SPE 13976/1

THROUGH BORE SUBSEA CHR3STMM TREES

D S Huber & G F C Simm~

Hamilton Brothers Oil & Gas Ltd

C S Johnson, The National ~ly

1.

~~

Ltd~ Ux

INTRODUCTION

The workovers of subsea completed wells are expensive and time consuming
as even the most routine tasks must be carried out by a semi-submersible.
This paper describes the economic, safety and operational advantages which
led to the development
and successful
first installation
of through bore
subsea production trees.
The conventional wet subsea trees have proved to be very reliable over the
past ten years of operation in the Argyll, Duncan and Innes fields, however
the completion
strings require pulling on the average
about once every
three to five years.
The conventional
subsea tree/tubing hanger set up
design requires the tree to be tripped and a rig BOP stack run to pull the
.
n:.
sensitive
and
LSlm Ope?atlcn is time consuming~ very weather
tubing.
leaves the well temporarily without a well control stack on the wellhead.
The 7 1/16 through bore subsea tree was developed
to minimize
the
tubing pulling workover time and several trees have been run successfully
since the latter
part of 1984.
The time saving on a tubing pulling
workover is three days.
In addition, the design considerably
reduces the
hazards and equipment damage risks inherent iii the conventional
design.
Hamilton Brothers and National Supply Company in Aberdeen designed the
equipment which must be considered a new generation of subsea production
trees.
2.

REASON

AND

FREQUENCY

OF WORKOVBRS

Hamilton
Brothers
has
operated
the
Argyll
fields,
a subsea
sy$tem
producing to a floating production facility, for over ten years.
The fields
presently consist of 18 subsea wells including 2 water injectors and 5 gas
form a very high proportion
of the
W=U maintenance
lift WMA.
-. ..-_. _ cost,s
total
field operations
costs~ especially
when comp=ed
to a platform
In
developed
field.
Completions
are designed to last the life of a field.
practice, however, a tubing pulling workover
is required on average
once
per four years per well.
The
reasons
for
workovers
are similar
to a nlatform
or lad
well.
Fourteen tubing pulling workovers have been per~ormed over the past 5
years.
The reasons, in order of frequency, have been:
1.

Repair

problems

2.

Change

3.

Recompletion

4.

Damaged

5.

Seal leaks.

to the DHSV

out of the completion

in another

tubing.

zone.

system.
to include

gas lift

equipment.

SPE13976/2
THROUGH BORE SUBSEA CHRISTMM

TREES

The wet subsea Christmas trees themselves have proved to be an extremely

No workovers have been required due to a
reliable piece of equipment.
valve failure.
This is very significant in that on the conventional subsea
tree system, the tree needs to be tripped to pull the tubing.
The design
of the through bore tree eliminates
this time consuming operation.
A
general schematic of the tree is included as Figure 1.

A typical tubing pulling workover requires 12 days and runs out at over a
With such costs at stake, a concerted effort is made to
million dollars.
make the system
as reliable
as possible,
and to ensure that when a
workover is required, a minimum amount of time is spent changing out the
The through bore tree was designed not only to minimize this
system.
time but also to simplify the conventional
design considerably,
and thus
increase the reliability of the system ii&Mkd.
The time saving with the through bore trees is 3 days since the subsea
This is the historical time it has taken
tree does not need to be tripped.
to pull the subsea tree, run the drilling rigs BOP, pull the BOP and re-run
The time can be considerably
longer especially
in marginal
the tree.
weather conditions because of the problems
associated
with handling the
These 3 days of rig time
rigs 300$000 pound BOP stack in rough weather.
The yearly saving would be well over a million
cost about 300,000 USD.
dollars for a subsea field developed
with 15 through bore trees based on
Due to this
the historical
workover
frequency
of once every 4 years.
potential cost saving, a pro~am to develop the idea of through bore trees
was started in the early spring of 1983.
The cost of the two designs of subsea trees is the same.
Although
increasing the valve size from 4 1/16 to 7 1/16 would normally add 152W0
to the cost of a tree, the two trees cost the same because of the
.
--. .:-- simpler =qulp~ a b design.

4.

