SPE-176257-MS

A Case Study: Validation of Real Time Non-Isothermal Hydraulic Model

Using Deepwater Managed Pressure Drilling Data
Andri M. Hidayat, Fikri Irawan, and Ardia Karnugroho, Weatherford

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20 –22 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Drilling through narrow window between pore and fracture pressure using Managed Pressure Drilling
(MPD) approach requires precise hydraulic designs and pressure control plans to achieve drilling to target
depth safely in timely manner which require accurate hydraulic model on pressure changes behavior along
the borehole.
This paper presents a case study where a non-isothermal hydraulic model was validated using field data
from successful Deepwater MPD well in Offshore East Kalimantan, Indonesia. The validation considers
all relevant hydraulic parameters such as bottom-hole pressure, equivalent circulating density, circulating
friction and surface back pressure. The hydraulic modelling validation results are important in order to
determine the non-isothermal hydraulic simulator behavior against actual field data for continuous
improvement for future MPD operation.
The validation confirmed the previous theoretical estimations that mud density and annular friction
considerably depend on dynamic annular temperature profile. The work revealed that using a field-proof
non-isothermal hydraulic model plays critical role in order to gather accurate BHP control in MPD
operations.
During the MPD operations, employing real-time hydraulic model validated by PWD data will improve
the dynamic pressure control during the operation, the accuracy, and reliability of the hydraulic simulation
results. Hence, enhancing the MPD capability to assist drilling a well to zone of interest more safely and
efficient.
Introduction
Deepwater drilling with narrow pore and fracture pressure envelopes constitute significant drilling
challenges where frequent drillings problems are commonplace in these challenged wells. Several case
studies address the implementation of unconventional techniques to mitigate these problems, especially in
deep-water and HTHP operations. Furthermore, advanced hydraulic modelling makes it possible to
improve the operational control parameters and execute the MPD jobs more reliably. All prediction and
the what-if scenarios before and during the job are then executed with more confidence.
This paper presents engineering analysis of field data from a deep-water MPD operation using a
non-isothermal hydraulic simulator. The case study describes an operation where MPD was employed to
2 SPE-176257-MS

mitigate drilling through a hydraulically challenged formation using conventional methods. The focus of
this work is to demonstrate the significance degree of temperature effect and pressure dependent rheology
models on the overall wellbore pressure profile.
During the operation, drilling was started using 13.60ppg mud and then gradually increased to
14.10ppg mud at TD with 517gpm while holding 525psi SBP during connections. The well was completed
without any downhole pressure issue such as losses or wellbore influx. The real-time MPD hydraulic
modelling was successfully used as the BHP reference compared to the PWD data.

Managed Pressure Drilling

Managed pressure drilling (MPD) method provides several benefits over conventional drilling by
mitigating commonly experienced drilling problems such as wellbore instability, losses of circulation
fluid, differential sticking, and slow ROP; as well as enabling early detection and control of kicks and
losses through continuous monitoring of the return flow. The system is completed with instantaneous
pressure control with dual hydraulic Automatic Control Choke Manifold to manipulate the annulus
pressure. MPD has been widely accepted throughout the drilling industry to date, and considerable
numbers of case studies have demonstrated these benefits providing field data and engineering analysis.
Several authors presented case studies where MPD system was successfully used to control influx and
losses (Cenberlitas et al. 2011; Qutob et al. 2011; Gedge et al. 2013; Kinik et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015).
The primary objective of MPD in these hydraulically challenged wells is to ensure the operational safety
with less non-productive time to reach the target depth.
The CBHP method relies significantly on applying surface back pressure (SBP) using automated
chokes to precisely control the annular pressure profile through a closed loop circulation system. The
ability to dynamically control the annular pressure profile extends the applicability of the system’s
capabilities. Besides drilling and well monitoring, MPD is used to maintain CBHP during tripping to
eliminate swabbed kicks (Mammadov et al., 2015), and to perform dynamic formation integrity and
dynamic pore pressure tests (Rostami et al., 2015). Furthermore, several commonly experienced compli-
cations such as formation ballooning and partial loses are significantly reduced where elastic rock
properties and high filtration rates increase the operational challenge, especially during connections and
formation strength testing (Zhou et al., 2002; Zoback, 2007; Ameen et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Chen
2014a, 2014b, 2014c).
While drilling, CBHP connections, mud displacements, and well control event, the SBP is dynamically
adjusted in response to operational changes that yield annular pressure changes; such as circulation rate,
top drive speed, wellbore inclination, and rate of penetration. MPD systems use built in hydraulic model
to provide the real time estimation of the downhole parameters to actively respond to the changes in these
inputs. (Erge et al. 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b) presented mathematical model to consider pipe rotation
and buckling in BHP calculations during MPD operations. Karimi et al. (2014a, 2014b, 2015) used two
phase flow model considering gas solubility in oil based mud to predict the annular pressure profile during
dynamic well control operations using MPD.
Measurement of the downhole pressure using PWD also adds significant value, but not a mandatory
requirement to the MPD operations by allowing validation of the hydraulic model employed by the MPD
systems. Having a closed and pressurized system changes the composition of BHP formulation with
additional variable: Surface Back Pressure (SBP), in addition to conventional BHP formulation. Hence,
BHP can be adjusted immediately without the needs to displace with higher or lower mud weight.
a. Conventional formulation
BHP ⫽ Ph ⫹ Pf
b. MPD CBHP formulation
BHP ⫽ Ph ⫹ Pf ⫹ SBP
SPE-176257-MS 3

