Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF
EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF
This document is classified as Restricted to Shell Personnel Only. 'Shell Personnel' includes all staff with a personal
contract with the Shell Group of Companies, designated Associate Companies and Contractors working on Shell projects
who have signed a confidentiality agreement with a Shell Group Company. Issuance of this document is restricted to staff
employed by the Shell Group of Companies. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to
Non-Shell Personnel without the prior written consent of the copyright owners.
Summary
The Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide presents updated guidelines for the design of
well casing and tubing to all Shell Operating Companies.
The Guide facilitates establishing the right balance between fundamental requirements for
well integrity, the use of best practices and a common design philosophy across Shell and the
need for operating companies to customize designs on the basis of local geological settings
and local experiences as well as the need for innovation in a changing business environment.
Through prudent management of risk, the most effective design over the total lifetime of a
well through to abandonment can be achieved. The layered design practice presented in the
manual allows for prudent adaptation of well designs to the level of maturity of local
knowledge, experience, and competencies.
While these guidelines are based on a common philosophy within the Group, the
responsibility for a specific well design remains within the individual Operating Company.
The updated guide was compiled by a Global Virtual Team consisting of a large number of
experienced Well Engineers, representing most Operating Companies in the Shell Group.
The Well Engineering Forum sponsored the compilation of the manual and has endorsed its
content.
Acknowledgement
This Design Guide is an update built on top of the good earlier editions that have preceded it,
and this release would not have been possible were it not for the good work done by the
authors of earlier editions of the Guide. This release represents the collective work and
contributions from many people, particularly those listed below. It is a collective effort not
authored by any one single person. In addition to contributions by the people listed below,
workshops were held at several Operating Companies in order to capture the needs and best
practices espoused by experienced drilling and production engineers group-wide. As such,
this Guide is a compilation of Shell’s philosophy, experience, and know-how. This release
brings forth new formalizations of design practices and the Shell design philosophy and
presents new technologies.
EP 2000-9073 iii Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Keywords
casing design, tubing design, tubulars design, guideline, design philosophy, design level,
design factor, casing seat selection, casing size, tubing size, pipe resistance, burst, burst
resistance,
thin-wall eccentricity, casing wear, pipe toughness, collapse, collapse resistance,
tensile resistance, connection resistance, load (force), friction, frictional drag, pressure test,
annulus pressure, surface pressure, gas-lift well, leak, well shut-in, corroded pipe, tensile
strength, overpull, evacuated tubing, well stimulation, erosion, retrievable packers, axial load,
thermal load, drilling (well), subsea completion, production (well), pull-out, casing running,
pressure gradient, casing connection, tubing connection, pipe connection, well operation,
design software,
quality assurance, keeper well, disposable well, expendable well, connection qualification,
compression, product-line qualification, industry standard, Wellcat, Stresscheck, inspection,
risk, risk assessment, blowout (well), specialty well design, HPHT well, high pressure,
high temperature, cemented tubing, single-barrier well, extended-reach well, horizontal well,
multilateral well, deepwater well, ultra-deepwater well, slim-hole well, injection well,
disposal well, through-salt well, steam injection, permafrost, gravity structure, gas-lift well,
running casing, corrosion, mechanical behavior, setting depth, leak-off test, limit test,
rock mechanics, reservoir compaction, pressure buildup, shallow water flow, expandable
tubulars, buoyancy, buckling, fatigue failure, stress formulas, impact loading, residual stress,
completion accessories, cementing casing, design examples
EP 2000-9073 iv Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Version Information
Date Version
21 Dec 2000 First version published on sww
02 Jan 2001 Additional load case for production casing added (section 3.7.2)
15 Jan 2008 Chapter 4 revised;
sww URLs updated in chapters 3, 10, and appendices 1-1, 1-9, 3, 25 and 26
EP 2000-9073 1-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 1
The well will be designed around three factors: the needs of the completion to provide optimum
production over its lifetime; the need for reliable pressure containment over the life of the well;
and the cycle time required to put various design options into production. Completion
requirements and production schedules should be defined early and drive both the tubing and the
casing design. Technology should be used aggressively to accommodate the well completion
instead of compromising on the completion design by assuming what can be accommodated based
on past practice. The completion concept forms the basis for the overall well design “from the
inside out.”
The new well design taps into both historical learnings and recent innovations through sharing of
best practices with global staff having decades of experience through the use of networks such as
the Wells Global Network and training programs. Reliance on historical learnings does not mean
that new designs copy past wells. Instead this means that past learning experiences should be a
foundation for the innovation of each new well design. This Design Guide is intended to foster
the creation of new casing and tubing design opportunities which link to both historical and
contemporary learnings. The latter is to be achieved through a commitment to keeping this Guide
evolutionary. Risk assessment will ensure that design integrity is maintained.
The basic design process will still be the same all across Shell. In principle, two Shell engineers
working with the same well conditions in different parts of the world will come up with the same
basic well design. However, in the end, their detailed well designs may differ, taking account of
historical learnings, local expertise, and local innovation of the particular operating company.
This is the reason that Shell has introduced the layered design process discussed later in the
Guide.
The engineer doing casing or tubing design should have awareness of general trends in industry
well design, but the engineer also should keep well abreast of and leverage the innovations and
new learnings being generated by Shell. When new technologies, innovative ideas, or new
business conditions demand and enable innovative new well designs, the design of casing and
tubing should be taken to the cutting edge at which well and operating integrity can be maintained
through prudent management of risk. However, the innovation of casing and tubing design
should not reflect the initiative of an individual engineer; it should reflect the consistent
evolution of local design practices within an operating company.
EP 2000-9073 1-3 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Shell wells must make more rapid use of new and evolving technologies. This is supported by
the large annual investment in technology, and part of the responsibility of the well engineer is to
keep abreast of the new technology and rapidly exploit the technology for the benefit of increased
production or reduced cost at managed risk. The aggressive use of new enabling technology
should not be done at the expense of prudent risk management incorporating historical learnings.
Shell will innovate faster than its competition, but will use prudent risk management to do this.
The Guide can be used to help rationalize changes in design practice specific to the conditions of
local operating companies. The casing and tubing should be designed to provide well integrity
and innovation at the lowest possible cost while always managing risk. Risk should not be
avoided in an absolute sense, but instead risk should be managed by evaluating the likelihood of
events occurring, the likely consequences, and their impact over the total lifetime of a well.
Risk management should include both the risks to well control over pressures and fluids and the
risks to competitive cost and position. Design changes should evolve either by taking a series of
incremental evolutionary steps linked by well successes, or by taking large leaps forward with the
guidance of a risk assessment and hazard evaluation that supports the large step change. Every
large change in well design should be accompanied by a risk assessment that is documented by
the engineer. This risk assessment can be either qualitative or quantitative. The risk assessment
could entail a comprehensive study, but it also could involve just the engineer making and
documenting (1) a subjective evaluation of the likelihood that events will happen; (2) the
likelihood that particular consequences will occur; and (3) the acceptability of this combination of
likely events and consequences. Shell wells therefore must be designed with the documented
management of risks, not with the avoidance of risks.
Casing and tubing design should be done as a marriage between design concepts and operating
skills. This is one reason that Shell has introduced tiers for design practice. The basic design case
represents the most conservative option for design possibilities and for control of the well.
Designs with higher but still prudent risk represent the next tiers up in well design. These higher-
risk designs are desirable for their benefit to well efficiency, and these should be implemented on
an OU level. However, they should only be implemented when risk assessment indicates that
adequate controls are in place to manage safety and maintain well integrity; and only when the
highest well control skills are in place to manage the higher-risk well.
Where innovative design leads to the use of new equipment, part of the risk assessment should be
to consider the value brought by the new equipment, the likely start-up performance of the new
equipment, and the likely consequences of unforeseen issues with the new equipment. New
equipment should be used when the risk assessment suggests that the risk is acceptable in light of
the added value.
A Shell well should be a quality design and should use quality equipment in order to make the
design both optimized and fit for its purpose. Shell has a commitment to quality in well design
and equipment, because the risks of an innovative well design can be managed only through a
quality process. Quality does not necessarily mean use of the most expensive equipment. Instead,
quality means use of the right equipment for the application. Quality in the well design may be
based on historical experience with equipment (that is, field-proven or grandfathered equipment),
or quality may be based on testing a design concept and qualifying the equipment for the service.
For either of these approaches, the equipment must be shown to be fit for the application.
EP 2000-9073 1-4 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Like pipe and connections, Shell also provides quality stress analysis through the use of design
software to Shell standards. Delivery of the quality well is achieved partly through the Shell use
of design software. The well design will be based on triaxial stress design and use of the same
software shared by all operating companies across Shell. Software expertise is one of the key
core competencies of Shell engineers. Shell uses its historical experience and large number of
wells drilled annually to share design best practices among different operating companies. The
commonality of design software is one of the vehicles for this sharing of best practices.
Shell operating companies take responsibility for ownership of the tubing and casing design. The
tubulars design is not contracted out to third parties. Where support calculations are provided by
contractors, the work is supervised and owned by Shell engineers. This is done because of the
impact that tubulars design has on lifetime well reliability, cost, risk, and delivery. This approach
is part of what makes the well a “Shell well.”
Tubing design should seek to maximize through-tubing accessibility to the reservoir. Industry-
wide emphasis on lifecycle cost saving has raised awareness of the benefits of performing
operations such as perforation optimization, production logging, selective stimulation, zonal
abandonment, and improved wellbore clean-out at reservoir level through the tubing. For full
flexibility and increased reliability in these operations, it is important not to inhibit the passage
and operation of the tools involved. This requires the elimination of unnecessary restrictions in
well completions, i.e., maximizing the completion through-bore, together with a suitable matching
of the tubing and production liner sizes in cases where tiebacks are not used. A direct
consequence of this is the desire for simplified well completions. The completion should
emphasize overall life cycle production optimization, operational simplicity with respect to well
monitoring, well servicing, and future workover requirements.
EP 2000-9073 2-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 2
2.2 How to Change Design Practice from Level One to Level Two or Level
Three ........................................................................................................................5
2.3 Limitations on Export of Level Two and Level Three Design Practices ......................5
• All non-production casing strings are designed for kicks taking full evacuation to gas.
• Long-term pressures inside and outside the casing for burst and collapse design are based on
the most conservative possible combinations of fluid pressure gradients. In burst design, the
pressure gradient from mud and cement outside the casing is assumed to revert to the base
density of the mud and the mixwater density of the cement. In collapse design, the pressure
gradient from mud and cement is assumed to be the initial mud and cement gradients.
• Burst design of surface and intermediate casing can be based on limited kick volume and
limited kick intensity set by the experience of the local operating company. The basis for the
limited kick design is experience data, including successful management of past kicks. The
basis for the design practice is not the competency of a particular engineer, but instead the
demonstrated competency across the operating company.
• For collapse design of surface and intermediate casing, the evacuation depth of the fluid
column can be based on experience and can be less than the depth used in Level One design
practice.
• Fluid gradients for design pressures inside and outside the casing and tubing can be the same
as in Level One, or they can be based on operating experience.
• There is a historical ability to predict pore pressures and fracture pressures with good accuracy
in the region of interest. This historical experience reduces the uncertainty in pore and
fracture pressures.
• It encourages use of a design factor calibrated to the assessment of risk and smaller than the
design factor required in Level One design. Level Three design essentially customizes the
design factor to the specific type of reservoir and geology. The design factor is adjusted
through use of the risk assessment. Instead of having one, experience-based design factor,
there can be an unlimited number of design factors where each is based on the risk assessment
of a particular type of well and reservoir.
• Burst design of surface and intermediate casing can be based on limited kick volume and
limited kick intensity calibrated by risk assessment.
• Fluid gradients for design pressures inside and outside the casing and tubing can be the same
as in Level One design, or they can be based on a combination of experience (Level Two) plus
risk assessment.
• A design based on variance and executed by an engineer is not necessarily a Level Two or
Level Three design. Instead, it becomes a Level Two or Level Three design when the operating
company standardizes on the design practice and documents the basis for the design.
• The uncertainty in pore pressures and fracture pressures can be estimated and effectively
managed.
2.2 How to Change Design Practice from Level One to Level Two or Level Three
• Change from Level One to Level Two is based on experience data. It requires small and
manageable changes in well designs while data are accumulated and analyzed over time
sufficiently for the operating company to standardize on the evolving design practices.
Initially, the designs are variances requiring the highest care and expertise. As the operating
company gains experience and matures the design, the operating company evolves the design
into its own, Level Two practice, and the design practice becomes more commonly used
across the operating company.
• Change can be made directly from Level One to Level Three; it is not necessary to stop at
Level Two while evolving to Level Three.
• Change from Level Two to Level Three or from Level One to Level Three is based on risk
assessment and can be made very quickly.
• Over time and at the option of the operating company, a design practice can change from
Level Three to Level Two as it becomes based more on experience and less on the risk
assessment originally done to implement the change.
2.3 Limitations on Export of Level Two and Level Three Design Practices
In general, Level Two and Level Three design practices should not be exported from one
operating company to another operating company. Indeed, sometimes the design levels should
not be exported to different types of reservoir assets within the same OpCo if the geological
conditions, rig equipment, or staff skills are substantially different between these assets. This is
because the Level Two design is customized based on the specific experiences of the local OpCo.
Likewise, the Level Three design is customized based on a risk assessment which accounts for
well conditions, rig conditions, and staff competency characteristic of the local OpCo. These
conditions do not apply when the location of the well is moved to a different OpCo. In general,
the approach taken toward developing a particular Level Two or Three design practice can be
exported and copied, but the actual results and specifics of the practice cannot be copied.
EP 2000-9073 2-6 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 3
3.4 General Discussion of Load Cases for Casing and Tubing ..............................................12
3.4.1 Use of Frictional Drag in Load Cases.......................................................................12
3.4.2 Tubing Initial Conditions..........................................................................................13
3.4.3 Tubing Pressure Tests...............................................................................................13
3.4.4 Annulus Tests ...........................................................................................................14
3.4.5 Production Conditions ..............................................................................................14
3.4.6 Maximum Allowable Annulus Surface Pressure ......................................................15
3.4.7 Gas-Lifted Production...............................................................................................15
3.4.8 Tubing Leak Impact on Tubing ................................................................................16
3.4.9 Trapped Annular Pressure ........................................................................................16
3.4.10 Shut-In Conditions..................................................................................................17
3.4.11 Burst and Collapse of Corroded Tubing and Casing ..............................................17
3.4.12 Burst Resistance of Corroded Pipe .........................................................................17
3.4.13 Collapse Resistance of Corroded Pipe....................................................................17
EP 2000-9073 3-2 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
3.5 Axial Loads and Thermal Loads Applied to Casing and Tubing ......................................23
3.5.1 Temperature Loading of Surface and Intermediate Casing During Drilling ............23
3.5.2 Subsea, Long-Term Temperature Loading for Surface and Intermediate
Casing ......................................................................................................................24
3.5.3 Temperature Loading of Production Casing.............................................................24
3.5.4 Temperature Loading of Tubing...............................................................................24
3.5.5 Running and Pull-Out Loads ....................................................................................24
3.5.6 Axial Loads for Surface, Intermediate, and Production Casing ...............................25
3.10 Pipe and Connection Quality Assurance in “Keeper” and Disposable Wells...................39
3.11 When the Well Does Not Meet the Designed Intent..........................................................40
For the benefit of increased productivity and minimum cost, the wells should be designed from
the inside out by first estimating the flow requirements of the tubing and the related diameter of
the tubing. The casing should be built around the needs of the tubing. The immediate need both
to run and to complete the tubing should be considered, and the potential long-term needs for
fishing and workovers also should be considered.
Where possible, innovative designs and technologies should be used to streamline the size of the
well to reduce cost and also to accelerate delivery of the well to production. Tradeoffs between
tubing and casing diameters and delivery time to obtain or qualify specific sizes of tubulars and
connections should be considered for their impact on well delivery and well cost. The design and
delivery of the well tubulars should be executed in three cycles: first an estimate of production
and drilling requirements leading to design of the well, procurement of materials, and scheduling
for well delivery. Second, the design should be updated and fine tuned while the well is under
construction, based on the actual pressures and reservoir characteristics encountered both in
drilling the particular well and in observing the performance of other new wells between the time
when the well was planned and the time when it is near completion. Third, the well that actually
is delivered should be reviewed and documented for compliance or variance with the design that
was planned. If the delivered well differs significantly from the design requirements of the
intended well, this should be dealt with within the scope of both Shell’s global Pressure Control
Manual and the local practices of the specific operating company.
The Level One design is required to have two production barriers: a tubing and a production
casing. The production strings have design requirements different from the surface and
intermediate strings. Diligence should be applied to the seal at the liner top, the seal at the packer,
and the wellhead seals. Without these seals, the well would revert to a single production barrier.
temperature. Because of this changing temperature, the yield strength also refers to the actual
yield strength of the pipe at the depth, temperature, and time of interest. Time here is an
important parameter because it links the value of yield strength to the particular well operation
at hand, whether running the tubular, shut in, producing, or injecting. The yield strength of
the pipe at any depth along the string will have a different value depending on which
operation the well is experiencing. Appendix 6 provides information and typical values for
the amount of temperature adjustment of the yield strength. The change of yield strength
affects both burst and collapse capacities of the pipe.
• The design factor is the specified (input) requirement for the minimum “distance” between a
service stress or service pressure and the defined limit of the capability of the pipe or
connection. We refer to a design factor on the pipe and where appropriate, a design factor on
the connection (Chapter 4).
• In burst design, the triaxial burst design factor is the minimum required value specified for
the ratio of the pipe yield strength to the von Mises equivalent stress evaluated for the pipe
given the particular well operation at hand. Appendices 6 and 19 explain the concept of
equivalent stress. This design factor is used for loadings which are believed to apply internal
pressure greater than external pressure. Within the context of Level One design, the design
factor is a constant independent of the temperature, the depth, the location in the string, the
choice of string, or the phase of well operation. Regardless of these different points, the pipe
is required to provide at least this minimum margin, or more, when compared with the actual
load applied in the well. For other (Level Two or Level Three) design practice, the design
factor might be different for different strings in the well, but for Level One the design factor is
the same for all strings. See Chapter 5 for the purpose, role, and specifics of the design
factors.
• In collapse design, the collapse design factor is the minimum value specified for the ratio
between the collapse pressure rating of the pipe and the actual collapse service pressure acting
on the pipe. For Level One design practice, the collapse design factor is constant for all
strings and all well operations.
