Design and select the least expensive 5-1/2 production casing string that does not fail.
Do not use more than four sections. You can use fewer sections if it is the least expensive string Report
your design in the following table for the production casing string (top to bottom as in the
wellbore):
Weight (lbf/ft)
Cost ($)
288,535
23
N80
LTC
11500
20
Q125
LTC
11500
0
12000
Total Cost
17,045
$305,580
Do not use any casing other than what is listed in the inventory.
Deliverables:
Write a one page memo addressed to Dr. Ermila and myself describing the situations and scenarios
and the selection of casing string. It should be in a narrative format.
Four graphs
o One for all collapse scenarios
o One for all burst scenarios
o One for all tensile scenarios (pipe body)
o One for all tensile scenarios (joint strength)
Show your casing selection collapse, burst, and tensile capabilities on your respective graphs.
Be certain to show your work.
Show and describe all design criteria equations used
o Add sample calculations.
MEMO
To
From
Subject
Date
An inexpensive and safe 5.5in production casing string was to be designed based on the casing material properties and several
potential failure scenarios. A table of available pipe inventory was used as the main basis of comparison and reference for t he
surface material properties. Three cases were considered as potential failure events. These were collapse, burst and tensile. Each
case was then analyzed based on two of the worst possible scenarios that could cause the casing to fail by the specified case.
Based on the analysis performed, the final casing design is estimated to cost $305,580 in material costs.
The two worst possible cases for which the casing could collapse is when the casing is evacuated and during a cementing job. In
an evacuated casing, there isnt any fluid inside the casing but the last run mud weight, 16.5ppg in this case, is in the annulus of
the production casing. This means that there is an outer radial pressure acting inwards on the casing string and no backup lo ad to
mitigate the outer pressure. As for the cementing job, different types of fluids will be present in the annulus and one type of fluid
will be present on the inside. In our scenario, cement, spacer fluid and original mud were present in the annulus and
displacement fluid (brine) was present on the inside. Because of the varying fluid types, the casing strength requirements vary at
the different fluid depth intervals. Figure 1 graphically illustrates this scenario. From the graph, it is apparent that the evacuated
casing scenario has a higher casing strength requirement than the cementing scenario. Next corresponding real tension
equations for both the aforementioned scenarios were determined and its corresponding adjusted collapse pressure rating was
computed.
The two worst possible cases for which burst could occur is when there is a leak in the production tubing (especially near the
hanger) and when a pressure test is done on the casing. Both these cases account for the situation in which the fluid density on
the inside of the casing is significantly higher than the fluid density in the annulus, thus creating an outward pressure differential
that could burst the casing. In the case of leaky tubing, the completions fluid and leaked gas will exert an outward pressure on
the casing. The leaked gas pressure is exacerbated by the reservoir pressure which pushes the gas out of the tubing and into the
annulus of the tubing. The backup load here is assumed to be connate water (0.465psi/ft). In the case of pressure testing, a well
head pressure is applied onto a predetermined mud weight with the same backup load as the previous scenario. Figure 2
illustrates these situations.
As for tensile scenarios, the two worst cases were assumed to occur when the original mud was on the inside & outside of the
casing and when a pressure test was being done. Real tension equations were computed for both scenarios and a corresponding
pipe body strength and joint strength value were computed by multiplying the real tension by its required design factor and then
adding that product to the required margin of overpull. A few assumptions were made. First, the margin of overpull was added to
the minimum casing strength requirements. (Product solved before addition) Second, the outside mud weight for the pressure
test was assumed to be 16.5ppg.
The initial casing design selection was done by plotting all the minimum casing strength requirements , Sc (Figures 1 through 4)
and then referencing the inventory table for a casing that satisfied all the minimum requirements for collapse, burst, pipe b ody
and joint strength. The initial casing design was a 5.5in N80 23ppf LTC case which extended from surfac e to 11,500ft followed by
a 5.5in Q125 20ppf LTC which extended from 11,500ft to 12,000ft. After analyzing this initial design with the biaxial stress effects,
it was deduced that the initial design could be used as the final design. See sample calculations for computations performed to
arrive at the aforementioned conclusion of casing design.
Neutral Point Of
Tension &
Compression
Different Scenarios
1000
Ideal Case
2000
Worst Case
4000
Depth, D (ft)
5000
Neutral Point
Of Tension &
Compression
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
1,000
2,000
Different Scenarios
3,000
Leaky Tubing
4,000
Pressure Testing
Depth, D (ft)
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
Different Scenarios
OMW Inside & Outside
Depth, D (ft)
Pressure Testing
Casing Pipe Body Strength
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Depth, D (ft)
Different Scenarios
OMW Inside & Outside
Pressure Testing
Casing Joint Strength
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
Sample Calculations
Collapse Scenario: Evacuated Casing
=
16.5
19.25
Backup = 0
1.1 (0.857)
0.9429
1 = 20 (12000 ) (
16.5
19.25
12000) (5.52 )
4
1 = 4371 20
0 11500
4544.6
80000
80000
= 80000 [1 0.75 (
) ] ( [
= 77630.8
= 10832
Note: VBA Function used to find adjusted collapse
pressure.
