Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Integrating Mitigating Practices and Technologies into the well design is fundamental to managing the risk of any drilling and completion operation. Managing drilling hazards requires understanding how practices and technologies can improve the risk profile and add value. This requires understanding how the risk assessment process can be applied to both practices as well as technologies. From a DHM perspective, added value also means improving the risk profile as well as understanding that any new or added mitigant must show positive cost and benefits from a risk adjusted perspective. Any new mitigant must first decrease the likelihood of the risk event occurring and the risk adjusted cost should be financially beneficial to the overall operation. It is therefore important to understand how technologies can improve the ability to mitigate and manage risk and improve the ultimate value of the well. Successful Energy Practices International, LLC 2010
iDavid
Pritchard is a Registered Professional Petroleum Engineer associated with the Petroleum industry since 1970. He has extensive experience managing and supervising worldwide drilling and production operations. David has consulted for an array of national and international independents, major companies and service providers in over 20 countries. Drilling and completion specialties include HPHT and Deepwater environments. David has analyzed, planned or audited over 40 Deepwater and HPHT global operations. David holds a Bachelor of Science in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Tulsa.
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Table of Contents
1 2 Reducing Risk Through Effective Application of Fit for Problem Technology .................... 3 Understanding the Mitigant Well Construction Technologies ................................................... 3 2.1 Drilling with Casing (DwC)/Drilling with Liners (DwL) ....................................................... 3 2.2 Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) ............................................................................................. 6 2.3 Solid Expandable Systems (SES) ..............................................................................................10 2.4 Purpose of Technical Limit Analysis........................................................................................12 2.5 Reducing Risk and Improving Drilling Time..........................................................................17 3 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................22 4 Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................................................................22 5 References ...........................................................................................................................................25
Figures
Figure 2.1 Comparing 100m/hr ROP with 50m/hr ROP. ............................................................... 4 Figure 2.2 Flat time reduction................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2.3 Annular velocity comparison. ............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.4 Simplified MPD system components. ............................................................................... 7 Figure 2.5 Depth vs. pressure. ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.6 Slimming of wellbores through the use of solid expandable openhole systems. ......11 Figure 2.7 Geological map of example well. ......................................................................................13 Figure 2.8 Comparison of drilling curves with and without effective application of drilling hazard mitigants. .................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.9 Comparison of productive time, NPT, and removable lost time to total drilling time........................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.10 Depth versus time drilling curves with DwC/DwL and pressurized mudcap drilling technologies applied in the upper hole sections. ..............................................20
Tables
Table 2.1 DwC annular velocity vs. conventional annular velocity.................................................. 6 Table 2.2 SMART well objectives for the example well. .................................................................15 Table 2.3 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the DwC/DwL technology. .........18 Table 2.4 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the pressurized mudcap drilling method of the MPD technology.......................................................................................19 Table 2.5 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the SES technology........................21 Table 4.1 Drilling acronyms used in this paper. ................................................................................22 Table 4.2 Key drilling definitions. .......................................................................................................24
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
These figures illustrate purely connection time savings. DwC also eliminates other NPT involved in operations such as reaming, circulating high viscosity pills, conductor cleanout runs, etc. There are other potential savings from unscheduled events, for example, hole collapse. Typical total time savings from DwC range from 30 % to 50 % of the time from section spud to leakoff test. Figure 2.2 shows an example of flat time reduction.
