Debris Management and Cleanout -...

Debris Management and Cleanout

• Debris Categorization

– Solids

– Gunk (sludges, emulsions, viscous “liquids”,

PIPE DOPE!)

– Junk introduced into the hole

Source: Wellcert www.GEKEngineering.com 1

•Photograph (from Colombia) of cutter run.

www.GEKEngineering.com 2

Solids generated during the well

construction process typified by:

• barite due to mud settlement

• cuttings (cement and formation) due to

poor hole cleaning

• swarf from milling operations

• mill scale rust and other solids from

poorly prepared tubulars


Gunk from fluids used in the well

• pipe dope – tremendously damaging!

• viscous muds (milling fluids and

synthetic muds at low temperature)

• gelled oil based mud after mixing with

water


Junk introduced to the well:

• seals/elastomeric materials from BOP and

seal stacks

• cement plugs and float equipment after drill out

• perforation debris

• materials accidentally introduced e.g.: – wood from pallets

– dropped objects

– hoses

– tools


Junk introduced to the well:

• Paint

– During lab test in Germany,

(University of Hannover) we found

out that 1 ft2 of paint could plug

1 ft2 of screens.

•Sandro Sanchez Adrialpetro Ltd.


RISKS AND ISSUES

• Solids and junk result in inability to run the

completion (early setting of packers)

• Solids and gunk have both caused problems functioning CIV/FIV type valves requiring bailer runs or coiled tubing intervention

• Gunk may produce serious formation damage

• Junk and solids can both prevent future well intervention activity or stick perforating guns

• Debris on top of wireline plugs can prevent their recovery


The Well Patroller – one type of cleanup device designed to remove

debris from the well.


Learning

• Functioning the BOP with a clean fluid

in the well can introduce junk

• Mixing water, brines, and particularly

acid with OBM without suitable

surfactants/solvents creates

“insoluble” gunk (very viscous sludge)

that prevented packers being set


Best Practices – pt. 1

• Proper preparation of tubulars to eliminate rust and mill scale – polish prior to use.

• Careful fluid and hydraulic design to ensure effective hole cleaning and fluid compatibility

• The cleanliness of the wellbore should be confirmed by a gauge ring or drift sub using the clean up/workover string.

• Where there is concern about tubular condition (rust/mill scale/excessive doping/cement) pipe pickling should be considered.


TUBULAR: Size

Weight

Grade

3 1/2"

7.7#

L 80

4 1/2"

12.6#

L 80

5 1/2"

17#

L 80

7"

29#

L80

9 5/8"

47#

L80

Total Average Scale In Pounds

Per 1000ft.

81.31 38.98 165.31 147.17 194.88

Millscale Deposition In Pounds

Per Square Inch

0.00031 0.00011 0.0004 0.0002

8

0.00027

Source: Ramco, together with Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology, Wellcert


Mill Scale

• The formation of mill scale occurs on steel products in the

manufacturing process.

• When steel is heated to temperatures above approximately 600°C and

its surface comes into contact with an uncontrolled atmosphere,

oxidization takes place. When the steel is cooled down, the oxidization

appears as scale.

• Oxidization takes place on any surface in contact with air during the

manufacturing process. For tubular goods this means that both

internal and external surfaces are affected. The action of rolling the

pipe can force the scale to tightly adhere to the parent metal.

• Subsequent heat treatment to tubulars carried out in a furnace,

without a controlled atmosphere, will add further deposits of mill

scale.


Removal of Mill Scale in Pounds (of weight loss) PER 1000FT.

TUBULAR: Size

Weight

Grade

3 1/2"

7.7#

L 80

4 1/2"

12.6#

L 80

5 1/2"

17#

L 80

7"

29#

L80

9 5/8"

47#

L80

TREATMENT

Internal Blast Cleaning (1) 40.32 15.46 84.00 19.49 83.33

External Wire Brush (2) 17.47 10.08 24.19 30.24 23.52

External Blast Cleaning (3) 40.99 23.52 81.31 127.68 111.55

Difference Between External

Blast and Wire Brush (3-2)

23.52 13.44 57.12 97.44 88.03

Total Millscale/Corrosion (1+3) 81.31 38.98 165.31 147.17 194.88 www.GEKEngineering.com 14

Scale Density

• 1 cubic inch of scale in air weighs

0.0614lbs.

