MODELLING THE HYDRAULIC LIFT PHENOMENON DURING

CASING WHILE DRILLING

SAIFUL ISLAM

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

DHAKA, BANGLADESH

DECEMBER, 2015
MODELLING THE HYDRAULIC LIFT PHENOMENON DURING
CASING WHILE DRILLING

A PROJECT BY

SAIFUL ISLAM

SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

DECEMBER, 2015
Abstract

Casing while Drilling (CwD) is a process in which a well is drilled and cased
simultaneously. This innovative technology has been successfully practiced for the
past decade. However, narrow annuli often causes problems like packing or caving in
the wellbore that may restrict the fluid flow and hole cleaning capacity. Hydraulic lift
could be one of the beneficial factors that can be used to increase the efficiency of
drilling as it can be used to monitor the wellbore condition. The purpose of this
project work is to develop a theoretical model to calculate the overall hydraulic lift
during CwD to evaluate the wellbore irregularities.

As CwD process utilizes large diameter casing to drill, several forces act upwards on
the casing. Usually Small annulus brings about higher frictional pressure drop
compare to the conventional operation that causes high upward drag force on casing
wall. Another force acts upwards at the bottom face of the casing while fluid exits
through the nozzles. In this study fluid hydraulic principles have been used to
generate the overall hydraulic lift model. This theoretical model has then been
compared with field measurement from hookload. Deviation of the field measured
value from the predicted hydraulic lift is an indicator of wellbore conditions.

In this study trend of hydraulic lift predicted using theoretical model is compared with
the field measured value of an well. Observation of this comparison is then analyzed
with the field report to validate the model. Hydraulic lifts for three different depth
interval and flow rates are measured. Findings of the comparisons are correlated with
the summary of the field report for each section. Most significant finding is higher
field measured hydraulic lift means higher friction due to packing or caving from the
well bore that resembles the field observation also for a certain interval. The novelty
of using hydraulic lift in CwD will enable the monitoring of wellbore condition to
improve hole cleaning efficiency during operation.

i
Acknowledgement

This project work became possible with suggestions and encouragements of several
precious people during my two years of master’s study. Without their support, this
study would not have been possible.

First of all I would like to thank my supervisor Mohammad Mojammel Huque,

Assistant Professor, Department of Petroleum & Mineral Resources Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology for his supervision, guidance,
encouragement, reviewing throughout this work.

I also would like to express my deepest and sincerest thank to Mr. Shahriar Mahmud,
Assistant Rig Manager, KCA Deutag, Myanmer for many reasons. First of all for
selecting such an interesting topic and then constantly supervising me with proper
directions and providing useful information.

I am grateful to Dr. Mohammad Tamim, Professor and Head, Department of

Petroleum & Mineral Resources Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering
and Technology for his valuable advice, guidance and inspiration during his lectures
that help me a lot in completing this work.

Then I have to mention Mr. Moji Karimi, Product Launch Manager, Weatherford,
USA who has supported me in getting necessary data and information.

ii
LIST OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Purpose of the work……………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Background of the study………………………………………………………….. 1
CHAPTER: 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………. 3
2.1 Casing while Drilling Technology………………………………………………… 3
2.2 Casing while Drilling features…………………………………………………….. 4
2.3 Advantages of Casing while Drilling Technology………………………………… 7
2.3.1 Reduce Drilling Times…………………………………………………………. 8
2.3.2 Elimination of swab and surge pressure effects……………………………….. 8
2.3.3 Rig adaptations and HSE……………………………………………………….. 9
2.3.4 Effective borehole cleaning…………...………………………………………... 9
2.3.5 Wellbore in gauge…………………………………………..…………………... 10
2.3.6 Improvements on production…………………………………………………… 12
2.3.7 Lost circulation reduction………………………………………………………. 12
2.3.8 Reduce cost of the well…………………………………………………………. 13
2.4 Limitations of Casing while Drilling Technology………………………………….. 14
2.5 Review of hydraulics……………………………………………………………….. 15
2.5.1 Drilling Fluid Rheology………………………………………………………… 15
2.5.2 Fluid Flow and Frictional Pressure Loss Analysis for a CwD annulus………… 18
2.5.3 Annular Frictional Pressure Loss using Narrow Slot Approximation method…. 19
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….. 22
3.1 Hydraulic lift phenomenon………………….……………………………………… 22
3.2 Model Description………………………………………………………………….. 23
3.2.1 Model derivation for vertical well with uniform casing and hole……............... 25
3.2.2 Model derivation with liner……………………………………………………. 27
3.2.3 Model derivation for inclined well …………………………………………….. 29
3.2.4 Field Measuring Procedure of Hydraulic Lift………………………………….. 31
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES………………………………………………………... 32
4.1 Background of the field…………………………………………………………….. 35
4.2 Factors affecting hydraulic lift…………………………………..………….……… 35
4.2.1 Effect of mud flow rate………………….…….…………………………........... 37

iii
 4.2.2 Effect of borehole size…….…………….……..………………………….......... 38
4.2.3 Effect of cuttings concentration……..….……...…………………………......... 38
4.2.4 Criteria to evaluate predicted and measured…...…………………………......... 39
4.3 Result analysis of the predicted and field measured value………………………… 43
4.3.1 Study of HL using the model at depth 8715-8750 ft- Section I……………….. 44
4.3.2 Study of HL using the model at depth 8770-9180 ft- Section II…………….. 46
4.3.3 Study of HL using the model at depth 9190-9204 ft- Section III……………. 51
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………… 56
REFERENCES………….……………………………………………………………… 58
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………... 60

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: a) Non Retrievable CwD assembly and b) Conventional drilling assembly
(Karimi et al 2012) …………………………………………………………. 5
Figure 2.2: Casing Drive System mounted to top drive (Warren et al.,2004)…………… 6
Figure 2.3: Retrievable CwD Bottom Hole Assembly set for directional drilling
(Warren and Lesso, 2005)…………………………………………………… 7
Figure 2.4: Drilling days between conventional drilling and casing drilling (Lopez and
Bonilla, 2010)………………….………………………………..………….. 9
Figure 2.5: Differences between conventional drilling and casing drilling annulus size
(Moellendick and Karimi, 2011)……………………………………………. 10
Figure2.6: Borehole quality improvement by CwD (right) as compared to conventional
drilling(left)………………………………………………………………....... 11
Figure2.7: Contact angle of CwD (right) is smaller than contact angle of drill pipe (left)
α1> α2, α= contact angle of the pipe with the wellbore( Karimi et al., 2011)... 12
Figure2.8: Contact area of CwD (right) is smaller than contact area of drill pipe (left)
A1<A2, A= contact area of the pipe with the wellbore( Karimi et al., 2011)... 12
Figure2.9: Penetration depth onto filter cake, penetration of CwD is less than
penetration of drill pipe d1>d2; d= penetration depth into the filter cake
( Karimi et al.,2011)………………………………………………………... 12
Figure 2.10: Wells drilled with CwD outperformed conventional wells in gas
production (Tessari et al.,2006)……………………………………………. 13
Figure 2.11: Casing drilling eliminates lost circulation (Karimi et al., 2011)…………… 14
Figure 2.12: Comparison Cost/ft between casing drilling wells and loss circulation
wells (Lopez and Bonilla, 2010)……………………………………………. 15
Figure 2.13: Shear stress-Shear rate curve for different fluid types (Taken from Amoco
Production Company – Drilling Fluids Manual)…………………………… 18
Figure 2.14: Representing the annulus as a slot: (a) annulur and (b)equivalent slot
expressing………………………………………………………………....... 21
Figure 3.1: Major contributing forces on Hydraulic Lift………………………………… 23
Figure 3.2: Mud circulation system……………………………………………………… 25
Figure 3.3: Contributing forces on hydraulic lift (Vertical Well)……………………….. 26
Figure 3.4: Schematic of a Typical Liner drilling wellbore….………………………….. 29

v
Figure 3.5: Contributing forces on hydraulic lift in inclined well……………………….. 20
Figure 4.1: Figure 4.1: Wellbore geometry of the well to be analyzed………………….. 34
Figure 4.2: Effect of flow rate on HL……………………….…………………………… 37
Figure 4.3 Effect of hole size on HL ……………………………………………………. 38
Figure 4.4: Effect of cuttings concentration on HL……………………………..…...….. 39
Figure 4.5: Well bore geometry used in HL measurement…………………………….… 41
Figure 4.6: HL vs Measured depth at flow rate 293 gpm………………………………... 43
Figure 4.7: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 810 -8735 ft
with flow rate 293 gpm ….…………...……………………………………... 46
Figure 4.8: HL vs measured depth at flow rate 318 gpm………………………………... 48
Figure 4.9: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 810 -8735 ft
with flow rate 318 gpm…………….………………………………………... 51
Figure 4.10: HL vs Measured depth at flow rate 342 gpm………………………………. 53
Figure 4.11: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 810ft –
8735 ft with flow rate 293 gpm……...…………………………………… 56

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Summery of formulas for annulus frictional pressure drop………………….. 22
Table 4.1: Well parameters (Source: Weatherford International)……………….……… 35
Table 4.2: Mud properties (Source: Weatherford International)....................…………… 35
Table 4.3: Summery of the casing drilling operation (Source:Weatherford International) 34
Table 4.4: Different flow rates used to show the effect………………………………….. 37
Table 4.5: Well bore parameters used to show the effect of hole size……………….….. 38
Table 4.6: Properties used to show the effect of cuttings………………………………... 39
Table 4.7: Flow rates at different interval depth………………………………………… 40
Table 4.8: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 293 gpm…………………………. 42
Table 4.9: HL calculation for 8710- 8735 ft…………………………………………….. 44
Table 4.10: Field measurement of HL at depth 8715-8713ft and flow rate 293gpm…… 45
Table 4.11: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 318 gpm………………………... 48
Table 4.12: HL calculation for 8770-9190 ft……………………………………………. 49
Table4.13: Field measurement of HL at depth 8770-9180 ft and flow rate 318gpm…… 50
Table 4.14: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 342 gpm……………………….. 53
Table 4.15: HL calculation for 9190 ft -9204 ft………………………………………… 54
Table 4.16: Field measurement of HL at depth 8715ft and flow rate 342gpm…………. 55

