WO 10 2014 Oren

Drilling the perfect horizontal well requires trade-offs

SPECIAL FOCUS: ADVANCES IN DRILLING

World Oil® / OCTOBER 2014 51

Drilling the “perfect” well, especially in tricky shale plays like the Bakken of North Dakota, requires close cooperation and good communication between engineers and geoscientists, as well as applying the right tools to the project (photo courtesy of Marathon Oil).

Better cooperation between engineers and geoscientists, along with each side recognizing some basic drilling and geosteering principles, and their inherent trade-offs, and applying the right tools to the project, can help operator/service teams come closer to drilling the “perfect” well.

ŝŝ K. C. OREN, Horizontal Solutions International

The personas of engineers and geosci-entists are often very different. And when it comes to corporate risk assessment and reward systems, company incentives for these individuals can be counter-productive to meeting corporate objec-

tives, such as attaining the highest IP in a play and achieving superior well perfor-mance, as compared to their peer group and competitors. For example, drilling team metrics and service company per-sonnel objectives may be polar-opposite to geology’s goal of attaining pinpoint formation zone landings and then main-taining geologic target objectives to TD (i.e. landing and staying in zone). Conse-quently, team members often miss corpo-rate goals for achieving the best possible investment results, due to conflicts or un-recognized trade-offs required between departmental domains.

Sometimes, competing divergent drivers, and inherent personality differ-ences within the asset team and other well-operations participants, can create obvious conflict and ultimately result in a dysfunctional group. The outcome can be a breakdown of the team, due to many factors, including individual incentives, personalities or, very simply, personal motivation. The ultimate outcome may be significant conflict between otherwise closely aligned team members and service company participants.

The following article explores how to overcome these challenges, and highlights some simple concepts that will help engi-neers and geoscientists achieve the compa-

ny’s ultimate goals together. Understand-ing some basic drilling (engineering) and geosteering (geological) principles and trade-offs is featured, along with some rec-ommended best practices for drilling the “perfect horizontal well.”

COMMON E&P DRIVERSA horizontal well project’s economic

drivers are pretty consistent across all com-peting oil and gas companies. Every firm generally shares these goals:

• Safe, lowest-cost wells that feature low (or no) incident reports; less NPT (non-productive time) for drill-ing and completions (D&C); fastest ROP; lowest D&C costs

• Best overall project economics, in-cluding most time in zone; highest IP rates; best EUR; fastest spud-to-production (least time to dollars); and highest ROI.

Many companies have been able to pull their asset team together as a cohesive group that constantly attains corporate goals and continually improves processes. We see evidence of this daily in press re-leases and industry journals. Here are some excerpts:

• “Approximately 60% of current Haynesville production is attribut-able to well and rig productivity

Article copyright © 2014 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.

Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.

52 OCTOBER 2014 / WorldOil.com

ADVANCES IN DRILLING

gains made over the past three years …,” NGI Shale Daily

• “Increased well productivity has been the largest driver of overall pro-ductivity gains, accounting for about two-thirds, led initially by higher ini-tial production (IP) rates and more recently by improved decline rates,” NGI Shale Daily

• “… many operators were seeing cycle time for drilling cut in half over the last three years, and down as much as 30% in the last year alone,” EPmag.com, October 2012 (Richard Mason)

• Rig [and drilling best practices] increases over the last three years ac-count for 20% of current produc-tion, 1.8 Bcfd or one-third of the total productivity gain …,” NGI Shale Daily

• “… rigs are performing so well in complex well environments that operators can now meet program goals with fewer units,” EPmag.com commentary, October 2012 (Rich-ard Mason)

• “An operator like Marathon, who planned to ramp up to 20 rigs in the Eagle Ford, will now get by with 18, for example,” EPmag.com, commen-tary, October 2012 (Richard Mason).

THE “AGONY OF DEFEAT”The above quotes are the result of im-

provement gained through experience and lessons learned, to constantly refine and enhance drilling and geosteering best prac-tices. And, these apply to an asset team un-derstanding the new unconventional busi-ness drivers and working together.

