SPE/IADC 163557

Annular Pressure Build-up Analysis and Methodology with Examples from

Multifrac Horizontal Wells and HPHT Reservoirs
Jonathan Bellarby, Canmore Consulting Ltd, SPE, Sara Sparre Kofoed and Franz Marketz, Maersk Oil, SPE

Copyright 2013, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5–7 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Annulus pressure build-up (APB) remains an important design consideration for many wells, not just deepwater or
subsea wells. This paper outlines a step-by-step methodology for analysing APB issues applicable to any type of
well. Analyses of APB scenarios for a tight chalk oil reservoir and an HPHT gas-condensate reservoir in the
Danish Sector of the North Sea are used to demonstrate the methodology.

APB is a potentially serious issue with HPHT wells created by annuli that heat up during production. The
increased temperatures cause fluid expansion that can potentially over-stress the casing and tubing if not
mitigated. Specific issues for HPHT wells are presented.

The significant increase in the use of multi-stage horizontal fracturing systems with open or cased hole packers
and ball or intervention operated sliding sleeves creates a fluid contraction threat. Overpressure through annulus
fluid contraction caused by cooling has been rarely analysed. A case is shown to disprove a common belief that
the fluid external to the sleeves equalizes with the reservoir over the time frame of the stimulation operation which
prevents over-pressurization. Failure cases are presented along with the design calculations required to assess
the combination of tubing ballooning, fluid contraction / expansion and transient reservoir flow. It is demonstrated
that with cases of toe-to-heel stimulation combined with low reservoir permeabilities, significant transient drops in
pressure external to the sleeves can occur. This can lead to tubing, sleeve or packer failures.
2 SPE/IADC 163557

Introduction
Annulus pressure build up due to thermal expansion has long been recognised as an issue for well design. The
Marlin A-2 incident in the Gulf of Mexico in November 1999 (Bradford et al, 2002) was particularly alarming as it
simultaneously compromised both primary and secondary engineered well barriers on a live well. This incident
also demonstrated that inwards collapse of an outer casing string is capable of collapsing the inner string(s) due
to point loading. Numerous other incidents before and after (and frequently not published) have demonstrated
various scenarios whereby fluids can be trapped leading to over-pressurisation of tubulars and equipment such as
wellheads.
The severity of a failure is varying and can be loss of production, intervention inability or worst, as with Marlin A-2,
loss of both engineered well barriers. In some cases well designs can be such that a ‘fail point’ is deliberately
included in the design. This means that if a higher uncontrolled pressure is seen compared to the one designed,
fluid escape will occur at the ‘fail point’. The fluid release is then ‘controlled’ underground instead.

APB Analysis Methodology – Casing with Production Related Loads

The coupling of the behaviour in the different annuli was identified and analysed by Halal and Mitchel (1994). Due
to the number of annuli, their interactions and the number of potential failure modes, it is suggested that a process
is followed to analyse all potential failure modes. Each annulus is analysed in turn with allowance made for
tubular ballooning / reverse ballooning and fluid escape via the wellhead, shoe or open formation behind pipe.
Figure 1 shows a typical ‘A’ annulus behaviour.

Figure 1 – Volume changes for each annulus

In general, for each annulus, there are three general scenarios relating to potential compromise of the annulus
integrity:
a) Maximum absolute pressure case. This could potentially create an over pressurisation of the
wellhead / hanger or the casing where cemented.
b) Maximum burst pressure differential of uncemented casing. This creates a burst risk to the
uncemented casing outwards from the annuli. If the external annulus pressure reduces, whilst the
internal annulus pressure also reduces, the differential burst pressure across the uncemented casing
increases.
c) Maximum collapse pressure differential. This creates a failure risk to casing / tubing inwards of the
annulus or a failure of a packer.
Because the pressure in each annulus affects to the pressure in the other annuli, the maximum absolute pressure
case does not normally coincide with maximum pressure differential cases.

For these three scenarios for each annulus, the combination of a production related load case and selective bleed
off of annuli can then be considered. For example, concerning the innermost (‘A’) annulus, the three scenarios
can be:
SPE/IADC 163557 3

Figure 2 – Suggested APB Scenarios (for the ‘A’ annulus)

For most wells with dry trees (i.e. wells where manual intervention of wellhead valves can occur), consideration
should be given to scenarios whereby the relevant annulus pressure is potentially fully bled off at the wellhead
independent of other annuli. For subsea wells with open casing shoes, bleed off at the lowest fracture pressure
(or pore pressure if formation is permeable) is the more likely cause of pressure relief. Such scenarios whereby
one annulus can sustain annulus fluid expansion whilst an adjacent annulus can be relieved of pressure have the
potential to generate high differential pressures.

