SPE/IADC 148607

Development of a Liner Drilling System Incorporating a Retrievable Bottom

Hole Assembly
E. Eriksen, D. Herrera, M. Moffitt, Tesco Corporation; G. Rodriguez Jordan, G Mazzaferro,Tenaris

Copyright 2011, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Muscat, Oman, 24–26 October 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
This paper chronicles the surface and field trials of a liner drilling system in which a liner is releasably attached to a drill
string used to both convey the liner and bottom hole assembly into the well bore and apply drilling force to the bottom hole
assembly. The purposes behind the development of this system are the mechanical strengthening of the wellbore provided by
rotating a casing string against the open hole while circulating cuttings up the annulus during the drilling process, and to drill
and case the hole the same operation, both protecting the hole as it is being drilled and allowing a passageway back to surface
for the BHA if hole issues are encountered.

Both 7” x 9-5/8” and 9-5/8” x 13-3/8” liner drilling systems have been designed, built and drill tested to provide the
above advantages. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the reasoning behind the development of the systems and the
testing of the 9 5/8” liner drilling system. This particular liner drilling system was drill tested twice in Cameron, Texas. The
first drilling test demonstrated the liner was set and reset successfully through three separate cycles over separate intervals.
The second test was an attempt to reproduce the success of the first test over longer intervals deeper in the wellbore. In this
test the liner hanger set only one out of three attempts, leading to the conclusion that a minor design change was required to
increase the system’s resistance to cuttings ingress into the interface of the hanger and setting tool.

Introduction

Purpose of System Development

In deepwater applications, drilling and completion techniques are typically limited to conventional drilling practices.
Though these techniques are effective, the large amount of non-productive time encountered between drilling the section and
completing it has become an acceptable part of the drilling and completion operation. This non-productive time is typically
encountered due to downhole dynamics in time-sensitive and/or sloughing formations, where the formation may shift or
slough-in between the time the hole is drilled and subsequently cased-off. These issues are exacerbated in deepwater projects
due to the amount of time required to install the liner across the open hole after it has been drilled, allowing more time for
these issues to occur. Also the narrow pore-pressure / frac gradient windows encountered in these regimes negatively
influence the drilling process and limit tripping speeds when both pulling the BHA and installing the liner.

Drilling with the casing string with either non-retrievable or retrievable bottom hole assemblies has proven an effective
method to drill and case off these types of formations to reduce or eliminate the above issues. Casing while drilling has also
been shown to strengthen the wellbore by grinding the cuttings through rotating the casing and “smearing” them into
1
the wellbore wall , however, this technique cannot be applied in deep well applications as both surface equipment limitations
and limited mechanical properties of the casing connections mandate the use of liners to complete these sections.

The time required to isolate the section is also much higher in deepwater environments due to the longer distances from
surface to total depth, requiring more time to both trip the pipe and properly condition the hole prior to tripping. A wiper trip
to improve the wellbore quality is made after conditioning the hole. Upon completion of the wiper trip, the BHA is slowly
pulled to surface to reduce swab on the formation as it traverses through the wellbore to reduce possible influx into the
2 SPE/IADC 148607

wellbore. Once the BHA is retrieved to the surface, the liner pipe must be made-up and run into the hole, the liner top
equipment made-up to the liner, and the assembly is finally run to total depth on drillpipe. The total time required to perform
this process on deepwater prospects can easily run more than a few days to weeks, depending on hole conditions and the total
depth of the section. It is thought that the installation of the liner or pipe across the open hole section as it is being drilled will
help to eliminate most of these problems.

Liner Drilling with Non-Retrievable BHAs

Liner drilling with a conventional or drillable bit coupled to a liner string comprised of conventional liner top equipment
allows the drilling of short intervals. Liner drilling with casing-while-drilling bits can enable setting liner at planned depth in
severe and unstable lost-circulation zones2. Use of this technique, however, does not allow for data collection and directional
control typically required when drilling. Also the bit must drill to the section total depth or must be replaced by retrieving the
entire liner to surface. If far enough into the formation, the decision may be made to set the liner high, potentially requiring
an additional string to reach the well’s total depth. Any of the above solutions reduce the well economics due to unnecessary
tripping, the possibility of requiring an additional string to reach total depth, or reduced production.

