ADT

Slim Hole Drilling Technology

Rahman Ashena

29.06.2017
 Agenda
1. Definition
2. History
3. Examples
4. Drilling Parameters
5. Advantages
6. Disadvantages
7. Challenges
8. Misunderstandings in Petroleum Industry
9. Justification
10. Coring in Slim Hole Wells
11. Practical Example

29.06.2017 Page 2
 1. Definition:
 A slim hole is defined as a well in which 90% of the hole
length has a diameters less than 8, 7, 6 ½ or 6-in.
 Hole Down-Sizing

Note: In petroleum industry, the equipment used in slim hole is

the same as conventional one.
Question: What do you think about the drilling option that
you think slim hole drilling could work?
a) Development wells b) Exploratory wells

29.06.2017 Page 3
 2. Slim Hole History
in Petroleum Industry
 End of 1950s, feasibility of slim hole drilling as a
novel approach
 Amoco production Company, US
 Elf Aquitaine, France
 Conoco Ltd, England
 Extensive research and practice in 1980s and
1990s.
 Slim hole drilling was neglected since then.

29.06.2017 Page 4
 3. An Example of Slim Hole Rig

29.06.2017 Page 5
 3. An Example of
Slim Hole Well Schematic
 Exploratory well in Paraguay

 Drilling starts with

12 1/4-in hole size
 Final hole size: 3 ½-in

29.06.2017 Page 6
 Another Example of Slim Hole

 Drilling starts with 8 ½-in

29.06.2017 Page 7
7
 4. Drilling Parameters
in Slim Hole
Q) Which RPM makes more sense in slim holes?!
Why?!
a) 300
b) 150
c) 1000

29.06.2017 Page 8
 5. Advantages
 Reduced well costs
 Smaller rig
 Higher ROP
 Smaller wellhead
 Fewer and smaller casings
 Less mud products
 Smaller location preparation
 Less logistics required
 Less man power
 Less waste disposal
 HSE
 Fewer crew cause less exposure
 Smaller location and camp
 40-70% reduction in cuttings and waste mud
29.06.2017 Page 9
 Smaller Rigs
 Proposed in environmentally sensitive areas
(jungles, mountains, national parks)
 Smaller hook load
 Smaller mast and substructure
 Smaller power supply
 Smaller drawworks
 Smaller mud tanks
 Smaller reserve pits
 Smaller pipe racks
 Smaller wellheads
29.06.2017 Page 10
 Smaller Rigs-Cont.

 Type of Operations:
 Land

 Swamp

 Arctic

 Offshore

29.06.2017 Page 11
 Smaller Rigs-Cont.
 Logistic trucks:
A 10-ton truck instead of 30-tonne
 Even 4-wheel vehicles

 Less truck traffic during rig move

 Fewer and smaller roads to be constructed

 Even helicopter portable

29.06.2017 Page 12
 A Typical Slim Hole Rig

29.06.2017 Page 13
 Smaller Swamp Rigs/
Arctic and Offshore
 Smaller barges in swamp/inland and less limitation
of water flow areas
 Smaller hook load
 Ecosystems of Arctics & Antarctics has made slim
hole drilling mandatory
 For offshore drilling, slim hole helps less cuttings to
be transporeted to shore, reduce logistics problems
(delays due to weather conditions)

29.06.2017 Page 14
 6. Disadvantages
 Limit completion options
 Limit production rate
 Limit potential for future sidetrack options

29.06.2017 Page 15
 7. Slim Hole Challenges
 Management
 Companies (Negative)
 Rigs (Negative)
 Environment (Positive)

 Technical Challenges:
 Well Control  Tubular life
 Hydraulics  Coring
 Cementing  HighECD
 Directional drilling  Mud Formulations
 Petrophysical Logging

29.06.2017 Page 16
 Management Pre-Requisites

 Successful completion of a slim-hole well is the

result of cooperation by many companies:
 Drilling operators
 Drilling contractors

 Supliers / Service companies

 Management has to consider the above.

29.06.2017 Page 17
 Management
 Challenges that management face:
 Material companies working with consumables (i.e.
casing, cement, tubing, trucking, waste disposal, mud,
etc.) must expect less turnover. Hence, less revenue.
 Rental companies (bits, wellheads, BOP, completion
equipment, etc.) must expect weight and cost of their
equipment to decrease with area of well or hole
diameter squared (D^2). Hence, less revenue.
 Completion type (Mono-bore): less revenue for
contractors.
 Rigs

29.06.2017 Page 18
 Management
One Example:
 Slim hole completion type!
 In Mono-bore completion, a large
diamater tubing is used. It is typically
connected to the top of the liner (at
polished bore receptacle: PBR above the liner).
 Why?
 Easy for remedial/workover work
 Higher production rate (sometimes)

 Suppliers do not like this. Less money

for them.

