SPE 95279
The Perfect Wellbore!
C.J. Mason, SPE, BP Exploration, and D. C-K Chen, SPE, Halliburton Sperry Drilling Services
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Wellbore quality is a term frequently used in the drilling
community; however its meaning is not well understood, its
context frequently confused and its value underestimated. For
most drilling engineers, a quality wellbore is one associated
with a directionally drilled borehole that is smooth, in-gauge,
and has minimal spiralling. The claimed benefits of such a
wellbore includes improved drilling performance, ease of
running casing, better logging tool response, and highly
competent cement jobs. To date it has been too difficult or too
complex to relate such benefits to wellbore quality in a
meaningful and measurable way. In order to reduce existing
subjectivity, a procedure has been devised whereby wellbore
quality can be measured in a practicable way. This resulting
process is embedded in what is called the Wellbore Quality
Scorecard (WQS). The system works by individually scoring
drilling, tripping-out and casing running responses for any
drilled hole section. A total score ranging from 0 to 20 is
computed, where 20 is considered to be “The Perfect
Wellbore”. This represents significantly better than expected
torque and drag responses from drilling, tripping-out of hole
and casing running. Practical applications of the WQS are
demonstrated on both horizontal and extended-reach wells.
Introduction
Aesthetically, the perfect wellbore can be envisioned as a
flawless, three-dimensional hollow cylinder with a smooth
frictionless finish. It must also have the property that a casing
or completion string, if required, can be easily run to depth
within it.
If, in practice, it were feasible to drill a perfect wellbore,
there would be many associated benefits. For example, there
would be virtually zero torque and drag. Elimination of
frictional drag would have a far reaching impact in that
extremely high step-out extended-reach or very complex
three-dimensional wells could be drilled with minimal
mechanical loads. Needless to say, there would be many other
technical challenges to overcome for such extreme wells [1].
A common view is that a perfect wellbore is associated
with excellence in directional drilling. Whilst this association
is critically important, there are many other significant
elements that must also be considered. These can conveniently
be lumped together as components that influence wellbore
quality.
The recent maturing of 3D rotary steerable technology in
particular has led to renewed interest in wellbore quality and
its claimed benefits. This raises an important issue, since there
is no common definition of the term “wellbore quality”. This
topic is therefore an underlying theme of the paper.
The link between drilling and casing running operations
has already been explored [2]. A procedure was developed to
utilise information extracted from the drilling phase to predict
likelihood of casing running success or failure. One of the key
obstacles in this process was the requirement to provide a
meaningful measure of wellbore quality. Quantification of
wellbore quality is therefore a key feature of the current paper.
Results of an industry survey into the usage and context of
the term “wellbore quality” are given in the first section of the
paper. Based on these results, a qualitative definition of
wellbore quality is proposed. The paper then discusses the
contentious issue of quantifying wellbore quality. It explores
the inherent difficulty of doing this and the potential impact a
recognised system could have on various drilling services. The
paper then considers analogues from both inside and outside
the oil industry. Interestingly the most successful processes
involve the use of a simple scorecard method. After
extensively reviewing numerous drilling and casing running
operations, a scorecard method has been proposed as a suitable
vehicle for quantifying wellbore quality. The underlying logic
of this approach is explained and case studies based on field
experience presented. The paper concludes by summarising
key observations and suggests development options for the
future.
Note that the work described in this paper is at a relatively
early stage and is intended to stimulate discussion and interest
within the drilling community.
2 SPE 95279
Review of Wellbore Quality
A review of papers from the SPE library provided an
interesting insight into the context and usage of the term
wellbore quality. Below, extracts from the drilling literature
are cited to illustrate how the term has been used.
At the outset it is considered that there is no right or wrong
definition, provided the context of the term is understood.
What can be inferred from the quoted extracts is that the term
wellbore quality is used in a fairly consistent manner.
It will also be seen that wellbore quality is often used as a
relative term to relate to a change in performance between
wells. Many papers associate (1) cost benefits and (2)
economics with a high quality wellbore. A third category is
concerned with operational consequences of improved hole
quality: better hole cleaning; improved ROP (rate of
penetration); reduced tortuosity; less torque and drag;
elimination of wellbore spiralling; in-gauge hole; smoother
wellbore; lower vibration; fewer tool failures; prolonged bit
life; improved logging tool response; better cement jobs. A
few papers also associate wellbore quality with reductions in
friction factors or torque and drag.
“Tangible improvements in cost-per-foot and drilling
optimization, as well as intangible benefits in wellbore quality
and predictable drilling performance” [3].
“These tools have been introduced to the Middle East where
they demonstrated their ability to improve hole quality and
reduce operators overall costs in the carbonates of the Arabian
Gulf. Observed benefits included: torque and drag values are
lower than in comparable wells drilled with conventional
systems; friction factors are significantly less, making it easier
to slide; wellbore drift is retained making it easier to run stiff
BHAs, liners and casing” [4].
“With RSTs (rotary steerable tools), changes to wellbore
trajectory are made while the drillstring is in continuous
rotation. This advantage improves wellbore quality, hole
cleaning and rate of penetration (ROP). It also reduced
wellbore tortuosity, torque and drag, and eliminates the
harmful effects of ‘negative weight on bit’, especially on
extended-reach (ERD) programs” [5].
“Oriented drilling has proved to be time consuming and would
often result in poor borehole quality”. “This technique,
therefore, allows the use of extended-gauge bits, which in turn
have a significant impact on wellbore quality specifically the
elimination of wellbore spiralling” [6].
“Albeit its good ability to conserve cuttings, the KCI/polymer
based fluid has not shown any better performance with respect
to wellbore quality than other currently used water based
drilling fluids” [7].
“By assimilating surface torque with downhole bit and
drillpipe behaviour, the technology allows drillers to maximize
drilling efficiency and improve wellbore quality (due to less
trajectory tortuosity) during the sliding part of the drilling
process” [8].
“Steerable drilling assembly selection is fundamental for
wellbore quality improvement to minimise the pipe-sticking
