Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Results
How to Improve Accuracy of a Kick Tolerance Model by Considering the Effects of Kick Classification, Frictional Losses, Pore Pressure Profile, and Influx Temperature
Nassab, Kazem Kiani (PTTEP) | Ting, Shui Zuan (Schlumberger) | Buapha, Sompop (PTTEP) | MatNoh, Nurfitrah (Schlumberger) | Hemmati, Mohammad Naghi (Abraj Energy Services)
Summary Kick tolerance (KT) calculation is essential for a cost-effective well design and safe drilling operations. While most exploration and production operators have a similar definition of KT, the calculation is not consistent because of different assumptions that are made and the computational power of KT calculators. Dynamic multiphase drilling simulators usually provide KT estimates with a minimum number of assumptions. They are much more accessible nowadays for use in predicting the behavior of multiphase flow in drilling and well control operations. However, as far as we observed, the simulation services are mainly used for complex and marginal wells in which low KT may impose additional casing strings, unconventional costly drilling practices, or a high risk of major well control events. Thus, companies often use simplified steady-state models for relatively uncomplicated wells through their own KT calculation worksheets. This practice is usually justified by the misconception that simplified models are always conservative and give less KT than actual conditions. In contrast, some simplifications may lead to higher operational risks due to an overestimated KT, depending on well conditions and parameters. The primary objective of this work was to perform a quality assurance/quality control on KT calculation practices in Company P. Later on, based on our findings, we determined some solutions to improve accuracy in the simplified KT worksheets commonly used by engineers across the company. This became a driver for generating a new KT worksheet (Company Model), in particular for situations in which engineers do not have access to a kick simulator. However, it should not mislead readers about the requirements of the simulator for complex and low-KT wells. Quality assurance/quality control and subsequent investigations found that there are some important criteria and parameters that affect KT calculations, but they are missing in many simplified models or ignored by engineers because they are unaware of or lack adequate references. After reviewing relevant academic literature, common practices and assessing several off-the-shelf software programs, we generated a computer program using Visual Basic for applications to address KT sensitivity to different parameters in steady-state conditions. The newly developed program is based on a single gas bubble model that applies the effect of annular frictional losses, influx temperature, gas compressibility factor, well trajectory, and bottomhole assembly (BHA). Moreover, the program differentiates between swabbing and underbalanced conditions. A logical test is applied to determine the type of kick before computing the relevant influx volume. This kick classification concept is ignored in many KT models; this is a common mistake that leads to misleading results. The annular pressure loss (APL) parameter is sometimes assumed to be zero in KT spreadsheets, while as an additional stress load on the wellbore, it affects the kick budget and must be considered.
- Asia > Middle East (0.47)
- Europe > Netherlands (0.29)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems (1.00)
How to Improve Accuracy of a Kick Tolerance Model by Considering the Effects of Kick Classification, Frictional Losses, Pore Pressure Profile, and Influx Temperature
Nassab, Kazem Kiani (PTTEP) | Ting, Shui Zuan (Schlumberger) | Buapha, Sompop (PTTEP) | MatNoh, Nurfitrah (Schlumberger) | Hemmati, Mohammad Naghi (Abraj Energy Services)
Summary Kick tolerance (KT) calculation is essential for a cost-effective well design and safe drilling operations. While most exploration and production operators have a similar definition of KT, the calculation is not consistent because of different assumptions that are made and the computational power of KT calculators. Dynamic multiphase drilling simulators usually provide KT estimates with a minimum number of assumptions. They are much more accessible nowadays for use in predicting the behavior of multiphase flow in drilling and well control operations. However, as far as we observed, the simulation services are mainly used for complex and marginal wells in which low KT may impose additional casing strings, unconventional costly drilling practices, or a high risk of major well control events. Thus, companies often use simplified steady-state models for relatively uncomplicated wells through their own KT calculation worksheets. This practice is usually justified by the misconception that simplified models are always conservative and give less KT than actual conditions. In contrast, some simplifications may lead to higher operational risks due to an overestimated KT, depending on well conditions and parameters. The primary objective of this work was to perform a quality assurance/quality control on KT calculation practices in Company P. Later on, based on our findings, we determined some solutions to improve accuracy in the simplified KT worksheets commonly used by engineers across the company. This became a driver for generating a new KT worksheet (Company Model), in particular for situations in which engineers do not have access to a kick simulator. However, it should not mislead readers about the requirements of the simulator for complex and low-KTwells. Quality assurance/quality control and subsequent investigations found that there are some important criteria and parameters that affect KT calculations, but they are missing in many simplified models or ignored by engineers because they are unaware of or lack adequate references. After reviewing relevant academic literature, common practices and assessing several off-the-shelf software programs, we generated a computer program using Visual Basic for applications to address KT sensitivity to different parameters in steady-state conditions. The newly developed program is based on a single gas bubble model that applies the effect of annular frictional losses, influx temperature, gas compressibility factor, well trajectory, and bottomhole assembly (BHA). Moreover, the program differentiates between swabbing and underbalanced conditions. A logical test is applied to determine the type of kick before computing the relevant influx volume. This kick classification concept is ignored in many KT models; this is a common mistake that leads to misleading results. The annular pressure loss (APL) parameter is sometimes assumed to be zero in KT spreadsheets, while as an additional stress load on the wellbore, it affects the kick budget and must be considered.
