Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Summary
Backreaming is the practice of pumping and rotating the drillstring
while simultaneously pulling out of the hole. When reliable topdrive drilling systems (TDSs) on conventional drilling rigs were
introduced more than 25 years ago, the practice of backreaming
became a popular technique in the drillers toolbox for tripping out
of hole initially in deviated wells.
In general, backreaming operations have become a popular
solution to poor hole conditions while pulling out of hole, but
they are also notorious for causing the very same problems they
are supposed to prevent, such as stuck pipe. If backreaming is not
performed properly, it may complicate the operations, cause wellbore-stability issues, cause higher equivalent circulating densities
(ECDs), and cause stuck-pipe incidents caused by packoffs.
As part of the companys stuck-pipe prevention initiative, it
became clear that when backreaming is carried out in a wellbore
that has a large amount of cuttings and/or cavings, it can cause
problems rather than solve them if it is not done with sufficient
care. Also, backreaming and tripping operations were usually occasions when the rig-based team went to a low-vigilance level. On
the basis of historical cases, it was concluded that in the majority of instances, there were no clear guidelines on when to start,
how to do it, when to slow down, and when to stop backreaming
operations. A review of industry literature also indicated a lack of
procedures generally for backreaming.
As a result of the analysis of the real-time data from several
case histories, a plan was put in place to improve backreaming
operations, define the situations that require backreaming, and
focus on tripping practices to prevent stuck-pipe incidents and
tool failures.
This paper focuses on one of the industrys most controversial subjects, reviews the implications of backreaming by using
real-time data and case histories, and suggests proven procedures
to trouble-free backreaming. It recommends the conditions that
require backreaming and also suggests wellbore conditions that are
not recommended for backreaming. More importantly, it proposes
key drilling parameters that need to be monitored when backreaming. These include pump pressure, torque, hookload, cuttings rate,
and downhole measurements (if available) to detect and prevent
backreaming-induced operational problems. In addition, this paper
provides guidelines for successful backreaming operations and
defines conditions that may be resolved without needing to backream. Backreaming guidelines have been developed on the basis of
the companys worldwide operations, supported by real-time case
histories and an extensive stuck-pipe prevention program.
Introduction
Backreaming can be thought of as drilling backwards to trip out
of the hole when there is a problem pulling the pipe out of the hole
without rotation and circulation.
In the early 1970s, Brown Oil Tool and Bowen developed the
first electric power swivel; then, in 1983, a Varco electric power
swivel was designed and placed on two jackup rigs. This swivel
was called a TDS. It had a 1,000-hp motor and pipe-handling
system (Eustes 2007). In the past, all hole problems were handled
with a Kelly, and trying to backream with a Kelly was not a very
efficient operation because of excessive time required and limitations of these systems. The development of the TDSs provided a
new opportunity to trip out of hole using widescale backreaming.
Backreaming operations have since been widely adopted to resolve
wellbore-related issues. In general, backreaming is performed
When there is a problem to trip out of the hole normally
without circulation and rotation
To prepare the wellbore to run logs
To prepare the wellbore to run casing
To eliminate tight-hole conditions
To clean the hole to eliminate cuttings beds and hole cavings
However, the requirement for backreaming is often not well
defined, and the criteria to backream safely are not well communicated to the driller. In general, when there is a backreaming
or tripping operation, the rig-team vigilance level may be lower
than usual, even though these operations require special attention
because of the risks involved in tripping and backreaming operations. Another problem is that most of the drillstring components,
especially bottomhole-assembly (BHA) components, are designed
to work in compression while drilling with weight on bit, and
backreaming exerts some additional loads and forces that can lead
to tool failures.
It has been reported in the industry that focusing on training
helped reduce stuck-pipe incidents by 70%, and a majority of the
incidents are because of hole cleaning and solids-induced packoffs.
Also, some operators have reported that the worldwide stuck-pipe
cost was approximately USD 250 million/yr in the early 1990s
(Hopkins and Leicksenring 1995). Currently, the exact cost of
industry stuck-pipe events is unknown but is estimated at more than
USD 1 billion/yr. Currently, there are no industry statistics available on stuck-pipe incidents that have occurred while backreaming.
In fact, a literature search revealed a lack of information generally
on backreaming. However, the impact of backreaming on stuckpipe incidents can be estimated on the basis of solids-induced
packoffs that during 200406 accounted for approximately 65% of
stuck-pipe incidents (Yarim et al. 2007). Reviewing the companys
own stuck-pipe statistics, it was evident that the majority of these
solids-induced packoff incidents occurred while tripping out of the
hole and backreaming.
