WPC-20-2429 Troll Field - Completion Solutions Applied

20th World Petroleum Congress, Doha 2011
Forum 10: Drilling and completion technologies applied to challenging reservoirs
Troll Field - Completion Solutions Applied

Ms Linda Charlotte Berge, Statoil ASA, Norway
Abstract
The oil producing subsea wells on the Troll field offshore Norway have become more complex
with advancing technology. To maximise the drainage of the thin oil layer, horizontal precision
drilling in combination with multilateral technology have increased productivity in the wells. In
the lower completion swellable elastomer packers and inflow control devices in sand screens
delay gas breakthrough and water coning. Natural gas lift from the gas cap is used to lift the
wells. Two well branches in the reservoir can be shut in separately using flow control valves,
avoiding costly equipment and interventions. Several downhole gauges in the well contribute
to optimising production and oil recovery. A dual branch and dual zone hydraulically
controlled completion has been installed with pressure and temperature monitoring, and is the
most complex completion installed on the field. The well contains an additional hydraulic
controlled oil zone compared to current Troll completions. Today the wells are still complex,
but less hardware is installed. More zone control is the trend for future developments.
© World Petroleum Council

Introduction
The Troll field was discovered in 1979, and is located in the North Sea, 65 km off the
Norwegian west coast. It is a very large offshore gas field with 1309.0 billion Sm3 recoverable
gas reserves and 1.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. The field has a thin oil column in the
reservoir which varies in thickness over the three main structures; Troll East, Troll West Gas
Province and Troll West Oil Province (Figure 1). The reservoir is located at 1 360 meters
depth where the pressure is 139 bars and the temperature is 68°Celsius.
Figure 1 - Troll Field Structure
Recovery of the oil column in the Troll West Oil Province (TWOP) and Troll West Gas
Province (TWGP) was considered non-feasible with the technology that existed in the 1980’s.
i
Today the recovery factor is 47% for TWOP and 32% for TWGP .
The main challenges were
1. Thin layer of oil (22-26 meters in TWOP and 11-13 meters in TWGP)
2
2. Extensive area to drain (750 km )
3. Water depth (340 meters)
Conventional vertical wells in Troll West will not drain the thin layers efficiently due to
ii
expected gas breakthrough . The solution for commercial oil recovery from the thin oil column
was to drill long horizontal wells, exposing more reservoir meters per well. The typical
horizontal Troll well is 2000 meters long at the reservoir depth before drilling horizontally to a
target depth of 5-6000 meters measured depth. The first horizontal well on the Troll field was

1
drilled by Norsk Hydro in 1989. This well had a 502 meters long horizontal section and 496
meters open in the reservoir. The productivity index (PI) of this well was 40 times the PI of
iii
previously drilled vertical wells . The results proved that the oil part of the field was profitable
to develop, and the first subsea satellite wells were drilled in the TWOP.
Multilateral drilling was introduced in 1996. The advantage of a multilateral well is that they
allow for multiple branches to be drilled from a single main wellbore, eliminating the costs for
drilling the upper hole sections. A dual lateral costs only 30% more to drill than a single well.
The number of subsea structures is also reduced, thus further reducing costs of equipment
and maintenance. This resulted in further development of the field, and wells were drilled in
TWGP recovering oil economically from columns as thin as 8 meters.
The extensive area of Troll Oil could not be drained by drilling wells from a single platform
facility. Therefore all oil wells on Troll are subsea wells. The subsea field layout consist of 22
templates with four well slots each, one template with six slots, and 31 satellites with one well
slot each. The total of available slots or wells is 125. The subsea structures are connected to
surface platforms Troll B and Troll C. The oil is separated from the gas and sent to shore for
refining while the gas is sent to Troll A.
Drilling and Lower Completion

Reservoir drainage control is a key factor in maximising the oil recovery factor of the field. The
wells have to be placed strategically in the reservoir so that the oil is drained limiting water
coning or gas breakthrough. Using 4D seismic and a history matched simulation model in the
planning phase, the fluid contacts are determined. By active geo-steering of the wellpath after
resistivity measurements while drilling, the wellbore is placed about 0.5 meter above the oil-
water contact.
Multilateral drilling has been a key technology to successful recovery of oil on Troll. A total of
82 multilateral wells have been drilled with up to 7 branches. As much as 13 700 reservoir
meters from four completed branches (Figure 2), and reservoir sections of up to 5500 meters
in a single horizontal branch has been drilled in recent years. The standard wells on Troll
today have 2 or 3 horizontal branches of about 2-3000 meters reservoir exposure each. The
2
last 39 wells are completed as multilateral branches with TAML level 5, which means that
there is pressure integrity at the junction.
Figure 2 – Example of well O-14: Quad lateral with four branches completed
1
Merged with Statoil ASA in 2007
2
TAML®: Technology Advancement for Multi-Laterals

