Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Grard Cuvillier
Stephen Edwards
Greg Johnson
Dick Plumb
Colin Sayers
Houston, Texas, USA
Glen Denyer
EEX Corporation
Houston, Texas
Jos Eduardo Mendona
Petrobras
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Bertrand Theuveny
Sandsli, Norway
Charlie Vise
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Alain Boitel,
Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo; Alan Christie and Ashley
Kishino, Rosharon, Texas, USA; Gary Dunlap, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil; Frank Mitton and Robin Walker, Houston, Texas; Les
Nutt, Fuchinobe, Japan; James Nutter, Macae, Brazil; and
David Viela, Luanda, Angola.
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), CDR (Compensated
Dual Resistivity), DeepCRETE, INFORM (Integrated Forward
Modeling), ISONIC (IDEAL sonic-while-drilling tool),
MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), PERFORM
(Performance Through Risk Management) and RFT
(Repeat Formation Tester) are marks of Schlumberger.
Oilfield Review
Spring 2000
100
150
96
Other regions
Far East
West Africa
Brazil
US Gulf
75
78
54
50
40
28
25
Total
125
Potential
Discovered
100
75
50
25
Far
East
South
America
US
Gulf
West
Africa
Antarctica
deepwater
basins
Other
Well Construction
Completion Systems
Production
and Intervention
Drilling optimization
Completion technologies
Flow assurance
Riser technology
Sand-control systems
Alternative vessels
Perforating
Drilling fluids
Well testing
Directional drilling
Directional drilling
Intelligent systems
Cementing technology
Zonal isolation
Cementing technology
Production systems
Intervention systems
Intervention vessels
Production equipment
Geology
and Geophysics
Seismic
(marine, borehole)
Ultradeep formation
evaluation
Geotechnical
shallow hazards
Reservoir optimization
Alliances
R&D Centers
> Deepwater Center of Excellence organization. The center works to identify technology gaps, prioritize needs and facilitate
the development of solutions to deepwater problems. Four technical domains link with other elements of the Schlumberger
organization to transfer knowledge.
Oilfield Review
Spring 2000
Conventional
Subsea Mudlift
Mud return
to surface
Drillpipe
Mud in riser
and drillpipe
Marine riser
Pressure gradient 1
Marine riser
Mud in
drillpipe
Drillpipe
Seawater
in riser
Casing
depths
Pressure gradient 2
Casing
depths
> Conventional (left) and subsea mudlift (right) deepwater drilling technology. In conventional drilling,
the weight of the mud column in the riser often is too high to drill without fracturing weak formations.
Subsea mudlift technology isolates mud and pumps it back to surface outside the riser to lessen the
load, allowing drilling to proceed without fracturing.
Depth
Conventional
mud hydrostatic
pressure
Fracture
pressure
Seawater
hydrostatic
pressure
Casing
depths
Pore
pressure
Pressure
Depth
Dual-gradient
mud hydrostatic
pressure
Fracture
pressure
Casing
depths
Seawater
hydrostatic
pressure
Pore
pressure
Pressure
Oilfield Review
Conventional
Dual-Gradient
Casing size, in.
36
26
36
26
20
16
20
5 1/2-in.
tubing
7-in.
tubing
13 3/8
13 3/8
11 3/4
9 5/8
7 5/8
9 5/8
> Fewer casing strings and greater bottomhole completion diameter using the dualgradient method. The lower number of casing strings in dual-gradient deepwater
drilling (right) compared with conventional drilling (left) saves money and results in
larger diameter tubing at bottom for greater productivity.
pore pressure greater than hydrostatic. In overpressured zones, the rock porosity, or some log
measurement sensitive to porosity, such as sonic
traveltime or resistivity, deviates from the normal
compaction trend. These overpressured zones can
be hazardous during drilling. They can cause kicks
if they are not detected and require additional casing strings to keep the mud weight within the window between pore pressure and fracture gradient.
