Special Session: Drilling Modelling and ...
Special Session: Drilling Modelling and Simulation “Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective”
Colin J. Mason, Advisor, BP Exploration
Slide 2
OVERVIEW
• • • • • • • •
Drilling modelling applications 10 key observations Modelling assumptions Modelling limitations Case study Real-time monitoring Future opportunities Summary
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
DRILLING MODELLING APPLICATIONS Data Applications Daily Reporting Systems Cost Tracking Performance Analysis Staff Engineer
Engineering Applications
Major Service Companies
Drilling Dynamics / Bit Formation Interaction Critical Speed Analysis / BHA Design Technical Equipment PPFG Prediction / Wellbore Stability Suppliers Specialist Wellbore Surveying / Anti-Collision Well Control / Early Kick Detection Hydraulics / Cuttings Transport Wellsite Academics Leader Cementing / Standoff Analysis Casing / Tubing Design Swab and Surge Software Torque and Drag Developers Regulators Consultant Casing Wear Fatigue Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 4
10 KEY OBSERVATIONS
1. Drilling modelling solutions – provided by diverse groups 2. Depth, breadth and quality of solutions – highly variable 3. Validation – common area of weakness 4. Benchmarking of products – more effort needed 5. Certification – needed for drilling solutions? 6. Model limitations and assumptions – often not understood 7. Integrated solutions – preferred by operators 8. Niche applications used – that have technical edge 9. Fit for purpose training – challenging 10. Technical specialists – key to maintaining product efficacy
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 5
MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS How well are assumptions and their impact understood? • • • • • • • • • • •
Pressure and temperature environment Mud properties: surface vs. downhole Hole size: planned vs. actual Surveying accuracy: pipe stretch effects Wellbore tortuosity: smooth vs. as-drilled Wellbore / casing roughness: friction coefficients Sinusoidal and helical buckling models Pipe position within the wellbore: soft vs. stiff string models Cuttings size and density Drilling dynamics / vibration: critical speed analysis Steady state vs. transient models
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 6
MODELLING LIMITATIONS How well are drillstring model limitations understood by users? • • • • • • • • •
Drillstring represented as series of elements Point / nodal contact assumed Boundary conditions specified either at surface or downhole Soft string models – clearance and stiffness effects ignored Stiff string models – clearance and stiffness incorporated? Three “laws” of friction assumed Pipe position in wellbore inferred or calculated Drillstring buckling – many models in use Transient versus steady state models
How reliable are the models, what is the impact of limitations and under what circumstances should users be concerned?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 7
CASE STUDY – PIPE STIFFNESS EFFECTS
When is pipe stiffness an issue for well construction? Most Torque and Drag software use soft string models Soft String Models Pipe position known in advance (follows wellpath) Pipe always in contact with the wellbore String stiffness / clearance effects ignored Appropriate for majority of drilling applications? Stiff String Models Required to calculate pipe position in wellbore Account for stiffness and clearance effects?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 8
CASE STUDY – PIPE STIFFNESS EFFECTS
Run 2,000m 9-5/8” casing into an elbow well Hole diameter 9-7/8” Mud Weight = 1.25 sg Friction Coefficient = 0.30 975m vertical section 975m horizontal section Build rate 54 (/30m) – 50m vertical to horizontal Will casing run to depth ?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 9
ELBOW WELL – SOFT STRING MODEL Run 2,000m 9‐5/8" Casing in 9‐7/8" Hole 250
Pick‐Up Weight (Soft String) Free Rotating Weight (Soft String) Trip‐In Weight (Soft String)
200
Hookload (klbs)
Helical Buckling (Soft String)
150
100
50
0 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Measured Depth (m)
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 10
ELBOW WELL – STIFF STRING MODEL Run 2,000m 9‐5/8" Casing in 9‐7/8" Hole 250
Pick‐Up Weight (Soft String) Free Rotating Weight (Soft String) Trip‐In Weight (Soft String)
200
Helical Buckling (Soft String)
Hookload (klbs)
Pick‐Up Weight (Stiff String) Trip‐In Weight (Stiff String) 150
100
50
0 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Measured Depth (m)
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 11
REAL-TIME MONITORING Real-time monitoring of operations increasingly being used Predictive and real-time drilling models often used as baselines How are trend deviations reconciled? • Are model assumptions and limitations responsible? • Have sensors been accurately calibrated? • Are anomalies occurring? Operational design making • Are models trusted enough to support good decision making? Is more data, information and analysis needed? • Enhanced identification and verification of anomalies • Confirming correct operational responses made • Excellence in well construction recognised
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 12
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Opportunity
Benefit
Software certification
Verified and validated
Independent benchmarking
Assure consistency and quality
Modelling assumptions clear
Sensitivities better understood
Modelling limitations transparent Design errors avoided Usability improvements
Improved modelling uptake
Improved input safeguards
User input errors avoided
More modelling R&D
Stagnation avoided
Greater data integration
Common database for all applications
Enhanced training
Deepened capability
Future proofing
Enhanced modelling capability
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 13
SUMMARY Drilling modelling solutions
Mostly fit‐for‐purpose
Main drilling modelling issue
Validation
Independent benchmarking
Industry opportunity
Engineering models
Fundamental problems to be solved
Reduce user mistakes
Assumptions and limitations known
Modelling developments
Wired pipe: along string measurements
Real‐time solutions / Automation
Greater dependency on accurate models
Industry needs to strive for drilling modelling excellence to provide deeper technical capability to wells engineers
