IPTC 11463
Advanced Technology Solutions for Next Generation HPHT Wells
M.L. Payne, BP; P.D. Pattillo II, BP America; and R.A. Miller and C.K. Johnson, Viking Engineering LLC
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper describes research efforts and technology
development associated with the next generation of high
pressure, high temperature (HPHT) well designs. Sometimes
referred to as x-HPHT (extreme HPHT), work has been
ongoing for several years looking at the next generation of
HPHT wells for both subsea and shelf/onshore operations. A
large number of challenges arise when addressing the
engineering of HPHT wells. This paper will not attempt to
cover all such topics but will focus on some critical
technology areas which underlie key well design and planning
issues. In depth discussions are specifically provided on
advanced material testing and qualification, heavy load
handling, and high temperature electronics. BP is at the
forefront of many of these technologies and is working with
industry partners to advance capabilities and assurance in
these areas.
Introduction
The next generation of HPHT wells includes full 15 ksi subsea
wells as well as preliminary engineering for 20 ksi subsea
wells. For shelf and onshore applications, the trend of deep
drilling for new gas reserves has raised requirements for 20 to
25 ksi surface pressures. Several classes of wells constitute the
future of xHPHT operations. One class involves deep oil
plays in deepwater operating environments. A second and
distinct class involves deep gas plays on shelf or onshore
environments. There are both common challenges and distinct
problems between these two classes of xHPHT wells. The
technology challenges associated with combining the ultra-
high pressures of deep gas with the deepwater environment are
beyond the foreseeable future at this time.
Despite the various challenges of xHPHT, reserve forecasts
accompanying these deep horizons are high. The industry is
thus compelled to address these technical challenges in order
to pursue future reserves and production. Extreme HPHT
trends can be seen in the Middle East, Far East, China,
Indonesia, Former Soviet Union, and North American
operating regions. Thus, xHPHT technology will enable
development of new hydrocarbon resources on a global basis.
HPHT Well Classifications
Currently, less than 1% of all wells drilled in the USA have
penetrated below 15,000’. Despite this statistic, deep
reservoirs defined as production below 15,000’ account for
7% of domestic production. This speaks to the prolific
production rates and large reserves which accompany
successful exploration and development of these deep
horizons. The National Petroleum Council projects this share
will need to grow to 12 percent by 2010 to ensure that the US
demand for natural gas is met. Longer term, the deep gas
resource in the US is forecast to be enormous: about 29
percent of the Nation’s ultimate potential gas resource is deep
gas. Under such challenging conditions however, only the
most promising deep prospects are economic to drill because
of the high risks and costs entailed in deep drilling. The cost of
drilling and equipping the average deep gas well (17,400’) is
about 12 times that of the average Lower 48 onshore gas well
drilled to 6,000’. Industry experience has also shown that with
an ultra-deep well, the last 10 percent of the bore hole can
account for 50 percent of the well's cost.
Figure 1 shows one classification scheme for HPHT wells. In
this case, HPHT wells are initially identified as having
bottom-hole pressures above 10 ksi and temperatures above
300° F (~150° C). This HPHT classification would include
wells up to 15 ksi and 350° F (~175° C) as shown. Ultra-
HPHT wells are the next class and involve pressures up to 20
ksi and 400° F (200° C). The final class shown is Extreme
HPHT (xHPHT) and involves wells up to 30 ksi and 500° F
(260° C).
These classifications are useful in outlining how to
differentiate between HPHT well classes. Focus also needs to
be given to the operating environment of the well. For
example, current subsea equipment is generally limited in
rating to 15 ksi and even within the 15 ksi ratings, a number of
important pieces equipment have not yet been fully field
proven in operating conditions up to the 15 ksi working rating.
In the subsea environment therefore, developing drilling,
completion and production capabilities for a 15+ ksi well will
be substantially more complex than developing such capability
for shelf operations where the wellhead and tree will be dry
2 IPTC 11463
and surface accessible. In terms of the well and prospect
portfolio for the industry, deep wells in the deepwater
operating areas currently involve HPHT and uHPHT well
classes. The xHPHT well class is currently specific to the
deep gas plays which are being drilled in shelf and onshore
operating areas [1]. Figure 2 shows some of the industry’s
HPHT experience to date along with the targeted operating
envelopes for the future deepwater and deep gas HPHT plays.
In all well classes, there is little room for error with respect to
well designs, drilling procedures, completion methods,
operating strategies, etc. Thus, attention to detail and in-depth
technology studies are pre-requisites for success. In the
following sections, some of these key technical areas will be
highlighted.
Advanced Material Testing and Qualification
Due to high reservoir pressures and resultant surface
pressures, very low amounts of H2S are needed to bring the
H2S partial pressures above thresholds which require sour
service materials. Independent of this issue, HPHT wells
involve high pressure differentials which must be reliably
contained with adequate design margins. In terms of the
impact on tubular designs, this results in thick wall designs
with low D/t ratios. When combined with the sour service
considerations, the requirement is generated for high-strength,
thick-walled, sour-service tubulars. This product requirement
is a critical enabling element for HPHT well design and the
challenges associated with it are at the limits of the current
state of the art in the technology.
Currently, there are a number of select mills which have been
qualified by BP for the manufacturing of sour-service, 110 ksi
production tubulars. This C-110 grade, as it is now known,
requires careful control of chemistry and heat treating. In
many cases, the manufacturers are only able to provide the
product using a double quench and temper manufacturing
method. The qualified manufacturers are able to reliably
produce C-110 products including into the D/t range below 14
with pipe wall thickness up to 1.500”. Normally, these C-110
products are required to pass full NACE Method A tensile
based H2S tests. Within BP, NACE Method D DCB
requirements are also applied on critical projects. Although
qualified manufacturers can reliably produce C-110 products
against such standards, there is little room for error. Any
deviation from established procedures with regard to
manufacturing or testing can produce periodic NACE test
failures. In such cases, product disposition must be resolved
through a combination of test analysis, retests, re-heat treating
and in some cases, material reclassification.
As a result of these observations with C-110 and after
consideration of the conservative basis on which some of the
NACE tests are based, the industry is currently pursuing the
development of more field specific H2S qualification methods.
These methods involve testing conditions less severe than
NACE but still conservative relative to specific field
