A Field Case Study of Managed Pressure Drilling in Offshore Ultra High-Pressure High-Temperature Exploration Well in The South China Sea

DC191060 DOI: 10.
2118/191060-PA Date: 28-February-20 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 22
A Field Case Study of Managed Pressure

Drilling in Offshore Ultra High-Pressure
High-Temperature Exploration Well in
the South China Sea
Qishuai Yin and Jin Yang*, China University of Petroleum-Beijing; Zhong Li, Yi Huang, and
Ming Luo, CNOOC China Limited, Zhanjiang Branch; Bin Wang and Mayank Tyagi, Louisiana State University;
Guoxian Xu, CNOOC Research Institute Co., Ltd.; and Xin Zhao, China University of Petroleum-Beijing
Summary
The Y basin in the South China Sea has 15 trillion m3 of natural gas and represents typical ultra high-pressure high-temperature (ultra-
HPHT) subsurface conditions, with the maximum bottomhole pressure (BHP) of 142 MPa (equivalent density ¼ 2.38 sg), the highest
bottomhole temperature (BHT) of 249 C at a depth of 5638 m, and an extremely narrow drilling mud density window. Therefore, there
are several kinds of technical challenges during drilling operations. In recent years, managed pressure drilling (MPD) has been success-
fully applied in the basin with reduction of risks and well cost. Presented research focuses on a successful field case study of MPD in
the Y basin.
The case study consisted of two parts: MPD operational designs and MPD operational procedures. MPD operational designs included
two steps: the precise calculation of drilling fluid equivalent circulating density (ECD) and the optimization of operational parameters.
Four models were used in calculating drilling fluid ECD: wellbore heat transfer model, drilling fluid equivalent static density (ESD)
model, drilling fluid rheological property model, and incorporating the effects of cuttings in the pressure loss model. The second step
included two key operational parameters: mud weight (MW) and surface backpressure (SBP). MPD operational procedures were
performed in three steps: roles and responsibilities of key personnel during MPD operations, wellsite training program and emergency
procedures. Emergency procedures included unexpected drilling events, downhole equipment failures, and surface equipment failures.
Taking X-1 Well as an example from the field case study, the following important observations were made. First, the MPD equipment
was installed after remodeling of the drilling platform, installation of the wellhead assembly, and pressure testing of the MPD equipment.
Next, the MW was set to 2.15 sg and the SBP was maintained at 525 psi while drilling the 83/ 8 in. hole section on the basis of the opera-
tional design. In addition, the possible risks and corresponding preventive measures were taken into account and the MPD casedhole fin-
gerprinting exercises were carried out. Finally, the MPD was successfully applied to X gas field featuring offshore ultra-HPHT. In
addition, the dynamic formation integrity test (DFIT) and stripping out of hole with SBP were conducted. The well was successfully
drilled in the narrow drilling mud density window of 0.05 sg without incidents and a sharp drop in the nonproductive time (NPT) was
observed. Also, the casing structure was optimized from 7 to 5 strings with a significant reduction in the well cost and drilling time.
Introduction
With the exploration and development of HPHT areas, the safe drilling MW window is becoming narrower, which leads to longer
drilling time with higher risks for potential incidents while drilling downhole and sometimes even leading to well abandonment (Hannegan
and Fisher 2005; Nas et al. 2009).
MPD is a drilling operation process that uses the SBP on conventional hydrostatic column pressure to allow drilling in the complex
formations with narrow MW windows while maintaining constant BHP (Hilts 2013). The loss of ECD is equivalently compensated
with the SBP and, thus, the continuous drilling operations can be carried out while staying within the pore pressure/fracture gradient
window at all times. Automated MPD system with manipulation of SBP in case of influx or loss detection should not compromise with
the drilling mud density window. MPD is one of the effective approaches to solve the challenging problem of safe operations in narrow
drilling MW window (Hannegan 2006). In addition, as the MW is decreased, the rate of penetration (ROP) is increased and the
formation damage is reduced.
The MPD has been successfully applied to the exploration and development of offshore HPHT fields such as the North Sea Basin
and the Gulf of Mexico basin with significant reduction in operational risks and well cost (Syltoy et al. 2008; Sanchez et al. 2010;
Hannegan 2011; Graham et al. 2015). However, there are few studies on the MPD for the Y basin in the South China Sea. This paper
focuses on one such successful field case study of MPD in this basin.
In this study, the Y basin in the South China Sea is presented as an example of offshore ultra-HPHT formation with the maximum
BHP equivalent MW of 2.38 sg and the highest BHT of 249 C at the depth of 5638 m. In this basin, the narrowest MW window is only
0.01 sg, which could potentially lead to frequent losses and kicks as well as increased drilling time such as the reported duration of
283.75 days (Li 2016).
Rationale for Using MPD in the Y Basin

The Y basin in the South China Sea is an offshore ultra-HPHT environment and, thus, the drilling in this basin is recognized as a chal-
lenging problem and has various technical/safety concerns (Li et al. 2015; Huang 2016). Foremost, both the formation pressure and
temperature gradients are large with the highest temperature gradient reported to be approximately 5.51 C/100 m. Also, the safe drilling
* Corresponding author
Copyright V
C 2020 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE-191060-MS) was accepted for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August 2018, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 2 May 2019. Revised manuscript received for review 16 December 2019. Paper peer approved 16 December 2019.
2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 1
ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

DC191060 DOI: 10.2118/191060-PA Date: 28-February-20 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 22
MW window between pore pressure and fracture gradient is extremely narrow, the narrowest window is only 0.01 sg, and there is no
safe operating window, resulting in simultaneous kicks and losses (as shown in Table 1). Finally, the formation drillability is rated as
poor because the main target zone depth is generally over 5000 m. As a result, the ROP is very low, which leads to longer drilling time
and more frequent downhole incidents such as casing wear (Yin et al. 2017, 2018a, 2018b). Additionally, the seasonal conditions are
harsh for the safe drilling operations due to the frequent typhoons in the summer.
Borehole Upper Shoe Target Zone Pressure Drilling Mud

Diameter Leakoff Equivalent Equivalent Density Density Window
(g.cm ) (g.cm ) (g.cm )
–3 –3 –3
Well (mm)
1 212.7 2.22 2.23 –0.01
2 311.2 2.06 2.05 0.01
Table 1—Drilling mud density window in the Y basin.
Overview of MPD Operational Designs

During HPHT drilling, the values of wellbore temperatures, MW, rheological properties, and cuttings concentration are varying, which
can have significant impacts on the calculated value of BHP. Therefore, accurate estimation of the ECD by considering all of the above
factors is the operational design basis for MPD. On the basis of the ECD calculations, combined with the characteristics of MPD technol-
ogy (equipment) and target well (geology), the key operational parameters are optimized to determine the reasonable MW and SBP to
reduce the risks of potential well control incidents. Reitsma and van Riet (2005) proposed a formula for controlling the BHP through the
SBP. Rehman et al. (2009) proposed an ECD calculation method for different operation conditions such as circulation, pipe connection,
and tripping, among others. In the following sections, the relevant MPD operational parameter calculation procedures are presented.
ECD Calculation. Four models used to calculate the ECD include the wellbore heat transfer model, drilling fluid ESD model, drilling
fluid rheological property model, and incorporating the effects of cuttings in the pressure loss model (Rommetveit and Bjorkevoll 1997;
Ataga et al. 2012). The ECD calculation model consists of the instantaneous wellbore heat transfer model on the basis of the convection
and thermal conductivity theory by dividing the wellbore into five segments; the ESD model by considering the elastic compression
effect of HP and thermal expansion effect of HT; the drilling fluid rheological property model on the basis of the Herschel–Buckley
model by considering the effect of ultra-HPHT on dynamic shear force, consistency coefficient, liquidity index, and pressure loss
model considering effects of cuttings on ECD on the basis of the solid/liquid two-phase flow.
Fluid pressure, volume, and temperature behavior and rheological behavior are affected by the pressure and temperature. Therefore,
the wellbore heat transfer model is the basis of the ESD model and drilling fluid rheological property model. Moreover, the fluid rheo-
logical behavior partially determines the hole cleaning efficiency and ROP, so the pressure loss model considering the effects of cut-
tings on ECD is based on the drilling fluid rheological property model.
Wellbore Heat Transfer Model. The entire circulation process of the drilling fluid in the well can be regarded as a heat exchanger
with certain boundary conditions (Kabir et al. 1996; Ettehadi Osgouei et al. 2013; Chang et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2018; Wang et al.
2018). The formation exchanges heat with the drilling fluid in the annulus, which exchanges heat with the drilling fluid in the drillstring
as well. The entire circulation area is divided into five segments including formation, annulus, drillstring, inner space of drillstring, and
bit (Fig. 1). As the drilling fluid circulates through the different segments in the wellbore, the phenomena of heat convection and heat
conduction continuously change the temperature of the drilling fluid.
Surface flow lines
ΔPs
Casing
D1
(4) Inner space of drillstring
ΔPadp (3) Drillstring
ΔPc
Cutting H
D2
Drill pipe ΔPdp (2) Annulus
D3
ΔPadc
(1) Formation
Drill collar ΔPdc
R
(5) Bit
Open hole
ΔPb
Fig. 1—Heat transfer and pressure loss during mud circulation in the wellbore.
2 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

