SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

is funded principally
through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION
The Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the program
by allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.

And special
p thanks to The American Institute of Mining,
g Metallurgical,
g
and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
BP EXPLORATION
Wellbore Quality Characterization
for Drilling and Casing Running
R nning
in Challenging Wells
Dr. Colin Mason
Senior Drilling Specialist
Sunbury-on-Thames
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1932 739518
Email: masoncj@bp.com
Lecture Overview

Introduction
Definition
Measuring wellbore quality
Managing
M i wellbore
llb quality
lit
Field case studies
Conclusions
Introduction

"Wellbore quality" common oilfield concept

Often associated with directional drilling
g
Often linked with performance improvements
Diverse interpretations
p for each discipline
p
No unique definition exists
No proven method of measurement exist
Context: Drilling and Completions
 Wellbore Quality Parameters

Attribute Influenced by y
Tortuosity Directional driller
Wellbore spiralling
p g Directional drilling
g BHA
Cuttings bed Drilling practices
Ledging Drilling practices / environment
Lost circulation Drilling practices / environment
Wellbore breakout Mud weight / exposure time
Formation damage Mud type / mud properties
Target hole size Planning / Learning
Measurable Chosen methodology
Definition Quality Wellbore

Straight wellbore minimal tortuosity and

minimal hole spiralling (micro-
(micro-tortuosity)
Round gauge hole minimal wellbore break-
break-out,
no wash-
wash-outs and hole not undergauge
Smooth wellbore minimal ledging
Clean hole minimal residual cuttings bed
Integrity no leakage, no formation damage
Fit for purpose casing or logs will run to depth
Benefits Quality Wellbore

Improved weight transfer better ROP

Good hole cleaning gggauge
g hole
Lower vibration constant drilling parameters
Trouble--free trips
Trouble p & casing
g runs ggauge
g hole
Better log quality gauge, non
non--spiralled hole
Competent cement bond gauge hole
Reduced torque and drag low tortuosity
Influences: Subsurface Environment

Geology influences wellbore quality

Pore Pressure / Fracture Gradient
Geothermal Gradient
Formation Types
Rock Strength
Stress Orientation
Fractures / Faulting
Life of field issues depletion
Influences: Wellbore Placement

Wellpath selection
Tortuosity (planned versus actual)

0
M13
M04
D BRT (ft)

5,000
M07
M
M
M08

M15z
M

M05
M
M
M06

M03M02
M
TVD

M15

M11
F21

M16
F18

M01
F19

M09
M10
M17

M12
F20

M14
M18

10 000
10,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Equivalent Departure (ft)

Influences: Mud System

In this application an OBM is needed to stabilise a shale

Influences: Directional Drilling Tools

Rotary Steerable Tool

Long
gauge
PDC
bit

Steerable Motor

Tricone Bit
Hole Spiralling Introduction

Hole spiralling exists in most wells

Pitch, amplitude, drift, gauge key parameters
Negatively impacts drilling and completion operations
Usually can be detected from logs
Eff t more pronounced
Effects d in
i horizontal
h i t l / ERD wells
ll
Long gauge bits tend to help reduce spiralling
Hole Spiralling Imaging
 Hole Spiralling Image Log

Image Log
shows
Spiral
Hole from
PDM and d
RSS
(Cannot be
seen in
Survey)
Limitation of MWD Survey Tools

MWD survey tool crosses the trough or valley of a spiral hole.

Inclination and direction of the drift is being measured.
This effect is called micro-tortuosity
Problems associated with a Spiralled Hole
Reduced Drift
Higher friction forces,
forces higher T&D
Lower ROP, poor weight transfer
Casing
g hangs
g up
Ambiguous log response

Unstable bit
Cuttings Bed Traps Higher vibration
Poor hole cleaning More tool failures
Backreaming and short trips Shortened bit life
Stuck pipe More trips
Poor cement job
Spiralling results from Unstable Bit
Confined by
high-side
high side
troughs

Confined by
low-side
p
peaks

How Spiralling is Created

Measuring Wellbore Quality

Explicit methods physical measurements

individual measures possible
difficult to interpret in terms of wellbore quality
specific examples illustrated
Implicit methods indirect measurements
measure responses to wellbore quality
Illustrated by analogy and applications
Measuring Wellbore Quality

Explicit Methods
Drift caliper logs
Surface finish inferred from image logs
Micro--tortuosity / spiralling pitch,
Micro pitch amplitude
Tortuosity / doglegs statistical analysis
Pseudo measure directional difficulty index
Caliper Logs Drilling vs
vs. Trip-Out
12
Colville HRZ Kuparuk Kuparuk C Miluveach Kingak

11.5
Colville

11

10.5
er (ins.)