The lower completion on Troll is an open hole completion with sand screens. The robust sand
screens used on Troll are installed in over 5000 meter long reservoir sections. When the
horizontal branch is very long, there will be a frictional pressure loss along the wellbore from
the toe to the heel, causing most of the production to come from the heel. This means that
gas coning may occur in the heel and the well must be shut in, leaving un-drained oil left in
the toe. The sand screens on Troll have an inflow control device (ICD) which chokes the flow
and evens out the drawdown along the length of the wellbore, delaying gas breakthrough in
iv
the heel. To eliminate this effect as far as possible, an autonomous inflow control device
v
(AICD) has been developed and installed in three wells on Troll. The AICD is a valve
incorporated in the sand screen that chokes the flow of low-viscous gas and allows flow of oil
and water into the screen.
iv
Figure 3 - ICD in Sand Screen. Image extracted from SPE 100308
The Troll reservoir primary drive mechanism is gas and its expansion as the pressure is
depleted. Although the Sognefjord reservoir on Troll is fairly homogenous, it inhibits two types
of sands; the high permeability (1-10 Darcy) C-sands and the low to medium permeability (5-
600 mDarcy) M-sands. If the branch is drilled through both sands, the area with C-sand will
be produced while oil in the area with M-sand will remain. In the areas where the oil has been
drained, and gas has expanded it has been observed that the Gas-Oil contact and the Oil-
Water contact has moved, thus complicating the wellbore placement (Figure 4). If drilling
through these non-productive zones occur, and they will be sealed off using swellable
elastomer packers in the lower completion. The packers are made of natural rubber which
swells when exposed to hydrocarbon based fluid, creating an annular seal. In addition to
sealing off the non-productive zones, the packers are distributed along the well from heel to
toe to sweep zones with different permeabilities and reduce annular flow.

Figure 4 - Oil Water Contact movement in 31/2-M-24 Mainbore
Upper Completion
The upper completion solution on Troll has evolved from a basic production packer and
safety-valve (Figure 5) to an advanced intelligent completion solution (Figure 6). In this paper
an intelligent completion is defined by the ability to monitor and control the production from
more than one zone in the well. Since 2005, most of the wells installed have flow control
valves (FCVs) for controlling production from each branch, gas cap gas lift (GCGL) and
gauges for monitoring and controlling contribution from each branch or zone. The number of
functions in such a well is limited by number of hydraulic and electrical lines through packers
and tubing hanger.

Figure 5 - Example of the first completions on Troll - Well M-11 – July 2000
Figure 6 – Example of Completion Today on Troll - Well Y-23 July 2010

Gas Cap Gas Lift

The gas cap zone in the wells on Troll is used for artificially lifting the wells. Since the water
depth is relatively high, and the pressure in the reservoir is quite low, the wells are dependent
on a light hydrostatic column from subsea wellhead to platform topside at start up and when
the water cut increases. Previously, the wells have been displaced to nitrogen to lift the wells
for start up. An elegant solution to this is the natural gas cap gas lift concept. By using the
existing gas cap of the reservoir as “lifting gas”, considerable savings in topside and
downhole equipment have been made compared to using conventional gas lift or pumps.
A designated area is isolated with a packer element above and below the perforations. The
area in the gas zone is perforated with side-mounted guns, which are run as an integrated
part of the completion string. The gas will flow into the annulus between the packers, and a
hydraulic controlled gas lift valve with incorporated sand screen controls the inflow from the
gas area into the tubing. The gas will commingle with the production flow and lighten the
hydrostatic column of the well fluids and enable it to flow to the surface. Since the pressure
reduces along the column, the gas will expand and reduce the hydrostatic head further.
Flow Control Valves

