Primary Well Control Planning

PLANNING FOR
PRIMARY WELL
CONTROL
AZA – May/04 1
Lesson Layout
 Introduction to Primary Well Control planning

 Pre-drill hazard evaluation
❖ Formation pressure estimation
❖ Shallow gas hazards
❖ Charged formations
❖ Lost circulation / Formation fracture gradient
❖ Drilling fluids properties
 While-drilling hazard surveillance
❖ Analyze Formation Integrity Test
❖ Signs of kick
❖ Abnormal pressure detection
AZA – May/04 2
Lesson Objective
By end of this lesson, participants should able to:
 Describe the drilling hazards that need to be evaluated
during well planning
 Describe pre-drill evaluation methods and techniques
for estimation/evaluation of drilling hazards
❖ Abnormal pressure
❖ Shallow gas hazards
❖ Charged formations
❖ Lost circulations / formation fracture gradient
 List the drilling hazards that need to be monitored while
drilling critical wells
 Carry-out simple analysis on Formation Integrity Test
results
 Describe warning of kick while drilling
 Describe methods and techniques employed in
abnormal pressure detection
AZA – May/04 3
Introduction
Loss of Primary well control

(Mud pressure < Formation pore pressure)
Un-intentional Intentional:
(swab/kick)  • Underbalanced drilling
• Drill stem test
• Completion/production
Need to be avoided!
AZA – May/04 4
Insufficient mud weight: Reduction in mud column:
• Abnormal pressure  • Lost circulation 
• Charged formation  • Failure to fill up hole properly 
• Shallow gas hazards  • Loss of marine riser mud
• Poor mud conditions: column
• Barite settling 
• Gas cut mud
• Mud dilution
Conditions leading to
Loss of Primary
Well Control
Poor drilling practices:

Poor cementing practices:
• Swabbing 
• Light & long cement spacers
• Rapidly drilling a gas sand • Poor mud removal (channeling)
• Drilling into an adjacent • Poor slurry properties
wellbore  (high gel strength, fluid loss &
free water)
AZA – May/04 5
Well Planning and
Surveillance Activities
Enhance success of Primary Well Control
Minimize hazards/risks
Pre-drill hazard evaluation While-Drilling Surveillance

• Abnormal formation • Identifying signs of kick
pressure • Abnormal pressure
• Shallow gas hazards detection
• Charged formations • Good drilling practices
• Fracture gradient / Lost (tripping, etc.)
circulation zones
• Drilling fluid properties
AZA – May/04 6
Pre-Drill hazard evaluation
 Formation pressure estimation
 Shallow gas hazards
 Charged formations
 Lost circulation / Formation fracture
gradient
 Drilling fluids properties
AZA – May/04 7
Pre-drill
Formation Pressure Estimation
 Needed as basis in well planning:
❖ Mud weight selection
Pmud = 0.052  MW (ppg)  TVD depth (ft)
❖ Casing strength and setting depth selection
❖ Other influences:
➢ Circulating density estimation (formation
fracture gradient requirement)
➢ Cementing
➢ Completion design
AZA – May/04 8
Definition of Formation Pressures
 Normal Formation pressure equals to hydrostatic
pressure of water column of specific
density (8.33 ppg EMW - WDM 2.4.3)
 Abnormal Pressure greater than the normal

pressure for a given basin
 Transition The interval in which the normal gradient
zone changes to an abnormal gradient, or
vice-versa
 Pressure Formation pressure reverses from an

Reversal abnormal gradient to the normal gradient
AZA – May/04 9
Origin of Abnormal Pressures
 Under compaction of sediments
 Artesian system
 Uplifting
 Salt beds
 Salt diapirism (salt domes)
 Fluid density differences
 Chemical diagenesis
AZA – May/04 10
Under-compaction of sediments
 Overlying formations exert overburden pressure
onto underlaying formations
 Overburden pressure “squeezes” or compacts”
which is supported by underlaying formation as
follows:
POB = Pmatrix + Ppore
 Under normal conditions:

❖ Increasing POB squeezes additional
water from rock, i.e., rock porosity
decreases
❖ Rock Pmatrix increases with increment in
grain-to-grain contact
AZA – May/04 11
Under-compaction of sediments (2)
 Under abnormal conditions:

❖ Water in rock is not allowed to escape
accordingly, e.g., due to presence of barrier
❖ Deviates from normal porosity compaction
❖ Rock Pmatrix does not increase accordingly
with increasing POB
❖ Fluid Ppore increase abnormally to support
POB
AZA – May/04 12
Under-compaction of sediments (3)
surface
Decreasing Rock Normal

porosity Matrix Pressure
Depth
Barrier
Under
Compacted Abnormal
region Pressure
(higher porosity)
AZA – May/04 13
Origin of abnormal pressure
Outcrop/Artesian System
AZA – May/04 14
Uplifted & Sealed faults
AZA – May/04 15
Presence of Salt beds

 Salt beds:
surface
❖ Impermeable
(shale – semi
10,000 ft
Overburden = 1.0 psi/ft
permeable) @ 10,000 ft, POB = 10,000 psi
❖ Plastic behavior Salt overburden = 1.1 psi/ft
 Transmit complete Salt bed, 1,000 ft = 1,100 psi

overburden stress to
underlying formations Ppore  Poverburden
 11,100 psi
 Underlying formation
pore pressure can
approach total
overburden stress
AZA – May/04 16
Salt Diapirism (Salt domes)

surface
 Salt domes results from a

density inversion with a Normal pressures
material of low shear
strength
 Salt plastic nature tends to Salt dome
“flow” upward Upward
movement
 Movement can over- Abnormal
compact formation in pressure
shallow section, i.e., zone
causing higher formation
pressure
AZA – May/04 17
Fluid density differences

 Thick zone of oil or gas overlying a normal
pressure aquifer appears abnormally
pressured
Pgas = Pnormal - Hgas

depth
0.1 psi/ft
gas gradient
pressure
AZA – May/04 18
Chemical Diagenesis
(Montmorillonite to Illite)
A. Montmorillonite before Diagnesis B. After Diagenesis to Illite
Free pore water
About 3000’ - 6000’ About 6000’ - 9000’
C. After Diagenesis and Compaction
Unit layer Water Clay

Potential volume loss clay particle
Below 9000’ - 10,000’
AZA – May/04 19
Formation Pressure
Pre-drill Estimation Methods
 Seismic data analysis
 Offset well correlation
❖ MDT data
❖ Log analysis
❖ Drilling parameters (daily reports,
mud logs, mud reports, etc.)
➢ High mud weight used for borehole
stability not an accurate indicator
of pore pressure
❖ Production or DST data
AZA – May/04 20
Seismic & Log Analyses
- Shale Compaction concept
 Formation pressure interpretations are related
(either directly or indirectly) to rock porosity
 Interpretation limited to shale sections only:

❖ Sand porosity is unpredictable
❖ Pressure estimation in permeable zones
based on surrounding shales
 Shales have rather uniform and predictable

properties change under normal compaction:
❖ “Normal” compaction trend can be established
❖ Departures can indicate abnormal pressure
AZA – May/04 21
Seismic Analysis
 Seismic interval transit time is plotted

versus depth
❖ Under normal compaction (normal
pressure):
➢ Porosity decreases with depth
➢ Interval transit time decreases with depth
❖ Under abnormal condition:

➢ Shales have larger than normal porosity
➢ Higher interval transit time than normal trend
AZA – May/04 22
Example of
Seismic Transit-time and Sonic log plots
0
2000
Depth, ft
4000 Seismic Profile

Integrated Sonic
Normal
6000 Compaction
Trend
8000
20 30 40 60 80 100 200 400

t Integrated Sonic,  sec/ft
AZA – May/04 23
Increase veloctiy Decrease
3000
Seismic
Velocity
Profile for 4000
Malay
Basin 5000
Top of abnormal:
Depth (feet)
6000
Predicted: 6,500 ft
7000 Actual: 6,100 ft
8000
9000
10,000
15,000
Time, sec/ft
60 80 100 150
AZA – May/04 24
Log Analysis
 In absence of MDT data (formation
pressure test), can use wireline logs
from offset wells to quantify abnormal
pressure
 Analysis techniques utilize effect of
abnormal high porosity on shale
properties:
❖ Electrical resistivity/conductivity
❖ Sonic travel time
❖ Bulk density
AZA – May/04 25
Resistivity Log Analysis
 Resistivity log measures rock bulk resistivity

(rock matrix and fluid-filled porosity)
 Considers only “clean” shale intervals
 In abnormal pressure environment:
❖ Higher rock porosity, thus higher water
content in rock
❖ Decrease in resistivity reading due to water
has higher conductivity than rock matrix
❖ Degree of departure from “normal trend” is
used to quantify formation pressure estimate
AZA – May/04 26
Example of Shale Resistivity Plot
Transition
Depth
0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0

