an effective completion and well costs are lowered by not using additional liners to reach the objective. Several case studies have concluded that particulate lost circulation material (LCM) effectively prevents fluid loss to the formation. With Casing Drilling it is possible to drill through low pressure permeable formations with reduced mud loss and minimized usage of
63

particulate LCM. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that finer-sized cuttings of Casing Drilling perform as the particulate LCM required in conventional drilling. This idea will be tested in the experiments discussed in this study which compares the plugging ability of Casing Drilling mud systems to that of conventional drilling. This study assumes that the basic difference between the two is the size of entrained drilled solids. 13.8 Permeable Plugging Test Based on the data, alloxite disk of 20 m pore throat size was selected considering the medium-cutting mud sample to run the Permeable Plugging Test (PPT). It is a common practice to use disks with permeabilities 2-3 times greater than the formation of interest. The result is greater assurance that the drilling fluid has the ability to affect a seal across the formation. The test pressure was selected to be 2000 psi and temperature was 300 F.

Fig 13.10 : Typical PPT value comparison for mud sample Pressure range of 2500 to 4000 psi can be applied to the cell utilizing a hydraulic pump which pumps oil to the cell through a float. Fluid pressure is exerted on the alloxite plate on the opposite end of the cell (bottom). Mud and/or filtrate is collected and measured from a reservoir behind the disk at the top of the cell. PPT values are then used to determine the sealing capability of the drilling fluid. . The lower the spurt and total filtrate values, the better the sealing ability.

64

13.9 Conclusion derived from Permeable Plugging Test Comparison of the PPT value of the mud samples shows that the medium cutting mud sample has the lowest value. This PPT results show that the medium cutting mud with the D50 value of 21 microns has the best ability to seal the pore throat diameter of the 20 micron disk. The particles of fine-sized cutting mud could not plug the porous media because of the smaller average size (12 microns) than the pore throats of the disk (20 microns). The coarse-sized cutting mud also could not seal the pore throats because of the large average size of its particles (28 microns) with regards to pore throat size of the disk (20 microns). In this case, the fluid can still pass the cuttings and travel through the pores because the pore throat is not plugged, but simply covered with large particles. Based on the results of the PPT cuttings can actually be used as lost circulation material to plug the porous interface between the wellbore and the formation. Provided that the PSD of the cutting is in proper range, it will be able to plug the pore throats and fractures. This can happen with Casing Drilling since finer cuttings are produced through the grinding effect of the casing and cuttings as they travel up the wellbore. With the help of PSD information, we can predict the size of particles that are being plastered at a particular depth. With this knowledge, loss circulation mitigation can be pre-planned accurately, which could result in decrease in losses.

65

Chapter 14: Prediction of Particle Size Distribution in CWD

14.1 Principle Involved The motion drilled cuttings rising up in the annulus is governed by majorly two forces: Centrifugal force and Drag force. The path followed by it depends upon the equilibrium conditions of the two forces. 14.2 Our Proposed Model 14.2.1 Assumptions: For simplicity, the shape of drill cuttings is assumed to be spherical, with a uniform
2 . The diameter . The area A projected by the cutting is therefore equal to 4

distance of drilled cutting from the center of wellbore is R.

This system can be considered analogous to a vertical centrifuge. The mud & cuttings mixture enters at the lowest point of the casing. If a particle reaches the bore wall it is considered plastered. The settled solid particles and the cleared mud move countercurrent with respect to each other.

The settled particles and the drilling fluid are continuously removed from system due to circulation.

The particles are assumed to settle independently of each other. Each element of the system remains in the annulus for a time equal to the residence time. Hence, the residence time is the time available for the particles to settle.

All the particles that have not reached the wellbore wall within the residence time will exit with the drilling fluid.

