Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics)

CADE/CAODC DRILLING CONFERENCE October 20 & 22, 2003 Calgary, Alberta, Canada
TITLE: Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization Practices Reduce Drilling Cost Terra Nova Project PAPER NO. 2003 - 005 Page 1 of 9
AUTHOR(S): Jason Evans, SPE, Petro-Canada David Folmer, SPE, Baker Hughes OASIS Seehong Ong, SPE, Baker Atlas/GeoScience
COPYRIGHT NOTATION: This paper was selected for presentation by the CADE/CAODC Drilling Conference Technical Committee, following a review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Technical Committee and do not necessarily reflect the position of any or all of the Conference sponsors. Permission to copy is restricted to just this abstract page. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Further permission to copy may be requested from the CADE/CAODC Technical Chairman, 800, 540 - 5 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0M2.
ABSTRACT: Wellbore instability has resulted in elevated operations time and costs on 11 of 18 current development wells in the Terra Nova Field, offshore Eastern Canada. The non-productive time associated with wellbore instability related issues has varied from 2 to 860 hours. In some cases, multiple sidetracks have been performed to regain a stable wellbore. The typical problems encountered included washing/reaming/overpull, stuck bottom hole assemblies (BHA), fluid losses, sidetracks and casing not going to bottom. In order to reduce the risk and associated costs of problems related to wellbore instability, Petro-Canada partnered with Baker Hughes OASIS and Baker Atlas to develop a plan incorporating the use o f a geomechanics model and optimized drilling practices during the planning and drilling phase. A set of well specific guidelines were then compiled which included measurements to ensure the effective implementation of the geomechanics model. The geomechanics model is derived from logging and leak-off data. It is designed to provide formation mechanical properties, characterization of in-situ stresses (orientation and magnitude), identification of wellbore failure mechanisms and appropriate mud weight windows for safe drilling operations. The model is based on the theory of Controlled Breakout (CB), which allows some amount of hole breakout to occur. The hole breakout is limited so that the wellbore will stabilize and be stronger in its breakout geometry than it would be in a perfectly round geometry. Once the geomechanics model has been created and calibrated, it is imperative that the model is applied in a formal drilling implementation process to ensure that the guidelines controlling breakout are imp lemented. If breakout is occurring, operations must be altered to allow the excess cuttings/cavings to be circulated out of the wellbore. Additionally, multiple parameters like torque, drag, Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) etc. must be monitored real-time to ensure that any deviation from
calculated and actual trends are explained and that any required remedies are put in place immediately. The most significant accumulation of nonproductive time (NPT) due to wellbore instability on a single well to date is 36 days. Since implementing the geomechanics model and focused engineering approach, four wells have been successfully drilled, including a twin to the problem well mentioned above, with no wellbore instability related non-productive time. The successful merger of theory and application has saved time and money at Terra Nova. It has also given an improved focus and integration between planning and execution of the well, and the people performing the activities.
INTRODUCTION Drilling the deviated d evelopment oil wells in the Terra Nova Field (Figure 1), offshore Eastern Canada, has proven challenging. The Fortune Bay shale, located directly above the reservoir sands, has been identified as one of the most critical zones from an instability perspective for many of the wells drilled in the field. Instability in this and other zones (Figure 2) has lead to the occurrence of NPT on more than one third of the wells drilled in the field. The issue surrounding wellbore instability in this formation is one which originates from physical instability. A mud weight program is designed to control instability and minimize the negative effects on rate of penetration (ROP) thus allow drilling operations to proceed without the significant occurrence of NPT while reducing the risk of reservoir damage in the formations below. To add to the challenge, the appropriate mud weight window varies with the inclination and azimuth of each well drilled in the field. To address the issues of wellbore instability, PetroCanada partnered with Baker Hughes Drilling Optimization Services and Geomechanical Services to develop a plan which incorporated the use of a geomechanics model and optimized drilling practices for future wells.
TITLE:
Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics) Modelling and Drilling Optimization Practices Reduce Drilling Cost Terra Nova Project
