Modern Well Design-Presentation

The Importance of Stresses in
Petroleum Engineering
Approach
Chapter 2.1 - Mud Weight Selection
This presentation:
y
Approach
Drilling problems
Pressure Testing
Stresses as Design Criterion
Summary
Drilling Problems
Drilling Problems
y
Mud loss:
2.5 days
Tight hole:
0.3 days
Squeeze cmt:
2.5 days
Stuck csg.:
3.3 days
Fishing:
0.3 days
Lost time:
Cost:
Drilling Problems
If problems get worse:
Stuck + sidetrack
New well
9 days
+2 mill.$
Stress as Design Criterion

y
EFFECTS OF HIGH MUD WEIGHT

Element
Advantage
Reduce borehole collapse
Reduce fill
Reduce pressure variations
Debatable
Reduce washouts
Reduce tight hole
Reduce clay swelling
Increase differential sticking
Increase lost circulation

Reduced drilling rate
Expensive mud
Poor pore pressure estimation
X
X
Disadvantage
From solid mechanics:
EH
Petroleum Rock Mechanics: Material

properties
Recent view: Stress dominated processes

This leads to simplified design methods

y
Horizontal stresses from Kirch eqn.:

V = (LOT+Pore Pressure)
Mid-Line Principle
Example from the North Sea
Example of specific reaming time from

selected North Sea wells.
Pressure Testing
Summary
y
In-situ stresses important for well problems
LOT testing defines stress level
Borehole collapse not fully understood
Traditional approach: Rock mechanical data limited

by data available
Complementary approach: Stress analysis from

Mid-Line Principle
New principle demonstrated the past 8 years
2.2-Design of Well Barriers to

Combat Circulation Losses
-
Design of Well Barriers

y
This presentation:
Introduction
Experimental work
x Fracturing lab
x New fracture model
x Barrier stress model
Design of fluid barriers

Field case
Summary
Introduction
y
Circulation losses and stuck pipe two unresolved

issues in drilling
Fracturing lab built at U. of Stavanger in 1996
Yearly losses Billions US$ worldwide
Focus on basic mechanisms
Operational factors important

y
Circulation losses:
Geomechanics (stresses, lithology,.)
Mud barrier (filtrate loss, bridging,)
Experimental work
Improvements depends on complementary processes

Fundamental research
Field application
Fracturing of concrete cylinders

Chemical effects(wettability,)
Hole geometry (circular, oval, square, trianguler
holes,)
Controlled loading(confining, axial, borehole stress)
Many types of barriers
Experimental work, fracturing lab

Axial load
Fracturing cell
Mudcake strength cell
Pump 1
Test cell
Confining
Pressure
Pump 2
Hollow
Concrete
Core
Well Pressure
PC
Control
System
Pump 3
M ud circulation
Mud cell
Valve 2
Cell 6 Cell 5 Cell 4
Mudcake strength
Mudcake
Pump 1
Experimental work
LabView
Valve 3
Pump 2
Valve 1
M udcake
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3
Example,
3 drilling muds:
Fracturing pressure, MPa..
Experimental work, new frac

model
60
M easured
40
Kirsch equation
20
Stone bridge principle
0
A
New Kirsch eqn.
Experimental work
Pw
B
Drilling fluids
2V Po
2V y
t
ln1
3 a
Experimental work
Mechanical strength of mud cake important
Feldspar
60
60
New OMB
Quartz
Pressure, [Mpa]
Cake collapse pressure, [Mpa]
-particle yield strength (Mohs hardness)

-but also size , distribution and placement
45
30
CaCO3
Used Field OMB
45
30
15
0
0
15
1
Time, min
Moh's scale
3.Design of fluid barriers
3. Design of Fluid Barriers
Example of test program
Tested numerous commercial additives
Too many additives gave negative synergy
Minimum no. of additives gave best results
Some additives have no effect
Need more scientific approach to improve
PS:Have only studied fracturing, not
Additive:
Consists of:
CaCO3 coarse
Test
No.1
(ppb)
15
Test
No. 2
Test
No. 3
Test
No. 4
Test
No. 5
Test
No. 6
CaCO3 fine
15
Fine polymer
20
20
20
15
25
15
Medium polymer
20
20
20
20
25
20
Graphite
40
40
40
25
Mica fine
20
20
15
20
20
20
Mica medium
15
20
20
20
Cellulose
30
30
30
30
Cellulose
Feldspar
30
30
40
40
Good
Very
good
Very
good
Best
Result:
30
30
15
30
Ref.
Bad
formation damage
10
Design of Fluid Barrier
Field case
Small amounts of carbon fiber has good

effect
Offshore drilling operation

Mud tested at our lab during drilling
Replaces larger particles

Fracture - RKB
Gradient (s.g.)
1
1,05
1,1
1,15
1,2
1,25
1,3
350
400
Depth (m)
450
500
This well
Reference wells
Fracture curve
550
600
650
700
Example of proposed recipies

Additive:
Consists of:
Drilling mud
Our proposal
(6 ppb)
CaCO3
coarse
3
Graphite
Cellulose
Mica
fine
3
6. Summary
Carbon
fibre
-
Elastoplastic frac model developed based on

comprehensive lab experiments
Well barrier consist of placement + mechanical

strength of particles
Additive:
Lost circulation pill
Consists of:
Operators
recipie(ppb)
15
CaCO3 coarse
CaCO3 fine
15
Our
proposal(ppb)
Fine polymer
20
30
Med. polymer
20
20
Graphite
40
20
Mica fine
Mica medium
Cellulose
Carbon fibre
Some mud additives have zero or negative effect
New test equipment required to test barrier frac

efficiency
20
20
30
45
Some
Our approach is tested in the field.
Methodology
2.3 Hole Cleaning
Based on API RP 13D: Rheology and Hydraulics of Oilwell Drilling Fluids.
Based on BP research early 1990s
Mainly based on experimental correlations
Hole cleaning is a key issue, must control ROP to avoid

overloading annulus with cuttings
Mechanisms
Applications
Variables
Mud flow rate
ROP
Mud rheology/flow regime
Mud weight (buoyancy)
Hole size and angle
Uncontrollable variables
eccentricity
cuttings size
density
Transport index
TI = RF (rheology factor) xMW (mud weight)x AF (angle factor)
If hole is washed out:

CFRwashout = CFR (flow rate)
Example
y
8.5 horizontal well
Solution
y
From Fig. 2.16, RF = 0.91
From Table 2.5, AF = 1
MW = 1.45 sg, PV = 25 CP,YP= 18 lbf/100 ft2
Questions:
Maximum ROP if maximum flow is 480 gpm? (Correct book)
If ROP = 20 m/hr, what is minimum flow?
If hole is washed out 10 in, what flow rate is required?
From Eqn. 2.7,
Solution, cont.
y
From Fig. 2.16b: at TI=1.32, Q=480 gpm, ROPmax=23

m/hr
If ROP = 20 m/hr, Qmin=470 gpm
TI = 0.91x1.0x1.45 = 1.32
Solution, cont.
y
If hole is washed out, correction factor:
Minimum flow rate now:
CFRwashout = 1.38 x 470 = 649 gpm
Hydraulic System
Hydraulic Optimization
Chapter 2.4
P1 = pump pressure
P2 = nozzle pressure
P3 = system loss (parasitic)
P1 = P2 + P3
Hydraulic System
Pressure drop
y
Laminar flow
P v PQ
Turbulent flow
P v U fQ 2
Empirical flow equation
P CQ m
Hydraulic System
Hydraulic System
P3 = system loss
P3 = CQm
lnP3 = lnC + mlnQ
Nozzle pressure drop from Bernoulli

P2
UQ 2
2 gA2 0.952
System losses
P3
300bar P2
Nozzle Horsepower
HP
P2Q
Max. Hydraulic horsepower
( P1 P3 )
Max. Jet impact
( P1 CQ m
Maximum
Classical criteria
Limitations
Physically correct?
dHP
o P3
dQ
P1
m 1
Adequate Q for hole cleaning?
Application
1.
Determine hole cleaning rate Q
2.
Select performance index
3.
Compute system loss (P3) and bit loss