Where,
BHP ⫽ Bottomhole Pressure
Ph ⫽ Hydrostatic Pressure of Mud
Pf ⫽ Annulus Pressure Loss
SBP ⫽ Surface Back Pressure

About Software and Rheology Models

Non-isothermal hydraulic simulator is part of the continuous improvement of the field real-time hydraulic
simulator which currently used in MPD operation. This software is projected to replace the current field
real-time hydraulic simulator soon and expected to provide enhanced hydraulic models considering the
dynamic temperature effect on the mud density and viscosity with more advance look and information for
better operation analysis. The software allows engineers to design and to simulate MPD operations as
close as possible to actual drilling condition. It is also designed to support three different applications:
Operation mode for field real-time MPD operation, Simulation mode for hydraulic simulation and design
preparation and Player mode to retrieve actual operational data retrospectively afterwards.
The software requires specific and accurate well information in order to produce proper modelling
result. This information is inputted with particular sequence to guide engineer to prepare new drilling
project. All inputs then process by built-in modules to result bottomhole pressure profiles, temperature
profiles, density profiles and other summary results. Please refer to figure x in Appendix B for process
diagram.
There is work that present sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of control parameters on the
wellbore pressure and temperature profile to reduce the calculation errors involved in hydraulic engines.
This work is also present simplified procedure for selecting the best fits of rheological models for
non-Newtonian fluid (Ochoa, 2006).

Power Law Model

Power law model considering the relationship between viscosity and shear stress can be represented by
the following equation:
␶ ⫽ k␥n
Where,
␶ ⫽ Shear stress, lbf/100ft2
k ⫽ Consistency index
n ⫽ Flow behavior index
␥ ⫽ Shear rate, sec⫺1
Ochoa describes that power law model provide more accurate information in the low shear rate (in the
annulus) but has a weakness in the high shear rate (at the bit).

Bingham Plastic Model

This is the first model that has two parameters model and widely recognized in oil and gas industry due
to it can be simply visualized. This model has accurate behavior to represent high shear rate (at the bit)
but less accurate in low shear rate (in the annulus). This model can be represented by the following
equation:
␶ ⫽ ␮pY ⫹ ␶y
Where,
␶ ⫽ Shear stress, lbf/100ft2
␮p ⫽ Plastic viscosity, cp
␶y ⫽ Yield point, lbf/100ft2
␥ ⫽ Shear rate, sec⫺1
4 SPE-176257-MS

API RP13D
The rheology model API RP13D was initially published in 1995 by API. This model is using modified
Power Law model for pressure losses calculation. The modifications are made on the formulation of flow
behavior index and consistency index. For pressure losses calculation inside the drill pipe, this model uses
600 and 300 RPM fann readings while for pressure losses calculation in the annulus, this model uses 3
and 100 RPM fann readings.