- Asia > Middle East (0.47)
- Europe > Netherlands (0.29)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems (1.00)
Abstract The collaborative approach used for cementing the production liner in an onshore development well in Russia is presented. The reservoir has a narrow window between pore and fracture pressures, which has previously caused formation instability and severe lost circulation issues during well construction, compromising zonal isolation objectives. Total loss of fluids experienced while cementing the 114.3 mm production liner in the first appraisal well in the field led to revising the cementing strategy. Collaboration among various parts of the drilling department and the opportunity to define a new approach resulted in a decision to introduce managed pressure drilling (MPD) to address the challenges associated with a narrow pressure window and uncertainty in pore pressure while drilling and cementing. This enabled implementing the optimal mud weight and adjusting equivalent circulating density (ECD) during cementing with minimum overbalance. Reducing the mud weight from 1.20 SG to 1.05 SG eliminated losses after running the liner and while cementing it. As a result, pre-job circulation rates and pumping rates during cementing could be increased, improving mud removal efficiency and achieving top of cement at the required depth. The constant-bottomhole-pressure mode of MPD was used to maintain the same ECD during displacement of the well to a lighter fluid and during cementing, avoiding well influx during pumpoff events by compensating for the annular friction pressure loss with surface backpressure. This first onshore managed pressure cementing operation executed within the same field in Russia (later named as field A) was completed flawlessly, with no safety or quality issues, zero nonproductive time, and achievement of the required zonal isolation across the challenging production section. The collaborative approach used was a novel strategy, with the mud weight program strategically adjusted before and during the cementing operation to achieve zonal isolation objectives.
- Europe > Russia (0.45)
- Asia > Russia (0.45)
- Asia > Middle East (0.28)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Managed pressure drilling (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Fluids and Materials > Drilling fluid management & disposal (1.00)
- (2 more...)
Abstract The transition towards drilling automation put high demands on new software for controlling or assisting during drilling. Along with the software development, adequate infrastructures for testing and verification of this software need to be in place. In other industries, such as aviation, the development of advanced simulators goes hand in hand with the technological developments and ensures a fit for purpose test environment at all time. Since 2017, a high-fidelity online drilling simulator has been available to the public. The purpose has been to facilitate and accelerate the development and testing of real-time drilling automation systems. The simulator can be accessed through a web Application Programming Interface (API) and run from a web client, or in a Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulator from a control system environment with programmable logic controllers (PLCs) from leading industry vendors. To facilitate testing and verification of systems also on real data, recent developments have enabled a user-friendly access to openly available drilling data through the web API. Automatic functions have been developed to create model configurations from recorded data sets. This setup enables benchmarking of simulation models against recorded data and allows efficient verification of drilling automation systems. The web enablement makes the infrastructure suitable for development projects and software verification from anywhere in the world without any installation needed. Better availability of realistic and scalable test environments for automated drilling systems is expected to speed up the qualification of new drilling technologies. This will in turn reduce costs and minimize the carbon footprint from drilling operations. This paper describes the hybrid test environment and key learnings from the developers and user's perspective.
- Asia (1.00)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.28)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea > Central North Sea (0.28)
- Overview (0.93)
- Instructional Material > Course Syllabus & Notes (0.46)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea > Central North Sea > South Viking Graben > PL 046 > Block 15/9 > Volve Field > Shetland Group > ร sgard Formation (0.99)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea > Central North Sea > South Viking Graben > PL 046 > Block 15/9 > Volve Field > Shetland Group > Svarte Formation (0.99)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea > Central North Sea > South Viking Graben > PL 046 > Block 15/9 > Volve Field > Shetland Group > Sleipner Formation (0.99)
- (47 more...)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Fluids and Materials > Drilling fluid management & disposal (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Automation (1.00)
- (4 more...)
