SPE 100495
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023
Openhole Horizontal Completions in Niger Delta
J. Arukhe, SPE, and R. Senyk, SPE, Petro-Canada; N. Adaji, SPE, O. Adu, SPE, L. Nwoke, SPE, T. Adegborioye, SPE,
and V. Ogoke, SPE, Shell; P. Oyebanji, Canadian Sub-Surface; and J.L. Arellano, SPE, Petroleum Experts Inc.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific
Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 8–10 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Niger Delta is a highly activity region in open hole
applications. A wide variety of completion types have been
deployed in open hole in the region. A major challenge in
these completions is to deliver quality wells through the
choice of an optimal sand control system. A locally developed
database tracks the performance of the sand face completions,
their reliability, observed failures and their causes. The oil
reservoirs have used barefoot, standalone screens, slotted
liners, gravel packs and expandables while pre-drilled liners
have been used for borehole support. The expandable
technology is relatively the most recent technique but of the
three hundred and forty run so far globally as at September
2005, more than 3/4 has been deployed in Niger Delta alone.
For the non-associated gas reservoirs, most of which have
been conventional wells, based on fair understanding of the
risks and uncertainties associated with two main sand control
options namely, gravel packing and the expandable sand
screens, work has been done to show adequate demonstration
of the process of selection. This structured approach considers
design options based on several factors such as possible
problem with under-reaming relatively deep sections, previous
performance in the existing high rate gas wells, productivity
and better life cycle design perspectives. Within the Darcy
permeability regime of the sandstone gas reservoirs,
productivity with respect to horizontal versus conventional
completion was compared and a matrix capturing the risks
impact of a horizontal completion is attempted.
The work concludes by suggesting future concerns in open
hole horizontal sand control to include cost of installation
failure, accurate modelling upfront and remedial zone
isolation after gas/water breakthough
Introduction
Conventional wells have been applied to drain reservoirs in
Niger Delta extensively. In recent years, horizontal wells have
started to gain acceptance as a proven reservoir management
and well completion method. The major purpose of a
horizontal well is to enhance reservoir contact and thereby
enhance well productivity. Within the Niger Delta
environment, horizontal well completions have been widely
used with success. Productivity improvement factors
(compared to conventional wells) of two or higher is not
uncommon. Even in recovery by waterflooding, driving a
water front between two horizontal wells in a thin reservoir
may enhance oil recovery when compared to a waterflood
between vertical wells6. Field development plans for most
Niger Delta reservoirs that target thin oil rims overlain by gas
and underlain by an active aquifer, therefore now also rely
almost entirely on horizontal wells. Vertical wells are not
suited in this situation due to the rapid coning of water or gas
at reasonable production rates2. Horizontal wells, correctly
placed in the oil column lead to high flow rates with very little
drawdown. The small drawdown delays premature
breakdown of water or gas at flow rates much higher than
those possible from conventional vertical wells. Multilateral
wells drilled in the region have been mainly horizontal in the
drainhole sections. The purpose of this paper is to review sand
control systems in horizontal open hole applications in the
region. The Niger Delta is truly a high activity region in the
area and experience gained should provide a helpful baseline
in terms of expenditure and well productivity.
Well Designs
Inflow performance of a typical horizontal well has been
compared with a vertical inflow performance model (Fig. V).
This included sensitivities on various drain hole sizes, lengths
and other sand control systems to determine the optimum
horizontal length, drain hole size and sand face completion
type. The graphical plot of PI that can be obtained by using
different drain hole sizes and the type of sand control methods
at various drainhole lengths is shown. To prevent cusping,
drawdown was constrained at a fixed value. The optimum
horizontal length is shown to be about 2000 ft. Beyond this
length, incremental production is reduced for potentials up to
20,000 bopd. Shorter drainhole lengths appear to be enough
for lower potentials. For the same borehole size, the IPR/IPC
model shows that ESS gives better productivity than the
slotted liner due to increase in inflow area (Fig. VIII). Better
productivities are also seen for bigger borehole or drainhole
2 SPE 100495
size. Nevertheless in practice, it needs be determined if the
incremental oil will pay for the additional cost from an
increased hole size.
To make decisions on the correct completion type to select, it
is important to be aware of the many sand control issues and
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the systems available.
When it comes to selecting a sand face completion strategy,
several operators have a number of concerns. Primarily,
revenue (expected production rates) and expenditure (both
initial installation and also operational) considerations provide
an envelope of possible solutions. Installation costs include
the totality of well costs as the type of sand face completions
impacts on the hole size and drilling fluids used. A database
has been developed to help review trends, track reliability,
troubleshoot, benchmark, improve application efficiency and
guide research priorities1.
Current Practice
Sand face completions that have been applied in the Niger
Delta for conventional wells include: sand consolidation,