vii
Nomenclatures

BHA = Bore hole assembly

CwD = Casing while drilling

Cc = Cuttings concentration

D = Measured depth, ft

DwC= Drilling while Casing

dc = Diameter of the casing, inch

dh = Diameter of the hole, inch

dp
= Frictional pressure drop, psi/ft
dl

ECD= Equivalent circulating density, lbm/gal

F1=Frictional drag force on casing wall, kip

F2=End force at bottom of the casing face, kip

FT = Cuttings transport ratio

ff = Friction factor

He = Hedstorm number

HL = Hydraulic lift, kip

Gpm= Gallon per minute

K = Consistency index, dimensionless

N = Flow behavior index, dimensionless

NRe = Reynolds number, dimensionless

NPT= Non Producing Time

PV = Plastic viscosity

Q = Flow rate, gpm

ROP = Rate of penetration, ft/hr

r2= Hole radius in narrow slot approximation, inch

viii
r1= Casing radius in narrow slot approximation, inch

τ = Shear stress, psi

µ = Viscosity, cp

ρm = Mud density, lbm/gal

ρm = Effective mud density, lbm/gal

ρf = Mixture density, lbm/gal

θ= Inclination angle

YP = Yield point

v = velocity, ft/sec

Vsl = Particles slip velocity, ft/sec

va = Annular velocity, ft/sec

WOB =Weight on bit, lbf

ix
 CHAPATER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the work

Globally rising demand for oil and natural gas, and an increasing rate of depletion in
producing reserves, lead the oil and gas industry continuously to find new techniques
to improve drilling technology. Casing while Drilling (CwD) technology stands as a
response to practical needs of the industry. The innovative CwD method eliminates
the need for wiper trips prior to casing/cementing operations, because the casing
string is already run in the hole as the well is being drilled. Therefore, it helps to
reduce nonproductive time in the drilling operations. However, as CwD process
utilizes large diameter casing to drill narrow annulus often hinders the mud flow and
lead to reduce hole cleaning efficiency. These challenges demand innovative
techniques in order to mitigate those problems.

Objectives

The aim of this project work is to derive a theoretical model of hydraulic lift
phenomenon during operation. This model can be used as a basic tool to understand
the borehole conditions in CwD. The objectives of the study is to -

(i) Generate a theoretical model of total upward hydraulic lifting force during CwD.
(ii) Measurement of the overall hydraulic lift using proposed theoretical model and
observe the trend with respect to measured depth.
(iii) Graphical comparisons of the trend of total upward lifting forces between fields
measured value and calculated value.
(iv) Examine the hole condition and cleaning efficiency during CwD in order to
improve the wellbore conditions.

1
1.2 Background of the study

CwD is an innovative drilling method wherein the well is drilled and cased
simultaneously. Historically, drilling design has been based on conventional drilling
geometry; however, in time casing drilling has been becoming one of the industry’s
best practices. CwD introduces new benefits that modify conventional practices and
offer a safer engineering design. Conoco-Philips was the first to imply the retrievable
CwD technology in Lobo Trend in South Texas in 2012. Shell was the other company
to apply the non-retrievable CwD technology successively in the same basin as a part
of underbalanced drilling with casing operations. Apart from the hazard mitigation,
one of the key factors that attract operators to drilling with casing is its capability to
eliminate the casing running process in conventional drilling. The single operation
removes nonproductive time and increase drilling efficiency. Reducing time for
drilling operations also can bring significant cost savings. Plastering effect, another
factor was observed in CwD operations completed in different formations that reduce
the formation damage and lost circulation significantly compare to the conventional
operation. As the technology has become widespread, various features also have
arisen and hydraulic lift is one of these unique features.

To drill consistently it is always important to maintain better wellbore condition. Poor

well bore often reduces the hole cleaning efficiency and causes the reduction of ROP.
In order to mitigate these challenges hydraulic lift mode will be an useful tool to
monitor the wellbore condition.

2
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, aspects related to the CwD technology are introduced with the benefits
and limitations explained. Furthermore, relevant theories of casing drilling fluid
hydraulics are also described.

2.1 Casing while drilling technology

CwD technology is an emerging drilling technique that eliminates the need for the
conventional drill string consisting of drill pipes, heavy weight drill pipes and drill
collars in the drilling operations. Instead, this method utilizes a special bottom hole
assembly connected to casing (Sanchez and Al-Harthy, 2011). Figure 2.1 shows the
differences in the drill string geometry. Over the last decade, the CwD technology has
worked satisfactorily in the contemporary drilling environments and has gained great
interest, as it decreased non-productive time such as trips, casing operations, etc. of
drilling operations. Along with the implementation of this technology, numerous facts
about drilling with a larger sized diameter tubular have appeared. The benefits
associated to the CwD technology that can be listed as bellow (Sanchez and Al-
Harthy, 2011; Karimi et al., 2011; Rosenberg et al., 2010; Karimi et al., 2012).

 Improved well economics

 Borehole stability

 Wellbore integrity

 Reduction in number of casing/liner strings

 Personal safety and overall drilling efficiency

These benefits accelerated the research and development initiatives on the technology.
Most of these benefits are supposedly related to the plastering effect of CwD.

3
 (a) (b)
Figure 2.1 : a)Non Retrievable CwD assembly and b) Conventional drilling assembly

(Karim et al 2012)

2.2 Casing while Drilling features

CwD essentially drills the hole by using a casing string as the drill string. Since actual
drilling is conducted with the casing itself, the well is automatically cased and ready
to cement once the target casing depth is reached. Usually regular casings in API
standards are durable enough to satisfy operating conditions. Based on the weight on
bit (WOB) requirements and torque-drag conditions, special accessories such as wear
bands and torque rings can be installed in connections (Gupta, 2006).

CwD technology must be employed with several modifications in the rig set up. Most
importantly, an automated drive system must be mounted to the top drive mechanism
to safely connect individual casings to the string. This system is responsible for pipe

4
handling, connection, transfer of motion and transfer of fluid flow. The surface casing
drive system mounted to top drive grabs the individual casing internally via a spear
ball and externally via a slip mechanism, and makes connection and transfer of fluid
through inside casing. Also it seals the casing and prevents leaks in drilling fluid
transfer (Warren et al., 2004). Figure 2.2 shows a casing drive system. In addition to
the casing drive mechanism, size and capacity of the rig can be reduced. Since trips
will be eliminated, the hoisting system elements can be modified. Mud pump
capacities can be decreased as well. Overall, these changes make the rig more
practical by making it easier and faster to transport and to set up. The wellhead
equipment and blowout preventer configuration must also be appropriate for large
sized tubular (Gupta, 2006).

Figure 2.2: Casing Drive System mounted to top drive (Warren et al., 2004)

The CwD technology is commonly practiced with two methods; non-retrievable CwD
and retrievable CwD. Operational procedure of the non-retrievable CwD system
includes a drillable drilling bit attached to the casing string with float collar rigid

5
stabilizers installed on it. Once the target depth is reached, cutters and steel blades are
pushed out of the drilling path and the aluminum portion of the bit stays in place.
Cementing is conducted through this portion, and the new section starts by drilling
through the remaining parts of PDC bit in place and rat hole with the new drill string
(Kenga et al. 2009).

On the other hand, the retrievable CwD system utilizes a custom bottom hole
assembly (BHA) set up assembled to casing string with drill lock assembly. The
specific BHA includes a pilot PDC bit and underreamer. Optionally it can include a
down hole motor, MWD tools and a configuration of stabilizers. The PDC bit drills
the pilot hole and undereamer enlarges the wellbore to its final shape. The drill lock
assembly transfers motion from casing string to BHA. The retrievable CwD offers the
flexibility of changing drill bit. Based on the necessity, BHA can be pulled and run
into the hole by wireline or drillpipes. Figure 2.3 shows a model BHA for the
retrievable CwD system. The selection of the proper method is based on drillability of
the interval of interest with single-run (can be estimated according to the previous bit
records, drilling parameters and logs) or trajectory requirements of the wellbore
(Kenga et al., 2009).

From an engineering standpoint, the application of this technology requires deep

understanding of the technology and a systematic approach in drilling operations. It is
required to divide the operation into three phases: pre-operation phase, drilling phase
and post-operation phase. In the pre-operation phase, the limitations and risks induced
by field properties must be well examined. Approximate drilling fluid parameters and
wellbore geometry are designed in this phase. Also, correlation to the other wells
helps to detect problematic sections. During the actual drilling phase, the operation
must be tracked meticulously. Using fundamental drilling engineering concepts and
effective practices, real-time parameters must be managed and key components must
be updated. Surface pressure, drilling fluid returns, ROP, bit performance, and torque
and drag are important parameters to control in this step. The post-operation phase
must aim to perform efficiency review sessions and to enhance the applied technology
with the new ideas and the contribution of various technologies based on evaluation
of the operation. Successful results and development of this technology are not
guaranteed if these conditions are ignored (Sanchez et al., 2011).

6
 Figure2.3: Retrievable CwD Bottom Hole Assembly set for directional drilling

(Warren and Lesso, 2005)

2.3 Advantages of casing while drilling technology

Casing drilling has several benefits in mitigating wellbore stability problems and lost
circulation situations. Thus, it is often chosen rather than a conventional drilling
process. Casing drilling eliminates unexpected events that often accompany
conventional drilling and its tripping problems. The most important benefits of casing
drilling are given below

 Reduce Drilling Times

 Elimination of swab and surge effects
 Rig adaptation and HSE
 Wellbores in gauge

7
  Effective borehole cleaning
 Improvements on production
 Lost circulation reduction

2.3.1 Reduce drilling times

Casing drilling reduces the total non-productive drilling times associated with
tripping, running casing, and lost circulation problems. Figure 2.4 compares drilling
days using casing drilling and conventional drilling in pressure depleted La Cira
Infantas mature field, Columbia which indicates that casing drilling reduces drilling
times by 20% compared to conventional drilling (Lopez et al 2010).

12
11
10
9
8
Avg 5.1days
Avg 6.4days
7
Days

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
CwD1
CwD2
CwD3
CwD4
CwD5

Well 4

Well 11

Well 18
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3

Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8
Well 9
Well 10

Well 12
Well 13
Well 14
Well 15
Well 16
Well 17

Figure 2.4: Drilling days between conventional drilling and casing drilling (Lopez and
Bonilla, 2010)

2.3.2 Elimination of swab and surge pressure effects

There is no need to trip the drill string in casing drilling; As the casing is at the bottom
it is ready to be cemented. This eliminates swab and surge pressures also that
accompany tripping operations.

8
2.3.3 Rig adaptations and HSE

A custom designed rig for the CwD application is more practical and efficient than the
conventional rig set up. The rig adaptation guidelines for CwD eliminate the need for
greater horsepower in rig units. Hoisting systems and mud pumps can be redesigned
considering the specific conditions of CwD. Also, these types of rigs require
capability to lift only a single joint, reducing the mast height. After all these
modifications, the rig turns into cutting edge technology machines, which are more
practical, and easier to move and rig up. In addition to that, the time spent on
mobilization, transfer and rig up and logistic services are improved. Besides ease in
operability, the well site safety is improved with automated systems and incidents
while handling pipes are lessened (Gupta, 2006).

