SPE 89912

Drilling Metrics for Improved Casing Running Performance

Colin J. Mason, BP Exploration and David C-K Chen, Halliburton Sperry-Sun

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

An enormous amount of information can be generated
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and when drilling and completing a well. Information and data are
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
primarily used to manage and assure the operation so that well
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
objectives can be met. All too often significant volumes of
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to captured data, that could be used to assess wellbore health, are
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at simply ignored. This is not due to reluctance by the drilling
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
team but more often associated with resources. The data needs
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is to be properly interpreted and then presented in a format that
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 can readily aid decision making. One of the purposes of this
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. paper is to highlight such gaps and to promote industry
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
improvements.
Abstract The first phase of the DMICRP (Drilling Metrics for
Despite the use of advanced rotary steerable systems to Improved Casing Running Performance) project is to identify
improve drilling capability and performance, casing running in the required tools and processes. To enable identification, the
these same wellbores can sometimes be unpredictable. A following list of goals, objectives and desired outcomes have
collaborative study has been undertaken to develop a set of been proposed.
drilling metrics to assist with identifying wells where casing
running has a risk of failure. This project called “DMICRP” • Improve casing running performance
(Drilling Metrics for Improved Casing Running Performance)
• Understand link between drilling and casing running
is currently in the early phase of development; and, therefore,
mechanics
results presented here reflect thoughts, ideas, and progress to
• Align casing running practices with wellbore health
date. The framework described in this paper is not only
indicators
specific to running casing and liner but can also be applied to
the installation of other tubulars such as solid expandable • Compile common failure mechanisms associated with
tubulars and expandable sand screens. The project is also casing running problems
seeking collaboration with other operators and interested • Encourage competent use of T&D (Torque and Drag)
parties to share data and experience. Upon completion of the software
project, the knowledge based system will be made available to • Raise awareness of limitations in T&D software
the drilling community. • Recommend improvements to T&D software
• Develop best practices for casing running modelling
Introduction • Assess significance of stiffness effects for casing running
It is fair to say that casing running is successful in the vast • Understand impact of dogleg severity on casing running
majority of drilled wellbores throughout the world. • Provide guidance on impact of casing centralisation
Unfortunately from time to time stuck casing incidents • Raise awareness of occurrence of static friction effects
continue to occur. Most of these events are unexpected and during casing running
usually are an unpleasant surprise to the drilling team. • Improve utility of data collected at the well site
Needless to say, the net impact on well construction costs and • Extend casing running envelope though improved
possible knock-on effects to production efficiency can be very learning and better analysis techniques
significant. • Engage and encourage participation from industry
• Communicate results to industry
There is a clear need to understand why and how these
incidents occur. To date, only limited case studies have been Processes and procedures are to be developed to enable
reported in the literature, and to date there have been no creation of drilling metrics that can be meaningfully applied to
attempts to address this issue on a wider scale. This paper is casing running. Data acquisition; interpretation of time and
intended to stimulate engineers from both operators and depth data; T&D modelling; embedment of local field
service companies to think through the various processes that experience; development of a drilling and casing running
determine whether a wellbore is fit for purpose to run casing. knowledge system — are all components of the system.
2 SPE 89912

Future publications will illustrate how drilling metrics BP’s casing running database, where a number of common
have been applied in practice to a number of field operations. parameters could be linked with casing running problems.