internal gravel packs, milled casing under-reamed gravel pack
and external gravel packs. Horizontal wells have generally
been completed with slotted liners, wire-wrap, premium
screens (standalone or gravel pack) or excluder screens. The
failure rate of projects using standalone screens in horizontal
wells has been considered in an earlier paper1. However, sand
quality makes a difference and a separate study has shown that
failure rate of horizontal standalone screens for example
decreases with improving sand quality and that properly
designed EGP and horizontal SAS placed in good sand can
have near zero mechanical skin and provide high reliability.
Good sand quality means uniformity coefficient (or D40/D90)
<5, D50 > 75 µm, fines < 5% net to gross > 90%. Detailed
analysis may be needed if net to gross is anywhere between
60% and 90%.
The flow distribution in horizontal wells designed to develop
thin oil columns could be impacted significantly by friction
losses in the wellbore. Friction losses results in a higher
drawdown at the heel as compared to the toe of the horizontal
well. This impact of friction is more pronounced in higher
permeability system and can lead to premature water or gas
breakthrough at the heel of the well in these systems produced
with low reservoir drawdown. Some other horizontal wells
have therefore been completed with extended tail pipe as an
extension of the tubing to about one third of the horizontal
drainage length. This is to move the high-pressure draw down
from the heel toward the toe. The tail pipe completion is
presently installed in B 53T (ST), B-73, B-04T (ST), B-34T
(ST) and B-44T. (Smart wells have interval control valves that
regulate drawdown intelligently).
The tail pipe completion has the following advantages:
• Reduces the possibility of gas/ water coning and sand
production due to less draw down particularly at the heel by
moving the high ΔP away from the OWC/GOC zone.
• Allows accelerated production and drainage of longer
horizontal section due to higher draw down limitation.
• Allows remedial action to control gas and water
coning by moving point of high draw down away from coning
point (by means of a hole punched towards the heel of the
well).
Several horizontal wells with ESS have been performed to
date. A number of open-hole horizontal gravel packs has also
been performed.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023
Use Standalone Screens or Gravel Pack?
The use of sand screens spans over a century in very many
industrial applications and is not limited to the Niger Delta.
Nevertheless from the prolific activity in this region, a wealth
of information has been developed here and certain practices,
consistent with standard industry practices have emerged
especially in gravel packing, wire-wrap type and expandable
sand screens.
The typical method to complete these wells (especially the oil
wells) is to install a bare production screen in the open hole
with or without gravel in annulus. Screens used by various
operators include pipe-based wire-wrapped screen, rod-based
wire-wrap screens (304 or 316 grade), pre-packed screens and
excluder screens. Slotted liners cut in parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the pipe in a uniform pattern around the
circumference of the liner theoretically have a small area open
to flow (5%). Most of these have been applied in wells with
variable success. Experience seem to support that in shaly,
laminated and fine-grained unconsolidated formations such as
is prevalent in the Niger Delta, a rapid productivity decline
may take place, most probably as a result of screen plugging
by fines. From a particle sand distribution of sand grains or
sieve analysis, the choice of whether to use a particular type of
standalone screens or gravel pack could be made. Guidelines
may also be developed from the LWD logging parameters.
From these, gravel packing may be recommended or not. The
GR count and porosity are often suitable indicators for this.
Higher GR reading, higher Sw, low porosities indicate much
fines / clay content of sands. Long sections of standalone
screens in this environment can be severely or totally plugged
leading to sharp productivity or PI decline. Gravel packing is
preferred to standalone screens in this situation. High annular
to screen base pipe ratios have also been shown to promote
problems in terms of fines movement and therefore erosion
and fines production. From sand distribution data, if - the
average uniformity co-efficient (D40/D90) is > 5, and fines >
5% gravel packing is recommended; if uniformity coefficient
(or D40/D90) is < 5 standalone screen is recommended7.
Gravel Packing
Field trials and laboratory work show that this process of fines
plugging can be reduced, delayed or stabilized by placing
gravel around the well screen. Open hole gravel packs have
been performed on both conventional wells and horizontal
wells in the Niger Delta.
Most gas wells have been designed as high capacity long
lasting gas wells and have been conventional to sub-
horizontal. So far the need for horizontal gas development
wells has not been identified due partly to the relatively high
permeability of the sands which mask any increments seen
SPE 100495
from horizontal models (Fig. 7). The target rates of 100 – 150
MMscf have been attained by existing conventional NAG
wells in the region. Horizontal gas development wells are
possible but also challenging because of the sand exclusion
(OHGP) requirements and possible hot spotting from annular
clearance which may result from a standalone screen/hole
space. The risks of penalties from a contractual failure in gas
supply have also driven the need to deploy proven, reliable
sand exclusion techniques in gas wells in the Niger Delta.
EGP’s have proved reliable as sand control means to ensure
steady gas production over time. Sand control on most gas
wells has therefore been done using External gravel packs
(EGP) traditionally or intentionally. Early observed 7”
