Oilfield ma X ‘Oetober 1991Foc u s The Dolomite Transform Enigma N ulron logging, the measurenient of cap- ‘ture gamma rays or neutrons to determine porosity, hhas a 45-year history checkered with unexpected elfects. One that persisted until recently was a Problem withthe dolomite porosity transform of the ‘compensated neutron tool, which uses two det tors to reduce borehole effects and increase depth of investigation. A porosity transform, or response curve, relates porosity tothe ratio of counting rates ofthe two detectors in dolomite formations. Using the appropriate dolomite transform can make or break the assessment of potential reservoirs. Based on lab data, the or form gave porosities that were too high in the field. Log analysts, following the adage, “the truth is in the field,” rejected the so-called lab dolomite ‘transform in favor of afield dolomite transform. ‘This transtorm was based on core analysis and logs {rom the uncompensated sidewall neutron porosity Buk density, g/om® aol Buk denaty, g/oms ol ld Transforms 0 a Neutron porosily indo, pu 1.038) Denslty porosty,p.u.(metrix= 2.71, fuis 2.71, fuid.098) Density porosity, pu. Data crossplots mado with the field dolomit transform (above) and the new dolomite transtorm (below). Oilfield Review{ool The field dolomite transform, however, unex- pectedly fll shor: it underestimated porosity sub- stantially and could procuce significant erors in thology prediction when neutron and density data were combined in 9 neutron-densiy crossplat Following its widespread acceptance, the eld dolomite transtorm underwent piecemeal mocitica- tions during the 1970s, which included “straighten Ing” at high porosities and “bending” at low porost- ties, The need for improved accuracy and better Interpretation in complex reservoirs led toa major Investigation of transforms and environmental fects, starting in 1980. New transforms developed in 1998 correctly represented the neutron tool response under a variety of conditions. Only slight ‘changes in the od transforms were required for limestone and sandstone, but the new dolomite transform departed significantly from its predeces- sor, Comparison of neutron-density crossplots shows the dramatic diference between the old and new transforms (previous page) A recent evaluation of dolomite reservoirs pro- vides a striking example of the problem and the eco- pact of its solution. The diference in neu- tron porosity estimates produced by the old and new dolomite transforms is obvious (above, right. The reservoir represented inthis log contains ce dolomite wit slight amounts of quartz, residual ol nd fresh invasion water. The lft rack af hel ‘generated withthe old dolomite transform fr con October 1991 Dept, ft (Old Neutron Porosity Doloite Density Persity Dolomite Now Nautron Porosity Dolomite Density Porosity Dolomite = 770 Comparison of old and new dolomite trans! tron and density porosities. rms for neu verting neutron count-rate ratios into porosities, shows a discrepancy between the compensated neu- ‘ron and density logs. “Ola” ‘as much as 7 porosity units (p.u.) lower than those derived from the density log. The right track shows how “new” neutron porosities agree much better. (Enhanced vertical resolution of he right track rosults from alpha processing and is unrelated to use of the new dolomite transform.)— Frosh water — Saltwater Slowing down length and cifusion length, em Porosty +2 pu. ‘The shaded areas indicate where porosity est mates exceed this one's producibilitycutotf of 5% porosity. Although the old transform would have condemned the zone in question, the new one pre- dicts significant production. For the main reservoir, estimates of total thickness increased from 77 ft (23 1m] to 376 115 m] and oll volume from 3.3 hydro- carbon-ftto 23 hydrocarbon ft. Furthermore, using the old transform, GLOBAL and ELAN interpretation programs gave results thal were sensitive to assump- tions about the purity of the rock matrix. Assuming a quart-dolomit misture rather than pute dolomite, the programs predicted higher, but stil incorrect, porosities and quartz concentrations. Using the new transform maintained porosity estimates and cor- rectly predicted small quartz concentrations. Inthe 1970s, dserepancy between lb and field ‘olomite transforms was attributed to