Well Design

WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2
Section
2.0
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
OBJECTIVES
On completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
Explain how water depth and RKB elevation impact fracture gradient and pore pressure. Be able to adjust mud weights, LOTs, etc. of an offset well to a different water depth and RKB elevation. Calculate fracture gradients for wells drilled with floating drilling rigs. Describe the factors which control planned casing depths. List the factors which impact equivalent circulating density and know which factors are manageable. Describe the factors which must be considered when selecting a mud type for a well drilled with a floating rig. Describe how natural gas hydrates affect the mud selection process.
2-1 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
CONTENTS
2.0
Page
WELL DESIGN ISSUES.................................................................................................................1 OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................................1 CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................2 2.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................3 2.2 FRACTURE GRADIENT AND PORE PRESSURE........................................................................4 2.2.1 OVERBURDEN................................................................................................................5 2.2.2 PORE PRESSURE ..........................................................................................................7 2.2.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS RATIO ..........................................................................................8 2.2.4 OFFSET WELL DATA ...................................................................................................13 2.3 EQUIVALENT CIRCULATION DENSITY ....................................................................................17 2.4 CASING DEPTH SELECTION .....................................................................................................21 2.4.1 STRUCTURAL CASING................................................................................................22 2.4.2 SECOND CONDUCTOR CASING.................................................................................23 2.4.3 CONDUCTOR CASING .................................................................................................24 2.4.4 SUBSEQUENT CASING STRINGS...............................................................................25 2.5 CASING DESIGN.........................................................................................................................28 2.5.1 STRUCTURAL CASING................................................................................................29 2.5.2 CONDUCTOR CASING .................................................................................................30 2.5.3 SURFACE, PROTECTIVE, AND PRODUCTION STRINGS .........................................31 2.6 MUD SELECTION........................................................................................................................35 2.7 GAS HYDRATES .........................................................................................................................37 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................46 APPENDICIES .......................................................................................................................................48 APPENDIX 1 FRACTURE GRADIENT CALCULATION .......................................................48 APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS, BACKUP PRESSURE FOR BURST DESIGN, FLOATING RIGS................................................................52
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.1
OVERVIEW
As water depth increases beyond the point where bottom founded rigs can drill, floating rigs and techniques are used while drilling exploration and most appraisal and development wells. The special equipment used when floating rigs drill has an impact on well designs. As water depth increases many floating rig drilling techniques become critical to well planning and efficient operations. It is important that the issues associated with floating rig operations be included in well planning. Pore pressure and fracture gradient predictions are the most important factors that affect well planning in deeper water depths (Figure 2.1). As water depth increases, the margin between pore pressure and fracture gradient typically reduces as well. The well design and cost are therefore heavily impacted by these predictions. Every drilling engineer should be familiar with methods and procedures to develop pore pressure and fracture gradient predictions. While ExxonMobil has specialists who develop pore pressure and fracture gradients, it is necessary for the drilling engineer to understand the basis and the uncertainties in their estimates as well as to compare their estimates with offset wells. GOM SHELF GOM DEEPWATER
Figure 2.1 - Example of Reduced PP/FG Margin
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.2
FRACTURE GRADIENT AND PORE PRESSURE
Formation fracture pressure is broadly defined as the pressure at which the formation starts to take fluid due to induced fractures. Fracture gradient reflects the rate at which fracture initiation pressure varies with depth. Formation pressure is the pressure existing in the pore spaces (void areas) in the rock. Overburden is the cumulative weight of everything above it, e.g. water and formations. In the 1950s almost all oil wells were normal pressured, i.e. formation pressure was equal to the hydrostatic pressure exerted by water (either freshwater, seawater or saltwater). Beginning at this time, more abnormal pressured wells were beginning to be drilled. Hydraulic fracturing of oil wells was also being developed in the early 1950s, and the science and theory of fracturing formations was evolving. A classic paper published in 1957 pioneered the understanding of fracturing(1). This technology was then applied to predict formation fracture gradients for both normal and abnormal pressure wells. The first methods to estimate fracture pressures were developed in the late 1960s. These methods were developed for land wells and were used for shallow water depth wells. By the mid-1960s the search for hydrocarbons was beginning to extend to water depth beyond the point where jack-up and fixed platforms could drill. Floating drilling abilities and procedures were being developed. By the early 1970s, floating rigs were beginning to be used in water depths near 1500 ft, and the first paper on offshore fracture gradient prediction methods was published (2). This method identified that long water columns impacted the formation fracture gradient and presented a way to calculate fracture gradients in deeper water depths. Most fracture gradient prediction techniques are generally based on a model developed by Hubbert and Willis and refined by later authors(1,3). The general equation is:
Fracture pressure = K x (overburden pressure formation pore pressure ) + formation pore pressure
This equation defines the fracture pressure as a variable dependent on the overburden pressure, the formation pore pressure and the horizontal to vertical effective stress ratio (K). This general method is used in many methods to predict fracture pressures. The difference in most predictive methods is how to estimate pore pressure, overburden pressure and the vertical effective stress ratio K.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.2.1
OVERBURDEN
The overburden pressure at a given depth is the weight of everything above it. e.g., seawater, density of soil from the mud line to the depth of interest. All well depth references are from the rotary Kelly bushing (RKB). The air gap can have a significant impact on overburden (especially shallow overburden) and should be included in all overburden calculations. The air gap on floating rigs can range from about 40 ft to as much as 125 ft. The gradient of a seawater column does change slightly with water depth. However, this change is usually insignificant, and generally a seawater hydrostatic pressure of 8.55 ppg (roughly 3.5 WT% salt) is a good estimate (4). To estimate overburden below the mud line, the well depth from the mud line to the depth of interest is usually broken down into numerous intervals. The bulk density of each interval is then estimated and the overburden pressure of that interval calculated. A sum of the overburden pressure from the seawater and all intervals below the mud line will result in the total overburden pressure at the depth of interest.
B ulk D en sity vs D epth B elow the Mu d Lin e

2.5 2.4 2.3
Bulk Density, gm/cc
G OM : 390 ft W D
2.2 2.1 2 Best Curve F it 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Su b s e a De p th ft
Soil Boring Data Density Log Data
Figure 2.2 - Bulk Density Well Bore Profile
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
For deeper wells, bulk densities from density logs can be integrated to the depth of interest and will result in a good estimate of overburden pressure. Unfortunately, density logs are seldom run in shallow hole sections of a well and getting an estimate of shallow below mud line overburden pressure can be difficult. Soil boring data is available in almost all areas of the world, and typically, soil borings will penetrate from a few feet to as much as 2000 ft below the mud line. The submerged unit weight of soil can be integrated to develop an overburden pressure for shallow formations. Figure 2.2 is an example of a bulk density vs. depth below sea level plot for a GOM shelf well. Overburden pressure is expressed in psi. An overburden gradient is measured in psi/ft and is the normal method used in the industry to express overburden. The overburden gradient for a well typically increases asymptotically with depth and should near a 1.0 psi/ft (19.2 ppg or a 2.3 SG) with depth. Figure 2.3 shows typical overburden gradient curves from around the world.
Typical Overburden Gradient

0 2000 4000 Depth Below Mudline - ft 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Overburden pressure Gradient- lbs/gal
Gulf Coast - Fertl & Timko MW Shelf, Australia East Java Sea Shelf GOM Crazy Horse Eaton Gulf Coast North Sea Offshoe California
1.0 psi/ft
Figure 2.3 - Worldwide Overburden Gradients
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.2.2
PORE PRESSURE
Many methods have been developed to estimate pore pressure from well logs (both wireline logs and LWD logs). The first methods to estimate pore pressures from logs were developed in the mid-1960s. While numerous models have been developed, the model most commonly used by the industry is the Eaton Model. This method to calculate pore pressure was first published in 1975 (5). The general procedure used by the Eaton model to develop pore pressure is:

