Introduction of Gravel Pack with Inflow Control Completion in Brazil 6 th European Sand Management Forum Abrahão Jardim / Alberto Costa / Tobias Rocha / Hang Nguyen / Peter Kidd Baker Hughes Daniela Leite / Arcindo Santos Statoil Brasil 1 2014 B A K E R H U G H E S I N C O R P O R A TED. A LL R I G H TS R E S E R V E D. TERMS A N D C O N D I TI O N S O F U S E : B Y A C C E P TI N G THIS DOCUMENT, THE RECIPIENT A G R E E S THAT THE DOCUMENT TOGETHER W I TH A LL I N FORMATI O N I N C LUDED THEREIN I S THE C O N FI D E N TI A L A N D P R O P R I E TARY PROPERTY OF B A K E R H U G H E S I N C O R P O R A TED AND INCLUDES VALUABLE TRADE SECRETS AND/OR PROPRIETARY INF ORMA TI O N O F B A K E R H U G H E S (C O LLECTI V E LY "I N FORMATI O N "). B A K E R H U G H E S R E TAINS A LL R I G H TS U N D E R C O P Y R I G H T LAW S A N D TRADE SECRET LAW S O F THE U N I TED STATES OF A M E R I C A A N D O THER COUNTRIES. THE RECIPIENT FURTHER A G R E E S TH A T THE D O C U M E N T M A Y N O T B E D I S TRIBUTED, TRANSMITTED, C O P I E D O R R E P R O D U C E D I N W H O LE O R I N P A R T B Y A N Y M E A N S, E LECTRONIC, MECHANICAL, O R O THERWISE, W I THOUT THE EXPRESS PRIOR WRITTEN C O N S E N T O F B A K E R H U G H E S, A N D M A Y N O T B E U S E D D I R E C TLY O R I N D I R E C TLY IN A N Y W A Y D E TRIMENTAL TO BAKER HUGHES INTEREST.
Agenda Objectives Reservoir Information Conventional Gravel Pack ICD Gravel Pack Well Design Challenges Case History #1 Case History # 2 Conclusions 2
Objectives Provide sand control Provide uniform inflow along long horizontal well Provide additional oil production compared with standard screens 3
Reservoir Information Peregrino field is located 85 km offshore Brazil (Campos Basin) 24 km of extension Water depth around 100 m API: 14 0 Unconsolidated sands and thin heavy oil-bearing sections Wells require sand control techniques Producer wells: 30 4
Reservoir Simulation Studies Evaluate the well completion effect on the reservoir behavior of horizontal well in Peregrino field, considering: OHGP with Standard Screen vs. OHGP with ICD screen completion Water injection effect Determine ICD type and rating, joint quantity and optimum flow resistance rating Determine additional pressure drop requirements with ICD completion Estimate the oil and water cumulative production with and without ICD Technology Estimate the oil and water influx (bpd/ft) behavior 5
Reservoir Simulation Observations ICD completions add value in the long term when it is compared with standard completion. ICD completion promote an evenly fluid influx along the horizontal section and delay in the water breakthrough It is recommendable to install sliding sleeve (mechanical water shut off) in order to control the water production (after 5 years); reservoir simulations (based on ICD with 6.4FRR flow resistance rating) show that water will come mainly from reservoir areas with less flow resistance in the porous media (more permeability) 6
Conventional Gravel Pack vs. ICD Gravel Pack Well Design Typical Architecture for Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack Wells with standard screens GP Packer 5-1/2 Standard Screens 2.71 SG Proppant Bull Plug Typical Architecture for Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack Wells with ICD screens GP Packer 5-1/2 ICD Screens LWP 1.75 SG Proppant 5-1/2 Standard Screen Bull Plug 7 Sliding Sleeve
Challenges ICD screens restrict fluid from entering the screens/washpipe annulus resulting in a lower alpha dune height Pumping rate during beta wave placement must be slowly reduced to stay below fracture pressure 8
Hookup for Gravel Packing with ICD Screen OHGP Crossover Tool Anti- Swabbing LBHP Tool Shifting Tool Indicating Collet Perforated Tubing 2-Way Shifting Tool Indicator Couplings Fluid Loss Control Valve EQUALIZER Screen Sliding Sleeve 9
Configuration During Gravel Packing Washpipe EQUALIZER Screen Crossover Sub Double Pin Sub Perforated Tube Sliding Sleeve Premium Screen Shifting Tool Bull Plug Bull Plug 10