29.06.2017 Page 19
 Management
 Rigs for slim hole drilling!
 Use oversized rigs
 Invest additional capital to
convert workover rigs or
upgrade mining rigs

29.06.2017 Page 20
 Environmental Impact
 Downsizing the wells (slim hole drilling) helps:
 Less volume of cuttings
 Less waste muds and cements as
1 1
materials ∝ 𝑜𝑟
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐷2
 As slim hole is less costly, drilling ‘Slim Disposal Wells‘
becomes more common to inject liquids, cuttings, etc.

29.06.2017 Page 21
 Well Control
 What to do?!
 A sensitive Kick Detection System
(KIDS) is used (for detection of small
volume kicks).
 Use Dynamic Well Control

29.06.2017 Page 22
 Well Control
Q) If a kick occurs in a slim hole/well rather than a
conventional well, controling the well is easier or
harder than a conventional well?! Why?
a) Easier
b) Harder
c) Depends

29.06.2017 Page 23
 Well Control
Ans) It is easier as the the annular volume is smaller.
 Less heavy weight mud required

 Use a snubbing unit

 Less time required to kill the well

29.06.2017 Page 24
 Well Control
 Snubbing Operation:
 The act of putting drill pipe into the wellbore when
the blowout preventers (BOPs) are closed and
pressure is contained in the well (surface
intervention). Snubbing is necessary when a kick is
taken. Why?
 Because well kill operations should always be
conducted with the drill string on bottom, and not
somewhere up the wellbore.

29.06.2017 Page 25
 Well Control
Q) If a kick in a slim hole is
converted to a blowout,
controlling the catastrophe by
relief well drilling compared to a
conventional well is?
 a) Easier
 b) Harder
 c) Depends

29.06.2017 Page 26
 Well Control
Ans) Though the blowout would cause less pollution,
controlling the catastroph by relief well is harder
because:
 It
required full directional capability.
 Maximum possible injection rate is less than the case
with conventional well.

29.06.2017 Page 27
 HSE and More Safety
 Less exposure:
 Less drilling crew required

 Less weight:
 Heaviest lift during rig move (about 10 tons
rather than 30 tons)
 Heaviest tubulars (about 1 ton of 9 5/8-in
casing instead of 4 ton 20-in casing)

29.06.2017 Page 28
 Formation Evaluation
 All conventional formation evaulation methods are
available:
 Mud-logging

 Wireline logs and LWD

 Conventional, wireline continuous coring

29.06.2017 Page 29
 Wireline Logging and LWD
 Logging tools dimensions suitable are available:
 HPHT 2 ¾-in caliper.
 2 ¼-in pressure and temperature measurements.

 Still most of logging tools are in applicable for min 5

7/8-in hole size.
 Logging horizontal holes of maxo 3 7/8-in:
 By running the logging tools on DP or Coil Tubing (CT)

29.06.2017 Page 30
 Wireline Logging and LWD

29.06.2017 Page 31
31
 8. General Misunderstandings
About Current Slim Hole Drilling Systems
 Low Casing strength for drilling or coring!!!
 Improper Cuttings in Low Annular Clearance!!!

 Low ROP!!!

 Possibility of Buckling!!!

 Proper only for Shallow Drilling!!!

 Cannot Drill Hard Formations!!!

 Handling Issues (No Tool Joints)!

29.06.2017 Page 32
 9. Mechanical Justifications
 The Reality of Using Slim Hole in Petroleum
Industry (as is already in Mining Industry):
 Drill
Rods
 Enough Annular Clearance!

 High ROP is Achieved!!!

 Low Possibility of Buckling!!!

 Successful for Hard Rock Drilling!!!

 Deep Drilling!!!

 Handling Issues (No Tool Joints)!

29.06.2017 Page 33
 Drill Rods and Drill Pipes
 Drill Rods are Different from Casings.
 Compare Drill Rod and API DP.

Typical API DP
OD ID TJ OD
in in in
5½ 4.7 7
5 4.2 6.5
4½ 3.8 6
29.06.2017 Page 34 4 3.4 5.5
 Core Size with Drill Rods
Mining Hole-
Hole D Core D Rod OD Thickness
System Rod
In mm in mm
N2 2.98 2 2.54 2.75 4.8
H (N CSG) 3.78 2½ 2.54 3.5 5.6
P (H CSG) 4.83 3.35 5 4.5 6.4
S (P CSG) 5¾ 4.02 3.04 5½ 6.35

Petroleum Hole- Rod

Hole D Core D Thickness
System Rod OD
In mm in mm
5 ¼*3 ½ 2.54 5¼ 4.8
5 7/8-7 7/8 3 1/2
,Specialty DP
6 ½*3/3 ½ with 2.54 6½ 5.6
7 7/8-8 3/4 3 or 3 1/2
Specialty DP
6 ¼*2 7 7/8-8 3/4 2 5 6½ 6.4

29.06.2017 Page 35
 Hard Rock, High ROP Drilling
by Mining Rods

29.06.2017 Page 36
 Depth Issue
Question:
 Max Depth: about 3500 m
 Use Stronger Rigs

 Pipes are Fine

P-110- Bauer
 If a Rig with Pull Back Capacity

(Max Hook L.)=110 Tonnes

→Drill to ???m
- 4.83-in hole size
- 3.35-in Core Size
- 4.5-in Drill Rod (System P)

