Application

of
Multiphase Flow Methods
to
Underbalanced Drilling
Pilot Test Data

Steven P. Smith and Garry A. Gregory, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd.

Patrick Brand, Blade Energy Partners
“When the hydrostatic head of a drilling
fluid is intentionally designed to be lower
than the pressure of the formation being
drilled, the operation will be considered
underbalanced drilling.”

- Alberta Energy and

Utilities Board
ID94-3 (1994)
Benefits of Underbalanced Drilling
• Reduce Formation Damage
• Increase Penetration Rates
• Reduce / Eliminate Lost Circulation
• Reduce / Eliminate Differential Sticking
• Increase Bit Life
• Evaluate While Drilling
• Obtain Potential Payback
Uses of Multiphase Simulation Software
• Determine the feasibility of UBD
• Optimize injection rates and pressures
• Establish operating parameters and equipment
• Ensure adequate hole cleaning and motor
performance
• Identify fluids required to achieve UBD
• Define the operating envelope for UBD
• Monitor drilling to determine changes in
operating parameters
Mobil Oil Indonesia UBD Pilot Tests
• Pilot tests were planned to evaluate UBD
• Vary:
• drilling fluids
• injection rates
• surface pressure
• Detailed surface measurements:
• rates, pressures, and temperatures
• Real-time downhole measurements
• pressures and temperature
Mobil Oil Indonesia UBD Pilot Tests
Objectives:
• Evaluate viability of UBD
• Test drilling fluids
• Test surface and downhole equipment
• Test drilling program and safety system
• Provide a full dress rehearsal for the project
• Gather validation data for UBD hydraulics
Mobil Oil Indonesia UBD Pilot Tests

Scope of Data:
• Gas injection rate: 500 to 3,000 scfm
• Liquid injection rate: 42 to 126 USgpm
• Surface annular pressure: 50 to 300 psig
 Multiphase Flow Methods

• Aziz, Govier, and Fogarasi

• Modified Aziz, Govier, and Fogarasi
• Gregory / Duns and Ros
• Gregory / Gray
• Beggs and Brill
• Hagedorn and Brown
• OLGAS
• Ansari
 Results for Black Oil Calculations
Calculation Procedure Measured Bottom-Hole Measured Wellhead
Pressure Pressure

Multiphase Method Mean % Standard Mean % Standard

Error Deviation Error Deviation

Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi -18.8 12.5 -45.1 21.9

Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi -17.5 12.0 -34.0 19.5
(Modified)

Gregory / Duns & Ros -22.0 11.6 -48.4 18.1

Gregory / Gray -12.9 8.2 -21.7 15.4
Beggs and Brill 11.3 6.4 25.4 13.7
Hagedorn and Brown -2.2 4.1 -4.5 8.6
OLGAS -6.4 5.7 -11.5 11.4
Ansari -10.5 7.1 -18.9 13.6
 Influence of Base Pressure
Measured
Pressure (psia)
Wellhead
0 Pressure 200 400 600 800 1000
0

1000

2000

3000 Pressure Profile Based on

Measured Depth (ft)

Mesured Bottom-hole Pressure

4000 (resulting error: -2.3 %)

5000

6000
Pressure Profile Based on
7000 Mesured Wellhead Pressure Measured
(resulting error: -26.7 %) Bottom-hole
8000 Pressure

9000

10000
 Conclusions

• The methods of Hagedorn and Brown and

OLGAS gave the most accurate results for
these measured data.

• The accuracy of the calculations is sensitive

to the pressure on which the calculations are
based.
 Conclusions

• The pilot test program was a technical

success.

• These pilot tests were ideal for evaluating

the accuracy of various methods.

• Further investigation is required.

 Application
of
Multiphase Flow Methods
to
Underbalanced Drilling
Pilot Test Data

Steven P. Smith and Garry A. Gregory, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd.

Patrick Brand, Blade Energy Partners