SPE/IADC 37615

Wellbore Design With Reduced Clearance Between Casing Strings

J.W. Barker
SPE/IADC Member

Copyrtglt! 1997. SPE/IADC Ortting Ccnfwenca

Tits paper was prepared tor presentation al the 1897 SPE/IADC Orilkng Confsrenco hold in recommended for ideal cementing. These general rules-of-
Aratertlam. The Netherlands. 4-6 Maicn 1997.
thumb did not differentiate between applications depending
This paper was selected lot presentation by an SPEMOC Program Committee '(flowing review
ol Motmattxi contained in an abstract submMed by tRs author(s). Contents ol the paper as
on depth, mud properties, etc. Pressure surges from running
presented, have not bain reviewed by the Socisiy ol Petroleum Engineeis and are subiaci la casing strings were not critical design issues since there was
convctlon by ins authcrfe). Tha material, as presented, doss not necessarily reflect any position
ol the SPE or IADC. tne» officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/MDC meettnes are usually a large margin between formation fracture pressure
subject to puWeoiicn review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and MDC. Electronic
raproduction. distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without trie
and formation pore pressure.
written consent of me Sooely ol Petrttewn Engrasis Is protiioueo Peirr.lsser lo reproduce in
In today's economic environment, well designers cannot
prim is restricted io an abstract cl not more than 300 wards. MusMuions may not Be copied. The
abstract musl contain conspicuous acknoyiledgtnail ol wrtere and by whom the passi is afford to leave excessive margins between formation
prasenttd. Wrd» Librarian. SPE. PO Bo« 833838. flrclsardson. TX 75083-3836. USA. lax
01972 952W35 fracture pressure and formation pore pressure even on routine
wells. More difficult wells are also being drilled that are
deeper and have higher formation pressures. Drilling
Abstract
problems are increasingly encountered which require surge
In the past the industry relied on general rules-of-thumb to
pressures be maintained in very narrow limits while running
determine the clearance between casing strings. In today's
and cementing as many as six casing strings in a well. Each
difficult cost environment all traditional design factors
additional casing string adds significant cost and complicates
should be challenged and an engineered solution determined.
the casing size selection process.
When,a detailed engineering analysis is performed, these
Typically the well design process begins with the
general rules-of-thumb are often found to be conservative or
selection of the desired size production tubing and moves
out-of-date.
uphole. With the very high cost of deep, high pressure wells,
With recent technological improvements the limiting
larger size tubing strings capable of conducting economical
factor in the wcllbore and casing design process is often the
flow rates are desired. Production casing sizes greater than 9
acceptable clearance between casing strings. As a result.
5/8-in. OD arc often required to accommodate tubing sizes as
detailed engineering analysis is needed to determine the
large as 7-in. OD or large dual subsea completions. The
clearance required between casing strings for the particular
large production tubing size constrains the design at the
application. With the optimum clearance between casing
bottom of the well and available blowout preventers (BOP's)
strings designed for each situation, well casing sizes can
will constrain the surface casing size. High pressure BOP's
often be reduced or additional casing strings can be
larger than 18 3/4- to 20-in. inside diameter (ID) are not
accommodated in the well design. This concept is important
routinely available today. Following traditional rules-of-
today as the industry is drilling more wells with the
thumb for selecting casing clearances will likely severely
combined challenges of high pressure, high mud weight, high
limit the number of casing strings that can be set while
temperature, and deep depths. Such wells often require more
drilling the well.
casing strings to reach total depth yet designers are limited
Many operators are now challenging the traditional rules-
by existing rig equipment sizes and capabilities.
of-thumb for the needed clearance between a casing string
OD and the drilled hole during running and cementing
Introduction
operations. Synthetic muds, inhibited muds, and improved
Many years ago the industry developed general rules-of-
cements available today will likely make this rule-of-thumb
thumb for clearance requirements between casing strings and
obsolete very soon. In the past, drilling a hole larger than the
drilled holes. These rules-of-thumb resulted in commonly
last casing string ID was often difficult and costly. Recent
used casing and bit size combinations. Generally, at least
advances in concurrent drilling and hole opening technology
0.6- to 0.8-in. of radial clearance between a casing string
have made drilling larger than casing ID holes economical
coupling and the design inside diameter of the next larger
and almost trouble free even in larger hole sizes.1'"1 Many
casing suing were recommended. A hole diameter 3-in.
new casing grades, sizes, and connections are available today
larger than the casing outside diameter (OD) was

