Faculty of Science and Technology

MASTERS THESIS
Study program/Specialization: Spring semester, 2012 Offshore Technology Open / Restricted access Marine and Subsea Technology

Author: John Normann Gundersen Faculty supervisor: Professor Arnfinn Nergaard

Title of thesis: Low Cost Deep Water Wells

Credits (ECTS): 30 Key words: Cost Reduction, Deepwater Wells, Slim Riser, Slim Hole Drilling, 13-5/8 BOP, Deepwater Drilling, Slim Wellhead, Tensioning Capacity Pages: 68 + enclosure: 36 Stavanger, June 15th 2012

LOW COST DEEP WATER WELLS

by John Normann Gundersen

A Masters Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Science and Technology University of Stavanger In fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science

ii

Abstract

Abstract
A major cost-factor of drilling deep water wells today is associated with the high day rates of the larger rigs capable of drilling in such depths. Most subsea completions today are based on the 18-3/4 wellheads system. This wellhead size is normally required because of the number of casing strings needed to reach the down-hole target depth. Over the last two decades a number of different technologies have been developed to manage longer sections and to increase the drilling reach, especially in deep water. Some of these technologies are briefly described in this thesis, as well as a suggested alternative from the author. The Slim Wellhead Concept may be used to bring older 3rd or 4th generation rigs into the deep water market, achieving cost savings as well as possibilities to reach new water depths of exploration. Questions being asked in this thesis: Is it possible to achieve cost saving in drilling by minor adjustments of technology? Is it possible to achieve new water depth records with the rigs and technology already available on the market today?

The conclusion of this thesis is that by using the slim wellhead concept with a 135/8 BOP and 16 marine riser can give significant savings in weight and requirement to capacities. With respect to variable deck load it is possible to achieve of up to 50% weight reduction for the BOP and 40% weight reduction for the slim drilling riser, valid for 1500 meters of water depth. The selection of a lighter BOP and a slim riser would give a total reduction of 500 tonnes or more to the deck load. The reductions of weight and requirements to capacities of the rigs can facilitate the use of smaller and less expensive drilling vessels. The overall saving potential for a 1500 meters water depth well is found to be in excess of 40%. This number is based on a combination of lower day rate and shorter overall drilling time. Additionally, it is demonstrated by extrapolation the present tension capacity on 5th/6th generation rigs will be sufficient to support a 16 marine riser in 4000 meter water depth.

iii

Preface

Preface
The aim of the thesis is to provide the reader with an insight in how expensive the drilling cost of todays deep water exploration and drilling operations can be, and the alternatives to reduce this cost. The driving cost-factors of the drilling projects are associated with the rigs high day rates. Performing deep water operations, the use of a 5th or 6th generation rig is the only possible opportunity to meet the requirement to capacity needed in such depths. By modifying smaller and older rigs, it may be possible to perform drilling operations of deep water wells with a considerable lower project cost than today. Furthermore, the opportunities for exploring new water depths by using the technology presented in the thesis will be explored. The objectives of this thesis are to: 1) Firstly, evaluate the potential of a reduced wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 135/8 on the requirements to riser tension capacity, variable deck load capability, mud volume and operating water depth. 2) Secondly, evaluate the potential of an increase in water depth capacity by reduction of the wellhead and riser size.

iv

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to all the people and companies that helped me with their knowledge and expertise of the technology presented in this thesis. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Arnfinn Nergaard at the University of Stavanger for using his valuable time in advising me during the process. Also, Professor Nergaard is thanked for giving me this interesting thesis. The research and study for this thesis brought me in contact with new acquaintances in several companies, where I now have a broader engineering network of people within different fields. Working with this thesis gave me a better understanding of the concept of well design and drilling technology. I wish to thank both Heidi Kvamme and Inger Gsemyr at the University library of Stavanger to help me financially with a licence to the online database RigLogix. Furthermore, I would like to thank David Theiss (Cameron) for contributing with his knowledge during the whole study process. Mr Theiss is an expert within BOP, drilling and casing systems. I would like to acknowledge Kurt Mikalsen, Gregor Campbell (Baker Hughes) and Harald Hufthammer (IKM Cleandrill) for contributing with their expertise within mud systems. Also, thanks to Kjetil Hausken (Trelleborg) for his contribution of information about riser joints and flotation modules. I wish to extend a thank to Kjetil Abbedissen (CEO of International Drilling Service, I-DS) for contributing from his field of experience in tensioning systems, drilling and trip time of slim wells. Thanks to my colleagues Frode Tjelta and Benjamin Lung-Tze Liew, as well as Mr Abbedissen (I-DS), for their comments and corrections of the thesis and final result. Finally, my sincere gratitude to the Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Material Science at the University of Stavanger for providing me with the knowledge needed to succeed in finishing my thesis and accomplishing a Masters degree in Marine and Subsea Technology.

John Normann Gundersen

Stavanger June 15th 2012

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix Abbreviation ............................................................................................................................. x Glossary .................................................................................................................................... xi Unit Conversion .................................................................................................................... xiii 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Objective......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Limitations...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Background .................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 3 1.5 State Of The Art............................................................................................................ 3 1.5.1 Past, Present and Future ...................................................................................... 3 1.5.2 History of the Slim Wellhead .............................................................................. 4 1.5.3 50 Years Development of Rig Capacity ............................................................ 5 1.6 Structure of Thesis ........................................................................................................ 7 2.0 Objective 1 .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Conventional Casing Program .................................................................................... 9 2.2 Alternative Design Solution ...................................................................................... 11 2.3 The Slim Wellhead Concept...................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Optimized Casing Program ............................................................................... 13 2.4 The effects of a Slim Wellhead System ................................................................... 16 2.4.1 Reduction due to change in Casing Program ................................................. 16 2.4.2 Casing String and Deck Load............................................................................ 19 2.4.3 Mud System .......................................................................................................... 20 2.4.4 Liquid, Active and Reserve Pit .......................................................................... 22

vi

Table of Contents 2.4.5 Mud Pumps .......................................................................................................... 23 2.4.6 Sack Storage ......................................................................................................... 24 2.4.7 BOP Stack ............................................................................................................ 25 2.5 Slim Riser in Deep Water Operations ..................................................................... 28 2.5.1 Deck Load Reduction due to Slim Riser ......................................................... 29 2.5.2 Comparison of Deepwater Drilling Riser ....................................................... 29 2.5.3 Active Pit, Tension and VDL ........................................................................... 35 2.5.4 Mud and Riser Volume ...................................................................................... 36 2.5.5 Reduction in Required Capacity of the Tensioning System......................... 38 2.5.6 Required Capacity of the Riser Tensioning .................................................... 40 3.0 Objective 2 ........................................................................................................................ 44 3.1 History Overview and Future Possibilities ............................................................. 45 3.2 Potential for Increased Water Depth Capacity ...................................................... 46 4.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 49 5.0 Recommendation for Future Work .............................................................................. 52 References ............................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A Calculations................................................................................................... 55 Mud Volume in Well ......................................................................................................... 55 Extracted Formation ......................................................................................................... 57 Cemented Annulus Volume ............................................................................................ 59 Proof of Proportional Reduction of Cross-Section and Hoop Stress ...................... 60 Volume of Marine Riser ................................................................................................... 62 Volume and Weight of Riser Joint ................................................................................. 64 Simplified Riser Tension Analysis .................................................................................. 67 Velocity in Marine Riser ................................................................................................... 69 Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix................................................................... 71 Semi-Submersible Generation ......................................................................................... 80 Riser Tension Capacity ..................................................................................................... 81 Appendix C Recommended Literature ........................................................................... 90

vii

List of Figures

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Semi-Submersibles of Generations (RigLogix, 2012)...................................... 6 Figure 2 - Generation Share of the Market (RigLogix, 2012)........................................... 6 Figure 3 - Structure of a typical casing program with 18-3/4 WH ............................. 10 Figure 4 - Slim Riser Concept with Crossover Joints (Childers and Quintero, 2004) 12 Figure 5 - Slim WH and Conventional WH ...................................................................... 15 Figure 6 - BOP Stack and LMRP from the Deepwater Horizon (Konrad, 2010)...... 27 Figure 7 - Difference in velocity of a 16" and 21" drilling riser ..................................... 32 Figure 8 - Riser with auxiliary lines and floatation module (Balmoral, 2012) .............. 34 Figure 9 - Riser stored in racks on deck (Dvorak, 2011) ................................................ 35 Figure 10 - Difference in mud volume with increasing water depth ............................ 37 Figure 11 - Requirement of Tension Capacity .................................................................. 40 Figure 12 - Tension vs. Water Depth at 2500 meters ...................................................... 41 Figure 13 - Increase in WD with existing Tension System ............................................. 42 Figure 14 - Tensioning Capacity of 4 MN (3rd generation semis) .................................. 43 Figure 15 - Future Goals and Possibilities (Nergaard, 2010).......................................... 45 Figure 16 - Requirement to 4000m Water Depth ............................................................ 47

viii

List of Tables

List of Tables
Table 1 - Factors affecting drilling cost (RigLogix, 2012) ................................................. 5 Table 2 - Typical hole and casing size .................................................................................. 9 Table 3 - Optimized casing program for the Slim WH Concept (McCrae, 2003) ...... 14 Table 4 - Estimated savings in trip time (Abbedissen, 2012) ......................................... 17 Table 5 - Formation Volume in Well ................................................................................. 19 Table 6 - Reduction of Mud Volume in Well.................................................................... 20 Table 7 - Cost Reduction of Mud (Holdhus, 2012) ......................................................... 21 Table 8 - Reduction in Cemented Annulus Volume ........................................................ 24 Table 9 - Estimated weight of BOP Stack ......................................................................... 26 Table 10 - Cost difference between a 3rd and 5th generation rig.................................. 28 Table 11 - Characteristics of Riser Joint and Floatation Module (Hausken, 2012) .... 30 Table 12 - Characteristics of Deepwater Risers (Hausken, 2012) .................................. 33 Table 13 - Mud Weight in Marine Riser ............................................................................. 36 Table 14 - Tension Capacity of Rig .................................................................................... 40 Table 15 - Riser Tension Requirement beyond 3000 meters Water Depth ................. 46 Table 16 - The Largest Semi-Submersibles on the Market Today (RigLogix, 2012).. 48

ix

Abbreviation

Abbreviation
API BHA BOP C&K DD GOM HP HPHT LMRP M/U MN MODU OBM POOH R/D R/U RIH RKB ROP SG TD USD WBM WD WH WOC WP American Petroleum Institute Bottom Hole Assembly Blowout Preventer Choke and Kill Drilling Depth (seabed to bottom of well) Gulf of Mexico Horse Power High Pressure, High Temperature Lower Marine Riser Package Make Up Mega Newton Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Oil Base Mud Pulling out of Hole Rig Down Rig Up Running in Hole Rotary, Kelly, Bushing Rate of Penetration Specific Gravity Total Depth (WD + DD) US Dollars Water Base Mud Water Depth (surface to seabed) Wellhead Waiting on Cement Working Pressure

Glossary

Glossary1
Active pit: A large tank that contains the drilling fluid on the rig. The fluid is
circulating in loop into the borehole during the drilling process. Synonymous of active pit is active mud tank. The word active is used since it is that certain fluid or mud that is currently being circulated.

Conductor pipe: A short string of large diameter. The string is usually put into the
well first, where it prevents the hole from caving into the wellbore.

Intermediate casing: Is installed after the surface casing is set in place. Provide
protection against caving and seals off weak zones from abnormal formation pressures or heaving shales, as well as minimizing the hazards related to loss of circulating zones.

Liner: A relative short casing string that does not extend up into another casing
string to the top of the wellbore, but is suspended from the inside of the previous casing string. The advantage of a liner is that it is a substantial saving in steel, and could therefore save capital cost of the well.

Liquid mud: A fluid that is circulated through the wellbore and bringing the drill
cuttings to surface. Other functions are to provide a hydrostatic barrier, lubrication and cooling for the drill bit. Synonymous of liquid mud is drilling fluid or drilling mud.

Make up: To assemble parts by screw together two pieces to from a complete unit.
I.e. connect two drill string, two riser or two casing joints.

Rotary, Kelly, Bushing: Kelly bushing (KB) is an adapter that serves to connect the
rotary table to the kelly. The kelly bushing is designed so that it is free to move up or down the through the rotary table. Depth measured is commonly referenced to the KB, i.e. 2000m KB, meaning 2000 meters below the kelly bushing.

Sack: A sack contains cement. Sack could be synonymous with a bag, i.e. a bag of
cement. A sack is a unit of measure and refers to the amount that occupies a bulk volume of 0.028 m3 (1 ft3). One sack weighs about 43 kilograms (94 pounds).

Source: SCHLUMBERGER. 2012. The Oilfield Glossary: Where the Oil Field Meets the Dictionary [Online]. Schlumberger. Available: www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com [Accessed 24.05 2012].
1

xi

Glossary

Stand: Two or three pipe joints screwed together during a tripping operation. The
drillpipe is racked in the derrick during trip. One joint of pipe is about 9 meters. When two joints are screwed together to a stand its called doubles, if the stand includes three joints its called trebles. One usual stand length is about 27 meters (90 ft.), i.e. trebles.

Surface casing: A string of casing set in place after the conductor pipe. Prevent the
loose formations from caving in, seals off weak zones and give a firm base for installation of the BOP stack. The surface casing also provides the structural strength so that the following intermediate casings may be suspended inside the top of the surface casing.

Surge: An increase in pressure downhole that occur when the drillstring is lowered
too fast in the hole. It may also occur when the mud pump is brought up to speed after starting.

Swab: When the drillstring is pulled out of the hole, the reservoir fluid has to flow
downwards. If the drillstring is lifted upwards too fast, a drop in pressure would occur in the drilling mud below the bit. Swabbing is a risk factor and is harmful in drilling operation where kicks may occur.

Tripping: Hoisting the drill string out of the wellbore or replacing it in the wellbore
is called tripping. Tripping is carried out when the bit is worn out and must be replaced.

xii

Unit Conversion

Unit Conversion2
Multiply barrels cubic feet feet horsepower inches kip per square inch kips (1000 pounds) pound-force per square inch pounds pounds per gallon pounds per gallon Unit bbl. ft.3 ft. hp in. ksi kips psi lb. by 0.1589 0.0283 0.3048 0.7457 0.0254 6.89E+06 4.45E+03 0.0689 0.4536 to obtain cubic meters cubic metres meters kilowatts meters Pascal Newton bars kilograms kilograms per cubic metre specific gravity SI Unit m3 m3 m kW m Pa N bar kg kg/m3 SG (kg/l)

ppg (lb./gal) 119.82 ppg (lb./gal) 0.1198

Source: GABOLDE, G. & NGUYEN, J.-P. 1999. Drilling data handbook, Paris, ditions Technip.

xiii

1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objective
1) Evaluation of reduction potential of reduced wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 on overall requirements to rig. 2) Evaluation of potential increase in water depth capacity by reduction of the wellhead size. A basic assumption for the first evaluation is a water depth of 1500 meters and a drilling depth of 3500 meters, with a resulting total depth of 5000 meters.