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Conv DwC
Vann, ft/min
341 300 200 100 500 7 5 1/2 8 1/2 800 9 5/8 5 1/2 12 1/4 1000 13 3/8 5 1/2 17 1/2 1100 20 5 1/2 26 292 192 164 89 42 98
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
The primary objective of MPD is to optimize drilling processes by decreasing NPT, mitigating drilling hazards, and to enable drilling otherwise technically or economically un-drillable highcomplexity prospects. The Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) offers this definition: MPD is an adaptive drilling process used to control precisely the annular pressure profile throughout the wellbore. The objectives are to ascertain the downhole pressure environment limits and to manage the annular hydraulic pressure profile accordingly. MPD is intended to avoid continuous influx of formation fluids to the surface. Any flow incidental to the operation will be safely contained using an appropriate process. MPD process employs a collection of tools and techniques which may mitigate the risks and costs associated with drilling wells that have narrow downhole environmental limits, by proactively managing the annular hydraulic pressure profile. MPD may include control of back pressure, fluid density, fluid rheology, annular fluid level, circulating friction, and hole geometry, or combinations thereof. MPD may allow faster corrective action to deal with observed pressure variations. The ability to control annular pressures dynamically facilitates drilling of what might otherwise be economically unattainable prospects. MPDs specialized equipment and techniques to practice its four industry-recognized Variations safely and effectively have evolved since the mid-1960s on thousands of U.S. land drilling programs and is considered status quo by many who pioneered the root concepts. Compared to conventional rotary drilling with jointed pipe and weighted mud, MPD applications have established a commendable well control incident track record.10
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Because MPD addresses NPT, the technology is of greatest potential benefit to offshore drilling programs where cost of lost drilling time is much higher than onshore. Although MPD was been safely and efficiently practiced from all types of offshore rigs and produced the desired results in the process, it is still considered a relatively new technology to the majority of offshore drillers. Nevertheless, since MPD technology and enabling tools was introduced to offshore drilling decision-makers in 2003, there have been hundreds of applications globally in marine environments from fixed rigs (jackup, platform mounted with surface BOPs) and floating rigs (moored semisubmersibles & drill ships with surface or subsea BOPs).
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Returns must not overflow or fall within the drilling nipple or marine diverter for drilling to progress without interruption Wellbore pressure fluctuations upon every jointed pipe connection
Pressure
EM W
tu ac Fr
TVD
Depth
MW ure
re su es Pr
HH
re Po
re
ss Pre
AFP
MWHH = 0.052 x d x TVD EMW = MWHH + AFPCIRCULATING Drilling Window (varies with depth)
The ability to add varying amounts of surface backpressure when not circulating, that amount being roughly equal to the circulating annular friction pressure (AFP) when the last stand was drilled in, adds an important element to the equation. It also allows drilling nearer balanced and with lighter
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
than conventional mud weights. With the mud in the hole at the time, the EMW may be adjusted with the rigs mud pump rates when circulating and desired amounts of surface backpressure applied when not circulating. The result is MPDs most influential and valuable characteristic: Circulating EMW = Static EMW
10
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
The nature of the wellbore itself dictates what expansion tools and systems are applicable, whether open hole or cased hole. Today, expandable technology is used to construct deeper, slimmer, and greater-production wells and used to repair or seal worn and damaged pipe. In downhole applications, solid expandable technology reduces or eliminates the telescopic profile of the wellbore (Figure 2.6). In the open hole, the technology extends casing intervals in preparation for drilling through trouble zones or when an unplanned event in the wellbore requires sacrificing or compromising a casing point as designed in the drilling plan.
Figure 2.6 Slimming of wellbores through the use of solid expandable openhole systems.
In an openhole environment, the most common application runs a solid expansion system, expands it, and typically ties it back to the previous casing string. This structural approach facilitates the extension of the previous string of conventional casing while minimizing the slimming of the well profile during well construction. The type and size of system that is used in a project depends on the issues and conditions that demand mitigating. Unexpected problems may require the application of a one-off installation, which is especially common in exploratory wells. Offset data can identify formation characteristics that may warrant planning in the system as a design contingency. Typical drilling problems that can be mitigated with an expandable liner solution include: Inadequate hole stability. Over-exposed hole as a result of drilling issues, equipment failures, prolonged tripping, etc.
11
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Over-pressured formations. Under-pressured formations. Close fracture gradient/pore pressure tolerance. Poor isolation across multiple zones. Remediation for casing that was inadvertently set shallow. In contrast to a last resort application as discussed, expandable systems may be used as a fundamental casing string as an integral part of the wells basis of design (BoD). This proactive approach enables the system to be installed over the trouble zone or above the zone to facilitate the installation of a conventional casing string over the trouble zone. With either scenario, the BoD is maintained. Whether an expandable system is used as part of the plan or for contingency purposes, the technology saves hole size, compensates for unplanned events, and allows for flexibility in the well-planning process.
