3. Complication analysis for incompatible drilling conditions
A) Drilling of the interval beneath the production casing was performed in the depth range of 1422-3360 meters. This interval is more responsible. The analysis of complications begins with the examination of the well trajectory. Since assumptions are often made, which can lead to complications:
However, the trajectory encompasses most of the drilling solutions (and problems), such as borehole stability, wear on casing/drill pipes, axial loads, cuttings removal, geological uncertainties, and inclinometric uncertainties.
This interval traverses a zone of incompatible drilling, characterized by a thick cap rock with unstable clay deposits and a highly permeable transit zone with abnormally low reservoir pressure. In this well, we consider a case where the casing string must cover both of these intervals for further drilling below the tailpipe.
The visualization of the planned wellbore configuration [
6] is depicted using the matplotlib Python library (figure 4).
When drilling the interval from 1422 to 3243 meters, the BHA consisted of the following components: (Bit: 220.7, Mud Motor: 178 7/81, Caliper: 213, MWD Tool: 178, heavyweight DP: 127, lightweight DP: 147, steel drill pipe: 127).
Drilling within the interval of 1422 to 2830 meters was performed with a single-run drilling, and the average circulation time before making a connection was 3-5 minutes. The tool's performance was trouble-free, and no sticking or overpull events were observed. Borehole cleaning was good according to the drill log.
The drilling parameters were as follows: (ROP=32-55 m/h, WOB=4.3-10.4 t, BHP=79-186 atm, Qp=38-41 l/s, RPM=30-40 rpm, Torque=0.8-1.3 t·m).
With a maximum circulation time of 5 minutes and a pump rate of 41 l/s, the potential for cuttings lifting within the annular space is estimated to be 481 meters. This can lead to difficulties in retaining the cuttings in the wellbore, their agglomeration, and an increase in hydraulic losses.
The drilling within this interval proceeded without any recorded complications. The weight on bit and torque values during rotation corresponded to the calculated values. According to the drilling journal, the average mechanical drilling rate in the interval from 1422 to 2588 meters was 39.9 m/hr.
During drilling in the interval from 1422 to 3243 meters, mud-pills were pumped to clean the wellbore at the following depths:
1860 meters with a volume of 5 m3, viscosity of 120 seconds, and density of 1.34 g/cm3.
2830 meters with a volume of 5 m3, viscosity of 120 seconds, and density of 1.38 g/cm3.
A slight increase in drilled cuttings was observed wash away operations. The mud density was maintained at 1.33 (+/-0.03 g/cm3) within the interval from 1662 to 2830 meters. Afterward, it was increased to 1.38 g/cm3 according to the geomechanical calculations (figure 5) and the approved work plan. The analysis of the geomechanical model can be performed by verifying the actual drilling data with the previously conducted wellbore stability calculations using Python libraries.
Upon reaching a depth of 3243 meters, the full drilling fluids loss occurred. Under static well conditions, the wellbore losses amounted to up to 1.5 m3/h. The decision was made to change the BHA to a rotary one and carry out pluggin actions to mitigate the losses.
When analyzing any type of drilling complication, it is advisable to refer to drilling diagrams and examine the timing of the occurrence of the complication and the preceding operation.
The maximum equivalent circulating density (ECD) in the absorption zone was 1.60 g/cm3, which does not correspond to the hydraulic fracturing gradient according to the model but matches the onset of the absorption gradient. This value determines the reactivation pressure of natural fractures (if present) or fractures created during drilling. The drilling mechanics data indicates the absence of sharp ECD fluctuations and, consequently, annular pressure surges, suggesting that a fracture could not have formed directly during drilling. Therefore, the absorption could have occurred due to water hammer effects during rapid pump startups. Another contributing factor was the high mechanical drilling rate (up to 55 m/hr) at the time of absorption and relatively low pump rate (up to 41 l/s), which may have hindered effective hole cleaning of a 220.7 mm diameter borehole.
Figure 5.
- Wellbore stability analysis.
Figure 5.
- Wellbore stability analysis.