• 1 cubic inch of scale in water weighs

0.0567lbs.


Volume of Scale, in3 per 1000 ft of pipe

(1728 in3 = 1 ft3)

TUBULAR: Size

Weight

Grade

3 1/2"

7.7#

L 80

4 1/2"

12.6#

L 80

5 1/2"

17#

L 80

7"

29#

L80

9 5/8"

47#

L80

Internal 711.1 272.7 1481.5 343.7 1469.7

External 722.9 414.8 1434.0 2251.9 1967.4

Total 1434.0 687.5 2915.5 2595.6 3437.1


Best Practices – pt 2.

• Use optimum dope (manufacturer’s

recommendation) and torque to spec.

Dope the pin, not the box.

• Function test BOP before placing on the

well

• Keep the hole covered when not in use


Tools for Cleanup

• casing scrapers to remove cement and

casing burs

• brushes to remove gunk and cement

• circulating subs to enable high circulating

rates to be used

• junk subs to remove solids and junk

• jetting assemblies


Circulating Spacers and

Displacement Pills • Displacement pills designed to ensure effective

mud displacement and water wetting of the casing in the event oil based muds are in use. Key roles:

• disperse and thin the drilling fluid (need compatibility with drilling fluids)

• lift out debris and junk

• water wet pipe

• remove pipe dope

• effectively displace the mud


Issues

• Well control is key in pill sequence (only possible to get thin, light fluids in turbulence

• Pumping fluids to displace OBM without suitable surfactant packages may result in insoluble sludge

• Low temps can affect surfactant effectiveness

• Pills in turbulence lose carrying capacity if annular velocity drops below that required for turbulence


Issues

• In high mud weight, risk of inducing barite sag

needs to be considered (displacement pills thin

the mud to the point it can no longer support

barite)

• HSE needs to be considered for all chemicals

used, mixtures of displacement pills and mud

have to be separated from the active mud and

packer fluid for disposal (zero discharge issues)


Learnings

• Conventional casing scrapers with spring actuated blocks have failed leaving junk in the hole or even a stuck tool. Conventional scrapers are not built for extended rotation or drilling. Scrapers work in reciprocation.

• Failure rate of multifunction ball opening circulating subs has been high in some regions.

• Weight actuated tools rely on maintaining weight set down on the tool to maintain the circulation path, all circulation is at one point. These tools should be run with the clutch option allowing drillpipe to be rotated independently of the pipe inside the liner.


Best Practices

• A casing scraper should create maximum contact with internal diameter of casing, (match strength of tools to string needs).

• Casing scrapers should enable rotation at rates up to 50 rpm. Scraper elements should be be capable of being lost in the hole.

• Circulating sub should be of weight set down type (clutch option).

• For a clean out strings in high angle cased and perforated well a debris recovery system is best.

• Casing brushes are not considered necessary if an effective scraper is selected. If a brush is used it should

be redressed after each application. www.GEKEngineering.com 23

Filtration

• Filtration removes solids to prevent build

up of solids and helps prevent plugging in

the formation.

• Two basic filtration systems are employed:

– cartridges (nominal or absolute)

– filter presses (Plate and Frame or Pressure

Leaf)


Gel sample as pumped

After Centrifuge

Suspended fines in

gravel pack or frac

gel – a problem?

Washouts in washpipe

(and screen) during

packing www.GEKEngineering.com 25

Risks and Issues

• Filtration can impact pump rate of completion fluids

• Filtration may be unnecessary cost in some wells, but should be assessed on a well-by-well basis (from potential damage mechanisms

• Filter presses have the advantage of high solids tolerance and throughput - units are large but cheap to operate.

• Cartridges used for small volumes of relatively clean material - smaller throughputs and less tolerance to dirty fluids, generally cartridges are more expensive

• Can be health and environmental risks associated with operating and disposing of filtration medium.


