IPTC-21407-MS

Handling High-Intensity Brine Influxes Using Flow-While-Drilling FWD

Techniques in a Salt Formation in Chinarevskoye Field

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Ato Aidoo, Valeriy Zenzin, Yuriy Kropochev, Konstantin Akulov, Evgenii Vitvitckii, Abylaikhan Arystan, Emil Juchiac,
and Peter-Joern Palten, Nostrum Oil & Gas plc.; Yerlan Amanbayev, Tim Higginson, Diana Amangeldiyeva, and
Aida Aliyeva, Weatherford

Copyright 2021, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held virtually on 23 March - 1 April 2021. The official proceedings
were published online on 16 March 2021.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This case study describes the approach taken when drilling an 11 5/8-in. hole section through a salt formation
on the Chinarevskoye field in the West Kazakhstan Oblast region where high-intensity brine influxes and
subsequent flow had been encountered. The intensity of the brine flow, when encountered, had ranged from
5,000 to 6,000 L/min at an equivalent kick density of 2.2 SG, and it is believed to be among the most intense
brine flow experienced in the world during drilling operations.
Standard well control measures proved to be inefficient because of the narrow margin between pore
pressure and fracture pressure gradients. Several techniques were applied to combat such influxes in a safe
manner with minimum associated nonproductive time (NPT). The high-pressured formation in this hole
section is associated not only with brine influxes, but also with losses and gas increase scenarios. As a result,
the company adopted unconventional drilling techniques with a combination of planned flow-while-drilling
(FWD) and mud-cap drilling techniques to reach total depth (TD).
These two techniques created a viable and cost-effective solution to mitigate such challenges, helped
the company to drill to the planned section TD, and consequently complete the well within the defined
authorization for expenditure (AFE) without associated NPT. The paper will cover and emphasize
techniques, along with details on running casing and cementing the hole section, which required an
unconventional approach for success. The paper will also briefly outline the equipment used, such as rotating
control devices (RCDs), a choke manifold, and a separator when drilling this section and their limitations.
Despite the complications, the well was successfully drilled, and this experience provided an opportunity
for learning.
The marked improvements in well control, loss management, and cementation displayed that combining
knowledge and experience can reduce the negative impact on well costs when drilling similar cases.
2 IPTC-21407-MS

Field Background
Chinarevskoye is an oil and gas-condensate field discovered in 1991. It is considered one of the world's most
challenging fields to drill because of its unique geological structure, characterized by a complex tectonic-
sedimentary nature and highly stressed carbonate deposits. It is located at the northern edge of the Pre-
Caspian Basin.
One of the challenges associated with Chinarevskoye field is the fact that layered pay zones underlie
plastic salt formations. To reach these reserves, it is necessary to drill through the salt and case it off. Such

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

wells require extensive and thorough planning to mitigate issues that can compromise safety and impact
the AFE of the well.

Figure 1—Republic of Kazakhstan.

Brine Influx Operational History

This section describes the operational history of brine influx occurrences in Chinarevskoye field to date.
As of January 2020, up to 20 wells were drilled with brine influxes, mostly in the Eastern part of the field
(Fig. 2). It has been statistically shown that drilling in these areas has a significantly higher probability of
brine inflow and lost well scenarios (Table 1).
IPTC-21407-MS 3

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Figure 2—Chinarevskoye field.

Table 1—Well summary.

