Pipeline Research Council International

PIPELINE RESEARCH COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL
G. L. Walker, Pacific Gas Transmission Company (Chairman)

E. E. Thomas, Southern Natural Gas Company (Vice Chairman)
P. S. Anderson, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.R. L. Brown, Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of AmericaE. Herle, StatoilR. C. Hesje, Transportadora de Gas de1
NorteM. C. Hocking, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.D. L. Johnson,
Enron Operations CorpW. A. Johnson II, El Paso Natural Gas CompanyD. F.
Keprta, ARCO Oil and Gas CompanyR. E. Keyser, Panhandle Eastern
CorporationR. W. Little, Union Gas LimitedJ. P. Lucido, ANR Pipeline
CompanyH. A. Madariaga, Southern California Gas CompanyJ. K. McDonald,
East Australian Pipeline Ltd.D. J. McNiel, Tenneco GasM. Merrill, BP Pipelines
(Alaska) Inc.K. J. Naarding, N. V. Nederlandse GasunieC. W. Petersen, Exxon
Production Research CompanyD. E. Reid, TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd.P. R.
Smullen, Shell Development CompanyB. J. Sokoloski, CNG Transmission
CorporationP. M. Srensen, Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/SB. C. Sosinski,
Consumers Power CompanyR. J. Turner, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.D. C.
Walker, Oklahoma Natural Gas CompanyT. L. Willke, Gas Research InstituteK.
F. Wrenn, Jr., Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.T. F. Murphy, American Gas
Association(PRC Staff)
A. G. Cotterman, American Gas Association (PRC Staff)
OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE DESIGN APPLICATIONS SUPERVISORY
COMMITTEE
R. E. Keyser, Panhandle Eastern Corporation (Chairman)
*D. W. Allen, Shell Development Company*J. A. Barbalich, Tenneco Gas*S. T.
Barbas, Exxon Production Research Company*R. L. Barron, Texas Gas
Transmission Corp.*L. M. Bums, Colorado Interstate Gas CompanyT. D.
Caldwell, BP Exploration, Inc.J. C. Chao, Exxon Production Research
CompanyG. W. Connors, Union Gas Limited*M. J. Coyne, Shell Oil
CompanyD. A. Degenhardt, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of AmericaJ. P. Dunne,
ANR Pipeline CompanyJ. R. Ellwood, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.R. W. Gailing,
Southern California Gas CompanyR. E. Hoepner, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corp.W. C. Kazokas, Jr., ARCO Exploration and Production
Technology*J. Kleinhans, BP Exploration, Inc.*F. Kopp, Shell Oil CompanyS.
W. Lambright, Consumers Power Company*C. G. Langner, Shell Development
CompanyW. R. Ledbetter, Tenneco GasC. Lee, Pacific Gas and Electric
CompanyS. Lund, StatoilS. N. Marr, TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd.O. Medina, El
Paso Natural Gas Company*J. E. Meyer, Panhandle Eastern Corporation*K. C.
Peters, Southern Natural Gas CompanyM. Rizkalla, NOVA Gas Transmission
Ltd.*L. A. Salinas, Tenneco Gas*O. R. Samdal, StatoilJ. Spiekhout, N. V.
Nederlandse GasunieJ. E. Thygesen, Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S*R. Verley,
StatoilL. D. Walker, Southern Natural Gas Company

*Alternate or Ad Hoc Group Member onlySpecial thanks to the following PR227-9321 ad hoc
group
members:
R. E. Hoepner, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. (Chairman)
J. A. Barbalich, Tenneco GasD. A. Degenhardt, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of
AmericaJ. P. Dunne, ANR Pipeline CompanyR. W. Gailing, Southern California
Gas CompanyJ. E. Meyer, Panhandle Eastern CorporationM. Rizkalla, NOVA
Gas Transmission Ltd.J. Spiekhout, N. V. Nederlandse Gasunie
COMMITTEE
group
members:

COMMITTEE
group
members:
5.Pipe Stress Analysis
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...................................
37
Installation Loads and Stresses, 37; Pulling Load Calculation Method,
38; DrilledPath Analysis, 38; Pulling Loads, 38; Installation Stress Analysis,
45; IndividualLoads, 45; Combined Loads, 47; Example Pulling Load
Calculation, 48; Example
Installation Stress Analysis, 54; Operating Loads and Stresses, 56; Combined
Stressesand Limitations, 57; Example Operating Stress Analysis, 58;
Spreadsheet - Load and
Stress Analysis, 59.
6.Construction Impact
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................
61
Workspace, 61; Horizontal Drilling Rig, 61; Pull Section Fabrication, 63;
DrillingFluids, 65; Functions, 66; Composition, 66; Quantity
Estimating Calculations, 67;
Recommended Disposal Methods, 70; Environmental Impact, 73.
7.Contractual Considerations
................................................................
.......................
77
Lump Sum Contracts, 77; Pricing, 77; Unknown Subsurface Condition
Risk, 78;Technical Specification, 78; Plan & Profile Drawing, 78; Daywork
Contract, 83;
Uniform Daywork Bid Sheet, 83; Equipment Failure Risk, 83.
8.Construction Monitoring
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
87
Drilled Path, 87; Construction Staking, 87; Pilot Hole, 87; Directional
DrillingPerformance, 92; Downhole Survey Calculations, 92; Radius of
CurvatureCalculations, 94; TruTracker Surface Monitoring System, 95; Asbuilt
Error
Distribution, 96; Pipe Installation, 96; Pull Section Handling, 96; Buoyancy
Control,96; Coating Integrity, 96; Drilling Fluid Flow, 96.
BibliographyMetric SI Unit Conversion TableGlossary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This engineering design guide is the principal product of PRC project PR-2279424.
Its purpose
is to serve as a step by step guide for engineers engaged in the evaluation,
design, and
management of natural gas pipeline construction by Horizontal Directional
Drilling (HDD).
It isnot intended to replace sound engineering judgment in the design

process nor can it possiblyaddress every question which might arise in the
design of any specific crossing.
HDD pipeline
design involves sophisticated engineering principles and should be performed
under the
supervision of a qualified professional engineer.The guide contains eight
sections which address the following general topics.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.6.7.8.
A description of the HDD installation process;Feasibility considerations
including the state of the art in HDD, factors which limit its use, anda method
for estimating the detailed cost of HDD installations under various conditions;
Components of a site characterization required for HDD design and bidding
including
geological factors, geotechnical aspects, and field survey requirements;General
considerations relative to drilled path design, pipe specification, external pipe
coating,
and multiple line installation;
Methods for analyzing pipe stresses both during installation and under
operating conditions
including a method for calculating pulling loads involved with pull back;
The impact of HDD operations on the environment including a discussion of
drilling fluid
functions, composition, quantities, and disposal methods;General considerations
relative to contract form, unknown subsurface condition risk,
technicalspecifications, design drawings; and
Inspection requirements during construction including a detailed
discussion of downhole
survey calculation methods.
Cost estimating, pipe stress, and drilling fluid quantity calculation
methods are presented in aLotus l-2-3 spreadsheet format and
demonstrated with sample problems. A diskette containing spreadsheet
tiles is fixed to the inside back cover of the guide. Photographs and sketches
have
been included where appropriate to illustrate construction operations
SECTION 1 - THE HORIZONTALDIRECTIONAL, DRILLING PROCESS

1
SECTION 1THE HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING PROCESS
The horizontal directional drilling process represents a significant improvement
over
traditional cut and cover methods for installing pipelines beneath obstructions,
such as rivers
or shorelines, which warrant specialized construction attention.
In order to take fulladvantage of the benefits offered by horizontal directional
drilling (HDD) and produce
designs which can be efficiently executed in the field, design engineers should
have a workingknowledge of the process.This section presents a general
description of the HDD process.
The tools and techniques used in the HDD process are an outgrowth of
the oil well drilling
industry. The components of a horizontal drilling rig used for pipeline
construction are
similar to those of an oil well drilling rig with the major exception being that a
horizontal
drilling rig is equipped with an inclined ramp as opposed to a vertical
mast.HDD pilot hole
operations are not unlike those involved in drilling a directional oil well. Drill
pipe anddownhole tools are generally interchangeable and drilling fluid is used
throughout the
operation to transport drilled spoil, reduce friction, stabilize the hole,
etc. Because of these
similarities, the process is generally referred to as drilling as opposed to boring.
Installation of a pipeline by HDD is generally accomplished in two stages as
illustrated in
Figure l-l.
The first stage consists of directionally drilling a small diameter pilot hole along
a
designed directional path. The second stage involves enlarging this
pilot hole to a diameter
which will accommodate the pipeline and pulling the pipeline back into the
enlarged hole.
Pilot Hole Directional Drilling
Pilot hole directional control is achieved by using a non-rotating drill string with
an
asymmetrical leading edge. The asymmetry of the leading edge creates a
steering bias while
the non-rotating aspect of the drill string allows the steering bias to be held in a
specific
position while drilling.If a change in direction is required, the drill