Develop overburden gradient from density logs, sonic logs or seismic data. Using log data, plot the resistivity of shale sections on semi-log paper. Establish a normal compaction trend line. Measure normal and observed resistivities at various depths. Calculate the ratio of normal compaction resistivity to observed resisitivity. Use the actual overburden pressure and the resisitivity ratio to calculate the pore pressure.
In the mid-1990s, several methods were developed to permit estimating formation pore pressure from seismic data (6). The Bowers model is based on the premise that change of formation velocity is an exponential function of vertical effective stress. Other models assume that formation velocity varies with temperature, burial rate and clay surface area.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.2.3
EFFECTIVE STRESS RATIO
We know from rock mechanics that a formation will fracture when the pressure applied to the formation is the minimum horizontal stress (1). We also know that minimum horizontal stress is a function of the vertical stress and Poissons ratio. Using the ratio between horizontal to vertical stress is a method to determine the least principal stress, which determines when fracturing occurs. The effective stress ratio is the most difficult variable to estimate when calculating fracture gradients. Many methods have been developed to relate stress ratio to well variables, i.e., depth, formation density, compaction, leak-off tests, etc. Typically, the stress ratio ranges from about 0.3 to 1.0. For formations, which are competent, the stress ratio will be near the low end of the range because they transfer less of the vertical load into horizontal stress. Shale typically has a higher integrity (horizontal stress) than sands because they are more plastic than sands and transfer more of their overburden load into horizontal stress. The effective horizontal stress ratio in deepwater formations is particularly high due to the high water content (plasticity) of the shale. They should have horizontal stresses very close to overburden and thus the stress ratio would be close to one (7). Also, when the effective stress ratio approaches unity, fracturing tends to occur horizontally. In some areas of the world, tectonics can alter the transmission of overburden into horizontal stress. There are no current methods to predict the effects of tectonics. When drilling in the vicinity of competent formations and active geological features such as salt domes and faulting, well plans should allow for an increased level of uncertainty.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Several authors have developed methods to predict fracture gradients in deepwater depths (8 to 15). The drilling engineer should be familiar with and be able to calculate fracture gradients with several of these methods. Comparison of the fracture gradient prediction method with actual data from offset wells will establish the best predictive method to use in the area. Figure 2.4 is a comparison of several different fracture gradient calculation methods for a well planned in 7400 ft. water depth. Appendix 1 includes two procedures for calculating offshore fracture gradients.
Frac Gradient Method Comparison

7000
Overburden Gradient
9000
Pore Pressure Eaton Daines Christman Brennan & Annis
11000
Simmons & Rau Barker & Woods
13000
Depth RKB, ft TVD
15000
17000
19000
21000
23000
25000 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Stress Gradients, ppge

Figure 2.4 - Comparison of Different Fracture Gradient Prediction Methods
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
By far the most common method to estimate fracture gradients is the Eaton Technique (8) . This method relates the effective stress ratio to Poissons ratio. Poissons ratio is then correlated with overburden gradient. Both Poissons ratio and overburden are variable with depth. Table 2.1 summarizes many of the fracture gradient prediction methods. The impact of tectonic effects on formation stress states is not directly incorporated in these predictive techniques.
Fracture Gradient Calculation Methods
Method
Eaton (1968) Anderson (1972) Christman (1973) Daines (1980 & 1982) Beekels & Van Eekelan (1982) Brennan & Annis (1984) Constant & Bourgoyne (1988) Simmons & Rau (1988) Zamora (1989) Aadony & Soteland (1989) Rocha & Bourgoyne (1984)
Stress Ratio K
f(Poisson's, OB) f(shale %) f(bulk density) f(Poisson's) f(depth) f(effective stress) f(curve fit) f(Poisson's) f(bulk density) f(lithology) f(depth, compaction)
Pore Pressure
yes yes yes yes no yes no yes ? ? no
Overburden Remarks
Application
yes yes yes yes mo yes f(compaction) yes ? ? yes Need computer & offset well info planning tool new OB curve f(fluid barrier) f(first PIT) Offset PIT f(compressibility)
Gulf Coast, Land, Shelf All Offshore Calf. All, international Land, worldwide GOM shelf Worldwide, emphirical Deepwater, modified Eaton Limited, emphirical
Brazil, deepwater worldwide
Barker (1997) Eaton (1997) Aadnoy (1998)
f(depth) f(Poison's, OB) f(OB)
no yes no
no yes yes
Deepwater GOM, shallow BML Deepwater All WD, worldwide
Table 2.1 Summary of Fracture Gradient Prediction Methods
2 - 10 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
In shallow water and on land, the pore pressure can have a significant impact on the calculated fracture gradient. In deeper water, the pore pressure has a lesser impact on the fracture gradient prediction. Figure 2.5 illustrates the sensitivity of calculated fracture gradients to pore pressure with a fixed overburden gradient for a well in 7400 ft. water depth.
Figure 2.5 - Sensitivity of Pore Pressure on Estimated Fracture Gradient
In shallow water, the contribution of seawater to total overburden is modest. Many simply ignore water depth and its effect when calculating fracture gradients. Typically, an accuracy of 0.5 ppg and 500 ft is adequate for shelf wells except in special cases such as draw-down sands, very deep well depths, etc.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figure 2.6 illustrates that as water depth increases, the need for accurate predictions of fracture gradient, overburden gradient and pore pressure increases. Many times deepwater wells have a very small margin between fracture gradient and pore pressure gradient. Small errors in either fracture gradient or pore pressure predictions can result in a well not achieving its geologic objectives, or the achievable well depth being constrained. In these cases, accurate prediction of casing setting depths is also very difficult, and the well plan has a high degree of uncertainty. The very high cost of deepwater operations further heightens the critical need for accurate predictions.
Shelf
Increasing Water Depth
Deepwater
Low Importance
Figure 2.6 - Importance of Accurate Fracture Gradient Prediction
High Importance
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.2.4
OFFSET WELL DATA
A vital part of the pore pressure gradient, fracture gradient prediction process is the review of offset well data. Few wells drilled are true wildcat wells (with very few if any offset wells), and information on nearby wells is usually available. Comparing the predicted pore pressure and fracture gradients against actual results will give much support to the predictions made for the planned well. For both land wells and wells drilled in shallow water, there are typically many offset wells available. Small variations in water depth and RKB elevation between an offset and a planned well will not have an appreciable impact on the final planned well. For these areas there is a reduced need for correction of water depth and RKB elevation from an offset to the planned well. As water depth increases, more accurate pore pressure and fracture gradient predictions are needed. Also, as water depth increases, the number of available offset wells typically decreases, and the offset well(s) may be in significantly deeper or shallower water than the planned well. A method is needed to predict fracture gradients and mud weights from offset wells with different water depths and RKB elevations. A method to normalize for water depth and RKB elevation is shown in Figure 2.7 (16). This equation can be applied to all parameters that depend on overburden stress and the reference height, such as fracturing pressure, mud weight and pore pressure. Changes in tectonic stress states are not incorporated in this equation.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Offset Well
RKB-Sealevel = 48 ft Depth TVD - ft 0 1000 WD 2000 3000
1
Proposed Well
RKB-Sealevel = 102 ft
= 2000 ft WD 2 = 3500 ft
Mudline 4000 3500 ft 5000 RKB 1 = 5548 ft 6000 7000 RKB 2 = 7102 ft 8000 9000 10000 PIT 2 = ? PIT 1 = 13.2 ppg
PIT2 (ppg) = PIT1 x (RKB1 / RKB2) + 8.55 x (WD2 WD1 /RKB2) PIT2 = 12.2 x (5548 / 7102) + 8.55 x (3500 / 7102) PIT2 = 10.31 + 1.81 PIT2 = 12.1 ppg (Adjusted to proposed well water depth and RKB)
Figure 2.7 - Method to Correct Offset Well for Water Depth and RKB Elevation
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 illustrate how adjusting offset well PITs to a common reference water depth and RKB elevation will help improve the mud weight prediction for a new well.
Eastern GOM Deepwater

14.5 14 13.5 13 12.5 Mud weight (ppg) 12 11.5 520, 6738' 11 522, 6929' 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 606, 6294' 607, 6588' 657, 7520' 348, 7209' Block WD
Adjuste to: 7400 ft WD & 80 ft RKB Elevation
84, 5149' 300, 5844' 305, 7073' 429-1, 6201' 429-2, 6134' 476, 6626'
Depth below mud line, ft
Figure 2.8 - Mud Weight vs. Depth For Offset Wells
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Eastern GOM Deepwater

