Underbalance Drilling Manual I

SECTION 8FIELD OPERATIONS
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8-ii
1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.
SECTION 8Field Operations

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 8.1Initiating Underbalanced Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO INITIATE GAS DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO INITIATE MIST DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO INITIATE FOAM DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO INITIATE AERATED DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO INITIATE FLOW DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1-1
8.1-1
8.1-2
8.1-3
8.1-3
8.1-4
CHAPTER 8.2Making Connections and Tripping Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2-1

TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN AIR/GAS/MIST/FOAM
AND AERATED FLUIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2-1
TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN LIGHTWEIGHT FLUIDS,
FLOW DRILLING AND NOVEL FLUIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2-3
CHAPTER 8.3Running Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMPLETION TYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Open-Hole Completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slotted-Liner Completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cased-Hole Completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNDERBALANCED OPEN-HOLE COMPLETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNDERBALANCED SLOTTED LINER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNDERBALANCED CASED HOLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3-1
8.3-1
8.3-1
8.3-1
8.3-2
8.3-2
8.3-3
8.3-3
8.3-5
CHAPTER 8.4Cementing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LOADING THE HOLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FORMATION PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4-1
8.4-1
8.4-2
8.4-3
CHAPTER 8.5Reserved for Future Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5-1

CHAPTER 8.6Snubbing and Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-1
STRIPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-1
Equipment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-1
Wellbore Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-2
SNUBBING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-3
Snubbing Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-4
Pipe Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-8
BUCKLING LOAD CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-11
EXAMPLE SNUBBING OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-12
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-13
Pressure/Area Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-13
Balance Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-13
Buckling Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6-13
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8-iii
SECTION 8Field Operations

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd.)
Page
CHAPTER 8.7Reserved for Future Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7-1
CHAPTER 8.8Coiled-Tubing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8-1
ORYX ENERGY/CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8-1
CT DRILLING AT CLIVE FIELD, ALBERTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8-7
CT DRILLING CAMPAIGN IN OMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8-9
CT UNDERBALANCED DRILLING COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8.11
SECTION 8REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ref. 8-1
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8-iv
CHAPTER 8.1Initiating Underbalanced Drilling

Underbalanced drilling is a broad technology that can encompass operations from high- weight
drilling mud to natural gas. There are, however, some common fundamentals to consider before
initiating drilling.
What pressure is expected at each zone in the well?
2.
Will formation fluids be produced while drilling?

- Which fluid or gas
- What volumes
3.
Based on the answers to these questions, what kind and type of surface
equipment is to be used?
- Simple mud/gas separator
- Closed system
- Totally closed system (H2S)
MEI
1.
4.
Will H2S gas be present? If yes, be sure that surface equipment is properly
designed.
5.
Will the rotating head handle the type of drilling pressures predicted?
- Does it leak at predicted operating pressures?
- Does it leak at pressures close to zero?
TO INITIATE GAS DRILLING

Compressor operators do gas drilling routinely. Their general procedures should normally be
followed because they know both the local area and/or their compressors.
To unload an air hole, the cement and cementing shoe should be drilled out with water or mud,
and the cuttings circulated out of the hole.
Sec. 8
1.
Go in the hole to the bottom of the casing and pump alternate slugs of gas to
the pressure limit of the compressors and water (do not use mud) to bring the
pressure back down again for further air injection. After the first gas gets
around the casing, the pressures will begin to drop as the hole is unloaded.
2.
When most of the water is out of the hole, pump 5 gallons of foaming agent into
the pipe and circulate it around the hole. The detergents will bring up a large
quantity of water.
3.
Next, go to bottom and repeat this process.
4.
Light the blooie line flare or igniter.
5.
Drill a little formation and then pick up the pipe past a tool joint.
6.
Continue this process until the well begins producing dust.
7.
If, after 2 hours, the well still has not dusted:

DEA-101
8.1-1
a. Add 5 gallons of 50% foamer/water mixture and start again at step 4.

or
b. Close the rams and pressure up the hole with air, then open the rams
and let the compressed air blow out of the hole. Then start again at step
4.
c. Close the radiator shutters, or place a piece of cardboard on the
compressor aftercooler to increase the heat of the air going in the hole.
(This is of questionable value theoretically, but at times has appeared to
be effective.)
If the hole is cased, it should dry in several hours depending on the depth. This is why the casing
should always be dried first.
MEI
In an open hole, the above procedures should work, but it is sometimes necessary to mist for
several hours before the mud will clean up. It is difficult to dry an open hole because the rough
surface holds mud. As the mud becomes more concentrated, it is more resistant to drying.
Consequently, the more mud washed out of the hole with water, the easier it is to dry the hole.
Another significant problem in drying an open hole is that there may be a small water influx and
the hole will never dry satisfactorily. This situation can be puzzling on location and the cause not
readily apparent.
TO INITIATE MIST DRILLING
The first step prior to mist drilling is to unload the mud out of the hole as with air drilling, but
without attempting to dry the hole. The flare burner should be lit or the flare igniter started.
Turn on the mist pump and begin gas circulation. About 1 ft of formation should be drilled and
the string picked up past a tool joint. Continue this procedure for at least 5 feet. Go to regular mist
drilling if there is no drag on the pick up after 5 feet. As soon as there are steady returns (indicated
by a continuous flow of mist or a flow with a little puffing), the mist quantities can be adjusted. Wait
at least 30 minutes before making additional changes after any adjustment to the mist volume or
mixture. The system must be allowed to stabilize. If too many changes are made too quickly, it is
difficult to determine the impact of adjustments.
Misting with water, water and polymers, or mud can follow the above procedures with the
added qualification that the volume of fluid from the well needs to be compared to the volume of fluid
pumped into the well to determine if there is any influx from the wellbore. Influx from the well can
be treated with higher gas rates, with more fluid to increase the bottom-hole pressure, or the influx
can simply be ignored.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.1-2
Misting with oil and nitrogen follows the same guidelines except that a closed system and
separator are used. Tanks should be filled with liquid to the operating level and pit volumes measured
before starting to mist. This approach will allow a more accurate measure of the influx volume.
Influxes during oil misting are handled the same as for water misting.
TO INITIATE FOAM DRILLING
Mud should be unloaded from the hole as with air drilling. However, the hole should not be
dried. If a separator or mud pits are being used, stop before switching to foam and check the volume
levels in the tanks and separators. Check inflow and outflow meters.
MEI
Turn on the foam pump and compressor. About 1 ft of formation should be drilled and the
string picked up past a tool joint. Continue this procedure for at least 5 feet. Go to regular foam
drilling if there is no drag on the pick up after 5 feet. As soon as there are steady returns, the foam
quantities can be adjusted. Wait at least 30 minutes before making additional changes after any
adjustment to the foam mixture. The system must be allowed to stabilize. If too many changes are
made too quickly, it is difficult to determine the impact of adjustments. If the flow doesnt stabilize
and continues to head, check the following:
1.
Is there too much gas for the fluid volume? Is the foam pump actually pumping
fluid to the standpipe?
2.
Is the foamer not making foam with the water? Make a pilot check with a jar of
rig water and a mixer. (This is the most common problem.)
3.
Is there a fluid influx down hole that is flattening the foam (water, oil, salt
water)?
4.
Is the foam pump delivering too much water?
It is not uncommon to have a foamer that does not foam well in the actual operating
environment. Foaming agents are not universally effective and some work better than others in
particular circumstances. If long-chain polymers are being used, a pilot test should be conducted to
determine if they are compatible with the water. For example, regular CMC does not work well in
saturated salt water.
A basic problem with foam drilling in the field is that, What you see is not what you have down
hole.
TO INITIATE AERATED DRILLING

Displace the hole with the liquid that is to be aerated. Stop and check the surface equipment.
Check the volume in the tanks and fill the separator (if used) to operating level. Check inflow and
outflow metering. Check the drilling head for leaks and determine whether a new rubber is needed.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.1-3
1.
Start fluid and gas circulation. If possible, start the gas slowly so that a very
large head will not be produced at once. With parasite strings or dual casing, the
initiation procedure is the same. Start slowly, if possible. If all the gas is added
immediately, a big head and volume increase at the surface is expected. As soon
as the hole is unloaded and quasi-steady flow is achieved, measure the fluid
volume increase in the pits and calculate the bottom-hole pressure decrease
based on the mud displaced from the hole, and compare it to the theoretical
calculation.
Pressure decrease = (V2 / Av ) @ Wt @ K
where:
V2 = Volume increase in the pits (m3, bbl)
MEI
Av = Annulus volume (m3/m, bbl/ft)

