OFFSHORE SITE INVESTIGATION AND GEOTECHNICS COMMITTEE

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE APPLICATION OF

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES
FOR REDUCING TOPHOLE RISKS IN THE DRILLING
OF OFFSHORE WELLS

August 2017
 GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES
FOR REDUCING TOPHOLE RISKS IN THE DRILLING
OF OFFSHORE WELLS
Guidance Notes for the Application of Geophysical and Geotechnical Techniques for Reducing Tophole
Risks in the Drilling of Offshore Wells

ISBN 0 906940 56 7
ISBN 13 978-0-906940-56-3

First published in 2017 by

The Society for Underwater Technology
1 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1BR UK

©2017 Society for Underwater Technology

This publication is protected by international copyright law. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may
be reproduced or utilised in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the Publisher.
 GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES
FOR REDUCING TOPHOLE RISKS IN THE DRILLING
OF OFFSHORE WELLS

Edited by
Richard Salisbury

Co-authors

Tim Carrington
Gareth Wood
Andy Barwise
Micha Van Der Kraan
Giles Thompson
BLANK PAGE
 Contents

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 SHALLOW GEOHAZARDS – TYPICAL PROBLEMS AND FAILURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 APPROACHES TO ADOPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1 The Ground Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1 What is a Ground Model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2 Application of the Ground Model to Well Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Desk Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Site Investigation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Geophysical Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Geotechnical Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1 In-situ Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.2 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Geophysical Interpretation and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1 Purpose and Scope of a Geophysical Site Investigation Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2 Advanced Geophysical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Purpose and Scope of a Geotechnical Site Investigation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4 Geotechnical input to well design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1 Design Soil Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2 Soil Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.3 Geotechnical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5 Pore Pressure Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6 Summary of Inputs/Outputs of an Integrated Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 INTEGRATED HAZARDS ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1 Characterising the overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Indentification and Integration of Subsurface Uncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3 Integrated Multi-Discipline Approach to Risk Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6 TOPHOLE EXECUTION AND POST WELL REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.1 Tophole Drilling Observation on the Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 Post Well Review and Feedback Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5
 List of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary of Geohazards, their Potential Impact on Drilling Operations and Identification and
Characterisation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4.1: Soil Parameters Needed for Structural Design of the Conductor Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 4.2: Site investigation Inputs and Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Figures
Figure 1: What can go wrong when Drilling the Tophole Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2: Timeline Relationship between a Typical Well Planning Process and a Typical Integrated Site Investigation
Programme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3: Example of a PPFG prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 4: A typical Well Planning Team for Integrated Hazard Assessment, Risk Identification, Ranking and
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 5: A Suggested Workflow for Tophole Risk Evaluation and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Definition
In this document the tophole section is defined as the depth to the base of the first pressure containment string;
in other words the conductor and the first casing, drilled prior to pressure containment through installation of the
blowout preventer (BOP). This will normally be a depth of fifty to one hundred metres for the conductor and several
hundred metres for the surface casing.
Throughout the document, items that appear in the glossary (Section 7), are shown in italics.

6
 1 Introduction
The offshore oil and gas industry spends around 1$60bn per year on oil and gas wells. Investment on this scale
comes with risks, and although the offshore industry leads the way in industrial HSSE standards, it is estimated
that around 10% of this expenditure, or $6bn, can be attributed to ground related issues such as stuck pipe, lost
circulation, wellbore instability and shallow water flows. On top of this are environmental costs of the oil spills
that can result from loss of well control, and most importantly the human costs in terms of injuries and loss of life
resulting from some of the worst incidents. Given the appropriate data, analysis, engineering and application these
risks and costs can be foreseen, mitigated and ultimately reduced.
Tophole integrity and risk reduction depends on understanding the soils and rocks throughout this section of
the well. The primary sources of information are complementary geophysical (remote sensing) and geotechnical
(intrusive) methods. In the top few tens of metres reliable geotechnical data may be available, but deeper than this
information is often limited to what can be inferred from logging while drilling and is far from precise. Geophysical
data are normally available throughout the tophole section, although their resolution will always decrease with
depth, and their value is limited without proper correlation to soils data.
In this document the risks and problems within and around the well are described. Information and advice in the
use and application of geotechnical and geophysical site investigation techniques for the planning of offshore wells
are provided. Finally, a systematic approach to assessing and mitigating top-hole geo-risks is suggested.
The document is aimed at:
• Geoscientists and engineers involved in data collection and analysis;
• Survey or site investigation project managers;
• Drilling engineers;
• Foundation engineers;
• Operators;
• Well planners;
• Operations geologists;
• Well operations managers;
• Surveyors.
The first two groups in the above list are already involved in site investigation and will be aware of the reasons
for gathering good quality data to mitigate the risks associated with topholes. The other groups represent those
focused on well design, construction and operation and have most control over good drilling practice and well
performance. These groups may not be as closely involved in site investigation.
An important conclusion of the industry specialists who contributed to this document is that there should be
effective dialogue between the geoscience community involved in site investigation and the engineering community
involved in drilling. This is the essential message of the document. Existing techniques and knowledge are sufficient
to address all tophole associated risks and problems, provided they are applied effectively by all parties working
together.
It is the aim of this document to reach out to both practitioners and end users; to provide a reference that describes
best practice in the use and application of site investigation techniques for the planning and execution of offshore
wells. By this means it is hoped that common global standards will be promoted, leading to improvements in
safety, efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
These guidance notes are not intended to be prescriptive, nor detailed in relation to specific aspects of well design,
such as fatigue life design. It should be noted that offshore wells are structures and therefore should be designed
and built in accordance with the general requirements of ISO 19900.

1
From a review of industry financial reports.

7
 2 Shallow Geohazards –
Typical Problems and Failures
Shallow geohazards can pose significant threats to well spudding and drilling operations as illustrated in Figure 1.
Insufficient consideration of the issues can result in severe consequences ranging from avoidable non-productive
time to catastrophic events. Responsibility for assessing project risk, and reducing this to acceptable levels,
ultimately rests with the operator or exploration company. However, geoscientists specialising in geohazards and
understanding shallow section geology have an essential part to play in identifying and characterising the hazards,
the risks they pose, and in helping to deliver safe, predictable and cost-effective wells with no surprises. Such
specialists exist within many operating companies, exploration companies, contracting companies and consultants.

Figure 1: What Can Go Wrong When Drilling the Tophole Section

The risks that geohazards pose to spudding and drilling activities depend on many variables. Some of the most
important are listed below:
• Ground conditions;
• Conductor installation methodology;
• Type of drilling platform;
• Quality of the tophole soils data and ground model;
• Availability of offset data;
• Remoteness of the operations.

8
An integrated multi-disciplinary project approach to the identification, characterisation and assessment of hazards
and risks is essential for an optimised outcome.
The purpose of Table 2.1 is to provide an aide memoire of the typical geohazards that can be encountered in the shallow
section, and some of the potential impacts their presence may have on drilling operations in the tophole section. The
table also offers some guidance on the data and tools that may be suitable for identifying and characterising geohazards
so that they can be assessed, and measures considered to manage effectively the risks they pose.
Table 2.1: Summary of Geohazards, their Potential Impact on Drilling Operations and Identification and
Characterisation Techniques

Geohazard Potential impact(s) on drilling operations Identification and characterisation techniques

HR OFF SBP 3D GEO SSS MBE
Shallow gas Pressure / gas kick • • • •
(free gas) Blowout
Loss of well
Gassy soils (gas Loss of vessel buoyancy • •
in solution)
Uncontrolled environmental emissions
Inability to cement annulus
Pressure build-up at wellhead
Well integrity issues

Shallow water Pressure kicks • • •

flow Uncontrolled flows to seafloor
Problems cementing surface casing string
Loss of integrity of surface casing string
Formation fracture and flows to surface outside
conductor
Loss of foundation support - subsidence
Loss of well
Permeable zone isolation
Hole expansion / washout

Shallow oil / Uncontrolled flow of fluids to seafloor • • • • •

hydrocarbons Inability to cement annulus
Uncontrolled environmental release

Gas hydrates Disassociated gas seepage to seafloor and • • • • • •

consequent geotechnical uncertainty
Possible link to chemosynthetic communities
Shallow gas trap

Buried relict Directional drilling issues • • • • •

landslide Stuck pipe / BHA
(mass transport Casing hang-up
complex,
MTC) Jetted conductor problems

Faults Losses • • • • • • •
Broach pathway to seafloor in event of
underground blowout leading to seabed
cratering
Directional drilling difficulties
Stuck pipe
Casing hang-up
Pressure communication to depth