Shale resistivity, ohms
AZA – May/04 27
Example of Resistivity log abnormal pressure
prediction - using Hottman & Johnson technique
Example problem: For the following resistivity data:
a. Determine depth at start of abnormal pressure
b. Compute formation pressure at each 500 feet
interval below the start of abnormal pressure
Resistivity, ohm Depth,ft Resistivity, ohm Depth,ft

0.54 4,000 0.80 10,400
0.64 4,600 0.76 10,700
0.60 5,600 0.58 10,900
0.70 6,000 0.45 11,000
0.76 6,400 0.36 11,100
0.60 7,000 0.30 11,300
0.70 7,500 0.28 11,600
0.74 8,000 0.29 11,900
0.76 8,500 0.27 12,300
0.82 9,000 0.28 12,500
0.90 9,700 0.29 12,700
0.84 10,100 0.30 12,900
AZA – May/04 28
Example - Hottman & Johnson prediction
technique (2)
1. Plot the resistivity data on semilog scale as shown below
4,000
6,000
8,000
Entry into abnormal pressure
Estimated @ 9,700 feet
10,000 Extrapolated “normal trend”

established bet. 8,000 ft & 9700 ft
12,000
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 10
AZA – May/04 29
Example - Hottman & Johnson prediction technique (3)
2. From the graph, the observed and extrapolated (normal

pressure) resistivities are as follow:
Observed Extrapolated Ratio

Depth (ft) (Rob) - ohm (Rn) - ohm Rn / Rob
11,000 0.45 1.15 2.56
11,500 0.28 1.29 4.61
12,000 0.28 1.43 5.11
12,500 0.28 1.54 4.43
13,000 0.30 1.64 5.47
AZA – May/04 30
2. Using the Rob/Rn ratios, the formation pressures can be read
from Hottman and Johnson empirical correlation below:
0.5
10
Formation Pressure, psi/ft
Equivalent mud weight, ppg

0.6
12
0.7
14
0.8
16
0.9
18
Note: Hottman & Johnson
1.0
correlation was based on

shale resistivity ratios in 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Overpressure Miocene/
Oligocene formation, U.S Ratio Rn/Rob (Normal-pressured / Observed Resistivities)
Gulf Coast Area
AZA – May/04 31
Example - Hottman & Johnson prediction technique (5)
3. The estimated formation pressure are as follow:
Ratio Est. Formation

Depth (ft) Rn / Rob Pressure (ppg)
11,000 2.56 15.9
11,500 4.61 17.6
12,000 5.11 18.0
12,500 4.43 17.5
13,000 5.47 18.2
AZA – May/04 32
Resistivity Log Analysis (5)
 Other formation pressure prediction techniques:
❖ Overlay technique:
➢ Overlays containing parallel lines represent formation
pressure expressed as mud weight
❖ Foster and Whalen technique

➢ Developed to accommodate regions with salinity variations
➢ Proven to be successful and can be applied universally
➢ More complex - thus prevents wide acceptance
 Hottman & Johnson and Overlay techniques:

❖ Simpler to use
❖ Disadvantages include its poorer reliability in regions
with varying water salinity
AZA – May/04 33
Example of Overlay Technique
Shale resistivity overlay Overlay plot
0
4,000
2,000
4,000 6,000
6,000
8,000
8,000
10
12
10,000 16 14
10,000
18
12,000
12,000
14,000
14,000
19 18 17 14 9 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0
AZA – May/04 34
Sonic Log Analysis
 Response of sonic interval transit time:

❖ Measure travel time through rock bulk
(matrix & fluid filled porosity)
❖ Denser bulk formation - lower time
❖ Less dense bulk formation - higher time
 Normal trend in shale (normal compaction)
❖ Decrease with depth as porosity reduces
 Abnormally pressured shales have higher
porosity i.e., increase in interval transit time
AZA – May/04 35
Example of generalized sonic plot
Depth
Interval transit time ( sec/ft)
AZA – May/04 36
Sonic log analysis (3)
Hottman & Johnson prediction
technique
0.4
Equivalent mud weight, ppg

10
Reservoir pressure, psi/ft
0.6
Based on shale acoustic log data
12
in Overpressure formation
Miocene/Oligocene formations,
14
U.S Gulf Coast Area
0.8
16
18
1.0
0 20 30 40 Difference in transit time, not ratio!

T ob(sh) - T n(sh), sec/ft
AZA – May/04 37
Example - Sonic log abnormal pressure
prediction using Hottman & Johnson technique
Sonic log data:
Transit Time Transit Time

µ sec/ft Depth,ft µ sec/ft Depth,ft
190 3,400 100 9,600
160 5,000 100 9,800
140 6,600 110 10,000
120 7,300 100 10,200
122 7,900 110 10,400
105 8,200 101 10,600
110 8,600 101 10,800
99 9,000 105 11,100
99 9,200 100 11,400
98 9,400 110 11,600
100 11,900
AZA – May/04 38
Example - Sonic log pressure prediction (2)
200
Divergence from normal trend
@ 9,500 ft
400
At 12,000 feet, the difference

between extrapolated normal
Depth (ft)
Normal trend
trend & observed value is
600
about 30 µsec/ft.
From Hottman & Johnson

800
plot, the predicted formation

pressure at 12,000 ft is about
18 ppg EMW
10,000
12,000
100 200 300 time (µsec/ft)

AZA – May/04 39
Density Log Analysis
 Bulk density log measures rock matrix and
fluid-filled porosity
 Normal trend (normal compact):
❖ Bulk density reading increases with depth
due to reduction in porosity
 Abnormal pressure conditions:
❖ Bulk density reading decreases associated
with high porosities
❖ Transition from normal to abnormal pressures
occurs at depth of divergence
AZA – May/04 40
Example Bulk Density plot
Depth
Transition
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Shale density (gm/cc)
AZA – May/04 41

 Lost circulation / Formation
fracture gradient
 Drilling fluids
AZA – May/04 42
Shallow gas is a major hazard!
 Low formation strength at Mud Overbalance (psi)
0
Depth 8.6# 9.0# 9.5#
casing shoe: (mTVD) S/W Mud Mud
500 58 94 139
❖ Cannot close-in well due 750 69 122 188
250
1,000 79 149 237
to potential formation
breakdown and
broaching to surface
500
❖ Restricts allowable mud
weight - i.e, low “mud
overbalance” or “trip
750
DFE @ 25m AMSL
margin” 1000
500 1000 1500

Pressure, psi
AZA – May/04 43
Shallow gas is a major hazard! (2)
 When kick occurs, it happens quickly

with minimal warning
 Zones permeability and porosity can be
high:
❖ flow-rates can be high & zones may not
deplete quickly
❖ when diverting flow, loose sands can
erode and damage well control
equipment
AZA – May/04 44
Gas hydrate formations are hazards
 What are gas hydrates?
❖ Ice-like crystalline compounds
❖ Form through a combination of water and
suitably sized “guest” molecules (mainly
methane/CO2 or organic compounds)
under low temperature and elevated
pressure conditions
 Hazards:
❖ Catastrophic gas release
❖ Destabilization of seafloor
AZA – May/04 45
Sources of Information for
Pre-drill shallow gas hazard evaluation
 Suitable shallow seismic surveys

(e.g., Sparker surveys)
 Soil boring data
 Offset geological and drilling data
AZA – May/04 46
What to do when a shallow
hazard gas is present?
 Move surface location, if possible - i.e.,
avoidance - primary policy per DOM-10.5
 Evaluate possibility of setting drivepipe
conductor deeper to allow higher mud
weight when drilling through shallow
hazard
 Evaluate requirement for additional
conductor casing string(s)
 Plan to drill pilot hole & equipped for
dynamic kill capability
 Carry-out operational preparations and
requirements per DOM-10.5
AZA – May/04 47
fracture gradient
 Drilling fluids
AZA – May/04 48
Causes of Charged Formation (1)
Unsealing faults
 Seismic/geological
analysis
 Local area experience
AZA – May/04 49
Underground blowouts
 Offset wells drilling records
AZA – May/04 50
To
surface Annular gas channeling
 Poor primary cementing job
 Indications of channeling:
❖ Annular casing pressure
build up at surface
❖ Shows in temperature &
noise logs
AZA – May/04 51
Hazards created –
charged formation
 Shallow gas
❖ Migrated gas accumulates in upper
formations
❖ Need shallow gas hazard planning
 Abnormal pressure
❖ Pressure and fluid density
differences
❖ Need abnormal pressure planning
AZA – May/04 52
Additional work study needed when
planning for infill well program
 Check for:
❖ Casing annulus pressures
❖ Gas bubbles from sea floor
 If casing annulus pressure observed:

❖ Obtain pressure build up rate
❖ Diagnostic works include analyzing gas
composition, running temperature/noise logs,
etc, to identify origin of flow
❖ Mitigation plans (e.g., squeeze channels, etc)
❖ Plan to drill pilot hole & other shallow gas
hazard precautions preparations (DOM-10.5)
AZA – May/04 53
fracture gradient
 Drilling fluids
AZA – May/04 54
Lost circulation Potential
 Lost circulation can occur when:
❖ EWM > Formation fracture integrity
➢ Most prevalent type of lost circulation
❖ EMW > Pore pressure of:
➢ naturally fractured formations (e.g.,
fractured granite, etc)
➢ permeable formations
❖ Cement around casing shoe fails
➢ Channeling behind casing exposes
weaker zones above shoe
➢ Shoe integrity verified during PIT
AZA – May/04 55
Lost circulation can cause a kick
1. Formation breakdown
2. Mud level drops (loss in
hydrostatic)
3. Formation feeds in when
Ppore > Mud pressure
AZA – May/04 56
Causes of high EMW
 High mud weight (hydrostatic pressure)
Phyd = MW (ppg)  0.052  depth (ft) (psi)
Pbottom (psi) = Phyd + Pannular + Psurface
EMW (ppg) = [Pbottom (psi) / depth(ft)]  0.052
 Surge pressure
❖ Pipe speed
❖ Mud properties P
(viscosity, gel strength, mud
flows
mud cake thickness) upwards
❖ Annular clearance
P + p
(dimension, balling)
Down
Pbottom = Phyd + Psurge

AZA – May/04 57
Causes of high EMW (2)
 Poor practice in breaking circulation with

highly gelled mud
❖ Monitor mud gel strength properties
❖ Breaking circulation at different depths
while running-in hole
❖ May need more frequent breaking
circulation in high temperature wells
(static mud can dehydrate)
AZA – May/04 58
Causes of high EMW (3)
 High circulating pressure

❖ Caused by;
➢ Poor mud properties (high viscosity, etc)
➢ Poor hole cleaning (accumulation of cuttings in
annulus)
➢ Excessive pumping rate (high mud annular
velocity)
❖ Typical practices in lost circulation zones

➢ Compromise between mud viscosity/ pump
rate (circulating pressure) and achieving hole
cleaning
➢ Controlled drilling, wiper trips
AZA – May/04 59
Formation Fracture Gradients
 Need to be known especially when

drilling into abnormal pressure zones
 Why?
❖ Determine maximum allowable EMW to
avoid losses during drilling & cementing
❖ Influence casing setting depth selection
to isolate weak zones
AZA – May/04 60
Mechanism of Formation Fracturing
V
H2
H2
H1
H1
Papplied
Fracture
 Papplied > Rock least (neglect any rock tensile

strength)
 Direction of least principal stress can be predicted
by the area fault activity
AZA – May/04 61
Type of formation faulting can indicate direction
of least principal stress
 Normal fault
❖ Least principal stress is horizontal
❖ Probably equal to minimum
horizontal stress
 Thrust (reverse) fault

❖ Least principal stress is vertical; at
least equal to weight of overburden
 Transcurrent fault
❖ Least principal stress is horizontal,
but can be larger than minimum
required to avoid failure (but lower
than vertical)
AZA – May/04 62
Formation Fracture Prediction
 PIT data from offset wells
❖ Leak-off tests below casing shoe
❖ Not from jug tests (i.e., pressure up
to a predetermined value)
 Theoretical determination
❖ Hubbert & Willis (1957)
❖ Mathews & Kelly
❖ Eaton (1969)
❖ Anderson et al (1973)
❖ Daines (1982)
❖ Pennebaker
❖ Christman
AZA – May/04 63
FIT data - Formation Fracture Prediction
 Offset Wells’ FIT data
B Typical FIT Plot

X

O
C
A O
D Point “D” is normally
O O
O O taken as Minimum
O
Pressure (psi)
O
O O O O O O Formation Pressure
O
O A - Leak-Off (fracture initiation pressure)

B - Shut down pump
O
C - Initial Shut In Pressure
O
D - Minimum Formation Stress
O (Fracture Propagation Pressure)
X - Formation Breakdown (not reached)
O
Volume (bbl)
AZA – May/04 64
FIT surface equipment setup
Valves
1. Drill ~5m of new formation

below casing shoe
2. Circulate hole clean and
BOP condition mud in & out
Cementing closed 3. Pressure test system
Drilling pump Pressure 4. Close BOP
mud Gauge
5. Raise surface pressure in
increments until bleed off,
or alternatively continuously
Valves
Displacement at slow flow rate until
tank bleed off.
Cmt
Note:
Onset of leak off occurs when
hydraulic pressure in borehole equals
the formation compressive stress
Fracture
Formation
AZA – May/04 65
Theoretical fracture gradient
 Eaton (1969)

h = ( v -  P) + P
1-
where, h = minimum horizontal stress

 = Poisson ratio (empirical data) z
v = Vertical (overburden) stress = bgn
0
 = Biot ratio (0.5 - 1 depending on lithology)

P = Pore pressure
v v
3
P P tn
= - -
D D D D n to
AZA – May/04 66
Theoretical fracture gradient (2)
 Eaton (1969) - 2
❖ Overburden stress & Poisson ratio varies with depth
❖ Only applicable in tectonically inactive basins
❖ Normally calibrated against:
➢ Leak-off (LOT) / extended leak-off (XLOT), or
➢ Micro-frac / mini-frac data
➢ To include effect of:
» Lateral tectonic compression
» Temperature, cementation, plasticity and other
influencing factors
AZA – May/04 67
Example Eaton
method calibrated
to LOT data
(Resak wells)
• Using LOT data, theoretical minimum

horizontal stress curve shifted by
+750 psi
• Consistency found in two wells
• Make a further adjustment in shift
factor for the other well
• Common final minimum horizontal
stress profile shown on the right
AZA – May/04 68
 Daines (1982)
❖ Need to overcome two unequal horizontal stresses for
fracture to occur
➢ Caused by overburden stress (h)
➢ Superposed tectonic stress ()

 = LOT - ( v -  P) + P
1-
❖ Superposed tectonic stress increases uniformly with
depth such that ratio of /(v – P) remains constant
N
i = (v - P) i i denotes depth of interest
(v - P) N N denotes LOT depth
AZA – May/04 69
 Christman
❖ Accounts for effect of water depth in
estimating total overburden gradient:
Gob = 1/Dd (w Dw + b Dbml)
where, Gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
Dd = depth below datum, ft
Dw = water depth, ft
w = water density, psi/ft
b = average soil bulk density, psi/ft
Dbml = depth below the mud line, ft
AZA – May/04 70
 Christman (2)
❖ Effect of water depth on fracture gradients:
Fracture gradient, ppg (subsea)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0
1
Subsea depth, 1000 ft
5
0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Fracture gradient, psi/ft (subsea)
AZA – May/04 71
Pre Drill Evaluation
fracture gradient
 Drilling fluids
AZA – May/04 72
Types of Fluids
 Drilling mud
❖ Water based
❖ Synthetic based
 Cement
❖ Spacer
❖ Slurry
 Completion fluids
❖ Brines (chlorides, bromides)
❖ Non aqueous (diesel, etc)
AZA – May/04 73
Influence of fluid property on
downhole pressure
Possible Downhole
Property Influence Contamination & Effect
Weight Hydrostatic pressure Gas cut ()
Kicks (water, oil, gas) ()
Thermal expansion ()
Viscosity ECD Solids ()

Surge & Swab press Lime, Ca/Mg, Salt ()
Gas/cutting retention CO3/HCO3 ()
Gel strength Barite suspension Lime/Ca/Mg/Salt/CO3 ()

Breaking circ. press Gas stripping ()
AZA – May/04 74
Measuring fluid density
 Mud weight main influencing factor on

pressure control
 Mud weight can be accurately measured -
nearest 0.1 ppg with simple mud balance
 Measuring mistakes cause most of
inaccuracies - frequent mistakes include:
❖ Improperly calibrated balance
❖ Entrained air or gas in the mud
❖ Failure in filling the balance to exact
volume
❖ Dirty mud balance
AZA – May/04 75
Mud balance
Regular mud balance Pressurized mud balance

Calibration: Fresh water density @ 75 F & 95 F = 8.30 ppg to 8.33 ppg
No completely suitable means to check calibration at high density
(should change to new mud balance if error is > 0.1 ppg)
Trapped: Decrease measured mud density
air/gas - “Break-out” entrained gas by stirring with fann viscometer
- Use pressurized mud balance equipment
Others: - Fill mud balance 100 percent with mud to obtain accurate density
- Cap should never be interchanged
- Mud balance should be level and out of wind
AZA – May/04 76
Measuring fluid viscosity
 Marsh Funnel
❖ Quick & simple test indicate gross
change in overall fluid “viscosity
❖ Monitor mud condition - not diagnose
❖ Measure time taken for a 1500ml
sample to flow out of funnel
❖ FV of fresh water at 70 °F = 26 sec
 Fann Viscometer
❖ Measures shear rate, shear stress &
gel strength
➢ D.R  1.067 = SS (1bf/100ft)
➢ RPM  1.703 = SR (Sec-1)
➢ PV & YP
❖ Diagnose flow behavior to prescribe

treatment
AZA – May/04 77
SBM issue - Gas solubility
 Natural gas, CO2 and H2S are highly soluble in SBM

