See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304233825

An Integrated Drilling and Geomechanics Approach Helps to Successfully Drill

Wells along the Minimum Horizontal Stress Direction in Khuff Reservoirs

Conference Paper · November 2014

DOI: 10.2118/171755-MS

CITATIONS READS

2 1,254

7 authors, including:

Sajjad Ahmed Khaqan Khan

Università del Salento Saudi Aramco
12 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaqan Khan on 09 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-171755-MS

An Integrated Drilling and Geomechanics Approach Helps to Successfully

Drill Wells along the Minimum Horizontal Stress Direction in Khuff
Reservoirs
Sajjad Ahmed, Schlumberger; Khaqan Khan, Peter Omini, and Azly Abdulaziz, Saudi Aramco; Mujahed Ahmed,
Anurag Singh Yadav, and Mohammed Ahmed Mohiuddin, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10 –13 November 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract subm itted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Saudi Aramco is drilling horizontal wells along the minimum horizontal stress direction in an attempt to
generate multiple transverse fractures during stimulation to increase gas production and enhance recovery.
However, drilling operations in these wells are difficult due to wellbore instability because of the higher
mud weights required to minimize formation breakout due to prevailing in-situ stress conditions.
Increased mud weight also led to higher differential pressure across the variably depleted reservoir layers,
which when coupled with formation instability, created greater challenges for the drilling team. These
conditions resulted in a significantly increased number of stuck pipe incidents, incurring noticeably high
nonproductive time including loss of bottomhole assemblies in the hole. To address these problems, an
integrated approach between drilling expertise, applied geomechanics, and advanced mud logging
technology was applied to successfully overcome stuck pipe events arising from wellbore instability and
differential sticking. Additionally, the drilling and tripping practices were customized to confront borehole
instability issues. Further, to account for formation heterogeneity and varying in-situ stresses, the predrill
Mechanical-Earth-Model (MEM) was updated during drilling using Real-Time Drilling Geomechanics
(RTDG). In addition, advanced cutting return-monitoring technology was used, which helped hole
cleaning to minimize the risk of stuck pipe due to formation failure (excessive cuttings). An insight into
the planning, challenges encountered, and procedures implemented to successfully drill the planned
horizontal wells will be presented.
Introduction
Saudi Aramco is developing several gas fields in Khuff and pre-Khuff reservoirs located in the Ghawar
field in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The Khuff reservoirs are generally high-pressure, high-
temperature, and highly heterogeneous carbonate reservoirs. The development of the Khuff reservoirs
does not follow a defined structural position; rather, the reservoir quality is largely dictated by lateral
continuity and discontinuity of depositional facies and the dolomitization effect (Al-Kanaan et al., 2013).
The heterogeneous behavior, combined with high temperatures, has presented great challenges in drilling,
completion, and stimulation practices in these reservoirs. Saudi Aramco has been successfully exploiting
2 SPE-171755-MS

Figure 1—Stuck pipe and well type distribution (a) and number of stuck pipe and corresponding root causes (b) for gas wells in the Khuff formation.

the Khuff reservoirs by drilling horizontal wells toward the maximum horizontal stress direction without
any major wellbore instability issues (Ahmed et al. 2012). However, during the completion phase,
multistage hydraulic fracturing induces multiple hydraulic fractures along the wellbore that limits the
lateral connectivity with the reservoir (Al-Qahtani and Zillur 2001). Initially, this completion strategy has
provided respectable results compared with conventional completion methods; however, the wells were
not achieving their full potential. To overcome these short comings and as reservoir pressure declined
further, Aramco decided to drill wells toward the minimum horizontal stress direction to enhance and
sustain production by creating multiple transverse fractures (Al-Qahtani and Zillur 2001). Consequently,
the wells drilled in the minimum horizontal stress direction encountered several drilling-related problems
due to an increase in the development of severe breakouts, leading to tight hole, excessive reaming, and
stuck pipe as shown in Fig. 1 (Ahmed et al., 2012). An increase in the mud weight was required for these
wells (Fig. 2) due to the prevailing strike-slip stress regime that also caused an increased pressure
differential across the variably depleted reservoir layers, which posed a risk of differential sticking. Not
only did the number of stuck pipe incidents significantly increase but also financial loss due to either
SPE-171755-MS 3

Figure 2—Mud-weight variation with changing well azimuth and inclination.

