IADC/SPE 59179

Casing Drilling Application Design Considerations

Tommy M. Warren, SPE, Tesco Drilling Technology, Per Angman, SPE, Tesco Corp., Bruce Houtchens, SPE, Tesco
Drilling Technology

Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2325 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material,
as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or SPE, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of
any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian,
SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Casing Drilling is an emerging technology for simultaneously
drilling and casing a well where the casing is used to transmit
mechanical and hydraulic energy to the bit, instead of using a
conventional drill-string. A drilling assembly, positioned in
the lower end of the casing, replaces the tools normally located
on the lower end of the conventional drill-string. This
assembly is retrieved with a wireline to access bits, motors,
underreamers, MWD/LWD, and other components while
leaving the casing in place.
The Casing Drilling process has been used on portions of ten
wells during a field trial phase. The system is still undergoing
development but these wells have demonstrated the
functionality of the casing drilling system.
Introduction
The conventional drilling process for oil and gas utilizes a
drill-string made up of drill collars and drill pipe to apply
mechanical energy (rotary power and axial load) to the bit, as
well as to provide a hydraulic conduit for the drilling fluid.
The drill-string is pulled out of the hole each time the bit or
bottom hole assembly needs to be changed or the final casing
depth is reached. Casing is then run into the hole to furnish
permanent access to the wellbore.
The Casing Drilling System (CDS) provides an alternative to
the conventional drilling system by using ordinary casing for
the drill-string. Thus the well is cased as it is drilled which

may reduce well costs or enable problematic hole sections to

be drilled. The CDS may eliminate costs related to purchasing,
handling, inspecting, transporting, and tripping the drill-string,
reduce hole problems that are associated with tripping, and
save on rig equipment capital costs and operating costs.
While the potential savings from reducing drill-string tripping
and handling times are important, the savings from reducing
hole problems may be more significant. There are many
situations where problems such as lost circulation, well control
incidents, and borehole stability problems are directly
attributed to tripping the drill-string and other situations where
these problems prevent the drill-string from being tripped.
Since the CDS process provides a continuous ability to
circulate the well, it is inherently safer than leaving the well
static without a means of circulating it while a conventional
drill-string is tripped. Reduced pipe tripping with the CDS
should also reduce surge and swab pressure fluctuations.
Sometimes it is difficult to run the casing after the drill-string
is tripped out because of poor borehole quality. A portion of
these problems may be directly attributed to drill-string
vibrations causing borehole enlargement.1 The casing drilling
system may reduce these incidents by eliminating the tripping
and providing a drill-string that is less prone to vibrations. The
CDS has been under development for three years as described
by Tessari, et al.2 In addition to drilling two directional test
wells, it has recently been used to drill portions of ten wells as
part of the first field trials. These wells were chosen to prove
and refine the technical aspects of the CDS. In the following
sections the system is described, engineering considerations for
key technical areas are discussed, and key learnings from the
field trials are presented.
CDS Equipment.
The casing drilling process eliminates the conventional drillstring by using the casing itself as the hydraulic conduit and
means of transmitting mechanical energy to the bit.3 A short
wireline retrievable bottom hole assembly (BHA) consisting of
at least a bit and expandable underreamer (Fig. 1) are used to
drill a hole of adequate size to allow the casing to pass freely.

TOMMY WARREN, PER ANGMAN, BRUCE HOUTCHENS

The BHA is attached to a drill lock that fits into a full bore
landing sub on the bottom of the casing in such a way that it
can be retrieved with a wireline unit without needing to trip
pipe out of the well. The wireline retrievable drill lock
assembly is the heart of the casing drilling system.
It lands in a lower section of casing consisting of a casing shoe,
torque lock profile and axial no-go and lock profile located in a
specially machined collar section (Fig. 2). The drill lock
engages both a fluted profile to transmit rotational torque from
the casing to the drilling assembly and an internal flush no-go
and axial lock profile to transfer compressive and tensional
loads to the BHA. A stabilizer on the BHA positioned
opposite the casing shoe reduces lateral motion of the assembly
inside the casing.

IADC/SPE 59179

Retrieving Head

Seal elements
Centralizer
Bypass ports
Axial
Axial & Torque
Lock
Lock
Stop dogs

The casing shoe is normally dressed with hard material to

ensure that a full gauge hole is drilled ahead of the casing, but
it also provides a torque indication if the underreamer drills
undergauge. Centralizers on the casing stabilize it within the
borehole and prevent wear on the couplings.

Torque lock

The BHA generally consists of a pilot bit and underreamer, but

may include other tools needed to perform almost any
operation that can be conducted with a conventional drill
string. The pilot bit and underreamer pass through the drillcasing and drill a hole that provides adequate clearance for the
drill-casing and subsequent cementing.
Conventional
directional tools (bent housing positive displacement motors,
MWD tool, and isolation monels) and LWD tools can be
suspended below the drill casing shoe for directional drilling.
A conventional core barrel can be run for coring.