incidence and provide coiled tubing accessibility for barefoot
horizontal completions”. “Well construction (performance)
optimization and trouble free and high quality well delivery
are considered essential issues for the economics of drilling
wells and introducing new related technologies” [9].
“It is based on the premise that hole spiralling is the primary
cause of poor hole quality, that spiralling can easily be
eliminated, and that desirable benefits can be clearly
demonstrated by eliminating spiralling and thus improving
hole quality”. “We believe that back calculated friction factors
are the most objective and reliable means of quantifying hole
quality, rather than convoluted measurements of angular
change” [10].
“Recent evidence suggests that any torque and drag benefits
derived from reducing dogleg as measured by survey data
(macro-tortuosity) are likely to be completely overwhelmed by
the torque and drag generated by poor wellbore quality
(micro-tortuosity)”. “A non-spiralled, high quality hole will
have a drift diameter equal to its gauge, presumed to be the
nominal bit diameter” [11].
“A high-quality wellbore is generally considered to have (1) a
gauge hole, (2) a smooth wellbore, and (3) a wellbore with
minimum tortuosity. Field data indicate that generating a
straighter; high-quality wellbore has improved almost every
aspect of drilling. These improvements include lower
vibration, better bit life, fewer tool failures, faster drilling,
better hole cleaning, lower torque and drag, better logging tool
response, and better casing and cement jobs” [12].
The Perfect Wellbore
Operators are not in the business of drilling geometrically
perfect wellbores, but in drilling cost effective, fit-for-purpose
wells that meet safety, directional, and reservoir objectives.
However the purpose of exploring the concept of a perfect
wellbore is to provide focus and generate new ideas to extract
additional value from the drilling and completion process.
There is an inextricable link between the perfect wellbore
and wellbore quality. The perfect wellbore should be viewed
as one that achieves the highest possible, practicable wellbore
quality. To aid the discussion the following definition of a
perfect wellbore is proposed.
• no unexpected deviations from the planned wellbore
• minimum tortuosity
• no wellbore spiralling
• no residual cuttings bed
• no ledges
• no wellbore breakout / hole in-gauge / no hole ovality
• minimum hole size drilled for required casing
• hole fit for purpose to run casing with ease
SPE 95279
It is considered that deviations from the above perfect
wellbore definition will result in an inferior or non-optimally
designed wellbore in some way.
The perfect wellbore could be associated with the entire
drilling and completion process from spud to well delivery.
However the context of a perfect wellbore in this paper is that
each hole section should be considered separately. In
principle, the combination of all hole sections can be
integrated to provide a wellbore quality assessment for the
entire well.
As previously mentioned, the perfect wellbore is
associated with many more issues than just directional drilling
achievements. In practical terms, the construction of the
perfect wellbore is dependent on the provision of an optimal
well design followed by flawless execution. The extended
drilling team which comprises operator and service company
personnel will have a team agenda for achieving excellence.
• For the operator, the perfect wellbore could be one that is
drilled and completed cost effectively and meets safety,
directional, and reservoir objectives.
• For the directional driller, the perfect wellbore could
mean no unexpected deviation from the planned wellpath
and no borehole spiralling. It could also be extended to
include a smooth casing run to bottom in the as-drilled
wellbore.
• For the mud engineer, the perfect wellbore could mean a
well where mud rheology has been maintained within a
prescribed set of weight and rheology parameters, hole
cleaning had resulted in no residual cuttings beds, no mud
losses and no barite sag.
• For the driller, the perfect wellbore could be one where all
surface drilling parameters have been maintained within
their specified range.
• For the rig contractor, the perfect wellbore could represent
one where no unplanned maintenance or equipment
failures have occurred.
• For the cementer, the perfect wellbore could be one that is
drilled perfectly in gauge, casing achieves 100% stand-off
and the planned slurry and displacement goes exactly to
plan.
Overall, the perfect wellbore could be considered to be a
super-set of all the above.
It is important to be mindful of the fact that even though a
high quality wellbore may have been drilled, it is perfectly
possible for a casing running operation to fail [13]. Depending
on the circumstances and application, it is entirely possible to
unknowingly design a casing running operation that will fail to
run to depth. A simple example of such a failure involves
drilling a hole size that is too small for the planned casing size.
3
Casing running failure can be attributed to a number of key
factors: casing string and connection design combination;
inappropriate centralisation strategy; wellbore deterioration;
tight hole; running through depleted zones; troublesome
formations such as sloughing shales. Casing running
operations tend to magnify any potential hole problems that
might be observed when tripping drilling assemblies. It is also
noteworthy that casing running friction factors tend to be
consistently higher than those observed during drilling [14].
One way to think about this observation is that, in theory, true
mechanical friction should be the same for all operations.
Deviations from this baseline could be attributed to wellbore
quality effects. Interestingly there are examples where casing
running drag is virtually zero [14]; such cases provide
valuable insights into understanding wellbore quality effects.
Below the benefits of drilling a perfect or near perfect
wellbore are detailed.
Impacts of a perfect wellbore.
• minimal torque and drag levels during drilling
• no stuck pipe events
• improved weight transfer – better ROP
• easier hole cleaning – no pack-offs
• low vibrations – improved downhole tool reliability and
longer bit life
• reduced casing wear
• easier casing or completion running
• better logging tool response
• better cement job
• capability to drill more challenging wells
In terms of influencing wellbore quality, everything from
the planning phase through to execution will have an impact in
some way. Below key factors are listed:
Factors that influence wellbore quality
• planning and assurance
- casing design (diameter, weight and shoe depths)
- hole size (annular clearance)
- well trajectory design (inclination, dogleg severity)
- drilling mud (type, weight, rheology, lubricity)
- drilling assembly (drillpipe size, BHA and bit)
- drilling parameters (WOB, ROP, RPM, flow rate)
- planned operational practices
• subsurface conditions
- lithology (formation, stringers, faults, rock strength)
- pore pressure (mud overbalance)
- fracture gradient (circulation losses)
• drilling operations
- wellbore instability (hole ovality, breakout)
- hole cleaning (residual cuttings bed)
- ledges (formation transitions, stringers)
- key seating (profile design)
- filter cake thickness (oil based vs. water based mud)
