.

.. . .

@6iKJ

IADCLSPE 27528

Tracking Stuck Pipe Probability Wh”ile Drilling

J.A. Howard, Enertech Engineering & Research Co., and S.S. Glover, Enertech Europe
SPE Members
.
Copmlgh! i ?94, LADCLSPEDfii!lw CmiE!B.!@. ..: ;: . . . ... x. ,. .

This oabW w c.m-aiea f., W@entatlon al the 15S4 lALXiSPE Dr81(ngCm fe,mcs held 8“ Dallas, 7?=, 1>! 8 FebGw 199+.

ABSTRACT _: . . Databa$e sssembly

TWOstuck pipe datibases have been developed with data from
mWe than 106O””W1Sdrilled in the Gidf of Mexico aid the
North Sea. S@sti6ial tecbiiqires WCI.Sused to “&efop stuck
pipe”prdlctiv: “rnodils. When cl.assifyiig in tbiee categories -
diffeimtialIy~ “rneihanically ck “i%tsmik - an “a&mcy of75 %
is achieved, risiiig tb” 80 % “foi’iiwo-class (stucldiot stick)
prediction. Using these models, graphical tracking of the
probab~ty” of stuck @pe OCCui-ri@II@y”“be un&taken~ tO-
monitor drifling” operstioti ‘FOI stuck pipe avoidance. ,A
similar statisti& model W8Sd&eloped to @let t& probabllJ-
ty of f$?riiig=fipe 6u&3uik. Comparisoti are aisb made
with two published pipe-freeing” rn”deIs. The &“t.i were
further analysed to identify ‘zinY’tifids which may provide
operational guidelin= for” stuck pipe avoidaiwe or freeiig
operations. “ . . have 25 stuck weIls 0;50 total welfs drilled since 19s3.. The
INTRODUCTION
Stuck pipe i{ n m?jor diillhig trouble cost in the petroleum
industry. Histmiiilly, one out of “thp wells drilled in the
Gulf of Mexico and the “Nortl”-S& eipefi’~ie ““”kuck””pipe
problems, at a tetsl estimated cost of $250 &iK1on annually.
~mm. ~9g8 ~d 1992;. ~o, ~OEt. .tiaG@
undertaken to assemble and amdyse data relating to stuck pipe.
A total of 20 til operating companie%Were “tivolved, seveiil
of them in boih projects. Two daiabasei were assern”bled, orie
relating to weifs chilled iii ffii ‘Gulf of M&icO &a, the’otbii
relathig to wL1ls drilled in the European North Sea.
—- .-—
References, tables and fi@es at end of paper
The data ccdlectkm strategy was detine$l after a number of
meetings tith the proj@.&partiiipanti. Each cpmp~y collect:
ed about 50 data s& For the Gulf of Mexico each data set
contains tbme days Of infoi-nii~tm, wbich was extend&d to five
days for the North Sea database. Each ccinpimy . “w& to
submit halT stuck welk snd half”ri6t stuck’wells. The databsse
was to include welh drilfed in the previous five y~s. The
variabks to be ticlu&_l were &elect&!duxiig discussions ti”tb
participants, followings literature reiiew and consultation @b
a}knoil~~~ experts. Spe&I atteution was diwti tevaird
tie twenty” vdablti “tiggested by Kiggsborough er al ‘]] in
1985. “’”:. .“ .
it “w&“obse.R-d thats6R of the stiller” compahies may not
larger companies were asked to submit a bigber prop+m of
stuck wells, say 35-40 stuck and 10-15”not stuck. This, would
allow the final database to have the required mix of half stuck
snd half not stwk. Selection of wills was requested in reverse
clyonological order, ie.., the ,rnost recently drill,d wells
reported first.
~mjaE ;* ‘Stuck’ was defied w the pipe””imgble to be moved ~d for
&Ck’@J~~@tiOm (eg. j~g, spotting fi”id p@@)
had commenced. For stuck wells, the ‘Day 1* data wss from
the last morning i+ofi”prior 6 beco~g siwk,’and “Days 2-.
5. tbe four dSyS priOI to thd for a to~l of five co~~u!lv?. _. ._
@+ysrecorded (for the North Sea - three days for the Gulf of “‘
Mexice). The other wells were selected at random snd
included 3” or 5 drilliig days (not .n.%.e&cjIy ‘JOnS+c@e),
seleded below a depth of 3500’ tl. It is possible that a not
., . .
stuck..well,w US@.@.rnDWt~. oqe_da@.sgt.,if”a“partlc]pant
lacked sufficient Wellq the actual days are not dupliciti?d~