Wt = Fluid weight (SG, lb/gal)
K
= Units constant, K = 0.001, 0.052 (SG water/m, lb/gal water/ft of depth)
If the two calculations vary less than 10%, the aerated mixture and velocities are correct. If the
pressure reduction from the displaced mud calculation is low, the aeration is not efficient and there
is slippage between the gas and fluid. Check the theoretical calculations against the actual well
conditions.
1.
Can the yield point or viscosity of the fluid be increased while not holding gas
in the pits after going through the separator?
2.
Increase the fluid rate to obtain a fluid velocity of greater than 100 ft/min.
Increase the fluid volume rate until the heading starts to slow and become even.
Heads should not occur more than 2 minutes apart.
3.
With a water-base fluid, can xanthan polymer be added to decrease the

downhole slipping of the air and water (mud)?
Heading is the greatest problem for aerated systems. It needs to be reduced as much as possible.
Increasing the fluid velocity, especially with oil and nitrogen, is the best solution. Sometimes this is
not practical because of problems with hole stability (erosion or the friction- dominated regime) or
the mud motor.
TO INITIATE FLOW DRILLING
The most important concern with flow drilling is that it is a transition from conventional
overbalanced operations. Often it is not convenient to shut down operations and check all the
elements from the rotating head through the separator. Leaking lines under pressure or pressure
surges, lines that are not staked down, and frozen lines and valves are other common flow-drilling
problems.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.1-4
Gas influx while flow drilling tends to unload the hole, and adequate pit volume needs to be
available. Modified well-control procedures may be used to limit gas influx until it is clear whether
the gas can be flared or whether it needs to be controlled.
Oil influx can cause several problems:
Skimming systems that are open pits can release significant amounts of gas to
the atmosphere.
Mud tanks downstream of the skimming system or a separator are usually gassy.
Transition planning often lags behind the drilling conditions, and gas
concentration can increase on the location very quickly.
With oil influx, oil can overwhelm the separation system if the system has not
been checked out as operational.
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.1-5
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.1-6
CHAPTER 8.2Making Connections and Tripping Pipe

The most important concern for those directly involved in underbalanced drilling is probably
well control and crew safety while making connections and tripping pipe. If the purpose for drilling
the well in an underbalanced condition is to eliminate formation damage, it is important to be able to
trip and make connections without having to kill the well. For other goals of underbalanced drilling
such as increased penetration rate and lower drilling costs, it is important to not be delayed by a wellcontrol problem during a trip. Tripping and making connections are so closely related that they will
be considered as interchangeable in this chapter when appropriate. Safety must be the primary
concern when conducting these operations in an underbalanced condition.
MEI
TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN AIR/GAS/MIST/FOAM

AND AERATED FLUIDS
An AGMF well can be tripped without killing the well if the proper precautions are taken and
if the annular flow is properly directed away from the rig floor. If at any time the well begins to affect
crew safety, the situation should be remedied by either killing the well or determining why the flow
stream is not being effectively diverted away from the work area.
The following steps should be taken to make a connection:
1.
The well should be circulated until the returns are free of cuttings or at least
minimized.
2.
While circulating the hole clean, reciprocate the pipe slowly to wipe out any
potential mud ring that may have started to form.
Note: If a mud motor or hammer is being used, follow the operating guidelines
for those tools to prevent damage. This could involve pumping at lower rates
and putting the hammer in a position to not hit.
3.
UB fluids should be diverted down the blooie line and the flow rate from the
compressors reduced.
4.
Pull the kelly up and set the slips. Open the bleed-off line and allow gas to bleed
off.
5.
Slowly break the kelly loose and allow any air to be vented from the drill string.
6.
Make up the next joint of drill pipe as normal.
7.
Begin lowering the pipe back to bottom and return the flow stream down the
drill string. When returns are seen at the blooie line, drilling can be resumed.
Make sure to check for fill after each connection to see if the hole is being
cleaned properly.
The RBOP or rotating head will cause the annular flow to be diverted down the blooie line.
Diverting the compressor flow down the blooie line will create a suction effect which will draw the
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.2-1
annular flow preferentially down the blooie line. If the pressure on the rotating head is near the limit,
then consideration should be given to opening the choke to decrease annular pressure while the
connection is being made. Another option is to close the annular preventer on the drill pipe after the
kelly slips have been set. This will create a double line of protection while the connection is being
made. Be sure that any trapped pressure between the annular preventer and the RBOP is properly
vented prior to opening the annular to resume drilling.
MEI
Tripping can be considered as a series of connections. However, a major change occurs when
the bottom-hole assembly arrives at the surface. If the drill collars can pass through the pack-off, then
the trip can continue as before. However, if the drill collars are too large to pass through the packoff, or if stabilizers or some other large O.D. tools are used, then the diverter pack-off will have to
be removed before the remainder of the string can be pulled. By the time the bottom-hole assembly
is tripped to the surface, the annulus has most likely been blown down (if the well is not flowing).
If this is the case, the trip can continue because there is minimal danger from a kick.
If the well is producing gas or liquids that can be successfully diverted down the flow line or
blooie line by the vacuum created with the compressor flow, then the trip can be continued with
precautions taken on each connection.
If the well cannot be controlled, then the annular preventer will need to be closed and a liquid
pill pumped into the annulus to create a cushion and stop the annular flow. It is possible that the well
will have to be killed.
Once the bit has cleared the blind ram cavity, the blind ram should be closed. The pack-off (if
still in place) can be removed after any trapped pressure is bled off and the bit changed.
Stripping the BHA through the annular or ram to ram are also options if killing or loading the
well is not desirable.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.2-2
MEI
Figure 8.2.1. Making a Connection While Foam Drilling
The same procedures are used in reverse for tripping back into the hole.
TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN LIGHTWEIGHT FLUIDS,

FLOW DRILLING AND NOVEL FLUIDS
Tripping and making connections in an underbalanced situation using water or mud as the fluid
medium is often more difficult than in an aerated operation. The reason for this is that many times
the well will be flowing oil, water, and gas. Wellbore pressures will be higher and the load on the
rotating head or RBOP could be much greater. The fluid is not compressible, but the gas entrained
in it is. This can create a situation where the annular pressure continues to increase during the trip
since gas will be migrating toward the surface. It is also possible for the bit to act as a plunger and
pull a bubble up underneath it as well. Problems encountered while tripping include the following:
h Too much pressure on the diverter system
h Gas kick following the bit out of the hole
h High flow rates to contend with
h Increasing annular pressure with time
h The well unloading
h Wellbore stability
Making a connection while drilling is not especially difficult if the drill-string float is functioning.
While the drill string must vent in a UB operation, it must not be allowed to vent while making a
connection with underbalanced fluids. The drill string must always remain dead. If the float has
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.2-3
washed out or is not holding for some other reason, and the drill string has pressure, then the
connection must be delayed until the situation can be remedied. Remedies include circulating bottoms
up, pumping a heavier fluid into the drill string or opening the choke a little wider to lower the
annular pressure. Once the connection is made, drilling can resume.
MEI
The same problems exist for tripping with UB fluids as were described for aerated fluids,
although many times they will be magnified in a fluid environment. Generally speaking, the same
options apply. An option taken often where formation damage is not a concern, is pumping a heavy
kill fluid down the annulus and either killing the well or slowing it considerably. This does result in
bullheading drilling fluid into a formation down hole. If there is a shallow zone that is taking fluid and
preventing the annulus from filling sufficiently, then this method may not be successful. In these cases,
the well is circulated with the heavier fluid. If formation damage is a concern, circulate rather than
bullhead. Trips can be done with the well flowing but will usually result in the BHA being stripped
out of the hole. Once the bit has cleared the blind ram cavity, close the ram and remove the bit.
Repeat the procedure to trip in the hole.
Heavy pills may need to be pumped several times while tripping in and out of the hole.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.2-4
CHAPTER 8.3Running Casing
INTRODUCTION
The most common reason for drilling underbalanced in many areas is formation protection.
Wells drilled underbalanced reportedly produce at higher rates for longer periods of time. After
undertaking the trouble and expense of drilling a well underbalanced, it does not then make sense to
kill the well with a potentially damaging fluid for running casing. In many cases, it may not even
make sense to run casing in a well drilled underbalanced.
The techniques for completing wells underbalanced follow naturally from UB drilling. This is
MEI
most easily and most directly accomplished if the drilling operations are carried out using a coiledtubing rig. If the drilling rig cannot perform the completion operations, the well will have to be killed,
greatly increasing the chances of formation damage.
COMPLETION TYPES
As with conventional wells, completion of the production interval of a UB well can take many
forms. There are three basic types of completions for any well: open hole, slotted liner, or cased hole.
These are discussed below in order of least intrusive to most intrusive with respect to productivity.
Open-Hole Completions
Most underbalanced completions, especially those done underbalanced to protect the formation,
are open hole, with no casing in any form placed across the productive interval. This can create
problems itself with formation damage during the completion process due to exposure to completion
fluids. The potential for formation damage remains during the productive life of the well.
A well completed open hole will almost always require an intermediate casing string to be set
and cemented just at the top of the productive formation. This string is normally required to provide
wellbore stability and isolation of the productive interval.
Once the intermediate casing has been cemented, drill-out can begin. This approach provides
maximum well control possible during underbalanced drilling operations. However, only minimum
well control is possible during the completion operations phase.
Open-hole completions provide several advantages and disadvantages as shown in Table 8.3.1.
TABLE 8.3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Open-Hole Completions
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-1
Advantages
Disadvantages
Simple Completion
Reduced Well Control During Completion
Well Control During Drilling
Borehole Stability
Low Cost
Consolidated Formations Only
Low Maintenance
Potential Later Formation Damage
Slotted-Liner Completions
MEI
Slotted-liner completions are the logical next step beyond open-hole completions. In a slottedliner completion, the well is drilled the same as for an open-hole completion. After drilling, however,
a liner is run into the wellbore. The liner can have long slots cut in the wall, or have holes bored
through the wall. The use of the slotted liner greatly decreases concerns about unstable formations.
Well control is difficult during the liner running operation, and will require that the well be killed
at some point in order to accomplish the task. Slotted liners cannot be snubbed or stripped into a
well.
Cased-Hole Completions
The category of cased-hole completions includes long strings run from TD to surface, as well
as production liners cemented in place. All wellbore stability problems are completely addressed once
the casing is in place, but well control is a definite concern unless the well is killed before the pipe is
run.
Not only will the formation be damaged once it is killed, but the cement job will probably
completely undo the benefits of the underbalanced technique with regard to formation damage.
Cased-hole completions are best reserved for wells drilled underbalanced for some reason other than
protection of the formation.
These three completion types can be carried out easily in conventionally drilled wells. They can
all be used in underbalanced completions also, but with some modifications in each case.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-2
UNDERBALANCED OPEN-HOLE COMPLETION