9
Geohazard Potential impact(s) on drilling operations Identification and characterisation techniques
HR OFF SBP 3D GEO SSS MBE
Soft soils Cratering during jetting operations • • • •
Wellbore stability and verticality
Mining / erosion of soils
Fracturing
Wellbore deformation
Excessive jack-up rig leg penetration
Insufficient rig anchor capacity
Hard soils Low Rates of Progress (RoP) • • • •
Jetting resistance
Directional drilling issues
Stuck pipe / BHA
Casing hang-up
Challenging anchoring operations
Swelling clays Pack-off • •
(gumbo) Loss of drilled annulus
Plugging and fouling of tools and pipe

Boulders and Conductor drivability problems (possible refusal) • • • •

gravels Conductor deflection / verticality issues
Reduced rates of progress
Stuck pipe
Heavy vibrations during drilling and bit damage
Unconsolidated Wellbore stability • • • •
sands Wash-out
Inability to cement annulus
Permeable zone isolation
High salinity Swelling • •
Reduction in shear strength
Excess pore Lower shear strength – reduced conductor axial
water pressure • •
and lateral capacity
Inability to cement annulus
Drilling-induced seabed instability
Highly Reduced fracture pressure – formation damage
• •
structured Heterogeneous soil properties – conductor
clays resistance design considerations
Seafloor • • •
features – e.g.
steep gradients,
channels,
bedforms
Fluid expulsion
features – e.g. • • • • •
pockmarks,
fluid chimneys

HR Multichannel high resolution seismic reflection data

Key OFF Offset well data
SBP Sub-bottom profiler data
3D 3D seismic reflection data (water depth and data quality are significant considerations)
GEO Geotechnical data (various techniques available for different applications)
SSS Sidescan sonar data
MBE Multibeam echo sounder

10
 3 Approaches to Adopt
3.1 THE GROUND MODEL

3.1.1 What is a Ground Model?

A ground model is a 3-dimensional representation of the Earth constructed from a database of any valid input data.
A ground model may take one of a number of different forms. For example, when based on bathymetric data in
the marine environment it may take the form of a terrain or geomorphological model, or when based on seismic
reflection data it may take the form of a structural model. It is typically created in the very first geoscience activity
of a project and remains in place as a constant reference, available to be enlarged, added to, updated and refined as
the needs of the project develop.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) offer a number of advantages for the construction, compilation and delivery
of a ground model. All types of data from multiple sources can be loaded into a GIS project, including maps and cross
sections of differing scales together with point source ground truth data with associated attributes. GIS allows data to be
viewed and compared during the process of integration, and specialist tools can be made available for detailed analysis
as required. The same GIS project can be used to deliver products at any stage in the development of the ground model,
whilst retaining the database for future development and refinement. GIS also allows rapid archiving and retrieval.

3.1.2 Application of the Ground Model to Well Site Investigation

A well site investigation requires a ground model extending from the seafloor to a depth of several hundred metres
that characterises the geological succession from an engineering perspective and identifies geohazards. The prime
dataset will usually be seismic reflection data, and constructing the ground model starts with mapping key
seismic horizons and noting stratigraphic variations. This produces a structural framework into which ground
truth information, that may come from offset wells, geotechnical sampling or the overall well prognosis, can be
integrated. This may be an iterative process, whereby insight into the relative significance of seismic horizons is
gained by comparing geophysical with geotechnical and geological data, which thereby leads to re-interpretation
and refinement of the seismic analysis.
It is the aim of a successful well site investigation to produce a ground model that contains the information required
for a thorough understanding of the seafloor and seabed conditions relevant to drilling the tophole section.
The available data needs to be analysed for all geohazards contained in Table 2.1, and the potential for hazardous
conditions evaluated and assessed. This may include:
• The probability of shallow gas being present;
• The potential for shallow and deep seated slope instabilities;
• The potential for debris / turbidity flows;
• The potential for variable soil conditions, including strength inversions, uncemented soils, boulders;
• The probability of high pressure sand layers capable of producing shallow water flow.
The end result is a series of structure maps and geological cross sections showing seismic horizons, geological and
geotechnical units, soil provinces and geological features that might influence well planning, engineering and rig
installation, and from which the risk posed by each geo-constraint to the well may be evaluated.
The ground model produced for an exploration well site will often be the first detailed study made of the shallow
geological section. In cases where this is followed by appraisal drilling and then field development and production,
the exploration ground model will form the first stage in a single, wider process of understanding the seabed and
shallow geological conditions that will be updated and refined through subsequent stages. For example, detailed
soil zonation will be required when planning the foundations of development structures, and slope stability risks
will need to be thoroughly understood when placing structures for the life of the field. At each stage, the existing
ground model should be reviewed to identify any data gaps for the next phase and plan new data acquisition, the
output of which is an updated ground model. This ensures that existing knowledge is captured and maintained, so
that data collection programs are efficiently planned and kept to an appropriate level.

11
 3.2 DESK STUDY
The first stage in understanding geological conditions in an area where offshore drilling is planned is to conduct a desk study
using any existing relevant data. Exploration 3D seismic reflection data will often form the prime dataset for the purposes of
deriving an initial image of the seafloor topography. Consideration should be given to using near offset subsets or undertaking
short offset processing to improve shallow section resolution. Other types of data to include are the following:
• Regional geological and geophysical information;
• Geophysical data from nearby site investigations;
• Geotechnical data from nearby site investigations;
• Offset well information including logging while drilling data and all log data;
• Installation records for piled structures and jack-ups near the location;
• Information in the public domain;
• Academic and research papers with original data if available.
The objective of a pre-drilling desk study in a new exploration area is to initiate the process of characterising the
seafloor and shallow geological conditions. The initial ground model will normally be a geological model designed
to enable a preliminary, regional view to be taken concerning any geohazards that may impact on drilling operations
and to plan future site investigations.
A crucial decision to be made from the results of the desk study is whether new geophysical and geotechnical data
is needed. This will also depend on the type of rig, the type of well and the water depth. In many cases good quality
exploration 3D seismic reflection data can provide useful geophysical information, but these data are not a substitute for
sub-bottom profiler data for the identification and mapping of shallow geology and geohazards in the top 100 m of the
seabed. The value of exploration 3D seismic reflection data will depend upon its quality and frequency content, the nature
of the seafloor and seabed conditions and the planned drilling programme. For deep water wells, exploration 3D seismic
reflection data can form a suitable replacement for HR seismic reflection data in the evaluation of well site geohazards
and thus may replace the need for new HR seismic reflection data collection in a geophysical site investigation. This
is a generally acceptable practice providing the minimum quality criteria for exploration 3D seismic reflection data are
met. These criteria are contained in IOGP Report No, 373-18-1 (Ref. 1). Exploration 3D seismic reflection data is not a
replacement for a geophysical site investigation when a bottom founded drilling rig, such as a jack-up rig, is to be used.
Where there are significant geohazards, the results may also be useful in the wider process of selecting and prioritising
well locations, by identifying areas of low drilling risk and / or significant foundation issues for the drilling or
production rig and especially for any required relief wells.

3.3 SITE INVESTIGATION PLANNING

Planning a site investigation should draw heavily on the findings of the desk study, which will provide a direct
input to the design of an appropriate geophysical survey programme and, if deemed appropriate, a geotechnical
investigation. As a minimum, the desk study should provide a guide to the definition of survey line direction, line
spacing and the areas of uncertainty that need to be established in order to reduce risk.
It is important to stress the influence of time on the well planning process. The time taken to plan, acquire,
process, analyse and integrate geophysical and geotechnical data is typically 1 year. This is from first initiation to
spud and assumes the drilling location has already been defined. The timeline illustrated in Figure 2 is for a typical
bottom-founded rig and includes a geophysical survey, in which sonar and seismic reflection data to image the
seafloor and seabed are collected, and a geotechnical investigation in which a 100 m deep borehole is acquired from
a geotechnical drillship. For a floating rig a borehole is not normally required and the lead time can be reduced to
10 months. In both cases the well design is frozen 3 months before spud. Note that no consideration is given to
regulatory requirements that may extend this in some countries.
It is therefore vital that the requirement for any site investigation programme is made as early as possible. It is
preferable that this is an integral part of the well planning process.

