SPE/IADC 79850

Closed Hole Circulation Drilling: Case Study of Drilling a High-Pressure Fractured

Reservoir - Tengiz Field, Tengiz, Republic of Kazakhstan
M.N. Sweep, ChevronTexaco Exploration & Production Technology Company; J.M. Bailey, ChevronTexaco Overseas
Petroleum Inc., Tengizchevroil, LLC; C.R. Stone, Signa Engineering Corp.
Copyright 2003, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1921 February 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The drilling of a sour, high-pressure fractured reservoir in the
Tengiz field of Kazakhstan displayed complex and hazardous
well control situations. While drilling the carbonate reservoir
termed Unit 1, multiple fractures were encountered resulting
in severe lost circulation followed by hydrocarbon influx into
the well-bore.
Severe and uncontrollable lost circulation in the target
reservoir prompted the use of special practices and equipment;
thereby enhancing the safety and efficiency in the
development drilling of the field.
A rotating control device (RCD) was employed to drill ahead
blind (no fluid returns) by pumping a sacrificial fluid (water)
down the drillpipe. Simultaneously, a pressurized mud-cap on
the annulus with weighted oil based mud OBM controlled
hydrocarbon influx. The overall process of pressurized mudcap drilling will be described by the term Closed Hole
Circulation Drilling (CHCD).
The successful application of CHCD has resulted in Tengiz
well T-7252 being the first well to completely penetrate Unit 1
where lost circulation could not be controlled by conventional
methods. After all Unit 1 fractures had been penetrated, a
liner was installed to isolate the fractures using the same
CHCD well control procedures employed while drilling
the interval.
This technical paper will describe the process used to
successfully plan, develop, and implement the CHCD
technique in the Tengiz field.

Introduction
The Tengiz field is located on the south side of the 500,000km2 Caspian Basin on the northeastern edge of the Caspian
Sea. It is one of several large carbonate formations found
around the edge of the basin. The field is approximately 110
km2 at the top and 400 km2 at the base. Tengizchevroil (TCO)
operates the field in a joint venture with the Republic
of Kazakhstan.
Field delineation and development consisted of drilling new
wells and working on existing temporarily suspended wells
that range from 4,500 5,700 m. Severe lost circulation can
be encountered while drilling the pay horizon at
approximately 4,000 m in what is termed Unit 1 on the Rim
and Flank areas of the field. Please see (Fig. 1: Location Map
Showing T-7252) and (Fig. 2: Cross-section of Rim Region).
Drilling fluid losses in excess of 800 bbl/hr have been
encountered while drilling with as little as 0.3-ppg
overbalance. Numerous attempts to control the drilling fluid
losses with conventional means have been unsuccessful. This
challenging environment had prevented TCO from penetrating
the entire reservoir in extremely fractured areas of the Rim
and Flank.
Drilling of 1 7 m vertical fractures or cavities has been
observed with an associated reduction in annular fluid level
resulting in well control events. Due to the sour/corrosive
content of the reservoir, it was desirable that hydrocarbons
from the reservoir not be allowed to reach the surface under
any drilling operations.
Drilling ahead without returns has been attempted by TCO
with OBM being pumped simultaneously down the drillpipe
and annulus. This was obviously very uneconomical and
could not be sustained for extended periods of time.
Drilling without returnsusing water as the drilling fluid and
holding a pressurized column of OBMin the annulushad not
been implemented in any of the Tengiz wells.
Historically, the challenges of drilling the objective oil
reservoir have included severe lost circulation followed by
sour gas kicks. This obviously presented a significant safety
risk due to the high H2S content in the oil.

SPE/IADC 79850

Prior to the TCO Joint Venture (JV), there were 24 attempts to

drill wells through Unit 1 on the Rim locations; none were
successful in achieving the objective(s). Since the JV, there
have been only 3 complete penetrations of Unit 1. These
penetration efforts were successful because lost circulation
could be controlled by conventional methods.

Devonian boundary. They are Units 1, 2, and 3; from

youngest to oldest respectively. Unit 1 has proven to be the
most challenging section of the reservoir to drill in terms of
lost circulation severity.

To adequately appraise the full potential of the Tengiz field

requires successful penetration of a specific number of wells
in the Rim and Flank areas through Units 1,2, and 3.

Lost circulation problems have plagued drilling operations in

Tengiz since discovery of the field and have continued
unabated until the application of CHCD. Lost circulation
challenges have ranged from relatively minor issues to
catastrophic losses that were impossible to cure. Lost
circulation is encountered more frequently on the Rim and
Flank regions and predominantly in Unit 1 of the Tengiz
structure. Many remedies and techniques have been tried with
varying degrees of success. However, for the most severe
losses, none of the remedies or techniques prior to CHCD
have been completely successful. Severe lost circulation
events are extremely costly due to the large amounts of lost
drilling fluids and non-productive rig time. The equipment and
materials required to mitigate these occurrences of lost
circulation varied widely and have resulted in increased costs.

The subject well, T-7252, was predicted to have a pore

pressure regression of 15.76 ppg from the top of Unit 1 at
4,008 m (Bashkirian formation) to 14.18 ppg at the bottom of
Unit 1 at 4,700 m (Serpukhovian formation). See (Fig. 3:
Anticipated Casing Program) and (Fig. 4: T-7252 Reservoir
and Bore Hole Pressures Across the Formation).
The successful application of CHCD has resulted in T-7252
being the first well to penetrate Unit 1 completely where lost
circulation could not be controlled by conventional methods.
This paper focuses on the verification of the application of
CHCD techniques in the Tengiz field. CHCD feasibility for
the vertically fractured carbonate target may greatly impact
field rim development.
See (Fig. 1:
Location Map
Showing T-7252).

Geology and Reservoir Description

In order to understand the application of the CHCD technique
it is important to summarize the geological history. The
Reservoir Management Group (RMG) in Tengiz provided
descriptions of the reservoir characteristics. The objective
reservoir is a constructional-type carbonate build-up in size,
shape, and lithofacies. The various levels are referred to as
platforms. There is a local topographic high of variable width
around the entire Tengiz platform. See (Fig. 2: Cross-section
of Rim Region)
The reservoir was formed during Devonian and Carboniferous
geological time by recurrent deposition of skeletal fragments
along with lime mud. The top of the reservoir is at 3,850 m in
Unit 1 with oil being found as low as 5,429 m in Unit 3.
The reservoir is subdivided already on the basis of this local
topographic high. The high area is referred to as the Rim
with Platform and Flank regions to the inboard and
outboard sides. These aerial regions are carried at depth using
the same bounds. See (Fig. 2: Cross-section of Rim Region).
The area of focus or application for this technique is on wells
drilled in the Rim and Flank regions. It has been shown
statistically that wells drilled in these areas have a
significantly higher probability of lost circulation in the
reservoir than wells drilled in other areas.
The major depositional sequences have been grouped into
informal divisions based on the Visean volcanic layer and

Lost Circulation History and Applications

Lost Circulation in the Tengiz reservoir can be mostly

attributed to a highly fractured carboniferous reservoir where
karst zones are frequently encountered. Fractures have been
encountered above and below the karst zones as well as in
non-karst zones in the Platform region. On the Rim and Flank
wells, it is common to encounter significant fractures and in
some cases, large cavities in Unit 1.
Drilling parameters, including ROP, torque and weight on bit
are good indicators of fractured formations. Typically, the
initial indicator when drilling fractures is erratic torque,
followed by an increase in ROP and frequently, complete bit
drop is experienced where cavities exist. When these events
are encountered, severe lost circulation ensues, causing well
control difficulties, loss of wellbore, increased costs and an
inability to achieve overall well objectives.