Drilling and Casing Running Comparison At this stage it is envisioned that DMICRP will represent a
Currently and routinely, many complex wellbores are knowledge based system comprising the following key
drilled efficiently and effectively with rotary steerable components:
systems. These wells have the benefit of continuous three
dimensional steerability, enhanced hole cleaning through • Decision Trees (DT)
continuous rotation, and improved wellbore quality through • Friction Factor Database (FFD)
better gauge hole and reduced spiralling1. Surprisingly, • Operational Guidelines (OG)
running production casing or liner in these same wellbores is • Best Practices (BP)
sometimes unpredictable or more challenging than expected.
This is usually not a result of how the well was drilled, but due Depending on the operational phase (well planning,
to a lack of understanding of the relationship between casing drilling, or casing running), different knowledge system
running mechanics and the drilled wellbore. This knowledge components are applied. For example, three decision trees,
deficiency is further compounded by the recent introduction of three sets of operation guidelines, and three sets of best
non-standard casing sizes and exotic connection types. practices will be developed. There is, however, only one
Furthermore, an increasing trend to drill and underream larger friction factor database source for drilling and casing running.
hole sizes adds another degree of intricacy to the overall Table 2 illustrates the components of the knowledge based
puzzle. systems for each of the phases.

The situation is usually more complex for extended-reach Decision Trees (DT). Decision trees are used to identify key
wells where long, high angle wellbores can mask effects such drilling metrics that influence casing running performance.
as residual cuttings beds, wellbore breakout due to hole Three decision trees for well planning, drilling and casing
instability, and time dependent wellbore changes. running will be developed. Fig. 1 shows a prototype example
of a decision tree for well planning.
Typically the best and most practicable indicator (or
metric) for a casing run is to trip drillpipe in the same Friction Factor Database (FFD). T&D analysis forms an
wellbore. Tripping drillpipe happens naturally in a variety of integral part of the overall “drilling metrics” process. Friction
ways. Clearly the drilling BHA (Bottom Hole Assembly) has factors (FFs) are vital data and are used for predicting casing
to be tripped (or backreamed) out of hole; and sometimes running success. A worldwide friction factor database has
dedicated clean-out, hole opener or roller reamer assemblies been developed within BP targeted specifically at casing
are utilised to provide assurance foe the casing run. running.
Occasionally a BHA may be utilised that mimics the stiffness
of the casing string. The following attributes (listed alphabetically) have been
captured to provide insights into casing running risks:
Whichever BHA is deployed; the last trip-out of hole prior
to the casing run casing is the final test of wellbore health. It • Calculated slack-off and pick-up friction factors
goes without saying that tripping-out drillpipe is • Casing connection type
fundamentally different to running casing. These differences
• Casing diameter, weight and length
are compiled in Table 1.
• Centralisation details
• Comments
Despite significant differences between tripping drillpipe
and running casing, relatively few studies have been • Deployment method (conventional or floated)
concerned with casing running.2,3,4 It is noteworthy that most • Field name and location
published results are usually focussed on casing running • Horizontal departure and vertical depth
success rather than failure and their root causes. • Mud type and weight
• Open hole size and depth
Some of the unexpected casing running failures have • Outcome (success or failure)
relatively simple mechanisms and can be traced back to • Previous casing size, weight and shoe depth
modelling assumptions used in the planning phase. Performing • String type (casing or liner)
high quality torque and drag analysis is one of the • Well name
fundamental steps to understanding risks. Key to this is having • Well profile type and tangent angle
good insights into what friction factors actually represent and
then knowing what values to use. Results averaged from the friction factor database are
summarised in Table 3. These are based on consistently
Development of Drilling Metrics analysing twenty 13-3/8-in. and over sixty 9-5/8-in. casing
The primary aim of defining a set of drilling metrics, in the runs. The quoted FFs are averaged over the total number of
context of this paper, is to improve casing running success. runs for each casing size and mud type.
This approach was motivated as a result of studying entries in
SPE 89912 3