The energy conservation is expressed as Eq. 1 on the basis of the first law of thermodynamics.
@
ðq Cp TÞ ¼ r Wf r Wc þ D; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
@t d
where qd is the MW (unit gcm3), Cp is the specific heat (unit Jkg1K1), T is the temperature (unit K), t is the time (unit s), Wf
is convective heat transfer term (unit Jm2s1), Wc is conductive heat transfer term (unit Jm2s1), and D is the heat source term
(unit Jm–3s–1) generated by drilling system (such as the drill bit) mechanical energy and hydraulic energy.
To understand the role of convective heat transfer during drilling operations, the dimensionless number, Nusselt number (Nu)
defined as the ratio of convective to conductive heat transfer fluxes, is computed (Eq. 2).
Convective heat transfer Wf
Nu ¼ ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
Conductive heat transfer Wc
ESD Model. The MW is closely related to the BHP and BHT, and is expressed as Eq. 3.
dqd @q dP @qd dT
ðP; TÞ ¼ d þ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
dh @P dh @T dh
where h is the well depth (unit m), P is the pressure (unit Pa), and other variables are same as explained in (Eq. 1).
When the BHP increases, the drilling fluid is compressed and the MW increases due to the elastic compression effect. When the
BHT increases, the drilling fluid is expanded and the MW decreases due to thermal expansion effect. Isambourg et al. (1996) accounted
for the volume changes due to pressure and temperature variations using a quadratic expression as shown in Eq. 4.
Vr ðP; TÞ ¼ k00 þ k01 T þ k10 P þ k02 T 2 þ k20 P2 þ k11 PT þ k12 PT 2 þ k21 P2 T þ k22 P2 T 2 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
where Vr ðP; TÞ is the dimensionless volumetric ratio at P and T and k00 , k01 , k10 , k02 , k20 , k11 , k12 , k21 , k22 are the characteristic parame-
ters of the drilling fluid density and must be determined experimentally. The above characteristic parameters are affected by BHP,
BHT, compressibility of barite, brine, and the like.
To use Eq. 4, a reference value is needed to calculate the pressure and temperature dependent fluid density qd ðP; TÞ:
Vr ðP0 ; T0 Þ
qd ðP; TÞ ¼ qd ðP0 ; T0 Þ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
Vr ðP; TÞ
In this study, the fluid density (qd ) is calculated using the built-in functions of a commercial drilling hydraulic flow calculation soft-
ware. The relationship between ESD and qd is expressed by considering the effect of BHP and BHT on the MW, where ESD is the drill-
ing fluid ESD (unit gcm3) as the average fluid density for a given fluid column height (H):
ð
1 H
ESD ¼ q dh: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
H 0 d
Drilling Fluid Rheological Property Model. The rheological properties of a Herschel–Buckley type drilling fluid under HPHT con-
ditions cannot be accurately modeled using linear approximation (Houwen and Geehan 1986). Following Chen et al. (2018), the drilling
fluid rheological property model is built upon the Herschel–Buckley model by further considering the effect of ultra-HPHT conditions
on dynamic shear force, consistency coefficient, and liquidity index.
The Herschel–Buckley model of drilling fluid is expressed as Eq. 7.
sðP; TÞ ¼ s0 ðP0 ; T0 ÞþkðP; TÞ cn ðP; TÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
where sðP; TÞ is the shear stress (unit Pa), s0 ðP0 ; T0 Þ is the yield stress (unit Pa), kðP; TÞ is the consistency index (unit Pa sn), cðP; TÞ is
the shear rate (unit s1), and n is the dimensionless flow index.
Incorporating the Effects of Cuttings in the Pressure Loss Model. Due to the presence of drilling cuttings in the annulus, the
actual flow conditions in the wellbore annulus are solid/liquid two-phase flow. The drilled cuttings generate an additional pressure loss
(Eq. 8). Typically, the BHP (Eq. 10) during drilling is expressed as the sum of the hydrostatic column pressure of drilling fluid, the addi-
tional pressure loss generated due to cuttings and the annular pressure loss (Eq. 11) (Hemphill and Ravi 2011; Wang et al. 2016).
DPc ¼ ðqc qd ÞgHCc ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
where DPc is the pressure loss generated by cutting (unit Pa), qc is cuttings density (unit g cm3), and Cc is cuttings concentration in
the annular.
ROP
Cc ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
3600½1 D22 =D23 ½d c
where ROP is the rate of penetration (unit m/h), D2 is the outer diameter of drillstring (unit cm), D3 is the borehole diameter (unit cm),
d is the return speed of the drilling fluid (unit m/s), and c is the sliding speed of cuttings (unit m/s).
BHP ¼ Pbh ¼ qd gH þ ðqc qd ÞgHCc þ DPl ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
where BHP and Pbh are both bottomhole pressure (unit Pa), DPl is the annular pressure loss (unit Pa).
DPl ¼ DPadc þ DPadp ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
where SPP is the standpipe pressure (unit Pa), DPs is the pressure loss through surface flow lines (unit Pa), DPdp is the pressure loss
through drill pipe (unit Pa), DPdc is the pressure loss through drill collar (unit Pa), DPb is the pressure loss through bit (unit Pa), DPadc is
the pressure loss through annulus around drill collar (unit Pa), and DPadp is the pressure loss through annulus around drill pipe (unit Pa).

Solution Method. In summary, the ECD is expressed as Eq. 12.

Pbh DPl DPl
ECD ¼ ¼ qd þ ðqc qd ÞCc þ ¼ qd ð1 Cc Þ þ qc Cc þ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
gH gH gH
Because of the irregularity of the borehole and the complex interactions of affecting parameters, the accurate calculation of ECD
using analytical approach is difficult. In this paper, the calculation of wellbore heat transfer and ECD is computed numerically using a
commercial software. Comparison among the measured BHP and ECD from pressure while drilling (PWD) data against the numerical
results show the calculation error within 2.5 and 2%, respectively. Readers are directed to section on Operational Approach for an
example calculation.
Operational Parameters Optimization. To determine the key operational parameters of MW and SBP, one must maintain the BHP
within the safe drilling mud window (Arnone and Vieira 2009) as expressed in Eq. 13 for the openhole section of the drilled wellbore to
prevent any downhole incidents such as kicks, collapses, losses, and fractures.
maxðPp ; Pcp Þ Pbh minðPf ; Pl Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
where Pp is the formation pore pressure (unit Pa), Pcp is the collapse pressure (unit Pa), Pf is the fracture pressure (unit Pa), and Pl is
the leakoff pressure (unit Pa).
In addition, the maximum SBP must be within the rated working pressure of the rotating control device (RCD) and the conventional
well control technology must be used to control BHP in case the RCD fails. Further, the wellbore annulus pressure must be less than
80% of the casing string’s internal pressure resistance.
Finally, the selection of operational parameters (MW and SBP) must comply with “well control implementation rules” in the prece-
dence order to meet the requirements of first-level well control, while addressing the issue of timely control for second-level well con-
trol, and completely avoid any third-level well control. Therefore, the potential for slug flow in the wellbore near the wellhead after the
gas influx must be avoided for the selected range of operational parameters.
Overview of MPD Operational Procedures

For the sake of completeness of the discussion on risk reduction and safety training during offshore MPD operations, the details of the
information flow among key personnel involved with MPD is shown here (Fig. 2). Additional details on the roles and responsibilities of
key personnel during MPD operations are presented in Appendix A.
DSV
MPD
OIM
supervisor
MPD
Tool pusher engineer
Assistant Choke
Driller Rig crew RCD operator
driller operator
Fig. 2—Information flow among key personnel during MPD operations.
Because MPD is a nonstandard operation that involves many operations, such as well control, pipe connections, and tripping, it
must consider meeting special operational standards. During offshore HPHT, MPD operations encounter additional problems due to the
confined platform space (such as escape routes and staging areas). As a result, detailed procedures such as training of personnel and
guidance for operations are required. Further, the key personnel must be aware of their roles and responsibilities by the wellsite training
program and must be dedicated to the emergency procedures developed in advance (Cadd et al. 2017). It is, therefore, noted that human
factors and safety training of personnel should reduce the operational risks during offshore MPD operations (Sklet al. 2010; Rommetveit
et al. 2017; Awe et al. 2018; Knode al. 2018; Howell et al. 2019).
The wellsite training program is a two-part training session that must also be conducted at the rig prior to MPD operations (Haggins
et al. 2014). Details of wellsite training program is provided in Appendix B.
A successful HPHT project begins with a strong plan; therefore, it is necessary to plan emergency procedures during MPD. Changes
in pressure and flow patterns are indication of what is happening in the well, and the patterns, causes, effects, and appropriate actions to
be taken (Hollman et al. 2015) are summarized in Appendix C. The downhole influx is the most common unexpected drilling event that
occurs during offshore ultra-HPHT, and, if not properly handled, could cause severe kick or even blowout, which can destroy the rig
and result in loss of life to personnel, resulting in well abandonment (Gabaldon et al. 2017; Yin et al. 2019). The MPD operation well
control matrix for influx, as well as various contingency actions in response to unexpected events, downhole equipment failures, and
surface equipment failures are also provided in Appendix C.
Field Case Study

Details of successful applications of MPD operations in an ultra-HPHT exploration X-1 Well through field installation, operation
design, and risk management are presented in this section. Also, the DFIT and stripping out of hole with SBP were conducted.

Field Installation. The jack-up drilling rig was used to drill the well. First, the platform, comprehensive logging equipment, and
cementing equipment were remodeled and the MPD equipment was installed offline. Next, the bearing assembly (Fig. 3a) and RCD
(Fig. 3b) were installed online during the dismantling of the fourth hole section of the wellhead. Finally, the operational process was
tested and the pressure was qualified to meet the operational requirements (Table 2).
Bearing assembly Rig overshot

running tool
(BART)
RCD bell nipple
Bearing assembly
(outer diameter,
19.63 in.) RCD latch and
howl assembly
In lieu of bearing
assembly
accessories
RCD returns
line to
Two cone-shaped, choke manifold
dual-barrier
elastomeric sealing
elements in the
bearing assembly 18³⁄₄ in. 10,000 psi
annular preventer
(a) Installation of bearing assembly (b) RCD installation
Fig. 3—Online installation of MPD equipment—(a) bearing assembly and (b) RCD.
Lower Pressure and Higher Pressure

Step Condition and Equipment Duration Time and Duration Time Standard Test
Offline installation: Circulating flush the surface

Step 1 N/A criterion
circulating flush of surface pipeline pipeline with clean water
Online installation:
200 psi and 2,000 psi and Differential
Step 2 MPD system pressure test
5 minutes 10 minutes pressure < 100 psi
Functional testing of all hydraulic valves
Offline installation: 5,000 psi and

