Development and Qualification of a
New Wirelessly Controlled Retrofit Safety
Valve: An Alternative to Well Workover
That Enhances Well Safety and Maximizes
Production Uptime
B.P. Champion, SPE, Expro; G. Gandini, Eni E&P Division; and A. Gabbiani, AREP-Stogit
Summary
There are many examples of wells around the world today that are
shut in because of failure of surface-controlled subsurface safety
valves (SCSSVs). While these valves are generally very reliable,
the control line that runs to the surface in the annulus is susceptible
to plugging by contaminants in the hydraulic control fluid and also
to corrosion, which causes leaks; both are outcomes that render the
valve inoperable. The failure of the control line also means that the
contingency solution of installing a wireline-retrievable surface-
controlled subsurface safety valve (WR-SCSSV) is not possible.
When a safety valve fails, the most common remedial solu-
tion today involves installing a subsurface-controlled safety valve
(SSCSV), such as an ambient valve or storm choke. While this
solution is lower cost and more straightforward than performing a
full rig-based well workover, it is not as safe. SSCSVs are directly
influenced by changing well-flow conditions, such as high flow
rates and low pressures, or by water slugs, and thus are notoriously
unpredictable in operation. Additionally, they are not controllable
from surface and not fail-safe, which is undesirable from a well-
control and safety standpoint.
By transmitting electromagnetic (EM) signals from surface to
downhole, it is possible to control downhole hardware. A wire-
lessly controlled safety valve has been developed that can be ret-
rofitted into a well using conventional slickline intervention equip-
ment and procedures. Being controllable from surface and of a
fail-safe closed design, this valve offers both functional and safety
advantages over existing SSCSV solutions. This new valve also
offers a retrofittable solution for wells having no hydraulic control
line installed. In situations where a capillary string may need to be
installed for foam- or chemical-injection purposes, it also provides
an opportunity to free up the hydraulic control line.
A prototype valve was subjected to qualification and functional-
ity testing in accordance with a modified International Organiza-
tion for Standardization (ISO) 10432 test procedure. This testing
was followed by installation in an onshore gas well for a 6-month
trial that involved both flowing and injection phases. The valve
was cycled and inflow-tested regularly and performed reliably,
consistently, and fully in accordance with specification throughout
the trial period.
This successful trial of a new wirelessly controlled safety valve
marks the introduction of a more-controllable and -predictable
alternative to an ambient valve or storm choke, minimizes deferred
production, and increases the well’s safety. Following the success-
ful onshore trial, the valve is now considered ready for wide-scale
field application onshore, and at the time of writing this paper,
plans for performing a first trial on an offshore platform are well
advanced.
Copyright © 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 130427) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
and Well Intervention Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 23–24 March 2010, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received 19 January 2010. Revised manuscript
received 30 June 2010. Paper peer approved 3 September 10.
February 2011 SPE Production & Operations
Introduction
Tubing-retrievable SCSSVs are critical devices in achieving safe
well-flow management. These valves are designed to close in the
event of a catastrophic failure of the topside flow-control equipment.
The SCSSV is installed with the production tubing and connected to
surface, typically using a ¼-in. stainless-steel control line that runs
in the annulus from the valve through a wellhead exit to the surface
well-control/safety shutdown system. The valve is a fail-safe closed
device that is held in the open position by the surface application
of hydraulic pressure down the control line. If the pressure is bled
off because of an emergency-shutdown (ESD) event, then the valve
closes automatically and shuts off the well flow.
If the control line becomes plugged or develops a leak, then it
is no longer possible to operate the safety valve from surface. A
related study by Eni concluded that 23% of their SCSSV failures
are related to control-line issues. Remedial actions, which may
include pumping sealants to stem a leak or trying to flush out
contaminants plugging the line, rarely result in long-term solu-
tions. Because it may take a significant time to mobilize a rig to
perform a full well workover, some operators are permitted to
use an SSCSV as a temporary solution to minimize the period of
deferred production before the well can be worked over.
Ambient valves function on the basis of pressure, while storm
chokes function on the basis of the velocity of the fluid flow and the
