OTC 13991

Development and Implementation of a Top-Tensioned Riser for Drilling, Completion

and Producing Operations
K.M. Craik, SIEP Inc., G.T. Ju, SIEP Inc., J.L. Peterson, SEPCo Inc., B.R. James, SIEP Inc., K.D. Castleman, SEPCo Inc.

Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference

addition to documenting these hazards and the risk mitigation
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in strategies, this paper also addresses design considerations,
Houston, Texas U.S.A., 6–9 May 2002.
potential benefits, and limitations of this concept.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to Introduction
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, Brutus is a Tension Leg Platform (TLP) installed in 2985’ of
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
water on the Green Canyon 158 block in the Gulf of Mexico,
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The approximately 165 miles southwest of New Orleans (Figure
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. 1). Gross recoverable reserves are in excess of 250 million
bbls of oil equivalent. Owned 100 percent by Shell
Exploration and Production Company (SEPCo), the hub class
Abstract
TLP is designed to accommodate eight platform wells and has
For the Brutus tension-leg-platform (TLP), a total of eight
payload and deck space for up to five future subsea
wells were required for field development. Five were pre-
development tie-ins. The dual train facilities can process up
drilled to total depth before the TLP was installed at the site.
to 130 MBOPD and 165 MMCFD. The oil (20”) and gas (20”)
These wells are referred to as “pre-drilled” wells, and they will
pipelines tie into existing pipeline infrastructure 23-25
be completed and produced through 10-¾” production risers.
miles away.
The remaining three wells, referred to as “batch-set” wells,
were pre-drilled to an intermediate depth, and their 13-5/8”
Initial design work on the project began in 1997 during a
casing strings were set. Final drilling for these three wells will
period of severely depressed oil and gas prices. In order to
be performed by the TLP rig.
meet minimum acceptable profitability hurdles the project
focussed on three objectives: Reducing project equipment
In a departure from Company practice on the Auger, Mars,
costs, time to first oil, and well drilling and completion costs.
Ram/Powell, and Ursa TLPs, drilling to total depth on these
The use of Combo Risers helped permit the project to meet all
three batch-set wells will not be performed through a 21”
three objectives.
drilling riser system. Instead, a new concept was developed
and approved for this project. 13-¾” top-tensioned risers will
Conventional Drilling/Completion Program
be used to drill, complete, and produce these wells. This
The well plans for the Brutus wells were based on experiences
combination or “Combo Riser” results in significant project
from the discovery well and two appraisal wells. The site
cost savings by removing the need for a purpose-built drilling
selected for the TLP, close to the first appraisal well, was not
riser system. Furthermore, the rig time requirement for
expected to have severe shallow water flows. However, 16”
drilling and completion of the three batch-set wells from the
casing was set across the potential water flow sands to isolate
TLP is reduced, since there is no drilling riser to install
them from the rest of the well intervals. The initial casing
and remove.
program (Figure 2) permitted a 4 ½” or 5” completion in 8-
5/8” production tieback casing. The 10-¾” production
Since the Combo Riser is used for all TLP drilling,
risers were designed to contain shut-in casing pressures
completion, and producing operations, the risk of riser damage
(SICP) equivalent to the design pressure for the 13-5/8”
resulting from normal drilling operations and potential drilling
protective casing.
hazards is greater than for typical production risers. Thorough
studies were therefore conducted in order to identify the
The wells were designed to be drilled in two stages. The
hazards associated with this concept, and mitigation strategies
initial intervals through the 16” casing were to be batch-drilled
were formulated and implemented to minimize risk. In
by a semi-submersible rig. Batch drilling would optimize the
2 K. M. CRAIK, G. T. JU, J. L. PETERSON, B. R. JAMES, K. D. CASTLEMAN
large-hole drilling and casing operations and minimize the
capital invested should the platform location need to be
abandoned because of shallow water flow problems. One or
two wells would be pre-drilled to total depth by the semi-
submersible rig to gain additional geologic information and
accelerate first oil.
