You are on page 1of 10

OTC 23628

Case Study: Optimization in Intervention Monobore Design in Completing

Horizontal Gas Producing Wells in Malaysia
Christopher Elliott, Mohd Imran Feroze, Abdil Adzeem Ahmad Mahdzan, Saradah, M. Zarkashi Sulaiman,
Mahzan Mohammad, Mulyanto Hakim, M. Afiefe Omar, Petronas Carigali Sdn, Bhd (PCSB); Khairil Faiz Abdul
Aziz, and Sanggeetha Paramavathar, Halliburton

Copyright 2012, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April3 May 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is 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 acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

The demand for high capacity production in deep wells has increased interest in the monobore concept, and thus, when an
anticipated gas shortage was expected in East Malaysia, this concept was considered as a possible strategy for a field in
Malaysia which consists of a 3-well development. The targeted area, located approximately 200 km offshore from Bintulu, is
expected to deliver 100mmscf/day of gas to the Malaysian Liquified Natural Gas (MLNG) plants at Bintulu, East Malaysia.
New technology such as a tubing hanger profile, fluid-loss device, and glass reinforced epoxy (GRE) completion for
large-bore wells and their first application in this country will be presented along with the well requirements, work-over
operations, and the innovative solution design developed.
Details regarding the completion design, prior development, pre-job planning, a system-integration test (SIT), operational
challenges, and post-job discussions concerning the successful completion of these wells will be discussed, as this type of
completion was a first for Malaysia.
The findings from the extensive development of the best solution for operations and the challenges of the project cost
objectives will be used to provide lessons and improvements for future applications.
The field developments consist of 10 new fields that will be developed in two phases. The first phase consists of 3 of the
fields. The second phase consists of 7 wells in each field, and these will be completed two to three years after the first field
campaign. The second phase completion design will be based
on the design review and the lessons learned from the initial
Phase 1
In each field, the first phase will be developed using 3
separate techniques that have been identified for each field.
The wells have been chosen to be developed as single
monobore completions, whereas the other two fields will be
developed as openhole sand-control completions and subsea
completions. Each technique was chosen to be part of the
Petronas long-term vision to train the local project team with
new technologies and prepare them with basic guidelines for
the second phase field development. Although all of these
completion techniques have been installed in other regions by
other major oil operators, they were new concepts for the
project team, and therefore, would provide new completion
The first field had been identified for completion as a 7-in.
monobore gas completion; however, the Petronas project
team only had had one limited well experience with this type
Figure 1 Field Layout.
of completion in the entire Petronas Field. Unfortunately, the

OTC 23628

team had experienced non-productive time (NPT) in the other completion, and the choice to try this type of completion was
the result of the need to identify a new technology that could be used to help reduce NPT as well as increase the operators
knowledge base concerning better techniques for completing this type of field.
The first field was to be developed into 3 wells that would be completed as 7-in. monobores. (Simonds, R. Et al., 2000)
(Etuhoko, M. et al., 2005) These wells were located in the Central Luconia Sarawak area, approximately 20 km from
Offshore Bintulu, Sarawak and can be accessed by helicopter or speed boat. This field was to be supported by Labuan Supply
Base in terms of equipment preparation and supply.
This field, which is owned by Petronas Carigali Malaysia Berhad, was developed to provide the security of the gas supply
to the Malaysian Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant in Bintulu in anticipation of the gas shortfall expected during 2011.
Malaysia is one of the worlds largest exporters of LNG, and any reduction of the gas production would hurt the Malaysian
Malaysia also has been one of Japans biggest trade partners, and Japan imports most of the LNG needed from Malaysia.
(see by Reuters and Figure 2.)