341
 J W BARKER
with only slight price increases over traditional API casing.
These factors have resulted in the limiting factor in the
wellbore and casing design process being the minimum
acceptable clearance between casing strings. Fortunately.
technology and improved equipment today permit
engineering optimization of the clearance between casing
strings as a means to lower well cost or facilitate more casing
strings in a well.
Traditional Casing Size Selection
Fig. 1 is a flow chart summary of industry standard casing
size combinations.4 Table 1 summarizes the clearance
typically found between the casing couplings and the next
larger casing ID for both standard well designs and reduced
clearance well designs. Note that typical casing programs
have greater than one inch of clearance between the
coupling OD and the ID of the external casing. Also note
the clearance between smaller OD tubulars is generally
smaller than the clearance between larger OD tubulars. Most
slim hole well designs follow these same casing clearance
rules-of-thumb but use only the smaller hole sizes and casing
programs.5
Many of the standard casing sizes used by the industry
were originally chosen to accommodate standard bit sizes.
This concern has been minimized by the evolution of
polycn stalline diamond and thermally stable potycrystalline
diamond bits which can be designed and built in any
diameter.
Standard marine subsca wellhead and casing hanger
systems are designed to accommodate five casing strings.
The first string is generally 30-in. or 36-in. structural casing
installed on a low-pressure wellhead. The high pressure
wellhead and 18 3/4-in. BOP's are installed on 20-in. surface
casing. A low pressure wellhead hanger profile for 16-in.
OD casing can be added to the standard wellhead system
Casing hangers and seal assemblies for three casing strings
are typically provided in the high pressure wellhead. With
these constraints, adding additional casing strings must be
accommodated by using liners or adding a conductor casing
before setting surface casing and installing BOP's. Many
GOM deepwater operators have elected to add a conductor
casing to control shallow, below the mudline. abnormally
pressured sands.
Reduced Clearance Casing Size Selection
The first step in designing a reduced clearance wcllbore is to
review industry experience. Table 1 includes a summary of
very close clearance casing strings which has been used by
the industry and proposed casing combinations. Generally,
the very close clearance casing applications were first used
when an unforeseen problem caused an unplanned need for
an additional casing siring. After the precedent of the very
close clearance program was established, it often became a
routine well design tool.
342
SPE/IADC 37615
One of the smallest clearance application that has been
used is 11 3/4-in. high-clearance connection casing run in 1.1
3/8-in. 72 Ibm/ft casing. This casing combination has been
routinely used in GOM shelf and deepwater as a method to
facilitate adding an additional string of casing. Typically. 11
3/4-in. near flush joint casing connections are used and the
drilled hole below the 13 3/8-in. casing is underreamed lo
about 14 3/4-in. The 11 3/4-in. casing is typically run in low
mud weights as a shallow, short liner and the 13 3/8-in. is
specially drifted to 12 1/4-in. No other special dimensional
tolerances or gauging are typically performed. When
running an 11 3/4-in. liner in 13 3/8-in. casing it is not
uncommon to run the liner at very slow speeds initially. If
partial or complete lost returns occur, casing running speed is
often adjusted to result in acceptable mud loss rates. As a
result, large volumes of mud are planned and held in storage
on the rig when this casing combination is used. The very
close clearance between these casing strings is thought to be
a practical minimum and will require special analysis and
application.
Table 2 is a summary of non-API casing sizes and
connections included in a recent guide to assist when
planning casing programs.6 The casing and premium
connection list used in (he guide Has obtained from 25
companies worldwide. Many of these non-traditional casing
types are readily available today and have proven field
success while others have limited if any field experience.
A significant engineering problem when using a reduced
clearance tubular is the surge created in the drilling mud
while running the casing. Conventional cementing float
equipment installed on the bottom of casing strings usually
has a flapper or ball check which does not allow mud in the
well to flow inside the casing as it is lowered into the well.
Mud in the well must bypass the casing and flow up the
casing annuli as the casing is lowered into the well. A surge
is created as the viscous mud is forced to flow up the small
casing annuli. The surge pressure must be managed to
prevent exceeding the formation fracture pressure and
causing mud loss.
The primary factors which are controllable and affect
pressure surges from running a casing string are (1) the
bypass mud flow area between the casing strings. (2) the
velocity at which casing is towered into the well, (3) the
viscous properties of the drilling mud at wellbore
temperatures, and (4) the length of the casing string. With a
wellbore design that minimizes the clearance between casing
strings, factors contributing to surge pressures can be
engineered and optimized to result in acceptable casing
running speeds.
One method lo reduce surge pressures on the formation
when running casing strings is to use automatic fill or
differential fill float equipment. With this equipment, most
of the mud in the well is allowed to flow inside die casing as
SPE/IADC 37615 WELLBORE DESIGN WITH REDUCED CLEARANCE BETWEEN CASING STRINGS
