2003 SPE/IADC Drilling

Conference
SPE/IADC 79880
Well Control Procedures for Dual Gradient
Drilling as Compared to Conventional Riser
Drilling

February 21, 2003

1
21.1

Well Control Procedures for Dual

Gradient Drilling as Compared to
Conventional Riser Drilling

Dr. Jerome J. Schubert

Dr. Hans C. Juvkam-Wold
Texas A&M University and
Dr. Jonggeun Choe
Seoul National University
2
 Overview

 Introduction to Dual Gradient Drilling

 Goal of the SMD Well Control Team
 Comparison of Well Control for DGD
and Conventional Riser Drilling
 Conclusions

21.1-3
 What is Dual Gradient Drilling?

 Novel drilling system where the annulus

pressure at the seafloor is reduced to
near seawater HSP.
 Results in a pressure gradient from the
rig to the seafloor near that of seawater
HSP, and mud gradient from the
seafloor to the bottom of the hole

21.1-4
 Dual Gradient Concept

Seawater
Hydrostatic

SMD Mud
DEPTH

Hydrostatic

Conventional
Hydrostatic

PRESSURE 21.1-5
 How is the dual gradient
achieved?
 Seafloor pumps and an external return
line
 Shell
 DeepVision
 SubSea MudLift Drilling
 Injecting hollow glass spheres near the
seafloor
 Maurer Technology

21.1-6
 Goal of the SMD Well Control
Team
 Develop Well Control Procedures for the
SMD JIP that were at least as safe if not
safer than conventional floating drilling
operations.
 The authors feel that these procedures
are applicable for most DGD methods.

21.1-7
 How was the goal met?

 We had to study the state of the art in

conventional deepwater drilling
 Determine what had to be modified or
re-written for the SMD project.
 New procedures were written and re-
written as the project progressed.

21.1-8
 How was the goal met?

 Perform risk analysis in the form of

HAZOP
 Modify or re-write procedures based on
HAZOP
 If the procedure was re-written, a new
HAZOP had to be performed

21.1-9
 How was the goal met?

 Finally, most of these well control

procedures were proven on a DGD test
well.

21.1-10
 Measurement of KCP

 KCP is measured identically for DGD

and Conventional
 No DSV – rate must be greater than the
freefall rate of the mud
 W/DSV – must also measure the DSV
opening pressure

21.1-11
 Kick Detection
 Kick indicators
 Drilling break
 Flow increase
 Pit gain
 Decrease in circulating pressure
 Increase in pump speed
 Well flow with pumps off
 Increase in torque, drag, fill

21.1-12
 Flow Increase
MLP Increase
Kick Begins

MLP Inlet P Constant

DPP Decrease
21.1-13
 Well Flow w/ Pumps Off

 No DSV 700

U-tube Rate, gpm

600
 U-tube makes this
500
much more difficult 400
Normal U-tube
 Trend analysis is 300

needed 200 U-tube + kick

100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Time, min

21.1-14
 Well Flow w/ Pumps Off

 With DSV
 Shut down Rig Pumps
 Continued operation of the Sea Floor Pump
will indicate well flow.

21.1-15
 Pit Gain

 W/DSV there is no difference

 No DSV – No difference in kick
detection. However pit gain after shut-in
is equal to the pit gain after complete u-
tube less the theoretical u-tube volume.

21.1-16
 Shut-in on kick
 With DSV, SI is very similar to
conventional
 Shut down rig pumps,
 Check for flow
 If flowing, shut down MLP
 Close BOP
 With No DSV, preventing additional
influx is difficult during u-tube.

21.1-17
 Shut-In on Kick

Kick Detected
Slow MLP
Rig Pumps Constant

MLP inlet P & DPP Increase

21.1-18
 Shut-in Procedures

 After the MLP and Rig pumps are

returned to the pre-kick rates:
 Allow the DPP and MLP Inlet P to stabilize
 Record stabilized pressures and rates
 Continue to circulate at constant Rig Pump
Rate and Pressure until kick fluids are
circulated out.
 DPP is maintained by adjusting MLP Rate

21.1-19
 SIDPP

SIDPP is somewhat different.

 W/DSV very similar to measurement of
SIDPP with a float and is the
 Post kick DSV opening pressure less the
Pre kick DSV opening pressure.