Figure 2 Japan, Malaysias major importer of LNG

Well Design Selection

Based on the well properties below; the well was to be developed as a 7-in. monobore design where the lower section would
be completed with 9-5/8-in. x 7-in. liner hanger, fluid-loss isolation barrier valve, perforated liner and float shoe. The upper
section would be completed with 7-in completion tubing, a 7-in. rod piston self-equalizing tubing retrievable subsurface
safety valve (TRSSSV), and a cut-to-release hydraulic-set packer with a nipple and liner-hanger tie-back seal. (See Figure 3:
Completion Schematic.)
Reservoir Information

Water Depth
Type of Fluid
Top of Reservoir
Reservoir Pressure
CO2 (%)
H2S (ppm)
Well Angle
Target Production Rate

: 95 M (311 ft)
: Carbonate
: Gas
: 1318 - 1367 M TVDSS
: 2240 psi (9.5 ppg)
: 1.6-3%
: 30-40 ppm
:80 90 degrees
: 250 MMscfd (Base Case)

A monobore completion was selected because of its simple design, the need for limited completion accessories, and the
fact that the same casing design could be maintained from bottom to top. The design would reduce the wellbore frictional
pressure drop, which would provide the well with the capability to produce at higher tubing pressures throughout the whole
Initially, the plan was to drill 4 wells based on a simulation that had been run. However, there were some issues with the
availability of a rig, and because of the completion deadline, the decision was made to only drill 3 wells.
The design of the wells was to be based on a gas field with very similar well parameters that had been developed by
another major operator, and thus, a 7-in. monobore completion design would be used in order to maximize productivity.
During the design process, a few lessons learned from the first PCSB 7-in. gas well had been identified, and the solution for
completing the new well would be based on lessons learned from the earlier project.

OTC 23628

Tubing Hanger

Flow Coupling

Permanent Gauge

Hydraulic-set Packer

Tieback Seal
Liner Packer
Liner Hanger

Fluid Loss Isolation

Barrier Valve

Seal Bore
Float Shoe

Figure 3 Completion Schematic

OTC 23628

Tubing Hanger Profile and Back Pressure Valve.

On the first PCSB gas well, a traditional hanger plug was chosen. This was the typical practise in Malaysian wells, but
during installation of the back-pressure valve (BPV), the dry rod assembly (steel rod that was use to convey the BPV to its
position) parted, probably due to the heavy load of the plug, and the plug was left on top of the hanger. The operator spent
several days attempting to remove the plug. Due to its weight and massive size, retrieving it required a great deal of effort.
A new wellhead back-pressure valve was chosen to replace the traditional BPV, and the new type of wellhead plug would
be installed using slickline. (Ehtesham, A. Et al., 2011) This would be the first project in Malaysia that would be using a
wellhead plug of this size and type. A special running and pulling tool was required, but this tool would be provided by the
plug manufacturer, thus eliminating the need for the operator to source the required tools. Figure 4
shows the SRP BPV Plug.
Since this plug can conviently be set and retrieved by slickline, and slickline pressure-control
equipment (PCE) would be attached to the hanger landing joint, the plug can be pressure tested to
confirm that it is firmly set inside the hanger profile prior to rigging down the rig blow-out
preventer /safety device. This operation cannot be accomplished when using the hanger BPV that
was traditionally used in the earlier Malaysian completions.
The SRP wellhead back pressure valve provides pump-in well kill capability while providing
complete well control. It features the same compact design and multiple seal back-up that is
available in the SRP wellhead plug. The SRP back pressure valve incorporates two equalizing
methods and cannot be released prior to full equalization of pressure. Both the SRP wellhead back
pressure valve and the SRP wellhead plug use the same service tools for running and retrieving.
Production Packer Information and Packer Setting Method.
On the previous well, the hydraulic packer had been set using the slickline plug, and many issues
surfaced during the operation. Due to the high angle of the well, the plug had problems reaching
depth, even though a rollerized stem had been placed in the slickline tool string. Debris that existed
inside the tubing also prevented the plug from properly sealing inside the nipple seal bore, and thus,
the customer had to spend time pulling the plug, performing well cleaning, and reinstalling the
plug. All of these activities impacted the operators costs because of a significant amount of
nonproductive rig time. Since the 7-in. monobore design is not common in Malaysia and the
Figure 4 SRP Back
surrounding regions, it is difficult to borrow a slickline plug from other sources in the area due to
Pressure Valve
the scarcity of the plug itself.
Based on this issue, an interventionless technique was identified as the preferred solution, and
thus, interventionless setting of the hydraulic-set packer would be the method of choice. The well angle where the packer
would be set was approximately 80 degrees, and this also would prohibit slickline from reaching the plug depth.
Initially, hydrostatic-set packer had been chosen because of its capability to be set without intervention, but due to a
contractual issue, a different packer would be required.
A cut-to-release packer that shared the same chassis design as the hydrostatic-set packer
but without the hydrostatic module was chosen. This packer design has maximized ID for
production flow and did not require any mandrel movement during setting. It has a tripleseal multidurometer element package for better conformance with casing irregularities
surface and hence for better pressure sealing. See Figure 5 shows the hydraulic-set
production packer chosen.
This packer requires pressure differential between the tubing and annulus during
pressure setting, and normally, a plug is used to create this scenario. The plug will be set
below the packer to plug off the tubing, and the tubing will be pressurized to set this packer.
Pressure will enter the piston through the communication port inside the packer mandrel,
and the setting piston will drive the setting piston up, placing the slips and elements in the
set position.
A no go nipple is placed 10 feet below the packer to provide a locator profile, enabling a
packer cutter to be spaced out in the event of a workover at a future date. In the case of a
workover, retrieval of the packer allows the retrieval of all the lower string in one trip out of
the well with the upper completion from the hanger to the tail pipe. This no go nipple also
serves as a contingency option for plug setting, if setting the packer without well
intervention does not work.
Figure 5 Production
Packer chosen for the