• The tensile design factor is the minimum value specified for the ratio between the pipe yield
strength and the axial stress acting on the pipe in a purely tensile loading.
• The safety factor is the resulting (output) actual “distance” between a service stress or service
pressure and the defined limit of capability of the pipe during a particular operation of the
well. The safety factor compares the actual capacity of the pipe with the actual working stress
or pressure which is applied to the pipe. The safety factor is not the same as the design factor.
The safety factor is required to equal or exceed the design factor. The design factor is the
minimum requirement that is specified, while the safety factor is the actual result that occurs
once a particular pipe is chosen. Because pipe cannot vary continuously with pressure along
the well, the pipe has to be chosen to meet the load requirements at some depths and thus will
significantly exceed the load requirements at other depths.
EP 2000-9073 3-5 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
• The triaxial burst safety factor is the ratio of the actual yield strength at a given point along
the pipe to the actual (von Mises) equivalent stress calculated at the same point based on
pressure, tensile, and thermal loads acting at that point on the pipe. The triaxial burst safety
factor will be temperature dependent because both the value of the equivalent stress and the
value of yield stress will depend on the temperature. Similarly, the triaxial burst safety factor
will vary along the pipe because the working equivalent stress will change with pressure along
the pipe and because the yield strength will vary with temperature along the pipe. Finally, the
triaxial burst safety factor will be different for different modes of operation of the well (shut in
before production, production, shut in after production, etc.) because pressures and
temperatures will be different in the different operations of the well.
• The collapse safety factor is the ratio of the actual collapse rating of the pipe to the actual
service pressure acting on the pipe at a location of interest. The collapse safety factor is
required to meet or exceed the value specified for the collapse design factor. The collapse
rating of the pipe will vary with depth because of the variation of tensile and compressive
stress along the pipe. The actual service pressure acting on the pipe also will vary with depth.
Therefore, the collapse safety factor will vary with depth. The collapse strength depends on
the yield strength of the pipe, so the collapse safety factor will be temperature dependent and
operation dependent. Often pipe is chosen based on availability or based on meeting the
demand of a different well operation or a different type of loading (e.g., burst loading), and
this leads to a high safety factor for the other type of loading. For example, when pipe is
chosen to meet the requirements of burst loading (burst is dominant), the collapse safety factor
will tend to exceed significantly the requirement specified by the collapse design factor.
Similarly, when collapse dominates the design of the pipe, the triaxial burst safety factor will
be high compared with the burst design factor. For an efficiently balanced design, the pipe
will cross over to different weights and grades so that burst dominates at some depths,
collapse dominates at other depths, and none of the safety factors will greatly exceed the
corresponding design factors. As a practical matter, this is seldom done because of the time
and risks involved with managing the placement of different weights and grades of casing to
be run in a single string.
• The tensile safety factor is the ratio of the actual pipe yield strength and the axial stress acting
on the pipe in a purely tensile loading. This varies with temperature and well operation.
• Pipe resistance is the capacity of the pipe to withstand a force or pressure. The term
“resistance” will be adopted here, since it is useful for later discussion of design factors.
• Temperature change leads to compressive thermal stresses and buckling during heating and
tensile thermal stresses during cooling. Temperature change needs to be included in the
design stress calculations of tubing, production casing, and intermediate casing. This is done
almost automatically using the design software. To deal with temperature change, it is
necessary to define the initial temperature state at the time that the tubular is run.
• Equivalent stress must be kept a prescribed amount or more below the yield stress of the pipe.
This includes adjustment of the yield stress for temperature. This is done by requiring that the
equivalent stress times the design factor be less than the yield stress of the pipe. Chapter 5
discusses the design factors, and Appendix 6 discusses equivalent stress.
• The pressures, loads, and temperatures must be inside the qualified service envelope of the
connection. Chapter 4 discusses connections and qualification of a connection to a service
envelope of pressures, loads, and maximum temperature.
• In addition, for tubing the inner diameter needs to be chosen in order to meet the flow
requirements of the production rate and pressure drawdown at the wellhead.
• For tubing, consideration usually should be given to clearances inside the casing and the
ability to fish over the tubing and accessories if something goes wrong. This also represents a
marriage between casing and tubing, since the issue of work-through ability applies to the
production casing.
• Toughness is critical for the burst design of pipe. More than any other single parameter, good
pipe toughness is important to achieving predictable and reliable burst strength from casing
and tubing. The possession of adequate yield and rupture strength by the pipe is predicated on
the pipe behaving in a ductile (i.e., not brittle) manner. Having good toughness as
characterized by SR16 in API 5CT or ISO 11960 is necessary to ensure that the equations
governing yield will apply. Pipe also needs to have good toughness in order to avoid having
undue burst sensitivity to imperfections which are small enough to pass through the gate of
the inspection system. If a pipe does not have good toughness, then it should be considered
brittle and the yield-based formulations used in burst design should be considered not to
apply. A pipe with low (non-SR16) toughness might be used for structural service or for
collapse loading, but should not be used where burst loading controls the design of the pipe.
In general, if the triaxial burst safety factor is less than 1.5, then the pipe should have good
toughness. See Chapter 7 on Quality Assurance and Inspection.
The well should be designed around three factors: the needs of the completion to provide
optimum production over its lifetime; the need for reliable pressure containment over the life of
the well; and the cycle time required to put various design options into production. Completion
requirements and production schedules should be defined early and drive both the tubing and the
casing design. Consideration should be given to designing the well from the inside out by first
meeting the production requirements of the tubing and then sizing the successive casing strings.
However, in some offshore cases, this is not realistic because of the large diameters generated for
the outer strings. Considerations should also be given to the lifetime servicing requirements and
the trade-offs for the ability to fish over the tubing and accessories.
For Level Two and Level Three design practices, it may be necessary and appropriate to examine
the margin of difference between the onset of yield and the actual rupture of the pipe. This is not
appropriate for Level One design practice, but it is a resource that can help the Level Two and
Level Three practices. Appendix 6 provides information on the rupture limit state.
Average carbon pipe is delivered with about 93% of nominal wall thickness, and it is very likely
that a large number of joints will include a pipe with minimum allowed wall thickness. Per API
manufacturing specifications (Bulletin 5CT), the minimum allowed wall thickness for delivery of
carbon pipe is 87.5% of nominal. Typically, the minimum allowed wall thickness for delivery of
CRA tubing is 90% of nominal. Because this is a real (reduced) wall thickness of the pipe, all
casing and tubing must be designed in burst using the minimum allowed wall thickness (which for
carbon equals 87.5% of nominal). In the Wellcat software, this can be done by setting the triaxial
wall factor to 87.5%. This should not be done using the actual dimensions of the pipe in the
inventory of the software, since this would increase the inner diameter and lead to large error in
the collapse calculations. For the Stresscheck software, there presently is no direct way in the
software to account for pipe thin-wall eccentricity, and this is being addressed by Landmark
Graphics as a development item. If one tries to create a pipe with artificial geometry, this will
throw off the collapse calculations in Stresscheck. The only approach that can be used at present
is to increase the minimum design factor used by Stresscheck by multiplying the design factor by
1.143 (i.e., by 1.0/0.875).
Strictly speaking, the adjustment for thin-wall eccentricity should be accomplished by applying
the 87.5% factor to the wall thickness in the Lamé calculation of hoop stress and radial stress
(Appendix 6), but not in the calculation of axial stress since the pipe does meet its nominal axial
cross section. However, for practical coding of the software, it may be necessary to apply the
87.5% factor equally to all three stresses. HPHT case studies have shown that when this is done,
there appears to be negligible difference between using the 87.5% term on all three stresses and
on only the hoop and radial stresses in those cases where the burst safety factor is small and burst
is controlling the design.
EP 2000-9073 3-10 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
prudent to use one of the many torque–drag programs available to Shell (Wellplan, Stuck, Mtd)
to calculate the hook load in a worst-case pullout with friction. Then, apply this pullout load to
the top of the same string using the Wellcat software.
Drag is an important consideration in getting the initial load condition correct. If there is
excessive drag when running the completion in and the packer is then set, then it is likely that
compression will be introduced into the completion. This compression can be modelled within
Wellcat neglecting the frictional drag loads, but the amount of compression to include is best
calculated using a torque/drag simulator to account for frictional drag. The alternative to this
compression is that tension will be introduced. This can be caused by picking up the tubing to get
the packer into the correct position. This often happens when the packer is set and the hanger is
not installed. Tension can also be introduced by performing a pressure test prior to setting the
packer. The pressure test will extend the tubing, and because of drag, not all of this extension will
be released when the pressure is released. In order to get around these problems, there needs to be
good integration between the completion program and the stress analysis. The completion
program should state how the packer is being set and any reference positions (e.g., up-weight,
down-weight or mid-weight). The implications of this drag on the position of the packer should
also be addressed to avoid the packer being set across a casing coupling.
If your loads on a pinned PBR (for example) are excessive and close to limits, then consider what
effect any circulating will have prior to setting a packer. This may cool (or heat) the completion
and therefore put residual compression or tension into the string. Such modeling can be done
using Wellcat.
The pressure test will be either before or after the packer has been set. Often, both tests are
performed. Normal operation loads should be lower than test loads. Savings in material can be
made if test pressures are limited. Shell Expro stipulate that the tubing pressure test should be to
EP 2000-9073 3-14 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
110% of the maximum tubing-head pressure. Dispensation is required if pressure tests are going
to be lower than this.
Be very careful about the position of any plugs during testing. For example, if an expansion
device is included in the completion and a pressure test takes place without a plug, the piston
effect will compress the string. If the same test is performed with a plug above the expansion
device, there will be no upward piston force, but a downward piston force at the plug. The tubing
will therefore try to move downwards.
If a pressure test with a plug is included in the analysis, consider the effects of the plug leaking
and pressure being applied below the plug. Under certain circumstances, this will go unnoticed
and may pose high loads on the completion.
annulus pressures creates a potential collapse condition, then this warning must be passed on
and the maximum safe annulus pressure included in the well operations procedures.
It is important that the ‘A’ annulus MAASP figure be used and adhered to. During production or
injection shutdown conditions, the ‘A’ annulus pressure can rise quickly. The ‘A’ annulus should
therefore be alarmed where possible or monitored to such an extent that the MAASP is not
exceeded.
If the well is deep or the annulus fluid is very dense, this collapse pressure may be severe and
should be checked. For burst on the casing, high pressures are easily generated, and this load case
is of great concern to many casing designs and one reason why kill-weight fluids are not used as
an annulus packer fluid.
Typical values for fluid compressibility are 3x10–6/psi for water-based fluids and 7x10–6/psi for
oil-based fluids. Typical values for thermal expansion are shown in the table below:
When selecting the shear rating of PBR or similar device, consider the following:
1. There is no danger of the shear device parting prematurely. In order to conform this, the load
cases prior to intentionally shearing the shear device must be analyzed. For example, if a
hydraulic set packer is being used with a pinned expansion joint, consideration must be given
to what may happen if the packer does not set. In the worst case, this may result in the packer
and tailpipe being blown off the bottom of the string.
2. There must be a sufficient overpull transferred to the shear device. The overpull must account
for the tolerance of the shear mechanism (between 5 and 10%) and tubing-to-casing friction.
3. The loads on the top of the string are not exceeded during the overpull. It is important that
both triaxial and axial loads are acceptable, as the beneficial effect of any internal pressure can
not be 100% relied on.
3.4.18 Stimulation
Stimulation in its various forms can be a severe test of a completion or test string. There are
various issues that should be looked at:
1. The worst cases are often those that involve the lowest temperatures and therefore the longest
injection period. These cases are best modeled using an injection load case but with a
transient injection period.
2. High loads can also be generated with a low-density fluid such as the pad fluid when trying to
open a fracture. This can generate high surface pressures.
3. Consider fracture screen-out cases when examining proppant-based stimulation. The
maximum pressure will be limited by the pressure-relief features at surface. Therefore, the
worst bottomhole pressure will be this surface pressure and the maximum fluid density. The
screen-out cases should extract temperatures from a prior load case (e.g., transient injection)
and should assume NO fluid friction (static fluid).
4. Take care when considering stimulation through any completion with activated valves which
are not pump-through. One of the potential problems is the hydraulic hammer effect. If a
valve suddenly closes (e.g., loss of hydraulic fluid), then the hammer effect may generate
instantaneous pressures that are higher than the surface relief pressure. This may
overpressurize the tubing. Process design software can be used to quantify this. This effect
may mean that the pressure relief valves have to be set at a lower value than would normally
be the case.
5. Consider the effect of proppant erosion on the burst rating of the tubing.
This procedure is shown below in Figure 3-1 for a case with the following assumptions:
Depth 12000 ft
Pad gradient 0.433 psi/ft
Final slurry gradient 0.935 psi/ft
Frac gradient 0.8 psi/ft
Friction 10 psi/100 ft
Perforation friction 500 psi
Surface allowance for PRV to open 250 psi
Pressure (psi)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
2000
Frac pad
4000 Screen out
Depth (ft)
PRV Setting
6000
Frac gradient
8000
10000
12000
14000
This equation can be used to conservatively predict the total erosion from flowing proppant (or
other solids) to surface. For example, a 50,000 lb proppant treatment is planned. The well will
then be on production at 10,000 bpd through 5½ in. tubing. The total erosion (assuming that 50%
of the proppant is back-produced and that all the proppant is produced at 10,000 bpd) is
604 mV 2
ET =
31536000 d 2
where ET = total erosion (mm)
m = mass of proppant produced (g)
For 10,000 bpd, the mixture velocity will depend on the amount of gas and can be calculated
using multiphase flow software. In this example, we calculate a mixture velocity of 15 m/sec.
50% of 50,000 lb = 11,325,000 g.
The erosion changes the minimum wall thickness of the tubing, and this should be treated like
casing wear in regard to making an erosion-adjusted calculation of the burst and collapse strength
of the tubing. Note that the use of 87.5% minimum wall thickness does not cover erosion. The
minimum wall thickness accounts for manufacturing eccentricity, and the allowance for erosion
must be made on top of the minimum wall thickness of the tubing. See Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.7
on casing wear.
In order to calculate the movement, the Wellcat file should be set up with unlimited downward
movement at the packer. A load case with a plug set above the packer and tested to the maximum
pressure at which the slips will bite will result in a predicted downward movement equal to the
maximum movement the completion will see as the packer sets.
EP 2000-9073 3-22 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Retrievable packers often work whereby an upward pull acts on a mandrel which is pinned to the
packer body. Shearing the pins allows the slips to retract and the completion to be pulled. This
can be analyzed by using the seal bore diameter of the mandrel/packer bore. This dimension can
be obtained from the packer manufacturer. The seal bore is then included as the packer bore
dimension in Wellcat. The seal bore is the bore of the part of the packer which seals and moves
the slips when the packer is retrieved. It is not necessarily the dimension where the two parts are
pinned together (Figure 3-2). The analysis then is treated in exactly the same way as in the
overpull of a pinned expansion device. Some other retrievable packers act in such a way that the
entire bore of the packer can act as an area to retrieve the packer. In these cases, even a very
small pressure differential upwards across the packer can act to retrieve the packer.
EP 2000-9073 3-23 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Element(s)
Seal between
packer mandrel
and element
housing
Slip(s)
Seal bore
Mandrel pinned to slip
housing to prevent
premature release
3.5 Axial Loads and Thermal Loads Applied to Casing and Tubing
3.5.1 Temperature Loading of Surface and Intermediate Casing During Drilling
For most wells, the loading of the surface and intermediate casing occurs during drilling, and
there is negligible impact of temperature change on the burst and collapse design of these strings.
In principle, there is elevated temperature at the bottom of deeper intermediate casing strings, and
this can reduce the yield strength that impacts both burst and collapse resistance of the pipe.
However, during drilling, there is negligible loading from change of temperature.
EP 2000-9073 3-24 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
3.5.2 Subsea, Long-Term Temperature Loading for Surface and Intermediate Casing
Because subsea wells have sealed annuli, in the production mode of operation the surface and
intermediate casings of these wells are subjected to severe burst and collapse loads due to increase
of trapped annular pressure. In addition, temperature increase toward the top of the well due to
production can cause compressive stresses and buckling of uncemented intervals of casing. These
stresses need to be taken into account given the severity of the loading from trapped annular
pressure (Appendix 12):
• For subsea wells, it is important to model accurately the initial temperature at the time that the
cement is set.
• For subsea wells, the Wellcat software should be used with the option active for modeling
trapped annular pressure. This should be done to model all the strings together as a system.
(friction turned off) using this maximum pullout load (hook load plus an overpull set to equal the
maximum pullout load from the drag software).
For calculations of drag loads using torque–drag software, it is best to use friction coefficients
calibrated from local drilling experience. Where experience data are not available, it is
recommended to use the following values:
Gas gradient
Pressure profile
is limited by the
fracture pressure
at the shoe
Fig. 3-3 – Illustration of the internal load profile for burst design of
surface and intermediate casing in Design Level One.
EP 2000-9073 3-27 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Initial cement
Pore pressure gradient
gradient
Fig. 3-4 – Illustration of the external load profile for burst design of surface and
intermediate casing in Design Level One.
Subsea well, internal and external pressure profile during production: Surface and intermediate
casing strings in subsea wells with sealed annuli will experience additional burst and collapse
loading from trapped annular pressure (Appendix 12). Production loads continue long into the
life of the well, when solids will have had time to settle out of the mud. While in the long term
mud may degenerate behind the casing, reducing the backup pressure which resists burst, the mud
also may degenerate inside the casing, reducing the gradient of the column which drives burst. In
the short term, the mud gradient inside the casing usually will be higher than the mud gradient
outside the casing, until the muds degenerate. Furthermore, production loading also can be started
in the short term before the solids have had time to drop out of the mud. This means that it is
appropriate to use the initial mud gradients and not the degenerated mud gradients.
• For burst design of surface and protective strings with trapped annular pressure during
production, assume that the mud external pressure gradient corresponds to the initial mud
gradient at the time of the cement job.
• For the external pressure gradient in the cement column, use the formation pore pressure
gradient unless the cement is completely inside another casing string. If the cement is
completely inside another casing string, use the cement mixwater gradient for the external
pressure gradient acting on the casing opposite the cement column.