absorption of thermal neutrons (which conventional compensated neutron tots detect) by traces of horon and gadotin- lum. Subsequent chemical analyses showed, how- ver, that not enough ofthese trace elements exis din oilfield dolomites to cause the problem. More than a decade passed before the dolomite transform 6 Calculated values of slowing-down length and diffusion length for freshwater lim stone and saturated saltwater limestone. Salinity effect in dolomite, sandstone porosity. - - nigma was corectly explained in terms ofa salini- ty offct and the possible presence of anhydrite. Chlorine n salt water absorbs thermal neutrons, ‘making apparent porosity higher than true porosity. ‘ALthe same time, sodium and chlorine ins push water molecules farther apart, reducing hydrogen concentration; this in turn lowers apparent porsiy. Generally, thermal neuron absorption dominates, How these phenomena influence the formation parameters that ultimately determine the too's ‘count-rate ratio are illustrated for limestone (it) Thermal detection depends on the thermal neutron diffusion length, which decreases significantly as salinity increases. It also depends onthe slowing- down length ofthe neutrons, which increases slight- ly with salinity and with decreasing porosity. The lb dolomite transform was determined with fresh water in borehole and formation. This explains why the lab transform did not perform well under saltwater conditions of the early field trials. Con- versely the field dolomite transform, based in part ‘on data from satwater field conditions, often worked well in saltwater formations, but gave low porosity estimates in fresh water oro ‘The salinity effect in dolomite, imestone and sandstone was modeled (below). The ordinate, expressed in apparent limestone porosity units as a Limostorte ‘A eppaventimestone porosity, pu os ue eS OS ‘Tue lithology porosity, pu,Buk density, g/om® ‘Apparent limestone porosity, pad, ‘normalizing reference transforms are mistakenly used when saturated salt water is present, as was the casein the iil field trials ofthe tool. These errors are simitar, but of ‘opposite sign, o those produced using the field ‘olomite transform when ol or fresh water is present. Independent ofthe salinity factor was anhydrite, which nad been established in some dolomite for- mations by cores, cuttings, photoelectric lags and the sultur yield from the GST tol. Although anby- Arte nasa slightly lower limestone equivalent porosity than that of dolomite, its density is about 1.1 gfeme greater, corresponding to about 7 pu. In ‘the presence of anhydrite impurities, data points shift downward on neutron-density erossplots. When this occurs inthe mid-porosity range, the effect resembles that generated withthe fel transform in freshwater conditions. At very ow porosities, where the water salinity etfect is very smal, the erosspot points respond exclusively to the density increas This sometimes makes a string of density -versus- neutron data are downward as zero porosity is approached (above). These observations strongly suggested that the field dolomite transform suffered from anhydrite impurities as well a om the salin- tyetfect. The truth may bein the fed, but this dolomite transform story teaches us yet again that uncovering itoften takes careful study and cunning —sT Is the error when freshwater Downward shift of data points on a nou- tron-density crossplot at low porosities, indicating an anhy- drite effect. ‘Acknowledgemer ‘and Further o For helpin preparation ofthis ariel, thanks to Dan Arnold, Haliburton Logging Services, Houston, Texas, USA; Darwin Elis, Schhunberger-Doll Research, Ridge field, Connecticut, USA; and Charts Flaum, Schlunber- (er Technical Services, Paris, France. {Inthisarile, GLOBAL (Comprehensive Formation Eval ation Answer Produc), ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis), ‘and GST (Induced Gama Ray Spectrometry Tool ae ‘marks of Seunberger. For the new dolomite porosity mansform: Poses G, Francisque JH, Flaum C, and Wer JP: "The Inpact of Usilzing the New CNE Transforms and Environ ‘mental Corrections in Evaluation of Low Porsity Dolomite Formations,” Transactions ofthe SPWLA sth European Formation Evaluation Symposia, Budapest, Hungary, October 22-26, 1990, paper EE Galford GE, Fann €, Gilchrist WA Jr