№ Well Depth (m) MW(SG) Influx Rate (m3/hr) NPT (hrs) Notes

1 B 2,025 1.42 11 100 Could not drill further with brine influx

2 C 2,472 1.48 12 124 Drilled further with brine influx

3 D 1,597 1.4 5.4 0 Drilled further with brine influx

4 E 2,471 1.47 50 26.5 Drilled further with brine influx

5 F 2,080 1.46 16.5 0 Drilled further with brine influx

6 G 2,055 1.47 4 23 Drilled further with brine influx

7 H 2,371 1.47 2 4 Drilled further with brine influx

8 I 2,338 1.47 4 0 Drilled further with brine influx

9 J 2,450 1.47 90 622.5 Could not drill further with brine influx

10 K 2,314 1.47 150 605 Could not drill further with brine influx

11 L 1,986 1.36 9 N/A Drilled further with brine influx

12 M 2,457 1.37 24 N/A Could not drill further with brine influx

13 N N/A N/A 3.5 N/A Drilled further with brine influx

14 O 1,902 N/A N/A N/A Drilled further with brine influx

15 P 2,094 1.47 0.1 N/A Drilled further with brine influx

16 Q 1,280 1.47 250 to 280 312 Drilled further with brine influx

17 R 1,880 1.47 1.5 0 Drilled further with brine influx

18 S 2,300 1.47 10.5 24 Drilled further with brine influx

19 "A" 1,142 1.57 300 to 360 135.5 Drilled further with brine influx

20 T 1,369 1.8 80 111.5 Drilled further with brine influx

4 IPTC-21407-MS

Brine influxes occur in 10% of the wells when drilling the 11 5/8-in. hole section, and the first problematic
intervals were noticed in the range of 1,800 to 1,900 m with formation pressure up to between 260 and 270
atm (EMW 1.52 SG with a 5% margin). The second challenging interval was from 2,020 to 2,050 m, and
the third one was in the range of 2,420 to 2,490 m.
The major issues encountered when drilling through the salt formations were the following:

• Kick and loss scenarios caused by variations in the drilling window.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Possibility of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) presence and risk of gas exposure for the crew.

• Borehole closure and stuck drillstrings because of salt creep after drilling.

• Washouts and challenges with cementing because of the presence of highly soluble squeezing salts
and high magnesium content in the brine.

Brine Influx Composition and Treatment

Drilling the 11 5/8-in. section is usually performed with a NaCl-saturated drilling fluid system weighted
with barite up to 1.8-SG EMW. The main parameters of brine entering the well in the Chinarevskoye field
are the following:

Table 2—Brine properties.

Parameter Value

Density, SG 1.25 to 1.30

pH 4 to 6

Total Hardness, mg/l 100,000 to 120,000

Ca2+, mg/l 30,000 to 50,000

Mg2+, mg/l 30,000 to 90,000

CL-, mg/l 200,000 to 250,000

Several preliminary actions were planned for the ability to control drilling fluid parameters when facing
severe calcium/magnesium contamination. Before drilling the 11 5/8-in. section, some volume of kill fluid
with a 2.2 to 2.4 SG and bentonite slurry are mixed and stored in reserve pits. Pre-hydrated bentonite or
dry attapulgite is used to maintain rheological properties and prevent barite from settling when a partial
gain of ≤ 5 m3/hr is experienced. To control filtration properties, the drilling fluid is treated with standard
polymers, such as starch. Polyanionic cellulose is mixed and dispersed also in advance. No special, high
hardness resistant polymers are required in case of having ≤ 50% of high hardness brine in the system. If
the rate of influx is high or the well is mostly displaced with brine over time, then there is no need to treat
the fluid to bring the parameters back to the programmed range.

General Applications
The 11 5/8-in. hole section is associated not only with brine influxes, but also with loss of circulation
scenarios. As a result, Nostrum Oil & Gas (NOG) has adopted a combination of mud cap drilling and flow
while drilling (FWD) to the brine pit techniques to combat the mentioned challenges. In summary, the
methods adopted during drilling of the subject hole section on Chinarevskoye field are listed below:

• Killing the well conventionally with heavy mud.

• Drilling while flowing brine to the surface (flow while drilling [FWD]).
IPTC-21407-MS 5

• Mud cap drilling with sacrificial fluid.

Conventional well kill procedures are typically applied in an attempt to control the well. However, killing
the well conventionally is not always effective. Thus, depending on the flow intensity of the brine, the well
would be switched either to FWD or mud cap drilling. One of the alternative techniques that was evaluated
by NOG was the possibility of using a conventional MPD application with constant bottomhole pressure
(CBHP) by using a semi-automated MPD manifold. The CBHP technique could minimize brine kicks at

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

the early development stage by applying surface backpressure (SBP) at the surface to balance the well and
avoid the risk of weighting up the fluid system in the well to a certain extent. Using a Coriolis flowmeter
with the CBHP technique would give an ability for early kick and loss of circulation detection. Because of
the high intensity of the brine influx, there might be a case when SBP will not be able to efficiently help
and mitigate the kick; hence, a different approach should be considered.

Flow-While-Drilling (FWD) Technique

The term flow while drilling refers to drilling operations in which the well is allowed to flow to surface
while drilling. FWD occurs when a high permeable, highly pressurized formation is drilled with sacrificial
fluid that encourages the formation to flow during drilling operations. Fig. 3 represents a basic layout when
using the FWD technique.

Figure 3—Surface equipment layout during flow drilling.