10

95
9.5
Diamete

8.5

8
Caliper during Drilling
Caliper during Trip-Out
7.5

7
16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000

Measured Depth (ft)

Measuring Wellbore Quality

Implicit Methods
Require a methodology / philosophy
Identify appropriate response variable
Information to characterize responses
Analysis and interpretation
Scoring / ranking process
Head Trauma Injury Assessment

Scenario
Patient arrives at Emergency Room
Apparent Head Injury
Immediate assessment of brain function needed
No immediate visual assessment possible
p
no useful explicit measure
How does the physician carry out the evaluation?
Responses to stimuli are carried out
implicit measures
 Head Trauma Injury Assessment

Three responses
determine
overall severity
of head trauma

GCS 13 Mild Brain Injury

9 GCS 12 Moderate Brain Injury
3 GCS 8 Severe Brain Injury
GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale
The Wellbore Quality Scorecard (WQS)

Methodology
Technique based on head trauma assessment
Wellbore quality inferred from response variables
drilling, tripping-
tripping-out and casing running
Primary response variables are T&D parameters
Surface logging data used to characterize responses
Trend analysis principal evaluation tool
Extent and intensity of data variations evaluated
Example Torque Trend Data
35
Narrow
Very low open hole friction factor bandwidth
30 indicative of good drilling practices
also OBM used so good lubricity
hole quality considered excellent
25
e (kft.lb)

20
Torque

15
FF = 0.17/0.11
Surface Torque
10 Bitt Torque
o que

0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Measured Depth (m)
 Wellbore Quality Scorecard Guidelines
Casing Running Response (8 points) Score
Drilling Response (5 points) Score
Severe casing g running
gpproblems
Severe drilling
S d illi problems
bl - stuck casing 0
- stuck pipe 0 - casing pulled due to downhole problems 0
- near stuck pipe incident 1
Differential sticking environment
Transient drilling problems - static friction > 100 klbs on connections 1
- poor hole cleaning with high cuttings bed 2 - static friction > 50 klbs on connections 2
- severe pack-off 2
- severe loss circulation 2 Intervention needed during casing run
- erratic torque and drag response 3 - unplanned rotation needed 3
- unplanned circulation needed 4
Torque and drag response - joints
j i t wiped
i d tto reduce
d d
drag 5
- all parameters follow smooth trend 4
- lower than expected torque and drag 5 Casing run without significant problems
- elevated but smooth drag levels 6
Final Trip-out Response (7 points) Score - achieved expected drag levels 7
St k pipe
Stuck i 0 - better than expected drag levels 8
Residual cuttings bed / differential sticking Transient tripping-out problems
- section length with overpulls > 100 klbs 1 - loss circulation 5
- section length with overpulls > 50 klbs 2 - unplanned circulation 5
- unplanned reaming and back
back-reaming
reaming 5
Ledges Drag response
- isolated overpulls > 100 klbs 3 - smooth drag levels measured throughout 6
- isolated overpulls > 50 klbs 4 - better than expected drag levels recorded 7
Wellbore Quality Scores Interpretation

WQS is recorded as a response mnemonic

D4T5C5 (Drilling 4; Tripping-
Tripping-out 5; Casing Running 5)
WQS = sum of each response score

0 < WQS 2 stuck pipe or stuck casing

2 < WQS 6 low quality wellbore
6 < WQS 10 medium wellbore quality
10 < WQS 14 high wellbore quality
14 < WQS < 20 excellent wellbore quality
WQS = 20 The Perfect Wellbore!
Case Study Horizontal Well Norway
26 conductor Size Weight Grade Connection Top Bottom Bottom
@ 486m ins
ins. ppf Type TVD RKB TVD RKB MD RKB
26" 267 X-65 XLC
XLC--S Surface 478 m 478 m
13--3/8"
13 72 P-110 Dino Vam Surface 1443 m 1521 m
13-3/8 shoe 9-5/8
5/8" 53 5
53.5 P-110 New Vam Surface 2654 m 3200 m
@ 1,521m
5" 32.6 Q-125 Vam Top 2554 m MD 2516 m 5398 m

