IADC/SPE 150931

Multiple Criteria Casing Seat Selection Method

Bernt S. Aadnoy, SPE, Univ. of Stavanger; Eirik Kaarstad, SPE, Univ. of Stavanger; Mesfin Belayneh, SPE, Univ.
of Stavanger

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March 2012.

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 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 does not necessarily reflect
any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Well integrity has become an important subject in recent years. It implies that one or two well barriers must be in place at all
times in a well. The casing represents a central part of the barriers. A number of elements are involved in the selection of the
depth of a casing. These elements relate to pore pressure, geomechanics and well control. However, these elements are
evaluated separately in the well design process.
The paper presents a new integrated method for selection of casing seat locations that includes 1) the fundamental gas filled
casing criterion, 2) the minimum mud weight to drill next section, 3) the kick margin, 4) the riser margin, 5) assessment of the
weak point in the well and 6) the tubing leak criterion for the production casing. The weak point criterion compares casing
shoe strength with burst strength below the wellhead. The objective is to avoid failures below the wellhead, and to ensure that
the casing shoe represents the weak point in the well.
All these criteria are defined and integrated into a generalized casing depth model. Here the casing depth is chosen by deciding
on acceptable kick margins and casing qualities. The model is ideal for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis as all 6 criteria are
satisfied for the solutions chosen, and it is valid both for vertical wells and deviated wells. Examples are included in the paper.

This new method is considered one step towards a more systematic approach to ensure well integrity, and also as a tool to
optimize casing type-casing depth.

Introduction
Casing seats depths are usually selected out from pore pressure-fracture pressure constraints, and operational and wellbore
stability constraints.

In this publication we will define conditions for the following design constraint, and we will derive a common model which
encompasses all these criteria. The result is a model which shows the consequence if the casing seat is shifted, and it also
defines the minimum strength casing to be used.

The criteria evaluated are:

• The gas filled casing criterion, which assumes that the well is filled with formation gas and shut in. The top of the
casing must be sufficient strong to handle this.
• The mud weight required to drill from the casing shoe to the depth of next openhole section.
• The kick margin if the casing shoe is not providing full well integrity
• The riser margin if the well is drilled from a floating rig.
• The weak point in the well, which is constrained to be below the shoe and not below the wellhead.
• Leaking tubing criterion that requires that the production casing must be sufficiently strong to handle a leak in the
production tubing during testing or production.
2 IADC/SPE 150931

Because all pressures involved are hydrostatic, the solution depends on the true vertical depth. The solution is therefore valid
for all wellbore inclinations provided the true vertical depth is used. Note that for highly deviated wells a low hydrostatic
pressure may become very large as the kick fluid is circulated up the well. The relation between the projected height of the
kick and the actual kick volume should therefore always be evaluated.

Criterion 1: Gas filled casing

This is the most fundamental criterion. If well control fails and the entire well becomes filled with reservoir fluid, the casing
should be sufficiently strong to withstand the pressures during shut-in. This is vizualised in Figure 1. The reservoir pressure is
transmitted to the top of the well only reduced by the weight of a column of reservoir fluid. It is clearly observed that a low
density gas is negative as it results in a high wellhead pressure. The internal load pressure on the top of the casing is:
Pwhint = Po ! 0.098 d res (D ! Dwh )
For a subsea wellhead the external pressure depends on whether the casing is installed through the riser or not. When installing
the casing without riser, the external pressure is equal to the seawater pressure on the wellhead. If the casing is installed in
mud through the riser, the external pressure can be assumed to be equal to the mud pressure at the wellhead depth. However,
after installation the external pressure is not measured and cannot be verified. Because seawater pressure provides a more
conservative design, it is often applied for all casing strings. The external load pressure is then given by the equation:
Pwhext = 0.098 d w (D wh ! ha )
The burst loading on the casing is the difference between the inside and outside pressure. Including the safety factor this
becomes:
Pburst " SF [Po ! 0.098{dres (D ! Dwh ) + dw (Dwh ! ha )}] (1a)
Or expressing the pore pressure as a gradient:
Pburst
" (do ! d res )D ! (d w ! d res )Dwh + d wha (1b)
0.098SF
Rearranging equation 1b then yields the maximum permissible pore pressure gradient for the next open hole section if the
casing strength is given:
! !!"#$%
!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!"# ! !!! ! !! !! (2)
! !!!"# ! !"

This criterion only ensures that the casing is sufficiently strong in the top. Next criterion considers the open hole below the
casing.