resulting differential pressure created across the valve. The mechani-
cal settings of the valve that define the performance envelope within
which the valve will remain open, or close in, are configured at
surface before deployment. However, the environment of a flow-
ing well is dynamic, with ever-changing flow conditions such as
liquid slugs or ongoing pressure depletion, causing these valves
to sometimes close in erratically and unpredictably. This dynamic
environment means that frequent well interventions may be required
to recover the SSCSV, adjust the settings, and then redeploy it, which
is inconvenient, costly, and results in deferred production. Of greater
concern would be if the tolerances on the valve configuration settings
cause the valve to fail to close in during an emergency event.
Recognizing the limitations of the existing SSCSV solution and
with the rapid advancements in wireless in-well communications
technology that is already being applied routinely for reservoir-
monitoring purposes, an alternative, retrofittable, and surface-con-
trollable flow-control solution now exists.
Introducing the Wireless Communications
Technology
The underlying principle of the wireless technology used on this
project has been described previously by Champion (2006), and
some case histories where it has been applied for wireless reser-
voir monitoring have been documented by Champion et al. (2007,
2009) and by Quint et al. (2005, 2006).
In development for more than 15 years and entering the com-
mercialization phase approximately 5 years ago, the solution
uses EM through-tubing communications. In the downhole flow-
control application, successful communication relies on a path of
111
 Tool String Diagram
Fig.1—Downhole tool string and flow path through the valve.
continuous electrical conduction from the point of transmission at
the surface to a receiver located at the downhole location. A modu-
lated EM signal is applied to the well at surface, which then propa-
gates through the completion metallurgy to the downhole location,
where it is detected and demodulated by a highly sensitive receiver
located within the downhole valve-control module. Though this
sounds simple in principle, careful planning is required in prepara-
tion for an installation in practice because of electrical leakage of
the transmitted signal into the topside infrastructure, background
noise considerations, and other environmental challenges.
The Retrofit Wireless Flow-Control System
The system comprises a topside controller/transmitter unit located
at surface, with the valve, receiver, and battery power-supply
modules located downhole. The valve is a fail-safe closed poppet-
style device that can be suspended in an existing nipple profile or
elsewhere in the well using an appropriate monobore suspension
packer. The poppet valve design and the presence of electronics
and battery packs below the valve mean that it is not a full-bore
device. The well flow is directed through flow ports on the side of
the valve and then exits through the top of the module.
112
Once the system is commissioned, the valve is held open using
an electromechanical latch mechanism and by the repeated trans-
mission of EM “stay open” commands from surface. Should these
commands stop being received by the valve, perhaps because of a
power failure or some form of catastrophic event at surface, then
the valve will close with assistance from a powerful spring after a
preconfigured timeout period has elapsed.
To ensure that operation and control of the valve is fully
integrated with the wellsite’s existing safety systems, the topside
transmitter module has a flexible interface to allow connection
with the ESD system. In the event that a controlled well shut-in
event is initiated by activating the surface ESD system, a “close”
command is transmitted to the downhole valve and the valve will
immediately commence the close-in sequence. Similarly, if there
is a loss of battery power supply to the downhole valve module,
the valve will close in immediately. In the interests of maintaining
fail-safe functionality, there is no facility to lock the valve in the
open position or for it to self-equalize.
To reopen the valve, an overpressure reset is required from
surface along with a short commissioning sequence. The over-
pressure required to reopen the valve is 1,500 psi over the static
February 2011 SPE Production & Operations
 Equalizing Assembly
The equalizing assembly is located between the lock and valve
modules and provides a flow path around the valve so that any
Lock pressure differential can be equalized during the valve-retrieval
adapter operation. During valve installation, the equalizing assembly is
typically run in the closed position, and during valve retrieval, a
prong is run on slickline to jar an internal sleeve off seat, which
opens the flow ports. This equalizes the pressure above and below
the valve, making it ready for retrieval from the well. Fig. 2 shows
the equalizing sub and the prong.

