SPE 97565

Designer Casing for Deepwater HPHT Wells

Richard A. Miller, SPE, Viking Engineering; Michael L. Payne, SPE, BP; and Peter Erpelding, SPE, Viking Engineering
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Applied Technology Workshop on
High Pressure / High Temperature Sour Well Design held in The Woodlands, TX, U.S.A., 17
19 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Deepwater high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) drilling
environments present difficult challenges to well engineers.
Typical deepwater pore pressure and fracture gradient profiles
result in a narrow drilling window that can lead to seven to
nine casing points. The high cost of these wells demands a
high rate completion for economic payback, which defines the
size of the production casing and liners. Drilling casings are
restricted by the standardized 18-3/4 through bore diameter
dictated by high pressure wellhead housings, blowout
preventers, and riser systems. Furthermore, high pressures
require thick wall casing, especially if sour service materials
are specified. Satisfying all of these pressure and geometrical
constraints requires some unconventional practices.
Current and emerging technologies offer several ways to
address this design dilemma. Riser-less drilling can be an
effective way to delay running the high pressure wellhead,
allowing for additional large diameter casing seats. Dual
gradient drilling is a concept that can decrease the number of
required casing points. Solid expandable liners provide a way
to add or push casing points without the geometry impact of a
conventional string. Managed pressure drilling may also show
promise for eliminating a seat. However, heavy reliance on
these new technologies may run counter to the guiding
principle of keeping HPHT wells as simple and reliable as
possible.
This paper presents the concept of using conventional oil
country tubular goods (OCTG) in unconventional sizes to
increase the number of available casing points in deepwater
wells. The method has several advantages in the areas of
performance and reliability compared with the previously
listed technologies. The decades of industry experience with
conventional OCTG make the technology especially
appropriate for containing high pressures and sealing off
trouble formations.

Related issues such as manufacturing lead time, costs,

connections, and hangers are discussed. Several HPHT
examples are included to illustrate the trade-offs with other
design options.
Introduction
Typical Gulf of Mexico deepwater exploration wells have the
following design constraints:
7 9 casing seats
An 8-1/2 minimum hole size at TD
An 18-3/4 wellhead bore
Some prospects are further complicated by having more than 9
casing points. Also, many completion engineers would argue
that an 8-1/2 hole is a bare minimum.
A representative schematic is shown in Figure 1. The
schematic includes two sour service C-110 production liners
and provisions for a production tieback. However, designing
these production tubulars becomes a non-trivial task as
pressures and temperatures increase.
For example, the 9-7/8 production liner has an API
minimum internal yield pressure (MIYP) of 12,180 psi. A
casing of the same outside diameter and sour service C-110
material but a nominal 15,000 psi rating requires a nominal
wall thickness of 0.770, resulting in a drift diameter of
8.179. This adversely impacts the subsequent bottom hole
size and the lower completion. This thick wall 9-7/8 can be
used for a production tieback at the expense of tubing and
safety valve size. The top portion of the tieback is commonly
telescoped larger to accommodate the safety valve and bypass
lines, but a 10-3/4 C-110 casing with a 15,000 psi MIYP has
a drift diameter less than 9.
If field economics require a high rate 5-1/2 or larger
tubing completion, then the well could be built from the inside
out. The 9-7/8 production liner grows to 10-3/4 and the
tieback has 11-3/4 casing at the top. However, these
production tubulars do not easily fit inside the drilling casings
of Figure 1. The drilling casing could also increase in
diameter, but eventually the strings become too large to fit
inside a standard 18-3/4 wellhead and blowout preventer.
Further complications arise if the drilling casings have
inadequate pressure ratings. Tight clearances afford little
room to increase wall thickness.
Finally, the standard wellbore does not include a
conventional contingency seat to combat adverse hole
conditions or to address stability issues in a highly deviated
development wellbore.
The standard casing program of Figure 1 has
accommodated deepwater Gulf of Mexico exploration for