Dwh

Dc
Pc=k!wDc
hres
D
Pwf =a+b Dc

Figure 1 – Definitions of gas filled casing (from Aadnoy, 2010)

IADC/SPE 150931 3

Criterion 2: Mud weight to drill next openhole section

This is the classic casing seat criterion, often called the down-up principle. For a given mud weight that exceeds the pore
pressure at the bottom, the formation at the shoe must not fracture. This is shown in Figure 2 that shows the 13-3/8 inch casing
shoe. Expressed as an equation:
!!" ! !! ! !!!"#!!"# ! ! !! (3a)
!"#
Or expressed as gradient when assuming !!"# ! !! :
d wf ! d o (3b)
For the shallower casings, the principle is no longer applicable as here is normal pore pressure. Other criteria like wellbore
stability issues, cost optimization issues or operational issues should be used here.

Figure 2 – Mud weigh Constraints (from Aadnoy, 2010)

Criterion 3: The kick margin

This criterion defines the condition where the open hole below the wellhead is sufficiently strong to drill the well. This is also
shown in Figure 1. If gas enters the well from the reservoir, the load below the casing shoe will be larger than when mud fills
the entire well. The reason is that the gas weighs less, thereby communicating a higher pressure upwards.

The scenario shown in Fig. 2 has zero kick margin as the mud weight gradient equals the pore pressure gradient at bottom and
the fracture gradient below the shoe. In practice one uses a margin for the fracture pressure. The fracture margin is actually a
factor of safety which is directly related to the kick margin; a high fracture margin gives a high kick margin.

The load below the casing shoe is simply the reservoir pressure minus the hydrostatic pressure caused by the gas and mud in
the interval between the reservoir and the casing shoe. Equilibrium is reached when the load below the casing shoe equals the
fracture pressure of the rock.
Pwf " Po ! 0.098[d res hres + d mud (D ! Dc ! hres )] (4a)

Or as a gradient:
d wf Dc " do D + (d mud ! d res )hres ! d mud (D ! Dc ) (4b)
4 IADC/SPE 150931

Because the casing depth is an unknown, the fracture pressure is not a constant but a function of depth.
!!" ! ! ! !!! (5)
For a given setting depth the maximum permissible kick volume, represented by hres, can be calculated.
!!" ! !!"# !! ! !!"# ! !! !
!!"# ! (6)
!!"# ! !!"#
If we assume that we drill the well as deep as can without expecting a kick, we can assume that the mud weight is equal to the
maximum pore pressure gradient in the open hole section. Reducing equation 6 yields:
!!" ! !!"# !!" ! !!!"#
!!"# ! !! ! !"# ! (7)
!!"# ! !!"# !! ! !!"# !

As pointed out by Rabia (1987) and Santos (2011) the effect of compressibility, thermal effects and annular capacity will
affect the calculated kick margin volume. Santos (2011) shows that the annular capacity generally is more important for short
open hole sections and that the effect of compressibility can become significant for long open hole sections. Neglecting the
temperature effect generally give a more conservative solution. For marginal design factors, these effects should be evaluated.

Santos (2011) also shows that other effects can significantly affect the kick tolerance calculations. Choke operator error,
annular and choke line friction, kick afterflow and influx density correction are all factors that influence the calculated results.
Simple calculations may result in an overly conservative design and it is important to consider all possible effects if a more
aggressive approach is desired.

Note also that different rules may apply for exploration wells and development wells when considering what pressure should
be used to represent the kick pressure. This can be accounted for by introducing a pseudo pore pressure, and is explained in the
next section.

Criterion 4: The riser margin on floating rigs and other pore pressure replacements
The theory behind the riser margin is that if the riser breaks suddenly, the hydrostatic head of the mud in the riser is replaced
by seawater, leading to a lower bottomhole pressure. The right hand side of Fig. 3 must balance the pore pressure at the
bottom of the well. Equilibrium demands that:
Po = 0.098[d mud (D ! Dwh ) + d w (Dwh ! ha )] (8a)
Or as a gradient:
' D $ (D ! ha )
d o = d mud %1 ! wh " + d w wh (8b)
& D # D

Figure 3 – Definition of riser margin (from Aadnoy, 2010)

IADC/SPE 150931 5

Figure 4 shows the result of the riser margin. If we drill with a heavier mud, pore pressure will be balanced if the riser breaks
off.