loosing bottomhole assemblies downhole and/or ex-

periencing damages beyond repairs to the logging-
while-drilling (LWD) tools during course of me-
chanical jarring or pumping acid to free the stuck
pipe. The drilling experience from several horizon-
tal wells is shown Fig. 3 where each data point
represents a well with azimuth (radial lines) varying
between 0° (parallel to maximum horizontal stress,
␴h) and 90° (parallel to minimum horizontal stress,
␴h). The concentric circles represent the well devi-
ation (0° being a vertical well and the outermost
circle being for a horizontal well). The data point
colors in Fig. 3 represent the severity of drilling
problems where red indicates that the well could not
be drilled according to the plan due to severe and Figure 3—Drilling experience for horizontal wells drilled in different
repeated drilling problems (stuck pipe, tool lost in azimuths.
hole etc.), while green symbols indicate that well
was drilled according to plan without any significant drilling problem. Similarly, the pink and light pink
colors represent moderate and minor drilling problems (tight hole, reaming, high torque and drag etc.),
respectively. These wells were also drilled according to plan though few of them were completed earlier
than the planned total depth (TD) due to reported drilling problems. It can be seen that as the well azimuth
falls close to the ␴h direction, the drilling operations became more challenging while a predrill geome-
chanical model was built for all of these wells to predict the mud-weight window. The data suggest that
apart from mud weight, there could be other factors that can contribute to the observed drilling problem,
requiring integration of information from different sources to obtain a solution.
An integrated approach between drilling expertise, real-time geomechanics, and advanced mud logging
techniques will be presented that was successfully applied to overcome drilling challenges for wells
drilled along minimum horizontal stress direction. Drilling performance comparisons for the minimum
stress wells in carbonate and sandstone reservoirs are also highlighted. Finally, a case study is presented
that includes several recommendations and best practices for drilling wells toward the minimum hori-
zontal stress direction in study area.
4 SPE-171755-MS

Figure 4 —Indication of non-uniform differential pressure while drilling across different layers in Khuff reservoir.

Drilling Challenges
Due to the prevailing strike-slip stress regime in the study area, altering the horizontal well direction
toward the minimum stress direction means exposing the borehole to the maximum differential stress
created by vertical and maximum horizontal in-situ stresses. Under this scenario, high-mud-weight values
will be required to minimize the breakouts severity (shear failure). Moreover, in the case of depleted
reservoirs, the formation pressure might be close to hydrostatic or sub-hydrostatic; thus, the higher mud
weight is likely to cause a very high overbalance, increasing the chances of getting differentially stuck
while drilling across these reservoirs. Due to the complex nature of the Khuff reservoir, it was also
observed that the formation pressure is not uniform across the entire reservoir zone (Fig. 4) and less
depletion was experienced across the layers with low porosity (⬍5 p.u.) compared with those having
higher porosity, which caused localized fluctuations in near-wellbore stresses.
Based on the analysis of offset well data, three main drilling challenges were identified (Fig. 5) that
required proper attention to overcome and minimize wellbore instability (stuck pipe incidents), including:
● Excessive breakouts with potentially severe wellbore instability due to insufficient mud support
for wells drilled along the minimum horizontal stress
● Poor hole cleaning that can result from one or a combination of factors, such as

– Higher rate of penetration (ROP)

– Extra rock volume generated during reaming / back-reaming
– Tripping/backreaming speed and frequency
– Excessive borehole breakouts due to lower mud weight
● Differential sticking—In this scenario, mud weight is adequate to keep the breakouts within the
tolerable limits; however, this mud overbalance can lead to stuck pipe across depleted high-
porosity zones. The main controlling factors for this condition are the differential pressure, thick
SPE-171755-MS 5

mud cake due to mud filtration, excessive

stationary time during drilling (connection/
surveying and troubleshooting equipment),
and removal of mud cake by aggressive back
reaming.
In addition, under the strike-slip stress regime,
drilling a well along the minimum horizontal stress
direction (␴h), will result in developing breakouts at
the top and bottom of the wellbore (Fig. 6). These
breakouts tend to create ledges and grooves that
facilitates pipe sitting on the lower side of the well-
bore that causes increased pipe friction, particularly
when longer wellbores are drilled. These ledges can
make tripping out of the hole troublesome, causing
multiple mechanical sticking, which due to high Figure 5—Main drilling challenges responsible for stuck pipe
overbalance, can lead to differential sticking that
can cause loss of the bottomhole assembly (BHA)
downhole.
Due to the uncertainty in 3-D distribution of pore pressure and offset wells data propagated along the
planned trajectory, the predicted mud weight will have uncertainties both for minimizing breakouts (lower
limit) and managing differential sticking (upper limit). Because a drilling problem could be result from
one or a combination of these parameters, an integrated approach is required to address this issue.