To complete an open-hole well underbalanced, the productive formation must somehow be
isolated from the wellhead. The drill string can be stripped out of the well without killing it, but the
tubing head and tree cannot be nippled up while the well is flowing.
One technique is to balance the wellbore pressure by putting a nondamaging fluid at the bottom
of the hole across the productive formation. Balance weight mud is then left on top of the
nondamaging fluid while the drill string is removed and the wellhead installed.
MEI
Another technique is to leave a temporary plug inside the intermediate shoe as shown in Figure
8.3.1. This temporary plug, usually an inflatable bridge plug, will be activated and released by the
tubing string. The plug can be released using a standard
overshot. A drawback of this technique is the restriction
left in the casing at the bottom of the well by the
temporary plug, which will remain in place.
The drawback to this method can be overcome by
using a through-tubing bridge plug. This type of plug
can be retrieved after the tubing is in place. It can also
be rerun if the tubing needs to be brought out of the
hole for any reason.
Once the tubing head is in place, the tubing can
have temporary plugs placed inside near the bottom to
allow stripping tubing in and out of the well.
UNDERBALANCED SLOTTED LINER
A slotted liner cannot be stripped in or out of a
well while the well is flowing. Consequently, the same
type of temporary plug as used for open-hole
completions can be used for slotted-liner completions.
A standard overshot can be run on the bottom of the
liner to release the plug before continuing to bottom, as
shown in Figure 8.3.2. This has the effect of turning the
intermediate casing into a long downhole lubricator.
Figure 8.3.1. Temporary Completion Plug

(Walker and Hopmann, 1995)
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-3
MEI
Figure 8.3.2. Catching and
Moving a Downhole Lubricator
(Walker and Hopmann, 1995)
Once again, a through-tubing bridge plug could be used if the plug must be retrieved. If not,
the plug can be pushed to bottom.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-4
UNDERBALANCED CASED HOLE

Either casing or a conventional liner can be run in a well while the well is flowing. Depending
on the fluid and volume being produced, this may be the easiest method to get pipe in the hole. If the
well is high pressure or if gas is being produced, this will probably not be an acceptable method. The
casing would have to be snubbed or stripped into the well to protect the formation. Surge pressures
while stripping casing or a liner into such a well need to be carefully controlled or drilling fluid may
be forced into the productive formation anyway.
MEI
A popular technique for getting either casing or a liner into the well without killing it is the twostage drilling technique described by Walker and Hopmann (Figure 8.3.3).
Figure 8.3.3. Two-Stage Drilling

Technique (Walker and Hopmann, 1995)
In this procedure, the well is drilled conventionally to just above the productive interval.
Intermediate casing is run and cemented, just as described for open-hole completions. The
intermediate casing is drilled out using a coiled-tubing unit. The coiled-tubing unit is then used to
run and cement the liner in place.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-5
MEI
All of the above techniques are most easily accomplished using a coiled-tubing unit at some
point in the operation. This will be most applicable for running liners or when coiled tubing is to be
used as the production string.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.3-6
CHAPTER 8.4Cementing
INTRODUCTION
MEI
It is generally not a good idea to put cement into any well in an underbalanced condition.
Maintaining an underbalanced reservoir pressure completely defeats the purpose of any cement job.
The result will be a cement column that is not competent because the higher pressure reservoir fluids
will flow through the cement while it is setting up. This condition, called annular flow, is shown in
Figure 8.4.1.
Figure 8.4.1. Annular Flow Through Cement
It is also very difficult to maintain an underbalanced condition with a cement column. The
hydrostatic head exerted by a column of cement is almost always higher than a normal pressure
gradient. One exception is cement placed opposite an abnormally pressured reservoir.
Putting cement across a formation that has been drilled underbalanced is an invitation to
formation damage from the cement filtrate. However, fears of formation damage from a cement job
are in many cases exaggerated. The cement slurry itself will not enter the formation unless the
hydrostatic head from the cement column exceeds the frac gradient across the formation in question.
Cement particles are too large to fit into the pore throats of most formations, although the cement
filtrate can enter the formation. Figure 8.4.2 shows the mechanisms by which cement can damage
reservoirs.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.4-1
MEI
Figure 8.4.2. Formation Damage From Cement
Even with these potential problems, many wells have been and will continue to be drilled
underbalanced and then have casing or liners cemented into them. This is especially true of wells
drilled underbalanced primarily for increased rate of penetration as opposed to those drilled for
reservoir protection. If the well has been drilled to prevent formation damage, then every precaution
should be taken to ensure that the cement job is carried out with procedures that will minimize
damage.
LOADING THE HOLE
The biggest controversy concerning cementing in air- or gas-drilled holes is whether or not to
load the hole with fluid prior to either running pipe or cementing. It is normally not difficult to run
casing dry. An exception is a highly deviated wellbore where additional lubrication is needed to get
the casing to bottom. Care should be taken when loading the hole with water or mud. In areas with
sensitive clays or shales, the hole can slough significantly after fluid loading. Generally, it is best to
get the pipe to bottom before loading the hole.
Once the casing or liner is at TD, some operators prefer to load the hole completely with liquid
before proceeding with the cement job. There can be advantages to this technique.
It is better to find out if the hole is going to slough and cave in when exposed to the preflush
fluid before cement is inside the pipe. If the hole sloughs, it may pack off and end the cement job
before any cement gets into the annulus, as shown in Figure 8.4.3. Pre-loading the hole will allow
the hole to be cleaned up prior to cementing.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.4-2
MEI
Figure 8.4.3. Pack-Off Due to Sloughing
In hot holes with high temperature gradients, the liquid put in the hole will initially cool
everything including any pipe in the hole. Contraction of the cooled pipe can cause a problem,
especially in liner cementing. When the cool pre-flush reaches the cross-over from the drill pipe to
the liner top, thermal contraction can be large enough to pull the drill pipe out of the liner top,
causing significant problems.
If the hole is not loaded completely prior to cementing a liner, enough weight must be set down
on the liner top to counteract the contraction. Loading the hole and circulating one or two cycles
prior to cementing will allow a cooler gradient to be established. Typically, anywhere from 25,000
to 50,000 lbs of string weight should be set on the liner top prior to starting the preflush. This weight
should be maintained during the job as a safety factor.
The minimum amount of pre-flush for any cement job performed in a dry wellbore is the
capacity of the pipe in the hole. This will at least ensure that the float equipment is open and
operating correctly. If the float is plugged, compression of the air below the pre-flush may mask the
problem until after cement has entered the pipe. Again, the smaller volume of drill pipe compared
to casing makes this problem more acute in liner cement jobs.
FORMATION PROTECTION
If pipe is to be cemented in a hole that was drilled underbalanced due to concerns about
formation damage, care must be taken to use the least invasive cementing procedure possible. This
begins with the cement slurry design itself.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.4-3
As stated above, cement slurry will not enter the formation unless it fractures the rock. Cement
filtrate is another story. It can cause significant reductions in productivity.
Several steps can be taken to prevent damage from a cement job.
Design the cement slurry to have as low a filtrate loss (API WL) as reasonably
possible. This is normally a good idea anyway, especially for liner cementing.
Check the rheology of the cement slurry.
Use a good hydraulics model to determine the optimum pump rate and pressure
for the cement slurry. The object will be to avoid breaking down the formation
and losing cement into the reservoir.
Estimate as accurately as possible the frac gradient for the formation.
Ensure all pre-flush fluids are nondamaging to the formation. This includes all
liquids used to load the hole prior to the job.
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.4-4
MEI
CHAPTER 8.5Reserved for Future Use
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.5-1
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.5-2
CHAPTER 8.6Snubbing and Stripping

