SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

is funded principally
through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION

The Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the program
by allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
Exploration & Production Technology
delivering breakthrough solutions
Recent Advances in Complex Well Design
Phil Pattillo, BP EPTG - Houston
3
Overview
• New loads and limitations
− Thermal effects – annular pressure build-up
− Designing with limited casing bore
− Extreme landing tools
• Beyond “API designs”
− Probabilistic design considerations
− ISO 10400
Annular Pressure Build-up (APB)
For alternative section dividers with images, please see the BP images where you can copy and paste a pre-set section
divider slide
(see BP templates in PowerPoint menu: File / New or www.bp.com/brand)
5
Annular Pressure Buildup (APB)
• Origin of APB loads
• Mitigating APB
− Principles and solution categories
− Specific well construction tools




16 in. casing collapse from APB
during circulation
6
The origin of APB




What do we do about
this hydrocarbon
bearing zone?

20"
16"
Mud Line
TOC?
7
APB depends on
• Mechanical and thermal properties of fluid
• Flexibility of the confining boundary
• Temperature increase

Considering the fluid component,
(
(
¸
(

¸

A ÷ A = A p
C
T V V
f
f f f
1
o
8
Mitigating APB
Brute Force
• Thick-walled casing

Fluid Properties
• Foam spacer
• Fluids with low psi/F
• Cement entire annulus

Control the Load
• Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)
• Nitrogen blanket
• Gelled brine
• Connection leak integrity
• Initial annulus pressure

Container Flexibility
• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
• Avoid trapped pressures external
to annulus

9
Mitigating APB
Fluid Properties
• Foam spacer
• Fluids with low
psi/F
• Cement entire
annulus



10
Mitigating APB
Container Flexibility
• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
• Avoid trapped pressures
external to annulus

11
Container Flexibility
• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
• Avoid trapped pressures
external to annulus

Mitigating APB
12
Mitigating APB
Control the Load
• Vacuum Insulated Tubing
• Nitrogen blanket
• Gelled brine
• Connection leak integrity
• Initial annulus pressure

5100
5150
5200
5250
5300
5350
5400
5450
5500
5550
5600
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Temperature, Deg F
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
.
Gelled
Brine 2
Gelled
Brine 1
Connection
Outer Tube
Inner Tube
Vacuum Annulus
Tubing “A” Annulus
Weld
Connection Connection
Outer Tube Outer Tube
Inner Tube
Vacuum Annulus Vacuum Annulus
Tubing “A” Annulus Tubing “A” Annulus
Weld
13
5100
5150
5200
5250
5300
5350
5400
5450
5500
5550
5600
80 90 100 110 120 130
Temperature, Deg F
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
.
Gelled Brine 1
Gelled Brine 2
Mitigating APB – Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)
Connection
Outer Tube
Inner Tube
Vacuum Annulus
Tubing “A” Annulus
Weld
Connection Connection
Outer Tube Outer Tube
Inner Tube
Vacuum Annulus Vacuum Annulus
Tubing “A” Annulus Tubing “A” Annulus
Weld
Designing within wellbore limitations
For alternative section dividers with images, please see the BP images where you can copy and paste a pre-set section
divider slide
(see BP templates in PowerPoint menu: File / New or www.bp.com/brand)
15

36"
22" (224.0 ppf X-80)
13-5/8" (88.20 ppf HCQ-125)
9-7/8" (62.8 ppf C-110)
7" (38.0 ppf C-110)
28"
11-7/8" (71.80 ppf P-110)
18" (117.0 ppf N-80)
16" (97.0 ppf P-110)
RISK
D
E
P
T
H
36"
22"
(Surface Casing)
13-5/8"
(Deep Protective Casing)
9-7/8"
(Production casing or tiebacks)
7"
(Production Liners)
28"
11-7/8"
(Drilling Liners)
18", 16"
(Drilling Liners)
Deepwater HPHT wells, maintaining hole size
• Geometric constraints
− Minimum ÷ production tubulars,
SSSV
− Maximum ÷ 18-3/4 in. bore
• Possible solutions
− Riserless drilling
− Managed pressure drilling
− Designer muds
− Revisit casing risk profile
− Probability x consequence
− Recovery
− Empirical validation
− Solid expandable liners

16
Maintaining hole size - example
• 8-1/2 in. hole on bottom
• Production tubulars with
18,000+ psi internal yield
• 5-1/2 in. tubing
• 9-3/8 in. upper tieback drift
(subsurface safety valve)
• Clearance outside tieback
for APB mitigation (syntactic
foam)



36”
28”
22” 224.0 ppf (1.000” wall) X-80
18” 117.0 ppf (0.625” wall) N-80
16” 97.0 ppf (0.575” wall) P-110
13-5/8” 88.20 ppf (0.625” wall) HCQ-125
11-7/8” 71.80 ppf (0.582” wall) P-110
9-7/8” 62.80 ppf (0.625 wall) C-110
7” 38.0 ppf (0.540” wall) C-110
36”
28”
22” 224.0 ppf (1.000” wall) X-80
18” 117.0 ppf (0.625” wall) N-80
16” 97.0 ppf (0.575” wall) P-110
13-5/8” 88.20 ppf (0.625” wall) HCQ-125
11-7/8” 71.80 ppf (0.582” wall) P-110
9-7/8” 62.80 ppf (0.625 wall) C-110
7” 38.0 ppf (0.540” wall) C-110
36 in.
28 in.
22 in.
18 in.
16 in.
13-5/8 in.
11-7/8 in.
9-7/8 in.
7 in.