“901
2 .eTRACK3NG STUCK PEW ~OBABILITY
Most of .~e Gidf Of Mexico wells (47 1 out of 503) are located
in latitude ranges from 260 to 32”N and longitude ranges from
87” to 99! W, and mast oftb.5se in the North Sea (503 out of
523.) are Iocated in latitude ranges from 50° to 66”N and
longitude ranges tlom 7.5”W to 106E. Partitipmits unable to
complete a full set of 50 wells from the North Sea were
rquested 03 select weUs with similar geological traits to the
North Sea.
Database content
The initial selediii of variables for inclusion in the dstabasei
was accomplished using engine&ing judgement. The process
commenced with a review of “the causes of stuck pipe. b“
addhion to reii&vin.g the published literature []-’3, the subjecl
was discussed with experienced operational and research
personnel. Eleven stuck pipe categmies are shown in Table 1;
the lists of related variables are given as examples, and are by
no means exhaustive.
BP Exploration have since developed a Kig$ik””Stuck Pipe
Prevention Course [’O. They report additional causes of stuck
pipe - such as undergauge hole, junk in hole, cement relsted
problems, and collapsed casing - which do not have related
variables in the current database.. They al%o.identifi.$d two
variables related to human errors that appear to affect the
incidence “oTsluck”“pipe. These are ti’me in hours ‘stice tOUr
iharige, and days s:@i crew ccge. ~: “WOrk ~ PUb-
lisbed tw late for fic~usion ir:the Gulf 6f_Mexico database,
but the variables were ihcl”ded in the North Sea shidy.
There is i total 0f<03 “w611sin the Guff of Mexim &b base,
with i possible 224 variables for each well, and a to.t?.of .!iZ3
tieUs in &e North Sea daki base, with a possible 544 v’ii-iables
for .eiachwelL General in forniaticm about these w.411sis shown
iii Table 2. An addkioiid 25 Gulf of Mexico” wells were
submitted by a hate entrant to the project, . and were not
included in the full database. These wells were resewed as an
independ@ database f6r model verification. ”
.
STATISTICAL MfJDELL3NG “ “.
Anafysisrtecbnique .- . F@h Sea. For the North Sea database,, ,all threg .elimimtion
M“ltivariate Discriniiliant ‘=Analysis “(MD~) w~l .US@ to
develop stuck pipe prd”icdve” models for wells drilled in the
Gulf of Mexicom:d. North SW .meas. The purpos: of MDA
is to classify ce~in outc.omei by plottiri.g linear ~mbi@fo:s
of “variables in’ multidiinensionid space. The point iii *ace
plotted by each set of variables defines the outcome for that@
of variables. FOL tbe best dkcriminaiion”it is “desirable that.
each class of outcome- ploti in--a discrete regitm.
For tii intilysis, the Wataset for tich well is a s@kd group
of viaiiabies}- tifi%Zd for-accuracy of cla?.sificatkm, and the
,%
outcome clatse.s are the stuck c-mdit~o”m. Two classificaticifi-
ty@s are possible for-this tie; Three class analysis id
902
WIDLE DRILLING SP3%IL4DC
.2752s
defie a well as mechanicall~, differentially or not stuck. TWO
class analysis will defie it fi stuck or no; stuck. The models
were developwl using a well known proprietary statistical
amdysis program.
Separate models were developed specifically for wells drilled
using water base ‘mud (WBM) and oiI base mud (OBM).
However, the number of wells drilled with OBM recorded in
the Gulf of Mexico database, was insufficiitit to ensuie ik
statistical validity.
Variable sdedibn
. .
To develop a satisfactory pidictive model, It m necessary to
select those variables from the &tabase that best discriminate
between the classes. Di$ciiti”a.nt functions can” then be
derived, using the variables selected, to calculate the probabil-
ity of”a well being in any stuck condition. The canonical
analysis simplified identification of stuck condition by !howing
the three classes on a two-dimensional plot. This is pitduced
by seItiting a plane in the mukidlmerisiotial space such that
the projection of all data points onto the plane shows the best
disctiating chamckristics ie. such that the mean of each
class plots as far as possible from that of the others “7.Z].
The pd-iitive rnodeli were” developed using datab+es that
&intaiii 224 variablti for each of 503 wells (Gulf of Mexico),’
and .544iiwiibles for each of 523 wells (North Sea), collected
by the project pmticipmts. “After assembling the database,. a
end stige engine@#lit&iture rev~ew rw”ulted,jqa list of
40 variables (for W“M) for “-ch area which were considered
to be”“potentially sig@c&t ii pri&cting stiick pipe. Th&e
Iiit.”of variables were diff>rtit ~etwq- the two gtigrapbical”
areas. This was ih part due to changes made in the data
giihered for the North Sti &taba&, as a result of Gulf of
Mexico experience. S.5me of these 4Q were derived from
othm, variables, to. fomi diieniionkss or physi~ groups.
For each database, three subsets of the 40 variables were
selected using the smtistical techniques of forward, backward
and stepwise elimination. These resulted in classification
accuracies’ of 59-62% for the Gulf of Mexico and 72 % for the
tdmiques selected the-&me 13 variables. fn & effort to.
ifirove &e ‘wc@y further, ”a, ‘riimiber of other variable
groups were tested.
For the Gulf of Mexico, seven groups of variables, listed in
Table 3, and for the North Sea eight groups (Table 4), were
selected for testing. T’& awuracy of classification depends on
tlii”variables selectd” and the database size. where a seleckd
viiiable does not have i vahie “&ported in a particular dataset,