By Dan Eby, Wildwell Control, Spring, Texas
Stripping and snubbing is the process of running or pulling tubing, drill pipe, or casing with
surface pressure present on the wellhead.
Snubbingor the pipe-light conditionis the situation where an external force is required
to prevent the work string from being forced out of the hole (i.e., the well pressure force acting to
eject the work string exceeds the weight of the work string).
Strippingor the pipe-heavy conditionis the situation where the weight of the work string
exceeds the well pressure force acting to eject the work string from the wellbore.
MEI
The guidelines presented here are not intended to replace sound engineering and operational
judgment or experience. The overall objective of every stripping and/or snubbing operation must be
to maintain safety.
In any well-control operation,
the first and foremost priority must always be
the safety of everyone involved.
STRIPPING
Stripping is usually performed on drilling or workover operations when the work string is off
bottom and the well becomes pressured. It involves lowering the string through closed BOPs, most
commonly the annular preventer. In many underbalanced drilling operations, stripping is a preplanned
event. In other cases, stripping is done as a matter of necessity. Regardless of whether the event is
preplanned, the objectives and basic concepts are the same. The objective is to run the work string
into the well in a safe and efficient manner. Safety means that the operation undertaken is performed
in a way that minimizes risk to personnel, equipment and the well.
Equipment Requirements
Stripping can usually be performed with the normal complement of BOPs that are on location
to drill or workover the well, provided the wellhead conditions are within the range of working
parameters. The general rule of thumb is that stripping should be done only if the wellhead pressure
is #50% of the rated working pressure of the sealing elements. The annular preventer is used to
contain well pressure and to pass tool joints. The kill and choke line can be utilized as they exist in
most configurations, but a second bleed-off line, equipped with a hand-adjustable choke, can be quite
useful if precise measurement of fluid becomes necessary. A small volume tank, such as a trip tank,
will also be useful if small volumes of fluid are to be bled from the well.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-1
In a stripping operation, it is normally desirable to maintain a constant bottom-hole pressure.

This is accomplished by bleeding or adding fluid to the fluid column in the annulus. The operation
is usually guided by close observation of the surface pressures. The operation can be complicated
by gas migration, and must be balanced by bleeding off or pumping in. This is usually referred to as
the volumetric well-control method.
One procedure to consider is to control running speed and closing pressure to reduce sealing
element wear. During the procedure, the driller can slowly lower the string, taking care to slow the
moving speed further as the tool joint passes the annular element. This procedure will be the least
damaging to the annular element and should increase its sealing life.
Other steps to reduce element wear are to add a lubricant above the element, such as a water
MEI
gel mixture or light oil (if the element is resistant to oil), and to reduce to minimal closing pressures.
The type and closing mechanism of the annular preventer will guide the operation. Annular
preventers that utilize wellbore pressure to assist the hydraulic closing pressure may not appreciably
change the stress on the closing element by reducing the closing pressure. However, stripping
through the BOP will add risk for leaks, and increase the complexity of the operation.
Stripping will reduce the life of the sealing element significantly with an increase in hydraulic
closing pressure. Seal life will also be reduced by an increase in the number of cycles for opening and
closing, and the number of tool joints stripped through the element. For ram preventers, each cycle
of opening and closing shortens the life of both the ram seals and the moving seals in the hydraulic
system. A decision must be made whether a pure annular, an annular-to-ram, or a ram-to-ram
stripping procedure will be used to pass tool joints. The method to be used is based on surface pressure,
length of pipe to be stripped in the hole, size of tool joints and, most importantly, the BOP equipment. If ramto-ram stripping is considered, there must be a provision to bleed off pressure and to equalize pressure between
rams. This will avoid the undesirable opening of a ram with pressure under it.
Wellbore Pressures
The wellbore pressure relationship during stripping operations must be taken into consideration
to maintain a constant bottom-hole pressure. The most desirable situation is to simultaneously bleed
a volume of mud equal to the volume of steel being inserted. The rate of mud bleed-off should be
the same as the steel volume being placed into the wellbore. While this is the ideal situation, it is
usually not practical in field operations. More often, the necessary bleed volume is taken from the
well after one stand is run into the well. However, the wellhead pressure must be considered. In a
drilling operation, one stand may only increase the wellhead pressure by 40 to 50 psi, which can be
bled off at the end of stripping that stand. In small-diameter holes, the pressure increase can be much
more dramatic, and the crew must be guided by the pressure limitations. Usual practice is to set limits
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-2
on the increase in wellhead pressure before stopping the stripping operation and bleeding off mud for
the volume of pipe run in the well. It will be useful to keep careful records of the amount of the fluid
taken into the well, length of pipe stripped, and surface pressures.
When bleeding is properly done, it will result in a constant bottom-hole pressure. If the proper
amount of fluid is not bled off, excess pressure will build up in the wellbore, or an additional influx
will be allowed to enter. The above procedures are based on the assumption that there is little or no
migration of the influx. This will only be the case in high-viscosity mud systems. In most cases, the
influx will rise quite rapidly and bring pressure with it. One must be able to recognize gas migration
and to adhere to the principle that bottom-hole pressure must remain constant.
MEI
A quantity of mud must be bled from the annulus equal to the capacity and displacement of the
drill pipe, at approximately the same rate the drill pipe is being stripped into the hole. Many mud
logging systems are capable of recording pit level changes to the precision required. However, given
the critical nature of well-control operations, a simple, reliable system that can be monitored is best.
Migration of the bubble is best analyzed as a separate problem, and the amount of fluid that would
be bled off to compensate for migration should be added to the amount bled off for steel placed into
the wellbore.
When the bottom-hole assembly contacts the gas column, an increase in surface pressure will
result. This is caused by a change in height of the gas bubble in the column. This reduces the
hydrostatic pressure in the annulus, which must be compensated for by an increase in pressure.
If the pipe is being stripped into a well that contains no gas, the limited compressibility of the
wellbore fluids means that surface pressure will increase rapidly if insufficient fluid is bled from the
well. This increase in surface pressure will result in an equivalent increase in pressure throughout the
wellbore and may result in formation fracture or casing failure. If insufficient fluid is pumped into the
well as pipe is snubbed out, the surface pressure will be reduced, and if permeable formations are
exposed, an influx may be taken.
SNUBBING
While it is difficult to chronicle the exact date when snubbing was first used, the first hydraulic
units became available to the market in the 1950s. Some claim that snubbing was done using
conventional techniques as early as the 1920s. To ensure safety during a snubbing operation, various
calculations are required to confirm that all equipment is suitable for the conditions to which it will
be exposed. These calculations determine:
Depth of the neutral point

Critical buckling load of the work string for the support conditions provided by
the snubbing unit
The jack system hydraulic pressure regulator settings for the snubbing unit
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-3
Maximum jack speeds for running and pulling pipe.
Snubbing Forces
Generally, both snubbing and stripping may be accomplished using a snubbing unit. The general
terminology used in the field is that when snubbing, the pipe is in the light condition and when
stripping, the pipe is in the heavy condition.
The vertical forces acting on a snubbing work string may be analyzed to determine the force
necessary to run the snubbing string into the hole. Generally there are five forces acting on a
snubbing string:
A pressure/area force resulting from well pressure acting on a cross section of
the snubbing string
The gravitational force or weight of the string
Frictional forces
The force applied by the snubbing unit
Forces due to obstructions in the well, if any
MEI
When pipe is being tripped into or out of a well, neither accelerating nor decelerating, the net
vertical force on the work string must be zero.
E downward forces = E upward forces
(8.6-1)
When pipe is being snubbed into a well, the sum of the applied snubbing force and the string
weight of the snubbing string must equal the sum of the pressure/area force and the frictional force.
Snub Force + String weight = Pressure/Area Force + Friction
(8.6-2)
The upward force resulting from the surface well pressure may be termed the pressure/area
force (Fp-a) and is calculated as follows:
Fp& a '
Sec. 8
DEA-101
B( OD 2( WHP
4
(8.6-3)
8.6-4
where:
Fp-a
=
OD
=
WHP =
Pressure area force, lbs

