SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineef'S

SPE 16932

Recompletion Workover Program at the Kuparuk River Field

by G.S. Woodling, ARCO Alaska Inc.
SPE Member

Copyright 1987, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Dallas, TX September 27-30, 1987.

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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
II
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT To date 529 wells :fa~ been drilled on 160-acre well

spacings (647 X 10 m ). §ur~nt oil production rate
An aggressive workover program was undertaken from is 290,000 BOPD (46 X 10 m /d oil) from over 300
1984 to 1987 at the Kuparuk River field on the North producers. Full-field waterflood was commenced in
Slope of Alaska to recomplete older single completions late 1985 using sea water injection. Full fiel~
with the more versatile selective single design. The i~jection currently averages 550,000 BWPD (87 X 10
two oi 1 producing horizons ( 11 C11 and 11 A11 Sands) have m /d water) using over 170 wells on direct-line-drive
contrasting reservoir properties which complicate and nine-spot patterns. Artificial lift is provided
reservoir management. The recompletion allowed through g~s lift Approximately 250 million scf/D
fracture stimulation of the 11 A11 Sand which was easily (7.1 X 10 std m3/d) of produced gas is reinjected
damaged during drilling •. In addition, selective zone into the oil rim due to lack of a gas cap or sales
management in each production or injection well market. Each of the current 36 gravel drill sites
maximized reserves development under waterfl ood and typically has 16 wells directionally drilled with an
gas reinjection. average hole angle of 45°.
Eighty-six (86) of the field 1 s 529 wells (16%) have The Kuparuk River sandstone is an oil-bearing Lower-
been recompleted since 1984 at a total cost of $68 Cretaceous sand/ sha 1e sequence divided into 3 major
million (1987 dollars). This case history summarizes lithological units ( 11 A11 , 11 811 , and 11 C11 Sands). An
oil rate benefits and workover cost trends for use in example type log is shown in Figure 1. The formation
future evaluation of remaining Kuparuk workovers. An is a slightly-dipping anticline with depth varying
economic evaluation approach for justifying injection from 5600 to 6300 ft (1707 to 1920 m). An impermeable
workovers in a limited-capital environment is also siltstone OVe§l.ays the 11 C11 Sand providing the forma-
included. tion cap rock . The primary production mechanism is
solution gas drive. Reservoir fluids were originally
INTRODUCTION undersaturated preventing a formation gas cap.
The Kuparuk River field is the 2nd largest oil field The upper unit ( 11 C11 Sand) is naturally fractured and
in North America lying 40 miles (64 km) west of the most productiv~ ranging in rate from 1500 to 5000 BOPD
Prudhoe Bay field on the North Slope of Alaska (238 to 795 m /d oil). Typical permeability values
Approximately3 1.5 billion STB oil (238 X 10 0 are 15~ to 400 md with a net pay thickness up to 80 ft
stock~tank m oil) are expected to be ultimately {24 m) . Grain size for this sandstone ranges from
recovered with the aid of waterflood from an original very coarsES to very fine with siderite and quartz
oil-in-place 6(00IP) of 4.5 jo 5 b\llion STB oil (710 cementation • The 11 C11 Sand has contributed most of
to 790 X 10 stock-tank m oi 1) . Proposed 6ie~d the full-field rate since field startup in late 1981.
development could exceed 200 sq miles (518 X 10 m ) This moderate permeability zone is typically stimulat-
using 700 to 900 wells. ed using hydrochloric acid.
The
11 11
lower zone ( 11 A11 Sand) is less productive than the
C Sand but areally more extensive providing 60% to
65% of the recoverable reserves. Average permeability
References and illustrations at end of paper. is 60 md with a net pay thickness up to 35 ft (11 m).