1.2 Limitations
In this thesis the possibility of reducing the requirement to a rig has been investigated. By reducing the rig requirement one can use smaller and older rigs to perform the same drilling operations as the new and larger rigs when it comes to operations in deep water. Only semi-submersibles from 2nd to 6th generation have been considered in this thesis. The water depth considered is 1500 meters and the drilling depth is 3500 meters. The total depth considered is 5000 meters, and the in-depth analysis will be based on these assumptions. Variations will be discussed but not thoroughly analysed. The calculation performed on the riser is done by simplifications where the riser joints are seen as straight pipes, flanges, telescope, pup and flex joints being neglected. There are several factors involved when it comes to storage of different equipment on the platform deck. Because of the weight and size of 1500 meters of riser equipment, it is assumed that mud and casing strings are stored and transported by supply vessels, therefore not being part of any variable deck load (VDL) analysis. The weather situation considered is limited to normal days when the supply vessels can be operated without any problems. The HPHT (high pressure, high temperature) wells are not considered in the thesis as they require special competence and equipment.

1.0 Introduction

1.3 Background
The cost of drilling in deep water (defined by API as beyond 600 meters) is very high. The high cost of building a new generation rig which is able to drill in such water depths is associated with the high day rates. A substantial part of the VDL capacity is driven by the size of the marine riser and associated systems. Large risers for deep water require sufficient weight and riser storage capacity. These variables are dominated by the selected size of marine drilling riser. The aim of the thesis is to present a new slim wellhead concept where a small drilling riser and a new casing program with fewer casing strings in combination with a smaller and lighter BOP stack is used. If the benefit of this concept can be realized, a lower requirement to the rigs hoisting system, tensioning system, storage space and deck load capacity could be achieved. This is all factors which will make it possible to use smaller and older rigs. There are companies today that are proposing new technologies that bring solutions that might reduce the required capacity of the rig. Some of the technologies presented as a potential cost-reduction solution are: Managed Pressure Drilling Expandable Casing Dual Gradient Drilling Riserless Drilling

These types of technology solutions are not treated in this thesis. These are technologies that are generally developed to extend sections to be drilled, however, this also implies that many wells can be drilled with fewer casings and thereby enable the reduction of the wellhead size. This thesis deals with the rig related to potential savings related to downscaling of wellhead and riser dimensions. The key factor of a slim wellhead concept is as mentioned the ability to use an existing available smaller rig to drill subsea wells. The smaller rig would not be capable of drilling wells in deep water with a large bore riser system because it lacks the VDL capacity and riser tensioning capacity. Use of the slim wellhead system enables the rig to drill wells in deeper water. This is a great advantage for the operators because it will increase the number of available rigs capable of drilling the deeper water wells, with a substantially lower day rate. This is also an advantage for the owners of the smaller rigs because it allows them to market their rig in the deeper water market.

1.0 Introduction

1.4 Research Methodology

Because this thesis was not a straight-forward theoretical thesis, most of the information needed could not be found in text books. The research methodology required gathering information and data from three main sources: conference papers, personal communication and discussion with field experts from the industry and a database to collect up-to-date rig information. The gathered information and data was constantly compared with several experts opinion to make sure that this was as correct as possible during the process, and then presented as a full and understanding overall picture on how it works in field practice.

1.0 Introduction

1.5 State Of The Art

Subsea wells today are mostly based on 18-3/4 wellheads. This wellhead size is normally required because of the number of casing strings needed to reach the down-hole target depth. Over the last two decades a number of different technologies have been developed to manage longer sections and to increase the drilling reach, especially in deep water. These technologies might also be applied for reducing the number of casing strings for a given target depth. Aggressively using the new technologies might possibly reduce the necessary wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 for subsea production wells (Nergaard, 2012). The thesis will highlight the potential advantages from reducing the subsea wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 by presenting and comparing technologies available, which can contribute to generally reduce cost and perhaps make it possible to explore in deeper water than what is possible today.

1.5.1 Past, Present and Future

Drilling for oil and gas has come a long way in the last 60 years. Back in the early 1950s in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), shallow water wells were drilled from fixed structures, often with land in sight. The history of drilling technology has not been developed in a linear progression, but enormous technological advances have been done. Starting in the early 60s with drilling in shallow water with an operating water depth of 150 meter, and culminating with todays technology which is capable of drilling in ultra-deep waters with an operating water depth of 3000 meters or more (Nergaard, 2010). The latest world record for deep water drilling was set by Transoceans drillship Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2, April 11th 2011, with an operating water depth of 3107 meters (Transocean, 2011). The definition offshore appeared in the 40s when the rigs location got beyond the sight of land. The first offshore well was drilled in the 1947, located off the Louisiana coast, and had a water depth of 3 meters (OSC, 2010). The first generation of semi-submersible was developed in the early 60s and could drill in an operating water depth of about 150 - 200 meters. By the late 1960s the second generation started to appear, and had a water depth capacity of 300 meters and an operational displacement up to 20 000 tons. Around the early 80s the third generation was developed with a water depth capability of about 500 meters. Fourth generation appeared in the 1990s and had a water depth of 1000 meters and an operational displacement of 35000 tons. In the late 1990s the fifth generation semis where developed which could reach water depths of up to 2500 meters. Sixth

1.0 Introduction generation are the latest and arrived in 2008. These rigs have an operating water depth up to 3000 meters or more, with a displacement of 50000 tons. In other words, a new generation semi-submersibles was developed almost each decade (Nergaard, 2010). Presently, the progression in water depth capability has nearly stopped. During the last ten years the record in operational water depth has been around 3000 meters. The cost of reaching these water depth records is becoming very high. So, is it possible to reach unexplored depths in the nearest future? Is it possible to even reach as far as 4000 meters of water depth within the next ten years?

1.5.2 History of the Slim Wellhead

The slim wellhead concept had its appearance already in the 60s and therefore it must not be considered as an all new concept presented in this thesis. In the late 60s and early 70s it was in fact the primary methodology used in the Santa Barbara Channel when about 80 wells were drilled by four mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) by using a single 13-5/8 BOP stack with a 16 riser. But during the 1970s, the usage of the slim wellhead concept nearly stopped, where the large bore system that is known today became more desirable to use the conventional wellhead system with the 18-3/4 BOP and the 21 riser. Development in maximum drilling depths slowed down with consequences for exploration (Childers and Quintero, 2004). With todays knowledge of the slim wellhead concept, drillers may have more confidence in the selection of a slim concept of some sort, where it is generally agreed that the usage of this type of a concept is a major cost saving alternative. Perhaps it is one of few alternatives to go for in the future if one is going to be able to reduce cost on deep water operations as well as exploration and development in greater depths then today.

1.0 Introduction

1.5.3 50 Years Development of Rig Capacity

Semi-submersibles have had 50 years of development. Equipment and capacity have large increase when comparing the rig specifications on those built back in the 60s and the present built 6th generation semis. The items listed in Table 1 are factors affecting the cost of drilling, and list the average capacities of the semi-sub generations of interest for this thesis. The day rates are averaged numbers valid at present.
Table 1 - Factors affecting drilling cost (RigLogix, 2012)

Semi-Submersible Generation
2nd Variable Deck Load (tonnes) Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) Tensioning Capacity (MN) Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) Mud Pump Capacity (HP) Sack Storage (m3) Operating Displacement (tonnes) Day Rate (USD) 2 900 530 2,9 430 4 500 120 22 000 270 000 3rd 3 400 570 3,6 460 4 600 150 27 000 300 000 4th 4 500 680 6,1 970 5 200 170 36 000 370 000 5th 6 100 860 12,6 1 760 8 100 230 41 000 450 000 6th 8 000 970 13,8 2 470 8 900 240 50 000 500 000

Today, drilling units able of working in deep water are generally equipped with heavy duty drilling equipment, and thereby has its cost. Comparison between the 2 nd and 6th generation rig shows that the day rate is almost doubled from the 2nd generation. Of course, a 2nd/3rd generation rig cannot operate the water depth thats possible by the larger 5th/6th generation rigs, unless changes are made. The requirements of rig specification are largely driven by the marine riser and the well operation. Requirement to mud storage, riser storage and tensioning are all influencing the variable deck load, which can be reduced by introducing new alternatives for drilling operations. If new technology is possible to use, usage of smaller rigs on deep water project may be possible. Figure 1 shows some rigs from each of the generation presented in Table 1. Figure 2 illustrates the market share of rig generations.

1.0 Introduction

Atwood Southern Cross 2nd Gen

Noble Ton van Langeveld Transocean Marianas 3rd Gen 4th Gen

Ocean Rig Eirik Raude

Seadrill West Taurus

5th Gen

6th Gen

Figure 1 - Semi-Submersibles of Generations (RigLogix, 2012)

20 %

27 %

2nd Generation 3rd Generation 4th Generation 5th Generation 6th Generation

10 %

18 % 25 %

Figure 2 - Generation Share of the Market (RigLogix, 2012)

1.0 Introduction

1.6 Structure of Thesis

The thesis starts out with presenting the background for the work and looking briefly at the history of drilling and development of rig capacities. In chapter 2 an evaluation of reduction potential of reduced wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 on overall requirements to rig is presented. A typical conventional wellhead system is presented, followed by a brief presentation of new technologies and concepts within drilling operation. Furthermore, the authors suggestion of a new concept is presented, namely the slim wellhead concept. The consequences of the concept are discussed, where its been focused on some components and parts of the rig that may be influenced by the changes made from the new concept. In chapter 3, the potential of an increase in water depth capacity is presented, where its been looked into what depth of exploration the oil industry may reach in the future by using one of the largest semi-submersibles available on the market today combined with the slim well concept presented in chapter 2. In the final chapters, the conclusion is given based on the result, as well as recommendation for further work on the slim wellhead concept.

2.0 Objective 1

2.0 Objective 1
This chapter looks into the potential of a cost reduction when reducing the conventional wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 on overall requirements to rig, where the conventional wellhead system is presented, followed by a brief presentation of new technologies within drilling operation, as well as the new concept named the slim wellhead concept.

2.0 Objective 1

2.1 Conventional Casing Program

In this chapter a conventional casing program is presented. This is the base case, and afterwards a casing program, which can lead to usage of older generation semis and thereby reduce operating costs, is presented. It is defined in this thesis as the slim wellhead concept, which includes usage of a 13-5/8 BOP and a 16 marine riser. Casings are used to seal off well sections and to be structural foundations for the well. These are used to maintain integrity for the production life of the well. As a new section of the well is drilled, a new casing string that has a smaller diameter and higher pressure rating than the previous one is run. The conventional casing program used today in deep wells could include half a dozen different types of casing. Table 2 shows a conventional casing program with its typical hole and casing sizes (McCrae, 2003).
Table 2 - Typical hole and casing size

Casing string Conductor Surface 1st Intermediate 2nd Intermediate Liner

Casing size 30 20 13-3/8 9-5/8 7

Hole size 36 26 17-1/2 12-1/4 8-1/2

The smaller strings are run through the wellhead and being hung off in the wellhead housing. The wellhead size selected for this typical casing program is the 18-3/4, and is the most common size used today. Figure 3 illustrates the casing program with a total depth of 5000 meters. With this wellhead size, the requirement to the drilling riser is that it has to have a greater inner diameter (ID) than 18-3/4, so a riser with 21 outer diameter (OD) is selected, leaving enough margin for the variable riser wall thickness that may be needed for deeper waters (Chakrabarti, 2005).

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 3 - Structure of a typical casing program with 18-3/4 WH

10

2.0 Objective 1

2.2 Alternative Design Solution

There are several companies today that are proposing new technologies and solutions that will require less capacity of the rig, and thereby give the opportunity to use smaller rigs, which further contributes to reducing the cost of deepwater drilling. One of the companies is Atwood Oceanics, presenting a slim riser concept. Atwoods slim riser concept is based on the modern 18-3/4 wellhead system used in a conjunction of a 16 riser string, connected with a non-standard developed component called a crossover joint. The crossover joint allows the rig to retain its standard riser assemblies. The 16 riser connects to the rigs conventional 21 riser system by using an upper crossover joint. The upper joint is a special joint of 3 meters (10 ft.) with a 21 box looking up and a 16 pin looking down. The lower crossover joint is then the transition between the 16 riser and the 21 riser connection in the lower marine riser package (LMRP). The lower crossover joint is similar to the upper joint, i.e. a 3 meter (10 ft.) joint, with a 16 box riser connection facing up and 21 pin riser on the bottom end to connect to the existing system (Childers and Quintero, 2004). Figure 4 shows the upper and lower crossover joint connection between the riser and existing rig assemblies. The advantage of this slim riser concept is that it may bring older 3rd or 4th generation rigs into the deepwater market, but still maintain the usage of the conventional 183/4 BOP subsea system.

11

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 4 - Slim Riser Concept with Crossover Joints (Childers and Quintero, 2004)

12

2.0 Objective 1

2.3 The Slim Wellhead Concept

The basic of the slim wellhead concept is that it can give the opportunity for costsavings for deepwater operations where one might bring smaller 2nd and 3rd generation rigs in to these deep water areas. The key features of the slim wellhead concept are as follows: Usage of a 13-5/8 BOP Slim casing strings Fewer and longer casing strings 16 (OD) marine drilling riser

This first part of the thesis will present the slim wellhead concept and see the significant improvement the concept can have to the rigs capacity by reducing the BOP and riser size. Improvements which are considerable: Reduction of mud volume required due to smaller riser volume and reduction of volume in casing program Reduction of riser storage due to a smaller riser Reduced requirement to variable deck load (VDL) due to reduction of riser tension

2.3.1 Optimized Casing Program

The possibility of being able to use smaller and older rigs depends on several factors. Optimizing the casing program is one factor, where the objectives for this is to reduce overall well cost and minimizing drilling time while still reaching total depth (TD) with adequate hole size and maintaining the same production rate as for a conventional casing program. By optimizing the casing program to a slim bore well, the rest of the subsea equipment can be downsized, as well as the drilling unit. The reduction of casing size and mud volume used in the drilling phase does not alone have the sufficient reduction to allow the usage of smaller rig. Focus needs to be on reduction of the overall concept - from well to rig, which can give the total reductions that will lower the requirement of the rig and furthermore make it possible to use a smaller and less expensive rig. The proposed casing program for the slim wellhead is given in Table 3.

