SPE 100749
The Drilling and Casing Running Enigma
C.J. Mason, SPE, BP Exploration, and D.C.-K. Chen, SPE, Halliburton Sperry Drilling Services
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Running casing in high angle and extended-reach wells is
often recognized as one of the most demanding of all well
construction operations. In such wells, frictional drag and
unexpected downhole mechanical resistance can exceed
available surface slack-off weight. The ability to reliably
predict casing running performance will significantly help to
reduce costs in challenging wells. Interestingly, a complex and
often subtle relationship exists between a drilled wellbore and
the subsequent casing run. This relationship is sometimes
predictable and at other times surprisingly different. A key to
resolving this enigma lies in understanding the many factors,
such as wellbore quality, that influence the outcome of casing
running operations. The paper reviews a number of topics that
are considered key to understanding the relationship between
drilling and casing running. Various results are illustrated
using case studies from field operations.
Introduction
The requirement to access hydrocarbon reserves in
environments that require ultra-extended reach wells will
continue to increase. Typical scenarios involve accessing
offshore reserves from nearby shore locations or satellite
fields considered just out of reach of existing platform
structures. Step-out records for extended-reach wells currently
exceed 10 km. Such noteworthy achievements are very likely
to be surpassed by some considerable margin during the next 5
to 10 years. Recent examples of ultra-reach wells include
several 10 km wells drilled off Sakhalin Island in Russia [1],
10 km record wells at the Wytch Farm oil field development
in Southern England [2] and also at the Austral field off Tierra
del Fuego in Argentina [3].
In the future, extended-reach developments will drive the
need for robust well designs and highly reliable technology to
ensure cost effectiveness. A particular feature of such well
designs will be the requirement to drill and case very long hole
sections. In this respect, one of the drivers for success will be
to understand the relationship between a drilled wellbore and
its companion casing run. Some aspects of this topic have
previously been investigated, where various guidelines and
methodologies have been developed [4], [5], and [6].
The disparity between a drilled wellbore considered
fit-for-purpose and a subsequent casing running failure is the
main theme of this paper. This so called enigma is explored
by dividing the paper into a number of focus areas. These
broadly encompass the topics entitled wellbore quality, hole
geometry and torque and drag (T&D) modelling. Each of
these is assessed for evidence that may help with
understanding factors that contribute to the enigma.
What is the Enigma?
During planning of an extended-reach or other challenging
well type, drilling and casing running operations are usually
reviewed using a wide ranging set of well design assumptions.
These may be based on offset well experience or might be
based on industry experience using publications such as SPE
papers. The validity of these assumptions should always be
closely examined, as they often play a fundamental role in
determining the outcome of a drilling or casing running
operation.
The drilling and casing running enigma arises from time to
time in varying circumstances. This is sometimes as a result of
using invalid assumptions, sometimes as a result of poor
knowledge transfer and occasionally as an event that has not
been observed before.
The enigma considered here is that a drilled wellbore is
considered fit-for-purpose for running casing. However for
some apparently unknown reason, casing fails to get to depth.
Usually casing running problems are attributed to a
geometrical anomaly such as a fault or ledge, wellbore
instability, poorly cleaned hole, time dependent effects or
mechanical equipment failure such as centralizers.
It is considered that the enigma is associated with more
fundamental causal effects. In part, this is related to the way in
which the drilling assembly and casing string exhibit different
behaviours when interacting with the wellbore. Part of the
explanation can be summarized into the following four major
issues:
2 SPE 100749
1. Wellbore Quality,
2. Drilling, Hole Preparation and Casing Running Practices
3. Well Design Geometry
4. Well Planning and Real-Time Data Interpretation.
1. Wellbore Quality
Wellbore quality is a term often used to discern the
character of the as-drilled wellbore. This term is often used,
rather confusingly, to represent a basket of different metrics.
This means that the expression wellbore quality has different
meanings for different people. The following sections discuss
key factors that have been shown to contribute to wellbore
quality:
1-1 Tortuosity and Hole Spiralling
The most common attributes associated with wellbore
quality are tortuosity and spiralling [7]; effects that are
primarily influenced by the BHA and bit design, but also by
performance of the directional driller. However wellbore
quality extends beyond this and should account for effects
such as residual cuttings bed, wellbore breakout, lost
circulation and ledging.
The benefits of a quality wellbore have previously been
documented [5]. Beyond this a methodology has been
