IADC/SPE 87167

Planning and Execution of a Long, Tight Clearance Liner Through a Whipstock

Milled Window
Lynn B. Dooley - ConocoPhillips Co. and SPE, Gary L. Faul BHPBilliton and SPE, David Courville, Danny Harrell Smith Services Smith International, Inc. and SPE, Jonathan A. Shipley - T. H. Hill and Associates, Inc. and SPE

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 24 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 International
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and 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
A long, tight clearance liner was recently installed through a
whipstock-milled window in a deepwater well. The length
and weight of the liner, coupled with the tight clearances,
pushed the limits of current technology. The liner was
successfully run through a deep whipstock milled window and
cemented at a depth below 24,000. This paper describes the
planning and execution involved in this critical well
construction operation.
Introduction
Installing a long, tight clearance liner through a milled
window is a critical operation that presents many technical and
operational challenges. Recently in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico,
ConocoPhillips Gulf Region Deepwater Exploration milled a
window in 13-5/8 casing and subsequently ran 9551 of 113/4 liner through a 12-1/4 window to a depth of 24,382
MD. Planning, equipment selection and proper execution
were the keys to success.
The first critical success factors were to construct a
window with adequate clearance and minimal dogleg severity
and then to provide a quality borehole below the window. A
one-trip whipstock was selected to construct the window and
provide rat hole below the window for drilling ahead. Various
bottom hole assemblies were run to directionally drill and
open the borehole to an interval depth of 24,382. Prior to
running the 11-3/4 liner, a borehole imaging survey was run
to confirm suitable hole geometry and adequate clearance in
the open hole interval.
Considerable effort was made to select the proper
equipment to run and cement the 11-3/4 liner. Finite element
analysis was applied to select casing connections that would

provide maximum clearance while maintaining integrity to

support high tensile loads combined with severe bending
across the window. In addition, extra attention was given to
selecting auxiliary casing equipment needed to ensure that the
liner would be successfully run to bottom and cemented.
This paper illustrates the level of planning and detail
required to successfully install a long, tight clearance liner. A
case history of the planning and execution demonstrates the
effort needed to successfully implement such a
challenging operation.
Planning
Milling the Window.
Method and Equipment Selection. After reviewing other
sidetracking options including milling and casing recovery, a
cased hole sidetrack utilizing a whipstock was selected as the
most cost effective option with the lowest operational risk.
A technically advanced whipstock system capable of
producing a clean, full-length, full gauge usable window
followed by sufficient rat hole to accommodate a rotary
steerable drilling assembly in one trip was desired. Two types
of whipstock systems were considered for the cased hole
sidetrack, 1) conventional and 2) extended gauge multi-ramp
design. The conventional whipstock usually has a 1-1/2 to 3
degree single ramp and a cylindrical shaped mill head dressed
with crushed carbide. Inherent problems with the conventional
design are, 1) inconsistency in the shape and location of the
window, 2) the mill progresses slowly at the center point of
the casing, and 3) formation imposed mill limitations.
The extended gauge multi-ramp whipstock system features
a specially designed whipstock face with multiple ramps, each
with its own taper, and a milling tool with a conical shaped
mill that can be dressed to accommodate different formation
properties. This type of whipstock provides additional footage
to the vertical face of the whipstock. The additional footage
lengthens the usable portion of the window and reduces the
dogleg through the window. By lengthening the vertical face
of the whipstock, the departure angle of the milling tool is
not sacrificed.
The multi-ramp whipstock is designed to guide the milling
tool effectively and expediently through the casing and into
the formation. Several cutters were reviewed prior to the job.
The milling tool was dressed with high-grade tungsten carbide
cylindrical inserts. These inserts provided a balanced solution

