SPE 96810
Casing Drilling vs. Liner Drilling: Critical Analysis of an Operation in the Gulf of Mexico
R.J. Steppe III, El Paso Corp.; L. Clark, Hughes Christensen; and R. Johns, Tesco
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Increasingly, operators are looking for simple and effective
methods to overcome the hazards and limitations imposed by
depleted reservoirs, rubble zones or thief zones. One method is
to utilize casing or liner drilling to isolate the problem area by
combining drilling and casing in one operation. This can take
on many forms from simple drill-in systems to full retrievable
directional BHA’s connected below the casing or liner string.
A major independent operator has recently drilled two 12-1/4”
hole sections in different wells to isolate a problem thief zone
(Well A-2 BP01 and A-3). The drilling of one of these
sections with liner (A-2 BP01)1 and the other with casing (A-
3) produced many operational and equipment learning that
will increase efficiency in future applications. To drill the
problem interval of the A3 well, the operator chose a tried and
proven Casing Drive System, together with a new PDC casing
bit2 to drill down a full string of 9-5/8” casing.
The choice of drilling with liner or casing is examined along
with the equipment and operational practices required.
Comparisons will be drawn with the offset well which was
drilled conventionally and led to mud losses of over 3,000
barrels, the effectiveness of a smear or plastering effect while
drilling with liner and casing is investigated.
Introduction
The Eugene Island 364 field in the Gulf of Mexico is an area
of rapidly deposited young and undercompacted sediments. In
areas such as this, standard drilling engineering fundamentals
such as fracture gradients, pore pressures and rock properties
can be unpredictable1.
The 12-1/4” hole section of the subject well A3 was drilled
with casing following the drilling of A-2 BP01 with a liner
and A-2 and A-1 conventionally. The A-1 well had
experienced numerous geological, mechanical, and wellbore
stability issues.
The well design for well A-2 and A-3 were developed based
on lessons learned in A-1. Specifically, severe mud losses in
the TB-4 sand were recorded in A-1, using oil-based mud
(OBM). An overbalanced hydrostatic mud weight was
determined to be the cause of the losses.
A-2 and A-3 utilized a water-based mud (WBM) system and
casing set below the TB-4 sand to isolate the thief zone
encountered in A-1 and prevent lost circulation (Fig 1). A
13.6-ppg WBM was used to drill A-2 through the TB-4, but
the well still experienced severe mud losses. The operator
chose to plug back the well and bypass the original wellbore
rather than fight the severe losses and instability. A-2 BP01
was successfully drilled with a liner for 269 ft @ 7.4 ft/hr
through the TB-41.
To drill the problem interval of the A-3 well, the operator
selected a service company with a proven Casing Drive
System and expertise together with a new PDC casing bit to
drill down a full string of 9-5/8” casing.
Geological Description (Challenges)
The local area is known for its young sediments and rapid
deposition, characterized by unconsolidated sands, reactive
shale/clay and gumbo to depths exceeding 10,000 ft. TVD.
The pressure transition exhibits a multi-compartmental
behavior beginning at 6,000 ft TVD, gradually increasing
through numerous productive intervals to 7,000 ft. TVD and
continuing to increase to 10,000 ft. to a maximum equivalent
mud weight (EMW) of 15.0 ppg.
The TB-4, at about 7,300 ft TVD was characterized as an
unconsolidated sand that acted as a thief zone with both OBM
and WBM. The fracture gradient at the 13-3/8” shoe indicated
the equivalent of a 14.6 ppg EMW however, experience in the
area proved the formation underlying TB-4 was sensitive to
mud weights of 13.6 ppg or greater. The thief zone lay well
into the top of the pressure transition; where gas and pore
pressure require mud weights exceeding 13.0 ppg leaving little
margin for surge and swab effects.
2 SPE 96810
Casing vs Liner Drilling
The option for the A-3 well was to either drill with a liner (as
had been done on A-2 BP01) or drill using a full string. Since
a tie-back would be required if a liner was utilized, it was
decided to look at drilling with a full string of casing rotated at
surface through a casing drive tool. This required a greater
degree of operational planning since rotational torque would
now be applied through the casing instead of drill pipe.
Options
Prior to the drilling liner operation on the A-2 BP01 sidetrack,