Specifically related to the drilling process, conventional liner top systems are limited in bypass area around the hanger and
PBR, producing a larger gap between static and dynamic ECDs while circulating. This makes it much more difficult to
manage the small margin between pore pressure and fracture gradient, inviting both mud losses and influx while drilling the
sections depending on whether the fluid flow is static or dynamic. The large margin between static and dynamic ECDs may
also prevent from drilling at optimized flow rates, causing reduced bit HSI, hole cleaning, and a host of other issues.

The Solution
Liner drilling with a retrievable BHA and multi-set hanger with internal bypass mitigates these problems as the liner is
installed while the hole is being drilled. This system employs conventional retrievable BHAs to drill the interval. The BHA
may contain simple tools such as a bit and underreamer to drill a straight hole, or may be of more complex construction
consisting of logging while drilling or rotary steerable systems, thus little to no compromise is made when running this
system as compared to conventional drilling equipment. The benefits of using a system that conveys the liner behind a
retrievable BHA are as follows:

• Wellbore strengthening – the potential exists to increase PP/FG windows and push casing seats deeper, with an
ultimate goal of eliminating the installation of one string of pipe when using casing while drilling and liner
drilling processes.
• Passageway for BHAs if trouble is encountered – though the open hole is less likely to collapse, this system
provides a means of BHA retrieval through the liner pipe and safely into the parent casing, greatly reducing the
potential of lost BHAs
• The liner pipe is always on bottom while drilling – keep every foot drilled
• Increased tripping speeds – the use of a multi-set hanger allows hanging of liner anywhere in parent casing if
BHA change-out becomes necessary. By hanging off the liner and leaving it downhole, much faster tripping
speeds are attainable once the BHA is above the liner. The liner connections never need to be broken out as the
liner is never returned to surface.
• The under reamer to open the hole to standard diameter is part of the BHA and is replaceable without the need to
pull the liner to surface.
• A high bypass area is available at the liner top allowing flow both inside and outside the liner hanger, ultimately
reducing the gap between static and dynamic ECDs, making it suitable for optimum flow dynamics during both
drilling and cementing processes.

Drilling with the Liner

Both 7” x 9-5/8” and 9-5/8” x 13-3/8” liner drilling systems possessing the above capabilities have been designed, built
and tested. This paper highlights the testing of the 9-5/8” system utilizing the multi-set hanger and a simple BHA for
straight-hole drilling.

In the case of drilling with the liner, the hanger was set and liner disengaged a total of 4 times, followed by re-engagement
of the liner, resetting of the hanger, and continuation of drilling. The system was used to drill 994ft over the 2 tests.

Two drilling tests were performed, the first including (3) sets, releases, and re-engagements of the liner. No issues were
encountered during the first test, however, the hanger did not function properly to hang the liner in 2 setting attempts during
SPE/IADC 148607 3

the second test due to cuttings ingress in between the hanger and setting tool, and junk that was encountered in the hole. The
systems performed exceptionally well to drill the hole as expected and the required modifications have been made to this
interface between the hanger and setting tool since these 2 tests and have been proven successful in the system’s third and
final drilling test.

Description and Application of Equipment and Processes

Liner Drilling System Components

The 9-5/8” x 13-3/8” liner drilling system consists of a shoe & shoe track, indicator sub, liner, and liner top equipment,
see figure 1. The liner top equipment contains a liner profile nipple, polished bore receptacle, and liner hanger. The running
tool consists of a drill lock that couples the drilling assembly to the liner, the upper pack-off assembly, and the liner hanger
control tool. The BHA consists of a bit, open hole stabilizers, under reamer, internal stabilizers, and a lower pack-off
assembly. Isolation of the liner ID is accomplished by both the lower pack-off and upper pack-off and assemblies. This
isolation is required both to provide weight on bit and create a vessel within the annulus (between the liner ID / innerstring
OD, between the upper and lower pack-offs) that is capable of being pressurized with drill string pressure. This
pressurization prevents both cuttings ingress into this area and potential collapse of the liner pipe as it is conveyed downhole
during the running and drilling processes.