The fluid influx consists of brine, which flows plastically under stresses such as overburden pressure to
a more passive region. When the kick intensity is very high and killing the well is impossible, the option
that would allow safely drilling the sections is FWD. Brine fluid from the well is recirculated and is used as
a sacrificial drilling fluid, which is unloaded and fills up the brine pits on the surface before commencing
drilling in FWD mode.
The objective of FWD is to control the well at the surface with the means of surface control equipment.
Drilling operations should be designed to hold the maximum safe underbalanced condition and to avoid all
unnecessary interruptions while allowing the well to flow on the surface safely.
6 IPTC-21407-MS

Mud Cap Drilling Technique

The mud Cap Drilling (MCD) technique can be used as a contingency method to continue drilling operations
even in the case of losses. This technique is used to drill without returns while sacrificial fluid is continuously
pumped down the drillstring and the annulus to avoid all possibility of formation fluid migrating to the
surface. The openhole formation takes all injected (sacrificial) fluid and drilled cuttings without surface
pressure assistance. This technique is best applied to drill highly fractured formations when there are high
losses, no returns, and no positive pressure is required at the surface.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Successful MCD operations use the following key requirements:

• Good communication with the brine influx or loss zone formations.

• Formation can take the drilling cuttings.

• Availability of low-cost sacrificial fluid (brine or water).

• Good amount of barite in the warehouse stock.

• Capability to build mud volume fast and effectively.

Surface Equipment
One of the advantages of FWD and MCD techniques is that they do not involve the use of a lot of equipment.
Specific surface equipment is required for safe and efficient drilling operations through the salt formations.
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the basic equipment layout, including an RCD, a choke manifold, and brine pits.

Figure 4—Surface equipment layout during mud cap drilling.

IPTC-21407-MS 7

Rotating Control Devices (RCDs)

RCDs divert fluid returns from the well through the surface system while allowing rotation and stripping in/
out of the drillstring. When integrated with the drilling system, it creates a closed-loop drilling environment,
thereby augmenting primary well control on the rig by introducing better response capabilities. The
operating pressure of the RCD is 2,200 psi while drilling and 3,000 psi in static condition. The pressure
limitation of the RCD on the surface issufficient for safe unloading of the brine to the brine pits. If the
pressure on the surface reaches the RCD pressure limit, then the well is shut in on the pipe rams, and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

unloading the well is continued.
The key principle of the RCD is in the sealing element, which seals around the drillstring and contains
pressure in the annulus. This containment allows for MPD operations such as underbalanced drillilg
(UBD), CBHP, pressurized mud cap drilling (PMCD), and others to create conditions for safe drilling
operations. For better RCD performance in this operation, a combination of natural and polyurethane
sealing elements was recommended. Fig. 5 shows a summary of RCD performance with two sets of bearing
assemblies. Historically, there have been no failures, or premature/abnormal sealing element wear, recorded
in Chinarevskoye field.

Figure 5—RCD performance on well A (units in feet).

Choke Manifold
The choke manifold is necessary to maintain a safe operating backpressure and control the flow rate from
the return side. A typical FWD choke manifold should handle the maximum expected volumes with dual
chokes that allow redundancy. Using dual chokes enables one to be quickly isolated and cleaned if plugged
with cuttings while the backup choke operates. During FWD, the chokes will essentially be fully opened
and will gradually be closed, as necessary, to control fluid rates and pressures at the surface. It is imperative
that the annular pressure does not exceed the maximum rated working pressure of the RCD during choking.

Brine Pits
Brine pits should be prepared before a rig move during the well construction phase with the minimum
volume capacity of 5,000 m3. Brine pits are used to accommodate the brine from the well and eventually
used as a sacrificial fluid to drill the section further.
8 IPTC-21407-MS

Well A: Drilling a 11 5/8-in. Hole Section

Well A is known as a very challenging well among the wells with brine influxes when drilled in the 11
5/8-in. hole section in Chinarevskoye field. To date, more than 20 wells have presented brine influxes
when drilling, and this experience helped to develop a contingency plan for handling a brine influx and
adopt safe and efficient drilling techniques. The possibility of drilling into a high-intensity brine influx was
always considered at the planning stage, and the necessary actions were taken by the drilling team. A careful
approach is required when starting to drill in the Kazanian formations in the 11 5/8-in. hole sections.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Planning for brine influxes requires that as soon as formation fluid inflow is encountered, the flow rate
should be assessed and the Brine Influx Flow Chart (Appendix 1) shall be followed. If the decision is made
to switch to the FWD technique, then the well should be unloaded through the choke line to the choke
manifold and further to the brine pits. H2S presence should be confirmed before unloading the well.
The well had been drilled to a section depth of 1,070 m, and 12 3/4-in. casing was run and cemented
successfully. Once the 12 3/4-in. casing shoe track had been drilled out and a formation integrity test (FIT)
conducted to the value of 2.0 SG, drilling of the 11 5/8-in. section was started with a 1.60-SG mud weight
(MW). While drilling at the depth of 1,142 m, a brine influx was encountered. A subsequent flow check
showed an increase of magnesium ion (Mg2+) content to the value of 2,000 mg/L, while total hardness
rose from 1,040 to 4,900 mg/L. Several attempts to balance the well with kill weight mud (KWM) of 1.85
SG and 2.30 SG were unsuccessful. The decision was made to switch to the FWD technique and continue
drilling while pumping brine to the drillstring with the RCD bearing installed and the choke fully open. The
brine was unloaded to the brine pits on the surface, and drilling was contined with 1.25-SG brine without
treatment. Partially opening the choke resulted in brine flow, with 1,800 to 2,000 L/min into the brine pits.
During drilling with the FWD technique, if the surface pressure reaches the RCD limit, steps should be
taken to reduce it. This can be done by shutting in the well on the blowout preventer (BOP), and bullheading
a higher-density fluid into the annulus. Alternatively, the influx can be circulated out through the choke
until adequate surface pressure is established.
Special procedures are used during FWD to make a connection for tripping. Pressure on the drillstring
must first be bled off before breaking the connection. Using two plunger type float valves in the BHA is
recommended to prevent reverse flow up the drillstring because of the pressure differential.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021
9