standalone screen (liner) failures due to excessive drawdown
caused by a limited screen area were remedied by considering
their re-completion with EGPs and premium screens. Under-
reaming the reservoir section further increased the inflow area,
and thus well performance of the EGP. Under reaming also
increased the chances of having a good gravel pack. Reservoir
sections that were under-reamed and gravel packed were up to
150 ft AH in some cases. Target under-reamed OH diameter is
typically 17 ½”. This diameter is often however not reached
in most of the cases. The gravel size most commonly used is
20/40. Attempts have been made to carry out BHP to re-
assess the draw down across the completions in most of the
gas wells but there were some operational problems (loss of
survey tools with prolonged fishing), which led to the testing
and survey campaign being aborted. Nevertheless, further
multi-rate testing and BHP surveys are planned. So far EGP
has been reliable within the draw down limits imposed on the
completions. There are sand probes on many of the gas wells,
flow lines, at the wellhead and at the inlet manifold to the gas
plant. Also some of the wells are equipped with sand filters,
on the test manifold. No erosion has been noticed due to sand
problem so far.
Oil wells drilled have been conventional, vertical or slightly
deviated. Dual completions have been used to effectively
drain stacked reservoirs. Recently, thin (<50 ft) oil rim
development has been done with horizontal wells successfully.
Thus, horizontal open hole gravel pack was introduced in
order to try to improve the long term production performance
in lesser quality reservoirs. To date, some OHzGPs have been
performed in this region with water packing. The wells were
drilled with water based DIF and out of gauge sections were
not expected as reservoirs encountered recorded high net to
gross (>0.90). Industry wide data reveals that water packing
generally carries a large degree of risk associated with
attaining a 100% pack due to its requirement of a stable and
low permeability filter cake to maintain an equivalent gravel
pack height and three of the “not-too-successful” jobs and
likely causes of the failure have been examined1. One operator
and Service Company have used secondary slurry flow path
technology to successfully gravel pack some horizontal
openhole completions where reactive shale have caused
problems in the past4.
OHGPs have been challenged on grounds that ESS would lead
to 1. Lower costs through ability to drill and complete slimmer
boreholes (implying cheaper completions, cheaper well
3
repairs), reduce steel volume, run smaller rigs, 2. Adding
value through improving production, reaching inaccessible
reservoirs, reduce skin, efficient resource development, 3.
Enhancing reputation by improved safety, reduced waste and
landtake.
Expandable Sand Screens (ESS)
The Expandable sand screen technology was developed to
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023
solve some of the problems associated with other screens
while maintaining excellent hardware reliability, enhanced
production and large well bore access for future interventions.
It consists of a base pipe, filtration medium, outer protection
shroud and an integral expandable connector. The slotted base
pipe can be expanded up to 80% in diameter depending on the
type of pipe selected. The joints have integral connectors
made of super Duplex Stainless steel to provide high tensile
and bending strength. The ESS filter medium, petroweave is
made up of 316L and Nickel Alloy (825) to provide maximum
filtration and reduce plugging tendency. The petroweave is
attached to the base pipe such that integrity and uniformity of
the sand exclusion apertures are provided. The filters overlap
each other while along the length of the base pipe and
accommodate the circumference increase after expansion
while remaining sand tight. The outer protection shroud
ensures the filter medium is undamaged when running the
screens in hole. It also ensures that the filter media remain
tightly packed together after expansion8. ESS does not have
much historical performance record in high rate gas wells
here. Other jobs with ESS in oil wells have been simple to
challenging completions with simple to challenging logistics,
less rig time and less safety hazards leading to improved
economics. From the jobs performed, although no serious
fluid compatibility problem has been reported, the results from
compliant ESS (100%) expansion performance have been
superior to non compliant (92%). As a result of its small
running diameter and large final inside diameter (ID) the ESS
has been particularly applicable to situations where reductions
in final ID must be avoided such as in sidetracks and
workovers. Incremental rates of 60-99% more than predicted
rates have been reported in ESS completed sidetracks.3 The
experience with ESS from jobs executed so far, agrees that
hole quality, well trajectory for deployment and expansion,
weave and mud selection, borehole/ESS stability, metallurgy,
erosion, final clean up and bean and zonal isolation are key
design aspects. Other learning points – permanent downhole
gauges helped track bottom hole pressure behavior and
gradual bean up of well reduces probability of sand
production. Higher well production capacity and improved
well economics imply that well slimming is possible.
Nevertheless, as the oldest ESS completed wells is +6 years,
longer-term reliability (>10 years) remains to be seen.
Time and Cost Benchmarking
It is difficult to assess the relative performance of individual
completion types based on the sand control types installed in
the wells as there are several possible factors influencing this
at any given time. For conventional gas wells, the mode
appears to be gravel packing rather than the standalone screens
due to sand control reliability issues. Time and cost
benchmarking needs to be done for a particular project and
4 SPE 100495
would give different outcomes depending on well location, rig
