OTC 19297

Selecting Seal Materials for Deepwater Completions

Jim Goodson, Baker Oil Tools

Copyright 2008, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
A variety of seal materials have been used in downhole completions since the first cement plug was invented circa 1924.
That first plug had a canvas wrap over a natural rubber “element.” Since that time, proper selection of materials that have
been developed or adapted for application in specific downhole environments has had a significant impact on helping our
industry attain today’s high level of production. Although individual seal costs used in a well completion are a fraction of
total completion costs, they are critical to performance.
As producible wells become more complex, so must the tools we use to develop them. Proper seal material selection
becomes even more critical when production costs increase with more complex environments such as high-pressure/high-
temperature (HP/HT), subsea and deepwater completions. But is seal material selection any different for deepwater
completions versus land-based completions? After all, one downhole environment is the same as another, isn’t it?
This paper will explore seal material selection criteria as well as when those criteria should be amended for deepwater
completions. The presentation will also review the concept of “durability” as a deepwater selection criterion.

Introduction
Wells have been drilled offshore for many years, so it seems that a short review is in order of how progression to the current
day offshore drilling operations has transpired. According to a recent publication (PennWell, 2007) that reviewed the book,
“Pioneeing Offshore: The Early Years” by Schempf, drilling over water started as early as the 1890s. Drilling equipment
was placed on wooden piers extending from the shore and drilling into very shallow reservoirs of the Southern Carlifornia
coast. Similar methods were used around the world into the 1930s⎯typically at water depths of less than 10 ft (3 m). In
1937, Pure Oil and Superior Oil, now Chevron and Exxon Mobil respectively, drilled a well 1 mile offshore, in 14 ft (4.3 m)
of water from a wooden deck, 14 ft (4.3 m) above water clearance⎯perhaps the first free-standing, pile-driven offshore
drilling platform. According to the book, however, Kerr-McGee Industries (now Anadarko Petroleum), Phillips Petroleum
(now Conoco Phillips) and Stanolind Oil & Gas (now BP) completed the first well from a barge-assisted, steel-girderd,
wood-deck drilling platform out of sight of land in 1947.
We are now drilling from many different sizes and types of platforms with tremendous differences in complexity. We
long ago passed that 14-ft water depth criteria and are now drilling in depths up to 5,000 ft (1524 m) with increasing
frequency and moving into ultradeep drilling. At deepwater (over 1,000 ft, or 304.8 m) or ultra-deepwater (5,000 to 7,500 ft,
or 1524 to 2286 m) depths, engineering a stable and safe enough platform, however, is expensive; between 2008 and 2012,
the bill for deepwater drilling could be in the $108 billion range (John and MacFarlan, 2007). Other significant expenditures
will exist as well, such as completion equipment and pipelines to move the oil into upstream processing. With an estimated
$38 billion expenditure on just deepwater drilling and completion in the next five years, what considerations need to be made
for selecting completion equipment and, more specifically, sealing materials for those completion schemes?
Deepwater completion equipment is outside the scope of this presentation. While equipment is being designed
specifically for deepwater completions, basic “shallow” well completion equipment will be similar, differing only in design
criteria such as tensile load ratings, pressure ratings and general size range. For example, deepwater wells tend to have a
greater total vertical depth (TVD) than other wells and higher hydrostatic loads versus required differentials must be
accommodated for deepwater applications.
As we seek more efficient and cost-effective ways to complete deepwater wells, applications and designs will be
developed that are narrower in focus. However, in an article in Offshore, Hanrahan and Chitwood (2005) identified several
areas of interest from the DeepStar project subsea well workovers: 1) repair of completion equipment failures, 2)
2 OTC 19297

recompletion of a new production zone and 3) sidetracking the well to other reservoir targets. The article states, “Simple
downhole completion designs minimize the amount of equipment at risk of failure.”

