SPE/IADC 91356 Pressure Stability Analysis for Aerated Mud Drilling Using an Analytical Hydraulics Model

Boyun Guo, SPE, and Ali Ghalambor, SPE, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Copyright 2004, SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1112 October 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Introduction Aerated muds are mixtures of liquid (normally water or oil), gas (normally air or nitrogen), and solids (drill cuttings). The IADC Fluids Selection Guidelines list aerated muds as liquidgas mixture with a density ranging from 4.0 to 6.9 ppg. This constitutes a liquid pumping rate between 100 gpm and 300 gpm and a gas injection rate ranging from 250 scfm to 1250 scfm in a typical hole size such as a 6 holes drilled with 3.5 drill pipes. Aerated muds are currently used for Underbalanced drilling (UBD) and managed pressure drilling (MPD) operations for reducing formation damage and lost circulation.1,2 Fluctuation in the borehole pressure has been recognized as one of the major problems in aerated mud drilling due to its detrimental impact on borehole stability and formation damage.3,4 Severe wellbore damages and failures can result from the pressure stability problem. However, a systematic analysis of the subject problem has not been found from literature. This paper fills the gap. A careful analysis of the pressure stability problem requires an accurate hydraulics model for multiphase flow. Although both steady state flow and transient flow simulators are available in drilling industry for aerated mud drilling hydraulics calculations,4-9 the results from these simulators are frequently conflicting10 due to different assumptions that were made in mathematical formulations. In addition, tedious procedure has to be followed to analyze the behavior of aerated mud with transient flow simulator. Guo et al.11 presented a closed form hydraulics equation and demonstrated excellent accuracy of the equation when applied to two field cases covering a deep horizontal well and a shallow horizontal well drilled with aerated muds. This hydraulics equation provided a basis for the analyzing pressure stability in this study. This paper focuses on analyses of bottomhole pressure fluctuations due to circulation break and variations in the backpressure at surface choke. The pressure fluctuation due to circulation break is characterized by the gradient loss defined as the difference between the Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) and Equivalent Mud Weigh (EMW). The pressure fluctuation due to backpressure variation is evaluated using the pressure instability factor defined as the ratio of change in the bottomhole pressure to the change in the surface choke pressure. This paper reports on identified key factors affecting the pressure stability on the basis of theoretical analyses The

Abstract Fluctuations in the borehole pressure has been generally recognized as one of the major problems in aerated mud drilling due to its detrimental impact on borehole stability and formation damage. This paper focuses on analyses of bottomhole pressure fluctuations due to circulation break and backpressure variation. The pressure fluctuations due to circulation break is characterized by the gradient loss defined as ECD less EMW. The pressure fluctuation due to backpressure change is evaluated using the pressure instability factor defined as the ratio of change in the bottomhole pressure to the change in the surface choke pressure. Sensitivity analyses with an analytical model indicate that the gradient loss decreases with depth, increases with both liquid pumping rate and gas injection rate, and decreases with backpressure. The analyses also show that the pressure instability factor increases with depth, decreases with both liquid pumping rate and gas injection rate, and increases with backpressure. At a given depth and backpressure, it is the combination of liquid and gas flow rate, rather than the injection GLR, that determines the pressure instability factor. Following a change in the backpressure, the transition time for borehole pressure to stabilize at a new level depends on several factors including well depth, well geometry, and liquid pumping rate. This paper presents an easy-to-use method for predicting pressure fluctuations and identifies key factors affecting the pressure stability in aerated mud drilling. The results can be applied to designing of hydraulics for Underbalanced drilling (UBD) and managed-pressure drilling (MPD) wells.

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

results can be applied to designing of hydraulics for Underbalanced drilling (UBD) and managed-pressure drilling (MPD) wells. Mathematical Model The mathematical model used in this paper was developed on the basis of Guo et al.s11 analytical model for mud-gas-oilsolid four-phase steady flow. This section summarizes Guo et al.s model and defines new terms to characterize pressure stability. The mathematical model is only applicable to steady flow. Borehole Pressure. According to Guo et al.s, the pressure in the annular space at a given depth can be solved from the following equation:

GLR =

14.7Qgo Ps + P Qm 5.615Q f + ( 2)(144) 60 7.48

(9)

m= n=

cde 1 + d 2e

(10)