string is rolled so that the
direction of bias is the same as the desired change in direction. The
direction of bias isreferred to as the
tool face.
Straight progress may be achieved by drilling with a series of offsetting tool
face positions.
The drill string may also be continually rotated where
directional control is not required. Leading edge asymmetry can be
accomplished by several
methods.
Typically, the leading edge will have anangular offset created by a bent sub or
bentmotor housing. This is illustrated schematically inFigure l-2.
2
SECTION 1 - THE HORIZONTALDIRECTIONALDRILLING PROCESS
STAGE 1, PILOT HOLE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING
HORIZONTALDRILLING RIGDRILLING FLUID RETURNSTHEORETICAL
ANNULUSEXITPOINTDESIGNED DRILLED
P ATH
GENERALDIRECTION OF PROGRESSPILOTHOLE DRILLING
STAGE 2, REAMING & PULLING BACK
THEORETICAL ANNULUS
PREREAMING
GENERALDIRECTION OF PROGRESSGENERALDIRECTION OF PROGRESSPULLING
BACK
Figure l-l
The HDD Process
SECTION 1 - THE HORIZONTALDIRECTIONALDRILLING PROCESS

3
DOWNHOLE MOTORBENTSUB
BIT
NON-MAGNETIC COLLAR
Figure 1-2
Bottom Hole Assembly
Jetting
It is common in soft soils to achieve drilling progress by hydraulic cutting with
a jet nozzle.
In this case, the direction of flow from the nozzle can be offset from
the central axis of thedrill string thereby creating a steering bias. This
may be accomplished by blocking selectednozzles on a standard roller
cone bit or by custom fabricating a jet deflection bit. If hard
spots are encountered, the drill string may be rotated to drill without directional
control untilthe hard spot has been penetrated.
Downhole Motors
Downhole mechanical cutting action required for harder soils is provided by downhole
hydraulic motors.
Downhole hydraulic motors, commonly referred to as mud motors,
convert hydraulic energy from drilling mud pumped from the surface to
mechanical energy atthe bit. This allows for bit rotation without drill string
rotation.There are two basic types of mud motors; positive displacement and
turbine.Positive displacement motors are typicallyused in HDD applications.
Basically, a positive displacement mud motor consists of a spiralshaped stator containing a sinusoidal shaped rotor.Mud flow through
the stator imparts
rotation to the rotor which is in turn connected through a linkage to the bit.
Wash Pipe
In some cases, a larger diameter wash pipe may be rotated concentrically over
the nonrotating steerable drill string.
This serves to prevent sticking of the steerable string andallows its tool face to be freely
oriented.It also maintains the pilot hole if it becomes
necessary to withdraw the steerable string.
Downhole Surveying
The actual path of the pilot hole is monitored during drilling by taking
periodic readings of the inclination and azimuth of the leading
edge.Readings are taken with an instrument, commonly referred to as a
probe, inserted in a drill collar as close as possible to the drill bit.
Transmission of downhole probe survey readings to the surface is
generally accomplished
t h r o u g h a w i r e r u n n i n g i n s i d e t h e dr i l l s t r i n g . T h e s e r e a d i n g s , i n
conjunction with
measurements of the distance drilled since the last survey, are used to calculate
the horizontaland vertical coordinates along the pilot hole relative to the initial
entry point on the surface.Survey calculation methods are discussed in detail
inSection 8.
Azimuth readings are taken from the earths magnetic field and are
subject to interference
from downhole tools, drill pipe, and magnetic fields created by adjacent
structures.
Therefore, the probe must be inserted in a non magnetic collar and positioned in
the string sothat it is adequately isolated from downhole tools and drill
pipe.The combination of bit, mud
motor (if used), subs, survey probe, and non magnetic collars is
referred to as the Bottom
Hole Assembly or BHA.A typical bottom hole assembly is shown

