OTC 17685
Casing Drilling Rig Selection Process for the Stratton Field
D. Bickford, Apache Corp., and M. Mabile, Drillmar, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Apache Corp. was investigating new methods to efficiently
produce trapped gas in its Stratton Field in South Texas.
Recent wells drilled conventionally did not achieve the desired
commercial and operational objectives. Casing drilling was
selected as a method to achieve these objectives through the
operational efficiencies it achieves1 and the ability to
minimize lost circulation.
Two options were considered during the rig selection
phase of the project. The first option was to utilize a purpose
built casing drilling rig and the second option was to convert a
conventional rig to drill with casing. The project also dictated
that a retrievable casing drilling system2 be used to meet
logging requirements. Specialized equipment to drill with
casing and to retrieve bottom hole assemblies was required on
these rigs. Key components of the analysis included the
commercial implications of the rig choice, operational
performance, and rig crew experience with casing drilling.
Introduction
The Stratton Field discovered in the late 1930s3, is a gulf
coast field located about 45 miles west of Corpus Christi. To
date, approximately 495 wells have been drilled in the Stratton
Field on a spacing of 20 to 40 acres.
The previous drilling program conducted in 2000/2001
yielded below average results both commercially and
operationally. The below average performance can be
attributed to three main areas. The first area of concern was
the amount of drilling fluid lost to the well bore during drilling
and its effect on well production and well economics. The
second was well bore stability through the Anahuac shale
section. The third area was a low drilling rate of penetration
in shale sections of the wells.
A pilot project utilizing casing drilling was selected as a
possible solution. Casing drilling was selected as a method to
drill the wells with minimum losses and in turn less risk. The
analysis also determined that the wells could be drilled in less
time minimizing time dependent well bore stability problems
in the Anahuac shale. Casing drilling was also selected based
on the analysis that the wells could be drilled more efficiently
and with equal or greater rates of penetration than with
conventional drilling.
A three well program was conducted to test the casing
drilling technology and its ability to lower costs, minimize lost
circulation, and lower drilling risks.
Due to certain requirements of the drilling and completion
program, a retrievable casing drilling system was selected.
This required the use of a rig capable of using a retrievable
casing drilling system. The rig selection centered on two
options; utilization of a rig purpose built for casing drilling or
a conventional rig converted to handle casing drilling with
retrievable systems. This paper explores the rig selection
process and its effect on the drilling program.
Required Equipment for Casing Drilling
Critical to the analysis were the actual additional rig
components required to drill with casing. The additional
components included a top drive, casing drive assembly, split
crown block, split traveling block, wireline winch, and
wireline blowout preventers. These items were considered
essential to use a retrievable casing drilling system.
The top drive is specifically designed to accommodate the
wireline blowout preventers and the casing drive assembly.
The bore through the top drive is larger than normal to
facilitate the running and retrieving of the wireline rope
socket. The top drive is the only practical method to rotate the
casing during drilling operations.
A casing drive assembly is used to engage and hold the
casing during drilling operations. See Figure 1. A cup packer
on the bottom of the assembly allows for circulation. The
casing drive assembly is composed of an actuator, slips, and
cup packer. Two casing drive assemblies were required to
drill the well. One of the casing drive assemblies allows the
grapples to grip the outside diameter of smaller size casing
and the other casing drive assembly allows the grapples to grip
the inside diameter of larger size casing.
2 OTC 17685

Figure 2 Split Crown Block

Purpose Built Casing Drilling Rigs

Currently, three purpose built casing drilling rigs are available
to drill on land with retrievable casing drilling systems. All
three rigs were constructed and are owned by the same
contractor. The rigs are equipped with a variety of features
designed for casing drilling. These features enhance the rigs
ability to perform at optimal conditions.

Figure 1 Casing Drive Assembly

Two of the basic necessary components were the split

crown block (See Figure 2) and a split traveling block (See
Figure 3). Wireline is utilized to retrieve bottom hole
assemblies. The split blocks allow the wireline to be run
through the crown and down through the top drive, and then
through the casing drive assembly into the casing. This
facilitates circulation while conducting wireline operations.
The rigs include a wireline winch used to retrieve the casing
drilling bottom hole assemblies. Controls for the wireline
winch are usually operated by the Driller and are mounted in
the Drillers cabin. The winch must have sufficient capacity
to pull the retrievable bottom hole assemblies while not
exceeding their safe working limit.
A wireline blowout preventer is connected to the top of the
top drive. See Figure 3. The wireline blowout preventers
primary purpose is to control the well in the event of a well
control situation during wireline operations. Another purpose
of the preventer is to allow the wireline to be run in and out of
the hole while circulating.
Figure 3 Split Traveling Blocks and Wireline BOP
OTC 17685 3