- wellbore spiralling (micro-tortuosity)
- downhole vibration (equipment failures)
- excessive torque and drag
- actual operational practices
4 SPE 95279
Measuring Wellbore Quality
The industry has adopted various measures that reflect drilling
and completion efficiency. High level indicators tend to be
used and are based on performance metrics such as number of
dry hole days per 10,000ft drilled, cost per foot drilled ($/ft),
number of days per completion operation, drilling cost per
daily production rate ($mm/mboed) and drilling cost per total
oil recovery ($/boe). These measures provide useful
benchmarks for comparing offset wells and can also be used to
rank performance between operators. Even though such
metrics give no explicit measure of wellbore quality, its effect
will, of course, be embedded within each indicator.
To date the industry has lived with a vague definition of
wellbore quality and exploited its uncertainty to illustrate good
or poor drilling performance. The likely reason that industry
has stalled in developing a useful metric is that it is considered
too complex or even too expensive to produce anything of
lasting value. Additionally having a poor wellbore quality
number associated with a particular service could be
detrimental to good business. This means that the ground
rules for any system need to be clearly understood.
There are two main approaches that can be used to develop
a wellbore quality measure. There are explicit methods where
some physical attribute of the wellbore is measured. The other
approach is implicit and involves measuring a parameter that
responds to a change in wellbore quality. Implicit methods
tend to be more subjective but can be very insightful when
properly implemented. A more detailed description of each
approach is given below.
Explicit Methods. Explicit methods can be used to measure
quantities such as wellbore spiralling (pitch and amplitude),
tortuosity (average and maximum dogleg severity), gauge
(average and maximum hole diameter) and even surface finish
(interpreted from an image log). Statistical techniques can be
employed to further process the data. The main drawback with
explicit methods is that it is difficult to correlate results to a
direct measure of wellbore quality. The missing link is the
relationship of an explicit measure with drilling and casing
running performance.
One interesting, explicit approach of note was developed
to define a degree of difficulty index based on as-drilled
definitive survey data [15]. Whilst the basis for such a metric
is arguable, it does have the merit of providing a simple
mechanism for ranking wells in the same development based
on their directional drilling complexity. As above, the main
disadvantage is that there needs to be linkage with the
performance.
Implicit Methods. Implicit methods can be used to measure
wellbore quality according to the type and level of response of
various operations. Superficially, this tactic may appear more
subjective than an explicit approach; however it does have the
merit that drilling and casing running operations will respond
to changes in wellbore quality.
Recall that the “perfect wellbore” can be associated with
an in-gauge borehole drilled with minimal torque and drag
levels. Torque and drag are excellent response parameters due
to the fact that they continuously change with time, have
predictable trend patterns, and are relatively easy to
understand.
However it must be emphasised that each operation has its
own set of torque and drag characteristics. For example, drag
levels during 9-5/8-in. casing running will be much higher
than that observed when tripping drillpipe in the same hole.
Another key factor is to understand the sensitivity of
changes in torque and drag levels to wellbore quality.
Interestingly if true mechanical torque or drag levels can be
reduced to zero, it is expected that any residual torque or drag
would accurately reflect wellbore quality. Rather surprisingly
there some examples of this in the current literature. For
example, such reductions arise when floating casing in a mud
whose density renders the casing neutrally buoyant. This
phenomenon occurred during the extended-reach programme
at Wytch Farm [14].
Wellbore Quality Analogues
In the quest to develop a meaningful measure for wellbore
quality, a review of methods used within and outside the
oilfield industry was undertaken. Each has a degree of
subjectivity but has the merits of being well established and
universally accepted within their own area of application.
Below, two contrasting approaches are described. The first
method could be termed explicit since it makes an assessment
through observation. The second approach is termed implicit
since an evaluation is made according to level of response.
IADC Dull Bit Grading System. Some 25 years ago the
IADC established a dullness grading system for roller cone
bits. The initial grading system was subsequently revised in
1987 and 1991 to accommodate fixed cutter bits [16]. Once a
bit is retrieved, a study is made of its cutting structure, bearing
condition and overall state. An accurate assessment provides a
good picture of how the hole may have been drilled. Expert
interpretation then aids in the selection of the next bit and, if
needed, revised break-in procedures and operating practices.
Essentially eight columns of information are used to report
dull bit conditions on bit records. It is not intended to go into
detail here, but to highlight the fact that eight categories are
used to describe the state of the dull bit.
The dull grade assessment is relatively simple to carry out
by competent personnel; however some, limited subjectivity is
involved. Interestingly, there is not a single number that
reflects the overall condition of the bit.
Glasgow Coma Score (GCS). One interesting example used
in medical emergencies to assess head trauma is the so called
Glasgow Coma Score [17], [18]. GCS is the most widely used
scoring system used to quantify level of consciousness
following traumatic brain injury. It is used primarily because
of its simplicity and has a relatively high degree of
SPE 95279
inter-observer reliability. The score is instantly recognised by
all medical personnel and correlates well with outcomes
following severe brain injury.
The GCS is scored between 3 and 15, 3 being the worst,
and 15 the best. It comprises three parameters: best eye
response; best verbal response; best motor response. Details of
the scoring system are given in Table 1.
It will be observed that the phrase “GCS of 11” is
essentially meaningless, since it is ambiguous. It is therefore
important to break the figure down into its components, such
as E3V3M5 = GCS 11, i.e. “eye response of 3”, “verbal
response of 3” and “motor response of 5”. A GCS of 13 or
higher correlates with a mild brain injury; 9 to 12 is a
moderate injury and 8 or less a severe brain injury.
Other factors which alter the patient’s level of
consciousness interfere with the scale's ability to accurately
reflect the severity of a traumatic brain injury. So, shock,
hypoxemia, drug use, alcohol intoxication, metabolic
disturbances may alter the GCS independently of the brain
injury. A patient with a spinal cord injury will make the motor
scale invalid and severe orbital trauma may make eye opening
impossible to assess. The GCS also has limited utility in
children, particularly those less than 36 months. In spite of
