SPE 147313

The World's Deepest Frac-Pack Completions Using a Single-Trip Multi-Zone

System: A Gulf of Mexico Case Study in the Lower Tertiary Formation
K. Scott Ogier, SPE, Cherokee Offshore Engineering; Ziad Haddad, SPE, FOI Technologies; Oswaldo Moreira,
SPE and Flavio Dias De Moraes, SPE, Petrobras; and Jonathan Shipley, SPE, Cherokee Offshore Engineering

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October2 November 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Single-trip multi-zone (STMZ) Frac-Pack completions can significantly reduce the time to complete wells with long
productive intervals. This technique was used successfully in two Lower Tertiary completions in the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico (GOM) Cascade/Chinook project in 2010 (26,000 ft TVD, 8900 ft water depth). With interval lengths exceeding
1,000 ft, reservoir pressures greater than 18,500 psi, and bottomhole temperatures higher than 250F, these STMZ
completions were the first of their kind.
With a STMZ completion, all completion intervals in a well are perforated at once. Then all the lower completion hardware
(screens, sleeves, packers, etc.) is assembled and run in the well and the packers are set. Through the manipulation of sliding
sleeves, each interval is individually opened and frac-packed sequentially from the bottom interval to the top. Before moving
to the next interval, the sleeves are closed and pressure tested, providing isolation between the wellbore and the reservoir.
The steps are repeated until all the intervals are stimulated. The STMZ system saves a great deal of rig time over
conventional stacked frac-pack systems by significantly reducing the number of trips in and out of the well with the work
string.
This paper discusses the challenges, planning, execution, and results of these STMZ completions with a focus on the
downhole completion hardware. Also discussed are some planned modifications to the system that will reduce risk and
improve performance in the future.

Introduction
The Cascade/Chinook project is a deepwater GOM project located in Walker Ridge Blocks 205 and 249 (Figure 1).
Although these blocks are separated by fifteen miles, they are being developed together to optimize the economics of the
project. Both blocks are being developed with subsea trees, manifolds, and related subsea equipment and are tied back to a
common floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessel for field operations, surface separation, and processing.
The produced oil will be transported to market using shuttle tankers and the gas will be sold through a gas export line.
At water depths of 8200 ft to 8900 ft, the Cascade/Chinook project is one of the deepest subsea development projects ever
carried out. This project will mark the first sustained oil production for the Lower Tertiary formation in the Gulf of Mexico
at these depths and pressures. For additional information on the Cascade/Chinook project see Cunha (2009) and Moraes
(2010).
As part of the initial phase of the Cascade/Chinook development project, Well A and Well B were completed in 2010. These
wells were completed with STMZ systems that provided stimulation and sand control with a significant savings in rig time
over conventional stacked frac-pack completions. These wells represent the first STMZ completions in the ultra-deepwater
(>5,000 ft water depth) GOM.

SPE 147313

United States
Texas

Alabama

Louisiana

Florida

Cascade
Chinook
Deepwater Lower Tertiary Trend
0

100

160

Figure 1 Location of Cascade/Chinook

In the Cascade/Chinook project, the Lower Tertiary formation is at a TVD of around 25,000 ft, with maximum reservoir
pressures in excess of 18,500 psi and a maximum reservoir temperature of 260F. The pay interval includes Wilcox 1 and
Wilcox 2 sands with a combined gross thickness in excess of 1000 ft. Table 1 lists some of the critical reservoir properties
seen in the wells.
Table 1 Cascacde/Chinook Critical Reservoir Properties
Well A
Water Depth, ft
Lower Tertiary Reservoir
Depth, MD ft
Reservoir Pressure, psi
Reservoir Temp., avg., F
Gross Sand Thickness, TVD
Net to Gross
Deviation through Pay Interval

Top
Btm
Top
Btm

8,143
25,234
26,554
19,020
19,582
251
1261
~50%
17

Well B
8,843
25,050
26,130
18,551
18,985
239
1039
~50%
13-20

Completing wells at this depth with a large gross reservoir thickness (+1,000 ft), using conventional stacked frac-packs is
very time consuming. With rig spread rates in excess of 1,000,000 USD/day, reducing the time to complete the wells is
critical in improving the economics of the project. A goal from the outset of this project was to develop a completion
strategy that would reduce the completion time without sacrificing the productivity of the wells.
A number of completion designs were examined to complete these challenging wells including stacked frac-packs, openhole
completions, stand alone screens, natural completions, cased and fractured with no sand control, and horizontal multi-lateral
completions. Each scenario was analyzed with respect to production deliverability, cost, and risk. Ultimately, a STMZ

