SPE Paper Number

Paper Title Design of a Drilling Rig for 10,000 ft Water Depth using a Pressured Riser
Author(s)/Company: C. Leach, K. Dupal & C Hakulin, Shell , B.Fossli ORS & J. Dech, Altinex

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

water depth and that in some cases there will be
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, significant overall well cost savings.
Texas, 26–28 February 2002.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
Conclusions
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at 1. It is possible to configure a surface BOP,
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
slender riser and seabed shut-off device (SSOD)
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is to successfully drill many wells in ultra
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 deepwater. This allows use of a rig smaller than
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
the “conventional” 5th generation rig/ship.
2. The optimum configuration of rig/well equipment
will vary depending on water depth, well type
Abstract etc.. This configuration is best arrived at using a
QRA approach to compare the alternatives.
This paper presents the requirements for a drilling rig to drill 3. Significant cost savings are possible in
in up to 10,000 ft of water using a pressured riser. comparison to well costs that would result from
using a conventional marine riser/subsea BOP
An analysis of deepwater wells drilled was carried out to and the resultant large rig. The savings that
determine what characteristics (Water depth, drilled depth, result are dependent on the well.
number of casing strings etc..) these wells had. A “look 4. The work carried out (and as described in this
forward” portfolio of wells was constructed as the target for paper) allows for a totally objective analysis of
the design of the rig. A full QRA was conducted to examine the deepwater drilling process and (once refined
the impact of emerging technologies such as Expandables properly) will allow for rational decisions to be
and Dual Gradient and to determine which choices for rig taken about rig selection and deployment.
components were appropriate. 5. The paper sets out a description of the work
process rather than detailed results of the
The paper includes an outline rig design for deepwater process – presentation of detailed results would
for West Africa and one for GOM operations. An outline require back-up that is beyond the scope of a
specification for the well systems (BOP, riser paper.
configuration) is also included. 6. The work that has been carried out allows
operations to be carried out in the most efficient
A comparison is made of the impact of drilling deepwater manner possible. This will lead to a very
wells with this “new” approach versus using the effective exploration strategy.
“conventional subsea BOP” arrangement. The paper
also includes details of how the “new” approach may be Well Characteristics
applied to existing rig types and how it may be applied to
a new-build. The characteristics of wells that have been drilled or are
likely to be drilled were examined in order to identify the
The cost implications of this step change are examined. requirements for a drilling rig. The major characteristics
Fully risked well cost comparisons (‘new” vs of these wells are:
“conventional”) are provided along with some comment
• Water depth
on the risks and consequences of the available choices.
• Measured depth
The paper concludes that the “new” rig specifications • Formation/Fracture pressure window (Number
detailed will allow for deepwater drilling in up to 10,000 ft of casing strings)
2 [C. Leach, K. Dupal, C. Hakulin, B. Fossli & J. Dech]
• Metocean environment
Figure 1 shows some of the spread of water depth and
depth below mud line for a grouping of Gulf of Mexico
wells. In addition (but not shown), this grouping is split
into “GP” ratings (1 thru’ 6) where a GP1 well represents
a well with one casing string set once the BOP has been
set and a GP6 well represents the case where six casing
strings are set after the BOP has been set.
A similar approach was used to classify deepwater wells
from the rest of the world (ROW).
Generally, it was noted that wells in the GOM were
drilled (or targeted) to a significant depth below the
mudline and required a number of casing strings once
the BOP was set. By contrast wells from the ROW
group were often drilled to a fairly shallow depth below
the mudline and required much fewer casing strings
once the BOP is set. This difference is significant when
it comes to the selection of an appropriate drilling unit.
Enabling Technologies
A drilling rig’s capability of drilling in very deepwater
today is governed largely by the weight and space taken
up by the marine riser. Figure 2 shows very simply a
comparison of a bare pressured riser alongside a
conventional marine riser. The bare pressured riser will
be 14” or 16” in diameter, whereas the marine riser,
including flanges, choke and kill lines, booster lines and
control hoses may be 50” or more in diameter. In
addition, the bare marine riser may weigh about 100
lbs/ft, whereas the marine riser may weigh as much as
500 lbs/ft. Figure 3 shows the dry weight that results
from the riser options that might be available. It is simply
not possible to put 8000 ft of conventional marine riser
onto a 3rd generation (small) semi-submersible – deck
space and deck loading are inadequate.
Using a slender riser is only feasible, if the objectives of
drilling a well can be met. In reality, this means:
1. Can the geological horizons be reached and
evaluated?
2. Can a completion and production tubing of an
appropriate size be run into the well?
For many non-GOM wells, which require only one or two
casing strings once the BOP is set, this requirement is
easily met. For more complex wells and in particular
many wells in the GOM, the use of expandables allows
this condition to be met such that use of a slender riser
becomes possible.
In addition, “dual gradient” technology is currently being
proven and this will result in the reduction of the
[Paper Number]
requirement for casing strings, thus helping further the
use of a slender riser.
Rig Design/Equipment Options
Figure 4 shows the basic “slender kit”. This consists of:
1. Bare Pressured Riser
2. Surface BOP
3. Seabed Shut Off Device, which may be needed
(see details below)
For a conventional marine riser, much of the required top
tension load is provided by means of (foam) flotation. By
contrast, the slender riser is left bare and the tension
provided solely by the rig using riser tensioners. This
does mean that the rig must have a much higher tension
capacity than would normally be the case for a 3rd
generation rig (typically this would need to be in the
range 1.2 to 1.7 mm lbs).
Details of the riser design are beyond this paper – the
approach is described in the companion paper. The
engineering and verification requirements are very
similar to those established over many years for TLPs.
In some cases, (normally pressured wells in very benign
environments), there will be no requirement for a
Seabed Shut Off Device (SSOD). In other cases, such a
device will be required in case of loss of position, a riser
failure (and losing of the riser margin) and to handle an
extreme well control event that generated pressures
above the pressure rating of the riser. The SSOD may
consist of a shear device, or may also include a ram seal
device. In all cases it is viewed as an emergency device
rather than a first line of defense. Note that it is likely
that for some wells it will be necessary to replace the
drilling riser with a higher pressure rated (smaller) riser
for completion work.
Apart from the significantly increased tension
requirement, the other basic requirement of a deepwater
rig is the ability to maintain station. This can be
provided by a mooring system, or by a dynamic
positioning system. For the GOM where there is a solid
base of anchor handling boats, it is very possible to
install pre-laid taut wire/rope moorings, to which a 3rd
generation rig can tie up to. For the rest of the world,
where the infrastructure just does not exist, it is
expensive to set pre-laid moorings and dynamic
positioning may become attractive.
In addition, for the GOM there is typically little distance
between wells and in many cases rigs spend a
significant period of time at each well before moving a
short distance to the next well. A semi-submersible is
[Paper Number] [Design of a Drilling Rig for 10,000 ft Water Depth using a Pressured Riser] 3

suited to this type of activity. By contrast for the rest of Liquid Mud 2000 bbl
the world, wells will take less drilling days, with a larger Liquid Mud 3000
distance between wells. This characteristic suggests a Fuel Oil 2500 bbl
more mobile rig, with, perhaps, the use of dynamic Brine 3000 bbl
positioning. Drill Water 2000 bbl
Potable Water 2000 bbl
The overall conclusion for rig design and equipment is
that it is possible to utilize: Derrick etc.
Capacity 1000 kip
A. A 3rd generation semi-submersible plus pre-laid Nominal Stand Length 93 ft
mooring Racking Capacity (tow) 15000 ft
B. A (smaller) dynamically positioned mobile rig. Drill Line Size 1 5/8”
Drawworks 3000 hp
In both cases, the use of a 5th generation semi- Crown Block 500 Ton
submersible or the latest generation DP drillship is not Travelling Block 500 Ton
required. Motion Compensator 500 Ton
Rotary Table Opening 49.5”
Note: The work also suggests that there are some wells
(combination of water depth and depth/pressured Mud Pumps 3 x 1600 hp
formations) where the larger equipment provided by a 5th Mud Pits (Active + Reserve) 2500 bbl
generation rig and a full subsea BOP is still required. Slugging Tank 100 bbl
Certain wells in the GOM come into this category. Drill String 20,000’/5 7/8” +
Again, the wells in question are identified using the QRA 10,000’/4 ½”
approach.
Apart from the riser equipment, which is very different to
Outline Rig Specifications that of a conventional rig, all of the drilling requirement is
satisfied by the equipment typically found upon a 3rd
It is beyond this paper to provide a detailed rig generation semi-submersible. The resulting rig could
specification for a (compact) rig that would be capable of therefore be a new-build or a conversion.
performing the work that is outlined. A summary of the
requirement is given below: Note that for an existing 3rd generation rig, it would be
necessary to provide a pre-installed mooring in
Riser Equipment: depwater.

