32 Oilfield Review
Avoiding Drilling Problems
Gather relevant information in the required time frame to drill a well. Communicate
data for all parties to analyze and interpret. Anticipate contingencies and continu-
ally update the plan. This approach may seem simple and logical, but in the past,
consistent application has been difficult. Now, a new process can greatly improve
drilling performance.
Tom Bratton A tropical storm was lumbering across the east-
Stephen Edwards ern Gulf of Mexico, not quite reaching hurricane
Houston, Texas, USA
status. Evacuation of a semisubmersible rig was
John Fuller imminent, but first the crew had to secure the
Laura Murphy well they were drilling. Two days earlier, the bit
Gatwick, England had penetrated a permeable formation, causing a
kickunwanted fluid flow into the wellbore.
Shuja Goraya Immediately after the kick, drillers began a
Sugar Land, Texas well-control procedure known as wait and
Toby Harrold
weight. To determine the pore pressure, the
BP drillers shut in the well, waited for wellbore annu-
Sunbury on Thames, England lar pressure to stabilize and then circulated mud
of greater density to balance that pressure. This
Jonathan Holt procedure required returning mud to flow through
BP a surface choke line that was smaller than the
Aberdeen, Scotland
normal return line. Unfortunately, the drilling mud
John Lechner thickened during the waiting period, and higher
Stavanger, Norway resistance in the small-diameter choke line
increased backpressure in the wellbore enough to
Hugh Nicholson fracture an interval somewhere in the openhole
BP section below casing. There were no fluid returns
Stavanger, Norway to surface. As fast as it could be pumped, drilling
William Standifird
mud was going into the induced fracture.
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Walt Aldred,
Iain Cooper, Cengiz Esmersoy and Andy Hawthorn, Sugar
Bill Wright Land, Texas, USA; Dan Bordelon, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA; Ian Bradford, John Cook and Christoph Ramshorn,
Paris, France Cambridge, England; Steve Brooks, MI Drilling Fluids,
Houston, Texas; Pat Hooyman and Dick Plumb, Houston,
Texas; Evangeline Manalac, Gatwick, England; and
Tim Schofield, BP, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Summer 2001
The storm was moving closer to the drillsite,
and now the well had two problems, a fracture
and an exposed high-pressure formation.
Downhole pressure had to be high enough to
balance pore pressure of the permeable zone but
low enough to avoid expanding the fracture. The
fracture was believed to be near the casing shoe,
but its exact location and extent were unknown.
The operator injected a slug of viscous fluid fol-
lowed by a cement plug to isolate the section
below casing, pulled the drillstring, shut in the
well and evacuated the rig. Now, the well could
ride out the storm safely.
A tropical storm is not the only demanding
circumstance encountered during drilling.
Nowhere are conditions more challenging than in
deep water, where drilling a well can cost $30 to
$50 million. At these prices, simply making a
conduit from a reservoir to the surface is inade-
quate. The completed well must be able to
deliver hydrocarbons at a rate sufficient to meet
or exceed the operators expected return on
investment. Every opportunity to improve the
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), APWD (Annular Pressure
While Drilling), ARC (Array Resistivity Compensated tool),
BOS (Bit On Seismic), Drill-Bit Seismic, Drilling Office,
DrillMAP, DrillViz, DSI (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager), ECS
(Elemental Capture Spectroscopy), GPIT, iCenter, InterACT
Web Witness, MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester),
NGS (Natural Gamma Ray Spectrometry), PERFORM,
RiskTRAK, SeismicMWD and WellTRAK are marks of
Schlumberger. Form-A-Set AK is a mark of M-I, LLC.
Drilling the Limit is a mark of Shell Oil Company.
33
probability of success must be considered, and
problems must be anticipated with contingency
plans. This includes documenting both problems
and successes, so that future drilling and well-
construction projects proceed smoothly.1
To this end, BP and Schlumberger joined
forces and created the No Drilling Surprises, or
NDS, initiative incorporating techniques devel-
oped by both companies. By combining a major
operators experience with the broad base of
Schlumberger tools and expertise, fit-for-purpose
applications were developed and tested rapidly.
The NDS initiative provides a complete
framework to improve drilling performance any-
where, especially in deep water and in high-cost,
high-risk wells. Multidisciplinary teams from
operators and service companies apply advanced
technologies within a structured process that
emphasizes communication and collaboration.
The No Drilling Surprises program incorporates a
broad base of Schlumberger experts, advanced
prediction and drilling database software and the
latest hardware. Schlumberger has developed or
improved software tools for planning, monitoring
and storing drilling information to support the
NDS process. Drilling hazard information is
linked among these applications.
Acquire data needed for decisions
Create or update earth model
> The No Drilling Surprises process. Relevant information is gathered before and while drilling to create a living well plan.
Communication among all parties involved results in better-informed decisions. Experience and lessons learned are captured
to update the earth model and provide guidance for the process to begin again on the next well.
34
This article describes the NDS process and its
use in a visualization room to plan a North Sea
well. A case study from the Caspian Sea shows
how new seismic measurements made at each
pipe connection while drilling helped determine
and update bit location relative to a seismic sec-
tion. And finally, we return to the Gulf of Mexico
deepwater well after the tropical storm passed
and learn how the team sealed the fracture.
Then, we follow the wells progress in a very dif-
ficult drilling environment.
Expect the Unexpected
Communicationgetting relevant information to
the right people in time to plan and make informed
decisionsis the essence of the No Drilling
Surprises approach to constructing wells. This pro-
cess brings together people, software tools and
data synchronization and visualization techniques
to transform all available data into usable infor-
mation to optimize drilling. It begins with gather-
ing data to prepare a predrill well plan and
indicating information needed to make drilling
decisions, then planning how to acquire essential
measurements in time to influence those deci-
sions. Real-time measurements obtained while
drilling are interpreted using tailored software
Discuss in appropriate environment
No Drilling
Surprises
Capture lessons learned
tools, which output the analysis in a meaningful
way to help people do their jobs efficiently and
effectively. The well plan is continually updated
with the latest information (below).
Underlying this process is the concept that
hazards can be identified in advance, so opera-
tors can develop contingencies for dealing with
them. A 1991 BP stuck-pipe study indicated that,
with the benefit of hindsight, the reasons for
sticking drillpipe were clear. Since the causes
could be determined, the study recommended
that improved detection and warning would help
prevent many stuck-pipe problems.2
Todays well plannersincluding those in all
relevant disciplinesseek to use all available
data in the well-construction process to signifi-
cantly and continually improve drilling perfor-
mance. Geologists and geophysicists find the
target reservoir and provide an understanding of