requirements. Additional considerations have also come into
play in developing future testing approaches for these
materials. One consideration is the need for materials with
yield strengths above 110 ksi. An example is the development
of a 125 ksi tubular grade which will have some tolerance for
mildly sour environments. Such a 125 ksi grade will not
likely pass a full NACE Method A test and hence the
development and agreement across the industry of a mildly
sour test condition are needed. In addition, much of the H2S
testing work is conducted at room temperature. However for
deepwater applications, test conditions need to cover the low
temperatures that the materials will experience near the mud
line. In the US GOM deepwater for example, mudline
temperatures remain in the range of 33 – 34° F (~0+° C) and
these low temperatures reduce the material resistance to
cracking and crack propagation. Thus, work is ongoing to
address the new set of issues created by the factors inherent in
the next generation HPHT wells:
ƒ High strength material requirements for pressure
containment and load support (i.e. 110 – 125 ksi or
higher)
ƒ Qualification against conservative tests relative to
field requirements, including low temperature effects,
but not as severe as historical NACE
ƒ High quality manufacturing and verification of
metallurgical properties and material performance
with heavy-wall, low D/t ratio products
ƒ Development of engineered premium connection
with assured gas sealing capability for these
specialized tubular products.
Work has also been conducted on the influence of stress state
on material performance. Stress state is used to describe the
full combination of stresses and not just a uniaxial stress. The
basis for this work is that the NACE Method A tensile test
loads the specimens with a pure axial load as seen in the load
frame shown in Figure 3. This stress condition does not
reflect the triaxial stress state that is present in downhole
tubulars when they are loaded with internal and/or external
pressure profiles. Furthermore, axial stress is not the critical
stress with regard to internal pressure containment, i.e. the
circumferential or hoop stress.
To address these limitations of the standard NACE A test, BP
has been working with multi-axial test specimens that allow
the loading of material specimens independently with pressure
and axial load. This concept was developed as a result of
evaluating these new HPHT material qualification
requirements [2]. As shown in Figure 4, the multi-axial test
specimens are machined from heavy wall sour-service tubes.
The specimens have threaded end fixtures and are loaded in
purpose-built test frames which allow the specimen to be
exposed internally and externally with controlled H2S
solutions. Figure 5 shows a photo of an actual mini-pipe load
frame along with a failed specimen.
Figure 6 shows examples of HPHT well design challenges for
a number of well types. As shown, tight clearances must be
managed in order to develop a robust well design that provides
adequate protective strings to to top reservoir. Then, in order
to complete the well with tubulars capable of withstanding
IPTC 11463
production loads, the technology described above must be
successfully addressed to provide high-strength, thick-walled,
sour service products. This challenge is one of the major
hurdles associated with establishing a rigorous basis of design
that will provide appropriate pressure containment capability
for an xHPHT well. Other major design challenges associated
with HPHT well designs include annular pressure buildup
(APB) and integrated load analysis (ILA).
Annular Pressure Buildup
Characterization of the potential for APB was addressed in the
early 1990s [3-5], however the magnitude of the cost of failure
was not fully appreciated until the Marlin incident occurred
[6,7]. A tremendous effort ensued to develop and implement
mitigation techniques to prevent APB from occurring or to
relieve the building pressure [8-10]. Design, testing, and field
experience has demonstrated that the APB challenge does not
have a universal solution. Mitigations and associated
considerations include:
ƒ Nitrified foam spacers are more compressible than
drilling mud and reduce the overall APB. However,
the spacers are less compressible at very high
pressures, and there are placement concerns with
partial returns and with gas migration.
ƒ Engineered rupture disks vent APB prior to pressures
exceeding casing collapse ratings. The disks create a
vent path in outer casings in order to ensure they
mitigate inner strings. Figure 7 shows an industrial
rupture disk used in this manner.
ƒ Syntactic foam modules are designed to crush at a
specified pressure and temperature, creating
additional volume for fluid expansion. Adequate
annular clearances are needed and special attention
while running is required. Figure 8 shows syntactic
foam being run on production casing in a deepwater
HPHT well.
ƒ Vacuum insulated tubing (VIT) lowers APB by
limiting heat transfer. VIT tubes can be expensive
and in limited supply, and cold-worked corrosion
resistant alloy (CRA) materials are incompatible with
the welding process.
ƒ Insulating packer fluids reduce heat transfer by
preventing convection in the annulus, thereby
lowering APB. However, fluids have not been
developed for temperatures beyond 250 to 270° F
(~120 to 132° C).
ƒ An ROV drilled hole through casings below the high
pressure wellhead has been used to vent outer annuli
to the mudline. However, this technique has had
limited application and cannot reach all trapped
annuli.
ƒ Special fluids have been proposed which will
chemically react downhole, reducing the annulus
fluid volume. This technique has not been used in an
actual well, and placement concerns have been
expressed.
Current deepwater well incorporate one or more of the above
mitigation methods. A comprehensive design effort is
3
required to ensure that the mitigation is effective for all
permutations of open and sealed annuli, with and without fluid
degradation. Additional work is anticipated to address the
limitations noted above and to provide mitigation in future
uHPHT wells.
ILA comes into play in the vicinity of a subsea wellhead.
Classical wellhead growth studies recognize the differing
growth tendencies of the various casings due to the thermal
gradient from the tubing outward and the boundary conditions
imposed by formation and cement. The individual strings are
coupled at the wellhead, resulting in a redistribution of axial
forces. ILA extends this problem by recognizing the
complexity of casing-to-formation interaction. There is no
point of “fixity”. Rather, the formation stress-strain response
varies with temperature and depth. Soil springs are used to
distribute reaction forces along the casing axis. The formation
itself is subject to thermal heave as the well heats.
Additionally, APB loads alter the pressure-area forces acting
at the wellhead. A full ILA treatment of wellhead growth is
crucial in identifying the full forces applied against lockdown
devices. It also addresses the boundary conditions for fatigue
loading on structural pipe. A more complete treatment of
wellhead growth will be addressed in a forthcoming technical
paper.
Heavy Load Handling
As HPHT drilling extends into deeper water offshore and to
deeper horizons both onshore and offshore, the loads placed
upon tubulars are increasing. Of particular concern are the
landing strings used to run the casing strings, tiebacks, and
liners necessary for deep-water operations. Typical weights
for these strings commonly exceed one million pounds, and
