IADC/SPE

IADC/SPE 23930

Drilling Safely at Well Design Limits: A Critical Well Design

Case History
Robert Quitzau* and J.B. Muchtar, Mobil Oil Indonesia
*SPE Member

Copyright 1992. IADCISPE Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1992 IADCISPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans. LouiSiana. February 18-21. 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADCISPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 IADCISPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian. SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson. TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex. 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Design parameters of kick tolerance and killable

Risks of blowouts while drilling deep, high pressured wells
can be managed through strenuous well planning and
operational contingencies. A new risk management parameter.
killable kh. along with conventional drilling parameters were
used on the Madura CD-1 well to select casing points. develop
operational contingencies and safely drill to high pressured
objectives offshore Indonesia.
productivity or killable kh (gas zone thickness x
permeability) were monitored continuously by the drilling
team. Well control contingency plans were developed based on
these parameters with the aid of Mobil Oil developed software.
The CD-1 was drilled to 16000 ft true vertical depth with
17.3 Ibm/gal mud. Six strings of casing were run. the last a 7
in. liner. A 5-5/8 in. hole was drilled from 14465 to 16000
ft, and designs put in place to drill deeper if needed.

INTRODUCTION
The benefits of discovering significant hydrocarbon reserves
warrant sound well control risk management to ensure targets
can be reached and evaluated in deep. high pressured
exploration wells. Extreme conditions often require operations
outside recognized design limitations. Strenuous well planning,
in conjunction with operational contingencies. can be employed
to stretch safety factors beyond conventional limits, while
providing mechanisms to limit risk. Risk taki~g in hole
sections with low well control incident probability allows
deeper casing points so that less risk is taken in hole sections
with higher incident probability.
These philosophies and practices were employed to reach
geological objectives on the Madura CO-1 well located offshore
Indonesia near the eastern end of the Island of Java. Factors
contributing to risk included abnormal pressure starting at
3500 ft. potentially prolific reservoir productivity coupled
with low formation strength in the shallower primary
objective and pressures greater than 14000 psi in the deeper
horizons.
Seismic data was analyzed rigorously to estimate shallow
pore pressures where casing point selection ~ritically im~acts
subsequent casing setting depths. Casing pOints were picked
based on ability to safely control an underground blowout
rather than just on kick tolerance. Casing above a potentially
prolific reservoir was set to contain an infinite influx with
minimal risk of an underground blowout.
DESIGN CONDITIONS
Well Objectives
As shown in Figure 1. the Madura CD-1 well was located
offshore near the eastern end of the Island of Java in 210ft
water depth. The well objectives are summarized in Table 1.
The primary objective for the Madura CD-1 was a carbonate
structure at 12500 ft. A secondary carbonate or clastic
objective was forecast from 16000 ft to as deep as 17500 ft.
The potential existed for the shallow objective formation to
have very high productivity. An offset well contained a zone
with permeability x thickness product of 200.000 md-ft.
Permeabilities as high as 400 md were possible.
Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Profiles
Pore pressures were estimated from seismic interval
velocities. Abnormal gradients. shown in Figure 2, started at
3500 ft and increased steadily to 12500 ft. A Mobil Oil
software package 1 for evaluating seismic data indicated
pressure gradients up to 16.00 Ibm/gal above the primary
objective. A gradient reversal was expected in the primary
objective while gradients below this objective were expected
to increase again. Fracture gradients were estimated using
Mobil Oil software and formation stress data taken from offset
casing shoe leak off tests.