14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 Mud weight (ppg) 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 0 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Adjusted to: 7400 ft wd & 80 ft RKB elevation 84 300 305 429-1 429-2 476 520 522 606 607 657 348
Depth belowmud line, ft
Figure 2.9 - Offset Well Mud Weight Adjusted to a Common WD and RKB
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.3
EQUIVALENT CIRCULATION DENSITY
Equivalent circulation density (ECD) is the added pressure from fluid friction caused by circulation in a well. ECD is an increasing design consideration as water depth increases and the margin between pore pressure and fracture gradient narrows. Figure 2.10 illustrates how fluid circulation can add significant pressures to a wellbore, which can lead to lost returns, exceeding fracture gradients, etc
Zero psi Zero gpm 2880 psi 250 gpm
Zero psi Zero gpm Pannulus = 198 psi
Zero psi 250 gpm
9 5/8-in. @ 12000 ft
PIT = 17.5 ppg Pressure = 16.5 ppg Pressure = 16.82 ppg Mud weight = 16.5 ppg Delta P = 0.32 ppg P annulus = 88 psi
7-7/8 in. HOLE Pbit = 1920 psi
6-1/4" DC 4-1/2in. DP
Pdp = 673 psi
ECD = MW + Delta P Annulus
ECD = 16.87 ppg BHP = 16.5 ppg PV = 25 YP = 15
TD = 15000 ft
Figure 2.10 Equivalent Circulation Density
For most shelf and normal pressured wells, ECD is usually not a design issue. Common casing sizes and low to moderate mud weights result in ECDs, which are relatively small, typically 0.5 ppg or less. Also, for most of these wells, there is a large margin between the pore pressure gradient and the fracture gradient, and a small ECD does not have a significant effect on initial well design or operational procedures. In cases where a large margin exists, ECD is less important. However there is an increasing number of shelf wells and shallow water wells being drilled where ECD is a much higher concern and constraint.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
With increasing water depth and well depth, the number of casing strings required to reach total depth often increases. These wells usually have a low margin between pore pressure and fracture gradient, several tight clearance liner strings, small hole sizes, higher mud weights and much higher ECDs. For example, a recent well drilled with a floating rig in the GOM required nine casing strings to reach 23,000 ft total depth. Also, a GOM well in 9687 ft. water depth required six casing strings to reach 20,500 ft rkb with a final mud weight of only 11.1 ppg. In many ultra-deep wells, ECDs of as much as 1.5 ppg are often encountered (17). Active management of several drilling parameters, special well planning issues and special procedures are required for these wells to ensure they reach their geologic objectives. When drilling a well with a small margin between pore pressure and fracture gradient, it is often difficult to maintain enough mud weight to overbalance pore pressure when not circulating and keep ECD low enough to prevent lost returns when circulating and drilling. When the pore pressure to fracture gradient margin is small, determining where to set a casing string can be very difficult. In some cases, increased formation integrity from setting a casing string can be more than offset by the increased ECD resulting from subsequent smaller casing, drill pipe and hole size. The wells achievable depth may be limited, and setting several additional casing strings may not significantly improve the likelihood of achieving deeper well depths. Drilling with underbalanced mud weight is not an option with many wells drilled with floating rigs as the formation lacks enough strength and the wellbore becomes unstable. A large volume kick can result very quickly when drilling into a high permeability, thick sand (high KH) when mud weight is even slightly underbalanced. As a result there is a tendency to experience large volume and/or large intensity formation influxes when drilling with large ECDs.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figure 2.11 illustrates that, as well depth increases, ECD typically increases, and the degree of underbalance can rapidly increase when the ECD is removed.
14000 16000 18000 Well Depth ft 20000 ECD = 1.5 ppg 22000 24000 26000 28000 ECD = 1.0 ppg 30000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 BHP Change Due to ECD psi
Figure 2.11 - Depth vs. BHP Change Due To ECD Typ ic a l Ra ng e
Min.
ECD = 0.5 ppg
Max.
ECDs can be managed by optimizing mud rheology, well geometry, mud circulation rates, well angle and rate of penetration while drilling (18). Figure 2.12 illustrates how ECD can be managed (reduced) by optimizing these factors.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figure 2.12 - ECD Optimization
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.4
CASING DEPTH SELECTION
The number of casing strings available for floating rigs is limited by the BOP size and the subsea wellhead. By the end of the 1980s, the industry had standardized on 18 3/4-in. subsea BOPs and wellhead systems. The high pressure subsea wellhead was typically installed on 20-in. OD casing, and the wellhead had provisions to hang-off three casing strings. These strings typically were 13 3/8-in., 9 5/8-in. and 7-in. casing. Most subsea wellhead manufacturers also had provisions for adding a sub below their standard subsea wellhead so a string of 16-in. could be installed. If additional strings were needed, liners could be used below these strings. Beginning in the 1980s, more wells in deeper water depth and with deeper total depths began to be drilled. These wells required more casing strings, and it became popular to add an 11 -in. liner below the 13 3/8-in. when the pore pressure and fracture gradient margin required another casing string to reach deep objectives. By the late 1990s, well water depth and total depth increased even further, and all possible casing strings were often needed to reach depth objectives. By the late 1980s, the number of strings that could be used with standard 18 3/4-in. BOPs began to be problematic. By 2000, a new wellhead system was available that used very close casing string tolerances and permitted use of one additional shallow casing string(19). These subsea wellhead systems are called Big Bore or Full Bore wellhead systems. Within the casing size constraints permitted in a SSWH, the strings used in a floating well will now be briefly discussed.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.4.1
STRUCTURAL CASING
The first string of casing used on floating rigs is called structural casing. This string serves as a foundation for the well. Typically this string is either 30-in. or 36-in. OD. A primary function of the structural casing is to resist bending stresses resulting from floating rig operations while a BOP stack is in place. Also, this string must support its own weight and the weight of subsequent strings and prevent them from sinking below the mud line. In almost all cases, a low pressure wellhead housing is installed on the top of this string with a re-entry structure (permanent guidebase). Many times a mud mat is also used with structural casing. When used, a mud mat will typically be placed about 14 ft below the low pressure wellhead housing. Prior to the 1980s, almost all structural casing strings were installed into a drilled hole and then cemented. Typically, the string was set in a hole about 300 ft below the mud line. When water depth at the well exceeded the length of the structural casing, a temporary guidebase was often used to help guide and stab the structural casing in the drilled hole. Beginning in the mid-1980s, most operators began jetting-in structural casing. With this method, a bit and inner string are run with the structural casing. As the structural casing penetrate below the mud line, pump pressure and circulation remove the soil from just below the structural casing, and the casing moves into the earth as weight is slacked-off. Typically jetted-in structural casing is set from 200 to 320 ft below the mud line. A large, high flow rate mud motor is often used to turn the bit as the structural casing is jetted to depth. Placement of the bit in relationship with the bottom of the casing is critical to the success of the operation. Problems have occurred when the bottom of the bit is not located about one ft below the bottom of the structural casing. Due to its large OD, structural casing is usually built from line pipe rather than casing. Machined connectors are generally welded onto the line pipe. A more detailed section on design and operation procedures used to install the structural casing are included in Section 7.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.4.2
SECOND CONDUCTOR CASING
In the late 1990s, many operators began using a string set 800-1000 ft below the mud line when drilling in deepwater with a floating rig. This string is often called the second conductor casing. The purpose of this string is to case shallow high permeability sands that sometimes are slightly abnormally pressured. Since the BOPs are not installed on the structural casing, shallow flows can lead to failure of the structural casing if the abnormally pressured water sands are allowed to flow uncontrolled to the mud line. Typically when used, this string is either 26-in. or 28-in. OD line pipe and is suspended inside the low-pressure housing. Some operators drill below this string with a subsea annular and a drilling riser. This method is generally done for batch-setting development wells. Most exploration wells drill below this string without a BOP or riser, and well circulation returns are taken to the mud line.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.4.3
CONDUCTOR CASING
The next string of casing typically set in floating drilling operations is the conductor casing. Typically, this string is set above abnormally pressured sands or sands which could possibly contain hydrocarbons. This string is normally set about 1500 to 2000 ft below the mud line, and a string as long as 4000 ft long has been used. This string is usually 20-in. line pipe, however, smaller sizes and even 22-in. line pipe have been used for conductor casing. The subsea BOP stack is normally installed on this string. The setting depth selection for this string is highly dependent on shallow hazards. A shallow hazard survey will identify possible zones, which could contain shallow gas or abnormally pressured high permeability sands. The survey will also identify other hazards such as shallow faults, disturbed sediments (from fluids moving up from deeper intervals). It is desirable to place the well to miss these hazards if at all possible. In most cases, a site can be chosen that will miss these hazards or place hazards at chosen depths in the wellbore. In the last few years, the industry has begun to set the conductor casing string in deepwater at deeper well depths, as deep as 4000 ft BML. A review of a typical fracture gradient curve shows that at shallow BML depths, the expected PIT increases much faster than the PIT at deeper well depths. Setting the conductor deeper takes advantage of this characteristic. Many operators are setting the conductor casing at deeper depths by drilling the conductor casing interval with heavy mud riserless. Weighted mud is pumped down the drillpipe, and returns are taken to the ocean at the mud line. The density of the weighted mud in the hole is sufficient to overbalance shallow sands encountered in this hole section which can be slightly overpressured.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.4.4
SUBSEQUENT CASING STRINGS
Floating rigs use protective and production strings and liners like any other well. Generally these strings are required to isolate lower pressure well intervals which increase hole integrity as needed to drill deeper higher-pressured formations. The setting depth for subsequent casing strings is usually governed by the formation strength at the last casing shoe. It is common to limit mud density in the hole to a value less than the formation strength as determined by an integrity test (LOT) at the last casing shoe. A margin between the maximum mud weight and the LOT will provide for ECD. The margin between the LOT and the maximum mud weight for a hole section is a regulatory issue in some areas. For example, the U.S. Minerals Management Service requires that a margin be specified on the Application for Permit to Drill. The margin between the maximum mud weight and the LOT in a hole section is normally 0.3 to 0.5 ppg. While the margin between the LOT and the maximum mud weight should require a very detailed engineering analysis, Figures 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13 illustrate the typical ranges for the margin that can be used in preliminary well planning.
1.2 Margin PIT-MW, ppg 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 25
A c tual W ells M inim um A verage
20
15 Hole S iz e in.
10
Figure 2.13 - Typical LOT to MW Margin for Well Planning
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
After the optimum setting depth of the conductor casing is planned, selection of subsequent casing string setting depths is straightforward. With the expected fracture gradient and mud weight schedule known, the margin between ECD and the mud weight below that string will determine the string setting depth. This process is shown in Figure 2.14 for a generic deepwater well in 7400 ft. water depth.
Mud Weight and Fracture Gradient Comparison