13

2.0 Objective 1
Table 3 - Optimized casing program for the Slim WH Concept (McCrae, 2003)

Casing string Conductor Surface Intermediate Liner

Casing size 20 13-3/8 9-5/8 7

Hole size 26 17-1/2 12-1/4 8-1/2

The usage of a 13-5/8 BOP can be the main component to bring down the total project cost, where the usage of a slim riser as well as a slim casing program will be necessary. By comparing the conventional casing program one observe that there are fewer casing where it is now run only one casing string and a liner after the 13-5/8 BOP is set. It is worth mentioning that the majority of wells drilled throughout the world do not require large bore capability and can be drilled and completed with only two or three casing strings after the BOP stack is set (Childers and Quintero, 2004). In the interest of this thesis, a base case with a total depth (TD) of 5000 meters and a drilling depth (DD) of 3500 meters has been looked at. The sections for the 20 conductor and the 13-3/8 surface casing are drilled to open sea before installing the 13-5/8 BOP stack on top. After the BOP is set, a long 12-1/4 section for the 95/8 casing is chosen, with an optional 11-3/4 liner. In the last section the 7 liner is installed, like on the conventional casing program. With the 7 liner at the end, conventional production tubing can be used and thereby maintain the production rate as for the conventional wellhead program. Figure 5 gives an illustrative comparison between the casing program of the slim wellhead and the conventional wellhead program.

14

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 5 - Slim WH and Conventional WH

15

2.0 Objective 1

2.4 The effects of a Slim Wellhead System

By a change in the wellhead system where a slim drilling riser and BOP is used would have a potential of a decrease of several requirements to the rig and furthermore, the cost of the drilling operation. The effect of the slim wellhead concept and its influenced components are presented in the following chapters.

2.4.1 Reduction due to change in Casing Program

Casing and tubing account for about 15 to 20 per cent of the completed cost of the well and is usually the greatest single item of expense on the well (Feder, 2001). An economical saving may be achieved by reconsidering the casing program, where selection of fewer casing strings, slim casing sizes and slim sections of drilling are all to be of considerable importance to reduce cost. By reconsidering the casing program advantages which might be achieved are: reduction of mud volume due to smaller section volume reduction in cement needed due to smaller annulus volume decrease drilling time drilling slim section results in less drill cuttings less cuttings need to be processed and disposed of, so fewer transportation for the supply vessels to bring the cuttings to onshore base fewer casing strings gives fewer crane lifts during the operation slim casing reduce deck space on supply vessel which results in less vessel trips to shore to reload casing strings fewer casing strings to purchase

The most important argument in choosing a slim casing program over the conventional casing program would be the reduction of rig cost, in terms of lower day rates and reduced drilling time. Two approaches deserve to be mentioned related to drilling time: Reduction of trip time and reduction of the volume of formation that needs to be extracted. Both will help illustrate that it is possible to achieve reduction in drilling time.

16

2.0 Objective 1 Reduction of Trip Time Tripping is when the drill string is pulled out of the hole and replaced by a new one. This is done when the drill bit has been worn-out so that a decrease in penetration rate occurs. The penetration rate for smaller bits is not higher than for larger bits, so by discussing the time of drilling in this chapter one can look at the physical reduction in the drilling time, and not the reduction of formation and drill cutting volumes. A typical process on a rig would have an average tripping time will be 90 sec/stand in riser and upper sections of the well. The stand is two or three single joints of drill pipes screwed together, with an approximate length of 27 meters for a trebles stand. When entering the lower sections of the well, tripping time can be increased to about 120 sec/stand. The increase is needed to avoid getting surge while tripping (Abbedissen, 2012). By considering the new casing program, which has one less casing string installed after the BOP is set, rig time will be reduced. Table 4 gives the typical operations and the approximate running time of the casing strings.
Table 4 - Estimated savings in trip time (Abbedissen, 2012)

Time Reduction of Trip Sequences Slim Casing Program (4 strings) R/U and R/D equipment M/U casing string Running in Hole (RIH) Physical Cementing Job Waiting on Cement (WOC) Pressure Test & Disconnect POOH Total 24 42 120 24 32 8 20 270 Conventional Casing Program (5 strings) 30 57 150 30 40 10 25 342 Saving (hours) 6 15 30 6 8 2 5 21%

17

2.0 Objective 1 By reducing one casing section, rig time will be reduced. By comparing the different operations by running only 4 strings compared to 5 casing strings it is observed that there is one less rig up (R/U) and rig down (R/D) operation of the running tools (which run the casing string) and can save about 6 hours of work. RIH will of course depend on length of string and section depth, but 24-36 hours saved can be achieved. One less cement job is needed, where physical cementing job saves about 6 hours. After that, an 8 hours waiting on cement (WOC) is needed. So 13-15 hours on the total cementing job is easily saved (Abbedissen, 2012). Furthermore, fewer casing strings will lead to more casing stored on vessels and again will lead to reduced number of required supply vessels needed for a well, included less logistic planning. Achieving great cost savings on projects requires proper planning as well as knowledge of the available options (Childers and Quintero, 2004). A high end rig rate today for an operating company (such as Statoil) will be around 650 000 USD/day. But the total cost for the operating company with all service personnel will be approximately 1 300 000 USD/day. So to manage to save 3 - 4 days on a well will make a large impact on the total well budget (Abbedissen, 2012).

Reduction of formation volume that needs to be extracted One of the main challenges on a 3rd and 4th generation rig is to manage to handle all the cuttings returning to the rig from the bigger sections such as the 17-1/2 and the 12-1/4 section. That can lead to reduced rate of penetration (ROP) to manage to handle the cuttings. The drill time can be extended due to higher volume of formation to be extracted. By reducing the hole size less formation and less cuttings will be extracted and transported back to the rig, and there will be no limitations on the ROP due to shaker capacities, as well as less cuttings to be processed and disposed of to the onshore base (Abbedissen, 2012). To minimize the amount of material that needs to be transferred from the rig to a supply vessel is always to be desired. By doing a simplified calculation an approximate reduction of total drill time (physical drilling, process and disposal of cuttings) can be found. A rough assumption is that the total time to drill is proportional to the volume of formation to be extracted. If there is less formation to remove, then the cost of the well should decrease (Theiss, 2012).

18

2.0 Objective 1 The drill time reduction can be estimated by comparing the volumes of the holes to be drilled in the slim program from Table 3 with the volumes of the holes being drilled in the conventional program from Table 2. The calculation is found in Appendix A and the result is given in Table 5.
Table 5 - Formation Volume in Well

Volume of extracted Formation Slim Well VSW = 303 m3 Conventional Well VCW = 457 m3 Reduction of Volume - 33 %

From the simplified calculation of the two casing programs a reduction in total drill time is found to be about 33%. Other authors claim similar result from their slim hole technology. A presentation of a slim wellbore design by Enventure Global Technology (Tubbs et al., 2006) found that the slim hole drilling compared with a conventional program could have an average reduction in drilling time to TD of 21%, reducing from 94 to 74 days. Another slim wellhead technology presented by Shell Petroleum (Erivwo et al., 2003) found a reduction of 28% from their study. Their results will of course have variations from the result presented in Table 5 due to the difference in section dimensions, drill depth and numbers of sections to be drilled. However, from these results one may claim that a reduction of 20 - 30% in total drilling time may be possible by considering a slim casing program.

2.4.2 Casing String and Deck Load

As mentioned while discussing trip time, the casing strings are usually stored on supply vessels and loaded on drilling deck as they are needed for the upcoming section. Large rigs could of course be able to store more than others, but in this case having 1500 meter riser stored on deck, there will be lack of deck space if the casing strings are included, even for the largest rigs. So, by reducing the numbers of casing strings will not have a reduction to the deck load capacity, since only the next casing string to be run will be stored on the deck at any time. The casings will usually arrive at the rig one week before the casing string needs to be run.

19

2.0 Objective 1 The casing strings are handled by casing companies, which transport the strings as well as crew and tools for this job. A typical company that provide this service is Odfjell Well Service (Abbedissen, 2012). Hence, every material transfer requires more activity and adds risk to the operation. By reducing numbers of casing strings less crane lifts needs to be performed to load the casing onto the deck (Theiss, 2012).

2.4.3 Mud System

The rig is usually provided with two mud systems. This is because one can be backup to the other. The mud systems are large and heavy, so its difficult to have all the needed mud stored on board at all times. Also the liquid mud must be kept agitated or circulated to prevent it from settling so they do not want to keep too much mud on the rig. Thus, most rigs will then receive and store liquid mud or dry mud and cement products from a supply vessel. Different types of mud and fluid for the different drilling section are used; typical sequence after BOP is set could be as follows: First section drilled with water base mud (WBM) After this, oil base mud (OBM) is used Last is the completion carried out with use of brine

The active and reserve pit volumes must be back loaded onto a supply vessel when one section is finished and make room for mud for the next hole section. Hence, the drilling vessel lacks of pit capacity in either volume or weight capacity (Mikalsen, 2012). Reduction in mud volumes are achieved by the slim casing program. By comparing the slim casing program to the conventional program the result is given in Table 6. The calculations are found in Appendix A.
Table 6 - Reduction of Mud Volume in Well

Reduction of Mud Volume in Well Slim casing program Volume of Mud (m3) 330 Conventional casing program 505 Change - 175

20

2.0 Objective 1 Table 6 shows a reduction of 175 m3 of mud in the program. Table 7 illustrates an approximate cost reduction related to reduction of mud, estimated for oil base mud (OBM).
Table 7 - Cost Reduction of Mud (Holdhus, 2012)

Budget of Mud Expenditures Mud Reduction (m3) 175 Mud Cost (USD/m3) 1 800 Savings (USD) 315 000

Another achievement related to reduction of mud is that these fluids are produced at shore and are transferred to the rig. Less mud needed due to fewer sections that needs to be drilled, reduce transfer needed from the supply vessels, as well as less on loading and back loading of mud to the vessel (Hufthammer, 2012). Considering that the required mud for the whole well is stored at deck at all times, a reduction of variable deck load is limited due to the slim casing program. It is the reduction in drilling time and final cost that gives the largest effect to the budget (Abbedissen, 2012). Consequences of mud weights related to the marine riser are being discussed in chapter 2.5.4.

21

2.0 Objective 1

2.4.4 Liquid, Active and Reserve Pit

The liquid mud, or the drilling fluid, acts as a primary barrier. The mud transports the drill cuttings up to surface, as well as providing lubrication and cooling for the drill bit (API, 2004). The liquid mud system consists of both active and reserve pits. Active pits and reserve pits are listed in the rig specifications as total liquid mud. The rigs rated total liquid mud capacity is the maximum volume of liquid mud that the vessel can support. Using a smaller size riser and slim hole drilling will potentially allow you to not use all of the rated total liquid mud capacity of the rig (Theiss, 2012). The mud from the active pit is the mud that is in a circulating loop during the drilling process. It is been circulated through the drill pipe down to the drill bit, bringing the drill cuttings up through the annulus of the riser pipe. The active pit would be refilled from the other pits during the drilling. The reason for using the active pits is to have accurate volume control. In case of a loss in the well one could easily read the reduction/loss of mud in the pit. Contrary will they be able to read the gain of mud when the volume in the pit increases, indicating a kick/influx (Hufthammer, 2012). The rig must have at least reserve pit capacity to store the risers volume when the active mud is circulated out of the riser to sea water prior to disconnect. Also the reserve pit must have capacity to contain the active mud when it is circulated out of the hole. The rig will also store some dry mud which can be mixed to make liquid mud as it is needed (Theiss, 2012). As mention when discussing mud system, most rigs will receive and store liquid mud or dry mud and cement products from a supply vessel since the rig dont want to store too much extra mud due to preventing it from settling. Selecting a smaller riser would cause a decrease of mud in the active pit volume as well as a decrease in the reserve pit volume. This gives a reduced requirement of the rigs tensioning capacity due to decrease of weight of the drilling riser. Requirement of riser tensioning will be discussed in chapter 2.5.6.

22

2.0 Objective 1

2.4.5 Mud Pumps

Changing the casing program and reducing the volume of well would not have a large impact on the mud pumps, and therefore no reduction to the requirement of power. The requirement to the pump capacity is driven by factors such as: Size of last drilling section Mud type and density Bottom hole pressure Depth from RKB (drill floor) to BHA

Since both casing programs, optimized slim program and conventional program, are being compared to the same total depth as well as same section volume and liner size, one must assume that the requirements to the pump have no reduction, since both casing programs are similar when total depth is reached. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to describe the mud pump required capacity for a rig to operate in a total depth of 5000 meters. However, a rig today operates with usually three or four mud pumps, rated between 1600 to 2200 HP each and with a working pressure from 5000 to 7500 psi, so that lack of power may not be a limitation for using smaller semi-submersibles for deep water operations (Abbedissen, 2012).

23

2.0 Objective 1

2.4.6 Sack Storage

The rig will store some dry cement which can be mixed to make cement as needed. The dry cement is stored in sacks, where one sack requires a storage space of about 0.028 m3 (1 ft3). The cement must be stored dry and mixed only just prior to it being circulated into the well, since cement cant be stored mixed for very long as it will start to set. If may be difficult to claim that a reduction in volume of the well requires less storage capacity for sack materials due to reduced annulus volumes, since this will not be limited for using a smaller rig. But if a reduction of sack storage shall be illustrated it may done by a simplified statement assuming that the required storage of dry sack material could be reduced by a similar percentage as the reduction of the cemented annulus volumes. The result is given in Table 8.
Table 8 - Reduction in Cemented Annulus Volume

Cemented Annulus Volume Slim casing program Volume of Cement (m3) 145 Conventional casing program 290 Change - 50 %

The volume of cement needed to fill the annulus of the slim casing program compared to the conventional program is reduced by 50 %. However, seen from a practical point of view, a rig would always desire to store some spare material. If the rig suddenly needs more material than first intended, the rig would need more frequent resupply from a supply vessel, which requires more transportation, labour and crane lifts to get the materials onto the rig. This would increase the risk of adding unnecessary costs to the budget. However, if the sack storage capacity is a factor to be a significant limitation of using a smaller rig, one may need to use a supply vessel for the deep water operations. The limitation will then be partially offset by using the supply vessels to store the cement products for the rig.

