Stability Chirag

Chirag Wellbore Stability
Study - Part 1,
Azerbaijan

S/UTG/105/00

Sophie Louise Dowson
UTG Drilling Sunbury

Upstream Technology Group, Sunbury
August 2000 GQS50101
UNCLASSIFIED

The information contained in this document is the property of BP Exploration. Due
acknowledgement should be made if it is desired to refer to this information in publications or
discussions with third parties.
UTG Indexing Sheet

TEAM REPORT NO. JOB NO.
U T G D R G U T G / 1 0 5 / 0 0 8 7 1 0 5 2 0

AUTHOR(S) TELEPHONE LOCATION DATE
Sophie Louise Dowson 01932 764541 200 / G27 August 2000

MAIN TITLE
Chirag Wellbore Stability Study - Part 1, Azerbaijan

CLIENT PRINCIPAL RECIPIENT COMMISSIONED BY
Chirag Drilling Team Tom Scoular Tom Scoular

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET

KEYWORDS
Chirag, Wellbore Stability

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECORD PAGE
FOR EXTERNAL CLIENT LISTING DISTRIBUTION
OVERLEAF

ABSTRACT
The main objective of this report was to review existing well data for the Chirag Field to assess further wellbore stability
work requirements for future development drilling. Particular emphasis was given to well A-15 due to spud in August
2000.
Within well A-15, the most troublesome sections identified with regard to instability were the 12.25 pilot and side-track
hole sections. Mud weight recommendations for minimising instability in each hole section are as follows:
26 hole section : static mud weight of 8.6 ppg to 8.7 ppg
17.5 hole section : static mud weight of 12.1 ppg. Dynamic losses experienced in previous wells highlights the need
to maintain a reasonable ECD margin that does not exceed the fracture gradient. Since previous development wells
have experienced chemical instability it is important that drilling mud inhibition is optimised.
12.25 pilot hole and side-track sections : static mud weight of 12.4 ppg. As with the 17.5 hole, occurrences of
chemical instability in previous development wells highlights the importance of optimising drilling mud inhibition.
8.5 hole section : static mud weight of between 11.2 ppg to 11.4 ppg
The most problematic formations within the 12.25 pilot hole section appear to be the Sabunchi and Balakhany. Previous
occurrences of instability may have potentially been attributed to overpressured zones within the Sabunchi and in
addition to intact failure, slippage along pre-existing weakness planes within base Sabunchi / Balakhany. Minimum mud
weight requirements for the 8.5 hole are those required to minimise instability within the shale interbeds. Since the 8.5
hole will be terminated in the Pereriv instability concerns relating to the NKG need not be considered.
Conclusions relating to existing data and analysis needs, for future development drilling, highlight the need for additional
data acquisition above the Sabunchi. Future wellbore stability work identified includes a larger generic ERD study and a
more specific study for the forthcoming A-16 well.

PREPARED BY:
Sophie L. Dowson

.....................................................
APPROVED BY:
Sophie L. Dowson

AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE BY:
Sophie L. Dowson

..........................................................
ISSUE DATE: August 2000
DISTRIBUTION LIST

NO. OF COPIES

NAME

LOCATION

1-2

BDM Library

Sunbury (122/105)
3 UTG Drilling Team Files Sunbury (200/G27)
4 Tim Bailey UTG Sunbury (200/G27)
5 Sophie Dowson UTG Sunbury (200/G27)
6 - 7 Tom Scoular Chirag Asset
8 Nigel Last UTG Sunbury (200/G27)

CONTENTS
Page No
1. Study Scope 1
2. Principal Conclusions and Recommendations 2
3. Data Review Summary 4
3.1 Review of Chirag Development Wells 4
3.1.1 26 Hole Section and 20 Casing 4
3.1.2 17.5 Hole Section and 13.375 Casing 5
3.1.4 8.5 Hole Section and 7.0 Liner 9
3.2 Review of Exploration Well GCA-1 10
3.2.1 36 Hole Section and 30 Conductor 10
3.2.2 26 Hole Section and 20 Casing 10
3.2.5 8.5 Hole Section and 7.0 Liner 11
3.3 Previous Report Summary 11
4. A15 Stability Assessment and Mud Weight Requirements 13
4.1 Planned Trajectory and Subsurface Conditions 13
4.2 Compressive Failure Analysis of I ntact Formation 15
4.3 Failure Along Pre-existing Weakness Planes 20
4.4 Tensile Failure and Risk of Losses 25
4.5 Mud Weight Recommendations for A-15 26
5 Data Acquisition Requirements for A15 and Future Wells 30
6. Additional Wellbore Stability Work to Support Future ERD Drilling 31
7. References 32
APPENDI X A: Field I nformation and Offset Well Review 33
APPENDI X B: Review of Previous Studies for Chirag 42
B1 Exxon Wellbore Stability Report 42
B2 BP Review of I n-Situ Stresses & Rock Mechanical Properties for Fracturing 47
B3 Notes by Tetsuro Tochikawa 48
B4 Notes by Dr Nobuo Morita 48
B5 Characterisation of Shale Samples from Well A-13 49
APPENDI X C: Definition of Subsurface Conditions pertinent to A-15 51
C1 I ntact Rock Formation Properties 51
C2 Pre-existing Weakness Planes / Faults 56
C3 Prognosed Pore and Fracture Pressures 57
C4 Stress Regime and Direction 59
C5 Principal Stress Magnitudes 60
C5.1 Vertical Stress 60
C5.2 Maximum and Minimum Horizontal Stresses 63

S/UTG/105/00 Study Scope
August 2000 Page 1
1. Study Scope
This report has been compiled as the final deliverable for work requested by Tom Scoular of the Chirag
Asset, Azerbaijan Business Unit, in March 2000. The main aim of the study was to review existing well
data for the Chirag Field to assess further wellbore stability work requirements for future development
drilling. Particular emphasis was given to well A-15 due to spud in August 2000. Based on the initial
workscope, study objectives were as follows:
Review available data and reports pertinent to wellbore instability
Based on review findings advise whether further wellbore stability analyses required for the Chirag
ERD well programme
Identify additional data required for future analyses and better definition of subsurface conditions
Advise what data, if any, should be obtained from well A-15, due to spud in August 2000
Conduct a stability analyses for well A-15 and recommend mud weight requirements to minimise
hole instability

S/UTG/105/00 Principal Conclusions and Recommendations
August 2000 Page 2
2. Principal Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on findings from this study conclusions and recommendations may be split into those specific to
the forthcoming A-15 well and data / analysis needs for future development drilling.
Recommendations for minimising instability within the A-15 well are as follows:
Within the 26 hole section a static mud weight of 8.6 ppg is recommended to minimise the risk of
instability. If tight spots are encountered density may be raised to 8.7 ppg.
Within the 17.5 hole section a static mud weight of 12.1 ppg is recommended to minimise the risk
of instability. Dynamic losses experienced in previous wells highlights the need to maintain a
reasonable ECD margin that does not exceed the fracture gradient. Since previous development
wells have experienced chemical instability it is important that drilling mud inhibition is optimised.
Within the 12.25 pilot hole and side-track sections a static mud weight of 12.4 ppg is recommended
to minimise the risk of instability. As with the 17.5 hole, occurrences of chemical instability in
previous development wells highlights the importance of optimising drilling mud inhibition.
The most problematic formations within the 12.25 pilot hole section appear to be the Sabunchi and
Balakhany. Previous occurrences of instability may have potentially been attributed to
overpressured zones within the Sabunchi and in addition to intact failure, slippage along pre-existing
weakness planes within base Sabunchi / Balakhany.
Within the 8.5 hole section a static mud weight of between 11.2 to 11.4 ppg is recommended to
minimise the risk of instability. Uncertainty in mud weight results from uncertainty in stress regime
within the Pereriv which may be reverse as opposed to extensional. In addition to shear failure of the
intact formation, bedding plane slip may be a further risk of instability within the 8.5 hole although
not considered as severe a risk compared with the Balakhany. Although the majority of the Pereriv
is sandstone and potentially able to be drilled with a nominal overbalance, mud weights
recommended are those required to minimise the risk of instability within shale inter-beds.
A further risk of instability within the 8.5 hole section is a buckling mode of failure in the roof of
the borehole which may occur if the well is drilled within 10
o
of bedding. Instability may also be
compounded where the well crosses the prognosed thrust fault when slippage along pre-existing
weakness planes may be a further risk. Without knowing the dip and dip direction of the fault at the
point where it crosses the well path, however, analyses cannot be conducted to provide a qualitative
assessment of instability risk. Since the 8.5 hole will be terminated in the Pereriv instability
concerns relating to the NKG need not be considered.
Due to the increased risk of instability within the 12.25 and 8.5 hole sections as evidenced by
occurrences of large caving volumes in previously drilled development wells, it is recommended that
cavings morphology be continuously monitored at the rig site. Such procedures will enable the
correct failure mode to be identified thus allowing the most suitable remedial action to be taken.
Comparing minimum mud weight recommendations with fracture gradient values induced fractures
are not considered to be a risk but will be dependant on the ECD margin. The main risk of losses for
A-15 will be those that may be associated with pre-existing fractures and faults. From results of
S/UTG/105/00 Principal Conclusions and Recommendations
August 2000 Page 3
work conducted by Tetsuro and notes made by Jake Hossack of BP, risk of losses along the A-15
trajectory are considered to be of medium severity.
Conclusions relating to existing data and analysis needs for future development drilling are as follows:
Within previous exploration, appraisal and development wells data is limited above the Sabunchi
for characterisation of overburden properties
For definition of the overburden gradient and rock properties, density, sonic and gamma ray logs
should be extended to mud line.
Current uncertainty exists in the stress regime and magnitudes of the two horizontal stresses.
Within reservoir formations the vertical stress may no longer be the largest component if the stress
regime is reverse as opposed to extensional
To better constrain stress magnitudes more information on the type and degree of hole failure is
required. Continual monitoring of cavings at the rig site will help to differentiate between failure
modes. Image log data would then further help to define the degree and extent of failed zones. If
image logs cannot be run four to six arm oriented callipers should be used instead.
For definition of the minimum principal stress magnitude leak off tests should be extended in future
wells to give closure pressure values. Ideally a reopening cycle should also be conducted to define
the tensile strength of the formation.
For stress direction, breakout studies conducted to date take no consideration of wellbore
inclination and azimuth. For this reason, stress direction is currently based on observations of hole
failure within the vertical exploration well GCA-1.
ECD values should be closely monitored in future wells to assess actual downhole values
associated with losses and gains. As wells become longer reach and higher angle there may be a
need to differentiate between losses and gains associated with wellbore breathing and zones drilled
underbalance.
For future development drilling additional stability analyses will be required. Given the complexity
of the structure, however, additional data is needed to better define subsurface conditions. A stress
cube approach is suggested to better define the problem.
Future wellbore stability needs identified for the Chirag Asset include a larger generic ERD study
and a more specific study for the forthcoming A-16 well.

S/UTG/105/00 Data Review Summary
August 2000 Page 4
3. Data Review Summary
In order to assess the need for further wellbore stability analyses in support of future development
drilling options, all pertinent data has been reviewed. A main part of this review included the need to
ascertain subsurface conditions from drilling experience gained to date. Studying drilling reports for all
wells on the Chirag Structure, summary charts have been compiled for each formation. Also collated as
part of the study is information that was contained in previous reports and memos addressing
geomechanical issues.
3.1 Review of Chirag Development Wells
End of well reports for all fourteen development wells, A-1 to A-14, were used to provide summary
information for all formations drilled. Resulting spreadsheets are presented in Appendix A with a
summary of pertinent information provided below for each hole section. In addition to well reports
notes were also made from conversations held with Asset staff about drilling experiences to date.
Information believed to be of relevance is included in the hole section summaries also. All depths
referred to in the text are measured and relative to the rotary table elevation.
3.1.1 26 Hole Section and 20 Casing
The 26 top hole sections of all development wells were drilled through Recent Sediments and for all,
but well A-3, TDd in the Apsheron Formation. Within well A-3, the section was extended further and
TDd in the Akchagyl Formation. In wells A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6, a 17.5 pilot hole was
drilled prior to the section being enlarged with a 26 hole opener. In all other wells the pilot hole drilled
was 12.25 in diameter.
Hole inclinations within this section are near vertical. In the Recent Sediments, inclinations varied from
0
o
to 12
o
and in the Apsheron inclination ranges were between 1.25
o
and 13
o
. Within the Akchagil
Formation, well A-3 inclination was about 3.5
o
.
Drilling mud used was always seawater with viscous sweeps. Densities ranged from 8.4 to 8.7 ppg,
although the higher weights were typically spud weights that the hole was displaced with after having
drilled the section.
Overall, hole conditions in this section were good whilst drilling. Only a few problems were reported in
terms of losses and very occasional tight spots. For the majority of cases, good returns were obtained
whilst running casing and cementing. In a few instances, however, losses were reported with the
majority of cases being associated with pumping the tail slurry. Lead cement densities were typically
11.9 ppg, although in well A-1 lead density was a lower value of 11.1 ppg. Tail cement densities were
typically 15.8 ppg.
Regards drilling, losses occurred in well A-3 whilst pumping a 9.5 ppg sweep with the assumed lost
zone in the Recent Sediments around 350m +/- 20m. At 364m, the A-3 hole was washed and reamed to
393m and within the Apsheron Formation the hole was tight at 560m and 460m during a wiper trip.
Within well A-13 while opening up the Pilot hole, the BHA was unable to get past an obstruction in the
Recent Sediments at 390m : returns were lost whilst circulating and working the string. Using a new
assembly, well A-13 was washed and reamed from 390m to 478m. Within well A-14, the hole opener
August 2000 Page 5
side-tracked the original pilot hole and broke over into the 20 annulus of well A-7. Within the new
pilot hole, returns were lost at 240m and remained lost until TD. Opening the hole up to 26, no returns
were achieved and at 460m the well was tight requiring reaming / back-reaming from 260m to 240m.
Regards casing running, no returns were reported whilst running in wells A-3 and A-13.
Regards casing cementing, no returns were reported whilst pumping the tail slurry within wells A-12
and A-13. Within well A-8, total losses were reported at the end of displacement. For well A-5, partial
returns were recorded when pumping cement slurry with loss of full returns after 473 bbls. It is
assumed that in this instance the loss zone in well A-3 was in communication with well A-5 as losses
were noted after clear brine (160 ppm) was observed flowing out of well A-3 between the 28 and 20
casings. In the case of well A-6, total losses were observed whilst pumping lead slurry of 11.9 ppg with
no indication of hydraulic communication between A-6 and A-3.
3.1.2 17.5 Hole Section and 13.375 Casing
The 17.5 hole sections of all wells were drilled through the remainder of the Apsheron, the Akchagyl
and TDd towards the top of the Surakhany Formation. The only exception was well A-3 which was
drilled from the 20 casing point set within the Akchagyl Formation. From conversations with Asset
staff sediments were described as being very soft within this hole section. Several anhydrite stringers
are supposedly common towards the top of the Surakhany with over-pressured zones between them.
The base Apsheron and Akchagyl were described as very weak..
Hole inclinations within this section are low within the Apsheron and Akchagyl Formations but within
the Surakhany are wide-ranging. Within the Apsheron inclinations range from 1.25
o
to 14
o
and within
the Akchagyl the range is between 1.21
o
to 14
o
. Within the Surakhany earlier wells were drilled at much
lower inclinations than some the more recent wells resulting in ranges of between 0.42
o
to 58
o
.
Drilling mud used was variable. Within wells A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-11, mud type noted
within the drilling reports was KCl / PHPA. Such a system will be made up of a water based mud with
KCl salt and Partially Hydrolysed PolyAcrylamide. Although the KCl content will provide some degree
of inhibition the PHPA will further act to encapsulate reactive formation cuttings. Within A-11, Staplex
500 (Glycol) was added to further enhance the muds inhibitive characteristics. Within wells A-3, A-7
and A-8, drilling records note the use of a KCl Polymer. What is not clear, however, is whether the
polymer used is an encapsulant or a viscosifier. If an encapsulant, the mud system may simply be the
same as the KCl / PHPA system. If a viscosifier, however, the mud will have been less inhibitive than
the KCl / PHPA system. Within wells A-9, A-10, A-12, A-13 and A-14, a Quadrill system was
supposedly used. Quadrill is in fact a Dowell Schlumberger product name for a water based mud
system containing Glycol. Within the drilling records the use of Staplex 500 is often noted but is
sometimes unclear as to whether mud used was Quadrill as mixed or a KCL / PHPA mud with Staplex
500 added. Mud densities ranged from 11.9 ppg to 12.1 ppg. Within well A-1, mud weight was initially
11.0 ppg but had to be raised to 11.9 ppg. Similarly within A-2, initial density was low but finally
raised to 12.0 ppg at 640m below the Apsheron.
Overall, hole conditions in this section were not bad but gumbo problems lead to tight spots and some
packing off during wiper trips. High percentages of fine cuttings were reported in quite a few of the
wells. Whilst circulating and during wiper trips occasional dynamic losses were noted. Earlier wells (A-
1 to A-8) which used less inhibitive mud systems proved more troublesome than more recent wells
drilled with Quadrill or in the case of A-11 KCl / PHPA with addition of Staplex 500. From
August 2000 Page 6
conversations with Asset staff it is noted that wells drilled across the Chirag Structure appeared to be
more susceptible to losses (e.g. A-4). Mention was also made that in high angle hole sections some
stuck pipe incidents appear to be associated with sliding towards the base of the 17.5 section. Casing
running operations were generally good with only occasional losses reported. During cementing, losses
were reported for certain wells during both pumping and displacement. Within earlier wells (A-1, A-2)
lead cement densities were 12.5 ppg but within all other wells this was increased to 13.5 ppg. Tail
cement densities were the same for all wells, 15.8 ppg.
Regards drilling, a 9.6 ppg brine flow was noted in well A-1 between the 20 and 13 3/8 annulus
which took 14 days to stop. It is believed that the flow was emanating from just above the Surakhany
within the Akchagyl. Within well A-2, pit level fluctuations and an increase in Cl
2
indicted a further
possible brine flow. For well A-3, drilling records note dynamic losses of about 20 bbls an hour. A
further brine flow was also noted in well A-3 within the 20 and 13 3/8 annulus. It is remarked that
over-pressured salt water formations were not isolated with the most likely cause being loss of
hydrostatic head as the slurry set up together with the existence of a channel behind the casing. Within
well A-4, gumbo problems lead to pack off at 922m during a wiper trip. Losses were also noted in the
Akchagyl at 737m. Below 1108m, losses were dynamic with gains reported when static. Tight spots
were also noted in other wells such as A-5 at 800m and A-6, both of which noted high percentages of
fine cuttings. Within well A-7, a wiper trip to TD resulted in the hole packing off with losses noted
also. After having pulled out of the hole and ran back in with a new bottom hole assembly it was
necessary to wash and ream from 788m in the Akchagyl. An inadvertent side-track at 1043m was noted
so the well had to be re-drilled. Within well A-8, wiper trips were conducted every 300m to improve
hole conditions resulting from gumbo related problems. Large cuttings volumes were reported after
trips but cuttings integrity was supposedly good. Within wells A-9, A10, A12, A13 and A14, the use of
a much more inhibitive Quadrill mud system dramatically improved hole conditions. Within well A-9,
overpull was much reduced and hole conditions appeared good with no losses. Within well A-10 the
inhibitive mud system is noted as improving stability and providing good cuttings integrity. A-12 and
A-14 were also drilled supposedly trouble free but A-13 was noted as having occasional gumbo and
losses. Within well A-11, the section was supposedly less challenging so a KCl / PHPA system was
used with addition of Staplex 500. Although better than some of the earlier wells drilled without
addition of Staplex, gumbo problems were still noted with flowline blockage and tight hole on wiper
trips.
Regards casing running, the only occasional losses reported were 15bbls within well A-6.
Regards casing cementing, losses were reported in certain wells. Within well A-1, losses were noted
during circulation prior to cementing, during mixing / pumping and displacement. Within well A-3,
losses were recorded during displacement and within A-5 returns began to diminish towards the end of
pumping. Within well A-7, good returns were reported whilst mixing / pumping but none during
displacement. Within A-8, partial to total losses were taken during displacement of the tail slurry.
Within well A-14, partial returns were noted after pumping 398 bbls displacement with lost returns
after 488 bbls. A total of 307 bbls were lost during the cement job.
August 2000 Page 7
The 12.25 hole sections of all wells were drilled through the remainder of the Surakhany, the Sabunchi
and then either TDd in the Balakhany, the Pereriv or the NKG. 12.25 sections of wells A-1, A-2, A-
7, A-9 and A-14 TDd in the Balakhany and wells A-3, A-8, A-11, A-13 which were TDd in the
Pereriv all had 8.5 hole sections drilled to well TD within the Pereriv. In certain cases, however, wells
were all drilled in 12.25 to final well TD within either the Pereriv, as for wells A-4 and A-12, or the
NKG, as for wells A-5, A-6 and A-10.
Hole inclinations ranged from 0.5
o
to 70
o
within the Surakhany, from 12.7
o
to 71
o
within the Sabunchi,
from 13
o
to 76
o
in the Balakhany and from 27
o
to 85
o
in the Pereriv / NKG.
For most of the wells a Saraline Synthetic Based Mud was used. Exceptions were well A-1, A-2, A-3,
A-13 and A-14. Well A-1 original hole and side-track were drilled with a KCl Polymer mud. Wells A-2
and A-3 were both reportedly drilled with a Quadrill system. In the case of wells A-13 and A-14, a
combination fluid was used said to consist of Ultidrill LAO, Novatec LAO and Saraline SBM. For A-
1, drilled with the KCl Polymer, mud weights were initially around 11.9 ppg but had to be raised to
12.8 ppg due to reactive clays. For wells A-2 and A-3, mud weights ranged from 12.7 ppg to 12.9 ppg.
For more recent wells drilled with the a Saraline SBM, mud weight were lower and typically ranged
from 12.0 ppg to 12.6 ppg. Within well A-5 an increase to 12.9 ppg is noted at 2400m depth. Wells A-
13 and A-14 which used a combination fluid were drilled with densities of between 12.1 ppg to 12.4
ppg.
The 12.25 hole was typically the most troublesome section to drill. From conversations with Asset
staff the over-pressured Sabunchi zone is typically associated with washouts and tight hole that
requires back-reaming. The Balakhany is also noted as troublesome with several instances of instability
that is not immediate but appears to have a time dependant element resulting in a large volume of
cavings. Within the initial A-1 well, drilling with too low a mud weight and a mud system which was
not perhaps inhibitive enough lead to several instability problems. Mud weight had to be increased
accordingly. Within subsequent wells hole conditions appeared to improve with the use of more
inhibitive mud systems and increased mud weights. Hole inclinations within the 12.25 section are
typically greater for more recently drilled wells. Within wells A-2 to A-8 hole drilling conditions were
relatively good with only a few overpulls and tight spots recorded. Within well A-7, the hole did require
several wiper trips to clean up prior to logging but this may possibly be attributed to the fact that the
mud pumps were continually breaking. Within subsequent higher angle wells, however, instability
worsened with several incidences of tight holes and pack offs. Drilling reports note an abundance of
large blocky cavings from base Sabunchi and Balakhany in wells A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13 and A-14.
Within well A-10, hole instability was also noted but appeared to be associated with instability within
the NKG rather than any Formations above. Studying hole inclinations for those wells that reported
hole problems and the abundance of large blocky cavings it is interesting to note that these are typically
all high angle within the Balakhany. Typically inclinations range from 65
o
to 76
o
, with the exception of
well A-13 which wad only at 57
o
through the Balakhany. Given the sudden change in instability for
wells above a certain angle compared with those below, and the evidence of large chunky cavings, it
may be the case that instability is attributed to failure along pre-existing weakness planes than classical
breakout of the intact formation. Regards casing running, losses were reported in certain but typically
ran to TD without any major problems. During cementing, losses were reported for certain wells during
both pumping and displacement. Lead cement densities were typically 14.5 ppg and tail cement
densities typically 15.8 ppg.
August 2000 Page 8
Within well A-1, the section was drilled to the top of the Pereriv but the pipe became stuck on the trip
out. A high percentage of cuttings were reported between 2355m and 1989m. During the wiper trip,
reamed from 1421m in the Surakhany to 2581m in the Balakhany. During the trip out excessive
overpulls were noted and whilst back-reaming to 2750m, the string became stuck. The hole was side-
tracked. The new hole was drilled to 2077m in the Sabunchi and then mud weight needed to be
increased to 12.8 ppg. Whilst running an LCM spotting assembly into the hole no mud returns were
achieved so density was reduced to 12.6 ppg. Wells A-2 and A-3 were drilled relatively trouble free
with reportedly good hole conditions. Well A-3, however, did have evidence of overpull on tripping and
was tight on wiper trips mainly in the sandstones. Well A-4, the first to be drilled with a synthetic based
mud reportedly had no wellbore stability problems. Calliper traces show and essentially in-gauge hole
with an average diameter of ~13. Well A-5, which was reportedly close to a fault had good hole
conditions throughout its section with only minor overpulls on wiper trips. Within well A-6, there was
never a need to stop and circulate the hole clean. Within A-7, the mud pumps broke down frequently
with several wiper trips and back-reaming required to prepare the hole for logging. Within well A-8, the
section drilled fine although tight spots were noted within the Sabunchi during a wiper trip to the shoe.
While attempting to run tools could not get past 2341m the first time and 2394m the second time, both
within the Sabunchi. The third attempt was successful.
Within well A-9, occasional tight spots were noted with the presence of cuttings beds forcing tripping
to stop at 2559m, 2900m and 3279m in the Sabunchi and Surakhany. A high percentage of cuttings
and large cavings were reported. Within well A-10, overpull pulling out and drag running in required
the section to be washed and reamed from 3729m to 3787m. Whilst circulating, abundant fines and
cavings from the NKG were recorded. Pulling out of the hole, overpull was noted to be greater than
normal in the Pereriv and Balakhany. Losses were also reported. One metre of fill in the base of the
hole is believed to have been associated with cuttings beds created by the NKG having been severely
washed out. Within well A-11, the section was fine to 3512m. Performing a wiper trip to 3018m
indicated good hole conditions but when building from 3512m to 3612m in the Balakhany, the drill
string became stuck . Many large blocky cavings were noted with the hole packing off. It is noted that
that from +/-2600m the amount increased with the cavings being identified as most probably being
from the Upper Balakhany. Within well A-12, a steady amount of 3 to 4 cm cavings are noted whilst
drilling / sliding through the Balakhany also. Several tight spots were noted in both the Balakhany and
the Pereriv. Whilst back-reaming through the Upper Balakhany and Sabunchi to prevent getting stuck,
a steady increase in cavings was reported, described as blocky chunks. When tripping back into the
bottom, the hole was tight in the Sabunchi and Balakhany V / VI. It was noted that between 2505m and
3680m, hole condition was good with all problems related to the Upper Balakhany section above
2505m. Logs reportedly show bad hole enlargements of up to 20 in the Sabunchi and Upper
Balakhany. Within well A-13, tight spots are again noted in the Balakhany IX, VII and V, being worst
towards the top. Abundant blocky cavings are also noted but no major downhole losses reported.
Within well A-14, after having drilled / slid to 2850m, a moderate amount of cuttings were reported
between 2850m and 2450m whilst circulating bottoms up. These occurrences then became heavy above
2450m in the Sabunchi. Ninety percent of the large blocky cavings came from the base of the Sabunchi.
Losses were also reported whilst drilling between 2850m and 4155m at specific depths of 2810m and
3998m in the Balakhany. Returns were lost at 2622m, 2480m, 2452m, 2219m and 2200m all in the
Sabunchi. Further large blocky cavings from the Balakhany and Sabunchi and further losses were
reported as the well was progressed and back-reaming continued.
Regards casing running, within the side-track of well A-1 it had to be washed from 2544m to 2591m
within the Balakhany. Within well A-4 no losses were supposedly reported whilst running but some
were noted when circulating after the liner hanger was landed. Within well A-5, losses were reported
whilst running and circulating with zero returns through the Sabunchi during running. Losses whilst
August 2000 Page 9
running were also reported in well A-6. Within wells A-7 and A-8, negligible fluid loss was reported
and runs were made with negligible resistance. Casing within well A-9 was run with no losses. Within
well A-10, losses were recorded whilst running casing and at 3747m it became stuck as the hole packed
off. Finally the casing was circulated and washed down. Within well A-12 and A-14, losses were
reported whilst running.
Regards casing cementing, losses were reported in well A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14. Whilst
circulating prior to cementing losses were recorded in well A-8.
3.1.4 8.5 Hole Section and 7.0 Liner
Within wells A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-12 wells were TDd in 12.25 hole with no 8.5 section.
Other wells which did have an 8.5 hole section may be split into (i) those that were drilled through
both the remainder of the Balakhany and the Pereriv / NKG and (ii) those that were solely drilled within
the Pereriv Formation. Wells A-1, A-2, A-7, A-9 and A-14 fall into the former category and wells A-3,
A-8, A-11, A-13 into the latter. Well A-7 was the only case where the 8.5 hole was TDd in the NKG.
Within the Balakhany hole inclinations ranged from 10
o
to 78
o
and in the Pereriv / NKG ranged from
10
o
to 88
o
.
A range of mud types were used to drill the 8.5 hole sections. Quadrill was the most popular choice,
used for wells A-2, A-3, A-8 and A-13 with mud weights ranging from 10.3 ppg to 11.1 ppg. Saraline
SBM was used for wells A-9 and A-11 with mud weight ranges of 10.2 ppg to 10.9 ppg. Within well
A-7 an Oil Based Mud was used with a much higher density of 12.1 ppg to 12.4 ppg. Ultidrill with a
density of 10.7 ppg to 10.8 ppg was used to drill A-14. Within well A-1, an 11.6 ppg KCl Polymer
mud was used.
In general, within 8.5 hole sections, the majority of hole instability indicators were within the
Balakhany Formation. Little instability was observed within the Pereriv other than when the hole was
extended into the underlying NKG Formation. In a few instances, the 7 liner passed tight spots but
was always worked past. No major losses were noted whilst running or cementing the liner. A 15.8 ppg
cement slurry was used.
Within well A-1, no problems were noted. Within well A-2, the logging tool temporarily stood up at
3100m in the Pereriv. Within well A-3 it is noted that the use of Quadrill mud prevented washout of
shale layers within the Pereriv. Within well A-7, hole conditions were noted as excellent although
wireline became stuck because hole inclination was too great. The 7 liner had to be washed to 4200m
at which point the hole packed off several times and could not be cleaned effectively. It was not
possible to rotate the liner at any time and not possible to pass 4581m. The liner was subsequently set
at 4575m. Within well A-8 no problems were reported drilling or tripping but logging tools reportedly
became stuck requiring extra trips. Within well A-9, signs of packing off were noted back-reaming the
last stand. Within well A-11 no problems were reported but within well A-13 the calliper log reportedly
shows large washouts at 4200m, the depth at which logs could not pass. A washed out zone between
4095m and 4100m was noted also.
The worst instability within this section was experienced within well A-14. After having drilled the 8.5
hole to a TD of 4970m, the hole packed off and the pipe became stuck at 4387m in the Balakhany
whilst back-reaming to the shoe. After having worked the pipe and started circulating, a steady stream
of sand and small cuttings were noted at the surface. Back-reaming to the shoe again was better than
the previous attempt and whilst tripping back to bottom the problem are was reamed. Tripping back out
August 2000 Page 10
again several tight spots were noted in the Balakhany but when tripping back into the hole conditions
were much improved. Reportedly the calliper showed several washouts followed by sections of gauge
hole. A decision was made to side-track. Within the side-tracked hole section tight spots in the
Balakhany required back-reaming. The top drive was reportedly stalling with the hole packing off. The
pipe was noted as becoming stuck several times and could not be jarred free. Whilst running the 7
liner, several tight spots are noted with it becoming tagged up at 5185m.
3.2 Review of Exploration Well GCA-1
In addition to the fourteen development wells the exploration well GCA-1 was also reviewed as part of
this study. Summary details for each formation are included on the appended spreadsheets with
pertinent information for each hole section detailed below. The well was vertical. All depths referred to
in the text are measured and relative to the rotary table elevation.
3.2.1 36 Hole Section and 30 Conductor
A 12.25 pilot hole was drilled with seawater to 505m to cut through shallow faults where gas could
have been encountered. Unstable conditions and tight pulls were experienced, particularly between
360m and 380m. From the seabed to 310m within Recent Sediments the hole was opened up to 36 and
then a 30 conductor was run.
3.2.2 26 Hole Section and 20 Casing
The remainder of the 12.25 pilot hole was opened up to 26 through the remainder of Recent
Sediments and presumably through the Apsheron Formation and into the Akchagyl (no formation tops
available for near surface sediments). The 20 surface casing had to be worked through a tight interval
from 360m to 380m. Casing was finally landed and the shoe cemented at 498m.
The 17.5 hole section was drilled through the remainder of the Akchagyl and TDd within the
Surakhany. A PHPA / KCl mud was used with an initial density of 9.5 ppg. At 655m, the well was
observed to be flowing so mud weight was raised to 11.3 ppg and the flow killed. Density was then
raised again with drilling resuming with a mud weight of 11.6 ppg. A further influx was finally
controlled with a density of 12.0 ppg then severe swabbing and tight hole led to a further increase in
mud weight of 12.3 ppg at the casing depth of 1215m. When the 13.375 casing was run there was
evidence of channelling.
The 12.25 hole section was drilled through the remainder of the Surakhany, the Sabunchi and TDd in
the Balakhany. A PHPA / KCl mud was used initially with a density of 12.0 ppg but gradually raised
to 12.4 ppg from 1400m to 1500m to overcome swabbing and tight hole conditions. Mud weight was
further raised to penetrating the Balakhany due to increased gas returns in the mud. 9.625 casing was
run and cemented at 2558m.
August 2000 Page 11
3.2.5 8.5 Hole Section and 7.0 Liner
The 8.5 hole section was drilled through the remainder of the Balakhany, the Pereriv and TDd in the
NKG. The section was drilled with a KCl Polymer mud with a density of 11.0 ppg. From 2662m to
2715m the hole was cored and then drilling continued from 2715m to 2769m. Mud weight was
subsequently raised to 11.4 ppg due to increase in connection gas, the well not being static and the hole
reportedly tight on connections. A further 102m were then cored from 2769m but when pulling at
2788m severe weather required hanging off the string. With the bit at 2683m for 11.5 hours the string
became stuck and took 15 hours to free. Drilled continued from 2871m to 2958m and when close to TD
mud weight was increased to 11.8 ppg due to instability. The 7" Liner was run without problem.
3.3 Previous Report Summary
Reviewing previous reports and memos made available by the Asset, the main report relating to
wellbore stability is that written by Exxon in 1998
1
. The main objective of the study was to assess
wellbore stability for the forthcoming A-2 well and for several future development well trajectories.
Offset wells were limited to exploration wells GCA-1, GCA-2 and the first development well A-1.
Within the report uncertainty was noted in horizontal stresses and according to report findings stresses
below 2000m appeared more consistent with compressive tectonic forces. Analyses conducted were
soley based on intact formation failure with no consideration of slippage on pre-existing weakness
planes. Mud weights quoted by Exxon to minimise instability are based on different breakout criterion
to those used by BP so direct comparison of results is made more difficult. Comparing Exxons
predictions for well A-2 with actual mud weights used and observations of hole instability the following
are noted:
Within the 17.5 section of well A-2 Exxon report that the well should be stable if drilled with about
8% KCl and mud weights in the range 11.5 - 12.0 ppg. Actual mud used was KCl / PHPA but %
salt is not known. Density was increased to 12.0 ppg at 640m with no major wellbore stability
problems reported.
Within the 12.25 section of well A-2 Exxon report that the well should be stable if drilled with an 8
- 12% KCl mud with a densities in the range 12.0 to 13.0 ppg. Actual mud used was a 12.8 ppg
Quadrill system. No major wellbore stability problems were reported.
The above comparison indicates that Exxon predictions for well A-2 were reasonable. That said,
however, mud range limits quoted by Exxon were considered large. If using mud weights towards the
lower end of the range stability may not have been ensured. Limitations that Exxon point to in their
study are (i) uncertainty in stress regime so extensional assumed, (ii) assume no anisotropy in
horizontal stresses so no distinction between different well azimuths and (iii) strength profiles derived
from surface area data from GCA-1 which may not be representative of other locations.
In addition to the Exxon Report, other studies were also reviewed. These include (i) a review of in-situ
stresses and rock mechanical properties for stimulation design by Chris Dyke of BP
2
, (ii) notes by
Tetsuro Tochikawa
3,4
and Dr Nobuo Morita
5
, and (iii) a Schlumberger Dowell shale characterisation
report
6
. In the case of the first two, information of relevance relates to data on in-situ stresses and rock
properties. Drilling data (i.e. LOTs) and analyses results imply higher than may be expected horizontal
stresses. For rock properties, results of rock strength and deformation parameters for GCA-1 sandstone
core tested in the laboratory have been presented.
August 2000 Page 12
Within the Dowell Schlumberger report results of characterisation tests on shale cutttings from well A-
13 were presented and discussed in the context of washouts in the 12.25 hole section. Since using
Synthetic Based Mud, certain sections of 12.25 holes are reportedly enlarged. Characterisation tests
involved determination of moisture content, cation exchange capacity, water activity , X-ray diffraction
analysis and cuttings dispersion tests. Throughout the report hole enlargements are described as
washouts as opposed to breakout with the worst areas associated with the very top and very bottom of
the Sabunchi Formation. Calliper data presented from well A-12 is one arm only so it is unclear what
shape hole enlargements really are. This is important as washouts would certainly imply chemical
instability as opposed to mechanical. After reviewing results of all tests, the report discussion notes that
none of the shale physico- chemical characteristics are directly correlated with the cuttings recovery
data. For this reason, the author concludes that instability is thought to be due to mechanical effects
rather than chemical. In order for this to be investigated further, better knowledge is required on the
shape of hole enlargements since as stated earlier, washouts would be indicative of chemical effects.

