Front Matternew.

qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page iii

Practical Well Planning

and Drilling
Manual

[ Steve Devereux ]
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page v

Preface
[ ] Contents

xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction xv
List of Acronyms xix
Section 1: Well Design 1
1.1. Preliminary Work for the Well Design 3
1.1.1. Planning Process Overview 3
1.1.2. Data Acquisition and Analysis 4
1.2. Well Design: General 17
1.3. Precompletion and Completion Design 21
1.3.1. How the Completion Relates to the Well Design 22
1.3.2. Monobore Completions 25
1.3.3. Multiple String Completions 28
1.3.4. Completion Fluids 29
1.3.5. Brines 30
1.3.6. Points to Check on the Completion Design 34
1.4. Casing Design 37
1.4.1. General Points and Definitions 38
1.4.2. Hole and Casing Sizes: Considerations 41
1.4.3. Hole and Casing Sizes: Selection 42
1.4.4. Pore Pressures and Fracture Gradients 43
1.4.5. Casing Shoe Depth Determination: 51
General Points
1.4.6. Individual Casing Points 54
1.4.7. Mechanical Properties of Steel 57
1.4.8. Safety Factors 60
1.4.9. Factors Affecting Pipe Yield Strengths 63
1.4.10. Methods of Applying Buoyancy Effects 65
1.4.11. Casing Design Criteria: Definitions and 71
Methods of Calculation
1.4.12. Calculating Burst and Collapse Loads, 71
Including Biaxial Effects
1.4.13. Calculating Axial Loads 73

v
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page vi

Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual

1.4.14. Calculating for Buckling (Nb) 81

1.4.15. Calculating Torsional Loads 84
1.4.16. Triaxial Stress Analysis 85
1.4.17. Design for Casing off Massive Salt Formations 86
1.4.18. Casing Properties and Other Considerations 87
1.4.19. Material Grades 87
1.4.20. Casing Connections 90
1.4.21. Casing and Liner Accessories 91
1.4.22. Wellheads: General Descriptions 96
1.4.23. Casing Design Criteria 98
1.4.24. References for Casing Design 98
1.5. Directional Design 107
1.5.1. Planning the Wellpath 108
1.5.2. Dogleg Severity Limits—Combined 110
Buildup and Turn Rate
1.5.3. BHA Performance Considerations 115
1.5.4. Horizontal Well Design Considerations 116
1.5.5. Multilateral Wellbores 118
1.5.6. Slant Rig Drilling 118
1.5.7. Targets and Wellpath 119

SECTION 2: WELL PROGRAMMING 121

2.1. Preliminary Work for the Drilling Program 123
2.1.1. Drilling Program Checklist 123
2.1.2. Technical Justification 130
2.1.3. Formatting the Drilling Program 132
2.1.4. Time Estimates 133
2.1.5. Cost Estimates 133
2.2. Well Control 145
2.2.1. Shallow Gas 145
2.2.2. Drilling with a BOP Stack 151
2.2.3. High Pressure, High Temperature Wells (HPHT) 153
2.2.4. Well Control in High-Angle and 155
Horizontal Wells
2.2.5. References for Well Control—Shallow Gas 156
2.3. Directional Planning 157
2.3.1. Downhole Tools Affecting Directional Control 157
2.3.2. Directional Measurement and Surveying 163
2.3.3. Kicking Off the Well 173
2.3.4. Drilling the Tangent Section 177
2.3.5. Dropping Hole Angle 178

vi
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page vii

[Contents]

2.4. Drillbit Selection, Parameters, and Hydraulics 181

2.4.1. Overview of the Structured Approach 181
2.4.2. Evaluating Offset Well Drilling Data 183
2.4.3. Drilling Hydraulics 187
2.4.4. Using Log Data to Aid in Bit Selection 190
2.4.5 Types of Drillbits 192
2.4.6. Defining Recommended Bits 194
2.4.7. BHA Considerations Related to Bits 200
2.4.8. Drilling Program: Bit Selection and 201
Drilling Parameters
2.4.9. References for Drillbit Selection 201
2.5. Drilling Fluids Program 203
2.5.1. Reaction of Clays to Water: General Principles 204
2.5.2. Dispersion and Flocculation of Clays in Water 205
2.5.3. Mud Types Available 206
2.5.4. Dispersed Water-Based Muds 206
2.5.5. Nondispersed or Polymer Water-Based Muds 210
2.5.6. Formation Damage with Water-Based Muds 226
(and Cements)
2.5.7. Oil Muds 232
2.5.8. Components of Invert Oil Emulsion Muds 233
2.5.9. Environmental aspects of Oil Muds 240
2.5.10. Oil Mud Additives 240
2.5.11. Formation Damage with Oil Muds 244
2.5.12. Air, Foamed, and Aerated Systems 246
2.5.13. Tendering for Mud Services 248
2.5.14. References for Drilling Fluids Program 251
2.6 Casing Running Program 253
2.6.1. Normal Drilling Program Requirements 253
for Running Casing
2.6.2. Addressing Potential Casing Problems in 254
the Drilling Program
2.7. Cementing Program 257
2.7.1. Slurry Properties 258
2.7.2. Chemical Washes and Spacers 263
2.7.3. Factors for Ensuring a Good Cement Job 264
2.7.4. Cementing Design for Casings and Liners 267
2.7.5. Cementing Design for Cement Plugs 274
and Squeezes
2.7.6. Special Purpose Cementing 278
2.7.7. References for Cementing Program Design 280