Note that 2 of the production load cases used are identical, with scenarios (a) and (b) using a hot, high pressure
case. The high temperature provides the thermal expansion and the high tubing pressure ballooning the tubing
4 SPE/IADC 163557

and compressing the ‘A’ annulus fluids. Given that a shut-in load case can create a combination of high
temperature and pressure this is typically the load case to use. Some consideration should be given for the worst
case combination of temperature and pressure:
 A high water cut load case might generate a high temperature load case but when the well is shut-in, the
pressures will be less than for a load case with less water.
 A high GOR case might generate the highest shut-in pressure, but will probably not be the hottest case.
 When a well is shut in, the temperature decays, whilst the pressure rises. Both of these behaviours are
approximately exponential but with the rate of pressure and temperature changes dependent on reservoir
and well properties such as formation permeability and the overburden conductivity. To simplify, the
approach, an arbitrary short shut-in time is often used (e.g. 10 minutes) with an assumption that the
bottomhole pressure has reached the reservoir pressure. More elaborate scenarios involving worst case
(highest) permeability could be used but are rarely justified.

For the tubing collapse case, some thought is required as to whether to model a low pressure, but hot production
case or the more extreme case of full evacuation whilst hot. It can be argued that full tubing evacuation combined
with high temperatures is not likely but this often provides a useful starting point. Producing with a low wellhead
pressure often coincides with lower temperature production due to Joule-Thomson cooling. A scenario involving
production at higher pressures followed by a sudden opening of the choke might represent a harsher case and is
relatively easily modelled with modern software.

The results of such an analysis for a three-annuli well during production are shown in Table 1 with reference to
the scenarios (a), (b) and (c) in Figure 2. The criticality of each scenario is colour coded – orange for the loss of a
single engineered barrier; red for simultaneous loss of two barriers (outer casing collapse will likely lead to inner
casing(s) collapse); green for a failed casing string but without loss of an engineered barrier.

Annuli Casing Load Internal annulus External annulus Production load

assumption assumption case
‘A’ a) Production casing burst ‘A’ annulus not ‘B’ and ‘C’ annuli not Short term shut-in
below Top of Cement controlled / vented controlled / vented after dry oil
(TOC) production

b) Production casing burst ‘A’ annulus not ‘B’ annulus vented at Short term shut-in
above TOC controlled / vented shoe (pore pressure) after dry oil
production
c) Tubing collapse Lowest pressure ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ annuli Low pressure dry
production load not controlled / production
vented
‘B’ a) Intermediate casing ‘A’ and ‘B’ annulus ‘C’ annulus not Short term shut-in
burst below TOC not controlled / controlled / vented after dry oil
vented production
b) Intermediate casing ‘A’ and ‘B’ annulus ‘C’ annulus vented at Short term shut-in
burst above TOC not controlled / shoe (pore pressure) after dry oil
vented production
c) Production casing ‘A’ annulus vented at ‘B’ and ‘C’ annuli not Hottest (often wet)
collapse the wellhead controlled / vented production

‘C’ a) Surface casing burst ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘ C’ No external annuli – Short term shut-in
(fully cemented) annulus not mud gradient after dry oil
controlled / vented production
c) Intermediate casing ‘B’ annulus vented at ‘C’ annulus not Hottest (often wet)
collapse wellhead or shoe controlled / vented production

Table 1 – Typical modelled scenarios for annulus pressure build up

In many cases it is not critical to ensure the absolute worst case is modelled precisely as most wells can generate
unacceptable annulus pressure build up if annulus pressures are not managed.

