ECD Management

ECD Management
This section will cover:

• Understanding ECD
– Why high angle wells have higher ECDs
– Magnitude of ECD fluctuations
– What problems ECDs cause
– What PWD can & cannot tell you
• Options to reduce ECD
– Planning stage, Implementation stage
© K&M Technology Group - 2008
1/59
ECD Theory
What is ECD?
ESD: ECD:
Equivalent Static Equivalent Circulating
Density (pumps OFF) Density (pumps ON)
Static Pr ∆P
ESD = ECD = ESD +
g x TVD g x TVD
Static Pr Static Pr
∆P
2/59
ECD Theory
“the additional ‘mud weight’ seen by the hole, due to the

circulating pressure loss of the fluid in the annulus,
and/or surge pressures”
3/59
ECD Theory
• Function of the pressure drop in the annulus (∆P).
• ∆P (and therefore ECD) is effected by the following:
− Length of the annulus or well
− Annular clearances (drillpipe / casing sizes)
− Flowrate
− Mud Properties
− Rotation
− Backpressure through surface return lines
− ROP
− Pipe movement (Surge and Swab pressures)
4/59
ECD Basics
Why are ECDs a particular concern for ERD?
• ERD wells have much higher ECD fluctuations
– MD to TVD ratio is more significant
– Shallow ERD wells have little formation integrity
– Drill pipe is often larger (with bigger tooljoints too)
– More aggressive parameters used for hole cleaning
– Inappropriate mud properties
• due to mud left-over from 12¼” hole, since mud volumes were so large
• Understanding ECD effects is essential for ERD

– Numerous ER wells have been lost due to ECD
– Difficulties wrongly probably blamed on other factors
5/59
ECD Basics
1 Intermediate Casing
2 10,000’ MD/4000’ TVD
(3000m MD/1200m TVD)
3 ECD = 11.7 ppg (1.40 sg) EMW
4
5
• Same 10.0 ppg (1.20 sg) mud & 350 psi (24 bar)
6 annulus ∆P in both wells
7 • ECD is much greater in shallow-TVD ER well
than vertical well at same MD
8
9 Protective Casing @
10 10,000’ (3000m) MD/TVD
ECD = 10.7 ppg (1.28 sg) EMW
11
0
© K&M Technology Group - 20081 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6/59
ECD Basics
Cementing
Fracture
Running Casing Pressure
Drilling
Tripping In
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Tripping Out
Pore or Collapse
Pressure
7/59
ECD Basics
What are the magnitudes of ECD fluctuations?
• At 20,000’(6100m) MD, at 6,000’ (2100m) TVD
– Drill 81/2” hole (5” DP): 2.0 – 4.0 ppg EMW 0.25 - 0.5 sg
– Drill 81/2” hole (51/2” DP): 2.5 – 5.0 ppg EMW 0.3 - 0.6 sg
• Even more on longer or shallower wells !
8/59
ECD Basics
ECD Directly Creates the following problems
• Lost circulation
– When dynamic bottom hole pressure exceeds fracture
gradient
– Usually most damage is done when off-bottom
• Often at connections … see PWD log
9/59
This is a time log from a PWD run
First, this is drilling time …

•Pumps and rotary remain constant
•And resulting ECDs are steady
16.36 ppg surge
ECD +1.1ppg SMWD
ECD: 15.9 ppg

Static MW Downhole
14.75 ppg
16.37 ppg surge
10/59
Now let’s look at what happens while working pipe at connections …
Pipe is 16.36 ppg surge

reciprocated at
each connection
ECD +1.1ppg SMWD Notice the surge in
ECDs at this time
If lost circulation occurs on this
ECD: 15.9 ppg well … it will be at connections …
Static MW Downhole
14.75 ppg Connection practices are critical
… more on this later
16.37 ppg surge
11/59
ECD & Surge Basics
But ECDs also create other problems …
• Wellbore instability :
– Hydraulic hammer (shock type ECDs)
– Fatigue Failure
• Think of a paper clip being bent back & forth
– If the mud engineer was to have deliberately changed the MW
by 2 – 3 ppg (0.25 – 0.36 sg) … would you expect problems ??
• This is often mistaken for “time dependency”, when fatigue

cycles are combined at a set rate (# connections per day)
12/59
3/21/07 0:00
Gel-Breaking Spikes: 0.3 ppg / 110 psi (0.04 sg / 7 bar)
3/22/07 0:00
Normal ECD Fluctuation: 0.8 ppg / 300 psi (0.1 sg / 20 bar)
3/23/07 0:00
ER Well Example
3/24/07 0:00 - 11 ¾” @ 16,500’ (5030m) MD
- Drilling to 23,000’ (7000m) MD
- 10 ⅝”x12 ¼” Hole
- 5 ⅞”x5” dp
3/25/07 0:00
- 9.7-10.5 ppg (1.16-1.26 sg) OBM
- 6rpm = 13-15
POOH (swab effect)
3/26/07 0:00
Video Clip
Packoff Event: 3.5ppg / 1300 psi (0.42 ppg / 90bar)

