Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Daevin Dev

2015 PEGN 361 Project #1

Due: Friday, February 27, 2015 at 23:59 via Blackboard

Name: DAEVIN DEV
Determine and document the following for a production casing string;
Design equation(s) and graph(s) for collapse conditions
Design equation(s) and graph(s) for burst conditions

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)

Top depth (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

MEMO
To
From
Subject
Date

: Dr. Ermila & Dr. Eustes

: Daevin Dev
: Production Casing String Design Criteria
: 2/27/2015

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

Evacuated Casing Minimum Strength Requirement

Cement Job Minimum Strength Requirement

Ideal Case

2000

Uniaxial Stress
3000

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

Figure 1: Minimum Casing Strength Requirements For Collapse.

11000

12000

13000

14000

1,000

2,000

Different Scenarios

3,000

Leaky Tubing
4,000

Pressure Testing

Depth, D (ft)

5,000

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

Figure 2: Minimum Casing Strength For Burst Prevention.

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

Figure 3: Minimum Casing Strength Requirements Based On Pipe Body Strength.

700,000

Depth, D (ft)

Different Scenarios
OMW Inside & Outside
Pressure Testing
Casing Joint Strength

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Figure 4: MInimum Casing Strength Requirements Based On Joint Strength.

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

2 = [23 (11500 ) + (4371 20(11500) ) ]

2 = 30129 23
30129 23(0)
=
(5.5.2 4.672 )
4
= 4544.6
4544.6 2

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

Collapse Scenario: Cement Job

1 =

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

9.5
+
19.25

=
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

= 9974 (0.10217 12000) = 8747.933

=

9.5
19.25

+ 8747.933

9.5
1.1 (
+ 8747.933 0.465)
19.25
0.03136 + 9622.73

= 3500 +

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

Initial Casing Design:

5.5" 23 80 0 11500
5.5" 20 125 11500 12000

Tensile Scenario: Same OMW Inside & Outside

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

At D=0 (surface)
YP = 80,000psi
31171.2 2

= 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

2 = (59722.25 (3.00463 1.983)) / (1348 + 59722.25 (5.6458E 02 3.7266

02))
2 = 24.456
3 = (2 + 1.879 02) / (3 1.879 02)
3 = 35.813
OD = 5.5
ID = 4.67

5.5
=
5.5
4.67

= 13.253

_ = 8332.59

Pipe Body Strength

1.5 (206653.035 23) + 100000
409979.55 34.5

0 11500

1.5 (180052.63 20) + 100000

370078.945 30

11500 12000

Joint Strength
1.8 (206653.035 23) + 100000
471975.5 41.4

0 11500

424094.73 36

11500 12000

Project 1

PEGN 361

2/27/2015

Tensile Scenario: Pressure Testing

16.5

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.

Pipe Body Strength

1.5 (183155.6 23) + 100000
374733.4 34.5

0 11500

1.5 (155625.8 20) + 100000

333438.7 30

11500 12000

Project 1

PEGN 361

2/27/2015

Joint Strength
1.8 (183155.6 23) + 100000
429680 41.4

0 11500

380126.44 36

11500 12000

ITERATION TO FIND THEORETICAL FAILURE DEPTH

Iteration using the real tensile equations and adjusted collapse pressure ratings for cement job, since
that is the worst case for collapse.
Find Neutral Point of Tension & Compression
1 = 132711.2 23
D = 5770.05ft
Table 1: Iteration To Find The Theoretical Depth Of Failure For The Top Casing In Cement Job Scenario
Depth, D (ft) Real Tension, Treal (lbf)
0.0
10096.2
12713.6
13049.6
13085.3
13089.0
13089.3
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4
13089.4

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

19819.0
-15207.5
-24288.0
-25453.7
-25577.4
-25590.2
-25591.6
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7
-25591.7

Theoretical Failure Point = 13089.4ft

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

Given the new Collapse Pressure = 9519.3psi

&
0.9429 for the evacuated casing scenario which has a higher casing strength requirement than
the cement job scenario
Next Iteration Depth Would Be:
=

9519.3
= 10096.2
0.9429

Keep repeating these steps until the depths & new collapse pressure ratings converge.

Final Casing Design

5.5" 23 80 0 11500
5.5" 20 125 11500 12000

COST ANALYSIS
N80 Casing Price per foot:

\$25.09

Total Length: 11500ft

Q125 Casing Price per foot: \$34.09
Total Cost = (11500 x \$25.09)+(500 x \$34.09)