Stabilizer

Casing Drilling Engineering Consideration.

In many ways designing a well for Casing Drilling is similar to
designing a conventional well.
Considerations such as
borehole stability, well control, casing setting depths,
directional planning, and bit selection are treated much like
they are for conventional drilling. One significant difference is
that the casing is subjected to additional stresses while Casing
Drilling.
Figure 3 shows some of the interactions that affect the
integrity of casing used for Casing Drilling. The three primary
considerations for casing integrity (elastic loads, fatigue, and
wear) are shown on the right, while the things that are under
the operators control (operating parameters, pipe properties,
connector design, and well design) are shown on the left.
Complex interactions relate parameters directly under operator
control to the ultimate casing integrity.
Most of these factors affecting casing drilling can be handled
with conventional drilling engineering techniques, but three
aspects buckling, fatigue, and hydraulics deserve special
comments.

Spacer Collar
Casing Shoe
Under reamer
Bit

Figure 1: Wireline retrievable

BHA.

Figure 2:
Exterior Casing
components.

Buckling. A significant difference between drilling with a

conventional drill-string and Casing Drilling is that drill collars
are not used to provide weight-on-bit. For years drillers have
been taught that they need to run drill collars to make sure their
drill-string is not damaged by buckling. An obvious question
then is How can the casing drilling process operate effectively
without using drill collars?
The lower portion of the drill-casing will support only a
limited compressive load before it buckles. Buckling occurs
when the compressive load and casing/hole geometry create a
sufficient bending moment so that the casing becomes
unstable. After it buckles (becomes unstable), it is incapable
of supporting the compressive load without lateral support, but
this does not mean that there is a structural failure. The
borehole wall surrounding the casing provides lateral support
to limit the lateral deflection for any given set of parameters.
There is nothing inherently destructive in the fact that the
casing buckles, but the buckling causes two effects that may be
detrimental. First, the lateral contact forces between the drillcasing and borehole wall can cause wear on the casing and will
increase the torque that is required to rotate the casing.

IADC/SPE 59179

CASING DRILLING APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Secondly, the buckling causes the casing to assume a curved

geometry within the borehole that increases the stress in the
pipe and may increase the tendency toward lateral vibrations.
For casing drilling applications it is important to determine
whether or not the casing is buckled and if so whether or not
the buckling is sufficient to cause a problem (wear, high
torque, or high stress).

Hydraulic Loading
Operating
Parameters

Mechanical Loading

Pipe Properties

Torque & Drag

Elastic Load
Limit

Wear
Connector Design
Buckling
Well Design

For curved holes the pipe becomes more stable when the
inclination is increasing, but may be less stable when the
inclination is decreasing at a low curvature (generally less than
1 deg/100 ft). 5 This is due to the axial compression forcing the
pipe into the outside of the curve to assist gravity in holding
the pipe firmly against the bore hole wall.
As a casing string first begins to buckle it generally deflects
into a planar, sinusoidal shape (sinusoidal buckling) and as the
axial load is increased it transforms into a helix, spiraling
around the inside of the bore hole. Figure 4 shows the loads
calculated from the basic buckling formula that are required to
helically buckle 9.5# 4-1/2 casing in a 6-1/4 hole and 23# 7
casing in an 8-1/2 hole.
These buckling curves indicate the load at which the pipe
buckles, but they do not tell us anything about whether or not
the condition will damage the pipe or cause other problems
while drilling.
From a casing drilling engineering standpoint it is important to
manage the overall downhole drilling process to maintain
casing integrity and drilling efficiency. One step in this
process is to screen for whether or not buckling is significant
for the particular well conditions. If the pipe is buckled it is
prudent to evaluate the effect of the buckled condition on
contact forces and stress.
As mentioned above, buckling influences two factors critical to
drilling performance that should be evaluated. First, the bore
hole wall contact force affects both the torque required to
rotate the drill-string and the wear experienced by the casing.
The location of the contact determines if the wear is localized
to the casing couplings or if it also affects the casing body.

Fatigue
Cyclical Stress
Hole
Geometry

Vibration

Figure 3: Interactions affecting casing integrity for Casing

Drilling applications.