Where,
k ⫽ Consistency index
n ⫽ Flow behavior index
Field Data and Method
Input Parameters
The input parameter initiates by plug-in generic well information in the Job Info setup page. Some
information on surface equipment such BOP type, Flow Meter size and other information specific to this
well then needs to be specified in the Surface Equipment setup page to generate the model as reality as
possible with the actual operation. This well is completed with riser in the well stack up connecting
surface equipment to the subsea BOP.. Booster pump is used instead of MPD pump to energize the surface
back pressure while connection. The software is also complete with ISO feature to visualize surface piping
and instrumentation in attractive 3D mode as shown in Figure 6.
Well Data setup page consists of subsurface-related information such as the detail of formation data,
wellbore geometry, casing design, BHA plan and temperature gradient. Formation data is a critical
parameter for drilling window profile in this simulator.
Fluid properties setup page allows the engineer to specify mud type, mud weight and other parameters
related to drilling fluid properties. The non-isothermal model requires accurate shear stress values in order
to provide good simulation result. This information can be gathered from Mud Service provider who has
laboratory facility to test the drilling fluids being used or can be discussed with the Drilling Fluid
engineers. The 6 –1/8⬙ hole section was started with 13.6ppg MW then gradually increased as well dictated
to 14.1ppg MW until TD. The following fluid properties are utilized for this section:

Table 1—Fluid Properties for Synthetic Based Mud Utilized on

this Case Study
Fluid Properties

Mud Type Synthetic Based Mud

Density, ppg 13.60 – 14.10

600 rpm, Fann 69
300 rpm, Fann 42
200 rpm, Fann 32
100 rpm, Fann 22
6 rpm, Fann 10
3 rpm, Fann 9

Methodology
This paper describes non-isothermal hydraulic model validation using actual field information for data
input. The results of simulation then compared with actual field data both PWD and Field Real-Time
SPE-176257-MS 5

Hydraulic Model data. Manual calculations using Power Law, Bingham Plastic and API RP13D rheology
model equations are also performed to show the actual field measurement tendency compared to those
rheology models calculation.
This work used six (6) open hole sampling depths for sensitivity analysis:

Table 2—Sampling Depth for Sensitivity Analysis

Sampling No. Depth (ft)

D0 18696.8
D1 18868.2
D2 19072.4
D3 19276.6
D4 19480.8
TD 19685

The following drilling parameters are used for the simulation:

Table 3—Drilling Parameter Utilized on This Case Study

Drilling Parameter

Hole Section 6–1/8⬙

Flow Rate, gpm 517
System Back Pressure, psi 20
TDS Speed, rpm 100
ROP, ft/hr 10
TD MD, ft 19685
TD TVD, ft 19683.42

Results and Discussion

Field real-time hydraulic simulator that utilized on this deepwater well was an isothermal hydraulic model
which disregards dynamic temperature distribution along the wellbore. With the average error value
0.63% compared to PWD measurement it can be said that the field real-time hydraulic simulator was
actually resulted good performance and was able to assist drilling to target depth without any problem in
this deepwater and uncertainty narrow window environment.
Below table shows the bottom-hole pressure and ECD from field measurement and the field real-time
hydraulic simulator.

Table 4 —PWD Measurement and Field Real-Time Hydraulic Simulator

PWD Measurement Field Real-Time Hydraulic Simulator

Depth BHP (psi) ECD (ppg) BHP (psi) ECD (ppg) Error (%)

18696.8 13846 14.24 13765 14.17 ⫺0.59%

18868.2 14311 14.59 14135 14.42 ⫺1.23%
19072.4 14436 14.56 14360 14.50 ⫺0.52%
19276.6 14791 14.76 14725 14.71 ⫺0.45%
19480.8 14991 14.80 14890 14.72 ⫺0.68%
19685 15090 14.74 15045 14.71 ⫺0.30%
6 SPE-176257-MS

