You are on page 1of 27

The Importance of Dynamic ECD and Well Control Models in Advanced Drilling

Inge Mosti, Bjrn-Tore Anfinsen, Petter Mathisen SPT Group

IQPC HPHT Wells Summit 2008, Aberdeen November 25th 2008


1

Overview
New drilling challenges Important physical models Dynamic effects related to decreasing operational margins Case studies illustrating dynamic effects Conclusions

Advanced Operations

Challenges
Technically Complex operations
Costly rig downtime

Narrow margins
Downhole ECD management Know the effect of operational changes Gel breaking and Surge&Swab

Low tolerance for kicks


Requires accurate and realistic planning Impact from thermal expansion

Extreme temperature variations


Thermal expansion Downhole tool failure
4

How can these challenges be addressed?


Improved planning using dynamic models
Training

Active use of software models in operational follow-up New drilling techniques


Managed Pressure Drilling Dual gradient

Dynamic software models that include thermal effects are required


5

Workflow
Planning
Dynamic Model Dynamic Model Dynamic Model Dynamic Model

Well integrity Operational limitations Understanding Preparedness Model Calibration Operational update Decision making Lesson learned Improvement
6

Training

Execution

Post analysis

Temperature variations

Pit gain from thermal expansion

ESD variation due to temperature

2 points reduction

10

Gel effect when breaking circulation

200

500

1000

2000

2500

11

Gel effect on surge pressure

12

Undetected kick in deep water riser


No pit gain 0.8 indicatingat kick m3 influx a connection during circulation

BOP

13

Undetected kick in deep water riser

Gas breakout at ~300m

BOP Rapid pit gain Secondary kick due to gas due to reduction expansion in bottom hole pressure

14

Bottomhole pressure reduction

How much drawdown in bottom hole pressure can be expected from a given influx volume

Undetected kick in deep water riser


Argument for WBM?

WBM

OBM Can you detect the difference?

Gas front position at BOP

17

Case study #1
StatoilHydro Tulipan (Tulip)
Exploration well in the Norwegian Sea Water depth: 1260 m 9 5/8 casing shoe at 3840 m Drilling 8 from 3965 to 4230 m Circulation rate 2000 2500 lpm RPM=60-180 Torque=4-13 kNm Water based mud 1.56 sg

18

Simulation procedure
Post analysis
Steady state tool originally used gave inaccurate results

Operational data entered into the simulator Performed as a blind test downhole data freed by company after simulation results were delivered

19

Flowrate and pump pressure

Good match between simulated and measured pump pressure over the interval (within 10 % of measured values)

20

Temperature while drilling ~ 250 m

Simulated bit depth temperature within 3-5 deg C. Main trends of simulations are following measurements.

21

ECD while drilling ~ 250 m

ECD at bit is within 0.01 sg (0.08 ppg)

22

Results case study #1


The simulator reproduces downhole ECD and temperature data over a long drilling interval Both ECD and temperature are within an acceptable range of the measured data The simulator gives information about well conditions when downhole data is unavailable

23

Conclusions
Advanced operations require detailed planning
Large thermal effects Good knowledge of ECD contributions

Include thermal pressure build-up effects in kick tolerance considerations Understand how the well responds to operational changes Dynamic modeling is valuable in tight margin wells

24

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank

StatoilHydro
for the permission to publish field data

Conclusions
Advanced operations require detailed planning
Large thermal effects Good knowledge of ECD contributions

Include thermal pressure build-up effects in kick tolerance considerations Understand how the well responds to operational changes Dynamic modeling is valuable in tight margin wells

26

be dynamic www.sptgroup.com

27