Buckling force, 1000 lb

In straight holes, the compressive load that causes buckling is

determined by the stiffness of the pipe (EI), the lateral force of
gravity (pipe weight and hole inclination) and distance from
the bore hole wall (radial clearance). In a perfectly vertical
hole, the portion of the drill-casing that is in compression is
always buckled if the bore hole does not provide lateral
support through centralizers, just as drill collars are buckled in
a vertical hole. If the well is straight, but not vertical, the
normal wall contact force from the pipe laying on the low side
of the hole provides a stabilizing influence and increases the
compressive load that can be supported before the drill-casing
buckles.4

100
80
60

7" casing

40

4-1/2" casing

20
0
0

10

15

20

Inclination, deg
Figure 4: Helical buckling force for 4-1/2 9.5#
casing in a 6-1/4straight hole and 7 23#
casing in 8-1/2 straight hole.
Secondly, the pipe curvature from buckling will affect the
stress that the pipe experiences. If the stress level is high
enough, the pipe can yield and fail, but this level of stress is
rarely experienced for practical casing drilling conditions. At a
lower level, the stress may influence the pipe fatigue life. Both
the wall contact force and pipe stress are influenced by many
factors in addition to buckling.
There are analytical expressions that describe the buckled
condition for both the contact forces and stress, but a more
detailed analysis using finite element methods can provide a
better understanding of the casing deflections for a particular
condition.6,7 Figure 4 indicates that 23# 7 casing loaded with
40,000 lb WOB in a 6o inclined hole should not be buckled.
Figure 5 shows two views of the casing deflection calculated
with a finite element model for this case that indicates that
40,000 lb WOB should be a safe load for 23# 7 casing. The
end of the casing is centered in the hole because the simulation
includes a full gauge shoe, but the remainder of the pipe is
displaced to the low side of the hole by the radial clearance
between the couplings and hole (0.42). The left view is

TOMMY WARREN, PER ANGMAN, BRUCE HOUTCHENS

D isplacement , in

End View
1
0
-1

-1

IADC/SPE 59179

Side View

WOB = 40K lb
0

-1
0

100

200

300

400

D istance from casing shoe, ft

Figure 5: 23# 7 casing (7.625 couplings) in 8 1/2 hole, full gauge casing shoe, 6o inclination.
transformed into helical buckling.

looking up-hole from the casing shoe and the right view is
looking from the side, normal to a vertical plane passing
through the well bore.
The pipe is not buckled and the only bore hole contact occurs
on the couplings, thus the main concern from running 40,000
lb WOB (at 6o inclination) would be for wear on the couplings.
At higher inclinations the gravity force may also cause the pipe
body to contact the bore hole wall and generate wear.

The stress due to buckling of the 4-1/2 casing at 15,000 lb.

WOB is much less than that required to yield the pipe and is
also well below the endurance limit (minimum stress at which
fatigue failures occur), thus fatigue should not be a problem.
The detrimental effect of the buckling though is the fact that
the pipe body contacts the bore hole wall and will experience
wear if the pipe is run for very long in an abrasive formation.

Figure 4 indicates that 4-1/2 casing in a near vertical hole

(0.5o inclination) would be buckled at low weights. The pipe
deflection was calculated for WOBs from 0 to 15,000 lb for the
4-1/2 casing with a full gauge shoe and 30 ft shoe joint inside
a 6-1/4 straight 0.5o inclined hole. Figures 6 and 7 show the
pipe is not buckled at 4,000 lb WOB, although the pipe body
clearance is reduced to about 0.150 above the first collar, but
the pipe is clearly buckled at 8,000 lb. The buckling at 8,000
lb is primarily sinusoidal buckling, while at 10,000 lb it has

Figure 8 shows the contact force for the both 4-1/2 casing in
a well with 0.5o inclination and 7 casing in a well with 6o
inclination. Buckling is evident at the point where the contact
force begins to increase. Even when the 4-1/2 casing is
significantly buckled at 15,000 lb WOB, the contact force is no
more than the 7 casing contact due to gravity in the 6o
inclination and would be the same as unbuckled 4-1/2 casing
at 10o inclination. Appropriate casing centralizers can be used
or alternately a motor can be used to minimize the wear. An

WOB = 4K lb

WOB = 8K lb

4K WOB

-1

0
-1

20

40

60

0
0

-1

100

120

140

160

180

200

8K WOB

-1

80

Distance from casing shoe, ft

-1

-1

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Distance from casing shoe, ft

WOB = 10K lb

WOB = 15K lb

10K WOB

0
-1

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-1

15K WOB

-1

40

Distance from casing shoe, ft

0
-1

20

-1

-1

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Distance from casing shoe, ft

Figure 6: End views of 4-1/2 9.5# casing at 0.5o

inclination.

Figure 7: Side views of 4-1/2 9.5# casing deflection at 0.5o inclination

and different WOBs. (Y Axis is distance from center of hole to center
of pipe in inches.)

IADC/SPE 59179

CASING DRILLING APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Contact force, lb/ft

increase in well inclination will significantly increase the

permissible WOB before buckling occurs but may not decrease
the contact forces.
In the final analysis, buckling may not be as significant a
problem for Casing Drilling as it might seem at first. The large
diameter of the casing relative to the hole size mitigates much
of the buckling effect and usually keeps the stress levels quite
low. The stress caused by hole curvature are easily more than
those caused by buckling. For casing smaller than 7 and for
hole inclinations less than about 5o, a complete buckling
analysis should be run, but with the proper engineering even
these conditions can be dealt with successfully.

