Paper Number:

Successful Field Implementation of an Integrity-Focused Digital

Monitoring System for Tubular Running in a Challenging Thermal
ERD Application

Authors: Spencer Taubner, Volant Products Inc; Marius Bordieanu, Suncor Energy
Inc; Dan Dall'Acqua, Noetic Engineering 2008 Inc.

Official version published online by 2023 SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and Exhibition is available at
onepetro.org

https://doi.org/10.2118/212482-MS

Used with permission of Society of Petroleum Engineers, from 2023 SPE/IADC

International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
©2023; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Permission allows us to share this paper on our extranet, also known as, Volant Client Portal, with our
customers. You may download a copy of the paper for your review. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.

Volant Products Inc. 4110 56 Avenue NW, Edmonton AB, T6B 3R8, Canada | T +1 780.490.5185 | www.volantproducts.ca
IADC/SPE-212482-MS

Successful Field Implementation of an Integrity-Focused Digital Monitoring

System for Tubular Running in a Challenging Thermal ERD Application

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Spencer Taubner, Volant Products Inc; Marius Bordieanu, Suncor Energy Inc; Dan Dall'Acqua, Noetic Engineering
2008 Inc

Copyright 2023, SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and Exhibition DOI 10.2118/212482-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, Norway, 7 – 9 March 2023.

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
Horizontal liners in extended-reach drilling (ERD) wells can experience severe loading during running.
Sometimes, downhole loads approach the limits of the tubular system and must be actively managed to
ensure long-term well integrity. This paper describes a Canadian thermal operator's approach to managing
installation and service performance of slotted liner and wire-wrapped screen systems in a steam-assisted
gravity drainage (SAGD) application with unwrapped reach ratios approaching 13:1, and the associated
evolution of liner running practices.
The Operator's approach combines well-characterized liner body installation loading limits and a rigsite
digital solution that leverages available measurements and a real-time torque-and-drag and tubular integrity
monitoring system to inform the drilling team during running. Surface loads and rates measured by the
rig are used as input to top-down torque-and-drag analysis to estimate downhole load distributions. Those
downhole load estimates are then compared to the local loading limits of the liner at all depths. These local
loading states (and their associated uncertainties) are integrated into a safe surface loading envelope that is
displayed to the drilling team and updated in real time to support running decisions.
The evolution of the Operator's running practices has provided a strong basis for confidence in protecting
a critical tubular system, and over 250 liner runs have been monitored to date using the digital system. Prior
to implementing the system, a conservative approach to managing downhole loads during liner running
was used. The integration of a strong engineering basis for the tubular structure with top-down torque-and-
drag analysis and uncertainty characterization has provided a running optimization basis and measurable
indicators of tubular health that can serve as an enduring quality record and be referenced for the remainder
of the well life. Forecasting of running loads and liner limits to total depth has also enabled early recognition
of running challenges and opportunities for optimization.
Interestingly, the edge-deployed digital system has also led to operational efficiencies during the running
process. Running stages involving higher risk to tubular integrity are recognized early and treated with
due care, as are opportunities for increasing the efficiency of certain parts of the running process. As the
Operator considers longer-reach wells, the system also provides insights into likely running challenges
2 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

and provides strong history-match datasets that provide a field-calibrated basis for predicting running and
tubular integrity limits.
The Operator leveraged a novel digital methodology for monitoring liner system integrity during well
construction. The ongoing use of this system has allowed optimization of planning, real-time, and post-run
practices, and provides a well-conditioned historical dataset for future well planning. The methodology has
enabled the Operator to unify work done by drilling engineers, consultants, and the rig crew for optimal
liner system integrity and running efficiency.

Introduction

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Tubular integrity considerations are becoming a more prominent facet of well construction operations,
particularly in extended reach drilling (ERD) applications where the demand on casing and liner system
components is substantial and must be actively managed during field casing running operations. Reach
extension trends are evident in many types of wells and different basins (Szymczak 2021, Abbas et
al. 2022, Johanis and Triffiletti 2017, Walker 2012), and each may demand its own combination of
practice modifications and equipment optimization to overcome limiting factors. Strengthening of tubular
components is one solution; the upward trend in the torque capacity of commercially available threaded
connections over recent years demonstrates the demand for stronger components driven by longer wells.
Running methods can also be evolved to modify the load demand on the casing system; a good example
is string floatation to relieve a fraction of the weight-induced side-load. As a third element, planning,
monitoring, and continuous improvement can be substantially facilitated through the use of "digital
solutions". This is not a new concept in the well construction domain; drilling optimization and automation
have advanced by leaps and bounds over recent years, and this has contributed to incredible advances in
efficiency.
Casing running operations offer a relatively unexplored domain for digital solutions that may leverage
similar systems as have been developed to support drilling optimization, provided they can be appropriately
tailored to the metrics relevant to casing running. Specifically, digital solutions designed to promote tubular
integrity during running operations can provide substantial value to drilling teams and stakeholders, given
the immediate and long-term implications of integrity issues on well functionality. Other than the fact that
there is only typically one measurement location (surface) during casing running operations, availability of
data is not the primary issue industry generally needs to overcome; it is instead the effective distillation,
interpretation, and communication of available data from the electronic data recorder (EDR) and other
sources into usable information at the "right time" that can be challenging (Taubner et al. 2017).
The opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of casing running operations while respecting
the structural engineering basis for tubulars is perhaps greatest at the interface between the design and
planning team and the field implementation team. A very simple example that has been widely and
successfully implemented in the field is torque-turns systems that enable a lasting record of the in-slip
make-up operation that is critical to the proper functionality of threaded connections. There is generally
little uncertainty that the connection components are designed and manufactured with appropriate QA/QC
in mind, but the industry still monitors make-ups as a mechanism for detecting anomalies that may be
introduced in field practice, before a connection is sent downhole. In the authors’ experience, a similar
practice is not in place for monitoring the local loading conditions each connection (and adjacent tubular
system element) may experience when out-of-slips (i.e., when subjected to running loads). This discussion
is becoming more prominent in the context of connection load limits in unconventional ERD applications
(Ott et al. 2021, Zara et al. 2022, Hamilton and Pattillo 2019).
The authors of this paper encourage the reader to consider this to be an example of the successful
implementation of an integrity-focused digital system in a challenging thermal ERD application. It is our
opinion that the strategies described herein could be successfully transposed to other applications, and our
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 3

