Reduced-clearance casing programs (

offer numerous advantages 1

(
1
1
Designing wells with smaller clearances between properties, etc. Pressure surges from 1
running casing strings were not crit- 1
casing strings allows for use of smaller rigs and ical design issues since there was 1
usually a large margin between for-
BOPS while maximizing production tubing sizes mation fracture pressure and for- 1
and well depth capabilities mation pore pressure. i
In today’s economic environment,
well designers cannot afford to leave i
J. W. Barker, Deepwater Drilling ing strings and drilled holes, which excessive margins between forma- (
Team Leader, Vastar Resources resulted in commonly used casing tion fracture pressure and formation 1
Inc., Houston and bit size combinations. Generally, pore pressure, even on routine wells. (
at least 0.6 to 0.8 in. of radial clear- More difficult wells also are being
Industry has relied on general ance were recommended between a drilled that are deeper and have
rules-of-thumb to determine clear- casing coupling and the design ID of higher formation pressures. Drilling
ance between casing strings. But in the next larger casing string. A hole problems are increasingly encoun-
today’s difficult cost environment, diameter 3 in. larger than casing OD tered that require surge pressure to
traditional design factors should be was recommended for ideal cement- be maintained within very narrow
challenged and an engineered solu- ing. These general rules-of-thumb limits while running and cementing
tion determined. When a detailed did not differentiate between appli- as many as six casing strings in a
engineering analysis is performed, cation variables such as depth, mud well. Each additional string adds sig-
these general rules-of- nificant cost and compli-
thumb o“fien are found to be cates the casing size selec-

~il!
conservative or out-of-date. Casing and 4 41f2 5 2 51/ tion process.
liner size, in. ,
This article presents /’ /’ Typically, the well design
/{ /’ /’ ,/’
methods for determining process begins with the
Bit and hole 4 3/ 5 7/ 6 1/8 6 1/2 7 7/
the acceptable clearance size, in.
4 8 8
selection of the desired size
/ ,
between casing strings for /’
,
/’
/ ’
/’
production tubing and
particular applications. The Casing and 6 5/8 7 ~
8 5, 85/8 9 5/8
moves up hole. With the
,3,4
result of optimizing clear- liner size, in.
/
, . ’
/ /
very high cost of deep, high-
ance between casing strings /’
,’
,’ /f
/’ / ’ -pressure wells, larger-sized
is that casing sizes often Bit and hole 7 7/ 8 81 j2 8314 9112 10 5/8 , .z 7,4 tubing strings capable of
size, in.
can be reduced, or addi- &I , / ’ conducting economical

‘~hO%%’’ Y”$
tional strings can be accom- flowrates are desired. Pro-
Casing
modated in the well design. duction casing greater than
This is important since 9%-in. OD often is required
more wells are being drilled to accommodate tubing sizes
with the combined chal- as large as 7-in. OD or large
lenges of high pressure, dual subsea completions.

8“’’’’$””’’”8M
high mud weight, high tem- Casing The large production tubing

‘~hoe
perature and deep depths. size constrains the design at
Such wells often require the bottom of the well, and
more casing strings to reach available blowout preven-
TD, yet designers are lim- ters (BOPS) will constrain
ited by existing rig equip- Casing the surface casing size. High
24 30
ment sizes and capabilities. size, in. 66 pressure BOPS, larger than
18%- to 20-in. ID are not rou-
BACKGROUND Fig. 1. In this casing selection chart, solid lines indicate commonly used bits for tinely available today. Fol-
Many years ago, indus- that pipe size, and can be considered adequate clearance to run and cement the lowing traditional rules-of-
casing or liner. The broken lines indicate less common hole sizes used. The selec-
try developed general rales- tion of one of these broken paths requires special attention be given to the con- thumb for selecting casing
of-thumb for clearance nection, mud weight, cementing and doglegs, (Reprinted with permission from clearances will likely
requirements between cas- Oi/ & Gas Journal, pg. 84, Oct. 8, 1978.) severely limit the number