Flow Control Valves (FCVs) are multiposition downhole valves or “sliding sleeves” which are
hydraulically controlled from surface. They can independently open and close to a main flow
from tubing side and the annular flow from the lateral branch. The FCVs have different
choking positions which are actively used in optimising production from the well. If one of the
branches is producing at a high gas oil ratio due to gas-coning, the valve controlling the flow
from this branch can be choked or closed. It can be re-opened at a later stage when the fluid
contacts have normalised and production can resume. This way costly intervention is avoided
and recovery is increased. FCVs improve productivity of the wells as each branch can be
cleaned up separately.
Downhole Gauges
Since 2007, pressure and temperature gauges have been commonly installed in Troll oil
wells. The gauges are monitoring the pressure and temperature in each of the branches. The
information gained from the gauges is used in modelling and simulating the behaviour of the
reservoir. It is also used to optimise production. As an example, a drop in temperature may
indicate gas break through, and the branch can be closed with the FCV.
Troll Standard Completion Today

The FCVs fit inside the screen liner, and the packer element used for isolating gas zone from
the oil producing branches is a seal stinger with a control line feed through feature that sting
into the lower completion bore and seals at the top of the liner (Figure 7). The gauge has
snorkel lines that monitor the pressures at snorkel inlet in the FCVs.

Figure 7 – Completion Solution Schematic - 2011

Case History
Well 31/2-M-24 is an oil producer with three branches where two of three are completed with
screens. When drilling the last casing section, a 16 meter oil column was penetrated, and
expectations for the reservoir drilling were high. When drilling the branches in the reservoir,
the column height decreased towards the toe, to great disappointment. The final result
comprised two rather short completed branches with 940 meters (Y1H T3) and 1100 meters
(Y3H) of productive intervals respectively. The thicker oil column outside the casing could not
be drained from the sand screens installed in the reservoir branches; it was outside the reach
of the drainage radius. The Petroleum Technology department requested the Drilling & Well
department to suggest a possible solution for recovery of that oil.
The challenges were sand control and skin damage in the additional oil zone, obtaining
sufficient drainage area, limitation of hydraulic lines/functions, and monitoring production from
the additional oil zone, which from here is called Oil zone 3.
The simplest solution with lowest installation cost would be to perforate the casing in Oil zone
3 and incorporate sand screen joints in the top completion. Due to risk of getting gas
breakthrough from this additional oil zone, this solution was not viable. The screen section
would have to be straddled off in such an event. This would require a costly intervention, as
all wells on Troll are drilled from semisubmersible drilling rigs. At the time, a new gas lift valve
was under development, based on the field proven FCV concept. The new gas lift valve
(GLV) was designed to be more robust, and it was suggested to use this new GLV as a valve
that produced oil. Simulations were run, and it showed that the new GLV was able to handle
liquid flow rates of 300-1500 bbls/day. The new GLV could be connected hydraulically as a
set of two without reducing the number of the FCVs and gauges already planned for M-24.
The ideal solution was to be able to independently control the valve in the gas zone and in Oil
zone 3. By combining the FCVs to a synchronised system requiring only one supply line to
shift both valve positions, a line to independently control the valve in Oil zone 3 became
available.
3
In order to expose sufficient drainage area in Oil zone 3, two sets of 7” perforation guns were
run to perforate a 20 meters long interval in the 10 ¾” casing. The area was scraped and
drifted to prevent burrs from damaging equipment passing the area at a later stage. The
depth control was crucial for production from Oil zone 3, as inaccuracies could cause
production from the gas or water zone.
The top completion was run. The first components were the two FCVs and a dual gauge for
controlling and monitoring the two branches with screens. A packer, which holds pressure in
30% worn casing, was placed above the FCVs to isolate lateral flow and perforations in Oil
zone 3. The GLV for oil production and a gauge to monitor the pressure and temperature in
Oil zone 3 was placed in the perforated area. Another packer to isolate the oil and the gas
zone, and side mounted guns with a GLV was used to enable gas cap gas lift. A multi feed
through production packer and a downhole safety valve was run before installing the tubing
hanger with penetration for four hydraulic lines and one electrical line. (Figure 8)
3 Tubing Conveyed Perforating (TCP) gun with steel charges. 12 shots per foot -135/45 degrees
phasing.