proposed with the aim of quantifying wellbore quality based
on a scorecard method [6]. This approach relies on the review
of data trends and T&D data analysis to calculate a wellbore
quality score from drilling, tripping-out and casing running
operations.
A key lesson learned is that a wellbore deemed high
quality during drilling and tripping operations, does not
necessarily mean that casing will run easily to depth. This is
primarily due to the different ways in which the drillstring and
casing string interact with the wellbore. For example, a
spiralled wellbore may have little consequence for the
drillstring but may significantly impact drag during a casing
run. This difference can be attributed to reduced drift,
clearance and stiffness effects.
1-2 Mud System Design and Overbalance
The mud system used for casing running is based on the
fluid used to drill the section. The majority of extended-reach
wells use oil based or synthetic based muds. These offer the
advantage of good mud lubricity and also mitigate against
chemical induced wellbore instability.
Water based mud systems are also used in some parts of
the world to drill extended-reach wells [8], [9]. It is generally
accepted that such muds have lower levels of lubricity as
supported by laboratory experiments [10]. Intriguingly, field
experience has shown that lubricants added to water based
muds in certain combinations and concentrations, often yield
lower friction levels than oil based muds. This is certainly true
during rotary drilling operation, but effectiveness of lubricant
cocktails appears less effective for casing running operations.
Higher mud weights are commonly required to prevent
severe wellbore instability in high angle wells. This can have
both beneficial and detrimental effects. A higher mud weight
will tend to produce better hole quality in terms of minimizing
wellbore breakout; however the increased amount of
overbalance will increase the susceptibility to loss circulation
and differential sticking or static friction effects. Managing
these competing effects is a constant challenge for the drilling
team.
A case study from two extended-reach wells drilled in the
Caspian Sea is used to illustrate this point. In the first well, a
12¼” hole section inclined at 70° was been drilled with a
rotary steerable system to its target depth of 5,900m. An oil
based mud with a density of 1.53 SG had been used.
Dedicated clean-out and drift runs were carried out to provide
assurance that the planned casing would run to depth. The
upper section of the wellbore to 2,800m was known to be
broken out, but the lower section was considered to be in
better condition.
Figure 1 illustrates hookload data collected during the
casing run. In the upper section of the wellbore, the dynamic
open hole friction factor is calculated to be 0.40 but improves
to 0.30 in the lower section. From this and previous work, it is
suggested that the magnitude of the casing running open hole
friction factor is good indicator of wellbore quality. Strong
static friction effects can be observed after each connection. A
measure of static drag severity is to subtract the lowest
recorded static weight from the dynamic running weight and
divide by the exposed open hole length at a given depth. This
calculated number is referred to as the static drag quotient
(SDQ). In this case the SDQ is calculated to be 60 lbs/m. This
casing string eventually became differentially stuck 300m
from target depth, after a rig problem rendered the string static
for 9 minutes.
In the subsequent extended-reach well, a decision was
made to lower the tangent angle to 65° and raise the mud
weight to 1.63 SG. It was anticipated that this would help
offset any wellbore stability concerns. This well was drilled to
depth at 5,006m but suffered problems with severe loss
circulation after drilling into an unmapped fault. Losses were
eventually cured with LCM (Loss Circulation Material).
A drag plot for this 9-5/8” casing run is shown in Figure 2.
The overall open hole dynamic friction factor was calculated
to be 0.30, indicating an improvement in overall hole quality.
However the SDQ increased to 75 lbs/m; making this casing
run significantly more challenging than previously. This string
too became differentially stuck, about 700m short of target
depth. This occurred after the drawworks clutch failed causing
the string to be stationary for an extended period of time.
As this casing string was stuck significantly short of depth,
a 1,700m 7-5/8” flush liner was subsequently required to
secure the overburden section. Running this 7-5/8” liner to
depth required two attempts. Severe static friction effects were
also in evidence which required the liner to be torqued up to
overcome both axial and rotational static friction effects.
SPE 100749
The root cause of static friction as observed in these two
casing runs is not fully understood. However it is likely to be
due to a combination of differential sticking caused by the
presence of sands, residual sludge arising from the use LCM
and the use of uncentralized flush casing strings.
Time dependent wellbore deterioration may also be a
concern in certain environments. Understanding wellbore
deterioration effects with time should be part of the risk
assessment process. Examination of drag data or hole caliper
data during successive trips can provide evidence of hole