that dataset cannot be used in model development. This.till
tend to limit the number of wells available for model develop-
1Clamifimticm
acc..op ~.
Numberof walls m be d,%itkd
 - —.
SPE/IADC 27528 J.A. HOWARD AND S-B. GLCWER
ment as the number of variables required for the model
mcreasei: For example, ii the Gidf of Mexico database, there
are 217 wells for which all 15 viriables in the first (sK) group
have values reported, but only 115 welh for the seventh (G2)
group’s .38 vaiiables.
,.
In order to compare the accuracy of cl~sifi”caiion be~~q ke
varibus groups iii analysis wis conducted for the Gulf of
Mexico with a “fixed” database. This was chosen as the 16o
wells which conti” “all the variabl~ in group G 1; this is the
smallest well set which siKsti6s the statisdcal r~uirements.
Table 5 showi” the over@ accuracy ofclas:ifiiti,cm f~,,@
group, for both the Kdl “ad tii; fix6d databases. Most groups
showed a slight fmprove”rnerit ii a“tiuracy,” but group G I
remained the most accurate. Four additional groups were
tested, without improving-the accuracy of classitiiatiiin: These
gm”ps were selected by a co@tijatiou of statisti@ and
mgineefig” selection. from a sub-set of 34 variables. I@
accuracies of” classifkation for iach of the eight groups of
vaiiablti foi”fkrth Sea WBhf wells ire also listed in Table 5.
A@’ from overall accuracy of clasiifititibn, a nu.rnber of
other parametem - number of variables used, number of wells
available, accuracy in each stuck class, the distribution of
wells in the canonical plot, etc. - were used to select the
“best” discri”ti-tit””~roiip:”” The BASECASE group of 27
variables .~d .~e NSE@ASE group of 18 variables were
selected fir divelop”med of the water btie mud models for the
Gulf of fJeii@ and North Sea [+p~tiieiy.”
The selection gf vaiiiabks for wells dril@4 wjth oil base .mqd
(OBM) was accomplish” by a si~lar procedi~ “to that
outlined for the WBM model. For the Gulf of Mexico, of the
503 wells reported, only 66 w“ire drilled with OBM. This was
insuffi?iEiit @ tie a statistical selection of the important
variable groups. Therefore, the variable set for the model was
selmtd by eriattig &x wwi{tilis”~.orn ihe water baie.rnid
model. There are 49 welk drilled using OBM in the database
for which values were reported for all 21 variables. The
overall accur~y of pre++ion is”92 %; however, +! s+mple
“size is tco small to bi–statistica13y v~id.
FOI the North Sea, variables that a~ specific to watei’ base
mud were qdaced by those specific to oil base nmd.’ Table 6
shows tie selected variable groups Wd the_ accim.cy of
classificatiti foi-&ch. The ac&mcy and the nu-mberof w6!Js
in each class of stuck condition” (ie. differeatiilly, ”me&ani@ly
and not stuck) are shown in Table 7. The “best” group of
variables is designated BIXf23, and this set was us?d to.
develop the stuck pipe predictive”model for wells drilled with
oil base mud.
Both the WSM model and the OBM model have fewer than
the statistically desirable number of wells in the difheniiilly
stuck categorf:’ the”minimum-sa.niple size should-be 301. “h”ai
. . .. . ..—. —
attempt to overcome this hnutatlon, a modeI was developed
cmnbtig wells drilled with WBM and with OBM.., The
903
3
sample size for each stuck condition is gieater than the
miniiiuim @CkRl, and the total number of wells is signifi:” - ““” ““”
cantly increased.
The variable set for the combmed WBM/OBM mcdel was
d5@10p@ from a combination’ of “Ihe WBM and the OBM
models by eliiit-mg iariibles that are specific to only one
mud type. Several sets, which include those variabl= that are
common to the WBM aad OBM models, were selected and
tested for accuracy of classification. A group of 27 variables
wti selected to devdop the stuck pipe predictive mcdel. The
combination model has .a higher number bf wells (252).
miilabfe ““for analy& and the” accumcy “of cl+ssifibatiori is
comparable with that of either the water base mud model or
the oil base mud model.
STliK PIPE P@3DICTION
Three class modkls
In three class andwis, a well IMY be classified as mecbanical-
Iy, differ@ialIy & not stuck. “~e discriminant .functioni
(linti”c&nbinatiom of “the selected variables) are evalu&d.
The dkcrimihint” tiiiiitioi with the highest. numtical value
predicts the stuck condition for that well. fn addition, two
canonical functions””may “be deftied to give a “griphiial
presentation in a two-dimensional plot, showing three regions
projected from the @&-dimensional” space plotted by the
~G .. . . .
et f&tiO@@i@e 1)., Table 9 and Figure 2 shOW,
the resulti fo~-25 wells “collected by”C+i@ny H in the Nmtb
Sea, that have all the IS w+bles included in the stuck pipe
predctive mcfdel for water base mud. Taking well No. 1 as an
exsunplc ,=.
lb three disc riminant functions are WDl =. 1125.21,
WD2” = “1131.99, WD3 =“ 1124:10. WD2 has the
highest numerical value so the model predicts this well to
be mechanically stuck,.ie. P~DICT = 2.. The mnoo+al
timctious (WCl = 3.Z37, WCZ = -2.088) plot a poiit ii
the mechanically stuck region (see Figure 2).
For the North Sea, the overall accuracy of classification is
82%, 75.% and 73% for the WBM, OBM and combinafioii
models respectively the accuracies of classification, including
$iase for the. “ii@iyidualpirticipa~@g mJrnp-ti&S, a~” sumiiua- -
rized in Table “9.
For the Gulf~f Mexico, the “rno~elhas bi-sn v@Kd using a
separate datibase providd by a late entrant to the proje$t.