Criteria for Seal Selection

If we can accept for the moment that the types of completion equipment to be used in deepwater are reasonably similar to that
for more shallow work, what criteria do we need to consider for seal selection? Is there any difference? Should there be any
difference? Seal material selection requires review of the seal design and application, the environment in which it will be
required to perform⎯including temperature, pressure and chemicals⎯and the duration of its desired performance. In some
completion applications, seals only need to be functional for a few hours or days. While the knowledge that a seal can
perform in a short-term application is very important, the ability to predict short-term performance is also a fairly simple task.
For applications of only hours or days, it is relatively simple to design a test that is essentially real time; the most difficult
part is duplicating the specific chemical environment. However, it is long-duration and/or severe-environment (temperature,
pressure, chemical) applications that challenge our ability of determining a sealing material’s acceptability.
Application guidelines have been produced by a variety of sources in the industry. Some address only chemical
compatibility of a specific fluid and general category of polymer, giving such ratings as Good, Fair, or Poor. This type of
guide is somewhat useful when no chemical compatibility data is known, and will at least allow a very broad generalization
of acceptability from the chemical standpoint. Other guides will go a step further and classify a material type or, more often,
a specific material formulation as, for example, Explosive Decompression Resistant or Extrusion Resistant. That implies that
the material has a combination of properties that improves its resistance for blistering or fracturing due to rapid gas
decompression or mechanical damage due to a high differential pressure. The industry has learned that those types of criteria
are very formulation-dependant and cannot be generalized to a type of polymer. All of this is good information and
recommendations for material acceptability have been taken a step further by the downhole completion equipment
manufacturers and some of the oil companies who have combined the previously discussed general information with some
consideration for type of seal, size of seal, and type of application. Several major oil companies have produced guides
similar to that in Table 1 (from Statoil’s TD0021, Version 1, 11/20/2001). In addition, there is a fairly consistant and
straightforward set of seal criteria typically considered for both offshore and land-based completion wells. Table 2 gives a
listing of some well environment criteria.
It’s important to notice that neither depth of water nor well appears as a selection criteria in TD0021 or the general list of
selection criteria. For completion equipment, the area of required performance is at some depth in the production wellbore
and not typically⎯even in a deepwater application⎯very near the surface or mudline. So, the depth of the completion is
important only in that, along with depth, we typically see changes in temperature and pressure. Other than the tendency for
greater TVD and higher hydrostatic pressure for deepwater wells, depth itself is not a factor in seal performance; temperature,
pressure, application and environment are.
Whether a land well or offshore well, these factors are the primary consideration for proper materials selection. Of
course, offshore work may involve differences in operational complexity⎯such as remote connections, wet trees on the sea
bed through which completion equipment has to be run and requiring low and higher temperature performance⎯but the
equipment and the seals in that equipment go through similar casing inner diameters (IDs), run to similar measured depths
(MD), and see nearly identical end-use applications and environments as the equipment run in a land well. So, the
completion equipment design used for deepwater is similar to other applications, it is run generally in a similar fashion, and
ends up in a similar environment.
A general listing of environmental considerations has been given, but another consideration bears discussion at this point.
Due to the significant financial outlay, increasing costs for drilling and completing a well and the oil company’s desire for
assurance of long-term performance, durability should be, and is becoming, an ever-increasing question and concern.

Specifications
The industry has done a good job of developing equipment that works in the downhole environment. Some types of
equipment abide by industry specifications for function and performance, design, quality assurance, etc, such as ISO 14310,
“Petroleum and natural gas industries – Downhole equipment – Packers and bridge plugs.” This standard is a positive step
forward in ensuring a good tool design that can meet the different levels of functional requirements. It addresses a
performance envelope that involves a combination of test conditions, including tension and compression on a packer as well
as holding differential pressures from above and below. There are seven grades of design validation in the specification,
from V6 grade (supplier/manufacturer agreed-upon performance requirements) to V0 (special validation grade). The V0 test,
which specifies achievement of required gas test / axial loads / temperature cycling / zero bubble leakage, must include the
intersection points of the designed performance envelope (Fig. 1). The specification also addresses what is considered a
design change as well as product scaling and limitations. Validation through using this standard provides confidence of good
mechanical design, including seals, and that it will perform in its described performance envelope.
However, this document doesn’t really address how long a tool might be functional in the described performance
envelope. It does not address “lifetime” or “durability” as a performance criterion. It is hard to address durability for what is
a relatively static performance application of a packer or bridge plug. Many durability tests are designed around temperature
OTC 19297 3

