SPE 102818
Focused Risk-Management Brings a Step-Change Improvement in Drilling
Performance at Sakhalin’s Odoptu ERD Development
N. Mohammed, SPE, M. Chernov and E. Mañalac-Trøan, Schlumberger; Y. Kaydalov and V. Lubushkin, Rosneft
Sakhalinmorneftegas
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Since 1998 Rosneft SMNG (Sakhalinmorneftegas) has been
developing the northern part of the Odoptu structure, near-
shore to eastern Sakhalin Island, using ERD (extended reach
drilling). Discovered in 1977, North Odoptu is alone among
Sakhalin ERD projects in that it is entirely Russian operated
and utilizes a unique hybrid of both Russian and international
capabilities to address the considerable challenges of ERD
well construction. To date 21 wells, with horizontal
displacement/TVD aspect ratios up to 4.1, have been drilled
and completed from two land-based drilling locations.
The use of rotary steerable (RSS) technology has more
than doubled net drilling performance compared with early
wells drilled using positive displacement motors (PDM’s). A
hole-cleaning challenge remains however, due to a practical
necessity for back-reaming while tripping out of the hole.
This has led to serious delays as localized unstable sections of
the well-bore collapse due to mechanical disturbance, forming
cavities that complicate hole-cleaning operations with pack-
offs and stuck-pipe.
Low-resolution 2-D seismic has been a limitation on
understanding the detailed nature of the over-burden
stratigraphy and thus the ability to characterize the cavities.
Geo-mechanical models, while clarifying the impact of the
regional stress regime, have indicated that the origin of this
instability phenomenon may not be due to compressive shear-
failure.
The primary focus has therefore been on the development
of cost-effective and innovative drilling optimization
techniques to predict and identify cavity zones early in the
drilling operation, and application of a fit-for-purpose, rig-
based, risk-management approach to well-bore instability
events. The progressive application of these techniques and
the adopted risk-mitigation strategies is documented. This
approach, in conjunction with the use of a regularly updated
geo-mechanical model, has resulted in a successful outcome
for well construction in a previously severely problematic
region of the field.
The ability to recover well from instability-related setbacks
has helped to foster a co-operative, continuous-improvement
culture among the extended drilling team - Russian operator
and international contractors alike. Recommendations are
made for follow-on technologies and strategies that will have
the greatest impact on the next phase of field development.
Historical Perspective
The first ERD well was drilled in the Odoptu area in 19731. It
was an exploration well with a total drilled depth of 3406m
and a horizontal displacement of nearly 2.5km. Though it
failed to reach hydrocarbons it remained a drilling record in
Russia for the next 10 years and is the earliest inspiration for
today’s successful ERD developments of Sakhalin Island more
than 30 years later.
After a seismological survey of over 30,000 km2, a
program of exploration/appraisal drilling was carried out in the
latter part of the 1970’s. This outlined the near-shore Miocene
sandstone accumulations of Odoptu in 1977 and its sister field,
Chayvo in 19792. Yuzhno-based engineering institute
SakhalinNIPImorneft subsequently recommended long-radius
ERD wells, in contrast to an ice-resistant offshore platform,
for development. At the time, land-based drilling was
determined to be the favored development concept due to an
estimated cost 4 to 5 times less than an offshore installation.
Field dimensions are approximately 4 km E/W x 12km
N/S with two crestal areas known as the North and South
domes at 1500-1700m m TVD. The productive portion of the
North Dome lies 4-6 km offshore, while the South Dome,
slightly further from the nearest shoreline, is readily reachable
with 8-10km displacements. Overburden consists of Pliocene
and Upper Miocene sand-shale sequences of the Nutovo
formation suite (fig. 1).
Odoptu’s North Dome is operated directly by OJSC
Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegas (SMNG), a majority-owned
production entity of Rosneft. The commercial extraction of oil
began in 1998 by pipeline to local markets and the adjacent
mainland. SMNG partners in most leases in the region, both
land and offshore, and produced approximately 500,000 tons
of oil from Odoptu in 2004. Recently drilled Odoptu wells
2 SPE 102818
produce 150-200 tons/day with ESP’s. Water injection
support is planned for the currently producing horizons of the
field.
Two drilling locations have been built which target North
Dome. First phase of development from the ‘North Pad’
began in 1998 with the drilling of 8 ERD wells with aspect
ratios of up to 4.1 (6.2km displacement). Drilling began in
late 2003 from a second location 5km to the south and, after 2
wells, Rotary Steerable Systems (RSS) were introduced to
replace positive displacement motors (PDM). Presently, 11
wells have been drilled from this ‘South Pad’ and a second
exploitation phase is underway on the North Pad. Future
development stages include up to 15 new wells with drilled
depths up to 7500 m.
This paper focuses on the progress made through the
introduction of new technology and improvements in
organizational capability while drilling the South Pad wells.
Rig and Well Design
