SPE 104030
Innovative MPD Techniques Improve Drilling Success in Mexico
A. Miller, G. Boyce, L. Moheno, J. Arellano, and J. Murillo, Halliburton Energy Services Inc., and M.Á.A. de la Serna,
A.U. Lopez, and Á.M. Corona, Pemex
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August–2 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Bermudez geological complex includes mature oil-
producing fields in the Tabasco State, Southern Mexico.
These fields typically produce from underpressured, fractured
Cretaceous reservoirs. Similarly, the mature Jujo-
Tecominoacán fields are producing from fractured Jurassic
carbonate reservoirs.
Drilling the pay zone in these fields with conventional
drilling fluids results in lost circulation and associated
problems such as differential sticking and poor hole cleaning.
Local field experience also has found that drilling with
conventional lost circulation materials (LCM) impairs
production and causes handling problems when received at
production facilities.
Managed-pressure-drilling (MPD) techniques using low-
density fluid systems had been capable of successfully
addressing the challenges in these fields since 1996. Recently,
however, new drilling challenges in highly depleted fractured
reservoirs have occurred. These required new advances in
MPD techniques, and these innovations have included:
a) High-temperature recyclable foamed drilling fluid
b) Hybrid foam/2-phase fluid systems for tapered tubular
geometries
c) Foam bullheading to re-establish circulation
d) Methods to address hole-cleaning challenges in geo-
mechanically unstable areas.
This paper will discuss the innovative solutions to the
challenges later experienced and the resulting extension of
managed-pressure-drilling solutions to meet the specific needs
of an integrated services drilling project. Examples will
demonstrate how these solutions are improving drilling
success for the service company that drilled the wells as well
as provided added value to the operator developing the fields.
Introduction
The Bermudez and the Jujo projects are two multiple-services
drilling projects being run concurrently. Twenty-seven wells
in the Bermudez geological complex and 6 wells in the Jujo-
Tecominoacán fields are targeted for completion. The projects
commenced in June 2004, and 7 heavy triple-drilling rigs (four
2000 HP and three 3000 HP) with top drives and managed
pressure drilling (MPD) equipment were used. The wells were
completed in May 2006.
The Bermudez complex (Fig. 1) is an on-land field in
Southern Mexico. This discovery was made in 1972, and the
adjacent Jujo-Tecominoacán field was discovered in 1978. In
terms of oil production, they make up a significant portion of
the Southern Land Region in Mexico. Although originally
pressured normally, these fields have experienced a dramatic
formation pressure decline as a result of three decades of
production.
The field map of the Bermudez geological complex is
shown in Fig. 2 and is made up of numerous fault blocks with
compartmentalized and isolated pressure zones. The
Bermudez South area contains the Samaria Field and part of
the Iride Field. Wells in this area generally have reservoir
pressures in the 4.8 to 7.0 ppg (STD dev 2.0) equivalent mud
weight range. The Cretaceous payzone formation is usually
competent and drills close to gauge holes.
The Bermudez North area is made up of the Cunduacan
Field and part of the Iride Field. In comparison, these wells are
generally highly fractured due to their close proximity to a salt
dome, and this area of the field is compartmentalized to a
greater degree. Reservoir pressures are lower and range from
2.9 ppg to 5.9 ppg (STD dev 0.8) equivalent mud weight.
These wells encounter a highly fractured and friable transition
zone, which causes hole instability problems in the producing
section.
The Jujo-Tecominacan fields are also located in South-
East Mexico. The trap is structural, and production comes
from fractured carbonates from the Lower Cretaceous,
Tithonian, and Kimmergian Jurassic. The pay zone is affected
by reverse faulting that has created compartmentalized blocks.
The depleted pore pressure in most of the Jurassic block
requires MPD with low-density fluids.
Equivalent Densities and MPD Strategy
The objective of MPD in this application was to create a 0.15
to 0.50 ppg overbalanced annular pressure, thereby
minimizing fluid losses and reservoir influxes. The MPD
system, therefore, would have to be designed to be flexible
over an ECD range of 2.0 to 8.34 ppg.
The depth where MPD is implemented depends greatly on
the degree of certainty with which the reservoir pressure is
known. For areas where the reservoir pressure was known,
2 SPE 104030
MPD was used in the entire reservoir section from the casing
shoe to total depth (TD). Wells with uncertainty in reservoir
pressure were drilled at an equivalent circulating density
(ECD) of 8.34 ppg until fractures were encountered, and
significant fluid losses were induced. Reservoir pressure and
