OTC 18270-PP Advancing the Learning Curve in Drilling With Casing Technology

P. Maggi, SPE, ENI; R. Brister, SPE, Chevron; S. Beattie, SPE, Weatherford

Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 14 May 2006. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract Drilling with Casing is a fast growing technology generated by a driver to optimize cost and time in tophole wellbore construction. In this South China Sea application neither was optimized although the potential for both is patently evident. The operation took place on a 16-slot platform where 20-inch conductor casing had been set and 50 meters of 17-1/2" hole had been drilled in preparation for the DwC operations. Just over 803 meters was drilled with the DwC before the hard formation slowed the ROP to less than 2 meters/hour. Although this was not the longest section drilled with this patent pending technology, a total of almost 409 meters was achieved which is significant in the hard formation environment in which this technology was applied. This run represents a record in that this is the deepest 13-3/8" DwC to date. There were many lessons learned in this application and when applied in subsequent 2006 operations, both time and cost are expected to be significantly optimized and it its anticipated that this method of tophole wellbore construction will become the norm rather than the exception. Background The drivers for drilling with casing (World Oil, Oct. 1999 Tarr and Sukup1) havent really changed as reported in a 1998 study, that is: Reducing drilling flat time Getting casing to planned depth Getting casing set through troublesome zones (water flows, shear zones, fluid-loss zones) Extending hole sections beyond traditional limits Reducing the starting hole size required by using leanprofile casing schemes

Additional drivers include Safer operations Reduces or eliminates drill pipe or wireline trip times Monobore geometry with reduced annulus size provides for optimal hole cleaning Reduced pipe handling incidents Reduced tool failures Minimizing on-site inventory such as drill pipe and collars during batch drilling operations Reduced fuel consumption/emissions Reduced pipe stand-back area Provides a near gauge hole for cement volume and bond optimization DwC maintains constant circulation of borehole until cementing Reduces potential requirement of contingency casing Drills straighter holes reducing torque, drag and cleaning problems due to spiraling Reduces formation exposure time and associated drilling problems Concentric borehole quality mitigates stuck pipe Reduces or eliminates well control incidents of drill pipe tripping (swab/surge) Reduces down hole trouble time (fighting lost circulation potential) Mitigate for potential seepage losses Helps prevent and cure lost circulation due to mechanical smearing from cuttings There is another driver however that cannot be understated, especially in surface hole applications. The rigidity of 13-3/8 casing (and larger) presents an opportunity in harsh anticollision environments and well architectures requiring deep kick-off points, that lend itself to a verticality driver, that is, less than 1 degree deviation. Tophole drilling with 13-3/8 (and larger) casing provides that necessary rigidity to avoid unexpected dogleg building due to formation changes as well as costs of gyro-controlled tophole vertical drilling systems. This was the first Drilling with Casing project for this operator. The project was to comprise two back-to-back DwC jobs in a new 6-slot, 6-well drilling program in which the 26hole/20 conductor and 13-3/8 surface pipe were to be batch-drilled. The vertical 20 conductor had already been installed just prior to the first DwC job.

[OTC 18270-PP]

Derrick and drawworks capacities were both 1 million pounds and pump capacity consisted of 1300 Hp, 974 gpm in 13-3/8 casing for each of two triplex pumps with 6-1/4 liners. Two separate systems were evaluated for use in a conventional 17 x 13-3/8 hole. One vendors technology included capability for directional control and one without. Evaluation criteria included the need for deep KOP, low cost, good hole stability in tophole sections, and verticality. Within the families of both systems were alternative shoe strengths based on number of cutters and blades and complexity of the drillout mechanism. Since a system with directional capability was deemed unnecessary and the range for casing point (based on the need for the deep KOP) was liberal, i.e. somewhere between 800 m to 1200 m, and it was based on a sufficiently high MAASP (maximum allowable annular surface pressure), the decision was made to go with a non-directional system. Other decision criteria centered on the type of cutting structures necessary for the specific type of formation. Two designs, both of which were classified as PDC drillable, were then considered. The first was a 4-bladed shoe with tungsten carbide cutting structure on the aluminum alloy crown and thermally stable PDC cutters along the drift diameter with the high density tungsten carbide on the front of the blades. (Fig. 1.0).

down at a pre-determined rate, exposing new cutting elements as the outermost cutters wear down. (Fig.2.0).

