SPE/IADC 52822
Drill String Considerations for Gulf of Mexico's Deepest Well (27,864')
Terry E. Prater*, SPE, EEX Corporation, S. DeWayne Everage, SPE, T H Hill Associates, Inc., John F. Greenip*, SPE,
Hydril Company, Burt A. Adams, SPE, Oil & Gas Rental Services, Inc.
*IADC Members
Copyright 1999, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, Holland, 9–11 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper chronicles the design analysis performed to drill
the Gulf of Mexico’s deepest well. With small diameter
casing cemented in the hole, slim hole drilling plans for the
record depth well were generated. The short fuse project
required atypical slim hole drill string design to select a string
with ample tension/torsion capacity, sufficient flow area for
hole cleaning, and immediate availability. The final design
was utilized in an “edge-of-envelope” environment with
remarkable success. This paper discusses the factors involved
in drill string selection and acceptance, actual field data, post
well results, and future applications.
Introduction
EEX Corporation and partners set out to drill the Llano
Garden Banks 386 prospect on June 9, 1997 with Diamond
Offshore’s semi-submersible rig “Ocean Voyager”. The
original well plan called for a 24,750’ MD (23,700’ TVD)
penetration to test the upper Pliocene and deeper Miocene
objectives. Drilling progressed relatively as planned with an
8-1/2” hole to 20,118’ MD with a water base drilling mud
(WBM) system. The drill pipe became differentially stuck
and could not be fished. Sidetrack operations resumed to
25,342’ MD (24,511’ TVD) with a synthetic oil base drilling
mud (SBM) system, 5” drill pipe, and PDC drill bits.
Drilling equipment limitations were becoming critical with
130,000 lbs drag and 22,000 ft-lbs cyclical torque, but well
control procedures put a stop to further progress. The well
was successfully killed, but no kick tolerance was left.
Therefore, a 7” 35.00 ppf liner was set to 25,145’ MD and
cemented in place. An inspection log also indicated the 9-5/8”
53.50 ppf casing was worn beyond safe limits. As such, the 7”
35.00 ppf liner was tied back with 7-3/4” 46.10 ppf casing to
the subsea wellhead.
At this point, drilling had progressed beyond the originally
planned depth, but the Miocene objective was still
significantly deeper. Due to unknown fracture gradients and
drilling mud weight requirements below the 7” shoe, a
decision was made to release the “Ocean Voyager” equipped
with a 10,000 psi BOP system, and find a rig with a 15,000 psi
capability. Sedco-Forex’s semi-submersible rig “Omega”
became the rig of opportunity for drilling the deepest well in
the Gulf of Mexico in March of 1998.
A revised plan called for drilling to 28,000’ MD with slim
hole drill pipe below the subsea wellhead at 2,731’ RKB.
Actual drilling progressed with a string of slim hole drill pipe
to 27,864’ MD (26,979’ TVD) where a 1.2 ppg kick was
encountered. After killing the well, the drill string became
stuck while tripping out of the hole. The drill string was
severed and sidetrack drilling progressed to 26,750’ MD
(25,772’ TVD) where a 5” 21.40 ppf production liner was
successfully set after evaluating the well with drill string
conveyed logging tools. The well bore schematic is detailed
in Figure 1.
Selecting a drill string which could withstand the load
requirements, yet allow sufficient flow area for fluid
circulation, was perhaps the most important ingredient for a
successful operation. It was quickly evident that this slim hole
application would stretch conventional design practices. The
following discussion details the drill pipe selection process,
and actual results. The process described in this paper was not
sequential, as presented here, but more of a parallel process
whereby hydraulics, fishing, running and handling, torque and
drag, and drill pipe/BHA specifications were continuously
evaluated and reevaluated until the combination that met the
overall performance requirements was achieved.
Torque and Drag Analysis
General Description of Original Proposed Drill String
Design. A proposed drill string design (as outlined in Table 1)
attempted to utilize readily available drill pipe which
maintained conventional fishability inside the 7” 35.00 ppf
liner (5.879” drift), and planned 5-7/8” drilled hole.
2 TERRY E. PRATER, S. DEWAYNE EVERAGE, JOHN F. GREENIP, BURT A. ADAMS
The proposed design was modeled using T H Hill
Associates Inc.’s DS-1™ Drill String Spreadsheet 1.0
software to evaluate the estimated torque and drag loads. The
actual survey through total depth of the 7” 35.00 ppf liner and
the planned operating conditions were input to simulate the
potential operating loads. The planned drilling mud weight
for the section was between 14.6 and 15.5 ppg. However, the
designs were run at 13.5 ppg to prevent drill string failure in
the event of lost circulation.
To prevent downhole make-up, the connection’s make-up
torque was used as the drill string’s torsional capacity. The
weaker of the drill pipe tube body or the connection tensile
capacity at make-up was used as the drill string’s allowable
tensile capacity (even though down hole make-up of the Wedge
Thread up to maximum torque does not present a problem).
Analysis of Original Proposed Drill String Design. The
original proposed drill string design constraints and the
resulting critical loads are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Conservative design constraints were used including CH and
OH COF, minimum anticipated drilling mud weight,
maximum WOB requirement, drill bit torque, and BHA torque
and drag. The torque and tension load factors as presented in
Table 3 are percentages of actual capacity with no safety
factors applied. The results of this analysis are graphically
depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4 and suggests that approximately
83,000 lbs over the drill string's buoyed weight (TOH-ROB
value) would be required to pull the drill string out of the hole
at 28,000’ MD. Likewise, at least 51,000 lbs over the drill
string's buoyed weight (BR-ROB value) would be required for
backreaming. Modeling also suggested that with a planned
maximum WOB of 10,000 lbs, only the first three collars
would be subject to buckling. Mechanical compression was
predicted to up to 340’ above the drill bit while rotary drilling
and up to 690’ above the drill bit while slide drilling. Though
the jars would be run in compression, it was not anticipated
that normal weight drill pipe would be subjected to buckling
or mechanical compression.
The tensile capacity of the API Premium class 4” 14.00
ppf S135 WT39 drill pipe was the limiting mechanical
constraint. This limitation occurred at the crossover between
the 5” 19.50 ppf S135 drill pipe and the subject 4” drill pipe.
As shown in Table 3, the available tensile overpull (defined as
the difference between tensile capacity and tensile load) was
only 7,800 lbs at this point during backreaming and 16,100 lbs
when tripping out of the hole from 28,000’ MD.
The desire was to drill with at least 160 fpm of annular
fluid velocity and approximately 3.0 hydraulic horsepower per
square inch of drill bit area with less than 4,250 psi of
circulation pressure. This was not possible with the drill string
as originally designed.
Variations from the Original Proposed Drill String Design.
Because of the limitations mentioned above, other drill string
design options had to be explored. Only the pertinent design
summary and resulting loads for the other iterations are
summarized here.
SPE/IADC 52822
In an effort to maintain fishability and increase overpull
capacity without regard to hydraulics, in the second iteration
