SPE 137861

Lower Completion Type Comparisons: Longhorn Deepwater Case Histories

J.R. Sanford, E.J. Flanagan, C. Mancini, J. Bruton, J.D. Woomer, Eni; B.Franklin, L. Hebert, BJ Services

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 5–6 October 2010

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Selecting a lower completion method is often difficult to evaluate because the true time/cost savings is unknown. This is
usually due to the lack of an “apples to apples” comparison. Five (5) wells and four (4) different lower completion types were
performed in the Longhorn development (All were performed in the same pressure/temperature regime, similar depths and utilized
the same rig). This paper will review the lower completion case histories of this development. The completion types included a
conventional single (2 trips), a 1 trip system, a conventional stacked pack (2 zones) and a multizone single trip system (2 zones).

This paper will review, compare and document four (4) different lower completion types. Application of the results should
help every completion engineer; answer the question “What lower completion method should I use?” The following time savings,
normalized with no non-productive time, were as follows:

™ One trip savings was 1½ days less than a conventional single (2 trips).
™ Multizone Single Trip Systems (MST1) (two zone) was only 0.5 day longer than a conventional single (1 zone) which is
equivalent to the second zone pumping time.
™ MST time savings was four (4) days less than a conventional stacked pack (two zones).

Choosing the correct completion technique is the primary objective of every completion engineer. Understanding the risks and
costs associated with each completion type is essential in performing this task.

Introduction
The continued burgeoning of deepwater exploration at depths that demand the need for the application successful technologies
that maximizes efficiency, minimizes costs and reduces risk has led to various sand face completion options limitations being
expanded and have evolved to a higher generation over the past decade. These systems push the limits as far as the ability to
provide higher pressure differentials, treating rates and erosion with several diagnostic options that minimize trip time and enhance
savings. Generally trip time is the single largest non productive tiem contributor but necessary operation to perform the
completion. Evaluation of risk vs. the intended system to be used vs. the cost benefit is a critical aspect of the final completion
methodology choice that one can make.

Completion Types
Four (4) different completion techniques were utilized in the development. The complete types are broken into two (2)
categories: Singles and Stacked Single Selectives. The definition of each technique, the number of required trips for each, and the
subject well is as follows:

Single
1. Conventional single - Single zone completion with independent perforating and gravel packing trips
2. Single Trip Perforate and Pack System (STPP)2 - Single zone completion gravel pack with independent perforating and
gravel packing trips
2 SPE 137861

Conventional Single (CS) 2½ Trips

Single Trip Perforate and Pack (STPP) 1½ Trips

Stacked Single Selective Completion

1. Conventional Stacked Pack - Two zone stimulation
2. Multi-Zone Single Trip – Completing Multiple zone stimulations with a single trip to perforate and a single trip to
complete

Conventional Stacked Pack (CSP) 5½ Trips

Multizone Single Trip (MST) 3 Trips

A trip is defined, as a round trip into the wellbore with workstring. A round trip electric line (EL) trip is deemed a half trip on
workstring.

Risks Related to Single Trip Systems

Understanding risk as well as the various elements associated with each option is critical to making the right decision and the
ability to better develop ways and strategies to mitigate those risks. The bottomline premise is that every option or system has
risk, but risk is relative and must we weighed carefully especially in deepwater. Risk increases with new technology till is matures
and kinks are ironed out and with every trip made into the wellbore coupled with the simplicity or complexity of the system that is
being utilized. Developing cost effective risk mitigation strategy with practical contegincies is critical to ensure that each technique
is in fact an option suitable to the project. For example MST1-8 technology though proven over time is still in its infantile stage
with the new generation tools in ultradeep completions. Higher risks sometimes present higher rewards especially but maybe a
viable solution with proper risk mitigation strategies. Hence candidate selection and technique application go hand in hand.