But, what happens when a company is not pulling together and encounters prob-lems that often seem to plague horizontal

well projects? Let’s take a look at a fictional project that could occur in a basin near you. In this example, the well was drilled in a re-mote area in Canada, with very little well control; the closest offset well was more than a mile away. The operating company did have 3D seismic over the area, indicat-ing a consistent regional dip, but without the benefit of time-to-depth correlation from offset wells. The targeted formation landing depth (TVD–true vertical depth) was still somewhat uncertain.

The original well plan was to drill down the regional dip angle at the “best guess” landing TVD (as shown by the dashed black line in Fig. 1) and follow along the plan line.

As the well’s angle was built up through the curve and landed near lateral (Fig. 1), the actual target zone interval (between the upper orange top and green bottom markers) proved to be about 6 m shallow-er than predicted; i.e. the planned target landing TVD, estimated from the distant offset well and seismic data time-base cor-relation. After landing the well, the drill-ing and geology team hoped that by sim-ply drilling ahead, they would catch up to the regional dip, and the wellbore would track back into zone.

Unfortunately, by overshooting the target and landing in the softer, unconsoli-dated formation below the target zone, the drill bit’s tendency was to stay in the lower formation and, therefore, it became dif-ficult to break back up into the upper tar-geted formations. The directional driller (DD) soon realized that the existing drill-ing assembly (BHA) was not aggressive enough to drill back into the targeted zone; so the drilling team elected to pull out of the hole and pick up a new BHA at about 300 m, vertical section.

Fig. 1. As the well’s angle built through the curve and landed near lateral, the actual target zone interval proved to be about 6 m shallower than predicted.

2,930900800700600500400

Vertical section, m

‘The agony of defeat’

Second sidetrackOriginal hole

First sidetrack

O setwell

Originalwell

path plan3002001000

2,920 True v

ertic

al de

pth,

m

2,910

2,900

ExpandYourProfits...

ENGINEERED TO FIT

The TIW XPAK Expandable Liner Hanger Packer is engineered to provide the sealing protection you need to meet challenging regulatory requirements.

Designed to provide quick turnaround and fewer delays, the XPAK Liner Hanger Packer delivers high pressure integrity; high-load capacity for long-liner support; and high-torque capability for rotation and/or drill down.

P.O. Box 35729Houston, Texas 77235-5729

Tel: 713-729-2110www.tiwtools.com

A Pearce Industries Company

Visit TIWat SPE ATCEBooth 2207





After tripping back in with a more ag-gressive BHA, they were able to cross back upward toward the targeted interval, but then two new problems occurred: the BHA’s resulting dogleg was so severe at the point of formation crossover that 1) the BHA quickly overshot the target zone; and 2) when they were about to drill out of the top of the target, the severe dogleg caused a “twist-off ” in their drill pipe at the lower formation crossing point (~310 m). The resulting “fish” was obviously due to ex-

treme stress and bends on the drillstring at the highest point of drillstring fatigue; i.e. where the most severe dogleg was present.

Then, after several days of fishing for the lost BHA, plus a scheduled crew change, the new DD arrived on location with the drilling manager’s strict orders to “get this well back on plan!” And that is exactly what the DD set out to do, as the first sidetrack illustration indicates—a faster ROP and right on target; at least, that is what the DD thought. Unfortunately, the new DD was not told that the new target objective was now more than 10 m higher than the origi-nal well path plan. This time, as can often be the case, key team members were absent or otherwise occupied. It was not until they had drilled 250 m laterally that it was dis-covered that the rapid ROP in the lateral interval had missed the objective totally— blissfully close to the original line; but to the chagrin of the entire asset team, entirely out of zone!

Consequently, another, second side-track was called for, this time by the opera-tions geologist responsible for getting the well back into zone and staying in the pre-defined geological target interval. So, after a

very long, torturous asset team meeting with the drilling and the geosci-ences members, to ensure that every-one was finally on the same page, the second sidetrack was kicked off, and real progress to the target objective was finally achieved, al-beit briefly. So, yet again, poor target-ing practices and an overly aggressive BHA and drill bit created directional control problems. Again, the team found itself far out of zone—this time well above the target.

