IADC/SPE 74567

Wedge Thread Tool Joints: Applications and Economics

Harris A. Reynolds, SPE, Hydril Company, John F. Greenip, SPE, Hydril Company
Copyright 2002, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, 2628 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. 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 an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract 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
Series 500 Wedge Thread (WT) tool joint connections
were developed in 1993 for high-torque extended-reach
drilling applications in the North Sea.
These non-shouldered connections offer extremely high
torque limits and a small OD/ID profile for improved drilling
hydraulics. The combination of features on WT tool joint
connections has enabled a series of ground-breaking
applications in extended reach and slim profile drilling around
the world.
Recent analysis of more than 4 years worth of operational
data on the Wedge Thread tool joint connection has yielded
the unanticipated result that WT tool joint connections have
lower average operating costs than API Numbered
Connections (NC). In many cases, the marginal investment in
a WT drill string has a payback of less than 2 years,
independent of the special technical features of the connection
such as higher torque and better hydraulics.
This paper describes the special drilling applications
enabled by Wedge Thread tool joints, including considerations
of drilling hydraulics, fishing, pipe running and handling,
inspection and repair, and especially the concept of using one
WT string to substitute for two conventional NC
drilling strings.
A methodology is presented for evaluating the economics
of using WT tool joints connections in everyday drilling, in
lieu of API Numbered Connections.
History of the Wedge Thread Tooljoint
The Series 500 Wedge Thread (WT) drill pipe tooljoint is a

tapered, two-step threaded connection. The high torque and

pipe body sealing capability of WT are provided by the
tapered, dovetail thread. See Fig. 2, Wedge Thread
Tooljoint Profile.
Development of the WT tool joint connection began at the
request of a North Sea operator drilling extended reach wells.
The operator recognized that both the very high torque
needed to rotate the drill string, and the corresponding
decrease in the available hydraulic horsepower at the bit
would limit their ERD opportunities. The operator was
familiar with the torque strength available from the Series 500
tubing and casing connections, and asked if a high torque tool
joint with a favorable OD/ID profile could be developed based
on the same Wedge Thread technology.
Applying the industry's existing tool joint technology and
materials, and incorporating the basic Wedge Thread concept,
a comprehensive design and testing process led to the
exhibition of the WT prototype at the Aberdeen Oil Show in
September, 1993.
Since then, drill strings using the Wedge Thread tooljoint
have confirmed expectations in extended reach and slimhole
drilling, while simultaneously achieving unanticipated savings
in the life-cycle costs of the drillstring.
Similarities Between API and WT Tooljoints
Wedge Thread tooljoints are nominally similar to API rotary
shouldered connections. For example, WT tooljoints are:

machined on standard API tool joint material. For most

applications, WT drillpipe is S-135 grade to take
advantage of WTs torque capacity.

run with conventional 18 bottleneck elevators.

are welded to standard API drillpipe upset ends.

use standard pipe dope.

uses existing free-point and back-off procedures.

Differences Between API and WT Tooljoints

Wedge Thread tooljoints are, however, significantly different
from API rotary shouldered connections in the way they effect
a fluid seal, how torque is transmitted through the connection,
how they are tripped, and how they are inspected and field
repaired. For example, WT tooljoints:

HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, JOHN F. GREENIP

seal along the thread of the small step. API tooljoints seal
on the torque shoulder.

develop high torque strength in the thread flanks. API

tooljoints resolve torque through tension between pin load
flanks and shoulder.

have a low minimum make-up torque, a wide make-up

torque range, and tolerate downhole make-up

have a built-in axial wear indicator so the tooljoint may be

repaired just in time.

retain full torsional strength after radial wear of the

tooljoint, down to the connection bevels.

require more rotation from hand-tight make-up to powertight make-up than a shouldered connection.

require different handling than API tooljoints when

stabbing and lifting-out.

require different inspection criteria, as typical running and

handling damage to WT connections can be field repaired
without recutting.