Risk evaluation and mitigation through the lower completion should address the following as well:
™ During the entire completion phase
™ Post completion – i.e. production initiation and wellbore entry phases post-production

When comparing risks associated with each system, one must recognize that certain risks are no different regardless of the
technique being considered or maybe the same from a certain point forward for each of the techniques. Prior to determining the
applicability of a system, one would need to weigh the associated quailifiers that would need to be fulfilled in order to utilize the
particular system. Some requirements are an absolute and and some cannot be compromised. For example if a STPP2 system
were to be utilized, the following criterior maybe deemed critical:

Critical risks to be considered – MST and STTP Systems:

™ Rathole – An absolute. Necessary for the guns to drop into. Drilling impact; higher pressured zones if one drills
deeper; associated costs?
™ Perforating Technique – Underbalance or Overbalanced – Risk with each and impact of GP tool configuration; impact
on levels of risk between both techniques
™ Reservoir Characteristics – gun shock wave dissipation; separating between guns and GP assembly
™ BHP – especially critical in MST applications due to FLC considerations and handling of pressures during post Stim
operations for each zone
™ Fluid Loss Rate – critical for well control, hardware issues
™ Well Deviation and dog leg severeity – ability for the gun to drop, ability to get weight to bottom risks, mitigation
™ Fluid Loss Rate – pre-setting of packers, well control, type of brine and associated costs, formation damage
™ Casing profile and archtecture – displacements, pre-post perforating debris cleanup especially critical in MST
applications
™ Interval length – associated risk with deviation and debris cleanout; long zones overbalanced perforating impact10 -
dynamic underbalance, sticking guns
™ Economics – Evaluate the impact of “cost of failure”

Essentially risks as related to conventional systems are no different for a Single vs. a Stacked conventional completions. The
risk lies in the fact that one spends more time performing the same operation twice in the wellbore. Smilply stated, “As exposure
time increases exposure to risk increases”.
SPE 137861 3

Some considerations related to selecting hardware and planned techniques are as follows:
™ Addresses and minimizes operational risk with mitigation options
™ Capable of executing necessary contingencies and diagnostics
™ Perforating – technique based on knowledge of reservoir characteristics
™ Fit for purpose equipment – pressure differential rating, erosion limits and flow rate ratings, reservoir isolation
™ Fluid loss rate and control
™ Low risk time saving features
™ Total isolation and selectivity as necessary

Case Histories1
A series of case histories from the Longhorn Development will be utilized to indentify the normalized time differences between
the completion types. A summary of the case history wells and their completion types is detailed below in Table 1: Case History &
Completion Type

Table 1: Case History & Completion Type

Well Completion
Type
MC 546 Well 1 CS
MC 502 Well 1 CS
MC 502 Well 2 MST
MC 459 Well 1 STPP
MC 502 Well 3 STPP/CSP
MC 502 Well 1 & 3 Modified CSP

Case History # 1: MC 546 Well 1

Case History #1 is a summary of the execution of MC 546 Well 1. MC 546 Well 1 was completed with as a CS in the Sand C.
A measured depth log section of the subject completion can be seen in Figure 2: Case History #1: MC 546 Well 1: Log Section.

The MC 546 Well 1 STPP operational summary is detailed below:

Table 2: MC 546 Well 1 CS Operational Summary

Phase Trip Completion Step
EL ½ Set Sump Packer on EL (Datum).
MU / RIH with guns
Snap in/out of Sump Packer
Space-out to Perforate
Perf 1 Set TCP Packer
Pressure up down tubing. Perforate Overbalanced
Monitor losses
POOH & LD Guns
PU GP Assembly
Set GP Packer
FP 1 Frac-Pack Sand C
Close Sleeves. Test same.
POOH.

MC 546 Well 1 was perforated TCP overbalanced with tools, to reduce operational risk, and no extreme fluid loss was
indentified. No manipulation of the perforating test tools was required. The guns were tripped out of the hole without incident.

The next trip was with the CS GP assembly. The MC 546 Well 1 GP assembly consisted of four (4) joints of screen and three
(3) joints of blank pipe and the upper gravel pack packer. An internal isolation assembly with hydraulically activated sliding
sleeves was run for a mechanical fluid barrier. An illustration of the the installed lower completion design can be seen in Figure 6:
4 SPE 137861

Case History #3: MC 502 Well 2: Lower Completion Diagram. This completion design is similar for all of the lower zone case
histories. A total of 2½ trips is required for this completion type.