3/27/07 0:00
Note: The driller pulled into “tight hole” and turned the pumps
on… this could have been avoided with proper tripping practices!!
3/28/07 0:00
© K&M Technology
1.00 1.10 Group - 2008
1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
13/59 ECD (sg)

ECD & Surge Basics
• Wellbore instability … continued :
– Pore Pressure Penetration
• When near wellbore is pressured up
– More later
– Using MW that is too low as the “cheap” ECD solution

• This is not a legitimate solution …
– This is a very risky strategy
• Unfortunately, this is the most common solution adopted in our
industry
14/59
ECD & Surge Basics
• Reservoir / formation damage
– In “barefoot” type horizontal wells
– The reservoir & geology group requires that the drillers use slightly
slower MW to reduce productivity damage
• But formation damage is done at pumps-on … not pumps-off
• If the mud engineer deliberately increased the MW
by 2 – 3 ppg (0.25 – 0.36 sg) … would you expect a reduction in
productivity ??
– This flies in the face of MW control for reservoir damage, unless ECD-
reduction measures are also taken
• Note that the problem is worst at the toe, which is already struggling to
produce properly
15/59
ECD & Surge Basics
• Slower ROP
– In < 8½” hole sizes, in slow drilling situations
• If the mud engineer deliberately increased the MW
by 2 – 3 ppg (0.25 – 0.36 sg) … would you expect a reduction in ROP ??
16/59
ECD & Surge Basics
Common misconceptions about PWD
1. Trend Behavior is Linear – FALSE
• Unlike vertical wells, ECDs are often not supposed to remain the same throughout
• The driller needs a “road map” of clean-hole ECDs, to understand what is ‘normal’
2. Bottom of the Hole is always “Worst Case” - FALSE

• True for simple geometry, PP/FG environment, and drillstring design
• Usually False for complex wells (which may incorporate all of the above)
3. PWD is a good Hole Cleaning Indicator in high angle wells – FALSE

• PWD rarely sees a hole cleaning problem until it is too late!
• In fact, ECDs reduce in high angle wells if hole cleaning is poor
17/59
ECD & Surge Basics
Understanding PWD
1.) Trend Behavior Is Not Linear
a) Unlike vertical wells, ECDs are often not supposed to
remain the same throughout
b) The driller needs a “road map” of clean-hole ECDs, to
understand what is ‘normal’
18/59
VERTICAL HOLE scenario
10.0 ppg (1.20 sg), 5 ½” drillpipe, 8 ½” hole
• The driller should see ECDs remain the same
throughout, at 11.1 - 11.3 ppg (1.33 – 1.36 sg)….
• Annulus pressure grows at the same rate
that TVD grows …
• Any change in ECDs is therefore due to
cuttings, or mud changes
19/59
HORIZONTAL HOLE scenario
• CLEAN hole ECDs are now expected to
increase …. Don’t be worried by this !
• Annulus pressure grows, but TVD is
constant
• If ECDs were remaining the
same…there would be a problem !!
• Notice also magnitude of ECDs compared to

previous vertical example
• Vertical hole ECDs were +/- 11.2 ppg (1.34 sg) EMW
• Now +/- 12.7 ppg (1.52 sg) EMW, at the same flowrate
and mud system
20/59
S-PATH DESIGN scenario
• CLEAN hole ECDs are now expected to
decrease …. Stationary ECDs means the
hole is now loading up
• YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE
ROAD-MAP TO KNOW WHAT IS
© K&M Technology Group - 2008 NORMAL
21/59
ECD & Surge Basics
Understanding PWD
“Roadmap” Concept
• By itself, PWD is of limited value …
• Unless you know what “normal” looks like …
• PWD can tell you things you never thought of, if you know
how to listen to what it is saying…
22/59
CASE STUDY #1
Norwegian ER Well
• Significant effort put into ECD management
• 95/8” casing as a liner
• 8½” hole under-reamed to 97/8”
• Tapered drillstring
23/59
PWD data, by itself, doesn’t mean much ….
• Here is the data from a horizontal well,
Note how difficult to
drilling 8½” x 9⅞” hole (with RWD).
interpret this interval …
due to erratic mud
• No apparent trends that look unusual
properties
• But what’s normal ?
24/59
Blue: “Clean Hole” Roadmap
Green: “With Cuttings Load” Roadmap