24

2.0 Objective 1

2.4.7 BOP Stack

There are not many modern 13-5/8 BOP stacks used in any working pressure as most modern rigs have 18-3/4 drilling systems. Therefore a replacement of the 183/4 BOP stack to the 13-5/8 is required when considering this slim wellhead concept. Upgrading to a smaller BOP will result in weight savings to rig when stored dry on deck, and furthermore reduce requirement to the hoisting capacity when deploying the slim riser and BOP to seabed. The weight exerted on the wellhead connector which attaches the BOP stack to the wellhead will also be reduced. The weights of BOP components vary considerably from model to model and manufacture to manufacture. The components in one type will also vary in rated working pressure, e.g. a 15 ksi BOP stack could have 10 ksi annular BOPs at the upper section, and the rams at the lower section of the BOP stack could be rated to 15 ksi working pressure (WP). Similar with a 10 ksi BOP stack, this may consist of both 10 ksi and 5 ksi components regarding the placement to the components. The lower section of the BOP that is connected to the wellhead will have the highest rated working pressure. There are many components included in a total BOP stack such as: Ram and annular BOP components Stack frame/guidance system Subsea control system Choke and kill stack valves and piping Mandrel Accumulator bottles Wellhead connector LMRP connector

All components add considerable weight to the BOP stack assembly, even though they are not all the main components. Most BOP stacks consist of a wellhead connector, two double ram BOPs, one single ram BOP, two annual BOPs, a lower marine riser connector, a flex joint, a riser adapter and a wellhead connection. Some BOP stacks now have six or even seven ram cavities. Deepwater BOP stacks have a large number of accumulator bottles which also would add greatly to the weight of the BOP stack.

25

2.0 Objective 1 Table 9 list some of the components and their estimated weights of a comparable 135/8 10 ksi working pressure and a 18-3/4 10 ksi working pressure BOP stack from Cameron (Theiss, 2012).
Table 9 - Estimated weight of BOP Stack

BOP Stack from Cameron Components 2x Double Ram Type U BOP (kg) 1x Single Ram Type U BOP (kg) 2x Annular Type D BOP (kg) 1x Wellhead Connector (kg) 1x LMRP Connector (kg) Flex Joint w/riser adapter (kg) Stack Frame (kg) Total Weight (tonnes) 13-5/8 10 ksi 16 800 4 700 24 800 8 200 8 200 11 300 20 400 94 18-3/4 10 ksi 51600 13 100 37 200 16 300 16 300 18 200 31 000 184 Change 34 800 8 400 12 400 8 100 8100 6 900 10 600 - 49 %

Observe that by replacing the 18-3/4 BOP stack with the 13-5/8 BOP stack a reduction of about 90 tonnes in deck load is possible. The 13-5/8 individual components and the full BOP stack would have about 50 % weight reduction of an 18-3/4 BOP stack. Note that these numbers may fall short as they do not include the other components discussed above. The heaviest 18-3/4 15 ksi BOPs today weighs up to 400 tons. A comparable 13-3/8 15 ksi BOP would then probably weigh less than 200 tons (Nergaard, 2012). Figure 6 shows the lower section of the total BOP stack and the upper section called the lower marine riser package (LMRP).

26

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 6 - BOP Stack and LMRP from the Deepwater Horizon (Konrad, 2010)

The weight of a BOP stack is a factor, but the riser size and its tensioning requirement is the largest factor for the limited usage of a 3rd generation semi for deep water operations. Requirement of tension capacity is being discussed in chapter 2.5.6.

27

2.0 Objective 1

2.5 Slim Riser in Deep Water Operations

The cost of drilling deep water wells today is high, which is associated with the day rates of the latest generation semisubmersibles as well as drilling time. The cost is mostly driven by the requirement to the well size and riser. To be capable of having a drilling riser operating in deep water sets high requirements to the rigs capacity when it comes to handle the variable deck loading, riser storage, mud storage and to riser tensioning. Changing the riser dimension will have an effect on all these factors, and further be a major cost saving factor. Selecting a slim riser instead of the conventional 21 riser will have a large reducti on to the requirement of riser tension and deck load, which allows usage of a smaller and older semi-submersible when performing drilling operations of deep water wells. To drill in a water depth of 1500 meters today, a 5th or 6th generation semi is used. By using a 16 riser as presented in this slim wellhead concept, it may be possible to use a 3rd or 4th generation rig, which will give a significant overall project cost reduction due to lower day rates. Table 10 indicate the sufficient cost savings that can be achieved if reduction of the requirements to rig storage and deck load are possible.
Table 10 - Cost difference between a 3rd and 5th generation rig

Semi-Submersible
3rd Day Rate (USD) 300 000 5th 450 000 Change - 33 %

In this chapter the reduction of requirements to the rig when considering a slim riser instead of a conventional riser is going to be illustrated. The primary goal is to be able to use smaller rigs and then have a lower day rate and furthermore get a sufficient overall cost reduction to deep water projects. This may be possible when reducing the riser size from 21 to 16 (OD), combined with the slim casing program.

28

2.0 Objective 1

2.5.1 Deck Load Reduction due to Slim Riser

Variable deck load (VDL) is any load on the vessel which can be varied. In other word, the variable loads are loads that are not permanent parts of the vessel. These loads can include any equipment (including drill pipe, riser and casing) or any materials and supplies stored on deck or in the tanks and bins. The weight of the riser is part of the variable deck load when it is stored on deck. Variable deck loads also include the riser top tension when riser is deployed in sea as this is a variable load which must be supported by the vessel. When some materials (cement, mud below the seabed, the BOP stack) are installed and therefore supported by the well, they are no longer part of the deck load. However some of the variable deck load capacity must be reserved for items such as the BOP stack which must at some point return to the deck and be supported by the vessel (Theiss, 2012). The lightship weight includes the weight of the hull, the decks themselves, the derrick, the draw works, the power generation equipment, the personnel quarters and helicopter pad. Basically all the items that are permanent parts of the rig which cant be varied (Theiss, 2012). The bottom line is that older and smaller drilling rigs will have limited variable deck load capacity. The rig needs to be able to support the submerged weight of the riser when it is installed and the weight of the riser when it is stored on deck. A larger riser will weigh more both installed and when stored on the deck. If it is desirable to use these rigs in increased water depths, attention must be paid to minimizing the loads on the vessel which consume this limited capacity. Reducing the size of the drilling riser is one of the larger factors to minimize the loads on the vessel.

2.5.2 Comparison of Deepwater Drilling Riser

The rig must have sufficient deck space and deck load capacity to support the riser when it is not deployed. A reduction of diameter in riser would decrease the weight to deck as well as storage space. Reducing the diameter of the riser will affect the diameter of the floatation modules which also reduce the weight on deck and the requirement to deck space. The floatation modules are supporting some of the riser weight when deployed in water. The force transferred to the rig by the riser and BOP is proportional to the mass of riser and BOP, and this need to be safely handled by the hoisting system. The riser tensioners needs to support the weight of riser and mud during the drilling operation, and ultimately by the vessel (Taylor et al., 2003).

29

2.0 Objective 1 By reducing the size of both the riser and BOP, a reduction of hoisting capacity is induced, as well as lower requirement of the riser tensioners due to decreased volume of mud and lighter riser. Table 11 represent typical dimensions, weights and floatation modules used by semisubmersibles.
Table 11 - Characteristics of Riser Joint and Floatation Module (Hausken, 2012)

Riser Joint, Lines and Floatation Module 21" OD x 19.5 ID Length of Riser Joint Joint weight w/lines (dry) (tonnes/joint) Length of Floatation modules Weight of floatation modules (dry) (tonnes/joint) Buoyancy of floatation modules (tonnes/joint) C&K line Hydraulic line Boost line 22.86 m (75 ft.) 11.1 21.7 m (71-1/4 ft.) 10.3 16" OD x 14.5 ID 19.81 m (65 ft.) 5.9 18.8 m (61-3/4 ft.) 5.4

13.3 6-3/4" x 4-3/4" (0.17 x 0.12m) 4" x 3.5" (0.10 x 0.09m) 5" x 4" (0.13 x 0.10m)

6.8 5" x 4" (0.13 x 0.10m) 2-5/8" x 2" (0.07 x 0.05m) -

A typical riser joint is 95% covered by a floatation module, given in Table 11 from the difference in length of the riser joint and the flotation module. Usually one or two joints at the lower end of the riser, which is connected to the BOP, are not covered by these floatation modules. This is to provide better control when deploying the riser and BOP to seabed, where the modules have larger OD than the

30

2.0 Objective 1 bare riser joints so the modules are more affected by currents. This gives more stability and thereby easier to set the BOP (Hausken, 2012). Furthermore, a typical 21 riser joint is outfitted with one kill line and one chock line for well control, two hydraulic lines used to charge the BOP control system accumulator and one boost line to increase the fluid velocity inside the riser to lift cuttings. On a 16 riser, the use of a boost line will not be required. Using the slim riser, the mud velocity in the riser is higher than for the conventional riser for a given volume flow rate. A larger riser will require a higher volume flow rate to produce mud velocity in the riser to lift the cuttings, illustrated by Figure 7. The higher volume flow rate will require high volume mud handling and processing on the surface. Typically when drilling the smaller diameter hole, using the conventional riser, additional mud is injected at the BOP (circulated down the boost line) to increase the mud flow rate so that the riser effectively can lift the cuttings out of the riser. Again, using the smaller diameter riser the mud boosting line is not required (Theiss, 2012). The rig needs to be able to support the weight of flotation modules and riser joint. Larger riser will add more weight to the deck, both installed and when stored on deck. Large riser also requires more space on deck when stored. Smaller rigs may not have the adequate deck space and deck load capacity for the long strings. However, a decrease size of the riser will give a substantial reduction to the requirement.

31

2.0 Objective 1

Velocity m/sec

0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Pump Rate m3/hour

16"
21"

Figure 7 - Difference in velocity of a 16" and 21" drilling riser

32

2.0 Objective 1 Table 12 illustrates the reduction weight requirements when using a slim riser.
Table 12 - Characteristics of Deepwater Risers (Hausken, 2012)

Riser Characteristics 21" OD Joint weight w/lines (dry) (kg/m) Weight of floatation modules (dry) (kg/m) Buoyancy of floatation modules (kg/m) Dimension of Floatation modules (OD) Total weight (dry) (kg/m) Weight of a 1500m Drilling Riser w/ 95% modules (dry) (tonnes) Weight of a 3000m Drilling Riser w/ 95% modules (dry) (tonnes) 486 16" OD 298 Change - 39 %

451

273

- 39 %

582

343

- 41 %

55-1/8 (1.40 m)

42 (1.07 m)

- 24 %

936

570

- 39 %

1370

835

- 535

2740

1670

- 1070

From Table 12 it is seen that the dry weight of the 16 riser joint could have up to 40% reduction in weight compared to the 21 riser joint. The total weight (riser joint with auxiliary lines + floatation modules) also has a 40% reduction if a slim riser is selected for the drilling operation. A slim riser of 1500 meters could give a weight reduction of more than 500 tonnes to the rig when the riser is stored on deck. Figure 8 illustrates the riser and the placing of the auxiliary lines and floatation modules.

33

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 8 - Riser with auxiliary lines and floatation module (Balmoral, 2012)

When the riser is not deployed it is stored in racks on deck, with floatation modules attached. From Table 12 it can be seen that a space reduction of roughly 24% can be achieved by selecting a slim riser with its outer dimension when the floatation modules are attached. From Taylor et al., a 21 riser of 1500 meters could require near 500m2 of storage space. By assuming that the 16 riser could be stored at the same height, a reduction of 24% would now require a deck space of 380m2. Figure 9 illustrates the marine riser stored in racks.

34

2.0 Objective 1

Figure 9 - Riser stored in racks on deck (Dvorak, 2011)

2.5.3 Active Pit, Tension and VDL

The riser top tension is part of the variable deck load when the riser is installed, so a decrease in the volume of the riser and weight reduction of mud in the riser will then have a reduction of requirement to the riser top tension which consumes some of the variable deck load capacity. Considering drilling in deep water by using a conventional riser will require large tensioning capacity to the drilling unit. The largest tension system is to be found on the 5th and 6th generation semi-submersibles. Considering the usage of a slim riser, a decrease in the following factors is possible: requirement to the tension system active mud pits storage space

These are all factors that influence the variable deck load. Reducing the requirement of deck load capacity and riser tension systems may bring older and smaller rigs into the deepwater market.

35

2.0 Objective 1

2.5.4 Mud and Riser Volume

The reduction of volume of the marine riser will require less mud volume from the active pit, i.e. less mud that are in a circulating loop in the riser and well. Table 13 illustrates weight of mud in a 21 and a 16riser at a water depth of 1500 meters and a typical mud density of 1.44 SG (12 ppg) and 1.68 SG (14 ppg).
Table 13 - Mud Weight in Marine Riser

Mud weight in a 1500 meters Marine Riser 21 OD Inner Riser Volume (m3) Mud Weight in Riser (1.44 SG) (tonnes) Mud Weight in Riser (1.68 SG) (tonnes) 290 16 OD 160 Change - 130

417

230

- 187

487

269

- 218

It is observed that the inner volume of the two different riser sizes have a reduction of 130m3, i.e. a reduction of 130m3 of mud that is needed in the active pit for the circulation. By reduction the size of the marine riser, a weight reduction of the deck load is achieved as a result from less mud in pits, as well as less mud in riser which influence the tensioning system and furthermore the VDL. Figure 10 illustrate the increase of mud volume in riser when increasing the water depth.

36

2.0 Objective 1

Inner Volume of Riser (m3)

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Water Depth (m)

16" 21"

Figure 10 - Difference in mud volume with increasing water depth

37

2.0 Objective 1

2.5.5 Reduction in Required Capacity of the Tensioning System

The function of the tensioner system is to apply vertical forces to the top of the marine riser, holding its weight in water to control the displacements and stresses. The rig will experience both vertically and laterally movement in response to wind and current, so the system needs to provide nearly constant tension to the marine riser while drilling (API, 2001). An assumption needed to be induced in order to illustrate the tension requirement for usage of a 16 OD marine riser: The marine riser has a proportional decrease of cross-section for all pipes, i.e. when the outer diameter (OD) decreases from 21 to 16 the thickness of pipe wall also decreases (proven by zero differential of hoop stresses)

Proportional Reduction of Cross-Section The hoop stress is generated due to pressure differential between outer and inner pressure of a pipe. If the inner pressure is greater than the outer pressure, the pipe gets a circumferential expansion as well as thinning of the pipe wall (Palmer and King, 2008). The equation for hoop stress for a pipe is given as:

Where p = pressure, D = diameter and t = wall thickness. For high D/t pipe the hoop stress is

showing that constant hoop stress is given by proportional reduction between diameter and wall thickness. Thus, the cross-section reduction is given by: ( ) ( )

The result allows the riser weight to have the potential for downscaling to 0.58, i.e. a 42% reduction. Proof is given by calculation, found in Appendix A.