Fig. 2.0 Drillshoe cutter blade

The second design was a 6-bladed shoe with PDC cutting structure along the crown, had a drift diameter which is made drillable through a hydraulically operated piston-extruded cement shoe (Fig. 3.0).

Fig. 3.0 shoe

PDC drillable hydraulically-activated extruded cement

In both cases all components of both shoes were ultimately PDC-drillable. The decision to use the 4-bladed casing shoe rather than the hydraulically activated shoe was strictly an economic one. In short, it was deemed more economical to use a rigid casing drilling BHA than it was to run a gyroguided vertical drilling system.
Fig. 1.0 4-Bladed Drillshoe

Chronology After 20 casing was run and cemented in place, a conventional 17-1/2 BHA was run to drill out cement and 20 casing shoe at 349m. An additional 42m of new hole was drilled and a formation integrity test was performed to an

The shoe also had tungsten carbide gauge pads to minimize early drift diameter wear and was fitted with ceramic nozzles to minimize washout. The blade material is designed to wear

[OTC 18270-PP]

equivalent mud weight of 10.1 ppg. With the conventional 17-1/2 BHA in the hole, parameters were recorded for comparison hole drilling. Weight on bit was 3-10 Klbs, flow rate was 920 gpm, pressure was 400 psi, top drive speed of 6070 rpms and torque was 3-4000 ft-lbs in 8.8 ppg PHPA mud. 17-1/2 hole was drilled to 394.6 m before the conventional BHA was pulled. The 4-bladed casing drilling shoe was fitted with 4 x 20/32 and 4 x 18/32 ceramic nozzles and made up on the bottom of a 13-3/8 68#/ft, K-55 buttress thread casing joint. Sizing of the nozzles was based on the hydraulic calculations performed by the drillshoe contractor. The surface drive system utilized was a modified AZ spear complete with modified HE grapple which was made up on a 1.5 m pup joint and function tested at 361.5m (Table 1.0, Appendix Table 3.0). The target for this surface hole section was between 800 to 1,200m. The float collar was pre-assembled and torqued onshore to the recommended manufacturer specification. All connections within the shoe track were Tube-Locked to prevent backout. After picking up and making up the drilling shoe and float collar, 34 joints of casing were picked up and run in hole in a conventional manner using side-door elevators. The casing was filled during its run to bottom. 13 3/8 DwC Spear
Nominal Casing Size (in) (inches) Spear O.D (inches) Spear I.D (inches) Spear Length (inches) Catch Range I.D (inches) Max Pull Yield (lbs) Max Torque (ft/lbs) Table 1.0 13-3/8 DwC Spear Data

Hard Drilling RPM 30-50 WOB 7.5 - 10K Torque less than make up torque of casing GPM 800 - 1200 Pressure drop 500 1,200PSI Stringers RPM 20-50 WOB 10 - 15K Torque less than make up torque of casing GPM 800 1,200 Pressure drop 500 1,200psi

Recommended Operating Limits

WOB 20,000 lb (9 tonnes) Torque 10,000 ft-lb (14,000 Nm) Rotary Speed 20-100rpm Flow Rate 1,200gpm (4,400l/min) Pressure Drop 1,200psi Bottom was tagged and drilling commenced with low parameters of 50 RPM and WOB 2000 lbs at torque of 1500 ft-lbs. In most instances the operator stayed quite close to recommended drilling parameters. At first, initial ROP was very good, as high as 70m/hr with pressure holding steady at 350psi. Drilling parameters were similar to the conventional BHA with top drive at 60-70 rpms, pressure at 300-500psi, flow rate between 870-920 gpm and torque was maintained at 3-5000 ft-lbs. A dump and dilute strategy was utilized for sand and mud weight control. The parameters were steadily increased to 100 RPM and WOB was adjusted constantly to correspond with the various geological structures encountered. There were no significant problems encountered prior to reaching a depth of 750 meters, although drilling through several sandstone sections took their toll on the drilling shoe which was noted with drops in ROP to as low as 10m/hr.

Specifications
13 3/8 11 3 60 12.159 12.715 2,780.000 300,000

The following drilling parameters were recommended by the drilling shoe contractor. Mudline to first 30 feet RPM 30-50 WOB 2.5 - 5 K Torque less than make up torque of casing GPM 800 - 1200 Pressure drop 500 1,200psi Soft Drilling RPM 50-80 WOB 2 - 5 K Torque less than make up torque of casing GPM 800 1,200 Pressure drop 500 1,200psi Normal Drilling RPM 40-60 WOB 5 - 7.5K Torque less than make up torque of casing GPM 800 1,200 Pressure drop 500 1,200psi

Fig 4.0 Cuttings recovered below 750 meters

Shortly after passing 750m, however, an extremely hard stringer was encountered which dramatically lowered the ROP to 1m/hr and bit bounce began to occur. RPMs were reduced

[OTC 18270-PP]

in an attempt to reduce the bit bounce which was deemed extreme and worsening. Constant adjustments of WOB and ROP yielded only nominal improvements to drilling efficiency until TD was called at 803 meters. A high viscosity sweep was pumped and returns at the shakers monitored, showing sandstone, conglomerates (Fig 4.0) and dolomitic formation material. Offset logs showed a relative thickness of this particular formation although the higher amount of conglomerate and dolomite was unexpected. Previous offset drilling throughout this lithology were undertaken through a subsea wellhead and cuttings were, consequently, never analyzed. The decision was made to finalize TD and cement. The casing shoe, with 105 Krevs, was set at 801.5 meters and cement operations were performed. The total operation took 72 hours which included on-bottom time, connection time, and rig up/down. Hours-on-bottom was 23 hours. Average ROP was 17.7 m/hr. Lessons Learned Although this was not the longest section drilled by this particular type of drillshoe, it was the deepest surface application of this shoe. A total of 408.7metres was achieved which was considered significant based on the quantity of dolomite, conglomerates, and formation hardness. This well was considered a learning curve well that was essentially a breakeven operation. Applying lessons learned however, and this operation becomes an economic success. The cost of the shoe and rentals as compared with daily rig rate for this operator-owned rig, even without applying lessons learned proved that the economics would certainly favor the nonoperator owned rig as was projected for the next well planned for Drilling with Casing technology in this field. Additionally, the rig platform that utilized the technology was originally designed for workovers, rendering the maneuverability of the crane operations from pipe deck to rig floor less convenient, more labor intensive, and consequently considerably more time consuming. It was anticipated that as much as 15 minutes per joint in running time was lost to inefficient crane operations and incorrect space-out of the single joint elevators. The correlation between torque, formation hardness, and WOB is easily visible from the DwC log (Appendix Fig. 5.0). As the torque hits a high point, around 4.5 Kft-lbs at 757 meters, WOB is increased. Just following that, ROP significantly decreases followed by an equally significant reduction in torque as the outer blades are quickly eroded. The reduction in torque is best explained as a hardness-induced metal bearing effect as the aluminum alloy crown rotates with decreasing torque against the dolomitic sandstone. It was evident that real-time monitoring of the entire process, especially with no cuttings data from subsea drilling operations, was a lesson learned. Secondly, with more thorough offset well data, such as those with platform based wellheads, it was determined that an increase of rotary speed and perhaps a higher WOB, both of which were minimized to promote bit life, through the gumbo and less consolidated, less abrasive formations uphole, the shoe would most likely have