Valve Assembly
Fig. 3 shows simplified diagrams of the valve in closed, semiopen
Prong
(while resetting), and open positions. Typically, the valve is con-
veyed into the well in the closed position. The application of pres-
sure from surface forces a sleeve to move downward, pushing the
sealing poppet into the open position. The topside transmitter then
Equalizing sub sends “stay open” commands from surface to latch the poppet in the
open position. The surface overpressure is then bled off, allowing the
upper sleeve to retract and the well to be brought onto production.

Electronics and Power Module

Fig. 2—Equalizing assembly and prong.
pressure below the closed valve. When considering the design of
the valve, a surface overpressure reset was considered to be the
preferred solution because there is no additional electrical energy
consumed to perform the reset operation. This ensures that the
energy in the downhole battery power supply is conserved, which
maximizes the in-hole operating duration between well interven-
tions for battery change out.
Downhole Components and Flow Path
The key downhole components comprise the lock mandrel, an
equalizing assembly, the valve module, and the electronics and
battery-power-supply modules. The flow path through the valve
assembly is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The electronics and battery assembly contains a receiver to collect and
decode the EM signal being transmitted from surface and then uses
this to control the activation of the valve-latching mechanism (Fig.
4). Depending on the specific details of the operating environment,
the electronics module can be placed at well depths to approximately
2,000 ft in the well. The transmission range achievable onshore using
the EM-telemetry technology was validated in 2004 when a valve was
activated successfully on several occasions at 3,000-ft depth during
an operator-sponsored technology trial in a test well in Aberdeen.
Offshore-platform in-well communication trials followed in 2006,
with trials performed in the North Sea for ConocoPhillips in Norway
and for Shell in the Netherlands. The results of the offshore-platform
trials supported an achievable transmission range of approximately
2,000 ft. The standard battery pack targets a 6-month duration, but
this can be extended to a duration of more than 12 months by the use
of additional cells inside an extended-length battery housing.
Topside Equipment
The surface-equipment package transmits signals to the downhole
valve through the well completion. The surface package com-
prises two key elements—a master control unit/transmitter and a
wellhead transformer. The master-control unit consists of a rack-
mountable module with proprietary hardware and software (Fig.
5) that generates and transmits EM signals to the downhole valve

Safety-Valve Lock Mandrel

Poppet-Valve Assembly

EM-Activated Latch

EM Module

Closed Semiopen Open

Fig. 3—Valve-operation sequence.

February 2011 SPE Production & Operations 113

 Fig. 4—Electronics and power module.

Fig. 5—The topside controller (offshore specification).

by means of the wellhead transformer. The master-control unit is

typically positioned in a control room or safe area and is interfaced
with the local ESD system to enable automated downhole valve
closure in the event of an ESD event.
The wellhead transformer (Fig. 6) provides the interface from
the master-control unit to the well in which the downhole valve
system is installed. The topside equipment is currently in the pro-
cess of being certified for compliance with the European ATEX
and the American underwriters laboratories regulations.
24 in.

12 in.
Fig. 6—The wellhead transformer (offshore specification).
Valve-Qualification Process
As part of the valve-qualification process, extensive testing was per-
formed before deploying the valve in a live well for the first time.
• Highly accelerated lifetime testing was performed to 125°C
and 20-G vibration.
• Extensive function testing of all component parts including
100 valve cycles during official recorded function and life-expec-
tancy testing, and in excess of a further 500 cycles throughout the
entire internal test process.
• The valve was pressure tested across the sealing face to 7,500
psi, which is 1.5 times the maximum working pressure.

114 February 2011 SPE Production & Operations

 Safe Area
ESD interface Power supply
Topside transmitter
Armored cable
Ground reference
anode
7 Armored cable
Fig. 7—Site layout and key system components.
• The 4½-in. valve successfully completed flow-loop testing,
seeing a maximum pressure drop across the tool of 34 psi at a flow
rate of 7 bbl/min, which is equivalent to 10,080 B/D.
• A full-system test was performed in an onshore test well.
In the first quarter of 2008, the valve was sent to the USA for
further testing at the Flow Component Testing Facilities valve-test
laboratories at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). Experimental
safety-valve testing was performed in accordance with a modified ISO
10432 Class 1 test procedure, which is the ISO equivalent of American
Petroleum Institute (API) 14A. The experimental test procedure fol-
lowed the standard ISO procedure as closely as possible, given that
this new valve is fundamentally different from a standard SCSSV.
Fig. 8—The ground reference anode.
February 2011 SPE Production & Operations
Hazardous Area
Wellhead/flowline
signal connection
Valve module
The modifications/exceptions to the standard ISO test proce-
dure include
• Because of the functionality and control logic involved in the
wireless valve-closing sequence, the maximum closure time for the
valve was in excess of the 15 seconds allowed by ISO.
• The valve was not fully drifted because it has no through-bore.
However, it was drifted to the point of the known bore reduction.
• Because the valve requires 1,500-psi pressure to be applied
from above to open it, the unequalized opening test could not be
performed.
• No hydraulic-control-line tests were possible because the
system is controlled by wireless telemetry and not a hydraulic
control line.
• The functional testing of the valve in propane was not per-
formed, although the valve did undergo the propane soak. The main
purpose of the propane cycling is to remove grease and debris from
the valve. Because the valve successfully passed nitrogen testing,
the propane test was not considered important.
The poppet valve was designed with the aim of having zero
leak rate on closure. Shut-ins performed after gas-flow testing at
SwRI at rates of 22.5, 34.0, 11.9, and 23.1 MMscf/D registered
0.0-scf/min leak rates, thus verifying the valve design objectives.
This is an improvement on the allowable leak rate of 5 scf/min
detailed in ISO 10432 and therefore enhances well safety.
In December 2008, the valve that was to be used for the 6-
month extended in-well trial was subjected to detailed function
testing in accordance with the modified ISO 10432 procedure. The
testing was completed with zero leak rate observed, and the valve
was then shipped to Italy for installation in the well.
Six-Month Valve Trial in a Live Gas Well
The wireless valve was installed for a 6-month trial in Well San
Salvo 54. This is a gas-storage well in the Fiume Treste field
located onshore southern Italy and operated by Stogit, part of the
Eni group. Because San Salvo 54 is a gas-storage well, the valve
was able to be tested during both production and injection phases.
A site survey of the San Salvo wellsite location was conducted in
September 2008, resulting in the preparation of a detailed installa-
tion plan and identification of the necessary groundworks (Fig. 7).
The ground reference anode was buried in the ground near to
the cabin that contained the topside controller equipment, and a
cable was run from the anode to the controller unit (Fig. 8).
115
 Fig. 10—The prototype topside controller/transmitter unit (on-
Fig. 9—EM Signal connection on the tree. shore specification).