21.1-20
 SIDPP – No DSV

 Upon kick detection, slow MLP to pre-

kick rate
 Record the Stabilized DPP

SIDPP  CircDPPPostKick  CircDPPPr eKick  AFP

21.1-21
 Calculation of KWM

 Conventional
SIDPP
KWM   OWM
0.052  TVD

 Dual Gradient
SIDPP
KWM   OWM
0.052  (TVD  WD )
21.1-22
 DPP Pressure Decline Schedule

 Calculating ICP is no different

 FCP Conventional
 FCP=KCP x KWM / OWM

21.1-23
 FCP DGD

KWM
FCP  ( Pdp _ bit  AFP )   DSVset  AFP
OWM
Pdp _ bit  Frictional pressure in the drillstring and
bit pressure drop
AFP  Annular Friction Pressure
DSVset  The difference in hydrostatic pressure between
the KWM and seawater at the mudline
21.1-24
 Driller’s Kill & Wait & Weight

 Essentially the same for DGD and

Conventional except for the differences
noted earlier in measurement of SIDPP
and shut-in.
 MLP is used as the adjustable choke

21.1-25
 Other Kills

 Volumetric
 Lubrication
 Stripping
 Procedure have been developed but are
not included in this paper.

21.1-26
 Conclusions

 The u-tubing that is expected in DGD

causes some difficulties in many
aspects of well control – none of them
are show stoppers
 The use of a DSV eliminates the
problems associated with the u-tube
phenomenon, but creates some of it’s
own
21.1-27
 Conclusions

 The complications from the DSV are

outweighed by the benefits

 DSV makes well control seem more

conventional, but it is not absolutely
necessary.

21.1-28
 Conclusions
 Well control for DGD has been
developed to a point where it is at least
as safe if not safer than conventional
riser drilling.

 A well control training program for DGD

will be essential for safe and efficient
operations.

21.1-29
IADC/SPE 79880

The End
30
DGD with Seafloor Pumps

21.1-31
Recent Advances in Ultra-deepwater Drilling
Calls for New Blowout Intervention Methods

Speaker:
Ray Tommy Oskarsen
Co-authors:
Jerome Schubert
Serguei Jourine
32
 Sponsors and
Participants
Phase 1
 Texas A&M
University
 Cherokee Offshore
Engineering
 Global Petroleum
Research Institute
 Offshore Technology
Research Center
 Minerals
Management Service

21.1-33
 Drilling in ultra-deep
water
 Window between pore pressure and fracture pressure gets narrower
 High pore pressures and low fracture pressures lead to more casing
strings
 More casing strings leads to more time spent on location
 This leads to larger wellheads, even larger and heavier risers, and
finally to bigger and more expensive rigs
 With a standard BOP and many casing strings, you may not reach
target.
 Well control is more difficult - because of the pore pressure / fracture
pressure proximity, and long choke lines with high frictional pressure
drops

21.1-34
Deepwater drilling
projects
 Dual Gradient
Drilling
 Casing Drilling
 Expandable
Casing
 SX-riser

21.1-35
 Blowout Containment
Procedures?
 The most recent blowout containment
procedures can be found in the “DEA – 63,
Floating Vessel Blowout Control,” which was
released September 1990.
 DEA - 63 considered deep water up to 1500’
 Envisioned “future work” in water as deep as
3500’

21.1-36
 DEA-63 Cont.
 Focus on capping measures
 No Dual Gradient Drilling
 Concluded with
recommendations for more work

Are We Ready?
21.1-37
Safety Pyramid
Fatality

LTA

OSHA Recordable

At-Risk
Behaviors
21.1-38
Albert H. Schultz - DuPont
 Statistics

 Podio Study of OCS Blowouts, 1996

 1 Blowout for every 285 wells drilled
 2.7% of the wells studied deeper than 15,000 ft
 These accounted for 8% of the blowouts
 Wylie and Visram, 1990
 1 Blowout for every 110 kicks
 SINTEFF Deep Water, 2001
 52 kicks for every 100 wells drilled
 79% of kicks had significant problems
 At least 21% of kicks resulted in loss of all or part of
the well
 1992 to 2001 we drilled 1015 wells in water >1500 feet
deep

21.1-39
 Blowout Pyramid
1 Blowout

20 Well Bore Losses

80 Significant Well Control

Problems
110 Kicks

? At Risk Operations
200+ Wells Drilled
21.1-40
Are wells in deep water likely to
occur more frequent?
 Higher pore pressure gradients
 Difficulties in handling highly
compressed gas
 Increased exposure time
 Longer open hole sections
 More tripping time
 Increased risk of lost circulation

Odds are not in our favor!