SPE 147313

completion technique was selected for the Cascade/Chinook project because it minimized the completion time and cost
without sacrificing productivity.
Single-Trip Multi-Zone Completions
With a STMZ completion, all the completion intervals in the well are perforated at once. Next, all the downhole completion
hardware (screens, sleeves, packers, etc.) is assembled and run in the well in a single trip and all the packers are hydraulically
set. Using an inner work string with shifting collets, a frac sleeve at the top of each interval and a pressure monitoring sleeve
at the bottom of the interval are shifted open before the interval is frac-packed. Before moving to the next interval, the
sleeves of the recently frac-packed interval are closed, providing isolation between the wellbore and the reservoir. The zones
are frac-packed sequentially from the bottom interval to the top interval.

Courtesy of Baker Hughes

Figure 2 STMZ Frac and Reverse Operations

A STMZ system is a viable option if all the perforated intervals are at approximately the same pressure gradient. The
hydrostatic pressure exerted by the completion fluid must be high enough to create an overbalance environment for all the
intervals while reducing excessive fluid loss to the formation.
Although STMZ systems have been successfully used at much shallower depths , it was not until recently that these systems
were developed to handle the high fracture rates, depths and pressures of the Cascade/Chinook project. Discussion of the
history of the development of STMZ systems can be found in papers by Clarkson (2008), Banman (2000), Bennett (1996),
Jefferis (1983), and Vickery (2002).

SPE 147313

The STMZ system saves significant rig time over conventional stacked frac-pack systems by reducing the number of trips in
and out of the well with the work string It is estimated that a three-zone STMZ completion would reduce the completion
time by almost twenty days over a three-zone conventional frac-pack at Cascade/Chinook; a significant savings in time and
cost
Figure 2 shows the tool positions for both Frac and Reverse
operations. In the Frac position of each interval, the monitoring
sleeve and the frac sleeve are both opened while the production
sleeves are closed. Weight is applied on the locator to keep the tool
in position. Proppant laden frac fluid is pumped down the work
string, through the crossover port and frac sleeve, around the screens,
and into the reservoir. There is a path that allows pressure to
communicate through the monitoring sleeve and the circulating valve
and into the annulus to be monitored at the surface.
An optional Squeeze position can be created by leaving the
monitoring sleeve closed. In the squeeze position, frac pressure is
kept on the outside of the screen assembly. The Squeeze position
may be necessary if the inside of the screens, the sump, or the
annulus cannot withstand frac pressures. The frac pressure cannot be
monitored at the surface while the tool is in the Squeeze position.
To reverse out the proppant remaining in the work string after the
frac operation, the service tool is picked up and placed in the Reverse
position. Moving to the Reverse position closes the frac sleeve and
the circulating valve. Completion fluid is pumped down the annulus
through the crossover port and up the work string.
For a more detailed description of the STMZ components and their
operation, see Suryanada (2010).
Figure 3 shows the completion schematic of Well A. With the
STMZ system, the production sleeves, located in the screen joints
(separate from the frac sleeves and the pressure monitoring sleeves),
are opened with a shifting tool while deploying the intermediate
completion assembly. After the sleeves are opened and the
intermediate packer is set and tested, a mechanical ball valve is
closed as the work string is retrieved, thus isolating the reservoir from
the wellbore. This ball valve is opened after the upper completion
(production tubing, packer, SCSSV, etc), is installed.
Project Requirements
The Cascade/Chinook completions presented the following unique
challenges:

With a relatively low reservoir fluid mobility and 0vertical

permeability, fracture stimulation is necessary to increase
the productivity of the wells.

Rock mechanics testing indicates that formation sand

production could become an issue as the reservoir is
depleted. Therefore, the installation of downhole sand
control equipment is necessary for the initial completion
design. The installation of a sand control completion also
serves as a means to retain the proppant pack and prevent
proppant flowback which would lead to potential problems
with the subsea production infrastructure.