faults and fracture zones, bedding orientation
and lithologies. Seismic interpretation locates
targets and hazard zones and through geo-
mechanical modeling provides a prediction of
pore pressure and formation strength. Offset
wells offer drilling records that indicate possible
hazard zones and a history of downhole incidents
and their causes. These nearby wells also provide
Implement at wellsite
Revise models in real time
Oilfield Review
 Field development
> Relevant real time. Relevant lifetime varies by data type, as indicated by the examples here, decreasing in
duration from left to right. Seismic interpretation has a long life during field development. Well trajectories
and drilling status are updated at least daily. At the shortest time scale, measurements-while-drilling (MWD)
updates may be needed on a minute-by-minute basis for decision-making.
drilling-mechanics information to optimize
drilling efficiency through combinations of bits,
bottomhole assemblies (BHA) and surface
parameters. Downhole measurements from off-
set wells provide formation pressures and a
wealth of petrophysical information, including
rock properties, such as permeability and poros-
ity, detailed lithology, stress magnitude, stress
orientation and rock-strength information. These
measurements can be supplemented by core
analysis, which provides more information on
rock strength and petrophysics. Wellsite bio-
stratigraphy uses known markers to correlate for-
mation age to depth, and assists in correlation of
mechanically weaker intervals.
Yet a problem remainsalong the specific
trajectory, the best available information comes
from estimates, correlations and predictions. The
actual conditions begin to emerge only as the
well is drilled. Regardless of how detailed and
how expertly engineered it is, a predrill plan is
obsolete almost as soon as the well is spudded.
The No Drilling Surprises approach uses a
predrill plan as the starting point to create a
dynamic, living well plan updated continually with
real-time information that accounts for, and
even anticipates, differences from predictions.
Schlumberger PERFORM Performance Through
Risk Management engineers have the tools and
training to play a key role in keeping the well plan
current.3 From the drillsite, these specialists moni-
tor a wide variety of drilling parameters, including
surface measurements such as rate of penetration
(ROP) and weight on bit, mud-flow conditions and
Summer 2001
Well development Daily meeting
downhole measurements of pressure and forma-
tion resistivity. However, data gathering is just the
beginningthe information must be delivered in
a useful form. A well plan must be able to incor-
porate new information so engineers can adjust
drilling operations accordingly. Managing this
integration of drilling information puts PERFORM
engineers in an ideal position to identify and com-
municate potential problems to the right people so
contingency plans can be executed.
Different types of information remain rele-
vant over different periods of time. An inter-
preted seismic section in the time domain,
showing general features of the subsurface, usu-
ally remains valid throughout a drilling project,
although conversion of traveltime to depth may
change. At the other extreme, downhole annular
pressures and predictions of pore pressure and
fracture gradient ahead of a bit need to be
streamed to surface and incorporated into the
well plan immediately (above).
The NDS process focuses on obtaining infor-
mation in relevant real time, a time frame that
may vary as drilling progresses. For example,
there may be a large degree of uncertainty in
depth to targets when a predrill plan is devel-
oped. A few hundred meters of uncertainty in for-
mation depth may have little importance when
the BHA is thousands of meters above the target.
However, the degree of uncertainty becomes crit-
ical as the borehole gets within that last few
hundred meters to a target and the drilling team
wants to determine the bit location more pre-
cisely. The relevant time frame for updating may
be daily until just before reaching the target,
when updates become almost continuous.
MWD update
Gather TogetherInformation and People
Occasionally, an engineer with extensive experi-
ence in a given basin can recall every drilling
event in detail. Ask about stuck-pipe incidents
and the recitation may last an hour. Unfor-
tunately, such human databases are rare, and in
most exploration areas, they are nonexistent. The
NDS system provides a continuous, structured
means for capturing and learning from failures
and successes to reduce drilling costs.
The No Drilling Surprises process is designed
to manage one or a combination of sources of
potential hazards, such as pore pressure, well-
bore instability and hole cleaning. The NDS team
begins by gathering and organizing data and
assessing how much new information will be
needed to drill a well successfully. Planning is a
complex task, often detailing actions in fifteen-
minute increments.
1. Amin A, Bargach S, Donegan J, Martin C, Smith R,
Burgoyne M, Censi P, Day P and Kornberg R: Building a
Knowledge-Sharing Culture, Oilfield Review 13, no. 1
(Spring 2001): 48-65.
Dewhirst NW, Evans DC, Chalfont S and Jobson N:
Development of an Active Global Lessons Learned
DatabaseLINK, paper SPE 64529, presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, October 16-18, 2000.
Evans DC: The Application of World Wide Web
Technology in a Learning Organization, paper SPE
36011, presented at the SPE Petroleum Computer
Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, June 2-5, 1996.
2. Bradley WB, Jarman D, Auflick RA, Plott RS, Wood RD,
Schofield TR and Cocking D: Task Force Reduces
Stuck-Pipe Costs, Oil & Gas Journal 89, no. 21 (May 27,
1991): 84-89.
3. Aldred W, Plumb D, Bradford I, Cook J, Gholkar V,
Cousins L, Minton R, Fuller J, Goraya S and Tucker D:
Managing Drilling Risk, Oilfield Review 11, no. 2
(Summer 1999): 2-19.
Cuvillier G, Edwards S, Johnson G, Plumb D, Sayers C,
Denyer G, Mendona J, Theuveny B and Vise C:
Solving Deepwater Well-Construction Problems,
Oilfield Review 12, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 2-17.
35
 Gaps in the data are identified and a plan is
developed to fill them, either before or during
drilling. The well trajectory is analyzed to identify
potential hazards and to predict necessary mud
weights that limit or prevent mechanical well-
bore instability.
Shells Drilling the Limit process is a similar
program that also relies heavily on data capture
and analysis. Its goal is to define a perfect well-
bore, then plan contingencies to achieve it.4 An
integrated borehole-stability study during the
well-planning phase aims to eliminate problems
during execution.
The NDS process uses the RiskTRAK drilling-
risk database to collect historical hazard informa-
tion systematically (below). A drilling event,
defined within the RiskTRAK system as a drilling
problem resulting in nonproductive time, provides
a wealth of information for future drilling opera-
tions. Sometimes wells are drilled without inci-
dent because small problems are corrected
before they become lost-time events. It is equally
> Budgeting drilling time and expense. WellTRAK software (top) organizes important to capture such near missesincidents
budget information for drilling. Clicking on line items brings up a greater level that were avoidedbecause they give important
of detail. Drilling hazards, such as one in the WellTRAK screen Comments clues about precursors to problems. This concept
field, are linked to the RiskTRAK database (bottom). comes from safety processes, which systemati-
cally capture near misses to update risk profiles.