Pre-JV Lost Circulation Applications.

Lost
circulation was a common occurrence in wells drilled during
the Pre-JV period prior to 1993, with 38 of 83 wells
experiencing lost circulation. Of the 38 wells with lost
circulation problems, 34 of them encountered losses in Unit 1.
The Rim region had 25 wells drilled where 19 experienced
lost circulation for a 76% incident rate. The Flank region had
24 wells drilled with 12 experiencing lost circulation for a
50% incident rate. However, of the 34 wells drilled on the
Platform, only 7 experienced lost circulation resulting in a
20% incident rate.
Various LCM were applied, including: mica, CaCO3, sawdust,
bitumen, rubber tire particles, high viscosity OBM pills and
Siloxan rubber. LCM treatments decreased losses to varying
degrees depending on the severity of the fracture encountered.
Not all LCM materials were acid soluble. Siloxan rubber was
reported as being the most effective LCM treatment. It was
tested in six wells with fair success. In some cases, leak-off

SPE/IADC 79850

pressures were improved and allowed a continuation of

drilling to a deeper depth below the fractured intervals.
Attempts to reduce mud rheological properties to lessen
equivalent circulation density resulted in poor hole cleaning
and caused barite settling after contact with any oil influx into
the wellbore.

aggressive formulations that were applied on Post-JV

wells include:

Mud density adjustments while drilling were made in an

attempt to reduce the hydrostatic pressure on the formation
and avert lost circulation. Attempts to maintain mud density
greater than formation pressure and less than the fracture
gradient did not prove successful. It was soon found that the
mud density required to contain reservoir pressure was always
in excess of what the highly fractured reservoir could support.

Cement plugs were attempted by bull heading the slurry down

the drillpipe while simultaneously bull heading mud down the
annulus and placing the cement into the fractured zone.
Because the hydrostatic pressure during these cement plug
attempts was in excess of what the fractured formation could
support, it was difficult to effectively place the cement to seal
the fractures. There was no noticeable progress in cement
slurry design or application that effectively solved the lost
circulation problem.
Barite plugs were applied successfully as a barrier to seal the
losses prior to running casing. These plugs were set by
allowing the well to flow back to a predetermined volume,
thus mixing Tengiz crude with the mud, causing the barite to
settle and form an effective plug. This procedure normally
took several attempts to form a plug.

Post-JV Lost Circulation Applications. The lost

circulation problems experienced during Pre-JV drilling were
also encountered during Post-JV drilling operations. This
complexity and drilling hazard was a major obstacle to TCO's
ability to appraise the Tengiz field and develop reserves. Lost
circulation was experienced in 8 of 9 wells drilled and
prevented achievement of the objectives in 5 of those wells.
Mud losses varied from seepage to massive losses.
While drilling well T-5034, TCO realized that conventional
methods and materials would never accomplish the objective
of controlling severe lost circulation in the Tengiz Field.
While drilling this well, over 27,000 bbls of OBM were lost,
and 20 different pills or techniques were applied without any
abatement of the lost circulation. Drilling was suspended on
the well when all available methods of lost circulation control
were tried and proved unsuccessful. Wellbore stability at this
point was extremely sensitive even to the extent that simply
moving the drillpipe up or down would cause the well to either
flow or go on a vacuum. Subsequently, three days were
required to pull the drillstring to suspend well operations.
On Post-JV wells, the first line of defense for lost circulation
was acid soluble LCM. Limited success using these materials
caused a more aggressive approach. Many different methods
and materials were used in an effort to cure the lost circulation
rather than protect the formation. Some of the rigorous and

Conventional lost circulation materials such as Kwik Seal,

rock wool, nut plug, various fibrous products and CaCO3,
with a particle size distribution ranging from micron size
to 6 millimeters (mm).
Cement treatments included: cement with CaCl2,
Nitrified cement, and Thixotropic cement. A retainer was
used to place some of these treatments in the
fractured zones.
Reverse Gunk with and without CaCO3.
DOB2C & ACDOB2C (Non-Acid soluble and Acid
soluble diesel oil bentonite).
Various proprietary soft plugs from a number of vendors.
Some of the pills were surface activated and some were
mixed down hole. Bridging agents in these pills ranged
from sized salt to LCM and all contained some type of
cross-linked polymer.

Given the extensive application of numerous lost circulation

materials and products, all resulting in limited success, it was
evident that a step change was needed to successfully drill to
deeper horizons on Rim and Flank region wells. Therefore,
TCO started to pursue alternatives with valuable input from
Shareholders and industry experts.

The Technique, Closed Hole

Circulation Drilling
Closed Hole Circulation Drilling (CHCD) is formally known
as Mudcap Drilling in other parts of the world. It is a type of
Underbalanced Drilling in that the drilling fluids exert less
hydrostatic pressure than the formation pore pressure. This
results in a net positive pressure at the surface. There are two
CHCD techniques. They are Heavy Annular (HACHCD) and
Light Annular (LACHCD). The HACHCD method controls
surface pressure and LACHCD controls bottom hole influx of
sour formation fluids. For this paper, we will discuss the
Light Annular CHCD technique. LACHCD is best applied in
situations of natural fractures or karsts exhibiting severe loss
of circulation, high bottom hole pressure, high bottom hole
temperature and H2S bearing hydrocarbons. It is possible to
have a fractured formation that is not a CHCD candidate. The
ideal formation candidate for this technique is one that has low
injectivity pressure into the formation or conversely, high
conductivity into the formation. In other words, the imposed
pressure to pump into the formation after encountering a
fracture may be as little as 10 psi or a fraction of one tenth of a
pound per gallon equivalent mud weight (ppg emw). The
Tengiz Rim and specifically well T-7252 exhibited all these
conditions except high bottom hole temperature. The primary
concern with well T-7252 was avoidance of well control
situations that might precipitate an emission of sour gas at the
surface. It should be noted that previous attempts to attain
total depth in Tengiz Rim and Flank wells had not been
successful using conventional drilling techniques.
CHCD is a form of blind drilling; no drilling fluid and/or
formation cuttings are transported back to the surface. Both

