Chapter 1

Introduction To Well Planning

Well planning is perhaps the most demanding aspect of drilling engineering. It requires
the integration of engineering principles, corporate or personal philosophies, and experience
factors. Although well planning methods and practices may vary within the drilling industry, the
end result should be a safely drilled, minimum-cost hole that satisfies the reservoir engineer's
requirements for oil and gas production.
The skilled well planners normally have three common traits. They are experienced
drilling personnel who understand how all aspects of the drilling operation must be integrated
smoothly. They utilize available engineering tools, such as computers and third-party
recommendations, to guide the development of the well plan. And they usually have a "Sherlock
Holmes" characteristic that drives them to research and review every aspect of the plan in an
effort to isolate and remove potential problem areas.

Well Planning Objective

The objective of well planning is to formulate a program from many variables for drilling
a well that has the following characteristics:

 safe
 minimum cost
 usable

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to accomplish these objectives on each well due
to constraints based on items such as geology and drilling equipment, i.e., temperature, casing
limitations, hole sizing, or budget.
Safety. Safety should be the highest priority in well planning. Personnel considerations
must be placed above all other aspects of the plan. In some cases, the plan must be altered during
the course of drilling the well when unforeseen drilling problems endanger the crew. Failure to
stress crew safety has resulted in loss of life and burned or permanently crippled individuals.
The second priority involves the safety of the well. The well plan must be designed to
minimize the risk of blowouts and other factors that could create problems. This design
requirement must be adhered to vigorously in all aspects of the plan. Example 1.1 illustrates a
case in which this consideration was neglected in the earliest phase of well planning, which is
data collection.

Example 1.1

A turnkey drilling contractor began drilling a 9,000-ft well in September 1979. The well
was in a high-activity area where 52 wells had been drilled previously in a township
(approximately 36 sq mi). The contractor was reputable and had a successful history.
The drilling superintendent called a bit company and obtained records on two wells in the
section where the prospect well was to be drilled. Although the records were approximately 15
years old, it appeared that the formation pressures would be normal to a depth of 9,800 ft. Since
the prospect well was to be drilled to 9,000 ft, pressure problems were not anticipated. The

1.1
contractor elected to set 10¾-in. casing to 1,800 ft and use a 9.5-1b/gal mud to 9,000 ft in a 9-⅞
in. hole. At that point, responsibility would be turned over to the oil company.
Drilling was uneventful until a depth of 8,750 ft was reached. At that point, a severe kick
was taken. An underground blowout occurred that soon erupted into a surface blowout. The rig
was destroyed and natural resources were lost until the well was killed three weeks later.
A drilling consultant retained by a major European insurance group conducted a study
that yielded the following results:
1. All wells in the area appeared to be normal pressured until 9,800 ft.
2. However, 4 of the 52 wells in the specific township and range had blown out in the past
five years. It appeared that the blowouts came from the same zone as the well in question.
3. A total of 16 of the remaining 48 wells had taken kicks or severe gas cutting from the
same zone.
4. All problems appeared to occur after a 1973 blowout taken from a 12,200-ft abnormal
pressure zone.

Conclusions

1. The drilling contractor did not research thoroughly the surrounding wells in an effort to
detect problems that could endanger his well or crews.
2. The final settlement by the insurance company was over $l6 million. The incident
probably would not have occurred if the contractor had spent $800-1,000 to obtain proper
drilling data.

Minimum Cost. A valid objective of the well planning process is to minimize the cost of the
well without jeopardizing the safety aspects. In most cases, costs can be reduced to a certain
level as additional effort is given to the planning (Fig. 1-1). It is not noble to build "steel
monuments" in the name of safety if the additional expense is not required. On the other hand,
funds should be spent as necessary to develop a safe system.

Fig. 1-1 Well costs can be reduced dramatically if proper well planning is implemented.

1.2
 Usable Holes. Drilling a hole to the target depth is unsatisfactory if the final well
configuration is not usable. In this case, the term "usable" implies the following:

 The hole diameter is sufficiently large so an adequate completion can be made.

 The hole or producing formation is not irreparably damaged.

This requirement of the well planning process can be difficult to achieve in abnormal pressure,
deep zones that can cause hole geometry or mud problems.

Classification of Well Types

The drilling engineer is required to plan a variety of well types, including the following:

 wildcats
 exploratory holes
 step-outs
 infills
 reentries

Generally, wildcats require more planning than the other types. Infill wells and reentries require
minimum planning in most cases.
Wildcats are drilled where little or no known geological information is available. The site
may have been selected because of wells drilled some distance from the proposed location but on
a terrain that appeared similar to the proposed site. The term "wildcatter" was originated to
describe the bold frontiersman willing to gamble on a hunch.
Rank wildcats are seldom drilled in today's industry. Well costs are so high that gambling
on well site selection is not done in most cases. In addition, numerous drilling prospects with
reasonable productive potential are available from several sources. However, the romantic legend
of the wildcatter will probably never die. Characteristics of the well types are shown in Table 1-
1.