these limitations, it is quite useful and is far and away the most
widely used scoring system used today to assess patients with
traumatic brain injury.
Knowledge of the GCS assessment suggested an approach
that could be appropriate for a categorising wellbore quality. A
parallel approach has therefore been developed which includes
three key response variables, a total quality score and some
flexibility to accommodate unusual situations.
Wellbore Quality Scorecard (WQS)
In this section the new wellbore quality scorecard (WQS)
assessment system is described. Understandably such a
concept will be controversial and sometimes subjective. It is
unlikely that the proposed scheme will be correct every time;
however, it is an approach that can evolve and improve.
The approach proposed here, based on the Glasgow Coma
Scorecard system, is intended to be relatively simple and
reflect considerations that take place naturally during drilling
and casing running operations. The basic approach adopted
here is to penalise poor responses and reward good operational
responses. The three response variables relate drilling,
tripping-out and casing running to wellbore quality and its
variability. Different weighting factors are applied to reflect
the relative impact of wellbore quality on each of the response
variable. The guiding or fundamental principles described
below rely on hypotheses that are based on extensive drilling
and casing running operational experience.
Fundamental principles for WQS
• Drilling response: provides only a limited measure of
wellbore quality
5
• Final trip-out of hole response: (prior to running casing)
provides a better measure of wellbore quality than the
drilling response
• Casing running response: provides a final and most
important measure of wellbore quality
The fundamental principles require that that a lower
weighting of scores should be associated with the drilling
phase and a higher range with casing running.
The WQS has been purposefully designed to give a range
of scores from 0 to 20 where 0 is the worst and 20 the best. It
comprises three parameters: drilling response; final trip-out of
hole response, and casing running response. These are briefly
described in the sections below.
Drilling Response. The scores for drilling response are given
in Table 2. Note that the maximum possible score from the
drilling phase is 5, i.e. accounts for 25% of total score.
The biggest indicator of poor wellbore quality are stuck
pipe or near stuck pipe events. Such events may reflect a
difficult drilling environment or operational problem; however
it is important that the WQS reflects the outcome of each
operation.
Ideally, continuous monitoring of torque and drag and
downhole drilling parameters such as ECD (Equivalent
Circulation Density), weight on bit, torque and vibration
should be carried out. If the well is drilled as near perfectly as
possible, then each response parameter should follow a
smooth and noise-free trend line. Any deviation from a trend
line may indicate a potential problem.
Transient or temporary operational problems, e.g. due to a
mobile cuttings bed, are lumped together under the same
category. In the drilling phase, it is considered that such events
impact wellbore quality in only a modest way. These are
typically attributed to poor operational practices or unknown
problems. Since the drilling process can normally recover
from such incidents, only a moderate penalty is assigned.
It is considered that the primary response parameter during
drilling is surface torque. Pick-up and slack-off values during
connections tend to be more variable and are therefore
considered weaker indicators of wellbore quality. The
observation that all parameters (mainly torque and drag)
follow a smooth trend line throughout the drilling process is
considered to reflect a high quality wellbore. If, in addition to
smoothly trending parameters, torque and drag is considered
to be much lower than offset well experience or what would
normally be expected, wellbore quality at this stage can be
considered to be excellent.
In the event that a pilot hole is drilled and then
under-reamed with a separate assembly, it is recommended
that the subsequent under-reaming response is used in the
scorecard assessment. However, information from the drilling
phase can also be used if deemed appropriate.
6 SPE 95279
Final Trip-out of Hole Response. The proposed scoring
system for the tripping-out response is given in Table 3.
Recall that the tripping-out response is considered to provide a
better measure of wellbore quality than the drilling response.
In this category the maximum score is 7, i.e. 35% of the total
score.
Most importantly, the final trip-out of hole provides the
last chance to decide if the wellbore is fit for purpose to run
casing. The drilling assembly is either tripped-out (with or
without pumps on) or sometimes back-reamed. It is also fairly
common to carry out additional trips to verify the integrity of
wellbore.
Aligned with the drilling response assessment, a stuck pipe
event will equate to a low quality score. The next most
negative response relates to ignoring the presence of a residual
cuttings bed or the presence of a strong differential sticking
environment. Both are detected by overpulls occurring over a
continuous interval of the wellbore. Ledges and key seating
are considered to be the next most significant hazard. Note
that ledges detected during tripping-out may not necessarily
register when tripping-in and vice versa. A common strategy is
to test the severity of a ledge by passing the assembly over it
several times.
Downhole problems that can be rectified are only modestly
penalised in the WQS. If pick-up weights follow a low noise,
smooth trend line (i.e. no overpulls) then a high quality
response can be recorded. If, in addition to a low-noise smooth
trend line, lower drag levels than expected are recorded during
the trip-out of hole, the quality response can be considered to
be excellent.
Back-reaming is often used as a precautionary measure to
maximise hole cleaning prior to casing running.
Unfortunately, the consequence of back-reaming is that the
effect of any wellbore imperfections may be masked. In the
event that back-reaming is use to prepare the hole, the score
should primarily be based on torque response. It is recognised
that, if carefully executed, back-reaming is a very effective
method of cleaning a hole. Because of the inability to
effectively judge the tripping-out response, back-reaming is
scored fairly high, but cannot attain the highest score.
Once the final drilling assembly has been pulled out of
hole, there is an expectation that casing will run to depth.
Once experience is gained with the WQS, a tripping-out
response score above a certain level should give confidence
that casing has a high probability of running to depth.
Casing Running Response. The scoring system for casing
running response is given in Table 4. In this case, a maximum
score of 8 is possible; 40% of the total score. This reflects the
higher weighting given to casing running performance. This is
based on experience by recognising that casing running is
generally more sensitive to remaining wellbore imperfections.
The larger casing diameter, heavier weight, increased stiffness
and elevated surge pressure transients during running all
contribute to this observation.
Provided the appropriate casing drag analysis has been
