Horizontal Open Hole Well Displacement Practices: Effect of Various Techniques on Well Productivity, Operational Complexity, and Overall Project Economics
Abstract: TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractOpen hole gravel pack completions can have many advantages over comparable cased hole completions. This is especially true for horizontal well applications. However, because no perforations are present to penetrate the filtercake, borehole conditioning prior to gravel packing is critical to ensure good well productivity. To address this issue various borehole cleanup techniques have been developed. These different techniques have been adopted to address speci… Show more
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 15 publications
References 17 publications
Summary Many of the problems associated with the use of water-based fluids in drilling and completion operations are caused by incompatibilities between the fluids and the shales. Such incompatibilities may result in washouts, increased drilling costs (e.g., solids handling, rig time, dilution fluids), and shale sloughing during the drilling operation and after displacements to completion fluids or during gravel packing. One of the most important factors leading to an undesired result (either a premature screenout, thus a potential sand-control failure, or a higher skin) in water-packing of open holes is the presence of reactive shales in the interval to be gravel packed. Although there is a substantial amount of literature on shale inhibition with water-based drilling fluids, the importance of shale inhibition and the problems associated with shale reactivity during gravel packing remain largely unexplored. Furthermore, shale-inhibitor selection often relies on a comparison of the results from bottle-roll tests using shale samples in candidate fluid/inhibitor pairs (drilling or completion fluid) and on tests measuring the degree of shale swelling. While these tests are highly functional, they can provide information only on the relative performance of fluids, and their relevance to gravel packing is questionable because these tests do not simulate the conditions experienced during such treatments. This paper presents guidelines on selection methodology of shale inhibitors for use in gravel-packing applications on the basis of the data available in our respective companies, including a comparison of results from conventional bottle-roll tests to those from flow through predrilled holes in shale core samples. Recommendations are made depending on brine type and density, type of shale, temperature, fluid exposure history, and environmental considerations. Introduction Openhole-horizontal completions have emerged as a cost-effective means of exploiting deepwater reservoirs, many of which require sand control. Gravel packing is the preferred sand-control technique for such environments where remedial treatment costs are prohibitively high (Price-Smith et al. 2003). Two techniques have been employed for gravel packing open holes with varying degrees of success: alternative path and water packing. The focus of this paper will be to address one of the problems considered to be a key risk factor in successful implementation of water-pack treatments. The risks associated with openhole water packing completions can be summarized asSwabbing, which has been addressed through the development of antiswab-tool systems (Vozniak et al. 2001)Exceeding fracturing pressure--during the beta-wave, which has been addressed with the development of beta wave attenuators (Coronado and Corbett 2001) or use of low-density gravel, allowing lower pump rates without the concern for gravel settling in the work string (Pedroso et al. 2005)--during the alpha wave in environments with narrow-frac window, that in some cases may be addressed through the use of low-density gravel (Pedroso et al. 2005)Filter-cake erosion, (the conditions under which this becomes a risk remain to be determined) (Gilchrist et al. 1998)Reactive shales that may either collapse/slough or disperse in the carrier fluid; the former may lead to a premature screenout because of blockage of the annulus, and the latter may result in a low-permeability gravel pack because of shale and gravel intermixing (Gilchrist et al. 1998; Corbett and Winton 2002; Mathis et al. 2000; Murray et al. 2003) Shales are characterized by high clay content, low quartz content, and low permeability (a byproduct of the small-clay size). On the basis of numerous factors, shale can react catastrophically when exposed to some aqueous fluids. These factors include downhole-stress states, native-fluid composition, mineralogical composition, and interaction with the completion-fluid chemistry and properties. It is important to note that these factors also determine the time a shale will take to fail when exposed to a given completion fluid, and hence, a shale that has survived the drilling process may still fail during the post drilling activities leading to the gravel pack (Dickerson et al. 2003). It is possible to minimize and even eliminate this adverse reaction by selecting a suitable completion fluid. This selection may involve choosing the correct brine type and additives to increase the inhibitive qualities of the completion fluid. The literature on the subject of shale compatibility with muds is vast. The reactivity of shales to aqueous muds with various additives has been well studied (Chenevert 1970; O'Brien and Chenevert 1973; van Oort 1997). However, the effect of completion fluids has not been studied extensively. The purpose of ensuring proper shale inhibition with drilling mud is to address shale reactivity concerns such as cuttings disintegration, wellbore instability during drilling, and bit balling (van Oort 1997). On the other hand, a completion fluid must be formulated to inhibit shale to maintain wellbore stability after drilling (e.g., during mud displacements or gravel packing) in reactive-shale sections (Gilchrist et al. 1998; Mathis et al. 2000) and to prevent erosion of weakened shales during gravel packing (Ali et al. 1999). Various testing techniques have been proposed in the literature to characterize the inhibitive properties of drilling fluids (Roehl and Hackett 1982; RP 131 2004; Bailey et al. 1994; Mondshine 1973). Because these