DC187075 DOI: 10.

2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 16

Multizone Casedhole Frac Packs and

Intelligent-Well Systems Improve
Recovery in Subsea Gas Fields
R. C. Burton, W. W. Gilbert1, G. Fleming2, J. C. Leitch3, M. Nozaki, V. J. Pandey, M. D. Adams,
E. M. Peterson, L. Zhou, and T. W. Ray, ConocoPhillips

Summary
A nine-well subsea development project has been completed using casedhole frac packs (CHFPs) for sand control and multizone
intelligent-well systems (IWSs) to improve recovery from a series of shallow, low-pressure gas reservoirs. In these wells, CHFPs have
been installed to provide reliable sand control over the long, low-net-to-gross-ratio sand/shale target sequence: typically, three to six
frac packs per well. This outer CHFP completion is then augmented with a multizone IWS, consisting of isolation seals, surface-
controlled zonal-isolation valves, and downhole-pressure/temperature (DHP/T) gauges. The IWS string is run as a separate inner string
to provide flow-monitoring capability and allow shutoff of zones producing high water volumes. This critical water-shutoff capability
eliminates the risk of one or more high-water-production zones loading up and killing adjacent low-pressure gas zones, with the associ-
ated loss of reserves.
To date, a total of nine wells have been completed and are being produced from three subsea gas fields. To maximize recovery from
the fields’ numerous but relatively thin gas reservoirs, production wells are completed over three to six separate intervals. These frac-
packed intervals are then grouped to allow flow control and pressure/temperature monitoring to occur through up to six surface-
operated interval control valves (ICVs) and associated downhole gauges. This combination of sand control and intelligent-well control
has provided an ability to perform multirate tests (MRTs) and pressure-buildup (PBU) tests on each reservoir interval to detect the start
of water production or identify other impending production issues. After approximately 6 years of production service to the October
2018 date of this paper, 16 of the 34 zones completed in the nine-well project have been shut in to eliminate high water production.
These water-shutoff actions performed using the surface-controlled ICVs are estimated to have improved gas-recovery factors from 50
to 60% without requiring rig intervention.
This paper describes the reservoir challenges addressed and the completion-design and -operating practices used in this
successful program.

Introduction
A number of shallow gas fields have been developed in the West Natuna Sea, offshore Indonesia, during the last 20 years, as described
by Burton et al. (2002a, b), Davis et al. (2004), Gunawan et al. (2006), and Beck et al. (2015). As a general rule, wells in these subsea
fields have targeted one to three shallow, weakly consolidated to unconsolidated, high-permeability gas sands. The fields have been
developed with subsea wells tied back to regional production facilities by means of subsea lines, as shown in Fig. 1.

Subsea
Subsea Subsea gas gas field
Subsea gas field fields Subsea gas field
gas field Subsea gas
field
Offshore oil field

Project area Offshore Gas-export line

compressor station to Malaysia

Gas-export line
to Singapore Subsea gas field

Offshore gas field

Offshore oil field Offshore oil field

Subsea gas field

Fig. 1—Field-development project area, offshore Indonesia.

1
now with Stratum Operating
2
now with Intelligent Well Specialists
3
now with Packers Plus Energy Services
Copyright V
C 2019 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 187075) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9–11 October 2017, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 26 March 2018. Revised manuscript received for review 5 November 2018. Paper peer approved 7 November 2018.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 1

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 16

The simplest subsea fields in the area have only one dominant reservoir sand body, and these fields have been effectively drained
using horizontal wells completed with openhole standalone screens to provide high delivery capacity and reliable sand control. More-
complex subsea fields, targeting multiple small sand bodies, have required vertical and inclined wells completed with CHFPs to effec-
tively drain the thinner, but more numerous, independent gas reservoirs.
Over time, the number of simple fields available for development has declined and the complexity of the remaining subsea-field
inventory has increased. Planning for the current subsea development project focused on identifying an economic method for draining
three fields with multiple thin, low-pressure sand bodies interlayered with shales and water zones over a long 2,000-ft true-vertical-
thickness (TVT) gross interval. The challenges presented by the small sand/shale sequences with low net-to-gross ratio led to an innova-
tive solution using a combination of subsea inclined wells to allow access to all sand bodies, large-bore multizone CHFPs to provide
reliable sand control and high deliverability, and multizone IWSs to provide zone-specific flow control for improved recovery. Key ele-
ments of the design are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Drill to TD, run 9⁵⁄₈-in. Perforate well and Run STMZGP system and Run 3¹⁄₂-in. IWS string inside
casing and cement deburr casing frac-pack reservoir sands screens on production tubing

Fig. 2—Installation stages for CHFPs with IWSs.

The large-bore CHFP completion systems were designed to allow the installation of a multizone IWS string consisting of isolation
seals, DHP/T gauges, surface-activated ICVs, control lines, and an inner production string inside the gravel-pack screens. The multi-
zone IWS provided the ability to independently monitor and control up to six reservoir intervals within a single well, allowing high-rate
water-producing zones to be quickly identified and closed off to prevent damage to lower-pressure gas zones.

Reservoir-Characterization and Field-Development Challenges

The small gas fields selected for this project have a number of development challenges.

Lithology. The majority of the reservoir targets in the project area are stacked Miocene sands. Deposition is fluvial/deltaic, with all res-
ervoir sands being weakly consolidated to unconsolidated, with unconfined-compressive-strength values less than 1,500 psi. Formation-
failure studies and appraisal drillstem tests have shown that these weak reservoirs are prone to sand production, and therefore require
downhole sand-exclusion completions. The sands are thin and have small grain sizes, with typical grain-size D50 values in the range of
40 to 140 mm. The D50 value is the median value in cumulative grain-size distribution, with 50% of grains larger and 50% smaller. Gas
permeabilities are good, with core-measured air permeabilities in the range of 1 to 10,000 md and PBU-measured zone-average gas-
permeability values in the range of 9 to 3,700 md. The example cross section provided in Fig. 3 shows the sands to be thin and spread
over long gross intervals, providing low net-to-gross ratios averaging less than 30%.
Individual sand bodies range from relatively clean contiguous sands to thinner sand lobes with significant shale interbedding. The
long shale intervals separating the reservoir sand bodies are water sensitive with a propensity for instability, and, consequently, a mobi-
lization of colloidal fines.
Bottomhole static temperatures range from 150 F in the shallowest zones to 215 F in the deepest zones. The reservoir fluid is a
low-molecular-weight gas yielding less than 1 bbl condensate/MMscf, no hydrogen sulfide, and small amounts of nitrogen and
carbon dioxide, typically in the range of 1 to 2% molar volume. No formation water is produced from these reservoirs at
initial conditions.

2 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 16

A A′
Discovery Well 1.3 miles Appraisal Well
GR RlLD NPHI RHOB GR RlLD NPHI RHOB

Zone 0 3200 3200

–3260′ Gas
Zone 1
3400 3400
Wet
Zone 2 DST interval
DST 3600 3600 LKG
Zone 3 –3642′
–3670 DST Gas
DST amplitude HKW
Zone 4a 3800 GWC –3776 Wet 3800
Zone 4b HKW
Wet
DST
4000 4000
DST
Zone 5a
4200 4200

DST
–4320′
DST
Zone 6 4400
Zone 7 Gas 4400
DST
Zone 8
–4525′
4600 –4570′ DST
4600
amplitude
HKW
Wet
Zone 9
HKW
4800 Wet 4800

Depth (ft MDRKB) Depth (ft TVDSS) Depth (ft MDRKB)

Fig. 3—Geological cross section showing sand/shale sequence for example field. DST 5 drillstem test; MDRKP 5 measured depth
relative to Kelly bushing.

Independent Aquifers. Production data from the area have shown that many reservoir gas sands are supported by large aquifers, lead-
ing to water breakthrough over time as gas is withdrawn. When multiple gas sands are commingled in a single wellbore, water break-
through in a single sand body can water out the entire well, with associated loss of gas recovery from the remaining sands.
A review of company recovery data from a number of single-zone and multizone completions in the project area has shown that
single-zone completions recover an average of approximately 60% of initial gas in place (IGIP), whereas multizone commingled com-
pletions typically recover an average of only 50% of IGIP. The lower recovery from the multizone commingled completions is the
result of early water breakthrough and associated loss of the well because high-rate/high-pressure water production overwhelms par-
tially depleted gas sands flowing at low bottomhole pressures (BHPs).

