ERD6

Hole Condition Monitoring
This section will cover:

Review of "tools" available to monitor hole
cleaning
ECD monitoring with PWD tool
Cuttings return surveillance
DWOB & torque
Mud rheology tracking
Drilling parameters monitoring
and drag monitoring
1180 --- --- ------- ----
Introduction
"Hole Condition Monitoring is the real-time
collection and interpretation ofrelevant well data,
with the aim o/maximizing the ROP within the
hole cleaning system"
Ulisten to the well and let it tel/us what's going 011"
2/80 ----------- --- ---
Hole Condition Monitoring 1
Observations of "typical practices"
Most common flaw in many operations is the assumption that
loads (hookloads, torque, ECDs, pump pressures) are linear
This is vertical hole logic (and dubious in a vertical hole !)
People assume that Torque and ECDs are best indicator of a dirty hole
People are looking for an obvious change . ...
Don't assume you know what normal is ... must be modeled on
a case-by-case basis
You cannot know what "abnormal" look like, when your
understanding of 'normal" is wrong
3/80 ------------------------
i : : ; :
tlXlO .. .. __:--. ___ ..____ .i_. ____ _ ... __.. __ -l.-- _. __.l.__ ._ ..!. .___ :_
,.,.: : l j j : j Consider this North Sea well,

: -fTiLt;rr:r:
t I
about
: .T :.T I.r.:Fr.
: __
: . . : j ; : ; : .. :j' ; : : ; ; ; j :
_.. ____.:, __ .....-.: ____ ... :.: --... ...--.:.._.__ : ..._---- L... _--L. . _ :'" _._.:#.. .___ ,:...____ L. _____ i ; : : .
OCDO -' ''
; ; : :: : 1 : ; : I : j
,cam ....... \.. ... .. j....... j_._..j'._..i ....r..+..-f ....r
t
.... .... ....T...;.. -7 .. .. +--
"""
1COl 4IXIJ 3'XIO COD "5011 '&:o:l 1OO(l 10.:11 9000 1Q1X1O 11(XXJ 1l1OOO 0000 1..00 15DDO ,eooo 1T1XlD leooG 1f1OOD D:lXI
Unwrapped Reach (I.)
- A. 1J'Cj
AWL

.......:

: . . .
,..; -.. -.. --;- ------ -t
- -- - ----1---
......,. -----
b . ____ . __ __ . ____
--i. -_ .
.
,
- ..;-----..
.
--t --
i
---t-- --
Slack off trends

-- - -.,..i- -_ .. _.. -i-' _.._.!- -- -- ---!"---_ .-- - -_ ..
Is this OK? No sudden changes
----- _.- i-__i-_ .-._. --- --
. i .
after 11000' ...
.---... .. -" -- -: .. --..- .....; . ---.
. . -
--..--: ---------.j- ------:----------::---...
:
-- -- .-.. . .... '"' .. ...-------_: ' --r -.- ..---:-. -
....ft..... 8AA WO -- - . . ..- -......---- --:-- --_._----:- -_. _----
4ar.-.... 'lur ..
..... ,
......,. l Ul:Fi1 ; .
- -.-.- -l----'-r --
. ......... - -.---.-- --:.. -_ .... -.-:--
, : ; : : . . .
.. .
..... .---.. :.-.--. --- .. ;.- ....

... - ..--..-!---- ---:-.----.. -.:.. -.-... .. -.
.. --.--- . ... .. . ... ..
.. - --.-.-.. -... _. -.. -.-...- ..
--.......,..
Tr tt" ' l ll r ,'t r:ok' ll .:."

i
+--+---+----------c.Totel 43" 0( 8'" oc-. (1ncI TRACS. MWOIl.\NO. jIIn)
- 4IGO 6-5m"' &4. 511 I-M'DP
%:'

-l---f---L----MlN , ;
_ ..... .. Pick up trends
Is this OK ?
.
ertainly no sudden changes after 12000'
Looks like a straight line trend