References and illustrations at end of paper

749
2 DRILLING SAFELY AT WELL DESIGN LIMITS - A CRITICAL WELL DESIGN CASE HISTORY
CASING SETIING CRITERIA
Multiple objectives and variant pressure conditions for the
CD-1 required planning numerous casing strings to manage
blowout risk. Casing setting criteria were based on ability to
avoid kicks and to safely handle those that occur. Conventional
risk criteria were kick tolerance, maximum possible surface
pressure and hole conditions. Another criteria developed by
Mobil Oil, killable kh, provided a measure of the maximum
formation productivity which can be killed with the rig pumps
if an underground blowout should occur. Infinite killable kh,
or 100% control capability, was desired when drilling into
high risk zones. The risks indicated by these parameters were
weighed against probability and benefits of reaching geological
objectives.
Kick Tolerance
Kick tolerance is a measure of ability to avoid an
underground blowout. It is the amount of hydrostatic
underbalance (expressed in Ibm/gal gradient) which will
cause the shoe to break down when a kick of given volume is
first taken.
KTOL=[Ds(LOT-MW)/Dkl-[H(MW-2 .0)/Dkl .................. (1)
A commonly recommended kick tolerance limit is 0.5
Ibm/gal for a 20 bbl kick. As illustrated in Figure 3, this
criteria would require setting 6 strings of casing to reach a
depth of 8900 It on the CD-1. Design of the well with these
criteria would be cost prohibitive and would greatly reduce
chances of reaching the deep objective due to bore hole size
constraints.
Maximum Possible Surface Pressure
Maximum possible surface pressure (MPSP) is a measure of
possible loads and risks at the surface during severe well
control complications. MPSP values conservatively assume
casing is fully evacuated with gas. The consequences of a
surface blowout warrant close awareness of casing and
wellhead limits.
MPSP is the lesser of the following values:
MPSP = 0.052 Ds LOT- g Dk ................................ (2a)
or MPSP = 0.052 Dk (PP) - g Dk ................................ (2b)
A risk measure can be expressed in terms of casing surface
burst safety factor.
SFbrst = Csg Rtg/MPSP ............................................... (3)
When safety factors are less than 1.0, operational plans
must be in place to ensure casing limit loads are not reached.
Hole Conditions
Hole conditions can contribute strongly to casing point
selection in the Madura area. Factors include formation
sloughing and packing off, differential drillpipe sticking
problems, lost returns and formation ballooning.
750
IADC/SPE 23930
Killable KH
The kill able kh criterian classifies an underground blowout
which may occur at a given depth by defining the formation
permeability x thickness product for which rig pump
equipment can enable well control to be regained. Expected
formation properties can be compared to the killable kh
parameter to help assess risks.
The premises for the killable kh criterian is that an
underground gas blowout has occurred. Mud is then pumped
through the bit to mix with flowing gas. The mud-gas mixture
density increases to a stabilization point which is adequate to
cause cessation of gas flow.
A calculation was developed by Mobil Oil 2 to determine
formation flow capacity (in md-ft) which can be killed with
rig equipment. The approach determines the combination of
reservoir inflow peformance and annular volumetric mud-gas
mixing that will result in enough annular hydrostatic to kill
the well. The decision parameter, killable kh, can be
calculated with equation (4a) for given kill mud density, kill
mud pump rate, open hole length, bottom hole pressure and
formation fracture pressure. This approach neglects the
benefits of flowing friction pressure in the annulus.
killable kh =
842 .3Q/[0. 052 L(MW k -2.0)( 1 -f erl 2 J................ (4a)
where: fer = critical annular gas fraction
= [ (MWk - MWavg ) 1 (MWk - 2.0) J05 .. (4b)
MWavg = (Ps - Ppropagation) 1 (0.052 L) ........... (4c)
When first drilling out from a casing shoe, killable kh is
normally very high. If formation pressures at the bit less
hydrostatic gas column pressure are not high enough to
fracture the previous casing shoe, an underground blowout is
not possible and the killable kh is infinite. This circumstance
is referred to as 100% control capability.
As drilling continues, a depth may be reached at which
bottom hole pressures are high enough to cause an underground
blowout at the last casing shoe. This no-flow-depth is where
killable kh becomes finite and normally begins declining
rapidly from an infinite value as drilling depth increases.
High risk intervals are those which may contain gas, have
high permeability and enough thickness to provide prolific
flow conditions. A philosophy of the CD-1 well plan was that
high risk intervals should be drilled only if 100% control
capability or infinite killable kh is maintained.
As high risk zones are approached, extreme caution should be
used if killable kh is finite. It can be desirable to drill just
into the top of the high risk zone to ensure all the formations
above the zone can be cased. As the high risk zone is approached
killable kh should be sufficiently high to allow a short section
of the zone to be safely drilled based on expected
permeabilities. Extra logging runs and velocity surveys can be
considered to verify risk parameters if a high risk zone is
approached with a finite kill able kh.
Use of the killable kh parameter is a quantitative approach
which requires qualitative judgement at estimating formation
permeability and gas content based on cuttings, offset data and
hole conditions.
IADC/SPE 23930 R. QUITZAU
MADURA CD-l WELL PLAN
~onve~tional standards were stretched by planning casing
P?lnts with kick tolerances below 0.2 Ibm/gal for a 20 bbl
kick at depths shallower than 12500 ft as shown in Figure 4
Planned killable kh values ranged as low as 560 md-ft·
Surface burst safety factors were 0.56 and 0.95 for 20 in. and
13 3/ 8 in. casings respectively.
The key risk source identified for this design was the