12
Figure 2: Timeline Relationship between a Typical Well Planning Process and a Typical Integrated Site Investigation Programme

3.4 GEOPHYSICAL SITE INVESTIGATION

When the need for a geophysical site investigation has been identified by the desk study it should be designed to
specifically address the operational requirements at the site. Correct survey design is essential if the objectives are to be
efficiently achieved. There are many industry guidelines and textbooks available to assist in this process (Refs. 1 and
2), and most operators will have their own specifications. However, each requirement will be unique. For example,
the great variability in seabed conditions means that a given piece of geophysical survey equipment may perform very
differently in one area compared to another. This is particularly true of sub-bottom profilers. Existing data from the area
or offset well information will strongly influence survey design. “Standard” specifications should therefore be used with
caution, and it is strongly recommended that survey design is undertaken by an experienced practitioner who has a
full understanding of the detailed requirements, the desk study results and any other relevant information.
In general, depending on the site requirements, the geophysical site investigation should be designed to provide
sufficient data to achieve the following objectives:
• Define the water depths and the seafloor topography across the area of operational interest;
• Identify any natural or man-made seafloor features that could influence the position of the well, or the rig
installation operation;
• Identify any potential areas of environmental or archaeological interest or concern;
• Define the stratigraphy of the foundation zone to a depth of interest to cover rig emplacement and conductor
installation;
• Define the sub-surface stratigraphic and structural elements, and identify and delineate any potential geohazards
that could affect drilling operations, to a minimum depth of 200 m below the tophole section of the well or to
a depth of 1000 m, whichever is the greater;
• Meet any local regulatory requirements.
Acoustic survey equipment, including multibeam echo sounder and sidescan sonar, will enable definition of the
seafloor and thus provide data to select and evaluate a suitable location.
Sub-bottom profilers including pingers, chirp profilers, boomers, sparkers and mini-airguns provide detailed data to evaluate
the lateral variability of soils across the anchoring zone or rig footprint, and in support of well foundation design.
Multichannel seismic reflection data provide the means to define the shallow geological conditions to several hundred metres
below the seafloor and identify potential geohazards within the tophole section. High resolution 2D seismic reflection systems
designed to record frequencies up to 250 Hz are commonly used, although in areas of complex geology, or where a large
number of geohazards are expected, consideration should be given to acquiring high resolution 3D datasets. Blanket spatial
coverage, multi-azimuth migration and the ability to interpret data using time slices and random lines enables far more
accurate and detailed analysis of sub-surface structure. 3D interpretation systems also typically provide more sophisticated
software and attribute analysis. Through careful seismic processing, a detailed seismic velocity model can be produced that may
improve the resolution of the pore pressure fracture gradient (PPFG) model (see Section 4.5). A further advantage of 3D
datasets is their value in planning subsequent field developments and investigating the foundation zone.

13
 3.5 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Information on soil type and strength are important for conductor design and installation; strength, density and soil
type for the conductor setting depth evaluation; soil strength and type for axial capacity and soil strength and stiffness for
fatigue considerations. This information can often be derived from regional experience, but direct site specific sampling
and testing will be more accurate, and may be required if certain geohazards have been identified and / or to optimise the
tophole design. Geotechnical data acquisition is often required ahead of jack-up rig placement at a site, for example for
leg penetration prediction, and the incremental cost for extending the depth of investigation to cover conductor setting
depth may be more than covered by cost savings in the optimisation of the tophole well design and installation.
Geotechnical site investigation work will typically be undertaken by drilling geotechnical boreholes. Drilling operations
can take two forms; drilling from the sea surface, referred to as vessel drilling, or drilling from the seafloor, referred to as
seafloor drilling. Where drilling is performed from a floating vessel, it is essential that a heave compensation system is
used and selected to take into account the environmental conditions. Great care is required not to disturb the ground
immediately ahead of the drill bit so that undisturbed samples can be recovered. In certain cases where a shallow gas
hazard has been identified by the geophysical survey and / or previous drilling, or cannot be discounted from the available
data, mitigation procedures should be adopted, for example drilling a pilot hole to de-risk the geotechnical operations.
With each of the two drilling approaches, the general principles of in-situ testing and sampling of the soils or rock are similar
and are discussed below in more detail. The borehole itself is a means of penetrating the seabed to the required depth to enable
in-situ testing and sampling to take place. For conductor installation purposes the setting depth of the conductor should be
achieved as a minimum borehole depth. The quality of information obtained in a geotechnical investigation depends upon
the tools that are deployed and how undisturbed the soil is at the start of any in-situ testing or soil sampling.
A geotechnical site investigation generally consists of the following 3 phases:
• Fieldwork;
• Laboratory testing of samples – this can be carried out either offshore or onshore;
• Derivation of soil parameters.
The international standard ISO 19901-8 (Ref. 3), contains both information and a standard for the planning and
conduct of geotechnical operations.

3.5.1 In-situ Testing

Data on ground conditions can be obtained by in-situ testing. The most common type performed offshore is cone
penetration testing. Cone penetration tests (CPTs) do not provide direct information on soil type and strength, but this
information can be interpreted from test results, and provide a good overview of the layer stratigraphy. If soil samples are
obtained (see next section) at the same position as the tests, the accuracy of the CPT interpretation is improved.
CPT acquisition is covered by many international references for example ISO 19901-8 (Ref. 3). It is performed by
advancing the cone penetrometer into the soil either at the bottom of a borehole or from a seabed frame. The soil
resistance acting on the cone tip and on the side of the penetrometer are measured. In-situ pore pressure can also
be measured, either with a cone penetrometer or using a bespoke piezoprobe tool.
Where certain soil parameters are required to be determined, a range of additional in-situ tests can be included,
for example:
• T-bar and ball tests for increased accuracy in very soft soils;
• Seismic cone to measure in-situ P and S wave velocity;
• Temperature cone;
• Thermal conductivity;
• Dilatometer test;
• Downhole geophysical techniques.
Hydraulic fracture testing can also be undertaken in geotechnical boreholes to directly calibrate hydraulic fracture
assessments made for conductor setting depth purposes.

14
3.5.2 Sampling
Soil samples, collected either from geotechnical boreholes or from seabed coring systems, are tested in either offshore
or onshore laboratories to measure the soil properties that enable the derivation of engineering parameters. Specialist
onshore laboratories provide a wider range of advanced testing from which it is possible to establish advanced soil
properties including stiffness, strength degradation and cyclic response.
Selection of the correct sampling tools for the particular soil conditions is fundamental to the quality of the samples
recovered and the overall success of the investigation. Efforts should be made to minimise sample disturbance. In the
methodology for sampling, special consideration should be given to unconventional soils, such as calcareous soil, silt
and sensitive clays. Further information is available in ISO 19901-8 (Ref. 4). Techniques exist for retaining the ambient
pressure of the formation in the recovered sample. These are used, for example, for sampling sediments containing gas
hydrates. Calcareous and fractured soils deserve special attention as they are difficult to interpret for tophole design or
casing strength interaction. Further guidance can be found in ISO 19901-4 (Ref. 4) and API RP 2GEO (Ref. 5).

4 Analysis
4.1 GENERAL
The data collected in geophysical and geotechnical site investigations carried out in preparation for offshore drilling
need to be analysed by specialists, and the results clearly communicated to those responsible for assessing drilling
risks. It is often the case that separate geophysical survey and geotechnical site investigation reports are produced.
In addition, environmental, archaeological or metocean studies may also have been carried out and their reports
can contain relevant information. For this reason, the sections below separately describe the analysis of geophysical
and geotechnical data. However maximum value will be obtained when the results of all relevant studies are
considered together in an integrated assessment and a ground model (Section 3.1) produced that describes the
seafloor and seabed conditions to the appropriate level of detail.

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

Seismic interpretation and the identification and analysis of potential geohazards should be performed by a qualified,
experienced and skilled geoscientist who has specialised in high-resolution geophysics. New seismic reflection and
acoustic data should be interpreted in the context of what is already known from the pre-survey desk study, providing
a refinement of the ground model and enhancing geological understanding to the level required by the drilling activity.
The identification and analysis of geohazards can then be carried out within the context of the best possible
understanding of seabed and shallow section geology. A rigorous approach should be made to the identification of
geohazards as described in Hill et. al. (Ref 6), the most significant of which will often be shallow gas, although careful
consideration must be given to all other potential geohazards at the seafloor and within the seabed. Geophysical
data rarely enables an unambiguous interpretation, and conclusions should be arrived at following the systematic
assessment of all the seismic properties and attributes associated with each particular geohazard, considered in the
context of geological understanding. Results should be clearly reported in the text, maps and graphics that make
up the geophysical site investigation report.