the need for systems that can handle strings approaching two
million pounds is on the horizon. With the severe, biaxial state
of stress induced in the landing string by its own weight and
by the radial compression of the slips, the pipe begins to yield,
and the resulting large deformations can render the pipe
unusable. More importantly, if yielding progresses throughout
the thickness of the pipe wall, or if the deformation is so
severe that the slips cease to function properly, catastrophic
failure can occur, posing significant danger to rig personnel
and resulting in the losses of casings and possibly the well.
The so-called “slip-crushing load” is therefore a key operating
parameter, and slip-crushing mechanics must be clearly
understood. For several decades, the foundational work of
Reinhold and Spiri has served as the de facto means of
calculating the slip-crushing load [11,12]. Recent
experimental evidence demonstrates, however, that the
Reinhold–Spiri formula does not fully account for the
complexity of the actual pipe behavior under the loads and
stresses induced by the slips [13,14]. Figure 9 shows a load
diagram which illustrates the mechanical behaviors which
must be understood to quantify slip performance and induced
stresses. As a result of such complexity, qualification of
landing-string operations for critical wells has required
experimental testing in order to establish an appropriate level
of safety for the slip-crushing limit.
4 IPTC 11463
In 2004, an independent operator suffered a catastrophic slip
crushing failure which resulted in a dropped casing string in
US deepwater operations. In that case, drilling was ongoing in
Green Canyon 242 and 22” surface casing was being run with
6-5/8” drill pipe as the landing string. The string had a net
weight inclusive of 6-5/8” drill pipe of about ~660 kips just
prior to the failure. The failure involved slip crushing failure
of the 6-5/8” drill pipe which consequently resulted in
dropping of the 22” surface casing. This incident was viewed
as a serious failure and as a result a full investigation was
conducted by the US MMS [15]. Figure 10 shows a photo of
the failed field joint along with the result of a slip crushing test
that was performed during the investigation. Without
repeating the detailed conclusions of that investigation, it is
sufficient to state that the technology associated with assuring
the ability to safely handle heavy loads is critical to HPHT
operations. In addition to this 2004 failure, BP has also had a
small number of incidents and ‘near misses’ with handling
equipment for heavy tubular loads. In one case, failure of the
casing handling equipment was catastrophic resulting in the
dropping of approximately 1 million lbs. of 13-5/8” casing
into a deepwater well. Fortunately, recovery from this failure
was fairly efficient, and drilling was able to resume on the
well including subsequent operations through the dropped
casing. As a result of such events, BP has focused
considerable effort in advancing the technology and assurance
capabilities around heavy load handling.
Various testing programs have been conducted to examine the
behavior of slip-loaded tubulars. Many of these tests involve
advanced strain-gauging techniques, where the strain levels in
the tubular at various orientations and loads can be examined
to assemble an accurate picture of the severity of the stresses
and deformations induced in slip-loaded tubulars. Figure 11
shows a slip based spider just prior to a testing procedure.
These experimental programs have unveiled many notable
conclusions, including the following:
ƒ Results from strain-gauge testing have confirmed that
the slip loading of tubulars is a complex phenomenon
that induces complicated deformations in the tubular
not envisioned by the pioneering work of Reinhold
and Spiri.
ƒ Initial yielding occurs on the inner surface of the pipe
at loads lower than those predicted by the Reinhold–
Spiri formula [14].
ƒ Through-wall yielding of the pipe occurs near the toe
of the slips in the gaps between slip inserts at loads
comparable to (and sometimes below) the Reinhold–
Spiri prediction.
ƒ The locus of maximum strain does not always
coincide with Reinhold and Spiri’s prognosis that the
maximum strains should occur on a ring around the
inner circumference of the pipe near the toe of the
slips. Strain-gauge data shows that the maximum
strains can occur on a line parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the pipe, positioned in the middle of the
largest gap between insert carriers. Figure 12 shows
an example test result where the maximum stresses
did occur in the gap between slips and they are
markedly elevated relative to the range in other
locations.
ƒ Although the loads that initiate yielding on the inside
surface of the tubular are lower than the Reinhold-
Spiri formula, these loads do not constitute “failure”
of the tubulars. The yielding is often limited to areas
near the gap between insert carriers, and the stiffness
of the entire system (both slip system and tubular) is
sufficient to prevent progression of yielding through
the tubular wall.
ƒ The stress state of the tubular when the slips are set
can differ between the laboratory and the field. When
a conventional load frame is employed in an
experiment to load the tubular in the slips, the slips
are set around a stress-free tubular which is then
pulled by the load frame via the platen at its base. In
the field, the weight of the tubular string induces high
axial stresses in the tubular before the slips are set.
Once the slips are placed in the bowl, the weight of
the tubular is slacked off until the section of the
tubular above the slips has unloaded. The differences
between the stress states of the tubular during the
slip-setting process could lead to discrepancies when
experimental results are applied directly to field-
loading scenarios.
ƒ Recent advances in experimental methods have
increased the extent and quality of data generated
from testing slip-loaded tubulars. Past practices of
passing varying sizes of drifts through the tubulars
only provided a crude indication of the amount of
deformation induced by the slips. By placing a grid
of strain gauges on the inner diameter of the tubular,
a more detailed picture of the degree and shape of the
deformation is obtained. Also, by placing strain
gauges opposite specific features of the slip system
(load rings, gaps between insert columns), the impact
of these design features upon the tubular can be
studied in more detail.
ƒ Tests with a solid mandrel may provide some
information as to the integrity of the slip system;
however, since a solid mandrel reacts more rigidly to
slip loads than a hollow tubular, this method is not
appropriate to examine the stresses that the slip
system would impart to an oilfield tubular.
ƒ Examinations of tubulars exposed to high loads in
slip systems show that the shape of tubular cross-
sections near the toe of the slips can be plastically
deformed. These plastic deformations are detectable
with advanced techniques involving a coordinate-
measuring machine (CMM). As an example, some
slip systems impart a triangular-shaped deformation
to the cross-section of highly loaded tubulars. Such
shapes raise concerns that repeated loading of the
tubular may accumulate fatigue damage as the
tubular is removed from the slips and reinserted at
different orientations with respect to the slip inserts.
In an addition to the slip-crushing phenomenon, research has
been conducted into the integrity of the tubular handling
systems themselves. Several recent failures during deepwater
IPTC 11463