Designer Casing for Deepwater HPHT Wells

many years. It has become apparent that a non-standard

approach is required to develop some of the deepwater HPHT
targets.
Enabling Technologies
Several developing technologies may enable solutions to the
deepwater HPHT design challenge. These options are briefly
mentioned to highlight opportunities and challenges, not to
provide an exhaustive review of status or viability.
Solid Expandable Liners. A vast number of papers have
publicized the development of expandable casing.1,2,3 The
promise of gaining a casing seat without dropping hole size
has encouraged a rapid acceptance of the technology. The
growing experience base has led to a better understanding of
how to use these products and improve job reliability.
Expandables could significantly ease the deepwater HPHT
design challenge by providing more clearance for
conventional OCTG strings. However, several lingering
obstacles prevent expandables from becoming the clear
alternative for deepwater HPHT casing design. Connection
integrity has been an issue from the beginning. Expandable
casing connectors have difficulty passing focused laboratory
tests, let alone the more rigorous industry standard ISO
136794. Post-expansion collapse ratings are low, and very
little post-expansion mechanical data is available to establish
reliable performance ratings. Operational difficulties can
substantially increase rig time. Large diameter expandables
have limited running lengths. Finally, the cost of expandable
tubulars is about seven times the cost of conventional OCTG.
Continued improvements to expandable technology are
expected, but these challenges bring pause to relying on
expandables to solve todays deepwater HPHT casing design
dilemma.
Dual Gradient Drilling. Typical deepwater drilling prospects
have narrow windows between pore pressure and fracture
gradient. The long water column impacts the magnitude of
pressures when measured as a gradient relative to the rig.
Dual gradient drilling is a method to reduce a portion of the
fluid gradient in the drill string annulus.5,6 In this manner, a
heavier mud can be used to control bottom hole pressures
without subjecting weaker up-hole formations to the same
equivalent mud weight. Riser-less pump and dump drilling
is a special case of dual gradient drilling where the annulus
fluid column is sea water down to the mudline and weighted
mud in the drilled hole.
The benefit of dual gradient drilling is a wider margin
between pore pressure and fracture gradient when mapped to
an equivalent mud weight basis with respect to the mudline.
The wider window allows longer open hole sections and fewer
casing seats. The additional clearance can accommodate
larger or higher pressure strings, thereby solving the
deepwater HPHT design dilemma.
However, dual gradient drilling with full well control
equipment is an unproven technology. There are several
technology gaps to solve, and the high up-front cost of rig
conversion is an impediment to field-testing the concept.
Additionally, if dual gradient drilling is selected as the
enabling technology for deepwater HPHT, an equipment

SPE 97565

failure and subsequent conversion to conventional drilling will

result in a significantly smaller bottom hole size.
Managed Pressure Drilling. Managed pressure drilling
(MPD) applies to any technique of controlling annular
pressures while drilling. Technically, the dual gradient
drilling described earlier is a type of MPD. Other types of
MPD use a rotating control device to drill ahead with closed
and pressurized mud returns7 or using an equivalent
circulating density (ECD) reduction tool8,9 to reduce the
impact of fluid friction while circulating. The biggest benefit
of MPD is to extend hole sections by either drilling
underbalanced or by limiting annular pressures at weaker uphole formations. The longer hole sections may enable fewer
casing points, thereby loosening the constraints on the
deepwater HPHT design dilemma.
However, though forms of MPD are commonplace on land
rigs, these technologies are largely unproven in the deepwater
environment. The ECD reduction tool may improve hole
stability and extend hole intervals, but well control risks may
be higher and the tool has a detrimental impact on rig
hydraulics. Significant tool development is required to gain
what may be only an incremental benefit to well design.
Designer Muds. Recent work in creating specialty muds
shows promise for strengthening the wellbore, allowing higher
mud weights without losing returns.10 The designer muds
have been used to drill through highly depleted sands without
cutting mud weight. This stress cage technology may be
extended to strengthen weak casing shoes, enabling longer
hole sections and reducing the number of casing seats.
However, the technology is new and needs considerable
work to be applied on a continuous basis. Since bridging
solids must be kept in the system, there are limits on mud
cleaning, and drilled solids content will build. The technique
requires controlled drilling rates which can be difficult to
maintain in directional hole sections. It may be challenging to
maintain the stress cage across several lithologies. Designer
muds appear to be highly beneficial for specific limited loss
formations, but they may not be sufficient to solve the
deepwater HPHT design dilemma.
Custom OCTG. Purpose built casing strings are hardly new.
The API casing tables contain sizes that were once unique,
such as 7-3/4 46.10 ppf and 11-3/4 65.00 ppf, and they lack
many items that are commonly used, such as 9-7/8 62.80 ppf
and 13-5/8 88.20 ppf. Sizes, weights, and grades have been
developed to address specific well needs, such as the 12-1/8
90.0 ppf C-110 x 10-3/4 73.0 ppf C-110 x 10 72.0 ppf
Q-125 intermediate casing used at Erskine, the first HPHT
well in the North Sea.11 There appears to be little news when
it comes to custom OCTG.
The familiarity of custom OCTG is its strongest argument
for using odd sizes to solve the deepwater HPHT design
dilemma. Drilling clearances and pressure ratings can be
precisely optimized across all strings. An additional casing
seat can be squeezed into the program, or special sizes can be
built to accommodate higher pressures.
There are a few challenges in using custom sizes, primarily
in the area of pressure isolation. Liner hangers and seals