Figure 6—Well construction design for well A.

IPTC-21407-MS
10 IPTC-21407-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Figure 7—MW vs. depth chart for well A.

A total of two bits runs was made to drill the 11 5/8-in. hole section in well A with an average rate
of penetration (ROP) of 34.9 m/hr. The BHA included a low-speed fluid hammer with a polycrystalline
diamond compact (PDC) bit to drill the section and maximize performance because of the low ROP. The
PDC bit was re-run after it was pulled out of the hole for a bottomhole assembly change. Overall, it was
managed to drill through the brine kick zone to the section TD of 2,460 m with no failures.
IPTC-21407-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Figure 8—ROP vs. depth in well A.

Well A: Running 9 5/8-in. Casing

The well has to be killed and stabilized before running 9 5/8-in. casing. Well A experienced several kick
and loss events while casing was run. The well was bullheaded on the annulus with a 2.34-SG KMW while
annular mud level was controlled at approximately 2 m below ground level. Each casing joint was filled
with a 1.60-SG MW, and casing was run to place the shoe at 2,456.5 m. The total recorded mud losses
when running the casing in the hole was 123 m3. The average running speed for the 9 5/8-in. casing was
6.2 joints/hr.

Table 3—9 5/8-in. casing running performance.

Non-Casing Running
Description Make-Up Time Slips In to Slips In
Crew Operation

Well A: Running 9 5/8-in. casing 00:08:42 00:02:16 00:10:58

Well A: Cementing 9-5/8-in. Casing

Operational requirements dictated the necessity of two-stage cementing in this particular hole section.
Possible cement strength weakening could be caused by contact with the brine, which added another level
of complexity. A special approach was therefore required with the slurry design. Cement slurry with a high
magnesium resistance blend system, and with low porosity and very high compressive strength, was chosen.
The first stage was designed with high HMR cement slurry of 1.90-SG density, placed in the interval
from the casing shoe at 2,456.5 m to 1,142 m. Similarly, the second stage was designed to pump HMR slurry
with a density of 1.90 SG and placed from 1,142 m to 842 m. G-class cement slurry of 1.90-SG density
was pumped to place top of cement (TOC) up to 50 m. The second stage was pumped into the annulus with
a closed BOP and water to displace cement. The first stage cement job was pumped conventionally, and
the second stage was pumped by bullheading down the annulus. A 1.85-SG spacer was pumped for both
the first- and second-stage cementing jobs. The optimum centralization program was run based on previous
experience for good mud removal and bonding. The proposed safety margins of pumping time of the cement
slurry were enough to complete the job. The maximum squeeze pressure for the second stage was 1,300 psi.
12 IPTC-21407-MS

The cement bond log performed at the end of the 8 1/2-in. section demonstrated intact, solid cement on
the upper section of the brine influx interval.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

Figure 9—Cementing 9-5/8-in. casing in well A.

