STRENGTHENING WHILE DRILLING –

A PRACTICAL AND EFFECTIVE

APPROACH TO STABILIZING WELLBORES
& REDUCING DOWHOLE LOSSES

Jim Friedheim, M-I SWACO

with special acknowledgements to Eric van Oort, Shell UA &
Toby Pierce, John Lee, Mark Sanders and Frank Butler, M-I SWACO
 Contributions & Acknowledgements
• van Oort, E., Friedheim, J., Pierce, T., and Lee, J. “Avoiding Losses in Depleted and Weak Zones by
Continuously Strengthening Wellbores ” SPE 125093, 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans. La. (October 4-7, 2009).
• van Oort, E., Friedheim, J., Lee, J., Sanders, M., and Pierce, T. “Continuously Strengthening
Wellbores Eliminates Lost Circulation.” World Oil (November 2008) 87-95.
• Butler, F. and Browning, T. “Recovery System” US patent 7,438,142 (October 21, 2008).
• Sanders, M ., Young, S. and Friedheim, J. “Development and Testing of Novel Additives for
Improved Wellbore Stability and Reduced Losses.” AADE-08-DF-HO-19, 2008 AADE Fluids
Conference, Houston, 8-9 April 2008. If the Fracture Studies JIP has no other reference, then just
the Sanders paper can be used without the JIP designation.
• van Oort, E., Browning, T., Butler, F., Lee, J. and Friedheim, J.: “Enhanced Lost Circulation Control
through Continuous Graphite Recovery,” AADE-07-NTCE-24, AADE National Technical Conference,
Houston, 10-12 April 2007.
• Tehrani, A., Friedheim, J., Cameron J. and Reid, W.: “Designing Fluids for Wellbore Strengthening –
Is it an Art?” AADE-07-NTCE-75, AADE National Technical Conference, Houston, 10-12 April 2007.
• Fracture Studies Joint Industry Project (JIP), M-I SWACO, 2004–2006.
• Shell Gulf of Mexico well delivery units (Floaters, TLP/Platforms)
• Shell Upstream Americas
 The Challenge of Narrow Drilling Margins
Lost Circulation NPT
Pressure Gradient (lb/gal) Other NPT
2006
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
3000 Ranked #3 in
4000 Overburden NPT categories 12%
5000 Minimum
6000
Pore Hor. Stress
7000 Pressure Mud Maximum
8000 Weight Hor. Stress
9000
TVD (ft below KB)

10000
11000
12000
13000
14000 ½-1 ppg
15000
16000
17000 88%
18000
19000
....significant non-productive
20000
time & cost associated with
Narrow drilling margins of challenging lost circulation problems
deepwater wells can lead to .....
 The Lost Circulation: High-Risk Operations

Deviated Wellbores

Depleted Zones
Deep Water

4
 Remediation has not solved the LC Problem
• Estimated industry cost in the Gulf of Mexico ~ $1 billion/yr,
Worldwide ~ $ 2 to 3 billion/yr.
• On average, 10-20% of the total cost of drilling an HTHP well is
expended on mud losses (U.S. Department of Energy).
• No consistent approach to manage lost circulation.
• Nearly 200 products are offered by 50 drilling fluid companies to
control lost circulation.

“Old” Remediation Strategy

For solving the lost circulation
problem is flawed and at best
unreliable & difficult to
implement on a consistent basis

5
 What about Wellbore Strengthening?
Widen the wellbore stability window using reliable and cost-
effective processes to strengthen wellbores in permeable
and impermeable formations

Fractured Wellbore
Mud Weight

Wellbore Stable
Stable Wellbore

Collapsed Wellbore

0 30 60 90
Well Inclination

6
DEA13 - basis for Fracture Propagation Resistance (FPR) Model
Fracture propagation in WBM:
Full pressure shielded from tip
by solids filter cake buildup.
Fracture propagation in OBM/SBM:
Full pressure essentially at fracture tip.
 There is no significant correlation between mud type and
fracture initiation pressures in intact boreholes (i.e. Initial
Fracture Pressure equal for WBM & OBM)
 The major difference between OBM & WBM with respect to
their lost circulation sensitivity lies in their propagation
pressures
 Certain LCM additives and changes in mud properties can
significantly affect fracture propagation pressure
OBM & WBM Difference / Fracture Tip Isolation: SPE
20409 , 22581 & DEA 13 (Morita, Black, Fuh, Onyia)
 FPR Field Solution: WSM Fracture Testing
800 16

