International Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology

ISSN 0973-6328 Volume 7, Number 1 (2013), pp. 23-44

© Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com/ijpst.htm

Drilling Failures Identification: An Approach to

Reduction of Non-Productive Time during Drilling
in the Niger Delta

Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering

University of Uyo, Uyo - Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
Corresponding author: fdudoh@yahoo.com

Abstract

Due to the world’s reliance on oil and gas as the major source of
energy, drilling activities have become a recurring decimal. A challenge
to this arises when environments such as deep-water, tectonically active
areas and salt bearing formations are drilled. The cost of drilling a well
in such environments is denominated in millions of dollars. The
incidence of failures can increase this cost. These failures may come
from the equipment, the formation or even from the well drilled itself.
Despite recent moves by the industry to combat the challenge, failures
remain, to this day, a ‘necessary evil’ in oil well drilling. This paper,
therefore, provides a general overview of errors and failures during
drilling and tripping operations in the oil industry. The overview
involved determining the different ways a drilling equipment or
formation component might fail (failure modes). It also determines the
probability of each failure mode occurring, as well as the potential
severity of consequences. The possible pointers to the failures as well
as the possible causes of these failures are included in the overview.
The overview may help during a thorough audit of failures that are
encountered during a drilling operation. Developing a list of possible
failures during drilling with a description of basic observatory signs and
symptoms of their occurrence is the crucial first step in minimizing
Non-Productive Time (NPT) during drilling operations.

Keywords: Drilling and Tripping, Oil and Gas, Errors and Failures,
Non-Productive Time, Niger Delta
24 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

INTRODUCTION
The oil industry is unarguably one of the most complicated industries which
face so many challenges yet functions as efficiently as possible. This assertion
is true because the primary object of interest to the petroleum engineer cum
the industry is located thousands of feet beneath the earth’s surface. This is
accompanied by varying conditions of temperature and pressure as well as
other geological factors. A combination of these factors makes the subject of
understanding the process of getting at the object of interest complex to
drilling engineers. The elusive nature of this understanding makes drilling
operations encounter failures. These failures range from drill tool/equipment
breakdown, wellbore or formation collapse, lost circulation, kicks and blowouts.
Suffice it to say that these failures cost the industry valuable drilling time
running into billions of dollars annually. It is against this background that this
work on drilling failures is looked into. The primary focus of this work,
therefore, is to improve the drilling process by designing a good approach to
identify all possible failures, how and when they occur, and most importantly
their root causes. This would be done from a taxonomic perspective. This
would involve classifying failures in the industry in their natural groups and
isolating their possible causes, the key indicators to such failures as well as
the errors leading to the failures. The method used here is quite similar to the
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) method which is aimed at identifying the root
(true, bottom line reason) of a problem or event. In line with the practice of
RCA, the work is predicated on the belief that problems are best solved by
attempting to correct or eliminate root causes, as opposed to merely addressing
the immediately obvious symptoms. Besides, guessing prematurely from one or
two facts about the cause of a failure or accident will usually lead to a wrong
conclusion. A series of accident events and evidence will usually fit with
another set of events and evidence, allowing more of the picture to be
revealed (Jerner, 2010). Root cause analysis can and does often reveal that
there are multiple necessary conditions which must simultaneously and/or
sequentially occur for the subject failure to occur. This study takes a critical
look at failures during wellbore drilling with a case study of the Niger Delta
Region of Nigeria.

CASE STUDIES OF FAILURES DURING WELLBORE

DRILLING IN THE NIGER DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA
The following are the reported cases of failures in the oil industry in the
Niger Delta:

Equipment failure
The most recent case is that involving Chevron’s KS Endeavour drilling rig.
The well is located in the Funiwa Field approximately six miles (10
kilometers) offshore and in approximately 40 feet (12 meters) of water.
Essentially the rig burst into flames. A possible failure of surface equipment
Drilling Failures Identification: 25

during drilling operations may have caused the fire that erupted on board the
jack-up KS Endeavour (300' ILC) offshore Nigeria early January 16, 2012 in
which two fatalities were recorded. Although the immediate and remote causes
of the incident still remains a subject of controversy, the fact remains that the
incident makes the subject of failures in the oil industry a relevant one.

Blowout
Sea Quest discovered the UK's first North Sea oil on 14 September 1969 in
the Arbroath Field. She also discovered the first giant oil field named Forties
on 7 October 1970. Whilst working offshore Nigeria, the Sea Quest suffered
extensive fire damage after a blowout in 1980 and was then deliberately sunk.
Rig: Sea Quest Semi-sub; Date: 17 January 1980; Location: Warri, Nigeria;
Operator: Texaco

Stuck pipe (Well Packoff)

In 1991, lost time due to stuck pipe related drilling problems accounted for
approximately 18% of total drilling time in Mobil Producing Nigeria
Unlimited’s (MPN) offshore operations. The primary cause of stuck pipe was
identified as mechanical wellbore instability. An instance of this failure is as
given by Lowrey and Ottesen (1995) thus: Well Oso 16B: The 12-1/4 in. hole
section through the Intra-Biafra shale in this well from 6,604 ft MD (6,500 ft
TVD) to 10,900 ft MD (10,700 ft TVD) was drilled with mud weights ranging
from 12.5 ppg to 13.8 ppg (water based mud). This was a vertical well. On a
trip made at 7,581 ft MD the well packed off and returns were lost while
back-reaming out of the hole at 7,109 ft MD. The well appeared mechanically
stable prior to this point. The mud weight was subsequently reduced from 12.5
ppg to 11.5 ppg, and after regaining full returns the well was drilled to TD
while gradually increasing the mud weight to 13.8 ppg.