The Odoptu South Pad rig was built in 1996 and has been
adapted for arctic conditions. It is an IRI E-2100 design with
400 ton skidable derrick, Canrig 1050 top-drive rated for
45000 klbft, and 3 Ideco T-1600 triplex pumps. Drillpipe
inventory includes over 4000m of 5 ½” and 5000m of 6 5/8”
drillpipe in addition to 5” pipe. Following equipment
comprises the solids control and mud systems:
• 5 x VSM-100 shakers
• 2 x DERRICK-58 shakers
• 1 ea SWACO 414, SWACO 518 centrifuges
• Brandt Mixer
• Worm conveyor for the removal of cuttings
• 6 mud pits - volume 330 m3, heated with a central
steam circulation system
Standard geometry, after surface pipe is set at around
130m, is 17 ½ x 12 ¼ x 8 ½” hole. Build rates range from 2 to
3.5 deg/30m and sail angles are roughly 75-80 deg. Reservoir
sections are sub-horizontal, 300 to 1600m long and are
completed with a 6 5/8 or 7” cemented liner. Apart from
localized wellbore instability, the drilling risk regime is
relatively benign for ERD operations.
Top-hole casing (13 3/8” 61 lb/ft) has been run to depths
of 1900 m with sail inclinations of 78. Intermediate (9 5/8” 40
lb/ft) casing is floated to TD fully-evacuated at near-neutral
buoyancy, requiring up to 15 tons compressive load at surface.
Rotation is generally required on the lower third of the casing
run, and running speeds are progressively reduced due to
increasing hydraulic friction in the annulus. The longest run
of 9 5/8” has been to 6446 m at a sail angle of 80-84 deg.
Mud is a 60/40 IOEM system with static density increasing
from 1.12 sg in the top hole to 1.24 sg in the reservoir, limited
in part by buoyancy constraints for floating the 9 5/8” casing.
Cuttings are treated and disposed 20km from the rig location.
Mud engineering is supplied through a separate division of
SMNG.
Continuous back-reaming (string rotation and circulation)
while pulling out of the hole has historically been the standard
practice in larger (17 ½” and 12 ¼”) hole sizes. This is
primarily due to pump and flow rate limitations at TD of these
sections. Experience has shown that this level of mechanical
assistance is necessary to ensure the hole is clean enough to
run casing without circulation.
The operation utilizes an integrated hybrid of Russian and
international expertise in the drilling operation. Drill crews
are entirely Russian, from the local drilling services division
of Rosneft, while key drilling services and consumables are
sub-contracted largely from non-Russian sources. Service
company crews are majority Russian staffed, including lead
engineers.
Drilling Performance Evolution
The 8 North Pad producers were drilled from 1998 to 2003
with positive displacement motor (PDM) technology. Drilling
performance metrics reached a plateau of 2200m/month
(gross) by the end of this phase (see figure 2). The learning
curve trend was maintained for the first two wells on the South
Pad while motor use was continued.
The introduction of rotary-steerable (RSS) technology saw
a step-change improvement in gross progress rates (spud to
liner TD) of 33% to 2900m/mth over the next 3 wells while
per-meter costs increased marginally. In fact, net progress
rates (exclusive of non-drilling NPT) in 12 ¼” and 8 ½” hole
more than doubled, an improvement consistent with
comparable operations elsewhere in the world.
Performance on the 6th North Pad well, however, indicates
that the adoption of RSS technology, by itself, was not a
guarantee of sustained performance improvement. In fact, this
well (206) incurred a serious level of NPT due to well-bore
instability while back-reaming in 12 ¼” hole and the rapid
escalation of the resultant hole-cleaning problems while
running 9 5/8” casing.
An investigation to determine the cause-effect
relationships of this incident led to a number of planning and
operational changes. The most significant of these included:
• The development of a specific depth-based geo-
mechanical model for each well drilled.
• The temporary simplification of casing architecture to
isolate key unstable zones in separate hole sections.
• The preparation of a customized risk-management
strategy for drilling operations that was built on the
root-cause analysis of the 206 investigation.
• The addition of a real-time decision-support
engineering function at the rigsite to implement the
risk-management strategy.
These efforts resulted in a second step-change in drilling
performance for the wells subsequent to 206.
Complementary technology introductions have also added
value while drilling on the South Pad. LWD logs have
characterized additional productive zones and allowed an
improvement in reserves estimates. A range of ERD best
practices make up the bulk of the key additions.
Wellbore Instability Investigation
The experience of well 206 prompted an independent
investigation to isolate the root cause of excessive NPT.
SPE 102818
Detailed review of drilling records showed that the large
majority of symptoms (excessive torque/drag, ECD spiking,
pack-offs and stuck pipe) were confined to relatively short
depth ranges along-hole but they were also increasing in
severity with time. As an example, Table 1 itemizes the
escalation of symptoms in the region of 3000-3170m AHD.
Table-1 Progression of Symptoms in cavity zone.
There was also clear evidence of increased returns of non-
drilled well-bore debris during back-reaming but a less-than-
clear idea of where it was originating. Eventually, as hole
cleaning symptoms worsened, cubic meters of surplus returns