Learnings

1. Cartridge units are not usually appropriate for dirty or viscosified fluids

2. DE press materials require good HSE control

3. Tendency is to over-specify filtration requirements.

4. Don’t filter oil with a DE press.

5. Filtration less required when underbalance perforating(?)

6. Kill pills are usually not filtered

7. Absolute cartridge filters are 2-5 times cost of nominal – and usually worth it, but check bed filtration first.


Best Practices

• For general applications, coarse filtration to 80 microns is all that

should be considered when fluids do not penetrate the formation

• When a fluid penetrates the formation, filtration is more likely to be

required. Filtration should be tailored to the pore throat size of the

formation. A simple guide to setting a specification is 14% (1/7th) of

the average pore throat diameter

• Filtration below 2 microns is usually impractical

• Always use a guard filter downstream of a DE press

• For a DE press filtration, rate is approximately 1 bpm per 100 sqft for

sea water and 0.5 bpm per 100 sqft for a brine


Determination of Well

Cleanliness • The determination of how clean the well is usually based on the

cleanliness of fluids returning from the wellbore. The most

common measures are normal turbidity units (NTU) and solids

content, neither relate to what is left in the well.

• Junk baskets, gauge rings and the SPS WellPatroller do give

some positive indication of solids removal.

• Other indicators of a clean well are torque and drag (related to

the friction coefficient of fluid coating the casing walls) and

cleanliness of the clean up string when pulled.


Risks and Issues

• NTU (a light transmission test) measurements rely solely on the “cloudiness” of the fluids, corrosion products in return fluids give high values, NTU and solids content are not directly related. Solids content will only assess materials collected at the bottom of the test tube during centrifuging.

• Coloured water will give higher NTU values.

• Using sample sizes of a few mls, it is difficult to draw conclusions about a well with an annular volume of 500 bbl, 0.1% vol/vol solids equates to +/- 1 cuft of solids

deposited for tubing contents of 200 bbl.


Measurement Learnings

• To deal with rust color (or precipitation)

interference with NTU readings, add a

small amount of HCl after the first reading

and re-measure.

• If the junk basket is full, rerun.


Cleanup Best Practices and

Design Criteria, Pt 1 • A solids content of about 0.05% determined by an electric centrifuge

is acceptable for most operations. For gravel packing this should be

reduced to 0.02%.

• To determine solids content the standard tubes for sand content for

the centrifuge are not usually appropriate, centrifuge tubes with

more accurate calibrations should be obtained.

• NTU values should be used to track clean up with regular samples

taken for analysis of solids content at a later date.

• A target value of 50 NTU above surface pits should be used.

• For critical wells e.g. high angle wells/where milling has

occurred/previous problems with debris, a circulating junk basket

(e.g., the SPS WellPatroller is recommended).


Cleanup Best Practices and

Design Criteria, Pt 2 • Where the string is rotated during clean up the increase

in torque can be used as an indicator, the coefficient of friction in sea water/brine is more than twice that of OBM.

• Visual inspection of the clean up string, if it is mud free and water wet mud displacement has been successful, if the string is mud coated run a gauge ring/junk basket or SPS WellPatroller.

• For critical application (e.g. gravel pack) use particle size analysers on location, laser particle size systems are recommended.


Debris Removal Equipment

• Example tools:

– casing scrapers to remove dried mud, pipe

dope, cement and casing burs

– brushes to remove pipe dope, bacteria

colonies and cement

– circulating subs to enable high circulating

rates to be used

– junk subs to trap and remove solids


Equipment Risks and Issues

• Equipment failure may result in additional junk or a stuck clean up string, (not a common problem.

• There have been instances with casing scrapers and brushes where the clean out tool has introduced junk to the hole when these are not of a single piece construction or have retaining mechanisms for blocks.

• Circulating subs (particularly hydraulically operated) carry some risk associated with failing to close thus losing the ability to circulate to the bottom of the well.

• Some of the equipment is only available from niche / specialist suppliers which carries risks around QA/QC and tool availability.