Mud Pressure
700 14
Closure Pressure
Tip Loss
600 12

500 Steady fluid loss @ 10

Conduction Loss
Mud Pressure

low mud pressure

indicating no sealing
(psi)

of fracture tip

(ml)
400 8

300 6

200 4

100 2

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (hr)
800 16
Mud Pressure Flat slope
indicating
700 Closure Pressure zero tip loss 14
Tip Loss
Maximum seal up to 550
600 12
No pressure resistance
psi (@ 400 microns)
Mud Pressure

500 10
observed for base SBM

Conduction Loss
(psi)

(ml)
400 8

300 6

600 psi pressure resistance 200 4

observed with optimum 100 2

WSM blend 0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Time (min)
 Characteristics of Successful WSM
• Particle size (PSD)
• Shape Primary
– Aspect ratio ~ 1, but with facies Importance
– Spheroidal in shape

Importance
• Concentration

• Surface texture
• Bulk density
Secondary
• Compressive strength Importance
• Resiliency
(compression/expansion)

9
 FPR Field Solution: Key Characteristics
• Maintain 15 – 20 ppb LCM in the mud at all
time in loss-prone zones
– 5 – 8 ppb Graphite (300–400m D50)
– 5 – 8 ppb Graphite / Petroleum Coke Blend
(200m D50)
– 2 – 4 ppb Oil-Wet Cellulose Fiber

– Optional: ~5 ppb Calcium Carbonate

• Treatment applied continuously in SBM with
appropriate recovery and re-introduction
• No need for dedicated squeezes (start-stop
operations that interfere with drilling progress)
• Borehole protection at all times while
deepening the well
FPR Field Solution: Continuous Recovery System
WSM Recovery:
A. Screen out WSM with cuttings
on shakers
B. WSM retained in dryer effluent
Benefits of WSM Recovery System
C. WSM retained on mud cleaner
Reuses WSM screen
Control effective particle size ofreturned
D. WSM WSM to active
Attain effective concentrations of WSM
Maximize benefit of SWD

A Removes both sand & LGS from active

drilling fluid system
D
B
Cuttings concentration kept low, fluid
properties kept in good shape
lower dilution costs

C
 Case History - Near Salt GoM
Field Experience with MPSRS

• Scenario:
– Typically drill difficult depleted section over payzone & then case-off prior to drilling
reservoir
– Well had the 10-5/8” section drilled with 7 lb/bbl graphite material but the hole was lost
due to severe losses over depleted sand (w/o recovery unit)

• Solution:
– Increase & maintain higher concentration of graphitic by utilizing a LPM recovery unit

• Results:
– Testing was performed using a fracture testing device to determine the optimal blend
and concentration of LCM.
– The sidetrack section was drilled with higher concentration of graphite material (14
lb/bbl)
– The depleted sand was re-drilled successfully without losses and a string of liner was
eliminated
– The success was attributed to elevated concentration of graphite material which was
enabled by the graphite recovery system

12
 Case History - Near Salt GoM #2
Field Experience with MPSRS

• Scenario:
– Two additional wells were drilled as direct offsets
– Mud losses were a primary risk factor in this depleted, narrow drilling margin field

• Solution:
– Utilize best practices for depleted zone drilling before drilling known trouble zones
– Drill with 15 pounds per bbl of graphitic and cellulosic material in the mud system
through all 4 sections of troublesome wellbore.