42 WORLD OIL I MAY 1998

of casing strings that can be set. Table 1. Clearance between casing ID and coupling OD
Many operators are now chal-
API Clearance
lenging the traditional rules-of- Internal Coupling External Design Drift Casing lD-Cplg. OD
thumb for clearance between casing casing OD; in. - casing ID, k ID, in. Design ‘Dfift
OD and the drilled hole during run- in., ppf ID, in. ID, in.
ning and cementing operations. Common casing programs
Combinations with field experience
Newer synthetic muds, inhibited 4!4-in. IJ 4.600 6%, 32 5.675 5.550 1.075 0.950
muds and improved cements will 4!4-in. IJ 4.600 7,38 5.920 5.795 1.320 1.195
likely make this rule-of-thumb obso- 5-in. LTC 5.563 7%, 33.7 6.765 6.640 1.202 1.077
lete very soon. 7-in. LTC 7.656 9%, 47 8.681 8.525 1.025 0.869
7%-in. LTC 8.500 1 o%, 55.5 9.760 9.625* 1.260 1.125
In the past, drilling a hole larger 9%-in. LTC 10.625 13?4, 72 12.347 12.250* 1.722 1.625
than the last casing string ID was 10%-in. Buttress 11.750 16,84 15.010 14.822 3.260 3.072
difficult and costly. However, recent 13?&in. Buttress 14.375 20,94 19.124 18.936 4.749 4.561
advances in concurrent drilling and 16-in. Buttress 17.000 20,94 19.124 18.936 2.124 1.936
16-in, IJ 16.465 18%, 94.5 17.705 17.517 1.240 1.052
hole opening technology have made Possible combinations
drilling larger-than-casing-ID holes 18-in. IJ 18.100 20,94 19.124 18.936 1.024 0.836
economical and almost trouble-free,
even in larger hole sizes. 1–3 Many Close-clearance casing programs
Combinations with field experience
new casing grades, sizes and con- 5-in. IJ 5.360 7.32 6.094 8.000’ 0.734 0.640
nections are available with only 5’kin. FJ 5.500 7; 23 6.366 6.250’ 0.866 0.750
slight price increases over tradition 5’%-in. IJ 5.807 7%, 33.7 6.765 6.640 0.958 0.833
API casing. These factors have made 7%-in. IJ 8.010 9%, 47 8.681 8.525 0.671 0.515
8%-in. IJ 8.773 10%, 60.7 9.660 9.504 0.887 0.731
the minimum acceptable clearance 9%-in. IJ 10.100 11%, 65 10.882 10.625” 0.582 0.525
between casing strings the limiting 11%-in. IJ 12.000 14,92.76 12.700 12.544 0.700 0.544
factor in wellbore and casing design. 13%-in. Buttress 14.375 16,84 15.010 14.822 0.635 0.447
Fortunately, technology and 16-in. Buttress 17.000 18%, 94.5 17.705 17.517 0.705 0.517
improved equipment now permit the Very close-clearance casing programs
engineered optimization of clearance Combinations with field experience
between casing strings, thus, lower- 7%-in. IJ 8.226 9% 53.5 8.535 8.500’ 0.309 0.274
ing well costs or allowing even more 9%-in. IJ 9.750 1 0%, 40.5 10,050 9.894 0.300 0.144
11%-in. IJ 12.000 13%, 72 12.347 12.250” 0.347 0.250
casing strings in a well. 13%-in. FJ 13.375 15,77.43 14.000 13.812 0.625 0.437
13%-in. Proprietary 14.522 16%, 130 15.000 14.771 0.478 0.249
TRADITIONAL CASING Possible combinations
SIZE SELECTION 16-in. IJ 16.465 18,94 17.000 16.812 0.535 0.347
A flow chart maybe used to sum- “AH specisl drift ID
marize standard casing size combi-
nations, Fig. 1. In addition, Table 1
summarizes the clearance typically thermally stable polycrystalline dia- casing before setting surface casing
found between casing couplings and mond bits, which can be designed and installing BOPS. Many Gulf of
the next larger casing ID for both and built in any diameter. Mexico (GOM) deepwater operators
standard well designs and reduced- Standard marine subsea wellhead have elected to add conductor casing
clearance well designs. Note that and casing hanger systems are to control shallow, below the mud-
typical casing programs have greater designed to accommodate five casing line, abnormally pressured sands.
than l-in. clearance between cou- strings. The first string normally is
pling OD and ID of the external cas- 30- or 36-in. structural casing REDUCED-CLEARANCE
ing. Also note that clearance installed on a low-pressure wellhead. CASING SIZE SELECTION
between smaller OD tubulars is gen- The high pressure wellhead and 18%- The first step in designing a
erally smaller than the clearance in. BOPS are installed on 20-in. sur- reduced-clearance wellbore is to
between larger OD tubulars. Most face casing. A low pressure wellhead review industry experience. Table 1
slim-hole well designs follow these hanger profile for 16-in. OD casing includes a summary of very close-
same casing clearance rules-of- can be added to the standard well- clearance casing strings that have
thumb, but use only the smaller hole head system. Casing hangers and been used, plus proposed casing com-
sizes and casing programs. 5 seal assemblies for three casing binations. Generally, the very close-
Many of the standard casing sizes strings typically are provided in the clearance casing applications were
used were originally chosen ta accom- high pressure wellhead. With these first used when an unforeseen prob-
modate standard bit sizes. This con- constraints, the addition of casing lem caused an unplanned need for
cern has been minimized by the evo- strings must be accomplished by an additional string. After the prece-
lution of polycrystalline diamond and using liners or adding a conductor dent of the very close-clearance pro-

WORLD OIL I MAY 1998 43

 mation when running casing is to
I
Table 2. Non-APl casing specifications
use automatic fill or differential fill
OD, in. Weight, Wall thickness Design ID Coupling OD float equipment. With this equip-
range, ppf range, in. range, in. range, in.
ment, most of the mud in the well is
8 31.0-70.8 0.375-0.937 7.250-6.126 8.000-8.386
8% 32.5-74.2 0.375-0.980 7.263-8.053 8.125-8.450 allowed to flow inside the pipe as it is
9 40.0 0.425 8.150 9.000 being run. The balance of the mud
w. 59.2 0.595 8.560 9.969 still flows up the casing annuli,
9% 62.a72.l 0.625-0.725 8.625-8.425 9.875-11.047
bypassing the casing.
10 69.8-130.3 0.672-1.400 8.658-7.200 10.000-11.404
11% 71.8 0.582 10.711 11 .87S1 2.835
12 68.0-86.5 0.547-0.707 10.908-10.586 12.204-13.125 Running speed. There is a practical
12%. 78.1 0.641 10.843 12.272-13.082 limit to the minimum casing running
1 W4 94.2-137.9 0.734-1.109 11.282-10.532 13.091-13.379
, z% 11.885 13.875
speed, which will prevent the casing
66.6 0.495
13% 80.4=81 .4 0.5784.580 12.348-12.340 13.740-13.954 from becoming stuck while running.
13% 88.2-105.0 0.625-0.760 12.375-12.105 13.625-14.625 Typically casing should not be run
14 82.5-135.2 0.562-0.950 12.878-12.100 1 4.306-15.3M slower than one joint in five minutes
15 77.5 0.500 14.000 15.149
14.881 16.427
or 0.13 fps. Maximum casing run-
16!4 95.6 0.566
18 105.0 0.562 16.876 18.100 ning speed is 30 to 40 sec per 40-ft
1836 111.0 0.550 17.688 20.000 joint (1.3 to 1.0 fps), and depends on
22 114.8 0.500 21.000 22.000 crew training and experience.
24!4 133.0-207.0 0.500-0.812 24.400-23.776 25.500-25.591
Common items shown in italics Mud viscosity. One of the largest
contributors to surge pressure while
running casing is drilling fluid vis-
gram was established, it often have proven field success while others cosity. The standard method to
became a routine well design tool. have limited, if any, field experience. describe a fluid’s flow behavior is the
One of the smallest clearance viscosity-gel (VG) meter. Generally,
applications that has been used is an COMPLICATING FACTORS the higher the fluid viscosity, the
11%-in. high-clearance comection run A significant engineering problem higher the VG meter reading will be.
in 13%-in., 72 lb per ft (ppf) casing. when using a reduced-clearance The optimum for reducing surges
This combination has been used rou- tubular is the surge created in the while running casing will be a fluid
tinely in GOM shelf and deepwater drilling mud while running casing. with very low VG meter measure-
as a method to facilitate adding an Conventional cementing float equip- ments, or with low plastic viscosity
extra casing string. Typically, 11%-in. ment installed on the bottom of cas- (PV) and yield point (YP). In most
near-flush joint casing connections ing usually has a flapper or ball cases, low-density muds have lower
are used, and the drilled hole below check, which does not allow mud in PVS than higher density muds, and
the 13%-in. casing is underreamed to the well to flow inside the casing as will help control surge pressures
about 14% in. The 11%-in. casing typ- it is lowered into the well. Mud in while running casing strings. From
ically is run in low mud weights as a the well must bypass the casing and an engineering standpoint, the clos-
shallow, short liner and the 13%-in. flow up the casing annuli as casing is est casing tolerances should be used
pipe is specially drifted to 12X in. No lowered into the well. A surge is cre- in lower viscosity muds rather than
other special dimensional tolerances ated as the viscous mud is forced to in high density muds, which are usu-
or gauges are typically performed. flow up the small annuli. The surge ally more viscous.
When running an 11%-in. liner in pressure must be managed to pre- An old technique is to reduce mud
13%-in. casing, it is not uncommon to vent exceeding formation fracture viscosity just before running casing,
run the liner at very slow speeds ini- pressure and causing mud loss. e.g., by adding large volumes of
tially. If partial or complete lost The primary factors that are con- water to a water-base mud. This
returns occur, casing running speed trollable and affect pressure surges reduces mud viscosity and lowers
usually is adjusted to produce accept- when running casing are: surge pressures. For most muds,
able mud loss rates. As a result, large . Bypass mud flow area between high and low shear-rate rheology
mud volumes are planned and held casing strings often are increased to give optimum
in storage on the rig when this casing . Velocity at which casing is low- fluid loss control and increase cut-
combination is used. The very close ered into the well ting transport capability while
clearance between these casing . Viscous properties of drilling drilling. This is contrary to the low
strings is thought to be a practical mud at wellbore temperatures viscosity properties needed while
minimum, and will require special . Length of casing string. running close-clearance casing, and
analysis and application. With a wellbore design that min- can dramatically impact drilling rate
A summary of non-API casing imizes clearance between casing of penetration;
sizes and connections shown in Table strings, factors contributing to surge For example, it has been demon-
2 will assist when planning casing pressures can be engineered and strated that penetration rate can be
programs.6 The casing and premium optimized to result in acceptable cas- increased as much as 58?to by engi-
connection list used in the guide was ing running speeds. neering the fluid properties, i.e., pri-
obtained from 25 companies world- marily by lowering drilling mud vis-
wide. Many of these non-traditional Float equipment. One method to cosity and drill solids. 7 While the
casing types are readily available and reduce surge pressures on the for- ideal mud does not exist, which per-

44 WORLD OIL I MAY 1998

.