Sealing Mechanisms. In the API tooljoint, contact stresses on

the face of the external shoulder generate a radial seal. A leak
along the radial shoulder seal will require refacing of
the shoulder.
The Wedge Thread tooljoint creates a long helical seal in
the tapered thread of the small step rather than on the external
shoulder. Any competent seal along the length of the thread
helix will suffice to maintain a fluid seal; for this reason, there
can be considerable flaws in the surface of the threads before
the overall thread seal is compromised.
Torque Mechanisms. The API tool joint utilizes a modified
vee thread to effect pin to box engagement that serves to
hold the connection together and maintain axial pre-load on
the torque shoulder. The torque shoulder also provides the
means to transmit torque across the connection during drilling,
and resistance to further advancement of the pin into the box.
The Wedge Thread tool joint uses the wedging action of
a changing width thread to produce the torque strength in the
connection and the stab flank provides resistance to additional
make-up. By using the changing-width threads for both
torque strength and sealing, the torque shoulder is eliminated
from being a functioning surface.
Downhole Make-up. Application of very high torque to an
API tool joint, accompanied by tension, can cause the pin to
plastically stretch at the last engaged thread of the pin.
In the WT tooljoint, elimination of the torque shoulder as a
load-bearing surface prevents excessive torque from causing
pin stretch. This stretched pin inspection point and potential
for a need to recut the pin are removed.
WT tooljoints have a very broad range of acceptable makeup torques; many operators prefer a make-up torque 10-20%
higher than the expected operating torque. However, since
additional torque does not produce additional tensile stress in

IADC/SPE 74567

the pin of the WT tooljoint, downhole make-up will not create

excessive stress levels in the WT connection. For this reason,
using a lower make-up torque while tolerating subsequent
downhole make-up is recommended.
Wear Indication. Some API tooljoints feature a benchmark
step on both pin and box as a reference point for determining
how much shoulder material remains for dressing. However,
this benchmark only indicates shoulder wear, not
thread wear or pin stretch, and is not visible on the
made-up connection.
Since the WT tooljoint is a shoulderless threaded
connection, wear occurs exclusively at the thread flanks;
consequently, the WT has been designed to make-up powertight with a small gap at the external shoulder, featuring a
small wear indicator ridge on the pin shoulder. (See wear
indicator gap detail in Fig. 2) This shoulder gap is 0.188 to
0.250 at minimum make-up torque on new tooljoints of
different sizes.
After many repetitive make-and-break operations, the WT
thread flanks will start to wear , the external shoulder gap
closes, and the wear indicator ridge on the pin shoulder will
slightly score the box shoulder. Boxes can be inspected for
this wear indicator by the derrickman while the pipe is racked
back, or as the stands are run into the hole.
The WT wear indicator is designed so that when the
ridge on the pin shoulder first contacts the box shoulder,
there is an allowance of several make-and-breaks before the
external shoulder gap closes completely and the connection
needs to be re-cut. In this way, the WT wear indicator serves
as a just-in-time indicator that a joint needs to be
recut, reducing both premature recuts and catastrophic
tooljoint failures.
Radial Wear Allowance. Since API rotary shouldered
connections depend on shoulder area for torque strength, any
significant wear on the OD of the pipe will reduce the rated
torsional strength of these connections.
WT tooljoints resolve torque within the threadform, so that
they maintain their full-rated torque strength as the OD of the
pipe wears, down to the bevel diameter. Table 5 shows the
radial wear allowed on selected WT connections before the
connection should be derated in torsion. The bevel diameter
serves as an excellent field gauge which is clearly visible
while tripping in or out of the hole.
Trip Time. Because WT is a long connection, with hooked
threads and a higher thread pitch (e.g.threads-per-inch) than
API rotary shouldered connections, there is a widely held
presumption that WT trip times are much longer than API
trips times.
Previously published data (Ref. 4), reiterated in Table 1
below, showed that trip-times for two sizes of WT (4 WT39
and 5-1/2 WT56) were actually well in-line with trip-times
for comparable API connections.