the length of the heavier 4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 drill string
was minimized and replaced with a lighter 3-1/2” 13.30 ppf
S135 HT38 drill pipe. In addition, the minimum RBW for
both the 4” and 3-1/2” drill pipe was increased to 90% (versus
80% for API Premium). The HT38 connection was required
to meet the high estimated torque loads. However, to maintain
conventional fishability, approximately 10,000’ of the 3-1/2”
13.30 ppf S135 HT38 drill string required 1/8” removal from
the tool joint OD. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the
second iteration drill string design and corresponding critical
loads.
In an effort to maintain fishability, improve drill string
hydraulics, and explore the effects of 4” drill pipe in the tight
clearance sections, the third iteration modeled the use of a 3-
1/2” XH (4” SH) connection with a nominal 4-3/4” OD on
13,700’ of 4” 14.00 ppf S135 drill pipe. This arrangement
significantly improved the hydraulic issues, and did not
significantly sacrifice overpull or torque capacities. Tables 6
and 7 provide a summary of the third iteration drill string
design and corresponding critical loads.
In order to satisfy the hydraulic and tensile demands
simultaneously, it was apparent that the length of the 4” drill
pipe must be maximized, and it must be inspected above API
Premium RBW requirements. The decision then became
whether to utilize the 3-1/2” XH connections (for fishing
advantages) or the WT39 connections (for overall strength
advantages).
Fishability Considerations
The cased hole consisted of a tapered string of 7-3/4”
46.10 ppf Q125 SLX tie back with a drift of 6.500” down to
17,174’ MD and 7” 35.00 ppf P110 SLX liner with a drift of
5.879” down to 25,145’ MD.
The maximum catch size in the 7-3/4” tie back section was
5-1/4” with a 6-3/8” full strength overshot. Likewise for the
7” liner section it was 4-3/4” with a 5-3/4” full strength
overshot (Reference 1). The original proposed drill string
design, with NC38 connections, could be fished with
conventional fishing tools. However, it was determined that
this approach would most likely lead to a fishing job prior to
reaching total depth.
Another philosophy was to go with the largest drill string
that would fit into the casing. This concept would give up full
strength fishing, but stood a much better chance of getting the
well to total depth without the need to fish. It was finally
determined that full strength fishing was limited because the
available tension at the stuck point would not allow full
impact fishing. This realization opened the door to the final
design iteration.
Description of Final Proposed Drill String Design
The final proposed drill string design, as detailed in Table 8,
utilized 5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 drill pipe from surface to
2,500’ MD and 4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 drill pipe from
2,500’ to 27,220’ MD. The BHA consisted of 4” 30.60 ppf
SPE/IADC 52822 DRILL STRING CONSIDERATIONS FOR GULF OF MEXICO'S DEEPEST WELL (27,864')
heavy weight drill pipe from 27,200’ to 27,900’ MD, and a 4-
3/4” drill collar/MWD assembly to reach the estimated
28,000’ total depth. With 90% RBW in the 4” 14.00 ppf drill
pipe suspended in 13.5 ppg drilling mud, 57,600 lbs of
overpull would be available for backreaming, and 62,300 lbs
overpull capacity for tripping out at 28,000’ MD. Torque
requirements would approach 80% of capacity during rotary
drilling.
Should drilling reach 28,000’ MD in a 15.5 ppg drilling
mud environment, 74,200 lbs of overpull would be available
for backreaming and torque would approach 78% of rated
capacity at 90% RBW. The available overpull figures
included allowance for the modeled drag.
The final design proved successful in drilling the well to
27,864’ MD (26,979’ TVD). However, the well control
procedure and subsequent stuck drill string led to sidetracking
the well utilizing a whipstock at 24,985’ MD. The subsequent
sidetrack wellbore was successfully drilled to 26,750’ MD
(25,772’ TVD). Tables 9 and 10 are a summary of the final
proposed drill string design constraints and critical loads.
Figures 5, 6, and 7 are graphical depictions of the critical loads
acting on the drill string.
Hydraulic Calculations
Hydraulic design required operating within the rig’s 4,250
psi maximum circulation pressure (15% safety factor). The
two Oilwell A 1700 PT pumps were equipped with 5” liners
capable of 2.9 gallons per stroke. A Gardner Denver PZ-7
triplex was utilized as a riser boost pump. It was anticipated
that 15.2 ppg SBM would be required to reach 28,000’ MD
and the desire was to maintain minimum annular velocity
between 160 and 190 fpm. Utilizing the 5” drill pipe in the
drilling riser and 4” drill pipe below the wellhead allowed
these conditions to be met. Hydraulic modeling indicated we
could manage 187 fpm minimum annular velocity by
circulating at 200 gpm with approximately 3,500 psi of
parasitic system losses as detailed in Figure 8. This would
leave 750 psi or approximately 3.0 hydraulic horsepower per
square inch of drill bit area for bottom hole cleaning. The
model predicted a 16.2 ppg ECD at 200 gpm and 16.1 ppg
ECD at 175 gpm, which fell within the planned operating
limits.
Drill String Inspection Program
A “fit for purpose” inspection program was defined for all of
the drill string components as an assembly. For a valid design,
the drill string components had to meet the minimum
mechanical requirements underlying the model's predictions.
This included implementation of strict acceptance criteria for
all BHA components to maximize their dependability and
resistance to fatigue. Likewise, strict acceptance criterion was
imposed on the drill pipe to ensure torque and tension
requirements were achieved.
Specifically, the 5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 drill pipe was
inspected to T H Hill Associates, Inc. Standard DS-1™
Category 5 for API Premium class drill pipe. The 4” 14.00
ppf S135 WT39 drill pipe was inspected to T H Hill
3
Associates, Inc. Standard DS-1™ Category 5+ requiring at
least 90% RBW to achieve acceptable tensile capacity.
Therefore, the 4” drill pipe inspection program included FLUT
acceptance. The inspection went as expected. Only 7 joints
out of 867 failed to meet 95% RBW. Inspecting to 95% RBW
provided an additional 27,600 lbs of tensile capacity over the
90% RBW design requirement.
A high level of confidence was placed in the design
knowing that conservative assumptions were incorporated (i.e.
minimum drilling mud weights, higher COF, maximum
anticipated weights on drill bit, conservative bit torque, and
BHA torque and drag) and critical mechanical limitations
addressed. With this combination of engineering design
analysis and “fit for purpose” QA/QC inspection techniques,
the risk profile was significantly reduced and a new well depth
record was achieved.
Running, Handling, and Trip Time
With the selection of 4” Wedge Thread™ drill pipe,
recognition was given that standard rig handling equipment
and procedures must be reviewed and modified.
Torque Application. In order to reduce make-up time and
increase running speed, a decision was made to use hydraulic
power tongs to run the drill string. Hydraulic tongs, which
had proven efficient on 3-1/2” drill strings equipped with the
NC38 tool joints, were expected to provide even greater
benefit when running the 4” drill pipe equipped with the
WT39 tool joint. Since the Wedge Thread™ tool joint
requires more rotation from the hand-tight position to the
power-tight position than an API tool joint, hydraulic tongs
were expected to significantly reduce the make-up and
breakout time. A set of 7-5/8” tongs with an integral back up