Diameter on which seal is set, inches
Wellhead pressure, psi
An important point must be made when calculating the pressure/area force. When snubbing ram
to ram, the sealing element in the BOP only contacts the pipe body, and therefore the pipe body
diameter is used to calculate the pressure/area force. When snubbing through a stripper rubber or
annular BOP, the seal is sometimes made against the tool joint and consideration must be given to
this larger OD when calculating the maximum upward force on the snubbing string.
MEI
Force is required to overcome the frictional resistance of the BOP (or stripping rubber) through
which the pipe is being moved. The magnitude of the frictional force depends on the pipe size and
condition, the well pressure, the condition of the BOP seal elements and the BOP operating pressure.
The frictional force acts to oppose motion, and therefore acts upward when snubbing into a well. The
frictional force changes with time as the pipe is tripped and the wear of the BOP elements increases.
Additional drag forces may result from friction between the work string and the borehole as pipe is
run into the well. These forces will generally be larger in deviated holes, or where a downhole
restriction is encountered.
Helical buckling can also occur. One condition that can cause the pipe to buckle is when
differential pressures exist between the work string and annulus. If a helical buckling condition exists,
very high frictional forces can be generated. In fact, this phenomenon can create forces that exceed
the yield strength of the pipe.
The wellbore may contain obstructions that will not allow the work string to pass freely. If this
condition exists in the wellbore, for example, damaged pipe or bridging, an additional force will be
required to work the string past the obstruction. If the obstruction is severe, it may not be possible
to pass it no matter how much force is applied. This condition can be the cause of severe work string
damage and costly fishing jobs. Care must be taken to understand the mechanical limits of the work
string, as well as the operational considerations that can help prevent downhole failures.
The weight of the pipe being snubbed acts downward and therefore helps to pull the pipe into
the well. When first snubbing into the hole, the weight of the snubbing string is small and may be
ignored. Generally the maximum required snubbing force will occur as pipe is being started into the
hole. This is true provided no obstructions exist for the string to set down on, and the hole is not
packed so the full cross-section of the casing is acted upon.
Max Snub Force
Fmax snub
Sec. 8
DEA-101
= Pressure/Area Force + Friction

= Fp-a + Ffriction
8.6-5
(8.6-4)
As more pipe is run into the hole, the buoyed weight of the snubbing string will increase and
eventually equal the pressure/area force. When this happens, the pipe will no longer be forced out
of the hole if not held at surface. This is generally known as the balance point.
Buoyed String Weight = Pressure/Area Force
WT = Fp-a
(8.6-5)
MEI
As the snubbing string is placed in the well, it is common to pump one tubing volume each 1000
to 1500 ft. The pipe in the hole can be filled to provide additional weight and to assure that
backpressure valves do not become plugged with debris or pipe scale. If the balance point is reached
at a time which does not coincide with the regularly scheduled pumping routine, the operator may
choose to stop and fill the pipe to assure the transition from light to heavy pipe. This is important,
since the pipe needs to be forced against the slips (either up or down) to develop an adequate grip.
If there is no fluid in the work string, the buoyed string weight is given by:
WT ' L w&
OD 2 ( MWwell
(8.6-6)
24.5
where:
WT
w
L
MWwell
=
=
=
=
Effective (buoyed) string weight, lb

Pipe weight per foot in air, lb/ft
Pipe length in the well, ft
Fluid density in the well, ppg
To solve for the balance point, we set Eq. 8.6-3 equal to Eq. 8.6-6 and solve for length L, using
the following equations:
LB& P '
B ( OD 2 ( WHP
4
w&
(8.6-7)
OD 2 ( MWwell
24.5
where:
LB-P = Pipe length at balance point. Snubbing force equals pipe
weight (string empty, no fill), ft
When the work string is some distance in the hole L and is filled with fluid, the increase in
effective weight due to the fluid is given by:
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-6
L ( ID 2 MWstring
(8.6-8)
24.5
MEI
)WT '
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-7
where:
)WT
ID
MWstring
=
=
=
Change in string weight, lb

Pipe inside diameter, inches
Fluid density inside the work string, ppg
The general equation for the effective weight of the work string when the fluid densities in the
work string and well are different is:
WT ' L w %
ID 2 ( MWstring
24.5
&
OD 2 ( MWwell
(8.6-9)
24.5
where:
MEI
WT = Total weight of the string considering buoyancy and fill inside the pipe, lb
When calculating the effective buoyed weight of the work string, it is necessary to know or
estimate the liquid level in the well. If a liquid level exists below a gas column, it will be necessary
to calculate the buoyed string weight in the gas column and the buoyed string weight in the liquid
column and sum the two components to obtain the total buoyed string weight. Since gas is a nonNewtonian compressible fluid, an estimate of density will need to be developed. Some advocate using
a density of zero for gas, and in most cases this is a rational approach. To account for gas density,
an approximation is found by applying Equation 8.6-10.
EMWGAS '
S ( PAVG
(8.6-10)
2.766 ZAVG TAVG
where:
EMWGAS
S
= Equivalent mud weight of the gas, ppg

= Specific gravity of the gas (air = 1.0), methane = 0.55
(most natural gases range between 0.65 and 0.75)
2.766 = Universal gas constant and conversion to ppg (53.3 *

0.0519)
Sec. 8
PAVG
= Average gas pressure (at the midpoint of the gas column), psia
ZAVG
= Average gas compressibility factor (usually taken at

the midpoint of the gas column)
TAVG
= Average temperature of the gas in absolute units

(usually taken at the midpoint of the gas column), oK
DEA-101
8.6-8
Pipe Buckling
After determining the required snubbing force, one must confirm that the work string can
support this compressive load without buckling. A buckling failure of the work string above the
BOPs can result in the work string being ejected from the well, and a loss of pressure integrity at the
surface. Buckling inside the BOP or downhole would be helical. (This discussion is limited to column
stability and does not cover helical buckling).
MEI
With increasing compressive loads, buckling will first occur in the maximum unsupported length
of the work string. The maximum unsupported length is usually either the work window length (if
the window guide is not installed) or the distance between slip segments or the jack stroke (if a
telescoping guide tube is not installed). Consider the pipe shown in cross section in Figure 8.6.1.
Figure 8.6.1. Cross-Section of the Snubbing String
Two types of buckling can occur in pipe as shown in Figure 8.6.2.
Figure 8.6.2. Column Stability and Local Buckling

When subjected to compressive load, a pipe can fail by excessive stresses (crushing of the
material) or by buckling. The two types of buckling failure are local and column stability. Local
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-9
buckling is a crippling of the walls of the pipe in a local area. Column stability buckling is a failure
of the pipe by bending over the entire unsupported length of the member. Column stability buckling
can occur without yielding the pipe, and when this condition occurs, it is referred to as elastic
buckling. At higher loads, column stability buckling can also occur with a combination of yielding
of the material along with column stability effects. This is referred to as inelastic buckling. The
calculation method that will predict the critical buckling load must be determined by comparing the
column slenderness ratio (Cc) to the effective slenderness ratio.
Local buckling phenomena are controlled by the ratio of average radius to wall thickness. Local
buckling is not usually a problem in normal snubbing operations where small-diameter work strings
are used. However, prudence dictates that it be checked, regardless.
MEI
The column slenderness ratio (Cc) separating the two calculation methods for determining
critical buckling load was determined by extensive laboratory testing and is defined as:
Cc ' B
where:
E
Fy
2( E
Fy
(8.6-11)
= Modulus of Elasticity, psi (30 x 106 for steel)

