IPTC 10092
Cost-Effective Rigless Well Evaluation in Arctic Conditions
M.A.E. Yazid, SPE, and U.K. Droegmuller, SPE, Wintershall
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
As producing companies search for hydrocarbon resources, it
has become necessary to pursue opportunities in frontier
geologic horizons and geographic locations. As such, the
severe environment in these wells requires special testing and
completion equipment that can sustain the expected operating
conditions.
In a gas condensate field in western Siberia a pilot project with
6 wells is planned to get the maximum reservoir, drilling and
production information as a basis to optimize the full field
development. The depth of the hydrocarbon bearing formation
in the subject field is 3700 m, with a reservoir pressure and
temperature of 610 bars and 110 deg C respectively. The wells
will penetrate up to 500 m of permafrost, and two relatively
low pressure zones before reaching the target. To achieve the
objectives of the pilot phase and well testing operation, special
testing processes have been designed to reduce the risks in
achieving successful evaluations, and these wells can be
successfully tested under both rig-supported and rigless
operations.
The former tests were conducted with the rig and each zone
was tested with an open annulus completion string. After each
test the zone was plugged with cement.
The new challenges is to test each zone individually without
rig on location and without damaging the zones after testing
and at the same time improving the quality of the test data and
improve the PVT sampling procedures by collecting a
representative samples, which is questionable to date. This
paper discusses the pilot wells objectives, application, and
value of achieving the pilot wells objectives, also the
challenges and unique aspects of the arctic environment the
project has to deal with and present the process of reducing the
well test and completion cost and achieving the full test
objectives.
Introduction
The prospect is located in the northern part of Western
Siberian region, It is an under saturated gas condensate
reservoir. The FFD (Full Field Development) of this prospect
is a project, which last 40 years, consisting of an 88 well
drilling program.
A total of 18 wells have been drilled in the past to explore,
appraise and evaluate the field. PVT sampling campaigns did
not provide reliable fluid data.
In order to confirm reservoir potential and committing to total
capex spending, a pilot phase was proposed, which consists of
a pilot production period of 2 years, coming from a 2 cluster
with 3 wells each, one of the major aims of the pilot project is
to collect high quality PVT samples and confirm the
permeability distribution to be able to better describe the fluid
and reservoir behavior. This is necessary to build a
compositional reservoir simulation model, which is able to
predict the long-term fluid properties and production
behaviour of the reservoir. The contribution of reservoir
parameters to gas and condensate recovery are given in figures
1 and 2.
To produce the subject wells at reasonable rates bottom hole
flowing pressure will be below Dew Point from the very
beginning of production history. Well deliverability can
substantially be decreased by fluid (condensate) saturation in
the near wellbore region.
Relative permeability curves used on the existing reservoir
model do not take into account Condensate Banking and
appear to be unrealistic. To resolve this issue further Special
Core Analysis (SCA) is required during detailed engineering
phase.
Prior experience in the original completed and tested wells in
the area suggested that significant formation damage might
have been caused due to the lack of real-time pressure
drawdown data and due to killing the formation during initial
production testing. Because of the importance of the real time
data, a conventional electronic gauge was included in the
completion design for redundancy and to provide real time
bottom-hole flowing pressures and temperatures. The use of
nipple less lock technology keeps the required number of
landing nipples to a minimum, while providing the utility to
place flow-control devices anywhere in the completion string.
2 IPTC 10092
Field and Formation Description
The field is located in the tundra (permafrost) of the northern
part of the West Siberian sedimentary basin. It is permafrost
Tundra region with permafrost depth down to approximately
500 meters. Climate of the region is continental, characterized
by extreme cold winter temperatures down to –60 C and short
summer. The reservoir has a vertical depth of approx. 3600 m
and is located below 2 hydrocarbon horizons, which are both
in production. The reservoir is divided into two layers (layer A
and layer B). 14 out of 18 exploration wells proved gas-