hope is that these descriptions may enable others to integrate their application-specific tubular engineering
bases into digitally assisted tubular running operations.

Application
The Operating Company operates two steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) projects in Alberta, Canada.
The Firebag project is located to the northeast of Fort McMurray; the MacKay River project is located to
the northwest of Fort McMurray.
The SAGD process involves using steam to heat and mobilize bitumen that would otherwise be too

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

viscous to extract. Two horizontal wells are drilled near the bottom of a bitumen-bearing reservoir, one
approximately five metres above the other. Steam is injected through the upper well into the reservoir, where
it condenses, transferring some of its latent energy to the bitumen. Once sufficiency heated, the bitumen
drains by gravity to the lower well, through which it is produced.
The Firebag project targets the McMurray formation, with wells typically ranging between 250-350 m
true vertical depth (TVD). Newer wells can have a productive length exceeding 1,200 m and a total length
exceeding 2,000 m measured depth (MD), corresponding to an unwrapped reach-to-depth ratio greater
than 6:1. MacKay River is Alberta's shallowest SAGD project (Suncor 2021), with wells typically ranging
between 100-150 m TVD. Wells have recently been drilled at MacKay River with a productive length
approaching 1,000 m and total length exceeding 1,500 m MD, corresponding to an unwrapped reach-to-
depth ratio of almost 13:1. Wells at MacKay River are drilled using a slant rig due to the extremely shallow
depth of the reservoir.
Wells at Firebag and MacKay River have a three-string casing design with a shallow surface casing,
an intermediate casing that runs from surface to the target formation, and a horizontal production (or
injection) liner that is hung off the intermediate casing. The intermediate casing is cemented in place and uses
premium connections incorporating a metal-to-metal seal to provide a barrier between wellbore fluids and
the formations overlying the reservoir. The liner is uncemented and incorporates sand screens to permit the
passage of wellbore fluids while minimizing sand production. Several different sand control technologies
are used, including slotted liner and wire-wrapped screen (WWS) liner. Some liners additionally incorporate
flow control devices (FCDs) to improve the inflow or outflow distribution along their length. Wellbore
schematics representative of the majority of the injection and production wells at the Firebag project are
shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Installation of the liner can be challenging due to the high reach-to-depth ratio of the wells. Liners are
run using a top drive casing running tool, and compressive force and rotation are generally required to get
liners to bottom. Compressive force can be applied by setting down a portion of the top drive weight on the
liner string. In addition, SAGD drilling rigs are equipped with a pulldown system, which allows additional
compressive force to be applied by means of winch and cable. To land the string at its final total depth (TD),
the liner is connected to and run in on drill pipe, which is retrieved from the well once the liner hanger
has been set. Heavy-weight drill pipe (HWDP) is typically used to increase available pipe weight, and drill
collars are occasionally added in the upper part of the running string when more pipe weight is required.
4 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 1—Wellbore schematic for typical injection well at Firebag SAGD project (after Suncor 2019).

Figure 2—Wellbore schematic for typical production well at Firebag SAGD project (after Suncor 2019).

During installation, the liner must pass through the build section of the well, where planned curvatures
are typically in the range of 8-10°/30 m, and local curvatures in the range of 12-14°/30 m are occasionally
seen in the as-drilled well survey. The liner must be able to withstand the bending loads generated by these
relatively high curvatures in combination with the axial and torsional loads applied by the rig and generated
by pipe weight.
SAGD wells are typically pad-drilled, meaning that multiple wells are drilled from a single surface
location. As a result, the trajectory of a SAGD well typically depends on its position on the well pad. The
trajectories of wells near the outside edges of pads tend to be the most challenging from a liner running
standpoint because they include significant lateral displacement (or "throw") relative to the wellhead
position.
Once installed, SAGD liners face a harsh operating environment. During operation, temperatures in
the horizontal section can be as high as 200-250°C (392-482°F). Acting in combination with confining
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 5

stress exerted by the formation, these temperatures and the associated thermal expansion are sufficient to
cause full cross-section yielding of the liner pipe body. During plant turnarounds, unplanned shutdowns,
and well interventions, liners may cool down significantly from their operating temperature, and so they
must additionally be able to withstand repeated thermal cycling. SAGD liners are designed using a post-
yield, strain-based methodology to ensure they maintain structural stability and acceptable sand control
performance (Dall'Acqua et al. 2005, 2007).

