SPE/IADC-168945-MS

Overcoming a 0.35 ppg Mud Weight Window – A Case History of Successful

Automated Managed Pressure Drilling and Managed Pressure Cementing
Offshore Malaysia
Lee Jin Ming, Mohammed Mousa, Trigunadi B. Setiawan, Warjanto Saikam, Sagi V. R Raju, Ahmad Zahir,
W Nor Afiqah, M Abshar B M Noor, M Mizuar B Omar, PETRONAS; Freddy Rojas Rodriguez, Andi Eka Prasetia,
Dylan Richards, Fernando Gallo, M-I SWACO, a Schlumberger Company

Copyright 2014, SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Madrid, Spain, 8-9 April 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
TA is an over-pressurized well in the field development project located Offshore Peninsular Malaysia. Although the well was
drilled as a development well, it also had an exploration objective as it was the first to penetrate the over pressured zones
across a fault in the TA field.
An initial attempt to drill conventionally resulted in severe gain and loss scenarios across the first of three sands 80 m below
the 7” casing shoe, primarily due to weak coal formations. After many attempts to control losses, it was decided to plug-
abandon the 6” open hole and to temporarily suspend the well due to insufficient operating window to drill ahead. After a year
of suspension, a new drilling approach using a statically underbalanced mud weight (MW) in combination with an Automated
Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) system was introduced as the best solution for drilling into the well objectives. During the
planning stage, different scenarios were analyzed based on the formation fracture gradient (FG) and pore pressure (PP)
estimations. MPD plans were designed based on statically underbalanced mud while drilling, running the liner, and during the
cementing job.

During drilling, Dynamic Flow Checks (DFC) and Dynamic Formation Integrity Tests (DFIT) were performed using the MPD
system to identify and confirm operating window. The target total depth was successfully reached with mud weighted within
the narrow 0.35 ppg drilling window (17.8 - 18.1 ppg). Decision was then made to top kill the well at 1200 m-MDDF with
18.30 ppg mud, providing an overbalanced condition of 85 psi. Open hole logging operations were then successfully executed.
The well was then displaced to a 16.30 ppg mud prior to performing Managed Pressure Cementing (MPC). This technical
paper aims to discuss all of the MPD - MPC challenges faced and best practices developed during both the planning and
execution stages of the program.

Introduction - Well History

The TA well is one of the over-pressurized wells in the field development project located Offshore Peninsular Malaysia.
Although the well was drilled as a development well, it also had an exploration objective since it was the first well to penetrate
the over pressured zones across a fault in the TA field. Three appraisal wells which were drilled much earlier did not cross this
fault. In the first attempt to reach total depth (TD) of the well, an unexpected steep pressure ramp was discovered while
drilling through the fault. The 7” liner was required to be set at 2011 m-MDDF after drilling across the fault during the first
drilling attempt of the well. The formation strength at the bottom of the 7” liner shoe was tested to be as high as 19.0 ppg
which would have given adequate pressure window margin to drill ahead with 6” hole and reach planned total depth of the
well. Figure-1 shows the planned well trajectory. Unfortunately, a significant coal layer was encountered after drilling only 23
2 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

m. The coal layer not only lowered the fracture gradient from 19.00 ppg to 18.30 ppg, it also caused a severe ballooning or
supercharging effect. To make it worst, the formation pressure at 2068 m-MDDF indicated a pressure of 16.7 ppg EMW.
Given the narrow pressure window of 1.58 ppg and the sign of the continuously increasing pressure ramp, the decision was
then made to stop drilling at 2084 m-MDDF and suspend the well. It was deemed that had drilling been continued, the
cementing operation for the hole section would have been impossible. The 6” open hole section was finally plugged back with
cement & temporarily suspended.

After the suspension of the TA well, another over-pressurized well in the field was drilled successfully to the planned total
depth. Although the well did not cross the fault, it provided the opportunity for the drilling team to re-visit TA well using
similar drilling strategy. TA well revisit was planned with the application of MPD for drilling, running 4-1/2” liner and
performing cementing in the narrow mud weight window environment with the use of a statically underbalanced mud weight.
Although statically underbalanced drilling was planned, the equivalent circulating density (ECD) while drilling was lower than
simulated giving adequate window for the use of statically overbalanced mud weight.