vii
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page viii

Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual

2.8. Formation Evaluation 281

2.8.1. Electric Logging and Sampling 281
2.8.2. Coring 284
2.8.3. Mud Logging 290
2.9. Drilling Problems—Avoidance Planning 293
2.9.1. Wellbore Stability 293
2.9.2. Stuck Pipe 302
2.9.3. Lost Circulation 307

SECTION 3: PRACTICAL WELLSITE OPERATIONS 311

3.1. Well Control 313
3.1.1. Kick Prevention 313
3.1.2. Kick Detection and Response 315
3.1.3. Drilling Below Normal Kick Tolerance Levels 319
3.1.4. Well Killing in a High-Angle Well 320
3.1.5. General Considerations for BOP Equipment 323
3.1.6. Surface BOP Stack Configurations 328
3.1.7. Surface Stack Control System Specifications 327
3.1.8. Surface BOP Stack and Accumulator Testing 328
3.1.9. Well Control: Other Equipment Requirement 333
3.1.10. Suggested Rig Takeover Checklist 334
3.1.11. Minimum Mud Chemical Stock Levels 334
Held on Rig
3.2. Drilling Fluid 337
3.2.1. Solids Control 337
3.2.2. Quality Control 345
3.3. Drilling Problems 347
3.3.1. Stuck Pipe 347
3.3.2. Lost Circulation 359
3.3.3. Washout Detection Procedure 364
3.3.4. Backing Off 365
3.3.5. Fishing Operations 368
3.3.6. Using Cement to Stabilize the Wellbore 373
3.3.7. Making Connections to Minimize Wellbore 374
Instability and Losses
3.3.8. Preplanned Wipertripping 375
3.3.9. Baryte Plugs 376
3.3.10. Diesel Oil Bentonite Plugs (“Gunk Plug”) 379

viii
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page ix

[Contents]

3.4. Casing 381

3.4.1. Conductor Placement 381
3.4.2. Equipment Preparation for Casing 385
3.4.3. Job Preparation for Casing 386
3.4.4. Casing Running Procedures 388
3.5. Cementing 397
3.5.1. Mud Conditioning for Maximum Displacement 398
3.5.2. Slurry Mixing Options 398
3.5.3. Preparation for Cementing 399
3.5.4. Cement Displacement 400
3.5.5. Post-Job Evaluation 402
3.5.6. Field Cementing Quality Control Procedures 403
3.6. Drillbits 407
3.6.1. Alternative Bit Choices 407
3.6.2. Drilling Parameters 409
3.6.3. Mud Motors, Steerable Systems, and Turbines 413
3.6.4. Monitoring Bit Progress while Drilling 413
3.6.5. When to Pull the Bit 414
3.6.6. Post-Drilling Bit Analysis 415
3.7. Directional Drilling 421
3.7.1. Rotary Bottom Hole Assemblies— 421
General Points
3.7.2. Preventing Keyseating 423
3.7.3. Directional Jetting—Practical Considerations 424
3.7.4. Single Shot Surveys—General Points 425
3.7.5. Magnetic Single Shot Survey Tool 426
3.7.6. Totco Single Shot Survey Tool 428
3.7.7. Gyro Multishot Surveys 428
3.8. Writing the Final Well Report 429
3.8.1. Suggested Final Well Report Structure 430
Appendix 1: Calculating Kick Tolerances 435
Appendix 2: Formation Integrity Test Recommended Procedure 441
Appendix 3: Information Sources 445
Appendix 4: Drilling Equipment Lists by Operation 447
Appendix 5: Conductor Setting Depth for Taking Returns to 457
the Flowline
Glossary 459
Index 505

ix
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page xi

[ ]Preface

There are many excellent books dealing with drilling engineering,

well planning, and drilling practices. Readers will note that the
approach I adopt here differs from the “standard” books in three sig-
nificant respects:

1. I have separated the office aspects from the rig aspects. Thus, the
drilling engineer who needs to design the well and write the
drilling program will find the relevant information together in the
first two major sections. The wellsite drilling engineer/supervi-
sor/toolpusher will refer more to the third major section, which
deals with the practical rig site aspects of drilling the well. I hope
this makes it easier for the reader to focus on his or her current area
of interest. For instance, casing design information is in Section 1,
notes on writing the casing part of the drilling program are in
Section 2, and notes on running casing are in Section 3. For the
wellsite drilling engineer, toolpusher, or drilling supervisor, much
of the information given in Section 2 (Well Programming) is also
relevant to the practical aspects of the work. I have tried to include
extensive indexing and cross-referencing to help find all the rele-
vant pages.
2. I have not included reference information that should be readily
available in the office or on the rig. You will not find reproductions
of casing design data, drillstring strength tables, cement formula-
tions, etc. Space is limited in any paper-based media, and I would
rather use that limited space for information that may not be so
readily available to you.

xi
Front Matternew.qxd 1/24/05 11:43 AM Page xii

Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual

3. I have not gone far into the deep theoretical aspects behind the
work. While it is valuable to intimately understand the theoretical
background, it is not strictly necessary for practical application
during your everyday work. I have included references where
applicable. Also, a few of the topics are covered to give some back-
ground and to show how they impact the well design and drilling
program, but are not in themselves meant to be an authoritative
text on the subject. For instance, completions are not usually
designed by drilling engineers, but the completion requirements
impact the whole well design because the completion dictates the
hole sizes. Therefore, the design needs to be understood, questions
need to be asked, and parts of it should be checked. Cementing is
a huge topic and a nonspecialist book like this cannot cover it com-
prehensively; reference can be made to one of the excellent spe-
cialist books on cementing (recommended in the relevant section).

xii
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:55 PM Page 4

[ 1.1.1] Well Design

Circulate the Design for Comment Write the Drilling Program

Distribute for comment, ■ Methods by which the well
including: design will be safely and
■ Requesting department  efficiently implemented
■ Drilling department ■ Show the assumptions and
■ Other qualified reviewers decisions made while writing
the program (technical
justification)


Circulate the Program for Comment Pre-spud Meeting
Distribute for comment, ■ Onshore briefing
including: ■ Distribute the program

■ Requesting department ■ Offshore briefing

■ Drilling department  ■ Distribute the program to

■ Other qualified reviewers each person in supervisory

■ Approval once finalized position (drillers, geolo-
gists, T/P, mud loggers, etc.)

1.1.2. Data Acquisition and Analysis

The success or failure of a well, from a drilling viewpoint, is heav-
ily dependent on the quality of well planning prior to spud. The qual-
ity of the well planning in turn is heavily dependent on the quality and
completeness of the data used in planning. The successful drilling
engineer is a natural detective, snooping around for every snippet of
useful data to analyze.
The starting point in your data analysis trail is the well proposal.
Usually the need for drilling a well starts as a request from the explo-
ration or production department. They will put together a package of
information for drilling that will define what the well should achieve
and where it should be.
Well proposal checklist. The proposal should contain the follow-
ing elements as relevant to the particular well:

1. Well objectives (exploration, appraisal, development, or

workover)
2. Envisaged timescale (earliest/latest spud date desired)

4
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:55 PM Page 14

[ 1.1.2] Well Design

ties. Logging will show large washouts (off-scale in places), but the
benefits in saved time with avoided losses more than compensates.
If losses occur in spite of good mud control, try reducing the cir-
culation rate. You may find that a small reduction is all that is needed
to cure the losses. After an hour or two of drilling ahead, it may be
possible to slowly bring the circulation back to full rate. If total loss-
es occur, first measure how much water is needed to fill the annulus.
If the hole is static and full with water on top, slowly kick in the
pumps and try to attain a circulation rate that will at least lift cuttings
up the hole to the loss zone and cool the bit with very low weight on
bit/revolutions per minute (WOB/RPM). Circulation of 250 gallons
per minute (GPM) will give 50 feet per minute annular velocity (FPM
AV) around 5 in drillpipe in 121/4 in hole; this should be used as the
minimum. Drill ahead at reduced parameters and monitor drags and
torques carefully for signs of drilled solids causing problems (poten-
tial stuck pipe). The losses are likely to cure themselves as generated
cuttings act as lost circulation material (LCM) to plug the loss zone.
Note that in past wells, LCM and cement have both been pumped, lost
lots of time, and did not work.
The shale interbeds need a fair amount of inhibition and by expe-
rience it has been determined that if KCl is maintained at 40-42 ppb
and shaledrill polymer at 1.0-1.5 ppb, there are no shale hydration
problems. Keep a close eye on the mud properties and have the mud
man run several tests throughout the day. The drilling engineer can be
delegated the specific task of keeping an eye on this and personally
supervising the tests to ensure that the tests are done properly and
accurate results are given. There have been cases of mud men giving
false results after a test to make it look as if the mud is in good shape
when in fact it needs treatment.
In order to get the best drilling performance, the driller has to have
the freedom to adjust the parameters for best ROP. The formation is
quite streaky and changes constantly. The limestone is more sensitive
to high RPM/lower WOB and the shales are better drilled with maxi-
mum WOB/lower RPM. If the driller is given a range of parameters to
work within and is constantly experimenting for best ROP, the overall
bit run will be far better.