Drill-string fatigue failures generally result from oscillating

bending loads rather than torsional loads.
They are
predominantly located in the lower portion of the drill-string
rather than at the top where the static tensile stresses are
highest. In many cases a fatigue crack will result in a leak
before the final rupture; thus most of the wash outs that are
found in drill-strings are actually caused by fatigue cracks.
These failures are often located in either the threaded portion
of the connection or in the slip area of drill pipe.
There is quite a significant body of literature dealing with the
engineering aspects of fatigue and with fatigue of drill-string
components, but there is relatively little specific information
available about fatigue in casing and casing connectors
simply because casing has not historically been exposed to
fatigue creating conditions.8,9,10 The closest thing to casing
fatigue that is currently being studied is fatigue of marine
production risers, but for some Casing Drilling applications
fatigue may be important.
The fatigue life of a particular part is generally quantified by
the use of an S-N curve that relates the alternating stress level
to the number of cycles that cause failure. Figure 9 shows a
published S-N curve for grade D & E drill pipe.8 The fatigue
data does not plot as a single line but rather as a band of
failure. Fatigue testing often shows this type of scatter and the
S-N curve is often reported as the mean of the data. Fatigue
life varies with many small imperfections in the material and
surface finish. The data shown in Fig. 9 indicates an
endurance limit (stress below which failure does not occur) for
the drill pipe of about 20,000 psi.

7", 6 deg inc.

4-1/2" 0.5 deg inc

2
0
0

20

40

60

80

Weight-on-Bit, K lbs

Figure 8: Contact force for 7 casing at 6o

inclination and 4-1/2
A limited number of fatigue tests have been conducted with
connections that have been used for Casing Drilling and other
tests are in progress. These connections are primarily based on
a buttress thread form and typically have some type of torque
shoulder.
Figure 10 shows the range of data obtained with the K-55 and
N-80 connections plotted on the S-N curve for grade D drill
pipe. The performance of the casing falls slightly below the
lower limit for the drill pipe. More tests are being conducted,
but an endurance limit of 12,000 psi seems reasonable from the
currently available data.
The plot is based on the stress in the pipe (not the connector)
even though the failures are in the connection. The actual local
stress in the connector is higher than that for the pipe, but
should be linearly related to the pipe stress.
Fatigue depends to some extent on the mean stress level as
well as the alternating stress, but fatigue tests are generally
conducted at zero mean stress (for convenience and cost) as
was the case with the casing connector tests. The casing will
rarely be run at zero mean stress therefore a modified
Goodman diagram equation is commonly used to calculate an
.

Bending Stress, 1000 psi

Fatigue. Fatigue failures are caused by cyclical loading at

stress levels well below the elastic strength. Under repeated
loading, a small crack begins at a point of localized high stress
and propagates through the body until the remaining cross
sectional area is insufficient to support the static load. The
number of stress cycles that are required to cause failure is
dependent on a number of factors, but can range from only a
few cycles to infinity. Fatigue failures are highly susceptible
to local conditions and are somewhat statistical in nature.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

Revolutions to Failure

Figure 9: S-N curve for grade D and E drill pipe.

TOMMY WARREN, PER ANGMAN, BRUCE HOUTCHENS

60
50

Lower limit for drill pipe

40
30
20
10
0
10,000

100,000

1,000,000

IADC/SPE 59179

about 1.5 times higher than for 4-1/2 drill pipe. Even though
the casing stress may be higher for the same curvature, the
drillpipe may be more prone to vibration. This could result in
drill pipe stresses generated by vibration being higher than
casing stresses due to the casings smaller clearance in the
hole.

10,000,000

Revolutions to Failure
Figure 10: Fatigue band for J-55 and N-80 casing.
equivalent alternating stress for the particular loading
conditions.11
In order for a fatigue failure to occur, the part must be exposed
to an alternating tensile stress. There are two common sources
of cyclical tensile stress in drill-strings. The first is bending
stresses that result from rotating the pipe in a curved geometry
and the second is vibrations.
The alternating stress while rotating in a curved bore hole is
proportional to the dog-leg severity. Using an arbitrary stress
limit of 12,000 psi would allow a maximum dogleg severity of
4, 6, 8, and 12 deg/100ft for 13-3/8, 9-5/8, 7 and 4-1/2
casing respectively.
In addition to the alternating bending stresses, the casing
would also experience tensile axial stresses from the hanging
weight of the drill-string and from the internal pressure of the
drilling fluid. Using the Goodman approach to calculating an
effective alternating stresses for an extreme CDS situation
where the drill-string has 2000 psi internal pressure and
100,000 lb axial tension would reduce the allowable curvatures
to 3, 4, 6, and 7 deg/100ft for 13-3/8, 9-5/8, 7 and 4-1/2
casing, respectively, before exceeding the endurance limit.
The endurance limit for any particular situation should be
calculated, but the above discussion indicates the sensitivity of
the endurance limit to mean stress.
The casing can be run in situations where the stress exceeds the
endurance limit but the maximum allowable operating stress
will depend on the number of stress cycles the pipe will
experience. For higher stress levels it is important to limit the
pipe rotation cycles by considering alternatives such as using a
motor. At higher stress levels it is also much more critical to
avoid lateral vibrations.
Figure 10 can be used to compare the fatigue life for casing
and drill pipe at the same stress levels, but for a given
curvature the casing will be subjected to a higher alternating
stress than would the drill pipe used for the same hole size.
For example, the bending stress of 5-1/2 casing is about 1.5
times that of 3-1/2 drill pipe and that for 7 casing is also