The WellTRAK knowledge system provides a

framework for recording these activities. For
example, drilling an 8-in. hole section may be
budgeted to take 32 days. This could be broken
down into drilling the section followed by casing
and cementing operations. These actions are
detailed further, eventually to the point of bud-
geting five minutes to connect a new joint while
drilling (above). The WellTRAK software is inte-
grated into the NDS data-gathering process.
A data audit determines required elements to
develop a mechanical earth model (MEM) appro-
priate for the situation and indicates whether
sufficient data exist to recommend solutions for
expected problems. This step delineates areas of
risk. The audit catalogs data for an MEM of a
proposed drilling location, using regional and off-
set-well information to determine the following:
mechanical stratigraphy through the well
trajectory
vertical stress profile from densities in the strati-
graphic section
pore-pressure calibration based on log and seis-
mic data > Tracking drilling hazards. The RiskTRAK database provides screens for
profile of elastic parameters and rock strength entering and retrieving hazard information. Offset-well information can be
minimum horizontal-stress profile and direction selected through the data structure on the left side of each screen. Tabs
estimates of maximum horizontal-stress navigate to screens for general information (top), hazard causes, precursors
(bottom), consequences, and preventive and remedial actions.
magnitude.

36 Oilfield Review

Mungo field
Aberdeen
Scotland
North Sea
North Atlantic
Ocean
UK
Irish Sea
English Channel
> Mungo field in the North Sea, offshore Aberdeen, Scotland (left). Cross section shows a salt diapir that pierces the reservoir sandstones (right).
Because of the platform location, some wells must go through the salt diapir to reach reservoir targets.
While drilling in Mungo field, Schlumberger
PERFORM engineers maintained a database of
drilling events that became the model for the
RiskTRAK system.5 Mungo field, operated by BP, is
at the edge of the Eastern Central Graben in the
UK sector of the North Sea about 143 miles
[230 km] east of Aberdeen (above). The productive
Forties, Lista and Maureen formations, which are
Paleocene sandstones, ring a salt diapir. Drilling
hazards include zones with a potential for mud
losses, wellbore enlargement, cuttings buildup
and avalanches at certain well inclinations.6
It is easier to understand how the RiskTRAK
data are used in a well-planning meeting if we
first look at how the database is populated.
When a drilling problem occurs or is foreseen
and averted, the PERFORM engineer categorizes
it within the database by typefor example,
stuck pipe, wellbore stability, lost circulation,
hole cleaning or pore pressure. A problem may be
associated with a specific depth, geologic age,
BHA and drilling activity, so that information also
is captured to compare with offset wells. After
an incident or near miss, the drilling crew dis-
cusses its causes, any precursors noted, and how
the event was, or could have been, avoided.
These proposed prevention measures are input
into the RiskTRAK system. For future reference,
severity of the problem and its probability of
recurrence are estimated. Remedial actions
Summer 2001
Sea Level Platform
Seabed
Intra-Pliocene
Upper-Miocene
Mid-Miocene
Intra-Oligocene 1
Intra-Oligocene 2
Early Oligocene
Top Eocene
R e s er v o i r
1000 2000
Distance, m
taken after the event are cataloged, along with
consequences in lost time and the equipment
used to remediate.
Information in the database is useful for
preparing end-of-well reports, by selecting from
one of the RiskTRAK menus. However, acting as
the foundation for a final report is not the end of
the datas usefulness. In some cases, a solution
to an event or the handling of a near miss could
be written up as a lesson learned. Schlumberger
experts review each lesson learned and may
upgrade it to a best practice, a designation indi-
cating experts recommend it. Both best practices
and lessons learned are available to other
Schlumberger employeesboth through the
RiskTRAK software and the companys internal
knowledge-sharing tool called InTouchimprov-
ing client operations throughout the world.
During planning, offset-well data in the
RiskTRAK database can be searched by type, for
example geologic age or hole inclination, to pop-
ulate other software applications used by a No
Drilling Surprises team. The WellTRAK planning
software links to hazards in the RiskTRAK
database, and a mouse click summons informa-
tion on the type of hazard and what it will cost to
avoid or remediate it. Then, while drilling is
under way, the WellTRAK program compares
actual drilling activities with the original plan, so
a project team can readily identify suboptimal
conditions, unplanned events and their costs and
Depth, m
500
1000
1500
2000
Salt diapir 2500
Re
s er
voi
r 3000
3000 4000 5000
impacts on operations. After information on
drilling the new well is entered into the
RiskTRAK database, the data cycle is complete.
Planners accessed a database containing pre-
vious Mungo field wells to plan Well 22/20-A11
in the northeast part of the field. In addition, BP
and Schlumberger did extensive work to construct
a three-dimensional (3D) MEM of Mungo that
accounted for rock strength, complex rotation of
stress around the salt diapir and known geologi-
cal stability hazards such as faults and fractures.
Nine members of the operators well-planning
team met with an NDS team at the Schlumberger
Cambridge Research facility in Cambridge,
England, to discuss proposed trajectories for
Mungo development drilling. Ongoing operations
prevented the drilling manager from attending,
but he monitored progress in real time on a
secure, live Web site. Videoconference facilities
also were available.
4. Van Oort E, Nicholson J and DAgostino J: Integrated
Borehole Stability Studies: Key to Drilling at the
Technical Limit and Trouble Cost Reduction, paper
SPE/IADC 67763, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, February 27-
March 1, 2001.
5. Examples given in this article are from the current
version of the RiskTRAK software.
6. Cuttings beds tend to form in inclined-well sections,
as gravity pulls cuttings to the lower side of a hole.
In Mungo field, inclinations between about 50 and 65
can lead to unstable beds that can slide downward, or
avalanche, creating an instantaneous buildup of cuttings
around the drillpipe or BHA. If not treated properly,
avalanching can result in stuck pipe.
37
 > Well trajectories for Mungo Well 22/20-A11. The first proposed trajectory (dark blue)
passed too close to an area of brine flow that caused problems in an earlier well. The second
well path (orange), which was closer to Well 22/20-A02 (black) that had no brine flow, was
moved upward to avoid fractured Eocene mudstones as the wellbore exited the diapir. This
trajectory was too flat, which could have led to hole-cleaning problems. The final trajectory
mitigated hazards as much as possible, but drillers had to remain aware of potential prob-
lems. The planned well path is shown as a thick, multicolored tubeyellow for breakout
hazard, red for mud-loss hazard, blue for hole-cleaning hazard and pink for hazard drilling
parallel to bedding planes.

By using the precursor of the RiskTRAK soft-
ware and a 3D model of the Mungo structure
with real-time well planning tools, the team dis-
cussed multiple trajectories for a proposed Well
22/20-A11 reservoir target, updated the well
path twice and agreed on a final recommenda-
tion in one day. During this same six-hour meet-
ing, provisional plans were developed for two
additional wells.7
This rapid evaluation of proposals was possi-
ble because the team met in an iCenter collabora-
tive meeting facility. This electronic conference
room integrates modern visualization tools with
interactive computing packages. The Mungo plan-
ning meeting brought together individuals from
different disciplines, including drilling engineers,
geoscientists, geomechanics experts and reservoir
engineers. Although each discipline has its own
conventions and terminology for describing drilling
and well objectives, the iCenter environment
enables information display in a visual format that
promotes mutual understanding. Participants at
the Mungo planning meeting used the prototype
of the DrillViz 3D visualization application to view
a geologic model of the field, including existing
and proposed well trajectories. The display could
be rotated in three dimensions so participants
could examine every sector of the field.
The DrillViz display highlighted potential haz-
ards for the proposed wells, obtained from off-
set-well information in the RiskTRAK database
(above). Additional hazard details could be
accessed in a window by clicking hazard areas on
the display.