Configuration During Production EQUALIZER Screen Double Pin Sub Sliding Sleeve Premium Screen Bull Plug Bull Plug 11
STP, psi STP, psi Challenges - The Proppant Selection Select the correct proppant to be transported at low rates without settling STP x Lateral length STP vs. (ft) Lateral for Length 2.71 SG proppant Ver 06-12-2012 STP x Lateral length STP (ft) vs. for Lateral 1.75 Length SG proppant Ver 06-12-2012 2000 1800 ICD Screen: TRUE Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 16/20 Carbolite, 5500 psi FP) Q, BPM = 5.49 2000 1800 ICD Screen: TRUE Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP) Q, BPM = 5.00 1600 Stop Proppant feeding when beta wave is about 800ft of heel 1600 Stop Proppant feeding when beta wave is about 600ft of heel 1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 STP-alpha STP-beta 1000 STP-alpha STP-beta STP-frac STP-frac 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 12 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Lateral Length, ft 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Lateral Length, ft
Challenges - The Proppant Selection Regular shape good roundness and sphericity; SG = range from 1.75 to 1.90 ULW-175 ULW-125 ULW-108 Bulk density = range from 70 to 72 lb/ft3 Stress environments as high as 8,000 psi Yields 35% less weight than regular ceramic 13
Pump Pressure, psi Dune Height/Hole Diameter Ratio Challenges The Simulation 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 ICD Screen: TRUE Horizontal Gravel Packing Design Criteria Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP) Centralized: FALSE Fluid Return Ratio = 0.95 Hole Angle, deg. = 90 Hole Dia., in = 8.9 Screen OD/ID, in = 6.3, 5.082 Wash Pipe OD, in = 4 Roughness, in = 0.01 Fluid Vis., cps = 1.2 Fluid Dens., ppg = 9.7 Mix Ratio, ppga = 1 Gravel Dia., in = 0.027 Ver 06-12-2012 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 Gravel pack design software which takes in to account the large increase in pressure drop during beta wave placement 1500 0.65 1000 0.60 500 0.55 0 0.50 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Pump Rate, BPM Ppump-alpha at bottom Ppump-beta at TOS Ppump-Frac Dune/Hole Ratio 14
Challenges The Simulation Open Hole Horizontal Gravel Packing Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP) ICD Screen: TRUE Estimate Pump Time and Amount of Proppant Pumped Tubular Volume above Packer, ft³ 1286.62 Dune/Hole Ratio 0.74 0.65 0.70 0.74 0.80 Pump Rate, BPM 5.00 7.68 6.37 5.00 3.16 Return Rate, BPM 4.75 7.30 6.05 4.75 3.00 Alpha Pressure, psi 369 929 623 369 132 Beta Pressure, psi 182547 431141 296282 182547 72669 Frac Pressure, psi 1706 2028 1854 1706 1563 Alpha Time 163.72 74.57 108.48 163.72 317.06 Beta Time 110.14 101.53 105.20 110.14 120.16 Time for proppant to reach Packer, min 45.81 29.82 35.97 45.81 72.53 Time at end of Alpha, min 209.53 104.40 144.45 209.53 389.58 Time at end of Beta, min 319.67 205.93 249.66 319.67 509.75 Proppant amount below Packer, lbs 54201 53535 53861 54201 54659 Proppant amount at Screen-out, lbs 63268 62601 62928 63268 63726 Minimum Rate to prevent duning in Worstring Workstring Number 1 2 3 4 5 Workstring ID, in 4.778 4.778 4.778 4.778 4.778 Transport Rate in WS (Horizontal), BPM 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.12 Maximum deviation angle, degree 75 75 75 75 75 Correction Factor (for angle > 45 ) 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707 Transport Rate in WS, BPM 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 Minimum Rate to prevent duning, BPM 4.78 Minimum Rate to prevent premature sandout Pump Rate to yield 0.83 Dune/Hole ratio, BPM 2.81 Recommended Minimum Rate during Alpha-wave Placement: 4.78 15
STP, psi Rate, BPM Challenges The Simulation STP vs. Time 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time, min STP STP_Frac PR RetRate 16