---+--+---"''T---------j---!---t-'BHA.1I2 .-me- _ 8HA ., -

MW . 13.6 PJlV
-40 "K-IQII- --'
-- --=
---t---H---
______ ________________
",
__
n CHUOLOC; Y r ,AOtJll'
0epIh ('11

t
H12A TO TAO " 5 7b 7f221'J3
Torque trends
Is this OK ?
Has held almost constant from
8000' through to 16000'
Increases at 17000' with
formation change.
XX
'"
Pump pressure trends
Is this OK ?
Note that slope change at 15500'
coincides with bi tlBHA change.
xX , "" ..... "'"
WudWl '3 l!1 ptlg f'V eo vP -34 at - e x lO'$
_ ______________ __
J
+---+--I----:- _F ------" x
----
)(
X
""'" .. -r
,3IDClQ -
I
'''''' -r
..... I
1'IIkIOW'I:
f' .........
,.....
""" 2" ECOTAD""'57b 717.'/.)3
ECD trends ",
Is thi OK ?
Obviou ECD problem at 10500'
" Ee Ds seem quite erratic
x
x
- ... ...,
- --.aD
-- -
- It-.,,-,.o'JO_*.1r::I
__w.
- ......,
- -......
H128 HL- T.&.O.II 5I0 7J221D3
Now let's compare vs. -theoreTical'
trends using "road map" approach
"
"
Obvious (but subtle) di vergence of SO and
PU trends
The hole was whisperi ng for a long, long
time (not unusual in drill ing mode)
,
-

-"\'. "
'"""\ .....'"
Fn __............ _
., "
_.
"

I

. .-,6-6Ir$4&1' 1--!'to\fCP
- 13DOO'<6&618"' 27 711 dp
(2A..7 7w1Th Jt
Comparing uCluals vs. "lhcon:ticuf'
__---......, .. 1.3 PA;;I--- - -
trends, using "roadmap" approach
Torque is actually improving
throughout , despite obvious
SO/PU trends (quite normal
behavior).
... BkA.,

13 6 pPg't

m-----
==-

&IIIr cr:, &6068'
U."II a ' fII1QG'
I

WW -

\
e,'5- Q :
I I
-- T___....
H12'8 TO - TAD4I57b7122J03
___________-r__ __.-___-'
-+ I I
. '-"-' "-'-----'--------------,
Comparmg aCluals 'oS. "theoretkal'
l---
2ndSHA I"U!!'\ :
- Btl "'6 x lO-.

Pump pressure behavior is quite
good.
, Occasional intervals where
prediction is off . . . probably due to
mud properties having changed
--+--\------,-----<---
)( 1.&!"OA n.Il
- -
---
)( 2na&-1.l'lf\ll
H12B SPP - TAO 4..!57b 7Q2103
(ompanng actual- VS.
- "-_CD
-
)(
x _ __
H1.2S ECO - TAO 5 7-b 7r22103
.. ,
ECDIIM...-n byPWD \PPJiiJ
ECD behavior is quite erratic for
first run
In general, ECDs within predicted
ranges
even in 2nd run, where is was
obvious from SO/PU trends tha t
there is a problem
Quite common behavior
Conti nuou 'Weeps make ECD
predictions Ie s reliable
Because it's no longer a steady
state environml!llt
8..5'" x 9.875"" Measured.ECDa
W e4I SbIlo.
__.-___ __ ______ ____ ________________ _______________-, .' e-
t
_.... .. -------,--- 1
'.
.
....

o "'-"co....... ....eco. m ..aJ' .
)C _IiCD__1IIIZ
....... 0.....
- - a...ecco _ _
..
----U, Q7l2OO3 YY ECO- TAO 4 7
What is the purpose?
In Drilling Mode:
Either:
Stay out of trouble, or
ROP Optimization, within the limit of the hole
cleaning system
In Tripping Mode:
Stuck pipe prevention tool
15/80f-- ---------------
ROP Optimization
Drilling steady state - within
hole cleaning limits (" inside
the box")
16/80--- ------- - ---- --
ROP Optimization
ROP increases (other parameters the same) move outside the box and hole
starts to load up
Change parameters (increase rpm, flowrate, circ on connections) in an
attempt to expand the box and accommodate the increased ROP
If no changes can be made to the sides of the box, the ROP will need
reduced, or remedial hole cleaning practices will be required
17/80----------------------
ROP Optin1ization
ROP decreases (other parameters the same) some of the other
parameters may be relaxed to reduce the size of the box and
still maintain adequate hole cleaning
18/80- ---------------------
ROP Optimization
ROP strategies:
1. "Make hole" and fix the problems later
2. Proactively manage hole cleaning as the section is
drilled
Generally, safer, easier and more efficient to keep the
hole clean, than it is to clean up a dirty one.
19/80>--------------------
ECD Monitoring With PWD
PWD is a valuable tool for ERD wells
- Can help to avoid lost returns and pack-off
- Trip/conn. data available in stored memory (time log)
However, of limited usefulness for hole cleaning in high angle
wellbores
- Cuttings bed is invisible to PWD, unless very close to packing off
- Most cuttings loading seen on PWD comes from near-vertical hole section
- Alternately, PWD may see an isolated dune (not a bed)
- However, ifPWD sings ... listen
- You mu 'lknow what normal clean hole look like ... consider the
following example ...
20/80>--------------------
Unwrapped ReaCh
Consider the 12 Yo" section of this well
- Mud weight =11.2 ppg, increased to 11.4
ppg at +1- 11 ,000' MD
- shoe PIT = 12. 3 ppg EMW
--------'------ -:--------t ------T------- --+-- ----- ---r--- --- --
.. ;'........ .. ..
-
; '
S' ;
...-..-----.-- ....:. -------
----....--.--- - .,..: -------.-- ..;. ----.---:..--