were recovered from localized areas. These were described as
hard mudstone with a fine-grained structure and dimensions of
up to 6 cm in diameter and 2 cm in height (figure 3). Though
the debris-prone zones correlate across wells there appears to
be no unusual petrophysical log response.
Finally, and crucially, analysis of real-time MWD data
while back-reaming showed that localized rugose zones
(cavities) could be inferred directly from anomalies in high-
resolution multiple-pass survey information. This was
essentially fully qualified survey data (CDNI – Continuous
Direction and Inclination) acquired by the MWD tools on a
continuous time-basis through previously drilled hole.
A set of multi-pass CDNI data is shown in Figure 4 for
same part of well 206 referred to in Table 1. The inflected
curves clearly track survey package excursions of up to 1.5
deg from the as-drilled axis of the borehole while the MWD
collar makes a number of axial traverses of the cavity. The
following inferences can be made:
1. There is an unambiguous indication of the axial extent
of well-bore enlargement – ie. 3010 to 3060m.
2. There is an unambiguous indication of the TVD
thickness of the enlargement zones - in this case 10m.
3. The cavity deviation axis is down and to the left - not
vertical.
4. Multiple passes of data indicate that cavity growth is
time-dependent and mechanical disturbance (back-
reaming and circulation) is accelerating the process.
5. A minimum enlargement radius may be estimated near
the middle of the cavity.
6. The radial profile at each end of the cavity can be
inferred from the slope of the inflections on the
3
reaming-pass data, if the radial dimensions are large
enough.
7. It is likely that the well-bore immediately above and
below the cavity is substantially in gauge.
Similar examples are observed on most Odoptu wells in all
hole sizes (figure 5). In fact, two rugosity signatures have
been identified on back-reaming data; 1 - the inflection
response of localized cavities with dimensions similar to the
BHA length (30-50m along hole); 2 - elongated intervals of
hole enlargement (100 to 300m along hole).
Cavities do not have to be well developed (ie. a significant
drilling hazard) to be evident. Early-stage development is
clearly visible with anomalies as small as 0.2 deg provided
suitable quality data and transmission rates are available for
CDNI. Cavity location and characteristics have also been
substantiated in 8 ½” hole by caliper and image data from
LWD porosity tools (figure 6 and 7).
Two primary instability horizons have been correlated on
the GR logs of subsequent wells to 206, allowing the rig team
to positively and consistently relate the subtle effects on
drilling response as well as trips. Figure 8 demonstrates the
change in rotary steerable response while drilling and the
increase in friction-factors observed while tripping through
these zones.
Geomechanical Modeling
A 1-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) was
constructed3 to better understand the cause of instability seen
on well 206 and the Odoptu structure in general. The MEM is
a numerical representation of geomechanical information
distributed along the trajectory of the well, including rock
mechanical properties, earth stresses, pore pressure and
instability risks for well construction. The primary output is
the minimum well bore pressure (mud-density) requirement
driven by a compressive (shear) failure constraint and a
maximum requirement depending on tensile (fracture) failure
conditions.
More than simply defining required mud-weights, the
MEM also provides a useful framework for an analysis of the
potential borehole failure that result from the interactions of
the above elements. Given a calibrated MEM, it can be used
to test the sensitivity of different modes of borehole failure to
changes in wellbore orientation and pressure4.
The MEM for Odoptu was developed with the following
information:
• Offset well directional surveys and log data, including
compressional and shear sonic, density, neutron,
gamma ray and resistivity to generate continuous
profiles of stresses, pore pressure and rock mechanical
properties. In places where direct data was not
available a transform was used, for example, to infer
shear slowness from compressional.
• Density and caliper image information from LWD
tools (available in 8 ½” hole on selected wells) and
cavity signatures from CDNI data, which were used for
model calibration.
4 SPE 102818
• Drilling reports from offset wells were analysed for
incidents that might be related to instability; ECD
anomalies, pack-offs, tight spots, stuck-pipe.
• Cavings (non-drilled returns) presence and description
(rate, size, morphology, lithology and source depth).
Cavings provide an obvious signal that the borehole is
failing and the morphology, in particular, may add to
an understanding of the failure mechanism.
• Records of leak-off tests, formation integrity tests,
losses while drilling and influx.
• The dominant stress regime at Miocene depths was
considered to be vertically oriented dextral strike-slip
with the maximum compressional axis ENE-WSW 5,6.
• Structural inferences from older generation 2-D
seismic.
Unfortunately there was a relative lack of newer-
generation data for the full overburden sequence.
Additionally, uni- or tri-axial core test data were not available
to constrain the rock mechanical properties such as strength,
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and friction angle.
