SPE 90557
Deepwater DST Planning and Operations From a DP Vessel
Robert J. Stomp, SPE, ConocoPhillips Company; Graham J. Fraser, The Expro Group, Stephen C. Actis, SPE,
ConocoPhillips Company; Luke F. Eaton, SPE, ConocoPhillips Company; and Kerry C. Freedman, SPE, ConocoPhillips
Company
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
ConocoPhillips (COPC) is developing the Magnolia field with
a Tension Leg Platform (TLP) in 4674 feet of water at Garden
Banks (GB) block 783 in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The
field was discovered in 1999 and appraisal wells were drilled
in 2000 and 2001. Field development approval was obtained
in 2001. The approved depletion plan and well construction
strategy included drilling and casing wells prior to the
installation of the TLP (pre-drilling), pre-completing and
testing one well during the pre-drilling program, and
completing the remaining wells from a completion rig
installed on the TLP.
The GB783 A2ST3BP1 well was successfully drill-stem tested
(DST) from the Ensco 7500 dynamically positioned (DP)
semi-submersible drilling vessel in June 2003 as part of the
Magnolia field development. The pre-completion and DST
operations overcame a number of challenges which included
the frac-packing of a thick, fine-grained interval, and well
testing from a DP semi-submersible drilling rig while
simultaneously transferring produced hydrocarbons to a
transportation barge moored to the rig.
The objectives of the pre-completion/DST were to plan and
execute the operations safely, validate the sand control design,
determine well performance and reservoir properties, and
verify the effectiveness of the completion procedures prior to
the TLP rig completion program.
This paper will focus on the extensive planning process and
the operational aspects of performing a DST in a deepwater
environment.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
Introduction
The Magnolia field is located in GB 783 in the GOM. The
field location is shown in Figure 1. The Magnolia asset team
was formed in 2001 prior to the drilling of the last appraisal
well. Front end loading (FEL) leading up to field sanction in
December 2001 included concept selection and field
development plans. The Magnolia field will be developed
from a TLP to provide direct vertical access (DVA) for
recompletions, future sidetrack drilling, flow assurance and
cost effective remediation. The Magnolia development will be
the fourth TLP project developed and operated by
ConocoPhillips, utilizing experience from the Hutton, Jolliet
and Heidrun TLP’s.
The Magnolia development wells were pre-drilled; i.e., the
drilling operations were conducted from a mobile offshore
drilling unit while the TLP was being fabricated. The
advantages of pre-drilling included: 1) minimizing capital
exposure risks until shallow water flow sands are isolated, 2)
allowing TLP well operations to be conducted with a lighter,
lower cost completion rig which would further reduce the size
and cost of the TLP hull, 3) additional reservoir
characterization prior to the TLP installation, 4) accelerating
plateau production, and 5) testing completion techniques in the
pre-completed well prior to the “batch” completions of the
remaining wells.
Detailed engineering and drilling services procurement were
conducted in 2002 just after project sanction. Prior to
contracting a DP drilling vessel for the pre-drilling program, a
hazardous operation (HAZOP) and quantitative risk analysis
were performed with drilling, completion and service
company personnel to determine the feasibility of using a DP
rig for the pre-completion and DST operations. The results of
the study indicated that a DP rig would be acceptable, and the
Ensco 7500 semi-submersible rig was contracted for the
program. The well selected for the pre-completion/DST was
the A2ST3BP1. This operation was the first DST to
simultaneously transfer oil from a DP rig to a moored barge
during a well test.
Following the TLP installation, a completion rig will be
utilized on the Magnolia TLP to complete the pre-drilled
wells. The upper completion equipment will be installed in
the pre-completed A2ST3BP1 well after the production riser is
installed using the TLP completion rig.
2 SPE 90557
Well Background
The GB783-2 well was drilled in 2000 as a directional
appraisal well and two geologic sidetracks (ST) were drilled
below the 9-5/8 inch drilling liner; the second ST obtained a
whole core. The 9-5/8 inch drilling liner in the original well
was suspected of having casing wear from previous operations
and did not have sufficient clearance to run the desired size 8-
1/16 inch production liner.
Therefore, the GB783-2ST3 well was sidetracked out of the
13-5/8 inch casing with a whipstock and a 10-3/4 inch drilling
liner was run and cemented. The well name was changed
from number 2 to A2 to designate it as a development well in
accordance with governmental naming convention. A logging
while drilling (LWD) tool failure while drilling the 11 inch
production interval required plugging back and drilling the
bypass (BP) hole, hence the A2ST3BP1 designation. After the
8-1/16 inch liner was run and cemented, the 10-3/4 inch x 11-
3/4 inch tieback casing was installed from the top of the
drilling liner to the subsea wellhead. The casing schematic is
shown in Figure 2.
Data obtained from the evaluation of the whole core indicates
that reservoir compaction is a potential problem at the
Magnolia field. An 8-1/16 inch production liner was selected
for the production wells to provide sufficient wall thickness to
reduce the risk of casing failure that may be caused by
reservoir compaction. Cement isolation is also critical to
prevent casing failure from reservoir compaction. The
cementing practices used in the production interval for the
A2ST3BP1 well included thorough hole cleaning during and
after drilling, control of mud rheology, casing centralization,
significant circulation prior to cementing, liner rotation,
attention to cement spacer design, and the use of a ductile
cement.
The B-25 reservoir, the primary pay horizon at the Magnolia
field, was the zone selected to be drill stem tested. Figure 3
shows a log section of the B-25 interval in the GB 783
A2ST3BP1 well. The B-25 zone is characterized throughout
the field by its highly laminated sequences and large gross
thicknesses. Whole core data and fluid samples were obtained
from the GB 783-2ST2 appraisal well. Evaluation of the
appraisal well data classified the reservoir rock matrix as a
coarse siltstone with the average mean grain size diameter of
41 microns. Overall, the mean grain size diameters ranged
from 25 to 71 microns in the GB 783-2ST2 well.
Test Objectives
The objective of performing a pre-completion/DST was to
obtain critical information regarding completion design and
reservoir issues for the Magnolia completions. This
information would be needed prior to the planned “batch”
completion program scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter
of 2004.
Since the wells would be completed in a “batch” sequence
using the TLP rig, any initial completion problems and/or
failures could potentially recur in subsequent wells before
corrective design changes could be implemented. This time
constraint was a driving factor in determining the value of the
pre-completion/DST information. Previous developments
have shown a “learning curve effect” which required changes
in the completion design of subsequent wells to optimize well
productivity. The objective of the pre-completion/DST was to
identify these design changes and/or reservoir issues in
advance and thus allow sufficient time to determine an
effective solution to overcome these issues for the “batch”
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
completion program.
The small grain sizes were identified as a potential concern for
effective sand control and well performance. Effective sand
control was a functional requirement based on the surface
facility design. Additionally, sufficient well performance was
required to meet project economic metrics. The ability to
achieve high well performance with effective sand control was
an uncertainty which needed to be better defined. In addition
to completion design issues, several reservoir related issues
were identified as uncertainties that could be reduced with
information from the DST.
The main objectives of the pre-completion/DST were to
provide early information on the following issues:
• Sand control effectiveness
- Effective gravel size and screen selection
- Frac-pack fluid efficiency and compatibility
• Well perfomance characteristics (skin and PI)
• Effectiveness of operational procedures
• Potential reservoir boundaries
• Validation of rock and fluid properties
• Benchmark of mechanical execution of installation
Additionally, a pre-completed well would reduce time to the
first oil date and accelerate commissioning of the TLP
facilities by providing a well ready to flow upon re-entry of
the wellbore.
A “value of information” exercise was performed to determine
whether the pre-completion/DST provided overall value to the
project. A decision and risk assessment model was created to