38

2.0 Objective 1 Simplified Riser Tension Analysis The reduction of requirement to the tensioning system can also be illustrated by a simplified riser tension analysis. It states that a body immersed in a fluid, would have an uplift force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. Thus, the tension needed to hold up the pipe is given as total weight (dry) subtracted by the buoyant force (Sparks, 2007):

Where Wtot = total weight (Wtrue + Wmud) and Wf = weight of displaced fluid. Note that this is a simplified calculation where its only purpose is to find the difference or reduced requirement to the tensioning system. Thus, the analysis is applied to the whole riser, where the riser and auxiliary lines are assumed as straight pipes, so the flanges and floatation modules are neglected. Furthermore, the analysis says nothing about internal pressure. The total weight is given from the weight of pipe material and internal mud, with a mud density of 1.68 SG (14 ppg). The calculation is found in Appendix A, and the result is as follows:

The numbers are high as they do not include the buoyant force from the flotation modules. However, the result would give a good indication of what one may expect as a reduction of tensioning requirement, given as a percentage. From the simplified riser tension analysis, as well as the result from proportional reduction of cross-section and hoop stress, a reduction in requirement of the tensioning system in the range of 40 - 45% is foreseen. A weight reduction of 42% is selected and it is possible to plot the required tension of the 16 marine riser, illustrated in Figure 11.

39

2.0 Objective 1

2.5.6 Required Capacity of the Riser Tensioning

As illustrated in Table 13, a large reduction of the inner volume is achieved by selecting the slim riser, and from Table 12 a weight reduction of the riser joint is illustrated. A similar illustration is given in Figure 11. These figures are created from data collected from almost all the semi-submersibles on the market today (the blue dots), plotted with their tensioning capacity and rated operating water depth. The average tensioning capacity of the different semis is given in Table 14. These semis uses a 21 OD drilling riser, where the 16 OD riser is assumed having a proportional reduction of 42%, given in chapter 2.5.5. The downscaled riser is plotted with red dots. The data is found in Appendix B.
Table 14 - Tension Capacity of Rig

Average Tension Capacity for Semi-Submersibles

2nd Tensioning Capacity (MN) 2,9 3rd 3,6 4th 6,1 5th 12,6 6th 13,8

Tension Capacity (MN) 35

21''
30

Blue dot represents the actual riser Red dot represents the downscaled riser

25

20

16"

15

10

5 Water Depth (m) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 11 - Requirement of Tension Capacity

40

2.0 Objective 1 From Figure 12 it is seen that just above 10 MN is required from the rig to be doing drilling operation at 2500 meters of water. Table 14 shows that the required rig for an operating depth of 2500 meters and 10 MN would be a 5th generation semi or newer. By selecting a marine riser with 16 OD, one can see from Figure 12 that for the same depth of 2500 meters about 6 MN is required in riser tension capacity, i.e. the 4th generation into this operating water depth is found to meet the requirement. The tensioning system can maintain its capacity of today without requirement for any upgrade, just by replacing the convention drilling riser with a slim drilling riser.
Tension Capacity (MN) 35

21''
30

25

20

16"

15

10

5 Water Depth (m)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Figure 12 - Tension vs. Water Depth at 2500 meters

By examine the curves in Figure 12 combined with Table 14, it is seen that it could be possible to use one earlier rig generation to perform the drilling operation, at a given depth. Comparing the 4th and 5th generation rig in Table 1, has an average day rate of 370 00 USD and 450 000 USD respectively, would give a reduction in day rate of roughly 18%. Alternatively, by examine this graph from another angle it is observed that by selecting a 4th generation semi with its 6 MN tensioning capacity, one could achieve 1000 meters of increase in operating water depth, increasing from 1500 meters to 2500 meters. Figure 13 illustrated the potential of increase in water depth by selecting a 16 marine riser.

41

2.0 Objective 1
Tension Capacity (MN) 35

21''
30

25

20

16"

15

10

5 Water Depth (m) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 13 - Increase in WD with existing Tension System

An interesting observation is found by looking at a 3rd generation semi-submersible. From Table 14 an average tension capacity for the 3rd generation semi of 3.6 MN is found. Comparing the water depth at this tension capacity, the depth may be increased by more than double, increasing from 700 meters by using the 21 marine riser to an operating water depth greater than 1500 meters by selecting the 16 marine riser. See Figure 14 for illustration.

42

2.0 Objective 1

Tension Capacity (MN) 35

21''
30

25

20

16"

15

10

5 Water Depth (m) 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 14 - Tensioning Capacity of 4 MN (3 rd generation semis)

From Figure 14 it is illustrated that a 3rd generation semi can extend its operational range. When selecting a 16 OD marine riser these rigs may be able to operate in water depths greater than 1500 meters. To sum up the discussion of the tension system, two main observations are given as a result from reducing the size of a marine drilling riser: 1) Decreased requirement of the rigs tensioning system (Figure 12) 2) Increased operating water depth for smaller semis (Figure 13)

43

3.0 Objective 2

3.0 Objective 2
In this 3rd chapter of the thesis an evaluation of a potential increase in water depth capacity is presented. The key issue is what depth of exploration that can be reached in the future by using one of the largest semi-submersibles available on the market today combined with the slim well concept presented in chapter 2.3.

44

3.0 Objective 2

3.1 History Overview and Future Possibilities

As mention in the introduction of the thesis, in present time the progression in water depth capabilities has stalled. The last ten years of records in operational water depth has been around 3000 meters. High cost of either upgrading existing units or building new drilling units results in high day rates are causes for this stagnation. If no changes are made, this could be a major obstacle to improve overall improved recovery. By using a 16 marine riser on an existing 5th or 6th generation semi-submersible it may be possible to reach unexplored depths and go beyond the barrier of 3500 meters or even 4000 meter water depth. Figure 15 illustrated the history exploration and the request for the next decade.

Water Depth (m) 4500

Possible to reach a WD of 4000m during the next decade?

4000

3500

Present Record at 3107m Transoceans drillship Dhirubhai Deepwater KG2, April 11th 2011

3000

2500

2000

Future Exploration
1500

1000

History of Exploration
500 Year

0 1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Figure 15 - Future Goals and Possibilities (Nergaard, 2010)

45

3.0 Objective 2

3.2 Potential for Increased Water Depth Capacity

Even some of the largest rigs do not have spare capacity to store the full string of riser for 4000 meters of water depth. Using a slim riser reduces the volume and weight of the riser so that it is possible to store a drilling riser of this length. This can make a difference in whether or not there is a potential for an increase of water depth with todays 5th or 6th generation semi-submersibles. Figure 11 illustrated the tension capacity required for the two risers, where the curves fit the following equations: 21 Marine Riser: 16 Marine Riser: y = 2,37e0,0006x y = 1,38e0,0006x

Where y = Tension (MN) and x = Water Depth (m). The data and equations are found in Appendix B. From Table 15 some water depths of interest are calculated, and its requirement of tensioner to achieve these new records of exploration depths.
Table 15 - Riser Tension Requirement beyond 3000 meters Water Depth

Capacity Requirement to achieve new WD Records Water Depth (Meters) 3300 3500 3700 4000 4400 21 (MN) 17.2 19.4 21.8 26.1 33.2 16 (MN) 10.0 11.2 12.7 15.2 19.3 Change (MN) 7.2 8.2 9.1 10.9 13.9

By examine the tension capacity required to the reach a water depth of 4000 meters, the 21 and 16 riser requires 26.1 MN and 15.2 MN, respectively. This is illustrated in Figure 16.

46

3.0 Objective 2
Tension Capacity (MN) 35

21''
30

25

20

16"

15

10

5
Water Depth (m) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 16 - Requirement to 4000m Water Depth

Comparing these values with some of the largest rigs available on the market today, listed in Table 16, one can see that the requirement of 26.1 MN for a 21 riser system fall short in capacity. Also, assuming the cost of building a new rig with a tension capacity of 26 MN may be uneconomic all together. Hence, by modify the rigs to a 16 riser system it can be observed that all of the largest rigs may be able to reach the 4000 meter barrier, considering tensioning capacity only. From Table 16 one can see that Seadrills largest semis are listed to have a riser tensioning capacity of 19.6 MN. From Table 15 a 16 riser at 4400 meters would require 19.3 MN. Using one of the largest semis from Seadrill it may be possible to reach a sufficient water depth record of 4400 meters in the future. As Seadrill provide this capacity from several of their largest rigs already available on the market today, this record may be reached without building new rigs, considering this simplified riser tension capacity model. It has to be realized that criteria other than the tensioning capacity might limit overall depth capacity increase.

47

3.0 Objective 2
Table 16 - The Largest Semi-Submersibles on the Market Today (RigLogix, 2012)

The Largest Semi-Submersibles available on the Market Today Owner Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Ventura Ventura Songa Offshore AS Atwood Oceanics Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Rig Name Ocean Monarch Ocean Endeavor West Aquarius West Hercules West Sirius SSV Victoria SSV Catarina Songa Eclipse Atwood Condor West Taurus West Capricorn West Orion Tension Capacity (MN) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 19.6 19.6 19.6

Three interesting observations are made: 1) By selecting a 16 riser system, rigs available on the market today that have above 15 MN tensioning capacity may be able to reach the ultra-deep water depth of 4000 meters 2) The largest rigs today, owned by Seadrill, have a tension capacity of 19.6 MN. A modification to a 16 riser system may present the possibility of exceeding a water depth of 4000 meters 3) The rigs and tension capacities needed to reach these ultra-deep water depths are already available on the market today, thus no need for larger rigs to be built It has to be noted that the model is simplified as no riser analysis is performed, however, the result are thought to give a good indication of the improvement potential.

48

4.0 Conclusion

4.0 Conclusion
Objective 1) - Evaluation of reduction potential of reduced wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 on overall requirements to rig: A reduction of the wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 has a potential reduction in day rates and overall time for drilling the well. The lower day rates are related to the reduction of rig requirement as earlier generation rigs can be used for deeper water wells. The reduced time is related to the lighter operation related to slim wells. This thesis concludes that a reduction in day rate of up to 20% and reduction in drilling time of 20 - 30% may be achieved. The overall saving potential for a 1500 meters water depth well is found to be in excess of 40%. When evaluating the potential of reducing the wellhead size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 on overall requirements to the rig, it becomes clear that there are savings to achieve. By introducing a slim wellhead design with a 16 riser system significant weight savings is obtained. With respect to variable deck load it is possible to achieve up to 50% in weight reduction for the BOP and 40% weight reduction for the slim drilling riser, giving a total reduction of 500 tonnes or more. Reduced diameter of the riser joints and flotation modules give a reduction of deck space of more than 100m3. The overall reduction may introduce smaller, lighter rigs into larger arenas. It is difficult, as well as incorrect, to only look at the factors separately, since one would affects the other. One needs to look at this reduction of requirement from the overall picture. The merits of the slim wellhead design can be summed up as follows: Slim riser has less weight due to less material and less mud volume in riser Slim riser thus requires less tension capacity from rig Less mud displacement volume Less mud chemicals on rig A 16 marine drilling riser requires less storage space and VDL capacity A slim wellhead results in lighter BOP which gives reduced deck weight before installed Lower weight gives an increase in the rigs stability Reduced weight in derrick which has an impact on the rigs stability

49

4.0 Conclusion Reduced diameter of drilled sections give reduced casing sizes and again reduced weight while stored on deck Slim section requires less mud during drilling Reduced annulus in well results in less cementing jobs Reduced diameters give less drill cuttings that needs to be transported to surface and further to shore by vessels Less cuttings to surface results in less weight on rig while stored on deck Reduced numbers of casing strings gives less crane lifts Less crane lifts reduces the need for supply boats

The conclusion is that a reduction in the nominal drilling system size from 18-3/4 to 13-5/8 could enable the use of smaller, less capable and l ess expensive drilling vessels. Smaller, less expensive, older generation rigs could be outfitted to drill in deeper water if the wellhead and riser size was reduced. The greater the water depth, the more important this becomes. A 4th generation semi could be used instead of a 5th or 6th generation semi, resulting in a cost saving of 160 000 to 260 000 USD/day included cost of personnel. Furthermore, reducing drill time with 20 - 30% to reach total depth, creating substantial savings in terms of costs.

50

4.0 Conclusion Objective 2) - Evaluation of potential increase in water depth capacity by reduction of the wellhead size: A key consequence of a conventional wellhead design today is the riser size. A larger riser increases the weight and volume of the riser, the weight and volume of the mud in the riser, and therefore the riser top tension required from the vessel. The larger riser requires more space to store on the deck and more variable deck load capacity when the riser is on deck. The larger mud volume requires larger mud tanks and processing equipment. Reduction of wellhead size can give a potential increase in water depth capacity by reducing the size of the marine drilling riser. When evaluation the size reduction of the riser it was found that by selecting a 16 riser syste m it may be possible to achieve reduced requirement to tension system capacity with 40%. Turning this around it has been shown that combining todays high tension capacity for 5th/6th generation rig with a 16 riser might facilitate drilling in water depths of 4000 meters and beyond. It is shown that a 15 MN of tensioning capacity might facilitate operations in 4000 meter and beyond. This capacity is found on rigs available on the market today, where the largest rigs today have a tension capacity of 19.6 MN.

51

5.0 Recommendation for Future Work

5.0 Recommendation for Future Work

The main focus of this thesis has been the consequences of reducing the wellhead size, with special focus on the marine drilling riser and the riser system. The downscaling is based on simple assumptions to give rough indications of change in capabilities. The next step is verification work in terms of detail riser analyses for the different cases presented in the thesis, where one needs to examine the consequences of waves and currents being introduced to the slim drilling riser. Additionally, an in-depth analysis will have to be done to verify the time saving potential. Based on this a comprehensive case study should be initiated in which the well related enabling technologies are involved with the subsea and rig related expertise to prepare a complete case that can attract support from different environments. Finally, it is proposed to explore the potential savings for smaller and lighter subsea production systems associated with the smaller wellheads in terms of lower investment and operational cost.

