Ch. 6.

Cuttings transport (hole cleaning)

Introduction

1. Vertical wells

high c

2. Medium inclined wells

3. Highly inclined wells

avalanches

bed & dunes

1. Practical transport mechanisms, including string rotation

2. Theoretical transport mechanisms, without string rotation
3. Practical problems
4. Practical solutions

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings

qcuttings = 4 * dbit2 * ROP

(m3/s)

ccuttings,0 = qcuttings / (qpump + qcuttings)

qcuttings / qpumps

vslip = = 0
vann = 0.15 m/s
Settling, vslip, will lead to increased concentration

c = 0.025

vtransport = vann - vslip

vslip = 0.05 m/s
vann = 0.15 m/s
c=?

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings

ma 0
Fg

= Fshear

mmud g Asphere

Vsphere

mud g Vsphere Ashpere

r 3 d 3p
3
6

Asphere 4 r 2 d p

dv x
dr
v periphery
l periphery / t 2 r / 2
v

vslip vcenter of sphere

2r / t
2r
2

vx dvx 2 vslip 0

vslip
r
dr
r
dp

mud

vslip
dp

g d 3p
4
6
dp
2
d p g p mud
2

vslip

vx

vslip
2

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings - Effect of particle concentration

or

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings - Effect of particle concentration

vtransport = vann - vslip

Rtransport = vtransport / vann = 1 - vslip / vann

ccuttings = ccuttings,0 / Rtransport

Check vslip :

vslip, 0.005 = .005 2 (2 500 . 1100)9.81/(0.1 . 6 . ) = 0.18 m/s

+ effect of c and vslip = 0.10 m/s

Example of determining necessary q:

c 0.04 and ROP = 10 m/hour (30 ft /h)
vann = ?
Necessary pump flow rate q = vA = /4 . (12.5 2 5 2) . 0.0254 2
=

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings - Effect of particle concentration

ma 0
FDrag

= Fg

CDrag Ap 0.5 mud vslip2

= Vp ( p - mud)g

CDrag =
4 .10-7 (2400 1400) . 10
/ (2.5 . 10-4.0.5 . 1400 . 0.12) = 1.6

= vslip dp mud /eff

6. Cuttings transport
6.1. Vertical wells

Settling of cuttings - Effect of particle concentration

1.15
1.05

= spherisity
= area of sphere of same volume / area of cuttings

0.82
0.80
0.50

= Asphere / Acuttings

0.47
0.42
0.09
0.04

sphere

d2

d1
d3

d1= 4
d2= 10
d3= 10

6. Cuttings transport

6.2. Medium inclined wells - 30 60 0 inclination

6. Cuttings transport

6.3. Highly inclined wells

1. Real transport mechanism

K&M

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

1. Real transport mechanism

K&M

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

1. Real transport mechanism

17.5

large holes

180 rpm ideal

5 000 lpm

12.25

med holes

120 rpm min

3 000 lpm

8.5

small holes 120 rpm ideal

Transport efficiency

1.0

0.5

0.0

v (m/s)
0

0.5

2 000 lpm

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

1. Real transport mechanism

rity
prio
s
i
ing
ean
l
c
ole
if h
x
y
a
m
priorit
CD is
E
if
x
ma

K&M

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

2. Model: Mechanistic approach

a. General

FDrag

d p2
C Drag
vx 2
8

FLift C Lift

d p2
vx 2

dp y
2

Fcohesive

Fg g

b. Drag

/ 2 sin

d 3p
s fluid
6

cos sin

= angle of repose
= inclinaiton (devation from vertical)

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

2. Model: Mechanistic approach

c. Lift

C Lift

dp
2
vx
8
2

FLift C Lift

dv
5.82
x
2v x Re p dr
dp

d. Cohesive

dp y
2

Fcohesive

/ 2 sin

cos sin

e. Conclusion

Fnet , lift FL Fcohesive W sin 0

Fnet , rolling

dp
2

FD sin

( FL Fcohesive ) cos W sin( ) 0

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

2. Model: Empirical approach

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

3. Practical problems. Sweeps

Volume

Volume

Sweep

K&M

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

3. Practical problems. Steerabel motors

K&M

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

4. Practical solutions

freq
Perform s
rip
wiper t

uent

Comparison of pickup weight and slackoff weight (drag

resistance)

