SPE 37482
`
`Society of Petroleum Engineers
`
`Design and Installation of a Cost Effective Completion System for Horizontal Chalk
`Wells Where Multiple Zones Require Acid Stimulation
`D. W. Thomson, SPE, Halliburton M & S, Ltd.; and M. F. Nazroo, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company Norway
`
`Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
`
`This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Production Operations Symposium
`held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.
`'
`
`This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
`informati~ contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
`been revtewed by ~e ~iety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
`author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pos~ion of the Society of
`Petrol~ Eng~. its ~~rs. or ~bers. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
`to publlcatton r":"'e_w "!' Edttonal Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic
`re~uctton, distnbutton, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without
`the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce
`in print iS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; mustrations may not be copied.
`The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of v.ttere and by v.ttom the paper was
`presented. Write Ubrarian, SPE. P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-
`972-952·9435.
`
`Abstract
`An innovative completion design that allows multiple acid fracs
`to be performed in horizontal subsea chalk-formation wells with
`a single trip into the wellbore has recently been codeveloped by
`a major North Sea operator and an oilfield engineering/manufac(cid:173)
`turing/service company. The project was initiated to develop a
`system that would allow multiple acid stimulations to be effi(cid:173)
`ciently performed in the shortest possible time in the North Sea
`Joanne Field. The system ultimately developed allows acid
`stimulation of up to 10 different zones in a single trip with no
`through-tubing intervention. The first well in which this new
`technique was used had 7 zones, and 3 additional wells with 10
`zones each were later completed. The development of this system
`and case histories of the first four subsea wells requiring stimula(cid:173)
`tion will be presented in the paper.
`The key element of the system is a multi-stage acid frac tool
`(MSAF) that is similar to a sliding sleeve circulating device and
`is run in the closed position. Up to 9 MSAF tools can be run in
`the completion with isolation of each zone being achieved by
`hydraulic-set retrievable packers that are positioned on each side
`of an MSAF tool. Each sleeve contains a threaded ball seat with
`the smallest ball seat in the lowest sleeve and the largest ball seat
`in the highest sleeve. With this system, stimulation of 10
`separate zones is accomplished in 12-18 hours by a unique
`procedure that lubricates varying sized low-specific gravity balls
`into the tubing and then pumps them to a mating seat in the
`appropriate MSAF, thus sealing off the stimulated zone and
`allowing stimulation of the next zone which is made accessible
`by opening the sleeve.
`This technique provided a substantial reduction in the
`operational time normally required to stimulate multiple zones
`
`and allowed the stimulations to be precisely targeted within the
`reservoir. The case history data will provide comparisons in
`operational times between traditional stimulations and this new
`method as well as the significant enhancements to cost efficiency
`that resulted from its use. Additionally, this completion method
`allowed the stimulations to be designed and matched to the
`requirements of each reservoir zone, which provided the most
`cost efficient treatments possible.
`
`Introduction
`The Judy/Joanne Fields are located in the central North Sea on
`block 30na (commonly known as the J Block of the UK North
`Sea), 280 kilometers South East of Aberdeen. The water depth
`is approximately 80 meters.
`The complete field development consists of a 24-slot
`platform for Judy and a 12-slot subsea template for Joanne.
`Production from the Joanne subsea manifold is transported
`through two 12-inch pipelines, 5-kilometers in length, to the Judy
`platform.
`To date, five Joanne subsea wells have been drilled and
`completed, four of which were in chalk formations, and thus,
`comprehensive acid stimulation programs were required for their
`completions.Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the J(cid:173)
`Biock Judy/Joanne Fields.
`
`Well Design
`Phillips' original plan had been to drill 60-degree wells in these
`fields; however, since drilling horizontal wells would allow a
`reduction in the number of well slots, which would subsequently
`reduce overall drilling costs, the decision was made to complete
`horizontally. Additionally, it was felt that stimulation programs
`would be necessary to achieve the necessary production poten(cid:173)
`tials. The new wells were designed to intersect the most produc(cid:173)
`tive reservoir layers twice to further maximize production.