BENCHMARKING PAST PERFORMANCE The first step in improving drilling performance is measuring current performance and evaluating the entire sequence of events that has lead to any non-productive time. Once this step has been completed, recommendations can be made to plan for the identified improvement opportunities and the ultimate implementation process to be applied to upcoming wells. On the eight wells which exhibited more than 1 day NPT due to wellbore instability, a total of 1922 hours were spent trying to overcome related operational issues. The approximate costs due to wellbore instability related NPT is $ 28.8 million CDN. The NPT can be broken down into: washing/reaming/overpull, stuck BHA, fluid loss, sidetracking due to instability (either around a stuck BHA or inability to re -enter an existing wellbore) and casing not going to bottom. Typical remedies applied in the past to alleviate these problems include randomly increasing mud density, additional wiper trips, longer connections to work the hole clean, extra circulating time for mud conditioning and density increases, and additional time to clean the hole.
PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 2 of 9
s h ). The magnitude of the stresses is determined from density logs, the synthetic rock properties, leak-off tests (or extended leak-off tests where available) and borehole acoustic image log (if breakout is present). The stress orientations (for s H and s h ) can be determined from caliper, borehole image and acoustic anisotropy logs.
GEOMECHANICS MODEL With regards to understanding and controlling wellbore instability, the first step is to create a geomechanical model. A proper geomechanical model requires numerous inputs to accurately depict the static mechanical properties of the rock being drilled and the insitu stress tensor of the field. The logging and petrophysical data required to perform the assessment includes: relative volumes of sand, shale and fluids, acoustic wave (compression and shear) and bulk density. From this suite of logging and petrophysical data, a number of other variables can be calculated, including: Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, compressive & tensile strengths, internal friction angle, Biots constant and cohesive strength. In the absence of any petrophysical data (particularly in the overburden section), correlations will be used to estimate the required rock mechanical parameters for the wellbore stability analysis (Jaeger, and Cook, 1979). P ore pressure is also determined using the offset logging data. An important part of the model used in the Terra Nova Field is the fact that the static mechanical properties are all generated from logging data, and not from actual measurement of rock samp les. This model is the only one in current commercial use that applies this method to obtain rock mechanical properties. Next, the in-situ stresses and orientation within the rock are determined. This evaluation is qualified from a thorough understanding of the faulting environment within the area, whether the faults are normal, thrust or strike slip. The Terra Nova Field is a normal faulting area (s v > s H >
CONTROLLED BREAKOUT Beyond the full assessment of the mechanical properties of the rocks and the stresses within the rocks, an important part of the success on the Terra Nova Project can be attributed to the use of the theory of Controlled Breakout (CB). CB is a theory which has been established and well documented (Zheng, 1998). CB is the process of allowing some of the wellbore to cave in, thereby changing the geometry of the remaining hole. An example of a wellbore with breakout can be seen in Figure 3. This new wellbore shape, which now more closely resembles an oval rather than a circle, is stronger and will require less mud density to help support it. In fact, a hole with breakout will be at least 33% stronger than a circular hole (Zheng, 1998). There are many advantages to drilling wells using the CB theory: The primary advantage is the use of a lower density mud. Since some of the wellbore is allowed to cave in, a lower mud density is required than if the hole were to be maintained in its perfectly round geometry. Lower mud density reduces the ROP penalty that is associated with higher mud density. The lower mud density also reduces the chances of formation damage in the reservoir and fluid losses throughout the well. CB can also accommodate more challenging well path trajectories 1 and will manage tight tolerance issues with respect to mud weight, pore pressure, and fracture pressure considerations. This is accomplished by enlarging the mud weight window between the fracture gradient and the mud density required to maintain wellbore stability, applying the CB concept.
MODEL CALIBRATION/VALIDATION Once a geomechanics model has been created, it must be calibrated by matching predicted breakout with the actual data evaluated using the original rock properties from the initial model. The validation typically is achieved by evaluating critical breakout areas observed in offset wells and a well in which the CB concept has been applied. Predicted versus actual geometry of the breakout is evaluated with the mud density used and compared to the