2.3.4 Effective borehole cleaning

Casing drilling generates more effective borehole cleaning during drilling. The
cuttings are circulated out with the high annular velocity that increases the borehole
cleaning efficiency because of smaller clearance between the casing wall and the
borehole wall. Consequently, stuck pipe problem do not occur. The small clearance
between the casing and borehole is shown in Figure 2.5.

Drillpipe Casing

Annulus

(a) (b)

Figure 2.5: Differences between conventional drilling (a) and casing drilling annulus

size (b) (Karimi et al, 2011)

9
2.3.4 Wellbores in gauge

In drilling operations, the gauged holes are preferred because they enable effective
cementing operations and improved wellbore cleaning with superior hydraulics. The
CwD pipe geometry tends to create a gauged well by means of the smooth rotational
motion of casing. Figure 2.6 represents an example of the difference between a
conventionally drilled well and a casing drilled well. The physical explanation beyond
CwD-offered better wellbores consists of casing contact angle and area of the casing
in contact with wellbore and penetration depth into filter cake. During the CwD
process the casing string hits the borehole with a smaller contact angle and greater
contact area. This action combines the side force and momentum of the pipe with
grinding effect to generate a more circular wellbore; and potentially help to fill in
washouts and breakouts. From the penetration depth into filter cake standpoint, when
compared to drilling with drill pipe, casing will have the same force due to rotation of
the pipe; yet, the area on which it is applied is greater. Thus, pressure applied on the
wellbore by physical contact of casing will be moderate and that will rub filter cake
instead of damaging through it. Figure 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 illustrates the comparisons of
wellbore geometry between CwD and conventional drilling based on contact area,
contact angle and penetration depth into filter cake (Karimi et al. 2011).

(a) (b)

Figure 2.6: Borehole quality improvement by compared to conventional drilling (a)

CwD (b)

10
 α1 α2

Figure 2.7: Contact angle of CwD (right) is smaller than contact angle of drillpipe
(left) α1> α2 , α= contact angle of the pipe with the wellbore ( Karimi et
al., 2011)

A1 A2

Figure 2.8: Contact area of CwD (right) is smaller than contact area of drill pipe (left)
A1<A2, A= contact area of the pipe with the wellbore( Karimi et al., 2011)

d1 d2

Figure 2.9: Penetration depth onto filter cake, penetration of CwD (right) is less than
penetration of drill pipe (left) d1>d2; d= penetration depth into the filter
cake ( Karimi et al., 2011)

11
2.3.6 Improvements on production

One of the striking benefits of this technology is observed in reduced formation

damage and better production performance. Lost circulation damages production
zones while drilling. Casing drilling prevents lost circulation and fluid invasion due to
the plastering effect. This results in a better production rate than conventional drilling.
To understand the effect following scenario can be considered. Figure 2.10 compares
seventeen conventional well production drilled in 2000 with twenty eight casing
drilled wells in 2004 in south Texas (Tessari et al 2006). Over the period of time
production rate was higher for CwD
Avg Gas Production mmcf/month

16000

12000

8000
2000 - Conventional wells

4000 2004 - CwD wells

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months from initial production

Figure 2.10: Wells drilled with CwD outperformed conventional wells in gas

production (Tessari et al.,2006)

2.3.7 Lost circulation reduction

Casing drilling with its plastering effect reduces lost circulation and improves
wellbore stability. It was observed that lost circulation was eliminated by casing
drilling in the Lobo Field in South Texas in 2002. Figure 2.11 shows the wells that
had lost circulation which was eliminated by casing drilling. First three wells were
drilled conventionally in a particular zone which encountered extensive lost
circulation. While casing drilling was run within this zone found no difficulties of lost
circulation. The casing drilling required 10 days to drill 7” casing point and cement

12
the casing as compared to the first offset which required 19 days to reach an
equivalent point. (Karimi et al., 2011)

Offset 1 Offset 2 Offset 3 Casing Drilled

19 days Spud to Cementing of Intermediate 10 days

Figure 2.11: Casing drilling eliminates lost circulation (Karimi et al., 2011)

2.3.8 Reduce cost of the well

Casing drilling is generally applied to wells that have lost circulation and wellbore
stability problems. Both in onshore and offshore drilling, daily rig costs are high and
drilling problems are expensive. Since casing drilling eliminates or minimizes lost
circulation and wellbore problems, the non-productive time is less. Figure 2.12
presents a comparison between casing drilling and loss circulation wells in cost/ft in
depleted La Cira Infantas mature field in Colombia .and found that the casing drilling
reduced the cost of drilling by about 12% compared to conventional drilling. (Lopez
and Bonilla 2010)

13
 450
400
350
300
Cost (US/ft)
AVG:229.5 1 US/ft AVG:261.9 US/ft
250
200
150
100
50
0
CwD5

Well 11
CwD1
CwD2
CwD3
CwD4

Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8
Well 9
Well 10

Well 12
Well 13
Well 14
Well 15
Well 16
Well 17
Well 18
Figure 2.12: Comparison Cost/ft between casing drilling wells and loss circulation

wells (Lopez and Bonilla, 2010)

2.4 Limitations of casing while drilling technology

Although this technology is populated with several advantages, it has major

restrictions as well. Only few studies objectively analyzed these issues. Some of these
limitations are eased with practical solutions and many of them are in the process of
being solved through temporary solutions or alternative methods, but the technology
needs more development in these areas.

In the operational standpoint, weight on bit applied and pipe rotational speed are
restricted. Regular oil field casings are manufactured for the static conditions in
wellbore. As they are exposed to the dynamic conditions with the rotational motion;
cyclic fatigue, torsion cycles, compressive loads and torsion requirements must be
redefined (Galloway, 2004). Usually, the CwD string utilizes no special BHA to
provide to WOB; therefore, the lower part of the casing string is in compression.

The most severe limitation comes with the drilling fluid specifications and hydraulics
behaviors. A common outcome of this disadvantage is differential sticking. The
differential sticking is an issue especially in low pressured permeable zones. The
rheological functions of drilling fluid must be designed to withstand this. More
importantly, allocating the precise flow rate is on a very critical line. Equivalent

14
circulating density (ECD) management is surely sensitive. The CwD application
utilizes the characteristic narrow annulus to reach high annular fluid velocity and
transport cuttings to surface wiping the annulus effectively. The narrow annular
clearance puts the annular pressure loss in a vital position. Moderately low flow rates,
in comparison to the conventional drilling conditions, satisfy the wellbore cleaning
and ECD requirements; however, jetting action, cleaning bit face and cuttings from
the bottom hole should be maintained as well (Gupta, 2006). The excessive flow rate
leads to fractures in the formation. Although, some authors (Fontenot et al., Watts et
al., Karimi et al., and Arlanoglu) mention benefits of having the high pressure profile
in annulus on the generation of plastered, strong and high quality seal, it is still
uncertain whether the high pressure is a risk or an advantage. Higher ECD is
conjectured to initiate small fractures that are readily plugged by plastering effect
combined with the stress cage mechanism. On the other hand, it is obvious that
excessive ECD can ruin the uniformly shaped filter cake and create fractures. This
area needs broad research verified with experiments, field results and modeling.

2.5 Review of hydraulics

It is vital to understand the concept of annular frictional pressure drop and annular
velocity due to slight clearance between the hole and the casing. To address these
topics, drilling fluid hydraulics is captured in this section. Fluid models, drilling fluid
properties and frictional pressure loss calculation studies are discussed.

2.5.1 Drilling fluid rheology

Wellbore hydraulics is a function of the rheology. Rheology, as a study, concerns the

deformation and flow of matter. Fluids are subcategorized into the rheological models
based on their response in the shear stress and shear rate curves. Shear stress is the
equivalent force to maintain a particular type of flow. Shear rate is the ratio of the
relative velocity of moving surface to adjacent surface over distance between them.
The response of the fluid in a shear stress vs. shear rate curve indicates fluid type;
Newtonian fluid and non-Newtonian fluid, rheological properties; viscosity, yield

15
point and gel strength, and rheological fluid model; Typically, fluids of interest in the
oil industry show sensitivity to shear rate rather than time. In order to describe these
fluids better, several fluid models have been proposed those are.

 Bingham plastic model

 Power law model and

 Yield power law model

Figure 2.13 addresses Bingham plastic fluid, Power law fluid and Newtonian fluid in
a shear rate – shear stress curve. Shear stress and shear rate are calculated using data
from Fann VG viscometer and the corresponding values are expressed in secondary
axis.

Bingham plastic model

Fluids yield a linear trend in the shear rate vs. shear stress graph. The slope of the line
yields plastic viscosity, which is a function of the concentration, size and shape of
solids and viscosity of the fluid phase. Separation from the Newtonian fluid is resulted
by the stress required to initiate motion. In order to start the fluid moving, a level of
stress must be applied and the stress required is called the yield point. Mathematically
shear stress (τ ), plastic viscosity (µp ), yield point (τy ) and effective viscosity (µe )
are shown as given:

τ = τy +µpγ
Plastic viscosity and yield point are calculated using reading in Fann VG viscometer.

µp = θ600 – θ300

𝑙𝑏
τy( ) = θ300- µp
100𝑓𝑡 2

Finally effective viscosity of the fluid is given by,

τ𝑦
µ e = µp +
γ

16
 Figure 2.13: Shear stress-Shear rate curve for different fluid types (Taken from
Amoco Production Company – Drilling Fluids Manual).