was selected. These tongs had a rated torque capacity of
35,000 ft-lbs. The 8-5/8” ultra-high torque integral back-ups
provided the necessary capacity to counter the torque
generated by the hydraulic tongs. Initially, there were
problems with the tongs. After exchanging the original
hydraulic power system for one having greater power, the
hydraulic tongs were readily incorporated into the rig routine.
It is estimated the actual running speed for the 4” drill pipe
was 40%-60% faster than it would have been using manual
tongs.
One of the readily apparent differences between the
Wedge Thread™ and conventional shouldering tool joints is
the gap at the external shoulder that remains even after full
torque has been applied. To prevent the gap from raising
concerns of suspect make-up, rig crews were instructed in the
Wedge Thread™ tool joint mechanics before drilling was
initiated. Applied make-up torque was 10% higher than the
expected torque during drilling. For the initial runs, the tool
joints were made-up to about 27,000 ft-lbs. The downhole
torque required for drilling was lower than originally
projected, therefore the make-up torque was dropped to
23,000-24,000 ft-lbs. A commercially available drill pipe tool
joint thread compound was used with a friction factor of 1.0.
4 TERRY E. PRATER, S. DEWAYNE EVERAGE, JOHN F. GREENIP, BURT A. ADAMS
Elevator Use and Lifting Out. Standard BJ 250 ton MGG
elevators were used. These 4.28” bore elevators are generally
used with 4” IU drill pipe having NC40 tool joints. Since the
typical NC40 tool joint OD for 4” 14.00 ppf S135 drill pipe
would be 5-1/4”-5-1/2”, the 18° bearing area between the
elevator and the 5” OD WT39 tool joint would be less than
normally available. This relatively small tool joint OD
combined with the very long drill string length would produce
significant stress on the 18° surface. It was determined that
the 18° bottleneck elevators with the standard bore for 4” IU
drill pipe provided a lifting rating comparable to the 4” 14.00
ppf S135 drill pipe tube body yield strength when used on the
5” OD tool joint. The 5” OD of the tool joint was also
sufficient to allow hang-off of the drill string on the 4” straight
bore BOP rams. The drill string could not be hung off on the
3-1/2” x 5” variable bore BOP rams.
During pulling operations, it was found that the pin would
tend to hang-up in the box during lift-out. This is caused
when the pin moves off-center and the reverse angle load
flank of the thread “hooks” onto a box thread. Catching the
threads in this manner can cause damage to the threads. To
prevent this, a lift-out, or de-stabbing, guide was developed to
align the pin and box during lift-out. This de-stabbing guide
maintained a uniform centerline between pin and box and
prevented the pin from hooking the box thread, facilitating
pulling the drill string.
Trip Time Comparison between API and Wedge Thread™
Drill Pipe. The trip times for this well are depicted in Figure
9 along with data that has been previously gathered from other
wells. The 4” Wedge Thread™ trip time data is limited on
this well because only 11 continuous trips were made that
could be used for trip time comparisons. Even with this
limitation, the 4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 trip time data is in
line with the other trip times that are depicted. With proper
attention to the issues related to the Wedge Thread™ drill
pipe, it has been demonstrated that trip times can approach
that of standard API drill pipe.
Projected Vs. Actual Torque and Drag
The comparison in Table 11 seems somewhat encouraging in
that the loads predicted using the design assumptions listed in
Table 9 are relatively close to the loads measured on the rig.
In addition, the predicted loads were conservative as was
desired. Bear in mind that the major difference between the
projection presented in Table 10 and the actual loads in Table
11 is that conservative CH and OH COF were assumed in the
model. Analysis did not stop with just a comparison of
predicted and actual values for the given drill string
configuration. As mentioned, the values obtained from the
model and presented in the associated tables and figures
assumed a CH COF of 0.20 and an OH COF of 0.30
(reference Table 9). This difference is the major cause for the
disparity between predicted and actual loads. At this point it
became necessary to back-calculate the actual COF realized in
the wellbore while accounting for the actual drilling mud
SPE/IADC 52822
weight. As a rule of thumb, 0.20-0.22 CH COF and 0.25-0.30
OH COF are representative of WBM, while 0.15-0.18 CH
COF and 0.18-0.20 OH COF are representative of OBM and
SBM. These ranges have repeatedly been confirmed in
several independent models and over several diverse wellbore
geometries. Because Baroid's SBM, Petrofree LE, was used to
drill the subject 5-7/8” hole section, it would then stand to
reason that the COF for both CH and OH should be lower than
those assumed in the model.
To gain an understanding of what the actual COF were in
the Garden Banks 386 #1 ST#2, T H Hill Associates, Inc.’s
DS-1™ Drill String Spreadsheet 1.0 software was used. This
time, the software was used to back-calculate the coefficients
of friction required to generate the reported loads. The
resulting CH and OH COF are present in Table 12 with the
corresponding wellbore loads presented in table 13.
It can be concluded from the presentation of the torque and
drag model's output that the actual COF were significantly
lower than originally assumed. The fact that the drill string's
buoyed weight (simply the ROB tension value reported in
Table 12) nearly matches the buoyed weight reported by the
rig (less than 0.5% difference) and that the TOH tension as
well as the ROB torque have been set equal to one another by
manipulating the coefficients of friction, suggests that the
newly determined values for CH and OH COF are reasonable.
Bear in mind that they are still subjective. This means that a
number of different combined values could be assumed to
obtain the same results (i.e. raising open hole means lowering
cased hole though not necessarily by the same amount).
However, extremely low (< 0.1) and negative values are not
realistic. Likewise, because of the use of the SBM, higher
values (> 0.3) would be unrealistic as well. For this reason, it
is very likely that the actual values for the Garden Banks 386
#1 ST#2 well bore are extremely close to those reported in
Table 12.
Post Well Inspections and Drill String Repairs
After the 28,000’ string of 4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 drill pipe
was used offshore, a post drilling inspection was performed
utilizing Oil & Gas Rental Services, Inc.’s Class 1 inspection
procedures. These requirements include all of the T H Hill
Associates, Inc. Standard DS-1™ Category 4 inspections
except that the MPI requirement is replaced with UT shear
wave inspection of the upset areas as detailed in T H Hill
Associates, Inc. Standard DS-1™ Category 5 inspection.
After completion of the drill pipe inspection, the rejects
consisted of 10 rejected boxes, 2 rejected pins, and 11 rejected
joints. In total, the damages to the drill string calculated to
approximately 1.0 percent of all connections used. This
compares similarly to the normal reject rate for the Wedge
Thread™ tool joint which over the last 2 years has averaged
less than 1.0 percent and it compares very favorably to the
average API reject rate of 15%.
Conclusions
Slim hole drilling applications below 7-5/8” or 7” casing have
typically incorporated 3-1/2” drill pipe with NC38
SPE/IADC 52822 DRILL STRING CONSIDERATIONS FOR GULF OF MEXICO'S DEEPEST WELL (27,864') 5

