Cavings Monitoring Program

José Gildardo Osorio Gallego, Ph.D.

March 7, 2006

1. Objective

To collect and characterize caving systematically as a complement to obtain information

on the nature of geomechanical mechanism of failure (shear failure, tensile failure, weak
planes, etc.) and the geomechanical properties of the rock.

This handout provides a list of the activities of a caving monitoring program oriented to
achieve these objectives (see Table 1).

2. Some Relevant Definitions:

Cavings. Pieces of formation rock coming from some type of geomechanical wellbore
instability (they come from wellbore wall). Cavings dimensions range from a few
millimeters to 10 cm or more. Cavings are distinguished from cuttings by shape, size and
appearance.

IT Test (Indentation Test). A test which consists in measuring of the penetration in a

caving of a flat indenter with certain specifications and under precise loading conditions.
The test is useful to obtain information on rock strength.

PUC Technique (Pulse Ultrasonic on Cutings). A technique allowing to determine

dynamic properties of rock matrix by measuring wave propagation velocities. A couple
of piezoelectric probes, one transmitter and one receiver, are put in contact with the rock
fragment and a mechanical pulse is transmitted on one side of it. The signal is received
on the other end so that its transit time across the sample is measured. The test is useful to
obtain information of the rock geomechanical properties.

3. Monitoring Program:

The monitoring program has the following general objectives:

 To perform PUC and IT tests. These tests will lead to obtain profiles on rock
geomechanical properties and strength.
  To identify the geomechanical phenomena causing cavings (shear failure, tensile
failure, plane of weaknesses, etc.).

 To identify the severity of failure.

The monitoring program consists of nine activities as described in Table 1. It is

recommended that each activity be performed at intervals of 30 feet.

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING ACTIVITY

1 Collection of samples of (a) small, (b) large and (c) average sizes.

2 Digital photographs of sets of cavings of the three sizes (small, average

and large) using a digital camera (as an example, Figures 1 and 2 present
photographs from splintery and tubular cavings, of small size, obtained
from well Liria YZ at 5910 and 8730 feet, respectively). It is important to
include a ruler, as well as the depth, aside the caving in the photograph, as
shown in Figures 1 and 2.
3 Cavings rate

4 Cavings morphology observations: are cavings faces flat? rough? parallel?

curved? Do faces intersect at acute angles?
5 Size range

6 Average size

7 Lithology

8 Source depth

9 Dominant cavings shape: Tubular or blocky? Angular? Elongate or

Splintery?

Table 1. - Caving Monitoring Program

Fig. 1 – Example of a digital photograph of a set of small size cavings obtained from
well Liria YZ-10. Cavings at this depth (8730 ft) are predominantly splintery. Notice
that the photograph includes ruler and depth.

Fig. 1 – Example of a digital photograph of a set of small size cavings obtained from
well Liria YZ-10. Cavings at this depth (5460 ft) are predominantly blocky. Notice
that the photograph includes ruler and depth.
4. Observations:

4.1 The samples would be sent to ECOPETROL-ICP for analysis (the contact person will
be provided promptly).

4.2 The digital photographs as well as the reports of the monitoring program will be e-
mailed to BP-Bogotá, Gildardo Osorio (Gildardo.Osorio@bp.com).

NOTE: Some service companies, such as DATALOG, offer this service.

4.3 It is highly recommended that daily e-mail monitoring reports (tables with temporal
data) be e-mailed to BP-Bogotá.

5. Some References:

The following references will provide further details on the above described monitoring
program and the importance and application of the information obtained from it. The list
of references is written in order of priority. All references are available from the author of
this handout (Gildardo.Osorio@bp.com). Also, additional references are available for
further information.

5.1 Bradford, I.D.R. et al.: ”When Rock Mechanics Met Drilling: Effective
Implementation of Real-Time Wellbore Stability Control,” SPE paper 59121
presented at the 2000 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans,
Louissiana, 23-25 February.

5.2 Edwards, S.: “Imaging Unstable Wellbores While Drilling,” SPE paper 79846
presented at the 2003 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdan, The
Netherlands, 19-21 February 2003.

5.3 Willson, S.M. et al.: ”Wellbore Stability Challenges in the Deep Water, Gulf of
Mexico: Case History Examples from the Pompano Field,” SPE paper 84266
presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.

5.4 Kristiansen. T/G/: “Drilling Wellbore Stability in the Compacting and Subsiding
Valhall Field,” SPE paper 87221 presented at the 2004 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Texas, Dallas, 2-4 March 2004.

5.5 Aldred, W. et al.: “Managing Drilling Risk,” Oil Review (Summer 1999), 1-19.

5.6 “Rock Mechanics – Self Learning Course.” Published by the Sugar Learning Center.
5.7 Dowson, S.L.: “Kingak Wellbore Stability Study, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.” BP-Amoco
Well Integrity Team. (August, 1999)

5.8 Dowson, S.L.: “Chirag Wellbore Stability Study – Part 1, Azerbaijan”. BP Upstream
Technology Group, Sunbury (August 2000).

5.9 Li, X. and Wilson, S.: “Improving Wellbore Stability Prediction in Soft Shales.”
Published by DEEPWATER.

5.10 Zausa, F. and Civolani, L.: “Real-Time Wellbore Stability Analysis at the Rig-
Site.” SPE paper 37670 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdan, The Netherlands, 4-6 March 1997.

5.11 Charlez, Ph.A.: “The Concept of Mud Weight Window Applied to Complex
Drilling,” SPE paper 56758 presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.