ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE INCIDENTS AND ITS IMPACT ON

DRILLING OPERATION.

(CASE STUDY OF MENENGAI GEOTHERMAL FIELD)

STEPHEN WAWERU WAMBUI

BPEP\2020/90177

A project presented to the department of engineering in partial fulfillment for the award of

Bachelor of Science Degree in Petroleum Exploration and Production

BSc PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY.

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

i
DECLARATION

I, Stephen Waweru, certify that this work is entirely original and has not been submitted in whole

or in part for the award of a degree or certificate at any other higher education institution that I

am aware of.

Signature…………………………………….. Date……………………………………….

ii
Recommendation:

This project is the candidate’s original work and has been prepared with the guidance and

assistance; it is submitted for examination with approval as official university supervisors.

Signature……………………….Date……………………………………

Mr. Antony Agevi .

Department of Energy and Built environmental engineering

Mount Kenya University

P.O Box 342-0100

THIKA.

iii
Acknowledgement

I give thanks to the Almighty God for enabling me finish my project well. To add, much

appreciation to my supervisor for his support and all the drilling engineers at GDC for their

successful input when doing my research work.

Moreover, I appreciate my family for their undying love and support when conducting my

project.

iv
ABSTRACT

The project focuses on investigating a specific incident involving a pipe becoming stuck during a

drilling operation. The analysis aims to identify the root causes, assess implications, and propose

preventive measures to enhance safety and operational efficiency. The incident's consequences

on production, financial losses, environmental risks, and personnel safety will be examined.

Existing safety protocols and procedures will be evaluated, and expert interviews will be

conducted to gather insights. The study will also include a cost-benefit analysis to quantify the

financial impact and assess the feasibility of proposed preventive measures. By comprehensively

addressing these aspects, the project seeks to contribute to a safer and more sustainable industrial

landscape, reducing the likelihood of similar incidents in the future.

v
Table of Contents
DECLARATION..............................................................................................................................................ii
Recommendation:......................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgement......................................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................................v
NOMENCLATURE.......................................................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................................1
1:1Background information.....................................................................................................................1
1:2 Statement of the problem.................................................................................................................2
1:3 Justification of the study....................................................................................................................3
1:4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................................4
1:4:1 General objectives......................................................................................................................4
1:4:2 Specific objective........................................................................................................................4
1:5 Scope of study...................................................................................................................................4
1:6 Limitation of the study......................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................................6
2:0 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................................6
2:1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................6
2:2 CAUSES OF STUCK PIPE......................................................................................................................7
2:3 differential sticking............................................................................................................................7
2:4 Mechanical Pipe Sticking.................................................................................................................10
2:4:1 Drill cuttings build up................................................................................................................10
2:4:2 Well Instability..........................................................................................................................11
2:4:3 Key Seating...............................................................................................................................11
2.5 Hole pack off causes........................................................................................................................12
2:5:1 Settled Cuttings.........................................................................................................................12
2:5:2 Fractured and faulted formation..............................................................................................13
2:6 pipe torsion.....................................................................................................................................14
2.7 Cement blocks.................................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER THREE........................................................................................................................................17
3:0 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................17
3:1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................17

vi
 3:2 Research Design..............................................................................................................................17
3:3 Study area........................................................................................................................................17
3:4 Menengai Stuck Pipe Data Analysis.................................................................................................18
CHAPTER FOUR..........................................................................................................................................26
4:1 FINDINGS AND RESULTS......................................................................................................................26
4:2 Graphical diagram analysis and representation...............................................................................31
4:2:1 MW07: Stuck depth 2135m at 0145 hrs. During drilling...............................................................31
4:2:2 stuck of MW09 at 2229hrs at 1948m depth during drilling..........................................................33
CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................................................................36
CONCLUSSION, RECOMMENDATION AND REFERENCES............................................................................36
5:1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................36
5:1:1 Drill String snapping/ tubular washout.........................................................................................36
5:1:2 RIG TIME AND COST ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................38
5:2 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................39
5:3 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................41
5:4 APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................43

vii
NOMENCLATURE

BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly;

ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density;

Ft = Feet;

hi-vis = High viscosity;

klbf = Kilo pounds-force;

klbs = Kilo pounds;

kN = Kilo Newton’s;

kNm = Kilo Newtons-metres;

lb = Pound;

l/m = Liters per minute;

LCM = Lost circulation material;

m = Meter;

POOH = Pull out of hole;

psi = Pascal’s per square inch;

RIH = Run in hole;

ROP = Rate of penetration (m/h);

RPM = Revolution per minute;

viii
Spm = Strokes per minute;

WOB = Weight on bit (kN);

WOC = Wait on cement;

" = Inches.

ix
CHAPTER ONE.

1:1Background information

In the drilling sector, stuck pipe incidents and differential sticking in drilled wells are frequent

issues. The two main causes of non-productive time (NPT) are stuck pipes or sticking and lost

circulations. Attempting to free a jammed pipe may require a significant amount of time and

resources. When a drill string breaks due to a blocked pipe, it can be very expensive to fish

because it was either purposefully or accidently broken. Fishing operations that are inefficient

have resulted in costly workarounds such sidetracking or, worse yet, well abandonment. The

vast majority of the information was gathered in the oil drilling industry, however stuck pipe

scenarios occur frequently all around the world. A pipe blockage caused a well in Kenya's

Menengai drilling field to be abandoned. Because of the high temperatures and pressures

involved, a stuck pipe occurrence in a geothermal well can be a tough problem to handle. A

thorough review of the drilling records and wellbore conditions, which may need the use of

specialist tools and laboratory analysis, is required to determine the reason of the blockage. Pipe

sticking can result in a significant increase in drilling costs of up to 30% due to the delay

involved in a stuck pipe scenario and the potential loss of the drill string. The annual cost to

drilling corporations ranged from $200 to $500 million (Isambourg, 1999); the same was true for

offshore drilling operations.