EP 2000-9073 3-28 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
• For burst design of surface and protective strings with trapped annular pressure during
production, assume a full column of mud inside the casing, and assume that the mud internal
pressure gradient corresponds to the initial mud gradient at the time of the cement job.
• For burst design, do not apply any credit for buildup of external annular pressure. That is, for
burst design, assume that external trapped annular pressure is effectively vented or absorbed.
This is conservative for the burst calculation.
Influence of temperature and pressure on fluid gradients: The mud density is affected by the
temperature at depth and by the hydrostatic pressure from the column of mud acting on top of the
point of interest. This is more severe for lightweight mud and less severe for heavyweight mud
where the solids portion of mud weight is not impacted by temperature and pressure. Because this
is taken into account automatically in the Wellcat software, it is particularly important that
accurate mud properties be used with the software. To account for this in the software, you must
first calculate the pressure gradients using the “prod” option and then link to this with the “tube”
option. Using “tube” to calculate pressure gradients will not compensate for temperature and
pressure effect on the mud gradient.
Initial cement
Cement mixwater gradient
gradient
Fig. 3-5 – Long-time external pressure profile for burst design of production casing.
For the internal pressure profile, use the gradient of the mud being used to drill out the interval to
TD. However, it is necessary and critical to stipulate the depth of evacuation. Assume evacuation
to a depth such that the remaining column of mud pressure inside the casing balances the pore
pressure at TD of the section (Figure 3-6a). To construct the internal pressure profile for losses at
a depth above TD, draw the mud-pressure line from the point on the pore-pressure profile
corresponding to the depth in question. The solid line in Figure 3-6a represents the actual mud-
pressure line to be used for the design. The evacuation level chosen should always be the deepest
that can occur due to drilling below the casing shoe. Thus, if the pore pressure in a certain
formation through which the borehole passes is sub-normal, e.g., because of a depleted horizon,
the mud-pressure line should be drawn from the point on the pore-pressure profile which gives the
lowest evacuation level (Figure 3-6b) and not from TD. As Figure 3-6c shows, abnormally high
pore pressures do not create an exception for defining the collapse load line.
Subsea, collapse internal and external pressures during production: Intermediate casing strings
in subsea wells with sealed annuli will experience additional collapse loading from trapped
annular pressure caused by heating during production (Appendix 12). The production loads
continue far into the life of the well, when solids will have had time to settle out of the mud both
inside and outside the casing. However, the production loads also occur when the well is first put
on production. In this short term, the mud gradient inside the intermediate casing usually will be
higher than the mud gradient outside the intermediate casing, even when the outside mud is
opposite formations. As time passes and the mud degenerates, the gradients inside and outside the
casing will approach the gradient of the mix water, and this leads to a more severe loading of
differential collapse pressure on the casing.
• For subsea collapse design of intermediate casing during production operation, assume that
the external pressure gradient corresponds to the base-fluid density of the mud and the mix
water density of the cement, plus the built-up annular pressure.
• For subsea collapse design of intermediate casing during production operation, assume that
the internal pressure profile also corresponds to the base-fluid density of the mud.
• For the internal pressure profile, assume a full column of fluid (no evacuation). Do not apply
any credit for buildup of internal annular pressure. That is, for collapse design, assume that
internal trapped annular pressure is effectively vented or absorbed.
EP 2000-9073 3-31 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 3-6 – Construction of internal pressure profiles for collapse during drilling.
EP 2000-9073 3-32 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Hydrostatic head of
seawater at
wellhead
Pressure gradient equal
Subsea Collapse to mud base fluid Mud base fluid
density. 1.0 on Qualified
Protective While in density above top of API 5C3
Casing Production cement
Ratings
Strings Mix water gradient
below top of cement
Hydrostatic head of
seawater at
wellhead.
The preferred way to model these operations and calculate pipe stresses is by using the Wellcat
and Stresscheck software. Chapter 6 discusses specific options for use of the software. The
stresses arise during these well operations because of the imbalance between pressure gradients
inside and outside the pipe, because of hanging weight and tensile pull or compressive push on the
pipe, and because of thermal stresses generated by temperature change. Here, Level One design
uses a basic, conservative set of pressure profiles for the stress calculations. Chapter 9 provides
background on other, more complicated idealizations for the pressure profiles inside and outside a
given string of tubing or casing.
The burst load cases for tubing and production casing must include the case of injection to kill the
well. This load case usually dominates the burst load design. At the start of the kill process,
pressure is applied inside the tubing or casing at the wellhead. However, at the start of the
process, the tubing is full of produced formation fluid, and the production casing is full of
completion fluid. It is only later, at the end of this process, that the tubing or casing has been
filled with heavyweight mud.
EP 2000-9073 3-36 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
The production casing is exposed to many more well operations than is the intermediate casing,
and this leads to more load cases where the production casing must be designed to resist burst and
collapse failure.
9. Depleted production:
• At chosen depleted pressure and production rate.
• Imposes compressive load on the string and connections, but not as severe at plugged
evacuation.
• Should use maximum anticipated surface pressure (if any) that will be applied to the
‘A’ annulus.
10. Hot, production through tubing, simultaneous tubing leak to top of casing:
• Production causes pressure drawdown in tubing.
• Leak to casing causes wellhead pressure on A-annulus containing packer fluid, for hot
collapse loading of the tubing.
11. Hot, with pressure acting against plug set deep or shallow, with resulting axial tension and
evacuation above the plug:
• Similar to shut-in at the safety valve, but deeper in the string if a profile is planned.
12. If the reservoir will be fractured, pumping frac pressure from the surface should be included
as one of the pressure load cases for the production tubing.
7. Cold, start of kill (after cooling down, but with shut in tubing pressure leaking to the top of
the casing, and with pump kill pressure applied in excess of the shut in pressure):
• This can be the worst-case loading for the burst design of the pipe for strings which are
run with very high tension, particularly for split strings with heavier pipe on bottom.
• Assumes a tubing leak to the top of the casing.
• Have packer fluid inside the casing.
• Have mud with base gradient outside the casing.
• Have cement with mixwater gradient outside the casing.
• Pipe is cold from shut in several weeks or months after production (recommend six
months shut in).
• Injection pressure at the wellhead is the shut-in pressure plus the lesser of 1,000 psi or
10% of shut-in pressure.
8. End of cold kill (immediately after long cold-kill injection), with injection into the casing:
• Now treating the casing like tubing, i.e., injecting down the casing.
• Column inside the casing is heavyweight mud from surface to TD, with same gradient as
the original drilling mud to TD.
• Have 500 psi pump injection pressure at the surface.
• Zero pressure on the ‘B’ annulus at the surface.
• Cold injection temperature (80°F) has cooled the lower part of the tubing.
9. Hot, evacuation above packer:
• Worst collapse design case.
• Evacuated inside and mud–cement gradients outside.
• Should use maximum anticipated surface pressure (if any) that will be applied to the
‘B’ annulus.
10. Cold, evacuation above packer:
• Have combination of tension and collapse loading.
• Should use maximum anticipated surface pressure (if any) that will be applied to the
‘B’ annulus.
11. If the reservoir will be fractured, the surface frac injection pressure should be applied to the
top of the completion fluid inside the production casing for burst design. This addresses the
case where the tubing leaks at the surface during the frac job.
3.7.3 Well Operations to Use for Design of Surface and Intermediate Casing
1. Initial conditions.
2. Tensile pullout:
• Use the larger of 100,000 lb tension or 10% of pipe yield strength times area of the pipe
cross section.
• If deviated, substitute the larger of the load cited above or the maximum tensile load
predicted by torque–drag software during pullout from TD with friction.
EP 2000-9073 3-39 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
• At initial temperature.
• With friction if deviated.
3. Kick to full evacuation:
• Mud gradient outside the casing is the initial mud gradient.
• Cement gradient outside the casing is the pore pressure gradient.
4. Solids still in mud, drilling evacuation and collapse.
3.10 Pipe and Connection Quality Assurance in “Keeper” and Disposable Wells
Some wells are “keeper” wells which will be used for sustained production, while other wells are
disposable and will have a short life exposed to less severe pressures, for example, appraisal
wells. Although the life of a disposable well is short, as long as the well is put onto production or
production tested, any production string in such a well can be exposed to the full burst and
collapse pressures for which the string was designed. The planned short longevity of the well
does not change the fact that the production tubulars may be called upon to contain the full
production pressure. Hence, for a disposable well, the tubing and casing still need to be designed
EP 2000-9073 3-40 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
and purchased to withstand the pressure, tension, and temperature loading which will be applied
to that well.
3.11 When the Well Does Not Meet the Designed Intent
The well that actually is delivered should be reviewed and documented for compliance or variance
with the design that was planned. If the delivered well differs significantly from the design
requirements of the intended well, this should be dealt with within the scope of both Shell’s global
Pressure Control Manual and the local practices of the specific operating company; in addition,
the limitations of the delivered well should be documented for reference by the servicing staff
within the operating company. In this case, emphasis should be placed on managing and
controlling risk.
3.13 References
1. Kuriyama, Y., Tsukano, Y., Mimaki, T., and Yonezawa, T. (1992), Effect of Wear and
Bending on Casing Collapse Strength, SPE 24597, presented at SPE Ann. Tech. Conf.
Exhibition, Washington, DC.
2. Rabinowicz, E., The Wear Equation for Erosion of Metals by Abrasive Particles, Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact.
EP-2000-9073 4-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Chapter 4
Shell Global, Level One Design Practice for the Design of
Threaded Connections for Well Casing & Tubing Service,
and for Connection Evaluation and Approval
4. Shell Global, Level One Design Practice for the Design of Threaded Connections
for Well Casing & Tubing Service, and for Connection Evaluation and Approval
Each approved connection product will have a Connection Usage Envelope (CUE) in which the
properly run connection will not leak and will not fail structurally. The Shell-approved
connection shall be used in a Shell-designed well only if the well loads and pressures times the
connection design factors (listed in Part I) are within the CUE.
The Shell well engineering discipline maintains a list of Shell globally approved connections at
http://swwep-w.shell.com/threads/. Generally, significant lead time (e.g., 8-12 months) and
expense by Shell are required to obtain material and test a connection, and engineers are strongly
encouraged to use an existing Shell-approved connection prior to sponsoring a new connection
evaluation test program.
Evaluations of connections for vacuum-insulated tubing (VIT) service, drilling with casing/
tubing service, for fatigue loading, and for glass-reinforced epoxy (GRE) lined tubing are
required to meet this standard plus the testing requirements applicable to these topics.
Connection evaluations for steam well service, expandable tubulars, and risers are outside the
scope of this standard.
Part I
CONNECTION DESIGN / SELECTION FOR USE IN WELLS
For connections, a resistance design factor does not need to be applied to the uncertainty of
connection performance. This is because the connection is a precisely machined and controlled
product over its entire length (unlike a pipe), and the connection design gets tested and evaluated
at the extremes of its tolerances as part of the approval process. However, the well pressure and
axial load shall have connection design factors applied to them in order to account for the load
uncertainty and model uncertainty which remain in effect for the connection just like for the
pipe. In the connection, the model uncertainty comes from the concept by which specific tests
are chosen and used in order to predict connection performance under a broader spectrum of well
loads (the connection tests never duplicate the actual spectrum of tension, compression, internal
and external pressure, and hot and cold temperatures which may occur in the well).
For connections, the global Level 1 combined design factors (DF) for load and model uncertainty
are the following:
For internal differential pressure (burst loading), the minimum connection DF is 1.15
times the maximum expected differential pressure.
For external differential pressure (collapse loading), the minimum connection DF is
1.00 times the maximum expected differential pressure. This is set in order to correlate
with the pipe having the same 1.00 collapse design factor (an implicit design factor is
built into collapse design practice).
For axial tension, the minimum connection DF is 1.30. This applies at all times
including running and including the presence of internal or external differential
pressure.
For axial compression, the minimum connection DF is 1.10. This applies at all times
including running and including the presence of internal or external differential
pressure.
When using any of the approved connections, care should be taken with the manufacture,
inspection, handling, and mill/rig assembly to ensure trouble-free performance. Manufacturing
and inspection quality-control plan and sub-tier documents, including anti-galling treatment,
shall be consistent with the processes used for the connection during evaluation testing. The type
and quantity of thread compound and the torques used when bucking on couplings at the threader
and at the rig shall be consistent with the compound and make-up procedures used during the
connection evaluation tests. This information also is available in the list of Shell-approved
connections.
During processing of production orders for well service, Shell Quality-Assurance staff should
witness or monitor appropriate parts of the connection threading process. The degree of
involvement depends on the application and typical performance of the facility doing the
threading. The thread protectors should be adequate for the application (standards are included
in the current edition of API 5CT/ISO 11960). All connections which were tested using torque-
turn equipment must be made up in the mill and in the field using equivalent torque-turn
equipment.
are required to seal external pressure during all of the producing and shut-in load cases over the
life of the well, including gas lift if it is planned.
Subsea and TLP/DVA wells frequently will develop and trap large fluid pressures in the annuli
of production and intermediate casing strings due to a combination of cementing up to previous
shoes and production heating along the well. For such wells, external pressure sealing after
completion of the well is not a requirement for the intermediate casing connections. Indeed, for
such wells, it usually would be helpful if the intermediate casing connections would seal external
pressure during drilling but leak external pressure during production in order to balance
pressures, although this cannot be counted upon to relieve (transfer) the trapped pressure.
However, the subsea and TLP/DVA well production casing connections are required to seal the
combination of maximum external trapped pressure (due to production heating) on top of the
external pressure from running the annulus column of fluid, balanced only partly by the packer
fluid inside the casing. Consideration also must be given to whether the well may be put on gas
lift. If gas lift is a possibility, then the production casing connections of subsea and TLP/DVA
wells are required to seal the combination of external fluid pressure plus external trapped annular
pressure, while the balancing internal pressure essentially is zero during intervals of gas lift. For
TLP/DVA wells, the B-annulus behind the production tieback/casing usually can be vented in
order to keep the maximum trapped annular pressure behind this string a small number.
Part II. This is due to the interaction between the MM seal and the resilient seal and because
evaluation testing was done only with both seals in place.
Operational risks can be increased the first time a new type of connection seal is introduced to a
particular field location which has not previously used that type of seal. For example, the seal
ring groove connection provides greater reliability to the tubular string only if adequate operating
practices are followed for installation and makeup of the seal ring. If multiple-seal connections
are going to be used in an operating company for the first time, this should be done as part of a
carefully planned operating strategy and not on a one-off well basis since the latter is likely to
increase rather than decrease risk.
A torque shoulder seal may be possible in theory, but generally it is not counted as a seal by
Shell because it is susceptible to corrosion, handling damage, solid particles preventing full
contact, and opening under high axial load.
Part II
PROCEDURES THAT SHALL BE FOLLOWED TO TEST, EVALUATE, AND
APPROVE A CONNECTION FOR SHELL USE
4.II.1. General
This part of the standard documents the procedures that shall be followed to test, evaluate, and
approve a connection for well service. This includes connections tested by or for Shell and
connections tested by competitors or other third parties as the basis for evaluation by Shell. This
procedure is required for the evaluation of all Shell-designed well connections whether the
application is global or regional.
Evaluation of a connection shall be made through one of the following protocols:
1. Evaluation based on using the full test program (specified below) on a specific size, weight,
and grade connection product.
2. Evaluation of a specific size, weight, and grade connection based on following a reduced test
program called “extrapolation” specified below, but only in combination with previous
evaluation and approval of the connection based on a full/complete test program in a nearby
combination of size, weight, and grade; and only up to a maximum shut-in pressure of
13,000 psi (absolute, not differential). This sometimes is referred to as extrapolation,
interpolation, or product-line evaluation; here this is called extrapolation. Beyond 13,000 psi
absolute shut-in pressure prior to application of design factors, a full (not reduced) test
program is required to evaluate and approve the connection.
3. Evaluation using the reduced test program to increase the performance rating of a previously
approved connection up to, but not beyond, 13,000 psi maximum shut-in pressure.
4. Evaluation based on assessment of other operator- or threader-provided reports of testing
done to a minimum requirement of the ISO-13679 CAL III test procedure or better, up to and
not beyond a maximum (absolute) shut-in pressure of 13,000 psi prior to application of
design factors.
Execution of any of items 1 to 4 to evaluate a connection is done by a Shell Connection Test
Lead (CTL) with roles and responsibilities as defined below. The CTL then provides Wells
Discipline Management (per below) with a recommendation to approve the connection product
for general use. Connection evaluation is a complicated and specialized subject, and in general it
is strongly recommended that the CTL either be, or work closely with, Shell’s global subject
matter expert for connections (GSME).2
The CAL III-R test procedures utilizes six connection specimens subjected to varied
combinations of ISO test series A, B, C as stipulated in ISO 13679. This is Shell’s minimum
required test for gas-sealing connections for wells with maximum shut-in tubing pressure up to
13,000 psi absolute (not differential) pressure prior to application of design factors to the well
loads. The CAL III-R test procedure also is the most common test procedure shared across the
industry and used by Shell’s partners in jointly held wells. However, the CAL III-R test
procedure is intended for a complete set of six connection specimens and shall not be used for
any of the reduced test programs, as explained below.
While CAL III-R is the minimum required test protocol, below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the
Shell-ISO 13679 CAL IV test procedure is the default and preferred test protocol. For wells
below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the Shell-ISO 13679 CAL IV test protocol (denoted
henceforth as “Shell CAL IV”) will be used whenever practical and sensible to do so, per the
judgment of the Shell engineer conducting the evaluation program. Hence, the minimum
CAL III-R protocol shall be used in cases where the preferred, default Shell CAL IV protocol is
not used.
The Shell CAL IV test protocol is a subset of the tests listed under ISO 13679 CAL IV. As a
compromise industry standard, ISO 13679 CAL IV lists several combinations of specimen
geometries and choices as to which specimens experience the specific A, B, and C types of tests.
The key requirement of the Shell CAL IV test procedure is that each of four connection
specimens must be subjected to the combination of every series (A, B, C) of the ISO connection
tests. That is, using CAL III-R, an individual specimen might see test series A alone, or B alone,
or A and C combined. But using Shell CAL IV, there are four specimens, and each individual
specimen sees all of test series A and B and C combined. Hence, the Shell CAL IV procedure is
a more discriminating test than the CAL III-R procedure.