12
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
After reviewing the offset data, including 260 detailed daily drilling reports from the offset well, performance objectives were analyzed to determine: The average time on the analogue well. Where the NPT has been expended. How much time can be removed with improved practices and technologies. What the hazards were and why they occurred. Risk/consequence profiles of all hazards should be developed, which provide a baseline to derive a risk-assessed cost benefits analysis of the hazards mitigants. A baseline for technical limit time iterations: sustaining learning. The earth model (Figure ) illustrates the geological complexity of the environment where the same formations are encountered several times by the perspective wellbore due to severe faults and geophysical events that occurred during and subsequent to their deposition.
W1
Geo 1
W1
Geo 2
W1
W1
W1
Geo 3
Geo 4 Geo 5
W1
W1
Geo 6
13
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9 illustrate how Technical Limit Engineering using both good drilling practices and a variety of cutting edge technologies can significantly reduce drilling time to total depth (TD) from 216 days to 115 days.
Definitions:
ILT : Invisible Lost Time, or inefficiencies such as controlled drilling RLT : ILT plus Wasted Time (Unnecessary bit trips, casing set short, etc.) Technical Limit removes all NPT and RLT
W1a: 3.502
W1b: 11,851
Marker 2: 14,318
Figure 2.8 Comparison of drilling curves with and without effective application of drilling hazard mitigants.
NPT, RLT, PT
NPT, 618.5, 9%
PT
NPT
RLT
Figure 2.9 Comparison of productive time, NPT, and removable lost time to total drilling time.
14
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Measure
Key Uncertainty
Comments
Conflicts
Actions
Overall Well Plan: Appraisal well 1: 17,000' TVD, 20,000' MD. Section 1: 20" Surface 2000' MD, Section 2: 16" at 6600' MD or 13 10,000' MD Intermediate, Section 3: Intermediate 13" or 11" at 13,000', Section 4: Protective Drilling Liner (?) 15,000'. Minimum 7" Production casting at TD. HES metrics: contractor Rig availability and company Lose concession AFE approval Top quartile in regional cost/well: Metrics Dry hole at location Production rate Rig availability Funding AFE Well design Well design Well design Three rigs meet availability criteria, 2 have poor IFO Must have at least 2000 HHP and backup pump for target section Asset manager says over $100,000,000 is outside budget Assets want simple, small diameter monobore to reduce cost. Small monobore will not accommodate sidetrack Completion production rate targets Timing for best metrics rig Only rig 2 has HHP requirements, no zero discharge capabilities Low cost well Completions wants gas lift and smart completions Low Cost Well Small monobore hole size will not accommodate minimum production rate, nor contingency risk of Investigate needed improvements on other rigs, training? Investigate needed improvements on other rigs, training? Need to prioritize objectives Need to prioritize objectives Need to prioritize objectives Will need to fracture well for maximum rate, small wellbore will not accommodate HHP
15
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Measure
Key Uncertainty
Comments
Conflicts
Actions
Overall Well Plan: Appraisal well 1: 17,000' TVD, 20,000' MD. Section 1: 20" Surface 2000' MD, Section 2: 16" at 6600' MD or 13 10,000' MD Intermediate, Section 3: Intermediate 13" or 11" at 13,000', Section 4: Protective Drilling Liner (?) 15,000'. Minimum 7" Production casting at TD. sidetrack and loss of hole size Geologist tight holing Develop a plan for rock logs on prior well mechanics analysis log that ensures confidentiality Impedes logging Align fluids with evaluation, no rigs have geoscientists. Understand zero discharge cost benefits of capabilities: Well cost requirements Last well lost hole Could require two sections and low cost intermediate casing strings: well cost Low cost well, sidetrack capability Requires real time monitoring, contingency plans Priorities drive costs
Metrics, improved critical Rock geomechanics path time Productivity index Formation sensitivity
Requires compiling geomechanics log Reservoir engineer require OBM Could require drilling liner
Achieving hole section: Could have collapse at up to 18 PPG, pore pressure normal gradient in all well sections Minimum unscheduled events and NPT (less than 20 % with no wasted time): Hazards: ballooning, Intersect target vertically at optimum depth No doglegs, smooth hole. Final 22 degrees
High pressure requiring up to 18 PPG Faults and rock strength for KOP