required ECD were determined from a static fluid-level
measurement. The fluid system and parameters for MPD were
selected and applied from this point forward to TD.
Successful results had been achieved by the operator’s use
of MPD techniques on offset wells. However, the fact that
some of the current reservoir pressures were now much lower
compared to when the offset wells were drilled caused
considerable concern. This prompted a thorough review to be
conducted on the reservoir pressure trends along with the
MPD techniques used on offset wells.
Offset drilling data from these fields indicated a downward
trend in the ECDs used to drill the production zone. MPD
techniques with foam-surfactant-stabilized two-phase fluids
had been very effective for drilling these wells; however, as
the reservoir pressure had declined over time, 2-phase fluid
systems with a quality range of 10 to 50% (ECDs greater than
approximately 4 ppg) would no longer be effective in the more
depleted and highly fractured areas of the fields.
Early Well Program Modifications
The Bermudez wells are typically directional with a build in
the intermediate section and holding angle and a packed
assembly in the reservoir section. The build-and-hold well
profiles in the Bermudez North area were later modified to
‘S’-type wells to alleviate the hole stability problems in the
production section. In the Bermudez Complex, MPD with a
low-density drilling fluid was applied in the Cretaceous
formations at depths ranging from 9,656 ft to 15,125 ft TVD.
In the Jujo-Tecominoacán fields, MPD was applied in the
Jurassic at depths from 16,400 to 19,834 ft TVD. Casing
programs for a typical Bermudez well and a typical Jujo well
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The following sections detail
specific changes made to the systems to address the changes in
reservoir pressure.
Fluids Systems and ECD Control
The operator had specified the use of a water-based foamed
fluid system in the contract with the service company.
Although nitrified oil-based systems might reduce the
requirement for nitrogen in some higher-pressure wells, at
lower ECDs, a foam-fluid system is more efficient for both
nitrogen usage and hole cleaning when generating an
equivalent ECD. The use of oil-based fluids was unlikely to
improve hole stability when drilling the unstable transition
zone, as the cause of the instability was mechanical rather than
chemical.
Where an ECD of 4.5 ppg to 7.0 ppg was required, a foam-
surfactant-stabilized 2-phase fluid system was used. The
operator had previously spent considerable time developing
and optimizing the use of this type of fluid system, and the
results with it in its ECD range of applicability were very
good. This fluid system consisted of drilling fluid and
nitrogen and a small amount of batch-mixed foaming agent.
Nitrogen was used for the light gas phase rather than air due to
potential contact with hydrocarbon in a temporary
underbalanced kick situation. Likewise, the surface separation
equipment was well suited for managing kicks safely during
the return to a low overbalanced condition.
A recyclable high-quality foam system with continuous
foaming and defoaming chemical injection was used with
wells that required an ECD of less than 4.5 ppg. The foam
system contained all the components of the two-phase fluid
system but with the addition of a continuously injected
foaming agent and a defoaming agent. Fig. 5 shows the
rheology changes with foam quality.
The two systems were readily interchangeable because the
same polymers (at different concentrations) were used to mix
the base fluid, and the foaming and defoaming chemical
injection could be controlled easily.
Both MPD fluid systems were adjusted to an ECD control
point with careful selection of pump rates, nitrogen rates, fluid
properties, and chemical injection control. Monitoring of the
level of overbalance or underbalance was performed by
precise measurement of the net losses or gains of drilling fluid
and nitrogen. Real-time comparison of the injected rates vs.
the returned rates were used to make fine adjustments to the
ECD using annular wellhead pressure to provide the exact
level of overbalance required.
Upfront Engineering
The front-end engineering included detailed operational
procedures with the aim of standardizing operations at
different locations and reducing error due to language
differences. Equipment layouts were standardized to work
with the procedures in order to reduce rig-up time and prevent
mistakes when crews moved from location to location. A
HAZOP was performed on the equipment prior to the
installation details becoming finalized. A management of
change process was introduced to ensure that lessons learned
on one location were transferred to all other locations.
MPD Equipment and Rig Up
Minor modifications, which included the addition of a check
valve between the nitrogen injection point and the rig mud
pumps to protect the rig-pumps from nitrogen vapor lock,