the casing is being run in the well. The balance of the mud
still flows up the casing annuli bypassing the casing.
There is a practical limit to the minimum casing running
speed which will prevent the casing from becoming stuck
while running. Typically casing should not be run slower
than one joint in five minutes or 0.13 ft/sec. Maximum
casing running speed (lowering) is 30- to 40 seconds per 40 ft
joint (1.3- to 1.0 fi/scc) and depends on crew training and
experience.
One of the largest contributors to surge pressure while
running casing is the viscous properties of the drilling fluid.
The standard industry method to describe the flow behavior
of a fluid is the viscosity-gel (V-G) meter. Generally, the
higher the viscosity of the fluid, the higher the V-G meter
reading will be. The optimum fluid for reducing surges
white running casing will be a fluid with very low V-G meter
measurements or low plastic viscosity (PV) and yield point
(YP). In most cases, low density' muds have lower plastic
viscosity than higher density muds and will help control
surge pressures while running casing strings. From an
engineering standpoint, the closest casing tolerances should
be used in lower viscosity muds rather than in high density
muds which are usually more viscous.
An old custom is to reduce mud viscosity just before
running casing e.g.. by adding large volumes of water to a
water base mud. This reduces drilling mud viscosity and
lowers surge pressures. For most muds, high and low shear-
rate rheolgy are often increased to give optimum fluid loss
control and increase cuttings transport capability while
drilling. This is contrary to the low viscosity properties
needed while running close clearance casing and
dramatically impact drilling rate of penetration.
example, it has been demonstrated that the drilling rate of
penetration can be increased as much as 58% by engineering
of fluid properties, i.e.. primarily by lowering drilling mud
viscosity and drill solids. While the ideal mud docs not exist
today that permits optimizing both drilling and casing
running properties, solids-free formate brines originally
proposed for deep slim hole drilling may also be an optimum
drilling fluid for limiting surge pressures, frictional losses,
and equivalent circulating density (ECD) encountered when
using reduced clearance casing strings.8
An optimum engineered wellbore design can incorporate
smaller casing clearances for liners than are used for full
strings. When necessary, a casing string can be run as a liner
with a subsequent liner ticback to manage surge pressures.
Other factors that are less controllable but
significantly contribute to casing running surge pressures are
(1) the length of the fluid column below the moving pipe, (2)
compressibility of the casing, cement, formation, and the
open hole sections. (3) axial elasticity of the moving string.
(4) compressibility of the drilling fluid, and (5) eccentric
casing annulus.
Fortunately, several advanced computer programs arc
commercially available and can analyze surge pressures with
great accuracy and speed. Mathematical models can also be
found in the literature.9 These tools make optimization of
the clearance between casing strings possible.
Another engineering concern when designing a reduced
clearance casing wellbore is the ECD prior to and during
cementing. These important steps can be accurately modeled
and calculated to insure that pressures resulting from
circulation do not exceed formation fracture pressures and
lead to lost returns. Many times "tack and squeeze"
cementing of liners or multiple stage cementing has been
used to effectively manage ECD when reduced clearance
casing designs are used. New cements with novel low-
viscosity weighting agents such as manganese oxide also
offer promise to improve cement displacement in reduced
clearance casing annuli.
Tubular Manufacturing Tolerances
It is necessary to know the manufacturing tolerances of
tubulars when designing a reduced clearance casing wellbore.
API Specification 5CT sets forth manufacturing dimensional
requirements for casing and tubing.10 Non-API casing,
tubing, and proprietary connections generally have
manufacturing tolerances equal to or superior to API
specifications.
The API manufacturing tolerance for casing includes
OD. weight, and wall thickness. These tolerances are: (1)
OD of casing (non-upset ends) is +1% and -0.5% of specified
OD, (2) casing weight tolerance is +6.5%, -3.5% per single
can length; (3) casing wall thickness is -12.5% of specified wall
For thickness.
The ID for casing is governed by the casing OD and
weight tolerances. With this tolerance, it is possible for the
manufactured casing ID to be less than design ID but larger
than drift ID. For example, 10 3/4-in. 55.5 lbm/fl casing with
the minimum OD and maximum weight would have an
actual ID of 9.63 3-in. while the design ID is 9.760-in. and
special drift 9.625-in. Since there is no maximum wall
thickness nor specified ID, the drift ID is used for that
purpose.
Drift ID is the minimum mandrel diameter (with specified
length) which must pass unobstructed through the pipe and
serves to define the ID tolerance, the ovality and, to some
extent, the straightness of the casing. Standard drift ID is
obtained by subtracting a standard tolerance from the design
can ID. Table 3 identifies API standard drift ID reductions from
design ID. Special, larger drift ID to accommodate standard
bit sizes are included in the API specification for some casing
types. Also, the API has specifications for special clearance
OD couplings and for casing straightness.
For casing sizes the maximum tolerance on standard API
casing coupling OD is +1% but not greater than +l/8-in.
Typically casing couplings have a machined OD for easier
343

