Application of 3-D Analytical Model for Wellbore Friction Calculation in Actual wells Orkhan Ismayilov Petroleum Engineering Submission date: July 2012 Supervisor: Sigbjørn Sangesland, IPT Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics NTNU Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi universitet Faculty of Engineering and Technology Studieprogram i Geofag og petroleumsteknologi Study Programme in Earth Sciences and Petroleum Engineering Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics HOVEDOPPGAVE/DIPLOMA THESIS/MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS Kandidatens navn/The candidate’s name: Orkhan Ismayilov Oppgavens tittel, norsk/Title of Thesis, Anvendelse av 3-D analytisk modell for beregning Norwegian: av friksjon i borehull Oppgavens tittel, engelsk/Title of Thesis, Application of 3-D Analytical Model for Wellbore English Friction Calculation Utfyllende tekst/Extended text: Background: A 3D analytical model is the new tool for wellbore friction calculation. Before making a final recommendation about the model as a reliable tool for using in software and industry it is required to apply it for number of case studies. The comparison of the results with actual well data and quality check with Wellplan software is the way for evaluation of the analytical model. An application of the model in the complex well with complex wellbore profiles should be also further simplified. Task:  Perform torque and drag calculation for selected test wells using the analytical model  Suggest simplification of the analytical model. Create a simple torque and drag simulator  Perform quality check using the torque and drag modules in Wellplan software  Perform an evaluation and comparison of the analytical model with actual well data Supervisor Sigbjørn Sangesland Studieretning/Area of specialization: Petroleum Engineering, Drilling Technology Fagområde/Combination of subject: Drilling/Well technology Tidsrom/Time interval: January 16 – June 11, 2012 ……………………………… Sigbjørn Sangesland Preface This document represents the Master Thesis work written during the spring semester of 2012 under Master of Science program in the department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geosciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Sigbjørn Sangesland, for his guidance and patience during the development and writing of this thesis. I would like to thank Johan Eck-Olsen and all the involved Statoil staff for providing me with the necessary data and information regarding to the Oseberg well. I am very grateful to Professor Bernt Sigve Aadnøy, University of Stavanger, and Mohammad Fazaeli-zadeh, University of Calgary, for their assistance with Analytical Friction Models. I would also like to give special thanks to Lanventiv Eqor. His guidance, help and advises has been vital to carry out this thesis. Finally I would like to thank all my friends and family members for a great support, their love and patience. i Summary With the increasing number of drilled ultra-extended reach wells and complex geometry wells, the drilling limitation caused by excessive torque and drag forces must be further investigated. The wellbore friction being a main limiting factor in extended reach well needs to be studied with the new developed models. This master thesis presents an application of the new 3-dimentional analytical model developed by Bernt S. Aadnøy in the synthetic test and four real wells. Quite diverse wellbore trajectory and depth has been chosen for a better evaluation and comparison of the model with the measured data. In order to investigate the potential and limitation of the model, torque and drag analysis during the different operations such as tripping in, tripping out, rotating off bottom, combined up/down were investigated. An application of the analytical model for wellbore friction analysis in the actual wells is very time consuming and requires a lot data/input manipulation. As a part of the thesis assignment, it was required to create simplified means for application and testing the analytical model. With visual basic application in Excel a simple torque and drag simulator was created purely based on the analytical model simple solution. Along with the analytical model the master thesis includes Wellplan software for torque and drag analysis in all the included test and actual wells. Along with this, the project has a brief literature study of 3D analytical model and torque and drag concept in general. The analytical model gives a reasonable torque and drag results. Based on comparison between the model and actual measurement, it has been observed that the analytical model simple solution in some cases may not precisely describe wellbore friction analysis. The discrepancy between Wellplan and the analytical model prediction occurs during the tripping in operations. Being a strong function of tension/compression in the drill string the analytical model for more accurate torque and drag prediction requires an application of the complete solution. The main challenge for this model is the complexity of its full application. There is an uncertainty regarding the model application in conjunction with drillstring effective tension. For the actual well application it is time consuming and requires drillstring effective tension analyzing which make the model disable for the real time analysis. The analytical model must be further investigated by application in the real well with good quality of measured data. ii Table of Content Preface ................................................................................................................................................................. i Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... viii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1. Literature Study ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Torque Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Drag Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Wellpath Design Options and Well Section in ERD ................................................................................... 3 1.4 Soft-string vs Stiff -string Model................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Friction Factor ........................................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Torque and drag Reduction Methods ....................................................................................................... 7 1.7 The 3D Analytical Model for Wellbore Friction ......................................................................................... 9 4T1.7.1 Buoyancy effect ................................................................................................................................ 10 4T1.7.2 Drag for Straight Inclined Wellbore Sections without Pipe Rotation ............................................... 10 4T1.7.3 Torque for Straight Inclined Wellbore Sections without Pipe Motion .............................................. 11 4T1.7.4 The Simple Solution for Curved section ............................................................................................ 11 1.7.5 The Complete Solution for Curved section ...................................................................................... 12 2. 