After the TLP was installed, and the initial wells
completed, the intervals on the remaining wells would be
drilled by a contract TLP rig using surface BOPs, a 21”
drilling riser and a 13-5/8” high-pressure inner riser. The
critical time steps involved in drilling and completing the
wells are noted in Table 1.
Conventional Dual Drilling Riser
1. Skid TLP Rig
2. Run 21” Marine Riser
3. Nipple Up 20-¾” Blowout Preventers (BOPs)
4. Drill to 13-5/8” Casing Point
5. Run & Cement 13-5/8” Casing to Mud Line
6. Run 13-5/8” Inner Riser
7. Nipple Down 20-¾” BOPs
8. Nipple Up 13-5/8” BOPs
9. Drill to 11-¾” Casing Point
10. Run & Cement 11-¾” Liner
11. Drill to TD
12. Run & Cement 7-5/8” or 8 5/8” Production Liner
13. TA Well
14. Nipple Down 13-5/8” BOPs
15. Retrieve 13-5/8” Inner Riser
16. Run 13-5/8” x 10-¾” Casing Hanger Profile
17. Displace & Retrieve 21” Marine Riser
18. Run 10-¾” Production Riser
19. Nipple Up 13-5/8” BOPs
20. Clean Out TA Plug
21. Run Production Casing Tie Back & Cement.
22. Complete Well
Table 1. Conventional Dual Drilling Riser Critical Path Steps
Combo Riser Drilling/Completion Program
Upon review of the drilling and completion scope of work and
the well program, several cost and time reduction
opportunities were identified. It was noted that the 13-5/8”
casing interval was quite short and if drilled during the batch
setting operations, would eliminate the need to purchase a
large-bore drilling riser, high-pressure inner riser, and drilling
riser tensioner and rent a 20-¾” BOP. It would also remove
the time to drill that interval from the well’s critical path to
production. It was furthermore noted that if a single riser was
used to drill, complete and produce, the critical path steps
could be reduced from twenty-two to nine, (Table 2) saving
additional critical path time.
Offsetting these savings would be the additional cost to
drill the interval with a more expensive semi-submersible rig
OTC 13991
versus a lower cost TLP rig, and the additional cost of a
larger-than-required production riser system.
13-5/8” Combo Riser
1. Skid TLP Rig
2. Run 13-5/8” Combo Riser
3. Nipple Up 13-5/8” BOPs
4. Drill to 11-¾” Casing Point
5. Run & Cement 11-¾” Liner
6. Drill to TD
7. Run & Cement 7-5/8” or 8 5/8” Production Liner
8. Run Production Casing Tie Back & Cement
9. Complete Well
Table 2. Combo Riser Critical Path Steps
Analysis of Risk Associated with Combo Riser
A risk analysis of the Brutus Combo Riser was completed in
order to understand the economic risk associated with using it
and to determine whether it was economically justifiable
compared to a traditional dual drilling riser. While the Combo
Riser has benefits from reduced costs, accelerated production
and reduced risk from a riser drop, it has an increased risk
from blowouts because of its single barrier compared to the
dual barrier of the traditional TLP riser.
One of the major challenges was to carry out an effective
analysis despite a lack of quantitative information. Therefore
the approach was to keep the quantitative analysis relatively
simple, while examining the problem from as wide a
viewpoint as possible. This approach was chosen for a
number of reasons:
1. A simpler approach is more transparent to decision
makers than a complex one.
2. A detailed quantitative risk analysis would have been
difficult to carry out because of the complexity of the
problem and the lack of information.
3. A detailed quantitative risk analysis should not be relied
on solely for low-probability, high-consequence events
(Theofanus, 1999), such as a catastrophic blowout.
Sources of information used in the analysis included
numerous Company technical staff, external experts, existing
quantitative risk analysis studies of single production risers,
dropped object studies, historical blowout data, and past
experience with riser wear. The study relied most heavily on
historical data since it was felt that historical data was the
most reliable.
The decision tree used in the analysis is shown in Figure
3. The tree was kept large enough to capture major elements
of risk, but small enough to be able to intuitively understand
what was happening. Capturing every uncertainty would
result in a decision tree so large that it could not be practically
visualized in a meaningful way.
