6 - Completions Equipment

HPHT Completion Hardware – Chapter 6
Table of Contents
6. HPHT COMPLETION HARDWARE.................................................................... 2

6.1 KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER (CHECKLIST) ............................................................ 4
6.2 HPHT COMPLETION DESIGN METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 8
6.3 REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR HPHT COMPLETION DESIGN .............................. 10
6.4 GENERAL HPHT COMPLETION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS & LIMITATIONS .......... 11
6.5 PRODUCTION TUBING ......................................................................................... 15
6.5.1 Production Tubing Sizing.......................................................................... 15
6.5.2 Production Tubing Stress Analysis............................................................ 16
6.5.3 Tubing Connection Selection..................................................................... 19
6.5.4 Tubing Running and Pulling ..................................................................... 20
6.5.5 De-rating for Temperature ........................................................................ 21
6.6 SELECTING LINER TOP, PRODUCTION PACKER OR PACKERLESS COMPLETION ... 23
6.6.1 Production Packer Style Completion ........................................................ 23
6.6.2 Liner Top Completions.............................................................................. 26
6.6.3 Packer-less Completions ........................................................................... 28
6.7 OTHER COMPLETION HARDWARE ...................................................................... 30
6.7.1 Completion PBR / ELTSR Devices ............................................................ 30
6.7.2 Downhole Safety Valve.............................................................................. 30
6.7.3 Downhole Permanent Gauges................................................................... 33
6.7.4 Less Common Completion Equipment ...................................................... 36
6.8 LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCES .......................................................................... 40
6.9 REFERENCES / RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER READING ............................. 41
Author Lasse Hermansson, Catalyst Concept Integrity
Revision 0
Date June 2001
Contributors Paul Adair, BP UTG

HPHT Well Completions Manual HPHT Completion Hardware
6. HPHT Completion Hardware

Section at a glance:
Ø The primary design point that needs to be observed is that the completion should be
SIMPLE, ROBUST & SAFE to ensure efficient installation, maintenance and
intervention. In addition the completion design for HPHT wells must consider issues
such as redundancy, flexibility, contingencies, pressure tests, interventions, hydrates,
weather, drilling fluids, formation damage, wellbore cleaning, etc.
Ø The HPHT completion design should dictate the well design (liner and casing design),
i.e. design from inside to outside and from bottom to top.
Ø The completion equipment for the HPHT well(s) needs to function under very severe
conditions, both during the installation, initial well flow and clean up, and over the well
life span. The equipment should meet several different requirements (field proven, tested,
qualified, QA/QC’d, compatible with well conditions, best in class).
Ø The completion equipment should be field proven under similar conditions to the actual
HPHT field conditions. If the equipment is not proven under similar conditions, then it
should be tested and qualified to simulate those conditions. Under no circumstances
should any equipment be run into the well, if it does not fulfil one of these two
requirements.
Ø Maintenance and interventions should be kept to a minimum on HPHT wells due to

complexity and operational risk, at least until later life when the pressure has dropped
significantly (to within normal servicing limits). However, it is important to have an idea
of potential maintenance and intervention work at an early stage, and account for this in
the completion design. There are HPHT completions today that do not allow for late life
sand control (through tubing), even though sand production is expected. Also, it is vital
to design the completion to minimize the intervention frequency and duration.
Ø Important issues for production tubing design are accurate temperature and pressure
predictions, proper assessment of annulus pressures, simulation of sufficient and
representative load case, investigating the most critical interfaces, assessing tubing
running, selecting connections and de-rating the tubulars for temperature.
Ø Accurate temperature predictions are essential in planning the completion. Historically,

many operators have reported huge errors in the temperature predictions. Erroneous
temperature predictions impacts hydrate predictions and precautions; temperature
limitations of x-mas trees, DHSVs, control lines and control line fluids; temperature
limitations of surface equipment; tubing stresses, packer forces, temperature cycling
stresses; annulus pressures and pressure management; issues around trapped annuli (of
A, B and C annulus); and type of control line hydraulic fluids to be used.
Ø If the temperature predictions are too low, it may result in having to flow the well at a
limited rate. If the predictions are too high, it will often result in over-specifying the
completion design. Sources of erroneous predictions are discussed.
Page 2 of 42
Ø Production packer selection, and issues around selecting a liner top completion or a
production packer type completion is discussed in the document. In general terms (and
from a reliability perspective), a production packer is recommended for HPHT wells.
Ø Downhole safety valve selection, and issues around this are discussed. In general terms,
a single, shallow set, non-equalizing, proven HPHT tubing retrievable safety valve is the
recommended choice for HPHT wells.
Ø Downhole pressure and temperature gauge systems are available for HPHT wells. The
objectives of the data acquisition should be well understood, and weighted up against
the added risks / complexities. A system approach to the gauge design is strongly
recommended.
Ø Other completion equipment like scale injection systems, packers and plugs, flow control
equipment and downhole barrier valves are discussed, and best practice solutions
recommended.
Ø A methodology and checklist have been provided to aid the planning and operation of
HPHT well testing and DST string design work.
HPHT operations require high specification equipment and services suitable for higher than
normal operating conditions. Therefore greater emphasis must be placed on simple, safe and
efficient operations. Chapter 2 of the guidelines illustrates the additional challenges often met
when working with HPHT wells.
A U.S. HPHT operator comparing HPHT operations to conventional wells stated: ”Completing
HPHT wells is like a space shuttle mission compared to taking a commercial airline flight.
Technology and people make the difference”
The problems with many of the recent North Sea completion operations and installations have
highlighted the need to understand and manage the risks from an early stage in order to prevent,
rather than cure, operational NPT.
Amoco (27) reported that the average HPHT mistake typically had a cost implication of over 1
million USD. This was back in 1995, and this figure is probably a lot higher today, especially in
the North Sea.
This chapter focuses on the HPHT aspects of completion design and equipment selection,
specifically related to the completion equipment and production tubing. More general information
on completion and tubing design can be found in the reference section.
Page 3 of 42
6.1 Key Points to Remember (Checklist)
Following are some key questions for checking your HPHT completion operation. A positive
check will increase the probability for success.
Completion Design
GFollow the methodology laid out in next section (section 6.2).

GIn general terms: is the completion design as simple, robust and safe as possible?
GHave you tried to limit initial interventions in a live well to as few as possible (preferably
none)?
GHave you considered life of well issues, and allowed for the required maintenance and
interventions in the completion design?
GHave you looked at the casing and tubing design in combination (designed the well from
inside out and bottom to top), and considered effects of the completion (pressure tests,
packers, packer fluid, well fluids) on the production casing. Have you addressed trapped
pressures and maximum allowable pressures on the A, B and C annuli?
GThe high solids content of the drilling fluid left in the well at the start of the completion phase
could cause problems (sand screen incompatibilities, well cleaning problems, intervention
problems, severe heating of the tubing, etc)? Have you considered and implemented solutions
to mitigate this?
GThe tubing design is very important for the HPHT well. Have you run sufficient load cases?
Have you considered potential errors in the temperature predictions (see section 6.5.2)? Have
you sufficiently de-rated the tubulars for temperature?
GHave you considered alternative setting depths (both deeper and shallower) for the tubing,
driven by changes during the drilling phase? Since the tubing design is often on the limit for
HPHT wells, changes from the plan may push it over the limits.
GEspecially important if a contingent small size liner is run: Are you able to perforate the liner
and formation with charges powerful enough to create a well with low skin?
GHave you looked for any possible trapped pressures that could cause problems in the well /
completion design?
GEnsure there is an overpull allowance built into the string design. Stuck pipe can occur due to
poor wellbore cleaning. Is there enough space for cutting the tubing above the production
packer or seal stinger?
GIf planning for a completion PBR (PBR, ELTSR, TSR). Can you design your way around
this? It is a potential leak path.
GIf using downhole gauges: Position the gauges in the string to protect them from the vibration
and, if relevant, ensure the gun detonating pressure does not exceed gauge specifications. The
perforating vendor can help calculate detonation pressure peaks.
GPlan for gauge uncertainty. Mechanical gauge tolerance has been observed as great as 50 psi.
Gauges are different, and if gauge accuracy is important, make sure you select the best ones.
Page 4 of 42
GAnnulus pressure monitoring must be implemented. Due to temperature increase during

