OTC 24169

Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hanger Provides Reliable, Cost Effective

Solution for Liner Placement in Critical Well Path
Michael (Rick) Johnson, Nathan Wyatt, and Kevin Ardoin, Halliburton; Paul Benet, and Miles N. Sweep, Chevron
Deepwater Exploration & Projects

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 6–9 May 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This document reviews challenges and solution to previously overwhelming issues regarding 14-in. liner placement in the
Gulf of Mexico. Necessity and considerable effort are required to deal with multiple mobile/active tar zones, associated with
fault zones throughout the sediment sections and below the base of salt. Deploying liners to the desired depth through such
hole sections have resulted in costly non-productive time (NPT). The large bore expandable liner hanger drilling/washing
capabilities provides a reliable method to assist the operator in reaching their targets.
Advancements in casing connection technology have provided enhanced torque capabilities for some time. Today, the
large-bore expandable liner hanger (LBELH) system provides the capability and reliability to deliver torque to the liner shoe.
This added rotation and reciprocation capability while circulating is at the heart of NPT reduction.
The running tools to deliver such a system have the capacity to provide 110K foot pounds of torque at top of liner (TOL).
Reaming/drilling attachments to the liner shoe have advanced to a point that allows operators to take advantage of the
technique to deliver the liner to its target depth.
This combination of equipment allowed a major Gulf of Mexico operator to wash and ream a 14-in. liner through tar and
shale, inside their 16-½-in. borehole. Two successful attempts totaling 7-½ hours of reaming resulted in gains of 335 feet.
The final effort was to wash and ream the liner down inside the 14-½-in. pilot hole. This was an additional 30 feet of “drilling
conditions” to total depth (TD), requiring an additional 45 minutes of torque and vibration.
The liner was cemented and the hanger was set and tested. The operator commented: “Excellent results”, [and that he
was]”Very pleased to get this critical and difficult section cased off”. (Benet, 2012)

Introduction
With proven expandable technology already in place due to problems experienced with traditional liner hangers in difficult
well-bore scenarios, the time had come to push toward large-bore expandable liner hangers (Cantu et al, 2004; Nida et al,
2004). The main components of the expandable liner system are an integral liner hanger/packer assembly combining an
upper tie-back receptacle with elastomeric elements, which are bonded directly to the body of the hanger.
Figure 1 shows the basic components of the original expandable liner hanger (ELH) system compared to a conventional
“casing hanger”. The bonded elastomeric elements compress against the internal diameter as the hanger expands which
virtually eliminates any leak paths between the liner, liner hanger, and previously run casing, maintaining the pressure
integrity of the well bore (Moore et al, 2002).
2 OTC 24169

Figure 1: Comparison of Supplemental Casing Hanger (left) and 14-in. x 16-in.

Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hanger

Conventional versus Expandable Technology

A compromise lies within the design of conventional large-bore liner hanger technology in
which increased tensile capacity decreases the flow area creating higher pressures during
cementing operations. Large-bore expandable liner hanger technology answers this
compromise with a slick-bore outer diameter and extensive collet design to handle tensile
capacities without giving up the flow area needed to achieve a successful cement job.
Restrictions for conventional equipment lie within the landing profile needed to create
the seal between the casing hanger and parent casing, creating tight tolerances and a place
for debris collection and pack-offs. With expandable technology, this need for a restriction
goes away until expansion after the cement job.