3D Model Simulator ...................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Limitation and future work regarding the simulator .............................................................................. 15 3. Wellplan Software ......................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Torque & Drag Module ........................................................................................................................... 16 4. Test Well Application .................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Test Well 1-Result and Discussion ........................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Test Well 2-Result and Discussion ........................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Test Well 3/4-Result and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 25 4.4 The Complete Solution for Curved Section in Test Well 3&4 ................................................................. 27 4.5 Conclusion to Test Wells ......................................................................................................................... 28 5. Real Well Applications ................................................................................................................................... 29 5.1Calculation and Simulation Concern ........................................................................................................ 29 5.2 Uncertainties, Field Data Quality and Assumptions ................................................................................ 30 5.3 Real Well 1 Information .......................................................................................................................... 32 iii 5.3.1 Results and Discussion - Real Well 1 ................................................................................................ 34 5.4 Oseberg Well Information ....................................................................................................................... 43 5.4.1 Results and Discussions- F-9 ............................................................................................................. 45 5.5 Real Well 2 Information .......................................................................................................................... 54 5.5.1 Real Well 2-Results and Discussions ................................................................................................ 55 5.6 Well 34/10-A-32 C Information ............................................................................................................... 58 5.6.1 Well 34/10-A-32 C Results and discussions ...................................................................................... 59 6. Future Work .................................................................................................................................................. 64 7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 65 Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................................... 66 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix A - 3D Analytical Model Equations .................................................................................................... 69 Appendix B - 3DModel Simulator manual ......................................................................................................... 71 Appendix C - Test Wells ..................................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix D - Real Well 1 ................................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix E - Oseberg-F-9 .................................................................................................................................. 83 Appendix F - Real Well 2 ................................................................................................................................... 88 Appendix G - Gullfaks- Well 34/10-A-32 C ........................................................................................................ 91 Appendix H - Matlab Script Code for Friction Coefficient back calculation ...................................................... 96 iv List of Figures Figure 1: Drillstring Rotating Equilibrium PositionP16 ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Drillstring position related to the boreholeP24 ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Three different friction factors in similar offset wells with different mud additivesP13 ......................... 8 Figure 4: The dogleg in 3D spaceP2 ................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Pipe element along inclined straight sectionP2 ................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Pipe element along curved sectionP2 .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Comparison between hook load weight, the analytical model vs Wellplan simulation-Test Well 1 . 19 Figure 8: Effective Tension Test Well 1 ............................................................................................................ 21 Figure 9: Comparison between hook load weight, the analytical model vs Wellplan simulation-Test Well 2 . 22 Figure 10: Comparison between torque-off bottom, the analytical model vs Wellplan simulation-Test 2 ....... 23 Figure 11: Effective Tension Test Well 2 .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12: Comparison between hook load weight, the analytical model vs Wellplan simulation-Test Well3 26 Figure 13: Effective Tension Test Well 3 .......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 14: Vertical view -Real Well 1 .............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 15: Planned View -Real Well 1 ............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 16: Comparison of Wellplan 5000.1 and Wellplan 2003 version ......................................................... 34 Figure 17: Comparison between 3D analytical model and Wellplan 5000.1 version –Hook Load Weight versus Measured Depth-Real Well1 .................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: Comparison between 3D analytical model (0.2/0.25) and Wellplan 5000.1 (0.18/0.24) version – Surface Hook Load Weight versus Measured Depth-Real Well 1 ..................................................................... 36 Figure 19: Effect of pipe rotation on the hook load weight while the tripping in and out operation ............... 37 Figure 20: Comparison between 3D model simulator hook loads and Wellplan 5000.1- Combined Motion .. 38 Figure 21: Comparison between3D Model simulator torque off bottom values and Wellplan simulation ...... 38 Figure 22: Comparison between3D Model simulator torque off bottom values and Wellplan simulation Combined Down motion .................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 23: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan 5000.1,2003 simulation for hook load weight prediction for tripping in operation 0.25/0.3......................................................................................... 40 Figure 24: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan 5000.1,2003 simulation for torque off bottom prediction 0.18/0.24 .............................