0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Effect of Drillstring Deflection and Rotary Speed on Annular Frictional Pressure Losses

[+] Author and Article Information
Oney Erge, Mehmet E. Ozbayoglu, Stefan Z. Miska, Mengjiao Yu, Nicholas Takach

University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104

Arild Saasen

Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA,
University of Stavanger,
Stavanger 4036, Norway

Roland May

Baker Hughes,
Celle 29221, Germany

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 21, 2013; final manuscript received February 18, 2014; published online November 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Andrew K. Wojtanowicz.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(4), 042909 (Dec 01, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: JERT-13-1249; doi: 10.1115/1.4027565 History: Received August 21, 2013; Revised February 18, 2014; Online November 24, 2014

Keeping the drilling fluid equivalent circulating density in the operating window between the pore and fracture pressure is a challenge, particularly when the gap between these two is narrow, such as in offshore, extended reach, and slim hole drilling applications usually encountered in shale gas and/or oil drilling. To overcome this challenge, accurate estimation of frictional pressure loss in the annulus is essential. A better estimation of frictional pressure losses will enable improved well control, optimized bit hydraulics, a better drilling fluid program, and pump selection. Field and experimental measurements show that pressure loss in annuli is strongly affected by the pipe rotation and eccentricity. The major focus of this project is on a horizontal well setup with drillstring under compression, considering the influence of rotation on frictional pressure losses of yield power law fluids. The test matrix includes flow through the annulus for various buckling modes with and without the rotation of the inner pipe. Sinusoidal, helical, and transition from sinusoidal to helical configurations with and without the drillstring rotation were investigated. Helical configurations with two different pitch lengths are compared. Eight yield power law fluids are tested and consistent results are observed. The drillstring rotation patterns and buckling can be observed due to experimental facility's relatively longer and transparent test section. At the initial position, inner pipe is lying at the bottom due to its extensive length, suggesting a fully eccentric annular geometry. When the drillstring is rotated, whirling, snaking, irregular motions are observed. This state is considered as a free drillstring configuration since there is no prefixed eccentricity imposed on the drillstring. The reason for such design is to simulate the actual drilling operations, especially the highly inclined and horizontal drilling operations. Results show that rotating the drillstring can either increase or decrease the frictional pressure losses. The most pronounced effect of rotation is observed in the transition region from laminar to turbulent flow. The experiments with the buckled drillstring showed significantly reduced frictional pressure losses compared to the free drillstring configuration. Decreasing the length of the pitch caused a further reduction in pressure losses. Using the experimental database, turbulent friction factors for buckled and rotating drillstrings are presented. The drilling industry has recently been involved in incidents that show the need for critical improvements for evaluating and avoiding risks in oil/gas drilling. The information obtained from this study can be used to improve the control of bottomhole pressures during extended reach, horizontal, managed pressure, offshore, and slim hole drilling applications. This will lead to improved safety and enhanced optimization of drilling operations.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Annular frictional pressure loss as function of drillstring rotation rate for a North Sea drilling operation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic for the outside dynamic testing facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Loading of the inner pipe, no rotation, in water, displacement speed 25.4 mm/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Observed pitch length for various loadings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for YPL3, rotation tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for YPL8, rotation tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fanning friction factor versus Reynolds number for various buckling configurations for YPL3—turbulent region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for YPL2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for YPL7, rotation tests—laminar and transition regions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fanning friction factor versus Reynolds number for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Motion patterns of rotating pipe inside a constraining cylinder

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for YPL4, rotation tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for YPL4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for YPL3—laminar and transition region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for YPL3—turbulent region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for a sinusoidal buckled inner pipe, rotation tests for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for a buckled inner pipe in transition between sinusoidal and helical buckling, rotation tests for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for a helically buckled inner pipe, 8.8 m pitch length, rotation tests for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Measured pressure loss versus velocity for a helically buckled inner pipe, 6.9 m pitch length, rotation tests for YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Comparison of the models and the experimental data, measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for the laminar region of YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Comparison of the models and the experimental data, measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations while inner pipe is rotating for the laminar region of YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Comparison of the models and the experimental data, measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations for the turbulent region of YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Comparison of the models and the experimental data, measured pressure loss versus velocity for various buckling configurations while inner pipe is rotating for the turbulent region of YPL3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Model prediction versus experimental data including various drillstring configurations with and without rotation for the turbulent flow of YPL fluids

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In