SPE/IADC 91220

Methodology For Manipulation Of Wellhead Pressure Control For The Purpose Of

Recovering Gas To Process In Underbalanced Drilling Applications
R.A. Graham, M.S. Culen, Precision Drilling Technology Services
Copyright 2004, SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1112 October 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, their officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An updated approach to underbalanced well design has been
developed with a view to enhancing the ability to recover gas
to process (pipeline, gas plant, offset well, temporary storage,
etc.). With the growing trend towards reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, this technique evaluates the range of
anticipated operating conditions (gas inflow and wellhead
pressures) as a function of liquid and gas injection rates and
the productivity index of the reservoir.
Typically, underbalanced drilling projects have been designed
to minimize gas injection requirements down the drill string or
annulus (concentric injection or parasite injection) for
equipment efficiency and erosional considerations. This
means that wellhead pressure is typically kept to a minimum,
maintaining sufficient pressure to aid in shipping liquids from
the separator. An exception to this is where elevated wellhead
pressures may be desired to increase bottom hole pressure and
reduce inflow from the reservoir, however, the objective in
this instance is to control bottom hole pressure.
The typical approach to designing for underbalanced drilling
parameters is normally based upon a graph of bottom hole
pressure on the y-axis as a function of gas rate on the x-axis.
It is usual to overlay the hole cleaning parameters based
upon minimum annular liquid velocity and minimum and
maximum equivalent flow rates through the motor. In
addition, the target bottom hole circulating pressure limitations
(usually derived as a function of reservoir pressure) define the
operating window from which the required liquid and gas
injection rates can be determined.
This updated approach addresses many issues such as
equipment sizing and expected production rates while drilling
through to effective pressure management at surface to aid in
well stability. Furthermore, the approach lays down the
fundamental groundwork for future underbalanced control
algorithms.
Introduction
The approach to well design for underbalanced drilling (UBD)
has been fairly well established over the past 10 years. It is
typically an iterative design process to establish an operating
envelope that meets the desired bottom hole circulating
pressure window, while meeting hole cleaning requirements
and optimizing power fluid needs of the downhole motor.
Most people involved with underbalanced drilling would
probably agree that the growth of the underbalanced drilling
market has lagged expectations. In part, this is due to the
increase in complexity to properly implement the technology,
however, the biggest hurdle is still the incremental cost to the
operational day rate, which is often disconnected from the
ability to add value to the asset. A further obstacle is the
growing environmental challenge associated with the flaring
of gas during drilling operations.
Conversely, growing demand for natural gas and the steady
increase in gas prices has fuelled an increasing demand for
UBD technology to be applied in more prolific gas reservoirs
that were normally off-limits due to the potential for high gas
rates at surface and the increased demands placed on surface
handling equipment.
These challenges have been addressed through the
development of enhanced UBD equipment, such as high
pressure separators and high pressure rotating control devices
to expand the potential operating window. In order to best
exploit this new high-spec equipment, an updated approach
to underbalanced well design is also required. The following
discussion introduces the concept of steady-state and non-
steady-state operating conditions and the rationale for
manipulation of wellhead pressure and gas-liquid injection
rates. The key features of this approach are discussed along
with sensitivity analysis and typical application strategies.
Finally, several case studies are included to demonstrate the
effective application of this evaluation technique.
Conventional UBD Well Engineering
Figure 1 contains a typical set of curves developed from a
steady-state multi-phase flow model for a range of liquid
pump rates. The graph shows the operating window
constrained by the desired bottom hole circulating pressure
2 IADC/SPE 91220
(BHCP) limits, the minimum liquid annular velocity desired
for adequate hole cleaning and the maximum recommended
motor throughput. It should be noted that often, the right-hand
side of the operating window that is attributed to the maximum
recommended motor throughput can be shifted to the right
through careful selection of bit nozzle sizes to increase the
differential pressure across the bit. This will further compress
the gas volume going through the motor and increase the
effective gas injection rate that can be comfortably used within
the confines of the motor specifications.
One of the major challenges associated with the conventional
approach is how to account for reservoir influx. While most
multi-phase flow models are equipped to facilitate reservoir
inflow scenarios, it can be a tedious and confusing exercise to
perform a sensitivity analysis that focuses on both of the key
independent control parameters liquid injection rate and
wellhead pressure.
Another challenge associated with multi-phase models and
highly prolific wells is the existence of multiple solutions for a
given wellhead pressure. This phenomenon has perplexed
many UBD engineers when tubing performance curves
developed to account for reservoir inflow do not take the form
of predictable, smooth curves. This is due to the standard
approach of fixing the wellhead pressure and having the
computer model iterate to determine the associated bottom
hole circulating pressure. By all conventions, this should
represent a sound approach, since wellhead pressure is
operationally the independent (controllable) variable.
Furthermore, the conventional approach fails to take into
consideration that a portion or the entire operating window