MFI
RPM

MD

HKL

6. Cuttings transport
6.3. Highly inclined wells

4. Practical solutions

Limitation to day:

Limit ROP to keep circulation pressure below shoe integrity

Long circulation time prior to trips (hours)

Pack offs during tripping. Enlarged hole dominate cuttings transport problems

The faster we drill the higher the quality:

Drill fast
High cuttings transport efficiency Low trouble time and low hidden cost
Associated counter measures:

Learn to drill the dirtiest holes possible (high ROP)

Ream / circulate only 1 2 min prior to cnx
High RPM is beneficial if whirl / vibration is controlled
Low eff enhance local turbulence
Mechanical cleaning device

Ch. 7. ECD
Introduction

ECD mud

pannular friction pcuttings psurge &swab protation pacceleration

gz

Depth
ECD

7. ECD

1. Mud Density
2. Annualr friction
3. Cuttings
4. Rotation of drill string
5.Surge & Swab
6.T-variation

Factors

1. Density control

4.2 kg / l
Barite:

m
V

A tank of 60 m3 contains mud of MW 1.5 kg/l, should be reduced

to 1.40 with mud from a tank of sea water, 1.025 kg/l.

Vadd 60

Vadd
1
2
V1
add 2

Salt:

1.40 1.50
0.10
60
15.2
1.025 1.40
0.395

1.19

1.39

7. ECD

1. Density control

Barite & salt

7. ECD

1. Density control

mud

(in OFU)

w = 8.5 - 2.6 *10-3 T + 2.5 *10-5 p

o = 7.0 - 3.0 *10-3 T + 4.4 *10-5 p
During normal operations the two effects, p and T, will neutralize each other since both increase with depth.
When may one effect dominate, causing an adjustment?

7. ECD

2. Annular friction

Cuttings increases annular density by 0.03 kg/l.

Viscosity and flow rate is the same. Does SPP react?
p v2

z
g 2 g

in

p v2

h pump

z
g 2 g

h friction
out

7. ECD

vann = 1 m/s

3. Effect of cuttings. Examplified

0.02
0.04

0.02

vslip = 0
mud,average = mud (1- ccuttings, average ) + cuttings ccuttings,average
= 1200 (1-0.12) + 2500 * 0.04 = 1 356 kg/l
00026m /mh3/s
qcuttings = 4 d bit 2 ROP 4 0.32 2 *12 /(60 * 60) 0.0.00022

ccuttings,o = qcuttings / (qpump + qcuttings)

0.0600
0.0250
0.0125

qcuttings / qpump =

Rt = vtransport / vann = (vann vslip)/ vann = 1 vslip / vann= 0.5

ccuttings,average = ccuttings from the horizontal section / Rt = 0.12
vslip = dp2 *g (p-mud) / 6 eff* fcuttings= 0.5 m/s
fcuttings = 1-5 ccuttings,average = 1 5 * 0.1 = 0.5

0.05

0.025

0.04
vslip = 0.5

7. ECD

4. Rotation of drill pipe. Exemplified

SPP

obs
Field

n
ervatio
l
etica
r
o
e
Th

rx = - (dvx/dr + dvr/dr)

1 3
v
r eff

2
r r
r r

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

vsurge =

Brooks (1980, SPE 10 863)

rate of volume displaced

flow area

v pipe Apipe
Aannulus

Due to clinging, vsurge and S&S is not straight forward

1. Analytic approach for laminar flow regime, including clinging

2. Standard hydraulic friction models

dp
v
48 2
dx
d hydr

Darcy - Weissback
3. Advanced approach, including elasticity of fluid and steel pipe

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 1. Understand the underlying physical system. Start with the simplest
system by reducing the complexity, apply simplifying assumptions
Step 2. Sketch the system and draw an envelope with ingoing and exiting forces
Step 3. Solution
Step 4. Improve the model

Step 1:

Initial understanding of surge/swab pressure:

Assume steady-state flow
Geometry defined by Figure

Simplifications:
Concentric inner pipe
Smooth cylinders define annular wall and pipe wall
Closed end pipe / float valve. pinside DP = pann
Assume clinging factor =0.5 (the clinging volume exhibits 10 - 40 % of the downward flowing volume,
depending on the relative slot size)
Steady-state process. No fluid acceleration
Only Newtonian and Power law fluids
Inelastic fluid and drill string