Limited Reservoir Appraisal. Because of their small size, most of the fields being considered for development have seen limited
appraisal drilling, and therefore have incomplete subsurface data before the start of development drilling. Key data, such as layer-
specific IGIP and reservoir compartmentalization, are typically unknown when development wells are drilled. Concerns about compart-
mentalization often lead to drilling more wells than are strictly needed to achieve the rate and recovery goals of the project.

Low Reservoir Pressures. All reservoirs are shallow and normally pressured, with initial reservoir pressures ranging from 1,200 to
1,500 psia. These low reservoir pressures require low flowing BHPs, which cannot be sustained if and when water breakthrough occurs.
The low flowing BHPs also require completion designs that can handle high gas velocities with relatively low pressure losses to main-
tain gas deliverability against subsea wellhead pressures in the range of 400 to 600 psia. To illustrate this point, the velocity of
50 MMscf/D flowing through a 31/ 2-in. nominal/23/ 4-in.-inner-diameter (ID) upper control valve at a producing BHP of 800 psia is more
than 270 ft/sec. These high gas-flow velocities can result in significantly greater erosion risk and frictional pressure losses than are
expected to occur in higher-pressure wells operating in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 psia.

Offshore Location/Subsea Flowlines. The project area is in the midst of a mature hydrocarbon producing area with water depths in
the range of 250 to 300 ft. Subsea tieback of development wells to existing platforms and compression facilities has allowed small gas
fields to be economically produced by reducing upfront capital expenditures. Subsea gas production began in the area in 2001 from
two subsea gas fields flowing to a single gas-compression facility, as outlined by Burton et al. (2002a). Subsequent development has
added a number of new wells/fields and several new oil-and-gas-processing facilities. To date, 10 subsea gas fields have been devel-
oped, with production from 31 subsea wells. As development has progressed, tieback distances have become longer. Although early
fields were located fewer than 10 miles from their host facilities, many of the newer developments require flowline lengths in the
range of 20 to 30 miles, and as a result, the flowlines have become more prone to slugging and increased backpressure as water cuts
have risen.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 3

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 16

Development Architecture
A preliminary review of project challenges led to a set of system goals that would allow alternative development options to be com-
pared. Ranking of development alternatives against these design criteria resulted in the selection of multizone CHFP completions with
intelligent-well flow control, as noted in the Introduction. Key features required for field-installation designs are discussed in the
following subsections.

Infrastructure Integration. All the project’s subsea production wells would need to be tied back to existing regional gas-
processing facilities.

Zonal Isolation. The combination of long reactive shale sections, low-net-to-gross-ratio intervals, and a need to complete multiple thin
sand bodies in a single wellbore drove the completion design toward vertical/inclined wells with multizone CHFPs. These designs pro-
vide high productivity while also providing high-reliability sand control, as discussed by Smith and Hannah (1996) and Ellis (1998).
The frac pack’s cemented-and-perforated casing facilitated completion of multiple thin sands in a single wellbore while successfully
isolating interbedded water zones and reactive shales. Previous CHFP completions in the area used single-trip single-zone gravel-pack
(STSZGP) systems that commingled multiple gas sands in a single long gravel-packed interval, as described by Burton et al. (2002a, b)
and Gunawan et al. (2006). As noted previously, this led to lower recoveries because smaller gas sands within the long commingled pro-
duction interval watered out and killed the well before the larger gas zones could be effectively depleted. Development of newer single-
trip multizone gravel-pack (STMZGP) systems, such as those described by Vickery et al. (2000), Vickery and Bayne (2002), Burger
et al. (2010), and Zhou et al. (2014), allowed individual gas sands to be gravel packed separately and isolated within the overall sand-
control completion. As noted by Zhou et al. (2014), an STMZGP system was ultimately selected for this project for the zonal-isolation
benefits and installation-time efficiencies it provided.

Zone-Specific Flow Control. Zone-specific water shutoff without well intervention was required to allow production of the many thin,
water-prone gas sands in a single well. As noted in Robinson (2003), Ajayi and Konopczynski (2005), and Ajayi et al. (2007), interven-
tionless water shutoff is a primary driver for IWS selection.
Identification and isolation of water and/or sand production by means of IWS zone-specific pressure gauges and ICVs were required
to increase ultimate gas recovery to values seen in single-zone/single-reservoir completions. This increased recovery would be more
than sufficient to pay out the extra cost of the IWS. The selective flow control offered by the IWS was also expected to allow comple-
tion of smaller sand bodies that would have traditionally been left unperforated in older wells without surface-controlled/intervention-
less water-shutoff capability.

Reservoir-Monitoring Instrumentation. DHP/T gauges would need to be installed within each completion interval. Quartz oscillator
pressure sensors providing suitable accuracy and resolution for completion well test and production reservoir monitoring would be
required. The pressure gauges ultimately selected for the project were equipped with dual sensors, providing inside (tubing pressure)
and outside (annular pressure) readings. Up to six gauges (12 sensors) communicate to the surface through a single tubing-encased-
conductor (TEC) line.

Subsea Flow Measurement. In addition to the downhole completion features noted previously, a single-phase Venturi flow-rate-
measurement meter was required as part of the subsea manifold to allow well-specific flow testing to occur upstream of the host produc-
tion facility. Multiphase metering was considered early in the well-design process, but the simplicity and reliability of Venturi meters
was preferred—a selection made more attractive by the ability to minimize water production by means of the IWS.

Well Design
A bottom-up design process, starting with the completion and working backward to determine the required hole and casing sizes, was
used for the project wells. After an iterative review of zonal production requirements, existing STMZGP systems, and the IWS, the
overall design was set as follows.

Wellbore. The following parameters were used:

1. Hole size: 121/ 4-in. hole diameter for reservoir drilling.
2. Casing size: 95/ 8-in., 47-lbm/ft L80 with nominal ID ¼ 8.681 in. and minimum ID ¼ 8.525 in. (L80 is a pipe material and yield-
strength designation.)
3. Perforating gun size: 7-in.-outer-diameter (OD) tubing-conveyed perforating guns loaded with 14 shots/ft big-hole nitramide
explosive RDX charges at 45 phasing with up to 71/ 8-in. OD after firing as a result of gun swell.
4. Perforation-flow area: 14 shots/ft of big-hole charges providing an average perforation diameter of approximately 1.10 in. and a
flow area of 13.30 in.2/ft of perforated casing.

STMZGP System. The following parameters were used:

1. Packer OD ¼ 8.310 in. while run in hole.
2. Isolation sealbore ID ¼ 4.750 in.  1-ft length.
3. Screen OD ¼ 7.440-in. maximum OD at outer shroud.
4. Screen outer base pipe OD ¼ 7.000 in.
5. Screen outer base pipe ID ¼ 6.366 in.
6. Screen inner base pipe OD ¼ 6.000-in. 13Cr80 material.
7. Screen inner base pipe ID ¼ 5.240 in. with minimum ID ¼ 5.115 in.
8. Flow area in screen  solid base pipe annulus ¼ 3.555 in2.
9. Production-sleeve OD ¼ 7.695 in.
10. Production-sleeve ID ¼ 4.750 in. at minimum ID point.
The selected STMZGP system provided significant improvements in operational efficiency for completion of the many target sands but
provided limited area for deployment of the IWS string. As shown previously, the minimum ID through the gravel-pack-system screens

4 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 16

and associated lower-completion equipment was 4.750 in. This small diameter limited the size of the IWS string that could be effectively
run and sealed inside the gravel-pack system. Although this limit led to challenges during the design stage, workable solutions were found
for all contingencies and the STMZGP system was successfully deployed for all wells. This led to major rig-time savings, conservatively
estimated to be approximately 2 days per frac-packed zone, corresponding to more than 65 rig days over the course of the nine-well project.
Fig. 4 illustrates key components of the STMZGP system used. Additional details of this completion system can be found in Zhou
et al. (2014).

Screen sand-control media

Formation

9⁵⁄₈-in. casing
Perforations
Solid base pipe
Cement
9⁵⁄₈-in. STMZGP Production sleeve
liner top packer Gravel-packed
casing/screen annulus allows flow to base pipe ID
4¾-in.-ID sealbore
Gravel-pack port
Isolation packer
Sand-control screens
Zone 1 Production sleeve

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4
Sump packer
Zone 5

Zone 6 not perforated

Zones 7 and 8
commingled

Fig. 4—STMZGP system installed in example well.

