Section 08 - ECD Management

ECD Management
This section will cover:

• Understanding ECD
– Why high angle wells have higher ECDs
– Magnitude of ECD fluctuations
– What problems ECDs cause
– What PWD can & cannot tell you
• Options to reduce ECD
– Planning stage, Implementation stage
© K&M Technology Group - 2013
1/75
ECD Basics
What is ECD?
ESD: ECD:
Equivalent Static Equivalent Circulating
Density (pumps OFF) Density (pumps ON)
Static Pr ∆P
ESD = ECD = ESD +
g x TVD g x TVD
Static Pr Static Pr
∆P
2/75
ECD Basics
“the additional ‘mud weight’ seen by the hole, due to the

circulating pressure loss of the fluid in the annulus,
and/or surge pressures”
3/75
ECD Basics
• Function of the pressure drop in the annulus (∆P).
• ∆P (and therefore ECD) is effected by the following:
− Length of the annulus or well
− Annular clearances (drillpipe / casing sizes)
− Mud Properties
− Flowrate
− Rotation
− Backpressure through surface return lines
− ROP
− Pipe movement (Surge and Swab pressures)
4/75
ECD Basics
Why are ECDs a particular concern for ERD?
• ERD wells have much higher ECD fluctuations
– MD to TVD ratio is more significant
– Shallow ERD wells have little formation integrity
– Drill pipe is often larger
– More aggressive parameters used for hole cleaning
– Inappropriate mud properties
• Understanding ECD effects is essential for ERD

– Numerous ER wells have been lost due to ECD
– Difficulties wrongly probably blamed on other factors
5/75
ECD Basics
1 Intermediate Casing
2 10,000’ MD/4,000’ TVD (3,000/1,200m)
ECD = 11.7 ppg EMW (1.40 sg)
3
5
• Same 10.0 ppg (1.20 sg) mud & 350 psi (24 bar)
6 annulus ∆P in both wells
• ECD is much greater in shallow-TVD ER well than
7 vertical well at same MD
8
9 Protective Casing @
10 10,000’ MD/TVD (3,000m)
ECD = 10.7 ppg EMW (1.28 sg)
11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6/75
ECD Basics
Cementing
Fracture
Running Casing
Pressure
Drilling
Tripping In
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Tripping Out
Pore or Collapse
Pressure
7/75
ECD Basics
What are the magnitudes of ECD fluctuations?
• At 20,000’ MD, at 6,000’ TVD (6,000m / 1,800m)
– Drill 8½” hole (5½” DP): 2.5 – 5.0 ppg (0.30-0.60 sg) EMW
– Drill 8½” hole (5” DP): 2.0 – 4.0 ppg (0.24-0.47 sg) EMW
• Even more on longer or shallower wells

– Maersk BD-04A: 5”x4” dp in 8½” hole
• 8.0 ppg (0.96 sg) EMW fluctuations at TD of 40,000’ (>12,000m)
• 11:1 MD/TVD Ratio
• 400-500 bbl/day losses for the last ⅓ of the well too!
8/75
ECD Basics
ECD Directly Creates the following problems
• Lost circulation
– When bottom hole pressure exceeds fracture gradient
– Usually most damage is done when off-bottom
• Often at connections… see PWD log
9/75
•16.36 ppg surge
•ECD: 15.9 ppg
•16.37 ppg surge
10/75
ECD Basics
But ECDs also create other problems …
• Wellbore instability:
– Hydraulic hammer (shock type ECDs)
– Fatigue Failure
• Think of a paper clip being bent back & forth
– If the mud engineer was to have deliberately changed the MW
by 2 – 3 ppg, would you expect problems?
• This is often mistaken for “time dependency”, when fatigue

cycles are combined at a set rate (# connections per day)
11/75
3/21/07 0:00
Gel-Breaking Spikes: 0.3 ppg / 110 psi
3/22/07 0:00
Normal ECD Fluctuation: 0.8 ppg / 300 psi
3/23/07 0:00
ER Well Example
3/24/07 0:00 - 11¾” @ 16,500’ MD
- Drilling to 23,000’ MD
- 10⅝”x12¼” Hole
- 5⅞”x5” dp
3/25/07 0:00
- 9.7-10.5 ppg OBM
- 6rpm = 13-15
POOH (swab effect)
3/26/07 0:00
Packoff Event: 3.5ppg / 1300 psi