DESCRIPllON
&

OF SYSTEM

ComwentionalSystem
A schematic
of a single 4 bore, non-orienting,
wet subsea
This conventional
production
tree is included as Figure
2.
tree has not changed significantly
in design over the past 10
years.
The major components are the tree and the tubing hanger.
The
tree
consists
of
a block
section
with
hydraulically
activated
f ail-saf e-dose
production and wing valves, a lower
manual master valve section and a wellhead connector.
The
tubing hanger shown is of the non-orienting
type and has
access
for communication
to the annulus along
with the
facility
for hydraulic
fluid to pass through the hanger
to
function the DHSV.

SPE13976/3

DSHuber,

GFSimmers&CSJ~

The tubing hanger has an integral

check valve to act as a
barrier for the annulus.
This is required on the conventional
trees because after the tubing hanger is landed through the
rigs BOP
stack,
the stack
is removed
to run the tree.
During this time the wellhead
is left without a well control
device.
The annulus check valve is closed when the tree or
There
tubing hanger running tool is off the tubing hanger.
are modifications
to this design, most notably a dual bore
system, but all have the design where the tubing hanger is
landed below the tree.
.
The major problems
associated with the conventional
system
of the operation?
are
primarily
the
weather
sensitivity
particularly
when handling the rig BOP, the complexity of the
tools and the equipment used. The necessity of a check valve
and the extra hydraulic
functions required
because
of the
design, results in a very complicated
system with a lsrge
number of moving parts.
These moving parts require
far
more critical
seals than are necessary
if the tubing hanger
A failure of any one of
were landed in the tree assembly.
Problems have
these seals can be the cause of a workover.
also been experienced
in trying to retrieve the tubing hanger
because
the tubing hanger is leaded deep in the wellhead.
Hydraulic
sleeves
must be actuated
that
are
subject
to
The through bore system was designed
sticking and failure.
to minimize these problems.

b.

BOre System

A schematic of the through bore system as successfully used

is shown in Figure 3.
The major change is that the bore of
the tree has been opened up to 7 1/16 to allow the 4 ID
tubing hanger to pass through the tree valves and land in the
wellhead connector assembly area.
The system allows for a
far less complex design without a check valve and simple
system of Imking in the tubing hanger.
Running procedures for the two styles of tree are included in
Table
1.
Although
running
the
trees
involves
similax
operational
time% several
major steps are eliminated
in a
tubing pulling workover with the through bore tree.
.
The three day time saving on pulling the tubing is realized by
The time can be
eliminating
steps B3, 43 7$ 8 and 9.
considerably
longer due to weather$ the larger
number
of
critical
operations
and the greater
amount of wireline work
Variations of the
which is prone to high non-productive
time.
procedures are required depending on the particular operation.
.

SPE13976/4

TREES
THROUGH BORE SUBSEA CH RxsTnAAs
The system is flexible to various completion configurations
including
tubing conveyed perforating
guns, hydraulic set packers if the well is
Both the water
completed in 7 casing} or as a gas lift completion.
injection
wells in the Duncan field were completed
with through
bore trees.
5.

ADVANTAGES OF THE THROUGH BORE TREE DESIGN

The two major advantages of the design have been mentioned previously.
Firstly,
the time/cost
saving is estimated
at 3 days of rig time and
300,000 USD per
workover. .
Secondly,
the equipment
is considerably
simpler by design and with fewer critical pieces of equipment to fail snd
The other advantages
as such the system is judged to be more reliable.
are as follows:
Well Control

&

The well is not temporarily left without a well control device

The subsea tree is not
during a tubing pulling workover.
pulled to surface.
~__

?2.

P.+-ti.l
- .-

f=
-

f-

Danqe

Handling
the tree can result in damage
especially
in the
moonpool area while pulling the tree through the splash zone.
W-cc
z subsez tree is landed, the safest condition fQr the
tree is to stay latched onto the wellhead.

Wellhead Ring Gasket Area

c.

If the ring
This is the most critical area on the wellhead.
gasket groove on the wellhead
is damaged such that a seal
cannot be maintained, the cost to repair is such that the well
would most likely be abandoned.

kmalusmowilrea

d8

---..1.
- on W=L-. bl.
-.. -k
lsfi.a
~~ee
ne Criticai FLOW area to the ixnnuxb
L&wu5AS
UUA =
This is
about four times the area for a conventional tree.
is
important
for
gas
lift
considerations
to
decrease
the
possibility of hydrate formation and erosion.
1

e.