(1 + d e)
2

c 2e

(11)

and the involved parameters are identified as follows: = cross sectional area of flow path, in2 = bit diameter, in = hydraulic diameter, in = average roughness, in e f = Moody friction factor FLHU = correction factor for liquid holdup g = gravity acceleration, 32.2 ft/sec2 GLR = the average downstream GLR, dimension less. L = borehole measured depth, ft P = annular pressure at depth, lb/ft2 Ps = backpressure pressure at choke, lb/ft2 Ql = formation fluid influx rate, bbl/hr Qgo = volumetric gas flow rate, ft3/min = mud flow rate delivered by pump, gpm Qm Rp = rate of penetration, ft/hour Sg = specific gravity of gas, 1 for air Sl = formation fluid specific gravity, 1 for water Ss = solid specific gravity, 1 for water T = absolute temperature, oR Wm = mud weight, ppg = inclination angle, degree. A db DH

b(P Ps ) +

1 2bm (P + m ) + n ln 2 (Ps + m )2 + n
2

m + bn bm 2 1 P + m 1 Ps + m tan tan n n n

= a 1 + d 2e L

(1)

where the parameter groups are defined as

0.0014 d b S s R p + 0.25WmQm + 1.44 Sl Q f + 0.019 S g Qgo
2

a=

TQ go

cos( )

(2)

b=

0.033Qm + 0.023Q f . TQ go

(3)

c=

9.77TQ go A

(4)

d=

0.33Qm + 0.22Q f A

(5)

The annular pressure at a given depth can be solved from Eq. (1) using numerical techniques such as Newton-Raphson iteration method. This was done quickly in an MS Excel spreadsheet during this study. Gradient Loss. The pressure fluctuation due to circulation break is characterized by the gradient loss defined as the difference between the Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) and Equivalent Mud Weigh (EMW). The term ECD used in this study is defined as:

f e= 2 gD H cos( )
1 f = FLHU 2e 1.74 2 log D H
2

(6)

(7) where (8) pflow H ECD

ECD =

p flow 14.696 0.052H

(12)

= flowing pressure, psia = L cos( ) = vertical depth, ft = equivalent circulating density, ppg.

FLHU = (13.452 0.02992 GLR) / 2

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

The term EMW used in this study is defined as:

EMW =
where pstatic EMW

p static 14.696 0.052H

(13)

= static pressure right after circulation break, psia = equivalent mud weight, ppg.

gas phase giving more room for liquid to fill in. This process should continue until a new steady state flow is established. Neglecting the effect of frictional pressure loss, the minimum transition time for reaching a steady flow may be estimated on the basis of pressure increase, annular geometry, and liquid pumping rate. The increase in the liquid column height can be estimated by

Pressure Instability Factor. The pressure fluctuation due to backpressure variation is evaluated using the pressure instability factor defined as the ratio of change in the bottomhole pressure to the change in the surface choke

Dv =
where

p 0.052Wm

(16)

P pressure P . For a small change in the surface choke s pressure Ps , the pressure instability factor can be estimated using the derivative of P with respect to Ps , i.e., P P s dP dP s
(14)

Dv = equivalent increment in vertical liquid column, ft p = increase in borehole pressure, psi.

The minimum transition time,

t m in minute, required to

increase this liquid column height can be estimated by

t m =

7.48 ADv . 144Qm

(17)

If the backpressure at the surface choke is reduced ( Ps is which can be readily derived on the basis of Eq. (1) as follows: negative), the borehole pressure at depth should react and drop after a lag time during which the pressure wave propagates from surface to the depth. This decreased pressure will cause expansion of the gas phase in the borehole, squeezing liquid phase out of the annulus. As a result, the liquid volume returning to surface will be more than the liquid volume fed to the annulus from bit nozzles. It is difficult to predict how long it will take to release the extra liquid volume and establish a steady flow condition in a lower pressure level in the annular space. Larger chokes allow liquid to flow more quickly than smaller chokes. Sensitivity Analysis To investigate how different factors affect stability of bottom hole pressure, the mathematical model was coded in a spreadsheet and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Base data used in the analyses are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 shows calculated gradient loss along depth for three different liquid pumping rates while other parameters are fixed. It indicates that the higher the liquid flow rate, the higher the gradient loss after a circulation break. This is expected because the gradient loss is due to disappearance of the frictional pressure component that is proportional to liquid flow rate. Similar effect of gas injection rate is indicated by Fig. 3, i.e., the higher the gas injection rate, the higher the gradient loss after circulation break. Again, this is attributed to the effect of gas flow rate on the frictional pressure loss. Figure 4 presents calculated gradient loss along depth for three different backpressures applied at choke manifold while other parameters are fixed. It indicates that the higher the backpressure, the lower the gradient loss after a circulation break. This is because the backpressure compresses the gas