Slick joint
isolating
frac sleeve

Profile to
isolate
Wilcox 2

Shifting
Tool

The maximum drawdown pressure between the initial

Figure 3 Well A Completion Schematic
reservoir pressure and the final flowing bottomhole
pressure is anticipated to be greater than 12,000 psi. Great care was taken to ensure the burst and collapse loads
would not compromise the downhole equipment throughout the life of the wells.

SPE 147313

Determining the number and length of the perforation intervals in the completions required detailed fracture
modeling, taking into account the lithology of the formation, the in situ stresses in the field, and the limitations of
the downhole hardware.

High strength proppant is required to maintain fracture conductivity under the high formation closure stresses. The
high strength proppant is especially erosive on the downhole equipment when pumped at frac rates.

Formation isolation for each interval is required. Also, the ability to shut off flow from the Wilcox 2 reservoir in the
future was deemed necessary as there is an Oil Water Contact (OWC) identified in the reservoir.

Planning
As with any project of this magnitude, significant planning went into the design of the lower completions at
Cascade/Chinook. When the decision was made to use the STMZ system, there were a number of system components that
needed to be upgraded and qualified for the pressures, pump rates, and depths that would be encountered during the
completion phase. The completion team worked closely with the supplier in making modifications and qualifying the STMZ
equipment that would be run in the wells. As a backup, a conventional stacked frac-pack system was prepared.
The following are some of the planning issues that were unique to this project and the STMZ system in particular:

The STMZ system requires locating the service tool in a

number of different positions throughout the completion
operation. Locating the correct position at measured
depths up to 26,000 ft from a floating rig with subsea
BOPs is quite a challenge. In each zone, there is only one
unique (weight down) position that is used as a reference
point for tool positions. Figure 2a shows the Locator in
this weight down position during frac operations.

When pumping fluid down the work string, especially

during the fracturing of each interval, the contraction of the
work string due to cooling had to be taken into account to
maintain the proper tool position. This was extensively
modeled taking into account the weight set down on the
tool to ensure the tool did not move out of position while
pumping.

Pumping large volumes of high strength proppant at high

frac rates (>25 bpm) is very erosive to the crossover
service tool, the downhole completion equipment, and the
casing. Several erosion tests were performed before a
crossover tool of an adequate design was qualified. The
modified crossover tool design is rated to 1,500,000 lbm of
20/40 US-mesh Bauxite and 40 bpm.

With the STMZ system, there is a small diameter (OD =

3.22 in) inner work string that must fit inside the screen
assembly. This inner work string, especially when most of
it is located in the large ID (ID = 8.50 in) production liner
when pumping the top frac-pack, is susceptible to
buckling. This presents difficulty getting weight down on
the frac tool to keep it in position during the pumping of
the frac treatment. A great deal of modeling was
performed to achieve the best design of this string and to
recognize its limitations.

The number and length of intervals to be fractured was

Figure 4 Fluid Spotted on Backside to Aid
extensively modeled to ensure the most efficient stimulation
Reverse Out
of the Lower Tertiary formation. Although prepared to
include as many as five intervals in each well, the team ultimately decided on three intervals in each of the two wells
that were completed. This is discussed in great detail by Haddad et al (2011).

To address the concern of excessive fluid loss while tripping in with the intermediate assembly (Figure 3) to shift
open all the production sleeves, modifications were made to the opening profiles of the sleeves. As originally

SPE 147313

designed, all the production sleeves would have the same profile and the sleeves would open as the shifter on the
bottom of the inner production string passed through the screen assembly (a process that could take several hours).
The completion design team worked with the supplier to develop a suite of shifting profiles and matching shifters.
With this new approach, all the production sleeves open with the running of the last stand of work string, greatly
minimizing the amount of fluid lost to the formation.

In order to address possible water production from the Wilcox 2, the wells were setup with a nipple profile in the
inner production string and a slick joint was installed across the inverted seals of the frac sleeve (Figure 3).
Production from the Wilcox 2 can be shut off by installing a plug in this nipple profile.