highlighted in Figure 1 may not be practically achievable in
steady-state conditions. This fact alone could have significant
ramifications on the ability to effectively execute the UBD plan.
The existence of conditions not suitable for steady-state
operations with a fixed wellhead pressure has been
recognized. An approach to understanding this phenomenon
is to separate the conventional presentation into tubing
performance curves overlaid by inflow performance
relationship (IPR) curve(s).
Viewing Drilling from a Production Point of View
Figure 2 can be considered as tubing performance curves for
drilling, where the tubing is comprised of the annulus between
the production casing and the drill string. In order to evaluate
the effects of wells with high productivity indices (PI), it is
important to understand the potential operating conditions that
may be encountered. This can be done by overlaying the IPR
curve over the tubing performance curves and evaluating the
intersection points as shown. This demonstrates how
manipulation of the liquid rate and wellhead pressure can
influence the inflow from the reservoir, where m represents
the minimum gas rate that will be encountered in steady-state
conditions, and conversely, M is indicative of the maximum
gas rate that can be expected within the confines of the tubing
performance curves shown. The corresponding y-intercepts of
these two points define the range of BHCP that is achievable
in steady-state conditions.
The challenge with this hybrid approach is that it becomes
quite challenging to visualize what is happening dynamically,
since the only valid points exist at the intersections of the
tubing performance and IPR curve(s).
What is needed is a more efficient approach to visualize the
dynamics of controlling well parameters using a steady-state
model and one that is practical for performing sensitivity
analysis. After all, a model is merely a mathematical
simplification of a complex process and requires a degree of
latitude to permit practical implementation.
An Updated Approach to UBD Well Engineering
Key Features
This updated approach to underbalanced well design centres
on analysis of the operating window, taking reservoir inflow
into account. This analysis combines the effects of tubing
performance and inflow performance and focuses on
determining a range of minimum and maximum gas inflow
rates that can be expected in order to operate in steady-state
operating conditions. The analysis also considers the
sensitivity of applying a range of productivity indices.
Although this paper focuses on the analysis of gas wells, the
phenomenon has also been noted with high GOR oil wells.
Figure 3 illustrates this operating envelope analysis technique.
The key elements of this presentation are as follows:
Maximum Wellhead Pressure (WHP)
Threshold Wellhead Pressure to Initiate Reservoir
Inflow
Bottom Hole Circulating Pressure (BHCP) Window
Minimum Gas Flow (steady-state conditions)
Maximum Gas Flow (steady-state conditions)
Steady-State Region
Non-Steady-State Region
The curve shown in Figure 3 is developed for a given liquid
and gas injection rate by calculating the anticipated wellhead
pressure (dependent variable) for a given productivity index
over a range of bottom hole circulating pressures (independent
variable). One of the advantages of using this technique is that
only one iteration is required per point on the curve, since
bottom hole pressures are pre-determined and calculations are
performed in the direction of flow.
The region defined in Figure 3 as the Non-Steady-State
region warrants closer investigation. All of points in this
region represent technically valid solutions, however, not in
the context of steady-state conditions with a fixed wellhead
pressure. It is physically impossible to operate in this region
without purposely manipulating the wellhead pressure up and
down on a continuous basis to maintain a desired bottom hole
circulating pressure. Simply maintaining a constant WHP will
result in the well being killed (above the curve) or increasing
the drawdown and corresponding gas rate (below the curve.
Trying to maintain a wellhead pressure above the Maximum
WHP as defined by the curve will result in killing the
well.
IADC/SPE 91220 3
An exception to this is when there is a significant pressure
drop across the choke. In this instance, it is possible to
achieve steady-state conditions with a fixed choke position
(not to be confused with a fixed WHP). In this region, closing
the choke will result in a decrease in WHP, while opening the
choke will result in an increase in WHP. This would appear to
defy the laws of physics; however, it is this unique
phenomenon that defines this operating regime. By closing
the choke, the bottom hole pressure is increased, resulting in a
reduced gas inflow rate and a corresponding decrease in WHP.
The reverse is true for opening the choke. Therefore, a fixed
choke position will allow the well conditions to stabilize. The
degree of pressure drop required across the choke to allow
stabilization is the subject of future study.
Due to the compressible nature of a multi-phase system and
the associated lag time, it is not a simple and straightforward
process to evaluate the impact of wellhead pressure
manipulation on bottom hole circulating pressure. This can
lead to oscillations in bottom hole circulating pressure and
resultant oscillation in gas inflow, all resulting in aggravated
slugging conditions, making the well more difficult to control.
By comparison, when operating in the Steady-State region,
it is possible to fix the wellhead pressure and allow well
conditions to stabilize. In this region, closing the choke results
in a decrease in gas inflow and a corresponding increase in
WHP. Opening the choke results in an increase in gas inflow
and a corresponding decrease in WHP. If a desired bottom
hole circulating pressure is being targeted, wellhead pressure
may be manipulated prior to reaching stabilized conditions
provided that the MaximumWellhead Pressure value is not
exceeded. Where this value is not exactly known (and it
normally isnt), caution should be exercised to avoid killing
the well.
Pre-job engineering taking into consideration the range of
productivity expected will go a long way to understanding the
practical operating limitations that may be encountered and
