AgostinhoCalderon PDF

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program
The SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program is funded principally

through a grant from the SPE Foundation.
The society gratefully acknowledges the companies that support

this program by allowing their professionals to participate as
lecturers.
Special thanks to the American Institute of Mining,

Metallurgical, Petroleum Engineers (AIME) and Offshore
Europe for its contribution to the program.
Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
Open Hole Gravel Packing:
New Trends and What We are
Doing to Overcome the Challenges
Agostinho Calderon
Petrobras

www.spe.org/dl
01
Outline
 Main unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs in Brazil
 Review of the current Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack

Technology – evaluation
 New trends and challenges in Open Hole Gravel Pack
 Conclusions
02
Main unconsolidated sandstone
reservoirs in Brazil – Campos Basin
RONCADOR (1996)
ALBACORA LESTE
(1986)
ALBACORA (1984)
MARLIM (1985)
MARLIM LESTE (1987)
MARLIM SUL (1987)
BARRACUDA (1989)
CARATINGA (1989)
ESPADARTE (1994)
1-RJS-539 – 1999
03
Main unconsolidated sandstone
reservoirs in Brazil – Espirito Santo Basin
PEROÁ/CANGOÁ
PEROÁ/CANGOÁ (1996)
(1996)
GOLFINHO (2003)
CACHALOTE (2001)
JUBARTE (2000)
04
Review of the current Open Hole Gravel Pack
(OHGP) technology
 Offshore reservoirs:
Unconsolidated Sandstones
Ø K
OHGP  Good solution

for sand control
5 ½” screen
 Horizontal Wells:
High Productivities
05
Review OHGP
HORIZONTAL OHGP
285
NUM BER OF W ELLS
39
WELLS 31
29
27 26 28
25
23
21
19
9
5
3
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YEAR
285 wells - No sand control failure (sand production)

06
OHGP Operations: Water Depth x Horizontal Lenght
2000
1600
W at e r D e p t h (m )
1200
800
400
0
0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400
1998 1999 2000 2001 Horizontal

2002 2003 Lenght2005(m) 2006
2004 2007 2008 2009 2010
07
Total Screen length – Open Hole Gravel Pack
08
OHGP – Evaluation (141 wells – 50%)
Average completion efficiency: 86 %
C.E. (Completion Efficiency) = 1/DR x 100
Pe  Pwf
DR 
Pe  Pwf  Pskin
10
Alpha and Beta Wave Technology – Water Pack
β wave
Screen
SCREEN
Wash Pipe
PROPPANT
h Selected Gravel
Oil flow OPEN HOLE
through
created “filter”
wave
Reservoir
Cross section well with Open Hole Gravel Pack 11
The method “Alpha and Beta Wave Technology” – Water Pack
12
Alpha and Beta Wave Technology – Water Pack
(High Leakoff or Formation Fracture – Result Incomplete Pack)
13
Deep Water Challenges
for OHGP Operations
Deep and ultra deepwaters High productivity
Short sediment layers Long horizontal sections
Rocks w/ low fracture resistance High friction losses during GP op.
Narrow operational window

for OHGP operations 14
Hydraulic Limits Definition
Upper Limit: High pump rates  pay zone fracture

premature screen out
Minimum pump rates  premature screen out in the rat hole
Premature Beta wave propagation
Normal Alpha wave propagation
15
Simulator - Variable flow rate design
Alpha Wave Beta Wave
Max pump rate
ALFA WAVE BETA WAVE
Min pump rate
16
Hydraulic limits extension - OHGP
Narrow operational window
Some strategies to overcome the limits
 Open BOP configuration

 Reducing the fluid weight
 Use of lightweight proppants
 Zero rat hole configuration
 Flow divergence valves
 Large diameter well
 Friction reducer
17
Flowmeter  Closed BOP

(Choke Manifold)
Rig configuration
Tank
BOP – Blow Out
Completion Fluid Preventer
Work string (Water Pack)
Packer Blank pipe Screen
18
Flowmeter (Flowline)  Open BOP

