Contents

Executive summary ......................................................................... 2 1. 2. Rig selection ........................................................................... 2 Pore pressure and fracture pressure. ......................................... 4

3. Problems that could be encountered during drilling in different formations. ..................................................................................... 5 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Casing scheme ........................................................................ 6 Mud types. Mud programme ..................................................... 7 Functions of cement. Cement programme .................................. 9 Maximum hook load .............................................................. 10 Safety while drilling ............................................................... 11 Well completion .................................................................... 12

Conclusion .................................................................................... 13 Appendix A. Molly field pressure profile, mud weights and casing strings depths ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix B. Hook load calculation ................................................... 15 Appendix C. BOP stack working pressure calculation .......................... 16 Appendix D. Downhole completion design ......................................... 17 References.................................................................................... 18 Bibliography.................................................................................. 18

Executive summary
This report provides a brief description of main steps of well planning process through the example of an exploratory well in the Molly field in the North Sea. The main steps include: rig selection, study of pore pressures, fracture pressures and lithology, construction of casing design, mud and cement programme, completion design and design of well control system.

1. Rig selection
There are many criteria that should be taken into account when selecting a proper marine rig. This is the list of main criteria: 1. Water depth rating 2. Derrick and substructure capacity 3. Physical rig size and weight 4. Deck load capacity 5. Stability in rough weather 6. Duration of drilling programme 7. Rig rating features, i.e. horsepower, pipe handling capabilities, mud mixing capacity 8. Exploratory vs. development drilling 9. Availability and cost Water depth rating is usually considered as most important selection criteria for offshore rigs. For this reason, the selection process of suitable rig to drill a well in Molly field should be considered in accordance with this main factor. Generally, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units are divided into two categories: floaters and bottom supported. Floaters are located on top of the water surface or slightly below it. This group includes two types of drilling rigs semisubmersibles and drill ships. Bottom-supported rigs, on the other hand, are contacting the bottom of the sea and are supported by it.
2|Page

Most widely used type of marine drilling units is a jackup rig. The largest jackup rigs are able to drill in locations with water depths up to 400 feet, while the maximum well depth is around 30,000 feet. (Baker 2001) Deep platforms are capable of drilling wells in water depths up to 1000 ft, but their usage is economically justified only for long-term development drilling. (Adams and Charrier 1985) Semisubmersible rigs are specially designed vessels for offshore petroleum industry, therefore operation costs are generally much higher due to large amounts of initial investment required. Implementation of a jackup rig for drilling a well in Molly field would be economically most efficient alternative. The water depth of 160 ft is in the range of operation of most jackup rigs, thus there is no necessity to use floating units that are capable to operate in deeper waters. Operation costs of a jackup rig are much lower and they are more easily available on the market. From the shallow water depth it can be assumed that Molly field is located not far from the shore, therefore there is no need to utilize a drillship capable of carrying large amounts of equipment and materials required for drilling.

3|Page

2. Pore pressure and fracture pressure.

Pore pressure. Formation pressure is one of the most important factors that influences well design and drilling operations. If formation pressure is not correctly estimated, it can lead to variety of drilling problems, for instance blowouts, lost circulation, hole instability, stuck pipe and excessive costs. However, in zones of abnormal pressures it can be very challenging to predict formation pressures accurately. Knowledge of formation pressures is the basis of the whole well planning process, thus not enough attention paid to formation pressure evaluation can cause in the other stages of well planning being inadequate. To predict formation pressure several methods can be implemented. They can be categorized in three groups: 1. Areal analysis from seismic data 2. Offset well correlation a. log analysis b. drilling parameter evaluation c. production or test data 3. real-time evaluation a. qualitative b. quantitative (Adams and Charrier 1985) Fracture pressure Reliable information on fracture pressure gradient is essential to avoid problems with lost circulation and selecting a proper casing seat depth. It becomes even more valuable when drilling in zones of low permeability, since it is necessary to propagate hydraulic fracturing to increase well productivity.