4.2.1 Purpose and Scope of a Geophysical Site Investigation Report

Geophysical site investigation reports are commonly produced to communicate the results of geophysical site
investigations at offshore drilling locations in any water depth. The purpose of a geophysical site investigation report
is to describe and assess seafloor and tophole geological conditions to help plan safe and efficient rig emplacement
and drilling operations. The report is the permanent record of the site investigation. Often other relevant data will
have been collected in the area, for example from environmental or geotechnical investigations. It is important
that links to these studies are established at an early stage, that the data is integrated, and when separate reports are
required there is consistency in the presentation of results.
The report will describe data collection, processing and interpretation and will often be split into operations and
results volumes. Its primary purpose is to communicate the results of the survey to the end users through clearly
15
worded text illustrated with maps, cross-sections, figures and data examples. Reports should be concise, objective
and user-friendly, and clearly understandable regardless of the technical background of the reader.
A critical part of the report is the summary, normally presented at the beginning. It is extremely important that this
presents the essential findings and conclusions in an easily accessible form and is tailored for the use of the end user. Short
factual statements and tabulated results are preferred rather than sections of text that replicate the main text. Technical
terms, such as geological ages and formation names, should be used with caution or avoided in the summary.
Geophysical site investigation reports should provide an integrated assessment of all seafloor constraints upon the
emplacement and operation of the rig at the proposed location. Geological conditions should be described to a
depth of at least 200 m below the tophole section, or to a depth of 1000 m below seafloor, whichever is greater.
For each geohazard identified, the potential should be simply stated in terms of the likelihood that the particular
condition exists at a specific position and depth. The clear and unambiguous presentation of this information is
a key input to the overall process of managing and reducing risk to offshore drilling that is carried out by those
responsible for planning and operating the well.

4.2.2 Advanced Geophysical Analysis

Good quality seismic reflection datasets, especially 3D datasets that may be either high resolution or exploration,
contain a great deal of information that when accessed through advanced geophysical analysis techniques can
provide valuable insights into the identification and assessment of geohazards and aid the classification of fluids and
lithologies. These include, but are not limited to:
• Amplitude versus offset (AVO) and pseudo AVO – using 3D offset data sets to classify AVO response and fluid
estimation from intercept/gradient plots. AVO analysis can be reinforced using Vp, Vs and RhoB logs to generate
synthetic seismic data and assess the expected AVO response through fluid substitution (Ref. 7);
• Pseudo impedance, matched to logs, for estimating relative soil properties/lithologies;
• Inversion based velocity models for hazard identification, and pressure transfer zones, e.g., full waveform
inversion and surface wave inversion (Ref. 8);
• Combined analysis of P-wave and S-wave seismic for separating pressure and fluid effects;
• Spectral decomposition can aid facies classification and architecture description and the assessment of seismic
reflection data resolution and tuning effects.
Although these analyses techniques are not routine workflows in drilling hazard assessment, when conditions at
a drilling site are particularly challenging, they may provide a level of empirical data that greatly enhances the
interpretation, and thus improves the quality of hazard assessment. It should be noted that most require good quality
log data to be reliable, particularly sonic and density logs, which are often not available in the tophole section.

4.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF A GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

When a geotechnical site investigation is carried out a factual report will normally be produced containing the
results of in-situ and laboratory tests carried out on recovered samples. The report should clearly indicate soil
strengths and other geotechnical parameters measured at the appropriate depths below seafloor.

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL INPUT TO WELL DESIGN

4.4.1 Design Soil Parameters

The soil parameters typically needed for structural design analysis of the conductor casing are summarized in Table
4.1. Soil parameters classified as secondary (i.e. effective vertical stress, coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
and deformation parameter) may be derived from those soil parameters classified as primary (i.e. undrained shear
strength, drained internal friction angle, submerged unit weight, and remoulded undrained shear strength).

4.4.2 Soil Data Acquisition

In general, acquisition of site-specific soil data to beyond the setting depth of the conductor shoe is recommended

16
for design. However, the project geotechnical engineer may revise this requirement, based on consideration of the
following factors:
• Limitations in the availability of site-specific geotechnical data to a depth shallower than the setting depth of
the casing. The lateral response of the composite well typically controls the section properties of the conductor
casing and is governed by the soil conditions typically up to a depth of twenty (20) casing diameters. Hence,
availability of site-specific soil properties to approximately twenty casing diameters below the seafloor will allow
design of the casing section properties;
• Availability of geotechnical data in the vicinity of the well site, which could be extrapolated to the well site. Extrapolation
of data may only be performed with confidence where high resolution geophysical data are available, which indicate
that the soil conditions are laterally continuous between the location of the soil data and the well site;
• History of conductor casing installation in vicinity of well site;
• The cost of geotechnical data acquisition as compared to the expected (probabilistic) cost of casing failure.
For wells where there is a risk of hydraulic fracture of the formation, particular consideration should be given
to acquiring site specific geotechnical data to beyond the depth of the conductor casing, and to include in-situ
hydraulic fracture tests as part of a site investigation.

Analysis
Soil Parameter Installation Axial Hydraulic Respsonse
Capacity Fracture to Load
Undrained shear strength (su) or
Drained internal friction angle (φ’) • • • •

Primary Submerged or effective unit weight (γ’) • • • •

Remoulded undrained shear strength (su(r)) •

Effective vertical stress (p’0) • •

Secondary Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest

(K0) • •

Deformation parameter (εc) •

Note: Design soil parameters should be established by a geotechnical engineer. Profiles of the variation in the design soil parameters should
be documented in the design report.

Table 4.1: Soil Parameters Needed for Structural Design of the Conductor Casing

4.4.3 Geotechnical Analysis

Geotechnical analyses should be performed to determine:
• The setting depth of the conductor casing (based on axial capacity, installation method, hydraulic fracture);
• The response of the casing to loads.
The load-deflection response analysis of the conductor casing influences the make-up of the conductor casing.
The methodology to carry out a successful conductor assessment is typically an iterative process: first an assessment of
axial capacity and hydrofracture assessment are carried out and the conductor setting depth determined as the more
onerous of the two; next the installation procedure is assessed. The axial capacity may need to be reassessed depending
on the installation method, while the hydrofracture assessment could restrict the conductor installation process.

Factors of Safety
The allowable axial capacity and allowable hydraulic fracture pressure of the soil are computed from the ultimate failure
values by application of an appropriate safety factor. Choice of the safety factor is dependent on uncertainties in the input
parameters and consequences of failure. Further guidance is provided in ISO 19902 (Ref. 9) and API RP 2A (Ref. 10).

17
Setting Depth
The setting depth of the conductor casing is determined from the following criteria:
• The allowable axial capacity of the casing being sufficient to carry the required loads;
• The allowable hydraulic fracture pressure of the soil below the conductor tip, which needs to be sufficient to
prevent hydraulic fracture of the formation during drilling of the hole for the surface casing;
• The depth that the casing can be installed to, which is dependent on installation method.
The hydraulic fracture pressure can be defined as the excess pressure (above hydrostatic), which causes fracture of
the formation. The hydraulic fracture pressure may be measured directly in a geotechnical investigation, or may be
assumed to be equivalent to the minor principal stress, which can be estimated from the design soil parameters.
The axial capacity of a conductor casing increases with time after installation due to the dissipation of excess pore
pressures and thixotropic effects. This increase in axial capacity is referred to as set-up or soak.
The setting depth of a conductor casing can typically be selected without consideration of set-up effects. However,
when the setting depth required to achieve the axial capacity exceeds the practical limit for installation, then
consideration of set-up may be warranted.
If it is not possible to install the conductor casing to the depth required to prevent hydraulic fracture of the formation
during drilling of the hole for the surface casing, then alternative approaches, such as restrictions on the drilling
parameters and fluid during drilling of the surface casing can be considered.

Response of Conductor Casing to Load

The response of the conductor casing to load transfer is generally distinguished in either axial or lateral direction.
For design capacity calculations in both directions or combination, general guidance is given in the API RP2 GEO
(Ref. 5) and ISO 19901-4 (Ref. 4).
For lateral loading, besides the soil parameters and omitting the soil plug, additional information on the internal
casings and stiffness should be incorporated appropriately.
A response analysis will determine the axial forces, shear forces, bending moments and deflections of the structural
casing for applicable load combinations and thereby enables the casing to be appropriately sized, both in terms of
strength and for fatigue considerations. The response of the structural casing is dependent on:
• The section properties of the casing;
• The section properties of the surface and internal casings;
• The verticality of the casing;
• The effectiveness of any grout job;
• The soil resistance and;
• Temperature and environmental loads.
The section properties of the surface and internal casings should only be included in the analysis if it is suitably
centralised and connected to the structural casing.

Total Ultimate Axial Capacity

The immediate axial capacity of a conductor casing is defined as the ultimate shear transfer, which can occur at the
outer wall of the casing, at the instant the casing reaches the required setting depth.
Since the conductor internal soil plug is drilled out during or after installation, no end bearing can be relied on,
which means that the total ultimate immediate axial conductor capacity in compression or tension can be estimated
according to the following equation:
Q = f(z) As
where
f(z) = the unit shaft friction, in stress units

18
As = the side surface area of the conductor
General guidance on the soil input parameters for cohesive and cohesionless soils is detailed in the API RP 2GEO
(Ref. 5) and ISO 19901-4 (Ref. 4).
Special attention should be given to calcareous soils since they can have a significant influence on capacity because
of friction degradation during installation or in-place load conditions.
For conductors installed in cohesive soils, the unit shaft friction, f(z), is determined by the following equation:
f(z) = α su
where
α= the dimensionless shaft friction factor.
su= the undrained shear strength of the soil at the point in question, in stress units
The α factor for jetting is dependent on the degree of disturbance to the formation caused by the jetting operation.
The degree of disturbance to the formation is dependent on the following factors:
• Jetting procedure – installation by controlled jetting reduces the degree of soil disturbance;
• Type of connector – the use of flush connectors (i.e. connectors with the same outside diameter as the conductor
casing) reduces the degree of soil disturbance.
Values of adhesion should be established from a review of casing installation histories in the vicinity of the well.
Some additional guidance for the jetted conductor capacity and installation is given in Jeanjean and Evans (Refs.
11 and 12).