14
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:56 PM Page 44

[ 1.4.4] Well Design

Most instances of overpressures occur in areas of fast deposition of

sediments. Water held in the formation pore spaces does not have time
to move out of the rock matrix as the rock becomes increasingly com-
pressed with growing overburden. This will cause the formation fluids
to bear a larger proportion of the overburden pressure as the grains of
rock are prevented from increasing their contact and taking their share
of the load. As porosity normally decreases with depth, any change in
this trend that slows the rate of porosity decrease with depth is an indi-
cator of possible abnormal pressure. If the formation contains salt
water, then the normally decreasing trend of resistivity with depth will
also slow down or stop. Abnormal pressures may start from the top of
this trend change. Where overpressures are caused by this mechanism
the increase is gradual with depth; ROP trends such as D exponent can
be used to identify this type of overpressure as drilling continues.
Gas generated under an impermeable boundary by decaying organ-
ic matter (biogenic gas) will cause an increase in pore pressure.
Salt domes distort and compress the formations around them and
high abnormal pore pressures can result.
Bad cement jobs on offset wells or faults below a sealing formation
can allow gas migration into higher zones, charging those zones to
abnormal pressures. A similar mechanism is where a long gas column
is normally pressured at the bottom by an aquifer. Due to the low den-
sity of gas, as you move up the gas column the difference between the
gas pressure and the normal pressure will increase and be highest at the
top of the gas column. Since the transition is very sudden if the cap rock
is not leaky, these types of abnormal pressure would not be detected by
D exponent or ROP trends while drilling (see Fig. 1-6).
Some rock transformations can cause significant increases in rock
volume. Montmorillonite changes to illite under pressure, releasing
water. Gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) also releases water as it changes to anhy-
drite (CaSO4). If this liberated water is unable to move, pore pressures
could increase significantly.
Normal pressure trapped within a boundary may be moved up by tec-
tonic activity. If the pressure cannot reduce within the boundary then it
will become abnormally pressured at shallower depths. Severe kicks can
be taken by drilling into a raft of fractured dolomite within a massive salt
sequence. This is a good example of trapped pressure, originally normal,
which migrates up inside a pressure containing system. Examples are
seen in the Zechstein sequence of the North Sea; saltwater kicks may be
taken at much greater pressure gradients than would otherwise be

44
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:56 PM Page 64

[ 1.4.9] Well Design

indicates that using thicker wall sections is preferable to using higher

grades of steel.
Temperature correction factors for steel. Correction factors have
an engineering basis, unlike safety factors that are arbitrary. Correction
factors are applied as well as the relevant safety factors.
The yield strength of steel usually decreases with increasing tem-
perature. A temperature correction factor can be applied to the mini-
mum yield strength before applying the safety factor as mentioned.
This correction factor should be obtained from the casing manufactur-
er. Apply the temperature correction factor as noted here.
Tension. Tensile load will decrease with depth so that as the casing
gets hotter, it is also subjected to less tension. If the top joint of an
unmixed casing string is strong enough in tension, it should be fine
lower down. If a mixed string is used (different sections of the overall
string that have different weights and/or grades) apply the factor when
evaluating the tension applied to the top component of each section.
Compression. Compression is unlikely to be relevant. Helical buck-
ling is more likely to occur than failure in compression in the hot part
of the string.
Burst. Burst could be very relevant at depth, especially in a high-
pressure, high-temperature well. This is not likely to be a problem
while drilling but may be a problem later in the life of the well. If a frac
treatment or other procedure can be used where significant surface
pressure may be applied, this burst pressure will be imposed down the
exposed casing string (i.e., above any packers set).
Multiply the burst strength by the temperature correction factor
and apply the safety factor before comparing the amended burst
strength to the calculated burst pressure.
Collapse. Collapse could be a problem while drilling if severe loss-
es are taken, high drawdowns are used during production, and the
reservoir becomes depleted. Also if massive salts are covered, we gen-
erally assume that the salt transmits the full overburden pressure
against the casing in collapse (1 psi/ft).
Multiply the collapse strength by the temperature correction factor
and apply the safety factor before comparing the amended collapse
strength to the calculated collapse pressure.
The following table is supplied by Nippon Steel. Figures for other