A second cable was run from the topside controller/transmitter
to the wellhead where it was connected to the kill valve flange (Fig.
9). The prototype topside controller unit used during the onshore
trial in San Salvo 54 is shown in Fig. 10. This was interfaced with
the wellsite ESD system.
The tool string that was deployed in the well for the 6-month
trial is shown in Fig. 11.
Specifications of the wireless valve deployed for the 6-month
trial are summarized in Table 1.
Installation-Phase Activities and Commissioning
The on-site installation work commenced in December 2008.
In preparation for the valve deployment, a scraper run was
performed on slickline across the interval where the valve was

TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE WIRELESS VALVE

Parameter Value
Physical Parameters

Valve size To suit 4.5 in. 12.6# tubing nominal size for a 3.812 in. landing nipple
Maximum OD 3.60 in. (excluding lock no-go)
Length < 30 ft (excluding lock but including equalizing assembly)
Metallurgy and seals Suitable for sour service (to NACE MR0175 – 2003)

Operating Parameters

Pressure rating 5,000 psig (34.4 MPa)

Test pressure 7,500 psig (51.7 MPa)
Temperature range 0°C to 125°C (32°F to 257°F)
Maximum tensile load 75,000 lbf
Maximum compressive load 75,000 lbf
Mode of operation Fail-safe close
Time to close < 20 seconds in operating mode
< 40 seconds in fail-safe mode
Time to open Approximately 10 minutes
Flow performance in 4.5 in. 12.6# tubing Minimum 2.835 sq. i n. (based on equivalent 1.9 in. ID)
Pressure requirement to reset 1,500 psi above the static pressure below the closed in valve
Setting depth 0 to 2,000 ft, subject to well parameters
Deploym ent & retrievability W ir e l i n e s e t a n d r e t r i e v a b l e
Battery life expectancy Target 12 months
Q ualification Tested in accordance with a modified ISO 10432 class 1 test procedure

116 February 2011 SPE Production & Operations

 Tool String Diagram

Outside
Length diameter
(m) (in.)
No-Go Seal Sub for 3.812 in. Bore

Equalizing Assembly

Valve Assembly

Valve and Telemetry Interface

EM Telemetry and Battery Section

EM Contact Centralizer

Bullnose

Total length = 5.668 m

Maximum outside
diameter = 3.860 in.

Tool-string weight = 125 kg

System shown with 6-month battery pack. 12-month pack would be 2 m longer.