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 25: Planned View - Well F-9 ................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 26: Vertical View - Well F-9 ................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 27: Comparison between 3D analytical model and Wellplan 5000.1 version –Hook Load Weight versus Measured Depth-Well F9 ....................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 28: Effective Tension Well F-9 .............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 29: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for hook load weight prediction for tripping out operation0.18/0.24 ................................................................................................. 48 Figure 30: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for hook load weight prediction for tripping in operation0.18/0.24 ................................................................................................... 49 Figure 31: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for hook load weight prediction for tripping in operation0.2/0.25 vs 0.25/0.3 ................................................................................... 50 Figure 32: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for hook load weight prediction for rotating off bottom operation ..................................................................................................... 51 v Figure 33: Effect of pipe rotation on the hook load weight while the tripping in and out operation-F9 ......... 51 Figure 34: Comparison between 3D model simulator hook loads and Wellplan 5000.1- Combined Motion-F9 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 35: Comparison between 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for torque off bottom prediction 0.18/0.24 ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 36: Vertical view – Real Well 2 ............................................................................................................. 54 Figure 37: Planned view –Real well 2 .............................................................................................................. 54 Figure 38: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for hook load weight prediction-0.18/0.24 .......................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 39: Comparison of actual reaming hook load weight with Wellplan and 3D model prediction ........... 56 Figure 40: Comparison of the analytical combined motion application with different rpm ............................ 57 Figure 41: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan simulation for torque off bottom prediction 0.18/0.24 .......................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 42: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan 5000.1 simulation for hook load weight prediction –static ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 43: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan 2003 simulation for hook load weight prediction -tripping out 0.18/0.24 ..................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 44: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan 2003 simulation for hook load weight prediction -tripping in 0.18/0.24 ....................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 45: Friction coefficient back calculation for pick up and slack off operation ...................................... 62 Figure 46: Comparison between field data, 3D Model and Wellplan2003 simulation for torque off bottom prediction 0.18/0.24 .......................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 47: Drill string description (screen shot from 3D simulator) .................................................................. 71 Figure 48: Well section description (Screen shot from 3D simulator) ............................................................... 71 Figure 49: Input Data -3D Model simulator screen shot ................................................................................... 72 Figure 50: Calculation sheet -3D Model simulator screen shot ......................................................................... 73 Figure 51: Result Table -3D Model simulator screen shot ................................................................................. 73 Figure 52: Test Well 1 Schematic ...................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 53: The simplified drillstring for Test well 1 ........................................................................................... 75 Figure 54: Test Well 2 Schematic ...................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 55: Effective Tension Test Well 4 ............................................................................................................ 77 Figure 56: Comparison between hook load weight, the analytical model vsWellplan simulation-Test Well 4 78 Figure 57: Comparison between hook load weight, the analytical model vs Wellplan simulation-Test Well4 79 Figure 58: Well Schematic-Full String – Well 1 ............................................................................................... 80 Figure 59: Drillstring and BHA Details –Real Well 1 ...................................................................................... 81 Figure 60: Effective Tension -Real Well 1 ........................................................................................................ 82 Figure 61: Well Schematic-Oseberg-F9 ........................................................................................................... 83 Figure 62: Drillstring and BHA Details -Oseberg-F9 ...................................................................................... 85 Figure 63: Comparison between torque off bottom values simulated with 3D Model and Wellplan –Combined Up motion .......................................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 64: Comparison between torque off bottom values simulated with 3D Model and Wellplan –Combined Down motion ..................................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 65: Tripping drag comparison for F9 well............................................................................................ 87 vi Figure 66: Well Schematic-Real Well 2 ............................................................................................................ 88 Figure 67: Drillstring and BHA Details -Real Well 2 ...................................................................................... 90 Figure 68: Vertical view Well 34/10-A-32 C .................................................................................................... 91 Figure 69: Planned View Well 34/10-A-32 C ................................................................................................... 91 Figure 70: Drillstring and Casing ConfigurationP21 .......................................................................................... 92 Figure 71: Drillstring and BHA Details -Well 34/10-A-32 C ........................................................................... 94 Figure 72: Effective Tension Well 34/10-A-32C ............................................................................................... 95 vii