deterioration. If this is a major concern, one approach is to
drill an oversize hole to account for any loss of drift.
Mud or filter cake thickness is also influenced by mud type
as thicker filter cakes are often associated with the water-
based mud systems. The filter cake is not a particular concern
in isolation but its impact needs to be assessed in combination
with the amount of overbalance, presence of permeable
formations, hole angle and type of casing being run. The
impact of filter cake thickness becomes significant in limited
clearance situations where greater contact between the casing
and wellbore occurs. In such situations the likelihood for
differential sticking is increased. Mitigation against
differential sticking is the intensive use of centralizers to
increase stand-off between the casing and the wellbore.
In summary the enigma here is to understand whether the
mud design and level of overbalance has a significant impact
on casing running performance. The presence of static friction
trends may provide clues that these are causal effect for casing
running problems. Another clue is that static friction trends are
only seen when running casing and not when drilling or when
tripping the drillstring and BHA.
2. Drilling and Casing Practices and
2-1 Drilling Practices and Hole Preparation
Despite the use of good drilling practices, difficulties in
tripping out of hole are quite common with rotary steerable
systems, particularly 12¼” hole sections. This can sometimes
be related to insufficient junk slot area in the BHA (bottom
hole assembly) to bypass residual cuttings. Others are related
to the fact that hole cleaning was not effective, despite good
indicators. Overpulls during the trip-out of hole are most
likely due to the presence of an extensive cuttings bed.
It should be noted that annual pressure measurements are
fairly insensitive to a gradual cuttings bed build up in 12¼”
hole. The desired goal is to ensure that any remaining cuttings
bed is low and evenly spread. It is not possible to control this
to any extent, but the final trip-out of hole will be a good
indicator of cuttings build-up.
More recently, operators have experimented with larger
underreamed hole sizes to increase clearance when retrieving
drilling BHAs as well as running casing. Evidence to date
suggests that this approach is mostly cost effective and
successful. In many cases, performance improvements have
3
offset increases in hole cleaning complexity and risk of
underreamer tool failures.
Backreaming is sometimes used as a precautionary method
to maximise hole cleaning prior to running casing. Whilst
backreaming may improve hole cleaning, it has been shown to
create high lateral vibrations which can result in drillstring and
BHA component failures. Pack-offs may also occur if the
back-reaming is too aggressive.
One of the downsides with backreaming is that the
corresponding drillstring behaviour may mask any detectable
wellbore trouble spots that could contribute to casing running
problems. As an illustration of this, Figure 3 illustrates torque
and drag responses while backreaming out of a 12¼” section,
inclined at 45°. Smooth torque and hookload trend lines can be
seen, which could give false confidence that casing should run
easily to depth. Figure 4 illustrates hookload weights recorded
during the subsequent casing run. In this case ledges presented
a significant problem for the rig site team. Ledges could not
have been predicted from the backreaming data trends. This
example highlights the problem with backreaming, the
inability to identity potential areas of difficulty for the casing
run. To be fair, ledges might not have been identified if the
assembly had been tripped out; however there is a better
chance.
2-2 Casing Running Practices
Once the drilling assembly has been retrieved to surface,
the rig site team will normally run casing. Dedicated clean-out
runs are sometimes carried out for assurance purposes. As a
minimum, casing running drag analysis should be carried out
for all challenging wells. Surge analysis should also be carried
out to recommend a tripping schedule to avoid inducing mud
losses. Clear communication of these results should be made
to the rig site crew well in advance of any casing running
operations.
Contingency plans must be in place to manage events such
as rig equipment failures, severe weather, helicopter landings,
well control or other events that could interrupt the operation.
A particular risk is that the operation is shut down for an
extended period of time with casing in the open hole section.
In some cases the casing may be subjected to significant static
friction effects.
A decision tree should also be worked out in advance to
aid to the driller in the event that unplanned downhole
resistance is encountered. Reciprocation and circulation are
the main techniques available to the driller. Occasionally it is
possible to rotate and ream the string through troublesome
areas.
3. Well Design Geometry
This section is concerned with examining the topic of hole
and casing size selection; the influence of casing and
connection designs and the impact of centralization strategies.
4 SPE 100749
3-1 Hole and Casing Size Combinations
Understanding what hole size is needed for a given casing
size is an age old problem. In the past, conventional casing
and bit size selection has often precluded too much debate
around this topic. However with the evolution of more reliable
underreaming technologies the opportunity to explore
alternative hole sizes has become an option.
For example, there has been an increasing trend in drilling
12¼”x13½” sections for extended-reach wells. This is driven
by two key factors. First, tight trips are often seen when using
rotary steerable assemblies used in drilling 12¼” hole
sections. By increasing the hole size to 13½” considerably
more clearance is available to assist with efficient tripping of
the BHA. Another consideration is that ECDs will be slightly
lower in a 13½” hole, though this will be at the expense of a
slight increase in hole cleaning. Should backreaming be
required there is also a reduced risk of packing off with a
larger hole size. The other factor is that a larger hole size will
give more effective clearance between the casing and the
wellbore. This also means that any residual cuttings should
have less impact. Static friction effects may also decrease due
to the reduced curvature of the wellbore.
In order to illustrate the importance of understanding the
influence of hole size on casing running performance, an
example on running a large diameter casing in a North Sea
well is given as follows. A 21½” hole section was drilled and
underreamed using a big bore rotary steerable assembly. The
previous 26” casing shoe was at 360m and inclined at 19°.
Despite erratic performance of the rotary steerable system,
drilling continued to the target depth of 970m inclined at 31°.
Surveys indicated that some uncontrolled 5 (°/30m) doglegs
had been generated. The drilling team were also concerned
that the underreamer had produced a gauge 21½” hole. The
18-5/8” casing string was subsequently run, but ran out of
weight when working through a 5 (°/30m) dogleg at 720m.
Figure 5 illustrates hookload weights for this casing run.
Excessive slack-off and pick-up weights can be seen almost as
soon as the open hole section had been entered.
It was considered that the “out of gauge” 21½" hole with
5 (°/30m) doglegs (wellbore turning) may not have been
sufficiently large enough to allow the stiff 18-5/8" casing to
pass through. The forward plan included making a run with
two underreamers in tandem dressed to 21½” and then to
perform another run using an underreamer with roller cone
cutters to open the hole to 24”. The drag trend for the rerun
casing is illustrated in Figure 6. Here it can be seen that drag
is considerably improved allowing the casing to run to depth.
However excessive drag can still be seen beyond 720m.
Only by learning from field examples such as this will the
engineer correctly understand the link between casing size,
hole size, inclination, casing stiffness and tortuosity effects.
Unfortunately, current torque and drag software models are
woefully inadequate when it comes to realistically modelling
such configurations.
3-2 Casing and Connection Design
Understanding the influence of connection size on casing
running drag is quite subtle. Casing connections are usually
selected using requirements to satisfy tensile and compressive
loads, burst and collapse pressures, clearance requirements,
dogleg severity, torsional capacity and cost. However the
choice of connection to explicitly aid casing installation is not
normally part of these criteria.
The connection diameter or more importantly its offset
from the casing body may play an important role in casing
running drag. A large offset between the connection and the
pipe body will help provide stand-off for the casing. Should
the casing make substantial mid-body contact, static friction
effects can be anticipated.
Flush casing is normally chosen so that it can comfortably
pass through a close tolerance liner or casing. While in theory
this is a good idea, flush casing will be more susceptible to
differential sticking, just like a long length of drill collars
sometimes used in a BHA. A strong correlation exists between
uncentralized flush casing strings and strong static friction
effects. This effect has been observed in a significant number
of casing and liner runs.
Flush casing is sometimes selected in response to the need
for a contingency string in an extended-reach well. A common
scenario is when 13-3/8” casing has been set at depth. A long
12¼” section is planned and should hole problems occur a
11¾” drilling liner or casing will be deployed to secure the
hole at an intermediate depth. The use of an 11¾” string
means that flush connections are needed to allow it to pass
through the 13-3/8” casing. This also has a knock on effect in
that the 9-5/8” casing string also needs a flush connection to
pass through the 11¾” liner. If the 11¾” liner is not needed,
the flush 9-5/8” casing will still be run, as it will have been
purchased for the well. Another common combination
involves running flush 7-5/8” liner through 9-5/8” casing. This
is sometimes planned and sometimes as a contingency when
9-5/8” casing fails to get to depth. Some key learnings on the
use of flush casing strings have previously been recorded [12].
The following example illustrates the difference seen
between tripping a drilling assembly and running a flush
7-5/8” liner in a horizontal well. A 4,000ft 8½”x9-7/8” hole
section was drilled and underreamed with a rotary steerable
assembly. In this section the profile builds from 75° to 90°. A
7-5/8” intermediate liner is required and has to pass through
the previous 9-5/8” casing string. In Figure 7, hookload
results from a trip-out of hole with the clean-out assembly is
illustrated. A pill of friction reducing beads was also
circulated into the open hole section with this assembly to
assist with running of the 7-5/8” liner. The smooth tripping-
out drag trend plot suggests that the liner should run
comfortably to depth.
Figure 8 presents hookload data from the subsequent
7-5/8” liner run. The liner had flush connections and no
centralizers were installed. Here it can be seen that dynamic
drag inside the open hole section is much higher, giving cause
for concern. Differential sticking or static friction tendencies
SPE 100749
were also detected towards the end of the run. Due to tensile
limits of drillpipe, it was decided to set the liner early, rather
than risk a string failure. The factors that made the 7-5/8” liner
a challenging operation are due to the following factors:
• 7-5/8” liner run through 9-5/8” liner required a flush
connection design
• No centralizers were used to mitigate against static
friction tendencies
• The 4,255ft length of the 7-5/8” liner was outside the
envelope of experience for the development
• The degree of overbalance in the hole section was 900 psi
In summary, it is concluded that drag trends from a
tripping-out operation provide no guide to performance for the
subsequent liner run when flush connections are used.
3-3 Centralization Strategies
The intensive use of centralizers to aid casing installation
in challenging wells is a common practice. It is often
suggested, that centralizers help minimize casing running
problems. In terms of modelling, centralizers should add
considerable complexity to the system. This is due to the large
variety of centralizer types; choice of location and installation
frequency and the difficulty in measuring their net
contribution to casing running drag.
Centralization tends to be a fairly emotive subject – some
engineers absolutely believe additional centralization to aid
installation is essential whilst others consider it an
unnecessary expense. A strong case for additional
centralization can usually be made if abnormally pressured or
depleted sands are present. In such cases, centralization helps
mitigate differential sticking by improving stand-off.
Below are various issues concerning centralization
strategies:
Stiffness and Clearance effects - centralization will increase
the effective stiffness of the overall string. This is mainly a
concern for solid centralizers and wells with excessive
localized doglegs. Also if there is very limited clearance
between the centralizer outside diameter and the wellbore drift
there is the danger of casing becoming jammed in the hole.
Centralizer-Formation Interaction - it is usually assumed
that the formation has sufficient strength to support
transmitted loads from the casing via the centralizer-formation
contact. Centralizers can embed themselves into the formation
resulting in damage, loss of stand-off and in the worse case
stuck casing. In general, centralizer embedment is related to:
• Hole inclination, doglegs, ledging
• Formation type, strength and level of consolidation
• Centralizer type and performance
• Shape and contact surface area
• Sold and rigid centralizers contact formation in different
ways and with different contact area
• Other factors include mud type, mud cake, overbalance
5
Drag Reducing Centralizers – certain centralizer designs
offer the opportunity to reduce mechanical frictional drag in
high angle wells. For example, roller centralizers have a
proven track record of reducing friction between casing
strings, i.e. whenever metal-to-metal contact occurs. Typically
friction factor reductions of between 50 and 70% can be
realized. Their performance in open hole however is less
certain. Also the roller size plays an important role in their
effectiveness. Use of materials such as Teflon integrated with
solid centralizers and also some other composites have shown
promise in reducing casing running drag. In order to
understand the effectiveness of such devices, it is vital that
good quality data is captured and analysed. Detailed feedback
to service providers is vital in progressing centralizer
improvements.
Bow Spring Centralizers – well designs that utilize
underreamed hole section often require the use of bow spring
centralizers or subs to maximize stand-off inside open hole.
Bow springs are also sometimes selected when cementing
success is a high priority for the well. The bows of the
centralizer are compressed inside the previous casing string,
resulting in higher drag, and relax once they enter the larger
open hole section. Starting, running and restoring forces are
used to characterize the performance of a bow spring sub.
There are few software packages that can reliably predict this
additional level of drag [14]. Most T&D models can be readily
adapted to accommodate a bow spring centralizer model.
Failure to account for this increased level of drag may result in
failure to get casing to depth or result in some other
operational failure.
Mechanical failures – there are unfortunately a significant
number of recorded incidents where centralizers have ended
up as junk in hole. It is all too easy to underestimate the large
downhole forces that can be generated during a casing run,
especially when mechanical resistance is encountered. Stop