If a pipe cannot be removed from the hole without causing damage to it or going above the

drilling rigs maximum allowable hook load, it is deemed to be stuck.

1
1:2 Statement of the problem

Pipe sticking can result in a significant increase in drilling costs of up to 30% due to the time

involved in a stuck pipe scenario and the potential loss of the drill string. It cost drilling

companies between $200 and $500 million each year (Isambourg, 1999) same case applied in

offshore drilling operations.

To mitigate drilling problems and at this case pipe stuck various operation measures need to be

designed by the drilling engineer. The drilling procedure is usually costly and hence adequate

measures to prevent non productive time (NPT) and over expenditure is necessary.

The risk associated by stuck pipe include

 Financial Loss: Stuck pipe incidents can result in costly downtime, as the drilling

rig may need to be idle while attempts are made to free the pipe. The costs can escalate

further if specialized equipment and services are required to resolve the issue.

 Equipment Damage: During attempts to free the stuck pipe, excessive force or

improper techniques can damage the drilling equipment, such as the drill string, drill bits,

or down hole tools. This can result in the need for repairs or replacement, leading to

additional expenses and delays.

 Lost Time and Productivity: Stuck pipe incidents can cause significant delays in

drilling operations, resulting in lost time and reduced overall productivity. Valuable rig

time is wasted in attempts to free the pipe, and the planned drilling schedule may be

disrupted.

 Safety Hazards: Stuck pipe situations can pose safety risks to personnel involved

in drilling operations. Sudden pipe movements or the application of excessive force can

2
 lead to accidents, such as equipment failure, falls, or injuries caused by flying debris.

Proper safety protocols should be followed to mitigate these risks.

 Environmental Impact: In certain cases, stuck pipe incidents can lead to

environmental hazards. For example, if a pipe becomes stuck while drilling through a

reservoir containing hydrocarbons, it can result in a loss of well control and potential

leakage or blowouts, leading to environmental pollution.

 Reputational Damage: Stuck pipe incidents can have reputational consequences

for drilling contractors and operators. Frequent occurrences or prolonged stuck pipe

incidents can impact their reputation within the industry and among stakeholders.

1:3 Justification of the study

The study is an analysis of a Geothermal Drilled wells in Menengai. The scope covers the major

problem affecting the E&P industry when doing well drilling.

The paper outlines various causes, prediction, and mitigation measures of pipe stuck in a well

putting into consideration the drilling time and cost expenditure analysis.

The paper also has evident of theoretical cases of stuck pipe incident to ensure the completion of

the project.

3
1:4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

1:4:1 General objectives

The study goal is to analyze stuck pipe incidents in the Menengai geothermal field

1:4:2 Specific objective

i. Identify the causes of the stuck pipe incident in the geothermal well through a

detailed examination of drilling records and wellbore conditions.

ii. Evaluate the impact of the stuck pipe incident on drilling operations, including

downtime and costs.

1:5 Scope of study

The project is to be carried out in various drilled wells in Menengai field and through a detailed

examination of various well records and reports.

Specific well of study are MW07, MW09, MW21.

1:6 Limitation of the study

The study was faced with challenges that limited adequate analysis of the stuck pipe incidents.

 The authorization of expenditure (AFE) sample file was restricted and hence to

do a proper cost estimation of the well and stuck pipe cost freeing was not possible.

 Challenge of assessing the well site as protocol of clearance was time consuming

hence first hand analysis of the incident was not possible.

 The process of data analysis required the use of graphical analysis software that

requires accurate data to generate curves some of the data required were not available.

 Financial constraints to fieldworks as the process of data acquisition was costly

4
CHAPTER TWO

2:0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2:1 Introduction
The Geothermal Development Company, a company controlled by the Kenyan government, aims

to produce 5,000 Megawatts of geothermal energy throughout Kenya by 2030. Production

drilling is still underway on in the central Kenyan rift's Menengai high temperature field, which

lies in Nakuru. The Menengai caldera, The Ol'rongai in the northwest, and a portion of the Solai

graben in the northeast make up Menengai. Due to formation issues, drilling in this area has

proven to be rather challenging, leading to blocked pipe incidents among other unproductive

activities. When the drill string is within the well and cannot be reciprocated or spun around its

axis, a trapped pipe situation develops. According to a review of drilling data, Menengai wells

were typically stuck for six days (Okwiri, 2013), which accounted for 12% of the overall drilling

time in Menengai (Makuk, 2013). Most incidents of stopped pipes occur at a depth of roughly

2100 meters (Rotary Kelly Bushing), which has been identified as particularly problematic.