condensate in the Area.
The discovery is a stratigraphic reservoir in the central part of
the gentle, mainly unfaulted north-south striking anticline,
shed from a prograding shelf terrace as turbidity currents and
deposited at the foot of the shelf slope as fans / channelized
fans during regional regressions. The 3455 to 3770 m deep,
very heterogeneous, strongly over pressured reservoirs are
made of numerous fine-grained sandstone/siltstone layers with
poor reservoir properties (permeabilities mainly <1mD).
Due to the complexity of the reservoir, Wintershall plan was
to verify the long-term production forecast, the well design
and drilling costs and the facility and infrastructure design and
costs with a Pilot test that should be performed prior to the
Full Field Development. This Pilot Test will also provide
more operational experience with the relatively high paraffin
content of the condensate and update the production profile
and reserves.
Reservoir Characteristics
Key reservoir parameters listed in table 1 are represented on
the existing reservoir simulation model. These parameters lead
to production forecast during the course of the whole project,
from pilot production to full field production. Validation and
further investigation is necessary and planned to be carried out
during the detailed engineering study and the pilot phase.
PVT
Many scattering gas analysis data from the subject reservoir
exists. Below the Dew Point (500 bar) fluid drops out of the
gas. In maximum nearly 10 % of gas saturated pore space can
be occupied by fluid when pressure is depleted to approx. 150
bars.
Further confirming PVT sampling analysis need to be
performed during pilot phase to get a more reliable CGR
(Condensate Gas Ratio) value.
Relative Permeability
To produce the subject wells at reasonable rates bottom hole
flowing pressure will be below Dew Point from the very
beginning of production history. Well deliverability can
substantially be decreased by fluid (condensate) saturation in
the near wellbore region.
Relative permeability curves used in the existing reservoir
model do not take into account Condensate Banking and
appear to be unrealistic. To resolve this issue further Special
Core Analysis (SCA) will be acquired during detailed
engineering phase.
Production Data
Production test of three wells from 1997 until 2001 were
performed. Long-term production of approximately four years
is only available from two wells. The average rates were
between 300 MCM/d and 400 MCM/d with bottom hole
flowing pressures between 250 and 400 bars. A third well
produced approximately 500 MCM/d at 400 bars for 10
month. The total production of these three wells is approx. 1
BCM.
Upside potential was identified on one well. A very small
hydraulic fracture improved the productivity by approx. 2.5
fold, most likely indicates cure of drilling induced damage.
More upside potential is seen with improved mud systems,
perforation technology, massive hydraulic fracturing and sub-
horizontal wellbores.
Pilot Project
The Pilot production will come from two clusters with three
wells each (one vertical and two sub-horizontal wells) .The
Pilot Project will minimize risk and identify production upside
potential based on the following:
• The reservoir section will be cored in the two vertical
wells.
• Continuous bottom hole pressure recording will allow
proper definition of well and reservoir properties.
• Separator samples will be taken from every well under
stable flowing conditions at the very beginning of well
testing. In addition, subsurface samples will be collected
from the vertical wells to check depth gradient and CGR.
• In the new wells Production Logging Tool (PLT)
measuring the well inflow profiles will be used to validate
the calculated permeability profiles.
• Effect of Condensate Banking, with respect to relative gas
/ condensate permeability will be investigated for the
reservoir simulation purposes.
• Up to 4 wells will be Hydraulically Fractured to identify,
confirm and optimize the field potential.
Testing Program
The test program has to be seen as a guideline for the testing
procedure and has to be adjusted according to the actual well
behavior experienced during operations. The purpose of
subject pilot wells is to generate a comprehensive database
through extensive coring, logging, sampling, testing and
during an extended production phase of approximately two
years to serve as a solid basis for the optimization of the full
field development concept.
Fluid Sampling
One of the major aims is to collect high quality PVT samples
during the pilot phase and three methods are deployed:
• MDT The MDT tool will be run during the open hole
logging campaign to determine the pressure gradient of
IPTC 10092
the formations. This tool will also take PVT samples.
• Bottom hole sampling during the initial
