Sand Control

d . 8
rv n 1, 2 e 01
Open Hole Sandface Technique Selection
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
PE-SC-00012Pr
Learning Objectives

▪ Selection criteria
▪ Technical considerations d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
▪ OH Frac Pack? e
s u
s re 28 - J
▪ Field case i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

1 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Openhole Completion Selection Criteria

▪ PSD based criteria needs to move beyond picking a point (D50), a

few ratios (CU, CS) and % of sub-325-micron particles. . 8
d
e 201
▪ Experimental and numerical work complimenting r v
e uneach
1, other to truly
s
re 28 - J
understand the impact of PSD on screen
h s
t and/or gravel selection
g May ri nce -
– Ongoing Work (Part 1: SPE 134326,. AMondal l l
Fra et al., 2010 Annual Meet.)
x T Pau ,
– SPE 143731 Presents interpretationNEouard - and modeling results for wire wrapped
t
screen testing and application.© Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
– SPE 151637 Presents
o p formodeling for square mesh screens in slurry test
C uced
conditions for SAS
rod
applications.
P

2 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Net-to-Gross → May have no impact on SAS vs OHGP
– Isolate shales with swell packers . 8
d
e 201
– Frequent, thin shale sections may eliminate SAS se n 1, rv
r e 8 - Ju
– Too many swell packers or swell packers would h ts also
y 2 block pay zone.
r i g e-M a

▪ Wellbore Collapse at Onset of Production? l l nc

T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
– Makes SAS a very attractive option
N ouard provided the proper homework is done on
t © Dr
mud displacements and
i g h ntin cleanup and can tolerate some transient sand
cake
y r Vale
production o p for
C uced
▪ e.g., produce at rlow
od rates first and gradually ramp up to your target.
P

3 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Production rate
– Erosion considerations (typically not an issue for screens .in long open holes if
e d 018
things are done properly to prevent screen plugging,erbut1is v , 2 an issue with other
restrictions, such as chokes, etc. at high ratestswith res28solids)
-J
un

g h ay
– Uncertainties as to when solids production l l ri nwill M
ce stop (or even when it will start)
-
.
may have a significant impact onxdecision A , Fraas to SAS vs. Gravel Pack if HIGH
T Pau
RATES. NEouard -
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

4 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Zonal isolation
– Reliability of OH zonal isolation techniques . 8
d
e 201
– Impacts all Open Hole Completion types, perhapsswith r v
e unthe1, exception of
Expandables s re 28 - J
h t ay
r i g e-M
l
– If isolation required solely to minimize lannular
A ,F a nc (OH/Screen) flow, swell
packers are sufficient. T . r
x au
NEouard - P
– Gravel packs →To be discussed t © Dr in a separate presentation
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

5 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Reactive shales - impact all OH completions, to different extent
– Screen Installation → Common to All . 8
d
e 01
e
▪ Shale swelling and/or collapse may result in not getting to TD rv n 1, 2
r e s - Ju
▪ Chemistry and/or procedures can address this issuets 28
g h
i ce - ay
– If to be displaced to WB fluids, do it after runningrscreens; M
l l
. Aau, Fra to run screens in OBM, displace to solids-
n
– If screen openings are too small for mudTconditioning
free OBM; E x -P
N ouard
t
– Displace to a WB fluid containing © shale
Dr inhibitor.
h
g ledisplace
n
– Run a predrilled lineryinriOBM,
nt i
Va to WB fluids and run screen w/o shroud.
p
Couced fo
r

od
Pr

6 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Reactive shales
- Shale collapse after screen installation, before normal screenout d . 8
r v e 201
▪ Premature Screen-Out  Impacts Water-Packing (α/β-Packing) s e un 1,
s re 28 - J
• Shale Inhibitor in Carrier Fluid
h t ay
r i g e-M
• Two Trip (Predrilled Liner followed by Screen) l l installation
nc
• Single Trip (Shrouded Screen w/sufficient T . Agap)
u,
F r a

E x -P a
• Oil Based Carrier Fluid (Low-VisNor Hi-Vis)
ard
t © Dro u
- Shale mixing with slurry i g h tinCan impact both water-packing and WB viscous
yr or Va le n
p
packing (APSCoro otherwise) f
c ed
u
od
▪ Higher risk with
Pr water packing due to larger exposure time (lower gravel concentration)
and turbulence
▪ Use shale inhibitor to mitigate

7 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Technical Considerations
▪ Interval length & operational window (fracturing)
– If screens can be run in (depth vs interval length) Primary. issue would be
e d 018
fracturing e v
r n 1, 2
r e s - Ju
▪ Diverter Valves t s
h - Ma y 28
▪ Friction Reducer i g
r nce
l l
A , Fra
▪ Light Weight Gravel .
T Pau
x
NEouard -
▪ Current tool box can go a long way..
t © Dr
– Cost i g h ntin
y r Vale
o pfactor
for for some operators who see ES and OHGP as competing
C e
▪ Becomes a deciding d
uc
technologies P rod
– Logistics
▪ Rig space, etc.