In order to ensure that the zinc-bromide (ZnBr2) completion fluid would not be discharged overboard when
reversing out after the frac jobs, a non-zinc spacer fluid followed by a viscosified spacer fluid were pumped ahead of
the pad fluid. These spacers were placed in the annulus above the downhole equipment before the frac tool was
placed in the frac position and the frac was pumped as illustrated in Figure 4. The viscosified spacer aided in
reversing out the remaining proppant after the end of each frac job. Furthermore, the non-zinc spacer was dyed to
help visually identify when the spacer was reversed out. Soon after the spacer was identified when reversing out
overboard, flow from the work string was diverted to the shakers to capture the ZnBr2 completion fluid.

The proppant pumped was tagged with radioactive isotopes. The radioactive material in the frac fluid was
monitored continuously while the fluid was revered out overboard. There was a clear break in the radioactive tracer
counts when all the proppant had been reversed out, indicating the returns were free of any proppant. This was
supported by visual confirmation of the dyed, non-Zn spacer that was placed between the sand-laden fluid and the
ZnBr2 completion fluid. Diversion of the reversed fluid to the shakers after all the proppant was reversed out
overboard ensured no radioactive material would contaminate the active brine system on the rig.

Lower Completion Operations

The completion of the Cascade/Chinook wells began in December 2009 and was completed in May 2010. Table 2 breaks
down the STMZ portion of the completions by major activity for both Wells A and B beginning with the TCP operation and
continuing through setting the intermediate assembly. The times are broken down into Trouble Free, NPT (non-productive
time), and Total. A discussion of the completion operations for each well details the major NPT events experienced.
Table 2 - Breakdown of Completion Times
Lower Completion Time, days

Task
TCP Perforate
De-burr
Make up tools at surface
Run in hole and set packers
Stimulate lower zone
Stimulate middle zone
Stimulate upper zone
Trip out of hole and tear down tools
Top-Off jobs lower & middle zones
Cleanout trip
Run and set intermediate assembly & POOH
TOTAL

Trouble
Free
3.2
2.7
0.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.6
0.9
--0.0
4.1
19.5

Well A
NPT
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.6
20.8
0.0
0.0
--1.8
0.1
24.9

Total
3.7
2.7
1.0
2.0
3.7
22.8
1.6
0.9
--1.8
4.2
44.4

Trouble
Free
3.4
2.3
1.4
2.2
1.5
1.4
1.8
0.9
0.0
--2.8
17.7

Well B
NPT
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.1
2.3
2.2
0.0
4.1
--0.1
12.8