66

14.2.2 Figure: Consider a CWD process in a section of height h. The radius of the wellbore is 2 and the volumetric rate q. As the casing rotates at angular speed , the heavier particle in returning mud and/or drilled cuttings are forced outwards to the wellbore walls as shown in figure 1. Various forces acting on the solid particles are also indicated in the figure 1.

radius of casing is 1 . The mud flows through the annulus between casing and wellbore at a

Fig 14.1 : Forces acting on a drilled cutting in a section of annulus

67

Fig 14.2 : Spiral motion of the drilled cuttings as they rise up in annulus 14.2.3 Derivation: 1st approach: For large Reynolds Number As observed, 2 major forces act laterally, they are: Drag Force and Centrifugal Force. 1. The drag force, , due to friction, given by :

Where,

= drilling mud density

= drag (or friction) coefficient (value between 0.1 1.0)

.... Eq. 1

= =

2. The centrifugal force, , due to angular acceleration, given by :

( )

= drilled cutting velocity towards wellbore (horizontal direction)

.... Eq. 2

68

Where, = drilled cutting density

At equilibrium conditions, the sum of forces on the cutting must be equal to zero. Therefore, the two forces and , acting in opposite directions must be equal in magnitude. So;

=
Or,

.... Eq. 3

( )

( )

.... Eq. 4

.... Eq. 5

The velocity of cutting in horizontal direction would be the rate of change of its distance from center of the wellbore, therefore, = . Hence,

( )

.... Eq. 6
.

=
.

( ) ( )

.... Eq. 7

After Integrating and putting the upper and lower limits of 2 and 1 respectively, we get,

.... Eq. 8

. .

. .

( ) .

( )

. .

.... Eq. 9

.... Eq. 10

( )

.... Eq. 11

69

Thist is the residence time of the returning mud inside the section of length h. It is also given by: = .... Eq. 12

( )

Therefore, equating both the equations, we get,

( )

.... Eq. 13

Rearranging to get the volumetric flow rate of returning mud,

Solving for cutting diameter , we get,

.

( ) .

...... Eq. 14

( )

.... Eq. 15

( )

.... Eq. 16

2nd approach (Stokes Region): For small Reynolds Number 1. The viscous(Stokes Law) drag force, , given by :
70

 =
Where,

....... Eq. 17

= drilling mud density

= drag (or friction) coefficient (value between 0.1 1.0)

= = =
Or,

2. The centrifugal force, , due to angular acceleration, given by :

( ) .

= terminal drilled cutting velocity in gravitational field

...... Eq. 18

....... Eq. 19

= =

( )

( )

...... Eq. 20

The velocity of cutting in horizontal direction would be the rate of change of its distance from center of the wellbore, therefore, = . Hence,

....... Eq. 21

= =

( ) ( )

....... Eq. 22

....... Eq. 23

( )

After Integrating and putting the upper and lower limits of 2 and 1 respectively, we get,

....... Eq. 24

( )

....... Eq. 25

71

( )

....... Eq. 26

This t is the residence time of the returning mud inside the section of length h. It is also given by: = ....... Eq. 27

( )

Therefore, equating both the equations, we get,

( )

....... Eq. 28

Rearranging to get the volumetric flow rate of returning mud,

Solving for cuttings diameter , we get,

( ) ( )

...... Eq. 29

) ( )

( )

...... Eq. 30

...... Eq. 31

72

14.3 Some details: 1. Due to centrifugal force, particle will tend to move radially outwards (towards wellbore wall). But, the drilling fluid would be having its own rheology (density, viscosity, etc) which would oppose particle's outward motion. 2. This resistive force (acting in horizontal direction) is the drag force mentioned in the document, NOT the one acting along casing due to casing mud interaction. 3. The hydraulic power applied to the mud is the reason of the flow rate in annulus (q), forcing particles to rise up. 4. At equilibrium, both forces equalize, hence, particle moves with constant velocity and move spirally (due to outward centrifugal force + hydraulic power of mud acting up) as it rises up in annulus and finally gets settled at well-bore. (Figure 2) 5. Only particles having a diameter larger than a certain critical diameter ( ) will be able to cover this distance during the time interval t. 6. Particles larger than will settle during t, particles smaller than will not. 14.4 Observations: 1. The drilling particles will follow a spiral path: vertical, due to velocity and circular, due to centrifugal force. 2. The effect of gravity is observed. Notice that, larger sized particles (larger weight) settle at higher depths, whereas light particles are rising up and settling at comparatively large heights.