21.1-41
 Deep Water Blowouts
Proposed practical solutions:
capping,

injecting solidified reactive fluids,

dynamic kill/momentum kill,
inducing bridging

21.1-42
 Fastest and Least Expensive
Mode of11Control Duration
7%
9 4% 15%
9
10%
5

14%
19

39 % 3 5 14%
36%
Bridging BOP 0-1 hour
1 hour-1 day
Cement Depletion 1-3 days
Equipment Mud 3 days-1 week
1 week- 1 month
Relief Well Missed > 1 month
Missed
FOR MORE INFO...
SPE 53974, IADC/SPE 19917, http://www.boots-coots-iwc.com /references/ 02_Ultra-
deepwater %20blowouts.htm
21.1-43
 Bridging Scenarios

Total
1 4 Massive Solid Wellbore Wellbore Bridging
16000
Gas Iinflow and Outflow PR

14000

12000
Production Collapse
10000
Pre sure, psi

Unstable

5 6 7
8000

6000 5000
4000

2000 Concentration 4000 Solid

0
Load
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 1000000 1200000

Pressure
Gas0 Rate, Mscf
0 3000

Bridge
2000

1000
Time,
Moderate

sec
3 Distance, m
0
0 50000
Flow Rate
100000 150000

Negligible Solid Stable Fluid- Bridge Formation

Production Solid Flow Failure Failure
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0
Pressure, psi

5000 Pressure Profiles

Overburden
Hydrostatic
Stable

10000 Fluid
Depth, ft

Stable Fluid
Blowout Underground Blowout
15000

Flow
20000
2
25000

21.1-44
 1. Well is out of Control
16000

14000

12000
Gas Iinflow and Outflow PR

1
10000
Presure, psi

8000

6000

4000
1. Wellbore and Reservoir
Performance Relationships
2000

0
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 1000000 1200000
Gas0 Rate, Mscf
0

2. Stress and Pressure

Distributions
3 3. Stress-Strength
Relationships
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Flow and Geomechanics

0
Pressure, psi

5000 Pressure Profiles

Models
Overburden
Hydrostatic
10000 Fluid
Depth, ft

15000

2
20000

25000

21.1-45
 2. Wellbore Instability
4
Unstable

3. Stress-Strength
Relationships
4. Solid Production Potential
Moderate

Wellbore Stability Model

3
Stable

21.1-46
 3. Solid Production
4 Massive Solid Production

5 4. Solid Production Potential

Concentration

5. Actual Solid Production

Time, Solid Production Model
sec
Distance, m

Negligible Solid Production

Stable Fluid
Flow Blowout

21.1-47
 4a. Wellbore Collapse
Total Wellbore
Massive Solid Production Wellbore
Collapse Bridging
5 5000

4000
6
3000
Pressure

5. Actual Solid Production

2000

1000

0
0 50000
Flow Rate
100000 150000 6. Outflow Performance with
Actual Solid Load
Negligible
Solid Flow and Geomechanics
Production Models

21.1-48
 4b. Bridge Formation

6 6. Outflow Performance with

5000

4000
7 Actual Solid Load
7. Bridge and Formation
3000
Pressure

Bridge

Stability
2000

1000

0
0 50000
Flow Rate
100000 150000
Flow and Geomechanics
Models
Stable
Fluid-Solid
Flow
Blowout

21.1-49
 5. Bridge Stability
Wellbore
Bridging

7 7. Bridge and Formation

Stability
Flow and Geomechanics
Models
Formation
Failure
Bridge
Failure
Underground
Blowout Blowout
21.1-50
 Deep Water Tendency
Total
1 4 Massive Solid Wellbore Wellbore Bridging
16000
Gas Iinflow and Outflow PR

14000

12000
Production Collapse
10000
Pre sure, psi

Unstable

5 6 7
8000

6000 5000
4000

2000 Concentration 4000 Solid

0
Load
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 1000000 1200000

Pressure
Gas0 Rate, Mscf
0 3000

Bridge
2000

1000
Time,
Moderate

sec
3 Distance, m
0
0 50000
Flow Rate
100000 150000

Negligible Solid Stable Fluid- Bridge Formation

Production Solid Flow Failure Failure
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0
Pressure, psi

5000 Pressure Profiles

Overburden
Hydrostatic
Stable

10000 Fluid
Depth, ft

Stable Fluid
Blowout Underground Blowout
15000

Flow
20000
2
25000

21.1-51
Rock Properties

In Progress

Center for Tectonophysics, TAMU

21.1-52
 Well, if it doesn’t
bridge….
 Present thinking: Relief well is the
only option
 MMS NTL 99-G01
 Requires assurance that operator is
capable of handling blowout operations
such as relief well