Table 1-1
Well Type Characteristics
Well Characteristics
Type
Wildcat No known (or little) geological foundation for site
selection.
Exploratory Site selection based on seismic data, satellite surveys,
etc.; no drilling data in the prospective horizon.
Step-out Delineates the reservoir’s boundaries; drilled after the
exploratory discovery(s); site selection usually based on
seismic data.
Infill Drills known productive portions on the reservoir;
site selection usually based on patterns, drainage radius,
etc.
Re-entry Existing well reentered to deepen, sidetrack, rework,
or recomplete; various amounts of planning required,
depending on purpose of reentry.

1.3
Formation Pressure

The formation, or pore, pressure encountered by the well significantly affects the well
plan. The pressures may be normal, abnormal (high), or subnormal (low). (Chapter 3 gives
details on pore pressure and detection.)
Normal pressure wells generally do not create planning problems. The mud weights are
in the range of 8.5-9.5 lb/gal. Kicks and blowout prevention problems should be minimized but
not eliminated altogether. Casing requirements can be stringent even in normal pressure wells
deeper than 20,000 ft due to tension/collapse design constraints.
Subnormal pressure wells may require setting additional casing strings to cover weak or
low-pressure zones. The lower-than-normal pressures may result from geological or tectonic
factors or from pressure depletion in producing intervals. The design considerations can be
demanding if other sections of the well are abnormal pressured.
Abnormal pressures affect the well plan in many areas, including the following:

 casing and tubing design

 mud weight and type selection
 casing setting depth selection
 cement planning

In addition, the following problems must be considered as a result of high formation pressures:

 kicks and blowouts

 differential pressure pipe sticking
 lost circulation resulting from high mud weights
 heaving shale

Well costs increase significantly with geopressures.

Because of the difficulties associated with well planning for high-pressure exploratory
wells, most design criteria, publications, and studies have been devoted to this area. The amount
of effort expended is justified. Unfortunately, the drilling engineer still must define the planning
parameters that can be relaxed or modified when drilling normal pressure holes or well types
such as step-outs or infills.

Planning Costs

The costs required to plan a well properly are insignificant in comparison to the actual
drilling costs. In many cases, less than $1,000 is spent in planning a $1 million well. This
represents 1/10 of 1 % of the well costs.

Unfortunately, many historical instances can be used to demonstrate that well planning
costs were sacrificed or avoided in an effort to be cost conscious. The end result often is a final
well cost that exceeds the amount required to drill the well if proper planning had been
exercised. Perhaps the most common attempted shortcut is to minimize data collection work.
Although good data can normally be obtained for small sums, many well plans are generated
without the knowledge of possible drilling problems. This lack of expenditure in the early stages
of the planning process almost always results in higher-than-anticipated drilling costs.

1.4
Overview of the Planning Process

Well planning is an orderly process. It requires that some aspects of the plan be
developed before designing other items. For example, the mud density plan must be developed
before the casing program since mud weights have an impact on pipe requirements. (Fig. 1-2)
Bit programming can be done at any time in the plan after the historical data have been
analyzed. The bit program is usually based on the drilling parameters from offset wells.
However, bit selection can be affected by the mud plan, i.e., the performance of PCD bits in oil
muds. Bit sizing may be controlled by casing drift diameter requirements.
Casing and tubing should be considered as an integral design. This fact is particularly
valid for production casing. A design criteria for tubing is the drift diameter of the production
casing, whereas the production casing can be affected adversely by the packer-to-tubing forces
created by the tubing's tendencies for movement. Unfortunately, these calculations are complex
and often neglected.
The completion plan must be visualized reasonably early in the process. Its primary effect
is on the size of casing and tubing to be used if oversized tubing or packers are required. In
addition, the plan can require the use of high-strength tubing or unusually long seal assemblies in
certain situations.
Fig. 1-2 defines an orderly process for well planning. This process must be altered for
various cases. The flow path in this illustration will be followed, for the most part, throughout
this text.

Fig. 1-2 Flow path for well planning.

1.5
References

Adams, N.J. Unpublished material from consulting work, relating to legal expert
witness studies.

Adams, N.J. Well Control Problems and Solutions. Tulsa: PennWell, 1979.

Moore, Preston. Drilling Practices Manual. Tulsa: PenpWell, 1974.

Records, Louis R., Sr. Personal discussions, 1981-1983.

1.6