IADC/SPE 74567

WEDGE THREAD TOOL JOINTS: APPLICATIONS AND ECONOMICS

Note that in the worst case scenario (4 WT39 and 5-1/2

WT56 versus 5 NC50 tripped between 15-20,000 feet) the
WT connections took about 15% more time for an average
round trip. In other cases, however, WT was actually faster
than similar API shouldered connection.
Table 1 Typical Trip Times (hours)
Depth
Interval

4
WT39

5
NC50

5-1/2
WT56

6-5/8
FH

0-5,000 ft.

3.2

3.3

3.8

510,000 ft.

5.5

4.8

4.6

1015,000 ft.

6.4

7.2

7.5

9.8

1520,000 ft

9.6

8.4

20-25,000 ft.

10.1

9.2

25-30,000 ft

11.6

Based on field reports, the most important factors in WT

trip times appear to be (a) appropriate rig equipment,
especially proper power tongs (as discussed in detail below),
and (b) crew training in WT running procedures.
It has been observed, subjectively, that the trip-time
learning-curve is quite rapid; it usually requires only a couple
of round-trips before a typical, properly-equipped rig crew can
trip WT within 25% of typical API trip times under
similar conditions.
The most recent rig-floor tests have documented that an
experienced rig floor crew, with the proper tongs, can breakout a stand of WT in approximately 30-38 seconds, while a
typical stand of API NC drillpipe takes approximately
25-30 seconds.
Stabbing and Lift-Out. During break-out, the negative load
flank of the WT threadform can become hooked on the box.
The pin will lift-out of the box more smoothly (and potential
thread damage will be avoided) if a de-stabbing guide is
used to maintain concentricity between box and pin.
The pin will also lift-out more smoothly if the pin is
rotated to the left (or the box rotated to the right, e.g with the
rotary table) during lift-out.
Pipe-Handling Tools. Almost all modern power pipehandling tools were, of course, designed specifically for API
rotary shouldered connections. Unfortunately, make-andbreak of WT with many of these tools is extremely slow.
There are a number of field reports of WT break-out taking
several minutes using racheting roughneck-type tools, which
is obviously unaccceptable. The ideal tool for making-up and
breaking out WT connections will have the following
characteristics:

Develop high torque, especially to break-out connections

which have made-up downhole to very high
torque values.

Apply torque without scarring the tooljoints, and

release smoothly

Apply torque continuously from hand-tight to power tight

without re-gripping the tooljoints.

Serve as a stabbing and de-stabbing guide

Have facility for a mud-bucket for pulling wet strings

Because WT can make-up downhole to very high breakout torques, it is especially important that the rig be equipped
with power tongs with torque ratings well in excess of the
maximum recommended make-up torques, particularly for
aggressive ERD programs or other applications where
downhole make-up to high torques is anticipated.
In the field, breakout torques higher than the published
WT tooljoint torsional yield have been experienced without
failing the connection or requiring a recut.
For example, in a record-setting application in an ERD
well in South America (see Ref. 5), WT38 tooljoints on 4
14.00 ppf drillpipe reached breakout torques up to 50,000 ftlbs, almost 20% above the rated torsional yield of the
connection of 41,000 ft-lbs. All of the affected connections
passed inspection, with only slightly accelerated thread flank
wear, (evidenced by reduced gaps at the wear indicators) and
were re-run.
To insure rapid make-and-break times, it is imperative that
the power tongs be able to apply continuous torque; that is,
they should ideally not be a rachet-type tong.
A typical power tong which is ideal for use with WT
connections is shown in Fig. 4. Its design is based on a tong
first produced in the late 1960s by Joy Manufacturing, and
now substantially updated. It will handle drillpipe from 4-1/2
to 8-1/2 OD, and is rated at 110,000 lb-ft. of torque. It is a
continuous rotation type tong, with eccentric, convex, camtype dies, as shown in Fig. 5.
The camming action of the tong dies provides for efficient
transmission of torque to the tooljoint without scarring. The
convex surface of the dies eliminates the issue of a diameter
mis-match between convex dies and the OD of the tooljoint,
and allows a quick and positive release when hydraulic power
is removed. The upper dies also serve as a de-stabbing
guide at lift-out.
This particular tong is also available with a mud-bucket
attachment (Fig. 6) for pulling a wet string (as when backreaming with a top-drive).
Field Inspection and Repair of API and WT Tooljoints.
Because the sealing function of the Wedge Thread is within
the threadform, rather than at a radial shoulder, the inspection
criteria for WT is different from that of an API tool joint.
Unlike an API tooljoint, damage to the external pin
shoulder or box face of a WT tooljoint does not require refacing or rejection of the joint; damage to the pin external
shoulder, pin face, box face, and box internal shoulder are

HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, JOHN F. GREENIP

hand dressed to remove any protrusion that would interfere

with make-up of the mating threads. Shoulders are not refaced. The threads can be dressed with a file or hand grinder.
With these product function differences, it was understood
the inspection and rejection profile for the Wedge Thread
would be different than that of API tool joints. The direction
and degree of that difference was not readily predictable
during development, but the following inspection and
rejection criteria have been developed from field experience:

Damage that raises metal above the original surface

will interfere with full engagement of pin and box, and
must be removed with a file or hand grinder. Burrs,
raised corners, or any other damage projecting
outward from the thread surface should be handdressed until the surface is even.

Galling that wipes out threads or that can not be

dressed using a file or hand grinder will prevent
proper thread engagement and is excessive.

A connection that is excessively out-of-round will not

stab deeply enough, and will develop torque
prematurely.

Corrosion should be removed with a wire brush. Pits

and surface imperfections smaller than 1/16 deep,
1/8 in diameter, or less than 1-1/2 long (along the
thread helix) will not interfere with proper make-up or
sealing and are not cause for rejection.

The thread wear indicator at the external shoulder is

inspected for indication of contact signifying a worn
out connection. Use of the indicator helps avoid
premature recuts. Note that the WT tooljoint is not
inspected for overtorque. The thread wear indicator is
used to inspect for a worn connection, which could be
caused by either thread wear or overtorque.

Applications Enabled by WT Tooljoints

Because of the atypical performance characteristics of the WT
tool joint, operators have discovered they are able to achieve
unconventional drilling results and economies.
One national oil company has drilled twenty shallow gas
wells during the past two years with a single string of 4",14.0
ppf, X-95 & G-105 drill pipe. This single drill string was used
instead of the more traditional program that requires two
strings, 4" drill pipe for the larger hole intervals and 3"
drill pipe for the deeper intervals where the 4" is too large.
The wells have an average depth of 4,000 m (13,100 ft) with
hole sizes from 17" at the surface to 6" at TD. The operator
was able to use a single string of 4" drill pipe to drill the four
intervals in these wells.
Another operator, working in several thousand feet of
water in the Gulf of Mexico, used the improved hydraulics
provided by 5" 24.7 ppf S-135 drill pipe along with the

IADC/SPE 74567

small OD and large ID of the WT56 tool joint to complete

several near-record depth wells.
Another operator chose 3" 14 ppf S-135 drill pipe for use
in the lower half of a 36000' string to drill an extreme
extended reach well in South America. After becoming stuck
at 33000', the operator was able to free the string by applying
torque beyond the yield torque of both pipe and WT tool joint.
They were able to continue using the string to complete
drilling on that and subsequent wells until the program
was completed.
The final interval of a record depth 28000' well in the Gulf
of Mexico was drilled using 4" 14 ppf S-135 drill pipe inside
25000' of 7" and 7" casing. The WT39 was selected for the
combination of its small tool joint OD, large tool joint ID, and
torque strength.
Economics of Wedge Thread Drillpipe
The Wedge Thread tooljoint has been in field service for about
seven years, with over 60,000 joints currently in service.
While WT was originally designed as a specialized connection
for extended-reach drilling (ERD) applications, it has lately
been proven in more conventional drilling applications
as well.
Reliable data on the life-cycle cost of WT is also now
becoming available, and it consistently points to the
unanticipated fact that WT drillpipe is extraordinarily
inexpensive to own and operate, due to its high durability and
extremely low repair rates. In most cases, especially in
offshore applications, WT appears to have a lower life-cycle
cost than the same drillpipe with API rotary shouldered
connections.
Oil and Gas Rental Services (OGR), of Morgan City,
Louisiana, has rented strings of Hydril WT Wedge Thread
drillpipe since 1996 for use on over 200 wells, primarily in the
US Gulf of Mexico.
OGR has carefully gathered data on their WT rentals,
which reveals an average rejection rate of approximately 1%,
compared with an average of rejection rate for API rotary
shouldered connections of 15%.
Figure 3 shows the
distribution of reject rates for OGR rentals of WT strings.
Note that 85% of all rentals had a reject rate below 3%.
Information gathered from international operations
substantially confirms this very low reject rate for
WT drillstrings.
One North Sea operator cites reject rates of approximately
one recut per 100,000 feet of drilled hole.
An operator drilling in the Far East has used a WT 54
drillstring to drill over 150,000 feet of mostly horizontal hole
at average torques of 25,000 to 30,000 ft-lbs. Recut rates have
averaged less than 28 recuts per 1000 rotating hours.