Hydrulics. The geometry of the fluid flow path provides

another significant difference between casing drilling and
conventional drilling. The flow path down the ID of the casing
is large and unrestricted so that there is usually very little
pressure drop in the casing ID.
The Casing Drilling annulus generally provides a more
restricted flow path so that higher pressure losses are
encountered. While the flow path is more restricted, it is also
more uniform so that the annular velocities are nearly constant
from the casing shoe to the surface (except for drilling below a
liner). This provides the opportunity to clean the hole with
relatively low flow rates, but the drilling fluid properties must
be properly considered and adequate hydraulic energy must be
provided to clean the bit and underreamer. Even with the high
velocity, pipe movement has still been found to be important to
keep the hole clean.
These factors must also be considered in the light of equivalent
circulating density (ECD) limits imposed by the formation
strength and pressure environment. In most casing drilling
situations the ECD will be higher than the ECD for
conventional drilling, even though a lower flow rate may be
used.
Casing Drilling Field Trials
The casing drilling system has been used on portions of ten
wells located in the US and Canada. The wells were chosen
mainly to provide a venue to prove and refine the system
equipment. Four of the shallow (1700 ft) Canadian wells were
located in the same field and had surface casing pre-set before
moving a trailer mounted Casing Drilling rig on location to
drill the 6-1/8 production hole with 4-1/2 casing.
Figure 11 shows the drilling time improvement that occurred
while drilling these wells. They were the first wells drilled
Hours from spud to rig release

Bending Stress, 1000 psi

60
50

Conventional
Drilling Time

40
30
20
10
0
1st Well

2nd Well

3rd Well

4th Well

Figure 11: Learning curve for wells drilled with 4-1/2

casing.

IADC/SPE 59179

CASING DRILLING APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

with the rig as well as being the first drilled with the casing
drilling system. Over the four wells there was a considerable
improvement in the performance, but after four wells the
overall drilling time was still about the same as with a
conventional drilling system. There were time reductions in
the casing running and cementing, but these were offset by
slower ROP.

Hours from spud to plug down

The surface hole (12-1/4) was drilled on four deeper US wells

in the same field with 9-5/8 casing and the Casing Drilling rig
described by Laurent.12 Figure 12 shows the time required to
drill the surface holes from spud to release of the cementers,
compared to the same time for the best offset well in the field
(motor drilled). In the first well the BHA could not be pulled
at a survey point because one of the Convertible Buttress
casing torque rings had become dislodged and obstructed the
casing. This required the casing to be pulled before the
remainder of the hole was drilled. The operational procedure
was changed to prevent this from happening again.
70

Cementing. Once the well is drilled to the casing point and

the BHA is pulled, the well is ready to be cemented. The
original CDS cementing system was based on pumping a wiper
plug in front of the cement and pumping a latch down cement
plug on top of the cement. This plug landed in the same
profile used to lock the drill lock in place.
In field applications it became evident that this procedure was
not acceptable because of the uncertainty of the cement plug
landing properly. Particularly for small casing sizes, the plug
sometimes was not landed because of fear of over
displacement if the plug failed.
This was resolved by designing a pump-down float (PDF) that
can be pumped into place before the cement is introduced to
the well. A positive pressure signal indicates when it lands and
a wireline run can be used to confirm that it is in place if there
is any doubt about its location. Once the PDF is in place, the
cement job then is conducted as with a conventionally drilled
well. The casing can be rotated and reciprocated while
pumping the cement.

60

BHA Running/Retrieval. The success rate for running the

BHA has proven to be 100% on the field trials. In most of the
wells the BHA was run on the wireline and set mechanically,
but the BHA was run several times in a pump-down mode on
the deepest well.

50
40
30
20
10
0

Best
Offset

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Figure 12: Learning curve for drilling 12-1/4 surface

holes drilled with 9-5/8 casing.

The first three surface holes were drilled with a milled tooth
pilot bit and a roller cone underreamer, while the final hole
was drilled with the same pilot bit and a PDC under reamer.
Over the course of drilling the four surface holes the drilling
efficiency became progressively better and eventually
exceeded the conventional practice.