pos~i.bility for an underground blowout from the potentially
prolific gas bearing objective at 12500 ft back to the last
casing shoe. By stretching the 20 in., 16 in. and 13 3/ 8 in.
casing setting depths, the 9 5/8 in. caSing could then be set as
close as possible to the shallow objective to minimize chances
for an underground blowout at the 9 5/8 in. shoe. This would
allo~ se~ting the 7 in. casing at the objective top.
R.ISks In the shallower depths were considered low due to the
unll~ely chance of encountering highly permeable, thick
seclions ~f gas bearing formations. If an underground blowout
occured, It would ~robably be controllable with rig equipment.
H.owever the .relatlvely deep setting· depths for these large
diameter casings resulted in maximum possible surface
pressures (gas to surface) greater than the casing burst
ratings (SFbrst < 1.0). Thus, plans were included in the
drilling . program for avoiding high surface loads by
bull heading mud before reaching limit loads.
Setting 7 in. caSing on top of the shallow objective would
allow infinite killable kh while drilling the objective. It would
also allow ~Iexibility in dealing with either a large pressure
regression In a thick gas column or a continued pressure
Increase In the absence of a gas filled section. If the regression
were encountered mud weights could be reduced to avoid
problems.
Kick. tolerances would become very low in drilling long open
hole Intervals through the 7 in. liner below the shallow
objective. There was a probability the deeper objective could
~ot be reached. Thus a key part of the initial design was to take
risks In shallow intervals with low well control incident
probability in hopes of pushing the 9 5/8 in. casing deeper to
improve chances of reaching the secondary deeper objective.
ACTUAL MADURA CD-l WELL DESIGN / CASING POINTS
Actual pressures and circumstances for the CD-l are
d~picted in Figure 2. Decision parameters are shown in
Figure 5. Seismic pore pressure evaluation proved valuable in
accurately predicting the beginning of abnormal pressure and
subsequent rapid gradient increases. A check shot seismic
survey was also employed by the drilling team at 11457 It to
verify the proximity of the potentially prolific objective.
Shallow Casing Points
The 20 in. and 16 in. caSing strings were set close to planned
depth. Pressures below the 16 in. shoe increased slower than
expected. This allowed pushing the 13 3/ 8 in. casing to BOOB ft
with a kick tolerance limit of 0.47 Ibm/gal and killable kh of
91B md-ft. Casing setting parameters are shown in Table 2.
MPSP on the 20 in. caSing rose to 4306 psi with
SFbrs: = 0.54. The higher mud weights, greater depth and long
hol.e mterval below 16 in. increased chances of a well control
InCident over the original plan. The exposed 20 in. casing was
751
J B. MUCHTAR 3
not considered a reliable high pressure containing string. The
consequences of bursting the 20 in. casing near the surface
prompted observance of the more conservative standard 0.5
Ibm/gal kick tolerance limit in setting 13 3/8 in. casing.
Setting 13 3/ 8 in. at BOOB ft would allow drilling 12 1/4 in.
hole to the top of the primary objective with a killable kh of
10200 md-ft based on the forecast objective pore pressure of
13.0 Ibm/gal. Since 100% control capability would be lost in
the 12 1/4 in. hole section, it was desirable to avoid drilling a
significant length of the objective. But given expected
maximum permeability of 400 md, a safe margin for error
existed in approaching and touching the top of the objective.
9 5/B in. Casing Point
The chances of reaching the deeper objective would be
greatly improved by setting 9 5/ 8 in. casing just above the
shallow objective top (where the 7 in. liner point was
initially planned) as shown in Figure 6. This 9 5/8 in. casing
point would also allow drilling the shallow objective with
100% control capability.
Plans were made to uncover as little of the objective
limestone as operationally feasible as the objective top was
approached with 12 1/4 in. hole. If too much limestone were
penetrated, a pressure regression could result in lost returns
followed by gas kicks. This could compromise the 100%
control capability design philosophy by allowing an
underground blowout at the 13 3/ 8 in. shoe. These
circumstances resulted in the delicate task of just touching the
objective top.
At a depth of 11457 ft, tolerances had become very low and
some tight hole conditions began to occur. A seismic check shot
survey was run to confirm interval velocities. This data
indicated the objective was much shallower than anticipated.
Close proximity to the objective (within 300 ft) prompted the
decision to continue drilling to the objective top.
A mud weight of 16.4 Ibm/gal was required to control shale
when the first limestone traces were detected at 11692 ft.
Kick tolerance, shown in Table 3 and Figure 6, had dropped
below 0.2 Ibm/gal. At this point, an underground blowout was
possible, but killable kh was over 30,000 md-ft assuming the
pore pressure in the objective was 13.0 Ibm/gal.
The possibility of a high pressured objective was recognized.
If the limestone had a 16.0 Ibm/gal pore pressure, the
killable kh would be only 596 md-ft. If high permeability and
gas were encountered along with high pressure, an unkillable
underground blowout would be possible after drilling less than
2 ft of 400 md formation. Because of this unacceptable risk,
drilling was discontinued immediately when the first trace of
limestone was detected in the drill cuttings.
The checks hot survey had helped in reducing margin for
error in finding the objective top. Use of the killable kh
parameter provided a way to quantitatively assess risks as the
potentially prolific objective was approached.
7 in. Liner Point
The 9 5/ 8 in. shoe tested to 1B.2 Ibm/gal which was higher
than expected. The main body of the objective limestone was
found 150 ft below the 9 5/8 in. shoe leaving exposed shale.
Drilling risk factors from the objective were found to be
