CASING SEAT SELECTION

CASING POINT SELECTION

Why do we set casing

Casing is set for following drilling reasons

Consolidate the hole already drilled.

Provide pressure control integrity to drill ahead

To isolate producing formation from others

 Criteria for casing seat selection

 Kick tolerance

 Wellbore stability

 Mud requirement

 Directional requirement

 Fracture gradient
Selection criterion:
• Hole to be drilled successfully and safely at minimum cost.

• Casing shoe normally set in competent formation which should be

able to withstand the forces imposed upon it during well activity.

• High-compressive-strength formation is best.

• Casing can be set in a competent shale.

• Compared to sandstones at same depths, shales have higher strength

margin (in order of 1,000psi).

• Unconsolidated formations not suitable

4
 Selection criterion
• shale slough or swell. Can be mitigated by selecting correct mud
type
• Oil Base Mud (OBM) and SOBM systems are effective in preventing
shale destabilization
• Stronger the casing seat, higher the pr. it can withstand during drilling
in terms of ECD's, and well control operations without breaking down
• Care to be taken in following cases:
– Fresh water sands
– High pressure zones
– Depleted zones
– Mud loss zones
– Faults and stressed zones
– Heaving formations

5
The very purpose of selection of casing shoe setting depths is that hole
section should be drilled successfully and safely at minimum cost.

CONDUCTOR CASING
It prevents washing out under the rig.
It provide elevation for flow line and bell nipple.
The shoe depth selected for the conductor casing should be strong
enough to withstand fracturing during drilling the next hole interval
which is assumed to have no hydrocarbon bearing intervals.
SURFACE CASING –
Surface casing is treated as conductor casing if no hydrocarbons
are expected in the next hole interval or alternatively as
intermediate casing in the event of hydrocarbons are expected in
the next phase of drilling.

 Support subsequent casing strings.

Isolate surface fresh water formations

Case unconsolidated or lost circulation areas.

Setting depth is selected to allow BOP to be nipple up.

INTERMEDIATE CASING
The shoe selected for intermediate casing should be strong enough
to withstand fracture during drilling the next hole section and should
be able to take a kick of pre defined size.

Other major considerations for selection of intermediate casing seat

are:

 Differential pressure consideration for safe lowering of the

casing

 Isolation of troublesome or unstable formations which may

include heaving shales, loss circulation zones, flowing halites etc

 length of open hole.

Pressure regression.
Production Casing:

The production casing is set through or just above

reservoir depending upon completion.

Completion can be

Open hole

Liner

Perforated liner or casing

Non cemented completion

Purpose:

Isolate the pay zone from other formations or fluids .

Protective housing for production equipment like

• Subsurface artificial lift

• Multiple zone completions

• Screens for sand control

Covers worn or damaged intermediate casing.

 METHODOLOGY OF CASING SEAT SELECTION

1. The well objective is clearly defined.

2. Actual problems encountered in nearby wells

3. The potential problems encountered in nearly wells are short

listed.

4. Pore and fracture pressure for the well is estimated.

5. The pore and fracture pressure profile is overlaid against

the lithological column, potential troublesome zones and the
hydrocarbon bearing zones.

6. A basic casing programme is prepared.

7. Production casing shoe depth requirements are studied and
suitable formation and depth are selected

8. Intermediate casing shoe depth requirements are studied to

satisfy designed kick tolerance and the differential pressure
consideration and a suitable casing point is selected to meet
these requirements as an absolute minimum.

9. Kick tolerance and the maximum differential pressure for the

selected seat.