rates, material (e.g. gravel) requirement, screens deployed,
rentals, chemicals, equipment and personnel requirement.
ESS and slotted liner delivery times with NPT have been
engineered for a Field Development project and typical results
show gradual improvements resulted in both ESS and slotted
liner deployments as the project moved from one phase to
another. Overall, the results posted 4.98 hours/1000 ft of ESS
deployed against 1.78 hours/1000 ft of 4 ½” slotted liner run
(Fig. III). Typically, the performance of each phase of the
project is benchmarked against the existing AFE and a new
stretch target is set for a new AFE. This process has helped to
improve subsequent operations and overall completion service
quality. Offshore, the majority of deviated wells have been
sub-optimal candidates for frac and pack due to non-aligned
azimuth, high angle and high interval length, leaving
opportunities to complete as EGPs as well as providing
benefits of ease of operations, low skin, high reliability and
potential risked saving of almost $2 MM per well. In reality,
permeabilities may exceed expected for frac and packs. Post
job evaluations of the frac and pack jobs have identified low
frac fluid efficiencies, possible impact from stress orientation
and the need for higher than available pump rates as possible
issues to be optimized. For successful frac and pack, frac
margins and minimum mud weights for hole stability must be
determined. Shunts also helped in most frac and pack jobs.
Concerns / Challenges
Major concerns from all the open hole completions so far have
generally fallen under the following broad issues for
conventional and horizontal completions:
Conventional Wells
• EGP failures.
• Productivity reduction for EGP
• Observed large draw down for some EGPs
• Gravel sizing for EGP’s
• Barefoot completion for Conventional wells
Horizontal Wells
• Have seen sand failure in some wells with SAS -
slotted liner, wire-wraps, excluders & ESS and beaned down.
Cumulative effect of small sand production from individual
wells on surface facility is a concern.
• Maximum/optimum length of horizontal well –
dynamic simulation model could help confirm the possible
off-take rates from the wells to ensure delay in water
breakthrough.
• Cost of ESS and modelling upfront to investigate PI
increase. Face value ESS cost of $850 - $950 / ft may initially
be considered quite high compared with OHGP which costs
$520 - $600 / ft. Costs-benefit analysis can determine if
incremental gains will more than pay for any incremental job
cost.
• Optimal clean up techniques for each sand face
completion type. Proper stimulation and near wellbore
formation cleanup procedure needs to be critically reviewed as
the damage zone can significantly reduce the productivity of a
horizontal well. Research is also needed to develop an oil
based gravel pack fluid.
• Effectiveness and reliability of ESS for high rate
production (e.g. 20,000 bopd and 200 MMscf/d)
• Possibility of commingling production from some of
the zones (Geochemical methods demonstrate that finger
printing can allow for production allocation)
• Repairing failed horizontal screens by TT ESS
installations in horizontal and conventional wells i.e. is a
hybrid ESS/SL or SL as back up in case the ESS plugs up
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023
possible?
Conclusion
The most common horizontal well formations subject to
completions in the Niger Delta appear to be matrix dominated
systems and formations bounded by gas cap, aquifer or both.
Careful candidate selection and detailed pre-job analysis are
crucial to successful deployment of a completion type. In
design and planning stages, carefully evaluating analogs to
verify and quantify risks is important and has paid several
dividends. Screen running may not be smooth, geologic
uncertainties may exist moving away from control. Logistics,
brine capacity and filtration could present as issues on actual
execution. All these experiences lead to the need to consider
rock and formation type, drilling method (short radius,
medium or long radius well), drilling fluid / mud clean up,
stimulation requirements, production mechanism requirements
(bottom drive, enhanced recovery by water, etc), workover
requirements, etc. before selecting an appropriate completion
scheme. Engineers can use data captured in a sand control
database to review trends, identify solutions or help select
more effective and productive sand control systems.
High rate gas wells have typically been conventional
completions with EGP installed in the sand face. These
completions have proven reliable as many wells are still
flowing after more than 10 years of history in many cases
without a workover. Recently, ESS has been proposed as
alternative to EGP especially for deep completions where
under-reaming may be a challenge. It must be stated that in
choosing a particular completion type, a structured approach
involving challenge, completion selection matrix have proved
useful in many instances.
Offshore, non-aligned azimuth, high angle and high interval
length could make a majority of deviated wells sub-optimal
candidates for frac and pack, leaving opportunities to complete
as EGPs or ESS as well as providing benefits of ease of
operations, low skin, high reliability and potential risked
saving of at least $2 MM per well. In reality, permeabilities
may exceed those expected for frac and packs. Possible issues
to be optimized for frac and packs, from post job reviews
include low frac fluid efficiencies, possible impact from stress
orientation and the need for higher than available pump rates.
Therefore for successful frac and pack, frac margins and
minimum mud weights for hole stability must be determined.
Shunts have also helped in most frac and pack jobs.
If sand quality is good, field experience suggests that openhole
standalone screens may be a good choice, yielding ease of
operations as benefits plus a potential risked saving of at least
SPE 100495 5