Tight well path requires Low cost well significant geo-steering: Cuttings beds and key seats, high torque/drag Need rock geomechanics Low cost well compressive strength data
Smooth hole, gentle drop angle less than 3 degrees for verticality in target production intervals Successful cores and logs as well as isolation before drilling into depleted secondary target Intersect target at optimum depth
Principle stress vectors: Need rock geomechanics Low cost well, sidetrack direction and magnitude. compressive strength capability and data contingencies for failure Pressure low (10 PPG) to Very difficult high stress equivalence of environment. Must have up to 18 PPG at base in means to see pressure stress ramps while drilling High pressure to 18 PPG Tight well path requires significant geo-steering Low cost well, sidetrack capability and contingencies for failure Low cost well
Need rock geomechangics compressive strength data for best fit BHA and bit design Wellbore stability study rock mechanics analysis with predicted breakouts Risk mitigant critical for high differential pressures
Wellbore stability
Require trips, impact well Low cost well bore stability, increases success risk case Requires trips, impacts Low cost well well bore stability, negatively impacts success risk case Requires trips, impacts Low cost well well bore stability, negatively impacts success risk case
This priority drives well cost prioritize objectives and consider value of risk vs. benefit to well Tradeoff is LWD: what are the risk-adjusted cost & benefits? Tradeoff is LWD: what are the risk-adjusted cost & benefits? Tradeoff is LWD: what are the risk-adjusted cost & benefits?
16
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
17
Table 2.3 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the DwC/DwL technology.
Likelihood (Probability, %) of Occurrence with Mitigants needed in place. Likelihood Ranking (1-6) Consequence Ranking (1-6) Likelihood (% Probability) of Occurrence with Existing Mitigations (IN PLACE) Extra Time if event occurs (hrs) Extra cost if the event occurs Risked Time (hrs)
Cost of Mitigations
Consequences
Risked Cost
Mitigations
Comments
Risk
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards With Technologies
1.00 Hole Section 2: 16" drilled out of 20" Mud program, loss 1.01 Fluid Non loss in productive circulation procedures hole time (NPT) and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, section pit drills. 1.02 Slight losses Mud program, loss
circulation procedures and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, pit drills, applied controlled drilling Severe losses Mud program, loss resulting in circulation procedures 25 days to and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, cure, with pit drills, applied seven days controlled drilling
100%
100 %
$5,850,000
$250,000
$58,500
100 %
1%
6.00
These columns represent the risk register. The combination of a risk by a single consequence is a risk event. First, identify the risk the what if? Migitants in place recognize exiting practices. Each risk can have different consequences the so what? Probability of occurrence is based on data or experience. Ranking from the matrix, Accept, Mitigate, or aVoid is suggested by color (red, green, yellow). Action is determined by the team. The new mitigant is described with the intent to reduce the probability of the risk occurring. The discrete cost of the new mitigant is indicated. The new ranking is based on the lower probability of the risk occurring. The Consequence, in general, remains the same. Note the improvement of the risk profile. Risk adjusted lost time and cost if the event still occurs. Normally the total non -productive time off the critical path to the time on the critical path. Associated costs are the total daily cost of operations. This is the added value of the new mitigant represented by the discrete cost of the new mitigant as a function of the reduced risk exposure . This value for the worst ranked risk indicates that the mitigant has added value. Thus the overall risk is managed by the new mitigant.
18
2316.6 %
600.00
18
1.03
Mitigate this risk as the occurrence and consequences of the risk have not been acceptable and in some cases resulted in lost hole sections with high costs. The new mitigants to drill the 16" section with a drilling liner to mitigate losses and maintain stability. Rock compressive strength is well below the design limit of the drill shoe.
The cost savings if the events occur as before is: No loss of OBM: $3,000,000 plus 25 days saved @ $100,000/day plus 7 days of cement remediation.
Table 2.4 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the pressurized mudcap drilling method of the MPD technology.