operations have spurred investigation into the methodology
behind slip-system design and manufacture. Several
contributing factors to these failures have been discovered,
including the following:
ƒ Slip-loaded tubulars experience loads in the field that
are typically not considered during design-
verification testing. Such conditions as pipe offset
and dynamic loading can increase stresses in the
tubular handling system considerably.
ƒ Due to the difficulty in modeling teeth-pipe
interaction and friction factors in slip bowls, the
current state of finite-element methods are unable to
predict stresses accurately. These methods must be
improved to increase the usefulness of computational
investigation.
ƒ Due to the absence of Charpy impact requirements in
slip-based systems that reside in or on the rotary
table, many components have a low resistance to
crack propagation and fatigue cracking.
ƒ Traceability on slip system components is poor, with
many components lacking serial numbers altogether.
In order to address the reliability and assurance problems
associated with handling equipment for heavy loads, BP has
conducted both in-depth analysis of industry events and also a
study on the state of industry requirements for this equipment.
These industry requirements are primarily defined in API and
ISO standards. Before proceeding, the definitions used by
API for rotary slips and spiders deserve clarification. For the
purposes of distinction within the API, spiders are pipe-
handling systems that sit atop the rotary table and may or may
not be used as hoisting equipment, while “slips” is a term that
generally refers to the pipe-gripping mechanism used in
conjunction with a tapered bowl in the rotary table. In more
general terms, slips are wedge-shaped components that fit
within the tapered bowl of spiders, elevators, or the rotary
table itself.
As a rule of thumb, it is useful to think of spiders as “stand-
alone” equipment that possesses their own bodies, whereas
slips depend upon other equipment, e.g., the rotary bushing, to
provide circumferential support. API Specification 7K (ISO
14693) covers, among other equipment, slips and spiders not
intended for use as elevators or other hoisting equipment.
Spiders capable of being used as elevators (a.k.a.,
“elevator/spiders”) fall under the scope of API Specification
8C (ISO 13535), the standard that covers hoisting equipment.
The requirements for elevator/spiders in API 8C and (non-
hoisting) spiders in API 7K are nearly identical, except for
slightly higher impact values required by API 8C in the low-
temperature regime.
Regarding API 7K, it should be stressed that the current
requirements placed upon slips are not extremely stringent.
According to Section 9.4 of API 7K, slips are exempt from the
requirements of impact testing, traceability, volumetric NDE,
and NDE of welds. More importantly, Section 9.4 does not
require load rating for slips, which means that neither design
verification testing nor proof load testing is required.
Consequently, the API 7K monogram carries limited impact in
5
the context of assurance for critical service slip design and
manufacturing.
Currently, API is actively reviewing these requirements as a
result of recent industry events, and BP is active in
participating and advancing this standards enhancement work.
It is recommended that other operators who will be involved
in heavy load handling on critical HPHT wells become
familiar with these issues associated with the design,
qualification and assurance of handling systems. It should
also be noted that there are now slipless-based alternatives for
heavy load handling [16]. These are proprietary and can carry
a significant cost impact but may be warranted in some cases.
Advanced material qualification and the ability to safely
manage heavy loads are two critical elements for getting a
viable well design established for HPHT prospects. Beyond
well design considerations, HPHT wells also offer substantial
challenges relative to the durations required for drilling.
Relative to the drilling efficiency for xHPHT wells, major
challenges are created by the high temperature aspect. The
temperature requirements create a challenging problem not
just for production conditions but more immediate barriers in
terms of getting the wells drilled efficiently. Of specific
concern are the implications of limits on HT MWD/LWD
tools and the resulting impact on drilling efficiency.
High Temperature MWD/LWD Technology
Electronics are widely used in modern oil and gas exploration,
drilling, and production. Data collected include azimuth and
inclination, weight-on-bit, vibration levels, temperature,
pressure, and radiation and resistivity of the lithology. These
data help operators assess drilling progress, the condition of
the BHA/bit, and the strata and fluids that are encountered.
The single biggest obstacle for electronic data acquisition
systems in deep wells is the high temperature encountered at
depth.
Offshore Magazine publishes an annual directory of all known
MWD/LWD tools. The 2006 review looked at a total of 239
different MWD tools from 12 different vendors. Because
mainstream commercial electronic components are not rated
for temperatures in excess of 150° C (302° F), manufacturers
must “screen” parts to obtain performance higher than 150° C
(302° F). Screening is the process of taking lower rated parts
and testing for higher temperature capability. This process is
expensive and can generate reliability problems. The results of
this review indicate that most MWD tools are still rated at
150° C (302° F) maximum operating temperature. Of the 239
tools documented, only 23 were rated for 175° C (347° F) or
greater. The majority of the market is rated to 150° C (302° F)
as of mid-2006, with High Temperature product lines
available from a number of vendors to ~175° C (~350° F).
Figure 13 shows a summary of commercially available
MWD/LWD systems.
Unless HT MWD/LWD tools are developed, the lower
sections of these xHPHT wells will be drilled without real-
time information on well location, lithology and drilling
6 IPTC 11463
mechanics. Drilling in this mode is a major step back to a
much less rigorous drilling process. That reduced set of
capabilities raises potential for risks around well control,
wellbore stability, well placement and BHA integrity. In
addition to these risks for problematic events, the ability to
optimize drilling parameters in terms of improving ROP is
substantially limited by the lack of downhole data such as
DWOB, DTOB, and vibrations. These drilling efficiency
issues coupled with the need to have real-time lithology and
pore pressure information create a high value for HT-
MWD/LWD. Nevertheless, the market for HT-MWD/LWD is
currently small and service companies are hesitant to invest
heavily in this new capability until they see more exploration
success and larger development programs underway.
DOE Deep Trek Program
In an effort to assist the development of key technologies for
deep drilling, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has funded
numerous projects related to the development of deep
reservoirs through their Deep Trek program. DOE initiated
the Deep Trek program in March 2001 with an industry
workshop to accelerate planning for advances in deep drilling
technologies. Deep Trek is managed by the DOE’s Strategic
Center for Natural Gas which is part of the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL). The stated goals of the
program are: “…to develop technologies that lower the cost
and improve the efficiency of drilling and completing deep