Integrated Drilling and Geomechanics Approach for Successful Drilling

Operations
This section discusses the role of and contributions by different groups in the project’s execution and how
the RTDG services integrate the real-time data to provide a comprehensive drilling hazard summary,
suggest optimum mud weight to minimize wellbore instability due to improper mud weight (lower/
higher), recommend good drilling practices, and address the hole cleaning issues if they exist. Multidis-
cipline people involved in the optimization process were based in four different locations; the rigsite, the
operator’s office, the operator’s real-time center, and the service company’s real-time center. Interaction
among these individuals was coordinated through the RTDG services and the operator’s office and at the
rigsite. The use of available infrastructure and remote collaboration software created a collaborative
environment that successfully supported the operator’s decision-making process. An integrated workflow,
shown in Fig. 7, was implemented for most of the wells drilled toward the minimum horizontal stress
direction. The effective communication protocol, the high-quality data delivery, and the use of actual well
data in updating the wellbore stability model helped to produce a successful and safe well. Predictions
from the predrill geomechanical model were validated by continuous on-site monitoring of surface and
downhole drilling parameters (details provided later in this section), solids recovered, fluids, and log data.
On-site RTDG engineers were assigned to analyze the data and act as the focal point for distributing this
information to the decision makers in the operator’s office. A senior geomechanics engineer provided
support to both the rig and reservoir management teams by revising the model as new observations
became available.
6 SPE-171755-MS

Figure 6 —Impact of well azimuth on the breakout position.

Figure 7—Integrated workflow to overcome drilling challenges and provide support for real-time decision making.

Mud Logging
Proper gas interpretation gives a vital indication in estimating formation pressure. Also, this interpretation
provides an indication of any surge/swab while making connection or tripping out of hole and conse-
quently helps validate the upper and lower mud-weight limits for drilling operations.
Borehole Condition Monitoring
Cuttings flowmeters (CFM) were used as a tool to monitor continuous rock mass balance measurements
that provide an enhanced understanding of the hole-cleaning process and its status. This method helps
optimize the main drilling parameters such as flow rate, rotation, circulation times, reaming time at
connections, and the amount of cuttings produced. By comparing the volume of the hole drilled with the
volume of cuttings returned to surface, one can monitor the hole-cleaning status; thus, better diagnose the
borehole condition.
SPE-171755-MS 7

Figure 8 —Typical work flow for MEM construction.

Real-Time Log Data

Updating the predrill geomechanics model with
real-time logging-while-drilling (LWD)/measure-
ment-while-drilling (MWD) data such as gamma
ray, sonic, density, resistivity, porosity, caliper, and
images helps in understanding the current wellbore
condition and to detect, in advance, potential me-
chanical failures ahead of the bit to avoid stuck pipe
situations or any wellbore instability concerns.
Mud Optimization
Selecting an appropriate mud system and its contin-
uous monitoring plays an important role in borehole
cleaning and minimizing drilling risks. To prevent
differential sticking, a high-performance water-base
mud (WBM) system was designed to handle 4,000-
Figure 9 —Breakouts at the interbedded layers tend to create ledges/
psi overbalance pressure resulting from the mud- grooves, creating difficulties during tripping out of the hole and while
weight recommendation required to prevent bore- making connections.
hole breakouts and an onset of wellbore instability.

Real-Time Geomechanics
A calibrated predrill MEM model (Plumb et al. 2000) is required during the well-planning phase to
optimize well trajectory and casing design and provide a starting point for real-time geomechanics. A
typical workflow for conducting the predrill geomechanics study is shown in Fig. 8. A comprehensive
study was conducted using offset well data to evaluate the drilling events related to wellbore stability and
predict the optimal mud weight (MW) to maintain wellbore stability for the planned horizontal well. After
evaluating stuck pipe incidents in offset wells, it was determined that borehole breakout in the vicinity of
interbedded layers was the predominant root cause for stuck pipe incidents (Fig. 9). In most of the cases,
the stuck pipe event was observed during tripping or while making connection. The interbedded layers
were actually breaking out, resulting in the creation of ledges that were in turn causing tight pull while
pulling the BHA across these breakout zones. The connection/tripping operations were further compli-
8 SPE-171755-MS

Figure 10 —Cavings returns at the surface.