529
2 RECOMPLETION WORKOVER PROGRAM AT THE KUPARUK RIVER FIELD
The 11 A11 Sand is fine to very-fine grained, well
sorted, interbedded with sha 1es, and cemented by
quartz and varying amounts of ankerite 5 . Hydraulic
fracture treatment is used to correct damage incurred
during drilling and completion operations.
The middle zone ( 11 811 Sand) is typically non-productive
and made up of sands, siltstones, and shales rangigg
in gross thickness from 10 to 150 ft (3 to 46 m) •
This zone isolates the more productive 11 A11 and 11 C11
Sands allowing separate zone management to maximize
recovery. The 11 811 Sand also provides a vertical
barrier to 11 A11 Sand hydraulic fractures preventing
undesirable communication between the 11 A11 and 11 C11
Sands.
The formation parting pressure of the 11 C11 Sand is
typically less than the 11 A11 Sand. In addition, the
highly-permeable 11 C11 Sand acts as a thief zone during
stimulation. This prevents successful 11 A11 Sand
fracture treatment in a single completion using a
common wellbore. Completions progressed to the
current selective single designs using either gas lift
mandrels or a ported flow nipple (Figure 2) across the
C Sand. These systems allow 11 A11 Sand fracture
11 11
treatment to correct damage incurred during drilling
and completion.
Production and spinner logs indicated inadequate 11 A11
Sand depletion and water injection in the unfractured
single completions. This was alarming since the 11 A11
Sand contained the majority of reserves. A recom-
pletion workover program was initiated in 1984 to
improve 11 A11 Sand rates. The primary objective of
recompletion was to isolate the 11 A11 Sand for fracture
treatment. Resulting secondary benefits include·d
enhanced reservoir management. To date, 86 recom-
pletions have been performed (Figure 3}. The single
completion ·is still used where the 11 C11 Sand is
non-existent or of marginal thickness as in the
peripheral areas of the field.
STIMULATION RESULTS
The primary objective for recompletion to a selective
single was the ability to hydraulically fracture the
A Sand and improve production or injection rate.
11 11
Historical pre and post-fracture 11 A11 Sand rates for 69
recompleted wells are shown in Figure 4. Average
post-fract~re A Sand rate for producers was 355
11 11
BOPD (56 m /d oil) which is a 370% in3rease above the
pre-fracture rate of 95 BOPD (15 m /d oil). This
agreed with th5 369% increase observed field wide in
264 treatments • 11 A11 Sand water injection increased
2~0% from an average pre-fract~re rate of 309 BWPD (49
m /d water) to 906 BWPD (144 m /d water).
Th~ treatments are currently designed to provide
highly conductive fractures with half lengths of 80 ft
(24 m). Job size is limited to contain 11 A11 Sand
fracture growth within the 11 811 Sand • Larger jobs
might provide undesirable communication between the
A and 11 C11 Sands.
11 11
. injection or production using ported orifices without
A Sand fracture treatme11ts have progressed to the
11 11
current pump schedule shown in Table 1 u5ing 20/40
mesh proppant and a gelled diesel carrier . Gelled
water presented an operational risk due to freezing.
Recent jobs have eliminated the 100 mesh as a fluid
loss additive in order to maximize fracture
conductivity. Proppant stages now start at 2 lbm/gal
530
SPE 16932
(240 kg/m 3 ~ increasing to a final stage of 10 lbm/~al
(1200 kg/m ) in increments of 1 lbm/gal (120 kg/m ).
Intermediate strength proppants are also used more
frequently due to the need for maximum fracture
conductivity.
GAS INJECTION MANAGEMENT
Approximately 250 million scf/D (7.1 X 10 6 std m3/d}
of produced gas is reinjected into the oil rim on the
eastern and western edges of the field. The 11 C11 Sand
is used for this purpose because of its higher
injectivity thereby 1 imiting the number of injection
wells required. The selective single allows gas
injection to be restricted to the "C" Sand while pre-
serving low gas/oil ratios (GOR) in the 11 A11 Sand.
Field oil rate is currently limited by the gas
handling capacity of the surface facilities. High-GOR
C Sands near the inj~ction areas must be shut-in to
11 11
meet facility gas limits. The selective single allows
low GOR 11 A11 Sand production to continue after shut-
ting-in the "C 11 Sand. The gas affected "C" Sand areas
will be produced at a future date to meet field fuel
needs and lift gas demands.
Gas injection in the "A" Sand was recently implemented
as part of an immiscible water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injection process to improve waterfl ood sweep effi-
ciency. The "A" Sand permeability is lower and more
uniformly distributed which will delay gas break-
through compared to the "C 11 Sand. Gas production at
offset wells will be deferred until a later time when
higher GOR production can be handled. Gas break-
through from WAG can actually improve tubing hydrau-
1 ics by providing in-situ gas to help 1 ift higher
water/oil ratios (WOR).
The selective single allows current WAG injection to
