SPE-183826-MS

Liner Hanger Installation in Challenging Offshore Well Conditions

David Luna, Roberto Elizalde, and Wantuadi Diwaku

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 6-9 March 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, 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 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 copyright.

Abstract
ERD wells are commonly associated with major challenges for installation of casing and liner strings. These
wells typically present high torque and drag parameters that jeopardize getting strings to total depth.
In an attempt to optimize production, a major oil company in Angola decided to re-enter the study well
in early 2016. A sidetrack was opened in the 9 5/8-in. casing, and drilling continued in the 8 ½-in. hole and
penetrated the target zone in the highest location. Then a 7-in. production liner was run.
To reach the target zone, 5,583 ft of 8 ½-in. hole was drilled and deviations varied from 45° to 87°. This
trajectory was a challenge for subsequent running of 7-in. liner. Torque and drag (T&D) models showed
liner rotation at total depth (TD) was not possible, and a surge model indicated likelihood of mud losses
while running the liner.
Liner hanger technologies became a very important phase of well construction, and service companies
developed advanced liner hangers to overcome hostile well environments. In this case study, the short time
available from the planning to execution phases and the current oil market conditions made it imperative
that the right equipment, service, and technology were available in country. To achieve the ideal working
parameters and get the liner to bottom, a thorough assessment needed to be performed to ensure risk
mitigation.
This paper presents summarizes steps considered during planning for the 7-in. liner run including a
detailed engineering analysis that enabled the operator to make the best decisions based on the available
resources. The paper will also discuss lessons learned and best practices captured during the job that will
be used for subsequent liners in similar wells.
The case study well was planned as a sidetrack from an existing well that had been shut in because of low
performance. The main well had been drilled and completed as a single gravel pack in 2007. The objective
of the sidetrack was to penetrate the reservoir organized complex in the structurally highest location to
access reserves and optimize production. A constrained initial production was estimated at 6035 BFPD.
An operations overview of the complete intervention is as follows:

• Set a 8 ½-in. whipstock in existing 9 5/8-in. casing at 8,400 ft and mill the window.

• Drill an 8 ½-in. hole section to 13,923 ft MD / 6,657 ft TVD.

• Run and cement 7-in. liner.

2 SPE-183826-MS

• Displace the hole with completion fluid.

• Perform cement bond logs and hand the well over to completion.

The 8 ½-in. hole was drilled as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The well trajectory offered a challenge to
get the 7-in. liner to bottom and to achieve a good cement bond in the production section.

Figure 1—Well trajectory for case-study well

Table 1—Geometric features of case-study well

Measured depth at whipstock point 8,400 ft

TVD at whipstock point 5,279 ft

Deviation at whipstock point 78.25°

Length of 8 ½-in. hole 5,583 ft

Measured depth at TD of 8 ½-in. hole 13,983 ft

TVD at 8 ½-in. hole TD 6,695 ft

Maximum deviation in 8 ½-in. open hole 86.9°

Maximum dogleg severity in 8 ½-in. open hole 5.21°/100 ft at 8,933 ft MD

The operator and the liner hanger service company used proprietary simulation tools during the planning
phase to predict possible issues for running the liner. The simulation considered main aspects, such as well
trajectory and the influence of the whipstock installed in the 9 5/8-in. casing. All analyses were performed
and maximum working parameters were defined and included in the well program. The operator also
SPE-183826-MS 3

considered possible limitations that using standard equipment available in country might impose on well
life. The final management decision was to proceed with the plan presented.

Selection of Liner Equipment

The demanding nature of this well and the high loads and torques to which the liner equipment would be
exposed on a long-term basis made the choice of equipment critical to the success of the project. The liner
system used for these types of demanding installations must be able to withstand the same dynamic forces
that drilling tools encounter in open holes, while still being able to perform its designated functions at the
final installation depth.