• During drilling with BHA #2, ECD’s
began to diverge from predicted values.
The mud was being dramatically
thinned below 25,000’ but ECD’s
remained high.
• Why ?
25/59
• Modeling assumes an 8 ½” hole below
25,000’. The model matched very closely
with these assumptions.
• Upon tripping the BHA it was discovered

that ⅔ of the reamer cutters were
destroyed
Modeling assumes 8 ½” hole below 25,000 MD
26/59
Using PWD - Roadmaps
PWD Roadmaps ….
• Firstly, need to know geometry effect on the roadmap
• Also need daily (or more often) variations in rheology
accounted for
• Fluid rheologies affect ECDs more than anything else
(especially in the larger hole sizes)
27/59
Consider this 12¼” high angle section
• This is what the drilling operation sees as they progress ….
• ECDs continuously coming up smoothly (OK)
Then ECDs start coming up faster after MW increase

(which was due to wellbore stability concerns)
So ROP is slowed from 13,000’ onwards
•Halved from 150 – 200’/hr (45 – 60 m/hr), and
additional circulating is done
After having “fixed” this hole cleaning problem, ROP is
again significantly reduced for the last part as a precaution
But it turns out that when mud properties and ROP

are accounted for, everything is “normal”
28/59
• Sweeps affect ECD
– Concentrated cuttings
load in vertical hole can
result in ECD spikes
Note how difficult to
- Very sensitive to interpret this interval …
due to sweeps
weighted, high-vis sweeps
- Makes PWD hard to
interpret
29/59
ECD & Surge Basics
Understanding PWD
2.) PWD Doesn’t Always see the “Worst Case Load”
• S-path wells
• Tapered drillstrings
• Varying mud properties
• BHA Restrictions
30/59
Consider ECDs for 8½” section of S-path well
• Drilling 8½” hole from 19,000’ (5800m) to TD
• MW = 9.8 ppg (1.18 sg)
• Using tapered 4½” x 57/8” drillstring, since modeling says
that this is OK at TD
• Driller is told to keep below 12.5 ppg (1.50 sg) fracture
gradient
31/59
PWD view of ECDs (ie “roadmap view)
• Driller users PWD …
• Successfully keeps ECDs below 12.5 ppg (1.50 sg),
but still loses circulation …
• Why ???
32/59
SNAPSHOT view of ECDs when at TD
• ECDs at TD are OK, but …
• ECDs have grown at the shoe (unseen to the
PWD)
• Was only 12.0 ppg (1.44 sg) when the bit was
at the shoe, but has now grown to > 12.7 ppg
(1.52 sg)
• Why ???
• S-path well masks ECDs
• Tapered drillstring masks ECD growth
But why does it not affect drilling when at shoe ?
33/59
ECD & Surge Basics
This is how most operations design the drillstring for
8½” or smaller hole …
• Typically, a tapered drillstring is used (say 5” x 5½”)
• With the amount of small pipe = open hole length
• Which means this scenario is quite common
2. When drilling later on, losses occur (say PWD shows
1. Initial situation while drilling … ECD = 12.4 ppg / 1.45 sg). LCM is spotted at bit
no losses at shoe (say, ECD = 12.0 ppg / 1.40 sg)
….but LCM is ineffective … as expected in hindsight if losses
are at shoe (say, which has increased ECD to 12.7 ppg / 1.46 sg)
3. Snapshot view is necessary to

understand where to spot LCM
34/59
ECD & Surge Basics
PWD measured ECDs are made up of 2 components
1. Overall annulus (around drillpipe, etc)
• This is what we normally think of for the ECDs
2. But there are also Near BHA effects

• This is usually assumed negligible because
the BHA is so short
• AND because PWD rarely sees this
35/59
ECD & Surge Basics
Understanding PWD
• BHA design can greatly affect ECDs …
• PWD doesn’t necessarily see the worst case loads
• Sensor is often above the sleeve stabilizer, and always the bit
t
ur emen
WD meas
P
• Typical PWD sensor sees annulus

pressure above this point …
• How much ECD is created across the
bit & stabilizers ?
36/59 • Usually assumed to be negligible …
ECD & Surge Basics
BHA design affect on ECDs … continued
• Occasionally, we get a glimpse of this when a
stabilizer is placed above the PWD …
t
ur emen
WD meas
P
37/59
• Norwegian well, drilling 8½” hole
• Extreme efforts made to reduce
ECDs, based on experience
• Very thin mud
• Tapered drillstring
• 95/8” casing run as a liner
38/59
• Model is unable to match PWD
readings
• Error is 1.3 ppg falling to 0.8 ppg
(0.16 – 0.10 sg EMW)
• Even gross changes in mud properties
cannot explain the results ….
39/59
• But when the stabilizer is accounted for …
• A good match occurs
• Another give-away is that the ECD difference is a
constant pressure drop
• 430 psi (30 bar)
• Note – sleeve stabilizer had < 4mm clearance ..