38 Oilfield Review
 Salt tectonism at the center of Mungo field DrillViz presentation took about one hour. The new for handling others. The drilling team used a
generated extensive faulting and fracturing in trajectory, including potential hazards, was exam- DrillMAP poster as a reminder of where to
formations above the reservoir (below right). ined and discussed by the group. A long tangent expect four types of hazards in the wellbore:
Earlier wells experienced problems during section was at an inclination angle that had previ- Breakoutlow mud weight can cause hole
drilling through faults, but not all faults caused ously caused hole-cleaning problems, which could enlargement, increasing cavings that must be
problems. Wells that intersected faults at small destabilize drilling. This had not been recognized cleaned out of the wellbore.
angles had instability problems, but those that in the previous discussion, but was now immedi- Mud losses and gainslosses indicate mud
intersected at angles greater than 45 did not. ately obvious to the team. A second Drilling Office flow into a fracture, possibly increasing its size,
Fracturing, another cause of wellbore instability, revision minimized this hazard, increasing hole and gains indicate gas or brine flow into the
was confined mainly to the Eocene shales overly- angle by dropping the exit point from the diapir, wellbore, creating potential for a blowout that
ing the reservoir. Instability problems also but staying within the Miocene formation. must be controlled.
occurred when well trajectories were almost By collaborating in an iCenter environment, Bedding planesformation failure is more
parallel to bedding planes.8 the team eliminated weeks of iterations likely when drilling a well parallel to bedding,
The first well scheduled to be drilled, Well between drilling and reservoir staff, and every- which could cause the drillstring to pack off.
22/20-A11 in the northeast part of Mungo field, one gained a better understanding of the com- Hole cleaningwell inclinations between 50
targeted a high-quality reservoir sand discovered plex well problems in this field. Hazards were and 65 lead to cuttings avalanches that can
by an appraisal well. Discussion on the proposed not completely eliminated, but the worst ones cause sticking, so proper hole cleaning is
trajectory focused on several potential drilling were mitigated and engineers developed plans important.
problems. Brine had flowed into the wellbore of
the most recent development well, 22/20-A09Z,
while drilling through the diapir. The problems
were severe, resulting in a plug-back operation
and a redrilling of the bottom section. The sim-
plest path to reach the Well 22/20-A11 reservoir
target would have passed close to the brine-flow
area just to the north. The trajectory was shifted
farther south, paralleling another development
well in the area, Well 22/20-A02, which had no
brine-flow problems.
Eocene shales are fractured and particularly
unstable adjacent to the salt diapir, where the
mud-loss gradientindicating the mud weight
that will open existing fracturesis lowest. The
less fractured Miocene mudstones in the forma-
tion above were more stable, so Well 22/20-A11
avoided the fractured Eocene shales by exiting
into the Miocene mudstones.
These requirements imposed constraints on a
new trajectory, which was designed using the
Drilling Office directional well-planning system to
automatically account for drilling-related concerns
such as build angles and collision avoidance. The
NDS team put the new well path into the Mungo
MEM and computed mud-weight limits for the tra-
jectory. Planning, analysis and importing into a
7. Holt J, Wright WJ, Nicholson H, Kuhn-de-Chizelle A and
Ramshorn C: Mungo Field: Improved Communication
Through 3D Visualization of Drilling Problems, paper
62523, presented at the SPE/AAPG Western Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, June 19-23, 2000. > Fractures in Mungo field. BP geologists mapped
8. Beacom LE, Nicholson H and Corfield RI: Integration of many fractures overlying the diapir. These frac-
Drilling and Geological Data to Understand Wellbore tures intersect horizons in a radial pattern. A view
Instability, paper SPE/IADC 67755, presented at the from above shows interpreted fractures intercept-
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands, February 27-March 1, 2001.
ing the Late Miocene mudstones (top). Knowing
the location of the fractures in three dimensions
helps well planners avoid fracture-related
hazards (bottom).

Summer 2001 39
 The DrillMAP presentation listed parameters
that should be monitored and recommended
actions to avoid these hazards (above and next
page). The PERFORM engineer on site recorded
observations and interpretations during drilling,
and suggested changes to improve the MEM for
future wells. As a result of careful planning and
execution, the well was drilled successfully to the
reservoir target with no nonproductive time
related to wellbore stability.
40
Wheres the Bit?
Drilling-target location often is determined from
a surface seismic section, which is an interpreta-
tion of traveltime to subsurface reflectors pre-
sented in milliseconds (msec). Unfortunately, the
depth of reflectors may not be established, par-
ticularly for exploration wells. Conversion from
traveltime in msec to depth in feet or meters is
not straightforwardit requires knowledge of
the velocity of sound in all the rocks from surface
to the target, information that is often unknown
and assumed by analogy to other basins.
Nonetheless, drilling decisions must be made
based on such data. In many instances, casing
points are selected to avoid drilling into a hazard
Oilfield Review
 , Drilling hazards for Mungo Well 22/20-A11. The
DrillMAP presentation can be made into a poster
showing locations of potential hazards, grouped
by type of hazard. Recommendations to avoid or
remediate problems are listed in the middle sec-
tion. The safe mud-weight window graphically
illustrates the potential for a kick or a breakout if
mud weight gets too low, or losses to fractures if
mud weight gets too high. Stress and rock-strength
parameters from the MEM are shown on the right
side. Other data, such as well trajectories or geo-
logic information, can be added.

with a long openhole section above. By casing
the well, mud weight can be changed to accom-
modate the hazard ahead without endangering
the overlying formations.
Before drilling begins, uncertainty in the loca-
tion of casing points may be hundreds of meters,
which introduces unacceptable risk. During
drilling in development areas, uncertainty can be
decreased by examining cuttings or logging-
while-drilling (LWD) responses to compare with
distinct, or marker, beds encountered in nearby
wells. In a new basin, recognized markers may
not be established, so other means must be used
to locate the drill bit on a seismic section.
Until now, drillers had two options for convert-
ing seismic traveltime to depth. The first, which
interrupted drilling, was a checkshot using a wire-
line borehole seismic receiver and a source on the

Summer 2001 41
 Wireline borehole Drill-Bit Seismic system SeismicMWD system
seismic system

Source Source

MWD telemetry
Receivers,
weights

Seafloor

Wireline Drill-bit LWD receiver

receiver source

Seismic reflector

> Options for wellbore seismic information. A wireline borehole seismic measurement must be done between
drilling runs. The receivers are lowered into the wellbore and a surface source provides the signal (left). With the
advent of drill-bit seismic acquisition, noise from drilling acts as a source and the receivers are on the surface
(middle). The new SeismicMWD receiver uses a surface source, but measurements can be obtained while drilling,
as each stand of drillpipe is added or removed (right).

surface (above). While this provides a high-quality
measurement, the logging run requires substantial
rig time, adding cost and additional risk. Even
worse, the measurement could be scheduled too
early or too late to be usefulbefore or after a
casing point or hazard is reached.
By the mid-1990s, a check shot could be
obtained while drilling using surface receivers
and noise from the drilling bit as the source, the
Drill-Bit Seismic service.9 This technology works
well in many situations, but is unreliable in soft
formations, in high-angle holes and when poly-
crystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits are used.
A new solution provides vertical seismic pro-
file (VSP) surveys approaching wireline quality in
relevant real time without additional rig time.10
The SeismicMWD tool places a seismic receiver
in a LWD assembly and uses a surface source to
produce a VSP while drilling. A measurements-
while-drilling (MWD) mud-pulse telemetry sys-
tem transmits real-time data to surface. The
SeismicMWD measurement can be used in situ-
ations that the Drill-Bit Seismic service cannot,
but it does require the tool on the BHA, and
MWD telemetry must be in place if real-time
measurements are required. On the other hand, a
wireline seismic survey provides better quality
data for reservoir characterization studies than
either the SeismicMWD tool or the Drill-Bit
Seismic measurement.
The SeismicMWD measurements are made
before or after a new stand of pipe is connected,
during the quiet time while the drillstring is
stationary and no mud circulates. Normally, a
connection takes several minutes, adequate for
several readings taken at 10- to 15-second inter-
vals. No time is taken away from the drilling oper-
ation. The one-way traveltime, or check shot, is
telemetered to surface as soon as the mud pumps