❖ Gas kicks immediately dissolve at high pressure
❖ Unable to detect kick via usual pit gain indication
❖ Pit gain only seen when gas comes out of solution
❖ Time delay between kick occurrence & pit gain
 Unable to accurately predict bubble point depth

❖ Gas bubble point are dependent on pressure,
temperature, size & composition of influx, etc
❖ Bubble point estimation:
➢ Natural gas @ ~ 5000 psi
➢ CO2 @ ~ 3800 psi
AZA – May/04 78
SBM issue - Gas solubility (2)
 Kick taken while tripping is difficult to detect:

❖ Kick taken due to reduced ECD (when stop
pumping) and/or swabbing may stay in solution
at hole bottom
❖ Kick may only detected after tripping to bottom
(bit or casing) and influx circulated up hole
❖ A short./wiper trip, followed by circulating
bottoms up should be considered to reduce
risks
AZA – May/04 79
End
of
Pre-Drill hazards
evaluation
AZA – May/04 80
While-Drilling hazard surveillance
 Analyze Formation Integrity Test

 Signs of kick
 Abnormal pressure detection
AZA – May/04 81
Analyze Formation Integrity Test
 Functions of FIT
❖ Determine formation strength (fracture gradient)
❖ Ensure sufficient formation strength to withstand
required mud weight (avoid loss circulation)
 Identify cause (s) of low formation fracture gradient

obtained and evaluate requirement for cement
squeeze at shoe:
❖ Cement channeling
❖ Permeable formation (sands, etc)
❖ Already fractured formation
AZA – May/04 82
Typical FIT Plot
B X
Maximum pressure 
O
A O C
O O
D Predicted Leak-off
O
O O
O O O O O O
Pressure (psi)
O A - Leak-Off (fracture initiation pressure)

O B - Shut down pump
O
C - Initial Shut In Pressure
O
D - Minimum Formation Stress
O
(Fracture Propagation Pressure)
O
X - Formation Breakdown (not reached)
Volume (bbl)
AZA – May/04 83
Interpretation Rules-of-Thumb (1)
 Choosing leak-off point

❖ Draw “Best Fit” straight line
➢ May need to ignore first few data points
❖ Minimum leak-off definition
➢ First point of permanent decrease in slope
➢ May be higher depending on shut-in pressure
❖ Leak-off (LOP) must be > Minimum Stress (MS)
➢ Fracture initiation pressure > minimum stress at
crack tip
❖ Calculate Equivalent Mud Weight (EMW):
➢ EMW = MW + P / (0.52  D)
AZA – May/04 84
 Leak-Off Pressure EMW
❖ Within ½ ppg of predicted leak-off = OK
❖ ½ ppg < predicted leak-off = possible channel –
retest
❖ Caution: Predicted leak-off is sometimes wrong!
 Shut-in Pressure
❖ LOP > MS: inflections below MS do not indicate
leak-off
❖ MS > ½ LOP = test OK
❖ MS < ½ LOP = possible channel – retest
❖ Shut-in pressure does not level-off = possible
channel - retest
AZA – May/04 85
 Cement channels
❖ Channels may be indicated by:
➢ LOP more than ½ ppg below predicted
value
➢ MS less than ½ LOP
➢ Shut-in pressure does not level-off
❖ Channel confirmed when repeat PIT
shows no improvement
AZA – May/04 86
Cement channel
 Symptoms
Stop pump
❖ Leak off >1/2 ppg below expectation
❖ Shut in pressure not constant – bleed off
Pressure
❖ Repeat tests show little or no improvement
 Analysis
❖ Channel allows pressure communication
First test to a weaker zone above casing shoe
❖ Weaker zone can be few meters or
Volume
hundreds of meters above shoe
❖ Primary indication is low leak-off pressure
Stop pump  Action

❖ Check system for leaks
Pressure
❖ Repeat test to confirm channels

➢ Use same pump rate
➢ Continue testing until leakoff pressure
shows no improvement
Repeat Test ❖ Compare last LOT with expected value to
determine if squeeze is needed
Volume
AZA – May/04 87
Formation fractured by test
Stop pump
 Symptoms
❖ Sudden pressure drop while pumping
❖ Shut-in pressure levels off at an
Pressure
intermediate value
❖ Repeat test shows indications of pre-
existing formation fracture
First test  Analysis

❖ Fracture probably cause by continued pumping
Volume beyond observed leak-off point
❖ Repeat test shows fracture opens at near 1st
test level-off pressure (fracture closing
Stop pump pressure)
 Action
❖ Re-test to confirm fracture opening fracture
Pressure
❖ Use leak-off pressure from 2nd test for kick or

Fracture opening
mud weight limitations
Note: If filter cake has any chance to form in fracture during 1 st test,
Repeat Test pressure may not easily transmitted to tip of fracture – thus
fracture may re-open at higher pressure
Volume
AZA – May/04 88
Small cement channel
 Symptoms
Stop pump ❖ Sudden change in slope while pumping
B ❖ Shut-in pressure falls below point of slope
change
Pressure
A ❖ Repeat test shows similar shut-in pressure

decay
 Analysis
First test
❖ Small cement channel permits communication
to a weaker zone and breaks it down (point A)
Volume
❖ Small channel acts as a choke; only small of
mud is lost (but at constant rate) through the
channel and the rest causes a pressure
increase in open hole (point A to B slope)
Stop pump ❖ Point B is leak-off of formation below shoe
Pressure
A  Action
❖ Retest with jug test to pressure A. If channel
exists, shut in pressure will drop below A. If no
Repeat Test channel, shut-in press should level-off at A
(jug test) ❖ After cement squeezed, a good retest would
Volume show leak-off at B
AZA – May/04 89
Cement fracture
 Symptoms
❖ Sudden pressure drop while pumping
❖ Shut-in pressure decays rapidly to a level far below
leak-off pressure
❖ Repeat test shows reduced leak-off pressure
Pressure
Stop pump
 Analysis
❖ Cement at shoe fractured during initial test and
allows communication to a weaker zone above shoe
First test ❖ Only proof is rapid decline in shut-in pressure as
cement channel is not self-closing
❖ A formation fracture will usually show shut-in
Volume
pressure leveling off at fracture closes
❖ If cement is fractured, repeat test shows lower leak-
off is lower than 1 st test – shut in pressure should be
same although rate of decay is reduced because of
filter cake build up in weaker zone
 Action
Pressure
Stop pump
❖ Retest using jug test to slightly below leak-off seen in
1st test- if pressure decays a large amount during
shut-in, pump a small amount to bring pressure back
to jug test – repeat test to see if any filter cake is
building up
Repeat Test ❖ Reduced leak-off pressure on repeat test indicates a cement
fracture. Use this value to determine if a squeeze is
Volume necessary
AZA – May/04 90
Plugged cement channel
 Symptoms
❖ Shut-in pressure decays rapidly to a level far
Stop pump
below apparent leak-off pressure
❖ Repeat test shows reduced leak-off pressure
 Analysis
Pressure
❖ 1st test indicates possibility of cement channel;

repeat test confirms it – cannot be detected by
one test alone
❖ Channel may be small in 1st test (e.g., filled
First test with gelled mud) and grows after apparent
leak-off
Volume
❖ Filter cake not build up because of relative
impermeability of cement, thus repeat test
shows reduced leak-off
Stop pump ❖ Repeat test shows no improvement in shut-in
pressure
 Action
Pressure
❖ Retest – perform jug test to value slightly below

leak-off in 1st test - if pressure decays a large
amount during shut-in, pump a small amount to
bring pressure back to jug test – repeat test to
Repeat Test see if any filter cake is building up
Volume ❖ Reduced leak-off pressure on repeat test
AZA – May/04
indicates a cement fracture. 91
Small propped fracture
Stop pump  Symptoms
❖ Shut in pressure decays rapidly to a value far below
leak-off
❖ Repeat test shows improvement in shut-in pressure
Pressure
 Analysis
❖ 1st test virtually same as caused by plugged cement
channel – repeat test shows behavior due to an
open facture
First test ❖ Fracture is small initially but grow larger at the finish
❖ Must be propped open by sand or cutting, else it
Volume
would be close and shut in pressure would level off
❖ Repeat test is needed to differentiate between an
open fracture and plugged cement channel
Stop pump
 Action
❖ Retest using jug test to slightly below leak-off seen
in 1st test- if pressure decays a large amount during
Pressure
shut-in, pump a small amount to bring pressure