• The BHA was very difficult to pull out too
40/59
Consider fluid (with dirt) trying to clear
through these components
41/59
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
• Remember, however, that this is going on all the time
with the bit and lower stabilizers
• Some components are much worse than others
t
ur emen
WD meas
P
42/59
Near BHA ECD effects
This explains the following scenario ….
1. Initial situation while drilling … no losses
PWD sees 12.0 ppg / 1.45 sg
2. When drilling later on, losses occur.
Actual ECD at bit = 13.0 ppg / 1.55 sg
• LCM is spotted … can’t circulate without losses,
but can hold static …
3. ….drilling continues … losses heal after a few hours …

it is assumed that the LCM has found the right spot …
4. No more losses as drilling continues

to TD
5. But losses start again when circulating at shoe ….

Why now ???
- because of near BHA effect (unseen to PWD)
43/59
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
3.) PWD Is a Poor Indicator of Hole Cleaning in high
angle wellbores
• Until it is too late
• in another words, there are better indicators
44/59
ECD Basics
Can PWD see the build up of cuttings beds?
• Once the cuttings touch the bottom, they are largely

invisible to the PWD
• Only a small % are in the flow-stream at any time
• So what does the PWD see ?
1. The PWD sees the cuttings in the low-angle hole,

as it comes off the conveyor belt, going into suspension
2. Sometimes the PWD will see dune behavior if close to

pack-off (as opposed to bed behavior)
45/59
Drilling ECD
Critical hole sizes for drilling ECD
• 8 ½” and smaller sizes are very sensitive to ECD
• Larger hole sizes are much less affected
• Most hydraulics models under-estimate ECD
- Tooljoints
- Torque reduction tools (if used, e.g. NRDPPs)
- Pipe rotation / spiraling effect
46/59
Drilling ECDs
So far, we’ve emphasized the need for rotation
• It is the only way to clean the hole …
• But have you noticed that ECDs go up when the RPM
is increased when drilling 6” or 8½” hole ?
– It may actually have more effect on ECDs than changing the
flowrate
• High speed rotation in small hole may be very bad
47/59
Drilling ECD
How does pipe rotation increase ECD?
• This is not due to lifting or suspending cuttings …
– How do we know ?
– This effect is seen before drilling out the shoe
– And effect is as strong as the start, as at the end of the run
• What is happening ?
• High speed rotation causes the fluid to spiral
– See next slide
48/59
Consider 12¼” hole, circulating with rotation
1. The pipe is entirely within the dead zone…

so rotation doesn’t affect the high velocity fluid at all
2. The viscous coupling is actually spinning fluid that

is near-stationary, and barely moves up the hole
From an ECD viewpoint, ECDs are

unaffected by rotation in big hole
• Except from hole cleaning impact of course
49/59
Now consider 8½” hole, circulating with rotation
The viscous coupling interacts with the high velocity flow

(that creates the ECDs) …
• High velocity mud is dragged underneath, in a spiraling pattern
• Also explains the step change in hole cleaning behavior
ECDs are now quite affected by rotation in

small hole
50/59
Rotation effect on ECDs
Rotation Effect Depends on Hole & Drill Pipe Size
• Rotation ECD is only a concern in ‘Small hole with big pipe’
• ECD is quite insensitive to rotation when hole is big compared to DP
• To dominate ECD, the rotation effect requires a “small-hole,
big-pipe” environment
51/59
Rotation effect on ECDs
What drives impact of rotation on ECDs ?
• A “small-hole, big-pipe” situation is needed
• RPM is a non-issue in 12¼” hole, 9½” hole, etc
• But ≤ 8½” sees a step change in behavior … depending on the DP size
- 5⅞” & 5½” VERY SENSITIVE,
- 5” = quite sensitive
- 4½”, 4” = insensitive
• Mud rheology also drives RPM effect on ECDs

- Thicker mud increases rotation effect
- Thinner mud decreases rotation effect
- Low end rheology is important … not YP
52/59
ECD, Friction, Hole Cleaning Problems
Optimum Range: 3.25 to 3.75