Total
3.5
2.3
1.4
6.1
1.6
3.7
4.0
0.9
4.1
--2.9
30.5

SPE 147313

Well A
Premature opening of the monitoring sleeve
The first significant NPT event occurred while reversing out the work string following the minifrac and step-rate test on the
lower zone. While pumping at 8 bbl/min down the annulus (Reverse position), only 2 bbl/min returns were observed on the
surface, indicating high downhole losses. After performing some diagnostic work, it became apparent that the monitoring
sleeve in the middle zone (upper monitoring sleeve in Figure 2b) had inadvertently opened and completion fluid was being
pumped into the middle zone. This was confirmed by moving the closing shifter above the monitoring sleeve (in the middle
zone) and closing the sleeve. Reverse circulation was re-established with full returns. The frac job in the lower zone
continued as planned, but while reversing out after the stimulation, the middle zone monitoring sleeve opened again. The
work string was quickly pulled up to close the monitoring sleeve and the proppant was reversed out without further issues.
At this time, it was believed that the middle zone monitoring sleeve was defective. The faulty sleeve would not affect
upcoming operations in the middle and upper zones.
This occurred again when treating the middle zone. While reversing out following the minifrac and step-rate test in the
middle zone, the majority of the returns were lost before it was determined that the monitoring sleeve in the upper interval
had opened. Further analysis of this issue in both the lower and middle zones led to the suspicion that if the service tool was
picked up too high when reversing, the flow path across the monitoring sleeve became restricted when the 3.75 in OD upper
slick joint was across the sleeve. The pressure drop created by this restriction forced the monitoring sleeve open. This
suspicion was later confirmed in a laboratory experiment that recreated the restricted flow area. In the experiment, the sleeve
opened easily when fluid was pumped between the sleeve and the slick joint.
One of the contributing factors that caused this condition to occur was the lack of a positive indication when the service tool
is in the Reverse position. Rather, this position is located by picking up the service tool from the weight down position by
a given distance. The optimal Reverse position is within a four-foot window and is difficult to locate at 26,000 ft.
Great care was used in locating the Reverse position after pumping the middle zone frac-pack and no issues were encountered
with the monitoring sleeve of the upper zone. For the completion of Well B, which followed Well A, a four-foot spacer pipe
was added to bottom of the screen assembly to double the length of the Reverse position. This, coupled with careful
monitoring of the tool position, successfully addressed the premature sleeve opening issue.
Stuck Service Tool
The majority of the NPT associated with the Well A STMZ operation was due to the service tool becoming stuck after fracpacking the middle zone and the subsequent fishing operation.
After the middle zone frac-pack was pumped and proppant in the work string was reversed out, the reservoir was still
pressured up and trying to flow back into the well. Before the service tool could be stripped down 250 ft to close the
monitoring sleeve, the surface pressure in the work string needed to be bled off. The service tool was positioned so that it
was isolated from the formation (frac position with the frac sleeve closed) and an internal BOP was installed in the work
string after the pressure was bled off. Then the work string was stripped down to close the monitoring sleeve. While closing
the monitoring sleeve, the service tool became stuck.
Because the internal BOP was in place, wireline tools could not be run to sever the work string. Therefore, the only option
was to pull the work string until the string parted. After circulating a heavier weight completion fluid to counter the over
pressured reservoir, the work string was pulled until it parted at the top of the inner work string below the packer setting tool
with approximately 300,000 lbs of overpull. The remainder of the inner work string and service tool was subsequently fished
out of the well and the completion continued with the frac-pack of the upper zone.
The examination of the recovered service tool revealed the tungsten-carbide erosion ring, located immediately below the
bottom of the crossover tool, was missing (Figure 5). Also, one of the beryllium-copper arms of the closing shifter had
broken off (Figure 6). There are several theories about how the service tool became stuck. A well supported theory is that
the tungsten-carbide ring broke first (for unknown reasons) and a piece from this ring became stuck in the closing shifter,
causing an arm of the shifter to break off when it could not flex as designed. A piece of the broken shifter became wedged
between the screen assembly and the service tool, causing the service tool to become stuck (Figure 7).

SPE 147313

Location of missing
Tungsten-carbide ring

Figure 5 Bottom of Crossover Tool Recovered from Well A

Figure 6 Closing Shifter Recovered from Well A

Piece of beryllium-copper
shifter

Figure 7 Service Tool Recovered from Wells A with Piece of Shifter Embedded
After the inner work string was recovered, a clean out trip was made to ensure the ID of the screen assembly was not
compromised and a pressure test was performed to confirm the pressure integrity of the STMZ system. Based on these tests
and an analysis of the damage seen on the service tool, it was determined that the STMZ system was still intact and there
would be no increased risk in continuing with the completion.
For the remaining stimulation treatments (upper zone in Well A and all three zones in Well B), the tungsten-carbide erosion
ring was replaced by a less brittle steel ring.
Although the entire STMZ assembly was successfully pressure tested, to ensure that the middle zone frac sleeve would not
leak during production, a slick joint was installed in the isolation assembly that sealed in the inverted seals across the middle
zone frac sleeve (Figure 3).
Fishing of the service tool and an added drift run to ensure the STMZ assembly was free of debris resulted in 20.7 days of
NPT.
Crossover Tool
When the crossover tool was recovered after the middle zone frac job, severe erosion was observed below the location of the
erosion ring (Figure 5). The portion of the tool that was eroded should have been protected from the slurry if the tool was in
the correct position. Either the tool was not in the correct position to begin with (possibly held out of position by debris
associated with the broken erosion ring) or the tool moved out of position during the frac operation as the work string cooled
and shortened. To counteract the thermal contraction of the work string, additional weight was applied to the tool before
pumping the treatment and the work string was slacked off approximately four feet after the pad was pumped. Temperature
gauges located in the service tool showed a cooling of up to 120F throughout the stimulation treatment.

