SPE/IADC 113673

Successful Use of Underbalanced-Drilling in a Cluster of Fields, North Oman

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

Mariano Carrera and Hamed Al Hadhrami, PDO, and Hamed Al Jabri, formerly PDO

Copyright 2008, SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 28–29 January 2008.

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

Abstract
Under-Balance Drilling (UBD) has been used in several carbonate fields of the Cluster, North Oman at Petroleum
Development Oman (PDO). The reasons have been to improve productivity and injectivity, real-time reservoir
characterization and to reduce/eliminate acid clean out. By using UBD in several fields, a better picture of well candidate
selection and benefits has been derived.

In this paper we will present the results of successful utilization of UBD that may be applied to other fields. The results include
an improvement in productivity, real-time decision making and a better understanding of reservoir flow characteristics. In
summary the success of UBD depends on the selection of the fields which we elaborate on using several examples. These
examples will demonstrate in details the history, application and benefits of UBD. The presentation will also illustrate future
work planned using UBD.

Introduction

The cluster of fields located in the north of Oman where all the fields are within 35 kilometres of each other (Fig. 1). PDO
is split into the two main sections i.e. the North and South. The sections are then subdivided into Clusters which are made up
of geographically-related fields. There are three main reservoir units in the Shuaiba carbonate reservoir in the cluster of fields:
Upper Shuaiba, Lower Shuiaba and Kharib. UBD started in the cluster of fields in December 2003 targeting the Lower
Shuaiba reservoir following a feasibility study which indicated the possibility of benefits using UBD.

-
.
Cluster Map .
.
.
. Field 1
.
.

9
Occidental
. .
.
.
..
Field. .. .3 . .. .. .... . .
. . .... .. ... ... . ..
. . ... . .
...... . . . .. . . .
.... .. .............. . .
. . . .. .
. .. ... .............. ......... .. ...
.
. . ... ... .. . . .
.
. .. . ...... ........... ................................... Field .
Field 2 . . .. . . .. .. . . .... . ...................... . . .. .. . ... . 4 .
.
. .. . .. .......................... .
.......
... . ...................... ..
. . . . . . . . ....... ...... .... ... ........ .. . . . . ..
. . .
. . . . . ..................... . ............................... ... .
. . .
.
. . .... . .. . ..
.. .
.. . ... . .. ... . ...
... .. . . . . .. ........ ............ ..... . .. . .
. . . . ................... .... ..... . . .
.. . . . . . ................... ..
. . . .
. .. . ..... . Field 6 ..
..
........ .. . .. . . ........... . . .
. .. . . . ... ... . . . . . .
. . ...
.. .. . . . .
Field. 7 .
.
... . 6 .
Field 5 PDO . . .
. .

.
. .
.. .. .

. . .
..

. . .
.
. ..
. .. . ..
. . . . ..... . .
. .
Kilometers ..
0 2 4 8 12 16 . . Field 8 . ..
.
. . . .. .
. .
..
January 2008 UBD Lekhwair, Oman . . .
.

Figure 1 General surface location map

Cluster Background

The cluster of fields targets mostly the Shuaiba reservoirs. This is a prolific carbonate reservoir extending across North Oman.
The Kharaib is also a hydrocarbon producing reservoir in the cluster of fields but was not considered for UBD as parts of the
reservoir is below the free water level. The main area where Kharaib production is taking place is already developed with
2 SPE/IADC 113673

vertical wells. Introduction of horizontal UB wells would disrupt the present pattern. Vertical UB wells were not seen as
economic.

Drilling in the Cluster started in early 1964 using conventional drilling with production starting in 1976. The latest field
brought onto production was in 2003. There is a continuous exploration programme to bring new fields on production.

Reservoir pressures in the producing formations are variable with some areas being supported by water injection. There are,
however, several fields without significant water injection. Most of the wells are produced with either gas lift or electrical

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

submersible pumps.

Production started and continued on natural decline until the early 1990’s when significant efforts in water flooding were
undertaken. Production increased dramatically and was maintained by increased drilling and better reservoir management. In
the early 2000’s, production started to decline eventually stabilizing since 2004 due to a campaign of infill drilling reducing
the well spacing of the vertical wells from 250 m to 125 m.

Why UBD?
There are several reasons for UBD at PDO and specifically in this Cluster of Fields.

As a company there are several reasons for using UBD. These include:
• Production enhancement via reduced skin thus maintaining reservoir quality; completion optimization and early water
shut off in specific zones.
• Cost reduction via faster drilling through higher rate of penetrations; reduced need for perforations; reduced need for
reservoir stimulation and overall reduction in life cycle well cost.
• Reservoir characterisation allowing for better saturation/sweep measurement using resistivity analysis; understanding
water saturation/water cut relationships for water-flood performance and distinguishing between matrix and fracture
inflow.

