OTC 7328

Arun Indonesia: Big Bore Completion Tool Design

Darrell McKenna, Mobil Drilling; Richard Sukup, Mobil E&P Technical Center;
Tom Stambaugh, Otis Engineering Corp.; and R.A. Biggs, TEC-Lindsey Completion Systems

Copyright 1992, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presanted at the 25th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A., 3-6 Mey 1993

This paper wae selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(a). The material, aa presented, does not neoassarliy reflact
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or hs officers. Permlsslon to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. Tha abstract
should contain conaplcuous acknowledgment of whera and by whom tha paper is presented.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

All hcmgh the current gross production average of the giant
Arun gas field in northern Sumatra exceeds 3.3 BCFD, a
number of projects were initiated in 1991 to increase field
productivity, One of those projects, a monobore approach to
completions, is being utilized to improve well performance on
a series of ten 9-5/8-inch “Big Bore” completions.
This is the first time a monobore completion has been uti-
lized in the Arun field and, as far as we know, these are the
largest bore producing gas completions in the world.
Extensive tool development work, including detailed -design
reviews, FEA modeling, and prototype testing, was required
to ensure that the project’s objectives of achieving opera-
tional tool reliability, improved equipment performance, and
increased operational flexibility would be achieved.
Six “Big Bore” wells have been successfully drilled and
completed without any serious operational or equipment pro-
blems. All 9-5/8-inch completions will be drilled and
completed by mid-year, 1993. The productivity improvements
have far exceeded the rates originally expected (Fig. 1).
The Arun gas field, located in the Aceh province (Fig. 2), is
Indonesia’s largest gas field currently on production. Several
options were evaluated to improve field productivity to meet
future LNG commitments, including large bore completions.
The use of large tubing strings would satisfy the projected
production needs at a lower cost per MMSCFD than the exis-
ting 7-inch tubing completions.
Productivity projection for each Big Bore well was originally
120 MMSCFD. This projected production exceeded that of
the existing 7-inch tubing completion (averaging 70
MMSCFD) by 71%. With the application of the monobore
concept, full field development will be achieved with fewer
wells.
Although a significant opportunity, the application of the
monobore completion technology in the severe Arun field
conditions (Table 1) presented a major technical challenge.
By applying several lessons learned during the initial Arun
field development to the monobore program, significant ex-
penses were saved during both equipment development and
operations.

The concept was originally considered in early 1990 and

actual engineering design and manufacturing was initiated in
1991 after full project approval. All engineering design work,
prototype testing and manufacturing was completed in ap-
proximately 11 months. The drilling and completion of the
References and figures appear at end of paper ten planned “Big Bore” wells was begun in early January, 1992

653

—
2 ARUN INDONESIA - BIG BORE COMPLETION
with the first 9-5/8-inch monobore well put on production in
March of that year. Drilling and completion is expected to
be completed by mid-year, 1993.
The original projected well performance of 120 MMSCFD
was far exceeded. Rates as high as 220 MMSCFD during
high rate clean-up testing have been realized. Efforts to
minimize well operational problems and provide maximum
completion tool reliability have proven successful.
COMPLETION OVERVIEW
In early 1991, during the original 9-5/8-inch completion
feasibility review, four separate options were considered.
These included various combinations of conventional cased-
hole tubing/packer and open hole tubing/packer completions.
The monobore option, a fifth configuration, was identified
and adopted. This includes a 9-5/8-inch tubing string in
conjunction with a liner hanger, liner top packer and polish
bore receptacle (PBR), as shown in Fig. 3.
These 9-5/8-inch monobore completions are essentially
tubingless completions made up of a cemented heavy wall
liner coupled with a free 9-5/8-inch tieback liner. The
cemented liner and liner hanger are the foundation of the
completion and support the thermal tubing loads during pro-
duction. In addition, the monobore option:
- provides a means to monitor the integrity of
both the tubing/production casing annulus and
the liner lap;
eliminates the gas turbulence areas common
to conventional completions;
- eliminates any potential liner lap problems
directly into the produced fluid stream;
allows tubing retrieval to the liner top in the
event of future tubular corrosion;
minimizes the amount of ancillary equipment.
While accomplishing a number of very key objectives, sig-
nificant effort was required to design and manufacture
completion tools to satis@ the field conditions and the
expected high production rates of the monobore completion,
Detailed completion tool design was needed to consider not
only the severe reservoir conditions but also future projected
loads, which include 17.0 ppg equivalent collapse loads from
high pressure shale above the Arun formation, particularly
after the installation of field compression, and 1,000 kip
thermal expansion loads. Additionally, deformation or
damage to the 13-3/8-inch production casing could not be
tolerated.
654
TOOL DESIGN OTC 7328
Unlike the API monogram found on various well compo-
nents, completion tool equipment is not routinely manu-
factured to a recognized indust~ standard. In light of this
deficiency, steps were taken to ensure that confidence in all
completion tools would remain high. For example, the op-
erator either supplied all the raw material used in prototype
and production tool manufacture or approved vendor raw
material specifications. Full quality plans were developed to
ensure process integrity and provide complete traceability of
all components. In addition, all operations were virtually
100% third party monitored.
LINER TOP PACKER/PBR/SEAL ASSEMBLY
To accomplish the stated objectives of the completion, it was
necessa~ to develop a unique permanent packer system using
existing design technology and develop a comprehensive test-
ing program to verify temperature/pressure ratings and overall
structural integrity. To optimize the design, components sub-
ject to extreme loads were examined using finite element an-
alysis (FEA) prior to the initiation of the testing program.
FEA was used to focus attention on selected areas most criti-
cal to equipment performance. This technique provides an
accurate assessment of the state of stress upon and location
of that part or parts of the structure most likely to fail.
The design of the permanent liner top packer had to be
unique as the packer would be required to withstand extreme
thermal compressive loads while minimizing the loads into
the 13-3/8-inch production casing. In order to achieve this
requirement, a packer system was designed such that the slips
and molded Aflas packing element are energized during the
application of a predetermined compressive force during the
setting sequence. The slip/element assembly is then sheared
at the intersection of the slip support and the packer mandrel
when this force is exceeded, which completely frees the ele-
ment assembly from the mandrel. Doing so allows the man-
drel to travel downward and bottom out against a packer load
sub so that any subsequent loading is transmitted directly
from the PBR load shoulder through the packer mandrel to
the load sub and into the linger hanger. This design allows
the operator to compress the elements with a much higher
setting force than conventional packer design.
One of the challenges presented by this design is the need to
energize the slips and elements with sufficient setting force to
provide an effective seal under temperature extremes where
subsequent element relaxation is possible. Initial tests were
performed on the element package in order to determine the
optimum setting force needed to maintain an effective seal
under a temperature range of 90 to 350”F with a working
 OTC 7328 McKENN& D.. SUKUP, R., STAMBAUGH,
pressure differential of 7500 psi. Once defined, these
parameters were integrated into the design of the packer.
The original packer design utilized only one set of upper slips
to resist differential pressure applied from below. However,
to trap the required setting force in the packing element so
that an effective seal will be maintained throughout the entire
anticipated operating range, a lower set of slips was added.
This effectively prevents element relaxation.
It was determined that a large slack-off weight was needed in
order to provide for the initial compressive setting force to
the slips and the elements. Subsequently, setting procedures
were developed that allowed the packer to be set mechani-
cally, hydraulically, or in combination to allow flexibility for
specific well conditions and rig limitations. The final design
was submitted for full-scale testing for verification of opera-
tional limitations under actual downhole conditions in a deep
well simulator.
The design of the bottom locating production seal assembly
and PBR provides a system that will withstand both the anti-
cipated well conditions and the potentially high thermal com-
pressive loads. In addition, all internal upsets were removed
to eliminate the potential for erosional corrosion. The sys-
tem also satisfies the need to maintain a smooth continuous
bore throughout which is characteristic of monobore comple-
tions, thus eliminating flow turbulence in the production
tubing.
Another important consideration in this design is that con-
tingency completion plans were developed which utilize the
monobore completion-tools. If necessaty, the production seal
assembly may be used to seal directly the liner tieback seal
area, instead of the packer and PBR. In addition, the anti-
cipated service of the PBR and production seal assembly is
static. However, design considerations focused on worst-case,
dynamic sealing conditions to ensure reliability during cold
stimulation or well-kill operations. The test performed to
veri~ seal integrity involved stabbing the seal stack into the
PBR and stroking it under pressure to approximately 1200
linear feet of travel. The same seal components were sub-
jected to an additional stroke test of 1200 feet in the seal
bore without pressure to determine the wear characteristics
of the components. All tests were performed with full-scale
prototype equipment under anticipated well conditions. The
sealing system, made up of Chetnraz, Teflon, and PEEK chev-
ron vee packing in various combinations, ensured pressure
integrity across the broad temperature range.
655
T., AND BIGGS. B. 3
LINER HANGER TECHNOLOGY
A specially designed liner hanger system was engineered,
performance tested, and installed as part of the monobore
completion tool package. Since the heavy wall 10-inch liner
is required to withstand the Arun pore pressure (Fig 4),
comparable performance of the hanger system was necessary
to control safely the projected productivity of the Arun
monobore completions at elevated temperature.
The liner hanger system was first analyzed using engineering
mechanics principles. Each component of the system was
evaluated under anticipated load conditions to simulate Arun
field production conditions. Comprehensive studies of com-
ponents in worst case scenarios of maximum load at mini-
mum material condition were undertaken. Further, the effect
of manufacturing tolerances on system fit, form, and function
(particularly during thermal expansion and loading) were ex-
amined. Each component was compared to the performance
level and design safety factors of the 10-inch heavy wall
parent liner. Marginal conditions existed dictating that FEA
modeling was again required.
A number of critical components of the liner hanger system
under consideration for the Arun Project were analyzed using
the FEA method. These components were assumed to be
perfectly elastic (linear) over the range of applied loads or
deflections simulative of Arun field conditions. No plastic
deformation, creep, large deflection, or transient conditions
were accounted for in the analysis.
The main areas of concern included the liner hanger top load
shoulder, which supports the uncemented 9-5/8-inch tubing,
and the hanger body slips. Detailed FEA modeling was per-
formed on these components, which resulted in two major
design modifications.
The 45” top load shoulder was shown to be overstressed when
subjected to the full anticipated induced load. Flattening the
shoulder to 0° and removing both the inside and outside
bevels increased its load bearing capacity. Thus, the over-
stressed condition was eliminated.
The results of the FEA modeling on the liner hanger body in-
dicated that the hanger’s slip system stress levels exceeded
material strength. Therefore, slip geometry was changed,
Slips were increased in number from four (with 90° radial
spacing) to six (60° radial spacing) and in length from 13-1/2-
inch to 18-inch. With these slip design changes, the incre-
mental induced loads are transmitted axially into the
production casing at areas of slip engagement at levels suf-
ficiently below the yield point of the production casing.
—
4 ARUN INDONESIA - BIG BORE COMPLETION
The revised design was full-scale prototype tested in a hy-
draulic load frame with detailed strain gauge data gathered.
Strain gauge data was reviewed with three main objectives:
1) determine the distribution of load among the slips; 2)
determine the stress levels in the liner hanger body and sur-
rounding casing and 3) determine the sequence of failure in
the system. Under an induced load of 1,145 kips the casing
performed as designed without failure, even after plastic de-
formation of the slip splines. Visual inspection after the
test’s completion showed uniform radial casing expansion.
Both casing deformation and slip wicker yielding were within
acceptable levels.
Additional full-scale performance verification testing included
tests of the tieback receptacle, landing collar, liner wiper
plug, float collar and shoe, and running tool. A number of
component redesigns were necessary to meet project require-
ments.
FIELD INSTALLATION - SPECIALIZED TOOLS
A unique liner hanger running tool is used to set the system
hydraulically. This ensures proper placement and full slip
casing engagement, which optimizes load transfer into the
production casing.
Once cementing was completed, specially developed milling
tools were employed for the clean-up operation. A brass-
faced impression locator shoulder was incorporated into the
tools to verify the location and condition of the hanger load
shoulder in preparation for locating the isolation packer seal
assembly for the 9-5/8-inch tubing tieback. Because of the
need to support high expected thermal loads, it was critical
that the liner hanger load shoulder condition be verified prior
to running the packer.
A standard 13-3/8-inch casing scraper was modified to incor-
porate a locator to position the scraper on the liner top
within the distance required by the isolation packer’s elas-
tomer packing elements. This ensured proper casing condi-
tioning and packer differential sealing integrity.
A packer drift tool was designed to the same dimensions as
the PBR and liner top packer assembly and contained a
shear-pinned load sub mechanism and lower seal stack in the
same spacing arrangement as that of the assembled packer
and PBR. This piece of equipment gauges the casing prior to
the running of the packer and, by means of the load sub
shear mechanism, give a clear indication of any casing debris,
constriction, or other adverse condition(s) which might ini-
tiate presetting of the packer. The drift tool was designed to
drift the casing down to the liner tieback, using the same
656
TOOL DESIGN OTC 7328
running procedures and bottomhole assembly as the pro-
duction PBR/packer assembly. Once the drift tool lands on
the liner, subsequent slack-off weight shears the load sub
mechanism, giving a clear indication if the tool had preset.
In addition, the lower seal assembly of the drift tool allows
testing of the liner tieback seal bore for any damage as a
result of milling operations prior to running the permanent
liner top packer.
A hydrostatic test tool was designed to test the retrievable
cement bushing to 5,000 psi in the field. In this way, the
operator confirmed that cement would not by-pass back into
the liner hanger ID, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the
liner and liner top cement job that is critical to load support
and lap pressure integrity.
SECURING ZONE - RETRIEVABLE BRIDGE PLUGS
When considering a monobore completion, one of the most
difficult challenges is determining how to secure the zone
upon completion of the drilling phase. This problem was
overcome in Arun by designing, prototype testing, and manu-
facturing a large bore retrievable bridge plug.
The 9-5/8-inch retrievable plugs are wireline run and re-
trieved by coiled tubing or drill pipe. This provides a cost
effective plug recovery alternative to moving a rig back on
location for retrieval.
All wetted surfaces of the newly designed plug were machined
from high nickel alloy steel, again to satisfy the harsh Arun
service conditions. The plug provides an effective means of
securing the Arun formation during both the drilling phase
and future production operations.
A mixed elastomeric system (HSN and Atlas) was utilized on
the packing element to satisfy the temperature range of 90 to
350”F. The packing elements were FEA modeled utilizing a
non-linear technique to predict elastomeric performance.
Upon completion of the modeling process, full-scale pro-
totype testing was completed at minimum material conditions.
A 9-5/8-inch casing test fiiture was machined to minimum
API tolerance (maximum ID), while the plug was machined
to minimum OD dimensions for the qualification testing. As
with the isolation packer, a lower set of slips was added to
prevent element relaxation, thus enabling the plug to be
qualified for service in all Arun pressure and temperature
environments. Repeated pressure cycles through the tem-
perature range confirmed the structural and pressure integrity
of the plugs. In addition, full-scale plugs were set in shallow
test wells to veri$ running and retrievability of the plugs.
OTC 7328 McKENN~ D., SUKUP, R., STAMBAUGH. T., AND BIGGS, B. 5

In these monobore completions, two plug barriers are rou-
tinely utilized to secure the well. To mitigate against any
velocity-induced erosion and production corrosion problems
caused by slip marks in the tubing string, three ten-inch OD
heavy wall landing joints a~e strategically located throughout
the completion; one below the liner hanger to allow workover
operations, one above the seal assembly, and one at 3,000
feet.
We gratefully acknowledge permission of the management of
Mobil Drilling, Mobil Exploration and Producing Technical
Center, OTIS Engineering Corporation, Technology Export
Company - Lindsey Completion Systems to publish this
paper.
The attention to detail and integrity of all the members of
the “Big Bore”project team, including vendor staff and con-
tract consulting personnel, resulted in a total team success.

CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1. Testing programs utilized during the design and pro-
totype testing successfully demonstrated the structural
integrity and service rating of all completion com-
ponents. Suitability for service of all components
utilized in this completion design with respect to tem-
perature, pressure, flow rates and gas composition
have been clearly demonstrated.
2. Full-scale testing and detailed design work provided
an effective means of defining operational procedures
for installation of the large monobore completion
equipment.
1. Aladyrus, M. U. and Bordelon, T. P.: “Boosting De-
liverability in the Giant Arun Gas Field”, paper SPE
22997, presented at the 1991 SPE Asia-Pacific Con-
ference, Perth, Australia, Nov.
2. Cannan, W. L., Calvert, D. G., Ellison, P. C.,
McKenna, D. L,, Quitzau, R., Sandjano, S., and
Sukup, R. A.: “Big Bore Well Completions - A New
Completion Technique for the Arun Field,” paper
SPE 25384, presented at the 1992 SPE Asia-Pacific
Conference, Singapore, Feb. 8-10.

3. Emergency fallback positions were developed for all 3. Simonds, F. R., Cannan, W. L., and McKenna, D. L.:
tools during the development phase. Compatibility of Management Summary Technical Report, Mobil Ex-
all components was accomplished by maintaining con- ploration and Production Technical Center, “9-5/8-
sistent machining dimensions and tolerances. inch Arun Completions: The Big Bore Project”,
January 1993. -
4. Strategic vendor alliances developed during the de-
sign, prototype testing, performance verifi~tion and
manufacturing were key to meeting the projected time FIGURES
restraints. Only nine months elapsed between the
project approval and shipment of ‘the first series of Fig. 1- High rate clean-up test flow rates
completion tools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Aflas is a registered trademark of the Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

for Propylene Tetrafluoroethylene Copolymer.

Chemraz is a registered trademark of Greene, ‘llveed, & Co., 7“ Tubing

Inc. for Perfluoro Elastomer.