were made to the rigs for MPD operations. Threaded
connections exposed to nitrogen were replaced with pressure
welded and tested connections on the rig stand pipe manifold.
Kelly hoses, which are not normally exposed to nitrogen, were
carefully inspected and reviewed prior to each MPD operation.
Fig. 6 illustrates the MPD process flow, and Fig. 7 shows
the MPD equipment rigged up at the wellsite.
Nitrogen was teed into the standpipe from a dedicated
injection and bleed-off control manifold. Fluids could be
pumped with both the rig pumps and/or a dedicated mist
pump. Cryogenic nitrogen equipment was used initially in the
project and was later replaced by new high-rate membrane
nitrogen packages. This membrane nitrogen equipment
secured nitrogen supply in times of peak demand and reduced
nitrogen costs.
A rotating control device was used to divert the annular
returns of nitrogen, fluid, and cuttings into a dedicated flow
line through a dual hydraulic choke manifold and into a 3-
phase closed loop separation system.
SPE 104030
Downhole equipment specific to the MPD section of the
well included wireline-retrievable non-return valves (NRVs)
in the drillstring and dual-flapper NRVs in the bottomhole
assembly. Additionally, a bottomhole annular pressure
recorder was used to verify the accuracy of calculations made
with flow-modeling software. Corrosion rings were installed
in the BHA and the top of the drillstring to monitor and
confirm effectiveness of the corrosion control program. Real-
time bottomhole annular pressure readings from MWD would
have been useful but were not an option. Mud-pulse telemetry
systems would not function with the high gas fractions present
in the drillstring, and electromagnetic MWD (EM-MWD)
telemetry equipment was not readily available for the project.
Monitoring and safety equipment for H2S and
hydrocarbons were installed at various locations at the wellsite
to allow for the appropriate measures to be taken if either was
detected at surface.
Drilling parameters specific to the MPD operation were
measured, recorded, and displayed at critical wellsite locations
by a dedicated data-acquisition system. (Fig. 8 shows the
screen capture of the DAS data display). Additionally, all
wellsite rig and MPD specific data were transmitted real-time
to an operations control center. This provided experts in the
control center with the capability to provide support to several
different wellsite MPD operations being run simultaneously.
Foam Fluid System
a) High-temperature recyclable foamed drilling fluid
In several locations throughout the world, “once-through”
foam systems are used to drill, and then, are discarded when
they are produced to surface. In this project, this would not
have been a viable option since national environmental
regulations prohibit the use of open reserve pits. Additionally,
fluid disposal costs are high and a “once-through” foam fluid
system would not be logistically or economically feasible.
The foam fluid system used in this project needed to be
contained in a closed system comprised of the separator,
closed storage tanks and rig mud tanks. Additionally, the
foam was required to be recycled through as many foaming
and defoaming cycles as possible.
There are two main types of recyclable foam systems: pH
controlled and chemically controlled (surfactant/alcohol). The
industry trend is moving towards the chemically controlled
surfactant/alcohol system, and this was the type the project
used.
The recyclable foam is generated by adding foaming agent
to a polymer base fluid with nitrogen and shearing it to
generate foam. The foam mixture is then circulated down hole
as drilling fluid. Upon the foam’s return to surface carrying
drill cuttings, a defoaming chemical is injected in order to
break the foam. This “defoamed” mixture passes into a
pressurized separator where the nitrogen, fluid, and cuttings
are separated. The fluid and cuttings streams are transferred to
the rigs solids control system to remove the drill solids, and
then, the recycled fluid is ready to be foamed again. The
nitrogen is vented to a flare pit.
The polymer liquid or base fluid, the foaming agent, and
the defoaming agent were all carefully selected to ensure they
would be compatible. MPD was applied from depths of 9,656
to 19,834 ft TVD. These depths and temperatures were
3
pushing the known limits of foam-drilling fluid technology.
Foam-system products that were believed to retain the
required properties at the depths and temperatures that would
be found in the field (bottomhole circulating temperature up to
275°F) were selected. Deeper depths also increased the round-
trip time that the foam fluid system needs to retain its stability
and hole-cleaning properties.
Preliminary testing at a fluids lab with the foam system
products was performed at atmospheric pressure and
temperatures up to 190°F. These tests were performed to
initiate the product selection process, and later, were followed
