SPE 59750
Importance of Completion Design Considerations for Complex, Hostile, and HPHT
Wells in Frontier Areas
D.E. Hahn, R.M. Pearson, S.H. Hancock; Adams Pearson Associates Inc.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium
held in Calgary, Alberta Canada, 3–5 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
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
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
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
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
As upstream oil and gas exploration and production
companies search for new opportunities, much deeper wells
are being drilled and completed. In addition to greater depths,
an increasing number of wells are being drilled and completed
in much more hostile downhole environments. These very
complex wells are frequently drilled in frontier areas around
the world, including the Western and Northern Canadian
foothills and coastal areas. Where pressures exceed 10,000 psi
(69 MPa) and temperatures surpass 300°F (149°C), wells are
generally termed High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT)
completions.
The stresses resulting from the combination of high axial loads
and pressure differentials begin encroaching on materials
limitations of standard subsurface equipment. This paper
provides an overview of an engineering design methodology
that can be used during the planning of deep, difficult, or
complex wells. The importance of numerous design
considerations and realistic, clearly defined load cases will be
emphasized.
High temperatures cause the well to operate with either
significant pipe movement, or high compressional loads at the
packer, particularly when these high temperatures are
combined with higher operating pressures. The increased well
depths, usually with accompanying deviations from vertical,
also increase mechanical and fluid friction. These situations
require a rigorous engineering analysis with the aid of modern
thermal and stress analysis software.
Traditional uniaxial and biaxial working stress designs are
convenient and usually adequate for shallower, lower
temperature/pressure wells. However, the severe conditions
considered within this paper require state-of-the-art triaxial
design software. Examples within the paper will demonstrate
how the results of these simulations can be used for hostile
environment tubular selection, including discussion of the
importance to properly select and test the tubular connections.
Many failures have resulted from brittle fracture or fatigue
rather than yield, because the tendency for the designer is to
choose higher yield strength materials that are inherently less
ductile and more prone to hydrogen embrittlement. To avoid
this, it is better to push the limits of lower strength, ductile
materials, which in turn challenges the typical design safety
factors. This challenge has lead some major oil companies to
develop and use risk based tubular design processes.
Background
The completion of HPHT wells have unique design challenges
that require rigorous engineering approaches, analyses, and
planning. Although the industry has been working with
HPHT wells for a number of years, the application of
appropriate technology in several areas is still evolving as
more operators begin to pursue these horizons.
Because of encroachment on some of the generally accepted
technology norms and boundaries, some risk will need to be
assumed while expanding these boundaries through improved
equipment designs, altered or more rigorous engineering based
procedures, or development of new technologies. Generally
the design philosophy begins with the expansion of available
field proven technology, which is preferred over completely
new designs that have not been successfully tested in actual
field applications. At the outset of an HPHT project, the
overall completion design objective should achieve the well’s
production target with an acceptable level of risk.
Generally a completion has three major roles:
1. Provide a flow conduit from the reservoir to surface
processing facilities.
2 D.E. HAHN, R.M. PEARSON, S.H. HANCOCK
2. Provide a means to run, activate, and pull bottom hole
assemblies to either establish or isolate
communication with the desired production reservoir
interval(s).
3. Provide a primary safety barrier in high pressure
and/or corrosive wells.
A clear understanding of the conditions that will be placed on
the completion components requires accurate predictions.
Currently, state-of-the-art simulation software can determine
operating temperatures and pressures (transient and
stabilized), equipment loads, fluid friction effects, equivalent
densities, and corrosion rates. These predictions can then be
used to prepare the final completion design and procedures.
The completion design for HPHT wells should provide
installation and workover flexibility, which implies that
simplicity, wherever possible, is of utmost importance. Based
on this premise the application of monobore completions has
become more prominent for recent HPHT development
projects.
High Tensile Tubulars
When potential well pressures increase, the initial reaction is
to increase the API tensile grade of the tubulars. This
approach will usually work in “sweet” well environments;
however, since HPHT wells usually are from deep
depositions, small amounts of H2 S are always present. High
pressures together with low levels of H2 S will render a “sour”
environment because of the resultant H2 S partial pressures
exceed the limits as defined in the NACE Materials
Requirement MR01751 . If material tensile levels of the
tubulars are increased, generally their resistance to hydrogen
embrittlement is decreased or not suitable when exposed to
H2 S. Thus it is imperative that the metallurgy of all the
components of the completion be appropriate for all the
anticipated well conditions.
Whenever possible, the preferred option is to use NACE sour
service grade materials (T95, L80, J55) where temperatures
could fall below 175°F (80°C)2,3 . However, due to inside
diameter preferences for drilling assemblies and/or
sub-surface safety valve (SSSV) dimensions, HPHT well
conditions sometimes dictate consideration of higher grade
materials like C110 for the production casing string. Because