The Shell CAL IV procedure requires four, and only four, test specimens. The four specimens
represent different extreme combinations of seal interferences, thread interferences, and thread
tapers; and these are made up to various high and low extremes of makeup tolerances. These
tolerance extremes generally follow the recommendations of the ISO test protocol, but the final
choice of which extremes to use is always at the discretion of the Shell engineer conducting the
connection evaluation.
These four combined-test specimens can be obtained in any of a variety of test sequences. In
some cases, a connection manufacturer will want to proceed directly to the Shell CAL IV test,
hence using four connection specimens. In other cases, a connection manufacturer may want to
perform the Shell CAL IV test as an addition to a CAL III-R test, i.e., bolting the Shell CAL IV
feature onto a CAL III-R test. Table 2 lists various options in which the Shell CAL IV test can
be performed, and all of these are acceptable. The sequence for exposing the specimen to test
series A, B, and C also is flexible and is allowed to be changed in Table 2. Any sequence of the
combined A, B, C testing is acceptable, provided that the four specimens pass the combination of
the A, B, and C tests.
If a connection is evaluated based on using the CAL IV procedure and fails the test, the
connection cannot be approved based on its passing the CAL III-R procedure. Furthermore,
once a connection has been evaluated and has failed based on the CAL IV test procedure, a
EP-2000-9073 4-11 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
redesign of the connection also must be tested using the CAL IV procedure and cannot be
reevaluated or approved based on changing to the less demanding CAL III-R procedure.
If a connection is evaluated for service below 13,000 psi using the CAL III-R procedure or using
the Shell CAL IV procedure, in both cases the connection product receives equal approval by
Shell management for global use up to the pressures and loads of its CUE. Once approved,
either connection is equally approved and equally acceptable (no distinction is made in the way
the approval is listed).
For well conditions below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the ISO CAL III-R procedure provides a
sufficient, industry-accepted test of the connection. The CAL III-R procedure is used by most of
Shell’s major competitors and JV-well partners in the industry, and the procedure has received
strong endorsement by the ISO-13679 committee as sufficient for evaluation of connections for
most well applications. The ISO CAL III-R and earlier CAL III test procedures have been used
successfully to deliver reliable connection performance to a large population of industry wells.
However, the Shell CAL IV procedure is more comprehensive and covers broader usage
contingencies than the CAL III-R procedure. The Shell CAL IV procedure also provides a more
consistent link with connections that are evaluated through the (extrapolation) reduced test
procedure. Execution of the Shell CAL IV test procedure costs only about 20% more than
execution of the ISO CAL III-R test procedure. Therefore, use of the Shell CAL IV test
procedure is strongly recommended instead of using the CAL III-R test procedure to evaluate
production-string connections for maximum pressures below 13,000 psi. Use of the CAL IV
procedure has broader long-term benefit to the Shell enterprise.
4.II.2.2 Custom Test Procedure for Production-String Connections with Pressure > 13,000 psi
If the well maximum shut-in tubing pressure exceeds 13,000 psi absolute (not differential)
pressure prior to application of design factors, a connection is not Shell approved for use in the
production-string unless the connection has been tested using the more robust, custom test
procedure specified below. The cutoff at 13,000 psi absolute internal pressure corresponds to an
internal pressure of 15,000 psi after the connection pressure design factor (1.15) is applied to the
shut-in pressure. The cutoff at 15,000 psi has three driving factors: (i) the vast majority of
historical well connection experience and testing have been at shut-in pressures below
15,000 psi; (ii) well pressure containment equipment (wellheads, trees, BOPs) are rated based on
absolute (not differential) pressure; and (iii) there has been relatively very little use of and
logistical availability of well control equipment at shut-in pressures above 15,000 psi. Shut-in
pressures exceeding 13,000 psi prior to design factors make it prudent to use the more robust,
custom test procedure.
The custom test procedure requires:
(a) At minimum, the connection shall be tested using the Shell CAL IV test procedure and
not using the CAL III-R test procedure.
(b) Plus an option for additional testing if necessary as a supplemental Regional requirement
in accord with the Regional management of change (MOC) process for risk assessment
and as approved by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head.
EP-2000-9073 4-12 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Shell CAL IV is the minimum baseline for Shell’s custom test procedure. However, a custom
test may include tests in addition to CAL IV (e.g., additional specimens or different types of
loading) if the Regional Discipline Head determines this is necessary. In most instances, a
custom test procedure will consist of only Shell CAL IV without additional testing. If a Region
does utilize additional testing in the custom procedure, the types of additional tests shall be
approved by the Regional Discipline Head.
Regardless of the well shut-in tubing pressure, if a Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head
determines that a well has “critical connection risks,” then the connection shall be evaluated and
approved based on using the custom procedure including CAL IV. Furthermore, regardless of
the shut-in tubing pressure, all reduced test programs intended to evaluate connections for gas-
tight service shall use the CAL IV procedure and not the minimum standard (CAL III-R) test
procedure.
A connection which has been evaluated and approved based on the custom test for any one
Region does not necessarily meet the custom test requirements or approval of another Region.
This is because the same well conditions can represent different levels of consequence-risk in
different Regions. The acceptance of a globally approved, CAL IV-tested connection as meeting
the requirements of a custom test shall be determined on a Regional basis by the Regional
Discipline Head needing the connection. Hence, a connection which has been tested using
CAL IV is listed in Shell’s SATC site as globally approved, and the connection is available for
use in any Region unless a specific Region requires a custom test comprising more than the
CAL IV procedure. In such case, that Region has to determine what additional testing is needed
beyond CAL IV. In practice, most of the time Regions will only require CAL IV as the custom
test.
In summary,
• Above 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a connection shall not be used unless it has
been evaluated and approved based on ISO 13679 Shell CAL IV. A Region may require
yet additional testing under the scope of the custom procedure, although this is rarely
done.
• Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a connection may be approved based on testing
to either the CAL III-R or the Shell CAL IV procedures.
• Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, the CAL III-R test is the minimum required
test protocol, but Shell CAL IV test is the preferred test protocol.
• Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a Region may determine that connections for a
critical well need to have been evaluated using the custom procedure (testing to Shell
CAL IV) even though the connections already are globally approved.
• Only the CAL IV test protocol can be used for reduced test programs.
4.II.2.3 Differences Between the CAL III-R and CAL IV Test Procedures
The Shell CAL IV test procedure uses the same extremes of geometry tolerances as the CAL III-R
test procedure. Both test procedures share the same types or series of ISO tests; and both
procedures have been developed based on a large amount of prior historical testing and
engineering judgment.
EP-2000-9073 4-13 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
The CAL III-R procedure uses six specimens to address the extreme geometries of connection
tolerances. Only four of the geometries are unique, while the last two specimens are redundant
with the other geometries. The CAL III-R procedure subjects certain specimens to certain series
of tests; i.e., no single specimen is subjected to each type of test series (room-temperature
cycling of internal/external pressure and tension/compression; thermal cycling at tension and
internal pressure; and elevated-temperature cycling of internal pressure, tension, and
compression). The choice of test combinations in CAL III-R is based on the judgment by the
ISO WG2A committee of connection experts that the tests are sufficient to evaluate the
connection at minimum cost of testing. The CAL III-R procedure is the industry-wide baseline
procedure for most connection testing. This is the same baseline testing used by Shell’s major
partners and competitors, and Shell accepts the use of this procedure through participation in its
partner wells. Furthermore, testing by competitors and threaders using the CAL III-R procedure
is sufficient to provide information for Shell to evaluate a connection using method 4.II.1.4
above; i.e., connections can be evaluated for Shell’s approval based on review of non-Shell
reports of CAL III-R connection test programs performed and documented by competitors or
threader manufacturers.
The Shell CAL IV test procedure uses four rather than six test specimens. This is the same for
threaded and coupled and integral connections. However, additional specimens might be used
for an industry CAL IV test, since this can combine the Shell CAL IV test with features of
interest to other operators (such as CAL III-R test). The core requirement of four specimens in
Shell CAL IV is an intentional trade-off in order to subject each specimen to more
comprehensive testing. Shell CAL IV uses the same extreme-tolerance geometries as covered in
the CAL III-R test, but in Shell CAL IV each specimen is subjected to each of the ISO series of
tests (cycling load, pressure, and temperature). No judgment-based selection is made as to which
specimen should receive which type of test: each specimen receives all tests. The net result is
that Shell CAL IV is a more robust test which provides (i) about 30% more net testing and (ii) a
robust combination of sequential exposures to the different types of cyclic tests. This is required
only for the more severe well pressures, but the use of this test procedure is a preferred option
when the additional cost of testing is not the deciding factor.
the CAL IV procedure, as explained below, or a CAL III-R test, or a full custom test (unlikely).
An example of such a requirement might be a 13⅝ in. OD intermediate casing used to drill to TD
in a sour, extreme-HPHT well with potential shut-in pressure above 15,000 psi. The
requirements in this standard represent the minimum baseline, and the Well Engineering
Regional Discipline Head always has the option to impose additional requirements for high-risk
wells.
= Full test
Increasing T/D Ratio
= Reduced 1-test
2 = No test
2
3
One One
OD OD
Increasing Pipe OD
= Full test
= Reduced 1-test
Increasing T/D Ratio
X
= No test
Invalid - because
no test at same OD
One One
OD OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073 4-20 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
• A connection may be evaluated based upon the combination of one full set of tests and a
series of single-specimen reduced tests paired with extrapolation to lower T/D ratios in the
same diameter as follows:
o First up or down one diameter from the full test, based on the reduced test as
explained above.
o Then down the next two API T/D ratios for the same, extrapolated diameter as
explained above.
o Then through evaluation based on an alternating sequence of one single-specimen
reduced test followed by no test at the next lower API T/D ratio.
o And across any number of grades
o And provided the engineering design criteria are the same for the fully tested and
extrapolated connections
o And provided the maximum recommended working pressure of the extrapolated
connection does not exceed the test pressure of the original fully tested connection
o And provided the percent of the yield strength (for internal pressure) and percent of
API collapse strength (for external pressure) for the extrapolated connection does not
exceed that of the connections evaluated by the full test program.
Figure 3 illustrates such an extrapolation test program.
= Full test
Etc = Reduced 1-test
Increasing T/D Ratio
= No test
Etc
One One
OD OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073 4-21 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
= Full test
Increasing T/D Ratio
= Reduced 1-test
= No test
= Reduced 2-test
One One
OD OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073 4-22 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Beyond the extrapolation procedure outlined above, the connection requires any of the
following:
• Full testing
• Or use of another “extrapolation cell” combining another full and reduced series of tests
• Or interpolation, as explained below.
4.II.4.5 Interpolation Between Two Sets of Fully Tested Connections
Interpolation between fully tested and reduced tested connections is similar to extrapolation,
except that interpolation makes use of at least two sets of fully tested connections. Two different
structures are in place for evaluation of connections by interpolation.
• The first structure using interpolation is applied across changes of pipe diameter and is based
upon the pairing of two cells of full and reduced extrapolation adjacent to each other, with
the optional addition of one single, reduced-test specimen at a pipe diameter between the
extrapolation cells, as follows:
o Across any number of grades.
o With increasing diameter, this requires one single-specimen reduced test, followed by
one full test, followed by three single-specimen reduced tests at three increasing
diameters, followed by one full test, followed by one single-specimen reduced test.
o Use of the middle single-specimen, reduced test is based on the robust combination of
full and reduced tests in the adjacent diameters, and the fact the reduced test subjects
the specimen to all of a series (A, B, C) of ISO tests. The middle connection in the
interpolation is required to have an internal pressure rating, external pressure rating,
percent of yield, and percent of collapse rating not exceeding that of the lower of the
two fully tested connections.
o And provided that the maximum change of T/D ratio between any adjacent diameters
of tested specimens does not change by more than ±40%.
o And provided the engineering design criteria are the same for the fully tested and
extrapolated connections
o And provided the maximum recommended working pressure of the extrapolated
connection does not exceed the test pressure of the original fully tested connection
o And provided the percent of the yield strength (for internal pressure) and percent of
API collapse strength (for external pressure) for the extrapolated connection does not
exceed that of the connections evaluated by the full test program.
Figure 5 illustrates this type of connection evaluation by interpolation.
EP-2000-9073 4-23 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
One One
OD OD
Increasing Pipe OD
• The second structure for connection evaluation through interpolation provides a similar
concept except that this one is in the direction of decreasing T/D ratio rather than in the
direction of changing diameter. In this case, one full test is performed at high T/D ratio and
another full test is performed at low T/D ratio. The full tests do not need to be performed in
the same pipe diameter: they may differ by up to one pipe diameter if necessary. This
interpolation structure enables a wide range of T/D ratios to be covered with less testing
compared with the extrapolation procedure.
o This is applicable across any number of changes of grade.
o The interpolation is applicable between the T/D ratios corresponding to the two sets
of full tests.
Figure 6 illustrates this interpolation structure. The interpolation applies between the middle and
rightmost pipe diameters, while for illustration, extrapolation is used for the leftmost pipe
diameter.
EP-2000-9073 4-24 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Ext
Interpolation
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
The two interpolation structures above can be combined simultaneously across pipe diameters
and across T/D ratios to enable evaluation of connections for a wide range of pipe diameters and
T/D ratios with minimum testing. This is illustrated in Figure 7. The pattern in Figure 7 can be
repeated again for successive sets of diameters.
EP-2000-9073 4-25 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Etc
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
• Data used to evaluate a connection based on third-party testing without Shell supervision
shall be held to at least the same standard of accuracy and completeness as data required for
Shell-supervised connection tests.
• Each connection geometry and load step (load, pressure, temperature) of each test series shall
be reviewed much as it would be during execution of a Shell-supervised test, in order to
assure that testing was performed to the accuracy and completeness claimed by the test
report.
• Evaluation of a third-party-tested connection shall be documented and recommended for
approval using the same executive summary format as is used to report Shell-supervised
tests.
• Evaluation and approval of non-Shell-tested connections is done on a case-by-case basis.
This requires extensive, prior hands-on experience executing connection evaluation projects.
Evaluation of connections on this basis must be done by or with the supporting
recommendation of the GSME for connections. This applies on both global and Regional
bases. This does not mean that the GSME for connections is the only staff able to perform
connection evaluation based on non-Shell, third-party testing; but this does mean that the
GSME for connections must participate in the recommendation for approval of the
connection before the recommendation will be considered by the Global or Regional
Discipline Head.
During review of test programs provided by a third party, if it is determined that functional
make/break tests were not performed, then functional make/breaks shall be performed as part of
the connection evaluation. To the extent possible, these tests will use the same type and quantity
of thread compound and the same makeup/acceptance criteria used in the original test.
In an assessment of third-party connection test programs, frequently it is reported that a
connection leaked and was replaced, and that testing resumed at the point where the first
specimen failed. In such a case, the replacement specimen was not subjected to the minimum,
standard sequence of history-dependent tests that comprise the evaluation procedure. This
constitutes an incomplete (failed) test, and such a test cannot be used to establish evaluation of a
connection through third-party test data.
4.II.6. Requirements for a Connection To Be Approved for Global and Regional Use in
Shell Wells
A connection shall not be used in Shell-designed wells unless it is an approved connection,
meaning that use of the connection product has been approved by Wells Discipline Management.
Testing a connection does not guarantee that the connection will be approved for global service
within Shell. Approval of any connection product for global use within Shell is decided (one
time) by the Well Engineering Global Discipline Head (GDH). The approval is decided based on
an executive summary of the testing done (see Attachment A) and a recommendation to approve
the connection. These are prepared by the Connection Test Lead, who may enlist the assistance
of the GSME Connections to help coordinate the process. Connections will be added to the Shell
list of globally approved connections only upon approval by the Well Engineering GDH. Once
the GDH has approved a connection, the GSME Connections coordinates the process of adding
the connection data to the list of Shell-approved connections. The list is maintained by Wells
Business Performance Improvement.
EP-2000-9073 4-28 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
If a connection is not approved for global use, it still may be approved for Regional-only use if it
is approved by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head (RDH). This might be done
because a specific Region desires to accept more risk in its use of the connection for its wells.
However, the converse is not automatically true: a connection that is approved by one Region
(but not globally) shall not be picked up and used by engineers for wells in another Region
unless the connection is approved by the RDH of the second Region. This is the difference
between a connection being Globally or Regionally approved for Shell wells. This process is in
place to ensure that checks and balances are engaged, particularly when a product is not deemed
acceptable for global use while it is deemed acceptable for use within a specific Region.
If the well’s maximum shut-in pressure exceeds 13,000 psi (prior to application of the
connection design factor), then a connection product must receive an additional, one-time
approval by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head for the Region intending to use the
connection. The record of Regional approval must be retained by the Region. This applies even
if the Global Discipline Head has already approved the connection for global service. This
requirement is in place to assure that the Regional Discipline Head has the opportunity to review
and approve the circumstances for which a connection will be used above 13,000 psi shut-in
pressure. Use of a connection above 13,000 psi requires that the connection will have been
evaluated using the custom test procedure explained above. The criteria for determining the
specific custom test procedure may be different from Region to Region based on assessment of
risks and consequences of events. Part of the purpose for dual approval is to trigger one-time
engagement of the Regional MOC process to validate the approach taken to test the connection
for service in wells with shut-in pressures above 13,000 psi.
Each connection product is approved by Discipline Management only in a specific size, weight,
and set of grades. That is, each separate size and weight requires a separate, one-time approval.
If a connection has been approved based on a full test program, and additional size–weight–
grade combinations of the same connection product are evaluated by means of extrapolation or
interpolation, the extrapolated/interpolated combinations of size–weight–grade still need to be
approved (one time) by the Global or Regional Discipline Head before the connections may be
used in wells. Approval in an extrapolated size–weight–grade is not automatic solely because a
full test was approved in a different size–weight–grade.
Connections which fall short of the minimum technical standards still may be approved for one-
time use in any specific well on a case-by-case basis by following the MOC process of the
applicable Region and by obtaining approval of the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head.
Such use of a connection represents use of the MOC process to fall short of the standards for
product technical integrity, and this should not be done on a routine basis. Such MOC approval
of the connection for a specific well does not the establish evaluation and approval of the
connection within the Region except for the single well. This process is not the same as
Regional approval of the connection. Instead this is an exception to the connection evaluation
process based on unusual circumstances that may apply for a single well.
EP-2000-9073 4-29 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
service must not be loaded to a greater percentage of yield (90%) than was used in the evaluation
test.