are injected into the fractures encountered during drilling. A

specially designed fluid is placed in the drillpipe by
casing/open hole annulus to allow safe control of surface
pressures. The annulus fluid is maintained in a static state by
closing the return flow conduit at the surface. Some have
referred to this static fluid column as a floating mudcap. It
is typically a weighted mud system with high viscosity and
fragile gel strengths. In the LACHCD technique the annular
fluid is designed to be 0.1 ppg less than the formation pore
pressure in equivalent mudweight, hence the name Light
Annular CHCD. Depending upon the depth of the uppermost
fracture, the net positive annular pressure at the surface should
be between 50 and 150 psi. So, the complete displacement of
the annulus with the designated light annular mud will present
a predictive positive casing pressure (pressure datum) at the
surface.
The casing pressure will increase slowly
corresponding to the migration rate of hydrocarbons up the
annulus. Once a predetermined casing pressure/influx height
is reached, the light annular mud is pumped into the annulus
until the casing pressure returns to its datum level.
Performing operations with a positive casing pressure at the
surface is uncomfortable for most conventional drillers. There
is a tendency to want to top kill the annulus to bring the
surface pressure to 0 psi during tripping operations. A top kill
defeats the LACHCD method in that it masks the known
annular quantity and presents an unknown situation that may
lead to an emission of sour gas in later operations.
The CHCD technique also involves a second drilling fluid
system called Sacrificial Fluid or simply Sac fluid. This Sac
fluid is pumped down the drillpipe to affect drilling of the
formation. It is called sacrificial fluid because it does not
return to the surface, but is injected into the fracture(s) of least
resistance. The sacrificial fluid is also unique in that it is
usually a lightweight, plentiful and inexpensive fluid. Since
the Sac fluid is typically a non-native fluid to the reservoir, it
must be compatible with reservoir rock and associated fluids.
The Sac fluid must be pumped at a rate sufficient to provide
hydraulic horsepower for a mud motor (if used), to cool the bit
and to transport the drilled cuttings to the fracture(s) of least
resistance. If fresh water, seawater or brine is used, the lack of
fluid viscosity may place transport of cuttings and the
corresponding annular velocity of the Sac fluid at the top of
these three requirement priorities. Please see (Fig. 5:
CHCD Schematic).

Annular Fluid Density Determination. The first

step in setting up a CHCD project is the determination of the
annular fluid density. This task will determine the drillpipe
injection pressures and surface annular pressures.
Conventionally, the pore pressure of the formation being
drilled must be known from offset data or determined within a
reasonable degree of accuracy. The data is used to determine
the mud density that will be required for a particular section of
hole. In LACHCD, the pore pressure must be precisely
known. A proven field method of determining the pore
pressure is to prepare a trip tank with cutback fluid. This
fluid is used to chase the falling mud column when
encountering the type of fracture that causes complete loss of

SPE/IADC 79850

circulation. When the loss of returns was noted, the team

filled the annulus with cutback fluid until the wellbore
remained full. The team immediately closed the annulus and
waited 5 minutes for the casing pressure to stabilize. Using
the known mud weight in the hole at the time of the loss, plus
the hydrostatic weight of the cutback fluid combined with the
annular pressure, one can accurately calculate the
pore pressure.
Pchoke + .052*MWavg ann*TVD = PPreservoir ............................ (1)
Note, Pchoke is the annular surface pressure and is typically a
positive pressure, because the momentum of the falling mud
column will proceed below the equilibrium point. The
cutback fluid will only fill the hole momentarily and then will
begin to flow back. Closing the annulus when the cutback
fluid first fills the hole will minimize influx (unknown
density) and allow the casing pressure to give a true
measurement of downhole pore pressure.
Please see
Nomenclature section.
Assuming vertical penetration of the target, the desired
annular fluid density is simply 0.1-0.2 ppg (0.01-0.02 SG) less
than the EMW of the pore pressure at the top of the loss zone.
Depending upon depth, this should present a surface casing
pressure datum between 50 and 150 psi. This low pressure
must be manageable with current rotating control device
capabilities. Gas influx and migration at the top of the loss
zone is the worst-case scenario for rising casing pressure.
Typically, the operator will pick a predetermined casing
pressure that represents a given column of gas influx as the
point at which periodic injection of annular fluid occurs. The
casing pressure chosen must be something within the working
capability of the rotating control device, i.e., 400 psi. For
example, 100 psi may be chosen as the datum casing pressure
and 400 psi as the upper level pressure. As drilling continues,
gas migration may slowly raise the casing pressure to 400 psi.
At that time, the annulus pump would begin displacing or bull
heading light annular fluid into the hole until the casing
pressure gauge returns to the datum pressure of 100 psi.
When the datum pressure is attained, one can be confidently
assured that all the influx has been forced back into the
formation and a competent column of known mud density
exists. After the annular injection cycle, the static annular
pressure will be the difference between the annular mud
density and the pore pressure at the top of the reservoir.
Pchoke = .052*(MWannulus EMWPP)*TVD............................ (2)
The fluid design for the annulus must satisfy three
requirements. It must be of sufficient weight to assist in the
containment of the formation. The fluid must mitigate
hydrocarbon migration and ideally, the fluid would have gel
strength properties that would assist in keeping it in place in
the annulus. The preferred fluid design would be nonNewtonian fluids. The thixotropic nature of the fluid will
mitigate hydrocarbon migration and exhibit mud column
integrity for drilling and tripping of drillpipe.

SPE/IADC 79850

Estimating Drillpipe Injection Pressures. An

LACHCD project requires knowledge of surface injection
pressures and downhole volume requirements. This exercise
will identify standpipe pressure and volume requirements to
accomplish downhole goals. The standpipe pressure must be
estimated for both static and dynamic conditions. The static
standpipe pressures (SPP) can be estimated using the
following equation:
PSPPstatic = .052 (EMWPP MWdrillpipe)*TVD ......................... (3)
Where PSPP static is the static standpipe pressure. This is
U-tube pressure differential between the annulus and
drillpipe. The dynamic standpipe pressure is equal to
static standpipe pressure plus the pressure losses down
drillstring and into the fractures. It can be calculated by
following equation:

the
the
the
the
the

PSPPinjection = PSPP static + PDP + PDC + PMWD + PMotor + Pbit

+ Pfrac .................................................................................. (4)
Where PSPPinjection is the dynamic or standpipe injection
pressure. The description of the other variables is provided in
the Nomenclature section. When the CHCD technique is
properly applied, the injection pressure into the fractures is
assumed to be small. If CHCD is attempted in the presence of
small fractures, the injection pressure may increase the overall
dynamic standpipe pressures beyond the capability of
available equipment.

Estimating Drillpipe Injection Rate.