IADC/SPE 87167

that was capable of efficiently milling the window and then

drilling an extended rat hole below the window to
accommodate the rotary steerable BHA and hole opening
device planned for the open hole interval.
Locating the Window.
A whipstock-milled window
should be located at a point in the well bore that will provide
the most efficient path to reach the target with minimal
operational risks. An Ultra Sonic Inspection (USI) log was
selected to determine the optimum location to exit the casing.
Important well bore characteristics to consider include; casing
wall thickness, depth, collar location, and cement quality
behind pipe. These characteristics are critical as they can
greatly affect the performance of the window milling
equipment and ultimately impact the success of running and
cementing the next casing string.
Orienting the Whipstock. A combination Gyro/MWD tool
was selected to locate and orient the whipstock. The
Gyro/MWD tool would be run inside the whipstock BHA, and
incorporated directional sensors within the MWD tool. This
eliminates the need for a wire line run to orient the tool saving
time and money. Once the whipstock is properly oriented and
set, the gyro module can be put to sleep and the rat hole can be
drilled in a conventional MWD format. A whipstock
assembly is normally oriented to the proper direction for the
sidetrack with either a surface readout gyro or a conventional
MWD. Normally in a vertical hole, a surface readout gyro
deployed on wireline is used to orient the whipstock assembly

tool cost. The whipstock milling assembly was set up with

mill cutters capable of drilling enough formation below the
window to allow the hole opening device in the subsequent
drill ahead BHA to clear the window.
11-3/4 Liner and Cement Job.
Casing Selection and Design. Designing the 11-3/4" liner
to be run through the window in the 13-5/8" casing with a
12.25" drift ID presented a considerable challenge. The
anticipated dogleg severity based on AutoCAD input and
theoretical window geometry was 8.5/100. The connections
were evaluated for a range of dogleg severity of 5.0/100 to
13/100 at a maximum hole section TD of 25,500'. The
objective of the design was to maintain connection integrity
over the whipstock if the liner tagged bottom and lost
buoyancy or was stuck. A 200 kip over pull margin was
included for running the liner in open hole.
Several connections were evaluated during the design
phase and it was determined that a combination string of SLSF
(semi-flush) and SLF (flush) connections could provide
sufficient bending strength in tension through the whipstock
interval. Hunting and TH Hill both performed FEA (Finite
Element Analysis) on each connection. The summary details
of the four load cases analyzed by TH Hill considered
combined loads at optimum make up torque and are presented
in Table 1.0 below.
Table 1.0

Milling the Window. The drilling fluid must be clean and

compatible with the formation surrounding the window and rat
hole prior to starting the casing exit. Monitor 6 RPM Fann
VG meter reading and maintain a minimum of 1.2 times the
hole diameter while milling the window. High viscosity
sweeps should be pumped at timed intervals during the
sidetrack operation to circulate out the metal cuttings and keep
the hole clean. Controlled milling weights and higher rpms
are utilized while milling the window to generate a smooth
transition between the window and formation to enhance
liner deployment.
General Procedures. The objective of the sidetrack window
was to accomplish the following steps in a single trip:

Deploy the whipstock assembly.

Orient the whip face using a Gyro/MWD.
Set the whipstock utilizing a hydraulic anchor.
Shear the milling tool from the whipstock.
Mill the window.
Drill sufficient rat hole for rotary steerable assembly.
Pull out of the hole.

A USI log was planned to evaluate casing wear, evaluate

cement behind the 13-5/8 casing, and locate casing collars for
correlating the setting depth of the whipstock. A Gyro/MWD
was selected to orient the whipstock versus a surface readout
gyro. Since the spread cost of a deepwater drilling unit
generally runs $12,000 to $15,000 per hour, the time and cost
savings afforded by the Gyro/MWD more than offset the extra

Load
Case 1

Load
Case 2

Load
Case 3

Load
Case 4

DLS @ window
(24 long)

13/100

13/100

5/100

5/100

Connection type

SLF

SLSF

SLF

SLSF

Buoyed weight
(kips)

512

650

512

650

Tensile Load
due to bending1

627

729

241

280

Total Tensile
Load2 (kips)

1,390

1,580

953

1,130

Safety Factor

1.077

1.006

1.511

1.404

(kips)

Note 1 Due to bending over DLS @ 24 long window.

Note 2 Includes 200 kips over pull.