asFigure 1-2.
Surface Monitoring
The pilot hole path may also be tracked using a surface monitoring system.
Surface
monitoring systems determine the location of the probe downhole by
taking measurementsf r o m a g r i d or p o i n t o n t h e s u r f a c e . A n
e x a m p l e o f t h i s i s t h e Tru Tra c k e r
System. This
system uses a surface coil of known location to induce a magnetic
field.The probe senses its
location relative to this induced magnetic field and communicates this
information to the
surface. This is shown schematically in Figure l-3.
KNOWN CORNER LOCATIONS
SURFACE COIL
Figure l-3
TruTracker Surface Monitoring System
(TruTracker is a Trademark of Sharewell, Inc.)
Reaming & PulIing Back
Enlarging the pilot hole is accomplished using either prereaming passes prior to
pipe
installation or simultaneously during pipe installation. Reaming tools
typically consist of a
circular array of cutters and drilling fluid jets and are often custom made by
contractors for aparticular hole size or type of soil.
Figures l-4, l-5,
1-6.
Examples of different types of reaming tools are shown in
Prereaming
Most contractors will opt to preream a pilot hole before attempting to
install pipe.
For a
prereaming pass, reamers attached to the drill string at the exit point are rotated
and drawn to
the drilling rig thus enlarging the pilot hole. Drill pipe is added behind
the reamers as theyprogress toward the drill rig.This insures that a
string of pipe is always maintained in thedrilled hole. It is also
possible to ream away from the drill rig. In this case, reamers fitted
into the drill string at the rig are rotated and thrust away from it.
Pulling Back
Pipe installation is accomplished by attaching the prefabricated pipeline pull
section behind areaming assembly at the exit point and pulling the reaming
assembly and pull section back tothe drilling rig.
This is undertaken after completion of prereaming or, for smaller
diameterlines in soft soils, directly after completion of the pilot hole.A
swivel is utilized to connectthe pull section to the leading reaming
assembly to minimize torsion transmitted to the pipe(refer to Figure 1-5).
The pull section is supported using some combination of roller stands,
pipe handling equipment, or a flotation ditch to minimize tension and
prevent damage to the pipe.
SECTION 2
FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Three standards may be used to assess the feasibility of HDD for a given
crossing.These are technical, contractual, and economic. First, a crossing is
technically feasible if it can be installed using existing tools and
techniques regardless of uncertainties surrounding the cost of
installation. Second, a crossing is contractually feasible if the cost of
installation can be accurately estimated in advance allowing contractors to
submit lump sum bids. Third, a crossing is economically feasible if its
installation cost is less than the cost of an equivalent construction
method.
Technical Feasibility
For a pipeline to be installed by HDD, one of two conditions must be
achieved downhole .Either and open hole must be cut into the subsurface
material to such an extent that installation of a pipeline by the pull back
method is possible, or the soil properties must be modified sothat it
behaves in fluid manner allowing a pipeline to be pulled through it. The
possibility of achieving either of these conditions downhole is dependent
primarily on subsurface soil conditions.
The open hole condition is similar to that achieved in a typical oil well.A
cylindrical hole is cut in the subsurface. Drilling fluid flows to the
surface in the annulus between the pipe and the hole wall. Drilled spoil is
transported in the drilling fluid to the surface. This is generally applicable to
rock and cohesive soils.It may also apply to some sandy or silty soils
depending on the density of the material, the specific makeup of the