200 psi and Differential pressure
Step 3 Rig pressure test 15 minutes
5 minutes <250 psi
MPD backpressure line (Platform standpipe)
Table 2—Offline and online installation test standard for MPD equipment.
Design Calculations for MPD Operations. First, the wellbore heat transfer, ESD, and ECD were precisely calculated on the basis of
the given well design parameters. Next, the MW was determined on the basis of the critical pressure constraint principle by the opera-
tional mud density window simulation for different well depth and pump rate. Finally, the SBP of pipe connections was determined
by considering the rated operating pressure of the RCD and the calculated pressure loss where the BHP was higher than the formation
pore pressure.
The X-1 Well parameters (Table 3) for ECD calculation were divided into four categories: designed well structure parameters, for-
mation parameters, water-based mud (WBM) parameters, and drilling engineering parameters.
Calculation of ECD. According to the X-1 Well parameters (Table 3), calculation results of the wellbore heat transfer, rheological
properties and ECD were obtained using a commercial software. By comparing the PWD measurements of BHP and ECD against the
calculation results, the error was found to be within 2.5 and 2%, respectively. Variation of drilling fluid temperatures, wellbore tempera-
tures, drilling fluid rheological properties, ESD, and ECD with measured depth (MD) are shown in Figs. 4 through 7, respectively.
MW Sensitivity Analysis. The X-1 Well is a typical HPHT well; at the depth of 3795–3800 m, the pressure ramp was extremely high
with the pore pressure surging from 2.09 to 2.20 sg. It was noted that the drilling mud density window was narrow (only 0.05 sg),
which would lead to frequent influx incidents without proper well control strategy. In addition, the depth of 3795–3900 m was corre-
sponding to HPHT condition sand formation in the target reservoir where the formation pore pressure was in the range of 2.18–2.20 sg.
MW sensitivity analysis was conducted to check the maximum MW that can be used while drilling the 83/ 8 in. hole section. Pump
rate of 1300 L/min was used for the simulation. Fig. 8 summarizes the calculated ECD vs. MD for different MW.
Drilling 83/ 8 in. hole section with 2.12–2.22 sg at 1300 L/min should result in an ECD value that is higher than the pore pressure gra-
dient and less than the fracture gradient. MW of 2.10 sg would result in ECD less than pore pressure gradient so SBP would be required
during drilling. MW of 2.23 sg would result in ECD higher than formation fracture gradient. On the basis of these simulation results,
statically underbalanced MW 2.15 sg was recommended to be used to provide relatively more margin for both formation pore pressure
and leak-off tests.
SBP Schedule Plan. The formation pore pressure showed a peak at 3800 m MD (2.20 sg) and the narrowest drilling mud density
window of 0.05 sg. Therefore, the depth of 3800 m is expected to be a potential weak point with the highest risks for a well incident.
Therefore, the 3800 m depth was labeled as the anchor point during the drilling mud hydraulic simulation with 2.15 sg MW, where the
wellbore pressure must not change, regardless of whether the pump is ON or OFF.

Properties Value Unit

Designed well structure parameters
Depth of 30 in. conductor casing 185 m
Depth of 20 in. surface casing 1205 m
Depth of 13 ³⁄₈ in. intermediate casing 3095 m
Depth of 9⁵⁄₈ in. production casing 3795 m
Depth of 8 ³⁄₈ in. hole section 3968 m
PDC bit of 8 ³⁄₈ in. hole section 8³⁄₈ in
Inside diameter of drillstring, D1 121.4 mm
Outside diameter of drillstring, D2 139.7 mm
Formation parameters
3
Rock density 2.24 g/cm
–1 –1
Specific heat, Cp 1256.9 J kg °C
Thermal conductivity, λ 1.59 W m °C
–1 –1
Geothermal gradient 4.51 °C/100 m

Mudline temperature 4.44 °C
Flow-out temperature 48.9 °C
WBM parameters
Mud weight, ρd 2.15 sg
Revolutions (3), R3 5
Revolutions (6), R6 7
Shear strength (10 seconds) 7.000 Pa
Shear strength (10 minutes) 12.000 Pa
3
API fluid loss 4.4 cm /30 min
API cake thickness 0.5 mm
3
HPHT fluid loss 6.2 cm /30 min
HPHT cake thickness 2.0 mm
pH 10.5
Flow index, n 0.445
Consistency index, k Pa.s
n
12.306
–
Cl concentration 27000 mg/L
Solids content 36.0%
Cuttings concentration 0.2%
Drilling engineering parameter
Pump rate 1300 L/min
Revolutions per minute, RPM 80 rev/min
Weight on bit, WOB 78.4–98 kN
ROP 10.2 m/h
Torque 10–15 klb.fts
API: American Petroleum Institute.
Table 3—Parameters for ECD calculation.
SBP would be applied during a pump OFF condition to maintain the drilling ECD. Table 4 summarizes drilling ECD when drill bit
is at 3968 m MD/3968 m true vertical depth (TVD) with 2.15 sg (statically underbalanced) MW, and SBP required during drilling and
pipe connections to maintain the bottomhole ECD at the anchor point, which must not be less than 2.22 sg for various pump
rates (Table 5). Fig. 9 shows that the SBP was maintained within the rated operating pressure of the RCD as recommended by Dow
et al. (2017).
MPD Casedhole Fingerprinting Exercises. In-casing tests are essential prior to drilling in a new formation and their purpose is to
calibrate the MPD system for the software and actual system control parameters. Fingerprinting exercises took place before drilling the
95/ 8 in. casing shoe set above the phase and were used for drilling the following section. Offshore HPHT MPD evaluation team consisted
of three “key men”: drilling supervisor (DSV), offshore installation manager (OIM), and MPD supervisor. The DSV was responsible
for evaluating the safety of the fingerprinting exercises. OIM was responsible for evaluating the efficiency of the drilling crew. MPD
supervisor was responsible for evaluating the accuracy of MPD operation. After each test, the operation was evaluated according to
the ability to complete the established task. Usually, the test is repeated until all three key men agree that the operations team has
passed the test and is qualified to undertake the operation. The fingerprinting exercises consisted of two parts: MPD system test and
MPD simulations.

0
Drillstring
500 Annulus
Formation
1000
1500
MD (m)
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 4—Plot of calculated temperature vs. MD: drilling fluid temperatures in drillstring and annulus; formation temperature.
500
1000 Drillstring fluid

Drillstring
1500 Drillstring annulus
9⁵⁄₈ in. production casing
9⁵⁄₈ in. production casing annulus
MD (m)
2000
13³⁄₈ in. intermediate casing
2500 13³⁄₈ in. intermediate casing annulus
20 in. surface casing
20 in. surface casing annulus
3000
30 in. conductor casing
30 in. conductor casing annulus
3500
Formation
4000
4500
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 5—Plot of calculated wellbore temperatures vs. MD in different casing sections.
Funnel Viscosity (m/s) Plastic Viscosity (mPa.s) Yield Point (Pa)

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10 15 20 25 30 0 1 2 3 4
0
500
1000
1500
MD (m)
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Fig. 6—Plot of calculated drilling fluid rheological properties vs. MD.

Mean sea level RKB, 0.00 m

0
Mud line, 75.50 m 30 in. (36 in.)
500
1000
20 in. (26 in.)
1500
MD (m)
2000
2500
ECD
Static MW
3000 13³⁄₈ in. (17¹⁄₂ in.)
3500
9⁵⁄₈ in. (12¹⁄₄ in.)
4000
4500
2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900
Equivalent Density (kg/m3)
Fig. 7—Calculated results of ESD and ECD vs. MD and well casing design.
Drilling to 8³⁄₈ in. Section TD (3968 m MD/3968 m TVD) 2.0 sg–2.25 sg MW

MW Sensitivity Analysis
Equivalent MW (sg)
1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40
3,000
3,100
3,200
3,300
3,400
MD (m)
3,500
3,600
3,700 High Anchor

pressure point
ramp (3800 m)
3,800 3795 m
Target
zone HP
3,900
3968 m
4,000
PP (sg) LP (sg) FP (sg) 9⁵⁄₈ in. casing shoe

8³⁄₈ in. section ECD, MW = 2.0 sg ECD, MW = 2.05 sg ECD, MW = 2.10 sg
ECD, MW = 2.15 sg ECD, MW = 2.20 sg ECD, MW = 2.23 sg ECD, MW = 2.25 sg
Fig. 8—Safe drilling mud density window for 83/ 8 in. section on the basis of MW sensitivity analysis: PP: pore pressure; LP: leakoff
pressure; FP: fracture pressure.
MPD System Tests. The MPD system tests were completed strictly in accordance with the specifications, which were relatively
conventional. The MPD system test included initial trip in, input data check, sensor testing (time allocated: 15 minutes), calibration of
pump efficiency (time allocated: 45 minutes), MPD system pressure loss (time allocated: 45 minutes), validation of system well model
with PWD (time allocated: 15 minutes), and effect of pipe movement on pressures (time allocated: 15 minutes).
For brevity in this paper, each test is not described in full; instead, the effect of pipe movement on pressures was taken as an example
to elaborate in detail. The allocated test time was 15 minutes and was performed with a tripping speed of 9 m/min. The test objective
was to record how pipe movement affected the MPD choke response. The operation process was shown in Table 6, and the test record
was shown in Table 7 and Fig. 10.
According to the above operation process and test record, one can see that the operations team completed the established task within
the specified time, so the evaluation team unanimously agreed to pass the test.
MPD Exercises. The objectives of MPD exercises were to (1) determine MPD system response for a range of typical scenarios
during normal MPD operations, (2) perform familiarization drills for typical MPD operations, and (3) highlight differences between
MPD and standard drilling practices. MPD simulations were performed following the in-casing tests prior to drilling commencement
and upon completion of each exercise. MPD procedures were reviewed with rig crews for any issues or questions to be addressed
during a feedback session.