The requirements for the new Deepwater Slender/ For the GOM, a dual gradient system is appropriate for
Slimhole Drilling System are specified. The basic spec's drilling some of the wells (not all).
are:
Cost & Risk Implications
• Slender/Slimhole Drilling in up to 10,000 ft of water
using A detailed QRA (Quantitative Risk Assessment) cost
• 13-5/8” x 10,000-psi Wellhead System estimate has been made. This entailed breaking down
• 13-5/8” x 10,000-psi Subsea Shut Off Device the drilling operation into all of its many components and
• 14" OD x 12 ½” ID 10,000-psi HP Riser then looking in detail at times and equipment costs for
• Dual Gradient System (if required) each component. In addition the potential problems for
• 13-5/8” x 10,000-psi Surface BOP each operation were identified along with the risk of such
• Multiplex BOP Control System a problem occurring and the likely consequence
(solution or result) of each occurrence. The magnitude
of the risks being taken and the potential consequences
Accommodations: 120 persons were established with a great deal of input by the
Variable Deck Load: 3500 tons operations staff, in addition to an exhaustive examination
of existing deepwater drilling records. Use of a Monte
Bulk Storage: Carlo risk simulation allowed for the proper combination
Barite 6000 cf and consideration of these events. The result of this
Bentonite 3000 cf approach is that both an unrisked and a risked cost can
Cement 6000 cf be determined. The unrisked cost can be looked upon
Gel 1500 cf as being equivalent to the DTL (Drill The Limit) time.
Sack Storage 2000 cf The overall result is a model which can look at any
4 [C. Leach, K. Dupal, C. Hakulin, B. Fossli & J. Dech]
drilling situation, but which has been “calibrated” using
extensive existing drilling and completion data.
Two examples are given in this paper.
The results for the first example (a GOM well) are shown
in Table 1. In this case, the well to be drilled is fairly
complex and requires six casing strings to be set once
the BOP is in place. However, if dual gradient drilling is
utilized, then only three casing strings are required once
the BOP is set. There are many assumptions which
have been made, the details of which are beyond this
paper. However, some of the most prominent ones are:
A. Rig rate = $155,000 for 4th/5th generation rig
B. Rig rate = $120,000 for 3rd generation rig (note:
this dayrate allows for some equipment
upgrade)
C. Dual Gradient Equip lease = $40,000/day
D. Water Depth = 5000 ft
A comparison is then made between the use of:
A. 5th generation rig + subsea BOP
B. 3rd generation rig + Surface BOP (use of
expandables)
C. Compact Drillship + Surface BOP + dual
gradient
The results are not totally intuitive (i.e. it is difficult to
arrive at the results without performing the work), though
once the results are available, it is easy enough to agree
with them.
The results show that for this well there are some small
savings to be made (when compared against a
conventional approach) when using the DGS or when
using expandables – however, larger savings occur
when the DGS is combined with the compact drillship.
The results imply that although some savings will be
made by taking one step at a time, it will only be possible
to make major savings once a radical approach is taken.
Note that these results apply to the sample well given. It
is beyond this paper to give extensive results for the
range of wells that will be encountered. Not surprisingly,
the conclusions that have been seen suggest that
different approaches are required depending on the type
of well drilled.
Table 2 shows the results for a ROW well. In this case
the well is much simpler than the GOM well and only two
hole sections are required once the BOP is set. Some of
the significant assumptions are:
A. Rig rate = $155,000 for 4th/5th generation rig
[Paper Number]
B. Rig rate = $120,000 for 3rd generation rig (note:
this dayrate allows for some equipment
upgrade)
C. Dual Gradient Equip - not required
D. Water Depth = 9000 ft
A comparison is then made between the use of:
A. 5th generation rig + Subsea BOP
B. 3rd generation rig + Surface BOP (use of one
expandable)
It can be seen that there are savings, but that these are
quite small. Some of the reasons for this are:
• spread rate being significantly more than the rig
rate
• fixed costs
• mobilization charges
Other options may improve the potential for cost savings
in this case.
Other Risks
A number of risks exist in applying this technology and
approach to actual drilling. These risks include:
1. Well Control – simulations have been made
(using a realistic Kick simulator) of situations
that might be encountered. In many cases,
there is an increased control capability when
using the surface BOP (no choke and kill lines
to deal with). There must also be a very clear
understanding of what situations may require
use of the SSOD and which (normal) situations
can be comfortably handled using the Surface
BOP.
2. Technical risk – the approach taken here is to
re-package equipment, rather than design
equipment from new. There is much
confidence that the new “package” will work
effectively.
3. Commercial risk – the approach described in
this paper can only be put into reality if there is
commercial reason to do so. This means that
there must be benefits for both the customer
and the service provided. Work is currently
ongoing to determine these benefits and any
drawbacks.
Further Work
The work presented here should be viewed as a first
step in the process of altering the approach to
deepwater drilling. There is much more work that is
[Paper Number] [Design of a Drilling Rig for 10,000 ft Water Depth using a Pressured Riser] 5