Fig. 11—Tool string as conveyed in San Salvo 54.

to be set [approximately 20 to 35 m rotary kelly bushing (RKB)]
to ensure that there would be good electrical contact between the
valve and the tubing string.
Next, a short survey was performed in the well to confirm the
performance of the communication channel between the surface
and downhole. This involved running a survey tool in the well
and transmitting a series of test signals using the surface transmit-
ter, which were then recorded downhole by the survey tool. On
retrieval to surface, the survey logs were downloaded from the tool
memory and examination of the log data verified that there was
suitable signal strength being received downhole at the valve-set-
ting depth to ensure robust communications between the topside
transmitter and the valve.
Following the communication-channel survey, the wireline tool
string (Fig. 11), which comprises a lock mandrel, equalizing sub,
valve module (Fig. 12), electronics, battery section, and electrical-
contact centralizer, was run in hole. With a tool-string weight of
approximately 350 lbm, the lock mandrel was jarred into the land-
ing nipple profile located approximately 14 m below the first flange
at 24 m RKB. A pull test was performed to 450 lbm to ensure that
the lock was set, and then the running tool was disengaged with a
jar-up action and recovered to surface.
A 15-minute inflow test with a tubinghead pressure (THP) of
1,090 psi was performed. It confirmed that the valve seals and
lock-mandrel packings were sealing correctly. The well remained
closed in overnight, and the next day it was confirmed that the
valve was still sealing correctly.
After pressure testing the surface lines, the THP was increased
to 3,000 psi by pumping nitrogen against the closed valve. The
EM “stay open” signal transmission was then activated and after
approximately 10 minutes, the THP was bled down slowly to open
the valve. With the THP at 1,500 psi, a pressure spike provided a
good indication that the valve was open. The well was then flowed to
the flare for approximately 5 minutes to confirm that the valve was
open and the status indication was checked with the control room.
An ESD event was then initiated by pushing the “close” button
on the topside controller, which transmitted a “close” command,
and the valve was seen to close in less than 20 seconds. With the
THP bled off to zero psi, a 15-minute inflow test was conducted
with no leak detected at the valve.
The valve was then opened again by repeating the previous
opening sequence, and the well flowed to flare for a short period.
The transmitter “stop” button was then pushed on the topside trans-
mitter to simulate a loss-of-power situation, and the valve was seen