Pipe Connections
Constant Drilling ECD at Anchor Point
Min Drilling (3800 m)
BHECD
at Anchor SBP ECD at ECD at
Bit Max Pore Min Leakoff Pump Point during ECD at 9⁵⁄₈ in. ESD at 9⁵⁄₈ in.
Depth (m) MW Pressure Pressure Rate (3800 m) Drilling 3800 m BHECD Casing 3800 m BHECD Casing
MD/TVD (sg) (sg) (sg) (L/min) (sg) (psi) (sg) (sg) Shoe (sg) SBP (psi) (sg) (sg) Shoe (sg)
600 50 2.220 2.223 2.220 380 2.220 2.217 2.221
One choke
800 2.220 2.224 2.220 380 2.220 2.217 2.221
full open
3968 2.150 2.200 2.260 2.220 Choke

1,000 2.226 2.230 2.226 410 2.226 2.224 2.228
full open
Choke
1,200 2.234 2.238 2.234 455 2.234 2.231 2.235
full open
Choke
1,500 2.246 2.251 2.246 520 2.246 2.242 2.247
full open
Table 4—Drilling mud hydraulic simulation with 2.15 sg MW. BHECD 5 bottomhole ECD.
Pipe Connections
Pore Drilling Constant Drilling ECD
Pressure ECD at
Gradient Min Min Leakoff SBP 9⁵⁄₈ in.
Bit Pump at Bit BHECD Pressure During ECD at ECD at Casing
Depth (m) Rate Depth at 3800 m at Casing Drilling 3800 m BHECD SBP 3800 m BHECD Shoe
MD/TVD MW (sg) (L/min) (sg) (sg) Shoe (sg) (psi) (sg) (sg) (psi) (sg) (sg) (sg)
One choke
3770 2.150 1,300 2.067 2.220 2.260 N/A 2.242 495 N/A 2.242 2.243
full open
One choke
3795 2.150 1,300 2.200 2.220 2.260 N/A 2.242 495 N/A 2.242 2.243
full open
Choke full
3825 2.150 1,300 2.195 2.220 2.260 2.241 2.242 495 2.242 2.242 2.243
open
Choke full
3855 2.150 1,300 2.190 2.220 2.260 2.240 2.242 500 2.243 2.242 2.244
open
Choke full
3885 2.150 1,300 2.185 2.220 2.260 2.240 2.242 505 2.243 2.242 2.245
open
Choke full
3915 2.150 1,300 2.180 2.220 2.260 2.239 2.243 510 2.244 2.243 2.246
open
Choke full
3945 2.150 1,300 2.110 2.220 2.260 2.238 2.243 515 2.245 2.243 2.247
open
Choke full
3968 2.150 1,300 2.120 2.220 2.260 2.238 2.243 525 2.247 2.243 2.248
open
Table 5—SBP schedule plan for drilling 83/ 8 in. hole section.
MPD exercises included influx simulation (time allocated: 15 minutes), loss simulation (time allocated: 15 minutes), pipe connection
exercise (time allocated: 30 minutes), and simulate SBP reaching high limit. For brevity, only one such influx simulation is elaborated
here because the influx is the most common incident during the HPHT drilling. MPD system alarms were set to detect an increase in the
flow-in rate of 15 gal/min during 15 seconds. Handling of influx is shown as a flow chart in Fig. 11.
The measured parameters being monitored included flow in, flow out, SBP, SPP, and mud density at the outflow. The user input
parameters for the kick detection algorithm included trend time, flow difference, maximum allowable SPP increase, and surface gas den-
sity threshold. Trend time is the time period (seconds) during which a given trend is expected to occur when an influx is detected. Flow
difference (L/min) is the difference between the flow out and flow in. Maximum allowable SPP increments (psi) are the expected thresh-
old increments in the SPP when a kick occurs. Surface gas density threshold (sg) is the maximum reduction in the MW due to the gas cut.
For an influx to be detected, all the following conditions must be met during the entire trend time duration. Flow out must show an
increasing trend during the trend time, as expressed by the conditional statement: [Flow out (time ‘2’) > Flow out (time ‘1’) ¼ TRUE].
Flow out must be consistently greater than the flow in during the trend time, expressed by the conditional statement: [Flow out – Flow
in ¼ Flow Difference > 0 ¼ TRUE]. SPP must show the characteristics of increasing pressure signature during the trend time, and its
value must increase at least by the maximum allowable SPP increase, expressed by the following condition: [SPP (time ‘2’) > SPP
(time ‘1’) ¼ TRUE, AND SPP (time ‘Trend Time’) > Maximum Allowable SPP Increase ¼ TRUE]. Density out must show a stable
trend, i.e., no gas must be being measured at surface, expressed by the algorithm was: [Density out zigzagging? ¼ FALSE].
The time allocated for the MPD loss simulation test was 15 minutes and the purpose of the MPD exercise was to test the MPD system
response to an influx event. Operation process of the MPD influx test is shown in Table 8, and its test record is shown in Table 9.

2,500
Static pressure rating
RPM < 5
No pipe movement
2,000 Beyond operating range
Wellbore Pressure (psi)

1,500
Stripping pressure
rating
1,000 Dynamic pressure rating
500 Operating range
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
RPM
Fig. 9—Safe working pressure range of sealing element (Gedge et al. 2013).
Step Action Responsible Party

1 Stopped both drilling and start backpressure pump. Increased SBP to 150 psi. Driller/MPD operator
2 Raised the string all the way to the maximum height possible at 9 m/min. Driller
3 Observed the flow out while pipe was moving up. Driller/MPD operator
Recorded time, flow in, flow out, SBP, and SPP while pipe moving up. Recorded the
4 MPD operator
minimum PWD reading.
5 Lowered the string to the lowest point possible (use constant speed 9 m/min). Driller
6 Calculated block speed. Checked speed with mud loggers. Driller/MPD operator
7 Observed flow out while the pipe was moving down. MPD operator
Recorded time, flow in, flow out, SBP, and SPP while pipe moving down. Recorded the
8 Driller/MPD operator
minimum PWD reading.
Table 6—Operation process of effect of pipe movement on pressures.
Flow In Flow Out Targeted SBP Min SBP RPM Stable BHP Min/Max PWD
Movement Speed (L/min) (L/min) (psi) (psi) (rev/min) (psi) BHP (psi) (ppg)
Tripping out at 9 m/min 670 670 150 145 0 11322 11316 N/A
Tripping in at 9 m/min 670 670 150 139 0 11322 11337 N/A
Table 7—Test record.
Fig. 12 shows that the choke was automatically closed and resulted in an increase of SBP upon the influx detection. SBP was
increased within a safe margin and held constant while the influx was controlled. According to the above operation process and test
record, it could be seen that the operations team completed the established task within the allocated time duration and, thus, the evalua-
tion team unanimously agreed to pass the MPD influx simulation test.
Field Application. MPD was used during drilling of 83/ 8 in. hole section and several key operations were successfully implemented
(Yin et al. 2018). For the sake of brevity, only DFIT and stripping out of hole with SBP are elaborated in detail here.
DFIT. Detailed process of DFIT is shown in Figs. 13 and 14. ECD was dynamically increased to comply with the test by adjusting
the opening of the throttle valve to control the SBP. SBP was increased in steps—30 psi every step—and when the SBP had been trans-
mitted downhole to PWD tool, another 30 psi SBP was made. The steps were repeated until the final SBP value of 120 psi and the final
bottomhole ECD of 2.31 sg were reached. The fluctuations of BHP were within 1 psi during the dynamic pressure test.
Stripping Out of Hole with SBP. During the tripping, SBP was applied to avoid any kicks caused due to swabbing pressure
(Figs. 15 and 16). In addition, the tripping duration was decreased along with reduced risk of stuck pipe during pipe connection. SBP
was maintained within 100–120 psi during the tripping out, which is equivalent to approximately 0.02 sg increment in ECD.
Discussions
MPD has been successfully applied in the X-1 Well as an offshore ultra-HPHT exploration well. The well was drilled in a narrow drill-
ing mud density window of 0.05 sg without any incidents. Additionally, the NPT was decreased while the well cost was reduced.

Flow out I/min Boost density sg SBP SP psi Choke B %

0.00 156.21 2500.00 1.50 ... 2.50 ... 1.83
Aux flow I/min Density out sg High limit psi SPP SP psi PWD psi Choke A %
0.00 0.00 2500.00 1.50 2.10 2.50 750.00 0.00 ... 3,800.00 7,500.00 12,500.00 99.96
Flow in I/min Density in sg SBP psi SPP psi BHP psi SP %
0.00 0.00 2500.00 1.50 2.05 2.50 –2.78 0.00 3,800.00 7,500.00 12,500.00 100.00
01:03:00
Targeted SBP Stable BHP
01:05:00
01:06:00
01:07:00
01:08:00
01:09:00
01:10:00
Minimum BHP 01:11:00
Minimum SBP
01:12:00
Tripping out 01:13:00
01:14:00
01:15:00
Tool joint
Maximum BHP 01:16:00
01:17:00
Tripping in Minimum SBP 01:18:00
F/M 01:19:00
01:20:00
Fig. 10—Tripping out and tripping in under pressure of 150 psi SBP.
Control
Detection
Auto control Proportional gain 0.0100
Trend time (seconds) 15.00
Yes Yes
Monitoring Flow difference (gal/min) 15.00
Enable √ Time tolerance (seconds) 20.00
Minimum SPP increase (psi) 5.00
Surface gas density threshold (ppg) 1.00
Reaching circulation
pressure
No No Safety factor (psi) 150.00
Proportional gain 0.0100
Time tolerance (seconds) 20.00
Pressure tolerance (psi) 10.00
Kill mud rising Kill mud falling Circulating influx out
Proportional gain 0.0000 Proportional gain 0.0000 Proportional gain 0.0000
Fig. 11—Flow chart of influx MPD exercise.
Drilling Curve and Time Breakdown for 83/ 8 in. Hole Section. MPD was used to drill 83/ 8 in. hole section, from 3798 to 3938 m (in
view of the gas show, drilling was finished 30 m early). Fig. 17 shows the timeline of drilling operation with increasing drilled hole
depth while highlighting the important events. Although, the planned time for the 83/ 8 in. hole section originally was 13 days, it was
achieved in 10.63 days during actual operations.
Fig. 18 shows the time breakdown of various activities during MPD operations.
Drilling Curve Corresponding to all Hole Sections. Overall, the drilling operation speed was greatly increased—the originally
planned drilling time for all hole sections was 90 days compared to the actual drilling time of 63.63 days. This was a time savings of
approximately 26.37 days, which amounts to an approximately 30% reduction in operation time (Fig. 19). The total drilling time
decreased significantly through the successful application of MPD on X-1 Well in the Y basin compared to other wells without MPD in
the same basin (Fig. 20).
Time Breakdown for all Hole Sections. The time breakdown for all hole sections is the basis of the efficiency analysis and is used to
analyze the time utilization during each procedure. The operating procedures included mobilization and rig up, productive time of drill-
ing operations, NPT of drilling operations, formation evaluation, and cementing operation. Because the offshore ultra-HPHT