S/UTG/105/00 A-15 Stability Assessment and Mud Weight Requirements
August 2000 Page 13
4. A15 Stability Assessment and Mud Weight Requirements
Having reviewed all offset well data and previous reports / memos, a further scope of this study was to
provide mud weight recommendations for minimising instability in the forthcoming A-15 injector well.
4.1 Planned Trajectory and Subsurface Conditions
The well, to be drilled from the Chirag platform, is due to spud at the beginning of August. The
planned trajectory is presented in Figure 1, below, detailing prognosed formation tops and casing
setting depths.

Figure 1: Planned Trajectory for A-15 with Formation Tops and Casing Points
August 2000 Page 14
The top hole 26 section will be drilled through Recent Sediments and mid-way into the Apsheron
Formation with the 20 casing shoe set at a measured depth of 476m (475m TVDbrt). The following
17.5 hole will then be drilled through the remainder of the Apsheron, the Akchagyl and into the
Surakhany with the 13.375 casing shoe set at a measured depth of 1394m (1275m TVDbrt). A 12.25
geologic pilot hole will then be drilled through the remainder of the Surakhany, the Sabunchi, the
Balakhany and into the Pereriv crossing a thrust fault and TDd at a measured depth of 4700m (3315m
TVDbrt). This hole will then be plugged back and side-tracked. A second 12.25 hole will then be
drilled from a measured depth of 3650m (2669m TVDbrt) through the lower part of the Balakhany and
TDd at top Pereriv. After running 9.625 casing, an 8.5 hole section will be drilled and TDd within
the Pereriv reservoir at a measured depth of 4750m (3373m).
Well inclinations and formations within each hole section are presented in Table 1 below:
Hole Section (TVDbrt in metres) Formations and Hole Inclinations (TVDbrt in metres)
26 (Mud Line to 475) Recent (Mud Line to 407): Inclination 0 to 7.5
Apsheron (407 to 475): Inclination 7.5 to 10
17.5 (475 to 1275) Apsheron (475 to 552): Inclination 10 to 12
Ackhagyl (552 to 732): Inclination 12 to 21
Surakhany (732 to 1275): Inclination 21 to 46
12.25 Pilot Hole (1275 to 3316) Surakhany (1275 to 1642): Inclination 46 to 52
Sabunchi (1642 to 1922): Inclination 52
Balakhany (1922 to 2884): Inclination 52
Pereriv (2884 to 3316): Inclination 52
12.25 Side-track Hole (2669 to 2884)
Note: above 2669m, the 12.25 hole will
remain open
Balakhany (2669 to 2884): Inclination 52 to 50
Note: above 2669m, formations open as detailed for pilot
hole
8.5 Side-track Hole (2884 to 3373) Pereriv (2884 to 3373): Inclination 50
Table 1 : Formations and Hole Inclinations for Each Section
In order to provide mud weight recommendations for minimising hole instability, subsurface conditions
along the A-15 well trajectory require definition. This is discussed within Appendix C where
information on rock properties and in-situ stresses considered for A-15 design are detailed. Within
formations above the Balakhany, an extensional regime is assumed with the vertical stress being greater
than the two horizontal components. Within the Balakhany and Pereriv Formations, however,
uncertainty exists in both the stress regime and actual horizontal magnitudes with the possibility of the
vertical component being the least principal stress. For this reason, the following range of stress
scenarios are considered for design below base Sabunchi:
Stress Scenario 1 : Extensional with horizontal stresses from prognosed fracture gradient
Vertical stress = overburden gradient as presented in Figure C6
Minimum horizontal stress = fracture gradient as presented in Figure C4
Maximum horizontal stress = value mid way between vertical stress and minimum stress value
This stress scenario is as that to be used in overburden formations above the Balakhany
August 2000 Page 15
Stress Scenario 2 : Extensional with higher horizontal stresses as indicated by other studies
Minimum horizontal stress = vertical stress minus 0.04 SG
Maximum horizontal stress = vertical stress minus 0.02 SG
Stress Scenario 3 : Reverse
Minimum horizontal stress = vertical stress plus 0.02 SG
Maximum horizontal stress = vertical stress plus 0.04 SG
4.2 Compressive Failure Analysis of I ntact Formation
Within each hole section, the degree of tolerable failure will be a function of hole cleaning requirements
which will in turn be directly dependant on hole inclination. The degree of shear failure of the intact
formation is expressed in terms of breakout width as shown in the schematic below.
The schematic opposite describes the definition
of 'breakout width', . Note that as two
symmetric breakout 'wings' are assumed, a
breakout width of 180
o
is equivalent to failure
around the entire borehole circumference.

Typically for definition of minimum mud weight requirements the degree of tolerable breakout width is
expressed as 90
o
minus well deviation. So for a vertical well up to half the wellbore can fail in shear
without causing hole cleaning problems whereas in a horizontal hole no breakout can be tolerated at all.
In order to define minimum mud weight requirements for the A-15 well, analyses data files have been
divided according to formation as follows:
CASE A - Recent, Apsheron and Akchagyl Formations
CASE B - Surakhany and Sabunchi Formations
CASE C - Balakhany and Pereriv Formations
For Case C, it is assumed that neither the 12.25 pilot hole or the 8.5 side-tracked hole will penetrate
the NKG Formation. In-situ stresses and rock properties consistent with the Pereriv have been extended
to 3375m TVDbrt below final depths prognosed for each hole section.
Considering inclinations and formations within each hole section the number of analyses conducted are
related to tolerable breakout widths. Analyses performed for each hole section are as follows:
26 Hole Design
Analysis 1 : CASE A with breakout width of 80
o
through Recent and top Apsheron Formations

August 2000 Page 16
17.5 Hole Design
Analysis 2 : CASE A with breakout width of 69
o
through base Apsheron and Akchagyl Formations
Analysis 3 : CASE B with breakout width of 44
o
through top Surakhany
12.25 Pilot Hole Design
Analysis 4 : CASE B with breakout width of 38
o
through mid / bottom Surakhany and Sabunchi
Analysis 5 : CASE C (Stress Scenario 1) with breakout width of 38
o
through Balakhany and Pereriv
o
o
12.25 Side-track Hole Design
Results of Analysis 4 to 7 for formations drilled in the pilot hole that will remain open above side-
tracked section
o
through base Balakhany
o
o
8.5 Side-track Hole Design
o
through Pereriv
o
through Pereriv
o
through Pereriv
Analyses were conducted using the stability software Stress and Failure in Inclined Boreholes (SFIB).
The Well TRaJectory (WTRJ) module was used to provide minimum mud weight requirements along
the specific A-15 well trajectory. Results of analyses 1, 3, 4 and 11 which dictate minimum mud weight
requirements for each section are presented in Figures 2 to 5. The top and bottom diagrams on the far
left of the output file define profiles for in-situ stresses and rock properties, respectively. Within the
centre, profile and plan views of the well trajectory are shown colour coded with minimum mud weights
required to minimise the risk of compressive failure. Within the far right of the output files, the five
columns of data show depth (MD and TVD brt), breakout to be expected using a specific mud weight,
pore pressure, minimum mud weight required to limit breakouts to within tolerable limit set and the
minimum principal stress made equal to the prognosed fracture gradient for A-15. For the condition
where degree of breakout is shown for a specific mud weight, a default value of 1.49 SG (12.4 ppg) is
set for all analyses.
Results presented only provide summary details and not a complete listing of mud weight requirements
for all data points considered. For this reason, the maximum mud weight in the section may be greater
than that shown in Figures 2 to 5.
August 2000 Page 17

Figure 2: WTRJ Analysis 1

August 2000 Page 18


Studying complete listings of results from each analyses, minimum mud weight requirements computed
for each hole section were noted and are follows:
August 2000 Page 19
26 Hole : 1.05 SG (8.7 ppg) at a depth of 407m TVDbrt at the top of the Apsheron Formation
17.5 Hole : 1.45 SG (12.1 ppg) at a depth of 1237m TVDbrt in the Surakhany Formation
12.25 Pilot Hole and Side-track : 1.47 SG (12.3 ppg) at a depth of 1647m TVDbrt in the Sabunchi
Formation
8.5 Side-track Hole: 1.33 SG (11.1 ppg) for Stress Scenario 1 to 1.35 SG (11.3 ppg) for Stress
Scenario 3 at a depth of between 2897m to 2952m TVDbrt in the Pereriv Formation
Mud weights calculated are based on the Modified Lade Failure Criterion. This was used as it is
considered a more realistic criterion in softer sediments compared with other more conservative criteria
such as Mohr Coulomb. Comparing Modified Lade results with those that would be obtained using
Mohr Coulomb, discrepancies between the two criterion appear to be worst within the 26and side-
track sections of the well. Table 2 below, compares highest mud weight values computed using
Modified Lade with equivalent densities assuming Mohr Coulomb.
Hole Section Depth
(metres TVDbrt)
Maximum Mud Weight for Section (SG / ppg)
Modified Lade Mohr Coulomb
26 407 1.05 / 8.75 1.12 / 9.33
17.5 1237 1.45 / 12.08 1.47 / 12.25
12.25 Pilot and Side-
track
1647 1.47 / 12.25 1.53 / 12.75
8.5 Side-track -
Stress 1
2897 1.33 / 11.08 1.46 / 12.17
8.5 Side-track -
Stress 3
2952 1.35 / 11.25 1.49 / 12.4
Table 2: Comparison of Modified Lade with Mohr Coulomb
Analyses conducted are linear elastic with no accounting for poro-elastic effects over time where
overbalance may reduce as mud pressure and formation fluid pressure equalise at the wellbore wall
when in communication. The analyses also take no consideration of chemical effects which may worsen
stability if mud chemistry is incompatible with the shale formations being drilled. For this reason, mud
weights computed are based on the use of an oil based mud or similar.
When drilling sandstone sequences, a nominal overbalance is typically required to prevent instability.
The belief is that when drilled the sand grains dilate thereby redistributing induced stresses creating a
plastic zone around the wellbore. Since, however, the stability code SFIB assumes brittle failure,
stability in sandstone sequences is difficult to model with mud weights calculated often an over-
prediction of what is actually required. For this reason, mud weights quoted are as those required to
minimise instability of shale sequences. Since all hole sections pass through shale formations mud
weights computed are considered applicable for all sections.
August 2000 Page 20
4.3 Failure Along Pre-existing Weakness Planes
For analyses 1 to 13, mud weights are based on failure of the intact rock matrix. Within certain
formations, however, instability may be worsened by failure along pre-existing weakness planes. Such
planes may be either bedding features, fractures or faults. Having been provided ranges in bedding dip /
dip direction for the Balakhany and Pereriv, additional analyses were conducted to assess what impact
consideration of anisotropy would make on mud weights required to minimise instability risk. The two
main concerns being (i) unfavourable attack angle between wellbore and bedding features, and (ii)
intersection of the well with a thrust fault within the Pereriv.
When considering instability associated with pre-existing weakness planes, failure may be either due to
(i) slippage or (ii) buckling. The former will occur if the well is drilled at an unfavourable azimuth with
respect to both stress orientation and weakness plane dip / dip direction. The second mode of failure
will pose a risk if the well is drilled almost parallel to the feature such that buckling occurs in the roof
of the borehole. This type of failure is typically associated with highly deviated wells drilled through
near horizontal bedding and referred to as bedding parallel failure. An example of bedding parallel
failure observed within a shale sample tested in a laboratory is presented in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Bedding parallel failure of a wellbore demonstrated in a laboratory
experiment with a Jurassic shale sample. Montage of SEM photographs
7

For the A-15 trajectory, dip and dip direction for bedding in the Balakhany and Pereriv, provided by the
Asset, are as below. Regards the thrust fault to be crossed within the Pereriv, uncertainty currently
exists in its dip and dip direction at the point of intersection.
August 2000 Page 21
Top Balakhany - dip around horizontal
Top Balakhany IX -dip angle ~ 5
o
to 045 (approximate to +/- 8
o
)
Top Balakhany X - dip angle ~ 15
o
o
)
Top Pereriv - dip angle ~ 24
o
to 045 ( +/- 3
o
)
o
to 045 ( +/- 3
o
)
To assess the likelihood for bedding plane slippage within the shale inter-beds of the Balakhany and
Pereriv, anisotropic analyses were conducted for each of the cases noted above. Analyses of this kind,
however, may only be conducted using the Mohr Coulomb criterion. If A-15 mud weights are to based
on Modified Lade criterion results, anisotropic analyses only serves to provide a qualitative assessment
of bedding plane slippage.
Using the Get FaiLuRe (GFLR) module of SFIB, mud weights required to minimise instability for
tolerable breakout widths were computed for (i) intact failure only and (ii) intact failure incorporating
risk of slippage. If slippage is a risk, the failure zone for a given mud weight will be greater when
considering slippage than intact failure alone. This being the case, mud weights will need to be higher
than that required to prevent failure of the intact formation if the tolerable breakout width is to be
maintained. Using next the Borehole Stress and Failure Orientation (BSFO) module, breakout widths
were computed for mud weights required to minimise intact failure alone and weights required to
minimise both intact failure and slippage. The lower mud weights correspond to those required to
maintain tolerable breakout width based on intact failure only. The higher mud weights are those
required to maintain tolerable breakout width based on both intact rock failure and slippage. Breakout
widths due solely to intact failure are denoted wBO and those corresponding to failure from both intact
shear and slippage are denoted wBO.
Within the Balakhany, the pilot hole section will be drilled at an inclination of 52
o
and within the side-
track inclination will be slightly lower at 50
o
. Tolerable breakout within the Balakhany is set at 38
o

based on the highest inclination of 52
o
. Within the Pereriv a tolerable breakout of 40
o
is set based on an
inclination of 50
o
planned for the 8.5 hole section. Analyses conducted within the Balakhany are based
on the pilot hole trajectory and for the Pereriv are based on the side-track trajectory.
August 2000 Page 22

Formation
(Depth in m
TVDbrt)
Bedding
Dip / Dip
Dirn.
Min. Mud
Weights with
No Anisotropy
MC (ML)
SG / ppg
Min. Mud
Weights with
Anisotropy
MC
SG / ppg
Breakout for
No Anisotropy
Mud Weight
wBO wBO
Breakout for
Anisotropy
Mud Weight
wBO wBO
Top
Balakhany
(1922)
1
o
/ 045
o
1.491 (1.385) /
12.43 (11.54)
1.493 / 12.44 38 46 32 38
Top
Balakhany IX
(2452)
5
o
/ 045
o
1.403 (1.270) /
11.69 (10.58)
1.411 / 11.76 38 68 15 38
Top
Balakhany X
(2702)
15
o
/ 045
o
1.428 (1.295) /
11.90 (10.79)
1.440 / 12.00 38 84 0 38
Top Pereriv
(2884)
24
o
/ 045
o
1.325 (1.175) /
11.04 (9.79)
1.334 / 11.12 40 73 12 40
Base Pereriv
(3290)
33
o
/ 045
o
1.428 (1.290) /
11.90 (10.75)
1.436 / 11.97 40 56 25 40
Note
MC: Mohr Coulomb Criterion, ML : Modified Lade Criterion
No Anisotropy: Density reqd. for intact formation failure only (tolerable wBO of 38
o
or 40
o
)
With Anisotropy: Density reqd. for intact formation failure & slippage (tolerable wBO of 38
o
or 40
o
)
wBO : breakout width for intact failure alone, wBO : breakout width for intact failure & slippage
Table 3: Results of Anisotropic Analyses to Assess Risk of Bedding Plane Slippage
Within Figures 7 and 8 below, BSFO output files for analyses at Top Balakhany X are presented.
Figure 7 shows the result of the analysis which does not consider slippage effects. Here a mud weight
of 1.43 SG (10.79 ppg) gives a tolerable breakout of 38
o
. Figure 8 shows that when slippage is
considered the same mud weight will result in a much larger failed borehole circumference.
August 2000 Page 23

Figure 7: BSFO Output File for Top Balakhany X - Failure without Anisotropy Considered

Figure 8: BSFO Output File for Top Balakhany X - Failure with Anisotropy Considered
To conduct analyses, an assumption had to be made about the strength of the weakness planes. This is
difficult as no data exists to define such parameters. For results presented above, it was assumed that
an equivalent unconfined compressive strength incorporating the weakness planes would be 1/3
rd
that of
the intact unconfined compressive strength value. Taking the friction angles along the bedding planes to
be equal to intact friction values, cohesion for each bedding plane was computed from the equation
below:
Cohesion (MPa) = (UCS*(1-sin)) / (2*cos)
August 2000 Page 24
Where:
UCS = 1/3
rd
Intact UCS (MPa)
= Friction Angle of Weakness Plane (degrees)
Studying results presented in Table 3 it can be seen that slippage may be a risk if bedding planes are as
weak as assumed. To maintain a tolerable breakout width of 38
o
in the Balakhany and 40
o
in the Pereriv
when failure is attributed to shearing of the intact rock and bedding plane slip, analyses results imply
that mud weights should be increased by a further 0.012 SG (0.1 ppg) in the Balakhany and by a
further 0.008 SG (0.067 ppg) in the Pereriv.
If, however, cohesion of the weakness plane is increased to a value corresponding to an equivalent UCS
of 2/3rds that of the intact formation, slippage is not noted as a risk. Since, however, strength
properties of bedding features are unknown it would be prudent to assume some risk of bedding plane
slip. From the review of wells drilled previously, large blocky cavings are noted as coming from the
Balakhany which may imply some degree of failure along pre-existing weakness planes. From results
presented, the Balakhany appears more at risk of this type of failure than the Pereriv with the worst
combination of attack angle and stresses towards the base of the Formation.
Although minimum mud weight recommendations increase for controlling risk of additional failure due
to slippage, raising mud weights after instability has initiated is unlikely to rectify the problem. Unlike
failure of the intact formation, once the rock begins to fail along pre-existing planes there is the danger
that increasing mud weight solely acts to lubricate and reduce strength of planes still further. Crack
blocking agents in the drilling fluid can retard the failure by restricting mud invasion. If failure occurs
along pre-existing fracture planes, cavings appear to be tabular in shape with a set of parallel faces not
related to bedding. In comparison, cavings resulting from slippage along bedding features are also
tabular, but rock laminae are parallel to the bounding surface. Figure 9 presents examples of such
differences. To minimise the risk of instability associated with such failure, mud weights must be
optimised at the start of the section and cavings continuously monitored. If indications at the rig site
imply failure along weakness planes, mud weight must not be raised to combat the problem. Suggested
remedial actions in response to cavings, once their characteristics have been identified, are presented
towards the end of this section.