Soran PD, and Gardner 35: “improved Environmental Corrections for Compensated Neuiron Logs.” SPE Formation Evaluation 8 (1988):371:376. Fr the effects of thermal neuron absorbers Ells DV, Flaun C. Gafort JE and Seou HD: “The Effect ‘of Formanion Absorption an the Thermal Neuron Porosity “Measurement.” paper SPE 16814, presented a the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference aad Exhibition, Daas, Texas, USA, September 27-10, 1987 ‘Aruold DM and Smith HD Je: “Experimental Determina tion of Environmental Corvections fr a Dual Spaced Nev tom Porsiy Lag.” Transactions ofthe SPWLA 22nd Annu Logging Symposiam, Mesico City, Mevco, June 23-26, 1981, paper WV. For explanation ofthe salinity and anhydrite effects Bilis DV and Case CR: "CNT-A Dolomite Response, Transactions ofthe SPWLA 24¢h Annual Logging Symp. sinny Calgary, Alberta, Canad, June 27-30, 1983, papers For the origin ofthe fleld dolomite transform Alger RP, Locke S, Nagel WA and Sherman H: “The Dua Spacing Neuron Log CNL," Journal of Pemoleun Teh nology 25 (1972): 1073-1083,State of the Business: Western Canada ‘SASKATCHEWAN Natural gas © Conventional I otcands Deposits of gas, heavy olf and ds in westerh Canada. W... Canada has never beon an place forthe oll business. The geology is compl ‘many targets ae small drilling can be dificult and expensive, about 20% of crudes are heavy and weather significantly limits feld operations tothe coldest six months. The 1990s, however, hold prom- {se for oll producers inthis sacond largest country ‘inthe world, but not without considerable ingenuity. Conventional oll production isin irreversible decline because of maturing ol fields and dwin- ‘ling prospects for tinding replacement light and ‘medium crudes. Abundant natural gas has been {ound and plenty of potential remains—but surplus- ‘ trouble the industry as gas prices stay low. Immense deposits of heavy oll and oll sands assure long-term productivity, but ony for companies large ‘enough to afford the high stakes. To meet these ‘challenges, Canadian companies have made @ ‘commitment to leading edge technology, paticular- ly three-dimensional (3D) seismic surveys, to improve finding costs in region of small and com- plex reservoirs. Despite dificulties, Canada ranks among the top ‘ton oil producers and i third in natural gas produc- tion, Nearly all of Canada’s hydrocarbons come sy Oilfield Reviewfrom the Western basin, which spans 2500 km [1500 ‘miles] from Manitoba, beneath the prairies of Saskatchewan and Alberta, tothe foothills of the Rockies in Alberta and British Columbia (previous age), By far, most oil and gas reservoirs lie in Alberta, which contributes 80 to 90% ofthe coun- tty's hydrocarbon production. For this reason and historical precedence, the Canadian energy industry is concentrated in Alberta's two largest cities, just ‘300 km (180 miles) apart, Calgary (population 708,000) and Edmonton (population 605,000). Cal- gary is home to several hundred oil companies, most within easy walking distance of each other. Edmon- {ton is surrounded by oilfields, having more than 2000 producing welts within a 40-km (24-mile) radius. Like its counterparts worldwide, the Canadian ‘energy industry was hit hard by the collapse of oll prices in 1986. Since then, industry employment hhas dropped 40%, a loss of 50,000 jobs, and the industry average return on capital has fallen to @ meager 4%, below the for investors (above, right). “We didn’t think it was possible to live with ‘$15/barrel oil,” said Doug Stoneman, executive vice President of Shell Canada Limited. “But there is life at $15. Today, the industry is slimmer, more {focused and more efficient.” | considered attractive October 1991 % T Return on capital for the ol industry in mi western Canada. #10 3 E 4 = 2 | a a a a) Year Oil companies survived by rationalizing assets ‘nd restructuring, selling or trading interests in properties that contributed too litle profit. in recent yeats, billions of dollars have been paid for oll and gas reserves that were on the market for less than their equivalent finding and development costs Despite improvements inefficiency, the Canadian industry faces further challenges, mainly because of aging of the Western basin. As fields mature, pro- ‘duction dectines and more wells are needed toreplace ost