how to effectively deal with them. Analysis of these curves
yields surface equipment boundary conditions for both
pressure and flowrate, allowing for informed engineering
decisions on equipment choice. Furthermore, understanding
the potential for the existence of steady-state and non-
steady-state behaviour is key to minimizing the potential for
fighting the well.
A sensitivity analysis should be performed to cover the likely
range of productivity anticipated and a range of liquid and gas
injection rates. This is an important consideration, especially
when using steady-state models to simulate dynamic
conditions, such as those experienced in drilling. It is also
significant to understand that it is not feasible to accurately
characterize the reservoir in a multi-phase model, thus
sensitivity analysis is key to understanding practical operating
environments.
This technique is quite flexible for performing sensitivity
analyses, whereas the more conventional tubing performance
curves that include productivity make it quite difficult to
incorporate the fact that wellhead pressure is likely to increase
with increasing flow rate. The curves are, therefore, typically
unrealistic and confusing.
Sensitivity Analysis
This approach typically requires analysis of two distinct
sensitivities: (1) varied productivity and (2) gas-liquid ratio
(injection).
The range of productivity expected in conjunction with the
tubing performance (related to geometry) determines the
existence and shape/size of the non-steady-state region. A
minimum PI with a slope greater than the slope of the tubing
performance curve is required to yield this phenomenon (see
Figure 4).
The second sensitivity analysis is derived through
manipulation of the gas-liquid ratio. This is one of the most
powerful features of the use of this technique, since this can be
used to determine the most feasible approach to minimizing
flaring or maximizing gas recovery to process. Figure 5
illustrates how manipulation of the liquid and gas injection
rates can be performed on a well with no inflow. This is,
effectively, the means for determination of the threshold
WHP for gas influx from the reservoir as highlighted in
Figure 3. The determination of the maximum WHP is also
affected by the liquid and gas injection rates, however, it is
also heavily influenced by the productivity index, particularly
in more prolific wells.
This relationship is useful in the case where gas recovery to
process is desired, since it represents the highest wellhead
pressure that is achievable for a given drawdown. Once gas
influx is seen from the reservoir, the wellhead pressure can
only increase for the same injection and drawdown
parameters. It may be appropriate at this point to modify the
liquid and/or gas injection rates accordingly, should there be
some excess wellhead pressure available in the system.
Alternatively, a minimum gas injection rate strategy could be
utilized until such time as sufficient reservoir influx is
achieved to facilitate recovery of the gas to process. At this
time, the liquid and gas injection rates can be modified to suit.
It is also important to recognize that hole cleaning and
maximum motor throughput parameters must also be
considered. This is particularly important at low liquid
injection and high gas injection rates.
Finally, the shape of wellhead pressure vs. bottom hole
pressure curve is also heavily influenced by wellbore
geometry. Figures 6, 7 and 8 show three different wellbore
geometries with identical threshold WHPs. Figure 6 was
developed for 5 casing with 2 drill pipe. Figure 7 has
7 casing and 3 drill pipe and Figure 8 uses 9 casing
and 5 drill pipe.
As can be seen from these figures, the range of bottom hole
circulating pressures that can be achieved in steady-state
conditions decreases with decreasing hole size. This
phenomenon is analogous to becoming tubing limited in
tubing performance terminology and is a function of increased
friction in the smaller hole geometries.
4 IADC/SPE 91220
Practical Application Strategies
The application of this approach to underbalanced well design
is focused on two outcomes: (1) minimizing flaring, and (2)
maximizing gas recovery.
In the first case, injection parameters are adjusted to minimize
the amount of gas to be flared. Figures 9 and 10 demonstrate
the effects of varying the liquid and gas injection rates. Figure
9 shows the total gas out, while Figure 10 takes injection gas
out and simply shows net gas (gas from reservoir).
There are several considerations to weigh in determining the
most effective injection rate scenario. The typical approach
involves minimizing wellhead pressure and minimizing gas
injection rates. In the case of using cryogenic nitrogen as the
injection source, this may well be a sound approach.
However, in the case of using membrane generated nitrogen or
natural gas (from a high-pressure supply), the selection of the
high liquid rate case appears less attractive.
Consideration should be given to the fact that the lower liquid
rates will be more stable and less susceptible to slugging due
to transient effects (e.g., connections). Also consider that hole
cleaning may not be an issue in a prolific gas well. Low liquid
rates also decrease the risk of going overbalanced. With the
availability of high-pressure separation, a lower liquid
injection rate coupled with higher wellhead pressure will
further serve to reduce erosion potential by lowering fluid
velocities and removing the majority of the energy (the gas)
from the system under high pressure at the front end of the
system.
The use of high wellhead pressures is also not without peril.
Consideration must be given to the rotating control device and
the strategy for pressure drops to minimize potential for
hydrate formation.
Selecting the optimum liquid and gas injection rates must,
therefore, take into consideration the limitations and
capabilities of the equipment to be used for the project.
In the case where the goal is maximizing gas recovery, the
same approach should be taken. The ability to design
purpose-built equipment for every unique job would certainly
simplify the recommended approach; however, this is rarely
the case in practice. Therefore, it is important to consider the
availability and practical operating ranges of any compression
equipment and/or separation equipment to be used.