1
A challenging well path can be defined by its combination of vertical section, inclination, and azimuth in relation to the orientation of the field wide rock stresses.
TITLE:
output of actual caliper and borehole image logs. Any differences are noted and the model is revised accordingly. The rock mechanics model is then used to simulate the new expected response and is calibrated for modeling future wells. There are two primary forward modeling outputs of the rock mechanics model that are used for drilling future wells. The first is the mud density requirement versus depth for a specific planned well trajectory and a given amount of breakout (Figure 4). This g raphical presentation of data provides an overall picture of the mud weight requirements at known problem intervals and is used to determine the depths of casing seats required to successfully drill the well. The second output is a set of contour plots defined for a specific breakout angle and created for the critical intervals identified (Figure 5). Both outputs are used in the planning phase of a well and are often referenced during wellpath trajectory changes as required. A contour plot shows, for a specific depth (typically a depth of instability), the mud density required for a set amount of breakout at various inclination and azimuth combinations.
FOCUSED ENGINEERING The geomechanical model provides the basis for improving drilling performance in areas where wellbore instability is a problem. The application of the modeling results by the drilling optimization services during the drilling operation is just as critical in providing the overall solution to wellbore instability.
PLANNING Controlled Breakout is the premise for the model and engineering solution, and as such there is a volume of cavings, in addition to the cuttings generated, which must be accounted for in the planning and drilling phases. For this reason, a series of parameters are benchmarked and trend analysis performed to monitor wellbore stability and to ensure NPT is minimized. The additional volumes of cavings will have an impact on hole cleaning, equivalent circulating density (ECD), torque/drag and fluid volumes/properties used while drilling. To evaluate if the amount of breakout occurring is as planned, excessive or lower than planned, it is important to know expected levels first. This can prove challenging, since the exact geometry of the hole breakout is difficult to estimate in advance. For this reason, exact values are not typically used, but trends of key parameters are tracked as changes to the parameter trends may signify a potential instability issue. Hole cleaning is one of the primary parameters requiring calculated and actual trend analysis. Whether or not the hole is clean has an impact on nearly every other parameter being observed. The actual volume of cuttings
and cavings being removed from the hole must be accurately estimated. This is to be compared to the expected volume of cavings which is based on a combination of the inclination and azimuth, in relation to the far-field stress orientations and from offset wells with wellbore image logs. The combination of the original hole, plus the planned breakout, over the expected section of hole interval where breakout will occur, give the planned estimated rock volume to be removed from the hole. ECD is also estimated prior to drilling the well. ECD measurements while drilling will give indications of possible cuttings / cavings build-up in the wellbore (Hutchinson, Rezmer-Cooper, 1998). ECD is particularly important to track, as it can give one of the most obvious and earliest indications of breakout occurring. Additionally, ECD may reduce if breakout has occurred, as the annular formation volume will have increased. Real-time Downhole Pressure Measurement (DPM) technology is required to capture the ECD data during the drilling phase. Part of the planning process is to ensure that the proper tool is selected and evaluation criteria are in place. The DPM tool used in the Terra Nova drilling project captures data while drilling and stores data when the pumps are off. This is important for capturing downhole pressures from tripping in (surge) or while pulling out of the hole (swab), when circulation does not take place. Torque and drag estimates and sensitivity studies are prepared while planning for a well. The loading and cleaning of cuttings / cavings from the wellbore will give variations to the measured pick-up, slack-off and rotating weights while drilling (Reiber, Vos, Eide, 1999). Knowing what these variations mean in terms of cuttings / cavings volumes in the hole is essential when drilling operations begin. Fluid volume trends (calculated and actual) in the active system are also tracked and changes are accounted for while drilling commences. This is based on a gauge hole, plus the expected breakout volume through the intervals where breakout is expected. Variations from this number can provide indications that breakout is worse or less than expected. Fluid properties are evaluated to ensure compatibility with expected operations. Specifically, fluid properties are designed to maximize cuttings / cavings carrying potential. This is particularly important as the primary problem zones exist near the bottom of the well. Thus fluid properties require a predictable carrying capacity given longer distances for cuttings transport and can be seen as being more critical with large transport distances at high inclination sections of the wellpath. Surge and swab calculations are performed for two different scenarios. The first is for operations when pulling out of the hole, whether tripping or working a stand during a connection. The geomechanical model provides a