42 Oilfield Review
start again, allowing a direct tie of bit location to
transit time on a surface seismic section. The bit
location can be converted to true vertical depth
(TVD) through a record of measured depth and
inclination along the well trajectory.
Full seismic waveforms are stored until the
assembly is brought to surface. The capability to
transmit MWD VSP waveforms to surface is
expected soon.
With check-shot data obtained at each connec-
tion point, or more frequently if deemed necessary
by the client, the location of a bit on a seismic sec-
tion can be determined while drilling. It is usually
not practical to reprocess the complete surface
seismic section in real time, but it is quick, easy 9. Borland W, Codazzi D, Hsu K, Rasmus J, Eichcomb C,
and usually accurate enough simply to stretch or Hashem M, Hewett V, Jackson M, Meehan R and
Tweedy M: Real-Time Answers to Well Drilling
compress the depth-domain seismic section and Design Questions, Oilfield Review 9, no. 2
using real-time check-shot data (below). The (Summer 1997): 2-15.
updated section can be used to predict the dis- 10. Esmersoy C, Underhill W and Hawthorn A: Seismic
Measurement While Drilling: Conventional Borehole
tance to the next drilling objective or hazard. The Seismics on LWD, Transactions of the SPWLA 42nd
PERFORM engineer uses DrillMAP software as a Annual Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA,
June 17-20, 2001, paper RR.
visual aid, based on this updated information
about the drilling environment, to notify the rig
crew of potential drilling hazards, decreasing the
risk for drilling ahead. This provides a great
advantage for drillers and also gets up-to-the-
minute information more quickly to geoscientists
to update interpretations.

-1000
0

1000
1
Two-way traveltime, sec

2000

True vertical depth, m

3000
2
4000

5000
3
6000

7000
4

50 100 150 50 100 150

Trace number Trace number

> Stretching and compressing seismic sections. Normally, a seismic section in the time domain (left)
is not reprocessed during drilling. The position of a bit is known from measured depth, inclination and
azimuth along the well path (blue). Check-shot measurements transmitted to surface while drilling
locate the bit on the seismic section, allowing stretching or squeezing of the converted depth section
to locate targets ahead (right). Each trace is converted, but no lateral variation is applied.

Summer 2001 43
 > BOS (Bit On Seismic) software display. A well trajectory (blue) is shown on a time-domain
seismic section with specific markers highlighted (red). As drilling continues, the well trajec-
tory extends on the display (upper left). The SeismicMWD check-shot data are used to locate
the bit in the depth-converted seismic section. The same markers are shown on this display,
along with color-coded uncertainty bands (upper right). Depths ahead of the bit have increas-
ingly wide uncertainty bands, as shown by the uncertainty distribution for a specific marker
(lower left). Depth, inclination and azimuth information are entered to convert the traveltime
to depth (lower right).

As the wellbore approaches a casing point or
target depth, updated information reduces uncer-
tainty to an acceptable level (next page). The
BOS Bit On Seismic software captures this infor-
mation from MWD telemetry and, in real time,
updates the seismic section, the location of
major markers, the estimated target position and
depth uncertainties (above). In some areas, there
are no obvious markers to tie a seismic section to
cuttings or other drilling parameters, and the only
correlation is through a seismic-while-drilling
method. Improved knowledge of bit location may
result in eliminating a casing point, or in some
cases adding one to mitigate risk.
The SeismicMWD tool was used on a BP well
in the Caspian Sea in early 2001. The well was
drilled directionally, which is unusual because
most exploration wells are vertical. BP wanted to
avoid an overpressured zone near the crest of the
structure and reach a reservoir target that was
under a series of faults in an overthrust area with
beds dipping at 40. Based on interpretation of
the surface seismic section, the well trajectory
was 4500 m [14,800 ft] long. However, vertical
uncertainty in depth of the top of the reservoir
was 700 m [2300 ft]. This is a critical problem,
because missing the target by 100 m [330 ft]
could put the well on the wrong side of a fault.
Since sediments in this area are soft, using bit
feasible. BP used the SeismicMWD tool to obtain
check shots and update bit location while drilling.
The most accurate depth data from one-way
traveltime is obtained when the seismic wave
travels vertically. To achieve this in a deviated
undersea well, a boat pulling a surface seismic
source had to be moved for each check shot
location and positioned based on the previous
shot and a best estimate of subsurface bit
locationa process called a walkabove survey.11
Results indicated that BPs predrill surface
seismic interpretation was accurate, but the
11. Hope R, Ireson D, Leaney S, Meyer J, Tittle W and
Willis M: Seismic Integration to Reduce Risk, Oilfield
Review 10, no. 3 (Autumn 1998): 2-15.

noise as a seismic source while drilling was not

44 Oilfield Review
 > Decreasing uncertainty by increasing information.
The well (thin blue line) begins in the upper left of this
depth-converted seismic section. Three screens from
the Bit On Seismic software show a wellbore advancing
toward the lower right. Marker locations are predicted
at each step (red line), with uncertainty bands around
them (blue band). One marker bed was intercepted
before the trajectory began deviating to the right (top).
Since that marker depth is known, its blue uncertainty
band has disappeared. The software displays the
predrill prediction of depth (yellow line) and uncer-
tainty (green band) for comparison to measured depth.
Drilling through more markers provides additional
information (middle), improving time-to-depth conver-
sion along the trajectory. Predictions of depths of
lower markers are updated, and their uncertainty
decreases. No uncertainty remains after drilling into
the last marker bed (bottom).