back to jug test – repeat test to see if any filter cake
is building up
❖ If a fracture exists, filter cake will build up & cause
less pressure decay or level-off during shut in
Repeat Test
❖ If fracture is evident, drill ahead but maintain mud
weight to less than original leak-off pressure
Volume
AZA – May/04 92
Pre existing formation fracture
 Symptoms
❖ Minimal bend in plot; sudden level-off during
pumping
❖ Shut-in pressure levels off near final pumping
pressure
 Analysis
Stop pump ❖ Exposed formation is naturally
fractured – final shut in represents the
minimum stress of formation
Fracture opening
❖ Squeeze cementing will not improve
Pressure
leak-off value unless entire formation

is successfully squeezed (improbable)
 Action
❖ Drill ahead – maintain mud weight
below the final shut in pressure
❖ Filter cake may improve leak-off
Volume
pressure by small amount - re-test if
desire when entire formation has been
drilled
AZA – May/04 93
High permeability
 Symptoms
Stop pump
❖ 1st plot continually bends to right
❖ 1st plot shows large pressure decay during shut-in
Pressure
❖ Repeat tests show improvement in pressure build

up and shut-in pressure decay
 Analysis
❖ In high permeability sand, filter cake build up may
First test be minimal during short leak-off test
❖ Plot bends to the right from start of test, and
Volume
eventually levels off – leak off is at the level-off
pressure
❖ In subsequent tests, filter cake may build up &
Stop pump
reduces fluid loss, thus show less tendency to
curve to the right
 Action
Pressure
❖ Retest – if shows acceptable leak-off pressure,

improvements in rate of pressure build up and
shut-in pressure decay, accept test drill ahead
❖ If repeat test show no improvement or higher fluid
Repeat Test loss, check for signs of cement channel
Volume
AZA – May/04 94
What if actual LOT is lower than required?
 Evaluate requirement to cement squeeze or
drill ahead
❖ Anticipated maximum mud weight
❖ Kick capacity margin / other well control
alternatives
❖ Requirement to set additional casing
string
 Need Drilling Superintendent approval for the
option to drill ahead (DOM 10.10.2)
Refer to DOM 10.10.2 for additional operational

controls to be implemented/reinforced
AZA – May/04 95
Pressure Integrity Test #1 (a)
After running and cementing 13-3/8” casing to 7,435 feet TVD, casing
was successfully pressure tested to 3,000 psi (6 bbls mud required to
pressure test). After drilling out shoe, drilling to 7,450 feet TVD and
circulate & conditioning with 13.0 ppg mud, a PIT was run at 1/4 bpm.
Results are as follows:
Volume (bbl) Pressure (psi) Time (min) Pressure (psi)

¼ 50 ISIP 800
½ 200 1 750
3/4 320 2 700
1 400 3 670
1-1/4 475 4 650
1-1/2 585 5 630
1-3/4 660 6 600
2 750 7 600
2-1/4 800 8 580
2-1/2 830 9 570
2-3/4 860 10 560
3 870
AZA – May/04 96
Pressure Integrity Test #1 (b)
Additional information:
• Water depth = 754 feet
• Expected PIT based on offsets = 14.7 ppg
• Minimum PIT needed = 14.0 ppg
• Maximum anticipated MW required to drill to TD = 13.2 ppg
• Maximum test pressure = 15.7 ppg EMW
Questions:
1. Is the pump rate acceptable? Was the pump stopped at
the appropriate time?
2. What is the leak-off pressure?
3. What is the minimum horizontal stress (MS)?
4. Is the test acceptable?
5. What is your recommendation (drill ahead? or squeeze
shoe?)
AZA – May/04 97
Pressure integrity test #2 (a)
Information:
• Casing size = 11-3/4” Casing shoe depth = 9,150 feet
• Hole depth @ test = 9,160 feet Mud weight used in PIT = 13.3 ppg
• Expected PIT based on offsets = 18.0 ppg
• Test rate = ½ bpm
Volume (bbl) Pressure (psi) Time (min) Pressure (psi)
1/2 280 ISIP 1,950
1 440 1 1,920
1-1/2 580 2 1,880
2 740 3 1,860
2-1/2 880 4 1,840
3 1,020 5 1,810
3-1/2 1,180 6 1,780
4 1,320 7 1,750
4-1/2 1,470 8 1,710
5 1,600 9 1,680
5-1/2 1,740 10 1,630
6 1,850
6-1/2 1,930
7 1,980
7-1/2 2,040
AZA – May/04 98
Pressure integrity test #2 (b)
Questions:
1. What is the leak-off pressure?
2. What is the minimum stress?
3. Is the test acceptable?
4. Is cement channel exist?
5. What is your recommendation (retest?,
drill ahead?)
AZA – May/04 99
During-drilling hazards surveillance

 Kick warning
 Good drilling practices
AZA – May/04 100

Kick Warning
 Signs indicating initiation of kick or

kick in progress
 Requires immediate flow check and

secondary well control actions if
necessary
AZA – May/04 101

Signs of Kick
 During drilling
❖ Relative flowrate increase
❖ Pit volume increase
❖ Pump pressure decrease/pump
stroke increase
❖ Drilling break
❖ Mud gas-cut increase
❖ Hookload increase
❖ Mud properties change
❖ Persistent Background Gas and/or
High Connection Gas
 During Tripping
❖ Incorrect hole fill volume
❖ Hole keeps flowing between stands,
while running in
AZA – May/04 102

Importance of responding to kick
indicators in timely manner
 Minimize
❖ Kick size
❖ Surface and downhole pressures
❖ Lost operations time
 Consequences of not responding
timely
❖ Kick becomes blowout
❖ Release of poisonous gas
❖ Pollution
❖ Fire
AZA – May/04 103

Relative flowrate increase
 Inflow of influx increases volume of

materials flowing out of well
 Often 1st and reliable kick indicator
Qout
 Constraints include:
❖ Influx from low permeability formation
(slow bleed in) may difficult to identify
❖ On floaters, the rolls and heaves would
mask any small flowrate increase
Qp Normal: Qout = Qp
Kick: Qout = Qp + Qinflux
Qinflux
AZA – May/04 104

Flow Variation measurement
Gauge on Rig floor

Drillers Console
% of
Flow
Bell
Nipple
Simple
paddlet
type
Flo-sho •• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • •
•
• •
•
•
Flow
•
•
• •
AZA – May/04 105

Pit volume increase
 Inflow of influx expels mud from well
- cause pit volume increase
 Slow bleed-in difficult to detect
 Often masks by factors include:
❖ Surface additions (premix, barite,
Pit gain = Vinflux dilution, etc)
❖ Mud losses (solids control
equipment, downhole formation,
dumping, etc)
Mud pit
 Use of continuous-recording pit level
monitor eases detection
Vin
Normal: Vout = Vin
(no change in pit volume)
- neglect losses
Kick: Vout = Vin +Vinflux
Vinflux (gain in pit volume)
AZA – May/04 106

Continuous Pit Level Monitor
Gauge on Loss Gain

Driller’s Console bbls
Pit ••
• • • • •
Gain
• • • •
• •
• Active mud tank • •
• • • •
AZA – May/04 107

Pit volume totaliser
Normally use on floaters for more
accurate measurement of pit volume
Sensitive Indicator Consists of several floats located at
suitable positions
PVT
Recorder Alarm
Rig Air Ballast tube

Supply
Integrator Assembly
AZA – May/04 108

Pump pressure decrease/
Pump stroke increase
 Influx of lighter fluids reduces the hydrostatic
in annulus - Mud in drillpipe tends to “U” tube
mud U-tube
down  Due to less resistance:
❖ Pump pressure (standpipe pressure)
decreases
❖ Pumps stroke increases
mud  Constraints include:

❖ Need a large kick to be noticeable, although
some rig installation can detect a small change
❖ Same effects seen as in drillstring washout
influx
 Use of continuous recording pump pressure
and pump stroke monitors aids detection
mud > influx

Pannulus < Pdrillpipe
AZA – May/04 109

Drilling break
 Sudden increase in ROP

 Causes
❖ Change in formation drilling characteristics
(strength, etc)
❖ Change in drilling parameters (WOB, RPM, etc)
❖ Increase in formation porosity/permeability
❖ Increase in pore pressure (reduction in
overbalance)
 Rare occasions for drilling breaks actually show
a kick in progress - often a sign for changing
conditions and rising pore pressure which can
lead to a kick
AZA – May/04 110

Mud gas-cut increase
 Increase in gas level may indicate formation
gas feeds into well bore
 High gas cut can lead to significant reduction
in mud weight
AZA – May/04 111