production. Yt, overhe past decade in Number of wolls and Alberia, average paucity of conventional oi OY Mell productivity well as dropped more than 50%, while the num- ao ber of operating wells has grown 80%—not enough g to keep pace. As crue production has fallen, oper- fe 5 ating cost have sien rm 20% to neat 40% of a j oross revenue. “We're at the point in Canada where it's tough to 20) find new oil reserves,” said Gwyn Morgan, presi- J dent of AEC Oil and Gas, a division of Alberta Energy ee We ae ee Company. “Next year, western Canadian reserves ‘eer wil dectne despite maintaining production. No one — Arora wetsin operation ‘doubts that we're on the down side and that we i Bareis per welt por dey not going to reverse he slope. This means any: sonable ol prospect wil be drilled within any rea and easter Alberta il sand reserves are estimat- sonable range of ol prices" (ight) ed at 1.7 tllon bares, more than double the con- Immediate recovery of Canaia's energy business ‘ventional reserves in he res ofthe word. The ‘may not rely on the country’s immense deposits of 307 billion barrels that may be recovered economi- oil sands (known colloquially as tar sands) and heavy Cally equal nearly half the world's known reserves. oil, but they play a roe in its long-term prosper. With so much heavy ol underfoot, the Canatians These deposits are concentrated mainly in northern have become resourceful al ining ways to produce it, even at todays prices. At he present production af more than 220,000 barels per day, ungraded light crudes from heavy oll account for 20% of Cana- da's light and medium ol supply. Some heavy oll canbe transported by pipeline with the ad of duets. Some, inthe form of bitumen- saturated sands is mined and upgraded near the source. Ths extraction is perfrmed inthe Athabas- a oil sands northeast of Edmonton, which were first noted by fur traders inthe late 1700s. Government- © sponsored studies of the oil sands began in the 1800s, and oil was first extracted in the 1920s using hot ‘water flotation, a process still used today. Seven Canadian ail companies andthe govern- ‘ment own and operate the Syncrude projet, which Drag fine mining of extract ll rom mined oll sands Huge draglines oll sand by Synerude — segop yp the oil sand and deposit the mined materi- Soe geen’ al in kilometer-long heaps (left). Bucket wheel McMurray, Alberta. For seale, a truck Is 10 Oilfield Reviewreclaimers collect oil sand from the heaps and deposit it on conveyors that carry up to 6300 metric {ons {7000 tons) per hour to an extraction plant. In ‘the extraction plant, ol sand is dumped into large ‘tumblers and mixed with hot water and caustic soda, which begins separation of bitumen from sand. Treatment in settling tanks, followed by cen- {rifuging, futher separates bitumen from clean sand. Bitumen then goes to upgraders for conver- sion toa light synthetic erude oil. Primary upgrad- {ng converts bitumen into liquid hydrocarbons by ‘racking reactions at high temperature with coke ‘and steam. Secondary upgrading remaves impurities, mainly sulfur and nitrogen, leaving purified naph- tha, gas oll and a small amount of butane. These ‘components are mixed to form a light synthetic crude that can be handled by conventional refineries. Oil companies have a healthy respect forthe com- Plexities of Canadian exploration and endorse ‘emerging technologies as a means of lowering find- ing costs. Their use of 2D seismic technology, in particular, Is often cited as a leading factor in thelr suecess in Canada, ‘There's no question that 3D seismic has been key to our success in both deep Devonian and foothills gas plays,” said Guyn Morgan of Alberta Energy. “We spare no effort because land and Arilling costs are so high. We also use 30 seismic when we're trying to drill small targets at high cost, 0 We use iin almost all of our oll exploration because we're looking for small reefs and, in some cases, small structural sand plays.” October 1991 Inthe late 1980s, Alberta Energy reported a show in deep Devonian well. A few years later, with 3D seismic and better interpretation, the company ‘determined the well was on the edge ofa thick reet. “We drilled a new well clase tothe old one,” sald Morgan,” and came right into the reel. That's what {3D does for us.” ‘This entrepreneurial sprit