Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
Estimation of drilling and cementing temperatures using standard models and simulation tools is essential for robust casing
design of critical HPHT wells. Standard casing and tubular analysis defines loads in terms of changes in thermal, pressure
and mechanical conditions from an initial installed state. Often, the casing initial temperature conditions are assumed to be
prevailing geothermal undisturbed temperatures (UDT). This is typically considered a conservative assumption which
simplifies the design process and avoids definition or verification of the relevant sequence of drilling and cementing
operations. However, for critical HPHT wells where design margins can be narrow, it may be necessary to describe the
initial physical conditions as accurately as possible and to incorporate them into the casing design analysis. In this paper, the
general methodology of engineering based casing design is reviewed and practical guidelines are presented to suggest when
extra effort to accurately model initial casing temperatures may be critical and why conventional assumptions may be non-
conservative.
Because the current industry environment is placing significant demands on operator organizations and engineering staff,
the time and effort required to gather data or to determine proper assumptions for detailed well design has to be justified. All
other things being equal, simple worst-case assumptions which facilitate quick analysis and decision processes are favored
over more detailed modeling.
However, with the wells being constructed today increasingly classified as critical HPHT wells, the need for thorough and
realistic model-based casing design must be identified when it is required. The case studies considered in this work result
from a review of a wide range of critical HPHT well designs. It is significant that some combinations and load conditions
indicate that assuming undisturbed geothermal temperatures is not necessarily conservative. This can be related to
constrained thermal expansion in cemented zones.
1. Introduction
Standard industry simulation tools which model and predict wellbore temperatures during drilling and cementing operations
as well as production operations are widely available. Prediction of initial and subsequent wellbore temperatures feeds
directly into rigorous tubular stress analysis which is often critical for robust casing and tubing design for HPHT wells.
Mitchell and Wedelich (1989) describe in detail a comprehensive wellbore simulator with coupled thermal-hydraulic effects
and discuss its application to optimal wellbore design. Goodman and Halal (1993) describe application of a model to predict
of thermal and trapped annular pressure loads. The challenges associated with HP/HT wells underscore the importance of
including state of the art thermal simulation in the well design process (Hahn et. al., 2000, 2003).
The current industry environment presents many challenges to the effective use of the available simulation tools.
Operator and engineering services organizations are all confronted with a shortage of experienced personnel. At the same
time, challenging wells which require substantial design effort are becoming more prevalent. As with any detailed modeling
technique, a great variety of input parameters must be accurately determined before thermal simulation and stress analysis
can be effectively and competently evaluated. The identification, estimation and collection of correct input data can be a
significant organizational cost in and of itself. Hence, the time and effort required to gather data or to determine proper
assumptions for detailed well design has to be justified.
In this environment, any simplifying assumptions which can streamline the design process or by-pass intensive modeling
effort are quickly adopted. All other things being equal, simple worst-case assumptions which facilitate quick analysis and
decision processes are favored over more detailed modeling. More rigorous, detailed modeling will be conducted on a
selective basis only where the costs can be justified.
2 SPE 114928
In the case of modeling wellbore thermal conditions, production operations are generally characterized by a few
significant parameters which are typically estimated with some degree of certainty. On the other hand, the drilling process is
subject to many operational parameters which are more difficult to quantify or predict. Also, the drilling process is by its
very nature unpredictable and subject to unanticipated contingencies.
A common industry rule of thumb is that conservative well designs for hot production loads result by assuming initial
wellbore temperature conditions equal to the undisturbed geothermal state. In this way, the need to estimate drilling and
cementing parameters and simulate the wellbore construction process may be avoided. Since this is assumed to result in the
worst case thermal induced loads, the well design is accepted if no unacceptable loads are identified.
However, the assumption of an initial casing state equal to undisturbed geothermal may not be appropriate. For
challenging HPHT well designs, this assumption is sometimes overly-conservative and the well design can only be justified
by taking the time and effort to model more realistic cementing conditions. More importantly, it is quite possible that the true
drilling and cementing temperatures result in a more severe temperature change and thermal load than the assumption of
undisturbed geothermal temperatures (UDT). In this case, critically unacceptable load conditions may not be identified for
the basis of design.
In the following sections, the impact of initial casing temperature conditions on the analysis of tubular stresses is
reviewed. The significance of assuming undisturbed geothermal versus cementing temperatures is illustrated. Some case
studies are presented which highlight the practical impact of these assumptions. Finally, some general guidelines are
presented for consideration in the well design process.
dLT = L T2 ( T1 ) (1)
where L is the free length of casing and T 1 and T 2 are the initial and final average temperatures along L, respectively.
