SPE 68438 Automating Candidate Selection for Coiled-Tubing Drilling

M. Brown, S. Nas and I. Lusted, Leading Edge Advantage Ltd.

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 78 March 2001. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

In order to facilitate this whole process a software system was developed which now allows a geologist or a reservoir engineer to select a target and provide the drilling engineer with a suitable target well. This elliminates a significant amount of time in the well planning process and allows infill wells to be planned better and faster.

Development
When initially designing the operation of the Well Analysis and Selection Process (WASP), the goal was to design a structured approach to planning Specialist Drilling Techniques and choosing the best candidate wellpath in order to achieve a successful operation. There was little experience throughout the North Sea with regard to these operations so it was essential that sidetracks planned using these techniques did not overlook crucial information. By automating the whole process, the Candidate Well selection can be mapped out. During the first stages of development, the tool was a spreadsheet listing the important information that could effect the success of the operation. Each element was given a complexity score dependent on the results obtained. The criterion was separated into two main sections one dependant on the condition of the existing well and the other, dependent on the engineering requirements for the proposed sidetrack. By mapping out each step taken, finding the best candidate/target option became faster and the process was transparent. If any of the information changed regarding the wells or a proposed sidetrack, then it was easy to go back and retrace the steps taken. The Well Analysis and Selection Process (WASP) is now a fully automated system using an Access Database and visual basic scripting.

Abstract
As fields are becoming more mature and improved reservoir interpretation is identifying so-called By-passed hydrocarbons, more sidetracks will be required. Selecting a well to reach a certain target in the reservoir can be a long task as a number of issues have to be considered. Using an auditable process for selecting the optimum sidetrack method and the best wellpath to reach a certain target can take a drilling engineer several months on a multi well development. In order to optimise this process all of the relevant parameters have to be considered. An automated system using a database now allows quick identification of the correct sidetrack method and selects the most suitable wellpath for the sidetrack. This fully transparant method starts with the reservoir target and then works through all the issues associated with the well selection process. This paper describes the Candidate Selection Methodology, examples of the criteria utilised to evaluate the suitability of the Drilling Technique and examples of the speed of Selection for a candidate Well and the output of the process.

Well Analysis and Selection Process

The Well Analysis and Selection Process (WASP) program (fig.1) was designed to provide a systematic and efficient technique of selecting possible candidate wells for Through-tubing Sidetracks using Specialist Drilling Techniques. The program compares various techniques such as Coiled-Tubing Drilling, Through-tubing rotary Drilling, Hydraulic Workover Unit Drilling as well as conventional Drilling Methods. The WASP program applies a systematic approach to select the best possible candidates within a well portfolio for a specified target. The candidate wells are then ranked by complexity. By automating the process the time taken to select these wells is significantly reduced and unsuitable candidates are rejected automatically in the early stages of the process. The WASP program runs in four stages: Find Wells within a given distance from a reservoir target. Operability assess the complexity of access through existing completion and kicking-off from a selected point in the well. Drillability assess the complexity of drilling from the kick-off point to the specified target using a specific drilling technique. Results a ranked comparison of the overall Operability and Drillability results.

Background
As the North Sea Fields mature pockets of oil are becoming isolated and are decreasing in size. Because of this conventional methods are reaching their economic threshold. Increasingly operators are looking to alternative methods to exploit this stranded oil. Techniques such as Coiled-Tubing Drilling, Through Tubing Rotary Drilling, Hydraulic Workover Drilling as well as conventional drilling are being considered. The competent selection of the best method or combination of these methods from an operational, drillability and commercial perspective is now a necessity. In a multiwell field development where often 40 or more wells are drilled, selecting the best sidetrack candidate is a complicated task. Wells have to analysed on their function i.e. injectior or if producer then the relative worth and water cut should be considered. The well then has to be able to reach the selected reservoir target and then the mechanical aspects of the well have to be reviewed based on the drilling method selected.