5 TOL
@ 2,554m
Drill 2,198m 8 horizontal section
Run 2,844m 5
5 thick wall liner
9-5/8" shoe
@ 3,200m

5 shoe
@ 5,398m
 Case Study Drilling Response (D3)
50 1,000

Erratic Torque Response

45 900
BHA 8: RSS + PDC Bit Vibration problems in chalk reservoir
BHA 9: RSS + PDC Bit
40 800
FF=0.20/0.15
String RPM
35 700
Surface Torque (kNm)

30 600

String R
25 500

RPM
20 400

15 300

10 200

5 100

0 0
3,100 3,300 3,500 3,700 3,900 4,100 4,300 4,500 4,700 4,900 5,100 5,300 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

 Case Study Tripping-out Response (T2)
300

9-5/8" Shoe TD @
BHA 9: Hookload @ 3,200m 5,398m
250 BHA 9: Surface Torque
ue (kNm)

Pick-Up: FF=0.15/0.20 Elevated Drag Elevated Drag

4,400-4,600m 5,200-5,400m
oad (tonnes) / Surface Torqu

200 Mud Type: OBM

Weight = 1.50 SG
PV = 36 cP
YP = 21 lbf/100ft
150

100

Reaming/Back-reaming
Reaming/Back reaming
Hooklo

needed to reduce drag

50

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

 Case Study Liner Running Response (C3)
250
9-5/8" Shoe Liner Shoe
@ 3,200m @ 5,398m
8"
Reamer Shoe
S Severe Slip stick effect
67m 5" 18.0# Q125 H-125 Liner when running liner
453m 5" 26.7# Q125 Vam Top HT
200 2,252m 5" 32.6# Q125 Vam Top HT Mud Type: OBM
69m 7" 32.0# P110 Vam Top HT Weight = 1.50 SG
kNm)

2,557m 5" 26.4# DP 5" FH PV = 35 cP

YP = 19 lbf/100ft
es) / Torque (k

150 Surface Torque

Hookload
Slack-Off: FF=0.12/0.45
ookload (tonne

100
Ho

50
8" solid centraliser on 5" casing
8" solid centraliser on 5" casing
8" solid centraliser on 7" casing

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

Completed Wellbore Quality Scorecard

Horizontal Well Offshore Norway WQS

Drilling Response (max 5 points) 3

Persistent erratic torque response observed. Observation is indicative of vibration problems
typically seen in the chalk reservoir. Vibrations are considered a transient problem and should
not significantly
g y impact
p overall wellbore q
quality.
y
Average rotary friction factors of 0.20/0.15 are typical of field-
field-wide torque behaviour.
Final Trip
Trip--out Of Hole Response (max 7 points) 2
Elevated drag levels in excess of 50klbs are observed from 4,300 to 4,600m and from 5,200 to
5,400m
, indicating
g a possible
p hole cleaning gpproblem. Overpulls
p also occur at chalk / shale
transition zones. A form of slip-
slip-stick axial drag is also present when tripping-
tripping-out through the
open hole section.
Average pick-
pick-up friction factors of 0.15/0.20 are typical of field
field--wide experience.
Liner Running Response (max 8 points) 3
Liner running in open hole is far from smooth; significant axial slip-slip-stick events observed which
increase in intensity with depth. String has to be worked significantly over last 600m. String
also had to be torqued to overcome tight spots / ledges.
Slack--off friction factors of 0.12/0.45 are in line with field
Slack field--wide experience.
WQS (D3T2C3) 8
A score of 8 corresponds to a medium quality wellbore.
 Cost vs
vs. Wellbore Quality Relationship

Field data suggests

Low WQS

E!
ECT WELLBORE
very high D&C costs

Cost
Too high WQS
Well C

THE PERFE
higher D&C costs

Optimum WQS
lowest D&C costs Train
Wreck
Low
Quality
Medium
Quality
High
Quality
Excellent
Quality

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
WQS
Wellbore Quality Scorecard

Learnings
A low WQS does not always equate to poor performance
A low
l WQS can b be d
due tto d
degree off diffi
difficulty
lt off drilling
d illi
and casing running in that field
Poorlyy designed
g casing
g run can result in failure
Implications of scoring wellbore quality need to be
understood by operators / service companies
Wellbore Quality has to be managed at field level
Need to understand Cost vs. Wellbore Quality relationship
Managing Wellbore Quality