10. Surface casing and conductor casing shoe depth requirements are
studied accordingly suitable formation and depth are selected.
 Setting depth selection should be made for the deepest
strings to be run in the well and then successfully
designed from the bottom string to the surface.
 The first criteria for selecting deeper casing depths are to
let mud weights control formation pressures without
fracturing shallow formations. This procedure is
implemented bottom-to-top.
 After these depths have been established, differential
pressure sticking considerations are made to determine if
the casing string will become stuck when running it into
the well. These considerations are made from top-to-
bottom
BOTTOM UP DESIGN
TOP DOWN DESIGN
 PORE & FRACTURE PR DATA
Depth (m) Pore pr grad (MWE) Fracture pr gradient (MWE)
400 1.07 1.46
800 1.07 1.52
1200 1.07 1.57
1600 1.07 1.61
2000 1.07 1.65
2400 1.07 1.69
2800 1.07 1.77
3100 1.07 1.81
3200 1.40 1.82
3320 1.50 1.83
16
Depth (m) Pore pr grad (MWE) Fracture pr grad (MWE)
3400 1.57 1.83
3600 1.64 1.86
3800 1.65 1.80
3920 1.66 1.90
4000 1.67 1.91
4100 1.68 1.92
4320 1.70 1.94
4520 1.72 1.95
4680 1.75 1.97
4800 1.78 1.99
5000 1.80 2.00
17
 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SN Design factor Design limits

1 Swab consideration 0.04 gm/cc

2 Surge consideration 0.04 gm/cc
3 Safety factor 0.02 gm/cc
4 Differential pr (For normal pr zones) 170 kg/cm2
5 Differential pr (For abnormal pr zones) 215 kg/cm2

6 Design kick size 0.06 gm/cc

Differential pr limit:
• These values can vary for different field conditions.
• It also depends on the general attention given to mud
properties and drill string configuration. 18
Fig-1:
Formation
Pr and
Fracture Pr
Vs Well
Depth

19
 First casing (9-5/8”) seat selection
Function MWE
(gm/cc)
Max anticipated formation 1.80
pr at 5,000 m
Swab pr + 0.04
Min acceptable MW = 1.84
Surge pr + 0.04
Min fracture gradient = 1.88
Safety factor + 0.02
Design fracture gradient = 1.90

20
Fig-2:
1st
Intermediate
casing seat
selection
(Initial shoe
depth)

21
 First casing (9-5/8”) seat selection 22

Function
Projected casing shoe 3,960 m
depth
Formation pr at 3,960 m 1.66 gm/cc MWE
Swab pr + 0.04 gm/cc
Min MW at 3,960 m = 1.70 gm/cc
during drilling
Formation pr at 3,100 m 1.07 gm/cc MWE
Diff pr at 3,100 m when {(1.70-1.07) *
drilling at 3,960 m 3100}/10
Differential pr at 3,100 m 195.3 kg/cm2
Is it acceptable No
 23
First casing (9-5/8”) seat selection: Revised depth
Function
Max acceptable diff pr for 170 kg/cm2
normal formations
So MW at which this diff 170 = {(MW-1.07) *
pr will be achieved 3100}/10
So MW obtained is {170*10/3100}+1.07=
1.61 gm/cc
Swab pr Subtract 0.04 gm/cc
So acceptable formation pr = 1.57 gm/cc MWE
So revised shoe depth 3,400 m
Fracture grad at 3,400 m 1.83 gm/cc MWE
 24

Fig-3:
1st
Intermediate
casing seat
selection
(Modified
shoe depth)
 Liner Seat Selection
MWE (gm/cc)
Fracture gradient at 3,400 m 1.83
Swab+ Surge+ SF Subtract 0.10
Formation pr 1.73

Projected liners setting depth 4,560 m

at formation pr of 1.73 gm/cc
Is it final No
Check differential pr criterion
Check kick criterion

25
 26

Fig-4:
Liner seat
selection
Liner seat selection: Diff Pr Criterion 27

Formation pr at 4,560 m 1.73 gm/cc

Swab pr Add 0.04 gm/cc
Min MW at 4,560 m Gives 1.77 gm/cc

Formation pr at last casing 1.57 gm/cc

shoe (3,400 m)
So differential pr at 3,400 m {(1.77-1.57)*3400}/10
= 68 kg/cm2
Is it acceptable Yes
170 kg/cm2 for normal
215 kg/cm2 for abnormal pr
zones
 Liner seat selection: Kick Criterion