For the test the tools and liner pipe are carefully counted, measured, and calipered when they arrive on location. The
BHA is made up and racked back in the derrick, followed by the liner being run into the hole and set in the rotary table. A
false floor and rotary bushing are made up on top of the liner and a work platform is placed on the rig floor from which the
hands may work safely. The BHA is then picked up and run into the liner on the innerstring, followed by making up the liner
top to both the inner string and liner. This assembly is then lowered into the hole on drillpipe and used to drill the interval.

Functioning the Liner Top Assembly for BHA Retrieval

If the need to pull the bottom hole assembly back to surface occurs at any time during the drilling process, the liner is
placed in the desired position within the well bore and a ball is dropped to activate the hanger. Once the setting of the hanger
is verified, the ball seat assembly is blown. The ball and ball seat land in the liner drill lock, and pressure is again used to
shift this tool to decouple the drilling tool from the liner. Re-establishment of circulation indicates complete disengagement
of the liner drilling tool from the liner. At this time the entire drill string is pulled back to surface to change out the liner
drilling tool and BHA while the liner remains set downhole.

After changing out the BHA and liner drilling tool, the drill string is lowered back into the liner until the drilling tool
bottoms out in the liner top. Once the tool is landed out, right-hand rotation engages the torque dogs into their profile in the
liner. Further right-hand rotation re-engages the drill string to the liner. Circulation is then re-established and the liner is
picked up, allowing the drilling tool to force the slips back into position inside the liner hanger. The liner is then lowered to
total depth for continuation of drilling.

Once the desired interval is drilled, the above process is repeated with the liner left at total depth across the entire open
hole section. The liner is now ready for cementing.

Surface and Load Tests

Surface tests of the liner system were performed to ensure the tools functioned as expected prior to further drilling tests.
The tests included a setting tool release test to confirm the anticipated pull required to separate the tools once released from
the liner, hydraulic tests to determine the ballseat blow and drill lock release pressures, torque tests to ensure the system
could be used to gently ream through the liner shoe if required, and flow tests to ensure cuttings ingress into setting tool /
hanger interface did not prevent the tools from properly functioning. The load test on the liner hanger was performed to
confirm that the liner hanger would function after its initial set at its maximum load rating and retain its resettable feature
after its application.

Drilling Tests
Once the surface and load tests were completed, drilling tests were performed to prove the function of the system under
drilling conditions. Two tests were performed in an attempt to validate the functionality of the system and to demonstrate
repeatable success after drilling multiple intervals. The first drilling test was performed mainly to test the system’s
4 SPE/IADC 148607

functionality while drilling short intervals. Longer intervals were planned for the second test to prove the system retains its
functionality while passing more mud and cuttings around and through the liner top between the functioning processes.

Presentation of Data and Results

Surface Tests
A number of surface tests were performed to confirm the tools would function downhole as designed. The first test
performed was the setting mechanism release test. The collet arrangement is a critical element of the liner hanger control tool
and it went through a number of tests as part of its development. The test program used a mechanical fixture to release the
collet arrangement from the liner hanger after it was used to set the hanger varying casing IDs. The test demonstrated that the
release load is independent both of Casing ID, whether the parts were dry or lubricated, and final results indicated that the
required release load is highly repeatable, see figure 2.

Hydraulic tests were performed on the surface to verify the activation pressures of the different tool functions. The ball
seat in the setting tool and the release mechanism in the locking assembly were sheared a number of times in both clean and
oiled conditions, and ultimately after an extensive flow test with drilling fluids. The shear values showed a high degree of
repeatability with recorded activation pressures varying less than 8% from calculated nominal values as shown in figure 3.