up with testing at downhole conditions in a more elaborate test
apparatus. Various combinations and concentrations of
polymers, foaming agents, and defoaming agents were tested
to advance the selection. The following test criteria were
tested:
Half-life (time that foam maintains its volume at surface
conditions) was an important test and design parameter both
for the preliminary lab testing and in final wellsite
optimization. In drilling conditions the foam is required to
maintain its characteristic structure and properties for the
round trip time to circulate and not be excessively stable so
that it could still be chemically broken.
Yield (an experimental measure of the total volume of foam)
that is generated from a fixed volume of liquid and surfactant.
This is a numerical indication of the efficiency of the polymer
and surfactant combination.
Base Fluid Rheology is an important characteristic that has a
significant effect on the foam rheology that is generated and
on the halflife/stability that the foam will have. Rheology of
the base fluid generated with the various viscosifying
polymers was carefully controlled and recorded.
Foaming and defoaming cycling was simulated to confirm
which combination of products and concentrations would
maximize the number of foaming/defoaming cycles of the
polymer base fluid.
Once preliminary testing identified the most promising
candidates for a recyclable foam system at surface conditions,
the system was further tested at a research facility at simulated
downhole temperatures, pressures, pump rates and
contaminants in a high pressure, high-temperature
recirculating foam-flow loop apparatus.
Foam rheology is greatly increased compared to the
rheology of the components that make it up. Models that
consider the properties of the base fluid, the downhole foam
quality or gas fraction, and calculate a foam rheology at
downhole conditions have been developed.
The accuracy of this foam rheology calculation at down
hole conditions was a critical factor to validate. This was
imperative for ensuring
• Good hole cleaning characteristics
• Precise bottom hole pressure control.
Figs. 5 and 9 illustrate foam rheology calculations.
Once laboratory testing was completed, the foam system
was commissioned and optimized in the first four wells. The
4 SPE 104030
foam performed well, and only minor changes were made to
the chemical concentrations in the field.
The original foam system design was for an ECD range of
2.0 ppg to 5.5 ppg. The foam was actually used on wells with
an ECD range of 2.9 ppg to 5.0 ppg. This system was used
from the shallowest payzone casing shoe depth of 9225 ft
TVD and up to the deepest well in the project up to 19,334 ft
TVD. In the laboratory, the maximum stable circulating
temperature was tested to 285°F, which exceeded the highest
bottomhole circulating temperature to be encountered in the
field (275°F).
b) Hybrid foam/2-phase fluid systems with tapered tubular
geometries
Some of the deeper wells in the project required ECDs that
were normally in the range of 2-phase fluid systems, but they
used a casing program and drillstring configuration that
benefited from the use of foam. On the wells where a liner
was used along with a tapered drillstring (Refer to Figure 4),
an area of low annular velocity is created between the 3.5-in.
drillpipe and the 9-5/8-in. casing. For good hole cleaning, a 2-
phase system relies on fluid velocity greater than the velocity
required by foam (approximately 2:1).
On two of the wells in the project, Jujo 543 and Jujo 506,
an unusual situation had to be resolved. Both wells are over
19,000 ft TVD and drilled through the payzone section with a
5 7/8-in. hole with 9 5/8-in. casing and a 7-in. liner (Fig 4).
Options that were considered to drill these wells with
ECDs of 4 ppg and 5 ppg respectively were foam and 2-phase
fluid systems. Both systems had advantages and
disadvantages in this application.
The 2-phase fluid system required higher rates of nitrogen
and fluid in order to sufficiently clean the 3-1/2-in. x 9-5/8-in.
annulus. At this point in the project, cryogenic nitrogen was
still being used, and cryogenic nitrogen cost and supply was a
negative factor for this option. The velocities required to
clean the 3.5-in. x 9-5/8-in. cased-hole annulus could be a
concern for washing out the openhole section with a more
constricted annulus.
A foam system was also considered for drilling these
sections but would have required continuous back pressure on
the annulus while drilling. This system was considered but in
order to reduce the rate of wear on the rotating control device
(RCD) sealing elements, a hybrid system was used that had
the benefits of a lower continuous operating wellhead pressure
of 2-phase along with the better hole cleaning characteristics
of foam.
At deeper depths, the hybrid fluid system uses a 2-phase
system at deeper depths, which converts to a foam system
before the low velocity section is reached. The foam surfactant