Kick size 0.06 gm/cc

Formation pr at 4,560 m 1.73 gm/cc
Min MW at 4,560 m 1.77 gm/cc
EMW at 3,400 m 1.77 + {(4560/3400)*0.06}
= 1.85 gm/cc
Fracture pr at 3,400 m 1.83 gm/cc
So liner shoe at 4,560 is No
suitable
What to do Try again to set at some
higher depth by trial
28
Revised Liner seat selection: Kick Criterion 29

What depth we try 4,200 m

Formation pr at 4,200 m 1.69 gm/cc
So MW at 4,200 m 1.73 gm/cc

So EMW at 3,400 m 1.73 + {(4200/3400)*0.06}

= 1.80 gm/cc
Fracture gradient at 3,400 m 1.83 gm/cc
Is it satisfactory Yes
Lower liner here No
What to do Try again to set liner as
deep as possible. Try again
Second casing (Liner) seat selection: Kick Criterion

What depth we try 4,320 m

Formation pr at 4,320 m 1.70 gm/cc
So MW at 4,320 m 1.74 gm/cc

So EMW at 3,400 m 1.74 + {(4320/3400)*0.06}

= 1.83 gm/cc
Fracture gradient at 3,400 m 1.83 gm/cc
Is it satisfactory Too close
Lower liner here Set somewhere between
4,200 and 4,320 m
30
 31
Third casing (13-3/8”) seat selection
MWE (gm/cc)
Max anticipated formation pr 1.57
at 3,400 m
Swab + Surge + SF Add 0.10
Design fracture gradient Gives 1.67

Depth selected to lower 2,200 m

13-3/8” casing with this frac
gradient of 1.67
What to do Find out 20”
casing seat by
trial
 32

Fig-5:
2nd
Intermediate
casing seat
selection
(Shoe depth)
 Fourth casing (20”) seat selection

What depth we try 320 m

Formation pr at 2,200 m 1.07 gm/cc
So MW at 2,200 m 1.11 gm/cc

So EMW at 320 m with 0.06 1.11 + {(2200/320)*0.06}

gm/cc kick from 2,200 m = 1.52 gm/cc
Fracture gradient at 320 m 1.45 gm/cc
Is it satisfactory No way
Lower 20” casing here Keep shoe somewhere
deeper
33
 Fourth casing (20”) seat selection

What depth we try 400 m

Formation pr at 2,200 m 1.07 gm/cc
So MW at 2,200 m 1.11 gm/cc

So EMW at 400 m with 0.06 1.11 + {(2200/400)*0.06}

gm/cc kick from 2,200 m = 1.44 gm/cc
Fracture gradient at 400 m 1.46 gm/cc
Is it satisfactory YES
Lower 20” casing here YES

34
 35

Summary
Csg Shoe
size (mtr)
20” 400
13- 2,200
3/8”
9-5/8” 3,400

7” 4,320
liner
Pore Pr & Fracture Pr Gradient of ONGC 36

Well
Pore Pr & Fracture Pr Gradient of ONGC Well
• 13-3/8” shoe
• Proposed at 300 m to seal fresh water sands
• 9-5/8” shoe:
• Proposed at 1400/ 1450 m with objective of
covering upper pay sands with pore pr of
0.98 MWE
• 5-1/2” shoe:
• Proposed at 2000 m covering lower pay
zones from 1800-2000 m and deeper zones
below 2000 m
• Higher MW of 1.50 required to drill charged
Cambay sand in 8-1/2” hole
37
 38