cycles, pressure cycles or designed movement and measurement of how changing criteria effects performance. For
equipment that, once in place, one would rather to never have to see or touch again but remain assured of its continued
performance, establishing durability by forcing those types of dynamic tests may be misleading. At the very least, they
should be well thought out and planned to represent, as closely as possible, a true application.
The industry has been moving in the direction of establishing durability-type tests for equipment types that experience
functional cycles in their performance life. For example, ISO 10432, “Sub Surface Safety Valves,” was established many
years ago (originally as API 14) and includes requirements for a cyclic testing method which simulates expected mechanical
functional life. Both ISO 14310 and ISO 10432 address functional and qualification test requirements in limited ways; ISO
10432 goes a little further in assessing the mechanical durability issue by requiring a validation test which represents the
number of anticipated opening and closing cycles in the life of the valve.
Intelligent Well Control is an area of design which may see increases in the deepwater field. In OTC Paper 12941,
Goldsmith et al. wrote “The use of a smart completion for zonal re-completion when the primary zone is depleted provides
the potential to eliminate an expensive workover” (Goldsmith et al., 2001). To achieve this goal, those systems will have to
be proven durable for the long term.
One test program has been designed to evaluate the durability issue for a 3-½-in. hydraulically controlled sliding sleeve,
the HCM-Plus. The objective of that test program was to measure and evaluate the control system response of the sliding
sleeve and the IWS Surface Control System (SCS) with 15,000 ft (4572 m) of control line connected between the SCS and
sleeve. Several issues were addressed. Components of the seal assemblies in this tool design are thermoplastic or spring-
energized thermoplastic materials using PTFE and PEEK as base materials. The seals were thermally cycled from 70°F to
270°F (21.11°C to 132.22°C) at 12,000 psi (827.4 bar) differential. A differential opening test was run at various pressures
from 1,500 psi to 6,000 psi (103.4 bar to 413.7 bar). At lower differentials, the tool completed over 80 cycles and held the
6,000 psi differential for 14 cycles. Shifting forces were determined with hydrostatic pressure on the tool. The Seal
Endurance Test was also completed, and it is the Seal Endurance Test that we will explore.
The objective of this portion of the program was to verify seal endurance over the mechanical life of the tool at
maximum-rated pressure and temperature. The test performed 640 open/close cycles at 270°F with an open/close pressure of
10,000 psi (689.5 bar) and tubing and annular pressure of 12,000 psi. The test required about 60 hours to complete all cycles.
Fig. 2 shows the layout of the test tool and Photos 1-3 are of the test setup and control system. The procedure calls for two
steps in testing, the Pre-Test Pressure Check and Seal Endurance Test. A shortened version of each test procedure is given
below. The Pre-Test Pressure Check procedure is performed before heat-up and also at each of the 160-cycle events in the
Seal Endurance Test to establish pressure-hold capability over the simulated mechanical life of the tool. The results of the
pressure holds for the 640th cycle are in Table 3. Note: Each cycle moves the insert open and closed, which correlates to
1280 times that the seals are moved dynamically. The differential pressure was monitored after the shifts were completed at
each 160-cycle check point.

PRE-TEST PRESSURE CHECK

1. Suspend fixture in test cell and rig for water testing.
2. Apply 200 psi (13.79 bar) to P1, P2, P3, and P4 to keep seals energized and maintain throughout pre-test pressure check.
3. Apply 10,200 psi (703.3 bar) with water pressure to P3 while at ambient temperature. Shifting may occur, causing
pressure to spike and then fall two or three times. Monitor leaks from P2 and P4. Hold pressure for 15 minutes. Enter
data on chart.
4. Bleed pressure on P3 down to 200 psi.
5. Apply 12,200 psi (841.2 bar) with water pressure to P1 and P4 while at ambient temperature. Monitor leaks from P2 and
P3. Hold pressure for 15 minutes. Enter data on chart.
6. Bleed pressure on P1 and P4 down to 200 psi.
7. Apply 10,200 psi with water pressure to P2 while at ambient temperature. Shifting will occur within the fixture, causing
pressure to spike and then fall two or three times. Monitor leaks from P1 and P3. Hold pressure for 15 minutes. Enter
data on chart.
8. Bleed ALL ports down to 0 psi.

SEAL ENDURANCE TEST

1. Heat test fixture assembly to 270°F and stabilize.
2. Apply 10,000 psi to P3 with water-based fluid and record shifting pressure.
3. Apply 10,000 psi to P2 with water-based fluid and record shifting pressure.
4. 1st cycle is complete.
5. At every 160 cycles, conduct pressure hold and record shifting pressures. Shift for a total of 640 cycles.
6. Remove Test Fixture from Cell, suspend in test cell, and allow to return to ambient temperature, 80°F – 110°F (26.7°C –
43.3°C). Maintain 200 psi on P1, P2, P3, and P4 to keep seals energized and maintain until Post-Test Pressure Check is
completed.
7. Bleed ALL ports down to 0 psi.
8. End of Test.
4 OTC 19297

In addition to evaluating the durability issue of whether the three different seal designs are able to maintain differential
pressure in this simulated 640-cycle application, as represented in Table 3, the durability of the seals to maintain shifting
pressure was monitored and recorded for each cycle. Those specific data are proprietary. The shifting pressure did increase
somewhat from the initial ambient temperature shifts, but the 640th cycle remained well below the 1,500-psi (103.4 bar)
maximum allowable shifting pressure.