carried out and any necessary mitigation put in place, it is
reasonable to expect that casing will run to depth. Should any
significant wellbore quality issues persist after the last trip-out
of hole, it is likely that the casing will interact with these in
some way. The intensity of the reaction will depend of the
extent and severity of the downhole problem.
A stuck casing string or casing string that has to be
recovered because of downhole problems is given the lowest
possible response score.
Casing which travels through a zone susceptible to
differential sticking can be subjected to severe static friction
effects, usually detectable from drag on connections. A similar
phenomenon can occur if a thick filter cake or sludge
embedded with loss circulation material remains along the
wellbore. This sticking effect is one of the most common
causes of stuck casing strings. A penalty score related to the
magnitude of static drag is assigned. In such cases, the design
of the casing running operation usually through intensive
centralisation should be a focus for the team.
The next category ranks problems that can be rectified
during the casing run. These problems could be attributed to
ledging, tight hole, cuttings beds or wash-outs. The ranking is
based on a preferred course of action, such as wiping several
joints to remove excess drag, circulation for annular cleansing
through to reaming, should rotation be possible.
Using the Scorecard. For each of the response categories,
data and/or operational performance should be reviewed to
identify score entries. In each case the lowest score should be
recorded on the sheet together with an explanation or
justification.
The numbers for each category are summed to give a total
wellbore quality score. Suggestions for total score ranges are
given below.
• 0 < WQS ≤ 2 stuck pipe or stuck casing
• 2 < WQS ≤ 6 low quality wellbore.
• 6 < WQS ≤ 10 medium quality wellbore
• 10 < WQS ≤ 14 high quality wellbore
• 14 < WQS <20 excellent quality wellbore
• WQS = 20 “The Perfect Wellbore!”
To avoid ambiguity and to maximise learning, it is
important to break the figure down into its key components.
For example D4T4C5 (drilling response of 4; tripping-out
response of 4; casing running response of 5) = “WQS of 13”.
Similarly D3B5L3 would represent (drilling response of 3;
back-reaming response of 5; liner running response of 3) =
“WQS of 11”.
It is important to note that the WQS can be adjusted to
match different operating environments. Therefore, it might be
appropriate to tune the scorecard to the local area in which
drilling is taking place. Local area tuning could include
SPE 95279
adapting the rankings and scores and extending the categories.
One disadvantage of different ratings is that value may be lost
when wellbore quality is considered from a global perspective.
Wellbore Quality Scorecard Case Studies
In this section the WQS is applied to both horizontal and
extended-reach drilling case studies.
1. Horizontal Well Offshore Norway. The first example is
based on drilling a long horizontal reservoir section and
running a thick, heavy wall liner. The well is drilled from a
platform in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The key
well design parameters are shown in Table 5.
In order to complete the WQS, a review of data from each
of the operational phases is required. The torque drilling
response is illustrated in Figure 1; the hookload response
during the last trip-out of hole, in Figure 2; and the hookload
response during the liner run, in Figure 3.
The intention of the scorecard is to identify the attributes
that best describe drilling, tripping, and liner running
responses based on the suggested WQS framework. The
completed scorecard is shown in Table 6. What is interesting
about this example is that even though the liner ran to depth
and the operation was considered successful, the scorecard
reflects the degree of difficulty in meeting the section
objectives. In this case a “WQS of 8” is recorded which
reflects a medium quality wellbore and the degree of difficulty
in drilling and running liner in the reservoir section. It might
also be the case that a maximum “WQS of 12” is only ever
achievable in that area. This result when compared to other
offset wells in the field could be used to provide additional
focus where improvements are needed.
2. ERD Wells Caspian Sea. The next case study relates to
two extended-reach wells recently drilled in the Caspian Sea
[19]. Here two 17½-in. hole sections were drilled and cased
using different design strategies. The well design parameters
for both wells are summarised in Table 7. The WQS is
completed for Well 1 in Table 8 and Well 2 in Table 9.
A comparison of the two scorecards illustrates a step
change improvement in assessed wellbore quality from Well 1
“WQS of 8” to Well 2 “WQS of 13”. It is noted that according
to the scorecards both wells were indistinguishable during the
back-reaming trip-out of hole. This does highlight that it is not
always easy to predict casing running response, especially
when back-reaming is carried out. Additionally, performance
results from the 13-3/8-in. casing runs, confirms the premise
that greater weighting should be given to the casing running
response when forming the WQS. For illustration, plots of
casing running hookload data for Well 1 and Well 2 are given
in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively.
When a dramatic improvement in wellbore quality is
detected between similar offset wells, an understanding of the
key changes to the well design and operational practices is
sought. The drilling strategy for Well 2 included the following
changes: hole drilled and under-reamed in a single pass;
7
wellbore strengthening designer mud system used; a cuttings
flow measurement system was operated to monitor hole
cleaning; the casing connection design changed. Each of these
changes will have contributed to wellbore quality
improvement in some immeasurable way.
3. ERD Onshore Wells UK. The final example comes from
drilling extended-reach wells from the Wytch Farm oil field
based in the South of England. Experience of drilling in this
area is well recorded in the literature [20], [21]. In this case,
the WQS was applied to a number of wells to sense check the
scoring and ranking process. The application here corresponds
to drilling 12¼-in. hole and running 9-5/8-in. casing.
Interestingly, even though a large volume of drilling and
casing running data was collected during the campaign some
five years ago, no tripping-out data were stored. Missing or
poor quality data highlights one of the difficulties of using a
scorecard approach.
A WQS summary has been compiled in Table 10 for five
of the longest wells. A high level review of the table indicates
that there is a very good drilling response. This reflects the
relatively benign nature of the mainly mudstone overburden
during drilling. These longer wells were also drilled later in
the ERD programme and therefore reaped the benefits of
significant learning. The casing running response is also
generally very favourable. Well M05 had the lowest response
score and corresponds to the only well in the set where
conventional casing running was carried out. All other casing
strings were floated or partially floated in. Note that casing
floatation at Wytch Farm means that the 40 ppf 9-5/8” string is