SPE 97565

R. A. Miller, M. L. Payne, P. Erpelding

become critical, as do cement jobs through tight clearances.

The benefits and challenges of custom OCTG will be further
explored in detail.
The Case for Custom OCTG
Designer casing strings are proposed as an alternative to the
technologies listed above. There is little new in the area of
custom casing. Special sizes and grades have been built for
decades. It is the familiarity of custom OCTG that makes it
most appropriate for deepwater HPHT well design, where the
priorities are to keep it simple and make it reliable.
When considering custom OCTG, it is essential to
recognize the benefits of an established system:
1. OCTG is a mature, well understood technology.
2. There is a wealth of reliability data to support
downhole performance.
3. Industry standards comprehensively govern the
manufacturing and inspection of OCTG.
4. Custom connections can be extended from existing
designs, which simplifies acceptance qualification.
5. Custom OCTG is compatible with liner drilling.
Strings can be drilled in place. Similarly, liner
rotation can greatly increase the chance of getting the
liner to the bottom and assists cement placement.
Upgrade Pressure Ratings. The wellbore shown in Figure 1
has proven useful for Gulf of Mexico deepwater exploration.
It has its limitations when considering high rate HPHT or
extreme HPHT completions. Figure 2 is a modification of the
exploration well design. The same 22 and 18 strings are
used, but the 16 casing is run back to the mudline and
upgraded to an MIYP of 10,680 psi. Below the 16
intermediate casing are two custom liners sized to provide a
half inch clearance between the outside diameter and the
previous casing drift diameter. The drilling / production liner
is upgraded to the heaviest wall 10-3/4 that maintains an
8-1/2 drift.
The wellbore in Figure 2 uses designer strings to
accomplish the following:
8-1/2 hole on bottom
Production tubulars with an 18,000+ psi MIYP
5-1/2 tubing
9-3/8 upper tieback drift (for a safety valve)
Clearance outside the tieback for syntactic foam to
mitigate annular pressure build-up (APB)12
The same features could be accomplished by running an
expandable 13-3/8 x 16 liner below the 16 and then
covering it with a conventional 13-3/8 drilling liner. The
question becomes one concerning preferences:
Proven, reliable OCTG technology versus emerging
expandable technology
Lower cost versus higher cost
Higher performance versus lower performance
Shorter rig time versus longer rig time
Add a Shoe Below 18. Designer strings could also be used
to add a shoe to the standard exploration casing program.
Figure 3 shows a configuration that adds a shoe below the 18
casing. The 16 drilling liner is replaced by two custom sizes,

a 16-3/8 liner and a 15 liner. The liners represent a trade-off

between wall thickness for pressure ratings and ease of cutting
connections vs. running clearances. Each liner and the
subsequent 13-5/8 casing have a 0.387 clearance between
the casing outside diameter and the previous casing drift. This
clearance is greater than running 11-7/8 inside 13-5/8
(0.375). The two liners each have a 0.400 wall thickness for
ease in cutting threads.
A similar geometry could be achieved by running a 16
liner and a 13-3/8 x 16 expandable liner. However, the
custom OCTG liners have improved internal pressure ratings
4,700 psi for the 16-3/8 and 5,130 psi for the 15 versus
3,420 psi for the expandable liner. The 15 has a drift
diameter of 14.012 versus only 13.811 for the expandable
liner, thus the expandable may not accommodate a subsequent
13-5/8 string. These advantages for the custom OCTG liners
are in addition to the general benefits listed earlier.
Add a Shoe Below 16. As a final example, custom OCTG is
used to add a shoe below the 16. The wellbore in Figure 4
has the same strings through the 16. A custom 14-1/4 liner
is sized to provide 0.500 clearance between its outside
diameter and the previous 16 drift.
The subsequent
intermediate casing has the same 13-5/8 at the top, but the
bottom is a custom 12-3/4 pipe sized to give similar ratings
as the 13-5/8 while maintaining an 11.504 drift for the
subsequent custom 11 liner. A 9-3/8 drilling liner is also
included in this wellbore. 9-3/8 is a good example of a size
that was once custom but is now becoming more common.
This wellbore does not have clear geometric advantages
versus one that uses expandable liners. An expandable
13-3/8 x 16 liner could replace the custom 14-1/4 and the
intermediate casing could then be 13-5/8 x 13-3/8. The
custom 11 liner provides significantly higher performance
ratings as compared to an expandable 11-3/4 x 13-3/8 liner.
The three examples shown here are not intended to be an
exhaustive list of how purpose-built strings can solve
deepwater HPHT design issues. Rather, they are shown to
raise awareness of the benefits of custom OCTG. Ideally, the
well design should start with a completion sized according to
reservoir inflow performance, and then judiciously optimize
the remaining space between wall thickness for performance,
and clearance for running and cementing.
Critical Components for Custom OCTG
Previous industry experience has demonstrated that rolling
custom OCTG is easily achievable. Cutting threads on custom
sizes is also a normal practice. A key, critical component for
using designer casing sizes is a liner hanger that seals
pressure, either by itself or with a subsequent liner top packer.
The current state of these related components is briefly
described.
Custom Pipe Sizes. Custom OCTG can be manufactured
using either a Seamless (S) or Electric Resistance Weld
(ERW) process. The seamless process involves piercing a hot
cylindrical billet of steel, and then running it through a series
of sizing mandrels to produce the finished product. The ERW
process involves forming the tube from a coil of flat plate

Designer Casing for Deepwater HPHT Wells

steel, and then welding the seam formed by the two edges.
Both methods have distinct advantages and disadvantages.
For the ERW process, two methods are used to produce
non-standard OCTG. If sufficient tonnage is required, the
coils are trimmed to the proper circumference and the tubes
formed using the ERW process. Tooling and set-up charges
for custom hot finished OCTG can be significant. In addition,
depending on the mill schedule, lead times of 6-9 months are
required to produce the new tooling.
For smaller tonnage requirements, hot finished pipe of a
standard size is cold drawn to the required diameter and wall
thickness. The tube is then heated followed by quenching and
tempering. Although the cold drawing process is more
involved, it is the most cost effective process for smaller
orders since new tooling is not required. As an added benefit,
lead times for production are much shorter.
The steel market is highly volatile and strongly influenced
by the forces of supply and demand. With this in mind, the
average price for a custom OCTG order in mid-2004 was
$1.20/lb for P-110 and $1.30/lb for Q-125. This represented a
premium when compared to standard sized casing but
significantly less than the cost of expandable casing.
Connections. Connections can be threaded on tubulars with
wall thickness as low as 0.400 without forming the pipe ends.
For casing diameters greater than 16, additional wall
thickness (0.425) is required.
To help ensure that casing will meet drift requirements,
steel mills generally roll casing very close to the upper limits
of the +1% API OD tolerance. The variability in the actual
measured OD between various mills can lead to threading
difficulties on thin wall pipe. In order to overcome this
hurdle, connection manufacturers typically swage (expand) the
box and (crimp) the pin on tubulars that have a diameter to
wall thickness (D/t) ratio greater than 30. Swaging allows the
connection manufacturer to place the material where it is
needed for threading. Although the actual swage creates a box
OD that is 3-5% greater than the nominal casing diameter, the
swage is machined down and the maximum box OD is
typically less than 1% over actual pipe body.
Connection performance for a swaged connection on
custom OCTG is very similar to that of OCTG in standard
sizes.
The tension efficiency is about 70% and the
compression efficiency ranges from 50-70% when compared
to the pipe body. These ratings are more than adequate for
service conditions applied to drilling liners.
Connection development costs for drilling liner service
range from no cost for an existing design to $100,000 for
development of an entirely new slim line connection with a
metal seal. This does not include physical testing, which,
depending on qualification requirements can range from
$25,000 to $50,000 or more for each connection. FEA models
can reduce the amount of physical testing required to finalize
the design.
Custom connections can be developed with lead times of
four months or less when the size is a close extension of an
existing design. Gage equipment takes about 6 weeks to
procure, as can the forming tools required to swage the
connection.

