Multi-Phase Well Control Analysis During Managed Pressure Drilling Operations

Author(s):  
Z. Ma ◽  
A. Karimi Vajargah ◽  
A. Ambrus ◽  
P. Ashok ◽  
D. Chen ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Julmar Shaun Sadicon Toralde ◽  
Chad Henry Wuest ◽  
Robert DeGasperis

The threat of riser gas in deepwater drilling operations is real. Studies show that gas kicks unintentionally entrained in oil-based mud in deepwater are unlikely to break out of solution until they are above the subsea blowout preventers (BOPs). The rig diverter is conventionally used to vent riser gas with minimal control and considerable risk and environmental impact involved. Reactive riser gas systems provide a riser gas handling (RGH) joint that is composed of a retrofitted annular BOP and a flow spool with hoses installed on top of the rig marine riser. A proactive, alternative approach to riser gas handling, called riser gas risk mitigation, is proposed by using managed pressure drilling (MPD) equipment. MPD involves the use of a rotating control device (RCD) to create a closed and pressurisable drilling system where flow out of the well is diverted to an automated MPD choke manifold with a high-resolution mass flow meter that increases the sensitivity and reaction time of the system to kicks, losses and other unwanted drilling events. Experiments and field deployments have shown that the deepwater MPD system can detect a gas influx before it dissolves in oil-based mud, allowing for management of the same using conventional well control methods. Since the MPD system has already closed the well in, automatic diversion and control of gas in the riser is also possible, if required. This paper presents experience gained from deepwater MPD operations in the Asia-Pacific to illustrate this, and possible deployment options in Australia are discussed.


Author(s):  
David M. Pritchard ◽  
Jesse Roye ◽  
J. C. Cunha

When analyzing root causes for minor or major problems occurring in oilwell drilling operations, investigators almost always can track past events, step by step, using recorded data that was produced when the operation occurred. In recent catastrophic blow-outs, investigators were able not only to determine the causes of the accidents but also to indicate mitigating actions, which could have prevented the accident if they were taken when the operation actually took place. This is a strong indicator that, even though the industry has valuable real-time information available, it is not using it as a tool to avoid harmful events and improve performance. Real-time data is not about well control, it is about well control avoidance. Recent catastrophic events have underscored the value of having the right kind of experience to understand and interpret well data in real time, taking the necessary corrective actions before it escalates to more serious problems. What is the well telling us? How do we use real time data to ensure a stable wellbore? Real-time monitoring, integrated with rigorous total well control analysis, is required to embrace and achieve continuous improvements — and ensure the safest possible environment. Next generation monitoring requires a step change that includes hazards avoidance as a precursor to drilling optimization. Real-time data can be used effectively in operations to avoid, minimize, and better manage operational events associated with drilling and completion. Real-time data can also provide the foundational support to improve training in the industry as well as develop hands-on simulators for hazards avoidance.


2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Nas

Closing the wellbore at the top with a rotating control device (RCD) for some kinds of managed pressure drilling (MPD) operations raises a number of issues with regards to well control and kick detection. The wellbore is closed and the standard flow check of looking into the well is no longer possible. The use of a RCD provides drillers with an additional level of comfort because it is a pressure management device, but it doesn’t eliminate the need to have well control as a primary objective. In recent MPD operations, it has already been observed that well control procedures are relaxed as a result of managed pressure drilling. Is managed pressure drilling the same as primary well control, and how do we deal with kicks in managed pressure drilling operations? At what point in a well control process do we hand over from MPD to drillers’ well control, and who is responsible? This paper will present some of the issues that need to be considered when planning and conducting MPD operations. Early kick detection and annular pressure control are promoted as an essential part of MPD operations, but there can be confusion as to where the responsibility for well control lies. Does the responsibility remain with the drilling contractor and operator or with the provider of the MPD services. The paper provides some case studies where MPD and well control conflicted, causing a number of issues that in some cases led to the loss of wells.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Bacon ◽  
Albert Y. Tong ◽  
Oscar Roberto Gabaldon ◽  
Cathy Sugden ◽  
P.V. Suryanarayana

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahendra R Kunju ◽  
Mauricio A Almeida

Abstract As the use of adaptive drilling process like Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) facilitates drilling of otherwise non-drillable wells with faster corrective action, the drilling industry should review some of the misconceptions to produce more efficient well control methods. This paper discusses results from full-scale experiments recently conducted in an extensively instrumented test well at Louisiana State University (LSU) and demonstrate that common expectations regarding the potential for high/damaging internal riser pressures resulting from upward transport or aggregation of riser gas are unfounded, particularly when compressibility of riser and its contents are considered. This research also demonstrates the minimal fluid bleed volumes required to reduce pressure build-up consequences of free gas migration in a fully closed riser.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Egil Ronaes ◽  
Ole Iacob Prebensen ◽  
Renate Mikalsen ◽  
Knut Taugbol ◽  
Svein Syltoy ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Enyekwe ◽  
Osahon Urubusi ◽  
Raufu Yekini ◽  
Iorkam Azoom ◽  
Oloruntoba Isehunwa

ABSTRACT Significant emphasis on data quality is placed on real-time drilling data for the optimization of drilling operations and on logging data for quality lithological and petrophysical description of a field. This is evidenced by huge sums spent on real time MWD/LWD tools, broadband services, wireline logging tools, etc. However, a lot more needs to be done to harness quality data for future workover and or abandonment operations where data being relied on is data that must have been entered decades ago and costs and time spent are critically linked to already known and certified information. In some cases, data relied on has been migrated across different data management platforms, during which relevant data might have been lost, mis-interpreted or mis-placed. Another common cause of wrong data is improperly documented well intervention operations which have been done in such a short time, that there is no pressure to document the operation properly. This leads to confusion over simple issues such as what depth a plug was set, or what junk was left in hole. The relative lack of emphasis on this type of data quality has led to high costs of workover and abandonment operations. In some cases, well control incidents and process safety incidents have arisen. This paper looks at over 20 workover operations carried out in a span of 10 years. An analysis is done on the wells’ original timeline of operation. The data management system is generally analyzed and a categorization of issues experienced during the workover operations is outlined. Bottlenecks in data management are defined and solutions currently being implemented to manage these problems are listed as recommended good practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document