SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES is funded principally SPE FOUNDATION

Transcription

1 SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES is funded principally through a grant of the SPE FOUNDATION The Society gratefully acknowledges those companies that support the program by allowing their professionals to participate as Lecturers. And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, p g g and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.

2 E P T Recent Advances in Complex Well Design Phil Pattillo, BP EPTG - Houston

3 Overview New loads and limitations Thermal effects annular pressure build-up Designing with limited casing bore Extreme landing tools Beyond API designs Probabilistic design considerations ISO

4 Annular Pressure Build-up (APB)

5 Annular Pressure Buildup (APB) Origin of APB loads Mitigating APB Principles and solution categories Specific well construction tools 16 in. casing collapse from APB during circulation 5

6 The origin of APB Mud Line What do we do about this hydrocarbon bearing zone? 20" 16" TOC? 6

7 APB depends on Mechanical and thermal properties of fluid Flexibility of the confining boundary Temperature increase Considering the fluid component, ΔV f = V f 1 α f ΔT C f Δp 7

8 8 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 external to annulus

9 Mitigating APB Fluid Properties Foam spacer Fluids with low psi/f Cement entire annulus 9

10 01 Mitigating APB 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 external to annulus

11 1 Mitigating APB 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 external to annulus

12 21 Mitigating APB Outer Tube Inner Tube Connection Weld Vacuum Annulus Tubing A Annulus Control the Load Vacuum Insulated Tubing Nitrogen blanket Gelled brine Connection o leak integrity ty Initial annulus pressure th, ft. Measured Dept Temperature, Deg F Gelled Brine 2 Gelled Brine 1

13 31 Mitigating APB Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT) 5100 Temperature, Deg F Gelled Brine 2 Me easured Dep pth, ft Weld Outer Tube Inner Tube Connection Vacuum Annulus Tubing A Annulus Gelled Brine 1

14 Designing within wellbore limitations

15 51 Deepwater HPHT wells, maintaining hole size Geometric constraints RISK Minimum production tubulars, SSSV 36" 28" 36" 28" Maximum 18-3/4 in. bore Possible solutions 18", 16" (Drilling Liners) 22" (Surface Casing) 22" (224.0 ppf X-8 18" (117.0 ppf N-8 Riserless drilling 16" (97.0 ppf P-11 Managed pressure drilling Designer muds Revisit casing risk profile DEPTH 11-7/8" (Drilling Liners) 13-5/8" (Deep Protective Casing) 13-5/8" (88.20 pp 11-7/8" (71.80 pp Probability x consequence Recovery Empirical validation 7" (Production Liners) 9-7/8" (Production casing or tiebacks) 9-7/8" (62.8 ppf C 7" (38.0 ppf C-110 Solid expandable liners

16 61 Maintaining hole size - example 8-1/2 in. hole on bottom Production tubulars with 18,000+ psi internal yield 5-1/2 in. tubing 9-3/8 in. upper tieback drift (subsurface safety valve) Clearance outside tieback for APB mitigation (syntactic foam) T 16 O SET

17 Extreme landing loads

18 Landing strings and slip crushing Landing string static loads approaching 1.5 mm lbs Impulse load during tripping Heave induced excitation Applicability of Reinhold- Spiri To current systems? To other slip problems? 81

19 91 Understanding slip systems Strain gauged samples indicate Non-uniform loading Worst loading may be between inserts p L, lb/in A S M L L AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 100,000 lb AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 300,000 lb AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 900,000 lb AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 500,000 lb AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 700,000 lb NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3 YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 6 psi POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3 YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi WALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in MEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH p L = 0) = 942,500 lb w 0, in.

20 Probabilistic design considerations

21 Detailed inspection data 12

22 Application calculation of cross-sectional area 2

23 32 Application detailed collapse prediction Line pipe samples X65, D/t Detailed input Wall, diameter Axial, hoop σ-ε coupons Residual stress Full scale tests Pressure with bending Collapse, propagation Excellent results (<3% no bending, 0-9% with bending)

24 42 Probabilistic advantage using rupture disks Disk pressures have tight, controlled tolerances (± 5% on rupture pressure) Contrast with 12.5% wall tolerance and ksi tensile strength variation for casing body Wide uncertainty of casing rupture and collapse pressures Cannot count on outer string failing first F 16" MIYP Rating C B 7 Production Liner Pipe Performance Uncertainty API API D 9-7/8" Colllapse Rating A 9-7/8" High Collapse Rating A Consider if shoe plugs 16" B Barlow 16" Rupture 9-7/8" C API Collapse 9-7/8" Tamano Collapse 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 P Pressure (psi)

25 52 ISO (New API 5C3) Clause Subject Comments 1-5 Introduction, symbols 6 Triaxial yield von Mises yield Axial yield, internal yield pressure as special cases 7 Ductile rupture All new 8-17 Annexes Collapse, connections, mass, elongation, etc. Details, derivations, performance property tables Identical to existing formulas Probabilistic properties (from performance or production data)

26 Conclusions No lack of challenging problems Continuing research on annular pressure mitigation Rethinking old solutions Design stretch via probability Increasing support from standards 62