performed better, perhaps even carried drilling through the dolomitic sandstone that limited the performance on this run. Additionally, the added depth, possibly to 1200m, presumably would have been reached much more quickly than the 803 m, thus significantly improving the economics. As much as 18 hours was attributed to the inefficient crane operations and less than optimum drilling parameters. Even on an operatorowned rig, adjusting the drilling parameters and applying the lessons learned should more than satisfy the economic drivers for this technology on the follow-up well. A gyro was run which proved up the rigid casing BHAs verticality objectives. In fact, less than 1degree of deviation was achieved with relative ease (Table 2.0). Additionally, as the density of wellbore installations increased so would the value of achieving verticality (also for anti-collision benefit) without the use of such gyro-guided vertical drilling systems which had, up to this well, only limited success and certainly more cost. It was also suggested that hydraulics could be improved dramatically by altering the drilling fluid type and by changing the nozzle size. Effectively, this hole section could have been drilled with sea water with a 2-1/2 times greater annular velocity (assuming mitigation for losses over the shakers at this flow rate) over conventional drilling with 8.8 ppg mud. By changing the nozzle configuration and installing 8 x 13 nozzles (1.037 TFA) with 1.42 HHSI at a flow rate of 900 gpm this should produce a marked improvement compared to the 2.22 TFA experienced. In the event the pressure drop is higher than calculated, the flow rate could be adjusted accordingly. Offset drilling had already indicated that the quality of hole cleaning was not compromised by small adjustments in flow rate. This would mitigate for the inability of the shaker system during this job to handle the flow.
MD m
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780

Incl deg
0 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 5 0 .3 3 0 .1 7 0 .1 6 0 .3 1 0 .3 1 0 .3 5 0 .3 1 0 .0 2 0 .2 5 0 .3 1 0 .3 9 0 .3 3 0 .3 9 0 .3 9 0 .4 1 0 .5 0 .5 2 0 .4 4 0 .4 4 0 .4 0 .4 3

A zi deg
0 3 3 7 .1 6 3 3 .2 7 3 5 4 .7 2 3 0 7 .9 2 3 0 0 .3 1 3 2 2 .6 4 3 4 9 .4 1 3 1 .0 4 3 5 8 .3 4 3 5 4 .7 6 3 5 6 .2 7 3 1 9 .0 2 9 9 .7 8 2 8 6 .0 3 2 6 5 .3 2 2 6 1 .4 1 2 6 5 .7 7 2 6 4 .4 282 2 4 8 .9 2 2 5 4 .7 6 2 5 9 .2 7 2 5 9 .0 4 260 2 5 1 .9 2 2 4 .0 1

V sec m
0 0 0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .7 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .1 0 -0 .2 -0 .4 -0 .6 -0 .7 -0 .9 -1 .1

D o g L eg D e g /3 0 m
0 0 .0 8 0 .0 7 0 .0 7 0 .1 5 0 .1 5 0 .1 3 0 .1 9 0 .1 2 0 .1 9 0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .2 1 0 .3 3 0 .2 7 0 .1 2 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .0 6 0 .1 2 0 .2 3 0 .1 1 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .0 1 0 .0 7 0 .2

V ert D ep th m
0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 2 0 .0 0 1 5 0 .0 0 1 8 0 .0 0 2 1 0 .0 0 2 4 0 .0 0 2 7 0 .0 0 3 0 0 .0 0 3 3 0 .0 0 3 6 0 .0 0 3 9 0 .0 0 4 2 0 .0 0 4 5 0 .0 0 4 8 0 .0 0 5 1 0 .0 0 5 3 9 .9 9 5 6 9 .9 9 5 9 9 .9 9 6 2 9 .9 9 6 5 9 .9 9 6 8 9 .9 9 7 1 9 .9 9 7 4 9 .9 9 7 7 9 .9 9

Table 2.0 Gyro Deviation Survey

[OTC 18270-PP]