3/27/07 0:00
The driller pulled into “tight hole” and someone turned the pumps
on… this could have been avoided if procedure had been followed!
3/28/07 0:00
© K&M Technology
1.00 1.10 Group
1.20- 2013 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
12/75 ECD (sg)

13/75
ECD Basics
But ECDs also create other problems
• Wellbore instability…continued:
– Pore Pressure Penetration
• When near wellbore is pressured up
– Using MW that is too low as the “cheap” ECD solution

• This is not a legitimate solution
– This is a very risky strategy
• Unfortunately, this is very common in our industry
14/75
Pore Pressure Fracture Pressure
Collapse Pressure
“Irresponsible Engineer’s Instability”:

1. Constraints are provided by G&G
2. MW selected to avoid collapse
3. Well is drilled until losses become a
problem. Reducing flow gets us a
little deeper.
4. Mud weight is then cut back as low
as possible (while maintaining
overbalance). Hole collapses on
connections and trips.
A responsible plan would incorporate a

design that enables the right mud
weight all the way to TD (slimmer drill
pipe in this case).
15/75
ECD Basics
But ECDs also create other problems
• Wellbore instability…continued:
– Wellbore Breathing / Ballooning
• This is also an ECD problem!
• If ECD exceeds fracture initiation pressure in impermeable (or
low permeability) rock, losses occur when the pumps are on…
• …but the losses flow back into the wellbore when the pumps
are off, because the fractures close
– Note: this phenomenon is no because the hole diamter is
“growing” and “shrinking”
– The “flowback” mud tends to have entrained gas, which further
leads the rig team to believe that the well is underbalanced
– Raising the mud weight only increases the flowback, and
likewise, the associated gas!
16/75
ECD Basics
“Ballooning” does not involve “inflation” or the wellbore
like a balloon. “Breathing” is a more appropriate term…
17/75
ECD Basics
18/75
ECD Basics
But ECDs also create other problems…
• Well Control
– High ECD may drive us to operate with reduced mud weight / reduced
swab margin
– Wells with high ECD also have high swab loads
– Reduced trip margin and high large swab loads are a “perfect storm”
for swabbed kicks
– Swabbed gas kicks often do not reveal themselves during a flow check in
high angle wells due to inclination and solubility in OBM/SBM
19/75
ECD Basics
But ECDs also create other problems…
• Reservoir / formation damage
– In “barefoot” type horizontal wells
– The reservoir & geology group requires that the drillers use slightly
lower MW to reduce productivity damage
• But formation damage is done at pumps-on… not pumps-off
• If the mud engineer deliberately increased the MW
by 2 – 3 ppg, would you expect a reduction in productivity?
– This flies in the face of MW control for reservoir damage, unless ECD-
reduction measures are also taken
• The problem is worst at the toe, which is already struggling to produce
20/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
1.) Trend Behavior Is Not Linear
a) Unlike vertical wells, ECDs are often not supposed to
remain the same throughout
b) The driller needs a “road map” of clean-hole ECDs, to
understand what is ‘normal’
21/75
VERTICAL HOLE scenario
10.0 ppg, 5½” drillpipe, 8½” hole
• The driller should see ECDs remain the same
throughout, at 11.1 - 11.3 ppg
• Annulus pressure grows at the same rate
that TVD grows…
• Any change in ECDs is therefore due to
cuttings, or mud changes
22/75
23/75
HORIZONTAL HOLE scenario
• CLEAN hole ECDs are now expected to increase.
Don’t be worried by this!
• Annulus pressure grows, but TVD is constant
• If ECDs were remaining the same, then there
would be a problem!
• Notice also magnitude of ECDs compared to previous