wells. New tools and technologies that help operators safely
drill faster, deeper, cheaper, and cleaner will help ensure an
adequate supply of clean-burning natural gas for the nation”.
The Program incorporates three phases: (1) feasibility and
concept definition, (2) prototype development or research,
development and testing, and (3) field/system demonstration
and commercialization.
To date, the DOE has awarded 21 Deep Trek projects totaling
over $45 million. Many of these projects have focused on
developing systems needed for the development of USA deep
gas. These efforts are targeted to enable the recovery of an
additional estimated 100 TCF of natural gas through year
2020.
Honeywell Joint Industry Deep Trek Project
In September 2003, Deep Trek awarded Honeywell and its JIP
partners a project to develop HT electronic components.
Original project participants included: Schlumberger, Baker
Hughes, Halliburton, Quartzdyne, Goodrich Aerospace,
Intelliserve (now part of Grant Prideco) and BP. BP was the
only oil and gas operating company which supported this JIP
and it gained valuable insights and competitive advantage
through that process. Components have been developed using
silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology for use up to 225° C
(437° F). However, the technology requires a high degree of
expertise and is expensive, thus product development has
advanced slowly.
Under this program, an SOI wafer process, along with design
and simulation tools, has been developed for high temperature
applications. This project also has developed high temperature
components for downhole data acquisition and control. These
include a precision amplifier, a field-programmable gate array
(FPGA), a high-resolution Analog-to-Digital converter (ADC)
and a non-volatile memory (EEPROM). A combination of
design practices and process optimization is applied to
develop these SOI CMOS components capable of reliable
operation over extremely wide temperature ranges.
High temperature electro-migration (E-M) considerations are
addressed by management of current density in on-chip
conductors, either through de-rating of operating frequency or
through high temperature optimized interconnect layout.
Temperature-compensated biasing techniques for analog
circuits are employed to maintain gain and bandwidth over an
extremely wide temperature range. Design toolkits have been
updated and applied for high temperature applications. These
include development of models and timing libraries applicable
from -55° C to 250° C (-67° F – 482° F). Laser-trimming and
high temperature wafer probing can be combined to adjust
voltage reference temperature coefficients or for tailoring
other temperature-dependent circuit performance.
In July 2007, the Honeywell Deep Trek JIP was completed
[17-20]. Through the JIP, a number of key high temperature
components were developed using the high temperature design
and wafer process. These components include:
ƒ High Temperature Dual Precision Amplifier: The
high temperature dual precision amplifier has been
fully verified at 225° C (437° F) with additional
testing up to 375° C (700° F).
ƒ High Temperature FPGA: The Field Programmable
Gate Array (FPGA) was developed as a licensed
functional equivalent to a commercial FPGA, the
Atmel AT6010. It is a re-programmable, SRAM-
based FPGA that provides up to 32,000 logic gates
and 204 I/O. It has been fully verified by wafer-probe
testing at 200° C (392° F). The design includes over
3 million transistors. Leakage current at 200° C is
under 0.5mA.
ƒ High Temperature ADC: The high temperature ADC
targets 18-bit resolution at 100 samples per second. It
uses a second-order sigma-delta modulator with
204.8 KHz sampling clock. Digital filtering and
control logic was synthesized and implemented using
a high temperature gate array design process. Test
results include 17.4 bits of resolution at 225° C (437°
F). The ADC on-chip voltage reference has been
tested up to 275° C (527° F).
ƒ High Temperature EEPROM: The high temperature
non-volatile memory (EERPOM – Electrically
Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory) uses a
single-poly floating gate memory cell that is
programmed and erased via Fowler-Nordheim
tunneling. This approach required no additional
process steps. A 4K x 8 bit demonstration memory
IPTC 11463
has been fabricated and verified for operation up to
250° C (482° F). A 32K x 8 design that can be
operated in both parallel and serial mode is in
progress.
Figure 14 shows these major products deliverables from the
Honeywell Deep Trek program.
Additional HT Projects by DOE / NETL
Building on the success of the Honeywell Deep Trek JIP,
additional HT components have been targeted for
development by the DOE. Recently, NETL announced 7 new
2006 projects to be funded by DOE, all of which are HT
related. These projects are summarized below with additional
information provided in Figure 15:
ƒ Giner Inc: This project entails developing an all-
solid, high-voltage electrochemical-electrolytic
capacitor for operation at temperatures exceeding
204° C (400° F). This tiny device, which helps level
and transfer power loads, would be installed on
circuit boards in sophisticated electronics needed for
downhole tool operation and measurement.
ƒ Hamilton Sundstrand: This project will extend work
from the aerospace industry to develop HT metallized
fluorene polyester (FPE) capacitors for the deep-
drilling industry that, while proven durable and
reliable, pose manufacturing challenges. This
proposal outlines experiments involving four
production-sized batches of FPE capacitors to
determine optimized production processes with the
goal of developing commercially available, reliable
and affordable capacitors rated to 250° C (482° F) by
year 2010.
ƒ Electrochemical Systems Inc.: This project involves
developing a high-temperature rechargeable battery
cell to power electronics in wells where temperatures
could reach 250° C (482° F). This capability will
have a big impact on the deep drilling industry
because it will enable many more downhole functions
for deep oil/gas drilling up to 250° C (482° F). One
currently limiting factor from the highest rated
oilfield compatible battery constrains battery
functions below 392° F (200° C).
ƒ Honeywell International: Honeywell proposes to
extend its silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process,
demonstrated on other electronic components it
developed under the DOE Deep Trek program
described above, to develop a reconfigurable
processor for data acquisition (RPDA). The RPDA
would combine, in a rugged ceramic package, SOI
circuitry together with a field-programmable gate
array and non-volatile memory chip. The whole
module would be tailored to the physical constraints
of downhole measurement-while-drilling (MWD)
and production monitoring applications.
ƒ Oklahoma State University: An extremely
temperature-efficient, regulated power supply is a
crucial component of any well logging, MWD or drill
7
bit control system electronics. In this project, the goal
is to produce a regulated, switched-mode power
supply that can operate at 275° C (527° F). This
entails a buck converter based on silicon carbide
power transistors, a voltage regulator integrated
circuit and special high-temperature packaging.
ƒ GE Global Research: While SOI technology has been
demonstrated at temperatures up to 440° F (227° C)
advances in electronics packaging and associated
materials are needed to enable these electrical
components to survive such great temperatures while
still being able to withstand the vibrations
encountered downhole. GE proposes to develop a