exploration well was completed using a jack-up rig (Kotrla and Cummins 2013; Yin et al. 2018a, 2018b), the mobilization and rig up
also included the towing, spudcans penetration, and spudcans pulling operation time. Fig. 21 shows the time distribution for different
activities during the drilling operations of all hole sections. Notice that the NPT was only 2.26% of the overall drilling time in the
X-1 Well. Thus, NPT was significantly decreased through the successful application of MPD in the Y basin (Fig. 22).
Step Action Responsible Party
Initiated flow using rig pump with the string on top of the cement in order to simulate drilling
conditions. While circulating at drilling rate, recorded flow rates, SPP, and SBP pressures.
Set MPD system high limit according to the project. Set virtual trip tanks to zero so that kick volume
2 MPD operator
could be measured accurately.
3 Confirmed influx detection algorithm is populated correctly. MPD operator
4 Ensure “detection” is enabled and Auto Control is “OFF.” MPD operator
5 Disabled the MPD Aux Pump on the software to acknowledge simulating an influx. MPD operator
Had the driller start the pump to drilling rate and start circulation by MPD manifold. Waited until system
6 MPD operator/driller
stabilized.
7 Had the driller start the MPD aux pump to 20 spm to acknowledge simulating an influx. Driller/MPD operator
8 Recorded flow rate at which choke manifold responded. MPD operator
With the system auto control OFF, confirmed message indicating “INFLUX DETECTED”
9 MPD operator
to alert the driller.
10 Repeated Steps 1–9 with the system on auto control “ON.” MPD operator
Confirmed message indicating Influx Detected to alert the driller and system held SBP to try
11 MPD operator
and equal flow in and flow out.
Driller stopped the disabled pump (influx pump) and the system must hold the pressure,
which was holding when flow in and flow out equalized.
Table 8—Operation process of MPD influx simulation.
Auto Visual Alarm Automatic Reaction Time to Control Influx Time to Turn Off
Detection Control (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (seconds) Influx Size the Pumps (seconds)
ON ENABLED Yes Yes 45 15 SPM 5
Table 9—Test record of MPD influx simulation.

0.00 1,224.81 2500.00 1.50 ... 2.50 ... 0.87
0.00 0.00 2500.00 1.50 2.06 2.50 350.00 0.00 3,800.00 7,500.00 12,500.00 51.12
0.00 1,233.52 2500.00 1.50 2.05 2.50 88.03 0.00 3,800.00 7,500.00 12,500.00 51.12
00:01:40
00:02:00
00:02:20
00:02:40
00:03:00
00:03:20
00:03:40
00:04:00
Influx SBP increased
detected Choke
closed 00:04:31
Choke
Influx SBP increased stabled
controlled 45 seconds by a safety 00:04:58
margin and
F/M held constant 00:05:20
Fig. 12—Influx detected and MPD system subsequent response.

0.00 1193.94 2500.00 1.50 ... 2.50 ... 99.87%

0.00 0.00 2500.00 1.50 2.20 2.50 200.00 0.00 3,800.00 12,730.00 99.93%

0.00 2500.00 1.50 2.17 2.50 2.01 1403.88 12,715.64
Choke
SBP closed
BHP
increased
30 psi
60 psi
90 psi
120 psi
FIT
BHP
decreased
SBP decreased
Choke
F/M opened
Fig. 13—DFIT.
14,000 1,200
13,000 1,100
Pressure MPD Choke SBP (psi)

12,000
Pressure SPP and BHP (psi)
1,000
11,000
900
10,000
Static flowcheck 800
9,000 Drill ahead the section (TTK pump off)
to 3938 m MDRT SPP (psi)
8,000 700
(well DT) BHP-well model (psi)
7,000 BHP PWD (psi) 600
6,000 Choke SBP (psi) 500
5,000 Perform DFIT
with MPD choke 400
4,000
300
3,000
2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00
Fig. 14—Perform DFIT with MPD choke.
Casing Program Optimization. Due to the limited HPHT formation knowledge, inaccuracies in the formation pore pressure predic-
tions, inadequate drilling technology in the narrow drilling mud density window, and poor cementing qualities, the originally planned
casing program for earlier drilled wells was conservative, with the preoptimized casing program including seven (7) strings (Fig. 23a).
Because the reaming operations had to be applied due to the two unconventional casings (16 and 113/ 4 in. casing), it resulted in substan-
tial NPT and longer overall duration of drilling time.
With the optimized understanding of the formation geology, the increased accuracy in pore pressure predictions, and significant
advances in cementing technology, a new casing method is proposed for X-1 Well using MPD based upon the comprehensive assess-
ment of ECD, well control, casing entry capacity, and cementing. The optimized casing program has only five (5) conventional casing
strings (Fig. 23b).
The 20 in. surface casing shoe is set as deep as possible to improve the pressure-bearing capacity and to maintain the widest possible
drilling mud density window for the next hole sections for any potential drilling incidents. Thus, the 16 in. casing string is eliminated
from the casing program. The 133/ 8 in. intermediate casing shoe was set on the basis of the leak-off tests conducted at 20 in. casing shoe
with the predicted formation pressure corresponding to the thick mudstone caprock, thus eliminating the need for another 113/ 4 in.
unconventional casing. The 95/ 8 in. production casing shoe was set at the lower part of thick mudstone caprock in order to avoid the
exposure to HPHT formation in the target reservoir. The setting depth of 95/ 8 in. casing is greater than before the optimization to shorten
the length of 83/ 8 in. hole section and further reduce the cementing difficulties. Thus, the optimized casing program for X-1 Well is
30 in. 185 m þ 20 in. 1205 m þ 133/ 8 in. 3090 m þ 95/ 8 in. 3795 m þ 7 in. 3935 m (Fig. 24).


–500.00 728.80 1800.00 2.00 ... 3.00 0.00 120.00 400.00 –10.00 110.00
–500.00 774.91 1800.00 2.00 2.31 3.00 0.00 220.00 400.00 0.00 ... 2,000.00 11,000.00 ... 13,500.00 –10.00 110.00
–500.00 774.91 1800.00 2.00 2.26 3.00 0.00 118.25 400.00 0.00 70.66 2,000.00 11,000.00 13,500.00 –10.00 110.00
20:29:00
120 psi 20:30:00
20:31:00
20:32:00
20:33:00
20:34:00
20:35:00
Tripping Tool joint

20:36:00
out SBP increased
20:37:00
20:38:00
20:39:00
F/M 20:40:00
0 1,000 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 0 50 100
Fig. 15—Stripping out of hole with SBP.
14,000 1,200
13,000 1,100
Pressure MPD Choke SBP (psi)

12,000
Pressure SPP and BHP (psi)
1,000
11,000
900
10,000
Strip out of hole with 800
9,000 OneSync system 100–120 psi SBP at
taken offline Retrieve protective 700
8,000 sleeve, install bearing tripping speed 0.15 m/s
7,000 assembly 600
SPP (psi)
6,000 500
BHP-well model (psi)
5,000
BHP PWD (psi) 400
4,000 Choke SBP (psi) 300
3,000
200
2,000
1,000 100
0 0
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0.00
Fig. 16—Strip out of hole with 100–120 psi SBP at the speed of 0.15 m/s.
Date
25 May 30 May 4 June 9 June 14 June 19 June 24 June 29 June 4 July 9 July
2,900
Run in hole 12¹⁄₄ in.
Squeeze cement
3,000 BHA drill out, LOT
3,100
3,200
Pull out of hole due
MWD tool failure
3,300
MD (m)
3,400
3,500
Online rig up RCD
3,600 and MPD equipment Drill to TD, perform Wirelining logging
DFIT and strip out of wiper trip,
hole wireline logging
3,700
3,800 Abandonment
Set 9⁵⁄₈ in. Drill 8³⁄₈ in.
3,900 casing section
4,000
Fig. 17—X-1 Well days vs. MD.

Cementing casing
0.39% 0.18% Circulating gas
3.56% Circulating/conditioning mud
18.87% Drilling cement
16.72%
0.70% Drilling with MPD
3.20% FIT/LOT
3.91% 5.72% Flow checking
0.37% Wireline logging
3.26% MPD in-casing test
8.79%
Pick-up and lay down BHA
Pressure test (lines/equipment)
19.97% RCD/bearing working
6.39% Ream/wash
Rig down
1.35% Rig up
1.97% Abandon
0.04% Service rig
1.72% 2.15% 0.76% Testing BOP
Tripping/stripping
Fig. 18—Time breakdown of different activities during the MPD operations in 83/ 8 in. hole section.
Days
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0
400
Planned
800
Actual
1,200
1,600
MD (m)
2,000
2,400
2,800
3,200
3,600
4,000
4,400
Fig. 19—Drilling progress vs. MD: originally planned (blue) and actually achieved (magenta).
300
Without MPD
250
MPD applied
200
Days
150
100
50
0
Y-4 Y-3 Y-2 Y-1 L-7 L-2 L-1 X-1
Well
Fig. 20—Total drilling operation time comparison of X-1 Well (MPD applied) against adjacent wells (without MPD) in the Y basin.
29.15%
38.69% Productive time of drilling

NPT of drilling
Formation evaluation
Cementing operation
Mobilization and rig up
20.04%
2.26%
9.86%
Fig. 21—Time breakdown of various drilling operations in X-1 Well in the Y basin.

50
45 Without MPD
40 MPD applied
35
NPT (%)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Y-4 Y-3 Y-2 Y-1 L-7 L-2 L-1 X-1
Well
Fig. 22—NPT comparison of X-1 Well (MPD applied) and adjacent drilled wells (without MPD).
30 in. 30 in.
20 in.
16 in. 20 in.
13³⁄₈ in. 13³⁄₈ in.