As expected, it can be seen, from Table 3, that on average, Typically, drilling and casing running data originate from
friction factors for WBM (Water Based Mud) are slightly three sources: (1) the driller or rig floor, (2) mudloggers, and
higher than those calculated for OBM (Oil Based Mud). Note (3) MWD (Measurement While Drilling) data.
that individual casing running results can vary quite
significantly from these figures. As always, it is recommended 1. Drillers or Rig Floor Data.
that data from offset wells be analysed to calibrate a set of In low cost operations, the driller is usually the key source of
local friction factors. surface hookload and torque data. This information is
primarily used by the driller to monitor trends and provide
A more in depth analysis of this and other data indicates assurance should anything unexpected occur. Casing running
that parameters such as mud overbalance, casing connection data is sometimes recorded but usually at fairly infrequent
design and centralization strategy5 all impact casing running intervals. This means that opportunities for learning are
performance. limited. However efforts should still be made to obtain this
data and perform casing drag analysis.
Another important observation is that calculated casing
running FFs are higher (often double) than drilling FFs. In 2. Surface Logging Data (Drilling And Tripping).
theory, these should be the same and this is where a common For critical or complex wells, it is assumed that a mudlogging
source of error and confusion arises. However it is considered unit will collect surface data throughout drilling and casing
that this variation arises from a number of mechanisms running operations. Unless the operator specifies a data
including differences in tubular stiffness, surface contact collection protocol, it is likely that little attention will be given
areas, fluid displacement rates, time dependent mud rheology to tracking data during the casing runs. It is therefore
changes and T&D mathematical modelling assumptions. recommended that a data collection plan be provided to the
mudloggers. Being prescriptive in this area can pay dividends.
Operational Guidelines (OG). Operational guidelines enable It is also important that personnel at the rig site buy into the
prediction of casing running problems based on information plan and therefore clear communication to explain why data is
from the drilling phase. These will comprise simple processes being collected and the value it brings will usually provide the
that drilling engineers can follow. Three operation guidelines necessary focus.
for well planning, drilling and casing running again will be
developed. Fig. 2 shows a sample of proposed operation By default, drilling data is often captured and stored at
guidelines for the drilling phase. one-minute intervals. Recording at this frequency is sufficient
in many situations as parameters do not change significantly
Best Practices (BP). By adopting common processes for when on-bottom drilling. However when tripping pipe, the
drilling and casing running, a system of best practices will be dynamics are considerably different. If the one-minute data
generated. Three sets will also be developed to address well frequency is being used to track pick-up weights during a
planning, drilling and casing running. Fig. 3 provides an trip-out of hole, then valuable data will be missed.
outline example of best practice for the casing running phase.
In terms of defining tripping or casing running data
In addition to developing best practices for each phase, a collection requirements, it is necessary to examine how the
risk matrix should also be formulated to high grade the most data is being used. If the data is to be used for trend analysis
likely risks. Fig. 4 provides an illustration of a casing running then a sampling frequency of at least five seconds is
risk matrix. Note that such a matrix should be developed or recommended. If the data is to be used to understand the
adapted for each individual casing run. dynamics before, during, and after a connection is made or
broken then a sampling frequency of one second is needed.
Data Collection and Management This higher frequency data is especially valuable when
Drilling metrics are inherently dependent on the measurement looking for differential sticking or static friction trends. Fig. 6
and interpretation of collected field data. Data requirements provides an example of high frequency (one second) hook
vary depending on which phase of the planning-drilling-casing load data during an actual casing running operation. It clearly
running life cycle is at. Fig. 5 details the data collection shows static friction effects being accurately tracked
requirements for the three phases. Note that the list is quite throughout the casing run.
comprehensive. This means that this area must be properly
resourced if full value is to be derived. In many cases, where If resources permit, then it is valuable to develop a drilling
not all data are available, DMICRP will provide guidelines on chronology for each hole section or even the entire well.
what data are essential and what can be ignored to produce a Developing such a chronology requires high quality time and
casing running program. depth-based surface logging data to be recorded throughout.
The drilling chronology is defined as the sequential
Quality and quantity of data collected from the drilling breakdown of tripping, drilling and casing running operations.
phase influences the overall risk assessment for the subsequent This chronology provides insights into how the wellbore
casing run. Data collection requirements vary enormously changes as a function of time. How these changes are
between rig sites and depend on well complexity, economics, measured, monitored, or interpreted forms one of the drilling
and perceived value. metrics. More specifically, examination of T&D changes for
each BHA run provides evidence of changes to the wellbore.
4 SPE 89912