73

Chapter 15: Simulated Results

The following is an explanation of how the particles of particularly drill cutting ones drilled are distributed all along the well bore. Which ones contribute most in plastering effect? And which ones come out of the well bore?

R1= radius of casing or (drill pipe in conventional drilling case) R2=radius of wellbore

Table 15.1: Calculated diameter and residence time Well drilled with CwD (R1=0.318in Conventional well (R1=0.208in and and R2=0.37in) Distance from Bit ft 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 10240 Diameter of Residence time R2=0.833in) Diameter of Residence time

plastering Solids m 3328.554669 2353.643578 1664.277335 1176.821789 832.1386673 588.4108945 416.0693336 294.2054473 208.0346668 147.1027236 104.0173334 73.55136182 Seconds 0.900805673 1.801612868 3.603222693 7.206451473 14.41289077 28.82580589 57.65156308 115.3032236 230.6062523 461.2128943 922.4250093 1844.851577

plastering solids m 2362.463 1670.514 1181.232 835.2569 590.6158 417.6284 295.3079 208.8142 147.6539 104.4071 73.82697 52.20355 Seconds 16.38212 32.76424 65.52848 131.057 262.1139 524.2278 1048.456 2096.911 4193.822 8387.645 16775.29 33550.58

74

The table represents the calculated data using the devised analogy of diameter of drill cuttings. 1. Clearly from the data it can be inferred that diameter of drill cuttings in both CwD and conventional drilling cases are not much different, The difference comes in picture, when the residence time of those cuttings is calculated (Residence time ,also known as removal time, is the average amount of time that a particle spends in a particular system). 2. Considering CwD drilled well, at a distance of 5 feet from the bit, the 3328.55m diameter drill cutting is most likely to be the particle causing the plastering effect(i.e the largest diameter size particles are most likely deposited along the wellbore first). 3. As the distance from the bit increases the drill cutting diameter decreases and they layer over the previous larger size diameter cuttings thus creating a perfect thick mud cake or Plaster hence called Plastering effect. 4. Larger size particles, nearer to the drill bit, with an infinitesimal residence time get deposited on the wellbore followed with smaller size particles, which have a higher residence time and hence are deposited at a distance from the drill bit increases. 5. When compared to conventional drilling, it can be inferred that owing to the large annular volume, the drill cuttings have a long residence time, hence most of the drill cuttings get removed from the system and only a small amount of them take effect in making of mud cake, and hence conventional drilling has a much thinner and weaker mud cake as compared to CwD.

Prediction of required Diameter particles at Known Depth: 1. The devised analogy can be used to calculate diameters of particles in a precise range that could prove useful in modifying LCM and hence, in planning CwD in fields with previously known loss circulation zones. 2. If the depth range of the Lost circulation zone is known, along with its distance from drill bit which has been driven ahead along with a few wellbore parameters, then the diameters of the cuttings that are most plausible for causing Plastering effect in that depth zone can be calculated, and more synthetic particles in that diameter range could be added in the LCM to curb the thus occurring Lost circulation.

75

The basic importance of the model is to predict PSD. This PSD result is helpful in explaining some phenomenon taking place bottomhole and in laboratory experiments.These are: 1. If we correlate the results of the model to the actual drilling process it can be concluded that the small size of Casing Drilling cuttings with respect to conventional drilling cuttings make it possible for them to adhere to the wellbore readily, helping to seal the pore spaces of the formation. 2. Casing Drilling cuttings in certain size ranges can effectively plug the pore spaces most effectively. 3. The medium sized grains have better sealing capability and hence show good plastering, thats why fined grain particles cannot enter the pore throat and recovered at surface preventing mud loss and formation damage. 4. For the purpose of sealing pore spaces, the particle size distribution should be evaluated on the basis of the sieve sizes of the cuttings from shale shakers and the particles in the mud after the shale shakers. This is where this model comes handy in predicting them. 5. When large solid particles are added to the mud, the particle size distribution in the system is dominated by the particle size distribution in the mud, not the cuttings nor the lost circulation materials added to the system. 6. The particle size distribution of the mud should be continuously monitored while drilling depleted reservoirs to make sure that the Plastering Effect is most effective.