flexible, polyimide-based packaging that tests three
different approaches to interconnect the electronics.
ƒ Drill Cool Systems Inc.: The objective of this project
is to extend the insulated drill pipe (IDP) technology
already demonstrated in geothermal drilling to high
temperature, high pressure deep gas drilling. IDP
delivers drilling fluid to the bottom of a wellbore at a
much lower temperature than conventional drill pipe
can, potentially protecting downhole equipment
vulnerable to high temperatures.
Although the Honeywell Deep Trek JIP was a very successful
collaboration of industry partners, and although the above
projects will also hopefully succeed, more advances are still
needed to enable future HT MWD/LWD systems. Beyond JIP
efforts within the oil and gas industry, major advances in HT
electronic capabilities are going to require collaborations
across industries. Specifically, the energy industry will
require collaboration with military, aerospace, automotive
industries in order to realize major advances in HT electronic
technology. This cross-industry interaction is an area where
the SAE can play a major role.
Cross-Industry Collaboration via Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE)
SAE has been involved with aviation since 1916. In that year,
several government agencies recognized the need to address
aeronautical issues and standards. Rather than create a new
organization, they elected to use the existing SAE organization
and the charter of SAE was expanded to include aerospace and
the American Society of Aeronautical Engineers merged with
SAE. SAE is now the world’s largest program for aerospace
standards, having created over 6,600 documents and 1,500
military specifications.
In October 2005, Sandia National Labs, along with the US Air
Force Research Lab and the SAE Aerospace Electric Power
and Equipment Committee, conducted a High Temperature
Electronics Workshop at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Ft.
Worth, Texas. This workshop was a combined government
and cross-industry meeting to provide a technical interchange
for identifying commonalities of HT component design. The
overriding intent of the meeting was to demonstrate the need
for and to facilitate the advancement of high temperature
technology and capability.
8 IPTC 11463
It should be noted that the oil and gas industry is as far ahead
of the HT requirements curve as any other industry. Only the
military, specifically the Air Force, has as high an interest in
HT development. In opening remarks, the USAF discussed the
development of the F-35 and the Air Force More Electric
Aircraft (MEA) program [21,22]. This program is intended to
replace existing non-electric parts with electric, such as
hydraulic components, flight controllers, starters and brakes to
name a few. This will require an increase in power
management for new aircraft. USAF has stated that near term
goals are 250 – 300° C (482 – 572° F) rated components while
longer term 300 – 350° C (572 – 662° F) rated components.
Future development will include optically controlled HT
devices for controlled power electronics such as triggering
switches. Per the above objectives, one of the stated goals was
to collect information as to industry HT requirements. An
initial survey was conducted with primary findings:
ƒ Drilling industry market for HT devices is small.
This market may only involve a few hundred to a few
thousand parts per year.
ƒ The aerospace market volume is 10 to 100 times that
of the drilling industry.
ƒ Most requirements were from 150 – 300° C (302 –
572° F) with a few being up to +300° C (572° F).
ƒ Drilling industry not as concerned with reliability as
aerospace, since the consequences of failure are
substantially different between these environments.
ƒ Automotive responses indicated the development of
all products would be long term, meaning the HT
applications in the automotive applications are more
discretionary and less mandatory than those for the
drilling and aerospace industries.
BP will remain active in supporting HT electronics technology
and in looking for opportunities to advance this key
technology for future benefits in HPHT drilling, completion
and production operations. Even with such focus and with the
strong interest from a number of industries, time will be
needed to allow the research, development and engineering
efforts required to bring the next generation of HPHT MWD
and LWD tools to the industry.
Conclusions
1. The industry trend into deeper drilling has produced a
significant number of HPHT technology challenges.
This trend is being led by operations in the mature
US GOM region and it foretells what will happen in
the future in other basins and operating regions
globally, i.e. deeper drilling will be a fundamental
aspect of the energy industry for many years to come.
2. Within the HPHT technology area, there are currently
at least two distinct classes of wells which are being
addressed. These are deep oil/gas plays in deepwater
and the ultra-deep gas wells on shelf/onshore areas.
There are both common and distinct challenges
associated with these two HPHT well types.
3. Advanced techniques to qualify high-strength, sour
service tolerance materials are being developed using
new approaches for testing material performance.
These new approaches are addressing more focused
environmental characterization of the specific
applications by accounting for effects such as low
temperature exposure and more realistic corrosive
conditions.
4. Even with tubular design optimization and the use of
high-strength steels, the next generation of HPHT
wells will involve thicker walled tubulars and
consequently heavier strings than in the past. These
heavy tubulars raise challenges associated with high
load handling and assurance on subject equipment.
Recent industry incidents have exposed areas for
needed improvement in the engineering, qualification
and assurance on these operations. BP will continue
to work to enhance the pertinent industry
specifications through collaborative efforts within the
API and ISO standardization organizations.
5. High temperature MWD and LWD systems will be
an enabling technology particularly for the
development drilling programs that will follow
successful exploration in the deep gas regime.
Currently technology limits in this area are
substantial and include fundamental physical limits
on critical components like electronics, ICs, batteries,
capacitors and other systems.
6. Longer term research and development efforts are
required for the resolution of the high temperature
limits impacting current drilling systems. Joint
research efforts in which government, industry,
academia and other parties can collaborate have been
and will continue to be critical in advancing these HT
technologies.
7. Ultimately, joint efforts across industries will be
needed to leverage demand for specific HT
components into the commercial pull to incentivize
the necessary investment in R&D programs to
address all the salient building blocks for future
drilling systems such as HPHT MWD, LWD,
wireline tools, and rotary steerable systems. BP will
continue to look for opportunities to support and
facilitate these collaborative efforts in order to ensure
the needed technologies for the future can be
delivered.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank BP management for
permission to prepare and present this paper. The authors
would like to thank all the members of BP’s xHPHT
Technology Team for the work reflected in this paper and for
additional work in advancing areas of HPHT technology not
yet published.
IPTC 11463 9