Traditional Methods for Large Casing Sizes

In order to reach total depth with large casing sizes, operators usually would begin their
well plan using large-diameter casing that would be anchored at the seabed (Jimenez et al,
2008). With cost of failures being at a maximum, mainly due to the cost of rig time to
recover, the technology appeared to offer a much-needed option to handle the challenges
that conventional technology left unsettled.
When drilling offshore wells, well-bore architecture typically requires casing strings
larger than 13-5/8-in. to be “hung-off” the casing hanger in the well head or supplemental
adapter located in the parent casing.
For the deepwater drilling well described in this paper, the architecture is as follows:
36-in., 22-in., 16-in. x 16.04-in., 14-in., 13-3/4-in. tieback, 9-7/8-in., 10-3/4-in. x 9-7/8-in.
tieback. (Shown in Figure 3) Aside from the 36-in. casing, all of the top casing strings
through the 14-in. are typically landed and “hung-off” at planned depths in casing profiles
located at the wellhead or prior casing strings (parent casing). The 22-in. and 14-in. casing
will typically be landing out in the wellhead versus 16-in. casing sizes that will usually be
landed in profiles located in previous casing strings. Casing string profiles, with the liner in
place, restrict flow and provide a place for build-up of debris, creating pack-off around the
profile. This design fundamentally causes problems with the cement job and can interfere Figure 2: Liner Hanger
Assembly
with a proper seal. The development of the 14-in. x 16-in., 16-in. x 20-in. and 18-in. x 22-
in. expandable liner hanger systems sought to eliminate these issues.
OTC 24169 3

This paper reviews the development and application of the 14-in. x 16-in. large-bore
expandable liner hanger system used as a liner within casing after the liner was drilled
into position, reaching the total depth of the well. (Shown in Figure 2) The large-bore
expandable liner hanger would provide flexibility in placement of the liner, offering
reliable support and proven redundant sealing technology.

Performance Benefits
Benefits of the LBELH include eliminating the need to land the 14-in. liner at a fixed
point in the well bore. With deviation playing the role of “spoiler” when attempting to get
the conventional casing hanger to the desired depth, the LBELH would be able to set at
the depth that would provide the best integrity to the string. The capability to rotate and
drill-into position, plus reciprocate during the cementing job proved beneficial with high
deviation at the liner shoe. Additionally, this hanger type provides liner anchor capability
bi-directionally that is in tension or compression at TOL. The hanger meets the challenge
to maintain anchor under compressive loading, whereas conventional systems either do
not or are challenged to maintain position.

Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hanger Development

The development started with an idea to provide solutions for an operator in Baku in
2007. The required capabilities for the large-bore expandable liner hanger were to
provide a quality seal at the wellhead with the flexibility of placing the liner. After the
successful installation of the first system run elsewhere, ENI was the first operator to
investigate this concept as a method to provide a solution for a difficult well-bore scenario
in the Triton Field in the Gulf of Mexico (Johnson et al, 2011).
Chevron began investigation into the application of LBELH in early 2011. A liner
hanger off the shelf was optimized specifically to meet their requirement for burst and
collapse, leading the way to the successful liner drill-in project discussed in this paper.
This type system is part of Chevron’s critical well path and has delivered a high level of
reliability for 11-¾-in. thru 14-in. liners since 2009.
The LBELH is delivered to depth by a hydraulic running tool on drill pipe. The
running tool provides the capability to rotate and reciprocate. The running tool provided Figure 3: Well-bore Architecture
100,000 ft-lb of torque capability. A collet mechanism carries the weight of the liner to on the Chevron Deepwater Well
setting depth. A setting ball provides the method to apply hydraulic pressure to expand the
hanger. Up to 900,000 pounds of force is applied to the expansion cone to expand the hanger body. Once the hanger is
expanded, an overpull test ensures the anchor. The running tool releases from the hanger with weight down motion. (See
Figure 2)

Benefitting from Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hangers

The significant advantage for large-bore expandable liner hangers lies within deepwater operations with elevated costs in rig
time and delays due to complications during mudline/casing hanger installation. Deviation may cause unreliable seals where
casing is to be “hung-off” and differential pressure may cause the liner to prematurely “stick”, not allowing the casing hanger
to reach its ultimate destination.
Large-bore expandable liner hangers work to reduce risks by having redundant, reliable, proven seals expanded against
the previous casing ID, by being capable of working casing to depth with high-torque capabilities, and by not requiring
advanced space-out designs. Rotation of the liner provides for enhanced cementing performance and drill-in or ream-into-
position capability. The LBELH provided this unique advantage to allow the operator to reach the liner target depth.