vertical example
• Vertical hole ECDs were ±11.2 ppg EMW
• Now ±12.7 ppg EMW, at the same flowrate and mud system
24/75
25/75
S-PATH DESIGN scenario
• CLEAN hole ECDs are now expected to decrease…
• Stationary ECDs could mean the hole is loading up
• You have to have the roadmap to know what is normal
26/75
ECD Basics
Implications for Horizontal wells
• Drilling
• Ballooning problems increase as reach grows
• Completions
• Cementing at heel jeopardized
• Fracture jobs at heel jeopardized
27/75
ECDs and Cementing Horizontal Wells
Many wells are failure by design on this issue
– ECDs were always going to be too high…
In a horizontal well, losses are usually here,

so risk of cement not returning up the open
hole is significant
If losses occur here (at 9⅝” shoe),

cementing is OK …
But if losses occur here (at TD), then

cementing success is jeopardized
28/75
For a cemented completion that relies on frac’ing … a
critical priority is getting cement back to the heel
(or previous casing shoe for future well control)
29/75
But what if losses occur? … In a horizontal, the losses WILL be at the toe
As horizontals get longer, it’s harder to get cement back to the heel
But frac’s near heel have a 1st frac’s are good, where there is good isolation
‘path of least resistance (i.e. where well cemented)
and frac’s simply enter
previous frac system
Good cement only

get’s to here
30/75
Consider cementing ECD situation for a Haynesville horizontal
• 4½” x 5” casing, through 6 ¾” hole & 75/8” casing
• 3,000’ horizontal length
•Shows ECDs vs displacement rate

• Initially only mud is moving
• Then ECDs will increase as thicker
cement enters open hole
Fracture gradient
•Initially shows that can circulate

without losses, at any rate
•And can displace cement without

losses with reducing flowrate
31/75
Now consider longer lateral (6,000’ long)
•Initially shows that can circulate

without losses, but requires reduced
rates
•But now can’t get cement back to 7⅝” shoe

• Even worse with bigger casing & thicker mud
• Longer laterals require design solutions
32/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
“Roadmap” Concept
• By itself, PWD is of limited value
• Unless you know what “normal” looks like
• PWD can tell you things you never thought of, if you know
how to listen to what it is saying
33/75
Roadmap Example
Norwegian ER Well
• Significant effort put into ECD management
• 9⅝” casing as a liner
• 8½” hole under-reamed to 9⅞”
• Tapered drillstring
34/75
PWD data, by itself, doesn’t mean much
• Here is the data from a horizontal well,
drilling 8½” x 9⅞” hole (with RWD).
• No apparent trends that look unusual
• But what’s normal?
Note how difficult to interpret

this interval … due to erratic
mud properties
35/75
With Roadmap View
• Adjusted for changes to flowrate, rotary speed,
rheology, etc.
Blue: “Clean Hole” Roadmap • ECD’s began to diverge from predicted values. The
mud was being thinned but ECD’s remained high.
• Why?
Green: “With Cuttings Load” Roadmap
36/75
Re-Modeled for RWD Failure
• Assumes 8½” hole below 25,000’. Model
matched well with these assumptions.
• Upon tripping the BHA it was discovered
that the under-reamer was destroyed
Modeling assumes 8½” hole below 25,000 MD
37/75
ECD Roadmaps
PWD Roadmaps…
• Firstly, need to know geometry effect on the roadmap
• Also need daily (or more often) variations in rheology
accounted for
• Fluid rheologies affect ECDs more than anything else
(especially in the larger hole sizes)
38/75
Consider this 12¼” high angle section
• This is what the drilling operation sees as they progress
• ECDs continuously coming up smoothly (OK)
Then ECDs start coming up faster after MW increase

(which was due to wellbore stability concerns)
So ROP is slowed from 13,000’ onwards