evaluate the risked overall impact/benefit of performing a pre-
completion and DST. The model was designed to quantify the
incremental risked costs associated with a potential sand
control failure and/or unacceptable well performance by
comparing a case with one pre-completion/DST versus a case
with no pre-completions.
The model was developed to evaluate the full cycle economics
of the completion program. This included the pre-completion
well, as well as the remaining seven “batch” completions. It
assumed in the “no pre-completion case” that the first two
wells of the batch program would have a higher chance of
failure or unacceptable well productivity than the subsequent
wells. In the “pre-completion case”, it was assumed that only
the pre-completed well would have a higher chance of failure
or unacceptable well productivity. The results of the model
indicated that the information gained from performing a pre-
SPE 90557
completion/DST ahead of the batch completions improved the
economics of the field development.
Based on the outcome of the value of information exercise, the
pre-completion/DST of the GB 783 A2ST3BP1 well was
recommended to and then approved by the operator’s
management team. The drilling schedule for the development
wells was then prepared to ensure conclusion of the GB 783
A2ST3BP1 well pre-completion/DST prior to the 2003 GOM
hurricane season. The pre-completion/DST operations would
be performed one year in advance of the 2004 TLP completion
program. This would thereby allow sufficient time to evaluate
the information obtained and implement any necessary design
changes into the subsequent “batch” completion program.
Planning Requirements
Since this would be the first well to be completed in the
Magnolia field and the first ConocoPhillips DST from a DP
vessel in the GOM, it was recognized that a significant amount
of planning would be required. There was also concern over
potential regulatory issues which might surface at the last
minute and cause delays in the execution of the DST. DST’s
from floating rigs have rarely been performed in the GOM.
Governmental regulations do not allow burning of produced
liquids in the GOM. This required that the produced liquids
from the DST be separated and stored, instead of burning as is
done in other regions of the world.
One of the early planning exercises was to evaluate whether to
use a moored or DP rig.1 The increased risk of using a DP rig
versus a moored rig was determined to be predominately from
the potential to have a power failure, not from environmental
forces moving the rig off location. The team performed two
qualitative reviews. One review focused on the procedural
steps in the pre-completion process that could be impacted
from loss of station keeping during the operation. A second
review was held to examine the general causes of loss of
position, which are independent of the particular procedural
step. The range of probabilities of a DP incident occurring
and the associated consequences were estimated. A Monte
Carlo simulation was run to help make a statistically based
decision. The risked cost due to DP incidents was determined
to be less than one day of spread cost for the rig. The
estimated cost to add a mooring system to the selected rig was
equivalent to 20 days of rig time. After conducting the above
exercise, it was decided not to install a mooring system to
conduct the DST since the extra cost was not considered
justified.
Two operator completion engineers designed and/or
coordinated the design work on the downhole completion
(perforating, sand control, related fluids, etc.) that would be
used during the DST and later to produce the well to the TLP.
They were responsible for both planning the pre-
completion/DST and the future completions from the TLP.
While the operator had personnel in its global staff who had
recently planned and executed DST’s in other parts of the
world, they could not be devoted to the Magnolia DST project
full time. The decision was made to utilize an engineer from
the DST equipment contractor to develop the procedures and
3
ensure the necessary equipment was supplied from the DST
contractors.
The design of the equipment for the pre-completion/DST
involved both temporary and permanent equipment that would
be placed in the well. The downhole completion would be
utilized to provide access to the reservoir and prevent sand
production both during the DST and ultimately later while
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
producing to the TLP. The lower completion had to
accommodate both the DST test string and the production
tubing string to be run later from the TLP.
The full time position of a DST planning engineer was
justified based on the large work load to plan the details of the
DST.2 This allowed the operator’s completion engineers to
fully plan the completion design and operations procedures.
The operator’s engineering and operations staff then reviewed
the proposed equipment lists and DST procedures to verify
they were acceptable. The planner worked full time on the
project for eight months prior to the start of operations.
The information to be obtained from the DST was to be used
to help better design the remaining completions, which were
to start approximately one year later. As such, the information
did not need to be obtained at the very start of the pre-drill
program. The schedule was adjusted to allow the test to be
conducted during the period of the year with the most
favorable weather conditions.3 The months of May and June
are the calmest months in the GOM. The risk of encountering
tropical storms increases beginning in July. The DST was
planned to begin in mid-late May and conclude in June to
avoid downtime and increased risk of environmental incidents
during hurricane season.
The primary governmental agency responsible for approving
the DST plan was the Minerals Management Service (MMS).
A series of meetings were held 6 months and 3 months in
advance of the planned start of operations to familarize both
the MMS district and region personnel with the proposed
operations. The second objective of the meetings was to
solicit guidance on information that should be included in the
required permitting documents to help ensure timely approval
of the plan. The required paperwork was submitted
approximately 6 weeks in advance of the start of operations
and no delays were encountered in the approval process.
A key part of the planning process was to solicit input from
the personnel that would conduct the actual operations.
Complete the Well On Paper (CWOP) exercises were held
with the rig crews and third party service hands assigned to the
project. Two sessions were held to involve all rig personnel.
Each session was two days long. Draft procedures, equipment
lists, and equipment load-out issues were reviewed during the
CWOP’s. The CWOP’s were held four and six weeks prior to
the start of operations. The CWOP’s achieved their desired
benefit of familiarizing the rig crews with planned operations,
validating and improving the draft procedures, and identifying
equipment needs and load-out issues.
4 SPE 90557
Another key issue that involved significant planning was oil
spill response. Due to the nature of producing the oil to the
drilling rig and then transferring it to the storage barge, three
parties were involved in oil spill response. The drilling
contractor was responsible for spill response due to spills from
the rig, the storage barge for spills from the barge, and the
operator had overall responsibility as leaseholder from the
government. An Oil Transfer Bridging Document was
developed which defined the sequence of steps and
responsibilities to allow tranfer of produced oil and water from
the rig to the storage barge. The document included a United
States Coast Guard (USCG) Declaration of Inspection that
ensured the required inspections were performed and deemed
acceptable prior to transferring any fluids. Both the drilling
rig and storage barge Person In Charge were to sign the
document prior to transferring any fluids. A simulated oil spill
drill was held on location to test response readiness prior to
beginning transfer operations.
In the event a small oil spill occurred, either the rig’s
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) or the
barge’s spill response plans would be utilized. In the event of
a larger spill, the operator’s oil spill response plan would be
utilized. This plan would make available Tier II and Tier III
oil spill response equipment.
In addition to environmental issues, significant time and
training was spent to ensure the operations would be
implemented in a safe manner. A behavioral based safety
program and an incentive bonus program were utilized for the
rig and service vendor personnel. Potential safety hazards and
mitigating solutions were identified during the CWOP
sessions and pre-job safety meetings. New hazards that would
be faced during the pre-completion/DST included working
with completion brines, perforating guns, pressurized lines and
vessels, and hazardous chemicals. The safety programs were
very successful in developing a culture where rig crews and