It was at this time (see the tip of the arrow in Fig. 1 pointing to the “second sidetrack” annotation) that a commercial geo-

steering company was called upon to pro-vide guidance, to get the well back on target and to stay in zone. The service company’s best practices proved to be a blessing for salvaging as much of the well’s pay zone as possible, yielding a measured success for this exploration well. There was enough early production to warrant another well in the area, which proved to be an economic play. Had the team not been able to prove up this well’s vitality with expert geosteer-ing guidance, and ultimately reached and stayed in zone, the operating company could very well have made the call to walk away from what later proved to be a very economic prospect and, ultimately, a big winner for the corporation.

LESSONS LEARNEDLet’s now consider just four basic guide-

lines (from many, many possibilities) for safely navigating the perils of horizontal drilling and avoiding the “Agony of Defeat”:

• The BHA will most likely not per-form as planned

• Wellbore position uncertainty exac-erbates the problem of landing the well in zone

• Targeting methodology is critical to smoother wellbores and staying in zone

• Effective intra-company (and inter-company) communications are essential.

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY SELECTION

“Achieving a successful, efficient, high dog-leg severity (DLS) can exponentially improve the performance and payout of an individual well.”1 Unfortunately, by design, horizontal wells call for high DLS assem-blies that can be inherently problematic for many reasons. The most obvious com-plications from HDLS drilling assemblies are the rotational, tensile and compressive forces imposed upon an otherwise rigid drillstring and BHA.

To further compound the problem, many directional service companies will err in favor of the most aggressive BHAs—especially in the curve—to pro-vide directional drilling correction ca-pabilities, if they fall behind or require course changes, due to unexpected forma-tion structure or fault crossings. Further-more, “fatigue life reduces exponentially with increasing build rate,” according to Dunnahoe, and “…catastrophic failure, and twist-off of BHA components can

Fig. 2. This illustration, of the magnitude of error of an MWD surveying system, only accounts for the problems of the system, itself.

Magnitude of error for well-maintainedsurvey instrumentation (MWD systems):

Used by permission-based uponSPE 79917, Stockhausen and Lesso

Ellipses of uncertainty—systematic error

Greater error in azimuth Inclination: 0.25° to 0.75°

Azimuth: 0.75° to 2°

TVD: +/- 2 to 4 ft per 1,000 ft

E/W: +/- 3 ft per 1,000 ft

And human-introduced errors can farexceed the survey tool’s intrinsic error!

N/S: +/- 6 ft per 1,000 ft




occur…” as was the case in the “Agony of Defeat” example that resulted in the part-ing of the drill pipe in the HDLS area of the wellbore.

As was also shown in our example above, formation heterogeneity will affect the BUR of the drilling system, requir-ing trips for BHA changes. A common rule-of-thumb is that the BHA will most likely not perform as expected, so expect and plan for the unexpected. Be sure that your well program has built-in contingen-cies, wherever possible. Many companies employ a policy of “drill the well on pa-per” (DWOP) first, with well-rehearsed and tested contingency plans ready to be called upon, when necessary.

UNDERSTANDING WELLBORE POSITION UNCERTAINTY

Problems with determining a wellbore’s actual course and precise location at any given time is well-understood and docu-mented. Yet, many companies do not con-sider this when making critical decisions in both the planning and execution phases of horizontal wells.

As has been documented in SPE pa-per 79917, by Stockhausen and Lesso, the magnitude of error of an MWD surveying system in their research has been demon-strated and is illustrated in Fig. 2.

Of course, this research addresses the problems of MWD system errors, but does not account for the possibility of further hu-man-induced errors. Industry guidelines for quantifying both systematic and random errors are readily available, to better under-stand and mitigate the impact of these inac-curacies and possibly flawed procedures. These errors are commonly managed in our industry’s “Ellipse of Uncertainty” defini-tion and recommended best practices em-

ployed by service companies. Directional service companies quantify these errors and use this information to help operators better understand and manage these inherent er-rors, especially while drilling an active well.

Now, consider the use of an offset well’s directional surveys for predicting a tar-geted formation zone for the new, adjacent horizontal well. And also consider that these same offset well data, and directional surveys from other wells in the project, are used to make seismic time-to-depth con-versions that are subsequently used to plan and land horizontal wells. These nebulous data may also be used to define the geolog-ic earth model for an entire asset or uncon-ventional resource play.