•Halved from 150 – 200’/hr, and additional circulating
After having “fixed” this hole cleaning problem, ROP is

again significantly reduced for the last part as a precaution
But it turns out that when mud properties and ROP are
accounted for, everything is “normal”
39/75
• Sweeps affect ECD
– Concentrated cuttings
load in vertical hole can
result in ECD spikes
– Very sensitive to Note how difficult to
weighted, high-vis sweeps interpret this interval …
due to sweeps
– Makes PWD hard to interpret
40/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
2.) PWD Doesn’t Always see the “Worst Case Load”
• S-path wells
• Tapered drillstrings
• Varying mud properties
• BHA Restrictions
41/75
S-Path + Tapered Strings
Consider ECDs for 8½” section of S-path well

• Drilling 8½” hole from 19,000’ to TD
• MW = 9.8 ppg
• Using tapered 4½” x 5⅞” drillstring, since modeling says
that this is OK at TD
• Driller is told to keep below 12.4 ppg fracture gradient
42/75
PWD view of ECDs (ie “roadmap view)
• Driller uses PWD
• Successfully keeps ECDs below 12.4 ppg, but still
loses circulation
• Why?
43/75
SNAPSHOT view of ECDs when at TD
• ECDs at TD are OK, but …
• ECDs have grown at the shoe (unseen to PWD)
• Was only 12.2 ppg when the bit was at the shoe,
but has now grown to > 13.0 ppg
• Why?
• S-path well masks ECDs
• Tapered drillstring masks ECD growth
44/75
45/75
What If…
• This had been a B&H Wellpath?
• Continual ECD growth
• ECD “Felt” at TD = ECD “Felt” at Shoe
46/75
What If…
• This was still a S-Path Trajectory, but…
• A full string of 4½” (rather than tapered)
• ECD’s are dramatically lower
• ECD “Snapshot” mimics the “Roadmap”
47/75
ECD Basics
This is how most operations design the drillstring for
8½” or smaller hole…
• Typically, a tapered drillstring is used (say 5”x5½”)
• With the amount of small pipe = open hole length
• Which means this scenario is quite common
2. When drilling later on, losses occur (say PWD shows

1. Initial situation while drilling: ECD = 12.4 ppg. LCM is spotted at bit.
no losses at shoe (say, ECD = 12.0 ppg)
….but LCM is ineffective. As expected in hindsight if losses are
at shoe (say, which has increased ECD to 12.7 ppg)
3. Snapshot view is necessary to

understand where to spot LCM
48/75
ECD Basics
PWD measured ECDs are made up of 2 components
1. Overall annulus (around drillpipe, etc)
• This is what we normally think of for the ECDs
2. But there are also Near BHA effects
• This is usually assumed negligible because
the BHA is so short
• AND because PWD rarely sees this
49/75
ECD Basics
Norwegian well, drilling 8½” hole
• Extreme efforts made to reduce ECDs
• Very thin mud
• Tapered drillstring
• 9⅝” casing run as a liner
50/75
Model doesn’t PWD readings
• Error is 1.3 ppg falling to 0.8 ppg EMW
• Even gross changes in mud properties
cannot explain the results…
51/75
• But when the stabilizer is accounted for…
• A good match occurs
• Another give-away is that the ECD difference is a
constant pressure drop
• 430 psi
• Note – sleeve stabilizer had < 4mm clearance ..
• The BHA was very difficult to pull out too
52/75
ECD Basics
53/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
• BHA design can greatly affect ECDs
• PWD doesn’t necessarily see the worst case loads
• Sensor is often above the sleeve stabilizer, and always the bit
• Typical PWD sensor sees annulus pressure above

this point.
• How much ECD is created across the bit & stabilizers?
• Usually assumed to be negligible…
54/75
ECD Basics
BHA design affect on ECDs
• Occasionally, we get a glimpse of this when a
stabilizer is placed above the PWD
55/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
• Remember, however, that this is going on all the time
with the bit and lower stabilizers
• Some components are much worse than others
56/75
ECD Basics
This explains the following scenario…
1. Initial situation while drilling - no losses seen.