52

References

References
ABBEDISSEN, K. 06.05 2012. RE: Personal communication with a field expert (phone/e-mail); International Drilling Solutions (I-DS), Norway. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. API 2001. Recommended Practice for Design, Selection, Operation and Maintenance of Marine Drilling Riser Systems (API 16Q). American Petroleum Institute. API 2004. Specification for Marine Drilling Riser Equipment (API 16F). American Petroleum Institute. BALMORAL 2012. Installation/handling guidelines for marine drilling riser buoyancy modules. Aberdeen: BALMORAL OFFSHORE ENGINEERING. CHAKRABARTI, S. K. 2005. Handbook of offshore engineering, Amsterdam, Elsevier. CHILDERS, M. & QUINTERO, A. 2004. Slim Riser - A Cost-Effective Tool for Ultra Deepwater Drilling. In: ATWOOD OCEANICS (ed.) Asia Pacific Drilling Conference and Exhibition. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: IADC/Society of Petroleum Engineers DVORAK, P. 2011. A stackable riser guard saves space on install ships [Online]. Windpower Engineering. Available: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/projects/astackable-riser-guard-saves-space-on-install-ships/ [Accessed 03.06 2012]. ERIVWO, O. E., OKWA, H. D., IDEH, M. A., ADUBA, A. A. & WOODLAND, D. C. 2003. Reducing Development Cost in Forcados-Yokri Field with Application of Slim Well Technology. In: SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (ed.) SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers. FEDER, J. 2001. Casing and Cementing, Austin, Tex., Published by Petroleum Extension Service, Continuing & Extended Education, the University of Texas at Austin in cooperation with International Association of Drilling Contractors. GABOLDE, G. & NGUYEN, J.-P. 1999. Drilling data handbook, Paris, ditions Technip. HAUSKEN, K. 09.05.2012 2012. RE: Personal communication with a field expert (phone/e-mail); Trelleborg Norway. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. HOLDHUS, R. 06.06 2012. RE: Personal communication with a mud expert (phone/e-mail); M-I SWACO, Norway. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. HUFTHAMMER, H. 25.04 2012. RE: Personal communication with a field expert (phone/e-mail); IKM Cleandrill, Norway. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. KONRAD, J. 2010. Blowout Preventer Photos Exclusive HiRes Images Of The Deepwater Horizons BOP [Online]. gCaptain. Available: http://gcaptain.com/exclusive-hires-photos-deepwater?17393 [Accessed 03.06 2012].

53

References
MCCRAE, H. 2003. Marine riser systems and subsea blowout preventers, Austin, Tex., Published by Petroleum Extension Service, Continuing & Extended Education, the University of Texas at Austin in cooperation with International Association of Drilling Contractors. MIKALSEN, K. H. 24.04 2012. RE: Personal communication with a field expert (phone/e-mail); Baker Hughes, Norway. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. NERGAARD, A. 2010. 30 years with Norwegian subsea production Thoughts at the outset of 2nd half. Den 23. Kristiansandkonferansen innen bore-og brnnteknologi. Raddison Blu Caledonien Hotel, Kristiansand, Norway: University Of Stavanger. NERGAARD, A. 2012. RE: Personal communication with Professor Arnfinn Nergaard; University of Stavanger. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. OSC. 2010. A Brief History of Offshore Oil Drilling [Online]. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Available: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/document/brief-historyoffshore-oil-drilling [Accessed 19.04 2012]. PALMER, A. C. & KING, R. A. 2008. Subsea pipeline engineering, Tulsa, Okla., PennWell. RIGLOGIX 2012. Online Offshore Rig Reporting System (Online Rig Database). RigZone. SCHLUMBERGER. 2012. The Oilfield Glossary: Where the Oil Field Meets the Dictionary [Online]. Schlumberger. Available: www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com [Accessed 24.05 2012]. SPARKS, C. P. 2007. Fundamentals of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic principles and Simplified analyses, Tulsa, Okla., PennWell. TAYLOR, B., THEISS, D., TOALSON, D. & MOWELL, R. 2003. Reducing the Cost of Deepwater Subsea Wells. In: CAMERON & OCEAN PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY (eds.). Houston, Texas: Offshore Technology Conference. THEISS, D. 26.04 2012. RE: Personal communication with a field expert (phone/e-mail); Cameron Houston, TX. Type to GUNDERSEN, J. N. TRANSOCEAN. 2011. News Release Apr 11. 2011, World Water-Depth Drilling Record in 10,194 Feet of Water [Online]. ZUG, SWITZERLAND: Transocean Ltd. Available: http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/News748.html?c=113031&p=irol-news&nyo=0 [Accessed 19.04 2012]. TUBBS, D., ENERGY, L. & WALLACE, J. 2006. Slimming the Wellbore Design Enhances Drilling Economics in Field Development. In: ENVENTURE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY & BURLINGTON RESOURCES (eds.) SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

54

Appendix A Calculations

Appendix A Calculations3

Mud Volume in Well 13-5/8 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )( ( )(

) )

Total of mud from the slim casing program:

Formulas for areas and volumes used in the Appendixes are from GABOLDE, G. & NGUYEN, J.-P. 1999. Drilling data handbook, Paris, ditions Technip
3

55

Appendix A Calculations

Mud Volume in Well 18-3/4 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )( ( )(

) )

( )( ( )(

) )

Total of mud from the conventional casing program:

56

Appendix A Calculations

Extracted Formation 13-5/8 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )(

( )(

( )(

57

Appendix A Calculations

Extracted Formation 18-3/4 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )(

( )(

( )(

( )(

58

Appendix A Calculations

Cemented Annulus Volume 13-5/8 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )(

( )(

( )(

Cemented Annulus Volume 18-3/4 Wellhead Casing Program

( )( )

( )(

( )(

( )(

( )(

59

Appendix A Calculations

Proof of Proportional Reduction of Cross-Section and Hoop Stress

( )(
4

) )

( )

Area of 21 riser: OD: 21 = 0.5334 m ID: 19.5 = 0.4953 m Wall thickness, t = 0.75 = 0.0190 m Area of 16 riser: OD: 16 = 0.4064 m Area of 21 = 0.0308m3 Reduction of Cross section = 0.58

( )(

( )(

o Known wall thickness and ID

o Unknown wall thickness and ID found as follows: ( ( ) ) ( )( ( ) ) ) ( ) )

( )( o o

( ) (

Source: PALMER, A. C. & KING, R. A. 2008. Subsea pipeline engineering, Tulsa, Okla., PennWell.

60

Appendix A Calculations This gives us Hoop Stress for the 21 and 16 riser:

This gives the final result as:

Nomenclature of Symbols used for Proof of the Hoop Stress calculation OD ID A21 A16 A(OD) h Outer Diameter Inner Diameter Area of Annulus to the 21 Riser Area of Annulus to the 16 Riser Area of Riser with OD rho, density to fluid Riser length of 1500 meters A(ID) pi po h t Do Di Area inside of Riser, i.e. ID Pressure inside riser External Pressure on riser surface Hoop stress Wall thickness Outer Diamter Inner diameter

61

Appendix A Calculations

Volume of Marine Riser

( )(

21 Marine Riser OD = 21 = 0.5334 m ID = 19.5 = 0.4953 m

16 Marine Riser OD = 16 = 0.4064 m ID = 14.5 = 0.3648 m

Volumes of a 21 Marine Riser

( ) ( )( ) (

Volumes of a 16 Marine Riser

) ( )( )

( )( ( )

) ( )

( )( ( )

) ( )

Mud Weight Inside the 21 Marine Riser Mud type 1.44 SG = 1440 kg/m3 1440kg/m3 * 289m3 = 416.2 tonnes Mud type 1.68 SG = 1680 kg/m3 1680kg/m3 * 289m3 = 485.5 tonnes

Mud Weight Inside the 16 Marine Riser Mud type 1.44 SG = 1440 kg/m3 1440kg/m3 * 159.8m3 = 230.4 tonnes Mud type 1.68 SG = 1680 kg/m3 1680kg/m3 * 159.8m3 = 268.8 tonnes

62

Appendix A Calculations Steel Weight of the 21 Marine Riser (without auxiliary lines)
( ) ( )

Steel Weight of the 16 Marine Riser (without auxiliary lines)

( ) ( )

Steel weight, = 7850 kg/m3

Weight of 1500 m 21 Riser 7850kg/m3 * 46.2m3 = 362.7 tonnes

Weight of 1500 m 16 Riser 7850kg/m3 * 34.8m3 = 273.2 tonnes

Weight of a 21 Riser per meter

Weight of a 16 Riser per meter

Weight of a 21 Riser Joint (75 ft.= 22.86m) 241.8 kg/m * 22.86 m = 5.5 tonnes/joint

Weight of a 16 Riser Joint (65 ft.=19.81m) 182.1 kg/m * 19.81 m = 3.6 tonnes/joint

Nomenclature of Symbols used for Marine Riser calculation OD ID Outer Diameter Inner Diameter rho, density to steel h V 21 V 16 Riser length of 1500 meters Volume of Annulus to the 21 riser Volume of Annulus to the 16 riser

63

Appendix A Calculations

Volume and Weight of Riser Joint

with C&K, Hydraulic and Boost line
Dimensions used for calculation: C&K line (OD x ID) Hydraulic line (OD x ID) Boost line (OD x ID) 21" Riser Joint (h = 75 ft. = 22.86 m) 6-3/4" x 4-3/4" (0.17 x 0.12m) 4" x 3.5" (0.10 x 0.09m) 5" x 4" (0.13 x 0.10m) 16" Riser Joint (h = 65 ft. = 19.81 m) 5" x 4" (0.13 x 0.10m) 2-5/8" x 2" (0.07 x 0.05m) -

21" Riser Joint Volume of auxiliary lines ( )( )

16" Riser Joint

Density of steel, = 7850kg/m3 ( )( ) ( )( )

( )(

) ( )( )

( )(

) Volume of auxiliary lines:

Volume of auxiliary lines:

64

Appendix A Calculations Weight of auxiliary lines: Wl = * Vl = 7850kg/m3 * 0.712m3 = 5.6 tonnes/joint Weight of flotation modules (dry) Wb = 10.3 tonnes/joint Weight of a 21 Riser Joint (75 ft.= 22.86m) (found from previous calculation of the marine riser) Wr = 241.8 kg/m * 22.86 m = 5.5 tonnes/joint Total Weight of Joint w/ auxiliary lines Wtot = Wt +Wl = 11.1 tonnes/joint Weight of auxiliary lines: Wl = * Vl = 7850kg/m3 * 0.288m3 = 2.3 tonnes/joint Weight of flotation modules (dry) Wb = 5.4 tonnes/joint Weight of a 16 Riser Joint (65 ft.=19.81m) (found from previous calculation of the marine riser) Wr = 182.1 kg/m * 19.81 m = 3.6 tonnes/joint Total Weight of Joint w/ auxiliary lines Wtot = Wt +Wl = 5.9 tonnes/joint

Kilogram per meter:

Kilogram per meter:

Total Weight of Joint w/ auxiliary lines and flotation modules: Wtot = Wt +Wb+Wl = 21.4 tonne/joint

Total Weight of Joint w/ auxiliary lines and flotation modules: Wtot = Wt +Wb+Wl = 11.3 tonnes/joint

Kilogram per meter:

Kilogram per meter:

Total Weight of a 1500 m riser w/95% of riser with floatation modules W1500 = 936.1kg/m * 1425m + 485.6Kg/m * 75m = 1370.4 tonnes 65

Total Weight of a 1500 m riser w/95% of riser with floatation modules W1500 = 570.4kg/m * 1425m + 297.8kg/m * 75m = 835.2 tonnes

Appendix A Calculations

Total Weight of a 3000 m riser w/95% of riser with floatation modules W3000 = 936.1kg/m * 2850m + 485.6/m * 150m = 2740.7 tonnes

Total Weight of a 3000 m riser w/95% of riser with floatation modules W3000 = 570.4kg/m * 2850m + 297.8kg/m * 150m = 1670.3 tonnes

Nomenclature of Symbols used for Riser Joint calculation OD ID h Vl Outer Diameter Inner Diameter rho, density to steel Riser Joint length Volume of auxiliary lines Wl Wb Wr Wtot W1500 W3000 Weight of auxiliary lines Weight of flotation modules Weight of bare riser joint Total weight Joint Total weight of a 1500m riser Total weight of a 3000m riser

66

Appendix A Calculations

Simplified Riser Tension Analysis

Simplified Calculation of a Riser with auxiliary lines and its displacements, neglecting the floatation modules
(results calculated in Volume of Marine Riser) 21 (OD = 0.5334m) Marine Riser, 1500m: Volume of riser = 46.2 m3 Density of steel, s = 7850 kg/m3 Density of mud, m = 1680 kg/m3 Density of water, w = 1025 kg/m3 ID = 19.5 = 0.4953 m 21 Riser joint = 22.86 m (results calculated in Volume of Marine Riser) 16 (OD = 0.4064 m) Marine Riser, 1500m: Volume of riser = 34.8 m3 Density of steel, s = 7850 kg/m3 Density of mud, m = 1680 kg/m3 Density of water, w = 1025 kg/m3 ID = 14.5 = 0.3648 m 16 Riser joint = 19.81 m

Wtrue = 7850kg/m3 * 46.2 m3 = 362.7 tonnes ( ) 21 auxiliary lines, 1500m:

Wtrue = 7850kg/m3 * 34.8 m3 = 273.2 tonnes ( )

16 auxiliary lines, 1500m:

Wtrue.l = 7850kg/m3 * 46.7 m3 = 366.7 tonnes ( )

Wtrue.l = 7850kg/m3 * 21.8 m3 = 171.2 tonnes ( )

Area: ( ( ) ) ( (

Area: ) )

Volume and buoyancy of whole riser: Vtot = A total * 1500m = 445.95 m3 Buoyancy, Br = 445.95 m3 * 1025 kg/m3 = 457.1 tonnes Tension of riser w/ lines, neglected floatation modules: = Wtrue + WMr + Wtrue.l + WMl B = Wtot - Wf = 362.7 + 485.5 + 366.7 + 108.9 457.1 tonnes T21 = 866.7 tonnes required to tension

Volume and buoyancy of whole riser: Vtot = A total * 1500m = 245.94 m3 Buoyancy, Br = 245.94 m3 * 1025 kg/m3 = 252.1 tonnes Tension of riser w/ lines, neglected floatation modules: = Wtrue+ WMr + Wtrue.l + WMl B = Wtot - Wf = 273.2 + 236.3 + 171.2 + 49.5 252.1 tonnes T16 = 478.1 tonnes required to tension

67

Appendix A Calculations

The difference in tension requirement between a 21 and 16 riser system by a simplified calculation is as follows:

Nomenclature of Symbols used for Riser Tension and Displacement calculations

OD ID Wtrue WMr Wtrue.l WMl Wtot Wf Outer diameter Inner diameter Weight of bare riser tube Weight of Mud in riser Weight of auxiliary lines Weight of mud in lines Total weight (dry) Weight of displaced fluid

A riser A lines A total V tot Br T21 T16

Area of OD riser Area of lines, OD Total area of riser with lines Total volume of OD riser and lines Buoyancy of displaced riser with lines Tension for the 21 riser Tension for the 16 riser

68

Appendix A Calculations

Velocity in Marine Riser

Graph of reduced velocity and pump rate in Marine Riser when reducing size from a 21 to 16 were plotted in Excel by following volume and selected water depths: 21 OD Riser ( )( ID = 19.5 = 0.4953 m ( )( ) ) ID=14.5 = 0.3683 m ( )( ) 16 OD Riser