Drilling Practices
Operating Parameters (WOB, RPM, Flow Rate)
Connection practices
Hole cleaning practices
Mud weight management
Managing pack-
pack-offs
Vibration management
ECD management
Managing Wellbore Quality

Tripping / Casing Running Practices

Surge and Swab Pressure Cycles
can result in rock fatigue
Managing
g g Downhole Problems
cuttings bed, ledging, pack
pack--offs, overpulls
Circulation Losses
especially during casing running
Enhancing Wellbore Quality

Emerging Technologies
Continuous Circulation System
reduces swab and surge cycles in well
ECD Reduction
reduces downhole annular pressures
Fracture Gradient Enhancement
strengthens wellbore by forming stress cage
Wellbore Quality Characterization

Conclusions
Characterization important concept
Can reflect degree of difficulty
Most value for horizontal and ERD wells
Industry standard definition needed
Measurement protocol biggest challenge
Wellbore quality scorecard promising technique
Software needed: efficiency, clarity & consistency
Wellbore quality enhancing technology exists
Additional Slides
 Hole Spiralling Inferred from Logs

Log Evidence: Caliper vs. Neutron Porosity vs. Sonic DT

Image Log 8
8 Section
Image Logs 6-1/8
6-1/8 Hole Spiralling
Image Logs 6-1/8
6-1/8 Hole Spiralling
Wellbore Quality vs.
vs Tubing Life

Slant drilling
g Canada
Heavy Oil Reservoir
Pad Drilling
600m TVD
Canada High DLS Slant Well

Tubing Wear vs. DLS/hole angle for high-DLS well

Well on production for 2 months before failure
Canada Low DLS Slant Well

Tubing Wear vs. DLS/hole angle for low-DLS well

Well on production for 21 months before failure
 Drilling 12
12 Section Azerbaijan Well
45 900
Surface Torque - BHA 7 Mud Type: SOBM
40 S f
Surface T
Torque - BHA 6 Weight = 1.60
1 60 SG 800
On-Bottom: FF=0.25/0.30 PV = 40 cP
YP = 29 lbf/100ft
Off-Bottom: FF=0.25/0.30
35 700
Surface RPM

WOB = 20 klb
klbs
30 600
Bit Torque = 5 kft.lb
orque (kft.lb)

Flow Rate = 1,000 GPM

String R
25 500
Surface To

RPM
20 400

15 300

10 200

5 100

0 0
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Measured Depth (m)
 Tripping-out 12
12 Hole Azerbaijan Well
500

450
Hookload
Pick-Up: FF=0.20/0.20
400

350
oad (klbs)

300

250
Hooklo

200

150

100

50

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Measured Depth (m)

 Running 9-5/8
9-5/8 Casing Azerbaijan Well
800 8
13-3/8" Shoe 12-1/4" TD
@ 1,560m @ 4,415m
700 7
Hookload
Static Up Drag
600 Static Down Drag 6
Pick-Up Trend
Sl k Off Trend
Slack-Off T d
Slack-Off: FF=0.20/0.30

Block Veloc
500 Block Velocity 5
oad (klbs)

400 Mud Type:

yp SOBM 4
Hooklo

city (m/s)
Weight = 1.60 SG
PV = 37 cP
300 YP = 26 lbf/100ft 3

200 2

100 1

0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Measured Depth (m)

WQS Azerbaijan Well
 WQS: Wytch Farm ERD Wells

M13
M04
TVD BRT (ftt)

5,000

M07
M08

M15z

M05
M06

M03M02

M15

M11
F21

M16
F18

M01
F19

M09
M10
M17

M12
F20

M14
M18
8

2
10,000
0 5,000
, 10,000
, 15,000
, 20,000
, 25,000
, 30,000
, 35,000
, 40,000
,

Equivalent Departure (ft)

 Wytch Farm Torques 12
12 Section
40

35

M05
30 M09
M11
orque (kft.lb)

M14
25
M16

20
Surface To

15

10

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Measured Depth (m)

 Wytch Farm 9-5/8
9-5/8 Casing Runs
60

40 M09
M11
M14
20
M16
eight (klbs)

-20
String We

-40

60
-60

-80

-100
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Measured Depth (m)

Wytch Farm ERD Wells WQS Summary

C
Comments
t on hi
high
h WQS
Good learning curve
Continuous ERD drilling program