IWS. As noted previously, the IWS production string extended from the base of the production tubing with zonal-control valves placed
inside the STMZGP screens. The IWS production string consisted of the following elements:
1. IWS interval control tubing OD ¼ 3.500 in.
2. IWS interval control tubing coupling OD ¼ 3.813 in.
3. IWS interval control tubing ID ¼ 2.992 in.; nominal and minimum ID ¼ 2.797 in.
4. Feedthrough seal subassembly OD ¼ 4.750 in.  6-ft length.
5. Gauge carrier OD: 4.330 in.
6. Gauge carrier ID: 2.411 in.
7. ICV OD: 4.662 in. OD maximum for 27/ 8-in. nominal valve.
8. ICV ID: 2.313 in. for 27/ 8-in. nominal valve.
9. Control lines bundled in flat packs: 0.472-in. thickness.
10. Control-line-clamp OD: 4.600-in.-OD maximum at IWS production-string coupling.
Above the top gravel-pack zone, the standard 27/ 8-in. ICV was sized up to a 31/ 2-in. nominal ICV with 5.865-in. OD and 2.750-in. ID
to provide greater flow area. This is shown in Fig. 5, which provides an illustration of the IWS completion string.
As shown, each zone is separated by a 43/ 427/ 8-in. feedthrough seal assembly landed in a corresponding 43/ 4-in.-ID sealbore placed
in the STMZGP system. DHP/T gauge subassemblies are directly below the seal assemblies. Two gauges are in the 13Cr gauge sub-
assembly, one reading pressure and temperature in the screen/3.500-in.-OD-interval-control-tubing annulus and the second gauge read-
ing pressure and temperature inside the interval control tubing. The gauge reading from the screen/tubing annulus allows zone-specific
PBUs to be recorded from shut-in zones while other zones remain open to flow. The measurement frequency of the gauge is adjustable
from the surface, allowing measurement frequencies to be increased up to one measurement per second for zone-specific PBU testing.
Gas production from the target zone is controlled by hydraulically operated sliding-sleeve valves generically referred to as ICVs. The
ICVs provide the ability to shut in specific zones while allowing the remainder of the zones in the well to continue to produce. Each
interval is independently monitored and controlled with this system. The top interval produces through a 31/ 2-in. ICV placed below a
95/ 831/ 2-in. feed-through production packer with eight penetrations. ICVs below the top interval are 27/ 8-in. nominal diameter. Multi-
position flow control was not considered necessary for this project, and as a result, binary (on/off) ICVs were selected.
Although the 31/ 2-in. production inner string and 27/ 8-in. IVCs were considered small for low-pressure gas flow, frictional pressure
losses were considered acceptable in terms of long-term well-flow performance. Maximum single-zone rates were expected to be
approximately 25 MMscf/D, with initial total well rates in the region of 65 MMscf/D.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 5

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 16

4¹⁄₂-in. safety valve

4¹⁄₂-in. production tubing
4¾-in. OD
9⁵⁄₈-in. feedthrough production packer feedthrough seal
3¹⁄₂-in. dual gauge mandrel assembly
3¹⁄₂-in. ICV
9⁵⁄₈-in. STMZGP liner top packer
3¹⁄₂-in. interval
control tubing
4¾-in. OD feedthrough seal assembly
2⁷⁄₈-in. dual P/T gauge carrier
Dual P/T
2⁷⁄₈-in. interval control valve gauge sub
4¾-in.-ID sealbore STMZGP prodution
in STMZGP assembly sleeve
Zone 1 3¹⁄₂-in. interval
50 ft seal/gauge/ICV control tubing
subassembly length
4¾-in.-ID sealbore
in STMZGP assembly
Zone 2 2⁷⁄₈-in. ICV-
hydraulic sliding
4¾-in.-ID sealbore sleeve valve
in STMZGP assembly
Zone 3 Sump p
acker
4¾-in.-ID sealbore
in STMZGP assembly
Zone 4

Fig. 5—IWS string installed inside of STMZGP system.

Intelligent-Well Control Lines and Well Control

The IWS hydraulic control architecture was dependent on an “n þ 1” configuration where the number of hydraulic control lines equals the
installed number of valves (n) plus one additional hydraulic control line shared by all zones for valve closure. For a six-zone system, this
results in six dedicated, valve-specific hydraulic opening lines, plus one common hydraulic line to allow the valves to close.
The hydraulic control lines and the single downhole gauge line (TEC line) were packaged into a single “flat pack” to eliminate the
complexity of handling numerous individual lines. Each interval had a specific flat-pack configuration, depending on the number of ICVs
run below it. This resulted in a large number of lines from the reservoir up to the production packer and tubing hanger, as shown in Fig. 6.
As shown, the number of hydraulic lines run across each zone increased from the bottom up. One dedicated hydraulic opening line
and one common hydraulic closing line, plus the electric gauge line, made the bottom zone, and one additional zone-specific hydraulic
opening line was added for each zone above until the maximum number of lines had been reached. This maximum number of IWS
lines was then continued back to the tubing hanger.

Flat Pack for Six-Zone IWS

Hydraulic lines for ICV open/close control

Electric/TEC line to DHP/T gauges

Fig. 6—Flat-pack hydraulic and electric control-line configuration for six-zone IWS.

The large number of lines and thickness of the flat packs resulted in well-control concerns during the planning process. Tests
showed that large rectangular flat packs would keep the blowout-preventer (BOP) annular element from achieving a pressure-tight seal

6 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 16

around the flat pack and the 41/ 2-in. production tubing. The solution was to manufacture the flat packs with a trapezoidal shape, curved
to closely match the diameter of the IWS tubing. The curved trapezoidal shape shown in Fig. 6 created a smooth profile that eliminated
square edges, thereby allowing the BOP annular element to provide an effective seal. The new flat-pack design was successfully tested
by repeatedly opening and closing the test BOP annular on the 41/ 2-in. production tubing with an eight-line flat pack. The BOP annular
closure tests consistently held brine to the required maximum anticipated shut-in pressure of 1,800 psi without damaging the IWS lines
contained in the flat pack. This validation testing provided confidence that the BOP annular could be successfully closed and sealed on
the production tubing and IWS string.

Upper Completion
The upper-completion string consisted of the production packer, production-tubing string, and subsurface safety valve. The first two
wells of the project had higher flow capacity and used 51/ 2-in. production tubing, but the remainder of the wells used 41/ 2-in. tubing and
safety valves:
• Production tubing: 41/ 2-in., 12.6-lbm/ft 13Cr80 tubing with 3.958-in. nominal ID and 3.833-in. minimum ID.
• Subsurface safety valve: 41/ 2-in. 13Cr safety valve with 7.350-in. OD and 3.813-in. minimum ID.
The subsurface safety-valve hydraulic control line was bundled separately from the IWS lines.

Subsea Design
Requirements for the subsea tree and subsea systems were derived from wells with six-zone IWS completions. Ten penetrations were
originally specified through the tubing hanger to provide six hydraulic IWS opening lines, one hydraulic IWS common closing line, one
TEC pressure/temperature-gauge line, one downhole chemical-injection line, and one subsurface safety-valve line. The requirement for
the chemical-injection line was later eliminated, and the final tubing hanger had nine penetrations.
A 5-in.  2-in.  5,000-psi vertical subsea tree was selected for the project. The capabilities provided by the vertical tree were the following:
1. Adequate number of control-line penetrations through the tubing hanger.
2. Full functionality of all hydraulic and electric lines through the tubing-hanger running tool while running and landing the
production-tubing string.
3. Diverless installation: Full remotely-operated-vehicle (ROV) operability and accommodation of any subsequent light well-
intervention operations that might be required.
4. Integral fishing-friendly structure protecting the tree from fishing nets and subsea operation damage while retaining full ROV access.
5. Direct annulus access through the tubing hanger with positive gate-valve isolation located directly in the tubing hanger body.
Additional subsea system requirements specific to the project were the following:
1. Wellhead completion: no tubing spool.
2. Ability to access multiple zones selectively through the tubing hanger and tubing-hanger running tool.
3. Ability to handle high-frequency pressure/temperature data from up to 12 downhole sensors.
Downhole valve and gauge functionality is controlled through the subsea control module (SCM). An essential function of the SCM
is the isolation of ICV control-line venting. In the event of gas migration up the ICV control lines, free venting of gas will not freeze
up the tree functions in the SCM pod. All downhole lines are rigged with positive ROV-accessible isolation on the tree body. No
tubing spool is used; the tubing hanger is in the 183/ 4-in.  10,000-psi wellhead. Tubing-hanger orientation was successfully
accomplished with an orientation pin in the subsea BOP engaging a helical profile on the hanger body. The selection of the 10,000-psi
wellhead was dependent on a combination of requirements regarding frac-pack pressure, structural strength, and tubing-
hanger penetration.
To guard against potential damage to the subsea manifolds and multiwell flowlines, acoustic sand monitors were located on the
subsea-tree flow loop, downstream of the choke module.