Table 2—Required rating for liner system to satisfy needs of case-study well

Burst 6,800 psi

Collapse 5,850 psi

Differential pressure at liner top 4,000 psi

Liner hanging capacity 400,000 lb

Temperature rating 250°F

The premium hydraulic rotating liner system WPHR selected for this job had been used successfully in
multiple scenarios including hostile environments where the toolstring is hardly worked to get it to bottom,
even in drilling with liner applications. The hanger system is hydraulically actuated, meaning differential
pressure is placed across a cylinder with a set of calibrated shear pins that determine setting pressure of the
slips. This can present a challenge when this system is run in a wellbore with severe fluid losses because
the shear-pin ratings may become down-rated as a result of the constantly changing fluid levels within the
wellbore. This situation, coupled with hole stability issues, can lead to unexpected events when running
a hydraulic liner system. The key for success with hydraulic liner systems is safe management of the
circulating pressures so as not to exceed the differential limit established with the preset shear pin pressures
of the hydraulic components. The liner hanger also includes a special mechanical locking device, which is
deactivated when the hydraulic setting pressure is reached; these devices prevent premature setting while
running in the hole (RIH) and allow for the highest of flow rates and pressures to be used. Once setting
pressure is achieved, the hydraulic cylinder forces the slips to contact the parent casing, and then liner weight
is transferred to the slips by lowering the running string.
The selected liner top packer was model TSP5, a mechanically set, premium design that allows for
extended rotation periods and maximum workability during deployment. The packing element is designed
so that atmospheric pressure is trapped under the element; thus, as the liner system is lowered into the
wellbore, the hydrostatic pressure acts to simply vacuum it to the liner-top packer mandrel. This capability
prevents swabbing and premature setting while keeping cuttings from under the packing element as they
are circulated past, all of which can affect the packer's performance. The packer is set by raising the running
string to expose the packer actuator dogs, forming a no-go that is set down on the polished bore receptacle
(PBR). The no-go transfers weight through the PBR, shearing the pins in the packer and allowing the element
and slips to be set in the host casing and the ratchet rings to lock in the compressive forces. The packer was
supplied with a tie-back completion PBR using a patented locking mechanism designed to prevent the PBR
from backing off when a liner system encounters tight dogleg sections or a high-debris environment, which
could lead to costly fishing operations.
The setting tool model R that was used allows the liner to be rotated as required while running in.
Hydraulic pressure, coupled with a ball-dropping event, is used to shear the sleeve of the hydraulic cylinder
on the setting tool so that it can be mechanically released; this hydraulic event is generally simultaneous to
4 SPE-183826-MS

activation of the liner hanger slips. Drillpipe weight is slacked off to de-clutch the tool (10,000 to 20,000 lb
approximately), which is then turned to the right to release the thread that connects to the liner equipment
(float nut). At that point, hydraulic pressure is re-applied to shear the ball from its seat in the liner wiper
plug tool, thereby restoring circulation. The running string is then picked up to check that the setting tool
is free, which is confirmed by the loss of the liner weight.

Torque and Drag Model

Simulations were run and calibrated against drilling torque readings, and the following critical operational
events were selected to predict possible issues:

• Liner located at top of whipstock

• Liner at TD

• Running string disconnected from liner after R tool has been disengaged

• Setting the liner top packer by applying 60,000-lb weight on liner top

Each event was input with different parameters and evaluated separately in the T&D software.
Initial simulations showed the torque value at liner top would exceed the liner connection rating, even
when attempting to rotate at low rpm. A series of subsequent models was run to evaluate the effect of
different centralizer placements on reducing torque but also its negative effect on increasing required push
down force to move the liner in the open hole.

Figure 2—Initial torque and drag results with liner at TD

The best scenario obtained was to place one centralizer per joint across all liner sections (Fig. 3); that
gave enough standoff for cementing (more than 75%) and torque reduction effect. Hook loads still looked
reasonable with this number of centralizers on the string (Fig. 4).
SPE-183826-MS 5

Figure 3—Torque profile by placing one centralizer per joint on the liner string

Figure 4—Hook load by placing one centralizer per joint on the liner string

T&- D modeling also showed that there would be clear confirmation of liner weight loss and surface
torque indicating that the tools have been disconnected from the liner after pressure is built up against the
ball seat (Figs. 5 and 6).
6 SPE-183826-MS