nearly neutrally buoyant in 1.25 SG mud. This means that the
casing will only make light contact with the wellbore. This in
turn means minimal frictional drag and it is speculated that
hookload variations in this instance can be directly related to
wellbore quality.
In the absence of tripping-out response data, the approach
used here was to assign a default value that is one less than the
casing running response. The justification for this is that
tripping-out should be less sensitive to wellbore quality than
casing running. The high scores “WQS range from 11 to 18”
reflect high to excellent hole quality. Interestingly each of the
12¼-in. hole sections were drilled with motor or rotary
assemblies, i.e. before rotary steerable assemblies were
commonly available. For illustration, a composite drilling
response plot is shown in Figure 6.
Conclusions
Wellbore quality should not just be concerned with directional
drilling achievements. Wellbore quality should reflect the
overall performance of the drilling and casing process.
It has been valuable to look within and outside the industry
to see how subjective measures are assessed and managed.
Measures using scorecards tend to work best provided clear
explanations of the scoring process are given and are best
illustrated using meaningful case studies.
8 SPE 95279
A scorecard method (WQS) has been developed to assign a
number to wellbore quality and has the merits of relative
simplicity, consistency, and flexibility. Whist this approach
does have some inherent subjectivity; it does provide the basis
for developing a better system. As a minimum, the scheme
presented here should stimulate discussions during both well
planning and execution. The proof of this approach will be in
the consistent application to further case studies and uptake by
the industry.
Wellbore quality estimates are clearly only as good as the
underlying data that describes them. Data visualised from
surface logging systems provide the best method of providing
inputs into the WQS. For complex or high cost wells such data
is routinely available; however, some considerable effort is
required to process, filter, and plot the data into a usable
format. Advanced automated systems for processing such data
are needed and the industry is urged to address this need. For
lower cost operations, where high frequency data has not been
recorded, it is important to capture and record pertinent events
into a morning reporting system to provide the required WQS
data inputs.
Adoption of a WQS system should encourage operators,
drilling contractors, directional drillers, mud companies and
other key personnel to become better acquainted with all
aspects of wellbore quality. Additionally, it is quite possible
that a WQS system could be used for incentivising drilling and
casing running performance.
In the context of the WQS, it is entirely possible to drill a
perfect wellbore. The challenge is in recognising the
achievement, learning from it and then repeating it.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration and Halliburton
Energy Services for their support and permission to publish
this paper.
References
1. Mason C.J., Williams, L.G. and Murray, G.N., “Reinventing the
Wheel – Reducing Friction in High-Angle Wells”, SPE 63270,
2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 1-4 Oct 2000.
2. Mason, C.J. and Chen, D. C-K., “Drilling Metrics for Improved
Casing Running Performance”, SPE 89912, 2004 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.,
26-29 Sep 2004.
3. DeLucia, F.V., “Benefits, Limitations and Applicability of
Steerable System Drilling”, SPE/IADC 18656, 1989 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 26 Feb-
03 Mar 1989.
4 Russell, R., “Improving Borehole Quality and Drilling
Efficiency with a New Suite of Drilling Tools”, SPE 78497,
2002 SPE International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 13-18 October 2002.
5 Mensa-Wilmot, G. and Stacey, B., “PDC Bits and Rotary
Steerable Tools – Functional Challenges, Stabilization
Requirements and the Establishment of Operational
Compatibility”, IADC/SPE 72280, 2001 IADC/SPE Middle
East Drilling Conference, Bahrain, 22-24 Oct 2001.
6. Al-Suwaidi, A., Allen, F., Taylor, R., Hussein, K. and Russell,
R., “Experience with Rotary Steerable Systems in Onshore Abu
Dhabi Fields”, SPE/IADC 85291, 2003 AE/IADC Middle East
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 20-22
Oct 2003.
7. Kjøsnes, I., Løklingholm, G., Sassen, A., Syrstad, S.O., Age, A.
and Solvang, K.A., “Successful Water Based Drilling Fluid
Design for Optimizing Hole Cleaning and Hole Stability”,
SPE/IADC 85330, 2003 AE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 20-22 Oct
2003.
8. Maidla, E. and Haci, M., “Understanding Torque: The Key to
Slide Drilling Directional Wells”, IADC/SPE 87162, 2004
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 2-4
March 2004.
9. Ismail, G., Fada’q, A.S., Kikuchi, S., El Khatob, H., “Ten Years
Experience in Horizontal Applications & Pushing The Limits Of
Well Construction Approach in Upper Zakum Field (Offshore
Abu Dhabi), SPE 87284, 9th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 15-18 Oct
2000.
10. Gaynor, T., Hamer, D., Chen D. C-K. and Stuart, D.,
“Quantifying Tortuosities by Friction Factors in Torque and
Drag Model”, SPE 77617, 2002 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 29 Sep-2 Oct 2002.
11. Gaynor, T., Chen, D. C-K., Stuart, D. and Comeaux, B.,
“Tortuosity versus Micro-Tortuosity – Why Little Things Mean
a Lot”, SPE/IADC 67818, 2001 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 Feb-1 Mar 2001.
12. Chen, D. C-K., Gaynor, T., Comeaux, B. and Glass, K. “Hole
Quality: Gateway to Efficient Drilling”, OTC 14277, 2002
OTC, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 6-9 May 2002.
13. Mason, C.J., Lopez, J., Meling, S., Munger, R. and Fraser B.,
“Casing Running Challenges for Extended-Reach Wells”, SPE
84447, 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 Oct 2003.
14. Mason, C.J., Allen, F.M., Ramirez, A.A. and Wolfson, L.,
“Casing Running Milestones for Extended-Reach Wells”,
SPE/IADC 52842, 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9-11 Mar 1999.
15. Oag, A. and Williams, M., “The Directional Drilling Scorecard
– A New Approach to performance Benchmarking”, IADC/SPE
59196, 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 23-25 Feb 2000.
16. Winters W.J. and Doiron, H.H., “The 1987 IADC Fixed Cutter
Bit Classification System”, SPE/IADC 16142, 1987 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 15-18
Mar 1987.
17. Teasdale G. and Jennett B., “Assessment of coma and impaired
consciousness. A practical scale”, The Lancet, 1974, 2:81-84.
18. Teasdale G. et al. “Adding up the Glasgow Coma Score”, Acta
Neurochir. Suppl., 1979, 28:13-6.
19. Kidd, G.N., Najafov, A. and Tukshaitov, A., “Learning the
Right Lessons – The Key To Delivering a Record ERD Well in
the Caspian”, SPE 95590, 2005 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 10-12 Oct 2005.
20. Meader, T., Allen, F. and Riley, G., “To the Limit and Beyond –
The Secret of World-Class Extended-Reach Drilling
Performance at Wytch Farm”, IADC/SPE 59204, 2000
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A., 23-25 Feb 2000.
21. Modi, S., Mason, C.J., Tooms, P.J. and Conran, G., “Meeting
the 10km Challenge”, SPE 38583, 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 5-8
Oct 1997.
SPE 95279 9

Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) Score

Best Eye Response (4 points)
- no eye opening 1
- eye opening to pain 2
- eye opening to verbal command 3
- eyes opening spontaneously 4
Best Verbal Response (5 points)
- no verbal response 1
- incomprehensible sounds 2
- inappropriate words 3
- confused 4
- orientated 5
Best Motor Response (6 points)
- no motor response 1
- extension to pain 2
- flexion to pain 3
- withdrawal from pain 4
- localising pain 5
- obeys commands 6

Table 1: Glasgow Coma Scorecard (GCS)

Drilling Response (5 points maximum) Score

Severe drilling problems
- stuck pipe 0
- near stuck pipe incident 1
Transient drilling problems
- poor hole cleaning with high cuttings bed 2
- severe pack-off 2
- severe loss circulation 2
- erratic torque and drag response 3
Torque and drag response
- all parameters follow smooth trend 4
- lower than expected torque and drag 5

Table 2: Drilling Response – WQS

Final Trip-out of Hole Response (7 points) Score

Stuck pipe 0
Residual cuttings bed / differential sticking
- section length with overpulls > 100 klbs 1
- section length with overpulls > 50 klbs 2
Ledges
- isolated overpulls > 100 klbs 3
- isolated overpulls > 50 klbs 4
Transient tripping-out problem
- loss circulation 5
- unplanned circulation 5
- unplanned reaming and back-reaming 5
Drag response
- smooth drag levels measured throughout 6
- better than expected drag levels recorded 7
Back-reaming Response (6 points) Score
- erratic torque signature 5
- smooth torque signature 6

Table 3: Final Trip-out of Hole Response – WQS

10 SPE 95279

Casing Running Response (8 points) Score

Severe casing running problems
- stuck casing 0
- casing pulled apart 0
Differential sticking environment
- static friction > 100 klbs on connections 1
- static friction > 50 klbs on connections 2
Remediation needed during casing run
- unplanned rotation need to assist casing run 3
- circulation used to assist casing run 4
- joints wiped to reduce elevated drag 5
Casing run without significant problems
- elevated but smooth drag levels 6
- expected drag levels measured 7
- better than expect drag levels recorded 8

Table 4: Casing Running Response – WQS

Well Design Details units value

well design parameters
previous casing size in. 9-5/8
previous shoe MD m 3,200
previous shoe TVD m 2,654
section final MD m 5,400
section final TVD m 2,576
open hole attributes
diameter in. 8½
length m 2,200
ascent m 79
average inclination m 92
average DLS °/30m 1.69
maximum DLS °/30m 7.94
liner design parameters
length m 2,772
outside diameter in. 5½
linear dry weight ppf 32.5
connection type Vam Top HT
centraliser type solid
centralisation frequency no/jt 1
mud parameters
mud type SOBM
mud weight sg 1.50
additional lubricants No
drillstring parameters
drillpipe diameter in. 5½
assembly type 3D RSS
operational details
tripped-out prior to casing run yes
losses during drilling no
losses during liner run no

Table 5: Horizontal Well Offshore Norway – Well Design Details

SPE 95279 11

Horizontal Well Offshore Norway Score

Drilling Response (max 5 points) 3
Persistent erratic torque response observed. This observation is indicative of vibration problems typically
observed in the chalk reservoir section. These vibrations are considered to be a transient problem and
should not significantly impact overall wellbore quality. Average cased/open hole rotary friction factors
of 0.20/0.15 correspond to typical field wise torque behaviour.
Final Trip-out Of Hole Response (max 7 points) 2
Elevated levels of drag in excess of 50klbs are observed from 4,300 to 4,600m and from 5,200 to 5,400m
and suggest a possible hole cleaning problem.
Overpulls also occur at chalk / shale transition zones.
A form of slip-stick axial drag is also present when pulling the BHA through the open hole section.
Average cased/open hole friction factors of 0.15/0.20 are typical of field wise experience.
Liner Running Response (max 8 points)
Liner running in open hole is far from smooth, significant axial slip-stick events observed which 3
intensity increasing with depth.
Significant reciprocation and working over last 600m required.
String also had to be torqued up to overcome tight spots.
Slack-off cased hole/open hole friction factors of 0.12/0.45 are in line with field experience.
WQS (D3T2C3) 8
A score of 8 corresponds to a medium quality wellbore. (Maximum possible score 20)

Table 6: Horizontal Well Offshore Norway – WQS

Well Design Details Units Well 1 Well 2

well design parameters
previous casing size in. 16 16
previous shoe MD m 1,373 1,590
previous shoe TVD m 1,202 1,237
section total depth MD m 3,185 3,220
section total depth TVD m 1,937 2,017
open hole parameters
diameter in. 17½ 17½
length m 1,812 1,630
average inclination ° 66.1 60.9
average dogleg severity °/30m 0.54 0.76
maximum dogleg severity °/30m 1.55 3.13
casing design parameters
length m 3,166 3,201
outside diameter in. 13-3/8” 13-3/8
nominal dry weight ppf 72 72
connection type Vam SLIJ-II Hydril 521
centraliser type bow spring sub bow spring sub
centralisation frequency no/jt 1 1
mud parameters
mud type SOBM SOBM
mud weight sg 1.58 1.58
StressCageTM mud used no yes
drillstring parameters
drillpipe diameter ins. 5-7/8” 5-7/8
assembly type 3D RSS 3D RSS
operational parameters
drilled 14¾” pilot and under-reamed to 17½” yes no
drilled and under-reamed 14¾”x17½” no yes
hole back-reamed prior to casing run yes yes
losses during drilling and back-reaming yes no
losses during casing run yes yes

Table 7: Caspian ERD Wells – Design Parameters

12 SPE 95279

Caspian Sea – Well 1 Score

Drilling and Under-reaming Response (max 5 points) 2
Good torque response during drilling of pilot hole, occasional torque spikes observed. Higher torque levels
recorded during under-reaming and increased number of torque spikes. Circulation losses a major problem
requiring treatment.
Transient problems occurred and therefore should not significantly impact overall wellbore quality.
Cased/open hole friction factors of 0.20/0.20 calculated during under-reaming.
Final Trip-out Of Hole Response – back-reamed (max 6 points) 5
Good torque and drag responses during back-reaming. No torque or drag spikes observed. The score of 5
reflects that hole cleaning is likely to be good, but also reflects that back-reaming will mask any wellbore
quality issues. Cased/open hole friction factors of 0.20/0.15 calculated during back-reaming.
Casing Running Response (max 8 points)
Despite the string being intensively centralised, very significant static friction effects occurred during casing 1
running. However, the casing managed to get to depth. Dynamic cased/open hole friction factors of 0.25/0.40
were calculated. A SDQ (static drag quotient) of 100 lbs/m reflects a very high level of static drag.
WQS (D2B5C1) 8
A score of 8 indicates a medium quality wellbore. (Maximum possible score 19)