Tubing Hanger
A 5-in.-ID  18.56-in.-OD  10,000-psi tubing hanger with eight hydraulic penetrations and one electrical penetration was used.

Systems-Integration Test
A rigorous systems-integration test (SIT) was performed before offshore installation to demonstrate compatibility and operability of the
downhole control/instrumentation with the subsea tree, tubing hanger, tubing-hanger running tool, subsea control module, and topside
controls. Control lines used during the SIT were the same length as would be seen in the wells, allowing fluid volumes and time lags to
be accurately measured. The SIT identified a number of areas where control software needed to be modified to improve ICV functional-
ity and also showed areas for improvement of rig-installation/testing procedures.

Well Operations
Well operations began in July 2012 with the arrival of the semisubmersible rig over the first well.
The drilling and completion operations were conducted in the following sequence:
1. Move in; rig up.
2. Drill well to total depth; run production casing and cement.
3. Prepare wellbore for completion operations.
4. Perforate well.
5. Run STMZGP system.
6. Frac-pack completion intervals from bottom zone to top zone.
7. Install IWS string on production tubing.
8. Land subsea tree and test.
9. Flow well for cleanup and to test well deliverability.
10. Rig down; move out.
Of these various well operations, the completion installation and well testing will be discussed in more detail.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 7

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 16

Completion Installation
Prepare Well for Completion Operations. After cementing the 95/ 8-in. casing in place, scraper and brush runs were conducted and
cleanup pills were pumped to clean the wellbore. At this time, the well was displaced to filtered 9.6-lbm/gal potassium chloride comple-
tion brine, and fluid returns were monitored until target cleanliness levels were attained. No cement-bond logs were run because experi-
ence in the area showed effective isolation in past wells using similar cementing practices.

Perforating. All wells were perforated using 7-in.-OD tubing-conveyed perforating guns loaded with big-hole charges providing
14 shots/ft with an average hole diameter of 1.10 in. in the 95/ 8-in., 47-lbm/ft L80 production casing. Surface testing at ambient condi-
tions was used to confirm perforation-hole size for noncentralized guns. The initial wells were shot overbalanced in filtered completion
brine, but after higher-than-expected skins were noted, subsequent wells were shot using conventional static-underbalance techniques.
Initial well-overbalance values were approximately 300 psi, whereas later static-underbalance values were approximately 100 psi.
After conclusion of perforating and initial cleanup flow, the wells were killed with a laboratory-designed, low-damage hydroxyethyl
cellulose pill to allow the guns to be pulled out of the hole with acceptable losses in the region of 10 bbl/hr. A deburring run was then
made using a mill to grind down perforation burrs and prevent damage to the gravel-pack isolation packers. This was followed by a
cleanup trip using a magnet to remove as much metallic debris as possible before running the STMZGP system.

Run STMZGP System. All wells were frac packed through an STMZGP system. This system consisted of a gravel-pack isolation
packer, sealbores, gravel-pack sleeve with ports, blank pipe, annular flow-screen assembly, and production sleeves for each zone to be
completed. Radioactive tags were installed at the top of each zone’s isolation sealbores to provide a means of depth correlation when
landing the IWS string later in the procedure.
Individual wells were completed across three to six reservoir zones, as shown in Table 1. The STMZGP system’s annular flow screens
consisted of 6-in.-OD solid base pipe with a 125-mm woven-wire sand-control medium placed over an outer 7-in.-OD/6.366-in.-ID
perforated pipe. This design resulted in a screen-flow annulus providing 3.555 in.2 of flow area. Flow was channeled down this
annulus to the production sleeve, where it could be isolated or allowed to flow into the base pipe. Because of concerns about pressure
losses from high-velocity gas flow, one production sleeve was placed between each two screen joints, minimizing the amount of gas
flow and the length of travel through the small, 3.555-in.2 annular flow path. Screen details are described in greater detail in Pandey
et al. (2015).

Total Zones
Completed (IWS Total Completion Total Frac-Pack Total IWS Time Cumulative Flow
Well Name Zones per Well) Time (rig days) Time (rig days) (rig days) Potential (MMscf/D)
1 6 48 14 6 60
2 5 48 15 5 65
3 4 31 9 5 30
4 3 40 10 3 45
5 3 33 8 3 56
6 4 38 7 4 45
7 3 40 7 3 51
8 3 33 6 3 58
9 3 21 5 3 63
Totals 34 332 81 35 472
Well averages 4 36.9 8.9 3.9 52.4
Zone averages 4 9.8 2.4 1.0 13.9

Table 1—Project-completion-operations summary. Total Frac-Pack Time 5 total time minus nonfrac-pack time (rig days). Total IWS
Time 5 total time minus total non-IWS time (rig days).

Frac Packing of Completion Zones. After installing the STMZGP system, all completion zones were frac packed by pumping prop-
pant down the casing/screen annulus and out the perforations above fracture pressure, as described by Ayoub et al. (1992), Smith and
Hannah (1996), and Ellis (1998). The frac packs were pumped at rates in the range of 8 to 35 bbl/min, providing specific injection rates
of 0.1 to 6.1 bbl/min/ft using a viscoelastic surfactant system to provide friction reduction and enhance proppant-carrying capacity, as
described by Samuel et al. (1997) and Sullivan et al. (2006). Two basic types of treatments were used: a low-surfactant/low-proppant-
concentration high-rate water-packing (HRWP) treatment, as described by Ledlow et al. (1993) and Patel et al. (1994), and a higher-
surfactant/higher-proppant-concentration viscoelastic frac-packing (VEFP) treatment, as described by Procyk et al. (2009) and Pandey
et al. (2015). Selection of an HRWP or VEFP treatment was made depending on the length of the interval to be treated, the number of
sand lobes within the target interval, the stress contrast between the various sands, and the proximity of the zone to water. As a general
rule, close proximity to water or low stress contrast between zones led to the selection of HRWP treatments, whereas VEFP treatments
were preferred for single zones without water nearby.
The HRWP treatments were typically pumped with a proppant concentration of 1 lbm of proppant added per 1 gal of treating fluid,
or 1 ppa/gal. The higher-concentration VEFP treatments were designed to ramp up to a maximum of 10 ppa/gal. of treating fluid. Both
types of treatments were designed to be pumped above formation-fracturing pressure using 30/50-US-mesh ceramic proppant. Initial
jobs were pumped from rig-based equipment, but this proved to be problematic. As a result, a stimulation vessel was set up to save rig
time and improve pumping operations for the remainder of the project. Additional details on the project frac-pack design and imple-
mentation can be found in Pandey et al. (2015).

8 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 16

The nine wells completed during the project required a total of 36 frac packs, including 18 HRWP treatments and 18 VEFP treatments.
All zones were effectively frac packed with HRWP, placing an average of 115 lbm of proppant per foot of vertical net-pay, and VEFP,
placing an average of 2,629 lbm of proppant per foot of vertical net pay interval. A review of job treatment data indicated that all screen
segments were effectively covered and there were adequate gravel reserve volumes left above the top of the sand-control screen.