4|Page

While there are numerous theoretical and field developed equations of determining the fracture pressure gradient, none of the theoretical methods can consider all characteristics of the rock formations. For this reason, testing each new casing seat for fracture pressure to determine accurate fracture pressure gradient is very common in the field. Leak-off test is the most widely used direct method for identifying fracture pressures. These two parameters are the basis for further well design process, particularly casing design, as well as planning the drilling mud programme. Mud weight should always be kept in the window between pore pressures and fracture pressures of all formations that mud is affecting. The casing is run to isolate the weaker formations, to use heavier muds to drill lower formations. These two factors are very important for the safety of drilling process.

3. Problems that could be encountered during drilling in different formations.

Different hazards occur while drilling in different rock formations. Shales and sandstone formations, which are present in the Molly field have specific properties that could cause a number of problems that are discussed further. Most of them can be avoided by implementation of proper mud control programme. Lost Circulation In porous sandstone, gravel formations, vugular limestones or any rock formation that has faulted, fissured and jointed zones, high permeability results in drilling fluid flowing into the formations rather than circulating back up the hole.

5|Page

Heaving shale problems Some shale layers demonstrate high adsorption of water. The reason for that is the presence of hydratable clays in the formation. It can lead to the clays swelling and sloughing into the hole and result in further drilling problems, such as pipe sticking, hole bridging and excessive build-up of solids in the mud. The most effective way to deal with this problem is to utilize an inhibitive mud, which will reduce the hydration rate of the clays.

4. Casing scheme
The casing scheme is based on the consideration of formation and fracture gradients. However, there are other geological factors that should be taken into account during selection of casing seat depths. In the given well there is a number of formations that should be considered. The surface casing is lowered to 5640 ft below RKB to ensure that Paleocene lower sands that could contain fresh waters are covered prior further drilling. It isolates Paleocene middle shales, clays and light sandstones that could cause heaving and sloughing problems. It also provides support for the BOP stack. The production casing is run from the bottom up to the casing hanger on the surface. It isolates the possible hydrocarbon bearing zone and gives support to weak and hydratable Jurassic and Triassic formations. TVD of casing seat, ft 984 5640 10240 Hole size 33" 17 1/2" 12 1/4" Casing size, OD 30" 13 3/8" 9 5/8"

Table 1. Casing scheme

6|Page

5. Mud types. Mud programme

There is a large variety of drilling fluids currently exploited in the industry. Generally, they can be divided into three categories: water, oil and in some cases gas based fluids. These categories can be subdivided depending on the different additives used to change the density or chemical and physical properties of mud. Water based fluids Water is the main component and is the continuous phase of the fluid. Water based muds can be categorized into four groups depending on the presence or absence of inhibitor and dispersant additives. Non-dispersed and non-inhibited muds. Very simple CMC Gel or Spud Gel mud systems, though could be used in drilling only very unreactive formations. Dispersed and non-inhibited muds. Simple clay-based systems. However, because of the problems while drilling in reactive clay is not commonly used in oil industry. Dispersed and inhibited systems. Fresh or sea water based muds made through addition of lime or gypsum. High level of calcium ions in the solution assists in prevention borehole instability, clay heaving and sloughing. Non-dispersed and inhibited systems. Very widely used mud type, especially in highly reactive clay formations and while drilling though salt layers. The mechanism of inhibition varies depending on the inhibition agent.

7|Page

Oil based fluids These muds contain oil as their main component and continuous phase. Water can be added to the mixture as discontinuous phase, in that case it is called invert emulsion. It is beneficial to use this type of mud in water sensitive formations, such as production zones and shales, since oil doesn't hydrate the shales. They are also useful in drilling complex geometry wells due to their high lubricity characteristics. Corrosion resistance, stuck pipe prevention, contamination are some other factors that make oil based muds relatively cost effective. Environmental problems related to the usage of oil based muds led to development of biodegradable synthetic oil muds. These muds are very expensive and should be considered only in situations where it is impossible to drill using water based muds. TVD, ft Hole size Casing size 984 33" 30" Sea water/bentonite Mud type Mud weight, ppg 10

5640

17 1/2"

13 3/8"

Sea water/bentonite

12

Water based mud with inhibition additives is used to prevent clay hydration and sloughing 10240 12 1/4" 9 5/8" Oil based mud* 13

*Oil based mud is used to reduce formation damage in the potential reservoir formations and to avoid clay hydration Table 2. Mud programme Mud weight graph is provided in Appendix A.