In general terms, it is generally more practical for gas recovery
to eliminate the requirement for gas compression on the
downstream side. Since compression equipment is positive-
displacement and the gas out will be transient, it is likely that
a certain percentage of gas will need to be flared using this
strategy. Depending upon equipment availability and ratings,
this may still yield the most practical solution. However,
given the considerations discussed above and illustrated in
Figures 9 and 10, there may still be merit to using a lower
liquid rate than would normally be considered. An example of
the options will be included in the following case studies.
Case Studies
The following three case studies will illustrate the use of this
technique to understand well performance and optimize
underbalanced well design.
The first study demonstrates a real world example of
attempting to operate a well in the non steady-state region,
prior to the development of the wellhead operability curve.
The second study shows how the technique was used to
maximise deliverable surface gas pressure to process
ultimately minimising auxiliary gas recompression equipment.
The third and final study compares recoverable gas pressures
from two popular UB methods for gas injection; drill pipe and
concentric casing.
The case studies represent global projects, and as such units
of measurement vary from study to study.
Case Study 1 Flow Drilling and Controlling on Gas Rate
The first case study illustrates the challenges with operating in
the Non-Steady-State region. This well is a normally-
pressured sandstone reservoir drilled underbalanced using
diesel as the drilling fluid medium. Figure 11 illustrates the
wellbore geometry.
The primary objective for drilling this well underbalanced was
to decrease the overall drilling and completions cost of, and
potentially add value to, development wells in the area.
Typically, vertical wells have been used to develop this
reservoir. If wells produce at low rates, frac stimulation has
been used very successfully to increase production.
Horizontal wells are widely used throughout the world for
development projects due to the increase in reservoir
exposure. The main concern with horizontal drilling in this
area is the high cost for well stimulation for those wells that
do not encounter fractures while drilling. Horizontal wells
utilizing UBD techniques have the potential for increasing
rates of penetration, bit life and reservoir exposure while
reducing formation damage.
Figure 12 shows the wellhead pressure vs. bottom hole
circulating pressure plots for the well at 3291m and at 3475m.
The client was interested in maintaining a maximum gas rate
to flare of 10 MMscfd. As can be seen in Figure 12, this
means that the well was operated in the Non-Steady-State
region with associated operational challenges. As drilling
continued and inflow increased, the well became increasingly
difficult to manage. Therefore, it was decided to increase the
maximum allowable inflow to 12 MMscfd. This resulted in
improved operability, however, still required continuous choke
manipulation to maintain conditions as stable as possible.
Figure 13 illustrates a hybrid view of the same effect at
3291m. This plot highlights the fact that greater stability
could be achieved at gas inflow rates between 14
16 MMscfd at a maximum wellhead pressure of 1200 psi.
Lower gas inflow rates would mandate continuous choke
manipulation to maintain a constant rate.
IADC/SPE 91220 5
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the real-time data plots acquired
while drilling, including wellhead pressure, bottom hole
circulating pressure and gas rate. Figure 14 shows the
conditions around a depth of 3475m, while Figure 15
illustrates the change from controlling the well at 10 MMscfd
to 12 MMscfd. These plots show a classic damping profile
resulting from an experienced choke operator getting a feel
for the well and how to control it.
It is important to note that simply increasing wellhead pressure
would not have facilitated control of the well. In this case,
since the gas was being flared, leaving the choke position
fixed would have resulted in stabilizing the well conditions.
However, this may have resulted in an increase in the
amplitude of the wellhead pressure fluctuation, which could
unnerve the choke operator, especially if real-time bottom hole
circulating pressure was not available. An alternative strategy
to stabilize well conditions would have been to increase the
gas rate to approximately 16 MMscfd at 3291m and
approximately 20 MMscfd at 3475m. Some benefit may have
also been derived through decreasing the liquid rate and
increasing the wellhead pressure, however, as can be seen in
Figure 16, the benefit is marginal.
Figure 17 shows a closer look at the operating conditions
highlighted in Figure 12 at 3291m. Points 1 and 3 denote
where the choke operator intervened and started to increase
and decrease wellhead pressure. Points 2 and 4 denote the
apex points where the bottom hole pressure starts to react.
The fact that point 2 is below the curve and point 4 above is a
function of the lag time effect, which is difficult to account for
in steady-state curves. However, note that the intersection of
these 4 points lies on the curve (point 5) and corresponds to
the gas rate being controlled.
Most UBD wells are controlled on bottom hole pressure,
however, this well has demonstrated that it is also possible to
control on gas rate, although appropriate filtering is required to
smooth out the trending. One of the challenges associated
with using bottom hole pressure is that the data resolution is
very sparse (updates often every 30 seconds to 1 minute).
There is also no data available during connections when mud
pulse telemetry is used and downhole tools are more
susceptible to failures that cannot be remedied until a trip is
performed.
Real-time gas rate, in contrast can yield filtered (averaged)
data at resolutions as good as every second, thus yielding more
reliable feedback. However, caution must be exercised when
operating in the Non-Steady-State region or near the apex of
the wellhead pressure vs. bottom hole pressure curve. Should
well control become challenging, the simplest solution is to
allow the gas rate to increase until the well is easier to control.