an analysis of the costs and risk associated with several
options, to overcome the troublesome thief zone, was carried
out. The same options existed for the A-3 well and are
common to most drilling operations where trouble zones are
present:
• Downsize production liner to allow an intermediate
string to isolate the problem zone
• Drill and under-ream to allow an extra string of
casing/liner to be installed without compromising the
production liner size
• Utilize an expandable casing/liner to gain the
additional string and maintain the production liner
size
• Drill conventionally to just above the problem zone
and then isolate the problem zone via casing drilling
A risk-reward assessment showed that the Casing Drilling
option presented the most acceptable level of risk at the lowest
cost.
Planning Considerations
Engineering Analysis
While planning a casing drilling operation, the service
company utilized both experience and software tools to
understand and manage the risks inherent in any drilling
operation. Due to the losses experienced on the A-1 and A-2
wells, some 5,000 bbls of mud were held on standby.
The casing connection used was VAM SLIJ II, which met the
minimum fatigue design parameters. With inclination already
in the wellbore (Fig 2), an analysis of the number of cycles to
failure was modeled over a 3 deg/100ft dogleg severity.
Calculation showed stress values in the order of 12.5 ksi
which in turn gave an estimated number of cycles to failure of
121,727 for the connector and 18,266,640 for the pipe. A 20%
safety margin gave maximum bit revolutions of 97,381. With
this limitation, ROP was considered very important in order to
drill the required interval. Actual bit revolutions after 398 ft
drilled at 18.9 ft/hr were 91,910.
The service company torque and drag modeling showed that
there would be no anticipated problems with optimizing the
drilling process but also showed that some specific areas of
the wellbore would need conditioning for Casing Drilling as
the drilling assembly was being run to bottom. These specific
areas would need circulation established while rotating the
casing string in order to record pick-up/slack-off, rotational
torque and hydraulic lift values. It is critical to understand
what these casing string forces are in relationship to the
wellbore geometry especially the torque and hydraulic lift
values. The hydraulic lift is the key indicator as to how clean
the casing string, bottom hole assembly and bit are staying as
the drilling assembly is run to bottom. Cleaning techniques
have been developed that significantly reduce this effect after
these data points are established and continued to be
monitored and procedures taken to clean the casing string
and/or wellbore during the drilling operation.
The VAM SLIJ II connection that was chosen, has an
optimum make up torque of 23,500 ft/lbs, the model showed a
maximum anticipated casing string torque of 15,386 ft/lbs.
Equivalent alternating stress was also analyzed to recognize
potential connection damage during the drilling operation.
Actual torque and drag figures matched the service company
model accurately with a maximum of only 16,000 ft/lbs
actually seen during the drilling operation (Fig 3).
Bit Selection
The need for a new design of bit that is capable of drilling on
the end of casing or liner is driven by two distinct economic
considerations:
1. The need to drill longer intervals and harder
formations at increased ROP to increase the
drilling economics
2. The need to avoid a dedicated drill out run by
utilizing the following drilling assembly
The range of bits for drilling with casing has been limited in
recent years by the perceived mutually exclusive design
characteristics of a full PDC cutting structure bit that could be
drilled out without the need for a dedicated milling run.
Adams et al document the use of a drill shoe tool with a TSP
cutting structure (Fig 4) and aluminum body on well A-2
BP011. In an effort to improve on the ROP and reduce the
cycles on the casing connections, the operator selected a new
PDC Casing bit which unlike casing shoes, features premium
drill bit technology which can then be drilled out without the
need for a dedicated milling run (Fig 5).
The EZCase bit is designed like any other premium drill bit;
Computational fluid dynamics modeling is used to optimize
hydraulic configuration, stability modeling and premium PDC
cutter technology is used to maximize durability and ROP.
The system is completed with a custom PDC bit that can be
used to drill out the EZCase bit and drill the next hole interval
(Fig 5).
SPE 96810 3