This database contains 25 well datasets, but only 1g of”tbese
contain all 27 variables used in the model. The overall
aw”tmicy of predktioti is 72% for the three-class model; this
compares well with the 75 %““accuracy tisiig the ori@d
&iaba& (Thble 9].””—
The statillity otlbe Gulf of Mexico modei wa.smko inv@igat-
ed using a ‘rolling test’ technique. A rolliiig kst ii coriductcxi
4 TRACKING STUCK PIPE PROBABILITY WHILE DR3LL3NG
by removiig a number of wells, selected at random, from the
&tabase of .kdid wells, and developing anew predictive model
using the remaining tiells. The wells removed are then
:~~sified yi~ t@ model _wd the predktions compmed with
the database records, &h new”p~ictive model’ W8.Salso
used to classify the additional set Of“dataprovided by the la:
entrant. tie iesults ‘of the rolling tests ire Suqw&@d in
Table IO. ” For each roOing test tbe top line is the results of
tie tbrw-clasi prediction.
For Rollbig Tests 1 and 2, the results= gene~[lY ~n~~ent.
Rolliig T&ts 3 and 4 show lower accugcy “In predicting the
20 tieUs set aside. Howevei, “the tbrez-elms analysis is.,still
substantially better @w tbe..?~ ? acW~Y. .Wd?m ‘el.Vti,:n.
should achieve. Table 10 also shows the residti of applying
the model developed fkom the 160 well &tabase to the four
sets of rolliig test wells. These reds are genendly excdent,
with the exception of the set for Rolling Test 3.
Two +ss modefs
In addition’~ Oie .@ ck+.ss_~ysis described above, it is
possible to develop models which simply classi$ i “wETIw
tither stuck or not stuck. .F_Asfigle Smear combmatkn of the
sele+~ variables is. tised, which, in this study, bas been
described as the Sticking Index. The classifi”mtion depends on
whether, when evaluated for a well, its value is above or
b@ow a tiedold v#ue.:The Stiig Jgdex can alsa be ukd
to calculate. the pmbabilityof “awell I&g cla.ssitkd as stuck,
as descr+d in ~e .~n=~ple at +e ,md of the text.
“,
The tio+lass modeii for North Sea weili gave ;Xcies” Of
classification of 87 %, 81% and “83% for the WBM, OBM and
cornbiri~ models respectively. The+ I&td@, along wi~ those
for each participant, ‘iie also summarised in Table 9..
For the Gulf of Mexiw” theoveil accuracy was 78 % (Table
9). The model was again tested using the ‘independent date-
base and rolling tests. Tim& rixuks are ?&I? ti .&e @WeI
Iine fdr &ch” tS.$””iF”Table10.
History tracking
.,.
For stuck wells, Gulf Of Mexiti &tiwas c~llect&i Tm tijI.&
consecutive days, and North Sea data for five consecutive
days, culminating. the day the drillsttig bec”m stick. Tb&
models c@loped have beem used to predct the drill string
stuck conditio’ri from dnts collected in the peritid prior to
Stickiog.
Some variables, were not explicitly reported before stickin~
occurred. These wem ekher estkatexj (eg. true vertical depth
and b]t depth when siuik), based on reasonable assumptions,
or assumed, to be the same as at tbe time sticking o~curd.
Variables s&h as bit size, top of stabilizer, drill COUWOD,
average hole angle, ma.iimum dogleg severity, ”differential
pressure, and annular gap are examples of these. Some of
.-+- . .
904
SPE/IADC 27528
these assumptions may not be valid, resulting in inaccurate
predictions.
The accuracy of prdlction” drops signifi~tlj. fi tie periOd
prior to sticking. However, it is interesting to note that 6V.ir
50% of wells that became stuck are predicted correctly. This
result mtiy s=e’~ “a.@ninE before actilY getting sm.
Table 11 shows the accur.wy “of prediction agakist days prior
to sticking. F@r*”2-5%how the disti’ibution of m@,anicaUyr
stuck wells h the stuck pipe prexhctive plot for. the Gulf of
Mexiw Model at 4S and. 24 hours before stic~g, and on the
daythe well became stuck. Apparently, wells tend to &g-
yerge on the mechanically stuck region over time.
~a&. inda
Multivariaie. Discriti-tit .4@+is was dso used to develop
models to predict whelber a stuck drill string cag be freed.
The Gulf of Mexi6u databass. records 78 wells for which the
9 iariabIes identified as being most impoa”t “were rEPoit@d.
For the North Sea, the same variables were used, with the
excepti6iiof one. The database records 59 Sells for which@
S variables were reported.
The Freeing Index @l) is a liiear mmbinatioii’ of th+ese
variables+ if “tie value of the FI is less than 4“.7353 (Gulf of
Mexim) 010,2745 (North Sea), the m:d?l pr~lc~_ ~ he
@u& driu stig-cm be freed. The FI corfectly predicti 29
(83 %) freed wells, and 35 (81%) not freed for”tbe Gi.lf of =
Mexico, aid 34 (90%). freed wells, and 18 (86%) not ti”f:f
the North Sea. However, the small sample siti may UQ!be
statistically valid. “.
TLWFI M akc.be used to talc.l,qe ,@i probability ‘+fr-~~g..
a smik well, as explained k“ the example at the end of the
text. The late entrant’s wells were used to verify tie Gulf6f
Mexko modefi all 9 variables required were recorded for.Only
6 wells, of which 4 (67 %) were correctly cl=”Sifi.Xl. .
_lNG ANALYSIS
A review of the literature ‘m] reveals the informiwion which
operators require when attempting to remedy stuck pipe. An
estitite of the probability of freeing the pipe and operational
~ldelines to optimii.e the freeing process are given priority:
I
The review suggests which data may affect the probability” of
freeing. -
Database trends ““’”
Table 12 shows the results of the general data SWULXsome
guidelines may be deduced from these data. The general