The non-isothermal hydraulic model provides excessive bottomhole pressure calculation compared to
the PWD measurement. In average the error value is 5.42% with variance 500 – 1100 psi above PWD
measurement. First suspect of this inaccuracy is fluid properties. Fluid properties can be the suspect
because input parameters related to hydraulic calculation is closely related to these properties. Measure-
ment and treatment of viscometer data taken under temperature and pressure shall be represent the actual
operating condition. Temperature-effect trends can be established on field viscometers by measuring
rheology at certain temperatures sample. Data generated at very low temperature are of particular value
for deepwater drilling (Zamora and Power, 2002). However, the field real-time hydraulic simulator was
using the same information and resulted good performance compared to PWD measurement.
The second suspect is that non-isothermal hydraulic model is considering dynamic temperature
distribution along the wellbore including high column of seawater where the temperature dropped
significantly and can affect the mud temperature due to heat transfer. Significant heat transfer rate will
cause mud temperature tendency to equalize with seawater temperature. This temperature drop may
decrease mud density and viscosity and will affect bottomhole pressure calculation. However, how
significant heat transfer affecting bottomhole value needs further study and validate with more sensitivity
data.
Based on the above simulation model result, the simulation behavior for BHP calculation is tending to
be higher than PWD measurement. This behavior shall be considered for future MPD Engineering
simulation and planning. To mitigate any issue due to this behavior, sensitivity analysis should be
performed to determine the boundary range of BHP and SBP required during MPD operation so that the
limitation range of inaccuracy can be narrowed. Furthermore, the mud rheology framework modules on
the hydraulic engine might need to be adjusted for deepwater and synthetic based mud application.
Below table shows simulation result using non-isothermal hydraulic simulator.

Table 5—Non-isothermal Hydraulic Simulator Result

Non-isothermal Hydraulic Simulator

Depth BHP ECD % Error

18696.8 14976 14.64 8.16%

18868.2 15229 14.89 6.42%
19072.4 15269 14.93 5.77%
19276.6 15520 15.18 4.93%
19480.8 15564 15.22 3.82%
19685 15604 15.26 3.41%

Rheology model Power Law provides good accuracy with 0.45% average error compared to other
simulators and models for this case of drilling fluid. The fluid regime in the annulus area tends to be
laminar flow which represented by low Reynolds Number. This is different with fluid regime in the drill
pipe most likely in turbulence state due to the higher Reynolds Number. Above result confirmed other
work (Ochoa, 2006) which describes the flow in annuli (low shear rate) has been proved more accurate
if calculated using power law but less accurate for high shear rates (at bit and drill pipe).
Below table shows manual calculation result using available rheological model in the industry and
comparison with PWD measurement.
SPE-176257-MS 7

Table 6 —Rheological Model Manual Calculation

Power Law Bingham API RP13D

Depth BHP ECD % Error BHP ECD % Error BHP ECD % Error

18696.8 13862 14.26 0.11% 13977 14.38 0.94% 13734 14.13 ⫺0.81%
18868.2 14314 14.59 0.03% 14430 14.71 0.83% 14164 14.44 ⫺1.02%
19072.4 14493 14.61 0.39% 14612 14.73 1.22% 14321 14.44 ⫺0.80%
19276.6 14880 14.85 0.60% 15001 14.97 1.42% 14683 14.65 ⫺0.73%
19480.8 15064 14.87 0.49% 15186 14.99 1.30% 14705 14.52 ⫺1.91%
19685 15252 14.90 1.08% 15375 15.02 1.89% 14866 14.52 ⫺1.49%

Table 7—Average % Error Summary Compared to PWD Measurement

Description Average % Error

Field Real-Time Hydraulic Simulator ⫺0.63%

Non-isothermal Hydraulic Simulator 5.42%
Power Law 0.45%
Bingham 1.27%
API RP13D ⫺1.13%

Conclusion
The non-isothermal hydraulic simulator has a lot of potential performance to support future MPD
application. Further sensitivity analysis study with different onshore and offshore drilling segment will
help continuous improvement for the non-isothermal hydraulic simulator. Power law rheological model
results good accuracy for the case study SBM drilling fluid for deepwater drilling environment.
Engineering planning in MPD operation is critical process to determine the best suitable design for
MPD operation. Employing non-isothermal hydraulic simulator can assist Engineers, not only in design-
ing, but also to achieve the MPD objectives during actual field operation. However, the key success of
MPD operation is the adaptive process to adjust the system as the wellbore condition dictates by precisely
control the annular pressure profile.