tubing strings are continuously exposed to well fluids, it is
always preferred to use T95 or lower (L80, J55) grade
materials for production tubing.
The limits of C110 tubulars are determined by the proprietary
specification of each steel manufacturer and are not
specifically identified within Table 5 of the NACE Materials
Requirement MR0175. NACE MR0175 does place the
responsibility for the determination of adequacy of the sulfide
SPE 59750
stress cracking (SSC) resistance on the user of the material.
One such test using full sized prototype samples, as described
in References 4 and 5, determined that the normal NACE Test
Method TM0177 Method A6 does not necessarily provide the
lower bound of the threshold stress. Thus other test procedures
also need to be performed to provide adequate assurances of
suitability for the specific application. Involvement of an
independent, qualified metallurgist is highly recommended for
Quality Assurance - Quality Control (QA/QC) of the
manufacturing process. The independent metallurgist should
also audit or develop rigorous inspection criteria and
subsequent qualification testing of any C110 materials, using
the NACE Test Method TM0177 Method B or Method D6 .
Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA’s) can be used for corrosive
environments, but the exact metal specification needs to
address the effects of Chloride Stress Cracking (CSC), high
temperature corrosion, combined SSC and CSC, and potential
exposure to acid 5, 7, 8. Once a CRA material is considered
technically suitable, the predominant challenge is to determine
if this is the most cost effective solution for coping with the
desired operating parameters. Once again, specific equipment
qualification testing may be required dependent on the
environments and conditions to which the material will be
exposed.
Selection of Tubular Connections
Connections built according to the American Petroleum
Institute (API) specifications cannot ensure leak resistance9 ,
thus are, generally, not acceptable for HPHT applications; and
“premium” connections are therefore required. The extreme
stresses and forces that are imparted on the tubulars in HPHT
wells dictate that premium connections be evaluated and
selected based on actual qualification test data. Usually, the
most severe connection leakage case will be when the tubing
is in simultaneous compression and bending together with
applied pressure differentials at elevated temperatures.
Moreover, the effects of stress cycling should also be
considered. Vendors of “premium” connections state that
their generic compression ratings are as high as 70% of the
connection tension ratings but in many cases they may prove
to be 50% or less.
Once an application has been identified, the vendor should be
required to provide test data that closely matches the expected
operating conditions, otherwise a qualification test needs to be
performed to verify that the connection is suitable. This
qualification test with a gas (usually nitrogen) should include
various temperature cycling and combined loading cases with
the predicted extremes of axial loads, pressure differentials,
and induced bending effects. The qualification testing of the
connections is very important to ensure “leak tight” integrity is
achieved for the life of the tubing string.
SPE 59750 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX, HOSTILE, AND HPHT WELLS
Simulation and Prediction Requirements
The primary intent of a complete tubing stress analysis is to
ensure that the pipe and connections remain within acceptable
triaxial, axial, burst, and collapse safety factors. The triaxial
determination with a specified safety factor will result in what
is commonly termed a Von Mises ellipse (as illustrated by the
ellipse that is superimposed on the uniaxial design safety
factor limitations in Figure 1, developed by Landmark’s WS-
TUBE program). An acceptable completion engineering
design should ensure that all the calculated safety factors
remain within the limitations of the specified design safety
factor boundaries.
It is important to realize that many factors can significantly
affect the performance of tubular materials. Some of these
factors are listed below:
• Applied loads (e.g. set down weight, pressure tests)
• Induced loads (e.g. thermal expansion)
• Shock loads (e.g. perforating, running pipe)
• Cyclical loads (e.g. producing and shut in periods)
• Bending
• Triaxial effects
• Corrosion
• Connection make up
• Mill defects
• Damage
• Estimation Errors
These factors need to be accommodated within the following
tubular ratings and design assumptions as demonstrated in
Figure 2:
Nature of the API Tubular Ratings: The typical
uniaxial API yield rating for tubulars (burst, tensile) has
provided an implicit safety factor within their
specifications, whereby the tubular will definitely remain
in the elastic region of the stress/strain curve for the
particular grade of material.
Design Safety Factor: Commonly used safety factors
(Table 1) are applied in the design of a tubing string.
These safety factors can be altered somewhat (up or down)
depending on the certainty of actual service conditions and
quality of data available.
Assumed Loading Conditions: The completion design
engineer will frequently use the most extreme conditions
that are anticipated during the life of the well. The issue is
to properly assess the probability, consequences, and
timing of this condition.
Design Basis
Most stress analysis simulation programs only consider the
flowing performance up the tubing and do not incorporate the
reservoir performance aspect of a producing well. The
3
designer should assess the maximum reservoir inflow capacity
and whether it is critical to account for a blowout condition as
one of the design loads. The production performance of a well
is typically modeled with an industry nodal analysis simulator
that can accurately predict the bottomhole flowing pressure at
various producing rates. These values are required for the
subsequent modeling of the tubing/casing conditions under
various operating conditions. In addition to these parameters,
rate restrictions due to erosion limitations can be determined.
The state-of-the-art, sophisticated commercial stress analysis
software can provide pressure and temperature simulations