This cluster of fields utilised UBD for several field specific reasons. These include:
• Improved production from reduced skin.
• Eliminating/avoiding acid clean out which resulted in cost reduction
• Real-time reservoir characterisation (RC) which aids in geosteering, identification of fractures and their contribution
to inflow and quicker decision making.

The success of these cluster goals is used to describe success.

History of UBD in the Company and Cluster of Fields

In the late 1990’s several trial runs were performed across the company with a campaign drilling programme starting in April
2002 in different fields across PDO. In March 2006, the South group ended thier UBD programme when their objective
exercise was completed after drilling over 80 wells - including several multilaterals. UBD was described as successful.

The North section of PDO drilled over 70 wells using UB techniques with 16 of these drilled in the cluster of fields
commencing in December 2003. Other Northern clusters were added in 2004 and 2006. UBD is still ongoing in the Northern
Directorate with several fields schedule to use the methodology. There have been different uses of UBD attempted show the
adaptation and maturity of the concept in the company.

In this cluster of fields, Field 3 (Fig.1) was chosen as the first candidate in December 2003 because it is a mature field with
low reservoir pressure and regularly-spaced producing wells. However, due to the very low pressures encountered while
drilling, under-balanced conditions were not achieved in some wells. The draw down pressure to achieve UBD was never
reached. Several attempts at UBD were tried in different wells with moderate to no success. In two wells we were able to
achieve UB but not maintain UB.

It was decided that UB should be tested in different field conditions as Field 3 was not the ideal candidate. In January 2005,
UBD was used in Field 6 (Fig.1). Field 6 is a green field with 6 widely-spaced wells. The seventh well was drilled using
UBD. The reservoir’s permeability proved to be very low resulting in no inflow to the well-bore in the vertical hole. The well
was converted to a conventional well and formation pressures taken which showed relatively high pressure. The horizontal
hole was also drilled using UBD. Once again, low permeability in addition to low oil saturations resulted in a relatively low
flow rate. The real time productivity index was calculated to be 0.01 m3/day/kPa. The productivity index was not expected to
be much different if drilled conventionally.
SPE/IADC 113673 3

In September 2005, two wells in Field 4 (Fig.1) were drilled using UB. Field 4 was chosen as it is highly developed, has good
reservoir quality and strong pressure support via an effective water injection programme. The results of one well would be
discussed further in the case study segment. The second Field 4 well was not successful due to poor reservoir encountered.
The well was positioned sub optimally in the field.

Field 8 (Fig.1) was going through a second development phase and after a UBD feasibility study it was recommended that four
wells of this phase be drilled UBD. Starting in March 2006, these wells were drilled UB with some success. Based on the
success and potential benefits seen in the first UB drilling stage, several more wells were drilled UB in Field 8 starting in May

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

2007. One of these wells would be used as a case study.

Throughout this process several improvements in the mechanical operations were done such as the use Down Hole Isolation
Valves to control pressure. The real time reservoir characterization process was also improved slightly. Some of these
improvements were discussed in another paper by Saadi et al. (2006) and presented at the International Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China, 5-7 December 2006, Beijing, China.

What we found

Drilling
Drilling in developing fields or where water injection is taking place appears to help in achieving and maintaining under
balance conditions while drilling as the reservoir pressure is high enough to allow of adequate draw down pressures in the
wells bore. Very low reservoir pressure, in our case less than 9,000 kPa, proved too low to achieve and maintain UBD in the
well bore.

The rates of penetration were not a significant factor in this cluster of fields. The well lengths average 1,000 m through
relatively soft carbonate rocks. Variations in drilling assembly, (slick, rigid, rotary steerable) showed little difference when
tried and did not justify the cost to have higher end tools in the hole.

No drilling lost time incident was reported while drilling these wells.

Geology
One of the main reasons for UBD in this field cluster was to aid in geosteering the well. The target reservoir is generally less
than 4 m thick with the best porosity layer being 1 m thick. By using real-time reservoir characterisation and formation
evaluation while drilling (and in some cases density image while drilling) we were able to keep the well within this porosity
zone.

Production
Production rates while drilling and flexibility of production testing allowed for better completion of the wells. Proper ESP
sizing, tubing sizes and well head test to tank test rates comparisons were done.

Operations
There was a regular crew working together which resulted in several observed synergies. The wells were drilled faster than
expected taking almost the same time as conventional well.