inspection, however, complete outside surface machining is
not a requirement.
API line pipe has been increasingly used by the industry
for shallow casing strings. Typically wcld-on connectors are
used. Line pipe has different manufacturing tolerances than
casing. For example. API Specification 5L does not include
a specification for drift ID of line pipe."
In addition to normal API manufacturing tolerances, the
purchaser can specif}* special manufacturing tolerances.
When a very close tolerance casing program is used, the
outer casing should be ordered with special oversized drift
requirements (diameter and length) and ovality requirements.
Many reasonable special manufacturing tolerances will have
minimum increased cost.
High-Clearance Casing Connections
Many early high-clearance or "flush-joint" connections
experienced costly failures. One company reported nine
failures in high-clearance casing connections in a seven year
period from 1979 to 1985 '* As a result of recurrent costly
failures in high-clearance connections, a joint
program was developed in 1986 to perform physical testing
and verify- high-clearance connection performance.
Drilling Engineering Association was used as the forum for
this program (DEA-27) which involved three operators and
five manufacturers. The program involved
procedures for testing connections including connections
sealing during significant bending which would occur in a
directional well. The program also identified
deficiencies in certain connections, verified
performance in some connections, and qualified a new
generation of improved high-clearance connections.
result of this program, high-clearance connection failures
have been greatly reduced, however, special testing and
screening of high-clearance connections not included in the
early study1 were still recommended.
Wellhead Considerations
Many unitized multi-bowl surface wellheads were designed
to accommodate standard casing programs and have a
restricted ID load shoulder. For example a typical 13 5/8-in.
top flange casing head will have an ID of 12 5/8- to 12 9/16-
in. As a result, an additional constraint for casing size
selection is the inside diameter of the wellhead. While these
wellhead restrictions provide a constraint, the reduced ID is
usually only a few inches in length. Availability of non-
standard size casing rams is often a design constraint for
surface BOP's as well.
All marine subsea wellheads have a reduced ID load
shoulder. Typically, the ID of the load shoulder is about
17.562-in. for an 18 3/4-in. high pressure wellhead.
marine wellhead manufacturer has designed a special marine
subsca wellhead with a removable load shoulder giving an
almost full bore through the wellhead. The removable load
J W. BARKER SPE/IADC 37615
shoulder can be installed after a low pressure liner with
high-clearance casing connections has been run and
cemented.
Wellbore Designs With Reduced Clearances
Good engineering judgment must be used when designing
wellbores with reduced clearance casing strings. Optimum
candidates are hole sections that are relatively free of
problems such as tectonically stressed intervals, drawn-down
sands, and high mud weights The rig must be capable of
proper hole cleaning, be able to maintain optimum mud
properties, and be equipped to rapidly handle mud lost
returns, well control situations, etc. Drag may also limit the
use of close clearance casing applications in some wells and
additional planning is also required to insure the required
casing running tools, handling tools, and accessories are
available.
Fig. 2 illustrates typical wellbore designs using
conventional clearances between casing strings and reduced
clearance between casing strings. For these well designs, the
industry clearance between the casing stings can be found in Table 1.
With a given BOP size, reduced clearance casing strings can
The permit adding one or two additional casing strings which
could result in deeper drilling or larger production tubing.
For some well designs, use of reduced clearance casing
unique strings will permit use of a smaller BOP size. For example,
the reduced clearance wellbore shown in Fig. 2d saves about
110 tons of casing over the wellbore shown in Fig. 2a with
design traditional casing string clearances. Similar to slim hole
robust operations, additional overall well savings will result from
reducing drilling mud and cementing volumes. Substantial
As a savings could also result if a smaller rig were used. This
advantage can be significant when a remote location or
available rig equipment limits the size of BOP equipment.
I modeled the ECD while circulating a 14 ppg mud with a
35 PV and a 10 YP for the liner set at 12,000 ft for the four
casing programs shown in Fig. 2. Each of the four liners
had an ECD of only about 0.S ppg equivalent. About 0.7 ppg
of ECD was calculated while cementing the 12,000 ft liners
in Fig. 2 with typical cement slurries at normal circulating
rates.
Conclusions
1. Conventional clearances between casing sizes used by
the industry are based on standard casing sizes which in
many cases are based on available bit sizes. Use of
conventional casing clearances are generally adequate for
routine wells but are often conservative.
2. Reducing the clearance between casing strings from
traditional values will permit use of smaller BOP's and rigs.
One Very detailed engineering analysis of overall cost
effectiveness and application is required before reduced
clearance casing strings should be used.
344
SPE/IADC 37615 WELLBORE DESIGN WITH REDUCED CLEARANCE BETWEEN CASING STRINGS