 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TOP-TENSIONED RISER FOR
OTC 13991 DRILLING, COMPLETION AND PRODUCING OPERATIONS
Riser drop was considered one of the major risks
associated with the traditional dual riser. Each time a riser is
installed or removed there is an inherent potential risk of it
being dropped. If the riser is dropped, the consequences are
assumed to be either minimal or extreme. Studies have shown
that as a riser drops, it will deform into a jumbled mass. In
the extreme case as it falls it can hit other risers causing them
also to fail. The potential cost can be in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
If the riser does not drop, there is a blowout risk, which
can be extreme, major, or limited. The extreme risk
consequence represents a major spill as well as the total loss of
the facility. The total cost of this event is in the billions of
dollars. The major risk consequence represents a smaller spill
with major damage to the facility. The limited risk
consequence represents a blowout with minor damage and a
small to negligible oil spill.
The risks associated with the Combo Riser are identical to
those associated with the dual riser. However, the probability
of the riser dropping is only one third of that of the dual riser
because only one riser run is involved in employing the
Combo Riser whereas three riser runs are used for the dual
riser. With regard to blowout risk, the risk has been divided
into two components, normal blowout risk and the incremental
risk brought on by using the single riser.
The results from the analysis indicated that the risk-
discounted cost of the Combo Riser was less than that of the
dual riser. The Combo Riser’s overall risk was lower that that
of the dual riser system because the increased risk from
blowouts, was more than offset by the reduction in riser
drop risk.
HAZOP Issues
Once the economic benefit of the concept was demonstrated, a
rigorous Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) review was
conducted in order to determine operability issues and identify
potential safety and environmental risks associated with the
Brutus Combo Riser system. In addition to the Brutus well
system team, a group of Company experts in drilling,
completion, production, offshore installation, materials
science, and QA/QC was also assembled to participate in the
HAZOP workshop. The workshop agenda was designed to
provide a systematic analysis of potential risk and system
operability issues followed by an opportunity to identify
candidate mitigation strategies for each issue. The basic
approach was:
1. Describe the system.
2. Go through a list of key risk guidewords until a relevant
hazard is identified.
3. Describe the hazard scenario and consequences, and
identify any safeguards currently in place to mitigate
the risk.
3
4. Perform a risk ranking of the hazard.
5. Recommend mitigation alternatives.
6. Assign project team members to follow up each item.
7. Record the results.
8. Repeat the process for all key guidewords.
Each identified risk was categorized as high, medium, or
low, based on likelihood of occurrence and severity of
consequence. A broad mitigation approach was assigned to
each category, as shown in the table below.
Risk Category Description and Mitigation Process
Items that fall in this high-risk category
should be mitigated. Sufficient risk
mitigation measures should be
implemented to lower the risk to a
tolerable level. The Company
High
Management Team should be made aware
of the presence of each risk in this
category. Approvals from the Company
Mamagement Team are required for any
operations that fall in this category.
Items in this category should be mitigated
on a cost/benefit basis. Recommended
mitigation actions should be implemented
only if determined cost-effective. The
Medium
Company Management Team should be
informed whenever non-mitigated
acceptance of an item in this category is
being proposed.
Items in this category represent areas
where the level of risk is acceptable
Low without mitigation. No Company
Management Team review or
concurrence is necessary.
Table 3. Mitigation Requirements for HAZOP-Identified Risks
From the HAZOP review of the concept, thirty-four scenarios
were identified that might pose unacceptable risks to the
project. Most of these scenarios fell in the “High” and
“Medium” risk categories, and can be further categorized
as follows:
Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC): Several
concerns from the HAZOP review were related to QA/QC of
critical riser equipment such as the wellhead tie-back
connector, stress joints, girth welding of riser joints, riser
connectors, and tensioner joints, since the concept is based on
the premise that no catastrophic failures of riser equipment can
be tolerated during operation. Examples of catastrophic
failures due to poor QA/QC of riser equipment range from
tieback connector failure due to poor metallurgy to parting of
the riser pipe body due to fatigue cracks emanating from
surface flaws.