Automated MPD System

The drilling team considered the use of MPD because they felt it would help ascertain the downhole pressure environment
limits and to manage the hydraulic annular pressure accordingly. In addition to that MPD also provides early indication of well
gain or loss by monitoring of flow-in through stroke counters and flow out with a Coriolis flow meter measurement.

The automated MPD system consists of hydraulically operated choke manifold, the surface back pressure pump (BPP) and a
control system, which incorporates a programmable logic controller (PLC) and runs real time hydraulic simulations based on
actual drilling parameters to calculate the surface back pressure (BP) required to maintain the bottom hole pressure at a
predetermined value. Also, a rotating control device (RCD) is required to create a close loop drilling system. Additionally, the
MPD system is equipped with flow out monitoring system which enhances the rig kick detection capabilities.

It is crucial to maintain the over balanced condition of the well at all time, especially when statically underbalanced mud
weight (MW) is being used where the well hydrostatic pressure will decrease below pore pressure when circulation is stopped.
Figure - 2 shows the MPD system utilized for the TA well.

MPD Plan
Given the extremely narrow mud weight window expected in the TA well, the bottom hole pressure (BHP) was planned to be
maintained in the operating window by manipulating the surface MW and surface BP. The Automated MPD system will
calculate the required BP to maintain the over balanced condition at all times.

MPD objectives for the TA well revisit were:

1. To drill with a static underbalanced mud weight while maintaining the overbalanced condition at all times.
2. To determine, or map, the operating mud weight window to allow for drilling, tripping and running liner safely to TD
by performing dynamic flow checks by decreasing surface back pressure in stages until a slight gain is detected and by
performing dynamic formation integrity tests (FIT) to determine fracture pressure.
3. To provide early well gain and loss detection.
4. To perform MPD cementing with under balanced MW.

Prior to returning to the TA well detailed programs were prepared based upon experiences and data from offset over pressured
well drilling operations. The well was categorized as exploratory as no offset wells had been drilled deeper into the targeted
sands. In order to minimize the PP-FG uncertainty, it was decided to take direct pressure downhole measurements while
drilling with formation pressure while drilling LWD and/or use Dynamic Flow Checks in case the direct measurement fails to
get the pressure reading. The MPD Plan was based on 18.1 ppg as the expected highest PP at the third and final target sand
which would represent the worst case scenario having FG of 18.6 ppg, due to the presence of coal layers. The plan included re-
drilling the 6" hole to original target depth of 2353 m-MDDF penetrating the over pressurized sands. The TA well was
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 3

carefully planned to use a statically underbalanced mud weight with the application of MPD during drilling and also during 4-
1/2" liner running and cementing. Figure 3 shows the MPD Drilling Plan based on the expected PP and FG with planned steps
to increase the mud weight. Drilling scenario analysis and a decision tree were also prepared to anticipate for variances in the
actual well challenges. (Refer to Table-1 and Figure-4).

MPD operational and contingency procedures were put in place which included procedures for equipment rigging up and
testing, dynamic FIT’s and for RCD element change-outs, etc. This included references in identifying the correct mitigation
plan for such unplanned events as loss of rig power, MPD back pressure pump failure, float valve failure, etc. The DAPC
system was designed to automatically adjust the annular pressure to maintain required bottom hole pressure (BHP) during
unplanned events such as reduced pumping rate due to mud pump failure. The rig crew, working together with the onsite MPD
Team, further mitigated risks by undergoing training to take proper corrective action in the event of MPD system
malfunctions. Familiarization training was conducted on the rig on a regular basis in order to keep the rig personnel familiar
with unplanned events indicators and corrective responses. In addition, kick drills (back flow from the well due to
underbalanced condition) were also conducted to ensure all personnel involved in the drilling operations understood their roles
and responsibilities should an influx occur.

Another important operating guideline was the MPD operating matrix which served as a guideline for the MPD and rig crews
to determine when the drilling operation was outside of the MPD operating conditions. The MPD operating matrix for the TA
well required that the well should be shut-in if flow out increased more than 20 gpm greater than the drilling flow rate. Figure-
5 refers to the MPD operating matrix that was implemented for the well. MPD operational and contingency procedures,
Management of Change policy, and training of essential personnel on board were strictly enforced and monitored. These
detailed programs and mitigation plans decreased the risks to acceptable levels to drill the well statically underbalanced.