Presaue
-

Testing

The pressure
testing
procedures
for
the system
sre
not
However a major advantage
of the
addressed in this paper.
through bore system is that all the critical seals are installed
on the tubing hanger.
These are tested as soon as the tubing
is landed and repairs can be made if required by pulling out
On the conventional
Systemt the
of the hoie immediately.
tree is landed after the tubing hanger and must be tripped to
Test ports between
each
repair seals on the tubing hanger.
set of seals on the through tubing tree hanger are included so
that seals sre not tested in sequence.

SPE13976/5

DSEuber$

GFSimmera&C

Shhuscm

Compatibility with Conventional System

tubing hanger
to be
The design allows for a conventional
A stinger assembly made up to the
landed in the wellhead.
wellhead
effectively
converts the through bore system to a
The oniy difference
is that the
conventional
subsea tree.
One tree
bore through the tree is 7 1/16 instead of 4 1/16.

has been used in this configuration.

g

Des@

of New Subaea Floaq

Production Facilities

The FPF on Argyll is not positioned directly over the subsea

have been
trees although other floating
field developments
Hsndling
designed in this way including Irmes and Buchan.
large drilling rig type BOP stacks to allow pulling the tubing
The FPF
on conventional
svstems
is often
not ~ossible.
generally
must be - moved off location to_ allow the workover
In addition, the potential
by a drilling rig.
to be performed
damage of dropping an extremely heavy object like an 18 3/4
drilling rig BOP on a template
with subsea completed
wells
would have to be addressed.
Handling the small workover
BOP required on the through bore trees is a far safer and
easier method.
6.0

DESCRIPTION
a8

OF TREE
~a~

The basis of this design has been simplicity.

The through
bore tree is no cliff erent from a conventional design wet tree
except that the bore is larger.
Simplicity of design has been
------the
tree
k
iid
Wtiihd
dur~u
WOdCOV~~
achieved becaue
and the tubing hanger is landed in the production
operations
Upper body.
These two features eliminate
the ne&d for an
annulus check valve.
A comparison of the tubing. hangers for
..
+-re~e=~
the through Imre Systein mid = ~wuven~:cn~
uy.bGthe simplicity which has been achieved.
A simpler tubing hanger leads to a simpler hanger running
tooL Figure q clearly shows the difference
in complexity of
the two types of running tooL
Hydraulics
are not required
and a simple mechanical tool has been designed.
This tool is
rotated to the left to make up and rotated to the right to
Nevertheless,
this simple tool will run the tubing
break out.
it, if necessary in a single trip.
hanger, test it and retrieve
When locked into the tubing hanger it allows a high pressure
fracturing
passage
through
the
tree which
is useful
in
operations.
High pressure stresses are taken off the workover
the operating
envelope
and
riser, BOP and tree, extending
fatigue life.

SPE13976/6
THROUGH BORE SUBSEA CHRISTMAS

TREEs

The

block
valves
are
lower
master
valve
and composite
essentially the same standard designs which have proved to be
However, the internals have been refined
reliable ~ the past.
to prevent damage to the valves and the seals on the tubing
hanger when the hanger is run through the tree.
The valve
bodies have been made stronger
to accept
the
riser and BOP.
The
higher loads imposed by the workover
pressure and temperature
ratings for the existing system are
5000 psi Normal 6000 psi Fracturing and up to 300F.
b.

Seal Area

Teat Ports

Several very distinct advantages arise from putting the tubing

hsnger in the production upper body.
Gne of these is that it
is now possible in a single trip to run the tubing hangert test
the
all the seals and the DHSV and if any seals fai~ retrieve
tubing hanger. A second advantage is the ability to provide a
hanger with larger, unobstructed flow path in the annulus for
t+-siup with
~
gas iiit appiicaticms.
m the eofi~e~ti~~
----0 valve, the flow path is usually divided up into a
srmulus
number
of
small
orifices
through
a sliding
sleeve
valve
arrangement.
These smaller passages
cause high velocities
.- -.-%1
--pruulcwm.
which may iead to hydrate
A third advantage
is the reduced hydrostatic
thrust on the
tubing hanger because
the tubing hanger now seals in the
reduced bore of the wellhead.
This reduces the required lock
down capacity by a factor of 7 and leads to a much smaIler
tubing hanger lock down area
c.