Fluid Loss Isolation Barrier Valve and Packer Setting Method

During the first project, a ceramic flapper valve was chosen because of its conservative cost
and the simplicity of its design. Even though it functioned as intended, it had some inherent challenges after installation.
After successfully closing the flapper and proceeding to the completing of the well, the flapper is broken. Normally, the

OTC 23628

customer decides on the method used to break the flapper. If it is installed in a completion with a high deviation, the only
option is to break it using coiled tubing; this option requires separate mobilization and cost. Even if this is installed in a
vertical well, using slickline can present problems if debris has fallen on top of the flapper as this will prevent the required
force from being transmitted to the top of the flapper. Some customers leave it unbroken and allow normal production to
occur through it since it is a one-way type of flapper.
During an early brainstorming section to select the best fluid-loss valve, all these issues were taken into account. In
addition to having the capability to be opened without well intervention, also considered was the need for the valve to be
capable of holding pressure up to 5000 psi so that the customer could tweak the completion design so that a conventional
hydraulic-set packer could be used that could be set without intervention. The completion was modified by extending the tail
pipe to below the packer and tie-back seal to create a closed system that would isolate pressure from tubing to annulus.
Figure 6 shows the completion setup.

Figure 6 Closer view of lower completion equipment.

Based on the necessary criteria above, a newly developed fluid-loss isolation barrier with pressure activation was
selected. This fluid-loss isolation barrier valve had proven that it was 100% reliable in all areas where used and could could
function as a fluid-loss-control device in this well, thus eliminating potential formation damage. It would also serve as a
barrier in a well suspension system, and its closure device and high-performance ball mechanism could provide a positive bidirectional seal in these well conditions. This valve also had high debris tolerance and would function as required, based on
the recent test that had been conducted.
This fluid loss isolation barrier valve is designed to open in 10 pressure cycles where pressure enters into the valve
communication port, and the piston will move up and down during the bleeding pressure and will engage the cycling
mechanism to that it will open the ball valve. (See Figure 7)

Figure 7 Fluid loss isolation barrier valve chosen for the completion.

Tubing Retrievable Subsurface Safety Valve (TRSSV)

Since the previous design used a proven tubing retrievable subsurface safety valve design, the method was continued for this
new well. The device used was a rod-piston design with contoured metal-to-metal flapper closure and permanent lock-open
capability. The spherical sealing surface of the flapper design passed the API class 1 and 2 verification testing without
reliance on a resilient seal Figure 8 shows the TRSV used.