M. BROWN, S. NAS AND I. LUSTED, LEADING EDGE ADVANTAGE LTD.

SPE 68438

The Wells Database

For the first two stages of the WASP program analysis to run, a certain amount of Well Information is required. In order to maintain as much automation as possible, an electronic wells database was created to store the critical information (fig. 2). The program could then query this database for the data it required. This database was expanded to include general Well information that would also be contained within a Well file. This allowed the user of the system to view data and diagrams of a specific well quickly without searching through reams of paper files. It was quickly realised that by creating an electronic Wells database, the analysis time was greatly reduced. The Wells Database currently used by the WASP program allows the following information to be stored: Well Overview This contains General information regarding the Well, i.e: - Well Name and Licence Name - Field and Platform well refers to. - Type of Well and Completion Age. - Slot Location. - TD and KOP. - Maximum Deviation and Dogleg. - Well Cleaniless (Scale etc.) - Crane Capacity. - MAASP - Estimated Bottom Hole Temperature. - Tubing Leak. Casing and Liner information This section of the database contains: - Details of Casings used (Size, Grade, Coupling etc.). - IDs of Casings. - Casing Shoe Depths - Details of Liners used (Size, Grade, Coupling etc.). - IDs of Liners - Liner Shoe Depths. - Tops of Cement. Completion - Tailpipe Depth - Completion IDs - Packers. - Chrome or Plastic Coated Tubulars Previous Operations - An operations history Surface Equipment - Description of Christmas Tree - Details of Compact Spool - Gasket Sizes etc. Perforations - Current and Isolated Perforations - Depths - Guns Used - Date Perforated. Deviation - Well trajectory imported from existing Spreadsheet or entered manually. Fluids and Formation - Muds used for Sections drilled. - LOT information - Lithology information. Highlights/Lowlights - Details of particluar Operations to be entered so knowledge is not lost.

The database can be linked to existing databases in order to capture the relevant information. However, lots of well files are still paper based or are on incompatible electronic formats. If this is the case, data will initially have to be entered manually. This data input task can still be time-consuming, but it does not require a highly qualified drilling engineer to carry out these tasks. Once the information is stored, it can be quickly and easily searched and the database can further be used for other analysis, such as reviewing installed well equipment in a field.

Wells within Distance

In order for the first stage of the analysis to take place, a target must be selected. The target information is stored as the initial step of the WASP program (fig.3). The Geological co-ordinates and TVD of the target is required as well as a general description. The depth can be entered as below drill floor or a mean sea level. If below drill floor is selected then the drillfloor elevation must be entered. The target estimated reserves are entered for information, as this is the main goal of the operation. It is the intention that future systems will calculate an initial cost estimate and provide economics of a sidetrack as part of the system output. Once a target has been selected the user can then specify a distance around the target and a minimum depth that is considered to kick-off from. This program takes the deviation survey data stored in the database and the slot co-ordinates from the Well Overview section of the database in order to calculate whether the deviation points fall with the select area around the target (fig.4). If they do not fall within the range then the well is discounted immediately. At this stage in the program, certain wells can be discounted automatically by the rejection process. For a given type of completion the maximum age and minimum ID can be specified. Those wells nominated as good producers can also be discounted. The Wells that meet the specified criteria are listed by TVD from Target. However, the information may be listed by Well Name, Completion Type or Distance from Target. More than one point for the same well may be listed, as the program will show all deviation points that match the specified criteria. This allows several positions in the well to be selected as viable to go through to the next stage of the Selection Process. Only wells selected as viable may be analysed for Operability.

Operability
Once several candidates have been selected, an analysis of the ease of access through the existing completion and general impact to the platform can be performed. An Operability Mask (fig.5) was created to search out certain information from the Wells Database and give a score to each element of the Mask dependant on the complexity. The Completion is analysed for minimum IDs, any chrome tubulars, plastic coated tubulars. The kick-off depth is assessed, by looking at where the tailpipe, production packers and casing shoe depths are in relation to it. The Operability Mask looks to see if there are any perforations above the kick-off point. Assessment of the well cleanliness, CITHP, tubing leaks and reservoir temperature takes place. At this stage, an initial assessment of the interface with the platform can be done, by choosing a possible technique (for example, CTD concurrent will have a different effect to the platform than CTD standalone operations). This does not tie the user to this technique when moving to the Drillability Analysis. The mask looks for the crane capacity of the platform, as this can be a big factor when lifting equipment for operations such as coiled-tubing drilling. Each of these elements is looked for within the database, and

SPE 68438

AUTOMATING CANDIDATE SELECTION FOR COILED-TUBING DRILLING

dependant on the findings, is given a complexity score stated by the mask. A Master Operability Mask is contained within the WASP program and can be accessed through the Main Menu. This allows the user, if required, to change certain complexity scorings. Certain Operators may have different experiences with different techniques in local environments, so the ability for the Mask to be flexible was important. Once the analysis has taken place, the Operability Scores are listed (fig.6). It is possible to save these results and leave the program at this point. This allows the drilling engineers to look at the best candidates from this stage in more detail in order to move on to the Drillability Analyser.