has carried much of the Canadian petroleum business through hard times. But more than gusto will be needed to litt western Canada’s gas producers out of the doldrums. They are caught in a supply-demand vise. They have abundant long-term supplies with much more to be found. They supply about 7% of the gas consumed by their neighbor, the United States, the largest energy market inthe world, which concluded a con- troversial Free Trade agreement with Canada in 1988. What's more, gas is the choice to meet clean- nmental restrictions, air standards and satisty em and! per unit of energy is about half the cast of oil. Yet, two thirds of the annual 100 billion eubie ‘meters (3.5 trilion cubic feet) of production is for household consumption, which is stagnant, whi {ndustrial-commercial consumption is decreasing, This leaves export tothe US, which last year hit a istoric high, growing nearly 4% over the previous, year. But domestic declines lowered overall sales. u200 1.50) 1.00 U.S. dolars per cube 50 a Year Gas prices eroded by more than 40% through the tate 805 tothe present, brought on, many believe, by a sudden change from gas price regulation to deregulation in Canada and the US (above). The gas ‘shortages ofthe 1970s, resulting from price con- trols, forced the majority of industrial gas users to install dual fuel capability. After deregulation in the fate 1970s, gas prices rose toward parity with oll, setting off a boom in gas exploration. Users responded to price increases by switching ta oll and coal, leaving a glut of gas, the so-called gas bubble that stil hangs over the market today, This surplus has been maintained by mild winters, naw US gas Aiscoveries and increasing exploitation of technolo- 4y for producing methane from US coal beds, a potentially huge reserve. ‘Gwyn Morgan of Alberta Energy foresees contin- uod hard times for Canadian gas producers, atleast inthe short term. “There stil are significant gas reserves tobe discovered and the Western basin is mainly a natural gas basin, But activity is going to be driven by prices and markets, and that will mean les activity.” New markets for Canadian gas should open when $5 billion in pipeline expansions are completed over the next few years. This will increase capacity ofthe Gas prices over the past 17 years. ‘TransCanada Pipeline and add new pipelines to ‘southern California and the New York metropolitan, area. U.S. electricity demand is growing, although ‘capacity is adequate thanks to a buildup in the 1970s. Should new generating capacity be added, utilities undoubtedly wit! favor combined-cycle plants, which harness waste heat from turbines to ower other turbines. These plants have operating costs nearly 30% below those of oil- or coal-fired plants, and provide some environmental benefits. All this bodes well for Canadian gas companies in the 90s. SM i F Ere ‘Ayoub J, Colson L, Minke J, Jolmsion D and Levine J ‘Learning to Produce Coathed Methane," Oilfield Review 3,na,1 Janvary 1991): 27-40. General reading on the Westera Canada petroleum industry The Syncrude Project. Calgary, Albert: PanCanadian Peolewn Limited ‘Nikle's OF and Gas States Quarterly, Third Quarter 1990, Calgary, Alberta: Southam Business Information ‘and Communications Group In, 1990. Hayes TC: “Bowom-Fishing inthe Gas Patch,” The New York Times, May 19,1991, section 3. 1990 Annual Report. Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Petro leu Association, 1991, For help in preparaviom ofthis focus, thanks to the follow ing people hased in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Donald Barkwell, Paco Petrofeun Lid; Ron Hicala, Canaan: Hunier Exploration, Lad; Myron Kank, Alberta Miniry of Energy. Gwyn Morgan, Alberta Energy Company td. Bartlert Rombough, PanCanadian Peroteum Linited: lan R. Smyth, Canadian Petroleum Association; D.G, Stone ‘man, Shell Canada: Guy J.Turcone, Chaurco Resources, Lid; Joe Amin, Bud Bell and Lue Laverdiere, Scan: berger of Canada, Oilfield Review© Causes, Detection and Prevention It costs the oil industry between $200 and $500 million each year, occurs in 15% of wells, and in many cases is preventable. Stuck pipe remains a major headache that demands and Is getting industry-wide attention. Louise Bailey Tim Jones, Cambridge, England Jim Belaskie Jacques Orban Mike Sheppard