BHA retrieval has been somewhat more problematic with an

overall success rate of about 70%. In a few cases the casing
bore became restricted so that the retrieval tool could not reach
the top of the drill lock. This occurred once because one of the
Convertible Buttress rings was dislodged from the coupling, a
second time because the top of the tool was plugged with
LCM, and a final time because a debris baffle came off the top
of the tool and blocked the retrieval latch recess. Each of these
problems have a rather simple solution from either a tool
modification or change in operating practice. In no incidence
did the drill lock fail to release if the retrieval tool could latch
into it.

The production hole (8-1/2) for the first of the US wells was
also drilled to a depth of 6480 ft with the Casing Drilling
technique using 7 casing. The production hole of the second
well was drilled with the same rig, but with a conventional
drill-string.

A more serious problem resulted from the underreamer arms

failing to collapse completely so that the BHA could be pulled
once the drill lock was released. In some cases the failure to
retract was caused by failure of the spring mechanism and in
others it was caused by formation debris collecting in the
cavity below the arms. The solution to these problems was to
design an underreamer specifically for the CDS. There have
been no failures of the new underreamer to retract.

In the process of drilling these wells the equipment was

refined, a number of problems were identified and resolved,
and a better understanding of both the technical and economic
criteria for the CDS was gained. Some of the particular items
that were improved are discussed below.

A second problem with the commercially available under

reamers used during the field trials was their inadequate cutting
structure to provide as good a life and ROP as a drill bit. This
problem was also addressed on the new underreamer as
discussed in a following section.

TOMMY WARREN, PER ANGMAN, BRUCE HOUTCHENS

IADC/SPE 59179

There is still room to improve the operational efficiency of the

wireline retrieval system, but it has proven to be adequate for
routine use in the CDS. The following is an example of
wireline performance from the deepest field trial well. After
drilling to 5954 ft. with the 7 casing, the BHA was pulled to
run a directional survey. From the time drilling stopped until
the BHA was at the surface took 1.5 hours. This included
circulating bottoms up, rigging up the wireline, tripping in with
the retrieval tool, and pulling the BHA. One hour was spent
running a magnetic survey below the casing shoe and 2.5 hours
was spent making up the new BHA, running it, and pulling the
running tool. Table 1 shows the wireline speeds for these
operations.
Operation
TIH to retrieve
TOOH with BHA
TIH with survey
TOOH with survey
TIH with BHA
TOOH with running tool

Speed, ft/min
250
250
1000
1000
150
500

Table 1: Speed of wireline operations

Casing Wear. Commercially available rigid body centralizers

were tried without success on the surface hole of the deeper
well. They simply were not rugged enough to survive the
drilling operation. A new type of hard-faced centralizer was
designed for the 7 casing for the deeper field trial. This
centralizer, shown in Fig. 13 was composed of two parts: (1)
an outer steel sleeve carried the spiraled centralizer ribs and (2)
a split inner steel ring, tapered along its length to match a taper
on the ID of the outer ring, provided a tight fit on the casing
OD.
The inner ring was placed on the casing about five feet above
the pin end and the outer sleeve was heated and driven onto the
inner sleeve so that a heat shrink fit was obtained. Five of
these centralizers were run on the lower end of the 7 casing to
provide centralization across the pay zone during cementing.
There were several instances where the casing was pulled from
one of the shallow field trials and no significant wear was
observed on the casing. The casing was also pulled from the
deeper field trial at a depth of 6480 ft after about 1.25 million
rotating cycles. The couplings were quite heavily worn on the
bottom 25 joints, except there was almost no wear on the
couplings adjacent the centralizers. The worn joints were
removed and inspected and no wear was detected on the tube
bodies. The hard-faced centralizers had done an adequate job
of protecting the couplings in the places they were used, but an
insufficient number were used for complete wear protection.

Figure 13: Rigid shrink-on Centralizer

ROP Considerations. Further field trials are required to
determine the best means for maximizing penetration rates. In
softer rocks the hydraulics for cleaning the bit and under
reamer are still not well understood. Runs have been made
where as much as half the flow was put across the underreamer
and in other cases all the flow was put across the pilot bit. No
definite conclusion has been made about how to optimize the
hydraulics, but it appears that the new underreamer design will
allow most of the flow to be put through the pilot bit.
There is some evidence that the CDS can drill relatively hard
rock faster than a conventional drilling system. At this point
the data may not be overwhelming conclusive, but neither is it
trivial.
Figure 14 shows three significant bit runs from the Casing
Drilled portion of the deeper trial where a Tesco designed PDC
underreamer was used in rock that is not normally considered
PDC drillable (based on the sonic log). These runs employed
large diameter (19mm) PDC cutters in a design that was
developed based on the proposition that hard rock can be
drilled effectively with relatively few large cutters set at
aggressive rake angles.
The first run from 3847 ft to 4972 ft used a PDC pilot bit set
with 13 mm cutters on seven blades and is typical of the design
practices for medium hard rock. The combination bit and
under reamer drilled for 1091 ft ( 3836 4927) at an average
penetration rate of 23 ft/hr. As shown in Fig. 14 the
undereamer cutters were only slightly worn and were rerunnable while the heavier set PDC bit sustained more cutter
damage and was not re-runnable before being repaired.
What is not evident from the data is that during the entirety of
this run the rig was having difficulty with the automatic driller
which reduced the overall ROP. The ROP probably could
have been increased to 30 ft/hr if the auto-driller had been
performing as well as it did later in the well. This would have