PWD sees 12.0 ppg
2. When drilling later on, losses occur.
Actual ECD at bit = 13.0 ppg
• LCM is spotted. Can’t circulate without losses,
but can hold static.
3. Drilling continues. Losses heal after a few hours.

It is assumed that the LCM has found the right spot.
4. No more losses as drilling continues to TD.
5. But losses start again when circulating at shoe.

Why now?
- because of near BHA effect (unseen to PWD)
57/75
ECD Basics
Understanding PWD
3.) PWD Is a Poor Indicator of Hole Cleaning in high
angle wellbores
• Until it is too late
• in another words, there are better indicators
58/75
ECD Basics
Can PWD see the build up of cuttings beds?
• Once the cuttings touch the bottom, they are
largely invisible to the PWD
• Only a small % are in the flow-stream at any time
• So what does the PWD see?
1. The PWD sees the cuttings in the low-angle hole,

as it comes off the conveyor belt, going into suspension
2. Sometimes the PWD will see dune behavior if close to

pack-off (as opposed to bed behavior)
59/75
ECD Basics
Critical hole sizes for drilling ECD
• 8½” and smaller sizes are very sensitive to ECD
• Larger hole sizes are much less affected
• Most hydraulics models under-estimate ECD
- Tooljoints
- Torque reduction tools (if used, e.g. NRDPPs)
- Pipe rotation / spiraling effect
60/75
ECD Basics
So far, we’ve emphasized the need for rotation
• It is the only way to clean the hole …
• But have you noticed that ECDs go up when the RPM
is increased when drilling 6” or 8½” hole ?
– It may actually have more effect on ECDs than changing the
flowrate
• High speed rotation in small hole may be very bad
61/75
ECD Basics
How does pipe rotation increase ECD?
• This is not due to lifting or suspending cuttings …
– How do we know ?
– This effect is seen before drilling out the shoe
– And effect is as strong as the start, as at the end of the run
• What is happening ?
• High speed rotation causes the fluid to spiral
– See next slide
62/75
63/75
Rotation Effect on ECD
Rotation Effect Depends on Hole & Drill Pipe Size
• Rotation ECD is only a concern in ‘Small hole with big pipe’
• ECD is quite insensitive to rotation when hole is big compared to DP
• To dominate ECD, the rotation effect requires a “small-hole,
big-pipe” environment
64/75
Rotation Effect on ECD
What drives impact of rotation on ECDs ?
• A “small-hole, big-pipe” situation is needed
• RPM is a non-issue in 12¼” hole, 9½” hole, etc
• But ≤ 8½” sees a step change in behavior … depending on the DP size
- 5⅞” & 5½” VERY SENSITIVE,
- 5” = quite sensitive
- 4½”, 4” = insensitive
• Mud rheology also drives RPM effect on ECDs

- Thicker mud increases rotation effect
- Thinner mud decreases rotation effect
- Low end rheology is important … not YP
65/75
ECD, Friction, Hole Cleaning Problems
Optimum Range: 3.25 to 3.75

Hole Optimum DP
12 ¼” 6 ⅝”
10 ⅝” 5 ½” or 5 ⅞”
9 ½” 5”
8 ½” 4 ½”
6 ½” 3 ½”
66/75
ECD vs. Hole Cleaning
So this is the situation we might have in But if we “solve the ECD problem
small hole, with big drillpipe
• We can now rotate fast without an ECD problem,
• Very good hole cleaning, but high ECDs but now we have a hole cleaning challenge.
while rotating
… so can’t (or shouldn’t) rotate fast
This is scale for 5½” dp This is scale for 4½” dp

inside 8½” hole inside 8½” hole
67/75
• So which “compromise” do we choose?
• Easy hole cleaning, but an ECD challenge?
OR
• Acceptable ECDs, but a hole cleaning challenge?
• If ECDs are NOT a limitation, prioritize on hole cleaning