Wellbore Fracture
As documented by Onwuazo (2000), developmental drilling on the Opukushi
field in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria by the Shell Petroleum Development
Company well engineering team had historically met with traumatic drilling
conditions resulting from borehole instability problems. According to Onwuazo,
on the Opukushi 28 horizontal well, the operator drilled an 8 1/2-in. hole
section plagued with consistent hole problems. During one of the runs with a
rotary assembly designed to clean the hole free of junk, a tight spot was
encountered and the sequential reaming knocked off the brittle shale, causing
the operator to increase mud weight to suppress the sloughing shale, believing
that the shale was collapsing. The well began to take fluid and caused
formation fracture in the sand zones. This led to severe loss of costly oil-
based mud, and eventual rig shut down due to lack of enough mud required
to drill ahead. Circulation was eventually totally lost in the water sands.
26 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

EFFECTS OF ERRORS AND FAILURES DURING

WELLBORE DRILLING
Whenever failure occurs in drilling, the effects are always colossal. The effects
have economic, environmental and even social implications. Aside from the
general rig time loss, spills, high repair costs, soil and water contamination,
loss of human lives, terrestrial and aquatic lives, ecosystem destruction, etc.
The words of Greenberg (2012) on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster in 2010
sum it up. These are his words:
“The deep-water drilling segment was essentially shutdown for nearly a
year. Shallow water drilling activity wasn’t unscathed, either, as a result
of new safety and equipment guidelines. Leasing activity was halted,
and it was more than a year and half until the next lease sale was held
in December 2011. Major development projects were stopped in their
tracks as operators couldn’t obtain drilling permits to continue their
development drilling programs. This impacted the number of pipelines
that were permitted and installed. Major Service companies changed
strategies, either moving more to onshore operations or into international
areas when possible. Equipment manufacturers, repairs and maintenance
companies were left with little work. Rig catering companies were out
of work. The tourism industry was down along the Gulf coast from
Louisiana to Florida. The supply vessel industry didn’t see much of a
future, either. That is, until BP began hiring thousands of vessels to
assist in cleanup effort, paying extraordinarily high day rates for all
kinds of boats, from platform supply vessels to crew boats, oil
skimmers, and fishing vessels.”

Looking at these implications, it is, therefore, natural to delve deeper into

potential failures that can occur during drilling and then classify them and
associate each failure with potential signs and symptoms which could help the
industry notice the failure and find solutions to them before they get out of
hand. This would be discussed in the next section.

APPROACH TO CLASSIFICATION OF DRILLING

FAILURES
In order to effectively classify failures in drilling, it would be natural to
approach it from the conventional way of defining drilling failures.

Definition of Failure
In order to effectively define failure in drilling, it is necessary to have an idea
of where the failures could emanate from (equipment, formation drilled,
wellbore created) and what each of these components do. When equipment
fails to fulfill the function for which it was designed, it is said to have failed.
For instance, if a bit fails to crush or grind the rock it encounters during
Drilling Failures Identification: 27

drilling, it has failed. On the other hand, if the wellbore or formation behaves
in a manner that hinders the drilling of the well to its TD within the time
anticipated in the drilling program, it said to be a failure. In all, if the
wellbore, the equipment and the operator can’t fulfill the purpose for which
they were billed to perform in a cost effective, safe and environmentally
friendly manner, failure in drilling is said to have occurred.

Failure Ratings
A catastrophic failure is a sudden and total failure of drilling equipment from
which recovery of the drill tool is impossible. Such failures are investigated
using the methods of forensic engineering, which aims to isolate the cause or
causes of failure. Catastrophic failures also connote where the failure of the
entity is total, as with blowouts and necessitates the ‘run-for-your-life’
syndrome.
A critical failure is a human error or equipment failure that could have led
(if not discovered or corrected in time) or did lead to an undesirable outcome.
Major failure is one in which the drilling entity (tool, formation or
wellbore) functions in the intended manner, but outside normal operating limits.
Examples of this are situations in which the mud used for removing the
drilled cuttings is lost to the formation drilled in large quantities thereby
creating an imbalance in the system. Related to the major failure is the failure
of the component to work correctly over the intended range of environments -
drill pipes may malfunction at low or high temperature, or under conditions of
vibration.
Minor/Intermittent failure is one in which the equipment functions correctly
for the majority of the time, but occasionally becomes a cause for concern.
The classification of drilling failures in this paper is broadly categorized
into three, namely: equipment failure, wellbore failure and then formation
failure. Tables 1 through 3 list these failures and their potential causes.