Figure 15.1: Typical relative sizes of cuttings and their distribution

76

Figure 15.2: Typical Simulated results depicting particles sizes deposited at different depths

77

Chapter 16: Case study-Piceance well

16.1 Piceance Creek Directional CWD The Piceance Basin is a geologic structural basin in northwestern Colorado, in the United States. It includes geologic formations from Cambrian to Holocene in age, but the thickest section is made up of rocks from the Cretaceous Period. The basin contains reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil shale. The Piceance Creek wells are all S shaped directional wells with the requirement for a vertical entry into the Williams Fork formation. The pay interval is approximately 2,000 feet thick and a vertical well bore through the pay is required for both fracture stimulation and wellbore spacing. A typical wellbore is shown in Figure 1. The 9.625 inch surface casing is set at about 2000 with a parasite string run on the outside of the 9.625 inch to +/- 1700 feet. Directional tools are required in this section to build angle as high as 20 degrees.

Fig 16.1 : Typical Piceance well Fig 16.2 : Directional CWD BHA
78

Two attempts were made to use 9.625 inch directional CwD tools to gain returns in this section with the smear effect. Both attempts at drilling with the 9.625 inch casing did not stop the losses so further attempts at CwD in this section were not done. In addition, CwD eliminated the ability to run a parasite string. At this point in the project the decision was made to keep the benefit of the parasite string in case the smear effect did not work in the remaining hole sections. Piceance Particle size distribution in the drilling fluid 2 to 2.5 ppb equal portions medium nut shells, fine nut shells and 250 micron (median) calcium carbonate Casing Rotary Speed Distance from bit to the loss zone Casing clearance with the wellbore wall 75 rpm 67 feet Flush joint 7.625 inch in a 8.875 inch hole 0.0625 inch radial clearance Time Pipe Stiffness Drilled with drill pipe first or all drilled with casing Annular Velocity Stabilization on casing Natural vs. Created fractures Threaded and Coupled connections vs. flush joint connections Formation type shale, sand, chalk, coal Hole Angle Table 16.1 Piceance Well Data The 9.625 inch 40 ppf casing was set at 3,365 feet measured depth (MD) (2,416 feet total vertical depth (TVD)) as planned with hole angle built to the planned tangent angle of 67 degrees. Upon drill out an FIT was performed to 16.0 ppg EMW. Drilling continued to 3,675 feet exposing the weak sand. An open hole LOT was done with 9.6 ppg mud, the result being a 13.1 ppg EMW (Figure 16.3). The conventional BHA was tripped out and replaced with 15 jts (612 feet) of 7.0 inch 26 ppf casing with a bit on the bottom. Upon reaching bottom with
79

1-2 Hours 7.625 inch 84.9 inch Pilot hole drilled with normal BHA followed immediately by casing 280 feet per minute 8.75 inch spiral bladed Natural Flush joint connections

Shale 22 degrees

this casing while drilling assembly, a second LOT was performed, with the result being slightly below 12.9 ppg EMW. The mud weight had increased slightly to 9.7 ppg. Then 136 feet of new hole was drilled with casing to a depth of 3,811 feet at 40 rpm and another LOT was done, the result being a 13.0 ppg EMW (Figure 16.4).

Figure 16.3: LOT at 9.625 inch shoe and first test after CwD at 3811 Another stand was drilled down to a depth of 3,906 feet, this time with 60 rpm, and another LOT performed (Figure 16.5). A slight decrease in well bore strength had been achieved (12.8 ppg EMW), but there was a building trend in pressure after the initial breakdown. The next 90 feet was drilled to 4,000 feet, again at 60 rpm. However, midway through this stand the Piceance mix of lost circulation material (1/3 coarse nut shells, 1/3 fine nut shells, and 1/3 250 micron (median) calcium carbonate) was started into the mud at a rate of 6 sacks per hour of each product, the resulting concentration being only 1.4 ppb total in the system. Once this stand was drilled down another LOT was done. Now, with the addition of the lost circulation material, a significant improvement in well bore strength was measured. Pumping stopped with out losses when the EMW at the surface casing shoe reached that of the formation integrity test done when the surface casing shoe had been drilled out. This test showed the well bore could withstand a 15.7 ppg EMW, when calculated at the total vertical depth drilled (Figure 16.5).