Sugar Land, Texas, USA to Houwen Stuart Jardine Dominic MeCann ‘Montrouge, France Forhelp mn peparsan oT i anil, ovis whe tre tah Peau (8 suck pipe ek orc Rab f TOTAL ones’ Balipapan J Steve Devin, Pl Hammad, Gey fe Shera, Scene Care i Cambie Ea ‘The following fictionalized conversation describes events that actually occurred on a tig driting offshore io the Gulf of Mexico. It is noon on a Monday and drilling is at 3470 feet. The mud logger has just joined the ‘riler onthe rg or, October 1991 Mud Logger: We've drilled three fer into a break, Better pick up and check {for flow Driller: One flow check coming up. ‘Aflow check tells whether a kick isin ‘progress. This is routinely performed after a ‘rlling broak, a sudden inerease in penet tion rate, usually indicative of permeable for ‘mation. Tho mud jogger returns to his unit, A shart time later, the driller phones. Driller: We've shut down for five min- ies and there hasn't been any flow. We're going back to drilling, Mud Logs Before recommencing diling, the driller picks up a lite to work the plpe—and then calls the toolpusher. Driller: The hook load shot way up when I picked up after the flow check, We must have had! 100 kib of overpull ‘for a couple of seconds there. Toolpushor: How does it look now? Driller: Everything fine. Toolpusher: Keep an eve on it. 'll go talk to the company man. BFitleen minutes ater, the measurement- hile-diting (MWD) engineer appears on the deil floor MWD Engineer: Did you notice the overpull when you picked up? Driller: Sure did. It was over 100 ktb. What are we drilling down there? MWD Engineer: The gamma ray shows a clean sand, and it looks like there night be something in it too. Thirty minutes late, inthe mud logging unit: ‘Mud Logger: How's the mud doing? ‘Mud Engineer: Lousy. The nuul cleaner and desander take turns breaking down The company man is upset about the high water loss, and the nuid weight keeps increasing. I'm stuck between a vock and a hard place. Mud Logger: I ber te nuudstone we drilled earlier is feeding the mud sys- tem. That stuff was soft—it practically dissolved in water. Mud Engineers Phat must be it, The drill solids are steadily increasing. It ‘must be coming from the open hole somewhere. High water loss and inereasing dil solids produce thick, sof mudcake, a primary cause of ditferenial sticking. Fifteen minutes tater, atthe mud pts Company Man: When are we going to reduce this water loss? Mud Engineer: I'm trying everything 1 know, but the mud cleaner is down and that mudstone we drilled is putting a lot of solids into the system. We need to get it fixed and the desander needs work too. Company Man: Tlie rental company says they won't have a man out for another day at the earliest. We'll just have to make do, at least until the crew ‘change tomorrow morning. 4 (One hour late, inthe company man's office: MWD Enginooe: Pore pressure is still «at 87 ppg. Is there any reason the mud weight has been increased to 94 ppe? Company Man: Yeah, we can't keep the solids control equipment running The weight is creeping up. MWD Engineer: Wien wre shut down {for the flow check in that sand, we had 100-kib overpull. We could be geuting some differential sticking. Company Man: Maybe you're right. P'lcall the drill floor and have them Keep the pipe moving. Let me know when we get out of the sand, ‘The next morning, the mud cleaning equip ‘meat i stil malfunctioning, but drilling pro- ceeds. Meanwhile a helicopter arives with a ‘new company man. Arriving Company Man: ITow's every thing going? Leaving Company Man: Pretty good. But yesterday, we had a 100-klb over- pull after a flow check. We haven't seen anything since. Arriving Company Man: What do you think it was? Leaving Company Man: think if was differential, We'd been having problems with the mud cleaners. Everything is in the reports. I'd beter get going, the heli- copter's waiting. See you in two weeks. Arriving Company Man: Have a good time off Later that evening, total depth (TO) is reached. The driller cals the new company man. Driltor: We just reached TD and are going to pull out. You want me to rotate when breaking connections? Company Man: No, let's not waste any time, We've got a long logeing pro- gram and we're behind schedule. Driller: OK. Oilfield ReviewThey pull five stands and then