Dogleg Severity

Related terms:

Rod, Gas Lifts, Trajectories, Friction, Internals, Pumping System, Borehole, Drill Bit,
Inclination Angle, Measured Depth

View all Topics

Learn more about Dogleg Severity

BASICS
Toby Darling, in Well Logging and Formation Evaluation, 2005

1.2.4 Pipe-Conveyed Logging

Where the borehole deviation or dogleg severity is such that it is not possible to run
tools using conventional wireline techniques, tools are typically run on drillpipe. In
essence, this is no different from conventional logging. However, there are a number
of important considerations. Because of the need to provide electrical contact with
the toolstring, the normal procedure is to run the toolstring in the hole to a certain
depth before pumping down a special connector (called a wet-connect) to connect
the cable to the tools. Then a side-entry sub (SES) is installed in the drillpipe, which
allows the cable to pass from the inside of the pipe to the annulus. The toolstring is
then run in farther to the deepest logging point, and logging commences. The rea-
son the SES is not installed when the toolstring is at the surface is partly to save time
while running in (and allowing rotation), and also to avoid the wireline extending
beyond the last casing shoe in the annulus. If the openhole section is longer than the
cased hole section, the logging will need to be performed in more than one stage,
with the SES being retrieved and repositioned in the string. Pipe-conveyed logging
is expensive in terms of rig time and is typically used nowadays only where it is not
possible to acquire the data via LWD.
Most contractors now offer a means to convert an operation to pipe-conveyed
logging if a toolstring, run into the hole on conventional wireline, becomes stuck
in the hole. This is usually termed “logging while fishing.”

> Read full chapter

Snubbing Theory and Calculations

Les Skinner PE, in Hydraulic Rig Technology and Operations, 2019

Vertical Holes With Doglegs

An important subset of vertical wells involve wells with short crooked sections of
hole or doglegs. Doglegs have a rapidly increasing curvature over a short section
that returns to an essentially straight hole section through reverse curvature at the
bottom of the dogleg. If the length of the vertical hole segment contains one or more
of these, there must be a way to account for the additional buckling force required
by these short, sharply curved sections.

Dogleg severity is shown in Eq. (4.52):

(4.52)

where DLS = dogleg severity (degrees/100 ft.), R = average wellbore radius of

curvature at dogleg (rad/ft).

The critical buckling force associated with these doglegs is shown in Eq. (4.53):

(4.53)

Combining Eqs. (4.51) and (4.53), the total critical helical buckling limit for vertical
wells with doglegs is given by Eq. (4.54):

(4.54)

Comparison of Eqs. (4.51) and (4.54) shows that more compressive force is needed
to initiate helical buckling in crooked vertical wells than in straight holes. The curved
sections of a dogleg tend to stabilize helical buckling, and it does, in fact, require
more compression to change from sinusoidal to helical buckling in the doglegs.

> Read full chapter

Drilling and Completion Calculations

William C. Lyons, ... Norton J. Lapeyrouse, in Formulas and Calculations for Drilling,
Production, and Workover (Fourth Edition), 2016

7.14.2 Deviation/Departure Calculation

Deviation is defined as departure of the wellbore from the vertical, measured by the
horizontal distance from the rotary table to the target. The amount of deviation is a
function of the drift angle (inclination) and hole depth.

Figure 7.1 illustrates how to determine the deviation/departure:

Figure 7.1. Deviation/departure.

Data:

AB = Distance from the surface location to the KOP

BC = Distance from KOP to the true vertical depth (TVD)
BD = Distance from KOP to the bottom of the hole (MD)
CD = Deviation/departure—departure of the wellbore from the vertical
AC = True vertical depth
AD = Measured depth

To calculate the deviation/departure (CD) (ft.):

(7.73)

Example: Kick off point (KOP) is a distance 2000 ft. from the surface. MD is 8000 ft.
Hole angle (inclination) is 20°. Therefore, the distance from KOP to MD = 6000 ft.
(BD):

From this calculation, the measured depth (MD) is 2052 ft. away from vertical.

Dogleg Severity Calculation

Method 1:
Dogleg severity (DLS) is usually given in degrees/100 ft. The following formula
provides dogleg severity in degrees/100 ft. and is based on the radius of curvature
method:

(7.74)

(7.75)

Where:

DLS = Dogleg severity, degrees/100 ft.

CL = Course length, distance between survey points (ft.)
I1 = Inclination (angle) at upper survey (ft.)
I2 = Inclination (angle) at lower survey (ft.)
A1 = Direction at upper survey (°)
A2 = Direction at lower survey (°)
“Azimuth = Azimuth change between surveys (°)

Example:

Survey 1 Survey 2
Depth (ft.) 4231 4262
Inclination (°) 13.5 14.7
Azimuth (°) N 10 E N 19 E

Method 2:

This method of calculating dogleg severity is based on the tangential method:

(7.76)

Where:

DLS = Dogleg severity, degrees/100 ft.