chemical is present at all depths, but the quality of the foam is
in the correct range to form high-foam rheology in the range
of 0.50 to 0.85 only. As the pressure decreases when the foam
is traveling up the annulus, the nitrogen gas expands, and the
foam quality increases. At a depth 600 ft below the top of the
liner hanger, the foam has reached the quality of 0.50, and the
foam structure and rheology has developed. The hybrid
system relies on 2-phase flow and higher velocities to clean
the open hole and the higher foam rheology to clean the larger
annulus in cased hole. Overall, this system provided good
hole cleaning without causing washouts in the open hole,
minimized RCD element consumables, and minimized
cryogenic nitrogen.
c) Foam bullheading to initialize circulation
Wells in the project that were drilled at the lowest range of
ECD had problems initializing circulation after a trip or a rig
service. Numerous techniques were used in order to establish
circulation including staging in (establishing circulation from
above the casing point and circulation down), slugs of
nitrogen, jet subs and the novel technique of foam
bullheading. After some field optimization, the foam
bullheading technique was found to be the most effective
technique.
The problem occurs when establishing circulation from a
condition where the annulus has reached a static fluid level
with open fractures that are highly permeable. When
circulation is initiated the light foam fluid in the drillstring is
displacing the higher density fluid in the annulus creating an
overbalanced condition. Fluid is lost to the fractures as soon
as the overbalance condition is created. Depending on the
drillstring position, the lighter fluid being pumped down the
drillstring can be completely lost to the open fractures. With
sufficient time some of the lighter foam may eventually
displace the liquid in the annulus and circulation may be
resumed. In some of the wells normal injection of foam via
the drill string in excess of 6 hours failed to resume
circulation.
Methods to Re-establish Circulation
Jet subs did not have a significant effect and lost flow rate and
hole cleaning below the jet sub.
Pumping batches of nitrogen can be effective, but there
were risks inducing hydrocarbons to surface, since some areas
of the field contains H2S. Tripping back above the casing shoe
every time a slow drill string connection was made was not a
viable option either.
Staging in the well was found to be time consuming and
not always effective, since staging in generally worked more
effectively in wells with ECDs greater than 4.0 ppg.
The foam bullhead technique was developed in order to
regain circulation where other methods had failed. In this
method, the dedicated choke to the separator is closed, foam is
pumped down the drillstring and the annulus simultaneously
through the kill line. This pressurizes the drillstring with a
light fluid and also pushes the fluid level down in the annulus.
Once the fluid level in the annulus is pushed down to the
formation fractures, the flow in the annulus is reversed: foam
injection to the annulus via the kill line is stopped, and the
choke to the separator is opened while injection to the
standpipe continues. Normal circulation is established, the
pressures are allowed to stabilize, and drilling operations are
resumed.
Status as to what is occurring downhole is determined by a
wellsite engineer using a combination of real-time surface data
acquisition and flow model calculations. The sequence of
events for a foam bullhead is outlined below, and a pressure
schedule is illustrated in Fig. 10.
Time 1: Commence pumping foam down the drillstring
and annulus. Pressure rises with both standpipe pressure and
SPE 104030
wellhead pressure tracking each other closely. The surface
injection pressures are rising to compensate the hydrostatic
pressure, which is decreasing as the liquid is being displaced
by a lighter foam mixture.
Time 2: Injection pressure is stabilized indicating the
annular condition is not changing. The fluid level has been
completely displaced back to the formation fracture with
foam. At this point, the annular flow is reversed.
Time 3: Injection and wellhead pressure have stabilized,
and drilling resumes.
After demonstrating that this technique was a reliable
method to remedy a lost-circulation situation, it was optimized
in order to reduce the time and fluid lost during the procedure.
Advances were made by reduction in the percentage of final
stable injection pressure where the annular flow is reversed,
and the technique was still effective. This would depend on
how low the reservoir pressure was and the fracture
permeability.
The foam bullhead has become the standard method for
establishing and regaining circulation where ECDs are less
than 4.0 ppg.
d) Hole cleaning challenges in geo-mechanically unstable
formations.
It was found that certain areas of the field were prone to hole
instability due to the extensive fracturing that occurred when