(P2)
4.
Compute nozzle area, A
Performance indices
Performance
index
Equation
Criterion
Fraction parasitic
pressure loss
Max. HP
qP2
2
q P2
3
4
5
q 3 2 P2
q 2 P2
q 5 2 P2
Max. Jet
impact
New A
New B
New C
Flow rate
1
m 1
P1
C (m 1)
2
m2
2 P1
C (m 2)
3
m3
3P1
C (m 3)
4
m4
4 P1
C (m 4)
5
m5
5P1
C (m 5)
Proposed criteria
Example
y
Proposed optimization criteria for typical 12-1/4 inch hole

Hole length
Vertical holes
Deviated wells
drilled with motor
Deviated wells
without motor
Stronger
requirements
Less than 2500 m
Max. Hydr. Horsepower

or max. Jet impact force
Max. HHP or
max. Jet impact
Max. Jet impact
New A
2500-4000 m
Max. HHP
or max. Jet impact
Max. Jet impact
New A
New B
Deep(5000m)
Max. HHP
or max. Jet impact
Max. Jet impact

or New A
New B
New C
Other data: Drill pipe: 675 m of 5 inch, rest 6-5/8 inch; Drill collars: 120 m 8-1/8 inch OD,
2.81 inch ID; Mud density: 1.65 s.g., Yield point: 32 lbf/100 sq.ft.; Plastic viscosity: 42 cP.
Determination
of flow ranges
and optimisation
criteria
Drill Pipe Size
Example
Hydraulic parameters for the field case
Criterion
Percent parasitic press. loss
Flow range (l/min)
Max. Hydraulic power
54
2800-2220
Max jet impact
52
2850-2280
New A
63
3070-2450
New B
69
3250-2580
New C
73
3370-2800
Optimal nozzle selection for New B criterion

Depth (m)
Nozzles (inch)
1200
Five 13/32, one 16/32
2200
Five 12/32, on 16/32
3200
Five 11/32, on 16/32
Example
Geomechanic Evaluation
Summary of earlier bit runs

Bit. No.
Nozzles
q (l/min)
ROP (m/hr)
Remarks
5 x 16, 1 x 12
2960
1.5
Plugged center nozzle
5 x 19, 1 x 12
2660
9.8
5 x 16, 1 x 12
2600
13.6
5 x 19, 1 x 12
2300
18.2
5 x 18, 1 x 12
2400
14.9
6 x 12
2600
18.3
5 x 14, 1 x 12
2400
15.4
5 x 15, 1 x 12
2450
24
5 x 14, 1 x 12
2400
4.8
10
5 x 14, 1 x 12
2530
23.8
11
5 x 19, 1 x 12
20
12
5 x 19, 1 x 12
30
13
5 x 18, 1 x 12
10
14
5 x 18, 1 x 12
22
15
5 x 19, 1 x 12
16
5 x 18, 1 x 12
27
17
5 x 19, 1 x 12
16
18
5 x 19, 1 x 12
19
Chapter 3.1 - Data Normalization
Data Normalization
Data Normalization
Example, pore pressure at 1000m:
Example, continued:
New gradient from RKB
P(bar)= 0.098d(s.g)D(m)
= 0.0981.03 1000
= 100.9 bar
d MSL 1.03s.g.
d RKB
100.9bar
1.0s.g.
0.098 1025m
Data Normalization
Data Normalization
From sea level
d MSL
d RKB
d RKB
d MSL
d RKB1
D
D hf
From RKB
From floater
d RKB 2
From platform
D hf
D
D
D Gh
d RKB 2
d RKB1
D Gh
D
V o (sg )
Data Normalization
y
Data Normalization
Normalize to seafloor
1. Subtract water pressure
Well
Csg (in)
34/7-2
2. Subtract water depth

34/7-8
34/7-14
Depth (m) hw (m) hf (m) LOT(s.g.) P0 (s.g.) V0 (s.g.)
20
848
13 3/8
245
1.58
1.06
1.83
1549
1.69
1.42
2.00
9 5/8
2031
1.88
1.63
2.00
20
848
1.62
1.04
1.72
13 3/8
1859
1.83
1.42
1.93
20
491
1.49
1.00
1.49
13 3/8
1559
1.75
1.09
1.70
9 5/8
1988
1.80
1.53
1.92
286
148
25
25
25
Interpretation
Geomechanic Evaluation
Chapter 3.2 - Interpretation
Basic data
Leak-Off-Pressure (LOT)
Pore Pressure
Overburden Stress
Lithology
x Clays
x Sands, Chalks,
Interpretation
Interpretation
Simple modelling
Example
Evaluate LOT data

Effective stresses
Well
Dataset Depth(m)
A
Horizontal stresses
Effective horizontal stresses
Depth normalize
Effective depth normalized data
(s.g.)
o(s.g.)
899
1.46
1.04
1.63
1821
1.74
1.28
1.81
901
1.55
1.04
1.60
1153
1.56
1.04
1.73
1907
1.81
1.34
1.82
2753
1.95
1.52
1.96
Interpretation
Interpretation
Example: LOT Pressure
(s.g.)
Example
LOT Gradient
Interpretation
Interpretation
Horizontal stresses,
depth normalized
Va
Va
Vo
LOT
KV o
Va
LOT Po
2V o
y
y
Effective horizontal
stresses, depth
normalized
Va '
Vo '
LOT Po
2 V o Po
Horizontal stresses
2V a Po
1
LOT Po
2
Effective horizontal
stresses
V ' V Po
Va '
1
LOT Po
2
Interpretation
y
Best fit
1
Va '
LOT Po 0.23
2
LOTPrognosis 0.46 Po
Test of model
Geomechanical Evaluation
Chapter 3.2.4 - Advanced Modelling
Advanced Modelling
Advanced Modelling
Principle: Normalize all data to same

reference, example:
Borehole inclination
Normalize all LOTs to
vertical for comparison
Pwf (0q)
Compaction
Inversion technique
Pwf (0q)
1
Po Po* sin 2 J
3
1
Pwf (J ) V o Po sin 2 J
2
1
1 sin 2 J
2
Pwf (J )
Advanced Modelling
Advanced Modelling
Compaction model
'V a
'Pwf
1 2Q
1 Q
1 3Q
'Po
1 Q
'Po
Applications
Normalization
Structural geology
Lost circulation
Compaction model
Example
Depth(m)
LOT (s.g.)
P0 (s.g.)
3885
2.10
1.79
3821
2.13
1.84
3818
1.98
1.44
3914
2.06
1.58
Advanced Modelling
y
Inversion Technique
Advanced Modelling
y
Relaxed Depositional Basin
Tectonic Stress
Determines tectonic stress field that fits all

data sets
Use this stress field to make prognosis for
new well
Determines also stress directions as applied
to e.g. fracturing and stimulation
Advanced Modelling
Advanced Modelling
Data
set
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Inversion Technique, Example
Well
A
New
Casing
20
13 3/8
9 5/8
20
13 3/8
9 5/8
20
13 3/8
9 5/8
20
13 3/8
9 5/8
Depth interval(m)
1100-1148
1607-1812
2320-2423
Depth
(m)
1101
1888
2423
1148
1812
2362
1141
1607
2320
1100
1700
2400
H/o
0.754
0.854
0.927
LOT
(s.g.)
1.53
1.84
1.82
1.47
1.78
1.87
1.49
1.64
1.84
?
?
?
h/o
0.750
0.814
0.906
P0
(s.g.)
1.03
1.39
1.53
1.03
1.25
1.57
1.03
1.05
1.53
1.03
1.19
1.55
Direction
44
96
90
o
(s.g.)
1.71
1.82
1.89
1.71
1.82
1.88
1.71
1.78
1.88
1.71
1.80
1.89

0
27
35
23
42
41
23
48
27
15
30
45
0
92
92
183
183
183
284
284
284
135
135
135
Leak-off, new well

1.53
1.71
1.86
Inversion Technique, Example
3.2.4 In-Situ Stress Modelling of the Snorre