The company decided to prepare an in-house course to train
project teams and rig crews in stuck-pipe prevention fundamentals that focused on how to clean the hole, how to safely trip out
of the hole, and which defined conditions require backreaming.
Backreaming is always treated as a last resort after all other efforts
are exhausted to trip out of the hole. A stuck-pipe prevention and
mitigation plan was prepared, and resources were put in place,
which was described in a previous paper (Yarim et al. 2007). The
plan focused on improving the drilling teams skills through training and detailed incident investigations, along with active interaction and coaching to the project teams, which had some success
in reducing stuck-pipe frequency and impact.
The stuck-pipe prevention initiative also involved developing
specific tripping and backreaming procedures, and it includes
treating any tight spot as a hole-cleaning problem first and not
connecting the topdrive to backream immediately, limiting overpull values based on field knowledge and normal drag values, and
monitoring drilling parameters constantly to adjust backreaming
speed to detect problems early and to prevent adverse effects
caused by backreaming. In addition, a strategy of implementing
27
real-time surveillance of critical drilling operations from operations-support centers since 2007 is also having a positive impact
on stuck-pipe-incident frequency.
The Application of the Backreaming Technique
There are several wellbore conditions that may require backreaming, but there are also conditions where backreaming should be
avoided. As a first action, the well always should be treated for
hole cleaning first.
Conditions That May Require Backreaming.
When tripping out of the hole cannot be carried out on the
elevators without excessive overpull and the risk of stuck pipe
If there are concerns about swabbing, especially with balled-up
bit/BHA (although pumping out of hole could be an alternative)
Where there is insufficient mud weight to hold back plastic
formations (e.g., salt, mobile shales) to allow normal tripping
procedures
If there are known wellbore mechanical issues (e.g., tight-hole
conditions that cannot be resolved by circulating)
Conditions Where Backreaming Should Be Avoided (If
Possible).
When tripping out of the hole is possible without circulation
and rotation (i.e., backreaming should not be automatic especially
in wells with < 30 inclination)
When backreaming may destabilize the formation (e.g., where
there is pre-existing fractured/failed rock)
Where cuttings beds exist in high-angle wells and the risk
of packoff is high
Where rig pumps have insufficient capacity for adequate
hole cleaning
On the basis of a review of stuck-pipe case histories, it became
clear that each well needs to be treated separately, and operational
conditions and procedures need to be identified for each hole section. There is no single solution that will work for all well types.
However, there are good practices that can be followed to minimize
the risk of getting stuck while backreaming. In general, vertical
wells are easier to clean because there is a lower risk related to
cuttings beds, avalanching, and flow distribution in the wellbore.
Problems With Backreaming
Backreaming requires additional rig time compared to tripping
on the elevators. This may or may not be justified, depending on
the actual wellbore conditions as described in the preceding section. Some operators consider backreaming to be nonproductive
time. Additional problems and challenges with backreaming are
described in the next subsections.
Hole Cleaning and the Risk of Packoffs. If backreaming operations are conducted too fast, solids from washouts and cavings are
introduced into the circulating system at a rate faster than that at
which the hole is being cleaned. This can then result in a packoff.
It should not be assumed that any resistance is always at the bit;
stabilizer and drill-collar contact may be indicative of a buildup of
loose material in the hole and a potential packoff situation.
As the wellbore inclination increases, especially between 30
60, hole cleaning becomes more critical, and the well becomes
more prone to cutting beds and avalanches. Fig. 1 shows how
cuttings react in deviated wellbores on the basis of tests conducted
previously by M-I Drilling Fluids (Zamora et al. 1993).
It can also be seen in Fig. 2 that if the backreaming operations
are conducted in high-cuttings-bed environments, pump pressure,
torque, and overpull values all increase and have a tendency to
fluctuate as cuttings are moved in the well. There are cases when
a cuttings bed can even be encountered inside the casings in
high-angle wells (Zamora et al. 1993). In this case, backreaming
becomes even more challenging because of additional casing-wear
considerations.
It is important to note that the velocity of the backreaming shall
not exceed the upward movement of the cuttings in the wellbore.
The following is a classic scenario while backreaming out of the
hole in a high-angle well: The hole is circulated before initiating
the trip. Backreaming out of the hole starts; extra care is taken for
the first 10 stands; no overpulls occur; the driller gains confidence
and progressively increases the backreaming speed. After 30 or 50
stands of drillpipe have been pulled, the stand-pipe pressure suddenly increases, and string movement is no longer possible. The
string is now packed off and stuck in cuttings beds. This scenario
can be prevented by following the recommended approach to
backreaming described in this paper.