8|Page

6. Functions of cement. Cement programme

Cement is used for four main reasons:
1. Provides zonal isolation 2. Sustains axial load of casing string 3. Protects from the corrosive influence of fluids and offers casing

support.
4. Supports the borehole

Cementing of the surface casing string will be conducted up to the surface, since it is providing support to the next string. Main objectives of this cementing stage are: 1) to provide zonal isolation of weak formations, i.e. heaving shales, weak sandstones and water bearing formations; 2) Provide good casing shoe for further drilling with higher mud density. A spacer should be run between mud and cement to act as a buffer to prevent contamination of cement slurry from mud. It also helps in providing good mud removal and cement bond. The amount of spacer needed should provide enough annular depth to ensure that no contact between cement and mud is possible, since mud and cement are incompatible fluids and contamination could lead to channelling or premature setting of cement inside the casing For economical reasons two types of cement slurries will be used: lower density extended cement slurry for non-critical parts, from 4500 ft up to the surface, and a higher density cement slurry with better compressive strength for isolating formations with possible water migration Paleocene water sands, 4500 ft-5640 ft. Cementing of the production casing string will be conducted with the same class G cement with high density that provides good compressive strength and has fluid loss control additives to avoid dehydration of the cement filtrate to permeable formations. Top of cement is run only up to the "Piper" sandstones with a safety margin of
9|Page

500 ft additional annular length. Accordingly, the top of cement will be at 7000 ft point. Thus, the critical possible hydrocarbon bearing formations and zones of possible water migration are cased and cemented. Cementing the production string up to the top should be avoided due to risk of possible trapped annular pressure. This pressures can represent a large hazard for casing and tubing. In addition, it is beneficial from the financial point of view to use smaller amounts of cement. In this casing section gas migration control additives like latex polymers should be included in the slurry to prevent gas trapping in the cement during its thickening period, as it can largely reduce cement's physical characteristics. Also it is essential to have proper centralisation in this section to aid in proper mud filter cake removal to get a good cement bond to casing and formation.

7. Maximum hook load

The two main loads that have the strongest impact on derrick structure are the longest drill string configuration and the longest casing string used. Usually, in most of the modern medium to deep wells the casing string is much heavier than the drill string. To make an estimate of derrick capacity weights of both strings will be calculated. Drill string buoyant weight calculation Common practice recommends avoiding putting ordinary drill pipes under compression, since they are only designed to work under tension. For this reason, it is important to make sure that the total weight of Bottom-hole assembly in mud is higher than the maximum required weight on bit, so that the point of zero stress will always be lower than drill pipe to BHA connection. In practice, it is suggested to decrease the weight on bit value even further, to less than 85% of the BHA weight. (Rabia)

10 | P a g e

In the calculation presented in Appendix B it is shown that the total drill string weight in mud is equal to load equals to 384 715 lbs. The total buoyant weight of production casing is Therefore, the maximum load on the derrick structure is imposed by casing string and is equal to lbs. With an additional 150 000 lbs allowance for over pull during tripping operations the maximum hook

8. Safety while drilling

Blowouts Blowouts are the most hazardous problem in drilling operations. They occur when hydrostatic pressure of mud column becomes lower than formation pressure. It is obvious that adequate mud weight is the main method to control this risk, although excessively rapid withdrawal of the drill string is also commonly overseen as the cause of blowouts. This phenomenon is described as pipe suction and depends on the speed of pulling, mud viscosity and gel strength, and hole-pipe clearance. Therefore, it is important to keep the mud viscosity as low as possible. For this reason deflocculants are added to the drilling fluid. Velocity of drill string retraction is also a big concern and must be always kept in adequate ranges. However, it is not always possible to predict all regions of abnormal pressures, so blowouts happening is inevitable in drilling industry. That is why second barrier in safety deals with mitigation of this risk, through implementation of a proper well control system. The key equipment used for this is the blowout prevention stack. They are designed to stop the flow of fluid through the drill pipes or annulus. The pressure that impacts the BOP stack is calculated in appendix C and it is equal to 3848 psi. From the BOP pressure ratings available on the

11 | P a g e

market (Burgoyne et al. 1986), we can assume that a 5000 psi working pressure stack would be suitable for this well.