OTC 23628

Figure 8 Schematic of TRSV

First Glass Reinforced Epoxy (GRE) Monobore Gas Completion in the World
Another new technology was used in this project. This was the first gas completion in the world in which glass-reinforced
epoxy-lined tubing was used as part of the completion string. Even though GRE-lined tubing is not a new technology in the
oil field (it is commonly used in water injector wells and in small water gas injector wells), this is the first time in the world
that it has been applied to a well that has a high flow rate and is a 7-in.
monobore gas producer.
Tubing Hanger
Even though there was no available case history to review for best
practices, the operator felt that there were advantages that would outweigh the
risks of not having any case-history information to review. The ID of the
Flow Coupling
tubing string lined with GRE would be reduced slightly. Using this
information, a production simulation was run. Based on the simulation result,
the production rate would only be reduced by approximately 1% from the rate
using normal tubing.
Most of the completion tubing was also taken into account, and based on
Crossover Adapter
Table 1 below, significant cost could be saved.
Because of the GRE completion, some tweaks in the completion design
were required. Traditionally, completion equipment ID for tubing retrievable
safety valves (TRSVs), landing nipples, and packers will follow the
Hydraulic-set packer
traditional rule of thumb that 7-in. tubing will use 5.900-in. to 5.813-in.
profile or bore; however, with GRE-lined tubing, the ID has been reduced.
Therefore, the completion accessories would have to be reduced to a 4.813Nipple
in.-ID, which is normally used for 5 1/2-in. tubing with a 4.892-in.-ID. Since
the tubing would still maintain the 7-in. ID connections, and to simplify the
completion, all completion equipment will be using 5-1/2-in. equivalent
completion equipment with x-overs back to 7-in. tubing. (See Figure 9) A
simple production simulation with this ID setup was run to see if there would
Tie-back Seal Assembly
be any reduction in production flow and the flow reduction was very minimal.
Liner Hanger

Table 1 Cost Comparison of Well Materials


L-80 Tubing
L-80 Tubing with GRE + accessories
13Cr 80 Tubing

A * 20%
A * 30%
Fluid Loss Isolation Barrier Valve

System Integration Test (SIT) and Equipment Preparation

Due to the fact that most of the equipment and completion design was being
used for the first time in Malaysia, a few System Integrity Tests (SITs) were
identified to be performed onshore prior sending the equipment out to the
location. Apart from identifying the functionality of the products, other
objectives were identified, and these are presented below:
Simulate, confirm and optimize the running sequences of the tubing
back-pressure valve and identify any improvements.
Familiarize personnel on the preparation and running sequence of the
tubing back-pressure valve.
Confirm any additional requirements concerning the interface
requirements of different items from different service providers.
Create an optimized completion program with contingencies for any
catastrophic event based on the SIT results.

Sealbore Extension

Float Shoe

Figure 9: Completion Schematic

OTC 23628

SIT for Back Pressure Valve Installation and Tubing Hanger Profile Checking in Manufacturing
This SIT was performed in the tubing-hanger providers manufacturing center. Since this was to be the first time that a local
vendor would machine the proprietary nipple profile inside their tubing hanger, many intensive checks had to be done to
ensure that the profile would be machined as per the nipple profile providers specifications. A third party inspector was hired
to ensure the critical dimensions were all within the tolerance required. This check is solely based on drawing measurements.
After this check had been done and approved, a proper SIT was performed to check whether the profile would fit the
hanger back pressure valve plug. During this SIT, all of the service crew from the plug provider, slickline provider, and
hanger provider who would be running this job attended in order to participate and provide input for optimizing the
installation and possible retrieval in upcoming jobs. The objective for this SIT was to:
Identify the best tool string for use on the actual job
Give the field personnel the real experience; i.e., the actual feeling that they should have during the plug set
and release
Confirm conformance of the plug with the nipple profile
Pressure test to ensure that the plug was set properly
During this test, a few things were identified that would be corrected prior to running the actual job, but the test proved
that the profile and hanger worked properly. As a result, the customer gave approval for the hanger manufacturer to continue
manufacturing the balance of the required hangers. Figure 10 shows the performance of the SIT.