Job Design
From the beginning, the well design called for a large bore expandable hanger to set a 14-in. 115 ppf semi-flush thread liner
across the 14-½-in. x 16-½-in. open hole section. As the section was drilled, it was discovered that the liner run would
involve tripping through multiple tar zones, and as a result, washing and reaming with a reamer shoe/bit would be necessary.
The open hole section was planned from 23,645 ft. MD (23,208 ft. true vertical depth (TVD)) to 26,116 ft. MD (25,540 ft.
TVD) with a 120 ft. pilot hole. Likewise, TOL was planned for 22,942 ft. MD (22,700 ft. TVD) with the 14-in. shoe to be
positioned at 25,959 ft. MD (25,400 ft. TVD). The synthetic based mud (SBM) was to range from 11.8 – 13.6 ppg for this
section (see Figures 3 and 4).
From top to bottom, the liner landing string consisted of the following 6-5/8-in: 57 ppf (V-150), 50 ppf (S-135), 40 ppf
(S-135), and 34 ppf (S-135) drill pipe, the ELH assembly, 14-in. 100 ppf semi-flush thread x 14-in. 115 ppf semi-flush thread
connection crossover, 68 joints of 14-in. 115 ppf semi-flush thread liner, a landing float collar, one joint of liner, a secondary
4 OTC 24169

float collar, three joints of liner, and a drillable reamer shoe/bit. Installed directly beneath the ELH was a dual liner wiping
plug set, which is common for most deepwater casing cementing jobs. Provided that the liner run would be a wash and ream
operation, the changes to the landing string were the removal of the non-rotating bow spring centralizers and the addition of a
drillable reamer bit/shoe located at the bottom of the string. Prior to running the liner, surge reduction tools were also
removed from the landing string along with the auto-float collar in the liner being converted to a closed position. This was to
mitigate the potential of tar entering into the liner and plugging the ELH assembly. In the absence of non-rotating
centralizers it, was approved by the operator that the liner be set in the 14-1/2-in. pilot hole for centralization during the
cement job.

Torque and Drag Modeling

In light of more than one bypass while attempting to drill through the tar zones, new torque and drag (T&D) calculations for
the liner run were to be performed. The original planned well path would have placed the liner through a constant 20.69°
degree deviation section with a dog leg severity (DLS) of 0.00°/100 ft. The deviation at TOL was to be 20.69°. However, the
new T&D calculations would need to model the placement of the liner through a wavering 20.48° start to a 26.82° final
deviation section with a minimum deviation of 12.00°. The DLS for this section rose to a peak of 3.00°/100ft before falling
back to zero at the end of the open hole.
To quote the authors of SPE 104609, “Friction factors are the dimensionless parameters that represent the roughness
between the drillstring and the borehole wall. However, due to the complex nature of drilling, friction factors not only
represents true mechanical friction but also includes a multitude of other downhole effects” (Mason and Chen, 2007). These
friction factors apply while the liner is running through cased or open hole. Unwanted contributions to friction factors include
the following: pipe stiffness effects, viscous drag, cuttings beds, stabilizers/centralizers, formation types, pore pressures,
circulations losses, wellbore break-out, micro-tortuosity, and wellbore spiraling.

Figure 4: Original Model Figure 5: Landing String for Wash & Ream Operation

Given that the wellbore is full of synthetic-based mud, friction factors chosen for this model were 0.19 for the cased hole
and 0.25 for the open hole. The difference for this particular model being that a factor of 0.50 was chosen to represent the tar
zones strung along the open hole section (see Figure 5). Due to the nature of tar, it was expected that there would be
unwanted weight on bit (WOB) while running in hole. This effect would be rather difficult to model, and as such, more
emphasis was placed on the modeling of torque distribution through the landing string, especially since washing and reaming
will work the liner to the bottom.
To better illustrate the behavior of downhole torque, all critical shoe depths were considered for minimum and maximum
torques. The critical shoe depths to be considered were located at:
 16-in. casing shoe (23,645 ft. MD)
 Top of known tar zones (24,400 ft. MD)
 Middle of known tar zones (24,625 ft. MD)
 End of known tar zones (24,850 ft. MD)
 Open Hole TD (26,616 ft. MD)
OTC 24169 5