9. Well completion
Since the well drilled has two possible hydrocarbon bearing zones, it is essential to provide isolation of this zones from each other. This function is served by packers, which also provide means for downhole tubing anchoring and casing protection. For safety reasons, to prevent uncontrollable release of hydrocarbons it is required to install a safety valve, which acts as a second barrier in well control system. To support and secure the tubing string it is necessary to install a tubing hanger. Two zones of perforation require installing of selective production equipment, which will assist in producing only from particular zone, while shutting off the other. This function is served by sliding sleeves, that are placed on both perforations. Installing of hydraulic set packers requires pressure differential between tubing and annulus. For this reason it is necessary to set the plug in the nipple. Nipple can be used in many other applications, such as sealing and locking of different downhole equipment. Depending on the needs of well operation, there is a variety completion accessories: chemical injection mandrel - provides ability to inject chemicals in various applications, e.g. cleaning the well from the scale and paraffins. Downhole completion design is provided in Appendix D. Automatic shutdown system provides another safety barrier to control different types of blowouts.
12 | P a g e

List of installed equipment 1. Tubing Hanger 2. Chemical Injection Mandrel

3. Gauge Mandrel with the P/T gauge 4. TRSSSV 5. Sliding sleeve 6. Packers 7. Nipple 8. Automatic shutdown system

Conclusion
All stages of well design process that were described show close interconnection between each other. For example, adequate mud programme or casing design influences every later stage of the design process. Word count: 2493

13 | P a g e

Appendix A. Molly field pressure profile, mud weights and casing strings depths

-2000

-4000 Pore pressure Fracture gradient Depth, ft -6000 Trip margin Safety margin

Mud density
Conductor -8000 Surface Production

-10000

-12000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Equivalent mud density, ppg

14 | P a g e

Appendix B. Hook load calculation

To calculate the weight of drill collars it is necessary to estimate the maximum required weight on bit, to ensure that weight on bit will always remain 15% lower than the total weight of drill collars. In the table of ranges of bit weights and rotary speeds recommended by manufacturers (Burgoyne et al. 1986) it is suggested to use WOB not more than 6200 lb/in of bit diameter for drill bits, to drill in hard limestones and

dolomites. So, required WOB is ,

after applying the safety factor and buoyancy factor the required weight of drill collars is

Rabia (198 recommends using

drill collars to drill

hole sections.

To determine the number of drill collars and their weight, we should divide the total required weight of DC in mud by its nominal weight per foot and the length of one drill collar: . The total weight of 24 drill collars is the total length is The drill string is consisting of 5" OD drill pipes with nominal weight of lbs/ft. Thus, the ( ) while

15 | P a g e

Appendix C. BOP stack working pressure calculation

The pressure that the BOP stack must withstand is equal to the between the formation pressure and the gas hydrostatic pressure: Therefore, these parameters should be calculated:

As a result,

This calculation should be used for a worst case scenario, only for shallow depth wells. Usually, operator's experience suggests using 80% design factor: (Adams and Charrier 1985)

16 | P a g e

Appendix D. Downhole completion design

17 | P a g e

References
ADAMS, N.J., CARRIER, T., 1985. Drilling engineering. A complete well planning approach. Tulsa, OK: PennWell publishing company. BAKER, R., 2001. A primer of oilwell drilling: a basic text of oil and gas drilling. 6th ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. BOURGOYNE, A. T. JR., et al., 1986. Applied drilling engineering. Richardson, TX: First Printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers. RABIA, H., 1985. Oilwell drilling engineering: principles and practice. London: Graham and Trotman.

Bibliography
ECONOMIDES, M. J., et al., 1998. Petroleum well construction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. GATLIN, C., 1960. Petroleum engineering. Drilling and well completions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. HEAVY OIL SCIENCE CENTRE, 2011. Drilling problems and drilling operations. [online]. Heavy oil science centre. Available from: http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/drilling.htm [Accessed 19 November 2011]. SERENE ENERGY, 2010. BHA weight & weight-on-bit. [online]. Aberdeen: Serene Energy. Available from: http://www.sereneenergy.org/BHAWeight-and-Weight-on-Bit.php [Accessed 1 December 2011].

18 | P a g e