Hookload increase
 Influx displaces mud in annulus, reduces

buoyancy, and hence increased the hook
load
 Not a reliable kick detection method since it
requires a large influx of low density to
produce measurable hook load increase
AZA – May/04 112

Mud properties change
 Reduction in mud weight may indicate dilution

of mud by formation fluids
 Change in mud salinity (mud resistivity,
chloride content), flow properties, pH and
other properties such as fluid loss may
indicate influx of formation salt water
❖ The above changes likely not seen when high
salt content mud (e.g., KCL mud) is used
 Change in oil/water ratio in SBM may indicate
influx of formation water
AZA – May/04 113

During tripping - Incorrect hole fill
 Swabbing during tripping out can

induce influx into wellbore
 Mud volume added or displaced
equals to drillstring steel volume
 If serious doubt, close-in well and check
for pressures
 Sign becomes more obvious with time
Trip tank as more influx flows into wellbore or
when gas freely expands as it percolates
Normal: Vtt = VD.S.steel
Kick: Vtt = VD.S.steel - Vinflux
up hole
Vinflux
AZA – May/04 114

Simple Continuous Circulating
Trip Tank System
Return line
Fill up
Float
line
Tank
Indicator
Pump
AZA – May/04 115

Hole keeps flowing between stands
 When lowering down drill string into hole,

steel volume displaces and cause mud to
flow-out of hole
 If mud flow continues after drill string is
stopped, may indicate influx is feeding in, or
gas is expanding as it percolates up hole
 If doubt exists, observe and shut-in well as
necessary to check for pressures
AZA – May/04 116

Flow check procedure
 To verify/confirm whether a kick in progress

 To be carried-out when one or more kick sign
occurs
 Procedure:
❖ P/U with pumps on to clear kelly from wear
bushing or clear drill pipe tooljoint from BOP rams
❖ Shut pumps off and observe well
❖ If well continue to flows after a few seconds shut-in
pumps, a kick has likely occurred
AZA – May/04 117

Fracture charging flowback / Ballooning
 At high mud weight, varying ECD can cause small
fractures to open and close
❖ Higher ECD whilst circulating opens fractures and
causes slight loss of mud
❖ Lower ECD when pumps shut down closes fractures
and causes return of earlier lost mud (ballooning)
 Can lead to false impression of kick in progress
which cause unnecessary weighting-up of mud:
❖ Continuous mud flow at flowline (closing of fractures)
❖ Temporary increase in mud gas level when circulate
bottoms-up (mud expelled from fractures carry
formation gas)
 Should thoroughly investigate including carrying-
out simulated connection procedures (DOM
14.5.6.2) before raising mud weight
AZA – May/04 118

During-drilling hazard surveillance

 Signs of kick
AZA – May/04 119

Abnormal Pressure Detection
Signs of abnormal pressure or approaching
balanced / underbalanced condition include:
 Increase drilling rate (decrease in “d”

or “dc” exponent)
 Increase Gas readings
 Increase flowline temperature and
change in mud salinity
 Indicative cutting lithology (texture,
size & shape, quantity, etc)
 Decrease shale density
AZA – May/04 120

 Rate of penetration (Mechanically

and Manually recorded “d” & “dc”
exponents)
 Gas readings – BG, CG, TG,
 Mud properties – Flowline
temperature and Chlorides
 Cutting analysis – Lithology, shale
density
AZA – May/04 121

Factors affecting ROP (1)
 Bit weight
 Rotary speed
 Bit type
 Mud viscosity
 Hydraulics
 Hole diameter
 Bit condition
 Differential pressure
AZA – May/04 122

Factors affecting ROP (2)
 When bit parameters & mud properties are
kept constant, ROP relates to:
❖ Lithology
➢ Rock properties (strength, permeability, etc)
❖ Mud overbalance
➢ Increase drilling rate with higher pore
pressure due to lower mud overbalance
➢ One of indication of increasing pore pressure
❖ Bit wear
➢ Decreasing ROP trend with depth as bit
wears-off
AZA – May/04 123

ROP is important parameter
 1st parameter received as well is
drilled – Drilling break
❖ Lithology change
❖ Reduce overbalance
 Other parameters obtained after

mud bottoms up:
❖ Gas reading
❖ Mud temperature
❖ Cutting
AZA – May/04 124

Two (2) types of ROP curves
 Mechanically recorded (Drill

rate plot)
❖ Swaco & Totco recorders
 Manual plotting
❖ “d” and “dc” exponents
AZA – May/04 125

Drill rate interpretation depends on:
 Constant bit parameters

 Constant mud properties
 Bit type and hydraulics
 Scale sensitivity
 Detection of:
❖ Dulling trend
❖ Drill off trend
❖ Changes in lithology
❖ Differential pressure
AZA – May/04 126

Pressure
Drill Rate (ft/hr)
Pore
Example 1 – Drill
300 260 220 180 140 100 60 20
10.0 # mud
8160
9-7/8” hole
Constant
WOB, RPM,
Shale 10.0
rate plot (Swaco)
PP
8180
(Note: Pore pressures shown are
obtained from logs after drilling!)
8200 Sand
Depth (ft)
8220 Shale 10.5
8240
8235’ to 8260’: Drilling rate change from 20 ft/hr
Drill-off 11.0 to 60 ft/hr (three fold increase), but warning was
trend
not noticed due to less sensitive lateral scale (0 -
8260
300 ft/hr) used
Silty Sand Continue drilling with 10.0 mud
8280 Shale
11.5
Incurred kick at 8302 ft while CBU.
8300 Stuck pipe - redrilled hole w/13 ppg
AZA – May/04 127
Original scale Manually Redrawn
pressure
Drill rate (ft/hr)
Example 2 – Drill
Pore
300 200 100 120 80 40 0
7300
Drlg w/12 #mud
12-1/4” hole
Sand rate plot (Totco)
10.0
Shale
7350
7400 10.5
Original Scale (section - 7300 ft to 7550 ft):

Likely to mistakenly interpret entire section
Sand
as alternating sands and shales sequence
7450
Dull 11.2
trend With more sensitive scale (manually drawn),
the delineation of sands is clear - All
section below 7,437 ft is shale, with definite
7500 drill-off trend from 7510 ft to TD.
Drill-off
trend 12.0
7550
AZA – May/04 128

Drilling Exponent “d”
 Developed in 1966 by Jordon and Shirley from data
gathered Gulf Coast, USA
 Normalize ROP, as a function of measured drilling
rate, bit weight, rotary speed and hole size, to detect
increasing formation pressure
 A decrease in “d” value normally indicates increasing
pore pressure
Log (R / 60N)
“d” =
Log (12 W / 106D) (a)
where, R = rate of penetration (ft/hr), N = rotary speed (RPM)

a = constant in the equation, W = Weight on bit (lbs)
D = hole diameter (inches), d = exponent in equation
AZA – May/04 129

Drilling “d” exponent plot
Example
R = 20
N = 100
W = 25,000
D = 9-7/8
“d” = 1.64
AZA – May/04 130

Summary on “d” exponent
 Developed from a basin with roughly 9.0 ppg (0.465
psi/ft) pore gradient
 Equation does not consider major variables; including

hydraulics at bit, bit type, tooth wear, mud density, and
formation strength:
❖ Variations in above properties may cause deviation
from trend lines
❖ Significant changes in properties should be noted and
considered when interpreting “d” exponent plot
 Interpretation may be complicated when:

❖ Poor hole cleaning
❖ Use of unnecessarily high mud weight which can
mask increase in pore pressure
❖ Controlled drilling
AZA – May/04 131

Corrected “dc” exponent
 Correct “d” value to pore gradient of
basin from the mud weight that
generates the “d” value
 Example:
Bit size: 9-7/8”
Drilling parameters: RPM = 150
WOB = 40,000 lbs
Rate of Penetration = 21 ft/hr
Mud weight = 10.5 ppg
Basin gradient = 8.5ppg
Log [21 / (60  150)] Corrected for
“d” = 8.5 basin gradient
Log [(12  40,000) / (106  9.875)]
= 2.0
8.5 ppg  2.0
“dc” = = 1.62
10.5 ppg
AZA – May/04 132

Example 3 - “d” Exponent & Drill Rate plot
“d” Rate Drill rate, ft/hr Pore Mud
1.0 1.5 2.0 400 200 Press Wt.
(East Cameron area, Offshore Louisiana)
11.5
6000 Dull 12.5 Dull trends observed in “d” plot from
trend 5900 – 6150 ft and from 6500 – 6650 ft,
but not observed in ROP curve
6200
Drill-off trend observed in “d” plot from

6400 12.0 6700 ft thru 7200 ft, but not observed in
ROP curve (subsequent logs calculated
Dull
13.0 ppg pore pressure at 7200 ft)
6600 trend
12.5
Dull & Drill-off trends were not observed
6800 In ROP curve probably due to the very
Drill-off compressed and insensitive scale used
7000 trends
7200 13.0 12.5