IADC/SPE 74567

WEDGE THREAD TOOL JOINTS: APPLICATIONS AND ECONOMICS

Anecdotal evidence from Mexico and the Far East

generally supports the OGR numbers, although hard data has
not been available from these sources.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Methodology
Since the industry standardized on API rotary shouldered
connections decades ago, published analysis of the costs of
drillpipe has focused on metallurgical and operational
variables, simply because the pipe and tooljoint were
effectively commodity products, with minimal variation
between manufacturers.
We present here a methodology for determining the lifecycle cost of a drillpipe string precisely so that the cost of
operating industry-standard API rotary shouldered connections
can be compared effectively to newer types of connections.
Because of the huge variations in the ways drillpipe is used
between regions, between contractors, between rigs, and even
between offset wells, we find that it is most effective to
express life-cycle costs of drillpipe as the average annual cost
of owning a joint of drillpipe which is available for work.
The life-cycle cost of drillpipe includes the following
variables:

Capital Cost
Economic Life
Annual Repair Expense
Available Joints, i.e. the average number of joints
available for work on the rig

Life Cycle Costs can be expressed in a number of ways,

including costs per 100,000 feet drilled, annual costs, or as a
discounted value (such as NPV).
For the operator and drilling contractor, the best measure
of the productivity of a drillpipe string is probably cost per
joint per 100,000 feet drilled. In this way, the absolute
productivity of the drillstring is measured, rather than the
relative cost of two strings with different tooljoints.

or the ability to apply high torque to a stuck string without

twisting-off.
Neither are we attempting to quantify the possible
additional costs attributable to using WT drillpipe, such as
changes in handling equipment or marginally longer trip
times.
From the anecdotal evidence available, we believe that the
net operational benefits will clearly outweigh any additional
costs, but we leave it to the reader to make those assessments
for his own particular projects.
Capital Cost is the purchase price of the drillstring, including
inspection, thread protectors, factory break-in, and delivery.
As we have seen, in many applications it is possible to
drop-down one drillpipe size when using WT tooljoints (e.g.
using 5-1/2 or 5-7/8 WT in lieu of 6-5/8 API), or substitute
one string of WT drillpipe for two strings of API drillpipe (e.g.
4 WT in lieu of 3-1/2 and 4-1/2 API). Either case will
naturally yield a much lower Capital Cost per Joint for the
WT. For purposes of this discussion, however, we are
comparing roughly like-for-like strings of drillpipe.
The initial purchase price of drillpipe with WT
connections is generally about 20-30% more than that of
equivalent drillpipe with API rotary shouldered connections,
all other features (such as size, weight, grade, hardbanding,
etc.) being equal.
Note that WT drillpipe does not require break-in, nor is
that service offered.
Economic Life is the average economic lifespan of a joint of
drillpipe. Note that this is not the same as the economic life
for accounting (depreciation) purposes; economic life should
be consistently longer than your depreciation schedule.
For the purposes of this discussion, we do not attempt to
distinguish between grades of drillpipe (e.g T.H. Hills
Premium and Class 2, or APIs grade bands).