$1MM per well. If sand quality is poor or not confirmed, TRSCSSSV = Tubing Retrievable Surface Control, Sub-
horizontal gravel pack is advised. Surface Safety Valve
WWS = Wirewrap Screen
From a risked cost analysis for openhole horizontal wells, ΔP = Drawdown, difference between reservoir pressure and
completion with high sand control reliability, high probability wellbore flowing pressure
of installation success and low cost should be selected. The
importance of a database to track the performance of the sand References:
face completions, their reliability, observed failures and their 1.Arukhe, J, et al., “Horizontal Screen Failures in Unconsolidated,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

causes cannot be over-emphasized. High-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Reversing the Trend”
paper SPE 97299, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A, 9-12 October 2005.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the SIEP Technology and Research team 2. Arukhe, J. “Sand Control Report for Gbaran Node”, (Gbaran Node
including Ms Jackie LaFontaine, Tony Bernadi and George Integrated Oil and Gas Project), DPE /2003/RPT/05
Wong for their encouragement. The advice of Don Sitton and
David Mason (SIEP) are also acknowledged 3. Oluwatosin, A.O., Adegborioye, A.M. and Anya, S.O. “Reducing
Well Delivery Unit Technical Cost Using Expandable Sand Screens
Nomenclature (ESS) With Medium Radius Technology On Sidetrack Wells, paper
Sw = water saturation SPE 84160 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
PI = Productivity Index Exhibition, Denver, October 2003.
UC = D40/D90 = Uniformity Co-efficient
4. Dickerson, Rick. C et al. “Horizontal Openhole Gravel Packing
OHzGP/OHGP = Open Hole Horizontal Gravel Pack with Reactive Shale Present – A Nigeria Case History”, paper SPE
AFE = Authorization for Expenditure 84164 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
AH = Along hole Exhibition, Denver, October 2003
BHP = Bottom hole pressure
bopd = Barrels of oil per day 5. Drilling / Well Engineering Documentation (DED) EP 2000-5775
CaCO3 = Calcium Carbonate ECCN: EAR99, Copyright 2001 SIEP B.V, CD ROM, version 5.0,
Cr = Chrome January 2001
CT = Coiled Tubing
D50 = D50 - formation grain size which passes 50% of 6. AL-Jandal, A.A., Farooqui, M.A, “Use of Short Radius Horizontal
Recompletions to Recover Un-Swept Oil in a Maturing Giant Field”,
material paper SPE 68128 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show ,
DIF = Drill In Fluid Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
EGP = External Gravel Pack
ESS = Expandable Sand Screen 7. Bennett, C. et al, “Design Methodology for Selection of Horizontal
Ft = Feet Open-Hole Sand Control Completions Supported by Field Case
GOC = Gas Oil Contact Histories”, paper 65140 presented at the SPE European Petroleum
GR = Gamma Ray log Conference, Paris, France, 24-25 October, 2000
ID = Internal Diameter
IGP = Internal Gravel Pack 8. Expandable Technology Guide.
Kg = Kilogram 9. Jones C. et al, “Expandable Sand Screens Selection, Performance
LWD = Logging while drilling and Reliability: a Review of the First 340 Installations”, paper 97282
MM = Million presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
MMscf/d = Million standard cubic feet per day Conference, Dubai, UAE, 12-14 September, 2005
N/G = Net to gross
NRV = Non-return valve Metric Conversion Factors
OD = Outside Diameter bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m3
OWC = Oil Water Contact ft x 3.048* E-01 =m
PAT = Profit After Tax ft3 x 2.831685 E-02 = m3
PV = Present Value (0F – 32) x 5/9 E+00 = 0C
gal x 3.785412 E-01 = m3
QA = Quality Assurance gal x 9.311 E+01 = SCF of N2
QC =Quality Control in x 2.54* E-02 =m
RMA = Regular Mud Acid lbf x 4.448222 E+00 =N
SAS = Stand alone screen lbm x 4.535924 E-01 = kg
SL = Slotted liner psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
ST = Side track
*Conversion factor is exact
6 SPE 100495