(Makuk, 2013). In 15% of wells, blocked pipe occurrences happened in 1991, costing the

drilling industry $200 to $500 million yearly (Schlumberger, 1991). Although there are ways to

forecast such incidents, sticking of the drill string is typically seen as an accident. Natural

reasons like the existence of porous strata (which readily cave and slough) or very high pressured

beds are typically to blame. The degree of hole deflection and dogleg severity that results in a

keyhole can both affect sticking. Drilling parameter adjustments can indicate sticking issues that

may arise later, such as during tripping out. Bailey et al. showed how a water loss (from drilling

mud) occurrence during drilling subsequently produced differential sticking during tripping out

in the Schlumberger publication "Stuck Pipe - Causes, Detection and Prevention, Schlumberger,

5
1991." In order to prevent stuck pipes in Menengai, it is necessary to research their causes due

to the large expenses involved with them.

2:2 CAUSES OF STUCK PIPE

Pipe sticking Mechanism and Causes can be summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 2:1 Pipe Sticking Mechanism & Causes (Rabia, 2001)

Pipe Sticking Mechanisms and Causes

Mechanism Differential Mechanical Sticking

Sticking

Hole Pack Off Formation & BHA (Wellbore

Geometry)

Settled Cuttings Key Seating

Cause Shale Instability Mobile Formations

Fractured Rocks Under gauge Hole

Differential Cement Blocks Micro Doglegs and Ledges

Force

Junk Drilling Into Magma

2:3 differential sticking

Differential sticking is a major cause of stuck pipe occurrence, it is as a result of the force that

sticks pipes together when hydrostatic pressure and formation pressure are out of balance and the

static drill string is pushed into the filter cake as a result. Several things might cause this issue:

- A permeable layer of formation (such as sand or broken limestone) with hydrostatic

overbalance exposed

6
- Pipe movement stopped for any reason for instance make connection or rig repair which put the

string in contact with permeable zone.

- Thick static filter cake

The string must be static, in touch with a permeable zone, and pushed by high force produced by

the pressure overbalance in order for differential sticking to occur. These variables must all be

present for this to happen. When the drilling fluids' liquid phase can flow through the permeable

zone, the drilling fluids' solid components deposit on the borehole walls to create the filter cake.

It must be noted that the filter cake is required to regulate fluid loss, but that its thickness must be

managed to prevent stopped pipes using this method. The filter cake comes in two varieties:

dynamic and static. Under dynamic conditions, the filter cake thickness decreases due to the

mechanical forces of the drill string and the fluids flow which washes the top layer of the filter

cake leading to thickness decrease. Under static conditions, the rate of solids depositions

increases which leads to thickness increase.

7
Figure 2:1 Differential pressure mechanism

Some indicators of differential pressure stuck pipe include:

- Rapid increase in torque and drag while drilling

- Often getting high level of over pull after making connections

- Inability for reciprocating the drill string

- The circulation is not interrupted

8
2:4 Mechanical Pipe Sticking
Many different factors, including the buildup of drilled cutting, bore hole instability, Key

placement can result to this type of pipe stuck.

2:4:1 Drill cuttings build up

In numerous methods, the buildup of drill cuttings can cause a pipe to become stuck during

drilling operations. Drill cuttings are the soil, rock, and other elements that are produced while

the drill bit penetrates into the ground. Typically, the drilling fluid (sometimes referred to as

"mud") transports these cuttings to the surface for cleanup from the borehole. These cuts can,

however, build up in some situations and induce the pipe to get jammed. Sloughing formation

during drilling can accumulate around the pipe causing it to get stuck. Poor hole cleaning

practices caused by mud fluid inability to carry the cuttings to the formation can hinder the

movement of the pipe. High torque and drag force can impede the movement of the pipe as the

accumulation of the cuttings occur in the hole walls

Figure 1:2 Pack off

9
2:4:2 Well Instability
The walls might collapse when unstable formations are encountered. The drilling fluid pressure

and the drill string weight may cause the formation to crumble and cave in leading to the

materials accumulating around the pipe leading to pipe stuck. The loose and fragmented soil may

slough off and mix with drilling fluids leading to increase cutting accumulation hence hindering

the pipe movement and causing a jammed scenario.

Fig 2:3. Borehole Instability Mechanism

2:4:3 Key Seating

Key seating occurs when the bottom of the borehole, particularly in softer formations, becomes

eroded or enlarged due to the rotary action of the drill bit. As the drill bit rotates and encounters

softer formations, it can create a cavity or channel at the bottom of the borehole. This cavity may

have irregular shapes, including key-like patterns, hence the term "key seating."

If the drill pipe or bottom hole assembly (BHA) encounters this enlarged cavity, it can get lodged

or "keyed" into the irregular shape. When this happens, it becomes challenging to free the pipe or

BHA from the borehole, resulting in a stuck pipe.

10
 Fig 2:4 Key Seating

2.5 Hole pack off causes

2:5:1 Settled Cuttings

Settled cuttings refer to the rock cutting, and other solid materials have settled at the bottom of

the wellbore during drilling operations. The drill cuttings are supposed to be removed from the

wellbore by the drill fluid. However, not all cuttings are effectively removed, some may settle

and accumulate at the bottom of the wellbore hence hindering the pipe movement.

Figure 2 shows settled cuttings.

11
Figure 2:5 Settled Cuttings Due to Poor Hole Cleaning (Rabia, 2001)

Settled cuttings are more likely to occur in deviated or horizontal wells due to the wellbore

curvature and degree of bending. The pilling up of this material will result to difficulty during

pipe trip and or hinder pipe movement during drilling.