The liner drilling system is designed to be able to ream into the well during re-engagement of the liner hanger, in case the
previously drilled pilot hole partly fills up during BHA change-out. This feature was tested in a torque test where the setting
mechanism was activated by torque while in tension and the calculated relationship between torque required to activate the
tool and string tension was confirmed, see figure 4. In addition, a torque test to 90% of system yield torque was performed
successfully.

A flow test with water-based drilling mud with solids content similar to what is encountered during the second drilling
test was performed. The purpose of this test was to verify that the tools are able to perform as designed in a drilling
environment prior to actually subjecting the tools to a full scale drilling test. The flow loop configuration is shown in figure
5. The test consisted of over 20 hours of flow at rates up to 690 gallons per minute using the actual mud and cuttings from
the test interval where the hanger had failed to function properly. The flow was stopped every hour for a period of time to
simulate making connections, see figure 6. The tools saw a small increase in activation pressures over the values found in
shop tests, however, the increases were well within the operating envelopes of the tools. The activation pressure increased by
100 PSI over the highest pressure seen in clean testing and remained well within the established setting limits of the hanger.
The mechanism functioned without any difficulty in the simulated drilling environment.

Load Tests
The Load Test was performed to confirm the mechanical integrity of the liner hanger and prove its ability to set and
release multiple times. The axial load test was performed in a test fixture at Stress Engineering Services Inc. Waller Facility
near Houston, TX as shown in figure 7. The program included one load cycle to 450,000 lb. followed by release of the
hanger and two cycles to 200,000 lb. each followed by release. Both axial displacement and change in circumference were
tracked against the load applied, see figure 8.

The liner hanger performed as intended at 450,000 lb. axial load and released under a compressive load of 27,000 lb. At
200,000 lb. the hanger released with minimal compression as shown in figure 9. The liner hanger continued to function as
expected after the 450,000 lb. tensile load. The liner hanger components were measured before and after the test at the
interfaces between the slips and body. No measurable permanent deformations were observed. This test confirmed the
resettable liner hanger’s 450,000 lbs. hanging capacity when set in 13-3/8” 72# casing and may be continually released and
reset after exposure to this maximum load rating.

Drilling Tests

Drilling Test No. 1

The first drilling and functional test of the 9-5/8” liner drilling system was conducted at the Schlumberger Cameron Texas
Facility (CTF). The Liner Drilling assembly was run and reamed the existing hole for 230ft to remove all fill. Once on
bottom, drilling commenced with the planned parameters. A 1388.61 ft. long 9-5/8” liner was drilled in 431ft with a
controlled rate of penetration ranging from 24 ft/hr to 50 ft/hr through the Georgetown formation (limestone predominately
SPE/IADC 148607 5

with some interbedded hard stringers). Average drilling parameters were: 8-15Klb WOB, 570-620gpm, 1500 psi, 4,000-7,000
ft-lb, 35-50 surface RPM, 135-150 total RPM’s.

The section was drilled in three intervals each including a set, a retrieval of the liner control tools for change-out, the re-
installation of the liner control tools and release of liner hanger. After drilling the 3rd section, the liner hanger was set; the
liner control tools were released and retrieved to surface. The control tools were then re-run to release the liner hanger and
the system was pulled to surface at the end of the trial.

Drilling Test No. 2

The second drilling and functional test of the 9-5/8” liner drilling system was conducted in the same slot at CTF. A 1,718
ft. long 9-5/8” liner was drilled in 563 ft of Georgetown formation (limestone predominately with some interbedded hard
stringers), with a controlled rate of penetration ranging from 24.8 ft/hr to 27.7 ft/hr. The section was drilled in two intervals
each including an attempt to set the liner hanger; both attempts failed. A third interval was attempted but junk was
encountered in the hole. Average drilling parameters were: 12-16Klb WOB, 600-650gpm, 1500-1750 psi, 7,000-9,000 ft-lb,
40-55 surface RPM, 140-160 total RPM’s.