When
estimating drillpipe injection rate, several considerations must
be studied. The cuttings generated by the bit must be
conveyed to the fracture of least resistance. For planning
purposes, the injection fluid should be water and the fracture
of least resistance should be at the topmost point of the open
hole. Sifferman et al. estimated that the minimum annular
velocity to remove cuttings from a vertical well with water is
100 ft/min. Hole conditions or the existence of multiple
injection fractures may require higher annular velocities due to
uneven injection of fluid along the wellbore. One hundred
feet per minute should be the minimum annular velocity
anticipated for CHCD. It is wise to start with a circulation rate
that would generate 120-140 ft/min annular velocity and
slowly decrease the pump rate while monitoring for drag.
Increasing drag on the bottom hole assembly will indicate
inadequate hole cleaning and will require a corresponding
increase in pump rate. In this way, the driller can optimize the
volume of Sac fluid pumped away. This procedure should be
periodically repeated since new hole is generated that might
change the downhole conditions.
A second consideration is the pump rate required to run a
drilling mud motor. If a motor is not used to rotate the bit, an
adequate amount of Sac fluid must be pumped to cool and
clean the bit while still transporting the cuttings. The use of a
motor typically requires a higher pump rate to power the
motor. For planning purposes, 18 hrs per day is used as a
typical circulating or drilling day.
Daily Sac Fluid

requirements can easily be estimated for a given hole size and

bottom hole assembly (BHA). See (Fig. 6: Drillpipe Injection
Fluid Requirements for CHCD).

Estimating Annular Injection Volumes. There are

two different methods of annular injection of fluid that assist
in the control of surface pressures. The method utilized in the
Tengiz project was periodic injection. The annular fluid
represents one of two fluid systems that must be managed in a
CHCD operation. It is imperative that we estimate the
expected daily volume so that rig site storage may be properly
partitioned. The formulas below will assist in annular fluid
volume estimation.
QAnn = (SF) VHM TPI (IDHole2 ODDP2) / 1029 ...................... (5)
QADC = 24 * 60 * QAnn / TPI................................................................................ (6)
QAnn is the periodic injection rate required to prevent
hydrocarbon migration. The rate of hydrocarbon migration is
expressed by VHM and the time between injection is
represented by TPI. The daily annular cumulative injection
volume is QADC.
The hydrocarbon migration rate is probably the greatest
unknown in equation (5) above. It is a function of the
wellbore geometry, temperature, pressure and the rheology
and density of the annular fluid. A rule of thumb is that gas
migrates at the rate of 1000 feet/hr. More specifically, it is
estimated that gas migrates at a rate between 7 and 15
feet/minute in a given fluid. Shell research found that gas will
migrate at the rate of 90 feet/minute with a low viscosity fluid
in a shallow low pressured environment. Obviously, the
migration of a liquid hydrocarbon will be much slower than
the low density gas. For the purpose of estimating annular
injection volume, it may serve to assume a gas migration rate
of 15 feet/minute.
A simplified chart (Fig. 7: Effect of Gas Migration Rate on
Casing Pressure and Kill Volume) shows gas migration with
respect to time and its effect on casing pressure. Along with
required kill volume to force the hydrocarbon back from
whence it came. The chart is a relational study only. The data
assumes that hydrocarbon density and migration rate is
constant. The chart data is further simplified in that it assumes
that the migrating hydrocarbons completely displace the
annular fluid. The validity of this assumption decreases with
increasing depth.

Case StudyTengiz Well T-7252

Since the completion of T-7252, and at the time of writing of
this paper, there have been 7 more successful applications of
the technique in the Tengiz Field.

Candidate and Rig Capability. An on-site feasibility

study concluded that the Tengiz wells were good candidates
for the application of CHCD. Existing equipment capabilities
of Parker Rig 249 were adequate with modifications required

for BOP configuration. This was due to the requirement to

install a rotating control device (RCD) on top of the BOP. For
this reason, Parker Rig 249 was chosen as the optimal rig for
the first application.
It was determined that T-7252 would enter Unit 1 on July 19,
2001; making this the target date for project implementation.
Essentially, approval for the Development Team was initiated
on May 1st, giving the team 80 days by which to prepare all
the required systems and design. This proved to be a
challenge with little or no tolerance for error in the
planning stage.

Pressure Requirements. Parker Drilling Rig 249 has

two Continental Emsco FC 2200 HP triplex pumps and one
Continental Emsco FC 1600 triplex pump. Pressure rating of
the FC 2200 is 6,600 psi with 5.5" liners. Pressure rating of
the FC 1600 is 6,000 psi with 5" liners installed. The
circulating system (standpipe, kelly, swivel, etc) is rated to
7,500 psi. Drillpipe is a 5" XD 105 (3.5" ID) heat-treated
string for the corrosive environment. Given these pressure
constraints, calculated surface pressures using 8.33 ppg water
at 350 gpm were estimated as shown in (Table 1: T-7252
Estimated Pressure Regimes).
The existing circulating system was deemed adequate for the
anticipated reservoir pressures. This also indicated that the
use of water as the sacrificial fluid while drilling would be
possible. Annular velocity >150 ft/min was desirable for
wellbore cleaning. Although there would be no fluid returns
to surface, drilled cuttings must be carried from the bottom of
the hole to the nearest fracture(s) of least resistance.
The Alpine rotating control device (RCD) was chosen for T7252. A key component of the Alpine RPM 3000 is the dual
sealing capability (see Fig. 8: Alpine RPM 3000 RCD). The
upper element is a passive seal or a stripper rubber energized
by wellbore pressure. The lower element or primary seal is an
active bladder type element that is hydraulically energized
from a remote unit. The lower element rotates on a bearing
assembly. Maximum tool diameter that can be stripped
through the elements is 6.75". Another advantage is the
compact dimensions required for BOP clearance. Trapped
wellbore pressure or gas between the elements can be released
by a purge system.

Well

Control
Equipment
Configuration.
Installation of the RCD required careful consideration of the
Class 5 BOP height. It was determined that the 13 5/8" x
10,000 psi BOP should be replaced with an 11" x 10,000 psi
BOP (see Fig. 9: Class 5 BOP for 11"). This facilitated the
installation of the RCD without significant modifications to
the rig substructure or the wellhead configuration.

Water Supply. During the drilling phase of Unit 1, 350

gpm of sacrificial fluid are required to achieve >150 ft/min
annular velocity. This translates into 9,000 bbls/day of
continuous supply over a 4 5 day interval. A number of
water sources were considered, such as the Caspian Sea,

SPE/IADC 79850

ground water, Plant technical water, and Plant effluent water.

It was decided that Plant effluent water would be used and
diverted from the injection facility to the well-site. This is
essentially wastewater produced from the plant due to the
cooling towers, steam generation, and formation water.
A seven kilometer 8" (6.5" ID) polyethylene pipe was installed
above ground with the ability to divert flow towards T-7252
location or the injection facility. Two earth pits capable of
holding 20,000 bbls each were constructed. The pipeline
could deliver fluid to atmospheric pressure at 9,000 bbl/day
with the pits holding a 4 day reserve in the event of a line or
facility failure.
The fluid was treated on location with caustic soda and lime
for pH control to assist in removal of residual H2S from the
plant effluent. Additionally, H2S and O2 scavengers were
injected into the fluid stream at the rig pumps to assist in
corrosion prevention. The treatment schedule for 9,000
bbl/day is shown in (Table 2: Sacrificial Fluid Treatment).

