SPE 54475

Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves

John R. Sanford, SPE, JRS Ltd.; Tamara R. Webb; Amoco Production Co.; Seb Patout, SPE; and Hugo Morales, SPE;
Dowell Schumberger.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

cost of $ 465,000. The completion efficiency is 88 % and
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable maximum sustained production was 20,000 mcfd.
held in Houston, Texas, 25–26 May 1999.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of Introduction
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to The EI 273 Field is located 100 miles south of Intercoastal
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at City, Louisiana on the GOM shelf. The field was originally
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
discovered in 1962 with ten (10) productive horizons below
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is 5,000 feet. Twenty-nine (29) wells have been drilled and
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous completed in the field with cumulative production of 234 bcf
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. and 1,900 mbo. Production, prior to the monobore
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
completions, was 68 mmcfd and 900 bcpd from six (6) wells
with five (5) of the wells being drilled during the 1997-drilling
Abstract program. An indication of the small reserve pools that remain
Marginal reserves in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) shelf can in the field is that only ± 20-25 bcf is remaining for the five
be developed using old completion technology in new ways. wells.
Tubing-less completions or monobores are one of those
technologies. Several monobores have been performed in the A three (3) well drill package was identified for the 1998-
GOM, but usually, they were not the primary completion drilling program. However, after reviewing the prospects only
technique. Most were performed out of necessity, either two (2) wells were proposed. The wells were as follows:
because liners were stuck above the zone of interest or drill
pipe was stuck across the interval. The first well, EI 273 Well C-3ST, targeted an 8600’ sand
AVO response in the Southwest portion of Block 273. The
Large cost savings can be realized by utilizing monobores potential reserves of the horizon was only 3-5 bcf with 25 feet
as the primary completion without impairing the completion of pay. Sand control would be required because of historical
efficiencies. By eliminating the high day rates of a sand production in other 8600’ producers. The drive
conventional platform rig, a single frac packed completion can mechanism was assumed to be a combined depletion and weak
be performed for less than $ 500,000. water drive. Therefore, a frac packed monobore was
recommended.
This paper describes a technical review of two 4-½”
monobore completions that were performed in Eugene Island The second well, EI 273 Well C-1ST, targeted attic
(EI) 273 to recover marginal reserves. The monobore reserves in both the 8100’ and 8600’ sands. The potential
completions were planned as the primary completion reserves were 1 ½ - 2 bcf per zone. Like Well C-3ST, sand
technique. However, several changes were made to the control was required for both horizons because of sand
monobore completion as compared to conventional frac production problems identified from offset producers.
packing technology. For example, we utilized oriented, Therefore, each horizon would have to warrant completion on
limited entry perforating (0o/180o phased and 0.25” diameter a stand alone basis. A frac packed monobore was
entry holes, 4 shots per foot (spf) and no annular pack. recommended to determine if multiple pays could be exploited
with this completion technology. We believed that additional
Many key learnings were identified during the completions savings could be realized for multiple well completions.
and several changes were made prior to the second
completion. These changes resulted in an overwhelming
success both mechanically and financially. The second well,
EI 273 Well C-1ST, was performed in less than 5 days at a
2 John R. Sanford, Tamara R. Webb, Seb Patout, and Hugo Morales SPE 54475

Monobore Completion Options then out the bottom screen. A tip screen out (TSO) was
A monobore was defined as a wellbore that has continuous essential to our completions, and this was the most
or decreasing internal diameter (ID) with depth. An example important perceived disadvantage.
of our monobore completion can be seen in Figure 1.
2. Wash Down Technique. This completion type had also
The primary completion objectives of the EI 273 been performed in through tubing gravel packs (TTGP) for
monobores were as follows: many years. The procedure entails first, frac packing /
1. Fulfill the above monobore definition. gravel packing the zone without screen in the hole; second,
2. Have a fully accessible wellbore which would allow future washing out to a predetermined depth above the
remedial work (production logging, acidizing and coil perforations; and finally, washing a screen to total depth
tubing (CT) work). (TD).
3. Have effective sand control that would not limit
productivity. The advantage of this technique was that it was proven and
4. Have close multiple completions. the completion had an annular pack. However, the primary
disadvantage was that there was a large risk of sticking the
Based on the above objectives, a tapered 4-½” 11.60#/ft screen at the top of the perforations due to fluid loss. If this
and 13.50#/ft casing/tubing string was recommended. The happened, there would be a risk of covering close uphole
recommended string would have a continuous or decreasing horizons or sticking the CT. However, we felt that this
ID to depth and would allow the recommended sand control method was a good technique for small intervals (less than 20
method to utilize a 2-3/8” prepacked screen. The proposed feet: because of the smaller screen assembly length). A
screen and packer had a minimum ID of 1.995”. This would second disadvantage was that small “spaghetti” wash pipe
allow for most types remedial work (1-11/16” tools). (less than 1” OD) was required inside the already small screen.
Any time wash pipe is used there is a risk of losing it in the
Three (3) sand control options / procedures were evaluated. hole and impairing the well productivity.
The perceived advantages and disadvantages of each were as
follows: This procedure was chosen as our contingency completion
technique, if we could not wash the well entirely clean of
1. Vent Screen Completion (Screen–Blank-Screen). As proppant.
defined in reference 1, a vent screen completion is a frac
pack through tubing or a monobore with the vent screen in 3. Close Tolerance Screen. (Recommended Option) This
place. This method relies on Darcy’s law to isolate annular procedure was chosen with some modifications because of
flow. the following advantages:

The advantage of this type completion was first, that it had • Frac packing well without screen in place. Like the wash
been performed several times; second, it had the easiest wash- down technique, this eliminated the possibility of an early
out procedure after the frac pack had been completed (It mechanical screen-out.
required the least amount of washing, therefore minimizing • Fully accessible wellbore with 2-3/8” prepacked screen.
fluid loss and coil tubing risk); and third, it had an annular • Close multiple horizons could be completed because no
pack to prohibit sand production. blank pipe was required.
• Easy to washout. Washing proppant out of a single ID
However, we believed the disadvantages of this option tubing string had been performed for over 20 years.
outweigh the advantages. The disadvantages were as follows: • A very small annular volume was required. The 2-3/8”
• Not good for close multiple horizons. The blank pipe prepacked screen selected had only 0.35” radial clearance
required for annular isolation sometimes prohibits the from the tubing drift. This was equal to ± 50 # of proppant
completion of close multiple horizons. / 20’ of screen. This was a very small volume as compared
• May limit productivity. Even in 4-½” tubing, the screen to to the large volume of proppant in the perforations (greater
casing offset requirement reduces the size screen run in the than 15,000 #).
completion. The smaller size screen and blank pipe could
limit productivity. The only foreseeable disadvantage was there would be no
• Does not allow for remedial work. Because it is a vent annular pack. We planned on addressing this problem with
screen and a smaller size, no future remedial work could be some of the perforating changes.
performed.
• Potential for early screen-out. Even though this had not The close tolerance screen technique fulfilled all of our
been documented, there was a potential for an early screen- completion objectives.
out with this method due to either reduced screen / casing
offset or preferential flow in through the top vent screen
SPE 54475 Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves 3

Monobore Completion Design Changes 5. Mobilize electric line (EL), wireline (WL), filtration and
Several completion design changes were recommend CT units.
based on our selected sand control option. Because the close 6. Swap fluids with CT and circulating wash nozzle.
tolerance screen would not have an annular pack, the 7. Run gyro to determine lowside orientation.
following changes were made: 8. Perforate 4 spf 0o/180o phasing @ N60oE.
9. Set cast iron bridge plug (CIBP) for base. Demob EL.
1. Perforating: The productive horizons would be perforated 10. RU tree saver. Frac pack well.
overbalanced, 4 spf at 0o/180o phasing. The guns would be 11. Wash out to TD.
oriented along the assumed region stress field or parallel to 12. Run memory tools to determine if TD reached.
the regional faulting (N 60oE). See Figure 2. Additionally, 13. Run close tolerance prepacked screen.
the entry hole diameter would be limited to 0.25”. These 14. Set packer.
changes were made in an attempt to: 15. Bring on line. RD. Demobilize equipment.