Another consideration is the cuttings generated while backreaming. In one case in Algeria, the 1338-in. casing had to be
set 16 m off-bottom because of cuttings settling on bottom after
backreaming in a vertical section. The mud properties while drilling the original hole had been reduced before the planned depth.
Consequently, the entire trip out of hole and the backreaming was
performed with low rheology properties and with a flow rate that
was only 50% of drilling flow rate. This significantly reduced
the capability of the mud to carry the cuttings out and suspend
the cuttings (gels). Some backreaming is common in this section
because of insufficient mud weight to hold back plastic formations
including salt, which prevents tripping normally. In this case, the
backreamed section while pulling out of hole was longer than
1000 m. If we consider that the backreaming affected 18 in. of wall
thickness, this generated 2 m3 of cuttings equivalent to 15.6 m in
length in a 16-in. hole.
>60
Cuttings
transportation
Dune
transport
Moving bed
Stationary
bed
Restricted
cted annulus or high amount of cuttings:
gh/fluctuating pump pressure
High/fluctuating
gh/fluctuating torque
High/fluctuating
gh/fluctuating over pull
High/fluctuating
Fig. 2 Backreaming in high-cuttings-bed environments.
2. Related to the weight of the string, the geometry of the wellbore, and the rotation of the string (axial, bending, and torsional
forces = Von Mises stress).
During backreaming, all drillstring stresses are taking place:
axial stress caused by tension, bending stress caused by the curvature of the string according to the wellbore tortuosity, and torsional
stress caused by rotation.
The contact of the drillpipe and BHA components with the
wellbore under this stressed condition will increase the friction
caused by the tension and rotation, and thus will increase the side
forces.
The excess side forces induced while backreaming along with
incorrect practices can lead to accelerated casing and BHA wear
and undesirable situations such as twistoffs. If casing wear is suspected (e.g., because of high doglegs near surface leading to high
side forces), then rotation off-bottom should be minimized.
Backreaming can reduce the fatigue life of the drillpipe
significantly because of the reversal stress of the drillstring under
tension in a dogleg, especially if the doglegs are shallow and severe
and the pipe is under high tension.
The minimum torsional yield strength of the pipe under tension
can be determined from API RP 7G, Appendix 9.2 (1998):
QT =
P2
0.096167 J
Ym 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
D
A
Description: Time Log Format: TimeLogFormat Index Scale: 1 in per 600 s Index Type: Time Creation Date: 18-Jun-2008 16:01:32
Surface_rpm
(RPM)
0
Block_position
(BPOS)
0
ft
Hookload (HKLD)
0
klbf
500
150
Rop*5 (ROP5)
500
ft/ h
00
klbf
100
3.15
MWD_ShkPk
(SHKPK_RT)
Surface_wob
(SWOB)
0
G's
c/min
Surface_torque
(STOR)
200 0
kft.lbf
Stand_pipe_pressure
(SPPA)
300
MWD_CRPM
(CRPM_RT)
0
c/min 300
Shock_Risk
(SHKRSK_RT)
2500
psi
4500
Bit_on_bottom
(BONB)
Total_pump_flow
-10
1
(FLWI)
StickSlip
(STICK_RT)
c/min 300 0
25 0
gal/mi n 1000
Sep.03-2006
12:00
Sep.03-2006
12:20
Investigation Findings.
Stuck-pipe event was because of solids-induced packoff while
backreaming.
Drilled last 996 m with an average rate of penetration (ROP)
of 21 m/hr before the event.
There were multiple problems with the wash pipe preventing
continuous flow rate to clean the hole sufficiently.
Hole circulated 1.6 times bottoms up before POOH.
Only 253 gal/min while backreaming in 12-in. hole with
150 rev/min and 3,900-psi standpipe pressure. This compares to
550 gal/min while drilling, which is an indication that the hole
was not clean.
The flow rate was constrained by the high pump pressure
using 5-in. drillpipe.
Geomechanics post-drilling analysis indicates mechanical
hole instability (cavings) because of geological stress-convergence
area (see Fig. 5).
Caliper log shows 40 m of 19-to-20-in. washout below the 1338in.-casing shoe, which aggravated the hole-cleaning problem.
The driller did not follow best practices (exceeded overpull
limits and went straight to backreaming after overpull instead of
running back down to circulate and clean the well).