Fig. I

3500 Oil Production Plot - G-53T

3000

Gross Rate (blpd)

2500

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

2000

1500

1000

500

0
3

3
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
1

4
/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0
02

09

16

23

30

06

13

20

27

06

13

20

27

03

10
Date (dd/m n/yr)

Fig. II

Sand Production Plot - G-53T

Sand (pptb)

2
1
0
02/01/2

16/01/2

30/01/2

13/02/2

27/02/2

13/03/2

27/03/2

10/04/2
Date (dd/m n/yr)

Fig. III Fig. IV

Sl ot t ed Li ner Compl et i on T i mes ( 7 Wel l s)

NPT ESS Completion Times (3 Wells) - Corrected
( P U Lin er t o M U
3% RIH ESS & MU Hanger
ha n ger ) Phase I
NPT
Phase I 9% 14%
41%

RIH ESS & set Hanger

Phase II
12% Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
NPT

Phase I

R I H & S et Phase I

H an ger NPT Expand ESS

Phase III Phase III

69%
54%
SPE 100495 7

Table I

Pros and Cons of Options

Type Pros Cons
Simplest, low cost, good No sand control (rate constraint),

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

Barefoot
SC: Rate, Filter: None productivity, easier to concern with shut downs/Bean ups
analyze production log
Slotted liner Simple completion, good No profile control, limited sand control,
liner only productivity (kh and low skin) Concern with shut-down & re-start, not
SC: Mech, Use for unconsolidated sand except
Filter: Liner heavy/ viscous oil

Other Screen only Simple, low cost, sand control, Difficult profile control, limited to
SC: Mech, good productivity Homogeneous sand, screen plugging,
Filter: Screen concern with shut-downs/Bean-ups,
High draw down
ESS Larger screen ID, better inflow Screen collapse, cost
profile and future work over
access, good productivity
GP (EGP or OHzGP) using “better” sand control and inflow Shale intervals (no β, shale collapse
brine (alpha-beta waves) profile. Less sensitive to shut- leading to early sand out), need sufficient
SC:Mech, downs / bean ups return rate, limited by frac gradient & ECD.
Filter: Gravel / Screen Clean-up with synthetic DIF?
GP with shunt tubes Squeeze mode not affected by High cost, shale smearing and screen
(with viscous fluid) Return rate, faster completion, Plugging while pumping
sand control
8 SPE 100495