connections. This has historically generated successful results PDC = Polycrystaline Diamond Compact
with complete fishability. However, as well depths grow ppf = pounds per foot
deeper, we must re-think the standard procedure. Hydraulic ppg = pounds per gallon
and tensile limitations forced atypical solutions for this psi = pounds per square inch
project. The design concerns were addressed and answered QA = Quality Assurance
with successful implementation. Torque and drag modeling QC = Quality Control
were instrumental in evaluating the challenge and designing RBW = Remaining Body Wall
accordingly. Having a fit for purpose drill string ready on RIH = Rotate Into the Hole
such short notice was very remarkable. It is the authors’ RKB = Rotary Kelly Bushing
opinion that this approach will significantly enhance our ROB = Rotating Off Bottom
ability to explore the deeper horizons. Ultimately, this case ROP = Rate of Penetration
study has shown that with well thought out design and SH = Slim Hole Drill Pipe Connection
analysis, a slim hole drill string can be used to rotary drill very SBM = Synthetic Oil Base Drilling Mud
deep oil and gas prospects. TIH = Trip Into the Hole
TOH = Trip Out of the Hole
Nomenclature TVD = True Vertical Depth
BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly WBM = Water Base Drilling Mud
BOP = Blowout Preventer WOB = Weight on Drill Bit
CH = Cased Hole XH = X Hole Drill Pipe Connection
COF = Coefficient of Friction
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density Acknowledgments
EMI = Electromagnetic Inspection The authors would like to acknowledge those that have helped
FLUT = Full Length Ultrasonic Testing with there input and review during various stages of this
fpm = feet per minute project including 1) Vernon H. Goodwin and John F. Works
ft = feet of EEX Corporation, 2) Tom H. Hill, Brett Chandler, and Sean
ft-lbs = foot-pounds torque Ellis of T H Hill Associates, Inc., and 3) William C. Shafer
gpm = gallons per minute and Chris P. Bourgeois of Oil & Gas Rental Services, Inc.
HWDP = Heavy Weight Drill Pipe
ID = Inside Diameter References
IU = Internal Upset Reference 1 – Tech Facts Engineering Handbook, Baker Hughes
lbs = Pounds Incorporated, August 1995
MD = Measured Depth Reference 2 – T H Hill Associates Inc. Standard DS-1™ Drill String
MPI = Magnetic Particle Inspection Design and Inspection, March 1998, 2nd edition.
Reference 3 – T H Hill Associates Inc. Standard DS-1™ Drill String
MUT = Make Up Torque Spreadsheet 1.0.
OBM = Oil Base Drilling Mud Reference 4 – Reed Tool Company, Reed Tool Hydraulic Program
OD = Outside Diameter Version 1.3, 1990.
OH = Open Hole
Table 1 – Original Proposed Drill String Design
Tool Joint Nominal Tube Tensile
Drill String Description Footage Capacity
Required OD (in.) ID (in.) MUT (ft-lbs.) OD (in.) ID (in.) Wall (in.) (lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 2,500’ 6-5/8 2-3/4 38,000 5.000 4.276 0.362 561,0001
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 14,150’ 5 2-13/16 26,000 4.000 3.340 0.330 404,0001
3-1/2” 13.30 ppf S135 NC38 10,500’ 4-3/4 2-9/16 11,500 3.500 2.764 0.368 382,0001
3-1/2” 26.70 ppf NC38 HWDP2 720’ 4-3/4 2-3/8 11,500 3.500 2.250 0.625 423,000
4-3/4" 44.00 ppf NC38 BHA 140’ 4-3/4 2-1/2 9,900 4.750 2.500 1.125 1,410,000
Note 1: Assumes 80% minimum RBW (API Premium Class)
Note 2: Jars were placed 5 joints of HWDP above the collared BHA

