| Preview |
Summary
For the Elgin–Franklin UKCS fields, drilling of the high pressure/high
temperature (HPHT) phase is critical due to the narrow margin between
formation pore and fracturation pressures. This problem is accentuated by the
extreme temperature (up to 205°C—400°F) and pressure (up to 1,200 bar—17,400
psi). A new generation of down-hole pressure while drilling (PWD) tools allows
a better real-time monitoring of the bottom-hole pressure, but cannot
withstand the extreme temperature of the entire HPHT phase. Furthermore,
down-hole and surface pressures are dependent on complex hydraulic phenomena
which make predictions challenging. Consequently, it was decided to perform
hydraulic tests before drilling the HPHT section of the well 22/30c-G4 (first
Elgin development well), in order to quantify the surface and down-hole
pressures and temperatures on several operating conditions: circulating (with
and without pipe rotation), tripping and flow check. Gelation tests, trapped
pressure as well as pressure transmission tests were also performed.
Objectives of these tests were to better understand some complex down-hole
physical phenomena, to prepare practical guidelines, before drilling HPHT
sections, to check reliability and accuracy of new real-time PWD tools, and to
collect accurate well data for further hydraulic software packages validation
or improvement. These procedures led to great benefits, both in terms of
safety and performance, when drilling the HPHT phases of the well: results
were considered as highly positive. This paper details down-hole measurement
procedures and results, operational guide lines, tools performances, lessons
learnt, and explains how to cope with sources of possible discrepancies
between actual values and software predictions.
Introduction
When drilling the HPHT section of the Elgin–Franklin wells, we must cope with
the very narrow margin between the formation pore and fracturation pressures.
Therefore it is necessary to maintain the down-hole mud pressure inside this
“safe operating window,” in order to avoid any kick or losses problems, which
could have drastic consequences due to the very high gas pressure. Prediction
of this pressure is very challenging because of the numerous phenomena that
influence this value:
-
Mud density function of pressure and temperature.1-3
-
Pressure losses function of flow rate, pipe rotation,4-7 pipe
eccentricity,8-11 mud rheology, well geometry.
-
Pipe eccentricity function of well geometry, well deviation, and pipe rotation.
-
Mud rheology function of temperature and pressure.
-
Static pressures function of mud gelation properties.
Moreover, the accuracy of pressure prediction is dependent on the accuracy of
the mud density measurements, the mud rheology, and on true pipe, casing and
hole diameters.
The stand pipe pressure (SPP) cannot be used to monitor the bottom-hole
pressure because it is mostly dependent on the pressure losses inside the
drill string assembly, but could be used to monitor the down-hole rheological
behavior of the mud.12 Nevertheless the down-hole pressure must be
calculated from ?es and annular pressure losses, and is still
dependent on accuracy of hydraulic formula and geometrical data.
Down-hole memory gauges help to quantify dynamic pressure and temperature,
13 and to construct flow charts, but it is impossible to monitor the
down-hole pressure in real-time.
Development of a new generation of pressure while drilling tools allows the
monitoring of the bottom-hole pressure and the optimization of drilling
practice,14-16 but they have still temperature and pressure
limitations (175°C, 20,000 psi). Therefore it is necessary to check the
real-time pressure while drilling (RTPWD) tool reliability at high temperature
conditions with a heavy mud (2170 kg/m3), in order to decide if we
can use it, with confidence, to optimize parameters while drilling the HPHT
section. Moreover, PWD tools cannot send measurements to surface in static or
tripping conditions, thus, software predictions are still necessary in these
conditions, as well as in operation planning.
For these reasons, Elf Exploration UK decided to conduct “hydraulic tests”
before drilling the HPHT section of well 22/30c-G4.
The primary goals of these tests were to define operational guidelines for
drilling the HPHT section, and to check reliability and accuracy of the
real-time PWD tool. The additional goals were to collect data to better
understand some complex down-hole hydraulic phenomena, as well as to further
validate and improve software packages. The test program was successfully
carried out within the rig-time allocated, and the quality of data collected
was very high.
This paper focuses on surface and down-hole measurements, on operational
guidelines, and discusses briefly the source of discrepancies between measured
and predicted values.
Well Specifications and Test Program
Well Specifications.
The well G4 is the first development well of the Elgin field situated in block
22/30 in the Central Graben basin in the UK sector of the North Sea. Targets
are
Top target:
-
Franklin ‘C’ sands, with top at 5416.5 m DtV
=5416.5 m (Dm?5562.9 m).
-
Expected pore pressure is 110.7 Mpa at DtV=5416.5 m, with a
temperature up to 191°C at this depth.
Bottom target:
-
Pentland, with top at DtV=5776.5 m (Dm
?5923 m).
-
Expected pore pressure is 115.0?117.5 Mpa at DtV =5776.5 m,
and 1187?1212 Mpa at DtV=6176.5 m .
-
Expected temperatures are 189?199°C at DtV=5776.5 m,
and 198?208°C at DtV=6176.5 m.
The water depth is 92 m. The fracturation gradient is 2330 kg/m3.
One problematic zone (the Kimmeridge clays) is situated at a vertical depth
between 5130 and 5370 m. The problem of the Kimmeridge clays is the
uncertainty on the native pore pressure gradient (between 2150 and 2200 kg/m
3), and the possibility of a ballooning effect. Table 1 shows
details of the drill string assembly, casing sizes, and well trajectory, at
time of tests. Tests sequence was conducted inside the 9 in. 7/8 liner–10¾ in.
tie back at Dm=5092 m, before starting to drill the 8½ in.
HPHT section and using a 2170 kg/m3 Synthetic Based Mud (SBM). The
main operations before starting the test sequence were:
-
Drill out shoe track with 1660 kg/m3 mud (at 50°C).
-
Drill 3 m of formation, circulate bottoms up.
-
Perform leak off test (LOT) with 1680 kg/m3 mud (at 50°C).
-
Displace light mud with heavy mud (2170 kg/m3 at 50°C).
-
Perform two LOTs with 2170 kg/m3 mud (at 50°C).
|