service vendors would bring forward unsafe observations and
recommend corrective actions.
Dynamic Positioning Issues
The industry has extensive, proven DST and well clean-up
experience with DP deepwater operations on a global basis.
However, DP DST and/or well clean-up experience in the
GOM has been limited to drillship-based activities where the
vessels have been designed to store produced liquids. The
Magnolia development presented a challenging first for the
GOM; conducting a DST operation on a DP positioned semi-
submersible rig with the additional challenge of
simultaneously exporting produced fluids to a storage barge
moored to the DP rig.
The Ensco 7500 had been in operation for two years prior to
the Magnolia pre-drilling program and was specifically
designed to operate in moderate weather environments such as
the GOM. The rig is a class DP-2 vessel with eight thrusters
and 100% redundancy in its positioning and power systems to
ensure high station-keeping reliability.
Contingency planning is required for operational problems
that may occur during deepwater DST and clean-up
operations, regardless of whether a DP or moored rig is used.
Performing deepwater well testing in DP mode requires
additional contingency plans to allow time to disconnect and
secure the well in case of an emergency.
The restrictions inherent to hydraulic control systems as a
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
result of water depth and umbilical length prevented a direct-
hydraulic controlled Subsea Test Tree (SSTT) system from
delivering the response time required for operations in the
water depth at the Magnolia field. An electro-hydraulic
system was chosen for the Magnolia DST. The field-proven
electro-hydraulic control system offered the rapid response
time required (<20 seconds) with a distinct advantage over a
hydraulic system for operating the SSTT. The system is depth
insensitive since an electric signal is used to activate the SSTT
functions. In addition to the electrical system, a direct
hydraulic override was available in the event of an electrical
system failure.
A critical aspect of the Magnolia DST planning process was to
develop a DST operational envelope specific to the Ensco
7500 rig. The envelope was based on the existing Ensco 7500
DP drilling envelope. A design basis was agreed upon to aid
in the development of the DST operational envelope. The
intent of the design basis was to provide guidelines on the
operating philosophy of performing the A2ST3BP1 well test
operation from a DP rig. The document further served as a
design basis for preparing procedures and documents related
to performing the well test operation.
The situations arising from loss of DP control may range from
a slowly deteriorating drift-off to an all out drive-off for a
period of time before the positioning system is shut down and
the vessel is transferred to manual control. The operator, well
test, and drilling contractor personnel worked closely together
to develop the DP well test operating envelope for the drilling
rig. Developing the operating envelope and associated
operational procedures required a clear understanding of the
rig and well test equipment such as riser and drill string
compensators, BOP configurations, SSTT and well control
issues and required sequence of operations.
Three factors were used to calculate the DP well test
operational envelope: SSTT response time, BOP disconnect
response time, and vessel drift analysis for the GB 783
location. The SSTT response time must be fast enough to
close its valves, disconnect from the lower test string, and be
picked up above the BOP stack. Adequate time to close the
blind shear rams and disconnect the lower marine riser
package (LMRP) is also required before the lower flex joint
reaches its maximum angle or the telescopic joint strokes out.
A conservative set of data was agreed upon and the watch
circles were developed from this data set. The revised “watch
circles” were only applicable for the duration of the well test
period. It was also noted that if conditions deteriorated
significantly, a status review would be performed onsite and
revised limits would be set if deemed necessary.
SPE 90557
Performing well testing in a DP mode has a unique risk due to
situations which could cause the rig to move away in an
uncontrolled manner from it’s desired position. The
conditions causing a position loss can be listed as follows:
• Drift off: due to power loss (generators and thrusters)
• Drive off: due to thruster’s control or reference error.
Both conditions are considered critical and can result in
disconnect of the SSTT (controlled or emergency shear)
followed by disconnect of the LMRP. The potential for these
conditions to occur required that contingency procedures be
developed and referenced within applicable documents (i.e.
test program, DP operations manual and rig contractor’s
operations manual). Well testing operations would be
terminated and the well secured if certain conditions exceeded
the agreed operating envelopes (i.e. adverse weather
conditions). Wind, wave, and current criteria were used to
establish alert zones and watch circles. Test operations would
be suspended and the well secured when at least one
parameter exceeded normal operating limits or the
consequences of a worst-case single failure would exceed
normal operating limits. Besides drive off and drift off
scenarios, the following conditions were also considered
critical for testing, although not directly related to DP
operations:
• Fire onboard
• Secure well prior to upcoming adverse weather
• Leak between SSTT and Surface Flow Tree
• Leak below SSTT
• Oil export and storage operational problems (loss of barge
positioning)
Some of the above conditions were covered with the standard
rig emergency preparedness procedures already in place on the
Ensco 7500 for drilling operations. However, specific
emergency preparedness procedures were required for the well
testing and oil export operations.
The emergency disconnect sequence was designed to be
initiated at the driller's panel, following direct communication
from the DP operator via audible and visual alarms which
warned personnel of the situation. The SSTT control system
was not interfaced with the rig’s BOP disconnect system.
Only reliable and well-proven equipment and technologies
should be used in well control systems. The BOP and SSTT
control systems were kept independent of each other with
procedures in place to ensure a coordinated emergency
response.
Color-coded “watch-circles” were developed for the well
testing operating envelope which included disconnect
sequences for the SSTT and LMRP (see Figure 4). Two key
variables in the watch circles are water depth and lower flex
joint angle (LFJA). Below is a summary of the “watch
circles” developed for the Ensco 7500 DP rig positioned at the
Garden Banks location:
5
Green zone – normal operating status:
A safe working envelope between 0 – 50 feet rig offset
(<0.61° LFJA). The DP system is operating normally with the
back-up system available.
Blue zone – degraded operational status:
Rig offset between 51 – 70 feet and/or LFJA exceeding 0.61°.
This is an advisory area indicating that disconnect limitations
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
are being approached. The well is shut-in at the SSTT,
however, the disconnect sequence is not activated yet.
Yellow zone – abnormal operational status:
Rig offset between 71 – 406 feet and/or LFJA exceeding
0.85°. This is a warning area which requires immediate action
including the controlled disconnect of the SSTT. The
disconnect of the SSTT must be performed prior to the LFJA
exceeding 3°. The abnormal operating status is under effect
during a black-out or loss of station keeping.
Red zone - emergency operational status:
Rig offset has approached 406 feet and/or LFJA exceeding 5°.
This watch circle signifies that station-keeping ability of the
DP system has been lost and that an immediate disconnect by
the driller of the LMRP from the BOP must be accomplished
in order to prevent damage to the wellhead, stack assembly,
and/or riser string.
A double-hulled barge was moored to the rig to store the fluids
produced during the DST. The bow of the barge was moored
to the port side of the Ensco 7500 rig using the hawser method
(see Figures 5 and 6). The hawser method uses a tugboat to
maintain the barge in position away from the rig by
connecting the hawser tugboat’s tow cable to the stern of the
barge and engaging its clutch to a sufficient level of power to
maintain barge position.
In the event of a drive-off or drift-off situation, it was
recognized that the barge would be able to maintain position
relative to the Ensco 7500 using the hawser method. The
contingency plan for barge positioning problems or fire related
problems in or on the fluid export package was the inclusion
of a rapid response mooring and oil export hose disconnection
system. This quick disconnect system was installed on both
the rig and barge ends of the mooring and oil export lines. It
was recognized that prematurely disconnecting the barge in
the event of a DP vessel excursion could create additional