Field
This Presentation
y
Local Map
Importance of fracture gradient

prediction in well planning
Applications
Importance of in-situ stresses
Experience from Snorre
Modelling
Gradients
30
Gradients
30
Frac
20
13 3/8
Regional stress field
Mud
Frac
x Earthquake focal mechanisms
Local stress field

x Borehole elongation
x Leak-off inversion
Conclusions
13 3/8
Pore
Pore
9 5/8
7
Depth
9 5/8
Mud
Casing seat selection using high frac. curve
7
Depth
Casing seat selection using low frac. curve
Experience from Snorre
Experience from Snorre, cont.

y
Fracture gradient and pore pressure gradient: Key

elements in well design.
Poor predictions
o simple design modifications
o deviations, including contingency solutions
o abandonment of well
Relaxed depositional basin
Optimization requires improved prognosis
Knowledge of the in-situ stress state is the key to improved

leak-off prediction
Anistropic stress field
In-situ stress directions from

earthquake data
In-situ stress directions from

borehole elongation data
Method: Inversion of focal mechanism data
Seismic profiles
Max. Horizontal stress directions
Maximum horizontal stress from borehole breakout
Horizontal stresses and directions

from borehole leak-off data
y
Method:
Parameters: Fracture pressure

Inversion of leak-off and minifrac data
Pore pressure
Overburden stress
Borehole azimuth direction
Stress fields at reservoir level from leak-off inversion

y
Conclusions
Summary, leak-off inversion:
The stress field at Snorre is anisotropic due to tectonics of the area
For shallow depths (to 1500m), the horizontal stress

state has relaxed, nearly hydrostatic state.
In the deeper parts (1500 3000m), the horizontal
stresses becomes anistropic with depth.
Focal mechanisms, borehole elongation and leak-off data have been
The stress state varies both depthwise and areawise.

In certain places the max. horizontal stress exceeds
the overburden.
The method gives realistic stress ratio. Also, the
directions are consistent with the fault pattern of the
area.
used to assess the in-situ stress levels and direction at Snorre.

y
The three methods shows consistency, but model various scales:

Focal mechanism
regional scale
Elongation data
local scale (one borehole)
Leak-off inversion
local scale (several boreholes)
Maximum horizontal stress is regionally in a North-West direction
Stresses near faults dominated by faults
The described approach has significantly improved fracture pressure

prediction
Field correlations
Borehole Collapse
Time model
Borehole Collapse
Borehole Collapse
Geomechanical Evaluation
Chapter 3.4 - Borehole Collapse
Vv = overburden = constant
VT = 2Va - Pw
Vr = Pw = borehole pressure
Borehole Stresses
Borehole Collapse
y
Radial stress:
Po
Vertical stress:
Pore
P
pressure:
Tangential stress:
Mohr-Coulomb failure model
Collapse Mechanism
Borehole Collapse
y
Borehole Collapse
Borehole Collapse
Borehole collapse
Time model
Time dependency
Field correlations
Collapse Mechanism
Borehole Stresses
Borehole Collapse
Collapse Mechanism
Borehole Collapse
Field correlations
Borehole Collapse
03.06.2011
03.06.2011
Borehole Collapse
3.5 Drillability Evaluation
03.06.2011
ROP models
y
The d-exponent
y
The simplest ROP model is:
This model is used:

Continuously in mudlogging units offshore
Estimate pore pressure
Assess bit wear with rollercone drillbits
A more common model is the
d- exponent:
Various geological interpretation

y
It is actually a normalised ROP model, but the linear model works as well
The drillability is the only (?) measurement at the drillbit face. Other
measurements are behind in depth.
Drillability is always measured and provide a very important source of

information . Examples follows.
Clay diaper example

y
Tophole drilling found soft sediments
Relief well example

y
well was killed with a relief well.
that could not be detected on logs.

y
Drillability analysis performed
Found increase in drillability at a given depth

interval
Difficult to detect distance between wells at 5000 m
Breakthrough point critical as both wells could lose control
Relief well finished one year after initial blowout.
The blowing well had produced 18 000 bbls/day for one year leading
to reduced pore pressure and changes in in-situ stress.
Conclusion: Discovered an unidentified clay

diaper characterized by:
High water content
An underground blowout in a HPHT
Comparing the two drillabilities defined proximity and also extent of

damage caused by underground flow. This was the only information at
that time.
High porosity
Easy drillable
Relief well example

y
Drillability summary
Examples shows the power of drillability information
Drillability should be further explored as a formation evaluation

tool and a well dignostic tool
Fracture Model for General

Offshore Applications
Chapter 3.6
Fracture Model for General Offshore

Applications
Objectives
y
Introduction
The overburden stress
Fracturing
Empirical model
Method to normalize data
Field cases
Summary and conclusions
Introduction
The overburden stress
Problems increase with water depth
Shallow water flow
Hole collapse
1.0
1.5
2.0
Eatons model
Overburden
stress grad. (s.g.)
Linear
approx.
Overburden stress
1000
V ob
Circulation losses
Fracture gradient decrease with increased
water depth
Dw
Linear
approx.
Depth (m)
Fracturing
2000
1500
1000
Water depth (m)
500
| d sw
1.0
1.5
2.0
Stress grad. (s.g.)
Stresses
Equal horizontal stresses
V v 3di d j P0 Py
VH Vh
Different horizontal stresses

VH !Vh
1000
Horizontal stress
Vv
V h, H V v
Vh
2000
Conclusion
d wf
KV v P0 Py
V v
LOT
3000
Depth (m)
gd ob D
D Dw D f
Dw D Dw D f

2.0
D
D
15 000
Fracture directions
Fracturing equation
d wf
1
d sw Dw dbulk D dD
D
Dw
dob
3000
Overburden stress gradient
2000
Dw
g U sw dD g Ubulk dD
VH
Fracturing Flow barriers

Non-penetrating fluids
Pwf
Pressure
Fracturing LOT testing
Penetrating fluids
2V P0 Pt
Pwf
Pressure
Flow barrier
Pw
Water-based drilling fluid
V 1 2Q V P0 1 Q V t
Oil-based drilling fluid
Pressure
Flow barrier
Pressure
Pw
Non-penetrating case
LOT
P0
P0
V
Penetrating case
Mud compressibility
Radius
Variation in break-down pressure:
Radius
Volume
Volume
2V P0 t Pwf t V
Empirical fracture model
Method to normalize data
Leak-off (LOT) data studied from 175-2071m water

depth
All data normalized by subtracting water pressure

and depth
Data correlates well with overburden and

horizontal stress curves
New depth
Valid for all relaxed sedimentary depositional basins
New gradient
Depth
D1
D2
hf1
hw1
D1 'h f 'hw 'Dsb
P
P
K P
K P
d wf 2
d sw
N
fw1
N
fw 2
Fracture Model for General Offshore

Applications
hf 1 hw1 Dsb1
N
ob1
N
ob 2
PfwN 2
Dsb1
PfwN1
N
ob 2
N
ob1
P
P
Dwf 1
hw 2
h d D
d wf 1
d sw w1 b 2 sb 2
Dwf 2
Dwf 2
Dwf 2 db1 Dsb1
dwf1
dwf2
Empirical correlation
Field case 1
Ratio between leak-off data and overburden
Overburden
Five deep-water wells

selected for analysis
Ratio
d(LOT)/do
0.50
0.70
0.80
0.90
1,10
1,20
1,30
1,40
1,50
1,60
LOT data
1,70
1.00
1.10
1.20
1,80
1,90
2,00
Well used for empirical

correlation
1274m water depth
Variations in LOT influenced by:
1.30
500
Fracture prognosis of 98%

of overburden stress
gradient
Standard deviation of 0.05
0.60
Frac gradient
Average ratio
1,00
1000
500
1500
1000
2000
Depth (m)
1500
2500
2000
3000
Rig procedures
Interpretations of P-V-plots
3500
Mud density
2500
4000
Quality of mud cake
3000
4500
3500
5000
4000
5500
Assessment of bulk density and

overburden stress
Fracture Model for General Offshore Applications
Field case 2 - Prognosis