3. For large development drilling programs or critical lbm x 4.535924 E-01=kg

applications, special manufactured tubulars combined with
reduced clearance casing strings should be used. 'Conversion is exact.

4. Reduced clearance casing programs in many cases will

require special tubular manufacturing specifications and field
procedures to assure dimensions, ovality. and slraightness.

Acknowledgments
Appreciation is expressed to Amoco Production Company for
permission to author and publish this paper. Particular
appreciation is extended to John Pantaleo of Amoco who
encouraged me to undertake this paper. I would also like to
acknowledge Tin Dunn with Dowell Schlumberger, John
Greenip and Jon Barton with the Hydril Company, and John
Simpson with Baker Hughes Inteq who contributed to and
reviewed this paper.

References
1. Casto, Robert G: "Use of Bicenter PDC Bit Reduces Drilling
Cost," Oil & GasJ. (Nov. 13,1995) 92.
2. Leblanc. Leonard: "Rcaming-while-drilling Keys Efforts to
Reduce Tripping on Long Drillstrings," Offshore (April. 1996)
30.
3. Dewey. C.H. and Miller. G.C.: "Drilling and Underreaming
Simultaneously: A Cost-Effective Option." Paper SPE 36-462
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 6-9.
4. Grccnip, J.F.: 'Tubulars Isolate Down-Hole Pressures." Oil &
GasJ. (Oct. 9,1978).
5. Dupuis, D. and Sagot, A.: "One Year Experience in Slim Hole
Drilling," IADC/SFE paper SPE 35124 presented at the 1996
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Mai. 12-15.
6. "1996 Casing Tables," Pet. Ettg. Intl. (November 1996) CT1-CT-
27.
7. Beck, F.E., Power, J.W., and Zamora, Mario: "The Effect of
Rehology on Rate of Penetration," paper SPE 29368 presented
at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling conference, Amsterdam, Feb.
28-Mar.2,1995.
8. Howard, Siv K.: "Formate Brines for Drilling and Completion:
State of the Art," paper SPE 30498 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-
25,1995.
9. Mitchell, R.F.: "Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions,"
SPE Drilling Engineering (Sept 1988) 325-333.
10. API Specification 5CT, Specification for Casing and Tubing,
fifth edition, API, Washington (1995).
11. API Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, thirty-eighth
edition, API, Washington (1990).
12. Payne, M.L. et al:. "Joint Industry Qualification Test Program
for High-Clearance Casing Connections," SPE Drilling
Engineering (Dec. 1992)261-267.