"ZlI:III . _. -._ "- . "'V' ....
-- --- j---
..
,....
s:m 0000 1000 ' OID) 12000
,,... ,....

- -
"..
-
"'"
I"'"
Ul"I'IImpptd Reach (I)
12_25- Measured ECDs

Actual ECDs, vs Mud Weight
..--- -
:lIOOC -- -.-- i-- '-'
...[
_.. _. ._A'! __ . _
------ ... - ---- ..
.. ----_P__..........

...
------.;- ------;-- .------:.. -------..:-- --
. . j .
---:-.
....:
. ---_ . .. ----

- Actual ECDs increased throughout .. ..
- 1$ this good? Or bad?
- We don' t know what normal is
- For clean hole, nor for di rty hole
.i-----+ ----i------(---j---- -.
..---- - ... - ! - - - -- r - ---- ----. - - -- ---;.------;--.---+ -- --- i- ----
Eq.CITc. o.o..lI '1 ( P")
X' 1::! E CD 1 - -:-AG . SI5J03
----
Clean Hol e ECOs plotted
- But wi th only simple mud properties
(with no accounting for dail y variations)
yen under these circumstances
- Trends look good
- It would be senseless to maintain a
given EC D load

,...
_ _ - QoSO _a.....
__
___

__
Zl2Al OPE C - T,a.,D 4 5 2 " s.sm
'1'" ,, .
ECD -..n by P\NO (P$)g]
___ ,CW5.-c:--.
_ ""..c ..-.
-- - =
---
- ... !..
Clean Hole CDs plotted
- But with all reported mud properties
...+ ..... <...L..."....:.. (t_"..."ic,...e...:
p
'-e..,.r_d_8.:..
y
;. ) _-,.-_-.-_____-l
i
.<....... j+r
...... ,. __ ._--,------.,...--..
Only points that are
concerning .. ,
; j

. -- ---- --- -- --+- --- --
But may be due to mud
variations at the time
---- I
12.25- actual. clean hole
.. ____________-,
12.25- Measured ECDs

__
--- <=-aezlo. __
--- e.tQ IE!eD O _ _l00_
---- ___
X12 E C01 _ TAO. 52-. SII5A)'3
--
ECDs,. -. & dirty hole _ actual ROP
__ ________-r !______ __ ___ _________--- !________
This is the "normal" ECD
loading that may be
expected due to cuttings
loading (steady state)
Once mud variations
accounted for
.............._......
----1----:
. .. .
; : ;

Final plot - with steady-state ROP
loading (cutt ings)

----
= ==::--
0!XJl2 HCEF lAD 4 23, 9 ,.'lZf.J3
Cuttings Pick-up After Sliding
....-
ECD at Different Flow Rates
----------- ------------------------
... .n" ...
Row Pressure
l .

