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)
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
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
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
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