be limited to the "A" Sand while continuing "C 11 Sand
waterflood on the same drill sites by shutting-in the
"C" Sand during the gas injection cycle. Future "C"
Sand WAG injection can be implemented when desired.
Enhanced oil recovery projects under consideration
include the injection of miscible gas through a WAG
injection process. Recompletion workovers were
performed on some injectors to provide 11 A11 Sand
repressuri zati on needed to achi eve the required
miscibility pressure at project start-up in 1988.
Wellhead equipment rated for 3000 psi (21 MPa) was
also upgraded for 5000 psi (34 MPa) service. Conven-
tional 8-round tubing couplings were replaced with
AS-modified to minimize potential leakage under
high-pressure gas injection.
WATERFLOOD MANAGEMENT
The higher permeability of the "C 11 Sand will acceler-
ate uneconomic water production requiring high;.WOR "C"
Sand zones to be shut-in earlier than the "A" Sand.
The selective single can be used to restrict "C" Sand
detriment to "A" Sand rates. Lost 11 C11 Sand production
must be offset by reduced operating costs and the
incremental "A" Sand oil rate gained. Mechanical and
reservoir problems assoc~ated with water production
can include the following :
* Reduced "A" Sand oi 1 rate due to increased
bottomhole flowing pressures from unfavorable
 SPE 16932 G. S. WOODLING 3
tubing hydraulics (high liquid rates and water * Ported flow nipple - 85 wells
cut.)
*Sliding sleeve - 2 wells
* Shortened life of surface and sub-surface equipment
due to scale and corrosion. * Waterflood mandrels - 1 well
* Increased costs for produced water processing and Gas lift mandrels with circulating valves account for
reinjection. the majority of selective single designs. Early wells
used 1 in. ( 2. 5 em) va 1ves camp a red to the current
* Increased gas-lift requirements and costs. 1-1/2 in. valve (3.8 em). The larger circulating
valve provides more cross-sectional flow area to
* Potential formation sand production. minimize valve erosion. Typical tubing size is 3-1/2
in. (8.9 em). However, a limited number of wells have
Ported orifices across the 11 C11 Sand can also be used 2-7/8 in. (7.3 em) tubing to accommodate reduced
to increase the bottomhole injection pressure for the production rates.
11
A11 Sand which has a higher formation parting pres-
sure. Current completions use a ported flow nipple across
the 11 C11 Sand which can be opened or closed by running
COMPLETION TRADEOFFS a commingling or blanking sleeve. This design re-
quires a 2-7/8 in. (7.3 em) tubing tail with landing
The flexibility provided by the selective single nipple for blanking off the 11 A11 Sand. A smaller
requires additional investment and operating expenses. landing nipple is used to receive a blanking plug run
Incremental cost for a selective single is approxi- through the restricted diameter of the 11 C11 Sand sleeve
mately $150,000 above a single completion in a newly as shown in Figure 2. A 1 in. (2.5 em) gas lift
drilled well. This increase includes additional rig mandrel is also used above the blast rings to equalize
time to run the more-complex hardware. Incremental pressures before opening the 11 C11 Sand with a
annual operating expense is $10,000 to $15,000 greater commingling sleeve.
·than a single completion based on the following:
Other completion systems under evaluation include
* Additional wireline activity to open or close sliding sleeves and waterflood mandrels. Both designs
sands. maintain a full 3-1/2 in. (8.9 em) tubing diameter
which simplifies wireline operations. The sliding
* Routine wireline inspection or replacement of 11 C11 sleeve may be more susceptible to mechanical failure
Sand completion equipment (circulating valves, from scale and corrosion due to the inability to
orifices, commingling sleeve, etc.) damaged by scale replace critical moving parts. Waterflood mandrels in
or eros ion. injection wells reduce casing erosion due to the
vertical discharge of injection parallel to the
* Increased fishing likelihood due to additional casing.
wireline activity and completion complexity.
Carbide blast rings are typically installed on the
Negative operational aspects of the selective single tubing across the 11 C11 Sand with a 5 ft ( 1. 5 m) overlap
also include the following: for tubing protection. High-GOR production with
entrained sand caused eros i ana 1 damage to the tubing
* Inability to reperforate the 11 C11 Sand. in as little as several days in some Kuparuk produc-
ers. Conventional steel blast joints did not provide
*Reduced stimulation flexibility for the 11 C11 Sand the desired service life (1-month failure in some
(e.g. risk of dropping fracture proppant above the cases). Injection wells may also need to be 11 back
packer). fl owed 11 on occasion which will require tubing pro-
tection. However conventional steel blast joints may
* Deposition of debris above the packer during normal be used for this limited service.
C Sand production or injection.
11 11