7000
0.3 ppg
9000
Barker FG Predicted Mud Weight
20" conductor @ 10,000' PIT = 10.2 ppg

11000
Depth-TVD, rkb-ft
13000
Setting Depth 16" @ 12000'
15000
17000
19000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mud Weight, PPG
Figure 2.14 - First Protective Casing Depth Selection
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
This process is continued downhole until reaching the desired well depth or until there are no longer any casing strings available. The final casing setting depths for the generic well are shown in Figure 2.15.
Mud Wieght and Fracture Gradient Comparison

7000
Barker FG
0.3 ppg
Predicted Mud Weight.
9000 20" conductor @ 10,000' PIT = 10.2 ppg 11000 TVD Depth, rkb-ft 16" @ 12000' PIT = 11.5 ppg 13000
0.4 ppg
13-3/8" @ 14500' PIT = 12.8 ppg 15000

0.4 ppg
17000
9-5/8" @ 17200' PIT = 12.2 ppg
19000 8 9 10 11 12 Mud Weight, PPG 13 14 15 16
Figure 2.15 - Final Generic Well Casing Strings Setting Depth Design
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.5
CASING DESIGN
Floating rig operations are unique in that the wellhead is located at the seafloor and is not readily accessible for manipulation or inspection. Since the rig moves with the environment and the well is fixed at the mud line, unique operations are required to install casing strings which will affect casing designs. With floating rigs, casing strings are usually run and landed in the subsea wellhead with a string of drill pipe. The drillpipe casing running string is called a landing string. Section 8 discusses design issues and considerations for landing strings. Since casing strings terminate at the mud line and physical access is not possible, a slip-type casing hanger typically used with most surface wellhead systems cannot be used. A mandrel type casing hanger must therefore be used. A disadvantage of a mandrel type hanger is the hanger must land in the subsea wellhead. If a casing string with a mandrel type casing hanger becomes stuck off bottom and does not land in a subsea wellhead, repair and recovery operations can be very expensive and difficult with increased mechanical risks. A common practice with floating rig operations is to set all casing strings at a depth to leave roughly 50 ft of rathole below the casing shoe. The rathole and not reciprocating the casing while cementing will ensure the mandrel hanger is in and stays in the proper position in the subsea wellhead. One casing design issue unique to floating rigs is that vessel motions may preclude use of some connections. Often vessel motions will make stabbing and make-up of some connections on casing strings (run through the BOPs and riser) difficult. High bending loads on a casing string can be imparted to strings run prior to the BOP and riser being installed. Generally, the first strings installed on wells drilled with floating rigs are large and API line pipe rather than API casing. Line pipe and casing are manufactured to different specifications, grades, etc. Also, generally large weld-on connections are used rather than API threads since these strings can have severe design considerations as discussed below. An elastomeric seal is used on almost all weld-on connectors. Since there is no metal-to-metal seal with these connectors, their use when drilling hydrocarbon intervals should be carefully considered and evaluated. Weld-on connections for large OD strings will be discussed in more detail in another section.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.5.1
STRUCTURAL CASING
Structural casing used in floating rig operations is designed as the foundation of the well. Its design is highly dependent on several rig systems including the stationkeeping system, the riser system and the BOP system. Section 7 gives specific information on design of structural strings. Since structural casing strings are usually 30-in. OD or larger, API line pipe is used. Also, weld-on connections are used due to their rugged construction and increased bending ratings.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.5.2
CONDUCTOR CASING
After the structural casing is installed, the next casing string normally set is the conductor casing. Since with floating rig operations the BOP stack is installed on this string, it is designed for burst using the same design procedures as for surface casing. BURST LOADING Burst design for conductor string assumes seawater on the outside of the string and a full column of gas internal to the string. Also, the burst design assumes a pressure is applied at the mud line such that when an internal gas gradient is included, the pressure at the conductor shoe exceeds the LOT (plus a safety margin). COLLAPSE LOADING The design standard for conductor casing is to withstand cementing loads. Several conductor strings have collapsed when running because the rig crews forgot to fill the string. When running this string, it must be kept full since the large conductor strings generally have low collapse ratings. Collapse design should consider external loads that may occur as a result of heavy muds, weighted pills and cementing density when this string is run. BENDING STRENGTH Bending strength is a concern for conductor casing as it is generally run in open water without the BOPs and riser installed. Environmental loads due to waves or current and rig roll and pitch can generate significant bending loads. Unfortunately, these loads are difficult to quantify and model, and experience typically leads to a conductor connector selection due to bending. As conductor casing is run, tight hole or bridges in the open hole often require some setdown weight or jetting before the casing can be run to bottom. Note: When set-down weight is applied to a conductor casing, it is very important to limit the set-down weight of the string to a value less than the buoyed weight below the SSWH. This will keep the conductor string above the SSWH in tension. When a compression load is permitted in the string above the SSWH, high bending loads can be generated. On several occasions, compression in this string above the SSWH has led to buckling and high bending loads which have led to failure (either in the pipe tube or connection). As a result of these operating conditions, many floating rig well designs include a short higher strength section of conductor casing just below the high pressure subsea wellhead. After a conductor is in place and cemented, bending loads are not normally a problem due to the resistance to bending offered by the structural casing. It is assumed all bending loads are applied to the structural string, and these loads are not applied to the conductor string. TENSION LOADING Typically this string has a very high tensile rating as is more than adequate to support itself and compression loads from subsequent strings. Typically, a design check for compression and tension of this string is made, however burst and collapse loading usually result in a design that is more than adequate for tension.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.5.3
SURFACE, PROTECTIVE, AND PRODUCTION STRINGS
These strings are set in wells drilled with floating rigs for the same reasons and serve essentially the same functions as in wells drilled on land and with bottom founded offshore rigs. The design burst, collapse and tension loads assumed for design are the same as used on other wells except for the effect of water depth on casing back-up pressure used for burst and collapse design. With floating rig operations, casing strings are landed in a subsea wellhead and a seal is installed to isolate the external casing annulus from the wellbore. After the seal is set, the pressure in the annulus is typically never monitored again. While it is possible to unset and/or remove a casing annulus seal assembly (prior to subsequent string being set) this is generally not done. After a subsequent casing string is hung in the SSWH, even this option is no longer available. When a casing annulus is sealed creating a trapped volume, pressure testing the casing hanger seal assembly will be a critical operation. The pressure test volume must be carefully monitored to ensure the seal is set and test pressure is not being applied to the entire trapped annulus. On several occasions, test pressure has leaked past a leaking seal assembly and, since the test pressure exceeded the casing collapse rating, the casing string was inadvertently collapsed. Prior to the 1980s, casing hanger seal assemblies used elastomeric seals, and leaks were common. Most of the casing hanger seal assemblies today use metal-to-metal seals, and leaks in these seal assemblies are less common. When cold mud in a trapped annulus is heated by bottom hole temperature, the pressure in the annulus can reach several thousand psi due to thermal expansion of the fluid. This problem is thought to have led to at least one complete wellbore failure (20). Generally the worst design case occurs (highest increase in temperatures) after a well is placed on production. To prevent annulus pressure build-up in wells drilled with floating rigs, mitigation options used include ensuring annuli are not sealed with cement (optimize casing setting depths, etc), installing pressure rupture disks, use of insulated tubing strings and use of crushable foam in the annulus. The risk and operating considerations for providing a method to access casing annuli with an ROV have also been considered. Trapped casing annuli can also cause problems with connections on the casing. Most casing strings have connections designed to contain internal pressure only. An external pressure higher than the internal pressure is not a design criteria for most casing strings. Special connections which seal both external and internal pressure are often used on critical wells drilled with floating drilling rigs. There are two commonly encountered situations with casing annuli that will affect burst casing design for wells drilled with a floating rig. In most cases, the top of primary cement is left below the shoe of the last casing string set. This permits any pressure increase in the casing annuli to bleed-off to formations exposed below the last casing shoe. In some cases and for a variety of reasons, the top of primary cement will seal the casing annuli at the last casing shoe. This creates a fixed trapped volume in the casing annuli. These two cases are shown in Figure 2.16.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Annulus Cementing Options
Riser
Riser
Seal Assembly
36-in.
36-in.
Top of Cement 20-in. 20-in.
Top of Cement
Void Mud Cement
13 3/8-in.
13 3/8-in.
Annulus Not Sealed With Cement
Annulus Sealed With Cement
Figure 2.16 - Casing Annulus Options, Wells Drilled With a Floating Rig