2:5:2 Fractured and faulted formation

When drilling in fractured formations, the drill string's movement can cause swabbing (inward

flow of fluid) and surging (outward flow of fluid) effects. These hydraulic actions can dislodge

fragments and cuttings from fractures and subsequently redeposit them around the pipe,

increasing the risk of sticking.

Fractured formations can contribute to loss of circulation, where drilling fluid escapes into the

fractures instead of returning to the surface. The lost fluid can carry cuttings and debris into the

fractures, potentially causing them to accumulate around the pipe.

Mitigation measures include carefully planning the well trajectory, use of suitable drill fluid,

proper wellbore stabilization techniques, conducting a well detailed geological survey to be vivid

12
of formation type and proper allocation of drilling bits to minimize the impact on faulted

formation.

2:6 pipe torsion

Pipe twist- off is a hazardous and undesirable incident that can occur during drilling operations.

It refers to the unintentional twisting and shearing of the drill string, resulting in the separation of

the drill pipe into two or more sections.

When a pipe twist-off incident happens, the drill string is subjected to excessive torsion forces

that exceed the pipe's mechanical limits

Figure 7. Twist off

Pipe twist-off is a severe and costly problem during drilling operations. When a twist-off occurs,

the separated portion of the drill pipe is left in the wellbore, creating a fishing operation to

retrieve the stuck pipe. Fishing operations are time-consuming, expensive, and can cause

significant delays in drilling operations.

13
2.7 Cement blocks
Sticking might occur if cement bricks from the rat hole fall into the well bore. This may be

avoided by keeping the rat hole to no more than 5 feet in length and making sure the tail cement

at the casing shoe is strong. Sticking caused by cement blocks can be resolved by jarring the

string or injecting an acidic solution down the hole.

Improperly set cement is green cement. After inserting a cement plug into a casing or an open

hole, green cement may form. When cement is drilled into too quickly while it is still green, the

pipe may become permanently stuck because the cement may flash set around it. Although the

phenomena of flash setting are not fully understood, one idea is that it may be brought on by the

energy released while a substance is rotating and circulating. Starting circulation two or three

stands above the anticipated cement top and maintaining a low weight on the bit are also

effective preventative measures.

The Baker Hughes INTEQ, 1995 worksheet may be used to tabulate a summary of sticking

indicators and parameters to watch for stuck pipe issues, as shown in the Table.

TABLE 2:2 Stuck Pipe Problems and Indicators (Baker Hughes, INTEQ, 1995)

Indicator Problem Torque pressure Drill rate

poorly cleaned holes Increased increased Gradual increase

Extreme Overbalance Gradual increase No change Gradual decrease

Mobile Groupings Gradual increase increase Gradual decrease

Formations With Sudden increase May be unaffected Sudden increase

Fractures & Faults

Formations under increase increase Initially increased and

geopressure gradually decrease

Reactive Structures Gradual increase Increase Decrease

14
 Formations without Sudden increase No change Rapid decrease
Consolidation

discarded cement Rapid increase No change Sudden decrease

blocks

TABLE 2:1 Stuck Pipe Problems and Indicators (Baker Hughes, INTEQ, 1995)

15
CHAPTER THREE

3:0 METHODOLOGY

3:1 Introduction
This chapter looks into depth on the research design, how the data was collected, and field

research and report examination.

Outlined data presentation is presented.

3:2 Research Design

The design entailed both qualitative and quantitative data collective methods.

The data was obtained from primary and secondary data sources.

The qualitative data included detailed interviews and interaction from skilled personnel in the

field while quantitative data were obtained from field recorded data records and well reports.

Conduct a literature review of previous studies on stuck pipe incidents in geothermal wells to

understand well the causes and remedial measures.

3:3 Study area

This study was conducted in Menengai field, Nakuru County. The region is associated with

many geothermal well due to the great rift features of volcanic activities.

The locations of some of the wells drilled in Menengai are depicted in the map.

16
 Map Showing Menengai Field and Wells (GDC, 2013)

3:4 Menengai Stuck Pipe Data Analysis

Tables below shows how stuck pipe events are distributed over the drilling activities in 10

Menengai wells. This table will assist in identifying operations during which stuck pipe mostly

occurs.

Table 3:1 Drilling activities during Stuck Pipe in Menengai

Well Depth Of Activity No. Of Freed Hours Total drilling Total

Sticking During Hours spent days (spud in Depth

(m) Sticking Stuck Fishing to capping) (m)

17
MW0 114 Drilling 1 YES 0

1 125 Drilling 3 YES 0

380 POOH 3 YES 0

378 Casing-Stuck - YES 0

2206 Casing 8 YES 0 79 2206

Drilling

MW0 109 POOH 72 yes 0

2 133 RIH <12 yes 0

135 Ream <12 yes 0

165 POOH 1 yes 0

207 Drilling 3 Yes 0

213 Drilling 17 Yes -

218 Drilling/ 77 yes 125 3200

Reaming

18
MW0 113 Drilling 0.75 Yes 0

3 167 Drilling 0.5 Yes 0

1187 Drilling 0.5 Yes 0

2093 Drilling/ 216 No- 648 100 2112

Reaming back

off

MW0 2117 Drilling 216 No- 0 83 2117

4 parted

string

MW0 2202 Drilling 268 No- 0 96 2202

6 parted

string

MW0 59 Drilling 27 Yes 0

7 105 Drilling <6 Yes 0

149 Drilling/ 20 Yes 0

151 Reaming 5 Yes 0

1184 Drilling 37 Yes 0

2135 POOH 9 No- 0 132 2136

Drilling parted

string

MW0 58 Drilling 1 yes 0 126 2355

19
 8

MW0 1950 Drilling 1 yes 0 107 2088

MW1 1648 RIH 2 yes 0 161 2012

MW2 Drilling 4 yes 0 2730

326
1

Table below shows the history during selected stuck pipe events. The recommended pumping

rates are calculated based on recommended good practice for geothermal drilling.