( )(

Selected Water Depth is 0 and 2000 meter ( )( ) ( )( )

( )(

( )(

Selected Pump Rate is 0 and 300 m3/hour

69

Appendix A Calculations

The calculated data from Velocity Of Marine Riser we could plot the following graphs

1) Mud difference / volume difference between 21 and 16 Marine Riser:

Riser Volume
Inner Volume of Riser (m3)

450

400
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Water Depth (m)

16" 21"

2) Decrease of velocity in riser when decrease size from a 21 to a 16 Marine Riser:

Velocity m/sec

Riser Velocity

0,9
0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Pump Rate m3/hour

16" 21"

70

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix5

Rig Manager
Stena Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Queiroz Galvao Oleo e Gas S.A. Dolphin Drilling Dolphin Drilling Petrobras (NOC) Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Petrobras (NOC) Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore
5

Rig Name
Stena Clyde C Kirk Rhein Jr Falcon 100 Alaskan Star Borgny Dolphin Byford Dolphin Petrobras XVI J W McLean GSF Aleutian Key GSF Grand Banks Ocean Concord Ocean Epoch Ocean General Ocean Lexington Petrobras XVII Sedco 709 Ocean New Era Ocean Nomad

Semisub Generation
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Water Depth (meters)

503 1 006 732 510 533 457 457 381 701 457 671 610 500 610 701 1 524 457 366

Variable Deck Load (tonnes)

3 220 3 749 3 047 2 540 3 175 3 025 2 313 3 475 2 540 5 103 2 041 2 722 2 722 2 722 2 313 2 870 2 222 2 997

Operating Displacement (tonnes)

21 478 24 278 21 962 20 113 24 184 24 280 23 005 27 216 21 654 24 055 16 872 22 411 16 668 16 901 23 005 23 058 16 668 24 508

Liquid Mud Capacity (m3)

458 569 559 328 239 633 400 530 300 763 293 534 493 349 400 708 323 369

Sack Storage (m3)

57 101 170 170 170 170 124 113 170 142 170 144 144 170 111 85 142 65

Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP)

4 800 4 800 4 800 3 200 4 400 4 800 3 200 5 100 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 3 200 4 800 3 400 4 800

Day Rate (USD)

Hoisting Capacity (tonnes)

544 635

$248 000

590 454

$233 000 $324 000

567 544 599 590 590

$297 000 $249 000

590 454 454 454

$271 000

454 454 590 454

$235 000

635

Source: RIGLOGIX 2012. Online Offshore Rig Reporting System (Online Rig Database). RigZone

71

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Water Depth (meters) 457 610 975 503 2 000 610 305 2 000 457 396 335 1 219 1 524 305 701 305 366 545 457 1 219 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 3 312 2 268 3 048 2 649 4 001 3 276 2 429 4 001 2 856 2 253 2 540 2 499 2 722 3 000 2 095 3 000 2 100 2 631 3 599 2 495 17 002 19 610 19 749 21 779 24 714 15 694 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 26 100 19 162 23 541 19 637 23 342 24 504 23 886 22 686 17 714 24 099 32 796 19 057 23 220 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 719 270 287 359 398 386 704 332 511 239 420 419 254 395 410 270 350 348 666 419 Sack Storage (m3) 170 113 170 85 85 77 85 85 85 42 113 45 113 170 170 87 28 85 113 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 4 800 4 800 3 200 4 800 4 800 4 800 3 200 4 800 3 200 4 800 4 800 4 800 6 400 4 800 4 800 4 800 3 200 3 200 4 800 4 800 $235 000 $260 000 $270 000 $375 000 $200 000 $239 000 $252 000 $311 000 $241 173 $357 000 Day Rate (USD) $230 000 $285 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 507 454 454 454 590 454 590 590 590 454 454 499 680 644 590 454 590 454 544 454

Rig Manager Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Essar Oilfields Services Ltd. Diamond Offshore Noble Drilling Noble Drilling ENSCO ENSCO ENSCO Larsen O&G Saipem Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling

Rig Name Ocean Princess Ocean Saratoga Ocean Onyx Ocean Whittington Sedco 702 Sedco 703 Sedco 704 Sedco 706 Sedco 601 Essar Wildcat Ocean Ambassador Noble Therald Martin Noble Driller ENSCO 5002 ENSCO 5000 ENSCO 5003 Petrolia Scarabeo 4 Sedneth 701 Noble Lorris Bouzigard

72

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Water Depth (meters) 457 457 457 457 457 549 701 457 549 1 524 1 524 457 457 457 457 1 097 1 067 914 1 067 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 19 684 30 416 23 650 26 575 25 741 29 689 39 482 37 857 28 625 24 067 28 103 22 641 25 791 29 080 28 301 23 887 29 105 30 095 28 300 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 314 588 270 528 301 414 999 350 524 516 329 352 341 424 333 539 335 348 391 Sack Storage (m3) 170 278 170 87 368 198 232 113 204 145 212 170 212 170 57 85 210 227 113 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 4 800 6 000 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 $247 000 $265 000 $293 000 $364 000 $263 000 $274 000 $435 000 $247 000 $340 000 $545 000 $220 000 $220 000 $482 000 $242 000 $429 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 544 454 567 454 605 635 567 454 567 544 454 567 578 590 590 590 454 590 476

Rig Manager

Rig Name

Semisub Generation 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 1 727 3 048 3 200 4 001 3 556 3 199 3 700 2 994 4 300 3 266 4 400 2 350 3 899 3 399 3 049 2 092 3 499 4 063 2 599

Day Rate (USD) $224 600

Songa Offshore AS Diamond Offshore Dolphin Drilling Dolphin Drilling Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Odfjell Noble Drilling Songa Offshore AS Atwood Oceanics Transocean Ltd. ENSCO Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd.

Songa Venus Ocean Bounty Borgsten Dolphin Bredford Dolphin Ocean Guardian Transocean John Shaw Songa Delta Noble Ton Van Langeveld Songa Dee Atwood Hunter M G Hulme Jr ENSCO 5004 Transocean Winner Transocean Prospect Transocean Searcher Sedco 700 Transocean Amirante Transocean Driller Transocean Legend

73

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Water Depth (meters) 1 372 549 488 488 457 1 067 1 219 1 006 457 853 457 1 036 366 549 457 1 372 1 402 780 1 189 457 457 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 2 266 3 536 3 989 3 446 2 898 3 556 3 856 3 039 2 268 3 447 3 447 3 756 4 167 2 771 4 081 3 515 4 509 3 221 3 336 4 082 3 200 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 24 929 24 792 25 320 25 932 27 663 19 637 27 515 25 972 25 674 26 796 24 309 25 642 25 419 25 642 28 395 27 415 28 109 31 506 25 585 27 958 28 109 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 686 312 382 334 385 579 429 525 313 591 737 616 277 352 355 500 657 341 477 353 471 Sack Storage (m3) 85 85 42 85 170 85 142 76 99 99 99 170 99 227 212 212 72 154 219 139 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 3 200 4 800 3 200 6 600 4 800 4 800 4 800 3 200 4 800 5 100 5 100 5 100 3 200 4 800 3 200 4 800 4 800 3 400 4 800 4 800 4 800 $319 000 $235 000 $340 000 $256 000 $349 000 $283 500 $283 500 $257 000 $260 000 $260 000 $260 000 $250 000 $255 000 $280 000 $157 000 Day Rate (USD) $289 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 603 590 590 590 567 454 454 590 567 590 590 635 567 635 635 635 631 635 454 590 603

Rig Manager Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Awilco Drilling PLC Transocean Ltd. Awilco Drilling PLC Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Saipem Petrobras (NOC) Odfjell ENSCO

Rig Name Sedco 710 Sedco 711 Sedco 712 Sedco 714 Ocean Vanguard Ocean Winner Ocean Worker Ocean Yatzy Ocean Patriot GSF Rig 135 GSF Rig 140 GSF Arctic I WilPhoenix GSF Arctic III WilHunter Sovereign Explorer Jim Cunningham Scarabeo 6 Petrobras X Deepsea Bergen ENSCO 5005

74

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Water Depth (meters) 457 1 524 1 524 1 524 2 195 1 890 457 610 2 000 610 1 600 1 524 914 1 676 1 067 1 646 1 829 1 829 2 438 1 372 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 2 721 4 536 3 992 4 999 3 629 3 773 3 503 5 289 4 500 4 196 3 912 7 507 4 082 5 080 5 080 6 109 5 122 3 629 3 629 3 499 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 28 110 28 924 26 222 49 706 26 585 29 665 28 766 30 699 41 998 39 502 44 452 43 721 30 194 33 315 33 270 52 843 33 367 28 775 27 230 37 523 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 450 576 864 525 978 1 141 1 123 760 1 090 506 653 1 375 1 028 533 474 636 509 1 739 1 670 668 Sack Storage (m3) 142 145 145 283 99 99 113 425 465 142 227 113 283 113 142 142 100 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 3 200 5 100 4 800 4 800 6 400 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 5 100 5 250 6 600 4 800 5 400 5 100 3 200 5 400 6 000 4 800 $300 000 $301 000 $380 000 $325 000 $352 000 $360 000 $437 000 $530 000 $503 000 $399 000 $344 000 $341 000 $425 000 $335 000 $505 000 Day Rate (USD) $222 000 $399 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 590 544 454 680 875 590 527 590 581 875 816 635 907 590 522 907 635 680 680 680

Rig Manager Transocean Ltd. Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling Petrobras (NOC) Dolphin Drilling Seadrill Ltd. Saipem Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Maersk Drilling Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Transocean Ltd.

Rig Name Actinia Atwood Eagle Atwood Falcon Henry Goodrich Noble Homer Ferrington Petrobras XXIII Borgland Dolphin West Alpha Scarabeo 5 Paul B Loyd Jr Ocean Alliance Ocean America Maersk Explorer Ocean Star Ocean Quest Jack Bates Ocean Victory Noble Jim Thompson Noble Amos Runner Transocean Rather

75

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 Water Depth (meters) 1 524 1 981 2 134 500 1 372 500 1 753 2 134 1 829 3 048 1 981 2 286 1 707 1 707 1 494 1 524 1 707 1 707 1 829 3 048 3 048 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 3 499 4 253 3 726 4 460 4 599 4 469 5 080 3 629 3 629 4 990 3 850 8 855 3 500 3 500 4 014 6 400 3 500 3 500 5 500 7 000 7 000 49 310 38 174 44 693 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 36 931 22 713 39 600 46 440 44 459 36 199 46 173 27 230 27 230 31 701 25 577 39 316 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 763 641 1 590 983 2 183 175 1 297 1 852 1 685 1 460 844 1 574 636 636 500 448 636 636 2 454 2 990 2 989 Sack Storage (m3) 99 85 141 142 142 142 170 170 57 57 71 465 57 57 283 176 176 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 4 800 4 800 6 000 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 4 800 6 400 6 400 6 600 4 800 4 800 7 000 4 800 4 800 4 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 $320 000 $275 000 $275 000 $440 000 $623 000 $474 000 $404 000 $450 000 $512 000 $400 000 $296 000 $320 000 407000 $325 000 $428 000 $275 000 $275 000 $319 000 $315 000 Day Rate (USD) Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 680 603 680 590 860 590 726 680 680 680 680 726 590 590 680 680 590 590 590 1 134

Rig Manager

Rig Name Transocean Richardson Sedco 707 Transocean Marianas Transocean Polar Pioneer Transocean Leader Transocean Arctic GSF Celtic Sea Noble Max Smith Noble Paul Romano Noble Paul Wolff ENSCO 5001 ENSCO 5006 ENSCO 6003 ENSCO 6004 Scarabeo 7 Ocean Valiant ENSCO 6002 ENSCO 6001 West Venture West Orion West Sirius

Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Noble Drilling ENSCO ENSCO ENSCO ENSCO Saipem Diamond Offshore ENSCO ENSCO Seadrill Ltd. Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd

76

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Water Depth (meters) 3 048 3 048 2 438 3 048 3 048 2 438 3 048 2 499 1 981 2 438 2 134 2 286 2 286 2 591 2 286 3 048 2 286 3 658 3 048 3 658 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 4 990 6 250 7 684 6 096 6 096 5 588 6 001 6 250 5 588 7 711 4 500 5 998 5 998 5 987 7 000 8 001 13 500 7 257 8 001 7 257 52 597 46 932 43 282 42 464 35 641 47 047 52 597 35 638 24 314 33 871 34 470 34 470 33 791 42 190 46 502 53 717 55 429 46 502 52 597 Operating Displacement (tonnes) Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 1 757 1 668 1 749 1 582 1 609 1 104 1 240 1 668 1 104 1 936 795 1 717 1 720 1 829 3 029 3 018 1 876 2 035 2 968 2 035 Sack Storage (m3) 85 283 170 170 170 566 170 227 87 283 283 283 147 173 283 142 283 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 8 800 6 600 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 200 8 800 6 600 8 200 7 000 6 600 8 800 6 600 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 9 600 8 800 9 600 Day Rate (USD) $417 000 $535 000 $550 000 $395 000 $285 000 $450 000 $511 635 $540 000 $276 000 $325 000 $351 000 $440 000 $470 000 $535 000 $580 000 $440 000 $403 000 $530 000 $407 000 $474 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 680 907 875 680 907 933 680 907 1 134 907 1 134 1 134 1 134

Rig Manager

Rig Name Noble Clyde Boudreaux Eirik Raude Deepwater Nautilus Ocean Monarch Ocean Endeavor Ocean Rover Ocean Confidence Leiv Eiriksson Ocean Baroness ENSCO 7500 Blackford Dolphin Sedco Energy Sedco Express Cajun Express GSF Development Driller II Ocean Valor Development Driller III Noble Jim Day Ocean Courage Noble Danny Adkins

Noble Drilling Ocean Rig Asa Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Ocean Rig Asa Diamond Offshore ENSCO Dolphin Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling Diamond Offshore Noble Drilling

77

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Water Depth (meters) 3 048 3 048 2 591 2 591 3 048 2 286 3 048 2 999 3 048 3 048 3 048 2 591 3 048 2 286 2 591 2 591 3 048 3 658 2 499 Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 13 500 13 500 7 257 7 257 5 443 7 000 5 443 6 000 8 500 8 500 8 000 8 000 6 200 7 000 8 000 8 000 6 200 8 165 6 001 49 532 48 019 49 750 46 567 42 190 Operating Displacement (tonnes) Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 3 005 3 005 2 576 2 528 1 614 3 029 1 000 1 100 2 806 2 806 2 664 2 528 2 000 2 990 2 576 2 576 2 000 3 037 2 536 Sack Storage (m3) 283 227 227 99 156 142 142 212 212 177 227 144 176 227 227 144 227 212 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 9 600 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 8 800 $473 000 514000 $423 500 525000 487000 $295 000 $375 000 $465 000 $471 000 $490 000 $490 000 $545 000 $220 000 $513 000 $544 000 $623 000 Day Rate (USD) $476 000 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) 1 134 1 134 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907 907