8 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Open Hole Frac Pack?
▪Not too many documented cases:
- Saldungaray et al. (SPE 73757, 2002)- Indonesia Oil Producer . 8
- Shumbera et al. (SPE 84416, 2003)- GoM Water Injector d
e 201
rv
e un 1,
- Kamps et al. (SPE 135441, 2010)- W. Africa OilrProducer s
e 8-J
h s
t ay 2
r i g e-M
l l nc
T . Aau, F r a

E x -P
N ouard
t © Dr
i g h ntin
y r Vale
o p for
C ed uc
Prod
 Field Characteristics (SPE 73757)
▪ Target reservoir:
– ~ 3,500 to 3,600 ft TVD
d . 8
– Clean, poorly consolidated sand with medium grainesize rven 1, 201
▪ D50 ~ 120 – 150 Micron range r es8 - Ju
h ts ay 2
– Typically high water-cut from the beginning r i g e-M
l l nc
– Typically 1 to 2 Darcy range, withxT29% . AauPorosity
,F
r a

E -P
– BHST ~ 190oF , Pi ~ 1,350t ©psiNDrouar
d

i g h ntin
– Solution gas drive, ywith r Vweak
ale aquifer support
o p for
▪ Rapid pressure C
depletion,
c ed with suspected PR ~ 600 psi
u
rod
– Completion Techniques: CHGPs, CHFPs & OHGPs
P

▪ Original Plan for Subject Well: CHFP

12 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

History of Subject Well
▪ Drilling started Feb. 2000
▪ While drilling 8.5-in. hole, severe losses
d . 8
– Mud weight minimized to 9 ppg e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
– 6 LCM pills (350 bbls) r es8 - Ju
h ts ay 2
– Total RDF & LCM losses: 4,200 bbls rig ce - M
A ll ran
▪ 9 ppg believed to be required for shales T . au, F
▪ Reservoir pressure was 210 psiNlower Exardthan
- P expected

▪ Ended up exceeding the h t ©

frac pressure
D rou
i g tin
yrw/Seawater
le n
p
– Decision: Drill blind Va
Co ed f o r

d uc
▪ Shales were destabilized due to insufficient hydrostatic
o
Pr

13 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

History of Subject Well – Contd.
– Decision: Set 7-in. casing and then continue drilling
▪ 50 bbls of LCM in OH to keep well full when RIH Casing
d . 8
▪ Casing had to be set & cemented 70-ft above target e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
re 28 - J
– Exposed shale section (had collapsed)
– NOTE: At this point, it was TIME for PLAN-B (i.e., h s
not CHFP)
ay
r g
i ce - M
– Continue drilling w/Seawater l l
A , Fran
.
▪ with heavy & sometimes completeElosses xT - Pau
N ouard
– Spot LCM in OH and attempt t © Drto run completion assembly
i g h ntin
y r Vacollapse
le
o p for
▪ Only 30 ft into sand (shale around screens)
C uced
– Decision: Put rcement
od plug & Suspend well until waterflooding pressurized
P
reservoir sufficiently

14 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

Concerns & Proposed Solutions

▪ Hole Stability
– A drilling motor and a bit attached to bottom of completion. string, with
e d 018
wash-pipe conveying fluid to motor. e v
r n 1, 2
r es8 - Ju
▪ Completion String Deployment h ts ay 2
r i g e-M
– Shrouded shunt-screen assembly with A l l washdown
a nc capability.
T . au, F r
▪ Contamination of ProppantNPack Exard - Pwith Shales
t © Drou
– A cup-type packer bypassed
i g h ntin with shunts, placed below GP-Packer
y r Vale
▪ OHFP not done o p for
before
C uced
od 70o inclination with 110-120 ft planned OH
– High kh-formation,
Pr

– We just needed to have the guts to go for it.

15 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Completion Schematic

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

16 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Design

▪ GRAVEL: 20/40 Ceramic ISP

– Due to its high-k d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
▪ SCREENS: 12-gauge WWS with 2 large shunt rtubes es8 - Ju
h ts ay 2
– Shunts bypassed the cup-type packer &rino g eexit
- M ports on shunts across the
A ll ran c
shale T . au, F
E x -P
▪ FLUID: 30 lb/1,000-gal Borate NCrosslinked
ard Guar
©
t tin D r ou
h
rigValen breaker
– With an oxidizer asyinternal
o p for
▪ Job design usingC ucaed Fracturing Simulator
od
Pr
– 15 bpm rate, 5,000-gal pad, 21,000-lb proppant in 3,000 gal gel
▪ Proppant ramped from 2 to 12 ppa

