You are on page 1of 10

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Field Test Report For APS MWD

Well: F3-B109 Customer: Gaz de France

Transmark EDS MWD Engineer: S. Macdonald

Page 1 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Report Circumstances ................................................................................................................................................... 3 First Impression Lay down BHA ............................................................................................................................... 4 Pick up BHA ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Surface System .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Tool Programming ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Drilling Operations........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Transmitter Gap Setting ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Hand Tools .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Flow Rates..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Software Issues.............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table of Figures
Figure 1 : APS MWD Downhole Tool Components..................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 : APS MWD Surface System .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Shroud Assembly Damage ............................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Epoxy Putty on Shroud Assembly ................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 5 : Sureshot screen grab showing corrected and questionable TF ................................................................... 10

Page 2 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Introduction The purpose of this short report is to express opinions on the Advanced Products & Systems Technology (hereafter referred to as APS) down hole Measurements While Drilling (hereafter to be referred to as MWD) system (Figure 1). The APS MWD system is currently under consideration for future purchase and deployment by Transmark European Drilling System (hereafter to be referred to as T-EDS).

Figure 1 : APS MWD Downhole Tool Components

Report Circumstances I had arrived on the Noble Ronald Hoope on the 16th November 2011, while pulling out of hole. And then running cement. After this another Bottom Hole Assembly (hereafter referred to as a BHA) was made up and the string was run in hole. However, within a few hundred metres, the string became stuck for a period of approximately 24 hours. After these problems were fixed, we then drilled the entire top-hole section from approximately 170m to 1617m MD, and so a reasonable assessment of top hole drilling could be made. However, further assessment should be sought from engineers who work with the tool at deeper depths for deeper well performance.

Page 3 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

First Impression Lay down BHA The first thing I actually had to do with the tool was a BHA. We were POOH to run cement due to losses. So this was a great introduction to the practical application of the tool. The APS system is a fairly straight forward affair with regards to laying down tools. Extracting the actual tool from the MWD collar is simple. Two Allen Key bolts lock the tool into its high side position, which can be adjusted with a T-Bar that is also used for the initial lifting of the tool out of the collar. Following this a simple clamp is placed around the transmitter under the rotor / stator arrangement which is then attached to the tugger and the whole tool is lifted out of the collar, and laid down the Vidor. Once down the Vidor and on the catwalk, it is a simple process of dismantling the string into its component parts in preparation for cleaning, maintenance, and any data collection that is required. This whole process happens much easier and more efficiently than with the current Geolink and Tensor products utilized by Transmark EDS, and as such will save a considerable amount of time in field operations, thus less downtime on-site, which should only serve to increase relations with T-EDS and their customers.

Pick up BHA Picking up the BHA is also a relatively simple affair. The tool is first made up before going to the rig floor, unlike the Geolink tool. It was decided to make the string up under the cantilever, as this allowed suitable shelter from the elements. From here a programming cable was run into the MWD unit in order to programme the tool. The tool programming is quite straight forward as will be explained later. The tool then has its highside set. This is done just after the programming, using the MWD Master Interface software. Again, this is very easy to do, and can be done in two ways. Either using the roll test procedure or through a procedure found in the tools menu in the MWD system configuration software. Once the highside is set, it should be marked for alignment during the BHA. The tool is then craned to the cantilever, then, using a tool clamp supplied by APS, it is tugged up to the drillfloor, and seated into the MWD Non Magnetic Drill Collar (NMDC) and Flow Sub configuration that is already made up and in slips. The T-bar (again supplied by APS) is then installed, and the clamp removed. Before seating fully, the tool is then set to the Directional Drillers scribe line from the bend in the motor, and thus the toolface is zero. Then the string is seated in place, and the clamp bolts (of which there are two) are tightened into place to lock in the toolface offset, and the string in place. The MWD is then ready to run in hole.

Page 4 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Surface System Moving onto the surface system (Figure 2), this is a relatively straight forward affair, and appears to be simpler to set up and take up less work space than either the Geolink or Tensor units. Cable runs are of a similar nature to both of the systems currently used by T-EDS, so should be no problem for T-EDS employees to get to grips with. Initial calibration of the surface system was done before I had arrived at the site, so I will not comment on how this is done in practice, however, I have since gone over the processes and results of these initial calibrations and it looks of no more difficulty than that already employed in the field with T-EDS. While the downhole system is in operation, the surface system appears to do a good job of decoding the data it receives and transmitting it in an efficient, well thought out manner. T-EDS may wish to ask APS to fine tune some aspects of the presentation in order to comply with its current needs, but hopefully through working closely with APS, T-EDS will be able to get a package that is tailored to their needs.