Figure 4 – Effects of riser margin (from Aadnoy, 2010)

From Figure 4 we now see that the casing setting depth is restricted by the minimum mud weight rather that by the pore
pressure itself. However, even if a riser margin is applied, a kick still have to be accounted for and it is assumed that the
minimum mud weight represent the potential kick pressure. Hence, the pore pressure in setting depth evaluations is replaced
with what we can call a pseudo pore pressure. The pseudo pore pressure for riser margin is obtained by rearranging equation
8b:
!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!
!!"
!!! ! !!"# ! (9)
! ! !!!
Note that such a pseudo pore pressure is also applied in kick tolerance calculations. Typically, a different kick pressure is
assumed for exploration wells than for development wells. The kick pressure used for calculations may be a correction of the
pore pressure itself, or a correction of the applied mud weight. Thus, in pressure load and setting depth calculations the real
pore pressure is replaced with a pseudo pore pressure that represents the possible kick pressure.

The riser margin is applicable for floating drilling rigs operating in moderate water depths. For deepwater drilling, the riser
margin often results in too high mud weights, beyond the fracture strength of the well. For deepwater applications the riser
margin is therefore usually neglected.

Criterion 5: The weak point in the well

Typically surface and intermediate casing strings have reduced integrity. They are not designed to take the full production load
on a well. The kick margin is actually a way to ensure integrity. If the reservoir fluid volume entering the wellbore is less than
the kick margin there is full integrity. Conversely a larger influx volume leads to loss of integrity as the casing shoe may
fracture when circulating out a kick.

In this section we will compare the casing burst strength at the wellhead to the formation strength below the casing. The
objective is to ensure that the weak point is the casing shoe. A failed casing at the wellhead may be catastrophic, whereas
circulation loss below the casing can be handled operationally.
6 IADC/SPE 150931

A “worst-worst” scenario is that the pore pressure is higher than predicted resulting in a gas filled well is that is loaded
towards failure. If the casing below the wellhead is loaded towards burst, the corresponding pressure below the casing shoe is
defined by the wellhead pressure plus the hydrostatic weight of the gas in the casing.
Pburst
+ 0.098d res (Dc ! Dwh ) = 0.098d shoe Dc
SF
The pressure gradient at the shoe becomes:
Pburst D ! Dwh
d shoe = + d res c (10)
0.098Dc SF Dc
The condition for the weak point to be below the shoe is that it fails below the casing before the casing burst at the wellhead,
or:
d shoe " SF ! d wf (11a)

critical
d shoe = SF ! d wf (11b)

Criterion 6: Leaking tubing

The analysis above relates to the shallower casing strings such as the surface and the intermediate casing strings. The
objective is to determine casing depths. The casing depths of the production casing is often selected from reservoir criteria,
e.g. by setting the production casing into the caprock above the reservoir. The production casin will always have full integrity.
We have, however, included the production casing in this analysis because during production the casing may fail at the level of
the production packer. This will be addressed in the following.

During well testing or production a leak may occur at the top of the production tubing just below the wellhead. The production
tubing usually installed on a packer in the bottom of the well. If a leak occurs, a high pressure is transmitted to the inside of the
production casing and the production casing is subjected to a burst load.

Because the leaking tubing criterion is relevant for production casing only, full well integrity may be assumed. Below the
wellhead the inside pressure of the tubing is equal to the inside pressure during gas filled casing. Therefore, the burst load
below the wellhead is also equal to the burst load during gas filled casing. The internal and external pressures of the casing can
now be expressed as follows:
!!"# ! !!!"#!! !!! ! !! ! !!!"#!!"#$%&'!!"#$% ! ! !!!

!!"# ! !!"#!!"##$%!!"#$%& ! !!!"#!!"#!$%!!"#$% ! ! !!!

The position of maximum load will now depend on the density of the fluids inside and outside the casing string, but typically
the top of the packer becomes the critical position. In the following we will assume that the packer depth is the critical, and
that as a worst case scenario the packer is located that the casing seat depth. This can e.g. be a likely scenario for completion of
a horizontal section. The maximum load can be expressed as follows:
!!"#$% ! !" !!"#!!"##$%!!!"#$% ! !!!"# !!"#!$%!!"#$% ! !!"#$%&'!!"#$% !! ! !!!
(12a)
! !!!"#!! !!! ! !!
Inserting for the gas filled casing pressure and expressing as a gradient yields:
!!"#$%
! !! ! ! !!"# ! ! !!! ! !!"#!$%!!"#$% ! !!"#$%&'!!"#$% !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! (12b)
!!!"#!"

