Directional Drilled Gas Pipeline Crossing of the River Ribble
(cont. from page 1)
|
Drill Rig The Drilling Rig is equipped with the highest grade of 5" drill pipe available this being known in the industry from the API Specification for drill pipe as S135. Drilling
Mud, return line and mud pits |
![]() |
![]() |
The re-circulation demands from the mud system required the installation of a mud return line. This was particularly essential at this location because of the difficulties in using road tankers, that would have to use a long and difficult route that passed through both a busy urban area (the City of Preston) and the maze of narrow country lanes. Access to the site on the South side was also very difficult particularly in wet weather. The initial schedule included 10 days for the drilling and positioning of a mud return line to meet environmental constraints. Transco however required an earlier program completion and since there was increased risk to the contract program the Environmental Agency gave dispensation to the Main Contractor to install a temporary line on the riverbed. The final mud system required the construction of two large mud pits - one was to be used for the storage of re-circulated mud for cleaning and the second was for containing any contaminated mud in the eventuality of a major seepage from the nearby waste tips. During operations, the mud was checked for contamination as well as for drilling quality. Readings of Marsh Funnel viscosity, sand content, Yield Point, and Plastic Viscosity were documented on a daily basis. Hole Opening
Operations |
|
Ballasting An obvious solution to overcome this phenomenon would be to fill the pipe full of water. This is ideal for small pipes as it will decrease the upthrust by increasing the weight. In large pipes however the downward force increases considerably with the addition of water, resulting in the pipe reacting with the bottom of the hole. The result is almost the same pull force required as in the initial case. Hence, there is no benefit in filling the pipe full of water. Due to the geometry of the drill path following the shape of an arc, it is impossible to half fill the pipe as all the water would end up accumulating in the center, the lowest point of the arc, thereby giving an uneven distribution of the load. The solution to achieving an acceptable pull force is to install a ballast pipe of sufficient diameter to make the pipeline almost neutrally buoyant. Once the pipeline string had been finally welded up by the McAlpine-Preussag JV, Smit Land & Marine arranged for specialist sub-Contractor, PIPEtec to install a 32-in SDR 26 HDPE Ballast pipe with a 4 bar pressure rating. |
![]() |
![]() |
Monitoring
of drilling results Trends can be established from the results and notes made of the difficult spots, with particular attention being paid to the mud pressure, pull force, and torque readings. These results can be quickly presented in a way to more easily predict future difficulties and drilling times. It also raises attention to problems when there is an inconsistency of results. Sudden high torque and pull loads could indicate a collapse. |
Contingency
for pull back
On all projects, risks
are analyzed and allowances for contingencies are made. The River
Ribble was no exception to the rule, and a 100-ton winch was put
on standby in the event that difficulties may arise during pull
back. This proved to be an essential part of the operations as
the pipeline had to be pulled back on several occasions before
the final installation was achieved.
Pullback
Prior to the pullback
taking place it was decided to pull a 'dummy' length of pipe through
the hole to ensure that it was of sufficient size and was free
of cuttings. This proved to be a wise decision since difficulties
arose in the gravel and clay layers prior to entry into the sandstone.
The hole at this stage had been opened to 56-in diameter however
there was a reluctance to increase the hole size any further because
of the amount of material that would be dislodged and the fear
of losing the hole altogether.
Earlier operations experienced debris and obstructions in the hole and on one occasion it became blocked. Several hours of cleaning operations, using purpose built barrel reamers eventually cleared the way to allow an attempt to be made to pull the pipeline through the hole. Unfortunately more material became dislodged and the pipeline had to be pulled out with the winch.
Finally, after making the decision to use the 60-in diameter hole-opener and upon successfully pulling the 'dummy' pipe through, the product pipeline was installed. The pull force at the end of the pull reached 150-tons and the pull took 7 hours to complete finally coming to rest in the early hours of the morning on 18 August 1998.
Health,
Safety & the Environment
The commitments to
safety by the projects team ensured that high standards were maintained
throughout the Contract execution period.
Particular hazards, such as noise pollution, were addressed and dealt with. Clear demarcation, warning signs and the provision of floatation aids located in prominent positions overcame dangers due to the presence of extensive mud pits.
Throughout the Contract, the Client emphasized the environmental sensitivity of the Project. Smit Land & Marine responded by ensuring the drilling mud was contained in the lined pits and, prior to removal the cuttings were stored in designated areas lined to prevent contamination. The excess materials were analyzed and removed to an approved tip by Lancashire Waste Services Ltd. Representatives of the Environmental Agency and the National Rivers Authority after visiting the site expressed their satisfaction with the general site housekeeping and the specific precautions taken to prevent contamination.
Hydrobores were installed and maintained regularly by Laird Menzies, for:
Analysis confirmed that drilling operations had no significant effect on the quality of the adjacent gravel and water, and the ground stabilization works only had a minimum effect on water levels.
Quality
Assurance
Smit Land & Marine
recognizes the need for a system of quality assurance. Its influence
is present from concept to completion. It assists with directing
personnel towards good operating practices and applies to both
Engineering and Construction. Throughout the Contract, quality
audits took place to check and enable improvements to be made
to working procedures, both on the Contract and for future contracts.
Conclusions
The contract was always
perceived as being difficult. From the start, a false sense of
security may have been present, when initially the operations
were almost two weeks ahead of program. Difficulties arose with
the encountered ground conditions, preventing early completion.
A typical case of man against nature, compounded by the fact that
the operations were below ground. The inability to see the problems
placed great reliance on the experience of the workforce and their
ability to analyze the drilling records.
This difficult project was successfully completed enabling the Main Contractor to meet his construction targets and used a technique that prevented extensive damage to the environment.
Experience has indicated the following
considerations for the future:
Acknowledgements
The Author wishes
to thank both British Gas Transco and McAlpine-Preussag JV for
their kind permission in allowing the publication of this article.
He also wishes to thank Smit Land & Marine Engineering Ltd
for their support, George Klause Project Manager and the Project
Team together with the following companies for their invaluable
assistance: SlimDril
International, Amec Piling, Baroid, Directional Drilling Systems;
PIPEtec, National Rivers Authority; Pigott Shaft Drilling Ltd.
Lancashire Waste Services, Laird Menzies Environmental Ltd.