Accurate knowledge of pore pressures is a
key requirement for safe and economic deepwater well construction. Before drilling, pore
pressure can be estimated from other properties,
such as local seismic velocities, drilling experience, mud weights, and sonic and resistivity
measurements in nearby wells.9 The worth of
the pore-pressure prediction depends on the
quality of the input data, suitability of the
method used to compute pore pressure and on
calibration with measured pressures. Although
not routinely done, the pore-pressure model can
be enhanced by updating it with local calibration
data from drilling observations, while-drilling
logs and look-ahead vertical seismic profiles
using either surface sources or the drill bit as a
source (below).10
Seismic Processing
Interval velocity profile
Calibration Data
Mud weights
Kicks, losses
RFT, MDT pressures
Pore-Pressure Prediction
Pore-pressure profile
>Pore-pressure prediction
workflow. Seismic data,
pressures and logs help
engineers develop an initial
pore-pressure prediction and
stress model, which in turn
helps fine-tune the well plan.
Real-time information acquired
while drilling can update the
well plan.
Stress Model
Fracture gradient
Real-Time Logs
Check-shot survey
ISONIC, gamma ray,
pressure while
drilling data
Spring 2000
Overburden gradient
Normal compaction trend
Depth, ft
Resistivity
Slowness
Resistivity points
ohm-m
sec/ft
40
ohm-m
300 0.1
ft/sec
lbm/gal
20
2200
4400
Kick
6600
8800
11,000
13,200
> Input data from offset well and corresponding pore-pressure predictions. Sonic data, resistivity measurements and seismic velocities each
show normal compaction trends at shallow levels but deviate deeper. All three data types lead to comparable pore-pressure predictions that are
calibrated by actual pressures encountered when mud weights are insufficient to prevent kicks (black diamond in track 4).
Oilfield Review
when the subsurface comprises flat homogeneous layers. However, each velocity value represents an average over the spatial extent of the
seismic source and receivers usedoften up to
8 km [5 miles] in deep water. And interval velocities are not representative of true subsurface
velocities in the cases of dipping layers, lateral
variations in velocity or pressure, or changes in
layer thickness, exactly the circumstances in
which one would not be able to rely on offsetwell log data and would hope to use seismic
data for pore-pressure prediction.
Schlumberger geophysicists have devised a
way to extract physically meaningful velocities
from 3D seismic data to derive an enhancedresolution predrill pore-pressure prediction.12
The technique, called tomographic inversion,
incorporates an automated process that uses
all the traveltime patterns in the recorded seismic data to produce a laterally varying velocity
model and so an improved pore-pressure prediction (below).
Overburden gradient
Offset well mud weight
Depth, ft
5000
30,000 0
20
4000
8000
12,000
16,000
20,000
> Normal trend observed in seismic interval velocities (track 1) and final
predrill pore-pressure predictions (track 2) for the new well location.
14
11.5
2.5
11
3
10.5
3.5
Depth, km
12
1.5
Depth, km
0.5
12.5
13
1.5
2
12
2.5
11
3
3.5
10
14
16
12
14
Di
sta 10
nc
e, 8
km
Spring 2000
9.5
12
10
6
8
6
Dist
anc
e, km
0.5
10
14
12
16
Di
sta 10
nc
e, 8
km
14
12
10
6
8
6
Dist
an
m
ce, k
0.5
1500
1.0
2000
1.5
2500
2.0
3000
2.5
3500
4000
3.0
Velocity, m/sec
Depth, km
4500
3.5
5000
4.0
5500
4.5
6000
3000
7000
11,000
15,000
19,000
23,000
27,000
Distance, m
1500
1.0
2000
1.5
2500
2.0
3000
2.5
3500
3.0
4000
4000
Overburden
stress gradient
4500
3.5
5000
4.0
6000
Depth, ft
0.5
Velocity, m/sec
Depth, km
Overpressure
predictions
8000
5500
4.5
6000
3000
7000
11,000
15,000
19,000
23,000
27,000
Distance, m
> Velocity models over existing wells and proposed well location. Interval velocities derived from
stacking velocities (top) do not appear to correspond to the geological interpretation of the seismic
line. The interpretation is drawn in fine lines on the image. The refined velocity model constructed
using tomographic inversion (bottom) corresponds to subsurface salt features interpreted in seismic
section and contains enough detail to produce an accurate pore-pressure prediction.
10,000
10
12
14
16
10
Oilfield Review
16
2000
15
4000
14
6000
13
8000
12
10,000
11
12,000
Depth, ft
10
14,000
9
8000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Distance, m
Spring 2000
10
17
Casing, in.