• Treat all the perforations, thereby minimizing the chance Additional cost savings were expected by batch
of single perforation or set of perforations making sand. completing two wells. The wells would be perforated in
• Create a conduit for a stable arch, which would serve as sequence then the EL would be released. The frac stimulation
our second defense against sand production (The first boat would be mobilized once and would pump both jobs in
defense would be the lower drawdown / mcf in a frac sequence. The cost savings for a single mobilization was
packed completion). The limited entry perforation (0.25” estimated @ $ 25,000.
diameter hole) was based on 10X greater size than the
proppant diameter (20/40 Econoprop). Completion Summaries
Perforating
2. Frac Design: The frac pack design would be consistent EI 273 Well C-1 ST: Well C-1ST penetrated the 8100’
with the conclusions and recommendation with reference sand and the 8600’ sand with ± 114’ of gross pay (± 52’ net)
3. The main frac design criteria was as follows: and ± 91’ of gross pay (± 57’ net), respectively. The log
sections can be seen in Figures 3 and 4. The 8600’ sand was
• Aggressive use of breakers and low gel loading (25 # per completed first. The horizon was perforated decentralized,
1000 gal or less) oriented (N60oE) with 4 spf from 9376-9434’ CDR. The
• Tip Screen-Out (TSO) would be required. If the TSO was perforation orientation was parallel to the regional faulting
not achieved we were ready to over displace the job and [Figure 2]. After the well was perforated, a CIBP was set
start from scratch. below the perforations @ 9437’ CDR.
• Time to TSO must be monitored and adjustments must be
made early in the pump schedule. Well C-1ST was the first well to be perforated. Prior to
• An additional proppant stage would be pumped to ensure perforating, a gyro was run to determine the lowside of the
proppant was left above the top of perforations. hole. The guns were then turned away from the lowside to
perforate in the N60oE orientation. The gyro data retrieved
3. Hardware Design: Prepacked screen with 20/40 determined that the lowside of the hole was consistent within
Econoprop would be used as a third line of defense. The 5 % error from the lowside identified from the MWD.
sand size would be consistent with the recommendations of Therefore, we believe that the gyro data was not required to
reference 4. The basic premise would be to allow for the orient the guns. A graphical representation of the C-1ST gyro
finer particles to flow through the screen and out of the versus MWD data can be seen on Figure 5.
well. Additionally, no blank would be required with the
selected sand control option. This allowed for very close EI 273 Well C-3ST: Well C-3ST penetrated the 8600’
horizons to be completed. Finally, a retrievable packer sand with ± 38’ of gross pay (± 18’ net). The log section in
would be used for annular isolation, which allows for a Figure 6 showed two sand lobes with water in the bottom of
truly retrievable completion. the second lobe. The upper lobe was perforated decentralized,
oriented (N60oE) with 4 spf from 10692-10706’ CDR. The
Proposed Procedure perforation orientation was the same as Well C-1ST, or
1. Drill to TD. parallel to the regional faulting [Figure 2]. Gun orientation
2. Set 4-½” 13.50 #/ft liner and liner packer (± 20’ seal was defined by the MWD data because the gyro data was not
bore). Cement and displace with 3 % KCL. conclusive through the perforated interval. Casing scale was
3. Run 20’ seal assembly, 4-½” 13.50 #/ft x 11.60 #/ft identified just below the perforations during the gyro run
tieback & 4-½” hydraulic landing nipple (HLN). Land which caused the gyro to stick and spin. Therefore to
tubing. NU Tree. Test to 7500 psi. eliminate the risk of pulling debris through the perforations, a
4. Demobilize Rig. CIBP was set below the perforations @ 10710’ CDR to isolate
the debris.
4 John R. Sanford, Tamara R. Webb, Seb Patout, and Hugo Morales SPE 54475