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 1. The physics - simplificaitons (continued)

Comments on elastic materials
Both pipe elasticity and fluid viscous force are participating
in determining pipe displacement during tripping, as well as
formation and cement elasticity. They all influence the
pressure surge.
The figure comparers a surge situation where inertia
effects are present. A negative bottom pressure surge is
often observed at the surface when the downward
movement of the drill string is brought to rest, a water
hammer affect

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 2. Sketch and draw and envelope of

incoming and exiting forces forces)
Forces involved:
dp Across section = Ashear

Forces in and out across the

envelope:
dp r2 = 2 rdl
dp r = 2dl
Integrating axially

p/(2L) r =

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 3. Solution
For laminar flow it is often possible to make a purely anlytical solution. For more coplex precesses it may become necessary with:

Finite elements
Other numerical methods
Empirical solutions

Back to our simpler process. Before integrating over the envelope the variables need to be differentiated:
to d, r to dr
Integrate now from r = R0, where t = 0
to r = r (any r)
p / (2 L) .

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 3. Solution

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 3. Solution (continued)

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

S.

S.

Step 3. Solution
(continued)
The

be determined

Equivalent Clinging Constant:

Contribution of pipe velocity towards pressure drop. The clinging constant may be
expressed as:
Kc = qcling / qtot
To find qcling it now remains to integrate from r = RDS to r = rcling
r = Rcling when v = 0

7. ECD

5. Surge and swab

Step 4. (more realistic assumptions)

Acceleration of drill string
Apipe , eff
paccelleraion ma L a pipe
Aann , eff

Gelling of mud in drill string and annulus

Use gel strength measured after 10 min or equivalent.

Can be broken by rotating /reciprocating the drill string
Hoisting of drill string with gelled mud inside

gh

4 w L
ID pipe

Starting mud pump with gelled mud in drill string and annulus
pgel

4 w L
OD pipe

Breaks only over a certain limited distance due to

compressibility of water / deformation.

7. ECD

Temperature variation
Data and model

Surrounding
temperature
in ocean and
formation

Conduction

Convection

7. ECD
Temperature variation

Model

1.

Estimate manually by first determining

a. Heat flow conducted laterally
and corresponding flow resistance (f ( # of layers))
b.

Heat flow convected on the exposed surfaces

and corresponding heat transfer

2 k z T
ln R2 / R1

q h A Tw Too

Nu

hd
4.364
k

2. Numerical solution

k T
c pT
u c pT
t
z
r r

2rrz C p

V = 2rrz

T (i, j , t 1) T (i, j , t )

2rrz U C p

T (i 1, j , t ) T (i, j , t )
z

k T (i, j 1, t ) T (i, j , t )
2rrz
r
r

iteration counter = k

Ch. 8. Wellbore stability

Chenevert (1996, JCPT), van Oort (1997, SPE 37 263), Wessling (2013, SPE 163 454)

1. Introduction

Typical stability problems

1.

Mechanical stress-induced wellbore stability

2.

Chemical related instability after water infiltration

a.
b.

Time dependent water interaction with chalk,

limestone, anhydrite, gypsum etc
dissolved Ca ++- ions flocculation
Time-dependent water interaction with shale

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Introduction
Mechanical stability
transport
Chemical activity
swelling of clay
Implications
Inhibitive muds
The drilling limit
Wellbore stability
Cuttings stability
Bit balling
Survewillence of stability

Brittle or
weakened
formation

Breakout
Collaps
Washout

Shale
Clay
Salt
Swelling or
Creeping fm

8. Wellbore stability

2. Mechanical stability; pure

= F/A

Stress related instability:

Creep: Wellbores that stays open for a long time
(weeks), tend to close in
Tensile failure at high MW: Fractures are generated, and detected at the
surface as lost circulation.
Compression failure at low MW: Cavings, breakouts,
eventually leading to total wellbore collapse

= l/l

Pre-existing weakness in the formation, enhancing tesile / copmpressional failures

Faults crossing the wellbore / naturally stressed
Inter-bedded formations (between lithology changes, bedding angle close to wellbore angle)
Naturally weak formations (coal beds, conglomerates, loose sands, etc)

Surveillence
at the surface

Picture

Geometry:

Cause:
Countermeasure:

UBD
Increase MW
Monitor ECD

OBD

Pre-existing weaknesses

Optimize trajectory
Decrease MW
Monitor ECD

Improve fluid loss

Reduce hydraulic / mechanical attack

8. Wellbore stability

2. Mechanical stability; combined with chemical

There are three mechancical stresses

1.In-situ vertical (overburden) and resulting horizontal stresses
2.Pore pressure
3.Forces acting at intergranular contact or at cementation points; cohesive force

A single set of clay platelets connected to a pore

Mechanical forces include 1,3, ppore + cementation

8. Wellbore stability

3. Chemical activity

a. Transport mechanism
b. Swelling

There are three chemical forces in general

van der Waal forces
Electrostatic repulsive forces (Borne)
Forces (repulsive / attactive) resulting from hydration / solvation of clay surfaces + from
ions present in interlayer spacing (adsorbed or free)
Latter two forces are usually lumped together to form the hydration or swelling pressure

a. Transport mechanisms

The four most useful equations:

Type of flow

dp/dl

D(chem.pot)/dl

Water

Convection (direct
transmission)

Osmosis

Solution /
ions

Advection (indirect
transmission)

Diffusion (Fick)

1.Flow of water driven by hydraulic pressure: dV/dt = kA/f . dp/dr

2.Pressure diffusion ahead of the water front: dp/dt = k/(f . eff) [ d2p/dr2 + 1/r . dp/dr].
3. Diffusion (Ficks law):
4. Osmotic pressure:

eff = + 1/l * ( fm grain ())

dc/dt = D [ d2c/dr2 + 1/r . dc/dr.

Diffusion of ions moves in the opposite direction of water flow
Activity of pore water, Aw,pore, > Aw,mud, controlled through salt c: pswell = RT/V . ln (pvapor,mud / pvapor,fm)

In addition comes the Capillary pressure: pc = 2 c . cos / r

pc ,WBM

typically 100s of bar

pc ,OBM

typically - 100s of bar

8. Wellbore stability
3. Chemical activity

a. Transport mechanism

Assuming
Drilling at high hydraulic overbalance
Drilling fluid ion c > pore fluid ion c
Diffusion of ions will take place. Assume no coupled flow
How will the 3 processes (water content, prore p and swelling p) look like after some time?

Pressure penetration and ion diffusion in shale, obtained by applying expanded solution of the three transport equations and material constants
for typical shale (kshale = 10 -21 m2). Govering equations predicts the development of three fronts around a wellbore in a shale vs. time

mm
cm
dm

8. Wellbore stability
3. Chemical activity

b. Swelling of shale

pswell

RT pvapor ,mud
ln
V pvapor , porewater

Swelling is complex and osmotic swelling is a too

simplistic model
Def: Inhibition =
reduction of
swelling pressure

Swelling pressure in Na-Montmorillonite as a

function of interplatelet distance. Stable states are
indicated by arrows. Density distribution of wateroxygens are a function of the distance. From the
sheet surface. Results are snown for the stagble
states of 4 different spacings

Swelling tests of shale containing 65 % montmorillonite. The swelling

index does not go to zero, i.e. there is always residual swelling
KCl minimizes swelling due to small degree of hydration of
K+. But it is more complex: At high c, swelling increases again
K+ replaces less inhibitive ions. Also anions introduced in the interplatal
spacing. Does not occur in the field (K+ never occur at such high c alone)
This effect takes place slowly (diffusion is slow). pswell can never reach zero.
However, swelling (expansion) can be zero due to cementation bonds
But also clay type dependent: K+ does not inhibit Illites, and may increase
swelling of Kaolinites

8. Wellbore stability

4. Implications of chemical activity and countermeasures

1.
2.
3.
4.

Wellbore stability
Cuttings stability
Bit balling
Surveillence of stabilty

1. Wellbore stability
Swelling pressure
Inhibitors cannot prevent pore pressure increase induced shale problems because inhibitor diffusion front lags behind.
Swelling pressure cannot be reduced down to zero. An effective tesile force is remaining. When net tensile forces overcome shales
tensise strength (low in shale), yielding at wakest sites will trigger subsequent full-scale failure. Pressure fluctuations (from S&S) will
change hydraulic support, and may deliver the final blow to altready weakened shale.
This time-lag in transport is regarded as the main reson behind inhibitors shortcomings as shale-stabilizers. When arriving , inhibitors
arrive together with water they may lead to very small to low pswell (as opposed to large pswell if no inhibitor was present).