BURST LOADING The following guidelines are recommended for calculating annulus pressures for burst design of casing strings when the strings are landed in a SSWH. The guidelines depend on whether the casing annuli is sealed with cement at the last casing shoe. The typical case found with casing strings set in wells with floating rigs is not to seal the annulus with cement. This is also the preferred method of preventing excessive pressure buildup in casing annuli. Figure 2.17 illustrates this design condition. Typically it is possible to place casing strings so that primary cement will not seal the casing annulus at the previous casing shoe.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
With this case, fluids and pressures in the casing annulus change with time. Pressure at the casing annulus seal assembly is assumed to balance the local formation pore pressure below the last casing shoe. Depending on water depth, casing setting depth, mud weight and exposed formation pore pressure, the mud left in the casing annulus may or may not drop as shown in Figure 2.17.
Annulus Not Sealed W ith Cement
Riser
Riser
Seal Assembly
36-in. Mud Drop
36-in.
20-in.
20-in.
Top of Cement
Top of Cement
Void Mud Cement
13 3/8-in.
13 3/8-in.
No annulus mud drop
Annulus mud drop
Figure 2.17 - Casing Burst Design, Annulus Not Sealed With Cement
The recommended pressures to use in burst design when designing casing for floating operations when the annulus is not sealed with cement are: 1. Assume that the mud in the casing annulus will drop below the seal assembly to a depth that the setting mud weight will balance the local pore pressure at the shoe, then use zero backup from the seal assembly to the top of the mud column. 2. Next use setting mud weight gradient from the top of the mud to the previous casing shoe. 3. Then use the local pore pressure gradient from the last casing shoe to the design string setting depth. Appendix 2 includes an example showing how this recommended method can be used when designing for burst conditions.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
The presence of shallow hydrocarbons can complicate the goal of leaving casing annuli non-sealed. It is common practice to cover all hydrocarbon intervals with primary cement, and this is a regulatory requirement in many areas such as the GOM. When a hydrocarbon zone is near a previous casing shoe, it can be difficult to cover the hydrocarbon interval with cement and still leave the shoe at the previous annulus open, not sealed with cement. It may be necessary to use less than optimum casing setting depths to leave casing annuli open after hydrocarbon zones are properly cemented. In a few cases, it may be necessary to seal a casing annulus with cement creating a trapped volume. When this condition exists, the hydrostatic pressure trapped below the seal assembly cannot bleed-off to the formation. For this case, the recommended pressures for use in burst design are: 1. Use zero psi burst backup pressure at the seal assembly. 2. Use setting mud weight from the seal assembly to the top of cement. 3. Use a 9.0 ppg gradient for the cement column (from top of cement to the outer casing shoe depth). 4. Use local formation pressure gradient from the outer casing shoe depth to the casing setting depth. COLLAPSE DESIGN For collapse design of strings landed in a subsea wellhead, it is recommended that the external pressure be assumed to be the casing setting mud weight. Credit is not taken for possible pressure reduction due to fluid loss to exposed formations below the outer casing string (even if the annulus is not sealed with cement). The worst case assumption is that permeable formations do not exist below the outer casing shoe.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.6
MUD SELECTION
All drilling operations have many basic functions and requirements for the drilling mud which include, balancing formation pressure, hole cleaning, stabilizing the borehole, etc. Floating rig operations have all the basic requirements for drilling muds and a few additional requirements for offshore and deepwater locations. This section will discuss several of the functions unique to floating drilling. Typically the marine drilling riser on floating rigs has roughly a 20-in. inside diameter with a 0.35 to 0.4 bbls/ft capacity. In 5000 ft water depth, the riser can contain as much as 2000 bbls of mud. The volume of the mud system on many deepwater floating rigs can be 5000 to 6000 bbls. The large mud system volume makes the mud costs for deepwater very high. In most offshore areas of the world, there are restrictions on discharge of drilling fluids to the environment. Many regulatory agencies have requirements on the toxicity, volume and type of cuttings and mud which can be discharged at the rig. This may limit the type, rate or components used in the drilling mud for wells drilled with floating rigs. Diesel and mineral oil mud were used by some operators with floating rig operations in shallow and moderate water depths in the past. For deepwater floating drilling operations, it is important that the viscosity of the mud does not increase significantly with cold temperature and possibly aggravate drilling problems such as lost returns, ECD or surge and swab pressures. In most areas of the world, the temperature of the seawater drops with increasing water depth. Figure 2.18 illustrates that for the GOM, the seawater temperature approaches roughly 38o F with depth. This is the minimum temperature at the BOPs during long term periods without wellbore circulation. In floating rig operations, the drilling mud can experience a wide range of temperatures from static bottom hole temperature to the temperature at the mud line. Some of the early synthetic based muds (SBMs) were very viscous at cold temperatures, which slowed the use of early SBM in deepwater. Today SBMs are used with many floating rigs (especially in the GOM) however, cuttings discharge to the ocean is very closely regulated in many areas. Synthetic muds are often used on floaters since they are very inhibitive when drilling reactive shale zones.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
R e c o rd e d a t M is s . C a n y o n B lo c k 2 1 1 T EM P . D EG . F 35 DEPTH BELOW SEALEVEL feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Figure 2.18 - Seawater Temperature vs. Water Depth, GOM
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Most wells drilled with floating rigs will drill at least some very geologically young formations. Typically, very young formations are very sensitive to water. When drilling these intervals with non-inhibitive muds it is common to experience so called gumbo problems. Gumbo can be a significant drilling problem and can limit drilling rates, plug flowlines and result in oversize hole and formation evaluation problems. As a result, many operators use inhibitive muds to drill shallow reactive formations. It is common to drill with high sodium chloride muds, calcium chloride muds and even SBM to prevent gumbo problems when drilling shallow formations.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
2.7
GAS HYDRATES
When drilling beyond about 1000 ft water depth, well pressure and temperature at the BOPs are usually favorable for the formation of natural gas hydrates. Natural gas hydrates are a solid mixture of natural gas and water resembling dirty ice in appearance. Unlike ice, they can form at temperatures well above 32oF when sufficient pressure is present. The higher seafloor hydrostatic pressures and lower temperatures encountered beyond about 1000 ft water depth increase the likelihood of hydrate formation in choke lines, drilling risers, BOPs and subsea wellheads. When natural gas hydrates occur in floating rig systems, they can form a blockage in the choke and kill lines and mechanically prevent closure of valves and BOPs. As a hydrate forms, it consumes water and natural gas. Water based drilling muds have a high percentage of water and if a hydrate did occur, water in the mud would be removed as the hydrate forms. This will leave the mud with reduced water content. If a significant amount of natural gas hydrates are formed, the reduction in water in the drilling mud can produce thick, high viscosity mud or even remove enough water from the mud to leave only solids. It is common to see thick muds and even solids blockage of subsea equipment after hydrates have formed. Unfortunately, if the pressure/ temperature (P-T) condition in the well returns to conditions where hydrates disassociate back into water and natural gas, the solids have already formed and potentially plugged subsea equipment. For this reason, it is common to find only solids when a subsea stack is retrieved as hydrates will have disassociated and dispersed before the subsea stack reaches the rig floor. To form a natural gas hydrate, it is necessary to have natural gas and water interact at the proper temperature and pressure. The combination of pressure and temperature where natural gas hydrates and water combine to form stable hydrates are accurately known. Early research identified the pressure and temperature conditions where hydrates formed in natural gases. Figure 2.19 is an example of this early research and illustrates several factors that affect hydrate formation. While this figure is now outdated, it illustrates that gas composition has an appreciable impact on hydrate forming conditions.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figure 2.19 - Conditions Favorable for Gas Hydrate Formation
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
The hydrate formation conditions can be altered by the addition of inhibitors and promoters. Hydrate inhibitors include salts, alcohols and glycols that lower the threshold temperature at which hydrates form. Alcohols such as methanol are the most effective hydrate inhibitors, however addition of alcohols to the mud system has many detrimental effects, and are generally not used by the industry. Salts including sodium chloride and calcium chloride are the most often used hydrate inhibitor in drilling mud systems. Glycols are essentially low-grade alcohols and include ethylene glycol and glycerol, and they are commonly used in mud systems as hydrate inhibitors. Other inhibitors function by slowing down rather than preventing the formation of gas hydrate crystals. The development of kinetic inhibitors has occurred recently, but they have not been used in drilling fluid systems to date. A primary advantage of kinetic inhibitors is they apparently function at very low concentrations. However, they are quite expensive. Hydrate promoters include nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, carbon dioxide and some other compounds such as lecithin (glyceryl esters). The pressure at the BOPs is due to the hydrostatic head of the fluid in the well or choke line plus any surface pressure. Figure 2.20 illustrates an example of subsea conditions that could be expected with mud weights from 9 to 16 ppg mud with 1000 psi casing pressure and temperatures at the mud line for the GOM.
10000 Pressure @ BOP's. psi
Assumes ave. GOM seaw ater temp. Assumes Press. @ BOP = hydrostatic + 1000 psi
16 ppg
8000' WD 4000' WD 2000' WD 1000' WD 500' WD
9 ppg
1000 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Seafloor Temperature Deg. F