• Results:
– Well #2 had a reduction of 30% in mud losses and well #3 had a reduction of 70% in
mud losses.
– Recovery system recovered 496K pounds and 1266K pounds of LPM wells 2 and 3
respectively
– Using the recovery system to keep LCM in the mud resulted in a 50% reduction of low
gravity (formation) solids in the mud allowing for much improved rheology of the
mud system

13
 Case History Gulf of Mexico
Field Experience with MPSRS

• Scenario:
– Two severely depleted sands & know loss zones to drill through:
SAND ISSUE OBJECTIVE
Magenta loss zone drill & case
Yellow loss/target zone inject/water-flood
– P5 well – drilled with massive losses in Magenta, could not reach objective, sidetracked well (lost 14K
bbl)
– ST 1 – sidetracked & used single LPM approach, could not reach objective, mud losses, P&A well (lost
17K bbl)
– Four additional wells (3 injection wells and one production well) had to be drilled in these same
troublesome zones
– All of these wells were directional and had complex well construction (8 strings, expandable liners)
• Solution:
– Utilize blend of graphite/cellulose/carbonate @ 20 ppb
– Drilled, cased & cemented magenta with minimal losses
– Reached objective & able to inject at desired rates without problem
• Results
– Drilled, cased & cemented magenta with minimal losses ( less than 100 bbls average mud loss drilling,
running pipe, and cementing)
– Reached objective & able to inject at desired rates without problem (minimal losses of mud loss drilling,
running pipe, and cementing)

14
 FPR Field Results
12
10 ppb

Average LGS without MPSRS

10

MSPRS allows for proper mud 12 ppb

8
Continuous Recovery Using MPSRS

maintenance, even with LCM 12 ppb 15 ppb

LGS, %
6
Average LGS with MPSRS
concentrations @ 15-20 ppb 20 ppb
20 ppb
20 ppb

4
15 ppb

0
Offset Well B Offset Well A A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4
2.000
Formation Losses/Ft while Drilling
Q1 '06
1.800
Total Losses/Ft
1.600

Behavior of losses over

1.400
Mud Losses (bbl lost/ft)

Q2 '06
1.200
Continuous Recovery Using MPSRS
1.000
Q3 '06
time shows the impact of
0.800

0.600
Q1 '07
Q1 '09 FPR coupled with MSPRS
Q4 '07 Q1 '08
0.400

Q3 '08
0.200

0.000
Offset Well B Offset Well A A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4
 Case History – Subsea Sidetrack GoM
Field Experience with MPSRS

• Scenario:
– A new well in an existing subsea field was drilled with considerable losses through the
depleted zones of the reservoir section
– The section was drilled with a background concentration of 7 pounds per bbls of
graphitic and cellulose material without a recovery unit.
– The well was plugged back and sidetracked due to severe losses and wellbore instability

• Solution:
– Before attempting the second sidetrack and recovery unit was installed on the rig
– Mud system was treated with 14 pounds per bbls of graphitic and cellulose material
shortly after drilling out. This concentration was maintained through both of the
bottom sections.

• Results:
– The sidetrack was drilled to TD without incident
– Formation losses were reduced by 70% using the same mud weight as the previous
section.

16
FPR Field Results – Impact on GoM Subsea NPT
• Pre-2006 – Lost Circulation in Top 3
NPT categories (with Well Control &
Borehole Problems)

• 2006 – Lost Circulation ranked 3rd in

NPT

• FPR & MPSRS introduced in fall

2006 in GoM Subsea operations

• 2008/2009 YTD – Lost Circulation

ranked 18th

• Other factors (e.g. expandables)

contributing as well
 Conclusions
• FPR is an excellent method to increase the effective fracture
gradient and drilling margin, by extending the stable
fracture propagation range New FPR/SWD LC Strategy
• Unique features of our FPR approach:
– Lower concentrations of WSM found to be effective (size, PSD, concentration
and absence of any negative effect on mud properties are important)
– Continuous use in drilling fluid with continuous protection; no start-stop
squeezes in WB pills! Strengthening
– Continuous recovery and reintroduction of WSM materials using MPSRS
While Drilling
equipment

• FPR borehole strengthening successfully applied on GoM

sub-/near-salt wells
– Mud loss reduction > 80%
– NPT no longer in Top Ten of trouble categories
• FPR approach considered to be more universally applicable
for prevention of lost circulation on any type of weak and
depleted formations