Rig configuration
Tank
Completion Fluid
Work string (Water Pack)
BOP
Packer Blank pipe Screen
19
 Open BOP configuration – Flowmeter in the Flowline
Valve
To the
Shakers
20
 Open BOP configuration
20
18 BOP closed
BOP opened
16 min. flow rate at Rat Hole
14
12
Q, bpm
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
t, min.
21
 Reducing the fluid weight (Gravel pack carrier fluid)
16
Fluid
FluidDensity ==
Density 1010ppa
ppg
14 Fluid
Fluid Density
Density == 9.5
9.5 ppg
ppa
min. flow rate at Rat Hole
12
10
Q, bpm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
t, min.
22
Use of lightweight proppants
20
Sand (specific gravity=2.6)
18 Lightweight proppant (spec. Gravity=1.25)
min. flow rate at Rat Hole (sand)
16
min. Flow rate at Rat Hole (LW)
14
12
Q, bpm
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
t, min.
23
 Zero Rat Hole Configuration
Zero Rat Hole: Liner
WD = 1.554m
13 3/8”
LINER 9 5/8” or 10 ¾” Flush
Well 12 ¼” 24
 Zero rat hole configuration
Zero Rat Hole

20
18
rat hole
16
14 Zero rat hole

12
Q, bpm
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
t, min.
25
Flow Divergence Valves
26
 Flow divergence valves
Formation Fracture Pressure
Bottonhole Pressure
Surface Pressure
Pressure (psi)
Elapsed time (min)
27
 Large diameter well
20
Normal Bore (8.5 in)
18
Large Bore (9.8 in)
16
min. flow rate at Rat Hole
14
12
Q, bpm
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
t, min.
28
 Case Study using 3 Strategies: Open BOP

configuration / Duo density Proppants / Reducing the
fluid weight (Gravel pack carrier fluid)
Well data (Golfinho Field):
Horizontal Extension: 1150m

Water Depth: 1581m
Fluid weight: 9.6 ppg
Gravel Pack Carrier fluid: 9.1 ppg
Frac Gradient: 0.56 psi/ft
Rat Hole: 14.75”
29
 Output of Simulator
Ceramic d = 2.7 Lightweight Proppant d = 1.75
30
 Output of Simulator
31
Golfinho Field: Open BOP configuration / Duo density Proppants /
Reducing the fluid weight (Gravel pack carrier fluid)
Gravel Pack 7-GLF-27HA-ESS / SS-61 (23/05/09)

5000 50 50 20
Total Carbolite 20/40 bomb = 51.658 lbm

Total Liteprop 20/25 bomb = 12.411 lbm
Total de propante na FM = 56.351 lbm
4000 40 Total propante na Coluna = 7.718 lbm 40
15
Vazão Retorno (bpm)

Vazão Desc (bpm)
Conc Paraf (psa)

3000 30 30
Pressão 1 (psi)
Screenout = 2.606 psi

Bomb. Camai 9.1 ppg: Aj uste de v azão
10
2000 20 Alfa Beta 20
5
1000 10 10
1 ppa LiteProp 175 - 20/25

1 ppa de Carbolite 20/40
0 0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200
Elapsed Time (min)
32
Test with friction reducer
33
Filter Cake Removal - The Producer Well
Screens Gravel F. C. Formation
34
The Injector’s Problem
• No mechanical filter cake removal mechanism
• Injection impairment
• Costs: clean up (flow back) vs acidizing
• Poor results without treatments
• Always treated  Mud acid  Drill solids

35
Dedicated Acidizing Tool
• Tool schematic
36
Field Application - Dedicated Acidizing Tool
Polished
Extension Screens
Wash
Pipes
Seal Subs
Fluids 37
New Trends and Challenges in OHGP
Non-aqueous fluid for OHGP - alfa and beta wave mode
In 2007
 Drilled horizontal section with Open Hole Gravel Pack

“Infill Drilling Project”
SBM and OHGP with non-
9 5/8”CSG
aqueous fluid (alpha and beta
wave mode)
8 ½” OH
38
New trends and challenges in OHGP
Non aqueous fluid for OHGP – Newtonian behavior
 Focus
 Make the formulation of inverted solids-free emulsion

with carrier fluid for horizontal gravel pack operations
feasible
 Evaluate if the alpha and beta waves occur
 Keep the use of regular premium screens without any

kind of extra paths
39
Physical testing simulation - results
After fluid development: Physical simulation (flow loop):

3 kind of proppants (sand, ceramic and bauxite) and new
gravel pack carrier fluid
Alpha and Beta wave was detected with all proppants
Excellent packing
SPE 102295
40
Non aqueous fluid for OHGP - alfa and beta wave
1st STEP – Field application – Marlim
SPE 110440
Well Design
Basic Data:
665 m  Water depth: 665m
Horizontal Section: 380m
 8 ½” Well ; 5 ½” 250 µ screen

1944 m
 Proppant: 16/20 mesh

Packer
(Ceramic)
 Frac gradient = 0.60 psi/ft

41
Field application – OHGP design
OHGP – Operational window

Maximum Flow rate -
Fracture
16 bpm
Flow rate, bpm
Minimum Flow rate –

Rat Hole
ALPHA BETA
6 bpm
4 bpm
Time, min
42
Gravel pack execution – Marlim field
Bottom above the packer P1 (psi) Flow rate (BPM)

Bottom below the packer P2 (psi) Surface conc (lb/gal)
Bottom ext P3 (psi)
Surfacepressure
Surface Pressure(psi)
Flow rate, bpm – Conc, lb/gal

Pressure, psi
Packer
Time, h
43
Gravel pack execution – Marlim field
Relevant observations – Marlim field application
 Low contamination of GP carrier fluid with DIF
 Effective mud cake DIF x GP carrier fluid – no losses
 The measured and the simulated pressures were found similar
 Excellent ceramic packing (> 100%)
 Proper filter cake clean up with production flow
44
Results - Marlim field application
 PI = 70.7 m3/day / kgf/cm2
 DR = 1 (zero skin)
 Contribution from the whole horizontal

extension (Production Log Tool)
Ceramic
Packer
45
Next Step  Infill drilling project (2010)
Old Well
Side-Track
46
New trends and challenges in OHGP
Manati Field – Northeast of Brazil
Block - BCAM 40
GAS STATION Water depth < 50m
9 Km from the coast
Environmental sensitive
area (zero discharge)
BCAM 40 BLOCk
RING FENCE
MANATI FIELD
47
Manati field – northeast of Brazil
Discovered - oct/2000, well 1-BAS-128
Gas Reservoir – Low vertical depth (1400m)
Thick reservoir - (100m to 350m)
High permeabilities (200 mD – 500 mD) and high

porosities (21%)
High Productivity Index
High fluid density (up to 12.5 ppg)
48
Manati field – Initial well project (no sand control)
Completion; no sand
control (7” liner)
Água Grande Form.
9 5/8” casing Sergi Fm
7” casing
300 m
8 ½” OH
49
Initial well project (no sand control)
Main restrictions observed during well completions:
Liner top isolation (dry-test)
– 52 hours / well
300m perforation (high

costs)
During well completions, new

requirements (50% increase in flow
rates)
 R&D Center (CENPES)  Sand

production risks  Sand control
requirement
50
Sand control options for Manati field
Main limitations for cased hole sand control (Fracpack) – Manati field:
 Liner top isolation (rig time and leak risks)
 Long perforation intervals
 Smaller screen diameter - 3 ½”

‘
Injection of high fluid volumes - calibration tests

‘
and fracpack (minimum 10000 bbl estimated)
‘
Longer rig time to flow back the well and environmental
restrictions (zero discharge).
‘
High water volumes injection in gas reservoirs are not
‘ recommended
Fracpack require stimulation boat: high power,

pressures, gel and higher costs
51
Sand control with OHGP for Manati field:
 No liner, cement operations, logs for cement
evaluation, dry-test.
No guns and rig time
No fluid injection and related problems with flow back,

separation, environmental restrictions. The evaluation
is fast;
OHGP with low pump rate and pressure, low power,

no gel, lower costs and risks.
One operation for OHGP and up to 5 fracpack

operations, for 300m thickness
OHGP requires 5 ½” screen (8 1/2” OH) and fracpack

3 ½” screen (7” CSG).
52
Options for sand control – Manati field
Fracpack OHGP Selected
5 Fracpacks
1 OHGP
‘ 50 m
‘
300 m
‘
53
Main challenges for OHGP in Manati field
 Higher pore pressure than the conventional OHGP;
 Drill in fluid requirements:
 Completion fluid  Same weight D.I.F and compatible;
 Usual D.I.F. (NaCl base) More than 10 ppg (CaCl2) is

usual, but is incompatible with polymers
Drill in Fluid (sodium formate) and completion fluid