Overburden
Fracture gradient
Peon FIT
s.g.
1
1,05
1,1
1,15
1,2
1,25
1,3
1,35
1,4
350
400
Fracture prognosis used for

planning of shallow penetration
gas well
Overburden gradient decreases with increasing water

depth
Fracture pressure governed by:
380m water depth
Overburden stress
Good agreement between

prognosis and measured FIT
Fluid barrier
Depth (m)
450
Major contributor to the

success of the drilling operation
500
550
y
600
Summary and conclusions
Mud designed for strong mud

cake
Field data fits general model
Model presented to derive prognosis
Normalization method derived to adjust data for

arbitrary water depth
Key issues
3.6 General Fracturing Model
Important findings
Overburden stress important
Seabed penetration important as well
Overburden stress
y
In deepwater most overburden is water, leading to low

horizontal stress
This gives low fracture

pressure
Direct correlation between

LOT and water depth
A general fracturing model valid from land wells

to deepwater wells emerged from this
Seabed penetration
y
Using seabed reference by:

Removing water pressure
Removing water depth
Led to a LOT correlation:
Normalization
y
Have data from Well 1. Prognose LOT for Well 2 by

normalizing to new water depth
Example 1
y
Well 1 is drilled in 400 m water, what is expected LOT if it drills
Equations
y
General equations:
Different but constant bulk densities:
Equal constant bulk densities:
Example 2
y
inn 1100 m water depth, assuming equal conditions?
Now we assume different bulk densities. Same data as in Example

1, except bulk densities are 2.05 sg and 1. 85 sg
LOT1 = 1.5 sg at 900 m (RKB)
Solution, new depth: D2 = 900 + (1100-400)+(25-25) = 1600 m
Expected LOT at 1600 m:
Solution, new depth: D2 = 900 + (1100-400)+(25-25) = 1600 m
Expected LOT at 1600 m
Lower bulk density in well 2 leads to lower LOT
Field example
y
Well Design Premises
Well offshore Norway in water depth 1349 m:
Chapter 4
4.1 Well Integrity
4.1 Well Integrity

y
Full Well Integrity

Required for Production Csg. Only
Min. LOT to reach end open hole
Reduced Well Integrity

All other Csg. strings (exept 30)
Min. LOT to reach end open hole
Full well integrity
Reduced integrity
(Weak point below shoe)
Reduced integrity
(Weak point below wellhead)
Max. LOT to ensure weak pt. below shoe

Maximum kick size to ensure full integrity
4.1 Maximum LOT
4.2 Casing Setting Depth

y
Pressure Conditions
Shut-in Gas Filled Well
Wellhead Press. 200 bar =

Burst Strength Csg.
Frac. Pressure at Shoe
Shoe Pressure 200 bar (2.02

s.g.)
Pore Pressure Open Hole
If LOT>2.02 s.g. Weak point

wellhead.
UNACCEPTABLE
Operational Conditions
Borehole Stability, Collapse Mud Loss
Completion Conditions
Drilling conditions, No. Of Bits/Trips
Example 1: Mud Weight
Casing size Depth Mud weight

(inch)
(m)
(s.g.)
7
2700
1.60
9 5/8
2400
1.60
13 3/8
1300
1.30
18 5/8
700
1.20
30
400
Sea water
Example 2: Riser Margin
Example 2: Riser Margin

(inch)
(m)
(s.g.)
Example 3: Kick Criteria

(inch)
(m)
(s.g.)
2700
1.69
2700
1.69
9 5/8
2400
1.69
9 5/8
2400
1.69
13 3/8
1700
1.40
13 3/8
1700
1.40
18 5/8
900
1.20
18 5/8
900
1.20
30
440
Sea water
30
440
Sea water
Summary, Csg. Seat Selection
4.3 Completion and Production

Requirements
Determine depth requirements from Mud

Weight (frac pressure and pore pressures)
Wellhead design pressure (i.e. 5000 psi)
Bullheading pressures
Determine operational factors based on

experience
Design alternatives
Determine riser margins on floaters
Only production csg. Need full integrity.
Use kick margin for other strings.
Drilling only, or drilling and testing
Other effects
Temperature
Time
Perforation, stimulation,
Temperature expansion
Temperature expansion
Burst Design
Casing Design
Chapter 5
Gas filled casing
Burst Design
Burst Design
Leaking tubing
Gas Filled Casing

For all csgs. except 30 in. and production csg.
Leaking Tubing
For production csg.
Maximum gas kick

Max. vol. reservoir fluid without breaking
down shoe
Burst Design
Burst Design
y
Governed by tangential stress:

Pburst = 2Vtensilet/D
Vt
Ft
At
1 Di
P
2 t
Va
Fa
Aa
1 Di
P
4 t
Vt=2Va
Parameters: Vtensile and t/D
Use manufacturers data
Use equation for wear assessment
Burst Design
Kick Scenario
Casing wear
Proportionality, Example:
Conservative criterion
x Burst pressure: 419 bar

x Csg. wall worn from 8.92 to 5 mm
Gas filled casing

Leaking tubing
For the production casing
Maximum gas kick

For all casings except production casing
Relates to csg. shoe strength
x Compute reduced burst strength
x Minimum LOT to reach next shoe

x Maximum LOT to ensure weak point at shoe
x Maximum influx volume
Collapse Design
y
More complicated than burst
Collapse design
y
Wear example: same as burst example
Collapse reduction from 169bar to 80
Yield collapse, plastic collapse,

transitional collapse and elastic
collapse depend on t/D ratio
Elastic collapse:
bar appears unrealistic

y
Collapse criteria
Mud losses to a thief zone
Collapse during cementing
Collapse criteria
y
Thief zone
Tension design
y
Major design criteria:

Weight of casing including buoyancy
Casing stretch caused by pressure testing
while bumping cement plug
y
y
Dynamic loads, difficult to assess

Bending effects
During cementation
Temperature effects
y
Example of B-annulus pressure in Chapter 4.3.4
If temperature exceeds 80-100C (200F)
Yield strength reduces

Tensile strength
Other criteria:
Bi-axial loading
y
From von Mises yield criterion:
Elliptic equation:
Combination collapse and tension
Burst strength
leads to reduced strength
Other criteria
y
Common design criteria
Sour service
Weight loss corrosion
Hydrogen embrittlement (H2S)
Time scenario
Exploration wells short life
Production wells long life
Casing wear
Wear and damage reduces well integrity
5.2 Casing test pressure

y
Requirements, casing must:
Pressure tests critical wells

y
Sometimes the casing is tested only in one end, e.g. at the

wellhead
Critical wells like HPHT wells may require testing of the

entire casing from top to bottom
Problem: Kick scenario assumes reservoir gas in annulus.

During testing the annulus is filled with mud.
Possible approaches:
Be pressure tested for

expected loading
Not exceed 90% of yield strength (SF=1.11)
Example surface casing and

deeper casing
Bump plug during cementing - Assume pressure exceeding

saltwater behind casing - Set packer in the middle of the casing
and test both sides - Establish back pressure behind casing Evacuate upper part to seawater, example to follow
HPHT pressure test

y
Design basis:
HPHT pressure test

y
Test load with 1.9 sg mud in

well
OK in top
Overloaded at bottom
HPHT pressure test

y
Upper half displaced to

seawater
Test is unacceptable
HPHT pressure test

y
When displacing upper half

to seawater, always check for
casing collapse
Test is OK throughout
well
Introduction
5.3 Casing design example
y
y
y
y
y
Summary
y
Summary
Setting depth
Design basis
Casing design
Summary
Casing depths
y
Design basis
y
Describe all assumptions for each casing string
18-5/8 Casing design

y
Collapse
Burst
tension,
Cementation
Wellbore stability
Fluid densities
Bullheading
Wear and corrosion
And so on.