Power law model

Fluids show a parabolic trend in the shear stress vs. shear rate curve. Similar to the
trend curve for Newtonian fluids, the curve starts from the origin and based on the
value of power law index (n), it reflects a parabolic curve. As n is greater than 1,
power law fluid is considered as shear thickening and as n is less than 1, it is shear
thinning fluid. Power law index (n), consistency index (K) and apparent viscosity of a
power law fluid can be described as given: (Bourgoyne et al. 1986)

θ600
n = 3.32 log θ300

511𝜃300
k= 511𝑛

µ = K(γ)n-1

17
Yield power law model

This type of fluid is known as Herschel-Bulkley model and closest to the typical
drilling fluid. This model is a combination of bingham plastic fluid and power law
fluid. Figure 2.17 graphically illustrates the resemblance. A yield stress is required to
start flow similar to the behavior in bingham plastic fluids, and the trend of shear
stress vs. shear rate curve is parabolic similar to the behavior in power law fluids. The
yield power law fluids are mathematically more complex than bingham plastic fluids
and power law fluids. Shear stress (τ) and effective viscosity (µ) of the yield power
law fluid is given as:

τ = τ y + K(γ)n

τ 𝑦 + 𝑘γ𝑛
µ=
γ

2.5.2 Fluid flow and frictional pressure loss analysis for CwD annulus

The behavior of fluid flow field (pressure and velocity) is governed by the fluid
rheology, wellbore geometry, and flow rate. In fluid flow applications with slim
annular clearance, including CwD, pressure and velocity profiles alter significantly.
The alteration occurs in support of high velocity in the annulus and high flowing
bottomhole pressure. Fundamentally, the International Well Control Forum (IWCF)
expresses the flowing bottomhole pressure as the summation of static bottomhole
pressure and annular pressure loss (IWCF, 2006). As the terms in flowing bottomhole
expressions are converted from pressure to equivalent mud weight, the equivalent
circulating density (ECD) equation is formed

∆𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐 +𝑃ℎ
ECD = 𝐷

In this formula, stands for the hydrostatic mud pressure in the annulus, stands for the
sum of annulus pressure losses due to friction, and D stands for the depth. The annular
pressure losses become significant, because ECD can occasionally be greater than
formation fracture gradient. Normally, provided that the mud weight is kept constant,
ECD is exposed to limited change, as the frictional pressure drop is not the superior in

18
hydraulics design for conventional drilling geometries. However, the application of
this approach to the CwD circumstances becomes perilous. In the CwD technology,
frictional pressure losses predominate. The slimhole drilling applications show
similarities to CwD regarding the tight annulus clearance and high annular pressure
losses. One of the ways to control the dynamic bottom hole pressure (hence ECD) is
through controlling the mud weight. As the mud weight decreases, hydrostatic
pressure of the mud column in the annulus decreases. The rheological property of
drilling fluid is another gadget to adjust in advance in order to lower the ECD. For
instance, lowering plastic viscosity is an option to reduce the ECD. A final caution
might be lowering the flow rate, depending on that, lowering velocities in the annulus
and reducing the frictional pressure losses. Instead of individual application of any of
these three methods; they must be optimized to obtain the best results. This is very
crucial for the wellbore cleaning (Karimi et al., 2012).

2.5.3 Annular frictional pressure loss using Narrow Slot

Approximation method

Annular flow can be approximated using equations developed for flow through
rectangular slots. The slot flow equations are much simpler to use and are reasonably
accurate as long as the ratio of the hole radius (r2) to casing radius (r1) is greater than
0.3. Figure 2.14 illustrates an annular space that can be represented as a narrow slot
having an area (Bourgoyne et al. 1986),

A= Wh = π(r22 –r12)

the flow rate in terms of the mean flow velocity v and solving for the frictional
dp
pressure gradient gives ,
dl

dp 12µv

dl  r2  r1 2

19
Figure 2.14: Representing the annulus as a slot: (a) annular and (b) equivalent slot

expressing

Determination of shear rate

Knowledge of shear rate present in the well sometimes can lead to improve accuracy
in the pressure loss determination. Care can be taken to measure the apparent fluid
viscosity at values of shear rates near those present in the well. If this is done, better
accuracy sometimes can be achieved using flow equations for Newtonian fluids even
if the well fluid does not follow closely the Newtonian model over a wide range of
shear rates. The maximum value of shear rate occurs at the pipe walls. Thus the shear
stress at the wall where r= rw is given by,

rw dp
w  ( Circular pipe)
2 dl

The shear stress for an annulus (slot flow approximation) is given by,

h dp  r2  r1  dp
w  
2 dl 2 dl

Finally, in Table 2.1 collection of velocity and pressure loss calculation equations
were summarized which are useful for pressure calculations for laminar or turbulent
fluid flow under normal circumstances.

20
 Table 2.1: Summery of formulas for annulus frictional pressure drop

Bingham Plastic Power Law

q q
Pipe v v
Mean 2.448d 2 2.448d 2

Velocity v
q
v
q
Annulus
2.448  d 2  d1  2.448  d 2  d1 
2 2

1
3
dp µpv  n )n
  w Kv n (
Frictional Pipe dl 1500d 2
225d dp
 0.416
dl 144000d 1 n 
Pressure
Loss -
1
laminar dp µpv w 2
  Kv ( nn )n
flow Annulus dl 1000  d 2  d1  200(d 2  d1 )
2 dp
 0.208
dl 144000(d 2  d1 )1 n 

Frictional dp  f f v
2
dp  f f v
2
Pipe  
Pressure dl 25.8d dl 25.8d
Loss -
dp  f f v2 dp  f f v2
Turbulent Annulus  
dl 25.8(d 2  d1 ) dl 25.8(d 2  d1 )
flow

21
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Hydraulic lift phenomenon

Casing drilling process utilizes large diameter casing to drill. The small annulus
brings about higher friction which leads to higher equivalent circulating density
(ECD) in comparison to conventional drilling. During drilling operations as fluid
circulates through large casing and narrow annulus several forces act upwards on the
casing that reduces the effective weight on bit Figure 3.1. Major contributing lifting
forces are

a. Drag Forces: Upward frictional forces of fluids on casing wall during CwD
operation as fluid passes through narrow annulus.
b. End Forces: Upward force of fluids as it exits the nozzles and acts upward on
the bit face. This force consists of frictional pressure loss through annulus and
the hydrostatic pressure required balancing the mud column.

Figure 3.1: Major contributing forces on Hydraulic Lift

22
3.2 Model description

Hydraulic lift forces involved in a drilling operation are developed for three common
well conditions. These well conditions are -

I. A static conditions in which both well fluid and central pipe

string are at rest (Non-circulating)
II. A circulating operation in which the fluids are being pumped
down the central pipe string and up the annulus.(Circulating
well)
III. A tripping operation in which central pipe string is being move
up and down through the fluid

To model the overall hydraulic lift circulating well condition is considered. To

simplify the model following assumptions are followed

(i) No effect of casing eccentricity and pipe rotation on pressure loss

(ii) Sections of open hole are circular in shape and of known diameter
(iii) Drilling fluid is incompressible
(iv) Flow is isothermal
(v) No tool joint effect

Figure 3.2 demonstrates a simple circulating route of drilling fluid while drilling and
it is possible to analyze the each section to understand each pressure loss component.
In the mud circulation system fluid travels from the still tanks to mud pump, from the
pump through the surface equipments to drill string then through drill string to the bit.
Afterwards passing the nozzle of the bit fluid moves up through the annular space
between the drill string and hole to the surface finally, through contaminant removal
equipment back to the mud pit. During mud circulation frictional pressure loss of mud
occurs mainly in the surface equipment, inside drill string, in the bit nozzle and
through the annulus. When fluid starts to move from mud pump the pressure
provided by mud pump is the sum of all pressure loss to circulate the mud
continuously. Thus as fluid exits through nozzle the amount of pressure transmitted
by the fluid is the sum of frictional pressure drop at annulus and the hydrostatic
pressure of the mud column. These pressure requirements have been used to calculate
hydraulic lift and can be expressed as-

23
Hydraulic Lift = Frictional drag force on casing wall (F1) + End Forces at the
bottom (F2)

Pressure drop, ΔPs at surface

Pressure drop ,Δpc inside casing equipment

Pressure drop ,Δpa at Annuls

Mud pump

Active Mud pit

Pressure drop through bit and

nozzle, Δpbit

Figure 3.2: Mud circulation system

24
3.2.1 Model derivation for vertical well with single diameter casing
and uniform hole

As fluid circulates through a vertical well single diameter casing two major
components comprise the overall hydraulic lift shown in Figure 3.3. To model the
overall hydraulic lift these two forces are derived.

Casing dia, dc inch

Measured depth, D ft

Upward frictional force on

casing wall, F1

End force, F2

Figure3.3: Contributing forces on hydraulic lift (Vertical Well)

25
Frictional force on casing wall (F1 )

Frictional pressure on casing wall occurs due to fluid flow through annulus along with
cuttings. Effect of cutting is included in the calculation by considering effective mud
density Annular frictional pressure drop can be computed using narrow slot
approximation method for various fluid types and flow pattern, (Bourgoyne et al.
1986). Frictional force on casing wall F1 then can be calculated from shear stress on
casing wall.

F1 = τw × casing area

 d  dc   dp  dc
= h      2   D
 4   dl  2

 d  dc   dp 
Here, Shear stress on casing wall in psi , τw =  hA  
 4   dl  A

dp  fva2
Annular pressure drop in psi/ft, 
dl 21.1 d h  d c 

Q
Annular mud velocity in ft/sec, va =
2.448   d h2  dc2 

End forces at the bottom of the casing (F2)

Amount of pressure contained at the bottom of the casing is the some of annular
frictional pressure and the hydrostatic pressure differential between different mud
densities. So it can be written as

F2 = Fluid pressure contained at the bottom ×Area of the bottom of casing

= (Annular pressure drop + Hydrostatic pressure differential at bottom)

× Area of the bottom of the casing

dp   2
=   0.052  e  m    D   dc
 dl  4

26
Hence, Combining F1 and F2 Hydraulic lift can be expressed by following equation,

HL = F1 +F2

 
 d p  

HL =  D     d h  dc  0.052  dc2  e  m   (3.1)
4 
 dl  


3.2.2 Model derivation for various hole size

Vertical well with varying casing size such as drilling with liner operation where the
liner is at the bottom of the string and the end section of the liner pipe extends to the
surface figure 3.4. Due to the variation of the hole diameter annular frictional pressure
drop also varies for different section. In figure 3.4 upper section is indicated as zone
A where hole diameter larger than the lower zone B. To model the overall hydraulic
lift for liner drilling frictional drag force for different zone and the end force are
derived below.