Load Case 1 @ 13/100ft dls - SLF connection at the

window: (512 kips buoyed weight + 200 kips overpull +
627 kips equivalent tensile load resulting from the
bending moment from 13/100 ft dog leg for 24 ft of
window). Yields Total tensile load = 1,389,044 lbs.
Because the linearized stress (similar to weighted
average) across the connection's critical cross section was
only marginally lower than the yield strength (S.F. =
1.077) a significant section of the connection (almost

IADC/SPE 87167

halfway through wall see Figure 1) was stressed beyond

yield, it was concluded that failure would likely occur.
Load Case 2 @ 13/100ft dls - SLSF connection at the
window: (650 kips buoyed weight + 200 kips overpull +
729 kips equivalent tensile load resulting from the
bending moment from 13/100 ft dog leg for 24 ft of
window). Yields Total tensile load = 1,579,084 lbs.
Because the linearized stress (similar to weighted
average) across the connection's critical cross section was
only marginally lower than the yield strength (S.F. =
1.006) and a significant section of the connection (almost
halfway through wall see Figure 2) was stressed beyond
yield, it was concluded that failure would likely occur.
Load Case 3 @ 5/100ft dls - SLF connection at the
window: (512 kips buoyed weight + 200 kips overpull +
241 kips equivalent tensile load resulting from the
bending moment from 5/100 ft dog leg for 24 ft of
window). Yields Total tensile load = 953,171 lbs.
Because the linearized stress (similar to weighted
average) across the connection's critical cross section was
substantially lower than the yield strength (S.F. = 1.511)
and only a small section of the connection was stressed
beyond yield, it was concluded that the connection would
be safe under the load case.
Load Case 4 @ 5/100ft dls - SLSF connection at the
window: (650 kips buoyed weight + 200 kips overpull +
280 kips equivalent tensile load resulting from the
bending moment from 5/100 ft dog leg for 24 ft of
window). Yields Total tensile load = 1,130,417 lbs.
Because the linearized stress (similar to weighted
average) across the connection's critical cross section was
substantially lower than the yield strength (S.F. = 1.404)
and only a small section of the connection was stressed
beyond yield, it was concluded that the connection would
be safe under the load case.

The FEA analysis was performed using an axis-symmetric

model.
Bending moments cannot be applied to axissymmetric models; therefore, the bending moment was
applied as an equivalent tensile load.
This produces
conservative results. The fact that the stresses would not be as
high as shown in the analysis supports our conclusions that the
connections would be safe under the specified design loads.
In order to determine how conservative the results, an axisasymmetric model with the true bending moment applied
should be run. See Figures 3 & 4 for Von Mises Stress Plots
of the FEA analysis of the connections in Load Cases 1 & 2.
Connection Selection and Analysis. A combination of
connections were used in the 11 liner; 3,315 of 11
SLSF, HCQ-125, 65 ppf, with a reduced box OD of 11.900,
along with 6,517 of 11 SLF, HCQ-125, 65 ppf, with a true
flush OD of 11.750. The SLSF was run on top to provide an
adequate safety factor to compensate for the increased tension
loads and combined loads due to bending at the window and
overpull margin while approaching TD.

Liner Hanger Considerations. Several conditions in the

well made running the liner hanger a critical operation.
Among the most critical were:
Tight clearance between the 13-5/8 86.86 ppf casing
drift I.D. = 12.250, and the maximum O.D. of the liner
hanger assembly of 12.130, the length and total weight
of the liner, and the depths to which the liner would be
run and hung off.
The use of the HyFlo tool reduced the maximum tensile
load to 805 kips at the tool and was the limiting factor in
the case of stuck pipe. In addition, the HyFlo tool was
spaced out above the hanger to reduce the junk
catcher length.
In addition to the basic hanger considerations, a number of
special conditions were examined for a liner hanger operating
in such an extreme case.
The hanger space out from the window was verified for
bending on the liner due to the whipstock.
Its important to note a reduced collapse in the tieback
sleeve if the seal nipple does not fully engaged in the
bottom of the receptacle.
Due to a piston effect and resultant hanger overload, the
11 liner could not be tested with a retrievable packer
unless it is set in a cemented portion of the wellbore.
There is a risk of overloading the liner hanger with the
tieback string and applied annular pressure.
Annular test pressure was limited to 1700 psi immediately
after the job. After the cement is set at the shoe, the test
could be increased to 4400 psi.
Other Key Considerations. Several key considerations
were critical in assuring that the liner would be successfully
run to bottom and cemented. Other key considerations not
specifically addressed above include:
Address the combined loads of a connection across a
whipstock including tensional load plus overpull, make up
torque, and the bending moment across a whipstock.
Estimate drilling and production loads over the life-cycle
of the well. Some loads evaluated were tieback loads,
loads during pressure tests, and overloading of the liner
hanger pre-cement and post cement.
The running tools and landing string for heavy liners
should be purpose qualified with each components tensile
strength quantified.
Execution
This section discusses the actual operation results of each of
the major areas addressed in the planning stage. Figure 5 is a
diagram of the proposed and actual casing programs, which
helps put the 11-3/4 liner in perspective relative to the
entire well.
Milling the Window.
Orienting and Setting the Whipstock. As mentioned
earlier, a USI log was planned to evaluate casing wear,
evaluate cement behind the 13-5/8 casing, and locate casing
collars for correlating the setting depth of the whipstock. The