Nomenclature 6. Bradford, D.W., D.G. Fritchie, Jr., D.H. Gibson,

S.W. Gosch, P.D. Pattillo, J.W. Sharp, and C.E.
ADC Analog to Digital Converter Taylor, “Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign;
API American Petroleum Institute Part 1, Description of Failure,” SPE 74528
BHA Bottom-Hole Assembly presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling
CMM Coordinate Measurement Machine Conference, Dallas, February 26-28.
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
DCB Double Cantilever Beam 7. Ellis, R. C., D.G. Fritchie, Jr., D.H. Gibson, S.W.
DOE US Department of Energy Gosch, and P.D. Pattillo, “Marlin Failure Analysis
D/t Pipe OD by thickness ratio and Redesign; Part 2, Redesign,” paper SPE 74529
EEPROM - Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM presented at the 2002 IADC/SPE Drilling
FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array Conference, Dallas, February 26-28.
FSU Former Soviet Union
GOM US Gulf of Mexico 8. Payne, M. L., Pattillo, P. D., Sathuvalli, U. B., Miller,
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature R. A., and Livesay, R.: "Advanced Topics for
ISO International Standards Organization Critical Service Deepwater Well Design,"
JIP Joint Industry Project presented at 2003 Deep Offshore Technology (DOT),
Kip 1,000 lbs. Marseille, France, November 19-21.
ksi 1,000 psi
LWD Logging While Drilling 9. Vargo, R., Payne, M., Faul, R., LeBlanc, J. and
MMS US Minerals Management Service Griffith, J., , “Practical and Successful Prevention
MWD Measurement While Drilling of Annular Pressure Buildup on the Marlin
NDE Non-Destructive Examination Project,” SPE Paper No. 77473, Presented at the SPE
NETL US National Energy Technology Lab Fall Conference, Sept. 29 – Oct. 2, 2002, San
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers Antonio, Texas.
SOI Silicon on Insulator
SRAM Static Random Access Memory 10. Azzola, J.H., D.P. Tselepidakis, P.D. Pattillo, J.F.
uHPHT Ultra HPHT Richey, S.J. Tinker, R.A. Miller, and S.J. Segreto,
USAF US Air Force “Application of Vacuum-Insulated Tubing to
xHPHT Extreme HPHT Mitigate Annular Pressure Buildup,” SPE Drilling
& Completion, March 2007.
References
1. Deepwater Activity in the US Gulf of Mexico 11. Spiri, S. H. and W. B. Reinhold, “Why does drill
Continues to Drive Innovation and Technology, pipe fail in the slip area,” World Oil, October 1959.
M. L. Payne, Touch Briefings 2007, pp. 56 – 58,
March 2007. 12. Vreeland, T., “Deformation of Drill Pipe Held in
Rotary Slips”, ASME Paper 61-PET-20, Petroleum
2. Cernocky, P., Miglin, B, and Rhodes, P, “Results of Mechanical Engineering Conference, Kansas City,
Combined Axial Tension / Compression and Missouri, September 24 – 27, 1961.
Internal Pressure Testing of Mini-Pipe Specimens
in H2S Environment: Discoveries of Material 13. Payne, M. L., Pattillo, P. D., Driscoll, P. M., and
Response to Triaxial Stress with Non-Uniform Sathuvalli, U. B., “Experimental Investigation of
Exposure to H2S”, Paper 06130, 61st Annual NACE Drillpipe Loaded in Slips”,WTC2005-63324,
Conference and Exposition, Corrosion 2006. Proceedings of the World Tribology Congress,
September 12 – 16, 2005, Washington, D. C.
3. MacEachran, A. and Adams, A.J., “Impact on
Casing Design of Thermal Expansion of Fluids in 14. SPE/IADC 105628, Premature Yielding Identified
Confined Annuli” SPE/IADC 21911 presented at In First Comprehensive 2,000,000 lb. Deep-Water
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference Amsterdam, Landing String Test Program, Dale W. Bradford,
February 2-4, 1991. BHP Billiton; Michael L. Payne, BP America;
Donald E. Schultz, Nexen, Burt A. Adams, Oil &
4. Halal, A. S. and Mitchell, R. F., “Casing Design for Gas Rental Services; Kurt D. Vandervort, Mohr
Trapped Annulus Pressure Buildup,” SPE Drilling Engineering, paper prepared for the 2007 SPE/IADC
& Completion, June 1994. Drilling Conference held inAmsterdam, The
Netherlands, 20–22 February 2007.
5. Oudeman, P. and Bacarreza, L.J., “Field Trial
Results of Annular Pressure Behavior in a High- 15. Woltman, G., Fowler, R., Mosely, F., and
Pressure/High-Temperature Well” SPE Drilling & Nedorostek, D. OCS Report, MMS 2005-027,
Completion, June 1995. “Investigation of Equipment Failure Green
Canyon Block 242, Well No. 1 OCS-G 21788,
10
September 5, 2004”, Minerals Management Service,
US Department of the Interior, Gulf of Mexico OCS
Regional Office, New Orleans, April 2005.
16. Simpson, B., Payne, M., Jellison, M. and Adams, B.,
“2,000,000 lb. landing string developments: Novel
slipless technology extends the deepwater
operating envelope,” IADC/SPE 87186 paper
presented at the 2004 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX.
17. Rogers, J. D, Ohme, B., and Normann, R. A., “New
Paradigm in Electronics Needed to Take the Heat
of Deep Gas Drilling”, The American Oil & Gas
Reported, November 2005.
18. Ohme, B., Larson, M. R., Erickson, S. R., Riekels, J.,
Schlesinger, S., Vignarajah, K., and Ericson, M. N.,
“Progress Update on Honeywell’s Deep Trek High
Temperature Electronics Project”, IMAPS
International Congerence on High Temperature
Electronics (HITEC), May 2006.
Figures
Fig. 1 HPHT classification scheme defined by reservoir temperature/pressure (Courtesy Baker).
IPTC 11463
19. Ohme, B., Larson, M. R., and Erickson, S. R., “High
Temperature Precision Amplifier”, International
Conference on High Temperature Electronics
(HITEN), September 2006.
20. Ohme, Bruce, Johnson, Bill, and Larson, Mark,
Honeywell Aerospace, Defense and Space Division,
“SOI CMOS for Extreme Temperature
Applications”, GOMAC 21-2. Government
Microcircuit Applications and Critical Technology
Conference, March 17 – 20, 2008, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
21. Weimer, J. A., “High Temperature Power
Electronics for Future Aircraft”, IMAPS
International Conference on High Temperature
Electronics (HITEC), May 2006.
22. Mehdi, I., Brockschmidt, A. E., Karimi, K. J., “A
Case for High Temperature Electronics for
Aerospace”, IMAPS International Conference on
High Temperature Electronics (HITEC), May 2006.
IPTC 11463 11