The rotary BHA reaming was uneventful, and no increase in well losses was observed during the round-trip operations. This indicates the closing of the hydraulic auto-fracture. Upon reaching a depth of 3200 meters, circulation was gradually restored from 5 l/s to 25 l/s. Subsequent trip in hole was performed with continuous circulation and the pumping of mud sweeps with materials to combat absorption.
The BHA change for drilling was successfully completed. The target depth of 3360 meters for the section was reached without complications. Open hole logging was performed in the interval from 3360 to 2810 meters without any issues.
The running of the casing string (178 mm) from 0 to 2857 meters proceeded without complications, and the mud filling and weight corresponded to the design calculations. At a depth of 2857 meters, slacking-off of the casing string was observed, resulting in a 6-ton reduction below its self-weight. Circulation was restored afterward. During further descent with circulation, pack-offs of 2-3 tons were observed. While running the casing shoe to a depth of 3208 meters, mud loss with an intensity of up to 5 m3/h was recorded. Circulation was stopped, and the casing running continued. There was a sidewall sticking of casing at a depth of 3340 meters. The inability to run casing was 20 meters, and the decision was made to perform a cementing operation using the reverse cementing method from the current depth. The time spent on BHA change and absorption mitigation was 48 hours, resulting in a 3-hour extension of the casing attachment time. The cumulative non-productive time (NPT) was 51 hours (13%). The planned time for this interval was 389 hours, with a total of 984 hours for the entire well.
Open-source Python libraries were used for constructing a 3D wellbore trajectory, visualizing areas of intense parameter curvature [
5], and conducting hydraulic calculations (figure 6). An estimated ECD curve was added to the stability analysis tablet depicting the wellbore stability calculation (figure 5).
Figure 6.
- ECD estimation script.
Figure 6.
- ECD estimation script.
As well as visualising the resulting complications (figure 7, 8).
Figure 7.
- Graphic script interface for visualising well complications.
Figure 7.
- Graphic script interface for visualising well complications.
Figure 8.
- 3-D projection of the well trajectory with visualization of borehole complications.
Figure 8.
- 3-D projection of the well trajectory with visualization of borehole complications.
Since the wellbore angle within the challenging interval exceeds 65 degrees, the stability factors of the 2860-3210m interval, predominantly composed of argillites, are exacerbated. The decrease in hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore during the absorption of drilling fluid could initiate the collapse of the wellbore walls. Unloading of the casing started precisely within this interval during the descent of the drill string. However, significant complications were not observed in this interval throughout the drilling process and after changing the drilling mud system to address the absorption issue. In this case, it is advisable to consider the temporal factor, but analyzing it requires a larger sample of wells and deeper geomechanical studies of the interval's rocks. The primary problem here was initially the absorption of drilling fluid, followed by the casing sticking in the transit zone with abnormally pressured formation.
There was a potential for wellbore collapse in the interval of unstable clayey deposits. Therefore, considering the combination of factors, it can be concluded that in this situation, the accumulation of cuttings in the wellbore occurred during drilling operations (due to insufficient wellbore cleaning and cave-in debris), but the volume of cuttings was not critical for running a completion string. This subsequently triggered the absorption of drilling fluid and casing sticking. To confirm this hypothesis, equivalent circulating density calculations were performed using a Python script.
A modern oilfield service company specializing in drilling fluids possesses an extensive arsenal of measures to combat fluid losses. Lost circulation materials form the basis of, and key to, successful lost circulation control. In situation when lost circulation control traditional technology has not effectively solved the challenge of drilling fluid losses, needed new deeper way. This paper systematically summarises the mechanisms of drilling fluid loss in fractured formations. Study of the lost circulation mechanism in fractured formation, lost circulation control mechanism in fractured formation (stress cage theory, fracture closure stress theory, fracture extension stress theory, chemical reinforcement wellbore theory) can provide effective problem solving and facilitate trouble-free drilling well [
7]. Mastering these tools in the context of using programming languages can contribute to a significant reduction in the cost of field development complex. The necessity of their application calls for a rational approach to prevent the exacerbation of complications or the wasteful expenditure of resources.
In the presence of incompatible drilling conditions, relying solely on drilling experience is not advisable. Such experience is like reinforcement learning in machine learning and is too costly in practice. It is important not to rely solely on primary signs of complications but to evaluate the situation from various perspectives.