This corresponds to a thermal axial strain, T:
= dL
T T
L = T (2)
If the casing is indeed free-hanging, then the temperature change does not induce any axial load on the casing. However,
if the casing end points are fixed to prevent axial displacement, then an axial load is generated on the casing string. This
corresponds to a fixed surface wellhead and a fixed point downhole at the cement top or at a fixed packer.
In the absence of buckling, the thermal axial strain for casing with fixed end-points translates into a compressive axial
load determined by Hookes law:
FT = T EA (3)
A complete development of the force-displacement problem for wellbore tubulars may be found in Lubinski (1962) or
Mitchell (1996). The general calculation for the incremental axial load due to changes between initial and final string states
includes strain components for mechanical displacement, temperature change, ballooning and buckling:
(
Fa = EA dL L T B P ) (4)
where dL is the net displacement, B is the effective strain associated with buckling and P is the Poisson strain due to
changes in internal and external pressures:
P (
= 2 po Ao pi Ai ) EA (5)
For example, consider the thermal load which results for 9 5/8 53.5 ppf casing (nominal ID = 8.535 in) given an increase
in average temperature of 100F. Typical values of Youngs Modulus, Poissons ratio and coefficient of linear expansion for
casing steel are E = 30x106 psi, =0.3, and = 6.9x10-6/F. If no mechanical displacement is allowed to compensate for the
thermal strain and if buckling is ignored, the 100F average temperature increase generates -321.8 kips of incremental axial
load (in compresssion) which equates to -20.7 kpsi stress. For L80 pipe this load is equivalent to 25.9% of the nominal yield
strength. By way of comparison, a 1000 psig increase in external pressure results in an incremental axial load of -43.7 kips.
SPE 114928 3
In addition to the nominal loads imposed, severe axial compression results in helical buckling of the casing strings which
incurs additional bending stresses. Also, proprietary premium connections may be significantly derated in compression
relative to the pipe body. Hence, extreme compressive loads may compromise pressure integrity of the casing string.
A surface tubing leak load case is considered again, during a brief hot shut-in immediately after long-term production of
12,500 bopd and 45 mmscfd. A 5000 psig shut-in tubing head pressure is applied on top of the packer fluid. However, the
load case severity is increased by the specification of full mud deterioration in the outer annulus. Also, an additional
sensitivity load case is considered given the start of a hot kill operation under the same thermal conditions. This results in an
approximate 10% increase in surface pressure.
Figure 5 shows a plot of undisturbed geothermal, simulated cementing and hot production/shut-in temperatures relevant
for this load case scenario. As in Case #1, the cementing temperature profile models the cement set 5 hours after final
pumping and displacement. The resulting average temperatures are: T UDT = 132F, T WOC = 107F, T PROD = 254F.
As shown in Figure 6, given initial casing temperatures based on UDT, the tubing leak load case results in acceptable
safety factors per the particular operator design guidelines. The hot kill operation results in a marginally unnacceptable
triaxial stress condition based on the required Design Factor.
However, if the design load cases are recalculated with the initial temperature conditions now determined by the
simulated cementing conditions, both of the two load cases considered result in significant excursions from the required
design envelope. The biaxial plot of approximate triaxial stress state for the load case is shown in Figure 7. In this situation,
the average differential temperature for the load cases increases by 21% and the resulting axial load at the TOC increases by
28%. The pipe body is subject to unacceptable triaxial stress and also the connection compression limit is exceeded.
Several observations can be made for this example. First, the TOC depth for this casing string is very deep with most of
the casing string uncemented. This is a typical approach for subsea wells where an extensive length of exposed formation is
incorporated into the design in order to mitigate trapped annular pressure problems. Related to this, the drilling and
cementing operations actually result in cooling the wellbore on average over the given free casing length.
This case study demonstrates a very important and perhaps non-intuitive result. Assuming UDT as the initial temperature
condition is not always a safe conservative assumption. It is quite possible that realistic cementing and drilling conditions
must be simulated in order to identify worst case design load states which may fail to meet design requirements.
It is sometimes necessary to simulate the well construction process with sufficient accuracy in order to determine
true worst case load conditions for any given well and casing string. This is true for both hot production and cool
stimulation/kill load cases.
A case study presented shows that under extreme HPHT conditions, the assumption of UDT as the initial casing
condition may be overly conservative. Simulation of cementing conditions will be necessary to achieve optimal
well designs which are acceptable based on typical operator design requirements.
A case study presented demonstrates that accurate simulation of cementing temperatures is necessary to identify
worst case trapped annular pressure buildup in deep wellbore zones.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge Altus Well Experts, Inc. for its support in the preparation and presentation of this work.
Nomenclature
A = pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
Ai = internal pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
Ao = external pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
APB = annular pressure buildup (psi)
dLT = incremental displacement from thermal elongation
dL = overall incremental displacement
E = Youngs Modulus (psi)
Fa = total incremental axial load (lbf)
FT = incremental axial load from thermal loads (lbf)
L = free length of casing or tubing (ft)
T 1 = initial average temperature along free casing length
T 2 = final average temperature along free casing length
T PROD = final production temperature along free casing length
T UDT = average undisturbed geothermal temperature along free casing length
T WOC = average cementing temperature along free casing length
TAP = trapped annular pressure
TITAP = thermal-induced trapped annular pressure)
TOC = top of cement depth (ft)
UDT = undisturbed geothermal temperatures
WOC = waiting on cement
= coefficient of linear expansion (/F)
pi = change in internal pipe pressure (psi)
po = change in external pipe pressure (psi)
T = change in average pipe temperature (F)
B = effective buckling strain
P = Poisson strain (from ballooning)
T = thermal axial strain
= Poissons ration
References
1. Mitchell, R. F. and Wedelich, H. F. (1989). Prediction of downhole temperatures can be key for optimal wellbore design. SPE
paper 18900. Presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
2. Goodman, M. A. and Halal, A.S.(1993). Case study: HPHT casing design achieved with multistring analysis. SPE paper 26322.
Presented at SPE ATCE, Houston, Texas, USA
3. Hahn, D.E., Pearson, R. M. and Hancock, S.H. (2000). Importance of completion design considerations for complex, hostile and
HPHT wells in frontier areas. SPE paper 59750. Presented at 2000 SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada
4. Hahn, D.E., Burke, L. H., Mackenzie, S.F. and K. H. Archibald (2003). Completion design and implementation in challenging
HPHT wells in California. SPE paper 86911. SPE Drilling & Completion, December
5. Mitchell, R. F. (1996). Comprehensive analysis of buckling with friction. SPE paper 29457. SPE Drilling & Completion,
September
6. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.F. and Logan, J.L. (1962). Helical buckling of tubing sealed in packers. JPT, June
7. Halal, A.S. and Mitchell, R. F. (1993). Casing design for trapped annular pressure buildup. SPE paper 25694. Presented at
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Holland
8. Adams, A.J. (1991). How to design for annulus fluid heat-up. SPE paper 22871. Presented at SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas, USA
9. Adams, A.J. and MacEachran, A. (1994). Impact on casing design of thermal expansion of fluids in confined annuli. SPE paper
21911. SPE Drilling & Completion, September
SPE 114928 7
dLT FT
(a) Free hanging casing at (b) Free hanging casing at final (c) Fixed casing at final
initial average temperature T1 average temperature T2 > T1 average temperature T2 > T1
TUDT- PROD
TWOC- PROD
TOC
TUDT- STIM
Production
TWOC- STIM
Depth
Fig. 2 Temperature plots of representative well operations
8 SPE 114928
2000
4000
6000
8000
MD (ft)
10000
12000
14000 GEOTHERMAL
AS CEMENTED
16000
PRODUCTION
18000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
T (deg F)
Fig. 3 Case study #1: Temperature plots vs. depth
Design Limits - 9.998" Production Casing - Section 2 - OD 9.998 - Weight 68.80 - Grade Q-125
20000
Compression 1.300
4000
n Compression 1.300
0
-4000
-8000
-12000
Collapse 1.000
-16000
Fig. 4 Case study #1: Triaxial stress plot for tubing leak based on UDT
SPE 114928 9
2000
4000
MD (ft)
6000
8000
GEOTHERMAL
10000
AS CEMENTED
PRODUCTION
12000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
T (deg F)
6000
4000
Effective Internal Pressure (psig)
Compression 1.300
2000
Connection Compression 1.300
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
Fig. 6 Case study #2: Tubing leak and hot kill loads based on UDT initial temperatures
10 SPE 114928
6000
4000
Effective Internal Pressure (psig)
Compression 1.300
2000
Connection Compression 1.300
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
Fig. 7 Case study #2: Tubing leak and hot kill loads based on cementing temperatures
2000
4000
6000
MD (ft)
8000
10000
12000
GEOTHERMAL
14000 AS CEMENTED
PRODUCTION
16000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
T (deg F)