Another lesson learned was quite evident after cuttings samples were taken, especially with less than optimum flow rates, was that increased frequency of hi-vis sweeps should have been considered. Additionally, there was no noticeable benefit of the smearing effect across any potential losscirculation zones as those zones were suspected to below 800m. However, had the modified drilling parameters been implemented, and the potential lost circulation zones been achieved, it was debatable in post-well analysis whether we had understood the smearing effect, or more importantly, whether its benefit would been realized if the lost circulation zone was more vugular or fractured than anticipated or empirically realized. Further, special casing handling equipment is required and should be carefully planned that more effectively includes the geological impact of the drilling operation. Had there been more information available on the lithology makeup of this zone, it is quite possible that empirical knowledge of the quantity of conglomerates and dolomites would have guided the decision process toward a drillshoe with a more robust PDC cutting structure. In fact, as a lesson learned, it may have been quite fortuitous that this particular drillshoe made it to 803 meters with the same drilling parameters. This brings forward, perhaps, the next question regarding the possibility of a design system, even with the less robust shoe, but one with a shock absorber specifically to handle unexpected hardness. This is a design benefit of the retrievable tool systems, albeit with more cost and complexity. One area still under discussion is the what if scenario with respect to well control. With full confidence from empirical data and no historical precedent for shallow gas or abnormally pressured zones at this particular depth, a simple diverter system was used but not necessarily intensively evaluated until post-well analysis discussion. This is an analysis currently underway for the second application. Another lesson learned in this application, alluded to above, was a more detailed focus on multi-disciplinary planning, namely, more interaction with the geology group, to mitigate for possibly having to pull the string to change the shoe in the event that the conglomerates and dolomitic sandstones were encountered even sooner than they were in this application. Conclusions For the post-job evaluation, the following assumptions were made using offset well operational time as a reference: Normalized ROP values from conventional offset drilling would be used as base case. The same shoe depth would be base case The same type/grade of casing would be base case. Time/cost saved would be based on casing-running time plus wiper trips and fluid circulations The same cost for casing services and cement services would also be base case

Although cost savings were not extreme, learning curve economics indicate that this component of the job however, would only get better, especially in batch drilling operations. The applied lessons learned for surface Drilling with Casing, namely modification of the drilling parameters and operational efficiency, is expected to result in a step-change development method for this operator. One aspect of applied conventional drilling procedure was backreaming/reaming each drilled joint. During post-well analysis, the benefit of reaming was questioned given that surge pressures on the downstroke, although not necessarily expected, did have the potential for ECD breakdown of formation integrity. Finally, the plan for this technology was to take advantage of economies of scale achieved through batch drilling the 13-3/8 casing with several back to back DwC applications. A geology re-evaluation forced a delay in the project to March 2006. Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend special acknowledgements to the respective managements of Chevron, ENI, and Weatherford for their support in writing this paper. Additionally, the authors extend special gratitude to Mike Broderick of K&M Technology for technical editing. References 1. 2. World Oil, Oct. 1999, Tarr and Sukup; Casing-whiledrilling: The next step change in well construction. SPE Paper 80453, April 2003, Galloway; Rotary Drilling with Casing A Field Proven Method of Reducing Wellbore Construction Costs. OTC 16565, May 2004, Galloway; Cement in Place Drilling With Casing System Provides Safe Reliable Method for Improving Drilling Efficiency.

3.

[OTC 18270-PP]

Appendix OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR 13-3/8 DRILLING SHOE 1. 2. Run in hole with Shoe Joint and casing as per casing running procedures one joint before drill out point. Pick up Casing Drilling Spear Assembly with pick up line. Lower Casing Drilling Spear assembly into casing joint in the rotary table. Stop Ring on spear will land out on the casing collar. Make up Casing Drilling Spear Assembly to the Top Drive System. Use normal make-up torque for this connection. After make-up of Top Drive, slack off to ensure stop ring is landed out on top of casing collar. Turn the Casing Drilling Spear Assembly +- turn to the left (until the stop ring begins to turn) to set spear in release position. Pull Casing Drilling Spear Assembly out of casing; long slings or long bails and single joint elevator should be installed at this time. Latch single joint elevators on single joint of casing in V door or mousehole. Casing Drilling Spear should be spaced so that there is approximately 3 feet of clearance from bottom of stabilizer bull nose and top of casing collar. Pick up joint of casing from V door using single joint elevators while pulling Casing Drilling Spear out of casing. Stab casing and make up with casing tongs as per casing running procedures. Lower down on Casing Drilling Spear Assembly until Stop Ring lands out on top of casing collar, have the derrickman to assist guiding spear assembly into casing. Turn the Casing Drilling Spear Assembly +- turn to the right (until the stop ring begins to turn) to set spear in set position. Pick up on Casing Drilling Spear Assembly and pull the casing slips.