(1 2bm)( Ps + m) (m + bn bm 2 ) ( Ps + m) 2 + n dP . = dPs (1 2bm)( P + m) (m + bn bm 2 ) b+ ( P + m) 2 + n b+

(15)

Transition Time. Following a change in the backpressure at the surface choke, the borehole pressure at depth should reflect the change after a lag time during which the pressure wave propagates from surface to the depth. Data from field measurements shown in Fig. 1 indicates that the lag time should be very short. It could be from a few seconds to a few minutes, depending on borehole depth and fluid composition. However, it should take some transition time for the borehole pressure at depth to stabilize at a new level. Knowing this transition time is of a great interest to the field engineers in UBD and MPD. The equations presented in this section may be used to give the first rough estimate of the minimum transition time. If the backpressure at the surface choke is increased ( Ps is positive), the borehole pressure at depth should react and increase after a lag time during which the pressure wave propagates from surface to the depth. This increased borehole pressure should cause compression of the gas phase in the borehole, giving more space for liquid phase to take over. As a result, the liquid volume returning to surface should be less than the liquid volume fed to the annulus from bit nozzles. The liquid accumulation in the annulus further compress the

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

phase volume, resulting in low-mixture velocity and friction pressure loss. Figures 2 through 4 indicate that the magnitude of pressure fluctuation during a circulation break decreases with depth. Figure 5 presents calculated pressure instability factor along depth for three different liquid pumping rates while other parameters are fixed. It shows that the higher the liquid flow rate, the lower the pressure instability factor. Similar effect of gas injection rate is indicated by Fig. 6, i.e., the higher the gas injection rate, the lower the pressure instability factor. Figure 7 illustrates calculated pressure instability factor along depth for three different backpressures applied at choke manifold while other parameters are fixed. It suggests that the higher the backpressure, the lower the pressure instability factor. Figure 8 shows calculated pressure instability factor profiles for two different rate combinations at the same injection gas-liquid ratio (GLR). It indicates that even though the GLR is kept the same, the calculated pressure instability factor profiles for the two cases are significantly different. That is, the dimensional values of the liquid and gas injection rates, not the injection GLR, determines the pressure instability factor. Figures 5 through 8 also show that the magnitude of pressure instability factor increases with depth. Figure 9 shows calculated minimum transition time along depth for three different liquid pumping rates while other parameters are fixed. It indicates that the higher the liquid flow rate, the shorter the minimum transition time. This is expected because a high-liquid rate speeds up the process of fluid re-distribution Similar effect of gas injection rate is indicated by Fig. 10, i.e., the higher the liquid flow rate, the shorter the minimum transition time. Again, this is attributed to the fact that a high-gas flow rate helps to establish a new fluid distribution quickly. Discussion The following statements are made regarding the applicability of results from this work. 1. The results presented in the previous section were derived on the basis of an assumption that Guo et al.s11 analytical model for mud-gas-oil-solid four-phase steady flow is adequate for describing the flow of aerated mud in borehole conditions. Guo et al. claimed that the model is valid for bubbly flow defined as the flow of liquid-gas mixture where the gas phase is dispersed into the continuous liquid phase in the form of small bubbles. Guo et al.11 observed that bubbly flow exists when the in-situ gas/liquid ratio (GLR, dimensionless) is less than unity. This condition may not exist at shallow depth of less than 1,000 feet. Therefore, extrapolating the results presented in this paper to shallow depth may cause significant error. 2. The results presented in the previous section were obtained with parameter values summarized in Table 1 and the ranges of parameters sensitized. It is not guaranteed that bubbly flow exists in the full range of the conditions assumed in the sensitivity analyses. The purpose of this