In addition to the above required components for a casing of 3 days to move. These times are also dependent on the time
drilling operation, the rigs also include automated catwalks to the rig is released. For the purpose of this analysis, it was
deliver the casing to the rig floor. Other components include assumed that the rig release time had no bearing on the rig
automated slips and elevators to help minimize human move time. The time sensitive costs were taken into account
interaction while making connections. HSE was a critical as per the table in Fig. 5. Trucking costs were presumed to
component of the analysis and these components provided an remain constant for both operations, even though a
additional positive argument for purpose built casing drilling conventional rig required more loads to move the rig.
rigs.
The three casing drilling rigs were originally built with two
year contracts in place5. Due to the efficiencies of casing Estimated
drilling, the operator was able to drill more wells in a shorter Conversion Item Cost
period of time. As a result of this efficiency, the operator was
able to make a rig available for a three well pilot program with 1. Casing Drilling Wireline Winch $500,000.00
the intention that it would be returned to the operator to
complete his work program. The availability of a purpose 2. Split Crown Blocks $150,000.00
built casing drilling rig to drill the Stratton wells presented the
team with another option for the program. 3. Split Traveling Blocks $150,000.00

Conventional Drilling Rig Conversion 4. Wireline BOPs $50,000.00

A conventional drilling rig can be converted to drill with 5. Solids Control Equipment $85,000.00
casing. The conversion of a rig to casing drilling requires the
addition or replacement of several key components of the 6. Modify Mast for Top Drive $20,000.00
drilling rig. The conversion costs can vary depending on rig
design and layout. Due to the differences in conventional rigs 7. Rig Dayrate (8 days) $64,000.00
and the uncertainty in their availability, an average conversion
cost was used for each item in this analysis. Total = $1,019,000.00
To facilitate the retrievability of the casing drilling bottom Figure 4 Conventional Rig Conversion Cost
hole assemblies, a wireline winch must be installed along with
the controls for the winch. A wireline blowout preventer must Casing drilling necessitates that a top drive be utilized. For
also be installed on top of the top drive. this evaluation, it was assumed that a conventional rig would
The addition of a through bore top drive with the necessary not be originally equipped with a top drive. Therefore the rig
connections to accept the wireline blowout preventers is also up and rig down time and rental charges were taken into
required. The top drive enables the rotation of the casing with account.
the casing drive assembly. The top drive installation could
also require modifications to the mast.
The crown and traveling blocks must be split to enable the Operation Per Well Cost
wireline to be run through a sheave in the crown. In addition, Rig Move Days $36,000.00
the sheave for the wireline must also be installed in the center
of the split crown blocks. Top Drive Rig Up $24,000.00
The efficiency of the solids control equipment would Top Drive Rental $25,000.00
dictate whether or not an upgrade was required. Casing
drilling cuttings are usually ground down smaller than Location Construction $10,000.00
conventional drilling cuttings due to the larger diameter of the Automated Catwalk $12,000.00
casing and hence smaller annulus area. As these cuttings get
smaller, the solids content in the drilling fluid increases and an Casing Drive Assembly $20,000.00
increase in mud weight follows. Controlling mud weight
would be a critical component in successfully drilling the Total = $127,000/well
wells in the Stratton Field due to the low reservoir pressures.
The conversion items and associated cost based on an Figure 5 Rental and time sensitive costs
average conversion is shown in the table in Figure 4.
The surface area of the locations was also studied. A
Operational Differences purpose built casing drilling rig requires a smaller location
when compared to a traditional drilling rig. This can primarily
The operational differences between a purpose built casing
be attributed to the lower load and pressure requirements of
drilling rig and a converted conventional drilling rig were also
casing drilling. The mud pumps can be downsized due to less
investigated.
frictional pressure losses inside the casing and higher annular
The first operation examined was a rig move. The purpose
velocities at a given pump rate in the well bore annulus. The
built casing drilling rigs historically take 1 days to rig down,
hook load requirements for the rig are also lower in casing
move, and rig up ready to spud the next well. A conventional
drilling. A review of wells drilled with casing revealed that no
drilling rig converted to casing drilling would take an average
over pull events occurred during drilling operations. Based on
4 OTC 17685
this data, a lower hook load rating could be used. Casing
drilling also precludes the use of drill pipe and the storage area
it requires on location. A conventional rig is designed for
drilling with drill pipe, larger pumps and a higher hook load.
This requires a larger location and by default a higher cost for
location construction.
The purpose built casing drilling rig also provided a casing
drive assembly as part of the rig package. This equipment
would have to be rented with a conventional rig. The time to
rig the casing drive assembly up or to change it out would be
equal in both operations.
An additional item not necessarily required for casing
drilling is the automated pipe handling capabilities. The
purpose built rig had the ability to raise a joint of casing from
the pipe rack, stab it and make it up with no physical
interaction from the crew. This increases efficiencies in pipe
handling. An added benefit is the elimination of the human
factor to increase the safety of the operation.
Casing Drilling Experience
One of the intangibles in the rig selection process was the
casing drilling experience of the rig crews. It is fairly obvious
that the crews on a purpose built casing drilling rig have
casing drilling experience as the rigs were operating for 8
months at this time. Previously, the rig crews worked on
conventional drilling rigs. This is in contrast to a conventional
rig crew who would have virtually no experience drilling with
casing.
The subject of the rig crews experience is an
important one and was not overlooked even though a
quantitative value could not be placed on it. While the generic
aspects are the same with casing drilling as with conventional
drilling, the specifics vary widely. A change in mindset is
required to drill with casing as many of the conventional
drilling parameters differ. Due to the larger volume of the
casing, it takes longer for fluid to reach the bit. This can be
two to five times more time in casing sizes of 7 and above
compared to drill pipe. The annular volumes are reduced and
as a result the annular velocities are increased. This means
that drilled cuttings come to surface in less time. This is also
a concern during well control events. Crews trained to handle
these events and who have experienced these events are better
equipped to handle them in the future. Solids control
equipment must also be monitored more closely for optimum
performance. The majority of the casing is larger and weighs
more than traditional drill pipe. Handling casing as frequently
as drill pipe with the same efficiencies is difficult until the
crew is comfortable handling casing.
Several drilling parameters must also be watched
more closely. Differences in pump pressure can be an
indication of the annulus cuttings density increasing. The
pump off values must also be taken into consideration when
adding weight to the bit for drilling. Pick up and slack off
weights also give an indication on hole conditions but with
less of a range of values as with conventional drilling.
Attention to torque and its effect downhole must also be
monitored closely due to the casing connection design. The
consensus was that crews familiar with these parameters
would perform better on the project.
Predicted Learning Curve
Optimum performance was expected but it was also
recognized that casing drilling technology was still developing
and it would take the drilling of several wells before the
expected optimum performance was achieved. A detailed
study of offset wells was conducted and from that study, a
predicted learning curve was developed for expected
performance after the pilot project. The predicted learning
curve was computed for both a purpose built casing drilling
rig and a converted conventional drilling rig. See Figure 6.
The learning curve for the purpose built drilling rig
took into account the experience of the drilling crews with
casing drilling. The learning curve for a converted
conventional drilling rig crew was not expected to be as good
given the consideration that the crew had virtually no casing
drilling experience. The converted conventional rig was also
burdened with additional time to rig up the top drive along
with operational inefficiencies when compared to the purpose
built rig. All auxiliary service costs were expected to remain
the same on either rig. Drilling fluid costs could be expected
to increase as drilling time increased but were expected to be
minimal in the overall comparison and were not included in
the evaluation.
12
Conve rte d Rig
10 Purpos e Built Rig
8
Days
6
4
2
0
Well #1 Well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Well #5
Figure 5 Predicted Learning Curve
Conclusions
1. The purpose built casing drilling rig was chosen for the
casing drilling program for the Stratton Field. The operational
efficiencies and rig crew experience outweighed the
conversion of a conventional drilling rig. This coupled with
the initial conversion cost would not justify the conversion of
a conventional rig to casing drilling. The selection of the
purpose built casing drilling rig as the correct choice is proved
by the drilling performance. See Fig. 6 for the predicted
performance versus the actual performance.
2. The project risk was also less with a purpose built casing
drilling rig. The rig equipment was previously utilized for
casing drilling and the rig crews had experience with casing
drilling. This minimized the risk when compared to a
converted conventional drilling rig with new equipment and
crews with no casing drilling experience.
3. The overall cost to convert and then operate as a converted
conventional drilling rig was higher than utilizing a purpose
built casing drilling rig.
OTC 17685 5