Likelihood (Probability, %) of Occurrence with Mitigants needed in place. Likelihood Ranking (1-6) Consequence Ranking (1-6) Likelihood (% Probability) of Occurrence with Existing Mitigations (IN PLACE) Extra Time if event occurs (hrs) Extra cost if the event occurs Risked Time (hrs)
Cost of Mitigations
Consequences
Risked Cost
Risk
Mitigations
Comments
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards With Technologies
1.00 Hole Section 2: 16" drilled out of 20" Mud program, loss 1.01 Fluid Non loss in productive circulation procedures hole time (NPT) and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, section pit drills. 1.02 Slight losses Mud program, loss
circulation procedures and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, pit drills, applied controlled drilling Severe losses Mud program, loss resulting in circulation procedures 25 days to and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, cure, with pit drills, applied seven days controlled drilling
100%
100 %
$5,850,000
$500,000
These columns represent the risk register. The combination of a risk by a single consequence is a risk event. First, identify t he risk the what if? Migitants in place recognize exiting practices. Each risk can have different consequences the so what? Probability of occurrence is based on data or experience. Ranking from the matrix, Accept, Mitigate, or aVoid is suggested by color (red, green, yellow). Action is determined by the team. The new mitigant is described with the intent to reduce the probability of the risk occurring. The discrete cost of the new mitigant is indicated. The new ranking is based on the lower probability of the risk occurring. The Consequence, in general, remains the same. Note the improvement of the risk profile. Risk adjusted lost time and cost if the event still occurs. Normally the total non -productive time off the critical path to the time on the critical path. Associated costs are the total daily cost of operations. This is the added value of the new mitigant represented by the discrete cost of the new mitigant as a function of the reduced risk exposure . This value for the worst ranked risk indicates that the mitigant has added value. Thus the overall risk is managed by the new mitigant.
19
1158.3 %
100 %
1%
600.00
6.00
$58,500
19
1.03
Mitigate this risk as the occurrence and consequences of the risk have not been acceptable and in some cases resulted in lost hole sections with high costs. The new mitigant will be water-based mud and managed pressure drilling.
The cost savings if the events occur as before is: No loss of OBM: $3,000,000 plus 25 days saved @ $100,000/day plus 7 days of cement remediation.
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards With Technologies
Figure 2.10 indicates the areas of the well where the DwC and pressurized mudcap technologies are applied to the well trouble zones.
Figure 2.10 Depth versus time drilling curves with DwC/DwL and pressurized mudcap drilling technologies applied in the upper hole sections.
20
The following (Table 2.5) is an excerpt of the risk assessment for the Solid Expandable System(s) technology.
Table 2.5 Excerpt of risk assessment for the application of the SES technology.
Likelihood (Probability, %) of Occurrence with Mitigants needed in place. Likelihood Ranking (1-6) Consequence Ranking (1-6) Likelihood (% Probability) of Occurrence with Existing Mitigations (IN PLACE) Extra Time if event occurs (hrs) Extra cost if the event occurs Risked Time (hrs)
Cost of Mitigations
Consequences
Risked Cost
Mitigations
Comments Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards With Technologies
1.00 Expandable liner for sidetrack operations Mud program, loss 1.01 Stuck NPT but circulation procedures pipe in able to hole retrieve drill and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, string pit drills, spiral drill successfully collars 1.02
Mud program, loss circulation procedures and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, pit drills, spiral drill collars Mud program, loss Pipe irrectrievabl circulation procedures y stuck. Cut, and materials, Blowout prevention equipment, plug, and pit drills, applied sidetrack, controlled drilling
Risk
40%
$4,000,000
$500,000
25 %
1%
8 96.00
0.96
These columns represent the risk register. The combination of a risk by a single consequence is a risk event. First, identify the risk the what if? Migitants in place recognize exiting practices. Each risk can have different consequences the so what? Probability of occurrence is based on data or experience. Ranking from the matrix, Accept, Mitigate, or aVoid is suggested by color (red, green, yellow). Action is determined by the team. The new mitigant is described with the intent to reduce the probability of the risk occurring. The discrete cost of the new mitigant is indicated. The new ranking is based on the lower probability of the risk occurring. The Consequence, in general, remains the same. Note the improvement of the risk profile. Risk adjusted lost time and cost if the event still occurs. Normally the total non -productive time off the critical path to the time on the critical path. Associated costs are the total daily cost of operations. This is the added value of the new mitigant represented by the discrete cost of the new mitigant as a function of the reduced risk exposure . This value for the worst ranked risk indicates that the mitigant has added value. Thus the overall risk is managed by the new mitigant.