Figure 9: Differences between cavings delineated along fracture planes and those delineated along
bedding features (Courtesy of Schlumberger)
August 2000 Page 25
Considering the risk of bedding parallel failure due to buckling, the only way to minimise risk is to
avoid drilling certain trajectories. In the case of A-15 attack angles between bedding and wellbore
provided by the asset and based on apparent dips are as follows:
37 degrees at top Balakhany
32 degrees at top Balakhany IX
22 degrees at top Balakhany X
13 degrees at top Reservoir
4 degrees at base Reservoir
Studies by Okland and Cook
7
show that wells drilled within 10 degrees of the bedding parallel direction
are at risk of this type of instability. Considering attack angles noted for A-15, bedding parallel failure
is considered a potential threat in the reservoir section. To reduce the risk it is recommended that the
well trajectory is altered to make attack angle between bedding and wellbore more favourable.
4.4 Tensile Failure and Risk of Losses
In addition to minimising the risk of tight hole and stuck pipe by ensuring a high enough mud weight to
prevent compressive failure of the formation, the risk of losses should also be assessed. Two potential
causes of losses are drilling induced fractures and pre-existing fractures and faults. The former will
result from tensile failure of the formation due to drilling with too high a mud weight. In the case of the
latter, partial losses may result if natural fractures / faults are intersected and total losses occur if
fractures / faults are propagated away from the wellbore wall. To be conservative, the fracture gradient
for well A-15 is based on propagation values equivalent to the minimum principal stress. Assuming that
fracture initiation is greater than fracture propagation, fractures will be neither initiated or propagated
if mud weight is maintained below the value of the minimum principal stress. Comparing the highest
static mud weight required to minimise stability in each hole section with the lowest value of minimum
stress, typically at the shoe but not always, losses due to induced fractures are not considered to be a
risk but will be dependant on the ECD margin. If ECDs do not exceed the minimum principal stress
new fractures will not be initiated and pre-existing fractures will not be propagated away from the
wellbore. The only exception to this would be in cases where the initiation gradient is less than the
propagation value as is sometimes the case in high angle wells within an extensional regime or for
HPHT wells. For stress scenario 2 within the Balakhany and Pereriv it should be noted that the
minimum stress, still taken to be horizontal, is higher that used in Scenario 1. If such conditions do
exist the corresponding fracture gradient line should be increased by the same amount. In the case of
stress scenario 3, the vertical stress is made equal to the minimum principal value. Taking the fracture
gradient to be equal to the propagation value the upper limit to the drilling window should be made
equal to the vertical principal stress.
Considering that all static mud weights, incorporating ECD margin, should be below the upper bound
to the drilling window the only risk of losses should be along pre-existing faults and fractures. Whether
or not these are partial or total losses will be dependant on (i) the degree of connectivity of the feature
away from the wellbore wall and (ii) the nature of the fracture / fault directly dependant on its stress
history - sealed with the major principal stress perpendicular or open with the minor principal stress
perpendicular. Whilst reviewing previous reports / memos, results of a study conducted by Tetsuro
4

were noted. Within this note, occurrence of losses within previous development wells were related to
well azimuth relative to the Chirag structure. All losses reported occurred whilst running the 9 5/8
casing and in terms of depth relate to Top Sabunchi. The database was compiled from development
wells A4 to A12. Corresponding ECD values quoted were derived using the Wellplan program. Results
August 2000 Page 26
of the losses study implied that their occurrence was sensitive to well azimuth (e.g. A9 experienced no
losses with 13.9 ppg ECD, while A4 experienced major losses with a 13.0 ppg ECD). Tetsuros
explanation for observations noted is related to the azimuth of the well with respect to the maximum
horizontal stress. Believing the maximum direction of compression to be perpendicular to the Chirag
Structure Anticline Trend of NW-.SE, a maximum horizontal stress direction of 60
o
is assumed. Wells
such as A4 and A5, drilled parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, are likely to be more at risk of
instability than those drilled perpendicular to this direction. Tetsuro derived the following directionality
- loss relationship:
Most stable wells : up-dip and / cross dip wells with min horizontal stress dirn (330
o
)
Medium severity wells : down-dip wells with min horizontal stress direction (150
o
)
Most unstable : wells with max. horiz. stress (60 / 240)
Dip direction refers to the structural dip of the structure with up dip defined as 330
o
and down-dip
referred to as 150
o
. This is not the same as smaller scale formation dips which will also have an effect
on overall stability.
Relating results of Tetsuros work with the A-15 azimuth of between approximately 10
o
to 40
o
, the risk
of losses into natural fractures / faults is considered to be medium severity. The well direction falls
between the worst and most favourable drilling direction in with respect to the in-situ stress orientation.
Comparing well azimuth with structural dip, well azimuth lies mid way between up dip and cross dip
directions.
In addition to work by Tetsuro, the risk of losses within A-15 has been discussed in a note by Jake
Hossack
8
. Jake states that with the maximum regional stress direction running perpendicular to the
strike of the main thrust fault (i.e. ~ 60
o
), faults that strike perpendicular to the strike should be
considered as high risk in terms of mud losses compared with thrust parallel faults.
4.5 Mud Weight Recommendations for A-15
Based on results presented in preceding sections and findings of the offset well review, the following
static mud weights are recommended for minimising instability in well A-15:
26 Hole : 8.6 ppg with contingency to weight up to 8.7 ppg if tight spots encountered
17.5 Hole: 12.1 ppg
12.25 Pilot Hole and Side-track : 12.4 ppg
8.5 Side-track Hole: 11.2 to 11.4 ppg
Within the 26 hole, offset data indicate that previous development wells were drilled with mud weights
of between 8.4 ppg to 8.7 ppg. Results of stability analyses imply a minimum mud weight requirement
of 8.7 ppg driven by subsurface conditions at the top of the Apsheron Formation. Since analyses may
be slightly conservative within the very top hole soft sediments and considering previous drilling
experience, a minimum mud weight of 8.6 ppg is thought the optimum mud weight for drilling this
section.
Within the 17.5 hole, offset data indicate that previous development wells were typically drilled with
mud weights of between 11.9 ppg to 12.1 ppg with some tight spots noted but also occasional dynamic
August 2000 Page 27
losses whilst circulating and during wiper trips. Results of stability analyses imply a minimum mud
weight requirement of 12.1 ppg driven by subsurface conditions at 1237m TVDbrt in the Surakhany
Formation. This weight is considered optimum for drilling this section. Since previous development
wells report occurrences of dynamic losses within the 17.5 hole section careful attention must be given
to minimising ECDs. As early development wells experienced several problems related to chemical
instability it is important that mud type chosen provides optimum inhibition to minimise the occurrence
of washouts.
Within the 12.25 hole, offset data indicate that early development wells were typically drilled with
mud weights as high as 12.9 ppg using a Quadrill mud system. Within later wells drilled with a
synthetic based mud, densities were lower and ranged from 12.0 ppg to 12.6 ppg. The last two wells,
A-13 and A-14, drilled with a combination fluid had density ranges of between 12.1 ppg and 12.4 ppg.
Within offset wells A-2 to A-8 hole conditions were reportedly good with only a few overpulls and tight
spots recorded. Within more recent wells drilled at higher inclinations instability appeared to worsen
with an abundance of blocky cavings noted from the Sabunchi and Balakhany Formations. The report
by Dowell Schlumberger notes hole enlargements within the Sabunchi Formation for wells drilled with
synthetic muds concluding that instability is most likely to be the result of mechanical failure as
opposed to chemical effects.
Results of stability analyses imply that both 12.25 pilot hole and side-track sections of A-15 should be
drilled with a 12.3 ppg mud weight to minimise instability. This value is driven by the over-pressured
Sabunchi Formation based on intact formation failure and assuming a completely inhibitive mud
system. Considering hole problems in more recent wells resulting in large caving volumes, failure along
pre-existing weakness planes may be an additional mode of failure to explain such instability in wells
drilled at high angle through base Sabunchi / Balakhany. Considering ranges in bedding dip within the
Balakhany, analyses incorporating anisotropic effects imply that failure along weakness planes could
be a potential risk for the A-15 trajectory. To minimise the risk of bedding plane slip mud weights may
need to be increased by a further 0.012 SG (0.1 ppg) within zones most at risk. Given that cavings
within previous wells are reportedly from both the Sabunchi and the Balakhany it may be prudent to
assume that this type of formation failure is feasible within both formations. Considering that the
Sabunchi is described as a calcareous claystone with occasional inter-beds of sandstone and the
Balakhany is described as blocky, failure along pre-existing weakness planes does not seem an
unreasonable explanation. Also, within the Sabunchi, thin sand layers may be even more over-pressured
than assumed. For this reason, increasing mud weight by an additional 0.1 ppg is seen to further reduce
the risk of instability within these zones. For the 12.25 hole sections of A-15 a minimum mud weight
of 12.4 ppg is thought the optimum mud weight for drilling this section. Since earlier development wells
experienced occasional problems related to chemical instability it is important that mud type chosen
provides optimum inhibition within this section.
Within the 8.5 hole, offset data indicate that previous development wells were drilled with quite a wide
range of mud weights of between 10.2 ppg to 12.4 ppg. From stability analyses conducted results imply
that a mud weight between 11.1 ppg and 11.3 ppg should be used to minimise instability resulting from
intact formation failure. The range of values quoted result from the variation in stress magnitudes
considered. Given that the Pereriv may be susceptible to bedding plane slippage, mud weights should be
further increased by 0.1 ppg. Optimum mud weight range for drilling this section is 11.2 to 11.4 ppg.
A further risk of instability within this hole section is a buckling mode of failure in the roof of the
borehole when the well is drilled within 10
o
of bedding. Instability may also be compounded where the
well crosses the prognosed thrust fault. Without knowing the dip and dip direction of the fault at the
point where it crosses the well path, however, analyses cannot be conducted to provide a qualitative
assessment of instability risk. Although the majority of the Pereriv is sandstone and potentially able to
August 2000 Page 28
be drilled with a nominal overbalance, mud weights recommended are those required to minimise the
risk of instability within shale inter-beds.
Given the risk of slippage along pre-existing weakness planes it is recommended that cavings be
continually monitored at the rig site whilst drilling 12.25 and 8.5 hole sections. This will allow the
most likely mode of failure to be identified such that the appropriate remedial action can be taken. If for
example, instability is related to failure along pre-existing weakness planes, raising mud weight once
instability has started will almost inevitably worsen hole conditions as the mud will act to lubricate and
reduce the strength of planes still further. Crack blocking agents in the drilling fluid can retard the
failure by restricting mud invasion. It is important to respond rapidly to sudden changes in cavings rate
whereas a small constant volume of cavings are worth monitoring but may not require immediate
remedial action. Photographs showing examples of typical cavings are presented in Figure 10 and
Table 4 presents key characteristics and suggested remedial actions associated with different caving
types. Differences between cavings delineated along fracture planes and those delineated along bedding
features were presented earlier in section 4.3.

Figure 10: Examples of Typical Cavings (Courtesy of Schlumberger)
August 2000 Page 29

Caving Type Angular Platy / Tabular Splintery
Failure
Mechanism
Shear failure resulting in
multifaceted fragments
Failure along pre-
existing weakness planes
Tensile failure believed
to result from a poro-
elastic response to
drilling too fast through
low permeability shale
Key
Characteristics
Facets are newly
created fracture
surfaces
Facets may be
curviplaner
Facets are non parallel
Failure - two regions
of wellbore separated
by 180 degrees
Majority of caving
surfaces represent pre-
existing planes of
weakness
One or more parallel
surfaces are common
Surfaces tend to be
relatively smooth and
planar
Failure initiates on
high side of wellbore
when well is nearly
parallel to a weakness
plane
Elongated platy rock
fragments
Typical lithology - low
permeability shale
Caving surfaces show
plume structure
indicative of tensile
failure
Entire circumference
of wellbore may be
damaged
Remedial
Action
If mud weight close to
pore pressure: raise
mud weight
If mud weight close to
fracture pressure
maintain mud
weight
decrease fluid loss
manage hole
cleaning

Maintain mud weight
Minimise fluid loss
coefficient of drilling
mud
Use crack blocking
additives
Avoid back reaming
Manage hole cleaning
Avoid excessive rpm
and drillstring
vibrations
Employ gentle drilling
practices
Raise mud weight
Reduce ROP
Table 4: Key Characteristics and Suggested Remedial Actions associated with Different Caving Type
(Courtesy of Schlumberger)
Comparing minimum mud weight recommendations with fracture gradient values induced fractures are
not considered to be a risk but will be dependant on the ECD margin. The main risk of losses for A-15
will be those that may be associated with pre-existing fractures and faults. From results of work
conducted by Tetsuro and notes made by Jake Hossack of BP, risk of losses along the A-15 trajectory
are considered to be of medium severity.
S/UTG/105/00 Data Acquisition Requirements for A-15
August 2000 Page 30
5. Data Acquisition Requirements for A15 and Future Wells
From a review of information from previous development and exploration wells the two main
observations are (i) limited data within overburden formations and (ii) uncertainty in stress regime.
Within the forthcoming A-15 well and future development trajectories data acquisition
recommendations include the following:
Density data from as close to mud line as possible to define the overburden gradient throughout both
overburden and reservoir formations.
Sonic log and gamma ray within overburden formations as well as within the reservoir to define
rock formation properties.
Extended leak off tests to measure both closure and re-opening pressures for definition of the
minimum principal stress and tensile strength component.
Image logs to define extent, shape and orientation of failed zones. In absence of image logs, oriented
4 or 6 arm callipers may be used but will not give direct measurement of breakout width.
Continual monitoring of cavings morphology at the rig site to identify modes of failure within
troublesome formations.
Continual downhole pressure monitoring (PWD) to define ECDs associated with occurrences of
losses and gains. Important to differentiate between gains associated with kicks and those which
result from fluid flowing back from closing fractures (wellbore breathing phenomenon).
If sonic tool used has cross-dipole mode this may be run in sandstone sections to assess stress
direction. Its application is, however, still in research stage. Use for definition of stress anisotropy
is currently questionable and within shales experience shows that log response is often too poor for
definition of either stress direction or anisotropy.

S/UTG/105/00 Proposed Work Scope for Main ERD Study
August 2000 Page 31
6. Additional Wellbore Stability Work to Support Future ERD Drilling
Following on from recommendations reported as part of this study, additional wellbore stability work
will be required to support future ERD drilling operations on Chirag. Given current knowledge of
subsurface conditions across the structure, the following tasks are suggested to increase confidence in
future wellbore stability predictions.
Better definition of the pore pressure regime across the structure - pressure cube should be
constructed using predictions from seismic, calibrated with offset well data
Better definition of stress regimes and principal stress magnitudes. Numerical modelling should be
employed to define total stress ranges. Linking this with improved pore pressure predictions an
effective stress cube may be generated
Improve rock strength predictions based on learnings from other Caspian Sea Fields and current
advancements in populating stress cubes with rock property data derived from seismic.
Incorporate faults into stress cube so as to optimise drilling trajectories by avoiding unfavourable
attack angles. Information on losses into faults within previous development wells will help to
differentiate between critical and non critically stressed faults
Better definition of stress direction. Review all available breakout data. Possibility of performing a
multi-well analysis using breakouts within a range of differently oriented well trajectories. Evidence
of compressional failures and / or induced fracturing will also help to better constrain stress
magnitudes.
Optimise drilling practices in parallel with future wellbore stability work. Often hole problems are
not solely the result of mechanical instability. Poor hole cleaning and general operational practices
are often causes relating to pack offs and stuck pipe.
Future wellbore stability needs identified for the Chirag Asset include a larger generic ERD study and a
more specific study for the forthcoming A-16 well.

S/UTG/105/00 References
August 2000 Page 32
7. References
1. D.E. Nierode; Chirag Wellbore Stability Study, Exxon Production Research Report, January 1998.
RA
2. Chris Dyke; Review of In-Situ Stresses and Rock Mechanical Properties for Hydraulic Fracturing /
Frac Packing, Chirag, Azerbaijan, BP Draft Report, October 1997. RA
3. Tetsuro Tochikawa; Sand Control Strategy, Memorandum, April 1999. RA
4. Tetsuro Tochikawa; SBM Losses During 9 5/8 Casing Running and Cementing, File Note. RA
5. Professor Nobuo Morita; Draft Stability Summary Notes - Various, Rock Mechanics and
Production Research Section, Resources and Environmental Engineering, Waseda University. RA
6. Davison and A. Burn; Characterisation of Shale Samples from Well A-13, Chirag Platform,
Azerbaijan, Europe -Cis and Africa Technology Application Centre, July 2000. RA
7. kland and J.M. Cook; Bedding Related Borehole Instability in High Angle Wells, SPE/ ISRM
47285, Volume 1, Eurock Conference Proceedings, 1998. R
8. Jake Hossack of BP, Notes on Faulting within the Overburden and Reservoir. RA
9. Personal Communication: Dowson / Alberty. A
10. Akhmedov; LOT and FIT Study, Azerbaijan Asset Document, 2000. A
11. Horsrund; Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale from Empirical Correlations, IKU Petroleum
Research. Unsolicited SPE Paper (56017), January 1999. A
12. Marie Scoular; Breakout Study Results. A
Key
RA - Within Main Report and Appendix
R - Within Main Report Only
A - Within Appendix Only

S/UTG/105/00 APPENDIX A: Field Information and Offset Well Review
August 2000 Page 33
APPENDI X A: Field I nformation and Offset Well Review
The Gunashli-Chirag-Azeri (GCA) field complex is located approximately 5km southeast of the
Apsheron Penninsula. The complex lies in water depths ranging from 85m to 300m. Hydrocarbons in
the GCA complex are trapped within an elongated, north-west to south-east trending, south-east
plunging anticlinal feature which extends nearly 50 km in length. The main oil producing intervals in
the field are the Balakhany X and the Pereriv intervals of the Pliocene Productive series. Above the
Balakhany Formation in the Sabunchi Formation, a number of sandstone reservoirs contain gas /
condensate primarily on the crest of the structure. Figure A1 below presents a plan of the GCA
structure with all exploration / appraisal well locations.
.
0 5km
502800
4
4
2
0
8
0
0
512800 522800 532800 542800
4
4
3
0
8
0
0
4
4
4
0
8
0
0
4
4
5
0
8
0
0
502800 512800 522800 532800 542800
4
4
2
0
8
0
0
4
4
3
0
8
0
0
4
4
4
0
8
0
0
4
4
5
0
8
0
0
Developed
Gunashli
P
S
A

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Deepwater
Gunashli
Chirag
Far East
Azeri
GCA-1
GCA-4/4z
GCA-5/5z
GCA-2
Prop.
GCA-6/6z

Figure A1: The GCA Structure Showing Exploration /Appraisal Well Locations
The Chirag Field was discovered in 1984 by the drilling and testing of the exploration / appraisal well
GCA-1. To date fourteen development wells, A-1 to A-14, have since been drilled to access reserves
across the field. Well locations, together with the proposed A-15 trajectory, are presented in Figure A2
below.
S/UTG/105/00 APPENDIX A: Field Information and Offset Well Review
August 2000 Page 34