paper is to identify key factors affecting the pressure stability with a simple and consistent model. In the reality of aerated mud drilling hydraulics design, the lower boundary for liquid pumping rate is dictated primarily by the minimum annular liquid velocity required for adequate hole cleaning. The bottomhole pressure required by UBD or MPD generally dictates the upper boundary of liquid pumping rate and the range of gas injection rate. Guo et al.12 presented a systematic approach to delineation of the flow rate window. Once the flow rate window is finalized, the optimum combinations of liquid and gas injection rates can be determined to minimize pressure instability with the method presented in this paper. The transient effects within this operating window may be evaluated using a transient simulator.4 Conclusions A simple method has been developed in this study for analyzing pressure stability in aerated mud drilling. The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of theoretical analyses: 1. The magnitude of fluctuation in the bottomhole pressure during a circulation break decreases with depth. Reducing liquid pumping rate and gas injection rate, and increasing backpressure should minimize this pressure fluctuation. 2. The magnitude of fluctuation in the bottomhole pressure due to choke pressure variation increases with depth. Increasing liquid pumping rate and gas injection rate, and decreasing backpressure should minimize the bottomhole pressure fluctuation. 3. The transition time required to establish bottomhole pressure at a new level after a choke pressure change should increase with depth. Increasing liquid pumping rate and gas injection rate should shorten the transition time.

Acknowledgement The authors thank ChevronTexaco and API for providing Board of Regents Chevron I Endowed Professorship and API Endowed Professorship in Petroleum Engineering throughout this study. The authors are grateful to the Faculty Development Office at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette for its financial support to this research.

Nomenclature A db DH ECD EMW = cross sectional area of flow path, in2 = bit diameter, in = hydraulic diameter, in = equivalent circulating density, ppg = equivalent mud weight, ppg = average roughness, in = Moody friction factor = correction factor for liquid holdup = gravity acceleration, 32.2 ft/sec2

e
f FLHU g

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

GLR L P pflow Ps pstatic Ql Qgo Qm Rp Sg Sl Ss T Wm

= the average downstream GLR, dimension less. = borehole measured depth, ft = annular pressure at depth, lb/ft2 = flowing pressure, psia = backpressure pressure at choke, lb/ft2 = static pressure, psia = formation fluid influx rate, bbl/hr = volumetric gas flow rate, ft3/min = mud flow rate delivered by pump, gpm = rate of penetration, ft/hour = specific gravity of gas, 1 for air = formation fluid specific gravity, 1 for water = solid specific gravity, 1 for water = absolute temperature, oR = mud weight, ppg = inclination angle, degree.

9.

Fan, J., Gao, C., Shi, T., Liu, H., and Yu, Z.: A Comprehensive Model and Computer Simulation for Underbalanced Drilling in Oil and Gas Wells, SPE paper 68495 presented at the SPE/IcoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 7-8 March 2001.

10. Nakagawa, E.Y., Silva, V., Jr., Boas, M.D.V., Silva, P.R.C., and Shayegi, S.: Comparison of Aerated Fluids/Foam Drilling Hydraulics Simulators Against Field Data, SPE paper 54319 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20-22 April 1999. 11. Guo, B., Sun, S., and Ghalambor, A.: A Closed Form Hydraulics Equation for Aerated Mud Drilling in Inclined Wells, SPE Drilling & Completion Journal (June 2004). 12. Guo, B., Sun, S., and Ghalambor, A.: An Innovation in Designing Underbalanced Drilling Flow Rates: A GasLiquid Rate Window (GLRW) Approach, SPE paper 77237 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held 911 September 2002 in Jakarta, Indonesia.

References 1. Lyons, W.C., Guo, B., and Seidel, F.A.: Air and Gas Drilling Manual, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc, 2001. Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A.: Gas Volume Requirements for Underbalanced Drilling Deviated Holes, PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2002. Saponja, J.: Challenges with Jointed-Pipe Underbalanced Operations, SPE Drilling & Completion Journal (June 1998). Mykytiw, C.G., Davidson, I.A., and Frink, P.J.: Design and Operational Considerations to Maintain Underbalanced Conditions with Concentric Casing Injection, SPE paper 81631 presented at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition held 25-26 March 2003 in Houston, Texas. Guo, B., Hareland, G. and Rajtar, J.: Computer Simulation Predicts Unfavorable Mud Rate and Optimum Air Injection Rate for Aerated Mud Drilling, SPE Drilling & Completion Journal (June 1996). Griffin, D.R. and Lyons, W.C.: Case Studies of Design and Implementation of Underbalanced Wells, SPE paper 55060 presented at the 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in Gillette, Wyoming, 15-18 May 1999. Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W.: Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in Annuli, SPE paper 63127 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000. Lage, A.C.V.M., Fjelde, K.K., and Time, R.W.: Underbalanced Drilling Dynamics: Two-Phase Flow Modeling and Experiments, SPE paper 62743 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11-13 September 2000.