Figure 2.20 - Wellbore Pressure and Temperature Conditions
Experience has shown natural gas hydrates can form when water in the drilling mud interfaces with natural gas in a wellbore (21). Natural gas in a wellbore can occur due to formation influxes (kicks) and the process of circulating out a kick. Water in the wellbore can also be a result of formation water that entered the wellbore during the kick.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
The pressure and temperature conditions where hydrates begin to form is called the equilibrium condition. The equilibrium hydrate formation conditions for several common drilling muds are shown in Figure 2.21. The addition of inhibitors (salts or alcohols) to the liquid phase of a water based mud will depress the P-T conditions where hydrates can occur.
Assumes ave. GOM seawater temp. Assumes Press. @ BOP = hydrostatic + 1000 psi
8000' WD 4000' WD 2000' WD 1000' WD 500' WD
10000
1 ppg 6
Gas Composit ion 87.1 %C1 6.1%C2
Pressure @ BOP's. psi
9 ppg
Hydrates
Seawater M ud
23 wt%NaCl + 10%Glycol
24-wt% NaCl M ud
Freshwater M ud
1000 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
No Risk of Hydrates
75
Figure 2.21 - Hydrate Equilibrium Conditions For Several Mud Types
Equilibrium charts such as Figure 2.21 do not take into account the kinetics of hydrate formation. Laboratory testing has shown that the speed a hydrate requires to form depends on many factors including the magnitude the actual P-T conditions are below equilibrium condition (supercooling). Figure 2.22 illustrates a typical P-T curve as hydrate forms and the equilibrium condition.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
4000 Hydrates Forming Cooling 3500 Pressure, psi Hydrate Formed 3000 Equilibrium Condition
Hydrates Decomposing 2500 Heating
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Temperature, Degrees F
Figure 2.22 - Hydrate Pressure and Temperature Forming Conditions
Figure 2.23 is based on laboratory testing with 24-WT% sodium chloride mud and illustrates that the risk of forming a hydrate increases with time when the P-T conditions are less than the hydrate forming equilibrium conditions.
Assumes ave. GOM seawater temp. Assumes Press. @ BOP = hydrostatic + 1000 psi
8000' WD 4000' WD 2000' WD 1000' WD 500' WD
10000
1 ppg 6
Gas Composit ion 87.1 %C1 6.1%C2
Pressure @ BOP's. psi
9 ppg
High Risk
No Hydrat es in 24 hrs
No Risk of Hydrates
Low Risk
24-wt% NaCl M ud
Equilibrium
1000 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Figure 2.23 - Operating Guidelines For 24-WT% NaCl Mud
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Use of a mud in the High Risk area of the equilibrium chart is a risked decision. Figure 2.24 is an example illustrating a risk analysis of a hydrate inhibitive mud.
Figure 2.14 - Example Risk Analysis of a Hydrate Inhibitive Mud
(22)
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Beginning in the mid-1980s, synthetic based drilling muds began to be used with floating rig operations by some operators. These muds use refined base oil rather than diesel or mineral oil to reduce the toxicity of the mud and permit cuttings discharges in some areas. Hydrates can form in a synthetic base mud system. The hydrate inhibition characteristic of an SBM is primarily a function of the inhibitor concentration in the dispersed water. The base oil in an SBM can be thought of as an inert ingredient as far as hydrate formation is concerned. Water in an SBM is generally dispersed in the oil phase, and it typically has a very high inhibitor concentration (calcium chloride). Testing of an SBM found that an SBM with 30% CaCl2 in the internal phase did not form hydrates under extreme subcooling. However, hydrates did form when the concentration of CaCl2 was reduced to 15-WT% (22). Unlike water based muds, gas is soluble in a synthetic oil based mud system which can permit gas and the water (which is dispersed in the oil phase) to come in contact. Research has found that an SBM without salt in the water phase formed more hydrates faster than are formed in a partially hydrate inhibitive water based mud system (22). Also, any formation water that occurs with a gas influx can provide the free water required to form a hydrate in an SBM system. It is possible to depress the hydrate formation conditions to about 30oF if water based mud is nearly saturated with sodium chloride. Unfortunately, the minimum density of a near saturation sodium chloride water based mud is near 10.4 ppg. In many cases, the formation integrity at the conductor casing will not permit use of a mud with a density over about 10 ppg. This could be a problem if a shallow gas sand were expected when the maximum mud weight cannot allow adding sodium chloride to a high saturation in the mud. In this situation, either higher risk of hydrate formation must be accepted, or additional alternate inhibitors must be used. For water based muds, it is typical to run the sodium chloride concentration at 20 to 24-WT%. As the sodium chloride concentration approaches saturation, the hydrate inhibition ability of a mud increases faster. As a result a mud with 20-WT% sodium chloride will have much less hydrate inhibitive capability than a mud with 24-WT% sodium chloride. Over about 26-WT% sodium chloride, additional sodium chloride actually is detrimental to hydrate inhibition efforts. Mixing salts, i.e., NaCl and CaCl2 in a mud system can have solubility problems and salt precipitation can result. Table 2.2 can be used to convert the chloride ion concentration of a mud to the WT%.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Filtrate Chloride-Ion PPM 30300 60600 90900 97000 103000 109100 115200 121500 127500 133500 139500
Filtrate Chloride-Ion Mg/liter 31599 64900 100900 108200 115800 123500 131200 139200 147300 155200 163600
Salt Weight % 5 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
145500 151500
169400 171700 188700
24 25 26 (fully saturated)
Table 2.2 - Conversion Table of Chloride-ion to Salt WT%
Additional hydrate depression with a water based mud (below what can be achieved with salts) must be achieved with the addition of different inhibitors, usually low-grade alcohols. Low-grade alcohols include glycerol and glycols. With the addition of these inhibitors, a water based mud can be formulated to achieve a maximum of about 40oF hydrate depression. Some operators use significantly under saturated water based muds and rely on using pills with inhibitors such as ethylene glycol as a mitigator when a potential hydrate condition exists. Sodium Chloride is the most effective hydrate inhibitor (on a weight basis). Calcium chloride is a very effective hydrate inhibitor, however calcium chloride muds can be toxic to marine life and difficult to handle. The use of calcium chloride muds should be carefully considered. Potassium chloride water based muds are fairly poor hydrate inhibited systems. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the industry performed a great deal of testing on various hydrate inhibitive mud systems (23). A consulting engineering company, Westport Technology developed a computer program to calculate the hydrate equilibrium conditions for many mud systems used by floating rigs. The computer program called Whyp is used by many in the industry. The computer program only calculates equilibrium conditions (pressure and temperature) and does not give any qualitative information on the kinetics of hydrate formation in drilling muds.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Hydrates can also be encountered with floating rigs outside the wellbore. It is common to observe gas bubbles outside the structural casing and even between the structural and conductor casing strings. The gas bubbles often accumulate and form a hydrate on the outside of the BOP stack, wellhead connector and the subsea wellhead. The wellhead manufacturers have designed into their equipment precautions to prevent hydrates from forming in critical locations. For example most wellhead connectors have a seal to keep gas and hydrates out of the gap between the wellhead connector and the subsea wellhead. Also newer wellhead connectors usually have the ability for an ROV to inject chemicals into areas of the connector that could become plugged with hydrates. It is also common to install a seal between the subsea wellhead housing and the mud mat to help prevent gas migration. The formation of natural gas hydrates has occurred many times during deepwater operations, sometimes when not expected. For example, one operator was using a water based mud system during P&A operations and allowed the sodium chloride concentration of the mud to drop significantly (to lower mud density). The mud hydrate equilibrium conditions were significantly under the conditions where hydrates are calculated to occur. Unfortunately, natural gas was in a casing annulus below a wellhead seal assembly. When the seal assembly was unset, the gas quickly formed a hydrate plug with the drilling mud and plugged both choke and kill lines and the BOPs. Several days were required to resolve this problem and complete abandonment operations on the well.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
REFERENCES:
1. Hubbert, M. K., and Willis, C.G.: Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing, Trans. AIME (1957) 210. 2. Christman, S.A.: Offshore Fracture Gradients, SPE 4133, JPT (Aug. 1973). 3. Matthews, W.R. and Kelly, John,: How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture Gradient from Electric Logs, Oil and Gas Journal ( Feb. 20, 1967) 92-116. 4. Smith, R.C. and Calvert, D.G.: The use of Sea Water in Well Cementing, JPT, (June 1975) 759-764. 5. Eaton, B.A.: The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, SPE 5544. 6. Bowers, G.L.: Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction, SPE 27489 presented to the 1984 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference in Dallas, Texas. 7. Warpinski, N.R. and Smith, Michael Berry: Rock mechanics and Fracture Geometry, Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph (1989), vol. 12, pp57-80. 8. Eaton, B.A.: Fracture Gradient Prediction and its Application in Oilfield Operations, JPT (Oct. 1969) 1353-1360. 9. Brennan , R.M. and Annis, M.R.: A New Fracture Gradient Prediction Technique that Shows Good Results in the Gulf of Mexico, SPE 13210, 1984. 10. Daines, S.R.: Prediction of Fracture Pressures for Wildcat Wells, SPE 9254, 1980. 11. Constant, D.W. and Bourgoyne, A.T.: Fracture-Gradient Prediction for Offshore Wells, SPE Drilling Engineering (June 1988) 136-140. 12. Simmons, E.L. and Rau, W.E.: Predicting Deepwater Fracture Pressures: A Proposal, SPE 18025, presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5, 1988. 13. Rocha, L.A. and Bourgoyne, A.T.: A New Simple Method of Estimate Fracture Pressure Gradient, SPE 28710, 1994. 14. Barker, J.W.: Estimating Shallow Below Mud line Deepwater GOM Fracture Gradients, presented at the 1997 Houston AADE Chapter Annual Technical Forum. 15. Eaton, B.A. and Eaton, T.L.: Fracture Gradient Prediction for the New Generation, World Oil (Oct. 1997), 93-100. 16. Aadnoy, Bernt S.: Geomechanical Analysis for Deepwater Drilling, IADC/SPE 39339, 1998.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
17. Furlow, W.: Is EEXs Llano the Next Deepwater Giant? Offshore, November 1998, pp. 36-37. 18. Barker, J.W.: Equivalent Circulation Density Management in Ultra-deep Deepwater GOM Wells, Deepwater Technology, August 1999, pg 29-33. 19. Barker, J.W.: Wellbore Design With Reduced Clearance Between Casing Strings, SPE 37615, 1997. 20. Bradford, D.W., et. al, Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign-Part 1, Description of Failure, SPE/IADC 74528, 2002. 21. Barker, J.W. and Gomez, R.K.: Formation of Hydrates During Deepwater Drilling Operations, SPE/IADC 16130, 1987. 22. Davalath, J. and Elward-Berry, J.: Hydrate Prevention in Subsea Well Control, EPR.27PR.91, June 1991. 23. Ebeltoft, Hege, Yousif, M., and Soergaard, E.: Hydrate Control During Deepwater Drilling: Overview and New Drilling Formulations, paper SPE 38567 presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio (5-8 October, 1997).
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX 1 FRACTURE GRADIENT CALCULATION
The following is an example problem for calculating the fracture gradient for an offshore deepwater well using the Eaton technique (15) and the method developed by Barker(14). Three fracture gradients will be calculated for a well in 3250 ft water depth with pore pressures given. The calculation conditions are: Water Depth = 3250 ft RKB elevation = 50 ft Calculation Depths/ Pore Pressure: Depth, TVD-rkb-ft 5100 6700 9050 SOLUTION Eaton Technique for Deepwater (15): Step 1: Using Figure 2.15, the overburden at the three desired well depths is: Overburden Depth, TVD-rkb-ft 5100 6700 9050 0.58 0.68 0.75 Gradient, psi/ft Overburden Pressure, psi/ppg 2958/11.15 4556/13.07 6788/14.42 Pore Pressure- psi/psi/ft 2372/0.465 3169/0.473 5222/0.577
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Step 2: Calculate Poissons ratio for the three well depths: EATON EQUATIONS: Poissons Ratio (v) for 0 to 4999.9 ft below the mud line: v = -6.089286 x 10-9 * (Depth)2 + 5.7875 x 10-5 *(Depth) + 0.2007142857 eq. 1 And for 5000 ft and greater below the mud line: v = -1.882 x 10-10 * (Depth)2 + 7.2947129 x 10-6 x (Depth) + 0.4260341387..eq.2 Eaton Equation for Fracture Gradient F/D: PIT= v /(1-v) *(Overburden Pore Pressure) + Pore pressure eq. 3
CALCULATION RESULTS Calc. Fracture Depth, TVD ft 5100 6700 9050 Poissons Ratio - v 0.390 0.440 0.470 Gradient, psi/ft/ppg 0.5380/10.35 0.6356/12.22 0.7393/14.21 Actual Fracture Pressure, psi/ft/ppg 0.5356/10.3 0.6344/12.2 0.7384/14.2
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Figure 2.15 - Eatons Average Overburden Density Data For Various Water Depths
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
BARKER TECHNIQUE (14): Calculate the fracture gradient at 5100 ft rkb: Soil, psi = (5.3 x (TVD-bml, ft)0.1356 ) x Depth ML*0.052..eq. 1 = (5.3 x (1800ft)0.1356) x1800 ft x 0.052 = 1371 psi Seawater hydrostatic, psi = 8.55 ppg x 0.052 x water depth,ft = 8.55 ppg x 0.052 x 3250ft =1445 psi Fracture pressure, psi = 1371 + 1445 = 2816 psi LOT,ppg = 2816/0.052/5100 ft = 10.6 ppg CALCULATION RESULTS Calc. Fracture Depth, TVD, rkb-ft 5100 6700 9050 Gradient, psi/ft /ppg 0.552/10.6 0.637/12.3 0.728/14.0 Actual Fracture Gradient, psi/ft/ppg 0.5356/10.3 0.6344/12.2 0.7384/14.2
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
APPENDIX 2
EXAMPLE 1
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS, BACKUP PRESSURE FOR BURST DESIGN, FLOATING RIGS
Annular mud drop occurs below the subsea wellhead seal assembly Given: Water depth = 500 ft, Protection casing will be set at 8000 ft below mud line, 8500 ft subsea, Pore pressure is 9.0 ppg to 7500 ft subsea and then increasing to 12.0 ppg at 8500 ft subsea. Cement will be brought above the top of abnormal pressure but well below the outer casing shoe. Final mud weight the casing will be set in is 12.5 ppg. Surface casing is set at 3500 ft subsea. The wellbore sketch is shown in Figure 2.16. SOLUTION Step 1, Calculate Annular Mud Drop In this case there is no seal trapping a fixed volume outside the casing string. The mud in the annulus can leak-off to the formation. Based on the surface casing setting depth of 3500 ft subsea, calculate the annular mud drop below the casing seal assembly to balance the 12.5 ppg annular fluid with 9.0 ppg pore pressure (below the surface casing). Formation pressure at the surface casing shoe = 3500 ft x 9.0ppg x 0.052 = 1638 psi Maximum annular mud drop = 3500 ft - 1638 psi/(12.5 ppg x 0.052) = 980 ft subsea This is the subsea depth to which the fluid level will drop. Therefore, plot zero backup pressure from the seal assembly down to the top of the annular fluid at 980 ft. subsea. Draw a straight line between this pressure and the zero pressure point at the top of the annular fluid at 980 ft. subsea.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Step 2, Calculate the Formation Backup Pressure at the Protection Casing Shoe While there is a transition from 9.0 to 12.5 ppg over the last 1000 ft of this hole section, use 9.0 ppg for the hole section backup calculation. Formation pressure at the protection casing shoe = 9.0 ppg x 0.052 x 8500 ft = 3978 psi Plot this pressure at the protective casing shoe at 8500 ft subsea and draw the 9.0 ppg gradient line between this point and the pressure at the surface casing shoe.
234 psi
Pressure psi 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Depth ft Subsea 5000 12.5 ppg setting MW 6000 Top of Cement 7000 8000 9000 Intermediate 8500 ft subsea 8000 ft BML
Void
1000
2000
3000
4000
500 ft water depth Annular Mud Drop to 980 ft subsea, 480 ft BML
1000 9.0 ppg gradient 2000 3000
Surface 3500 ft subsea 3000 ft BML 12.5 ppg gradient
1638 psi
4000 5000 Depth ft Subsea 6000 7000 8000