John deWardt, an industry expert on “wellbore positioning,” and a panelist at SPE’s 2012 Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition in San Antonio, noted that “managers are not asking the right ques-tions to assure safety, well integrity and reserves values.” The panel’s consensus was that “better wellbore positioning, and a better understanding of the reservoir, will lead to improved reservoir models and ul-timately improved recovery.” Obviously, caution needs to be exercised in under-standing and applying imprecise measure-ments in all of your company’s projects.

An additional area of wellbore position uncertainty, and an opportunity to im-prove accuracy, is illustrated below in the sequence of Figs. 3, 4 and 5. These charts illustrate another problem in terms of posi-tional survey intervals, and the survey cal-culation methodology employed. In these examples, the survey calculation method

Fig. 4. Here is what happens with the Radius of Curvature model, if the survey is positioned at the end of the slide section.

Slide radius of curvature

Surv

ey po

sition

mod

el 2

Calcu

lated

radiu

s of c

urva

ture

A rotary section is drilled first, followed by a slide section. The actualwellbore position will be deeper than calculated.

Survey positioned at END of the slide section

Slide

Rotate

Actual well path

Calculatedwell path

Fig. 5. Drilling the TF-oriented slide interval between two rotating intervals reduces the calculation model error.


Surv

ey po

sition

mod

el 3

Calcu

lated

radiu

s of c

urva

ture

A slide section is placed between two rotate sections. The actualwellbore position will be close to the calculated, position.

Survey positioned symmetrically on either end of slide

Slide

Rotate

Rotate

Actualwell pathCalculatedwell path

Used by permission-based uponSPE Paper 79917, Stockhausen and Lesso

Fig. 6. The TSP modeling technique is used to determine the relative position of the logging sensor in the subsurface.

Fig. 3. An additional area of wellbore position uncertainty relates to the commonly applied Radius of Curvature model.

Surv

ey po

sition

mod

el 1

Calcu

lated

radiu

s of c

urva

ture

Calculated path

A slide section with a short radius of curvature, followed by a rotarysection (no curvature). The actual wellbore position will be shallowerthan calculated.

Survey positioned at START of the slide sectionUnderstanding wellbore position uncertainty

Slide


Rotate Actualwell path





illustrated is the commonly applied Radius of Curvature model. Yet, the inherent prob-lem described here is present, regardless of the survey calculation method applied.

The best way to reconcile and minimize these errors is more frequent surveys, es-pecially at the end of any drilling transition zone between “drilling states;” i.e. a change from rotary drilling and sliding (oriented TF) mode or sliding to rotational drilling intervals. As shown in Fig. 5, drilling the TF-oriented slide interval between two rotating intervals reduces the calculation model error. This recommended best prac-tice allows for “drilling out” the curve sec-tion and achieving a truer vector orientation at the survey station, rendering the Radius of Curvature model a more accurate repre-sentation of the actual well path position.

What should also be understood (and accounted for) is the distance between the MWD sensor system (survey instrument position, housed in the non-magnetic drill collar) and the drilling bit bottom-hole position. Fortunately, the implication of this offset is, again, a well-understood rela-tionship for determining precise wellbore

position, which can be modeled in the “ac-tual” well position calculations and may be accounted for in the ellipse of uncertainty definition. Most directional service com-panies adjust for the measurement position offset when projecting the actual location of the BHA and survey instrumentation verses the actual bit position.

OVERCOMING UNCERTAINTY CHALLENGES

Addressing the above issues is essen-tial to properly identifying the wellbore’s true position in the subsurface, and for the development of an accurate geomodel and determining completion intervals. Fortunately, active horizontal well drilling decisions for landing and staying in the targeted zone (geosteering) can be made, using geologic markers, combined with other important data. Geologic measure-ments with MWD and LWD tools can be applied independently of the uncertainties of directional survey positioning issues dis-cussed above.

Many directional drillers will argue that they must have directional surveys and

Fig. 7. The “follow the plan” method does not allow for survey inaccuracy problems and ever-present geologic “surprises.”