Figure A2: Chirag Development and GCA-1 Well Locations
As part of this study, all fourteen development wells and well GCA-1 were reviewed. For each
formation a spreadsheet was compiled to pull together summary information from all wells. Details
recorded include hole size, well inclination, well azimuth, mud type, mud weight, leak off test data and
general notes detailing incidences of stuck pipe and losses associated with drilling and casing
operations. All spreadsheets are presented on the following pages for Recent Sediments, Apsheron,
Akchagyl, Surakhany, Sabunchi, Balakhany and Pereriv / NKG.
Recent
T
Well Hole Section
Top Depth (MD
brt) Blue :
Casing, Red :
Formation,
Green : KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Green : KOP Incl. Azi.
Mud Type
for Entire
Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole
Section
LOT / FIT for
Formation NOTES FOR ENTIRE HOLE SECTION (Chirag RTE = 36.6m ACSL, Water Depth = 121m)
A1-OH 17.5" Pilot 157.6 416 0 to 1 185 Spud 8.7 Satisfactory drilling
26" Opener 20" successfully run & cemented in place with returns (11.5 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail)
A1-T1 - - - - - - - -
A2 17.5" Pilot 157.6 409 0 to 5.4
209 to
230 to
90
Sea water
and viscous
pills Sea water
Section drilled to TD of 480m. 20" casing cemented with 11.9 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail, full
returns.
26" Opener
A3 17.5" Pilot 157.6 415 0 to 3.1
206 to
318
viscous
seawater
and drilled 8.5 to 9.6 ppg
Hole at 605m, total losses while pumping a sweep (9.5 ppg mw). Regained circ. after pulling
BHA into 28" shoe. LCM pills to cure losses. At 364m the bit took weight, washed and reamed
364m to 393m. No returns to TD. Assumed lost zone around 350m +/-20m
Spotted LCM pills tripping from 420m to surface - no returns pumping. Hole opened to 26"
- returns at top of cond. (8.6 - 8.7 ppg). Wiper trip - tight @560m & 460m. Hole displ. to
9.6 ppg - returns lost at ~ 360m. 20" casing to 595m, cmt - no returns
26" Opener
seawater &
viscous
sweeps
A4 17.5" Pilot 157.6 416
0 to 4.8
to 1.92
191 to
232 to
133 to
202
seawater /
PAC 8.5 ppg
Drilled section IN 17.5" TO TD of 482m with good returns reported throughout. Opened up to
26" again with good hole conditions. Prior to pulling out to run casing hole displaced with 8.5
ppg spud mud. WOW and additional trip - good hole conds.
20" casing run to 475.5m with good returns during running and circulating. 11.9 ppg lead
and 15.8 ppg tail - good returns whilst cementing
26" Opener
A5 17.5" Pilot 157.6 417
0 to
2.22
174 to
to 187
to 48
seawater /
PAC 8.4 to 8.7 ppg
Drill to section TD of 485m and open to 26". No losses - drilling / opening. Displace to 8.7 ppg
spud mud prior to final trip out of hole. 20" run to 478m - no losses running / circulating. Cmt
11.9 / 15.8 (lead / tail).
Full to partial returns when pumping cmt slurry, after 473 bbls pumped returns were
completely lost shortly after clear brine 160 ppm observed flowing out of well A3, btwn 28"
& 20". Assumed A3 loss zone had allowed comm. with A5.
26" Opener
A6 17.5" Pilot 157.6 417 0 to 5
174 to
103 to
203
seawater /
PAC 8.4 ppg
Well drilled to TD of 479m: good returns reported. Hole opened to 26" - good hole conditions.
Displace to a 8.5 ppg spud mud prior to running casing to TD of 472m: good returns running /
circulating. 11.9 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail.
Casing - good returns until 450 bbls lead pumped - lost total returns: started getting trickle
returns of seawater after pumping 900bbls. Returns increased to 5 / 10 % after 1200 bbls
lead pumped. No indication of hydraulic communication btwn. A6 & A3
26" Opener
A7 12.25" Pilot 157.6 410 0 to 5
188 to
36
seawater
with sweeps 8.4 ppg
Well drilled to 484m and opened to 26". Hole displaced to 8.7 ppg spud mud. 20" casing run to
274m - worked and washed to 413m, then pulled. Hole cleaned out and deepened to 491m
and again displaced to 8.7 ppg spud mud. 20" ran to 488m - no losses.
11.9 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail. Good returns during cement job but no cement returns
observed to surface
26" Opener
A8 12.25" Pilot 157.6 416 0 to 6.6
190 to
97
seawater
with viscous
sweeps
Displaced to 8.7
ppg prior to
running casing
Drilled 12.25" pilot from conductor shoe at 231m to 484m. Hole opened to 26". No problems
while drilling section. Following wiper trip to conductor shoe, hole displaced to spud mud. 20"
casing run to 476m. Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail. Total losses towards end of displacement during 20" cementation.
26" Opener
A9 12.25" Pilot 157.6 428
1.2 to
8.9
260 to
320
seawater
with hi vis
guar gum
prior to
connections 8.7 ppg
Pilot hole to TD of 474m and opened up to 26". Well displaced with spud mud and 20" casing
run to 471.5. Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No problems drilling interval or
during casing operations.
26" Opener
A10 12.25" Pilot 157.6 415 0 to 6.6 67
seawater
with sweeps
prior to
connections
8.4 ppg,
displaced to 8.7
ppg prior to
running casing
12.25" pilot hole to 477m. Opened up to 26"and wiper trip to 28" conductor shoe. Hole
displaced to 8.7 ppg mud. 20" casing run, with shoe at 468m. No losses whilst running casing.
Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No problems drilling interval or running casing
26" Opener
A11 12.25" Pilot 157.6 415? 5 290
seawater
with viscous
sweeps prior
to
connection 8.5 ppg
Drilled 12.25" pilot to TD of 478m. Opened up to 26" to 474m. Following a wiper trip, to 28"
shoe, well displaced with spud mud and hole opener assembly pulled. 20" casing run and cmt
with 11.8ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No probs with drilling interval or running casing
26" Opener
A12 12.25" Pilot 157.6 376
0 to 7
to 5
210 to
267 to
232
seawater
with hi visc
guar gum
sweeps prior
to
conections
8.7 ppg viscous
mud spotted in
hole prior to
running casing
Drilled 17.5" pilot to TD of 478m. Open up to 26" to 472.5m & displace to spud mud. Run 20"
casing to 468m (no probs)- cmt. surface casing : 11.8 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Partial
returns after pumping 425bbls of lead. No returns after pumping 500bbls.
As has been the case on most of the wells, returns seen while cementing until the tail
slurry was pumped upon which returns were lost.
26" Opener
A13 12.25" Pilot 157.6 415? 12 223
seawater
with hi visc
guar gum
sweeps prior
to
conections 8.7 ppg
Drilled 12.25" pilot hole to 478m TD. Opened up to 26" from 231m to 390m - BHA unable to get
past obstruction. POOH & increase distance btwn. hole opener & stabiliser. Tagged again at
390m - while circ. & working string - lost complete returns.
Could not regain circ. BHA POOH. New ass. wash / ream 390m to 478m. Wiper trip to
shoe confirmed hole free from obstr. Well displaced to spud mud. Run 20" casing: 11.9
ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail. No returns run / cmt. (NB: returns with lead but not tail).
26" Opener
A14 12.25" Pilot 157.6 415? 0 to 3.8
207 -
51 -
62
seawater
with hi visc
guar gum
sweeps prior
to
conections 8.7 ppg
12.25" pilot hole drilled to 478m TD but hole opener only reached 319m. Original 12.25"
assembly ran and only reached 296m. Hole opener had sidetracked original pilot hole and
broken over into 20" annulus of A7. Cement plug set and well re-spudded.
Spud with 12.25" assembly. At 291m separation betwn A14 & A10 unacceptable so well
abandoned, cmt plug set & rig skidded onto back-up slot. Re-spudded from slot 17:
12.25" pilot drilled to 478m TD. Returns lost at 240m and remained lost till TD.
26" Opener
New 12.25" pilot hole drilled to 478m and opened up to 17.5". When POOH foud that hole
opener had failed just below cutters - as available fishing neck not deemed fishable without
milling, plugged well back and re-spud.
Opened to 26" - no returns. Displaced with spud mud and ass. pulled. Tight spot at 460m.
Section reamed / backreamed 260m to 240m. Ran 20" casing - shoe at 470m. Stood up
at 266m, washed 288m - 300m. Cmt. 11.8 lead / 15.8 tail. No returns run / cmt.
A14 -Z - - - - - - - - - -
GCA-1 12.25" Pilot 184 301 0 0
Seawater
with viscous
sweeps
Seawater
displaced to 9.5
ppg before
running casing
12.25" Pilot Hole Drilled to 505m to cut through shallow faults where gas could have been
encountered. Unstable conditions and tight pulls experienced, particularly between 360m and
380m. Pilot opened up to 36" from seabed to 310m.
Hole displaced with 9.5 ppg mud before pulling out to run casing. 30" conductor run to
301m and cemented with 13.0 ppg LITEFIL cement. Good returns.
36" Opener
12.25" Pilot 301 381? 0 0
Seawater
with viscous
sweeps 9.5 ppg ?
Remainder of 12.25" pilot hole opened up to 26" with returns to seabed. Despite frequent
pumping of viscous sweeps, several hole problems experienced due to unstable conditions.
Worst area was first 50m below 30" shoe.
20" surface casing had to be worked through a tight interval from 360m to 380m. Casing
landed and shoe cemented at 498m.
26" Opener
Page 1
Apsheron
ERON
Well Hole Section
Top Depth (MD brt)
Blue : Casing, Red
: Formation, Green
: KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Mud Type for
Entire Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole Section
LOT / FIT for
A1-OH 17.5" Pilot 416 458 Spud 8.7 Satisfactory drilling
26" Opener 20" successfully run & cemented in place with returns (11.5 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail)
17.5" 458 564
1.25 to
1.33
179 to
1.84 KCL / PHPA
11 ppg increased to
11.9 ppg
12.3 ppg at 20" shoe
in Apsheron
Occ. gumbo (limited KCL). 13.375" casing cemented; 12.8 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail - 80bbls
losses circulting prior to cementation, 124 bbls during mixing / pumping, 254bbls during
displacement. 9.6 ppg brine flow ; 20" & 13.375" annulus - 14 days to stop
Based on results of cased hole logs, believe salt water flow originated just above Surakhany at
+/- 695m in Akchagil
A1-T1 - - - - - - - - - -
A2 17.5" Pilot 409 472 5.81 90 to 88
Sea water and
viscous pills Sea water
Section drilled to TD of 480m. 20" casing cemented with 11.9 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail, full
returns.
26" Opener
17.5" 472 563
5.91 to
6.04 88
KCL 35 ppb /
PHPA (more
inhibitive than
used in A1)
At 640m, mw
increased to 12 ppg
12.2 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
At 640m, pit level fluctuations, varying mud weights & Cl2 increase - possible brine zone. Built
to 26 degrees with TD at 1238m. 13.375" casing run to 1233m without losses. Cmt with 12.8
ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail. 13.375"x20" ann. flowing after cmt job
A3 17.5" Pilot 415 548
3.1 to
3.4
318 to
308
viscous seawater
and drilled solids 8.5 to 9.6 ppg
Hole at 605m, total losses while pumping a sweep (9.5 ppg mw). Regained circ. after pulling
BHA into 28" shoe. LCM pills to cure losses. At 364m the bit took weight, washed and reamed
364m to 393m. No returns to TD. Assumed lost zone around 350m +/-20m
Spotted LCM pills tripping from 420m to surface - no returns pumping. Hole opened to 26" -
returns at top of cond. (8.6 - 8.7 ppg). Wiper trip - tight @560m & 460m. Hole displ. to 9.6 ppg -
returns lost at ~ 360m. 20" casing to 595m, cmt - no returns
26" Opener
seawater &
viscous sweeps
A4 17.5" Pilot 416 482
1.80 to
1.22
202 to
209 seawater / PAC 8.5 ppg
Drilled section IN 17.5" TO TD of 482m with good returns reported throughout. Opened up to
26" again with good hole conditions. Prior to pulling out to run casing hole displaced with 8.5
ppg spud mud. WOW and additional trip - good hole conds.
20" casing run to 475.5m with good returns during running and circulating. 11.9 ppg lead and
15.8 ppg tail - good returns whilst cementing
26" Opener
17.5" 482 537
1.16 to
1.37
205 to
208 KCl / PHPA 12.0 ppg
13.4 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Gumbo problems hindered drilling rates further exacerbated by poor weather & supply
problems. Section successfully drilled but losses at 737m and pack off due to Gumbo. Below
1108m, 50bbls/hr dynamic losses, none on connections.
Wiper trip to shoe, pack off at 922m, lost returns. Gains - (shut in: SIDDP 140 psi, SICP 100
psi). Press. bled off & trip cont. Total -60 bbls lost, 40 bbls gains. Final TD 1205m, 13.375"
casing run - no losses, 13.5 / 15.8 (lead / tail). In-gauge !
A5 17.5" Pilot 417 488 2.2 49 to 53 seawater / PAC 8.4 to 8.7 ppg
Drill to section TD of 485m and open to 26". No losses - drilling / opening. Displace to 8.7 ppg
spud mud prior to final trip out of hole. 20" run to 478m - no losses running / circulating. Cmt
11.9 / 15.8 (lead / tail).
Full to partial returns when pumping cmt slurry, after 473 bbls pumped returns were completely
lost shortly after clear brine 160 ppm observed flowing out of well A3, btwn 28" & 20". Assumed
A3 loss zone had allowed comm. with A5.
26" Opener
17.5" 488 554 3 to 4 75 to 95 KCl / PHPA 11.9 to 12.0 ppg
12.3 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Drill to section TD of 1240m with no reported losses. 13.375" casing run to depth of 1239m
with no losses. Cmt with 13.5 / 15.8 ppg lead / tail. Good returns mixing / pumping but returns
diminishing after 200bbls displaced (total lost = 163 bbls).
Drilling to 1064m and then wiper trip - washed through tight spot at 800m: circulated B/U and
observed a lot of fine cuttings at the shakers. Drilled to TD of 1240m - wiper trip with no
problems
A6 17.5" Pilot 417 479 1.5
203 to
201 seawater / PAC 8.4 ppg
Well drilled to TD of 479m: good returns reported. Hole opened to 26" - good hole conditions.
Displace to a 8.5 ppg spud mud prior to running casing to TD of 472m: good returns running /
circulating. 11.9 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail.
Casing - good returns until 450 bbls lead pumped - lost total returns: started getting trickle
returns of seawater after pumping 900bbls. Returns increased to 5 / 10 % after 1200 bbls lead
pumped. No indication of hydraulic communication btwn. A6 & A3
26" Opener
17.5" 479 538
1.3 to
2.9
210 to
253 KCL / PHPA 11.9 to 12.1 ppg
13.1 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Drilled with 12 ppg mud weight - bit balling hindered drilling rates. Section drilled to TD of
1284m O.K with no losses. Wiper trip - tight. Trip out OK. Casing run to 1281m - 15bbls lost.
Lead / tail = 13.5 / 15.8 ppg. No losses pumping / displacement
Cuttings integrity was good. Hi Vis sweeps pumped while sliding to assist hole cleaning.
Inclination built to 48 by end of interval at 1281m - no probs during build but wiper trip had
several tight spots and some tight hole. High % of very fine mat.
A7 12.25" Pilot 410 491 5 to 8 38 to 41
seawater with
sweeps 8.4 ppg
Well drilled to 484m and opened to 26". Hole displaced to 8.7 ppg spud mud. 20" casing run to
274m - worked and washed to 413m, then pulled. Hole cleaned out and deepened to 491m
and again displaced to 8.7 ppg spud mud. 20" ran to 488m - no losses.
11.9 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail. Good returns during cement job but no cement returns observed
to surface
26" Opener
17.5" 491 553 8 41 to 42 KCl Polymer 12.0 ppg
12.8 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Drilled to 1367m - wiper trip at TD: Hole packed off & losses (decreased from 240 to 40 bpm
after 1.5 hrs and finally stopped - well static). POOH. BHA back in hole, wash & ream, 788m -
805m, 821m - 834m, 931m - 948m etc. Inadvertant sidetrack at 1043m
Pull & run new BHA, tagged at 1099m. Several attempts to find old hole - no success. Re-drill
to 1401m. 13.375" casing to 1398m - no losses running / circ. Cmnt. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg
tail. Good returns mixing / pumping. No returms - displacement.
A8 12.25" Pilot 416 484 7 to 8 94 to 88
seawater with
viscous sweeps
Displaced to 8.7 ppg
prior to running
casing
Drilled 12.25" pilot from conductor shoe at 231m to 484m. Hole opened to 26". No problems
while drilling section. Following wiper trip to conductor shoe, hole displaced to spud mud. 20"
casing run to 476m. Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail. Total losses towards end of displacement during 20" cementation.
26" Opener
17.5" 484 537 8 90 KCL / PHPA 11.9 to 12.0 ppg
12.4 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Section drilled to TD of 1277m with 50 degree inclination reached at TD. Two wiper trips
durimg drilling and a third prior to casing to improve hole condition (wiper trip every 300m in
this section - large cuttings volumes circulated out after trips).
Some tight hole noted on wiper trips with occasional requirement for back-reaming. Cuttings
integrity good throughout interval. 13.375" casing cemented with 13.5 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail.
Partial to total losses recorded displacing tail slurry
A9 12.25" Pilot 428 478
8.9 to
9.5
320 to
321
seawater with hi
vis guar gum prior
to connections 8.7 ppg
Pilot hole to TD of 474m and opened up to 26". Well displaced with spud mud and 20" casing
run to 471.5. Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No problems drilling interval or
during casing operations.
26" Opener
17.5" 478 541
9.7 to
9.9
321 to
325
KCL / PHPA
(reports note this
is Quadrill system,
to inhibit cuttings
at high hole angle 12.0 ppg
12.3 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe (in Apsheron
?): conducted in DP
Drilled 17.5" hole from 478m to 1320m - rotation / slide ratio of 66/34. No major losses of mud
observed during drilling. Ran and cemented casing at 1317m. Well built to 58 degrees in this
section. Cuttings integrity was good.
Wiper trips had less overpull and hole conds appeared to be very good. Upon tripping out prior
to running casing, drill string was clean with no bit or stabiliser balling. Casing run, landed,
cemented with no probs & no losses. Quickest well to date.
A10 12.25" Pilot 415 477 7 65
seawater with
sweeps prior to
connections
8.4 ppg, displaced
to 8.7 ppg prior to
running casing
12.25" pilot hole to 477m. Opened up to 26"and wiper trip to 28" conductor shoe. Hole
displaced to 8.7 ppg mud. 20" casing run, with shoe at 468m. No losses whilst running casing.
Cemented with 11.9 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No problems drilling interval or running casing
26" Opener
17.5" 477 530? 7 65 Quadrill / PHPA 12.0 to 12.1 ppg
12.5 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Apsheron
Drilled to TD of 1328m with a wiper trip during drilling and one prior to running casing. Casing
cemented with 13.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Good returns during cement job.
As A9, main diff. in interval was add. of 3.5 % Staplex 500 (glycol) to help provide stability for
cuttings removal & wellbore. Good cutting integrity & hole conds (less overpull). Casing ran /
landed / cmt - no probs or losses. Quickest well to date.
A11 12.25" Pilot 415? 478 5 293
seawater with
viscous sweeps
prior to
connection 8.5 ppg
Drilled 12.25" pilot to TD of 478m. Opened up to 26" to 474m. Following a wiper trip, to 28"
shoe, well displaced with spud mud and hole opener assembly pulled. 20" casing run and cmt
with 11.8ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No probs with drilling interval or running casing
26" Opener
17.5" 478 574 6 to 8
303 to
312 KCl / PHPA 11.9 to 12.0 ppg
12.5 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe (in Apsheron
?) conducted in DP
Section drilled to TD of 1225m. One wiper trip during drilling and a second prior to running
casing. 13.375" casing run to 1222m. Cemented with 13.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Good
returns recorded during cement job.
As experienced on A9 & A10 - add. of Staplex 500 to KCl / PHPA improves hole cond. Section
drilled quite well but some probs with flowline blockage (Gumbo) & tight hole on wiper trips
(drilling ass. balled up). Casing run & cmt - no hole probs or losses
A12 12.25" Pilot 376 478 5 to 5.5
231 to
233
seawater with hi
visc guar gum
sweeps prior to
conections
8.7 ppg viscous mud
spotted in hole prior
to running casing
Drilled 17.5" pilot to TD of 478m. Open up to 26" to 472.5m & displace to spud mud. Run 20"
casing to 468m (no probs)- cmt. surface casing : 11.8 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Partial
returns after pumping 425bbls of lead. No returns after pumping 500bbls.
As has been the case on most of the wells, returns seen while cementing until the tail slurry
was pumped upon whivh returns were lost.
26" Opener
17.5" 478 516
5.5 to
5.6
229 to
218 Quadrill / PHPA 12.1 ppg
12.5 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe (in Apsheron
?) conducted in DP
Drilled to 853m - probs associated with cuttings plugging bell nipple, flowline and shaker box.
Change bit & drilling cont. without problems to TD of 1217m. 13.375" casing ran with shoe at
1212m: no probs on trip to bottom. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail
Staplex in mud made better overall hole conds. than with just KCl water based mud. A12 drilled
with Quadrill after probs on A11 (drilled without Quadrill as well was straight but experienced
gumbo probs). Use of PDC bit - slab cuttings blocking flowline
A13 12.25" Pilot 415 478 12.9 223
seawater with hi
visc guar gum
sweeps prior to
conections 8.7 ppg
Drilled 12.25" pilot hole to 478m TD. Opened up to 26" from 231m to 390m - BHA unable to
get past obstruction. POOH & increase distance btwn. hole opener & stabiliser. Tagged again
at 390m - while circ. & working string - lost complete returns.
Could not regain circ. BHA POOH. New ass. wash / ream 390m to 478m. Wiper trip to shoe
confirmed hole free from obstr. Well displaced to spud mud. Run 20" casing: 11.9 ppg lead /
15.8 ppg tail. No returns run / cmt. (NB: returns with lead but not tail).
26" Opener
17.5" 478 570
13.5 to
14
224 -
236 Quadrill / PHPA 11.9 to 12.1 ppg
12.3 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe (in Apsheron
?): conducted in DP
Drilled to 807m with each connection reamed twice. Hi vis pill pumped every other stand.
Gumbo plugged bell nipple so replace PDC bit with a Reed. At 996m, returns lost after making
a connection. Wiper trip to 537m. Re-establish returns & ream to btm
Drilling cont. without any more probs. with cuttings, to 1228m TD. One final wiper trip to shoe &
hi vis pill pumped prior to POOH. 13.375" casing ran with shoe at 1224m. No hole probs on trip
to bottom. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail.
A14 12.25" Pilot 415? 478
3.6 to
4.1 62 to 51
seawater with hi
visc guar gum
sweeps prior to
conections 8.7 ppg
12.25" pilot hole drilled to 478m TD but hole opener only reached 319m. Original 12.25"
assembly ran and only reached 296m. Hole opener had sidetracked original pilot hole and
broken over into 20" annulus of A7. Cement plug set and well re-spudded.
Spud with 12.25" assembly. At 291m separation betwn A14 & A10 unacceptable so well
abandoned, cmt plug set & rig skidded onto back-up slot. Re-spudded from slot 17: 12.25" pilot
drilled to 478m TD. Returns lost at 240m and remained lost till TD.
26" Opener
New 12.25" pilot hole drilled to 478m and opened up to 17.5". When POOH foud that hole
opener had failed just below cutters - as available fishing neck not deemed fishable without
milling, plugged well back and re-spud.
Opened to 26" - no returns. Displaced with spud mud and ass. pulled. Tight spot at 460m.
Section reamed / backreamed 260m to 240m. Ran 20" casing - shoe at 470m. Stood up at
266m, washed 288m - 300m. Cmt. 11.8 lead / 15.8 tail. No returns run / cmt.
17.5" 478 570 4 to 6 52 to 23 Quadrill / PHPA 12.0 ppg
12.5 ppg FIT at 20"
shoe (in Apsheron)
Drilled to TD of 1257m. 13.375" casing ran to 1254m - no probs on trip to btm. Casing cmt. in
place with 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail. Partial rtns after pumping 398 bbls displacement & lost
rtns after 488 bbls. Total losses duing cmt. job: 307 bbls
A14 -Z - - - - - - - - - -
Page 1
Akchagil AGYL
Well Hole Section
Top Depth (MD
brt) Blue :
Casing, Red :
Formation, Green
: KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue :
Casing, Red :
Formation, Green
: KOP Incl. Azi.
Mud Type for
Entire Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole
Section
LOT / FIT for
A1-OH 17.5" 564 744 1.21 to 0.62 186 to 184 KCL / PHPA
11 ppg increased to
11.9 ppg
Based on results of cased hole logs, believe salt water flow originated just above
Surakhany at +/- 695m in Akchagil
A1-T1 - - - - - - - - - -
A2 17.5" 563 742 6.13 to 6.19 88 to 90
KCL 35 ppb /
PHPA (more
inhibitive than
used in A1)
At 640m, mw
increased to 12 ppg
At 640m, pit level fluctuations, varying mud weights & Cl2 increase - possible brine zone.
Built to 26 degrees with TD at 1238m. 13.375" casing run to 1233m without losses. Cmt
with 12.8 ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail. 13.375"x20" ann. flowing after cmt job
A3 17.5" Pilot 548 595 3.5 311
viscous seawater
and drilled solids 8.5 to 9.6 ppg
Hole at 605m, total losses while pumping a sweep (9.5 ppg mw). Regained circ. after
pulling BHA into 28" shoe. LCM pills to cure losses. At 364m the bit took weight, washed
and reamed 364m to 393m. No returns to TD. Assumed lost zone around 350m +/-20m
Spotted LCM pills tripping from 420m to surface - no returns pumping. Hole opened to
26" - returns at top of cond. (8.6 - 8.7 ppg). Wiper trip - tight @560m & 460m. Hole
displ. to 9.6 ppg - returns lost at ~ 360m. 20" casing to 595m, cmt - no returns
26" Opener
seawater &
viscous sweeps
17.5" 595 738 3.7 to 3.3 312 to 306 KCl Polymer 11.9 to 12.2 ppg
12.3 ppg LOT at 20"
shoe in Akchagil
Section TD of 1205m (1 run). Three wiper trips made. Losses of abt 20 bbls/hr througout
section whilst drilling. 13.375" casing to 1205m, no losses pumping, 65bbl fluid lost during
displ. - assume loss @ shoe. Brine flow on 13.725 / 20" annulus.
Down-hole losses were dynamic - none when static. Brine flow - did not isolate over-
pressured salt water formations; most likely cause was loss of hydrostatic head as
slurry sets up and esp. by a channel behind the casing - proof given by spacers
A4 17.5" 537 743
1.39 to 1.43
to 1.35 209 to 226 KCl / PHPA 12.0 ppg
Gumbo problems hindered drilling rates further exacerbated by poor weather & supply
problems. Section successfully drilled but losses at 737m and pack off due to Gumbo.
Below 1108m, 50bbls/hr dynamic losses, none on connections.
Wiper trip to shoe, pack off at 922m, lost returns. Gains - (shut in: SIDDP 140 psi,
SICP 100 psi). Press. bled off & trip cont. Total -60 bbls lost, 40 bbls gains. Final TD
1205m, 13.375" casing run - no losses, 13.5 / 15.8 (lead / tail). In-gauge !
A5 17.5" 554 740 4 95 to 98 KCL / PHPA 11.9 to 12.0 ppg
Drill to section TD of 1240m with no reported losses. 13.375" casing run to depth of 1239m
with no losses. Cmt with 13.5 / 15.8 ppg lead / tail. Good returns mixing / pumping but
returns diminishing after 200bbls displaced (total lost = 163 bbls).
Drilling to 1064m and then wiper trip - washed through tight spot at 800m: circulated
B/U and observed a lot of fine cuttings at the shakers. Drilled to TD of 1240m - wiper
trip with no problems
A6 17.5" 538 742 3 to 12 254 to 300 KCL / PHPA 11.9 to 12.1 ppg
1284m O.K with no losses. Wiper trip - tight. Trip out OK. Casing run to 1281m - 15bbls
lost. Lead / tail = 13.5 / 15.8 ppg. No losses pumping / displacement
Cuttings integrity was good. Hi Vis sweeps pumped while sliding to assist hole
cleaning. Inclination built to 48 by end of interval at 1281m - no probs during build but
wiper trip had several tight spots and some tight hole. High % of very fine mat.
A7 17.5" 553 737 6 to 7 42 to 46 KCl Polymer 12.0 ppg
Drilled to 1367m - wiper trip at TD: Hole packed off & losses (decreased from 240 to 40
bpm after 1.5 hrs and finally stopped - well static). POOH. BHA back in hole, wash & ream,
788m - 805m, 821m - 834m, 931m - 948m etc. Inadvertant sidetrack at 1043m
Pull & run new BHA, tagged at 1099m. Several attempts to find old hole - no success.
Re-drill to 1401m. 13.375" casing to 1398m - no losses running / circ. Cmnt. 13.5 ppg
lead / 15.8 ppg tail. Good returns mixing / pumping. No returms - displacement.
Section drilled to TD of 1277m with 50 degree inclination reached at TD. Two wiper trips
durimg drilling and a third prior to casing to improve hole condition (wiper trip every 300m in
this section - large cuttings volumes circulated out after trips).
Some tight hole noted on wiper trips with occasional requirement for back-reaming.
Cuttings integrity good throughout interval. 13.375" casing cemented with 13.5 ppg
lead & 15.8 ppg tail. Partial to total losses recorded displacing tail slurry
A9 17.5" 541 737 10 to 13 324 to 310
KCL / PHPA
(reports note this
is Quadrill
system, to inhibit
cuttings at high
hole angle ?) 12.0 ppg
Drilled 17.5" hole from 478m to 1320m - rotation / slide ratio of 66/34. No major losses of
mud observed during drilling. Ran and cemented casing at 1317m. Well built to 58 degrees
in this section. Cuttings integrity was good.
Wiper trips had less overpull and hole conds appeared to be very good. Upon tripping
out prior to running casing, drill string was clean with no bit or stabiliser balling. Casing
run, landed, cemented with no probs & no losses. Quickest of wells drilled.
A10 17.5" 530? 741 8 to 11 66 Quadrill / PHPA 12.0 to 12.1 ppg
Drilled to TD of 1328m with a wiper trip during drilling and one prior to running casing.
Casing cemented with 13.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Good returns during cement job.
As A9, main diff. in interval was add. of 3.5 % Staplex 500 (glycol) to help provide
stability for cuttings removal & wellbore. Good cutting integrity & hole conds (less
overpull). Casing ran / landed / cmt - no probs or losses. Quickest well to date.
A11 17.5" 574 737 8 to 11 312 KCl / PHPA 11.9 to 12.0 ppg
Section drilled to TD of 1225m. One wiper trip during drilling and a second prior to running
casing. 13.375" casing run to 1222m. Cemented with 13.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. Good
returns recorded durinf cement job.
As experienced on A9 & A10 - add. of Staplex 500 to KCl / PHPA improves hole cond.
Section drilled quite well but some probs with flowline blockage (Gumbo) & tight hole
on wiper trips (drilling ass. balled up). Casing run & cmt - no hole probs or losses
A12 17.5" 516 722 6 to 5.46 202 to 122 Quadrill / PHPA 12.1 ppg
Drilled to 853m - probs associated with cuttings plugging bell nipple, flowline and shaker
box. Change bit & drilling cont. without problems to TD of 1217m. 13.375" casing ran with
shoe at 1212m: no probs on trip to bottom. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail
Staplex in mud made better overall hole conds. than with just KCl water based mud.
A12 drilled with Quadrill after probs on A11 (drilled without Quadrill as well was
straight but experienced gumbo probs). Use of PDC bit - slab cuttings blocking
flowline
A13 17.5" 570 748 14 to 12 236 to 281 Quadrill / PHPA 11.9 to 12.1 ppg
Drilled to 807m with each connection reamed twice. Hi vis pill pumped every other stand.
Gumbo plugged bell nipple so replace PDC bit with a Reed. At 996m, returns lost after
making a connection. Wiper trip to 537m. Re-establish returns & ream to btm
Drilling cont. without any more probs. with cuttings, to 1228m TD. One final wiper trip
to shoe & hi vis pill pumped prior to POOH. 13.375" casing ran with shoe at 1224m.
No hole probs on trip to bottom. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail.
A14 17.5" 570 735 6 to 10 22 to 347 Quadrill / PHPA 12.0 ppg
Drilled to TD of 1257m. 13.375" casing ran to 1254m - no probs on trip to btm. Casing cmt.
in place with 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail. Partial rtns after pumping 398 bbls displacement
& lost rtns after 488 bbls. Total losses duing cmt. job: 307 bbls
A14 -Z - - - - - - - - - -
GCA-1 12.25" Pilot ? 498 0 0
Seawater with
viscous sweeps 9.5 ppg ?
Remainder of 12.25" pilot hole opened up to 26" with returns to seabed. Despite frequent
pumping of viscous sweeps, several hole problems experienced due to unstable conditions.
Worst area was first 50m below 30" shoe.
20" surface casing had to be worked through a tight interval from 360m to 380m.
Casing landed and shoe cemented at 498m.
26" Opener
17.5" 498 676 0 0 PHPA / KCl 9.5 ppg ?
Inconclusive LOT :
Hole take and give
back 40 bbls fluid
without reaching
leak off
At 655m, well observed to be flowing. Mud weight raised to 11.3 ppg. During kill operations
73 bbls were bled to relieve what was thought to be trapped pressure. Drilling resumed and
mud weight raised to 11.6 ppg.
Influx finally controlled with mud weight of 12.0 ppg. Severe swabbing and tight hole
led to further increase in mud weight of 12.3 ppg at acsing depth of 1215m. 13 3/8"
casing run & cemented - evidence of channelling.
Page 1
Surakhany
SURA
KHAN
Y
FORM
ATION
Well Hole Section
Top Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Green : KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Mud Type for Entire
Hole Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole Section
LOT / FIT for
Formation NOTES FOR ENTIRE HOLE SECTION (Chirag RTE = 36.6mACSL, Water Depth = 121m)
A1-OH 17.5" 744 1200
0.42 to
1.03 to
0.22
193 to
339 KCL / PHPA
11 ppg increased to
11.9 ppg
Based on results of cased hole logs, believe salt water flow originated just above Surakhany at +/-
695m in Akchagil
12.5" 1200 1763 0.5 to 21
33 to 93
to 81 KCL - Polymer Initialy 11.9 ppg
ppg (after squeeze) at
13.375" shoe in
Surakhany
Drilled to top Pereviv at 2848m, pipe stuck on trip out, 2355m and 1989m - high levels of
cuttings. During wiper trip, ream down from 1421m to 2581m - high torque and slow. Pumped
out. Ran 2nd assembly to 2580m - no problem and light reaming to bottom.
On trip out of hole, excessive overpulls and back reamed to 2750m where string became stuck.
After several attempts string was eventually backed off at 1395m. Cement plug set from 1386m to
1230m. Sidetrack kicked off tagging cement at 1240m.
A1-T1 12.5" 1259 1763
1.26 to
13.09 to
12.85
100 to
127 to 89 KCL - Polymer
Fluid related probs -
cmnt contam &
reactive clays. Raised
to 12.8 ppg at 2077m
Sidetracked from 1259m to 1575m prior to pulling kick off assembly. Drilled to 2077m where
hole conditions dictated mud weight increase to 12.8 ppg. Trip at 2077m - total losses treated
with LCM, achieving partial returns. Mud flow back when pumps off.
LCMspot. ass. ran in hole: no returns. During trip mw reduced to 12.6 ppg, add. pills circ., full
returns. Drilled to 2645m - several bit changes (erratic torque, low ROP). 9.625" casing: washed
2544 to 2591m, 12.8 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail - full returns
A2 17.5" 742 1233
6.09 to 27
to 25 91 to 80
KCL 35 ppb / PHPA
(more inhibitive than
used in A1)
At 640m, mw
increased to 12 ppg
At 640m, pit level fluctuations, varying mud weights & Cl2 increase - possible brine zone. Built
to 26 degrees with TD at 1238m. 13.375" casing run to 1233m without losses. Cmt with 12.8
ppg lead & 15.8 ppg tail. 13.375"x20" ann. flowing after cmt job
Increased KCl conc. & increased wiper trip frequency conributed to better WBS than on A1.
Initial wiping of the hole (esp. in 12.25" section) still resulted in sig. overpull with some shale
secs tight on trips and requiring back-reaming
12.25 1233 1817 24 to 35 79 to 80 Quadrill 12.8 ppg
14.6 ppg LOT at
13.375" shoe in
Surakhany
Section drilled to TD of 3069m into Top Pereviv A. 9.625" casing run to 3060m without losses.
Cmt with 14.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No losses reported during cmt job. Ditto
A3 17.5" 738 1200 3.2 to 2.05
306 to
290 KCl Polymer 12.0 ppg
Section TD of 1205m (1 run). Three wiper trips made. Losses of abt 20 bbls/hr througout section
whilst drilling. 13.375" casing to 1205m, no losses pumping, 65bbl fluid lost during displ. -
assume loss @shoe. Brine flow on 13.725 / 20" annulus.
Down-hole losses were dynamic - none when static. Brine flow - did not isolate over-pressured
salt water formations; most likely cause was loss of hydrostatic head as slurry sets up and esp. by
a channel behind the casing - proof given by spacers
12.25" 1200 1799 1.2 to 41
283 to
321
Quadrill (KCl level of
35 to 45 ppb for
increased inhibition) 12.7 to 12.9 ppg
15.7 ppg LOT at
13.375" shoe in
Surakhany
Section TD of 3069m in Top Pereriv B - five bit runs. Hole cond. good but overpull evident on
tripping. Tight hole on wiper trips but mainly in ssts. 9.625" casing run to 3066m - circulate
casing for 2 hrs prior to cementing. No losses when cementing.
Good hole cleaning with good cuttings returns.No problems with differential sticking in bottom
interval (9.6 - 9.8 ppg Pp in Balakhany X / Pereriv cf. 12.8 ppg mw)
A4 17.5" 743 1205
1.36 to
1.62 to
1.58
227 to
250 to
240 KCl / PHPA 12.0 ppg
Gumbo problems hindered drilling rates further exacerbated by poor weather & supply problems.
Section successfully drilled but losses at 737m and pack off due to Gumbo. Below 1108m,
50bbls/hr dynamic losses, none on connections.
Wiper trip to shoe, pack off at 922m, lost returns. Gains - (shut in: SIDDP 140 psi, SICP 100
psi). Press. bled off & trip cont. Total -60 bbls lost, 40 bbls gains. Final TD 1205m, 13.375"
casing run - no losses, 13.5 / 15.8 (lead / tail). In-gauge !
12.25 1205 1775
1.03 to
16.46
246 to to
250 to to
220 to
226
KCl - PHPA for 1st
LOT then displaced to
SBMSaraline for 2nd
LOT & drilling
12.1 to 12.2 ppg (11.5
ppg for 1st LOT &
12.1 ppg for 2nd
LOT)
15.86 ppg for 1st LOT
& 14.99 ppg for 2nd
LOT at 13.375" shoe in
Surakhany
Section drilled in five bit runs to TD of 3810m below Pereriv D. No WBS problems running
9.625" casing with no losses observed while running. After landing hanger, established circ. &
increased flow rate - 10 - 50%losses; total of 210 bbls SBMcirc.
Lost a total of 690 bbls SBMduring cmt job of 9.625" casing. 1st well in Caspian to be drilled
with SBM- good hole condition, little or no problems / overpull experienced on triping. Calliper
shows in-gauge: av. 13.1". High OB in Bal. - no diff. stick.
Drill to section TD of 1240m with no reported losses. 13.375" casing run to depth of 1239m with
no losses. Cmt with 13.5 / 15.8 ppg lead / tail. Good returns mixing / pumping but returns
diminishing after 200bbls displaced (total lost = 163 bbls).
Drilling to 1064m and then wiper trip - washed through tight spot at 800m: circulated B/U and
observed a lot of fine cuttings at the shakers. Drilled to TD of 1240m - wiper trip with no
problems
12.25" 1240 1815 38 to 39 43 to 37 SBMSaraline
12.0 to 12.4
(@2400m) to 12.9
ppg
15.9 ppg LOT at
13.375" shoe in
Surakhany
Close to fault !Good hole conditions throughout section with only minor overpulls on wiper trips
reported. No lossses were reported whilst drilling section to TD of 3542m. Lossses running /
circulating / cementing casing.
Ran 9.625" casing - losses when in open hole: losses up from ~10 bbls/hr to 40-50 bbls/hr from
1500m to 1914m despite restr. running rates. Zero returns whilst running thro' top Sabunchi.
Below here, 25 bbls/hr & by 2600m - 5-10 bbls/hr. Total = 585bbls.
A6 17.5" 742 1284 12 to 47
300 to
304 to
297 KCL / PHPA 11.9 to 12.1 ppg
1284m O.K with no losses. Wiper trip - tight. Trip out OK. Casing run to 1281m - 15bbls lost.
Lead / tail = 13.5 / 15.8 ppg. No losses pumping / displacement
Cuttings integrity was good. Hi Vis sweeps pumped while sliding to assist hole cleaning.
Inclination built to 48 by end of interval at 1281m - no probs during build but wiper trip had
several tight spots and some tight hole. High %of very fine mat.
12.25 1284 2100 46 to 51
299 to
300 SBMSaraline
12.1 to 12.5 ppg (drill
record notes 12.3 ppg
used ?)
14.5 ppg LOT (before
sqz) and 15.87 ppg FIT
(after sqz.) at 13.375"
shoe in Surakhany
Well displaced with 12.3 ppg mud. 1st LOT - not high enough integrity: cmnt. sqz job at shoe.
Section TD of 4105m - no losses. Never a need to stop and circulate hole clean (except @2605m -
1hr circ.). Trouble free connections, no cuttings loading
After a wiper trip, the 9.625" casing was run and cemented: 15 bbls losses whilst running. 15.8
ppg tail slurry - 20 bbls losses whilst cementing. Minimal losses cf. A4 and A5 (reduction
believed to be due to lower running speeds, yield & MW- 2.2)
A7 17.5" 737 1401 7 to 58 45 to 360 KCl Polymer 12.0 ppg
Drilled to 1367m - wiper trip at TD: Hole packed off & losses (decreased from 240 to 40 bpm
after 1.5 hrs and finally stopped - well static). POOH. BHA back in hole, wash & ream, 788m -
805m, 821m - 834m, 931m - 948m etc. Inadvertant sidetrack at 1043m
Pull & run new BHA, tagged at 1099m. Several attempts to find old hole - no success. Re-drill to
1401m. 13.375" casing to 1398m - no losses running / circ. Cmnt. 13.5 ppg lead / 15.8 ppg tail.
Good returns mixing / pumping. No returms - displacement.
Page 1
Sabunchi
SABU
NCHI
FORM
ATION
Well Hole Section
Top Depth (MD brt)
Blue : Casing, Red :
Formation, Green :
KOP
End Depth (MD brt)
Blue : Casing, Red
: Formation, Green
: KOP Incl. Azi.
Mud Type for
Entire Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole Section
LOT / FIT for
A1-OH 12.25" 1763 2097
21.4 to
15.8
81 to 76 to
80 KCL - Polymer Initialy 11.9 ppg
cuttings. During wiper trip, ream down from 1421m to 2581m - high torque and slow. Pumped
out. Ran 2nd assembly to 2580m - no problem and light reaming to bottom.
On trip out of hole, excessive overpulls and back reamed to 2750m where string became stuck.
After several attempts string was eventually backed off at 1395m. Cement plug set from 1386m
to 1230m. Sidetrack kicked off tagging cement at 1240m.
A1-T1 12.25" 1763 2097
12.7 to
13.28
88.6 to
81.5 KCL - Polymer
cmnt contam&
reactive clays. Raised
to 12.8 ppg at 2077m
Sidetracked from 1259m to 1575m prior to pulling kick off assembly. Drilled to 2077m where
hole conditions dictated mud weight increase to 12.8 ppg. Trip at 2077m - total losses treated
with LCM, achieving partial returns. Mud flow back when pumps off.
LCM spot. ass. ran in hole: no returns. During trip mw reduced to 12.6 ppg, add. pills circ., full
returns. Drilled to 2645m - several bit changes (erratic torque, low ROP). 9.625" casing: washed
2544 to 2591m, 12.8 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail - full returns
A2 12.25 1817 2233 35 to 34 80 to 79 Quadrill 12.8 ppg
Section drilled to TD of 3069m into Top Pereviv A. 9.625" casing run to 3060m without losses.
Cmt with 14.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No losses reported during cmt job.
Increased KCl conc. & increased wiper trip frequency conributed to better WBS than on A1.
Initial wiping of the hole (esp. in 12.25" section) still resulted in sig. overpull with some shale
secs tight on trips and requiring back-reaming
A3 12.25" 1799 2217 41 to 42 321 to 318
of 35 to 45 ppb for
increased
inhibition) 12.7 to 12.9 ppg
Section TD of 3069m in Top Pereriv B - five bit runs. Hole cond. good but overpull evident on
tripping. Tight hole on wiper trips but mainly in ssts. 9.625" casing run to 3066m - circulate
casing for 2 hrs prior to cementing. No losses when cementing.
Good hole cleaning with good cuttings returns.No problems with differential sticking in bottom
interval (9.6 - 9.8 ppg Pp in Balakhany X / Pereriv cf. 12.8 ppg mw)
A4 12.25 1775 2169
17.67 to
25.85 226
KCl - PHPA for 1st
LOT then
displaced to SBM
Saraline for 2nd
LOT & drilling
12.1 to 12.2 ppg (11.5
ppg for 1st LOT & 12.1
ppg for 2nd LOT)
Section drilled in five bit runs to TD of 3810m below Pereriv D. No WBS problems running
9.625" casing with no losses observed while running. After landing hanger, established circ. &
increased flow rate - 10 - 50% losses; total of 210 bbls SBM circ.
Lost a total of 690 bbls SBM during cmt job of 9.625" casing. 1st well in Caspian to be drilled
with SBM - good hole condition, little or no problems / overpull experienced on triping. Calliper
shows in-gauge: av. 13.1". High OB in Bal. - no diff. stick.
A5 12.25" 1815 2229 39 to 38 37 SBM Saraline
12.0 to 12.4 (@2400m)
to 12.9 ppg
Close to fault !Good hole conditions throughout section with only minor overpulls on wiper trips
reported. No lossses were reported whilst drilling section to TD of 3542m. Lossses running /
circulating / cementing casing.
Ran 9.625" casing - losses when in open hole: losses up from ~10 bbls/hr to 40-50 bbls/hr from
1500m to 1914m despite restr. running rates. Zero returns whilst running thro' top Sabunchi.
Below here, 25 bbls/hr & by 2600m - 5-10 bbls/hr. Total = 585bbls.
A6 12.25 2100 2630
51 to 54
to 50 300 to 305 SBM Saraline 12.1 to 12.5 ppg
Well displaced with a 12.3 ppg mud. 1st LOT result - not high enough integrity so cmnt. sqz job
at shoe. Section drilled to TD of 4105m - no losses reported. After a wiper trip, the 9.625"
casing was run and cemented: 15 bbls losses whilst running. 15.8 ppg tail slurry - 20bbls losses whilst cementing
A7 12.25" 2037 2545 60 to 57 354 to 352 Saraline SBM 12.3 to 12.5 ppg
Section TD of 3522m. Mud pumps broke down frequently. Several wiper trips with excessive
back-reaming to prepare well for logging. 9.625" casing run to 3518m without major resistance
and with negligible fluid losses (20 bbl). Primary cmt. - no losses
Low LOT - LWD indicated sand stringer right below shoe !! When back-reaming prior to
running casing, large volumes of cuttings circulated out and large build up just below 13.375"
shoe. Hole good after two wiper trips.
A8 12.25" 2115 2610 44 to 43 101 to 100 Saraline SBM
12.1 to 12.5 ppg (drill
record notes 12.3 ppg
used ?)
Section drilled to TD of 3750m - a wiper trip to 13.375" shoe was carried out prior to POOH :
tight spots noted in Sabunchi. Attempts to run tools, could not get past 2341m (1st time), 2394m
(2nd time) : 3rd logging run successful.
9.625" run - no losses. Cemented with 15.8 bbls tail. Losses throughout circulating prior to
cementation (38 bbls). Losses stopped as trip slugs circulated out. Displacement - partial
returns after 745 bbls. Full returns as pump rate slowed 8 to 6 bpm.
Drilled rotary from 1323m to 2864m. Circ. clean & trip to shoe. RIH w/no probs. Cont. from
2846m to 4141m, mw of 12.3 to 12.5 ppg. Short trip from 4141m - worked thro' tight spots, no
major probs tripping out. Difficult trip in: tag cuttings beds
Hole conds (cuttings beds) forced tripping to stop at 2559, 2900 & 3279m, to circulate clean. At
TD, backream to shoe. Circulate clean - high % fines / large cavings (TIH w/no probs). Drill
4141m to 4381m. No downhole losses. Casing run /cmt. OK.
A10 12.25" 1838 2309 45 to 46
12 to 14 to
13 Saraline SBM 12.1 to 12.6 ppg
Rotary drill / slide from 1331m to 2228m, circulate clean, trip & RIH with no probs. Rotary drill /
slide from 2228m to 2846m. Continue to 3787m & trip to shoe - some overpull POOH and drag
RIH. Drag increased from 2860m. Wash & ream 3729m to 3787m.
Circ. - 10 bpm losses (120 rpm, 640 gpm), 2.5 bpm (210 gpm). Add CaCO3 - minimal losses
from 3690m. Cont. backream / ream - NKG cavings cont. 1m fill at base. Believe NKG severely
washed out & cuttings beds in tangent sec. Probs with 2nd log attempt
Circulate clean - abund. fines & cavings, identified as NKG, across shakers. POOH - overpull >
normal: high spots in Pereriv & Balakhany - worked & return to normal. Max overpull of 150 klbs
@2680m. Probs running logs - unable to pass 2277m / 2291m
9.625" casing run, no losses observed during running. Hanger made up and attempt to break
circulation & wash down : hole packed off. Attempt to work & establish circulation. Casing stuck
at 3747m. Finally circulated & washed down.
Clean out assembly reamed / backreamed 2277m to 2335m. Shakers loaded with fines 20 mins
after circ started: pred. NKG. When shakers clean, attempt to continue - TIH with little success
2335m - 2594m. Most of section had to be reamed / backreamed.
When log tools stuck at 3621m (2nd attempt), static downhole losses evident. Losses washing
down casing and circ. Cmt in place - 15.8 ppg tail. Losses for whole cmt. job = 964 bbls.
Losses for casing run / circ. & cmt = 1467bbls. Well total = 2645 bbls
A11 12.25" 1843 2367 56 to 57
318 to 321
to 318 Saraline SBM 12.2 to 12.5 ppg
At 3512m, wiper trip to 3081m and trip back in indicated good cond. hole. 1st part of 2nd kick
off section drilled 3512m to 3612m: drill string stuck trying to build. BHA pulled. New BHA -
tripping speed had to be maximised to wash /ream assembly.
New BHA - attempt to break circ. & wash/ream stand to bottom : string plugged. Work pipe &
establish circ. Pull BHA. RIH - 8.5" (?) hole drilled 3767m to 3932m. Interval from 3932m to
3624m precautionary back-reamed & moderate amount of cuttings.
Not possible to work past 3127m: stiff BHA conf. & hole probs (abundant amount of cavings)
prob. main reasons for not being able to trip to bottom. Back-ream to shoe - constant amount of
cavings / fines across shakers (amount increased from +/-2600m)
9.625" casing run. No losses whilst running. Casing cemented - losses throughout circulating
prior to cementation. 15.8 ppg tail. Displace with 12.3 ppg SBM - no losses.
Circ. hole clean at 1939m. Shakers loaded with fines & large amt of cavings & blocky chunks of
shale over top screens. Temp pack off. Cont. back ream from 1939m to shoe. New BHA - back-
reamed 3762m to abv 2nd KOP @3503m - pulled as excessive build tend.
Overall losses while drilling section averaged abt 0.22 bbls/ft. Cavings from back-reaming 12.25"
hole most probably from upper Balakhany. Temp. packing off during 9.625" cmt. job may also
be a sign of hole instability.
Drilled in rotary /slide mode to 2653m - steady amount of cavings began to appear at end of
interval. Trip out and back ream from TD to 2000m & circulate BU abv Balakhany. Several tight
spots during trip and continuous 3-4cm caving over shakers.
Mod. amt. of cuttings / fines over shakers during back reaming. Hole circ. clean at 1819m and
mod. amt of cuttings &g fines. Several tight spots tripping out of hole in Sabunchi & Balakhany
V/VI. (Logs - bad washouts in Sab / upp. Bal & 11" in mid Bal )
Hole instability in
Balakhany - believe
MWtoo low !!
New BHA - drilled 2653m to 3373m (ROP decreased in Balakhany). Trip made - only minor tight
spots. New BHA - drilled 3373m to TD of 3680m. Hi visc. pill pumped and hole circulated clean.
Several tight spots in Pereriv & Balakhany.
POOH from 2507m (below trouble zone) & unable to trip past 2343m. Back reamed 2363m to
2335m. Attempt again to POOH at 2298m, but need to cont. back reaming from 2305m. Hole
pack off and circ. could not be re-established. Finally regained circ. POOH.
Necessary to back ream from 2485m to 1789m (upper Balakhany & Sabunchi) to prevent
getting stuck. Steady increase in cuttings & cavings across shakers whilst back reaming. Circ.
clean @1789m. Shakers loaded with heavy amounts of cavings & blocky chunks.
Ran 9.625" casing to 3675m - MW& high YP to cure hole instability probs went against casing
running. Losses at 1800m which continued as during entire casing running and cementing
operations. High MW& YP in 11" under-gauge hole !!
Trip back to bottom - tight spots in Sabunchi & Balakhany V / VI. Trip in from 2478m - smooth.
Hole appeared in v.good cond. from 3680m to 2505m. Unable to trip past base Balakhany at
2505m so backream through Balakhany 2505m - 1819m (Sabunchi).
Although full circ. & full returns observed at 1800m, full returns could not be established at when
circ. at 1926m & 3638m. Losses up to 150 bbls / hr cont. thro' casing and cement job. Logs
show 20" dia. 1800m - 1855m & 2205m - 2270m.
A13 12.25" 1788 2272 25 to 54 285 to 286
Combination Fluid -
Ultidrill LAO,
Novatec LAO,
Saraline SBM 12.1 to 12.4 ppg
Drilled to 2260m & trip for BHA - one tight spot 1680m to 1675m. Drilled to 3363m & trip to
surface - tight spots in Balakhany IX, VII, V (worst in V): DP worked thro' without circ. due to
potential for losses. (NB- A13 had no major downhole losses)
Abundant blocky cavings circ. to surface at shoe. Minimal losses while backreaming. New BHA -
several spots on trip back to btm. that reqd. circ. & rotation to get thro' but seemed to be ledges
/ bridges which disappeared as soon as rotation started.
Trip to btm. cut short at 2624m as impossible to make any progress. Trip to surface - @2410m
(Bal V) tight spot impossible to work thro' without breaking circulation. 40bbls mud lost breaking
circ. & working pipe. Backream from 2410m to shoe at 1225m.
Circ. for 2hrs on btm. & backream to shoe. Amt of cuttings / cavings to surf. often a trickle, then
large quantitys over shakers (Large % of blocky caving with BU from shoe). Ran 9.625" casing
& cmt. (14.5 lead / 15.8 tail).No losses run/circ./cmt.
A14 12.25" 2038 2735 70 to 71 346 to 347
Combination Fluid.
At start of section
est. %of Saraline
SBM was 15%. 12.3 ppg
Drilled in rotary /slide mode 1260m to 1905m. Tangent section 1905m to 2850m. Circ. BU &
precautionary back-reamed from 2850m to above 13.375" shoe at 1254m: minimal amt of
cuttings / fines back-reaming 2850m to 2450m but mod. to heavy amts abv. 2450m.
POOH without pumping or rotating from 2100m - 1615m as probs packing off. High overpull at
1615m. Backream from 1620m to shoe. Shakers loaded with blocky cuttings after circ. BU from
shoe at 1254m. Cont. POOH. Lost 1150 bbls mud backreaming to shoe.
Note: Large blocky cavings from lower Sabunchi: has become a common observance when back-reaming to the shoe is
done and appears to support theory of unstable shale at btm Sabunchi / top Balakhany.
Ultidrill base fluid
used
Shakers loaded with 90% large blocky cavings & 10% small cuttings / fines on BU. Large blocky
cavings identified as coming from low. Sabunchi at est. depth of +/-2500m. Assembly pulled.
RIH with new ass. - increased drag at 2168m, 2207m & 2631m: work thro
Wash / ream 1607m to 1665m. Cont. trip to 1795m and wash / ream to 1810m. Circ. BU at
2990m, 3565m - ream last stand to bottom. POOH - no probs on trip out. Run 9.625" casing.
Pump 75bbls 12.2 SBM - no returns. Cmt with 14.5 lead / 15.8 tail.
Attempts to control sloughing shale by increasing mud weight considered a major risk due to high potential of downhole
losses in Sabunchipart. when running and cementing casing. Backreaming considered best primary way of cleaning up
wellbore
Drectionally drilled 2850m - 4155m (losses @3998m). Circ. BU & backream - steady to mod.
amnt. of cuttings over shakers . Reamed higher torque areas until drop to normal. Lost returns
at 2810m. Tripped to 2837m to re-establish circulation without success.
Had 10 - 35 % returns whilst pumping spacer and cement. Had 35 - 50 % returns whilst
displacing. Lost a total of 854 bbls of cement during cmt. job. Pressure indicates loss zone was
probably abv. 1800m. After cmt. displaced, mud gains ('balloning')
POOH to 2759m without circ. / rotating. Broke circ. & started backreaming. Lost returns at
2622m, 2480m, 2452m, 2219m, 2200m. Circ. & work pipe each time until circ. regained. On BU
from 2200m, start to see large blocky cuttings from Balakhany & Sabunchi
Annulus cont. to flow after plug was bumped. Well had demonstrated tendency to flow back part
of the mud that had been lost during drilling phase so there was no well control concern. Well
flowed total of 112 bbls over 2 hr period.
A14 -Z - - - - - - - - - -
GCA-1 12.25" 1687 2029 0 0 KCL PHPA
12.0 ppg to 12.4 ppg to
12.8 ppg 15.3 ppg LOT
Mud weight gradually raised from 12.0 ppg to 12.4 ppg from 1400m to 1500m to overcome
swabbing and tight hole conditions. Further raised to 12.8 ppg on penetrating Balakhany due to
increased gas in mud returns. 9 5/8" casing ran and cemenred at 2558m.
Page 1
Balakhany
BALAK
HANY
FORMA
TION
Well
Hole
Section
Top Depth (MD brt)
Blue : Casing, Red
: Formation, Green
: KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Mud Type for
Entire Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole
Section
LOT / FIT for
A1-OH 12.5" 2097 2826 16 to 20 80 to 75 KCL - Polymer Initialy 11.9 ppg
cuttings. During wiper trip, ream down from 1421m to 2581m - high torque and slow.
Pumped out. Ran 2nd assembly to 2580m - no problem and light reaming to bottom.
On trip out of hole, excessive overpulls and back reamed to 2750m where string became
stuck. After several attempts string was eventually backed off at 1395m. Cement plug set
from 1386m to 1230m. Sidetrack kicked off tagging cement at 1240m.
A1-T1 12.5" 2097 2645 13 to 10 80 to 66 KCL - Polymer
- cmnt contam &
reactive clays.
Raised to 12.8 ppg
Sidetracked from 1259m to 1575m prior to pulling kick off assembly. Drilled to 2077m
where hole conditions dictated mud weight increase to 12.8 ppg. Trip at 2077m - total
losses treated with LCM, achieving partial returns. Mud flow back when pumps off.
LCM spot. ass. ran in hole: no returns. During trip mw reduced to 12.6 ppg, add. pills circ.,
full returns. Drilled to 2645m - several bit changes (erratic torque, low ROP). 9.625" casing:
washed 2544 to 2591m, 12.8 ppg lead, 15.8 ppg tail - full returns
8.5" 2645 2826 10 to 9.7 66 to 61 KCL Polymer 11.6 ppg to 2832m
LOT of 16.2 ppg at
9.625" shoe in
Balakhany
At 2832m, BHA pulled due to low ROP - undergauge stabiliser as in 12.25" section.
Section drilled to TD of 2937m with a reed roller cone bit. 7" liner run - cemented in
place with a 15.8 ppg cement slurry.
Well displaced to seawater but observed to be flowing so closed in and killed with
conpletion brine of 11.3 ppg resulting in losses to the well
A2 12.25 2233 3041 33 to 25 79 to 77 Quadrill 12.8 ppg
Section drilled to TD of 3069m into Top Pereviv A. 9.625" casing run to 3060m without
losses. Cmt with 14.5 ppg lead and 15.8 ppg tail. No losses reported during cmt job.
Increased KCl conc. & increased wiper trip frequency conributed to better WBS than on
A1. Initial wiping of the hole (esp. in 12.25" section) still resulted in sig. overpull with some
shale secs tight on trips and requiring back-reaming
8.5" 3041 3060 25 77 Quadrill 11 ppg No LOTconducted
Section TD of 3203m. During loggng tool became temporariliy stuck at 3100m. As TD
estimate incorrect a further 13m formation drilled to 3216m. Ditto
A3 12.25" 2217 3046 42 to 28 318 to 317
Quadrill (KCl
level of 35 to
45 ppb for
increased
Section TD of 3069m in Top Pereriv B - five bit runs. Hole cond. good but overpull
evident on tripping. Tight hole on wiper trips but mainly in ssts. 9.625" casing run to
3066m - circulate casing for 2 hrs prior to cementing. No losses when cementing.
Good hole cleaning with good cuttings returns.No problems with differential sticking in
bottom interval (9.6 - 9.8 ppg Pp in Balakhany X / Pereriv cf. 12.8 ppg mw)
A4 12.25 2169 3547
26 to 47
to 34 226 to 238
KCl - PHPA for
1st LOT then
displaced to
SBM Saraline
for 2nd LOT &
drilling
12.1 to 12.2 ppg
(11.5 ppg for 1st
LOT & 12.1 ppg for
2nd LOT)
Section drilled in five bit runs to TD of 3810m below Pereriv D. No WBS problems
running 9.625" casing with no losses observed while running. After landing hanger,
established circ. & increased flow rate - 10 - 50% losses; total of 210 bbls SBM circ.
Lost a total of 690 bbls SBM during cmt job of 9.625" casing. 1st well in Caspian to be
drilled with SBM - good hole condition, little or no problems / overpull experienced on
triping. Calliper shows in-gauge: av. 13.1". High OB in Bal. - no diff. stick.
A5 12.25" 2229 3200 38 to 35 37 to 42 SBM Saraline
12.0 to 12.4
(@2400m) to 12.9
ppg
Close to fault !Good hole conditions throughout section with only minor overpulls on
wiper trips reported. No lossses were reported whilst drilling section to TD of 3542m.
Lossses running / circulating / cementing casing.
Ran 9.625" casing - losses when in open hole: losses up from ~10 bbls/hr to 40-50 bbls/hr
from 1500m to 1914m despite restr. running rates. Zero returns whilst running thro' top
Sabunchi. Below here, 25 bbls/hr & by 2600m - 5-10 bbls/hr. Total = 585bbls.
A6 12.25 2630 3791 49 to 43 304 to 302 SBM Saraline 12.1 to 12.5 ppg
Well displaced with a 12.3 ppg mud. 1st LOT result - not high enough integrity so cmnt.
sqz job at shoe. Section drilled to TD of 4105m - no losses reported. After a wiper trip,
the 9.625" casing was run and cemented: 15 bbls losses whilst running. 15.8 ppg tail slurry - 20bbls losses whilst cementing
A7 12.25" 2545 3522 58 to 61 351 Saraline SBM 12.3 to 12.5 ppg
Section TD of 3522m. Mud pumps broke down frequently. Several wiper trips with
excessive back-reaming to prepare well for logging. 9.625" casing run to 3518m without
major resistance and with negligible fluid losses (20 bbl). Primary cmt. - no losses
Low LOT - LWD indicated sand stringer right below shoe !! When back-reaming prior to
running casing, large volumes of cuttings circulated out and large build up just below
13.375" shoe. Hole good after two wiper trips.
8.5" 3522 4040 60 to 58 353 Oil (environ) 12.1 to 12.4 ppg
Casing Integrity Test
gave FIT of 17 ppg
at 9.625" shoe in
Balakhany
Hole logged up to 3765m but 38m logging suite stuck - fished with drill pipe while hole
conds excellent and smooth well path !Too high incl. for wireline ! All of section (3518m
to 4393m) had to be reamed with milling at base. Remainder drilled to 4610m.
7" liner washed to 4220m - hole packed off several times and could not be cleaned
effectively. Could not rotate liner at any time - not possible to pass 4581m so set at 4575m.
A8 12.25" 2610 3340 43 to 48 102 to 100 Saraline SBM
12.1 to 12.5 ppg
(drill record notes
12.3 ppg used ?)
Section drilled to TD of 3750m - a wiper trip to 13.375" shoe was carried out prior to
POOH : tight spots noted in Sabunchi. Attempts to run tools, could not get past 2341m
(1st time), 2394m (2nd time) : 3rd logging run successful.
9.625" run - no losses. Cemented with 15.8 bbls tail. Losses throughout circulating prior to
cementation (38 bbls). Losses stopped as trip slugs circulated out. Displacement - partial
returns after 745 bbls. Full returns as pump rate slowed 8 to 6 bpm.
Drilled rotary from 1323m to 2864m. Circ. clean & trip to shoe. RIH w/no probs. Cont.
from 2846m to 4141m, mw of 12.3 to 12.5 ppg. Short trip from 4141m - worked thro'
tight spots, no major probs tripping out. Difficult trip in: tag cuttings beds
Hole conds (cuttings beds) forced tripping to stop at 2559, 2900 & 3279m, to circulate
clean. At TD, backream to shoe. Circulate clean - high % fines / large cavings (TIH w/no
probs). Drill 4141m to 4381m. No downhole losses. Casing run /cmt. OK.
8.5" 4381 4433 78 to 77 303 to 304 Saraline SBM 10.7 to 10.9 ppg
Drilled from 4381m to 4636m with precautionary backreaming to shoe - minimal amount
of cuttings over shakers, increasing to moderate amount while working pipe & circulating
clean after backreaming. On last stand backreamed: signs of packing off: worked
Drilled 4636m to 4835m. Throughout section, drilled in rotary mode as attempta to slide
were unsuccessful (could not get weight on bit).Td'd early due to fears of getting stuck and
losing the drilled interval.
A10 12.25" 2309 3407
45 to 47
to 40 13 to 12 Saraline SBM 12.1 to 12.6 ppg
Rotary drill / slide from 1331m to 2228m, circulate clean, trip & RIH with no probs.
Rotary drill / slide from 2228m to 2846m. Continue to 3787m & trip to shoe - some
overpull POOH and drag RIH. Drag increased from 2860m. Wash & ream 3729m to
3787m.
Circ. - 10 bpm losses (120 rpm, 640 gpm), 2.5 bpm (210 gpm). Add CaCO3 - minimal
losses from 3690m. Cont. backream / ream - NKG cavings cont. 1m fill at base. Believe
NKG severely washed out & cuttings beds in tangent sec. Probs with 2nd log attempt
Circulate clean - abund. fines & cavings, identified as NKG, across shakers. POOH -
overpull > normal: high spots in Pereriv & Balakhany - worked & return to normal. Max
overpull of 150 klbs @2680m. Probs running logs - unable to pass 2277m / 2291m
9.625" casing run, no losses observed during running. Hanger made up and attempt to
break circulation & wash down : hole packed off. Attempt to work & establish circulation.
Casing stuck at 3747m. Finally circulated & washed down.
Clean out assembly reamed / backreamed 2277m to 2335m. Shakers loaded with fines
20 mins after circ started: pred. NKG. When shakers clean, attempt to continue - TIH
with little success 2335m - 2594m. Most of section had to be reamed / backreamed.
When log tools stuck at 3621m (2nd attempt), static downhole losses evident. Losses
washing down casing and circ. Cmt in place - 15.8 ppg tail. Losses for whole cmt. job =
964 bbls. Losses for casing run / circ. & cmt = 1467bbls. Well total = 2645 bbls
At 3512m, wiper trip to 3081m and trip back in indicated good cond. hole. 1st part of 2nd
kick off section drilled 3512m to 3612m: drill string stuck trying to build. BHA pulled. New
BHA - tripping speed had to be maximised to wash /ream assembly.
New BHA - attempt to break circ. & wash/ream stand to bottom : string plugged. Work pipe
& establish circ. Pull BHA. RIH - 8.5" (?) hole drilled 3767m to 3932m. Interval from 3932m
to 3624m precautionary back-reamed & moderate amount of cuttings.
Not possible to work past 3127m: stiff BHA conf. & hole probs (abundant amount of
cavings) prob. main reasons for not being able to trip to bottom. Back-ream to shoe -
constant amount of cavings / fines across shakers (amount increased from +/-2600m)
9.625" casing run. No losses whilst running. Casing cemented - losses throughout
circulating prior to cementation. 15.8 ppg tail. Displace with 12.3 ppg SBM - no losses.
Circ. hole clean at 1939m. Shakers loaded with fines & large amt of cavings & blocky
chunks of shale over top screens. Temp pack off. Cont. back ream from 1939m to shoe.
New BHA - back-reamed 3762m to abv 2nd KOP @3503m - pulled as excessive build
tend.
Overall losses while drilling section averaged abt 0.22 bbls/ft. Cavings from back-reaming
12.25" hole most probably from upper Balakhany. Temp. packing off during 9.625" cmt.
job may also be a sign of hole instability.
A12 12.25" 2200 3452
41 to 51
to 45 126 to 123 Saraline SBM 12.3 to 12.6 ppg
Drilled in rotary /slide mode to 2653m - steady amount of cavings began to appear at
end of interval. Trip out and back ream from TD to 2000m & circulate BU abv Balakhany.
Several tight spots during trip and continuous 3-4cm caving over shakers.
Mod. amt. of cuttings / fines over shakers during back reaming. Hole circ. clean at 1819m
and mod. amt of cuttings &g fines. Several tight spots tripping out of hole in Sabunchi &
Balakhany V/VI. (Logs - bad washouts in Sab / upp. Bal & 11" in mid Bal )
Hole instability in
Balakhany -
believe MW too
low !!
New BHA - drilled 2653m to 3373m (ROP decreased in Balakhany). Trip made - only
minor tight spots. New BHA - drilled 3373m to TD of 3680m. Hi visc. pill pumped and
hole circulated clean. Several tight spots in Pereriv & Balakhany.
POOH from 2507m (below trouble zone) & unable to trip past 2343m. Back reamed 2363m
to 2335m. Attempt again to POOH at 2298m, but need to cont. back reaming from 2305m.
Hole pack off and circ. could not be re-established. Finally regained circ. POOH.
Necessary to back ream from 2485m to 1789m (upper Balakhany & Sabunchi) to
prevent getting stuck. Steady increase in cuttings & cavings across shakers whilst back
reaming. Circ. clean @1789m. Shakers loaded with heavy amounts of cavings & blocky
chunks.
Ran 9.625" casing to 3675m - MW & high YP to cure hole instability probs went against
casing running. Losses at 1800m which continued as during entire casing running and
cementing operations. High MW & YP in 11" under-gauge hole !!
Trip back to bottom - tight spots in Sabunchi & Balakhany V / VI. Trip in from 2478m -
smooth. Hole appeared in v.good cond. from 3680m to 2505m. Unable to trip past base
Balakhany at 2505m so backream through Balakhany 2505m - 1819m (Sabunchi).
Although full circ. & full returns observed at 1800m, full returns could not be established at
when circ. at 1926m & 3638m. Losses up to 150 bbls / hr cont. thro' casing and cement
job. Logs show 20" dia. 1800m - 1855m & 2205m - 2270m.
A13 12.25" 2272 3943
54 to 57
to 56 286 to 285
Combination
Fluid - Ultidrill
LAO, Novatec
LAO, Saraline
SBM 12.1 to 12.4 ppg
Drilled to 2260m & trip for BHA - one tight spot 1680m to 1675m. Drilled to 3363m & trip
to surface - tight spots in Balakhany IX, VII, V (worst in V): DP worked thro' without circ.
due to potential for losses. (NB- A13 had no major downhole losses)
Abundant blocky cavings circ. to surface at shoe. Minimal losses while backreaming. New
BHA - several spots on trip back to btm. that reqd. circ. & rotation to get thro' but seemed
to be ledges / bridges which disappeared as soon as rotation started.
Trip to btm. cut short at 2624m as impossible to make any progress. Trip to surface -
@2410m (Bal V) tight spot impossible to work thro' without breaking circulation. 40bbls
mud lost breaking circ. & working pipe. Backream from 2410m to shoe at 1225m.
Circ. for 2hrs on btm. & backream to shoe. Amt of cuttings / cavings to surf. often a trickle,
then large quantitys over shakers (Large % of blocky caving with BU from shoe). Ran
9.625" casing & cmt. (14.5 lead / 15.8 tail).No losses run/circ./cmt.
A14 12.25" 2735 4155
70 to 71
to 69 347 to 345
Combination
Fluid. At start
of section est.
% of Saraline
SBM was 15%. 12.3 ppg
Drilled in rotary /slide mode 1260m to 1905m. Tangent section 1905m to 2850m. Circ.
BU & precautionary back-reamed from 2850m to above 13.375" shoe at 1254m: minimal
amt of cuttings / fines back-reaming 2850m to 2450m but mod. to heavy amts abv.
2450m.
POOH without pumping or rotating from 2100m - 1615m as probs packing off. High
overpull at 1615m. Backream from 1620m to shoe. Shakers loaded with blocky cuttings
after circ. BU from shoe at 1254m. Cont. POOH. Lost 1150 bbls mud backreaming to
shoe.
Ultidrill base
fluid used
Shakers loaded with 90% large blocky cavings & 10% small cuttings / fines on BU. Large
blocky cavings identified as coming from low. Sabunchi at est. depth of +/-2500m.
Assembly pulled. RIH with new ass. - increased drag at 2168m, 2207m & 2631m: work
thro
Wash / ream 1607m to 1665m. Cont. trip to 1795m and wash / ream to 1810m. Circ. BU at
2990m, 3565m - ream last stand to bottom. POOH - no probs on trip out. Run 9.625"
casing. Pump 75bbls 12.2 SBM - no returns. Cmt with 14.5 lead / 15.8 tail.
Drectionally drilled 2850m - 4155m (losses @3998m). Circ. BU & backream - steady to
mod. amnt. of cuttings over shakers . Reamed higher torque areas until drop to normal.
Lost returns at 2810m. Tripped to 2837m to re-establish circulation without success.
Had 10 - 35 % returns whilst pumping spacer and cement. Had 35 - 50 % returns whilst
displacing. Lost a total of 854 bbls of cement during cmt. job. Pressure indicates loss zone
was probably abv. 1800m. After cmt. displaced, mud gains ('balloning')
POOH to 2759m without circ. / rotating. Broke circ. & started backreaming. Lost returns
at 2622m, 2480m, 2452m, 2219m, 2200m. Circ. & work pipe each time until circ.
regained. On BU from 2200m, start to see large blocky cuttings from Balakhany &
Sabunchi
Annulus cont. to flow after plug was bumped. Well had demonstrated tendency to flow
back part of the mud that had been lost during drilling phase so there was no well control
concern. Well flowed total of 112 bbls over 2 hr period.
8.5" 4155 4675 69 to 56 344 to 343 Ultidrill fluid 10.7 to 10.8 ppg
15.5 ppg FIT within
Balakhany
Drill to 4970m (TD) with sliding sections to slow the dropping tendency of the BHA. Back-
reamed to shoe - string packed off / became stuck at 4387m. Pipe worked down but
more progress working & jarring pipe upwards to 4376m - rotation & circ. established
Reaming to btm cont. w/o hole problems. After circ., no increase in cuttings seen. Trip out
began w/o backreaming & encountered tight spots at 4681m, 4671m, 4657m, 4649m,
4640m, 4635m. At 4644m, backreamed to 4614m where trip resumed normally.
Circ. while rotating: steady stream of small cuttings & sand coming to surface but no
increase with BU. Backreaming to shoe with no major probs. Again a steady amnt of
small cuttings seen while circ. with increase in BU.
At 4272m, reamed to 4252m. From 4252m, trip to shoe performed w/o top drive. BU from
shoe did not show a marked increase in cuttings. Made up wiper trip assembly and trip to
bottom; tight at 4535m, 4568m, 4928m. Performed final log run on DP.
Trip to btm. & ream thro' problem area. Trip smooth till 4370m (50klbs slack with no
progress). Section 4370m to 4511m ream / backream. At end of each connection
attempt to trip in hole made w/o rotating & w/o the pumps: each time had to rotate.
Most of trip to bottom was smooth indicating very good hole conditions. Openhole logged
from 4790m to shoe w/o problems. Calliper showed several washouts followed by
sections of gauge hole in areas where hole probs during trips. Decision to sidetrack
A14 -Z 8.5" 4162 5085 70 to 53
344 to 338
to 343 Novamul 10.7 to 10.8 ppg
Drilled 4162m to 4204m then circ. BU - sample showed 70% cuttings. Rotary drill 4205m
to 4216m & slide 4216m to 4231m. Circulate BU and POOH. Drill 4231m to 4407m with
slides to reduce build rate. POOH and backream to shoe from 4432m.
Back-ream to shoe: top drive stalled at 4665m & hole packed off: BHA stuck. Pipe finally
freed & hole circd. clean at 4665m. Commenced back-reaming to shoe - hole circ. clean in
shoe> trip out of hole. Check trip BHA ran in hole: circ. clean @5424m.
Cont. drilling 4407m to 4606m with slides to drop angle. At 4606m, malfunction of top
drive. Hole circ. 6 hrs while repaired. Trip to shoe - many tight spots & had to backream
4606m to 4242m.
Wiper trip to shoe @4151m: pulled thro' several tight spots. Trip back in hole - attempt
ream / wash from 4219m: top drive stalled @4257m. Hole pack off & pipe stuck. Freed &
pull back into shoe. Ream / wash from shoe to below trouble zone at +/-4700m.
Problem seems more related to sections of gauge hole that readily packed off when
bringing BHA past them than to cuttings beds. Although slight increase, never a large
amt. of cuttings while backreaming / circ. Cont. to drill from 4606m to 4786m.
Pipe stuck several timesand could not be jarred free. Hole circulated clean at 4704m. Add.
short trip from 4707m to +/-5250m & trip in hole again. Several tight spots on the way out
& in the hole. Circ. clean at TD. Conduct final short trip to shoe.
Trip out of hole, backreaming thro' tight spots where top drive stalled & hole packed off.
New BHA ran in hole, tagged up several times. Ream & wash thro' tight spots, cont.
drilling 4786m to 5152m. Wiper trip to 4780m prior to drilling to 5424m TD.
Several tight spots but on way in but smooth trip out. Never large amnt. of cuttings to
surface while back-reaming or while circulating. 7" liner run - several tight spots and
tagged up at 5185m. Finally worked pipe at set shoe at 5423m.
Page 1
Pereriv & NKG
Well
Hole
Section
Top Depth (MD
brt) Blue : Casing,
Red : Formation,
Green : KOP
End Depth (MD
brt) Blue :
Casing, Red :
Formation, Green
: KOP Incl. Azi.
Mud Type for
Entire Hole
Section
Mud Weight for
Entire Hole
Section
LOT / FIT for
A1 - OH - - - - - - - - - -
A1-T1 8.5" 2645 2826 10 to 9.7 66 to 61 KCL Polymer 11.6 ppg to 2832m
LOT of 16.2 ppg at
9.625" shoe in
Balakhany
At 2832m, BHA pulled due to low ROP - undergauge stabiliser as in 12.25" section.
Section drilled to TD of 2937m with a reed roller cone bit. 7" liner run - cemented in
place with a 15.8 ppg cement slurry.
Well displaced to seawater but observed to be flowing so closed in and killed with
conpletion brine of 11.3 ppg resulting in losses to the well
A2 8.5" 3060 3216 25 to 22 77 Quadrill 11 ppg No LOTconducted
Section TD of 3203m. During loggng tool became temporariliy stuck at 3100m. As TD
estimate incorrect a further 13m formation drilled to 3216m.
Increased KCl conc. & increased wiper trip frequency conributed to better WBS
than on A1. Initial wiping of the hole (esp. in 12.25" section) still resulted in sig.
overpull with some shale secs tight on trips and requiring back-reaming
A3 12.25" 3046 3066 27 317
Quadrill (KCl level
of 35 to 45 ppb for
increased
Section TD of 3069m in Top Pereriv B - five bit runs. Hole cond. good but overpull
evident on tripping. Tight hole on wiper trips but mainly in ssts. 9.625" casing run to
3066m - circulate casing for 2 hrs prior to cementing. No losses when cementing.
Good hole cleaning with good cuttings returns.No problems with differential
sticking in bottom interval (9.6 - 9.8 ppg Pp in Balakhany X / Pereriv cf. 12.8 ppg
mw)
8.5" 3066 3185 27 to 23
318 to
322 Quadrill
10.5 to 10.8 ppg
(raised due to
possible well flow)
Hole underreamed to 12.25" from 3065m to 3166m. Calliper log showed hole to be on
average only 11.5" diameter. Pressure readings from FMT's showed Pp to be around
9.7 ppg (previous stability study recommended use of an 11 ppg mud with WBM)
No problems with the Quadrill mud - fluid appears inhibitive enough to prevent
washout of claystone layers betwn. different Pereriv sst. groups. No differential
sticking probs. (max. OB was 550 psi with MW of 10.8 ppg)
A4 12.25 3547 3810 34 to 27
238 to
241
KCl - PHPA for
1st LOT then
displaced to SBM
Saraline for 2nd
LOT & drilling
12.1 to 12.2 ppg
(11.5 ppg for 1st
LOT & 12.1 ppg for
2nd LOT)
Section drilled in five bit runs to TD of 3810m below Pereriv D. No WBS problems
running 9.625" casing with no losses observed while running. After landing hanger,
established circ. & increased flow rate - 10 - 50% losses; total of 210 bbls SBM circ.
Lost a total of 690 bbls SBM during cmt job of 9.625" casing. 1st well in Caspian to
be drilled with SBM - good hole condition, little or no problems / overpull
experienced on triping. Calliper shows in-gauge: av. 13.1". High OB in Bal. - no
diff. stick.
A5 12.25" 3200 3542 35 to 32 42 to 43 SBM Saraline
12.0 to 12.4
(@2400m) to 12.9
ppg
Close to fault !Good hole conditions throughout section with only minor overpulls on
wiper trips reported. From 3270m - losses of 1-2 bbls / hr. Losses while logging - 1 bbl /
hr. Final TD - 3542m. Lossses running / circulating / cementing casing.
Ran 9.625" casing - losses when in open hole: losses up from ~10 bbls/hr to 40-50
bbls/hr from 1500m to 1914m despite restr. running rates. Zero returns whilst
running thro' top Sabunchi. Below here, 25 bbls/hr & by 2600m - 5-10 bbls/hr. Total
= 585bbls.
A6 12.25 3791 4105 43 to 46
302 to
313 SBM Saraline 12.1 to 12.5 ppg
Well displaced with a 12.3 ppg mud. 1st LOT result - not high enough integrity so cmnt.
sqz job at shoe. Section drilled to TD of 4105m - no losses reported. After a wiper trip,
the 9.625" casing was run and cemented: 15 bbls losses whilst running. 15.8 ppg tail slurry - 20bbls losses whilst cementing
A7 8.5" 4040 4610 58 to 32
352 to
360 Oil (environ) 12.1 to 12.4 ppg
Casing Integrity
Test gave FIT of 17
ppg at 9.625" shoe
in Balakhany
Hole logged up to 3765m but 38m logging suite stuck - fished with drill pipe while hole
conds excellent and smooth well path !Too high incl. for wireline ! All of section (3518m
to 4393m) had to be reamed with milling at base. Remainder drilled to 4610m.
7" liner washed to 4220m - hole packed off several times and could not be cleaned
effectively. Could not rotate liner at any time - not possible to pass 4581m so set at
4575m.
A8 12.25" 3340 3750 48 to 42 101 Saraline SBM
12.1 to 12.5 ppg
(drill record notes
12.3 ppg used ?)
Section drilled to TD of 3750m - a wiper trip to 13.375" shoe was carried out prior to
POOH : tight spots noted in Sabunchi. Attempts to run tools, could not get past 2341m
(1st time), 2394m (2nd time) : 3rd logging run successful.
9.625" run - no losses. Cemented with 15.8 bbls tail. Losses throughout circulating
prior to cementation (38 bbls). Losses stopped as trip slugs circulated out.
Displacement - partial returns after 745 bbls. Full returns as pump rate slowed 8 to
6 bpm.
8.5" 3750 3940 42 to 44 101 to 99 Quadrill 11.1 ppg
Hole drilled to 3940m. No hole problems when drilling or tripping. Logging problems
occured with tools becoming stuck and requiring extra trips. 7" liner finally run and
perforated. No problems or losses while cementing.
Log runs 1 &2 OK - hole condition good. Third run - had to increase speed to
prevent hanging up. Wiper trip - OK, but probs when attempting to run log 3 again
and run 4 also.
A9 8.5" 4433 4835 77 to 88
306 to
Drilled from 4381m to 4636m with precautionary backreaming to shoe - minimal
amount of cuttings over shakers, increasing to moderate amount while working pipe &
circulating clean after backreaming. On last stand backreamed: signs of packing off:
worked
Drilled 4636m to 4835m. Throughout section, drilled in rotary mode as attempta to
slide were unsuccessful (could not get weight on bit).Td'd early due to fears of
getting stuck and losing the drilled interval.
A10 12.25" 3407 3787 40
12.5 to
12.8 to
11.6 Saraline SBM 12.1 to 12.6 ppg
Rotary drill / slide from 1331m to 2228m, circulate clean, trip & RIH with no probs.
Rotary drill / slide from 2228m to 2846m. Continue to 3787m & trip to shoe - some
overpull POOH and drag RIH. Drag increased from 2860m. Wash & ream 3729m to
3787m.
Circ. - 10 bpm losses (120 rpm, 640 gpm), 2.5 bpm (210 gpm). Add CaCO3 -
minimal losses from 3690m. Cont. backream / ream - NKG cavings cont. 1m fill at
base. Believe NKG severely washed out & cuttings beds in tangent sec. Probs with
2nd log attempt
Circulate clean - abund. fines & cavings, identified as NKG, across shakers. POOH -
overpull > normal: high spots in Pereriv & Balakhany - worked & return to normal. Max
overpull of 150 klbs @2680m. Probs running logs - unable to pass 2277m / 2291m
9.625" casing run, no losses observed during running. Hanger made up and
attempt to break circulation & wash down : hole packed off. Attempt to work &
establish circulation. Casing stuck at 3747m. Finally circulated & washed down.
Clean out assembly reamed / backreamed 2277m to 2335m. Shakers loaded with fines
20 mins after circ started: pred. NKG. When shakers clean, attempt to continue - TIH
with little success 2335m - 2594m. Most of section had to be reamed / backreamed.
When log tools stuck at 3621m (2nd attempt), static downhole losses evident.
Losses washing down casing and circ. Cmt in place - 15.8 ppg tail. Losses for
whole cmt. job = 964 bbls. Losses for casing run / circ. & cmt = 1467bbls. Well
total = 2645 bbls
A11 12.25" 3642 3936 66 to 85
314 to
At 3512m, wiper trip to 3081m and trip back in indicated good cond. hole. 1st part of
2nd kick off section drilled 3512m to 3612m: drill string stuck trying to build. BHA
pulled. New BHA - tripping speed had to be maximised to wash /ream assembly.
New BHA - attempt to break circ. & wash/ream stand to bottom : string plugged.
Work pipe & establish circ. Pull BHA. RIH - 8.5" (?) hole drilled 3767m to 3932m.
Interval from 3932m to 3624m precautionary back-reamed & moderate amount of
cuttings.
Not possible to work past 3127m: stiff BHA conf. & hole probs (abundant amount of
cavings) prob. main reasons for not being able to trip to bottom. Back-ream to shoe -
constant amount of cavings / fines across shakers (amount increased from +/-2600m)
9.625" casing run. No losses whilst running. Casing cemented - losses throughout
circulating prior to cementation. 15.8 ppg tail. Displace with 12.3 ppg SBM - no
losses.
Circ. hole clean at 1939m. Shakers loaded with fines & large amt of cavings & blocky
chunks of shale over top screens. Temp pack off. Cont. back ream from 1939m to
shoe. New BHA - back-reamed 3762m to abv 2nd KOP @3503m - pulled as excessive
build tend.
Overall losses while drilling section averaged abt 0.22 bbls/ft. Cavings from back-
reaming 12.25" hole most probably from upper Balakhany. Temp. packing off
during 9.625" cmt. job may also be a sign of hole instability.
8.5" 3936 4485
85 to 83
to 88
312 to
Rotary drilled from 3936m to 3991m. Attempts to slide from 3991m, unsuccessful.
Decision to back ream to shoe but shakers clean on BU so ran back in hole, spot lubri-
glide beads & attempt to slide. No success so POOH. New BHA - drilled 3991m to
4173m. Cont. till top Pereriv D Sand confirmed.
A12 12.25" 3452 3680 45 to 46
123 to
Drilled in rotary /slide mode to 2653m - steady amount of cavings began to appear at
end of interval. Trip out and back ream from TD to 2000m & circulate BU abv
Balakhany. Several tight spots during trip and continuous 3-4cm caving over shakers.
Mod. amt. of cuttings / fines over shakers during back reaming. Hole circ. clean at
1819m and mod. amt of cuttings &g fines. Several tight spots tripping out of hole in
Sabunchi & Balakhany V/VI. (Logs - bad washouts in Sab / upp. Bal & 11" in mid
Bal )
Hole instability in
Balakhany - believe
MW too low !!
New BHA - drilled 2653m to 3373m (ROP decreased in Balakhany). Trip made - only
minor tight spots. New BHA - drilled 3373m to TD of 3680m. Hi visc. pill pumped and
hole circulated clean. Several tight spots in Pereriv & Balakhany.
POOH from 2507m (below trouble zone) & unable to trip past 2343m. Back
reamed 2363m to 2335m. Attempt again to POOH at 2298m, but need to cont.
back reaming from 2305m. Hole pack off and circ. could not be re-established.
Finally regained circ. POOH.
Necessary to back ream from 2485m to 1789m (upper Balakhany & Sabunchi) to
prevent getting stuck. Steady increase in cuttings & cavings across shakers whilst back
reaming. Circ. clean @1789m. Shakers loaded with heavy amounts of cavings & blocky
chunks.
Ran 9.625" casing to 3675m - MW & high YP to cure hole instability probs went
against casing running. Losses at 1800m which continued as during entire casing
running and cementing operations. High MW & YP in 11" under-gauge hole !!
Trip back to bottom - tight spots in Sabunchi & Balakhany V / VI. Trip in from 2478m -
smooth. Hole appeared in v.good cond. from 3680m to 2505m. Unable to trip past base
Balakhany at 2505m so backream through Balakhany 2505m - 1819m (Sabunchi).
Although full circ. & full returns observed at 1800m, full returns could not be
established at when circ. at 1926m & 3638m. Losses up to 150 bbls / hr cont. thro'
casing and cement job. Logs show 20" dia. 1800m - 1855m & 2205m - 2270m.
A13 12.25" 3943 3985 56 286
Combination Fluid
- Ultidrill LAO,
Novatec LAO,
Saraline SBM 12.1 to 12.4 ppg
Drilled to 2260m & trip for BHA - one tight spot 1680m to 1675m. Drilled to 3363m &
trip to surface - tight spots in Balakhany IX, VII, V (worst in V): DP worked thro' without
circ. due to potential for losses. (NB- A13 had no major downhole losses)
Abundant blocky cavings circ. to surface at shoe. Minimal losses while
backreaming. New BHA - several spots on trip back to btm. that reqd. circ. &
rotation to get thro' but seemed to be ledges / bridges which disappeared as soon
as rotation started.
Trip to btm. cut short at 2624m as impossible to make any progress. Trip to surface -
@2410m (Bal V) tight spot impossible to work thro' without breaking circulation. 40bbls
mud lost breaking circ. & working pipe. Backream from 2410m to shoe at 1225m.
Circ. for 2hrs on btm. & backream to shoe. Amt of cuttings / cavings to surf. often
a trickle, then large quantitys over shakers (Large % of blocky caving with BU from
shoe). Ran 9.625" casing & cmt. (14.5 lead / 15.8 tail).No losses run/circ./cmt.
8.5" 3985 4374
57 to 63
to 62
286 to
285 Quadrill 10.3 to 10.4 ppg
Drilled to TD of 4374m. Calliper log revealed large washout at 4200m: whilst logging
could not get past 4200m. Next log only reached 4090m. Calliper log showed large
washout at 4095m to 4100m.
Final logging run on drillpipe. Trip tobottom tagged up at several points which later
co-incided with washouts. Open hole logged from 4369m to the shoe without any
problems.
A14 8.5" 4675 4970 56 to 47
343 to
345 Ultidrill fluid 10.7 to 10.8 ppg
Drill to 4970m (TD) with sliding sections to slow the dropping tendency of the BHA.
Back-reamed to shoe - string packed off / became stuck at 4387m. Pipe worked down
but more progress working & jarring pipe upwards to 4376m - rotation & circ.
established
Reaming to btm cont. w/o hole problems. After circ., no increase in cuttings seen.
Trip out began w/o backreaming & encountered tight spots at 4681m, 4671m,
4657m, 4649m, 4640m, 4635m. At 4644m, backreamed to 4614m where trip
resumed normally.
Circ. while rotating: steady stream of small cuttings & sand coming to surface but no
increase with BU. Backreaming to shoe with no major probs. Again a steady amnt of
small cuttings seen while circ. with increase in BU.
At 4272m, reamed to 4252m. From 4252m, trip to shoe performed w/o top drive.
BU from shoe did not show a marked increase in cuttings. Made up wiper trip
assembly and trip to bottom; tight at 4535m, 4568m, 4928m. Performed final log
run on DP.
Trip to btm. & ream thro' problem area. Trip smooth till 4370m (50klbs slack with no
progress). Section 4370m to 4511m ream / backream. At end of each connection
attempt to trip in hole made w/o rotating & w/o the pumps: each time had to rotate.
Most of trip to bottom was smooth indicating very good hole conditions. Openhole
logged from 4790m to shoe w/o problems. Calliper showed several washouts
followed by sections of gauge hole in areas where hole probs during trips. Decision
to sidetrack
A14 -Z 8.5" 5085 5424 53 to 41
343 to
342 Novamul 10.7 to 10.8 ppg
Drilled 4162m to 4204m then circ. BU - sample showed 70% cuttings. Rotary drill
4205m to 4216m & slide 4216m to 4231m. Circulate BU and POOH. Drill 4231m to
4407m with slides to reduce build rate. POOH and backream to shoe from 4432m.
Back-ream to shoe: top drive stalled at 4665m & hole packed off: BHA stuck. Pipe
finally freed & hole circd. clean at 4665m. Commenced back-reaming to shoe -
hole circ. clean in shoe> trip out of hole. Check trip BHA ran in hole: circ. clean
@5424m.
Cont. drilling 4407m to 4606m with slides to drop angle. At 4606m, malfunction of top
drive. Hole circ. 6 hrs while repaired. Trip to shoe - many tight spots & had to backream
4606m to 4242m.
Wiper trip to shoe @4151m: pulled thro' several tight spots. Trip back in hole -
attempt ream / wash from 4219m: top drive stalled @4257m. Hole pack off & pipe
stuck. Freed & pull back into shoe. Ream / wash from shoe to below trouble zone
at +/-4700m.
Problem seems more related to sections of gauge hole that readily packed off when
bringing BHA past them than to cuttings beds. Although slight increase, never a large
amt. of cuttings while backreaming / circ. Cont. to drill from 4606m to 4786m.
Pipe stuck several timesand could not be jarred free. Hole circulated clean at
4704m. Add. short trip from 4707m to +/-5250m & trip in hole again. Several tight
spots on the way out & in the hole. Circ. clean at TD. Conduct final short trip to
shoe.
Trip out of hole, backreaming thro' tight spots where top drive stalled & hole packed off.
New BHA ran in hole, tagged up several times. Ream & wash thro' tight spots, cont.
drilling 4786m to 5152m. Wiper trip to 4780m prior to drilling to 5424m TD.
Several tight spots but on way in but smooth trip out. Never large amnt. of cuttings
to surface while back-reaming or while circulating. 7" liner run - several tight spots
and tagged up at 5185m. Finally worked pipe at set shoe at 5423m.
Page 1
S/UTG/105/00 APPENDIX B: Review of Previous Studies for Chirag
August 2000 Page 42
APPENDI X B: Review of Previous Studies for Chirag
As part of the data review for this study an assessment was made of previous reports and memos
thought pertinent to Chirag geomechanical issues. Those thought to be of relevance are listed in Table
B1 below.
Description Document Type Author Type of Information
Chirag Wellbore
Stability Study
January 1998 Report D.E. Nierode, Exxon Wellbore Stability
Review of In-Situ
Stresses and Rock
Mechanical Properties
for Hydraulic
Fracturing / Frac
Packing, Chirag
October 1997 Draft
Report
Chris Dyke, BPAmoco In-situ Stress and Rock
Properties Data
Various Notes Memos etc.. Tetsuro Tochikawa In-situ Stress and Rock
Properties Data
Various Notes Memos etc.. Nobuo Morita In-situ Stress and Rock
Properties Data
Characterisation of
Shale Samples from
Well A-13
July 2000 Report M. Davison and
A.Burn, Dowell
Schlumberger
Chemical
characterisation of
Shales in 12.25 Hole