The main arguments for using a similar wellbore design are typically as follows:
Economic constraints in the metal capacity of a high-tech bottomhole assembly design necessitate the use of additional packers for isolating the transit zone with abnormal formation pressure.
There is no historical experience of tool sticking and packer failure (or they are very rare) in the productive reservoir in the field. Therefore, concerns about BHA sticking with rotary steerable systems in the transit zone with abnormal formation pressure prevail.
To drill through incompatible zones, it is possible to develop a general approach with the following recommendations. To enhance mutual understanding among drilling process participants, it is necessary for everyone on the rig to have a clear understanding of the overall operations mechanism. For this purpose, drilling geomechanics support services utilize roadmaps where stability calculations, wellbore construction data, and technological parameters are synchronized to create a unified and comprehensible document for reference.
Careful selection of drilling fluid inhibitors (e.g. organic inhibitors, gilsonite, asphaltenes) is recommended as a preventive measure to reduce the risk of collapse of unstable clayey formations. Nanocomposites are also widely used in drilling fluids.
In recent years, several studies have been conducted on the applications of numerous nanocomposites in drilling fluids, such as polyacrylamide/clay nanocomposite [
8], nanocarboxymethylcellulose/polystyrene core-shell nanocomposite [
9], polymer nanocomposite [
10], nanosilica-polymer composite [
11], TiO2-polyacrylamide [
12], clay nanocomposite [
13], ZnO-clay composite and ZnO-Am nanocomposite [
13,
14]. The results of these studies showed a homogeneous dispersion of nanocomposites in the drilling fluids to perform multiple functions simultaneously, such as fluid loss control, high thermal stability, improved rheological performance and reduction of mud cake thickness.
The various effects of nanocomposites on mud properties are discussed in more detail in the article [
15]. The authors demonstrate the use of nanocomposites in drilling operations with their significantly enhanced performance and functionality.
In addition, the inclusion of a circulating sub in the downhole assembly would facilitate absorption mitigation without requiring a change in configuration. The installation of a wellhead pressure sensor for continuous monitoring of equivalent circulating density is also recommended. The use of sodium silicate packs (localised squeeze) or alternative means of reducing rock permeability is recommended to improve the stability of the transit zone at abnormal formation pressures. These recommendations are specific to the case described.
However, the key takeaway from this case is the practice of integrating geomechanics and drilling technology. In such cases, the synergy between science and production plays a crucial role in successful well construction. It is important to emphasize that the use of digital technologies aimed at early detection of drilling complications is universally applicable in terms of algorithm development but requires specialization based on the qualitative characteristics of individual fields. Therefore, the development of such tools is a priority for the industry's future development.
The horizontal interval of the wellbore at 3340-4015m, using a biopolymer drilling fluid with a density of 1.05 g/cm³ for primary wellbore penetration, was drilled without significant complications, although there were difficulties in reaching downhole weight on bit. Oil and other lubricating additives were utilized. The drill string was run to the planned depth, and during the descent, seating was observed, necessitating circulation.
It should be noted that high axial loads on the completion equipment carry the risk of premature tool activation or failure to actuate. Therefore, the use of polymer microspheres for cementing operations in highly deviated horizontal wellbores and careful control of string weights are recommended.
The need for continuous improvement in the approach to drilling operations is dictated by ongoing technological advances. The widespread use of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies is a challenge for oil and gas professionals. The issue of adapting to the new reality lies in the deep integration of engineering and technical staff with digital tools. The authors have therefore developed a system for monitoring and controlling wells using AI. In the article describe explored a real-time solution that anticipates drilling events and avoid delays caused by such issues as poor hole cleaning, higher torque and drag, swab and surge, stuck pipe, lost circulation, formation damage and wellbore instability. This is important if drilling optimisation is a major technical and corporate goal or if you wish to go beyond the traditional approach of collecting real-time data only to monitor operations. This paper includes robotic drilling automation, aimed at reducing invisible loss time, enhancing drilling efficiency and safety by applying operational safeguards to the drilling control system, providing automatic safety mechanisms and enabling automatic sequences [
16].