Lock

Down&ea

The design of the tubing hanger lock down assembly is based

on an idea that has been used for decades in land wellheads
where simple mechanical
anchor screws have been used to
retain the tubing hanger.
TM? approach is possible because
tiie tubing hanger
is now located
in the production
upper
body.
This allows the use of compact,
simple,
low force
segments.
hydraulic
The hydraulic
lines are disconnected
after lock down because pressure is not required to retain the
tubing hanger lock downs.
Once the segments have been sIid
into place a mechanical lock out pin is inserted by divers.
.

. -.
SPE13$176/7

DSHuber,
&

GFSimmers

&C

SJohnson

valves
The 7 1/16 EM lower master valve and composite valves are
However,
an extension of existing designs for 4 1/16 valves.
the external
loads
imposed
on these
components
by the
workover riser and BOP has meant that these two valves have
had to be analysed
for loads not normally
encountered
by
Detailed changes have been
made to
these types of valves.
the valve internals to ensure that seals on tubing hangers and
will not be damaged when run through both
running
tools
valves.
The size of 7 1/16 was selected as the most convenient size
to take a tubing hanger with 4 1/2 tubing and still allow
room for the DHSV control line.

Workover BOP Stresses ad

Adysis

Although the through bore tree has been run without a special
workover riser, a dedicated workover riser and BOP have been
designed and built as part of an integrated equipment system.
Figure 5 shows the subsea set-up.
The system comprises a workover BOP package, a taper joint,
several riser joints, a tension collar, and a surface tree and a
bell mouth joint.
11
The BOP package
consists of a 13 5/8 5M connector,
10M pipe ram, 11 10M shear ram and an annular BOP.
The
BOP is split to allow handling by a crane of 14 ton capacity.
A taper joint was chosen in preference
to other alternatives
such as ball joints snd elastomeric
flex joints because
the
taper joint deflects through a smooth curve when the riser is
at an angle to the BOP.
This smooth curve allows the tubing
hanger and workover tools to be run without damage to seals.
However, one of the consequences of choosing a taper joint is
that higher bending loads are fed back into the tree than
. would be the case for a ball or flex joint.
A non-rotating
preloaded
connector is used to join the riser
These
connectors
provide
quick
make up, high
sections.
bending moment capacity and resistance
to fatigue.
In this
AL --->-2
->
elon
1 l~n
-11
Cnnc
--- 1: --.:-_
w aAL
a --72
Lne
y
Llk
appucalun
are
uemJIJnmA
-h
8
319
x
pipe.
During a workover the external loads imposed on t??e TBT are
higher than for a conventional
tree.
This is because
in a
workover
of a conventional
tree the riser is of a smaller
diameter.
Consequently
site specific analysis was carried out
for the complete system to determine the operating envelope
for the installation.
Included in this was a fatigue analysis
which took account of the fact that the system would be used
intermittently
(10-12 days at a time).

THROUGH BORE SUBSEA CHIUSTMAS TREES

levels
have
been
in accordance
with
DoE
Design
stress
---:..m-a-+=
~~e~~
---Kthoea
with
other
industry
Kcqdu-wu...
Wm
~~
The analysis shows that the
standards where they do not.
greatest
external
loads are imposed on the flange
of the
lower master valves.
The valve is therefore
designed with a
non standard heavy wall body and oversize flanges.
The operational

envelope

developed

for the Argyll

field

was:

11.48 ft significant wave height

7 1/2 degree offset
2.8 knot surface current
.58 knot at mudline

f.