`Ideally, each reservoir layer was to be stimulated using a design
`developed for its specific needs. Thus, it would be necessary to
`perform multiple stimulations targeted at the reservoir layers.
`Figure 2 shows how the well path would intersect the individual
`reservoir layers.
`A review of similar completions carried out by Phillips and
`other operators indicated that each zone would require between
`three to four days to stimulate. This would have meant a
`minimum of thirty days per well to complete the stimulation
`
`97
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`
`2
`
`D. W. THOMSON and M. F. NAZROO
`
`SPE 37482
`
`procedures. From the initial review, it was clear that the project
`could not support such greatly increased costs, and thus, an
`alternative method was needed. The resulting completion design
`was based on earlier completions performed by Phillips on the
`Hewett Field in the Southern UKCS. During these completions,
`the initial development phase of the Multi Stage Acid Frac Tool
`(MSAF) had taken place. This tool was instrumental in the
`success of the design, and will be described in more detail later.
`The primary difference in the completion designs concerned
`the number of zones stimulated. The Hewett Field completions
`typically used only two MSAF tools that resulted in 3 stimulated
`zones, whereas the first Joanne completion (well Ml) utilized six
`MSAF tools and the completions for wells M3, M4, and M5
`used nine MSAF tools. Figure 3 is a schematic of a typical
`Joanne completion.
`
`Typical Joanne Completion Design
`1. 5-118-in. Tubing Hanger. Horizontal (lateral) sub-sea trees
`were used to allow the completions to be run through them. The
`final operation prior to leaving the wells was the installation of
`wireline-set, metal-to-metal-sealing wellhead plugs in the tubing
`hangers.
`
`2. Slh-in. Tubing Retrievable Safety Valve (TRSV). A non(cid:173)
`equalizing TRSV with metal-to- metal seals was used to ensure
`reliability.
`
`3. 41h-in. x 1¥z-in. Side Pocket Mandrel (SPM). These
`were run with blanked off annulus ports to enable electronic
`memory gauges with the same envelope dimensions as a standard
`1 V:z-in. gas lift valve to be installed in the completions during the
`stimulation without compromising full bore access. These gauges
`were run and retrieved using conventional gas-lift kick-over tools
`and gave valuable bottomhole information during the stimula(cid:173)
`tions, clean-up procedures, and well tests.
`
`4. 4Vz-in. Sliding Sleeve Circulating Devices. The SSD's
`were run to enable the upper completion/casing annulus to be
`circulated to inhibited brine.
`
`5. 30-ft.-Stroke Polished Bore Receptacle (PBR) I Seal
`Assembly with Annular Pressure Release. Tubing calculations
`for operational conditions, particularly high volume acid
`stimulation and well testing, showed that a 30-ft. stroke expan(cid:173)
`sion device was necessary. Ryton®/Teflon® IR.yton®(RTR). 1
`premium seals were considered the most appropriate seals for the
`operating conditions that would be faced.
`A molded seal was added to the RTR premium seals to
`ensure good sealing at the lower temperatures expected during
`stimulation.
`A conventional shear-pinned PBR/seal assembly was used
`on Ml but concerns over induced torque led to the design of a
`special, annular pressure release that fitted on top of the
`PBR/seal assembly. In the closed (running) position, the PBR
`
`and seal assembly were clutched together to handle applied or
`induced torque. As a back up, it had a secondary shear-screw
`release mechanism that was isolated from any torque that could
`be applied or induced.
`
`6. and 9. 7-in. Permanent/7-in. Retrievable Packer (Multi·
`pie). An important requirement in completions using multiple
`hydraulic-set packers is that no mandrel movement in relation to
`the slips of the packer should occur while setting. This enables
`any number of hydraulic-set packers to be set simultaneously
`without the requirement for expansion devices between the
`packers to account for mandrel movement. The packer selected
`for this project was a new hydraulic-set retrievable packer that
`had its first usage on the Joanne project (Fig. 4).
