Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

Agenda

 Introduction
 Measuring Wellbore Quality
 Conclusions

23.03.2017 Page 1

Thesis Objectives

 Literature overview
• Term definition
• Problems and implications
 Data analysis – “Is quality measurable?”
• KPI Development
• KPI Testing

23.03.2017 Page 2

1
Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

What is Wellbore Quality?

Literature Definitions

“A high-quality wellbore is generally considered to have (1) a

gauge hole, (2) a smooth wellbore wall, and (3) a wellbore
with minimum tortuosity.”
Chen, Gaynor, Comeaux, & Glass, 2002

“Crooked wellbores may undulate with doglegs, spiraling,

and washouts. In a word, it is tortuous.”
Stephen Rassenfoss, 2015

23.03.2017 Page 3

Why is WBQ important?

 Cause of non-productive time (NPT) in drilling:

“A 2° hole following a tight spiral would be vertical but far from straight; and if it held steadily to 2°,
there would be no objectionable rate of change in angle, yet the spiral hole might develop serious key-
seating difficulties, drill pipe wear on intermediate casing etc.”
MacDonald and Lubinski, 1951
 Production effects:
• Premature equipment failure
• Increased workover frequency

WBQ as the “readiness of the well to fulfill its purpose”

23.03.2017 Page 4

2
Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

Data Sources

Daily Drilling Reports (DDR)

Measurement & Sensor Data

Source: OMV Austria

23.03.2017 Page 5

Methods to Assess Wellbore Quality

Geometry Operations

 Shape:  NPT
• Caliper • Cost impact
• Hole Volume • Wellbore treatment time
 Trajectory:
• Deviation from plan
• Dogleg severity (DLS)
• Tortuosity

23.03.2017 Page 6

3
Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

Erdpress Field Case Study

Ref.: Author
23.03.2017 Page 7

Wellbore Shape
Average
Diameter Variations Diameter
Well # ROP* IDD
Differenc
 Average diameter variation e
[m/hr] [mm] [mm]
 Integral differential diameter :
I 7.8 28 23
∑ − J 8.7 25 24
= K 7.7 23 18
( − ) M-I 6.1 14 6
…diameter (gauge, caliper), …top/bottom N 10.5 5 4
depth, …number survey points O 7.3 5 4
Q 4.6 7 6
R 6.4 12 11
X-I 8.3 6 5
*Production section ROP

23.03.2017 Page 8

4
Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

Trajectory
14

Deviation from Plan [m]

 Measure: Deviation from 12
10
plan EOC1=KOP2
8
∗
∑ , , 6 KOP1
= EOC2 TD
( − ) 4
∗
…adherence to plan , …deviation from plan 2
, …unit length …number survey points
, …interval bottom/top 0
0 1000 2000 3000
Well Depth [m]

23.03.2017 Page 9

NPT as a Quality Indication

0.40
Time [hrs/10m]

0.30
NPT Cost
Root Cause
[hrs] [€] 0.20
Lost circulation 4.75 25,900
Fluid condition 5.25 28,630
Stuck casing 34.50 188,120 0.10
Hole condition 571.25 3,114,900
Sum 615.75 3,357,550 0.00
WT WAS REA Total
DDR Data Sensor Data
WT…Wiper Trip, WAS…Washing, REA…Reaming

23.03.2017 Page 10

5
Master Thesis Florian Gamperl 03/28/2017

Conclusions

 Wellbore quality can be measured!

 Current industry KPIs (“Management KPIs”) are insufficient
• Introduction of Quality KPIs (Geometry and Operations)
 KPIs should always rely on physical measurement
• Exclude human factor as much as possible!

23.03.2017 Page 11