Rig Manager Maersk Drilling Maersk Drilling ENSCO ENSCO Noble Drilling Transocean Ltd. Seadrill Ltd. Seadrill Ltd Ventura Ventura Atwood Oceanics ENSCO Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd ENSCO ENSCO Seadrill Ltd Saipem Atwood Oceanics

Rig Name Maersk Developer Maersk Discoverer ENSCO 8502 ENSCO 8503 Noble Dave Beard GSF Development Driller I West Phoenix West Eminence SSV Catarina SSV Victoria Atwood Condor ENSCO 8504 West Leo West Capricorn ENSCO 8500 ENSCO 8501 West Pegasus Scarabeo 9 Atwood Osprey

78

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Water Depth (meters) 3 658 3 048 3 048 3 048 3 048 3 000 3 000 2 285 Operating Displacement (tonnes) 55 799 39 372 Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) 2 850 2 981 3 005 64 600 64 600 43 400 2 465 2 465 1 700 1 700 2 989 Sack Storage (m3) 201 212 212 283 283 176 Mud Pumps Total Capacity (HP) 8 800 8 800 8 800 9 200 9 200 8 800 8 800 8 800 $525 000 $495 000 $483 000 $564 000 $655 000 1 134 1 134 970 907 907 907 Hoisting Capacity (tonnes)

Rig Manager

Rig Name Sevan Driller II (Brasil) Songa Eclipse Maersk Deliverer West Aquarius West Hercules Transocean Spitsbergen Transocean Barents West Taurus

Semisub Generation 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Variable Deck Load (tonnes) 10 000 6 350 13 500 7 000 7 000 7 000 7 000 7 000

Day Rate (USD)

Sevan Drilling Songa Offshore AS Maersk Drilling Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Seadrill Ltd

79

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Following table was created by Excel by taking the average value of the Rig Data

Semi-Submersible Generation
2nd Variable Deck Load (tonnes) Hoisting Capacity (tonnes) Tensioning Capacity (MN) Liquid Mud Capacity (m3) Mud Pump Capacity (HP) Sack Storage (m3) Operating Displacement (tonnes) Day Rate (USD) 2 900 530 2,9 430 4 500 120 22 000 270 000 3rd 3 400 570 3,6 460 4 600 150 27 000 300 000 4th 4 500 680 6,1 970 5 200 170 36 000 370 000 5th 6 100 860 12,6 1 760 8 100 230 41 000 450 000 6th 8 000 970 13,8 2 470 8 900 240 50 000 500 000

80

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Riser Tension Capacity

Rig Manager ENSCO ENSCO Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Dolphin Drilling Songa Offshore AS Maersk Drilling Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Queiroz Galvao Oleo e Gas S.A. Socar (NOC) Socar (NOC) Socar (NOC) Noble Drilling Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Essar Oilfields Services Ltd. Songa Offshore AS Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. KNOC (NOC) Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Dolphin Drilling Dolphin Drilling Odfjell Rig Name ENSCO 5003 ENSCO 5002 Ocean Nomad Transocean Prospect Borgsten Dolphin Songa Venus Nanhai VI Ocean Vanguard Ocean Princess Alaskan Star Absheron Shelf 1 Shelf 3 Noble Ton Van Langeveld Sedco 704 Ocean Ambassador Essar Wildcat Songa Trym Transocean Winner Transocean Searcher Doo Sung GSF Grand Banks Actinia Bredford Dolphin Byford Dolphin Deepsea Bergen Semisub Generation 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 Water Depth (meters) 305 m 305 m 366 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 510 m 198 m 200 m 200 m 457 m 305 m 335 m 396 m 400 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,6 MN 2,6 MN 2,6 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN)
(-42% from HoopStress)

1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,2 MN 1,5 MN 1,5 MN 1,5 MN 1,6 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN

81

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 Water Depth (meters) 457 m 381 m 457 m 503 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 500 m 500 m 533 m 545 m 549 m 610 m 610 m 701 m 671 m 701 m 780 m 914 m 914 m 450 m 549 m 701 m 457 m 475 m 457 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 2,8 MN 3,0 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,3 MN 3,6 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,7 MN 1,8 MN 1,8 MN 1,8 MN 1,8 MN 1,9 MN 2,1 MN

Rig Manager China Oilfield Services Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Petrobras (NOC) Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. ENSCO Transocean Ltd. Saipem Transocean Ltd. Dolphin Drilling Saipem Songa Offshore AS Frigstad Offshore Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Odfjell Saipem Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Crosco Integrated Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Caspian Drilling Dolphin Drilling

Rig Name

Nanhai V J W McLean Petrobras XVI Ocean Whittington Ocean New Era Ocean Bounty Sedco 601 ENSCO 5005 Sedneth 701 Scarabeo 3 Transocean Polar Pioneer Borgny Dolphin Scarabeo 4 Songa Mercur Kan Tan IV Sedco 703 Ocean Concord Ocean Saratoga Songa Delta Scarabeo 6 Noble Lorris Bouzigard Noble Therald Martin Zagreb 1 GSF Arctic III GSF Aleutian Key GSF Rig 140 Dada Gorgud Bideford Dolphin

82

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 6 4 3 2 Water Depth (meters) 457 m 457 m 457 m 488 m 488 m 610 m 500 m 503 m 549 m 549 m 610 m 610 m 610 m 701 m 869 m 1 036 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 457 m 500 m 500 m 610 m 751 m 732 m 853 m 975 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 3,6 MN 4,2 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,1 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN

Rig Manager

Rig Name Borgland Dolphin Ocean Guardian Stena Spey Sedco 712 Sedco 714 Ocean Epoch Ocean General Stena Clyde Sedco 711 Transocean John Shaw Atwood Southern Cross Paul B Loyd Jr Ocean Lexington Petrobras XVII Ocean Yorktown ENSCO 6000 WilHunter Viking Producer Ocean Patriot Songa Dee HAKURYU-5 Transocean Arctic West Alpha Island Innovator Falcon 100 GSF Rig 135 Ocean Onyx

Dolphin Drilling Diamond Offshore Stena Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Stena Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Atwood Oceanics Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Petrobras (NOC) Diamond Offshore ENSCO Awilco Drilling PLC Viking Offshore (USA) Diamond Offshore Songa Offshore AS Japan Drilling Transocean Ltd. North Atlantic Drilling Ltd. Odfjell Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore

83

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 5 6 4 4 2 4 4 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 Water Depth (meters) 1 006 m 1 006 m 945 m 1 067 m 1 067 m 1 067 m 1 097 m 1 189 m 1 372 m 1 829 m 750 m 1 067 m 1 500 m 700 m 1 067 m 1 402 m 500 m 500 m 500 m 500 m 914 m 914 m 1 372 m 1 524 m 500 m 701 m 1 524 m 1 524 m 1 600 m 1 524 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,3 MN 4,4 MN 4,4 MN 4,6 MN 4,8 MN 5,0 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,3 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,5 MN 2,6 MN 2,6 MN 2,6 MN 2,8 MN 2,9 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,1 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN

Rig Manager Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Petrobras (NOC) Transocean Ltd. North Atlantic Drilling Ltd. China Oilfield Services Ltd. Diamond Offshore ENSCO Caspian Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Songa Offshore AS Songa Offshore AS Songa Offshore AS Songa Offshore AS Maersk Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Stena Drilling ENSCO Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Atwood Oceanics

Rig Name Ocean Yatzy C Kirk Rhein Jr GSF Arctic I Ocean Winner Ocean Worker Transocean Legend Sedco 700 Petrobras X Sedco 710 West Venture COSLPioneer Ocean Quest ENSCO 6001 Istiglal Transocean Amirante Jim Cunningham Songa Cat-D Semisub TBN 3 Songa Cat-D Semisub TNB 4 Songa Cat-D Semisub TBN 1 Songa Cat-D Semisub TBN 2 Maersk Explorer Transocean Driller Transocean Rather Transocean Richardson Stena Don ENSCO 5000 Ocean Valiant Sedco 709 Ocean Alliance Atwood Hunter

84

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 Water Depth (meters) 1 676 m 1 829 m 1 829 m 1 829 m 1 372 m 1 372 m 1 524 m 1 646 m 2 400 m 1 524 m 1 524 m 1 524 m 1 981 m 1 615 m 2 134 m 2 195 m 2 438 m 2 438 m 2 438 m 1 890 m 1 981 m 1 494 m 1 700 m 1 700 m 1 753 m 1 981 m 1 981 m 2 438 m 2 438 m 2 286 m 1 707 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 5,7 MN 6,4 MN 6,4 MN 6,4 MN 6,7 MN 6,7 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 7,1 MN 8,0 MN 8,0 MN 8,1 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,5 MN 8,6 MN 8,9 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,3 MN 3,7 MN 3,7 MN 3,7 MN 3,9 MN 3,9 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,1 MN 4,6 MN 4,6 MN 4,7 MN 4,9 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,0 MN 5,2 MN

Rig Manager Diamond Offshore Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Diamond Offshore Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Schahin Diamond Offshore Atwood Oceanics Atwood Oceanics Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Petrobras (NOC) ENSCO Saipem ENSCO ENSCO Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Noble Drilling Noble Drilling ENSCO ENSCO

Rig Name Ocean Star Noble Jim Thompson Noble Paul Romano Ocean Victory Transocean Leader Sovereign Explorer M G Hulme Jr Jack Bates Pantanal Ocean America Atwood Eagle Atwood Falcon Sedco 707 Transocean Marianas Noble Max Smith Noble Homer Ferrington Noble Amos Runner West Leo West Pegasus Petrobras XXIII ENSCO 5001 Scarabeo 7 ENSCO 6004 ENSCO 6003 GSF Celtic Sea Sedco 706 Sedco 702 Noble Paul Wolff Noble Clyde Boudreaux ENSCO 5006 ENSCO 6002

85

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 Water Depth (meters) 2 000 m 2 286 m 2 438 m 2 134 m 2 286 m 2 499 m 2 400 m 2 402 m 2 743 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 2 286 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 8,9 MN 8,9 MN 8,9 MN 10,7 MN 10,7 MN 10,7 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 11,1 MN 13,3 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 5,2 MN 5,2 MN 5,2 MN 6,2 MN 6,2 MN 6,2 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 6,5 MN 7,7 MN

Rig Manager Odebrecht Oil&Gas Transocean Ltd. ENSCO Dolphin Drilling Transocean Ltd. Ocean Rig Asa Schahin Queiroz Galvao Oleo e Gas S.A. Queiroz Galvao Oleo e Gas S.A. ENSCO ENSCO ENSCO Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Noble Drilling Transocean Ltd.

Rig Name Norbe VI Sedco Express ENSCO 7500 Blackford Dolphin Sedco Energy Leiv Eiriksson Amazonia Lone Star Gold Star ENSCO 8501 ENSCO 8500 ENSCO 8502 Noble Dave Beard Noble Danny Adkins Noble Jim Day GSF Development Driller I GSF Development Driller II ENSCO 8504 ENSCO 8505 ENSCO 8506 West Phoenix ENSCO 8503 Ocean Confidence Deepsea Stavanger

Transocean Ltd. ENSCO ENSCO ENSCO North Atlantic Drilling Ltd. ENSCO Diamond Offshore Odfjell

5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6

2 286 m 2 591 m 2 591 m 2 591 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m

13,3 MN 13,3 MN 13,3 MN 13,3 MN 13,3 MN 13,3 MN 13,3 MN 14,2 MN

7,7 MN 7,7 MN 7,7 MN 7,7 MN 7,7 MN 7,7 MN 7,7 MN 8,3 MN

86

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Semisub Generation 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 Water Depth (meters) 3 048 m 3 048 m 2 438 m 2 591 m 2 999 m 3 048 m 3 658 m 3 658 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 3 048 m 21 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,2 MN 14,3 MN 14,3 MN 15,6 MN 15,6 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 16,0 MN 19,6 MN 19,6 MN 19,6 MN 16 Riser Tension Capacity (MN) 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 8,3 MN 9,0 MN 9,0 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 9,3 MN 11,4 MN 11,4 MN 11,4 MN

Rig Manager

Rig Name Deepsea Aberdeen Deepsea Atlantic Deepwater Nautilus Cajun Express West Eminence Eirik Raude Sevan Driller II (Brasil) Sevan Driller Transocean Spitsbergen Transocean Barents Ocean Courage Ocean Valor Ocean Monarch West Aquarius West Hercules West Sirius SSV Victoria SSV Catarina Songa Eclipse Atwood Condor Ocean Endeavor West Taurus West Capricorn West Orion

Odfjell Odfjell Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Seadrill Ltd Ocean Rig Asa Sevan Drilling Sevan Drilling Transocean Ltd. Transocean Ltd. Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Ventura Ventura Songa Offshore AS Atwood Oceanics Diamond Offshore Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd Seadrill Ltd

87

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Following graph was created by Excel from the Tension Data

Tension Capacity (MN) 35

y = 2,3722e0,0006x

30 21'' 25

20

y = 1,3771e0,0006x
16"

15

10

5 Water 5000 Depth (m)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

88

Appendix B Collected Data from RigLogix

Number of Collected Semi-submersible Generations Graph was created by Excel from the Rig Data
2nd = 51 3rd = 34 4th = 47 5th = 19 6th = 39

20 % 27 %
2nd Generation 3rd Generation 4th Generation

10 %

5th Generation 6th Generation

18 % 25 %

89

Appendix C Recommended Literature

Appendix C Recommended Literature

Title
Casing And Cementing Casing And Liners For Drilling And Completion Drilling Fluids, Mud Pumps And Conditioning Equipment Drilling For Oil & Gas Fundamentals Of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic Principles And Simplified Analyses Marine Riser Systems And Subsea Blowout Preventers Modern Well Design Recommended Practice For Design, Selection, Operation And Maintenance Of Marine Drilling Riser Systems; API Recommended Practice 16Q Specification For Marine Drilling Riser Equipment; API Specification 16F The Rotary Rig And Its Components

Author
Judy Feder Ted G. Byrom Kate Van Dyke Steve Devereux

ISBN
0-88698-191-3 1-933762-06-3 0-88698-181-6 0-87814-762-4

Charles P. Sparks

978-1-59370-070-6

Hugh McCrae

0-88698-188-3

Bernt S. Aadny

978-0-415-88467-9

American Petroleum Institute

American Petroleum Institute

K.R. Bork

0-88698-166-2

90

91