Casing seat
selection in
weak
Formations
in Well
 39

Pressure
Regression
in Well
Depth (m) Pressure In M.W.E.
gm/cc

0- 2300 Hyd 1.03

2300-2700 Hydrostatic +20% 1.24

2700-3000 Hydrostatic +60% 1.65

Depth (m) Value in M.W.E.
233 1.37
1197 1.57
2000 1.75
2300 1.81
2700 1.90
3000 1.95
Surface Casing 20” (200m): The 20” Surface Casing is
suggested with shoe at 300 m to isolate surface seepage zone
and surface unconsolidation.
Ist Intermediate casing 13 3/8”(1400M TVD) : 13 3/8”
casing is to be lowered keeping shoe tentatively at 1400 m
2nd Intermediate casing 9 5/8”(2400m TVD): 9 5/8”
Casing to be lowered keeping shoe tentatively at around
2400m TVD where formation pressure is expected to be 1.10
gm/cc MWE.
Final casing 5 1/2”(3000m TVD) : The 5 1/2” Casing is to
be lowered up to 3000m TVD as per objective and target of
the well where formation pressure is expected to be 1.65
gm/cc MWE
CASING POINT SELECTION
EXAMPLE :
Following pressure data and design data is
given for selection of casing in the example well to be drilled :
Depth (m) Formation pressure Fracture pressure
MWE (gm/cc) MWE (gm/cc)
400 1.07 1.46
800 1.07 1.52
1200 1.07 1.57
1600 1.07 1.65
2400 1.07 1.69
2800 1.07 1.77
3100 1.07 1.81
3200 1.40 1.82
3320 1.50 1.83
3400 1.57 1.83
3600 1.64 1.86
3800 1.65 1.89
3920 1.66 1.90
4000 1.67 1.91
4100 1.68 1.92
4320 1.70 1.94
4520 1.72 1.95
4680 1.75 1.97
4800 1.78 1.99
5000 1.80 2.10
Now, with the graphical representation we may proceed as follows :
Design data :
1. Swab consideration 0.04 gm/cc

2. Surge consideration 0.04 gm/cc

3. Safety factor 0.02 gm/cc

4. Allowable P (Normal pressure) 170 Kg/cm2

5. Allowable P (Abnormal pressure) 215 Kg/cm2

6. Design kick size 0.06 gm/cc

The differential pressure limit of 170 Kg/cm2 and

215 Kg/cm2 against normal pressure and abnormal
pressure zone respectively has been taken for illustration
only and can vary for different field conditions.
Max. anticipated formation pressure = 1.80 gm/cc (MWE)

Swab consideration = +.04 gm/cc

Minimum acceptablemud weight = 1.84 gm/cc

Surge considerations = +.04 gm/cc

Minimum fracture gradient = 1.88 gm/cc (MWE)

Safety factor = +.02 gm/cc

Design fracture gradient = 1.90 gm/cc (MWE)

Entering graphical representation of MWE for Formation pressure /Fracture pressure gradient versus depth
with a design fracture gradient (MWE) of 1.90 gm/cc at bottom and projecting up to intersection with actual
fracture gradient curve, yields a tentative casing point at 3920 m having a formation pressure of 1.66 gm/cc
MWE as shown in fig 2.
The differential pressure across the deepest possible normal pressured sand at 3100 m is
P = (1.70 - 1.07) 3100/10 = 195.3 Kg/cm2
Since the actual differential pressure is greater than the allowable value of
differential pressure across deepest normal pressured formation (195.3
Kg/cm2 > 170 Kg/cm2), the probability of the casing string becoming
differentially stuck while trying to run in as intermediate casing is great.
Therefore, the tentative casing point, in this case is the shallowest depth to
which a liner can be run.
The next step is to determine to what maximum depth intermediate casing can
be safely set, so as not to become stuck while running in.
If 170 Kg/cm2 is the allowable differential pressure, the P equation
can be set with P equal to 170Kgcm2 and solved for the mud weight which
can be in the hole when intermediate casing is run.
170 = (MW - 1.07) 3100/10 so,
MW= 1700 + 1.07
3100
and MW = 1.618 gm/cc
Therefore, a mud weight of 1.61 gm/cc will result in a P of 170 Kg/cm2.
If the swab consideration is subtracted from mud weight, the formation pressure into
which intermediate casing can be set without exceeding the 170 kg/cm2 allowable
differential pressure be determined.
mud weight= 1.61 gm/cc
Swab consideration = -.04 gm/cc
Formation pressure = 1.57 gm/cc (MWE)
The setting depth of intermediate casing can obtained graphically by noting
the depth at which formation pressure of 1.57 gm/cc (MWE) exists. A formation
pressure if 1.57 gm/cc (MWE) exists at 3400 m as shown in fig 3.
The fracture gradient at intermediate casing point i.e. 3400 m is 1.83
gm/cc MWE (from graphical representation). By subtracting off safety factor,
surge consideration and swab consideration, the formation pressure which can
be reached while drilling below intermediate casing can be determined.
Fracture gradient = 1.83 gm/cc (MWE)
Safety factor = -.02 gm/cc
Minimum fracture gradient = 1.81 gm/cc (MWE)
Surge considerations = -.04 gm/cc
Minimum mud weight = 1.77 gm/cc
Swab considerations = -.04 gm/cc
Formation pressure = 1.73 gm/cc (MWE)