close to a salt dome. Cuttings analysis revealed that the
instability was not due to any water sensitivity of the
formations and that the friable formation instability was
mechanical in nature.
Hole cleaning calculations based on near gauge-hole
assumptions had to be revised. Two wells were drilled
simultaneously in close proximity, Iride 1156 and 1163 at
ECDs of approximately 6.0 ppg. Upon first examination, the
more suitable fluid system appeared to be 2-phase. However,
due to unstable hole conditions, washouts with this system
drilled with an 8.5-in. bit were up to 20-in. (See Fig. 11 log.
After experiencing stuck pipe incidents, the fluid system was
changed to foam with additional back pressure, providing a
similar ECD. The higher rheology of foam at a lower annular
velocity and lower turbulence was believed to be capable of
cleaning the hole efficiently with fewer wash outs.
The fluid system was switched on Iride-1156, and the fluid
rheology was raised to the highest level at which the foam was
still manageable and could be broken and recycled on surface.
Additionally, prior to each drill pipe connection, a surfactant
sweep which provided additional hole cleaning was pumped.
Drilling of these wells was cautiously completed, and this
revision in technique became the norm for subsequent wells
with hole instability problems drilled in this area of the field.
Challenges
Contamination issues. It is critical to maintain a precise level
of overbalance when drilling an oil-bearing formation with a
water-based fluid system. Underbalanced situations result in
oil inflow and contamination of the fluid system, while too
much overbalance results in excessive fluid loss. Even though
the oil could be separated from the water-based fluid and was
designed to maximize the tolerance for oil influx, the level of
contamination was planned to be minimized. Fluid loss
5
guidelines were based on a minimal range of fluid loss (5
bbls/hr) to avoid oil contamination of the fluid system.
Specific procedures during tripping and startup minimized
and segregated any produced hydrocarbons. During events
such as initializing circulation, eliminating influx of oil was
not always possible. Therefore, the first returns of fluid were
diverted to a separate storage tank until oil-free returns were
received at surface. The returns then were diverted to the rig’s
fluid system from the closed tanks. Any mixtures of oil and
water-based fluid in the closed tanks were separated, and the
recovered water-based fluid was returned to the active fluid
system.
Careful management of the foam base fluid was required
to maintain the correct rheology and ensure the system
compatibility. On one well the base fluid was mixed with an
incorrect polymer, this resulted in problems breaking the foam
at surface and a foam system that could no longer be recycled.
Training
A training program was developed specifically for the project.
Initially, drilling supervisors and project personnel received
MPD-specific classroom training that covered equipment,
benefits and limitations, operational and emergency
procedures, hazards, and well control.
Prior to each MPD well section, training was given to the
wellsite crews. This included a general overview of MPD and
equipment, roles and responsibilities, operational and
emergency procedures, communication, and procedures to
ensure safety to personnel and the environment.
Hole sections with multiple pressures.
On two wells, it was found that zones with different reservoir
pressures were encountered in the same producing section. On
the Cunduacan-39 and Iride-2126st wells, it was not possible
to maintain a fluid loss of 5 bbls/hr and avoid hydrocarbon
production to surface. A compromise was made to allow fluid
losses up to 30 bbls/hr. This maintained an overbalanced
condition to separate produced oil of 5 bbls /hr from the rig
tank system using a separate closed-tank system.
Conclusions
Innovative MPD techniques were built upon previous work
done by the operator in the Bermudez Complex and Jujo-Teco
fields. These new techniques were capable of overcoming the
significant drilling problems associated with reservoir pressure
declines and the significant changes are summarized below:
a) The high-temperature recyclable foam system developed
in the test labs was successfully applied in the field at ECDs as
low as 2.9 ppg and at depths up to 19,334 ft TVD. This system
combined with the 2-phase system provided a seamless fluid
system combination that can be used from 2.0 ppg up to 8.34
ppg.
b) The hybrid foam / 2-phase system was developed from
the high-temperature recyclable foam system and succeeded in
providing good hole cleaning without causing washouts in the
openhole sections of deep wells with complex geometry. The
hybrid system minimized RCD element consumables and
cryogenic nitrogen usage in a fixed cost environment.
c) Foam bullheading has been used to establish circulation
on low-pressure wells where they may have previously been
6 SPE 104030