February 2011 SPE Production & Operations 117


Fig. 12— The wireless valve, showing flow ports closed, ready
for installation in San Salvo 54.
to close in less than 40 seconds. The THP was then bled off to zero,
and a further 15-minute inflow test was performed with no change
in THP, confirming that the valve was closed and sealing with no
measurable leak observable. The additional close-in time as com-
pared to the ESD close results from the timeout value programmed
into the valve-logic process that is used in recognizing that this was
a genuine event. The time to close can potentially be reduced by
varying the settings in the valve logic process. However, this will
likely result in a higher risk of false closure events.
The valve was then reopened and the well put on production at
approximately 200 000 std m3/d for 2 hours before being closed in
and handed over to production.
Results of the Long-Term Valve Testing
After the installation phase was completed, further valve closure
tests were performed on 13 January 2009, 17 February 2009, 17
March 2009 (two tests performed), 21 April 2009 (two tests per-
formed), and 12 May 2009 (two tests performed).
The standard procedure adopted for each test comprised
1. Monitor and record the flowing tubinghead pressure (FTHP)
for 15 minutes.
2. Close the well in at the wellhead.
3. Monitor and record the shut-in tubinghead pressure (STHP)
for 15 minutes.
4. Close the valve by activating the topside controller.
5. Bleed the STHP to zero, or to the flowline pressure, and
monitor and record the STHP for 15 minutes.
6. Using nitrogen, pressurize the tubing to between 1,500 to
2,000 psi above the STHP to reset the valve and commence the
EM-signal transmission from surface.
118
7. Bleed off the overpressure and return the well to produc-
tion/injection.
All of the monthly valve cycling tests were completed success-
fully, with zero leakage observed during any of the shut-ins.
It should be noted that between December 2008 and March
2009, the well was on production at rates up to 500 000 std m3/d,
and between April 2009 and June 2009, it was on injection at rates
up to 300 000 std m3/d.
In addition to the scheduled monthly closures, three unplanned
closures occurred because of human error activating the ESD sys-
tem. These closures all occurred during shut-in periods.
In June 2009, a further inflow test was completed successfully
before conducting a slam test on the valve. The slam test involved
using the wireless valve as the sole means to close in the flowing well
and aimed to subject the valve to the maximum possible degree of
stress. With the well flowing at a stabilized rate of approximately 49
000 std m3/d the valve was closed in by transmitting a “close” com-
mand from surface. By monitoring the falloff in THP, the closure time
for the slam test was assessed to be approximately 20 seconds.
The slam test was followed by a further flow period and then a
final valve closure with inflow test to verify the valve performance
after the slam test. Both the slam test and the final inflow test were
successful, with zero leak rate recorded. The mechanical design
of the poppet-valve closure mechanism results in the valve mod-
ule closing in a controlled manner and typically over a period of
less than 10 seconds. This controlled closure of the poppet valve
ensures that there is no significant mechanical shock suffered by
any components of the valve mechanism during a slam shut event.
In this respect, it is believed that the poppet-style valve design
represents a robust solution to withstand repeated slam tests.
Valve-Retrieval Phase
After equalizing the pressure across the valve, it was retrieved
from the well on slickline and recovered to surface for inspection.
Detailed post-job inspection of the valve concluded that it had
performed to specification, with only routine wear and tear being
observable in the mechanical assemblies.
Assessment of the condition of the 6-month-capacity battery
pack concluded that an additional 6- to 8-week duration was
available from the pack, which would have extended its actual
performance to closer to 8 months.
Conclusions
• The Expro wirelessly operated safety valve successfully completed
experimental testing in accordance with a modified ISO 10432
Class 1 test procedure. The modified test procedure followed the
standard ISO procedure as closely as possible, given that the valve
is fundamentally different from a standard SCSSV.
• The valve successfully completed a 6-month test in a gas well
onshore southern Italy. Throughout periods of production and
injection, the valve was inflow tested regularly and performed
reliably, consistently, and fully in accordance with specification.
• The poppet-valve mechanical design, and its controlled rate of
closure, minimizes any mechanical stress on the valve compo-
nents and is considered to represent a robust solution to repeated
slam-test closures.
• Zero leakage was observed during repeated gas-flow testing at
SwRI and also during the 6-month trial in an onshore gas well,
which enhances well safety.
• In situations where the tubing-retrievable SCSSV has failed, the
Expro wirelessly operated valve represents a retrofit solution that is
surface controllable and a more predictable alternative to SSCSVs.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of ENI and Expro for
their permission to publish and present this work. Thanks also go
to ENI and STOGIT for their support throughout the 6-month field
trial. The authors also wish to thank Petrowell Ltd, developers of
the poppet valve assembly, and the Expro Wireless Well Solutions
Team in Dorset, UK, for their significant contribution in making
this project happen.
February 2011 SPE Production & Operations
References
Champion B.P., Strong, A., and Moodie, N. 2009. Mungo Platform: A
New Wireless Retrofit Solution to Restore Real Time BHP / BHT Data
After a Permanently Installed Monitoring System has Failed – A North
Sea Case History. Paper SPE 124100 presented at Offshore Europe,
Aberdeen, 8–11. doi: 10.2118/124100-MS.
Champion, B.P. 2006. A Novel Wireless Solution To Address Uncertainties
in Reservoir Connectivity. Paper SPE 102547 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 24–27 September. doi: 10.2118/102547-MS.
Champion, B.P., Searle, I.R., and Pollard, R.K. 2007. Clair Field: Reducing
Uncertainty in Reservoir Connectivity During Reservoir Appraisal—
A First-Time Application of a New Wireless Pressure-Monitoring Technol-
ogy in an Abandoned Subsea Appraisal Well. Paper SPE 108435 presented
at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 4–7 September. doi: 10.2118/108435-MS.
Quint, E., Brake, C.B., Bickley, J., Johnston, B., and Huckabee, P. 2005.
From Liability to Cost Effective Data Gathering Opportunity. Paper
presented at the SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, New
Orleans, 26–29 June.
Quint, E., Singh, M., Huckabee, P., Brown, D., Brake, C.B., Bickley, J.,
and Johnston, B. 2006. 4D Pressure Pilot to Steer Well Spacing in Tight
February 2011 SPE Production & Operations
Gas. Paper SPE 102745 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September. doi:
10.2118/102745-MS.
Brian Champion is general manager of Expro’s Wireless Well
Solutions Product Line, a business focused on developing and
commercializing novel solutions for wireless in-well monitor-
ing and control. Champion has more than 30 years of global
industry experience in new-product development, technical
and operations management, and business development. He
holds degrees in geology and physics from the University
of Sunderland, UK. An SPE member for 18 years, Champion
has authored five SPE papers. Gabriele Gandini is a comple-
tion and workover engineer for Eni’s Exploration and Production
Division. Currently assigned to Eni GSA (Groupement Sonatrach
Agip) operations in Algeria, Gandini has a BS degree in electri-
cal engineering from the Politecnico Milano University. Andrea
Gabbiani is a rigless well-intervention engineer for Stoccaggi
Gas Italia Spa focused on natural-gas storage. Gabbiani has a
technical degree in electronics engineering and has been in-
volved in operations for well completion, workover, and rigless
well interventions in Italy since 1988.
119