Technology Opportunity

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Historically, the Operating Company engaged a Service Provider to analyze the installation load capacity of
liner configurations and provide installation load limit "envelopes" that could be used to establish running
limits at the rig. These load limit envelopes were defined to keep liner deformations in the elastic range
or to carefully manage the level of plastic (permanent) deformation permitted during installation. This is
important in SAGD applications because excessive running loads and any resulting residual deformation or
stress can affect the thermal service performance of liners, particularly slotted liners (Chartier et al. 2019).
Figure 3 shows a set of installation load limit envelopes for a sample liner configuration. The envelopes
express the torque capacity of the liner as a function of the applied axial load at specified levels of dogleg
severity (DLS). In general, the application of torque, axial load, or curvature to a liner will reduce its capacity
to withstand the other loading types (e.g., applying axial load will reduce a liner's torque and curvature
capacity). The sample load limit envelopes shown in Figure 3 are additionally dependent on wellbore inner
diameter (ID) because they incorporate a buckling calculation that leads to lower load limits in larger hole
sizes under axial compression.

Figure 3—Sample liner installation load limit envelopes.

Liner installation load limits for the Operating Company's liners have been established using a
combination of analytical, numerical, and physical methods. For commonly used tubular structures such as
slotted liner and the ported (perforated) casing that serves as the base pipe for wire-wrapped screen liner,
6 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

analytical equations have been developed to estimate installation load capacity. These equations enable
the load limits of new liner configurations to be efficiently assessed and liner designs to be optimized to
balance installation capacity with other design considerations (e.g., open flow area requirements stipulated
by production engineering). The analytical load limit equations have been validated through finite element
analysis (FEA) and, in the case of slotted liner, through full-scale physical testing. Details of the physical
testing program can be found in Chartier et al. (2019).
A rigorous engineering basis had existed for many years for establishing the local load limits of liner
systems; the challenge had been in communicating load limits to rig personnel, and in expressing the limits
in terms of surface (rig) loads. Liner installation load limit envelopes were historically provided in written

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

reports to the Operating Company, whose engineers were tasked with distilling the envelopes into simple
running limits that could be easily communicated to rig crews. Sometimes, rig limits were based on a
combination of worst-case loading assumptions (e.g., limits might be based on the highest dogleg severity
indicated in the wellbore survey and a zero-friction assumption, under which the full torque applied at
surface was assumed to reach the bottom of the liner string). At other times, drilling engineers prohibited
rotation of the liner string or the use of pulldowns. Overly conservative load limits impacted the efficiency
of liner runs. In addition, there was a desire to increase the accuracy of rig limits given the significant costs
of liner failure. These typically include investigation and repair costs, but can also include costs associated
with sand production and production losses.

Real-Time Digital Solution

Requirements
The Operating Company and Service Provider collaborated to develop a real-time liner run monitoring
system (referred to hereafter as the "digital system") to provide rig crews with accurate, real-time load limits.
The main requirements of the digital system were as follows:

• The system receives liner installation load limit envelopes as input and continuously calculates
composite surface load limits – "composite" meaning that the limits represent the load capacity of
the entire liner string, not just the capacity of any individual component, and "surface" meaning
that the load limits are expressed at rig equipment (i.e., in terms of hook load and top drive torque).
• The surface load limits provided by the system react in real time to changes in running conditions.
For example, the surface load limits will generally decrease when the liner string enters a section
of the well with higher curvature.
• The system does not require any new equipment to be installed in the doghouse of the drilling rig.

System Architecture
Given the system requirements, an edge solution was favoured over a cloud-based system to ensure that
accurate, real-time load limits could be calculated and displayed to the rig crew regardless of the quality
of the internet connection at the rigsite, and regardless of any limitations of cloud-based data streams. The
selected system architecture is shown in Figure 4.
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 4—System architecture.

A Windows .NET application was developed to handle input/output functions, perform torque-and-drag
and load limits calculations, and display load limits. The application is installed on a personal computer
that is set up in the consultant's shack. Current deployments use an all-in-one desktop computer, which
was favoured over smaller formats (e.g., a laptop) for its increased processing power, larger display, and
available ports.
The digital system receives measurements from rig sensors via the electronic data recorder (EDR).
The system is connected to an EDR workstation in the consultant's shack, and data is transferred using
the Wellsite Information Transfer Specification (WITS) protocol. WITS data transfer is bi-directional; the
monitoring system receives rig measurements from the EDR and returns load limits that can be displayed
as traces on EDR displays. In this way, load limits can be monitored from the doghouse without the need
for any additional doghouse equipment. Alarms can also be configured in the EDR system to notify the rig
crew if the applied loads are approaching the load limits of the liner string. The solution does not require
the installation of any new sensors at the rig, but measurements from specialized sensors (e.g., a torque-
tension sub) can be used to enhance the system if available.
The rigsite computer is internet-connected and can be monitored and controlled by office staff. Remote
control capability is achieved using an off-the-shelf, third-party solution.