TableB1: Details of Previous Studies Pertinent to Chirag Geomechanical Issues
Details of work listed in Table B1 above are discussed in the following sub sections.
B1 Exxon Wellbore Stability Report
Prior to this study, the most recent work on wellbore stability for Chirag was an assessment conducted
by Dale Nierode of Exxon in 1998
1
. The main objective of the study was to assess wellbore stability for
the forthcoming A-2 well and for several future development well trajectories. At the time of writing,
offset wells were limited to exploration wells GCA-1, GCA-2 and the first development well A-1. All
three of these wells were essentially vertical, drilled with KCl water base muds. Using input data, based
on shale surface areas of cuttings to define rock strength and synthetic shear wave data to derive stress
profiles, back analyses of wells GCA-1 and A-1 were conducted. Results were then used to forward
model stability for the proposed A-2 well and a range of future trajectories.
The pore pressure profile used for design was reportedly reasonably well known from direct RFT
measurements and mud weight evaluations for fluid flows and gas unit increases. A high pressure water
August 2000 Page 43
sand was noted below the 20 shoe. For the minimum horizontal stress, uncertainty was noted in the
profile that was computed from a partial, shear wave sonic log. According to report findings,
supposedly in agreement with results of an allied study, stresses below 2000m appeared more
consistent with compressive tectonic forces.
Due to limited knowledge of sandstone mechanical properties and behaviour, stability analyses were
based on an assumed shale sequence throughout all hole sections. Given that shales generally breakout
more than sandstones, this approach is likely to have over-predicted required mud weights within the
8.5 hole section through the reservoir units.
In addition to analyses for the A-2 well, future development cases were run for (i) a 71
o
Platform A
well, (ii) a 63.4
o
Build and Hold Phase 1 well and (iii) a 24.6
o
S Shaped Phase 1 well. For Platform A,
the current Chirag facility, the 71
o
case was considered the longest reach build and hold anticipated. In
contrast, the report notes that the Phase 1 wells will have greater reach than the Chirag Platform A
wells because the Phase 1 bottomhole locations are beneath the steeply sloping, tectonically active
seafloor where platform placement would be difficult. Instead, the report notes that, Phase 1 wells will
be drilled from a position similar to the A Platform on the more stable shelf area. For all cases,
analyses were conducted for the 17.5, 12.25 and 8.5 hole sections.
For all design cases the study computed the degree of breakout to be expected using different mud types
and weights. Within the Exxon report, breakout is defined as a percentage of the gauge volume that has
failed in shear due to drilling with too low a mud weight (for example a 100% hole enlargement would
correspond to a wellbore volume twice its gauge volume - an average hole diameter of 8.5 would
increase to 12.5). This definition is different to that used by BP where the degree of shear failure is
defined by the breakout width as defined in section 4.2 of this report. For this reason it is difficult to
directly compare Exxons breakout results with results of BP analyses.
Within the report, Exxon claim that when using oil based muds no breakout will occur if its activity is
balanced and density is high enough to control pore pressure. In contrast, for KCl muds, the degree of
shear failure will be a function of both mud density and KCl percentage. As both mud weight and KCl
concentration is increased so the amount of breakout will reduce. Breakout results for all simulations,
detailing the range in mud weights / percentage KCl considered, are presented in Table B2 below.
August 2000 Page 44