IADC/SPE 59179

CASING DRILLING APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

This run provided strong evidence of the potential for the

Casing Drilling system to drill hard rock effectively with low
rotary speed and high WOB, provided the appropriate bit and
underreamer designs are used. It demonstrated that the
underremer can be run with high WOB and torque without
being damaged and that the underreamer appears to be as
durable as the roller cone bits.
Following the Casing Drilling in the deeper field trial a second
well was drilled conventionally in the same field with the same
rig. (The second well was started as a Casing Drilled well but
was switched to conventional drilling because of fault induced
deviation control problems.) The penetration rates in this well
at depths below the directional work provide a direct
comparison of the ROP from Casing Drilling to conventional
drilling under similar conditions.
Down to a depth of approximately 6400 ft, the casing drilled
well averaged 15.8 ft/hr while the conventionally drilled well
averaged 12.5 ft/hr. Certainly the deviation control problems
in the second well mitigate the value of this comparison
somewhat, but the fact remains that the Casing Drilled ROP
was higher, but neither well was as good as the best offset in
the field.

5395 - 5954 ft

On the following run a new set of underreamer arms (same

design) was run with another roller cone insert bit. This bit ran
for 526 ft at an average penetration rate of 13 ft/hr. Figure 15
shows the detailed drilling data collected from the data
acquisition system. (The auto driller was working quite well
for this run.) After drilling about 200 ft at a penetration rate of
8 12 ft/hr the WOB was increased from 20,000 lb to 40,000
and the ROP increased to 20 ft/hr. This penetration rate (20
ft/hr) was sustained for about 300 ft before the run was
terminated at a survey point. The under reamer arms sustained
No Damage or Wear while drilling this interval of hard rock.
The ROP of this interval (6200 to 6500 ft) exceeds the best run
in all the offsets (17.7 ft/hr) and there is no reason to believe
that it could not have been sustained for several hundred more
feet.

5954 - 6480 ft

The same underreamer arms were re-run with an insert roller

bit from 5395 -5854 ft through a section that was significantly
harder. Here the bit and UR drilled for 558 ft at 10.3 ft/hr. As
shown in Fig. 14 when they were pulled the UR PDC cutters
had sustained significant wear, but were not broken and were
still in a better overall condition than the roller cone bit. Over
this run the WOB was limited to 20,000 lb to keep the torque
from exceeding about 4000 ft-lb. The loss of inserts on the
roller cone bit is indicative of solids erosion on the cone shells
caused by poor hydraulics. Improved hydraulics would have
also improved the drilling rate as well as making the bit last
longer.

3847 - 4927 ft

exceeded the ROP of the best offset including the fact that it
was drilled with a mud motor.

Figure 14: Three bit and underreamer runs in relatively

hard rock.
Figure 16 shows detailed drilling data for a bit run (HP53A)
from the second well drilled with a conventional rotary drillstring (4 drill pipe and 18 drill collars) at similar depths to
those discussed for the Casing Drilling run shown in Fig. 15.
This run was at a depth where deviation control and directional
target problems had been largely resolved. Comparison of the
two runs indicate that the run with the CDS had better
penetration rate and similar bit life.
Figure 16 shows cases of drill-string torsional oscillation that
often occur when running high WOB (40,000 lb) and low
rotary speed in hard rock with a conventional drill-string.
Figure 17 shows the following run (HP53A) where a straight
hole motor was used and the torsional oscillations were
eliminated, even though the drillstring rotational speed was
slower (40 rpm compared to 80 rpm). This indicates that the
oscillations were primarily excited by the bit rather than drillstring friction.
Bit induced torsional drill-string oscillations are normally
worse with a PDC bit than with a roller cone bit and are often
responsible for premature failure of the PDC cutters.14 The
torque was extremely smooth with the Casing Drilled well (Fig

10

TOMMY WARREN, PER ANGMAN, BRUCE HOUTCHENS

14) even though the WOB was high and rotary

speed low. This seems to indicate that the torsional
stiffness and mass distribution of the casing
provides a smoother drive system than the drill
pipe and drill collars of a conventional drillstring.