Understanding the approximate operating point on the curve
will assist in fine tuning an appropriate operating point.
Development of the operational curve, when altered to reflect
actual well parameters, provides onsite personnel with a map
outlining upper and lower boundary conditions for pressure
and flow that can be expected while drilling.
Case Study 2 Underbalanced Drilling in a Gas Storage
Reservoir
The second case study involves drilling horizontal wells in a
gas storage reservoir. The properties that make this reservoir a
good candidate for gas storage (i.e., high porosity and
permeability) also make it a good candidate for drilling
challenges, such as loss of circulation and differential sticking.
In addition, formation damage may play a role in the energy
required to inject and retrieve gas. Over many cycles, this
may become a significant economic factor. Finally, the ability
to minimize formation damage could serve to reduce the
required drawdown and thus, reduce the risk of producing
underlying water.
The use of stimulation techniques were seen to increase the
risk of water production by improving the permeability of the
existing path of least resistance, while having little effect on
the lower permeability parts of the reservoir that have incurred
the greatest drilling induced formation damage. By contrast,
successful implementation of UBD technology would prevent
the majority of drilling induced formation damage and give
the reservoir the best chance of being productive over the
greatest percentage of the borehole.
In most underbalanced well designs, the reservoir pressure is
one of the key parameters. This particular project has the
atypical property of having a reservoir pressure that varies as a
function of the time of year and how the seasonal weather has
impacted demand. In this case, the reservoir pressure typically
ranges from a low of 100 Bar to a maximum of 200 Bar.
Another feature typical of gas storage reservoirs is that they
are normally located in reasonably close proximity to
population centres and, as such, significant flaring of gas is not
desirable. In addition, any gas flared has intrinsic value, as it
was purchased and injected into the storage reservoir. It is,
therefore, preferred that as much of the gas as possible is
recovered and re-injected into the reservoir or gas gathering
system.
The three process flow diagrams (Figures 18, 19 and 20)
illustrate the three options for drilling that were considered.
Figure 18 shows Option 1 the base option to use nitrogen or
natural gas as the injected gas medium and simply flaring all
the effluent.
Figure 19 represents Option 2 the basic configuration
required to compress and inject natural gas (available at 40
bar) down the drill string and use a separate compression train
to compress the effluent gas to the flow line pressure of 40
bar. Any excess gas would be sent to flare. The amount of
gas flared would be a function of the capacity range of the
downstream compression equipment. In the event of a gas
plant upset, all gas could be directed to flare.
Figure 20 illustrates Option 3 the configuration using
compression equipment on the injection side only and
recovering the majority of the gas to the gas flow line via high
pressure separation (> 40 Bar). In this configuration, only
minor gas carried over to the low-stage separation would be
6 IADC/SPE 91220
flared. Of course, in the case of a gas plant upset, all gas
could be flared as required.
Due to the high gas volumes required to drill the 8 open
hole, an alternative completion configuration was proposed
with a view to reducing costs. Figure 21 shows the original
proposed configuration with 8 open hole and the
alternative configuration with 6 open hole, however,
maintaining the desired 7 completion. The alternative
configuration was also attractive in facilitating the use of a 7
downhole isolation valve (DIV), which would allow the
deployment of a slotted liner without having to kill the well.
The well design strategy looked at minimizing the amount of
gas that would need to be flared as well as maximizing the
wellhead pressure that could be maintained in order to ensure
all of the gas could be separated and sent to process at
approximately 40 Bar. Figures 22 and 23 illustrate the
sensitivity analysis of the productivity for the 8 and 6
open hole cases respectively.
These plots focus on the maximum wellhead pressure and
form the basis for the recommendation that the wells be drilled
when there is a reservoir pressure greater than 120 125 Bar if
gas recovery is targeted. Looking at the PI = 0 curve
highlights the minimum bottom hole pressure required to
maintain sufficient wellhead pressure to separate the gas and
send it to process at 40 Bar. This means that no flaring will be
required even when there is no production from the reservoir.
In essence, this design approach serves to desensitize the
system from the variability of the reservoir properties. As
production from the reservoir is realized, the injection rates of
the gas and liquid may be altered as desired to optimize the
operating ranges of the equipment.
By progressing through the well design process, equipment
specifications were developed to cover the three options
illustrated in Figures 18, 19 and 20. These were further split
into Options 1a and 1b, 2a and 2b, and 3a and 3b. The a
denotes the 8 open hole configuration while the b
denotes the alternative 6 open hole configuration.
The key differences between the six options examined were
the required gas injection rates, the injection compression duty
and the effluent compression duty. A summary of the results
is included in Figure 24. This clearly shows Option 1 as the
simplest solution, however, this is also the highest cost
solution when the cost of the flared natural gas is taken into
consideration. While there is little to choose between Options
2 & 3 in terms of total cost, Option 3 clearly represents the
most elegant solution. The costs are weighted quite heavily
towards the number of compressors required due to equipment
availability and subsequent high mobilization charges.
However, the availability of equipment must be taken into
account and the following table highlights the number of
compressors required and ranks the six options in ascending
order according to cost.