Mitigation Methods
The most common mitigation strategy for dry trees is determining and maintaining maximum allowable annular
surface pressures (MAASPs). For subsea wells, the most common strategy is the use of open shoes (not
SPE/IADC 163557 5

cementing into the previous casing shoe). Oudeman and Kerem (2004) investigated the theoretical and measured
annular behaviour and noted the domination and time dependence of leak-off into the formation. The drilling fluid
can also be potentially displaced to a reduced solid fluid to mitigate mud solids plugging the shoe. Burst disks,
foam spacers, gas lift gas blankets, crushable foam wrap (syntactic foam), thermally contracting fluids (Bloys et
al) and insulated tubing (Azola et al) are all also commonly used. Pattillo (2007) provides an excellent summary of
the primary methods of control. It should be noted that all mitigation methods have downsides – be it reliability or
operational risk. Burst disks are especially popular for the intermediate / surface casing strings of deepwater
wells; they must however be very carefully designed to avoid compromising well control during drilling.

HPHT Well Considerations

HPHT Developments such as Maersk Oil’s Elly and Luke fields must consider APB during the well and platform
design stage. For the Elly and Luke development, it was initially not clear whether a manual intervention strategy
could be appropriate, well design adjustments would be required or a system developed to automatically and
safely allow excess annuli pressures to bleed off via the platform or into the subsurface.

Especially for HPHT wells, even on dry trees, some specific considerations are required for the ‘A’ annulus. The
conventional approach of venting the ‘A’ annulus to a closed drain (or via the crossover valve on a subsea well)
may be inappropriate:
 Bleeding off annulus fluid (brine) during production conditions will likely lead to a vacuum when the well is
shut-in. On a dry tree, this can easily and inadvertently introduce oxygen into the annulus with associated
production casing internal corrosion or tubular external corrosion. Many corrosion resistant alloys such as
duplex stainless steel are susceptible to external corrosion via chloride stress corrosion cracking; such
corrosion is exacerbated by the presence of oxygen. Mowat et al (2001) describe an example of tubing
failure of a platform well from this scenario on the Erskine field. Mitigation of the chloride stress cracking
issue can also be achieved by the use of a fresh water annulus fluid
 For subsea wells, the inadvertent use of the crossover valve can allow corrosive fluids into the annulus –
with similar potential for chloride stress corrosion cracking. Chloride stress corrosion cracking of the
outside of the tubing may be possible even where the tubing is a corrosion resistant alloy and the casing
is carbon steel.
 If a positive but acceptable pressure is to be maintained on the annulus with a brine filled annulus, an
automatic bleed off and recharge system can be used. This can however be cumbersome and cause
integrity concerns if the system is designed to automatically relieve pressure at a pressure below the
tubing shut-in pressure.
 Many modern dry tree HPHT developments such as the Elly and Luke developments in the North Sea are
planned as not normally manned, so a reliable system is mandatory that requires minimal operator
intervention.
 A gas (nitrogen) blanket can be used to avoid the requirement to adjust annulus contents – a positive
pressure is maintained and the fluid compressibility absorbs packer fluid expansion due to thermal
expansion. A method is required to circulate this gas in place and potentially to top up the gas blanket.
Using a sliding sleeve or gas lift valve for this purpose may degrade well integrity.

A potential solution to the placement of a gas cushion involves a short section of open-ended capillary tubing
placed down to a depth of around 100m below the wellhead. The purpose is then to use this line to insert (and if
necessary maintain) a nitrogen blanket post-completion. This has been deployed successfully for a high-pressure,
remote field development in Indonesia.
6 SPE/IADC 163557

Tubing hanger
Wellhead ‘A’
annulus access Open-ended capillary line,
valved at wellhead,
clamped to tubing

Figure 3 – Capillary line for partial replacement of packer fluid

Fluid Contraction
Where a well is cooled (e.g. by water injection or stimulation), trapped fluids will contract and thereby lose
pressure. For dry trees and simple casing schemes, this is not a major problem. For subsea wells (especially in
deepwater), the tubing should be designed for injection pressure internal to the tubing and a vacuum on the ‘A’
annulus at the wellhead; the initial hydrostatic pressure down to the wellhead will likely be lost. Where trapped
spaces are deeper, this loss of the hydrostatic pressure can create severe over-pressurisation when the external
vacuum is coupled with high internal pressures.

Fluid Contraction of Annuli in Contact with Permeable Formations

For the specific case of multi-packer reservoir completions (as shown in Figure 4), the tubing, packers and
sleeves are routinely specified based on the following criteria:
 Worst case (e.g. screen out) internal pressure.
 External pressure = pore pressure.