Seven to five strings
11³⁄₄ in.
9⁵⁄₈ in.
7 in. 9⁵⁄₈ in.
7 in.
(a) Initial casing design without MPD (b) Optimized casing design with MPD
Fig. 23—Optimization of casing programs—(a) initial casing design had seven strings and (b) optimized casing design with MPD
has five strings.
Well schematic RKB, 0.00 m (All depths are MD)

113.50 m TOC 185.00 m 30 in. conductor casing
608.00 m TOC
1205.00 m 20 in. surface casing
2295.00 m TOC
3095.00 m 13³⁄₈ in. intermediate casing
3398.00 m TOC
3648.00 m TOL
3795.00 m 9⁵⁄₈ in. production casing
3935.00 m 7 in. production liner
Fig. 24—Optimized casing program of X-1 Well using MPD.
Conclusions
1. Challenges to the offshore drilling in the Y basin in the South China Sea arise due to extremely stringent requirements on the off-
shore drilling technology with narrow drilling mud density window, the HP/HT resistance of the equipment, and the quality of work
experience and safety training of the operators. Therefore, MPD is needed in the Y basin for more safe, efficient, and cost-effective
offshore drilling operations by widening the operational MW window.
2. MPD operational designs consist of precise calculations for ECD and the optimization of operational parameters. ECD calculation
included four models: wellbore heat transfer model, ESD model, drilling fluid rheological property model, and a model for incorpo-
rating the effects of cuttings in the pressure loss model. The operational parameter optimization included tuning the values for two
key parameters: MW and SBP.

3. MPD operational procedures consist of the roles and responsibilities of key personnel during MPD operations, wellsite training pro-
gram, and emergency procedures. Deployment of MPD equipment during onboarding the jack-up was a success, despite the chal-
lenges including relatively inexperienced rig crews unfamiliar with MPD equipment and procedures while demonstrating a
successful collaboration among MPD crews. Trained rig crews have demonstrated attained knowledge in subsequent deployment of
RCD operations and MPD flow paths for different MPD operations. Therefore, the wellsite training program (classroom and subse-
quently, on the drill floor) has proved to be helpful in improving rig crews’ understanding and participation in the MPD operations.
4. MPD has been successfully applied in the Y basin through field installation, operation design, and risk management. MPD equip-
ment was also used for early kick and loss detection, DFITs, and stripping out of hole using SBP to counter any potential
swab effect.
5. MPD technology is expected to significantly improve the operational efficiency and safety in the offshore drilling of HPHT wells
with narrow drilling mud density windows.
Nomenclature
Cc ¼ cuttings concentration in the annular
Cp ¼ specific heat, J/(kg C)
D1 ¼ inner diameter of drillstring, cm
D2 ¼ outer diameter of drillstring, cm
D3 ¼ borehole diameter, cm
h ¼ well depth, m
H ¼ vertical depth, m
k ¼ consistency index, Pasn
k00 , k01 , k10 , k02 , k20 , k11 , k12 , k21 , k22 ¼ characteristic parameters of drilling fluid density
n ¼ flow index
Nu ¼ ratio of convective to conductive heat transfer
P ¼ pressure, Pa
Pbh ¼ bottomhole pressure, Pa
Pcp ¼ collapse pressure, Pa
Pf ¼ fracture pressure, Pa
Pl ¼ leakoff pressure, Pa
Pp ¼ pore pressure, Pa
ROP ¼ rate of penetration, m/h
SPP ¼ standpipe pressure, Pa
T ¼ temperature, C
Vr ðP; TÞ ¼ volumetric ratio at P and T
Wc ¼ conductive heat transfer, Jm2s1
Wf ¼ convective heat transfer, Jm2s1
c ¼ shear rate, s1
D ¼ generated heat, Jm3s1
DPadc ¼ pressure loss through annulus around drill collar, Pa
DPadp ¼ pressure loss through annulus around drill pipe, Pa
DPb ¼ pressure loss through bit, Pa
DPc ¼ pressure loss generated by cutting, Pa
DPdc ¼ pressure loss through drill collar, Pa
DPdp ¼ pressure loss through drill pipe, Pa
DPl ¼ annular pressure loss, Pa
DPs ¼ pressure loss through surface flow lines, Pa
k ¼ thermal conductivity, W/(m C)
d ¼ return speed of the drilling fluid, m/s
c ¼ sliding speed of cuttings, m/s
qc ¼ cuttings density, g/cm3
qd ¼ MW, gcm3
s ¼ shear stress, Pa
s0 ¼ yield stress, Pa
Acknowledgments
Thanks for academic direction of Dr. Xuyue Chen and Dr. Ting Sun from China University of Petroleum-Beijing, and technical support
by engineers from CNOOC China Limited, Zhanjiang Branch. We are also grateful to Zhenxiang Zhang, Shanshan Shi, and Dongsheng
Xu for technical supports. This paper is financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: Nos. 51434009 and
51774301), the National Key Research and Development Project (Grant No. 2016ZX05024-005-009) and the CNOOC science and
technology projects (Grant Nos. CNOOC-KJ135ZDXM24LTDZJ01 and CNOOC-KJ135ZDXM05LTDZJ01).
References
Arnone, M. A. and Vieira, P. 2009. Drilling Wells with Narrow Operating Windows Applying the MPD Constant Bottom Hole Pressure Technology—
How Much the Temperature and Pressure Affects the Operation’s Design. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17–19 March. SPE-119882-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/119882-MS.
Ataga, E., Ogbonna, J., and Boniface, O. 2012. Accurate Estimation of Equivalent Circulating Density during High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT)
Drilling Operations. Paper presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 6–8 August. SPE-162972-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/162972-MS.

Awe, S., Akinfolarin, A., Erinle, A. O. et al. 2018. Optimizing MPD Performance in Highly Permeable Exploratory HPHT Reservoirs: Dealing with
Human Factor and Technology Limitations. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 17–18 April. SPE-190012-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/190012-MS.
Cadd, M., Steven, L., Graham, R. et al. 2017. Integrating MPD into HPHT Well Planning. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13–16 November. SPE-188335-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/188335-MS.
Chang, X., Zhou, J., Guo, Y. et al. 2018. Heat Transfer Behaviors in Horizontal Wells Considering the Effects of Drill Pipe Rotation, and Hydraulic and
Mechanical Frictions during Drilling Procedures. Energies 11 (9): 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092414.
Chen, X. and Gao, D. 2018. The Maximum-Allowable Well Depth While Performing Ultra-Extended-Reach Drilling from Shallow Water to Deepwater
Target. SPE J. 23 (1): 224–236. SPE-183025-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/183025-PA.
Chen, X., Gao, D., Yang, J. et al. 2018. A Comprehensive Wellbore Stability Model Considering Poroelastic and Thermal Effects for Inclined Wellbores
in Deepwater Drilling. J Energy Resour Technol 140 (9): 11. JERT-18-1029. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039983.
Culen, M. S., Brand, P. R., Bacon, W. et al. 2016. Evolution of the MPD Operations Matrix: The Influx Management Envelope. Paper presented at the
SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition, Galveston, Texas, USA, 12–13 April. SPE-
179191-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179191-MS.
Dow, B., Kamps, C., Cremer, J. et al. 2017. API Specification 16 RCD Demystifying Rotating Control Device Manufacturing Specifications for Opera-
tions. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, 14–16 March. SPE-184721-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/184721-MS.
Ettehadi Osgouei, R., Yoong, W. L. S., and Ozbayoglu, E. M. 2013. Calculations of Equivalent Circulating Density in Underbalanced Drilling Opera-
tions. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 March. IPTC-16601-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2523/IPTC-16601-MS.
Gabaldon, O. R., Brand, P. R., Culen, M. S. et al. 2017. Case Study: First Experience of Developing an Influx Management Envelope IME for a Deep-
water MPD Operation. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling & Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 28–29 March. SPE-185289-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185289-MS.
Gedge, B., Singh, H. K. D., Refugio, E. B. et al. 2013. Managed Pressure Drilling—A Solution for Drilling the Challenging and Un-Drillable Wells in
Vietnam and South East Asia. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 22–24 October.
SPE-165775-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/165775-MS.
Graham, R., Geddes, M., Harris, T. et al. 2015. MPD Technology Used to Deliver Challenging HPHT Drilling Campaign. Paper presented at the SPE
Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 8–11 September. SPE-175479-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/175479-MS.
Haggins, R. 2014. MPD Training Competencies: The Challenges of a Young Product Line. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling
& Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, 8–9 April. SPE-168959-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/168959-MS.
Haizhu, W., Zhonghou, S., and Gensheng, L. 2011. Influences of Formation Water Invasion on the Wellbore Temperature and Pressure in Supercritical
CO2 Drilling. Pet Explor Dev 38 (3): 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(11)60039-6.
Hannegan, D. M. 2006. Case Studies—Offshore Managed Pressure Drilling. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September. SPE-101855-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/101855-MS.
Hannegan, D. M. 2011. Managed Pressure Drilling Applications on Offshore HPHT Wells. Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 May. OTC-21208-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/21208-MS.
Hannegan, D. M. and Fisher, K. 2005. Managed Pressure Drilling in Marine. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November. IPTC-10173-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-10173-MS.
Hemphill, T. and Ravi, K. 2011. Improved Prediction of ECD with Drill Pipe Rotation. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Con-
ference, Bangkok, Thailand, 15–17 November. IPTC-15424-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-15424-MS.
Hilts, B. 2013. Managed Pressure Drilling. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
30 September–2 October. SPE-167621-STU. https://doi.org/10.2118/167621-STU.
Hollman, L., Haq, I., Christenson, C. et al. 2015. Developing a MPD Operation Matrix—Case History. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Con-
ference and Exhibition, London, England, UK, 17–19 March. SPE-173094-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/173094-MS.
Houwen, O. H. and Geehan, T. 1986. Rheology of Oil-Base Muds. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 5–8 October. SPE-15416-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/15416-MS.
Howell, R., McKenzie, B., Leslie, C. et al. 2019. Advanced Drilling Simulators for Well Control Training: Bringing Together People, Procedures and
New Technology. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, 5–7 March.
SPE-194181-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/194181-MS.
Huang, Y. 2016. Present Situation and Prospect of High Temperature and High Pressure Well Exploration and Drilling Technology in the South China
Sea. Oil Drill Prod Technol 38 (6): 737–745. https://doi.org/10.13639/j.odpt.2016.06.004.
Isambourg, P., Anfinsen, B. T., and Marken, C. 1996. Volumetric Behavior of Drilling Muds at High Pressure and High Temperature. Paper presented at
the European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 22–24 October. SPE-36830-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/36830-MS.
Kabir, C. S., Hasan, A. R., Kouba, G. E. et al. 1996. Determining Circulating Fluid Temperature in Drilling, Workover, and Well Control Operations.
SPE Drill & Compl 11 (2): 74–79. SPE-24581-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/24581-PA.
Knode, T., Schonacher, D., and Ritchie, N. 2018. Wellsite Risk Management Improvement Including Human Factors. Paper presented at the SPE Inter-
national Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Security, Environment, and Social Responsibility, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 16–18 April. SPE-
190630-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/190630-MS.
Kotrla, J. and Cummins, R. 2013. Jack-Up Drilling on Conventional Subsea Wellheads. Paper presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 3–6 September. SPE-166548-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/166548-MS.
Li, Y., Wu, J., Huang, Y. et al. 2015. Key Technology and Practical Effect of High Temperature and High Pressure in Middle and Deep Strata of Ying
Ge Hai Basin. China Offshore Oil Gas 27 (4): 102–106. https://doi.org/10.13639/j.odpt.2016.06.003.
Li, Z. 2016. The Present Situation and Prospect of the Key Technology of Drilling and Completion in High Temperature and High Pressure Gas Field in
the South China Sea. Oil Drill Prod Technol 38 (6): 730–736. https://doi.org/10.13639/j.odpt.2016.06.003.
Nas, S. W., Toralde, J. S., and Wuest, C. 2009. Offshore Managed Pressure Drilling Experiences in Asia Pacific. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drill-
ing Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17–19 March. SPE-119875-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/119875-MS.
Rehman, S. A. M. A., Boyce, G. R., and Davis, P. H. 2009. Choice of the Hydraulics Flow Model: A Step towards a Successful High-Pressure MPD
Operation in Offshore India. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, 12–13 February. SPE-122274-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/122274-MS.
Reitsma, D. and van Riet, E. 2005. Utilizing an Automated Annular Pressure Control System for Managed Pressure Drilling in Mature Offshore Oilfields.
Paper presented at the Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, UK, 6–9 September. SPE-96646-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/96646-MS.