New

Developments

A weight set metal seal has been designed and successfully

As present this seal sits
tested for the TBT tubing hanger.
This seal is being
at the bottom
of the tubing hanger.
developed to provide a metal to metal seal at the tubing to
annulus interface.
The design is taken from
Nationals
15M
metal to metal seaL
Seal material
has been selected
to
provide a compromise between softness (for low seal setting
loads) strength (to csrry the full tubing loads the hydrostatic
*L . .L dii~
F-m
.++fp~~~yri~)
~d
corrosion
to
.-----KJX&
testing
ad
resistance.
In the first version of the TBT, the tubing hanger landed on a
upper body. The current version of
shoulder in the production
the tubing hanger climates the shoulder and loads instead on a
ring
C-2 latch ring. The C-2 latch ring is a load bearing
borrowed
from Nationals
C-2 mudline suspension eqyipment.
The latch ring lands in a profile cut into the body instead of
on a shoulder,
and therefore
greater
clearance
is available
between
the tubing hanger and the bore of the composite
valve.
This clearance
is of the order of 7/16 radial and
should eliminate
the problem of seal damage experienced
in
mzwli
..-P

~~~~i~~~

Landing the tubing hanger in the wellhead through the tree is

This ivcxdd atiow the advai-ltages o.f !mtil
aiso being studied.
systems to be realized and would give the operator his choice
even on the same well as to where the best landing point for
the tubing hanger would be.

SPE13976/9
DSHuber,

GFSimmers&CSJobmmn

~t
Society

1985

of Petroleum En@neem of AIME

This paper
was prepared
for the Offshore
Europe
85 Conference
in
conjunction
with the Society of Petroleum
Engineers
of ~E,
held in
Permission
to copy is restricted to MI
Aberdeen,
10-13 September
1985.
abstract of not more than 300 words.
Illustrations
may not be copied.
~.e abstract sho~d contti
conspicuous acknowledgement
of where and by
Publication
elsewhere
is usually granted
whom the paper is presented.
upon request provided agreement to give proper credit is made

TABLE 1
RUIMMMGPROCEDURES
F~

CC)NWI(IWL

e.

~+

SUBSEATREE IJESIGMS

THWWH BORETREE

ilESk34

RunnIng Procedure
Al

Run production

A2

Dlsplaca
f I !tarad

A3

casing.

Clloen out tu the float

the casing to a kill

walght, clean,
brl na. Run wlroll I na sat packer.

ecd Iar.

Run a plug Into the OHSV lnlpplo.

A!S

Pull

AS

Run the

the

rlg

8(JP.

uorkovor W

Run tha

gWOdUdlOIt

*SO.

Pu! I the plug from the OHISV

and rlsar.

Parf orate

A8

1%1
II

C2

Olsplacathe casingto brlna. Runulrdfno

C3

Pul I the rlg BW.

C4

Run the uorkover W

C5

Run the tubing string,

locate the seals In the packar, mke
Land tha tubl ng
up the DHSV assatily
and the tubing hangar.
hangar In the tree.

(%

Parf orate

C7

Pul

and f I on the USI11,

Run the IMSV.

t~a uorkoverBOPandl rl ser.

casing.

Clean out to tho f lost

Hal 1 Is ready for

product Ion.

Run the prodwtlon

cd Iar.

sat packer.

tree.

and rl ser.

and f 10U tha wet 1.

Run the WSV.

I the uorkovar BOP and riser.

product Ion.

nlppla.
A7

Run production

nOWdSM)gl Og

Run the tubing string,

Iocata the seals In the pucker, mko
Land the tubl Ing ,
up the LNISVassasbly and the tubing hangar.
hangar In the USI Ihoad.

A4

cl

Wall

Is ready for

RE-ENTRY

. 7i
T

HUB

ALvE\
q--.

uPPER

1.

-WIN6

/-Production

LINE

MASTER~

1-

LOUER MASTERVALVE

I9

DHSV

r
I
I

,1OLATIOh
VALVE

ANNULUS
LINE

TYPICAL

SUBSEA

TREE

SCHEMATIC
FIG. 1

w
$

El
iii
5

ti

.
z>
<Lu

&
au

I.u

FIG .2

... . .. .. . .
,..

m...
h+

rMone

r<+?h.+

ITr

ml nrr

TRFF

ImnuMfm

.,
.*
,:,
,;.,
.::}
J
,-.~.
Ii{:
w??!!-+
.,..,,,

LQcJMussmu

r~

(
-+1-Ir
HI
I
I

sv
o

1
i

Rii

....
.!&
~v;...
,*

IllIillbR
: ,... ,:
~,.,...,.

.,

j:,. --:
~,, ,,..

;..6 .,
.

..

...

N.19 II -lm

.
F16. 3

Hi

--------

-i
yi+
[Ii

..- -=.

- ..-. .- .. --- ------ ----- ,..

.. - -..

. .

-1

?. \-\
..

-.

----

. ..

.-

...

---

-- ....
-----

.- ..
---- ... .. .. .--- .-.. - -

---. . . -. .-

..

--

q%

II

. la -

S14

*-7

RAM nof~

t:!;NE~ r :R-

1-=-

i:R=ll
~
.=

Unl

?~:c

GUIDE

3-314

FMPE

!:.::<3>

IMLMJ

TQFC

FIG. 5