80

Figure 16.4: LOT after CwD with 60 rpm and a LOT after CwD with 60 rpm and adding LCM for last half of the stand 16.2 Particle Size Distribution Discussion The basis for the particle size design of this application was to provide an LCM which would mix with the cuttings being generated to form a pack of solids in near wellbore fractures and which would be then be sealed by the drilling fluid, forming an effective pressure seal against further losses. While this resulted in a wide particle size distribution of LCM between 100 and 2000 microns, other CwD applications may require a different particle size distribution depending on the size of the drill cuttings, fracture morphology, and mud system. A wide particle size distribution is not necessarily needed for wellbore strengthening and in some cases may be less effective. The optimized particle size distribution was oriented towards the coarser particles.

Figure 16.5: LOT after CwD with 80 rpm

81

16.3 Conclusions pertaining to discussed case study 1. The consideration of the smear effect as a method to strengthen a wellbore has allowed a structured approach for evaluating the key variables leading to that strengthening. 2. Wellbore strengthening with CwD has been achieved by filling in the particle size distribution from 100 microns to 2000 microns. Other CwD applications may require a different particle size distribution. 3. A 4.5 ppg EMW improvement in well bore strength was observed. 4. Improvements have not been as great when the ratio of casing diameter to hole diameter is below a 0.80. 5. When the ratio of casing diameter to hole diameter is above a 0.80, the improvements in wellbore strength have occurred in drilling 40 to 45 feet. 6. Stablizers and casing connections have not been found to influence the strengthening results. 7. A 2.0 ppb concentration of LCM has been effective in increasing well bore strength. 8. Strengthening can be achieved even if the wellbore was first drilled with conventional BHAs and drill pipe. 9. Strengthening can be achieved even if loss rates of over 200 bph have been experienced and large volumes, over 500 bbls, have been lost to the weak formation. 10. Natural fractures as well as fractures induced in leak off tests can be plugged.

16.4 Results from the model We compared the result of conventional drilling with Casing while drilling for two different RPM in the same well of Piceance basin. The comparative results have been shown in the following figures:

82

Figure 16.6: Case of Conventional drilling with 60 rpm

Figure 16.7: Case of Conventional drilling with 60 rpm

83

Figure 16.8: Case of CwD with 80 rpm

Figure 16.9: Case of Conventional drilling with 80 rpm 84

Chapter 17: Field Application of CwD

Casing drilling technology is today being evaluated as an economical alternative to conventional drilling that eliminates the process of retrieving a drill pipe. With the emerging technology of casing drilling, casing connections were designed to meet the different types of loads that this type of drilling requires. As the wells using this technology become more critical with higher pressures and higher temperatures, the connections will have to be improved. As the wells using this technology become more critical with higher pressures and higher temperatures, the connections will have to be improved. This combined methodology simulates the unique downhole conditions, including high pressure/high temperature, in a casing drilling environment. Casing Drilling is introduced as a potential alternative method for drilling HPHT wells. IN HPHT wells, drilling mud undergoes high temperature and pressure owing to the long trip time causing deterioration of mud properties and variations in mud density. However, continuous circulation and high annular velocities, developed by casing drilling, reduce the exposure time between the drilling mud and the HPHT reservoir. Also, smaller annulus leading to higher annualr velocity results in less dynamic and static barite sag. Casing Drilling can eliminate the difficulty of mud removal and high ECDs resulting from the high depths The annular volumes are reduced and as a result the annular velocities are increased. This means that drilled cuttings come to surface in less time. This is also a concern during well control events. Crews trained to handle these events and who have experienced these events is better equipped to handle them. The majority of the casing is larger and weighs more than traditional drill pipe. The crew should be competent to handle casing at the same frequency as drill pipe.