Run IWS String. At the end of the frac-packing process, the production sleeves in the STMZGP system were confirmed closed by
pressure testing; the well was circulated to filtered 9.6-lbm/gal potassium chloride brine; and the wash pipe was pulled out of the hole
without losses.
The IWS string was made up in stages and run in the hole on the production-tubing string. The bottom-most assembly consisted of
two sets of shifting keys for opening and closing of the production sleeves within the STMZGP system (shift down to open or shift up
to close) and a mechanical packer to be set inside the tail pipe below the sump packer to provide anchoring support to counter any
potential tubing movement caused by thermal effects. The IWS subassemblies consisted of three major components: the ICV the
pressure/temperature-gauge assembly, and the feedthrough isolation seals.
All hydraulic/electrical installation and testing for these subassemblies was completed at the shore base before transit offshore,
saving a considerable amount of installation time on the rig. Because of the small IWS-seal-to-STMZGP-sealbore space-out tolerances
required, detailed space-out calculations were performed before the start of installation. The IWS component and 31/ 2-in. interval-
control-tubing measurements were rigorously tracked on the rig to ensure correct makeup of the downhole assemblies.
The makeup of the main IWS components to the 31/ 2-in. isolation tubing between zones was performed using swivel-joint connec-
tions at the top and bottom of the IWS subassemblies. These swivel-joint connections permitted full makeup without the need for pipe
rotation, thereby eliminating the need for control-line rotation. The flat-pack lines were spliced to the lines from the feedthrough seal
assembly during makeup on the rig floor, allowing the IWS subassembly to be lowered into the well with hydraulic/electrical communi-
cation maintained throughout the installation process. The lower-most IWS valve was left open to allow fluid fill until the top of the
STMZGP system had been reached. At this point, the uppermost IWS valve was also opened to permit top filling of the system while
moving through the various sealbores in the STMZGP system.
The overall production tubing/IWS string was gradually lowered into the STMZGP system until all isolation seals had entered into
the correct sealbores and zone-specific IWS compartmentalization was confirmed downhole. Confirmation of correct zonal isolation
was provided by the downhole gauges in the form of the annular pressure differential between adjacent zones and, where necessary, by
a brief injectivity test. For problems with space out, a contingency run with a wireline gamma ray collar-locator tool could be performed
to confirm seal-location offsets from radioactive tags placed in the STMZGP system sealbores. In actual rig operations, correct space
outs were achieved by the teams in the field without having to resort to contingency logging operations.
After confirming that the IWS seals were correctly located in their respective sealbores, the string was pulled back to a prearranged
safe position to allow the final makeup and testing of the tubing hanger. This safe position provided a sealbore where seals on the IWS
string could be located to isolate the formation and prevent losses during the tubing-hanger makeup and testing process. When the
tubing-hanger/IWS connections had been made up and tested, the IWS string was then incrementally lowered back into position within
the STMZGP system. A final injectivity test through each of the IWS valves was performed to confirm correct space out before lower-
ing the tubing hanger into its final landing position and setting the production packer.
With this step of the operation completed, the well was secured to allow the subsea tree to be installed and tested in preparation for
flowback and well testing.

Completion Cleanup. All zones were flowed back to the rig through the subsea tree for cleanup and initial flow-performance assess-
ment before turning the wells over to production. In the cleanup process, the best, highest-permeability zones were opened first to kick
off the well and unload completion brine from the tubing and riser. These zones were flowed until rates of approximately 20 MMscf/D
were achieved, water rates dropped to a steady value in the range of 1 to 10 bbl/MMscf and surface-measured solids production was at
zero or trace levels. Typical zonal cleanup times were approximately 12 hours. At the end of zonal cleanup operations, the ICV was
closed and a PBU was recorded at 1-second frequency to determine reservoir properties and wellbore skin. As noted previously, all
zones were flow tested in this manner, providing a baseline for flow-performance evaluation and allowing live function testing of all
downhole gauges and ICVs before rig departure.

Operations Summary. Over the course of the nine-well project, nine STMZGP systems were installed, 36 frac packs were pumped, and
nine multizone IWS systems were installed, with 34 ICVs and 69 electronic DHP/T gauges. Project totals are summarized in Table 1.
Project-completion-time totals have been subdivided to show rig times required for sand-control and IWS operations to provide
better definition of key operational efficiencies between the various wells.
In Table 1, the term “total frac-pack time “comprises the rig time required to make up the STMZGP system, pump the frac packs,
and pull out of the hole. The term “total IWS time” comprises the time spent to make up the IWS system, run it in hole, and space out
the system. The time to run the production tubing is not included in total IWS time. As shown in Table 1, total frac-pack time averaged
approximately 2.4 days per zone and total IWS time averaged at approximately 1.0 days per zone for this project.

Production Performance. Production performance for the project wells has exceeded initial planning goals. Well productivity, water
shutoff, and equipment reliability during the roughly 6-year production period from initial installation to the October 2018 date of this
paper are reviewed later in this text.

Initial Cleanup and Long-Term Well Productivity

Initial data from the rig cleanup tests were used to estimate early-time well-inflow performance and establish preliminary inflow-
performance-relationship curves for the various zones.
As initial rig-flow-test results came in, completion pressure losses were critically reviewed to identify likely damage mechanisms
and, where necessary, completion procedures were modified to reduce completion pressure losses and skin for future wells. For exam-
ple, procedural changes were made between Wells 1 and 2 after high skins were seen during the flowback testing of Well 1. Better kill
pills were developed and better deburring procedures were implemented to reduce formation damage. In addition, perforating practices
were improved after Well 2, introducing static-underbalance perforating practices. These procedural improvements led to better/lower
early-time flowback skins in subsequent wells.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 9

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 16

On the basis of previous experience, we expected that each well’s flow performance would improve from initial test-flow results
once full cleanup of completion fluids and solids occurred. To confirm this assumption, a series of flow MRTs were conducted on each
of the wells’ primary flow zones after production stabilization. These tests allowed the reservoir-permeability/thickness product
(K  H) and wellbore Darcy (S) and non-Darcy (D  Q) skin values to be measured on each of the main reservoir intervals under stabi-
lized production flow conditions. These tests were conducted from the production-control center by remotely opening and closing ICVs
and recording rate and pressure data.
As expected, a majority of the zones showed significant skin improvement after flowing for 6 to 8 months, as discussed by Nozaki
et al. (2017). A comparison of skin results before and after achieving stabilized production flow is shown in Fig. 7. Well-test results are
provided in greater detail in Table 2.

Summary of Project Skin Results

1000
Skin for initial rig-cleanup flow
Skin for stabilized production flow

100
Total Skin: S total = S + D * Q

Well 1
Rig flow, average skin = 392 Well 7 Well 9
Well 5
Stabilized, average skin = 147 Rig flow, average skin = 86 Rig flow, average skin = 55
Rig flow, average skin = 125
Stabilized, average skin = 55 Stabilized, average skin = 82
Stabilized, average skin = 110

Well 8
Well 4
Rig flow, average skin = 142
Rig flow, average skin = 52
Well 2 Well 6 Stabilized, average skin = 82
Stabilized, average skin = 33
Rig flow, average skin = NA Rig flow, average skin = 50
10 Stabilized, average skin = 33
Stabilized, average skin = 40

Well 3
Rig flow, average skin = 24
Stabilized, average skin = 37

1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3

Well and Zone Designation (Well.Zone Designation)

Fig. 7—Comparison of skin results after initial cleanup and after stabilized production flow.

Zonal PBU tests and MRTs were repeated after another 6 to 8 months of flow to determine whether skin values had improved further
or had deteriorated. Results of the second series of production MRTs showed no further significant increases or decreases in skin.
Review of the available well PBU and MRT data showed a strong correlation of zone-specific skin values to reservoir permeability,
as shown in Fig. 8.
As shown, measured skin values tended to be higher in intervals with higher reservoir permeabilities. This trend is often seen for
gravel-packed and frac-packed wells, where similar gravel-filled-perforation pressure losses are imposed on reservoir intervals with dif-
ferent permeabilities, as noted by Burton (1999) and Unneland (1999). This strong correlation of gravel-pack/frac-pack skin with reser-
voir permeability implies that more-detailed completion-evaluation methods are required to assess zone-specific completion
performance, as noted by Unneland and Larsen (1995), Burton (1999), and Nozaki et al. (2017).
Because of the theoretical concerns related to the correlation of gravel pack/frac-pack skin results between reservoir intervals flow-
ing at different rates and with different permeabilities and thicknesses, reservoir normalized perforation-tunnel permeability (Kpt/Kr)
has been used to predict and benchmark gravel-packed- and frac-packed-well performance. As discussed in Burton (1999), Unneland
(1999), Procyk et al. (2009), and Pandey et al. (2015), this technique has been found to provide better well-inflow-performance-
relationship predictions and benchmarking results than direct rate comparisons, zonal skin comparisons, or correlation techniques
depending on effective perforation densities (effective shots/ft).
The calculation of Kpt/Kr results is performed by building a well-inflow model and taking account of zone-specific reservoir proper-
ties, well and completion frac-pack geometry, inclination, perforation area, and potential near-well damage parameters to provide initial
pseudoskin estimates. Perforation-tunnel permeability (Kpt) is then varied until the skin value measured by PBU or MRT can be
matched. An example Kpt/Kr match for one of the project’s MRT data sets is provided in Fig. 9.
Benchmarking of project Kpt/Kr results against project expectations is summarized in Fig. 10.
As shown, project Kpt/Kr results are roughly in line with predicted P50 performance goals. Approximately equal numbers of zone-
specific Kpt/Kr values are located above and below the P50 expectation line over the permeability range reviewed. Comparison of
results for HRWPs and VEFPs shows that the two frac-packing techniques provide similar results, indicating that procedures and rig-
based installation practices met project-productivity and completion-efficiency goals. As a bonus, overall project well deliverability
was higher than expected, allowing the last well in the program to be eliminated, to reduce capital costs and improve
project economics.