The minimum or baseline torque value for each of

these shoe depths was modeled as 1 foot-pound force
(ft.-lbf) of torque, meaning that the liner landing string
is generating at least 1 ft.-lbf of torque at the shoe.
This method is commonly used while predicting the
downhole torque capabilities of liner landing strings
due to the unknown relationship and consistency
between revolutions per minute (rpm) and torque at
the shoe. Though torque is generated from the surface,
this method calculates the torque up the string toward
the surface, beginning with the liner shoe, which has
an input of 1 ft.-lbf. Similarly, the maximum torque
value at each of these shoe depths was also modeled
by increasing the torque at the liner shoe until a
limitation was reached elsewhere up the landing string.
The limitation was driven by the calculated torque line
crossing the make-up (M/U) torque line of any given
component in the string. A torque chart was plotted as
well as the surface, TOL, and liner shoe torque values
summarized in table form (see Figures 6 and 7).
The torque chart in Figure 6 plots on the X axis,
the torque in (ft.-lbf), for a given distance along the
landing string. Note that the seven lines represent
respectively: the min/max torque at the 16-in. casing
Figure 6: Model with Tar Zones
shoe, the min/max torque at the middle of the tar
zones, the min/max torque at Total Depth (TD), and
the torque limit or M/U torque of each component in the string. Note that the M/U torque of the 40 ppf drill pipe was the
limitation for torque while rotating in open hole. Figure 7 tabulates by reference points, the various minimum and maximum
torques for a given shoe depth.

Figure 7: Torque Values at Critical Shoe Depths

6 OTC 24169

Installation
The drillable reamer shoe/bit was made up to the shoe track and was the first of the liner landing string to run into hole
(RIH). The float equipment was converted at 1,700 psi on surface and the 68 joints of liner were then RIH behind the shoe
track. The ELH assembly was made up to the liner and the landing string was deployed to the 16-in. casing shoe. A baseline
for circulation and torque was then taken; followed by pick-up (P/U) and slack-off (S/O) weights to judge the amount of drag
in the string before proceeding out into open hole. (Figures 8 and 9)

Shoe Depth (ft) Min Torque (ft.-lbf) Max Torque (ft.-lbf)

surface (0) 27,500 47,450
16-in. Shoe
23,645 ft. TOL (20,600) 12,740 32,690
TD (23,645) 1 19,950
surface (0) 30,170 47,870
Top of Tar
24,400 ft. TOL (21,355) 13,880 31,580
TD (24,400) 1 17,700
surface (0) 31,940 47,940
Mid Tar
24,625 ft. TOL (21,580) 15,150 31,150
TD (24,625) 1 16,000
surface (0) 33,800 48,000
End of Tar
24,850 ft. TOL (21,805) 16,500 30,700
TD (24,850) 1 14,200
surface (0) 42,800 48,370
TD
26,606 ft. TOL (22,073) 23,060 28,560
TD (26,606) 1 5,500
Figure 8: Torque values at Critical Shoe Depths (Table)

Pick-up and Slack-off

Baseline Torque with 5 bpm
Weights with 5 bpm Pump
Baseline Circulation Pump Rate
Rate (Without Pumps)
Rotational
Torque (ft.-lbf) P/U (lbs) S/O (lbs)
Rate (bpm) Pressure (psi) Speed (rpm)
- - 10 20,000
2 124 20 28,000
1,220,000 1,195,000
3 208 30 30,000 (1,226,000) (1,113,000)
4 296 40 31,000
5 420 50 32,500

Figure 9: A Baseline Was Taken at the 16-in. Casing Shoe (23,645 ft MD)

Washing and Reaming (from 24,630 ft.):

After the baseline values had been determined, the liner shoe was run into the open hole. At a depth of 24,630 ft., a set down
of 40,000 lbs (40 kips) of weight on bit (WOB) was observed. The string was raised and rotation was initiated at 30 rpms
(35,000 ft.-lbf) and circulation established at four bpm. Minimal WOB of 15 kips was applied and a method of “drilling off”
the WOB was begun to work the liner through the tar. Significant tar was encountered at a depth of 24,648 ft. A WOB of 15-
20 kips was maintained, and the rotary speed was increased to 35 rpms. With a pipe pressure of 600 psi, WOB was increased
by increments of 5 kips to 40 kips over a span of 10 minutes; little to no progress was made.
OTC 24169 7

The string began to ream down with 35-45 kips of WOB, and 700 psi of pipe pressure. To continue making hole, the
string was lifted 10 ft. to clear debris from around the bit shoe, and down forward to a depth of 24,660 ft. WOB of 28 kips
was applied and after two ft. of progress, it was increased to 40 kips, before breaking over to 15 kips after another 4 ft. To
clean the hole, the entire stand was lifted while rotating and circulating to move debris and tar from between the pipe and the
open hole. The amount of time spent washing and reaming at this point totaled 2 hours.