This means that when a formation pressure of 1.73 gm/cc (MWE) is reached,
the fracture gradient below intermediate casing will be "used up" and additional
casing must be set to safely continue drilling operation.
In this case, a formation pressure of 1.73 gm/cc (MWE) exists at a
depth of 4560 m. Therefore, the deepest depth to which a liner can be set is
4560 m.
The intermediate casing setting depth is known (3400 m).
Similarly, to obtain the setting depth for the 2nd intermediate
casing, we may proceed as explained below:
Max. anticipated formation
Pressure above 3400 m = 1.57 gm/cc
(MWE)Swab considerations = +.04 gm/c
Minimum acceptable mud weight = 1.61 gm/cc
Surge considerations = +.04 gm/cc
Minimum fracture gradient =1.65 gm/cc (MWE )
Safety factor = +.02 gm/cc
Design fracture gradient = 1.67 gm/cc (MWE)
Taking the graphical representation (fig 4) at 1.67
gm/cc at 3400 m and projecting upto the fracture curve yields
another intermediate casing point of 2200 m (formation
pressure = 1.07 gm/cc MWE).
The surface casing setting depth is determined using the the equivalent mud
weight equation based on a 0.06 gm/cc (0.5 ppg) MWE kick at intermediate
casing point 2200 m by trial and error method as explained below.
Select a trial setting depth for surface casing.
a. Trial depth d = 320 m
Min. Mud weight at 2200 m = 1.11 gm/cc
EMW = 1.11 + 2200 x .06 = 1.52 gm/cc
320
Fracture Gradient at 320 m = 1.45 gm/cc (MWE) (from the graph)
Since the load is greater than the strength, this trial depth is insufficient
and another trial depth must be evaluated.
b. Trial depth d = 400 m
EMW = 1.11 + 2200 x .06 = 1.44 gm/cc
400
Fracture Gradient at 400 m = 1.46 gm/cc (MWE) (from the graph)