4 K. M. CRAIK, G. T. JU, J. L. PETERSON, B. R. JAMES, K. D. CASTLEMAN
QA/QC of riser equipment has been a key issue in all of
Company’s previous TLP projects. In the past, the operation
philosophy has been to use dual-barrier protection while
drilling through hydrocarbon bearing sands and for well
completion with the reasoning that simultaneous catastrophic
failure of two mechanical components is not considered to be
a credible scenario. The Combo Riser concept departs from
this philosophy by drilling into pay sands with a single barrier.
Therefore, poor QA/QC leading to possible equipment failure
poses a major threat to the project.
Drilling Wear and Riser Damage: Historically, drilling wear
is accounted for in drilling riser and casing design and is
permitted, provided the pressure capacity of the tubular is
maintained above demand by a suitable safety factor. Pressure
capacity for these tubulars can be determined through testing
after any operation, and drilling riser joints can always be
inspected before they are used. The Combo Riser, however,
remains in place for the life of the well, functioning as the
production riser after being exposed to drilling and completion
operations. Since any drilling wear incurred by the riser will
not only lower the pressure rating of the riser but also reduce
its fatigue resistance, the Combo Riser concept has an
exposure to risk that is more significant than the exposure for
conventional production risers. Furthermore, detection of
minor drilling wear while the riser is in place can be difficult.
Uncertainty in the contour of the worn surface makes it
impractical to attempt to predict the remaining riser fatigue
life once wear occurs. For these reasons, drilling wear was
identified as one of the most critical areas of concern.
Another area of concern is riser damage induced by
running casing through the combination riser. Several TLP
drilling risers have had indications of impact damage to lower
drilling riser sections due to casing installation through the
riser. This damage is typically caused by sharp edges of the
casing connections coming into contact with the riser during
casing installation. Furthermore, most instances of this type of
damage have occurred with the TLP at a large offset because
of weather conditions. Since the Combo Risers will be used
as permanent production risers, it is critical to avoid this type
of impact damage.
Damage Caused by Operational Errors
Operational error is another major category of concern. One
of the most prominent examples is an insufficient riser tension
setting caused by operational errors during drilling. If the riser
tension is insufficient, significant doglegs can form in the riser
section, and serious drilling wear can occur if this happens
during drilling.
Well Control: There is concern over whether a well can be
secured in the presence of small riser leaks that may develop
during operations. As a result, the ability to kill the well in the
presence of small riser leaks was identified as a critical area
of concern.
OTC 13991
Personnel Training: Special operation procedures were
developed to help insure the success of this concept. Since
several of these procedures are unique to the Combo Riser
concept, there is concern over whether operators will receive
adequate training to operate the system, given its unique
requirements. Continuity of personnel who will be operating
the equipment is another concern.
All the areas of concern and each of the action items for
mitigating the risks that were identified in the HAZOP review
workshop have been systematically resolved and documented.
The resulting document was delivered to the Brutus Well
Systems project team, which had the responsibility for all
action items. Furthermore, the team was responsible for
reporting risk mitigation progress to the Brutus HAZOP
management team in order to ensure that all action items were
properly resolved.
Risk Mitigation
In order to mitigate the risks mentioned above, several novel
design approaches were taken for this riser, as summarized
below:
Pressure Rating of the Riser System: The design was
reviewed and verified to meet and/or exceed all Company and
regulatory requirements.
Fatigue Resistance Enhancement of Lower Riser Section:
Typically, fatigue life of production risers is designed to be 10
times the service life. Due to criticality to the concept and the
uncertainty of potential drilling wear, the lower section of the
riser near the stress joint was designed with enhanced fatigue
resistance greater than the above requirement.
Damage Protection: It is well known that fatigue resistance
of the riser can be significantly reduced if the riser inner or
outer surfaces are gouged. As a result, impact damage and
drilling wear must be avoided in critical sections of the riser
such as the stress joint. Unfortunately, it has been determined
that operational damage cannot be totally eliminated without
seriously reducing the allowable weather window for
operations. In order to maintain a reasonable operation
weather window, the Brutus Well System project team
adopted the idea of using a damage sleeve inside the stress
joint to protect it from potential damage induced by drilling.