production a pressure increase would be expected. The pressure build-up with time and flow
rate can be predicted using a program such as Landmarks Wellcat.
GWith underbalanced annulus fluids (common on most HPHT well completions), the following
checks should be undertaken: a) liner to be run with a tieback packer; b) production
casing/liner to be pressure tested with mud in hole to simulate max downhole pressure
resulting from surface tubing leak with seawater annulus; c) liner lap to be thoroughly inflow
tested through drillstring using retrievable packer to full seawater differential, and d)
production packer to be tested from below.
Equipment Selection
GIn general terms: is the completion equipment field proven under conditions similar or worse
than anticipated on your well? If not, has the equipment been tested and qualified to actual
conditions?
GHave you selected ‘best-in-class’ equipment? If not, why?
GIs the equipment compatible with well fluids (fluids in place and fluids introduced)? This
goes for both the equipment metallurgy selection and the elastomers.
GDoes the equipment (including connections) have sufficient strength to withstand the high
loads imposed as well as the high pressures?
GIs the equipment qualified and rated to withstand high temperatures, including heating due to
inverse Joule Thompson effects?
GHave you ensured that all materials in the production tubing, packer assembly and all
downhole tools meet NACE specifications for your HPHT well? Even small concentrations
of H2S have high partial pressure in HP wells.
GHave you chosen a reliable and proven premium connection for your HPHT well? Will this
connection withstand the compressive forces during production? Remember to use the correct
connection compression rating in the tubing simulations.
GIs the production packer fit for purpose (proven, tested, qualified, best-in-class, QA’d,
compatible with fluids and environment)? Are your load cases well within the packer
performance envelope (remember to adjust the packer envelope for other limiting factors, see
section 6.6)?
GAre you using a tubing anchor? Is this a weak point? Have you considered eliminating the
tubing anchor, and just using a LH premium connection similar to the tubing itself?
GIf designing a liner top completion without a production packer: Have you properly
considered the risks of a leaking liner top? Have you considered the alternatives to a
‘conventional’ liner top completion?
GAre you planning to use retrievable bridge plug? The large packer elastomer seals have a
tendency to harden at high temperature, and will over some time loose their packer element
restoration ability. As a result it can get very difficult to pull these packers, particularly on
wireline. From experience, the success is higher with nipple plugs, which has much smaller
seals. Packers with large elastomer seals can loose the element requiring fishing trips.
GIf you are planning to use inflatable packers, - have you assumed a low success rate? The
record is average at best for ‘normal’ wells, and the technology is only applicable for
‘borderline’ HT wells. In general, don’t plan for using inflatable packers, as they are not
likely to survive the high temperature, large temperature changes and high differential
pressures seen in HPHT wells
Page 5 of 42
GSelect a metal-to-metal DHSV, which has proven use in previous HPHT wells. Ensure the
DHSV is qualified for your actual conditions, as with all other downhole equipment. A
single, non-equalizing valve is recommended.
GHave you properly assessed DHSV control line pressures? An insert valve may require a
higher control line pressure! Too high pressures may necessitate a different and more
complex DHSV design, particularly for subsea wells.
GIs the DHSV control line tested and qualified for use at anticipated well temperature and
annulus conditions?
GHas a contingent insert safety valve been investigated? These often cause very small IDs,
could cause hydrate conditions, and may severely limit production rate.
GIf installing downhole gauges are cost and risk beneficial: Select permanent gauges that are
proven and robust for HPHT and applications. Establish that the temperature transients
experienced in flowing and shutting in HTHP wells do not affect their accuracy.
GConfirm the rating of all the completion accessories (including threads) is equivalent to the
tubulars, and does not represent a weak point.
Preparations / Planning
GHave the equipment manufacture undergone a comprehensive quality plan tailored to your
requirements (your Statement of Requirements)?
GHave you implemented strict QA/QC procedures in the onshore equipment preparation?
GDo you have contingency plans in place in case equipment does not work as planned? Is
back-up equipment and contingency equipment in place, and up to the same standard as the
planned equipment?
GHave you considered having a contingent slimhole completion design available, in case
excessive casing wear necessitates a smaller tieback casing?
GIdeally the well has been designed from the inside out and bottom to top, so the completion
design dictates casing design and hence pressure ratings and test requirements. If this has not
been adhered to, does any of the pressure testing in the completion phase introduce pressures
on the production casing and liner this has previously not been tested to? If yes, ensure this
pressure test is done before running the completion (in the drilling phase).
GHave you looked at the hydrate potential during the completion and first flowback, and taken
the necessary precautions?
GHave you ensured that your tubing running equipment does not yield or mark the tubulars
when running? If in doubt, do a trial at a training rig. Finite Element Analysis can also
provide some answers to this.
GAre there proper procedures and inspections in place for the tubing shipping and handling to
prevent and detect any damage to the tubulars?
GEnsure all electronic components in the gauges have been tested to the maximum anticipated
downhole temperature (including any inverse Joule Thompson heating).
GIf using interventionless barrier valves for your HPHT completion it is recommended that: a)
Rigorous and proper casing cleaning is undertaken; b) Proper operational procedures to
prevent any accumulation of debris on top of a closed valve for all operations before the valve
is opened; c) Running the valve in a clear fluid; d) Keeping the BHA as simple as possible; e)
Approaching liner top isolations as a ‘total system’, not solely looking at the barrier valve
itself; f) Consider using a high-density viscous pill on top of the closed valve; g) Increasing
Page 6 of 42
the distance from the closed valve to the pressure activation port; h) Consider dressing the
tool with optimal rather than maximum number of pressure cycles; and i) Proper testing,
qualification and QA in equipment preparation and offshore operation is mandatory, and
needs attention.
GOther things that need to be considered for the barrier valve selection is: a) Does the barrier
valve provide the flexibility for an increased debris sump; b) Does it require pressure
differential to open; c) Consider using a barrier valve with the largest possible opening force;
and d) Select a barrier valve system that provides flexible contingent measures.
GThe dimensions of all downhole equipment to be used during the completion shall be
measured and recorded prior to being run. An equipment schematic complete with OD & ID
and length of each component shall be produced. All downhole equipment should be drifted.
Personal notes / other experiences:
Page 7 of 42
6.2 HPHT Completion Design Methodology
The large number of requirements and limitations on typical HPHT fields make the completion
design process complex, and the designs used are often a compromise aimed at delivering value
over the entire life of the field. The complexity of the situation demands that the completion
design is worked through in a methodical way.
A step-by-step methodology is suggested for planning the HPHT completion operation and for
selecting suitable completion equipment, as well as minimizing the risks of failures (HSE and
NPT). The major steps are suggested as follows:
1. Gather well specific information according to section 6.3.
2. Establish a first pass completion design by an approach as laid out in the flowchart in
figure 1.
3. With the conceptual completion design from step 2, use appropriate simulation software,
for example Halliburton (Landmark) WellCat and Petroleum Experts’ Prosper, to
establish the most likely production rates, and corresponding downhole, subsea, and
surface temperatures and pressures. Remember to account for increased downhole
temperatures due to reverse Joule Thompson effects when the well is flowing.
4. Agree duty requirements for equipment. Review sections 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 (selecting the
downhole completion equipment), and use information from steps 1-4 to establish a
‘Statement of Requirements’ (SoR) for the completion equipment. Use the checklist in
chapter 6.1 to verify a proper selection.
5. Establish specifications and any limitations of the completion equipment, and document
these in Basis of Design.
6. Agree procurement strategy for equipment taking account of need for selection and
procurement of proven equipment rather than unproven equipment.
7. Finalize selection of completion equipment for the HPHT well. Ensure the selected
equipment is tested and qualified for the application. If not, it is strongly recommended
that relevant qualification testing be conducted.
8. Verify (and agree) selection and rationale with HPHT completion experts and drilling
experts in peer review. Need to assure compatibility between completion design and
casing / liner design.
9. Perform a proper risk assessment of the application of the completion design, and ensure
adequate QA/QC of equipment when procured and manufactured.
10. Peer review the outline completion programme.
11. Perform a detailed risk assessment of the completion programme during the ‘Complete
Well on Paper’ exercise to ensure crews are aware of what is required to make the
operation successful.
Page 8 of 42
Develop well ‘statement of requirements’

in multi discipline forum
Understand and agree on completion

re quirements, and their relative importance.
Example : sand production potential, water production,
scale formation, prod rates, need for stimulation, etc.
Establish possible completion designs.

Example : sand control method, perforation method,
open hole or cased hole completion, etc.
If necessary : Challenge /
Revisit requirements
Risk assessment and cost / benefit analysis

of possible designs (rough scale).
Result : Re commended solution

(prefe rably one)
Fine tune completion design.

Example : sand control design, perforation design,
materials, tubing design, etc.
Repeat until
satisfactory result
Risk assessment and cost / benefit analysis

of designs (fine scale).
Result : Final completion design
Figure 1: Flow diagram illustrating a methodical approach to the first pass completion design,
and the need for iteration. This process should involve all the project members
including reservoir, production, rock mechanics, and completions and drilling
engineers.
Page 9 of 42
6.3 Required Information for HPHT Completion Design
A significant amount of information is required to establish the well conditions, in order to select
an optimised completion. The table below is guidance on the information required. Sometimes all
this information is not available. In that case, data from offset wells or comparable formations
could be used. It should be understood that the lack of, or inaccuracy of available data will make
the completion design flawed.
Information Personal Notes

General Well Type of well (gas, gas condensate, oil)
Information Planned Life of Well
Reservoir Hole Size (Bit Size)
Casing (or Liner) Size
Casing (or Liner) Weight
Casing (or Liner) Grade
Casing / Liner centralized?
Cement Compressive Strength
Planned Perforating Interval
Deviation at Perforations
Max Deviation (at depth)
Minimum ID when running guns
Well Schematic
Well Survey Listing
Temperature Bottom Hole Static
Bottom Hole Flowing
Flowing @ WH
Shut-in @ WH
Pressure Pore Pressure
Fracture Pressure
Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure
Flowing @ WH
Shut-in @ WH
Production Expected Flow Rate (maximum)
Information Expected Flow Rate (minimum)
Drawdown (maximum)
Drawdown (minimum)
Estimated Productivity Index
Estimated Kill Rate and Pressure
Flow Regime
Water Rate
Formation Water Composition
pH (bottom hole and surface)
PVT Data
Hydrocarbon Gradient
H2S (ppm)
CO2 (mole %)
GOR or CGR
Dew Point Pressure (for gas condensate wells)
Bubble point pressure (for oil wells)
Formation Bulk Density
Information Porosity
Compressive Strength
Overburden
Sanding Potential
Permeability
Lithology (sandstone, limestone, etc)
Horizontal to Vertical Permeability (kh/kv)
Reservoir depth (TVD)
Net Sand
Damage Zone Thickness
Wellbore Fluids Wellbore Fluid Across Reservoir Section
Page 10 of 42
Information Personal Notes