Gel Breakdown
1311 depth
RP M
nne
""'"
EGO
(m) rlo'.v (a/m ,I
' gfOCl

...., , . ,
\
18:00 CL
1
:
I
,
1 """
r
19:00
II
{
"7
'.
1\ '"
t!Ii'="

r
20:00
I
\
I
.. T
__ ECO SPIKES AS GELS BREAK
AFTER EACH CONNECTION
t:ur!!.rW
Cuttings Return Surveillance
Check cuttings at regular intervals:
Cuttings volume compared to previous checks
- Take ROP and Flow Rate into consideration
- Flow split over scalper and fine screens
- Remember, good cuttings flow may not be "good enough"
- Consider cuttings weighing at each stand (or each hour)
Cuttings character and shape
- See next slide- Understand "cuttings talk"
- Small & rounded means . . .. Big & blocky means ... ..
- Is cuttings character changing?
Shaker Hand may be the most important guy on the rig
Cuttings Return Surveillance
A I s C
PDC SHAVING SMALL CUTTINGS ROUNDED CUTTINGS
o "PROPELLER" E ANGULAR CHUNK F "MUSHY" GLOB
OR CURVED
-------------------- 30/80-
1st Botton1s U
3
rd
Bottoms U
4th Bottoms U
Downhole Weight On Bit
(& Torque)
DWOB MWD module measures both weight and torque
near the bit
DWOB, when compared to Surface WOB, measures
efficiency of weight transfer from surface to the bit
An indicator of hole cleaning efficiency, however
- Difficult to track trends
- Needs reliable calibration which is difficult in ERD
applications
- No signal while tripping
34/80- --------------- ---
Monitoring Drag
_ -"," GN'I =_ oo
N'I
Cleaned up the well
.......... ~
....--
Cuttings Weighing
Systematic weighing of cuttings off the scalping
screen(s)
- Can get automated systems, or can be very poor-boy approach
- Only use as a trend tool . . . absolute values are unreliable
Don't know the hole size
- Important to be consistent
If only checking from one shaker, difficulty is if the shaker loading is
varying from time to time.
- Difficult to account for fine stuff on the fine screens (sand, silt)
Hence, also need qualitative assessment of the lower screens
36/80>-----------------------
Mud Rheology
Mud weight & viscosity variations
IfPWD is to be truly meaningful ...
- Need rheology readings (600, 300, 6, 3 rpm) much more often
- Takes only a few minutes and provides good indicators of mud
perfonnance
Mix hopper' sweat' factor
- Is some changing condition requiring a lot of additions to the mud that
weren't required earlier? (often means something is headed the wrong
way)
3
Drilling Parameter Monitoring
Record parameters at regular intervals
Time, Depth, BRA #, RPM, WOB, ROP, Flow
Rate, Pump Pressure, ECD, shaker loading,
rheology
- Recorded and Plotted vs Depth
- Mud properties tracked through regular mud checks
- Data used in the interpretation process
38/80---------------------
Torque & Drag Monitoring
Drag monitoring is the primary hole condition monitoring
technique advocated by K&M
- Detects negative trends before getting into trouble
- Works both while drilling and tripping
Must be compared to theoretical curve to be meaningful
- You must know what "normal" look like
- Difficult to spot trends from numbers in a tally book
- Tracking a straight line does not always mean you are safe
(next slide)
39/80--------------- ----
Data collection and plotting
Actual data collected manually by driller or with sensors
(deadline load cell & top-drive torque)
- Time based data not appropriate for real-time decision making
Data created & plotted by a designated person
To be effective in real time ....
- Plots must be updated on screen visible to the driller
- NOTE - driller does not watch this screen while tripping or drilling
Procedure, at every connection while drilling:
- Connection drilled down and reamed as required
- Rotating weight and torque taken at the bottom of the last
reammg run
- Pick-up weight and slack-off weight obtained without
rotation
While tripping out, measure pickup at the same spot
in the middle of each stand (say 1 st TJ)
Strive for consistency for all drillers (procedure and
speed)
4I1S0-----------------
T&D Monitoring
Tooljoints will create additional drag as they are
pulled through the cuttings bed
The amount of additional drag will be dependent
on the bed height
42/S0f-- ---------------
-
What about torque?
K&M have found torque to be quite unreliable as a hole
cleaning indicator
- Torque is not so sensitive to cuttings bed height
- Is more sensitive to lubricity
However, still record torque
- Useful for other things (planning)
43/80------------------
Interpretation of T &D trends
Learn to trust this T &D tool
- It's the most reliable indicator available
Understand the tool's limitations
- It is intended for hole cleaning monitoring
- There are other forces that may be in action
Wellbore instability
Key-seating
Differential sticking
44/801---------------------
Drilling Mode Discussion
In drilling mode:
Looking for diverging Slack-Off and Pick-Up trends (compared to
theoretical)
We're moving away from the problem, so we can afford to be a bit
patient with out response to trends