The role of the CTL includes review and approval of the relevant project documents during the
planning and execution phases of the test. The CTL also is responsible for the recommendation
to approve the connection. The CTL should have the load schedules calculated independently of
the thread manufacturer or test lab in order to assure accuracy of the target loads of the test
program. Historically, this is a surprisingly frequent source of error or miscommunication by
connection manufacturers and test labs.
It is recommended that the CTL perform connection evaluation tests using the benefit of
historical, Shell project-quality-assurance practices as documented in Reference 4. Some
examples of key project documents are:
Product drawings
Connection manufacturer’s Process Control Plan (PCP) and sub-tier documents (review
and approval typically are the responsibility of Shell quality-assurance personnel).
Connection manufacturer’s mapping and cutting of coupons and test specimens. Shell
requires use of the layout in Figure C.1 of ISO 13679 for this purpose.
Threading logsheets
Make/break plans
Load schedules for each specimen in each test series, including an accompanying VME
chart on which the load points, including all intermediate steps, are plotted.
A new bucket of thread compound shall be used for any testing for Shell. This is to avoid using
potentially contaminated thread compounds during the test. Unfortunately, should there be a
metal seal leak observed, too often test labs have claimed the root cause was contaminated thread
compound. Test lab and surveillance personnel should ensure that no brush hair or other foreign
particles remain in the thread compound after being applied to the threads.
If the thread compound is changed, this constitutes a different connection which is not the
approved connection. In order to change the thread compound, testing is necessary. If a
connection is tested using one heavy-metal compound and a user wants to use another heavy-
metal-based thread compound, then only functional make/break tests are required. However, if
the thread compound’s physical or chemical characteristics or performance properties as detailed
in ISO 136783 are different from the compound originally used to evaluate the connection, then
in addition to the functional make/break tests, a sealing test shall also be performed.3 In such
case, the sealing test shall be a single-specimen, reduced custom test using the new thread
compound. Since the connection already has been approved by the GDH or RDH, success in this
reduced test will re-establish the approval of the connection using the new thread compound.
New technologies are being presented which claim to make up specific connections without use
of any fluid (dope) thread compound. The conversion of a connection previously tested with
thread compound to such new technologies represents a step change in the connection system.
The prior approval of the connection does not apply to this no-thread-compound system. The
new connection system is required to pass testing and approval through the reduced custom-test
and MOC process. That is, customized testing in the form of one or more reduced tests is
required; and the connection also must be approved again by either the Global or Regional
Discipline Head.
If it can be proven that the cause of the galling is other than the design of the connection (e.g.,
due to operator error or equipment malfunction), then two new replacement connection
specimens shall be manufactured. These two replacement connections shall be machined
identical to the geometry that galled, with the same or more severe tolerances such that the
galling tendency is at least as severe as that of the connection which originally galled. Each
replacement connection specimen shall be made up using the same original procedures (this
includes the same thread compound type, quantity, application, torques, equipment, etc.). If
neither of these connections galls or if the galling is deemed “repairable,” as defined above, then
the make/breaks are acceptable. If the galling is deemed “non-repairable,” as defined above,
this is a failed test.
guidelines in this standard. However, Shell does allow the use of special clearance connections
without a requirement for any further testing when the connections are used below the packer.
REFERENCES
1. ISO 13679, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Procedures for testing casing and tubing
connections, Current Version.
2. GSME, Shell Global Subject Matter Expert for Connections, see Shell Casing, Tubing,
Connection Design Standards web site http://sww.global-
networks.shell.com/forums/networks/dispatch.cgi/tubular/folderFrame/100559/0/def/46ef
3. ISO 13678, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Evaluation and testing of thread
compounds for use with casing, tubing, line pipe, and drill stem elements, Current Version.
4. Valigura, G.A., 2006, Quality Plans to Perform a Connection Evaluation Project, EP Report
2006-3174, Shell International E&P Inc.
EP-2000-9073 4-38 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Attachment A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTION
Introduction
This summary should be created and retained for each connection product which receives
evaluation by any of the allowed methods. In particular, this summary shall be provided and
retained as part of the recommendation made by the Connection Test Lead (CTL) seeking global
or regional approval of Shell use of the connection product. Preparation of this summary is the
responsibility of the CTL who evaluates the connection. Copies of this executive summary shall
be retained by the CTL who tested/evaluated the connection; the GSME for Connections
(frequently the CTL also will be the GSME for Connections); and the PTE for Casing, Tubing,
and Connection Design Standards.
The following items shall be included in the summary:
Background Information
5. Connection manufacturer, product name, and drawing(s) number(s) and revision levels.
6. The size, weight, grade of the connection which was evaluated.
7. The recommended connection usage envelope (CUE) shown relative to the room-
temperature, von Mises yield envelope of the corresponding pipe.
8. A brief connection design overview, including the surface treatment of the pin and box
(include information on any masking of the metal seal, threads, seal ring groove if present).
If there is a seal ring, then include information about the seal ring groove (whether it is
knurled, whether abrasive blast is OK after knurling, etc.).
9. The test protocol and CAL used, including the number of specimens.
10. The temperature that was used for the elevated-temperature tests.
11. The starting and ending dates over which testing was performed (whether Shell or third
party).
12. The manufacturer’s process control plan (PCP) or quality plan (QP) and revision level used
for the manufacture, inspection and makeup of the test specimens. The PCP or QP shall
include a list of all applicable sub-tier documents and their revision levels.
13. Statement that no leaks were observed or a summary discussion about any observed leakage.
Attach, as appropriate, a spreadsheet showing each specimen number, ISO Load Point where
leakage was observed, quantity of leakage, and any additional applicable discussion points.
14. Indicate whether internal pressure testing was targeted based on 90% of yield or 100% of the
manufacturer’s rating.
38
EP-2000-9073 4-39 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
15. A summary of any rehearsal tests, restarted tests, and redesigns of the connection including,
but not limited to, different surface treatments, different thread compounds, different
deburring processes, etc., necessitated by observed galling and/or leakage during the
evaluation testing.
16. Include information about any and all additional testing that was performed that was not part
of the original scope.
17. Makeup Parameters:
a. Number of make-breaks used
b. Type of thread compound used
c. Minimum and maximum thread compound applied to each pin and box; how and
where it was applied; whether Molykote was used (and where).
d. Manufacturer’s specified range of makeup torque
e. Actual makeup torque for each specimen.
f. RPM range used.
g. Attach a copy of the recommended makeup procedure that resulted from the test.
h. Attach examples of acceptable makeup charts. If applicable, also attach examples of
unacceptable makeup charts.
18. List of variances that occurred to the test procedure. In particular, indicate:
a. If the test was executed to load and pressure at a lower than intended percent of the
target, and whether this has been accounted for in determination of the CUE.
b. If the connection was tested with external pressure less than 100% of the pipe API
collapse rating, and whether this has been accounted for in determination of the CUE.
c. If axial loads below target were applied, and whether this has been accounted for in
determination of the CUE.
d. If any cycles of elevated-temperature tests were performed below or above the ISO
tolerance range for elevated temperature.
e. If one side (pin or box) of a metal seal was machined out of specification and the
corresponding member was adjusted to compensate and the connection specimen
galls or leaks. If there is agreement on a hypothesis that the metal seal machined out
of spec is the root cause, the threader can remachine the connection to be in-
specification and if it passes galling and sealing, then the test report and SATC list
shall stipulate that the connection is not approved for use with an out-of-specification
metal seal.
39
EP-2000-9073 4-40 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 4, Revision 1
Attachment B
EXAMPLE STEPS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE CONNECTION
MANUFACTURER UPDATES TO CONNECTION PRODUCT DRAWINGS
Connections are approved for usage by size, weight, grade, thread compound, thread name, and
the product drawing number and revision level of the connection that was successfully evaluated
and approved. This includes the applicable thread-form drawings and other drawings referenced
on the product drawing. All other product drawings or revision levels of the connection product
are not approved for use in Shell wells unless those changes have been reviewed and approved
per the procedures in this standard.
40
EP 2000-9073 5-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 5
Design Factors
5. DESIGN FACTORS..............................................................................................................2
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Lower or Higher Load Uncertainty.................. 3
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Probable Rupture Capacity .............................. 4
Adjustment of Design Factor for Particular Pipe Materials .......................................................... 4
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Likelihood of Events.............................................. 4
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Consequences ........................................................ 4
Adjustment for the Depth of Engineering Preparation.................................................................. 4
Experience with Other Burst Design Factors in Level Two/Three Design Practice ..................... 5
Probabilistic Approach to Collapse Pressure ................................................................................ 5
Burst Design Factor for Injection .................................................................................................. 5
Completion Components and Design Factors ............................................................................... 7
EP 2000-9073 5-2 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
5. DESIGN FACTORS
The design factors used for decades by Shell have their origins in experience taken over a huge
number of wells drilled and produced. The design factor is not based on any particular advanced
stress analysis, limit calculation, or probability assessment. Instead these design factors are based
on average experience. In Level Two design practice, the values of design factors used by a
particular operating company are derived from the particular extensive operating experience of
that operating company. Based on historical operating experience, the following design factors
are recommended:
Recommended “Combined” Design Factors for Level One Design
Triaxial Burst 1.25
Collapse 1.0
Tensile 1.3
These are referred to as combined design factors because they are single, net values which address
both uncertainty of load and uncertainty of pipe (or connection) resistance to withstand a given
load. The triaxial burst design factor is applied to the pipe yield strength in the triaxial stress
calculation, and the yield strength is also separately adjusted for temperature. The collapse design
factor is applied to the rated pipe collapse pressure listed in API 5C3 (ISO 10400 pending). This
collapse strength is a function of the pipe yield strength (which depends on temperature), pipe D/T
ratio, and pipe axial tension. The tensile design factor is applied to the yield strength of the pipe,
which again depends on temperature.
the load or pressure which will be applied in the well. The combined design factor is the product
of the load and resistance design factors. Table 5-1 presents a notional breakdown of load and
resistance design factors contributing to an overall combined design factor. Furthermore, design
factors do not need to be the same for all strings, because both the load and the resistance
uncertainty may be different for different strings.
Table 5-1
Usually, unless QRA is done, there is little quantitative information, so you need to use prudent
intuitive and experience information to evaluate these uncertainties and select design factors.
The notion of resistance uncertainty represented by the design factors in Table 5-1 applies only to
good-quality pipe (good toughness, inspected free of large defects; Chapter 7). Using a large
resistance design factor is not adequate to compensate for use of poor-quality, brittle pipe. For
brittle pipe, much of the traditional stress analysis breaks down and the risk becomes
unacceptably high under burst loading.
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Lower or Higher Load Uncertainty
One should be careful in thinking that there is no load uncertainty when it actually exists. For
example, in a production casing or tubing, you may exactly know the reservoir pressure.
However, there still is some uncertainty in the packer column pressure or the mud pressure due to
the effect of temperature and pressure on the mud/packer fluid density. During production, there
may be uncertainty in the distribution of temperature along the well, and this impacts the pressure
gradients of completion fluids and lighter-weight muds.
EP 2000-9073 5-4 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Both the load uncertainty and the pipe resistance uncertainty contribute to the likelihood of an
event occurring. Both of these are different from the consequences of failure. Qualitative and
quantitative risk assessment can be used to rationalize the choice of an appropriate design factor
different from the historical standard.
Both the likelihood and consequence aspects of the impact of the design factor can be combined in
a risk assessment.
Experience with Other Burst Design Factors in Level Two/Three Design Practice
Several operating companies have extensive and successful experience using triaxial burst safety
factors of 1.15, 1.10, and even 1.00 with high-pressure, even sour gas, wells. This is an important
benchmark, because it indicates that wells can be drilled, completed, and produced very
successfully while the values of design factors are pushed. However, these cases have been based
on very thorough, targeted application of experience and risk assessment to a specific, limited
series of designs. The use of triaxial burst design factors less than 1.25 requires experience or risk
assessment to justify that this can be done with prudent management of risk.
All of the examples which can be cited have been for strings of tubing or production casing.
These are strings for which there is less load uncertainty compared with protective casing.
Usually (but not always), the production strings were never drilled through and so did not have
any casing wear. Where production casing has had a low triaxial burst safety factor, the
production tubing intentionally has had a higher safety factor, and both the tubing and the
production casing have received secondary re-inspection following mill inspection. In all cases,
the consequences of pipe failure were examined and found to be manageable.
Depending on the potential gain and potential consequences, engineers may desire to recalibrate
their collapse design to a different target probability of failure. It is more likely that gains and
consequences will be driven by the probabilities associated with the load criteria, and this also can
be put into a probabilistic framework. The API collapse pressure rating is only one example of
approaches that are available where design is calibrated to a target risk. Both resistance and load
probabilities and full-blown risk assessments have been conducted to guide the choice of design
factors or to bypass design factors completely with a risk-based framework. Examples are cited in
the references to Chapter 8.
Design factors in pressure tests are the same as design factors for injection. The load uncertainty
is small, and one can make a case for reducing the combined design factor accordingly. However,
before one dispenses with the design factor for load uncertainty, it is important either to assume the
most conservative possibility for pressure gradients inside and outside the pipe or to know with
very good accuracy the actual fluid properties on each side of the pipe.
The justifications for using lower design factors for pressure test conditions are as follow:
• The conditions to which the pipe is exposed are accurately known during the installation
phase of a well completion.
• The pipe is new and in good condition.
• The pipe supposedly is not exposed to hydrocarbons, so the consequences of failure are less
severe than during production. The pipe should be mechanically isolated from the reservoir.
Examples are plugs below the tailpipe or an unperforated liner/casing.
• This allows higher test pressures to be used if required. The advantage of this is that it is
common for service loads to have different depths where stresses are at their peak compared
to test stresses. This is usually caused by different pressure gradients between test and service
loads. If higher test pressures can be safely used, it allows the maximum test stresses to be
higher than the service stresses at more points in the tubing.
Design factors for connections are discussed in Chapter 4 on connections. In general, a design
factor is appropriate on a connection to cover load uncertainty, not product uncertainty. When
connection performance equals or nearly equals the performance of the pipe body, the pipe (with a
larger combined design factor) will drive the design. However, for connections which are
substantially weaker than the pipe body (e.g., round thread connections), the connection can very
well drive the design and drive the choice of the pipe. In this case, the use of a connection design
factor for load uncertainty is important if (as usual) there is any load uncertainty.
Premium connections tend to be very weak in compression. They are particularly vulnerable to
leakage after cycles of large compressive loading. There are a few proven exceptions to this.
Sometimes engineers regard the low compressive capacity of a connection as though this
represents a large design factor in compression. This is one way to look at the limitation of
connection performance and relate it to the pipe. The other way is simply to recognize that there
is a particular limit to the amount of compressive load that can be applied to a given connection,
based on the qualified service envelope of the connection (Chapter 4). The latter way of thinking
about connection performance may be a bit more clear, because for a given connection with its
corresponding limit on axial compression, there should be a design factor applied (to the
connection) for load uncertainty and not for product uncertainty. That is, it is useful not to mix up
the role and value of a design factor applied to the pipe body and the role of a different design
factor applied to the connection. The ratio of connection resistance to pipe resistance does not in
itself represent a design factor; it only highlights the difference between the two products.
EP 2000-9073 5-7 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
In order for the completion component not to dominate the design, the resistance of the
completion component should be chosen to equal or exceed the performance rating of the tubing
and tubing connection. Great care should be taken when this is not possible. Examples include
the following:
• The stated pressure rating on DST test equipment may not have the same safety factor as used
for the tubing. The safety factor may be as low as 1.0.
• Some components (especially packers and PBRs) will have a separate triaxial envelope
(combined axial and burst/collapse loads). This envelope may not be the same as for the
tubing. Triaxial effects on packers in particular may be large, as they can be subject to high
simultaneous compression and burst loads.
If the completion component is weaker than the tubing, then the tubing analysis should explicitly
include a section of pipe that approximates the strength limitations of the completion component.
If the component is stronger than the pipe, then the completion component does not need to be
included in the analysis.
EP 2000-9073 6-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 6
Tools .....................................................................................................................................5
Steps for Checking the Wellcat Model for Tubing (and Casing) .........................................7
Inventories ............................................................................................................................9
Fluids Inventory..................................................................................................................10
Wellcat is an analysis program: you have to pick the tubing or casing, and then the program can
calculate the temperature, pressure, stresses, and design margins. Wellcat can be used for the
stress analysis of both tubing and casing.
Alternatively, Stresscheck is marketed as a casing design program. The engineer specifies the
loading conditions along the well (including the pressure and temperature), and Stresscheck
chooses the lowest-cost casing which satisfies the loads and the specified design factors.
However, Stresscheck can also be used to model tubing latched into a packer in order to
determine approximately the tubing weight and grade to use. With Stresscheck, you think in
terms of a burst and collapse load applied to the casing. With Wellcat, you think in terms of
operations of the well, with each operation having a set of loads. Wellcat provides a more
accurate and more sophisticated stress calculation, but Wellcat is not needed for all strings.
Surface, intermediate, and production casing strings should be designed using the Stresscheck
software. The software should be run with a series of load cases corresponding to burst and
collapse design (see Section 3.7). Stresscheck will recommend a casing which meets the pressure
and temperature loading conditions specified along the well. If the burst safety factor of the
planned casing is less than 1.25, then Wellcat should be used in addition to Stresscheck because of
the added features and accuracy of Wellcat. Wellcat should also be used for all stress analyses of
production tubing.
When running Wellcat and Stresscheck, there can be large impact from the variation of pipe
mechanical properties with temperature and type of alloy and from the variation of mud density
with temperature and pressure. A global list of pipe mechanical data is being generated together
with the qualified connection data and will be posted on the DED web site.
Access to the Wellcat and Stresscheck software is standardized throughout all the OpCo’s of
Shell. This is an important part of the process of delivery of the Shell quality well, because this
enables the engineer at any OpCo to tap into the same design tools and shared best practices
throughout Shell.
EP 2000-9073 6-4 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
For the simulation of drilling load cases, Stresscheck applies a circulating temperature at the
bottom of the next drilling interval and a circulating temperature at the top of the well. The
circulating temperature is based on an API formula accounting for circulation and the in situ
temperature at the wellhead and at TD. The application of this temperature profile is triggered by
labeling the strings to be surface, intermediate, protective, or drilling (i.e., not production) strings.
This means that Stresscheck applies a cooler temperature at the bottom of the hole interval and a
hotter temperature at the wellhead compared to in situ conditions.