Frac Packing (13th) run. At this time we took a step back and re-evaluated
EI 273 Well C-1 ST: Well C-1ST was the first well to be our situation. Because we were in a rigless situation, we did
frac packed. Prior to frac packing, a step rate and a DataFrac not have a high rig rate forcing us to make an immediate
were performed. The fracture extension, leakoff, fluid decision. We could afford to delay the completion until we
efficiency and time to TSO were determined. To be consistent had the correct equipment on location. We ordered a 1-3/4”
with our original Frac design objectives, a 21,000 #, 14 ppa CT reel, a new injector and a 750 HHP pump. This delayed
stage was added to the design to ensure we had sand above the our completion another two (2) weeks.
top perforation after screen-out. Well C-1ST was frac packed
with 50,750 # of 20/40 Carbolite (Carbolite was left over from Once the new equipment was on location, this was not the
a prior Amoco job and was already purchased). Time to TSO end of our problems. The brand new 1-3/4” reel was defective
was within 30 seconds of the simulated value and a TSO was and had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be repaired and
achieved with ± 2,500 psi of net pressure and 12.5 ppa slurry another two (2) days were lost. Total trouble or down time
at the perforations during screen-out @ 7,300 psi. cost was ± $ 700,000.
Approximately, 27,310 # of proppant (471 #/ft) was placed in
the perforations, leaving 23,440 # left in the hole (±2,700’). After the CT reel was repaired, the remainder of the
An expanded scale of the stimulation treatment can be seen in completion went without a problem. We washed the well to
Figure 7. We believed that each of the pressure breakbacks TD in less than ½ day, ran a memory tool and identified our
were the treating of individual sets of perforations or sand true TD (CDR), ran 22’ of 2-3/8” screen, set the packer and
lobes. brought the well on line. A wellbore schematic for Well C-
3ST can be seen in Figure 9.
EI 273 Well C-3ST: Prior to frac packing, a step rate and
a DataFrac were performed. The fracture extension, leakoff, Total cost of the completion, after the casing was set, was
fluid efficiency and time to TSO were determined. Based on $ 1,173,000. We consider this a p(90) estimate with all the
our C-1ST redesign, a smaller final stage was added to the job problems that occurred.
(5,000 #, 12 ppa stage). Well C-3ST was frac packed with
23,300 # of 20/40 Econoprop. Time to TSO was within 30 EI 273 Well C-1ST: Clean-out operations were not
seconds of the simulated value and a TSO was achieved with initiated on Well C-1ST until all of the equipment failures and
± 1,500 psi of net pressure and 12 ppa slurry at the problems were resolved. Clean-out with the 1-3/4” CT and
perforations during screen-out @ 8,250 psi. Approximately, the 750 HHP went as planned and concluded in less than two
18,300 # of proppant (1,300 #/ft) was placed in the (2) days. We washed the well to bottom (± 2,700’ of
perforations, leaving 5,000 # left in the hole (± 575’). An proppant), ran a memory tool and identified the true TD, ran
expanded scale of the stimulation treatment can be seen in 68’ of 2-3/8” screen, set the packer and brought the well on
Figure 8. We believed the initial pressure breakback @ 23.5 line. A wellbore schematic for Well C-1ST can be seen in
minutes was height growth into the lower and the other Figure 1.
pressure breakbacks between 24 minutes and the screen-out
were the treating of individual sets of perforations. Total cost of the completion was $ 570,000. Because we
began and ended on this well, both the mobilization and
Total boat time for the two frac pack treatments was only demobilization were charged to the well. This cost was ± $
20 hours. This included rig up, two step rate test, two 95,000.
DataFracs, two frac packs and rig down. This time is typically
the time it takes to do a single conventional job. Financial Comparisons
For a cost comparison, we had a very good database. Two
Coiled Tubing Clean-Out (2) wells were drilled and completed in the same field in late
EI 273 Well C-3ST: After both wells were frac packed, 1997 at the B structure, EI 273 Wells B-13ST and B-2ST.
CT first rigged up on this well. This is where all the problems Both wells were frac packed and costs were from swapping
began. The initial problem was that the wrong or originally fluids to NU the tree (after the casing was set). Completion
designed equipment did not show up on location. We had costs for Wells B-13ST and B-2ST were $ 1,555,000 and $
smaller pumps, the wrong ID 1-1/2” CT reel and the wrong 1,893,000, respectively. The B-13ST was the least expensive
accessory tool box. After reviewing what we had, we still single frac packed completion for Amoco in 1997. It was
believed we could wash the well to TD, if no problems considered the p(10) cost target.
occurred. That was when we started having equipment
failures. We replaced the CT power pack, one (1) of the The rigless completion costs for Wells C-1ST and C-3ST
pumps and the injector head. After about a week of down were $ 570,000 and $ 1,173,000, respectively. This
time due to equipment failures and washing problems, the CT represented a savings of $ 985,000 (63%) or $ 382,000 (25%),
parted as we were pulling out of the hole on our thirteenth respectively. A graphical representation of the cost can be
seen in Figure 10. Well C-3ST, with all of the trouble time or
SPE 54475 Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves 5