MPD 6” Hole Section - Drilling

The well was first displaced with 16.8 ppg mud above the suspension cement plug and the cement plug was drilled to 2084 m-
MDDF plugged back depth. MPD was utilized to keep the BHP constant with 17.20 ppg ECD during connections or other rig
pump off events. Once the plug was drilled and the hole cleaned, a dynamic formation integrity test (DFIT) was performed
with MPD equipment resulting in 18.6 ppg as shown in Figure-6. The drilling of the 6" open hole resumed at 2084m-MDDF
with 170 gpm and maintaining a 17.2 ppg ECD. PWD data confirmed a lower ECD than initially modeled, at 0.5 ppg
equivalent, so the modeling was adjusted and drilling resumed. While drilling statically overbalanced, MPD was used to
continuously “map” the pressure window to ensure ECD remained within the pressure window. At 2103 m-MDDF, a dynamic
flow check (DFC) was performed by decreasing surface back pressure (SBP) from 270 psi (17.20 ppg EMW) initially to 240
psi (17.10 ppg EMW) and then to 200 psi (17.00 ppg EMW); while the well was static. MW was then increased to 17.00 ppg
in anticipation of a pore pressure increase to 17.5 ppg equivalent at 2158 m-MDDF.

Drilling continued from 2103 to 2144 m-MDDF maintaining a back pressure of 120 - 130 psi during drilling and 330 psi
during connections for a BHP of 17.5 ppg EMW at the bit. A drilling break was observed at 2132 to 2135 m-MDDF (10-15%
sandstone in samples confirmed new formation) and maximum gas peak of 10.16% was recorded from this sandstone
formation. Figure-7 shows the DFC result performed at depth of 2134 m-MDDF. Mud weight was further increased from
17.0 to 17.3 ppg at 2144.24 m-MDDF. This was based on the 17.4 ppg predicted pore pressure at this depth. Once a 17.3 ppg
MW in and out was observed, a DFC was performed by reducing back pressure in 50 psi steps from 229 psi (17.80 ppg) to 0
(17.30 ppg). With zero back pressure, the well was monitored on the trip tank for 10 min and observed to be static, with no
background gas recorded. It was confirmed that the well was statically overbalanced with 17.3 ppg MW and drilling continued
maintaining BHP at 17.8 ppg EMW with MPD.

At 2172 m-MDDF, a direct LWD formation pressure reading was taken, confirming 17.0 ppg EMW. Although the well was
still in an overbalanced condition, the drilling team decided to increase MW to 17.6 ppg in anticipation of further pressure
ramps. Drilling continued with SBP being applied during connections only to maintain BHP at 17.9 ppg EMW. At 2262 m-
MDDF, while attempting to conduct a DFIT to 18.60 ppg, losses were observed at 18.3 ppg EMW, 0.3ppg EMW lower than
that performed at 2,084 m-MDDF below 7” liner shoe. The SBP was bleed off immediately and incremental flow out was
observed, suspecting wellbore breathing. The SBP was immediately adjusted to control wellbore breathing by keeping the
4 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

EMW between 18.1 – 18.3 ppg. Drilling resumed applying 50 psi SBP during drilling and 110 psi during connection to
maintain the BHP in the range of 18.1 – 18.3 ppg EMW.

At 2303 m-MDDF, another direct LWD formation pressure reading was taken, this time 17.83 ppg EMW. The well was then
drilled to planned TD at 2353 m-MDDF. A DFIT was performed for fracture gradient “mapping” data to finalize the liner
running and cementing plan. The formation leaked at 18.17 ppg EMW, confirming a pressure window margin of0.35 ppg.
Figure-8 shows the overall MPD strategy summary for TA well. Before pulling out of hole (POOH), 31 bph losses were
observed while circulating at 140 gpm. A total of two formation strengthening pills were spotted in the open hole to minimize
losses and enable pulling the string out of the hole safely.

MPD 6” Hole Section - Tripping

The original plan for tripping was to strip out of the hole from well TD to the shoe while maintaining constant BHP with
MPD. The well was planned to be displaced with kill MW at the shoe and then POOH conventionally. The actual strategy was
changed to a top kill at 1200 m-MDDF with kill MW of 18.3 ppg as the process would give an equivalent MW of 18.0 ppg at
the well TD and thus create an 80 psi over balanced condition. Figure-9 shows the MPD rollover / displacement plan for
tripping MW. This method was preferred rather than displacing the well at bottom with heavier MW (MW giving equivalent
18.0 ppg hydrostatic column) because it gave less ECD effect on bottom and therefore reduced the risk of losses.