L  = Course length (ft.)
I1  = Inclination (angle) at the upper survey (°)
I2  = Inclination (angle) at the lower survey (°)
A1  = Direction at the upper survey (°)
A2  = Direction at the lower survey (°)

Example:

Survey 1 Survey 2
Depth 4231 4262
Inclination (°) 13.5 14.7
Azimuth (°) N 10 E N 19 E
Available Weight on Bit in Directional Wells

A directionally drilled well requires that a correction be made in total drill collar
weight because only a portion of the total weight will be available to the bit:

(7.77)

Where:

P  = Partial weight available for bit

cos = cosine
I  = Degrees inclination (angle)
W  = Total weight of collars

Example:

W = 45,000 lb
I  = 25°
P  = 45,000 × cos25
P  = 45,000 × 0.9063
P  = 40,784 lb

Thus, the available weight on bit is 40,784 lb.

> Read full chapter

Casing in directional and horizontal

wells
Ted G. Byrom, in Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion (Second Edition),
2015

7.4 Casing wear

Casing wear is a serious problem in many intermediate strings and some surface
strings. It often is the reason that an intermediate string cannot be used as a
production string in combination with a production liner. Reduced wall thickness
or a hole in the pipe can be disastrous. There is no good way to repair badly worn
pipe so that it will contain higher internal pressures other than to run a new string
inside it with the accompanying reduction of internal diameter. Hence, it is quite
important to prevent or minimize casing wear.

The primary mechanism for casing wear is the rotation of drill pipe, although the
tripping of the drill pipe also contributes to the wear but to a lesser degree. Two
things are necessary for the wear to occur, and these are fairly obvious: contact force
and movement of the drill pipe (rotation and sliding). The rate of wear depends on
a number of things, such as

• Magnitude of contact force

• Rotation speed

• Lubricity of the drilling fluid

• Relative hardness of the drill pipe tool joints and casing

• Presence of abrasives

Of course, the total amount of wear depends on all these plus the time duration
during which wear occurs. Typically, we measure the amount of wear as a percentage
of reduction in the wall thickness, with 100% meaning that the wall thickness
is completely worn through. Reduction of wall thickness is a linear measure and
therefore somewhat misleading. The amount of metal removed under a specific set
of conditions generally is a linear function of time, but the reduction of wall thickness
is not. Figure 7.8 illustrates why it is not.

Figure 7.8. Increasing volume of metal with reduction in wall thickness.

It is easy to see that, as the tool joint wears into the wall of the casing, more volume
of metal must be removed in relation to the amount of penetration. So, while
the rate of metal removed may be linear with time or cumulative revolutions, the
reduction in actual wall thickness is not. We can see that, initially, the wall thickness
reduction is quite fast, but as it progresses, it becomes much slower because of the
increasing volume of metal that must be removed for a corresponding reduction in
wall thickness.

Prevention of casing wear is of utmost concern in most wells. Historically, most of

what was known about preventing wear came from common sense and experience.
We have long known that rough hard-banded tool joints can wear a hole in casing
as quickly as a mill. Even heat galling can take place when the lubricity of the
mud is low and the contact force is high. And, no matter what precautions are
taken, if there is sand in the mud, all wear mechanisms are accelerated. Even with
rubber pipe protectors, the presence of sand causes wear, since the sand grains can
become embedded in the rubber itself. So, assuming we know to keep abrasives to
a minimum and hard-banded tool joints out of the casing while rotating, where do
we install the pipe protectors to reduce wear? It was once thought that we could
make a plot of dog-leg severity (hole curvature) to determine where the critical
wear areas were. Historically, this proved unreliable. In general, casing wear is not a
function of the magnitude of the dog-leg severity. The worst wear in casing typically
occurs nearer the surface rather than deeper and often where the magnitude of the
dog-leg severity is typically less than 1° or 2° per 100 ft, as opposed to deeper in
the well where the dog-leg severity might exceed 4°/100 ft, for example. Another
approach that proved more useful is a plot of the difference between successive
dog-leg severity measurements. While that is a much better indication of the areas
of most severe wear, it too can be grossly misleading in some parts of the well. Until
casing was studied more seriously, that remained the only tool readily available to
most operators for determining the best location for pipe protectors. Most operators
just ran them on every joint or so in the upper half of the casing as a precaution.

A lot of work has been done to try to quantify wear in casing, and software is available
to predict the amount of wear. The results of such predictions have been mixed at
best and, in many cases, have been totally unreliable. The difficulty in quantifying
wear is in quantifying all the variables that affect the process. In other words, one
has to know pretty accurately the time spent rotating, the penetration rate, the
lubricating properties of the mud, the rotation speed, the type and concentration of
solids and abrasives in the drilling fluid, and so forth. However, this is not a dismissal
of such software by any means. While it has proven relatively poor at quantifying
actual casing wear, it is extremely good at predicting where the critical wear areas in
a casing string are located. For any given mud system and amount of rotating time,
the areas of most severe wear are those areas that experience the greatest amount
of contact force between the tool joints and casing. That contact force is quite easy
to quantify, at least to the accuracy needed.