cated due to bad borehole conditions, resulting ultimately in stuck pipe incidents. Predrill MEMs were
constructed on a number of offset wells, but this conventional 1-D MEM approach was not sufficient to
capture the formation heterogeneity; thus, required actual well data to be incorporated in the model as the
well is being drilled. By implementing the real-time geomechanics approach, this predrill MEM was
updated using all of the real-time measurements including, but not restricted to well observations (cavings
interpretation), mud logging data, cutting recovery analysis, drilling parameters (such as torque and drag),
equivalent circulation density (ECD), over pull etc., to prevent wellbore instability and forecast potential
wellbore stability issues.
The implemented workflow was standardized for drilling future wells along the minimum horizontal
stress direction. Additionally, to assist RTDG decision making and monitoring borehole cleaning effi-
ciency of the well in real time, a cutting return-measuring technology was implemented that quantified the
amount of cumulative cuttings return at the surface, allowing the rig crew to assess the borehole cleaning
efficiency (Fig. 10).

Drilling Optimization
This operation involves improvement in tripping out of the borehole and connection practices to
accommodate breakouts and ledges generated during drilling due to wellbore instability. Consequently,
minimizing the shocks and vibrations and enhance drilling performance.

Case Study
The following section summarizes a case study in the Khuff-C carbonate reservoir where the integrated
workflow (described in previous section) was implemented in the field to address the wellbore instability
problems that led to a successful and safe well delivery. A key contributor to the successful drilling was
the interaction among different groups, capturing and implementing the lessons learned from previous
drilling experiences, and optimizing the mud weight and drilling practices while drilling.
This case study focusses on the success, failure, and lessons learned in one of the challenging drilling
environments in the Ghawar field area. It was a well (Well-A) sidetracked from the original borehole (L0)
and was drilled with a 5 7/8-in. bit with a planned reservoir contact of ~2,500 ft. The time plot with
drilling events is shown in Fig. 11.
SPE-171755-MS 9

Figure 11—A composite time plot showing drilling events and mud weight being used in all four laterals.

Lateral-2 (L2)
Lateral-2 (L2) of Well A was planned as a reentry Khuff-C well and to be drilled subparallel to the
minimum horizontal stress direction for multistage acid fracturing. After drilling a section of ~2,000 ft,
the rotary steering assembly showed evidence of failure. The drillstring was pulled out and indicated a
twist off (lost drive sub and bit), which led to abandonment of this lateral. Mud weight of 81 lbm/ft3 was
used without any significant drilling problem apart from a few tight spots observed while tripping out of
the hole, which appeared to be due to formation ledges and inefficient borehole cleaning in the vicinity
of the breakout interval. No real-time geomechanic monitoring services were available during this
sidetrack.
Lateral-3 (L3)
After several unsuccessful attempts, L3 drilling was initiated in open hole (L2 not cemented) and a 1,324
ft section was drilled using a mud weight of 83 lbm/ft3 before a stuck pipe incident occurred. The mud
weight was gradually increased to 90 lbm/ft3 and the BHA was pulled out of hole due to tool failure.
Several attempts were made to reenter the sidetrack with new a BHA but without success. The L3 could
not be accessed possibly because of openhole junction failure between L2 and L3. In addition, major
wellbore instability issues such as stuck pipe and tight hole were also observed while drilling and tripping,
both strongly suggesting wellbore deterioration around the junction. Hence, it was obvious that the L3
failure was more of a wellbore stability issue, leading to borehole wall failure. In this lateral, the mud
weight was increased again based on the observed well conditions (reactive approach). However, this type
of drilling challenge requires a proactive approach where continuous monitoring and updating of the
wellbore stability model occurs, and implementing the resulting recommendations is required. The
10 SPE-171755-MS

Figure 12—Cuttings recovered at the surface (a) correspond to breakout and enlarged borehole section (b)