TABLE 3:2 Operational activities during Sticking (from GDC well completion reports)

Well Depth Operational activities in a span of 24-48 Hours Pumping

Stuck (m) Rates and

and Date Returns

MW0 59 A well diameter of 26” was drilled from 43.19m to Approx. 1717

7 59.06m with brime circulation OK. When making a l/m

connection, the drill string got stuck. A pull force

Full Returns
08-02-12
of 200klbf was applied and a high viscous mud

20
 pumped at every 15 minutes with no returns.

L.C.M was pumped and partial returns observed. *Recommended

Pumped aerated water and the string got freed pumping=7295

l/m of water

MW0 149 Drilled 17-1/2" hole from 133 m to 149.25 m with Approx. 2720

7 intermittent partial & full returns. Experienced l/m

drilling break from 134 m-138 m with cuttings

Full Returns
20-02-12
fully flowing out. Circulated the hole at 149 m.

While lifting the string off bottom, it got stuck with

high torque and high Stand pipe pressure

experienced. Worked the string up and down while

pumping brine, then introduced air. Applied

tension to 160 kN. Gained 1 foot. Thereafter,

rotation and circulation was lost. Poured 2 drums

drilling detergent into the active mud tank and

Recommended
pumped through the string.
pumping=3107
Not much progress observed. Pumped hi-vis mud l/m of mud
into the hole. Very little gain observed. Worked

the pipe up and down without gain. There was no

pressure in the Stand pipe pressure. All fluids

pumped got lost into formation. Decided to cure

loss zone by pumping hi-vis mud mixed with wall

21
 nut shell and mica flakes. This was repeated

severally. Worked the string and introduced air.

Leakage on the stand pipe observed. Continued

pumping brine at 200 strokes per minute while

repairing the leakage. Introduced air and pressure

indicated 800 psi. The string got free and full

returns observed on the surface. POOH and

prepared the string for plug job. Pumped 4 m3 of

cement slurry at 112 m. POOH to shoe and WOC

to cure.

MW0 1184 Effectively drilled a 12-1/4" hole with perfect mud 1717 l/m

7 returns from 1200 meters to 1205 meters. 10,000

Full Returns
rounds of high-viscous mud were used to clean the
15-04-12
hole. About 1070 meters, encountered a tight spot.

While back reaming, POOH from 1205 to 1184 m. Recommended

While attempting to reconnect the removed stand, pumping=1413

the pump malfunctioned. Saver sub appears l/m of mud

damaged. Installed a circulating head, and it

circulated the surface-received hole-returns. It was

discovered that the string became trapped after

attaching the saver sub to it. Mud circulation

produces good results. Worked the string

22
 while circulating the well with high viscous mud.

MW0 2135 Drilled an 8-1/2" hole with aerated water and foam 2040 l/m

7 between 2134.09 m and 2135.93 m; no returns

No Returns
were made. At 02:00 AM, the string got stuck
25-05-12
at 2135.93 m. Applied torque to the string to make

it move. Worked the string as aerated water and Recommended

foam were circulated. 310 klb of pull were applied pumping=1100

and 28 kNm of torque. At 1100 hours, the string l/m of water

was released and started rotating again. POOH and

circulated. From the bottom of POOH to 965,

where there was no drag, there was significant

drag. The BHA was partially left in the hole.

There are still two 6-1/2" drill collars and an 8-1/2"

bit in the hole. Awaited management's orders. It

was decided to use RIH liners.

MW0 1948 Drilling 8½″ hole with aerated water and foam. 2210 l/m.

9 Partial returns. Partial Returns.

22-10-12

Drill string sticking from 2300 hrs to 0000 hrs. Recommended

pumping=1100

l/m of water

MW2 326 Drilling a 17-1/2" hole to a depth of 326 meters. 3060 l/m- Full

1 Stuck incident occurred at around 2:00 a.m. and Returns

23
 28-12-13 lost circulation. Circulated high-viscous mud for *Recommended

four hours while the string was being worked pumping=6213

before being released. Circulated the well to clear l/m of water

collapsed debris, POOH. The portion between 291

and 326 meters is reamed after POOH to 291

meters.

These water pumping rates are practically difficult to achieve and therefore the problem is

mitigated by using high viscosity mud sweeps at regular intervals to ensure sufficient hole

cleaning. We also note that the upper sections of a well are usually drilled with slower ROP, and

therefore the fluid annular velocity necessary for sufficient hole cleaning is lower. Cuttings also

reach the surface faster since the well is still shallow.

24
CHAPTER FOUR

4:1 FINDINGS AND RESULTS

By analyzing the AFE structure, we can see how implications of NPT can significantly affect the

drilling cost and the drilling time.