Case-Study Conclusions. This event was entirely preventable
because there were clear indications of hole-cleaning problems
before the stuck pipe.
Tripping and backreaming practices were not followed:
Backreaming was the first action to resolve tight-hole
conditions.
March 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
P/U String
30 Tons overpull
Break Connection
Back Reaming
Loss Circulation
Pack Off
(MFOA 0%)
Pressure Increase f/
3900 psi to 4200 psi
Working String
Trapped Pressure
1600 psi
Possible
unstable
fault
31
Backreaming with
2000 psi
1500 ft-lbs
430 gpm
75125 RPM
Pump pressure
increasing and
erratic (indication of
hole packing off)
In this case, the decision was to connect the topdrive immediately when the tight spots were detected. The best course of
action would have been to focus on hole cleaning and observing
backreaming parameters more closely to prevent the stuck-pipe
incident. When a large amount of cavings, increased pump pressure, and high torque and overpulls were observed, the driller
should have gone down instead of forcing the drillstring out of the
hole while backreaming.
As a result of this incident, project-specific tripping and backreaming procedures and project-specific training, including the rig
team, have been implemented.
Recommended Approach to Backreaming
Operations
On the basis of the findings of a number of backreaming case
histories, such as the examples included in this paper, operational
procedures for tight-hole conditions and backreaming have been
established. An example procedure to backream in 8-in.-hole section can be seen in Appendix A. The main focus of the procedure is
Trip out of
the hole
Monitor the
hole drag
Tight spot
Excess
O/P based
on limit
NO
Run back
2-3 stands
Run back
2-3 stands
Likely cause :
Well bore
geometry or
mechanical
NO
POOH with
caution to the
previous
tight spot
NO
Overpull at
same depth
Likely cause:
Hole cleaning
YES
Well bore
instability?
YES
YES
Backream
(away from the
tight spot)
with drilling flow
rate and RPM
Is there
still a tight
spot?
NO
33
what the normal torque and drag are and what the corresponding
pump pressure to the required flow rate is to establish references.
Increasing or erratic torque and/or pump pressure are good indicators of whether the backreaming speed is too fast and the annulus
is loading up with cuttings. Backreaming speed should be reduced
if pressure and torque trends are not stable.
Cuttings returns at surface, including the rate over time, should
be monitored continuously, and any sign of cavings should be
observed. The percentage, size, and any changes in the volume of
cavings should also be noted.
As backreaming takes place and generates a high amount of solids
in the annular space, it causes the ECD to increase. The ECD from
APWD measurements will give an indication of the changing concentration of cuttings in the annulus, although this will be less sensitive at
high-inclination sections of the well. Fig. 8 shows a real example where
monitoring ECD data from MWD tools was used to decide to circulate
bottoms to lower cuttings concentration in the annulus because of backreaming. In this example, backreaming resulted in the ECD increasing
from 1.67 to 2.03 g/cm3. As can be seen in Fig. 8, the application of
APWD technology has provided additional input to slow down the
backreaming speed and increase the circulating time to eliminate the
cuttings accumulation, thus lowering the risk of stuck pipe.
Real-Time Surveillance From Operations-Support Centers.
The company has implemented a strategy of real-time surveillance
of key drilling operations from operations-support centers.
In general, operations-support-center surveillance of tripping
can reduce stuck-pipe incidents through enforcement of good tripping practices such as circulating multiple bottoms up before tripping on directional wells, limiting maximum overpull, and using
good parameters while backreaming, as discussed earlier in the
paper. Stuck-pipe prevention awareness is increased, and reviewing
the real-time data from actual events also helps train the rig team.
Monitoring from an operations-support center provides additional
real-time support to field personnel for event detection and enables
engineers working in the center to monitor multiple wells simultaneously. However, for event detection and mitigation to be effective, it is critical that the project-specific roles and responsibilities
of wellsite and operations-support-center personnel be defined and
understood in advance. Real-time surveillance does not remove the
primary responsibility of the on-site wellsite supervisor.
In the following example from Algeria (see Fig. 9), the operations-support center observed backreaming operations in 16-in.
hole at 1,400 L/min (370 gal/min) compared with the drilling flow
rate of 3,200 L/min (845 gal/min). A recommendation was sent to
the wellsite supervisor to increase the flow rate to the drilling flow
rate, and he agreed to increase it from 44 to 80% of the drilling
flow rate for subsequent backreaming.