13.2
AZA – May/04 133
Example 4 – d” exponent and Drill rate plot
“d” rate Drill rate (ft/hr) IES log
Pore Mud
1.0 1.5 2.0 200 100 0 SP Resist Press Wt.
Offshore Louisiana
X3A 12.7 (9-7/8” directional well)
8900
13.1
9000
9100 Dull trend more apparent

on “d” plot than drill rate
Dull trend 13.1 plot
9200
X3A
Only subtle drill trend on
“d” plot from 9,450 to
9300 9,610 ft for slightly
underbalanced condition.
9400
Probable causes:
- Heavy mud weight
13.1
9500
- Controlled drill
Drill off - High torque & drag
trend 13.3
9600
AZA – May/04 134

exponents)
 Gas readings – BG, CG, DG, TG
density
AZA – May/04 135

Gas Detection Equipment
(Hot-wire unit) Sample In
Sample Out
Recorder
Hot-wire
Analyzer Reference
Agitator Cell
Flow Regulator
Hot-wire Analyzer
Recorder
Gas flow
Flow meter
Mud flow
AZA – May/04 136

Persistent Background gas (BGG)
 Definition - Stabilized level of gas level after

cutting have been circulated out or upon
bottoms-up after trip
 Indication - High & persistent BGG level

(which do not decrease with circulations)
may indicate formation gas seeps into well
from low permeability formation(s)
AZA – May/04 137

High Connection Gas (CG)
 Definition - Max gas reading on bottoms up after
connection
 What happen? - Amount of gas feeding into hole when
pumps are stop when making connection. High CG
indicates
❖ Ppore < Mud ECD
❖ Ppore > Mud hydrostatic (or swabbing)
❖ Increasingn CG may indicate increasing pore
pressure
 Requirement - Connections should be made
consistently (same amount of time, same pick-up
speed, pumps on until string is set on slip
AZA – May/04 138

Simulated connection procedure
5m Circ
5m Circ
5m Shut
5m Circ 3 ft RIH
5m Shut
1. Stop drilling, 2. Rotate pipe, 3. Shut pumps, 4. RIH 3 ft off 5. Pumps on,
P/U 30ft with circulate 5 wait 5 minutes bottom RIH &
pumps on minutes rotate pipe w/pumps off, continue
rotate drilling
Stop
drilling Shut-in RIH
Gas unit, %
Circulate Circulate
Time
AZA – May/04 139
Increase Drill Gas
 Definition - Average gas observed while

drilling, excluding show gas
 What is it? - Represent gas liberated

from pores in rock that is being ground
up by bit
AZA – May/04 140

Increase Trip gas Level
 Definition - Maximum gas observed on bottoms-up after
a trip
 What is it? - Represent amount of gas feeding into hole
over entire trip when pumps down
 What happen?
❖ Pulling pipe will induce swabbing effect which reduces
mud pressure
❖ Pulling speed should be reduced in critical sections to
minimize swabbing to get a reliable indication of mud
overbalance/underbalance
 Indication - Excessive trip gas readings may indicate

increase in pore pressure
AZA – May/04 141

Example 1 – Drill rate and BG Gas plot
Drill rate, ft/hr Mud Wt. B.G gas units Pore
100 75 50 25 10 11 12 200 100 Press
12-1/4” X1G bit A good example of underbalanced drilling
NB 10.5 showing increase in BGG and TG due to
7400 higher formation pressure
Drill off Note a gradual increase in BGG as
formation pressure in shale with traces of
7600
11.0
siltstone & lime formation increases to 11
ppg, and a drill-off in ROP from 25 to 60
ft/hr
7800 Bit trip at 7890’ showed TG of 240 units.
TG 240
Gradually increased MW; but the ROP
NB
drill off and increase in BBG gas to 8100’
8000 Drill off 12.0 showed MW was not sufficient – actual
pore pressure was ~12.5 ppg. Below
8100’ BGG increased drastically.
8200 Bit trip at 8400’ showed TG of 500 units

480
and mud cut t0 10 ppg. Drilled to 8460’
with 10.6 ppg mud where BGG increased
340
NB 13.5 to 500 units and mud cut to 10 ppg.
8400 TG 500
300 Continued to drill until kicked was taken

500
at 8520’.
Kicked! – MC to 10.0 – Increase MW to 13.4 & logged well
AZA – May/04 142
Example 2 – Drill rate and BG gas plot
Drill rate, ft/hr Mud Wt. B.G gas units Pore
60 40 20 0 12 13 14 300 200 100 Press
12-1/4” bit
11,700
New Bit 12.0

11,750
12.5 Example of ignoring

New Bit indicators:
11,800
- High BG gas @
~11900 ft
14.0 - Drill off trend
11,850
- Mud cut @11940’
Drill off BG gas off scale after bit trip
trend
11,900
Calcareous silty clay
16.5
New Bit Mud cut 12.6 to 9.5
11,950
17.2
12,000
Pore pressures obtained
Kicked @12,009 ft – Lost circulation & Stuck pipe from logs in sidetrack hole
AZA – May/04 143

exponents)
density
AZA – May/04 144

Why temperature is higher in
abnormal pressure zones?
 Earth continuously radiates heat from its core
outwards to crust
 In normal areas, normal temperature gradient
established as temperature increases per foot
 Abnormal pressure zones:
❖ Have higher porosity – contains abnormal
amount of formation fluids
❖ Formation fluids have lower thermal
conductivity than rock – i.e., retain more heat
❖ Retained heat cause higher returning mud
temperature
AZA – May/04 145

Heat conductivity comparison
between rocks and formation fluids
Approximate Heat Conductivity

Material (mcal cm-1 sec-1 C-1)
Gas 0.1
Oil 0.3
Water 1.4
Clay 2.4
Quartzite 6.8 – 18.9
AZA – May/04 146

Change in mud chloride content
 Influx of formation fluid can result in change of

chloride content and cut in mud weight
 Increase in chloride content can show up as
increase in:
❖ Funnel viscosity
❖ Plastic viscosity
❖ Yield point
AZA – May/04 147

Factors affecting flowline temperature
 Ambient temperature
 Circulation rate
 System volume (mud tanks, etc)
 Time since circulation
 Solids content in mud
 Addition of fluids and additives (e.g.,
water & caustic soda has cooling &
heating respectively)
 Penetration rate
AZA – May/04 148

Temperature Plotting Procedure
 Monitor both in and out temperature –

may consider plotting T against depth
 Correlate lag with depth
 Plot with other parameters
 Establish gradient for each bit run
AZA – May/04 149

Example 1 – Drill rate, B.G gas,
Chloride and Temperature plot
Drill rate, ft/hr Mud Wt. FL. Temp F B.G. gas units Pore
80 60 40 20 9 10 11 100 80 300 200 100 Press
8200 WOB 10.5

65M
RPM
120
8300 CL 1000 11.0

TG 270
ST3J
CL 800 CG 110
8400 WOB CG 120 Flowline temperature warming trend

65M
RPM
CG 150
of 3 /100’ from 8400’ to 8790’ and
120 CG 120
CG 124
of 16/100’ from 8790’ to 8840’.
12.0
8500
CG 200 Increasing gas units observed in
CL 800 CG 100 the said intervals
CG 120
8600 Drilling stop and ran logs. Pressure
CG 200 13.0 from logs was 13.5 ppg at hole TD,
CG 240 i.e., the impermeable section was
drilled with ~3.5 ppg underbalanced
8700 CG 120
CG 140
CG 120
CL1100 CG 80
8800 13.5
AZA – May/04 150

Example 2 – Drill rate, B.G gas
and Temperature Plot
Drill rate, ft/hr Mud Wt. B.G gas units FL Est. Pore
100 50 0 10 11 12 200 100 Temp Press
6800 125 11.5