By considering the ten tasks below the well construction script was placed in an Excel

spreadsheet with column identifier for activity, task, time and cost attributed to each step

 Drill: Extending or expanding the borehole

 Trip: Conveying tools or consumables in or out of the hole

 Circ: Circulating fluid for the purpose of cleaning the borehole

 BHA: Assembling or disassembling bottom hole assembly (BHA) components

 Rig U/D: Assembling or disassembling non-BHA surface equipment

 BOP: Conducting blow out preventer (BOP) related activities

 WH Ops: Conducting well head related activities

 RunCsng: Convey casing

 Cement: Cementing related activities

 Log: Logging activities

25
 The table and figure below display the cumulative time in days associated with each task by

interval and time percentage of each task associated with the overall well construction process

phase Drill Trip Circ BHA Rig BOP WH RunCsng Cement Log Grand

U/D ops Total

1 surface 1.4 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.1 7.5

2 INT -1 12.6 2.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 1 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.7 23.1

3 pro-1 11.6 4.3 0.5 4.3 0.2 0 1.5 0.7 1.3 24.4

4 prod 2 22.8 10.4 1.8 3.4 0.1 0 2 0.4 2 42.9

5 prod 3 10.9 11.8 2.2 3.8 0.1 0 2 0.5 2.5 33.8

6 liners 0.1 1.6 0.2 3.4 0.1 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 9.3

GRAND 59.4 31.4 5 18.9 1.1 3.6 3 8.2 3.8 6.6 141

TOTAL

Table 4.1 Days and time task calculation

TIME ANALYSIS
Drill Trip Circ BHA Rig U/D
BOP WH ops RunCsng Cement Log
5%
6% 3%
2%
3%
1%
42%
13%

4%
22%

Figure 4.1 Time analysis

26
Sticking is a costly NPT event in drilling, especially when the drillstring breaks while attempting

to remove it, leading in the loss of the bottom hole assembly. In this situation, the missing pipe

will clog a large portion of the well. To clean the hole, either a long sidetrack must be drilled or

time-consuming fishing operations must be performed.

Actual drilling, casing, cementing casing, cementing loss, repairs, sticking, fishing, changing

BHA, waiting for water, and logging were among the operations examined. The time spent on

each action was evaluated, assuming that NPT was the primary reason for the prolonged drilling

time.

Figure 4.2 Percentage distribution of activities in Menengai

Drilling is far the largest operation time consumer only representing 41% of the overall drilling

time. This means that considerable amount of time is spent performing operations not directly

related to extending the borehole. It is evident that substantial time is spent tripping over 31.1

days. The extending of the days during tripping and BHA assembling is due to pipe stuck

incidents affecting the overall drilling operation by approximately 20 % and adversely leading to

drilling cost increase posing a serious problem to the drilling project.

27
TABLE 4:2 Number of hrs spent on stuck well (10 Wells)

Task Drilling Pull-out of hole Run in Hole Total

Hrs 884 37.75 15 936.75

From the table above, the cumulative days accrue due to stuck pipe incidents amounted to a total

of 39 days from all 10 wells in the field. The data proved that stuck pipe incidents are prone in

the field and this result to a loss of time stipulated in the drilling program.

The NPT (non-productive time) results to an increase in the drilling cost as the drilling program

is designed for a specific number of days and time. Hence, additional increase in time is

detrimental to the drilling company.

For 15 wells drilled in Menengai, well building activities and drilling difficulties impacting

overall drilling duration were evaluated.

Well no Total drilled dep Workdays

th (m)
MW-01 2,207.0 70
MW-02 3,200.0 112
MW-03 2,112.5 85
MW-04 2,117.0 72
MW-05 2,095.7 89
MW-06 2,203.0 73
MW-07 2,135.9 109
MW-08 2,355.6 113
MW-09 2,089.0 92
MW-10 740.8 94
MW-11 1,842.0 122
28
 MW-12 1,842.0 82
MW-13 2,012.1 141
MW-14 750.1 117
MW-15 1,679.6 68
Table 4:3 showing wells drilled depth and days.

Figure below depicts the Menengai wells' drilled depths vs workdays. Following a stuck pipe,

wells MW10 and MW14 were abandoned at 740 and 750 m, respectively. Attempts to release

the string in both situations ended in drill string failure. The fishing trip was a failure. Well,

MW13 experienced a lengthy downtime due to equipment failure. Because of sticking, more

than half of the wells had a protracted flat period at the end of the investigation.

FIGURE4:3 Depthvs.days graphs for Menengai wells MW01 to MW15

29
4:2 Graphical diagram analysis and representation.
In order to create graphs that show how the drilling parameters changed during blocked pipe

instances, the parameters were thoroughly examined using graphical analytic software. At the rig

location, data loggers were used to capture the drilling information. Excel files containing the

data were downloaded in batches of 10 seconds. This investigation will aid in identifying the root

reasons of the stuck pipe and potential remedies.

4:2:1 MW07: Stuck depth 2135m at 0145 hrs. During drilling

The pictured diagram below depicts that the string got stuck at 0145 hrs. We observe a drastic

drop in WOB from 5.92 to 0 KN, the rate of revolution per minute also drops from 70 to 0. The

ROP, bit position, and pump rate don't change. It is clear that when the driller tries to pick up the

string, it becomes stuck since it has to be dragged for more than 84.35 tones. At the time of

sticking, there were no circulation returns, and water and aerated foam were being pumped at a

rate of 2040 l/m.