Installation Method
In general there are three methods of installing a conductor:
• Driven (possibly with drill-out and re-drive in case of large soil resistance to driving);
• Drilled and Grouted;
• Jetted.
The preferred method is usually dependent on the following:
• Water depth (deep or shallow);
• Soil conditions, including any identified tophole risks;
• Installation vessel and available equipment on board.
Driven conductors are common when the installation vessel has the ability to handle the driving hammer and soil
conditions are suitable for conductor driving. In general driven conductors are not selected in deep water.
Drilled and grouted conductors are preferred in hard ground formations when either driving or jetting are unlikely
to be successful.
Jetted conductors are becoming more popular at deeper water locations in low strength clay soils. The initial axial
capacity of jetted conductors can be very low and may take a long time to develop. The body of experience in
installing conductors using the jetting technique is growing. One publication which offers guidance is “Jetting of
Structural Casing in Deepwater Environments: Job Design and Operational Practices” (Ref. 13).

4.5 PORE PRESSURE PREDICTION

Pore pressure fracture gradient (PPFG) prediction for wells attempts to predict the fluid pressure in the pore space
of soils and rocks (pore pressure) and the pressure at which these fail under tension in the wellbore wall (fracture
pressure). PPFG predictions are usually presented as a PPFG forecast in either pressure (psi, MPa) or as a pressure
gradient (pressure / depth) presented in equivalent mud weight (ppg, gr / cc) (Figure 3).

19
Figure 3: Example of a PPFG prediction

PPFG prediction is based on the analysis and integration of data from three main sources:
Offset Wells: pressure measurements; drilling events (kicks and losses); petrophysical log data; formation pressure
integrity tests (leak-off tests), drilling data and drilling parameters such as mud weight.
Seismic Reflection Data: inference of (shale) pressures from interval velocities obtained from the processing of
seismic reflection data. Interpretation of seismic reflection data for understanding pressure build up and release
mechanisms
Basin Modelling: pressure, temperature and vertical stress estimates based on simulations of fluid flow in a basin
over geological time.
Both pore pressure and fracture pressure estimates are fundamental inputs for well design and construction, but are
often poorly understood in the tophole section. The main constraints on tophole PPFG predictions are generally:
• The limited availability of quality data from the riserless section in offset wells;
• Poor resolution of 3D seismic reflection data and sub-optimal seismic processing for retaining fine detail in the
shallow overburden;
• Poor understanding of appropriate ‘normal compaction trends’ (that is the expected increase of density with
depth) for soils and less-consolidated sediments;
• Lack of calibration for porosity/permeability in poorly compacted sediments;
• Poor definition of permeable facies in the shallow section in basin models, which often have fairly coarse cell
sizes and hence do not capture sufficient variability.
Shallow geotechnical, geophysical and geohazard data and interpretation may be used to improve understanding
of the tophole PPFG conditions.

20
Geotechnical Data and Analysis
Geotechnical data are often only acquired within the foundation zone to a depth of perhaps 30 m below seafloor,
although in some cases this may be extended to 150-200 m, and occasionally to greater depths where geotechnical
testing and sampling have been used to address particular tophole drilling issues.
Where available, geotechnical data and analysis may be used to infill tophole data gaps in petrophysical logs and
drilling data. Density data from shallow cores may be used to guide the extrapolation of density logs to seafloor and
determine the applicability of generalised density models. This is especially important in areas of overconsolidated
sediments or underconsolidated sediments.
Piezo-probe tests can provide measured pore pressure values, both in permeable formations and in shallow,
unconsolidated clays. Hydraulic fracture tests and Ko values derived from geotechnical testing and laboratory
results may be used, in conjunction with drilling experience, to better define the stress state and fracture pressures
in the tophole section.
Age dating of geotechnical cores may be used to aid the definition of recent sedimentation rates and provide a
better understanding of compaction trends. This can be used to enhance basin models and the generation of
reliable normal compaction trends in the shallow overburden.

Geophysical Data and Analysis

Currently, interval velocities derived from the (seismic) processing of high resolution (HR) seismic reflection data are
not commonly used in pore pressure prediction because normal compaction trends in the shallow section are not
well defined. Significant variations in predicted pressure can result from small variations in the normal compaction
trend, on which seismic velocity is highly sensitive. However, when they are available, interval velocities from HR3D
seismic reflection data may be useful for identifying pressure trends in the shallow section in greater detail than can
be acquired from conventional exploration 3D seismic reflection data. Further work is required to understand the
opportunities for using HR3D data to better define shallow PPFG. In addition, detailed seismic data interpretation
can provide a better understanding of pressure transfer or pressure traps in the shallow overburden.

Geohazard Analysis
Integration of the various datasets available to geohazard specialists, as described in Section 5.3, provides the
opportunity for detailed characterisation of the sub-surface in 3D, which can aid the understanding of the
distribution of permeable layers and seals in the tophole section. Detailed maps of features and layers, in particular
overpressured permeable zones and / or seals, can be integrated with basin models and seismic velocity volumes to
better understand the distribution of pressures in the shallow overburden and provide a regional understanding of
transfer and trapping of pressures.

21
 4.6 SUMMARY OF INPUTS/OUTPUTS OF AN INTEGRATED SITE INVESTIGATION

Table 4.2 summarises typical site investigation and other data inputs for the various phases of a drilling operation together
with the integrated outputs that would be used to design risk mitigation strategies for the tophole section of a well.

Table 4.2: Site investigation Inputs and Outputs

Phase of
Site Investigation
Drilling Other Data Inputs Integrated Outputs Comments
Data Inputs
Operation

Locating the Multibeam echo sounder Metocean Topographic and

well Sidescan sonar Environmental seafloor hazard maps
Sub-bottom profiler Existing Infrastructure /
Shallow geotechnical obstructions / restricted
Sampling area database
Conductor Sub-bottom profiler Previous drilling or Identification and Data type, analyses
installation HR 2D or 3D seismic jetting histories assessment of problem and outputs will
Exploration 3D seismic zones such as “hard depend upon
Geotechnical samples layers”, gravels, boulders, installation
/ testing (CPT) from a loose sands, channels, methodology; jetting,
drill & grout, driven
borehole shallow gas etc.
etc.
Isopach maps, integrated
sections, soil zonation &
parameter maps
Ground model
Axial capacity and
hydraulic fracture pressure
calculation
Conductor fatigue
analysis
Drilling open- HR 2D or 3D seismic PPFG prediction Shallow gas Calculation of
hole section Exploration 3D seismic Wellbore stability - distribution map(s) potential column
Geotechnical samples geomechanical study Ground model heights / volumes of
/ testing (CPT) from a Previous drilling histories Stratigraphical & gas for input to PPFG
borehole LWD logs lithological predictions AVO analysis and
3D seismic velocity Previous tophole Identification of seismic inversion will
models observer logs and reports permeable zones assist in deciding if
Identification of faults anomalies represent gas
Assessment of shallow Spectral decomposition
water flow potential and wavelet analysis
Integrated tophole may inform on
geological, hazards & lithology
PPFG prognosis
Casing HR 2D or 3D seismic PPFG prediction Identification of
installation and Exploration 3D seismic Wellbore stability permeable zones
cementing Geotechnical samples (geomechanical) study Identification of faults
/ testing (CPT) from a Previous drilling histories Assessment of shallow
borehole LWD logs water flow potential
3D seismic velocity Integrated tophole
models Previous tophole
geological, hazards &
observer logs / reports PPFG prognosis
Ground model

22
 5 Integrated Hazards Assessment and Risk
Management
Previous sections have discussed the variety of geohazards faced while drilling the tophole section of an offshore well
(Section 2) and the necessary geophysical and geotechnical data (Section 3) required to define the geological conditions
across a well-site, the results of which are used in geotechnical analysis for well engineering design purposes (Section 4.4).
Maximum value can only be gained from any site investigation programme through integration of all components of
the well planning process, by the operator or the operator’s consultants, as opposed to the treatment of each in isolation.
The following section discusses a generic approach to maximising value from site investigation data acquisition and
analysis, and suggests a risk evaluation process through a multi-disciplinary workgroup, with the aim of devising a
risk mitigation plan for management approval.