UBD wells require more equipment and processes thus generally taking slightly long than conventional wells. In our case the
time difference was not that significant. The time reduction was probably due to familiarity with, equipment, among personnel
and processes.

Wells were brought on production quicker as the infrastructure was already in place while drilling the well.

The communication between field and office was very regular and cooperative. Familiarity of personnel, processes and
requirements allowed for the different disciplines to integrate more closely. Real-time data transmission via the internet
supported this interaction with field and office personnel looking at the same data set in real time.

Well Case Study

One Example from Field 4

One of the UB wells was drilled in Field 4 (Fig.1). A summary sheet is presented in Figure 2. This field is typically
4 SPE/IADC 113673

developed using vertical wells, however, at the edges of the field, the stratigraphically-higher water level meant less reservoir
to produce from. One horizontal leg was drilled into two units. Both units showed good porosity but different saturations and
production characteristics.

Based on production data while drilling, the well was then side tracked into the better producing unit. This side track would
not have been drilled as production characteristics would not have been identified if a conventional horizontal was drilled. Oil
saturation figures are normally the basis for completion. In this case only the better part of the well would have been
completed. With flow characteristics further support evidence was available to make the decision to do the side track.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

This showed the value of the reservoir characterization acquired while drilling as well as the benefits of selecting a candidate
that in an area of good reservoir and good pressure.

Hole 1 Hole 2
-108
0

-1090

-1
11
0

0
-110

-1
12
0
-1
13
0

7
-1
14
0

AN-08-WI6
Well under
-1 1

consideration drilled on
50

-116

the flank of the field.

0

Blue -Injector wells

-1
-1140

11
0

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Red -Producer wells 1:10000

January 2008 UBD Lekhwair, Oman

General Information:
• The well reservoir pressure estimated from
flow while drilling data of 8,900 kPa.
• the PI for the well is 0.045 m3/day/kPa.
Reservoir Characterization:
H1 H2
• H1 drilled in the low permeability Lower
Shuaiba A unit that yielded low production GROSS OIL COLUMN 691 504
that did not meet the expected target. It is
also showed that the B units had a reservoir NET PAY 639 500
pressure at or below about 8,500 kPa and AVERAGE Φ 21.00% 25.00%
the A units had a reservoir pressure greater
than 9,000 kPa. AVERAGE SW 43.80% 26.90%
• H2 was sidetracked in the good reservoir NET OIL PRODUCED
and higher permeability B1.1 unit and (m3/day) 88.56 280.00
production from this interval exceeded the
production targets proposed. WATER CUT 18.00% 10.00%

Figure 2 Field 4 well summary sheet

One Example from Field 8

In another well, UBD was used to identify an oil contributing fracture (Fig. 3).

In both conventional and UB wells, image logs while drilling are used in some cases, usually when there is the expectation of
fractures or faults or if there are drilling problems. The importance of this fracture is in the completion of the well. If
fractures are identified earlier most likely they would have been sealed off as an early production method for preventing water
production.

In conventional wells, image logs are used to identify fractures and faults. These are then usually isolated to optimize
production

In this UBD well we were able to identify the fractures without image logs and also the fluid contribution of these fractures. If
in the future however there is a sudden increase in water production in this well; the known fracture zone would be isolated.

Therefore we are thus minimizing well intervention and maximizing oil production.
SPE/IADC 113673 5

UBD data indicates a step change in oil

rate, likely due to a fracture.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

Early understanding of reservoir
contribution zones, assist in well
intervention cross well life.

Well 3 UBD production was

constrained to 400m3/d to limit the
risk of water breakthrough via
inferred fractures.

Figure 3 Real time reservoir characterisation log of Well 3 UBD fracture zone. (Graph courtesy Blade Energy).

Production rates

Not much difference in production rates were seen between conventional and UBD wells (Fig. 4). Initial production was
sometimes higher than predicted but decline rates were also faster. It appears that UBD contributed to accelerated production
rather than additional production. The rates seen, however, make the wells economically viable.

Conventional UBD
Simulated oil rate
Well 1C risked oil rate Well 2 UBD Simulated
risked oiloilrate
rate

Actual oil rate Actual oil rate

400 400
300 300
o il ra te

oil rate

200 200
100 100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
month month

Simulated
Risked oiloil
raterate
Well 2C ris ked oil
Simulated oil rate
rate Well 3 UBD
Actual oil rate Actual oil rate
400 800
600 Production on Choke
300
oil rate
oil rate

400
200
200
100
0
0 0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
m onth
month