coarse fraction, and the binding or structural capacity of the fine fraction.
It is probable that loose cohesionless soils will not support an open hole over a
long horizontally drilled length. This does not, however, prevent the
installation of a pipeline.
The mechanical agitation of the reaming tool coupled with the injection of
bentonitic drilling fluid will cause the soil to experience a decrease in shear
strength. If the resulting shear strength is low enough, the soil will behave
in a fluid manner allowing a pipe to be pulledthrough it. The fluid
behavior of loose sands, commonly referred to as quicksand, is defined
by geotechnical engineers as liquefaction.
If either an open hole or fluid condition can be achieved downhole and
the stresses imposedon the pipe and tooling are not excessive,
installation by HDD is technically feasible. The technical feasibility of a
proposed HDD installation can be predicted by comparing it to past
installations in three basic parameters:drilled length, pipe diameter,
and subsurface soil material. These three parameters work in combination to
limit what can be achieved at a given location.Installations which define
the state of the art in length and diameter as of
1994 are presented inTable 2 - 1.
SECTION 2 - FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
9
given location.
Installations which define the state of the art in length and diameter as
of
1994 are presented inTable 2 - 1.
Tab l e 2 - l
State of the Art Installations as of 1994
Location
Length
Diameter
Soil Material
Date
Wormley Creek
Yorktown, VA
5,850 ft.
(1,783 m)
SB Elizabeth River 2,160 ft

1993
Norfolk, VA
(658 m)
10 in.
(DN 250)
48 in.
(DN 1200)
Alluvial
Alluvial
1994
Limitations with respect to length and diameter are primarily due to

limits on the capacity of existing tools and drill pipe. Present
technology involves thrusting pipe from the surface to advance a pilot
hole .The flexibility of relatively slender drill pipe does not allow an
unlimited a mo u n t o f t h r u s t t o b e a p p l i e d . C o n t r ol o f t h e l e a d i n g
e d g e d i m i n i s h e s o v e r l o n g l e n g t h s . Present technology also
involves rotating pipe at the surface to rotate reamers down hole.
The capacity of drill pipe for the transmission of torsion is limited.
Installation of a 48 inch pipe will typically require completion of a 60
inch reaming pass. While development of new tools and techniques
which increase load bearing and energy transmission capacities of drill
pipe is possible, economic factors come into play.
The market for HDD installation of pipe over longer lengths or larger
diameters than those presented in Table 2-l has not been defi ned.
Subsurface Soil Material
While length, diameter, and subsurface soil material work in combination to
limit the technical feasibility of an HDD installation, technical feasibility is
primarily limited by subsurface soil material. Two material
characteristics prevent successful establishment of either an open hole or
fluid condition. These are large grain content (i.e. gravel, cobbles) and excessive
rock strength and hardness.
Soils consisting principally of coarse grained material present a
serious restriction on the feasibility of HDD. Coarse material cannot
be readily fluidized by the drilling fluid. Neither is it stable enough to
be cut and removed in a drilling fluid stream through an open hole as
is
the case in a crossing drilled in competent rock. A boulder or cluster of
cobbles will remain in the drilled path and present an obstruction to a bit,
reamer, or pipeline. They must be mechanically displaced during hole
enlargement. Displacement may be radially outward into voids formed by the
entrainment of finer grained (sand and smaller size) material.
However ,naturally dense, high gravel percentage soils contain little
entrainable material and insufficient voids may be developed to permit passage
by larger diameter reamers or pipe. Coarse material may also migrate to low
spots on the drilled path forming impenetrable blocks.
Exceptionally strong and hard rock will hamper all phases of an HDD
project. Experience has shown competent rock with unconfined
compressive strengths exceeding 12,000 psi and bohs Scale of
Hardness factors ranging somewhat above 7 can be negotiated with
todays technology. However, entry of such materials at depth is
usually difficult. The directional d r i l l i n g s t r i n g t e n d s t o d e f l e c t