Conclusion
This test program is one demonstration of what I believe will become a topic of increasing general importance, and of even
greater importance in the area of very expensive deepwater and HP/HT completions. We have already begun to modify the
basic test procedure described here by including hydrostatic pressure in the test. Those tests are being run in basically the
same fashion, but involve testing with differentials above hydrostatic. Again, because of the tendency for deepwater
completions to have a greater TVD compared to MD of other types of competions, i.e. more vertical than horizontal, the
hydrostatic pressure issues for the equipment could be different as well. The thermal and chemical environment is similar
between deepwater and other wells. Pressure ratings of the equipment are in the same range, but tendency to higher
hydrostatic pressure versus formation after draw down is possible. Does hydrostatic pressure of the environment affect the
durability of a seal? That is a topic for the future.

References
Best Practice for the Selection of Material for Downhole Equipment. 2001. Statoil TD0021, Version 1.
Celebrating Sixty Years of OFFSHORE Oil and Gas. PennWell Custom Publishing, Supplement to Offshore (October 2007).
Goldsmith, R., et al. 2001. Lifecycle Cost of Deepwater Production Systems. Paper OTC 12941 presented at OTC in Houston, May.
Hanrahan, S., and Chitwood, J. Technologies needed to meet deepwater business needs. Offshore (January 2005).
John, A. and MacFarlan, G. Global deepwater expenditure to exceed $108 Billion through 2012. Offshore (October 2007).
Petroleium and natural gas industries – Downhole Equipment – Packer and bridge plugs. ISO 14310 (December 2001).
Petroleum and natural gas industries – Downhole Equipment – Subsurface safety valve equipment. ISO 10432, Third Edition (December
2004).

Table 1 Best Practice for the Selection of Materials for Downhole Equipment
Statoil technical and professional descriptions and guidelines TD0021, Version 1, Valid from 20.11.2001

Checklist for small section downhole seal material selection

T > 120°C or T < -30°C? YES NO

H2S > 10 ppm? YES NO
All No
Amines at > 95°C? YES NO Select NBR, Nitrile
Zinc or sodium bromides? YES NO Butadiene Acrylonitrile rubber
Asphaltene solvents at > 95°C? YES NO
Acid treatments at > 95°C? YES NO

Any Yes? Continue

T > 200°C or T < -10°C? YES NO

H2S > 15% at T≤ 150°C? YES NO Select FKM Fluoroelastomer
H2S > 5% at T>200°C? YES NO All No
Amines at > 95°C? YES NO If T<120°C use bisphenol cured
Brines pH>10? YES NO If 120°<T<200°C use peroxide cured
Steam/water at >120°C YES NO

Any Yes? Continue

200oC or T < 25oC YES NO All No

H2S > 20% at T < 150°C? YES NO Select FEPM Fluoroelastomer
H2S > 7% at T > 150°C? YES NO
Asphaltene solvents at > 80°C? YES NO
Organic acid treatments at > 95°C? YES NO

Any Yes? Continue

All No Select FFKM Chemraz® Perfluoroelastomer
T>230°C or T≤-10°C YES NO

Any Yes? Continue

All No Select FFKM Kalrez® Perfluoroelastomer
T>260°C or T≤-0°C YES NO

Special application: Use other materials

OTC 19297 5

Table 2 Seal Selection Criteria

Criteria Considerations
Temperature Minimum Maximum
Pressure Minimum Maximum
Fluids to be sealed Drilling Injection
Production Completion
Application Dynamic Static
Life Requirement Expected Short Duration Long Duration
Service Chemicals encountered Temporary Exposure Continuous Exposure

Table 3 640 Cycle Pressure Test

th
640 Cycle
TEST 270 ° F
MATRIX w/ Water
Start Finish
P3 Annular
PRESSURE HOLD

P1 Upr Tubing Press, psi 214 218

P2 Chamber Pressure, psi 172 173
P3 Annular Pressure, psi 10370 10426
P4 Lwr Tubing Press, psi 215 220
Temperature, °F 270 270
Hold Time 15 Min
Start Finish
P1 & P4 Tubing
PRESSURE HOLD

P1 Upr Tubing Press, psi 12435 12438

P2 Chamber Pressure, psi 254 242
P3 Annular Pressure, psi 260 247
P4 Lwr Tubing Press, psi 12485 12438
Temperature, °F 270 270
Hold Time 15 Min

P2 Chamber
PRESSURE HOLD

P1 Upr Tubing Press, psi 197 190

P2 Chamber Pressure, psi 10317 10309
P3 Annular Pressure, psi 214 265
P4 Lwr Tubing Press, psi 198 190
Temperature, °F 270 271
Hold Time 15 Min
6 OTC 19297

Note: Points labeled “A” are intersection points of two or more failure modes.

Figure 1 ISO 14310 Performance Envelope

Figure 2 Test Tool Layout

Photo 1 IWS Surface Control System Photo 2 HCM-Plus Photo 3 Test Assembly with
Sliding Sleeve accumulator and 15,000 ft ¼” tube