hazards than if the barge remained attached to the rig. Any
situation or condition that would require an emergency barge
and rig disconnection would be dealt with under the
instruction of the persons in charge of the export operation.
Completion Design
The completion was designed as a single frac-pack completion
in the B25 reservoir. Completion operations commenced
immediately after drilling operations utilizing the Ensco 7500
rig. The completion operations sequence is summarized
below:
• Wellbore displacement
• Perforating
6 SPE 90557
• Frac-Packing
• DST Operations
• Temporary Abandonment
The first operation was to displace the synthetic oil based mud
(SOBM) from the wellbore with the completion brine.
Significant planning time was involved in designing the
wellbore displacement to minimize rig time and ensure that
the completion fluid cleanliness requirements were achieved
(<25 NTU’s). A detailed pit plan was prepared for the pit
system on the E7500 rig. The rig mud pit system had never
been utilized for completion brines, and was therefore
significantly contaminated with drilling mud solids. The pit
plan identified a cleaning sequence that would reduce the
cleaning time and minimize the possibility of brine
contamination. The displacement was planned as an indirect
displacement to seawater followed by 13.6 ppg CaCl2/CaBr2
completion brine. The displacement was divided into two
sections: the wellbore section below the subsea BOP package
and the marine riser section above the subsea BOP package.
After both sections were displaced with the cleaning pills
followed by seawater, the entire wellbore/riser section was
displaced to the completion brine in a continuous circulation.
The perforating design utilized tubing conveyed perforating
(TCP) guns to shoot the B-25 interval underbalanced followed
by a limited influx. The perforating charge performance was a
critical issue in this design. Big hole (BH) charges were
selected to enhance inflow area since this was a sand
controlled completion. However, the use of the heavy-walled
casing (low D/t) proved to be an issue regarding the
perforation entry-hole diameter (EHD). API RP 19B Section
1 testing was performed on various vendors gun systems. The
testing indicated that the heavy-wall casing drastically reduced
the measured EHD of the perforations compared to published
or simulated data. The gun system chosen had the charges
designed specifically for heavy-walled casing.
The workstring was selected based on suitability for both the
completion and DST operations. Various workstring
connection designs were evaluated before selecting the 4-1/2
inch, 16.60 ppf, S-135, XTM-50 and XTM-43 workstring.
The larger OD XTM-50 connector was run above the 8-1/16
inch production liner while the smaller OD XTM-43
connector was run inside the production liner. Both
connectors would provide a burst rating greater than the
15,000 psi required for the frac-packing operations.
Additionally, the XTM connectors contained a metal-to-metal
seal. The selection of a metal-to-metal seal connector was
deemed a functional requirement to minimize the possibility
of a leak during the well flowtest to surface.
The workstring connections were tested to ensure that they
met the service requirements from both a frac-packing and
DST perspective. A “combined load” test was performed on
each connection in tension and pressure tested with nitrogen
gas to 15,000 psi after nine make and breaks. Both connectors
successfully passed the tests and were considered qualified for
service.
Significant laboratory testing was performed on the
completion fluids, acid system, and frac fluids, which were all
designed to be hydrate inhibited. This was a functional
requirement since the DST string was not designed to have
chemical injection below the mudline. Due to the water depth
and thermal gradient, hydrates were identified as a flow
assurance issue to a depth of 4000 ft below the mudline.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
A variety of methods were considered for mitigating the risk
of hydrate formation upon flowback of the completion-related
fluids. The strategy developed in cooperation with flow
assurance personnel was to design all brine-based fluids to a
density equal to or heavier than 10.5 lbs/gallon. Brines of this
density or higher would have a chloride content high enough
to prevent hydrate formation at the anticipated temperatures
and pressures. This goal was achieved by weighting the
completion-related fluids with calcium chloride, calcium
bromide, or sodium bromide brine.
While the strategy was initially felt to be a simple design goal,
laboratory testing and optimization work proved that
additional attention was required to ensure fluid compatibility,
functionality, corrosion control, and other parameters. Some
of the issues encountered included:
• Variations in frac fluid rheology and other characteristics
when mixed with a higher density weighted base fluid.
• Formulating the frac fluid breaker system in a high
density completion brine.
• Ensuring acid effectiveness and corrosion inhibition.
• Optimizing polymer-based and other lost circulation
material (LCM) mixtures blended with high density
completion brine.
Each candidate fluid was prepared as needed to meet the 10.5
ppg criterion as described above, then tested in accordance
with applicable laboratory procedures to ensure it still met the
original functional requirements established for the
completion operation. Once satisfactory functional
performance with respect to completion objectives was
achieved, most of the candidate fluids were tested in a hydrate
test cell to ensure that they indeed did mitigate the formation
of hydrates under the defined conditions of 8000 psi and 40
degrees F.
Another requirement of the completion design was to
eliminate or minimize spotting any LCM pills subsequent to
the frac-packing operations and DST operations. The goal
was to minimize formation damage and clean-up time during
the DST. Based upon this requirement, a mechanical isolation
valve was evaluated to serve this purpose. Conceptually, the
valve would be used after the frac-packing operations to
isolate the formation from the wellbore above the gravel-pack
assembly once the service tool and washpipe were pulled. It
would also be used to isolate the formation while running the
DST string in the wellbore and after the DST string was
retrieved. Ideally, if designed properly with the completion
and DST configurations, no pills would need to be spotted
after the frac-packing and subsequent DST operations.
SPE 90557
The type of valve selected was the Formation Isolation Valve
(FIV). The FIV is an isolation ball valve which was
positioned below the circulating housing in the gravel-pack
assembly. The valve is opened and closed by a mechanical
shifting tool. The shifting tool was run on the end of the
washpipe during the frac-packing operations and closed the
FIV during the retrieval of the service tool. The function of
the FIV was to eliminate fluid losses after the frac-pack,
thereby eliminating the need for a fluid loss control pill.
DST String Design
The DST string was similar to conventional designs with the
exception of a few new concepts implemented to optimize the
DST operational efficiency. The functional objectives of the
DST string design were as follows:
• Single trip installation of the DST string consisting of the
downhole test tools, SSTT, and surface flow tree.
• Ability to pressure test all work string connections while
running in the well.
• Self-filling capability while running in the well.
• Provide a downhole shut-in method to isolate the
reservoir for a downhole pressure build-up.
• Provide a means of circulation / reverse circulation above
the closed tester valve with 100% redundancy.
• Provide downhole pressure / temperature memory gauges
below the tester valve.
• Provide a completion / DST tool interface to open and
close the formation isolation valve.
• No slip joints in the DST string design (potential leak
path).
• All tool connections to be gas tight premium connections
(no drill collars).
• No requirement for wireline or coil tubing intervention.
Traditional subsea DST operations generally require a space-
out (pipe trip) to determine the correct space-out of the DST
equipment inside the wellbore. A space-out run can be time
consuming and costly in deepwater applications. There are
three components that need to be accurately spaced-out to
function properly: the completion interface equipment, the
SSTT, and the surface flow tree. The completion interface
equipment must provide access to the lower completion. The
SSTT must be positioned properly inside the subsea BOP
stack to allow the pipe rams to close against the slick joint and
shear rams shear across the shear joint. Additionally, the
surface flow tree must be spaced-out correctly to provide the
proper stick-up above the rig floor. Spacing out all three
components in a single trip without a space-out run is
challenging, but it can be performed successfully with proper
planning and measurements.
A sealbore receptacle / seal assembly configuration was
designed to interface the DST string with the lower
completion equipment. This design allowed landing of the
DST string without performing a space-out run. A polish bore
receptacle (PBR) / seal assembly was run on the bottom of the
DST string and latched into the GP packer assembly (lower
completion). The configuration, shown in Figure 7, consisted
of an inner string w/ FIV shifting tool on bottom, anchor latch
7
seal assembly, PBR assembly, quick-latch mandrel, and the
well test seal assembly. The PBR/seal assembly was shear
pinned in the “stroked-out” position while running in the hole.
This assembly was run below the DST string assembly, which
contained the downhole test tools, subsea test tree, and surface
flow tree. A shifting tool on the bottom of the DST string was
utilized to shift open the formation isolation valve to regain
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
access to the formation. The assembly provided a ±15 ft
space-out window to account for workstring length
differences, thereby replacing slip joints which are typically
used in conventional DST operations.
The FIV and completion brine density served as well control
barriers while running the DST string. The gravel-pack
packer was utilized as the production packer during well
testing, in conjunction with a well test seal assembly. The
configuration allowed the lower completion to be isolated
until the DST string was stung into the sealbore and the
shifting tool opened the FIV. This design minimized fluid loss
to the formation and reduced the chances of formation damage
or a well control event.
It was critical to land the SSTT inside the BOP stack as shown
in Figure 8. Upon landing the SSTT on the wear bushing, the
bottom of the test string would be positioned within the ±15 ft
space-out window provided by the lower completion interface
equipment. The distance from the landing point of the SSTT
in the subsea wellhead to the pipe rams was verified by
measurements taken during installation of wear bushings and
testing of the subsea BOP stack. Repeat measurements taken
during these activities confirmed the dimension from the
landing point of the SSTT to the pipe rams, thereby
eliminating a dummy run of the SSTT.
The actual DST string installation was accomplished
successfully without any space-out runs. The lower
completion interface was installed within 1.5 ft of the
calculated depth and the subsea fluted hanger and ram closure
points were within ¼ inch of calculated depths. Overall, this
method was very successful in saving two round trips to the
subsea wellhead.
The FIV was utilized to isolate the lower completion from the
wellbore after the DST string was retrieved and the well was
temporarily abandoned. This eliminated the need for any
LCM pills and left the well in position upon re-entry to be
flowed back to the TLP with the completion already “cleaned-
up”.
Data Acquisition
The DST was conducted with real-time surface data acquistion
only. The surface process facility parameters were recorded
and analyzed with a proprietary system that allowed real time
monitoring of well and process performance. The surface data
acquisition package is a PC based data management system
designed for use on DST’s or well clean-up operations. The
system recorded data from multiple dedicated pressure,
temperature and flow rate sensors throughout the welltest
package. This allowed the test engineer to simultaneously
8 SPE 90557
perform multiple operations on the data, both real-time and
historic.
A real-time surface readout (SRO) system of downhole
pressure and temperature data was evaluated for use during the
DST. The SRO system utilized acoustic signals to transmit
information up the workstring from the bottom hole
transmitter through repeater subs located in the workstring to a
receiver located below the SSTT. The signal at this point
would be transferred to the SSTT electric control cable. A test
of the system in an onshore test well indicated that the
acoustic signals were greatly attenuated in the 4-1/2 inch XTM
tool joints. This thereby impeded the data from reliably
reaching the surface in a usable manner. Based upon the
testing results, SRO equipment was not used for this welltest.
A wireline SRO system was not chosen to avoid having
wireline in the hole during the flow periods or during the shut-
in periods.
One of the primary objectives of the well test operation was to
gain reservoir pressure build up data for the purpose of
pressure transient analysis. Eight non-volatile electronic
memory recorders were selected and incorporated in the DST
string design. All gauges were deployed below the tester
valve. One gauge was configured to allow for the continuous
monitoring of the annulus pressure with its primary function to
supply a source of data for potential trouble shooting of
equipment problems. The remaining electronic memory
recorders were configured to allow pressure and temperature
to be monitored at varying sample rates throughout the
operation. One of the functional requirements of the gauges
was that they needed to have sufficient memory and battery
life to last through the worst-case contingencies, such as
complications from environmental unplanned events that
could potentially leave the DST string at depth for a period of
up to 30 days.
Live fluid samples (2 x 600 cc) were required to be collected
from the well via sampling chambers run on slickline. The
samples were desired to validate previously collected MDT
wireline sample properties associated with flow assurance
predictions related to asphaltenes and wax/paraffin deposition.
The sampling program was based upon retrieving the samples
above the asphaltene flocculation pressure estimated to be
~7000 psia. The sampler activation timer was set to open 4
hours after the sampling chambers reached the downhole
target depth. Upon retrieval, the pressure compensated
chambers were reconditioned at reservoir temperature for 24
hours prior to transfer into the pressure compensated shipment
vessels at 1000 psia over reservoir pressure.
Surface Facility Design
The Ensco 7500, a 5th generation semi-submersible, contained
four large storage areas that were utilized to position the well
testing equipment. The rig had two large, 50 ft x 90 ft riser
decks in addition to two 50 ft x 110 ft pipe decks. The oil and
gas separation equipment was placed on the starboard side
riser deck and temporary storage tanks were placed on the port
side riser deck with a capacity of 1500 bbls. The subsea test
tree control spools, control cabin, methanol tanks, and steam
generator were placed on the starboard side pipe rack. The
port side pipe rack was used to store the various completion
hardware components and transportation baskets. The large
storage space of the rig helped to minimize movement of
equipment and allowed placing and hooking up equipment off
the critical path. Figure 9 shows the layout of the rig with the
separation and storage equipment placed on the rig.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
The DST planner helped to identify required rig modifications
to support the DST test package. The following modifications
were made to the rig to support the DST:
• Production standpipe in derrick
• Support base and guy wire attachment points for the flare
boom
• Electrical junction boxes and wiring for centrifugal
transfer pumps
The process flow was initially designed and constructed to
flow from the surface test tree through the following:
• Production choke manifold
• Heat exchanger
• First stage separator. 48 inch x 10 ft, 1440 psi rated,
operated at 700 psi
• Second stage separator, 54 inch x 12 ft, 720 psi rated,
operated at 300 psi
• 100 bbl surge tank, 150 psi rated, operated at atmospheric
pressure
• 2 centrifugal transfer pumps (15,000 BPD each)
• 4 inch oil and 4 inch water transfer lines
• 3 x 500 bbl storage tank
• 2 centrifugal transfer pumps (15,000 BPD each)
• 70 ft flare boom with gas lines from 1st and 2nd stage
separators and surge tank.
While the Ensco 7500 had large deck areas, the process
equipment and 3 x 500 bbl storage tanks filled both riser
decks. Computer aided drawings of the layout on the rig were
developed and discussed with rig personnel prior to the
CWOP’s. The piping between the different vessels in the
process area made it difficult to walk between the different
components. A late modification to the hook up identified on
the rig was to place grating above the piping as a walkway to
allow easy access and minimize trip hazards. Additional
lighting was also used in the process area to better illuminate
the gauges and sensors as well as allow quicker detection of
any leaks if they would develop.
The system was designed to process a maximum rate of
10,000 bpd. The system included methanol injection at the
subsea test tree to prevent hydrate occurances during any
planned or un-planned shut-ins. Process and instrument
drawings were also developed and reviewed with operator
facility personnel to ensure proper instrumentation was
included in the system.
Barge / Mooring System
MMS regulations for well testing in the Gulf of Mexico
SPE 90557
prohibit the burning of produced liquids and only allow the
flaring of gas with approval of a flare permit. The welltest
operation was challenged with designing a process system that
could export the produced liquids to an ocean-going barge
moored to a DP semi-submersible rig.
The barge vendor worked closely with the Magnolia team to
ensure that any issues with mooring the barge and storing of
produced liquids were properly addressed. A 24,000 bbl
capacity ocean-going double-hulled oil storage barge was
selected to store the produced oil and completion fluids. The
capacity of the barge was based on the well test objectives and
the worst-case estimated volume to clean up the well. Since
the produced gas would be flared, the barge was moored on
the opposite side of the rig from the flare boom. The rig
heading was selected to place the barge on the leeward side of
the rig and the flare boom was positioned down wind from the
prevailing weather.
Two 200 ft long, 4 inch floating nylon mooring hawser lines
connected the bow of the barge to the port side of the rig.
Floating mooring lines were selected to prevent the lines from
damaging the rig’s DP thrusters in the event that the barge or
rig released the mooring lines during an emergency
disconnect. The floating mooring lines were each fitted with
sufficent buoyancy to support the shackles on the quick
disconnection system. This method of mooring the barge to
the rig had the added benefit of allowing the rig to change its
heading if required due to changing metocean conditions.
A USCG approved oil transfer hose with a quick release
system was selected to transfer liquids from the rig to the
barge. Both ends of the transfer hose were equipped with a
dual barrier shut-off system. Additionally, the hose was fitted
with external buoyancy to prevent damage to the DP thrusters
in the event of a quick disconnect. The barge vendor prepared
a Magnolia specific barge mooring operations procedure as
well as their RCP (Responsible Carrier Program).
The well test flow back package was designed with three
stages of separation to optimize gas break-out. The separation
design was based upon delivering oil to the storage barge with
a Reid vapor pressure < 12 psi. The produced liquids were
directed from the welltest area to dedicated oil transfer storage
tanks. The fluid was then transferred to the oil storage barge
via high rate transfer pumps.
DST Execution
The issue of when to open the well was an item discussed
between the operator, the drilling contractor, and the welltest
company. There were no written policies within these
companies governing when the well could be unloaded,
although there was a historical unwritten rule of opening only
during daylight hours. After discussing the issue between the
parties and the operator’s management team, it was decided to
open the well so that the initial flow of hydrocarbons would
arrive at surface during daylight hours. Since the test string
was full of completion brine, this allowed opening the well
several hours prior to dawn but also prevented initially
opening the well late in the day. The decision not to allow
9
initial hydrocarbons to reach the rig at night was primarily due
to the risk of separation equipment upsets. These upsets could
result in oil carryover to the burner boom which might not be
visually detected and cause an oil spill or sheen.
The well testing operations began by displacing the workstring
with an underbalanced fluid to unload the well. This provided
~1500 psi underbalance to the formation. The well was ready
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
for flow at 1645 hours on June 16th, 2003. However, due to
the decision of not opening the well with initial hydrocarbons
at surface during darkness, the well remained shut-in until the
following morning. At 0300 hours on June 17th, the well was
opened to flow on a 10/64 inch choke. Choke sizes were
steadily increased to a 22/64 inch and first hydrocarbons
reached surface at 0713 hours. The well was initially flowed
back thru the surge tank and then directed to the intermediate
pressure separator when sufficent oil and gas were produced.
Shortly after the flowstream was diverted to the high-pressure
(HP) separator, a level control upset in the HP separator
caused a liquid carry-over problem and the well was shut-in.
The well test equipment facility was reconfigured to take the
HP separator out of the flowstream train to eliminate further
liquid carry-over issues related to the three-phase separators.
The surface facility and flare lines were cleaned and
reconfigured and the well was re-opened for flow at 0600
hours on June 19th. The well only flowed for less than two
hours before another liquid carry-over event occurred and
prompted the second unplanned shut-in. This carry-over event
occurred from the low- pressure separator.
The system was again cleaned and an additional surge tank
was installed downstream on the low-pressure separator to
serve as a slug catcher. The system now included a “slug
catcher” downstream of both the LP separator and surge tank.
The well was opened for the third time at 1730 hours on June
20th. The well was opened to a maximum choke setting of
24/64 inch and flowed at an average stabilized rate of 3700
BOPD. The well was temporarily choked back and
subsequently shut-in again after 6 hours of flow due to the
transfer pumps at the surge tank not working properly. The
transfer pumps were repaired and the well was brought back
online at 0350 hours on June 21st. The wellbore again was
ramped to a maximum choke setting of 32/64 inch and
produced at a constant rate of 7200 BOPD for 5 hours. The
well was shut-in again due to high oil storage tank levels. An
evaluation of the actual flow rates and flow periods indicated
that the majority of the well test objectives had been
accomplished and the well flow testing was then considered
complete. The wellbore remained shut-in downhole for an
additional 33.5 hours to obtain pressure transient data.
Concurrent with the downhole shut-in, fluid samplers were run
on slickline inside the DST string to recover pressurized
samples of the “live” oil located immediately above the tester
valve. The samples were successfully recovered at a pressure
above both the saturation pressure and asphaltene flocculation
pressure.
Overall, three unplanned shut-ins were performed on the well
during the well testing period, two of which were related to
liquid carry-over to the gas flare. Both carry-over volumes
10
were extremely small, however, these carry-over events
required the unplanned shut-in of the well and subsequent
cleaning of the flare lines. Post-event analysis determined that
the primary cause of the liquid carry-over events was related
to operating the separator liquid level too high when foaming
conditions were present. The processed fluid temperature and
low vessel operating pressure were favorable to create foam,
which pushed some liquid hydrocarbons into the gas line,
resulting in liquid carry over to the flare. Additionally, the
lack of “slug catchers” or knock-out vessels downstream of
the separators prevented the upset from being avoided. Future
operations should ensure that well test personnel are fully
familar with the produced fluid characteristics and ensure that
knock out vessels are utilized on all gas flare lines to prevent
liquid carry over.
The overall well test duration was shortened by problems
related to the oil transfer pumps. During the main high rate
flow period, it was noticed that the oil transfer export pumps
were unable to achieve a transfer rate greater than the well’s
flow rate. It became evident that the well test could not be
sustained at the current flow rate for an extended period of
time. The oil transfer pumps that were used were self-priming
centrifugal pumps designed to transfer liquids from the well
test area to the transfer area and then from the transfer area to
the barge. The centrifugal pumps were selected based on the
expected liquid content to be pumped (virtually dead crude
oil) and the pump rates required (10,000 BPD). However, the
maximum output of the transfer pumps during the well test
was only 7,000 BPD and a significant amount of cavitation
was experienced.
Post-job analysis indicated that the net positive suction head
availability (NPSHa) from the gravity feed of the produced
liquids from the storage tanks to the pump suction inlet did not
exceed the net positive suction head requirements (NPSHr) of
the pump. Additionally, the location of a sight glass system
inline with the pump suction line, contributed to the low
efficiency of the transfer pumps. The location of the sight
glass system created a vortex during the transfer operations,
which resulted in a vacuum being created on the suction side
of the pump, thereby allowing air to enter the system. Due to
the improper configuration of the transfer pump piping, the
centrifugal pumps could not deliver the required transfer rates
needed to continue the well test at rates above 7,000 BPD.
A summary of the key learnings related to the transfer package
design are listed below:
• Increase the NPSHa by reducing the suction line length
and friction.
• Increase the NPSHa by ensuring the well test process
system is effective in reducing the fluid vapor pressure
and temperature to as low as possible.
• Increase the NPSHa by utilizing vertical tanks to increase
the static head.
• Increase the NPSHa by ensure tanks/ vessels are fitted
with vortex breakers
SPE 90557
• Increase the NPSHa by ensuring the suction line is air-
tight (sight glasses not fitted to the suction line)
• Utilize a high volume double acting diaphram pump
instead of a centrifugal pump, if possible.
Prior to disassembling the surface facilities, the equipment and
lines were flushed with water to remove any hydrocarbons and
prevent potential spills. The fluids in the separators and surge
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
tanks were pumped to the 500 bbl storage tanks. Flanged
pump-in subs were attached to the end of the burner boom
lines and soapy water was pumped from the burner boom
through the process lines to each separator and surge tank.
This removed any oil from the lines and also the separators.
The soapy water and any residual oil was pumped to the 500
bbl storage tanks and then on to the storage barge. This
method worked well to clean the processing equipment of any
residual oil.
The flare boom deluge cooling spray system was designed on
the basis of a maxiumum 20 MMSCF/d flare. The well testing
vendor submitted the modeled gas flare simulation, which
included a radius of predicted heat loading expected on the rig
structure. The deluge system was designed to mitigate heat
radiation based on the flare simulation data. Based on the
initial radiant heat simulations, it was determined that the rig’s
starboard side salt water system would be sufficient to supply
an adequate water rate to keep the rig cool during maximum
flow rate. However, during the offshore trial of the flare
deluge cooling system prior to the well testing, it became
apparent that the system would not be sufficient to keep the rig
cool. Handrail deluge spray bars and additional spray heads
for the boom were required to increase the size of the water
spray curtain protecting the rig. Additonally, another water
supply line was routed from the port side salt water system to
increase the water supply rate. The modifications required to
the deluge cooling spray system indicated that the flare
simulations were not accurate. These simulations should be
closely reviewed with attention to the water supply volume
required to achieve the predicted heat radiation loadings.
Well Test Results
The pressure transient analysis yielded information regarding
the well productivity and the reservoir properties and
boundaries. The well continued to clean up during the flow
test, as indicated by lower skin values obtained after each
shut-in period. The well appeared to still be cleaning up
slightly at the end of the test, and was estimated to have a final
Darcy skin of +5.8, corresponding to a DPskin of 198 psi.
Further characterization of the completion efficiency was
performed through calculation of the reservoir normalized
perforation tunnel permeability ratio (kpt/kr).4 This analysis
indicated a kpt/kr value of approximately 5.0 at the end of the
test. This value, when compared to typical values of about 1.8
for this parameter, indicated that a clean, high quality
completion was achieved.
The pressure transient data yielded important information
about reservoir permeability and boundaries. The reservoir
permeability varied from the whole core predicted
permeability initially calculated for the well. This change in
SPE 90557
permeability will affect the overall development plan for the
field and completion designs. Also, reservoir boundaries were
identified by the pressure transient data which support the
geological model. Again, this information will affect the
overall development plan.
The completion itself performed exceptionally well and there
were no issues related to sand production. The gravel
selection and frac-pack were designed effectively to eliminate
sand production while still maintaining required well rates.
This was initially considered a large unknown due to the
highly laminated nature of the siltstone reservoir being
produced.
Well Abandonment
Upon the conclusion of the final well pressure buildup, the
downhole circulating valve was cycled to the open position
and the tubing contents were reverse circulated to the process
facility. The hydrocarbons in the test string were not
bullheaded back into the formation due to concern over
damaging the completion. The test string was picked up to
close the formation isolation valve, which was subsequently
tested to 1,000 psi. The well fluids were then conditioned and
the test string was pulled out of the hole. A retrievable bridge
plug was set ~200 ft below the top of the 8-1/16 inch
production liner and tested to 1,000 psi below the bridge plug
and 5,000 psi above the bridge plug. Inhibited brine was
spotted in the well and the work string was retrieved along
with the lockdown hanger wear bushing.
A shallow set 11-3/4 inch retrievable bridge plug was run,
however, it failed to test due to being improperly assembled
by the manufacturer and was retrieved. A second bridge plug
was run, however it failed to test to the required pressure. The
bridge plug was reset at 268 ft below the mud line, the riser
was displaced to seawater and 100 lbs of sand spotted on the
bridge plug. A 120 ft cement plug was set above the bridge
plug to provide an additional temporary abandonment barrier
in the well and treated seawater was spotted in the upper
casing and wellhead.
The workstring was retrieved, the BOP stack moved to the
next well and the ROV installed a corrosion cap on the subsea
wellhead, in which wellhead protection fluid was injected.
Total time on the well was 29 days for the completion and
DST operations .
Conclusions
Overall, the well test objectives for the A2ST3BP1 well were
achieved and operations were performed in a safe manner.
The information gained from the well test will be utilized to
improve the completion design on the batch completion
program scheduled to begin in late 2004. Additionally, the
reservoir information gained has been incorporated in the field
development planning and geological models.
Well testing from a DP vessel in a deepwater environment can
be performed safely and efficiently given sufficient planning
time. A person should be devoted full time to planning the
11
DST portion of the project to ensure proper attention to detail.
Advance planning meetings with the regulatory agencies as
well as multiple CWOP sessions with rig and third party
service personnel helped to improve the planning process.
Experienced facility engineers and operators should review the
proposed surface facility layout to help identify potential
problems.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021
HAZOP studies performed have concluded that DP well test
operations do not entail significant additional risk compared to
well testing from moored vessels. However, there are
significant differences in the operating envelope that must be
addressed. The well test operating envelope will be specific
for a given well test situation and is a function of the
following parameters:
• Rig’s LMRP operating envelope and response time
• SSTT response time
• Water depth
• Site environmental conditions (currents, winds, etc).
• Vessel drift characteristics
The interface between the lower completion and the DST
string is a key design point. Space-out trips can be eliminated
given proper design and recording of measurements. The use
of a mechanical isolation valve aided in well control and
eliminating the spotting of any lost circulation pills after the
frac-packing operations through the temporary abandonment
of the well.
Flow assurance in deepwater well testing is an issue which can
be addressed by designing the completion fluids and
stimulation fluids to be “hydrate free”. It was possible, with
additional planning and testing, to generate designs for all of
the completion-related fluids which inhibited the formation of
hydrates under the defined conditions. The well test data did
not indicate that the well performance was notably impaired,
leading to the conclusion that these non-standard fluid designs
were not significantly compromised (with respect to formation
damage) to meet the criterion.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy and The Expro Group for
permission to publish this paper. The authors would also like
to acknowledge the wide range of ConocoPhillips and service
company personnel who contributed significantly to the
success of this project. Cenac Towing Company Inc., Delmar
Systems Inc., Ensco Offshore Company, and Schlumberger
are especially recognized for their contributions to achieving
the goals of this unique project.
References
1. Barrilleaux, Mark,; Deegan, Jonathan; Walgura, Jason and
Walker, Gary; “Dynamically Positioned Completion Operations
Risk Analysis”, OTC 12953 presented at the 2001 Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 30-May 3, 2001.
2. Schuberth, P.C.; Garcia, E. M; Walker, M.W. and Akers, T.J.;
“Key Initiatives Improve Production Testing Performance,
Deepwater West Africa”, SPE 79813, presented at the 2003
12 SPE 90557

SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 19-21 February,

2003.

3. Schaugnessy, John, Carpenter, R. S., Coleman, R. A. and Jackson,

C. W.; “Successful Flow Testing of a Gas Reservoir in 3,500 ft
of Water”, SPE 20577, presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Conference, September 23-26, 1990.

4. Burton, R.C.; “Use of Perforation Tunnel Permeability to Assess

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

cased-Hole Gravel-Pack Performance”, SPE 59558 published in
SPE Drilling &Completion, Volume 14,Number 4, Decemeber
1999.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

Bbl x 1.589873*E – 01 = m3
Ft x 3.048*E – 01 =m
gal x 3.85 412 E – 03 = m3
in x 2.54*E + 00 = cm
milex 1.609 344*E + 00 = km
psi x 6.894757 E + 00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
SPE 90557 13

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

Lafayette
Lafayette
Houston
Houston

Magnolia
Magnolia

GOM, Garden Banks Area, 200 mi, 320 km, SE of

Houston. Water Depth: 4,700 ft 1,430 m

Figure 1 – Location map of the Magnolia Field

14 SPE 90557

GB 783 - A2 ST3
Temporary Abandonment Sketch - Final

Mudline @ =+/-4747' MD RKB

Corrosion cap on wellhead

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

11-3/4", 119.79 ppf HCQ-125 Riser
crossed over ±400' below mud line, 56.5 sks, Class H cement plug (16.4
9.656 ID, 9.500" drift ppg) spotted from 4827' MD - 4947' MD
10-3/4" Baker GT Plug (10k psi
rating) set at ~4997' MD w/ 20' of
sand on top

10-3/4", 64.00 ppf HCQ-

125 Tieback Casing
9.594" ID , 9.500" drift
W ellbore filled w/ 13.4 ppg CaBr2 inhibited
brine
10-3/4" TOL with TIW LTP-
20 liner top at ~12000' MD
(10940' TVD)

13 5/8" 88.2#, Q125, Boss @

12604' MD (11302' TVD)

8-1/16" Liner Top at ~15988' MD

(13708' TVD)
8-1/16" Baker GT Plug (10k psi
rating) set ~16,283' MD
10-3/4", 64.00 ppf HCQ-125 liner
set @ ~16364' MD (13500' TVD) 40 ft Polished Bore Receptacle
9.594" ID, 9.500" drift

Gravel-Pack Packer at 18235' MD

Formation Isolation Valve (FIV) at 18261' MD

- closed (6000 psi rating) w/ anchor latch seal
assembly landed in GP packer

Perforations from +/-18457' - 18835' MD

85 micron rated ExcelFlo Sand Screen
on 3-1/2", 9.20 ppf base pipe

8-1/16", 54.00 ppf L-80 liner set Sump packer

@ ~19368' MD (16719' TVD)
6.695" ID, 6.570" drift Updated 7/01/2003 - RJS

Figure 2 – Temporary Abandonment Sketch

SPE 90557 15

RHOB_Density
A2st3bp1 Completion Interval 1.65 2.65
NPOR_Neutron
0.6 0

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

Feet RES_Resistivity PHIEA
Gamma Ray 0.2 20 0.6 0
0 150 MD TVD

TOP B25 SAND

15900
18500

16000
18600

18700 16100

18800 16200

BASE B25 SAND

Figure 3 – A2ST3BP1 Log – B25 Sand

16 SPE 90557

ENSCO 7500 WELL TEST OPERATIONS ENVELOPE

50ft 50ft
70ft 70ft
5° 5°
406ft 406ft Surface tree Stick up Loss .85° .85°
Optimum Surface Tree
stick up 20ft from RKB .61° .61°

0.0ft - 0.26ft

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

0.26ft - 0.52ft
0.52ft - 17.76ft
17.76ft - 25.61ft

4746FT Normal Status (<1.06% WD)

Degraded Operational Status (>1.48% WD)
Abnormal Status (>2.59% WD)
Emergency Status (>8.65% WD)
Lower Riser Flex Joint Angle

Rig Offset

GREEN ZONE BLUE ZONE YELLOW ZONE RED ZONE

< .61 Deg. 0.61 Deg. - 0.85 Deg. 0.85 Deg. - 3.0 Deg.

Figure 4 – Operating Envelope for DP Well Test

SPE 90557 17

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

Flare Boom
>440 btu/h/ft2
Gas Flare Heat Radiation

AFT Mooring
Well Test Area

Oil Transfer Package

Hawser Tug
Cenac 24,000bbl Barge

FWD Mooring

FRAC BOAT (STB SIDE)

FWD
Prevailing Weather

Figure 5 – Barge / Tug Hook-Up Sketch

Figure 6 – Photo of Barge Hook-Up During Well Test

18 SPE 90557

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

Expro Lower Tubing Test Valve

Snap-Latch Assembly

DST Seal Assembly

PBR Quick-Latch Assembly

2-3/8” CS Hydril Pipe

40 ft PBR assembly

Anchor-Latch Assembly

Gravel-Pack packer set at

~18,250’ MD

Port closure sleeve

Seal assembly (GP packer)

Shifting Tool (FIV)

FIV shifting collet profile

Formation Isolation Valve

(FIV)

Figure 7 – Lower Completion Interface Equipment Figure 8 – BOP / SSTT Space-Out Schematic
SPE 90557 19

SSTT LANDING STRING

16
Barge Mooring lines Oil Transfer Hose Barge Mooring lines
DST BHA
18

9
9
20 19
19
7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/04ATCE/All-04ATCE/SPE-90557-MS/1863127/spe-90557-ms.pdf by Saint Francis University user on 29 January 2021

20 19

7500
ENSCO

H
1

4
17

14
SSTT LANDING STRING

15,000PSI FRAC LINE

16
DST BHA
18

20 19
19
7
20 19

15,000PSI FRAC LINE

3 2 1

EXPLODED VIEW OF TEST AREA 5

6
1

10
1
STARBOARD RISER DECK 1

4
13 12

FRAC HANGER
FRAC BOAT POSITION
ELECTRIC TRANSFER PUMPS - U-4 B60-B W/40HP ELECTRIC MOTOR @ (STARBOARD)
2150RPM 480 VOLT - 3 PHASE SIZE 3 STARTER
WELL TEST PRSSURISED LAB CABIN - 380-480v 3 phase 50/60hz RIG LAYOUT SHOWING WELL TEST AREA
STEAM GENERATOR 480v 3 phase
DST WORKSHOP 480v 3 phase

Figure 9 – Well Test Package Layout