Well 4 UBD Actual oil rate

Well 1 UBD risked oil rate risked oil rate

Simulated oil rate 400
actual oil rate
400 300
oil rate

300 200
oil rate

200 100
100
0
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
month m onth

3
Figure 4 Selected oil production rates (in m /day) comparison from one area

Productivity Index

The productivity index (PI) shows some variation (Fig. 5). The initial PI is generally higher in UBD wells than conventional
wells; possibly because the UB wells have less skin. Some of the UB wells have a lower PI than conventional wells possibly
due to being located in low pressure areas. These wells will be supported by water injection in the near future.
6 SPE/IADC 113673

Productivity Index Comparison

0.25

0.2

0.15
PI m3/d/kPa

PI

0.1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

0.05

0
Well 1C Well 2C Well 1 UBD Well 2 UBD Well 3 UBD Well 4 UBD Well 5 UBD Well 6 UBD
Wells

Figure 5 Productivity Index conventional vs. UBD for selected wells.

Cost Benefits

Two approaches were taken in order to reduce the cost of UBD. The first was to drill the complete well with the rig outfitted
with the UB kit and the second approach was to use a second rig to drill down to the reservoir and have the rig outfitted with
the UB package to drill the reservoir i.e. a form of batch drilling (Fig. 6). We found that drilling the wells fully with a UBD
outfitted rig cheaper than that of batch drilling but not as cheap as the conventional rig. In other fields in the company the cost
of drilling a fully UB well was similar to that of a conventional well mainly due to reduce drilling time.

Well Cost Actual Conventional Well 1C vs Other Wells

160

140

120

100
Relative %

80 ACT COST

60

40

20

0
Well 1C Well 2C Well 1 UBD Well 2 UBD Well 3 UBD Well 4 UBD
Well Name

Well 1C & 2C were drilled with conventional rigs

Well 1UBD & 2 UBD were drilled completely with the under-balance drilling rig
Well 3 UBD & 4 UBD were drilled with two rigs; one drilling to the reservoir and another rig
drilling the reservoir under balance.

Figure 6 Relative Well Cost across several wells

Way forward

The plan is to use UBD in the new fields and different reservoirs. As seen so far, UBD is beneficial in some circumstances.
The screening criteria for UBD candidates have now been refined more and would be put in place for future opportunities in
the field. .

We found batch drilling to be useful and beneficial thus would continue along this trend. Batch drilling not only reduces well
costs but also gives the opportunity to update well trajectory and pressure estimates as there is a peep hole into the reservoir.
This helps in better planning of the reservoir section.

Real time density image logs contributed to geosteering the wells by helping to identify the density contrast of the different
zones in the reservoir. The density image logs also gave a generally good idea of the structure and major features encountered
by the well bore. However, the resolution was not good enough for detailed structural and stratigraphic work. Better real-time
imaging would be useful in the ongoing drilling campaign.
SPE/IADC 113673 7

Little meaningful analysis could be gained from cutting samples while UBD as the cuttings in the returns came out in a paste -
like form. The interpretation of log data is thus crucial in understanding the geological setting.

Conclusions
The main conclusions from the drilling so far have been:

• Candidate selection is critical for the success of UBD. Time spent in this selection phase greatly provides realistic
expected results from UBD. Improper candidates can result in significant operational problems with time and cost

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEMPDU/proceedings-pdf/08MPDU/All-08MPDU/SPE-113673-MS/2750782/spe-113673-ms.pdf/1 by Kazakh-British Technical University user on 04 April 2024

overruns that might not occur if drilled conventionally.
• Real-time reservoir characterisation is useful in the completion optimisation of the wells e.g. ESP sizing.
• Benefits require team effort. Regular crews on the rig and regular interaction from the office is required for smooth
running of the operations.
• UBD seems to give accelerated production in our field and not necessarily new production. The result in terms of
field management is important.

So far in this cluster of fields we have been able to identify a robust selection criterion for the application of UBD. The
learning process has been successful in improving the understanding of the field, the technology and contributing to
production. UBD can be seen as a blanket operation but we need to understand which bed to put it on.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the many persons that contributed over the years for makng this project a success. These
include the managers for supporting the concept of UBD; the Well Engineers in the execution of the drilling; Blade Energy
and other service companies for their help and direction in carrying out the work and developing the technology; the
Operations Engineers for having the facilites in place and flexibilty to meet our improved performance and other team
members of the Petroleum Engineering fraternity for operational support. We would also like to thank the Ministry of Oil and
Gas for allowing the presentation of this paper.

Reference:
Al-Saadi, A., Carrera, M., Al-Bahlani, S., Al-Mahrooqi S., Al-Riyamy, M., Bowling, J., Al-Balushi, A., Underbalanced Drilling Experience
in PDO, International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, 5-7 December 2006, Beijing, China. Paper Number 101776-MS