310 likes | 916 Views
25-26 August 1999. Well Control Conference of the Americas. Houston, Texas. Introduction. Problems Associated With Deepwater DrillingSingle Gradient vs. Dual Gradient ConceptMethodologyResultsConclusions. 25-26 August 1999. Well Control Conference of the Americas. Houston, Texas. Problems Associ
E N D
1. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Greater Kick Tolerance and Fewer Casing Strings Make Dual Gradient Drilling a Winner Schubert, J. J., Seland, S.,
Johansen, T. J., Juvkam-Wold, H. C.
2. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Introduction Problems Associated With Deepwater Drilling
Single Gradient vs. Dual Gradient Concept
Methodology
Results
Conclusions
3. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Problems Associated With Deepwater Drilling Longer, heavier marine risers requires
Larger drilling vessels w/ greater storage requirements
Large volume of mud just to fill the riser
Large forces imposed on the riser by currents
Large tension forces on the riser
4. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Problems Associated With Deepwater Drilling Narrowing of the Window between the Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure
Increase in number of casing strings
Near elimination of kick tolerance
5. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Single vs. Dual Gradient Concept Single Gradient Wells
Wellbore contains a single density fluid
Single pressure gradient
Dual Gradient Well
Wellbore feels seawater gradient to the seafloor, and mud gradient to bottom
6. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Dual Gradient Achieved by: Taking returns at the seafloor
Gas lift at the seafloor
Inject hollow gas spheres
Seafloor mud pumps
7. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Assumptions Water depth of 10,000’
Total depth of 37,500’
For dual gradient drilling:
annulus pressure at the seafloor is kept equal to seawater HSP during normal drilling operations
during kicks seafloor pressure adjusted to control BHP equal to formation pressure
8. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Pore and Fracture Gradients
9. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Methodology Conventional Riser Drilling
Picked casing points graphically with with a 0.5 ppg stand off
Looked at the effect of 750 psi SIP
Looked at the effects of circulating pressures for both:
0 bbls influx
50 bbls influx
10. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Methodology Compared results to a dual gradient system:
Statically
Dynamically
11. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Methodology Dual Gradient System, we picked casing points:
Graphically (static wellbore pressures)
Dynamically:
0 bbl influx
50 bbl influx
12. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Graphical Casing Seat Selection
13. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Kick w/ 750 psi SIP
14. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Casing Seat Pressures
15. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Static Pressure - Dual Gradients
16. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Choke Pressures
17. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas
18. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas
19. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Graphical Casing Seat Selection - Dual Density
20. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Dynamic Casing Seat Selection
21. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Dynamic Casing Seat Selection
22. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Conclusions The narrow gap between pore pressure and fracture pressure results in excess number of casing strings for conventional riser drilling.
The large number of casing strings may result in such a small production string that high flow rates may not be possible.
23. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Conclusions The narrow gap between pore pressure and fracture pressure results in virtually no kick tolerance for conventionally drilled wells.
The dual gradient system drastically reduces the number of casing strings required to reach total depth.
24. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Conclusions The dual gradient system widens the gap between pore pressure and fracture pressure resulting in a much higher kick tolerance.
The higher kick tolerance increases the probability of a kick being killed successfully.
25. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Conclusions The dual gradient system will increase the probability of reaching the geologic objective in ultra-deep water.
Dual gradient drilling will allow large enough production casing to be able to install production tubing as large a 7” in diameter.
26. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas
27. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas 6000’ WD
28. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas 6000’ WD
29. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas 6000’ WD
30. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas 6000’ WD
31. 25-26 August 1999 Well Control Conference of the Americas Houston, Texas Kick Tolerance