Drilling-Fluid Behavior During Reservoir-Formation Drilling and Completion
- Chris Carpenter (JPT Technology Editor)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- February 2018
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 72 - 74
- 2017. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 168 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||Free|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 17.00|
This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 185889, “The Nature of Drilling-Fluid Invasion, Cleanup, and Retention During Reservoir-Formation Drilling and Completion,” by Justin Green, Ian Patey, and Leigh Wright, Corex; Luca Carazza, Aker BP; and Arild Saasen, University of Stavanger, prepared for the 2017 SPE Bergen One Day Seminar, Bergen, Norway, 5 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
A reservoir-conditions coreflood study was undertaken to assist with design of drilling and completion fluids for a Norwegian field. Multiple fluids were tested, and the lowest permeability alterations did not correlate with the lowest drilling-fluid-filtrate-loss volumes. This paper will examine the factors that contributed to alterations in the core samples.
A range of measurements are made during reservoir-condition studies, with typical metrics of the performance of a fluid or sequence including the following:
- Permeability measurements are made at initial reservoir conditions and then again at various points throughout the study.
- Filtrate-loss volumes are used to compare the performance of various fluid types, including bridging design (drilling fluids), activation of crosslinked gels (kill pills), and breakthrough time/rate (treatment fluids).
- Production/injection rates or differential pressures can give some broad indications of cleanup but are generally prone to artifacts or misinterpretation caused by multiple mechanisms occurring simultaneously within samples.
- Visual observations can give an excellent overview of external features of the samples such as drilling-mudcake cleanup and sanding or sample failure or fracturing. However, they do not show what changes have occurred within samples and cannot visualize changes at a microscopic level, and both are generally key to understanding results.
These metrics are unfortunately subject to a number of factors that make interpretation difficult and therefore add risks to the decision-making process. In order to reduce these risks, a number of interpretive techniques are used. These include scanning electron microscopy (SEM), thin sections, and computed-tomography (CT) scanning.
In order to overcome some of the limitations posed by existing techniques, a micro-CT change-mapping technique was developed to show the distribution of alterations within samples at selected points in a study.
Do Filtrate Loss Volumes Tell Us How a Drilling Fluid Is Performing?
In terms of aiding operational decisions, the remaining mudcake attachment after a period of production or injection is most relevant in maximizing hydrocarbon recovery. The cleanup of drilling mudcakes will be influenced by a range of factors. An approach that allows a holistic view of the changes related to drilling fluid, taking into account as many relevant factors as possible, is therefore desirable.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||3|