17 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Execution

▪ August 2000, Rig moved to location

.
– Hole was reamed from 6,736 to 6,969 ft (233 ft OH) ved 2018
s er un 1,
▪ 9.0 ppg Bioploymer/Starch.CaCO3 RDF
s re 28 - J
h t ay
– With losses up to 125 bph r i g e-M
l l
A , F seawater
a nc
– Hole conditioned and displaced toT.filtered r
x au
NEouard< 30 NTU (4 to 5 Hole Volumes)
- P
▪ 300 ft annular velocity till©returns
h t tin Dr
– Completion assembly y rigRIH
a lensmoothly w/o having to turn the bit.
o p for V
C uced
– Pickled work string
od
Pr
– Step rate test with Slick Water (KCl brine w/10 ppt GUAR)

18 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Execution
Treating Pressure (JobData) Treating Pressure
Slurry Rate (JobData) BH Prop Conc
Proppant Conc (JobData)
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
5000 e
s u
25

s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
4000 r
ll nc
20
. A , Fra
x -P T au
Pressure (psi)

3000 E
N ard + 15
t © D rou
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Co
2000 10
e df
c
odu
Pr
1000 5

0 0 +
0 5 10 15 20 25
19 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved Time (min)
 Evaluation

▪ PACKING:
– Proppant in Fracture: 20,380 lbs d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
– Annular Pack : 1,750 lbs e
s u
s re 28 - J
▪ FRAC SIMULATION (Matching Pressure/Rate): ht ay
rig - M
All
ce
– Frac. Half Length : 18 ft ran
T . au, F
E x -P
– Frac. Height : 50 ft© N ouard
h t tin Dr
ig ainlen
– Avg. Propped Width:r1.2
y
o p for V
C uced
od
Pr

20 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Production

▪ ESP RIH, with a transducer mounted on the intake

– BHSP ~ 390 psi, produced > 1,000 bfbd . 8
d
e 01
▪ Outside ESP operating limit e rv n 1, 2
r es8 - Ju
– Decision: Monitor BHP as waterflood continues, h ts a&y 2put on production when P ~
600 psi r i g e-M
l l nc
T . Aau, F r a
▪ Restart pump end of October,Ex2000 -P
N ouar d
– 2,000 bfbd with 500 bopd ©
t tin Dr
h
y rigValen
o p for
C uced
od
Pr

21 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Productivity Comparison

Cased Hole Frac-Packs

14
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
re 28 - J
12
s
ht ay
10
r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
.
PI (bfpd/psi)

8
x -P T au
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
6

y rigValen
p or
Couced f
4

od
2 Pr

FP
)
29

12

11

13

07

12

1
33
8

5
1

P
-2

-2
-4

-4

HF
B-

B-

A-

A-

A-

A-
C

H
F-
C

C
C

C
D

(O

g.
Av
28
22

B-
Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
 Productivity Comparison

Cased-Hole Frac-Packs
0.4
d . 8
0.35 e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
PI/h (bfbd/psi/ft)

0.3 s u
re 28 - J
s
ht ay
0.25 r i g e-M
ll nc
A , Fra
0.2 .
T au
E x -P
0.15 N ard
t © Dro u
0.1 h tin
y rigValen
0.05 p or
0 Couced f
od
Pr

FP
g. P)
11

13

07

12
33
1

(O 1
29

12
28

25
-4

-4

28 F-0
Av HF
A-

A-

A-

A-
DC
B-

B-
C-

C-

CH
DC

DC

B-
23 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
 Productivity Comparison

Open-Hole Gravel Packs

20
d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
18 e
s u
16 s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
14 r
PI (bfbd/psi)

ll nc
A , Fra
12 .
T au
E x -P
10 N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
rigValen
8
y
p or
Couced f
6
4 od
Pr
2
0
A-19 B-14 B-16 B-22 C-16 B-28 Avg.
24 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved
(OHFP) OHGP
 Conclusions

▪ Demonstrated that open hole frac-packing of high kh-formations is operationally

feasible. . 8
d
e 201
▪ Furthermore, intuitive superiority of such completions, r v
e from 1, a productivity
r s
e 8 - Ju n
standpoint, combining the benefits of open holes
h ts aywith
2 those of frac-packing was
shown to be achievable. r i g e-M
l
A ,F l a nc
▪ An innovative technique utilizing shunt T . ascreens
r
with a cup-type packer to bypass
E x - P
u

the exposed shale sectionst © N ouardus to minimize potential completion damage

allowed
h Dr
i
and to effectively complete
r g leant challenging well.
in
p y or Va
Counot
▪ This technique did df
ce only save a well that was almost lost, but also resulted in
od
highly favorablePrproductivity compared to both cased-hole frac-packs and open-
hole horizontal gravel packs, despite huge losses experienced during drilling.

25 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved

 Any Questions?

d . 8
e 01
rv n 1, 2
e
s u
s re 28 - J
i ht ay
g e-M
r
ll nc
. A , Fra
T au
x -P
E
N ard
t © Dro u
h tin
y rigValen
p or
Couced f
od
Pr

26 Copyright ©2011 NExT. All rights reserved