Summer 2001 45

1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
Time, msec
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
2000 2500 3000
True vertical depth subsea, m
> Comparison of VSP traveltimes. After a Caspian Sea well was drilled, a cased-hole
VSP (red) was run to determine a time-to-depth conversion. The SeismicMWD mea-
surement (black) compares closely with wireline VSP data. The gap in the data was
caused by problems with a crane supporting the seismic source on the boat.
SeismicMWD check shots provided additional
confirmation as drilling progressed. After drilling,
BP obtained a walkabove wireline seismic sur-
vey. The results agreed closely with the
SeismicMWD measurements (above).
The logging tool also captures full-waveform
seismic signals, and the quality of the resulting
waveforms was good. However, when the well
was drilled in early 2001, the tool could not trans-
mit the waveforms to surface in real time, so the
data were downloaded once the tool returned to
surface (next page, bottom).
The operator felt the measurement had no
negative impact on drilling time and provided
results comparable to conventional wireline VSP
surveys. The costs of seismic-source boat and
personnel deployment were more than offset
by drilling time saved by not obtaining conven-
tional surveys.
In some cases, SeismicMWD measurements
actually save rig time. In many cases involving a
directional well, a near-vertical pilot hole is
drilled to determine locations of markers or tar-
get depth. This hole is then cemented back
and sidetracked to land the well horizontally
within the reservoir. Real-time BOS Bit On
Seismic interpretation may eliminate the need to
drill a vertical hole, substantially reducing well-
construction costs.
46
Cased-hole wireline VSP measurements
Openhole SeismicMWD VSP measurements
3500 4000 4500
Relevant Real-Time Monitoring
The Schlumberger PERFORM engineer sits at the
center of an NDS communications web during
drilling operations. This engineer is responsible
for monitoring measurements made while drilling
and alerting the drilling teamincluding the
drilling supervisor, onshore drilling engineers and
experts from other disciplines supporting the
workwhen parameters are outside tolerance
limits. In addition, the PERFORM engineer keeps
the drilling crew apprised of potential hazards
that may be encountered in the next section or
over the next 24 hours, along with contingencies
for dealing with such occurrences.
A wide variety of problemsgetting stuck,
taking a kick by drilling into an overpressured
permeable zone or creating or enlarging a frac-
turemay be encountered while drilling. The
PERFORM engineer tries to avoid these problems
by pulling together information from all available
sources. Historical data, such as experience in
offset wells, provide a forecast of possibilities,
while measurements obtained while drill-
ing reveal what is happening downhole. The
PERFORM engineer makes recommendations on
surface mud weight and on controlling other con-
ditions such as annular loading; swab, surge, and
packoff; mud flow rate; ROP; and rotational speed
of the bit. NDS geomechanics and petrophysics
experts onshore supply the scientific and techni-
cal backing and sophisticated modeling the
PERFORM engineer requires.
Hole condition can be inferred from cuttings
and cavings separated from mud returns at the
shakers.12 The shape and size of cavings can dis-
criminate between hole enlargement caused by
shear failure when mud weight is too low and
that caused in naturally fractured zones when
mud weight is too high.13 Pictures of cuttings and
cavings can be posted on a secure Web site to
obtain rapid feedback from experts who are not
at the well.
Monitoring mud volume gives an indication of
problems. Mud loss suggests possible fracturing,
and mud gain indicates a possible kick. However,
it can take half a day for cuttings to reach the sur-
face from 20,000 ft [6100 m] and hours to estab-
lish mud losses, unless the mud loss is large.
An indication of gas influx, often caused by
drilling into a high-pressure, permeable zone,
comes from the gas content of the mud. Small
amounts of gas can be controlled, but a rapid
influx may create significant problems. Gas
expands as it moves up the wellbore, pushing
mud out of the hole ahead of it. This further
decreases hydrostatic pressure, allowing more
gas expansion and potential loss of well control.
The gas content is monitored at surface, but a
small influx might take several hours to be
detected. The longer a well-control incident goes
undetected, the worse it becomes. In extreme
cases, a rig might have to be abandoned rapidly.
Remediation may create further damage. For
great depth and small hole diameters, the only
way to control a kick is to bullheadpump mud
down both the drillpipe and annulus to force fluid
back into a formation. While this may control gas
influx, it might also fracture a formation else-
where in the openhole section.
The APWD Annular Pressure While Drilling
measurement provides downhole annular pres-
sure, obviating the need to estimate conditions
from surface pressures and modeling software.14
Because mud density is used to control pressure
downhole, drillers use the mud density unit of
pound-mass per gallon (lbm/gal, sometimes
designated ppg) to describe pressuresdown-
hole annular pressure, pore pressure, and over-
burden and lateral stresses. The APWD
measurement, which measures the equivalent
static density (ESD) of mud when pumps are off
and the equivalent circulating density (ECD)
when pumps are on, is used to monitor downhole
mud density to keep it within a specific range.
The ESD must remain above pore pressure and, if
possible, above the minimum pressure to control
borehole breakouts. The ECD must stay below
the fracture gradient.
Oilfield Review
 The APWD measurement also can give an
indication of improper hole cleaning, which could
lead to stuck pipe or other problems, such as bal-
looning, or opening and closing of a fracture
when the ECD rises and falls.
Managing wellbore pressures is an important
task for the PERFORM engineer. For deep wells in
deep water, an overriding problem is the narrow
window between pore pressure and fracture gra-
dient. Both pore pressure and fracture gradient
change with depth, and the safe drilling window
between them often narrows (right). If mud den-
sity is kept constant while pore pressure
increases, there is danger of a kick. If mud
weight is increased too much, however, the open
section of the wellbore below the last casing
point could fracture.
Normally, mud weight should be at least sev-
eral tenths of a lbm/gal [several hundredths g/cm3]
above the maximum pore pressure and at least
several tenths of a lbm/gal below the minimum
fracture gradient in the openhole section. When
the pore pressure-fracture gradient window nar-
rows to 1 lbm/gal [0.1 g/cm3] in deep wells, this
becomes a drilling challenge. One response is to
slow the pump rate, but since this affects the cut-
tings-removal rate, ROP must be decreased, forc-
ing a balance between loss of economy from slow
drilling and risk of damaging or losing the well
from taking a kick or fracturing a formation.
Subsea-lift technology such as dual-gradient
drilling can decrease mud-weight gradients below
the seabed, reducing the number of casing strings.
This technology is not yet widely available.15
Raw Waveforms
2500
Depth from datum, m
3000
3500
4000
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time, sec
> Seismic waveforms. Full-waveform seismic data were retrieved from the SeismicMWD tool after
tripping out. The operator felt that the raw (left) and processed waveforms (right) were of high quality.
The gap in the data was caused by problems with a crane supporting the seismic source on the boat.
Summer 2001
Interpretations from sonic and resistivity mea-
surements made while drilling provide information
about the formation just behind the bit. While it
can take hours for mud or cuttings to circulate to
surface, sonic and resistivity tools lag the bit by
about half an hour at typical drilling speeds. Both
tools predict pore pressure and fracture gradient
based on an MEM along this trajectory, helping a
PERFORM engineer manage wellbore pressure.
The engineer refines the model during drilling by
comparing predictions to leakoff teststaken
2000 ft
610 m
Depth
after casing is set and drilled outand to pore
pressures in permeable zones, obtained using
MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester mea-
surements between drilling runs.
The well in the Gulf of Mexico that was threat-
ened by a tropical storm was a challenge for the
drilling team: a directional exploration well in
deep water with an ultradeep target. BP devel-
oped a pore-pressure model prior to drilling but
also wanted to monitor conditions while drilling. 1 lbm/gal
The PERFORM engineer had several key tasks:
define safe ranges for wellbore pressure; in
this case, within a pore pressure-fracture gra- Mud weight
dient window
Real-time pore Equivalent circulating
make static and dynamic measurements of pressure density
fluid pressures in the annulus MDT pressure Fracture gradient
refine pore-pressure and fracture-gradient esti- Surface mud weight Overburden gradient
mates continuously from real-time logging data
identify and analyze drilling-induced hydraulic > Stress gradients and mud weights. The real-
fractures time pore-pressure prediction (yellow) was made
with resistivity and velocity data on this Gulf of
identify and analyze wellbore-instability Mexico well. Red diamonds represent MDT
problems Modular Formation Dynamics Tester pressure
data. The fracture gradient (red) becomes coinci-
dent with the overburden gradient (green) at
great depth, and the safe mud-weight window
narrows. The ECD curve (purple) comes from
Processed Waveforms
APWD measurements.
0.8
12. Cuttings are pieces of rock removed by the bit. Cavings
1.0 are pieces of rock that fell off the borehole wall.
13. Aldred et al, reference 3.
1.2 14. Aldred W, Cook J, Bern P, Carpenter B, Hutchinson M,
Lovell J, Rezmer-Cooper I and Leder PC: Using Downhole
Time, sec
1.4 Annular Pressure Measurements to Improve Drilling
Performance, Oilfield Review 10, no. 4 (Winter 1998):
1.6 30-55.
15. Cuvillier et al, reference 3.
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.8 2.0 2.2 2200 2600 3000 3400 3800 4200
Depth from datum, m
47
 1500 12 1 Resistivity, ohm-m 10
Surface APWD EMW Break circulation X400
Standpipe pressure, psi