Figure 10 SIT for Back Pressure Valve Installation and Tubing Hanger Profile Checking in Preparation Shop

As part of the equipment preparation, all tubing hangers were to be made up to the pup joints for ease of handling
offshore. By doing this, the tubing hanger and pup-joint connection would have to be tested. This testing would provide an
additional opportunity to double check that the new tubing hanger profile would still be in good condition after shipping and
would also provide additional experience for the slickline personnel to learn how to set and retrieve the plug. The objective
for this SIT was to:
Check the conformance of the plug with the nipple profile,
Pressure test to ensure that the plug was set properly,
Check to verify that the connection was properly made up.
SIT for Fluid loss Isolation Barrier Valve Preparation, Open / Close Procedure with Wireline Tractor
The primary option for opening the ball of the fluid loss isolation barrier valve is to use a pressure cycle, but if for some
reason, this cannot be done, several contingency methods had to be identified. They are a few options to mechanically open
the ball;
1. Using a wash pipe and mechanical shifter
2. Using a coil tubing and coil tubing shifter
3. Using wireline tractor equipped with electric expandable keys.
After reviewing all three options above, option 3 (use wireline and an electric expandable key) was identified as the best
option. Option 1 would require considerable rig time due to the requirement to make up almost 5000 feet of wash pipe, and
this length of washpipe/flush joint is difficult to obtain. Option 2 with coiled tubing would require another mobilization of a
coiled-tubing system, and the platform size would be too small to accommodate the big footprint required to install the coiled
tubing unit.
Option 3 would also be the best option, as wireline units are readily available, and wireline unit/tractor service equipment
is small enough to meet the footprint requirements of the platform. The only issue with this choice was that there was no case
history verifying that this had been done in Malaysia, and thus, an SIT to ensure all of the items required were available and
that they would function correctly was required.

OTC 23628

Two different setups had been identified as contingency options and again, an SIT would be required to check
functionality. A few objectives were identified during the SIT to ensure everything would perform as required. The two
setups were:
Wireline tractor with a mechanical shifter
Wireline tractor with electric expandable keys.
The objectives were:
To ensure the functionality and feasibility of the contingency options
To find any compatibility issues
To optimize the completion and the contingency procedure
To identify and understand the behaviour of the system
To identify the position on each wireline tool versus the equipment
To give all of the engineers and operations personnel experience on how the tools function on the surface
To identify conformance of the special anchor sub design.
During the test, it was identified that systems with a wireline tractor mechanical shifter would not work due to the nature
of the shifter design itself. The mechanical shifter is meant to be used with a drill pipe or tubing and requires a certain push
& pull weight to pass through a restriction; the tractor movement force could not do this.
The other system, which combined a wireline tractor and electric expandable keys, did function as required, and with a
few modifications, this system would work as needed offshore.
The SIT setup in the field for opening the shifting tools is shown in Figure 11.

Anchor Sub



Figure 11a equipment layout for SIT.

Figure 11b Shifting tool

Figure 11c Anchor Sub

Figure 11d X-over

Figure 11 SIT Setup for Field; i.e., opening shifting tools with the required X-over.

OTC 23628

SIT for Tubing Plug

A landing nipple is placed below the packer in the tubing string and serves two purposes. The first is to act as a contingency
option to plug off the tubing and set the packer if the tie-back seal and the fluid loss isolation barrier valve should leak. It
also acts as the future positive depth indicator/reference for chemical/mechanical cutting purposes to release the hydraulic
Usually, this plug will be set using slickline, but due to the high deviation of the well, an electric-line tractor would be
required to convey the plug to the required depth and set it in the required profile. The objectives of the SIT required to verify
this phase of the operation are:
To ensure the functionality and feasibility of the contingency options
To find any compatibility issues
To optimize the completion and the contingency procedures
To identify and to understand the behavior of the system.
During the test, a few critical items were identified. The first concerned the best combination of shear pins and force
required to optimize setting and retrieving of the plug. It was also identified that a few necessary steps should be added to the
procedure to ensure that the plug would be set properly.
Glass Reinforced Epoxy (GRE) Tubing Pressure Test and Make Up
This completion would be the first time in which 7-in. GRE tubing would be made up with the completion assembly. During
this process, a few things had been identified up front, and the GRE specialist was called in to witness the entire making-up
process. Another purpose of the test was to train all service personnel on handling and installation of the special ring for the
GRE tubing. During the trial make up in the yard, a few attempts were considered necessary to ensure that the corrosion
barrier ring (CBR)/special ring would be installed properly, since if improperly installed, it would be crushed. Since this need
was identified before the SIT, the process and lessons learned were added to the completion procedure.
Several other SITs were performed to verify that all of the other completion equipment would function properly. Other
SITs deemed critical to this operation were:
1. To check the compatibility of the control line clamps with the control line and the assembly
2. To check the entire ID of the slickline lubricator and X-over to ensure it will accommodate passage of the
wellhead plug and slickline plug.
3. To perform a feed through test between the control line and Xmas tree. (See Figure 12)

