Well planning and design

Well planning is perhaps the most demanding aspect of drilling engineering. It requires the
integration of engineering principles, corporate or personal philosophies, and experience factors.
Although well planning methods and practices may vary within the drilling industry, the end result
should be a safely drilled, minimum-cost hole that satisfies the reservoir engineer’s requirements
for oil/gas production.

Objective of well planning

The objective of well planning is to formulate from many variables a program for drilling a well
that has the following characteristics:

• Safe
• Minimum cost
• Usable
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to accomplish these objectives on each well because of
constraints based on:

• Geology
• Drilling equipment
• Temperature
• Casing limitations
• Hole sizing
• Budget
Safety
Safety should be the highest priority in well planning. Personnel considerations must be placed
above all other aspects of the plan. In some cases, the plan must be altered during the course of
drilling the well when unforeseen drilling problems endanger the crew. Failure to stress crew
safety has resulted in loss of life and burned or permanently crippled individuals.
The second priority involves the safety of the well. The well plan must be designed to minimize
the risk of blowouts and other factors that could create problems. This design requirement must
be adhered to rigorously in all aspects of the plan.

Minimum cost
A valid objective of the well-planning process is to minimize the cost of the well without
jeopardizing the safety aspects. In most cases, costs can be reduced to a certain level as
additional effort is given to the planning (Fig. 1). It is not noble to build “steel monuments” in the
name of safety, if the additional expense is not required. On the other hand, funds should be
spent as necessary to develop a safe system
Fig. 1—Well costs can be reduced dramatically if proper well planning is implemented.

Usable holes
Drilling a hole to the target depth is unsatisfactory if the final well configuration is not usable. In
this case, the term “usable” implies the following:

• The hole diameter is sufficiently large so an adequate completion can be made.

• The hole or producing formation is not irreparably damaged.
This requirement of the well planning process can be difficult to achieve in abnormal-pressure,
deep zones that can cause hole-geometry or mud problems.

Planning costs
The costs required to plan a well properly are insignificant in comparison to the actual drilling
costs. In many cases, less than U.S. $1,000 is spent in planning a U.S. $1 million well. This
represents 1/10 of 1%; of the well costs.
Unfortunately, many historical instances can be used to demonstrate that well planning costs
were sacrificed or avoided in an effort to be cost conscious. The end result often is a final well
cost that exceeds the amount required to drill the well, if proper planning had been exercised.
Perhaps the most common attempted shortcut is to minimize data-collection work. Although good
data can normally be obtained for small sums, many well plans are generated without the
knowledge of possible drilling problems. This lack of expenditure in the early stages of the
planning process generally results in higher-than-anticipated drilling costs.

Well planning process

Well planning is an orderly process. It requires that some aspects of the plan be developed
before designing other items. For example, the mud density plan must be developed before the
casing program because mud weights have an impact on pipe requirements (Fig. 2).
• Fig. 2—Flow path for well planning.
Bit programming can be done at any time in the plan after the historical data have been
analyzed. The bit program is usually based on drilling parameters from offset wells. However, bit
selection can be affected by the mud plan [i.e., the performance of polycrystalline-diamond
(PCD) bits in oil muds]. Casing-drift-diameter requirements may control bit sizing.
Casing and tubing should be considered as an integral design. This fact is particularly valid for
production casing. A design criterion for tubing is the drift diameter of the production casing,
whereas the packer-to-tubing forces created by the tubing’s tendencies for movement can
adversely affect the production casing. Unfortunately, these calculations are complex and often
neglected.
The completion plan must be visualized reasonably early in the process. Its primary effect is on
the size of casing and tubing to be used if oversized tubing or packers are required. In addition,
the plan can require the use of high-strength tubing or unusually long seal assemblies in certain
situations.
Fig. 2 defines an orderly process for well planning. This process must be altered for various
cases.
Well design

Well design proceeds in two stages: the functional requirements of the well being first specified,
following which the well construction details to deliver those functional requirements can be
defined. Many aspects of well design are dictated by regulatory requirements, an example being
the US Class VI regulations which apply to CO2 storage wells.
Typical contents of the three main design documents for a well—the Functional Specification,
Drilling, and Completion Programs—are summarized in Table 16.1.