3. MWD Data. 6. To date, various casing running failure modes have been
Acquiring downhole MWD data during drilling is extremely identified. One of the key mechanisms is the presence of
valuable. For complex wells, downhole pressures or ECDs static friction effects. Static friction is usually associated
(Equivalent Circulating Density) are actively monitored in real with permeable formations, high overbalance, and use of
time. Real time pressure readings and/or ECDs provide casing with limited stand-off. Improved detection and
information on hole cleaning trends and act as an early reporting of static friction effects in both drilling and
warning indicator of other wellbore problems. casing running will also lead to improved performance.
7. The project is seeking collaboration with other operators
Downhole WOB (Weight on Bit) and torque sensors, if and other interested parties to share data and experience.
available, can be used to deliver information to the driller to All comments are welcome. Upon completion of this
enable fine tuning of surface drilling parameters. Downhole project, it is intended that deliverables of the knowledge
dynamics subs are used to identify undesirable modes of based system will be transferred to the drilling community.
operation, such as slip stick, whirl, or other vibration modes.
This information can be processed downhole then pulsed to
the driller indicating whether any corrective actions are Acknowledgements
needed. Review of this information prior to the casing run The authors wish to thank BP Exploration and Halliburton
may provide some insights into zones where excessive Energy Services for their support and permission to publish
vibration problems occurred, this paper.

Changes in formation types are captured with MWD/LWD References

(Logging While Drilling) sensors. Formation characterisation 1. Stuart, D., Hamer, C.D., Henderson, C., Gaynor, T. and Chen,
and delineation is valuable in understanding potential risks for D.C-K, “New Drilling Technology Reduces Torque and Drag by
the casing run. Drilling a Smooth and Straight Wellbore”, SPE/IADC 79919,
2003 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 19-21 February.
Much of the above information must be utilised in real 2. Mason, C.J., Lopez J., Meling, S., Munger, R., and Fraser, B.,
time or near real time to help manage the drilling operation. “Casing Running Challenges for Extended-Reach Wells”, SPE
The majority of this information is also recorded in memory 84447, 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
and available for subsequent processing and plotting. Whilst Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.
the subsurface data is usually re-examined, the same is not 3. Mason, C.J., Allen, F.M., Ramirez, A.A., Wolfson, L. and
true of downhole drilling parameters. Close scrutiny of this Tapper, R., Casing Running Milestones for Extended-Reach
data can provide clues to potential wellbore problems that Wells SPE/IADC 52842, 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
could impact the casing run. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9-11 March.
4. Wang, Z, and Musaeus, N., “A Novel Approach to Liner
Floatation Extends the Standard Well Reach in a North Sea Field
Summary and Future Work Development” , SPE/IADC 87187, 2004 SPE/IADC Drilling
1. A new collaborative project “DMICRP” (Drilling Matrices Conference, Dallas, Texas, 2-4 March.
for Improved Casing Running Performance) has been 5. Kinzel, H., “Centralizers Help Reduce Stuck Casing, Liners”,
launched to promote a better understanding of the Petroleum Engineer International, April 1994.
relationship between drilling and casing running.
2. Initial components for the DMICRP project have been
defined. These comprise knowledge based decision trees,
friction factor registry, operational guidelines, and best
practices.
3. Directional services are usually concerned with meeting
well planning and target objectives. Due to contractual
arrangements, there is often little or no follow-up on
performance of the subsequent casing run. It is argued that
both drilling and the subsequent casing run should be
considered as one system. Directly involving the
directional company in assessment and follow through of
the casing run is seen as a key enabler to improve delivery.
4. Data collection, interpretation, and analysis often falls
short of what is required to properly understand linkage
between drilling and casing running. Improved processes,
procedures, and practices are needed to fill this void.
5. T&D software is routinely used by drilling engineers to
assess the criticality of a casing run. Whilst most software
is relatively easy to use, it is clear that engineers are not
always aware of the limitations of the model. Additionally
they need to be aware that other parameters that cannot be
modelled can also influence the outcome.
SPE 89912 3