= Yield stress of pipe, psi (80,000 psi for N80 steel,
135,000 psi for S135, etc.)
The radius of gyration of a pipe is defined as:

r '
I '
As '
I
As
(8.6-12)
B(OD 4 & ID 4)
64
(8.6-13)
B (OD 2 & ID 2)
4
(8.6-14)
where:
r
Radius of gyration, in.
Moment of inertia, in4.
As =
Cross-sectional area of the pipe, in2.
OD =
Outer diameter, in.
ID =
Inner diameter, in.
The effective slenderness ratio (SR) is defined as the larger of eqs. 8.6-15 and -16:
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-10
SR '
K( L
r
(8.6-15)
and SR < 250

where:
L
Maximum unsupported pipe length (above the BOP as

in a work window or between slips in the jack), inches
End constraint factor which may generally be taken as 1.0 for

common snubbing work strings. (See Figure 8.6.3 for alternate
values for K)
R
R
( 4.8 %
(t
t
225
MEI
SR '
(8.6-16)
where:
Average radius of the pipe, in.
ID % t
2
SR =
Slenderness ratio
Using an end constraint factor (K) equal to 1.0 is an assumption that errs on the conservative
side, as the snubbing unit grips the pipe in such a way that full stability would be assured. Some
research results imply that slender columns rotate near the constraint and are best modeled as a nearpin fixity. To date, no literature is available to guide the designer in the use of typical snubbing work
strings, so judgment suggests using a K = 1.0. This implies that rotation is free and translation is fixed
at both ends of the unsupported length.
Figure 8.6.3 shows recommended K values for various end conditions, should one wish to use
a value of K other than 1.0.
Figure 8.6.3. End Condition K Values

Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-11
BUCKLING LOAD CALCULATIONS

If the effective slenderness ratio is less than Cc, local (inelastic) buckling is critical and the
maximum compressive load (theoretical without safety factor) that may be applied to the work string
is given by:
BL ' Fy As 1 &
SR 2
(8.6-17)
2Cc
where:
MEI
BL =
Fy =
As =
Maximum buckling load (without safety factor), lbs

Yield stress of the pipe, psi
Cross-sectional area of the pipe, in.2
If Eq. 8.6-17 applies, the buckling load may be increased by:
Increasing the work string size (OD)

Increasing the work string wall thickness (t)
Increasing the work string yield stress (Fy)
Note that Eq. 8.6-17 will yield local buckling values when the value of the slenderness ratio
(SR) is controlled by Eq. 8.6-16, as for a very small unbraced length of thin-walled tubing.
If the effective SR is greater than Cc, long column (elastic) buckling is expected, and the
maximum compressive load that may be applied to the work string is given by the Euler equation:
BL ' As
286,000,000
(8.6-18)
SR 2
where:
BL =
Maximum buckling load (without safety factor), lbs
In these conditions, the buckling load can be increased by:
Reducing the unsupported length
Increasing the work string size
Increasing the work string wall thickness

It is important to note that increasing the yield stress of the work string will not increase the
buckling load capacity if Eq 8.6-18 applies.
EXAMPLE SNUBBING OPERATION
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-12
A well has been drilled and perforated underbalanced without tubing in the hole. The formation
is a normally pressured gas sand. A packer has been set via wireline. The following well data are
available for planning to snub a completion string into the hole:
Well depth:
Packer depth:
SICP:
Fluid in hole:
Tubing:
Seal assembly:
10,000 ft TVD/MD
9880 ft TVD/MD
3300 psi
Gas with specific gravity of 0.7, EMW 2.0 ppg
2d in., 4.7 ppf, P-110 with premium thread
20 ft including plug profile
There are several items of note for this type of snubbing job.
MEI
1. Safety concerns will need to be considered when choosing the pressure control
device for inside the tubing. The seal assembly BHA will need to be configured
with plug profiles and/or other types of backpressure valves.
2. The completion string coupling should be an integral-type joint if possible. If a

collar-type coupling must be used, it is advisable to have the shoulders on the
collars machined to allow for easy passage through the stripping rubber and/or
annular.
3. Thrust loads will need to be calculated for both the coupling OD and the tube OD.
4. Due to the irregular shape of the OD of the seal assembly, the entire seal assembly
will need to be lubricated into the hole. The BOP stack should to be configured
with this in mind.
5. Calculations should be performed to determine the cross-over point from pipelight to pipe-heavy.
6. Calculations should be performed to determine if the tubing will buckle above the
BOP. If so, provision should be made for a guide assembly in the snubbing
rig-up.
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Pressure/Area Force
Fp& a '
B( OD 2( WHP
4
where:
OD
WHP
Sec. 8
= 2.375 in. for tube

2.740 in. for Hydril CS (as an example)
= 3300 psi
DEA-101
8.6-13
Fp& a '
B( 2.3752( 3300
' 14,619 lbf for tube
4
Fp& a '
B( 2.742( 3300
' 19,458 lbf for coupling
4
Balance Point
LB& P '
B ( OD 2 ( WHP
4
w&
OD 2 ( MWwell
24.5
MEI
where:
OD
= 2.375 in. for tube
WHP
= 3300 psi
B ( 2.3752 ( 3300
4
LB& P '
' 3448 feet
2.3752 ( 2
4.7&
24.5
Buckling Calculations
The unsupported length for the snubbing unit is 96 inches.
Cc ' B
2( E
Fy
where:
Sec. 8
= 29,000,000 psi
Fy
= 110,000 psi
DEA-101
8.6-14
MEI
where:
ID = 1.995 in.
T =
0.38 in.
For K=1.0, the effective slenderness ratio is the largest calculated, which is 123.82. Since the
slenderness ratio of 123.82 is larger than Cc of 72.14, failure will be long column stability. Therefore,
the critical buckling load is calculated as:
BL ' As
286,000,000
SR
' 1.304
286,000,000
123.822
' 24,325 lbf
Since the critical buckling load of 24,325 lbf is less than the pressure/area forces of 14,619 lbf
for the tube and 19,458 lbf for the coupling, the pipe should not buckle during snubbing operations.
Note that the calculations are for theoretical values and do not include any safety factor.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-15
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.6-16
MEI
CHAPTER 8.7Reserved for Future Use
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.7-1
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.7-2
CHAPTER 8.8Coiled-Tubing Operations
Case histories of coiled-tubing (CT) field operations are presented in this chapter. One of the
earliest CT drilling operations is described as well as more recent operations using CT to drill
underbalanced.
ORYX ENERGY/CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL
MEI
Late in 1991 in Frio County, Texas, Oryx Energy completed the first horizontal well drilled with
coiled tubing (Ramos et al., 1992). Cudd Pressure Control provided coiled-tubing services and
DMI/Ensco provided directional drilling services. The Howard Shelton #3 was sidetracked out of 4in. casing using a workover rig and conventional whipstock. A coiled-tubing unit was then rigged up
and used to drill about 1600 ft. The curve section had an average build rate of 15E/100 ft and the
horizontal section achieved a length of 1458 ft.
The Austin Chalk formation has been a principal area of development for horizontal drilling
technology. Flow drilling, during which formation fluids are produced and processed while drilling,
has often been used to minimize formation damage. This approach minimizes fluid loss to the
formation and increases ROP. To complement this procedure, a method of tripping under pressure
without the need to kill the well was sought. This is one of the principal reasons Oryx tested the
feasibility of coiled-tubing drilling.
The development of an orienting tool to rotate the bottom-hole assembly was a necessary
precursor to the use of coiled tubing as a horizontal drill string. In addition, the durability of coiled
tubing under the stresses of drilling operations was unknown, as was the impact of buckling behavior
on horizontal displacement.
The Howard Shelton #3 was chosen by Oryx for re-entry and recompletion as a horizontal well.
This well's casing program consisted of 8e-in. surface casing set at 557 ft and 4-in., 10.5 lb/ft K55
casing set at 7240 ft. The surface equipment for the re-entry was similar to that used for other Austin
Chalk horizontal wells, except for the coiled-tubing unit and the BOP stack (Figure 8.8.1).
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-1
MEI
Figure 8.8.1. Coiled-Tubing Drilling Surface Equipment (Ramos et al., 1992)
Solids-control equipment was not used because the cuttings from the TSP and PDC bits were
too small for conventional equipment. The BOP stack was designed to permit shut-in on the 2-in.
coiled tubing, the BHA, or the 2d-in. BHA lift sub (Figure 8.8.2).
Figure 8.8.2. Coiled-Tubing Drilling BOP (Ramos et al., 1992)
Before the coiled-tubing unit was rigged-up on site, a conventional well service unit was used
to pull existing pumping equipment from the wellbore. Next, a casing scraper was run and the well
surveyed for bottom-hole orientation. A cast-iron bridge plug was run on wireline and a conventional
whipstock set above it. Various mills were run on the service rig to mill the window. The sidetracking
procedure, from setting the whipstock to beginning coiled-tubing drilling, is described in Figure 8.8.3.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-2
MEI
Figure 8.8.3. Oryx Sidetracking Procedure (Ramos et al., 1992)
The coiled tubing used for drilling operations was 2-in. O.D., 0.156-in. wall, 3.07 lb/ft, HS-70
tubing. Both TSP and PDC bits were used for drilling, TSP for the build section and PDC for the
lateral section. Surface and downhole equipment are shown in Figure 8.8.4.
Figure 8.8.4. Coiled-Tubing Drilling BHA (Ramos et al., 1992)