production tests BH samples can provide reliable data
of the initial reservoir condition, if the bottom hole
flowing pressure is above the dew point pressure (472
bar) at the sampling point and if the flowing rate is
above the critical rate to lift all fluid in the wellbore.
• Surface sampling from the test separator during
the entire pilot production Is the most reliable
method, if the test equipment is properly designed these
samples will be taken on a regular basis during the entire
pilot phase and the laboratory analysis will evaluate the
change of composition with time, which is essential for
compositional reservoir modeling.
Initial Reservoir Pressure
At the end of the initial clean up the well will be shut-in. The
shut-in time will be monitored with the permanent bottom hole
gauge.
Skin Determination
The formation Skin is the second important parameter to
describe the inflow capacity of the well and is also essential
for the dynamic reservoir modeling. The Skin factor consists
of three parameters:
1. Drilling induced mechanical Skin
In most cases drilling fluid will damage the near
wellbore zone and reduce the well productivity. This
value will be derived from the pressure build up after
the flow test.
2. Dynamic Skin
Due to high flow velocities in gas wells, a rate
dependant or dynamic Skin will further reduce the well
productivity and will mask the mechanical Skin. The
dynamic Skin will be determined with multiple flow
rate tests.
3. Skin from condensate banking
The bottom hole flowing pressure is expected to be far
below the dew point pressure, hence condensate will
drop out, starting in the vicinity of the wellbore and
develop deeper into the reservoir with time. Condensate
banking can reduce the well capacity significantly in
the long term and high effort has to be taken to
determine this effect. The multi rate tests have to be
repeated during the entire pilot phase, but the time
intervals depend on the individual well behavior.
Test Methodology
The initial test sequence for each well consists of initial Clean
Up with pressure build up and a 4-Rate Test with increasing
choke size. The first flow rate of this test is selected above the
critical fluid lift rate of the completion (100000m³/d for 89mm
tubing). At stable flowing conditions a bottom hole fluid
sample will be taken. After the fourth rate the well will be
shut-in at the surface for pressure build-up.
3
Surface Equipment
An emergency shut-in valve close to the wellhead serves as
safety device in case of any dangerous situation with the test
equipment. The gas flow will be heated via high-pressure heat
exchanger to a level, which prevents Hydrate forms (cooling
at the choke due to the “Joule Thomson Effect”), and Paraffin
precipitates (approx. 40°C) at the test separator.
The flow rate will be adjusted with the choke manifold. The
expected initial wellhead pressure is in the range of 300 – 400
bar and the separator working pressure between 50 – 150 bar.
The test separator has to be insulated and build in a container
to be able to deliver high quality PVT samples under well-
defined conditions.
If the gas flow is not heated and the separator not insulated,
Hydrates will form and/or Paraffin will precipitate. Hydrate
blockage can be prevented with Methanol injection, but this
will corrupt the PVT sample. PVT models also relay
especially on accurate measurement of higher C-molecules
(C7+), which is in the condensate in low concentration only
and Paraffin precipitation will give wrong results. Proper PVT
modeling is impossible.
Immediately after clean up separator PVT-sampling is
required at bottom hole pressure above dew point pressure at
sand face with lowest possible rate to carry all liquid
continuously to surface.
Gas and condensate surface samples are taken at constant
separator condensate/gas ratio. Isokinetic sampling of the gas
samples is required to compensate for liquid “carryover”.
Due to no sand production experience on the area, Clamp on
sand detection system is required for the first test in case of
sand produced to surface. This system will allow optimization
of the wells during the test and will gain more experience on
the sand strength and mitigate the flare nozzles wash out and
uncompleted clean up and production test.
Completion
The completion design for the pilot wells was based on the
following key drivers:
• Access and drain the reservoir as effectively as possible.
• Simple, cost effective completion using standard
approved components where possible.
• Wells need to accommodate down hole P/T gauges.
• Wells need to accommodate future fracturing jobs.
• Reservoir damage should be limited by preventing fluid
loss to the reservoir during completion.
The key objectives are to:
• Delivering a well with no environmental or safety
incidents.
• Delivering a well capable of producing at maximum
efficiency.
• Delivering a well that allows fracture operation.
4 IPTC 10092
The final production completion string will be 3 ½” tubing for
all six wells. 3½” tubing has been selected as the optimum size
to cater for the range of flow rates expected as a result of
reservoir pressure, well productivity, CGR and accommodate
fracturing operations.
Three basic well configurations are under discussion:
Two vertical wells with 7” liner (Fig 3).
• Two slanted wells with 4 ½” cemented liner.
• Two slanted wells with 4 ½” pre-perforated liner.
This configuration will allow us to optimize the completion
design for the development wells.
The perforations will take place underbalance conditions (c.a.
50 - 70 bar) and will be followed by immediate clean-up flow
to prevent reinjection of solids and hydrate formation in the
tubing.
Well Clean-Up
Well-bore clean-up and initial back-flow is a critical element
in providing a well that meets the productivity objectives. The
Pilot wells will be cleaned up via the completion string.
Completion String
The completion string will be set in one trip to avoid spacing
out the tubing with a PDG (permanent downhole gauge) cable
and TRSSSV line running through the wellhead. The
production packer will be set in the 7” liner +100 m above the
top reservoir.
In the vertical wells layer A and B should be tested separately.
To achieve this objective additional packer and tail pipe will
be set between the top and bottom layer.
Tubing size
A number of vertical flow simulations were run with different
tubing sizes. 3 ½” 13Cr tubing has been selected as the
optimum size and material due to the high CO2 partial
pressure (+/- 6 bar) to cater for the range of flow rates
expected as a result of formation permeability, well
productivity, CGR and reservoir pressure and accommodate
fracturing operations. Several sensitivities made at different
wellhead pressure (Figure 4 & 5).
The lower pressure loss in the 3 ½” tubing compared to the 2
7/8” (commonly used in that area) due to less friction will
increase the well deliverability and maximize the daily
production rate. Due to lower pressure loss and higher
production rate the difference in flowing wellhead temperature
is negligible (Figure 6).
Permanent Downhole Gauges
Permanent downhole gauges (DHPG) for the 6 pilot wells will
be installed as a part of the completion string to provide
continues bottom hole pressure/temperature measurements.
One gauge carrier with one electronic surface read out
pressure/temperature gauge will be run above the production
packer.
Tubing Test Nipples
Tubing test/isolation nipple will be installed below the packer.
Additionally, the tubing hangers feature standard profiles for
plugs to be set, to allow tubing isolation, Xmas tree/ BOP
removal, testing, etc.
Completion Fluid
The completion string will be run in weighted completion
fluid for the six production wells.
Before setting the production packer, the completion fluid will
be circulated to inhibited water then reverse circulate the top
interval across the permafrost zone +/- 500 m of the tubing
annulus with base oil.
Perforation
The perforation technique is strongly dependent on the well
configuration, tubing restrictions and the important objective
of not killing the wells after the DST test to avoid induced
mud damage.
The vertical wells will be perforated underbalance with 2 1/8”
guns, 6SPF, HMX, 45 degree gun system with maximum gun
length of 30 ft (9.144 m).
For the other 4 wells (slanted wells) two wells will be
completed open hole and equipped with a pre-perforated liner
while the other 2 wells will be completed with a cemented
liner then will be perforated with 2 ¼” 6 SPF TCP guns run on
coiled tubing.
Flow Measurements
Mass flow meters will be installed down stream the production
choke on each pilot well. This meter will provide continues
rate measurements. In addition regular testing with three-
phase test separator will be conducted at specified time
intervals (3 - 6 month). This will cover calibration to the mass
flow measurements and fluid sampling at different conditions.
Completion Risks and Uncertainties
As currently planned, no new or untested completion
technology will be used. The completion will incorporate
downhole P, and T gauges. The pilot wells will be cleaned up
and tested rigless. Memory PLTs will be performed on the two
vertical wells to obtain the productivity profile under
commingled zone productivity test.
Risk mitigation/registration matrix has been developed to
overcome the following:
• Wells completed higher.
• Liquid zones discovered.
• Poor initial well productivity.
• Not able to retrieve the plug.
• Perforation gun stucked and unable to recover.
• Hydrate and/or paraffin precipitation.
• DHPG fails.
IPTC 10092
Well Testing
The test will be conducted without rig on location. The