Table 2 – Original Proposed Drill String Design Constraints

Reciprocating Speed (fpm) 90 Casing/Liner Liner Drill Total
Rotating Speed (rpm) 90 Shoe Top Bit MD
Drilling ROP (ft/hr) 15 25,145’ 17,174’ 28,000’ 28,000’
Weight on Bit (lbs) 10,000
Bit Torque (ft-lbs) 800 Coefficients of Friction Cased Hole Open Hole
BHA Torque (ft-lbs) 1,500 (COF) (CH) (OH)
BHA Drag (lbs) 1,000 Reciprocating: 0.20 0.30
Drilling Mud Weight (ppg) 13.5 Rotating: 0.20 0.30
6 TERRY E. PRATER, S. DEWAYNE EVERAGE, JOHN F. GREENIP, BURT A. ADAMS SPE/IADC 52822

Table 3 - Original Proposed Drill String Critical Loads

Surface At the Weakest Points in the String
Torque Additional Tension Additional
Operation Torque Tension Load Torque Load Tension Maximum
Factor Capacity Factor Capacity Side Load
ft-lbs lbs %Capacity ft-lbs %Capacity Lbs lbs
Rotating Off Bottom (ROB) 17,000 349,000 65.5 6,200 - - 228
Rotate Into Hole (RIH) 13,300 306,000 51.2 7,100 - - 218
Rotary Drilling (RD) 17,000 340,000 65.2 5,800 - - 207
Backreaming (BR) 14,300 400,000 54.8 7,000 97.9 7,800 237
Trip Into Hole (TIH) 0 279,000 - - - - 213
Slide Drilling (SD) 0 274,000 - - - - 195
Trip out of Hole (TOH) 0 432,000 - - 96.0 16,100 242
As modeled, no safety factors assumed.

