SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER · PDF fileAPI API D˜˜˜ A...
Transcript of SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER · PDF fileAPI API D˜˜˜ A...
SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIESis funded principally
through a grant of thethrough a grant of the
SPE FOUNDATIONThe Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the programby allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.
And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,p g gand Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
E���������� � P��������� T���������
���������� ������������ ���������
Recent Advances in Complex Well DesignRecent Advances in Complex Well Design
Phil Pattillo BP EPTG - HoustonPhil Pattillo, BP EPTG - Houston
Overview
• New loads and limitationsNew loads and limitations
− Thermal effects – annular pressure build-up
Designing with limited casing bore− Designing with limited casing bore
− Extreme landing tools
• Beyond “API designs”
− Probabilistic design considerations
− ISO 10400
3
Annular Pressure Build-up (APB)
Annular Pressure Buildup (APB)
• Origin of APB loadsOrigin of APB loads
• Mitigating APB
− Principles and solution categories
− Specific well construction tools
16 in. casing collapse from APB during circulation
5
The origin of APB
Mud LineMud Line
What do we do about 20"
16"this hydrocarbon bearing zone?
16
TOC?
6
APB depends on
• Mechanical and thermal properties of fluidMechanical and thermal properties of fluid
• Flexibility of the confining boundary
• Temperature increase• Temperature increase
Considering the fluid component,
⎥⎤
⎢⎡ 1
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡Δ−Δ=Δ p
CTVV
ffff
1α
7
Mitigating APB
Brute Force Container Flexibility• Thick-walled casing
Fluid Properties
y• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanismFluid Properties• Foam spacer
• Fluids with low psi/F
• Cement entire annulus
Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing• Cement entire annulus
Control the LoadV I l t d T bi (VIT)
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
A id t d t l• Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)
• Nitrogen blanket
• Gelled brine
• Avoid trapped pressures external to annulus
8
• Connection leak integrity
• Initial annulus pressure
Mitigating APB
Fluid PropertiesFluid Properties• Foam spacer
• Fluids with low psi/F
• Cement entire annulus
9
Mitigating APB
Container Flexibility• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
• Avoid trapped pressures t l t l
10
external to annulus
Mitigating APB
Container Flexibility• Vent the annulus
− Active path to surface
− Relief mechanism
− Formation fracture/TOC
− Rupture disks− Rupture disks
− Grooved casing
• Annulus communication
• Syntactic foam
• Avoid trapped pressures t l t l
11
external to annulus
Mitigating APB
Outer Tube
Inner Tube
Outer TubeOuter Tube
Inner Tube
Connection
Vacuum Annulus
Weld
ConnectionConnection
Vacuum AnnulusVacuum Annulus
Weld
80 90 100 110 120 130 140Temperature, Deg F
Tubing “A” AnnulusTubing “A” AnnulusTubing “A” Annulus
Control the Load• Vacuum Insulated Tubing
Nitrogen blanket
5100
5150
5200
5250
5300th, f
t.
GelledBrine 2
• Nitrogen blanket
• Gelled brine
• Connection leak integrity
5300
5350
5400
5450
5500
Mea
sure
d D
ept
GelledBrine 1
12
Co ect o ea teg ty
• Initial annulus pressure5550
5600
Mitigating APB – Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT)
Temperature, Deg F
5100
5150
80 90 100 110 120 130
Gelled Brine 2
5200
5250
5300pth,
ft.
Connection
Outer Tube
Inner Tube
ConnectionConnection
Outer TubeOuter Tube
Inner Tube
5300
5350
5400
easu
red
Dep
Vacuum Annulus
Weld
Vacuum AnnulusVacuum Annulus
Weld
5450
5500
5550
Me
Gelled Brine 1
Tubing “A” AnnulusTubing “A” AnnulusTubing “A” Annulus
13
5600
Designing within wellbore limitations
Deepwater HPHT wells, maintaining hole size
RISK
36"
• Geometric constraints
36"
22" (224.0 ppf X-8
28"
18" (117.0 ppf N-8
36"
22"(Surface Casing)
28"− Minimum → production tubulars,
SSSV
− Maximum → 18-3/4 in. bore18 (117.0 ppf N 8
16" (97.0 ppf P-11
DE
PTH
18", 16"(Drilling Liners)
• Possible solutions
− Riserless drilling
− Managed pressure drilling13-5/8" (88.20 pp
11-7/8" (71.80 pp
H
13-5/8" (Deep Protective Casing)
11-7/8" (Drilling Liners)
Managed pressure drilling
− Designer muds
− Revisit casing risk profile
9-7/8" (62.8 ppf C
7" (38.0 ppf C-110
9-7/8" (Production casing or tiebacks)
7"
− Probability x consequence
− Recovery
− Empirical validation
15
7" (Production Liners)
− Empirical validation
− Solid expandable liners
Maintaining hole size - example
• 8-1/2 in. hole on bottom
• Production tubulars with
36 ���
28 ���
22 ���
36 ���
28 ���
22 ���
18,000+ psi internal yield
• 5-1/2 in. tubing
18 ���
16 ���
18 ���
16 ���
T������
• 9-3/8 in. upper tieback drift (subsurface safety valve)
Cl t id ti b k
13�5�8 ���
11�7�8 ���
O SET�
13�3�4 ���
12�1�4 ���
• Clearance outside tieback for APB mitigation (syntactic foam)
9�7�8 ���10�3�4 ���
16
7 ���7 ���
Extreme landing loads
Landing strings and slip crushing
• Landing string static loadsLanding string static loads approaching 1.5 mm lbs
− Impulse load during trippingtripping
− Heave induced excitation
• Applicability of Reinhold-pp ySpiri
− To current systems?
T th li bl ?− To other slip problems?
18
Understanding slip systems
• Strain gauged samples indicateindicate
− Non-uniform loading
− Worst loading may be between inserts
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 100,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 300,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 500,000 lb
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 700,000 lb
A S����� M���� � � L��� L����
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
p L, l
b/in
NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x106 psiPOISSON'S RATIO = 0.3YIELD POINT = 100,000 psiWALL THICKNESS = 0.5 inMEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 900,000 lb
19
0
2000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1w0, in.
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 942,500 lb
Probabilistic design considerations
Detailed inspection data
21
Application – calculation of cross-sectional area
22
Application – detailed collapse prediction
• Line pipe samplesLine pipe samples
− X65, D/t 16-18+
• Detailed input
− Wall, diameter
− Axial, hoop σ-ε coupons
− Residual stress
• Full scale tests
− Pressure with bendingPressure with bending
− Collapse, propagation
• Excellent results (<3% no
23
(bending, 0-9% with bending)
Probabilistic advantage using rupture disks
• Disk pressures have tight,ABC
Disk pressures have tight, controlled tolerances (± 5% on rupture pressure)
• Contrast with 12 5% wall
Consider ifshoe plugs
• Contrast with 12.5% wall tolerance and 10-30 ksi tensile strength variation for casing body 7” Production Linercasing body
− Wide uncertainty of casing rupture and collapse pressures
7 Production LinerPipe Performance Uncertainty
MIY
P R
atin
g
9-7/
8" C
ollla
pse
Rat
ing
9-7/
8" H
igh
Col
laps
e R
atin
g
Pipe Performance Uncertainty
MIY
P R
atin
g
9-7/
8" C
ollla
pse
Rat
ing
9-7/
8" H
igh
Col
laps
e R
atin
g
API API
A�����D���
�collapse pressures
− Cannot count on outer string failing first
16" M 16" Barlow
16" Rupture
9-7/8" API Collapse
9-7/8" Tamano Collapse
16" M 16" Barlow
16" Rupture
9-7/8" API Collapse
9-7/8" Tamano CollapseC�������
B����
F�������
24
7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500
Pressure (psi)
7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500
Pressure (psi)P�������
ISO 10400 (New API 5C3)
Clause Subject Comments
1-5 Introduction, symbols
6 Triaxial yieldvon Mises yieldAxial yield, internal yield pressure as special casesas special cases
7 Ductile rupture All new
Collapse connections8-17 Collapse, connections, mass, elongation, etc. Identical to existing formulas
AnnexesDetails, derivations, performance property Probabilistic properties (from
25
Annexes performance property tables performance or production data)
Conclusions
• No lack of challenging problemsNo lack of challenging problems
− Continuing research on annular pressure mitigation
Rethinking old solutions− Rethinking old solutions
• Design stretch via probability
− Increasing support from standards
26