Wellbore Fluid Density
Packer Fluid Planned (with density)
Friction Reducers?
Any Injection or Pumping Planned?
Any Scale Squeeze Jobs Required?
Any Acid Jobs Likely?
Other Chemicals?
Table 1: Required Information for HPHT Completion Design. Quite a bit of this information will be driven by the completion design
itself.
6.4 General HPHT Completion Design Requirements & Limitations
The completion equipment for the HPHT well(s) needs to function under very severe conditions,
both during the installation, initial well flow and clean up, and through the well life span. The
equipment should ideally meet all following requirements:
Ø Field proven equipment (avoid equipment which has not been proven under similar
conditions if you can)
Ø Tested and qualified equipment
Ø Fulfil strict QA / QC procedures after manufacture and before shipment offshore, as
well as during assembly onshore (and offshore)
Ø Fit for purpose equipment for HPHT conditions (i.e. simple, robust and safe)
Ø Best in class (equipment with the best run record at comparable conditions) equipment
Ø Sufficient mechanical strength
Ø Corrosion and erosion resistant to well flow / fluids
Ø Compatible with planned chemicals to be used
Ø Pressure and temperature compatible
If at all possible, the completion equipment should be field proven under similar conditions to the
actual HPHT field conditions. If the equipment is not proven under similar conditions, then it
should be tested and qualified to simulate those conditions. Under no circumstances should any
equipment be run into the well, if it does not fulfil one of these two requirements.
The primary design point that needs to be observed is that the completion should be SIMPLE,
ROBUST & SAFE to ensure efficient installation, maintenance and intervention. In addition the
completion design for HPHT wells must consider:
Redundancy and Flexibility Alternative / contingency plans and tested back-up equipment should
be in place, to prevent excessive NPT. Examples of this are: What to
do if guns don’t fire, if guns do not drop, if the well does not
pressure test, if casing wear is excessive, etc.
Well Control Well Control is an important part of the HPHT completion design.
Issues evolving around leaking liner tops, displacement to seawater,
and underbalanced packer fluid should be thoroughly worked.
Underbalanced packer fluids will introduce specific requirements to
the completion design, like use of tieback packer, testing the
production packer from below, inflow test of liner top, etc.
Page 11 of 42
Pressure testing Very high pressures, HPHT conditions, and lower safety margins
make it essential to understand the pressure rating dependency
between individual well and completion parts. For example, when
testing the tubing, the TRSCSSV control line pressure is affected,
which again affects the tubing hanger pressure rating. Or, - when
testing the production annulus, the pressure rating of the casing also
comes into play.
Limited Intervention Options Coiled tubing, snubbing or electric line pose a very high risk and
should be avoided with the high initial SITHP.
Hydrate Formation The design and operational procedures should include the high risk
of hydrates, and consider how this can be prevented or combated.
Ease of Intervention Facilitate easy and cost effective intervention operations options into
the final completion design as well as ensuring that the completion
can be pulled in an easy and effective manner. Different types of
fishing operations that may result should be considered.
Weather An important factor to take into consideration for a subsea operation.
Obviously some types of operations are less weather / heave
dependent than others. This should be part of the total risk
assessment. Operations, which are vulnerable to heave (e.g. CT rig
up), should be avoided, if at all possible.
Expectations / Requirements of the Well Design
Maximum Inclination It is important to keep the production casing (last casing above the
reservoir) below approx. 60 degrees deviation. This inclination enables
wireline to be run in the well / completion to a point just above the top of
the reservoir (for example to retrieve or set plugs), and will help keeping
completion operation simple, and costs down.
Casing Design Ideally, this should be driven by the tubing design, completion equipment
specifications, pressure test requirements, and packer fluid (type and
density) selection (well designed from the inside out, and from bottom to
top). Special attention should be paid to the casing below the production
packer setting depth. This will be exposed to well fluids, and to excessive
pressures during bullheading and production. The top part is also
important for corrosion considerations, as oxygen may enter the top part
of the annulus during production (annulus bleed off). Trapped annuli of
the B and C annulus is important, - several HPHT operators have
experienced casing collapse due to trapped annuli.
Liner size This affects the well perforating options and, to a lesser extent, the
production rates. One of the most important aspect of the liner size is that
it governs what kind of interventions can be conducted later in the well
history. The liner size also affects the ability to run and clean the liner.
The liner material needs to be compatible with well fluids and
intervention fluids, in order to avoid corrosion, which can cause
difficulties during interventions.
Page 12 of 42
Drilling Fluid If a well is completed open hole, the liner lap is exposed to well fluids,
and therefore needs to be compatible with those. Also, the high density
mud is required to be compatible with any sand control screens that are
being run, so that the mud and the filter-cake can be flowed back through
the screens without causing any plugging.
Formation Damage Drilling fluids should cause as little formation damage as possible. Fluid
invasion in the drilling phase should be minimised as it impairs
productivity. Formation damage and fluid invasion cannot be completely
avoided so the perforating performance must be as high as practicable.
Clean Casing A clean casing is required to ensure that the completion can be run safely
into place, without causing any damage to elastomers and equipment
while RIH. If the well is to be perforated in overbalance, the casing / liner
cleaning needs to be more stringent, as is the fluid specifications for the
fluids left in the well after the cleaning.
Pressure testing After the well is cased the pressure tests must be compatible with the
required pressure when testing the installed completion. This may require
a separate run with a retrievable packer in the drilling phase. It is also
important to ensure that all tests and other information from the drilling
phase, which are important for the completion phase, are properly
documented.
Packers or Plugs All plugs and packers must be qualified and tested for the actual HPHT
condition, i.e. to the same standard as the completion equipment. This
goes for any temporary abandonment packers (upper and lower) that are
pulled before the completion is run, as well as plugs and packers to be
pulled after the completion is in place. Sizing will need to be
compatible with the completion equipment, to ensure that they can be
pulled through the production tubing. If at all possible, packers with
large elastomer elements (that may cause swelling under HT conditions)
should be avoided, or some sort of redundancy should be built in (plug
in tailpipe). Inflatable packers offer poor reliability under HPHT
conditions, and should not be utilized.
Maintenance and Interventions
Maintenance and interventions should be kept to a minimum on HPHT wells, at least until later
life when the pressure has dropped significantly (to within normal well servicing pressures).
However, it is important to have a prediction of potential maintenance and intervention work at
an early stage, and account for this in the completion design. There are HPHT completions today
that do not allow for late life sand control (through tubing), even though sand production is
expected. Also, it is vital to design the completion to minimise the intervention frequency and
duration. The types of interventions that may be required are as follows:
Pumping operations Scale inhibitor squeezes, well killing, and possible acid treatments to
dissolve scale need to be considered, with emphasis on surface pressure
required for efficient placement of the inhibitors.
Water shut-off Is water breakthrough expected? How would it be combated? What
would be the intervention method (wireline or coiled tubing)?
Page 13 of 42
Scale removal If an acid bullheading operation is not effective, coiled tubing may be
employed to remove scale, either mechanically, or chemically. Scale
inhibitor treatments by bullheading may not be effective or desirable.
These types of bullhead operations tend to introduce formation damage
and reductions in PI.
Sand After a certain reservoir pressure depletion, the wells may start to produce
sand. A sand wash job, and subsequent sand control operation may then
be necessary. This can be a coiled tubing intervention, or a full-blown
work-over involving pulling the old completion.
Tubing leak A mechanical failure of the tubing string, tubing hanger or production
packer may introduce a leak from tubing to annulus. A full work-over is
typically required.
Safety valve failure A MTTF of approx. 30 years is estimated for the TRSCSSV, but this
figure may be lower for a HPHT field (high temperatures, rock failure,
severe scaling). A failure could result in a wireline operation to run an
insert valve (with its limitation). A leaking control line will result in a full
work-over.
Data acquisition Production logging may be necessary for both reservoir monitoring, and
trouble shooting individual well performance. Typical surveys may be
water inflow detection, sand detection, monitoring the completion
condition, P/T surveys, etc. Memory PLTs on slickline may be used early
on, when SIWHP is high.
Re-perf / perforation Damage from bullheading operations, scale build-up, perforating any
(initially left out) high permeability sands, may necessitate an
intervention.
Sidetracking A sidetrack may prove favourable if the other options are particularly
risky, difficult or time consuming. Sidetracking may only be an option
early in the field’s history, though, as drilling may be impossible after
certain depletion. A solution to overcome this may be to sidetrack the
well close to the mother well, - where the pressure regime is known.
Hydrate plug removal Hydrate formation is possible. In the case of a large hydrate plug (for
example an operator erroneously trying to equalise and open the
TRSCSSV with pure seawater, which has happened on several
occasions), it may prove very time consuming to remove the hydrate plug
without intervening in the well.
Subsea XT failure This would typically involve wireline operations, and a rig, or an
intervention vessel to replace the tree.
Other subsea equipment Erosion in chokes, and choke bridge, failure of control pod, etc, may
instigate interventions. Chokes installed at surface or designed for ease of
change should be considered for HPHT wells.
Other interventions These might include sampling, bailing, fishing, milling, punching, junk
shots, cutting, etc. They are typically done on wireline (slickline or e-
line), but CT may be required.
Page 14 of 42
6.5 Production Tubing
6.5.1 Production Tubing Sizing
General
Tubing size is selected based on inflow and outflow performance with the aim of optimising
production and / or reserves for a particular completion. In addition, the following factors will
typically influence the tubing design, and should be accounted for in the selection and design of
the HPHT production tubing string:
Ø Casing design (Ideally the tubing and casing design must be evaluated together)
Ø Corrosion and erosion considerations
Ø Production rate requirements
Ø Reservoir monitoring requirements (P/T gauges)
Ø Intervention requirements
Ø Strength requirements
Ø Installation requirements (running, pulling, fishing, circulation)
Ø Completion hardware in the tubing string
Ø Scale potential
Ø Packer fluid selection
7” tubing is often used on normally pressured wells. For several reasons, 7” tubing may be less
advantageous on a HPHT well, even though it represents the highest rates and the lowest pressure
loss. Typical reasons for selecting smaller size tubing on HPHT wells are:
Ø A maximum drawdown on the sandface completion (due to risk of sand failure) may be the
limiting production factor, not the tubing.
Ø If P/T gauges are considered cost / beneficial, the clearance between the gauge mandrel /
cable camps and ID of casing will be very small.
Ø Smaller size tubing is easier to run and easier to fish.
Ø There’s less room for a 7” tubing to buckle during production (heat-up), increasing
compressive loads on the deep connections. This may necessitate a completion PBR, which
is a possible leak path.
Ø Obtaining a true monobore with a 7” tubing is difficult, as the required pressure rating of
the tubing hanger, safety valve and production packer typically lead to ID restrictions in a
HPHT well.
Ø Scale build-up often occurs at ID changes. With smaller size tubing (for example 5”) it’s
easier to design a completion with minimal ID changes.
Page 15 of 42
It may be necessary to include a length of larger ID tubing at the top of the completion (above the
DHSV), in order to accommodate a wireline insert safety valve (WRSCSSV) with the largest
possible ID in case the TRSCSSV fails.
A slimhole top completion must be designed as a contingency in case of a casing restriction, or a

casing leak (resulting in a smaller size tie back casing). DHSV erosion should especially be
addressed if a slimhole completion is run.
6.5.2 Production Tubing Stress Analysis
Accurate temperature predictions are essential in planning the completion. Historically, many
operators have reported huge errors in the temperature predictions. Erroneous temperature
predictions impacts:
Ø Hydrate predictions and precautions

Ø Temperature limitations of x-mas trees, DHSVs, control lines and control line fluids, etc.
Ø Temperature limitations of surface equipment
Ø Tubing stresses, packer forces, temperature cycling stresses
Ø Annulus pressures and pressure management
Ø Issues around trapped annuli (of A, B and C annulus)
Ø Type of control line hydraulic fluids (water or oil based)
If the predictions are too low, it may result in having to flow the well at a limited rate. If the
predictions are too high, it will often result in over-specifying the completion design. Sources of
erroneous predictions are typically:
Ø Inputting insufficient or wrong PVT properties (wrong dewpoint, wrong CGR) of

hydrocarbons into the simulator software. Alternatively inputting wrong water cut, or
wrong multi-phase correlation model. The amount of liquids in the well stream greatly
affects the temperature predictions, as liquids transfer the heat better.
Ø Improper assessment of inverse Joule-Thompson heating. Simulation models like WellCat
accounts for inverse Joule Thompson in the well, but not in the near wellbore region. The
flowing BHT may be higher than static BHT, as the near wellbore region heats up due to
inverse J-T heating. The way to handle this is to input an increased flowing BHT in
WellCat, based on estimates on how much the apparent reservoir temperature could
increase due to inverse J-T.
Ø Improper input of annular fluid conductivities, or different annular fluids used on the well
than used in the simulations.
Ø Erroneous estimates of soil conductivity. This is a difficult parameter to estimate, and is
typically left at default.
Ø Improper assessment of well unloading. Often this aspect is not simulated at all, but a
temperature peak may occur initially when the wellbore fluids (brine, drilling fluid) from
deep down reaches the top parts of the well.
Page 16 of 42
Ø Improper assessment of time aspects. Short flowing periods (for example DSTs) may never
reach the ‘true’ temperature. Development wells producing over long periods will heat up
to a higher surface temperature than the typical DST.
Ø Wrong TOC input (on production casing in particular) into model.
Ø Simulations done with production rates different from the real production rates. The
simulations should be done with rates lower and higher than expected.
Ø Heating effects from neighbouring wells. On platform or subsea template wells this effect
can be significant, and is often neglected. A super heated zone at surface will obviously
cause surface temperatures to be higher, as the cooling effect from the formation close to
surface is less than calculated in the simulations.
Ø Changes to the well design. Often the temperature simulations are done many months
before the actual operations. Many changes may have been done from the time of the
simulations to the actual operation. Casing changes, fluid changes, depth changes, well
profile changes, etc. Accurate temperature modelling cannot be expected if the inputs are
not accurate. Remodelling should be performed for all critical changes in well design
(pressures, temperatures, depths, fluids, etc).
Ø Static well temperature profile. This is often simulated as linear. This is typically not the
case, as different rocks have different conductivities. The WellCat model can account for
this, but this feature is seldom used. Log data from offset wells may give valuable input to
this.
Ø Insulated tubing. This is difficult to model for the temperature simulators. Much work has
been done on this in 2000, following the Marlin completion failure in late 1999.
Ø Heat loss in sea. WellCat can model this quite accurately, but this feature is seldom used to
its full extent.
In addition to the temperatures, a proper assessment should be done on pressures. A conservative
selection of maximum reservoir pressure, and a conservative hydrocarbon gradient should be a
sound approach. For gas and gas / condensate wells, a 0.15 psi/ft (methane) gradient may be used
as a worst case for determining SITHP. An evaluation of maximum allowed annular surface
pressure(s) should also be done, with a recommendation of max annular pressure to be had before
bleeding off. The load cases that ought to be considered as a minimum are:
Page 17 of 42
Installation Buoyed weight of string in brine or packer fluid, accounting for any set down weights, and the
pressure required for anchoring a packer.
Burst Pressure test to maximum pressure (remember well kill pressures)
Pressure up to fire guns.
Shut in Downhole Safety Valve (maximum rate, hot well conditions)
Collapse Annular pressure test to maximum SITHP
Evacuated tubing (cold conditions)
Evacuated tubing (hot conditions)
Any downhole valve shut and pressure above bled off (hot)
Tubing leak below SSSV with SSSV shut and pressure above bled off
Tubing leak (hot)
Tubing leak (cold)
Axial Clean-Up of Initial Well Fluids
Low Rate Production
Medium Rate Production
Maximum Rate Production
Maximum Rate Production + Annulus Pressure, to determine MAASP
Maximum Rate + 20% Production (for sensitivity)
Maximum Rate Shut in (hot)
Maximum Rate Shut in (cold)
Start well kill (cold well, killing with max surface pressure)
End well kill
Table 2; Typical Load Cases for Production Tubing Design
The OD of the tubing connections are important for HPHT tubing design, as this determines how
much the tubing is allowed to buckle in a compressed load case (producing). If cable clamps for
DHPGs and DHSVs are used, this will typically increase the effective OD of the couplings, and
alter the compressive forces on the deep connections. This should be investigated in the tubing
design.
Another issue to consider is late alterations to the setting depth of the top completion. This may
occur if an intermediate drilling liner has to be employed (not initially planned for). A shallower
setting depth can increase the axial forces for the production tubing, beyond the recommended
safety factor.
Other important inputs for the HPHT tubing design is getting the doglegs entered accurately, as
this will affect axial and tri-axial stresses. Conservative assumptions should be used in the
modelling if the well is not drilled. The temperature and pressures when setting the packer is also
critical, as this will determine the initial stress state of the tubing. If the initial stress state is
incorrect, the end stress state (when the well is live) is likely to be wrong. The BP Completion
Design Manual (1) includes a lot of good information on tubing design, together with road maps,
etc. It is strongly recommended that you refer to this, and the WellCat Manuals when performing
the tubing design.
There are two areas of the upper completion that typically will see the largest stresses. These
areas are the interface between the tubing and tubing hanger (top anchoring point), and the
interface between the tubing and the production packer (or seal stack, bottom anchoring point).
The reasons that these areas are especially critical have been laid out in table 3.
Page 18 of 42
Interface Why Critical?