- Information Technology > Software Engineering (1.00)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (1.00)
- (2 more...)
OpenLab: Design and Applications of a Modern Drilling Digitalization Infrastructure
Saadallah, Nejm (Norce) | Gravdal, Jan Einar (Norce) | Ewald, Robert (Norce) | Moi, Sonja (Norce) | Ambrus, Adrian (Norce) | Daireaux, Benoit (Norce) | Sivertsen, Stian (Miles) | Hellang, Kristian (Miles) | Shor, Roman (University of Calgary) | Sui, Dan (University of Stavanger) | Sandor, Stefan Ioan (Aker BP) | Chojnacki, Marek (Maersk Drilling) | Odgaard, Jacob (Maersk Drilling)
Abstract The transition towards drilling automation in the oil and gas industry has increased the need for digital infrastructures for development and testing of new technology. This includes infrastructures to facilitate changes in work processes and technical competences. This paper describes the design and use of OpenLab Drilling, a digital infrastructure with applications in education, technology development and testing. OpenLab Drilling offers access to a high fidelity drilling process simulator capable of simulating transient hydraulics, temperature, torque and drag, and cuttings transport. Since 2018, the infrastructure has been publicly available for students, researchers and engineers who need realistic drilling data for technology development, demonstration and education. The simulated drilling data can be accessed by several means. First, through a user-friendly web application used as a tool for teaching the physics involved in drilling operations. Secondly, drilling data can be accessed programmatically through a web API or via programming language APIs written in MATLAB, Python and .NET. Thirdly, OpenLab offers a fast communication interface that can be used for applications that are closer to hardware, and which require a realistic Hardware in The Loop (HIL) infrastructure. This paper describes the objectives of OpenLab as a project, its system architecture, its simulation capabilities, the design of its web application, and its various communication interfaces. The paper also presents projects that uses OpenLab in education, research on machine learning, semantical representation of drilling data, and other industrial relevant activities. The paper is naturally divided in two parts: The design of the infrastructure, and its applications.
- Europe (1.00)
- North America > United States (0.93)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Fluids and Materials > Drilling fluid management & disposal (1.00)
- Data Science & Engineering Analytics > Information Management and Systems > Neural networks (1.00)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Software > Programming Languages (1.00)
- Information Technology > Data Science (1.00)
- Information Technology > Communications (1.00)
- (4 more...)
Creating Open Source Models, Test Cases, and Data for Oilfield Drilling Challenges
Pastusek, Paul (ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.) | Payette, Greg (University of Calgary) | Shor, Roman (Norce) | Cayeux, Eric (Brigham Young University) | Aarsnes, Ulf Jakob (Brigham Young University) | Hedengren, John (DrillScan) | Menand, Stรฉphane (Baker Hughes GE) | Macpherson, John (MindMesh Inc.) | Gandikota, Raju (Apache Corp.) | Behounek, Michael (Schlumberger) | Harmer, Richard (University of Minnesota) | Detournay, Emmanuel (Integrity Directional) | Illerhaus, Roland (Shell Development Co.) | Liu, Yu (Shell Development Co.)
Abstract The drilling industry has substantially improved performance based on knowledge from physics-based, statistical, and empirical models of components and systems. However, most models and source code have been recreated multiple times, which requires significant effort and energy with little additional benefit or step-wise improvements. The authors propose that it is time to form a coalition of industry and academic leaders to support an open source effort for drilling, to encourage the reuse of continuously improving models and coding efforts. The vision for this guiding coalition is to 1) set up a repository for source code, data, benchmarks, and documentation, 2) encourage good coding practices, 3) review and comment on the models and data submitted, 4) test, use and improve the code, 5) propose and collect anonymized real data, 6) attract talent and support to the effort, and 7) mentor those getting started. Those interested to add their time and talent to the cause may publish their results through peer-reviewed literature. Several online meetings are planned to create this coalition, establish a charter, and layout the guiding principles. Multiple support avenues are proposed to sustain the effort such as: annual user group meetings, create a SPE Technical Section, and initiating a Joint Industry Program (JIP). The Open Porous Media Initiative is just one example of how this could be organized and maintained. As a starting point, this paper reviews existing published drilling models and highlights the similarities and differences for commonly used drillstring hydraulics, dynamics, directional, and bit-rock interaction models. The key requirements for re-usability of the models and code are: 1) The model itself must be available as open source, well documented with the objective and expected outcomes, include commented code, and shared in a publicly available repository which can be updated, 2) A user's guide must include how to run the core software, how to extend software capabilities, i.e., plug in new features or elements, 3) Include a "theory" manual to explain the fundamental principles, the base equations, any assumptions, and the known limitations, 4) Data examples and formatting requirements to cover a diversity of drilling operations, and 5) Test cases to benchmark the performance and output of different proposed models. In May 2018 at "The 4th International Colloquium on Non-linear dynamics and control of deep drilling systems," the keynote question was, "Is it time to start using open source models?" The answer is "yes". Modeling the drilling process is done to help drill a round, ledge free hole, without patterns, with minimum vibration, minimum unplanned dog legs, that reaches all geological targets, in one run per section, and in the least time possible. An open source repository for drilling will speed up the rate of learning and automation efforts to achieve this goal throughout the entire well execution workflow, including planning, BHA design, real-time operations, and post well analysis.