Annular Fluid. The existing OBM used to drill Tengiz

wells would be used for the annulus fluid. Design criteria are
such that H2S effects are minimized with 3 lb/bbl of zinc oxide
and 6 lb/bbl of lime in the annular fluid. Adequate volumes
and storage of OBM was maintained by the existing
infrastructure for drilling fluids.
It was anticipated that the average daily injection rate of 450
bbl/day would be required to mitigate hydrocarbon migration.
Actual usage was only 15 barrels over drilling of the entire
Unit 1 interval. With this observation, it was determined that
minimal hydrocarbon migration occurred in the annulus while
drilling T-7252.
Design criteria for the annulus fluid was such that a 50 psi
positive pressure was left on the annulus by keeping the
annular
hydrostatic
pressure
slightly
less
than
formation pressure.

Training.

A location specific training course was

developed and implemented by Signa Engineering Corp. All
personnel both from an operational and engineering
perspective were trained at the office facility in Tengiz. A
trainer was assigned to conduct the training in 2 day classes
over 8 sessions. More than 140 personnel were trained in the
fundamentals and theory of CHCD. The training material was
modified with input/comments from TCO drilling
staff/engineers during the course of delivery. The course
proved to be an effective method of communicating all the
new concepts and operational changes required.

Process Hazard Analysis. The Health, Environmental,

and Safety (HES) group was engaged to conduct a process
hazard analysis (PHA) of well-site operations. A crossfunctional group completed the session and identified a
number of components that required further research. Some
of the key items identified but not limited to were:

SPE/IADC 79850

A recessed wear groove in the drillpipe tool joint required

smoothing to prevent excessive RCD element wear.
A decision protocol for converting to CHCD was written
into the Lost Circulation Contingency Plan.
The rig drilling fluid storage and pumping system was
converted to handle two simultaneous fluid systems.
A backup RCD was ordered and delivered prior
to implementation.
Plans and procedures were developed should the loss of
pressure control within the drillstring be encountered.
Procedures for tripping of drillstring and liner were
developed.

Implementation
Rig Fluid System. The drilling rig re-configured piping
and fluid supply to the pumps to allow for the distribution of
two different fluid types. The rig pumps had manifolds
installed such that sacrificial fluid or OBM could be delivered
to the drillstring. As a backup to the rig pumps, a Halliburton
high-pressure pumping unit was positioned to deliver OBM to
the annulus via the kill line.

Drillstring Components. The drillstring had three float

subs installed, two Baker Model F type (plunger) and one
Baker Model G type (flapper); all rated to 7,500 psi. This was
to provide redundant protection against the differential
pressure exerted on the drillstring. This proved to be
inadequate as pumping of lost circulation material caused all
three floats to fail. After this event four plunger type floats
were installed with no further incidents.
The final bottom-hole assembly (BHA) consisted of an 8.5"
PDC bit, bit sub, 2 float subs, 1 6.75" drill collar, 1 float sub,
3 6.75" drill collars, pump-out sub, drilling jar, 1 6.75"
drill collar, and 21 5" heavy weight drillpipe.

Unit 1, Upper Section (3,994 4,398 m). The 97/8"

shoe was drilled out at 3994 m with 16 ppg OBM in
preparation for coring. A formation integrity test of 18 ppg
EMW was conducted. Two 27 m cores were cut and retrieved
in the Bashkirian formation of Unit 1. No lost circulation was
experienced, which is not always the case in the upper section
of Unit 1. Drilling continued essentially trouble free to 4,300
m with some slight tight hole sections requiring a 50,000 lb
over-pull to clean the wellbore. Mud density had been
reduced from 16 ppg to 15.8 ppg. Average ROP to this point
was 4.0 m/hr.
Standard parameters for drilling with an 8.5" bit were 15,000
20,000 lb WOB and 120 RPM. At 4,304 m the weight on bit
parameter went to zero and a 0.5 m bit drop was observed.
Drilling continued with standpipe pressure of 3,000 psi to
4,317 m where partial losses of the OBM occurred at a rate of
40 bbl/hr.
Conventional LCM pills were pumped and drilling continued.
The well took 150 bbls of OBM to the formation while drilling
ahead from 4,321 m 4,374 m. A 3.8 m/hr ROP was

maintained through this interval.

reduced from 15.8 ppg to 15.7 ppg.

Mud density had been

Transition to CHCD. Complete loss of circulation was

encountered at 4,390 m. Rig pumps were slowed to 40
strokes/min in an attempt to regain circulation. The rig was
able to drill ahead at 50% returns while losing 250 bbl/hr of
OBM to formation. At 4,398 m, drilling was suspended to
place a 100 bbl lost circulation pill using Halliburton pump
trucks. See (Table 3: Oil Base Mud OBM). The table
outlines the sections and volumes where significant losses
occurred during drilling.
A precautionary trip into the 97/8" casing shoe was conducted
to observe the wellbore flow/loss characteristics and to
determine the next course of action.
A series of different mud weights were pumped into the
annulus in an attempt to stabilize the well. It was determined
that reservoir pressure at 4,398 m (first fracture) was
15.47 ppg.
With the well shut-in, 15.6 ppg mud was displaced into the
annulus at 2 bbl/min. Casing pressure was observed dropping
from 420 psi to 290 psi while pumping. At static conditions
the casing remained at 0 psi. Circulation or returns of 45%
was regained by pumping down the drillpipe at 3 bbls/min.
With the pumps off and the well shut-in, casing pressure
increased to 200 psi. These observations and the previously
agreed upon contingency criteria facilitated the decision to
implement CHCD. Cumulative OBM lost to the formation at
this point was 1,874 bbls.
The sealing elements and bearing assembly for the Alpine
RPM 3000 were installed on the drillpipe. At this point the
well began flowing up the drillpipe. It was suspected that the
lost circulation material had compromised the floats.
Unsuccessful attempts were made to clear the floats with
various pump rates and fluid densities. The drillstring was
pulled out of the well using stripping procedures with the
RCD and periodic placement of 18.1 ppg fluid slugs in the
drillpipe. The annulus was placed on a slight vacuum to
remove the BHA.
It was determined that all three floats were compromised with
lost circulation material. An additional float sub was installed
and the drillstring stripped back to bottom. The well required
that 1,400 psi injection pressure be placed on the formation to
initiate the required fracture communication for CHCD. The
annulus was displaced with 675 bbls of 15.4 ppg mud to
obtain a uniform density in the annulus.
During this operation the annular was closed to facilitate
changing of the RCD bearing element. An equalizer line was
connected to a line above the rig floor and pressures were then
released to a Halliburton high pressure pump unit. Subsequent
removal of the RCD allowed mud in this line to drain into the
hydraulic system. This caused the hydraulic unit to be taken
out of service and a back-up system installed. It was

discovered that the pressure release system must be installed

so that drilling fluids drain by gravity.