I followed the plan...so why is my well not

producing

“Follow the plan, regardless of geology!”A plan that does not change gives a false sense of securityRarely will you land or stay in zoneFew plans survive first contact with the formation

Fig. 9. The “vector-based” targeting method relies on TSP modeling and recommended best practices.

“Land on this line... at this inclination...with these tolerances”

Creates smooth target transitionsGives directional driller flexibility to land a targetOnly method which has stratigraphic contentSimple and less confusing to directional driller

Fig. 8. A single wellbore path (dashed blue line) could have been used, rather than three target changes, caused by misalignment of the wellbore trajectory while achieving point-in-space targets.

“Hit this TVD at this vertical section”

Will cause overshooting of targetOvershooting and correcting may jeopardize the holeReduces the directional driller’s flexibilityMore work for the Geosteering team

[email protected]

100% CRACK FREE & REBUILDABLE

Excellent Casing & Tool Joint Protection

THE WoRLD’s MosT TRUsTED HARDBAnDIng

Duraband®NCADVANCES IN DRILLING





an accurate wellbore position to a) plot where they are relative to a well plan; and then b) make good targeting decisions. While the former may be true, if the ulti-mate goal is to stay within a geologic win-dow or targeted formation zone, then the actual position of the wellbore relative to a geologic marker is the key geo-navigation parameter. In other words, pinpointing the well’s true stratigraphic position (TSP) is really the ultimate objective for the geo-steering team. The operations geologist, in concert with the DD and other drill-ing personnel, must know the wellbore’s precise stratigraphic position at any given moment, a process commonly referred to as geonavigation.

The TSP modeling technique (Fig. 6) is used today by geonavigational specialists to determine the relative position of the log-ging sensor (typically a gamma ray (GR) detector housed in the MWD system) in the subsurface by using log correlation tech-

niques within specialized software that also provides the expert geonavigator with an apparent formation dip angle. Using these data (TSP and apparent dip), targeting decisions and borehole course corrections may be made, also known as geosteering.

Utilizing innovative geosteering soft-ware and experienced geologists, the geo-steering team can accurately track a well’s stratigraphic position, maximize target zone penetration, speed drilling decisions, restrain drilling costs and optimize comple-tions. However, even knowing precisely where you are at any given time, using the TSP navigation technique, the art of geo-steering still requires special skills and lever-aging certain expertise gained only through years of geologic experience and training.

BASIC GEONAVIGATION PRINCIPLES

These principles include the following items:

• Do not over-react—let your data tell the story.

• Believe average dip, but don’t expect to see it.

• Do not be trapped by pre-concep-tions from offset wells and seismic data.

• Acquire more data, including posi-tional surveys, when needed.

• Then use all of your available data for an informed decision.

• Drill to a target line, not to a point in space.

Also, very importantly, what you do with the TSP navigation data, in terms of target-

Fig. 11. Using the appropriate tools and service solutions will also help to ensure a horizontal project’s success.

Scale your service solution to meet your project demands

Geolo

gic an

d dril

ling c

omple

xity

Geolo

gic an

d dril

ling r

isk

Rate

of pe

netra

tion

Experience and expertiseCommunication and collaboration

LWD/MWD and drilling surveillance

Fig. 10. Practicing sound communications across the entire asset team, as outlined here, can help to avoid the “Agony of Defeat” syndrome.

• Drilling and completions engineers• Directional drillers• Company man• Field operations geologists• Service company personnel• Mud-loggers and mud engineers• O�ce development geologists• Production engineers• Reservoir engineers

Collaboration between all members

Learn from experience and repeat best practices in future wells

Collaboration

Pre-spudplanning

Post-wellcompletion

Post-drill/pre-completion

Spud to TD

ImprovIng StandardS• on-Site training

for new applicators

• applicator testing, Qualification & Licensing

SupportIng End uSErS• Educational

technical Forums• Worldwide

technical Support

Hardbanding Support

From Hardbanding Solutions by postle

[email protected]





ing, can be even more essential. Communi-cating target changes for execution by the DD is the payoff for applying accurate TSP correlations and following these (and oth-er) geonavigation principles. Therefore, good geosteering, following targeting best practices, is dependent upon the optimal application and communication of the TSP navigational results.