Once the drilling engineering information has been gathered, the wellpath options can be created for the candidate Wells (fig.8). When creating a wellpath option the drilling technique will need to be specified. The WASP program automatically requests the relevant information. Once all the questions are answered, the information given by the drilling engineer can be analysed using the Drillability Masks. As there can be more than one wellpath for each candidate well, the program has the ability to compare different techniques for the same candidate well against another candidate well with various wellpaths using different drilling techniques. The wellpath option can be saved and edited at any time using the edit wellpath option, which can be accessed at this stage or from the main menu (fig.9).

Program Scoring
WASP uses two scoring mechanisms. A number complexity score and a traffic light system to highlight which number scores are suitable. As mentioned earlier the masks scores the relative elements of the mask from 1 5 (5 highest complexity). However, a score of 5 for any one element in the mask can be a serious set back in itself. Therefore, the program will weight a high score more so than a low score in an exponential manner i.e. n Where: Complexity Score 1 2 3 4 5 n 1 0.8 1 1.2 1.5 Program Score n 1.00 1.74 3.00 5.28 11.18

Drillability
Once the Wellpath Options are entered, the Drillability Score is calculated using the Drillability Mask (fig.10) specific to the Drilling Technique specified. There are four Master Drillability Masks. Coiled-Tubing Drilling Through-Tubing Rotary Drilling Hydraulic Workover Unit Drilling Conventional Drilling. When the drilling method is selected, the program automatically selects the Drilling Mask relevant to the chosen technique in order to score the Drillability. The Mask compares the information provided by the drilling engineer with the relevant mask and assigns a Complexity score. The relevant drilling mask checks a number of parameters such as: 1. Open hole length. 2. Maximum Dogleg and Collision index of the Well trajectory. 3. Annular Velocities in the open hole. 4. Annular Velocities in Tubing and at the 45-60 deg angle section (if applicable). 5. The Fracture gradient versus the ECD value. 6. Overbalance Pressure. 7. Pump Pressure 8. The expected Maximum WOB and Maximum Effective Pull at TD. There are also a number of subjective entries that the engineer has to input. The higher the score entered for these entries, the higher the risk. These are: 9. Estimate of days in order to prepare the well for sidetracking. 10. Any anticipated formation problems. 11. Completion complexity 12. Learning Curve.This allows a higher score for an Operator with little experience using such techniques but the score will go down as experience grows. 13. Another important issue for Through-tubing sidetracks is the retention of the production from the main bore. Therefore a score, dependant on the Junction Complexity of the sidetrack is calculated. Once each Wellpath Option has been scored using the correct Mask, the results can then be moved through to the final results page. As with the Operability Masks, new Drillability Masks can be created based on the Master Masks for each drilling technique dependant on the users experience. Certain elements in the mask may be more of an issue for some Operators than with others (i.e. Formation Problems) and therefore, the scoring or weighting values can be altered to reflect this.

The mean of the program scores will be taken as the score for that particular option. The traffic light system is used to judge which scores are deemed acceptable (fig.7). This allows Management to judge the risk of carrying out particular operations. WASP is set up initially as follows: < 2.5 = green = acceptable 2.53.5 = amber = possibly acceptable > 3.5 = red = unacceptable Any User can alter this traffic light set-up with Administration access, if required. Again allowing the program to be flexible.

Wellpath Options
Before the Drillability Analysis can be carried out the Drilling Engineer will still have to develop potential wellpaths in the normal manner. Using the candidate wells chosen from the Operability stage, at least one wellpath option must be designed for each candidate. There can be more than one wellpath option for each well using the same or a different drilling technique. For each wellpath option the drilling engineer will still have to design a well trajectory, carry out torque and drag analysis, hydraulic calculations and other well design issues using the usual well planning tools. The software has deliberately not integrated trajectory planning, torque and drag and hydraulics as different operators have different methods, procedures and systems to design the optimum trajectory and drilling systems.

Final Results
The final results page is used as a comparison tool so that the best Candidate Well/Well Path Option can chosen for the specific Target. The Scores for Drillability are listed beside the scores for Operability. Both scores are added together and colour coded dependant on the highest colour rating of the two. The candidate Well is listed beside the

M. BROWN, S. NAS AND I. LUSTED, LEADING EDGE ADVANTAGE LTD.

SPE 68438

Wellpath Option Name and the Drilling Technique and the kick-off depth selected. The Target Name and details are listed against the name of the User. This allows the whole process to be traceable. The results are ranked in order of the Final combined score so it is clear what the best candidate for the sidetrack will be (fig.11).

provide the ability to select sidetrack wells and systems in meetings with partners by entering a number of different targets. The Well Analysis and Selection Process has been successfully applied to Talismans Buchan Field, Kerr McGees Murchison, Ninian North and Hutton field and Shell Expro UK Ltds Northern Business Unit. Each Operator incurred a considerable reduction in candidate selection time and realised significant savings in engineering time. The process is transparant and can easily report why a well is the most suitable candidate. A change to any of the criteria does not render previous work unusable but a new target can rapidly be analysed for suitability.