Carbide blast rings can typically cost $100,000 per

* Inability to obtain injection or production
profiles behind tubing across the 11 C11 Sand with
conventional logging tools.
These negative impacts must be considered before
proposing a selective single completion. The rate and
reserves benefit gained through 11 A11 Sand fracture
treatment usually outweigh operati ana 1 prob 1ems or
expenses. However, the single completion may still be
preferred where the 11 C11 Sand is of marginal thickness.
11
C11 SAND COMPLETIONS
C Sand completion hardware in the selective singles
11 11
at Kuparuk currently use the following tubing assem-
blies:
* Gas-lift mandrels with circulating valves - 250
wells
100 ft ( 30 m) i nterva 1 compared to $15,000 for steel
blast joints making them the most expensive component
in the selective single design.
COST TRENDS
Workover costs decreased 8% per year ( 1987 dollars)
over the project period as a result of increased field
experience in workover planning and execution (Figure
5). In addition, lower cost indices for oil field
goods and services also contributed to reduced
workover costs during the period.
Fracture costs decreased 28% per year as shown in
Figure 5 due primarily to a reduction in job size.
Screen-outs were a1so reduced which minimized expen-
sive well clean-outs.

531
4 RECOMPLETION WORKOVER PROGRAM AT THE KUPARUK RIVER FIELD
Cost distributions for workovers and fracture treat-
ments were determined using a 1987 index normalized
for cost reduction trends. Distributions are shown in
Figures 6 and 7 for workover and fracture costs,
respectively. Average workover cost was $613,000 with
fracture costs averaging $49,000.
The distributions show the risk of cost over-runs for
each operation. Typical unforeseen workover problems
include fishing of lost tools, milling on stuck
equipment, cement squeezes, lost circulation, and
SPE 16932
lengthy payout. However, injection workovers typical-
ly provide additional reserves compared to the simple
rate acceleration of most production workovers.
Additional recovery can result from production
workovers where fracture treatments communicate
previously undrained zones with the wellbore improving
waterflood conformance.
Workovers of direct-line-drive Kuparu~ i~ectors were
analyzed using the 320-acre (1295 X 10 m ) waterflood
pattern shown in Figure 8. A Sand waterfl ood
11 11

other well control problems. Fracture cost over-runs recovery (% OOIP) as a function of pattern displace-
typically involved a coiled-tubing clean-out after a able hydrocarbon pore volume injected (DHPV) was
screen-out. Contingency funding should consider the determined through reservoir simulation (Figure 9)
probabilities identified in Figures 6 and 7. using a 3D areal model.
WORKOVER FLU IDS Ultimate waterflood recovery was predicted to decrease
with prolonged primary depletion as shown in Figure 9.
Early ~ecompletions using bentonite (bland mud) as a This is due to reduced waterflood sweep from an
workover fluid resulted in significant fluid loss and increase in oil viscosity and oil shrinkage during
C Sand rate damage. Hydrochloric acid treatment did primary depletion. Ultimate pattern recovery is shown
11 11

not return 11 C11 Sand rates to pre-workover levels. in Figure 10 as a function of reservoir drawdown below
11
Mud acid 11 treatments using hydrofluoric acid were not the bubble point pressure. Material balance techniques
recommended in the C Sand due to an abundance of were used to predict future pattern pressures
11 11

naturally-occurring iron-carbonates in the formation. including influx from offset patterns.