As would be expected with coiled tubing, reactive torque changed tool-face angle by causing
the BHA to rotate after circulation was started. A relatively consistent rotation angle of 280E to the
left was observed while drilling.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-3
Several problems were encountered during drilling operations. The motor housing parted after
17 ft of new hole were drilled. A fishing assembly run on the coiled-tubing string successfully
retrieved the housing. The orienting tool ceased functioning after an additional 17 ft of hole. Drilling
was temporarily suspended while the tool (a unique prototype) was repaired at a local machine shop.
After drilling was resumed, a second motor failed due to a broken shaft and the orienting tool became
in need of repair again. After these problems were solved, drilling proceeded with a different brand
of motor. Various other problems temporarily halted drilling, including multiple failures of a
tensioner spring in the steering tool.
ROP averaged 9 ft/hr in the build section with bit weights ranging from 4000-6000, and 12 ft/hr
in the lateral with bit weights ranging from 3000-5000 lbs. A summary of the bit performance is
presented in Table 8.8.1.
MEI
TABLE 8.8.1. Coiled-Tubing Drill Bit Performance (Ramos et al., 1992)
BHA
/
Run Bit/RR #
#
WOB
Type
Gauge
Length
Jets
Footage
Hrs
on
Btm
Overal
l Prate
TFA
Hrs
drilling
Drilling
P rate
1/1
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
1-4k
17
8.0
2.1
7.0
2.4
2/1
PDC
1.750
10/10
0.15
0.4-4k
17
2.0
8.5
1.5
11.3
2/2
3/#2RR1
PDC
1.750
N/A
0.15
0.5-1.5k
1.5
2.7
1.0
4.0
3/1
4/#1RR1
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
5.4-6k
103
11.0
9.4
8.5
12.1
4/1
5/#1RR2
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
4.5-4k
65
9.0
7.2
5.0
13.0
5/1
6#1RR3
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
4.6k
394
49.0
8.0
47.0
8.4
6/1
7/#RR4
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
4.7k
30
6.5
4.6
3.0
10.0
6/2
8/#RR5
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
N/A
0.0
N/A
0.0
N/A
6/3
9/#RR6
TSD
1.625
N/A
0.18
4.10k
165
26.5
6.2
25.5
6.5
7/1
10
PDC
0.750
10/10
0.15
4.7k
192
20.5
9.4
14.5
13.2
7/2
11/#10RR1
PDC
0.750
10/10
0.15
4.10k
191
18.5
10.3
12.0
15.9
8/1
12/#10RR2
PDC
0.750
10/10
0.15
6.7k
292
25.5
11.5
23.5
12.4
9/1
13/#10RR3
PDC
0.750
10/10
0.15
3.5-5k
90
6.0
15.0
4.0
22.5
10/1
14/#10RR4
PDC
0.750
10/10
0.15
4.5k
92
9.0
10.2
5.5
16.7
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-4
The planned and actual wellbore profiles are shown in Figure 8.8.5 (section view) and Figure
MEI
8.8.6 (plan view).
Figure 8.8.5. Howard Shelton #3 Re-entry Profile (Ramos et al., 1992)
Figure 8.8.6. Howard Shelton #3 Re-entry Path (Ramos et al., 1992)
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-5
A summary of the times required for

various operational phases of Oryx's effort is
presented in Figure 8.8.7. Non-productive
activities (directional tasks, fishing, and
waiting on tools and repairs) comprised about
37% of the time on site. These same activities
accounted for over 39% of the job costs
(Figure 8.8.8). The costs of this first well are
not completely representative of the feasibility
of this technology since major services were
provided at breakeven or below commercial
rates.
MEI
Figure 8.8.7. Howard Shelton #3

Re-entry Times (Ramos et al., 1992)
Operations on this first well were considered as

having demonstrated the feasibility of coiled-tubing
horizontal flow drilling. Various improvements for the
new tools were indicated by field operations. After
tool modifications had been implemented, a second
well, the M.L. Lasater #11, was re-entered. Several
problems hindered progress with this well, including a
wireline short, steering tool failure, and orienter
failure. The original orienter was also used in this
second well, and severe lost circulation lowered the
pressure differential such that the tool could not be
locked in position. The coiled-tubing system was then
abandoned and the well completed with a workover
rig and power swivel.
Figure 8.8.8. Howard Shelton #3 Re-entry Costs

(Ramos et al., 1992)
Oryxs results and conclusions from this early effort are summarized below:
Sec. 8
Accurate directional control of coiled tubing is possible
Tubing life and depth limits need to be addressed
Orienting and steering tools are feasible, although further modifications

and refinements are required
More field experience is needed to establish the potential of coiled-tubing

drilling.
DEA-101
8.8-6
CT DRILLING AT CLIVE FIELD, ALBERTA

Ulster Petroleums Ltd. and Nowsco Well Services (Balen et al., 1997) described a four-well
CT drilling pilot program in the Clive field in Central Alberta. CT was used to drill horizontal reentries using underbalanced conditions. Operational issues in the field are complicated by sour crude
native to the formation. The four-well pilot program was deemed a technical and economic success
for this application.
A re-entry program design was needed for the field to access bypassed reserves. Previous
horizontal wells had shown that mud losses could be severe, and result in poor production
performance. Underbalanced drilling was seen as a viable alternative for reducing formation damage.
Originally, however, underbalanced operations were discounted due to safety concerns for the 8-13%
H2S content in the field.
MEI
CT was also previously discounted as an option due to a perceived lack of reliability. It was
now thought that CT was worth renewed consideration. A four-well pilot program was pursued to
investigate the potential. A hybrid approach was undertaken that consisted of conventional
overbalanced drilling for drilling the curve and cementing the liner at an inclination of 90E. The
horizontal producing section would then be drilled underbalanced with CT.
The wellsite layout for the CT phase (Figure 8.8.9) Included equipment for handling large CT
(both 2d- and 2f-in. strings were used). A drilling structure was used to support the injector.
Figure 8.8.9. CT Drilling Equipment Layout

(Balen et al., 1997)
A typical completion profile for the four-well project included 73-mm tubing run through the
horizontal and build section followed by 60-mm tubing in the vertical section (Figure 8.8.10).
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-7
MEI
Figure 8.8.10. Typical Wellbore for CT

Re-entry (Balen et al., 1997)
Costs for preparing the wells and drilling the build section conventionally ranged from $327,500
to $600,000 (Figure 8.8.11). Higher costs were associated with two of the wells due to the need to
run the casing string back to surface. Costs to drill the horizontal sections underbalanced with CT
ranged from $292,000 to $593,000. Completion costs ranged from $87,000 to $136,000.
Figure 8.8.11. CT Drilling Cost (Balen et al., 1997)
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-8
MEI
The time for preparing the wells and drilling the build section conventionally ranged from 11
to 18 days (8.8.12). The time to drill the horizontal sections underbalanced with CT ranged from 5
to 13 days. Completions were run in 3 to 6 days.
Figure 8.8.12. CT Drilling Time (Balen et al., 1997)
ROPs for underbalanced drilling with CT were comparable to those obtained with jointed pipe
on offset wells. Averages fell in the range of 4-10 m/hr. Underbalanced pressures were about 1.5
MPa (218 psi) below reservoir pressure.
Post-completion performance was greatly enhanced by drilling the wells underbalanced. The
four-well pilot project was deemed an economic and operational success by the operator.
CT DRILLING CAMPAIGN IN OMAN
Petroleum Development Oman (Surewaard et al., 1997) summarized results from a 15-well CT
drilling campaign conducted in several Oman fields. About 800 of Omans 2000 wells had been
identified as candidates for re-entry with CT. PDO originally conducted a three-well campaign in
1994 to demonstrate basic technical feasibility of CT drilling. The second larger campaign was
conducted in 1996 and 1997 (Figure 8.8.13) to demonstrate economic competitiveness with a
conventional rig for sidetracking, and to demonstrate technical feasibility of short-radius, throughtubing, multilateral, and underbalanced drilling. They concluded that conventional sidetracks do not
yet present an attractive application for CT drilling in PDO. Underbalanced through-tubing
applications, however, were very successful and will be the focus in the future.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-9
Figure 8.8.13. PDO CT Drilling Trials 1996-97 (Surewaard et al., 1997)
MEI
Overbalanced drilling was performed in five wells in the Fahud Field. The costs of these
medium-radius horizontal re-entries was about 45% above conventional. The primary reasons for
the higher costs were cited: 1) lack of commitment and skills of contractor, 2) specialized equipment
not fit for purpose, and 3) poor selection of well candidates.
Another six of the CT wells were drilled in the Yibal Field. Four of the six were drilled
underbalanced to demonstrate the improvements with this approach. Sidetracks were drilled out of
existing horizontal liners. All CT holes were 3 in. out of 4-in. completion.
A full package of test equipment was added to the CT underbalanced surface equipment (Figure
8.8.14). In addition to the normal closed-loop three-phase separator, a main solids filtration unit was
included and found essential for solids removal for protecting the BHA components.
Figure 8.8.14. Surface Equipment for Underbalanced Drilling