circulation. This technique was done to also help prevent pipe

sticking.

To establish string rotation, a 20k ft/lb torsional load was put

on the casing string. Pick-up was attempted for ~5-7 feet and
then slack-off was initiated and rotation re-established each
time.

From 7708 ft down, a continuous increase in pump pressure

was experienced as well as a reduction in torque. Aggressive
Nut-plug sweeps were pumped to help clean the casing string.
As drilling continued from 7,754 ft down, pump pressure had
increased steadily up to ~1,940 psi. Two pressure drops were
encountered over the next 60 ft, one of 300 psi was
experienced and torque reduced somewhat that was initially
thought to be a release of cuttings from the casing as pump off
had increased to 16k. The drilling rate decreased and a 450 psi
decrease in pump pressure as we drilled in the joint of casing.

Fig 6: 12-1/4” EZC304 utilized on A-3
Casing Drilling Operation
Casing was run prior to drilling with the Casing Drive System
(Fig 7). This allowed the rig crew and driller to get familiar
with the system before drilling operations commenced.
Following the pre-well planning, pump-off or hydraulic lift
assessment was performed at the 13-3/8” shoe to establish the
base line of hydraulic lift with clean pipe and clean hole
conditions. This was established at 8klbs hydraulic lift. This
procedure was repeated at joint #109 (10klbs), #126 (12klbs),
#144 (10klbs) and #159 (52klbs). At ~7,300 ft. which was four
joints off bottom, circulation was again established along with
rotation and the pick-up/slack-off, rotational torque and
hydraulic lift parameters were recorded. This also conditioned
the hole prior to Casing Drilling. At this point, casing was
washed and reamed to bottom (7,444ft) at 10-12 minutes per
joint.
Two tungsten carbide tracers were pumped down hole with the
exact amount of pump strokes verifying the pressure loss was
at the area of the bit. A nozzle wash-out was suspected and
drilling continued. Pump pressure, torque and the ROP
continued to slow until a depth of 7,842ft was reached. At this
point El Paso’s G&G advised that the formation marker and
interval TD had been reached (Fig 9).
Post well survey’s revealed that wellbore trajectory was held
extremely well maintaining the 20 degree inclination and
desired azimuth. This was accomplished utilizing a packed
hole BHA that consisted of three (3) Hydro-formed Stabilizers
that were 1/16” undergauge (Fig 10 & 11).

Rotation Speed (RPM) = 50 rpm (Total rev limitation of 97k).

WOB = 4-6k
Rotational Torque = 14-16k (As predicted on Tesco CDE
software)
Pump Pressure = 1,185 psi

Drilling commenced and remained steady with Nut-Plug

sweeps (15bbl @ 15#/bbl) started on a continuous basis with
the scheme being as soon as a sweep cleared the bit face
another one was started down. At every connection (Fig 8),
the rotation was slowed to 20-30rpm and the joint was worked
back up half way and then back down prior to setting the slips.
The joint was raised ~2 feet above the bottom of the hole to
keep the bit off bottom. Due to the complex geometry of the
wellbore, connection speed was optimized to minimize the
time making-up a connection because of fear of sticking.

This technique was perfected during the casing running

operation utilizing the Casing Drive System. As soon as the
thread engagement was started and prior to torque make-up, Fig 10. Hydro-formed Stabilizer (Double Crimp)
the pumps were turned back on (slowly) to re-establish
4 SPE 96810

Post Well Service Company

The 12-1/4” EZC304 drilled a total of 398 ft from 7,444 to TD
at 7,842. The bit drilled through the potential thief zone at
over 30 ft/hr before slowing in the gumbo and shales below.
The section was drilled and cased in 21 hours, giving an
average ROP of 18.95 ft/hr. This performance represented a
170% increase in ROP, while drilling 50% further than the
offset drill in liner (Fig 12). Following cementing the EZCase
shoe was successfully drilled out in 20 minutes, using a mill
tooth bit. This represents the deepest Casing Drilling operation
performed offshore in the Gulf of Mexico to date.
Depth vs. ROP
7200
7400
Depth
Hydraulic lift and the effects of formation collecting on the
casing string during running operations has to be monitored
frequently. The process to clean the casing string is critical
and has to be adhered to with an adequate amount of time
allowed to perform this operation. No deviation from this
process can be substituted, as this is important to prevent
sticking the casing string. There was a point after the majority
of the casing had been run in the complex wellbore geometry
that hydraulic lift approached 52k lbs. This indicated that
closer monitoring of this aspect of preparing to casing drill be
followed.
Bit Company
Bit design – The performance of the EZCase bit showed a
substantial improvement in performance over the previous
well. To further optimize the design, a close analysis of the