The casing drilling techniques was employed in The Rabi-Kounga field is located onshore Gabon, West Africa. The main drilling hazards associated with the top-hole in the Rabi field are surface instability; associated losses and hard carbonate (dolomite) sequences. Surface instability is caused by unconsolidated sands being washed away. The PDC-drillable Casing Drilling Bit was identified as the only viable casing bit tough enough to efficiently penetrate the demanding lithology. Casing drilling technology was utilized to solve drilling challenges
85

in this problematic application by minimizing unscheduled events and eliminate cumbersome BHA handling operations. Penetration rates were achieved higher than those achieved with conventional drilling techniques (8 m/hr against 7.96 m/hr earlier). The durability of the casing drilling bit has enabled the required casing setting depths through hard dolomite formations to be achieved. The following are the performance summaries from the 50 runs to date:

HSE incidents on all CWD runs: Zero Successful runs with casing shoe set at least minimum depth: 49/50 runs Successful drill-out of bit: 49/49 Successful cementation of CWD shoe: 48/49 Average rum length: 172m Average penetration rate: 6.75m Average time to drill and case 1 joint of casing: 56 mins Wells drilled with full returns: 48% Wells drilled with partial losses: 15% Incidents of the casing string parting whist drilling: Zero

Running and retrieving wire line logging and testing equipment may be easier and faster with Casing Drilling which protects such highly expensive tools from wear and sticking problems in deep sections in HPHT wells whose sizes are usually small. In case of a stuck pipe situation in Casing Drilling, that is quite rare, the BHA can be retrieved and casing cemented in places; drilling can be resumed with the following casing string instead of abandonment or a need for a sidetrack. To increase the probability of success when using Casing Drilling, the following points should be taken into consideration: 1. Casing Drilling can provide a better dynamic ECD control against deep HPHT hazards especially whether combined with MPD techniques. 2. New mud systems developed for HPHT wells should consider the Casing Drilling technology to present better wellbore strengthening. 3. Flow rates must be optimized because high flow rates reduces cutting load in annulus and low flow rate reduces friction in annulus. 4. Buckling may be a potential problem that must be taken into account, especially in the centralization program.
86

5. Casing Drilling accessories like the crimper and centralizer must be redesigned to operate well with the presence of H2S. 6. Casing Drive System ability to work in the great depths should be tested. 7. The last stand of Casing should be made of nonmagnetic material not to affect the calibrations of the logging tools.

Casing drilling is becoming more accepted in the oilfield industry. As a result, opportunities are being explored for casing drilling to be used in more stringent well conditions. Testing has been developed to incorporate aspects of both drill pipe and casing testing to replicate casing drilling applications under severe service conditions. Below are discussed some examples of its application in varied conditions of fields globally.

17.1 Casing Drilling Technology( UDC 622.273.5:622.245.1):o The CDS in its current state of development is well suited for drilling softer formations with casing sizes of 7 or larger. o Casing Drilling system has been used in more than 500 well intervals to drill more than 460 000 meters with casing since it was introduced in 1999. o Casing Drilling and ERD wells:-Casing drilling has proven benefits for certain classes of wells. To date, most of these wells have low deviations. Therefore, low torques and loads are generated during the casing drilling process. It is considered that this approach is unlikely to work for large ERD (Extended Reach Drilling) wells. However, it is quite possible that provided good directional control is achievable, casing drilling would be beneficial for limited step-out, shallow ERD wells (Mason et al., 2003).

17.2 Drilling Salt Dome Field( ex on south Louisiana , 2 CWD wells delivered a 25 % savings on average offset cost; SPE 105773 MS) o Recent conventional wells drilled around the Chachaloula Salt Dome field in South Louisiana have been drilled directionally from central pads due to wet land environmental issues. o Two wells were drilled with Casing while Drilling(CWD) technology in mid2005 to depths similar to conventionally drilled offset wells. Both wells successfully reached the target formations. The second well delivered a 25% savings based on the average offset cost.
87

o The CWD wells utilized rotary steerable directional technology for deviation control through the steeply dipping beds. Operations conducted through the casing drill string included a plug-back and side-track and two fishing operations for failed down hole tools. These operations were performed without tripping the casing out, thus showing the versatility of the CWD technology.