Table 4 – Second Iteration Proposed Drill String Design

Tool Joint Nominal Tube Tensile
Drill String Description Footage Capacity
Required OD (in.) ID (in.) MUT (ft-lbs.) OD (in.) ID (in.) Wall (in.) (lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 2,500’ 6-5/8 2-3/4 38,000 5.000 4.276 0.362 561,0001
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 2,500’ 5 2-13/16 30,000 4.000 3.340 0.330 458,0002
3-1/2” 13.30 ppf S135 HT38 11,900’ 4-7/8 2-9/16 17,700 3.500 2.764 0.368 435,0002
3-1/2” 13.30 ppf S135 HT38 10,240’ 4-3/4 3 2-9/16 16,200 3.500 2.764 0.368 435,000
Note 1: Assumes 80% minimum RBW (API Premium Class)
Note 2: Assumes 90% minimum RBW (above API Premium Class)
Note 3: Critical dimension to maintain fishability in 7” 35.00 ppf liner and in 5.875” open hole below.

Table 5 – Second Iteration Proposed Drill String Critical Loads

Interval Torque Torque
Drill String Description From To Additional Tension Additional Tension Load at Reserve at
MD MD Capacity TOH (lbs.) Capacity BR (lbs.) Section Top Section Top
(ft-lbs.) (ft-lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 0’ 2,500’ 137,000 152,000 16,600 1 21,400
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 2,500’ 5,000’ 79,000 3 77,000 3 16,600 1 13,400
3-1/2” 13.30 ppf S135 HT38 5,000' 16,900’ 97,000 86,000 14,500 2 3,200
3-1/2” 13.30 ppf S135 HT38 16,900 27,140’ 280,000 282,000 5,600 2 10,600
Note 1: Worst case scenario occurs while rotating off bottom (while rotary drilling, torque load = 16,500 ft.-lbs.).
Note 2: Worst case scenario occurs while rotary drilling.
Note 3: Limiting overpull value occurs while backreaming.

Table 6 – Third Iteration Proposed Drill String Design

Tool Joint Nominal Tube Tensile
Drill String Description Footage Capacity
Required OD (in.) ID (in.) MUT (ft-lbs.) OD (in.) ID (in.) Wall (in.) (lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 2,500’ 6-5/8 2-3/4 38,000 5.000 4.276 0.362 561,0001
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 11,200’ 5 2-13/16 30,000 4.000 3.340 0.330 458,0002
4” 14.00 ppf S135 3-1/2” XH 13,440’ 4-3/4 3 2-7/16 10,200 4.000 3.340 0.330 458,000
Note 1: Assumes 80% minimum RBW (API Premium Class)
Note 2: Assumes 90% minimum RBW (above API Premium Class)
Note 3: Critical dimension to maintain fishability in 7” 35.00 ppf liner and in 5.875” open hole below.

Table 7 – Third Iteration Proposed Drill String Critical Loads

Interval Torque Torque
Drill String Description Additional Tension Additional Tension Load at Reserve at
From To Section Top Section Top
MD MD Capacity TOH (lbs.) Capacity BR (lbs.)
(ft-lbs.) (ft-lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 0’ 2,500’ 136,000 151,000 16,5001 21,400
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 2,500’ 13,700’ 78,0003 76,0003 16,5001 13,400
4” 14.00 ppf S135 3-1/2” XH 13,700 27,140’ 265,000 271,000 7,0002 3,200
Note 1: Worst case scenario occurs while rotating off bottom (while rotary drilling, torque load = 16,500 ft.-lbs.).
Note 2: Worst case scenario occurs while rotary drilling (while Rotating Off Bottom, torque load = 6,600 ft-lbs.).
Note 3: Limiting overpull value occurs while backreaming.
SPE/IADC 52822 DRILL STRING CONSIDERATIONS FOR GULF OF MEXICO'S DEEPEST WELL (27,864') 7

Table 8 – Final Proposed Drill String Design to 28,000’ MD

Tool Joint Nominal Tube Tensile
Drill String Description Footage Capacity
Required OD (in.) ID (in.) MUT (ft-lbs.) OD (in.) ID (in.) Wall (in.) (lbs.)
5” 19.50 ppf S135 NC50 2,500’ 6-5/8 2-3/4 38,000 5.000 4.276 0.362 561,0001
7,500’ 5 2-13/16 22,000 4.000 3.340 0.330 486,0002
4” 14.00 ppf S135 WT39 17,200’ 5 2-13/16 17,000 4.000 3.340 0.330 486,0002
4” 30.60 ppf WT39 HWDP 700’ 5 2-13/16 17,000 4.000 2.563 0.719 556,000
4-3/4" 44.00 ppf NC38 BHA3 100’ 4-3/4 2-1/4 Varied 4.750 2.500 1.125 1,510,000
Note 1: Assumes 80% minimum RBW (API Premium Class)
Note 2: Assumes 95% minimum RBW (above API Premium Class)
Note 3: Jars were placed 9 joints of HWDP above the collared BHA