TITLE:
required downhole pressure to ensure breakout does not exceed an expected amount. Additional mud density is used to give a safety factor (swab margin) to allow for operations which will lower the downhole pressure, such as pulling out of the hole. This safety factor mu st be matched with the geometry of the BHA and the pulling speed when tripping through the critical sections of the well. Since reducing mud density below the minimum required mud weight for a stable wellbore is a concern, swab pressures prove to be a key control parameter while ensuring breakout does not exceed the planned values. The planning process ensures the proper tools will be available to measure the required values while drilling. The DPM technology is used to capture the actual surge / swab pressures which are compared to the planned values and benchmarked for the planning of future wells. The ideal scenario is to drill the wells with the lowest possible mud density to maximize rate of penetration (ROP), however in reality it is the wellbore instability that dictates the required mud densities. Another issue to consider is the potential for lost circulation when running casing in higher mud density. Therefore surge pressures are analyzed to give appropriate running speeds for running casing (casing strings are typically tapered in the Terra Nova Field, so running speeds will vary throughout the process of running casing). All of these items are planned for and monitored while the well is ongoing with the goal of maximizing ROP. Due to the highly n i terbedded nature of the Terra Nova Field, ROP will vary significantly throughout a well. However, the goal is to maximize ROP in each section of the well and still control any possible wellbore instability issues. The logging program is the final issue that requires considerable attention in the planning phase. The primary focus at this point is to run the appropriate advanced technology hole image logging and other pertinent logging technology to characterize the CB concept. Since the geomechanics model is only as good as the data used in the model, ensuring that complete, accurate and relevant data sets are added is important to the continued integrity of the model. For this reason, part of the planning process is ensuring the proper logging data will be collected over the appropriate intervals of the well. The most important log to ensure the proper characterization of the wellbore is an acoustic borehole image log (Figures 6 and 7). The geomechanical model is designed to produce a fixed amount of breakout in the least stable section of the well. The only way to determine the degree of conservatism of the model is to have an actual measurement of the breakout, which occurred when drilling the well. The only decisive way to quantify the existence of breakout is with a hole image log. The existence of breakout can be qualified by caliper data, but it is impossible to use that data to
quantify the angle of breakout which exists. This is due to the fact that the shape of a breakout can change considerably, based on the wellbore trajectory in relation to the orientation and anisotropy of the far-field stresses. Additionally, the other logs listed previously as input for the geomechanics model should also be collected so they may be added to the model for calibration purposes.
IMPLEMENTATION Once the planning phase is completed and the required detail is included in the design files for the well, drilling commences. The focus is then totally on the engineering program that has been prepared. In an ideal service situation, there will be two drilling optimization service engineers on the rig site to monitor the previously mentioned values and trends2 . This way, all deviations are noted as they occur and remedies can be implemented immediately. Another engineer w ill be in town with the drilling team, to interpret and share the plots generated offshore as the well is drilled. The importance of the implementation phase cannot be overemphasized. While many of the real-time measurements on the rig can be observed by others on the well site, it is the sole focus of the optimization engineers on controlling wellbore instability which is essential to the success of the project. It is easy enough for the driller to notice that torque and drag values are erratic over the course of a