Analysis Approach
At the core of the digital system is a torque-and-drag (T&D) model that is used to estimate the downhole
loads acting on the liner string during running. The T&D model is based on a soft-string formulation
(Johancsik et al. 1984) with an option to account for stiff-string effects (i.e., the additional side load resulting
from the bending stiffness of the pipe).
An important feature of the T&D model is that it can be run in both the bottom-up and top-down
directions. In bottom-up mode, boundary conditions are specified at the bottom of the running string and
the analysis proceeds in the uphole direction to arrive at estimates of the axial load and torque at surface.
This is the default mode for most torque-and-drag software; typical boundary conditions for casing and liner
running operations are zero force and zero torque at the bottom of the string. In the digital system, bottom-
up analysis is used for forecasting and history matching (i.e., model calibration) purposes.
8 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

For monitoring purposes, the T&D model is run in top-down mode. Boundary conditions are specified at
the top of the running string based on the measured rig loads (hook load, top drive torque, and, if applicable,
pulldown force) and analysis proceeds in the downhole direction. In this way, the estimated loads on the
liner are based on actual measurements rather than assumed conditions at the bottom of the string. This is
important in cases where the running conditions violate the typical assumption of zero end load (e.g., if the
liner string encounters a cuttings bed or other obstruction downhole).
A novel approach was developed to calculate and display the load limits of the running string (Van Vliet
et al. 2022). The main steps of the approach, shown graphically in Figure 5, are as follows:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

1. For each component of the running string, calculate a local load limit envelope based on the local
conditions at each component's current location in the well. The local load limit envelope of a
component will typically depend on the wellbore curvature (dogleg severity) to which the component
is subjected, and can also depend on the wellbore diameter if the liner load limits account for buckling-
induced bending. This local load limit envelope describes combinations of torque and axial load that
can be sustained by the component given the bending loads it must also accommodate; the local load
limit envelope does not indicate rig limits.
2. Based on the loads and rates measured at surface, perform top-down torque-and-drag analysis to
estimate the axial load and torque acting on each component of the running string.
3. Using the results of the prior two steps, calculate a surface load limit envelope for each component
of the running string expressing each component's load capacity in terms of rig loads (i.e., top drive
torque and hook load or pulldown force).
4. Take the intersection of the surface load limit envelopes of all the components in the running string
to obtain the composite surface load limit envelope.

Figure 5—Approach for calculating composite surface load limits of running string.
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 9

Changes in the loads and rates measured at surface or in the depth of the running string result in changes to
the composite surface load limit envelope, and so the above steps are repeated at high frequency throughout
the liner run. Updating the composite surface load limit envelope once per second has been found to provide
responsive load limits while keeping the computational load at a manageable level.
An important consideration in the calculation of surface load limits is uncertainty in the inputs to the
underlying calculations. Significant sources of uncertainty are the friction factors in the T&D model, as well
as the load and rate measurements. Friction factors depend on many parameters and can vary significantly
from well to well, and even between adjacent wells that have ostensibly been drilled in the same manner.
Likewise, the uncertainty in rig measurements can be large, particularly in cases where significant time has

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

elapsed since rig systems were calibrated or maintained. To account for these sources of uncertainty, users
specify uncertainty values for the friction factors and for measurements such as hook load and torque, and
the digital system analyzes a range of possible loading conditions.
It is important to acknowledge that, even in cases where the usual sources of uncertainty are well-
characterized, there is some degree of uncertainty inherent in the load limit estimates provided by the
digital system. A torque-and-drag model is a relatively simplistic description of a complex physical system,
and only surface measurements are available for model validation and calibration. Given this inherent
uncertainty, the liner load limits provided as input to the digital system have generally included safety
factors, and some conservatism has typically been included in the friction factors assumed for monitoring
purposes.

Rigsite Interface
The digital system's rigsite interface is divided into Design, Monitor, and Analyze pages, which are focused
on model setup, load limits monitoring, and post-job analysis, respectively. During liner installation, the
most critical system function is achieved using the Monitor page, which is designed to distill the results
of the T&D and load limit calculations being performed by the system into a single indicator that can be
easily referenced by the rig crew. Figure 6 shows a partial screenshot of the Monitor page and illustrates
how liner load limits are displayed at the rigsite:

• Much of the Monitor page is devoted to displaying the composite surface load limit envelope
(Figure 6 left). As discussed, uncertainty in the modelling inputs leads to uncertainty in the surface
load limits, and so different ways of expressing uncertainty had to be explored during system
development. A two-envelope approach was ultimately selected, in which "design" and "nominal"
load limit envelopes are displayed. The design load limit envelope, shown in green, is based on
worst-case loading assumptions; the rig crew will typically aim to keep loads within the design
envelope during liner installation. The nominal load limit envelope, shown in yellow, is based
on as-specified or as-measured values for the various modelling inputs and indicates surface load
limits neglecting uncertainty. In certain circumstances, the drilling engineer may permit loads to
enter the nominal load limit envelope when the associated risks are well understood.
• A crosshair indicates the current rig loads, providing an intuitive target for the rig crew: keep the
crosshair in the green envelope. If the applied loads enter the nominal (yellow) load limit envelope,
the colour of that envelope intensifies. If the applied loads exceed the nominal load limit envelope,
the background of the load limit plot turns red to alert the crew. A shaded rectangle surrounding
the crosshair indicates the uncertainty in the rig force and torque measurements.
• The Monitor page also includes a running schematic that shows the current position of the liner
in the well and the loading severity along the length of the string (Figure 6 right). If the estimated
load approaches the local load limits of the liner at any location along the string, the shading of the
string at that location changes from green to yellow and ultimately to red, allowing the rig crew
to pinpoint the location of problem areas.
10 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 6—Screenshot of rigsite interface showing composite surface load limit envelope (left) and running schematic (right).

Enduring Quality Record

After a liner has been successfully landed, the rig crew can generate a report summarizing the severity of
the installation loads experienced by the liner. An example of the information contained in the report is
provided in Figure 7, which shows a graph indicating the position of the liner string (vertical axis) against
elapsed time (horizontal axis) for a sample liner run. The colouring of the graph denotes loading severity and
is consistent with the colour scheme used for the rigsite interface, with green indicating that the estimated
loads remained within the "design" limits of the liner, yellow indicating that the estimated loads entered
the "nominal" load limit envelope, and red indicating that the estimated loads exceeded the nominal load
limits. The loading severity along the length of the liner string at any given point in time can be determined
from the colour along a vertical line drawn on the graph at the selected point in time. In the example below,
the estimated loads near the top of the liner section exceeded the design load limits and occasionally the
nominal load limits at 6-7 hours into the run, when the bottom of the liner string was at approximately
1300-1500 m MD.
Summary reports also include loading histories for each component of the running string. Loading
histories are especially valuable in situations where a detailed record of the loads experienced by a particular
component are required (for example, as part of a failure investigation). An example is shown in Figure
8 for the uppermost liner joint from the sample liner run discussed in the preceding paragraph. Loading
histories are expressed as a scalar load ratio, which is calculated as the ratio of the estimated load on a
component to the load limit of the component in the direction of loading. Load ratio is plotted against the
component's depth in the well as it travelled from surface to its final landing depth downhole. The sample
loading history below reveals that, although the estimated loads occasionally exceeded the liner load limits,
the load ratio remained close to one, indicating that the rig crew was using the digital system effectively to
manage the loads applied to the liner. In this example case, the liner load limit envelopes included a safety
margin, and the drilling engineer was able to verify that installation loads were appropriately managed.
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 7—Graph summarizing installation loading severity for sample liner run.

Figure 8—Loading history of uppermost liner joint from sample liner run.

Outcomes of Digital System Implementation

At the time of writing, the digital system has been in use for approximately five years, with over 250 liner
runs monitored to date. The following sections discuss the deployment and adoption of the system and
describe specific outcomes with respect to liner integrity, running efficiency, and the power of data.
Overall, the digital system has satisfied its technical objectives, providing rig crews with real-time
load limits that have enabled better-informed liner running decisions. While the system has utility in
other extended-reach drilling (ERD) applications, its value proposition is especially strong in the SAGD
setting. SAGD liner systems must endure an extreme operating environment over a 20- to 30-year life
cycle, meaning it is critical that liner running practices not compromise tubular integrity in the interest of
maximizing the value of each well. The summary reports generated by the system have proven extremely
valuable to drilling engineers by providing an enduring quality record that demonstrates to production
engineers and asset managers that wells have been drilled and cased with appropriate care. Further, "clean"
12 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

summary reports have reduced the number of avenues of investigation that have needed to be pursued when
liner failures have occurred, saving time and money.
As with all new technologies, there have been challenges and learning opportunities over the course of
development and deployment. Some of these are discussed in the sections below.

Liner Integrity
Once installed in a SAGD well, a liner typically remains in the well for the life of the well. As a result, there
is not usually opportunity to inspect a liner after it has been installed for deformation or other damage that
might impact the liner's performance during thermal service, rendering it difficult to rigorously measure