collar slippage, often observed upon retrieval of casing strings
is also a common problem. Missing centralizers from
recovered casing strings also occur from time to time. The
enigma here is in understanding the net impact of a
centralization strategy. Centralizer type (e.g. solid or bow
spring), placement and installation frequency are variables that
need to be understood. The impact of stiffness, clearance and
tortuosity on a centralized string is largely unknown and
operational experience is currently used to gauge what works
and what does not.
In summary, it is clear that the casing / hole size
combination relationship is not that well understood. In many
cases it is likely that the drilled hole size is larger than what is
needed to install casing. The large variety of connection types
and sizes make this issue more difficult to understand.
Centralizer type, installation location and frequency make this
subject matter even more complex. Furthermore current toque
and drag models do not account for the net impact of
centralizers in a realistic way.
6 SPE 100749
4. Well Planning and Real-Time Data Interpretation
4-1 Torque and Drag Modelling
When planning drilling and casing running operations,
often there is a degree of uncertainty concerning friction
factors and what values should be used in the torque and drag
modelling. A seasoned modeller will usually have a good feel
for this. However, the occasional or novice modeller should be
aware of a number of pitfalls. These often arise from a lack of
knowledge of the underlying mathematical models and more
specifically their limitations.
A common mistake is that friction factors calculated from
the drilling phase are used for the ensuing casing run. It should
be noted that casing running friction factors tend to be
“significantly” higher. In Table 1 below, examples from
various areas of the world are used to illustrate this point.
Another observation also noted in [8], [9], is that casing
running friction factors are not significantly impacted by the
mud type.
Region Mud 12¼” Drilling 9-5/8”Casing
System Open Hole FFs Open Hole FFs
North Sea OBM 0.10 – 0.20 0.25 – 0.40
Caspian OBM 0.20 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.50
Alaska WBM 0.15 – 0.25 0.30 – 0.40
Table 1: Drilling and Casing Running Friction Factors
Explanations as to why friction factors vary significantly
between drilling and casing running operations is an area for
further study. This difference can be explained, in part, by
understanding the limitations of the underlying mathematical
model. Additionally, differences in string geometry and their
trajectory within the wellbore are contributing factors.
Industry understanding of this difference is not documented
and only by observation of higher friction factors during
casing running can it be deduced that that there is a significant
effect.
Another complexity is the impact of centralization on
casing running drag. Whilst centralizers may help ease casing
running through cuttings beds and improve stand-off in
permeable sands, the effective stiffness of the string will
increase. If stiffness is indeed a significant factor during
casing running, then elevated drag should be observed when
running through areas with high doglegs.
Various downhole mechanical effects can seriously impact
running weights. These include presence of cuttings beds,
sloughing shales, swelling clays, unstable formations, key
seats, ledges, stringers and hole spiralling. These effects
should not be lumped into the drag model resulting in
excessive friction factors.
In terms of the drilling and casing running enigma, it is
important that the engineer knows the limitations of the torque
and drag software being used. It is common for user
expectations to exceed the capability of the software.
4-2 Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation
By manually reviewing data from a number of drilling and
casing running operations, it is clear that what might appear as
unexpected events during a casing run, could have been
predicted if engineering software was improved and if time
was invested in correctly interpreting information and data.
One of the breakthrough areas which can aid industry’s
understanding of drilling and casing running performance is
comprehensive data collection, analysis, interpretation and
visualization. In particular this requires acquiring data at a
high enough frequency to characterize events of interest.
Automation of these processes will greatly help remove
inefficiencies and lost value that currently exists.
Currently the most reliable data source is via surface
logging systems. These systems have the capability to store
data at frequencies of one second or better. However
safeguards need to be implemented to ensure sensors are
calibrated and do not drift with time. Experience of manually
analyzing data from such systems has highlighted the highly
dynamic nature of casing running and the need to consider this
effect during the planning process.
Summary and Conclusions
1. The drilling and casing running enigma is a term used to
identify situations when casing running problems occur
which appear contrary to hole conditions experienced
during drilling. A complex and often subtle relationship
exists between a drilled wellbore and the subsequent
casing run. Only by keeping meticulous details of
drilling and casing running operations, will progress start