Table 1 Equipment and Cost Summary
# Compressors Cost Description
Injection Compression (ascending)
1 1 Option 2b
Low-pressure separation &
recovery 8 open hole
2 0 Option 3b
High-pressure separation &
recovery 6 open hole
3 0 Option 3a
High-pressure separation &
recovery 8 open hole
1 0 Option 1b
Low-pressure separation &
flare 6 open hole
2 3 Option 2a
Low-pressure separation &
recovery 6 open hole
2 0 Option 1a
Low-pressure separation &
flare 8 open hole

This table serves to highlight the impact of equipment
availability and ratings upon ultimate cost. In the alternative
hole geometry, Option 2 (b) ends up being more cost-effective
than Option 3 (b) due to the absence of the high-pressure
separation module, even though the number of compressors is
equal. However, it should be noted that Option 2 is still
subject to variations in effluent rate that could result in more
gas flaring. Therefore, Option 3 may still end up being more
cost-effective if risk were included in the calculations.
Option 3 also has the decided advantage of both compressors
being used for the same purpose (injection only) and therefore,
operational efficiencies in the use of compressors would be
expected. In addition, injection rates are predictable, stable
and controllable, whereas effluent rates are unpredictable and
add complexity to the operation.
The use of the wellhead operability curve in this case outlined
the solution to efficiently capture gas from a storage reservoir,
balancing minimum line pack pressure with economy of
surface equipment against variable reservoir pressure.
Case Study 3 Concentric Injection vs. Drill String Injection
The third case study looks at a couple of wells where gas
recovery to process is desired. The first well flows to a low-
pressure trunk line at 90 130 psi. Concentric gas injection is
often used to facilitate the use of mud pulse MWD systems
that do not perform well under high gas volume fraction
environments. The second well is a high-pressure well that
flows to a high-pressure trunk line at 600 1000 psi. This
high-pressure well typically only uses drill string gas injection
until flow from the reservoir is achieved.
Figure 25 shows the range of wellhead pressures achievable
for the low-pressure well in concentric injection and drill
string injection scenarios. While gas recovery appears to be
marginally feasible under the concentric gas injection
scenario, the operating window becomes significantly larger
under a drill string injection scenario. In addition, while the
concentric casing injection case requires 3000 scfm gas
injection, drill string injection can be accomplished with a
IADC/SPE 91220 7
third or less of this gas volume. A higher drawdown can be
achieved while reducing the amount of gas to surface. This
will have the effect of reducing the potential for erosion or
permitting the use of smaller line sizes.
Consideration must also be given to the potential for slugging
when using concentric injection, due to the potential for U-
tubing in the concentric annulus. This is caused by liquid
entering the concentric annulus until sufficient gas pressure is
built up to reverse the flow back into the primary annulus.
Mykytiw et al discusses methodology to mitigate this
phenomenon by determining the critical gas injection rate
required.
1
In Figure 26, some reduced liquid injection rates are evaluated
with a view to separating the gas with a high-pressure
separator and recovering directly to process. This illustrates
that to ensure all injected gas is recovered to process at PI = 0,
a gas injection rate approaching 3500 scfm is required.
However, as the well starts to produce gas, this injection rate
can be reduced to approximately 500 scfm (for the PI
assumed) and gas recovery maintained. This approach
removes the uncertainty over PI and ensures the ability to
recover all gas to process.
Although 3500 scfm appears to be a significant gas injection
rate, if the gas is taken from the same process system at
1000 psi and compressed to the desired injection pressure of
4000 psi, only 450 BHP (335 kW) of compression power is
required. This compares quite favourably to 2800 BHP
(2100 kW) of power required for a membrane generated
nitrogen system.
It should be noted that these higher gas injection rates will not
permit the use of MWD systems using mud pulse telemetry, but
rather would require the use of electromagnetic or hard-wire
telemetry, as these are not affected by the higher gas volume
fractions inside the drill string.
Significant progress has been made in the range of
implementation of EM-MWD technology.
2
It still represents
the data telemetry technology of choice for underbalanced
drilling operations.
This example highlights the benefits of drill string injection
for optimizing the potential for gas recovery while managing
hole cleaning and motor performance requirements. The
reduction of the liquid injection rate also reduces the impact of
transient effects such as those caused by making connections
or encountering increased gas production from the reservoir.
Conclusions
The availability of higher spec equipment such as high-
pressure rotating control devices and high-pressure separators
has highlighted a need for an updated approach to detailed
underbalanced well design. Higher levels of optimization are
now possible in the areas of gas recovery and erosion control
that will make underbalanced drilling safer and more cost-
effective.
This updated approach to underbalanced well design offers a
simpler approach to performing sensitivity analysis on varying
well productivity and liquid-gas injection rates. This method
should be used in conjunction with more conventional
underbalanced well design techniques, however, it provides an
improved presentation for evaluation of the operating
conditions as a function of the independent controllable
variables wellhead pressure and liquid and gas injection
rates.
The use of this evaluation method highlights the potential for
considering lower liquid injection rates with corresponding
higher gas injection rates in order to optimize the ability to
recover gas to process. Using a higher gas-volume fraction
also provides the benefit of expanding the operating envelope
and reducing the impact of transient effects caused by
interruptions in circulation (e.g., connections) or encountering
a sudden increase in gas influx from the reservoir.
This technique also provides an elegant means to understand
operating conditions using standard steady-state flow models.
This understanding and the ability to more accurately predict
operating regimes will improve the feasibility of developing
more automated choke control systems that will improve the
stability of operating conditions and reduce the risk of
accidentally killing the well.
More work is required with dynamic models in order to bridge
the cause and effect relationships between steady-state
operating conditions and transient effects. This will promote a
better understanding of transient behaviour and minimize the
need for a high degree of accuracy when using models in a
real-time environment.
References
1. C.G. Mykytiw, I.A. Davidson and P.J. Frink, Design and
Operational Considerations to Maintain Underbalanced
Conditions with Concentric Casing Injection, paper
IADC/SPE 81631 presented at IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 25 26
March 2003.
2. P. Brett, D. Weisbeck and R. Graham, Innovative
Technology Advances Use of Electromagnetic MWD
Offshore in Southern North Sea, paper IADC/SPE 81628
presented at IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 25 26 March
2003.
8 IADC/SPE 91220
Nomenclature
UBD = Underbalanced Drilling
Gas Production Rate
B
o
t
t
o
m