Annular frictional force on casing wall (F1)

Following similar procedure annular frictional force can be derived for this case as
well

F1 = (τwA× Casing surface area)zone A +( τwB× Casing surface area)zone B

 d  dc   dp 
Here, τwA =  hA  
 4   dl  A

 d  dc   dp 
τwB =  hB  
 4   dl  B

F1 =
 d hA  dc
   dp  dc  
  d hB  dc   dp  dc 

      2   DA         2    D  DA  

 4   dl  A 2  
  4   dl  B 2 


27
 Hole size dhA

Zone -A
Surface Casing  dp 
Frictional pressure drop,  
 dl  A

Depth DA

Intermediate Casing
casing

Hole size dhA

Production casing
Zone -B

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop,  
 dl  B

Figure 3.4: Schematic of a typical liner drilling wellbore

End forces at the bottom of the Casing (F2)

Following the similar procedure end force can be derived as

F2 = Fluid pressure exists at the bottom × Area of the bottom of casing

face

= (Annular pressure loss + Hydrostatic pressure at bottom) × Area

28
Annular Frictional Pressure loss for Zone A,
 dp 
=    DA
 dl  A
Annular Frictional Pressure loss for Zone B,
 dp 
=     D  DA 
 dl  B
End Force, F2 =
  d p  
   d p  
  
    DA       D  DA   0.052  dc  e  m   D   dc
2 2

 
 l  A
d 
   l  B
d 
  4

Similarly, combining both F1 and F2 overall hydraulic lift can be expressed as,

HL = F1+ F2

  dp     d hB  dc   dp  
HL =  d hA  dc    dc 
  2   DA   
dc 
     2    D  DA  

 4   dl  A 2  
  4   dl  B 2 


  d p    d p    
+     D 
A      D  D 
A   0.052  d 2
c   e   m   D 2
   dc (3.2)
4
  l  A
d   l  B
d  

3.2.3 Model for Inclined well operation

To develop the hydraulic lift model for a deviated well annular frictional force on
casing wall for the vertical section and inclined section are derived with measured
depth. Only vertical component of the force that created in the inclined section
including end force is considered for the hydraulic lift figure 3.5. Therefore the
overall hydraulic lift for inclined well will be,

Total Hydraulic Lift ,

= [Frictional Drag force, F1]Vertical + (Frictional force F2+ End force

F3)Inclined Cosθ

= F1 + (F2+F3) ×Cosθ

29
Here, frictional forces and end force can be calculated using conventional formulas as
previously done.

Annular Frictional Force on casing wall (F1)

For vertical section up to kick off depth frictional force, F1 on casing wall can be
derived similarly.

 d  dc   d p  dc
F1 =  h      2   Dkickoff
 4   dl  2

For the inclined section frictional force on casing wall,

 d  dc   d p  dc
F2 =  h      2   DMD
 4   dl  2

Frictional force
on casing wall, F2
True vertical depth, TVD

Kick off depth,

Dkickoff

Frictional force
on casing wall, F2

End force at the

bottom of the casing, F3

Figure3.5: Contributing forces on hydraulic lift in inclined well

30
End force at the bottom of the casing F3,

Force acting on the bit face can be derived by similar way. However, to calculate the
overall lifting force only the vertical component of the forces are considered.

dp  
F3 =   0.052  e  m    DTVD   dc
2

 dl  4

Therefore, combining all the forces ,

Total Hydraulic Lift = F1 + (F2+F3) cos 


 d  dc   d p  dc 

=  h      2   Dkickoff   (3.3)
 4   dl 
 2 


 d h  d c   dp  dc dp   
  2   DMD    0.052  e  m    DTVD   dc  cos 
2
 
 4   dl  2  dl  4 

3.2.4 Field measuring procedure of hydraulic lift

To measure the overall hydraulic lift at the field following steps are follows.

a. Record hookload with bit off bottom, pumps off, and rotating the casing
slowly.
b. Engage mud pump(s) and bring flow rate up to drilling speed and record
hookload.
c. Difference in hookload between having pumps on and off is the hydraulic lift.
d. Bring Zero WOB
e. Begin drilling.

31
 CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDIES

In this chapter the results from hydraulic lift are discussed for a vertical well. Effect of
different parameters on hydraulic lift is analyzed for drilling hydraulic optimization.
To verify the derived hydraulic lift model, a vertical section of a well has been taken
into consideration for the calculation purpose. Hydraulic lift is then measured by
theoretical model for different flow rates and measured depth. Calculated values
obtained from this model are compared with values measured using field method. The
comparisons and analysis in this study helped to recognize the well bore condition
during drilling.

4.1 Background of the field

In 2015 Weatherford operated a drilling operation using their casing drilling

technology in United States. An Operator X Energy contacted Weatherford to
determine if DwCTM technology could enable drilling their 7 inch surface casing to
mitigate hole stability problems seen in offset wells. After reviewing available offset
drilling reports and mud logs. it was recommended that a 7 inch × 8-1/2 inch Defyer
5513TM bit to be used to drill from 8,700 ft to 9,204 ft MD. A 20 inch conductor
casing string had previously been set and cemented at ±110 ft MD, and a 9-5/8 inch
casing string had been set and cemented at 1,700 ft. The 8-3/4 inch open hole was
drilled from 1,700 ft to 8,700 ft prior to the DwCTM operation.

During the 04-05 February, 2015 the 7 inch× 8-1/2 inch casing was drilled from 8,700
ft MD to 9,204 ft MD, and cemented Figure 4.1. To rotate the casing, Frank`s CRT
(Evolution 4000) was used, which limited the torque in the DwCTM operation. While
drilling, the torque and WOB parameters were moving up and down. High torque was
seen before lubricating additive was pumped down hole. In this operation during the
first two joints of casing, a consistent drilling pattern could not be established.
However, after cleaning the bit and BHA with walnut sweeps w/soap, the ROP
increased. The average on bottom ROP for this DwCTM job was 20.8ft/hr. Summary
of the casing drilling operating parameters are presented in Table 4.1- 4.3

32
 20” Conductor casing

Depth 110 ft

9-5/8” Surface casing

Depth 1700 ft

8 ¾ ” Open hole

Depth 8700 ft.

Figure 4.1 : Wellbore geometry for casing drilling operation

7 ” casing

Depth 9205 ft

Figure 4.1: Wellbore geometry of the well to be analyzed

33
Table 4.1: Well parameters (Source: Weatherford International)

Well INFORMATION

Rig Type Land Rig

Job Type DwC
Hole Size 8.5 inch
Last Casing 9-5/8” J-55
Rock Type Sand/shale

EQUIPMENT
Defyer TM Size 8.5
Casing Cateory Intermediate
Casing Size 7.00 inch
Casing Weight 29 lbf/ft
Casing Grade P-110 EC
Casing Connection VAM DwC
Nozzle Qty 7
Nozzle Size [1/32”] 14

Table 4.2: Mud properties (Source: Weatherford International)

MUD PROPERTIES

Mud Type LSND

Mud Weight 8.8 lbm/gal

PV 6

YP 10

34
 Table 4.3: Summery of the casing drilling operation. (Source: Weatherford

International)

Depth In 8700 ft

Depth Out 9204 ft

Total Distance 504 ft

WOB 4 - 20 kips

RPM 40 – 100

Flow Rate 250 – 350 gpm

4.2 Factors affecting HL

In this study fluid hydraulic principle is used to develop the HL mode. Annular
frictional pressure drop and hydrostatic pressure differential in the mud column are
used as a function of total lifting force. The parameters that have effect on these
forces will also change the overall HL. Frictional pressure drop depends on the pump
flow rate and annular velocity while hydrostatic pressure differential depends on the
mud density and cuttings concentration. Effect of these parameter is discussed in this
section.

4.2.1 Effect of mud flow rate

According to the fluid hydraulics theory velocity is directly proportional to flow rate.
So increment of flow rate will increase the velocity and frictional pressure drop as
well. To show the effect a typical well is considered where all the properties remain
constant and by changing the flow rate the variation of HL can be can be visualize.
Following parameter are used for the calculation purpose Table 4.4.

35
 Table 4.4: Different flow rates used to show the effect

Mud Type Flow Rate gpm

Mud A 250

Mud A 300

Mud A 350

8000
7000
6000
Hydraulic Lift, lbf

5000
4000 Flow Rate 350 gpm
3000 Flow Rate 300 gpm
2000 Flow Rate 250 gpm
1000
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Measured Depth, ft

Figure 4.2 Effect of flow rate on HL

Figure 4.2 illustrates the change of HL with different flow rates. It can be figure out
that as flow rate increased from 250 gpm to 350 gpm HL also rise. Another feature is
that the variation of the HL enhanced significantly with the measured depth.

36
4.2.2 Effect of borehole size

Fluid velocity is inversely proportional to the flowing area of the annuals. With the
reduction of flowing area fluid velocity rises and cause the increment of frictional
pressure drop. To illustrate the effect of hole size for three different type of hole
diameters are taken considering other parameters constant for the calculation Table
4.5. HL increase significantly with the reduction of annular space according to the
Figure 4.3.

Table 4.5: Well bore parameters used to show the effect of hole size

Mud Type Casing Size, in Hole Size, in

Mud A 7 8.75

Mud A 7 8.50

Mud A 7 8.25

16
14
12
Hydraulic Lift, kips

10
8 Hole 8.75 in
6 Hole 8.50 in
4 Hole 8.25 in
2
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Measured Depth, ft

Figure 4.3 Effect of hole size on HL

37
4.2.3 Effect of cuttings concentration

Effect of cuttings on overall HL is added as effective mud density in the calculation.

Hydrostatic pressure differential used in the model will vary with the effective mud
density. Figure 4.4 shows that HL increased to some extent with the cuttings
concentration but with the distance variation will enhance. parameter used for this
calculation is tabulated in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Properties used to show the effect of cuttings

Mud Type Casing Size, in Hole Size, in Cuttings Concentration

Mud A 7 8.875 0.0025
Mud A 7 8.875 0.0075
Mud A 7 8.875 0.01

6.00

5.00
Hyraulic Lift, kips

4.00

3.00 Cc - 0.025
2.00 Cc- 0.075
Cc- 0.01
1.00

0.00
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Measured Depth, ft
Figure 4.3 Effect of hole size on .

Figure 4.4: Effect of cuttings concentration on HL

38
4.2.4 Criteria to evaluate the predicted and measured HL

In this study HL is modeled as a tool to examine the wellbore condition. The principle
used to monitor the well is that frictional pressure drop increases with fluid velocity
and fluid velocity is proportional to the flowing area. While HL is modeled as a
function of annular frictional pressure drop, change of this pressure drop will reflect
on overall HL. Thus, any flow restriction will essentially increase the HL.. During the
field procedure hook loads are measured with bit off bottom condition while using the
model HL is measured considering effective mud density including the effect of
cuttings. Therefore, following criteria can be used in comparisons of field measured
value and predicted value.

 HLMeasured > HLPredicted poor well bore condition

 HLMeasured ≤ HLPredicted improved well bore condition

4.3 Result analysis of the predicted and field measured value

During DwC operation after 8700 ft casing was run to drill 504 ft with different flow
rate to reach the target depth 9204 ft. From the report of the well it has been found
that the drilling was inconsistent with the reduced rate of penetration for the first two
joints and it was up to depth 8770 ft. To increase the rate of penetration and hole
cleaning efficiency the drill bit and bottom hole assembly was cleaned. Thus, To
calculated the HL the operation is divided into two stages. Flow rates used in different
interval depth is shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Flow rates at different interval depth.