This allowed drilling operations to continue in most sea
conditions.
Operational Guidelines: In order to reduce the risk of
potential riser damage from drilling operations and operational
errors, strict adherence to the following critical drilling
guidelines was required.
1. Use non-rotating drill pipe protectors (NRDPs) while
drilling through the Combo Riser.
2. Insure correct riser tension at all times by frequent
inspection and/or alarms.
 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TOP-TENSIONED RISER FOR
OTC 13991 DRILLING, COMPLETION AND PRODUCING OPERATIONS
3. Implement programs for initial inspection, riser testing,
and wear monitoring.
4. Develop procedures to prevent all down-hole tools,
casing, and operating procedures from damaging the riser.
5. Develop well control procedures for the scenario of a
leaking riser, and provide training for operations
personnel and drilling crews that will enable them to
manage such a situation.
The Company Management Team must approve any and
all operational deviations from these guidelines.
The Brutus Well Systems Team also included a special
chapter in the operation manual for Combo Riser operations.
Procedures associated with the above guidelines are clearly
documented and have been communicated to field operators
through this document..
Several training sessions were held to expose the rig
crews to the Combo Riser procedures as early as practical in
order for them to gain a basic understanding of how the
Combo Riser effects daily operations (use of NRDPs, no
shallow testing of MWDs, etc.) and expose them to the
planned contingency operations in order to give them
confidence in the safety of the system.
QA/QC of Riser Equipment: Strict QA/QC programs were
developed for critical riser components in order to reduce the
potential for gross component failure due to poor
manufacturing quality. The resulting inspection procedures
and requirements were clearly communicated to field
inspectors, and the Brutus Project Leadership Team audited all
quality programs with no significant negative findings.
Well Control Issues
During the development of the Combo Riser system, it was
obvious that a gross failure of the riser with no subsea BOPs
could not be tolerated. The absence of any pressure drop
across a hole in the riser and only a seawater gradient from
that depth up would likely make well control impossible. The
methods employed to substantially eliminate the chance of
gross riser failure are as discussed above. However, the
question remained, how would a “small leak” in the riser
system be handled.
Riser Erosion Tendency
A fundamental well control question is at what rate will a
small hole in a tubular enlarge. That is, from the time that a
leak is first detected, how much reaction time is available
before it has gotten totally out of hand. To answer this
question, a series of tests were performed using a 10-¾” test
chamber manufactured from riser material. To simulate a
small hole, erosion tests were conducted starting with a 0.125”
drilled hole and also with a slot measuring about 0.07” by
0.30”. Water based drilling fluid was pumped at a constant
800 psi (the anticipated maximum pressure differential) and
5
the rate of mud loss through the hole (or slot) was measured.
Tests were performed using both clean 13.5 ppg mud and the
same mud with one percent Oklahoma No. 1 sand added. One
percent was selected because it represents a maximum likely
concentration of sand. Typically the concentration observed is
a trace.
In all of the tests, the initial loss rate through the hole was
over 18 barrels per hour (BPH), which is above the loss rate
that is expected to be easily detected in normal rig operations.
In addition, the loss rate did not change significantly over the
course of the tests which all lasted over 16 hours. In fact, the
data plotted as a straight line. Therefore, based on these
tests the erosion does not appear to be as dramatic as may
be expected for drill pipe operating at a higher
differential pressure.
Riser Hole Plugging
At the conclusion of the above erosion tests, plugging tests
were conducted using a more-or-less conventional coarse lost
circulation material (LCM) pill. It was concluded that LCM
would plug and seal over 1,000 psi differential pressure for
holes 0.25” and smaller but would not seal 0.500” holes.
Subsequent tests using conventional ball sealers found (as
expected) that a single ball would seal a hole that was slightly
smaller than the ball. However, it was not possible to achieve
a “wedging effect” with more than one ball trying to exit a
hole at the same time, initiating a bridge to be further plugged
with LCM.