throughout the wellbore during all the various loading
conditions throughout the life of the well. These simulations
will provide predictions for both transient and stabilized
periods, which is very important for HPHT wells. Figure 3
provides output from a typical temperature simulation for an
HPHT well using the Landmark WT-PROD software. Note
the significant heating of the wellbore during production
cycles, with the other extreme being the cooling during an acid
stimulation. The non-linear trends imply higher tubular
temperatures than the average of the flowing tubing head and
bottomhole temperatures. Also of interest are the surface
temperature differences for transient and stabilized flow of dry
gas and gas with free water production. These thermal
variations can create significant stress on the downhole
tubulars and equipment.
The mechanical performance of most wellbore tubulars is
reduced at elevated temperatures, thus it is important that the
simulation derates the tubing strength according to the
temperature that it encounters. The yield strength degradation
of steel and several alloys is shown in Figure 45 .
After completing the pressure and temperature simulations the
various loading conditions during the life of the well need to
be defined. These loading conditions can usually be grouped
as follows:
Reference Condition: The landing conditions of the tubing
string and/or packer affect the subsequent stresses and
forces that result from the various load conditions. The
fluids and landing loads (compression or tension) that are
present are important to identify. The time since the last
extended period of circulation and circulation just prior to
landing may cause the landing temperature to be different
from the normal assumption of the pipe being at the
geothermal gradient.
Frequent Loads : Producing conditions throughout the life of
the well need to be identified with the extremes being the
most important for the analysis. The characteristics of the
produced fluids can significantly affect the resulting
temperatures, particularly liquids that will heat up the
tubing due to their higher heat capacities. Sensitivities of
various annulus operating pressures are also required
4 D.E. HAHN, R.M. PEARSON, S.H. HANCOCK
because they can also affect the tubular and packer
loadings. Other frequent loads that need to be defined are
during shut in periods where the tubing is filled with
hydrocarbon at the two extreme temperature profiles
(“HOT” – highest flowing temperature profile with
maximum shut in wellhead pressure and “COLD” –
normal geothermal temperature profile with corresponding
shut in wellhead pressure).
Infrequent Loads : Pressure tests of the tubing and annulus
are usually only conducted during the completion phase;
however, any subsequent pressure tests need to be
reviewed to ensure the loading is within the design of the
downhole equipment.
Killing the well during subsequent interventions should
examine the conditions at the beginning of the operation
(ie. hydrocarbon filled tubing with maximum wellhead
pressure) and the end of pumping (ie. tubing filled with
cooler kill fluid). One issue that should be addressed is
whether the well will be allowed to cool before pump -in
operations commence.
Stimulation loads need to be examined to determine the
pumping limitations or the operational adjustments that
must be made (like heating the fluid). Potential problem
situations, like a proppant screen out causing high
instantaneous loads, need to be considered.
A partially evacuated tubing string load case should be
considered for wells where SSSV’s are used and require
periodic function testing (this is usually more important for
deep-set SSSV’s in subsea wells).
In order to ensure integrity is maintained throughout the
completion string and packer in the unlikely event of a
surface tubing leak (i.e. maximum wellhead shut in
pressure on annulus fluid column under “HOT”
conditions), a worst case load under these conditions also
needs to be analyzed.
Workover Conditions: When a well requires the removal of
the tubing string it will either need to be
unlatched/removed from a packer, or the packer will need
to be released. This will require axial forces exceeding the
normal string weight and drag forces. The axial limitation
of the tubing string at surface will also affect the selection
and design of any downhole shearing assemblies.
For deviated and horizontal wells, the additional drag
forces while running and pulling a tubing string need to be
determined, usually with some form of wellbore drag
simulation.
The identification of potential areas of trapped fluids is
important because the thermal expansion of these fluids can
SPE 59750
significantly increase pressure and cause equipment failure.
An example of a trapped fluid situation is when a packer
tailpipe is sealed within a liner top polished bore receptacle
(PBR). During a heating cycle, the annular fluid between the
packer seal and the PBR seal cannot escape, thus pressure
build up due to thermal expansion can often exceed tubular
and equipment ratings. The casing design should also be
reviewed to ensure that potential trapped fluid thermal
expansion scenarios in the casing annular space have also been
evaluated and quantified. These situations should be
identified and quantified with the state-of-the-art temperature
and stress analysis simulators.
Production casing/liner conditions also need to be examined
for the various load cases. Hostile environment wells
frequently have multiple, fully cemented casing strings which
can improve the predicted safety factors for the production
casing10 . This is predicated on the assumption that a very
effective cement column exists between the two casing strings
and that fluids cannot be trapped within uncemented gaps.
Several companies have developed proprietary well stress
design procedures that consider and quantify uncertainties,
risks and economics within a well design. These procedures
provide additional engineering support for situations where the
predicted safety factors are encroaching on the accepted
design safety factors. One such proprietary reliability based
design format, Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD),
was developed by Mobil and is detailed in Reference 11. The
LRFD procedure allows the design to suit the application and