Ø Will see large cyclic stresses due to the large temperature differences
Tubing to Tubing Hanger between flowing and shut-in
Ø Area where hydrogen assisted cracking is most likely to occur (low
temperature, high up in well)
Ø Area where halide induced cracking is most likely to occur, when
water phase of packer fluid is boiling off.
Ø Area where oxygen ingress will take place, when annulus is vented.
Ø Historically, the TH has been supplied with a TH pup joint different
from the tubing itself (delivered by TH vendor). The TH pup could
then represent a weak point (threads, rating, metallurgy, yield
strength). It is essential that the rating of the TH and pup is confirmed
equal to or greater than the tubing itself.
Ø Area with the highest (tensile) loads when pressure testing, pumping,
shut-in (cold)
Ø Area with the highest compressive loads (when producing)
Tubing to Production Packer
Ø The interface between the packer and the tubing may have a different
compression rating than the tubing itself. It could be a tubing anchor,
which has a lower compression rating than most premium
connections. Or it could be a different connection (lower
compression rating) than the tubing.
Ø The well is typically at it’s hottest at this point, so equipment will be
most effected by decreased yield strength (temperature deration).
Temperature is typically accounted for in the tubing, but not always
in the rating of completion equipment (for example a tubing anchor).
Table 3; Critical Areas for the Upper Completion on HPHT Wells
6.5.3 Tubing Connection Selection
The choice of tubing connection is a critical matter for HPHT wells. The connection must cope
with highly variable loads during production (and sometimes pumping into the well) and the need
for an effective gas tight seal under all well conditions. The connection must also withstand the
high compression loads likely when producing an HPHT well. A premium connection is required,
with a high compression rating.
The following connections (in table 4) with their associated compression rating and size range are
currently recommended for BP HPHT completions. Reference should be made to
http://houston.bpweb.bp.com/octgdesign/ for up to date guidance. The compression rating is a
percent of the tensile rating and is based on seal failure, not necessarily mechanical failure. For
all connections the internal pressure rating at 100% compression is 0 psi. For HPHT wells, it is
recommended to use a connection with a minimum of 80% compression efficiency, unless it can
be clearly demonstrated that a connection with lower compression rating will suffice.
Page 19 of 42
Connection Comp. Rating Size (inch) Comment

(% of tensile)
Vam TOP 60% 5”-7”
Vam TOP 100% 2 3/8”-4 ½” Available soon
Vam TOP HT 80% 5”-7” BP are standardizing on this connection for production
tubing purposes
Vam TOP HC 100% 5”-7”
Vam ACE 40% 2 3/8”-5 ½”
Vam ACE Mod 60% 2 3/8”-5 ½”
Kawasaki FOX 30-100% 2 3/8”-7” Rating typically only 40-50% of tensile, but dependent on
size and wall thickness
Kawasaki KS Bear 80% 2 3/8”-7” New thread from Kawasaki with performance better than
FOX. Testing ongoing.
Hydril 563 100% 2 3/8”-7”
Hydril 533 100% 2 3/8”-7”
2-step 80-100% 2 3/8”-4 ½” From Hunting, Grant Prideco and Benoit
NS-CC 100% 2 3/8”-7” Still being offered, even though Nippon Steel have ceased
pipe production. Compression rating depending on size
and wall thickness. Used for several HPHT developments.
Table 4: Compression Rating of Premium Connections used on HPHT Wells
Figure 2 shows the actual performance envelope for Vam TOP HT, which is the tubing
connection BP has standardised on.
VAM TOP HT
Performance Envelope
Connection
100
Pressure (% Pipe body)
50
-80 % CYS
-50
-100
100% API 5C3
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Axial Load (% PBYS)
CYS = 100% PBYS for Standard design
Figure 2: Performance Envelope for Vam TOP.
Attention should also be paid on the pipe dope selection. The pipe dope must work well with the
premium connection and the metallurgy planned, and should be compatible with the temperature
and well conditions. A dry run at a training rig is a good way to ensure that the tubing make up
and breaking works well, without galling.
6.5.4 Tubing Running and Pulling
Damage marks from tongs and slips, as well as yielding the production tubing material due to
uneven loads and high make-up torques are issues that need attention on HPHT wells. The degree
of resistance to corrosive agents such as acids, acid gases (H2S) and salts (chlorides) is mainly
determined by the surface integrity of the pipe. Surface damages due to inappropriate handling or
Page 20 of 42
by slip markings contribute directly to the development and propagation of corrosion (19). HPHT
wells are particularly sensitive to this, due to (often) high H2S partial pressures, very high
stresses, and potentially high chloride concentrations in the top parts of the annulus. It is
advisable to take a closer look at tubing running systems available, and assess which system
would present the lowest probability for detrimental damage to the tubing.
Today, chrome-handling equipment is available from several vendors, which visually reduces
markings on chrome pipe. However, it may increase stress levels in the pipe wall. Reducing the
coefficient of friction achieved by die teeth, tong jaws and slips requires increased normal forces
to achieve the same torques and string hang-off weights.
For the HPHT completion the aim should be to prevent marking the tubing while running, as this
could contribute to the development and propagation of corrosion caused by H2S and chlorides.
Both the Weatherford Microgrip system and the Franks Fluid Grip system appear to work
acceptably with respect to marking. The Microgrip covers 240 degrees of the tubing
circumference (67%) and the design does not mark the tubular significantly. The Franks Fluid
Grip system is truly non-marking and covers 360 degrees of the tubing circumference. However,
it grips the collar, and is as such dependent that the collar is made up properly from the tubing
vendor.
Localized yielding and residual strains in the tubing while making up could cause ovalling and
residual strains, which would make the tubular susceptible to corrosion caused by H2S. The
Franks Fluid Grip system has been tested for Shell Philippines (see 20) and was found to be non-
yielding. Weatherford have not got any test results for the Microgrip system, but can perform
FEA analysis with the actual tubulars. This is strongly recommended. The assessment on tubing
yielding should be made on both make-up and when the string is hanging with full weight in the
slips.
6.5.5 De-rating for Temperature
It is important to de-rate the tubulars (as well as completion equipment) for temperature effects.
The yield strength decreases with temperature, and this effect is quite severe at high temperature.
Table 5 lists temperature deration factors that are commonly used in the tubing simulations,
together with some actual figures from tests.
The temperature de-rating should be applied (manually) in the WellCat simulations and stress
calculations, as the vendors do not account for this. The ratings given in spec sheets refer to
surface temperature, and significant reduction in yield strength occurs at elevated temperatures.
One should be particularly observant on cold-worked CRA materials. When the material is cold-
worked, energy is stored within the material. Given the proper opportunity, the material will
return to its un-deformed state by releasing the energy. By heating the material, the energy barrier
that prevents this return to a lower energy is overcome. This is called annealing. The process of
heating the material can result in a reduction of yield stress. This is particularly important with
cold worked duplex steels, where compressive strengths are certainly significantly lower than the
tensile strength.
Page 21 of 42
Material Type Anisotropic Temperature Yield Thermal Comment