The well design consists of those features of the well environment that make up the conduit
between drilling rig and the reservoir. A subsurface department comprising geologists
and reservoir engineers set well objectives based uon geology, seismic, and offset data. Well
objectives should not be confused with well test objectives. Well objectivesidentify drilling
objectives such as well depth, hole size, and direction and might also identify a high-level
objective to perform a well test. Well objectives direct much of the well design, since, in order to
achieve those objectives, drilling must pass through geological structures that overlay the
formation targets. These structures provide drilling hazards in the form of shallow gas,
unconsolidated sand, loss of circulation or overpressure zones, and sections of hard impervious
rock. The drilling team constructs a well design to achieve the well objectives, taking into account
the various drilling hazards. The well design incorporates casing design, drilling fluids, bit and
tool selection, and drilling technique to manage drilling hazards.
When the subsurface team adds a well test to the well objectives, additional demands are plaed
on the well design since the well test may require specific features such as a cemented liner
across the target formations to provide wellbore stability and a well barrier during the test string
installation. Some design features are mandated by company policy. For example, many
companies stipulate the use of brine as a well test fluid. Other well test features influencing well
design include additional rat-hole for gun release and logging purposes and higher casing test
pressures to accommodate annulus pressure control of well test tools.
The well design is an input to the well test design. The information provided drives much of the
equipment selection. For example; the size, and sometimes the type, of packer is limited based
on the casing or liner size, and the quantity of tubing required for the test is a function of the
measured depth of the well.
Since open-loop systems are meant to operate over several decades, it is very important that the
performance of the wells can be sustained over a long period of time. Therefore, the design of
the well should enable a long lifetime with limited maintenance. Much of the knowledge on well
design has been derived from research in the drinking water industry.
9.3.1.1 Unconsolidated sediments
Well design in unconsolidated sediments is focused on the prevention of sand production and
well clogging. For ATES systems, guidelines have been developed that limit the flow velocity in
the aquifer around the well (NVOE, 2006). These guidelines apply also for open-loop GSHP
systems. For extraction wells, these guidelines are meant to minimize the production of fine
particles (fine sand, silt, clay) that could cause well clogging (eg, van Beek, 2010; de Zwart,
2007).
The guidelines for injection wells (Buik and Willemsen, 2002) enable prediction of the clogging
rate of infiltration wells based on the membrane filtration index (MFI: indication of the clogging
potential of the water), the well dimensions (screen length and diameter), the hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer and the well loads. The fines that move from the production well are
collected in the gravel pack of the injection well. To maintain low injection resistance and low
pumping energy in the operational phase, these fines have to be removed regularly by back-
flushing the well (at least each half year). A smaller diameter well (higher flow velocity in the
aquifer) will result in a higher clogging rate and thus higher maintenance cost. This implies that
economic criteria, such as total cost of ownership, determine the design of infiltration wells.
When a well is used for both extraction and injection, the design criterion that yields the lowest
flow velocity determines the well capacity.
Apart from the maximum flow velocity during extraction and injection, the maximum injection
pressure is the third criterion that has to be met. When the injection pressure is too
high, hydraulic fracturing may occur and (part of) the water that is injected into the well may find
a path to the surface instead of going into the aquifer. Since the maximum allowable injection
pressure increases with the depth of the aquifer, this criterion is especially relevant for shallow
aquifers. More detailed information on well design in unconsolidated aquifers can be found
in Pyne (2005). The design criteria for open-loop systems result in much larger diameter wells
than would normally be expected for a standard water supply well.
9.3.1.2 Rock aquifers
In rock aquifers (sandstones, carbonate rocks) the grains are cemented and can therefore not
easily be mobilized. When the cementation is fully developed, the production of fines will be
limited. In that case there is no need to limit the flow velocity in the formation like in
unconsolidated aquifers. Furthermore, the rock will have extra strength in comparison to
unconsolidated sediments, which means that the maximum allowable injection pressure
increases significantly. In well-cemented rock aquifers, well design is therefore based on
limitations to the drawdown in the production well or the energy efficiency of the groundwater
loop, ie, the ratio between thermal energy transported and pump electricity required. In friable
sandstone aquifers, prevention of the production of fines becomes more important and the
design standards shift towards those of unconsolidated aquifers.

Deepwater Wells and Design Categories

1. Normally pressured wells: low risk
2. Abnormally pressured wells: medium risk
3. Complex wells: high risk
Deepwater Well Design Methodology
Well design starts with a review of the geological well’s proposal and relevant offset or well data
obtained. Once a prospect is selected with location and target depths confirmed, the concept,
base case, and contingent case design(s) process can begin. Initial exploration wells are
designed to essentially gather and acquire data. Appraisal wells can have further design
elements to accommodate a production test where wells may be retained for later development
use. Development is required to meet a well’s field life cycle in terms of design, integrity, and
barrier containment, i.e., Too add maximum value and productivity during full field life at
minimum costs and avoid well servicing, intervention, or workover requirements.
With increasingly more complex and challenging operating conditions, deepwater well designs
require fine tuning of size, type, grade to accommodate the total number of base-case and
contingent strings required in a very different way than a standard well’s norm. Yet despite these
challenges deepwater wells are being designed, constructed, and operated in water depths
> 10,000 ft (3048 m) and at hole depths > 35,000 ft (10,668 m).

Purpose of Design and Casing Application

In deepwater, two central aspects of design and application exist as opposed to standard
wells, i.e., structural and main well casing design. Notes:
- Conductor and surface casing strings are primarily structural. Design considerations and
principles are very case specific and differ from those applicable to standard casing design.
- The Subsea BOP is generally run and installed after final surface string installation.
- Chronological sequence phases of intermediate, production string and liners are conducted with
a weighted mud system, with the Subsea BOP and marine riser installed.

References
Data collection for well planning
PEH: Introduction to Well Planning
https://www.sciencedirect.com/
https://petrowiki.org/