Tripping Drillpipe Casing Running

Drillpipe smaller diameter, lighter and more flexible. Casing larger diameter, heavier and stiffer.
BHA is heavier and stiffer.
Stabilisers and bits have biggest diameter. Centralisers, if used, increase overall string diameter and
stiffness.
Smaller diameter means less contact with wellbore Larger diameter means more contact with wellbore
Typically 9m joint lengths, Range 2 drillpipe. Typically 13m joint lengths between connections.
Tool joints generally give good annular clearance Large variety of couplings gives variable degrees of stand-
between pipe body and wellbore. off between casing and wellbore.
Swab and surge effects smaller. Swab and surge effects usually significant – losses are
frequent.
Mud fresh due to frequent circulation Mud stale, static in wellbore – unless frequent circulation
used to condition mud
Additional stand-off for drillpipe not normally Centralisation frequently used to improve stand-off
considered
Drag levels lower during tripping. Drag levels higher during deployment.
Drag on connections less likely Drag on connections more likely

Table 1 — Drillpipe and Casing Running Comparison

Decision FF Operational Best

Operational
Tree Database Guidelines Practice
Phase
(DT) (FFD) (OG) (BP)

Well Planning DT-WP FFD OG-WP BP-WP

Drilling DT-D FFD OG-D BP-D

Casing Running DT-CR FFD OG-CR BP-GR

Table 2 — Knowledge Systems

CH/OH FFs CH/OH FFs

Casing Size
WBM OBM
13-3/8-in. 0.30/0.45 0.25/0.40
9-5/8-in. 0.25/0.40 0.25/0.35

Table 3 — Friction Factor Database Results

6 SPE 89912

Start

Based on your experience, is this casing run Have you successfully run casing
inside the normal envelope? in all similar offset wells?

Yes
NO
NO
What is the track record in offset
Perform DMICRP wells in the field, if any?
Less than
Step 1: review FF in offset 100% success
wells, if any. 100% success
Step 2: If no reliable FF data, use
FF database
Step 3: Follow operation
guidelines for well planning Don’t need DMICRP
Step 4: Follow best practices for
well planning

Figure 1 – Simple Decision Tree Example for Well Planning Phase

Attribute Action Comment

T&D Review off-bottom rotating weights Confirm that actual data agrees with model – simple check to
confirm T&D model data is correct
T&D Calculate FFs for drilling phase Calculate pick-up, slack-off and on-bottom drilling friction
factors
T&D Calculate FFs for final trip-out of hole Possible that last trip-out is a weak indicator for casing run
problems
T&D Calculate FFs for clean-out, hole opener and drift Comparative analysis between BHA runs can help identify
runs improvement to or deterioration of wellbore
Downhole Review ECD data Use data to seek out potential hole problem areas
Data Identify overpulls zones > 30klbs Indicative of cuttings beds, tight hole, wellbore breakout
Data Look for differential sticking tendencies Review surface logging data and / or morning report system for
occurrences of drag on connections
Data Review occurrence of fluid losses Examine information for losses, assess whether these are seepage
losses and associated with either faults or permeable zones
Learning Examine offsets well data and casing running Primarily contrast results with those from offset wells, but also
database for industry offsets. look for support within organisation when results are marginal
Decision Develop confidence levels for casing running based Assess changes to friction factors and number and intensity of
upon drilling performance. overpulls to provide confidence for casing run