Drill Unit 1 with CHCD (4,398 m 4,800 m).

Drilling resumed using plant effluent water as the sacrificial
fluid with 250 psi on the annulus. Drilled cuttings were
assumed to be carried to the first fracture at 4,398 m. The
initial design of 350 gpm flow-rate down the drillpipe was
reduced by 30%. Using a 245 gpm pump rate to achieve an
annular velocity of 120 ft/min in the open-hole section
resulted in adequate hole cleaning.
No drillstring torque or over-pull was observed during drilling
or tripping of the entire section. (Table 4: CHCD Interval
Pressures) groups various intervals in terms of pressure
management and ROP observations. Density of annular fluid
throughout drilling of the Unit 1 fractures was maintained at
15.4 ppg.

SPE/IADC 79850

25 bbls of 15.4 ppg mud and 5 bbl of 17.3 ppg mud. To

retrieve the drill collars; the annulus required 10 bbls of 17.3
ppg mud and 10 bbls of 15.4 ppg mud.
The team determined the rate of corrosion that would occur in
the drillstring due to the exposure of water. The acceptable or
industry standard rate of corrosion is <2.0 lb/ft2/yr. Analysis
of the ring recovered from the bit sub was measured at 0.1081
lb/ft2/yr, well below the normal rate.
Logging was conducted with a lubricator and wire-line rams
tested to 1,500 psi.
Run #1 was a Gamma
Ray/Caliper/Resistivity suite which only reached 4,738 m. It
is unknown whether the well bridged off or a fracture caused
the tool to stop; subsequent trips did not indicate any fill or
debris. The well was logged from 3,994 4,738 m. A
periodic injection of 15.4 ppg fluid in 5 bbl increments was
required to maintain casing pressure below 250 psi.

A 20 bbl high viscosity polymer pill was pumped every 4

hours, or as needed, to assist in wellbore cleaning. Total
chemical/treatment costs for the sacrificial fluid was $50,000
or $1.87/bbl. This was double the original estimate for the
required design, but reflected the cost to treat the entire
system, including the stand-by fluid in the earthen pits.
Normalizing the costs to the actual injected volume results in
treatment cost of $0.93/bbl.

While logging, a weight decrease was observed with the tools

at 40 m. Upon retrieval of the tools, there were only 4.7 m
attached to the wireline, leaving 21.30 m in the wellbore. It
was determined that the tools failed due to sulfide stress
cracking. Subsequent fishing operations with a 5.75" overshot
and 3.75" basket grapple were successful in retrieving the
logging tools from 4,714 m. Periodic injection of 15.4 ppg
mud in the annulus was required to maintain casing pressure
below 600 psi.

A more detailed picture of the standpipe and casing pressure is

outlined in (Fig. 10: Actual Standpipe and Casing Pressure).
It can be seen that the maximum casing pressure encountered
during CHCD was 600 psi with the average being in the 300
400 psi range. It should be noted that under static conditions
during a connection, the casing pressure would typically drop
back to 50 psi.

Liner Running and Cementing. A 7" x 32 lb/ft liner

with a liner packer was run on drillpipe. The well was again
difficult to stabilize and required repeated attempts at
stabilizing the annulus with various weights of OBM. A total
of 718 bbls were lost while running the liner through the RCD.

Drilling was terminated at 4,800 m based on seismic

interpretation and the probability that Unit 1 had been
completely penetrated.

While running in the hole with the liner, an attempt was made
to increase the resistance to well flow by placement of a 350
bbl high viscosity mud at 15.4 ppg. This was not successful in
stabilizing the well and continued efforts to fill the annulus
with various mud weights were required.

Tripping and Logging. At total depth of 4,800 m,

tripping procedures required that OBM be placed from the
bottom of the wellbore up to the first fracture at 4,398 m. This
was accomplished by displacing the drillstring with 350 bbls
of 15.6 ppg OBM. Periodic injection of 15.4 ppg fluid in the
annulus was required to maintain casing pressure below 100
psi during tripping of the drillpipe.
Once the BHA was reached, the ability to stabilize the annulus
became difficult. A series of attempts to balance the wellbore
with various mud weights was unsuccessful.
It was
determined that the wellbore had a 0.03 ppg margin of
variance in terms of stability. Essentially, if the hydrostatic
column in the annulus exceeded pore pressure by 25 psi; the
fractures would begin to take fluid and subsequent pumping of
OBM to the annulus was required. Conversely, if the
hydrostatic column in the annulus were reduced by 25 psi
below pore pressure; the well would begin to flow. The
heavyweight drillpipe was stripped from the well by pumping

The liner stripped in the hole was run to Total Depth (TD),
(top of packer seals at 3,842 m) and cemented with 125 bbls of
Class G 15.8 ppg cement. A batch mix procedure was used.
Cement was displaced with 15.4 ppg OBM while shut-in with
positive pressure on the annulus. A positive pressure test to
17 ppg and a negative test to 13.5 ppg were
conducted successfully.
As the well did not have returns during the cement job, a
calculated cement top cannot be determined. Further study is
being conducted to determine the optimum approach for
acquiring cement top data. Current cased hole logging
techniques for obtaining a cement bond log is not applicable to
Tengiz fractured carbonates. This is due to the very high
velocity profile of the reservoir, making it faster in terms of
travel time than the cement or casing. A cased-hole
temperature log could be run after the cement placement. This

SPE/IADC 79850

would profile the temperature gradient and assist in

identifying the cement top.

Summary

General. TCO was able to drill 402 m in 87.5 hrs using

CHCD methodology in the highly fractured Unit 1 formation
of the Tengiz field. A liner was successfully installed and the
well was drilled to programmed TD. This met all objectives
of the T-7252 well, including appraisal of Unit 2 and Unit 3.
This was the first time this objective was met where extreme
lost circulation was encountered in Unit 1.
Throughout the drilling of Unit 1, a total of 4,475 bbls of
OBM was lost to the formation. Only 15 bbls of this loss
occurred while drilling with CHCD. The remainder was used
for tripping the drillstring, logging, and running of the liner.
A total of 26,800 bbls of Sac fluid was used to drill ahead with
complete losses. This was essentially half the original design
estimate and reflects the operational adjustments. This was
mainly due to the ability to clean the wellbore effectively at
lower than expected rates and can be used to optimize fluid
requirements for subsequent applications.
The planning process and implementation of CHCD was
successful in achieving the geological objectives. Penetration
rate can be improved once more experience is gained on the
wellbore cleaning characteristics. It has been determined that
field development would require further use of this technique.
The current systems and processes that are in place will be
implemented on subsequent wells where there is a potential
for lost circulation in Unit 1.