`The packer could be set up as either a permanent or a
`retrievable packer simply by installing a lock ring (permanent) or
`installing up to 16 shear screws (retrievable). When set up in the
`permanent mode, the packer could be retrieved by chemically
`cutting the mandrel.
`This packer had large outside-diameter (OD) gauge rings at
`either end, which kept the other components of the packer from
`contacting the 7-in. liner. The packer elements and slips had a
`smaller OD in the running position than the adjacent parts. After
`completion of the first well (Ml), the gauge rings were fluted to
`assist in fluid by-pass while the completion wasinstalled in the
`liner.
`
`7. Selective Landing Nipple. This nipple was run below the
`top packer as a contingency in case there were problems during
`installation of the completion and for use in future workover
`operations.
`
`8. 41h-in. Multi Stage Acid Frac Tool {MSAF) [Multiple].
`This tool is the "heart" of the completion system. It is a sliding
`sleeve device that can allow communication between the tubing
`and annulus once the sleeve is moved to the open position. A
`ball seat is threaded on the bore of this sleeve, and when the
`correct size ball lands on the ball seat, applied pressure from
`above moves the sleeve to the down/open position. The ball and
`seat form a seal that prevents pumped fluid from entering lower
`zones, and thereby, diverts the fluid through the tool and into the
`tubing liner annulus. The MSAF tool is shown in both the closed
`and open positions in Figure 5.
`For 4Vz-in. tubing, up to nine different ball/seat configura(cid:173)
`tions can be used (see Table 1). The smallest ID seat is run at
`the bottom of the completion, and the largest ID seat is run at the
`top.
`
`The sleeve in the MSAF was designed with an opening
`profile and a closing profile so that the tool could be selectively
`opened or closed as required during workovers. A hydraulically
`operated shifting tool run on coiled tubing was designed for this
`purpose. Note that in the tool version used on Joanne, the ball
`seats must be milled out before the shifting tool can be used.
`
`98
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`
`SPE37482
`
`DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A COST EFFECTIVE COMPLETION SYSTEM FOR HORIZONTAL CHALK
`WELLS WHERE MULTIPLE ZONES REQUIRE ACID STIMULATION
`
`3
`
`10. Pump Out/Cycle Plug. On Ml, a conventional shear-out
`shoe was run. This was replaced on the remaining completions
`with a cycle type plug, which allowed up to ten pressure cycles
`to be applied to the tubing before it was expelled. This was
`carried in a shear-out sub that could be sheared in the event that
`the cycle plug failed.
`
`Ball Material
`Two different ball materials were used- phenolic plastic with
`a specific gravity of 1.3 and coated aluminum with a specific
`gravity of 2.5.
`The 1.3 SG phenolic plastic ball was the
`preferred choice other than for the cases in which the expected
`stimulation pressure necessitated the use of aluminum balls.
`
`Testing
`Flow testing was carried out to determine 1) the minimum flow
`rates required to return the balls (aluminum and phenolic) to
`surface, 2) flow rates for pumping a ball through a seat with the
`minimum ball/seat clearance, and 3) flow rates for operating the
`MSAFtools.
`Pressure testing was carried out to determine the pressure
`rating for phenolic ball/seat combinations for which there was no
`existing rating. In each case, three sets of phenolic ball I seat
`combination were pressure tested to destruction to establish the
`pressure ratings. Pressure ratings were calculated for the alumi(cid:173)
`num ball/seat combinations. Table 2 shows the results of the
`destructive pressure testing of phenolic balls.
`Table 3 shows the shear strength test results of the alumi(cid:173)
`num balls. 100% values are based on 6061 aluminum with an
`ultimate shear strength of 9,000 psi, no safety factor, and
`assumption that the ball will be the point of failure. All values
`are taken at nominal dimensions with no accounting for tolerance
`or erosion.
`
`Completion Installation - General
`Before running the completion, each well was perforated with
`tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) guns. The multiple packers
`in each completion were spaced out in order to isolate the zones
`to be stimulated.