3978 psi
Mud
9000
Cement
Figure 2.16 - Example Problem #1, Casing Design Burst Backup
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
EXAMPLE 2 Annular mud drop does not fall below the subsea wellhead seal assembly Given: Water depth = 4000 ft, protection casing will be set at 12,000 ft subsea (8000 ft bml), Surface casing is set at 7000 ft subsea (3000 ft bml) in normal 9.0 ppg pore pressure. Pore pressure of 9.0 ppf exists from the mud line to 11,000 ft subsea and then a transition to 12.0 ppg pore pressure at 12,000 ft subsea. Cement will be brought above the top of abnormal pressure but below the surface casing shoe. The final mud weight the protective casing is set in is 12.5 ppg. See Figure 2.17 for the wellbore sketch. SOLUTION Step 1: Calculate Annular Mud Drop In this case there is no cement seal at the surface casing shoe in the casing annulus. Based on the surface casing setting depth of 7000 ft subsea, calculate the annular drop required to balance the 12.5 ppg annular fluid with 9.0 ppg pore pressure. Formation pressure at the surface casing shoe = 7000 ft x 9.0 ppg x 0.052 = 3276 psi Maximum annular mud drop = 7000 ft 3276/( 12.5 ppg x 0.052) = 1960 ft subsea Because this depth is still above the mud line, the fluid level will not fall below the seal assembly in the casing annulus. Plot the formation pressure at the surface casing shoe at 7000 ft subsea. Step 2: Determine the net pressure at the Wellhead Since the hydrostatic pressure at the wellhead resulting from the 12.5 ppg annular mud column (from the SSWH to the surface casing shoe), a net [positive pressure results at the SSWH. Hydrostatic press. at the surface casing shoe = 12.5 ppg x 0.052 x (7000-4000 ft) = 1950 psi Net pressure at the SSWH = 3276 psi 1950 psi = 1326 psi Plot this pressure at the SSWH at 4000 ft. subsea and draw the 12.5 ppg gradient line between this point and the pressure at the surface casing shoe.
WELL DESIGN ISSUES
Step 3: Calculate Formation Backup pressure at the Protection Casing Shoe While there is a transition to abnormal pressure over the last 1000 ft of this hole section, the minimum pressure for the interval (9.0 ppg pore pressure) will be used for the casing backup pressure calculation. Formation Pressure at Protection Casing Shoe = 9.0 ppg x 0.052 x 12,000 ft = 5616 psi Plot this pressure at the protective casing shoe and draw the 9.0 ppg gradient line between this point and the pressure at the surface casing shoe.
Pressure psi 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 No Annular Mud Drop Depth ft Subsea 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 Surface 7000 ft subsea 3000 ft BML 12.5 ppg setting MW Top of Cement Intermediate 12000 ft subsea 8000 ft BML
Void
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1000 2000 4000 ft water depth