mits optimizingboth drilling and cas-
ing running properties, solids-free
formate brines, originally proposed
for deep slim-hole drilling may bean
optimum drilling fluid for limiting
surge pressures, frictional losses and
equivalent circulating density (ECD)
encountered when using reduced-
clearance casing strings.g
String length. An optimally engi-
neered wellbore design can incor-
porate smaller casing clearances
for liners than are used for full
strings. When necessary, a casing
string can be run as a liner with a
subsequent liner tieback to man-
age surge pressures.
Other factors that are less con-
trollable, but can significantly con-
tribute to casing running surge pres-
sures, are:
. Length of fluid column below
the moving pipe
. Compressibility of casing,
cement, formation and open hole sec-
tions
. Axial elasticity of the moving
string
. Compressibility of drilling fluid
. Eccentricity of casing annulus.
Fortunately, several advanced
computer programs are available
that can analyze surge pressures
with accuracy and speed. Mathe-
matical models also can be found in
the literature.g These tools make it
possible to optimize the clearance
between casing strings.
Another engineering concern when
designing a reduced-clearance casing
wellbore is ECD prior to and during
cementing. These important steps can
be modeled accurately and calculated
to ensure that pressures resulting
from circulation do not exceed for-
mation fracture pressures and lead
to lost returns. Many times “tack and
squeeze” cementing of liners or mul-
tiple stage cementing has been used
to effectively manage ECD when
reduced-clearance casing designs are
used. New cements with novel low
viscosity weighting agents, such as
manganese oxide, also offer promise
to improve cement displacement in
reduced-clearance casing annuli.
TUBULAR MANUFACTURING
TOLERANCES
It is necessary to know the man-
ufacturing tolerances of tubulars
when designing a reduced-clearance
Table 3. API standard drift
diameter
Casing & liners Design ID
less, in.
Smaller than 9%-in. % not include a specification for drift
9%-in. to 13%-in. incl. % ID of line pipe.11
Larger than 13%-in. %6
casing wellbore. API Specification
5CT sets forth manufacturing
dimensional requirements for cas-
ing and tubing. 10 Non-API casing,
tubing and proprietary connections
generally have manufacturing tol-
erances equal to or superior to API
specifications.
The API manufacturing tolerance
for casing includes OD, weight and
wall thickness. These tolerances are:
. OD of casing (non-upset ends)
is +1% and – 0.5% of specified OD
. Casing weight tolerance is
+6.5%, –3.5% per single length
. Casing wall thickness is – 12.5!%
of specified wall thickness.
Casing ID is governed by its OD
and weight tolerances. With this tol-
erance, it is possible for the manu-
factured casing ID to be less than
design ID, but larger than drift ID.
For example, 10%-in., 55.5 ppf cas-
ing with the minimum OD and max-
imum weight would have an actual
ID of 9.633 in., while the design ID is
9.760 in. and special drift is 9.625
in. Since there is no maximum wall
thickness nor specified ID, the drift
ID is used for that purpose.
Drift ID is the minimum mandrel
diameter (with specified length) that
must pass unobstructed through the
pipe, and which serves to define ID
tolerance, ovality and, to some
extent, casing straightness. Stan-
dard drift ID is obtained by sub-
tracting a standard tolerance from
the design ID. Table 3 identifies API
standard drift ID reductions from
design ID. Special, larger drift IDs
to accommodate standard bit sizes
are included in the API specifica-
tions for special clearance OD cou-
plings and for casing straightness.
For casing sizes, the maximum
tolerance on standard API casing
coupling OD is + l%, but not greater
than +% in. Typically, casing cou-
plings have a machined OD for eas-
ier inspection, however, complete
outside surface machining is not a
requirement.
API line pipe has been increas-
ingly used for shallow casing strings.
—
Typically, weld-on connectors are
used. Line pipe has different manu-
facturing tolerances than casing. For
example, API Specification 5L does
In addition to normal API manu-
facturing tolerances, the purchaser
can specify special tolerances. When
a very-close-tolerance casing pro-
gram is used, the outer casing should
be ordered with special, oversized
drift (diameter and length) and oval-
ity requirements. Many reasonable
special manufacturing tolerances
will have minimum increased cost.
HIGH-CLEARANCE
CASING CONNECTIONS
Many early, high-clearance or
flush joint connections experienced
costly failures. One company
reported nine failures in high-clear-
ance casing connections in a 7-year
period from 1979 to 1985.12 As a
result of recurrent costly failures in
high-clearance connections, a joint
industry program was developed in
1986 to perform physical testing and
verify high-clearance comection per-
formance. The Drilling Engineering
Association was used as the forum
for this program (DEA-27), which
involved three operators and five
manufacturers.
The program comprised unique
procedures for testing connections,
including connections sealing during
significant bending, which would
occur in a directional well. The pro-
gram also identified design deficien-
cies in certain connections, verified
robust performance in some comec-
tions and qualified a new generation
of improved high-clearance connec-
tions. As a result of the program, high-
clearance connection failures were
greatly reduced, however, special test-
ing and screening of high-clearance
connections not included in the early
study are still recommended.
WELLHEAD CONSIDERATIONS
Many unitized, multi-bowl sur-
face wellheads were designed to
accommodate standard casing pro-
grams, and have a restricted ID load
shoulder. For example, a typical 13%-
in., top-flange casinghead will have
an ID of 12% to 1%6 in. & a result,
an additional constraint for casing
size selection is the wellhead ID.
While these wellhead restrictions
provide a constraint, the reduced ID
WORLD OIL I MAY 1998 45
I is usually only a few inches many cases, are based on