y
Collapse loading during

cementation:

y
Summary
y
5.4 Fully 3D Well Design Improves
Results:
Margins in Critical Wells
Based on:
Wateroutside
Oil inside
Chapter 6 will assume mud
outside and gas inside
Overview
Background
Uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial well design
Evolution of long, deep and hot wells
Conventional triaxial design
Design margins have become small
Fully three-dimensional well design
A need for an accurate model to calculate
Well examples
Conclusions
burst and collapse
Current technology
Uniaxial well design
Most well designs are based on one- and

two-dimensional mechanics
Recent design packages include a three-
stresses
y
dimensional model
y
Accurate only for certain conditions
Consider one of the three principal
Axial load design neglects pressure load

effects
Pressure load design neglects axial load

effects
Biaxial well design
Triaxial well design
Consider two of the three principal
Consider all three principal stresses
stresses
Combine these stresses to a single
Hoop and axial stresses dominate
Neglect radial stress
equivalent stress
y
Classical von Mises distortion energy

theory is used in the industry
Conventional triaxial design
Fully 3D well design
Simplifications give practical design method
For burst calculations, assume zero outside

pressure
For collapse calculations, assume zero inside
New dimensionless solution that include

all three principal stresses
Use actual pressures inside and outside

the pipe
pressure
y
Use pressure differentials instead of actual

inside and outside pressures
Dimensionless pipe analysis

y
3D yield surface
Group 1 (x) Inside pressure, axial stress, yield

strength
Group 2 (y) Inside pressure, outside pressure,

yield strength, diameter
Group 3 (z) Equivalent von Mises stress, yield

strength
z V y / V VME
y
Group 4 () Outside diameter, wall thickness

x ( pi V a ) / V y
E ( pi po ) / V y
2D design factors
Example cases
1.5
DF = 1.00
DF = 1.10
DF = 1.20
DF = 1.30
1.0
0.5
E ( pi po ) / V y
HP/HT wells offshore Norway
Well 1 Subsea wellhead

- Pressure integrity of 10 x 9 production casing
- Two burst cases and one collapse case
0.0
-0.5
Case 1
Case 2
S Case 3
Case 4
-1.0
Well 2 Platform
- Collapse of snubbing pipe during live well intervention
-1.5
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
x ( pi V a ) / V y
Pressure/load matrix
Case #1 Burst below wellhead
New 3D model
DF = 1.37
Conventional triaxial
model
DF = 1.36
Biaxial model
DF = 1.37
Uniaxial model
DF = 1.44
Case #2 Burst on top of packer
Case #3
Thief zone
New 3D model
DF = 1.10
New 3D model
DF = 2.14
Conventional triaxial model

DF = 1.06

DF = 2.14
Biaxial model
DF = 1.04
Biaxial model
DF = 2.04
Uniaxial model
DF = 1.17
Case #4
Snubbing
2D design factors
1.5
New 3D model
DF = 1.69
DF = 1.00
DF = 1.10
DF = 1.20
DF = 1.30
1.0
0.5

DF = 1.69
y
E ( pi po ) / V y
0.0
Biaxial model
DF = 1.64
-0.5
Case 1
Case 2
S Case 3
Case 4
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
x ( pi V a ) / V y
0.5
1.0
1.5
Conclusions
y
6.6 Casing design

Conventional triaxial design for burst and
collapse is in error under certain

conditions
y
An accurate 3D model is developed
Improvement in design margins is

achieved using 3D model
24 Surface casing
Production casing
y
y
y
Collapse during cementation

installation
Burst, gas filled casing next section

Post installation
Integrity:
Shoe weak, no kick margin, wellhead weak
point
2 Types of tubing
Temperature derating
Tieback and liner designs
Design summary
Important issues
These factors are most important

Reservoir pressure
Reservoir fluid density
Fracture pressure
Density of fluid behind casing
Assume gas inside

and mud outside
Content
6. Design of HPHT wells
-
The following subjects are covered:

HPHT definitions
Design premises
Geomechanical design
Mud weight design
Production casing considerations
Design of shallow casing strings
Intermediate casing design
Design of the production casing
HPHT Definitions
y
A HPHT well is:

Temperature higher than 150 C (294F)
Pressure exceeding 10 000 psi
Design premises
y
Objectives:
Flow test Jurassic reservoir
Drill through reservoir
Core or samle data
1 of the above makes it HPHT
Well depth 5000 m but due to geological uncertainty, design depth is 5100 m
Consider sour service conditions
Two designs due to uncertinty of flow testing

Integrated design. Well can handle both drilling and well test phases
Separate drilling and testing. In the unlikely event of flow testing, install a tie-back casing.
This was chosen.
Casing alternatives
y
Prognosis
Alternatives
Most important design input
1: No finds
Key HPHT problem, narrow

margin at top reservoir
Long openhole sections with

wellbore stability issues
Heavy production casing

requiring large drilling rig
2011 cost: 150 M$
2: Run liner
3. Flow test using tie-back
4: Use liner too early
5: Use contingency to reach target
6: Flow test using tie-back casing
Geomechanic design
y
Shallow gas require careful placement of upper casing strings
Shall gas followed by losses below may give problems
Riserless preferable from this point of view
Geomechanic-Deep Fracturing
y
Detailed analysis of 70 HPHT wells
Based modeling on Compaction Model,

Modern Well Design page 62.
Established frac model
Problem is too much spread
Must consider groups of data

LOT
Pore pressure
Overburden
Depth
Lithology
LOT vs Pore pressure

y
Trend: High LOT high Po

Low LOT low Po
We will in the following

normalize all LOTs to a
pore pressure of 1.8 sg
Resulting Frac Model
Stress regimes
Resulting frac prognosis
Stress regimes in Central Graben
Frac from LOT data
Resulting frac model
Lost circulation from daily

drilling reports during loss
events
y
y
Process repeated
Large uncertainty below 4700

m, design must assume worst
case
Tiny pressure window the

largest challenge
Approximately 50% of total

time spent in reservoir
for circulation
loss data
Mud weight design

y
Drilling problems Well A
MW design cont.
y
Many drilling problems in

Well B
3 sidetracks in the 17-1/2

section
MW gradually increased to
above median-line
Compare Drilling problems with

median-line.
Too low MW in top of well?
MW design cont.
y
Few drilling problems in Well C
MW selection
y
MW criteria
Top hole lower than median-line
(ML) because of weak csg. shoes
1000 3000 m, approx. ML
Bottom lower than ML because:
MW roughly around median-
x Need to tag pore pressure to
line
y
seaarch for production csg. Seat
Well was reasonably well
x Accept som collapse in chalk

x Increase MW gradually to
minimize tight hole
Production casing considerations

y
Setting point critical
Dont know what is below
If losses, must use contingency

liners
Operational strategy:
Perform LOTs
Kick simulation tools
Drillability analysis
Careful hydraulic monitoring
Casing Setting Depths

y
7.1 Wellheads
Chapter 7
Drilling Operations and Well Issues
7.2 The 36 in. hole and the 30 in.
The 26 in. hole and the 20 in. surface
conductor casing
Operation:
Set anchors and pretension
Ballast rig down.Make up BHA no. 1 and 1300 m drillpipe
casing
Hours used:
24
20
Stab into well

Drill 50 m of 36 in hole
Circulate hole clean
Perform wiper trip
Displace to hivis mud, pull back to mudline
Position rig using thrusters
Rig up for running 30 in conductor
Make up 3,5 in cement stinger and run in hole
Run in 30 in. conductor
Circulate and cement 30 in., wait on cement
Pull out cement tools and drillpipe
1,3
9
2
1
2
Total hours
32
0,5
2
6
4
4
0
Operation:
Pull out and rack 36 in BHA
Break down 36 in BHA
Pull out and rack cement head in derrick
Make up 26 in BHA and run to template
Position rig w/thrusters, stab in and run to shoe
Drill 150 m of 26 in hole
Circulate hole clean
Wiper trip, run to bottom and displace to hivis mud
Pull out to seabed
Pull to surface and rack pipes
Rig up and run 145 m 20 in casing
Circulate and cement 20 in csg.
Release running tool and pull out of hole
Total hours:
Hours used :
1
1
1
1,5
1
12
3
4
2
4
12
4
2
49
The 17.5 in. hole and the 13-3/8 in.