St Metric Conversion Factors

ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
gal x 3.785412 E-O3=m3
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm

345
 J.W BARKER SPE/IADC 37615

TABLE 1 - CLEARANCE BETWEEN CASING ID AND COUPLING OD

API CLEARANCE

INTERNAL COUPLING EXTERNAL DESIGN ORIFT CASING ID - CPLG OD

CASING OD (in) CASING ID (in) ID (in) Design ID (in.) Drift ID (in)

COMMON OILWELL CASING PROGRAMS

Casing combinations wflh field experience

41/2-in. Integral joint 4.600 6 5/8-in.. 32 ppf 5.675 5550 1.075 0.950
41/2-in. Integral joint 4.600 7-in.38ppf 5020 5795 1.320 1.195
5-in. LTC 5.563 7 5/8-in.. 33.7 ppf 6.765 6640 1.202 1.077
7-ln. LTC 7.656 9 5/8-in .47 ppf 8.681 8525 1.025 0.669

75/8-ln.LTC 8500 tO3/4-tn. SS5ppf 9.760 9625 * 1260 1.125

95/8-in. LTC 10.625 13 3/8-in. 72ppf 12.347 12.250* 1.722 1625
10 3/4-ln. Buttress 11.750 16-in.. 84 ppf 15.010 14822 3260 3.072
13 3/8-in. Buttress 14.375 20-in.. 94 ppf 19.124 18936 4.749 4.551
16-in. Buttress 17.000 20-in., 94 ppf 19.124 16.936 2124 1.938
16-ln. Integral joint 16.465 18 5/8-in.. 94 5 ppf 17.705 17.517 1.240 1.052
Possible casing combinations
18-in. Integral joint 18100 204n.94ppf 19.124 18.936 1024 0.836

CLOSE CLEARANCE CASING PROGRAM

Casing combinations with field experience

5-in. Integral joint 5.360 7-in.. 32 ppf 6.094 6.000* 0.734 0.640
S 1/2-in. Flush joint 5.500 7-ln.. 23 ppf 6.366 6.250* 0.866 0.750
5 1/2-in. Integral joint 5.807 7 5/8-in.. 33.7 ppf 6.765 6.640 0.958 0.833
7 5/8-in. Integral joint 8.010 9 /8-in., 47 ppf 8.681 8.525 0.671 0.515
B5/8-in. Integral joint 8.773 10 3/4-in.. 60.7 ppf 9 660 9.504 0.887 0.731
9 5/8-ta. Integral joint 10.100 11 3/4-ln.. 65 ppf 10.682 10.625* 0.582 0.525
11 3/4-in. Integral jomt 12.000 14-in. 92.76 ppf 12.700 12.544 0.700 0.544
133/6-in. Buttress 14.375 16-ln., 84 ppf 15.010 14.822 0.635 0.447
16-in. Buttress 17 000 18 5/8-ln,945ppf 17.705 17.517 0.705 0.517

VERY CLOSE CLEARANCE CASING PROGRAMS

Casing combinations with field experience

7 3/4-in. Integral joint 8.226 9 5/84n.53 5ppf 8535 8.500* 0.309 0.274
9 5/8-in. Integral loint 9.750 10 3/4-in.. 40.5 ppf 10.050 9.894 0.300 0.144
11 3/4-in. Integral joint 12.000 13 3/8-in.. 72 ppf 12.347 12.250 * 0.347 0.2S0
13 3/8-in. Flush joint 13.375 15-in. 77.43 ppf 14.000 13812 0.625 0.437
13 5/8-in. Proprietary 14 522 16 1/2-in. 130 ppf 15.000 14.771 0.478 0.249