Figure 4:4 features trend of sticking of at 2135 m

30
The figure below displays the trends occurred prior to sticking 45 mins before the stuck pipe was

experienced at 0145 hrs, the average stand pipe pressure ranges between 5,27 MPa and 4,97

MPa, or three bars. The other variables seem to remain constant. Previous to being stuck, the

rate of pumping of aerated foam and water was 2040 l/m with no returns.

Figure 4:5 Conditions before MW07 stuck at 2135 meters

31
4:2:2 stuck of MW09 at 2229hrs at 1948m depth during drilling.

Figure 4:6 well MW09 at 1948m depth

The string becomes stuck at 2229 hours, as depicted when the rotation's speed and torque both

abruptly stop. This occurs at the end of the drill pipe joint, as evidenced by the level of the

hook's height, which is constant approximately 0.41 m and shows the end of the drill pipe joint.

Additionally, it is shown that WOB zeros out. Pressure and pumping speed are both fixed.

During the stuck pipe incident, there were partial returns and 2210 l/m of aerated water and foam

were cycled. Based on the patterns preceding sticking, the rotating speed, pipe pressure, and

torque were rather consistent throughout the drilling procedure of this drill pipe connection up to

the sticking point

32
Figure 4:7 Conditions before MW09 stuck at 1948 m

By analyzing the data log captured it is evident that this justifies the possible causes of stuck pipe

as depicted in the table below. The Menengai well completion reports provided data that Easy

View was unable to collect.

The possible causes are deduced from earlier points discussed in this article on stuck pipe

causes.

well Depth Torque Weight ROP- Retur Other Result cause

stuck force on bit rate ns features

(WOB)

MW 149m Sudden - Sudden Full the pipe Fractured and

07 increase increased pressure faulted formation.

33
 d surged Differential sticking.

2135m Increase Unchange Increase The well Poor hole cleaning

d inclined or a newly lost

24degre circulation zone

e might induce pack-

off.

MW09 1948m Sudden unaffected unaffected limited Faulted and

drop fractured formation.

Cement Junk/Block

MW 326m unaffect unaffected Sudden limited Poor borehole

ed
21 decreased cleaning

TABLE 4:4 Possible Causes of Stuck Pipe in Menengai Wells

34
CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSSION, RECOMMENDATION AND REFERENCES

5:1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that there are several reasons why pipes get stuck in Menengai.

Unconsolidated formation can be troublesome; however cement plugs have helped to reduce this.

As was indicated before, drilling vibration, surge pressures, and adequate hole cleaning can all

be used to alleviate sticking caused by fractured and faulted formations. By making sure the

hole is free of cuttings, sticking caused by inadequate hole cleaning may be prevented. A clean

hole may be achieved in a number of ways, including good mud rheology, particularly in terms

of yield point and gel strength, managing drill rate to keep the hole clean, gauging the volume of

cuttings entering the shale shaker, and regulating annulus velocities. Running slowly when

tripping at alternate formation sites might reduce sticking caused by drilling through tiny doglegs

and ledges; these spots should be documented and reamed through during trips.

5:1:1 Drill String snapping/ tubular washout

After working on a stopped pipe at MW07 at 2135m for one day, a string incident occurred. The

applied pull of 310,000 lb. force and 28 kNm torque did not go beyond the 5'' OD drill pipe's

yield point (378,605 lb. force tensile yield strength and 53 kNm tensional yield strength), which

is thought to be the drill string's weakest link. The collar link was broken by the BHA. Drilling

fluid washout or corrosion from acidic water used as drilling fluid might weaken drill string

components. By using corrosion inhibitor chemicals and caustic soda in drilling fluid, these two

issues may be resolved. To maintain alkalinity so that acidic fluids do not corrode metal, Caustic

Soda is employed. According to Schlumberger Drilling (2014), corrosion inhibitors prevent

oxygen contained in drilling or production fluids from corroding pipes or other machinery.

35
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that drill pipes erode more quickly with aerated fluids

than with non-aerated fluids (Budi Kesuma Adi Putra, 2008).

For effective prevention measures and prevention of stuck pipe incidents during drilling

operations at the geothermal fields in Menengai, the following precautions ought to be

considered.

 Proper Wellbore Stabilization: Conduct a thorough geomechanical study before

drilling to understand the formation's properties and potential instability risks

 Optimize Drilling Fluid Design: Select the right drilling fluid and additives based

on the formation properties and drilling conditions.

 Optimal Drilling Parameters: Monitor and adjust drilling parameters, such as

weight on bit (WOB), rotary speed (RPM), and drilling fluid flow rate, to maintain a

balance between drilling efficiency and wellbore stability.

 Real-Time Monitoring: Utilize advanced drilling technologies and real-time data

analysis to continuously monitor drilling parameters, downhole conditions, and trends.

 Well Planning and Execution: Develop a detailed drilling plan that considers

geological data, well trajectory, and potential drilling challenges.

 Proper Tripping Procedures: Implement safe and efficient tripping procedures to

minimize the risk of stuck pipe incidents during pipe removal or insertion. Monitor pipe

movement and avoid sudden or excessive movements that may contribute to sticking.

By incorporating these preventive measures into drilling practices and operations, the risk of a

stuck pipe incident can be significantly reduced, enhancing drilling safety, efficiency, and overall

wellbore integrity.