20
16
Zone A
Kick
13 3/8
11 3/4
Zone B
Kick
9 5/8
Zone C
7 5/8
> Real-time annular pressure while drilling measurements indicating when effective
circulating density (ECD) begins to fall outside the margin between pore pressure and
fracture pressure. When ECD is too low, pore pressure causes kicks. Increasing mud
weight may control the well, but if the margin between pore and fracture pressure is
narrow, casing must be set to accommodate the heavier mud.
11
12
Annulus temperature
Phase-shift resistivity
ohm-m
Rate of penetration
500
ft/hr
Gamma ray
0
API
2 50
Phase-shift resistivity
150
Depth, m
ohm-m
X000
ohm-m
100
Annulus pressure
10 2000
Attenuation resistivity
0
10 8
psi
ECD
lbm/gal
3000
Water influx
X100
B-upper
B-lower
X200
Water influx
X300
X400
C
X500
X600
X700
X800
D
Water influx
X900
> Detecting water-flow zones in deepwater wells with annular pressure while drilling
measurements. Three water-flow zones A, B and D (light blue highlight) were identified
with the help of the while-drilling data. In each case, increasing the mud weight
successfully controlled the flow, and drilling continued to total depth.
Oilfield Review
Conventional
cement
68
DeepCRETE
cement
11
0
25
50
75
Setting time, hr
> Faster setting DeepCRETE cement for controlling water flow and saving
rig time. In this deepwater offshore Africa example, a conventional
cement system exceeded the fracture gradient at the seabed and took
68 hours to set. The DeepCRETE cement, a less dense slurry, set in 11
hours with no fracturing.
CAMEROON
EQUATORIAL
GUINEA
GABON
CONGO
ZAIRE
AFRICA
ANGOLA
NAMIBIA
Spring 2000
13
AIT 90
AIT 60
Depth, m
AIT 30
AIT 10
CDR-phase shift
Gamma Ray
0
API
CDR-attenuation
150
0.2
ohm-m
2000
X050
X100
X150
X200
> Comparison between while-drilling logs from the CDR Compensated Dual Resistivity tool and wireline
logs from the AIT Array Induction Imager Tool series. The AIT curves acquired after significant mud
loss exhibit indications of alteration and fracturing between X050 and X130 m. However, the order of
the curves, with deeper reading measurements seeing higher resistivity, seemed unusual for invasion
by oil-base mud.
14
Oilfield Review
1 cm
10,000
1000
AIT curves
100
AT90
AT60
AT30
AT20
AT10
AIT-H, ohm-m
Relative angle = 75
10
0.1
-20
-10
10
20
Campos
Campos
Roncador
Vermelho
Carapeba
Albacora
Albacora East
Pargo
Marlim
Marlim South
10
00
400
m
SOUTH
AMERICA
100
00
20
> Offshore Brazil, the site of the deepwater subsea electrical submersible pump test.
Spring 2000
15
Moored
production
platform
Power cable
and flowline
Subsea
wellhead
Electrical
submersible
pump
Perforations
> Subsea electrical submersible pump sending production from Well RJS-477 in 3632-ft
[1107-m] deep water to Albacora field Platform P-25, four miles away in shallower water.
16
Oilfield Review
Framo subsea
booster pumps
> Five subsea multiphase booster pumps in the Statoil development of the Lufeng field.
> The subsea multiphase boosting pump built for the
ExxonMobil operation in the Topacio field, offshore Equatorial
Guinea.
Spring 2000
Deepwater Wave
Along with increases in recovery percentages in
existing fields, deep water is one of the industrys main hopes for balancing supply and
demand from the year 2005 onward. To realize
this hope, technological solutions and project
management methods must result in performance levels that will allow deepwater projects
to compete economically with other sources of
oil and gas. The industry is making measurable
progress in this direction. In the 1980s producing
a barrel of oil from a well in 200 m [656 ft] of
water cost between $13 and $15 for an average
field. Now technological advances have reduced
that figure to $5 to $7.21
The way forward into deeper water will
come from many directions. Beyond some depth,
all production will be from subsea developments. Advances in subsea flowlines, production
trees, electrical power distribution systems, fluid
separation and reinjection technology and multiphase metering and pumping will be necessary
to derive economical production from the
10,000-ft [about 3000-m] water depths that soon
will be explored. These advances will allow the
subsea industry to move an increasing amount
of activity to the seabed.
17