Figure 2 : APS MWD Surface System

Page 5 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Tool Programming Tool programming appears to be a relatively simple process. However care should be taken when considering the telemetry sequences required for each individual tool run, and make adjustments accordingly. That said, my personal recommendation would be for the field engineers, along with perhaps the coordinator, should sit down and decide on a basic configuration template that can be employed for general use. The general impression I get with this software is that a very similar configuration will be employed on the vast majority of T-EDS operations, and only slight differences will be required due to specific operational requirements. Therefore, a standard use template would be an advantage as this should allow for a standardized telemetry response for most situations. This procedure would allow for the possibility of saving time and therefore increasing efficiency. This may also reduce complications that may happen during crew change operations as there would be little mention necessary with respect to tool programming. Of course, the final say on the actual telemetry process put in place should lie with the engineers on-site, as circumstances may dictate that a deviation from any standard programme may be necessary.

Drilling Operations Looking at on bottom drilling operations, the APS tool appears to perform satisfactorily in its operation. Once the engineer understands the telemetry process and knows what to look for, it is a relatively straight forward affair. In the operations I was a part of, we were lucky enough to have a Pressure Transducer Interface box (P/N: 60778 rev. C), brought by the APS engineer on site, for testing purposes. I would recommend that T-EDS should invest in this technology, should it be available to customers. This splitter allowed us to run two different surface systems, running different filtering techniques. This proved to be a very useful tool as it allowed us to monitor the effect of both filters and determine which was giving the best results. More importantly however, is that it allowed us to check survey quality, as well as reducing downtime should one system fail to recognize a sync before a pulse train. In this case, we could simply switch which system outputted toolfaces to the rig floor, and negated the need to either cycle pumps, or cycle rotation in order to re-sync the system. A very useful tool that should warrant serious consideration. However, it worth noting that this particular application of the splitter would only be useful with respect to sending toolfaces to the driller. This tool does not allow for depth tracking splitting, and so it is not equivalent of running two full surface systems, and as such, would not be able to log real-time (while drilling) Gamma or, in the future, Resistivity data successfully as the system takes no account of depth status. So while it would be able to log the data, this data would then have to be exported to the primary surface system in order to correlate data with the depth file created from the depth sensors. There were a few issues noticed while drilling with the software, and most of this is addressed later in this report. Apart from these issues, the APS system did work very well. There were a few instances where the synchronisation from down-hole to up-hole failed to work, but these instances were few and far between, and were usually the result of flow fluctuation causing excess noise, thus hampering detection. There was issue with the SIU where it would decode many toolfaces fine, but a few toolfaces before a re-sync, it would start to struggle to decode properly. This was fixed when another sync came along, however, as the MWD was programmed for 100 toolfaces between syncs, it would be quicker to enter rotation for 30 seconds before returning to sliding in order to re-sync. I recommend a shorter period between re-syncs, although for the most part 100 toolfaces was good.

Page 6 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Transmitter Gap Setting During my time with the tool it was necessary to change the pulser mechanism on transmitter 882. This was as a result of damage caused to the shroud assembly (Figure 3). This was possibly caused by the jarring that occurred whilst the string was stuck downhole.

Figure 3: Shroud Assembly Damage

The process is relatively straight forward, and quite simple. Although time consuming. So the transmitter should be prepared well ahead of use, preferably in the workshop before dispatch to the location. A particularly time consuming part of maintenance would be the installation of the shroud assembly requiring the application of an Epoxy Putty (Figure 4). This would require some considerable time to set.

Figure 4: Epoxy Putty on Shroud Assembly

The procedure can, however, be executed on-site with only a few hand tools. Assuming of course that there is an appropriate amount of time to complete the operation.

Page 7 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Hand Tools It is worth mention at this stage, that such hand tools should perhaps not be purchased from APS themselves. While this procedure was carried out, it was noted that the quality of some tools, particularly the Allen Keys, were of a substandard quality. They had required regular grinding in order to keep operational, and not damage other parts of the tool. The Allen keys in particular, supplied by APS, should be considered good for no more than one use. After this, they would damage heads to the point that they would become un-usable. And this was through strict adherence to APS manual specifications, which in this case was quite low at only 35 lbft of torque. After switching to higher quality hand tools, borrowed from the rig crew in this case, the operation became a lot easier, and the speed of operation improved drastically. So for as much of the general hand tools as possible, I would suggest locally sourced parts of as high a standard as possible. This would also likely prove to be a cheaper alternative for T-EDS regardless as it is common practice for large mark-ups on tools of this nature.