m7
in length. Availability of w ( B ) (c) (D) available bit sizes. Use of
183/~.in= 135&in. 183/+in. la5~.in,
non-standard size casing BOPS BOPS BOPS BOPS conventional casing clear-
rams often is a design con- ances generally are ade-
straint for surface BOPS as quate for routine wells, but
well. 1 33/3-ifl.
22-in. 14-in. are often conservative.
All marine subsea well- Reducing the clearance
heads have a reduced ID between casing strings from
load shoulder. Typically, the traditional values will per-
load shoulder ID is about 95~.ifl. 1 S-in. 11 3/q.if3. mit use of smaller BOPS
17.562 in. for an 18%-in., and rigs. Very detailed engi-
high pressure wellhead.
7-in. 16-in. J 95~.if3.

Two manufacturers have

1 neering analysis of overall
J 133b-in. cost effectiveness and appli-

I
designed a special marine 7-in. Iind 41/.. in. lifl~~
16 95~.in. cation is required before
subsea wellhead with a ..
41/~.in. Ii, :,
reduced-clearance casing
18 7-in. liner -~+
removable load shoulder strings should be used.
giving an almost full bore 4Vz-in. liner .{ For large development
through the wellhead. The drilling programs or criti-
removable load shoulder Fig. 2. Typical designs are shown for wells using conventional clearances (A &
cal applications, special
B) and reduced clearances (C & D) between casing strings. The reduced-clear-
can be installed after a low manufactured tubulars,
ance wellbore (D) saves about 110 tons of casina-. comr)ared to a wellbore with
pressure liner, with high- traditional clearances (A). combined with reduced-
clearance casing connec- clearance casing strings,
tions, has been run and should be used. Reduced-
cemented. wellbore with traditional clearances clearance casing programs in many
(Fig. 2-A). Similar to slim-hole oper- cases will require special tubular
REDUCED-CLEARANCE ations, additional overall well sav- manufacturing specifications and
WELLBORE DESIGNS ings will result fkom reducing drilling field procedures to assure dimen-
Good engineering judgment must mud and cementing volumes. Sub- sions, ovality and straightness.
be used when designing wellbores stantial savings also could result if
with reduced-clearance casing a smaller rig were used. This advan-
strings. Optimum candidates are tage can be significant when a remote ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
hole sections that are relatively free location or available rig equipment Appreciation is expressed to Amoco Pro-
duction Co. for permission to author and pub-
of problems such as tectonically limits BOP equipment size. lish this article. Particular appreciation is
stressed intervals, drawn-down ECD was modeled while circulat- extended to John Pantaleo of Amoco who
sands and high mud weights. The rig ing a 14-ppg, 35-PV, 1O-YP mud for encouraged this undertaking. The author also
must be capable of proper hole clean- the liner set at 12,000 ft, and for each acknowledges Tim Dunn, Dowell Schlum-
berger John Greenip and Jon Barton, Hydril
ing, be able to maintain optimum of the four casing programs shown Co.; and John Simpson, Baker Hughes INTEQ;
mud properties, and be equipped to in Fig. 2. Each liner situation had who contributed to and reviewed this article.
rapidly handle lost mud returns, well an ECD of only about 0.5 ppg equiv- This article was adapted from SPE/IADC
control situations, etc. Drag may also alent. About 0.7 ppg of ECD was cal- paper 37615 presented at the 1997 SPIMAIX
Drilling Conference.
limit the use of close-clearance cas- culated while cementing the 12,000-
ing applications in some wells, and ft liners in Fig. 2 with typical cement
additional planning is also required slurries at normal circulating rates. LITERATURE CITED
to ensure that required casing run- 1 Caste, Robert G., “Use of Bicenter PDC Bit Reduces
ning tools, handling tools and acces- CONCLUSIONS Drilling Cost,” Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 13, 1995,
2
Leblanc, Leonard, %eaming-While. Drilling Keys Efforts
sories are available. Conventional clearances between to Reduce Tripping on Long Drillstrings,” Ofishore, April
1-----
Ww
Typical wellbore designs using casing sizes used by industry are 3
Dewey, C. H., and G. C. Miller, “Drilling and Under-
conventional clearances between cas- based on standard sizes that, in reamine Simultaneously A Cost-Effective Ontion “ SPE
Paper ~6462, presente; at SPE Annual ~ci%c;l Con-
ing strings and reduced clearances ference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
4 Greenip, J. F., “’lhbulars Isolate Down-Hole Pressures,”
between strings are illustrated in Oil and Gas Journal, Oct. 9, 1978.
Fig. 2. For these well designs, clear- L John W. Barker, PE, 5 Dupuis, D,, and A. Sagot, “One Year Experience in Slim-