TG 80 F
6900
124 Ignored the following indicators:
1. Temperature gradient of
7000 2.5/100’, which is twice the
11.1
basin normal gradient
7100 500
127 12.0 2. Mud flowline temperature of 134
400 F although mud is cut with cold
1000 water from 11.5 ppg to 11.3 ppg
11.5 1200 130
7200 3. High B.G and Trip gas units
4. Drill off trend from below 7420’.
Reduced 132
7300 MW TG 350
while Gas increased to 2000 unit before
drilling 134 12.5 well started to flow
7400 123
Drill off
trend 1500
124 13.0
2000
7500
Well flowed – shut in, lost returns and stuck pipe!
AZA – May/04 151
Example 3 – Drill rate, B.G gas and
Chloride plots
Drill rate, ft/hr Mud Wt. Chlorides, ppm B.G gas units Pore
60 40 20 11 12 13 7500 4500 1500150 100 50 Press
The shale section was drilled
with about 2.5 ppg
underbalanced as evidenced
14.0 by high drill rate, BG and mud
9200 cuts
285
At 9425’, chlorides increased
CG 85
MC 11.5 to 11.2
to 4000 from 2000 ppm & mud
14.5
cut to 11.7 from 12.5 ppg
9300
TG 85 Bit Trip gas @9485 ft when
mud weight increased to 13.3
ppg was 500 units
15.0
9400 Drill break at 9515’, on flow
check mud cut to 12.6 ppg
MC 12.5 to 11.7
from 13.3 ppg and chloride
increased to 7200 ppm
TG 500
9500 Decided to stop drilling at
MC 13.3 to 12.6
9600’ – due to difficulty in
15.5 maintaining mud properties.
CG 160
Logs showed pore pressure of
400
15.5 ppg at 9550’
9600
AZA – May/04 152

exponents)
density
AZA – May/04 153

Cutting analysis
 Cuttings from transition zones usually have
different physical properties from normal
pressure zones
 Physical differences include:
❖ Mineralogical composition
❖ Color
❖ Texture
❖ Size ad shape
❖ Fracture
❖ Quantity
❖ Shale bulk density
AZA – May/04 154

Mineral composition
 Type of rock and their probable

environment at time of original
deposition
 Is it shalier or more marine shales
(which may indicate probability of
abnormal pressure) than previous
samples?
AZA – May/04 155

Color change
 May noted following changes:
Normally pressured zones Abnormally pressured zones
Multicolored green, reddish- Darker gray, dark brown to
brown, tan and light gray gray marine shales
non-marine shales
 Subtle change (i.e. not abrupt)

❖ Keep samples to note gradual color change
 Do not use color change indicator alone –
use in combination with other indicators
AZA – May/04 156

Texture
 Need aid of low-power microscope
 Shale textural change:
❖ Silty and rough to waxy, slick or soapy
❖ Larger pieces can feel and look like soap stone
 Hard rock (non clastic) textural change:

❖ Subtle change and difficult to interpret
❖ Usually look for shaliness percentage within
limestone, dolomite, or anhydrite
❖ May show a distinct possibility of overpressure if
non-clastics begin to contain fine sands and shales
AZA – May/04 157

Size and shape
 Cuttings size and shape depend:
❖ Mineralogical and physical properties
❖ Type & weight of drilling mud
❖ Circulation rate, hole geometry, drill string
assembly, downhole agitation
❖ Degree of overbalance downhole
 Signs of approaching underbalanced or in
underbalanced state:
❖ From semi-flat, rounded cuttings to angular, flat,
splintery and often jagged and elongated
(propeller shaped) concave curved cuttings
❖ Large cuttings of several inches long (generally
noted as several pounds underbalanced)
AZA – May/04 158

Spalling versus Sloughing/Caving Shale
 Spalling shales (abnormal pressure)
❖ Deep marine, clean and dark gray shales
❖ Large pieces normally angular, splintery
and often jagged and elongated concave in
shape
 Sloughing shales (water sensitive / borehole

instability)
❖ Claystone, mudstone and silty shale
❖ Also large pieces but normally thicker,
flatter, and more blocky
AZA – May/04 159

Example of Spalling and
Sloughing shales
AZA – May/04 160

Fracture
 Distinctive feature of overpressured

Clastic or non-clastic
 Straight breakage to concoidal
 Pieces are very thin, oblong and jagged
with sharp edges and not blocky
 Limestones and dolomites have opaque
appearance and translucent to light
AZA – May/04 161

Quantity of cuttings
 Often increases when overpressure

becomes greater as a result of formation
begins to implode into the well bore
 Occasionally associated with:
❖ Simultaneous torquing of drill string and
increase in pump pressure
❖ Fills at bottom when making connection
AZA – May/04 162

Shale density
 Bulk density of overpressured shales

lower than normally-compacted shales
❖ Retain larger amount of water
❖ Higher porosity
 Departure from normal compaction
(decrease in shale density) indication of
overpressure
AZA – May/04 163

 Advantages of shale density monitoring
❖ Direct measurement of retained waters
❖ Relative insensitivity to drilling variables
❖ First quantitative detection of overpressure
❖ Non dependent on other integrated indicators
 Limitations of shale density monitoring

❖ Least realiable for quantitative detection of
overpressure
❖ Must recover usable shale cuttings
❖ Shale cutting must be off bottom
❖ Drying procedure sensitivity
❖ Lag time from bottom (salinity exchange
between shale and drilling mud)
AZA – May/04 164

Shale porosity measurement from
Real-time logs
 Resistivity/Conductivity, Sonic or
Density/Porosity logs
 Abnormal pressure shales have higher
porosity
❖ Decrease in resistivity / Increase in
conductivity
❖ Increase in sonic interval transit time
❖ Decrease in bulk density
AZA – May/04 165

Example of Conductivity, Sonic
and Shale density plots
Conductivity Shale Sonic
(mmos) density (sec)
1000 2000 3000 2.5 2.3 100 100
Depth 1000 ft
Actual
MW
9.5
9.6
11.2 9-5/8”
17.5
16.4 7-5/8”
16.9
18.0
5”
19.2
AZA – May/04 166

Summary on
Available Techniques on Prediction,
Detection & Evaluate Overpressures
Source of data Pressure Indicators Time of recording

Geophysical Seismic (formation velocity) Prior to spudding well
methods Gravity
Magnetics
Electrical prospecting methods
Drilling Drilling rate While drilling

parameters “d” or “d c” exponents (no delay time)
Logging while drilling (realtime)
Torque & Drag
Flow-show
Pump pressure & speed
Pit level and total pit volume
Hole fill up
AZA – May/04 167

Summary on techniques (2)

Drilling mud Mud-gas cutting While drilling (delayed
parameters Flow-line mud weight by time required for
Flow-line temperatures mud return)
Mud properties (chloride,
& other novel concepts)
Shale cuttings Bulk density While drilling (delayed

parameters Shale factor by time required for
Volume, shape and size mud return)
Novel, miscellaneous methods
AZA – May/04 168

Summary on techniques (3)

Well logging Electrical surveys After drilling
resistivity / conductivity
shale formation factor
salinity variations
Interval transit time
Bulk density
Formation pressure testers
Hydrogen index
Thermal neutron capture
across section
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Downhole gravity data
Direct pressure Pressure bombs When well is tested or

measuring Drill-stem test completed
devices Wireline formation test
AZA – May/04 169

End of
Planning for
Primary Well Control
Thank you
AZA – May/04 170

Primary Well Control Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Primary Well Control Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLANNING FOR

 Introduction to Primary Well Control planning

Loss of Primary well control

Poor drilling practices:

Pre-drill hazard evaluation While-Drilling Surveillance

 Abnormal Pressure greater than the normal

 Pressure Formation pressure reverses from an

 Under normal conditions:

 Under abnormal conditions:

Decreasing Rock Normal

Uplifted & Sealed faults

Presence of Salt beds

❖ Plastic behavior Salt overburden = 1.1 psi/ft

 Transmit complete Salt bed, 1,000 ft = 1,100 psi

Salt Diapirism (Salt domes)

 Salt domes results from a

Fluid density differences

Pgas = Pnormal - Hgas

A. Montmorillonite before Diagnesis B. After Diagenesis to Illite

Free pore water

About 3000’ - 6000’ About 6000’ - 9000’

C. After Diagenesis and Compaction

Unit layer Water Clay

Below 9000’ - 10,000’

 Interpretation limited to shale sections only:

 Shales have rather uniform and predictable

 Seismic interval transit time is plotted

❖ Under abnormal condition:

4000 Seismic Profile

20 30 40 60 80 100 200 400

 Resistivity log measures rock bulk resistivity

0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0

Resistivity, ohm Depth,ft Resistivity, ohm Depth,ft

10,000 Extrapolated “normal trend”

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 10

2. From the graph, the observed and extrapolated (normal

Observed Extrapolated Ratio

Equivalent mud weight, ppg

correlation was based on

3. The estimated formation pressure are as follow:

Ratio Est. Formation

❖ Foster and Whalen technique

 Hottman & Johnson and Overlay techniques:

 Response of sonic interval transit time:

Interval transit time ( sec/ft)

Equivalent mud weight, ppg

Based on shale acoustic log data

0 20 30 40 Difference in transit time, not ratio!

Sonic log data:

Transit Time Transit Time

At 12,000 feet, the difference

From Hottman & Johnson

plot, the predicted formation

100 200 300 time (µsec/ft)

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

 Formation pressure estimation

 Low formation strength at Mud Overbalance (psi)

500 1000 1500

 When kick occurs, it happens quickly

 Suitable shallow seismic surveys

 If casing annulus pressure observed:

Pbottom = Phyd + Psurge