4. The actual performance of the purpose built casing drilling Copyright World Oil 2005. This paper first appeared in World Oil,
rig proves that the correct decision was made and further March 2005, and was presented at Worlds Oils Casing While
validates the analysis. Drilling Conference, March 3031, Houston. Permission to reprint
courtesy World Oil.

12
Conve rte d Rig
10
Purpos e Built Rig
8
Actual Pe r form ance
Days

0
W e ll # 1 W e ll # 2 W e ll # 3 W e ll # 4 W e ll # 5

Figure 6 Actual Drilling Performance

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of Apache
Corporation and Drillmar, Inc. for permission to publish this
paper. In addition, special thanks to Tesco Corporation for
permission to publish pictures of their casing drilling rig and
also for their initial guidance in the analysis.
Additional thanks to World Oil for allowing us to present this
paper previously published as WOCWD-0430-04.

References
1. Shepard, S., Reiley, R., Warren, T., Casing Drilling: An
Emerging Technology, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
March 2002.
2. Tessari, R., Madell, G., Casing Drilling A Revolutionary
Approach to Reducing Well Costs, presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 9-11,
1999.
3. Libson, T.F., Vacca, H.L., and Meehan, D.N., Stratton Field,
Texas Gulf Coast: A Successful Cased-Hole Re-Evaluation of
an Old Field to Determine Remaining Reserves and to Increase
Production Level, Journal of Petroleum Technology, January
1985, pp. 105124.
4. Junkin, J.E., Sippel, M.A., Collins, R.E., Lord, M.E., Well
Performance Evidence for Compartmented Geometry of Oil and
Gas Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1992,
pp. 393-399.
5. Fontenot, K., Highnote, J., Warren, T., Houtchens, B., Casing
Drilling Activity Expands in South Texas, presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
February 19-21, 2003.