Washing and Reaming (at 24,606 ft.):

As the string was drilled back down, it began to stick at 24,606 ft. The pump rate was increased to 5 bpm, pipe pressure at
744 psi, and the rotational speed increased to 45 rpms. Tar was starting to stick around the side of the 14-in. liner. Torque
was relieved from the string, and in an attempt to continue working the pipe down, a single drill pipe joint replaced the
current stand for a net gain of 15 additional ft. of washing without sticking. The previous stand was returned to the string and
rotation and circulation were resumed at the previous parameters of 45 rpms and 5 bpm. At 24,669 ft., 20 kips of WOB were
applied, as circulation rates were increased to 8 bpm in an attempt to clear tar from around the liner with faster rates. Pipe
pressure at this rate rose to 1,250 psi and the WOB was returned to 40 kips as three more ft. were gained before the string
was stalled. The string was picked up to clear debris, regain rotation, and drilling continued. Time spent washing and reaming
at this point totaled 3 hours, 41 minutes.

Washing and Reaming (at 24,672 ft.):

The pump rate was decreased to 5 bpm, 25 kips WOB, and at a depth of 24,679 ft. the pipe was picked up to clear debris. The
pipe stalled at 24,670 ft. and an overpull of 100 kips over P/U was observed. Pump rates were brought to 10 bpm, and an
overpull of 200 kips over P/U was observed before the pipe broke free. The pipe was picked up and rotated at 43 rpms, 10
bpm, and 1,575 psi to continue to clear debris from the hole. Reaming was continued where the pipe stalled again at 35 kips
of WOB. A significant amount of sticking was observed as the pipe was worked 80 ft. up and down to remove tar and debris
from the hole. A series of overpulls peaking at 185 kips over P/U and WOB of 30 kips were required to return the pipe to a
depth of 24,672 ft. Pumping at 5 bpm, and no rotation, 3 additional ft. were made to a depth of 24,675 ft. Rotation was
increased to an approved speed of 60 rpms, with an equivalent torque of 42,000 ft.-lbf at surface. Pumps were slowed to 4
bpm, pipe pressure at 756 psi; and after three more stands of drill pipe without washing or reaming, the shoe reached a depth
of 25,050 ft. A momentary set down weight of 110 kips WOB was applied, and reaming operations were continued. The
above parameters were resumed, and with 20 kips WOB, the weight “drilled off” and the pipe was chased down hole. Seven
more stands were run into hole before the final stand was washed and reamed into the 14-½-in. pilot hole. The amount of
time spent washing and reaming at this point totaled over 9 hours.

Entering the Pilot Hole and Cementing (at 26,018 ft.):

For 45 minutes, the final stand was worked to bottom at a rate of 4 bpm, 60 rpms rotational speed, and 42,000 ft.-lbf of
torque. With a WOB of 45 kips, the shoe finally reached TD, and the string was lifted to place the ELH in a state of tension.
This placed the 14-in. liner shoe at a final depth of 26,018 ft. After rigging up the cementing head and testing the surface
iron, spacer and cement were mixed and pumped downhole. The top drill pipe dart was dropped behind the cement and the
drill pipe was displaced with drilling mud at 6 bpm, and 875 psi of drill pipe pressure. After the dart landed in the plug set,
the bottom liner wiper plug sheared at a pressure of 2,800 psi, later followed by the top dart and plug shearing at 3,480 psi.
The bottom wiper plug landed later than calculated, and the top plug was not landed before the displacement was forced to
stop to avoid a “wet shoe”. Pipe pressure was released and the float system was holding after 1.5 bbls of flow back.