For purposes of this discussion, however, where we are

evaluating the relative costs of two different tools doing
essentially the same job, we express Life Cycle Cost as the
annual costs per available joint. This format also has the
advantage that the required data (or good approximations) are
readily available.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that WT drillpipe has a

significantly longer average economic life than API drillpipe,
which we attribute to the following two factors:

There is nothing particularly novel about this analytical

approach, which is typical of life-cycle cost analysis for major
capital equipment, such as machine tools. However, it is only
very rarely used for a commodity tool like API drillpipe.

For purposes of this discussion we are considering only a

one-to-one comparison between roughly equivalent Wedge
Thread and API drillpipe.
We are not attempting to quantify any economic benefits
derived from the operational characteristics of WT drillpipe,
such as higher torque in a slimmer hole, improved hydraulics,

WT tooljoints are less prone to catastrophic damage (such

as wash-outs or parting at the pin) than API rotary
shouldered connections, and
When damage does occur to WT tooljoints, it is much
more likely to be field-repairable, thus extending the time
between recuts.

There is not yet sufficient field data to reliably quantify the

improvement in economic life offered by WT drillpipe when
compared to API drillpipe, but we will show what-if
scenarios in the analysis based on the anecdotal
evidence available.

HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, JOHN F. GREENIP

For the sake of simplicity, we amortize Capital Cost

linearly (or straight-line amortization) over the Economic
Life to yield Capital Cost Per Year.
Annual Repair Expense is the average annual repair costs for
the string, including not only the machining costs, but also the
cost of logistics to move the pipe, and inspection costs.
A consensus rule-of-thumb is that WT recuts are 50% to
100% more expensive that API recuts, although this will
naturally depend on location and other variables. Obviously,
for example, API recutting services are generally more widely
available worldwide that WT recutting services.

IADC/SPE 74567

or efficiency of WT tooljoints will be considerably higher

than that of API tooljoints.
However, there is no firm data or methodology available
with which to consistently quantify this difference in
efficiency. The simplest, most direct way to express the
efficiency of a drillstring using available data is to divide
Total Annual Cost of a drillstring by the Available Joints,
yielding the Annual Cost per Available Joint.
For example, for a new drillstring:
Table 2 Annual Cost per Available Joint Calculation

However, because API tooljoints require recutting between

10 and 20 times more often than WT tooljoints on average, for
the same footage drilled, the total annual machining expense
per joint should be between about 7 to 14 times greater for
API than for WT.

A.

Capital Cost of Drillstring

B.

Economic Life

C.

Capital Cost/ Year (A/B)

D.

Machining Expense

($)

For remote locations, logistics can be a surprisingly high

percentage of the annual repair expense per joint. For
example, the following quotations were recently obtained
(October 2001) for one-way transportation costs to move
20,000 feet of 5-1/2 Range 2 Drillpipe:

E.

Logistics Expense

($)

F.

Inspection Expense

($)

G.

Annual Repair Expense

H.

Total Annual Costs

I.

Available Joints

( joints)

J.

Annual Cost / Available Joint (H/I)

($/joint)

Houston to Port of Houston:

Houston to Westwego, LA
Douala to Houston Port
Luanda to Houston Port

$3.42 / joint
$13.65 / joint
$47.09 / joint
$58.86 / joint

Assuming that WT and API repairs would be made in the

same place, the cost of moving a joint of drillpipe between a
particular location and a particular repair facility will be
exactly the same for API and WT drillpipe, the annual
logistics costs for drillpipe repair will be 10 to 20 times higher
for API drillpipe than WT drillpipe, assuming that repairs are
made in the same location.
For critical applications (e.g. T.H. Hill Associates Standard
DS-1 Categories 3, 4, or 5), the cost of inspection can also
be a relatively high percentage of the annual repair expense
per joint. Assuming that inspection cost per joint will be
roughly the same for both API and WT drillpipe, annual
inspection costs will be 10 to 20 times higher for API drillpipe
than WT drillpipe.
Total Annual Costs are the sum of all the above costs (capital
cost per year plus annual repair expense) for a twelve month
period.
Available Joints are the average number of joints in a string
available for work on the rig during the year.
This
intentionally excludes joints awaiting repair (whether on the
rig or on the beach), joints in inspection, or joints in transit to
the rig.
Since WT tooljoints have demonstrated a recut rate
approximately one order of magnitude lower than API rotary
shouldered connections, it stands to reason that the up-time"