Rommetveit, R. and Bjorkevoll, K. S. 1997. Temperature and Pressure Effects on Drilling Fluid Rheology and ECD in Very Deep Wells. Paper
presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, 23–25 November. SPE-39282-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
39282-MS.
Rommetveit, R., Davidson, I., and Svendsen, M. 2017. Real Time Engineering-Based Simulation Training Addresses Risk in Managed Pressure Drilling.
Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, The Netherlands, 14–16 March. SPE-184700-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/184700-MS.
Sanchez, H. A., Vallejo-Arrieta, V. G., Ramirez, S. et al. 2010. First MPD with Automated System Application in Offshore Gulf of Mexico Well
Confirms Method, Huge Benefits. Paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru,
1–3 December. SPE-138907-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/138907-MS.
Sklet, S., Ringstad, A. J, Steen, S. A. et al. 2010. Monitoring of Human and Organizational Factors Influencing the Risk of Major Accidents. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
12–14 April. SPE-126530-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/126530-MS.
Syltoy, S., Eide, S. E., Berg, P. C. et al. 2008. Highly Advanced Multitechnical MPD Concept Extends Achievable HP/HT Targets in the North Sea.
Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
28–29 January. SPE-114484-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/114484-MS.
Wang, B., Li, G., Huang, Z. et al. 2016. Hydraulics Calculations and Field Application of Radial Jet Drilling. SPE Drill & Compl 31 (1): 71–81. SPE-
179729-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/179729-PA.
Wang, J. S., Jun, L., Gonghui, L. et al. 2018. A New Model of Wellbore Temperature Field in Circulation Drilling. Fault-Block Field 25 (2): 240–243.
https://doi.org/10.6056/dkyqt201802023.
Yin, Q., Yang, J., Borujeni, A. T. et al. 2019. Intelligent Early Kick Detection in Ultra-Deepwater High-Temperature High-Pressure (HPHT) Wells
Based on Big Data Technology. Paper presented at the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,
16–21 June. ISOPE-I-19-603.
Yin, Q., Yang, J., Hu, N. et al. 2018. Improved Calculation Method of Soil Bearing Capacity of Jack-Up Rig Based on Field Simulation Experiment. Paper
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–23 March. OTC-28523-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/28523-MS.
Yin, Q., Yang, J., Liu, S. et al. 2017. Intelligent Method of Identifying Drilling Risk in Complex Formations Based on Drilled Wells Data. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE Intelligent Oil and Gas Symposium, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–10 May. SPE-187472-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/187472-MS.
Yin, Q., Yang, J., Zhou, B. et al. 2018a. Improve the Drilling Operations Efficiency by the Big Data Mining of Real-Time Logging. Paper presented at
the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 29–31 January. SPE-189330-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/189330-MS.
Yin, Q., Yang, J., Zhou, B. et al. 2018b. Operational Designs and Applications of MPD in Offshore Ultra-HTHP Exploration Wells. Paper presented at
the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August. SPE-191060-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/191060-MS.
Appendix A—Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel during MPD Operations

The DSV is the “key man” in monitoring of the safe implementation of MPD operation. Other than his routine roles and responsibilities,
the DSV is responsible for coordinating and ensuring overall smooth and safe proceeding over the entire MPD operation, ensuring all
rig personnel are aware of the MPD operation compared to conventional drilling.
The drilling team is responsible for shutting in the well and conducting well control operations using the rig’s well control system.
The OIM is the leader of drilling team and also is the key man in monitoring of the safe implementation of MPD operation. The tool
pusher is responsible for ensuring that the drilling operation and associated site activities are managed in a way that assures safe drilling
operation. The driller is the front-line person in the supervision of personnel and his prime objective is to ensure that instructions are
carried out completely and safely. The driller must understand exactly their duties for MPD and inform DSV/MPD supervisor/tool
pusher for any sign of abnormal event during MPD operation. The assistant driller is the replacement of the driller, he must be able to
assume the same responsibilities as the driller and therefore be appropriately qualified.
The MPD supervisor is another key man in monitoring of the safe implementation of MPD operation. He is responsible for provid-
ing training to all key personnel to ensure they are fully trained and understand the MPD operations, discuss with DSV for MPD related
issues as well as ensure smooth and safe proceeding over the entire MPD operation. The MPD engineer is responsible for ensuring the
well is drilled in compliance with the MPD program, monitor well conditions to ensure MPD conditions, discuss with DSV and recom-
mend SBP. The RCD operator works together with the DSV/MPD supervisor to ensure smooth and safe proceeding over the entire
RCD operation. The RCD operator is fully responsible for the overall operation of the RCD and hardware and must be present at all
times to monitor RCD status and evaluate any alarms. The choke operator maintains and operates the choke manifold and ensures that
all of the required parts are on location and that all the equipment functions in accordance with the design criteria.
Appendix B—Summary of Wellsite Training Program

Part 1 is a classroom training to explain MPD theory/practice and its application for the target well. It must be conducted prior to the
casedhole fingerprinting exercises. The following crew members must attend the training session: operator (DSV); drilling team (OIM,
tool pusher, driller, assistant driller, rig crew, pump man); MPD team (MPD supervisor, MPD engineer, RCD operator, choke operator);
third party team (mud loggers, cementer, mud engineer, MWD engineer, and directional drilling engineer). The training syllabus con-
sists of why MPD is used for the target well; how MPD equipment must be set up; equipment overview (RCD and choke manifold);
casedhole fingerprinting steps; making pipe connections; tripping; kick detection.
The second part of the training focused on drill floor practical training and a series of casedhole MPD fingerprinting exercises before
drilling out casing shoe that aimed to provide practical experience for the rig crew and MPD crew in performing MPD operations;
ensure that critical equipment was tested and properly functioning; established baseline, or “fingerprints” of operation events, so that
we know what was “normal,” and hence be able to recognize what was “abnormal”; ensure that all relevant personnel have practiced
the execution of critical procedures. This was the opportunity to understand the hydraulic condition of the well and calibrate the MPD
software. The MPD supervisor coordinated the procedures and safely working practices with all personnel involved. The procedures
and guidelines had been followed closely with constant communication being essential. Therefore, the following exercises were per-
formed: stabbing RCD bearing assembly; installing RCD bearing assembly (stripping out through a closed annular); pressure test RCD
bearing assembly; stripping drill pipe through RCD (record torque and drag when stripping tool joints, do this with no pressure and
record pressure on RCD); rack back RCD bearing assembly after practical training has concluded. Also, the operational procedures of

drill floor practical training included rigging up, pressure test, installation/removal of RCD bearing, installation/removal of protective
sleeve, drilling, making pipe connections with MPD, tripping in/out, gas detection, gas handling, kick/loss detection, kick/loss response,
driller’s function and responsibility, and emergency responses. All the drillers were present on the drill floor during the practical train-
ing and the MPD supervisor emphasized the importance for full driller familiarization with the procedures and systems before
operations continued.
Appendix C—Tables Relevant for MPD Operational Procedures
Choke PWD Other

SPP Pressure Pressure Flow In Flow Out Changes Cause Effect Action Driller Action
Maintain Decrease
BHP
Reduction in Losses while circulation rate, backpressure
Decrease Decrease Decrease Same Decrease too high
pit volumes drilling reduce mud while drilling
weight to minimum
System will
Stop drilling;
Pump rate Insufficient Influx while increase
Increase Increase Increase Same Increase continue
increases BHP drilling backpressure
circulating
automatic
Unexpected
drilling event Pull off bottom,
Annulus
Increase in Overpressure rotate pipe,
packed off or
Increase Decrease Increase Same Decrease torque and well resulting in increase RPM, Monitor well
hole cleaning
drag potential losses work to clear
issue
blockage
Increase
High Insufficient
Influx during backpressure
Same Same Same Same Same connection BHP None
connection during
gas levels on connection
connections
Slow drop in Potential
Drillstring Prepare to
Decrease Same Decrease Same Same SPP drillstring Monitor well
washout pull out of hole
failure
Review
No MWD Loss of PWD requirements,
Same Same No Signal Same Same PWD failure Monitor well
pulses signal prepare to
pull out of hole
Mud pump
Reduction in Plugged
Downhole Increase Same Same Same Decrease pressure relief Stop pumping Monitor well
strokes bit nozzle
equipment trips
failure Back flow Stop holding Prepare for trip
Non-return
Same Same Same Same Same during backpressure to replace float Monitor well
valve failure
connections on connections valves
Sharp Mud pump

Plugged
Increase Same Decrease Same Decrease increase in pressure relief Stop pumping Monitor well
drillstring
SPP trips
Loss of Drillstring Decrease in Prepare to

Decrease Same No Signal Same Same Monitor well
hookload parted BHP pull out of hole
Surface
Mud spill on Reduced Pull off bottom
Decrease Same Decrease Same Decrease equipment Monitor well
location SPP stop circulation
leak
Decrease in
Slow drop in Mud pump Change mud
Decrease Same Decrease Same Decrease BHP due to Monitor well
SPP washout pumps
loss of ECD
Switch system
Sharp drop or System unable to manual
Flowmeter Stop drilling,
Same Same Same Same No Signal increase in to detect kicks change or
failure pull off bottom
flowmeter and react repair
flowmeter
Sharp
Overpressure Switch chokes
increase in Plugged Reduce pump
Increase Increase Increase Same Decrease well resulting in and clear
choke choke rate
potential losses blocked choke
pressure
Sharp Plugged
Overpressure Switch chokes
increase in manifold Reduce pump
Increase Increase Increase Same Decrease well resulting in and clear
choke downstream rate
potential losses blockage
pressure of chokes
Surface Stop drilling,
equipment System unable Monitor well
Black out on Rig power pull off bottom,
failure Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease to detect kicks using manual
location failure repair
and react gauges
generator
Unable to Repair auxiliary
Reduction in maintain Stop drilling, pump. Use
Auxiliary
Same Decrease Same Decrease Decrease surface pressure pull off bottom, cement pump
pump failure
backpressure during circulate to provide
connections additional flow
Table C-1—MPD cause and effect matrix.