DISCUSSION
When drilling equipment fail during drilling or tripping operations, the
consequences have serious cost implications. Depending on the severity of
failure, the component is either repaired, replaced or retired. Table 1 showcases
some of the failures drilling equipment may encounter. They have been
classified into drill string, casing, centralizer and mud motor failures. Drill
strings fail down-hole for many reasons. Some of the causes are clear, such as
fatigue, corrosion, buckling, twisting, and excessive downhole heating, over
torqueing or by washing out. Some of these failures are shown in Figure 1.
However, there are other causes that are not as apparent, such as metallurgy
due to poor manufacturing practices, incorrect inspection results, and poor
repair practices. Fatigue is a progressive mechanism that primarily results from
the synergistic actions of both cyclic stress and corrosion over time. Fatigue
damage is initially manifested in the form of microscopic cracks (i.e., fatigue
28 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

crack initiation). Fatigue cracks usually originate in the thread roots of the
connections or in the drill-pipe body and transition regions. These microscopic
cracks develop until macroscopic cracks appear which then propagate through
the wall thickness until failure, resulting in what is commonly known as a
"washout" or "twist-off". Corrosion is essentially the deterioration of materials
especially metal components by chemical interaction with their environment.
Buckling on the other hand, is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural
member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive
stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that
the material is capable of withstanding. Over torqueing is excessive pushing or
pulling of the handle of a wrench connected to a nut or bolt producing an
excessive torque (turning force) that loosens or tightens the nut or bolt. Over
torqueing might cause failure by damaging the threads and deforming the
fastener. Mechanical fatigue, corrosion or abrasion makes a drillstring
vulnerable to wash-out, allowing mud to flow from the inside of a drillpipe
through an initially small leak in the pipe wall into the annulus. If not
detected in time, the leak will wash out rapidly and eventually cause a drill
string twist-off which can be catastrophic. The table also highlights some
possible observations that could signal the drilling crew of the possible
progression of the drilling operation into the region of the specified failure.
The causes are carefully outlined with the errors leading to it. To further
strengthen the work, the rating of the failure is brought to the front burner.
These ratings are catastrophic, critical, major and minor failures and have been
described in the preceding section.

Figure 1: Drillpipe failure pictures (a) Upset transition area washout, (b) Screw
thread fracture (c) Drillpipe body fracture and (d) Drillpipe longitudinal crack.
[Source: Lin et al., 2012]
Drilling Failures Identification: 29

Table 1: Summary of Equipment Failures, Causes and Errors

Failure Type: Equipment Failure

*Failure Failure Potential Causes Errors leading Failure rating/
class pointers to failure Error type
Failure sub
class
*DRILLSTRING FAILURES
Drillstring Drillstring not Dynamic Contact of Catastrophic
Vibration rotating, conditions, e.g. drillstring with Mechanical error
premature bit bit whirl, pipe borehole wall
failures whirl, stick-slip,
torque required
to rotate the bit
is less than the
torque required
to break it loose
from standstill
Drillbit Increase in Ingress of mud Operational Major failure
bearing torque required into bearing related Mechanical error
failure to rotate bit,
increasing
resistance to
rotation, cone
loss if roller
cone is used
Drillstem Failure to Shocks & Drillstem Major failure
failure acquire vibrations design Manufacturing
evaluation error
data, high
torque &drag
Drillbit tooth Low ROP Inappropriate bit Overpressured Minor failure
wear selection, formation Human error
excessive
rotation speed
Drill pipe Loss of Deviated holes Running drill Catastrophic
washouts hydrostatic and doglegs, pipe in Human/operator
pressure, Low corrosive mud or compression, error
SPP gases, CO2 & in-correct make
H2O in mud up torque of
tool joints
Drillpipe Leaks in pipes Contaminants in Oxygen, H2S, Major failure
corrosion drilling fluids, CO2 in drilling Human error
chemicals fluids
30 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

Wireline No MWD data Vibrations of Miscalculation

failure drillstring, of wire Major failure
drilling H2S, condition Mechanical error
CO2, hot
chloride
environments
Drillpipe Pipe leakage High cyclic H2S & CO2 in Catastrophic
fatigue loads mud Human/operator
Shallow doglegs error
in conjunction
with high
tension and slow
penetration rates
Drillstring Drillstring Compressive Running Critical failure
buckling bends load in pipe drillstring in Human/operator,
exceeds a compression, design errors
critical valueage & design
of string
Cracked Sudden drop Load on pipe Poor pipe Major failure
pipes in pressure exceeds strength design Manufacturing/
of pipe design error
Over torqued Swelled or When enough When enough Critical failure
threads mushroomed torque is not torque is not Human error
box end applied at the applied at the
shoulders, pin table table
connection
breaks
Pipe twist Pipe breaks Torque Operational Critical failure
exceeding pipe’s related Human /
ultimate shear manufacturing
strength error
Pipe parting Pipe parts in Ultimate tensile High overpull Catastrophic
two strength when pipe Human error
exceeded stucks
Galling Uneven pipe Metal to metal Pipe vibrations, Minor failure
surface contact between unlubricated Human error
the pin & box conditions
threads, stabbing
*CASING FAILURE
Thermal Not available High temperature Operational Major failure
failure during steam related Human error
injection
Drilling Failures Identification: 31