After attempting to drill the 3rd section, the liner hanger was set; the inner tools were released and retrieved to surface.
The liner control tools were re-run, the liner hanger was released and the entire assembly was pulled to surface.

Typical drilling parameters for both tests are also shown in Table 1.

Rig Modifications
No modifications to the rig are required for the installation of this system. Due the intrinsic nature of the multi-set liner
hanger, the liner string remains set in the parent casing while changing the BHA, however, during the first inner-string
running process, a false rotary table is used to allow the crew to work safely (see figure 10). Several animations and training
videos were prepared in order to help the crews gain a better understanding of the jobs to be done.

Upcoming Testing Program

Additional tests are scheduled to validate design improvements and test the 9 5/8in and 7in Liner Drilling systems with
directional bottom hole assemblies. RSS and MwD components will be integrated into the BHA to build directional
trajectories. The test objectives will to perform a drilling test under realistic conditions drilling actual formation with the 9-
5/8 in and 7in liner drilling assemblies to validate their ability to drill and function in a drilling environment with cuttings.

Bit & Underreamer Arms Selection

Bit and underreamer arm selection was made based on the best performance characteristics in the field. UR arms were
specially configured to match this bit’s cutting structure design and demonstrated satisfactory results in terms of ROP in both
tests. Both the bit and under reamer drilled all sections but significant mechanical damage to both was evident
upon completion of the second drilling test. The cause of the damage is due the presence of junk in the hole.

Thread Performance

Tesco asked Tenaris for support on selecting and supplying the connection that may undergo the planned
operational conditions. After evaluating the whole drilling program, TenarisHydril selected its Premium Connections
TSH 563 Regular option on 7” 26ppf P110-IC and TSH 563 Dopeless® on 9 5/8” 53.5ppf Q125, as the most
appropriate ones from its portfolio. Summing up, the main technical reasons for this selection are:

• The connection structural ratings: 100% Tension, Compression and Bending efficiencies.
• Proven high over-torque capacity (equal to pipe body).
• Its good and experimentally tested fatigue performance.
• The outstanding resistant to galling after multiple make-up & break-out operations provided by the
TenarisHydril Dopeless® treatment (on the 9 5/8” string).

In order to evaluate the connection response to the carried out operations, a mechanical analysis was performed, in
the following to stages:
a) The static loads analysis, calculating Triaxial Stress State of the string, Bending and Torque & Drag.
6 SPE/IADC 148607

b) The dynamic loads analysis, evaluating alternating loads and the Cumulative Fatigue introduced in the casing
string for the given operations.

These analyses consist of an estimation of the loads applied throughout the string during the operations and a
comparison of them against the resistance of the mechanical component. In the case of static loads analysis, a “Design
Factor” is then defined as the ratio between the component Resistance and the Maximum Expected Load for each
loading mode.

The cumulative fatigue damage is expressed as the ratio of fatigue damage at the considered number of cycles and
the corresponding fatigue life at constant amplitude loading [REf: RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DNV RP C203,
Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, August 2005]. Since the connections are exposed to different amplitude
loading during the drilling process, fatigue life is calculated based on the S-N fatigue approach under the assumption of
linear cumulative damage (Palmgren-Miner’s rule) [REf: RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DNV RP C203, Fatigue
Design of Offshore Steel Structures, August 2005].

The quantitative relationship between the stress range of the cycle (load cycle amplitude) and the number of cycles
corresponding to a specific probability of failure (fatigue life) is graphically expressed by the design S-N curve [Ref:
BS: 7608-1993, “Code Practice for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures, 1993]. The S-N curve adopted
for these analyses were developed by TenarisHydril through full scale testing and statistical analysis of the results for
providing a design curve associated with a 97.5% probability of survival [REf: RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DNV
RP C203, Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, August 2005].

The results of the static loads analysis carried out are summarized in Table 2. It is shown that the design factors are
all above the Minimum Recommended Design Factors adopted by Tenaris for casing string design.

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the loads and stresses state of the connections respectively for the last instant of the
drilling test carried out in a curved well (most severe condition).