13. After drilling in the first 1-2 joints WOB should be increased to 5-10K and RPM increased to 50-80 RPM. The optimal parameters will probably be 50 RPM and constant WOB of 5K. The design of the DrillShoe does not lend itself to High RPM and WOB; this will only cause premature wear and slow ROP. Caution: Elevators should be unlatched and pulled free of rotating casing while drilling casing down. 1. Once a joint of casing has been drilled down. Set slips, slack off to ensure stop ring is landed out on top of casing collar. Turn the Casing Drilling Spear Assembly +- turn to the left (until the stop ring begins to turn) to set spear in release position. While releasing spear, elevators should be latched on to next joint of casing. Repeat steps 6 13 until casing is drilled to setting depth. Once casing has been drilled to setting depth circulate bottoms up.

3.

4.

2. 3.

5.

NOTE: Depending on the type of landing mechanism it may be necessary to drill a few extra feet for space out of the casing after hang-off. 1. 2. Stop circulation and rotation, set casing slips. Release Casing Drilling Spear from casing, break out Casing Drilling Spear connection from Top drive and lay down Casing Drilling Spear assembly. Pick up Casing bushing and make up to casing and commence cementing operations.

6.

3.

7.

8.

9.

10. Break circulation and start rotating pipe. Increase the pump rate and rotary speed as per Weatherford DrillShoe technical recommendations. NOTE: Record stand pipe pressure between drilling and off bottom and circulate for 1 minute to remove cuttings (the occasional high viscosity sweep can be pumped to clean the cutting structure and remove cuttings) 11. Start drilling down casing. Special caution should be taken for the first 2 or 3 joints of casing. Casing joints should be back reamed as hole conditions dictate. 12. The first 1-2 joints should be drilled with low RPM 30-40 and low weight 2-4K.

[OTC 18270-PP]

String Component

13 3/8" Casing Drilling String Configuration OD ID Box Pin Description (in) (in) Conn. Conn.
4 1/2" IF 5" DP Pup joint 5" 4.276"

Length (m)

1.495

4 1/2" IF Spear Mandrel 11.750 3.460

4 1/2" IF 1.270

Slip (Grapple)

0.400

6 5/8" Reg 6 5/8" Reg X/O 4 1/2" IF Pack-Off Rubber Cup 12.560 2.950 4 1/2" IF 0.267

1.120

Bullnose

Casing Grade: K-55

BTC 13.375 12.415 10.948

Float Collar

14.490

12.300

BTC

BTC 0.440 BTC 10.67

Casing Grade: K-55

BTC 13.375 12.415

BTC DrillShoe 17.000 12.300

BTC 0.790

Table 3.0 DwC Equipment BHA

[OTC 18270-PP]

ROP , RPM
0 300 20 40 60 80 100 300

FLOW , SPP
0 300 200 400 600 800 1000 300

ROP, m /hr

Flow, gpm

RPM
350

SPP, ps i
350

WOB, klbs

350

TRQ, ft-lbs

350

400

400

400

400

450

450

450

450

500

500

500

500

550 Depth,M

550

550

550

600

600

Depth,M
600

600

650

650

650

650

700

700

700

700

750

750

750

750

800

800

800

800

850 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

850 50.0

850 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

850 5000

W OB, klbs
Figure 5.0 DwC Log

TORQUE, lbfts