Sulphide Casing cracks Stress & Poor design of Major failure

stress corrosion by steels Manufacturing
corrosion H2O & H2S, error
cracking high strength
failure steels
External Rusts, scales Exposure of Improper Major failure
corrosion develops casing to wet air casing Human error
failure and/or saline maintenance
fluids
Helical Casing bends Axial load and Poor casing Catastrophic
buckling compressive design, age of Design/
failure forces exceed casing manufacturing
the casing’s load error
carrying strength
Casing BHA hangs up High external Formation Catastrophic
collapse when RIH, formation related Mechanical error
Calliper log pressure
show collapsed
casing
*CENTRALIZER FAILURE
Centralizer Inefficient mud Under-reamed Using an Major failure
failure displacement wells, using an incorrect unit Human error
incorrect unit for for the job
the job
*MUD MOTOR FAILURES
Mud motor A sudden Operating Use of Major failure
stalling severe increase parameters incorrect mud Mechanical/human
in SPP , ROP exceeding the parameters error
ceases capability of the
motor
Motor A sudden Extended Use of Major failure
Failure severe increase reaming incorrect mud Mechanical/human
during in SPP , ROP operations parameters error
reaming ceases
Motor A sudden key seats, ledges Use of Major failure
Failure severe increase incorrect mud Mechanical/human
during in SPP , ROP parameters error
tripping ceases
Motor failure A sudden downhole Formation Major failure
due to severe increase temperatures related Mechanical error
downhole in SPP , ROP increase beyond
temperatures ceases 225° F
32 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

Table 2 shows the formation related failures. They are largely categorized
into lost circulation, kicks and inefficient rate of penetration. Lost circulation is
the loss of whole mud into formation. The zones where the muds are lost are
called 'thief zones’. Kicks are uncontrolled flow of formation fluids into the
wellbore. It must, however, be stated here that most failures in this category
are largely catastrophic especially when not detected on time. For example,
kicks may over time degenerate into blowouts. The only exception to this is
inefficient ROP which essentially has much to do with the operator using an
inappropriate bit for drilling certain formations.

Table 2: Summary of Formation Failures, Causes and Errors

Failure Type: Formation Related Failure

*Failure Failure Potential Causes Errors leading Failure rating
class pointers to failure Error type
Failure sub
class
*LOST CIRCULATION
Induced Volume of High mud density, Operational Major failure
fracture Lost mud in mud ,increase in /Formation Mechanical/human
Circulation pit reduces annular pressure related error
Natural Volume of Natural fractures, Incorrect Major failure
fracture Lost mud in mud high permeability estimation of Human error
Circulation pit reduces formations, cracks, annular
vugs, fissures pressures
*KICK
High pore Increase in Geo-pressured Formation Critical failure
pressure kick ROP, formations related Mechanical error
changes in
gas levels
Operational SPP Swab & Surge High surge and Critical failure
related kick decreases, during tripping swab pressure Human error
increased during tripping
pump rate, operations
mud pit
level/flow
increase
*INEFFICIENT ROP
Formation Low ROP Cuttings Hard Minor failure
related Low accummulation formations Mechanical error
ROP
Operational Low ROP Low WOB, Bit Using Minor failure
related Low balling, bit inappropriate Human error
ROP wearing bit type for
formations
Drilling Failures Identification: 33

Table 3 summarizes the causes and errors leading to failures of a drilled

wellbore. The table looks at the problem by categorizing possible failures into
wellbore wall related (cementing and mud cake failures), borehole related
failures and wellbore control failures. The primary support to the wellbore wall
is provided by the mud through the mud cake formed on the wall. When the
filter cake is either too thick or too thin, then loss of mud and borehole
caving are respective consequences. The cement on the other hand, is used to
bond the casing to the formation to prevent the migration of formation fluids
into the well. When the cement fails either by shrinking or cracking, channels
are created where fluids can pass and subsequent failure of the casing through
corrosion, etc., in the case of borehole failure itself, all failures listed tend to
act mainly on the BHA. These failures hold the BHA in one way or the other
and in extreme cases prevent the rotation of the pipe and possible circulation
of mud. This they do by collapsing around them and creating an obstruction.
Bit balling is essentially the sticking of soft formation in the spaces between
the bit teeth thereby creating a ‘ball-like’ appearance to the bit. This prevents
it from crushing or grinding rocks which is the primary function of the bit.
Also, included in this table is the failure of the wellbore due to the
unpredictable forces of chance and nature. These unpredictable forces range
from landslides to high magnitude earthquakes as well as high sea storms,
hurricanes, etc.