Current workovers. use sodium-chloride based kill
fluids with a sized-salt slug across the perforations
to contra 1 fluid 1oss through bridging. Adequate
post-workover 11 C11 Sand rates were observed using this
technology. Potential "A" Sand formation· damage from
the workover was corrected through fracture stimu-
lation after recompletion.
WORKOVER PLANNING
Recompletion workover planning at the Kuparuk River
field considered the following factors:
* Reservoir pressure acquired immediately before the
workover can accurately define the required kill
fluid weighting to minimize fluid loss and
formation damage.
* Cement bond logs should be reviewed for needed
cement squeezes to ensure isolation behind pipe
between the 11 A11 and 11 C11 Sands.
* "C 11 Sand reperforation needs should be reviewed.
* Wellbore "junk" or sand "fil1 11 may need to be
removed to increase "rat hole" depth for logging or
perforating.
* Future gas injection service may require wellhead
equipment rated for 5000 psi (34 MPa) and
AB-modified tubing couplings.
*Other well problems (e.g. casing or packer leaks)
should be reviewed to determine required remedial
action.
FUTURE WORKOVER EVALUATIONS
Workover economics were based on the incremental oil
stream provided by the 11 A11 Sand hydraulic fracture
treatment. Production workovers typically provide an
immediate oil rate boost whereas a delayed oil rate
response usually results after working over an The pred~cted economic loss of injection deferral was
injector. This can make justification of an injection significant if pattern depletion was allowed to
workover difficult in times of capital shortage due to continue. The loss in present worth of a typical
A typical 11 A11 Sand pattern rate projection is shown in
Figure 11 for the pre and post-fracture injection
rates. Figure 11 also shows the impact from deferring
an injection workover 2 years which includes reduced
recovery and oil rate response under waterflood.
Recompletion and fracture treatments in production
wells typically accelerated reserves and in some cases
provided additional recovery. Evaluation of production
workovers included post-fracture rate and decline
curve performance from adjacent wells. In some cases,
reservoir simulation was used to determine pre and
post-fracture oi 1 rate streams for each workover and
deferra 1 case taking into account offset waterfl ood
influx.
WORKOVER RANKING
Workovers are typically evaluated using economic
parameters which include rate of return (ROR), dis-
counted profit/investment ( P/ I) ratio, present worth
(PW), and payout. Each operating company typically
has their own "hurdle 11 value for project approval.
Payout ignores the time value of money and should
therefore be used only qualitatively. Nevertheless,
payout is often a popular evaluation tool because of
it•s simplicity. Reduced oil prices have increased the
use of payout recently because it emphasizes cash-flow
and liquidity.
Limited capita 1 and operating funds brought about by
reduced oil prices have caused operators to scrutinize
all investment opportunities. Deferral sensitivity
has become an important consideration during eval-
uation of Kuparuk recompletions. The most important
factors used in approving Kuparuk workovers were
discounted profit/investment ratio and expected
present worth.. Economic impact of workover deferra 1
was also emphasized in light of a limited workover
budget.

532
SPE 16932
injection workover was predicted to be $80,000 for
every 100 psi (689 kPa) loss in 11 A11 Sand reservoir
pressure· below the bubble point. This loss assumed a
constant $15 per bbl west-Texas oil price. Some
injection workovers were recommended ahead of produc-
ers in order to maintain reserves and present worth
value.
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the recompletion workover program at the
Kuparuk River field yiel~ed the following con-
clusions:
* Recompletion workovers played an important role in
development of the Kuparuk River field by improving
A Sand production and injection rates through
11 11
hydraulic fracture treatment.
* Contrasting reservoir properties between the A 11
and 11 C11 Sands required selective single completions
to optimize waterflood and gas injection management
at the Kuparuk River field.
* Lost reserves due to waterflood deferral was shown
to be a strong economic justification for injection
well workovers in a limited capital environment at
the Kuparuk River field.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank ARCO A1ask a, Inc. for
permission to publish this paper. Recognition is
also due to Kuparuk reservoir engineering, drilling
and operations departments for their technical
contributions.
G. S. WOODLING 5
REFERENCES
1. Carman, G. J., and Hardwick, P., 11 Geology and
Regional Setting of The Kuparuk Oil Field,
Alaska 11 , Oil and Gas Journal (Nov. 22, 1982)
153-158.
2. Clutterbuck, P. R., and Dance, S. E., 11 The Use of
Simulation in Decision Making for the Kuparuk
River Field Development 11 , JPT (Oct. 1985)
1893-1901. ---
3. Griffin, K. W., 11 Induced Fracture Orientation in
the Kuparuk Reservoir 11 , paper SPE 14261,
presented at the SPE-AIME 60th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas (Sep. 22-25,
1985).
4. Bihn, G. C., 11 Perforation Performance in the
11
Kuparuk River Field 11 , paper SPE 14323, presented
at the SPE-AIME 60th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas (Sep. 22-25, 1985).
5. Niemeyer, B. L., and Reinart, M. R., 11 Hydraul ic
Fracturing of a Moderate Permeability Reservoir,
Kuparuk River Unit 11 , paper SPE 15507, presented at
the SPE-AIME 61st Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans (Oct. 5-8, 1986).
6. Rensvold, R. F., Ayers, H. J., and Carlisle,
W. C., Recompletion of Wells to Improve Water-Oil
Ratios 11 , paper SPE 5379, presented at the SPE-AIME
45th Annual California Regional Meeting, Ventura
{April 2-4, 1975).
533
 SP-E 16 9 32

TABLE 1- Typical Gelled Diesel, 20/40 Mesh, "A" Sand Fracture Design.