Well Control
The above tests established that there should be time to deal
with a small hole in the riser; the problem was to determine
the best method(s) of well control for all practical cases.
These methods or procedures were developed by a team
composed of drilling operations staff that could be expected to
be on-site if a problem occurred and drilling engineering staff.
The recommendations were reviewed by experienced
engineering, operations, and management personnel and found
acceptable. It is important to note that the primary premise in
these operations is to SAVE THE ASSET – DON’T WORRY
ABOUT SAVING THE WELL!! The conclusions are
as follows:
Hole in Riser That was Not Initiated by a Well Kick: The
following cases were considered:
1. Pipe out of the hole
2. Drilling or tripping
3. Wire line operations
4. Cementing a liner
5. Running a liner
6 K. M. CRAIK, G. T. JU, J. L. PETERSON, B. R. JAMES, K. D. CASTLEMAN
After extensive review and discussion the following
fundamental plan was formulated for use any time there is lost
circulation:
1. Keep the hole full of the original mud weight (do not fill
the hole with seawater).
2. Jump the ROV and inspect the riser for a leak. Assuming
that a leak is found,
3. Continue to keep the hole full of the original mud weight
while the formation is isolated, typically by setting a
bridge plug and a retrievable test tool as deep as possible
below the mud line. Two tools are required to provide a
dual barrier and a method to test to ensure that they are
holding. When running or cementing a liner, the logic is
similar but the sequence of the steps is different
depending on where you are in the process and the use of
liner isolation packers or retrievable test tools.
4. Spot a riser margin kill mud.
The above logic was adopted because it was relatively
simple and consistent. The “flow chart” method was adopted
to work the alternatives after much time was spent with the
“detailed prognosis” method. The “flow chart” was also
adopted for training and field procedures because it was easier
to define the well control stages and processes for a variety
of situations.
It is important to note that cement is not used except as it
would normally be used for the liner cementing. Emotionally,
cement is typically a first thought, however, considering the
difficulty of cementing a liner top or setting side track plugs,
cement is not believed to be as reliable a method (by itself) for
positive isolation as a packer type tool.
Hole in Riser Initiated by a Well Kick: Well control of a
kick should include the assumption that there is a hole in the
riser. As noted above, this is done by inspection of the riser
with the ROV throughout the well control operation. In some
applications it can also be done by pressuring up on the riser
and observing the response. The following procedures were
developed to maintain/reestablish well control if a hole was
discovered during the course of a well control event.
If a hole in the riser is determined when the primary well
control is nearly completed (i.e. heavy mud almost in place to
keep the formation static) then finish the displacement and
continue similar procedures as in the above case of drilling or
tripping to isolate the formation.
If the hole in the riser is located when the primary well
control is not as far along, then bullhead the maximum mud
weight that can be easily mixed on the rig, with sufficient
volume to have the hydrostatic pressure slightly above the leak
off pressure at the casing shoe. The strategy is to keep the
mud moving down, not up, while tripping to pick up a
retrievable bridge plug. Since the well may or may not be
static, a retrievable bridge plug is used, as it will take less time
OTC 13991
to get it into place. The formation can then be isolated with a
combination of cement and mechanical devices.
Field Implementation
A well thought-out plan for the specific well location, casing
program, etc. is required in order to implement the
contingency procedures. It should not be expected that one
method will meet all requirements, but the above logic should
be a start. Training of all key persons in the process is
essential and all have to buy into the plan up front. During a
well problem is not the time to expect to be able to correctly
think out other alternatives. A flow chart is suggested for the
basic well control plan. However, detailed procedures are
necessary for the specific pieces of equipment to be used and
these pieces of equipment must be on board and ready to run
in the event of a well problem. This would also include
specifics on mud for bull-heading operations and the possible
but undesirable option of using seawater (to fill the annulus)
combined with surface pressure in lieu of the original weight
mud. The age-old rule to “keep the hole full” is one of the
basic tools. Therefore, the importance of the “trip tank hand”
should not be underestimated. That person needs to pay
attention to detail and must be left alone to do their job and not
be called off station to do something else when there is open
hole in the well!