trends were consistent between the Gulf of Meiifi and North
Sea databases. In the following discussion, the percentages
quded are for the Gulf of Mexico first, the North Sea second
(GoM/NS).
. .
,,-
SP3VIADC275~ J.A. HOW.iRi3 AND KB. “GLOVER
The propcmtion of wells freed for each stuck mechanism is
shown first in Table 12. Mdmnically stuck wells have a
higher probability of fReing than diff&entiidfy SLUCIG
46 % vs.
37% for the Gulf of Mexico: 74 % vs. 60% for the North Sea.
The M5imi&onin the datiib=”” sugg&k” that ibe total time
stuck significantly affwts the probability of freeing. This is
delined as the time idirhl stm’tiig” whea the pipe became
stick, and ending when the pipe was freed. If the pipe was
not fried, the”‘ad time is’iikn the timent plug was sit to”
sidetrack or abandon the well. The histogram shows that
beyond the first day, the propoK!on of wells freed is only
about 33% for the Gulf of Mexi60 and 56% for the North Sea.
One iite@.-E2ti0u of”tis ii”tbat most opemtcm itop attempting
to free the pipe after one day. where attempLs continued
beyond one day, Me proportion .@ed falls to ~.% WC! 17%,
respwtively ai%er“he fifth day. - ~
The suggestion that the probability of freeing dezres.ses as
stuck time”iikr~”ii is SUppOrt-&h the Iik”iiiti”ie. Keller # al
WI ~kt~ ~ ~~g4 that fi=fi=g @titiom should be StOPPed
tier eight days. Recently, Shivers and Domungue 1~]rwom-
mendexi that attempts to frek stuck pipe should not be initiitd
or continued more than four days atle.r becoming stuck.
Table 12. also shows the effed of other variables on” the
propofiion of “Wellsfreed The’ importance of gettiig $otfing
fluid in plati as soon = possible is emphasised. Of the wells
in WbiCh SgOttilig fluid W= plw”ed within four hOllW of
stichig, 70% (Gutf of Mexic@ and 76% (NoA” Sea) Wert-
freed. where spotting fluid was positiciriexfbetween 4 and 24
hours of becoming stuck, these figtires “fell ta 41 % and 43%
respectively. Although the data is sparse, it appeari that
jarring within one hour of placing a spotiiig fluid frees a
higher propmtion of stuck wells than does jarring” after two
hours of soaking (43% vs 27 % for the Gulf of Mexico, 67%
vs. 53% for &e North Sea). It is also apparent that if jai’iing
is not successful within 4 hours, the chance of free”mgis 1ss
than 37% (Gulf of M.exicm)and 50% (North Sea).
,..
The well profile apparently affects the probability of frieing”
once stuck. Table 12 shows that a higher proportion
(53 %/87%)tif straight Iiolii Were “=” thin build ind hold or
S-type profile wells (39 %/62”%=& 44%/77% respectively).
For the No@ Sea, average hole angle also ip~rs to .afftit
the probability of freeing. 76% of wells with hole angle las
than 40” were freed, whereas mdy 56 % of weUs in the range
of 50.-60” were freed.
Finally, the review of the freeing database for the North Sea
suggests that, there is a critical overpull, which indkates the
likelihood of fF&i4n~.””For wells subjecte+l to less than 150
klbs oveqndl during freeti”g’opiiatfins, 87% were frwxl. If
overptdls higher than 150 klbs were applied, the success rate
fell to 49 %. This snggests that if a well remains stuck when
pulled to 150 klbs more than string weight, there is only a
49% probability that it till &pond to higher Owpdk. . when considering operations to free stuck pipe.
905
5
Comparison with published modefs
The Stickims Facto@ (SF) was calculated for the 208 Gulf’
of Mexico and 2L4 North Sea stuck weu data.sets which
contain all five vtiables, and is plotted against probability of’
freAng in Figuie 6. For the Gulf of Mexico, the database
shows a lower probability of freeiiig stiik pipe up to a SF of
3, and a higher probability for SF values higher than “3,
whereas for the North Sea, the results show good agreement
with Exxon’s published data up to a SF of 3. For SF values
higher than 3, the current database shows a higher probability
of freeing stick pipe. However, the data is sparse in this
region of the plot.
The TexacoFreeing Index (TFI) ranges from 86”to 130 for the
218 North S= s~ck wells for which values c&dd be calculat-
ed. Thwev-du& are higker oiemll” h those reported by
Shivers &d Domangue ‘]. The TFI was grouped in three
~g~: 8p-1~.”1~-l 15 ad 115-130 (Table 13) ~“~~~Ond
apprO”fi~tely Mtb tbe ~g~ (ie.. 0-45; 45-55 ~d 55+)
published. Compared w“tb Texaco’s data, North Sea wells
with TFI values in the middle and low ranges apparently have
a bigher probability of freeiig, whilst those in the high range
appear less likely to be freed.
TIM TFI for wells from the Gulf of Meiiti database does not
‘show good agreement with the published data (Table 13).
“Wells “with TFI vzilues in the low range apparently have a
higher probability of fi’iiii, whilst those in the high range
appear less likeIy to be .fkd. The curve does not appear to
have the same character as the published data
CONFUSIONS
1. Mukivmiate discriminant analysis appears to be an
effective tool for developing a predictive model that can
cli.ssify drilled wells into three categories, namely dMer-
entially stuck, mechanically stuck and not stuck.
2. The accuracy of the predictive niodel depends on the size
of database and the variables selected for.analysis. ~
3. The stuck pipe predictive plot (such as F@e 1) provides
a potential means for inonitoriig a well during drilling.
For instance, a well can be monitorEd by plotting values
..— .