WH @ 387,1 m MD
7" 26# Tubing
DHSV
10 ¾” Liner Top PBR @ 2823,6 m

13 3/8" Casing Shoe @ 2883 MD
10 ¾” x 5 ½” Production Packer
Top Reservoir @ 3093,5 MD with 7 line feed through
Perforate 3120 – 3147 m MD SLS
SLS
Gas Zone Gas Zone
GOC @ 3160,5 m MD
Gauge for Monitoring
Oil Zone 3 (annulus)
Oil Zone 3 Oil Zone 3
SLS
Dual Gauge for Monitoring

Mainbore (Tubing) and
Lateral (annulus)
Oil Zone Lateral

Oil Zone Main
Figure 8 – Completion solution for Well M-24 with additional oil zone
The well was started up on 12.03.2010. Each branch and the additional oil zone were cleaned
up before testing the well. After one month there was no gas break through in either branch
Y2 or Y3, or in the additional oil zone. The pressure and temperature readings verified this.
The estimated contributions from each producing area were:
a) Y2: 42%
b) Y3: 56%
c) Oil zone 3: 2%.

Oil zone 3 is currently producing together with branch Y3, the lateral, and an accurate
contribution is not proven yet.
vi
Estimated oil rates from Oil zone 3:
•
3
Oil zone producing together with Y2 and Y3: ~ 176-220 bbls/day (28-35 Sm /d)
•
3
Oil zone producing alone: ~up to 792 bbls/day (126 Sm /d)
In addition to a good contribution to the production of the well, Troll has gained operational
experience with dual branch control valves, dual zone control valves and downhole gauges.
The case of well M-24 involved additional components and uncertainties with regards to
possible failures. The complex intelligent completion is vulnerable to equipment failures and
time consuming to install.
Lessons Learned and Future Work

The completion solution on Troll has evolved from single branch bores with sand screens to
multilateral gas lifted producers with branch control and pressure-temperature monitoring.
Zone control in the reservoir with ICD sand screens and swellable elastomer packers
minimise the local drawdown along the wellbore and prolongs well life. The current
multilateral system is limited to independently controlling two branches. The contribution from
each branch in the well is controlled via the FCVs and gauges. Intervention costs are reduced
when branches can be shut in independently.
The additional perforated zone in M-24 contributes to recovery, and the gauge monitoring
helps to improve understanding of production and reservoir behaviour. The contribution of Oil
zone 3 producing alone will be evaluated in the future when both branches are shut in.
Future work involves development and application of simple, robust technology for multi-
branch or multi zone control, and a combination of these.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to the Troll license: Statoil, Petoro, Norske Shell, Total E&P Norge and
ConocoPhillips Skandinavia for allowing this work to be published. The opinions expressed
are those of Statoil and may not represent the views of the other partners.
i
Madsen, T. and Abathi, M. “Handling the Thin Oil Zone on Troll”, OTC 17109, May 2005.
ii
Kossack, C. A., Kleppe, J. and Aasen, T.: “Oil Production Fro, the Troll Field: A Comparison of
nd
Horizontal and Vertical Wells” SPE 16869, Presented at the 62 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum engineers, Dallas TX, 27-30 September 1987.
iii
Hovland, S., Jones, C. and Whittle, T.: “Planning, Implementation, and Analysis of the First Troll
Horizontal Well Test”, SPE 20963 presented at Europec 90, The Hague, Netherlands, 22-24 October
1990.
iv
Henriksen, K. H., Gule, E. I. and Augustine, J.: ”Case Study: The Application of Inflow Control Devices
in the Troll Oil Field”, SPE 100308, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June 2006.
v
Mathiesen, V., Aakre, H., Werswick, B. and Elseth, G.:” Autonomous Valve, A Game Changer Of
Inflow Control In Horizontal Wells”, SPE 145737, presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 6–8 September 2011.
vi
Based on Statoil Production experience as of 14.04.2010

WPC-20-2429 Troll Field - Completion Solutions Applied

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WPC-20-2429 Troll Field - Completion Solutions Applied

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20th World Petroleum Congress, Doha 2011

Forum 10: Drilling and completion technologies applied to challenging reservoirs

Troll Field - Completion Solutions Applied

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 1 - Troll Field Structure

© World Petroleum Council

Drilling and Lower Completion

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 4 - Oil Water Contact movement in 31/2-M-24 Mainbore

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 6 – Example of Completion Today on Troll - Well Y-23 July 2010

© World Petroleum Council

Gas Cap Gas Lift

Flow Control Valves

Troll Standard Completion Today

© World Petroleum Council

Figure 7 – Completion Solution Schematic - 2011

© World Petroleum Council

© World Petroleum Council

10 ¾” Liner Top PBR @ 2823,6 m

Gas Zone Gas Zone

Oil Zone 3 Oil Zone 3

Dual Gauge for Monitoring

Oil Zone Lateral

© World Petroleum Council

Lessons Learned and Future Work

© World Petroleum Council

You might also like