Figure 9 provides an example of the MEM for well 219.
The model was kept current through regular contact between
the rig-site team and the off-site geomechanics support group.
Wellbore Stability Analysis
The MEM results for Odoptu are consistent with a minimum
mud density requirement ranging from 1.12 SG in the upper
section of the wells to 1.24 SG for the lower section.
Maximum-modelled mud density to avoid losses ranges from
1.6 SG near surface to 1.7 SG above the reservoir.
Actual static mud-weights for Odoptu are in the range of
1.17 SG to 1.22 SG, with ECD in the lower 8 ½” section
reaching 1.65 SG. The presence of cavings characteristic of
compressional breakout is reported to a minor degree in the
lower section of the overburden (Nutovo sequence). There is
little indication of significant drilling fluid losses or influx.
However, there is clear evidence from drilling operations,
particularly from surplus well bore debris (cavings) during
trips, that shale layers exist in the mid-upper Nutovo where
instability may not be a compressive shear-failure
phenomenon. These zones have apparently been destabilised
and failed due to the mechanical disturbance that occurs with
back-reaming operations. Given the available dataset, a
generalized strike-slip MEM did not predict the onset of this
type of failure in these zones. Alternative regimes were
evaluated but these were de-selected in favor of the strike-slip
model since it accurately represents the level of compressive
shear failure seen along 95% of the well depth.
Cavings morphology is generally angular or tabular (figure
3), indicative possibly of shear failure but also known to come
from drilling fractured shales or parallel planes of weakness7.
However most of the debris recovered from these layers has
been reworked to some extent, particularly from lower zones,
due to extended-reach aspect of the wells. This complicates
the identification of the failure mechanism. Gamma ray
response indicates these layers are shale with relatively high
organic content while resistivity data indicates that there may
be a permeability response to them, but this requires more
investigation.
Since the failure criteria discussed in the previous section
apply specifically to homogeneous, isotropic and intact rock,
alternative mechanisms need to be considered. It could be that
the cavity-prone layers have been generated through non-
classical, geologically related deformation mechanisms. Thus,
despite appearing relatively stronger in the current MEM,
failure modes are instead linked with the rock fabric, such as
fractures, bedding-planes or other alternatives for
homogeneity on a macroscopic scale. Structurally related
stress concentration in brittle formation is another possible
explanation.
Root Cause Assessment
The availability and understanding of multiple-pass, high
resolution CDNI data was instrumental in determining the
primary cause-effect relationships between well bore
instability and significant NPT on the 206 well.
• Root cause of hole cleaning difficulties was the
development of localized rugose zones (cavities) due
to tripping/back reaming and the associated spreading
of non-drilled debris from the these zones.
• Mechanical disturbance primarily influences the rate of
cavity development. Exposure-time and low mud
weight are probably contributing as a secondary
factors.
• While tripping and back-reaming, the debris field
competes for space with BHA pinch-points (stabilizers
and bit) in gauge hole immediately above and below
the cavities.
• The escalating symptoms of hole-cleaning problems
(excessive reaming, ECD spikes, pack-offs and stuck-
pipe incidents) are due to debris being concentrated in
the hole next to the BHA pinch-points.
• Subsequent casing running difficulties were the result
of a debris ‘bridge’ left in the hole after drilling.
The care and attention that goes into detailed observation
at the rig-site has been essential for a clear assessment of
cause-effect relationships. It has also resulted in a cost-
effective and efficient methodology for tracking the presence
and development of cavities, despite the characteristically
subtle signs accompanying their initial formation.
Further work is required to develop an understanding of
the rock physics in the weaker strata that form these zones.
Customized Drilling-Risk Management
Identification of cavities as the root cause of drilling NPT on
well 206 was a key step forward. Developing an
understanding of their geomechanical characteristics remains
important for minimizing longer-term project risks. However,
the most critical requirement was to effectively improve
drilling performance in the short-term.
A customized risk-management strategy for drilling
operations, built around the key event of cavity formation, was
developed and refined for the wells following 206. First step
was to define and prioritize the known threat factors for cavity
SPE 102818
formation, which was followed by an inventory of the
potential post-cavity consequences. Then the full experience
of the drilling team was brought to bear on the identification
of appropriate barrier strategies to limit cavity formation and
define mitigation options to prevent the escalation of
consequences.
Key threat factors for Odoptu were determined as:
• Mechanical disturbance, primarily from the back-
reaming regime during trips.
• Larger (12 ¼” and 17 ½”) hole size; an environment of
relatively low annular velocities resulting from limited