Advantages
The main advantages for the automating of candidate selection for specialist drilling techniques have already been proven through use. From a database of almost 200 wells, the first stage of the analysis to find the wells within a specified distance of the target, although this is generally the longest calculation the program executes, it only takes 2 to 3 minutes. Significant time savings are made when comparing the manual selection process of searching for wells on spider plots. Good Producers, old completions or narrow completion restrictions can be eliminated at the beginning of the candidate process. The Operability analysis of the selection process takes seconds to calculate. This allows the Drilling Engineer or Reservoir Engineer narrow the potentail candidate wells quickly, efficiently and in an auditable transparent fashion. The Drilling Engineer can then start detailed well planning. The selection criteria used for the first stage of the process is saved so that if the programme is run again for the same target the next user can see which previous criteria were used. The programme allows you to go back and continue the analysis after each stage. The results can be saved and edited as required. The system is transparant and the decision-making steps are clear. The program is designed to operate systematically so that every engineer takes the same steps when selecting the most appropriate candidate well.

Conclusions
Using a standard methodology for selecting sidetrack technology and the associated candidate wells results in significant cost and time savings in pre engineering time. It allows management decisions to be made as informed decisions and it provides an auditable trial of why a well was selected or rejected as a suitable candidate. With the current high demand on drilling engineers time, all managers want to see engineers do what they are good at and that is well engineering and not spending time in archives trying to find the latest tubing data in a candidate well. By allowing technical assistants to enter the well data and by allowing geologists to provide as many targets as they can find, the drilling engineers can quickly select a best option from an operational and economical view point for a sidetrack. This in turn allows an operator to access the passed oil and recover it before depletion or other factors make this process impossible. By using existing well data for planning purposes, the accuracy of the data improves and this will allow faster management decisions in the future. The system has already been proven in selecting candidates from over 200 in wells Brent and Cormorant field in the North Sea where the optimum TTRD candidates are selected in a matter of days once the reservoir target has been selected.

Disadvantages
The initial time-consuming stage of the programme, remains the entering of data into the database. Most operators will find that considerable time needs to be spent searching through well files in finding paper-based information. A futher issue is data quality. Even if an operator has a computer database of data, verifying that stored information is correct is still a formidable task. This will become less of an issue as more well information is stored electronically and the data is then used for further planning using a variety of tools. Well Analysis and Selection Process (WASP) is based on a database and as more and more information is stored the program will slows down. During the initial trial of the system, a number of errors in well file records were found and the system highlighted that in order for the program to function properly the information entered into the program would need to be accurate.

List of Figures
Fig 1: Main Menu Screen Fig 2: Wells Database Casing/Liner View Fig 3: Target Entry Screen Fig 4: Find Wells withing Distance Screen Fig 5: Operability Mask Fig 6: Operability Results Fig 7: Scoring Administrator Fig 8: Well Options Creation Screen Fig 9: CTD Well Option Fig 10: CTD Drillability Mask Fig 11: Final Results Screen

Future Development
There are further developments planned for WASP. An Underbalanced candidate selection module is currently being designed. A cost module is also under development as an additional tool, which will allow a geologist to enter a reservoir target and in combination with reservoir simulation tools allow him to quickly identify if a well is economic as a sidetrack. A cost estimate of a planned sidetrack carried out with coil or with a conventional rig in combination with hydrocarbon recovery from a geological target allows rapid management decisions to drill a sidetrack. The tool is currently being re-developed in to a web based system will which will allow rig site data entry and multi user data entry. It will also

SPE 68438

AUTOMATING CANDIDATE SELECTION FOR COILED-TUBING DRILLING

Fig 1: Main Menu Screen

Fig 2: Wells Database - Casing/Liner View

Fig 3: Target Entry Screen

M. BROWN, S. NAS AND I. LUSTED, LEADING EDGE ADVANTAGE LTD.

SPE 68438

Fig 4: Find Wells within Distance

Fig 5. Operability Mask

Fig 6: Operability Results

SPE 68438

AUTOMATING CANDIDATE SELECTION FOR COILED-TUBING DRILLING

Fig 7: Scoring Administrator

Fig 8: Screen for Creation of Wellpath Options

Fig 9: CTD Wellpath Option

M. BROWN, S. NAS AND I. LUSTED, LEADING EDGE ADVANTAGE LTD.

SPE 68438

Fig 10. CTD Drillability Mask

Fig 11. Final Results Screen