COMMON TARGETING PRACTICESMany horizontal wells are still drilled

by the risky, never-changing “stick with the plan” targeting method. This is a carry-over from offshore or other directional drilling programs, where exploration wells or pilot wells have been drilled, and a single-loca-tion target objective was planned. Yes, abso-lutely, directional drillers can, and do, pride themselves on their ability to accurately hit a target, even miles away from the surface location. Many DDs have been trained for, and have used very successfully, this meth-odology. However, the application was very different than the geologic target objectives of unconventional resources and geonavi-gation in horizontal wells, where the num-ber-one goal is to stay in zone.

So, it is not surprising that the “fol-low the plan” method is still used in ar-eas, where well control is plentiful, and a highly accurate geomodel predicts where a well should be landed and then drilled laterally. However, Fig. 7 illustrates why that can be a dangerous assumption that does not allow for the aforementioned survey inaccuracy problems and those ever-present geologic “surprises.”

Another, still very common target-ing procedure that is used by geosteer-ers is the “point-in-space” method. Many companies have even developed an elaborate spreadsheet calculator to determine a 3D position at some prede-termined distance ahead of the bit (com-monly 500 ft) for the DD to attempt to hit. While this 3D target can usually be achieved by the DD, this methodology does not take into consideration the final well path trajectory at the time the drill-ing assembly penetrates the point-in- space position.

Most of the time, another course cor-rection is required immediately, to bring the well course back into alignment with the relative formation dip angles and to

get back into or stay in zone. The end re-sult is a porpoising wellbore that requires more and more course corrections (slid-ing) that reduce ROP, add unnecessary torque and drag, produce production bellies, and add complications while running completion strings. This creates future well maintenance problems and unnecessary remedial activity.

In Fig. 8, one can see that a single wellbore path (shown by the dashed blue line) could have been used, rather than three target changes, due to the misalignment of the wellbore trajectory while achieving point-in-space targets.

Finally, the targeting method that is recommended by this author is the “vector-based” targeting method, Fig. 9. This technique relies on TSP model-ing and the recommended best practices already mentioned above (see “Geonavi-gation Best Practices”).

Very simply, the current TSP and ap-parent dip angles are compared, to de-termine a new “zero vertical section at a TVD” (VS0 at TVD) position and desired new inclination angle, for use by the DD over whatever course length is required





to gradually land on the newly prescribed VS0-TVD angle (vector). Of course, the target vector can be updated easily dur-ing the time that the DD is bringing the well path onto a “landing vector” and re-vised well trajectory. This approach is not too different from the smooth landing of an airplane on a runway. According to Dunnahoe, “borehole quality is funda-mental for drilling optimization,” and “a smooth borehole leads to less chance of borehole problems…”2

ASSET TEAM COMMUNICATIONSThe final guideline to avoid the “Agony

of Defeat” is the best practice of sound communications across the entire asset team, Fig. 10.

A few geosteering rules-of-thumb to consider for assuring good communica-tions among the team’s group members include:

• Create an atmosphere of “tribal sur-vival” and sharing information, to leverage everyone’s knowledge and

skills, especially your most senior, trusted advisors and service compa-ny personnel

• “90% of the hours spent planning and executing drilling projects are accounted for by the service compa-nies’ personnel …,” not by the oper-ating company’s own drilling engi-neers3

• Yet, the success of horizontal drilling projects is being directly attributed to upfront planning and design work by the E&P company

• Consequently, be sure to include service company personnel in your team, and in all active com-munications for drilling planning and execution.

FOSTER A CULTURE OF “TRIBAL SURVIVAL”

Create and support a truly collaborative environment. All team members should be tasked with sharing all information, to leverage the domain skills and individual knowledge of other asset team members. The team’s success depends on relying upon each other and surviving together. And, very critically, be sure to include your service providers.

Furthermore, you should create and nurture an environment of free ex-change of data and information. In addi-tion, encourage/reward displays of free thinking and individual expertise; con-sider everyone’s perspective and exploit their experiences.