During the simulation of injection down the casing (kill load case), Stresscheck applies the cold
injection temperature along the entire string, causing maximum possible (overly severe) cooling
along the entire string. Stresscheck is trying to set the temperature loading, i.e., the difference
between the temperature during the well operation and the in situ temperature, in the most
conservative way. However, these calculations do not account for the effect that temperature and
pressure have on the density of the mud or completion fluid. Wellcat must be used for that
calculation.
Wellcat works the same analysis in more detail by calculating the distribution of temperature and
pressure along the well during each operation, provided that the “Prod” module is used to make
the calculations. The “Casing” and “Tube” modules in Wellcat are used to calculate the stresses
in the casing and tubing, respectively. The “Casing” and “Tube” modules should not be used to
calculate the temperature and pressure profiles during a well operation, because these two
modules do not account for the temperature- and pressure- dependence of the mud gradient. Once
the temperature and pressure have been calculated within any operation, the “Tube” or “Casing”
modules should be linked to the “Prod” module of the same operation so that the stress safety
factors can be calculated.
Structure of Wellcat
Wellcat is split into five components, each of which can be linked together. Wellcat consists of
two load-generating programs (“Drill” and “Prod”) and two stress analysis programs (“Tube” and
“Casing”). A fifth module, called “Multi String” can be used to link the load transferred between
the tubing and multiple casing strings at the wellhead and at the packer. The layout of each
program is similar (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2).
EP 2000-9073 6-5 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Well Trajectory
A smooth well profile is important for getting the best model of the influence of well trajectory.
Therefore, when doing design of deviated wells, an accurate wellpath should be constructed with
input, using the build and hold angle method instead of entering measured depth and true vertical
data pairs.
Deviation influences the trajectory of the well. Doglegs introduce a bending stress in the pipe.
Usually, it is small except for the cases of short-radius horizontal wells or buckling. The deviated
wellpath should be modeled either in a detailed or conservative manner. The dogleg data can be
entered either in the max DLS field of the survey editor or in the dogleg override section.
Entering data in the MD, TVD, or INCL fields will specify the trajectory, but not the doglegs. If a
simplified approach is taken, it is easiest to use the dogleg severity override section and ensure
that for any depth range the entered dogleg severity is at least equal to or greater than any dogleg
in the survey.
A well survey can be imported into Wellcat from a *.txt file. However, if the survey exceeds
250 lines, it can make execution of the program very slow.
Tools
The Tools Passage input in Wellcat allows the user to specify the dimension of a tool which might
get stuck (for example, in a buckle). Then the software reports the condition (e.g., maximum
allowable tool length) at which the sticking problem will occur. For tubing models, at least three
types of tools should be considered in the analysis: perforating guns, tools for setting plugs, and
PLT tools. For casing models, the running tools should be the packer assembly.
Packer Modeling
In Wellcat the packer configuration is described in two parts. In the Tube: Wellbore/Packers
dialog, the setting depth, running configuration, and setting mechanism (hydraulic or not) are
specified. On the Wellbore/Packers/Details dialog, the tubing/packer interaction is defined. This
includes whether any weight is picked up or slacked off after the packer is set. The seal bore and
movement also are separated, making the definition of the tension hanger configuration easier
(and allowing direct application of the results).
EP 2000-9073 6-6 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Steps for Checking the Wellcat Model for Tubing (and Casing)
Wellcat is a particularly complicated program, and it is relatively easy to get mistakes when
running it. This includes both (1) bugs in the program and (2) user mistakes in input and setup.
Software bugs are still being reported for the latest releases, and the user must guard against this.
All input and output numbers must be checked to make certain that the program is executing the
features which the user intends to be present in the model. For example, it is not sufficient to turn
on the temperature de-rating of yield strength. Instead, one must actually look at the output yield
strength and see that the de-rating is active and working. If this were not the case (it has happened
with an example case), the reported safety factors actually could be incorrect and nonconservative(!),
hence the need for the checking.
Where possible, the check list below should be supplemented by a limited number of approximate
hand (or spreadsheet) calculations of the pipe axial load (stress), hoop stress, radial stress, and von
Mises equivalent stress. For burst, the equivalent stress should be compared with the pipe yield
strength (adjusted for temperature); and for collapse, the external differential pressure should be
compared with the pipe collapse strength (adjusted for temperature). With more effort, worst-case
bending stress can be included. This should be done at a couple of depths such as top and bottom
of the string. The formulas in the appendices of this Guide can be used to make such calculations
(also see the examples in Appendix 24). There is no sufficient alternative approach to proceeding
confidently with the well other than by making some limited hand (or spreadsheet) calculations to
validate the general trend of the Wellcat (or Stresscheck) results. Once you have the outputs from
Wellcat (or Stresscheck), there usually is enough information and enough pattern generated to
facilitate making this hand check with reasonable effort.
1. Check the pressures and temperatures for each load case, to ensure that the prediction of
pressures and temperatures is as intended. It is not sufficient to look at the temperatures and
pressure reported in “Tube” or “Casing” outputs. It is also necessary to check the
temperatures and pressures reported in (generated by) “Prod” to make certain that the correct
values have been generated and passed along to “Tubing & Casing.” This sometimes is not
the case! Check both the internal pressures and external (annulus) pressures.
2. Check if the triaxial burst, axial, and collapse safety factors for each selected load case are
larger than design factors. If not, adjust the design.
3. Check the safety factors vs depth directly by comparing the tabulated safety factors with the
design factors. Look at the numbers. Do not use the design limit plot. The design limit plot
uses the nominal yield strengths, uncorrected for temperature de-rating, to create the
envelopes, and it cannot faithfully represent the triaxial stress analysis on the pressure and
force axes.
4. To judge the acceptability of a particular design, the design limit plot should not be used.
Consequently, the design limit plot should not be used except as a rough qualitative design
guide.
5. As explained in Chapter 3, remember to adjust the pipe wall thickness for thin-wall
eccentricity by setting the triaxial wall factor to 87.5% in Wellcat (90% for CRA’s). For
Stresscheck, remember to use the only software workaround by multiplying the usual triaxial
burst design factor by 8/7 (e.g., 1.25 x 8/7 = 1.43!).
EP 2000-9073 6-8 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
6. Sometimes the software does not automatically report all the operating cases that were just
run. Check to see if all the operations are reported. If not, use the data selection option
(accessed through a right click of the mouse) to access and report all the operations.
7. Check the operating pressures and loads of the well against the qualified service envelope of
the connection. Pay particular attention to the reported axial compression loads with bending
during the different operations (Section 3.7) of the well. Compare this to the maximum
compression load to which the connection has been qualified. If the service load in the well
exceeds the qualified service envelope of the connection, a different connection will be
needed, or the connection qualification needs to be extended through supplemental testing
(Chapter 4), or the operation of the well needs to be modified to decrease the service load, if
possible.
8. Check in Summaries/Packer Load to see whether the latching force is lower than the tensile
strength for the anchor latch. The latching force is only reported if the packer has a seal bore
with no movement allowed, e.g., an anchor latch or shear-pinned system. This force is the
total force applied to the latch by the tubing above the packer.
9. Check in Summaries/Packer Load to see whether the casing to packer force (value the same
but direction opposite from packer to casing force) is within the tension or compression
rating of the packer. For the packer to casing force, an upward load represents tension and a
downward load represents compression. The casing to packer force is the net force applied
by the completion string (tubing and tailpipe) to the packer, plus the pressure–area force due
to differential pressure across the packer.
10. Take the initial load case and extract the tubing to packer force and the packer to casing
force. Unless there is a different fluid in the well compared to when the packer was set, the
tubing to packer force should reflect the following:
• The increase in tension found when using a hydraulic set packer.
• A decrease in tension found when using slack-off.
• The tubing to packer force includes the weight of the tailpipe.
It is straightforward to check these forces using hand calculations (ballooning and piston
forces). For example, on a 5.5 in. 17 lb/ft completion with a hydraulic set packer setting at
2000 psi, a 50,000 lb slack-off, and a 200 ft tailpipe, the tubing to packer force should be
Piston force = pA = 2000 psi x 18.8 = 37,590 lb (tension)
Ballooning = 2µ(Ai ∆pi) = 0.6 x 18.8 x 2000 = 22,560 lb (compression)
Tailpipe = 200 ft x 17 lb/ft = 3,400 lb (tension)
Slack-off = 50,000 lb (compression).
• Then the total tubing to packer force reported by Wellcat should be 31,570 lb compression.
11. Check that any movements at expansion devices are within the lengths allowed by the
component. If possible, avoid movement of seals during normal conditions, i.e., try to keep
the seal static (no-goed) during production.
12. Check in Summaries/Tool Passage to see if the tools can pass freely. If the tool does not
pass freely, the maximum tool length which passes freely will be displayed along with the
force required to pass the rest of the tool.
EP 2000-9073 6-9 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
13. Check the collapse safety factor against the collapse design factor. In general, the worst
cases for collapse loading will occur during the “plugged tubing” and “depleted production”
operations.
14. Check the integrity of the SPM assembly, as the burst and collapse ratings are lower than that
of the tubing. For example, 3½ in. KBUG-SH 9Cr1Mo SPM has a collapse pressure of
6,500 psi at room temperature. Using 0.057 percent decrease in yield per °F for 9Cr1Mo
alloy, at 250°F bottomhole temperature, the temperature de-rating (see Appendix 6) becomes
1.0 – (250 – 70) F x 0.00057/F = 1.0 – 0.103 = 0.897, and the collapse rating becomes 0.897
x 6,500 psi = 5,830 psi. This figure should be then compared to the worst-case collapse
pressure from the Wellcat “Prod” run.
15. The worst case for burst usually will occur at the start of the well kill, while the well is hot
from sustained production.
16. Check that the direction or forces involved for each load case are realistic. This is easiest to
check under the tubing movement results. For example, under cold-water injection
conditions, there should be thermal contraction and ballooning.
17. Pay attention to load cases with plugs. If there is a plug above an expansion device and a
positive pressure differential above the plug, the tubing should move down. If there is a plug
below an expansion device and a positive pressure differential above the plug, the tubing
should move up.
18. Check the axial load plot for any jumps or abrupt changes. There will be jumps at plugs,
changes in tubing (weight or size), or where there are changes in dogleg severity. For a
simple load case (e.g., pressure test), confirm that these load changes are correct.
Inventories
A significant amount of effort can be spent in setting up Wellcat with the correct data on tubing,
equipment, mud, and other properties. This should need to be done only once since it is possible
to save the inventory data as a template. Failure to save the inventory data as a template means
that every time you start a new tubing stress analysis, you have to re-enter all the inventory data.
Fluids Inventory
Not all the fluid options are available for all purposes. For example, if you wanted to set up the
annulus contents as containing hydrocarbons, then this would not be available. This is somewhat
awkward as many loads cases would have their temperature affected by the presence of gas in the
annulus. Table 6-1 summarizes some of the important properties of the inventory of fluids.
Table 6-1
Vacuum-Insulated Tubing
Wellcat can not handle vacuum-insulated tubing. However, WT-Steam from the same vendor can
nicely handle insulated tubing, but it cannot exercise the wide array of well operations.
Table 6-2
“Prod” allows more advanced features to be accessed to generate pressure and temperature loads
during production and injection operations. Each operation will predict the pressures and
temperatures for fluid and strings in the well. These operations can then be linked into “Tube.”
Each “Prod” operation can be either a steady-state or a transient operation. In the case of transient
operations, the starting temperature conditions can be either geothermal conditions or the
temperature from a previous operation. In this way, complex temperature predictions can be
made. For example, the temperature and pressure could be predicted for circulating cement down
coiled tubing after the well was shut in for 6 hours following 10 days of production. Such
predictions are very useful for well interventions where there is a strong temperature dependence
such as gel or cement treatments.
EP 2000-9073 6-13 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Variations in the values of these physical and material parameters and inaccuracies in the
estimates of their values both can contribute to load uncertainty for the well.
Pay particular attention to the contents of the annuli: cement tops, whether gas-lifted or not, etc.
If accurate heat transfer modeling is required (e.g., for HPHT or high-rate wells or hydrate or wax
prediction), then all the casing strings and their contents should be included in the analysis. For
purely tubing stress calculations, it is usually conservative to ignore any but the production casing.
This will tend to lead to an insulating effect compared to casing strings and wet annuli.
Loads/Loads/Steady-State Production
This operation models steady-state production of gas/oil/water fluids. The program uses a hybrid
black-oil model for the oil and dissolved gas and a compositional model for the free gas. A
composition using C1–C4 is determined based on the gas gravity. The Beggs and Brill model is
used for two-phase flow pressure drops. The gas rate can be zero for water/oil production, and the
liquid rates can be zero for gas production.
Loads/Production/Shut-In
This operation models shut-in after production. Temperature, internal density, and external
conditions are usually taken from the production case. Internal pressures are usually calculated
based on the user-entered pressure at the perforations or at the wellhead and the fluid gradients. If
this is a long-term shut-in, temperatures are set to undisturbed. If gas is in the tubing during the
shut-in, gas gravity can be entered and this will override the internal densities from the production
case. Note that if gas gravity is not used, the calculated internal pressures may be slightly
inaccurate for compressible fluids because the internal density is based on production
temperatures and pressures. To access this tab, you must be using Tube. Select Loads/Loads,
choose Shut-In as the load type, and then click Details. Select the tab having the name of your
currently selected string.
Loads/Tubing Evacuation
This operation simulates air in the tubing with a zero surface pressure. Temperatures are assumed
to be undisturbed unless a prior case is specified. The Operation or Load drop-down list box has
the names of all loads or operations defined for the current string that can be linked to other loads.
Selecting one of these items allows the code to use the temperature profile from the item as final
temperature conditions for the current load case. To access this tab, you must be using Tube.
Select Loads/Loads, choose Tubing Evacuation as the load type, and then click Details. Select the
tab having the name of your currently selected string.
Loads/Overpull (Casing)
This operation is used to model tension in the string due to the air weight of the casing (or buoyed
weight in mud). An overpull force can be specified to model additional surface tension applied to
the casing (usually to free stuck pipe).
Loads/Overpull (Tube)
This operation models tension in the tubing string due to the air weight of the tubing (or buoyed
weight in mud). An overpull force (usually applied to unseat a packer) can be specified to model
additional surface tension applied to the tubing (usually to free stuck tubing).
Loads/Prod Link
This operation is used to model the current string with the temperature profiles imported from a
Prod operation. This is a very important, heavily used option.
Loads/Transient Injection
This load case models steady-state injection of natural gas. A compositional model for free gas is
used. A composition using C1–C4 is determined based on the gas gravity. Gas pressures are
based on the gas dynamic theories of Zucrow and Hoffman.
Loads/Pump-In to Kill
This load case may result in worst-case burst loads at the surface for low-permeability formations
when a pump pressure significantly greater than the shut-in wellhead pressure is required to begin
a bullhead kill operation. Temperature, internal density, and external conditions are recalled from
the prior case (production or shut-in). The program then applies the user-entered surface pressure.
If you want to model thermal contraction loads during a kill operation, use the Transient Injection
load as the prior operation or load.
Loads/Frac Screen-Out
This load case models the high injection pressure encountered at the end of a frac operation. The
prior load case (usually an injection case) is recalled for temperatures, internal densities, and
external conditions (such as casing pressure).
Loads/Rod Pump
This load calculates tubing loads due to steady-state production in a well using a rod pump for
artificial lift. WellCat uses the values you specify to perform a thermal simulation to calculate
tubing temperatures and pressures based on the specified production conditions. These results are
used to determine the forces acting on the tubing. The load calculation is based on data you
specify to calculate the force acting on the tubing due to the differential pressure across the pump.
This pressure acts on the cross-sectional area between the tubing ID and the pump bore diameter.
A stress analysis can be performed for both an upstroke and a downstroke. On an upstroke, the
piston force due to the higher pressure above the pump is carried by the sucker rods and travelling
valve, yet the pressure increase can cause buckling in the tubing. On a downstroke, this pressure
force acts downward on the standing valve and is carried by the tubing (i.e., the valve is treated as
a tubing plug).
EP 2000-9073 6-17 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Marking the Deteriorated Mud check box for a selected load case causes the external pressure
profile to be calculated using the specified base-fluid density as the hydrostatic gradient above
TOC instead of the actual mud density, which is specified for the current string as Mud at Shoe in
the Casing Scheme spreadsheet. This provides an accurate model for drilling muds that do not
have good long-term solids-suspension properties. The same deteriorated-fluid density must be
used for all selected load cases for which this option is enabled. Deteriorated Mud is disabled for
• Custom load cases where the external pressure profile is explicitly entered.
• Load cases that use the Fluid Gradients w/ Pore Pressure external pressure profile, where the
mud density above TOC is an editable field on the Burst Loads/Edit tab when this profile is
selected.
Tubular/Collapse Load/Select
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable collapse load cases and to select external pressure
profiles. Most drilling collapse-load cases can be selected only for strings where the setting depth
(shoe depth in Casing Scheme spreadsheet) is less than the well TD, as defined in the General
dialog. Most production collapse-load cases can be selected only for production strings (those
strings in the Casing Scheme spreadsheet for which the Name cell contents are Production).
Exceptions to this rule are
• Cementing drilling collapse-load case, which can be selected for all strings
• Gas Migration production collapse-load case, which is unavailable for liners
EP 2000-9073 6-19 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
The Internal Profiles list box contains the names of the selected load cases. As load cases are
enabled and disabled, this list box updates automatically and the currently selected load case will
be highlighted.
If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is not marked on the Design Parameters dialog,
external pressure profiles can be independently selected for each load case. Highlight a load case
in the Internal Profile list box and select the corresponding external pressure profile from the
External Profile group box. If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is marked, only one
external pressure profile can be selected for use with all of the selected load cases.
The Cementing drilling collapse-load case and the Gas Migration production collapse-load case
have self-described external pressure profiles and are unaffected by the Single External Pressure
Profile option and external pressure profile selections. The external pressure profile for collapse
Custom load cases is entirely user-defined and is similarly unaffected.
To enable or disable collapse loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables can be viewed and/or
edited individually for each enabled load case using the Collapse Loads/Edit tab. Custom
collapse load cases are defined using Custom Loads spreadsheets. These load cases are then
enabled and disabled using the Collapse Loads/Custom tab.