the p(90) cost estimate, was still 25 % less than the p(10) rig modified isochronal test was not performed to evaluate this
completion cost. We believe we can perform the rigless option.
completions for less than $ 400,000.
The most conclusive evidence that the completion
Please note that the costs represented were both in a high technique detailed in this paper was successful is the
cost market. The spread rate for the rig completions was ± production profiles for the wells.
$80,000 / day and the spread rate for the 1-3/4” CT and 750
HHP pump was ± $ 40,000 / day. Obviously, the current Well C-1ST has cumulatively produced ± 1.6 bcf in little
market prices for both the rig and CT are considerably less. over 6 months with no sand production. A production profile
for the well can be seen in Figure 16. The well last tested ±
Productivity Comparisons 5,000 mcfd.
This was the most important comparison for the rigless
completions, if we planned on utilizing this technology for Well C-3ST has cumulatively produced ± 2.3 bcf in the
larger reserves. If completion efficiency was drastically same time period with no sand production. A production
effected, the cost savings would most likely not be warranted. profile for the well can be seen in Figure 17. The well last
However, we have not quantified the relationship between tested ± 10,500 mcfd.
completion efficiency and cost on a reserve basis.
Conclusions
Completion efficiency was calculated for both the rig and 1. Monobore completions with sand control are an economic
the rigless completions. Completion efficiency (CE) was and effective primary completion technique for marginal
defined as the producing rate divided by the zero skin rate reserves.
expressed as a percentage. The zero skin rate was calculated 2. The completion method detailed in this paper is an
by matching the current rate, the permeability and the skin, effective sand control method with no loss of completion
from a pressure build-up analysis (PBU), on a NODAL efficiency or productivity.
analysis. The PBU analysis and NODAL matches for Wells 3. The close tolerance screen is the best method for sand
C-1ST and C-3ST can be seen in Figures 11-14. The control in frac packed monobores.
calculated CE for Wells C-1ST and C-3ST were 88 % and 45 4. The importance of performing the job with the originally
%, respectively. For comparison the rig CE for Wells B-13ST designed equipment should not be taken lightly.
and B-2ST were 105 % and 85 %, respectively. Graphical
results can be seen in Figure 15. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
Well C-1ST experienced no CE or productivity loss due to Amoco Production Company for granting permission to
our completion technique. The CE loss in Well C-3ST was publish this paper. A special thanks to all parties that worked
most likely due to a combination of the following reasons: together to successfully complete this project.

• Washing Problems. Experience tells us, the more time you References
spend in a well, the greater chance you had to damage the 1. Ebinger, C.E.: “New Frac-Pack Procedures Reduce Completion
formation. Cost,” World Oil, April 1996, pp. 71&75.
• Gel Damage. Because of the initial equipment problems 2. Welling, Rudy W.F.: “Conventional High Rate Completions:
several gels sweeps were made in an attempt to clean the Limitations of Frac&Pack, Hugh Rate Water Pack and Open
Hole Gravel Pack,” paper SPE 39475 presented at the 1998 SPE
hole. Approximately 1,450 bbls of gel were used (As
Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A.,
compared to 150 bbls of gel on Well C-1ST). Loss of the 18-19 February 1998.
gel to the formation would be very damaging. 3. Norman, W.D., Mukherjee, H, Morales, H.R., Attong, D.,
Additionally, the time delay due to the equipment Webb, T.R.: “Optimized Fracpack Design Results in Production
problems caused both wells to remain shut-in with frac gel Increase in the Matagorda Island Area,” paper SPE 49045
in the formation for over one (1) month. This could also prepared for the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference, New
be damaging. Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 27-30 September 1998.
• Crushed Econoprop. Thirteen (13) CT trips were made in 4. Tiffin, D.L., King, G.E., Larese, R.E., Britt, L.K.: “New Criteria
for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control,” paper SPE
Well C-3ST. The last bottoms up recovered a large sample
39437 prepared for presention at the 1998 SPE Formation
of crushed Econoprop. If any crushed Econoprop was lost Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A., 18-19
to the formation it would cause a near wellbore skin or an February 1998.
increased pressure drop.
• Turbulence. It is possible that the limited entry
perforations, the low spf and the small perforation interval
caused a near wellbore turbulence. Unfortunately, a
 OCSG 0987 Well C-1 ST PROPOSED
Eugene Island Block 273 AS IS
DIRECTIONAL DATA TUBULARS SIZE WT GRADE THREAD DEPTH WELL HEAD DATA
KOP:
1500 RKB DRIVE PIPE 20” 0.75” Weld 482’ TYPE 4-1/16” 5M
MAX:
36.5o @ 5800 RKB CONDUCTOR 16” 84# H40 BTC 917’ WP
T
5,000
MAX DOGLEG: @ RKB SURFACE 10-3/4” 40.5# K55 BTC 3,111’ R
C
A
FLANGE 4-1/16” 5M
E
DEV @ PERFS: 2 o@ RKB INTERMEDIATE E P THREAD 8rd
RET TO VERT: RKB PRODUCTION 7-5/8” 33.7# S95 LTC 5,769’ TBG HANGER DP4H5SV
PROD LINER 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 4,850’-9,628’ BTM FLANGE 11” 5M
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC TIE BACK / LS 4-1/2” 11.6# P110 H563 610’ BPV PROFILE Nat Type “H”
MONOBORE 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 610’-4,850’ ELEVATIONS RKB-TH 43.9
WD 184 RKB-MWL 104