(sodium formate and potassium formate) 
Good results (All requirements): Mud cake thickness

(< 1mm), Break out pressure (< 10 psi), K return (90 %)
54
OHGP in Manati field: wells number 5 and 6
These 2 wells were drilled with water base D.I.F

(Sodium Formate base)
The D.I.F. was displaced by filtered

completion Fluid (Sodium Formate and
Potassium Formate).
The premium screens was RIH and the OHGP

performed
55
OHGP execution – Manati field (2 Wells)
OHGP Chart - Well 5 (100% packed)
Treating pressure
Slurry rate
Conc (ppg), pump rate (bpm)

Propant concentration
Return rate
Pressure (psi)
Time (min)
56
Well tests evaluation Manati field:
PAPER
Wells Sand Net Pay AOF K (mD)
Control (m) (milIion IPTC 12364
(Y/N) m3/day)
Well-03 N 191 12.6 305
Well-04 N 194 11.5 295
Well-05 Y 243 15.8 220 (OHGP) Higher
productivity than
Well-06 Y 142 19.7 482 without sand
control
The best productivity result in Manati field is OHGP

(compared with wells without Sand Control)
57
Conclusions
 OHGP: Productivity and reliability;
 The oil base system as a gravel pack

carrier fluid: sensitive reservoirs and
mature fields;
 For higher pore pressure reservoirs

 formates;
 OHGP is a good option for high

permeability reservoirs (gas or oil): simplicity,
productivity and economic advantages
58
Thank you !
Questions ?
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation or
go online at:
http://www.spe.org/events/dl/dl_evaluation_contest.php

www.spe.org/dl
Acknowledgments:
- SPE
- Petrobras
- Mehmet Parlar (D.L. 2007/2008) – α and β Wave film
- Franciane Ferreira de Almeida – Power Point

Presentation

AgostinhoCalderon PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AgostinhoCalderon PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

The SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program is funded principally

The society gratefully acknowledges the companies that support

Special thanks to the American Institute of Mining,

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Society of Petroleum Engineers

 Main unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs in Brazil

 Review of the current Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack

 New trends and challenges in Open Hole Gravel Pack

MARLIM LESTE (1987)

MARLIM SUL (1987)

OHGP  Good solution

285 wells - No sand control failure (sand production)

1998 1999 2000 2001 Horizontal

Average completion efficiency: 86 %

C.E. (Completion Efficiency) = 1/DR x 100

Deep and ultra deepwaters High productivity

Short sediment layers Long horizontal sections

Rocks w/ low fracture resistance High friction losses during GP op.

Narrow operational window

Upper Limit: High pump rates  pay zone fracture

Minimum pump rates  premature screen out in the rat hole

Premature Beta wave propagation

Normal Alpha wave propagation

Alpha Wave Beta Wave

Max pump rate

ALFA WAVE BETA WAVE

Min pump rate

Some strategies to overcome the limits

 Open BOP configuration

Flowmeter  Closed BOP

Work string (Water Pack)

Packer Blank pipe Screen

Flowmeter (Flowline)  Open BOP

Work string (Water Pack)

Packer Blank pipe Screen

 Open BOP configuration – Flowmeter in the Flowline

 Open BOP configuration

Use of lightweight proppants

Zero Rat Hole: Liner

LINER 9 5/8” or 10 ¾” Flush

Zero Rat Hole

14 Zero rat hole

Elapsed time (min)

 Large diameter well

 Case Study using 3 Strategies: Open BOP

Well data (Golfinho Field):

Horizontal Extension: 1150m

Ceramic d = 2.7 Lightweight Proppant d = 1.75

Gravel Pack 7-GLF-27HA-ESS / SS-61 (23/05/09)

Total Carbolite 20/40 bomb = 51.658 lbm

Vazão Retorno (bpm)

Conc Paraf (psa)

Screenout = 2.606 psi

2000 20 Alfa Beta 20

1 ppa LiteProp 175 - 20/25

Test with friction reducer

• No mechanical filter cake removal mechanism

• Costs: clean up (flow back) vs acidizing

• Poor results without treatments

• Always treated  Mud acid  Drill solids

Non-aqueous fluid for OHGP - alfa and beta wave mode

 Drilled horizontal section with Open Hole Gravel Pack