• There is concern with running well clean up tools with minimum by pass area pushing large pieces of junk ahead and into CIV/FIV tools


Equipment Learnings

• Conventional casing scrapers with spring actuated

blocks have failed leaving junk in the hole or even a

stuck tool.

• Conventional scrapers are not built for extended

rotation or drilling. Scrapers work in reciprocation.

• Failure rate of multifunction ball opening circulating

subs has been high in some regions.


Equipment Learnings

• Weight actuated tools rely on maintaining weight set down on the tool to maintain the circulation path (all circulation is at one point). These tools should be run with the clutch option allowing drillpipe to be rotated independently of the pipe inside the liner. (Rotation assists cleanout)

• Recent experience with the SPS WellPatroller highlighted it is very effective at removing gunk and solids debris, this tool provides a level of assurance not available with any of the other tools (including conventional junk subs).


Best Practices and Design

• Casing scrapers should create maximum contact with ID of casing, be a one piece design with full drill pipe strength and no weak internal connections.

• Casing scrapers should enable rotation at rates up to 50 rpm, these should be of a design so that blocks are either retained in the body of the scraper. (UWG/Global) or are an integral design (SPS Razorback).

• The preferred circulating sub should be of the type utilising weight set down to function, with a clutch mechanism. If a reliable hydraulic tool is developed this may become preferable as it allows reciprocation with circulation.

• For clean out strings in high angle cased well a WellPatroller should be run (or if concern about debris or junk in the well).

• Casing brushes are not considered necessary if an effective scraper is selected. If a brush is used it should be redressed after each application.


Performance Best Practices

• A brine returns with an NTU < 30 above

value of fluid in pits is excellent

performance

• Clean returns after circulating < 150% of

hole volume is good performance

• Interface volumes between pills of <20 bbl

is excellent performance


Information Capture

• fluid designs and properties

• flow rates

• pill volumes and volumes circulated

• equipment used

• materials used and costs

• interface volumes

• pipe movement during displacement

• time breakdown

• fluids cleanliness v time during circulation

• surface clean up

• target vs actual

• pipe movement and torque


Will Circulating a Well Really Clean

It Out?

• Not necessarily.

• Clean-out efficiency depends on: – Ability to remove the solids from returning fluids;

– Fluid hydraulics - the flow rates in every section;

– Ability to disperse, then lift solids out of the well;

– Ability to effectively remove the dope, mud cake, residues, etc., from the pipe walls.

• Often, mechanical assistance is required!

• Pipe movement friction can increase as pipe becomes water wet.


Circulation Options

• Normal Circulation vs. Reverse Circulation

• Annular Velocity (AV) w/ rotation vs. AV w/no rotation

• Coiled Tubing vs. Drill Pipe

• Mud vs. Brine

• Ungelled vs. Gelled Brines

• Liquids vs. Foam

• N2 assistance vs. production gas lift

• Mechanical assistance (pumps)


First Considerations

• All liquids or solids?

• Type, size and density of solids?

• Casing and tubing sizes – bottom to top?

• Well trajectory, restrictions, deviation, depth, pressure limits?

• Reservoir fluids and pressure?

• Reservoir leakoff potential at cleanout rates?

• Location access limits, size and weight limit?

• Equipment availability?

• Experience availability?


•Photograph (from Colombia) of cutter run – dope,

rust, mud, etc.


Scrapers and Brushes – Physically

Cleaning the Well

• Available tools

• Damage potential


Effect of Scraping or Milling Adjacent to Open

Perforations

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2

% C

ha

ng

e in

PI

Short Term PI Change

Long Term PI Change

Perfs not protected by

LCM prior to scraping

Perfs protected by

LCM

SPE 26042

One very detrimental action was running a scraper prior to packer

setting. The scraping and surging drives debris into unprotected

perfs.


Casing Scraper – Designed to

knock off perforation burrs,

lips in tubing pins, cement

and mud sheaths, scale, etc.

It cleans the pipe before

setting a packer or plug.

The debris it turns loose from

the pipe may damage the

formation unless the pay is

protected by a LCM or plug.


Iron accumulation on a

trench magnet.


Debris Management and Cleanout -...

Documents

Transcript of Debris Management and Cleanout -...