The Internal Profiles list box contains the names of the selected load cases. As load cases are
enabled and disabled, this list box updates automatically and the currently selected load case will
be highlighted.
If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is not marked on the Design Parameters dialog,
external pressure profiles can be independently selected for each load case. Highlight a load case
in the Internal Profile list box and select the corresponding external pressure profile from the
External Profile group box. If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is marked, only one
external pressure profile can be selected for use with all of the selected load cases.
The Cementing drilling collapse-load case and the Gas Migration production collapse-load case
have self-described external pressure profiles and are unaffected by the Single External Pressure
Profile option and external pressure profile selections. The external pressure profile for collapse
Custom load cases is entirely user-defined and is similarly unaffected.
EP 2000-9073 6-20 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
To enable or disable collapse loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables can be viewed and/or
edited individually for each enabled load case using the Collapse Loads/Edit tab. Custom
collapse load cases are defined using Custom Loads spreadsheets. These load cases are then
enabled and disabled using the Collapse Loads/Custom tab.
Tubular/Axial Load/Select
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable load cases. If a custom load case was created solely
as an axial design criterion (e.g., hot production or cool injection temperatures were specified to
generate thermally induced axial loads), the load case will be considered in the load-line
formulation for axial design when both of the following conditions are satisfied:
• The custom load was selected on the Custom tab of either the Burst Loads or Collapse Loads
dialog.
• Service Loads was selected on the Axial Loads/Select tab.
The first five selections on this tab represent installation load cases. These loads occur before the
cement hardened and the casing was landed. If a pickup or slack-off force is to be applied to the
casing string before setting the slips, or if the casing string is to be pre-tensioned by applying
surface pressure while waiting on cement, you must mark the Service Loads check box. These
additional data are specified on the Initial Conditions/Cementing and Landing tab and are used in
calculating axial load distributions for the selected burst and collapse load cases.
EP 2000-9073 6-21 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Temperature data for custom load cases are recorded on the Temperature tab within the Burst
Loads and Collapse Loads dialogs rather than in the Custom Loads spreadsheet. This provides
generalized support for user-entered load case temperature profiles.
To enable or disable axial loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables, such as overpull force
or casing running speed, can be edited.
Run Displacement to Gas with the design parameter dialog option clicked to activate Frac at Shoe
option. This way, the displacement to gas will be limited if it exceeds the fracture pressure at the
shoe. If you do not click the frac at shoe option, then displ to gas will not be limited if it exceeds
the frac pressure.
However, the Frac at Shoe with Gas Gradient Above option does not compare pore pressure and
gas gradient or look at this at all. Instead, this chooses the frac pressure directly and then runs GG
above.
Gas Kick takes a specified kick volume and actually circulates the bubble. It calculates pressure
at the top and bottom of the bubble as the bubble moves along the string. Then at each point
along the string it takes the worst pressure at that point, which is the pressure when the bubble
passes that point, and it sets that as the design pressure. This is an important, useful option.
EP 2000-9073 7-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 7
Adequate toughness is assured if the Charpy impact energy of the pipe meets or exceeds the
minimum impact toughness specified in API Specification SR16. The minimum toughness in
SR16 is a function of the pipe or coupling wall thickness and the orientation of the test specimen.
Where possible, a transverse notch orientation is highly preferable instead of a longitudinal
orientation. Conformance to API Specification SR16 is the best means of ensuring that pipe has
adequate toughness. Most pipe made today meets or exceeds the minimum impact energy
specified in SR16, but this is not always the case. Added assurance of meeting the minimum
Charpy requirement can be obtained by including the SR16 specification in the purchase
requirement of the pipe. When large orders of pipe are placed with mills, the pipe usually can be
ordered to SR16 without added cost. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show the orientation and geometry of
the API Charpy test specimens for SR16.
Fig. 7-1 – Orientation of the (1) longitudinal and (2) transverse Charpy test
specimens per API 5CT. The transverse test is preferred when possible.
Fig. 7-2 – Geometry of the Charpy test specimen, per API 5C3.
EP 2000-9073 7-4 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
It is recommended that all tubing and production casing should meet the impact energy (toughness)
specification of SR16. It also is recommended that intermediate casing dominated by burst design
such that the triaxial burst safety factor is 1.50 or less should meet the impact energy specification of
SR16. Meeting the impact energy requirement can be achieved by including SR16 in the
purchasing specification or by risk assessment of the mill’s likelihood of producing SR16 and non-
SR16 pipe. Coupling material for connections has separate toughness specifications contained in
API 5CT (ISO 11960), and these should always be satisfied for all service applications.
The toughness requirements explained above pertain to conventional tubulars and connections,
both at low and high pressures. However, in the case of solid expandable tubulars and
connections, the above requirements are not adequate because of the expansion process, and
higher supplemental requirements apply (see Appendix 14 on Solid Expandable Tubulars).
NDE inspection (ultrasonic or electromagnetic) should be done on a unit which has been
demonstrated to locate, at a minimum, the notches identified in API 5CT/ISO 11960 or as
otherwise requested by the OpCo. For critical service such as production tubulars for HPHT
wells, it is recommended that both electromagnetic and ultrasonic inspection be used with 100%
coverage of the joint of pipe, for each joint. The same setup parameters which are used during
demonstration and calibration of the equipment should be used during inspection of the tubulars.
In addition to mill surveillance, if tubulars are intended for Shell wells where the triaxial burst
safety factor will be less than 1.25 or for HPHT wells, then it is strongly recommended that a
post-production statistical audit be performed on the tubulars by an independent inspection
company. For HPHT wells or for wells where there are critical environmental concerns, the
operating company may wish to perform a 100% post-production re-inspection by an independent
inspection company.
For connections used in wells where the triaxial burst safety factor will be less than 1.25 or in
HPHT wells, it is also recommended that a statistical audit of the connections be performed by the
threading manufacturer at the end of the threading cycle while the threads are still in the
manufacturer’s facility and before application of surface treatment. Gauges used during the
original production run should not be used on the same threads during the statistical audit. For
example, if threading tubulars pin by pin, then exchanging the gauge sets from one inspection
station to another is recommended.
EP 2000-9073 7-5 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
It also is recommended that on tubulars purchased from inventory, Shell either perform a 100%
post-production ultrasonic (UT) or electromagnetic (EMI) re-inspection or perform a statistical
audit based on a long established record of performance from a particular mill. This should be
done to validate that the manufacturer’s product does meet industry-standard and/or purchase-
order requirements.
For connections, it is recommended that a post-threading, special end-area (SEA) inspection be
performed on pin threads intended for use in tubing and production casing and casing with a
triaxial burst safety factor of 1.25 or less. In addition, it is a requirement of API 5CT and
ISO 11960 that threaded couplings receive a magnetic particle inspection after threading.
Threaders of premium connections have built this requirement into their process control plans.
• Review and documentation of items which are subcontracted and the processes in place to
control subcontracting
• Audit of tubular/material qualification
• Audit of in-house connection qualification testing
• Preparation of a final audit report
• Updating a list of Shell-preferred suppliers
Chapter 8
Risk Assessment
8. RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................2
8.2 Introduction..............................................................................................................2
8.2.1 The Risk Concept...................................................................................................3
8.2.2 On Design Methods ...............................................................................................5
8.5 References..............................................................................................................11
EP 2000-9073 8-2 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
8. RISK ASSESSMENT
8.2 Introduction
This chapter discusses risk assessment and how the evaluation of risk can form a rational
framework for making design decisions — in particular, step changes in well designs. Chapter 3
of this guideline provides default design procedures and load cases which are meant to be
conservative and as universally applicable as possible. However, such design paradigms may not
always result in practical or economically competitive wells. This will be especially true when
innovative design concepts and new technologies enable new wells which can become
significantly more competitive. Risk assessment is one of the key tools that can be used to
manage change in well design practice. While there may be a strong economic motivation for
pushing the design envelope by adopting new load models, materials, or well geometries, a new
design usually will also bring new uncertainties of events and uncertainties of consequences. The
purpose of a risk assessment is to weigh these new and possibly increased risks against the
possible gains that could result from adoption of the new design.
The following paragraphs briefly introduce the concept of risk and explain in very generalized
terms how risk assessments can be carried out. There is brief discussion on how casing and
tubing designs can be related to probability of failure and risk. Finally, the chapter contains a
brief discussion of the important steps in carrying out risk assessments. The chapter is not meant
to be a self-contained, step by step procedure for carrying out a risk study, and there is no one,
single correct approach or set of rules to follow. However, the chapter is meant to help well
designers recognize when risk assessments should be applied and the value of risk assessment as a
means of communicating the advantages and disadvantages of a design concept.
EP 2000-9073 8-3 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
The basic concept of risk can be visualized as a matrix such as in Table 8-1. Rows in this table
correspond to likelihood of failure. The bottom row corresponds to the lowest failure
probabilities and the top row corresponds to high failure probabilities. Columns in the table
correspond to various levels of failure losses — the lowest severity of negative consequence on
the left and the highest severity of consequence on the right. High risks are usually the
combination of high failure probabilities with moderate or large consequences or moderate failure
probabilities with large consequences. This corresponds to the diagonal from upper left-hand to
lower right-hand portion of the table. In contrast, low risks are the combination of low or
moderate failure probabilities with small or moderate consequences — the middle and lower left-
hand portion of the table to the middle, bottom portion of the table, i.e., the shaded portion of the
table.
Table 8-1
The risks associated with operating a well are but one of the elements that must be considered in
making business decisions. Decisions are based on a combination of operational, economic, and
governmental factors. As a result, there are a number of ways risks can be assessed and reduced,
for example:
• A subjective or qualitative assessment of the factors
• A prescribed maximum tolerable risk
• A cost–benefit approach
When risks to personnel are above the level considered “broadly acceptable” but still below the
unacceptable range, the approach used to judge whether risk-reduction measures are reasonable is
based on the “ALARP” principle. ALARP stands for “as low as reasonably practicable.” Here,
risk-reduction measures are judged based on an economic criterion. Risk-reduction measures are
implemented as long as the marginal cost for risk reduction is below several times its expected
returns.
EP 2000-9073 8-5 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
It is helpful to understand the difference between deterministic design, probabilistic design, and
risk assessment. Deterministic design is allowable stress design, based on the comparison
between the stress in-service and a mechanics-based limit which is not to be exceeded.
Probabilistic design is a measure beyond deterministic design but can be less than risk-based
design. Probabilistic design compares likely events and likely values with a limit. In turn, the
limit could be deterministic, or the limit also could be probabilistic. For example, probabilistic
design can compare a known (certain) collapse load with the statistically derived collapse strength
of the pipe in order to design to a target probability of pipe collapse; or probabilistic design can be
taken further by comparing a statistically based distribution of likely collapse loads with a
statistically derived pipe collapse strength. When probabilistic design is used to examine both
events and consequences, it becomes risk-based design. While the probabilistic design accounts
for the likelihood of at least one event associated with the design, the risk assessment accounts for
both the likely events and the likely consequences.
It is conceivable that two tubular designs can have exactly the same likelihood of pipe burst or
collapse and yet totally different levels of risk. This is because the location, investment cost, or
nature of the contained fluid may imply very different consequences to failure of the pipe.
Qualitative methods are appropriate for screening multiple design alternatives for further, more
detailed study or for deciding upon design changes where the risk is considered to be reasonably
low. For example, for a particular reservoir and drilling location, several alternative well designs
and development programs can be envisioned, each with their own advantages along with
corresponding risks. However, at this stage, few details have been worked out other than the
broad concepts, which differentiate each of the concept designs and programs. At this point, a
qualitative risk assessment is an ideal way to select one or more candidate concepts for detailed
concept development. Finally, if warranted, either further qualitative assessment or even a
quantitative risk assessment can be made on which to base the final design decisions.
EP 2000-9073 8-7 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
8.3.1.2 Procedure
1. Clearly define the problem. Define what design characteristics stretch or deviate from current
design assumptions or standard operating procedures. Select a criterion on which the design
change will be judged.
2. Collect and organize information generated during the preliminary design process. Document
the new design concept along with how the concept differs from standard practice.
3. Identify the hazards to which the design is subjected and identify the hazards that interact with
the proposed changes. Determine the modes of failure affected by the proposed change and
the associated load cases and damage mechanisms. For each failure mode, determine the
possible effects on personnel safety, business losses or operational disruptions, and
environmental effects.
4. Collect qualitative and quantitative information that the analysis relates to the design concept
being analyzed. For example, experience from offset wells designed using standard practice
and experience reported for wells used elsewhere based on the same concept or an analogous
concept.
5. Modeling. In the case of a qualitative study, the likelihood and consequence results are based
on expert opinion. The purpose of the analysis is to provide a classification structure for the
expert opinions of the engineers familiar with the casing and tubing design and the proposed
changes. Since a qualitative study strongly depends on competency and good judgement of
the assessment team, it is important that experienced engineers are included or consulted as
team members.
• Frequency analysis or classification. Classify the likelihood of each mode of failure as
low, medium, or high or as a number between zero and five. For this process, use the
results of the hazard identification process to determine how each of the proposed design
features will affect the probability of failure. Determine which of these design features
have the greatest potential for increasing or decreasing the likelihood of failure. Document
conclusions along with the any industry- or asset-specific information to support the
conclusions.
• Consequence analysis or classification. Classify the consequences of each mode of failure
as low, medium, or high or as a number between zero and five. For this process,
determine how each of the proposed design features affects the potential for equipment
damage, production delays, and injuries. Determine which of these design features have
the greatest potential for increasing or decreasing potential failure losses. Document
conclusions along with the any industry- or asset-specific information to support the
conclusions.
6. Evaluate the results. The risk is the combination of the likelihood and the consequence results.
Results are simply the coordinate in a risk matrix (Table 8-1) or in a similar matrix if more than
three category levels are used to classify consequences and likelihood. Determining the value of
a risk-reduction measure is much more subjective in a qualitative study. In short, alternatives
that lie on the same downward sloping diagonal do not have significantly different risks. For
example, moving from the upper left-hand corner to the center and then the lower right-hand
corner in Table 8-1 (i.e., moving southeast) is not a significant change in risk. However,
moving from the upper right-hand portion of the table down toward the lower left (i.e.,
moving southwest) is a significant decrease in the risk; and moving northwest in Table 8-1 is
a significant increase in risk.
EP 2000-9073 8-8 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
7. Reporting. The final result of the risk analysis should be the recommended design, along with
any additional recommendations or conditions which the assessment team believes are
necessary to increase safety or reduce costs. Documentation of the risk assessment should
include all essential background information, including the following:
• A complete and clear description of the design alternative investigated, including how the
proposed design differs from standard practice in the OpCo and what the advantages are
for its implementation.
• A clear statement of the goal of the risk assessment and the criterion used to assess the
results.
• Risk classifications and the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results.
• Background information, such as
○ Field-, OpCo- or design-specific information, including any statistical analysis results
of data collected and used in the assessment.
○ Industry data, failure rates, and experience used.
• A list of the hazards identified.
• The failure modes analyzed in the study.
• A brief description of the logic used to complete the classification of likelihood and
consequence.
As with any engineering analysis, the depth and detail between QRA’s vary greatly, depending on
the quality of data and the analysis methods selected for assessing the failure probabilities and
consequences. Failure rates for individual components may be based on an analysis of the physics
of failure and the uncertainties of the various parameters that affect the failure modes, or failure
rates may be based only on “generic” failure rates, which are meant to conservatively represent
industry experience or even expert opinion. In a similar fashion, consequences may be based on
damage estimates from sophisticated or simplified dispersion, fire, and explosion models.
Financial consequences may be based on details of the reservoir or location-specific development
economics to estimate the lost or deferred production losses or on a simplified “generic” loss per
day of downtime.
EP 2000-9073 8-9 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
8.3.2.2 Procedure
1. Clearly define the problem. Define which design characteristics stretch or deviate from
current design practices. Select a criterion on which the design change will be judged.
2. Collect and organize information generated during the design process. Document the new
design concept along with how the concept differs from standard practice.
3. Identify the hazards to which the well is subjected and identify those hazards that interact with
the proposed changes. Determine the modes of failure affected by the proposed changes and
the associated load cases and damage mechanisms. For each mode, determine the possible
consequences in terms of personnel safety, business losses or operational disruptions, and
environmental impact.
4. Collect qualitative and quantitative information that relates to the concept being analyzed. For
example, experience from offset wells designed using standard practice or experience from
wells executed elsewhere based on the same concept or an analogous concept. Depending on
the level of detail in the QRA, this process of organizing data may include detailed statistical
analysis of information associated with the frequency and magnitude of loads and the
distribution of strengths. It may also include detailed economics and reservoir development
data and rig staffing data to be used in estimating the financial and safety consequences.
5. Consequence and likelihood modeling is used to determine the two underlying results that are
used to determine the risk.
• Frequency or likelihood analysis estimates how likely it is for the events to occur. The
frequencies are usually obtained from analysis of industry failure experience or from some
form of theoretical modeling. When analyzing the details of a design, industry experience
is likely to lack much of the detail needed to examine the sensitivity of failure frequencies
to load cases, safety factors, or levels of inspection. In these cases, probabilistic models
that include the mechanics of failure and the randomness of loads and strengths will be
necessary. When this level of sophistication is needed, the well designers making the risk
assessment should consult with experts familiar with probabilistic modeling. There are
many available methods which can be applied to visualize and estimate failure probabilities
and frequencies, including event trees, fault trees, Markov chains and processes, Monte
Carlos simulation, and FORM/SORM among others. Each has its specific advantages and
disadvantages, and the choice of method should be aligned with the goals of each
probability or frequency calculation.
• Consequence modeling evaluates the effects of a failure on personnel, equipment and
structures, the environment, or the business plan. Usually this evaluation will include
computerized dispersion, explosion, and fire models for the analysis of safety and the
environment. However, these models can be based on accident experience or expert
judgement if appropriate. Financial losses are estimated for each failure mode or scenario.
Usually, these are based on the expected value of lost or deferred production, well control
costs in the event of a blowout, and equipment damage costs. As with the frequency
analysis, modeling the consequences can involve sophisticated models and software, and
an expert in consequence modeling should be consulted or included in the evaluation team.
EP 2000-9073 8-10 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
6. Evaluating the results. The risk is the combination of the likelihood and the consequence
results. In cases where the consequences are expressed in monetary terms, the product of the
failure probability and the consequence is the average financial risk per year or per well
drilled. Alternatively, if the consequence is an estimated number of serious injuries per
failure, then the product of the likelihood and the consequence would be the expected number
of injuries per year or per well drilled.