required to confirm that the savings do indeed exist and

also to confirm the technical feasibility of the approaches
noted here. It is also required to detail further the risks
of technical failure. However, given the potential cost
savings that apparently exist, there is the motivation to
continue with the work to its logical conclusion, i.e.
taking the steps to see that a rig suitable to carry out
deepwater drilling in this manner is built or converted.

Acknowledgements

The authors would very much like to recognize the input

of operations personnel, particularly in respect of the
input to the QRA model.

References
 6 [C. Leach, K. Dupal, C. Hakulin, B. Fossli & J. Dech] [Paper Number]

Expl. Drilled Depth BML vs Water

Depth
Drilled Depth BML (ft)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Water Depth (ft)

Figure 1: Typical Drilled Depth & Water Depth - GOM Figure 2: Differences – Marine and (Bare) Pressured Risers

Dry Weight (Kips) - Riser + BOP Enabling Equipment (“the slender kit”)
5000 • Surface BOP
4500
4000 • High Pressure Riser
Weight (Kips)

3500
Surface BOP
3000
16" OD Marine Riser
2500
2000
21"OD Marine Riser
16" Bare Marine
•Emergency Shut Off Device +
1500
1000
500
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Water Depth (ft)

Figure 3: Dry Weight for Different Riser Types

Figure 4: The Slender Kit

[Paper Number] [Design of a Drilling Rig for 10,000 ft Water Depth using a Pressured Riser] 7

Table 1: GoM: Base Case Comparisons

Well Name Deep, Low Departure
Comment Basic 5th gen semi <> 3rd gen semi, slender mods, SS BOP , uses expandables, No
DGS <> Slender drillship, surf BOP, DGS
Rig Name 5th Gen Semi 3rd Gen Semi Slender DS w/DGS
Well type Conv - expl Slender - expl Slender - expl
Number of hole sections below surface 6 6 3
hole
Riser ID (in) 18.5 14 12.5
Water Depth (ft) 5000 5000 5,000
Move and Anchor (nautical miles) 0 0 0
Move and Anchor Speed (nm/hr) 2 2 12
Move and Anchor (days) - Included below 0 0 0
Base Rig Rate ($) 157,000 120,000 110,000
Casings 30 - 22 - 20 - 18.625 - 30-22-16-14.74- 24 - 18.625 - 13.375
13.625 - 11.75 - 9.625 14.74-10.75-8.485- - 10.75 - 8.625 -
- 7.625 - 6 8.452-7 6.675
Drilling 5th Gen Semi 3rd Gen Semi Slender DS w/DGS
Unrisked Days 49.63 49.34 39.13
Costs ($ x 1MM) 19.90 17.15 12.32
Risked Days 22.85 33.45 15.25
Costs ($ x 1MM) 4.46 6.48 2.95
Total Days 72.48 82.79 54.38
Costs ($ x 1MM) 24.36 23.63 15.27

Table 2: ROW: Base Case Comparisons

Well Name ROW
Comment Basic 5th gen Semi <> 3rd gen
semi, slender mods, no DGS <>
Mobile Rig, surf BOP
Rig Name 5th Gen 3rd Gen
Vessel Station Keeping Moored Moored
Vessel Propulsion Towed Towed
Hull Type Semi Semi
Mooring Type Catenary Catenary
Number of hole sections below surface hole 2 2
Riser ID (in) 18.5 14
Water Depth (ft) 9000 9000
BOP type (SS or Surface) SS Surface
Base Rig Rate ($) 157,000 120,000
Well TMD (ft) 14,128 14,128
Casings 36 - - 13.375 - 24 - - 13.375 -
9.625 - 9.625 -
Drilling 5th Gen 3rd Gen
Unrisked Days 25.25 22.89
Costs ($ x 1MM) 9.01 7.39
Risked Days 6.79 6.04
Costs ($ x 1MM) 1.85 1.60
Total Days 32.04 28.93
Costs ($ x 1MM) 10.86 8.99