root-cause analysis of the stuck event in L3 suggested that most likely, mud pressure invasion from L2
resulted in rock strength reduction and/or decrease in effective stress in the near-well, resulting in
formation failure.
Lateral-4 (L4)
After experiencing severe wellbore stability problems in L2 and L3, RTDG services were included for L4
to address the previous drilling problems in real time, based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
borehole condition and reaching the target depth. L4 was also intended to be drilled subparallel to the
minimum horizontal stress direction.
Mud-weight recommendations were made based on the MEM, built using data from offset wells and
further calibrated with the available L2 and L3 data. Drilling was initiated with the same mud weight of
90 lbm/ft3 used toward the end of L3. No major drilling problems were reported except for a few tight
borehole events that were managed by employing gentle drilling practices (controlled ROP and good
borehole cleaning). The mud weight was gradually increased to 97 lbm/ft3 near TD. Realtime observations
such as shale shakers monitoring, cuttings and cutting load analysis, connection/backreaming practices,
mud properties assessment, and torque and drag variation etc. were monitored continuously for any sign
of wellbore deteriorations. These indicators helped in identifying unstable zones and making any
adjustment in drilling practices to avoid packoff or stuck pipe events. For instance, 20 to 30% extra rock
cuttings (mostly angular to minor flaky cuttings), high torque (not observed in previous laterals), and
caliper showing enlarged borehole, as shown in Fig. 12, are indicative of wellbore instability due to
formation failure. A separation in resistivity curves and the differences in density curves at the top and
bottom of the borehole also correspond to wellbore damage.
At this stage, it was recommended that the mud weight (a minimum 2 lbm/ft3) be increased to stabilize
the wellbore and minimize torque and vibrations. During subsequent drilling, despite mud weight
increase, additional wellbore instability problems were encountered and the decision was made to increase
the mud weight to 97 lbm/ft3 to maintain wellbore stability. The well was successfully drilled to the
planned target depth and then while pulling out of the hole to prepare the well for completion, the BHA
experienced several tight spots at shallower depths across the openhole interval. These repeated tight spots
resulted in stuck pipe at around 14,300ft. After several failed attempts to release the string, the string was
backed off, leading to a lost-in-hole (LIH) condition. The most probable stuck-pipe mechanism was the
packoff due to collapsing of the borehole.
SPE-171755-MS 11

Figure 13—Time-lapse analysis for openhole LWD data in L4

Root-Cause Analysis of Stuck Event

The root-cause analysis of the stuck pipe in L4 was investigated using LWD data as shown in Fig. 13. The
main answers can be described as follows:
● A tight borehole during drilling suggests borehole failure. Although drilling in this well began with
higher mud weight than the previous two side tracks, an increased number of drilling problems
were observed. This result might be due to a change in formation pressure with time after drilling,
resulting in an effective stress reduction in the near wellbore. The pore pressure change is a
combination of mud invasion in L4 as well as mud pressure penetration from openhole boreholes
(L2 and L3) as suggested by in-gauge wellbore during drilling but enlargement at the time of
reaming (Fig. 13). This enlargement is most likely the root cause of packoff, which led to the stuck
pipe. The difference in resistivity while drilling (black curve) and reaming (red curve) further
supports the pore pressure increase due to mud penetration.
● No change in sonic readings while drilling and reaming suggest that rock properties are unaltered
with time.
● Also, the previous openhole sidetracks should have been cemented before initiating the new
sidetrack to minimize time-dependent problems during drilling.
Lateral-5 (L5)
Following the stuck event and ultimately LIH incident in L4, the next sidetrack (L5) was drilled. The
optimized drilling parameters based on lessons learned from previous failures were implemented while
drilling L5. In this lateral, the mud system was changed to oil-based mud to minimize the risk of
time-dependent mud pressure penetration and better borehole cleaning practices were implemented. In
addition to best drilling practices, unlike sidetrack L4, a detailed geomechanical analysis was carried out
for L5 prior to starting the drilling operations. Optimal mud weight of 95 lbm/ft3 was used from the
beginning of this lateral and was increased as per prediction to 101 lbm/ft3. Real-time monitoring helped
12 SPE-171755-MS

understand the borehole failure mechanisms and taking appropriate decisions to successfully drill the well
to TD. A 2,900-ft section of lateral was drilled with very limited drilling issues. This successful well used
best practices, which are being implemented in all subsequent minimum-horizontal stress direction wells.