IADC/SPE 87167

USI log verified no unusual casing wear and the wall

thickness of the casing was determined adequate for executing
the bypass operation. A cast iron bridge plug set to establish
plug back was located at 15,045. The area above a casing
collar at 15,025 indicated good cement bond and was selected
as the exit point. The whipstock was oriented utilizing the
Gyro/MWD to 74 degrees azimuth. Initially the plan called for
orienting the whipstock to 145 degrees azimuth, but premature
cycling of the multi-cycle valve used to set the whipstock
caused the whipstock to be set at 74 degrees azimuth. The
orientation of 74 degrees was evaluated to be adequate for
kicking off the well left of high side from the original
wellbore. Well bore separation calculations were made to
ensure that the concentric opening devices on the stearable
BHA would not encounter the original wellbore casings. The
hydraulic anchor was set utilizing 3,100 psi to move the slips
into the casing and to prevent rotation or vertical movement of
the whipstock. The milling tool sheared from the whipstock
as planned.

Drilling 12-1/4 x 14-1/2 Hole Interval. The 12-1/4 x 141/2 interval below the window was drilled utilizing a rotary
steerable system with a 12-1/4 PDC bit and 12-1/4 x 14-1/2
concentric hole opening device spaced at about 60 above the
bit. The assembly drilled from 15,014 to 24,676 in one run.
The well path turned and built from 74 degrees azimuth and 1
degree inclination left of high side to 275 degrees azimuth and
5.4 degrees inclination by 16,345 MD. The path was held
until 17,769 MD, where the well was dropped back to vertical
by 19,500 MD. The rotary steerable assembly was effective
at building inclination in salt and dropping angle after
departing 400 from the original wellbore. The BHA drilled
4,276 of salt at 61 fph and 5,386 of sediments at and average
ROP of 79 fph.
A six-arm caliper with directional package showed that the
concentric reamer had failed and the hole was undergauge for
most of the interval. Two separate 2-arm underreamer runs
opened the entire interval at an average ROP of 70 fph with no
mechanical problems.

Milling the Window. After shearing off, the window was

initiated by milling at 110 rpm rotary and 752 gpm flow rate
to cut out of the casing. The 22 of extended gauge window
was milled from 14,992 to 15,014. The window section was
completed in 5.5 hours at a rate of penetration of four fph
utilizing 4,000-7,000 lbs. of milling weight.

Evaluating the Window and Open Hole. A second six-arm

caliper with directional package was run to model the open
hole geometry and investigate the area through the whipstock
milled window in the 13-5/8 casing. The caliper showed that
the two separate 2-arm underreamer runs had opened the hole
adequately and plans were made to run the 11-3/4 liner. Of
particular interest from the 3-D caliper run was the geometry
through the whipstock window (Figure 6). The caliper
showed the window to have an elliptical shape with the long
axis oriented in the vertical plane. See Figure 7 for a 3-D
image with a 12-1/4 gauge simulated across the window from
the caliper survey. A small section below the window
appeared to show undergauge hole. It was determined to be
due to decentralization of the caliper tool when taking a slight
pull as it entered the window. The model indicated that the
whipstock mills had created an effective hole size greater than
the 12-1/4 gauge across the window and in the section below
the window. This would prove beneficial when running the
11-3/4 tight clearance liner.