provides the engineer the opportunity to treat each well
individually.
Packer Selection Considerations
Packers are usually used to isolate reservoir fluids and
conditions from the final casing string that is in place. All
packers will have an acceptable operating envelope of forces
and pressure differentials, which should always be obtained
from the vendor. The predicted tubing-to-packer loads (force
and pressure differential) from the tubing stress simulations
can be superimposed on this packer operating envelope to
confirm its applicability. It is very important that the
operating envelope be derated and/or qualified (tested) for the
anticipated temperatures. If the predicted operating conditions
do not remain within the packer operating envelope, either a
different packer design or a downhole tubing hanger needs to
be considered to assume some of the induced loads. The
packer-to-casing forces are generally only an issue in extreme
loading conditions, but should always be reviewed.
Significant elastomer research and development has been
undertaken by several vendors and continues to evolve. The
major factors in elastomer selection include the operating
temperatures, pressure differentials, and type of fluid
exposure. For example, a nitrile element is the preferred
elastomer in a high density oil based mud system, but is not
SPE 59750 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX, HOSTILE, AND HPHT WELLS
compatible with a high density zinc bromide (ZnBr2 ) brine,
where an AFLAS element is preferred. Moreover, the
sequence of the planned completion procedures may influence
the selection of the most appropriate elastomer for the packer.
Once again an appropriate suite of certification tests are
recommended to ensure the elastomers perform adequately at
high temperatures and differential pressures.
Since an HPHT packer is usually a permanent installation, it is
important that the material selection of all the components that
will be exposed to the produced fluids be a corrosion resistant
material. Most wells produce at least some formation water
(sometimes later in life of well) and CO2 within the gas stream
can create corrosive environments. Thus, it can normally be
assumed that, at some point in the life of the well, corrosion
fluids will be an issue.
In HPHT wells, the completion fluid environment can also
affect the setting of the packer, because of the high densities
required to maintain a kill fluid overbalance. High density oil
based mud will be heavily ladened with barite and has been
known to cause setting and sealing problems. This can result
from plugging of communication ports or from residual mud
adherence to the walls of the casing at the high bottomhole
temperatures 5 . The preferred setting environment of the final
packer is a clear brine after the casing wall has been
effectively cleaned. A common practice is to circulate to a
lower density filtered brine, which will be used as the annulus
packer fluid, if the casing/liner is well cemented and properly
pressure tested3,5,12.
HPHT packers are either set hydraulically on pipe or
electrically on wireline. The selection of an appropriate
setting tool is of utmost importance, particularly the potential
temperature limitations of the electric wireline setting tools. It
is also important to specify the appropriate burn rate of the
power charge used in the setting tool, such that the packer
setting mechanism is properly activated.
Packer seal assemblies can be designed to move within a
sealbore; however, it is generally felt that moving seals have a
much larger chance of eventually leaking and failing. The
recommended design should ensure that there is no seal
movement after the first production (heating) period.
Downward movement of the tubing string is usually
accommodated by the elastic deformation (buckling) of the
tubing string when the movement of the top of the seal
assembly is stopped at the packer. In order to keep the seals
from moving upwards during periods of tubing contraction
(shut in, pumping cooler fluids down tubing, etc), the string
needs sufficient setdown weight or needs to be anchored near
bottom (packer or downhole anchor). Once again the design
and limitations of the latching assembly, including the release
mechanism and shearing contingencies, need to be
incorporated into the tubing stress analysis and simulation
results. Operational contingencies (such as applied annulus
5
pressure) are sometimes required if equipment limits are
approached.
Good completions engineering design will always attempt to
maximize the packer bore size and thus provide the most
operational flexibility. This can be a limiting factor in
“traditional” packer style completions thus several operators
have adopted monobore style completions where the tubing
has virtually the same inside diameter as the production liner5 .
The annulus between the tubing and production casing is
isolated by a tubing seal assembly that is landed or latched
into an integral PBR on the liner top packer. This monobore
completion provides fullbore intervention, within the tubing
string and liner, to the reservoir zone(s) for perforating,
isolation, wireline, coil tubing, and snubbing. The major
disadvantage of the monobore completion can be during
exploration well testing, where the reservoir deliverabilities
and conditions are unknown and the large wellbore diameter
can cause production stability problems at low flow rates.
Other Downhole Equipment
The selection of downhole high pressure flow control profiles
is limited at the present time. When installing plug mandrels
into these profiles, the majority have a lower pressure
differential rating from above than from below. When placing
profiles as part of a packer tailpipe, the use of appropriate
CRA material is recommended. When evaluating the
application of a monobore completion, a primary
consideration is to have a nippleless heavy wall liner possibly
with polish bores. An alternative is to place nipple profiles at
strategic depths along the cemented liner, which requires
working closely with the drilling operation of the well.
All offshore and some onshore HPHT wells require SSSV’s to
adequately mitigate risks during production operations. The
SSSV’s should be qualified to operate in the predicted hostile