`The installation plan for all the wells was the same. The
`completion was run in one trip to the safety valve, and the
`packers were set simultaneously since the packers had the same
`setting pressure. Then, the upper completion was unstung from
`the PBR, spaced out, and run back in with the TRSV.
`As soon as each completion bad been run and the packers
`had been set, spaced out and hanger landed, special high
`pressure, large bore (4-in. ID} equipment was rigged up on top
`of the 5-in ID flowbead for launching and catching of the balls.
`After all the surface equipment had been rigged up and tested,
`the stimulation operation was started by expelling the pump
`out/cycle plug and stimulating the lower zone (below the bottom
`packer). Once this zone had been stimulated, the smallest ball
`was lubricated into the completion and pumped on to its mating
`seat in the lowest MSAF. Once landed, over-pressure sheared
`
`the preset shear pins and allowed the sleeve to move to the open
`position, allowing stimulation of the zone through the MSAF tool
`and preventing pumped fluids from going to any lower zones
`already stimulated. The process was then repeated by pumping
`increasingly larger balls until all zones had been stimulated. All
`balls were then flowed to the surface and caught in the ball
`catcher.
`For Ml, which had seven zones, one stimulation vessel was
`able to carry enough acid to complete the stimulation program.
`However, two stimulation vessels were required for each of the
`wells with ten zones (M3, M4 and M5) because of the volume of
`acid which was needed for the increased number of zones.
`
`Completion Installation- M1
`Seven packers and six multi-stage acid frac tools (all in closed
`position) were run. (see Table 4 for the six different ball/seat
`configurations). For this well, the expansion device (PBR/seal
`assembly) was a conventional type, straight-pull (shear -screw)
`release. At the last minute, it was decided not to run the full
`completion in one trip because of concerns of prematurely
`shearing the shear screws in the PBR/seal assembly, which could
`be caused by back torque during installation into the horizontal
`section of the liner.
`As a result, it was decided to run the lower half (PBR
`downwards) of the completion on a 95/8-in. liner hanger setting
`sleeve and hang off on the 7-in.liner top. Once the lower half
`of the completion was on depth, pressure was applied down the
`tubing against the pump-out plug (conventional shear screw
`release) to set all seven packers simultaneously. The upper half
`of the completion was then spaced out and stung into the PBR.
`The pump out plug failed during the packer setting procedure,
`(luckily just after the packers were set) which resulted in
`problems in pressure testing of the completion and tubing hanger.
`Once all testing had been completed, stimulation of the
`lowest zone (below the bottom packer) was carried out. A well
`test was then run on this zone. The upper six zones were then
`stimulated individually by pumping down increasingly larger
`balls to land/seal on their mating seats in each MSAF tool.
`During this operation, pumping operations were continuous.
`The pump rate was reduced to 5 bbllminute to lubricate each ball
`into the wellbore. The pump rate was then increased to 20 to 25
`bbllminute to transport each ball to within 500 feet of its mating
`seat, and again was reduced to 5 bbl/minute to pump each ball
`onto its mating seat.
`Once each ball found its seat, the pressure was increased
`until the shear screws sheared, allowing the sleeve to move down
`to the open position. This allowed stimulation of the new zone
`through the sleeve. After stimulation, all six balls were flowed
`back to surface and caught in a ball catcher during the clean up
`flow.
`
`Completion Installation - M3, M4 and M5
`After the successful installation of the seven-packer completion
`in Ml, it was decided to attempt maximization of the number of
`
`99
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`
`4
`
`D. W. THOMSON and M. F. NAZROO
`
`SPE 37482
`
`zones for the next three wells. After careful consideration of
`balVseat bearing areas and balVseat clearances, it was decided to
`optimize on ten individual zones (nine ball/seat configurations
`plus the zone below the lower packer).
`It was also decided to fit annular pressure release assemblies
`to the PBR/seal assemblies so that the main completion could be
`run in one trip without fear of premature release of the PBR/seal
`assembly. Flutes were machined in the gauge rings of the packers
`to increase the flow rate past the OD of the packers while running
`in the hole.
`The most significant change for the next three wells (apart
`from the additional 3 zones in each) was the replacement of the
`simple pump-out plug with a cycle plug carried in a shear-out
`sub. This change was made as a result of the problems experi(cid:173)
`enced during the well Ml completion.
`In these three wells, a mixture of phenolic plastic and coated
`aluminum balls were used. Phenolic plastic or aluminum balls
`were chosen dependent on the anticipated fracture gradient of the
`zone being treated. Once all ten zones had been individually
`stimulated, all nine balls were flowed back to surface where they
`were caught in a special ball catcher.
`In the first two wells with ten packers/nine MSAF tools, M5
`and M4, the completions were completed without incident.
`However, things did not progress as smoothly on M3, and a
`potentially disastrous situation developed.
`After the M3 completion had been run, the packers set,
`hanger landed and the tubing tested, it was found that the cycle
`plug could not be expelled. To make matters even worse, the
`secondary pump-out shear ring also refused to shear. This was
`a serious problem as without a pumping path for the fluid to
`follow, it would have been impossible to get the balls down to
`their mating seats.
`After numerous pressure cycles at the maximum allowable
`surface pressure, a leak developed in the completion below the
`upper packer. At the time, it was impossible to determine where
`the leak was, other than it was below the top packer. However,
`the fact that there was now a flow path meant the balls could now
`be pumped.
`As it turned out, the smallest ball (1.5-in.) never found its
`seat. but the next ball (1.75-in) found its seat. operated its MSAF
`tool, and the upper eight zones were stimulated as planned. It
`was determined that the leak that had developed was between the
`two lowest MSAF tools as the smallest ball did not reach its seat,
`and the next ball did. Thus, eight zones out of the original ten
`were stimulated, and the well was salvaged. Total time taken to
`install the completions and carry out the stimulations and well
`tests is shown in Table 5.
`
`Summary of Completion Results
`The key elements that contributed to these successful installa(cid:173)
`tions were:
`
`1. Multi Stage Acid Frac Tools (MSAF Tools)
`The use of lightweight balls to operate downhole tools in a
`
`horizontal completion eliminated the need for coiled tubing
`intervention.
`2. Hydraulic Set Packers with no Mandrel Movement
`The use of these packers enabled any number of packers to
`be run in a one trip completion without having to run travel
`joints between them to ensure that all packers would be set
`at the same time. The number of packers that could be run
`was limited only by the number of ball/seat configurations
`that could be fitted into a 4-¥2-in. completion.
`3. Annular Pressure Release with Clutch Joint
`The use of this equipment enabled heavy tailpipe to be run
`without concern of reliability of shear screws, especially
`when subjected to applied or induced torque during installa(cid:173)
`tion into long horizontal liners. Clutch coupling in closed
`position allows rotation while running in the wellbore.
`4. Multiple-Pressure Cycle Plug
`The use of this equipment as a plugging device in the tail
`pipe allowed various operations such as setting of packers
`and completion pressure tests to be performed without
`concern of reliability of shear screws that could be weak(cid:173)
`ened with every pressure cycle.
`
`Important Points to Be Considered for Future Com(cid:173)
`pletions
`
`1. Thorough preplanning of the overall completion program is
`essential so that contingency can be planned into the program to
`address difficulties that could occur.
`
`2. Onshore testing needs to be carried out on any operation that
`has not been successfully performed offshore in the past (flow
`testing of balls, etc.).
`
`3. The well in general and liner in particular needs to be
`properly cleaned and conditioned. This is essential for running
`ten packers in a horizontal liner.
`
`4. Since the cycle/pump-out plug in the tail pipe is the one area
`in which problems did occur, further development is indicated.
`Although it appears to be the least important part of the comple(cid:173)
`tion system, it is actually one of the most crucial. If the plug
`expends early, the packers cannot be set, and the completion
`cannot be tested. If it does not expend, there is no flow path to
`enable the balls to be pumped to their mating seat.
`
`5. Retrievable seats will make well workovers less costly and
`risky.
`
`Future Developments Planned
`Work is currently being carried out to further improve the
`completion system with the following four main areas identified
`as candidates for improvement:
`
`Retrievable Seats. Although this will necessitate through tubing
`
`100
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`

`
`SPE 37482
`
`DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A COST EFFECTIVE COMPLETION SYSTEM FOR HORIZONTAL CHALK
`WELLS WHERE MULTIPLE ZONES REQUIRE ACID STIMULATION
`
`5
`
`Si Metric Conversion Factors
`psi
`x 6.894 757
`E+OO = kPa
`lb
`X 4.535 924
`E- 01 =kg
`E- 01 = m
`x 3~048*
`ft
`psi
`x 6.894 757
`E+OO = kPa
`E+OO = N
`lbf
`x 4.448 222
`in
`x 2.54*
`E+OO =em
`(OF- 32)/1.8) = °C
`°F
`mile
`x 1.609 344*
`E+OO = km
`*Conversion factor is exact
`
`Ryton® (Polyphenylene Sulfide): Registered trademark of
`Phillips Petroleum Company
`Teflon® (Polytetrafluoroethylene): Registered trademark of
`Dupont Company
`
`intervention after completion of the frac job to recover the seats,
`this disadvantage is offset by the fact that an unrestricted
`wellbore is ultimately achieved.
`
`Ball Material. Up to the present time, both phenolic plastic at
`1.3SG and aluminum at 2.6SG have been successfully used.
`However, a planned completion for Phillips Petroleum Company
`in Norway will utilize balls made from a magnesium alloy at
`1.8SG. This material will thus give the high strength associated
`with aluminum with a density midway between the phenolic
`material and aluminum.
`
`Pressure Rating Completion systems run to date have been
`rated at 7,500 psi. The planned Phillips Petroleum completion in
`Norway will utilize a system rated at 10,000 psi.
`
`CycleJPump Out Plug. New technology such as "disappearing"
`plugs are now on the market from a number of suppliers. These
`may form the basis for a more reliable and cost effective solution
`to the tailpipe plug.
`
`Conclusions
`The successful installation of four multiple packer/MSAF
`completions in chalk formation in the North Sea proved that the
`system was not only feasible but highly efficient, both from an
`operational standpoint and from a reservoir treatment standpoint,
`since the stimulations could be designed and matched to the
`requirements of each reservoir zone. This ensured that the most
`cost efficient treatments possible were applied and that there
`would be no compromise to the effectiveness of the procedures
`to enhance production. Also, since this completion technique
`substantially reduces operational time normally required to
`stimulate multiple zones, cost savings are realized from the time
`reduction. As more experience is obtained with the system,
`increased efficiency will undoubtedly be generated, allowing
`additional time reduction and even greater cost savings when
`compared to traditional stimulation procedures.
`
`Acknowledgments
`The authors wish to thank Halliburton Energy Services, Phillips
`Petroleum Company United Kingdom Limited, Agip United
`Kingdom Limited, and British Gas Exploration and Production
`Limited for their support in developing this system and permis(cid:173)
`sion to publish this paper.
`
`References
`1. Ray, Thomas W.: "High-Pressure-High Temperature Seals
`for Oil and Gas Production" Paper presented at the Oilfield
`Engineering With Polymers Conference, 28-29 October 1996,
`London, England.
`
`101
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`

`
`Table 1- Ball/Seat Combinations for 1Q..Zone System
`
`.·
`
`.
`
`'
`
`BALLOD
`1.50"
`1.75"
`2.00"
`2.25"
`2.5ou
`
`2.75~
`3:00"
`3;25"
`3;50"
`
`<
`
`.·
`
`..
`I·
`
`SEATID
`1.36"
`1.61°
`·1.86"
`2.11·
`2.36"
`2.61"
`2;86°
`3.11"
`3.37"
`
`BEARING DIAMETER
`0.14''.
`.. 0.14~ .
`0.14.
`o:14•
`.0.14"
`0.1.4"
`0.14°
`0.14"
`0.13"
`
`. · ·
`
`..
`
`BALL CLEARANCE
`·. 0.11"
`o~11~
`0.11"
`0.11'~
`0.11.
`.0:11"
`o~11u
`·0:12"
`.
`
`>
`
`• .
`
`.
`
`I···.
`
`.
`
`1 .
`
`i<
`
`··.· ... ;
`
`...
`
`Table 2 • Destructive Pressure Testing of Phenolic Balls
`
`Ball··on
`1.50"
`1.75"
`2.00"
`2.25"
`2.50"
`2.75"
`3.00"
`3.25"
`3.50"
`
`·Part No
`495.60209
`495:60202
`495.60208
`495.603
`495.604
`495.606
`495.607
`495;608
`
`495~6081
`
`SeatiD Part No
`1.36"
`641A8
`1.61"
`641A12
`1.86"
`641A10
`2.11"
`641A13
`2.36"
`641All
`2;61"
`641A14
`2.86"
`641A15
`641A16
`913.01352
`
`3~11"
`3.37"
`
`Pre8sure to. Failure
`Testl Test2. 1TestJ
`(8300):
`(8500)•
`8200 ..
`8300 1··(8000) .
`(8000)
`8000
`8000
`8000
`7100· 8000
`7000
`I·· 5000
`6200 -·••7000
`6100
`6000
`6000
`6000
`4000
`2500*
`5500
`6500
`5200
`4000
`4000
`4000
`
`QtyTested·
`3
`3
`3
`3
`.. ·.3
`3
`4*
`3
`3
`
`. ..
`
`.
`
`4000
`
`4000
`
`* This ball was found to be least pressure tolerant
`( ) Indicates that ball did not fail
`
`Table 3- Shear Strength of Aluminum Balls
`
`..
`
`BALLOD
`1.50"
`1.75"
`2Jlo"
`2.25"
`2.50"
`2.75"
`3.00"
`3.25"
`3.50"
`
`SEATID
`1.36"
`1.61"
`1.86"
`2.11"
`2.36"
`2.61"
`2.86"
`3.11"
`3.37"
`
`100%(pSi)
`16,755
`15,340
`14;225·
`13~325
`12.585
`11,945
`11,400
`10;925
`10.095
`
`80%·(PSf)
`. 1:3 404
`12,272
`11,380
`.·. 10,660
`. 10068
`9,556
`9,120
`8,740
`8,076
`
`. 7'5%(psiL
`12,566 .... · ..
`11,505
`10669
`9,994
`9439
`8959
`8550
`8,194
`7;571
`
`102
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`
`Table 4 • Ball/Seat Combinations for Seven-Zone System
`
`F.·. ,.
`
`Baudo
`.... . . ··. · ... ·
`
`Seat ID
`
`Bearing Diameter
`
`Ball Clearance
`
`..
`
`.
`
`...
`.
`
`:···
`
`1.50"
`2~oo·
`2.37511
`2.75"
`3;05"
`·.: 3.31"
`
`..
`
`0.25"
`0.25"
`0.25"
`0.19~
`0.20"
`0.13"
`
`0.25"
`0.125"
`0.125"
`0.11"
`0.12.
`
`I·
`
`1..
`
`[.·
`
`1.75~
`'2.25~ .. · .
`
`;
`
`•· •••••··
`
`.• •··
`
`. .... :. ...
`..
`2.625~
`. •· · .. 2.94 .•
`. ·· .. ·•·a.2s~•···· .....
`i'.:.· .....
`i·';:·.i ; ., •aso·
`.: .. :.;: .. ,;·
`
`Table 5 -Total Time to Install Completions and Carryout the Stimulations and Well Tests
`
`Welt No~
`
`TVD
`
`MD
`
`Run Completion
`
`RigUp&Test
`
`Stimulate
`
`·.