Hydraulic pressure
Something more than inhibition is needed. The answer is: Prevent water flow to supress pressure penetration. This is how
to achieve it:
1. Apply radial support through proper MW (prerequisite)
2. Maintain support by reducing filtarte invasion (see later)
3. Use inhibitive mud (see later)

Later we will check three different mud types to see how this can be achiecved practically

8. Wellbore stability
4. Implications of chemical activity and countermeasures

2. Cuttings stability

Cuttings exposed to the same mechnisms as the wellbore, except that

Geometry and stress condition are different
Timing is different. Exposure is typically only 1 hour

In-situ stresses are suddenly relieved and replaced phydr when cuttings are generated
r = phydr ppore - pswell
and will be in tension if phydr < ppore + pswell and disintegrate if pcohesion is overcome

The following will take place:

1.phydr will lead to slow invasion and equalize ppore, but normally not in only 1 h
2.A bigger problem is phydr recuction as cuttings are transported up the wellbore, combined with slow
pswell increase, probably the most detrimental effect

Countermeasures:
1.Encapsulation
2.Shut off water by enhancing viscosity of filtrate
3.Use inhibitive mud (see later)

8. Wellbore stability
4. Implications of chemical activity and countermeasures

3. Bit balling

Stress release on cuttings may trigger hydration. pswell acts like an unloading spring in need of water.
Cuttings are in contact with the bit steel.
1.Drawing water inward may vacuum themseves onto the bit and to each other.
2.Disintegrated particles / swelled particles have an enourmous surface area. The small distance to the steel surface /
other caly particles awokes van der Waal forces, holding the particles onto the bit surface (clogging / sticking). The
clogging is closely related to plasticity.

Countermeasure:
1.Keep the cuttings outside the plastic / swelling zone
2.Increase dispersivity in the fluid (pH > 8)
3.Make the sufaces oil-wet (see later)

8. Wellbore stability
4. Implications of chemical activity and countermeasures

4. Surveillance of wellbore stability

Symptoms (always look for deviation from normal)

errors (unintentional deviation from normal)
failures (errors may result in measurable NPT)

Symptoms of swelling shale

Symptoms of Bit balling

Pack Off, Overpull, Took Weight on trips

Filter loss
MBT (CEC)
PV +YP
Increase with open
LGSC
hole time
Torque & Drag
Shaker is blocked off by soft, hydrated clay

Same as for Swelling Shale

Reduced ROP
Increased SPP (due to reduced dann of stabilizers)

Torque fluctuations
Fill on bottom
Shallow depths (< 2500 m)

Symptoms of Mobile fm
Wellbore erosion when drilling through the salt formation and / or though shale above or below the
salt formation
Excessive torque and pack Off caused by salt creep
Well control issues related to mud losses. Rubble zone beneath or adjacent to the salt section
usually consists of series of highly reactive shale stringers embedded in unconsolidated sands
Salt-induced casing collapse across mobile salt sections is the most common type of casing
collapse. Several wells in Southern North Sea and Gulf of Sues have suffered SICC

Errors

Failures

Rock Bit Failure

Broken Teeth

8. Wellbore stability

8.5. Inhibitive muds

Type 1: Conventional inhibitive WBM (KCl / polymer)

Type 2: Osmotic WBM (high Aw )
Type 3: Non-invading WBM / OBM (balanced Aw)

Type 1: KCl / PHPA

Reduces pswell in smectitic clay - young reactive gumbo type shale.
KCl exhibit the highest inhivitive effect of all salts.
Cations exchange place with Na+ ions. But have some shortcomings:
1.No filtrate prevention
2.Only moderate osmotic pressure due to low membrane effect (1 2%) due to high mobility of KCl in shale
unsuitable in older, less reactive shale like Illite and Kaolinite. These shale types contain too low pswell potential for KCl to act upon.
The older shale types will fail due to mud pressure penetration at prolonged exposure caused by KCl filtrate invasion.