2.

Table 1 Base Case Parameters Used in the Sensitivity Analysis Total Depth 10000 Depth of the Surface Choke 0.00 Annulus OD 6.28 Drill String OD 3.50 Inclination Angle 0.00 Surface Temperature 520 Rock Specific Gravity 2.65 Mud Weight 8.4 Gas Specific Gravity 0.97 Formation Fluid Gravity 0.00123 Geothermal Gradient Hole Roughness Formation Fluid Influx Rate Bit Size ROP Mud Injection Rate Gas Injection Rate Backpressure at Choke ft ft in In Deg R water=1 ppg air = 1 water=1

3.

4.

5.

0.01 oF/ft 0.0018 in 0 bbl/hr 6.125 in 30 ft/hr 200 gpm 500 scfm 50 psia

6.

7.

8.

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

Liquid Pumping Rate 200 gpm. Backpressure 50 psia. 2400 2300 190 170 150
BHCP WHP

4.50

2200 2100 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wellhead Pressure (psia)

Bottomhole Circulating Pressure (psia)

4.00 3.50

ECD - EMW (ppg)

130 110 90 70 50

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

500 scfm

1.00 0.50

Time (min.)

750 scfm 1000 scfm

Fig. 1 A field example to show the time for the pressure wave to propagate from surface choke to bottom hole

0.00 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Depth (ft)

Fig. 3 Effect of gas injection rate on (ECD EMW)

Gas Injection Rate 500 scfm. Backpressure 50 psia.

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
100 gpm 200 gpm 300 gpm
4 3.5 5 4.5

Liquid Pumping Rate 200 gpm. Gas Injection Rate 500 scfm.

15 psia 50 psia 100 psia

ECD - EMW (ppg)

ECD - EMW (ppg)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Fig. 2 Effect of liquid pumping rate on (ECD EMW)

Fig. 4 Effect of backpressure on (ECD EMW)

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

Gas Injection Rate 500 scfm. Backpressure 50 psia.

3
2 1.8

Liquid Pumping Rate 200 gpm. Gas Injection Rate 500 scfm.

2.5

100 gpm 200 gpm

1.6

Instability Factor Pbh /Ps

300 gpm

Instability Factor Pbh/Ps

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

15 psia 50 psia 100 psia

1.5

0.5

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Fig. 5 Effect of liquid pumping rate on pressure instability factor

Fig. 7 Effect of backpressure on pressure instability factor

Liquid Pumping Rate 200 gpm. Backpressure 50 psia. 1.6 Same Injection GLR (5 scfm/gpm) but Different Flow Rates 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6
500 scfm

100 gpm & 500 scfm

Instability Factor Pbh/Ps

Instability Factor Pbh/Ps

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

200 gpm & 1000

0.4 0.2 0 0 2000 4000 6000

750 scfm 1000 scfm

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Depth (ft)
8000 10000

Depth (ft)

Fig. 6 Effect of gas injection rate on pressure instability factor

Fig. 8 Effect of combination of liquid and gas flow rates on pressure instability factor

www.petroman.ir

SPE/IADC 91356

Minimum Transition Time tm, (min)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

Qm=100 gpm, Qg=500 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100 psia Qm=200 gpm, Qg=500 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100 psia Qm=300 gpm, Qg=500 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Bit Depth (ft)

Fig. 9 Effect of liquid pumping rate on the minimum transition time

Qm=200 gpm, Qg=500 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100 psia

2.5

Qm=200 gpm, Qg=750 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100 psia Qm=200 gpm, Qg=1000 scfm, Ps from 15 to 100 psia

Minimum Transition Time tm, (min)

1.5

0.5

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Bit Depth (ft)

Fig. 10 Effect of gas injection rate on the minimum transition time

www.petroman.ir