17.3 Permafrost Drilling (Canadian Arctic Permafrost Application) SPE111806-MS o Canadas Mackenzie Delta region is characterized by a permafrost section up to 2,000 ft. (609 m) thick. This shallow permafrost section is dominated by unconsolidated silt with freshwater ice ranging from 60% volume to pure ice layers. Mechanical heat input has melted the frozen layer, resulting in increased hydrates/shallow gas risks, extreme hole enlargement/cleaning problems, rig support issues, wellbore instability, stuck pipe, hydraulic isolation, and environmental impact issues. o Lessons Learned: - CWD helped with hole cleaning in the surface and intermediate sections and also reduced the flat times associated in drilling theses intervals compared with the plan and the offset wells o Through the use of high-capacity mud cooling and CWD with a PDC casing bit system, the ability to extend the surface casing setting depth significantly below the base of the permafrost without risk of permafrost thaw has been demonstrated.

17.4 Managed Pressure Casing Drilling (MPCD)(Charles R Rick Stone, George H Medley, Patrick BB Reynolds, SIGNA ENGINEERING CORP) o It may be effective for drilling through conventional methods that are not practical or have previously failed. Can eliminate intermediate casing string. o In MPD, the driller seeks to stay slightly above or at-balance to the down hole pore pressure, or as close to near-balance as possible during the entire section of problem hole, both when drilling and during connections. Precise control of down hole pressure allows the driller to drill within the window between PP and fracture gradient (FG) without setting casing prematurely or damaging the formation with excessive mud weight. o Conventional casing drilling technology may eliminate trips to run casing, but many of the conventional drilling problems still remain, and in fact may become aggravated.
88

o The MPCD blend combines the most powerful and efficient aspects of MPD and casing drilling to reduce weaknesses the techniques sometimes exhibit when used independently. The reduced annulus of casing drilling allows the mud density to be decreased such that a greater range of control in the open hole is attributed to other MPD parameters.

89

Chapter 18: Inferences

Based on literature study, it has been observed that Drilling with Casing is increasingly accepted as a practical method of reducing drilling costs and solving drilling problems through the removal of NPT and drill pipe requirement and problem elimination. Drilling with Casing system is identical to the conventional drilling system and is extremely reliable when proper engineering applications is carried out prior to the operation. Conventional oilfield tubulars and connections can withstand the torsional and compressive loads required while drilling with casing if drilling parameters are controlled and hole sizes are kept to minimum. The Drilling with Casing process can be used successfully but may not be costeffective in all situations. It is probably better suited to softer formations and larger casing sizes. As use of the Drilling with Casing system increases, experience and equipment refinements will allow the technology to have broader applications, and it promises to impact a greater variety of drilling operations. And based on our proposed model, it can be concluded that: 1. This model is helpful in predicting the Particle Size Distribution (PSD) on wellbore wall 2. This prediction could help in improving the operating parameters during CWD to get the desired result. 3. If we can study and model how the particles are plugged and effect of PSD, we can even get idea of "Loss rate" and "Cure rate" while drilling in troublesome formation, which could prove helpful.

90

Chapter 19: Further Scope

o Only centrifugal force was considered in the model. Other forces acting downhole can also be considered for better result. o The casing side load occurring due to differential sticking or seldom occurring wobbling forces which too are responsible for plastering effect but have not been considered due to complications in their quantification. o Stoke's Law is applicable only in conditions of very low Reynold's number (stationary fluid, laminar flow). However, the Reynold's number in annulus is found to be very large, hence Stokes drag force usage can be questioned.