$140,000
21
1.03
25 %
Mitigate this risk as the occurrence and consequences of the risk havie not been acceptable and in some cases resulted in lost hole sections with high costs. The new mitigant will be to set the prior casing string with an oversize shoe and use an expandable drilling liner to conserve hole size.
This indicates that not only is the risk profile improved, but in a 192 % risk adjusted basis, the cost of the new SET mitigant adds value to the operation.
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
3 Conclusion
DHM begins with well planning. All drilling operations have risk that can never be fully eliminated but it can be mitigated and managed. The key to mitigating and managing risk lies in understanding the importance of the stage-gated planning process, developing SMART objectives, acknowledging and defining possible uncertainties and risks applied to practices and technologies. Well construction is a drilling function effort; excellence in performance is a multidisciplinary responsibility. Complex wells require multi-disciplinary alignment to ensure and sustain performance. Aligning objectives is necessary and critical to managing drilling hazards and achieving successful well execution. All disciplines must understand the trade-offs of their requirements and how the uncertainties of the earth model influence risk management and therefore the well design. Attaining success with DHM depends on a cognizant and deliber ate recognition of the projects risks. If executed effectively, the process yields a comprehensive awareness that provides a foundation to not only mitigate and manage risk but optimize operations. The basic premise of DHM is to eliminate, reduce, or prepare for risks and hazards by following a distinct process. The risk assessment process should be applicable to and conducted for any operation. The process implemented should be used to critically challenge each facet of the well design. In the final analysis it is important to understand how practices and technologies can improve the ability to mitigate and manage risk and improve the ultimate value of the well. Any mitigant must decrease the likelihood of the occurrence of any hazard. The risk profile and risk-adjusted cost should be financially beneficial to the overall operation. DHM begins with well planning and excellence in performance is dependent on successfully applying mitigants to manage risks.
Acronym
DAFP AFE ALARP BHA BOP BOD BUR CBHP CBU CCI DG DHM DLS DP
ii
Definition
Circulating Annular Friction Pressure Approved for Expenditure As Low As Reasonably Practical Bottom Hole Assembly Blow Out Preventer Basis of Design Build up Rate Constant Bottom Hole Pressure Circulating "Bottoms Up" Cutting Carrying Index Dual Gradient Drilling Hazards Management Dog-Leg Severity (directional drilling) Drill Pipe
22
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Acronym
DwC DwL DWOP ECD EMW EOW (R) HAZOP HES HHP HPHT IADC ID IFO ILT JSA KOP LCM LWD M&E MD MOC MPD MWD MWHH NPT OBM OD PDC PMCD PPG PT PWD RA RCD RLT ROP SES SMART SPE TD TVD UE VSP WT
Definition
Drilling with Casing Drilling with Liners Drill the Well on Paper Equivalent Circulating Density Equivalent Mud Weight End of Well (Report) Hazardous Operation (assessment session) Health, Environment, Safety Hydraulic Horse Power High Pressure, High Temperature International Association of Drilling Contractors Inside Diameter Income from Operations Invisible Lost Time Job Safety Analysis Kick Off Point or Kick Off Plug Lost Circulation Material Logging While Drilling Mechanical and Efficiency Measured Depth Management of Change Managed Pressure Drilling Measurement While Drilling Mud Weight Hydrostatic Pressure Non Productive Time Oil-Based Mud Outside Diameter Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (bit) Pressurized Mud Cap Drilling Pounds Per Gallon Productive Time Pressure While Drilling Risk Assessment Rotating Control Device Removable Lost Time Rate of Penetration Solid Expandable Systems Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely Society of Petroleum Engineers Total Depth True Vertical Depth Unscheduled Events Velocity Seismic Profile Wasted Time
23
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
Term
Basis of Design Consequence
Definition
The technical details, information and procedures necessary to plan and execute a well Consequence is the result of a failure to prevent a risk event. There can be several consequences for any given risk of occurrence
Critical Path of The planned execution sequential path of drilling and completion operations with the Drilling Operations steps necessary to successfully drill and complete an oil and gas well Drilling Hazard A drilling hazard is any rotating or flat time incident that causes a deviation from the critical operating path
Drilling Hazards Engaging the designs, practices, or technologies necessary to mitigate the risks of Management drilling operations Drilling Margin The boundaries for the safe application of Equivalent Circulating Density between in situ pore pressure and/or stress equivalence, and the fracture gradient resulting from the overburden at true vertical depth.