tests were designed specifically for drilling applications, their direct applicability to water packing, subsequent to water-based drilling, is questionable. Of these testing techniques, the wellbore-simulator tests first described by Darley (1969) and further developed by Bailey (1994) and Gaylord (1983) are more useful for evaluating inhibitor effectiveness in gravel-pack applications, as is also suggested by Corbett and Winton (2002). By exposing various fluids to boreholes drilled in shale cores, Darley (1969) showed the different modes of failure and correlated them to the effect of tectonic stresses, mineral content, age of shales, and flow of mud through the shale borehole. Gaylord developed this testing to look further at the effect of fluid-mechanical parameters on borehole erosion and concluded that erosion will be most pronounced if the particular shale/fluid system is reactive. In addition, hole erosion increases with increasing shear stress and is exacerbated under turbulent conditions. The tests done by Bailey (Price-Smith et al. 2003) look only at the effects of reactivity by shale but corroborate the mechanism of weakening of the shale and subsequent erosion by flow. This is evident in their tests through increased wellbore diameter resulting from erosion. On the basis of this information, a similar test will be used in this work to evaluate completion-brine inhibition. It is the objective of this paper to provide guidelines on selection methodology of shale inhibitors for use in gravel-packing applications. The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief description of the typical critical stages in a gravel-packed completion is given. This is followed by a discussion of the current testing methodology typically employed in the industry. Next, the experimental techniques and materials used in this study are presented, followed by the results from hot-roll and drilled-core experiments. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
Summary Many of the problems associated with the use of water-based fluids in drilling and completion operations are caused by incompatibilities between the fluids and the shales. Such incompatibilities may result in washouts, increased drilling costs (e.g., solids handling, rig time, dilution fluids), and shale sloughing during the drilling operation and after displacements to completion fluids or during gravel packing. One of the most important factors leading to an undesired result (either a premature screenout, thus a potential sand-control failure, or a higher skin) in water-packing of open holes is the presence of reactive shales in the interval to be gravel packed. Although there is a substantial amount of literature on shale inhibition with water-based drilling fluids, the importance of shale inhibition and the problems associated with shale reactivity during gravel packing remain largely unexplored. Furthermore, shale-inhibitor selection often relies on a comparison of the results from bottle-roll tests using shale samples in candidate fluid/inhibitor pairs (drilling or completion fluid) and on tests measuring the degree of shale swelling. While these tests are highly functional, they can provide information only on the relative performance of fluids, and their relevance to gravel packing is questionable because these tests do not simulate the conditions experienced during such treatments. This paper presents guidelines on selection methodology of shale inhibitors for use in gravel-packing applications on the basis of the data available in our respective companies, including a comparison of results from conventional bottle-roll tests to those from flow through predrilled holes in shale core samples. Recommendations are made depending on brine type and density, type of shale, temperature, fluid exposure history, and environmental considerations. Introduction Openhole-horizontal completions have emerged as a cost-effective means of exploiting deepwater reservoirs, many of which require sand control. Gravel packing is the preferred sand-control technique for such environments where remedial treatment costs are prohibitively high (Price-Smith et al. 2003). Two techniques have been employed for gravel packing open holes with varying degrees of success: alternative path and water packing. The focus of this paper will be to address one of the problems considered to be a key risk factor in successful implementation of water-pack treatments. The risks associated with openhole water packing completions can be summarized asSwabbing, which has been addressed through the development of antiswab-tool systems (Vozniak et al. 2001)Exceeding fracturing pressure--during the beta-wave, which has been addressed with the development of beta wave attenuators (Coronado and Corbett 2001) or use of low-density gravel, allowing lower pump rates without the concern for gravel settling in the work string (Pedroso et al. 2005)--during the alpha wave in environments with narrow-frac window, that in some cases may be addressed through the use of low-density gravel (Pedroso et al. 2005)Filter-cake erosion, (the conditions under which this becomes a risk remain to be determined) (Gilchrist et al. 1998)Reactive shales that may either collapse/slough or disperse in the carrier fluid; the former may lead to a premature screenout because of blockage of the annulus, and the latter may result in a low-permeability gravel pack because of shale and gravel intermixing (Gilchrist et al. 1998; Corbett and Winton 2002; Mathis et al. 2000; Murray et al. 2003) Shales are characterized by high clay content, low quartz content, and low permeability (a byproduct of the small-clay size). On the basis of numerous factors, shale can react catastrophically when exposed to some aqueous fluids. These factors include downhole-stress states, native-fluid composition, mineralogical composition, and interaction with the completion-fluid chemistry and properties. It is important to note that these factors also determine the time a shale will take to fail when exposed to a given completion fluid, and hence, a shale that has survived the drilling process may still fail during the post drilling activities leading to the gravel pack (Dickerson et al. 2003). It is possible to minimize and even eliminate this adverse reaction by selecting