Table 3: Summary of Wellbore Failures, Causes and Errors

Failure Type: Wellbore Failure

*Failure class Failure Potential Causes Errors Failure rating
Failure sub pointers leading to Error type
class failure
*WELLBORE WALL RELATED FAILURES – CEMENTING FAILURES
Stress Appears as Stress changes Excessive Major failure
cracking “no cement” caused by casing casing test Mechanical error
on bond logs expansion pressures

Gas Poor mud Un-cemented Poor cement

migration removal channel, low slurry design Catastrophic
overbalance Human error
pressure before and
during cementing
Cement Cement cracks Exposure to air of Environment Catastrophic
shrinkage low humidity al and Mechanical error
chemical
changes
34 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

Micro Inter zonal Hydrostatic Replacing Catastrophic

annulus communication pressure reduction drilling mud Human error
s, inside the casing, used to
well leakage, cement shrinkage displace
decrease in cement with
amplitude of a lighter
CBL log production
fluid
Cement plug Pressure Contamination of Inaccurate Catastrophic
failure variations cement slurry with knowledge Human error
during pressure drilling mud during of volumes
tests or after placement, required
Failure to place a
viscous pill to stop
downward
movement of
cement slurry
*MUD CAKE FAILURE
Excessively Mud volume High mud density Poor mud Minor failure
thick mud in pit reduces design Human error
cake program
Thin mud Wellbore wall Mud too thin Mud Minor failure
cake collapse properties Human error
variation due
to adverse
downhole
conditions
*BOREHOLE RELATED PROBLEMS
Borehole Angular, Highly Formation Critical failure
caving splintery tensional/compressiv related Mechanical error
cavings e stress
Solids Pipe stuck Cuttings settling Poor hole Critical failure
induced pack back into wellbore cleaning Human error
off when circulation is
stopped
Keyseating Sudden High tensional side Drilling a Critical failure
overpull. forces crooked hole Human error
Cyclic overpull
at tool joint
intervals on
trips.
Drilling Failures Identification: 35

Underguage Pulled bit or PDC bit run after Using worn Major failure
hole stabilisers are a roller cone bit, bit, allowing Human error
undergauge. when drilling excessive
Sudden set abrasive formations mud cake,
down weight. worn bit, running PDC
Circulation is formations that bit after
unrestricted. swell or splinter, roller cone
Bit stuck or excessive wall bit
cake
Ledges and Sudden erratic Running an Drilling a Major failure
doglegs overpull or set unsuitable BHA, crooked hole Human error
down changes in BHA
Junk Missing hand Poor housekeeping Downhole Minor failure
tools / on the rig floor. equipment Human error
equipment. Hole cover not failure, poor
Circulation installed house
unrestricted. keeping
Sudden erratic
torque.
Inability to
make hole.
Cement Cement Hard cement Long casing Minor failure
blocks fragments. becomes unstable rathole, Mechanical error
Erratic torque. around the casing insufficient
shoe time for
cement to
cure
Green cement Increase in Drill string is Tripping into Major failure
pump pressure. inadvertently run the hole Human error
Loss of string into cement when cement
weight. is not set
Sudden
decrease in
torque.
Green cement
in mud
returns,
discoloration
of mud.
Bit jamming ROP reduced Poor hole cleaning, Drilling
fluid is too thin through soft Minor failure
rock with Human/
inappropriate formation related
mud error
36 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

Bit balling Reduced ROP, Drilling soft Inadequate Minor failure

Increased SPP, swellable clays pump Formation
Overpull on pressure, related error
tripping, insufficient
Reduced WOB drilling fluid
Hole collapse Large cuttings Little or no filter Poor mud Critical failure
on shale cake design Human error
shaker, pipe
may get stuck
Wellbore Excessive hole Swelling shale, Drilling with Critical failure
washouts fill,cuttings hole erosion, inappropriate Human/mechanic
insufficient mud mud al error
weight
Reactive Hydrated or When using WBM When using Major failure
formations mushy cavings. in shales and clays WBM in Human/mechanic
Shakers screen in young shales and al error
blind off, clay formations. clays in
balls form. When drilling with young
Increase in an incorrect mud formations.
LGS, filter specification When
cake thickness, drilling with
PV, YP, MBT an incorrect
mud
specification
Unconsolidate Increase in Little natural Formation Major failure
d formations pump pressure. cementation related Mechanical error
Fill on bottom.
Overpull on
connections.
Shakers
blinding
Mobile Overpull when Drilling salt Formation Major failure
formations moving up, formations related Mechanical error
takes weight
when running
in
Fractured & Hole fill on Natural fracture Formation Major failure
faulted connections. system in the rock related Mechanical error
formations Possible losses
or gains
Drilling Failures Identification: 37