IADC/SPE 59179

50

WOB, 1000 lb

40
30

ROP, ft/hr

20

In addition to the torsional vibration that is evident

on the torque trace, PDC bits in hard rock also
generally cause torsional resonance of the drill
collars at a frequency too high (20 hz for 18 drill
collars) to be observed at the surface.15 There is
some indication that torsional resonance is also
very damaging to PDC cutters, but no evidence of
this type of damage was seen on the PDC
underreamer cutters.
It appears that the casing provides a rotational
drive system that allows the PDC cutters on the
underreamer to be run successfully at high WOB
and low rpm. Providing a torsionally smooth drive
system is essential to taking advantage of the
potential to use large PDC cutters set at aggressive
rake angles to drill hard rock. It may be possible to
extend this concept to the pilot bit, but even if not,
the runs in the deeper trial well show that the PDC
underreamer can be run successfully behind a
roller cone pilot bit in hard rock.
Summary
The CDS has been run in portions of ten wells to
prove and refine the tools and operational
procedures. Although there have been numerous
stumbles along the way, the overall Casing
Drilling system has proven to drill effectively and
work is still ongoing to define economic
applications for the system. The performance of
the PDC underreamer behind a roller cone bit in
relatively hard rock has been quite encouraging.
Penetration rate performance in softer rock still
needs to be enhanced, but more drilling experience
is likely to provide this improvement.
Increased confidence has been gained in the
method used to cement the casing in place and
buckling does not seem to be a significant problem
when the casing to hole clearance is small. An
effective casing centralizer for use while drilling
has been developed. Overall the work done to date
with the CDS has proven that a casing drilling
system has merit, but more experience needs to be
gained with the system to improve reliability and
better define the best economic applications for the
CDS.

10

Torque, 1000 ft-lb

0
5900

6000

6100

6200

6300

6400

6500

Depth, ft

Figure 15: Performance of Tesco underreamer and EHP51H bit.

75

Torque Oscillation

Torque, 100 ft-lb

50

WOB, 1000 lb
25

ROP, ft/hr

0
5800

5900

6000

6100

6200

6300

Depth, ft
Figure 16: Performance of standard rotary drilling assembly.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Torque, 100 ft-lb

6300

WOB, 1000 lb
ROP, ft/hr

6400

6500

6600

6700

6800

6900

7000

Depth, ft

Figure 17: Performance of straight hole motor assembly.

7100

IADC/SPE 59179

CASING DRILLING APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

References
1. Santos, Helio, Placido, J. C. R., and Wolter, Claudio,
Consequences and Relivance of DrillstringVibration on
Wellbore Stability, SPE/IADC paper 52820, presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Mar. 911, 1999.
2. Tessari. R. M., and Madell, Garret, Casing Drilling A
Revolutionary Appropch to Reducing Well Costs,
SPE/IADC paper 52820, presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Mar. 9-11, 1999.
3. Tessari. R. M., Madell, Garret, Warren, Tommy, Drilling
with Casing Promises Major Benefits, Oil and Gas
Journal, Vol. 97 No. 20, May 17, 1999, pp 58-62.
4. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P. R., Drillpipe Buckling in
Inclined Holes, JPT, p1734-1738, Oct. 1984.
5. He, Xiaojun, and Kyllingstad, Age, Helical Buckling and
Lock-Up Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved wells,
SPE Drl & Comp, p10-15, March 1995.
6. Mitchell, R. F., Buckling Analysis in Deviated Wells: A
Practical Method, SPE Drl & Comp, p11-20, March
1999.
7. Schuh, F. J., The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for
Pipe in Inclined Curved Boreholes, SPE/IADC paper
21924, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Mar. 11-14, 1991.
8. Rollins, H. M., Drill Pipe Fatigue Failure, Oil and Gas
Jour., April 18, 1966.
9. Hossain, M. M., et al, Fatigue Life Evaluation: A Key to
Avoid Drillpipe Failure Due to Die-marks, SPE/IADC
paper 47789, presented at the Asia Pacific Drilling
Conference, Jakarta, Sept. 7-9, 1998.
10. Baryshnikov, Anatoly, et al, Downhole Tool Full Scale
Fatigue Test: Experience and Practice Recommendations,
Energy Week Conference & Exhibition, Houston, Jan. 2830,1997.
11. Wu, Jiang, Model Predicts Drill Pipe Fatigue in
Horizontal Holes, Oil and Gas Jour., Feb 3, 1997.
12. Laurent, M, Angman, P, and Oveson, D., Hydraulic Rig
Supports Casing Drilling, World Oil, Sept. 1999, pp 6166.
13. Sinor, L. A., Powers, J. R., and Warren, T. M., The
Effect of PDC Cutter Density, Back Rake, size, and Speed
on Performance, SPE/IADC paper 39306, presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Mar. 3-6,
1998.
14. Brett, J. F., The Genesis of Bit-Induced Torsional Drillstring Vibrations, SPE/IADC paper 21943, presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Mar. 1114, 1991.
15. Warren, T. M. and Oster, J. H., Torsional Resonance of
Drill Collars with PDC Bits in Hard Rock, SPE 49204,
presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 27-30, 1998.

11