production completion consists of 89mm tubing and
permanent bottom hole pressure gauge. The well will be
drilled and completed with 178mm liner, cleaned and filled
with completion fluid. Drilling fluid will be replaced by
lighter completion fluid to ensure under-balanced perforation
conditions.
Additional production rates and pressure build-ups could be
required for full test evaluation and will defined based on well
behavior. If required, a bottom hole shut-in tool could be run
with wireline and set in the tubing nipple profile, if wellbore
storage effects deteriorate the well test evaluation.
The well completion is designed to perform hydraulic fracture
operation at any time without work-over. Fracture operation
timing and design depends strongly on the initial well
performance and will be decided on when the well production
is analyzed.
Clean-up
The wells will be initially opened up at a flow rate above the
critical flowing rate. Bean-up should take place in steps, each
lasting approximately 1 hour, or as long as is needed for the
flow to clean up and parameters to stabilize. The wells will be
beaned-up to a clean-up gas rate and if feasible, to the
maximum gas rate that can safely be achieved. Liquid loading
in the 102mm tubing and slug flow will occur at flow rates
below approximately 120 Mm3/d.
In the event of sand production in excess of ca. 25
kg/100000m³, the well should be beaned-back to a rate at
which no significant sand production occurs.
Full clean up of the wells is expected to last approximately 12
hours. The clean-up period for each well may be curtailed or
extended depending on clean-up performance and flow
stability.
Sampling
Towards the end of the clean-up period (if THP is above 500
bar) and during the extra flow period, surface hydrocarbon
samples will be acquired. The samples will be monitored
using a lab on the location. Sampling will commence when the
well shows signs of stabilizing. The well is stable when:
The FTHP and FTHT are stable at constant flow rate
The CGR measured at the separator is stable
CO2 measurements are stable
Water rate and composition is stable
Three sets of samples should be taken for each rate. A set
consists of one sample at the wellhead, one condensate sample
and one gas sample at the separator. One set should be taken at
same flow conditions at the same time.
5
Multi-rate Flow and Build-up Test
The clean-up performance will be determined by calculating
the Productivity Index (PI) at the end of the cleanup a 4-Rate
Test (120, 200, 300 Mm3/d and Maximum) with increasing
rate is required to determine inflow Kh and to determine skin
parameters. Each flow rate should last +/-24 hours minimum.
Subsequently, the well will be closed-in for pressure build-up
two times the maximum rate flowing time.
During the flow period two accurate electronic
pressure/temperature gauges will be attached to the wellhead.
During the survey, gas, condensate and water (if any)
separator rates will be recorded electronically.
Measurements
It is planned to obtain measurements of governing parameters
and variables during the full clean up and well testing
activities. These parameters include and not limited to,
Ambient Pressure & Temperature, Wellhead Thermal
growth/contraction, Annular pressures, Shut-in and flowing
tubing head pressures, Flowline Pressure and Temperature,
Choke size, Sand rate if applicable, Separator Pressure &
Temperature, Solids rate and composition Flow rate and
cumulative volumes: condensate, water, gas, H2S and CO2.
Long Term Production Testing And Production
Logging
The pilot wells production phase is committed for
approximately two years and long-term tests can be conducted
in order to analyze changes of production behavior and of
fluid composition. The focus during this phase is to collect
sufficient amount of high quality data to be able to build a
reliable reservoir model for full field development and not to
maximize the production during this phase.
Summary and Conclusions
• The pilot project will be conducted, as an integrated
approach in order to develop a sound reservoir model
for the full field development.
• The proposed completion design facilitates rigless
well testing.
• Setting an integrated teamwork at early stage of the
project helped to achieve a sound and cost effective
approach to the full field development scenario.
• Different well completion methods including
hydraulic fracturing will be applied during the pilot
phase. This should lead to an optimum and cost
effective well design for the full field development
under arctic conditions.
Acknowledgements
We thank the management of Wintershall for permission to
publish this paper and for giving a free hand to the team for
designing the pilot project. Also many thanks go to the team
members and all other persons who directly or indirectly
contributed in this effort.
6 IPTC 10092

References Table 1: Reservoir Characteristics

1. N. Nor-Azlan, G.H. Aker, I.R. Diyashev, A.V. Brovchuk
and A.A Alpatov “Keeping Abreast of New Technology Reservoir Depth 3455 – 3770 m TVD bmsl
Enhances Asset Value – Experience in Romanovskoe Lithology / Depositional Silty Sandstone / Turbidite
Oilfield, Western Siberia, Russia”, SPE 87058, SPE Environment
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management in Asia Pacific Reservoir units 3 / 4 and 5 (stacked)
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29 – 30 March 2004. Area of Field Development 256 km2
2. N. Nor-Azlan, A.l. Sanchez and I.R. Diyashev “Massive Pressure (over-pressured) 610 bar @ 3600 m
Hydraulic Fracturing- A Case History in Western Siberia, Temperature 108 °C
Russia”, SPE 84916, SPE International Improved Oil Rock Properties
Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific in Kuala Lumpur, Average Porosity 16 % (max. 23 %)
Malaysia, 20 – 21 October 2003.
NTG - Ratio 0,5
3. Lyazzat Sarybekova “North Caspian project – Challenges
Net Thickness 30 – 50 m
and Successes”, SPE 86685, SPE International Conference
Average Permeability 0,5 mD (max. measured 60 mD)
on Health, Safety and Environment held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 29-31 March 2004. Average Water Saturation 40 %
Fluid Properties
4. J.M. Williams “Getting Reliable On-Site H2S and
Dew Point 500 bar
CO2 Concentrations for Anti-Corrosion Measures in
Condensate / Gas Ratio 0,0003 SM3 / SM3 @ ca. 3600 m
Gas wells”, SPE 81495, SPE 13th Middle East Oil
Show held in Bahrain 9-12 June 2003.
5. A.C. Baker and M. Price “Modelling the performance of
High-Pressure High-Temperature Wells”, SPE 20903, The
Hague, Netherland, 22-24 October 1990.
6. Jean-Francois Mengual, Pablo Saldungaray, Pedro Artola,
Juan Riano “Reducing Completion Costs and Enhancing
Logs and Formation Tester Data”, SPE 74362 Mexico 10-
12 February 2002.
7. Jorge Boscan, Edgar Almaza and Curtis Wendler
“Successful Well Testing Operations in HP/HT
Environment: Case Histories” SPE 84096, Annual
Technical Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8
October 2003.
8. E. Sorgard, D. Knox, C. Svoboda, S. Mason and B. McNeil
“Getting a Clear Picture- Individual Zone Testing of the
Khuff Reservoir Through First Application of a Zonal
Isolation Completion and Nondamaging Drilling and
Completion Fluids” SPE 95024, SPE European Formation
Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The
Netherlands, 25-27 May 2005.
9. B.W. Fuller “The Well Test Module. A Computer System
Fig 1. Contribution of Reservoir parameters to Gas
of Processing Gas Well Test Data” SPE 5187, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition October 6-9, 1974.
Recovery
10. Henk Kool, Mehdi Azari, M.Y. Soliman, Mark A. Proett
"Testing of Gas Condensate Reservoirs — Sampling, Test
Design and Analysis” SPE 68668, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia,
17–19 April 2001.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft x 3.048* E – 01 =m
in x 2.54* E + 01 = mm
Mile x 1.609 344* E 00 = km
psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
atm x 1.013250* E+05 = pa
o
F (F-32)/1.8 =oC
bbl x 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3

*Conversion factor is exact

Fig 2. Contribution of Reservoir parameters to

Condensate Recovery.
IPTC 10092 7

Max Flow Rate from Production Wells

2000000
1800000

M a x im u m F lo w R a t e ( m ³ /d )
1600000
1400000 3 1/2" Frac
1200000 2 7/8" Frac
1000000 4 1/2"
800000 3 1/2"
600000 2 7/8"
400000 2 3/8"
200000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Well Head Flow ing Pressure (bar)

Fig 5 Tubing sensitivity maximum flow rate

Fig 3 Completion diagram

Critical Rate Sensitivity

250000

200000
C r it ic a l R a t e ( m ³ /d )

150000 4 1/2"
3 1/2"
100000 2 7/8"
2 3/8"
50000

0
Fig 6 Tubing sensitivity flowing wellhead temp.
0 100 200 300 400 500
Well Head Flow ing Pressure (bar)

Fig 4 Tubing sensitivity Critical rate