Table 9 – Final Proposed Drill String Design Constraints at Sidetrack TD

Reciprocating Speed (fpm) 90 Casing/Liner Liner Drill Total
Rotating Speed (rpm) 90 Shoe Top Bit MD
Drilling ROP (ft/hr) 15 24,985’ 17,174’ 26,750’ 26,750’
Weight on Bit (lbs) 10,000
Bit Torque (ft-lbs) 800 Coefficients of Friction Cased Hole Open Hole
BHA Torque (ft-lbs) 1,500 (COF) (CH) (OH)
BHA Drag (lbs) 1,000 Reciprocating: 0.20 0.30
Drilling Mud Weight (ppg) 14.6 Rotating: 0.20 0.30

Table 10 – Final Proposed Drill String Critical Loads at Sidetrack TD

Surface At the Weakest Points in the String
Torque Additional Tension Additional
Operation Torque Tension Load Torque Load Tension Maximum
Factor Capacity Factor Capacity Side Load
ft-lbs lbs %Capacity ft-lbs %Capacity lbs Lbs
Rotating Off Bottom (ROB) 16,000 331,000 72.8 6,000 - - 202
Rotate Into Hole (RIH) 12,500 292,000 56.9 8,800 - - 189
Rotary Drilling (RD) 16,100 322,000 73.4 5,900 - - 181
Backreaming (BR) 13,600 379,000 61.7 8,100 78.5 92,000 214
Trip Into Hole (TIH) 0 268,000 - - - - 183
Slide Drilling (SD) 0 261,000 - - - - 164
Trip out of Hole (TOH) 0 409,000 - - 79.8 93,000 220
As modeled, no safety factors assumed.

Table 11 – Actual Loads vs. Predicted Loads

Values at TD (26,750' MD)
Operating Loads Reported 1 Morning Report Model 2 % Difference
Pick up Load (Trip Out of Hole) 475,000 lbs. 509,000 lbs. + 7.2
Rotating Off Bottom Load 430,000 lbs. 431,000 lbs. +0.3
Rotating Off Bottom Torque 11,000 ft.-lbs. 16,000 ft.-lbs. +45.7
Note 1: EEX Corporation report number 20 on 06/10/98.
Note 2: Incorporates 100,000 lbs. traveling assembly weight added to predicted tension
load and assumes 0.20 CH and 0.30 OH COF

Table 12 – Drill String Constraints and Back Calculated CH and OH COF at Sidetrack TD
Reciprocating Speed (fpm) 90 Casing/Liner Liner Drill Total
Rotating Speed (rpm) 80 Shoe Top Bit MD
Drilling ROP (ft/hr) 18 24,985’ 17,174’ 26,750’ 26,750’
Weight on Bit (lbs) 10,000
Bit Torque (ft-lbs) 500 Coefficients of Friction Cased Hole Open Hole
BHA Torque (ft-lbs) 400 (COF) (CH) (OH)
BHA Drag (lbs) 750 Reciprocating: 0.113 0.160
Drilling Mud Weight (ppg) 14.6 Rotating: 0.148 0.160
Note: Tension load values presented in the table above are exclusive of block weight. To compare the calculated tension values to the
actual values listed in Table 7.0, the 100,000 lbs. of traveling assembly weight reported must be added.
8 TERRY E. PRATER, S. DEWAYNE EVERAGE, JOHN F. GREENIP, BURT A. ADAMS SPE/IADC 52822

Table 13 – Actual Drill String Critical Loads at Sidetrack TD (after back calculating CH and OH COF)
Surface At the Weakest Points in the String
Torque Additional Tension Additional
Operation Torque Tension Load Torque Load Tension Maximum
Factor Capacity Factor Capacity Side Load
ft-lbs Lbs %Capacity ft-lbs %Capacity Lbs Lbs
Rotating Off Bottom (ROB) 11,000 331,000 50.0 10,200 - - 202
Rotate Into Hole (RIH) 8,200 308,000 37.3 11,100 - - 194
Rotary Drilling (RD) 11,000 323,000 49.9 10,000 - - 181
Backreaming (BR) 8,700 360,000 39.4 11,100 71.1 129,000 209
Trip Into Hole (TIH) 0 295,000 - - - - 191
Slide Drilling (SD) 0 287,000 - - - - 172
Trip out of Hole (TOH) 0 375,000 - - 72.3 127,000 212
As recorded, no safety factors assumed.

E E X C o r p o r a t io n
O C S -G -1 0 3 5 0 W E L L # 1 S T 3
G A R D EN B A N K S 386
P R O P O S E D T E M P O R A R Y A B A N D O N M E N T S C H E M A T IC
2 0 " H O U S IN G @ 2 7 3 1 ' R K B ( 1 4 ' A M L ) RKB: 82'
3 0 " H O U S IN G @ 2 7 3 5 ' ( 1 0 ' A M L ) W ATER DEPTH: 2663'
M U D L IN E @ 2 7 4 5 R K B
C A S IN G MUD
JE T
2895' 3 0 " 1 .5 "/1 " W T . SEAW ATER
3042 8 BBLS G R D B , D 6 0 /M T GEL SW EEPS
297' bm l CMT SEAW ATER
3095' 26" HO LE GEL SW EEPS
S P O T 1 2 .5 P P G P A D
4229 20" 133# K 55 B TC L O T = 1 0 .7 P P G
10% NaCl
STARCH
1 4 .6 P P G 17" X 22" HO LE M W : 9 .4 - 9 .6 P P G
MUD
5537' 16" 84# N 80 B TC L O T = 1 1 .5 P P G