Molecular size ()
Not hydrated

Hydrated

1,6

1,6

1,3

1,3

H2O

2,9

2,9

K+

2,1

7,6

Na+

1,8

11,2

Ca++

3,0

19,2

Na SiO2

6,1

6,1

Pore throat

10-100

8. Wellbore stability
8.5. Inhibitive muds

Type 1: KCl / PHPA (continued)

Polymers, like PHPA, with functional
groups of positive polarity absorbs onto
clay surfaces at multiple sites they
are more difficult to exchange/remove.
Good inhibitors when low-molecular (<
10 000); penetrate pores of the shales.
High molecular polymers, like PHPA,
latches on to the outer surface of shale
in a web-like pattern and combat
disitegration of shale. Pore blocking is
minimal. Ideal additive for cuttings
stabilization.

Changes are shown relative to the

properties in the native shale and to noninbhibitive WBM. The figure shows that
pore pressure will be enhanced in all
three invasion zones, but the water
content and swelling pressure is reduced
However, both ingredienses (KCl +
PHPA) fall short when older, less
reactive shales are drilled.

8. Wellbore stability
8.5. Inhibitive muds

Type 2: Osmotic WBM

CaCl2 + methyl-glucose

CaCl2, CaBr2 are highly soluble high density. Their ad- and disvantages are:
High osmotic pressure (but due to low membrane efficiency (1 10 %) the osmotic pressure is
lmited to 1/10 1/100), can be applied to partially offset the hydraulic overbalance
High filtrate viscosity
-Leaky membrane ion diffusion into shale, against the back-flowing
water Na+ exchange K+ pswell will again increase

Resulting mud type behavior is shown here. We see that the water
content and the pore pressure are expected to be reduced. But
swelling pressure is elewated in the fitrate- and the SI -zone due to
unfavorable exchange of cations (Na+).
Poly-glycerol and glycols are
saccharides of low molecular size (<
10 000). They viscosify the filtrate /
build an internal filter and retard
filtrate invasion.

8. Wellbore stability
8.5. Inhibitive muds

Type 2: Osmotic WBM (continued)

Here is a method of how to determine Aw, pore.

We will use it to determine pswell.

pw, clay

days

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Collect clay from upper Jura. Dry and crush

Measure vs. Aw
Make a plot
Clollect preserved clay. Measureoriginal = 2.13
Find original Aw from plot

2.13

0.0

1.0

Aw

pswell

RT pvapor ,mud
ln
V pvapor , porewater

8. Wellbore stability
8.5. Inhibitive muds

Minimum achievable Aw:

Type 3: Non invading WBM / OBM

Water activity:
Aw is more important than
selecting between OMB / WBM

pswell = -

Aw, clay
RT
ln
Vw
Aw, mud

= k ln

pw, clay
pw, mud

Destilled water
Ba SO4
KCl
NaCl
CaCl2
ZnCl2

=
=
=
=
=
=

Emulsion: Mixture between two unmixable liquids (oil and water)

H2-CH2
2-CH2-C
CH3-CH

CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2
CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2

Wettability: Solids can be water or oil wet

Shale without wetting agent

Shale with wetting agent

-CH2

0.755
0.295
0.100

1. Base oil:
2. Emulsifier:
3. Wetting agent:
4. Water:

Na

2-CH2
CH3-CH2-CH2-CH

1.000
0.99

Na

Na

Na

Aw
1.0

0.0

1.0
(0

1.2
20

1.4
40 w %)

the continuous phase

emulsify water in oil
makes the wellbore oil wet
forms viscosifying droplets

8. Wellbore stability
8.5. Inhibitive muds

OBM create a high

negative capillary
entry pressure

Type 3: Non invading WBM / OBM (continued)

WBM with either polyglycoles or silicates will

hinder filtrate influx
Both mud types constitue a highly
efficient osmotic membrane. Osmotic
membrane hinders hydraulic flow of
water but not osmotic transfer of water

Balanced water activity:

will lead to no change in the shale

Lower water activity:

will lead to osmotic flow of water from the shale pores to the mud
(industry standard of drilling trouble free shale (2000)

8. Wellbore stability

6. Drilling limit
van Oort (2001, SPE 67 763)

Step 1: Review relevant offset wells

Step 2: Analyze formation properties
Step 3: Wellbore stability model
Step 4: Hole cleaning, Swab, ECD
Step 5: Summary

2001: Use best-in-class technology to eliminate / minimize NPT make a perfect hole

Step 1: Find Offset wells

(examplified by trouble well 2)