10 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 16

Production PBU and MRT Summary

Net Producing PBU Gas Total Skin at Qg Darcy Skin S Non-Darcy

Well Zone Type of Pay Test Time Tq Rate Qg K×H Permeability (Stotal = S + D × Qg) (dimen- Coefficient D Kpt/Kr
Name Name Treatment H (ft) Type (months) (MMscf/D) (md-ft) K (md) (dimensionless) sionless) (1/Mscf/D) (md-md)
1.1 HRWP 95.1 MRT 4.1 21.7 7,240 76.1 39.6 39.6 0 3.62
–3
1.2 VEFP 30.6 MRT 4.1 19.3 44,900 1,465.3 315.3 193.3 6.54×10 0.47
1.3 HRWP 40.0 MRT 4.2 9.0 9,650 241.3 162.5 171.2 0 2.49
Well 1
–3
1.4 VEFP 42.1 MRT 4.2 14.4 20,800 493.7 186.5 167.2 1.44×10 0.54
1.5 VEFP 72.5 Not tested because of interaction with an offset well
1.6 VEFP 65.5 PBU 4.1 8.0 440 6.7 –0.9 – – 14.83
2.1 HRWP 6.7 MRT 0.9 Data quality too poor for PBU/MRT analyses
2.2 VEFP 28.4 MRT 1.0 21.0 15,900 559.8 81.6 82.2 0 1.56
Well 2 2.3 VEFP 16.7 MRT 1.0 7.5 1,300 77.7 28.5 9.7 2.47×10–3 3.40
2.4 VEFP 13.4 MRT 1.0 14.2 2,540 189.8 20.2 9.7 7.46×10–4 12.90
2.5 HRWP 20.0 MRT 1.1 Data quality too poor for PBU/MRT analyses
3.1 HRWP 106.1 MRT 2.1 25.4 89,700 845.5 65.0 1.8 2.49×10–3 1.18
3.2 HRWP * * * * * * * * * *
Well 3
3.3 VEFP * * * * * * * * * *
3.4 HRWP 58.3 PBU 0.9 8.5 1,910 32.7 8.9 – – 6.58
–4
4.1 VEFP 47.1 MRT 2.4 14.9 63,800 1,355.9 42.9 32.1 7.19×10 1.91
PBU 2.5 20.7 27,300 381.2 24.5 – – 2.57
Well 4 4.2 VEFP 71.6
MRT 7.5 15.5 32,100 448.2 31.5 10.9 0.001393 1.65
4.3 HRWP 18.7 No PBU/MRT
5.1 VEFP 18.5 PBU 3.1 13.8 60,100 3,252.2 228.0 – – 0.78
–3
Well 5 5.2 HRWP 89.3 MRT 3.4 15.0 85,000 951.6 66.5 31.9 2.17×10 0.90
5.3 VEFP 41.5 PBU 2.5 6.9 1,340 32.3 6.0 – – 7.89
6.1 HRWP 21.5 MRT 7.5 8.0 2,550 118.5 4.2 –1.7 ×10–4
7.54× 13.28
6.2 HRWP 110.3 MRT 1.2 31.4 100,000 906.2 65.0 17.5 1.51×10–3 0.98
Well 6
6.3 HRWP 9.3 No PBU/MRT
–3
6.4 VEFP 31.7 MRT 7.3 11.3 33,700 1,063.6 29.4 3.5 2.30×10 2.36
PBU 1.4 9.7 85,600 1,694.0 110.0 – – 0.55
7.1 VEFP 50.5
MRT 6.0 10.8 88,100 1,743.4 102.6 62.7 3.70×10–3 0.81
Well 7
–4
7.2 HRWP 47.3 PBU 1.2 10.6 5,320 112.4 8.2 4.4 2.51×10 7.54
7.3 VEFP 34.1 MRT 1.1 7.1 556 16.3 –0.3 –0.3 0 24.30
PBU 1.3 10.2 206,000 3,671.9 78.0 – – 0.60
8.1 HRWP 56.1
MRT 6.5 17.4 196,000 3,493.7 124.0 21.5 5.83×10–3 0.59
Well 8 –3
8.2 HRWP 83.0 MRT 1.1 14.5 30,600 368.8 77.7 35.8 2.95×10 0.73
–4
8.3 VEFP 16.1 MRT 1.2 7.1 704 43.7 1.1 –3.0 5.79×10 21.96
9.1 HRWP 20.9 No PBU/MRT
Well 9 9.2 HRWP 132.8 MRT 3.3 13.2 71,900 541.2 166.6 48.2 8.97×10–3 0.56
–4
9.3 VEFP 41.5 MRT 3.2 6.9 370 8.9 –2.3 –5.4 4.45×10 50.71
* Commingled flow in Wells 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

Table 2—Inflow-performance-relationship results of wells after 6 to 8 months of stabilized production flow.

Project-Skin Results Plotted as a Function of Reservoir Permeability

Skin Values Measured After 6 to 8 Months of Production
350
325
Well 1
300 Well 2
275 Well 3
Total Skin: S total = S + D * Q

Well 4
250 Well 5
225 Well 6
Well 7
200 Well 8
175 Well 9
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
–25
1 10 100 1000 10,000
Reservoir Permeability (md)

Fig. 8—Correlation of zone-specific skin results with zonal reservoir permeability.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 11

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 16

Kpt /Kr Match for Well 8/Zone 1 MRT

Kh = 3,470 md, Kh /Kv = 1, H = 56-ft TVT, Inclination = 40°, 14 shots/ft, Dp = 1.10 in.,
Lp = 4 in., HRWP with Xf = 5 ft, Kf × Wf = 25,000 md-in., rw = 0.51 ft
180

160
MRT data after 6 months of production
140
Stotal data fit for Kpt /Kr = 0.69
Total Skin: S total = S + D * Q

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Flow Rate (MMscf/D)

Fig. 9—Comparison of MRT data with Kpt /Kr skin match. TVT 5 true vertical thickness (in ft).

Reservoir Normalized Perforation-Tunnel-Permeability Values for Project Wells

P50 Kpt /Kr benchmark value = 1 + K gravel /(200 × Kr) with
Pgood Kpt /Kr = P50 value × 4 and P bad Kpt /Kr = P50 value/4
10000

Pgood Kpt /Kr expectation

Reservoir Normalized Perforation-Tunnel

P 50 Kpt /Kr expectation

1000 Pbad Kpt /Kr expectation
Stabilized HRWP production-test data
Stabilized VEFP production-test data
Permeability, Kpt /Kr

Well 1 before improved procedures

100

10

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000
Reservoir Permeability (md)

Fig. 10—Benchmarking of project Kpt /Kr results.

Water Shutoff and Equipment Reliability

After roughly 6 years of production service to October 2018, all zones remain capable of flow, with all frac packs and screens maintain-
ing effective sand control. No sand has been seen at the host production facilities, completion-pressure losses are within target ranges,
and only minor acoustic activity has been observed to date. Similarly, all the ICVs are functioning properly, as evidenced by routine
valve movement and zone-specific flow testing. The DHP/T gauges installed as part of the IWS string have exhibited less-satisfactory
performance, with only 30 of 69 gauges remaining in service: a 6-year cumulative gauge-system reliability of 43%. Most gauge-system
failures have been the result of electrical faults that occurred between the subsea control module and the gauge.
As expected, a number of zones have had to be shut in because of high water-production rates, which jeopardized recovery from off-
setting zones. An early example of the production benefit of having an IWS system capable of providing data to identify a high-rate
water-production zone and shutting it in can be seen in Fig. 11.