low. The limestone rock was tight with core permeabilities
less than 0.1 md. The limestone was far thinner than expected.
4 DRILLING SAFELY AT WELL DESIGN LIMiTS - A CRITICAL WELL DESIGN CASE HISTORY
Just below the objective, pore pressures resumed a steady
increase in long sections of shale and siltstone. At 14465 ft,
mud weight reached 17.1 Ibm/gal which was much higher than
forecast. Kick tolerance was 0.3 Ibm/gal and killable kh had
fallen to 400 md-ft. Low tolerances were accepted since
information indicated low formation permeability.
Hole problems including packing off and formation ballooning
played a part in choosing the 7 in. casing point. The ballooning
was characterized by slow loss of mud into the formation while
the pumps were circulating, followed by slow influx of mud
back into the borehole when the pumps were shut down. Kick
detection became less reliable as the ballooning phenomenon
continued.
Setting 7 in. pipe at this depth provided a high chance of
reaching the deep objective. In the unlikely event another
pressure regression were encountered, a 4 1/2 in. liner could
be set and a slim hole drilling option employed to reach TD. The
risks associated with slim hole drilling were preferrable to
the risks of hole problems or an underground blowout if
drilling 8 1/2 in. hole continued.
The 7 in. liner was set at 14465 It allowing a 5 5/ S in. hole
to be safely drilled to 16000 ft where geological objectives
were met. The prognosed depth of 17500 ft could have been
reached with the existing casing program with adequate kick
tolerance and capability to kill productive intervals with
expected permeabilities.
OPERATIONAL PLANS
Madura area practices for avoiding critical loads during well
control have evolved to those described below. The use of
computers and Mobii Oil developed software have been
essential in planning for varied scenarios and have been
employed to modify procedures during drilling as data is
received.
Contingency Planning
Plans are developed and updated as needed for the following
conditions:
1. Decision criteria for bullheading versus conventional
circulation kills are established for kicks on bottom. Kill
designs and monitoring procedures for underground blowouts
are regularly updated for 3500 psi and 4500 psi pump
pressures.
2. Stripping and bullheading procedures are developed for
kicks off bottom.
3. If severe lost returns are possible in reef zones, diesel oil
bentonite - cement squeeze procedures are formulated to
quickly handle lost returns followed by gas kicks.
Kick Avoidance/Kick Volume Minimization
Accurate pore pressure prediction and rig site awareness are
important in avoiding severe kicks. Monitoring of the Dc
exponent has proven effective for pore pressure estimation in
the long shale intervals of the Madura area. Personnel
awareness is raised at the rig site prespud meeting where a
detailed presention of well control contingencies is made by the
Drilling Engineer. On site engineering support is provided for
the duration of the well. Attention to detail is strongly
emphasized by Mobil Oil Management.
752
IADCjSPE 23930
Underground Flow Kill Capability
Underground blowout kill capability is an essential
requirement. Key operational factors needed to maintain
readiness are the ability to pump at high rates and to have
access to enough weighted mud to affect a kill.
When well control tolerances get low, larger bit nozzles are
employed and drill string bottom hole assembly components
are minimized to allow higher circulation rates. Circulating
pressures are monitored regularly for calculating killable kh
values. Circulating friction pressure is estimated with the
Scott method 3 by taking at least four slow pump rates at each
tour check. Circulation rate vs friction pressure (excluding
bit pressure loss) are plotted on log-log paper and kill rates
at high pressures are estimated. The flow rate available for
design pump pressures is used in the killable kh equation
(4a).
The sensitivity of mud volume to kill circumstances is
evaluated to determine potential barite usage. A Mobil Oil
developed computer spreadsheet is employed to design a kill
which could be completed within 6 open hole volumes of mud
pumped underground. Barite for this volume is maintained on
the rig. Additional barite volume is stored within 7 hours of
the rig at a shore base to provide capacity for extended
bullheading operations.
Bullheading ConSiderations
The criteria for bullheading are based on avoidance of high
casing loads near surface during the course of a conventional
circulation kill of a large gas kick. Kick volume limits are
calculated with a Mobil Oil developed spreadsheet to establish
criteria for bullheading upon first shut in of the well. It is
important to decide the course of action at the first influx
since critical pressures can be experienced long after a
circulation kill has commenced.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Many deep wells require managed risk taking to reach
overpressured objectives with economical deSigns.
2. Operational plans must be developed to minimize
consequences of problems when pushing practices to limits.
Rig site plans should address minimization of surface loads and
killability of underground flows during kicks.
3. The killable kh criteria can be used with kick tolerance to
assess underground blowout risks. The killable kh parameter
is governed by the ability of rig pumping equipment to kill an
underground blowout.
4. Use of the killable kh criteria requires a reasonable real
time assessment of formation permeabilities and proximity to
high risk zones. Drilling personnel can become more
proficient at permeability estimates through development of
offset permeability data bases and qualitative interpretation of
drill cuttings. Determination of proximity to high risk
intervals can be enhanced through intermediate logging runs
and seismic check shot data.
5. Use of computers is essential to updating well control risk
parameters in a timely, accurate manner.
 IADC/SPE 23930 R.QUITZAU, J. B. MUCHTAR 5