TMD (ft) Incl. (0)

18,730
35
Drill to 18730': unable to slidepoor MWD signal. Building angle @ 0.4 / 100'; "Ballooning" @ 18730 Lost 40 BM; SD pumps; gained
40 BM back; static. Start pumps: lost 30 BM; SD pumps: gained 21 BM; static. Pump 100-bbl LCM pill @ 40 spm.
18,820
35
Finish spotting LCM pill on btm: lost 15 BM. Circ riser, cutting MW f/ 13.3 to 13.1 ppg. POOH to 16842': tite spots @ 18340 (20k), 17300
(30k) & 17200' (30k.) C&CM @ ~shoe, cutting MW to 13.1 pg: lost 22 BM. TIH to 18725' = 5 fill on btm; ream same while cutting MW to
13.1 ppg: 100 u gas @ B/U; hole static @ 100 spm on DP & 110 spm on riser. F/C: lost 10 BM during circ/ream. Drill to 18820' @25'/hr.
Survey @ 18743': building @ 1/100'. Circ and backream to reduce angle. Circ out TG: MG = 332 u. F/C: hole drank 133 BM drilling and
gave back 112 BM; lost 21 BM. Well static
19,103
37
Drill to 18915': lost 20 BM. Drill to 19009': lost 16 BM. Drill to 19103': lost 13 BM. Pump 100-bl hi-vis sweep & CBU: lost 57 BM. F/C: gain 6
BM. POOH to 16661': 50k tight spot @ 17315'. F/C; test BOPs @ ~shoe; pump 15.1-pg slug & F/C. POOH to 5344'; F/C while service rig:
gaining 1 BPH, not decreasing. Cum loss 57 BM @ report time.

Lookback in two nearby

troubled wells:
Well 1 and 2

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 2: Formation properties

/ data collection

Identification of operational
problems vs. fm

Sources and transfer of experience during

case building: Real-time data (left) and
Documents (lower right). An expert is
needed to created experience cases for later
re-use during planning of similar wells

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 2: Formation properties /

data collection

Potential errors which

can lead to failures

Potential failures

Failure definition: An event causing NPT

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 3: Wellbore
stability

Downhole pressure
response as surface
readings during LOT

Open hole time analysis for horizontal

well 2 of a Mississippi Canyon deepwater
well drilled with a water brine-based drillin-fluid. The initial MW of 12.9 ppg had to
be raised for stability reasons to 13.1 ppg
to gain 3 weeks of open-hole time (in
agreement with the open-hole time
prediction).

Lookback borehole stability analsis,

showing agreement tetween MW
predictions and field experience, i.e.
stuck pipe, hole pack-off and pack-off
induced lost dicrulation by maintaining
too low MW for borehole stability
purposes. Here is recommended MW
program for Well 3. There is hardly any
MW margin fro the Up-dip well. The
medium dipping (Md) well was drilled
without any problems

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 4. ECD

Need three models:

ECD
Swab & Surge
Cuttings transport
Here is a one-page hole-cleaning
summary for an ERD-well (year 2000)

Fluid loss in
OBM/SBM
provide better
loss control
filter inside fm

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 5. Summary

Days vs. depth graph for Well 3 in Mississippi Canyon drilled in a record 22.5 days (2.0
days per 1000 ft) against a technical limit of 19.1 days without any hole problems. The well
was drilled almost twice as fast as the 1999 goal (3.9 days per 1000 ft).

Use latest available techniques at

all time. Keep yourself updated:
Accurate simulators / models,
including most realistic
assuptions
Integrate all models and
assumptions if possible
The most important person during planning
is the Well engineers. But important
supporters during planning are
Geologists,
Petrophysicists,
Rock mechanicc
Mud engineers

Some final integrated issues:

Will ECD cross the pressure window?
Seepage losses to medium losses expected?
High T&D?
Deep well?
Long open hole time?
Near by well?
LCM needed?

Change wellpath or strengthen fm, change rheology, change mud type (WBM)
WBM has a better fracture healing ability due to swelling of clay
Add lubricity
Due to compressibility downhole MW # surface!
Higher MW is necessary to maintain stability (due to slowly climbing ppore)
Increase fracture propagation resistance
Avaoid increased rheology!!

8. Wellbore stability
6. Drilling limit

Step 5. Summary

Summary

Summary
WOB