An investigation was done several years ago with this type of software run post priori
on several wells that had experienced holes worn in the casing. Good drilling data
were available, as well as caliper logs that had been used to locate the holes, and of
course, directional surveys, which are essential for use of the software. The results
were a bit disappointing. In none of these particular wells did the software predict a
hole in the casing, even though each actually had a hole worn through the casing. In
fact, the worst wall thickness loss predicted in any of the wells by the software was
slightly more than 50%. But, the important point again is that where the software
predicted the worst wear to occur was exactly where the holes were (see Figure 7.9).
In addition to the wear curves, the contact force curves were plotted for comparison
in Figure 7.10, and in fact, the wear curves and contact force curves were almost
identical, except of course for the scale. The conclusion of that particular study was
that, while the software was not very good at quantifying the amount of wear, it was
excellent for determining the critical wear areas. It also was found that a contact force
curve by itself was adequate for predicting where pipe protectors were needed while
drilling below those strings of casing. And that, ultimately, is what we want to know,
because we cannot know with certainty the exact properties of the mud system,
abrasives content, and rotating time prior to drilling below the casing. However, we
do know the shape of the hole we just cased, and the planned well path below the
casing well enough to predict the amount of contact force on the casing string we
have just installed.

Figure 7.9. Results from casing wear software, showing the predicted amount of
wear in a particular well. This casing string had a hole in it at about 3000 ft.

Figure 7.10. Contact force for same well.

The other useful indicator mentioned, differential dog-leg severity essentially is the
difference between the dog-leg severity at one point and that at the previous point.
While it often gives a similar plot to the two above, it gives misleading results near
the bottom of the casing string because it cannot account for the reduction in contact
force caused by smaller values of axial tension.

Rotating contact force can be calculated from the borehole friction formulas pre-
sented earlier in Equations (7.9) and (7.13), and they easily can be programmed
into a spreadsheet. Most commercial torque-and-drag software also generates a
contact force curve. But, to use the contact force for determining the need for pipe
protectors, one must have directional survey data, and in the case of vertical wells,
this may not be available. Many companies feel that if a well requires an intermediate
string for over-pressured reservoirs below, then it should also have a gyro survey run
in the intermediate casing in the event it becomes necessary to drill a relief well to
kill a blowout. In those cases, the gyro survey can serve both purposes. There really is
no reason for not being able to determine where the casing wear will be most severe
and where pipe protectors should be placed in a drill string. Given that knowledge
and common sense as regard to wear mechanisms, casing wear should not be a
severe problem.

> Read full chapter

Calculation of Operational Parameters

Gabor Takacs PhD, in Sucker-Rod Pumping Handbook, 2015

4.4.6.1.4 An illustrative example

To illustrate the use of the deviated wave equation, an example is presented with the
following basic data and using the RodStar [56] program package.

Pump setting depth, ft 8,000 Tubing size, in 2 7/8

Pump size, in 2 Tubing anchor, ft 7,900
Polished rod stroke, in 193.3 Pumping speed, SPM 6.0
API rod taper code 86 Unit rotation clockwise
C-1280D-365-120 unit

The well trajectory is close to vertical down to a depth of about 4,800 ft, from where
it starts to deviate; a 3D deviation survey plot is presented in Fig. 4.16.
Figure 4.16. 3D deviation survey plot of an example well.

Dogleg severity, which is calculated from the data of the deviation survey, is plotted
versus measured depth in Fig. 4.17; calculated side loads follow the plot presented
in Fig. 4.18. As seen, there is a tight correlation between the side load and the DLS
at any given depth, as expected from previous discussions.

Figure 4.17. Dogleg severity versus well depth in the example well.

Figure 4.18. Side load versus well depth in the example well.

Assuming that the downhole pump fills completely at every stroke, the surface
dynamometer card was constructed using the solution of the wave equation for
two cases: by considering and by disregarding well deviation. The resultant cards
are depicted in Fig. 4.19; comparison of the two cards shows that Coulomb friction
along the rod string, in general, increases upstroke loads and decreases downstroke
loads.

Figure 4.19. Comparison of surface cards calculated with and without consideration

of well deviation for an example well.

