INTRODUCTION

TWA-1 is an exploration well which was constructed to mine crude oil and where possible
hydrocarbons. The aim of designing TWA-1 was to evaluate fossil fuel formations estimated to
be formed between 6000 ft and 10000 ft below sea level in around 4000 ft of water. The original
plan of the well stated that the depth of the well to be 10000 ft which was subject to modification
if need arises. The modification were projected to arise during drilling which was to change the
total depth of the well. Before drilling the well, the engineers responsible for the design
estimated pore pressures and surrounding soil and rock characteristics to enable creation of a
design composed of elements such as casing design, drilling mud, drilling procedures, drilling
bits, cement and testing.

The initial plan required use of casing strings and liners. However, modifications were made to
factor in the conditions encountered when drilling was done. The total depth was 10000 ft and
consisted of casing strings inclusive of 9.5/8” tapered production casing. The casing is situated at
5000 ft, which is 1000 ft from planned shoe depth at 6000 ft.

TWA-1 well posed several technical challenges to the people tasked with drilling and
construction. These challenges were numerous geologic zones which had varying pore pressures
and fracture pressures, deep waters and building up of pressure during drilling. Pore and fracture
pressures cannot be easily estimated. This means that the original well plan was to be adjusted
severally as the drilling process advanced.

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

In order to commence with the designed final depth of 10000 feet, a seal of 9.5/8” * 5”
combination casing string and cement is used to encounter the decrease in pore and fracture
pressure as depth increases. Practically, it was not possible to drill a hole of diameter less than 5”
since it was too small. For this reason, the casing was terminated at 5000 feet.

The main task was now to install the desired casing and adding cement into the well in such a
manner that no extra lost circulation is not experienced(Bauman, 2007).
By concluding the casing and cementing of the well, the next point of focus is to install and test
the integrity of the seals on the wellhead as well as test the integrity of the cement. This was
followed by putting focus on completing the temporary abandonment process.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In order to investigate if cement and flow barriers had secluded formation fluids from wellbore, a
negative pressure test which is part of temporary abandonment test was carried out. The test was
done after the rig team lowered the hydrostatic pressure in the well. For effective barriers,
pressure build up in the well must be at its minimum. The decision reached was that the negative
pressure test showed that barriers were operational and the team was to move to temporary
abandonment process(Santamarina, 2008). To complete the process, the closing pressure was
increased on the BOP by opening the annular BOP and seawater circulated in the drill pipe. The
purpose of seawater was to displace the mud to a depth of 6000 feet.

Cement Integrity

After conducting the temporary abandonment process, the drill pipe pressure surged to 10.7 ppg.
The drill pipe was then opened and the pressure neutralized to zero by pumping out water
exceeding the required amount for mud compressibility.

Continuing with drill pipe remaining shut, kill line was conducted. The pipe was opened and the
water discharged at 15 bbl with a kick intensity of 0.5 ppg. At this moment, the drill pipe
pressure surged to 13.5 ppg resulting to stabilization.

The team concentrated on the occurrence that no flow is discharged from the kill line instead of
investigating the effects of the shut in pressure surging in the drill pipe. The negative test results
up to this point seemed a success.

Annular preventer was then opened. During the process, 11.2 ppg mud and 13.5 ppg shoe was in
the marine riser. This amount was enough to offset the reservoir pressure. The mud present in the
riser were continuously displaced by circulating sea water leading to a decrease in hydrostatic
pressure in the well. The flow in the well started when the hydrostatic pressure resulting from
seawater and mud being lower than the reservoir pressure. The indicators of flow were:
 i) The stream of fluids impelled out of the well was greater than the stream being
impelled in.
ii) The drill pipe pressure progressively augmented over time considering the varying
pump rates.

Production Capacity

Productivity Index (PI) is given by;

PI =Q/(Pr−Pwf )

Where

Pwf is the flowing bottomhole pressure.

Pwf =PIP+hydrostatic pressure ¿ pump intake

From the tests conducted, the final open hole section of the well had numerous reservoirs with
reducing pore pressure as depth increased. The highest pore and fracture pressure was 13.5 ppg
at 5000 feet below sea level while the lowest was 10.7 ppg at 3500 feet below sea level. The
highest pressure exceeded the mud weight of 11.5 ppg. Thus, it prevented salt water flow from
the reservoir. In return, the margin of safety between the mud weight and fracture mud weight is
large (Kuo, 2014). This insinuates that pumping cement into the annulus without damaging the
lower-pressure reservoirs was easy.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The negative pressure test indicated that the barriers were ineffective. Hence the following are to
be undertaken;

a) After casing the well, one casing volume is to be circulated. This ensures that no debris
are trapped in the casing which may lead to plugging of the shoe. It also ensures that the
open hole section remains stable.
b) The casing in the hole to be centralized. This ensures that there is no mud infiltrates the
cement.
 c) Adopt a float shoe on the casing. This are responsible for preventing backflow from
exterior of the casing. It also heightens the redundancy leading to an increase in the
margins of safety.
d) Expending sufficient cement to seal the preferred hole volume plus extra to top up for
hole dead loss and mud cake pollution.

REFERENCES

Bauman, F., Webster, T. and Benedek, C., 2007. Cooling airflow design calculations for UFAD,
pp. 73-77.
Kuo, J., 2014. Practical design calculations for groundwater and soil remediation. CRC Press, pp. 15-32.

Santamarina, A., Hfaiedh, N., Letellier, R., Marotte, V., Misu, S., Sargeni, A., Vaglio, C. and Zmijarevic, I.,
2008. Advanced neutronics tools for BWR design calculations. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 238(8),
pp.1965-1974.