Lessons Learned and Observations.

Resource allocation was critical to achieve objectives.

Install RCD with gravity feed drain system for the
drilling fluids.
Further study is required to determine logging feasibility.
Consistent delivery of water from the plant facility to the
drilling site was critical.
Hydrocarbon migration near the bottom of the hole
was minimal.
Twelve fractures in Unit 1 were identified on the caliper
log with some sections showing hole enlargements up to
12.8 " through the CHCD interval.
The decision to implement CHCD should be driven by a
lost circulation protocol.
Wellbore cleaning required a pump rate of 235 gpm in
8.5" hole using freshwater Sac fluid.
No hole stability problems were encountered.
The CHCD technique improved the rate of penetration by
more than 40%.
Once plunger type floats are installed in the drillstring, the
use of LCM is not recommended.
The training modules were modified to be project or
well specific.
Improvements to mud losses while pulling BHAs and
running liners will be studied further and implemented.

Application of LCM was once unsuccessful in a highly

fractured formation. Consideration should be given to
modification of the lost circulation contingency plan for
conversion to CHCD.
A well engineered and detailed program must be
developed, with mitigation steps included to preserve well
control. The process hazard analysis was very valuable in
this regard.
All personnel should be trained in CHCD procedures
before attempting this technique with specific emphasis
placed on safety and well control.
Subsequent testing of Unit 1 in T-7252 revealed no
adverse effects from the Sac water used during the CHCD
process. The production rates were above expectations.
During the flow tests, no measurable Sac water was
recovered.

Nomenclature
Pchoke
MWavg ann
TVD
PPreservoir
MWannulus
EMW pp
PSPPstatic
MWdrillpipe
PSPPinjection
PDP
PDC
PMWD

PMotor
PBit
PFrac
QAnn
SF
VHM
TPI
IDHole
ODDP
QADC

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

choke pressure, psi

average mud weight in the annulus, ppg
true vertical depth, ft
pore pressure in the reservoir, psi
mud weight in the annulus, ppg
equivalent mud weight of pore pressure, ppg
static stand pipe pressure, psi
mud weight inside the drillpipe, ppg
dynamic or injection stand pipe pressure, psi
parasitic pressure loss in the drillpipe, psi
parasitic pressure loss in the drill collars, psi
pressure loss through the measurement while
drilling tool, psi
= pressure loss through the mud motor, psi
= pressure loss through the bit, psi
= parasitic pressure loss through the fractures, psi
= periodic annular injection rate, bbls
= safety factor
= hydrocarbon migration rate, ft/min
= time between injection cycles, min
= diameter of the hole, inches
= outside diameter of the drillpipe, inches
= annular daily cumulative injection volume,
bbls/day

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the management of
Tengizchevroil, TCO Well Construction Group, TCO
Reservoir Management Group, TCO Field Facilities
Construction/Engineering, and ChevronTexaco EPTC group
in Houston for their support and contribution to the successful
implementation of this new technique. Also, thanks to the
Joint Venture shareholders and the Republic of Kazakhstan for
their permission to publish the paper.
Specific acknowledgement is given to TCO Shareholders who
participate in semi-annual Well Construction and Operational
Performance Review forums conducted on-site at Tengiz. The

10

SPE/IADC 79850

authors send special thanks to ExxonMobil for sharing their

expertise and encouragement of Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling
and their support in a Tengiz application.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support work
provided by the following service/contractor companies:
Signa Engineering Corp., Parker Drilling International,
Weatherford International, Schlumberger, Halliburton, MI
Drilling Fluids, Baker Oil Tools, and Pete Hart Drilling Fluid
Consultants who contributed to the success of this project.

References
1.

Urselmann, R., et al: Pressured MudCap Drilling:

Efficient Drilling of High-Pressure Fractured
Reservoirs Paper SPE/IADC 52828 presented at
the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held
in Amsterdam.

2.

Johnson, J., et al: High Efficiency Drilling A

Novel Approach for Improved Horizontal and
Multi-Lateral Drilling, Paper SPE 52185 presented
at the 1999 Mid-Continent Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

3.

Reyna, K.: Case History of Floating MudCap

drilling techniques - Ardalin field, Timan Pechora
Basin, Russia, Paper SPE/IADC 29423 presented
at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held
in Amsterdam.

4.

5.

Al-Sarraf, A. and Hazel, R.: The Drilling

Optimization Performance in Kuwaits High
Pressured Wells Paper SPE/IADC 39270 presented
at the 1997 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Conference held in Bahrain.
Mohd, A.: Carbonate Drilling
Problems in Offshore Sarawak
36394 presented at the 1996
Pacific Drilling Technology
Lumpur, Malaysia.

with Mud Loss

Paper IADC/SPE
IADC/SPE Asia
held in Kuala

6.

Quitzau, R., et al: System for Drilling an Offshore

Shallow Sour Gas Carbonate Reservoir Paper
SPE/IADC 52808 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam.

7.

Johnson, J., et al: High Efficiency Drilling A

Novel Approach for Improved Horizontal and
Multi-Lateral Drilling, Paper SPE 52185 presented
at the 1999 Mid-Continent Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

8.

Urselmann, R., et al: Pressured MudCap Drilling:

Efficient Drilling of High-Pressure Fractured
Reservoirs Paper SPE/IADC 52828 presented at
the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held
in Amsterdam.

9.

McLennon/Carden/Curry/Stone/Wyman,
SPE
Underbalanced Drilling Manual, Gas Research
Institute, 1997

10. Sifferman, T.R., et al: Drill Cutting Transport in

Full-Scale Vertical Annuli, J. Pet. Tech.
(Nov. 1974).
11. Adams, N.: Well Control Problems and Solutions,
The Petroleum Publishing Company, 1980.
12. Colbert, Medley, SPE, 77352, Light Annular
Mudcap Drilling A Well Control Technique for
Naturally Fractured Formations, presented at 2002
SPE Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
13. Bloys, B., Brown, J.D. and Tarr, B.A.: Drilling
Safety and Economically in Carbonates: Collective
Experience of ARCO, BP and Mobil, presented at
the 1994 IADC Well Control Conference for the
Asia/Pacific Region, Singapore.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp
ft
ft2
ft3
in.
lbf
md
psi

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

1.0*
3.048*
9.290 304*
2.831 685
2.54
4.448 222
9.869 233
6.894 757

E-03
E-01
E-02
E-02
E+00
E+00
E-04
E+00

= Pa.s
=m
= m2
= m3
= cm
=N
= m2
= kPa

* Conversion factor is exact

Figure Captions
Fig. 1:
Fig. 2:
Fig. 3:
Fig. 4:
Fig. 5:
Fig. 6:
Fig. 7:
Fig. 8:
Fig. 9:
Fig. 10:

Location Map Showing T-7252

Cross-section of Rim Region
Anticipated Casing Program
T-7252 Reservoir and Bore Hole Pressures Across
the Formation
Closed Hole Circulation Drilling Schematic
Drillpipe Injection Fluid Requirements for CHCD
Effect of Gas Migration Rate on Casing Pressure and
Kill Volume
Alpine RPM 3000 RCD
Class 5 BOP for 11"
Actual Standpipe and Casing Pressure

Author Biographies
M.N. Sweep P.Eng. Miles Sweep is a Senior Drilling
Engineer for ChevronTexaco's Exploration and Production
Technology Company in Houston, Texas. He is currently
working within the Drilling Solutions business line on
numerous international projects and supporting research
efforts on new technology. Miles has over 20 years of
experience in oil and gas operations. He is a member of SPE
and a registered professional engineer with the Association of
Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of
Alberta. Miles holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Petroleum Engineering from Montana College of Mineral

SPE/IADC 79850

Science and Technology.

mnsw@chevrontexaco.com.

11

He

can

be reached

at

J.M. Bailey Jack Bailey is a Senior Drilling Superintendent

for ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum, Inc. He is currently
working as part of the Tengizchevroil partnership in the giant
Tengiz oilfield of Western Kazakhstan. Jack has worked in
the oil industry for 24 years, primarily in the exploration and
production drilling sector, both domestically and
internationally. He has been associated with both SPE and
IADC during his career and participated in various functions
within both organizations. Jack earned a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Civil Engineering from Utah State University. He
can be reached at email address tdril4@tengizchevroil.com.

C.R. Stone P.E. Rick Stone is the Chairman and CEO of

Signa Engineering Corp. in Houston, Texas. Rick has over 23
years of experience in oil and gas operations. A longtime
member of SPE, Rick has served the Society as a
Distinguished Lecturer. Rick will be presented the SPE
Drilling Engineering Award by SPE President Andrew Young
at the 2003 conference. He is a member of IADC and UB
AdvisorIADC Wellcap Committee. Rick holds a Bachelor
of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Texas
A&M University. He can be reached at rstone@signa.net.

12

SPE/IADC 79850

Fig. 1 Location Map Showing T-7252

- Proposed Location

Location Map Showing T-7252

SPE/IADC 79850

Fig. 2 Cross-section of Rim Region

13

14

Fig. 3 Anticipated Casing Program

SPE/IADC 79850

SPE/IADC 79850

15

Fig. 4

T-7252: Reservoir and Bore Hole Pressures Across the Formation

Pressure, psi

9,000
13,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

9,610

11,000
10,564

Depth (TVD), ft

13,500

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

PP = 15.5 ppg emw at Top

of Reservoir
Bore Hole Pressure is balanced
at the top of the reservoir and
1156 psi overbalanced at the
bottom.

14,000

14,500

15,000

Pressure Gradient in Reservoir = .389

psi / ft or 7.5 ppg emw

11,400

Pressure Datum

15,500
PP = 14.1 ppg emw at Btm of
Reservoir

16,000

11,647

PP Datum

TOP - PP EMW

Static Reservoir Pressure

BTM - PP EMW

12,803

16

Fig. 5 Closed Hole Circulation Drilling Schematic

SPE/IADC 79850

SPE/IADC 79850

17

Fig. 6 Drillpipe Injection Fluid Requirements for CHCD

14,000

Minimum Daily Volume - Vertical - no Motor

12,000

Maximum Daily Volume (Down Hole Motor)

BBLs / day

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

2 - 7/8" DP

3-1/2" DP

5" DP

4-1/2" Hole

6" Hole

8-1/2" Hole

Fig. 7 Effect of Gas Migration Rate on Casing Pressure

and Kill Volume

8,000

400

7,000

350

6,000

300

5,000

250

4,000

200

3,000

150
Casing Pressure - 7 ft/min

2,000

100

Casing Pressure - 15 ft/min

Casing Pressure - 90 ft/min
Minimum Annular Kill Volume, bbl - 7 ft/min

1,000

50

Minimum Annular Kill Volume, bbl - 15 ft/min

Minimum Annular Kill Volume, bbl - 90 ft/min

0
0

10

15
Time, hrs.

20

25

30

Min. Annular Kill Volume, bls.

Casing Pressure, psi.

Assumption:
Gas Migration Rate & Density is Constant

18

Fig. 8: Alpine RPM 3000 RCD

SPE/IADC 79850

SPE/IADC 79850

19

Fig. 9: Class 5 BOP for 11

Rotary beams
1.74 feet

RCD

5,000 psi annular

Annular

Top pipe rams replaced with 7 casing rams

Casing rams

CAMERON
TYPE

"U"

Blind/shear rams
CAMERON
TYPE

"U"

Pipe rams

CAMERON
TYPE

"U"

Pipe rams

20

SPE/IADC 79850

Fig. 10: Actual Standpipe and Casing Pressure

6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
4409

4480

4580

4710

Drilled Depth (m)

4750

4800

Casing, PSI

Drill-pipe, psi

CHCD Pressure Readings, Unit 1

SPE/IADC 79850

21

Table 1

T-7252 Estimated Pressure Regimes

Depth
Unit 1
Top
Datum
Bottom

(meters)
4,002
4,500
4,701

Reservoir
Maximum
(ppg)
16.05
14.85
14.34

Reservoir
Minimum
(ppg)
15.47
14.33
13.94

Table 2:

Standpipe
Maximum
(psi)
6,020

Standpipe
Minimum
(psi)
5,614

5,677

5,272

Sacrificial Fluid Treatment

Product
Lime
Caustic
Oxygen
scavenger
H2S scavenger

Unit Cost
$0.15/lb
$0.33/lb
$1.42/lite
r
$1.05/lite
r

Concentration
1 lb/bbl
1 lb/bbl
0.25 liter/bbl

Daily Cost ($)

1,350
3,000
3,200

0.1 liters/bbl

945

Total

$8,495

Table 3:

Oil Base Mud (OBM) Losses

Interval
(meters)
4,317 4,327
4,364 4,368
4,390 - 4,398
Total

Volume
(barrels)
150
27
813
990

ROP
(m/hr)
3.8
3.6
2.7

Table 4:

CHCD Interval Pressures

Unit 1
Interval
(meters)
4,409 4,554
4,554 4,637
4,637 4,647
4,647 4,680
4,680 4,753
4,753 4,800
Total

Pump
Pressur
e
(psi)
5,500
5,550
5,500
5,550
5,540
5,550

Casing
Pressure
(psi)
270
350
240
350
300
250

Rate of
Penetratio
n
(m/hr)
6.04
6.14
6.66
4.40
3.10
3.50

Annular
Fluid
Pumped
(bbls)
10
5

15

Sacrificial
Fluid
Used
6,100
2,600
2,600
2,500
8,000
5,000
26,800