a suitable completion fluid. This selection may involve choosing the correct brine type and additives to increase the inhibitive qualities of the completion fluid. The literature on the subject of shale compatibility with muds is vast. The reactivity of shales to aqueous muds with various additives has been well studied (Chenevert 1970; O'Brien and Chenevert 1973; van Oort 1997). However, the effect of completion fluids has not been studied extensively. The purpose of ensuring proper shale inhibition with drilling mud is to address shale reactivity concerns such as cuttings disintegration, wellbore instability during drilling, and bit balling (van Oort 1997). On the other hand, a completion fluid must be formulated to inhibit shale to maintain wellbore stability after drilling (e.g., during mud displacements or gravel packing) in reactive-shale sections (Gilchrist et al. 1998; Mathis et al. 2000) and to prevent erosion of weakened shales during gravel packing (Ali et al. 1999). Various testing techniques have been proposed in the literature to characterize the inhibitive properties of drilling fluids (Roehl and Hackett 1982; RP 131 2004; Bailey et al. 1994; Mondshine 1973). Because these tests were designed specifically for drilling applications, their direct applicability to water packing, subsequent to water-based drilling, is questionable. Of these testing techniques, the wellbore-simulator tests first described by Darley (1969) and further developed by Bailey (1994) and Gaylord (1983) are more useful for evaluating inhibitor effectiveness in gravel-pack applications, as is also suggested by Corbett and Winton (2002). By exposing various fluids to boreholes drilled in shale cores, Darley (1969) showed the different modes of failure and correlated them to the effect of tectonic stresses, mineral content, age of shales, and flow of mud through the shale borehole. Gaylord developed this testing to look further at the effect of fluid-mechanical parameters on borehole erosion and concluded that erosion will be most pronounced if the particular shale/fluid system is reactive. In addition, hole erosion increases with increasing shear stress and is exacerbated under turbulent conditions. The tests done by Bailey (Price-Smith et al. 2003) look only at the effects of reactivity by shale but corroborate the mechanism of weakening of the shale and subsequent erosion by flow. This is evident in their tests through increased wellbore diameter resulting from erosion. On the basis of this information, a similar test will be used in this work to evaluate completion-brine inhibition. It is the objective of this paper to provide guidelines on selection methodology of shale inhibitors for use in gravel-packing applications. The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief description of the typical critical stages in a gravel-packed completion is given. This is followed by a discussion of the current testing methodology typically employed in the industry. Next, the experimental techniques and materials used in this study are presented, followed by the results from hot-roll and drilled-core experiments. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractThe Etame oil field, offshore Gabon, West Africa, has been producing since September 2002. The Etame oil reservoir is an oval-shaped, low-relief structure with a moderate aquifer drive. In order to maximize ultimate field recovery, the ET-6H well was drilled with a horizontal lateral positioned to traverse the reservoir near the structural crest and to be within the Upper Gamba sandstone throughout its length. The Gamba sandstone averages 45 ft in thickness and overlies a significant angular unconformity. The subcropping Dentaleaged sandstones and interbedded shales below this unconformity have dips up to 12 degrees. The oil column of approximately 170 ft extends below this unconformity. Previous wells in the field were completed using open-hole horizontal gravel packs (OHGPs) and have experienced excellent sand control performance. However, OHGPs offer no protection against early water breakthrough. The Gamba sand averages 30% porosity with a permeability range of 1 to 3 darcies. The Dentale sands are much more variable, with porosities of 18-30% and a permeability range of 50-1000 md. Thus, if a portion of the lateral is situated immediately above a high permeability Dentale sand, the well will be at risk of early water breakthrough and subsequent reduced recovery if it is completed with a standard OHGP.
The Etame oil reservoir is an ovalshaped, low-relief structure with a moderate aquifer drive. To maximize ultimate field recovery, the ET-6H well was drilled with a horizontal lateral positioned to traverse the reservoir near the structural crest and to be within the Upper Gamba sandstone throughout its length. The Gamba sandstone averages 45 ft in thickness and overlies a significant angular unconformity. The subcropping Dentale-aged sandstones and interbedded shales below this unconformity have dips to 12°. The oil column of approximately 170 ft extends below this unconformity. Previous wells in the field were completed using openhole horizontal gravel packs (OHGPs) and have experienced excellent sand-control performance. However, OHGPs offer no protection against early water breakthrough. The Gamba sand averages 30% porosity with a permeability range of 1 to 3 darcies. The Dentale sands are much more variable, with porosities of 18 to 30% and a permeability range of 50 to 1,000 md. Thus, if a portion of the lateral is situated immediately above a high-permeability Dentale sand, the well will be at risk of early water breakthrough and subsequent reduced recovery if it is completed with a standard OHGP.The operator gravel packed the ET-6H well and used a system that provides a near-uniform inflow profile along the entire lateral length to protect against early water breakthrough. The gravel packing of inflow-control devices (ICDs) presented some unique challenges because of their differences from standard sandcontrol screens.This paper describes the implementation of the world's first gravel packed inflow-control completion, including: ICD selection process, gravel-pack design, data from the gravel-pack operation, and resulting well performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