Conclusions
The presented methodology and integrated workflow proved to be successful in drilling these lateral wells
under challenging environments and in heterogeneous reservoir conditions. Drilling expertise, applied
geomechanics, and advanced mud logging technology were applied successfully to overcome challenges
arising from wellbore instability issues, such as stuck pipe due to differential sticking or packoff due to
ledges or poor borehole cleaning. Implementation of this workflow has not only reduced the drilling
nonproductive time, but also helped in maintaining good borehole conditions, which is critical for
postdrilling operations such as running wireline logs (for better reservoir characterization), setting
liner/casing, and well completion.
The close coordination and good communication among reservoir/drilling engineers, real-time moni-
toring centers (including RTGM), and wellsite engineers (including mud loggers) are important compo-
nents to successfully implementing the proposed integrated workflow and methodology. Through this
integrated approach, six wells have been drilled successfully.
In summary, the integrated drilling solution through the innovative drilling practice, advanced LWD
application, and real-time geomechanics monitoring has helped to:
● Develop a better understanding about in-situ stresses variations in the field.
● Reduce stuck and LIH incidents.
● Meet well objectives while drilling to TD with reduced nonproductive time (NPT) due to wellbore
instability.
Based on this integrated approach, optimum mud weight was identified as the most important
parameter to minimize stuck pipe while drilling in the minimum horizontal stress direction to minimize
breakout; thus, reduce cuttings volume for efficient hole cleaning. In addition, tripping and connection
practices were also revised to accommodate complications due to breakouts and ledges. The revised
practices to be implemented should include the following:
● At stand down and before picking up for connection:
ⴰ Circulate for at least 15 minutes with rotation at same drilling parameters.
ⴰ Set the top drive system (TDS) torque limit to 7,000 ft-lb and pump rate to 210 to 220 gal/min.
● While picking up for connection:
ⴰ Do not force the string through any tight spot.
ⴰ Control the pickup speed to 12 min/stand; surface RPM ⫽ ~40; and flow rate to 210 to 220
gal/min.
ⴰ Do not exceed 10k lbm above the normal pickup weight.
ⴰ If a tight spot is encountered, go back down ~30 ft. if possible, continue to circulate for 15
minutes with rotation before making another attempt to pickup again.
ⴰ Slow down the pickup speed to 20 min/stand.
ⴰ Repeat the last two steps two or three times if necessary. If the operation does not improve,
stop and evaluate the situation.
● While reaming down:
ⴰ Do not force the string through any tight spot.
ⴰ Do not exceed 10k lbm below the normal down-weight.
 SPE-171755-MS 13

ⴰ If encountering a tight spot, pick up ~30 ft. if possible, continue to circulate for 15 minutes
with rotation before making another attempt to ream down again.
ⴰ Limit pipe velocity down to 20 min/stand.
ⴰ Repeat the last two steps two or three times if necessary. If no improvement is observed, stop
and evaluate the situation.

These points shall also apply to tight spots while tripping in or out of the hole.
● Before tripping:
ⴰ Circulate the borehole clean and sweep the hole with low-viscosity and weighted high-
viscosity fluids.
ⴰ Circulate pill out of the hole and continue circulating to a minimum three times bottoms up.
ⴰ Note any potential tight spot depths as highlighted by geomechanics and slow the pipe velocity
to less than 12 min/stand before any part of the BHA has entered the potential tight spot.
ⴰ Track pickup and string weight with new mud weight.
ⴰ Set overpull limit to 20 k lbf.
ⴰ Pump out at low flow to have the ECD equivalent to drilling ECD.
ⴰ Upon experiencing overpull, go down to the BHA length ⫹ 1 stand and circulate the borehole
clean for 20 minutes at the current drilling flow and rev/min.
y Pull back to tight spot and establish if it is present.
y If tight hole is present, commence back reaming and back ream all the way out of the hole.
y Back ream at 40 rev/min, drilling flow, 5 stands per hour speed overpull (OP) limit of 20k
lbm.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their thanks and appreciation to Saudi Aramco for granting permission
to publish this material.

References
Al-Kanaan, Adnan, Makmun, Areiyando, Al-Anazi, Hamoud, Rahim, Zillur, Fredd, Christopher N,
and Gurmen, Mehmet Nihat 2013. Evolving Khuff Formation Gas Well Completions in Saudi Arabia:
Technology as a Function of Reservoir Characteristics Improves Production. Paper SPE-163975-MS
paper presented at SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman,
28 –30 January.
Ahmed, Mahbub, Rahim, Zillur, Al-Anazi, Hamoud, Al-Kanaan, Adnan, and Mohiuddin, Mohammed
2012. Development of Low Permeability Reservoir Utilizing Multi-stage Fracture Completion in the
Minimum Stress Direction. Paper SPE-160848-MS presented at SPE Saudi Arabia Section Annual
Technical Symposium and Exhibition (ATSE), Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8 –11 April.
Al-Qahtani, Mohammed Y. and Zillur, Rahim 2001. A Mathematical Algorithm for Modeling
Geomechanical Rock Properties of the Khuff and Pre-Khuff Reservoirs in Ghawar Field. Paper SPE-
68194-MS presented at SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain, 17–20 March.
Plumb, R. A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., and Lee, D. 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and
its Application to High-Risk Well Construction Projects. Paper SPE 59128 presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 23–25 February.

View publication stats