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT OD ID DEPTH (RKB)

CAMCO Hydraulic Landing Nipple w/ FC 5.920 3.812 434

CAMCO WRDP Wireline ret SCSSV 2.125 434
4-1/2” 14’ SWS “X” Nipple w/ FPs 5.920 3.812 550

HLN 4-1/2” 11.60# H563 x 4-1/2” 13.50# SLX (X-Over) 3.795 610
X

4-1/2” 14’ Seal Assembly w/ 4 sets Nitrile Seals 4850

4-1/2” Brown “ZXP” Liner Packer w/ PBR 4850
4,850’

7-5/8” Top of Window 5769

5,769’

4-1/2” DS Retrievable Packer 2.000 9360

2-3/8” 0.008 Ga Micropack Screen 3.043 1.995 9370
8600’ Sand: 9,376 - 9,434’ CDR (4 spf)
CIBP 9437
PJ

xo COMMENTS INTERNALLY COATED TUBING YES NO PLUG BACK 9,437 MD

8,605 TVD

TOTAL DEPTH
9,628 MD
8,798 TVD
FLUID LIH No Fluid
DATE LIH
PREPARED BY JR Sanford
9,628’ DATE
FILE
8/10/98
c1st.ppt

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY

Figure 1. EI 273 Well C-1ST Wellbore Schematic

 Eugene Island 273
8600’ SAND: SEISMIC ANOMALY

Untested 8600’ Sand

N

0E
N6
Faulting Orientation

Updip Reserves in
8100’ & 8600’ Sands

Figure 2. 8600’ Anomoly Map w/ Regional Faulting Orientation.

Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
8100’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10

8900

8950

9000

9050

9100

Figure 3. Log Section for 8100’ Sand.

Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
8600’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10

9350

9400

9450

9500

Figure 4. Log Section for 8600’ Sand.

 EI 273 Well C-1ST BP1
WELLBORE ORIENTATION
Azimuth / Lowside (Degrees from North)
170 175 180 185 190
9350
Depth (feet)

9400

GyroData

MWD Data

- 5 Degree Error

+ 5 Degree Error

9450

Figure 5. Gyro Data versus MWD Data.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
8600’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10
10650

10700

10750

Figure 6. Log Section for 8600’ Sand.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
FRAC PACK STIMULATION TREATMENT
5000 16

4500 14

Pump Rate(bpm) & Sand Concentration (ppa)

4000 12

3500 10
Pressure, psia

3000 8

Time to TSO
2500
2.5 minutes 6

2000 4

Net Pressure Build: 2500 psi

1500 2

1000 0
22 24 26 28 30 32
Job Time, minutes
Figure 7. Well C-1ST Stimulation Treatment.
 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
FRAC PACK STIMULATION TREATMENT
4000 16

3750 14

Pump Rate(bpm) & Sand Concentration (ppa)

3500 12

3250 10
Time to TSO
Pressure, psia

1.5 minutes
3000 8

2750 6

2500
Net Pressure Build: 1500 psi 4

2250 2

2000 0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Job Time, minutes

Figure 8. Well C-3ST Stimulation Treatment.
 OCSG 0987 Well C-3 ST PROPOSED
Eugene Island Block 273 AS IS
DIRECTIONAL DATA TUBULARS SIZE WT GRADE THREAD DEPTH WELL HEAD DATA
KOP:
5800 RKB DRIVE PIPE 20” 0.75” Weld 483’ TYPE 4-1/16” 5M
o @ 5800 16” 84# H40 905’ 5,000
MAX:
43 RKB CONDUCTOR BTC WP
T
MAX DOGLEG: @ RKB SURFACE 10-3/4” 40.5# K55 BTC 4,500’ R
C
A
FLANGE 4-1/16” 5M
E
DEV @ PERFS: 5 o@ RKB INTERMEDIATE E P THREAD 8rd
RET TO VERT: RKB PRODUCTION 7-5/8” 33.7# S95 LTC 5,800’ TBG HANGER DP4H5SV
PROD LINER 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 5,219’-10,950’ BTM FLANGE 11” 5M
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC TIE BACK / LS 4-1/2” 11.6# P110 H563 638’ BPV PROFILE Nat Type “H”
MONOBORE 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 638’-5,219’ ELEVATIONS RKB-TH 43.5
WD 184 RKB-MWL 104