SPE 147313

Well B
Leak in Sump
The largest contributor to NPT in the Well B completion operation was
related to a pressure leak identified below the sump packer. After
stinging the STMZ hardware into the sump packer and setting the
uppermost packer, a pressure test on the annulus of the work string failed
to hold. Through diagnosis, it was found the sump area was leaking.
Because there were open perforations above the sump packer, it could
not be determined if the leak was around the elements of the sump
packer, across the seal bore of the sump packer, or in the sump area
itself. The sump had been previously tested to 5,800 psi prior to
perforating. The leak may have been caused by the shock generated with
the detonation of the perforating guns. A review of the planning and
performance of the perforating operations at Cascade/Chinook can be
found in Sanders (2011).
After it was determined that there would be no mechanical risk to the
wellbore, the completion operation continued. The only change was that
the fracture stimulations would be pumped in the Squeeze position to
keep pressure off of the sump. Also, a small screen assembly was
installed in the isolation string to prevent any proppant production
should proppant enter the sump through the sump packer (Figure 8).
Prior to installing the screen in the sump, it was necessary to make an
unplanned clean out trip to ensure the sump was clear.
The non-productive time associated with leak in the sump packer totaled
3.9 days.
Concerns of Excessive Erosion
Due to the problems experienced with the broken erosion ring located
below the crossover tool in Well A, the tungsten-carbide ring was
replaced with a steel ring. After each fracture stimulation, the service
tool was pulled and replaced because steel does not provide the same
degree of erosion protection as tungsten-carbide. On the steel erosion
rings, only a very slight amount of erosion was observed.
The concern with the erosion of the steel rings added two non-planned
trips to replace the ring. The non-productive time associated with this
issue amounted to a 4.5 days.
Figure 8 Well B Lower Completion
Results
Although there was a significant amount of NPT associated with the STMZ completions of Wells A and B, ultimately the
completions were successful.. It has been proven that a STMZ system is a viable completion option for deepwater, Lower
Tertiary reservoirs and has the potential to save a significant amount of completion time.
The estimated time savings of installing a STMZ system over a conventional three-zone stacked frac-pack is shown in Table
3. The trouble-free time to install the STMZ system, from picking up the TCP guns through installation of the intermediate
assembly, averaged 18.6 days for the two wells completed at Cascade/Chinook. The calculated trouble-free time for a
conventional three-zone stacked frac-pack to perform a similar operation for a Cascade/Chinook well is 32.8 days. Adding
40% NPT for BOP testing, rig maintenance, weather delays, and trouble time, the calculated time savings of a STMZ over
conventional stacked frac packs is 19.8 days for a three-zone completion.

10

SPE 147313

Table 3 Time Comparison

Time Savings of STMZ over Conventional Stacked Frac-Packs
Trouble-Free Time, days
19.5
17.7
18.6

Trouble-Free +
40% NPT, days
27.3
24.8
26.1

Typical 3-zone FP

32.8

45.9

Savings with STMZ

14.2

19.8

Well A (STMZ)
Well B (STMZ)
Average (STMZ)

Changes for Future Completions

Based on the experiences of the first two STMZ completions at Cascade/Chinook, the following changes to the system will
be implemented to improve operations and reduce risk:

Extending the service tool and adding an additional set of open and close shifters so that the monitoring sleeve can
be closed after the stimulation with upward movement only. This will reduce risk by eliminating the need to strip
downhole to close the monitoring sleeve. Having the extended tool will also allow the installation of
pressure/temperature memory gauges along the tool to monitor down hole fluid flow during the frac jobs. With the
current STMZ system, a single pressure/temperature gauge is positioned in the blank (above the top perforation)
when pumping and does not provide an indication of flow across the perforated interval.

Changing the erosive resistant material below the crossover port to replace the existing tungsten-carbide ring design.
There are several designs in development that address this new material in additional to changes in the crossover
tool geometry. The final design will be qualified with an erosion test.

Modifying the STMZ equipment to accept intelligent completion equipment. The intelligent equipment will allow
separate production control from the Wilcox 1 and Wilcox 2 reservoirs.

Ultimately modifying the STMZ system to work in an openhole completion. This will save considerable time and
cost by eliminating the need to run and cement a production liner and the need to perforate.

Conclusions
1. Two field applications of STMZ systems were successfully executed in a deepwater Gulf of Mexico Lower Tertiary
project.
2.

The time savings associated with STMZ completions is significant when compared to conventional, stacked fracpack completions.

3.