Table 8: Caspian Sea Well 1 – WQS

Caspian Sea – Well 2 Score

Drilling Response (max 5 points) 3
Good torque response during drilling and under-reaming, occasional torque spikes observed.
Occasional torque spikes are considered to be a transient problem and should not significantly impact overall
wellbore quality. No losses occurred during drilling.
Cased/open hole friction factors of 0.20/0.20 calculated for torques during drilling.
Final Trip-out Of Hole Response – back-reaming (max 6 points) 5
Good clean trip-out of hole of drilling assembly.
Good clean trip-in of back-reaming assembly.
Good torque and drag responses during back-reaming. Some isolated torque spikes observed, but drag very
smooth. The score of 5 reflects that hole cleaning is likely to be good and clean drag signatures occurred
during previous trips. Cased/open hole friction factors of 0.20/0.15 calculated from back-reaming operation.
Casing Running Response (max 8 points) 5
Despite the string being intensively centralised, static friction effects occurred during casing running. Very
low dynamic cased/open hole friction factors of 0.25/0.15 were calculated, reflecting that the wellbore is in
excellent condition. A SDQ (static drag quotient) of 50 lbs/m reflects a low level of static drag which is a
persistent effect for this type of operation in the field.
WQS (D3B5C5) 13
A score of 13 indicates a high quality wellbore. (Maximum possible score 19)

Table 9: Caspian Sea Well 2 – WQS

Drilling Tripping-out Casing Running

Well Response Response* Response WQS
Name (Max 5) (Max 7) (Max 8) (Max 20)
M05 4 3 4 11
M09 4 5 6 15
M11 5 4 5 14
M14 5 6 7 18
M16 4 6 7 17
* Estimated values based on casing running response

Table 10: Wytch Farm ERD – WQS

SPE 95279 13

50 1,000
BHA 8: RSS + PDC Bit
45 BHA 9: RSS + PDC Bit 900
FF=0.20/0.15
String RPM
40 800

35 700
Surface Torque (kNm)

30 600

String RPM
25 500

20 400

15 300

10 200

5 100

0 0
3,100 3,300 3,500 3,700 3,900 4,100 4,300 4,500 4,700 4,900 5,100 5,300 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 1: Drilling Response – Norway Well (Drill 8½-in. with 5½” DP, RSS and PDC Bit)

300
9-5/8" Shoe TD @
BHA 9: Hookload @ 3,200m 5,398m
BHA 9: Surface Torque
Hookload (tonnes) / Surface Torque (kNm)

250 Pick-Up: FF=0.15/0.20 Elevated Drag Elevated Drag

4,400-4,600m 5,200-5,400m

Mud Type: OBM

200 Weight = 1.50 SG
PV = 36 cP
YP = 21 lbf/100ft²

150

100
Reaming/Back-reaming
needed to reduce drag

50

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 2: Tripping-out Response – Norway Well (Trip-out 8½-in. hole with 5½” DP, RSS + PDC Bit)
14 SPE 95279

250
8¼" Reamer Shoe 9-5/8" Shoe Liner Shoe
67m 5" 18.0# Q125 H-125 Liner @ 3,200m @ 5,398m
453m 5" 26.7# Q125 Vam Top HT
2,252m 5½" 32.6# Q125 Vam Top HT
Mud Type: OBM
200 69m 7" 32.0# P110 Vam Top HT
Weight = 1.50 SG
Hookload (tonnes) / Torque (kNm)

2,557m 5½" 26.4# DP 5½" FH

PV = 35 cP
YP = 19 lbf/100ft²

Surface Torque
150 Hookload
Slack-Off: FF=0.12/0.45

100

50
8¼" solid centraliser on 5" casing
8" solid centraliser on 5½" casing
8¼" solid centraliser on 7" casing

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 3: Liner Running Response – Norway Well (Run 2,772m 5½-in. Liner on 5½-in. drillpipe)

600 120
16" TOL 16" Shoe
@ 1,373m
Surakhany Sabunchi Balakhany
@ 105.2m

Static Up: Mudloggers Data

500 Mud Type: SOBM 100
Pick-Up: Rig Floor Data
Hookload: Mudloggers Data Weight = 1.58 SG
Slack-Off: FF=0.25/0.40 PV = 32 cP
Static Down: Mudloggers Data YP = 26 lbf/100ft²

Block Velocity (m/min)

400 Slack-Off: SDQ=100 lbs/m 80
Block Velocity
Hookload (klbs)

1 Bow Spring Sub per joint run in Open Hole

300 60

200 40

100 20
Travelling Block Weight = 65 klbs

0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 4: Casing Running Response – Caspian Well 1 (Run 3,166m 13-3/8” Casing)
SPE 95279 15

600 120
Hookload 16" Shoe Upper
Surakhany Sabunchi
Dynamic Slack-Off: FF=0.25/0.15 @ 1,590m Balakhany
Dynamic Pick-Up: FF=0.25/0.15
Slack-Off: SDQ=50 lbs/m
500 Static Down Drag 100
Block Velocity

Centralisation Strategy
126 bow spring subs run 1 per joint in open hole

Block Velocity (m/min)

400 80
Mud Type: SOBM
Hookload (klbs)

Weight = 1.58 SG
PV = 44 cP
YP = 28 lbf/100ft²
300 60

200 40

Travelling Block Weight = 50/58 klbs

100 20

0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 5: Casing Running Response – Caspian Well 2 (Run 3,201m 13-3/8-in. Casing)

40

35

M05

30 M09
M11
Surface Torque (kft.lb)

M14
25
M16

20

15

10

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 6: Drilling Response – Wytch Farm Wells 12¼-in. Section Composite Plot