environment and conditions. The introduction of this
equipment adds to increased complexity of the completion,
which, in turn, provides more opportunities for failures and
malfunctions. In situations where it is optional to install a
SSSV, it is recommended to perform a risk assessment
evaluation to ascertain whether it is prudent to assume the
additional operational risks associated with its installation.
Completion Fluids
A clear brine is always the preferred fluid to complete any
potential producing well. Most HPHT wells are drilled with
solids laden oil based mud that will have a tendency to begin
to “bake” or “cake” to the walls of the casing, together with
the potential for downward migration of the barite as the
mud’s suspension properties degrade.
A major issue with brine weights over 11.5 ppg (1351 kg/m3 ),
particularly bromides that contain zinc weighting materials, is
maintaining effective short term corrosion inhibition and the
safe handling of the fluids. Over the past several years, more
6 D.E. HAHN, R.M. PEARSON, S.H. HANCOCK
effective inhibitors have been identified and significant
improvements in the safe handling procedures of these brines
have been enacted. These brines still cannot be used as long
term packer fluids (annular fluid above the packer), thus
common practice has been to use an inhibited slightly saline
water, like potassium chloride or seawater3,5,12 . In addition to
the corrosion concerns, the packer operating envelopes can
frequently be exceeded in a tubing leak load case with heavy
weight packer fluid. The more recent development of formate
brines has introduced a non-toxic, safe heavy weight brine, but
widespread use has not occurred because they are still 8-10
times the cost of most zinc bromide brines.
Safe handling of brines is a matter of proper training for
personnel involved, using adequate personal protection
(clothing and goggles), and having contingency plans in place
should an unexpected release occur. Most vendors and
operating companies have been diligent in developing these
guidelines, which are being used on a regular basis.
During mud displacement procedures and cleaning of the
wellbore, effective casing wall scraping is required,
particularly in the packer setting areas and/or any sealing
surfaces. Because of the high per unit costs of the bromide
brines, their recovery and reuse needs to maximized. Recent
casing scraper and brush designs and effective
washing/circulating procedures appear to have enhanced the
casing wall cleaning procedures. Designing an effective mud
displacement program with various multi-function pills does
assist in proper hole cleaning and achieving “clean” brine
returns as rapidly as possible.
Most HPHT horizons are at significant well depths thus the
equivalent densities at the bottom of the hole (ie. which
equates to actual hydrostatic head or pressure) will be less
than the surface pumped density mainly due to temperature
effects. For example a bottomhole density of 17.3 ppg (2033
kg/m3 ) at 17000 ft (5182 m) and 375°F (191°C) will require a
surface density of 17.8 ppg (2092 kg/m3 ) at 70°F (21°C).
Good tubing stress simulators or the brine vendor can
determine the equivalent density versus depth.
Perforating Methodology
Tubing conveyed perforating systems have become relatively
common within the industry; however, when being considered
for HPHT wells, the downhole temperature exposure time
needs to be closely examined. Many of the published vendor
system temperature ratings are for times less than those
required for deep HPHT well tubing conveyed operations,
particularly with guns suspended below a packer tailpipe. It is
important that the completions design engineer identifies the
existing limitations and, if necessary, works closely with the
vendor to qualify the system to the expected conditions and
exposure times. Expert third party involvement in the design
and witness of the qualification testing is desirable.
SPE 59750
As a minimum, the qualification process of perforating
systems should include the explosive charges, detonators,
boosters, primacord, firing heads, and gun bodies. High
temperature performance testing of the manufactured charge
lots to be used is one of the requirements. It is also
recommended to Xray the primacord lots, which are intended
for high temperature operations, for imperfections or defects.
Specific function testing of the firing heads and gun bodies at
expected temperatures, pressures, and times, to certify the
effectiveness of the elastomer seals is also highly
recommended.
Electric wireline operations at pressures exceeding 6000 psi
(41.4 MPa) are usually avoided because of the additional
pressure control risks. The main pressure control issue is
maintaining an adequate/continuous pressure seal around a
braided wireline in the flow tube seals at the top of the
lubricator. Operations should always prepare for the
maximum possible wellhead pressure; however, measures to
reduce the wellhead pressures, like filling the wellbore with
liquids, should be undertaken until improvements are made to
the currently available technologies. It is for these reasons
that many operators try to avoid traditional electric wireline
perforating in HPHT wells.
Slickline deployed perforating guns systems have been
effectively stacked, hydraulically activated, and subsequently
retrieved in monobore completions13 . It is much easier to
obtain an effective liquid/elastomer seal around the solid
slickline wire; and, thus, it is inherently much safer to use at
higher pressures. The major consideration for pressure control
is to ensure that a fully redundant pump system is used. It is
also preferred that one of these units to be able to pump at
very consistent low volumes.
Contingency Planning
HPHT completion planning requires a clear appreciation and
understanding of the risks involved for all the procedures and
equipment that will be used. Some of these procedures may
be quite complex; and may depend on the outcome of earlier
well activity. Since this is uncertain, contingency plans and
alternatives need to be formulated and sometimes detailed,
particularly where lead times for alternate equipment or
services are required. Situations where contingencies are
required can include operations like well unloading,