cannot raise the pipe aera connection. The bottombole assembly (BHA) happens to be opposite the Sand where the dling break occured and has became diferentally stick pressured agaist the permeable sand so hard that no force on earth can move it. Iisa drillers nightmare that is less common than ten years ago, but till common enough. In most cases, petting stuck is preventable and the _main reason it happens is hat warning signs come sporadically over days or even weeks. This pipe got stuck because warning signs were poorly communicated and eventually forgotten. If the mud cleaning equipment had been working if the pipe had been kept moving while pulling out, ithe ig had had the advantage ofthe latest information sys tem technology, then perhaps the incident would have been averted. Poor communi «ation i often the main culprit behind stuck pipe, with the many players-—itom com: pany man to shaker hand—not pooling their ‘observations and fling to arrive at a cllec- tive decision atthe right moment. The industy’s interes in tuck pipe is eur rently going through a renaissance. Several operators are making detemined efforts to codify the warning signs and to improve communication—not just for their own aller, but for all on-site dling and service company personnel. Meanwhile, beter rig Sensors an information systems are provi ing sigefloor “Smart” alarms to help the diler recognize touble before it gts out of hand. ‘The causes of stuck pipe have been known since drilling began (next page). Broadly, they are divided among dirential sticking, formation-related sticking and mechanical sticking." Diferential sticking ‘occurs in permeable zones wien dil col lars, drillpipe or casing get embedded in ‘mudcake and pinned tothe borehole wall by the diffrence between the muds hydro- static pressure and a lower formation pres- sure, Formation-related sticking. occurs hen unstable formation constrict the dil string, This includes unconsolidated rock, swelling shale, flowing formations such as salt and plastic shale, and geopressured for mations. Mechanical sticking covers numer ‘us causes such as key seating-—in which a groove cut in the borehole wall by dillpipe October 1991 > (Cross section ofa dill collar (etl) embedded in mudcake and pplnned fo the borehole by the differential pressure between ‘mud and formation, The pinning force is ihe pressure dlference fimes the contact area between ail collar and mucieake. ‘According the Coulomb iriction model, the overpull required to ‘ree the drlstring is the pinning force times the friction facter, which is generally 0.3 0.0.4 1 the dillistring remains stationany for any reason, more mud ‘cake can build up, increasing the contact area and making the dillistring harder to tree. traps the larger-diameter hardware when tripping out—accumulation of cuttings due to poor hole cleaning, undergauge hole, doglegs, junk, collapsed casing, and frag mented cement. The causes of sticking are more numerous than can be listed here, and itis a mistake to think that only one cause may be acting Pipe stuck because of swelling shale may sooner or later also get stuck differentially at another point inthe well. One of the results Of the industry's current attention is a better understanding of the events leading up to stuck pipe and thoir interpretation in terms of the causes of sticking. Knowing the causes is essential for taking correct rere: dial action, Dilferential sticking Research into dferentally stuck pipe started in the 195052 Simplisticaly, the pressure dif ferential between the mud and formation pushes the dil collars and dillpipe against the borehole wall, and the friction force required to move the string—the pinning force multiplied by a coefficient of tric: tion—becomes too great for the rig draw- ‘works fo pull the pipe free (above). In the simplistic picture, pinning force equals the pressure cliferential multiplied by the con- tact area hetween drill collar and borehole (continuon page 18) inthis aie SPN icing Pipe nico ea natok ‘Ani MOS ea marc Seeo Fore 1. Mechanical shi omens ude 0 Ice oat ae lig 2. Oumans HD:* Mecha of Dire Pesre Siting of Onl Colas,” Pevoleun tans, ‘AIMED (1956 268-274 ‘Ani Mand Monaghan Ps -Diecetal Peste Sckng Laboratory Studies of con ewer et and Fite Cae" fouaf of Peelcun fecha! ‘ny 4 19625 3375343. 15