Yield Expansion
Carbon Steel 4140, etc 0 0.035 % per degF 6.4 x 10-6 per degF
13 Cr Martensitic SS 0 0.035 % per degF 6.0 x 10-6 per degF
Cr13S Martensitic SS 0 0.035 % per degF* 6.0 x 10-6 per degF
22Cr Duplex Martensitic + Radial stress = 0.1 % per degF** 6.0 x 10-6 per degF Be very careful with
Austenitic 0.95 x axial stress reduced compressive
strengths
25Cr Duplex Martensitic + Radial stress = 0.1 % per degF** 6.0 x 10-6 per degF Be very careful with
Austenitic 0.95 x axial stress reduced compressive
strengths
Alloy 825 8.5 x 10-6 per degF
Alloy 450 Martensitic SS 0 0.035 % per degF 6.0 x 10-6 per degF
Table 5: Properties of Commonly used materials in HPHT Completions
* Obtaining actual test data from Sumitomo (information taken from a Sumitomo paper of May 1998, refer to John Martin in BP
Sunbury), the drop in yield strength is small compared to duplex stainless steel, and more akin to carbon and low alloy steels. The
actual figures for SM13CRS-95 (actual measurements) are: Room Temperature (25 degC) ð 96ksi, 100 degC ð 95ksi, 150 degC
ð 94ksi, and 200 degC ð 92ksi.
** For high strength duplex the figures Sunbury use are: Room Temperature (70 degF) ð 0 reduction, 220 degF ð 18% reduction,
300 degF ð 21% reduction, 390 degF ð 24% reduction. For low strength (annealed) duplex the figures are: Room Temperature
(70 degF) ð 0 reduction, 220 degF ð 21% reduction, 300 degF ð 30% reduction, 390 degF ð 32% reduction (ref. John Martin
and Steve Parfitt).
The issue of temperature de-rating is also important for completion equipment (packers, safety
valves, etc). It is not uncommon that these parts have not been de-rated for temperature, and this
is required.
Page 22 of 42
6.6 Selecting Liner Top, Production Packer or Packerless Completion
Several different top completion styles are being utilised on HPHT wells, with their own merits.
Typically, they are:
Ø Production packer style: The production tubing is anchored at the bottom by means of an
integral packer (permanent). The completion on Marnock utilises this design.
Ø Liner top style: The production tubing is stung into a liner PBR with a production seal
stack. The seal stack can move, but the completion is typically designed to minimise seal
movement. The Erskine completions are designed in this manner.
Ø Packerless completion: The production tubing is free to move, and is hanging free from the
tubing hanger. Hence the A annulus is live. The Tuscaloosa completions are designed this
way.
6.6.1 Production Packer Style Completion
A permanent production packer is commonly utilised on HPHT well completions as they usually
have higher-pressure differential and temperature ratings, although many wells are completed
packer-less. When completing the well with a production packer, it should be simple to install and
must withstand high differential pressures and pressure cycles, and high temperatures. The typical
production packer requirements are:
Ø Be able to be installed without any premature setting or swelling (e.g. due to OBM
remains)
Ø Have a sufficient OD difference between the gauge ring and slips, to prevent
accidental setting while RIH.
Ø Withstand the high temperature and temperature cycles over the life of the well
Ø Withstand the differential pressure initially, and over the life of the well
Ø Be compatible with the different well fluids, in order to set when required, and last the
life of well
Ø Withstand forces in compression (pressure test annulus) or tension (well killing, high
pressure from below, together with cooling effects on the tubing) initially and over
life of well
Ø Prevent any damage from the slips that could weaken the ratings of the casing when
setting.
Good practices when selecting a production packer for your HPHT completion is:
Ø Select a packer that is demonstrated to work under similar conditions, and has a
proven track record.
Page 23 of 42
Ø Look closely at the clearance between the packer gauge rings and casing drift ID.
Some HPHT packers have a clearance smaller than the API recommended minimum
(1/8”), arguably increasing the probability for problems when RIH.
Ø The packer should be manufactured in a material that is compatible with the well
fluids. Be aware that some bar stock materials are known to be of poorer quality than
the tubular counterpart (for instance Cr13S). Special qualification tests may be
required on the bar stock material. Also, the packer rating should be de-rated for
temperature dependent yield.
Ø The elastomers should be chosen with the well conditions in mind. Be aware that
Aflas (as commonly used on HPHT packers) swells if contacted by any oil based
fluids (remnants from OBM for instance). Also, if casing wear is prominent and key
seating may show, an Aflas element could have problems sealing.
Packers suitable for HPHT completions are available from most of the larger completion service
companies. Obviously some packers have a wider track record than others. If using a packer
without a proven history, a rigorous testing and qualification programme is required.
Figure 3 shows a typical packer envelope for a HPHT production packer with the maximum
limiting pressures and loads from the casing and completion superimposed on this design. In this
case, the packer design is not a limiting factor in the completion design. The liner top isolation
valve below limits max pressure below packer, and max pressure above is limited by the 10 ¾”
casing. As for set down weight, the tubing connections are the limiting factor.
500000
TENSILE
300000
Max Pressure Above Max Pressure Below

is 8000 psi (10 ¾”) is 7500 psi (FIV)
100000
FORCE
-100000
SET-DOWN
-300000
Max Set Down

is 335 kips (Vam TOP)
-500000
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
PRESSURE
ABOVE BELOW
Figure 3: Production Packer Envelope (blue envelope) with other limiting factors (in
red, limiting the pressure from above is the 10 ¾” casing, below is the FIV
liner top isolation valve, and max set down weight is limited by the 60%
PBYS compression rating of the Vam TOP threads (from Devenick)).
Page 24 of 42
Tubing Anchor
The tubing anchor could arguably be left out of the completion design (remember the simplicity
philosophy). The production packer can be supplied with a LH premium tubing connection with
rating equal to the production tubing tubulars.
The rationale behind this is as follows: Historically, cutting the tubing before retrieval has still
been required on completions run with a tubing anchor. The anchor has been retrieved on a
separate trip, after the top part of the tubing has been pulled. The tubing anchor is a possible leak
path, with tension and compression ratings different from the tubing. Leaving it out simplifies the
completion design, which is good for these types of wells. If the tubing need to be pulled and re-
run, a complete top completion assembly with a new production packer should be re-run. A
stinger without seals can be utilised, to create a ‘quiet fluid zone’ between the new and old
production packers.
Liner Top Completion Stinger / Entry Guide
Seals on a liner top stinger below the production packer should be removed for HPHT well
conditions (when using a production packer style top completion), as there is a chance of trapping
a volume in the cavity enclosed by the tubing, production packer, casing, liner hanger packer and
stinger / PBR. One-way seals might inadvertently hold pressure the wrong way, and thus trap a
small fluid volume. This has actually been tested, and it was proven that one-way seals hold
pressure the ‘wrong way’. HPHT conditions are believed to worsen this effect. The stinger should
be run without seals, and the production packer set against a plug in a nipple profile below the
production packer. The plug is pulled after the top completion is installed and tested. This also
allows circulation to be conducted after the tubing hanger is set and tested (past the production
packer, which is not yet set), which is a large benefit from a well control perspective, especially if
running the top completion in kill weight brine.
A self-aligning mule-shoe on the liner top completion stinger may be utilised, as this has proven
its value by increasing the confidence in obtaining a correct space-out. This also prevents the
tubing from having to be rotated when entering the PBR. The drawback of the self-aligning mule-
shoe is that you introduce another piece of equipment with moving parts (which potentially can
cause a problem, and thus increases the risk).
Page 25 of 42
6.6.2 Liner Top Completions
Liner top completions are also frequently used on HPHT wells. This design relies on a
completion seal stack holding pressure in the liner PBR, as well as a hydraulic seal between the
liner and production casing (obtained by the liner lap cement bond and / or a liner hanger packer).
Table 6 lists characteristic advantages and disadvantages of a liner top completion and a
production packer type completion.
Issue Liner Top Completion Production Packer

Liner Top Completion or þ Fairly simple þ Arguably the most reliable way to create a
Production Packer? þ Pulling the tubing is more convenient. lasting primary barrier
þ Convenient where risks associated with the þ Easier to space out
sandface completion may require pulling ý More time consuming (and riskier) if the
the production tubing (for instance failure tubing requires to be pulled
of preinstalled perforation guns). ý Another piece of equipment that adds to the
ý Impossible to do any circulation or cost
placement of packer fluids after the tubing ý Typically requires a slickline run with a
hanger is landed standing valve for setting the packer
ý Relies on seals in seal bore, which is less
reliable than a production packer seal
ý Leaks in liner lap cement bond and / or
liner hanger packer will cause live annulus
(arguably more likely than a leaking
production packer).
ý Space-out is more difficult
ý Always a risk that the stinger could exit the
PBR, and cause hydrocarbons entering the
A annulus (for example during a pumping
job).
ý No guarantee that the tubing can be pulled
without problems
ý Not a good solution for open hole
completions (no cemented liner lap).
Table 6: Pros and Cons of Liner Top Completions and Production Packer Completions
The Sintef reliability study (23) on completion equipment indicates that a production packer is
more than 5 times as reliable as a seal assembly (for standard wells).
Obviously a liner top completion will offer (large) advantage in the case of having to pull the top
completion. For some well designs the likelihood of this is not appreciably small, and this may
call for a completion design where pulling the completion is as simple as possible. A permanent
packer with a completion PBR may be utilised, but this introduces a potential leak path, and thus
complicates the HPHT completion design.
Most HPHT operators have experienced failures of the liner top seal. This is commonly discussed
in the North Sea HPHT Operators Forum. Many of the failures are happening when the well is
underbalanced. This introduces large reverse-ballooning effects (collapse pressures in
combination with cooling effects from placing seawater), which will tend to destroy the cement
bond by introducing a micro-annulus. The liner top seal is then dependent on the liner top packer.
These seals are thin and small, and less capable to extrude and seal than a permanent production
packer.
Within BP, several assets have experienced leaking liner tops (see thread on Well Engineering
Forum, or reference 23). The experiences can be summarizes as follows:
Page 26 of 42
Ø Liner hanger packers are not a long-term solution to the integrity of the liner top.
They have been shown to fail, with time, on a number of occasions. The seals are
small (such that they can be run in mud without the seals swelling extensively), and
they are set in an environment that typically contains lots of debris (cement remnants,
etc).
Ø The ability of the drillers to achieve a good cement job is paramount in the liner-lap
integrity. Resultant poor cement bonds have led to numerous liner-top integrity
problems. The problem with HPHT wells is the large forces introduced when the well
is under-balanced (cooling and reverse ballooning), which will tend to create a micro-
annulus.
Ø If a leaking liner-top is remedied with tieback packer or scab-liner, the risk of a
resulting trapped volume cannot be ignored. Trapped volumes must be considered
(from a design point of view) and taken account of, clearly in a HPHT environment
the impact of a trapped-volume could be severe.
Ø Liner movement should not be ruled out; in long poorly cemented or un-cemented
production liners, as the liner may stroke under production load cases. This resultant
stroke can cause failure of the liner hanger if not considered during setting.
In summary, liner top completions are not recommended for HPHT wells, if long term isolation
of the production annulus is considered important for the well design. A completion design with a
production packer is allegedly a more rugged well design, more fit for life of well for those wells
requiring an isolated production annulus.
Alternative to Liner Top Completion
Halliburton has developed a system that has attributes similar to a liner top completion, but still
uses a permanent 9 7/8” production packer. It is rated to 15kpsi and 450 degF (for the 5” ID
packer system (called 5.5” x 4.5”), and 10kpsi and 450 degF for the smaller size 5.5” x 3.5”
system (4.5” packer ID). It includes an integral hydraulic set permanent packer that will function
as the production packer (can be tested from above and below). It also contains a 6” ID PBR and
seal stack (with MTM seals when static, and seal stack enclosed when running). The large ID of
the integral packer allows the seal stack to be crossed over to a perforating string. ID through the
seal stack is 2.96” or 3.74” (for the 5.5” x 4.5” system).
This implies that the tubing can be pulled if there is any problem with the perforating guns
(misfire, partial fire, no drop, etc). Shearing off at the PBR, and pulling the seal stack out of the
PBR do this. The perforation guns will pass through the large ID (up to 5”) permanent packer,
leaving the permanent packer in the well.
The system is illustrated in figure 4. The integral permanent packer will decrease the chances of
leaks into the production annulus over time (compared to a straight liner top completion with a
liner hanger packer). However, it still relies on the seal stack holding pressure on the PBR seal
bore over time, but MTM seals on the end-points may reduce the potential for leaks.
Page 27 of 42
TRSCSSV
Tubing
PBR (6” ID)
MHR Permanent Packer