stimulation options (poor well performance), wellbore
cleanouts, perforating gun failure, electric or slickline wireline
problems, and packer leaks. The key factors that need to be
identified include identification of specific alternate
equipment and the vendor’s availability, expertise, and
experience.
High pressure coil tubing operations have become much more
common over the past several years and typical HPHT
operations may include hole displacements, wellbore
cleanouts, wireline plug cleaning and/or retrieval, and well
SPE 59750 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX, HOSTILE, AND HPHT WELLS
unloading operations 14,15. A critical component of high
pressure coil tubing operations is the low rate, high pressure
fluid pumping units which are required to accommodate the
high internal friction pressures. Most normal service company
pumping units cannot consistently pump at the low rates
required by these long coil tubing strings. As with any coil
tubing operation, it is very crucial that pipe fatigue monitoring
be rigorously performed as a pipe failure on HPHT wells can
have serious safety and cost implications.
Complex Completion Planning and Preparation
The planning of a complex completion begins with the drilling
and casing design phases of the wellbore. An engineering
design methodology for the planning of complex (HPHT) well
completions, as discussed throughout this paper, is presented
in Figure 5 and briefly reiterated below.
It is important that the overall completion philosophy be
developed at these early stages because of the significant
impact on subsequent equipment selection and availability.
The first decision is to determine the applicability of a
monobore style completion versus a restrictive bore packer
completion. A monobore completion may be difficult to plan
in an exploration well; whereas, for development or
delineation wells, it may have significant advantages. When
considering monobore completions, the isolation between the
formation and the tubing annulus can be with a PBR
(packerless) or a large bore packer. In a liner completion, the
designer must also consider steps required to isolate the liner
lap in the event of an inadequate cement job.
A preliminary tubing design with a state-of-the-art stress
analysis simulation program is integral for determining the
required tubing weight, grade, and connection specifications.
The tubing and/or premium connection vendor(s) will need to
provide evidence that a particular connection has been
qualified for the conditions that are predicted by the
simulation, particularly the case of maximum compressive
load with induced bending and pressure differentials. If this
evidence (i.e. actual tests) is not available then a qualification
test will be required before specifying the final pipe
connection.
When determining the perforating strategy, it is important to
consider the effectiveness of their penetration into the
formation. Perforation length, cleanliness and sometimes hole
size are very important factors in ensuring the reservoir
connectivity. It is therefore important to examine theoretical
simulations of in-situ (at reservoir conditions) perforation
performance as they will be significantly different (poorer)
than the vendor supplied API test information.
In offshore, environmentally sensitive areas, and where
wellhead integrity may be an issue, SSSV’s will always be an
integral part of the completion but their selection requires a
rigorous review to ensure that they meet the expected
7
conditions. Complexity and higher risks of workovers are an
inherent part of SSSV’s, thus in other geographic areas it may
be prudent to perform a risk assessment on whether they
actually are required for the completion.
As discussed earlier a clear brine is usually a very important
criteria because solids ladened mud can cause significant
problems with solids settling at the high temperatures,
interference with mechanical movement during equipment
operations, plugging of pressure/flow ports, and ineffective
sealing of elastomers on pipe walls. The parameters for
selecting a particular brine should include well control
capability, safety, environmental, subsequent disposal and
overall cost.
The equipment vendor selection requires a rigorous review of
the equipment qualifications to ensure that they meet the
predicted conditions. If qualified operating boundaries are
being exceeded then additional qualification and sometimes
slight redesign needs to be pursued with the vendor. Previous
personal experience and possibly relationships with particular
vendors will sometimes become a deciding factor in the
selection process because of the increased confidence level of
knowing that issues will be properly addressed when required.
Finally, without timely planning, long lead times in the
equipment deliveries may delay initiation of field operations.
For complex completions, detailed field operations programs
are very important to ensure the rationale for various
procedures are adequately explained because the design
engineer is not always at the wellsite (although this is highly
desirable) or readily available. Breakdowns in communication
usually result in errors, improper procedures, misunderstood
assumptions, equipment misapplication, equipment/service
delivery delays, and worst of all mistrust between parties.
Continuous communication between vendors, technical
specialists, completion engineers, field operations, and
management is of utmost importance.
Conclusions
1. The completion engineering and well test design must
begin during the initial planning phases of an HPHT well.
2. State-of-the-art temperature and stress analysis simulators
are a crucial requirement for all complex (HPHT)
completion designs. This stress analysis needs to examine
the calculated triaxial, axial, burst, and collapse safety
factors together with the packer loadings.
3. High tensile materials should be avoided or used with
extreme caution in the cooler regions of the wellbore.
Proprietary sour service material selection requires
rigorous Quality Assurance and Quality Control in the
manufacture and testing of the product. As part of the
qualification of these high tensile materials, NACE Test
Method TM0177 (Method B or Method D6 ) is highly
recommended.
8 D.E. HAHN, R.M. PEARSON, S.H. HANCOCK SPE 59750

4. Corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) material selection needs 6. NACE International, “Standard Test Method – Laboratory Testing
to assess the window of application with respect to of Metals for Resistance to Sulfide Stess Cracking in H2S
complex corrosion, sulfide stress cracking (SSC), and Environments”, NACE Standard TM0177-90, 1990 Edition
7. Huntoon, G.G.: “Completion Practices in Deep Sour Tuscaloosa
chloride stress cracking (CSC) mechanisms. Wells”, paper SPE 11190 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual
5. Properly qualified premium connections are required for Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26-29
all tubing, liner, and casing strings that could potentially September
8. Snyder, R.E.; Suman, G.O.: “High Pressure Well Completions –
be exposed to the produced fluids. This is particularly
Part 3”, World Oil (October 1978) pp 123
true for the predicted compressive loadings in a tubing 9. Schwind, B.E., Curington, D.W., Miller, R.A.; “LRFD Derived
string. Performance of a Qualified API Connection Population”, paper
6. The metal failure limits require deration at elevated OTC 7940 presented at the 1995 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 1-4 May
temperatures.
10. Lewis, D.B.; Brand, P.R.; Whitney, W.S.; Hood, M.G.; Maes,
7. Elastomer movement after the initial landing should be M.A.: “Load and Resistance Factor Design for Oil Country
avoided in HPHT completions. Elastomer selection Tubular Goods”, paper OTC 7936 presented at the 1995
requires consideration of all potential fluid exposure and Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1-4 May
11. Goodman, M.A.; Halal, A.S.: “Case Study: HPHT Casing Design
elevated temperatures over 300°C (149°C) including Achieved With Multistring Analysis”, paper SPE 26322
qualification testing. presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
8. Always attempt to use clear brines as the primary Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October
12. Snyder, R.E.; Suman, G.O.: “High Pressure Well Completions –
completion fluid. High density bromide brines will
Part 4”, World Oil (November 1978) pp 77
require additional handling and disposal procedures. The 13. Allen, R.F.; Walters, M.: “Erskine Field: Early Operating
uses of the more desirable non-toxic brines, like the Experience”, paper SPE 56899 presented at the 1999 SPE
formates, require further development and/or significant Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 7-9 September
cost reduction to achieve widespread application. 14. Larsen, H.A.; Kenrick, A.; Bell, R.: “Utilizing Coiled Tubing in
Mobile Bay’s 22,000 TVD Gas Wells Yields Economical and
9. Perforating systems require detailed review of their Technical Advancements”, paper SPE 38423 presented at the
qualification, particularly for TCP guns, which will be at 1997 SPE/ICOTA North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable
bottomhole pressures, and temperatures for adequate 15. Morrison, D.; Reid, K.; Kenney, T.: “High Pressure Coiled
periods of time. Tubing Job Prepares Gulf Coast Well”, paper SPE 38419
presented at the 1997 SPE/ICOTA North American Coiled
10. Contingency planning is a crucial part of the completion Tubing Roundtable
design because HPHT equipment and/or services are not 16. Landmark – Enertech, WT-PROD and WS-TUBE Software,
always readily available. Version 1998.5
11. In geographic areas where SSSV’s are not obligatory, it is Conversions
prudent to perform a risk assessment of their necessity.
ft x3.048 E-01 = m
12. Continuous effective communication between °F (°F-32)/1.8 =°C
engineering, operations, regulatory entities, and vendors is lbf x4.448 222 E+00 = N
imperative. ppg x1.1751 E+02 = kg/m3
References Nomenclature
1. NACE International, “Standard Material Requirements – Sulfide API American Petroleum Institute
Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic Materials for Oilfield CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Equipment”, NACE Standard MR0175-99, 1999 Edition CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloy
2. Bacarreza, L.J.; van Melsen, R.J.; Jantschy, G.: “Conceptual CSC Chloride Stress Cracking
Design for HP/HT Surface Development Wells”, paper SPE H2 S Hydrogen Sulfide
28893 presented at the 1994 SPE European Petroleum HPHT High Pressure – High Temperature
Conference, London, U.K., 25-27 October
3. Kraus, H.; Prieur, J.: “High-Pressure Well Design”, SPE 20900, LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
SPE Drilling Engineer (December 1991), pp 240-244 PBR Polished Bore Receptacle
4. Greer, J.B.; Elliott, G.; Shivers, R.M.: “Prototype Sulfide Stress ppg Pounds per gallon
Cracking Testing of High Strength Oil Country Tubular Goods”, QA/QC Quality Assurance – Quality Control
paper NACE 96-69 presented at the 1996 NACE International SSC Sulfide Stress Corrosion Cracking
Annual Conference and Exposition SSSV Surface Controlled SubSurface Safety Valve
5. Elliott, G.S.; Brockman, R.A.; Shivers, R.M.: “HPHT Drilling TCP Tubing Conveyed Perforating
and Completion Design for the Erskine Field”, paper SPE 30364 ZnBr2 Zinc Bromide
presented at the 1995 SPE Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen, U.K., 5-8 September
SPE 59750 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX, HOSTILE, AND HPHT WELLS 9