12 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 16

Well 2: Gas Production and Water/Gas Ratio

Well 2 Completed With 5 Frac Packs and 5 ICVs
100
Water/gas ratio (bbl of water/MMscf)
90 Gas production (MMscf/D)

Gas Rate (MMscf/D) and Water/Gas Ratio

Shut water-zone ICV for test Successful IWS Water Shutoff
80 Open water-zone ICV for test Before water shutoff: 26.6 MMscf/D and 1,680 BWPD
Close water-zone ICV permanently After water shutoff: 24.9 MMscf/D and 424 BWPD
70
(bbl of water/MMscf)

Difference: 1.7 MMscf/D and 1,256 BWPD

1.7 MMscf/D and 739 bbl of water/MMscf
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1-December-12

1-January-13

1-February-13

4-March-13

4-April-13

5-May-13

5-June-13

6-July-13

6-August-13

6-September-13

11-October-13

11-November-13

8-December-13

8-January-14

8-February-14

11-March-14

11-April-14
Fig. 11—Well data showing gas and water rates before and after water-zone shut-in.

As shown, routine field well testing indicated increasing water production from the example well. Zone-specific pressure/temperature
data were then reviewed to identify changes indicative of the onset of high-rate formation-water production. The suspected water zone
was then opened and closed to determine the effect on overall gas and water production. In this way, the problem zone was confirmed,
after which it was permanently closed off. Review of production-test data before and after the water shutoff showed that the target water
zone was contributing roughly 1.7 MMscf/D and 1,256 BWPD (739 bbl of water/MMscf) to total well flow, approximately 6% of total
gas flow and 75% of total water production. Closing off this single high-rate water zone allowed the remaining four gas zones to continue
to produce to their economic limit without fear of water production loading up and killing the well. This entire process was conducted
remotely from the production control center using the IWS ICVs, without needing to physically intervene in the well.

Production-Surveillance and Production-Control Guidelines

As noted previously, the wells have performed as designed under subsea production conditions. The additional monitoring capability
and associated well reliability provided by the IWS gauges and ICVs have proved to be invaluable. To date, 16 water-producing zones
have been identified and shut in to eliminate excessive water production. These zones were tested at increasing frequency and carefully
monitored to determine when shut-in would need to be performed, allowing gas production to continue until water rates threatened the
productivity of the remaining gas zones in the well.
Production surveillance using DHP/T gauges has also provided confidence to flow wells at higher downhole flow velocities than
would be the case for unmonitored long-interval commingled wells. By running periodic zone-specific flow and buildup tests, produc-
tivity and skin trends can be assessed. These trends can then be compared with field maximum gas-flux guidelines to lower sand-
control failure risk, as outlined by Procyk et al. (2015).
Although the IWS allows great flexibility in operating the wells, it was found that several production-operations procedures needed
to be established to control the data-collection process and prevent excessive or uncoordinated well activity.
1. A management hierarchy was established to control well-testing requests and prevent erroneous operation of the ICVs and/or
lack of coordination between valve movements, flow testing, and data-collection requirements.
2. A DHP/T gauge and flow-rate data-gathering and -storage plan was developed to ensure correct collection and long-term reten-
tion of well-test data for production analysis, reservoir management, and future field planning.
3. A preventive-maintenance program was established to exercise the ICVs on a quarterly basis to prevent salt or scale buildup and
maximize system life.
4. Production-surveillance guidelines were developed to provide a systematic basis for identifying and responding to potentially
damaging events, such as a completion-sand-control failure, a tubing or flowline-erosion event, and/or the onset of high-rate
water production. These guidelines focus on identifying pressure/temperature and flow-rate signatures that provide early warning
of damaging production events. After identifying the warning signs, the guidelines provide a designated response to minimize
well-damage potential.

Early-Time Reservoir-Monitoring Capability

Installation of mudline power/data skids on early IWS completions would provide an ability to conduct early-time reservoir-
interference testing to improve reservoir connectivity/compartmentalization estimates and better define well requirements. Although
not used for this project, the potential exists to perform interference testing between zones in a single well and between multiple zones

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 13

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 16

in offsetting wells during field-appraisal drilling to reduce reservoir-compartmentalization uncertainties. This type of dynamic well
testing will be considered for future projects in fields with limited appraisal data and high reservoir-compartmentalization risk.

Conclusions
1. Multizone IWSs can be successfully installed and operated in multizone CHFP subsea gas wells.
2. Three- to six-zone CHFPs have been successfully installed in a series of subsea gas wells using STMZGP systems.
3. Three- to six-zone IWSs were then successfully installed inside the frac packs to provide zonal production control and enhanced
reservoir-monitoring capability.
4. Use of the multizone IWS design has improved recovery of gas in these wells by allowing thin, high-water-potential zones to be
completed and produced with the larger, lower-water-potential zones without fear of watering out the well.
5. After 6 years of production service, no sand-control failures have occurred, and flow rates have exceeded expectations.
6. The IWSs have operated successfully since installation, with total operating time of roughly 6 years through the October 2018
date of this paper.
7. ICVs and associated controls installed in the well have operated with 100% success.
8. To date, 16 of 34 IVCs (47%) have been shut in to prevent high-rate/high-pressure water flow from damaging other gas zones
and reducing long-term recovery.
9. Of the 69 pressure/temperature gauges installed in the IWSs to monitor reservoir performance, 39 gauges have stopped function-
ing, resulting in a cumulative gauge-system-reliability value of 43% after roughly 6 years of downhole service to October 2018.

Nomenclature
D ¼ non-Darcy skin coefficient, 1/Mscf/D
D  Q ¼ non-Darcy skin coefficient  flow rate
Dp ¼ diameter of perforation, in.
K  H ¼ product of reservoir permeability (K)  reservoir thickness (H), md-ft
Kf  Wf ¼ fracture permeability  fracture width, md-in.
Kgravel ¼ permeability of gravel, md
Kh/Kv ¼ ratio of horizontal permeability (Kh) to vertical permeability (Kv)
Kpt/Kr ¼ ratio of perforation-tunnel permeability (Kpt) to reservoir permeability (Kr)
Lp ¼ length of perforation in formation, in.
n ¼ number of hydraulic ICVs in a well
Pbad ¼ P10; point in cumulative Kpt/Kr distribution where 10% of data points have worse values and 90% have better values
Pgood ¼ P90; point in cumulative Kpt/Kr distribution where 90% of data points have worse values and 10% have better values
Q ¼ gas rate, Mscf/D
Qg ¼ PBU gas rate, MMscf/D
rw ¼ wellbore radius, ft
S ¼ Darcy skin, dimensionless
Stotal ¼ total skin ¼ Darcy skin (S) þ non-Darcy skin (D  Q)
Tp ¼ time of production
Xf ¼ fracture half-length, ft

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of ConocoPhillips for permission to publish this paper.

References
Ajayi, A. A. and Konopczynski, M. R. 2005. Evaluating Intelligent-Well System Requirement for an Offshore Field Development. Presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 20–23 June. SPE-94851-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/94851-MS.
Ajayi, A. A., Konopczynski, M. R., and Giuliani, C. 2007. Defining and Implementing Functional Requirements of an Intelligent-Well Completion
System. Presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 15–18 April. SPE-107829-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/107829-MS.
Ayoub, J. A., Kirksey, J. M., Malone, B. P. et al. 1992. Hydraulic Fracturing of Soft Formations in the Gulf Coast. Presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February. SPE-23805-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/23805-MS.
Beck, A., Afif, Permana, B. R. et al. 2015. South Belut Data Acquisition: Leveraging Real Time Production Data From IWS Wells for Reservoir Charac-
terization. Presented at the 39th Annual Indonesian Petroleum Association Convention and Exhibition, Jakarta, 20–22 May. IPA15-E-088.
Burger, R., Grigsby, T. F., Ross, C. M. et al. 2010. Single-Trip Multiple-Zone Completion Technology Has Come of Age and Meets the Challenging
Completion Needs of the Gulf of Mexico’s Deepwater Lower Tertiary Play. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Forma-
tion Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 10–12 February. SPE-128323-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/128323-MS.
Burton, R. C. 1999. Use of Perforation-Tunnel Permeability to Assess Cased Hole Gravelpack Performance. SPE Drill & Compl 14 (4): 235–239. SPE-
59558-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/59558-PA.
Burton, R. C., Davis, E. R., Hodge, R. M. et al. 2002a. Subsea Development of Shallow, Low-Pressure Gas Reservoirs Using High Performance Well
Designs. Presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February. SPE-74365-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/74365-MS.
Burton, R. C., Davis, E. R., Hodge, R. M. et al. 2002b. Innovative Completion Design and Well Performance Evaluation for Effective Frac-Packing of
Long Intervals: A Case Study From the West Natuna Sea, Indonesia. Presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in
Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February. SPE-74351-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/74351-MS.
Davis, E. R., Curran, J., Palthe, P. et al. 2004. Design, Implementation, Results, and Key Learnings: Case Study of a Novel Single Trip, Perforated,
Multi-Zone, Isolated, Frac Pack Completion—Keong Subsea Development, South China Sea Floater Operations. Presented at the SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18–20 February. SPE-86530-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
86530-MS.