Figure 4 – Typical multi-packer open hole reservoir completion

This is considered optimistic. The author is aware of several (unpublished) failures attributed to external
pressures well below pore pressure. Although the reservoir completion would not normally be considered a
barrier, failure of the completion during a stimulation could lead to operational problems or poor reservoir
outcomes such as a fewer induced fractures. In many cases, a failure could go undetected. Evers et al (2008)
looked at the contraction issue for stimulation and the effect on open hole swellable packers. Sugden et al (2012)
looked at the stimulation-induced fluid contraction issue for a trapped fluid e.g. in a tie-back scenario and noted
that during a high rate stimulation bottomhole temperatures very quickly decline to a near steady-state solution.
Where the casing or tubing is connected to the reservoir, the assumption has however generally been that fluid
equalisation will maintain this external pressure at the pore pressure.

Most wells are stimulated from toe to heel. This means that cool stimulation fluids will be contracting fluids
SPE/IADC 163557 7

between packers where the interval has yet to be stimulated.

As an example, using fresh water and ignoring tubing ballooning, a temperature drop from only 70°C (158°F) to
30°C (86°F) is sufficient for up to 480 bar (7000 psi) of hydrostatic to be lost – if no equalisation from the reservoir
occurs. In most cases, this will create an external vacuum. This will often lead to differential pressures well above
design pressures.

Some equalization from the reservoir will occur which will ameliorate the external pressure reduction and the
nature of this (partial) equalisation should be analysed to avoid both under and over designing components of the
reservoir completion such as tubing, packers and sleeves.

There are three components to the analysis (Figure 5):

1. Thermal contraction (or expansion) of the fluid between the packers (assumed in this analysis to be a
completion brine).
2. Ballooning of the tubing caused by internal and external pressure changes. This creates a volume (or
pressure) change between the packers.
3. Fluid flow into or out of the reservoir. This is a pressure transient effect and will depend on the geometry
of the connection to the reservoir (open hole or cased hole), permeability and reservoir fluid properties.

Transient flow from (and

Changes in external pressure cause External fluid contracts when
to) reservoir. Time and
changes in reverse ballooning cooled and expands when heats up
conductivity dependent

Stimulation causes cooling, Tubing balloons from

shut‐in causes heating back Stimulation of deeper interval(s)
internal pressure and
up (all sleeves above closed)
compresses annulus fluid
Figure 5 – Pressure behaviour with a multi-packer cased and perforated well during toe-to-heel stimulation

The volume change between the packers will be a function of thermal expansivity and compressibility:

The volume change of the fluid between the packers caused by internal pressure changes can be analysed by
examining the change in hoop (tangential) stress and its influence on annular area:
4 ∆
∆ ,
Where:
∆Vb,i is the annular volume change due to internal pressure change (∆pi) over length (L)
Ai and Ao are the internal and external tubing areas respectively with ro being the tubing outside radius
E is Young’s modulus

The volume change due to reverse ballooning (pressure changes external to the tubing (∆po) can be calculated
from a similar relationship:
2 ∆
∆ ,
8 SPE/IADC 163557

Where:
∆Vb,o is the volume change due to external pressure change (∆po)
rOH is the radius of the open hole (or inside of the casing in a cased hole application)

As the volume change due to the external pressure change is linear, this effect can be added to the
compressibility of the fluid between the packers – the system compressibility effectively increases.

The reservoir response is transient. For the initial time step, the reservoir response is given by the general
transient flow performance equation (Dake, 1978) taking the form:

4 4
Where:
pi is the initial reservoir pressure and pwf the wellbore flowing pressure for a rate (q)
µ is reservoir fluid viscosity, ϕ the reservoir porosity, cr the reservoir compressibility (total) – normally
dominated by the fluid compressibility; assumption of constant compressibility, more complex forms required
for a gas system with a large pressure range.
k is the total permeability; h is the thickness
t is the elapsed time for the flowrate
Ei() is the exponential integral. Note that the logarithmic approximation (-ln(x)) of the exponential integral is
not valid under typical fracturing conditions (low permeabilities and short time steps).

The equation assumes radial flow around the wellbore (or elliptical flow if vertical permeability adjustments are
made). Given that the transients are only extending a few feet around the wellbore, we have assumed that the
reservoir “thickness” in the relationship equals the completed interval. In the case of an open hole interval, this
approximates the distance between packers. The case for a cased and perforated well creates near spherical flow
as typically perforated intervals are only a few feet.