While displacing the well to 18.3 ppg MW at 1195 m-MDDF, massive losses were still observed; a decision was made to run
back to 2020 m-MDDF while filling the annulus with 17.9 ppg mud. Two pills of loss circulation material (LCM) were
necessary to reduce the fluid losses down to 1 bph during static conditions. The well was monitored for a period of time and
determined to be stable prior to stripping out of the hole while maintaining the well on over balanced condition with SBP. At
1200 m-MDDF, and later again at 800 m-MDDF, the well was displaced to 18.3 ppg kill MW with no losses, creating EMW at
well TD of 18.0 ppg. The drill string was safely pulled out of hole and the well remained static. The wireline logging program
was conducted with no well issues and confirm the pore pressure,

MPD 6” Hole Section - 4-1/2” Liner Run

Since the mud weight window was too narrow (0.35 ppg), as determined by LWD formation pressure measurement, wireline,
and DFIT at the TD, conventional liner running procedures could not be performed. The small clearance between the 9-5/8"
casing and 9-5/8" liner hanger plus a 5-1/2” drill pipe used for running the liner string would have led to high ECD values at
the moment circulation was established. The 4-1/2" liner used a 9-5/8" liner hanger crossover to 7" and 4-1/2" liner, set above
the previous 7" liner hanger. Cementing simulations were performed resulting in a plan to displace the well in steps to a light
mud weight (MW rollback) at 600 m, 1200 m, 1700 m, and 2324 m-MDDF while running in hole (RIH) with the 4-1/2" liner
string.

In order to satisfy the ECD limitations for the cementing job, the MW was reduced to 16.30 ppg (refer to Figure-10 for
cementing window) to prevent fracturing the formation during the cementing operation. While displacing the well at the last
step, BHP was calculated to be 585 psi statically underbalanced. In order to maintain the over balanced condition, SBP of 450
psi was applied on top of the friction losses while circulating at 200 gpm. Figure-11 shows the 4-1/2” liner running and light
mud rollback plan.

Liner running activities are graphically illustrated by Figure-12 and explained as follows:

Step 1: RIH 4-1/2” Liner to 600 m-MDDF and displace the well to a 16.30 ppg mud.
At this point, no backpressure was applied during displacement and 112 psi SBP was applied at the end of
displacement to keep 18.00 ppg EMW on bottom. No loss or gain was observed at this stage.
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 5

Step 2: RIH 4-1/2” Liner to 1200 m-MDDF and displace the well to a 16.30 ppg mud.
At the end of the displacement, 240 psi SBP was applied to keep the BHP at 18.00 ppg EMW. No loss or gain was
observed at this stage.

Step 3: RIH 4-1/2” Liner to 1700 m-MDDF and displace the well to a 16.30 ppg mud.
At the end of the displacement, 450 psi SBP was applied to keep the BHP at 18.00 ppg EMW. No loss or gain was
observed at this stage.

Step 4: RIH 4-1/2” Liner to 2352 m-MDDF (TD) and displace the well to a 16.30 ppg mud.
Well was displaced from 17.90 to 16.30 ppg MW at 2352 m-MDDF. However, a steady 20 % gas reading was
observed while circulating and applying 220 psi SBP, modeled to be BHP of 18.00 ppg EMW. It was suspected that
the hydraulics model had provided insufficient back pressure value. After reviewing the hydraulics model, SBP was
increased to 450 psi. The background gas decreased rapidly to 8%. At the end of displacement, 650 psi SBP was
applied as per new simulation results (revised and adapted as per actual parameters) in order to keep the BHP at 18.00
ppg EMW. Initial uncorrected SBP simulated value of 600 psi was found to be insufficient to provide required BHP.
The SBP simulation was then corrected based on actual well conditions and finally the well was observed to be static
with the application of 650 psi SBP with the pump off at the end of the 16.30 ppg mud displacement.

Managed Pressure Cementing (MPC) Application

The MPD system was used to assist during the cementing job by manipulating the BHP to stay within the well pressure
window. One challenge during the 4-1/2” liner cementing process was the reduction of the annulus flow area between 9-5/8"
liner hanger and 9-5/8" casing, creating high frictional pressure losses. This annulus restriction, combined with a very narrow
mud weight window, increased the risk of fluid losses, potentially compromising the well integrity should the cementing job
fail. The operation depended on SBP to provide sufficient BHP to maintain the over balanced condition. Any reductions in the
pump flow rate without proper SBP compensation could potentially lead to influx and well control issues.
Cementing simulations showed an ECD 0.33 ppg higher than hydraulics simulations used for MPD planning. Understanding
this discrepancy is necessary to best integrate an automated MPD cementing service. In this case, the cementing simulation
was selected as the foundation for planning, with a backpressure schedule for MPD derived accordingly, as shown in Figure-
13.