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

the tubular integrity benefits of the digital system. Over time, we would hope to see the benefits of the
system emerge through indirect indicators, such as the frequency of sand control issues; however, concurrent
changes in well design and operating practices and the typically complex nature of liner failures have meant
that it has been difficult to isolate the impact of the system from a tubular integrity standpoint.
Occasionally, running challenges are encountered during a liner run and the liner is pulled out-of-hole to
perform wellbore cleaning. These occasions have provided the rare opportunity to physically inspect a liner
after it has been subjected to installation loading and therefore provide valuable validation points. In these
instances, the pulled liner joints are visually inspected by the casing representative on site, and sand screen
aperture sizes (e.g., slotted liner slot width) may be checked using feeler gauges. In the majority of cases
in which a liner has been pulled out-of-hole since the deployment of the digital system, no liner damage
has been detected and the pulled liner joints have been re-run into the well, providing good evidence that
the system is serving its primary function.
There has been one notable exception to the above, which occurred in a complex and atypical sidetrack
application in which the liner string became stuck shortly after exiting the intermediate casing window
and entering the open hole, and during which rotation and reciprocation were used to attempt to free the
string. The torque remained at a level that would not normally be expected to cause damage to the pipe
body or connections. When liner joints were eventually recovered, however, some of the buttress-style
connections were found to have made up incrementally during the liner run or recovery effort (i.e., the pins
had moved from their original make-up position and penetrated farther into the box). The exact nature of
these incremental make-ups remains uncertain, but we hypothesize that the combined torsional and axial
loading to which the connections were subjected may have been sufficient to cause the connections to make
up incrementally, even though the applied torque remained at a level that would not normally be problematic
under pure torsional loading. Some connection manufacturers have begun to characterize the combined
load limits of their connections, and this work is showing that a connection's incremental makeup torque
threshold can increase or decrease in the presence of axial load, depending on the style of connection and
the direction of loading (Ott et al. 2021, Zara et al. 2022).
Although an isolated incident, this experience indicates there may be opportunity to improve the rigour
with which tubular and connection limits are input in the digital system, especially in non-routine operations
that may be exceptionally demanding. This is not so much an opportunity to improve the system itself, but
rather an opportunity to improve the data provided as input to the system, and a reminder that the accuracy
of the outputs of any digital system involving modelling depends on the accuracy of the inputs.

Tubular Running Efficiency

While the primary motivation for the development of the digital system was tubular integrity, the system
has also enabled increases in tubular running efficiency. With accurate, real-time load limit information,
rig crews can reduce loads when necessary to manage tubular integrity and increase loads when conditions
allow to improve running rates and minimize the time required for liner installation. Since the deployment
of the digital system, the Operating Company has set new liner run speed records, even as it designs and
drills increasingly ambitious ERD wells.
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 13

Figure 9 shows three partial screenshots of the monitoring system display from a liner run that required
rotation and relatively high torques to get to bottom. The screenshots show the composite surface load limit
envelopes (green and yellow envelopes) at three different run depths as the liner approached its final landing
position, as well as the loads applied by the rig (crosshair). While the liner was still in the build section of
the well, its torque and axial load capacities were limited by the high curvature of the build section; this is
reflected in the smaller load limit envelope in the screenshot on the left of Figure 9. As the liner exited the
build section, the bending loads on the liner decreased, and there was a corresponding increase in torque
and axial load capacity; this is reflected in the larger load limit envelopes in the centre and right screenshots
of Figure 9. In this example, the rig crew took advantage of the insight provided by the monitoring system

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

and the additional torque capacity gained as the liner exited the build section to increase surface torque and
improve running efficiency in the final part of the liner run.

Figure 9—Increase in surface load limits as liner exited build section of well
and corresponding increase in applied loads (liner landing depth = 1552 m MD).

The Power of Data

One of the longer-term benefits of the digital system has been an extensive, well-structured library of liner
running models and data. Because a T&D model is created for each well prior to drilling and then updated
with the as-drilled well survey and rig measurements during the liner run, post-run analysis can be conducted
with minimal preparatory effort. This has enabled the efficient review of large volumes of liner running
data to improve understanding of downhole running mechanics and support evaluations of the running
performance of different liner solutions.
In an example project, rig data from the liner runs on a 17-well pad was analyzed to identify and quantify
differences in the running friction of liners with two different types of sand screen, referred to hereafter as
"type A" and "type B". The two sand screen technologies were installed on the pad in alternating fashion:
type A was installed in odd-numbered wells (wells 1, 3, 5, etc.), and type B was installed in even-numbered
wells (wells 2, 4, 6, etc.). History matching was performed for each well to determine the combination of
cased-hole friction factor (CHFF) and open-hole friction factor (OHFF) that provided the best agreement
between T&D model estimates and the measured hook load, pulldown force, and top drive torque data.
Figure 10 shows the output of this history matching activity for a sample well on the pad. The upper
half of the figure shows the axial load applied at the top of the liner running string (a negative value
denotes compression) as a function of run depth. Measured loads are shown in blue and were calculated
from the hook load and pulldown sensor data, accounting for the block weight of the drilling rig. T&D
14 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

model estimates are shown in grey for the CHFF and OHFF combination that provided the best fit with
the measured loads. The lower half of Figure 10 compares the measured and estimated surface torques in a
similar fashion. Note that the T&D model estimates appear as clusters of points rather than smooth curves
because they reflect the actual liner string kinematics (i.e., running and rotation rates) at each measurement
point.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 10—Measured and calculated surface force (top) and surface torque (bottom) for sample liner run.

Because the liner string was rotated during installation and the running and rotation rates of the string
varied over the course of the run, history matching was not performed using a traditional "broomstick plot"
method, which would have involved generating a set of T&D model estimates for a specified kinematic
case. Instead, a point-by-point history matching method was developed, wherein the measured running
and rotation rates at each data point were simulated in the T&D model. This method is significantly
more computationally intensive than conventional techniques but provides greater confidence in cases with
complex running string kinematics. In this example case, the variability observed in the surface torque
(lower half of Figure 10) was almost entirely attributable to variability in the direction of motion of the
liner string. Excellent agreement with the measured data was achieved after accounting for this kinematic
variability in the T&D model.
Similar cased-hole friction factors were observed for the two liner types. However, there was a clear and
consistent difference in open-hole friction factor, which is thought to be attributable to differences in how
the two types of sand screen interact with the formation during running. The difference in running friction is
evident from Figure 11, which shows the best-fit OHFF for each of the 17 liner runs on the pad, normalized
with respect to the average OHFF for liners with sand screen type A. The open-hole friction factor was on
average almost 20% higher for liners with sand screen type B than for liners with sand screen type A.
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 15

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

Figure 11—Normalized open-hole friction factor (OHFF) for 17 wells included in history matching project.