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT OD ID DEPTH (RKB)

CAMCO Hydraulic Landing Nipple w/ FC 5.920 3.812 430

CAMCO WRDP Wireline ret SCSSV 2.125 430
4-1/2” 14’ SWS “X” Nipple w/ FPs 5.920 3.812 536

HLN 4-1/2” 11.60# H563 x 4-1/2” 13.50# SLX (X-Over) 3.795 638
X

4-1/2” 14’ Seal Assembly w/ 4 sets Nitrile Seals 5219

4-1/2” Brown “ZXP” Liner Packer w/ PBR 5219
5,219’

7-5/8” Top of Window 5800

5,800’

4-1/2” DS Retrievable Packer 2.000 10677

2-3/8” 0.008 Ga Micropack Screen 3.043 1.995 10688
8600’ Sand: 10,692 - 10,706’ CDR (4 spf)
CIBP 10710
PJ

xo COMMENTS INTERNALLY COATED TUBING YES NO PLUG BACK 10,870 MD

9,889 TVD
TOTAL DEPTH
10,950 MD
9,969 TVD
FLUID LIH No Fluid
DATE LIH
PREPARED BY JR Sanford
10,950’ DATE
FILE
8/10/98
c3st.ppt

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY

Figure 9. EI 273 Well C-3ST Wellbore Schematic

 Eugene Island 273 Field
FINANCIAL COMPARISONS

$2,000
$1,893
$1,800
$1,555
$1,600
COMPLETION COST

$1,400
$1,173
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$570
$600
$400
$200
$0
B13ST B2ST C1ST BP1 C3ST
Rig Completions
Monobores

Figure 10. Eugene Island 273 Cost Comparisons.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
NODAL ANALYSIS
2500

Pr 2,480 psi
k 125 md
2450
Pressure, psia

Sk Sk
in in
= 6.5 = 0
2400

Completion Efficiency: Zero Skin Match:

CE = 9.6 MMcfd / 10.9 MMcfd = 88 % 10.9 MMcfd @ 2,362 psi bhftp

2350

FTP = 1,900 psi

Current Match:
9.6 MMcfd @ 2,355 psi bhftp

2300
0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Rate, MMcfd
Figure 11.EI 273 Well C-1ST NODAL Analysis.
Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
PBU ANALYSIS

Figure 12. EI 273 Well C-1ST PBU Analysis.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
NODAL ANALYSIS
44 00

42 00

40 00 Pr 4,138 psi
k 250 md
Sk
38 00 in
= 0
Sk
Pressure, psia

36 00
in
=
11
5

34 00

32 00 Zero Skin Match:

28.6 MMcfd @ 3,110 psi bhftp

30 00
FTP = 2,290 psi
Current Match:
28 00 12.8 MMcfd @ 2,965 psi bhftp
Completion Efficiency:
CE = 12.8 MMcfd / 28.6 MMcfd = 45 %
26 00

24 00
0 5,0 00 10 ,00 0 15 ,00 0 20 ,00 0 25 ,00 0 30 ,00 0

Rate, MMcfd
Figure 13. EI 273 Well C-3ST NODAL Analysis.
Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
PBU ANALYSIS

Figure 14. EI 273 Well C-3ST PBU Analysis.

 Eugene Island 273 Field
PRODUCTIVITY COMPARISONS

120%
105%
100% 88%
85%
COMPLETION EFFECIENCY

80%

60%
45%
40%

20%

0%
B13ST B2ST C1ST BP1 C3ST
Rig Completions
Monobores

Figure 15. Eugene Island 273 Completion Efficiency Comparisons.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
PRODUCTION PROFILE

100
MCFD

10

1
Jun-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99

Figure 16.EI 273 Well C-1ST Production Profile.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
PRODUCTION PROFILE

100
MCFD

10

1
Jun-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99

Figure 17.EI 273 Well C-3ST Production Profile.