Design Case Range in KCl
Concentration
Considered (%)
Range in Mud Density
Considered (ppg)
Range in Calculated
Breakout (%)
17.5 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 12 11.5 - 13.0 1.3 to 17.8
Platform A 71
o
4 - 12 11.0 - 13.0 0.1 - 15.7
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
4 - 12 11.0 - 13.0 1.9 - 32.3
Phase 1 S-Shape 24.6
o
4 - 15 11.0 - 13.0 0.9 - 35.0
12.25 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 12 11.5 - 13.0 8.2 - 37.5
Platform A 71
o
4 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 3.2 - 53.2
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
12 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 3.1 - 35.5
o
12 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 3.1 - 27.9
8.5 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 15 11.0 - 13.0 2.2 - 30.4
Platform A 71
o
4 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 1.8 - 56.5
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
12 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 7.1 - 35.7
o
12 - 20 11.5 - 13.0 8.1 - 26.2
TableB2: Exxon Breakout Results
Based on field experience with deviated wells, Exxon consider a maximum acceptable breakout of 20%
and a minimum acceptable amount of 10% recognising that within vertical holes a larger degree of
failure can be tolerated due to better hole cleaning capabilities.
Based on breakout results for A-2, the 12.25 hole section was deemed the most at risk of instability
due to an increased susceptibility to shale weakening by hydration as it has a longest drilling time
(compared with 17.5 and 8.5 sections) through some of the highest surface area shales. Although use
of KCl was planned for A-2, it was duly noted that in future wells, the use of Saraline, a synthetic
based mud would greatly diminish wellbore stability problems.
In addition to checking the sensitivity of mud weight / type on borehole breakout, Exxon quote
minimum mud weight requirements to achieve both a perfectly gauge hole and recommended mud
weights for drilling the sections. The latter are the 10% breakout mud weights if within the interval
between pore pressure gradient plus 0.2 ppg and leakoff gradient minus 0.2 ppg. If the 10% mud
weight is not within this interval the recommended density for drilling is the appropriate interval
bounding value. Resulting mud weight ranges are presented in Table B3 below.
August 2000 Page 45