Figure 5—Hook load profile with running tools free from liner

Figure 6—Torque profile with running tools free from liner

The running string was evaluated using a combination of available drillpipe (DP) and heavy weight
drillpipe (HWDP) to allow transfer of sufficient weight at the moment of setting the liner top packer. In the
final string configuration, helical buckling was avoided along all DP to optimize the likelihood of achieving
packer integrity in the first attempt (Fig. 7).
SPE-183826-MS 7

Figure 7—Buckling profile when placing string in compression to set the liner top packer

Operational Details
The first stage of re-entry operation was to set the 8 ½-in. whipstock and open the casing window at a
depth of 8,400 ft MD. The operator was able to drill a 152-ft rathole using same milling assembly. Stable
torque parameters at different rpm suggested optimum condition of casing window, and checks performed
at surface indicated the mill was in gauge. Based on this evidence operator decided to continue with the
subsequent 8 ½-in. directional drilling operation.
The 8 ½-in. hole was TD at a depth of 13,983 ft MD, and 7-in. liner components were inspected at the
rig following Weatherford quality standards. The guide shoe and autofill float collar were picked up and
liner was run. One centralizer per joint had previously been installed onshore to reduce torque and drag
issues and maximize the chances of rotating the liner while cementing as suggested by the engineering
software. The hanger system was picked up, and the subsurface release top plug SSR was connected to
the liner hanger tailpipe. Then the complete system was made up to the last joint of liner and run in the
hole. The autofill float collar was converted and the liner was circulated with 332-bbl to confirm there were
no obstructions in the string. It was decided to convert the autofill at surface based on the last available
formation pore pressure and fracture gradient. The liner was run to the 9.625-in. shoe, where the string
weights were then recorded and 859 bbl were circulated prior to entering the openhole section. The system
reached TD without any issues. When total depth was tagged with 15,000 lb, the liner was picked up 5 ft to
setting depth and circulated a total of 953 bbl prior to setting the hanger. The 1.5-in. setting ball was released
from the top drive cement head at surface and circulated down to the ball seat. When the ball landed in the
seat, pressure was increased to 2300 psi to initiate the setting of the hanger and the release of the running
tool. The string was slacked off and the loss of weight confirmed the liner hanger activation. 40-kips of liner
weight was transferred to the hanger slips. The running tool was placed in compression with 20,000 lb of
drillpipe weight and released with 10 right-hand rotations. A torque increase from 6000 ft/lb to 12,700 ft/lb
confirmed release, with a second indication being a new up weight. 40,000 lb of weight was slacked off, the
ball seat was sheared at 3850 psi, and circulation was re-established. String rotation was commenced and
maintained during complete the cement job. Torque parameters observed were similar to the ones predicted
using the T&D software, 10 rpm – 18,000 ft-lb, The cement job was pumped according to the program,
and the drillpipe dart was released and observed to launch on the SSR top plug after 158 bbl were pumped.
The pressure required to release the plug from the liner running tools was 2,240 psi. Displacement was
continued until the plug bumped on float collar. The pressure was bled off and checked to confirm shoe
track integrity. The string was then picked up 13 ft and the liner top packer was activated. A total of 70,000
lb of rotating weight was set down on the packer, and a shear was observed at 30 kips. The packer was then
8 SPE-183826-MS

tested to 1500 psi for 5 minutes. The RSM packoff was retrieved, allowing the drillpipe to be circulated in
reverse with the RSM still inside the PBR. After the tools were retrieved, the cement/packer integrity was
successfully tested for 4,000 psi for 30 minutes.

Conclusions
Collaboration between operator and service company and their combined resources are key for the
installation of liners in ERD wells. The case-study well became a reference for such difficult operations
that are currently scheduled to be executed in 2017. Application of the engineering process followed in this
well proved to be a useful tool that contributes to the success of the liner run and cementing operations.
The operator was able to save 0.5 million USD using the proposed equipment, and the liner operation
occurred with no nonproduction time (NPT). The well was completed as a frac pack and currently produces
7,194 BOPD.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Weatherford and CAGBOC for their permission to publish
this paper and their encouragement to do so.