(4.5” or 5” ID)
Perforation Guns
Figure 4: Halliburton alternative completion design to liner top completion.
6.6.3 Packer-less Completions
Some US land wells (e.g. Tuscaloosa) are completed without a packer (see figure 5), and with a
live production annulus (2). Some of these are produced up the tubing and / or up the annulus.
One issue that Tuscaloosa faced in the approval of packer-less completions was the lack of dual
pressure barriers. While the production casing is rated for the maximum shut in surface pressure,
the intermediate casing is not. This results in the production casing being a single barrier for a
short period of time until the surface pressure drops below the burst rating of the intermediate
casing. Typically, within the first three months, the maximum surface pressure has fallen to the
point where the intermediate casing acts as a true second barrier. This barrier philosophy requires
a dispensation from BP drilling and Well Operations Policy to be accepted.
One very important point to consider in the design of a deep HPHT packer-less well is the effect
of tension reducing the collapse pressure of the tubulars at surface. With Tuscaloosa well
conditions, 95 ksi is the highest yield strength Super 13 chrome material that can be used without
the risk of sulphide stress cracking. With 20000 feet of 95-ksi tubing hanging from surface, the
top joint of tubing is at 72% of its tensile limit, based on minimum yield strength in air. This
reduces the rated collapse pressure by 58%. For example 4” 14.80# 95-ksi tubing has a collapse
rating of 16340 psi without consideration of tensile yield effects. If 20000’ is hung off in air, the
top joint is at 72% of its yield strength. Taking this high yield state into account, the collapse
resistance has to be reduced by 58%. The rated collapse pressure reduces from 16340 psi to 6873
psi. This effect must be considered in all HPHT tubular designs, and is accounted for in WellCat.
Page 28 of 42
For the Tuscaloosa completion, the packer-less completion design has provided several
advantages (2). One potential HS&E problem to keep in mind is the issue of a tubing leak. This
may develop without being detected, and on a casing well (producing up the casing), it may
develop into a casing leak (flow through the hole in the tubing jetting the casing, - this actually
happened on one well, see section 6.8). If this happens in the early well life, there are no barriers
left.
Parlange #11
7 - 5/8” 95 ksi Super 13 - Chrome Casing
Packerless with 3 - 1/2” Super 13 - Chrome Tubing
30”
16”
11 - 7/8”
9- 5/8”
7”
Figure 5: Packerless completion from Tuscaloosa (US), producing up the annulus.
Page 29 of 42
6.7 Other Completion Hardware
6.7.1 Completion PBR / ELTSR Devices
HPHT conditions results in high axial forces on the production tubing. From a stress perspective,
it may be favourable to include a completion PBR (for expansion / contraction) above the
production packer. However, it should be considered to leave this piece of equipment out for the
following reasons:
Ø A conventional completion PBR would typically be too long in order to accommodate

the possible tubing movements and a completion PBR with a top stop will require a
very high shear rating. For the Statoil Kristin HPHT field, this has been calculated to
230,000 lbs.
Ø A completion PBR introduces more complexity than is desirable on HPHT wells
where the accepted philosophy is one of simplicity. The completion PBR is a potential
leak path.
Ø Shearing the PBR intentionally to retrieve the tubing will require a very high overpull.
Anchoring the tubing directly to the production packer (preferably with premium threads with
rating equivalent to the tubing itself) lets the production packer take up the forces created during
production and pumping, and minimises the number of latent leak paths on the primary barrier.
Obviously this is only possible if the packer, tubing connections and the casing can withstand the
imposed loads.
6.7.2 Downhole Safety Valve
Several tubing retrievable and wireline retrievable downhole safety valves (DHSVs) are available
and applicable for use on HPHT wells. All the major DHSV vendors (BOT, Halliburton,
Schlumberger) have valves available that have been utilized in HPHT wells. DHSV selection is a
little more complicated for HPHT wells, and these are the most important issues that should be
considered when selecting a valve:
Ø Dimensions. In order to manufacture a DHSV with sufficient rating (equivalent to the

production tubing), a reduction in ID and / or increase in OD are typically required. This
often necessitates the use of a larger production casing down to below DHSV setting depth,
particularly if downhole gauges are used. For instance, the valves most commonly used
today are 5.5” DHSVs in 10 ¾” x 9 7/8” casing, giving IDs of approx. 4.3”. One should
keep in mind that intervention equipment should be able to pass the DHSV. Baker have a
10k rated 5.5” DHSV that will fit inside a 9 7/8” casing (without any downhole gauge
cable passing it). Halliburton are currently testing out a 15kpsi, 400 degF rated 5.5” valve
(ID=4.313”) that fits inside 9 7/8” casing (OD=8.305”).
Ø Ratings. Ideally, the DHSV should not present a weak point in the top completion. It
should have ratings equal to or better than the production tubing. The threads should have
ratings equal to the tubing (an 85 ksi yield material DHSV may have pressure rating equal
to a 95 ksi yield tubing, but the tension and compression rating of the top and bottom
connections will be lower than the tubing). If the DHSV for any reason has a lower
Page 30 of 42
pressure rating than the rest of the completion, this should be included in the plans for
pressure testing, well killing, pumping operations, etc.
Ø Metallurgy and Elastomers. The DHSV is a very critical component. On a recent HPHT
well tubing hanger failure, the DHSV was the only piece that prevented a blowout. The
HPHT DHSV should be fitted with metal-to-metal seals (not elastomeric seals). The
metallurgy should be selected such that corrosion and erosion cannot compromise the
DHSV over life of field. One should note that specifying similar metallurgy to the tubing
may not be appropriate, as bar stock materials often do not exhibit similar properties to
tubular stock. As such, the DHSV material spec often needs to be higher than the tubing
material.
Ø Control Line / Control Line Pressures. With high SITHPs, high control line pressures are
required. A well with an 8000-psi SITHP may require control line pressure above 11.000
psi. This is important to keep in mind, as the control line pressure should be compatible
with hydraulic penetrators, control systems, etc. Sometimes other equipment (tubing
hangers, etc) may limit the control line pressure (to 10k or 15k). Maximum control line
pressure may then sometimes govern maximum pressure applied to the tubing, for instance
during a well pumping operation. (Comment: If the DHSV closes during well killing, this
should not be too critical. A flapper design makes it possible to pump through the flapper
at all times, and trapping a volume below the flapper is not possible, as long as the
completion below the flapper is in communication with the reservoir) .As for the control
line itself, it should be rated and tested to the appropriate temperature, and should be
compatible with annulus fluids. There are incidents where the control line has corroded. If
surface tubing temperatures at the DHSV are higher than 300 degF, a synthetic oil control
line fluid is required. The Castrol Brayco Micronic 864 HT200 is rated to 350 degF and has
been tested at higher temperatures. For environments where control fluid temperatures are
lower than 300 degF, a water based fluid like Castrol Transaqua HT is recommended.
Ø DHSV Type (Balanced or Conventional). Some DHSVs have the advantage of allowing
reduced control line pressures and deep setting depths by use of a pre-charged nitrogen
chamber, and may as such prove an advantage in some HPHT wells. There are currently
two major disadvantages though. These valves are still unproven for HPHT applications,
and are more complicated in their design than the proven, conventional valves. Secondly,
for a balanced valve design with a nitrogen chamber, the relatively large temperature
difference between hot and cold conditions equates to a large difference in opening
pressures (more than 3-4000 psi). The control line pressure should be set such that the
valve would stay open at all operating temperatures, and not prematurely close due to heat
up. For some HPHT wells, it may not be possible to set the operating pressure such that the
control line pressure would be higher than the SITHP, and still be below the maximum
allowable control line pressure. A control line pressure below SITHP at cold conditions
could pose a problem, since it means that the valve is not fail-safe close if there is a leak
from the tubing to the control line. This has occurred on some instances for BP (Machar,
Magnus), but may be regarded as an extreme case.
Ø Equalising / Non-equalising DHSV. A non-equalising DHSV is the simpler design, with

one less possible leak path. This is the most common (and soundest) choice in HPHT wells.
An equalising valve would need to be placed very deep in the HPHT well, to prevent
hydrates from forming when the valve is opened (typically deeper than 1200 meters TVD,
see table 7 for advantages and disadvantages of shallow / deep setting depths). This deep
setting depth is often not practical (control line pressures, casing design, etc). The
disadvantage of a non-equalising, shallow set valve is that hydrate inhibition (typically
Page 31 of 42
with a MEG mixture with at least 60% MEG) is required when equalising / opening, which
puts more emphasis in the human factor.
Ø Contingencies. What is the contingency if the DHSV fail? An insert wireline retrievable
valve will cause the ID to be very small (below 2”), and may not be a solution for high rate
wells. Also, the control line pressure may change (insert valve typically higher). More
importantly, the OD of the insert valve and lock may be such that larger tubing is required
above the TRSCSSV, in order to facilitate running the insert valve. On the high rate Shell
Shearwater wells, a separate communication nipple profile, with a separate control line was
included in the initial completion. This allows an insert valve with a larger ID to be run if
the primary TRSCSSV fails. The disadvantage is that this tends to complicate the
completion design.
Ø General. The DHSV should be proven to work under similar or worse conditions than your
planned application. If not, a rigorous testing and qualification programme is required.
Selecting a DHSV with a proven HPHT track record is strongly recommended for HPHT
wells. Emphasis on QA / QC in the manufacture and testing of the selected valves is crucial
as well.
Issue Shallow (approx 100m below seabed) Deep ( ± 1000 m below seabed)
TRSCSSV setting depth þ Lowers the control line pressure þ Typically below hydrate depth (but not
þ Lowers the risks of accidentally shutting always)
the valve when pressure testing the tubing. þ Can lubricate in longer assemblies on CT
þ Minimal amount of control line in well, ý Higher control line pressure
minimizing the risk of damaging the ý Special design valve (nitrogen charged)
control line may be required
þ Quicker to equalize valve ý More control line use / more control line in
þ Minimal inventory of HC to bleed off well
above valve ý Higher scale potential
þ Lower scale potential due to temperature ý Larger HC inventory above valve to be bled
ý Risk of hydrates forming in, above and off
below valve ý Larger volume to equalize valve
Table 7: Pros and Cons of Deep and Shallow DHSV Setting Depths
Dual DHSV
Some HPHT operators have considered using dual (two independent) DHSVs. The intention is to
increase the ‘system’ MTTF, and delay a potential intervention. Norsk Hydro is using dual
TRSCSSV on one of their subsea fields, and Elf used it on North East Frigg. The following
comments are made about using two DHSVs (on HPHT wells):
Ø In order to obtain redundancy and increase flexibility and MTTF, it is normally

