Gravberg-1: Well Design and Drilling Preparations

Author(s):  
A. J. Beswick
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Hart ◽  
◽  
Maureen A. Muldoon ◽  
Maureen A. Muldoon ◽  
Kenneth Bradbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Oumer ◽  
Hafidh Taufiqurrachman ◽  
Marie-Pascale Perruchot ◽  
Fata Yunus

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.R. Gordon ◽  
D.V. Johnson ◽  
S.R. Herman ◽  
J.B. Darby
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 68-69
Author(s):  
Chris Carpenter

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 202439, “Pushing Malaysia’s Drilling Industry Into a New Frontier: How a Distinctive Wellhead Design Enabled Implementation of a Fully Offline Well Cementing Resulting in a Significant Shift in Operational Efficiency,” by Fauzi Abbas and Azrynizam M. Nor, Vestigo, and Daryl Chang, Cameron, a Schlumberger Company, prepared for the 2020 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, originally scheduled to be held in Perth, Australia, 20–22 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Traditionally, rigs are positioned over a well from the moment the surface casing is drilled until the installation of the wellhead tree. This results in the loss of precious time as the rig idles during online cementing. However, in mature Field A offshore Terengganu, Malaysia, a new approach eliminated such inefficiency dramatically. Operational Planning With oil production in Field A initiated in October 2015, historical data on well lithology, formation pressure, and potential issues during drilling were available and were studied to ensure that wells would not experience lost circulation. This preplanning is crucial to ensure that the offline cementing activity meets the operator’s barrier requirements. Petronas Procedures and Guidelines for Upstream Activities (PPGUA 4.0) was used for the development of five subject wells in Field A. In this standard, two well barriers are required during all well activities, including for suspended wells, to prevent uncontrolled outflow from the well to the external environment. For Field A, two barrier types, mechanical and fluid, allowed by PPGUA 4.0 were selected to complement the field’s geological conditions. As defined in PPGUA 4.0, the fluid barrier is the hydrostatic column pressure, which exceeds the flow zone pore pressure, while the mechanical barrier is an element that achieves sealing in the wellbore, such as plugs. The fluid barrier was used because the wells in Field A were not known to have circulation losses. For the development of Field A, the selected rig featured a light-duty crane to assist with equipment spotting on the platform. Once barriers and rig selection are finalized, planning out the drill sequence for rig skidding is imperative. Space required by drillers, cementers, and equipment are among the considerations that affect rig-skid sequence, as well as the necessity of increased manpower. Offline Cementing Equipment and Application In Field A, the casing program was 9⅝×7×3½ in. with a slimhole well design. The wellhead used was a monobore wellhead system with quick connectors. The standard 11-in. nominal wellhead design was used for the wells with no modifications required. All three sections of the casing program were offline cemented. They were the 9⅝-in. surface casing, 7-in. production casing, and 3½-in. tubing. The 9⅝-in. surface casing is threaded to the wellhead housing and was run and landed with the last casing joint. Subsequent wellhead 7-in. casing hangers and a 3½-in. tubing hanger then were run and landed into the compact housing.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Costeno Hugo ◽  
Kandasamy Rajeswary ◽  
Telles Jose ◽  
Camacho Jacob ◽  
Medina Diego ◽  
...  

Abstract Digital well construction tools are becoming more widely considered today for well design planning, enabling automated engineering and simultaneous team collaboration under a single solution. This paper shows the results of using a digital well construction planning solution during a project’s conceptual planning stage. This method shortens the time needed to estimate the well times and risk profile for a drilling campaign by applying smart engines to quickly and accurately perform critical offset analysis for defined well types that is required for project sanction. With this solution, the Offset Well Analysis (OWA) process is done automatically based on the location of the planned well, trajectory and well architecture. Various information and reports (both subsurface and surface data) from neighboring wells is stored in cloud solutions, enabling ease of access and data reliability for both large or smaller scale data storage. The software selects the most relevant offset wells, displays the risk analysis and generates the stick chart. For a conceptual design, the risk levels can be manually set higher due to potential unknowns in surface and subsurface risks which can later be refined. Quick validation of the well design allows the engineer to design a conceptual drilling campaign quickly and more efficiently. The solution minimizes the time to perform probabilistic time and risk estimations. It reduces the risk of biased decision making due to manual input and design. This allows for better-informed decisions on project feasibility, alignment of stakeholders, increased design reliability as well as reducing the amount of time and resources invested in OWA. The work presented here is aimed at sharing the experience of applying a digital well construction planning solution specifically on the conceptual project stage and discuss the value it adds to the well design process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document