12.25- Hooklo&d. Overview
W ell P ... .-....e actual. Tl< Che-onT.,... co
__ __ __ P_ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __
----'---_ .. _-
- - -.-- -
Exampl e ofT&D tracking
while drill ing
-Observations:
- Trends are not dramatic,
because practices & ROP
were controlled throughout
- Large scale of graph tends
to hide information . , .
better to work in smaller
intervals
. ,

'2CO 260 ::120
Tripping Hookto.d. (k lb.)
00
Sl()O.'O-02n
NOe_
P A..JO _,5 _0.25
OD04HLB
'ECO ::a- 12 .07 p'pg
"2. 25- 2nd BHA. 9480 57S""dp
VVeU
F ..la
Example of T&D
tracking whi le dri ll ing
-Smaller interval in
focus

- v.a..c a kno/lI7esn'.2.. GOM 'U.SA
>ao _
Tri9pk.a H o.okklads (k !b. )

""" P ...... O 1-5 _ 025
H
"2.25- 2nd BHA., 9480" ot' 578
>0 7S
Off Bono"... (k tUb)
G1Q T_
O'S Tcrque

0 ..30 T.........
0004TO
Drilling Mode Examples
How does we use & interpret drag plots?
Consider a 12I;4" section from a double build well
Sample directional well
.,,,,,,''' (0)
.. .
.., _ ..
v.....!II!!diIa tQ
50/S0f---------------- -------- - TTCll'Ol<J<;,",;JIotl'
_ _ __
12.25- dbl-bld" 71< 1158- below Drilling Mode Hookloads Plot
oI'WoU ..... hifi.
__ ____ __ ____T-__ If we make a significant change in ROP,
__ __ _
_ __ __ Q ......

__ 02liP''O ...........
__ .e:.s.o_ ---- .",""'

12.ZS- dbI-. 71< 658"" below
..... "....,. 0,.;-"01 Mi"
__

. l
i---- --- -- -
_ _ o't:Q PJU...............
--_ .ft"SlO.........
_ _ .J. PU ............
--- .... SIC)..........,
__ e.aP''O ..........
__ ..... -- ......,-
___ _.....u _
-- ....., __ 0 ... 810_
" :2.AB3DRCH
Drilling Mode Hookloads Plot
Shows diverging drag trends.
Either means:
We' re dnlling too fast. OR
Frict ion factors are changing naturaUy
(due to geology change)
Questlons to ask:
Any forma lion change (on I WD, or at
shakers)
Any change in parameters, ROP
.....:- -----:
_.. - :- ---_ ._-: --

,
._.__.... _- ...
J
-

--. .-- i--
... .. .-.. ------ !_.
.... ...-.
-_. _...

n . F t P1o(
-. - --- --:---- ---;
-.-r
-!. ----- ..--
-- ..---:- ..
_-_ l_ . ___ ._____ -- .. .. ,.... . ........: .. ..-
. . .j . . _.. c.... .. :. __._ .. ;.. . . +.. __ j"-'"
... -- ...--. '1' .._- 1 -{......
, i
!-- -'-i--' --- ..... .. ..- 1" .....
---- ..._.. ... .__.. . _......
,..
f4rNok:foad (k Ib_)
--- """
and if trends were due to hole cleaning .. .
ShouId expect trends to correct
themselves in a Ii wstands
Optimum ROP is somewhere between
these spe ds
12000', Note trends
come back inwards
-- ...

..: .....
_.. - ----.

_ _
____ Q_-'_
___ e.a !f;lO..-.a

12A83DRO!-1 - -r.AD
HookJo.d ('10. I,")
___ a.'o ............... ___ """' ........
___
____
___
__
12..25- dbl-bld, 7k esr _
Drill ing Mode Hookloads Pl ot
w.- ....
__ __ __ __ __ - Ifwe do a clean-up cycLe, the SO & PU ____ __
12_25- dbl-bld, 7k .58- below Dri ll ing Mode Hookloads Plot
w.. : I"Ie!dd .,.iotne Op....... _MI_
?:'-i .. ----.FioIdr-.r .,;. ... ...... __ ,...,.j Following a clean-up cycle ..:.I__ 'l' ... .,.......-..,....,._....... ....
i:... ......L:-:"... -,.. . "",m,l \
.. i .. ' j - . , . , . .. ... .. - , ..... . .. ... < .. - Don' l try to keep FF"s down to clean
! ,; 1 ; 'r.....__rh,... o_le_v.,.. al_u_es __.,--.---------t