drilled blind. The foam-bullheading technique has become a Nomenclature

standard procedure in wells with an ECD of 4.0 ppg or less
and was improved even further during the Mexico project.
d) The extreme hole cleaning challenges experienced in
unstable formations were resolved by the successful
application of MPD techniques with an optimized foam-fluid
system.
e) The addition of membrane nitrogen equipment to the
project has allowed performance of reliable MPD operations
that are no longer dependent upon cryogenic nitrogen supplies.
f) The selection of rigs with top drives has reduced the
overall time lost to making connections and re-establishing
circulation.
g) A foam-drilling fluid spacer circulated ahead of a
foamed cement job allowed circulation to occur during foamed
cement placement.
h) Clean up times for wells drilled with MPD have been
reduced to an average of 3 days from the traditional 20 days.
Drilling time in the MPD section has been reduced by
approximately 50% compared to other recently drilled wells in
these fields.
Future
Currently PEMEX is revisiting use of oil-based fluids and
crude oil in these wells. The fields have an infrastructure for
crude oil, which would simplify fluid logistics and problems
with any fluid incompatibilities. Moving to oil-based fluids
would allow balanced drilling and bring losses to a zero point.
Drilling the reservoir section underbalanced with an oil-based
system could achieve potentially both the drilling performance
gains of MPD along with improved reservoir productivity and
characterization benefits.
MPD = Managed Pressure Drilling
NRV = None Return Valve
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density, lbm/gal
TVD = True vertical depth, m or ft
X = Foam Quality = Vol Gas (at downhole T&P)
Vol Liquid + Vol Gas (at T&P)
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of Pemex and
Halliburton Energy Services for support and permission to
prepare and present this paper.
References
1. Harris, P.C., “Drilling Foam Feasibility Study”, Halliburton
Duncan Technology Project Report HTPPAC1631-000-04,
2004.
2. Curtis, F., Lunan, B,. Gónzalez, J. L., & Andrade, J. L.,
“Underbalanced Drilling in High Permeability, Low Pressure
Oil Reservoirs Using Coil Tubing or Jointed Pipe Techniques”.
3. Rios Jimenez, J.A., Ayala, L.G., Rayón Casiano, R., “Successful
Drilling in Highly Depleted Reservoirs”, paper SPE 74399,
presented 2002.
4. Pérez Téllez, C., Smith J.R., Edwards J.K.: “Improved Bottomhole
Pressure Control for Underbalanced Drilling Operations”, paper
SPE 87225 presented 2004.
5. Williams, M., Lewis, D.W., Bernard, C.J., “A Safe Approach to
Underbalanced Drilling Begins with Project Management”, SPE
85294, presented 2003.
6. Maclovio Yaňez, M., Valenzuela Cazares, J.M., “Tecominuacan
408: First Underbalanced Drilling Application in Mexico”,
paper SPE 35320, presented 1996.

South Mexico
State of Tabasco
Q2 2004 – Q2 2006
Bermudez 27 wells
5 rigs
Jujo 6 wells
2 rigs

Fig. 1 ― Location Map

SPE 104030 7

COSACO

GOLFO DE MEXICO TIZON FRONTERA

LUNA

MANEA PALAPA
PTO. CEIBA PIJIJE
DOS BOCAS
ARRASTRADERO
MAYACASTE PARAISO MELOCOTON

CASTARRICAL ESCARBADO
MECOACAN CARDO CAPARROSO
TUPILCO RICINO
EL GOLPE PARAISO
SANTUARIO MENTA SEN
ESCUINTLE
CARACOLILLO COMALCALCO
MUSGO

CHINCHORRO AYAPA JALPA

PALANGRE TINTAL

Bermudez NACAJUCA

CHIPILIN CUNDUACAN
BELLOTA OXIACAQUE
MORA
CUNDUACAN

EDEN
CARDENAS SAMARIA
JOLOTE IRIDE

Jujo-Teco
JUJO
CARDENAS

VILLAHERMOSA
TECOMINOACAN
JUJO
PAREDON
JACINTO
CACTUS NISPERO

DISTRITO COMALCALCO DISTRITO REFORMA

Fig. 2 ― Field Map

Estado Mecánico Densidad del Fluido

[gr/cc] Plan Real Plan Real
MD m 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Plan Real 30” @ 50 m
0
0
1.10 1.12

N-80 72 # BCN
30” @ 50 m 30” @ 50 m

K-55 94 # BCN
Polimérico Inhibido

1.14
Programa Paraje Solo 1.14
1.15
K-55, 94 #/ft, BCN

Real
K-55, 94 #/ft, BCN

WBM: Polimérico

9 5/8” TRC-95 53.5 # HDSLX

500 1.16
TC 700 1.16
Inhibido 1.20
500 1.17 1.22
TRC-95 53.5 #/ft VSLIJII

1.06 – 1.18 g/cc 1.22

1.03 – 1.25 g/cc 1.24
799m
500 890 m 890 m
TR 20”
1.24
1.26
TRC-95 53.5 #/ft VFJL

Filisola 20” @ 900 m 1.26 1.28

1000 839 m
1130 m 1100 m
1000
TR 20” PS 1210 mCS 1205 m 1.35
750 m TR 20”
748 m 1.35
Encanto 1.37
N-80, 68 #/ft, BCN

1530 m 1530 m
N-80, 68 #/ft, BCN

1500
1000 1.38

1822 m
1500
1.37
OBM: Invermul 1.39
1304 m 1291 m
1.32 – 1.42 g/cc

P-110 72 # BCN
9 5/8” TAC-110 53.5 # HDSLX
1344 m 1.32 – 1.42 g/cc 2000
2000
Fil 1.38
1500 1.40
1666 m 1627 m
P-110 53.5 #/VFJL