5.1 CHARACTERISING THE OVERBURDEN

Understanding the geological framework of the overburden is critical to successful and safe well planning in the
tophole section. The primary elements required to produce a geological understanding will be described by the
ground model and are:
• 3D geological framework (stratigraphy and structural components);
• Identification of geohazards;
• Geomechanical rock properties (induced fracture propagation, wellbore stability modelling etc.);
• Fluid evaluation (offset wells, basin modelling, seismic velocity etc.);
• Pore pressure fracture gradient (PPFG) assessment;
• Capture of uncertainties in each component.
In the tophole section many of the data elements required to assess geomechanical and fluid properties are not available,
mainly because the necessary wireline logs are rarely acquired in larger diameter hole-sections. This leads to a higher degree
of uncertainty, particularly in fluid evaluation. Therefore, careful management of the tophole section is critical for assuring
well-integrity, and a systematic approach to geophysical and geotechnical data integration greatly improves the chances
of executing the well plan successfully. Acquiring data, integrating them into the ground model and ultimately aiding
construction of the PPFG model, updating the geohazards prediction and PPFG model with post well observations and
feeding those lessons into future well planning, form the basis of this suggested best practice.
A combination of qualitative (geophysics and visual observations) and quantitative (measured) data are necessary
to characterise the overburden. The basic elements are:
• Geophysical data (Section. 3.4);
• Geotechnical data (Section. 3.5);
• Logging While Drilling (LWD) Data;
• Calliper logs;
• Completion logs;
• Offset well drilling and cementing histories.
It will often be the case that only some of these data types are available. However, as long as the limitations are
understood, much can be learned from the detailed analysis of non-ideal, existing datasets. Indeed, the effective use
of existing data is one of the cornerstones of an efficient site investigation process.

5.2 IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF SUBSURFACE UNCERTAINTY

All geoscience activities in support of well planning should aim to assess subsurface uncertainties and their impact upon
the fundamental objectives of the well, together with the choice of well design and drilling concept. Only through
discerning, understanding, communicating and, where possible, managing and reducing the range of uncertainties
inherent in the subsurface, can a well planning team hope to optimally reduce risk exposure during drilling operations.
In general, and as part of the prospect definition process, geoscientists who are specialists in geohazards and the shallow

23
geological section will have evaluated the conditions in the entire overburden. The process will have identified key
stratigraphic and structural elements controlling the geological development of the overburden, and identified a number
of hazards to drilling, either through direct analysis of seismic reflection data, or from offset well drilling histories.
Early acquisition of appropriate site investigation data will assist with reducing technical uncertainty in the tophole section.
However, any geohazards identified from the site investigation campaign must be promptly discussed and understood by
both subsurface geoscience, and drilling engineering disciplines. All identified geohazards must be integrated with the
other elements of subsurface description, and most importantly, with the pore pressure prediction analysis.
The key component of subsurface analysis used by the drilling engineer, is the pore pressure fracture gradient plot.
As discussed in Section 4.5, refining the “Drilling Window” from detailed overburden analysis is fundamental
in reducing drilling induced non-productive time, and successful well planning hinges on reducing uncertainty
regarding the onset of over pressure.
Any uncertainties in the pore pressure prediction must be explained and included in well planning. The presence
of geohazards, such as shallow gas or loose uncemented sands locally affect the pore pressure and fracture gradient.
Therefore, all geohazards should be placed in their correct geological context and correlated against the pore pressure,
fracture gradient analysis and the results utilised in defining the proposed drilling fluid types and weights. Failure
to do so may result in wellbore instability and pressure kicks where the hydraulic pressure is less than pore pressure,
or hydraulic fracture and lost circulation where the hydraulic pressure exceeds the fracture gradient.
One suggested methodology for capturing subsurface uncertainties, and ensuring they are evaluated and integrated with
all other aspects of well planning, is through adoption of integrated multi-disciplinary workgroup sessions and reviews.

5.3 INTEGRATED MULTI-DISCIPLINE APPROACH TO RISK EVALUATION

A typical well planning team may comprise the drilling engineer, a well planning geoscientist tasked with
coordinating subsurface analyses, an operations geologist and a pore pressure fracture gradient (PPFG) specialist (or
equivalent role). Figure 4 shows the basic composition of a typical well planning team responsible for identifying,
assessing and ranking geological risk. A geohazards specialist and a geotechnical engineer are further important
team members.

Figure 4: A typical Well Planning Team for Integrated Hazard Assessment, Risk Identification, Ranking and Mitigation

In general, the roles for each of these disciplines can be defined as:

Drilling Engineer
• Defines the well trajectory and casing design specifically to meet the conditions identified throughout the
overburden. This input is critical in the development of risk mitigation, reduction and elimination processes
either through well design, or drilling practice.
Well Planning Geoscientist
• Coordinates characterisation of the subsurface for the entire depth of interest of the well;

24
• Identifies key data inputs required to define the overburden which meet regulatory requirements, company
requirements, and best define the geological and geohazard conditions at site;
• Facilitate identification, evaluation and ranking of all potential subsurface hazards.
Operations Geologist
• Provides input to defining the overburden through analysis of offset well petrophysical, lithological and drilling
data;
• Collates a record on non-productive time from offset wells and in collaboration with the well planning geoscientist,
identifies problematic facies, and correlates to the proposed well.
PPFG Specialist
• Develops a pore pressure prediction through analysis and integration of data from offset wells, seismic volumes
and geological basin modelling;
• Identifies potential well control and lost circulation zones;
• Makes recommendations on the selection of drilling fluid / weight, casing string design, setting depth, and
geohazard mitigation.
For the site investigation the relationship with the well planning geoscientist is key to successful communication
of geohazards to the multi-disciplinary team. Generally, it is the well planning geoscientist who evaluates the
requirement for a site investigation programme based on the expected conditions at site, regulatory conditions and
intra-company policy compliance. In some cases collaboration between the site investigation specialists and the well
planning geoscientist is achieved through specialists within the operator, but in most cases, it is through client /
consultant / contractor relationships. In either case, communication is key to success.
The primary objective of multidisciplinary reviews is to record the range of uncertainties and their potential impacts on
well design, and devise a mitigation plan to reduce or remove the associated risks. All hazards identified through the
various subsurface analyses (geohazards, PPFG prediction, depth uncertainty, presence of H2S etc.) need to be captured,
and all potential and actual risks and uncertainties documented and communicated to the well planning team.
There are a number of tools and methodologies to assist with this including hazard and risk registers, risk assessment
tables or matrices, risk maps etc., but essentially, the process by which geohazards are captured and risks evaluated
should be similar to the approach shown in Figure 5 and described in the paragraphs below. The purpose of such
tools and working sessions is to maximise the use of all available subsurface data, from surface to total depth, and
transform that data into driller useable information.

(i) Review Specialist Studies and Capture Geohazards and Uncertainties

Evaluating and integrating the individual components that comprise the overburden ensures that all geohazards are
placed in the appropriate geological environment, and the interpretation and analyses by the different subsurface
contributors are consistent.
During a review process each discipline is asked to input the results of their analysis and to place identified geohazards
within the specific zones of influence affecting the well design, i.e. all factors affecting conductor installation, such
as presence of boulders, or installation methodology. In doing this, the inter-relationship between geohazards can
easily be identified.
At this stage the ground model can be evaluated against the PPFG prediction and analogues from offset wells
identified.

(ii) Review Geohazards and Uncertainties against the Well Design and Drilling Programme
During this phase of the workshop(s) input from the drilling engineer on the potential impacts and consequences
that each identified geohazard may have on the proposed well design and drilling methodology are reviewed.

(iii) Generate a Risk Register and Rank Risks

Through discussion and understanding of the relationship between geohazards and the well design, a variety of
credible scenarios can be discussed and consequences established. This will guide ranking the risks against the
objectives of the well, and help focus attention on the risks that pose the greatest threat to the operation. The end

25
result should be that no surprises occur and that all credible scenarios have been explored.
The risk assessment process should look for any analogues or benchmarks to aid assessing the consequences of an
event occurring, and look for mitigation strategies used.

(iv) Devise a Risk Mitigation Plan

The end result of the integrated workshop should be a strategy with which to remove or reduce risk through avoidance,
change of well design, adoption of alternative drilling practices, alternative technology or recommendations for
further data acquisition and refinement of inputs. The well planning team should have devised a drilling programme
that not only delivers a cost effective operation, but also resolves each key uncertainty.

(v) Management Agreement

The final stage of the well planning process is to demonstrate that:
• Best efforts have been made to identify all uncertainties, and where necessary, reduce those uncertainties through
additional data acquisition;
• All credible scenarios have been explored and;
• A risk mitigation plan is in place.
It is essential to document all decisions taken, and advice given, together with the associated rationale, assumptions
and any limitations or exclusions.