Flow Rates Setting up the transmitter for certain flow rates is vital for correct operation of the APS MWD tool. Without being set up correctly, it may become impossible to decode the data on surface. On the well I was on, we had issues with losses into the formation. As a result, our flow rate was severely cut. This resulted in the tool no longer being within the required spec for full operation. This is important to remember. In this instance, it would have been possible to set up the transmitter such that it would be on optimal performance with the reduced flow. However, this brings with it its own problems, in that the transmitter would no longer be suitable for later in the well, perhaps once the well control had been successful, and flow rates could return to normal. In the field, it may be worth considering this. T-EDS do a lot of high flow wells, particularly on top-hole. However, it may be worth also having a transmitter suitable for such operations, or at least one that can be quickly prepared for such operations if required. On the well F3-B109 where we tested the APS MWD, we did not have access to the Bhor screen, as is quite normal on the PvE installation. This wealth of drilling information would be hugely advantageous when operating the APS MWD system. As the system relies on flow rates, it would be of great use to the MWD engineer to be able to monitor this information, as well as all other sorts of information provided by the system, so that he can correctly log well conditions during operations. As it was on F3-B109, if we had issues with decoding, it was necessary to call either the driller or the service office to get the required well information. Having direct access to this information would be hugely beneficial to the engineer.

Page 8 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Software Issues During my time with the tool, I had noticed a few issues that I would personally like addressed by APS. I shall list them here. 1. Azimuth and Inclination shown to two decimal places. This would be advantageous when comparing values against T-EDS survey checking tools as they output to two decimal places. Change in toolface style. The toolfaces on the RFD and in Sureshot do not show any differences between magnetic and gravity. This would be a useful tool for both the MWD and DD during drilling operations. RFD to show survey depth in MD and TVD. While this is not absolutely necessary, it could prove advantageous during operations. MPT and Surface data to be shown simultaneously. This would indeed be very useful as it can become tiresome switching between Data screen constantly to see what is happening during operations. In my opinion, this is a vital requirement. TVD Calculator. Whilst this is possible through winlog, it would be nicer, and easier, if this could be done in sureshot. For directional jobs it may not be possible to access winlog due to the restrictive cost of the hasp. A simple calculator in sureshot where the user can ask for TVD at a certain MD. For example, at the end of a run, so the TVD would have to be extrapolated from the survey data. Survey separation by bit run. It would be an advantage for surveys to be separated by bit run as well as with all together if desired. Or the ability to select which runs surveys make up the completed table. This would be very useful for side tracks, or other well issues that may appear. ROP smoothing when plotting. This is quite self-explanatory. Survey Depth. The survey depth is taken when the survey is finished being decoded. This is not always an accurate indication of survey depth however. It would make much more sense to take the survey depth as the pumps off depth, as it is a pumps off survey tool. There have been instances when drilling starts as soon as the FID sync has been decoded, and so by the time the survey is transmitted to surface, the depth automatically assigned is wrong. Sometimes by several meters. Questionable and Corrected toolfaces. When Sureshot outputs questionable or corrected toolfaces, it appears to output 80-90 degrees out of the expected value. Can the system not be modified such that it is more likely to guess a value closer to the correct values it notices around the corrected value. For example, we see decoding like this:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

Page 9 of 10

S. Macdonald

APS FIELD TEST REPORT

Figure 5 : Sureshot screen grab showing corrected and questionable TF

It seems quite obvious that the corrected values here are way off base. Is this just a result of the algorithm used to correct data?

Thus far the above are the issues that I have noticed, and have felt would greatly benefit the APS package as a whole with regards to T-EDS, as well as other service companies, operating the system. There will likely be other issues noticed in the future, however, with the short time I spent with the tool during down-hole operations, these were the main points noticed.

Conclusion I have not had enough hands on experience thus far to make any further assessment of the tool, other than the kit does appear, thus far, to be a suitable alternative to the Geolink / Tensor systems currently in use at T-EDS. My recommendation would be that further insight should be sought from other T-EDS employees who had more practical experience at deeper drilling depths. I would also recommend that, should T-EDS decide to invest in more APS systems, that T-EDS, as far as is possible, source locally higher standard hand tools than that provided by APS as part of their kit. The time saving observed when changing to tools of a higher quality was substantial, and as such would prove to be a prudent measure. We were lucky enough in this instance to have the Pressure Transducer Interface box (P/N: 60778 rev. C) so we were able to use two separate decoding techniques. This was a VERY valuable addition to the kit, and it would be advisable to purchase these for each kit, as it has the potential to greatly reduce downtime should there be signal issues. If T-EDS could work with APS to address the software issues previously mentioned, this would also make the system a more viable alternative to what is already in use.

Page 10 of 10

S. Macdonald

You might also like