Design Case Range
in Mud
KCl %
Max Pore
Pressure
(ppg)
Min
Leakoff
(ppg)

Mud
Weight for
Gauge
Hole (ppg)
Recomm.
Mud weight
for Section
(ppg)
Range in
Breakout
(%)
17.5 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 12 12.0 11.2* 15.8 - 14.0 12.2 10 - 4
Platform A 71
o
4 - 12 12.0 11.2* 15.4 - 13.5 11.0 16 - 3
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
4 - 12 12.0 11.2* 16.9 - 15.9 11.0 32 - 11
o
4 - 15 12.0 11.2* 17.0 11.0 35 - 10
12.25 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 12 11.7 12.9 17.1 - 15.5 12.7 28 - 10
Platform A 71
o
4 - 20 11.7 12.9 18.4 - 15.5 12.7 / 20.0** 40 - 10
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
12 - 20 11.8 12.9 18.0 - 15.9 12.7 / 12.1** 24 - 10
o
12 - 20 11.8 12.9 17.7 - 15.7 12.7 / 12.0* 19 - 9
8.5 Hole Section
A-2 B & H 35
o
4 - 12 11.0 16.5 17.2 11.2 23 - 10
Platform A 71
o
4 - 20 10.3 16.4 17.5 - 14.0 12.7 / 11.8** 46 - 10
Phase 1 B & H 63.4
o
12 - 20 10.5 16.4 16.3 - 14.8 13.0 / 12.6** 23 - 10
o
12 - 20 10.9 16.4 16.1 - 14.8 13.0 / 12.7* 17 - 10
*Value not used in recommended mud weight consideration because GCA-1 briefly lost returns at
about this weight in this interval, Chirag A-1 did not. Current uncertainty in presence of low stress
interval.
**Reduced mud weight for KCl concentration of 20%
TableB3: Exxon Mud Weight Results
Comparing results presented in Table B3 above, the Exxon report notes that the most extreme Phase 1
wells are consistent with the Chirag A platform well results. D. Nierode writes that the most extreme
Phase 1 wells have maximum inclinations and throws that are a little bit greater than the Chirag A
platform wells thereby requiring a little bit more inhibition and mud density to control. It is noted that
the most extreme Phase 1 wells would need KCl concentrations approaching 20% with mud weights
approaching 13.0 ppg. The report states that the Phase 1 wells with lesser inclinations and throws
would be very similar to the Chirag A wells of similar profile.
Within the Summary of Recommendations part of the report, the following main points are noted:
The 17.5 section of the Chirag A2 well should be stable if drilled with about 8% KCl and mud
weights in the range 11.5 - 12.0 ppg. These recommendations are reportedly consistent with mud
weights used and observations of hole quality in offset wells GCA-1 and A-1. Within GCA-1, KCl
concentrations of 1.5 - 3.0 % were used with mud densities of 11.4 - 11.9 ppg : the well section
reportedly experienced low amounts of hole enlargement. Chirag A-1 used 4% KCl and mud weight
up to 11.9 ppg without significant hole stability problems. Since Chirag A-2 is planned to deviate
from vertical to 35
o
at the base of the 17.5 section, more inhibition and increased mud densities will
be required to control hole enlargement.
August 2000 Page 46
The 12.25 section of the Chirag A2 well should be stable if drilled with an 8 - 12% KCl mud with
a densities in the range 12.0 to 13.0 ppg. As with the 17.5 hole, these recommendations are
reportedly consistent with mud weights used and observations of hole quality in offset wells GCA-1
and A-1. Within GCA-1, KCl concentrations of 1.5 - 4.0 % were used with mud densities of 12.0 -
12.4 ppg : the well section reportedly experienced relatively large amounts of hole enlargement.
Chirag A-1 used 4% KCl and mud weight up to 12.4 ppg throughout most of the intervals that had
either stuck pipe or excessive tightness. When KCl was increased to 12.6 to 12.8 ppg, the hole
experienced much less instability and was successfully cased.
If the longest reach Chirag Build and Hold well is drilled with a KCl mud it will require a maximum
KCl concentration of about 20% and a maximum drilling fluid density of about 12.6 ppg to achieve
a stable wellbore. Results of the 71
o
design case implies that the 17.5 section could be drilled with
an 8% KCl at about 11.0 ppg, whilst the 12.25 hole would need 20% KCl at 12.0 ppg. The 8.5
section would also need 20% salt concentration but with a lower density of about 11.8 ppg.
If the longest-reach Phase 1 build and hold well is drilled with a KCl drilling fluid it will require a
maximum amount KCl concentration of about 20% and a maximum drilling mud density of about
12.7 ppg to achieve a stable borehole. Design cases were based on the (i) the longest build and hold
trajectory with a maximum inclination of 63
o
and a throw of 4,300m, and (ii) the most extreme S-
shaped well with maximum inclination of 80
o
and throw of 5,300m. For the 63
o
well, results imply
that the 17.5 hole could be drilled with a 12% KCl 11.0 ppg mud, the 12.25 with a 20% KCl 12.1
ppg mud and the 8.5 with a 20% KCl 12.6 ppg mud. For the 80
o
well (24.6
o
final inclination),
results imply that the 17.5 hole could be drilled with a 15% KCl 11.0 ppg mud, the 12.25 with a
20% KCl 12.0 ppg mud and the 8.5 with a 20% KCl 12.7 ppg mud.
For better definition of rock properties and in-situ stress, Exxon recommend the following data
acquisition:
Leakoff tests conducted at as many shoes as is practical, in particular for depths less than
2000m TVD
Shear and compressional sonic logs
Bulk density logs
Oriented 4 or 6 arm calliper logs
Additional shale surface measurements
Limitations of the Exxon Study include the following:
Uncertainty in stress regime - assume extensional
No anisotropy in horizontal stresses therefore no distinction between different well azimuths
GCA-1 shale surface areas to derive rock strength profiles for all other well locations

August 2000 Page 47
B2 BP Review of I n-Situ Stresses & Rock Mechanical Properties for Fracturing
A further source of information reviewed was a 1997 draft report
2
, prepared by Chris Dyke of BP,
aimed at reviewing in-situ stresses and rock properties. The objective of the work was to provide
information for hydraulic fracturing and frac pack design in the Chirag Field. Information of interest
from this study include details of the structural setting of the field, in-situ stress magnitudes / directions
and rock properties.
Information on the structural geology of the field provides useful insight into the stress regime and as
such is referenced in more detail within Appendix C of this report. Chris notes that the sediments within
the structure are all Pliocene (<5 million years old) and that the structure itself is less than 1 million
years old located within a seismically active area. For stress direction, the report discusses results of
reviewing borehole breakout data in GCA-1. Again, this is referenced in detail within Appendix C of
this report.
From a description of the reservoir units, the Balakhany sands are noted as possessing a lower reservoir
quality than the Pereriv. Pore pressure within the sands is noted as being approximately 0.50 psi / ft.
Since this study was concerned with stimulation, LOT data used was restricted to tests conducted
within the vicinity of the reservoir. Results reviewed were from wells GCA-1, GCA-2, GCA-4z and A-
1 (Slot 23) from depths greater than 2000 m. Of the 6 tests, only 2 were taken to leak off. The others
being formation integrity tests, which did not lead to formation breakdown. The average fracture
gradient of the two true LOTs, just above the reservoir, was 0.91 psi/ft. GCA-1 measured a fracture
gradient of 0.85 psi/ft and A-1 a value of 0.96 psi/ft. A-1 is noted as being a little more crestal and
nearer a mud volcano than GCA-1. Two of the FIT gradients quoted were 0.86 and 0.90 psi / ft. In
addition, extended LOTs performed within DST intervals of GCA-1 gave recorded closure pressures of
0.87 psi/ft to 0.92 psi/ft. Good agreement exists between the XLOT / minifrac closure pressure data
and the drilling LOT data, both averaging 0.91 psi/ft. Possible explanations for the fact that the LOT
data are not higher than closure are (i) their greater stand-off from the underlying high over-pressure or
(ii) lateral variability in stresses across the complex geological structure.
Reasons given by the author for high horizontal stresses are as follows;
A compressive component parallel to the axis of the main structure inferred from the rising and
plunging small scale synclines and anticlines that exist along the axis of the main structure
The uncemented/slightly cemented weak nature of the rocks at depth. This allows a high transfer of
the major horizontal and vertical stresses to the minimum stress direction, by way of Poissons
ratio type effects. The abundance of shattered grains in core samples suggests this effect occurs
both above and below the elastic limit of the rock.
A high stress acting orthogonal to the structures axis associated with the reverse faulting
Slight overpressure within the reservoir (reservoir pressure approximately 0.50 psi/ft) and higher
overpressures at depth
Mud volcanoes intruding mud into any weaknesses within the structure. If there is any propensity
for stress relaxation, this mud intrudes and exerts further compression
The very recent age of the structure.
August 2000 Page 48
It is noted that tests may have been a measure of the vertical stress component as opposed to the
horizontal stress. Such conditions would exist if the stress regime was one of reverse faulting with the
vertical stress becoming the least principal stress value, below both the minimum and maximum
horizontal stresses. If this is the situation, fractures initiated are likely to be horizontal away from the
wellbore wall.
In addition to information on in-situ stress directions and magnitudes, the report also provides
information on rock properties. Results are presented in Appendix C of this report.
B3 Notes by Tetsuro Tochikawa
Whilst searching Chirag Asset files for previous reports pertinent to geomechanical issues, reference
was occasionally made to work by Tetsuro Tochikawa. As part of this study, two pieces of work are
referenced (i) Memo
3
on Sand Control Strategy dated 09/04/99 and (ii) Note
4
on synthetic based mud
losses with respect to drilling direction.
Within the memo on sand control, the main information of relevance are a couple of sentences on rock
strength within the reservoir sands. Based on an examination of core from GCA-1 and GCA-5/5z wells,
a qualitative rock strength profile was developed by Dr Nobuo Morita. Tetsuro notes that within the
Pereriv, more than two thirds of the interval is rated as weak (i.e. less than 900 psi UCS). The
remaining one third is classed as very weak with (i.e. less than 300 psi). In contrast, the Balakhany X is
described as a relatively strong formation with only 15% of the interval rated as weak (i.e. less than
900 psi). The Balakhany X is said to include non-productive shales, believed to increase the overall
strength of the formation.
Regards the note compiled on losses data, Tetsuro has attempted to relate occurrences with well
azimuths relative to the Chirag Structure. All losses reported occurred whilst running the 9 5/8 casing
and in terms of depth relate to Top Sabunchi. The database was compiled from development wells A4
to A12. Corresponding ECD values quoted were derived using the Wellplan program.
Results of the losses study implied that their occurrence was sensitive to well azimuth (e.g. A9
experienced no losses with 13.9 ppg ECD, while A4 experienced major losses with a 13.0 ppg ECD).
Tetsuros explanation for observations noted is related to the azimuth of the well with respect to the
maximum horizontal stress. Believing the maximum direction of compression to be perpendicular to the
Chirag Structure Anticline Trend of NW-.SE, a maximum horizontal stress direction of 60
o
is assumed.
Wells such as A4 and A5, drilled parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, are likely to be more at
risk of instability than those drilled perpendicular to this direction. Tetsuro derived the following
directionality - loss relationship:
Most stable wells : up-dip and / cross dip wells with min horizontal stress dirn (330
o
)
Medium severity wells : down-dip wells with min horizontal stress direction (150
o
)
Most unstable : wells with max. horiz. stress (60 / 240)
B4 Notes by Dr Nobuo Morita
In addition to a review of notes by Tetsuro, a couple of additional draft stability notes
5
by Dr Nobuo
Morita are referenced. These documents present input data and results of a core based analysis for
borehole and perforation completion stability. Analyses was reportedly conducted with a 3D FEM
(Sand3d). Rock strength data was based on GCA-1 reservoir cores tested by both Fractech and
August 2000 Page 49
Terratek. Due to uncertainties in some of the Fractech data, Dr Morita notes that cores sent to Terratek
were used to cross check results. Borehole stability and perforation stability analyses were based on 89
psi UCS rocks tested by Terratek and revised 220 psi and 1560 psi UCS tested by Fractech. Stress
values quoted in the note are as follows:
Overburden Stress = 0.92 psi/ft (Compare with Western value of 8990 psi = 0.94 psi /ft)
Minimum horizontal stress = 0.893 psi/ft (Compare with BP range of 0.87 - 0.92 psi/ft and with
Western value of 6664 psi = 0.70 psi/ft)
Maximum horizontal stress = 0.893 - 0.915 psi/ft (Compare with Western value of 7600 psi =
0.80 psi/ft)
Pore pressure = 4600 psi

According to Dr Morita, the above values are for sandstone sections. Within Shale, stress anisotropy in
the horizontal plane is believed to be larger. The Western gradients were derived from log data whereas
values quoted by Morita and BP are based on Minifrac data.

Results of the analyses were compared with Exxons report findings, and are as follows:

Vertical Well:
Lower Limit (Stability) = 10.6 ppg
Exxon = 10.4 ppg OBM for 35
o
inclination

Horizontal Well:
10.6 - 10.8 ppg (Stability)
11.5 ppg (Optimum for Cuttings Transport)
12.1 ppg Upper Limit (Differential Sticking)
Exxon = 10.5 - 11.2 ppg OBM for 71
o
inclination

Note:
1. Range in mud weights quoted for horizontal well stability reflect variations in well azimuth.
2. For an efficient cutting transport, 0.5 - 1.0 ppg of mud weight increase will be desired.
3. Differential sticking criteria derived from GoM statistics.

In another note, Morita states that the increase in required mud weights from vertical to horizontal are
greater for shales than for sandstones. It is also noted that stability is not seen to be particularly
sensitive to well azimuth as the horizontal components of stress are close to each other. Within another
section of Moritas draft document it appears that he has tried to constrain stress further. Based on
minimum horizontal stress ranges of between 0.893 and 0.871 psi/ft, breakout mud densities of both
10.2 & 10.7 ppg, maximum horizontal stress magnitudes quoted range from 0.93 psi/ft to 0.97 psi/ft.

B5 Characterisation of Shale Samples from Well A-13
Within the Dowell Schlumberger report
6
results of characterisation tests on shale cutttings from well A-
13 were presented and discussed in the context of washouts in the 12.25 hole section. Since using
Synthetic Based Mud, certain sections of 12.25 holes are reportedly enlarged. Characterisation tests
involved determination of moisture content, cation exchange capacity, water activity , X-ray diffraction
analysis and cuttings dispersion tests. Throughout the report hole enlargements are described as
washouts as opposed to breakout with the worst areas associated with the very top and very bottom of
the Sabunchi Formation. Calliper data presented from well A-12 is one arm only so it is unclear what
August 2000 Page 50
shape hole enlargements really are. This is important as washouts would certainly imply chemical
instability as opposed to mechanical. After reviewing results of all tests, the report discussion notes that
none of the shale physico - chemical characteristics are directly correlated with the cuttings recovery
data. For this reason, the author concludes that instability is thought to be due to mechanical effects
rather than chemical. In order for this to be investigated further, better knowledge is required on the
shape of hole enlargements since as stated earlier, washouts would be indicative of chemical effects.