pump capacity.
• Lack of drilling-team awareness, primarily due to the
subtle real-time indicators accompanying cavity
formation and non-obvious cause-effect relationships
for hole cleaning and stuck-pipe.
• Trip count; each passage of the BHA increased the
likelihood of problems.
• Exposure Time – particularly after cavities were
sizeable enough to constitute a serious hole-cleaning
hazard.
• Well Location – the southern extent of well 206 was a
precedent.
Excessive hydraulic cycling of the well-bore, insufficient
mud-weights, and azimuthal orientation of the wells were also
considered as secondary threat factors.
A series of control (barrier) measures was also defined to
address the risk of cavity formation:
• Correlation of cavity zones to define fragile wellbore
depths prior to spud.
• Modifying casing architecture to isolate critical cavity
zones in separate sections of the well.
• Having a regular, clear and concise communications
plan for the rigsite team, with a focus on the cavity
threat.
• Close monitoring of drilling response and torque/drag
trends while tripping, especially through expected
cavity zones.
• Cuttings/cavings/fluid returns volume tracking,
description, and classification according to drilling or
post-drilling.
• Minimizing reasons to trip through a focus on
optimized tool reliability, wiper trip frequency, bit and
BHA design. Planning for shoe-to-shoe drilling
performance.
• Employing good tripping practice - avoiding starting
trips in known risk zones, returns-dependent
circulation times before tripping, and proactively
managing back-reaming to minimize mechanical
disturbance in cavity zones.
• Recording high-resolution time-lapse survey data
(CDNI) while back-reaming or circulating on trips.
• Active annular hydraulics management (daily ECD
forecasts, time-based surveillance of downhole annular
pressure, minimized pump cycling).
5
• Continued refinement of the geomechanical model for
the field.
Consequences were determined to range from minimal,
such as extra circulation time, to major, such as the loss of a
hole section. Thus contingency (prevention of escalation)
measures included:
• Develop and apply an ECD threshold for remedial
circulation due to excessive debris.
• Avoid remedial circulation with the bit in cavities to
restrict turbulent flow from bit jets to competent gauge
hole.
• Increasing mud density - however it was recognized
that this measure had the potential to further accelerate
the destabilization of cavities.
• Appropriate stuck-pipe practice, recognizing that
borehole debris is the most-likely stuck-pipe
mechanism. If packed-off the default option was to
torque/jar down and circulate the hole.
• A flexible casing program, which allows for an
appropriate shoe depth relative to cavity location.
• Eccentric casing shoe.
• A prepared sidetrack program adaptable to the
presence of cavity layers.
Expandable liner options have been considered but were
eliminated based on cost and complexity compared to the
given rig capability. It is also felt that the radial dimensions of
the cavities, once they are large enough to be problematic for
hole cleaning, would also limit expandable effectiveness.
Expandable open-hole liners could possibly have application
as a preventative or control measure for longer wells in the
future.
In the process of defining the overall strategy it was noted
that there was a definite preponderance of control measures
compared to contingencies. This is a clear reflection that more
detailed barrier strategies can be specified once the true nature
of the key event is understood. The relative lack of
contingency measures reflects the reality that the cavity, once
initiated, can quickly escalate to a high-consequence outcome.
Just as important as the development of a customized risk-
management strategy was the requirement for a reliable,
sustainable method of implementation. The rig-centric
approach used on Odoptu8 has been practiced for several
years, notably in the Gulf of Mexico and South America.
Similarly to these projects a pivotal success factor has been the
presence of a dedicated and empowered custodian of the risk-
management strategy at the rigsite. The presence of this
individual ensures the delivery of effective engineering
solutions integrated with real-time measurements. This results
in good quality decision-support to optimize drilling
efficiency, and continuous risk evaluation for minimized NPT.
The main planning tool of this approach is essentially a
collective document (figure 10) classifying depth-referenced
drilling risks and detailing control/contingency measures
against the backdrop of the MEM. Critical event symptoms
are demonstrated with examples and a new version is created
for each well. This is a rigsite tool with the detail necessary
for the rig team to effectively put into practice the risk-
6 SPE 102818
management guidelines developed during the planning stage
for each well.
Operational Impact
Currently, the rigsite team includes a dedicated engineer as the
owner of a tuned, pro-active risk management strategy while
drilling. This is a central role with direct links to the drilling
contractor, operator’s leadership group and peer/oversight
personnel in the service organizations. During execution of
the well a daily status report, catered to upcoming operations,
is delivered to key stakeholders. This includes an update for a
number of customized on-going surveillance and analysis