The risks estimated for the design alternatives are compared along with their corresponding
implementation costs and their potential opportunities such as increased production or
decreased maintenance. In cases where risks are expressed purely in financial terms,
whenever the implementation cost of a risk-reduction measure is exceeded by the risk, the
measure is economical. In cases where risks are expressed in terms of statistical injuries,
fatalities, or other safety measures, evaluation of the economics of risk-reduction
implementation costs is more difficult and usually will involve local regulatory issues and
company policy. However, a criterion that places some value on life and safety will need to
be used to select the best risk-based design alternative.
7. Reporting. The final result of the risk analysis should be the recommended design, along with
any additional recommendations or conditions which the assessment team believes are
necessary to increase safety or reduce costs. Documentation of the risk assessment should
include essential background information, including the following:
• A complete and clear description of the design alternative investigated, including how the
proposed design differs from standard practice in the OpCo and what the advantages are
for its implementation.
• A clear statement of the goal of the assessment and the criterion used to assess the results.
• The numerical results of the risk calculations and the conclusions and recommendations
drawn from the results.
• Background information, such as
○ Field-, OpCo- or design-specific information including the statistical analysis results
of data collected and used in the assessment.
○ Industry data, failure rates, and experience used.
• A list of the hazards identified.
• The failure modes analyzed in depth by the study.
• A brief description of the methods used to complete the likelihood and consequence analyses.
8.5 References
1. Tallin, A. G., Paslay, P. R., Cernocky, E. P., and Ratchinsky, M. A. (2000), Risk Assessment
of Exploration Well Designs in the Oman Ara Salt, SPE 63130, presented at 2000 SPE Ann.
Tech. Conf. and Exhibition, held in Dallas, TX, October 1–4.
2. Society of Petroleum Engineers (1998), Proceedings of the SPE Applied Technology
Workshop on Risk Based Design of Well Casing and Tubing, held in The Woodlands, TX,
May (16 papers numbered SPE 48319 through SPE 48335, and SPE 51314 ).
3. Burres, C., Tallin, A. G., and Cernocky, E. P. (1997), Determination of Casing and Tubing
Burst and Collapse Design Factors to Achieve Target Levels of Risk, Including Influence of
Mill Source, Technical Progress Report BTC 30-97, Shell E&P Technology Co., Bellaire
Technology Center, Houston.
4. Maes, M. A., Gulati, K. C., McKenna, D. L., Brand, P. R., Lewis, D. B., and Johnson, R. C.
(1995), Reliability Based Casing Design, ASME J. Energy Resources Technol., v. 117, June,
93–100.
5. Stromland and Minton (1994), Cost Effective Engineering of HP/HT Wells Through the Use
of Risk Analysis, paper presented at 7th Norwegian Pet. Soc. N. Europe Drilling Conf., held in
Kristiansand, Norway, October 4–6.
6. Banon, H., Johnson, D. V., and Hilbert, L. B. (1991), Reliability Considerations in Design of
Steel and CRA Production Tubing Strings, SPE 23483, First Int. Conference on Health Safety
and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, November 10–14, p. 673.
7. Aven, T. and Porn, K. (1994), How Should We Express and Interpret the Results of
Quantitative Risk Analysis, Reliability Engineering System Safety, Special Issue on Offshore
Safety.
8. Andersen, L. B. (1995), Stochastic Modeling of the Analysis of Blowouts Risk in Exploration
Drilling, PhD Thesis, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
9. Williams, G. (2000) The Design and Application of Big Bore to Woodside’s Perseus field
Development, Paper No. 84, Shell 2000 Wells Conference, Houston, November, 2000.
EP 2000-9073 9-1 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Chapter 9
9.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................2
9.8 References..............................................................................................................24
EP 2000-9073 9-2 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
9.1 Overview
This chapter presents an overview of a broader range of load cases than is covered by the basic
Level One design (Chapter 3). The pressure profiles described in this chapter are not intended for
use in Level One design, but are provided here as optional considerations for Level Two or Level
Three design practices. The decision of which load profile to use will depend on the likelihood of
occurrence of the individual load case and the consequences if it does occur.
To establish the burst and collapse loads in a given situation, the casing designer determines the
internal and external pressure profiles for each load case of interest and takes the difference
(Pi – Pe) between them. If the resulting load line comprises mainly positive net pressures, it is
called a burst load line; if it comprises mainly negative pressures, it is called a collapse load line.
For burst, the internal and external pressures are used to calculate the Lamé hoop and radial
stresses. These stresses are combined with the axial stress from hanging weight, buoyancy, and
temperature changes; and the three stresses are combined to calculate the triaxial (von Mises)
equivalent stress. This is the same as in Chapter 3, except that here other possibilities are
considered for the calculation of the internal and external pressures vs depth along the well.
These calculations are made in the Stresscheck and Wellcat software. However, for a practical,
intuitive understanding of the burst loading, the engineer should use the burst load line and think
in terms of the differential pressure acting to yield the pipe. For collapse, the software again
makes separate calculations using Pi and Pe, but for practical understanding of the collapse
loading, the engineer should use the collapse load line and think in terms of the differential
collapse pressure (Pe – Pi).
Collapse or burst loading can occur during both drilling and production. The drilling phase affects
the design of the conductor casing, surface casing, and intermediate casing. The production phase
usually affects the design of just the tubing and production casing. However, for wells with sealed
annuli (e.g., subsea wells), the production phase also creates additional burst and collapse loads on
the intermediate casing strings through trapped annular pressure (Appendix 12). In addition, when
intermediate strings are also used as production casing, both the drilling and the production loads
should be considered in their design.
The engineer may wish to use different idealizations for the pressure gradient in the cement
column between the casing and the formation. This depends on the extent to which reservoir
pressures are transmitted on to the casing. The engineer also may wish to use different
idealizations for the mud pressure gradient based on transmission of formation pressure or
deterioration of solids from the mud. Deterioration of the mud over time will lead to a drop in its
density and, hence, to a steeper external pressure profile and higher annulus pressures. This
usually requires time and affects the load profiles during production but not during drilling. For
this reason, it may be useful to distinguish between exploration wells with a relatively short life
and development wells with a much longer life.
EP 2000-9073 9-3 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
The internal pressure profile should be constructed as follows (see Figure 9-1). The pore-
pressure gradient determines the pressure in the borehole at total depth (TD). In a losses situation,
the mud column will drop until the pore pressure at section TD is just balanced by the pressure
due to the mud column (see Figure 9-1a). The evacuation level can be found by drawing the mud
pressure line (whose gradient is determined by the mud density) back from the pore pressure at
TD to the depth axis. The resulting pressure profile is shown by the thick gray line in Figure 9-1a.
To construct the internal pressure profile for losses at a depth above TD, one draws the mud-
pressure line from the point on the pore-pressure profile corresponding to the depth in question.
Such hypothetical mud-pressure lines are represented by a sloping broken line in Figure 9-1a —
and in other figures in this chapter. The solid line represents the actual mud pressure line to be
used for the design.
The evacuation level chosen should always be the deepest that can occur due to drilling below the
casing shoe. Thus, if the pore pressure in a certain formation through which the borehole passes
is sub-normal, e.g., because of a depleted horizon, the mud-pressure line should be drawn from
the point on the pore-pressure profile which gives the lowest evacuation level (see Figure 9-1b),
and not from TD. As Figure 9-1c shows, abnormally high pore pressures do not create an
exception for defining the collapse load line.
The external pressure profile for collapse during drilling should be constructed in two sections
— one for the annulus mud column above the cement top and one for the cured cement. Cured
cement behaves as a porous matrix of low permeability (in the microDarcy to milliDarcy range)
containing a fluid pore pressure. As indicated in Figure 9-2, the permeability of the cement
around the casing is usually intermediate between those of a high-permeability and a low-
permeability formation.
Where the cement column is set across a high-permeability formation (milliDarcy and above), the
pressure in the cement will be equal to the pore pressure in the formation. Where the cement
column is set across a low-permeability formation (microDarcy and below) or inside another
casing string, the pressure gradient in the cement will depend on the quality of zonal isolation.1
When the cement provides good zonal isolation, the cement column acts as a seal between the
high-permeability formation and the top of cement. The cement pore-pressure profile in the
segment of cement column across the low-permeability interval will connect the pore pressure at
the top of the high-permeability formation with the pressure at the top of cement due to the
hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid (see Figure 9-3). The cement pore-pressure profile
across the low-permeability interval is thus semi-static.
EP 2000-9073 9-4 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-1 – Construction of internal pressure profiles for collapse during drilling.
EP 2000-9073 9-5 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-3 – Construction of external pressure profiles for collapse in drilling phase, with
good zonal isolation cement column and a single high-permeability formation.
If the cement column provides poor zonal isolation, the cement no longer acts as an effective seal
between the high-permeability formation and the top of cement. The pressure gradient in the
cement across the low-permeability interval will be equal to the cement mixwater gradient. The
pressure at the top of cement is therefore determined by drawing a pressure line with this gradient
EP 2000-9073 9-7 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
upwards from the pressure at the top of the high-permeability formation (Figure 9-4). As a result,
the annulus pressure line will be shifted to lower pressures in low-pressure reservoirs and to
higher pressures in high-pressure reservoirs. This leads to an annulus level drop or an annulus
pressure buildup.
No matter whether the cement column provides good or bad isolation, the cement pore-pressure
profile below the high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the cement
mixwater gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the high-permeability
formation to the casing shoe (compare Figures 9-3 and 9-4).
For the determination of the cement pore-pressure profile opposite a previous casing, the previous
casing should be treated as a low-permeability formation.
In the event that the cement column does not pass through a high-permeability formation
anywhere, the cement mixwater gradient should be assumed to extend downwards from the top of
cement to the casing shoe, regardless of whether the isolation quality of the cement is high or low.
The pressure at the top of cement will be equal to the hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid.
See Figure 9-5.
In view of the relatively short duration of the drilling operation, deterioration of the annulus mud
during drilling should not be taken into account, either for exploration or for development wells.1
Therefore, the pressure gradient in the annulus mud should be determined by the density of the
fluid used at the time of the cement job.
If the cement column does not pass through any high-permeability formations, the annulus-fluid
pressure line extends downwards from zero pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement, no
matter what the quality of the cement zonal isolation (see Figure 9-5).
EP 2000-9073 9-8 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-4 – Construction of external pressure profiles for collapse in drilling phase,
with poor zonal isolation cement column and a single high-permeability formation.
EP 2000-9073 9-9 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-5 – Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in drilling phase, when
cement column does not pass through a high-permeability formation.
production casing, collapse design in a blowout (bridged over) is already covered by designing to
full evacuation.
When collapse design during blowout is not included in the casing design, the engineer is taking
the risk that the event will not occur, and that if it occurs collapse and loss of the casing will be
acceptable. If the consequence of casing collapse is not acceptable even in the bridge-over,
blown-out state, then the casing should be designed for complete evacuation.
For the production casing, the internal pressure profile usually should be designed for full
evacuation. Above the production packer, the casing usually is not evacuated during normal
production operations. However, during completion and workover operations, mud/brine losses
may lead to evacuation of the upper section of the production casing. At the option of the
engineer, the other approach can be used: the deepest possible evacuation level can be calculated
based on the pore-pressure profile and the fluid density in use. See Figure 9-6.
The external pressure profile can be set like for the intermediate casing. For the example in
Figure 9-7, it is assumed that the cement column passes through two high-permeability
formations. A cement column with good zonal isolation acts as an effective seal between the
high-permeability formation(s) and the top of cement. The pressure profile in the segment of
cement column across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability
formation will then be semi-static, connecting the pore pressure at the top of this high-
permeability formation with the pressure at the top of cement due to the hydrostatic pressure of
the annulus fluid. The pressure profile in the segment of cement column lying across the low-
permeability interval between two high-permeability formations will also be semi-static,
connecting the pore pressures at the bottom and top of the high-permeability formations it
straddles (see Figure 9-7).
In the event of a cement column with poor zonal isolation, the cement column no longer acts as an
effective seal between the high-permeability formation(s) and the top of cement. The pressure
gradient in the cement across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability
formation will then be equal to the cement mixwater gradient. The pressure profile in the segment
of cement column lying across the low-permeability interval between two high-permeability
formations will be semi-static, connecting the pore pressures at the bottom and top of the high-
permeability formations it straddles. The pressure at the top of cement will therefore be
determined by drawing a pressure line of slope equal to the cement mixwater gradient upwards
from the pressure at the top of the shallowest high-permeability formation (see Figure 9-8). This
leads to an annulus level drop or an annulus pressure buildup.
No matter whether the cement column is good or bad, the cement pore-pressure profile below the
deepest high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the cement mixwater
gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the high-permeability formation
to the casing shoe (see Figures 9-7 and 9-8).
EP 2000-9073 9-11 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
For the determination of the pore-pressure profile in the cement column opposite a previous
casing, this previous casing should be treated as a low-permeability formation.
Axial
W1 W2 W3 force
Depth
Fig. 9-6 – Optional construction of internal pressure profiles above and below packer for
collapse in production phase.
EP 2000-9073 9-12 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-7 – Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with high-
isolation-quality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations.
EP 2000-9073 9-13 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Exploration Wells
For exploration wells used for short-term production tests, it can be assumed that the mud
pressure gradient is determined by the fluid density at the time of cementing.
Artificial-Lift Wells
Gas-lift-well production casing above the packer should always be designed for complete internal
evacuation to atmospheric pressure, to account for complete venting of the tubing/production-
casing annulus as a result of surface-equipment failure. For artificial-lift equipment working in
pump-off mode, where usually no downhole packer is installed, the casing should also be
designed for complete internal evacuation to account for the low annulus working pressure.
EP 2000-9073 9-14 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-8a – Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with low-
quality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations resulting in annulus fluid level
drop.
EP 2000-9073 9-15 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-8b – Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with low-
quality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations resulting in annulus pressure.
EP 2000-9073 9-16 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Where more information is available about the behavior of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g., via PVT
data from offset wells, a field-specific gas gradient should be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used (see Figure 9-10).
Although hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is
very difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the approach for
the worst-case internal pressure loading described above should be used.
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP, the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The hydrocarbon gradient will then
extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at the casing shoe. See Figure 9-11.
Special Cases
Overpressured Aquifer in Borehole below Casing
When only an overpressured aquifer is encountered, the internal pressure profile will be that due
to full displacement of the wellbore to formation water, with the well closed in at surface. The
pressure calculations are based on a pressure line with the formation-water gradient, drawn from
pore pressure at the top of the aquifer.
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The pressure line with water gradient
will then extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at the casing shoe. See Figure 9-12.
Fig. 9-9 – Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase determined
by gas gradient.
EP 2000-9073 9-18 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-10 – Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase determined by oil
gradient.
EP 2000-9073 9-19 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-11 – Correction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase.
EP 2000-9073 9-20 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Fig. 9-12 – Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase, with
overpressured aquifer.
EP 2000-9073 9-21 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
For production wells, the maximum surface pressure will be the shut-in tubing pressure (SITP),
also called the closed-in tubing head pressure) (CITHP), which should be based in the worst case
on a column of gas extending from the pressure at TD. If the gas–water contact (GWC) in the
structure is known, the pressure line with the chosen gradient should be assumed to originate from
this depth. See Figure 9-13.
Fig. 9-13 – Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in production phase, with
production-tubing failure at surface.
EP 2000-9073 9-22 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Where more information is available about the behavior of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g., via PVT
data from offset wells, a reservoir-specific gas gradient can be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used. Although
hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is very
difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the maximum CITHP
based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD should be assumed. A suitable margin
should be included in the CITHP if squeeze-kill operations are to be considered.
For injection wells, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the maximum surface
pressure will be the injection-tubing-head pressure (ITHP) during the respective operations. See
Figure 9-14. The ITHP resulting from stimulation treatment need be considered only when annuli
cannot be monitored.
Fig. 9-14 – Construction of internal pressure profiles for burst in production phase,
with injection-tubing failure at surface.
Where more information is available about the hydrocarbon phase behavior, e.g., via PVT data
from offset wells, a reservoir-specific gas gradient should be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used. Although
hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is very
difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the maximum loading
based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD should be assumed. A suitable margin
should be included if squeeze-kill operations are to be considered. See Figure 9-13.
For an injection well, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the internal pressure
profile below the packer should be that resulting from injection operations. See Figure 9-14.
b. Special Cases
Gas-Lift Wells
For gas-lift completions, the most severe internal pressure loading above the packer is that
generated during the kick-off process, when the kick-off pressure is applied to the top of the
packer fluid. The external pressure profile will be as described earlier.
Some well servicing operations, e.g., stimulation treatments, result in a considerable increase in
the bottomhole pressure. Any communication path behind the pipe will allow possible
pressurization to extend outside the zone that is directly affected. This may result in a collapse
load being applied to any casing section which is not itself internally pressured, e.g., casing above
the packer or bridge plug. It is therefore advisable that the design of the production casing, to be
set across the reservoir subject to stimulation operations, is checked for ability to withstand these
pressures.
EP 2000-9073 9-24 Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
Retrievable Packer
A pressure test with a retrievable packer introduces not only pressure loads onto the casing but
also a change in the axial stress. The resulting axial stress, both above and below the retrievable
packer, should be checked.
Conductor Casing
One particular form of a point load is the surface loading of the conductor casing of any well. The
applied load in this instance is the weight of the inner casing strings, the wellhead and BOP or
Xmas tree, and the completion tubulars.
9.8 References
1. Bol, G. and van Vliet, J. (1992), Aspects of Casing Design Related to Drilling Fluids and
Cement, Rijswijk Miscellaneous Report RKMR.92.006 (EP 92-0616), Koninkl./Shell E&P
Lab, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
2. SIPM, EPO/51 (1989), Pressure Control Manual for Drilling and Workover Operations,
Report EP 89-1500, SIPM, The Hague.
3. de Meyer, T. (1992), Subsea Development Casing Design, Shell Expro Well Engineering
Information Note 177, Report EP 92-1684, Shell Expro.
Chapter 10 Links to Useful Data and Web Sites
The internet addresses below correspond to the indicated web site pages containing data,
technical standards, and recommended practices.
Non-Shell Sites
http://www.api.org American Petroleum Institute
http://www.iso.ch International Organization for
Standardization