Choke PWD Other

SPP Pressure Pressure Flow In Flow Out Changes Cause Effect Action Driller Action
Switch system
Flow alarm Pump stroke System unable
to manual and
Same Same Same No Signal Same on MPD counter to detect kicks None
replace/repair
system failure and react
stroke counter
Switch system
Pressure System unable to manual and
SPP
No Signal Same Same Same Same alarm on to detect kicks None replace
sensor failure
MPD system and react pressure
sensor
Choke
System unable Stop drilling,
fluctuating Repair air
Same Decrease Same Same Same Rig air failure to hold pull off bottom,
and not supply
backpressure circulate
functioning
Table C-1 (continued)—MPD cause and effect matrix.
SBP Indicator
Pipe Connection
with SBP at Planned >Planned SBP& SBP > Operational
Operational Well Control Matrix Drilling at Planned SBP SBP <Operational Limit HIGHEST Limit
Increase pump rate,

Stop operation.
MW, or both.
Space out tool joint.
Shut in well on rig

No influx Continue drilling Continue connection And reduce SBP to blowout preventer
planned or (BOP) and evaluate
contingency levels. next action.
Line up to control well

through the rig choke.
Increase pump rate,

Stop drilling. Stop connection. Stop operation.
MW, or both.
Allow MPD system to Allow MPD system

increase SBP to Flow in to increase SBP to
= Flow out, stop the Flow in = Flow out, Space out tool joint.
influx and add safe stop the influx and
margin. add safe margin.
Stab Full Opening Stop main pumps

Safe Valve (FOSV). circulation.
Influx indicator. Influx
<0.3 m
3 Keep circulation at Connect the top
Pit gain. Trip tank And reduce SBP to Shut in BOP.
(1.9 bbls) drilling rate. drive.
gain. Early kick planned or
detection (EKD). Circulation influx out contingency levels.
through choke manifold.
Keep circulation with

MPD pump. Line up to control well
through the rig choke.
Evaluate SBP. Circulation influx out
through choke
manifold.
Evaluate SBP.
Stop drilling. Stop connection. Stop operation. Stop operation.
Space out tool joint. Space out tool joint. Space out tool joint. Space out tool joint.
Stop main pumps Stop main pumps Stop main pumps

Stop pumps circulation.
Influx > circulation. circulation. circulation.
3
0.3 m
Shut in BOP. Shut in BOP. Shut in BOP. Shut in BOP.
(1.9 bbls)
Line up to control
well through the rig Line up to control
Line up to control well Line up to control well
choke. well through the rig
through the rig choke. through the rig choke.
choke.
Evaluate SBP.
Table C-2—MPD operational well control matrix for influx (Culen et al. 2016).

Event Action
Stop drilling, continue circulation and rotation of drillstring. If holding any
Downhole losses SBP, decrease any SBP as soon as possible to reduce the BHP and
measure mud loss rate.
Increase in torque
Stop drilling and work the pipe to reduce the torque and drag.
and drag
High reported gas Maintain circulation. If gas levels continue to rise, return flow line shall be
level diverted through the rig mud gas separator (MGS).
Stop drilling, driller/MPD operator/rig crew on rig floor wear self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Other MPD crew don H2S
H2S detected escape pack and proceed to muster point. Driller/MPD operator/rig crew
continue mud circulation and wait for further instruction from DSV
or OIM.
Mud temperature
Bearing assembly and seal elements shall be replaced based on the
exceeds RCD
procedures mutually agreed by DSV and OIM.
element rating
Table C-3—Corresponding specific actions of unexpected drilling events.
Event Action
Drill pipe Stop drilling, pick-up the drillstring off bottom and slowly reciprocate/rotate drill
washout pipe. Hold SBP as per MPD making pipe connection procedure.
Continue operations and rely on the calculated BHP readout from the MPD system
PWD failure
“Well Model.”
MPD supervisor and driller must confirm that no other changes have occurred both
on the MPD side and rig side to cause the increasing of SPP. Driller
inform DSV of a plugged drill bit nozzle. Driller must advise the MPD supervisor
Plugged bit that circulation rate will be reduced to limit the SPP. Mud pump
nozzle circulate at lower rate holding the required set point BHP,
confirming that sufficient flow is available for the downhole motor. Once DSV has
agreed to pull out of hole, it will be necessary to ensure statically overbalanced and
conventional tripping procedures will apply.
Table C-4—Corresponding specific actions of downhole equipment failures.
Event Action
MPD auxiliary pump fails during The MPD system will immediately catch up the sudden pressure change to keep BHP constant
pipe connection and trap pressure with chokes.
Inform driller regarding the change in flow and pressure parameters. Switch MPD system to
Rig drillstring injection pump failure
annular pressure control (APC) mode.
Reduce or stop circulating. Start and maintain mud pump connected to choke manifold and
Leaks in injection system
maintain SBP.
Shut down faulty pump while bringing the second pump online. Inform the MPD operator
Mud pump washout
that mud pumps are changed over.
Bearing assembly/RCD element Stop drilling and pick-up the drillstring off bottom. Once new bearing assembly installation
leaks is completed, continue the operation with pipe connection from the choke manifold.
Stop drilling but maintain circulation. Line up to circulate via the rig choke manifold to maintain
Leaks in MPD equipment SBP if required. Hold SBP with the rig choke, but no drilling will be done using the rig
choke manifold.
Failure of the MPD Coriolis Flowmeter bypass line must be opened and the meter isolation valves closed. Replace the
flowmeter Coriolis flowmeter if all troubleshooting attempt fails.
Should both chokes plug, then drilling operations will be suspended until both chokes are
Plugged choke opened for investigation. The well will be maintained in a stable condition using rig equipment
until the chokes are repaired.
Rig power failure Rig procedures will take precedence over any MPD procedures.
Table C-5—Corresponding specific actions of surface equipment failures.

A Field Case Study of Managed Pressure Drilling in Offshore Ultra High-Pressure High-Temperature Exploration Well in The South China Sea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Field Case Study of Managed Pressure Drilling in Offshore Ultra High-Pressure High-Temperature Exploration Well in The South China Sea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DC191060 DOI: 10.

2118/191060-PA Date: 28-February-20 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 22

A Field Case Study of Managed Pressure

Rationale for Using MPD in the Y Basin

2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 1

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Borehole Upper Shoe Target Zone Pressure Drilling Mud

1 212.7 2.22 2.23 –0.01

2 311.2 2.06 2.05 0.01

Table 1—Drilling mud density window in the Y basin.

Overview of MPD Operational Designs

ΔPadp (3) Drillstring

2 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

sðP; TÞ ¼ s0 ðP0 ; T0 ÞþkðP; TÞ  cn ðP; TÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ

2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 3

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Solution Method. In summary, the ECD is expressed as Eq. 12.

maxðPp ; Pcp Þ  Pbh  minðPf ; Pl Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ

Overview of MPD Operational Procedures

Fig. 2—Information flow among key personnel during MPD operations.

Field Case Study

4 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Bearing assembly Rig overshot

(a) Installation of bearing assembly (b) RCD installation

Lower Pressure and Higher Pressure

Offline installation: Circulating flush the surface

Offline installation: 5,000 psi and

2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 5

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Properties Value Unit

Geothermal gradient 4.51 °C/100 m

Table 3—Parameters for ECD calculation.

6 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

1000 Drillstring fluid

Fig. 5—Plot of calculated wellbore temperatures vs. MD in different casing sections.

Funnel Viscosity (m/s) Plastic Viscosity (mPa.s) Yield Point (Pa)

Fig. 6—Plot of calculated drilling fluid rheological properties vs. MD.

2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 7

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Mean sea level RKB, 0.00 m

Drilling to 8³⁄₈ in. Section TD (3968 m MD/3968 m TVD) 2.0 sg–2.25 sg MW

3,700 High Anchor

PP (sg) LP (sg) FP (sg) 9⁵⁄₈ in. casing shoe

8 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

600 50 2.220 2.223 2.220 380 2.220 2.217 2.221

3968 2.150 2.200 2.260 2.220 Choke

2020 SPE Drilling & Completion 9

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Wellbore Pressure (psi)

500 Operating range

Step Action Responsible Party

Table 6—Operation process of effect of pipe movement on pressures.

Tripping in at 9 m/min 670 670 150 139 0 11322 11337 N/A

Table 7—Test record.

10 2020 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 17:15 I Path: //chenas03.cadmus.com/Home$/jaganm$/SA-DC##190058

Flow out I/min Boost density sg SBP SP psi Choke B %

Proportional gain 0.0100

Time tolerance (seconds) 20.00

sðP; TÞ ¼ s0 ðP0 ; T0 ÞþkðP; TÞ cn ðP; TÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ

maxðPp ; Pcp Þ Pbh minðPf ; Pl Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