Fig. 2 Industry HPHT experience and future envelopes for deepwater and deep gas (courtesy Baker).

Fig. 3 Schematic of test specimen and environmental chamber used Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of mini-pipe frame loaded in tension.
in Method A (from NACE TM0177).
12 IPTC 11463

Fig. 5 Test frame, untested specimen with strain gages, and a tested specimen showing longitudinal cracking.

Deepwater Well Deepwater HPHT Well

4-1/2” 10ksi SCSSV 4-1/2” 15ksi SCSSV
9-5/8” 53.50 Production 10-3/4” 85.30 Production Casing
Casing 1,280 kips air weight @
535 kips air weight @15,000’ 20,000’
13-5/8” 88.20 Intermediate 13-5/8” 88.20 Intermediate

Deepwater uHPHT Well Deepwater uHPHT Well

4-1/2” 20ksi SCSSV concept 4-1/2” 20ksi SCSSV concept
lower yield strength materials higher yield strength materials
11-3/4” 126.20 Production Casing 10-3/4” 108.70 Production
2,524 kips air weight @ 25,000’ Casing
13-5/8” 88.20 Intermediate 2,174 kips air weight at 25,000’
clearances may require larger 13-5/8” 88.20 Intermediate
intermediate

Fig. 6 Examples of HPHT well design challenges showing tight clearances to accommodate necessary casings.
IPTC 11463 13

Fig. 7 Industrial rupture disk used to safeguard Fig. 8 Crushable syntactic foam being run into deepwater HPHT well.
against APB well failures.

Fig. 9 Mechanical behavior of slip-based tubular handing system.

14 IPTC 11463

Fig. 10 Failed field drillpipe and pipe from investigation test. Fig. 11 Slip-based spider system ready for lab testing.

Fig. 12 Stress profile in tubular showing elevated stresses between slip segments.
IPTC 11463 15

Vendors with
Service Total No. Maximum
Rating >
Category Vendors Ratings
150°C
Directional 12 6 175°C to 182°C
Drilling
7 4 175°C to 182°C
Mechanics
Gamma Ray 9 5 175°C to 182°C
Resistivity 8 5 165°C to 182°C
Porosity 5 3 175°C
Density 5 3 175°C
Formation
3 1 165°C
Pressure Testing
Seismic 1 0 150°C

Fig. 13 Summary of commercially available MWD/LWD ratings. Fig. 14 HT electronic products from Honeywell Deep Trek program.

DOE
Company Project Title Fund Share Total Funds
Funds
Giner, Inc HT Capacitor Development $516,814 $237,180 $753,994
Electrochemical
HT Battery for MWD $400,000 $138,784 $538,784
Systems, Inc
Honeywell Re-configurable Processor for
$773,522 $280,251 $1,053,773
International Data Acquisition
Okla. State
275°C Downhole Power Supply $478,008 $120,140 $598,148
Univ.
Drill Cool
Insulated Drill Pipe $204,924 $322,720 $527,644
Systems, Inc.
Hamilton
HT Capacitor Technology $543,116 $356,302 $899,418
Sundstrand
GE Global Harsh Environment Gamma
$383,994 $95,998 $479,992
Research Detector
Total Awards $3,300,378 $4,851,753

Fig. 15 New USA DOE HT research and development programs