15% NaCl
1 4 -3 /4 " X 1 7 -1 /2 " STARCH
M W : 1 0 .0 - 1 0 .5 P P G
T O P O F L IN E R @ 7 4 8 8 '

8016' 1 3 -3 /8 " 7 2 # P 1 1 0 H C H D L L O T = 1 3 .7 P P G

20% NaCl
1 2 -1 /4 " x 1 5 " H O L E STARCH
M W : 1 0 .5 - 1 2 .9 P P G

1 3 ,6 9 0 ' 1 1 -3 /4 " 6 5 # Q 1 2 5 H C H D L L O T = 1 5 .5 P P G
(1 3 ,6 2 2 ' T V D )

7 - 3 / 4 " - 4 6 .1 # , Q - 1 2 5 , S U L X T I E B A C K 20% NaCl

1 0 -5 /8 " X 1 2 -1 /4 " H O L E
1 8 ,1 7 1 '
(1 7 ,6 9 6 ' T V D )
S T A R C H /G L Y C O L
15 BBLS C M T P L U G ( 1 6 ,7 2 5 ' - 1 7 , 0 8 4 ') M W : 1 3 .3 - 1 3 .8 P P G
CMT
7 " L in e r t o p @ 1 7 , 1 7 4 '
L in e r t o p is o l a t io n p k r
1 4 .6 P P G 9 -5 /8 " 5 3 .5 # Q 1 2 5 F J /L T C L O T = 1 5 .7 P P G
MUD

PETRO FREE LE
7 0 /3 0 O IL W A T E R
M W : 1 3 .8 - 1 4 .4 P P G
15 BBLS C M T P L U G ( 2 3 ,1 2 8 ' - 2 3 ,5 5 7 ')
8 - 1 / 2 " H o le CMT

5 " L IN E R T O P @ 2 3 , 6 4 7 '

1 4 .6 # S id e t r a c k # 3 w i n d o w ( 2 4 9 6 2 '- 2 4 9 7 5 ')
2 5 ,1 4 5 ' MUD 7 " - 3 5 # , P -1 1 0 , S U L X
(2 4 ,3 1 9 ' T V D ) L O T = 1 6 .2 P P G

PETRO FREE LE
7 0 /3 0 O IL W A T E R
5 - 7 / 8 " H o le M W : 1 4 .6 - P P G
L A N D C O L L A R A T 2 6 ,6 6 5 '
CMT
5 " - 2 1 .4 # , P - 1 1 0 @ 2 6 7 5 0 ' ( 2 5 7 7 2 ' T V D )

Figure 1 – Wellbore Schematic

SPE/IADC 52822 DRILL STRING CONSIDERATIONS FOR GULF OF MEXICO'S DEEPEST WELL (27,864') 9

Tension (lbs) Tension (lbs) Torque (ft-lbs)

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
0 0 0

5,000 5,000 5,000

10,000 10,000 10,000

Measured Depth (ft)

Measured Depth (ft)

Measured Depth (ft)

15,000 15,000 15,000

20,000 20,000 20,000

25,000 25,000 25,000

30,000 30,000 30,000

Figure 2 - Original Design Predicted Tension Loads Figure 3 - Original Design Predicted Available Figure 4 - Original Design Predicted Torque Loads
Relative to Tension Limits. Depicts the seven drilling Overpull. Depicts available overpull for both TOH and Relative to Torsional Capacities. Depicts four torque
tension load cases. In order of plotting, (left to right) they BR. load cases. In order of plotting, (left to right) they are RIH,
are SD, TIH, RIH, RD, ROB, BR, and TOH. BR, RD and ROB.

Tension (lbs) Tension (lbs) Torque (ft-lbs)

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
0 0 0

5,000 5,000 5,000

10,000 10,000 10,000

Measured Depth (ft)

Measured Depth (ft)

Measured Depth (ft)

15,000 15,000 15,000

20,000 20,000 20,000

25,000 25,000 25,000

30,000 30,000 30,000

Figure 5 - Final Design Predicted Tension Loads Figure 6 - Final Design Predicted Available Overpull Figure 7 - Final Design Predicted Torque Loads
10 TERRY E. PRATER, S. DEWAYNE EVERAGE, JOHN F. GREENIP, BURT A. ADAMS SPE/IADC 52822

5,500

5,000

4,500
Pressure Loss (psi)

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
125 150 175 200 225
Pump Rate (gallons per minuite)

Original Design @ 15.2 ppg Original Design @ 14.8 ppg

Final Design @ 15.2 ppg Final Design @ 14.8 ppg
Figure 8 – Hydraulics - Parasitic Pressure Losses vs. Pump Rate for Original and Final Design

14

12

10
Trip Time (hours)

0
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Depth Interval (1,000 feet)

4" WT39 (11 Trips) 5" NC50 (77 Trips-2 Wells) 5-1/2" WT56 (138 Trips-4 Wells) 6-5/8" FH (37 Trips)

Figure 9 – Trip Time Comparison for Common Drill Pipe Sizes