Benefits and Limitations of Combo Risers to Brutus
The use of a Combo Riser for three wells at Brutus permitted
the project to achieve its objectives of reducing the project
equipment costs, reducing time to first oil and full production,
and reducing the well drilling and completion costs. The
savings from reduction in project equipment costs resulting
from the elimination of the drilling riser system was $10
million, which includes the increased costs of the 13-¾”
Combo Riser system versus the 10-¾” production riser
system. The acceleration to production for the three wells
due to pre-drilling the additional hole section was 12 days.
The reduction in time for the three wells resulting from the
elimination of the 21” riser and 13-5/8” inner riser installation
and retrieval operations was an additional 12 days.
Benefits to future projects
Some of the benefits that future projects may accrue using a
Combo Riser program, include the following:
1. Reduction in risk of dropping riser. Once the production
platform is installed, only one riser run per well is
required as opposed to three runs with a dual casing
drilling riser and production riser.
2. Possible reduction in the size of the floating structure.
Area and buoyancy do not have to be built into the
structure to store a dedicated drilling riser and inner riser.
3. Reduction in rig requirements. In deeper water it may be
possible to use a smaller rig because the rig will not be
required to retrieve and support a large-bore drilling riser
and inner riser.
 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TOP-TENSIONED RISER FOR
OTC 13991 DRILLING, COMPLETION AND PRODUCING OPERATIONS 7

Limitations to Future Projects
Although the Combo Riser system resulted in savings to
Brutus and appears to have applications for other deepwater
developments, it has some limitations as noted below.
1. A well program requiring a deep intermediate casing
interval to be drilled by the more expensive semi-
submersible rig will adversely impact economics.
2. Geologic uncertainty may preclude committing to an
intermediate casing shoe location during batch
setting operations.
3. Long intervals to be drilled through the Combo Riser
increase the possibility of riser damage.
4. For large well counts the additional weight of the Combo
Risers, if larger than the conventional risers, may require
upsizing of the structure or may limit future facility
expansion possibilities.
Complacency with time and failure to adhere to the
safeguards to avoid riser failures can be costly.
Exploration and Production Company Inc. for their permission
to publish this paper. Special recognition is owed to the
following individuals for their significant contributions toward
the development of the Combo Riser: J. D. Smith, R.
Gopalkrishnan, V. S. Kim, C. M. Maryan, R. D. Hounsel,
Shell International Exploration and Production Inc., J. L.
Duran and M. B. Whitaker, H. L. Shores, Shell Exploration
and Production Company Inc., and L. M. Todd, Shell Expro.
Nomenclature
TLP, Tension Leg Platform
TD, Total Depth
BOP, Blowout Preventers
TA, Temporarily Abandon
HAZOP, Hazard and Operability Review
QA/QC, Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NRDP, Non-Rotating Drillpipe Protectors
LCM, Lost Circulation Material
BPH, Barrels per Hour

Conclusion References
The use of Combo Risers permitted the Brutus project to Theofanus, T. (1998) Personal Communication, Director of
achieve three important objectives: reduce project equipment Center of Risk Studies and Safety, University at California at
costs, accelerate first oil, and reduce well drilling and Santa Barbara.
completion costs. In order to utilize this system, a departure
from previous riser systems, a thorough risk analysis and Metric Conversion Factors
HAZOP was undertaken. A series of operational guidelines 1 foot = 0.3048 meters
and detailed well control procedures were developed to ensure 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters
safe implementation and operation. 1 psi = 0.07031 kg/sq cm
1 barrel = 159.6 l
Acknowledgements 1 ppg = 119.82 kg/m^3
The authors wish to express their thanks to the management of
Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. and Shell

Figures

Figure 1. Location Map of the Brutus TLP

8 K. M. CRAIK, G. T. JU, J. L. PETERSON, B. R. JAMES, K. D. CASTLEMAN OTC 13991

Figure 2. Brutus TLP Well Casing Program

Figure 3. Combo Riser Decision Tree