Depth, ft Flow Rate, gpm

8700 – 8715 269
Before Cleaning BHA 8715 – 8750 293
8750 – 8765 332
8765 – 9180 318
After Cleaning BHA
9180 -9204 342

39
In this study total lifting force is calculated for three different cases. At first HL is
measured at 8715 ft with pump flow rate 293 gpm. Then it is measured at interval
8775- 9180 ft before start drilling with flow rate 318 gpm. Finally at 9190 -9205 ft
while the flow rate was 342 gpm. The detail calculations of the cuttings concentration
and annular frictional pressure drop are described in the appendix section.

Model selection

As there is variation in the hole size model derived for the vertical well with various
hoe size is used to calculate the HL for the mentioned well. The well is divided into
two zones Figure 4.5. From surface to 1700 ft depth where the 9-5/8 casing is seated
is termed zone A and rest of the well from 1700 ft is zone-B. Hole size is 8.835 inch
and 8.5 inch respectively for zone A and zone B.

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop  
 dl  A
DA = 1700 ft

Zone-A
Hole size dha =8.835 ft

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop  
 dl  B
Zone- B
DB

Hole size dhB = 8.5 ft

Figure 4.5: Well bore geometry used in HL measurement

40
4.3.1 Study of HL using the model at depth 8715-8750 ft- Section I

The operation was started with flow rate 269 gpm and after drilling a certain distance
flow rate changed to 293 gpm. HL is predicted for the interval of 8715-8735 ft with
the pump output 293 gpm.

Prediction of HL using the model – Section I

In prediction of HL calculation is performed using equation (3.2).Frictional pressure

drops are 0.032 psi/ft and 0.06 psi/ft respectively for zone A and zone B from
Appendix A and Table A. Parameters used in the computation are listed in Table 4.8.

HL=
 d hA  dc   d p 
 dc  
  d hB  dc   d p  dc 

      2   DA         2    D  DA  
 4   dl  A
 2  
 4   dl  B 2 

  d  
   d  
  
+   p   DA    p    D  DA   0.052  dc2  e  m   D   dc2
 
 dl  A 
   dl  B 
  4

Table 4.8: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 293 gpm

Casing size 7 inch

Hole size zone A 8.835 ft

Hole siz zone B 8.5 ft

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone-A,   0.032 psi/ft
 dl  A

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone- B,   0.06 psi/ft
 dl  A

Effective mud density, ρe, 8.84 lbm/gal

41
 The results obtained from this model are tabulated in Table 4.9. Graphical
representation of hydraulic lift with measured depth indicates that overall HL
increases with depth linearly if each parameter remains constant with depth Figure
4.6. This upward trend is due to the fact that, HL model is derived as a function of
frictional pressure drop and hydrostatic pressure differential of the annulus mud
column which rises with depth.

22.97
22.96
22.95
Hydraulic Lift, kips

22.94
22.93
22.92
22.91
22.90
22.89
22.88
22.87
8710 8715 8720 8725 8730 8735 8740
Measured depth, ft

Figure 4.6: HL vs Measured depth at flow rate 293 gpm

42
 Table 4.9: HL calculation for 8710- 8735 ft

due to annulur pressure drop,

Total frictional pressure drop,

Upward force at the bottom

Clean Mud density, lbm/gal

pressure differntial in mud

Depth from 9-5/8 casing,ft

Drag Force due to annulur

Anulur frictional pressure
Constant Flow rate, gpm

Force due to hydrostatic

Cuttings concentration

Bingham Plastic model

Effective mud density,

Hedstrom number for

Annular Velocity, ft/s
Measured Depth.ft

Reynolds number

Total HL lift, Kips

Plastic viscosity

Casing dia, inch

Friction factor
Hole dia, inch

End force, lbf

drop, psi/ft

column, lbf
Yield Point

flow, lbf
lbm/gal

psi/ft

lbf
F2= (F1+
D DA ρm Cc ρe pv YP dc dh Q Va He Nre ff dp/dl F1, lb F2a. Lbf F2b, lbf
(F2a+F2b) F2),

1700 0 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.84 293 4.12 203306 8392 0.008 0.032 0.03 546

8710 7010 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3495 18273 624 18898 22.95
8713 7013 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3497 18280 625 18905 22.96
8716 7016 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3498 18287 625 18912 22.97
8719 7019 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3500 18294 625 18919 22.97
8722 7022 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3501 18301 625 18927 22.98
8725 7025 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3503 18308 625 18934 22.99
8728 7028 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3504 18315 626 18941 23.00
8731 7031 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3506 18322 626 18948 23.01
8734 7034 8.8 0.0029 8.84 6 10 7 8.5 293 5.15 135850 8573 0.008 0.060 0.055 3507 18329 626 18955 23.02

43
Measurement of HL using field procedure – Section I

In this case HL is measured for certain depths within the distance between 8710 ft to
8735 ft. The pump was run with 293 gpm throughout the distance while the rotary
rpm was about 60-80. Results obtained for these flow rates are tabulated in Table
4.10.

Table 4.10: Field measurement of HL at depth 8710-8735ft and flow rate 293gpm

Hook
Total
Hole Hook Rotary Bit Hook Load
Timestamp Pump HL
Depth Load RPM Depth Load pump
Output
off
2015-02-04T12:51:00 8716.4 302.9 60.9 293.7 8710.5 302.9 330.26 27.4
2015-02-04T12:51:10 8716.4 302.2 60.9 293.7 8711.2 302.2 330.28 28.1
2015-02-04T12:51:20 8716.4 302.1 60.8 293.7 8711.8 302.1 330.29 28.2
2015-02-04T12:51:30 8716.4 302.3 60.8 293.7 8712.5 302.3 330.31 28.0
2015-02-04T12:51:40 8716.4 302.5 60.8 293.7 8713.2 302.5 330.32 27.8
2015-02-04T12:51:50 8716.4 302.3 60.8 293.7 8713.9 302.3 330.34 28.0
2015-02-04T14:43:40 8733 310 81.5 293.7 8730.2 310 330.74 20.7
2015-02-04T14:43:50 8733 309.1 81.1 293.7 8730.7 309.1 330.76 21.7
2015-02-04T14:44:00 8733 307.9 80.1 293.7 8730.9 307.9 330.76 22.9
2015-02-04T14:44:10 8733 306.8 80 293.7 8731.4 306.8 330.77 24.0
2015-02-04T15:17:40 8734.8 303.6 60.8 293.7 8734 303.6 330.84 27.2
2015-02-04T15:17:50 8734.8 306.2 60.8 293.7 8734.1 306.2 330.84 24.6
2015-02-04T15:18:00 8734.8 308.4 60.8 293.7 8734.2 308.4 330.84 22.4
2015-02-04T15:18:10 8734.8 307.1 60.7 293.7 8734.3 307.1 330.84 23.7
2015-02-04T15:18:20 8734.8 305.1 60.8 293.7 8734.4 305.1 330.85 25.7

44
 Comparison of field measured value and calculated value

To compare the predicted values and field measured values both are plotted with
respect to measured depth. Figure 4.7 shows within the interval between 8710 ft to
8735 ft using field measuring procedure HL lift determined only for certain bit depths.
All the way through the distance predicted values using the model shows steady trend
with HL around 23 kips. Field measured values on the other hand is 28 kips for the
distance 8710 ft -8715 ft and around 25 kips for 8730ft to 8735 ft. Although few field
values are lower near 8730 ft but throughout the interval most of the field values are
higher than the predicted values.

40.0

35.0

30.0
Hydraulic Lift, kips

25.0

20.0 Measured
Predicted
15.0

10.0

5.0
8710 8715 8720 8725 8730 8735
Measured Depth, ft

Figure 4.7: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 8710ft –

8735 ft with flow rate 293 gpm

45
Analysis of the study

The calculated result for flow rate 293 gpm within the distance 8710 ft to 8735 ft is
compared with the real field data. Calculated value is found significantly lower than
the real field measured value ignoring the outliers. This variation occurred due to
formation of packing in the wellbore. While hole cleaning is not sufficient packing
tend to form which reduced the flowing area of the annulus and causes the increment
of frictional pressure drop. Using the model calculation is performed considering
uniform annulus. However, the field report and observation implies incompatible
drilling operation in terms of poor hole cleaning and lower ROP for first two joints up
to nearly 8780 ft. As a result the operator had to clean the BHA and pump down
additives in order to improve the wellbore condition. So it can be relates that the
inconsistency of drilling was due to poor well bore condition which also reflected
from the comparison of HL. Therefore, derived HL model can be considered valid for
this case.

4.3.2 Study of HL using the model at depth 8770-9180 ft- Section II

During the operation after drilling first two joints to depth nearly 8780 ft it has been
observed that ROP and hole cleaning was insignificant. To mitigate this problem few
remedial action was taken in to the well bore. After cleaning the BHA and bit drilling
started again from 8780 ft with increased flow rate of 318 gpm.

Prediction of HL using the model – Section II

At this interval drilling operation was performed with flow rate 318 gpm. Similarly
using equation (3.2) HL is measured. Table 4.11 shows the parameter used in the
equation from Table A. Graphical representation of HL for this distance is presented
in Figure 4.8 and calculated values are shown in Table 4.12. Figure 4.8 illustrates that
overall HL increases with depth linearly if each parameter remains constant with
depth. This upward trend is due to the fact that, HL model is derived as a function of
frictional pressure drop and hydrostatic pressure differential of the annulus mud
column which rises with depth.