Hole Optimum DP
12 ¼” 6 ⅝”
10 ⅝” 5 ½” or 5 ⅞”
9 ½” 5”
8 ½” 4 ½”
6 ½” 3 ½”
53/59
ECD vs. Hole Cleaning Compromise
So this is the situation we might have But if we “solve the ECD problem ..
in small hole, with big drillpipe …
• We can now rotate fast without an ECD
• Very good hole cleaning, but high ECDs problem, but now we have a hole cleaning
while rotating challenge …
… so can’t (or shouldn’t) rotate fast
This is scale for 5½” dp This is scale for 4½” dp

inside 8½” hole inside 8½” hole
54/59
• So which “compromise” do we choose ?
• Easy hole cleaning, but an ECD challenge ?
OR
• Acceptable ECDs, but a hole cleaning challenge ?
• If ECDs are NOT a limitation, prioritize on hole cleaning

efficiency
• But if ECDs are the primary issue … ALWAYS solve ECDs
• ECDs are a design problem & solution …
• Hole cleaning is easy .. All you need is high RPM and patience
55/59
• A common thought in drilling planning is that
flowrates will be unacceptable if smaller pipe is used
• For example, in 8½” hole,
• Maybe only able to pump at 350 – 450 gpm (1325 – 1700 lpm)
instead of normal 600 gpm (2270 lpm)
• The flowrates our industry uses in 8½” hole are “nuclear drilling” …
• If you aren’t willing to consider drilling at lower flowrate in 8½”
hole, how can you justify drilling 12¼” hole … see next plot
56/59
Actual vs 12.25" Equivalent Flowrate
1,800
1,700 600 gpm (2300 lpm) in 8½” hole with
1,600 5½” drillpipe is equivalent to 1700
1,500 gpm (6400 lpm) in 12¼” hole !
1,400
1,300 600 gpm (2300 lpm) in 8½” hole
Equivalent Flowrate in 12.25" hole
1,200 with 4½” drillpipe is equivalent to

1,100 1400 gpm (5200 lpm) in 12¼” hole !
1,000
900 Alternately, if 800 – 1000 gpm
800 (3000 – 3800 lpm) is acceptable
700
4.5" dp inside 8.5" hole in 12¼”, then much lower
5.5" dp inside 8.5" hole
600 flowrates are acceptable in 8½”
500
400 If you think in terms of 12¼” equivalent
300 AV’s … what does this look like ?
200
100
-
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Actual flowrate in 8.5" hole
57/59
ECD Sensitivities
Hole Drill Tool Joint Flowrate Rotation Rheology ROP
Size Pipe
17 ½” Any
12 ¼” Any
8 ½” ≥5 ½”
8 ½” 5”
8 ½” 4 ½”
6 ½” 4”
6 ½” 3 ½”
0.0 No contribution
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0 Huge contribution
58/59
Re-cap : ECDs are a design issue
Lost Returns
Realistic Operating Window
Rotation Effect
Flowrate Effect
Minimum
Circulation Effect
59/59

ECD Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ECD Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECD Management

This section will cover:

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

“the additional ‘mud weight’ seen by the hole, due to the

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Understanding ECD effects is essential for ERD

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Even more on longer or shallower wells !

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

First, this is drilling time …

ECD +1.1ppg SMWD

ECD: 15.9 ppg

16.37 ppg surge

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

Pipe is 16.36 ppg surge

16.37 ppg surge

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• This is often mistaken for “time dependency”, when fatigue

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

Gel-Breaking Spikes: 0.3 ppg / 110 psi (0.04 sg / 7 bar)

Packoff Event: 3.5ppg / 1300 psi (0.42 ppg / 90bar)

13/59 ECD (sg)

– Using MW that is too low as the “cheap” ECD solution

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

2. Bottom of the Hole is always “Worst Case” - FALSE

3. PWD is a good Hole Cleaning Indicator in high angle wells – FALSE

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Notice also magnitude of ECDs compared to

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

Green: “With Cuttings Load” Roadmap

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Upon tripping the BHA it was discovered

Modeling assumes 8 ½” hole below 25,000 MD

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

Then ECDs start coming up faster after MW increase

But it turns out that when mud properties and ROP

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

But why does it not affect drilling when at shoe ?

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

3. Snapshot view is necessary to

2. But there are also Near BHA effects

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Typical PWD sensor sees annulus

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

© K&M Technology Group - 2008

• Note – sleeve stabilizer had < 4mm clearance ..

© K&M Technology Group - 2008