Chart I

Openhole Horizontal Completions for Niger Delta Producers

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

Screen only Expandable Openhole GP
with swell Screens
packers

Oil based fluid Water based fluid Oil based fluid

Water based
With alpha-beta with alpha-beta with shunts
fluid with shunts
wave wave

Water based
DIF

further research required

Openhole GP Openhole GP SAS

Water based fluid

with alpha-beta Water based fluid
wave with shunts

Fig. V
SPE 100495 9

Completion Types (Horizontal Wells)

STATUS :- COMPLETION STATUS DIAGRAM FOR G –15
STATUS :- FINAL COMPLETION DIAGRAM WELL : G-20ST

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

STATUS

Slotted liner
D1.3 SQZ’D OFF
PERF.
ESS
12

Potential: 2,000 bopd

EOB 10290 ftah

4 ½” B/Liner 4 ½” ECP Assembly 4 “ ESS across the drain hole

(Inflated) (Expanded to 6.05”)

D1.3D SAND

21 22

LOG: Drawn by: TD = 7,809 ftah AUTHOR: Approved BY: DATE: April 1, 2003
LOGS : TD = 10830 ft ah AUTHOR:

ACTUAL STATUS DIAGRAM FOR G 53 COMPLETION

STATUS CASING WELLHEAD

SIZE (inches) GRADE WT.(PPL) DEPTH (FT) TOP OF CEMENT SG ITEM SIZE(INS) WP (PSI)
TYPE
1
24 J55 87.5 301 DRIVEN X-MAS TREE 11” X 4-1/16” W/CLP 5000
DCB KSBT-9L 9-5/8” X11” X 5k 5000
2
9-5/8 N-80 47 6,010 Cemented to surface 1.9 HANGER “H” BPVG 11” X3-1/2” X 5k 5000
3
7 N-80 29 7,350 6,100 ftah 1.9 (3-1/2“HCS btm X 3-1/2” acme lift thread top)
4 5
WRS 8,600 - 9,600 Hung-off w/Top pkkr assy
6 __ 4”
7
8
9
10
TUBING DEVIATION HOLE (FT) OPEN HOLE PLUGS ACTIVITY WT. (psi) RESERVOIR DATE

SIZE WT GRADE TYPE 90 deg 12-1/4 NIL DRILLING NONE 05/04/02

11 3-1/2 12.75 N80 HCS 8-1/2 DRILLING 0.48
RT to Top of X-Tree: 6 DRILLING 0.48 D6.2 18/04/02
Gaslift KCl BRINE 0.48
DFE wrt DCB : 26.60 ANNULUS CONTENT:
Mandrels
DESCRIPTION
1730, 2759,
HCS 3461, 3902, VERTICAL & BUILD-UP SECTION COMPONENTS BUILD-UP & HORIZONTAL SECTION
COMPONENTS
4516.
12

ITEM NO DEPTH OD ID ITEM NO DESCRIPTION DEPTH OD ID

1 TUBING HANGER 26.60 11.00 3.95 19 3 1/2” HCS pup joint 8261 3.92 2.92
2 HANGER NIPPLE 27.40 3.92 2.92 20 S-22 Tbg Locator 8271 4.25 3.00
13
3 4jts of Production Tubing 3 1/2” HCS, N80, 9.3# 37 3.92 2.92 21 7” SC-1R GP Packer w/ 51/2 SLHT box 8273 6.00 4.00
4 Pup Joint 3-1/2” HCS box x pin 130 3.92 2.92 22 Seal assembly, size 80-40 w/3-1/2” HCS 8271 5.00 4.25
5 TRSCSSSV Control Line 23 3 1/2” HCS pup joint 8280 3.92 2.92
14
6 Flow Coupling 3 1/2” HCS 149 3.92 2.92 24 Otis ‘XN’ Nipple 3 1/2” HCS (+/- 78 Deg.) 8289 3.94 2.75
7 3-1/2” TRSCSSSV, Baker Mod. TE 5” 143 5.00 2.81 25 Cross Over 3-1/2” HCS b x Acme p 8290 3.92 2.94
15
8 Flow Coupling 3 1/2” HCS 149 3.92 2.92 26 Baker Ratcheting m/shoe 3 1/2” Acme b up 8291 3.99 3.0
16
9 Pup Joint 3-1/2” HCS box x pin 152 3.92 2.92 27-31 Gravel Pack Assembly with 20/40 sand 8273-9395
17 301
10 24 “ Stove pipe 24 22 27 Upper millout GP extension assembly 8278 4.88 5.50