of the two canonical timclions at successive pouls m tune
and noting whether the well’s position is moiiig from the
not stuck region on the left toward the stuck regions’ on
the right.
5. Multivariate diicriminaiit amdysis may also be used to .:
develop models to predict whether a stuck well can be
freed, such as the Freeing Index..
6. The zeneral trends recated above show consistence
betw~ the two regio~s studied, and should be nod
6 TRACKJNG STUCK PJPJli?ROBABILPYY W31JLE DRJLLING
EXANLTLE
Calculating Probabiht~ of Sffckin~ and FmQJJS ._ ..... . . j-”
fn addition tO initial classification, the discriminant finction:
reported in thk paper may be used to calculate the probability
of a will being placed in any one category. The method is
described below:
1. Calculate the numerical value of each discriminant
function using the relevant variable values.
2:. Calculate the exponential function if each discriniinaut
function value.
3. Sum the values calculated in Step 2.
4. The probability of a well bei.n~ classiti~ in any class is
obtained bv. ..dividine the exmmential function of that class
(calculated in Step Z).by tie sum calculated in Step 3.
FRSEI and FREEO”arethe gk.mimitint Iinctions which
Cm@. damify.a pipe as freed or not freed and FREDICT is Ox
pwlkted outcome(1 = kyd, O = not freed). PROBABI
md FROBABO ,* lhe probabilitiesof Owe 0U1CO171eS.
Takhg an examplewhex FRSEOiszmalcrtim FREEI,du
well is .Iamiliedas not tied (TREDP3 = O), ‘l%. pmba-
V,!ity of lhk predktim ii: . .= e -:..
1. The nmmicd vabm of the two diwfmi”a.t functionsati;
FREEO= 15.844K;-*”EI = 13.2019.
2.? EXP@’REEOI = EXP(15.8440 ~ 7.607x 106;
EXP(3=REEI) = 6xP(13.2019)- 0,5416X 10’
~:
SUM = EXF@REEO) + FXP(FRSE1)
= (7..507 10.5.414).X 10’ = 8.148x 10’
4. PmbAility of classitieatimas not freed:
&XP(FREEO) 1.sIIW=7.60718.14S = 93.4%
Probabilityof ch~,ficalionas”~reed:
EXPfFREEl) / SUM = 0.5414/8.148 = 6.6%
REF’EmN&ES . ..; : . .-
1. Kimzsbomugh, R. H., Lohec, W. E., Hempkins,W.B.” and
Nhz;, C.J.:- “Multivariatii ~tatistirnl h-alysis of Stuck
Drilfpipe Sfh!atYo=ii”,paper SPE 14131 (1985).
2. Short, J. A.: Drilline and Casine ODeratioiiz. PemWell
Books,” PennWell publishing .Co. (1982).
3. Moore, P.: Drillirm Practice Manual.
4. Short, J. A.: Casingind Fishinz C!Jeratiofis
5. Warren, J. E.: “Causes, Preventions, ”and Recnvery of
Stuck Drill Pipe”, presented at Spring meEting, South-
western Distiict, Division of Production, Houston, March
1940.
6. McGhee, E.: “Gulf Coast Drillers whip the Wall-sticking
Problem”, Oil and Gas Journal (Feb. 27, 1961) 100.
7. Am& M.R. and Monaehan. P. H.: ‘Diffeiefitfal Pressure
.%ic~g -”Laboratory ~tidi~ of Friction Between Steel
and Mud Filter Caken, JPT (May 19.32) 537.
8. Outmans, H. D.: “Spot Fluid Quic~y to Free Differetdial-
Iy Stuck Pipe”, 011 and Gas Journal (July 15, 1974) 65.
9. Browse, M.: ‘H6w””””to””Haiid16- Stuck PIu& ind” Fisiiim
Problems”, World OiJ (Nov. 1982) 103. “.. .... ....
IO. Hdmick, W.E. and Longley, A:J.: “Pressur-Differential.
Sticking of Drill Pipe”, Oil and Gas Journal (June 17,
906
SPE/IADC 27528
—
1957) 132.
11. Adam, N.: “How to Control Differetitial Pipe Sticking”,
P.etrOleum Engineer (Sept. 1977) 32. ..
.12.. Hopkin, E. A.: “Factors Affecting Cutting Removal
During Rotary Drilling”, paper SPE 1697 presented at the
SPE Third Conference On Drilling and Rock Mechanics
(Jan. 1967).
13. Adams. N.: “A Field Study of Differential-Pressure Pipe
Sticking”, paper SPE 6716, (1977).
-“14. Dunbar, M. E., Warren, T.M. and Kadaster, A’.G.:... .: ~~~
“Them-y and Solutions to Bit Sticking Caused by Borehole
Deformation”, paper SPE 14179 (1985).
15. Courteille, J.M. and Zurdo, C: “A New Approxch to
“’. Differential Sticking”, paper SPE 14244 (1985).
16. Rir-Site Stuck Pine Prevention Course Workbook, BP.
Exploration (1991).
17. Bo~, G. E. P.: H~ter, W.G. and Hunter, J. S.: Statistics
for Exmrimenteti, John Wiley& Sons, Inc. (1978).
18. James, M.: Classificad6ri Algorithms, John Wiley &
Sons, In.. (1985).
19. Jobmcm, R.A. and Wlcher, D. W.: Amdisd Mukivariate
Statistical .Awalwis, 2nd cd., Prentice Hall, Inc. (1988).
20. Ott, L.: AII Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data.
Ad@, ~rd d.,, PWS-KeIZf Publishing Co. (1988).
21. Chambers, J. M., Cleveland, W. S., Kleiner, B. and
Turkey, P.A ~.
wadsworth.& Books/ColePublishing Co; “(19.83).
22. Cbatterjee, S. aid Price, B.: Re,mssion Analysis by
@iOIE!S, JOfUIWIIey & SOns, Inc (1977)t
23.. Keller, P. S., Brinkmann, P.E. and Taneja, P.K.:. “Ecxz:..
nomic and SWistical Analysis of Time Liqimtions for
Spotiiig Fluids and Fishing Operations”, paper OTC 4792
(1984),
:., 24. hbive~, R.M. and DOmmI-P, R. L:. “Operational Deci- :
~ sion Making for Stuck Pipe IncidenS in the. Gulf of
Mexicc A Risk Economics Approach”, paper SPE/IADC..
21998 (1991).
25. Love, T. E.: “Stickiness Factor -A New Way of Looking
at Stuck Pipe”, paper IADC/SPE 113.83 (1983).
26. Ayers, R.C. and O’Reilly, J. E.: “Offshore operators
_: Cbmmittee .Gulf of Mexico spotting Fluid Survey”, paper
>PE@C lS@3 (1989). ..=, ..
27. Perry, G..W. and Ruhe, R. W.: “To Fish, Or N@ ~o
Fish”, 0!1 and Gas Journal (July 24, 1961) 80. ”
2S. Harrison, C.,G.: :Fisbing Decisions Und& Uncertainty”,
“._JPT. (Feb. 19S2) 299.. “., . .. ... . . . . . .
29.. Adams, N.: .“HQw to: Control Diff&entiiJ Pipe Sticldng -
Part 4 zEconomi& Methods to Avoid or Free Stuck Pipeti,
Pelroleum Engineer (Jan. 1978) 30. . -- . .“. ..
-.
,. ..