recommended to use two inherently different designs (as an example, some SSTTs
uses a combination of ball valves and flapper valves for this purpose).
Ø If two different designs are not possible, placing the valves in different environments
is recommended (i.e. one valve placed shallow and one valve placed deep).
Ø It is recommended to use both valves during the life of the well (one valve should not
be stationary open). Normally both valves are connected to the ESD system.
Ø Possible failure mechanisms are scale build-up, erosion, control line failure,
mechanical damage during repeated shut-ins, interventions, etc. From experience, the
most common failure mechanism tends to be scale build up.
Page 32 of 42
Ø On HPHT wells, the two TRSCSSV would not be inherently different, because the
choice of valves is smaller. Also, it would be difficult placing them in two different
environments, since the setting depth of the valve is somewhat limited (due to control
line pressure issues, hydrate issues, casing design issues). It is therefore likely that the
environments the two valves would experience would be relatively alike.
If scale build-up caused one valve to fail, it is likely that the other valve would experience a
comparable MTTF. Failure mechanism of control lines is also likely to be similar. It is difficult to
recommend using two DHSVs on HPHT wells. The added complexity is considered relatively
small, with an extra control line, an extra penetrator through the TH, as well as controlling two
independent systems at surface during production and interventions. However, with an unknown
‘added value’ of dual DHSVs, it is recommended (on general terms) to stick with the HPHT
simplicity philosophy and use one DHSV only.
6.7.3 Downhole Permanent Gauges
Permanent pressure and temperature measurements with downhole gauges are a much-debated
topic for HPHT wells. Typically, there is value in the data acquisition, but the reliability of
gauges on HT wells has so far been poor. From an operational standpoint it adds complexity, and
is at odds with the HPHT simplicity philosophy. Before planning for installing permanent
downhole gauges, a few important questions should be answered:
Ø What is the value, from a sub-surface standpoint, on having downhole pressure and
temperature monitoring? This value should then be compared to the risked cost of
installing the gauges. The value of a working gauge will also help determine the ‘point-of-
no-return’ if the gauge stops working upon installation. Often this point is when the tubing
hanger is set.
Ø How long should the permanent gauges last, in order to provide most (90%) of this value
(the value can often be obtained in the very first years for HPHT wells).
Ø What resolution and accuracy is required in order to provide the sub-surface objectives? Is
the expected gauge drift compromising the objectives? Often HPHT wells require accurate
and high-resolution gauges to provide the objectives. This may rule out some gauge
designs.
Ø How far from the reservoir is the gauge likely to be placed with the planned completion
design? Does that compromise the sub-surface objectives?
A thorough assessment and subsequent answer to those questions should provide guidance on
whether downhole gauges are required, and also on what types are most suited.
It is difficult to state a limit for the gauge technology in a document like this, since the technology
is advancing the whole time. Still, some guidelines should be followed when planning for
downhole gauges in an HPHT environment:
Ø Often a lot of focus is placed on the gauge itself. This may not be the weakest point!!! For
the best vendors as little as 20% of gauge system failures are attributed to the gauge itself.
In order to obtain downhole data, the whole gauge system need to be considered, and
ideally a reliability analysis performed on the whole system. Emphasis also needs to be put
on installation, cable, cable management, penetrators, splices, etc
Page 33 of 42
Ø Fewer components in the downhole gauge that could fail typically increase the chance of
gauge survival. This is one of the major advantages of fibre optic gauges, as the downhole
equipment is very simple. Still, simple downhole gauge equipment does not necessarily
mean that the whole gauge system has a high chance of survival.
Ø Vibration is a killer for downhole gauges. Do position the gauges (or design the
completion) to prevent excessive vibration or shocks during flowing. Top completions that
can move (liner top completion, use of completion PBRs) are often bad choices in
combination with gauges. Analysis of gauge data has shown that the seal movements are
often abrupt, causing shocks to the gauges.
Ø Confirm the rating of the gauge mandrel (including threads) is equivalent to the production
tubulars, and do not represent a weak point. There are case histories where the gauge
mandrel has yielded during pressure tests.
Ø On completion (and permanent gauge) installation from floaters: Try to find a good
weather window for the installation. Also, ensure that the marine riser is straight before
running. Avoid long periods stationary with the gauges and gauge cable / clamps in the
marine riser. The angle between the riser and the XT should be monitored and an
appropriate limit set
Ø Select cable clamps with rigor. The clamps should fit snugly around the tubing collars.
Special clamps are recommended across any step change in the tubing OD e.g. safety
valves, flow couplings, crossovers, etc. The clamps should be able to withstand some
torque, and should prevent hanging up on ledges in the riser, BOP, or well.
Ø Plan for gauge uncertainty. Mechanical gauge tolerance has been observed as great as 50
psi. Gauges are different, and if gauge accuracy, resolution and minimal drift is important,
make sure you select the best ones.
Ø Ensure gauge mandrels and gauges adhere to NACE specifications. Also confirm any
elastomer seals are compatible with packer fluid chemicals and anticipated well fluids. On
Aasgard (165 degC) it was reported that the downhole gauges had corroded in a chloride
rich environment (1.20 sg NaCl packer fluid).
Ø Select gauges that are proven under HPHT conditions. Establish that the temperature
transients experienced in flowing and shutting in HTHP wells do not affect their accuracy.
Ensure the gauges to be installed have been calibrated and tested to the maximum
anticipated downhole temperature (including any inverse Joule Thompson heating). Ensure
any gun detonating pressure does not exceed gauge specifications.
In selecting a DHPG system the above guidelines should be supplemented by consideration of the
system track record and / or lab testing of the system.
One gauge vendor investigated the use of electric permanent gauges at HPHT conditions, and
argued that at temperatures between 100 and 150 degC the probability that a gauge system (the
entire system from gauge to surface, not just the gauge) will survive the installation is 96%. After
that, the average attrition rate was determined to be 8% per year. For HPHT wells, this number is
likely to be poorer (and installation and gauge dependent). Figure 7 shows the gauge mortality
(gauge alone) as developed and used by the vendor.
Todays theoretical limit on downhole gauge systems appears to approach 200 degC. However, at
these temperatures it may be very difficult to get the gauges to last very long. One of the larger
gauge vendors is qualifying the components in their electronic gauges to 225 degC for 2000
Page 34 of 42
hours. The final electronic boards are then tested to 193 degC for a short (<24 hrs) time. The final
gauge is subsequently down rated to 175 degC. This way of rating the final product may not be
similar from one vendor to another. Some vendors are likely to be more conservative than others.
As for working systems, there are systems in operation today that have worked well for over 3
years at 155 degC. There have been further improvements made to these gauge designs since
these systems were installed. Figure 6 shows the P/T versus time plot for one gauge design on a
long-term test, where this 150 degC rated gauge was tested to destruction.
180
psi PQG Stability Life Test @ 10,000 psi oC
10030 175
170 C
170
10025
165
160 C
Test Cell repairs

Test Cell repairs
160
10020
150 C 155
10015 150
- 3 psi/yr drift 145

10010 PQG
140
pressure reading 0 psi/yr drift
135
10005
1 year 130
2 years
10000 125
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
May ‘95 1995 >|< 1996 1996 >|< 1997 June ‘97
Days of Testing
Figure 5: 150 degC rated PQG laboratory test (courtesy of Schlumberger).
Figure 6: Gauge mortality as a function of temperature and time, (determined from tests
using Arrhenius-Weibull statistical model curves) (courtesy of Schlumberger).
Page 35 of 42
6.7.4 Less Common Completion Equipment
Scale Management Equipment
The scaling potential is often high for many HPHT wells (see separate chapter on HPHT
Production Chemistry). It is worthwhile to know that at present the scale prediction models are
inaccurate and unreliable at HPHT conditions, and it is recommended to review the predictions
with a critical eye (see chapter 9 of these guidelines for more info on this).
However, if it can be shown that the probability of scale build up in the well is high, and that a
proactive scale inhibition strategy is cost beneficial, the completion should be designed with that
in mind. However, this may lead to a completion design more complex than generally
recommended for HPHT wells. Figure 8 shows an example from ETAP, with wash-water
injection to prevent the formation of Halite.
Annulus Safety Valve
TRSCSSV
Downhole Gauge
Washwater Injection Mandrel & Valve
Production Packer
Perforations
Figure 8: Wash water injection in completion to prevent the formation of halite.
Scale inhibition through a hydraulic line raises these concerns / issues:
Ø The inhibitor injection point is likely to be required as deep as possible (it does not make a
lot of sense to inhibit only the short distance from the DHSV and up). This point is likely to
sit above the production packer.
Ø Inhibitor injection into the tubing introduces a potential leak path from the tubing to
annulus, and also for hydrocarbons to be produced up the hydraulic line. The design should
account for this risk.
Page 36 of 42
Ø The higher risk for tubing to annulus leak increases the probability of an intervention or
workover. The completion design should hence allow for an easy tubing retrieval.
Ø The production casing (including actual casing wear) should be rated to take full well
pressure on top of the actual packer fluid, since the risk for this occurring is higher.
Ø Selection and implementation of packer fluid becomes very critical, as corrosion of the
hydraulic line and check valves is very critical.
Packers and Plugs
Different types of packers and plugs are often required for the HPHT well, either for temporary
purposes, or as a long-term solution. Similar issues as for the production packer (see section
6.6.1) selection are also valid for selecting other packers and plugs. The chosen piece of
equipment should be compatible with the well environment, with properly selected elastomers,
material, and strength. Ideally, the equipment should have been proven to work under similar or
worse conditions. If not, it is strongly recommended to have the equipment tested and qualified to
the anticipated conditions. In addition proper QA and QC is required when the equipment is
manufactured and prepared.
If the equipment is temporary, there are a few suggestions to keep in mind:
Ø A monobore solution without any nipples is less advantageous for HPHT wells. For one, it
is difficult to obtain a true monobore with the typical ID restrictions in the DHSV and
production packer. Also, it requires retrievable packers with large elastomer seals instead
of nipple plugs with much smaller seals. The large packer elastomer seals have a tendency
to harden at high temperature, and will over some time loose their packer element
restoration ability. As a result it can get very difficult to pull these packers, particularly on
wireline. From experience, the success is higher with nipple plugs, which have much
smaller seals. Deep suspension packers pulled on DP can suffer loss of the element
requiring fishing trips.
Ø Be very careful with inflatable packers on HPHT wells. The record is average at best for
‘normal’ wells, and the technology is only applicable for ‘borderline’ HT wells. In general,
don’t plan for using inflatable packers, as they are not likely to survive the high
temperature, large temperature changes and high differential pressures seen in HPHT wells.
Ø Make sure that the slip arrangement on the selected packer cannot damage the tubular and
thereby compromise well integrity.
Ø Focus on contingencies. What if the packer or plug cannot be pulled? Try to have a
contingency measure built into the design. Is it possible to punch the tubular above the plug
/ packer and obtain the well objectives?
Flow Control
Flow control equipment for HPHT application is available from the major completion vendors
with temperature ratings up to 450 degF and pressure ratings up to 15000 psi. This equipment is
commonly used on HPHT wells, and has generally proved to be reliable. Still, the flow control
equipment should be compatible with the well environment, with properly selected elastomers,
material, and strength, as for all other downhole equipment. In addition the equipment should
Page 37 of 42
work well in sandy applications (barite drop out from heavy drilling mud), and withstand the
impacts created by slam shutting (e.g. the insert safety valve). Verification that the flow control
device is properly installed in its nipple profile is essential.
For the tubing hanger plug(s) it is an advantage if the sealing technology is such that the pressure
test from above is also representative for holding pressure from below. A design preventing the
use of lower rated locks in the HP nipples is also very useful.
Isolation Valves
Bi-directional, interventionless, barrier valves to isolate the open hole in case of a workover, re-
entry or open hole sandface completion has recently been much debated for HPHT wells. The run
record when this technology was tried on Marnock and Shell ETAP was very poor, and very few
valves have worked according to plan. This has mostly been attributed to large amounts of debris
from the high density (and high solids content) drilling fluids (24). Current temperature rating is
300 degF, but it is believed that this rating can be extended to 350 degF without any major
problems. As for the bi-directional pressure rating this has been supplied up to 7500 psi
(Devenick), but 10k and above rated valves should be possible with higher yield metallurgies
(Inconel, Incoloy). These will require rigorous testing and qualification, though.
Experience with the barrier valve systems (valve itself, the packer, clean-up requirements) in
HPHT and high solids environment is limited. Only one valve (Weatherford CIV) has this
experience, although the run record under HPHT conditions is considered to be poor. The
Schlumberger FIV is without direct HPHT experience. However, its design is based on a DST
tool, which has a considerable HPHT record. Some experiences have also been had with packers
with drop subs, where the dropped tailpipe does not obstruct the flow, and this may in some
instances be the preferred method as it is relatively simple.
Most vendors seem to have ironed out initial problems with their valves. Problems reported today
are most typically opening problems, and this is attributed to problems transmitting the pressure
to the pressure port. Excessive amounts of debris are the main reason for this. The Schlumberger
FIV appears to have undergone fewer changes since its inception. This is probably because it was
developed from a DST tool, and not a complete new-built tool.
All the valves have been extensively tested with debris. However, the testing has basically been
done with solids in suspension or limited amount of solids, such that pressure still can be
transmitted to the pressure port. All available interventionless valves appear to operate well in
high solids environments, as long as pressure can be transmitted to the pressure port. This goes
for opening as well as closing (done mechanically). Little testing has been done vertically with
high solids OBM, letting the barite settle, and then baking it at pressure and temperature, so the
mechanisms that come into play in HPHT wells are not necessarily fully understood. However,
this testing is difficult and restricted by the flash point of the mud as to the temperature one could
go to. None of this affects the fundamental point that mimicking in a test what happens to high
solids mud above a barrier valve is hard to do, and on that basis the best strategy is to keep the
mud away from the barrier.
Slickline opening of the barrier valve may work, but contingency operation for opening the
barrier valve are most likely to be coiled tubing, as the cause of the problem is typically debris.
The main criteria of success for a successful liner top isolation on a HPHT well is not considered
to be the actual valve design (or valve selection) only, but rather a combination of: a) Rigorous
and proper casing cleaning; b) Proper operational procedures to prevent any accumulation of
Page 38 of 42
debris on top of a closed valve for all operations before the valve is opened; c) Running the valve
in a clear fluid; d) Keeping the BHAs as simple as possible; e) Approaching liner top isolations as
a ‘total holistic system’ not only considering the barrier valve alone; f) Consider using a high-
density viscous pill on top of the closed valve; g) Increasing the distance from the closed valve to
the pressure activation port; h) Consider dressing the tool with optimal rather than maximum
number of pressure cycles; and i) Proper testing, qualification and QA in equipment preparation
and offshore operation is mandatory, and needs attention.
Other things that need to be considered for the barrier valve selection is: a) Does the barrier valve
provide the flexibility for an increased debris sump; b) Does it require pressure differential to
open (may not be possible with the planned completion, and only the Schlumberger FIV works
with absolute pressure and not a pressure differential); c) Consider using a barrier valve with the
largest possible opening force; d) Select a barrier valve system that provides flexible contingent
measures.
Page 39 of 42
6.8 Learning from Experiences
Field Pressure Temperature Experiences
Tuscaloosa trend (US) 16000 psi SITP Up to 400°F Tubing failure on 45 mmscf/D well
Tuscaloosa Experience
Tuscaloosa had a failure of Cr13 95 ksi Kawasaki HP1 tubing string on one of the wells. A hole
developed in the string at +/- 3550’ that allowed gas to flow up the annulus. While waiting for a
chrome patch for the tubing, the well began to cut water and sand. This quickly eroded the pipe
around the initial hole and caused the string to part and drop 16.000' of tubing. The tubing string
dropped +/- 400' to the 4-1/2" liner top. Not only did flowing the well after the initial hole
developed cause the tubing to erode, but it sandblasted the casing string and created a hole in this
as well.
After fishing the tubing from the well the tubing was analysed, and it was determined that the
cause of the initial failure was attributed to hydrogen sulfide stress cracking. This stress cracking
initiated at the slip marks on the tubing, and can be seen on picture below.
While the damage due to the slips was not severe, there was a significantly increased hardness of
the pipe body material at the base of the notches produced by the slips. This is where the
cracking initiated. Note that there was no flow up the annulus of this well prior to the failure so
there was limited exposure to H2S.
Figure 9: Tuscaloosa HP1 tubing failure. Picture is showing hole in joint at slip marks.
Page 40 of 42
6.9 References / Recommendations for Further Reading
1) BP Exploration Completion Design Manual
2) Niccum, Eric, “Tuscaloosa – Evaluation of Packerless Completions”, 2000, article