The different loading conditions for the vertical and the deviated case have changed
the energy conditions of the system and the loading of the pumping system's
components very substantially. As detailed in the following, polished rod horsepower
has increased, as well as the loading of the pumping unit structure and that of the
gearbox; all these add up to a drop in overall system energy efficiency.
Operational Parameter Vertical Deviated
Polished rod horsepower, HP 24.9 29.7
Unit structural load, % 80.0 88.0
Gearbox load, % 81.6 92.3
System efficiency, % 56.0 42.9

One general conclusion can be distilled from the example presented that relates
to the diagnostic analysis of deviated wells using the vertical model of the wave
equation. In such cases the conventional wave equation does not remove all the
energy losses that occur along the rod string because it considers losses due to
fluid friction only. Calculated pump cards, therefore, have shapes typical for the
“unaccounted friction” phenomenon with exaggerated areas. The apparently high
calculated pump powers indicate clearly that the conventional wave equation cannot
handle the effects of mechanical Coulomb friction in deviated wells.

> Read full chapter

Underbalanced Liner Drilling

Robert Sanford, in Underbalanced Drilling: Limits and Extremes, 2012

8.2.3 Basic Planning—Torsional Limits

The torsional limit in a liner drilling application is the yield torque of the weakest
component of the liner drilling system. The connections for the liner will likely be
the weakest component of the system. Special attention must be paid to this aspect
of the liner design. If an improper or inadequate connection is used the liner could
quickly go from a useful tool to junk in the hole. Offset records need to be closely
studied so that a realistic idea of rotating hours can be estimated prior to drilling
the well.

The limiting factor of how long the liner can be rotated is the connection fatigue life.
The connection fatigue life is estimated by determining the cyclic bending stress in
the build interval and then determining the number of revolutions that can be safely
applied to the connection.

The cyclic bending stress is first calculated with Eq 8.2.

(8.2)

where

b = stress created by bending, in psi

 = build angle in °/100 ft

D = O.D. of the pipe body, in.

Et = tension efficiency of the connection, in decimal form

An operator specific safety factor is applied to the bending stress value and then
converted into a percentage of pipe body or connection yield strength. In most cases
the connection will be the weakest component of the string. If cyclic fatigue loading
is a concern, as in high dog leg severity wellbores, rotating speed will need to be
minimized to prolong the life of each connection.

The tension efficiency (Et) of the connection can be obtained from the manufacturer
of the connection. Every connection has specific Stress-Cycles, or S-N curve. For
example, see the S-N curve in Figure 8-2 for TenarisHydril Series 500 connections.
It can be seen that after 100,000 cycles, or rotations, the connection bending stress
will be about twenty percent of the original yield.

Figure 8-2. TenarisHydril S-N curve for Series 500 casing

The connection selected must have a high torsional resistance, and a high tolerance
for compressive, bending, and tensile loads. The liner must be designed so that it
can withstand tens of thousands of revolution cycles. The connection must be “gas
tight,” meaning that the leak resistance must be comparable to an API connection.
If O-ring type seals are utilized to seal the connections, there will be a temperature
limitation that must be taken into consideration. Sometimes special considerations
need to be made for wear resistance in abrasive formations. Even premium casing
connections were not designed for prolonged rotation through abrasive formations.
The torque capacity of such connections allows little tolerance for wear, therefore
some casing centralization may be necessary to reduce wall contact and prolong the
life of the connection.

Above all else, the connection must be economical. The overall goal of using un-
derbalance liner drilling is to reduce nonproductive time to save money. Premium
connections are expensive; so special attention needs to be paid to both the me-
chanical specifications and the cost. The torque capacity of these liners leaves little
capacity for wear, therefore some casing centralization may be necessary to reduce
wall contact.
> Read full chapter

Drilling and Well Completions

In Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering (Third Edition),
2016

4.13.4.2 Special Well Types

The boundaries, constraints, limits, risks, drilling practices, equipment selection,
and costs change significantly, depending on the type of well to be drilled. Because
the relative importance and effect of these variables also change, the optimization
approach and prioritization become more specific to the particular well type. Com-
mon groupings are

• Extended reach drilling (ERD)

• Horizontal

• Deepwater

Extended Reach Drilling

An ERD well is typically defined as one in which the horizontal departure is at
least twice its TVD. Be aware that this is two-dimensional thinking and does not
account for complex well paths or a degree of difficulty based on the equipment.
However, Figure 4.13.3 provides examples of TVD versus horizontal displacement
for several groups of drilled assets. ERD wells are expensive and typically are pushing
the envelope [13, 14, 15, 16]. The “envelope” has been pushed over time, as shown
in Figure 4.13.4. Requirements and drilling objectives become very critical. Drill
strings are designed differently [17, 18], rig capacity may be pushed to the limit, hole
cleaning processes and capabilities will be tested, dogleg severity and differential
sticking take on heightened sensitivity, and casing wear is a distinct possibility.
Rotation of the drill string is still a key component to accomplish hole cleaning.
Rotary steerable systems have provided tremendous value and are allowing ERD
wells to be drilled longer than ever before [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25].
Figure 4.13.3. Examples of TVD versus horizontal displacement for several groups
of drilled assets.

Figure 4.13.4. Extended-Reach Drilling–Evolution in the 1990s.

The key issues are torque, drag, and buckling; hole cleaning; ECDs; rig capability;
survey accuracy and target definition; wellbore stability; differential sticking and
stuck pipe; well control; casing wear; bit type; BHA type; logistics; and costs.

Horizontal Wells
Horizontal wells are defined according the rate of build from vertical to horizontal.
Choosing one well profile instead of another is based on numerous criteria, includ-
ing the location of the production zone in relation to the well’s surface location,
the length of horizontal lateral needed, minimizing cost for footage drilled, and
maximizing value.Table 4.13.1 provides a summary of typical ranges of application
of each of these technologies, although it seems that as soon as numbers are written,
they become obsolete. Product and tool selection must be suited to and optimized
for the respective footages, hours, hole angles, and rate of change of hole angles.
Large-radius horizontal wells essentially use the same build rates to build the curve
as ERD wells use. However, drill collar weight is placed high enough in the drill
string so that the collars do not enter the curved build section. In this way, the weight
is most effective axially along the drill string, causing less hole drag. Buckling is
still a significant planning need. Casing wear is a lesser concern. Mud systems
for horizontal laterals normally possess very low low-end viscosity, which maximizes
turbulence when pumping, but solids will fall out of solution when pumping stops.
Rotation of the drill string is still a key component to accomplish hole cleaning.
Laterals are aligned to drill across any expected fractures to add most effectively to
the effective permeability [24].

Table 4.13.1. Well Profiles

Well Type Angle Build Feet Drilled to Curve Radius Maximum Special Tools
Rate (°/100 ft) Turn 90° (ft) Lateral Required (?)
Length (ft)
Long radius 2–8 1125–4500 1000–3000 8000 No
Medium ra- 8–20 450–1125 700–1250 8000 No
dius
Short radius 150–300 30–60 20–40 1000 Yes

Deepwater
Until as late as 10 years ago, anything off the continental shelf (500–600 ft) was
considered deepwater. However, with recent advances in drilling, exploration, and
production technologies, wells are being drilled and produced in depths of 10,000
ft of water. A generally accepted minimum depth of 1,000 ft is common today but
will surely change along with the technology. Drilling costs are a major share of the
total development cost. A deepwater well may also be an ERD or horizontal profile
and therefore possess those sensitivities.

The key issues are rig-buoyed weight and variable deck load capacity; surface stack
BOPs; shallow water flows; riser design; hole cleaning; mud temperature cooling;
hydrates; low pore pressure; ability to predict pore pressure during planning and in
real time; narrow range of pore pressure to fracture gradient; ECD control; wellbore
stability; trouble cost; BHA type; logistics; and time cost sensitivity.
New technologies for reducing finding costs include dual density and gradient
drilling, composite risers, expandable casing, casing drilling, hole-enlarging devices,
and surface stack BOPs.

> Read full chapter

Electrical Submersible Pump Compo-

nents and Their Operational Features
Gabor Takacs Ph.D, in Electrical Submersible Pumps Manual (Second Edition), 2018

3.3.2.5 Ultrahigh Speed Permanent Magnet Motor Applica-

tions
The application of PMMs with extra high speeds (up to 12,000 RPM) in ESP systems
has definite advantages but necessitates the use of special equipment. More details
are given in the following, based on the data from a major manufacturer [43].

The operating speed range of ultrahigh speed (UHS) equipment is between 1,000
and 12,000 RPM, although their special pumps can operate at speeds up to 15,000-
 RPM. Because of this extremely high operating speed the whole ESP system is
significantly shorter, less than half to one-third of the length of conventional units.
The compact design of the ESP system makes it possible to assemble and test the
unit at the manufacturer's facility; it is delivered to the well fully assembled and is
ready to run in the well. Before installation, the MLE must be attached to the motor
only; this feature considerably decreases installation time and labor costs as well as
minimizes rig time and any human errors. Typical installations require one-third to
one-fourth of the installation time of a traditional ESP system. The compact design
of the UHS ESP system permits deeper pump setting depths and running through
high dogleg severity sections.

The UHS submersible pump is a modular multistage centrifugal pump designed

for a speed range of 1,000–12,000 RPM. The floater design pump is equipped with
stages distributed in several pump modules, with seven to nine stages per module
depending on pump model. Pump stages are manufactured on computer numerical
controller machines from solid pieces of high-grade stainless steel. Radial stability of
pump stages at UHSs is crucial, all bearings and bushings must be of abrasion-re-
sistant quality and made from hard materials (bimetallic, tungsten carbide facing
radial bearings and silicon carbide toward pump shaft). Axial loads in the floating
impellers are taken up by downthrust washers made of a hard material and every
module has its thrust bearing to carry the load from the discharge pressure. The
use of hard alloys in manufacturing maximizes the ESP's abrasion and corrosion
resistance. The shaft of low-rate pumps may be hexagonal and may have double
keyways with separate keyways for each module to minimize shaft dimensions and
increase pump efficiency.

Typical performance curves of an UHS submersible pump are shown in Fig. 3.35 at a

nameplate speed of 10,000 RPM [43]. As seen, extremely high heads are developed by
the stage because of the high speed; this usually results in a low number of required
stages and a short pump.

Figure 3.35. Performance curves of a ultrahigh speed pump.

PMMs used in UHS service of a major manufacturer [43] have six poles and a rated
speed of 10,000 RPM at a frequency of 500 Hz. Their rotors are considerably shorter
than those of standard IMs and thus have a much higher power density. The heat
generated by the motor's operation at such high speeds required the development
of an enhanced cooling system. Cooling is provided by an active system (in contrast
to the passive cooling system used in IMs) that consists of

• an oil-circulating pump and heat exchanger built in the motor base

• a protector with an increased oil capacity.

Thanks to the much higher motor oil volume and the active cooling system the UHS
motors' thermal behavior is better than that of the IMs. Heat transfer between motor
housing and reservoir fluid depends on the same parameters (fluid rate, casing size,
etc.) as in standard systems and similar fluid velocities around the motor are required
for proper cooling. UHS motors are designed for low voltage and low current and
have a flat, at least 91%, power efficiency over a wide range of motor loading.
Comparison of UHS PMM and standard IM installations has shown that consider-
able power savings can be realized with UHS equipment because of the higher motor
efficiency and lower current requirement [44]. However, when UHS systems are
compared to normal- or high-speed (up to 6,000 RPM) PMM installations, similar
power efficiencies can be expected. In such cases the advantages of using UHS
systems come from other features such as shorter pump and motor lengths and
better corrosion and abrasion tolerance.

It is also important to note that UHS ESPs have significantly better performance
in low-rate and slim-hole applications. For example, the efficiency of UHS pumps
producing 100–200 bpd is greater than 50%, whereas standard-speed pumps have
efficiencies typically below 40%. The higher efficiency of the UHS pumps leads to
longer system run life and less problems associated with high pump temperatures,
such as scale deposition, MLE overheating, and bearing problems.

> Read full chapter

Well-Bore Construction (Drilling and

Completions)
David A. Simpson P.E., in Practical Onshore Gas Field Engineering, 2017

2.3 Hole Topology

The traverse of a drill bit through the earth must be mapped in three dimensions.
To define a bottom-hole location, you need to determine the following:

• Surface location—latitude, longitude, and elevation above sea level of the rig
floor (historically designated as “Kelly bushing elevation” or KB, even if it is a
directional well and the Kelly is absent).
• Kickoff point—this is the point below the surface location where the bore
purposely leaves the latitude and longitude of the surface location.
• Azimuthal (compass) direction—this is the direction you would need to go
from the surface location to stand over the drill bit.
• Build rate—this is a unique term to drilling. It is usually expressed in degrees
per 100 ft (degrees per 30 m) and it is a rate of change of direction from the
vertical. For example, if a tangent to the bit trajectory was 25 degrees from
vertical at 5000 ft and you had a 3 degrees/100 ft build rate then at 5100 ft a
tangent to the bit trajectory would be 28 degrees from vertical. The higher the
build rate, the higher the “dog leg severity” and the more difficult the well
will be to operate.
• Inclination angle—the angle from vertical of the tangent that results at the end
of the build.
• True vertical depth (TVD)—the depth of the bit without regard to trajectory.
It is measured from the surface location elevation so if the bit runs laterally
under a large hill you do not add the height of the hill to the surface location
elevation to get the TVD.
• Measured depth—basically this is the length of the drill pipe.

• Horizontal displacement—distance along the azimuth from the surface loca-

tion to a point above the drill bit.
• Lateral—the length of pipe running more or less horizontally and tangential
to the last build section.

Wells generally have one of four shapes as shown in Fig. 2.10.

Figure 2.10. Hole shape.

• Vertical type—the preponderance of the nearly 2 million Oil & Gas wells in
the world are vertical type. When we say “vertical type” instead of “vertical” it
is because no well is actually vertical, they all have some amount of deviation
caused by rate of penetration, weight on bit, and natural discontinuities in
the rock being drilled through. The vertical type well was drilled without any
purposeful intention of deviating from vertical.
• Slant “J” type—these wells are “kicked off ” using a device called a “whipstock”
that creates a pathway for the bit to move off of vertical. We use slant “J” wells
to reach specific bottom-hole locations that cannot be reached with a vertical
well (e.g., the target location is under the grounds of a school). They are also
used to create a sidetrack to move away from bottom-hole location that was
damaged.
• “S” type—at times there are reasons to enter a formation with a vertical bore,
but circumstances make drilling a vertical-type well undesirable or impossible.
For example, when we started drilling the CBM wells in the San Juan Basin,
the concept of “cavitation” (see later) had not yet been invented so all of the •
early wells were cased and frac’ed (see later). The industry quickly realized the
benefit of the new technique and many wells were reentered, sidetracked, and
the new hole was cavitated. We then learned that the coal was so weak that
entering it at a high-angle slant “J” configuration would not allow the hole
to support itself and the holes in those wells collapsed. This was corrected by
drilling “S” type wells and entering the coalbed with a vertical hole.
Horizontal type—formations with low permeability have limited ability to
flow reservoir fluids from the reservoir into the well-bore. In many of these
formations you can increase the recovery by drilling horizontally through the
formation and then opening the entire length of the lateral to the well-bore.

We choose to deviate from vertical wells for a number of reasons. We discussed

inaccessible surface locations and sidetracking earlier. We can also use one of these
general types of wells to access multiple bottom-hole target locations from a single
drilling location (i.e., multiwell pad or platform).

Control of directional wells has gotten so advanced in recent years that it is common
to be able to hit a target circle less than 1 ft (305 mm) in diameter from hundreds or
thousands of feet away. This control makes it possible for one well to intersect the
well-bore on another well from a considerable offset distance. For example in the
event of a blowout with damaged casing, you can drill a “relief well” to intersect the
damaged well to pump cement to kill the blowout.

> Read full chapter

Deepwater Well Design

Peter Aird, in Deepwater Drilling, 2019

STRESSCHECK Design Methodology

General
A deepwater well’s example is presented in this section to show the typical outputs
generated via a computer design tool as used for deepwater casing design and
analysis. The loads and methodology outlined are part of the STRESSCHECK design
package. Design criteria are to be risk based and realistic, i.e., using Maximum load
burst, collapse, and axial load conditions.

STRESSCHECK Design Method

The following approach is generally adopted for the design method:

1. Determine accurate and precise pore pressure, fracture gradient, and mud weight
plots. The plots are used in determining the casing seats and the pressures
used in the various burst, collapse, and axial load design cases.
2. Determine wellhead pressures using the methodology outlined in the section
on MAWP. For burst loading, the internal load is maximized and the external
backup load is minimized.
3. For collapse loading, the external load is maximized and the internal backup
load is minimized. The design line is the difference between the external and
internal loads (the actual load line or resultant load line) with the design factor
incorporated.
4. The external load for “burst” is pore pressure w/seawater and the external load
for “collapse” is fluid gradients w/pore pressure.
5. Load cases of the same type (burst or collapse) are then combined into one load line
of maximum load as a function of depth rather than each load case compared
on an individual basis.
6. Axial loading is based on the buoyant weight, abrupt deceleration of the pipe
while running some overpull, bending, and dogleg severity.

Load Cases, Safety, and Design Factors

Load Cases and Safety Factors

Load cases and corresponding design safety factors are the criteria used to judge
the suitability of a design. Dividing the pipe rating by a corresponding load delivers
a safety factor. If the safety factor is greater than the design factor, then the pipe
is acceptable for use for the load applied. The standard load cases as shown in the
following example represent an operator’s deepwater minimum standards design
basis. If design is based on other standards criteria, design must be checked against
the additional loads. If design is not met, management shall be advised of the
discrepancy in regards to operator’s normal practices with all engineering and
operational consequences then discussed.

Using sound judgment, weights, grades, and connections are selected from the
design results. The design consists of load cases applied using corresponding design
factors, which are compared to the pipe ratings.

Load cases are typically burst and collapse (drilling and production loads), and
axial (running cementing and servicing loads). Rather than compare each loads case
profile to the pipe rating on an individual basis, the approach is to combine load
cases of the same type in a load line of maximum load as a function of depth.
Design Factors

Design factors applied account for uncertainties in material properties and load
predictions that can result from inaccurate or insufficient well data and the well
type. The important aspects that have a direct effect on the key design factor values
are:

1. Selection of load cases and the assumptions used with load cases considered
(notably: limited kick data vs. a full displacement to gas, kick volumes, intensity
used, bending due to doglegs or shock loads, mud over gas, versus gas over mud,
etc.).
2. The assumptions used to calculate the pipe’s load resistance or rating (whether
a nominal or minimum wall section is used or yield stress is derated as a function
of temperature).
3. How wear and corrosion are then further considered within the design.

Historically design loads cases are selected based on two criteria: maximum loads
and ease of calculation. Should the standard case not consider all loads to be
experienced by the casing, factors are increased accordingly. In general, design
factors became accepted over time based on the limited number of failures asso-
ciated with their use. Should failures result the design basis is then examined with
design factors or load cases made more conservative to prevent future events. With
computing power now available more complex load scenarios are today far more
readily evaluated instead of relying on single case maximum load scenarios. Risk
calibrated design is now used to arrive at far safe yet economic design.