29.06.2017 Page 37
 10. Coring in Slim Hole Wells
Conventional Coring
 Conventional coring means obtaining the core
inside the inner tube and conventionally retrieving
the drill string including the whole core barrel
assembly to the surface.
 One anti-vibration (particularly good for fractured
formations) core barrel system:
 Min. Hole size: 4 1/8-in,
 Coring system D: 3 ¾-in,

 Core D: 2-in

29.06.2017 Page 38
 Conventional and
Wireline Contrinuous Coring

29.06.2017 Page 39 Conventional Wireline Continuous

 Wireline Continuous Coring
 A method of alternatively coring and drilling.
 Fitting very well to slim hole drilling.
 Wireline to retrieve the full inner core barrel.
 Wireline to Insert the empty inner core barrel for
further coring.
 Wireline to insert the bit insert/plug in order to
switch to drilling.
 Wireline to retrieve the bit insert in order to switch
to coring.

29.06.2017 Page 40
 Continuous Coring
 Advantages:
 Coring time is highly reduced.

- For deep coring

- For cutting long core sections
- For exploration wells or core points are not known.
- When several separate (multiple) zones of interest
for coring exist.
- For coring in sticky, jam-prone formations because it
would be possible to trip and recover jammed barrel and
try again.
- Jamming formations due to e.g. swelling shale

29.06.2017 Page 41
 Schematics of Conventional and
Continuous Coring (Together)

Core Barrel in Conventional Coring

Core Barrel in Continuous Wireline Coring

29.06.2017 Page 42
 11.Practical Example

 It is intended to drill a 5 ¾-in slim-hole well to the

total depth of 12000 ft using a) conventional drill
string and b) slim hole drill string assembly. Assume
that the Leak-off Test surface pressure is equal to
5500 psi.
1) Evaluate the maximum allowable mud weight (ppg)
2) Evaluate the minimum/maximum flow rate to
establish the the minimum annular velocity equal to
2 ft/s for case a, and equal to 1 ft/s for case b.

29.06.2017 Page 43
 Practical Example-Cont.
3) Evaluate the maximum kicking formation
pressure and pumping flow rate that can be
controlled by the dynamic well control (in case of
kick).
Hint: Plot BHP versus flow rate.
4) While drilling into an abnormal formation with
11540 psi, kick occurs and the kick is detected
after 5 barrels of mud are expelled out of hole. If
the well is shut-in, evaluate shut-in drill pipe and
casing pressure (SIDPP and SICP) in both cases.

29.06.2017 Page 44
 Practical Example-Cont.
 The mud weight is equal to 10 ppg. The mud
rheology properties are also given. Rotary3Speed 𝜽
4
 Consider kick influx pressure 6
100
8
14
200 20
gradient=0.1 psi/ft. 300 24
600 40

 Assumption1: Assume a mono-size drill string.

 Assumption2: Consider bingham plastic as the

rheological model.
Note: Identify the maximum-size drill string size that
is possible for each case.
29.06.2017 Page 45
 Relations
(𝐷2 𝐻 − 𝑂𝐷2 𝐷𝑃 )
 Annular Capacility (bbl/ft) 𝐶𝑎𝑝.𝑎𝑛𝑛 =
1029

𝑄
𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑛 =
 Annular Velocity (ft/s) 2.448(𝐷2 𝐻 − 𝑂𝐷2 𝐷𝑃 )

 Laminar pressure Drop(psi/ft)

𝑑𝑃 𝑃𝑉 × 𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑛 𝑌𝑃
= +
𝑑𝐿 𝑙 1000(𝐷𝐻 − 𝑂𝐷𝐷𝑃 )2 200(𝐷𝐻 − 𝑂𝐷𝐷𝑃 )

 Turbulent Pressure Drop(psi/ft)

𝑑𝑃 𝑀𝑊 0.75 × 𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑛 1.25 × 𝑃𝑉 0.25
=
𝑑𝐿 𝑡 1396(𝐷𝐻 − 𝑂𝐷𝐷𝑃 )1.25

29.06.2017 Page 46
 Relations-Cont.

 Shut-In Drill Pipe Pressure (SIDPP) (psi)

𝑆𝐼𝐷𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑓 − 0.052 × 𝑀𝑊 × 𝑇𝑉𝐷

 Shut-In-Casing Pressure (SICP) (psi)

𝑆𝐼𝐶𝑃 = 𝑆𝐼𝐷𝑃𝑃{𝑝𝑠𝑖} + 𝑃𝐺 𝑚𝑢𝑑 − 𝑃𝐺 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 {𝑝𝑠𝑖/𝑓𝑡} × 𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥 {𝑓𝑡}

 Kick Intensity (ppg)

𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑓
𝐾𝑖𝑐𝑘 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = − 𝑀𝑊𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑
0.052 × 𝑇𝑉𝐷

29.06.2017 Page 47