well and for the mud engineer to notice a slow increase in pit volume above the normal active mud system. However, with someone on the rig focused on wellbore instability, trends are analyzed to see if there is a relationship between these items . Since surge and swab pressures are so important to the end result of this process, the engineers will be on the rig floor during trips in and out of the hole with BHAs and casing strings. The engineer will also spend a significant amount of time in the shaker room, analyzing cuttings and cavings, and the geometry and volume of each, being removed from the hole. The rest of the pertinent data is constantly uploaded from the mud logging database as the well is being drilled. Once drilling is completed, and the BHA is pulled out of the hole, the engineer remains heavily involved during the logging program in order to analyze the results as soon as they are available. Significant deviation from expected values, particularly with the caliper and wellbore image log, can instigate a clean-out run or the need to increase mud density, prior to running casing.
Due to the complete buy-in and support from the rig-based personnel, currently only one drilling optimization service engineer is required during the implementation phase.
TITLE:
POST WELL After casing has been successfully run it is time to compare all of the planning and actual values from the well. If all trends and results are reflecting the planned values, the model is verified and carried forward to the next well. If there are variations from the expected and actual values seen on the well, detailed analysis of the two values is performed. All of the assumptions made during the planning phase are addressed and either supported or revised. If the assumptions are correct, but there is still variation between the model and the actual wellbore geometry seen, then these differences are captured and entered into the database which forms the model. The model is updated, and again verified against the existing actual data to be used on forward well planning.
block within the field, the original geomechanics model was not directly applicable. However, with no model available specific to this fault block, key information (sonic, pore pressures etc.) for both areas were evaluated and provided sufficient initial justification to apply the original geomechanics model to these two wells. Both wells were drilled successfully with no indication of wellbore instability and no NPT related to instability was exp erienced during the drilling phase. One additional wiper trip was required before running casing on the fourth well due to some minor instability during logging in a zone not identified as critical by the original geomechanics model. As a result, an additional geomechanics model, specific to this fault block, will be developed as subtle differences between the different parts of the field exist.
RESULTS Since implementing the process of combining geomechanics modeling and a focused engineering approach, four wells have been drilled in the Terra Nova field. The first well was very similar to the typical wells drilled in the field, with inclination up to 38 and a drop section to 25 prior to reaching the critical problem formations. There was no intermediate casing on this well, so the critical risk section was open for a longer period of time. There was no amount of NPT related to wellbore instability on this well. Analysis of fluid and cuttings volumes actually indicated less breakout than expected. However, due to logistical problems, no hole image log was run and the amount of breakout could not be definitively quantified. A second well was drilled utilizing the new wellbore stability approach. This well was a twin to the offset well with the most NPT related to wellbore instability in the Terra Nova field. The offset well had two sidetracks and the tapered production casing string had to be pulled as it would not go to bottom, due to wellbore instability. The new well was designed to build to an inclination of 49.8 followed by a tangent section and a drop to 25 prior to the critical formation. The reduced hole angle through the critical zone was done purposely in order to avoid excessive mud weight requirements for wellbore stability. Due to the historical instability problems and the proximity to a delineation well that provided reasonable geological certainty, intermediate casing was planned for this particular well. The offset well experienced a total of 36 days of NPT due to wellbore instability. The twin well did not suffer any wellbore instability related NPT in this intermediate section. Drilling cost savings on this well when comparing to its sister-well are in the order of several million dollars CDN. The third and fourth wells both were sidetracks (re-entry) from an existing well. As these wells are in a different fault