References
Ameen Rostami, S., Dahi Taleghani, A., ⬙Modeling Particle Mobilization In Unconsolidated Forma-
tions Due To Fluid Injection.⬙ (2014): 14 –7434.
Ameen Rostami, S., Kinik, K., Gumus, F., & Kirchhoff, M. (2015, May 4). Dynamic Calibration of
the Empirical Pore Pressure Estimation Methods Using MPD Data. Offshore Technology Con-
ference. doi: 10.4043/25953-MS
Ameen Rostami, S., Dahi Taleghani, A. (2014, January 1). Dynamic Modeling of Channel Formation
During Fluid Injection Into Unconsolidated Formations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/173891-PA
Cenberlitas, S., Crenshaw, J., Gumus, F., Alpaugh, K., ⬙MPD Technique in Haynesville Shale
Delivers Significant Value in Over Pressured Zones, A Case Study on Four Wells.⬙ AADE
National Technical Conference and Exhibition. Houston, Texas,: AADE, April 12–14, 2011.
Chen, Y., Yu, M., Miska, S., Ozbayoglu, M., Kang, Y., Zhou, S., & Al-khanferi Nasser M. 2014
⬙Modeling Transient Circulating Mud Temperature in the Event of Lost Circulation and its
Application in Locating Loss Zones⬙. 33th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, 8 –11 Jun. OMAE2014 –23590
8 SPE-176257-MS

Chen, Y., Yu, M., Miska, S., Ozbayoglu, M., Takach, N., 2014 ⬙A Novel Approach in Locating Single
Loss Zone during Deepwater Drilling with Distributed Temperature Measurement⬙. Deepwater
Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, 10 –11, Sep. SPE-170286-MS
Chen, Y., Yu, M., Ozbayoglu, M., Takach, N., ⬙Numerical Modeling for Mapping Loss Zones in
Directional Wells⬙. 2014 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. SPE-170990-MS
Erge O, Ozbayoglu M E, Miska S Z, et al. Effect of Drillstring Deflection and Rotary Speed on
Annular Frictional Pressure Losses. ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2014;136(4):042909-
042909-10. doi: 10.1115/1.4027565.
Erge, O., Karimi Vajargah, A., Ozbayoglu, Mehmet Evren, Van Oort, Eric., Frictional pressure loss
of drilling fluids in a fully eccentric annulus, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
Available online 21 July 2015, ISSN 1875–5100, 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.07.030.
Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, E. M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A., & May, R. (2014, March
4). The Effects of Drillstring Eccentricity, Rotation, and Buckling Configurations on Annular
Frictional Pressure Losses While Circulating Yield Power Law Fluids. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/167950-MS
Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, E. M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A., May, R., ⬙CFD Analysis
and Model Comparison of Annular Frictional Pressure Losses While Circulating Yield-Power Law
Fluids⬙ SPE Paper 173840, SPE Bergen One Day Seminar, 22 April, Bergen, Norway (2015)
Fadlin, Ali, Usmar, R., Irawan, F., Karnugroho, A. 2015. Success Application of Constant Bottom
Hole Pressure (CBHP) MPD in Offshore East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Preceeding, Indonesia
Petroleum Association 39th Annual Convention & Exhibition, May. IPA15-E-072.
Gedge, B. Singh, H. K. D. Refugio, E. Quoc, B. T. et al.,⬙Managed Pressure Drilling - A Solution for
Drilling the Challenging and Un-Drillable Wells in Vietnam and South East Asia.⬙ SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition. Jakarta, Indonesia: Society of Petroleum Engineers,
22–24 October 2013.
Karimi Vajargah, A., Hoxha, B. B., & van Oort, E. (2014, September 10). Automated Well Control
Decision-Making during Managed Pressure Drilling Operations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi: 10.2118/170324-MS
Karimi Vajargah, A., Najafi Fard, F., Parsi, M., & Buranaj Hoxha, B. (2014, September 10).
Investigating the Impact of the ⬙Tool Joint Effect⬙ on Equivalent Circulating Density in Deep-
Water Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/170294-MS
Karimi, A., Vajargah, Eric van Oort, Determination of drilling fluid rheology under downhole
conditions by using real-time distributed pressure data, Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering, Volume 24, May 2015, Pages 400 –411, ISSN 1875–5100, 10.1016/j.j-
ngse.2015.04.004.
Kinik, K., Gumus, F., & Osayande, N. (2014, April 8). A Case Study: First Field Application of Fully
Automated Kick Detection and Control by MPD System in Western Canada. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/168948-MS
Kinik, K., Gumus, F., & Osayande, N. (2015, June 1). Automated Dynamic Well Control With
Managed-Pressure Drilling: A Case Study and Simulation Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers. doi: 10.2118/168948-PA
Kinik, K., Wojtanowicz, A. K., & Gumus, F.2014, September 10). Temperature-Induced Uncertainty
of the Effective Fracture Pressures: Assessment and Control. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/170316-MS
Mammadov, E., Kinik, K., Ameen Rostami, S., & Sephton, S. (2015, April 27). Case Study of
Managed Pressure Tripping Operation through Abnormal Formations in West Canadian Sedimen-
tary Basin. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/174073-MS
SPE-176257-MS 9