At 400 m. the strength is 1.46 gm/cc (MWE). A load of 1.44 gm/cc (MWE)
can be expected at initial shut in for a 0.06 gm/cc (.5ppg) MWE kick.
Therefore, the surface casing setting depth is 400 m.
The liner setting depth can be further defined by evaluating :
1. Differential sticking probability
2. Ability to "take" a 0.06 gm/cc (.5ppg) MWE kick while drilling to liner
setting depth.
The most likely place for the liner to become stuck is opposite to the deepest
zone (with lowest formation pressure gradient) exposed below
intermediate casing.
In this case, the lower pressured zone will be 1.57 gm/cc MWE of
formation pressure immediately below intermediate casing at 3400 m.
The deepest liner setting depth is 4560m. with 1.73 gm/cc MWE of
formation pressure which, considering swab effect, will require 1.77
gm/cc mud.
Calculation of differential pressure :
P = (1.77 - 1.57) 3400 = 68 Kg/cm2
10
Since intermediate casing is set into abnormal pressure and only abnormal
pressures exist beneath the intermediate casing, the allowable
differential pressure is 215 Kg/cm2. The actual P is less than the
allowable P. Therefore, the deepest liner point (4560m) is acceptable
from differential sticking point of view.
If a 0.06 gm/cc (.5 ppg) MWE kick is encountered at 4560 m, with a 1.77 gm/cc
mud in the hole, the EMW at intermediate casing depth is :
EMW = 1.77 + 4560 x (.06) = 1.85 gm/cc
3400
Fracture gradient at 3400 m = 1.83 gm/cc (MWE) (from graph)
Since the load is greater than the strength, the 4560 m setting depth for the
liner is too deep and must be reduced.
A trial depth of 4200 m is considered :
The formation pressure at 4200 m is 1.69 gm/cc (MWE) which will require a
mud weight of 1.73 gm/cc for swab consideration.
EMW = 1.73 + 4200 x (.06) = 1.80 gm/cc
3400
Fracture gradient at 3400 m = 1.83 gm/cc (MWE) (from graph)
A trial depth of 4320 m is taken :
EMW = 1.74 + 4320 x (.06) = 1.81 gm/cc
3400
Fracture gradient at 3400 m = 1.83 gm/cc (MWE) (from graph)
Again, this is an acceptable depth. This time however, the margin is .02
gm/cc. If this is a satisfactory value. then 4320 m becomes the deepest depth to
which a liner can be set.
Casing point selection summary
Surface casing point - 400 mA setting depth of 400 m for surface casing results in
a fracture gradient of 1.46 gm/cc (MWE). This fracture value is sufficient to drill to
intermediate casing point (2200 m) against 1.07 gm/cc (MWE) of formation
pressures requiring a mud weight of 1.11 gm/cc, with allowance for error and the
strength to safely handle as much as a 0.06 gm/cc (MWE) kick.
1st intermediate casing point - 2200 mBy setting the 1st intermediate casing at
2200 m, the open hole interval is reduced and the surface casing shoe is protected
as it is not capable of holding the mud weight required to drill the formation at 3400
m.
2nd intermediate casing point - 3400 mBy setting intermediate casing to 3400 m
against 1.57 gm/cc (MWE) of formation pressure and 1.61 gm/cc mud in the hole,
the potential for sticking this casing string , when running, is minimised by using an
allowable P value of 170 Kg/cm2 to determine this casing point.
Liner setting interval - 3920 - 4320 mThe 3400 m depth results in a fracture
gradient of 1.83 gm/cc (MWE). This allows drilling to a depth of 4320 m and
setting a drilling liner. The formation pressure below intermediate casing (1.57
gm/cc of MWE) is utilized to evaluate sticking of the liner. The final fracture
gradient below intermediate casing (1.83 gm/cc of MWE) is utilized to evaluate
ability to handle a design size kick (0.06 gm/cc MWE), while drilling to liner point.
In order to drill to the proposed total depth of 5000 m in this example
well, a design fracture gradient of 1.90 gm/cc is required. Intermediate
casing can not be set deep enough (because it will be at high risk of
becoming stuck) to attain this fracture gradient. A liner can be set to
3920 m and will achieve the required fracture gradient to drill to TD.
It is always advantageous to minimize the length of small
diameter hole required in abnormally pressured formations. It is
therefore, advisable to set the necessary liner as deep as possible.
However, design size kick (0.06 gm/cc MWE) evaluation shows that a
depth of 4320 m can be reached.
Further evaluation of potential for differential sticking shows no problem
with 4320 m as a maximum setting depth for the liner.
Therefore, the liner can be set anywhere between 3920 m and 4320 m,
without fear of sticking and losing hole below intermediate casing due to
a kick. Also if the liner is set at this interval, sufficient fracture gradient
will be attained to facilitate drilling to target depth without need of
additional strings of casing.