7600 internal profile of the EZCase casing bit was undertaken. This
showed some potentially harmful fluid velocities around the
7800 EZC304
drillable carbide nozzle sleeves (Fig 13). It was deemed
DSII unlikely that these velocities would lead to a nozzle washout
8000
0 5 10 15 20
in the majority of applications, but changes to the internal
ROP geometry have led to a significant improvement in erosion
resistance.
Fig 12. Comparison of bit performance on the liner and casing
drilled wells.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank management at El Paso
As was experienced in the drilling with liner operation on A2-
Corporation, Hughes Christensen Company and Tesco
BP01, the Casing Drilling operation was very successful in
Corporation for allowing this paper to be published. We also
mitigating non productive time associated with mud losses and
thank our colleagues in both companies and the other service
unstable hole conditions encountered in the offset well A1. No
companies, particularly Baker Hughes Drilling Fluids and
losses were recorded while drilling with or cementing the
VAM for their contributions to the project and teamwork
casing in A3 or liner in A2-BP01. There are many cases that
during the planning and execution of this well. Without the
point to the fact lost circulation is dramatically reduced when
major team effort put forth, this would not have been
drilling with casing and these cases add to that list. This
accomplished.
phenomenon labeled “the smear effect” is commonly thought
to grind cuttings by the rotating casing and “smear” them into
References
the wellbore wall3. This results in an impermeable seal on the
1. Adams, H.A, El Paso Production Co, Rosenberg, S,
wellbore.
Montgomery, M and Galloway, G., “Drilling with
Casing Overcomes Losses to Thief Zone” Paper OTC
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
17687, presented at the Offshore Technology
The use of drilling with casing or liner in trouble wells is
Conference in Houston, Texas, USA, 2-5 May, 2005.
shown in the two wells drilled here to be a viable and
economic alternative to other technologies. Proper planning
2. Clark, L., McClain, E., “Casing/Liner Drilling:
and attention to every aspect of the equipment and operation
Potential Game Changer for Future Mediterranean
enabled the operator to complete the casing drilling operation
Operations” Paper OMC041, presented at Offshore
safely and efficiently and has also given the drilling engineer
Mediterranean Conference in Ravenna, Italy, 16-18
another tool to be considered when a problem well
March, 2005.
environment is encountered.
3. Fontenot, K., et.al., “Improved Wellbore Stability
Operator
Achieved with Casing Drilling Operations Through
The use of a full string instead of a liner offered savings
Drilling Fluids “Smear Effect”” paper WOCWD-04-
involving rig time versus a liner and subsequent tie-back.
31-04 presented at the World Oil Casing While
Consideration will be given in the future to liner and casing
Drilling Conference, 31 March, 2004.
drilling depending on the primary well objectives. If a tie-back
is going to be required then A-3 showed that casing drilling
with a full string can be a more economic alternative. The use
of a full PDC cutting structure casing bit enables the section to
be drilled as efficiently as possible.
SPE 96810 5

EI 364 A-2 BP01 EI 364 A-3

Water Depth = 358'

730 (~230' BML)

850 (350' BML)

1,542' MD /1,542' TVD 1,555' MD/TVD

13-3/8", 72.0#, HCP-110, BTC 13-3/8", 72#, HCQ-125, BT

4,520' MD / 4,520' TVD 4,600' MD / 4,549' TVD

15.6 ppg EMW 14.8 ppg EMW

9-5/8", 53.5#, HCP-110, SLIJ II 9-5/8", 53.5#, HCQ-125, VAM SLIJ II

7,636' MD / 7,570' TVD 7,835' MD / 7,488' TVD

16.5 ppg EMW 17.5 ppg EMW

7", 32.0#, HCP-110, Hydril 513 7-5/8", 39#, P-110, SLX

9,333' MD / 9,042' TVD

9,500' MD / 9,107' TVD
18.0 ppg EMW

Fig 1. Casing scheme for A-2 BP01 (liner Drilling) and A-3 (Casing Drilling)
6 SPE 96810

EI 3 6 4 A - 3 D i r e c t i on a l P l o t

V e r t i c a l Se c t i on

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000

0
2600

2200
2000

1800

4000

1400

6000

1000

8000

600

10000
200

-200
12000
-200 0 200 400 600

We s t ( - ) / E a s t ( +) , f t
Directional Plan Actual Survey

Fig 2. Directional Plan for A-3 Well

1000

2000

3000
Measured Depth

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000
0 5000 10000 15000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Torque Along String Equivalent Alternating Stress

Fig 3. Torque and Drag Analysis

SPE 96810 7

Fig 4: Aluminum Casing Shoe with TSP Cutting Structure

Fig 5: Composite Steel EZCase Casing Bit with Full PDC Cutting Structure
8 SPE 96810

Fig 7. Casing Drive Tool and Control Console

Fig 8. Casing Pick Up, in Position to Stab and Drilled Down

SPE 96810 9

Fig 9. Log of Casing Drilled Interval

E. I. Block 364 A-3 Well – 9 5/8”” CASING DRILLING ASSEMBLY
(Non-Retrievable w/EZ Case Drillable Shoe)

TESCO
9 5/8” 53.5# Q-125 Float Collar
Vam - SLIJ II

Full Length Casing Joint

Double Crimp
Hydro-Form™ Stabilizers
12.188” OD

Full Length Casing Joint

12 1/4” EZ Case Drill Shoe

Fig 11. BHA Showing Position of Stabilizers

10 SPE 96810

Fig 13. CFD Analysis of Erosion Around the Nozzle Sleeve