46
 Table 4.11: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 318 gpm

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone-A,   0.032 psi/ft
 dl  A

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone- B,   0.07 psi/ft
 dl  B

Effective mud density, ρe, 8.83 lbm/gal

27.80
27.60
Hydraulic Lift, kips

27.40
27.20
27.00
26.80
26.60
26.40
26.20
8770 8820 8870 8920 8970 9020 9070 9120 9170
Measured depth, ft

Figure 4.8: HL vs measured depth at flow rate 318 gpm

47
 Table 4.12: HL calculation for 8770-9180 ft

pressure differntial in mud

Depth from 9-5/8 casing,ft

Drag Force due to annulur

Anulur frictional pressure
Constant Flow rate, gpm

Force due to hydrostatic

Total frictional pressure

bottom due to annulur

Cuttings concentration

Bingham Plastic model

Effective mud density,

Hedstrom number for

Annular Velocity, ft/s

Upward force at the

Clean Mud density,
Measured Depth.ft

pressure drop, lbf

Reynolds number

Total HL lift, Kips

Plastic viscosity

Casing dia, inch

Friction factor
Hole dia, inch

End force, lbf

drop, psi/ft

drop, psi/ft

column, lbf
Yield Point

flow, lbf
lbm/gal

lbm/gal

F2= (F1+
D DA ρm Cc ρe pv YP dc dh Q Va He Nre ff dp/dl F1, lb F2a. Lbf F2b, lbf
(F2a+F2b) F2),

1700 0 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.84 318 4.47 203306 9108 0.008 0.037 0.03 630

8770 7070 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4068 20948 561 21509 26.05
8820 7120 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4097 21082 565 21646 26.21
8870 7170 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4126 21216 568 21784 26.38
8920 7220 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4155 21350 571 21921 26.55
8970 7270 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4183 21485 574 22059 26.71
9020 7320 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4212 21619 577 22196 26.88
9070 7370 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4241 21753 581 22334 27.04
9120 7420 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4270 21887 584 22471 27.21
9170 7470 8.8 0.0026 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 318 5.59 135850 9305 0.008 0.070 0.062 4299 22022 587 22609 27.38

48
Measurement of HL using field procedure – Section II

Following similar procedure results obtained for interval 8770 ft to 9180 ft with flow
rate 318 gpm are listed in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Field measurement of HL at depth 8770-9180 ft and flow rate 318gpm

Total
Hole Rotary Weight on Hook load
Pump Bit Depth Hook Load HL
Depth RPM Bit pump off
Output
8775.9 65.5 318 0 8773 307.9 331.8 23.9
8775.9 65.6 318 0 8773 307.5 331.8 24.3
8903.4 80.2 318 0 8899 304.8 334.9 30.1
8903.4 80.1 318 0 8899 304.8 334.9 30.1
8903.4 80 318 0 8901 304.1 334.9 30.8
8947.9 66.5 318 2.6 8943.5 319.6 336.0 16.4
8947.9 66.2 318 1.3 8945.1 315.8 336.0 20.2
8989.3 80.4 318 0 8987.3 319.4 337.1 17.7
8989.3 80.3 318 0 8987.3 312.9 337.1 24.2
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9034.8 311.1 338.2 27.1
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9034.8 310.1 338.2 28.1
9042.6 80 318 0 9034.8 310.3 338.2 27.9
9042.6 80.2 318 0 9035.8 313.3 338.3 25.0
9042.6 80.4 318 0 9038.4 314.6 338.3 23.7
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9038.5 311.5 338.3 26.8
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9039.4 312.6 338.3 25.7
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9039.6 311.3 338.4 27.1
9042.6 80.3 318 16.2 9037.9 315.7 338.3 22.6
9042.6 80.2 318 0 9037.7 312 338.3 26.3
9042.6 80.2 318 0 9037.7 310.9 338.3 27.4
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9038.2 312.9 338.3 25.4
9042.6 80.1 318 0 9042.1 311.2 338.4 27.2
9042.6 80 318 0 9042.2 309.8 338.4 28.6
9042.6 80 318 0 9042.4 306.7 338.4 31.7
9073.1 4.9 318 0 9070.1 321.8 339.1 17.3
9073.1 80.6 318 0 9070.5 321.4 339.1 17.7
9073.1 80.5 318 0 9071.5 312.5 339.1 26.6
9117.9 80.7 318 12.4 9114.7 329.7 340.2 10.5
9117.9 80.6 318 10.8 9114.8 311.8 340.2 28.4
9117.9 80.3 318 0.2 9114.9 313.5 340.2 26.7
9117.9 80.1 318 0 9115.2 313.1 340.2 27.1
9117.9 80.1 318 0 9115.6 313.4 340.2 26.8
9117.9 80.1 318 0 9115.8 313.8 340.2 26.4
9163.1 35.5 318 0 9159.3 328.6 341.3 12.7
9163.1 81 318 0 9159.6 322.6 341.3 18.7
9163.1 80.4 318 0 9160.9 317.7 341.3 23.6
9163.1 80.2 318 0 9161.1 318.3 341.3 23.0
49
Comparison of field measured value and calculated value

To compare the predicted values and field measured values both are graphically
presented with respect to measured depth. HL in this case are considered for the depth
between 8770 ft and 9180 while flow rate was consistent with 318 gpm. Figure 4.9
represents the comparisons between predicted values and measured values. According
to Figure 4.5 all the way through the distance predicted values using the model shows
steady trend with HL around 26.5 kips. Field measured value on the other hand
comparing with the predicted value is lower for most of the interval.

40

35

30
Hydraulic Lift, kips

25

20
Measured
15
Predicted
10

0
8770 8820 8870 8920 8970 9020 9070 9120 9170
Measured Depth, ft

Figure 4.9: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 8770ft –

9180 ft with flow rate 318 gpm

50
Analysis of the study

The calculated result for flow rate 318 gpm within depth 8770 ft to 9180 ft is
compared with the real field data. Real field measured values are found considerably
lower than the predicted values throughout the distance measured. HL model is
derived as a function of frictional pressure drop and hydrostatic pressure differential
while using the model calculation is performed considering uniform annulus with
effective density including cuttings effect. This variation is due to some natural down
hole fluid loss during mud circulation. In prediction calculation was performed with
constant flow rate but this fluid loss causes minor reduction of fluid volume and
reduced the frictional forces on casing wall. So it can be interpreted that there was no
obstacles in the wellbore. In the field report and observation it also implies after using
additives and cleaning the BHA drilling was quite consistent with sufficient hole
cleaning from depth 8780 ft prior to reach 9204 ft. And there was no indication of
significant loss circulation. Therefore, from this analysis derived HL model can be
considered valid for this case as well.

4.3.3 Study of HL using the model at depth 9190-9204 ft- Section III

At this interval flow rate was maximized from 318 gpm to 342 gpm and continued
drilling to reach 9204 ft. To analyze this case HL was also measured for this interval.

Prediction of HL using the model – Section III

Using the same model HL is measured for this last section. Table 4.14 shows the
parameter used in equation (3.2) from Appendix A and B. Results obtained for this
interval is tabulated in Table 4.15. Graphical representation of the HL shows the
similar upward trend with depth Figure 4.10.

51
 Table 4.14: Parameter used in the model for flow rate 342 gpm

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone-A,   0.042 psi/ft
 dl  A

 dp 
Frictional pressure drop zone- B,   0.079 psi/ft
 dl  A

Effective mud density, ρe, 8.83 lbm/gal

31.07
31.06
Hydraulic Lift, kips

31.05
31.04
31.03
31.02
31.01
31.00
9190 9192 9194 9196 9198 9200 9202 9204 9206
Measured depth, ft

Figure 4.10: HL vs Measured depth at flow rate 342 gpm

52
 Table 4.15: HL calculation for 9190 ft -9204 ft

Clean Mud density, lbm/gal

pressure differntial in mud

Depth from 9-5/8 casing,ft

Drag Force due to annulur

Anulur frictional pressure
Constant Flow rate, gpm

Force due to hydrostatic

Total frictional pressure

bottom due to annulur

Cuttings concentration

Bingham Plastic model

Effective mud density,

Hedstrom number for

Annular Velocity, ft/s

Upward force at the

Measured Depth.ft

pressure drop, lbf

Reynolds number

Total HL lift, Kips

Plastic viscosity

Casing dia, inch

Friction factor
Hole dia, inch

End force, lbf

drop, psi/ft
drop, psi/ft

column, lbf
Yield Point

flow, lbf
lbm/gal

F1, F2b, F2= (F1+

D DA ρm Cc Ρe pv YP dc dh Q Va He Nre ff dp/dl lb F2a. Lbf lbf (F2a+F2b) F2),

1700 0 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.84 342 4.81 203306 9795 0.008 0.042 0.03 715

9190 7490 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4895 24807 588 25395 30.76
9192 7492 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4897 24813 588 25401 30.77
9194 7494 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4898 24819 588 25407 30.78
9196 7496 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4899 24825 589 25414 30.78
9198 7498 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4901 24831 589 25420 30.79
9200 7500 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4902 24837 589 25426 30.80
9202 7502 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4903 24843 589 25432 30.81
9204 7504 8.8 0.0024 8.83 6 10 7 8.5 342 6.01 135850 10007 0.008 0.079 0.070 4904 24849 589 25438 30.81

53
 Measurement of HL using field procedure – Section III

Results obtained for the interval 9190-9205 ft with flow rate 342 gpm are listed in
Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Field measurement of HL at depth 9190 ft- 9204ft and flow rate 342gpm

Total Hook
Hole Hook Rotary Pump Weight Bit Hook load
Timestamp HL
Depth Load RPM Outpu on Bit Depth Load pump
t off
2015-02-05T09:29:40 9204.1 315.2 80.1 343.5 0 9195.4 315.2 342.19 26.99
2015-02-05T09:58:50 9204.1 316 80 342.3 0 9195.4 316.0 342.19 26.19
2015-02-05T10:10:50 9204.1 316 80.1 342.3 0 9195.4 316.0 342.19 26.19
2015-02-05T10:11:20 9204.1 315.9 80.1 342.3 0 9195.4 315.9 342.19 26.29
2015-02-05T10:11:30 9204.1 316 80 342.3 0 9195.4 316.0 342.19 26.19
2015-02-05T10:25:30 9204.1 315.4 80 342.3 0 9195.4 315.4 342.19 26.79
2015-02-05T10:25:40 9204.1 315.5 80.1 342.3 0 9195.4 315.5 342.19 26.69
2015-02-05T10:35:40 9204.1 316.2 80.3 342.3 0 9196.7 316.2 342.22 26.02
2015-02-05T10:35:50 9204.1 316.2 80.2 342.3 0 9197.5 316.2 342.24 26.04
2015-02-05T10:36:00 9204.1 315.9 80.1 342.3 0 9198.4 315.9 342.26 26.36
2015-02-05T10:36:10 9204.1 317.3 80.1 342.3 0 9199.7 317.3 342.29 24.99
2015-02-05T10:36:20 9204.1 314.9 80.1 342.3 0 9199.7 314.9 342.29 27.39
2015-02-05T10:36:30 9204.1 314.3 80.0 342.3 0 9199.7 314.3 342.29 27.99
2015-02-05T10:37:00 9204.1 314 80.1 342.3 0 9199.7 314.0 342.29 28.29
2015-02-05T10:37:10 9204.1 314.1 80.1 342.3 0 9199.7 314.1 342.29 28.19
2015-02-05T12:04:00 9204.1 314.2 27.4 342.3 0 9190.6 314.2 342.07 27.87
2015-02-05T12:04:10 9204.1 314.2 27.3 342.3 0 9191.7 314.2 342.10 27.90
2015-02-05T12:04:20 9204.1 315.4 27.2 342.3 0 9193.4 315.4 342.14 26.74
2015-02-05T12:04:30 9204.1 311.1 27.0 342.3 0 9195.2 311.1 342.18 31.08
2015-02-05T12:04:50 9204.1 315.6 27.2 342.3 0.6 9198.9 315.6 342.27 26.67
2015-02-05T12:05:00 9204.1 319 27.2 342.3 0 9199.6 319.0 342.29 23.29
2015-02-05T12:05:10 9204.1 314.5 27.4 342.3 0 9200.8 314.5 342.32 27.82
2015-02-05T12:05:20 9204.1 312.8 27.2 342.3 0 9202.5 312.8 342.36 29.56
2015-02-05T12:05:30 9204.1 318 26.9 342.3 0 9202.5 318.0 342.36 24.36
2015-02-05T12:05:40- 9204.1 320.7 3.0 86.2 0 9202.7 320.7 342.37 21.67

54
Comparison of field measured value and calculated value

To compare the predicted values and field measured values both are plotted with
respect to depth. Figure 4.11 shows the results within the interval between 9190 ft to
9204 ft. All the way through the distance predicted values using the model shows
steady trend with HL around 26.5 kips. Field measured value on the other hand
comparing with the predicted value is lower for most of the interval.