intermediate casing
Running BOP
Operation:
Rig up for running BOP stack
Run marine riser and BOP
Land BOP
Rig down riser handling equipment
Prepare test plug for running in the hole
Run in hole with test plug
Test connector
Test BOP
Pull out BOP test tool
Lay down test tool
Hours used:
4
16
4
4
0,5
3
1
3
3
0,5
Total hours:
39
Operation:
Make up 17,5 in BHA
Run in hole with BHA
Drill 20 in cement, plugs and shoetrack
Circulate contaminated mud and perform
Pick up drillpipe
Drill 700 m of directional 17,5 in hole.
Circulate hole clean, wiper trip, pull out of hole
Run log
Rig up for running of 13-3/8 in. casing
Set back cementing head, retrieve seat protector
Run 500 m of 13-3/8 in casing
Circulate and cement 13-3/8 in casing
Set seal assembly and pressure test
Perform BOP test and pull out
Run and set 13-3/8 in wear bushing
Lay down 17-1/2 in BHA
Service cement head
Hours used:
3
3
3
2
1
24
10
8
3
6
10
3
1
6
6
3
1
Total hours:
93
The 12,25 in. hole and the 9-5/8 in.

production casing
Operation:
Make up 12,25 in. BHA
Run in hole to 900 m
Drill 1100 m of 12,25 in hole
Circulate, wipertrip, circulate
Pull out and rack 12,25 in. BHA
Lay out 12,25 in BHA
Retrieve wear bushing
Rig up for running 9-5/8 in casing
Run in 680 m of 9-5/8 in casing
Circulate and cement casing, pressure test.
Set and test seal assembly
Pull out of well
Run in wear bushing. Temporary P/A. Establish barrier
Disconnect and secure BOP
Total hours:
Wellhead
Hours used:
4
6
86
8
5
2
6
3
14
6
1
3
4
8
156
Operation:
Pull marine riser and BOP
Prepare for X-mas tree running
Run and install X-mas tree
Pull running tool
Run marine riser and BOP
Position and latch
Total hours:
Hours used:
8
8
24
4
9
2
55
Install Lower Completion
The 8.5 in. hole through the reservoir

Operation:
Make up drillcollars and heavy weight drillpipe
Pick up and make 8,5 in BHA
Drill composite bridge plug
Drill shoe, circulate, perform FIT
Drill 1000 m horizontal section
Hours used:
4
6
7
2
6
12
160
Total hours:
197
Operation:
Clear rig floor
Make up scraper and magnet assy.
Pick up heavy weight drill pipe
Make scraper run
Rig up tubing tongs
Make up wirewrap screens, blanks and swellpackers
Install screen packer/hanger and running tool
Rig down tubing tongs
Run screens on drill pipe
Drop ball, pump down and set packer
Test packer from above
Release running tool and flowcheck
Displace well above packer to brine
Pull out and lay down running tool
Make up anchor packer assy.
Run in assembly on drill pipe
Orient and set anchor packer
Pull out and lay down running tool
Hours used:
0,8
1,6
12
18,9
3,1
27,2
1,6
0,8
15,7
3,1
1,6
1,6
0
7,9
4,7
15,7
1,6
7,9
Total hours:
126
Install Upper Completion

Start well for production
Operation:
Pull bore protector
Install lateral zone assemblies
Splice and terminate el. cable
Make up main completion assembly
Run in 5,5 in. tubing
Install TRSCSSV, splice cables
Run in 5,5 in tubing
Make up tubing hanger
Make up THRT and STT??
Run in on WOR??
Install lifting frame, flow head
Land and lock tubing hanger, test seals
Drop ball, press. Tubing, set and test packer
Close TRSCSSV, inflow test,equalize and open
Rig up wirelin, pull packer setting plug
Pull plug
Press. Up annulus and test packer from above
Total hours:
Hours used:
3,1
7,9
15,7
6,3
29,9
6,3
1,9
6,3
6,3
18,9
9,4
1,6
3,1
1,6
12,6
3,1
1,6
136
Operation:
Prepare rig for well flow
Displace WOR to nitrogen
Flow out brine and mud and oil
Bullhead tubing with diesel and wax inhibitor
Displace WOR to brine
Close TRSCSSV
Install tubing head crown plug and test on wireline
Close HXT valves and test
Remove and lay-out WOR, SST etc.
Install tree cap, test, pull and lay down running tool
Pull BOP and marine riser
Install corrosion cap
Deballast and prepare to move rig
Total hours:
Hours used:
3,1
9,4
12,6
3,1
3,1
0,8
12,6
3,1
12,6
9,4
15,7
6
6,3
98
7.3 Torque and Drag in 3D

y
Dogleg
Summary of well construction time

Operation:
36 in. hole
26 in. hole
Running BOP
17,5 in hole
12,25 in. hole
Wellhead
8,5 in. hole
Lower completion
Upper completion
Start well
Hours used:
Total hours:
cos T sin D 1 sin D 2 cosI1 I 2 cos D 1 cos D 2
Percent time:
32
49
39
93
156
55
197
126
136
98
3.3
5
4
9.5
15.9
5.6
20
12.8
13.9
10
981
40,9 days
100%
180
Trad
S
DL( $ )
D2
I2 2
T T
D1
I1
Friction vs. geometry

y
2D Example
Straight sections
500
1000
1500
Horizontal
Re ach ( m)
F2
F1 E'Lw^cos D r P sin D`
PrE w'L sin D
Curved sections
F2
F1e
335
170
45q
455
500
45q
1000
r P T 2 T1
sin D 2 sin D1
E w'L
D 2 D1
PrN PrF1 T2 T1
13
08
1380
1500
1661
Depth (m)
45q
170
286kN
2D Results
2D Results
Torque (kNm )
Table7.1:Forcesinthedrillstring duringhoistingandlowering
Torque
Static weight(kN)
Hoisting (kN)
( kNm )
10
Lowering(kN)
10
20
20
500
500
15 . 54
1000
491 . 1
641 . 4
840 . 3
13 15.54 22
Force ( kN )
Position
Without
Bit Torque
1000
90kN
641.4
Force (kN )
With
Bit Torque
Vertical
Vertical
Well Bottom
286
286
286
335
335
Build-Up
455
Build-Up
Bottom dropoff section

Bottom sail section
Top sail section
Top buildup section
Top well
286+0.237x120=
286+28.4=314.4
286x1.17+28.4=363
314.4+0.237x925=
=314.4+219.2=533.6
363+0.237x1308(cos 45+0.20sin45)=626
272.9+0.237x1308(cos 45-0.20sin45)=448.3
533.6+0.237x120=
533.6+28.4=562
626x1.17+28.4=760.9
448.3x0.855+28.4=411.7
562+0.237x335=
562+79.4=641.4
760.9+79.4=840.3
411.7+79.4=491.1
500
455
500
Static Weight (Off-Bottom)
286x0.855+28.4=272.9
Hoisting
Torque
Static Weight (On-Bottom)
Static
Straight
Inclined
1000
Straight
Inclined
Off
Bottom
1000
Lowering
1380
1380
Drop-Off
1500
Drop-Off
1500
BHA
Vertical
1661
BHA
Vertical
1661
WOB
TOB 9kNm
Depth ( m )
Depth (m )
3D Example
3D Results
Torque ( kNm )
0
0
10
20
13 . 5
463
500
1000
576
StaticTorq ue
768
Lowering
Static
Pure
Lowering
Build-up
Build-up
with
Right Side Bend
Build-up
with
Left Side Bend
3000
40
2000
1512
1752
73
2063
2104
Build-up
Build-up
with
Right Side Bend
2075
Build-up
with
Left Side Bend
Straight Inclined
BHA
2865
1052
25
Pure
Hoisting
Straight Inclined
1700
3000
Force (kN )
Combined
Hoisting
1100
2075
2865
768
1000
Straight Inclined
500
1000
661
StaticWeight
Hoisting
1100
1700
513 576
Vertical
Combined
Lowering
500
1000
2000
463
Vertical
500
500
0
Force ( kN )
MD ( m )
MD (m)
Straight Inclined
BHA
Friction Analysis for LongReach Wells
This presentation
y
Introduction
Analytical models for torque and drag
Field case
Friction analysis for ultra-long wells
Summary
Introduction
Significance of well friction
Basic model: Coulomb friction

Linear hole sections
Numerical simulators:
Availability
Limitations
Closed form models:

Increase availability
Analytical approach
Drag:
Torque:
F2 = F1 + w's(cosD r PsinD)
T = Pw'srsinD
Drop-off section
Modified catenary profile