The final cumulative fatigue damage evaluation, calculated using the actual well path and performed operations sequence
and parameters, shows that the most affected connection (on top of the BHA) consumed approximately 32% of its fatigue life
that is still considered within the “safe” operating window. The cumulative fatigue calculated for the whole liner string at the
end of the operation is shown in Figure 13

Finally, the connections went through 4 make-up and break-out operations in between the tests showing always
steady torque-turn charts and no signs of any damage.

Conclusions

It is known that casing while drilling (CwD) and liner drilling are already established oil and gas industry techniques with
a proven potential to reduce operational time and mitigate risks when drilling in hazardous formations, such as
unstable and/or depleted formations and reservoirs3. A system that allows the use of a fully retrievable BHA that does not
sacrifice directional and/or formation evaluation capabilities has been built and all aspects of the system tested. Additionally,
the incorporation of a multi-set hanger to allow intermediate release of the liner once picked up and protected inside the
parent casing provides the additional mitigation of the potential for the liner to get stuck in open hole when changing out the
BHA.

The test on the collet assembly where the running tool engages the liner hanger demonstrated that the release load is
independent both of Casing ID and whether the parts were dry or lubricated, and also indicated that the release load is highly
repeatable.

Hydraulic tests to verify the activation pressures of the hanger setting section, the ball seat shear in the setting tool and the
release mechanism in the locking assembly demonstrated a high degree of repeatability with recorded activation pressures
varying less than 8% from calculated nominal values.

The torque test used to confirm the torque activation of the setting mechanism and the calculated relationship between
torque required to activate the tool and string tension was confirmed. In addition, a torque test to 90% of system yield torque
was performed successfully to ensure the integrity of the system while under high torsional loads.
SPE/IADC 148607 7

A flow test to verify the ability of the tools to perform as designed in a drilling environment consisted of over 20 hours of
flow at rates up to 690 gallons per minute demonstrated a small increase in activation pressures over the values found in shop
tests. The mechanism functioned without any difficulty in this environment, with the activation pressure increasing by only
100 PSI over the highest pressure seen in clean testing.

The liner hanger was reset and released as intended at its ultimate axial load capacity of 450,000 lb., then repeated twice
at 200,000 lb. No measurable permanent deformations were observed afterwards, indicating a sound design. The liner hanger
continued to function as expected after these tests, proving it may be reset and released after application of its maximum
hanging capacity.

The connections performed flawlessly during the drilling, make-up and break-out processes, and proved to be an integral
component to the liner drilling system. Break-out torques were monitored and no evidence was noted of unusually high or
low torques when removing the liner from the well after both drill testing sequences.

The liner drilling system is technically achievable for both drilling and reaming conditions. The nature of the design
(multi-set system) helps to avoid unnecessary risks when tight hole, unstable or reactive formations are present.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following companies for their continued enthusiasm & support
in the development and testing of this system: Tesco Corporation for the design and implementation of the liner drilling
process and liner drilling tools; Tenaris for providing the pipe, connections, and equipment & personnel for the testing and
post-analysis of the liner casing; and Schlumberger for their support and the use of the Cameron Test Facility.

Nomenclature

BHA – bottom hole assembly

LwD – logging while drilling
MwD – measurement while drilling
PBR – polished bore receptacle
RSS – rotary steerable system
ROP – rate of penetration
SPP – stand pipe pressure
WOB – weight on bit

References

1. Fontenot, K., et.al., “Improved Wellbore Stability Achieved with Casing Drilling Operations Through Drilling Fluids
“Smear Effect”” paper WOCWD-04-31-04 presented at the World Oil Casing While Drilling Conference, 31
March,2004

2. Rosenberg, S., et al, “Liner Drilling Technology as a Tool to Reduce Non-productive Time: An Update on Field
Experiences in the Gulf of Mexico” paper AADE-11-NTCE-79 presented at the 2011 AADE National Technical
Conference and Exhibition Houston, Texas, 12-14 April, 2011