We have ignored the thermal contraction of the reservoir fluid (and rock). This effect could however be significant.

Coupling the reservoir and annulus responses can be explained graphically. For the initial timestep where the
pressure between the packers equals the reservoir pressure, assuming fluid contraction and no internal tubing
pressure change, an example is shown in Figure 6. Fluid contraction (and reverse ballooning due the external
pressure change) between the packers is shown as the pcontract relationship, whilst the transient reservoir
performance is shown as pflow. The solution in terms of pressure and volumetric flow from the reservoir is the
intersection.
4100

4000

3900
Pressure (psia)

3800

3700
Pcontact
3600 Pflow

3500

3400
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Volume change (bbls)
Figure 6 – Initial timestep example; fluid contraction and reservoir equalisation

For the following timesteps, the principal of superposition (of transient pressures) can be used. The endpoint of
the reservoir flow performance is no longer the reservoir pressure but the transient performance assuming the
reservoir flow rate is zero. The endpoint for the pressure between the packers is the previous time step solution
(Figure 7).
SPE/IADC 163557 9

4000

3800
Pressure (psia)

3600

3400 Pcontact

3200 Pflow

3000

2800
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Volume change (bbls)
Figure 7 – Generic timestep example

This principal is then repeated for each timestep. In our analysis, we have assumed that the fluid entering from
the reservoir does not alter the compressibility or expansivity of the fluid between the packers. In the case of gas
ingress, this assumption will likely be invalid. Note that for some timesteps, the intersection can create a negative
volume change i.e. flow from the fluid between packers into the reservoir. This occurs during the warm-back,
post-stimulation.

Results of Transient Equalisation

The effect of ballooning and the annulus response is shown in Figure 8. An abrupt internal pressure change of
4000 psi is applied and maintained. This creates approximately a 400 psi response from the annulus which then
decays. The reservoir is oil with 0.01 md and the completion is open hole. The effect is small and would likely be
of no issue for equipment.

4000

3500
Annulus pressure (psia)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (hours)
Figure 8 – Example annulus pressure response – oil with 0.01 md, no temperature change, 4000 psi
increase in tubing pressure

Figure 9 shows the effect of progressive cooling of the annulus by 70F° then a constant temperature.
10 SPE/IADC 163557

3500

3000
Annulus pressure (psia)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (hours)
Figure 9 – Example annulus pressure response – oil with 0.01 md, 4000 psi increase in tubing pressure
then progressive drop in temperature of 70°F

In general, open hole systems with the assumption of the entire interval being open to flow will generally have
significant equalization:
 Oil reservoirs usually have adequate permeabilities for equalization.
 Gas reservoirs, although often stimulated with lower permeabilities are considerably more compressible.
If a significant proportion of the reservoir is not connected to the annulus (low net-to-gross, inability of filter cake to
lift off, or a limited entry cased and perforated completion), then the effects of fluid contraction will be more
pronounced. Even with a moderate permeability system, it would be appropriate to design for an evacuated
annulus (Figure 10).

4000

3500
Annulus pressure (psia)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (hours)

Figure 10 – 1 md oil reservoir with 6 ft of perforations in a 600 ft interval

In order to produce meaningful results, it is important to be able to accurately model the fluid temperatures in the
annulus. In our application, the software package “WellCat” was used to model both the fluid temperature
between packers and also the internal pressure that can create tubing ballooning. With suitable inputs, WellCat
can also calculate the extreme scenario of fluid contraction between packers and no reservoir equalisation.

An example of coupling the temperature simulation of WellCat with an openhole oil reservoir stimulation
simulation is shown in Figure 11.
SPE/IADC 163557 11

6000 250

5000
200

Temperature (degrees F)
Annulus pressure (psia)

4000
150
3000

100
2000
Transient inflow at 0.1 md

Transient inflow at 0.01 md

50
1000
Transient inflow at 0.001 md

Temperature
0 0
‐0.1 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4
Time (hours)
Figure 11 – Example of simulation derived annulus temperatures coupled to an annulus fluid expansion and transient
fluid equalisation model

Note that the annulus temperature between the packers reaches a near steady state temperature relatively
quickly. At this stage, the annulus pressure begins to rise again as fluid flow from the reservoir exceeds fluid
contraction derived volume change in the annulus due to cooling. Not surprisingly, there is strong influence from
permeability on the worst case annulus pressure. This will provide significant challenges when designing the
reservoir completion as the permeability is often poorly constrained. The worst case of no equalisation from the
reservoir (zero permeability) will invariably create a vacuum with water based annulus fluids.

