Physicochemical behavior of control fluids when they come into contact with the formation to be drilled
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63728/riisds.v6i1.230Keywords:
Control Fluids, lithology, non-productive time, Ku Maaloob Zaap, geomechanicsAbstract
With this project, comparision tables were made on the chemical interaction of the drilling fluid when it comes into contact with the lithology of the Ku, Maaloob and Zaap asset formations. Therefore, the problems that arise causing lag times were analyzed and to determine if the drilling fluids were the cause of problems such as "rock mechanics, operating conditions or drilling practices" effects in particular or not. It is well known that the control fluid in drilling is composed of a base, it can be water or oil and a set of chemical products called additives, therefore, it is a system that when in contact with lithology will modify the properties of the rock causing damage to the formation. When drilling, the optimal conditions must be provided to avoid complications such as collapses, sticking, entrapments, partial or total losses of circulation, resistance or dragging, which are the cause of delay times and that translate into thousands of dollars of loss for the productive company of the state. For this reason, the cause of the problems caused by the choice of fluid in each drilling stage must be known, where it was supported by data taken from the drilling of the wells under study, comparing the problems presented and thus determining if it was caused by the selection of hydraulics in drilling and fluids in contact with lithology / rock meter by meter. As a result of the work, the problems that occur and that generate the non-productive times in the drilling of wells, caused by drilling fluids, are exposed in order to make quick reference tables for the reduction of such times.
References
Hernández Rodríguez Oscar (2009) Exploración y Producción de lutitas gasíferas un recurso no convencional en México, Tesis UNAM
Kaiser, M., & Pulshiper, A. (2007). Generalized Fuctional Models for Drilling Cost Estimation. SPE.
Kreige, G., & Meriam, J. (2007). Engineering Mechanic Statics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Loaiza, M., Ramírez, F., Morales, D., Colmenares, E., & Tapia, E. (2015). Techniques and Benefits of Drilling into 2 Sections in the Ecuadorian Basin. SPE, 8.
Maindla, E., & Maindra, W. (2010). Rigorous Drilling Nonproductive-Time Determination and Elimination of Invisible Lost Time: Theory and Case Histories. SPE, 9.
Marbun, B., Aristya, R., Pinem, R., Ramli, B., & Gadi, K. (2013). Evaluation of Non Productive Time of Geothermal Drilling Operations – Case Study in Indonesia. Stanford University, 9.
Pérez-Martínez E & Prado Morales G. & Rojas Figueroa A. & Correa López M. (2013). Desarrollo de Campos Marginales – Caso de Estudio: Campo Ku Maloob Zaap Formación Eoceno Medio, México; Biblat. UNAM, vol. 53 número 5, 298-315.
Rabia, H. (2002). Well engineering and construction.
Ramsey, M. (2007). Improved Drilling Technical Training and Communications for Effective Rig Utilization and Accelerated Promotional Schedules During the Big Crew Change and Associated. Houston.
Velázquez Cruz D. (2018) Curso de Geomecánica de pozos, IMP e IPN.
York, P., Panitchard, D., Dodson, J., Dodson, T., Rosenberg, S., Gala, D., & Utama, B. (2009). Eliminating Non-Productive Time Associated with Drilling Trouble Zones. Offshore Technology Conference OTC, 18.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Interdisciplinaria de Ingeniería Sustentable y Desarrollo Social

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.