::: :-T\"':\'"-:
i
------i--- --!
--r-"
'1- - T- "'r ..-,--....,.----,.----=---...,.=----------------1
Ci -"0 ?n8 :
.- - }.. : . - ! - ... . . .... - -. .,:-.
Typical initial result of
cleaning up the hole
.. -t--- -.. - ......
....... ..
. __ __
- - - -
__ 0 . &00 _
_ .1.$10..........
- ....... _ _ ...
____ ..... ...a.......
TAD " .56A:a
tioofockl .cli (k lb. )
___ ____ _
__
__
__
___ 0 30 p ... ...........,
loads shoul d "kick in" suddenly ",
- Thi provides a good "clean hole"
reference line
+ '" ,,.,. "" ,
Exercise
Tripping Out Scenario - Plot 1
- The red line is the theoretical clean hole line for
tripping out of the hole.
- The rig has pulled from 7400 to 6800 feet and
is tracking UNDER the theoretical.
-WHY?
- Possibly incorrect friction factor selection,
block weight, load cell calibration, etc.
-----TI'(:H' m'T.> 55/80f--------------
"'"
TOH Class Exercise No.1
"""
Tripp4ng HookIoads ( k lbs)
230 2 40 :
-!-=-' -t- _, -_-t-_
Exercise
- The rig has tripped to 5300 ft
- Pickup was tracking along the friction factor line
but has trended above now for several readings
-WHY?
- Cuttings bed, keyseating, ledges?
w." ; T OPPIng Out TAO e.xc..r.;..., : a.g Cal
__ __ __ __ ____
::
'- 4 ,--l --- ;--- -: - f
180 '90 200
J-+ookk)acta (k tt.)
Exercise
- The rig circulated 2 times bottoms up and the
tight spot was gone .... What happened?
- Note that the clean hole line is below the
theoretical shown
- Remainder of trip is normal
59/801-----------------= =-00;
=- = - ~ . 1 _1- ~ ...
7000 -1- -t--- 4_.- ~ _."
7500 ' .
"'" 2 00
TYIPPfOQ t-IIX)ktc:t..d& ftc 1b5)
Exercise
Drilling Scenario #1 - Plot 4
- The rig is drilling 12-14" hole.
- The three theoretical lines are pick up, slack off
and rotating off bottom.
- Rotating off bottom is 5K high, others OK
- How accurately can we read an analog weight
indicator?
6) /80f-------------- - ---
Drilling Class Exercise No.1
l--kx>k1oac:t8 (l< Ibs)
Exercise
- The rig has drilled to 8,000 ft.
- Slack off weight and rotating off bottom are a
little higher than the line.
- Pick up weight has jumped 14,000 lbs., but it is
only one reading.
- What remedial action should we take?
We-It : Opei"atoi" . K&M
Deptn (ft) FfeI-d . Oak RKigo Loc.tll.,n

I
Slack off Rotating Pick up PLOT 5 I
Off-Bottom
- ------ _ . .- . bit steerable BHA
. _._1' ... - \1 --r--->--- l-- 84 build & hold
Csg Shoe @ 4000' MD
"000
6500 -
1-_-
- ---
Exercise
- Rotating off bottom is still a little higher than
the line, slack off is on the line
- The pick up reading is now OK
- Was double reaming the solution?
65/80f------------------
VVeil E :llll8:fCI&e:a
Depth (ft) FaeId : 0iIIk Ridge
=. __I Slack off IRotating Pick up
I I Off-Bottom
._-, j ---
t
12-1/4" bit steerable BHA

84build & hold
Csg Shoe @ 4000' MD
--1---+--+-

..

1-'
-
,- ,--_ .
I 1
.Double Ream Conn. ..

