4.7 Article

Horizontal stress contrast in the shallow marine sediments of the Gulf of Mexico sites Walker Ridge 313 and Atwater Valley 13 and 14 - Geological observations, effects on wellbore stability, and implications for drilling

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 186-208

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2012.01.008

关键词

Wellbore stability; Geomechanics; Drilling; Gas hydrate; Methane hydrate; Anisotropy; Horizontal stress; Backreaming

资金

  1. Gulf of Mexico gas hydrates Joint Industry Project
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FC26-01NT41330]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significant horizontal stress anisotropy was encountered in three blocks in the Gulf of Mexico drilled by the Gulf of Mexico gas hydrates Joint Industry Project, namely, Atwater Valley 13, Atwater Valley 14, and Walker Ridge 313. The geological factors responsible for this state of stress and the implications for wellbore stability and drilling operations are explored. In Atwater Valley 13 and 14, stresses at the well sites were perturbed by the underlying salt. In Walker Ridge 313, a combination of thrusting by adjacent salt and material anisotropy associated with the regional minibasin structure caused the maximum horizontal stress to rotate with depth. Horizontal stress anisotropy combined with a lack of heavy mud caused breakouts to form in the well Walker Ridge 313-G (WR313-G). A simple formula to predict the depth at which wells drilled with seawater are prone to breakouts is derived. Evidence is presented that the breakouts in WR313-G produced heavy cavings which were mainly responsible for the tight hole conditions encountered while drilling this well. However, it is shown that bottom hole assembly (BHA) design and drilling practices such as backreaming may have exacerbated these problems. Modifications to drilling practices based on the experience gained from drilling WR313-G helped to improve the quality of the neighboring borehole WR313-H. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据