prepared for Well Connected
3) Wood Group Production Technology Ltd., http://www.wgpt.com
4) Oilfield Review, Winter 1999/2000, Developing Subsea Fields, Permanent Downhole

Monitoring, Data Management and Delivery.
5) Welch, W.R. and Ray, T.W., “Non-elastomeric Sliding Sleeve Maintains Long Term
Integrity in HPHT Application: Case Histories”, SPE 37357, Eastern Regional Meeting,
Ohio 1996.
6) Welch, W.R. and Ray, T.W., “Case Histories Verify Long-Term Operational Integrity of
New Non-elastomeric Sliding Sleeves in All Wellbore Conditions”, SPE 38271, SPE
Western Regional Meeting, California 1997.
7) Snyder, R.E. and Suman, G.O., “High Pressure Well Completions”, World Oil, February
1979.
8) Jellison, M.J. and Brock, J.N., “The Impact of Compression Forces on Casing String
Designs and Connectors”, IADC/SPE 47790, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology Conference, Indonesia 1998.
9) Minge, J.C. and Pejac, R.D., “Threaded Connection Qualification Procedures Utilized for
an Ultra-Deep, High-Pressure Gas Well”, SPE 15516, 61st Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans 1986.
10) Morris, A.J. and Pringle R., “Ultra-High-Pressure Tubing Retrievable Annular Safety
Valve”, SPE 14994, Deep Drilling and Production Symposium of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Texas 1986.
11) Morris, A.J., “Elastomers Are Eliminated in High-Pressure Surface-Controlled

Subsurface Safety Valves”, SPE 13244, SPE Production Engineering, May 1987.
12) Gingerich, B.L., Brusius, P.G. and Maclean I.M., “Reliable Electronics for High-
Temperature Downhole Applications”, SPE 56438, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Texas 1999.
13) Botto, G., Maggioni, B. and Schenato, A., “Electronic, Fibre-Optic Technology: Future
Options for Permanent Reservoir Monitoring”, SPE 28484, SPE 69th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans 1994.
14) Carnahan, B.D., Clanton, R.W., Koehler, K.D., Harkins, G.O. and Williams G.R., “Fibre
Optic Temperature Monitoring Technology”, SPE 54599, SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Alaska 1999.
Page 41 of 42
15) Dreesen, D., Miller, J.R., Halbardier, F.A. and Nicholson R.W., “Openhole Packer for
High-Pressure Service in a 500° Precambrian Wellbore”, IADC/SPE 14745, IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Texas 1986.
16) Martin, B.L., “7” Monobore Completion Design for Qatar’s Offshore North Field”,
SPE/IADC 39272, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain
1997.
17) Agnew, J.W. and Klein, R.S., “The Leaking Liner Top”, SPE 12614, SPE Deep Drilling
and Production Symposium, Texas 1984.
18) Gonzalez, R., Brunings, C. and Toussaint L., “ESP’S in Cyclic Steam Injection Wells”,
SPE 39084, Fifth Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and
Exhibition, Brazil 1997.
19) Kinzel, H. et. al., Evaluation of the Corrosion caused by Elevator and Spider Marks on
CRA Pipe comparing Conventional Inserts and New Gripping System, SPE 36386, 1996.
20) Comparison of Franks Fluid Grip versus standard grip make up tong, test report by L.C.
van Helvoirt, Revon B.V. Technical Consultancy for Shell Philippines Exploration,
September 2000.
21) Sable Post Mortem, January 27, 2000, Halifax, Nova Scotia
22) Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Well Watcher
23) Sintef Safety and Reliability, “Reliability of Well Completion Equipment, Phase 2, Main
Report”, STF75 F95051, 1996
24) Graham Makin, “Performance and Future Potential for Bi-Directional Interventionless
Barrier Valves in HPHT Conditions”, June 2001
25) Schlumberger HPHT Drilling, Evaluation and Completion, Brochure
26) S. van Gisbergen and A. Vandeweijer, “Permanent Downhole Monitoring System

Reliability Needs Improvement”, World Oil, November 1999.
27) George King, “High Temperature, High Pressure Well Completions; Updates on Amoco
and Industry Experience”, October 1995.
Page 42 of 42

6 - Completions Equipment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Completions Equipment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HPHT Completion Hardware – Chapter 6

6. HPHT COMPLETION HARDWARE.................................................................... 2

Author Lasse Hermansson, Catalyst Concept Integrity

Date June 2001

Contributors Paul Adair, BP UTG

6. HPHT Completion Hardware

Ø Maintenance and interventions should be kept to a minimum on HPHT wells due to

Ø Accurate temperature predictions are essential in planning the completion. Historically,

6.1 Key Points to Remember (Checklist)

GFollow the methodology laid out in next section (section 6.2).

GAnnulus pressure monitoring must be implemented. Due to temperature increase during

Personal notes / other experiences:

6.2 HPHT Completion Design Methodology

1. Gather well specific information according to section 6.3.

10. Peer review the outline completion programme.

Develop well ‘statement of requirements’

Understand and agree on completion

Establish possible completion designs.

Risk assessment and cost / benefit analysis

Result : Re commended solution

Fine tune completion design.

Risk assessment and cost / benefit analysis

Result : Final completion design

6.3 Required Information for HPHT Completion Design

Information Personal Notes

Information Personal Notes

6.4 General HPHT Completion Design Requirements & Limitations

Expectations / Requirements of the Well Design

Maintenance and Interventions

6.5 Production Tubing

6.5.1 Production Tubing Sizing

Ø Smaller size tubing is easier to run and easier to fish.

A slimhole top completion must be designed as a contingency in case of a casing restriction, or a

6.5.2 Production Tubing Stress Analysis

Ø Hydrate predictions and precautions

Ø Inputting insufficient or wrong PVT properties (wrong dewpoint, wrong CGR) of

Table 2; Typical Load Cases for Production Tubing Design

Interface Why Critical?

Table 3; Critical Areas for the Upper Completion on HPHT Wells

6.5.3 Tubing Connection Selection

Connection Comp. Rating Size (inch) Comment

Table 4: Compression Rating of Premium Connections used on HPHT Wells

CYS = 100% PBYS for Standard design

Figure 2: Performance Envelope for Vam TOP.

6.5.4 Tubing Running and Pulling

6.5.5 De-rating for Temperature

Material Type Anisotropic Temperature Yield Thermal Comment

Table 5: Properties of Commonly used materials in HPHT Completions

6.6 Selecting Liner Top, Production Packer or Packerless Completion

6.6.1 Production Packer Style Completion

Max Pressure Above Max Pressure Below

Max Set Down

Liner Top Completion Stinger / Entry Guide

6.6.2 Liner Top Completions

Issue Liner Top Completion Production Packer

Alternative to Liner Top Completion

PBR (6” ID)

MHR Permanent Packer

Figure 4: Halliburton alternative completion design to liner top completion.

6.6.3 Packer-less Completions

Figure 5: Packerless completion from Tuscaloosa (US), producing up the annulus.

6.7 Other Completion Hardware

6.7.1 Completion PBR / ELTSR Devices

GFollow the methodology laid out in next section (section 6.2).

GAnnulus pressure monitoring must be implemented. Due to temperature increase during