Teflon is a registered trademark of Dupont Co. for Poly- 1000 1

I I 1 I I I I I I I T I I I I I 1 I I I I t
tetrafluoroethylene. o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Flow Rate (MMSCFD)

PEEK is a registered trademark of ICI Americas, Inc. for

Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone,

657
 6 ARUN INDONESIA - BIG BORE COMPLETION TOOL DESIGN OTS 7328

Fig. 2- Arun field map

N
o MALACCA STRAIT

.\w *MWA

“:%.*Q.
‘ ‘-”
DON

JAVA
BCRNEO

SIA

P~

1& RESIOW GAS

35’
42- GAS

Z&

1~
CONDENSATE

NGL
xi “ POINT “A”
13 LHOK SUKON LANDING

‘* *
*$ I NOTES :
~ . GAS INJECTION WlL5.
\

u
ARUN GAS RESERVOIR
o mn
o

Table 1: Arun field conditions as of January, 1993

Average reservoir pressure 3,000 psig

Static reservoir temperature 350”F

C02 content 12- 16%

H2S content 40-60 ppm

Water production 10 bbl/MMSCFD

Average ‘7”completion moduction 65 MMSCFD at 1.750 FT’HP

II Average depth
1’
I
1
10,400’ TvD II
1]

I 658

——
—
 OTC 7328 McKENNAy D., SUKUP, R., STAMBAUGH, T., AND BIGGS, E. 7

~g. 3- Monobore well schematic with detail of completion took

-98”
TubingHanger

20’ 133PPF,
K-55ButtCasii

9-98’,53,5PPF,L-M),
5Fii
.
.F--
:::
:::
...
.J.
: M
:
;

PremiumTubing :
PBRandTubirq
13-3/8’,72 PPF, :
L-W,Premium :.. w Assy.
*
Casing .
IN [.
.
LinerTop
IsolationPac&
TBRand Tieback

-3!
. LinerHangef
seal Assy. . !
.
Crossover :.$ & .. +75CrCr
Ft
9-Y8’x 10’
T$$f;
10’,72PPF,L-8(I
PremiumTubing ...... -*9750[
8-112”
@en Hole
*
All DepthsAreFromTheKellyBushing.

. >

PBR with seal

running tool lwacutbry
instatlcd

---4 Liner top

Liner hanger packer
and TBR llcback
seals
659

——— —

— ——— —
~_— —— ._—_ ___ .—.

.__——:.
_. .—. . _....—..
_.——.
_. -.
_.___ . ..-==* -..+:~<=-.. J: .—., ~=. ._—
~- _ ~_=A.:T_=—~ .=.. -.=. ,_=—. . ._— , .= . ._ . - -.
——
.— —

.==. ..—: .=. -

.
,__—..=. L ,= .— = .— ,—_ ,—
-—

— -————— =__—=__— = -—.-—- — —— ——. —=-—.

—

——
—
~_= ..:—.. _— .——=—. .—
= — ————-———. —— -—.=— _. —
—
— - =.=.-——, ———. . -- —- ——-. -=— ——=—=-—

—=. -__—_=_
 s ARUN INDONESIA - BIG BORE COMPLETION TOOL DESIGN OTS 7328

Fig. 4- Arun CI-19 pore pressure plot

Casirrg
True Vertical Depth, Ft. - KB

r
Depth,Ft-KB
o
Icncr

20’CSG
201XI @ 1600’KB
LOT= 13.5PPG

400

6000

7(XHI
- @ 7282’ TVD
8000 LOT = 17.5 PPG
Pore Pressure ~ 13-3/8” CSG

<-l 9-5/8” CSG

1000O I @ 9553’ TVD
i 8.5” Hole
11OOO ‘1 I I I 1
1’ I 1
I I I 1
I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
TD 10,057’ TVD
7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0
Pressure,Equivppg

660

——— —

— ————
~_— —— ._—_ ___ .—.

.-_——:.
_. .—. . _....—..
_.——.
_. -.
_.___ . ..-==* -..+:~<=~.. J: .—., ~=. ._—
~- _ ~_=A.:T_=—~ .=.. -.=. ,_=—.. ._—
,.= . ._ . - -. ——
.——

.==. ..—:
.=.-
,__—..=.
L,=.— = .—,—_,— .
-— — -—————
— =__—=__—= -—.-—-
———
——.
—=-—.
—
— ——
~_=
..:—.._—.——=—.
.— = —————-———.
—— -—.=—
_. —
— - =.=.-——,
———.
. -- —-
——-.
-=———=—=-— —
—=.