64
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:56 PM Page 87

Casing Design [1.4.18 ]

If the casing has been designed for the 1 psi/ft collapse gradient and
if the casing has a good cement sheath throughout the salt interval then
failure probability is minimal. It is important to note that for prevent-
ing distortion and shear, a complete and competent cement job is as
important as the casing strength. Refer to “Cementing against massive
salts” in Section 2.7.4.

1.4.18. Casing Properties and Other Considerations

Having calculated the minimum strength requirements and pre-

ferred weights and grades of the casing, you now have to check against
other considerations. These include:

1. Inside diameter for running completion tools. In production casing

the ID is important to ensure that all required completion compo-
nents can be run. For instance if a dual 31/2 in completion was to
be run, 95/8 in 57# casing may not give the required clearance to
run the completion accessories.
2. Seamless pipe vs. seamed, electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe. The
seamless method is most common for pipe production. Historically
seamed pipe was not used for casings below surface casing due to
considerations of quality of the pipe. Modern ERW pipe can now
be produced in quality equal to seamless pipe and because it is
cheaper, ERW pipe can save a lot on the cost of a well. Major oper-
ators such as Shell have decided that seamed pipe can be used as
casing for deeper strings where quality control is assured.
Whether or not you can use seamed pipe will probably be dictated
by company or government policy. It is certainly worth the effort
to consider seamed pipe.
3. Availability.
4. Cost. Of the casings that are both suitable and available in time, the
lowest cost string can be chosen.

1.4.19. Material Grades

API defines the characteristics of various steels and assigns letters

to identify those grades; refer to API Specification 5CT for complete def-

87
Section 1 revised 11/00/bc 1/17/01 2:56 PM Page 112

[ 1.5.2] Well Design

between surveys, “minimum curvature,” assumes a perfect arc between

survey points. In practice the actual dogleg severity will be greater in
some places than others, imposing a point loading at those places. If
the limit for dogleg severity were 2.05˚/100 ft, you could plan on an
average 1.5˚ dogleg severity to allow for this variation.
There is also a practical solution to allow higher dogleg severities
than the limit calculated above. If drillpipe protectors were to be posi-
tioned at the midpoint of each joint of drillpipe, and if the OD of those
protectors were similar to the tool joint OD, you would effectively
halve the length of the drillpipe joint. The load would be taken by the
protectors that would reduce the load on the tool joints. As the factor
related to the length of the drillpipe joints L is on the bottom half of
the formula, halving the length would double the allowable dogleg
severity. Therefore, by using drillpipe protectors, one per joint on
drillpipe being rotated through the build section, the allowable DLS
will double to just over 4˚. Two protectors per joint, equally spaced at
one-third and two-thirds inches along the pipe, will further reduce the
load and allow a larger DLS.
Drillstring fatigue. The area of the drillpipe subjected to the sever-
est cyclic bending stresses when rotated in a dogleg is where the
drillpipe body joins the tool joint. Here the stiffness of the drillpipe
changes very quickly between the rigid tool joint itself and the flexible
pipe body.
Calculation of fatigue is fairly complicated. Calculations for fatigue
limitations of dogleg severity gives greater dogleg severities than the
maximum found by calculating for preventing tool joint damage, except
at very low drillstring tensions (below about 75,000 lbs or lower).
Therefore, as long as doglegs are limited by the 2000 lbs lateral force for
tool joint damage, pure drillpipe fatigue is not likely to be a problem.
Reference can be made to the graphs in Section B4 of the IADC
Drilling Manual and also in API RP7G These graphs show the maximum
dogleg severity for commonly used drillpipes. Preston Moore’s Drilling
Practices Manual also has some graphs illustrating fatigue limitations of
dogleg severity. The most commonly referenced paper on the subject is
“Maximum Permissible Dog-legs in Rotary Boreholes,” by A. Lubinski.
Fatigue failures can occur at other areas on the drillpipe. If the pipe
is not sufficiently torqued up so that the shoulders are compressed
together, fatigue failure of the pin will occur very quickly. Also, if the

112