Recent Advances in Complex Well Design

7/31/2019 Recent Advances in Complex Well Design

1/26

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIESis funded principally

through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION

The Society gratefully acknowledgesthose companies that support the program

by allowing their professionalsto participate as Lecturers.

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.


2/26


3/26


4/26

Annular Pressure Build-up (APB)


5/26

5

Annular Pressure Buildup (APB)

Origin of APB loads

Mitigating APB

Principles and solution categories

Specific well construction tools

16 in. casing collapse from APBduring circulation


6/26

6

The origin of APB

What do we do aboutthis hydrocarbon

bearing zone?

20"

16"

Mud Line

TOC?


7/267

APB depends on

Mechanical and thermal properties of fluid

Flexibility of the confining boundary

Temperature increase

Considering the fluid component,

pC

TVVf

fff1


8/268

Mitigating APB

Brute Force

Thick-walled casing

Fluid Properties

Foam spacer

Fluids with low psi/F

Cement entire annulus

Control the Load

Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)

Nitrogen blanket

Gelled brine

Connection leak integrity

Initial annulus pressure

Container Flexibility

Vent the annulus

Active path to surface

Relief mechanism

Formation fracture/TOC

Rupture disks

Grooved casing

Annulus communication

Syntactic foam

Avoid trapped pressures externalto annulus


9/269

Mitigating APB

Fluid Properties

Foam spacer

Fluids with lowpsi/F

Cement entireannulus


10/2610

Mitigating APB


Vent the annulus


Relief mechanism


Rupture disks

Grooved casing

Annulus communication Syntactic foam

Avoid trapped pressuresexternal to annulus


11/2611


Vent the annulus


Relief mechanism


Rupture disks

Grooved casing

Annulus communication Syntactic foam

Avoid trapped pressuresexternal to annulus

Mitigating APB


12/2612

Mitigating APB

Control the Load

Vacuum Insulated Tubing

Nitrogen blanket

Gelled brine

Connection leak integrity

Initial annulus pressure

5100

5150

5200

5250

5300

5350

5400

5450

5500

5550

5600

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Temperature, Deg F

MeasuredDepth

,ft.

Gelled

Brine 2

Gelled

Brine 1

Connection

Outer Tube

Inner Tube

Vacuum Annulus

Tubing A Annulus

Weld

ConnectionConnection

Outer TubeOuter Tube

Inner Tube

Vacuum AnnulusVacuum Annulus

Tubing A AnnulusTubing A Annulus

Weld


13/2613

5100

5150

52005250

5300

5350

5400

5450

5500

5550

5600

80 90 100 110 120 130

Temperature, Deg F

Mea

suredDepth,

ft.

Gelled Brine 1

Gelled Brine 2

Mitigating APB Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)

Connection

Outer Tube

Inner Tube

Vacuum Annulus

Tubing A Annulus

Weld

ConnectionConnection

Outer TubeOuter Tube

Inner Tube

Vacuum AnnulusVacuum Annulus

Tubing A AnnulusTubing A Annulus

Weld


14/26

Designing within wellbore limitations


15/2615

36"

22" (224.0 ppf X-

13-5/8" (88.20 p

9-7/8" (62.8 ppf

7" (38.0 ppf C-110

28"

11-7/8" (71.80 p

18" (117.0 ppf N-

16" (97.0 ppf P-11

RISK

DEPTH

36"

22"(Surface Casing)

13-5/8"(Deep Protective Casing)

9-7/8"(Production casing or tiebacks)

7"(Production Liners)

28"

11-7/8"(Drilling Liners)

18", 16"(Drilling Liners)

Deepwater HPHT wells, maintaining hole size

Geometric constraints

Minimum production tubulars,SSSV

Maximum 18-3/4 in. bore

Possible solutions

Riserless drilling

Managed pressure drilling

Designer muds

Revisit casing risk profile

Probability x consequence

Recovery

Empirical validation

Solid expandable liners


16/2616

Maintaining hole size - example

8-1/2 in. hole on bottom

Production tubulars with18,000+ psi internal yield

5-1/2 in. tubing

9-3/8 in. upper tieback drift(subsurface safety valve)

Clearance outside tiebackfor APB mitigation (syntacticfoam)


17/26

Extreme landing loads


18/2618

Landing strings and slip crushing

Landing string static loadsapproaching 1.5 mm lbs

Impulse load duringtripping

Heave induced excitation

Applicability of Reinhold-Spiri

To current systems?

To other slip problems?


19/26

19

Understanding slip systems

Strain gauged samplesindicate

Non-uniform loading

Worst loading may bebetween inserts

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

w0, in.

pL,

lb/in

NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3

YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x106 psiPOISSON'S RATIO = 0.3

YIELD POINT = 100,000 psiWALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in

MEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 100,000 lb




AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 942,500 lb



20/26

Probabilistic design considerations


21/26

21

Detailed inspection data


22/26

22

Application calculation of cross-sectional area


23/26

23

Application detailed collapse prediction

Line pipe samples

X65, D/t 16-18+

Detailed input

Wall, diameter Axial, hoop s-e coupons

Residual stress

Full scale tests

Pressure with bending

Collapse, propagation

Excellent results (


24/26

24

Probabilistic advantage using rupture disks

Disk pressures have tight,controlled tolerances ( 5%on rupture pressure)

Contrast with 12.5% wall

tolerance and 10-30 ksitensile strength variation forcasing body

Wide uncertainty ofcasing rupture and

collapse pressures

Cannot count on outerstring failing first

7 Production Liner

Consider ifshoe plugs

ABC

Pipe Performance Uncertainty

16"MIYPRatin

9-7/8"Colllapse

Rating

9-7/8"High

CollapseRating

7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500

Pressure (psi)

16" Barlow

16" Rupture

9-7/8" API Collapse

9-7/8" Tamano Collapse

Pipe Performance Uncertainty

16"MIYPRatin

9-7/8"Colllapse

Rating

9-7/8"High

CollapseRating

7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500

Pressure (psi)

16" Barlow

16" Rupture

9-7/8" API Collapse

9-7/8" Tamano Collapse


25/26

25

ISO 10400 (New API 5C3)

Clause Subject Comments

1-5 Introduction, symbols

6 Triaxial yieldvon Mises yield

Axial yield, internal yield pressure

7 Ductile rupture All new

8-17Collapse, connections,

elongation, etc.

Identical to existing formulas

AnnexesDetails, derivations,property tables

Probabilistic properties (fromproduction data)


26/26

Conclusions

No lack of challenging problems

Continuing research on annular pressure mitigation

Rethinking old solutions

Design stretch via probability

Increasing support from standards

Recent Advances in Complex Well Design

Documents

Transcript of Recent Advances in Complex Well Design