initiatives, and re-iterates in detail the barriers and
contingency measures necessary for the day. A peer-reviewed
report is provided after each well to capture and incorporate
lessons-learned for planning of the next well.
The benefits of improved organizational capability were
seen most clearly on the latest (219) South Pad well. This
well was drilled adjacent to well 206 and, due to the record
length for Odoptu, re-introduced the original casing
architecture. The outcome in this case was a well with top
percentile drilling performance for the project and a problem-
free outcome.
In general wells have been drilled safely, with higher
efficiency, and minimal time spent on unnecessary trips.
Significant operational achievements are listed below:
• The innovative use of CDNI data from MWD tools has
enabled a timely and highly effective response to the
onset of localized wellbore instability. Alternative
LWD measurements would provide greater azimuthal
resolution through caliper or density data, but at
greater cost. In addition these tools are not readily
available for the high-risk 12 ¼ or 17 ½” hole sizes.
CDNI data from an appropriately specified MWD
system has proven to be simple, responsive and
effective in the right hands.
• Cross-field correlation and CDNI data are used in
complementary fashion to fine-tune casing shoe
depths. Section TD is not declared until there is
conclusive evidence that the cavity zone has been
isolated.
• Figure 11a shows the initial casing architecture used on
well 206. A shallow 9 5/8” casing design, set below
the upper cavity zone, was introduced for subsequent
wells (figure 11b). This was essentially an interim
barrier strategy against the common-mode failure of
two critical cavity zones in the same hole section. The
lower of the two major cavity zones was drilled with 8
½” hole, an additional barrier which reduced the risk of
hole cleaning complications.
• The successful application of a modified original
casing architecture (figure 11c) in a previously
problematic area of the field has been a strong
vindication of the real-time risk-management function.
The additional string of 13 3/8” casing, which is run
deep enough to cover the top cavity zone, now allows
the second major zone to go behind 9 5/8” casing. In
the process, the challenge of safely drilling and casing
17 ½” hole to 1900m at an ERD sail angle of 78 deg
has also been effectively managed.
• Annulus ECD is actively monitored in 12 ¼” hole
while back-reaming to detect incipient pack-off while
back-reaming and limit the potential for stuck-pipe
through pro-active reduction of reaming parameters.
• To reduce the risk of mud losses and reservoir damage,
annulus ECD is actively managed in 8 ½” hole to
prevent hydraulic shock peaks and limit annulus
cuttings load (figure 12).
• Accurate friction factor modeling of neutrally buoyant
9 5/8” casing (accounting for sheave friction) to assess
the risk of making a successful run to TD (figure 13).
There is also the added benefit of continuous improvement
through the effective implementation of experience from
previously drilled wells and an organizational culture that is
making this the default ethic. Drilling events and operational
near misses are routinely captured for further analysis and to
develop recommendations for the next phase of the project.
The implementation of a pro-active onsite risk
management program has been cost-effective for Odoptu.
Direct costs of the service have been minimal (primarily
personnel) while bringing disproportionate value to the
operation. Universal buy-in was difficult to achieve in the
early stages of the program but it has presently been in
continuous use for more than a year on the South Pad. It has
also been extended to drilling operations on the North Pad.
Next Steps
The next phase of development on Odoptu is likely to benefit
significantly from a fully integrated real-time geomechanics
support capability9. This would potentially make use of time-
lapse LWD image data to track the condition of fragile zones
while drilling. Annular pressure while drilling (APWD) and
time-lapse resistivity analysis would permit improved
wellbore instability diagnosis for model calibration. Images
from new generation (high-resolution azimuthal) wire-line
tools would shed significant light on the near-wellbore stress-
state and deformation mechanisms in the weak layers.
To better predict the behaviour of cavity zones, several
potential non-regional deformation mechanisms need to be
accounted for. The first possibility is based on the assumption
that the cavity zones are laminated. Examples are
documented7 where the relative orientation between the axis of
drilling and bedding plane (i.e. plane of weakness) plays a key
role in the onset of catastrophic borehole failure. The gamma
ray response in these zones indicates shale with relatively high
organic content, which would be consistent with a laminar or
inter-bedded structure.
Another effect could be linked to the presence of geologic
(as yet unseen) structures such as faults, fractures or
unconformities. Acquisition of high-resolution borehole
image logs such as would identify detailed structural features.
Analysis of (what kind) dispersion curves would differentiate
the intrinsic anisotropy from the stress anisotropy.
Structurally related stress concentration is another possible
explanation requiring further investigation, for example
refinement in the horizontal stresses. This can be done by
SPE 102818 7