40

35
Hydraullic Lift, kips

30

25
Measured
20 Predicted

15

10
9194 9195 9196 9197 9198 9199 9200 9201
Measured Depth, ft

Figure 4.11: Comparison between measured HL and predicted HL for depth 9190 ft –

9204 ft with flow rate 342 gpm

Analysis of the study

This study is made for further analysis of the model with real field value. Similar
feature is observed for this case as well after cleaning operation took place. Similarly,
like case-II field values obtained for maximum flow rate 342 gpm are also lower
compare to the predicted value for the distance measured. This attribute is also can be
interpret from the field reports. So, from the analysis it can be said that derived
hydraulic model shows convincing output for different cases and It can be used to
monitor the well bore condition during CwD operation.

55
 Chapter 5: Conclusion

In this study focus has been given to derive the theoretical model of overall hydraulic
lift force during CwD operation. This is mainly to monitor the wellbore condition
during casing drilling. In this work hydraulic lift is modeled as a function of annular
frictional pressure drop. Hydrostatic pressure differential of annular mud column also
has influential effect on total force. Deviation of the field’s measured hydraulic lift
values from the predicted values is an indicator of the wellbore distortions.

Upon studying different cases of a vertical well it can be summarized that according
to the hydraulic lift principles fluid velocity rises with the reduction of flowing area
which leads to higher frictional pressure drop. So higher hydraulic lift measured using
field method implies that fluid flow hindered due to any obstacle in wellbore. Thus,
higher lifting force compared to the predicted value using theoretical model for a
certain interval depth is an indicator of wellbore irregularities and poor hole cleaning
as well. This phenomenon has been verified with the real field case.

In this whole analysis the effect of tool joints, eccentricity of the casing in the well
has been ignored to simplify the model. But in CwD these factors may eventually play
important role in frictional pressure drop calculation which is a function of hydraulic
lift. So, this factor can be used in future to improve the model. Hydraulic lift model
only for the vertical well is analyzed in this study. Due to lack of data it has not been
possible to validate for the inclined well. So it is recommended to verify the model for
inclined well with the real data.

56
Reference:

Bourgoyne Jr, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert,M.E. and Young Jr, F.S. (1986)
“Applied Drilling Engineering”. Vol. 2

Galloway, G. (2004) “Cement in place drilling with casing system provides safe,
reliable method for improving drilling efficiency,” Paper OTC 16565 presented
at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 3-6

Gupta, A.K. (2006). “Drilling with casing: Prospects and limitations,” Paper SPE
99536 presented at the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA
Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, May 8-10

Karimi, M., Petrie, S., Moellendick, E., and Holt, C. (2011). “A review of casing
drilling advantages to reduce lost circulation, improve wellbore stability,
augment wellbore strengthening, and mitigate drilling-induced formation
damage,” Paper SPE/IADC 148564 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 24-26 October

Karimi, M., Moellendick, E., and Pena, C. (2012). “Casing drilling allows for safer
engineering design,” Paper AADE-12-FTCE-19 was presented at the AADE
Drilling Fluids Technical Conference, Houston, Texas, 10-11 April.

Kenga, Y., Atebe, J., and Feasey, G. (2009). “Successful implementation of 9 5/8-in.
casing drilling in Nigeria: Case history of AKAMBA-2,” Paper SPE 128890
presented at Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja
Nigeria, 3-5 August

Lopez, E.A., Bonilla, P.A.,(2010) “Casing Drilling Application in the Depleted La

Cira Infantas Mature Field Colombia”, SPE 139020, SPE Latin American &
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Peru, December 1-3.

57
Rosenberg, S., Gala, D.M., and Xu, W. (2010). “Liner drilling technology as
mitigation to hole instability and loss intervals: A case study in the gulf of
Mexico,” Paper SPE/IADC 128311 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2-4 February.

Sanchez, F., and Al-Harthy, M.H. (2011). “Risk analysis: Casing-while-Drilling

(CwD) and modeling approach,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
Vol. 78.

Tessari, R.M., Warren, T.M., and Jo, J.Y. (2006). “Drilling with casing reduces cost
and risk,” Paper SPE 101819 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, October 3-6

Warren, T., and Lesso, B. (2005). “Casing drilling directional wells,” Paper OTC
17453 presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 2-5

58
Appendices

59
Appendix- A

Calculation for Vertical Well Zone- A Section 1

q
Annular Velocity, 
2.448  d 2 2  d12 

293

2.448 8.8352  7 2 

= 4.12 ft/sec
Hedstrom Number, NHe:
24700  v(d hA  d c ) 2

µp 2
24700  8.8  4.12(8.835  7) 2

62
 203306

Critical Reynolds number, NRe

752  v(d hA  d c )

µp
757  8.8  (8.835  7)

6
 8392

Now from the figure for flow criteria of binghum plastic fluid,
Critical Reynolds number, NRe > Hedstorm number, So the flow pattern is turbulent.

Friction factor for turbulent flow, ff :

0.791

N Re 0.25

0.791

83920.25

 0.008

60
  dp 
Annular frictional pressure drop,  
 dl  A

 f f v2

21.2( d hA  d c ) 2

8.8  0.008  4.122


21.2(8.835  7) 2

 0.032 psi / ft
Critical Reynolds Number, NRec

Hedstrom Number, NHe

Figure A: Critical Reynolds number for Binghum plastic fluids

Similarly, annular frictional pressure drop for zone B,

 dp 
   0.06 psi / ft
 dl  B

61
Appendix- B

Effective mud density calculation

To determine the effective mud density it is necessary to calculate cuttings

concentration. Here cutting concentration is calculated using average ROP 20.8 ft/hr
and assuming particle size 0.25 inch. During drilling formation water and will added
to the mud. Therefore considering porosity 0.15 and water saturation 0.2 cuttings
concentration is determined.

Density of mixed fluid

Formation being drilled at a rate

  72
7.48
ROP  20.8  
4 144 60
 0.69 gal / min

Formation water is being added to the drilling fluid at a rate,

= 0.69  0.15  0.20
= 0.027 gal/min
Solid being added to the at a rate,
= 0.63  (1-0.15)
= 0.59 gal/min

Hence, density of the mixture,

V i i
ρf 
V i


8.8  293  (21.6  0.59)  (0.027  8.33)
293  0.59  0.027
 8.08lbm / gal

62
Cuttings concentration determination
At first particles slip velocity(Vsl) is calculate. Here Chein’s correlation is used to
calculate Vsl,

Condition 1
Assuming transitional flow pattern,
For Reynolds number NRe< 100
928 f VSL d s
NRe 
µp

Now particles slip velocity,

 d (   f ) 
Vsl  0.0075  Z   1  (36800 s2 )  s  1
 Z f 

µp
Here, Z 
 f ds
6

8.08  0.25

 2.97

Hence, the slip velocity,

  0.25   21.6  8.08  
Vsl  0.0075  2.97   1   36800 
2     1
  2.97   8.08  

= 0.9860

So, Reynolds Number,

928  8.08  0.698  0.25
NRe 
6
=218

Here, NRe>100 so this assumption(NRe>100) is not appropriate.

63
Condition 2
For NRe above 100 Chein recommends to use friction facto ff =1.72 for slip velocity
Vsl

 (  s   f ) 
Particles slip velocity, Vsl  1.89 d s  
  f f f 

= 0.93
928  8.08  0.93  0.25
Reynolds Number, NRe 
6
=291
Reynolds number in this case is above 100.
Thus the particle slip velocity is 0.93 ft/sec

Now, cuttings transport ratio,

Vsl
FT  (1  )
v
 0.93 
 1  
 5.15 
= 0.82
Cuttings Concentration
ROP  dc 2
Cc 
1466.95  FT  q

20.8  72

1466.95  0.82  293
= 0.0029
Effective density,
e  m (1  Cc)  sCc

 8.8  (1  0.29)   21.6  0.29

=8.84

Now, using equation 3.2 HL can be obtained. Here, at depth 8713 ft,

64
   dp     d hB  dc   dp  
HL =  d hA  dc    dc 
  2   DA   
dc 
     2    D  DA  

 4   dl  A 2  
  4   dl  B 2 

+
  d p    d p    
    DA       D  DA   0.052  dc  e  m   D   dc
2 2

  l  A
d   l  B
d   4

 8.835  7  7   8.5  7 
    0.032  2  3.14  1700    0.06  3.14  7  8713  1700 
 4  2   4 
+

0.032 1700  0.06  8713  1700   0.052  7  8.84  8.8  8713  0.785  7
 2
 2

= 22980 lbf
= 22.98 kips

Using similar procedure HL for any depth can be calculated for this well. Parameters
determined for each case are tabulates in Table-A

Table A – Set of parameters determined for HL lift prediction

Parameter Section-I Section-II Section-III

Flow Rate, q 293 318 342

 dp 
Pressure drop   0.032 0.035 0.042
 dl  A

 dp 
Pressure drop   0.06 0.00 0.073
 dl  B

Cuttings Concentration, Cc 0.0029 0.0026 0.0024

Effective mud density, ρe 8.84 8.83 8.83

65