NOMENCLATURE
Csg Rtg ~ API casing burst rating, psi
Dk ~ depth of kick, It
Ds ~ shoe depth or formation fracture depth, It
fer ~ critical annular gas fraction
g ~ gas gradient, psi/It
H ~ height of gas kick in annulus, ft
killable kh ~ killable productivity, md-It
KTOL ~ kick tolerance, Ibm/gal
L = vertical length between flowing zone and
formation fracture, It
LOT ~ fracture propagation pressure
gradient, IbTn/gal
MW ~ mud density at time of kick, Ibm/gal
MW avg ~ average annular fluid density required to keep
well from flowing, Ibm/gal
MW k = kill mud density, Ibm/gal
MPSP ~ maximum possible surface pressure, psi
PP ~ pore pressure, Ibm/gal
Q ~ mud pump rate, gal/min
Ps ~ static pore pressure of flowing zone, psi
P propagation = fracture propagation pressure at the shoe, psi
SF brst ~ surface burst safety factor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank members of the MEPSI Drilling

Technology staff for the technical methadology and computer
software established for managing well control risks. The
work of M. W. Wessel, D. L. Garrett, B. A. Tarr and E. M.
Blount are particularly appreciated.

REFERENCES

1. Rudiono, F. : "Computer Program to Determine Casing

Setting Depth from Seismic Interval Velocity,"
Proceedings 19th I PA Annual Convention (1990) Vol.
II p. 383-395.

2. "Killing an Underground Blowout," Mobil Oil course

text for Advanced Well Control school (August 1990).

3. Scott, K. F. : "A New Practical Approach to Rotary

Drilling Hydraulics," AIME of SPE (1973) 1519p.