FUTURE PLANS With the successful implementation of this new service, Petro-Canada has decided to apply it to future drilling in all fault blocks within the Terra Nova Field. As mentioned, this will initially include one possibly two additional geomechanics studies to determine the rock properties and stresses in the different fault blocks. This commitment to the future focus of the wellbore stability concerns has also introduced changes during the well planning phase. There is more communication and a better understanding about items related to wellbore stability, which has affected the drilling, geology and reservoir departments. There is also a potential to introduce threedimensional presentation/visualisation as part of the service depending upon future drilling plans. This progressive step will allow a better translation of the existing geomechanics models and actual field results in the planning of future wells. This will be done by capturing the far-field stress regimes, assessing the faults in the field and their affects on wellbore stability, and the magnitude of breakout with relation to wellbore trajectory and mud density on existing wells.
CONCLUSIONS The assimilation of rock mechanics modeling with specific drilling procedures has been important to the overall success of the Terra Nova project. Either component of the wellbore stability approach may add value and savings to the Terra Nova project, however in combination it has shortened the learning curve and increased the savings by reducing NPT. Running the advanced technology hole image log is vital to calibrating the rock mechanics model versus actual field results. Otherwise, only qualitative learnings will be captured.
TITLE:
Rig-site drilling optimization service engineers provide round the clock observation, significantly improving response time to deviations from planned trends. With complete buy-in and support from rig based personnel, only one drilling optimization engineer is required for the implementation phase. Preparation and use of specific required mud density versus depth plots remove ambiguity that can accompany the use of contour plots alone. This has lead to improved results and reduced NPT. Observing and analyzing the rig-captured data realtime, as it relates to wellbore stability, does lead to improve measurement quality and reporting of drilling parameters. Teamwork is a vital component of the process presented and has resulted in the success of the project to date. Engineers in the office review the benefits of this approach to overall well planning, while operations also need to be included to ensure that implementation goes as planned.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Petro-Canada and Baker Hughes for permission to publish this paper. Thanks are also extended to Roger Dugal of Petro-Canada and Greg Szutiak of Baker Hughes OASIS for their contributions to this paper.
REFERENCES 1. Jaeger, J. and Cook, N.G.W. Fundamentals of rd Rock Mechanics, 3 edition, Chapman and Hall, London, 1979. 2. Zheng, Z.: Integrated Wellbore Stability Analysis Against Tradition, SPE 47282, Proc. Eurock 98, SPE/ISRM joint conference, 8 -1 0 J uly 1998, Trontheim, Norway, 3. Hutchinson, M. and Rezmer-Cooper, I.: Using Downhole Annular Pressure Measurements to Anticipate Drilling Problems, SPE 49114, 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 September 1998, New Orleans, USA 4. Reiber, F., Vos, B.E. and Eide, S.E.: On-line Torque & Drag: A Real-Time Drilling Performance Optimization Tool, SPE/IADC 52836, 1999SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 9-11 March 1999, Amsterdam, Holland
TITLE:
Figure 1 Field Map Terra Nova
Area covered by Original Geomechanics Model
Figure 2 Stratigraphic Cross-Section Terra Nova
Critical zones:
Middle/Lower Hibernia Fortune Bay
TITLE:
Figure 3 Borehole Breakout Oval Wellbore
Figure 4 Mud Weight Program Based on 0 / 60 / 90 degree breakout, fracture gradient and wellbore inclination
Mud weight program to control breakout
TITLE:
Figure 5 Contour Plot - For 75 breakout in critical Fortune Bay Marker
Well-X Inclination / Azimuth @ Fortune Bay Marker
Figure 6 Acoustic Wellbore Image Offset Well 60-90 degree breakout
Figure 7 Acoustic Wellbore Image Offset Well 80 100 degree breakout

Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Wellbore Stability (Geomechanics)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CADE/CAODC DRILLING CONFERENCE October 20 & 22, 2003 Calgary, Alberta, Canada

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 2 of 9

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 3 of 9

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 4 of 9

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 5 of 9

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 6 of 9

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 7 of 9

Area covered by Original Geomechanics Model

Figure 2 Stratigraphic Cross-Section Terra Nova

Middle/Lower Hibernia Fortune Bay

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 2 of 9

Mud weight program to control breakout

PAPER NO. 2003-005 Page 3 of 9

Well-X Inclination / Azimuth @ Fortune Bay Marker

Figure 6 Acoustic Wellbore Image Offset Well 60-90 degree breakout

Figure 7 Acoustic Wellbore Image Offset Well 80 100 degree breakout

Вам также может понравиться