1326 psi 546 psi 1872 psi
3000 4000 9.0 ppg gradient 5000 Depth ft Subsea 6000 7000
3276 psi
12.5 ppg gradient
8000 9000 10000 11000

5616 psi
Mud
Cement
12000
Figure 2.17 - Example Problem #2, Casing Burst Back-up Pressure Example

Well Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

2-1 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

2-2 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Figure 2.1 - Example of Reduced PP/FG Margin

2-3 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

FRACTURE GRADIENT AND PORE PRESSURE

2-4 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

B ulk D en sity vs D epth B elow the Mu d Lin e

Soil Boring Data Density Log Data

Figure 2.2 - Bulk Density Well Bore Profile

2-5 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Typical Overburden Gradient

Figure 2.3 - Worldwide Overburden Gradients

2-6 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

2-7 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

EFFECTIVE STRESS RATIO

2-8 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Frac Gradient Method Comparison

Pore Pressure Eaton Daines Christman Brennan & Annis

Simmons & Rau Barker & Woods

Depth RKB, ft TVD

Stress Gradients, ppge

2-9 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Brazil, deepwater worldwide

Barker (1997) Eaton (1997) Aadnoy (1998)

f(depth) f(Poison's, OB) f(OB)

Deepwater GOM, shallow BML Deepwater All WD, worldwide

Table 2.1 Summary of Fracture Gradient Prediction Methods

2 - 10 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Figure 2.5 - Sensitivity of Pore Pressure on Estimated Fracture Gradient

2 - 11 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Increasing Water Depth

2 - 12 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

OFFSET WELL DATA

2 - 13 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

2 - 14 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Eastern GOM Deepwater

Adjuste to: 7400 ft WD & 80 ft RKB Elevation

Depth below mud line, ft

Figure 2.8 - Mud Weight vs. Depth For Offset Wells

2 - 15 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

Eastern GOM Deepwater

Depth belowmud line, ft

2 - 16 EXXONMOBIL FLOATING DRILLING SCHOOL 2002 EDITION

WELL DESIGN ISSUES

EQUIVALENT CIRCULATION DENSITY

Zero psi Zero gpm Pannulus = 198 psi