efficiency
• But if ECDs are the primary issue, ALWAYS solve ECDs
• ECDs are a design problem & solution
• Hole cleaning is easy. All you need is high RPM and patience
68/75
• A common thought in drilling planning is that flowrates
will be unacceptable if smaller pipe is used
• For example, in 8½” hole,
• Maybe only able to pump at 350 – 450 gpm instead of 600 gpm
• The flowrates our industry uses in 8½” hole are “nuclear drilling”…
• If you aren’t willing to consider drilling at lower flowrate in 8½”
hole, how can you justify drilling 12¼” hole … see next plot
69/75
550 gpm in 8½” hole with 5½” drillpipe is
equivalent to 1550 gpm in 12¼” hole!
If 800 – 1000 gpm is acceptable in 12¼”,

then 280-450 gpm is acceptable in 8½”
If you think in terms of 12¼” equivalent

AV’s … what does this look like ?
70/75
ECD Drivers
Hole Drill Tool Joint Flowrate Rotation Rheology ROP
Size Pipe
17½” Any
12¼” Any
8½” ≥5 ½”
8½” 5”
8½” 4 ½”
6½” 4”
6½” 3 ½”
0.0 No contribution
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0 Huge contribution
71/75
Shallow Horizontal Example
72/75
Shallow Well (4,000’ TVD)
For Low vs. High flowrate: For Thin vs. Thick mud
9⅞” hole, 5”dp: 0.5-0.6 ppg EMW 9⅞” hole, 5”dp: 0.4-0.6 ppg EMW
8½” hole, 4½” dp: 1.3-1.4 ppg EMW 8½” hole, 4½” dp: 1.1-1.6 ppg EMW
8½” hole, 5” dp: 1.4-2.2 ppg EMW
8½” hole, 5” dp: 1.7-1.8 ppg EMW
7⅞” hole, 4½” dp: 1.6-2.4 ppg EMW
7⅞” hole, 4½” dp: 1.9-2.1 ppg EMW

Sensitivity to Flowrate (150-200’/min AV) Sensitivity to Rheology (6θ = 8-12)
73/75
Haynesville Type Hydraulics
Let’s look at the ECD load for slimhole type wells

• 6⅛” vs. 6¾” hole
• 3½” vs. 4” drillpipe
•At Deep TVD (11,000’)
74/75
Slim-hole Wells (11,000’ TVD)
6⅛”, 4” dp
3.5-5.0 ppg EMW
6⅛”, 3½” dp
1.5-1.9 ppg EMW
6¾”, 4” dp
1.5-1.8 ppg EMW
6¾”, 3½” dp
0.5-0.6 ppg EMW

Sensitivity to Flowrate (200-300 gpm) Sensitivity to Rheology (6θ = 5-9)
75/75

Section 08 - ECD Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 08 - ECD Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 08 - ECD Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some problems that can be caused by high ECD?

What are some problems that can be caused by high ECD?

How can high ECD impact well control?

How can high ECD impact well control?

ECD Management

This section will cover:

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

“the additional ‘mud weight’ seen by the hole, due to the

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

• Understanding ECD effects is essential for ERD

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

• Even more on longer or shallower wells

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

•ECD: 15.9 ppg

•16.37 ppg surge

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

• This is often mistaken for “time dependency”, when fatigue

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

Gel-Breaking Spikes: 0.3 ppg / 110 psi

Packoff Event: 3.5ppg / 1300 psi

12/75 ECD (sg)

– Using MW that is too low as the “cheap” ECD solution

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

“Irresponsible Engineer’s Instability”:

A responsible plan would incorporate a

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

• Notice also magnitude of ECDs compared to previous

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

In a horizontal well, losses are usually here,

If losses occur here (at 9⅝” shoe),

But if losses occur here (at TD), then

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

Good cement only

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

•Shows ECDs vs displacement rate

•Initially shows that can circulate

•And can displace cement without

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

•Initially shows that can circulate

•But now can’t get cement back to 7⅝” shoe

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

Note how difficult to interpret

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

© K&M Technology Group - 2013

Modeling assumes 8½” hole below 25,000 MD

© K&M Technology Group - 2013