36
5:1:2 RIG TIME AND COST ANALYSIS
The geology in Menengai poses the greatest difficulty to drilling, slowing down operations and

causing complications. It provided a bigger portion of NPT's experience in this field, resulting in

longer drilling days. The Menengai wells had greater difficulties and departed from the

intended time schedule, resulting in major time overruns. Given the amount of time spent on

stopped pipes, reaming, cementing losses, and the time it took to drill the reference well, the

formation geology of the site had a significant part in the challenges encountered.

The drilling program is altered and as a result the total costing of the well is much increased

which is a problem in many companies doing drilling. The drilling engineer should use the

specific time allocated to do drilling as increasing the rig time has a costing aspect.

After analyzing the hours spent on 10 stuck wells in the Menengai field, it is evident that stuck

pipe incidents can results to a problematic drilling operation affecting the whole drilling program

hence adequate prevention measures as discussed above ought to be use to prevent the

occurrence of stuck pipe and proper tripping techniques in case of failure.

Evaluating the impact of a stuck pipe incident on drilling operations involves assessing the extent

of downtime and associated costs incurred as a result of the incident. Here is an evaluation of the

impact:

Cost analysis program

The drilling cost variation can significantly affect the drilling program as the longer the

downtime, the more significant the impact on overall drilling schedules and project timelines.

37
Stuck pipe Costs may include renting or purchasing specific tools, equipment, and services, as

well as engaging expert personnel to execute the remedial measures. The longer the downtime,

the higher the equipment and personnel costs.

During the downtime caused by the stuck pipe incident, the well is not producing geothermal

energy, resulting in lost revenue. This can have a significant financial impact, especially in

geothermal projects where energy production is a crucial revenue stream. A stuck pipe incident

may cause damage or wear to drilling equipment, requiring repair or replacement. Additionally,

the incident may lead to adjustments in the drilling program, modifications to operational

procedures, or delays in other related activities, which can result in additional costs.

By quantifying the downtime and associated costs, operators can assess the economic

implications of stuck pipe incidents, justify investments in preventive measures, and prioritize

efforts to minimize future occurrences.

5:2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the analysis, I recommend implementing a new procedure of drilling

though sections or formations that have likelihood of pipe stuck.

I. By increasing the frequency of inspection, and maintenance of the drilling equipment,

pipe stuck incident due to pipe twist can be corrected.

II. The company can invest in the new advanced technology such as use of drilling

simulators to understand the formation type and foresee the drilling activities.

III. Additionally, the company can demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement

and ensure the well-being of its personnel and equipment.

38
IV. It is important to conduct a comprehensive cost analysis, considering both direct and

indirect costs, to accurately evaluate the financial impact of a stuck pipe incident on

drilling operations. This evaluation helps in determining the effectiveness of remedial

measures and in making informed decisions regarding future risk management and

prevention strategies.

By adopting these recommendations, GDC can enhance its drilling practices, minimize

downtime, and promote a safe and efficient drilling environment.

39
 5:3 REFERENCES

i. Baker Hughes INTEQ: Drilling engineering workbook. Baker Hughes INTEQ, USA, 410 pp,

(1995)

ii. Budi Kesuma Adi Putra, I.M.: Drilling practice with aerated drilling fluid. Report 11 in:

Geothermal Training in Iceland 2008. UNU-GTP, Iceland, (2008), 77-100.

iii. GDC: Menengai Well MW-16 geology report. Geothermal Development Company – GDC,

unpublished, internal report, 27 pp. (2013).

iv. Hólmgeirsson, S., Gudmundsson, Á., Pálsson, B., Bóasson, H., Ingason, K., and Thórhallsson S.:

Drilling operations of the first Iceland deep drilling well (IDDP). Proceedings of the World

Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 10 pp. (2010).

v. Okwiri, L.A.: Geothermal drilling time analysis: A case study of Menengai and Hengill. Report

25 in: Geothermal training in Iceland 2013. UNU-GTP, Iceland, (2013), 577-598.

vi. Schlumberger Drilling, 2014: Corrosion inhibitor. Schlumberger M-I

vii. Stuck pipe prevention. (n.d.). Harness Energy. https://harnessenergy.com.au/stuck-pipe-

prevention

viii. Mibei, G., 2010: Geology and hydrothermal alteration of Menengai geothermal field. Case

study: wells MW-04 and MW-05. Report 21 in: Geothermal training in Iceland 2012.

UNU-GTP, Iceland, 437465.

ix. Sveinbjörnsson, B.M., 2013: Drilling performance and productivity of geothermal wells -

a case history of Hengill geothermal area in Iceland. Proceedings from the 47th Rock

Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 2013, San Francisco, Ca, ARMA-13-386, 10 pp.

40
5:4 APPENDICES

Mathematically, the sticking force is described as follows:

Fs = PDiff x A

Where:

Fs: Sticking force

PDiff: Pressure difference

A: Contact area

Stuck pipe calculation

Input(s)

OD: Outer dia of tubing (in.) ID: Inner dia of tubing (in.) S: Stretch (in.) PF: Pull force in

thousands of pounds (1000lb)

Output(s)

Fpc: Free Point Constant (dimensionless)

hf: Feet of Free pipe (ft)

fpc=( OD 2−ID 2)∗0 :7854∗2500

hf =S × ⌈ fpc ÷ PF ⌉

41