This can now be solved for the casing setting depth:

!!"#$%
! !!"# ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !
!! ! !!! ! !!!"#!" (13)
!!"#!$%!!"#$% ! !!"#$%&'!!"#!"
Here we observe that if !!"#!$%!!"#$% ! !!"#$%&'!!"#$% the leaking tubing criterion becomes equal to the gas filled casing
criterion. If !!"#!$%!!"#$% ! !!"#$%&'!!"#$% the leaking tubing criterion will reduce the permissible setting depth of the casing
string compared to the gas filled casing criterion.
IADC/SPE 150931 7

Summary of conditions considered

Table 1 below show a summary of the conditions considered.

Criterion Fluid in annulus Condition Requirement Failure position

!"#
1. Gas filled casing Gas !!"#$% ! !" ! !!"#$ !!! Absolute Casing, below wellhead
2. Mud weight Mud !!" !! ! !! ! Absolute Formation, casing shoe
3. Kick margin Mud and gas !!" !! ! !! ! Optional Formation, casing shoe
4. Riser margin Mud plus seawater !!" !! ! !!! ! Optional Formation, casing shoe
!"#
5. Weak point Gas !!"#$% ! !" ! !!" !! Optional Formation, casing shoe
!"#
6. Leaking tubing Gas !!"#$% ! !" ! !!"#$ !! Absolute (prod casing) Casing, packer/casing shoe

For some practical applications, the six criteria will be combined into relevant scenarios. This will be shown in the following.

Scenario 1: Gas filled casing while drilling next openhole section

Gas filled casing and the ability to drill next openhole section are absolute requirements. If we combine equations 2 and 3b we
end up with the casing setting depth:
! !!"#$%
!!" ! !!!"# ! ! ! ! !!! !!"# ! !!! ! !! !! (14)
! !!!"# ! !"
where the fracture pressure gradient is a function of depth, !!" ! ! ! !!! . Inserting this into equation 14 yields:
!!"#$%
!!!"# ! ! !!!"# ! !" ! ! ! !!! !!"# ! !!! ! !! !! ! !" (15)
!! ! !
! !"

Scenario 2: Same as Scenario 1, but including riser margin

If we add the riser margin to the previous development, the pore pressure representing the kick pressure is replaced by the
pseudo pore pressure in equation 15. Thus, the minimum fracture gradient is now restricted by the pseudo pore pressure
representing the minimum allowable mud weight in the well. However, the maximum wellhead pressure is still determined by
the gas filled casing as described in equation 1a. The casing setting depth can now be determined by combining equations 1a, 2
and 9.
!!! ! ! !!"#$% ! ! !!"#
!! ! ! ! (16)
! !!!"#! ! ! !!! !" !

Scenario 3: Kick margin

Here we will evaluate the maximum kick margin for Scenario 1. That is, how much gas can enter the well without fracturing
the formation below the casing shoe. If the casing is set at a depth such that there is no margin between the fracture gradient at
the casing shoe and the maximum pore pressure gradient it is by default no kick margin at all. Therefore, the casing is set
deeper than the minimum depth to create some safety margin. This safety margin is defined by the kick margin.

If the section is being drilled with the minimum possible mud weight, !!"# ! !!!"# , we observe that the maximum kick
margin is equal to:
!!" ! !!!"# !"#$!%
!!"# ! ! (17)
!!!"# ! !!"# !
where !!!"#$!% ! !!!"#"!$! . If the calculated kick margin is larger than the volume of the open hole section, then we have full
well integrity.
!!"# ! ! ! !! ! !"##$%&##$'()&*+'),
!!"# ! ! ! !! ! !"#$%"#&'"((&)*+",-)+.

Scenario 4: Kick margin and riser margin

If we apply a riser margin in addition to the kick margin, we observe that the pore pressure gradient is replaced with a pseudo
pore pressure gradient (!!!"# is replaced by !!! ). In riser margin calculations, or other kick tolerance calculations, the applied
8 IADC/SPE 150931

pseudo pore pressure gradient is always larger than the initial pore pressure gradient. Replacing the maximum pore pressure
gradient in equation 17 to a higher value results is in a reduced kick margin.

Scenario 5: Weak point

Here we compute constraints for weak point. Using equations 10, 11 and the fracture gradient equation (Equation 5), one can
solve the casing constraint as:
2
' SF ! a ( d res $ 1 ' SF ! a ( d res $ C
Dc < (0.5% "+ % " + (18)
& SF ! b # 4 & SF ! b # SF ! b
where
Pburst
C= ! d res Dwh
0.098SF

Numerical example
In the following a numerical example on casing seat selection analysis is presented. The analysis was performed expressing the
fracture gradient curve as a single linear curve. A more complex fracture gradient curve does not change the procedure of
analysis, but will require more comprehensive calculations.