Figure 5: A Suggested Workflow for Tophole Risk Evaluation and Mitigation

26
 6 Tophole Execution and Post Well Review
Much of the guidance provided thus far has focused on reducing uncertainty in the drilling of the tophole during
the well planning process. However, risk reduction continues beyond planning the well and there is much value to
add through being vigilant during the execution of the tophole section, and ensuring any observations and lesson-
learned are captured and used to refine the understanding as work progresses.

6.1 TOPHOLE DRILLING OBSERVATION ON THE RIG

For wells planned in a previously undrilled basin, or where a critical geohazard issue has been highlighted during
the planning process, it is recommended that particular attention is given to monitoring operations in real-time
during tophole drilling, possibly involving a geohazard specialist. The objective is to verify the predicted conditions
and to identify any variations as quickly as possible. Information can then be passed straight to the drilling team,
thereby allowing prompt action to be taken in order to improve the chances of avoiding major issues.
For example, informed observation of ROV video of the well during connections while the pumps are off will
quickly identify any signs of flow (be it water or gas), or if there is a drop in drilling fluid in the well. Monitoring
the real-time drilling data, careful logging of observations and cross correlating back to the tophole prediction will
not only reduce risk on the drill floor, but also provide invaluable data to improve understanding of the geological
and drilling conditions. This will help to reduce uncertainty for future wells in the area.

6.2 POST WELL REVIEW AND FEEDBACK LOOP

On completion of the well, all available data sources and observation records should be collated and reviewed
by the same multi-disciplinary team involved in the planning of the well. This review should include but not be
limited to:
• End of well reports;
• Daily reports (drilling, geological, mud-logging etc.);
• Real-time drilling data;
• LWD logs;
• Geohazards observer logs.
Following the review an agreed set of conclusions should be compiled and published, the results of which should be
fed back into the documentation supporting the well planning process. Adjustments to the geological / geohazards
prediction should be made and communicated back to all parties involved in the tophole prediction. This should
not exclude the site investigation contractors responsible for the geophysical and geotechnical survey work.
Formalising the post well knowledge capture will ensure that the next well to be planned in the area will have
direct observations with which to reduce uncertainty. Updating the ground model and improving the geological
prediction for future wells should be a cyclical process.

27
 7 Glossary
Term Definition

Annulus The space between two concentric objects, such as between the
wellbore and casing or between casing and drillpipe, where fluid
can flow.
AVO Amplitude Versus Offset. Variation in seismic reflection
amplitude with changes in the horizontal offset between source
and receiver
Axial capacity The magnitude of the soil resistance that supports a pile or conductor
against movement in the direction of its long axis (i.e. vertical)
Basin modelling Term broadly applied to a group of geological disciplines that can
be used to analyse the formation and evolution of sedimentary
basins, in this context in order to make predictions of parameters
that determine pore pressure
BHA (Bottom hole assembly) The lowest part of the drill string, extending from the bit to the
drill pipe
Boomer Marine seismic energy source that operates by the rapid movement
of a restricted metal plate using an electrical pulse applied to a coil
BOP Blowout Preventer. A specialized valve or similar mechanical device,
used to seal, control and monitor oil and gas wells to prevent
blowout, the uncontrolled release of oil and/or gas from well
Borehole Hole drilled into the seabed for the purposes of carrying out in-
situ geotechnical testing, or to collect samples for geotechnical
laboratory testing and analysis
Calliper log Well log which measures hole diameter
Chirp profiler Energy source used in sub-bottom profiling that emits a frequency
modulated pulse over a specified range of frequencies
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) Ratio of effective horizontal stress in soil to effective vertical stress
Cohesive soils Soils whose strength comes from undrained behaviour (e.g. clay)
Cohesionless soils Soils whose strength comes from drained behaviour (e.g. sand)
Completion log Graphical log containing all the primary measurements in a
wellbore. Also known as a Composite log
Conductor Large diameter pipe that is set into the ground to provide the
initial stable structural foundation for an oil/gas well
Consolidated The process, including compression and cementation, by which
a loose deposit is transformed into a hard rock
CPT Cone Penetration Test. In-situ soil strength testing device that
makes real time soil resistance measurements as it is pushed into
the seabed by mechanical means at a controlled rate; can be used
to determine soil strength and also soil type (e.g. sand or clay)

28
Deformation parameter Soil property used to define the stiffness of soil load – deflection
response in soil-structure interaction analyses, typically defined
as the strain, ε50, at which half the ultimate strength of the soil
is mobilised in a laboratory vertical compression test
Density log Well log which records formation density by measuring the
backscatter of gamma-rays
Drained internal friction angle Soil parameter used defined the strength of cohesionless soil in
conjunction with the stresses acting
Drilled and grouted conductor A conductor installed by drilling a hole into which it is lowered
and the annulus between the outer pile wall and the soil is filled
with grout (cement), bonding the pile to the soil
Driven conductor A conductor installed by use of a percussive or vibratory piling
hammer to force it into the ground
ECD (Equivalent circulating density) The equivalent mud weight corresponding to the circulation
pressure, which is always higher than that of the static mud column
Effective vertical stress The vertical pressure caused by the buoyant weight of the
overlying soil, i.e. the integral of the submerged unit weight with
depth from the seafloor
Exploration 3D seismic reflection data 3D seismic reflection data collected for the purpose of exploring
for oil and gas rather than studying geohazards and the shallow
section
Foundation zone The maximum depth below seafloor of interest for foundation
design and installation
Gas hydrates Solid ice-like compound in which a large amount of methane is trapped
within a crystal structure of water. Large amounts of gas hydrates are
found within seabed sediments where temperatures are low
Geohazards Geological state or feature which is or has the potential to be a
hazard that poses a risk to one or more aspects of the proposed
activity or development at a site
GIS Geographic Information System. A system that captures, stores,
analyses, manages, and presents data that are directly linked to
the coordinates of the data’s origin
Grout (cement) job The result of filling the annuli between conductor and the
surrounding soil, or between successive casing strings, with grout
(cement) to bond the two together
Gumbo A nonspecific type of shale that becomes sticky when wet and
adheres aggressively to surfaces. It forms mud rings and balls that
can plug the annulus and components of the drilling system
Highly structured clays Clay soils possessing significant secondary features resulting from
their geological history such as bedding layers, fissures and pre-
existing failure planes, that affect the strength of the clay that can
be mobilised; typically weakening
Hydraulic fracture Fracture within the formation adjacent to the wellbore caused by
high water or drilling fluid pressure acting against the soil wall of
the wellbore
29
Hydraulic fracture testing The process of establishing the maximum formation pressure that
a well can withstand by increasing the pressure in the well to the
point at which fractures form and fluids are lost into the formation
In situ testing Soil parameter testing carried out using tools that penetrate
into the undisturbed seabed in the field as opposed to in the
laboratory with recovered samples. For example a CPT
In situ vane A vane shear test can directly measure peak and remoulded
undrained shear strength of the soil. An in situ vane is typically
pushed 0.5m into the soil before being activated and can be
deployed at the seafloor or in a borehole
Interval velocities Seismic velocity measured over a depth interval.
Inversion The process of transforming seismic reflection data into acoustic
impedance, which may be informative of rock or sediment-
properties
Jetted conductor A conductor installed by weakening / removing the soil by
the action of pumping sea water or drilling fluid through the
conductor and into the soil via nozzles in the conductor shoe
Logging while drilling (LWD) Technique of conveying well logging tools into the well as part of
the drilling bottom hole assembly and obtaining measurements
either in real time or after the tools have been withdrawn
Lost circulation The loss of drilling fluid, known commonly as “mud”, into one or
more geological formations instead of returning up the annulus
MTC (Mass transport complex) Chaotic marine stratigraphic deposits that can originate from a
range of geological processes including slides, slumps, turbidity
currents and debris flows
Mini-airgun A low power airgun (commonly used seismic source which injects
a bubble of highly compressed air into the water to generate a
pressure wave) designed for high resolution surveys
Multi-azimuth migration Migration of dipping seismic reflectors to their true spatial
positions in three dimensions, rather than limiting it to the two
dimensional plane of a section
Multibeam echo sounder Bathymetric measuring instrument employing multiple acoustic
transmitting and receiving elements arranged transversely across
a transducer to provide data across a swath of seafloor, enabling
the acquisition of bathymetric data over a corridor of width
typically more than twice the water depth. Enables complete
seafloor mapping at high spatial resolution
Multichannel high resolution seismic reflection Seismic survey data recorded simultaneously on multiple receiver
channels at varying distances from the seismic energy source,
to enable data processing to improve data quality and signal to
noise ratio. Designes to image the shallow section beyond the
depth range of single channel profilers.
Offset well Existing well from which information is available to tie back
to and assist with making predictions about conditions at a
proposed well location