CLEAN PUMP PROP. PROP.

VOLUME RATE PROPPANT CONC. WEIGHT
.siAG.E OESQBI~IIQ~ .(bbls). .(BEM) MES.I:::I !EEG). !LB.Sl
1 PRE-PAD; GD 65 5
2 PAD;GD 36 20 100 0.5 800
3 PAD;GD 60 20
4 3PPG;GD 16 20 20/40 3 2000
5 8PPG;GD 27 20 20/40 8 9100
6 FLUSH;GD TUBING VOLUME 20

TOTALS: FLUID (excluding flush) = 204 bbls GD

SAND (excluding 100 Mesh) = 11,100 lbs

GD = gelled diesel
PPG = lbs per gallon
BPM = bbls per minute

1000 ZONE

Fig. 1-Kuparuk River formation type log.

534
 r
x = SINGLE COMPLETION
o = SELECTIVE-SINGLE
• = RECOMPLETJON WORKOVER

mm m
X X X X
X X X X
CPF =CENTRAL PROCESSING FACILITY
16" SURFACE CONDUCTOR 80' X X X X CPF-3
X 0 AREA
B-SURFACE SAFETY VALVE 2000' X X X X
+--+"vt-+ 9-5/8" INTERMEDIATE CASING3500'
xxoxxX

~
X X X

ItT ~ 3-1/2" X 1-1/2" GAS- L1 FT MANDREL

1
X
xxo 0 oxXxx
Xxoo 0 o x x x
XXXO XOOXX X
xxoxxooxxx
THERMAL EXPANSION JOINT oxxooxo oo.ox
ooXxoxxooooo
HYDRAULIC RETRIEVABLE PACKER o o o o 0 ° 0 xo oo ~
o 0 o o o o o o x 00
o o o o 0 o 0 0 lo -,
3-1/2" X 1" GAS- Ll FT MANDREL (GLM) 0 0
- 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CARBIDE BLAST RINGS oo 00 • o •
X
en ooo•o•o•
c.)
en xx••• •oo•• CPF-1
C-SAND PERFORATIONS 5950'- 6050' AREA
Ooooo,xx•••o o•
oo•oxoxxx•••••• xOo X X
COMMINGLING SLEEVE oooo•o•oxx•x••. • • x x
3-1/2" PORTED FLOW NIPPLE oooooxoo•o•oo•o••••• x x X X 0
•
3-1/2" X 2- 7/8" CROSSOVER oooo o x o x • 0 • 0 • o • o • • • • • • xxx X
0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 • 0 • 0 . 0. ~~ · · : X X X
WI RELINE SET PERMAMENT PACKER
0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 X X 80 8 0 8 0 8 0 : 8
8
i:
X X
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 8 X X 0 0 0 0 8 0 e ·~·•••• 0
X
Oo0 0 ooO
X X X X X X X 0 01• 0 X o • X • 8 X X
oox oooo x x x x x x x x x x x o o
xoxooox xxxxXxxx•oooo
A-SAND PERFORATIONS 6200- 6250' xoooxxx xxxxxxxxooo
0 X 0 X X X X xxxxxo
X X X X
CPF-2
• • 7" PRODUCTION CASING 6400' AREA
X X X X
SINGLE MANDREL FLOW NIPPLE
COMPLETION SELECTIVE SELECTIVE
0 2
I I
SINGLE SINGLE
MILES
Fig. 2-Kuparuk River field completion designs.
Fig. 3-Kuparuk River field completion status map.
en
~
,_.
0'-
--..o
\.N
1\)
 1800 10000,-------------~--------------------------~------------,

• LEGEND: LEGEND:
3'
~ 1500 e WORKOVER

~
~
•
•
t:,. ~~T_Ef3Jf:!J..:_
;}:
{/)
a .~----·--------·-····· t:,. [f!_A_C]fdfi£;_-

....,. ..··~' .. . ,~ .
/:,. ../:,. <: ' :.
1000 , __ J..! ................