to be made in understanding the key drivers.
2. Comprehensive data collection, precise analysis
techniques and expert interpretation of casing running
information will pay dividends in terms of understanding
wellbore quality issues and in preventing future casing
running failures. Automation of this process is highly
desirable. In addition to record keeping, fundamental
scientific research is needed to augment the existing
knowledge based on drilling and casing running. The
collection of cases studies, such as those presented in this
paper should form the basis for further study.
3. Torque and drag models used for planning extended-
reach and other challenging wells usually only provide a
guideline for performance. There is another level of
detail, often related to dynamics that should also be
factored into the planning process. Realistic friction
factors must be used when planning casing running
operations. Failure to do so may result in the casing not
reaching depth due to excessive drag. Also too much
conservatism can drive the use of a non-conventional
running technique that could increase the risk of failure.
SPE 100749
4. Contingency designs that utilize drilling liners or casing
strings can result in a higher overall well construction
risk. This is usually related to the need for close
tolerance flush casing strings; underreaming technologies
and additional tooling needed for smaller hole sizes.
Through field experience, there appears to be an
increased risk of casing running failure when running
long flush casing strings in high angle wells. This
observation should be taken into account, by those
working on Solid Expandable Technology (SET).
5. Ultimately the need to run significantly longer casing
strings in wells with departures in excess of 15km will be
required. By combining the effects of high lubricity
muds, partial flotation, top drive compression and string
rotation, phenomenal casing running depths can
theoretically be achieved. The ability to accurately
predict casing running loads in these extreme-reach wells
is critical to future progress.
6. Knowledge management with proactive sharing of
lessons learnt will help minimize the number of casing
running failures. Only by identifying common situations
that result in the drilling and casing running enigma will
the industry make improvements in well planning and
construction.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration and Halliburton
Energy Services for their support and permission to publish
this paper.
References
1. Viktorin, R.A. , McDermott, J.R., Rush Jr., R.E., and Schamp,
J.H., “The Next Generation of Sakhalin Extended-Reach
Drilling”, IADC/SPE 99131, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Miami, Florida, USA, 21-23 February 2006.
2. Meader, T., Allen, F. and Riley, G., “To the Limit and Beyond -
The Secret of World-Class Extended-Reach Drilling Performance
at Wytch Farm”, IADC/SPE 59204, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 23-25 February
2000.
7
3. Naegel, M., Pradie, E., Beffa, K., Ricaud, J., Delahaye, T.,
“Extended Reach Drilling at the Uttermost Part of the Earth”,
SPE 48944, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27-30 September 1998.
4. Mason, C.J. and Chen, D. C-K., “Drilling Metrics for Improved
Casing Running Performance”, SPE 89912, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
26-29 Sep 2004.
5. Mason, C.J. and Chen D. C-K., “The Perfect Wellbore”, SPE
95279, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA,
9-12 Oct 2005.
6. Mason, C.J. and Chen, D. C-K., “The Wellbore Quality
Scorecard (WQS)”, IADC/SPE 98893, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 21-23 February 2006.
7. Pastusek, P. and Brackin, V., “A Model for Borehole
Oscillations”, SPE 84448, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8 October 2003.
8. Green, M. D., Thomesen, C. R., Wolfson, L. and Bern, P.A., “An
Integrated Solution of Extended-Reach Drilling Problems in the
Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part II- Hydraulics, Cuttings Transport and
PWD”, SPE 56564, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 October 1999.
9. Krieger, A.G., Kidd, G.N., and Cocking D.A., “Northstar Drilling
- Delivering the First Arctic Offshore Development”, Journal
SPE Drilling & Completion, Issue Volume 18, Number 2, June.
Pages 188-193, 2003.
10. Aston, M.S., Hearn, P.J. and McGhee, G, “Techniques for
Solving Torque and Drag Problems in Today's Drilling
Environment”, SPE 48939, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27-30 September
1998.
11. Lukas, A., Lonergan, S. and MacDonald, D., “The practicality of
drilling very long pipelines under hazardous terrain – 5km,
10km?”, International Conference on Terrain and Geohazard
Challenges Facing Onshore Oil and Gas Pipelines, London, UK,
2-4 June 2004.
12. Kinzel, H., “Centralizers Help Reduce Stuck Casing, Liners”,
Petroleum Engineer International, April 1994.
13. Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., Burgess, T., “Designing Well Paths
To Reduce Drag and Torque”, SPE 15463, Journal SPE Drilling
Engineering, Pages 344-350, December, 1987.
14. Rezmer-Cooper, I., Chau, M., Hendricks, A., Woodfine, M.,
Stacey, B. and Downton, N., “Field Data Supports the Use of
Stiffness and Tortuosity in Solving Complex Well Design
Problems”, SPE/IADC 52819, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9-11 March 1999.
8 SPE 100749