Tectonically Pack-offs and Highly stressed Formation Major failure

stressed bridges may formations are related Mechanical error
formations occur. drilled
Cavings at the
shakers
(splintery).
Increase torque
and drag
Naturally Cavings Under-compaction, Formation Major failure
over- (splintery) at naturally removed related Mechanical error
pressured shakers. overburden
shale collapse Increased
torque and
drag.
Hole fill.
An increase in
ROP.
Cuttings and
cavings are
not hydrated
or mushy.
*WELL CONTROL FAILURE
Mud failure Kick Mud hydrostatic Drilling Critical failure
pressure less than through high Human error
formation pressure pore pressure
formations
BOP failure Blowout BOP valves Lack of Catastrophic
malfunctioning good Human/mechanic
during running pressure test al error
of BOP
*ENVIRONMENTAL/UNFORSEEN OCCURENCES
Landslides, Unpredictable Natural Unpredictabl Catastrophic
earthquakes, and sudden phenomenon e forces of
sea storms, occurrence nature
hurricanes

USING PROBABILITIES TO ANALYZE EFFECTS OF

FAILURE ON DRILLING OPERATION
The objective of analyzing effects of failure on drilling operation is to
determine degree of consequence in the event of a failure, and how likely
(probability) it is that the incident could happen. Multiplying the likelihood of
an incident with its possible consequences will determine the risk associated
with the operation. Some failures may occur frequently, but without significant
38 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

adverse impacts. Similarly, other failures can have potentially serious

consequences, but if the probability of the incident is low, then the resulting
risk may not warrant immediate action. If the risk is medium, mitigation
measures are normally subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Action will be taken
if the cost of implementing the measure is lower than the loss associated with
the possible event. When the risk is not acceptable, mitigation measures have
to be put in place. This is shown in Figure 2. The colour codes used depict
the severity of the failure and its consequence with ‘green’ representing
situations that can have minor influence on drilling operation while ‘yellow’
depicts cases with major effects on field operations and ‘red’ represents
catastrophic situations which are unmanageable and have the greatest negative
impact on drilling operations.

Figure 2: Criticality Matrix for Risks Associated with Drilling Failures

ERRORS LEADING TO DRILLING FAILURE

Human Error
No matter how technologically advanced drilling equipment becomes, there is
still a chance that it will not be operated correctly. This is because where
there are people, there are mistakes. The three categories of human error are:
 Technical Error: These are errors in which the action carried out by the
drilling personnel is not the action planned or intended. This emanates
from dearth of technical know-how or from poor human factors design in
the drilling equipment.
 Judgmental Error: These are errors in which the action taken by the
drilling crew is a bad decision coming as a result of lapses in training or
poorly developed decision making skills.
Drilling Failures Identification: 39

 Monitoring and Vigilance Error: These are errors coming as a result of

the drilling crew’s failure to recognize or act upon visible data. This is a
direct result of employee fatigue. Fatigue produces physical and mental
decrements in alertness. The signs of fatigue include cognitive (negative
mood, reduced communication, slips and lapses) and the physical
(fidgeting, rubbing eyes, repeated yawning, etc.).

Design/Manufacturing Error
These are errors emanating from the shortage or surplus of measured values
during the design and manufacturing process of drilling equipment. If the
values are fed into the production system, the resulting drilling equipment
would be faulty. The fault may appear in the pipe’s strength, thickness, etc. It
is also worthy to note that the environmental conditions at the time of the
equipment manufacture or finishing could induce errors into the process.

Mechanical Error
Mechanical error as the name implies, is the shift in correctness of data
obtained from a process due to equipment malfunctioning. This error can be
attributed to the manufacturer, the operator, and the age of the equipment or
even to the unpredictable forces of chance. In some cases of mechanical error,
the resulting failure can be catastrophic.

FAILURE CODES FOR EQUIPMENT

According to Perspective CMMS (2003), failure codes are used to illustrate
why an equipment failed or the reason for its failure. It is widely used in
computerized maintenance management systems. Table 4 shows some suggested
codes for some of the failures discussed in this work. Since the work dealt
with specific drilling failures, it is therefore, imperative that codes suggested
should be general in nature so that almost all the failures can be linked to
one of them. This would enable operators modify and create codes relevant to
the failure they encounter. For example, a ball bearing failure may not only be
experienced in drill bit bearing but can also be encountered in other equipment
using ball bearings. Hence, creating a long list of codes of all equipment with
ball bearing would make the work encounter ‘failure’ on its own. The codes
were limited to four alphabetic keys to indicate the full description of the
failure. In forming the codes, a simple combination of the alphabets making up
the failure is used. For example buckling is BCKL, Fatigue is FATG, and
Twisting is TWST. In other cases such as excessive vibration, excessive
temperature, over torque, etc., the letter X was used to represent excessive,
hence we have codes as XTOQ, XTMP, and XVIB to represent over torque,
excessive temperature and vibration respectively. Failures such as kick, junk
remained the same.
40 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