Upon execution, with 4-1/2” liner at bottom, the MPC was conducted with the following sequence of events (refer to Figure-
14 for the pressure record during cementing):

Step 1: Pressure Test Cementing Lines.

Cement lines were pressure tested offline to 6,500 psi. MPD maintained the circulation of 200 gpm using rig pump
combined with 450 psi SBP in order to keep the BHP at18.00 ppg EMW.

Step 2: Pump Wash Fluid.

An 8.50 ppg wash fluid was circulated through cement pump at the rate of 84 gpm. MPD applied 520 psi SBP in order
to keep the BHP at 18.00 ppg EMW. When the cement unit was gradually shut down, the SBP was ramped up to 650
psi at the end of step 2.

Step 3: Pump Cement Spacer.

The surface line was lined up to rig pumps. A 16.80 ppg cement spacer was pumped at 160gpm and MPD applied 450
psi SBP during pumping. When rig pumps were gradually shut down, the SBP was ramped up to 650 psi at the end of
step 3.

Step 4: Pump Cement Slurries.

17.50 ppg cement slurry was pumped from cement unit at 130 gpm and MPD applied 460 psi SBP during pumping.
When cement unit was gradually shut down, the SBP was ramped up to 650 psi at the end of step 4 to keep the bottom
hole pressure within the window.
6 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

Step 5: Drop Top Plug.

MPD applied 650 psi SBP and top plug was dropped from rig floor.

Step 6: Pump Displacement Fluid.

The cement was displaced with 16.30 ppg displacement at 180 gpm pump rate. MPD started with 430 psi SBP
application and slowly reduced in stages to 160 psi just before bumping the plugs in anticipating for high ECD after
cement entered the annulus.

Step 7: Bump Plugs.

After bumping plugs, string was pressure tested to 4000 psi/10 min. MPD applied 650 psi SBP.

Step 8: Set Liner Hanger & Release Running Tools.

Pump pressure was increased to 5300 psi to set the liner hanger. MPD applied 650 psi SBP.

Step 9: Pressure Bleed Off.

Cement unit pressure was bleed off. MPD applied 620 psi SBP to keep enough pressure just in case if the liner hanger
was not engaged properly

Step 10: Test of Liner Top Packers.

Top liner packers were pressure tested to 4700 psi from the annulus. MPD applied 620 psi SBP.

Step 11: Release SBP.

Once liner packers were pressure tested good, SBP was released to 0 psi.

Step 12: Reverse Circulation.

The well was reverse circulated at 160gpm.

The 4-1/2" liner cementing operations was successfully carried out as per plan, with no losses or gains recorded throughout the
whole cementing operation. The liner hanger was successfully set after the cementing operation without any issues.

Remarks and Conclusions

1. Despite the original design to have the well drilled with statically underbalanced MW, decisions made during
execution resulted in the MW at balance occasionally and overbalanced most of the time. The actual drilling allows
for statically overbalanced MW to be used and the well was drilled to TD without experiencing fluid loss.

2. It is recommended to maintain current MW if the DFC indicates the well is in static condition, in spite of any small
increments in connection gas. As observed in this well, unnecessary MW increases add to the risk of fluid losses.

3. Formation pressure while drilling tools are recommended as the primary method to validate and calibrate pore
pressure prediction results. MPD’s DFC can be used as the secondary method. MPD DFC is also recommended to be
performed on a close loop system utilizing trip tank to minimize influx volume.

4. A well top-kill operation was successfully executed while maintaining a balanced EMW. The segregation effect
between kill MW and well MW was analyzed but had a low effect since the MW difference of 18.30 ppg and 17.90
ppg respectively, was small.

5. Down hole Equivalent Mud Weight (EMW) can be highly affected by the formation temperature and is a concern in
tight operating windows. The temperature effect was simulated and results showed minimal effect in the EMW over
12, 24 and 36 hr. The TA well was at static conditions for more than 24 hrs while POOH, logging and liner running
with no influxes or losses.
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 7

6. Well displacement to a light MW while running liner is a challenging operation since the well will be in statically
under balanced condition at the end of displacement. Thus, mitigation plans needed to be put in place to maintain well
control. Success of the operation was tied to validation of the hydraulic simulations and reliability of the MPD
system. Moreover, personnel training, communication protocols and clear step by step procedures minimized any
possible errors.