H
o
l
e

C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

m
In
c
r
e
a
s
in
g
L
iq
u
id
R
a
t
e
o
r
W
H
P
Non-steady-state
Steady-state
M
BHCP Range
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
G
a
s
In
je
c
t
io
n
R
a
t
e
(
s
c
f
m
)
50gpm/ 1800 scfm
100 gpm/ 1700scfm
150 gpm/ 1500scfm
200 gpm/ 1000scfm
Reservoir Pressure
BHCP = Bottom Hole Circulating Pressure
PI = Productivity Index
IPR = Inflow Performance Relationship
WHP = Wellhead Pressure
MMscfd = Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
DIV = Downhole Isolation Valve
MWD = Measurement While Drilling
Scfm = Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
BHP = Brake Horsepower
EM = Electromagnetic
Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to express their appreciation to Northland
Energy, a division of Precision Drilling Technology Services,
for their permission to publish this paper.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gas Flow Rate (MMscfd)
B
H
C
P
(
p
s
i)
7
Max Motor Throughput
Min AVliq (hole cleaning)
Est. Reservoir Pressure
Target BHCP
Min BHCP
50 gpm
100gpm
150gpm
200 gpm
250 gpm
Operating Envelope
Figure 1: Conventional UB Well Engineering








Figure 2: Tubing Performance with IPR Overlay
Operating Envelope Analysis
BHCP
W
H
P
G
a
s

I
n
f
l
o
w

(
I
n
j
e
c
t
e
d

p
l
u
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
)

WHP vs BHCP
Gas Inflow
Max Gas Inflow
Non-Steady State
Steady State
Min Gas Inflow
Threshold WHP to Initiate Gas Inflow
Maximum WHP for Steady State Operating Conditions
Steady State
Min BHCP
BHCP Window
Figure 3: Operating Envelope Analysis Technique





Reservoir Inflow
B
H
C
P
PI = 1
PI = 2
PI = 3
PI = 5
PI = 10
PI = 20
Slope of PI > Slope of Tbg Performance Curve
Slope of PI < Slope of Tbg Performance Curve

Figure 4: Slope of Tubing Performance vs. PI








Figure 5: Manipulation of Liquid and Gas Injection
IADC/SPE 91220 9

0
250
500
750
1000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
10
20
30
40
T
o
t
a
l G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
PI =0
PI =3
PI =5
PI =10
PI =20
Figure 6: PI Sensitivity Analysis in 5 Casing




0
250
500
750
1000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
10
20
30
40
T
o
t
a
l G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
PI =0
PI =3
PI =5
PI =10
PI =20
Figure 7: PI Sensitivity Analysis in 7 Casing




0
250
500
750
1000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
10
20
30
40
T
o
t
a
l G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
PI =0
PI =3
PI =5
PI =10
PI =20

Figure 8: PI Sensitivity Analysis in 9 Casing


0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
T
o
t
a
l G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
50gpm/ 3000scfm
100 gpm/ 1500scfm
150 gpm/ 1000scfm
200 gpm/ 500scfm

Figure 9: Gas-Liquid Rate Sensitivity Analysis Total Gas




0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
N
e
t
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
50gpm/ 3000scfm
100 gpm/ 1500scfm
150 gpm/ 1000scfm
200 gpm/ 500scfm

Figure 10: Gas-Liquid Rate Sensitivity Analysis Net Gas

Bottom 7 Liner (3064 mMD)
6 Open Hole
600 m
A
p
p
r
o
x
.

2
8
4
0
m

t
o

2
8
6
5

m

T
V
D

TMD = 3664 m
5 DP & 3 DP
KOP 2037m 2-5
o
/30m
4 Turbine
Gas
BHP = 3569 psi
BHT = 242 deg F (static)
Sandstone
Fluid: Diesel
Resevoir Static Pressure: 3569psi
Target BHCP: 3369 psi

9 5/8 Casing @ 2662 m MD

Top 7 Liner (2502 m MD)
Figure 11: Wellbore Geometry Case Study 1
10 IADC/SPE 91220




0
250
2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
BHCP (psi)
0
10
500
750
1000
1250
1500
W
H
P

(
p
s
i
)
20
30
40
50
60
T
o
t
a
l
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
WHP @ 3291m
WHP @ 3475m
Gas Rate @ 3291m
Gas Rate @ 3475m
12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Reservoir Inflow (MMscfd)
B
H
C
P

(
p
s
i
)
1200 psi
WHP
800 psi
1000 psi
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00
Time
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
G
a
s
R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
BHCP
WHP
Gas Rate
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
7/4/2003 12:00 8/4/2003 00:00 8/4/2003 12:00 9/4/200300:00 9/4/200312:00 10/4/2003 00:00
Time
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
G
a
s

R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
BHCP
WHP
Gas Rate

Figure 12: Operating Points @ 3291m and 3475m










Figure 13: Tubing Performance with IPR Overlay @ 3291m





Figure 14: Real-Time Data @ 3425m 3475m







Figure 15: Changing Controlled Gas Influx Rate

0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
o
t
a
l G
a
s

R
a
t
e
(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
WHP @ 285 gpm
WHP @ 200 gpm
Gas Rate @ 285 gpm
Gas Rate @ 200 gpm
12

