Practical Well Completion 

Design

Roland Hamp

Wednesday 7 September 2018
Key themes

• Drilling versus designing wells
• Creating the value proposition
• Optimising risk and value
• ‘Challenge in’ approach & testing limits
• Benchmarking
• Multi‐disciplinary approach
• Communicating clearly
Workflow and case study discussion rather 
than engineering detail.
 Cost, Schedule, Quality ‐ wells
Investor’s dream:  Lowest cost development for reliable operations, 
good recovery and outstanding HSEQ, delivered on time – simple!

The Challenge:
• Reliability
Quality • HSEQ Risk Cost
• Initial rates
• Reserves
• No surprises!

Attractive 
Project?

Cost Schedule Investment

• Capex • First production
• Opex • Internal vs external targets This is where subsurface 
• Abandonment • Annual production forecast
• Regulatory costs • Production ramp up
and development teams 
• Pre‐investment • Phased development earn their keep.
 What’s important
Your well proposal will need 
Life cycle  to address all these areas.
Is it profitable?
Value

Construct‐
Can we construct it, safely?
ability

Can we operate it reliably? Operability

Maintain‐
Can we maintain and repair it?
ability
 Drilling versus Designing Wells

Drilling Designing Business 

Case
• Conductor
• Surface casing
• Intermediate casing
• Production casing
• Total depth
• Reservoir interface
• Completion
• Recovery rate & volumes
• Economics
• Risks
 The Criticality of Concept Selection

Explore Assess Select Develop Execute Operate

Comprehensive  Good project 
Concept screening execution
Robust technical  Poor project 
understanding execution

Good project 
Discovery! execution
Poor project 
execution
Most value is added here

• Good Concept selection is built on solid technical foundation
• Concept screening must be wide ranging and systematic/quantified
• Management of change post FID must be independently approved
• Front End Loading (FEL) correlates strongly with project success 
 The opportunity – original FDP base case

• 3 faults blocks, sealing faults?
oil a • 10‐15m thick & uniform quality
b
c • 10 – 20 MMstb in place
• Deviated production wells
• Sand production risk
• Deviated water injection wells
gas • Injection under fracture conditions
• Large, mobile gas cap
• Water injection sweep uncertainty
 Field Development Plan base case
Design Aspect Base Case
Well type deviated
Well  numbers 1 P, 1 WI
Sand control none
Artificial lift Gas lift
Tubing size 4.12”
Well rate 3 – 5,000 b/d
Blocks developed 1
Base Case
Pressure support Water injection
Recovery mechanism Water sweep
Recovery 2 – 3 MMstb
• Uneconomic well proposal
Capex  $300 million
• Low volumes
Metallurgy CRA • Low rates
Workovers none • High costs
Threats Gas, water, sand • Multiple unmitigated risks
 Value improvement workshop ‐ format

• Multidisciplinary team
oil a • Increase recovery volumes
b
c • Increase well rates
• Reduce Capex
• Mitigate risks – pore pressure
• Look for upside value
gas
 Value improvement workshop ‐ result
Design Aspect Base Case New Case
Well type deviated horizontal • 1 day workshop
Well  numbers 1 P, 1 WI 1 P, 1 WI • Geophysicist
Sand control none OH gravel pack • Geologist
Artificial lift Gas lift Gas lift • Reservoir engineer
Tubing size 4.12” 5.1/2” • Production technologist
Well rate 3 – 5,000 b/d 5 – 10,000 b/d
• Completion engineer
Blocks developed 1 3 + prospect?
• Drilling engineers
Pressure support Water injection Increased WI
• Operations engineer
Recovery mechanism Water sweep Improved sweep
Recovery 2 – 3 MMstb 5 – 10 MMstb • Economist

Capex  $250 million $350 million • Contractors

Metallurgy CRA CRA • Exploration Geos
Workovers none none • JV partners
Threats Gas, water, sand Reduced, 4D
 Value improvement workshop ‐ result

• Multidisciplinary team
• Recovery volumes doubled
oil a
b • Well rates doubled
c
• Improved Capex efficiency
• Reduced risks – 4D seismic
• Innovative design – WI

gas • Well trajectories challenge
• ‘Challenge in’ approach, eg CRAs
• Upside – exploration target east
 Reverse engineer to achieve investment hurdle
?
VIR = 0.4 VIR = 0.3 VIR = 0.2
Exploration  target upside
Reduce or 
Acceptable  defer costs
development 
concept
NPV
Increase or  VIR = 0.1
accelerate 
recovery

Original, unacceptable 
development concept

PV Capex
Increase or accelerate recovery: Reduce or defer costs:
• Horizontal wells • Batch drilling
• Multilateral wells • WH/WT boat installed
• Smart wells • Field/well life – 20 years?
• IOR • Well intervention strategy
 Coarse screening, detailed planning

Recovery
Efficiency
? Initial 
Rate
?
Similar developments Similar wells

Value

coarse detailed

Assess Screen Concept Select FEED

Closing Points

Practical well design:
• Understand the reservoir & uncertainties
• Understand what drives value:
– Volumes, rates, costs, threats
• Understand well design boundaries
• Push boundaries & team – what’s possible?
• Mitigate risks and add opportunities
• Benchmark solutions – realistic, proven?
• Clearly present options to decision makers
 What’s important
Your well proposal will need 
Life cycle  to address all these areas.
Is it profitable?
Value

Construct‐
Can we construct it, safely?
ability

Can we operate it reliably? Operability

Maintain‐
Can we maintain and repair it?
ability