In order to make direct graphical comparisons between the load line and the pipe’s
rating line, the design factor must be considered:

Where:

– DF = design factor (the minimum acceptable safety factor).

– SF = safety factor.

– DF × (applied load) < pipe rating

By multiplying the load line by the DF, a direct comparison is made with the pipe
rating. As long as the pipe rating is greater or equal to the modified load line (or
design load line) the criteria applied are deemed satisfactory. Two other effects to
consider that may impact increasing the design load line are:

1. Reducing collapse strength due to tension (a biaxial effect). The load line is
increased as a function of depth by the ratio of the uniaxial collapse strength
to the reduced strength.
2. Derating material yield strength due to temperature. Like the effect of tension
on collapse, the load line is increased by the ratio of the standard rating to the
reduced rating.

After performing main casing design based on burst, collapse, and axial load
considerations, the detailed design assessment shall then address the issues of
connections, wear, and corrosion. Following these final design considerations and
depending on the criticality of the design, the final issues to review and consider
are:

1. Triaxial stresses due to combined loading such as ballooning and thermal

effects. This is also called service life analysis (life cycle).
2. Other temperature effects

3. Buckling.

Some further advanced deepwater casing design considerations are discussed in the
closure of this chapter.

STRESSCHECK Deepwater Worked Example

Examples of burst internal and external loads, net or differential burst loads and
burst design follow. One load case is selected to illustrate the methodology used
to determine the design line. When using multiple load cases, the load case which
dominates at a specific depth shall generally dictate the required design.

Graphs of Burst Load Cases

The pressure test load case is used to illustrate the methodology to determine
net/actual burst load (Figs. 9.17 and 9.18).

Fig. 9.17. Graphical burst load cases expressed as pressure profiles versus depth
(below the drill floor). Depth (ft)External Pressure (psi)Internal Pressure (Pore Pressure)855565-
0422582741850913811,490533013,45214,3148386
Fig. 9.18. Graphical illustration of differential burst loads.

The differential load (actual load line) is the difference between the internal and
external pressures (Fig. 9.19).

Fig. 9.19. Graphical illustration of burst design line.

Depth (ft) Differential Load (psi)

85 5565
4225 8274
9138 11,490
13,452 14,314

The design line is the actual (net) load multiplied by a 1.1 design factor. The burst
of the pipe to be selected must be greater than the design line to satisfy the design
(Fig. 9.19).
Fig. 9.20. Graph of burst design line.

Depth (ft) Actual Load Design Load

85 5565 6121
4225 6424 7066
9138 6160 6776
13,452 5928 6521

Graphs of Collapse Load Cases Expressed as Pressure Profiles

The API collapse strength calculations are convoluted and somewhat confusing.
The Collapse design is determined using the API calculations and the graphical
methodology used for burst. Using the Lost Returns with Mud Drop load, the load
cases to determine the collapse design line are outlined (Fig. 9.21).
Fig. 9.21. Graph of collapse loads expressed as pressure profiles.

Depth (ft) External Pressure (Fluid Gradi- Internal Pressure (Lost Returns
ents) (psi) w/Mud Drop
4225 2765 1867
9138 5981 5338
9138 5981 4747
13,452 8386 8386

The change in external pressure profile occurs at a casing seat or top of cement where
the pressure profile changes from fluid gradients to a pore pressure or a different
fluid gradient profile (Figs. 9.22 and 9.23).

Fig. 9.22. Graphical illustration of collapse differential loads. Depth (ft)Differential Load
(psi)422589891386439702− 59113,4520
Fig. 9.23. Graphical illustration of collapse load. Depth (ft)Load Line (psi)422510539138-
10879138− 14697023313,452699

The collapse load (actual load) is adjusted to consider the effects of internal pressure
on collapse resistance (Fig. 9.24).

Fig. 9.24. Graphical illustration of collapse design line.

The collapse design line is the actual load multiplied by a 1.0 design factor. The
design load line is adjusted to consider the effect of axial stress due to tension on
collapse. The collapse correction due to axial tension is made in the design line rather
than the pipe properties.

Graphs of Axial Loads (Fig. 9.25)

The axial service loads model the drilling and production loads, which occur after the
casing has been cemented. The initial conditions to determine the service load are
based on the cementing and landing conditions (Figs. 9.26 and 9.27).
Fig. 9.25. Graphical illustration of axial Loads. Depth (ft)Overpull (lbs)4225618,9259138-
379,77713,452100,000

Fig. 9.26. Graphical illustration of axial service loads.

Fig. 9.27. Graphical illustration of axial design loads.

 The design load line is the axial load considering the drilling and production burst
and collapse loads multiplied by the axial design factor 1.3 (Figs. 9.28 and 9.29).

Fig. 9.28. Graphical illustration of triaxial design checks.

Fig. 9.29. Graphical illustration of tri-axial design checks.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.