36”
28”
22” 224.0 ppf (1.000” wall) X-80
18” 117.0 ppf (0.625” wall) N-80
16” 128.6 ppf (0.781” wall) Q-125
13-3/4” 58.20 ppf (0.400” wall) P-110
12-1/4” 51.60 ppf (0.400” wall) P-110
10-3/4” 108.70 ppf (1.047” wall) C-110
7” 42.70 ppf (0.625” wall) CRA-125
11-3/4” ppf 126.20 (1.109” wall) C-110
x 10-3/4” ppf 108.70 (1.047” wall) C-110
36”
28”
22” 224.0 ppf (1.000” wall) X-80
18” 117.0 ppf (0.625” wall) N-80
16” 128.6 ppf (0.781” wall) Q-125
13-3/4” 58.20 ppf (0.400” wall) P-110
12-1/4” 51.60 ppf (0.400” wall) P-110
10-3/4” 108.70 ppf (1.047” wall) C-110
7” 42.70 ppf (0.625” wall) CRA-125
11-3/4” ppf 126.20 (1.109” wall) C-110
x 10-3/4” ppf 108.70 (1.047” wall) C-110
Or SET?
36 in.
28 in.
22 in.
18 in.
16 in.
13-3/4 in.
12-1/4 in.
10-3/4 in.
7 in.
Tieback
Extreme landing loads
For alternative section dividers with images, please see the BP images where you can copy and paste a pre-set section
divider slide
(see BP templates in PowerPoint menu: File / New or www.bp.com/brand)
18
Landing strings and slip crushing
• Landing string static loads
approaching 1.5 mm lbs
− Impulse load during
tripping
− Heave induced excitation
• Applicability of Reinhold-
Spiri
− To current systems?
− To other slip problems?

19
Understanding slip systems
• Strain gauged samples
indicate
− Non-uniform loading
− Worst loading may be
between inserts


0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
w
0
, in.
p
L
,

l
b
/
i
n
NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10
6
psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3
YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi
WALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in
MEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 100,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 300,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 500,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 700,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 942,500 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 900,000 lb
A Simple Model - n Line Loads
Probabilistic design considerations
For alternative section dividers with images, please see the BP images where you can copy and paste a pre-set section
divider slide
(see BP templates in PowerPoint menu: File / New or www.bp.com/brand)
21
Detailed inspection data
22
Application – calculation of cross-sectional area
23
Application – detailed collapse prediction
• Line pipe samples
− X65, D/t 16-18+
• Detailed input
− Wall, diameter
− Axial, hoop o-c coupons
− Residual stress
• Full scale tests
− Pressure with bending
− Collapse, propagation
• Excellent results (<3% no
bending, 0-9% with
bending)
24
Probabilistic advantage using rupture disks
• Disk pressures have tight,
controlled tolerances (± 5%
on rupture pressure)
• Contrast with 12.5% wall
tolerance and 10-30 ksi
tensile strength variation for
casing body
− Wide uncertainty of
casing rupture and
collapse pressures
− Cannot count on outer
string failing first


7” Production Liner
Consider if
shoe plugs
A B C
Pipe Performance Uncertainty
1
6
"

M
I
Y
P

R
a
t
i
n
g
9
-
7
/
8
"

C
o
l
l
l
a
p
s
e

R
a
t
i
n
g
9
-
7
/
8
"

H
i
g
h

C
o
l
l
a
p
s
e

R
a
t
i
n
g
7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500
Pressure (psi)
16" Barlow
16" Rupture
9-7/8" API Collapse
9-7/8" Tamano Collapse
Pipe Performance Uncertainty
1
6
"

M
I
Y
P

R
a
t
i
n
g
9
-
7
/
8
"

C
o
l
l
l
a
p
s
e

R
a
t
i
n
g
9
-
7
/
8
"

H
i
g
h

C
o
l
l
a
p
s
e

R
a
t
i
n
g
7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500
Pressure (psi)
16" Barlow
16" Rupture
9-7/8" API Collapse
9-7/8" Tamano Collapse
Pressure
API API
Actual
Collapse
Burst
Disk
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

25
ISO 10400 (New API 5C3)
Clause Subject Comments
1-5 Introduction, symbols
6 Triaxial yield
von Mises yield
Axial yield, internal yield pressure
7 Ductile rupture All new
8-17
Collapse, connections,
elongation, etc.
Identical to existing formulas
Annexes
Details, derivations,
property tables
Probabilistic properties (from
production data)
26
Conclusions
• No lack of challenging problems
− Continuing research on annular pressure mitigation
− Rethinking old solutions
• Design stretch via probability
− Increasing support from standards

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful