OTC 17927
Ultradeep HP/HT Completions: Classification, Design Methodologies, and
Technical Challenges
B. Maldonado, A. Arrazola, and B. Morton, Baker Oil Tools
Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 14 May 2006.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Increased energy demands and revenues for oil and gas
has triggered the re-assessment of existing HP/HT fields
as well as driven the search for new hydrocarbon
sources with more extreme formation environments. In
the Gulf of Mexico and world wide, this economic
incentive is having a large influence on operations,
drilling deeper on land and in shallow and deep waters.
The traditional understanding of HP/HT applications,
10ksi and 300F are common in todays marketplace.
The HP/HT working envelope has been successfully
pushed out to 15ksi and 400F, with some limited gaps
related to completion size availability rather than
technology needs. As expected, this new larger
envelope is now being pushed further out to 20-30ksi
and 400-500F. The technology gaps associated with
this new HPHT frontier are not limited to completion
equipment but also include casing, tubing, BOPs,
1
wellheads, perforating, lubricators, logging and drilling .
In an effort to identify HP/HT operating environments
and also technology gaps, a new classification is
developing which will segment HP/HT into three tiers.
While existing technology embraces most of Tier I
applications, Tier II and III demand extraordinary
considerations in regard to the selection of the
completion equipment. This paper discusses the design
methodologies and technical challenges associated with
Extreme (Tier II) and Ultra (Tier III) HP/HT completions
based on typical Deepwater and Deepgas HP/HT well
parameters, casing and tubing programs.
Evaluation and recommendation of methods for
selecting completion equipment, including sand control,
subsurface safety valve, packer to tubing interface,
production packer, and flow control technologies will be
reviewed.
The completion of Extreme and Ultra HP/HT wells
involve high risk and rig costs which demand special
considerations and investments. This paper will outline
completion technology gaps for these type HPHT wells.
The paper will also highlight the importance of upfront
planning, design, qualification testing, QA/QC, and
contingency options.
.
History and Classification
The initial efforts to go after deep hydrocarbon reservoirs
in excess of 20,000 feet started back in the 1970s in the
highly pressured formations around Jackson Mississippi
and the North Sea which were heavily driven by the oil
boom. The next development in the 1980s occurred in
the Tuscaloosa trend in Louisiana and in Miocenes
offshore formations in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1990s
and continuing to present, several developments have
taken place worldwide including major projects in the
North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It has been a very steep
learning curve that has developed key completions
technologies including high strength steels, nickel-based
corrosion resistant alloys (CRA) and sealing compounds.
The original definition of HPHT was first introduced by
the Department of Trade Industry (Dti) for the United
2
Kingdom continental shelf (UKCS) . It was defined as
Where the undisturbed bottom hole temperature at
o
prospective reservoir depth is greater than 149 C
o
(300 F) and the maximum anticipated pore pressure of
any porous formation to be drilled through exceeds
18000 Newton/meter2/meter (0.8 psi/ft) or around
3
10, 000 psi) . However, to help identify HP/HT operating
environments, safe operating envelopes and technology
gaps, a new terminology is developing (Figure 1).
The terminology segments HP/HT operations into three tiers.
Tier I refers to wells with reservoir pressures up to 15,000 psi
(1034 bar) and temperatures up to 350 F (177 C). Most
2 OTC 17927
HP/HT operations to date have taken place under Tier I
conditions (see Fig. 1). Tier II are the Extreme HP/HT wells
which are characterized by reservoir pressures of up to
20,000 psi (1379 bar) and/or temperatures of up to 400 F
(204 C). Many ongoing developments in the North Sea and
upcoming HP/HT deepwater gas/oil wells, particularly in the
Gulf of Mexico, fall into the Tier II category. The Tier III
encompasses Ultra HP/HT wells, with reservoir pressures
of up to 30,000 psi (2068 bar) and/or temperatures of up to
500 F (260 C). Tier III is the HP/HT segment with the most
significant technology gaps. Several deep gas reservoirs on
North American land and the Gulf of Mexico shelf fall into this
category. Please refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation
of the each Tier operating Envelope.
HPHT Well Completion Considerations
Planning an HPHT well, to say the least, it critical at
many levels. Detailed analysis of the life of the well need
to be closely analyzed and contingency plans need to be
put in place. Well completion philosophies need to be
adopted to address the anticipated issues for each
component of the completion, from the sandface to the
tubing hanger. The basic philosophies may be
summarized as follows:
Corrosion
The primary concerns of high temperature service are
the reduction in strength and the change in corrosion
mechanisms. Usually higher temperatures increase the
severity of corrosion. Pitting, crevice, and stress
corrosion cracking are all intensified by an increase in
temperature. The presence of H2S and chlorides
aggravates this situation. CO2 weight loss and sulfide
stress cracking, however, is frequently less severe or
non-existent at these temperatures. If the well
temperature is lowered during its productive life, the high
temperature benefits are negated.
While pressure by itself does not affect metals, the
greater the pressures involved, combined with the space
limitation of these typically deeper wells, pushes us to
higher strength materials. The move to higher strength
4
can influence other mechanical properties of the metals .
Metallurgy
Tubulars and downhole tools have to be examined
separately when analyzing strength de-rating due to
elevated temperatures. For example; a packer
manufactured out of Duplex Stainless Steel, will
experience a greater loss in strength at 350F than
would a 13Cr tubing string even though both materials
have equivalent room temperature properties. This
differential strength loss could affect the performance
limits of the completion string. Temperatures of 350-
450F (177-232C) will reduce the yield and ultimate
tensile strength of most materials.
Ductility and impact toughness may be less affected and
in most alloys an improvement can be expected in this
temperature range. The degree of these changes is
dependent on the material type, the method of
strengthening (i.e., cold work vs. heat treat), the room
temperature strength level, etc.
In general, the higher the alloy content, the more
strength will be retained with increasing temperature
(Fig. 2, 3, and 4). For the similar alloys, the heat
treatable type will retain their strength with increasing
temperature better than cold worked materials. Strength
analysis is critical to insure the tubing, casing, and
completion equipment will perform as intended.
The strength requirements of the tubing and completion
equipment will be influenced by the tubing movement
calculations for each of the life of well scenarios.
Temperature will also have an effect on elastic modulus
and Poisson's ratio. These effects should be taken into
consideration when performing tubing movement
4
calculations .
Seals
Seal selection criteria are essential to a successful
HPHT well. Well fluids, downhole environment, and the
operating temperature range of the completion needs to
be determined. Scenarios such as high rate stimulation
and converting the well from a producer to an injector
need to be accounted for.
In some instances elastomers can be used for seals, in
others situations, alternatives may have to identified or
developed. For Tier I and II existing elastomer
technology and containment systems (back up system)
are deemed appropriate. However, as the applications
extend into Tier III territory, these existing materials and
design systems may prove inadequate.
Tubing connections are assumed to be premium with
metal-to-metal sealing when referring to an HPHT or any
high end application. Keeping in mind that compressive
strength of all connections are not the same. Some
specific thread designs allow for considerably larger
compressive loads.
Tubing Movement
Tubing movement calculations are critical in any
completion. Because of the severe conditions in these
HPHT wells the need for accuracy and planning is
magnified. The main objective of this section is to
communicate the importance of these calculations for a
successful completion, both short and long term. One
substantial advantage of the completions for HPHT Tiers
I, II, and III wells is the desire for well simplicity. This
facilitates the calculations but at times it imposes certain
restrictions, such as no dynamic seals, that may affect
OTC 17927
the entire completion planning process (tubing strength,
ID, etc).
Also, as mentioned in the metallurgy section, de-rating
for temperature becomes critical in these applications.
As a minimum, the metal MYS and modulus of elasticity
need adjusting to perform these calculations. Example of
typical tubing movement cases are (no initial GP or
Frac): (1) Initial run and set of upper completion, (2)
Completion test, (3) Production, (4) Hot shut-in, (5) Cold
shut-in, (6) Near surface tubing leak, (7) Tubing pressure
draw down, and (8) GP or Fracture/Stimulation with
upper completion in place.
The results of these calculations need to documented
and compared to the tubing, casing, packer, and SCSSV
combined loading ratings.
Qualification Criteria
Equipment qualification becomes more specific in Tiers
II and III. Traditional HPHT and Tier I offer a wider range
of design options. As the conditions become more
severe, so does the analysis required to be very specific
about the application during the well life. Cost and range
of operation of the tools and/or system can be
significantly affected by the conditions imposed or
requested. A qualification test program should be
identified where risk/reward and contingencies are
balanced and fully understood while maintaining
practicality and cost effectiveness. This may result in
well operations being modified to influence the role of
the tools in the well.
Completion Design Criteria
Fundamentally speaking: keep it simple. Minimize the
numbers of runs and tools to be used in the completion
while maintaining well integrity, maximizing production,
and if possible, plan for contingencies as the production
declines.
An example of reducing the number of runs required to
complete the well would be the use of an intervention-
less set production packer. Risks should be mitigated to
determine the appropriate technology when choosing the
intervention-less method (hydrostatic module,
5
disappearing plug, remotely actuated module) .
Another example would be to run low operating pressure
SCSSV. The risks/rewards involved in running this type
of valve will need evaluation.
Project Management
When it comes to HPHT field development and
specifically to the selection, design, manufacturing and
deployment of the completion equipment it is crucial that
the service company and the operator form a
partnership. One key process that has been proven to
3
be critical to assure a successful procurement and
deployment of the HPHT equipment is Quality
Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC). The success
of this process heavily depends on extensive planning
from womb to tomb. The service provider along with the
operator need to establish a project management
structure to address the challenges associated with
HP/HT. This type of structure and involvement is not
typical for standard wells but it is crucial for dealing with
HP/HT completions. Operators need to get involved in
equipment design reviews to assure the tools meet their
operational requirements before these are released for
manufacturing. This upfront operators involvement is
essential for subsequent processes like engineering,
qualification testing, manufacturing, assembly,
subassembly make-up, testing and installation.
Flawless execution at the well site is of utmost
importance for an HP/HT development. Knowledge and
information must be transferred continuously from
operator to service company and must continue through
the drilling and completion phases. It is critical that
service center personnel and field technicians get
involved when planning the deployment of the HP/HT
completion. Some operators also conduct a complete run-
through of the completion procedures with the entire team of
5
service technicians .
Stimulation in HPHT Environments
Although many of the high pressure producing
formations are well consolidated and have little or no
need of sand control, the consolidated formation may
need stimulation in the form of fracturing treatments and
in some circumstances, these treatments will require
special equipment or material. When considering
stimulation in the form of fracture treatments,
conventional methods, materials and equipment will
work up to approximately 15,000 psi, and 350 F (Tier
II).
Typically in HPHT wells, up to about 20,000 psi,
fracturing can still be accomplished with the use of
specialized fracture fluids and reliance on heavier base
fluids so that hydrostatic pressure will do some of the
fracture work required, reducing the need for higher
pressure on the surface equipment.
Serious consideration should be given to the fluids in this
high temperature environment. The temperature affects
the fluids ability to carry the proppant away from the well
bore and into the fracture.
The choice of proppant for higher pressure applications
is typically bauxite. Its use is recommended as opposed
to a sand or synthetic proppant that could be damaged
to some degree by the elevated closure pressures in
these formations, allowing more closure of the fracture,
resulting in less production.
4 OTC 17927
Core availability is essential to efficiently evaluate the
best sand face completion method. If the need for
stimulation or sand control is anticipated either initially or
later in the life of the well, the recommendation is to
perform this activity during the initial completion of the
well. Attempting a remedial solution after the initial
completion is run will prove to be expensive and far less
effective.
Tubing movement calculations are especially critical
during pumping operations. Many of the tool
configurations in use today required that set down
weight be maintained during pumping operations, yet
those same pumping operations cause cooling and
contraction of the work string opposing set down weight.
Sand Control in HPHT Environments
While formation stimulation is often thought of as some
form of fracturing of the formation, control of a friable
formation (sand control) may take many forms, both in
conventional pressure and temperature environments
and in high pressure/high temperature regimes as
well. Both cased and open hole gravel pack completions
are possible.
In cased hole gravel pack completions, perforating guns
are generally limited to pressures of about 20,000 psi,
and perforating shaped charges that will withstand
temperatures over 450 F or more than 100 hours have
significantly less penetrating energy.
Conversely, drilling and completion of an open hole
section requires a barrier to the leakoff of well fluid that
will contain the hydrostatic pressure present in the well
and thus support the formation until the screen and
gravel pack can be installed.
This barrier often takes the form of a wall cake that is a
combination of sized solids such as calcium carbonate
held together with a polymer with other additives. At
higher temperature (above 350F.) these polymers tend
to break down too quickly to make them useable for
open hole completions. Below 350F, the polymers will
remain stable long enough to run the sand face
completion.
As with stimulations operations, tubing movement
calculations are critical due to the cooling effect of
pumping operations.
Design Methodologies
The objective of this section is to illustrate the suggested
approach to be taken when designing an HPHT Tier II
type well. This tier was chosen over the simpler
traditional and Tier I HPHT groupings to point out the
increased complexity of the system. A Tier III analysis
will be mentioned as part of the gap analysis at the
closing of this paper.
The well will be approached from the sandface up to the
SCSSV methodology.
6
Tier II Well Scenario
In regards to Tier II well scenario Parameters, please
refer to table 1.
Sand Control and Stimulation Options
As a gravel pack completion, the environment outlined in
table 1 presents no serious challenges for either water or
gel as the carrier fluid. If gel is required as the carrier
fluid, the choice of gel should be made with respect to
the temperature; however, currently available gels will
provide the required results (350F). Consideration
would have to be made for the frac gradient of the
formation with respect to the friction pressure of the
returns to surface, as well as the friction pressures
encountered within the gravel pack itself. These factors
would require significant planning in the design and
execution, but this type of job can be done with the
available methods and equipment. The heat is not
enough to cause de-rating of the tools, cause problems
with the carrier fluid, or be a problem for the seals or
elastomers. Packers are currently available that are
applicable to these pressures and temperatures.
If a frac pack is the preferred completion under the Tier 2
conditions shown above, consideration would have to be
made for the pressure required to produce the fracture,
and what corresponding pressure that would require on
surface. Surface equipment has pressure imitations,
both in terms of pump pressure and surface iron, and the
job would be designed around those limits. The
increased TVD of a deep well such as this scenario
allows the hydrostatic head of the fracture fluid to assist
with the pressure needed to fracture the
formation. However the MD of the well also increases
for a deep well and this has the effect of increasing the
friction pressure that represents energy lost before it
gets to the formation. Because this friction pressure
represents a loss of the energy needed to perform the
fracture treatment, planning and care must be exercised
to choose the well and casing design to allow for
sufficient tubing size so that the friction pressure is
reduced. The formation heat in this case is not great
enough to cause any significant problems for currently
available frac fluid, nor for the seals or elastomers and,
as above, currently available packers would be adequate
to the job.
The major difference in fracturing this well as opposed to
a shallower well is that the formation pressure is related
to fracture closure pressure, and as closure pressures
increase, the crush resistance of the proppant becomes
more of a concern. In this example, the use of bauxite
as a proppant would be recommended, as opposed to a
sand or synthetic proppant that would probably be
OTC 17927
crushed to some degree and allow more closure of the
fracture and increased fracture flow resistance.
If either sand control or fracturing is required,
consideration needs to be given to the size limitations of
screen and packers resulting from the liner size chosen.
The small ID of a liner that is placed across the
producing zone will necessitate the use of
correspondingly small screens (approximately 3-1/2
base pipe) to allow an effective gravel pack or frac pack
to be performed. In this case, a 6-5/8 packer would be
used that will pack off in the 5.750 ID of the
casing. This packer size has a maximum available bore
size of 3.250, and if production seals are run, they will
have an ID of 2.406. These diameters may constitute a
choke to production flow, depending on the production
rate expected. All this reflects another facet of the
planning required for an HPHT well, so that if gravel
packing or frac packing is required, modification of the
casing program may be beneficial to prevent the
production to be completion limited.
Another effect that is more dramatic in deep wells with
elevated temperatures is that when a gravel pack or a
frac pack is being pumped, the cooling effect of the
surface-temperature fluid will cause unusually large
contraction of the tubing due to the long tubing lengths
required for these wells as well as the higher formation
temperatures. For a well with 28,000 ft of tubing in the
hole, a BHT of 350F., surface temperature of 80 F, and
assuming only 100F. of average temperature difference
from the beginning of pumping a job to the end of the
pumping operation, the tubing difference is 19.32 ft. This
amount of upward tubing movement is capable of
negating any set down weight that may be required to
maintain tool position during the procedure.
Flow Control Equipment
The main components of the flow control equipment for
this completion will be the seating nipple and plugs (Fig.
5). Their primary purpose is for isolating the well and
also as a secondary method for setting the production
packer. Key considerations for selecting the nipple and
plug are the well parameters (Table 1) and the profile
type. The options for profile type include selective or no-
go. Due to the extreme pressures associated with
HP/HT completions, the recommendation is to use no-go
style nipple and plug system so when running and
setting the plug, there is positive indication for reaching
the nipple. This means that most HP/HT completions
with more than one nipple (SCSSV, below the packer,
etc.) will have a stepped down nipple completion design.
Another consideration is the type of plug. For temporary
applications such as for setting a packer, the
recommendation is a standing valve with equalizing
feature. On the other hand for longer term applications
5
such as well isolation, the recommendation is a blanking
plug with equalizing feature.
Operators should also be aware that in regards to flow
control equipment qualification there is a regulatory norm
API 14L / ISO 16070 for Lock Mandrels and Landing
Nipples. In addition, in regards to equipment
qualification, there is a regulatory norm API 14L / ISO
16070 for Lock Mandrels and Landing Nipples.
Production Packer
Completion designs vary from region to region, well to
well, segment to segment, at times by operator, and by
regulatory entities. Conventional methods require the
setting of a production packer used to isolate a
producing zone and manage production tubing
movement and loads. To improve efficiency and value,
the preferred packer setting method is a hydraulic one-
trip system. The packer is run in on the production string
in a single trip. The tubing is plugged below the packer.
The packer is then set using hydraulic pressure. The
one-trip hydraulic system requires well intervention,
which can consume a specific amount of rig time and
risk.
Critical issues with the packer design:
Casing ID/Drift
Production Tubing ID, strength and connections
Packer setting depth
Packer to tubing interface
Packer testing criteria (ISO 14310 V0)
Metallurgy
Element and slips system
Combined P and load requirements, or tubing
movement calculations
Deployment method
Over and above the points above, the packer design
may have to be qualified per the required downhole
conditions. The tubing movement calculations summary
will point out the critical cases that may lie outside the
qualified working parameters of an available packer
design.
For HPHT applications operators need to be aware that
industry accepted norms to qualify the performance of
the packers do exist. These are ISO 14310/API 11D1.
These norms have several qualification levels. V0 testing
is considered the most appropriate for HPHT since it
specifies gas tight hold points and pressure and
temperature reversals.
Hydraulic: Permanent vs. Retrievable Packers:
Permanent packers have historically been the best
choice for harsh environments. Their design simplicity
makes these packers reliable, robust, and offers a wide
6 OTC 17927
range of pressure and load ratings. There are two main
reasons for the simplicity in this design: (1) the retrieval
system is not incorporated into the assembly, and (2) the
element system is not designed for removal. If
permanent packers require removal after set the only
method is to mill them.
Retrievable packers have performed well during running,
setting, life of well, and during the retrieval process.
These runs include mostly environments up to 10,000
psi, even though there are successful applications of up
to 15,000 psi. Load ratings are limited when compared to
permanent packers and are directly related to the slip
design and retrieval system. The element system, even
though strides have been made into removable high
pressure and high temperature element systems, the
permanent packers offer slightly more robust back up
system. The advantage of retrievable packers is their
relatively easy removal of the well without having to mill
the assembly. No or minimal debris is created in this
process.
So which one is best for the application? Simple, robust,
and high ratings are the clear choice. Therefore, the
recommendation for this Tier II deepwater well scenario
(Table 1) is the permanent packer system. Removal of
the packer during the infancy of the well is unlikely as
long as project management addresses all systems
needed to maximize the successful execution of the
operation. As with anything, there are different opinions,
risks analysis, and interpretations.
Intervention-less or Conventional Packer Setting
The direct impact of intervention-less packer setting is
the reduction of rig time. Another important factor,
sometimes difficult to account for is the reduced risk
when compared to say, running a plug on slick line to
hydraulically set the packer. The increase capital
expense must also be taken into account. In a Tier II
HPHT well the capital expense for this technology is
normally easily justified.
Two basic methods are offered in the industry: (1)
Hydrostatic module, and (2) disappearing plugs.
Hydrostatic modules to set packers have been in the
market place for several years. They have demonstrated
to be a highly reliable setting method and provide high
value in low, medium, and in high hydrostatic
environments. The module is activated with applied
pressure over hydrostatic. Once this pressure exceeds
the pressure rating of the burst disc, the disc ruptures
allowing wellbore fluids to enter the setting mechanism
of the tool. The well hydrostatic provides the force
required to properly set the packer. Serious
consideration and in depth analysis should be given to
the working hydrostatic of the well. Too low (not enough
force) or too high (system in a bind) of a hydrostatic will
prevent the module from supplying the necessary force
to set the packer.
The hydraulic setting option of the packer remains
unaffected by the addition of the hydrostatic module.
This hydraulic packer setting option acts as a back up to
the hydrostatic module.
Disappearing Plugs or valves are used to set hydraulic
set packers. Versions of these valves include single and
multiple cycle designs. Some systems allow for self
filling of the tubing and hydraulically setting the packer.
Others, more sophisticated systems, allow for self filling
of the tubing, tubing testing, and packer setting, all in
separate operations.
An added benefit of some bi-directional valve designs is
temporary well suspension. In subsea wells with vertical
trees, a valve can be left in the closed position providing
a downhole barrier. This barrier permits bringing the well
onto production without intervention.
Generally speaking, drawbacks to the design of these
valves are pressure overbalance and debris tolerance.
Clean downhole environments and the pressures at the
7
valve must be reviewed during the planning process .
The recommendation for this Tier II deepwater well
scenario is the hydrostatic setting module. It provides the
reliability and its debris tolerant. In some situations the
disappearing plugs ability to test the tubing and suspend
the well may outweigh the use of the hydrostatic module.
In fact, in some situations the setting of the hydraulic
packer is a secondary benefit of the extremely desirable
well suspension objective of the valve. Refer to Figure 6.
Final Packer assembly
The final packer assembly will be as follows:
Permanent packer with hydrostatic module.
Packer will have a hydraulic back up option.
Testing criteria for the packer: ISO 14310 V0
(gas test no bubbles, temp and pres. Cycles)
Estimated packer ID with hydrostatic module:
4.125 4.250.
Packer element seal system rated to 350F,
compatible with well fluids and temperature
fluctuations.
Packer pressure and load capabilities estimated
per the attached envelope. Results from the
tubing movement calculations will be plotted in
the rating envelope (Fig. 7) for the packer. This
will ensure that the combined loading of the
packer is not exceeded.
OTC 17927
Tubing to packer interface: premium connection.
This interface will be compatible with the
production tubing and accessories.
SCSSV
One of the key considerations when designing
deepwater completions is the selection of the
Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve
(SCSSV) system. There are several options available
that address each specific deepwater completion. One
of the key drivers for the selection of the SCSSV
technology is the required pressure to maintain the
SCSSV in the open position. The main reason is that all
components of this system such as umbilical, wellhead
and control system will need to be compatible with the
SCSSV opening pressure requirement. The setting
depth for the SCSSV will vary depending on the well
conditions, water depth, mudline depth and potential
hydrate formation. Since the setting depths associated
with extreme deepwater SCSSVs are considerably high,
the predominant actuating system utilizes a rod piston
8
and non-elastomeric dynamic seals .
In regards to deepwater completions currently there are
three main SCSSV design options: the conventional
heavy sprung, the balanced line and the dome (nitrogen)
charged safety valve. This particular well scenario uses
a subsea wellhead; therefore, the SCSSV operating
pressure is a fundamental parameter to consider.
As a simple rule of thumb, the heavy sprung valve
design requires about 1 psi/foot (Fig. 8) of pressure plus
shut-in pressure at the valve to hold the valve in the
open position. This well has 5,000 feet of water and the
SCSSV will be set 3,000 feet below the mud line. The
heavy sprung valve will need to be designed for a setting
depth of 8,000 feet since we must include the column of
water just in case there is a line break in the SCSSV
umbilical system. This means the opening pressure of
the valve will be around 8,000 psi plus the shut-in
pressure at the valve since this design is tubing pressure
sensitive. Assuming a 20,000 psi pressure at the valve,
the opening pressure required to hold the valve open will
be 28,000 psi. Use of the hydrostatic available in the
umbilical to assist the valve opening pressure can be
considered but is not recommended. This type of valve
is more common to deepwater dry tree applications such
as TLP and Spars.
The balanced line valve design was one of the initial
attempts to provide a low operating pressure deepwater
SCSSV. This type of valve requires two control lines for
actuation. One is connected to the top of the rod piston
seal and the other balancing line to the bottom seal.
Therefore, the power spring does not have to overcome
the hydrostatic pressure in the control line, in turn
lowering the opening pressure of the SCSSV. The issue
with this design is that when the valve is installed in low
annulus pressure or gas lift applications, the valve may
7
not be a fail safe device. In the event of a leak from the
balance line to the annulus will result on higher pressure
on top of rod piston seal creating a force higher than the
spring force disabling valve closure.
The dome charged design uses nitrogen to pressure
balance across the SCSSV actuating rod piston against
hydrostatic in the control line. This piston contains two
sets of opposing seals that are exposed to the tubing
pressure which makes this design tubing pressure
insensitive (Fig. 10). The result is a much lower opening
pressure. Essentially, among other things this valve
design takes away the need to overcome the tubing
pressure at the SCSSV. This much lower valve opening
pressure requirement and its implications on a subsea
tree drives operators to consider this valve design.
Based on these reasons the recommendation for this
Tier II deepwater well scenario (table 1) is the Dome
Charged Valve.
This type of SCSSV is a field proven design that has
been successfully used in many deepwater applications
worldwide. An HP/HT deepwater well will require fit for
purpose equipment that must be designed in accordance
and qualified to regulatory industry norms. For SCSSV
the regulatory norm is API 14A Specifications for
Subsurface Safety Valves equipment.
Assemble the Completion
Following is an outline of the running procedure for two
options, (1) One Trip with Intervention-less packer, and
TCP guns, and (2) Gravel Pack or Stimulate prior to
running the upper completion. This later completion adds
a Tubing Space Out Joint to aid in the spacing out of the
upper completion.
One Trip, Intervention-less Set Packer, and TCP
Perforating (refer to Fig 10)
The basic hook up is as follows:
TCP guns.
No-Go type HPHT Nipple.
HPHT Packer with Hydrostatic Module (Packer has
hydraulic Back Up feature).
Dome Charged, low operating pressure SCSSV
(8,000 psi @ surface, 12,000 psi @ valve).
Running Procedure Outline:
Pick up completion and run in the hole. Keep the
safety valve in the open position while running. Do
not to exceed the swab limit of the packer sealing
element.
If circulating prior to setting the packer is required, a
8 OTC 17927
circulating sub should be included in the packer tail
pipe, below the seating nipple. Again, do not exceed
the packer swab off limits while circulating.
Hang completion in subsea hanger.
With packer at setting depth, pressure entire system
(closed system). The normal pressure required to
burst the disc on the hydrostatic setting module of the
packer is approximately 1,500 -2,000 psi over the well
hydrostatic. Set packer and test annulus.
If packer is not set, review hydrostatics and applied
pressure. Re-attempt to set packer with applied
pressure. If packer does not set, run plug below
packer and set packer with tubing hydraulic pressure.
Test annulus and remove plug from well.
After the packer is set, apply pressure down the
tubing to activate TCP guns.
Perform SCSSV flapper seal test.
GP or Fracturing One Trip, and Intervention-less Set
Packer (refer to Fig 11)
The basic hook up is as follows:
Gravel Pack or Stimulation assemblies.
Non-Sealing Tubing Space Out Joint.
No-Go type HPHT Nipple.
HPHT Packer with Hydrostatic Module (Packer has
hydraulic Back Up feature).
Dome Charged, low operating pressure SCSSV
(8,000 psi @ surface, 12,000 psi @ valve).
Running Procedure Outline:
Run Gravel pack or Stimulation Job. Circulate to
completion fluid prior to retrieving drill pipe.
Pick up completion and run in the hole. Keep the
safety valve in the open position while running. Do
not to exceed the swab limit of the packer sealing
element.
Locate in the Sandface packer and shear space out
joint. This will be the indication that the subsea space
out is correct. Also, this indication will happen when
the subsea tubing hanger is still above the BOPs. If
the space out is incorrect, POOH, correct the problem
and RIH again.
Hang completion in subsea hanger and proceed to
set packer as in scenario 1.
Technology gaps
In regards to technology gaps for the Tier I, II, and III,
please refer to table 2.
Stimulation or sand control in a Tier 3 well begins to be
more of a challenge than in a Tier 2 well. In an
environment where pressures are in excess of 20,000
psi up to 30,000psi, with temperatures of 400-500F,
much of the available technology becomes inadequate
to the task.
In the design of gravel pack completions or fracture jobs,
there are basically five areas of equipment that
normally need to be examined as far as performing the
installation of the gravel pack. These are (in no
particular order) pumps, tools, fluids, elastomers and
proppants. At the present time, high volume pumps that
will deliver 30,000 psi are not common, and will need to
be more commonplace to address Tier 3 wells.
At Tier 3 temperatures, the metals used for the tools
must be chosen carefully, and many of the metals
commonly used for tools will have reduced strengths in
the 400-450F range. For this reason, tools built to
function in a Tier 3 environment will require a different
metallurgy, especially if they must also handle higher
than normal pressures at the same time.
Fluids present another problem as far as pressure and
temperature are concerned. However, fluids are now
available that allow gravel packing or fracturing with fluid
weights higher than 19.2 pounds per gallon (typical for
cesium formate). These fluids consist of a clear fluid
with a weighting material of very high density (on the
order of 4.8 specific gravity) that has a very small
particle size (D50 of ~5 ). Because of the weighting
materials density, it allows much denser carrier fluids to
be made that can be used to advantage in abnormally
high pressure situations. The very small size of the
weighting particles allows them to flow back through the
frac pack and screen, or through the gravel pack screen,
as the case may be, and be circulated out of the well.
Solutions for seals in Tier 3 applications are being
developed and may rely on metal-to-metal sealing
technology. At present, seal systems are commonly
available that function at 450 F.
Proppant for Tier 3 applications will probably continue to
be bauxite for the near future or until the closure
pressure of frac treatments exceeds the crush resistance
of bauxite.
There are other alternative methods for control of
formation sand which have been recently developed and
offer some options for completions in HPHT
formations. One of these is to use an expandable
screen to provide sand control. Expandable screen
completions have the advantage that they are not
OTC 17927
particularly sensitive to temperature, although the
sealing elastomers used in the applicable packing
devices do require special compounds. Expandable
screens can also be used in high pressure wells and
should provide the same collapse resistance of screens
of the same size and weight range. As a stand alone
screen, expandables work better than non-expandable
screen because the screen surface is against the
formation, which stops the problem of annular flow
between the borehole and the screen OD that causes
erosion (so called hot spots) on the screen that will
ultimate cut through and allow the production of sand.
Another method of completion with sand control that has
been recently developed is to use assemblies consisting
of sized, sintered metal balls fixed inside steel
telescoping devices about an inch in diameter that are
screwed into an unlimited length of heavy weight liner
pipe. The liner pipe can be run into the well on a liner
hanger and hung, just as a conventional liner, and
positioned so that the telescoping assemblies face the
production zone. A temperature sensitive polymer
deposited on the outer end of the telescope assembly
prevents flow in either direction through the assembly,
and allows the telescope to be extended outward by
pressure applied to the interior of the liner, until the
assembly firmly contacts the sand face. Cement is then
pumped into place, just as in a traditional
liner. Temperature causes the polymer in each
telescoping assembly to deteriorate, and the sintered
metal balls in each assembly then act as gravel pack
9, 10
media, allowing the production of oil or gas .
There are several advantages for this kind of
completion. The completion liner is run just as any other
liner, but no perforation of any kind, with the attendant
rig time and possible explosive hazards, is
involved. There is no need for underbalancing or
overbalancing the well while perforating, and there is no
perforation cleanup. There is no need for rig time to run
screens, or to pump a gravel pack. The inside of the
liner is simply a liner ID, and allows for the installation of
whatever ancillary equipment that may be required.
HP/HT Upper Completion Technology Gaps (Table 2) begin
in Tier II Extreme HPHT at 20,000 psi and 400F. There is
limited availability on most of these tools since only a few
specific sizes are available in the market. For Tier III Ultra
HPHT such as shelf GOM Deepgas applications there are
many technology gaps including seals, metallurgy, frac fluids
and testing facilities with expected development times of 2-3
1
years after project start date .
The SCSSV in particular requires testing at 150% of working
pressure per API 14A norm specifications. This is an issue
that is currently being evaluated by the industry since testing
at these levels will be extremely challenging and hazardous.
Extreme HP/HT testing facilities must be designed for
ultimate safety in testing equipment to severe combined
9
loads and pressures to meet regulatory requirements. Test
facilities must include high-pressure consoles, torque
machines, nitrogen booster pumps and tanks as well as
sand flow loops. Additionally, pumping large volumes of
nitrogen at extremely high pressures presents health, safety
and environmental (HS&E) issues that must be addressed.
We must develop polymers and seals that can withstand
these Extreme HP/HT well conditions up to 30,000 psi
(2068 bar) and 500 F (260 C) while retaining mechanical
properties, chemical performance and well fluid compatibility.
Reliability prediction and HS&E issues must be addressed.
Extensive seal research must be conducted. In some cases,
metal-to-metal seals may replace elastomers.
Metallurgy, first and foremost, must be available. Sourcing
metals such as nickel alloys, Hastelloy (C-276) or possibly
titanium, will be a challenge. Well fluid compatibility (sour vs.
sweet service) is another key issue, as are temperature de-
rating effects on minimum yield strength (MYS). Careful
planning must consider lead times and availability of these
metallurgies in the overall procurement/manufacturing
schedule of the equipment. For example, materials needed
to manufacture HP/HT equipment with lead times of up to 4-
6 months are not uncommon. In addition, heat treated nickel
alloys are not NACE-approved above 450 F (232 C), which
may present regulatory challenges.
Conclusions
1. When designing an HPHT well, depending on the
severity of the environment, there may be
significant technology gaps. Tier I and II have the
most availability with some gaps in the upper Tier
II. Tier III has technology gaps regarding sealing
and gripping systems, fluids, plugging devices,
testing facilities and packer intervention-less
systems.
2. Metallurgical issues are accentuated when
operating at higher temperatures. The metals will
experience a reduction in yield strength and
modulus of elasticity that needs serious
consideration.
3. Existing seal technology seems to be reaching its
design limits in the higher Tier II territory. New
technologies seem to be the proper path to follow
when entering the Tier III arena.
4. Seating nipple of the No-Go type are the
preferred design for Deep, HPHT wells. When
accessories reach their target nipple profile a
clear indication is provided. For Tier III
applications, new technologies may be required.
5. Mitigating risk vs. value of intervention-less
systems is critical to selecting the proper packer
setting methods. Rig cost will play a large role.
Tubing testing and temporary suspension can
also be key to selecting the proper system.
6. Packer systems currently have good coverage of
Tier 1 systems. For Tier II applications good
options are available but somewhat limited in the
10 OTC 17927

upper end. In the Tier III arena, there are References

considerable gaps. Packers are directly related to
the bottom hole pressure and temperature. A
thorough understanding of the P, temperature,
tubing movement, and life of well events is
critical.
7. SCSSV offer a wide range of options for Tiers I
and II. The recommended design for Tier II
deepwater subsea application is the dome
nitrogen charged valve. There are technology
gaps for Tier III and API 14A 150% working
pressure test requirement is an issue.
8. Testing facilities are a major hurdle for the
qualification of Tier III equipment.
9. While the need for sand control does not exist in
every well, in those cases where it is needed, a
much better control of formation sand is possible
when the well is being completed. Trying to
effect control of formation sand with some
through tubing regime after the well has started
to produce sand may be less effective and
usually will affect production volume. Cleaning
production sand out of a deep well is very difficult
and may be impossible due to pressure drops
and fracture pressures.
10. When designing a high pressure well, if the need
for either fracturing or sand control is anticipated,
the need for the largest casing size across the
producing formation cannot be overemphasized.
1. Ron Zeringue, HPHT Completion Challenges 97589 SPE,
SPE High Pressure/High Temperature Sour Well Design
Applied Technology Workshop, Woodlands, TX 12-19 May
2005
2. Highoose Limited, High Pressure, High Temperature
Developments in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf
Research Report # 409
3. Spears & Associates, Regional HTHP Drilling Activity and
the Challenges it Presents to Oilfield Equipment and
Services, May 2002
4. Brian Wilfahrt, Metallic Materials vs. High Temperature,
Baker Oil Tools Metallurgy Training Manual, October 18th,
1995.
5. Bernardo Maldonado, Extreme Wells: Meeting the Next Big
Challenge for HP/HT Completions, In Depth, Baker Oil Tools
Magazine, August 2005
6. Richard Miller, Michael Payne, Peter Erpelding, Designing
Casing for Deepwater HPHT Wells. SPE 97565, 2005 SPE
Applied Technology Workshop on High Pressure/High
Temperature Sour Well Design, The Woodlands, TX USA
17-19 May 2005
7. James G. King, Alvaro J. Arrazola, Methodology for
Selecting Intervention-less Packer Setting Techniques SPE
90678A, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629 September 2004.
8. Jeff Adams, Reliable Safety Systems Solutions for HP/HT
Deepwater and Subsea Environments, 093A Offshore
Mediterranean Conference, March 2003
9. Garry Garfield, Paul McElfresh, Novel Completion
Technology Eliminates Formation Damage and Reduces Rig
Time in Sand Control Applications, 92596-MS
10. Garry Garfield, New One-Trip Completion Technology for
Sand Control Applications, 94239-MS

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Baker Oil Tools for permission

to publish this paper, and thanks to various operators for
their investment in the future of HPHT Completions.

Nomenclature

API American Petroleum Institute

MYS Minimum Yield Strength
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloy
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
ppg Pounds per gallon
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
TCP Tubing Conveyed Perforating
MD Measured Depth
TVD True Vertical Depth
GP Gravel Pack
Frac Fracture
POOH Pull Out of Hole
RIH Run in Hole
SCSSV Surface Controlled Subsurface
Safety Valve
OTC 17927 11

Figures

550

500
Tier I

Tier II

450 Tier III Ultra

Projects
Res. Temperature (oF)

400
Extreme

350
HPHT

300

250

200
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Res. Pressure (psi)

Fig. 1 Operating Environment and HPHT Projects

Fig. 2: Low Alloy Steel 4140

12 OTC 17927

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

3


3 3

3 3

3


0.8

0.6 3 Tensile Ratio
0.4 Yield Ratio

0.2 Elong. Ratio

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

TEMPERATURE (C)

Fig. 3: Nickel Alloy 825

Fig. 4: Nickel Alloy 718

Fig 5: HPHT Blanking Plug Fig 6: HPHT Packer with Hyd. Module
OTC 17927 13

Preliminary Envelope
10-3/4" 108.7# HP/HT Retainer Production Packer
350F, Nickel Alloy High Yield Strength

600,000 lbs

500,000 lbs

TENSION 400,000 lbs 400,000 lbs

Force (lbs)

200,000 lbs

0 lbs
(25,000) psi (20,000) psi (15,000) psi (10,000) psi (5,000) psi 0 psi 5,000 psi 10,000 psi 15,000 psi 20,000 psi 25,000 psi

(200,000) lbs
SLACK-OFF

(400,000) lbs
(400,000) lbs

(500,000) lbs
(500,000) lbs

(600,000) lbs

ABOVE Pressure (psi) BELOW

Fig 7: Theoretical HPHT Packer Working Envelope

Opening Pressure vs. Setting Depth

14,000
12,000
Opening Pressure (psi)

10,000
8,000 0 WP
6,000 5k WP
4,000
2,000
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 9,000
Setting Depth (ft)

Fig. 8 Heavy Sprung SCSSV Opening Pressure vs. Setting Depth

14 OTC 17927

Fig 9. Dome Charged SCSSV Actuating Mechanism

OTC 17927 15

Dome Charged SCSSV Dome Charged SCSSV

HPHT Interventionless HPHT Interventionless

Production Packer Production Packer

Landing Nipple

Tubing Space Out Joint

Landing Nipple

Locator

Gravel Pack Assembly

TCP Assembly

Fig. 10: One Trip Intervention-less Completion: Fig. 11: One Trip Intervention-less Completion w/ GP
Set Packer & Perforate
16 OTC 17927

Tables

Well Parameters
Well Type Subsea
Depths (ft) TVD 26,000
MD 28,000
H 2O 5,000
Packer Setting Depth 23,800 MD, 21,750 TVD
SCSSV Setting Depth 8,000 MD & TVD
Reservoir Pressure (psi) 20,000
Reservoir Temperature (F) 350
7", 42.7 ppf, 125 MYS
Casing Program (in, ppf, Grade) Sand Face
Drift 5.626", ID 5.750"
24,000-28,000 MD
Casing Depth (ft) Sand Face
22,000-26,000 TVD
Isolation Packer or 10-3/4", 108.7 ppf, 110 MYS
Casing Program (in, ppf, Grade)
Production Packer Drift 8.500", ID 8.656"
Isolation Packer or Mudline-24,000 MD
Casing Depth (ft)
Production Packer Mudline-22,000 TVD
10-3/4", 108.7 ppf, 110 MYS
Casing Program (in, ppf, Grade) SCSSV
Drift 8.500", ID 8.656"
8,000 including
Casing Depth (ft) SCSSV
H2O Depth
5-1/2", 32.6 ppf, 110 MYS CRA
Production Tubing (in, ppf, Grade) Premium Connection
Drift 4.125", ID 4.250"
Production Tubing (psi) Burst / Collapse 22,160 / 21,880
SCSSV Control Line Type Alloy 825 1/4" x 0.049" wall
SCSSV Control Line Fluid Gradient Water Based 0.464 psi/ft
Annulus Fluid Gradient Completion Fluid 0.458 psi/ft
Well Environment Sour with H2S and CO2
Completion Equipment Metallurgy CRA Nickel Alloy 718, 120 MYS
Table 1: Tier II Scenario Well data

Completion Equipment Technical Gaps

Tier I HPHT Tier II Extreme HPHT Tier III Ultra HPHT
10 ksi, 300F 15 ksi, 350F 15 ksi, 400F 20 ksi, 400F 20 ksi, 450F 30 ksi, 500F
Seal Technology, Seal Technology,
Sand Control Special Fluids & Special Fluids &
Metallurgy, Fluids, Metallurgy, Fluids,
Stimulation Seal Technology Seal Technology
Testing Facility Testing Facility

Seal Technology, Seal Technology,

Sand Control
Limited Availability Metallurgy, Testing Metallurgy, Testing
Tools Facility Facility

Seal Technology, Seal Technology,

Flow Control
Limited Availability Metallurgy, Testing Metallurgy, Testing
Nipples/Plugs Facility Facility

Seal Technology, Seal Technology,

Permanent Packer Limited Availability Metallurgy, Testing Metallurgy, Testing
Facility Facility

Seal Technology, Seal Technology,

SCSSV Limited Availability Metallurgy, Testing Metallurgy, Testing
Facility Facility
Table 2: HP/HT Completion Technology Gaps