J.% HOWmb~ S.?. GLOVER 7

SPEAADC 27528

Table k C3 usrs of stuck Dipe-and related variab!m . . ... .Takde.??.~W UDSof variables for Gulf of Maico w~k . .
.,6.,”., n B~wsTcOCHOIGZ
DEVIATION hole male, rn.asured and vertical depth
DOGLEGS rna~. dogleg severity, hole size

KEYSEATS drill collar OD, annular gap

PROBLEM FORMATION measured & vertical deplh, Ik.ca:ion,
(FRACTURE, SHALE) wellbore stresses
DRIUSTRING top mbiliser depth, no. of stabilisers,
[TORQUEIORAG) torque, drag, drill collar Iengrh & OD
MUD PRoPERTIES solids, cake, PV, YP, funnel vi.oositV, PH
SALT WATER INFLUX mud ch!ocides
HOLE CLEANING. am.!m velocity, flow rate, mud gel
strength, cutdmas carryiw capacity,
PV.YP product
WEUBORE STASILITY time inllength of open hole, stuck poinr
OIFFERENTSALSTICKING differential pressure, mud weight
HUMAN ERRORS
x
x
,
,
Table Z @l~ e ut the datsbns~ x

Gulf of North
Mexico Sea

Wells classified as differendallv’ stuck 19% 12%

Wells .i..sifiod as rn..h.n~.dlv st..k 37% 33%
Wells were drilled between 1986 & 1S90 .81% 85%
Maximum water depth 2609 fl 1616fl 2609 ft ,2n Z.21
‘mm.
42% .{, s? co CH G1
Water depth from 0 to 100 ft
Water depth fr.org100 t. 4D0 V.. .=41% 5.3.4; ,x . BACKWARD EUMIN4110N
w . FORWARD SEL=IION
Water depth from 401 to 500 ft “/. 22% sc . SIE?WISE co . WM81NE0 W’ +.EK+ fl
G, - GROUP2
Ut?odwater. bas?d mud 83% 45% & = c“EwO!JS RUN 39
U . GROUP 2
vertical 31% 36%
Build and hold 5s% 48% :.
77%
~2% . . . Table & GrGims o f variables for No rtb Sea wBM we 11s‘
Rotary drilled
Top drive drilled, . .::;. - ;;, ;;;,,; : 20% 27?6
...- . .
Drilled wirh 3 cone bits 72% 55% “ x
Drilled wirh PDC bits 21.% 3s% x
50% 21% x x
Jack .“P rigs
27%. x , , x x .
Platform rik?s , 21% x x x x
Semi. submersibles 1z% 50% ,
26% 28% A , x
8.1 /2” hole x x
x x x
$-7/8” hole 24% !/? . z x r
51%
,. d? rbr.i x
r
12.1 /4” hole 22% 1a d, mdwo x x A A L
./a 14% ,,. x A A x
17-1 /2” hole d,,.,”,
x-
-9% 22% ,2, dl~” x x
Depths bmwe.m 4000 and 7000 ft x x x , x
@,, ,3. dlyp x
Depths batwee” 7000 a“d 10000 ft 23% w. dlw;el x x x x x x
41% 1s% x x
Dwxhs b,lween 10000 and 1400D ft 15. d~mkser x
x .
6% ,6. dlaPi X x
Depths greater than 1wOO R 17% , x . x
,7. .dtph z x
Mud weights between 8.4 andl 0.0 PP9 15% 23% ,& 6%111.51 r. . x z,. x x ,
40% , x x x
Mud weights belweeh 10.1 and 12.0 ppg 29% ,s. dl%ol:ds x
x
20. *.6P 1 A
Mud weights between 12.1 and 14.0 ppg 20% .30% =. x x , ,
23. ,nw=6p x
Mud weights gm.cer than 14.0 PP9 36% 7% 2. Nd x ?. ?. x
r. A x x
23. .Pe”hd. x
. .. ., ... *.+... 24. 6.1wob x x x .
i x x *
25. ypp” ,
26, cd A
, x
x
x
x
x ,
.
A A x
x , : x z
x
x
,
x
,
. .. x
,7 <8 ,8 ,6 ,9 ?+

907
 .. -,

8 TRACKING STUCK PIPE PROBABILITY WHILE DRILLING SPE/L4DC 27S28

Table & ~~..

K&b!!S *_ ., ,_ .; .. . . . .. . ... ..
Cw,an ;..
Gm.P of Number Num- Accmacy of Accuracy of SW&=w ~,c.. —
variables of vari- bar of classification’ classifimtlo-nz
able. wells
GULF OF MEXICCI (503 wellsl _ _
Gnckwacd 15 .217 135/217 = 62% 103/158 = 65%
Forward 8 179 105[179 = 59% 105/158 “~ 6;% 11$/1,, . ~,)
-SEPWISE 74 7.3(7,) sq7q 33{?2)
+ M,*g!,
Stepwiw 12 175 11 4/170 = 65% 102/159 = 05%
Combined .23. 170 121/170 = 71% 114/159 = 72% W.cwm. ,7 18(75) ~. 61 [821 32(,21 ,,3,,40. @,)
+ .SIdls
Chevron 20 210 130/21 0 = 62°% 102/180 = .94%
WMPLUS 24 !7(71] 55(72) %(,,] 2041138 = (75)
GrouP 1 27 1 S0 120[1 60 = 75% 120/180 = 75%
Group 2 38 115 91/115 =78% 91/115 =79%
Now Foreach caww, IWsinumber representsnumber
ofwellscorrectly
NORTH SEA Water base mud (523 wdlsl dssslfi,dandmcondn“nfmrinPnrenltrasesqwewis Percsntag*
GOMCASE 22 158 1211158 = 77% corlecllyCrmslmd

CHEVCA8E 17 167 11 2/167 = .67%

GOMPLUS 26 129 105/129 = 81°A
9ASE34 18 153 125/1 53 = 82% –:..
NSEABA8E 18 157 130/157 = 83%
SASE16 16 158 131/158 = 83%
PHYSCASE 19 128 88/1 29 = 68%
ALL24 ~ 34 129 112/128 = 88%

1From full database

9From fixed 160 wells

Table 6: .GniuDsof variables for Nortlf Sea 013M Welk _

~:1 ~, ___6.- s 6 7 s 8
.. L -.
Variables $IW.XE;*-.”8 _ MCC”MO ,s- - -. a.,,m ,r,m

xx xx x . xx
x x x ..x-
,., . , x x ., ~ u
Table 9: A f
x x x x
x, x , x x x
xx x“ , x x x, Water base mud Oil base mud ComblnaEori
xx xx , x .x
,, x, x x , GULF OF MEXICO
x ,. ., x xx
x. xx x , xx
,, x , x, 0“.,.[1 1.S0/75/78 46/92/83
xx ~.
,, x x Independent dam 16f12@
xx x ,. x .x .-.
. . . x“. ,
r ,X x x NoRTH S&
xx x x.
xx x xx
x. x x x x. 0“.,.s11 157/83/87 177i75/31 252/73/83
x * ComPany A ~ 7/1 00/100 33/73/85 45/64/87
. x
0 , Compmy B 28/97/97 12/75/83. 47/87/64
company c 2/100/100 19/5s/58
x
x company D 6/1 00/1 00 42{81 /31 10/90/100
x. .X .x comPany E 12J75133 7/8 S/1 DO 29/52/66
x .x
, xx Company F 41/81/88 24/67/75 36i78i78
x xx
x xx ComPany G 14/50/71 24/67/75 15/80/87
x xx Company H 25172180 23/52/61
company I 14/86/36 20/70/70 22/82/91
.
CornPany J 2/50/50 20/65/80
,. *
x x
1In the above table, the numbers xx/w/zz represent
-m- ,,,,,0 - ,m. ,,Ma -, ,s,,, - ,_qa ,H.. m = .“mber of wells classifie~ yy = ,Dercenxcorm.tly classified
ACCU.CY
by three-ciass model: zz = parcent corre.dy classified by lwo-
% 723 71s 74.1 80.7 7s.8 243 74.1 75.4 74.4
.!,ss modd