Figure 12 SIT for Control-Line Feed Through

Completion Operations and Sequence

Following is the sequence of events performed when running the completion:
1. Perform a cleanup trip on riser and casing
2. RIH Lower Completion, which consists of the reamer shoe, 7-in. pre-drilled liner, fluid loss isolation barrier
valve, liner hanger, and clean-up assembly
3. Displace delayed acid breaker
4. Set liner hanger and POOH inner string and running tool until fluid loss isolation barrier valve closes
5. Test fluid-loss device and continue POOH tool string


OTC 23628


RIH upper completion with 7-in. single string with tieback seals and self aligning mule shoe, production packer
with RPT nipple, permanent downhole gauge (PDG), TR-SCSSV, and tubing hanger
7. Space out and pressure test tie-back seal
8. Perform a tubing integrity test, followed by a TRSV inflow test, and set packer by pressuring up against the fluid
loss isolation valve and annulus
9. Set BPV and test
10. Nipple down BOP and nipple up Xmas tree. Test against BPV
11. Open fluid loss isolation valve by pressure cycle
12. Well clean up and well testing
13. Commence production.
A few procedures and sequences have been optimized to reduce the cost of the operation; i.e., the well sequence has been
optimized to have a batch completion and batch well clean up. With this sequence, a considerable amount of rigging up and
rigging down time would be reduced, and rental time and resulting cost will be reduced.
Due to the careful planning and the emphasis put on the SIT, most of the issues that might have affected this completion
scenario were identified up front, and the lessons learned were captured within the procedure. The first GRE tubing
completion was run with no recorded NPT, and the other 7-in. monobore completions were also completed with nominal
NPT. This NPT was not due to the operation but to rig troubleshooting.
The remote opening of the fluid loss isolation valve has worked according to plan, and hence, no contingency option had
to be run. This product definitely has allowed this well to be completed as an interventionless concept, and it allowed this feat
to be accomplished for the first time in Malaysia. The ability to test the remotely-opened fluid loss isolation valve and the
operators confidence in the leak test has enabled the customer to displace a lighter fluid prior to running the upper
completion into the hole.
The packer was run and set properly against the remote-opening fluid loss isolation device. The TRSV flapper inflow test
verified that the flapper can hold acceptable pressure. Its equalizing features were tested and have proven to work properly.
Based on the optimized schedule and interventionless concept, the customer has realized considerable cost savings in
terms of rig time and incidents that were prevented from possible issues that were captured during the SITs.
So far, the well has been producing up to 100 mmscf per well. Also important is that all pre-planning and operations
were completed ahead of time and within budget without any health, safety, or environmental issues.
The monobore completion designed for the case history field has helped the operating company set a design benchmark for
their future wells. This benchmark plan includes the design, pre-planning, operational strategies, execution, and the
commitment to HSE followed in this case history. These strategies have helped Petronas achieve the cost savings that they
required. The ability of the upper management to accept the challenge of being the first in Malaysia to apply new
technologies has not only set them apart from other operators in their area, but has made them instrumental in proving new
The authors wish to thank the management of PETRONAS Carigali and Halliburton for their help and permission to publish
this work and the results gained from using this new technology.
Ehtesham, A., Reesing, D., Giles, J.: "Downhole Safety Valve for Well-Intervention Operations: Design, Testing, and Successful Case
History," SPE 142887 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 56 April 2011.
Etuhoko, M., et al.:"Interventionless Monobore Technology Used to Successfully Complete Challenging Offshore Horizontal Gas-Injection
Wells," OTC 17458 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, TX., USA, 2-5 May 2005.
Simonds, R. and Swan, T., "Development of a Large-Bore Monobore Completion System for Gas Production," SPE 64279 presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 16 to 18 October 2000.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

Psi x 6.894 757 E+00= kPa
in x 2.54*
E+00= cm
ft x 3.048*
E-01= m
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01= m3
gal x 3.785 412
E-03= m3
mile x 1.609 344* E+0= km
*Conversion factor is exact