The casing seat that will be studied is the 13 3/8” casing as shown in figure 2 and 4. We assume that the next open hole section
is being drilled to 2400 mTVD. Two loss zones are shown at about 1100 and 1600 mTVD depth. The examples to follow
assume a safety factor against burst of SF = 1.3 and a reservoir fluid density of 0.20 s.g.

Converting the fracture gradient into a curve on the form !!" ! ! ! !!! yields a fracture curve as shown in figure 5.

*+,-$.+"&/+,01"2$&'34/4)&
%" %(&" %(#" %('" %($" &" &(&"
!"
#!!"
$!!"
!"#$%&'()&

%&!!"
%'!!"
&!!!"
&#!!"
&$!!"

Figure 5 – Single fracture gradient curve

Table 1 summarize other well data, and Table 2 presents casing burst pressures for some selected casings.

Table 1 – Well data

Density Depths
Mud Reservoir Sea Water Dwh (m) hf D

1,6 0,20 1,03 225 25 2400,00

IADC/SPE 150931 9

Table 2 – Burst pressure for 6 different casing strings

Pburst (bar)
Casing 1 Casing 2 Casing 3 Casing 4 Casing 5 Casing 6
SF =1.2 166,7 220,8 275 329,2 383,3 437,5

Figure 6 shows the results of the setting depth evaluations from Scenario 1 and 2. Assuming that the casing strength is equal to
the pressure load resulting from the open hole section a minimum casing shoe depth of 1300 mTVD is determined. If a riser
margin has to be accounted for the calculated setting depth increases to approximately 1530 mTVD.

These results are in good agreement with what we could expect by for example inspecting figure 4.

Applying equation 1a to compare the casing strength to the pressure loads show that the required casing strength is equal to
314 bar when including a safety factor of 1.2. From Table 2 we find that the best 13 3/8” casing will be casing no. 4.

In the example we have decided to place the casing seat at 1670 mTVD to seal off the lost circulation zone. Next step is now
to determine the resulting kick margins based on the setting depth. If we can neglect the riser margin equation 17 give us a
riser margin of 110 m (hres) while if the riser margin is included a riser margin of 31 m (hres) is found. Just as expected, we get
less kick margin when the riser margin has to be accounted for.

*+,-$.+"&/+,01"2$&'34/4)&
%" %(&" %(#" %('" %($" &" &(&"
!"
#!!" Fracture gradient

$!!"
!"#$%&'()&

%&!!" Gas filled casing and next section

Including riser margin
%'!!"
Selected casing depth
&!!!"
&#!!"
&$!!"

Figure 6 – Casing setting depth calculations

Summary and conclusions

The paper presents a new integrated method for selection of casing seat locations that includes 1) the fundamental gas filled
casing criterion, 2) the minimum mud weight to drill next section, 3) the kick margin, 4) the riser margin, 5) assessment of the
weak point in the well and 6) the tubing leak criterion for the production casing. The weak point criterion compares casing
shoe strength with burst strength below the wellhead. The objective is to avoid failures below the wellhead, and to ensure that
the casing shoe represents the weak point in the well.
All these criteria are defined and integrated into a generalized casing depth model. Here the casing depth is chosen by deciding
on acceptable kick margins and casing qualities. The model is ideal for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis as all 5 criteria are
satisfied for the solutions chosen, and it is valid both for vertical wells and deviated wells.
10 IADC/SPE 150931

Nomenclature
Po pore pressure at the bottom of next openhole section. Considered constant
Pwf fracture pressure below casing shoe. Is considered variable as the casing depth is not fixed.
Pburst the burst strength of the casing.
SF safety factor for burst. Defined as burst strength/burst load.
Pwh burst load below wellhead
dres relative density of reservoir fluid.
Do reservoir pressure gradient.
dmud relative mud density
dw relative seawater density = 1.03 sg.
dshoe pressure gradient at shoe when casing top is loaded to burst
dfrac Fracture gradient below shoe
ha air gap drillfloor sealevel
hres height of reservoir gas entering wellbore
D total well depth from drillfloor
Dcas depth to casing shoe
Dwh depth to wellhead at seabed from drillfloor

References

Aadnoy, B.S., (2010), “Modern Well Design”, 2nd edition, CRC Press/Balkema, ISBN 978-0-415-88467-9
Rabia, H., (1987), “Fundamental Casing Design”, Petroleum engineering and development studies - Volume 1, Graham and
Trotman, ISBN 0860108635
Santos, H., et. al., “Kick Tolerance Misconceptions and Consequences to Well Design”, paper presented at the 2011
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1-3 March 2011.