Case History # 1 General Data Field Peregrino Water Depth 400ft Last Casing 9-5/8 @ 10,397/7,600ft MD/TVD Open Hole Horizontal Pay Zone 8-1/2 @ 15,101 ft MD 10,394ft 15,101ft MD Formation Unconsolidated Sandstone Reservoir Permeability 5,800 md Reservoir Porosity 28% Fracture Gradient 0.66 psi/ft Gravel Pack Fluid 9.7 ppg NaCl Brine Workstring 5-1/2 OD, 4.778 ID, 21.90lb/ft Blank Pipe 5-1/2 OD, 4.89 ID, 13%Cr, 17lb/ft 17 Screen Washpipe Average Caliper Simulated 5-1/2 EQUALIZER SELECT 6.4FRR 4 Hydril 511, P-110, 11.6lb/ft, 3.380 ID 8.9 (simulated)
Case History # 1 Circulation Test, GP Design and Simulation Pump Rate (bpm) Return Rate (bpm) Pressure (psi) % Return 2.0 2.0 204 100.0 4.0 4.0 530 100.0 5.0 5.0 736 100.0 6.0 6.0 1030 100.0 18
Case History # 1 Gravel Pack Pumping Job Parameters 19
Case History # 2 General Data Field Peregrino Water Depth 400ft Last Casing 9-5/8 @ 10,141/7,692ft MD/TVD Open Hole Horizontal Pay Zone 8-1/2 @ 13,422ft MD 10,141ft 13,422ft (3,281ft MD) Formation Unconsolidated Sandstone Reservoir Permeability 5,800 md Reservoir Porosity 28% Fracture Gradient 0.71psi/ft Gravel Pack Fluid 9.7 ppg NaCl Brine Workstring 5-1/2 OD, 4.778 ID, 21.90lb/ft Blank Pipe 5-1/2 OD, 4.89 ID, 13%Cr, 17lb/ft 20 Screen Washpipe Average Caliper Simulated 5-1/2 EQUALIZER SELECT 6.4FRR 4 Hydril 511, P-110, 11.6lb/ft, 3.380 ID 8.9 (simulated)
Case History # 2 Circulation Test, GP Design and Simulation Pump Rate (bpm) Return Rate (bpm) Pressure (psi) % Return 2.0 2.0 204 100.0 4.0 4.0 530 100.0 5.0 5.0 736 100.0 6.0 6.0 1030 100.0 21
Case History # 2 Gravel Pack Pumping Job Parameters 22
Pressure, psi Flow Rate, BPM MR, ppa STP, psi Rate, BPM Case History #2 (Field Data vs. Post-Job Simulation Data) Average OH Diameter in Post-Job Simulation was based on the Amount of Proppant in Pumping Data Field Pumping Data B-24 OHGP Pumping Data 12 Feb 2013 1800 9 1600 8 1400 7 1200 6 1000 5 Start of Beta Wave 800 Start of Alpha Wave 4 600 3 400 2 200 1 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Elapsed Time, min STP Pump Rate RetRate MR DH_MR Post-Job Simulation Data STP vs. Time Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (9.6OH, EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LP175, ProppantCF = 1.25, FG=0.715) 2000 10.0 1800 9.0 1600 8.0 1400 7.0 1200 6.0 1000 5.0 800 4.0 600 3.0 400 2.0 200 1.0 0 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time, min STP STP_Frac PR RetRate 23
Case History #2 (Post-job Simulation and Actual Pumping Data) 24 SUMMARY Average Open Hole Diameter, in 9.6 ProppantCF in Simulation 1.25 Simulation Actual Pump Rate during Alpha, BPM 6.10 6.1 Pump Rate at end of Beta, BPM 2.5 2.5 Average Mix Ratio, ppa 1 1 DHR 0.743 0.7 STP Beginning, psi 618 603 STP_Slurry at Packer, psi 536 564 STP_ Alpha at Bottom, psi 638 560 STP_Beta @ TOS, psi 1823* 1610 Start Time, minutes 0 0 Time for proppant to reach Packer, minutes 36.95 36.5 Alpha Time, minutes 191.96 164.18 Beta Time, minutes 139.07 161.18 Total GP Time (min) 367.98 361.86 Proppant amount in Alpha dune, lbs 46304 40300 Proppant amount in Beta wave, lbs 24575 29403 Proppant amount below Packer, lbs 70879 69703 Proppant amount at Screen-out, lbs 79792 77299 Proppant amount above Packer, lbs 8913 7596 Annulus Filled_Alpha 65.33% 57.82% Annulus Filled_Beta 34.67% 42.18% Clean Fluid Volume, bbls 1900 1870 Comment Simulation at constant Cut proppant w hen Mix Ratio. Est STP = pump rate is at and 1823 psi if shut dow n below 3 BPM. No after pumping 78641 lbs proppant (98.6% of total proppant proppant during the last 10 minutes of pumping. amount and Beta w ave w as at ~ 150 ft of top of screen)
Conclusion Peregrino Field unconsolidated sandstone reservoir demanding sand control techniques Two GP jobs successful performed using ICD completion pioneer introduction of this technology in offshore Brazil Typical completion architecture include ICD screens and a single joint of standard premium screen at the toe enabling fluid return Special strategy to address the challenges: special software to job design, Lightweight proppant and experience of GOM operations 25
Thank you Very Much! Questions? Don t forget Techno Day 3 rd April, AECC, Aberdeen 26