Figure 16: Effect of Decreasing Liquid Injection


Figure 17: Choke Operator Intervention Analysis
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
3300 3325 3350 3375 3400 3425 3450
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P
(
p
s
i)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T
o
t
a
l
G
a
s
R
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
d
)
WHP @ 3291m
Gas Rate @ 3291m
3
4
1
2
5
IADC/SPE 91220 11



Figure 18: Low-Pressure Separation & Flaring



Figure 19: Low-Pressure Separation & Recovery

Figure 20: High-Pressure Separation & Recovery





Figure 21: Original Configuration & Alternative


Figure 22: PI Sensitivity Analysis 8 Open Hole


Figure 23: PI Sensitivity Analysis 6 Open Hole




Choke
Manifold
4-Phase
Separator
(low stage)
Liquid
Knockout
Gauge Tank
DAT Lab
CPD Package
Natural Gas
Supply
(@ 40 bar)
Solids
Liquid
Well
Mud Handling
System
Injection
Compression

Gas
to Flare
2-Phase
Separator
(hi stage)
To Gas Flow Line (40 bar)
Surf ace Facilities: Opt ion 3
Choke
Manifold
4-Phase
Separator
Effluent Gas
Compression
Gauge Tank
DAT Lab
CPD Package
Natural Gas
Supply
(@ 40 bar)
Solids
Liquid
Well
Mud Handling
System
Injection
Compression
Excess Gas
to Flare
To Gas Flow Line
(40 bar)
Surf ace Faci lities: Option Surface Facil ities: Option 2 2
N2 or Gas from
Choke
Manifold
4 Phase
Separator
Gauge Tank
DAT Lab
CPD Package
Pipeline
Solids
Liquid
Well
Mud Handling
System
Injection
Compression
Surface Facilit ies: Option 1 Surface Facilities: Opt ion 1
Gas to Flare
2970m TVD
7 slotted liner in 8 open hole
2914m TVD
9 / 10 casing in 12 open hole
2469m TVD
13 casing in 17 open hole
880m TVD
100m TVD
18 casing in 23 open hole
2970m TVD
4 5 slotted liner in 6 open hole
2914m TVD
7 liner in 8 open hole
2469m TVD
9 / 10 casing in 12 open hole
880m TVD
100m TVD
13 casing in 17 open hole
7 tubing
7 tubing (7 drilling liner with
DIV during drilling)
2270m TVD
2713m TVD 2713m TVD
Operating Envelope PI Sensitivity Analysis in 8.5" O.H. with Qliq = 450 lpm / Qgas - 260 m
3
/min
Pres = 150 bar
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
BHCP (bar)
W
H
P

(
b
a
r
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
In
f
lo
w
+
In
je
c
t
e
d
)
[
m
3
/h
r
]
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 0 m3/hr/bar/m
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 25
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 7
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 3.5
Total Gas Rate @ PI = 0 m3/hr/bar/m
Total Gas Rate @ PI = 25
Total Gas Rate @ PI = 7
Total Gas Rate @ PI = 3.5
Operating Envelope PI Sensitivity Analysis in 6" O.H. with Qliq = 230 lpm / Qgas - 125 m
3
/min
Pres = 150 bar
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155
BHCP (bar)
W
H
P

(
b
a
r
)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
In
f
lo
w
+
In
je
c
t
e
d
)
[
m
3
/h
r
]
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 0 m3/hr/bar/m
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 25
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 7
WHP vs BHCP @ PI = 3.5
Total Gas Rate @PI = 0 m3/hr/bar/m
Total Gas Rate @PI = 25
Total Gas Rate @PI = 7
Total Gas Rate @PI = 3.5
12 IADC/SPE 91220


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Option 1a Option 1b Option 2a Option 2b Option 3a Option 3b
Gas Injection Rate [E3m3/d]
Injection Compression Duty [kW]
Effluent Compression Duty [kW]
Relative Cost


Figure 24: Summary of Gas Injection & Compression Duty
Requirements




Operating Envelope Analysis
Pres = 2170 psi / PI = 0.017 Mscfd/psi/ft
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P

(
p
s
i
)
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
In
f
lo
w
+
In
je
c
t
e
d
)
[
M
M
s
c
f
d
]
WHP vs BHCP - 150gpm / 1000 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 120 gpm / 2000 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 90 gpm / 3400 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 70 gpm / 4500 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 200 gpm / 3000 scfm cc injection
Total Gas Rate - 150 gpm / 1000 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 120 gpm / 2000 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 90 gpm / 3400 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 70 gpm / 4500 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 200 gpm / 3000 scfm cc injection
Reservoir Pressure

Figure 25: Concentric Injection vs. Drill String Injection


Operating Envelope Analysis
Pres = 3600 psi, PI - 0.02 Mscfd/psi/ft
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000
BHCP (psi)
W
H
P

(
p
s
i
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
G
a
s
R
a
t
e
(
In
f
lo
w
+
In
je
c
t
e
d
)
[
M
M
s
c
f
d
]
WHP vs BHCP - 120 gpm / 3500 scfm - PI=0
WHP vs BHCP - 120 gpm / 3500 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 150 gpm / 1600 scfm
WHP vs BHCP - 180 gpm / 500 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 120 gpm / 3500 scfm - PI=0
Total Gas Rate - 120 gpm / 3500 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 150 gpm / 1600 scfm
Total Gas Rate - 180 gpm / 500 scfm
Reservoir Pressure



Figure 26: Gas-Liquid Injection Rate Sensitivity Analysis