14 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 16

Ellis, R. C. 1998. An Overview of Frac Packs: A Technical Revolution (Evolution) Process. J Pet Technol 50 (1): 66–68. SPE-39232-JPT. https://
doi.org/10.2118/39232-JPT.
Gunawan, I., Bailey, M., Huffman, C. et al. 2006. A Novel Fluidloss Control Pill That Works Without Filtercake Formation: Applications in High Rate
Gas Sub-Sea Frac and Pack Completions in Indonesia. Presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria,
12–15 June. SPE-100218-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/100218-MS.
Ledlow, L. B., Johnson, M. H., Richard, B. M. et al. 1993. High-Pressure Packing With Water: An Alternative to Conventional Gravel Packing. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 4–6 October. SPE-26543-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/26543-MS.
Nozaki, M., Burton, R. C., Pandey, V. J. et al. 2017. Lessons Learned From Evaluation of Frac-Pack Flow Performance Before and After Full Clean-Up
for Subsea Wells in High-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
9–11 October. SPE-187227-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/187227-MS.
Pandey, V. J., Burton, R. C., and Nozaki, M. 2015. Evolution of Frac-Pack Design and Completion Procedures for High-Permeability Gas Wells in
Subsea Service. SPE Prod & Oper 30 (3): 179–194. SPE-168636-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/168636-PA.
Patel, Y. K., Troncoso, J. C., Saucier, R. J. 1994. High-Rate Pre-Packing Using Non-Viscous Carrier Fluid Results in Higher Production Rates in South
Pass Block 61 Field. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September. SPE-28531-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/28531-MS.
Procyk, A. D., Jamieson, D. P., Miller, J. A. et al. 2009. Completion Design for a Highly Compacting Deepwater Field. SPE Drill & Compl 24 (4):
642–658. SPE-109824-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/109824-PA.
Procyk, A., Gou, X., Marty, S. K. et al. 2015. Sand Control Screen Erosion: Prediction and Avoidance. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Houston, 28–30 September. SPE-174837-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/174837-MS.
Robinson, M. 2003. Intelligent Well Completions. J Pet Technol 55 (8): 57–59. SPE-80993-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/80993-JPT.
Samuel, M., Card, R. J., Nelson, E. B. et al. 1997. Polymer-Free Fluid for Fracturing. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October. SPE-38622-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/38622-MS.
Smith, M. B. and Hannah, R. R. 1996. High Permeability Fracturing: The Evolution of a Technology. J Pet Technol 48 (7): 628–633. SPE-27984-JPT.
https://doi.org/10.2118/27984-JPT.
Sullivan, P. F., Gadiyar, B. R., Morales, R. H. et al. 2006. Optimization of a Visco-Elastic Surfactant (VES) Fracturing Fluid for Application in
High-Permeability Formations. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
15–17 February. SPE-98338-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/98338-MS.
Unneland, T. 1999. An Improved Method for Predicting High-Rate Cased-Hole Gravel-Pack Well Performance. Presented at the SPE European Forma-
tion Damage Conference, The Hague, 31 May–1 June. SPE-54759-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/54759-MS.
Unneland, T. and Larsen, L. 1995. Limitations of the Skin Concept and Its Impact on Success Criteria Used in Sand Control. Presented at the SPE Euro-
pean Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 15–16 May. SPE-30093-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/30093-MS.
Vickery, E. H. and Bayne, C. F. 2002. New One-Trip Multi-Zone Frac Pack System With Positive Positioning. Presented at the European Petroleum
Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 29–31 October. SPE-78316-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/78316-MS.
Vickery, E. H., Bayne, C. F., White, W. G. et al. 2000. Application of One-Trip Multi-Zone Gravel Pack to Maximize Completion Efficiency. Presented
at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October. SPE-64469-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
64469-MS.
Zhou, L., Gunawan, I., Janisse, R. et al. 2014. Enhanced Multi-Zone Single Trip Sand-Control System Successfully Treats Six Zones in Offshore Indone-
sia. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference-Asia, Kuala Lumpur, 25–28 March. OTC-24879-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/24879-MS.

R. C. Burton is a senior completions engineering fellow in ConocoPhillips’ Global Wells organization, specializing in well comple-
tions. Over his 40-year career, he held assignments in the US, Great Britain, and the Middle East before joining ConocoPhillips’
Houston-based well-engineering technical service group. Burton is a registered engineer in the states of California and Texas
and is the author of a number of SPE publications focused on drilling and completions issues. He holds a bachelor’s degree in
chemical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in petroleum engineering from the Uni-
versity of Southern California.
W. W. Gilbert is a completion principal for Stratum Operating. Previously, he worked for 25 years at ConocoPhillips, including
15 years in completions technology. While at ConocoPhillips, Gilbert’s areas of focus included intelligent wells and subsea com-
pletions. He holds a master’s degree in civil engineering from Oklahoma State University. Gilbert has been an SPE member for
35 years.
Graham Fleming is a completions adviser at Intelligent Well Specialists. Previously, he worked for 5 years as a staff completions
engineer for ConocoPhillips. Fleming’s current interests include improving production optimization using intelligent gas lift sys-
tems. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in applied physics from the Robert Gordon University, Scotland. Fleming is a
member of SPE.
John C. Leitch is the senior project manager for advanced flow-control systems at Packers Plus Energy Services. Previously, he
worked at ConocoPhillips and Halliburton/WellDynamics. Leitch’s research interests include IWSs and multiplexed hydraulic con-
trol systems. He holds three pending patents for multizone control systems. Leitch holds a degree in electrical engineering from
Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland.
Manabu Nozaki is a senior completion engineer with ConocoPhillips in Norway. His research interests include formation-failure
analysis, tubular-stability analysis, inflow-performance evaluation, and well-stimulation design and evaluation for completion/
stimulation improvement. Nozaki holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental and resources engineering from Waseda Univer-
sity, Japan, and master’s and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M University. He is a member of SPE.
Vibhas J. Pandey is a principal engineer with ConocoPhillips’ Global Completions Engineering group in Houston. He has nearly
30 years of industry experience and has held lead positions in several disciplines, including drilling, workovers, well stimulation,
and product development, with Schlumberger (US) and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (India), and for the last 11 years at
ConocoPhillips. Pandey is currently working on several US and international projects in which his primary interests are fracture
modeling, acid fracturing, well-performance analysis, and post-stimulation analysis of hydraulic fractures and frac packs. He
holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering and turbo machines, respectively, from the National Institute
of Technology, India, and a master’s degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Oklahoma.
Matthew D. Adams is a staff, controls, and umbilical engineer at ConocoPhillips. Previously, he worked for Cameron as a
subsea controls engineer. Adams’ research interests include deepwater high-pressure/high-temperature design and flow mea-
surement. He holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical/computer engineering from the University of Houston.

2019 SPE Drilling & Completion 15

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001

 DC187075 DOI: 10.2118/187075-PA Date: 22-February-19 Stage: Page: 16 Total Pages: 16

Erick M. Peterson holds the position of manager completion engineering with ConocoPhillips in Norway. He has been with the
company for 13 years in several completion-engineering positions. Peterson holds a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering
from Montana Tech.
Leon Zhou is a principal completion engineer with ConocoPhillips. He has been with the company for 24 years. Zhou’s current
position addresses sand control, hydraulic fracturing, well-performance evaluation, and completion designs. He holds a bache-
lor’s degree in chemical engineering from the China East Petroleum Institute.
Tony W. Ray is a mechanical integrity supervisor within Global Production Excellence at ConocoPhillips. He provides supervision
and direct engineering support to ConocoPhillips’ global projects and operations. Ray joined ConocoPhillips in July 2008 after
working as a senior project manager in the Subsea Systems Groups at J P Kenny and Intec Engineering. In addition, he served as
chair of the Subsea Equipment Committee of DeepStar and sat on the board of the Subsea Tieback Conference. Ray holds a
bachelor’s degree in industrial technology, specializing in industrial electronics, from Eastern Kentucky University. In addition, he
holds a project management professional certification from the Project Management Institute and is a veteran of the US
Air Force.

16 2019 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 15:52 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/190001/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##190001