Expanding the ELH:

To slow the current loss rate of 60 bbl/hr, the annulus was closed in, and the 2-¾-in. ELH setting ball was released from the
cementing head on surface. After the ball had landed within the ELH running tool, pipe pressure from the cementing unit was
applied to set the hanger. Nine barrels were pumped at 3 bpm, and a maximum expansion pressure of 4,834 psi was noted
before self-venting into the annulus at the completion of the cone traveling through the hanger body’s elastomeric section.
Pressure was then bled off and the annular BOP was opened, while monitoring the trip tank. The hanger was placed in 60
kips of overpull final the P/U weight before expansion. After the overpull test was taken against the set expanded hanger, the
drill pipe weight was set straight down to release the ELH running tool. The running tool was pulled back through the
expanded hanger with one overpull of 120 kips observed; a normal occurrence due to the expansion forces stored in the
elastomeric sections between the expanded hanger and parent casing. The ELH running tool was picked up to the TOL and
the well was circulated to clean up after the cement job. After circulation, the annulus was closed, and a 3,000 psi casing test
was successfully performed. Coupled with the overpull test, liner top integrity had been verified and the workstring was
tripped out of the hole.
8 OTC 24169

Conclusion
The objectives were achieved to place the 14-in. liner on depth as planned and within the wellbore coordinates consistent
with the original design. This resulted in retaining the 11-7/8-in. contingency liner option should further well-bore problems
be encountered below the tar zone prior to reaching total depth. This is a key deliverable and important criteria given that a
12-1/4-in. hole size is required at total depth to accommodate the well completion design.
Furthermore, options to bypass tar in the 16-1/2-in. hole were becoming limited due to the constraints at the 16-in. casing
shoe. Available open-hole section below the 16-in. shoe to conduct the bypass and still achieve original reservoir targets was
diminishing with each successive bypass.
The application was not only successful in reaching the planned liner setting depth, it also provided a means for future
application in potential unstable wellbore drilling conditions; such as but not limited to, sloughing shale, depleted zones,
formation creep, and wellbores with hole cleaning constraints or cuttings beds build-up.
The engineering effort and collaborative planning required to progress past these zones with multiple mobile/active tar
zones proved highly beneficial to both the operator and the service provider. Deploying liners to the desired depth through
such hole sections have significantly reduced exposure to non-productive time. The liner hanger’s capacity to enable rotation
and reciprocation to the liner, while circulating, is the fundamental basis of this successful installation.
With the utilization of this enabling design and strategy, the concept is now being added to the contingency planning for
subsequent similar well types. Using the design as outlined in this case study to meet the challenging well-bore conditions
due to tar and the requirements to maintain hole size on target with the 14-in. liner has established a key risk mitigation.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of Chevron DWEP for allowing Halliburton to use this hanger technology by
recognizing its advantages towards key risk mitigation in the deepwater arena and the management of Halliburton for their
encouragement and permission to publish this paper.

References
Benet, Paul, intercompany email, 2012.
Cantu, J., Smith, P., Nida, R.: “Expandable Liner Hanger Application in Arduous Well Conditions Improves Reliability: A Case History,”
paper SPE 88510 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 18–20 October
2004.
Jimenez, C., Soto, S., Leon, A., Batocchio, M., Marval, P., Schoener-Scott, M.: “Case Histories ― Implementation of New Liner Hanger
Technology in South Central Venezuela Significantly Improves Operations in Complex Wells,” SPE 118387 presentation at the 2008
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3–6 November 2008.
Johnson, M., Ardoin, K., Bullard, B.: “Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hangers Significantly Improve Operational Cost in a Deepwater
Gulf-of-Mexico Well” paper OTC 21925 presented at the 2011 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2-5 May 2011.
Mason, C.J., and Chen, D. C.-K., “Step Changes Needed To Modernize T&D Software,” Paper SPE 104609, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February 2007.
Moore, M. J., et al.: “Expandable Liner Hangers: Case Histories,” paper OTC 14313 presented at the 2002 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 6-9 May 2002.
Nida, R. et al.: “Innovative Expandable Liner Hanger Application Saves Time on Pinedale Anticline Drilling Operations: Two Case
Studies,” paper SPE 90192 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 26-29
September.