(Surewaard et al., 1997)
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-10
MEI
A telling comparison is shown in Figure 8.8.15 between Yibal well Y-437 (which was drilled
overbalanced) and well Y-199 (which was drilled underbalanced). Both are multilateral wells which
were drilled through tubing. Significantly higher ROP for the underbalanced well (between 25 to 75
m/hr) reduced times dramatically for that case, as compared to a CT overbalanced drilling operation.
Figure 8.8.15. Time Distribution for CT Over/Underbalanced

Wells (Surewaard et al., 1997)
Early production suggests that production rate is improved in the underbalanced wells, but has
not yet been fully quantified based on offset data.
CT UNDERBALANCED DRILLING COSTS
Crestar Energy and Canadian Fracmaster (Borbely et al., 1997) summarized results of an
analysis of costs and effectiveness of drilling underbalanced with CT for five horizontal wells in
Southeast Alberta. Operational factors and costs were compared across the project. All drilling
objectives were met. Two of the wells (in the Jenner pool) were drilled on budget; the other three
(Majorville pool) were drilled 15% under budget.
Rotary rigs were used to drill the curves and set casing to 90E. CT rigs were then used to drill
the horizontal sections underbalanced. ROPs for CT drilling are compared in Figure 8.8.16.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-11
MEI
Figure 8.8.16. Example ROPs (Borbely et al., 1997)
The time distribution for the entire five-well project (Figure 8.8.17) illustrates that equipment
reliability needs to be improved (15% total time for repairs), although this was not unexpected with
new and still-developing technology.
Figure 8.8.17. Operational Times of Five Wells

(Borbely et al., 1997)
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-12
MEI
The time/depth curves (Figure 8.8.18) show nonproductive repair time for several of the wells.
At the other end of the spectrum, well 11-31 was rigged up, drilled 119 m horizontally, and rigged
down in less than 48 hrs.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
Figure 8.8.18. Time/Depth Curves (Borbely et al., 1997)
8.8-13
MEI
Sec. 8
DEA-101
8.8-14
SECTION 8References
Balen, Mark et al., 1997: Horizontal Coiled Tubing Drilling: A Multiwell Project at Clive, Alberta,
paper 97-116, presented at CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling Conference, Calgary, April 8-10.
Borbely, L. et al., 1997: Coiled Tubing Horizontal Underbalanced Drilling Project: Costs and
Operational Analyses, SPE 38399, presented at 2nd North American Coiled Tubing
Roundtable, Montgomery, Texas, April 1-3.
Brown, A.D.F., Merrett, S.J. and Putnam, J.S., 1991: Coil-Tubing Milling/Underreaming of Barium
Sulphate Scale and Scale Control in the Forties Field, SPE 23106, presented at the Offshore
Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, September 3-6.
MEI
Cobb, Charles C. and Zublin, Casper W., 1985: New Coiled Tubing Jet Cleaning System Reduces
Costs, Petroleum Engineer International, October.
Cooper, Scott C. and Cuthbertson, Robert L., 1998: Horizontal, Underbalanced Wells Yield High
Rates in Columbia, World Oil, September.
Fultz, J.D. and Pittard, F.J., 1990B: Slim-Hole Drilling in Harsh Environments, IADC/SPE 19949, 1990
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Houston, Texas, February 27-March 2.
Gronseth, J. Mark,, 1996: Coiled Tubing Operations and Services: Part 14Drilling, World Oil, April.
Hearn, D.D. et al., 1988: Innovative Technology in Producing Operations, SPE 18256, 63rd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 2-5.
Hearn, D.D., Blount, C.G., and Hightower, C.M., 1990: Coiled Tubing Underreaming, paper presented at
Hilton Hotel, Arlington, Texas. Seminar hosted by Hydra Rig, 6000 East Berry Street, Fort Worth,
Texas, February 26March 1.
Littleton, Jeff, 1992C: Horizontal Drilling With Coiled Tubing Gains Momentum, Petroleum Engineer
International, July.
Lunan, B. and Curtis, F., 1997: An Integrated Team Approach to Underbalanced Drilling, paper 97-75,
presented at 48th Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society, Calgary, June 8-11.
Newman, Ken, 1993: An Update on Coiled Tubing Drilling, Proceedings of the First Annual
Conference on Coiled Tubing Operations & Slimhole Drilling Practices, Gulf Pub. Co.,
Houston, March 1-4.
Ramos, A.B., Jr. et al., 1992: Horizontal Slim-Hole Drilling With Coiled Tubing: An Operator's
Experience, IADC/SPE 23875, paper presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
held in New Orleans, Louisiana, February 18-21.
Selby, Bruce et al., 1998: Hybrid Coiled Tubing System for Offshore Re-entry Drilling and
Workover, IADC/SPE 39374, presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, March 36.
Surewaard, J. et al., 1997: One Year Experience with Coiled Tubing Drilling, SPE/IADC 39260,
presented at Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, November 23-25.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
Ref. 8-1
Walker, E.J. and Schmohr, D.R., 1991: The Role of Coiled Tubing in the Western Operating Area
of the Prudhoe Bay Unit, SPE 22959, paper presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference
held in Perth, Western Australia, November 4-7.
Walker, Tim and Hopmann, Mark, 1995: Underbalanced Completions Improve Well Safety and
Productivity, World Oil, November.
Welch, James L. and Whitlow, Richard R., 1992: Coiled Tubing...Operations and Services, Part
8Underreaming, World Oil, July.
MEI
Wesson, Rob, 1993: Drilling on Coiled Tubing: Case Histories, Proceedings of the First Annual
Conference on Coiled Tubing Operations & Slimhole Drilling Practices, Gulf Pub. Co.,
Houston, March 1-4.
Sec. 8
DEA-101
Ref. 8-2

Underbalance Drilling Manual I

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

Underbalance Drilling Manual I

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SECTION 8FIELD OPERATIONS

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

SECTION 8Field Operations

CHAPTER 8.2Making Connections and Tripping Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2-1

CHAPTER 8.5Reserved for Future Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5-1

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

SECTION 8Field Operations

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 8.1Initiating Underbalanced Drilling

Will formation fluids be produced while drilling?

TO INITIATE GAS DRILLING

Next, go to bottom and repeat this process.

Light the blooie line flare or igniter.

Continue this process until the well begins producing dust.

If, after 2 hours, the well still has not dusted:

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

a. Add 5 gallons of 50% foamer/water mixture and start again at step 4.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Is the foam pump delivering too much water?

TO INITIATE AERATED DRILLING

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Av = Annulus volume (m3/m, bbl/ft)

= Units constant, K = 0.001, 0.052 (SG water/m, lb/gal water/ft of depth)

With a water-base fluid, can xanthan polymer be added to decrease the

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 8.2Making Connections and Tripping Pipe

TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN AIR/GAS/MIST/FOAM

Make up the next joint of drill pipe as normal.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Figure 8.2.1. Making a Connection While Foam Drilling

TRIPPING AND MAKING CONNECTIONS IN LIGHTWEIGHT FLUIDS,

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 8.3Running Casing

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Reduced Well Control During Completion

Well Control During Drilling

Consolidated Formations Only

Potential Later Formation Damage

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

UNDERBALANCED OPEN-HOLE COMPLETION

Figure 8.3.1. Temporary Completion Plug

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

UNDERBALANCED CASED HOLE

Figure 8.3.3. Two-Stage Drilling

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Figure 8.4.1. Annular Flow Through Cement

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Figure 8.4.2. Formation Damage From Cement

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Figure 8.4.3. Pack-Off Due to Sloughing

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

Check the rheology of the cement slurry.

Estimate as accurately as possible the frac gradient for the formation.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 8.5Reserved for Future Use

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

1998 Maurer Engineering Inc.

CHAPTER 8.6Snubbing and Stripping