91

References
Paper in a Journal

1. B. Askew, A. Phillips, SPE and J.H. Wingate, SPE, Baker Hughes Incorporated: Surface Hole Casing While DrillingA Review of Five Years Experience in Gabon, West Africa, SPE/IADC 140133. 2. P. M. Morcos, Suez Canal University : Casing while drilling and its implementation in drilling offshore wells in Egypt , OMC 2011. 3. Greg Galloway, Weatherford International: Rotary Drilling with Casing A field proven method of reducing wellbore construction cost, WOCD-0306-02. 4. S. F. Shepard, SPE, and R. H. Reiley, SPE, BP, and T. M. Warren, SPE, Tesco Corp.: Casing Drilling: An Emerging Technology, IADC/SPE 67731. 5. Michael Kardos, Drilling With Casing gains industry Acceptance, The American Oil and Gas Reporter, April 2008 6. M. M.Hossain, King Saud University, M. M. Amro, King Saud University, Prospects of Casing While Drilling and the Factors to be Considered During Drilling operations in Arabian Region, IADC/ SPE 87987, September, 2004. 7. Fontenot, K., Strickler, R. and Molina, P.: Improved Wellbore Stability Achieved with Casing Drilling Operations through Drilling Fluids Smear Effect, paper WOCWD0431-04 presented at the World Oil 2004 Casing while Drilling Technical Conference, Houston, March 30-31. 8. Ravi, K.M., Beirute, R.M. and Covington, R.L.: Improve Primary Cementing by Continuous Monitoring of Circulatable Hole, paper SPE 26574 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 3-6. 9. Strickler, D. Robert, Solano Pablo,: Cementing Considerations for Casing While Drilling: Case History, paper SPE 105413 presented at 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 20-22. 10. Jae H. Song, Halliburton, and Juan C. Rojas, BP : Preventing Mud Losses by Wellbore Strengthening, SPE 101593. 11. Moji Karimi, Ali Ghalambor, Monty Montgomery, Eric Moellendick : Formation Damage and Fluid Loss Reduction due to Plastering Effect of Casing Drilling, SPE 143656. 12. John Cook, Fred Growcock, Quan Guo, Mike Hodder, Eric van Oort : Oilfield Review Winter 2011/2012: 23, no. 4., Schlumberger. 13. Yash Gupta, Sudeepto N. Banerjee The Application of Expandable Tubulars in CWD, SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma,2007 14. D.M.Shute, Volant Products Inc Top Drive Casing Running: Challenges and solutions, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
92

15. F. Snchez, SPE; S. Houqani, SPE, Petroleum Development Oman; M. Turki, SPE, Tesco Corporation; and M. Cruz, SPE, Baker Hughes , Casing While Drilling (CWD): A New Approach To Drilling Fiqa Formation in the Sultanate of Oman--A Success Story June 2012. 16. Rotary Drilling with Casing A field proven method of reducing wellbore construction cost Greg Galloway Weatherford International 17. G H Kamphost, G L van Wechem, W. Boom, D. Bottger, K. Koch; DEUTAG, Casing Running Tool SPE IADC/52700, March 1999 18. T.M. Warren, W.P. Schneider, R.P. Johns, K.D. Zipse, Running Casing on Conventional Well with Casing Drilling Technology, Paper 2004-183 19. Tommy Warren/Tesco Corp., Robert Tessari/Tesco Corp., Bruce Houtchens/Tesco Corp., Casing Drilling with Retrievable Drilling Assemblies, OTC 16564, May 2004. 20. B.Askew, A. Philips, SPE and J.H.Wingate, SPE, Baker Hughes Incorporated, Surface Hole Casing While Drilling (CWD); A Review of 5 years Experience in Gabon, West Africa, SPE/IADC 140133, March 2011. 21. Greg Galloway (SPE) Weatherford International,Cwmwnt in Place drilling with Casing System Provides Safe, Reliable Method for Improving Drilling Efficiency, OTC 16565,May 2004. 22. Zone Drilling Solution: Non Retrievable Casing Drilling, IADC/SPE 154003,July 2012 23. M. Faizol M jusoh, Petronas; Keith Won Shao Wang, Weatherford International, Reactive and Weak

Books Referred
1. Kumar Sanjay, Gas Production Engineering-Volume 4 , Gulf Publishing Company, ISBN 0-87201-577-7

US Patents
United States Patent Application Publication Pub No.US2004/0216924 A1 Pub Date Nov 4, 2004 Casing Running and Drilling System 2. United States Patent Application Publication Pub No. US2011/0259643 A1 Pub Date May 1, 2012 Casing And Liner Drilling Shoes having Spiral Blade Configurations. 1.

Material from Website

1. Discussion forum on LinkedIn. Posts by Mr. Moji Karimi, Application Engineer; Solid Expandable Systems and Drilling with Casing/Liner at Weatherford and Mr. Scott Petrie, Drilling Engineer - South Yoloten at Gulf Oil and Gas. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Casing-while-Drilling-Technology
93