1,000
13-3/8" Shoe
@ 1,373m
900
Hookload
Static Friction Trend
800 Mud Type: SOBM
Pick-Up: FF=0.20/0.40
Weight = 1.53 SG
Slack-Off: FF=0.30/0.30
PV = 44 cP
700 Slack-Off: FF=0.30/0.40
YP = 17 lbf/100ft²
SDQ = 60 lbs/m
Hookload (klbs)

600

500

400

300

200

100

Travelling Block Weight = 60 klbs

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 1 – 9-5/8” Casing Run (l.53 SG mud weight; 70° well, SDQ = 60 lbs/m modest static friction)
SPE 100749 9

1,000

900 Mud Type: SOBM 13-3/8" Shoe

Weight = 1.63 SG @ 1,377m
PV = 25 cP
800
YP = 17 lbf/100ft²

700
Hookload
Pick-Up: FF=0.20/0.40
Hookload (klbs)

600
Slack-Off: FF=0.30/0.30
Static Up Drag
500 Static Down Drag
SDQ = 75 lbs/m

400

300

200

100

Travelling Block Weight = 60 klbs

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 2 –9-5/8” Casing Run (l.63 SG mud weight; 65° well, SDQ = 75 lbs/m high static friction)

500 50
Hookload (klbs)

400 45

300 40

200 35

100 30

0 25
Surface Torque (kft.lb)

-100 20

Hookload
-200 15
Torque

-300 10

-400 5

-500 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 3 – Backreaming 12¼” Assembly: T&D trends prior to Casing Run

10 SPE 100749

800
Mud Type: SOBM 13-3/8" Shoe 12¼" TD
Weight = 1.52 SG @ 1,225m @ 3,782m

700 PV = 32 cP
Possible Ledges not detected
YP = 18 lbf/100ft²
during Backreaming

600

Hookload
500
Hookload (klbs)

Pick-Up: FF=0.20/0.30
Slack-Off: FF=0.20/0.30

400

300

200

100

Travelling Block Weight = 50 klbs

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 4 – Subsequent 9-5/8” Casing Run (ledging problems not seen when backreaming)
SPE 100749 11

500 20
26" Shoe
@ 361.7 m
450 18

400 16

Slack-Off: FF=0.10/0.12
350 14

Dogleg Severity (°/30m)

Pick-Up: FF=0.10/0.12
1st Run - Pick-Up Weight
Hookload (klbs)

300 12
1st Run - Slack-Off Weight

250 Dogleg : deg/30m 10

200 8

150 6

100 4

Traveling Block Weight = 85 klbs

50 2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 5 – Run 18-5/8” Casing in 21½” Hole with 5 (°/30m) Doglegs

500 20
26" Shoe
@ 361.7 m
450 18

400 16

Slack-Off: FF=0.10/0.12
350 Pick-Up: FF=0.10/0.12 14

Dogleg Severity (°/30m)

1st Run - Pick-Up Weight
1st Run - Slack-Off Weight
Hookload (klbs)

300 12
2nd Run - Pick-Up Weight
2nd Run - Slack-Off Weight
250 Dogleg : deg/30m 10

200 8

150 6

100 4

Traveling Block Weight = 85 klbs

50 2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Measured Depth (m)

Figure 6 – Run 18-5/8” Casing in 24” Hole with 5 (°/30m) Doglegs

12 SPE 100749

250
KOP @
9,423ft

Mud Type: SOBM

Weight = 1.37 SG Hookload
200 PV = 36 cP Pick-Up: FF=0.15/0.15
YP = 26 lbf/100ft²
Hookload (klbs)

150

100

50 Travelling Block Weight = 65 klbs

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Measured Depth (ft)

Figure 7 – Trip-Out 12¼” Cleanout Assembly prior to 7-5/8” Liner Run

500
9-5/8" Window 8½"x9-7/8"
Mud Type: SOBM @ 9,423ft TD @ 13,475ft
450
Weight = 1.38 SG
PV = 38 cP
400 YP = 26 lbf/00ft²

350 Pick-Up: Recorded

Slack-Off: Recorded
Hookload (klbs)

300 Hookload: Muddloggers

Pick-Up: FF=0.20/0.40
Off-Bottom Rotating
250
Slack-Off: FF=0.25/0.55

200

150

100

50
Travelling Block Weight = 65 klbs

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Measured Depth (ft)

Figure 8 – Run Flush 7-5/8” Liner in 75-90° High Angle Well