Drill the Well On A detailed exercise to communicate and vet the Basis of Design with stakeholders Paper The effective mud density expressed in pounds per square inch (or similar units such as metrics) per true vertical foot of well depth (psi/foot) exhibited by a circulating fluid at Equivalent a certain circulating rate in gallons per minute (or similar units such as metrics) against Circulating Density the formation that takes into account the pressure drop in the annulus above the point of circulation due to friction and hydrostatic pressure The amount of pressure, expressed in pounds per square inch (or similar units such as Fracture Gradient metrics) per true vertical foot of well depth (psi/foot) that is required to induce fractures in rock at a given true vertical depth The maximum kick volume of fluid that can be taken into the wellbore and circulated out without fracturing the formation at a weak point (shoe), thereby exceeding the leakoff, given a difference between the pore pressure and equivalent circulating mud density in use The amount of pressure, expressed in pounds per square inch (or similar units such as metrics) per true vertical foot of well depth (psi/foot) that is exerted by a column of drilling fluid on the formation being drilled whereby fluid will continue to enter the formation, or leak off. This is the maximum pressure of equivalent circulating density mud density that may be applied to the well during drilling operations A process that is designed to manage changes to: approved well objectives, Basis of Design, program, or procedure A mitigant is any proactive use of best practices and/or technologies which reduces the risk of occurrence the hazard with an improved risk profile and risk adjusted cost benefits to the drilling operation. For the purpose of a risk assessment, mitigants are relegated to what is currently being done in an operation The daily report summary of prior day operations The risk event is represented by any added or new mitigation which reduces the probability or likelihood of occurrence of any indicated risk and corresponding consequence, or the risk event
Kick Tolerance
Leak Off
Management of Change
Mitigant
24
Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper Mitigating Drilling Hazards with Technologies
5 References
1. David Pritchard, Drilling Hazards Management: Excellence in Drilling Performance Begins with Planning, World Oil, August 2010, 75-83. Also DHGS white paper. 2. David Pritchard, The Value of the Risk Assessment Process, World Oil, October 2010, 43-52. Also DHSG white paper. 3. P. York, et al., Eliminating Non-Productive Time Associated with Drilling Trouble Zones (paper OTC 20220, presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 47, 2009). 4. M.Al-Umran, et al., New 5 in. Solid Expandable Systems Provide Effective Technology for Successful Workover Project in Saudi Arabia (paper SPE 08057 presented at the 2008 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium, Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia, May 10-12, 2008). 5. L. Jianhua, et al., Use of Liner Drilling Technology as a Solution to Hole Instability and Loss Intervals: A Case Study Offshore Indonesia (paper SPE/IADC 118806 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 17-19, 2009). 6. S. Nas, et al., Offshore Managed Pressure Drilling Experiences in Asia Pacific (paper SPE/IADC 119875 presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 17-19, 2009). 7. Randy Scott et al., Pushing the Limit of Drilling with Casing (paper OTC 16568 presented at the 2004 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, May 3-6, 2004). 8. Liao Jianhua et al., Use of Liner Drilling Technology as a Solution to Hole Instability and Loss Intervals: A Case Study Offshore Indonesia (paper SPE/IADC 118806, presentation at the 2009 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 17-19, 2009). 9. R. D. Watts et al., Particle Size Distribution Improves Casing -While-Drilling Wellbore Strengthening Results (paper SPE 128913 presented at the 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-4, 2010). 10. C.J. Jablonowski, et al., The Impact of Rotating Control Devices on the Incidence of Blowouts: A Case Study for Onshore Texas, USA (paper SPE133019-MS, presented at the 2010 Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, June 2730, 2010).
25