($)
(years)
( $/year )

( $/year )
($)

Life-Cycle Cost Scenarios

The life-cycle cost tabulation above hints at scenarios in which
WT tooljoints would be cheaper to own and operate than API
tooljoints. Three examples follow.
Lower Repair Costs Scenario. For applications in which
API repair rates are high, the use of WT can be cheaper based
on lower repair costs alone.
Assume (a) the Capital Cost of WT is 30% more than API
drillpipe, with same 3-year economic life, (b) machining cost
for WT is double that of API, (c) API requires repair 10 times
more often than WT, and (d) logistics and inspection expense
per joint are the same for API and WT, therefore (e) Annual
Repair Expense for API is at least 5 times that of WT.
Table 3 Lower Repair Cost Scenario

API

WT

1.3X

A.

Capital Cost

B.

Economic Life

3 yrs.

3 yrs.

C.

Capital Cost/ Year

.333X

.433X

Capital Cost /Year Differential

E

Annual Repair Expense

Annual Repair Expense Differential

0.1X
5Y

Y
4Y

Based on these assumptions, if 80% of the annual repair cost

of API (4Y) is greater than 10% of the capital cost of the API

IADC/SPE 74567

WEDGE THREAD TOOL JOINTS: APPLICATIONS AND ECONOMICS

string (0.1X), a WT drillstring will be cheaper to own

and operate.

costs twice as much as an API repair, but that there are ten
times as many API repairs on average.

Longer Life Scenario. Anecdotal evidence suggests that WT

tooljoints will have a substantially longer economic life than
API tooljoints. If the percentage difference in economic life
approaches the annual capital cost premium (which looks like
it may be a reasonable assumption), then WT tooljoints will
almost certainly be cheaper than API tooljoints, independent
of any other savings. For example:

However, as the cost of logistics rises as a percentage of total

repair costs with increasing remoteness of the location, API
total repair costs will naturally start to approach 10 times the
total repair costs of WT, as shown in Fig. 1 below.

Assume (a) the Capital Cost of WT is 30% more than API

drillpipe, (b) the Annual Repair Expense for WT is the same
or less than for API, and (c) the percentage of Available WT
Joints is the same or higher than API, then:
Table 4 Longer Life Scenario

API

WT

1.3X

A.

Capital Cost

B.

Economic Life

3 yrs.

4 yrs.

C.

Capital Cost/ Year

.333X

.325X

If the Economic Life of API drillpipe in a particular

application is 3 years, and the Economic Life of WT drillpipe
is 4 years, the Annual Cost of WT will be lower than
API drillpipe.
Far From Home Scenario. If the drilling location is very
remote (e.g. Chad), WT is almost certainly cheaper to own and
operate than API drillpipe, due to two factors:

Cost of Logistics. In some extreme cases, the cost of

moving a joint of drillpipe for repair will approach the
purchase price of the joint.

Reduced Availability. If a large percentage of an API

drillstring is likely to be unavailable while waiting for
repair, WT is probably cheaper to own and operate, as
fewer joints will be required in the drillstring to have the
same number of available joints.

At some level of remoteness, where the differential in

annual repair costs is greater than the annual amortized
premium for WT, the Annual Cost per Available Joint will be
lower for WT than API.
Nomenclature
ERD = Extended Reach Drilling
NC = API Numbered Connection tooljoint
ppf = pounds per foot
WT = Series 500 Wedge Thread tool joint connection
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge those who have provided
their helpful input to this paper, including (1) Mr. Burt A.
Adams of Oil and Gas Rental Services, Inc. (2) Mr. Tommy
Rogers of Rogers Oil Tool Services, Inc. (3) Mr. Steve
Williamson of OMSCO Industries, and (4) Mr. David Mallis
and Ms. Renee Ahmed of Hydril Company.
References
1.

Scott, I.J.; and Black, F.J.: Slimhole Sidetrack Cuts Cost

50%. SPE European Petroleum Conference. The Hague,
Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998. SPE 50578

2.