Prior to the application of the STMZ systems in the Cascade/Chinook project, several modifications were made to
the original equipment design to create fit for purpose applications.

4.

Modifications to the STMZ system to reduce risk and improve performance are continuing.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of Petrobras for their support and permission to publish this work and to
recognize the contribution of all participants of the large team that participated in the planning and operational phases of the
completion of these wells.
Nomenclature
BOP
FP
FPSO
GOM
ID
MD
MTMZ

Blow Out Preventer

Frac-Pack
Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel
Gulf of Mexico
Internal Diameter
Measured Depth
Multi-Trip Multi-Zone

SPE 147313

NPT
OWC
P/T
SCSSV
STMZ
TCP
TH
TVD
ZnBr2
!
!

11

Non-Productive Time
Oil Water Contact
Pressure/Temperature
Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve
Single-Trip Multi-Zone
Tubing Conveyed Perforating
Tubing Hanger
True Vertical Depth
Zinc-Bromide

References

Banman, M., Delattre, E., Sofyan, M. and Suryadana, S. 2008. Single Trip Multi Zone Gravel Packing - Case Study at Handil, Bekapai and
Sisi-Nubi Fields. Paper IPTC 12388-MS presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
3-5 December.
Bennett, J.S., Sanders, T.K., Grigsby, T., Yuan, F., Zhou, L. and Bai, Y. 1996. Multi-Zone Gravel Pack Techniques: Case Studies From the
South China Sea Xijiang Development. Paper SPE 36950-MS presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide,
Australia 28-31 October.
Clarkson, B., Grigsby, T., Ross, C., Sevadjian, E. and Techentien, B. 2008. Evolution of Single Trip Multiple Zone Completion
Technology: How State of the Art New Developments Can Meet Today's Ultradeepwater Needs. Paper SPE 116245-MS presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA 21-24 September.
Cunha, J.C., Moreira, O., Azevedo, G.H., Pereira, B.C.M. and Rocha, L.A.S. 2009. Challenges on Drilling Operations of Deep Wells in
Ultradeepwater Zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper SPE 125111-MS presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 4-7 October.
Haddad, Z., Smith, M.B. and Moraes, F.D. 2011. Challenges of Designing Multi-Stage Frac Packs in the Lower Tertiary Formation Cascade and Chinook Fields. Paper SPE 140498-MS presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA 24-26 January.
Jefferis, R.G., Bruist, E.H. and Botts, T.M.. 1983. A Field Proven System for Selective, Multizone, One-Trip Gravel Packing. Paper
SPE 11697-MS presented at the California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA 23-25 March.
Moraes, F.D., Moreira, O., Ogier, K.S., Haddad, Z., and Shipley, J. 2010. Well Completion Operations in Cascade and Chinook Fields
Ultra Deep Water Challenges in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper IBP 3310 presented at Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 13-16 September.
Rodgers, J.T., Bennett, J.S., Grigsby, T., Zhang, Y.K. and Yang, Y.J. 1997. A Review of Completions and Gravel-Pack Techniques of the
Xijiang Development. Paper SPE 29956-PA presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China 14-17
November.
Sanders, W., Baumann, C., Williams, H., Moraes, F.D., Shipley, J., Bethke, M. and Ogier, K.S. 2011. Efficient Perforation of HighPressure Deepwater Wells. Paper OTC 21758-MS presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA 2-5 May.
Sanford, J.R., Flanagan, E.J., Bruton, J., Woomer, J., Prince, J.C., Landry, J.M. and Hansen, C. 2010. Multizone Single Trip (MST):
Deepwater and Downward Recompletion Case Histories. Paper SPE 134681-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Florence, Italy 19-22 September.
Suryanada, S., Wahyudhi, F., Garcia, E., Landry, J.M., Li, C., Hansen, C. and Daulton, D. 2010. Saving 70% Rig Completion Time on 13
Multizone Wells With Single-Trip Multizone Completion System in Mahakam Delta Offshore Indonesia. Paper SPE 133409-MS
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy 19-22 September.
Vickery, E.H. and Bayne, C.F. 2002. New One-Trip Multi-Zone Frac Pack System with Positive Positioning. Paper SPE 78316-MS
presented at the SPE 13th European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK 29-31 October.