RIGHT TOOLS FOR THE JOBFinally, one more word of advice, bring

to bear the appropriate tools to ensure your horizontal project’s success, Fig. 11. These include:

• An appropriate collaboration plat-form for your team

• Established, well-grounded company drilling (and geosteering) best prac-tices

• Proven, timely communications channels and response protocols

• Integrated, 24/7, drilling and geo-steering surveillance

• Robust geosteering software, and an accessible, real-time, drilling data portal

• A highly qualified geosteering team to meet your specific proj-ect requirements, that has the right level of expertise and many years of experience.

RUD’s best lifting solutions for the Oil & Gas Industry

+

®®

www.rud.com

RUD’s best lifting solutions for the Oil & Gas Industry

Anz. Oel_Gas 125_180 mm 2014:Layout 1 09.07.2014 15:25 Uhr Seite 1





How much of each level depends upon a play’s complexity, challenges and risks. Use of real-time data can be critical to good geosteering decision support, and making decisions proactively and early, rather than having to react and make costly corrections further down the wellbore. Scale your ser-vice solutions, to meet the demands and complexity of each project.

CONCLUSIONSWhile there are many challenges to

drilling the perfect horizontal well, includ-ing competing, divergent drivers, and in-herent personality differences among the team, following best practices and apply-ing the right tools for meeting project de-mands will help assure success. This article has provided several guidelines to ensure that asset teams understand each challenge and work together, addressing each barrier and, sometimes, technology limitations.

A few of these best practices include:• HBUR drilling assemblies are criti-

cal to engineering horizontal wells, but the pitfalls and proper appli-cation of these BHAs need to be fully understood

• DWOP planning that thoroughly takes into account contingencies, is important for making quick, sound decisions during drilling

• Understanding wellbore position uncertainty is important in all as-pects of well planning and comple-tions engineering. It is critical to geomodel definition, and offset well and seismic data correlation

• Drilling states, in combination with directional survey intervals, are im-portant to reducing wellbore posi-tion uncertainty

• TSP modeling is the most effective geonavigation process for ensuring a horizontal well can be geosteered to stay in zone

• Good communications across the asset team while leveraging a robust collaboration platform are essential to a successful project

• Applying the right tools to meet project demands is an important first step in planning and executing an optimal horizontal well.

By working together, across all dis-ciplines, communicating freely and

leveraging individual strengths, exper-tise and experience, your project will have a better chance of achieving the ultimate goal—drilling the “perfect” horizontal well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThis article is based on paper 1894404, presented at the Uncon-ventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, Colo., Aug. 25-27, 2014. The author would like to acknowledge that Ken Bowdon, and Horizontal Solutions International and its website, are the sources of much of the material for this article.

REFERENCES

1. Dunnahoe, EPmag.com, December 2011.2. Dunnahoe, EPmag.com, December 2011.3. Jeremy Greenwood, EPmag.com, November 2011.

K. C. OREN is V.P. of sales and marketing at Horizontal Solutions International (HSI), and has 34 years of upstream industry experience. He earned twin BA degrees in chemistry and business management, and mathematics and secondary education, from Michigan State University in 1979 and 1980. Mr. Oren began his industry career at Eastman-Whipstock, and then served in roles of increasing responsibility at Smith International, Teleco, Munro Garrett International, GeoGraphix and GeoStar Solutions. Before joining HSI in 2011, his most recent position was senior manager of technology and innovation–D&C Solutions, at Halliburton/Landmark Graphics. Mr. Oren has authored several technical papers and articles on horizontal well drilling and unconventional resource development.

www.bartington.com

Miniature Probes for MWD

Mag614 and Mag615 Three-Axis Fluxgate Probes

• 175oC operation

• Mag614(25x10x20mm)andMag615(20x17x20mm)

• Noise:<300pTrms/√Hzat1Hz

• Roomtemperatureelectronics

• PCBschematicavailable

NEW Solid Expandable Solutions

www.enventuregt.com 281.552.2200

∙ Increase production∙ Reduce risk∙ Lower NPT∙ Reinforce casing∙ Seal off perforations∙ Repair damaged casing∙ Increase ID at TD

Expand YOUR possibilitIes

®

Please come by booth #1314 at the SPE-ATCE exhibit for a technical presentation and special gift.

Enventure Image SPE ATCE 1-4 page Ad WO 042114.indd 1 9/4/2014 2:53:33 PM



Documents

WO 10 2014 Oren