3. Torsvall, A., “Successful Development and Field Qualification of a 9⅝ in and 7 in Rotary Steerable Drilling Liner
System that Enables Simultaneous Directional Drilling and Lining of the Wellbore” paper IADC/SPE 128685 presented
at the 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 2–4 February 2010
8 SPE/IADC 148607

Appendix

Figure 1. Liner Drilling System with Multi-Set Hanger

SPE/IADC 148607 9

2,500
Shear value  Shear range +/‐
from test  5% of nominal
2,000
Shear value  ‐ lbs

1,500

1,000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5

Test No

Figure 2. Shear results from Hydraulic Test –

decoupling from the liner

Shear value  Shear range +/‐

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500
Shear value  ‐ lbs

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1 2 3 4

Test No

Figure 3. Shear results from Hydraulic Test –

Collet shear to release from the hanger slips
10 SPE/IADC 148607

100,000

90,000
TORQUE VS. AXIAL FORCE
A 80,000
CALCULATED FORCE LBS
X
I 70,000
MEASURED FORCE LBS
A
SHEAR SCREWS
L
60,000

F
O 50,000
R
C
40,000
E

30,000
L
B
S 20,000

10,000

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

APPLIED TORQUE  FT‐LB

Figure 4. Torque vs. Axial force for reaming with running

string and for re-engagement of the Liner Drill Lock
SPE/IADC 148607 11

Figure 5. Flow Loop Configuration for test with drilling mud

12 SPE/IADC 148607

Flow rate and total flow

Total Flow BBL
800 14,000
Flow Rate GPM

700
12,000

600
10,000

500
8,000

400
flow
6,000
BBL total
300

4,000
200

2,000
100

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Minutes test time

Figure 6. Flow vs. time and total flow for drilling fluid flow test

Figure 7. Test set up for load test of multi set liner hanger, 9-5/8” size
SPE/IADC 148607 13

Figure 8. Load test of multi set liner hanger, 9-5/8” size,

Load vs. axial displacement and change in casing circumference

Figure 9. Load test of 9-5/8” multi-set liner hanger

14 SPE/IADC 148607

Drilled Interval
Avg ROP WOB Surface Total  Flow In SPP Torque
ft Footage
ft/hr Klb RPM  RPM gpm psi ft‐lb (x1,000)
From To
2310 2478 168 30 8‐10 50‐55 570 1500 7.0
2478 2667 189 30 12‐15 50‐55 570 1550 7.5
2667 2741 74 35 10‐16 50‐55 700 1550 7.7
2741 2806 65 20 10‐17 35‐55 600‐650 1600 8.0‐8.5
2806 3143 337 31 5‐15 35‐55 600‐620 1750 8.0‐8.5
3143 3197 54 25 10‐14 40 620 1900 9.5‐10.0

Table 1.Typical Drilling Parameters during

Liner Drilling Operations (Test No.1 and No. 2)

Figure 10. Rig personnel working on false rotary table.

SPE/IADC 148607 15

Table 2. Design Factors of static load analysis.

Torque [ft‐lbf] Axial Loads [lbf] Helical Buckling

Eff. Force 0 = NO ; 1 = YES
Crit. Force
0 10,000 20,000 ‐50,000 50,000 150,000 0 1
0 0 0

200 200 200

400 400 400

600 600 600

800
Inner Inner Inner
800 800
String String String
1000 (Drillpipe) 1000 (Drillpipe) 1000 (Drillpipe)
1200 1200 1200

1400 1400 1400

1600
MD [ft]

1600 1600

1800 1800 1800

2000 2000 2000

2200 2200 2200

2400 2400 2400

2600 2600 2600

2800 2800 2800

3000 3000 3000

3200 3200 3200

3400 3400
3400

3600 3600
3600

3800 3800
3800

Figure 11. Torque & Drag Analysis – Loads

16 SPE/IADC 148607

Figure 12. Torque & Drag Analysis – Connection Stresses

SPE/IADC 148607 17

Figure 13. Cumulative Fatigue Chart.