constraining the minimum horizontal stress to the wireline presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
mini-fracs, leak-off-tests and identifying the ratio between the Louisiana, 2000.
horizontal stresses based on the fast and slow shear profiling. 5. Lindquist, S.J.: “The North Sakhalin Neogene Total Petroleum
Recent 3-D seismic data is now available to form the System of Eastern Russia”, Open-File Report 99-50-O, USGS
(Apr. 2000).
backbone of a 3-dimensional MEM. A field-wide model
6. Fournier, M. et al.: “Neogene Strike-Slip Faulting in Sakhalin
would be an effective tool to relate fracture, faulting, and
and the Japan Sea”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 99,
anisotropic zones in the context of the overall structure. No. B2 (Feb. 1994) 2701.
Reduced uncertainty about regional and local stress
7. Økland, D. and Cook, J.M.: “Bedding-Related Borehole
environments would contribute to the rapid maturity of future Instability in High-Angle Wells”, paper SPE/ISRM 47285
field development options by reducing well-construction risk. presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock ’98, Trondheim, Norway,
Laboratory tests of cores samples should better constrain July 8–10.
formation mechanical properties such as Young’s modulus, 8. Aldred, W.A.:“ Improving Drilling Efficiency Through the
Poisson’s ratio, compressive strength and internal angle of Application of PERFORM*, Performance by Risk
friction. Management”, paper IADC/SPE 57574 presented at Middle
East Drilling Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, 8-10
November 1999.
Conclusions 9. Bradford, I.D.R., Aldred, W.A., Cook, J.M., Elewaut, E.F.M.,
Multiple-pass, high-resolution survey data (CDNI) was the Fuller, J.A., Kristiansen, T.G., Walsgrove, T.R., “When Rock
key measurement allowing identification of the root-cause of Mechanics Met Drilling: Effective Implementation of Real-
major drilling NPT on Odoptu. Time Wellbore Stability Control”, paper IADC/SPE 59121
Control and contingency measures for key drilling risks on presented at 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Odoptu ERD wells are now routinely implemented to a highly Orleans, Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000.
effective degree. This approach has led to a significant
reduction in NPT exposure for the 3-string well architecture
necessary for more challenging future ERD wells. Conversion Factors (approximate,* exact)
More investigation is required to determine the primary
factors involved in the cavity formation mechanism. This is
best achieved through further development of the mechanical
earth model (MEM). The knowledge gained would be a key in x 2.54 E-02 =m
input to the development of Odoptu South. lb/ft x 1.488 E-00 =kg/m
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 =kPa
The last year has seen positive changes in organizational tons* x 1.0 E-06 =g
capability as a result of instituting a customized rig-based risk
management program.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
Schlumberger and Rosneft for their permission to publish this
paper. The input of Nikolay Smirnov and the extended
Schlumberger geomechanics community is appreciated. The
attention to detail of Andrew W. Smith and his rig-based
colleagues was a necessary prerequisite for publication.