Beyond providing insight into downhole running mechanics, this example and others like it have provided
valuable information to the Operating Company as it plans new wells, which in some cases are expected to be
more challenging due to longer horizontal reach and/or higher lateral well displacement (i.e., "throw") from
the wellhead. T&D analysis can be conducted at the planning stage using refined friction factor estimates
that correspond to the type of liner to be run, leading to better estimates of the loads that will be experienced
by each liner. In turn, this enables better-informed purchasing decisions as the Operating Company selects
pipe weights, material grades, and connection designs to balance liner strength considerations with project
economics.

Adoption
The digital system required a high level of buy-in from all parties involved and significant support from
the development team to ensure success.
The first deployments of the system were closely monitored, with experts available to train rig personnel,
answer questions, and troubleshoot any technical issues that arose. Initially, the development team handled
all aspects of system setup, including setup steps that could only be completed after the well was drilled (e.g.,
updating the T&D model with the as-drilled well survey). This required frequent communication between
the rig and development team, and frequent after-hours support. As time progressed, however, rig crews
became increasingly self-sufficient, and the wellsite supervisor assumed responsibility for many system
setup steps, including updating the T&D model with the as-drilled survey, adjusting the configuration of
the liner running string in the T&D model, and verifying that data is being transferred to and from the EDR.
Today, the digital system is part of a well-established workflow. When a well design is finalized, the
drilling engineer sends the design details to a support team, whose members set up the well in the digital
system. After the well is drilled, while the drilling bottomhole assembly (BHA) is being tripped out of the
well, the wellsite supervisor completes the final setup steps. The liner run is then monitored by both the
wellsite supervisor and the driller, using the dedicated display in the wellsite supervisor's shack and the load
limit traces transmitted by the digital system to the EDR. At the conclusion of the run, the wellsite supervisor
generates a summary report that is sent to the drilling engineer. No personnel are typically present at the
16 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

rigsite to support the digital system, but an office-based support team is available to answer questions and
troubleshoot technical issues if they arise, and to provide training to new field staff who do not yet have
experience with the system.
In cases where liner running challenges are encountered and the digital system indicates that the applied
loads approached or exceeded the limits of the liner string, the drilling team may engage subject matter
experts to gain insight into the nature of the running challenges and assess the health of the liner. This
may involve a detailed review of the rig data collected during the liner run, calibration of the T&D model
friction factors, and refinement of the liner limits based on well-specific information such as mill test reports
(MTRs). Over time, these investigations have enabled continuous refinement of the input parameters used

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

to monitor liner runs, including the cased- and open-hole friction factors and associated uncertainties.
There have been numerous implementation lessons learned in the roughly five years since the first
monitoring system was deployed; some notable examples are as follows:

• Successful adoption of a new digital technology requires buy-in at all levels.

• Although many digital technologies can be supported remotely, remote support is not a substitute
for an expert on site. When deploying a digital technology for the first time, it is invaluable to have
an expert on the ground who can explain the purpose and merit of the technology.
• With any digital technology that requires input from users, there is a risk of input error. While this
risk can never be reduced to zero, it can be minimized by anticipating common errors and building
checks into the digital system. As experienced is gained and user behaviours are better understood,
these checks should be continually improved.

Conclusions and Future Opportunity

At a fundamental level, the implementation of the digital liner run monitoring solution described in this
paper has provided the Operating Company with a number of primary benefits:

• A mechanism for actively and consistently managing the severity of loading it applies to its liner
systems during running in real time, which permits a lower degree of conservatism when conveying
loading limits to rig crews;
• Well-documented outcomes from the drilling team's liner running activities that can serve as a clear
record of tubular system integrity to be handed to production and asset integrity teams;
• As-needed, post-run engineering information in the framework of the original liner system design
basis and well design/running plan that can be used without further processing to calibrate
performance expectations and evaluate the merits in practice improvements;
• Further to the above, the ability to more actively evaluate the impact of extending horizontal well
reach and/or extending lateral well displacement ("throw") on tubular system integrity, leveraging
well-documented outcomes from its earlier operations that can serve as the basis for calibrating
expectations in more challenging liner runs and monitoring those runs for deviations.
The implementation of the digital system in the Operating Company's SAGD liner running operations has
also provided certain opportunities than had not originally been anticipated when the system was originally
conceived. While the system's technical functionality is aligned with the original intent, the system provides
a clear demonstration of the cross-functional unification that digital solutions make possible when relatively
complex engineering calculations can be leveraged by multiple teams in real time. The drilling team that
plans the wells can now deploy the liner system's structural design basis to the rig crew to ensure that
differences between calibrated running expectations and well-specific run conditions that might impact
long-term tubular integrity are actively and consistently managed. When a run is challenging, possible
implications on the liner structure's integrity are immediately apparent, and can serve as input to field
IADC/SPE-212482-MS 17