7. The cement job was determined to be difficult without MPD due to a narrow mud weight window. The necessity to
displace the well to a 585 psi (1.50 ppg) hydrostatically under balanced fluid required MOC to use the MPD
equipment as part of the primary well control barrier. PCSB project drilling team and service companies (MPD &
Cementing) were involved in the risk assessment process to properly control and mitigate the risk. Furthermore,
calibration of the cementing model with the actual MPD condition was crucial to prevent influxes during the
operation. The cementing operation under statically underbalanced condition is the first for the Operator in Malaysia.
The success of the operation has set a new standard of operation for other wells that the Operator is planning to drill
in the future, involving similar marginal pressure windows for liner cementing. The technique could be most valuable
as a reference for deep water well where the hydrostatic pressure contributed by riser column narrows the pressure
window for cementing.

8. The Operator has been constantly exploring all possibilities to fully utilize MPD for drilling operations with tight
PP/FG windows, losses in carbonate, wellbore stability issues and finally cementing operations. This success story
illustrates the value derived from MPD, providing confidence for further applications of this technology.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to individuals who have contributed to make the TA well’s MPD
applications described in the paper a successful well, both staffs in town offices and, in particular, the field personnel at the rig
site. Also the authors would like to convey their special gratitude to PETRONAS and M-I SWACO (Schlumberger) for the
permission to publish the paper.

Reference

Nomenclature
BBL(s) = U.S Barrels
BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly.
BHP = Bottom Hole Pressure.
BPH = Barrel Per Hour
BOP = Blow Out Preventer.
CBHP = Constant Bottom Hole Pressure
DAPC = Dynamic Annular Pressure Control.
Deg C = Degree Celsius.
DFC = Dynamic Flow Check.
DFIT = Dynamic Formation Integrity Test.
DWOP = Drill Work on Paper.
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density.
EMW = Equivalent Mud Weight.
EKD = Early Kick Detection.
ESD = Equivalent Static Density.
FG = Fracture Gradient.
GPM = Gallon Per Minute.
HAZID = Hazard Identification.
HAZOP = Hazard Operability.
HWDP = Heavy Weight Drill Pipe.
LWD = Logging While Drilling.
M = Meter.
MDDF = Measured Depth (from) Drill Floor.
MPD = Managed Pressure Drilling.
8 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

MW = Mud Weight.
MWD = Measurement While Drilling.
NOOP = Notice of Operation (from Operator)
PP = Pore Pressure.
PPG = Pounds Per Gallon.
POOH = Pulling Out of Hole.
RCD = Rotating Control Device.
RIH = Run In Hole.
SBP = Surface Back Pressure.
TA = TA, Name of the Well.
TD = Target Depth.
TVDDF = True Vertical Depth (from) Drill Floor.
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 9

Figure-1 Well Geometry and Trajectory

Figure-2 MPD System Piping and Instrumentation Diagram

10 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

TA  WELL  
MPD  BASIS  OF  DESIGN
Equivalent Mud Weight (ppg)

16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5

2010 16.72
7''  liner  @2010  m -­‐MDDF

2060
16.72

2110

2,134

2160 17.51 Top  F10

Measured Depth (m-MDDF)

17.61 2,195 Top  H01

2210
18.60

2260

Top  H02

2310

17.7517.76 18.60

2360

EST.   PORE  PRESSURE  G RADIENT(NOOP) ECD+SBP Surface   MW FRACTURE  GRAD  (ppg) EWM   CONN.(ESD+SBP)

Figure-3 MPD Basis of Design Plan  

Table -1 .MPD Options customized based on the further actual PP/FG result  
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 11

Figure-4 MPD Decision Chart

Drilling TA WELL : 6" HS MPD DECISION MATRIX

Rate
200 During Drilling During Connection
gpm
Surface Back Pressure (SBP) < 150 psi SBP > 150psi Surface Back Pressure (SBP) < 700 psi SBP  >  700  psi  

Influx Influx  
Rate
0 gal 0 gal
Rate  
Continue Drilling Continue Connection
Influx Influx  
Duration
0 min 0 min
Duration
Influx Indicators