APWD EMW, lbm/gal

1000 11.5
Work pipe up and down
SIDPP stabilized Begin kill X500
at 10.89 lbm/gal
SIDPP building
500 11
Shut-in
X600

Depth, ft
0 10.5
10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15
Time, hr and min
X700

> Wait and weight procedure. The shut-in downhole pore pressure (SIDPP) stabilized at 10.89 lbm/gal
[1.3 g/cm3] equivalent mud weight (EMW), measured using the APWD tool (green). After the pipe was
worked up and down to avoid sticking pipe while waiting, mud of higher weight was circulated into the
hole. Increased annular pressure resulted from gelled mud in the hole. The team broke circulation
stopped the mud pumpsand began a well-control procedure. The surface standpipe pressure (blue) X800
shows much less detail, but can be obtained throughout the procedure. The APWD measurements can
be transmitted to surface only when mud pumps are on.

X900

forecast risks associated with pore pressures
and fracture gradients
communicate all observations and interpreta-
tions to the drilling team.
The PERFORM engineer joined the drilling
team to begin real-time monitoring and manage
wellbore pressure when drilling reached the
21-in. casing shoe. The petrophysicist recom-
mended that an ARC Array Resistivity Compen-
sated tool be used while drilling. The sensor
spacings in the ARC tool, along with a second
measurement frequency, provide information to
help differentiate borehole breakouts from
hydraulic fracturestwo distinct wellbore-
stability problems.
Two ARC resistivity channels were monitored
in real time, while other channels were stored for
retrieval after tripping to surface. One real-time
signal was a low-frequency phase-shift resistiv-
ity that reads deep into the formation, used to
measure true resistivity Rt. This signal is insensi-
tive to tool eccentricity and large boreholes when
shale resistivity is low. The second signal sent to
surface continuously was the ARC tools shallow-
est measurement, which is the most sensitive to
eccentricity, hole-size enlargement and fractur-
ing. Separation of these two curves is an early
indication of a hole problem.
After drilling ahead 1000 ft [300 m] from the
21-in. casing set point, drillers noted mud flowing
from the well during a drilling break, indicating
influx into the wellbore. The pore-pressure model
gave no indications that ESD had been exceeded,
nor were there changes in cuttings morphology,
gas data or drilling parameters indicating that a
zone of high pore pressure had been encoun-
tered. Later analysis showed that all pore-
pressure models were in agreement, and the
excessive pressure was an anomaly.
The operator instituted a kill procedure
known as single-circulation wait and weight to
stop the influx (above left). The subsea blowout
preventer (BOP) was closed to avoid the possibil-
ity of high pressure reaching the lower pressure
riser. With the well shut in, the crew allowed
downhole pressure to stabilize with the pore
pressure. Then, they increased the mud weight
while circulating mud down to bottom of the well
and back to top. The return line was diverted to a
choke, which is rated to high pressure all the way
to surface but has a smaller internal diameter
> Time-lapse resistivity. The high-frequency short
spacing of the ARC tool P16H phase-shift resis-
tivity is most sensitive to near-well events, such
as fracturing. The measurement made while
drilling (black) shows low resistivity below the
casing shoe at X407 ft. A few days later, the crew
reentered the well and ran the tool again (red).
The separation of the two logs indicated a frac-
ture located from X410 to X650 ft.
than the annular return above the subsea BOP.
Unfortunately, during the wait period, mud in the
hole gelled and became more viscous. When cir-
culation began, increased friction resistance,
coupled with the smaller diameter return line
through the choke, forced downhole pressure
high enough to fracture a formation somewhere
in the openhole. Drilling mud was lost as fast as
it was pumped into the well.
By this time, the tropical storm was blowing
into the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The crew
pumped gelled fluid and a cement plug to the
bottom of the cased section to isolate the open-
hole, shut in the well and evacuated the

48 Oilfield Review
semisubmersible rig. The storm moved north,
making landfall and moving slowly across the
A
southeastern USA, causing $16 million damage
and killing one person in a tornado it spawned.

Flow rate
A
The crew returned to the rig after the storm B
passed and found it undamaged. The NDS team C B
recommended running a resistivity log to compare
with the log taken while drilling (previous page, C
right). The high resistivity of the second log from Time
the 21-in. casing shoe at X410 ft to about X650 ft
indicated an extensive fracture created during the
pre-evacuation kill procedure. The strength of the
shale and local stresses indicated that the fracture
would grow even larger if wellbore pressures

Flow rate
were not carefully controlled. The openhole sec-
tion had almost another 1000 ft before the next
casing set point, so a loss-control agent would
have to be durable to withstand continued drilling.
An M-I Drilling Fluids engineer recommended Time
Form-A-Set AK crosslinking polymer to penetrate
and seal the fracture, because it set properly at
the downhole temperature and also could main-
> Diagnosing mud returns. Mud volume increases in surface mud pits or
tain its integrity while the section below was
tanks during drilling pauses provide information about the state of the well-
drilled. The geomechanical fracture analysis, bore. A ballooning fracture squeezes mud back into the wellbore rapidly at
which would not have been possible without the first, but the rate slows over time as the fracture closes, illustrated at times
updated MEM, indicated that a surface pressure A, B and C (top). A permeable formation also increases mud volume returning
to surface, but the rate is constant with time (bottom).