SUGGESTED FAILURE CODES

Table 4: List of Typical Four-Character Codes for Drilling Failures

No CODE DESCRIPTION
1 BALL Balling failure
2 BCKL Buckling
3 BRNG Bearing problem
4 BROK Broken Component failure
5 CALB Calibration Problem
6 COZN Corrosion
7 CRAK Crack
8 FATG Fatigue
9 JAMD Jamming
10 JUNK Junk
11 KICK Kick
12 KLAP Collapse failure
13 KYST Keyseat
14 LAND Ledges and Doglegs
15 LCIR Lost circulation
16 POFF Pack off
17 PART Parting failure
18 TMAL Thermal failure
19 TWST Twisting
20 UHOL Underguage Hole
21 WASH Washout problem
22 XHOT Excessive heating or overheating
23 XTOQ Over torque
24 XVIB Excessive vibration

In order to make these codes meaningful, there is need for additional

functionality to be added to the codes. For example, the failure (washout)
which could either relate to drillpipe washout or wellbore washout can be
specified by adding a subscript to the code WASH. For example, WASHDP or
WASHW representing drill pipe washout and wellbore washout respectively.
In another case, to indicate the degree of failure, we could add a number,
for example, the numbers 1, 2, 3 could be added to the problem of lost
circulation thus: 1LCIR, 2LCIR, 3LCIR etc., depending on how the operator
rates the failure. The number-1 could represent ‘catastrophic’ and 3 ‘minor’
failure.
Drilling Failures Identification: 41

CONCLUSION
Managing failures is one of the most important critical issues in nearly every
drilling operation and can easily determine a well’s eventual success or failure.
This work is a painstaking effort to classify downhole failures and errors
during drilling and tripping operations. Though not exhaustive, the work has
been able to classify drilling failures and errors in groups and then showcase
the pointers to the failures, their potential causes and possible errors that could
lead to each failure. In conclusion:
 Failures during tripping and drilling operations may be grouped into:
wellbore related, equipment related, and formation related failures.
 A single well drilling operation can host a set of the aforementioned
failures.
 Human errors and colossal mechanical failure of both equipment and
wellbore combine to form the recipe for drilling failures.
 By analyzing what can fail and why, one can ultimately get more out of
drilling tools throughout their lifetime, while minimizing the total cost of
ownership. This in turn gives rise to a cost-effective maintenance program
that prevents failure and predicts failure through condition monitoring.
 Finally, the failure codes developed in this work are those suggested by
the authors. We acknowledge the fact that there are various ways of
creating codes and we are always interested in knowing and learning
about them.

NOMENCLATURE
BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly
BOP = Blowout Preventer
CBL = Cement Bond Log
CMMS = Computerized Maintenance Management System
CO2 = Carbon (IV) Oxide
H2S = Hydrogen Sulphide
HWDP = Heavy Weight Drill Pipe
LC = Lost Circulation
LGSC = Low Gravity Solids
MBT = Methylene Blue Test
MD = Measured Depth
MWD = Measurement While Drilling
NPT = Non-Productive Time
PDC = Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit
42 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

POOH = Pull out of Hole

ppg = Pounds per gallon
PV = Plastic Viscosity
RCA = Root Cause Analysis
RIH = Run in Hole
ROP = Rate of Penetration
SPP = Stand Pipe Pressure
TD = Total Depth
TVD = True Vertical Depth
WBM = Water Based Mud
WOB = Weight on Bit
YP = Yield Point

REFERENCES
[1] Amro, M. M. (2000). Drillstring Fatigue while Drilling Medium Radius
Horizontal Wells (Field study). Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology.
[2] API (1995). Procedures for Inspection, Maintenance, Repair, and
Remanufacture of Drilling Equipment. API Recommended Practice 7L.
First Edition, Northwest, Washington, D.C., December.
[3] Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee Ltd (1992). Australian
Drilling Manual. 3rd Edition, Macquarie Centre: Australian Drilling
Industry Training Committee Ltd, ISBN 0-949279-20X.
[4] Azeemuddin, M and Ong, S. (2006). Solve Wellbore Stability Problems.
Baker Atlas. May 5.
[5] Bert, D. R., Storaune, A., and Zheng, N. (2009). Case Study: Drillstring
Failure Analysis and New Deep-Well Guidelines Lead to Success.
Volume 24, Number 4, p. 508-517.
[6] Bowes, C and Procter, R. (1997). Drillers Stuck Pipe Handbook-
Guidelines and Drillers Handbook. Procter & Collins Ltd., Ballater,
Scotland.
[7] Canty, D. (2010). Iraq Drilling Operation Hits Gas, Separates Drill Pipe.
Arabian Oil and Gas Magazine. ITP Business Ltd.
[8] Catastrophic Failure (online)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_failure. Date Accessed: 1 January,
2013.
[9] Cooper, J. B., Newbower, R. S., and Kitz, R. J. (1984). An Analysis of
Major Errors and Equipment Failures in Anesthesia Management:
Considerations for Prevention and Detection. Anesthesiology 60:34-42.
Drilling Failures Identification: 43