r a t h e r t h a n p e n e t r a t e . C o n v e r s e l y, p o or q u a l i t y ( e x t e n s i v e l y
fractured or jointed) rock can present the same problems as coarse granular
deposits.
Two of the most significant crossings installed to date in rock were
completed in the Fall of 1991. The longest, at approximately 3,000 feet
(914 m) was installed beneath the Niagara River near Niagara Falls,
New York. This 30 inch (DN 750) crossing was placed through a
soft shale. An additional installation in harder rock was completed in 1991
beneath the Housatonic River near Shelton, Connection cut. This 24 inch (DN
600) line penetrated approximately 1,200 feet (366 m) of hard, finegrained schist in a total horizontal drilled length of approximately 1,732
feet (528 m).
General guidelines for assessing the feasibility of prospective HDD
installations based on earth material type and gravel percent by weight
are presented in Table 2-2.
Earth material type and gravel percent by weight are determined in the
site characterization phase of HDD installation design discussed in Section
3.0.
Engineering judgment based on a foundation of practical experience
must be applied when using the guidelines presented in Table
2.2.Knowledge of subsurface conditions will be based on extrapolation
of measured properties from discreet soil borings generally taken by
individuals not involved in HDD construction.
A crossing may be placed in competent rock beneath a river.
Nevertheless, overburden soils will probably have to be penetrated
before the rock stratum is entered. A crossing installed in the lower
Mississippi River flood plain may encounter clays, silts, sands, and gravels
of varying relative densities in a relatively short distance. Only the general
character of the subsurface material will be known in advance of
construction.
C o n t r a c t u a l Fe a s i b i l i t y
Once the technical feasibility of a prospective HDD installation has
been established, its contractual feasibility can be assessed.
This assessment is accomplished in the same way as technical
feasibility, by comparing it to past installations. If the crossing falls
near the limits of the state of the art in any of the basic parameters; length,
diameter, or soil conditions, it is possible that it may be viewed by
contractors as too risky to undertake for a fixed lump sum price. It
should be understood, however, that determination of contractual
feasibility is very subjective and will vary for individual contractors based on
their experience and commercial situation. In todays market for HDD
services, most crossings that are technically feasible will be bid on a

lump sum basis by at least one contractor. Nonetheless, it is not
unusual to receive only one lump sum bid for state of the art crossings or for
lump sum bids received to be very high. If contractual feasibility is
questionable, the benefits of a day work contract or an alternate
construction method should be considered. Contractual considerations,
including day work contracts, are discussed in Section 7.
Table 2-2
HDD Feasibility Assessment Guidelines
Earth
Material Type
Gravel %
by Weight
Very soft to
Plugging of the annulus
hardstrength,
stem during pilot
possiblyslickensided,
produce inadvertent
clay
HDD Feasibility
N/A
Good To Excellent.
surrounding the drill
hole drilling may
Penetration of strong clay surrounded by
Economic Feasibility
Determining the economic feasibility of a prospective HDD installation is a
fairlystraightforward exercise involving comparison of the estimated cost of
HDD with theestimated cost of an alternate installation method.If the HDD
estimate is less, it is economically feasible. When making this
comparison, it is important to estimate the cost of equivalent designs and
to include all costs associated with each method. For example, itwould not be
valid to compare the cost of a pipeline river crossing installed by open
excavation with 3 feet of cover against the cost of a drilled installation
providing 25 feet of cover without including some adjustment in the
excavated estimate to account for possiblefuture remedial work
brought on by the relatively shallow 3 foot cover.Restoration costs
and the costs associated with environmental impact for each method considered
must also be i n c l u d e d .
The environmental impact associated with HDD construction operations
isdiscussed inSection 6.A procedure estimating the cost of specialized HDD
services is presented in the following paragraphs.

Pipeline Research Council International

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pipeline Research Council International

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PIPELINE RESEARCH COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL

G. L. Walker, Pacific Gas Transmission Company (Chairman)

A. G. Cotterman, American Gas Association (PRC Staff)

OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE DESIGN APPLICATIONS SUPERVISORY

It isnot intended to replace sound engineering judgment in the design

SECTION 1 - THE HORIZONTALDIRECTIONAL, DRILLING PROCESS

position while drilling.If a change in direction is required, the drill

SECTION 1 - THE HORIZONTALDIRECTIONALDRILLING PROCESS

Hole Assembly or BHA.A typical bottom hole assembly is shown

depending on the density of the material, the specific makeup of the

SB Elizabeth River 2,160 ft

Limitations with respect to length and diameter are primarily due to

usually difficult. The directional d r i l l i n g s t r i n g t e n d s t o d e f l e c t

services, most crossings that are technically feasible will be bid on a

Penetration of strong clay surrounded by

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi