SPE 37482
`
` it
`
` ’ SPE
`' -kdlnxternattonal
`fl,a
` 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, Halliburlon M & S, Ltd.; and M. F. Nazroo, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company Nonivay
`
`Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers. Inc.
`
`This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Production Dpemiicns Symposium,
`held in Oklahoma City. Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.
`
`This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
`information oonmined in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
`been reviewed by the moiety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
`author(s). The material, as presented. does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
`Petroleum Engineers. its otticars. or members. Papers presenwd at SPE meetings are subieot
`to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic
`reproduction. ‘distribution. or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without
`thewritten consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce
`in printisrestriotedtoanabstraototnotmoretlianacomtdstillustrationsmaynotbecopied.
`The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment at where and by whom the paper was
`presented. Write Ubrarian. SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson. TX 7508344836. U.S.A. tax 01-
`972-952-9435.
`
`Abstract
`
`An innovative completion design that allows multiple acid fracs
`to be performed in horizontal subsca chalk-formation wells with
`a single trip into the wcllbore has recently been codcveloped by
`a major North Sea operator and an oilfield engineering/manufac-
`turing/service company. The project was initiated to develop a
`system that would allow multiple acid stimulations to be effi-
`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 subsca wells requiring stimula-
`tion will bc presented in the paper.
`The key clement 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 retricvablc 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 lubricatcs 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 tirnc 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 he 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 30/7a (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 subsca template for Joanne.
`Production from the Joanne subsca manifold is transported
`through two 12-inch pipelines, 5-kilometers in length, to the Indy
`platform.
`To date, five Joanne subsca 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-
`Block 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-
`tials. Thc new wells were designed to intersect the most produc-
`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
`
`RC_RAP00OO3036
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`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 Ioanne 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
`Joaime completion.
`
`Typical Joanne completion Design
`1.
`5-1/8-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.
`
`5%-in. Tubing Retrievable Safety Valve (TRSV). A non-
`2.
`equalizing TRSV with metal-to— metal seals was used to ensure
`reliability.
`
`4%-in. x 1’/2-in. Side Pocket Mandrel (SPM). These
`3.
`were run with blanked off annulus ports to enable electronic
`memory gauges with the same envelope dimensions as a standard
`ll/2-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-
`tions, clean—up procedures, and well tests.
`
`4’/z-in. Sliding Sleeve Circulating Devices. The SSD's
`4.
`were run to enable the upper completion/casing annulus to be
`circulated to inhibited brine.
`
`30-ft.-Stroke Polished Bore Receptacle (PBR) I Swl
`5.
`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-
`sion device was necessary. Ryton®fI‘eflon® /Ryton®(RTR).‘
`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 M1 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
`
`98
`
`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. Permanentfl-in. Retrievable Packer (Multi-
`ple). 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
`reuievable packer simply by installing a lock ring (permanent) or
`installing up to 16 shear screws (reuievable). 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 (M1), the gauge rings were fluted to
`assist in fluid by-pass while the completion was installed 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 worlcover
`operations.
`
`8. 41/2-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 4*/2-in. tubing, up to nine different balllseat configura-
`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.
`
`RC_RAP00OO3037
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`2 of 12
`
`

`
`SPE 37482
`
`DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A COST EFFECTIVE COMPLETION SYSTEM FOR HORlZDNTAL CHAIJ(
`WELLS WHERE MULTIPLE ZONES FlEQUlFlE ACID STIMULATION
`
`3
`
`10. Pump OutlCycle Plug. On M1, 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
`MSAF tools.
`
`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 / seat
`combination were pressure tested to destruction to establish the
`pressure ratings. Pressure ratings were calculated for the alumi-
`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-
`num balls. 100% values are based on 6061 aluminum with an
`
`no safety factor, and
`ultimate shear strength of 9,000 psi,
`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 had 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 flowhead 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
`
`99
`
`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 M1, 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 balllseat
`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 landfseal on their mating seats in each MSAF tool.
`During this operation, pumping operations were continuous.
`The pump rate was reduced to S bbl/minute to lubricate each ball
`into the wellbore. The pump rate was then increased to 20 to 25
`bbl/minute to transport each ball to within 500 feet of its mating
`seat, and again was reduced to 5 bbllminute 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 sevempacker completion
`in M1, it was decided to attempt maximization of the number of
`
`RC_RAP00OO3038
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`3 of 12
`
`

`
`D. W. THOMSON and M. F. NAZROO
`4
`SPE 37482
`
`zones for the next three wells. After careful consideration of
`ball/seat bearing areas and ball/seat 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-
`enced during the well M1 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-
`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 4-1/2-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-
`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-
`ened with every pressure cycle.
`
`lmportant Points to Be Considered for Future Com-
`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.).
`
`in general and liner in particular needs to be
`3. The well
`properly cleaned and conditioned. This is essential for running
`ten packers in a horizontal liner.
`
`Since the cycle/pump-out plug in the tail pipe is the one area
`4.
`in which problems did occur, further development is indicated.
`Although it appears to be the least important part of the comple-
`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
`
`RC_RAP00OO3039
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`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+00 = kPa
`1b
`X 4-535 934
`5- 01 = R3
`ft
`x 3.048*
`E- 01 = m
`3:;
`:
`3
`in
`X 2:54,,
`E+00 ;cm
`0F
`(oi: _ 32),1_8)
`= 0c
`mile
`X 1509 344*
`54,00 = m
`*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 fxac 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
`l.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 magnesitnn alloy at
`LSSG. 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.
`
`Cycle/Pump 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
`
`installation of four multiple packer/MSAF
`The successful
`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~
`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
`
`RC_RAP00OO304O
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`5 of 12
`
`

`
`Table 1 - Balllseat Combinations for 10—Zone System
`
`BALL ob T
`
`3 -
`
`.
`
`e
`
`. BE’ARlNGvDlAMETEbR=:-"l I
`
`“aAL1;l.eLEiiaANcE “
`
`
`‘ _
`3.11"
`
`Table 2 - Destructive Pressure Testing of Phenolic Balls
`
`a $1
`4-I
`
`I V
`
`
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`4
`
`.
`
`.i
`
`0
`7‘
`
`.
`
`641Al6
`
`* This ball was found to be least pressure tolerant
`( ) Indicates that ball did not fail
`
`Table 3 - Shear Strength of Aluminum Balls
`
`
`
`102
`
`RC_RAP00OO3041
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`6 of 12
`
`- . 1
`
`
`mo
`
`% 11
`i
`8._ :-
`,00
`8
`_
`ll
`
`70
`
`

`
`Table 4 - Balllseat combinations for Seven-Zone System
`
`Ball Clearance
`_
`. ’V Bearing Diameter
`
`0.125"
`
`0.1 25"
`
`
`
`
`0.11“
`
`*1.
`2.
`**l.
`
`Packers frac tools run and set on drillpipe
`19 Hours Lost Due to Failure of Pump-Out Plug.
`132 Hours lost due to failure of lubricator valve and plug swaged into nipple.
`
`103
`
`RC_RAP00OO3042
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`7 of 12
`
`

`
`HIIII
`“[5? WI
`,Mza|ifl
`BLOC“
`
`‘s
`
`Q
`
`“
`
`'.
`
`‘U
`
` Iiilli L‘
`
`I‘
`
`Figure 1
`Location of the North Sea J-Block Development
`
`104
`
`RC_RAP00OO3043
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`8 of 12
`
`’
`
`r.
`
`n
`
`.
`
`<3
`
`\
`
`'
`
`'..i"IIIii"'-"'
`J"
`
`

`
`
`
`DepthTVDss(lee!)
`
`-9600
`
`-9700
`
`-9800
`
`-9900
`
`-10000
`
`-10100
`
`-10200
`
`-10300
`
`-10400
`
`-10500
`
`-10600
`
`-10700
`
`-10800
`
`30/7a-3
`100m to se
`
`2800
`
`2600
`
`2400
`
`2200
`
`2000
`
`1800
`
`1600
`
`1400
`
`1200
`
`1000
`
`SSW
`3000
`
`,
`:
`
`Ekbfiskowc
`(30ITa-3)-10,164’
`
`Ekofisk OWC‘
`(30I7a-1) -9.856’
`
`—
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`(3017a-1)-10,282’ ‘
`
`0
`
`.0 TorOWC(30l7a-3)-10,666’
`
`__
`
`'
`
`Lateral Distance Along Wellpath (meters)
`
`Fig. 2- Geologicalsection ofJoanneFie|dshowing well-pathintersectionofreservoirlayers
`
`RC_RAP00OO3044
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`9 of 12
`
`

`
`”
`
`5 -1/2" TUBING HANGER
`
`«<4 5 -1/2" T.R.S.C.S.S.V.
`
`
`
`“
`
`1
`
`
`
`(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” ‘RNIPPLE
`
`7” RETREEVABLE PACKER
`(1 REQPER ZONE)
`
` 4} 4-1/2"x1—1/2"S.P.M
`
`/ \
`
`7” PERMANENT
`PACKER
`
`4-1/2” MSAF TOO-
`(1 REQPER ZONE)
`
`\
`4-1/2" CYCLE
`PLUG/SHEAR OUT SUB
`
`Fig. 3- Schematicof aTypical Joannecompletion
`
`RC_RAP000O3045
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`10 of 12
`
`/
`
`

`
`Permanent Oonfiguratsian
`
`Rmriewabte Canfigumtim
`
`*
`Figure 4
`E-£ydrauIic~$a2t Packer Used’ in Jaanm flampfetim
`
`10'?
`
`RC_RAP00OO3046
`Exhibit 2025
`
`IPR2016-01517
`11 of 12
`
`

`
`30% pen Potion
`
`L
`Figura 5
`L
`MSAF Tool in the Qiosad and apex”: Positions
`
`
`
`12 of 12
`
`RC_RAPOOO03047
`Exhibit 2025
`IPR2016-01517