Exiting the Window. After the window was cut in the

casing, 85 feet of rat hole was drilled below the window and
into the salt section. The rat hole created an interval below the
window that would allow running the drill ahead BHA deep
enough to get the hole opening device totally outside the
window. Separation calculations estimate that the distance
between the original casing and the planned 14-1/2
concentric hole opening device was 2.08 ft. The rat hole
below the window was drilled in 9.5 hours at 8.9 fph utilizing
115 rpm rotary and 6,000-13,000 lbs. of weight on bit. This
was done to minimize doglegs below the window and initiate
a slight build to kick off with the drill-ahead assembly. The
resulting angle at the bottom of the rat hole was about 1.0
degree, which was less than planned but proved suitable since
it created a smooth transition below the window with very
low dogleg.
After the window was milled, several MWD gyro multishot surveys were taken over the whipstock interval to
determine the actual dog-leg severity across the window and
in the rat hole interval. It was determined that the interval had
an apparent dog-leg severity of 2/100. The lower than
anticipated dog-leg severity can be attributed to milling
parameters used to cut the window. Historical WOB ranges
were around 30,000 lbs that provide some flex in the milling
BHA and cause a larger dog-leg severity off the end of the
whipstock. The window was milled with about 4,000 lbs
WOB that allowed the milling assembly to drill an enlarged
elliptical hole across the whipstock, later observed by a sixarm caliper log. It is believed that the enlarged hole changes
the dog-leg severity by having changed the contact points on
the whipstock.

Running the 11-3/4 Liner. During the running of the liner,

pickup and slackoff weights were closely monitored for
divergence from predicted parameters. Predicted hookloads
were generated using a soft string model and included the
theoretical dogleg of 8.5 deg/100 across the whipstock.
Friction factors were predicted to be 0.16 for cased hole and
0.18 for open hole. This is a good practice for any liner or
casing job to identify any premature loss of weight due to
packoffs in the small bypass area present along the liner and at
the liner hanger, but was additionally useful here to evaluate
the drag at the window. Hookloads closely approximated the
predicted PUW and SOW values throughout the running of the
liner. The actual drag across the window was lower than
expected, further evidence that the effective dogleg was less
than 8.5 deg/100. An additional risk was a tar flow that had
been drilled in the salt section and flowed small but
problematic volumes of tar, which had the potential of packing
off the liner.

IADC/SPE 87167

Liner Weight vs. Depth. The liner was successfully run

through the window with 4000 lbs increase in drag as the shoe
track entered the window. No centralizers were run on the
bottom 80 feet of shoe track. Full returns were observed while
running the 11-3/4" liner even though hydraulic calculations
indicated lost returns. Full bore float equipment was used in
conjunction with casing flow back tools. No problems were
encountered while running the liner.
During the running of the liner, there was no significant
increase in drag when the shoe exited the window and entered
open hole at 14,992 MD. Figure 8 is a plot of the predicted
hook loads versus the actual hook loads observed while
running the liner from 10,000 to TD. There is an apparent
increase in drag of 20-30 k lb at 15,000 as a significant
amount of liner (3,000) enters the open hole. It is interesting
to note that there is also an increase in drag as the liner hanger
enters the BOPs and 13 5/8 casing and when the shoe passes
the tar zone at 18,202. The additional drag seen at >19,300
can be attributed to the rubble zone below salt but was
consistent at approx 40 k lb over background drag.
Drag Through the Window. There was a negligible
increase in drag as the liner entered the open hole. There
should have been an increase in drag due to a theoretical
dogleg of 8.5 deg/100 across the whipstock. Drag through
the window was minimal and hardly noticed by the rig crew.
This can be attributed to the larger bore milled due to reduced
WOB during milling, and an effective dog leg of ~2 deg/100
as seen with the multi-arm caliper and excellent open hole
conditions through the salt section and into the rubble zone.
Results at Landing. The final loads at reaching 24,382',
where the liner was to be hung off were as follows:
PU = 1465 kips.
SO = 1300 kips.
String weight = 1368 kips
The total string weight at landing; 11-3/4 casing weighed 533
kips, landing string weighed 665 kips, and the block weighed
170 kips. The drilling fluid was 11.5 ppg synthetic based
mud. The actual loads closely matched the predicted loads.
Hanging and Cementing the 11-3/4 Liner. Upon reaching
TD with the 11-3/4" liner, full circulation was established and
a maximum pull of 1500 kips was made (132 kips over string
weight) with no indication of pipe movement. The liner
hanger was set successfully and full returns were maintained
while circulating prior to the cement job. The cement job was
pumped with full to partial returns. The only complication
experienced during the job was that the floats did not hold at
the end of the cement job. Indications were that the liner
wiper plug latched into the landing collar as planned. It is
suspected that the isolation sleeve on the float collar did not
shift into the fully closed position.
Conclusions

This deepwater well demonstrates that running and

cementing a long (+/-10,000) tight clearance liner (113/4 inside 13-5/8) through a 12-1/4 whipstock milled

window to greater than 24,000 is feasible.