- North America > United States > Texas (1.00)
- Europe > Norway (0.93)
- Europe > Netherlands (0.67)
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.28)
- North America > United States > New Mexico > San Juan Basin > San Juan Basin Field > Mancos Formation (0.99)
- North America > United States > Colorado > San Juan Basin > San Juan Basin Field > Mancos Formation (0.99)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea > Central North Sea > South Viking Graben > PL 046 > Block 15/9 > Volve Field > Shetland Group > ร sgard Formation (0.99)
- (19 more...)
- Well Drilling > Wellbore Design (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Well Planning > Trajectory design (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- (17 more...)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Architecture > Real Time Systems (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Mathematical & Statistical Methods (0.34)
Abstract MPD enables drillers to navigate through narrow drilling windows to reach designed target depths. After a hole section is drilled, pressure management is still required to pull drill strings out and run and cement liners. Conventional cementing programs and procedures may not be practical for a challenging hole section that has been drilled by MPD. Elaborate wellbore pressure management is required to ensure safe and efficient cementing operations. The same closed loop circulation system utilized for drilling is used to manage the wellbore pressure during cement operations. The technique of pressure management during liner cement jobs was utilized repeatedly by a major client in one of the most challenging HPHT campaigns in the North Sea. This paper provides an insight into the technique as well as information on the procedures, challenges and lessons learned pertinent to these operations. Various cases studies describing the setup, planning and execution of operations, simulation vs measured data will be compared. Drilling wells in complex environments with century-old technology is difficult at best and unsafe at worst. From drilling through narrow pore-pressure/fracture-pressure gradient windows to mitigating kicks and differential sticking, managed pressure drilling (MPD) succeeds when conventional techniques are likely to fail. MPD entails the use of specialized equipment to control wellbore pressure profiles more precisely than is possible with conventional drilling methods. MPD enables drillers to navigate through narrow drilling windows to reach designed target depths. After a hole section is drilled, pressure management is still required to pull drill strings out and run and cement liners. Conventional cementing programs and procedures may not be practical for a challenging hole section that has been drilled by MPD. Elaborate wellbore pressure management is required to ensure safe and efficient cementing operations. The same closed loop circulation system utilized for drilling is used to manage the wellbore pressure during cement operations. A case study describing the setup, planning and execution of operations, and simulation is presented in this paper.
- North America > United States > Texas (0.28)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea (0.25)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea (0.25)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Architecture > Real Time Systems (0.42)
- Information Technology > Software (0.40)
- Information Technology > Sensing and Signal Processing (0.34)
By analyzing cuttings, drilling mud, and drilling parameters for hydrocarbon-associated phenomena, we can develop a great deal of information and understanding concerning the physical properties of a well from the surface to final depth. A critical function in data analysis is familiarity with the different sensors used for gathering surface data. These sensors can be grouped as follows: * Depth Tracking.
- Europe (1.00)
- Asia (1.00)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.96)
- North America > United States > California > Sacramento Basin > 4 Formation (0.99)
- North America > United States > Alaska > North Slope Basin > Kuparuk River Field > Kuparuk Field (0.99)
- Well Drilling > Wellbore Design > Wellbore integrity (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Well Planning > Trajectory design (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- (15 more...)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Sensing and Signal Processing (1.00)
- Information Technology > Information Management (1.00)
- (5 more...)
Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Drilling Automation: Moving Towards Automated Well Manufacturing
Ambrus, Adrian (The University of Texas at Austin) | Pournazari, Parham (The University of Texas at Austin) | Ashok, Pradeepkumar (The University of Texas at Austin) | Shor, Roman (The University of Texas at Austin) | van Oort, Eric (The University of Texas at Austin)
Abstract There has been a growing interest in automated drilling in the recent decade, motivated primarily by increased well construction efficiency, enhanced safety and well quality requirements. Many drilling tasks have been successfully automated and pilot technologies have been deployed, but broader adoption has remained slow. This can be attributed to some key factors. First, no two wells or rigs are the same. So the concept of โdeveloping one algorithm applicable to all scenariosโ is difficult except in the simplest of cases where only a limited set of tightly integrated sensors and actuators are involved. Secondly, full automation requires cohesive data and information integration between multiple stakeholders: the operator, the service provider, the drilling contractor and the equipment manufacturer. No efficient mathematical construct has been adopted for integrating data / information from these different stakeholders. Thirdly, any drilling automation task requires the full buy-in of the drilling crew, which is often difficult when these algorithms are presented as black-box solutions and it is unclear how to bring the rig to a safe condition when automation fails. A mathematical construct, and the methodology / architecture is presented that would enable one to combine information and data from multiple sources in a meaningful way and the rapid development of intuitive control algorithms that can be easily understood without advanced degrees or training is demonstrated. The algorithm development process is purposefully simplified, allowing for well engineers to easily develop their own control strategies while enabling rig- and site-specific customization. Additionally, the visual nature of the methodology enables easy monitoring by the rig crew for troubleshooting purposes. Automation scenarios are presented for tripping and Managed Pressure Drilling operations that demonstrate the ease of use. Multiple control strategies are developed for each task, and compared against criteria that include easy comprehension of the algorithm and optimality. This automation approach can help reduce some of the current barriers to broad scale adoption of automation.
- Europe (1.00)
- North America > United States (0.93)
- Well Drilling > Pressure Management > Well control (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Operations (1.00)
- Well Drilling > Drilling Fluids and Materials > Drilling fluid management & disposal (1.00)
- (10 more...)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Data Science (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Information Fusion (0.86)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (0.68)
Drilling-Systems Automation: Current State, Initiatives, and Potential Impact
Macpherson, John D. (Baker Hughes) | de Wardt, John P. (DE WARDT AND COMPANY) | Florence, Fred (National Oilwell Varco) | Chapman, Clinton D. (Schlumberger) | Zamora, Mario (M-I Swaco) | Laing, Moray L. (SAS) | Iversen, Fionn P. (IRIS)
Summary Drilling automation is the control of the drilling process by automatic means, ultimately reducing human intervention to a minimum. The concept of automating the drilling process has generated considerable interest, yet there is a lack of agreement on exactly what it is, what it entails, and how to implement it. As with industrial automation in the 1990s, the adoption of open standards enabling automation will have a significant impact on the underlying business model. In the oilfield-drilling industry, the business model describes the relationship between operator, drilling contractor, service company, and equipment supplier. The goal of drilling-systems automation is to increase productivity and quality, improve personnel safety, and effectively manage risk. Principal drivers of drilling automation include well complexity, data overload, efficiency, repetitive well manufacturing, access to limited expert resources, knowledge transfer as a result of the exodus of skilled employees, and health, safety, and environmental concerns. With so many drivers, and their potential economic benefits, it is understandable that there are many automation-related initiatives within the industry. Drilling through geopressured, possibly erratic, lithologies to a remote and possibly poorly defined target in a safe manner is not a simple task to automate. It is challenging. Drilling automation focuses on the drilling system and drilling operations, which entail combining various subsystems, including the downhole bottomhole assembly (BHA) and its measurement and active components, the drillstring, fluid, and drilling rig and its subassemblies. Operations include conventional overbalanced-, managed-pressure-, and underbalanced-drilling operations, and their various procedures, such as tripping and making connections. This paper examines and defines drilling-systems automation, its drivers, enablers and barriers, and its current state and goals. In particular, the paper looks at the vision of drilling-systems automation, and the role played by open, collaborative initiatives among all segments of the drilling industry. Although commitment to automation by the drilling industry appears by many to lag behind the level of commitment in other major industries, there are segments of the drilling industry that have reached a high level of automation on a commercial basis. There is also significant collaboration among interested parties in creating a standardized, open environment for data flow to foster the development of systems automation.
- Europe (1.00)
- Asia (1.00)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.68)
- Information Technology > Software (1.00)
- Information Technology > Communications > Networks (1.00)
- Information Technology > Architecture > Real Time Systems (1.00)
- (5 more...)