Deposito
P-110 53.5 #/ft VFJL

2500
CS 2500 1.42
TC 2700 1.41
Emulsión Inversa

1876 m 1884 m

1.46
2000 CI
TR 13 3/8” 3000 13.3/8” @ 2900 m TR 13 3/8”
1.42
TR 13 3/8” 2904 m 3000 1.80 1.80
1976 m 2040 m 2210 m 1972 m 3054 m
3260 m 3260 m BL 7’r 3200 m BS 7”
3205 m 1.83
Enc 2333 m Plan
3500 Oligoceno 3500 Real 1.85
2500 2608 m 2580 m 1.87
1.85
7” TAC-140 35# HDSLX

1.88
9 7/8” TAC-140 62.8 # HDSLX

OBM: Invermul
TAC-110 53.5 #/ft VFJL

3890 m
TAC-110 53.5 #/ft VFJL

3860 m
1.55 – 1.63 g/cc
1.55 – 1.63 g/cc 4000 4000
Eoceno
Eoc
3000 1.87
1.90
4500 4523 m 4355 m 4500
Paleoceno
4725 m 4725 m 9.5/8” @ BL 7”
3301 m 3413 m BL 7” 4952 mV,
BL 7” KSM 4972 m 1.90
7” TAC-140 35# HDSLX

3440 m 3453 m 4967 m 4988 mD

TR 9 5/8” 4987 m
3500 3640 m
Pal
3558 m 3559 m
5000
5125 m KSSF
5170 m TR
9 7/8” 9 5/8”
5000 1.95

5175 m KSAN5272 m 5016 m

KS 5238 m KI 5335 m 1.04
Polimérico Inhibido
P-110, 35 #/ft HDSLX

TR 9 5/8”
P-110, 35 #/ft VFJL

3640 m 3770 m 3808 m 1.03

3791 m KM 3862 m JST 5500
5500 BL 5’ 5551 m
WBM: Baja Densidad / 0.56
7” 5630 mv,
4000 KI Nitrógeno
1 – 1.02 / 0.4 g/cc
5701 m 5672 m
5701 mD TxC TR 7” 0.86
5688 m
4151 m 4164 m JSK EZ Drill
5700 m
1 – 1.03 / 0.8 – 0.35 g/cc 0.55 0.87
5” @ 5900 mv 5701.5 m
Base Espuma PT 6045 m 6000 0.86
JST 6000 5985 mD
TR 7” @ 4154 m TR 7” @ 4163 m

4500

Fig. 4 ― Typical Jujo-Teco Well Configuration

Fig. 3 ― Typical Bermudez Well Configuration
8 SPE 104030

Viscosity (cP@1000/s)
Rheology Changes with Foam Quality
180
160 1.5g/L Polymer Model
140 1.5mL/L Foam Agent
120 pH 9.6
100 75°F, 1000psi N2
80
60 Actual Data
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% N2 Quality

2-phase bubble flow foam mist

Fig. 5 ― Rheology Changes with Foam Quality

RFD
MPD Process Flow
RCH Flare

3 Phase
Vertical
MPD
Choke Separator

Defoamer
Injection

Closed Tanks
Diverter
Storage/Treatment
Manifold
Disposal/Reclaim

N2

Foamer
Injection

Rig Solids Control

Injection Triplex Precharge and Mud Pits
Pump
Manifold

Fig. 6 ― MPD Process Flow

SPE 104030 9

Fig. 7 ― MPD Equipment rigged up at location

Fig. 8 ― Screen Capture of DAS Data display

10 SPE 104030

Temperature Limits of Foam Stability

45

40
Viscosity (cP@170/s)
35

30

25 Actual Data Maximum Stable

Temperature this test~275 °F
20

15
Modeled Data
10

5
60% Quality, 1500psi, 1.5g/L Polymer, 1.5mL/L Foaming Agent, pH 9.6
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature °F)
(

Fig. 9 ― Foam Rheology vs. Temperature

Surface Pressures and Injection Rates

120 1200

N2 Injection Rate (m3/min)

Rig Pump Rate (gpm)
Injection Rates N2 (m3/min) / Pumps (gpm)

100 Annular Wellhead Pressure (psi) 1000

Standpipe Pressure (psi)

80 800
Pressure (psig)

60 600

40 400

20 200

0 0

1 2 3
Time

Fig. 10 ― Foam Bullhead Pressure Schedule

SPE 104030 11

Fig. 11 ― Calliper Log from Iride 1156