Executing a liner job of this magnitude requires attention
to detail, along with planning and engineering critical
aspects of the job.
Producing a high quality window and exit below the
window with minimal dog-legs and good geometry
are critical.
FEA analysis techniques accurately describe the
combined loads on connections across a window.
Evaluating the whipstock and openhole section with
multi-arm calipers and 3-D imaging software is an
essential precursor to successfully running the liner
to TD.
Hole cleaning across the window and in the open hole
interval is critical to avoid milled casing material and drill
cuttings from packing off tight clearance liners and
liner hangers.
A properly configured whipstock milling assembly along
with controlled weight appears to increase the effective
diameter of the window and produces a window and rat
hole below the window with low apparent
dog-leg severity.

Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to thank the management
of ConocoPhillips, Norsk Hydro, EnCana, ExxonMobile, ENI,
Smith Services Smith International, Hunting, and T. H. Hill
for allowing this paper to be published. The authors would
also like to recognize Steve Rohleder and Wayne Sanders for
their contributions in planning and executing this difficult
operation. Sean Ellis and Nicholas Reynolds with T. H. Hill
made invaluable contributions to the FEA analysis that were
critical to ensuring that the liner would withstand loads across
the window. Doyle Reeves and John Kuberry with Hunting
also greatly assisted in the analysis of the connections.

Nomenclature
3-D = Three Dimensional
BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly
dls = Dog Leg Severity
FEA = Finite Element Analysis
fph = Feet Per Hour
gpm = Gallons Per Minute
ID = Inside Diameter
kips = Thousand of Pounds Force
lbs = Pounds Force
MD = Measured Depth
OD = Outside Diameter
ppf = Pounds Per Foot
ppg= Pounds Per Gallon
psi = Pounds Per Square Inch
PDC = Polycrystalline Diamond Compact bit
PUW = Pick Up Weight
ROP = Rate Of Penetration
SLF = Seal Lock Flush
SLSF = Seal Lock Semi Flush
SOW = Slack Off Weight

IADC/SPE 87167

TD = Total Depth
WOB = Weight On Bit
USI = Ultra Sonic Inspection
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

Rohleder, S.A., Sanders, W.W., Williamson, R.N., Faul, G.L.,

Dooley, L.B.: Challenges of Drilling an Ultra-Deep Well in
Deepwater Spa Prospect, paper SPE/IADC 79810,
presented at the 2003 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in
Amsterdam, Feb. 19-21.
Mayfield, D., Rodriguez, E.M., Nordenstam, E., Buster. J.:
Whipstock Casing Installation Advances Well Construction
Process, paper SPE 74563, presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE
Drilling conference held in Dallas, TX, 26-28 February 2002.
Desai, P.C., and Dewey, C.: Milling Variable Window
Openings for Sidetracking, paper SPE/IADC 59237,
presented at the 2000 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in New
Orleans, LA, Feb. 23-25.
Dewey, C. and Childers, R.D.: Planning a Successful
Window Milling Operation, paper SPE 49255, presented at
the 1998 Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition in
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 27-30.

IADC/SPE 87167

Maximum Linearized
Stress = 116.05 ksi at
last engaged thread in
the box end of SLF.

Figure 1. Load Case 1: S22 (axial direction) Stress plot from FEA of SLF connection under and make-up torque.

Maximum Linearized
Stress = 124.28 ksi at
the unengaged corner
in the back of the box
end of SLSF.

Figure 2. Load Case 2: S22 (axial direction) Stress plot from FEA for the SLSF connection under Load Case 2 and make-up torque .

IADC/SPE 87167

Maximum Linearized
Stress = 107.26 ksi

Figure 3. Von Mises stress plot from FEA of the SLF connection under Load Case 1 and make-up torque

Maximum Linearized
Stress = 118.30 ksi

Figure 4. Von Mises stress plot from FEA of the SLSF connection under Load Case 2 and make-up torque.