References
1. Khlebnikov, P.A.: “The Technology of Horizontal Well
Drilling, case study of Odoptu-sea Field (Northern Dome).”,
(Original in Russian), paper presented at Oil and Capital
conference, Moscow (July 2004).
2. Valitov, R.A., Bychkov, A.V., Zotov, O.E., Sokolov, V.N.:
“Extended Reach Well drilling in Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegaz
JSC, Current status and Future Plans”, (Original in Russian),
Unpublished, SakhalinNIPImorneft Institute (2002).
3. Akbar Ali, A.H., Brown, T., Delgado, R., Lee, D., Plumb, R.,
Smirnov, N., Marsden, R., Prado-Velarde, E., Ramsey, L.,
Spooner, D., Stone, T., Stouffer, T.: “Watching Rocks Change
– Mechanical Earth Modelling”, Oilfield Review, Summer
2003.
4. Rezmer-Cooper, I.., Bratton, T., Krabbe, H.: “The Use of
Resistivity-at-the-Bit Images and Annular Pressure While
Drilling in Preventing Drilling Problems”, paper SPE 70130
8 SPE 102818

Figure 1: Overburden and Resevoir Lithology Figure 3: Cavings and Debris from Cavity zones

Figure 2: Drilling Performance Evolution

Actual Depth
9000 180
Calendar drilling time

Meters per month

8000 160

PDM Technology Rotary Steerable Technology

7000 140
Drlg Risk Management
6000 120
Mtr / Month
Depth

5000 100
Days

4000 80

3000 60

2000 40

1000 20

0 0
203 204 209 211 210 212 208 205 215 216 217 207 206 224 226 227 229 219N
Well Number
SPE 102818 9

Figure 4: CDNI Response in Cavity on well 206

Figure 5: Incipient cavity zones on other wells

10 SPE 102818

Figure 6: Realtime Image from Odoptu reaming run – LWD data Figure 7: CDNI response correlates with azimuthal data

Figure 8: Subtle changes in drilling and tripping response Figure 9: Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) for well 219

Figure 10: Consolidated risk management guidelines –

Rig-site wall chart prepared for each well
SPE 102818 11

Figure 11: Evolution of casing architecture

11 a: Original design on problem well

11 b: Interim Two-String to Isolate major unstable zones

in separate hole size

11 c: Modified original for longer wells isolating major cavities

206 229 219

Upper unstable zone 900-950 m TVD

Minor unstable zone 1200 m TVD

Lower unstable zone 1250-1280 m TVD

(a)
(b)

(c)
12 SPE 102818

Figure 12: Active ECD management in 8 ½” hole

Figure 13: Modeling of Neutrally Bouyant 9 5/8 casing - well 219