11 51jts Production Tubing 3 1/2” HCS, N80, 9.3# 154 3.92 2.92 28 Lower millout GP extension assembly 8284 4.25 5.00

18 12 9-5/8”, N80, BTC, 47 #, Casing 6010 9.92 29 3 jt, 4-1/2”, H521, 12.75#, Blank Liner + pup 8316-8415 3.96 4.69

13 9-5/8” x 7” Liner Packer and Liner Hanger assy 5783 8.31 6.25 30 32jt, 4” NU 8RDx 0.012Ga Wirewrap Screen 8416-9381 3.55 4.59

Predrilled Liner with tailpipe 22

22
14
15
16
17
18
7” N80, SLX, 29#, Liner
Pup Joint 3-1/2” HCS box x pin
Otis Sleeve ‘XA’ Type (2.75”) 3 1/2” HCS
3 1/2” HCS pup joint
30jt. of Production Tbg 3 1/2” HCS, N80, 9.3#
5763
1733
7311
7314
7317
7.92
3.92
4.50
3.92
3.92
6.99
2.92
2.75
2.92
2.92
31
32
33
7” N80, SLX, 29# Liner Shoe
GPV Shoe
6” Open Hole
8624
9393
9410
5.56

25 31 30 33
D 2.3
26 32

E2.4X RESERVOIR, 11660 - 15000 ftah 19

20

ANGLE = approx
30 degs 22
23
24
27

28
E2.4X RESERVOIR 29

TREATED WITH 15% HCl

PREPARED BY: TD = 9,410 ft ah AUTHOR: APPROVED DATE:JULY,2002

PRE-DRILLED LINER:
Flow area to be sized according to permeability of different sands

Open Hole Horizontal Gravel Pack

10 SPE 100495

Fig. VIII IPR/IPC model showing ESS vs. Slotted Liner

5500
5300

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

5100
4900
4700
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
0 20 40 60 80 100120 140160180200220
140160180200 240260280 300320340 360380400 420440460480500

Base case scenario:

ESS in 8.5" hole, IPC
Base case scenario:
ESS in 8.5" hole, IPR
7" PD liner, EGP
(17.5), IPC
7" PD liner, EGP
(17.5), IPR
SPE 100495 11

Fig. VII

GAS WELL E1.0C DRAWDOWN PROFILE

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/06WRM/All-06WRM/SPE-100495-MS/2833913/spe-100495-ms.pdf by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 May 2023

800

700 Not much change

600 in drawdown
DRAWDOWN(psi)

Not much within

change in our
500
drawdown
400 expected
within our rates
expected rates
300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
GAS RATE (MMscf/d)

Hor.ESS Hor.EGP (15D) Conv.ESS Conv.EGP (15D)

Matrix Capturing the Risks, and impact of Drilling Horizontal NAG wells

Risks Probability of Impact Mitigating Action

Inability to run to TD
Ineffective wellbore
cleaning
Plugging of screen
Well Costs
Local experience
Gas Supply to NLNG
Sand Exclusion
failure with time
Occurrence
Medium Reduced productivity. Loss Good drilling practice to ensure good hole
of drain hole condition; good mud/ clean up practice
High Loss of production Zone coverage of stimulation fluids; easier and
better in vertical wells
Medium Reduced productivity Good drilling practice. Effective hole cleaning prior
to running screen. To ensure flow back while
cleaning up well
Medium Reduced VIR/ NPV Horizontal wells might not offer much scope for
improvement over slant vertical wells because of the
high permeability encountered in our reservoirs.
Use of results from models suggested
Medium Negative publicity in case Horizontal NAG wells are few in the region.
of failure Network with operators with successes in deploying
sand control (e.g. use of shunt tubes)
High Penalties of contract breach Carry EGP as the base case sand control method and
the use of vertical / slant wells
High Loss of production Reliability may be a challenge with novel sand
control methods. Investigate if standalone premium,
WWS or SL provide the trade-off between large ID
or inflow area an sand exclusion if horizontal wells
are used