> Rubbery mass on shale shakers. Mud returns
while drilling through the section injected with
Form-A-Set AK polymer showed tough, rubbery
masses of polymer like this one held by the mud
logger. Seeing these provided reassurance that
this lost-circulation material had set properly
downhole.
above 345 psi [2380 kPa] would exceed the mini-
mum horizontal stress, extending this large frac-
ture and making the problem worse. Polymer was
placed from about 400 ft [120 m] below the indi-
cated fracture up into the casing shoe, about
1000 ft total. Slowly increasing wellbore pres-
sure to just above the minimum horizontal stress
opened the fracture in a controlled way, and
squeezed polymer into the fracture. After the
polymer set, the well was reamed carefully to the
bottom of the fractured zone. Large, rubbery
chunks of the polymer circulated up to the shale
shakers, indicating that the material had set in
the expected firm, spongy structure (left).
As drilling continued, the PERFORM engineer
monitored conditions at the bit and tracked the
type of cuttings coming to surface. The pore pres-
sure-fracture gradient window narrowed, requir-
ing a close watch on ECD and ESD. ROP had to be
balanced with mud-flow rates to ensure cuttings
removal and avoid sticking the pipe. Pressure
management using all available information was
crucial in this difficult drilling environment.
One job of a PERFORM engineer is to monitor
fluid returns when mud pumps are shut down.
Profiles of flow duration and volume returned
indicate conditions of the exposed formation. If
enough permeable zones are open to the well-
bore and pore pressures are increasing, flowback
times and volumes may increase. Although not a
quantitative measure of pore pressure, monitor-
ing returns does indicate whether pore pressure
exceeds static mud density. If there is an exposed
hydraulic fracture, ballooning will dominate
results of flowback monitoring and obscure pore-
pressure effects (above).

Summer 2001 49
 In this well, both duration and volume of mud
7200 flow increased after a cement squeeze below the
70.0
1058-in. casing shoe (left). Although exposed
Flowback time
6000 Flowback volume 60.0 permeable formations could cause such an
increase, the mud-flow rate would not decrease
50.0
Flowback time, sec

4800 with time.

Volume, bbl
40.0
The APWD measurement on the ARC tool
3600 provided useful diagnostics throughout drilling.
30.0 Confirmation that the mud flow was from a bal-
2400 looning fracture came from the shape of the ECD
20.0
buildup.16 Prior to fracturing, pressure built
1200
10.0 rapidly when mud circulation began (below left).
ARC runs after later joint connections showed an
0 0.0 exponential pressure buildup once ECD
XX000 XX250 XX500 XX750 XY000 XY250 XY500 XY750 XZ000 XZ250 XZ500
exceeded the fracture opening pressure of
Measured depth, ft
16.95 lbm/gal [2.03 g/cm3]. The fracture was
> Mud returns to surface showing a ballooning fracture. The volume of returns (red) and the duration sealed with lost-circulation material, which was
of mud flow (purple) are indicated over a long openhole section of a Gulf of Mexico well. A fracture successful for a time, but as the mud-flow mea-
opened after a cement squeeze at XX950 ft, indicated by increased mud returns that stopped after a surements showed, drilling difficulties continued.
short period. Returns decreased after injection of lost-circulation material at XY400 ft. Mud weight The ARC measurements also indicated that
was increased at XY880 ft to control increased pore pressure, but the return volume flow and duration
indicate that the fracture reopened. Casing was set at XZ400 ft. Confirmation that this behavior was overburden gradient and fracture gradient were
due to a fracture and not a permeable zone came from the rapid decay in mud return during each both 17.05 lbm/gal [2.04 g/cm3], so horizontal
measurement period, mud losses during drilling and ARC resistivity measurements. stresses equaled or exceeded vertical stress, a
condition difficult to determine without APWD
and density measurements.
The narrow pore pressure-fracture gradient
window made drilling difficult, and the staff
17.3 both at the rig and onshoremonitored APWD
pressures closely. The well was drilled another
5000 ft [1525 m], at which point drilling and geo-
17.2
ECD buildup before fracture formation logical objectives were achieved and drilling
stopped. BP felt that participation of the No
17.1
Drilling Surprises team made drilling to total
ARC ECD, lbm/gal

depth possible, overcoming narrow tolerances on

17.0 ECD and extreme drilling depth.
Fracture opening pressure
16. Bratton TR, Rezmer-Cooper IM, Desroches J, Gille Y-E,
16.9 Li Q and McFayden M: How to Diagnose Drilling
Induced Fractures in Wells Drilled with Oil-Based Muds
with Real-Time Resistivity and Pressure Measurements,
16.8 paper SPE/IADC 67742, presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
February 27-March 1, 2001.
16.7 17. Bratton et al, reference 16.
0 5 10
Elapsed time, min

TM 155 to 170 TM 215 to 221 TM 350 to 362 TM 470 to 475

> Exponential tails in ECD. The first time sequence, from time marker (TM)
155 to TM 170, shows ECD rise when mud begins circulating after the first
connection at a casing shoe (light blue). The formation is not yet fractured
so ECD increases rapidly. The slower, exponential rise of ECD after the next
three connections is characteristic of a fractured formation (other curves).
The change in behavior for TM 350 to 362 indicates fracture opening at
16.95-lbm/gal mud weight.

50 Oilfield Review
 Web PDA Pager alarms

Monitoring critical parameters

Real-time data collection

Hub

DrillViz software

Pore pressure DrillMAP software

Update model

> A well-connected world. LWD data are transmitted in real time through a Web interface to team
members anywhere in the world. Critical data can be monitored on a secure Web site, or data and
alarms can be sent to a PDA (personal digital assistant) or pager. Drilling models can be updated in
real time to improve drilling performance.

Drilling Ahead
It is natural to expect ongoing change and evolu-
tion from a program that advocates a dynamic,
living well. The DrillMAP system was developed
during and after drilling in Mungo field, and
improvements to the software continue. New
interpretations for ARC resistivities help engi-
neers diagnose drilling-induced fractures, even in
oil-base muds.17 Software for making real-time
pore-pressure predictions from LWD tools is in
development, and as LWD telemetry improves,
more measurements will be available in real
time, including full-waveform seismic signals
from the SeismicMWD tool.
The No Drilling Surprises initiative is about
more than hardware and software. It provides
solutions to drilling problems and anticipates
needs, with an emphasis on communicating rele-
vant information in a meaningful fashion in time
to make decisions. A recent improvement to the
process uses a secure Web site to update
onshore teams of geologists, engineers, petro-
physicists and drillers about drilling progress
(above). The InterACT Web Witness data-
delivery system connects directly with a rig to
provide involved parties with real-time drilling,
logging, trajectory and survey information. Data
can be accessed through the Web using a per-
sonal computer or Web-enabled PDA (personal
digital assistant), and alerts can be set to send
critical messages to the pagers of appropriate
team members. When coordinated with a
mechanical earth model and DrillMAP software,
differences between the original well plan and
actual results can be evaluated quickly, so oper-
ators can develop new contingency plans and
new approaches.
Schlumberger has teamed with BP, Statoil,
Baker Hughes, Halliburton and software com-
pany NPSi to establish a standard protocol for
transferring drilling information. The WITSML
protocol, a wellsite information transfer standard
markup language, will provide a seamless flow of
wellsite data between operators and service
companies, covering drilling, completion and
well-service operations. The new protocol will
expand the capabilities of the InterACT Web
Witness system by standardizing transfer of
drilling information.
Extreme drilling conditions continue to chal-
lenge the industry. Deeper water, deeper wells,
higher temperatures and pressures, and narrower
allowable windows for mud weight are driving
improvements in technology and interpretation
techniques. As programs like the No Drilling
Surprises process solve todays hurdles, operat-
ing companies will raise the bar again. Only
a dynamic, living process can continue to
achieve success. MAA

Summer 2001 51