For Maersk Oil, the solution to avoid a potential failure on a chalk multifrac development well will be to upgrade
the liner pipe grade.

Conclusions

1. A workflow is presented for the modelling of annulus fluid expansion in order to assess worst case
scenarios for all annuli.
2. Annulus fluid expansion mitigation provides particular challenges when considering the ‘A’ annulus of
HPHT wells. A possible solution is presented involving a nitrogen blanket placed with the aid of a capillary
line.
3. Annulus fluid contraction on trapped annuli or deepwater wells should be considered whenever a
“cooling” load case such as water injection or stimulation is applied.
4. Multifrac horizontal wells with packers should be analysed for fluid contraction even where the annuli are
in contact with a reservoir.
5. A simplified modelling methodology is presented for the transient inflow / outflow and partial pressure
equalisation that occurs with such multi-packer configurations. It is recognised that effects such as
thermal transients within the reservoir may make the annulus pressure drop predictions more severe than
suggested.
6. Pressure reductions significantly below the hydrostatic or pore pressure can occur in the annuli between
packers during a multifrac stimulation especially in low permeability oil reservoirs or with a cased hole
configuration. Such external pressure drops coupled with high treating pressures can and have caused
equipment failures with multi-packer reservoir completions.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Maersk Oil’s partners in the Danish Underground Consortium (Shell, Chevron and
the Danish North Sea Fund) for permission to publish this paper.
12 SPE/IADC 163557

References
1. Azzola, J.H.; Tselepidakis, D.P.; Pattillo, P.D.; Richey, J.F.; Tinker, S.J.; Miller, R.A.; Segreto, S.J.
“Application of Vacuum-Insulated Tubing to Mitigate Annular Pressure Buildup” SPE paper 90232
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston 26-29 September 2004.
2. Bloys, B.; Gonzalez, M.; Hermes, R.; Bland, R.; Foley, R; Tijerina, R; Davis, J.; Cassel, T.; Daniel, J.;
Robinson, I.;Billings, F.; Eley, R. “Trapped Annular Pressure – A Spacer Fluid that Shrinks” SPE paper
104698 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22-22
February 2007.
3. Bradford, D.W.; Fritchie, D.G.; Gibson, D.H.; Gosch, S.W.; Pattillo, P.D. Sharp, J.W.; Taylor, C.E.: “Marlin
Failure Analysis and Redesign: Part 1 – Description of Failure” SPE paper 88814 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, 26-28 February 2002.
4. Dake, L.P. “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”, Elsevier, Developments in Petroleum Science 8,
1978.
5. Evers, R.; Young, D.; Vargus, G.; Solhaug, K.:”Design Methodology for Swellable Elastomer Packers in
Fracturing Operations” SPE paper 116256, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.
6. Halal, A.S.; Mitchell, R.F.: “Casing Design for Trapped Annular Pressure Buildup” SPE paper 25694 SPE
Drilling and Completion Journal, June 1994.
7. Oudeman, P.; Kerem, M.: “Transient Behaviour of Annular Pressure Build-up in HP/HT Wells” SPE paper
88735, presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, U.A.E. 10-13
October 2004
8. Mowat, D.E.; Edgerton, M.C.; Wade, E.H.R.: “Erskine Field HPHT Workover and Tubing Corrosion
Failure Investigation” SPE/IADC paper 67779 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February – 1 March 2001.
9. Pattillo, P.D. “Recent Advances in Complex Well Design” SPE presentation 112814 SPE Distinguished
Lecturer Series, 2007.
10. Rutger, E.; Young, D.; Vargus, G.; Solhaug, K. “Design Methodology for Swellable Elastomer Packers in
Fracturing Operations” OTC paper 20157 presented at Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston,
US 4-7 May 2009.
11. Sugden, C.; Johnson, J.; Chambers, M.; Ring, G; Suryanarayana, P.V. “Special Considerations in the
Design Optimisation of High Rate, Multistage Fractured Shale Wells” SPE paper 151470 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in San Diego, California, USA, 6-8 March 2012.