`
`·.
`
`.. ·
`
`;'.
`
`M1
`M5
`M4
`M3 ..
`
`·•
`
`10'370.ft ..
`·.· 10i272ft
`. . : ..
`.
`16;605 ft
`
`:
`
`.... · .
`
`15584ft
`15,582.ft
`15 765.ft .
`15;472 ft
`
`97Hrs*
`s5.Hrs
`58Hr8
`51Hrs
`
`209 Hrs**
`45 Hrs
`65Hrs
`55Hrs
`
`8Hrs
`24 Hrs
`15 Hrs
`11 Hrs
`
`* 1.
`2.
`**I.
`
`Packers frac tools run and set on drill pipe
`19 Hours Lost Due to Failure of Pump-Out Plug.
`132 Hours lost due to failure oflubricator valve and plug swaged into nipple.
`
`103
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`

`
`Figure 1
`Location of the North Sea J-Biock Development
`
`104
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`

`
`30/7a-3
`100m to se
`
`30/7a-CS
`
`2800
`
`2600
`
`2400
`
`2200
`
`2000
`
`1800
`
`1600
`
`1400
`
`1200
`
`1000
`
`800
`
`600
`
`400
`
`SSW
`3000
`
`NNE
`200
`
`Maureen
`
`e T o p E k o f i s
`
`k
`
`t i v
`
`r n a
`
`e
`
`A l t
`
`Ekofisk OWC
`(30/7a-1) -9,856´
`
`Ekofisk OWC
`(30/7a-3) -10,164´
`
`Tor OWC
`(30/7a-1) -10,282´
`
`Ekofisk 1
`Ekofisk 2
`Ekofisk 3
`Tor 1
`Tor 2
`Tor 3
`Tor 4
`Tor 5
`Tor 6
`Tor 7
`Tor 8
`
`Horizontal Hole
`
`t e d O W C
`
` T i
`
`l
`
`T o r
`
`ole
`Pilot H
`
`Lower Tor
`
`Hod
`
`Tor OWC (30/7a-3) -10,666´
`
`Lateral Distance Along Wellpath (meters)
`
`Fig. 2 — Geological Section of Joanne Field showing well-path intersection of reservoir layers
`
`-9600
`
`-9700
`
`-9800
`
`-9900
`
`-10000
`
`-10100
`
`-10200
`
`-10300
`
`-10400
`
`-10500
`
`-10600
`
`-10700
`
`-10800
`
`TVDss (feet)
`
`Depth
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`

`
`5 -1/2” TUBING HANGER
`
`5 -1/2” T.R.S.C.S.S.V.
`
`4 -1/2” x 1-1/2” S.P.M
`(VALVE : BLANK)
`
`4 -1/2” x 1-1/2” S.P.M
`(VALVE : BLANK)
`
`4 -1/2” RD SLIDING SLEEVE
`
`5” P.B.R. SEAL ASSEMBLY
`WITH ANN. PRESS. RELEASE
`
`3.688” ‘R’ NIPPLE
`
`7” RETRIEVABLE PACKER
`(1 REQ.PER ZONE)
`
`7” PERMANENT
`PACKER
`
`4-1/2” MSAF TOOL
`(1 REQ.PER ZONE)
`
`4-1/2” CYCLE
`PLUG/SHEAR OUT SUB
`
`Fig. 3 ⎯⎯⎯⎯ Schematic of a Typical Joanne Completion
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`

`
`Permanent Configuration
`
`Retrievable Configuration
`
`Figure4
`Hydraulic-Set Packer Used in Joanne Completion
`
`107
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`

`
`{""'\
`\..__/
`
`~
`
`~
`1-
`
`1:::.
`
`I t
`Closed Position
`
`-
`
`~
`r=
`: -
`
`iii
`
`e
`e
`
`-
`
`1- - - - --
`
`e
`e
`
`Open Position
`
`Figure 5
`MSAF Tool in the Closed and Open Positions
`
`=-
`
`Page 12 of 12