SPE 97565

Conventional Liner Hangers. The liner hanger industry has

some difficulty providing conventional liner hanger and liner
top packer systems that can be used for casing strings with
radial clearances of 0.25 or less. There is very little room to
house the required components while providing reasonable
tension and differential pressure ratings.
Achieving liner hanger/packer systems for casing strings
with radial clearances of 0.25 is not insurmountable, as
11-3/4 x 13-3/8 72 ppf liner hanger/packer systems are well
established in deep water well design. The liner hanger and
differential pressure ratings available for the 11-3/4 x 13-3/8
72 liner hanger/packer systems (approximately 800 kip and
5000 psi) can also be expected for the 13-3/4 x 16 128.6 ppf
and 12-1/4 x 13-3/4 58.2 ppf custom liner hanger designs
shown in Figure 2. Development of a custom hanger may
take a year for detailed design, prototyping, testing, and
manufacture.
It is critical that liner hangers are fully rotatable. This
feature allows the liner to be rotated or even drilled in place
provided that a high torque connection is cut on the base pipe.
Rotation will also help with cement placement and pressure
isolation.
The next generation of conventional liner hanger systems
represents a focused effort to improve the design and
functionality of existing liner hanger technology. The key
improvement is the use of a hydraulic setting tool to set the
slips and packer components. Since the hydraulic setting
cylinder is placed inside the setting tool, the setting
mechanism does not require a hydraulic setting cylinder on the
liner hanger itself. This results in a liner hanger where the
minimum internal yield and collapse ratings are not
constrained by cylinder dimensional limitations.
This new system has also eliminated many of the potential
pitfalls found in current conventional designs. These include:
elimination of all elastomers in the liner hanger itself,
elimination of ports in the liner hanger body, elimination of
shear screws in the liner hanger, and the elimination of the
requirement for a lower pack-off. Each of these features
contributes to an overall higher system reliability expected for
HPHT wells. Development of these next generation hangers
may take 10 to 18 months for detailed design, prototyping,
testing, and manufacture.
Expandable Liner Hangers. Expansion of the hanger into
the base casing is a relatively new technology that provides a
promising solution for hanging liners in tight clearances. An
expandable hanger provides many benefits where other
technologies fail. These include low clearance and high load
applications. This technology has an added benefit in that the
hanger and packer are all part of the same tool. This greatly
simplifies the entire process, thus increasing the overall
reliability of the hanger system.
The expandable liner hanger can be run with either
mechanical or hydraulic running tools. The hanger expansion
is accomplished by radially expanding an inner sleeve against
the casing from the top-down and is designed such that the
elastic recovery of the inner sleeve is less than the elastic
recovery of the casing. In addition, the expansion design
insures that the base casing is never taken past its elastic limit.

SPE 97565

R. A. Miller, M. L. Payne, P. Erpelding

The primary seal is the metal-to-metal interference

developed between the expandable hanger and the base casing.
A bonded elastomer can also be incorporated as a backup seal
to the primary metal seal, but is not required.
Expandable hangers are new, and approximately 80 have
been run in conjunction with conventional OCTG pipe. These
include: 5 x 7 and 7 x 9-5/8 size hangers. The hangers
can be rotated, allowing this technology to be compatible with
casing drilling. Larger sizes are still being developed at an
R&D level. Development costs run approximately $200,000
for each size with lead-times of 6 months for detailed design,
prototyping, testing, and manufacture.
Clearances and Isolation Seals. Tight clearances have been
pushed for years.13 11-7/8 casing with flush connections
have been routinely run inside 13-3/8 and 13-5/8 casing.
This example of a 0.375 diametrical clearance between
casing OD and the previous drift is used as a minimum
benchmark.
Open hole running clearances are improved by drilling
oversized holes, a common practice in the Gulf of Mexico.
The enlarged hole increases the chance for a good cement job
and the corresponding pressure isolation. A fully-rotatable
liner hanger is key to assisting cement placement.
In addition, a couple of emerging technologies may
provide alternatives to conventional cement and liner top
packers. Swell packers may provide a way to seal the liner top
without requiring clearance for mechanical devices. Polymer
shut-offs may provide zonal isolation without the placement
risk of a cement job through tight clearances. These
technologies are not considered hinge factors for making
custom OCTG work, but they could become useful options for
improving pressure integrity.
Conclusions
Deepwater HPHT well design is a challenge to fit enough
casing seats between the constraints of an 18-3/4 wellhead
and BOP and the bottom hole size required for a high rate
completion.
Custom OCTG represents an enabling
technology for solving the deepwater HPHT design challenge.
OCTG is a mature, well understood technology
Custom sizes have been used for decades
There is nothing special about rolling custom pipe
Connections are an extension of proven designs
Liner hanger development is critical
Custom OCTG does not preclude development of
other technologies such as liner drilling
Other technologies such as managed pressure drilling,
designer muds, and expandable liners, may also provide ways
to satisfy the well design challenge.
However, these
technologies are at various stages of development and carry
significant risks and increased costs.
To expedite development, qualification and sourcing of
custom OCTG, deep water operators should work towards a
short list of the most leverage-able sizes in order to encourage
vendors to bring these products to the market.

Nomenclature
APB
API
D/t
ECD
ERW
FEA
HPHT
ISO
kip
MIYP
MPD
OCTG
OD
psi
S
t
TD

Annular Pressure Build-up

American Petroleum Institute
Outside Diameter to Wall Thickness Ratio
Equivalent Circulating Density
Electric Resistance Weld Casing
Finite Element Analysis
High Pressure High Temperature
The International Organization for
Standardization
One Thousand Pounds Force
Minimum Internal Yield Pressure
Managed Pressure Drilling
Oil Country Tubular Goods
Outside Diameter
Pounds Force Per Square Inch
Seamless Casing
Wall Thickness
Total Depth

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of BP for
permission to prepare this paper and present the subject
material.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

Filippov, Andrei, Robert Mack, Lance Cook, Patrick York,

Lev Ring, and Terry McCoy, Expandable Tubular
Solutions, SPE 56500 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Houston, 3-6 October.
Dupal, Kenneth K, Donald B. Campo, John E. Lofton, Don
Weisinger, Lance Cook, Michael D Bullock, Thomas P.
Grant, and Patrick L. York, Solid Expandable Tubular
Technology A Year of Case Histories in the Drilling
Environment, SPE 67770 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 February-1 March,
2001.
Gusevik, Rune and Randy Merritt: Reaching Deep
Reservoir Targets Using Solid Expandable Tubulars, SPE
77612 presented at the 2002 SPE Annular Technical
Conference, San Antonio, Texas 29 September-2 October.
ISO 13679 Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing
Connections, First Edition, 2002-12-15.
Schumacher, J.P., J.D. Dowell, L.R. Ribbeck, and J.C.
Eggemeyer, Planning and Preparing for the First Subsea
Field Test of a Full-Scale Dual-Gradient Drilling System,
SPE 80615, SPE Drilling & Completion Volume 17
Number 4, 2002, pp. 194-199.
Judge, Robert A., and Ricky Thethi: Deploying Dual
Gradient Drilling Technology on a Purpose-Built Rig for
Drilling Upper Hole Sections, SPE 79808 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, 19-21
February 2003.
Hannegan, Don: Managed Pressure Drilling in Marine
Environments Case Studies, SPE 92600 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, 23-25
February 2005.
Bern, P.A., Dave Hosie, R.K. Bansal, Donald Stewart, and
Bradley Lee, A New Downhole Tool for ECD Reduction,
SPE 81642 presented at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference in Houston, 25-26 March 2003.