Forces:
6Fx = 0
6Fz = 0
Results:
Well path coordinates:
F1 sin D1
w
Tension during hoisting:

F2
F1e
P (D 2 D1 )
wR

1 P 2
P D 2 D1
2
sin D1 )
(1 P )(sin D 2 e
P D 2 D1
2
P
(cos
D
cos D1 )

e
2
F1 e
P D 2 D1
wR sin D e P D 2 D1 sin D

2
1
P r ^F1 wR sin D1`D 2 D1 P rwR cos D 2 cos D1
ws F1 cos D1
F1 sin D1
Torque:
ws F1 cos D1
F1 sin D1
P r 'F tan 1
'Tcat
Note: Entrance condition to modified catenary
P'F tan 1
'Fcat
Torque:
T
wx
F1
sinh 1 cot D1 cos D1
sin D1 sinh
w
F1 sin D1
Deviation from ideal

tension: 'F
Drag:
Tension during lowering:

F2
wx
sinh 1 cot D1 cosh ^sinh 1 cot D1 `

cosh
F1 sin D1

Combied rotation and axial movement
Side bend
Tension:
F2

1
1 wR e 2 1
2
r P I I
F1 F12 wR e 2 1
2
2 F F 2 wR 2
1
1
2
# P I I
Torque:
T
Pr F12 wR 2 I2 I1

a) Drag and torque for a pipe.
b) Combined friction from rotation
and axial movement.
T
r

F2
P w's
Analytical models for torque and

drag

Downhole motor torque
Bit power during rotary drilling:
Bit power with downhole motor:
Protary
CTrotary nrotary
Pmotor
CTmotor nmotor
Assuming equal power, the torque relation is:

Tmotor
nrotary
nmotor
Application:
Trotary
Split the well into geometries:

e.g.
This is the gearbox principle.

Downhole motor may significantly reduce bit torque.
vertical section
-
Analytical models for torque and

drag
Applications:
3-Dimensional well path.
Total solution:
straight section bottom

build-up section
Adding the equations for these geo metries gives total torque and drag
Field case
Long-reach well in the Yme field:
Depth: 2950 mTVD top reservoir
3100 mTVD total depth
Drag:
Drag:
F2
F22 build_or_drop F22sidebend
Torque:
T= 6 T from bottom to top
Torque:
F2
Horizontal reach: 7528 m
F=6 F2 from bottom to top
T build_or_drop T sidebend
2
Rig limitations:
Hoist:
4540 kN (1.mill. lbs)
Top drive:
35 kNm (25.800 lb-ft)
Field case
Field case
Well profile investigated
Results
Hoist
Well
Profile
Top-drive:
Static hook Pick-up

load (kN) load (kN)
Modified
catenary
Minimum
dog-leg
Undersection
Standard
Slack-off
load (kNm)
845
1360
593
843
1332
609
842
1321
568
858
1350
543
Well
Profile
Modified
catenary
Minimum
dog-leg
Undersection
Standard
Surface
Torque build-up Torque
torque (kNm) bnd (kNm)D
hold
28.57
7,11
21,46
30.91
11,04
19,87
29.51
6,88
22,63
30.42
9,05
21,37
Conclutions:
Friction analysis for ultra long wells

Example: Prolong Yme well to a horizontal reach of 12 km
Drill string tension not critical
Torque limiting element
Modified catenary profile best
Summary
y
Analytical expression for torque and drag are derived in this paper.
The models are valid for straight sections, build-up, drop-off and side
bends.
Equations for geometry and torque and drag for a modified catenary
profile is also given.
Torque and drag analysis can be performed by adding equations for each
hole section.
A field case from Yme demonstrates the application. A modified catenary

profile was chosen to minimize torque.
An ultra-long well was studied with the models. By using light-weight drill
pipe in the sail section a 12 km(or longer) well can be drilled with existing
rig equipment.
Dominating limiting parameters:
Conclusions:
Well can be drilled if light drill pipe
is used in the sail section
Tension allowable for all cases
Torque limiting factor
Other elements within permissible
limits, like hydraulics, hole cleaning,
borehole stability,
Results
Drillpipe
Pulling
Steel
Titanium
Composite
179
133
102
Hook load(kN)
Static
Lowering
175
130
101
60
60
60
Build-up
10,2
6,2
3,7
Torque(kNm)
Hold
Total
section
43.7
53.9
26,90
33.1
16.0
19,70
Friction
Drill pipe weight
Mud density
7.4 Stuck pipe in deviated

wellbores
Friction analysis for ultra-long wells

y
Guidelines to obtain a low-friction well:
High inclination in the sail section.

Minimum weight BHA.
Heaviest DP in top of string.
Select modified catenary or another profile.
Minimizing dog-leg and tortuosity.
Downhole motor reduce torque.
Reduce friction by:
x Low DP weight
x Small tool joint
x Self-lubricant matrix.
Content
Introduction
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Introduction
Industry practice
Deviated wells and friction
Depth to stuck point
Field case
Methods to free pipe
Final comments
Two most costly drilling problems:

Circulation losses
Stuck pipe
Causes high economic risk for long wells

Sidetrack often consequence
Operational aspects important

Often stuck after static period
Industry practice
y
y
y
If stuck drillstring, apply pull test

Alternatively, run free point indicator
Pull test estimate free pipe length from
elongation
Current models neglects well friction
Therefore strictly applicable for vertical wells
only
Deviated wells and friction

y
This analysis valid for differential sticking

Differential pressure
Area exposed
Permeable formation
Friction in curved bends and

straight inclined sections
Depth to stuck point

Depth to stuck point,
vertical well
Field case
y
DP stuck in long deviated well
Friction coefficient causes uncertainty
Results:
Depth to stuck point,

deviated well(vertical, build, sail)
Frictionless:
5097 m
New model:
5693 m
Torsion test:
5675 m
Torsion is independent of friction as

pipe is not pulled
Torsion test
y
Torsion test should be included in rig

procedures
Methods to free pipe

y
Maximum mechanical force
Final comments
y
differential pressure wellbore/formation is the critical element.
Pull/twist DP towards limit

y
Minimum density method

Displace well to minimum density mud to reduce
bottomhole pressure. Also reduces buoyancy
This analysis is valid for cases with differential sticking. The
If the string is mechanically stuck, the differential pressure is no

longer a factor. For this case reducing MW has no positive effect.
We recommend that the Maximum Mechanical Force method, the
Maximum buoyancy method
Maximum Buoyancy method and the Torsion method to be used
Displace DP to seawater. Buoyancy increases giveing higher pull margin
here.
Results:
This presentation
7.5 Well-Integrity Issues

Offshore Norway
Birgit Vignes, Petroleum Safety Authority Norway

Bernt S. Aadnoy, Univ. of Stavanger
Paper IADC/SPE 112535 presented at the 2008
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando
1. Introduction of the pilot well integrity study

2. Regulation and standards
3. Results of the study
4. Examples of well failures
5. Continued work in 2008
Summary
1. Introduction - Background for the survey
Several well integrity incidents

Several shortfalls
Missing critical information
Insufficient openness and access to well-data
Competence issues
Well conversions
Varying management of changes
1. Introduction - Well Categorization

Scope: How comprehensive is the
well integrity problem on the NCS,
and what are the main issues/ challenges?
Selection of wells for pilot examination
What kind of barrier/
Yes
barrier element
failure/ issue/ uncertainty ?
The Primary Well Barrier is the first object to prevent

unintentional flow from the source
The Secondary Well Barrier prevents further
unintentional flow if the primary well barrier should fail
Well barrier
intact
(or uncertainty)
Yes
No
Impact?
Yes
Shut in well ?
No
Cat. B:
Well is
shut In,
Working
under
Cat. C:
E.g.: Leaks, conditions/

over criteria, exemptions
well contr., E.g.: No gas lift
Insignificant
deviation
for current
operation
Cat. F:
Cat.G:
Cat. E:
Shut in
Shut in
Shut in
because of
while
on the
E.g.:
topsides
awaiting
basis of
weather
P&A
reservoar bottlenecks,
conditions,
planned
related
other
testing and
issues
activities,
union dispute, E.g.: high maintenance
water cut
Incl.: SD&P
Cat. D:
External
conditions
3. Results - Wells with integrity issues