Lessons Learned Summary

Despite all the challenges encountered, the goal to drill to the planned target depth and the geological
objectives were achieved. The main recommendations and lessons learned follow:

• Plan the well with the rig crews in mind and prepare for the operations with a detailed drilling-
the-well-on-paper (DWOP) strategy.
• When drilling with brine influxes, the well was unloaded frequently to obtain brine as a sacrificial
drilling fluid, which created a potential risk of the choke washing out. Ensure the availability of
a backup choke before drilling the section.
• Brine pits need to be constructed in advance with a total volume capacity of at least 5,000 m3. This
may differ dependent on anticipated brine flow.
• Pre-prepare and keep kill mud (heavy mud) available to avoid losing time for mud preparation
during drilling operations.
• Ensure corrosion-resistant BHA components are planned for and in place. Use H2S scavenger and
corrosion inhibition in the drilling fluid.
• It is recommended to use only non-ported float valves in every section because of the high risk
of plugging the bit nozzles. Keep additional Texas Iron Works (TIW) valves available on the rig
floor during drilling in case float valves fail.
• Experience from several wells drilled with BHA designs with long gauge bits showed that they
keep well verticality very efficiently. It is therefore recommended to reduce survey frequency and
perform an inclination survey only every four stands while drilling in the 11 5/8-in. hole section.
• It is recommended to conduct a temperature log right after the first cementing stage to check the
TOC and to see if additional cement is required for the second stage because of possible washouts.
IPTC-21407-MS 13

• Hold kick and RCD drills with both rig crews before drilling into the expected brine influx zone
or zones.

Conclusion
The FWD method is successful in many applications when it is not technically or economically feasible
to drill with other managed pressure drilling techniques. Conventional drilling in salt involves complexity,
risks, and high costs, so it was decided to drill using this technique on Chinarevskoye field to provide a

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

safe, practical, and cost-effective means of drilling when a combination of both brine kicks and total losses
are encountered.
The operational problems were identified and recognized before switching to the FWD technique. It has
been determined that field development will require further use of this technique. The current systems and
processes in place will be implemented on subsequent wells where there is potential risk of brine influxes,
losses, or both.

Aknowledgement
The authors of this paper would like to express their gratitude to Nostrum Oil & Gas management for the
support and permission to publish this manuscript. In addition, they wish to thank Weatherford for great
cooperation and the successful implementation of the project.

Nomenclature
AFE – Authorization for expenditure
AROP – Average rate of penetration
BHA – Bottomhole assembly
BOP – Blowout preventer
CBHP – Constant bottomhole pressure
CM – Choke manifold
DWOP – Drilling-the-well-on-paper
EMW – Equivalent mud weight
FIT – Formation integrity test
FWD – Flow while drilling
H2S – Hydrogen sulphide
HMR – High magnesium resistance
KMW – Kill mud weight
MCD – Mud cap drilling
MPD – Managed pressure drilling
MW – Mud weight
NOG – Nostrum oil and gas
NPT – Nonproductive time
PDC – Polycrystaline diamond
PMCD – Presurized mud cap drilling
POOH – Pull out of hole
RCD – Rotating control device
ROP – Rate of penetration
SBP – Surface backpressure
SG – Specific gravity
TD – Target depth
TIW – Texas Iron Works
14 IPTC-21407-MS

UBD – Underbalanced drilling

References
1. M. D Williamson, S. J. Murray. A Review of Zechstein Drilling Issues // Society Of Petroleum
Engineers, European Conference, Aberdeen. – 1997. – No. 38483.
2. M.H.A.A. Zijp, M.A. Huijgen, M. Wilpshaar, R. Bouroullec, J.H. Ter Heege. Stringers in Salt as
a Drilling Risk// TNO Report. – 22 May 2018. – TNO2018 R10975.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021

3. Olufemi A. Adekomaya. Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Magnesium Saltwater Influx on
the Behaviour of Drilling Fluids// Production Engineering. – 18 December 2012.
4. Andrey Timonin, Dirk Lungershausen and Petr Kravets. Microannulus and Cement Evaluation
Using Sonic and Ultrasonic Technologies in Wells with Microannulus Between Casing and
Cement Sheath// SPE Annual Caspian Conference in Astana. – 12-14 November 2014. – No.
SPE-172309-MS
5. Mikhail Pak, Michael Azar and Smith Bits, Joerg Pahl. Conical Diamond Element Enables PDC
Bit to Efficiently Drill at High ROP Replacing Turbine/Impregnated BHA// IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference in Forth Worth, Texas, USA. – 1-3 March 2016. – No. IADC/SPE-178765-MS
6. Andrey Sergeevich Tomchenko, Stanislav Kulikov and Gurban Velyiev, Oleg Gavrilovich
Myazin and Evgeny Olegovych Kazakov, Glenn-Ole Kaasa. The First Implementation of MPD
Technology in Conditions of Brine with AHRP at Kovykta Gas Condensate Field // SPE Russian
Petroleum Conference, Moscow, Russia. – 26-29 October 2020. – No. SPE-201860-MS
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/21IPTC/1-21IPTC/D012S045R025/2425371/iptc-21407-ms.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 15 July 2021
15

Appendix 1
IPTC-21407-MS