Designer Casing for Deepwater HPHT Wells

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Bern, P.A., W.K. Armagost, and R.K. Bansal: Managed

Pressure Drilling with the ECD Reduction Tool, SPE
89737 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference,
Houston, 26-29 September 2004.
Aston, M.S., M.W. Alberty, M.R. McLean, H.J. de Jong,
and K. Armagost, Drilling Fluids for Wellbore
Strengthening, SPE 87130 presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2-4 March 2004.
Elliott, G.S., R.A. Brockman, and R.M. Shivers III: HPHT
Drilling and Completion Design for the Erskine Field,
SPE 30364 presented at Offshore Europe 95 in Aberdeen,
5-8 September 1995.
Payne, M.L., P.D. Pattillo, U.B. Sathuvalli, R.A. Miller,
and R. Livesay, Advanced Topics for Critical Service
Deepwater Well Design, presented at Deep Offshore
Technology, Marseille, 19-21 November 2003.
Barker, J.W.: Wellbore Design with Reduced Clearance
Between Casing Strings, SPE 37615, presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, 4-6 March
1997.

SPE 97565

36
28
22 224.0 ppf (1.000 wall) X-80
18 117.0 ppf (0.625 wall) N-80

16 97.0 ppf (0.575 wall) P-110

13-5/8 88.20 ppf (0.625 wall) HCQ-125

11-7/8 71.80 ppf (0.582 wall) P-110

9-7/8 62.80 ppf (0.625 wall) C-110

7 38.0 ppf (0.540 wall) C-110

Figure 1 Typical Gulf of Mexico deepwater exploration casing
program with production liner and tieback.

36
28
22 224.0 ppf (1.000 wall) X-80
18 117.0 ppf (0.625 wall) N-80
11-3/4 ppf 126.20 (1.109 wall) C-110
x 10-3/4 ppf 108.70 (1.047 wall) C-110
16 128.6 ppf (0.781 wall) Q-125

13-3/4 58.20 ppf (0.400 wall) P-110

12-1/4 51.60 ppf (0.400 wall) P-110

10-3/4 108.70 ppf (1.047 wall) C-110

7 42.70 ppf (0.625 wall) CRA-125

Figure 2 Exploration well upgraded to accommodate 18,000 psi
production tubulars and a 5-1/2 completion.

SPE 97565

R. A. Miller, M. L. Payne, P. Erpelding

36
28
22 224.0 ppf (1.000 wall) X-80
18 93.54 ppf (0.500 wall) N-80

16-3/8 69.6 ppf (0.400 wall) P-110

15 63.6 ppf (0.400 wall) P-110

13-5/8 88.20 ppf (0.625 wall) HCQ-125

11-7/8 71.80 ppf (0.582 wall) P-110

9-7/8 62.80 ppf (0.625 wall) C-110

7 38.0 ppf (0.540 wall) C-110

Figure 3 Exploration well modified to add a casing seat below
the 18.

36
28
22 224.0 ppf (1.000 wall) X-80
18 117.0 ppf (0.625 wall) N-80

16 97.0 ppf (0.575 wall) P-110

14-1/4 60.4 ppf (0.400 wall) P-110

13-5/8 88.20 ppf (0.625 wall) Q-125

x 12-3/4 72.5 ppf (0.545 wall) Q-125

11 54.5 ppf (0.475 wall) Q-125

9-3/8 39.00 ppf (0.400 wall) HCQ-125E

7 38.00 ppf (0.540 wall) C-110

Figure 4 Exploration well modified to add a casing seat below
the 16.