908
,,,
.~-

SPEIIADC 27528 J.A. HOWARD AND S.B. GLOVER 9

Table 10 ResuIt6 of rolliu tests for Guff of MeXiCQ Table. ~: llwtm sffecfim the grobabilitv of fre=zing
m.!2df?.
Gulf of Mexico. ~
Developing Stuck Mechanism
Model wbh Predicting Predicting
D-stuck 35/(35 + 60) ’37% 40/(40 + 27) = 60%
-140 wells 20 Wells ~a - M-stuck 86/(86 + 101) = 46% 134/(134 + 4.6) : 74%
D+M 1211282 = 43% .1741247 = 70%
Rolling 1 102/140 = 72.8”A 13;20 = ‘65Y. 10/18 = 56%
i10/140 = 78.6% 14/20”= 70% 11/18 = 61% stuck Time

Rolling 2 97/140 =.69.3% 14/’20 = 70% 11/18 =61% Hrs Free Stuck % Free Free Stuck 7. Free
104/140 = 74.3% 7%/20 = 75% 11/18 = 61% “’: - 2’4< 71 8 90% 132 2 997.
24.48 9 18 337. 15 12 56%
48-72 ~0 18 35% 9 9 50?.
Rolling 3 110/140 = 78.6% 9/20 = 45% 13/18 = 72%
72-96 3 13 19?. 6 77 26%
116/140 = 828% “11/20 = 55% 13/18 = 72%
96-120 6 23 2*% 6 10 38%
120+ 21 67 24?. 4 20 17%
Ro]llng 4 107/140” = 76.$0~ _, 9/20,= 45% 12/18 = 66-6%”
116/140 =. 8+8% 10/20 = 50% 13178 = 72%

R1 80,80
Model 120{160 = 75% R2 85,90 13118 = 727.
126/160 = 78.8% R3 55,60 14118 = 77.7%

Table 11: Acmu-acY of c1ossification in ven-od Drier to

@i@@g
R4 75:75

Ii!dIm3
23 .,, -=..
ToM .$”.k ~nw [dws)

M9M m. f 0,”2 Da” 3 Da” z 08”5 ?ime to PosiOonSpoUingFluid

“u 0, Wx!co
“o-4 22 .10 “70 39 12
W,!.,: 4-24 28 41 41 73
3*S, ,201,60 .75 8W36J -60 741!45 - 51 24+.. 4 11 26 2 3
2-s=” 124160 - 7s W31M8 - 63 .s0/!.5 - 55
Hr. Soak Bi;ore Jra,rlng
—

w., m , O*I 24 45 43 43 21 67%

2+ 18 48 27 9 8 53%
3<1,s6 ,28,156= 82 lJ4/’l5l
-74 !08,,4, .73 9, ,,s .,8 $41M .,0
2<,,,. ,3.,56. = ,7 122,5! .,, la,,,, . 82 ,0C,4, - ,, ,0,;,,4 .,,
Hrs Jar Fumtioned
=4 43 33 57 112 13
0!: —
-4-.24 30 52 -27 39 40
3<,***, ,,3,77 = .7s ,,;169 . ,, *51,6, . s, =;14, . s, w, 4, -55
,24-48 15 29 34 8 9
2<.s 164/,= . m TOW59 .64 SW* .,, 93”.4,.63 ,,,,4, . C2 .“ 48+ 4
7 14 33 4

Cmlblnwo”: Angle Type

-!.,s ,84,2,? .,, 1,,/24, = m ,,2.3s. ,, ,a,,ms .6, ,,amd .,,
,<1,,, 2,,,2,2= 83 ,,,,246= ti-,57i235 =67 ,62.z% = 72,4,i2LM -,9 Straight 31 52 8 87%
Build & hold 75 f: z 92 56 62%
S.type 15 ?9 44 30 9 77%

Angle
Table 13: lksco freeitw index .“ . ...
Degrees
GOM Data S20 73 19 79%
TFI Chances of Freeing Tsxaco’s Data s 30 18 9 .67%
o-45 .28Y. 5% S40 29 10 74%
45-55 38% 50% S50 20 14 597.
67% s 60 19 15 56%
55+ 93%
60+ 8 4 87%
North Sea Data oveQull
TFI Free Not Free % Free
86 s 100 31 23 57% 10’ lbs
100 s 115 41 24 63% 0-50 60 3 93%
115 s 130 81 18 62% 50-100 34 8 81%
100-150 24 4 86%
152-200 19 13 5%
200-300 22 22 50~%
300 + 15 14 52%

909
 -.. , ~

10 TRACKING STUCK PIPE PROBABILITY wHILE DRILLING SPEAADC. 27S28

;-

. .=.
.===
..==
?. b...
...=
.
..
/“””””
\
\.
x .
.

.
=.
\ .
.
x
.
-

>“
~- .. .
a

=x ~ .. ,..-
3
. .=.

,. .. .. . .
z
.,
.
. .

.-
.
... +-.... ---------- . ----+---- ,-.. -.-4
——. —. — _
. . . .
7

..
\ “’” 1“
\====

.
. .

—--...+-. - .-,.—<
z-” T

910