18% of 406 the assessed production- and injection wells were reported to have well
integrity failures/ shortfalls or uncertainty.
We lls with inte grity failure , issue or unce rtanty
Ref: Activities Regulation 76 w/ref. to NORSOK D010

80
Number of wells
70
Primary Well Barrier

Secondary Well Barrier
75
60
50
40
30
48
20
10
27
Production
Source
Common production well

with the 2 barrier envelopes
Injection
Total
P roduct ion, inject ion and t ot al
Well issues are related to 33% of the injectors, and 15% of the producers.
Ref. Swiss cheese
model
Well
OK /
active
Cat. A:
Determine injury/ damage/

production impact/
financial loss
2. Regulation and standards
No
Well integrity
failure / issue ?
3. Results Well integrity impact
3. Results - Well integrity issues by age
Well integrity impact
Well integrity failure/issue distribution by well age, per 1.3.2006
25
Number of wells
20
22
15
18
Producer
16
Injector
10
10
8
Number of wells with failure/issue
30
25
26
20
24
15
16
10
5
6
1
0 to 4
A: Shut in
B: Working under
conditions
C: Insignificant deviattion
for current operations
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
Age in years
Well integrity impact category A, B and C
The frequency of wells with integrity issues in age group 0-14 years is twice as
high as for well group 15-29 years.
WAG wells and recently optimized well design have caused challenges
P&A wells are not included in this survey
7% wells were shut in

9% wells were working under conditions/exemptions
2% wells had an insignificant deviation for current operations
3. Results - Well barrier element
3. Results - Areas for improvement:
Num ber of w ells w ith w ell integrity problem
9
4
8
4
W
el
lh
ea
d
D
C H
on S
V
du
ct
or
AS
Tu V
bi
ng
G
LV
C
as
C ing
em
e
Pa n t
ck
C
he P
e
m ac r
i ca k
o
l i ff
nj
.l
in
Fl T R e
ui
S
d
ba V
rr
D ier
e
Fo sig
rm n
at
io
n
Number of wells
29
C a t e r or y ba r r i e r e l e me nt f a i l ur e
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Areas of high priority: Well documentation

Handover documentation
Regular monitoring
Competence and training
4. Example I: Surface Casing collapsed

Event:
18-5/8 csg. broke due to
corrosion
Wellhead dropped 44 cm
Platform structure
arrested further drop,
reducing the damage
potential
Reasons:
Cement return port left
open
Fresh seawater and tide
caused severe corrosion
in splash zone
Event:
Casing and tubing hanger
and running tool failed
during operations
Overloaded during
pressure testing
Consequences:
Platform production
stopped
High cost of event
Initiated monitoring
program
4. Example III: Lost wellbore

Events:
Severe lost circulation
Plugged drill pipe
Wellcontrol problem
Open well in periods
4. Example II: Production Casing Failure
Reasons:
Depleted reservoirs
Gunk pill plugged off DP
Less good operational
decisions
Consequences:
Sidetracked well
High cost
Improved procedures
Reasons:
Hangers uprated 50%
Manufacturers up-rating
failed
Accepted uprating as OK
Poor equipment design
Consequences:
Cost of well problems
Many installations, cannot
replace
Reduce max. allowable
loading
4. Example IV: Gas Leaks in Tubings

Events:
Leaks in prod. tubings in
14 wells
Reasons:
Leaks in PBR
Corrosion
Consequences:
Increased monitoring
Constraints for availability
and flexibility
4. Example V: Production Casing Failure

Events:
Prod. csg. and tubing
collapsed
Well control incident
during repair operation
Reasons:
Wrong csg. joint installed
Leaks through PBR
Uncertain pressure
integrity of well
Consequences:
High cost
Clarify well integrity
Improve workover
procedures
5. Continued work in 2008

Industry:
Operators studies confirm PSA 2006 results
OLF workshop initiative and founding of operators well integrity forum (WIF)
Operators increased focus on well integrity issues and personnel competance
Profile issue in Risk Level Project (KPIs & healthy wells)
International Authorities:
Information and documents requested in PSA 2006 study and auditing of
operators
Information to NOPSA (Australia) in meetings with PSA and Statoil
Cooperation with SSM (Netherlands) 2007-2008 with similar approach as PSA
2006
PSA:
Well integrity meeting and auditing of Marathon Norway in June 2007
Well integrity challenges of CO2-injection to be studied by SINTEF
Survey of temporary abandoned wells incl. well barrier schematic
Well integrity issues related to GLV & ASV to be discussed with industry during
2008
Summary
The wells were a representative selection

A high number of well-related failures and shortfalls
18 % of the wells had well integrity issues or uncertainty
7 % of the wells were shut in
The barrier issues are within tubing, ASV, casing and cement
The impairments represents a high potential for HSE
improvement
Examples of well failures presented
EXTRA VIEWGRAPHS
Initial Questionnaire for PSAs survey

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Is the well picture/ outcome of the XLS- forms representing the typical situation
on the facility ?
Are key design premises, well history and current technical condition validated
and easy accessible for key personnel?
Does hand-over documents include sufficient well data with premises/ limits,
including updated schematics, exposures, technical condition and changes/
deviations/ precautions with regard to well integrity and well control issues?
Are there established technical requirements to well barrier envelopes /elements,
regular condition monitoring, and systematic management of well integrity issues
?
Are the company requirements for well barriers consistent with Norsok D-010 ?
Is there a consistent practise within the company for managing well integrity
issues?
Are management of change and non-conformance handling consistently practised
?
Are requirements to competence and training defined and implemented for
common understanding of the well barrier concept, barrier performance
requirements, records assurance, and actions required upon indications of
failures ?
How is openness and reporting of undesirable well incident encouraged, including
exchange of experience internally and externally ?
Any specific performance indicators pertaining to well integrity ?
Other issues relating to the subject

Modern Well Design-Presentation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Modern Well Design-Presentation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Importance of Stresses in

Chapter 2.1 - Mud Weight Selection

Stresses as Design Criterion

Stress as Design Criterion

Stress as Design Criterion

EFFECTS OF HIGH MUD WEIGHT

Reduce borehole collapse

Reduce pressure variations

Reduce tight hole

Reduce clay swelling

Increase differential sticking

Increase lost circulation

From solid mechanics:

Petroleum Rock Mechanics: Material

Recent view: Stress dominated processes

Stress as Design Criterion

Stress as Design Criterion

Horizontal stresses from Kirch eqn.:

Stress as Design Criterion

Stress as Design Criterion

Example from the North Sea

Example of specific reaming time from

Stress as Design Criterion

Stress as Design Criterion

In-situ stresses important for well problems

LOT testing defines stress level

Borehole collapse not fully understood

Traditional approach: Rock mechanical data limited

Complementary approach: Stress analysis from

New principle demonstrated the past 8 years

2.2-Design of Well Barriers to

Design of Well Barriers

Design of fluid barriers

Circulation losses and stuck pipe two unresolved

Fracturing lab built at U. of Stavanger in 1996

Yearly losses Billions US$ worldwide

Focus on basic mechanisms

Operational factors important

Improvements depends on complementary processes

Fracturing of concrete cylinders

Experimental work, fracturing lab

Mudcake strength cell

Cell 6 Cell  5 Cell  4

Cell 1 Cell  2 Cell  3

Fracturing pressure, MPa..

Experimental work, new frac

Stone bridge principle

New Kirsch eqn.

Cake collapse pressure, [Mpa]

-particle yield strength (Mohs hardness)

Used Field OMB

3.Design of fluid barriers

3. Design of Fluid Barriers

Example of test program

Tested numerous commercial additives

Too many additives gave negative synergy

Minimum no. of additives gave best results

Some additives have no effect

Need more scientific approach to improve

PS:Have only studied fracturing, not

Design of Fluid Barrier

Small amounts of carbon fiber has good

Offshore drilling operation

Replaces larger particles

Cell 6 Cell 5 Cell 4

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3