30
Overburden All of the geological formation that lies above an oil or gas
reservoir as far as the seafloor
Overconsolidated Sediments that have had their compressional load removed, e.g.,
areas that have been subject to Ice loading or significant uplift
and erosion
Petrophysical logs Information on physical and chemical rock properties and their
interaction with fluids derived from well logs.
Piezo-probe tests Measurement of the dissipation of the soil pore water pressures
generated by the insertion of a small diameter probe into the
seafloor. An in-situ test used to determine the consolidation
properties of the formation and to determine if the pore water
pressures are in excess of hydrostatic
Pilot hole (Small diameter) hole drilled in advance of a borehole or well in
order to test the formation for geohazards such as high pressure
zones or shallow gas
Pinger High power transducer acoustic source (or the complete system
in which it is used) employed in single channel seismic profiling,
usually achieves seabed data down to a few metres
PPFG Pore Pressure Fracture Gradient. A plot of increasing pressure with
depth that also illustrates the difference between pore pressure
(the pressure needed to prevent pore fluids from entering the
well), and fracture pressure (the pressure at which drilling fluids
will be lost to the formation)
Pressure containment string Casing system installed in a well that has the capacity to control
the pressure in a well and contain unexpectedly high pressures
using a blowout preventer
Pseudo impedance Acoustic impedance derived from non-seismic means such as
petrophysical data
P-wave (Pressure wave) An elastic body wave in which the particle motion is in the
direction of propagation.
Reactive clays Clays that swell and become sticky when exposed to seawater or
drilling fluid
Relief well Well designed to provide intervention in the event of a well
control incident at depth
Remoulded undrained shear strength The undrained shear strength of the soil after being heavily
worked / deformed
Resolution The minimum distance between two features that may be
separated
Response to load The deflection of a structure when subjected to loading, e.g the
vertical deformation of a conductor when the BOP is added
RhoB Log A logging while drilling density log
RoP (Rate of penetration) Rate of penetration of the drill bit when drilling
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle. Tethered underwater mobile device

31
 that may carry cameras and other sensors and tools, operated
from the surface
Seabed Materials below the seafloor
Seafloor Interface between the sea and the seabed
Seismic processing The computer-based treatment of digital seismic data (typically
multi-channel) to enhance the signals that relate to the geological
interfaces being investigated, and to remove various artefacts and
noise, to obtain the optimum image for interpretation
Seismic velocity The velocity of the seismic wave through a particular medium,
water, soil or rock. Knowledge of the velocity is critical to
optimising seismic processing
Shallow gas The presence of shallow biogenic or hydrocarbon-originated gas
charged sediment. Any gas pocket encountered above the setting
depth of the first pressure containment string
Shallow water flow Flow of overpressured pore water into a well from a geological
interval causing difficulties in well control and effective cementing
of casing
Short offset processing Multi-channel seismic reflection data processed using only the
traces that have a short horizontal source to receiver distance
and discarding the rest. High frequencies are selectively retained
resulting in improved resolution in the shallow section
Sidescan sonar Instrument for the efficient mapping of seafloor morphology and
features by the transmission and reception of fan-shaped acoustic
beams from the sides of a towed or vessel mounted transducer,
and measurement and display of the backscattered acoustic
energy. Creates an oblique acoustic image of the seafloor
Site investigation Investigation of the physical properties of the geological conditions
in a drilling or development site to determine and inform the
safe installation of a temporary or permanent structure. A site
investigation may involve the collection of geophysical and /
or geotechnical data. Geophysical site investigations are often
referred to as site surveys
Soil province A three dimensional unit within which soil conditions are
generally uniform or are within some specific range.
Sonic log A well log of the travel time for acoustic waves over unit distance,
and hence the reciprocal of P-wave velocity
Spudding To start the well drilling process by removing rock, dirt and other
sedimentary material with the drill bit.
Spectral decomposition Breakdown of a seismic signal into its component frequencies
Stratigraphy A branch of geology that studies rock layers and layering
(stratification) primarily used in the study of sedimentary rocks
and also soils
Structure map Map of geological features or an interface usually constructed
from seismic information

32
Stuck pipe Drill pipe that cannot be freed from the hole without damaging
the pipe, and without exceeding the drilling rig’s maximum
allowed hook load. May be caused either by differential pressure
or by mechanical trapping
Sub-bottom profiler Seismic reflection instrument for investigating the upper few
tens of metres of the seabed with as high a vertical resolution as
possible
Submerged unit weight The net weight per unit volume of the soil after correction for
buoyancy; the saturated weight per unit volume of the soil minus
the weight per unit volume of water
Surface casing Usually the first casing to be run in a well after the conductor is
installed. A blowout preventer is normally fitted to the surface
casing before further drilling takes place
S-wave (Shear wave) A body wave in which the particle motion is perpendicular to the
direction of propagation
Swelling clays The expansion of clays or clay fractions in the sub-surface caused
by the adsorption of water or water based fluids
Tuning effects Modulation of seismic amplitudes because of constructive and
destructive interference from overlapping seismic reflections.
This effect is commonly seen in thin beds and can produce false
high amplitudes
Underconsolidated The condition of sediments immediately after a new load is
applied but before the excess pore water pressure has had time to
dissipate. Areas with high sedimentation rates or gassy sediments
are often underconsolidated
Undrained shear strength The strength of a soil under shear loading when rate of loading
is such that pore water pressure is not allowed to dissipate. The
main parameter defining the strength of cohesive soils
Washout Enlargement of the wellbore beyond the original hole size.
May be caused by excessive jetting, or soft or unconsolidated
formations
Wellbore instability An open hole interval that does not maintain its gauge size and
shape and/or its structural integrity
Wireline logs Various physical measurements of soil or rock properties made
by geophysical tools lowered into a borehole

33
 8 References
1. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). (2013). Guidelines for the Conduct of Offshore
Drilling Hazard Site Surveys, Report No. 373-18-1, Version 1.2
2. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). (2015). Technical Notes for the Conduct of
Offshore Drilling Hazard Site Surveys
3. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2015). Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific
requirements for offshore structures – Part 8: Marine soil investigations, Document ISO 19901-8
4. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2003), Modified, Petroleum and natural gas industries
– Specific requirements for offshore structures –Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation design considerations,
Document ISO 19901-4
5. American Petroleum Institute (API). (2011). Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations, Ref – API
RP 2GEO
6. Hill A. W., Wood G. A., and Sherschel C. A., (2013). Fundamental and Specific Marine Geohazard Risk
Assessment Categorisation, OTC paper 24211
7. Simm R, and Bacon M. (2014). Seismic Amplitude: An Interpreters Handbook, 1st Edition, Cambridge Press,
ISBN-13: 978-1107011502
8. Fichtner A. (2011). Full Seismic Waveform Modelling and Inversion, Springer, ISBN-13: 978-3642158063
9. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2007). Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed
steel offshore structures, Document ISO 19902
10. American Petroleum Institute (API). (2014). Recommended Practice 2A-WSD, Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design, Ref – API RP 2A
11. Jeanjean, P. (2002), Innovative Design Method for Deepwater Surface Casings,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper Ref. SPE-77357-MS
12. Evans, T. G. and Rheaume, G. T. (2002), Axial Capacities of Jetted Well Conductors in Angola, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, Society for Underwater
Technology, London
13. Akers T. J., (2008),. Jetting of Structural Casing in Deepwater Environments: Job Design and Operational
Practices, SPE document ref. SPE-102378-PAetroleum Engineers

34
 9 Bibliography
1. International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC). (2015). IADC Deep Water Well Control Guidelines
2nd Ed
2. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers I(OGP). (2009). Geohazards from Seafloor Instability and
mass Flow, Report No 425
3. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2012). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Fied
Testing - Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration test, Document ISO 22476-1
4. International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE), Technical Committee 1.
(2005). Geotechnical & Geophysical Investigations for Offshore and Nearshore Developments
5. Ladd, C.C., Foot, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G. (1977). Stress Deformation and Strength
Characteristics, State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings, XI International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo
6. Nagel, N. B. and McLennan, J. D. (Editors), Solids injection, (2010), Society of Petroleum Engineers, ISBN
978-1-55563-256-4
7. Peuchen, J. and Klein, M., Prediction of Formation Pore Pressures for Tophole Well Integrity. OTC Paper
21301, 2011
8. Scanlon, T. and Medieros, F. Enhanced Drilling Solution for Tophole Sections on Jack up Wells with
Environmentally-Improved Method and Dual Gradient Drilling Techniques. (2012), Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Paper Ref. SPE-152089-MS
9. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Style Guide (2011)
10. Stahl B. and Baur M.P. (1980). Design Methodology for Offshore Platform Conductors, Proceedings of the
OTC Paper 3902

35