S/UTG/105/00 APPENDIX C: Definition of Subsurface Conditions Pertinent to A-15
August 2000 Page 51
APPENDI X C: Definition of Subsurface Conditions pertinent to A-15
C1 I ntact Rock Formation Properties
In order to conduct a stability analyses for A-15 it is firstly necessary to generate a rock strength profile
representative of subsurface conditions along the proposed well trajectory. Ideally, rock strength
profiles should be based on measurements made on core. From a review of Chirag data, however, the
only laboratory measurements made have been on sandstone reservoir core from well GCA-1. Having
pulled together different sources of information, it would appear that several different testing
programmes were scheduled. Tables C1, C2 and C3 below attempt to summarise all strength and
deformation properties reported by Amoco, Fractech and Terratek.
AMOCO GCA-1 TEST RESULTS
Depth
MD (m)
Lithology Test Type Confining
Pressure
(psi)
Max.
Comp.
Strength
(psi)
Friction
Angle
(%)
Youngs
Modulus
(psi)
Poissons
Ratio

2666 Balakhany
claystone
Single
Triaxial
2,600 893 129,000 0.14

2829 Pereriv
silty
sandstone
Single
Triaxial
1,500 6,685 1,093,000 0.40

2843 Pereriv
sandstone
Single
Triaxial
1,500 5,456 20.3 772,000 0.40

2865 Pereriv
sandstone
Single
Triaxial
2,600 6,620 20.3 617,000 0.22

Inferred UCS for Pereriv Sandstone based on linear Mohr Coulomb = 3869 psi
Western Atlas equivalent log derived Youngs Modulus:
Reservoir Sands ~ 350,000 psi
Reservoir Shales ~ 400,000 to 600,000 psi. On average, the inferred strength of the sands is
approximately
Western Atlas equivalent log derived UCS:
Reservoir Sands ~ 2,200 psi (15 MPa)
Table C1: Amoco Test Results on GCA-1 Reservoir Core
August 2000 Page 52

FRACTECH GCA-1 TEST RESULTS
Depth
MD (m)
Lithology Test Type Confining
Pressure (psi)
Max. Comp.
Strength (psi)
2709 Balakhany X sandstone Single Triaxial 0 3406 & 4345
2779 Pereriv B sandstone Single Triaxial 0 569 & 685
2786 Pereriv B sandstone Single Triaxial 0 942 & 932
2810 Balakhany X sandstone Single Triaxial 50 4520
2811 Balakhany X sandstone Multi Triaxial 1000 4900
2811 Balakhany X sandstone Multi Triaxial 3000 9890
2821 Pereriv C sandstone Single Triaxial 0 213 & 246
2852 Pereriv D sandstone Single Triaxial 0 122 & 191
2866 Pereriv D sandstone Single Triaxial 50 660
2866 Pereriv D sandstone Multi Triaxial 1000 4080
Table C2: Fractech Test Results on GCA-1 Reservoir Core
August 2000 Page 53

TERRATEK GCA-1 TEST RESULTS
Depth
(m)
Lithology Test
Type
Density
(SG)
Confining
Pressure
(psi)
Compressive
Strength (psi)
Poissons
ratio
Youngs
Modulus
(psi)
2782 Pereriv B
sandstone
Txl &
Density
2.027 0 122 0.27* 2682*
2782 Pereriv B
sandstone
Txl &
Density
2.017 0 62 0.34* 2032*
2782 Pereriv B
sandstone
Txl &
Density
2.023 1000 4510 0.32 353,230
2782 Pereriv B
sandstone
Txl &
Density
2.024 3000 8801 0.19 527,550
2782 Pereriv B
sandstone
Txl &
Density
2.055 5000 12804 0.21 798,950
*Both unconfined tests showed dilation early on during compressive loading. Values of Poissons ratio
and Youngs Modulus were determined below 10 psi axial load. Both samples showed axial stiffening
with increasing stress up to near catastrophic failure. Values for Youngs Modulus increased to 10,600
psi (sample #1) and 5500 psi (sample #2)
Table C3: Terratek Test Results on GCA-1 Reservoir Core

From previous experience of drilling through both sandstones and shales, it is generally the shales
which are troublesome with sandstones remaining in-gauge when subjected to a nominal overbalance.
One explanation for this is that as the well is drilled through a sandstone section, the grains dilate
redistributing induced stresses and forming a plastic zone around the wellbore wall improving
conditions for stability. For mud weight recommendations, therefore, the limiting case for stability will
generally be driven by rock strength and stresses within the shales.
In the absence of laboratory measurements on shale core, strength profiles were generated from log
data. From the choice of algorithms that exist to synthesise the unconfined compressive strength, it was
decided that a relationship soley requiring compressional sonic should be used for A-15 design. Using a
relationship developed by IKU
11
, unconfined compressive strength profiles were generated from top
Sabunchi to base Pereriv for wells GCA-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-10. Within formations above top
Sabunchi the absence of compressional sonic data prevented strength profiles being computed in the
Surakhany, Akchagyl, Apsheron and Recent formations. Comparing log derived profiles for all six
wells, results are similar. Given that well A-10 is the closest offset for A15, strengths within the
Sabunchi, Balakhany and Pereriv are based on the A-10 strength profile presented in Figure C1 below.
Formation tops superimposed are Measured Depth values for A-10.

August 2000 Page 54

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Logged Depth (m brt)
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
s
i
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G
a
m
m
a

R
a
y

(
A
P
I
)
IKU Shale Log Derived UCS
Formation Tops
Gamma Ray (API)
SABUNCHI
BALAKHANY V - X
PERERIV A - E
NKG

Figure C1: Log Derived Unconfined Compressive Strengths for Well A-10
Since it has not been possible to synthesise strength profiles above the Sabunchi, log derived profiles
from the Shah Deniz Field were used to indicate ranges in strength likely in the overburden. Although
not ideal due to potential differences in structural setting and effective stress, this approach was
considered the best way to develop a strength profile for A-15 design.
Using the same IKU relationship, Figure C2 below presents the resulting unconfined compressive
strength profile for the second Shah Deniz appraisal well, SDX-2. Also plotted are results of measured
unconfined compressive strengths for intra-reservoir shale and sandstone cores, shifted accordingly for
the difference between cored and logged depth.
August 2000 Page 55
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Logged Depth (m brt)
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
s
i
)
IKU Shale Log Derived UCS
Formation Tops
Shale UCS Measured
Sanstone UCS Measured
SABUNCHI
SURAKHANY
RECENT
APSHERON
AKCHAGYL
BALAKHANY V - VII
BALAKHANY VIII
SHALE
SEALS &
SANDS 1,
2, 3

Figure C2:Log Derived & Measured Unconfined Compressive Strengths for Shah Deniz Well SDX-2
Based on drilling observations in both Chirag and Shah Deniz wells, overburden formations appear to
behave fairly plastically. Tight spots are often associated with formations deforming plastically into the
wellbore. Once reamed conditions are improved with minimal occurrences of tight hole. If formations
are plastic as opposed to brittle, synthesised UCS values may be over-predicting strength in the
shallower overburden materials. For stability analyses, however, calculations are based on brittle rock
failure with no ability to model failure in plastic formations. If, therefore, very low strengths are used
for design analyses are likely to over predict minimum mud weight requirements for stability. From
results of laboratory measurements on Shah Deniz SDX-2 core, the mismatch between the shale
synthesised curve and measured sand strengths is shown. Even in the case of shales, actual measured
strengths show a large scatter in values with distinct upper and lower bound values above and below
the synthesised curve. For most analyses it is usually possible to obtain reasonable agreement between
log derived and measured values. For the Caspian, however, this is currently proving more difficult.
Using log derived rock properties from Chirag Offset wells and Shah Deniz data, design profiles for
unconfined compressive strength, friction angle and Poissons ratio are defined for A-15 stability
analyses. The resulting profiles and prognosed formation tops for A-15 are presented in Figure C3
below.
August 2000 Page 56
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
TVDbrt (metres)
U
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
s
i
)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

&

P
o
i
s
s
o
n
'
s

r
a
t
i
o
Unconfined Compressive Strength Profile for A-15 Design
A-15 FormationTops (TVD brt)
Coefficient of Friction (Tangent of Friction Angle)
Poisson's ratio
SABUNCHI
BALAKHANY V - X
PERERIV A - D
SURAKHANY
AKCHAGY
L
APSHERON
RECENT

Figure C3: Rock Strength and Deformation Properties for A-15 Stability Analyses
Within Figure C3 above, Poissons ratio values are best estimates of actual values and should not,
therefore, be compared with Poissons ratio values used in the LOT predictor. To match observed LOT
data, Poissons ratio values are typically higher than actual values. As previously discussed values of
0.43 and 0.45 give good matches with field data for the Gulf of Mexico and Caspian respectively.
Comparing unconfined compressive strength shale values, for A-15 design, with those reported in the
Exxon report, agreement is reasonable. In certain sections, the Exxon report appears to slightly over-
predict strength relative to the A-15 design profile.
C2 Pre-existing Weakness Planes / Faults
In addition to formation properties of the intact rock, a stability assessment also requires knowledge of
pre-existing planes which may prove troublesome to drill through. Such planes may be either pre-
existing bedding features or natural fractures / faults. For A-15 design, the Asset has provided details
of bedding dips within both the Balakhany and the Pereriv. Towards the base of the reservoir within the
Pereriv, a thrust fault is mapped crossing the prognosed well path but details of dip and dip direction
are currently unknown. Bedding dips and dip directions, provided by the Asset, for the Balakhany and
Pereriv are detailed below.
Top Balakhany - dip around horizontal
Top Balakhany IX -dip angle ~ 5
o
o
)
Top Balakhany X - dip angle ~ 15
o
o
)
o
to 045 ( +/- 3
o
)
Base Pereriv - dip angle ~ 33
o
to 045 ( +/- 3
o
)

August 2000 Page 57
C3 Prognosed Pore and Fracture Pressures
To define the operational drilling window for A-15, pore pressure and fracture gradient profiles were
generated. The resulting window, together with the overburden profile used to generate the fracture
pressure values, is presented in Figure C4 below. Given that the pressures are plotted as a function of
TVD SCS, all ppg gradient lines will be relative to the mean level of the Caspian Sea.
Apsheron
Akchagyl
Surakhany
Sabunchi
U.Balakhany
Balakhany V
Balakhany VI
Balakhany VII
Balakhany VIII
Balakhany IX
Balakhany X
Pereriv A
Pereriv B
Pereriv C
Pereriv D
Thrust
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
T
V
D

S
C
S
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
LOT- Apsheron
LOT- Surakhany
LOT- Sabunchi
LOT- Balakhany V
LOT- Balakhany IX
LOT- NKG
Mud Weight - ppg
Kicks Surakhany
Formation Tops
RFT Surakhany
RFT Sabunchi
RFT Balakhany
RFT Pereriv
Kicks Bal V
Pore Pressure
Fracture Pressure MDST
Wendt Overburden with
1.02 Adjustment
Pressure (psi)
Chirag A-15

Figure C4 : Prognosed Pore and Fracture Pressure Profile for A-15
The pore pressure profile is the Assets best estimate based on drilling information with no modelling
input. Values, however, are believed to be well constrained with confidence in the stratigraphy and a
good data set. Since, however, the profile was generated from drilling observations and in-situ
August 2000 Page 58
measurements pressures will be representative of sandstone conditions which will not necessarily be the
same as in the shales.
The fracture gradient profile was computed using BPs in house Leak Off Test Predictor. Although
originally developed for, and based on data from, the Gulf of Mexico the code may be used elsewhere if
correct multipliers are applied. By adjusting overburden and Poissons ratio to honour field specific
conditions field LOT results may be matched. Within the LOT predictor different algorithms may be
chosen to compute both overburden and fracture gradient. For this study, the Brumfield equation is
used to compute fracture gradient which, unlike the Eaton based equation, does not require Poissons
ratio as an input parameter. If the Eaton based equation were to be used comparison with field LOT
data implies that for the Gulf of Mexico a Poissons Ratio of 0.43 would be needed for shales to match
field evidence. In contrast, for the Caspian, a Poissons ratio of 0.45 would be needed to match LOT
data in shales. When using the Brumfield Equation Mark Alberty found that for the Gulf of Mexico
results were consistent with a 0.43 Poissons ratio thereby matching results computed using the Eaton
based equation.
Within the sandstone sequences it is recognised that stress profiles are likely to be lower than in shales.
For definition of the fracture gradient in the sandstones, however, Mark Alberty of BP states
9
that for
drilling, the profiles should be calculated using the Poissons ratio for shales but with sandstone pore
pressures. The belief is that although fractures may initiate in the sandstones at lower pressures, they
will not propagate as the drilling mud will cause fracture screen out. Within the shales, however, this
will not occur and so the limiting case will be a fracture created in adjacent shale layers due to an
increase in pore pressure within the adjacent sandstones. From information provided by the Asset,
approximate depths in TVDscs for sandstone sequences throughout the profile at the A-15 location are
as follows: 1345m - 1420m, 1500m - 1550m, 1810m - 1880m, 2055m - 2080m, 2210m - 2230m,
2415m - 2440m, 2600m - 2700m and 2847m - 3210m.
Also presented on the operational forecast are leak off test results from offset wells A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5,
A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-14, GCA-1, GCA-2, GCA-4 and GCA-6. LOT data not plotted, from
wells A-3, A-11, A-12, A-13, GCA-3 and GCA-5, were omitted as considered unrepresentative for A-
15 design. A summary of all LOT values for Chirag and other Caspian fields is presented in a LOT /
FIT study compiled by the Shah Deniz Team
10
. It is noted, however, that EMW values quoted do vary
slightly depending on the source of information. For data plotted on Figure C1, however, it is assumed
that EMW values quoted are relative to Caspian Sea Level. Since LOT data plotted are for different
offset wells discrepancies that exist may be related to differences in water depth, pore pressure, well
inclination and azimuth. The prognosed fracture gradient profile plotted is essentially based on closure
pressure values (called propagation in LOT predictor) and will, therefore, be the same for any well
inclination / azimuth.
The overburden trend used to compute fracture gradient values was based on the Wendt overburden
algorithm. Based on work by Mark Alberty to match Shah Deniz data, it was found that a 1.02
multiplier was needed. Assuming Chirag formations to have similar rock densities, the 1.02 multiplier
was applied for A-15 fracture gradient definition. Seawater density was taken to be 0.434 psi/ft and a
water depth of 121m used, as below the current Chirag platform. Within section C4.1 discussing the
vertical stress, this overburden trend is compared with actual density data from select Chirag offset
wells. The resulting Wendt overburden equation for A-15 fracture gradient definition is as follows:
August 2000 Page 59
Overburden (psi) = 1.02*(0.000005432*(TVDss - WD)^2 + 0.8783*(TVDss - WD)) + 0.434*WD
Where:
TVDss = True vertical depth relative to mean Caspian Sea Level (in ft)
WD = Water Depth (ft)
The one limitation of the fracture gradient predictor is that it assumes a passive basin regime (i.e.
vertical stress > horizontal stress) with no stress anisotropy in the horizontal plane. In areas such as the
Caspian which is seismically active and likely to have high horizontal stresses due to compression, such
assumptions may not be valid. If, for example, the stress regime is one of reverse faulting the fracture
closure pressure away from the wellbore wall will be controlled by the vertical stress component and
not the horizontal. This is discussed when defining stress regime and magnitudes.
C4 Stress Regime and Direction
The structural setting of the Chirag Field is discussed by Chris Dyke of BP in his fracturing report
2
,
reviewed in Appendix B. Here, the structure is described as an elongate north-west to south-west
trending, southeast plunging anticlinal feature. The feature is said to be narrow, displaying relatively
steeply dipping north and south flanks, with the north flanks being of greater dip (60+). Accordingly
the structure is bounded along the northern margin by a major south dipping (70) reverse fault. This
fault is said to arcuately turn to the south terminating in the vicinity of a subcropping mud volcano on
the eastern edge of the Chirag Field. It is understood that mud has been intruded into faults of varying
orientations in the vicinity of this mud volcano, which is rooted below the Pereriv and Balakhany
reservoir sands. It is also noted that there are additional minor reverse and normal faults which cut
along the length of the field. Normal faults trending parallel to the major thrust are concentrated on the
crest of the structure, with orthogonal southwest to northeast normal faults on the rear limb. Along the
axis of the anticline, the structure tends to plunge and rise, forming small synclines and anticlines.
From conversations with Tim Buddin of BP, current thoughts regards regime are potentially
extensional above reservoir units with the possibility of a thrust regime below. From notes prepared by
Jim Hossack of BP, implications from shallow faulting are that above the Upper Balakhany normal
extensional faults dominate. This implies a vertical stress greater than the maximum and minimum
horizontal magnitudes if representative of the current day stress state. Apparantly a number of these
faults appear to cross the A-15 well trajectory and will therefore pose a potential risk of losses. Within
the Balakhany, thought to be the neutral zone, both normal and thrust faults may be present. Below this
level, the Pereriv is said to be in compression which would give rise to thrust faulting. If such
conditions do exist and are representative of the current day stress state (not always the case) the
vertical stress may be less than the two horizontal components within the reservoir formations.
Regards stress direction, a southwest-northeast major horizontal stress direction may be inferred from
the regional structure of the field. Within Chris Dykes report, however, it is noted that an orthogonal
component of compression may also be inferred from the smaller scale folding along the axis of the
major structure.
Pulling information together on breakout data, Chris Dykes report provides results from a borehole
breakout review of well GCA-1. Failure orientation within this well implies a major horizontal stress
oriented perpendicular to the structure at about 060 - 070 degrees, sub-orthogonal to the major reverse
August 2000 Page 60
faults. From results of a 6 arm calliper tool and a CBIL acoustic image log between 2550m and 2910m
MD, breakouts were reportedly abundant in the intra-reservoir shales but absent in the soft reservoir
sands. Over-break in the shale was reportedly up to 6 but typically 2 in radius. A further source of
information reviewed was a study reporting results of breakout analyses, conducted by Marie Scoular
12
.
For exploration wells GCA-1, GCA-2 and development wells A-2, A-3, A-4, A-13 and A-14, 6 arm
calliper data from the HEXDIP tool was used to ascertain ranges in maximum / minimum calliper
ratios. Orienting hole enlargements with respect to North, plots were made to assess the range in
breakout directions and severity. During this study, however, no accounting was made for wellbore
inclination and azimuth. Unless the borehole is vertical, it not possible to directly infer horizontal stress
orientation from breakout direction. To do this would require a multi-well analysis with breakouts at
the same level within a number of wells oriented in different directions. Since GCA-1 is vertical and a
better offset for A-15 than GCA-2, breakout direction in this well was used to ascertain stress direction
for A-15 stability analyses. That is, a maximum horizontal stress direction of 60
o
should be used for A-
15 design.
Within Jake Hossacks note
8
he states that with the maximum regional stress direction running
perpendicular to the strike of the main thrust fault (i.e. ~ 60
o
), faults that strike perpendicular to the
strike should be considered as high risk in terms of mud losses than the thrust parallel faults.
C5 Principal Stress Magnitudes
In order to assess mud weight requirements to minimise hole instability in the forthcoming A-15 well,
principal stress magnitudes require definition. For the purpose of this study, principal stress vectors are
assumed to lie within the vertical and horizontal planes. The following sub sections discuss assessment
of (i) the vertical stress and (ii) the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses.
C5.1 Vertical Stress
Typically for definition of the vertical stress, gradients are based on the weight of the overburden.
Reviewing logging suites from Chirag offset wells, density data was obtained from wells A-2, A-4, A-
5, A-7, A-10 and GCA-1. Within Figure C5, which presents density values as a function of depth, it
can be shown that no data was available above ~ 1600m TVDbrt. In order to compute an overburden
gradient within shallower sediments above this depth the Wendt Overburden Equation with a 1.02
multiplier, presented earlier, was used.
Using gradients computed from the corrected Wendt overburden equation above 1600m TVDbrt and
integrating average density data values below 1600m TVDbrt, a design overburden gradient curve
was generated. For the purpose of wellbore stability analysis gradients are referenced to the rotary table
elevation. Figure C6 presents the resulting overburden curve with prognosed formation tops for well
A15 added. Also plotted is the overburden curve generated by the corrected Wendt Overburden
equation from surface to well TD, as is used for computing the fracture gradient profile.
Comparing calculated overburden values with vertical stress gradients quoted in previous reports,
results are in reasonable agreement. For reservoir formations, Dr Nobuo Morita quotes a vertical stress
gradient of 0.92 psi/ft (2.12 SG) which compares with a value of 0.94 psi/ft (2.17 SG) from Western
Atlas. Throughout the Balakhany and Pereriv, values calculated as part of this study range from 2.05
to 2.20 SG.

August 2000 Page 61

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9
Rock Bulk Density (SG)
T
V
D
b
r
t

(
m
e
t
r
e
s
)
A10
A2
A4
A5
A7
GCA1

FigureC5: Density Data for Computing Chirag Overburden Gradient
August 2000 Page 62
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Overburden Gradient (SG, rel RTE)
D
e
p
t
h

(
T
V
D
b
r
t
)

i
n

m
e
t
r
e
s

A15 Prognosed Formation Tops
Thrust Fault
Wendt Overburden with 1.02 Multiplier
Water Depth = 121m
RTE acsl = 36.6 m
Quarternary
Apsheron
Akchagyl
Surakhany
Sabunchi
Balakhany
Pereriv

Figure C6: Overburden Gradient With A15 Prognosed Formation Tops
August 2000 Page 63
C5.2 Maximum and Minimum Horizontal Stresses
If within a passive basin regime, fracture gradient values presented in Figure C4 would be a reasonable
approximation to the minimum horizontal stress. For Chirag, however, subsurface conditions are likely
to be a lot more complex with the added problem of a potential thrust faulting regime within reservoir
formations. For A-15 stability analyses, therefore, it may be prudent to consider a range of different
stress scenarios within zones of most uncertainty.
Within previous reports / memos, some reference is made to horizontal stress values but these mainly
apply to reservoir formations. Leak off test results reported by Dyke
2
imply an average closure pressure
of around 0.91 psi /ft (2.01 SG) at Reservoir Formation Level. Dyke notes, however, that if within a
reverse faulting regime closure pressure may be measuring the magnitude of the vertical stress
component as opposed to the minimum horizontal. Within notes by Nobuo Morita
5
, quoted horizontal
stress values are compared with BP and Western Values, references for which are not known. Regards
the minimum horizontal stress, Morita quotes a value of 0.893 psi / ft (2.06 SG) and compares this
with a previous BP range of 0.87 to 0.92 psi / ft (2.01 to 2.12 SG) and a Western value of 0.70 psi / ft
(1.61 SG). Corresponding maximum horizontal stress magnitudes quoted were Moritas range of 0.893
to 0.915 psi / ft and a Western value of 0.80 psi / ft (1.85 SG).
One method by which horizontal stresses may be constrained further is by observations of hole failure
in offset wells. Reviewing available log data, the only calliper results provided for this study were six
arm from the BGT tool. Unfortunately log runs were limited in overburden formations with data
provided being for 8.5 hole sections from wells A-2, A-3 and A-4. Plotting calliper traces little failure
is observed with only a few minor enlargements in the Pereriv. In an attempt to constrain stresses,
therefore, only one point within well A-3 was chosen. The calliper plot for A-3 showing the point at
which constrain stress was run is shown in Figure C7 below.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2980 3000 3020 3040 3060 3080 3100 3120 3140 3160 3180 3200
Logged Depth (metres MDbrt)
C
a
l
l
i
p
e
r

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)

Calliper 1
Calliper 2
Calliper 3
Gauge Size - 8.5" under-reamed to 12.25"
Formation Tops
Pereriv A
Pereriv B
Pereriv C
Pereriv D
Constrain
Stress Here

Figure C7: BGT Calliper Plot for Well A-3 within the 8.5 Hole section, under-reamed to 12.25
August 2000 Page 64
Analysis in well A-3 was performed at a measured depth of 3130m (~ 2788m TVDbrt) where calliper 1
reads a diameter of about 15.5 with the two other callipers under-gauge. Given a gauge diameter of
12.25, increase in hole radius is about 1.63. Analysis assumes that hole enlargement observed is
attributable to some degree of formation shear failure, the degree of which is defined by the breakout
width as defined within section 4.0 of this report.
The principal difficulty with identification of breakouts using calliper data is distinguishing them from
washouts and keyseats. An important criterion for distinguishing breakouts from washouts is to ensure
that the smallest diameter is not larger than the gauge size of the borehole. In the case of distinguishing
from key seating it is important to ensure that the direction of elongation is not the same as the wellbore
azimuth such that the key seat corresponds with the lower side of the hole.
For the depth under consideration in well A-3, calliper 1 is that which is over-gauge and reading 15.53
with the other two callipers reading under-gauge. In the case of calliper 2, the overall diameter is only
9.92 compared with 11.62 for calliper 3. Individual radii readings and orientations inferred from the
azimuth of pad 1 (i.e. radii 1) are as presented in Table C4 below:
Calliper Radii Length (inches) Azimuth (degrees)
1 R1 4.7506 167
1 R4 5.5937 227
2 R2 7.501 287
2 R5 10.7759 347
3 R3 4.3258 47
3 R6 4.1191 107
Table C4: BGT radii readings for A-3 at 3130m MDbrt
Considering that the borehole azimuth was 319
o
, the lower side of the borehole would correspond to a
calliper azimuth of 139
o
(i.e. 319
o
minus 180
o
). Based on radii dimensions given in Table C4 above it
can be seen that hole enlargement is not symmetrical with larger radii towards the top of the hole. That
said, however, there does appear to be some degree of ellipticity which may be the result of some
degree of shear failure. If the hole was vertical, breakouts would be expected at an azimuth of 150
o
and
330
o
for a maximum horizontal stress direction of 60
o
. Since, however, the hole is inclined breakout
direction will deviate away from these directions but not hugely for an inclination of only 24
o
.
Comparing, then with a borehole elongation direction of 167
o
/ 347
o
shear failure does seem a feasible
explanation for calliper enlargement. It is however, recognised that actual calliper readings may not be
a true indication of the degree of mechanical failure if also incorporating some degree of sloughing
shales due to chemical effects and tool eccentricity whilst running. For constraining stress, therefore,
the degree of borehole breakout is assumed to be small and as such a breakout width of 5
o
is used.
Input parameters used to constrain stress within the Pereriv C formation for Well A-3, are detailed in
Table C5 below.
August 2000 Page 65

Input Parameter Parameter Value
Analysis Depth (meters MD brt / TVD brt) 3130 / 2788
Static Mud Weight (ppg / SG) 10.8 / 1.30
Well Inclination (degrees) 26
Well Azimuth (degrees) 319
Pore Pressure (ppg / SG) 8.7 / 1.04
Breakout Width (degrees) 5
Breakout Direction (degrees) 167
Maximum Horizontal Stress Direction (degrees) 60
Vertical Stress Magnitude (ppg / SG) 18.0 / 2.16
Table C5: Input Parameters for Constraining Stresses in Well A-3 at 3130 m MD brt

Using the wellbore stability code, Stress and Failure in Inclined Boreholes (SFIB), the Get STRess
(GSTR) module was run and a plot produced detailing feasible combinations of horizontal stress and
rock strength for failure conditions considered. By noting rock strength for the formation under
consideration, the range in minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are defined. The resulting plot is
presented in Figure C8, below.

Figure C8: GSTR Analysis Results for Constraining Stresses within Well A-3 at 3130m MDbrt
August 2000 Page 66
Considering that within the Pereriv Formation rock strength is not likely to be greater than 26 MPa
feasible horizontal stress magnitudes for the degree of shear failure considered fall into the far bottom
left hand corner of Figure C8 above. Here, all three stresses are very close in magnitude on the limit
between normal and reverse faulting. These results highlight the potential for either stress regime to
exist within the reservoir formations. The failure criterion used to constrain stresses in this module is
Mohr Coulomb. For actual stability analyses, however, the Modified Lade Failure Criterion will be
used which is believed to give more realistic results in softer formations. Since, however, the Lade
Criterion cannot be used in the Constrain Stress Module, slight inconsistencies will exist. Since,
however, results of the constrain stress module are not applied directly to back out stress values for
analyses such differences will not impact final results.
For stability analyses it is recommended that within overburden formations, above the Balakhany, a
normal faulting regime is considered. For this case, the minimum horizontal stress should be made
equal to the prognosed fracture gradient, presented in Figure C4, and the maximum horizontal stress
magnitude made equal to a value mid way between the minimum horizontal stress and the vertical
stress. Within the Balakhany and Pereriv, however, uncertainty in whether the stress regime is normal
or reverse leads to the recommendation of considering a range of stress magnitudes so as to assess the
influence on minimum mud weight requirements. Considering, ranges in stress magnitudes presented in
previous reports / memos and attempts to constrain stress values in this study, the following stress
scenarios are suggested for A-15 mud weight design:
Stress Scenario 1 : Extensional with horizontal stresses from prognosed fracture gradient
Minimum horizontal stress = fracture gradient as presented in Figure C4
Maximum horizontal stress = value mid way between vertical stress and minimum stress value
This stress scenario is as that to be used in overburden formations above the Balakhany
Stress Scenario 2 : Extensional with higher horizontal stresses as indicated by other studies
Minimum horizontal stress = vertical stress minus 0.04 SG
Maximum horizontal stress = vertical stress minus 0.02 SG
Stress Scenario 3 : Reverse
Minimum horizontal stress = vertical stress plus 0.02 SG
Maximum horizontal stress = vertical stress plus 0.04 SG

Stability Chirag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stability Chirag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chirag Wellbore Stability

You might also like