-----·•·"'~·-----···--·--
1200 • : • •
~
'<:(
{/)
, , , , ' ' /:,. :::::>
~ I
,~
0 •:. ... -8%/YR
2: e• • :: : DECREASE
LLJ
Q::
900 '--- : : :
::::J ~ : : :
~- :~~"'tffz-
~<!""·~·"! ~---n-~----:ZS.~-.6
1-- co
(_)
~
"'l:: 100
e:I 600 -~
f-.
{/)
--···--M£.--A-.DCI IE-!:!.&---
+:;············· , , .................... .
-28%/YR
1--
(/)
0
()
---,n, 6
/:,. '0
'
, _ /:,. 6 !'
'
'
;
'
'
DECREASE
() 300 '
'
'
' .'
'
' '
Q '
'
'
''
'
'

10+---------~----------~----------+---------~
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 m~ 1985 1986 1987 1988
PRE -FRACTURE RATE (STB/D)
YEAR
Fig. 4-Pre- and post-fracture "A" sand rates.
Fig. 5-Workover and "A" sand fracture cost trends.

"'
c.:>
"'

25,----------------------------------------------, 35

JO-
20-

-:---.. 25
~
"-..:.- ~
'-...:..
15-
>-
(_) >- 20-
(_)
~ ~
::::J ::::J
8 70-
8 15-1
~~
e: ~~

e: 10
(-,
5-

~
0 .
0 200 400 600 800 1000 -~
1200 7400 7600
0,
0 20 40 60 80
~
100 720
......
0'
WORKOVER COST in 1987$ (THOUSANDS $) FRACTURE COST in 1987$ (THOUSANDS $) ....0
Fig. 6-Workover cost distribution in 1987 dollars.
Fig. 7-"A" sand fracture cost distribution in 1987 dollars. ~
rv
 40,-------------------------------------------~

CL'

~ 301 /?:~. ~
NOMINAL 30% RECOVERY

0
injector •
producer
0
injector •
producer
0
injector
>-
BS ~-
,~- -·························II
I
>

·f;\ !\ !\!\!;~,!\1!1\1\1\ .~~· 1

INCREASING
0
20 PRIMARY DEPLETION
0 0 ~ BEFORE WATERFLOOD
injector injector a:::
..._j

0
0
injector •
producer
0
iniA~tor •
producer
0
injector
<:
a:::
~
1--
10

Fig. 8-320-acre direct-line-drive waterflood pattern. ~

0 ·-.'------""T"------r-------,-----,.----r------1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
DISPLACEABLE HYDROCARBON PORE VOLUMES INJECTED
Fig. 9-Predi~ed "A" sand oil recovery as a function of injected pore volume.

en
""
..... 40~-----------------------------------
600~------:-----~------~--------------
LEGEND:
CL' •
I'\ '

a0 -::--. 500
a
.............. ·,· ·,·
I:\
~- ............. ·:· .................... . 0
: PRE-FRAC
30·~-=-==-=.=..:e'-=-=e- . NOMINAL 30% RECOVERY Q 1 ; '· ; .6. POST -FRAC

-QQ_f;E_i_f!~~~r~
\.f "i"j / \·\.......... j..................................
~
-.......:.-
·----==-=·----·-- ---- 0
:............... ..
X
>-
BS
>
---· ~ 400~ .......... .
Lu
1-- J I.!. ....,,.\.\. ...... .::. ................................::............... ..
~
•
-~

\ •
-~

. .
0
(_) 20 ~ 300 ..............
Lu ..._j
a::: 6
a
..._j
<:
200
/1.. ...........
~
\\. 1 \~<'t'"'''"""''''
1
.................l................ .
<: BS
1--
a::: 10 1-- '~~ ::
~
:-.;.

1--
~ 100 ... ·~'~<-- -~ .

~
0~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~--~
0 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600
01---------~--------~--------~------~--------~
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 ~
PATTERN PRESSURE LOSS BELOW BUBBLE POINT (psi)
Fig. 10-Lost "A" sand oil recovery due to reservoir pressure drawdown below the bubblepoint.
YEAR
Fig. 11-Typical "A" sand oil rate prediction during an injection workover evaluation.
.....
0'
~
\.N
N