In the operations-support center, drilling data are assessed continuously in the real-time monitoring software and analyzed with
the help of the real-time torque-and-drag and hydraulics models,
which are vital aids in stuck-pipe prevention. This software has
been described in a previous paper (McLaren et al. 2007). Hookload and surface torque are calculated continuously and compared
to actual measurement values highlighting deviations such as
excess drag caused by poor hole cleaning rather than drag as a
result of hole tortuosity. However, the current torque-and-drag
model has limitations for backreaming because there is no component for the torque generated by the stabilizers and bit cutting
into the formation while backreaming (rotational friction effect
only is considered). This can be seen clearly in Fig. 10 where
the actual torque while backreaming significantly exceeds the
calculated torque.
The real-time software also includes automatic rig activity
detection known as rig states that has the ability to bin time
data into a series of rig states (e.g., slide drilling, backreaming)
by analysis of specific-time data channels. This is described in
detail by McLaren et al. (2007). This allows a rig-activity time
breakdown based on the real-time data (see Fig. 11). The percentage time or total hours backreaming can then be correlated with
the drilling practices in use, such as the mud weight and the BHA,
and compared to offset wells.
Today, we have intervention based on real-time monitoring, but
in the future, drilling automation may provide a better preventive
solution to stuck pipe by reducing reliance on rig personnel following procedures. This may help combat the difficulty in hiring
experienced rig personnel during a time of industry expansion. In
the industry, field testing is already being carried out in automated
tripping in and out of hole where the driller cannot exceed certain
limits based on models such as swab/surge updated in real time
(Iversen et al. 2008).
Results
A combination of stuck-pipe prevention and improved operations
have resulted in a reduction in company stuck-pipe incidents, especially while tripping and backreaming out of the hole.
Table 1 shows the stuck-pipe statistics for a project in Algeria and a project in Mexico where, in addition to the stuck-pipe
training of the drillers and the project team, real-time surveillance
from operations-support centers was implemented in Q3 and Q4
2007. As a result of significant focus on stuck-pipe prevention and
mitigation, stuck-pipe costs per operating day were reduced by 50
and 84%, respectively.
Conclusions
1. Since the advent of reliable TDSs, the practice of backreaming
became a popular technique in the drillers toolbox for tripping
out of hole. However, many stuck-pipe incidents occur while
tripping and backreaming out of hole, and it is clear that this is
a high-risk activity.
March 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
2.0%
2.6%
Data Gap Stationary
1.2% Pump
2.3%
Other*
7.1%
Rotate, Pump
In Slips 35.8%
18.1% Pull Up
Inc/K
(days)
Mexico
Inc/MM
(ft)
SP Cost/Day
($)
Inc/K
(days)
Inc/MM
(ft)
2,789
10.62
6.19
5160
8.36
9.35
1,385
10.58
5.88
821
4.42
3.98
References
API RP 7G, Drill Stem Design and Operating Limits, sixteenth edition.
1998. Washington, DC: API.
Eustes, A.W. III. 2007. The Evolution of Automation in Drilling. Paper
SPE 111125 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 1114 November. doi:
10.2118/111125-MS.
Hopkins, C.J. and Leicksenring, R.A. 1995. Reducing the Risk of Stuck
Pipe in The Netherlands. Paper SPE 29422 presented at theSPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 29 February2 March. doi:
10.2118/29422-MS.
Iversen, F.P., Cayeux, E., Dvergsnes, E.W., Ervik, R., Byrkjeland, M.,
Welmer, M., Torsvoll, A., Karimi Balov, M., Haugstad, E., and Merlo,
A. 2008. Offshore Field Test of a New Integrated System for Real-Time
Optimisation of the Drilling Process. Paper SPE 112744 presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 46
March. doi: 10.2118/112744-MS.
McLaren, G., Hayes, M.J.S., Brown, N.M., Okafor, Z., and Megat, I. 2007.
Improving the Value of Real-Time Drilling Data To Aid Collaboration,
Drilling Optimization and Decision Making. Paper SPE 110563 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 1114 November. doi: 10.2118/110563-MS.
Yarim, G., Uchytil, R., May, R., Trejo, A., and Church, P. 2007. Stuck
Pipe PreventionA Proactive Solution to an Old Problem. Paper
SPE 109914 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 1114 November. doi:
10.2118/109914-MS.
Zamora, M., Jefferson, D.T., and Powell, J.W. 1993. Hole Cleaning Study
of Polymer-Based Drilling Fluids. Paper SPE 26329 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October. doi: 10.2118/26329-PA.
March 2010 SPE Drilling & Completion
38