Exercise
- Began an S-Tum drop at 9150' (final planned
inclination 25 at 12,850' TD)
- Pick up weight ran above the line from 9,250 ft.
- Slack off has also started to deteriorate
- What is happening to the hole?
67/801--------------------
Tfr
..'OI.ocn :1I0.!.
\/lVefl Operator : K.&.u

I I
4500 -- Slack off Rotating Pick up
Off-Bottom
-----r-
... - -
i
L......_. _
230 240 200 200
_-Ll - ..
1 . 12-1/4" bit steerable BHA
- - 84 build & hold
Csg Shoe @ 4000' MD
Begin S-Turn Drop
__ @9150'MD
-r == --F -=\--=
. Double Ream Conn . . -
___ Reduce +. U p .. ... _ ._

1
100
Exercise
- The rig has drilled to 11,500 f1.
- Flow rate was increased from 950 to 1175
GPM at 10,600 ft
- Pick up and slack off hookloads moved towards
the theoretical lines as the hole cleaned up
- If it was not possible to increase GPM, what
else might have been done?
69/80-------- ----------

---
Exercise
- The rig is at 12 114" hole TD at 12,850 ft.
- The pick up and slack off friction factors
appear to have changed at 11,750 ft. What
might be the cause?
- We would expect to drill this entire 12-1/4"
section without wiper trips for hole cleaning
71180------------------
Depth '(ft)

i . .
_-. t T 9 Slack off Rotating Pick up _ _ PL0j--
Off-Bottom i
- 12-1/4" bit steerable BHA -.
84 build & hold t
-I........ 1= ' .._ . Csg Shoe@4000'MD

I . - Begin S-Turn Drop
._ , __;--- @91S0'MD
t -. d Sa kT C T - .t--I ........=
-- --.0
---L- t- --+-
r ' +-==1=--=-
"'"
Exercise
- Drilling 12 114" hole at 230 ft/hr (actual well)
- Collecting quality data
- Variations in rotary speed above & below
180 RPM cuttings movement' step' affect
hole cleaning efficiency
Recall graph in hole cleaning lecture
- Is rean1ing connections at high RPM an
effective hole cleaning method?
73/80-----------------
wen : Hef'di\ E xerc....
~ -------r---
"00 -
1eo 170 lao Hiel 200 2 1 0 220 230 z.,.o 2eO :2eD 27a :zeo ~
Hook\o.lll d a ( k Ibs)
.k. \i JJ Hole Condition Monitoring
~ Exercise
Rig was drilling 12-1/4" hole with OBM & favorable
hole cleaning parameters
Water kick at 16,086' degraded the mud and flow
rate was restricted to 650- 750 gpm
The hole was drilled successfully by managing
cuttings buildup
Note use of additional circulation/rotation periods to
break negative trends
75/S0f----------------
- PLOT11
l - ~ I
r----_ .. _.. _ ..
-----+---t---t---r- -
100 120 ,.0 180 tao .200 2 20 2:AO 21SO 2.ao
Hooka0.d5 (k 'b$)
Exercise
Tripping Out Scenario #2 - Plot 12
Hole instability example, Canadian well
(WBM)
Problem develops gradually over time due to
repeated packoffs (fatigue)
Note deteriorating conditions between an early
trip and a later trip
77/80---------------
Wef' : .-t.,cU1. ex.,-c'''' ep.r-.lOl'" . K&M

4500 elrC 130 $0 :t .1-_ J_1__ !=
r. w I I -I J a,
I On F ,...
- - +: --+-- -1- T - ' - 1 =

1 _I j .. I . _ _ .. __. ._._ . _______- ... _ ..-
+=t- ....

_ _= ' IP ,_---= _. +_
--i -t
j
- A TRIP

12'5 1!!O 135 140 no 17S 180 1SS

W eft
(ft.) F ield : o.k Rtdge
P"nn..n "ntlyIStuc k I
t-- I
t
__ =;:=1
J
I
6000 -1_1_ --:
"""" --1 - -- - - --- -
=1--+--+--+--1,---,--1
Exercise
Tripping Out Scenario #2 - Plot 13
On the LAST trip, conditions deteriorate further
Note close correlation of "bumps" below 5700'
- Repeatable pulls are characteristic of hole instability
- Lack of correlation above this is probably
influenced by a large amount of cuttings/cavings
The string was stuck permanently on the LAST
trip
Is there any way to restore hole stability?
79/80------------ - - --
TOR Class Exercise No.2
1_
'-20 1 30 ., 40 ,.e;o ,a


ERD6

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ERD6

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hole Condition Monitoring

This section will cover:

Slack off trends

12-1/4" bit steerable BHA

-I........ 1= ' .._ . Csg Shoe@4000'MD

Вам также может понравиться