21.1-53
Dynamic Kill Simulator

BOP SEAFLOOR

21.1-54
 0.052x20,000x16 = 16,640
0.052(10,000x8.6 + 10,000x23,4) = 16,640

8.6 ppg 23.4 ppg

16 ppg

10,000 ft

20,000 ft

4,472 psi 16,640 psi

21.1-55
 Dynamic Kill
Comparison
 20,000’ onshore well with 16 ppg
 20,000’ deepwater well in 10,000’ of
water with 16 ppg
 10000’ of 8.6 + 10000’ of 23.4 ppg?
 Friction pressures developed during
dynamic kill could be much less in a
deep water well
 Can we choke it back at the mudline?
 How?

21.1-56
 Dynamic Kill Simulator
 Static Part:
STATIC DATA
 Common User Input
 Static Data During Simulation
TIME
 Dynamic Part : DEPENDENCIES
 Data that Changes with Time
 Transient Effects PRESSURE
CALCULATION
 Computational Part:
 PressureCalculations for Given
Moment in Time
21.1-57
 Static Part
#Relief Wells?
Injection Points?
Ha
ng

Dua
ing
 Reservoir properties D
BO rillst

lG
P? rin

radi
g?
 Formation fluid

e
nt?
 Well geometry:
 Number of relief BOP BOP BOP BOP

wells
 Blowing well
geometry
 Inflow and outflow
of kill fluid

21.1-58
 Deep Water Blowouts
 4 deepwater sustained
underground blowouts
controlled by Boots &
Coots
 3 broached mud line
gas flows (20” casing
set BOPs installed)
 1 BOP Failure Gas
Blowout
 No oil blowout has
FOR MORE INFO... reported to date
Flak L.: “Control of Well Issues”, “Marine Insurance – Facing the Changed World”,
International Union of Marine Insurance-NEW YORK – 2002, on-line http://www.iumi-
newyork -2002.org/Flak.htm
21.1-59
 Static Part:
Determine
Uncontrolled Flow
 Below Casing
Seat:

Drilling X X X X X X X X X X X X
Completion X X X X X X X X X
Production X X X X X X X

21.1-60
Deliverables for Dynamic Kill
Simulator
 Fully Three Phase Transient Multiphase Flow
Model
 Any Possible Well Configuration
 All Possible Leakage Points
 Dual Gradient Drilling Option
 Multiple Influx Zones
 Lost Circulation at Weak Zones
 Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Kill Fluid
 Bridging Prediction
 Simulator Written in Java Code

21.1-61
 Comparison of Dynamic Kill
Simulators Available
Inflow Kill Fluid
through Dual Any (Newtonian, Fluid Loss Available
Drillpipe or Gradient Leakage Bingham plastic, in Openhole Inclined Transient Bridging for us to
Relief Well Drilling Scenario Power law) Section Wellbore Effects Prediction use
Sidekick X X X ?
OLGA X X X X X
Petrobraz X X X
Dyn-X X X X X X
ADR/Cherokee X X X X X X X X X

Dynamic kill simulator

will be a tool for us to
develop kill
procedures.
21.1-62
 Questions we need to
answer:
 Can a well be dynamically killed when
half the well bore is gone?
 How do you dynamically kill a well
when half the well is full of sea water?
 How do you model the kill operation?
 Will it bridge?
 Can you induce bridging?
 Do you want it to bridge?

21.1-63
 Question Cont.
 With our high reliance on bridging
 Should we not understand the mechanisms of
bridging better than we do now?
 Should we gain an understanding of the factors
that contribute to bridging?
 Are there ways that we can promote bridging?
 Should we not have a mechanism where we
can predict where the bridge is likely located?
 In long open hole sections, do we really want
the well to bridge?

21.1-64
 Questions Cont.
 Only 1 DGD well has been drilled to
date
 Little thought has been given as to
how a blowout on a Dual Gradient
well will be killed.
 Can we expect to be able to use
“conventional” blowout containment
methods?

21.1-65
 Deliverables

 A best practice guide for blowout procedures.

 A study to determine the likelihood of of a well bridging.
 Ways to induce bridging.
 The consequences of undesirable bridging.
 A dynamic kill simulator for conventional and dual density
wells
 Blowout control methods for dual density wells.
 Cost estimate for deepwater intervention.

 A final report in electronic format.

21.1-66