TABLE 1
Tubing Design Safety Factors

Body or Upset Non-Upset

Condition
Connection Connection

Burst 1.125 1.125

Collapse 1.125 1.125
Tension 1.2 – 1.3 1.3 – 1.5
Connection Leakage* 1.2 – 2.0 1.3 – 2.0
Total Triaxial Stress 1.25 – 1.67** 1.25 – 1.67**

* Vendor supplied and/or qualification test results

** Frequent loads in Critical Sour Wells

Figure 1
Typical Design Limits Plot
90000

73636

57273 Tri-axial 1.250

Burst 1.125 Tension 1.300

40909
Effective Internal Pressure (kPag)

24545

8182

-8182

Initial Conditions
-24545 Pressure Test Tubing
Prod 800 e3m3/d (10 days)
Prod 600 e3m3/d & Water (10 days)
-40909 Collapse 1.125
Prod 800 e3m3/d Steady State
Start Kill Hot
-57273 End Kill Cold
Tubing Leak Hot
Evacuated Tubing
-73636
Acidize 120 m3 @ 4 m3/min
Overpull 55000 daN
Note: Limits are approximate
-90000
-1250.000 -1000.000 -750.000 -500.000 -250.000 0.000 250.000 500.000 750.000 1000.000 1250.000 1500.000
Effective Tension (kN)
10 D.E. HAHN, R.M. PEARSON, S.H. HANCOCK SPE 59750

Figure 2
Balance Between Factors Affecting Tubulars and Tubular Ratings/Design Assumptions

Applied Loads
Induced Loads
Shock Loads
Cyclical Loads
Bending
Triaxial Effects
Corrosion
Connection Make-Up
Mill Defects
Damage
Estimation Errors

Nature of the API Tubular Ratings

Design Safety Factor
Assumed Loading Conditions

Figure 3
Typical Temperature Simulation

0.0

400.0

800.0

1200.0

1600.0

2000.0
MD (m)

2400.0

2800.0

3200.0
Prod 800 e3m3/d (10 days)
Undisturbed
3600.0
Prod 600 e3m3/d & Water (10 days)
Prod 800 e3m3/d Steady State
4000.0 End Kill Cold (WS-Tube)
Acidize 120 m3 @ 4 m3/min (WS-Tube)

4400.0
0.00 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 90.00 105.00 120.00 135.00 150.00 165.00
Temperature (deg C)
SPE 59750 IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX, HOSTILE, AND HPHT WELLS 11

Figure 4
Yield Strength Degradation Factors with Temperature
YS Degradation Factor (from Elliott et al Reference 5)

Figure 5
Complex Completion Engineering Design Methodology

DETERMINE
DETERMINE COMPLETION
COMPLETION PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
• Packer vs Packerless
• Monobore vs Restrictive Bore
• Performance Strategy
• Prepare Preliminary Tubing Design Qualified Yes
• Downhole Equipment Functional Specs Order
Connection
• SSSV Issues (Risk Assessment) Available? Pipe
• Completion Fluid Selection
• Perforation Strategy TUBING
No
Select Alternate Vendors Passes
SELECT
SELECT VENDORS
VENDORS or
• Qualified Equipment Qualify Connection
• Understand What Equipment Still Needs to
Fails
be Qualified
• Costs and Timing of Qualification
Qualify Alternate Passes
• QA/QC Procedures/Costs
Vendor or Connection
• Overall Price
• Previous Experience/Relationship

COMPLETION
EQUIPMENT

Temperature (°F) Does All Finalize Tubing

PREPARE
PREPARE DETAILED
DETAILED OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS Equipment Yes Stress Analysis
PROCEDURES
PROCEDURES Qualify for Well Ensure Equipment
• Review with Vendors Conditions? Still Suitable
• Plan for Contingencies (Proper Equipment,
Availability)
No
Passes
Run Qualification Tests
Fails
Select Alternate
Product or Vendor