and office-based decisions that may need to be made before the next stage of well construction or the
commencement of operation. Conversely, when a run is going well, the system enables the rig crew more
visibility on the opportunity for accelerating the run without compromising pipe system integrity. Finally,
if a liner integrity issue is encountered at some point in the life of the well, the liner's installation loading
history is available immediately, and can either be identified as a possible contributor to the associated issue
or dismissed as a contributing factor.
From a broader perspective, the authors encourage industry peers to seek opportunities in applications
other than SAGD wells to deploy edge-based or cloud-based digital solutions to casing running operations.
While such solutions might provide different functionality or utility relative to the liner run monitoring

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023

system described herein, there exists a significant opportunity to enable visibility into the difference between
expected and actual running conditions, particularly for more challenging casing and liner runs that approach
runnability and tubular system integrity limits. This element is what may not be readily predicted at the well
planning stage, and a well-deployed digital approach with cross-functional buy-in will provide a consistent
basis for field decisions that may ultimately influence the overall outcome of the well. On this note, using
a consistent basis for planning, monitoring, and post-run analysis will enable continuous learning among
drilling teams.

References
Abbas, N. Al Nokhatha, J., Haider, S. et al 2022. Longest Extended Reach Drilling Well Drilled in Middle East Geosteered
Within 5 ft Stratigraphic Thickness Target Zone. Paper presented at ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 31 Oct– 3 Nov.
SPE-211660-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/211660-MS
Chartier, M.A., Yung, V.Y., and Taubner, S.P.2019. Impact of Rotation During Installation on the Structural Performance
of Slotted Liners in Thermally Stimulated Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 34 (03): 268–279 SPE-182529-PA. https://
doi.org/10.2118/182529-PA.
Dall'Acqua, D., Smith, D.T., and Kaiser, T.M.V.2005. Post-Yield Thermal Design Bases for Slotted Liner. Paper presented
at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
1-3 Nov. SPE-97777-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/97777-MS
Dall'Acqua, D. Lopez Turconi, G., Monterrubio, I. et al 2007. Development of an Optimized Tubular Material for Thermal
Slotted Liner Completions. Paper presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 12-14 June. PETSOC-2007-142. https://doi.org/10.2118/2007-142
Hamilton, K. and Pattillo, P.D.2019. Developing an Evaluation Method for Casing Connections used in Hydraulically
Fractured Wells. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 5-7 Feb. SPE-194369-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/194369-MS
Johancsik, C. A., Friesen, D. B., and Dawson, R.1984. Torque and Drag in Directional Wells-Prediction and Measurement.
J Pet Technol 36 (06): 987–992 SPE-11380-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA
Johanis, P.E. and Triffiletti, G.E.2017. Trends in Vaca Muerta Horizontal Wells Stimulation. Paper presented at the SPE
Latin America and Carribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18-19 May. SPE-185463-
MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185463-MS
Ott, W.L., Granger, S.L. Marmolejo, D.J. et al 2021. Advanced Testing Protocol and Evaluation for Shale OCTG
Connections. Paper presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
Virtual, 16-18 Nov. URTEC-208368-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/AP-URTEC-2021-208368
Suncor. 2019. Suncor Firebag AER performance presentation for March 1, 2018
to February 28, 2019 reporting period. https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/oilsands/insitu-
presentations/2019AthabascaSuncorFirebag8870-Presentation.pdf (accessed 29 September 2022).
Suncor. 2021. Suncor MacKay River AER performance presentation for January 1, 2020 to December
31, 2020 reporting period. https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/oilsands/insitu-presentations/2021-athabasca-suncor-
mackay-8668.pdf (accessed 29 September 2022).
Szymczak, P.D.2021. Extended-Reach Drilling Hits Mainstream to Squeeze Difficult Reservoirs. J Pet Technol 73 (08):
35–37 SPE-0821-0035-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/0821-0035-JPT
Taubner, S., Van Vliet, C.J., and Dall'Acqua, D. 2017. Multi-Timescale Workflow for Optimizing Installation and Integrity
of Extended-Reach Horizontal Liners. Paper presented at the SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium,
Banff, Alberta, Canada, 28-30 Nov. SPE-188148-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/188148-MS
18 IADC/SPE-212482-MS

Van Vliet, C.J., Taubner, S., Yung, V., and Dall'Acqua, D. 2022. System and Method for Optimizing Tubular Running
Operations Using Real-Time Measurements and Modelling. US Patent No. 11,286,766.
Walker, M.W.2012. Pushing the Extended Reach Envelope at Sakhalin: An Operator's Experience Drilling a Record Reach
Well. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, 6-8 Mar.
SPE-151046-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/151046-MS
Zara, E.M., Grittini, S.J. Rueda, D.M. et al 2022. Characterization of Premium Connections Structural Behavior Under
the Presence of Combined Torsional and Axial Loads. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-5 Oct. SPE-210397-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/210397-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S011R002/3068452/spe-212482-ms.pdf by Daniel Dall'Acqua on 07 March 2023