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Colin J. Mason, Advisor, BP Exploration
Slide 2
OVERVIEW
• • • • • • • •
Drilling modelling applications 10 key observations Modelling assumptions Modelling limitations Case study Real-time monitoring Future opportunities Summary
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
DRILLING MODELLING APPLICATIONS Data Applications Daily Reporting Systems Cost Tracking Performance Analysis Staff Engineer
Engineering Applications
Major Service Companies
Drilling Dynamics / Bit Formation Interaction Critical Speed Analysis / BHA Design Technical Equipment PPFG Prediction / Wellbore Stability Suppliers Specialist Wellbore Surveying / Anti-Collision Well Control / Early Kick Detection Hydraulics / Cuttings Transport Wellsite Academics Leader Cementing / Standoff Analysis Casing / Tubing Design Swab and Surge Software Torque and Drag Developers Regulators Consultant Casing Wear Fatigue Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 4
10 KEY OBSERVATIONS
1. Drilling modelling solutions – provided by diverse groups 2. Depth, breadth and quality of solutions – highly variable 3. Validation – common area of weakness 4. Benchmarking of products – more effort needed 5. Certification – needed for drilling solutions? 6. Model limitations and assumptions – often not understood 7. Integrated solutions – preferred by operators 8. Niche applications used – that have technical edge 9. Fit for purpose training – challenging 10. Technical specialists – key to maintaining product efficacy
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 5
MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS How well are assumptions and their impact understood? • • • • • • • • • • •
Pressure and temperature environment Mud properties: surface vs. downhole Hole size: planned vs. actual Surveying accuracy: pipe stretch effects Wellbore tortuosity: smooth vs. as-drilled Wellbore / casing roughness: friction coefficients Sinusoidal and helical buckling models Pipe position within the wellbore: soft vs. stiff string models Cuttings size and density Drilling dynamics / vibration: critical speed analysis Steady state vs. transient models
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 6
MODELLING LIMITATIONS How well are drillstring model limitations understood by users? • • • • • • • • •
Drillstring represented as series of elements Point / nodal contact assumed Boundary conditions specified either at surface or downhole Soft string models – clearance and stiffness effects ignored Stiff string models – clearance and stiffness incorporated? Three “laws” of friction assumed Pipe position in wellbore inferred or calculated Drillstring buckling – many models in use Transient versus steady state models
How reliable are the models, what is the impact of limitations and under what circumstances should users be concerned?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 7
CASE STUDY – PIPE STIFFNESS EFFECTS
When is pipe stiffness an issue for well construction? Most Torque and Drag software use soft string models Soft String Models Pipe position known in advance (follows wellpath) Pipe always in contact with the wellbore String stiffness / clearance effects ignored Appropriate for majority of drilling applications? Stiff String Models Required to calculate pipe position in wellbore Account for stiffness and clearance effects?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 8
CASE STUDY – PIPE STIFFNESS EFFECTS
Run 2,000m 9-5/8” casing into an elbow well Hole diameter 9-7/8” Mud Weight = 1.25 sg Friction Coefficient = 0.30 975m vertical section 975m horizontal section Build rate 54 (/30m) – 50m vertical to horizontal Will casing run to depth ?
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 9
ELBOW WELL – SOFT STRING MODEL Run 2,000m 9‐5/8" Casing in 9‐7/8" Hole 250
Pick‐Up Weight (Soft String) Free Rotating Weight (Soft String) Trip‐In Weight (Soft String)
200
Hookload (klbs)
Helical Buckling (Soft String)
150
100
50
0 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Measured Depth (m)
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 10
ELBOW WELL – STIFF STRING MODEL Run 2,000m 9‐5/8" Casing in 9‐7/8" Hole 250
Pick‐Up Weight (Soft String) Free Rotating Weight (Soft String) Trip‐In Weight (Soft String)
200
Helical Buckling (Soft String)
Hookload (klbs)
Pick‐Up Weight (Stiff String) Trip‐In Weight (Stiff String) 150
100
50
0 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Measured Depth (m)
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 11
REAL-TIME MONITORING Real-time monitoring of operations increasingly being used Predictive and real-time drilling models often used as baselines How are trend deviations reconciled? • Are model assumptions and limitations responsible? • Have sensors been accurately calibrated? • Are anomalies occurring? Operational design making • Are models trusted enough to support good decision making? Is more data, information and analysis needed? • Enhanced identification and verification of anomalies • Confirming correct operational responses made • Excellence in well construction recognised
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 12
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Opportunity
Benefit
Software certification
Verified and validated
Independent benchmarking
Assure consistency and quality
Modelling assumptions clear
Sensitivities better understood
Modelling limitations transparent Design errors avoided Usability improvements
Improved modelling uptake
Improved input safeguards
User input errors avoided
More modelling R&D
Stagnation avoided
Greater data integration
Common database for all applications
Enhanced training
Deepened capability
Future proofing
Enhanced modelling capability
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
Slide 13
SUMMARY Drilling modelling solutions
Mostly fit‐for‐purpose
Main drilling modelling issue
Validation
Independent benchmarking
Industry opportunity
Engineering models
Fundamental problems to be solved
Reduce user mistakes
Assumptions and limitations known
Modelling developments
Wired pipe: along string measurements
Real‐time solutions / Automation
Greater dependency on accurate models
Industry needs to strive for drilling modelling excellence to provide deeper technical capability to wells engineers
Special Session • Drilling Modelling – An Operator’s Perspective • Colin J Mason