IADC/SPE 87167

WR 285 #1 - SPA PROSPECT

PROPOSED AND ACTUAL CASING PROGRAMS
As Planned

As Planned With Contingencies

Est. Water Depth = 6643'

Est. RT - Mudline = 6722'
36" jetted to 7070' (348' BML)

22" set in salt

22" set above salt

As Drilled
Original Wellbore

36" jetted to 7070'

36" jetted to 6984'

36" jetted to 7070'

26" hole

26" hole
22" @ 10,000' (3278' BML)
822' below TOS

22" @ 10000'

Water Depth = 6654'

RT - Mudline = 6733'

26" hole

26" hole
22" @ 9000'

22" @ 9974'

18" x 22" hole

18" hole

16" @ 13,500'
16-1/2" hole

Actual Salt

Prognosed Salt

18" hole

18" hole
18" @ 12,000'

As Drilled
Bypass
Whipstock Milled
Window @ 14,992'

14-3/4" x 17" hole

13-5/8" @ 16,750'
12-1/4" x 14-1/2" hole
13-5/8" @ 18,500'
(11,778' BML 235' above BOS)

13-5/8" @ 18,500'
13-5/8" @ 19,735'

12-1/4" x 14-1/2" hole

12-1/4" x 14-1/2" hole

12-1/4" x 14-1/2" hole

11-7/8" @ 23,000' (16,278' BML)

11-7/8" @
22,000'-23,000'
10-5/8" x 12-1/4" hole

11-7/8" @
22,000'-23,000'

10-5/8" x 12-1/4" hole

12-1/4" x 14-1/2" hole

11-7/8" Lnr @
20,190'
9-5/8" X 11-7/8"
Expandable Lnr @
21,442'
9-7/8" x 11-3/8" hole
9-3/8" Liner @
23,380'
8-1/2" X 9-1/2" hole

10-5/8" x 12-1/4" hole

9-5/8" @
26,000' - 28,000'
8-1/2" X 9-7/8" hole

9-5/8" @
26,000' - 28,000'
8-1/2" X 9-7/8" hole

9-5/8" @ 28,000' (21,278' BML)

8-1/2" x 9-7/8" hole to TD

7-5/8" Liner @
26,325'
6-1/2" X 7-1/2" hole

11-3/4" Lnr @
24,382'
10-5/8" x 12-1/4" hole
9-5/8" X 11-3/4"
Expandable Lnr @
26,450'

TD @ 27,504'
7-5/8" @ 29,000'

7-5/8" @ 29,000'

6-1/2" x 7-1/2" Hole

6-1/2" x 7-1/2" Hole

9-7/8" x 11-3/8" hole

TD @ 29,452'
TD @ 31,000' TVD; 31,300' MD (24,576' BML)
Est. TD MW = 15.0 ppg
Hydrostatic pressure = 24,200 psi

Planned Contingencies
If 22" gets into salt - trouble encountered in salt.
-Drill 18" hole.
-Set 16" casing @ +- 13,500' maximum depth.
-Drill 14-3/4" x 17" hole to 750' - 1000' below salt.
-Set 13-5/8" casing @ +-19,735'.
If 22" does "not" get into salt.
Drill 18" x 22" hole.
Set 18" casing @ +- 12,000' maximum depth.
Drill 16-1/2" hole to +-250'-500' above salt.
Set 13-5/8" casing @ +-18,500'.

Figure 5. Proposed and Actual Casing Programs.

10

IADC/SPE 87167

Figure 6. Caliban 3-D Image of 13-5/8 window and rat hole below from 6-arm caliper survey w/ GPET.

Top of Window

Bottom of Window

Section below window caused

from decentralization of caliper
tool.

Figure 7. 3-D Image of 11-3/4 liner inside of 13-5/8 window and rat hole, using 6-arm caliper survey w/ GPET.

IADC/SPE 87167

11

113/4" Liner
Hookload- klb
-200.0

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

10,000

hkld_min klb
hkld_exp klb
overpull klb

12,000

14,000

Line r de pt h - ft

16,000

Window
at 15,000

Liner Hanger
enters BOP
with shoe at

18,000

Rubble Zone at
Tar
Zoneft
19,300
at 18,202

20,000

Rubble Zone
at 19,300 ft

22,000

24,000

26,000
Figure 8. Predicted Hook Loads versus Actual Hook Loads for the 11-3/4 liner.

1400.0

1600.0