Possible casing combinations

16-in. Integral joint 16.465 18-in. 94 ppf 17.000 16.812 0.535 0.347

* API special drift ID

346
SPE/IADC 37645 WELLBORE DESIGN WITH REDUCED CLEARANCE BETWEEN CASING STRINGS

TABLE 2 - NON-API CASING

OUTSIDE WEIGHT WALL THICKNESS DESIGN ID COUPLING OD
DIAMETER (Ibm / ft) RANGE (in.) (in.) RANGE (in.)
3-in. 31 0-70.8 0 375 - 0.937 7250 • 6.126 8000 ■ 8306

8 t/16-n 325-74.2 0 375 - 0980 7263 • 6.053 8.125 • 8.450

9-in 400 0 425 8150 9000

9 3/4-in. 59.2 0 595 8560 9.969

9 7/8-in 62,8-72.1 0625 - 0725 8625 - 8.425 9.875 - 11.047

10-in 696-130.3 0672 • 1400 8656 - 7.200 10 000 • 11.404

11 7/8-m. 718 0.582 10.711 11.875 - 12835

124n. 680-66 5 0547 - 0707 10906 • 10566 12 204 - 13125

12 1/164) 78 J 064) 10843 12.272 - 13 092

123/4-fn. 94.2-137 9 0.734 - 1.109 11282 - 10.532 13091 • 13 379

12 7/8-in. 656 0.495 11.885 13.875

131/2-in 60.4-81 4 0.576 - 0580 12348 - 12.340 13.740 - 13 954

88.2-1050 0.625 • 0760 12 375 - 12.105 13.625 - 14.625

14-<n 825-1352 0.562 - 0950 12876 - 12.100 14306 - 15 364

15-in 775 0.500 14.000 15.149

16 1/16-in 956 0 566 14.881 16.427

18-tn. 1050 0.562 16876 18.100

182S/32in 111.0 0.550 17688 20000

22-in. 1148 0.500 21.000 22.000

241/2-in 133.0-207.0 0 500 - 0812 24.400 - 23.776 25.500 • 25.591

* common itetns shown in italics

Table 3 -API STANDARD DRIFT DIAMETER

OESIGN ID

LESS (in.)

Casing and liners

Smaller than 9 S/B-in. 1/8
9 5/8-in. lo13 3/8-in.incl. 5/32
Larger than 13 3/8-tn. 3/16

347
 J W Barker SPE.IADC 37615

Casing and liner size. in.

Bit and hole sue. in.

Casing and Uner size. in.

BM and note sue. in.

Casing size. en.

Bit and hole size, in.

Casing size, in.

Bit and hole size. in.

Casing size. in.

Solid ines indicate commonly used Ms tor thai size pcpe and can be considered adequate clearance to run and cement the
casing or liner The broken tmes indicate less common hole sees used. The selection of one of these broken paths reqwres
special attention be given to the connection, mud weight, cementing and doglegs.

Fig. 1 ■ Casing selection chart (from pg. 14. OH A Gas J. (Oct. 1.1S7I), reprinted by permission).

348
 Conventional Clearance (lose Clearance
Casing Program Casing Program
(•) (i»

18 3/4 -in. BOP's 13 5/8-in. BOP's 183/4 in. BOP* 13 5/8-in. BOP's
0 I i

2 -

20-in. 13 3/8-in. 22-in. 14-in.

4 -
m
o
m
tn

6 -

9
8 - m
o

o
m
13 3/e-in. 9 5/8-in. 11 3/4-in. O

10 - O

a
7-in. 16-in.
95/6-in.
9 5/8-in.

14 -
7-in, Inr. 4 1/2-in. Inr. 13 3/6-in. 7-in. Inr.

16-
4 1/2-in. Inr. Z 9 5/8-in.
4 1/2-in. Inr.

18
7-in.

20 -J
41/2-in. Inr.

Fig. 2 - Typical casing programs