Mathew, S. G. and Nasr, G. G. 2012. Optimize Drilling by Improved Well Control using MPD in
Narrow Pressure Window. Presented at the SPE International Production and Operations Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Doha, 14 – 16 May. SPE 157075.
Ochoa, M. V. 2006. Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology and Tool Joint Effect to Reduce Errors in
Hydraulic Calculation. Dissertation. Texas A&M University.
Qutob, H., Vieira, P. Arnone, M. Russel, B., Cook, I., Moyse, K., Torres, F., et al., ⬙Constant
Bottomhole Pressure: Managed-Pressure Drilling Technique Applied in an Exploratory Well in
Saudi Arabia.⬙ SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference
and Exhibition. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 28 –29 January 2008.
Rehm, B., Haghshenas, A., et al. 2012. Underbalance Drilling: Limits and Extremes. Houston Texas:
Gulf Publishing Company.
Simon, K. 2004. The Role of Different Rheological Models in Accuracy of Pressure Loss Prediction.
Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik Vol. 16: 85–89. Zagreb.
Yu, M., He, S., Chen, Y., Takach, N., LoPresti, P., Zhou, S., & Al-khanferi Nasser M. 2012. ⬙A
Distributed Microchip System for Subsurface Measurement⬙. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8 –10 October. SPE-159583-MS
Zhou D., Wojtanowicz A. K. ⬙Analysis of Leak-off Tests in Shallow Marine Sediments⬙ J. Energy
Resources Technology-Transactions ASME Vol. 124 December 2002.
Zoback Mark D. ⬙Reservoir Geomechanics⬙. Cambridge University Press 2007.
10 SPE-176257-MS

APPENDIX A
BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE GRAPH SUMMARY

Real-time Hydraulic Simulator vs PWD Measurement

Figure 1—Real-time Hydraulic Simulator vs PWD Measurement

Manual Calculation vs PWD Measurement

Figure 2—Manual Calculation vs PWD Measurement

SPE-176257-MS 11

Non-Isothermal Hydraulic Simulator vs PWD Measurement

Figure 3—Non-Isothermal Hydraulic Simulator vs PWD Measurement

12 SPE-176257-MS

APPENDIX B
EQUATIONS FOR ANNULUS FRICTION LOSS CALCULATIONS
SPE-176257-MS 13

APPENDIX C
SOFTWARE PROCESS DIAGRAM AND SCREENSHOOTS

Software Process Diagram

Figure 4 —Software Process Diagram

Software Main Screen

Figure 5—Screenshot of Software Main Screen – Influx Detection Exercise

14 SPE-176257-MS

Surface Equipment Setup Page

Figure 6 —Screenshot of Surface Equipment Setup Page

Fluid Properties Setup Page

Figure 7—Screenshot of Fluid Properties Setup Page