IADC-SPE-International-Drilling-Conf-2022-1

IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition

8–10 March 2022 | Galveston, Texas, USA Galveston Island Convention Center

Blade Energy Partners presents two papers (Number SPE-208680-MS & SPE-208738-MS) at the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Galveston, Texas, USA, March 2022.

Paper Number: SPE-208680-MS

Hester, Clayton, Hammad, Mohamed, Hollman, Landon, Gabaldon, Oscar, Hernandez, Julian, and Angel Hernandez. “MPD Cement Squeeze – The Advantage of Using Managed Pressure Drilling to Strip in Hole, Perform a Cement Squeeze and Confirm the Loss Zone is Isolated.

The objective of this paper is to show the advantage of utilizing Surface Back Pressure (SBP) to control the gain and loss of mud while stripping in/out of the well, during recovery from a high mud loss event. The use of the MPD system assisted in performing a cement squeeze while minimizing the risk of stuck pipe, and subsequently confirming if the loss zone has been isolated. In the Shafag Asiman field of the Caspian Sea, a Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) system was installed on a semi-submersible rig to drill an exploration well with uncertain pore pressure and fracture gradient window. While drilling the 14 3/4 × 17 1/2 in. section, losses were initially detected by the MPD systems Coriolis meter. Once total losses were confirmed, the decision was made to cement the loss zone and perform an open hole sidetrack.

This paper provides a summary of how the MPD technology was used to assist in managing gains/losses during a post mud loss event, and its vital role in minimizing the risk of stuck pipe when performing the cement squeezes to isolate the loss zone and subsequently balanced plug which enabled a successful open hole sidetrack, and minimized the number of operational days and carbon emissions.

doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/208680-MS

Paper Number: SPE-208738-MS

Ceyhan, Ismail, Pilisi, Nicolas, Suryanarayana, P. V., and Ravi M. Krishnamurthy. “Design of Carbon Capture and Sequestration CCS Wells.

This paper discusses a methodology for the design of wells in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells, CCS wells include observation or monitoring wells, as well as utility wells, which are used to reduce pressure by removing formation water.

The paper first outlines the differences between CCS wells and conventional oil and gas wells. These differences include much longer regulatory lifetimes, increasing pressure over well lifetimes, inherently corrosive environment, intermittent operation and large variation of CO2 injection stream properties depending on its impurities. These differences require a different approach to well design for CCS projects. A well design philosophy, which has been developed to address these differences, is presented. The paper outlines the material selection guidelines and tubular load cases. The design philosophy, material guidelines and load cases are illustrated through several example well designs.
For CCS wells, the design should start with the completion size required to achieve the desired CO2 injection rate, and progress outwards. Dual containment is essential; the second barrier must not only be designed for the corrosive environment, but the second barrier and its associated equipment must be periodically inspected or tested. All CCS wells, including injection, monitoring and utility wells, must be designed for potential CO2 exposure. Highest loads may be imposed during transient or upset operations, and may originate from changing thermal conditions. Cement integrity is essential to prevent undetected migration of stored CO2 out of the storage zones. Finally, it is necessary to have pre-prepared contingency plans to detect, shut-in, kill, repair and/or P&A failed wells.

The differences between CCS wells and conventional oil and gas wells require a different approach to well design. If CCS wells were to be designed using conventional methods, the wells might fail to maintain their integrity, thus resulting in the failure to contain injected CO2 in the

doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/208738-MS