McMillin, Kevin: Tubular Design for 28,000 foot U.S. Gulf of

Mexico Record Well. Offshore Magazine. April, 1999.

3.

Jenkins, R.W.; Greenip, J.F.; and Adams, B.A.: Case History:

Utilizing 5-1/2 Drill Pipe in a Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Drilling Program. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9-11 March 1999. IADC/SPE 52769

4.

Prater, T.E.; Everage, S.D.; Greenip, J.F.; and Adams, B.A.:

Drill String Considerations for Gulf of Mexicos Deepest Well
(27,864). SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Amsterdam,
Netherlands, 9-11 March 1999. IADC/SPE 52822.

5.

Vighetto, V.; Naegel, M.; and Pradi, E.: Total Drills

Extended-Reach Record in Terra del Fuego. Oil & Gas
Journal, May 17, 1999.

6.

Palmer- Valenzuela, H.E.; Julian-Eljure, A.; Diaz-Ramos, E.E.:

Una Sola Sarta de Perforacion 4 WT38, Supera el Desempeno de
la TP Combinada 4-1/2 3-1/2 API. XII Congreso
Latinamericano de Perforacion (COLAPER). Mexico City, Mexico.

7.

Nas, S.; and Laird, A.: Designing Underbalanced Thru Tubing

Drilling Operations. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 27 February 1 March 2001.
SPE/IADC 67829

8.

Drill Stem Design and Inspection, Standard DS-1. T.H. Hill

Asssociates, Inc. First Edition, 12/92.

9.

Wedge Thread Field Handbook, Fourth Edition, 2001. Hydril

Company

As a rule of thumb, API machining costs will be about 5

times WT machining costs, assuming that each WT repair

Repair Costs

FIG. 1 Repair Costs vs. Distance

API Drillpipe

WT Drillpipe
Distance from Repair Facility

HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, JOHN F. GREENIP

IADC/SPE 74567

Fig. 2 Wedge Thread Tooljoint Profile

Fig. 3 Reject Rate for WT Rental Strings, 1996 through 2000

60%

Percent of Wells

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 to 1% 1 to 2% 2 to 3% 3 to 4% 4 to 5% 5 to 6% 6 to 7% 7 to 8% 8 to 9%

>9%

IADC/SPE 74567

WEDGE THREAD TOOL JOINTS: APPLICATIONS AND ECONOMICS

Table 5. Make-Up Torque of API (NC) and Wedge Thread (WT) Tooljoints
ToolJoint
NC 26
WT 26
NC 31

OD
(in)

ID
(in)

3-3/8

1-3/4

Min.
Makeup
Torque
(ft-lb)

2,800

4-3/4

2-9/16

NC 40

5-1/2

2-13/16

14,270

WT 40

5-1/2

3-1/8

12,000

5-7/8

3-1/2

NC 38

NC 46
WT 46
NC 50
WT 50

6-5/8

3-5/8

RADIAL Wear
Allowance at
Rated Torque

6,880

12,300

0.117

13,200

22,500

28,500

0.109

19,170

31,500

41,000

0.094

9,800

7,920

WT 38

Tooljoint
Torsional
Yield
(ft-lb)

4,130

4-1/8

WT 31

Max.
Makeup
Torque
(ft-lb)

6,200
11,500
9,000

23,790

54,000

0.188

27,420

70,000

0.063

41,650

86,000

109,000

0.141

57,650

99,000

132,000

0.188

42,000

16,770
15,000

56,000

24,990
23,000

NC 56

7-1/4

34,590

WT 56

7-1/4

4-5/8

27,000

Source: Wedge Thread Performance Data (Hydril Bulletin 9402-D), and

Drill Pipe Stem Design and Inspection, (T.H. Hill Associates, First Edition 12/92)
Fig. 4
Rogers Oil Tools Model 8.5 Power Tongs
for 4.5 thru 8.5 Drill Pipe and Collars,
up to 110,000 ft-lbs torque continuous.

Fig. 5
Rogers Oil Tool
Mud Diverter

Fig. 6
Convex Cam-Type Pipe-Dies for
Rogers Oil Tool Model 8.5 Power Tong