])
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
16.5
19.25
2 =
16.5
15
(5711) +
( 5711)
19.25
19.25
3 =
16.5
15
16.4
(5711) +
(10000 5711) +
( 10000)
19.25
19.25
19.25
8.7
19.25
16.5
8.7
1.1 (
)
19.25
19.25
16.5
15
8.7
(5711) +
1.1 (
( 5711)
)
19.25
19.25
19.25
16.5
15
16.4
8.7
(5711) +
(10000 5711) +
1.1 (
( 10000)
)
19.25
19.25
19.25
19.25
0.4457
0 5711
489.51 + 0.36
5711 10000
0.44 310.486
10000 12000
SIMILAR PROCEDURES TO COMPUTE REAL TENSION IN THE CEMENT JOB WERE REPEATED HERE.
Project 1
PEGN 361
=
BHP =
0.465
16
12000 = 9974
19.25
BHT = [70 +
1.8
100
9974 + 14.7
= 14.842
673
745.67
= 2.174
343
Z = 1.36
=
9974
= 0.10217/
1544
1.36
745.67
16.04
9.5
19.25
+ 8747.933
9.5
1.1 (
+ 8747.933 0.465)
19.25
0.03136 + 9622.73
9.5
19.25
= 0.465/
1.1 (3500 +
9.5
0.465)
19.25
0.03136 + 3850
2/27/2015
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
16.5
1 = 20 (12000 ) (
12000) (5.5.2 4.7782 )
19.25
4
1 = 180052.63 20
11500 12000
16.5
2 = [23 (11500 ) (
11500)
19.25
4
(4.7782 4.672 )] + [180052.63 20(11500)]
2 = 206653.035 23
Axial Stress
At D = 0 (surface)
206653.035 23(0)
=
( 5.5.2 4.672 )
4
= 31171.2psi
0 11500
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
= 80000 [1 0.75 (
80000
31171.2
80000
) ]( [
])
= 59722.25
New Collapse Pressure Rating (Biaxial Collapse Stress)
A = 2.8762 + (0.0000010679 59722.25 ) + (0.000000000021301 59722.252 )
(5.3132E 17 59722.253 )
A = 3.00463
B = 0.026233 + 0.00000050609 59722.25
B = 5.6458E-02
= 465.93 + 0.030867 59722.25 0.000000010483 597222.252 + 3.6989 14
59722.253
= 1348
=
5.6458E 02
3.00463
= 1.879 02
= (46950000 ((3 ) / (2 + )) ^ 3) / (59722.25 ((3 / (2 + )) ) (1
((3 ) / (2 + ))) ^ 2)
= 1.983
=
1.983
1.879 02
= 3.7266 02
1 = (((3.00463 2) ^ 2 + 8 (5.6458E 02 + 1348 / 59722.25)) ^ 0.5 + (3.00463
2)) / (2 (5.6458E 02 + 1348 / 59722.25))
1 = 14.462
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
5.5
=
5.5
4.67
= 13.253
0 11500
11500 12000
Joint Strength
1.8 (206653.035 23) + 100000
471975.5 41.4
0 11500
11500 12000
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
1 = 20 (12000 ) (
12000) (5.52 )
19.25
4
8.7
+[
12000 + 3500] (4.7782 )
19.25
4
1 = 155625.8 20
11500 12000
8.7
2 = [23 (11500 ) (
11500 + 3500)
19.25
4
(4.7782 4.672 )] + [155625.8 20(11500)]
2 = 197096 23
0 11500
Note: Similar procedures to determine the biaxial collapse stress in the first tensile scenario were done
for this tensile scenario as well.
0 11500
11500 12000
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
Joint Strength
1.8 (183155.6 23) + 100000
429680 41.4
0 11500
11500 12000
131392.3
-100820.3
-161020.4
-168748.4
-169568.9
-169653.6
-169662.4
-169663.3
-169663.4
-169663.4
-169663.4
-169663.4
-169663.4
-169663.4
-169663.4
Adjusted Yield Point, YpaC (psi) New Collapse Pressure Rating, Pc (psi)
68227.6
86512.2
89329.3
89629.9
89661.0
89664.2
89664.5
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
89664.6
9519.3
11987.1
12303.9
12337.5
12341.0
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
12341.4
Project 1
PEGN 361
2/27/2015
9519.3
= 10096.2
0.9429
Keep repeating these steps until the depths & new collapse pressure ratings converge.
COST ANALYSIS
N80 Casing Price per foot:
$25.09