Figure 2 – Operational Guidelines Example for Drilling Phase

SPE 89912 7

Attribute Action Comment

T&D Assess whether drilling slack-off OHFF provides Use offset well experience to look for links
confidence for casing run
T&D Assess whether drilling torque OHFF is a good Use offset well experience to look for links
indicator for casing run
Data Has good hole cleaning has been achieved Ensure best practices have been employed
Design Is centralisation appropriate for casing run Review cement job needs and differential sticking risks
Decision Compare calculated drilling OHFF from current Current and offset well comparison may identify additional risk
well with offset wells
Planning Generate drag risk plot for casing run Modelling must consider weight sensitivity to friction factors
Modelling Consider whether centralisers increase overall Suggestion: if running centralisers add 0.05 to planned friction
friction factors factors
Modelling Assess impact of low annular clearance on drag Suggestion: add 0.05 to planned friction factors if casing size
> 9-5/8-in. or hole size < 12¼-in.
Modelling Consider impact of BHA overpulls with casing Suggestion: if overpull > 50klbs add 0.05 to planned friction factors
running drag
Modelling Use database when no other field data available If nothing is known about field then for OBM FFs assume
0.25/0.35, WBM friction factors assume 0.25/0.40. Also look at
OHFF sensitivities +/- 0.20.
Decision Generate a probability of success Helps focus mind on overall risks
Decision Use penalty point scorecard Identify weak area in the well planning and execution phases

Figure 3 – Best Practice Example for Casing Running Phase

Casing Running Risk Matrix Example

HIGH

Differential sticking
Static friction present
Flush casing connections Low annular clearance

Limited overpull capability Challenging well profile

Permeable formation present High overbalance

R Organisational Capability
I
S Poor mud lubricity
K Poor hole cleaning Drilling BHA tripping problems

Wellbore instability problems Losses during drilling

High mud weight required
Drag reduction needed Weather (semi-sub)
Low running weights at TD

LOW HIGH Ability to control / minimise risk LOW

Figure 4 – Casing Running Risk Matrix Example

8 SPE 89912

Well Planning Drilling Casing Running

Geometry Morning Reports Morning Reports
Hole size Drillers (or rig floor) data Casing tally
Casing size and weight (connection design) Mudloggers or surface logging data Casing size and weight
Planned profile design, tortuousity Downhole data (e.g. ECD) Casing connection
Mechanics Drilling fluid (Mud Weight, Rheology) Centralisation program
Data Drillstring / BHA and bit data As-drilled survey data Rig floor data
Required Rig design (block weight, top drive, Revised formation picks Surface logging data
standpipe pressure, horse power) Actual hole sizes / casing design Lithology description
Drilling Fluid Drillstring / BHA and bit data Drilling fluid
OBM or WBM Back-calculated friction factors Tripping schedule
Mud weight and rheology programme Refined pore pressure / fracture gradient Casing running drag
Solids content in drilling fluid Drilling chronology compilation chart
Degree of overbalance
Filter cake thickness Wellbore quality evaluation
Geological Updated prediction for casing run
Lithology column
Rock properties
Fault locations
Permeable or thief zones
Temperature gradient
Pore pressure / fracture gradient
Drilling Parameters
ROP, RPM and WOB programme
Hole cleaning flow rates
Wellbore Health Metrics
Wellbore instability / breakout
Differential sticking
Friction factors
Overpulls during final trip out of hole
Losses during drilling / tripping
Learning
End of well reports from offset wells
T&D analysis results from offset wells
Organisational learning
Industry experience

Figure 5 – Data Required for Processing

SPE 89912 9

Run 4,721m 9-5/8" Casing (53.5 lb/ft) [3,689m VAM SLIJ-II and 1,032m Hydril 523]
900
13-3/8" Shoe
Total 287 Centralisers Work Pipe
@ 1,212m
2 per joint on bottom 64m (shoetrack) @ 3,464m
800 1 per joint on next 3,450m

700 Hookload (Mudloggers)

Slack-Off: Rig Floor
600 Static Friction Down Drag
Slack-Off: FF=0.25/0.50
Hookload (klbs)

500
Geom etry change
1890 - 1923m
Mud Type: SOBM
400 Weight = 12.9 PPG
PV = 45 cP
YP = 27 lbf/100ft²
300

200

100

Travelling Block Weight = 55 klbs

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Measured Depth (m)

Figure 6 – High Frequency Casing Running (1 second) Hookload Data