ance between casing strings can be [ Deepwater Drilling Hole Drilling,” IADC/SPE paper 35124, presented at
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March
Teamleader for Vastar
found in Table 1. With a given BOP Resources Inc., Hous-
12-15,1996.
6 “1997 Casing Tables,” World Oil, July 1997.
size, reduced-clearance casing ton, received a 6S 7 Beck, F. E., J. W, Power, and Mario Zanmra, “The Effect
strings can permit adding one or two degree from Texas A&M
-
of Rheology on Rate of Penetration,” SPE paper 29368,
presented at SPE/L40C Drilling conference, Amsterdam,
additional casing strings, which ‘ University in 1974. From Feb. 26-Mar, 2, 1995.
\ ~ 1974 to l%, he wo~ad 8 Howard, Siv. K, “Formate Brines of DriUmg and Com-
could result in deeper drilling or pletion: State of tbe Art,” SPE paper 3049S, presented
.,,,, . . . . . . . j’,I forExxon,PrimtilYwith
larger production tubing. floating type rigs in the at SPE Annual Tkchnical Conference & Exhibition, Dal-
las, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
For some well designs, use of deapwater Gulf of Mexico. He worked for 9 Mitchell, R. F., “Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predic-

reduced clearance between casing Amoco Production Co. in 199611997, in tions,” SPE Drilling Engineering, Sept. 1988.
10 API Specijicdon SCT “Specification for Casing and ‘lhb-
deepwater GOM operations, and recently
strings will permit use of a smaller moved to Vasta~ He is the author or co- ing, fitl.h edition,” API, Washington, 1995.
11 API S~ci/imtion SCT “Specification for Line Pipe, thirty-
BOP. For example, a reduced-clear- author of seven technical papers focused eighth edition,” API, Washington, 1995,
ance wellbore (Fig. 2-D) saves about primarily on deepwater drilling operations. 12 Payne, M. L., et al,, “Joint Industry Qualification Test
Program for High-Clearance Casing Connections,” SPE
110 tons of casing compared to a ML Barker is a member of AADE and SPE. Drilling Engineering, Dec. 1992.

46 WORLD OIL I MAY 1998