[10] Dale, B. A. (1988). Sensitivity and Reliability of Commercial Drill-String

Inspection Services. Paper SPE 17661 Presented at the Offshore South
East Asia Show, 2-5 February, Singapore.
[11] Daison, P. A., and Belavadi, M. N. (2008). Early Detection of Drillstring
Washouts Based on Downhole Turbine: RPM Monitoring Prevents Twist-
offs in Challenging Drilling Environment in India. Paper SPE 115290
Presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference
and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 25-27 August.
[12] Drillers Depth (Online) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driller's_depth. Date
Accessed: 16 September, 2012.
[13] Drillstring washouts (online)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52900681/241/Drill-String-Washouts. Date
Accessed: 5 November, 2012.
[14] Failure Codes for Equipment (online)
http://www.pemms.co.uk/failurecodes.html. Date Accessed: 3 January,
2013.
[15] Grady, B. O. (2011). Root Cause Identification Mitigates Equipment
Failures. Exploration and Production Magazine. Hart Energy, Houston,
Texas.
[16] Greenberg, J. (2012). Gulf of Mexico Update: Gulf Activity Picks up the
Pace Post-Macondo. Offshore Magazine. International Edition, PennWell
Publishers, Houston, Texas, Volume 72, Number 4, April.
[17] Halliburton (online)
http://www.halliburton.com/public/bar/contents/Case_Histories/web/H09685.p
df. Date Accessed: 16 September, 2012.
[18] Horbeek, J. H, Birch, W and McMahon, M. J. (1995). Successful
Reduction of North Sea Drillstring Failures. Offshore Europe, Aberdeen,
United Kingdom, 5-8 September.
[19] How to Determine Drilling Mud Motor Failure (online) http://master-
infotutorials.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-to-determine-drilling-mud-
motor.html. Date Accessed: 9 January, 2013.
[20] Introduction to failure mechanisms (online)
http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0180_ifm/index.html. Date Accessed: 1
January, 2013.
[21] Jerner, R. C. (2010). Metallurgical Failure Analysis .J.E.I. Metallurgical,
Inc., Dallas, Texas.
[22] Kolesnikov, I. V., Itkis, M. Y., Matlin, M. M., Kreichi, E. F.,
Shandybina, I. M. (1999) Procedure for Inspection of Drilling Rigs.
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. December, Volume 35, Issue 12, p.
783-784.
[23] Lin, Y., Li, Q., Sun, Y., Zhu, H., Zhou, Y., Xie, J., and Shi, T. (2012).
A Repeated Impact Method and Instrument to Evaluate the Impact
Fatigue Property of Drillpipe. Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance. JMEPEG. ASM International.
44 Okorie E. Agwu and Dr. Francis D. Udoh

[24] Lowrey, J. P. and Ottesen, S. (1993). An Assessment of the Mechanical

Stability of Wells Offshore Nigeria. Paper SPE 26351, SE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition Held in Houston, Texas, 3-6
October.
[25] Maintenance World (online) Failure Codes in Maintenance Systems –
CMMS. http://www.maintenanceworld.com/Articles/weirb/failurecodes.html.
Date Accessed: 1 January, 2013.
[26] Onwuazo, C. (2000). Improving Drilling Performance and Detecting
Formation Fracture. IADC / SPE 59124. Shell Petroleum Development
Company Nigeria.
[27] Peltier, B. P., Cooper, G. A., and Curry, D. A. (1987). Use of Torque
Analysis to Determine Tricone Bit Bearing Failure. Paper SPE 16698
Presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 27-30 September.
[28] Perspective CMMS (2003) CMM/CMMS Failure Codes. Business
Industrial Network. Saint Louis, Missouri.
[29] Rigsworld (online): Offshore Drilling Accidents.
http://www.rigsworld.com/Offshore-Accidents.htm. Date accessed: 10
January, 2013.
[30] Sanjit, R. and Cooper, G. A. (1993). Prevention of Bit Balling in
Shales – Preliminary Results. Journal Paper, SPE Drilling &
Completion. Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 195-200.
[31] Schlumberger (2012). Cementing Services
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/cementing/catalogs/03_cementing_services.
ashx. Date Accessed: 3 November, 2012.
[32] Shokir, E. M. (2004). A Novel PC Program for Drill String Failure
Detection and Prevention before and while Drilling Specially in New
Areas. Oil and Gas Business. www.ogbus.com/eng
[33] Sticking Mechanism Categories –Scribd (Online)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40866294/Sticking-Mechanism-Categories. Date
Accessed: 10 November, 2012.
[34] TWI (2000) (Online) http://www.twi.co.uk/news-events/case-studies/case-
study-54-drill-pipe-failure-explained/ Date Accessed: 16 September, 2012.
[35] Types of fracture (online) http://citizendia.org/Fracture. Citizendia
Encyclopaedia –Citizendia. Date Accessed: 10 December, 2012.
[36] Wikipedia (Online) Root Cause Analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_cause_analysis. Date accessed: 22 January
2013