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 ~

m3
ft x 3.048' E-01 ~
m
gal x 3.785 412 E-03 ~
m3
gal/min x
in x 2.54
.
6.309 020 E-05 =
E-02 =
m3/s
m
Ibm/gal x 1.198 264 E+02 ~
kg/m 3
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO ~
kPa

'Conversion factor is exact

753
 SPE 2393 0

Table 1 Madura CD-1 Objective Description

Pore
Pressure Bottom Hole
Objective Depth Gradient Pressure
12500 - 15000 ft 13.0 Ibm/gal 8450 psi

16000 - 17500 ft 16.0 Ibm/gal 14500 psi

Formation content: gas with up to 1.0% H2S.

Table 2 13-3/8 in. Casing Point

Planned ~
13-3/8 in. Setting Depth 6512 ft 8008 ft
MPSP (20 in.) 4111 psi 4306 psi
SFbrst (20 in.) 0.56 0.54
Kick Tolerance 0.07 Ibm/gal 0.47 Ibm/gal
Fcst Killable kh @ obj top
(below 13-3/8 in. string)
(13.0 Ibm/gal objective) na 10200 md-ft
(16.0 Ibm/gal objective) na 307 md-ft

Table 3 9-5/8 in. Casing Point - Actual Parameters

Planned .6.ru!al
9-5/8 in. Setting Depth 8894 ft 11692 ft
MPSP (13-3/8 in.) 5209 psi 6352 psi
SFbrst (13-3/8 in.) 0.95 0.78
Kick Tolerance 0.24 Ibm/gal 0.18 Ibm/gal
Actual killable kh @ obj top (13.0 Ibm/gal) 175000 md-ft 31600 md-ft
(16.0 Ibm/gal) 564 md-ft 596 md-ft

754
 MADURA STRAIT BLOCK

o MILES 30

o KILOMETERS 50

FIGURE 1 • Madura COol location map.

Equivalent Gradient Lbm/Gal

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

,
' .....
...::.
Estimated
Pore Press -- -~
Estimated
-~rac Gradient

5000
-~--
Gradient

~--~::~~~~==~~~~~~~::~~~---------t--------~
-
p~r:~21'\--', K.', Actual Shoe

~
Gradient
10000 +_------~--------~------~~--~~~------~+_--r_--_i
1----.,-, \ I __~ Tests

~ 1 500 0 : ~:9f:0J~ ~:~<: ~ :·_-; :.;5. .;:_·~t·~_____r+- _-~- : - : ~_- ipr-'- >- - ; ~. :'It-~- '- _ i
20000 ~_Ac_,_ua_'_@_'~1~·8_6_5_'_t __-L_ _ _ _ ~ ____ ~~ __'_ _-L_ _ _ _-J

Fig. 2 Madura CD·1 Estimated vs Actual Pore and Fracture Pressures

Mud Weight-Ibm/gal Kick Tolerance -Ibm/gal

0.5 1 1.5

4000

6000

6000
l _

~
010000

lBOOO~-- ___ ~~ _________ ~ _____ ~_-J~ _____J-_ _ _ _..J

Fig. 3 Madura CD·1 Casing Points with Conservative Criteria

755
 '-"SP
P"
1a~:~9 Mud Weigh! . Ibmlgal
4110 '01 21416

20"

9·5/8"
~
10000 1r--t-------t-~--_t~----_t_,~~--------~----~--_t--~~~----~~--~~

7" 1m

15000 1r~i-------t-~~~-t-----t--~::::==~-c~~---t---t-:::::::=============t

Fig. 4 Madura CD-1 Planned Casing Setting Parameters

Kick Tolerance - Kmable kh md-ft

10000

5000~--~~----~-C~~~~-+----+---~::~-----==;~-t----t-:;:=~--~------ ....,

15000~~r2~~--~~---~--~----+-~----~=-~"~--~----+---~--------~-----1

Fig. 5 Madura CD-1 Decision Parameters for Actual Casing Points

MPSP .. 6352 PSI Mud Welghl - Ibm/gal Kick Tolerance· Ibm'gal KIUabie kh md-ft
SF .. 0.78
0.5 1.5 10000
6000,----,__------~--~--_r--~--------~----------~--~r_------------------_,

, ,,
'j"T
I I fcst
I S . 1/2 "

14000i-~~'~h~~~.----~--,_--~~--+_---------------- ~+_--~----------~--------~ __
,,"'
I I 5~~~ •
., I hole

Fig. 6 Madura CD-1 Decision Parameters for Actual 9-5/8" Casing Point

756