Download as PDF, PPTX
More Related Content
Drill Bit Parameters
- 1. MONITORING DRILLING BIT PARAMETERS ALLOWS OPTIMIZATION OF DRILLING RATES V.C. KELESSIDIS - P. DALAMARINIS vaskel1@hotmail.com sk l1@h tm il m Technical University of Crete Mineral Resources Engineering SGEM 2009 Albena, June 14-19, 2009
- 2. Research aim Optimization ofdrilling rates Less expensive and safer drilling practices Hydrocarbon, geothermal, mining, water well H d b th l i i t ll drilling Multitude of parameters affecting drilling performance Availability of data and proper modeling software Optimum combination better drilling rates 2
- 3. The problem Drilling allowsfor access to subsurface target areas Pythagoras saying ‘whoever digs, finds, he who never digs, will never find’ digs find Drilling is expensive Optimum drilling practice arrive to target in the most economical way, but with safety y y Main monitoring parameter – Penetration Rate (m/ ) (m/h) Depends on two main groups Formation Drilling parameters 3
- 4. Main parameters FORMATION Localstresses Rock compaction Mineralogical content Flu d Fluid pore pressure DRILLING Weight on bit and torque Rpm Hydraulic parameters y p m Bit condition 4
- 5. Modeling drilling process- Teale Rock-bit interaction Energy to the bit Efficiency of energy transfer ff y f gy f ENERGY PER WOB 8(RPM )(μD )(WOB / Abit ) SEt = + UNIT VOLUME Abit ROP UCS ROCK-BIT MODEL = SEt eff ROP = (8)( RPM )(μD )(WOB / Abit ) UCS WOB − eff Abit 5
- 6. Payzone simulator Developed by G. Cooper, UCB Similar to Teale’s model predictions Adjustable p j parameters m Use of historical data for tuning SPE 30213 36660 30213, ROP = ( flow _ factor )(C )(aggressivity )( RPM )(tooth _ length)(G ) ⎡ ⎛ WOB ⎞ curv ⎛ 12 ⎞⎤ G = 1 − exp ⎢− ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 2 .5 ⎟⎥ ⎢ ⎝ ⎣ UCS ⎠ ⎜ D (0.4 * tooth _ length ) ⎟⎥ ⎝ g ⎠⎦ 6
- 7. Comparison of modelswith lab data 7
- 8. Use of historicaldata 8
- 9. Data needed Lithology Bit recordsand bit types Casing schedule Drilling parameters WOB, RPM, FLOW RATE, PRESSURE ROP Drilling fluid 9
- 10.
- 11. Case study analysis Drillingin Norwegian Continental Shelf Reconstruct drill time log 1917 – 2414 m Four main lithologies, 18 formation intervals 11
- 12. Base case andtwo scenarios 1.Normal drilling curve 2.Drilling curve with RPM+50 rpm 3.Drilling curve with WOB+45 kN 12
- 13. Full scenarios 1.Base drilling time plot 1B d illi ti l t 2.Simulated drilling time plot b having extra 4.5 l t by h i t 45 tons, extra 50 RPM and extra 200 lpm t l 13
- 14. Increase in UCSby 50% Increase may range between 58 y g and 96%, giving an overall increase in total drilling time for g the sections chosen for the 14 simulation of 82%
- 15. Conclusions Penetration rate –the most sought after parameter f d i of well d illi t for design f ll drilling Attempts to simulate the process – none very successful Recent advances, flexible simulators that ,f could be used on site Payzone, Payzone is one of them (G Cooper) (G. Drilling advance model, few adjustable parameters Can be tuned via use of prior historical data from the region and the field f th i d th fi ld 15
- 16. Conclusions Data: WOB, RPM,Flow, well geometry, drill bit record, ROP, Lithology gy Normally monitored – need to monitor in non- critical wells also Can be used to effectively model and describe the drilling process Re-engineering and re-drilling possible, no great difficulties reat Increase in WOB, RPM, Flow -> beneficial effect, need to worry about bi wear ff d b bit Increase (error) of UCS by 50% y decrease in ROP by 82% 16