Influx 1. Notify the driller (stay alert to Influx  

< 20 gpm < 20 gpm 1. Notify the driller (stay alert to
Rate close the well) Rate  
close the well)
2. Observe and evaluate the
2. Observe and evaluate the flow
Influx flow out trends to confirm the Influx  
< 1 min < 1 min out trends to confirm the influx
Duration influx Duration

1. DRILLER TO SHUT IN THE WELL (MPD System 1. DRILLER TO SHUT IN THE WELL while MPD
Influx Influx  
Rate
> 20 gpm should automatically apply SBP while the Driller > 20 gpm continuing the pressure being held for the present
Rate  
ramps down the rig pumps to shut in BOP) connection +50 psi.
2. HAND OVER TO THE RIG - apply driller's method. 2. HAND OVER TO THE RIG - apply driller's method.
Influx Influx  
Duration
>1 min 3. EVALUATE NEXT ACTION > 1 min 3. EVALUATE NEXT ACTION
Duration
*It  is  important  to  update  regularly  both  static  and  dynamic  MAASP  calculation
*  The  driller  has  the  authority  to  shut  the  well  in  as  his  discretion  whenever  he  suspects  an  influx.
*  No  Influx  will  be  circulated  through  the  MPD  Equipment.  
*  Operator  and  Drilling  Contractor  well  control  procedures  will  apply  once  the  well  will  be  shut  in.  
Figure-5 MPD Decision Matrix
12 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

Figure-6 Dynamic FIT #1  

Figure-7 Dynamic Flow Check

SPE/IADC-168945-MS 13

TA  WELL
MPD  PLOT  SUMMARY    -­‐ AFTER  TD  
Equivalent Mud Weight (ppg)
16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5
2010
7" Liner Shoe

Top F10 S

2060

2110

2160
Measured Depth (m-MDDF)

Top F10

2210
Top H01

2260

Top H02
2310

Well TD
2360

prognosed  PP  (ppg) Prognosed  FG  ( ppg)  ( ppg) ACTUAL  FG  BASED  ON  D FIT
Actual  PP  (ppg) Drilling  MW  ( ppg) ECD  +  SBP    (ppg)

Figure-8 MPD Summary after TD

TRIP  MUD  
DISPLACEMENT
16.3  ppg
16.3  ppg
16.3  ppg
18.3
18.3 PPG
17.9  ppg MW
pMW
pg

7" Top of Liner @ 1890m-MDDF

7" Shoe @ 2010m-MDDF

17.9  ppg

TD @ 2350m-MDDF

Figure-9 MPD displacement plan for POOH to surface

14 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

Figure-10 MPD Cementing Window

RIH  Liner  to  600m, displace     RIH  Liner  to  1200m, displace     RIH  Liner  to  1700m, displace     RIH  Liner  to  2334m, displace    
18.3ppg  to  16.3ppg. 18.3ppg  to  16.3ppg.   18.3ppg  to  16.3ppg.   18.3ppg  to  16.3ppg.  
1\\\ RIH  SBP  =  15psi RIH  SBP  =  112psi RIH  SBP=240psi RIH  SBP=  450psi  
End  of     Disp.  SBP  =  112psi   End  of  Disp.  SBP  =  240psi End  of  Disp.  =  450psi End  of  Disp.  =  650psi

RUNNING  LINER AND  

UNDERBLANCED  FLUID  
16.3  ppg MW

DISPLACEMENTS
16.3  pMWMW
pg

16.3PPGMW
16.3  ppg
16.3  ppg

16.3  ppg

16.3  ppg MW
16.3PPG
16.3  ppg
PPG
18.3ppg
18.3

ppg MW
16.3  ppg
16.3  
17.9  ppg
17.9  ppg

7" Top of Liner @ 1890m-MDDF

pg
17.9  pppg
17.9  ppg

17.9  

pg
16.3  pppg

7" Shoe @ 2010m-MDDF

16.3  
16.3  ppg MW
17.9  ppg
17.9  ppg
17.9  ppg

TD @ 2350m-MDDF

Figure-11 MPD Plan for RIH 4-1/2” Liner and displace the well to 16.3ppg
SPE/IADC-168945-MS 15

Figure-12 MPD actual result of 4-1/2” Liner running and displace the well to 16.3ppg

Figure-13 New Cementing simulation based on the actual calibrated data

16 SPE/IADC-168945-MS

Figure-14 Actual MPD cementing graph