Case History # 2: MC 502 Well 1

Case History #1 is a summary of the execution of MC 502 Well 1. MC 502 Well 1 was completed with as a CS in the Sand A.
Well 1 was the primary completion for the development. A measured depth log section of the subject completion can be seen in
Figure 4: Case History #2: MC 502 Well 1: Log Section.

The MC 502 Well 1 STPP operational summary is the same as Case History #1: MC 546 Well 1. MC 502 Well 1 was
perforated TCP overbalanced with tools, to reduce operational risk. After perforating, fluid losses in excess of 200 bph were
realized. The guns were tripped out of the hole without incident.

The next trip was with the CS GP assembly. The MC 502 Well 1 GP assembly consisted of six (6) joints of screen and four (4)
joints of blank pipe and the upper gravel pack packer. An internal isolation assembly with hydraulically activated sliding sleeves
was run for a mechanical fluid barrier.

Case History # 3: MC 502 Well 2

Case History #3 is a summary of the execution of MC 502 Well 2. Well 2 was completed with a MST in the Sand C (lower
and upper lobes). A measured depth log section of the subject completion can be seen in Figure 5: Case History #3: MC 502 Well 2:
Log Section. Sand C was broken into 2 small lobes with a large shale section between the productive intervals. The perforated
intervals, illustrated in track 3 of the log section, were 12ft and 24ft respectively with a 43ft shale section between the intervals.

The MC 502 Well 2 MST operational summary is detailed below in Table 3: MC 502 Well 2 Operational Summary:

Table 3: MC 502 Well 2 Operational Summary

Phase Trip Completion Step
EL ½ Set Depth Verification tool (DVT) on EL (Datum).
MU / RIH with guns (For both intervals Sand B
Lower & Upper) & mill, scraper and magnet
Latch Guns
Disconnect using on/off tool
PU 10 Stands (As Per Shock Analysis)
Perf 1
Pressure up entire system. Perforate Overbalanced
Guns Drop
Monitor losses
Scrape perfs (10 Times)
POOH
EL ½ Run sump packer on EL.
PU Sand B Lower and Upper MST Assembly
Pressure Test prior to RIH
Break Glass Disk
Set Upper GP Packer
Release tool.
FP 1 Set Isolation Packer.
Reverse out Ball.
Frac-Pack Sand B Lower Lobe (12 ft perfs)
Close sleeves. Test same
Frac-Pack Sand B Upper Lobe (24 ft perfs)
Close Sleeves. Test same.

MC 502 Well 2 was perforated utilizing a gun-drop system. A DVT was set as a depth reference, then TCP guns were run and
located in the DVT. An on/off tool allowed the perforating string to be disconnected and repositioned to a safe distance uphole (10
stands). Both intervals were perforated slightly overbalanced with 12 spf by pressuring up the entire system. When the guns fired,
the DVT released and the guns fell into the sump area below the lower interval perforations. After monitoring losses, the
SPE 137861 5

perforations were scraped utilizing the spiral mill with ten (passes) through both perforation intervals. The spiral mill, scraper,
magnet and on/off tool were the only tools run in the perforating string.

The next trip was with the MST assembly. The MC 502 Well 2 MST assembly consisted of one (1) joint of screen for the
lower zone (including two (2) wire wrapped sliding sleeves), isolation packer between zones, of one (1) joint of screen for the
upper zone (including two (2) wire wrapped sliding sleeves), two (2) joints of balnk pipe and the upper gravel pack packer. This
assembly was tested at the surface and RIH in one (1) trip. An illustration of the the installed lower completion design can be seen
in Figure 6: Case History #3: MC 502 Well 2: Lower Completion Diagram.

The GP and isolation packers were set and tested without incident. Both frac packs were performed with a single boat
mobilization. Between intervals, the lower frac sleeve and sliding sleeves were tested successfully and the upper zone was
performed. However, it took three (3) attempts to get a good test before moving to the second FP. Ultimately the leak was
identified to be on the rig floor. A total of seven (7) hours was required between the two (2) frac packs. After the second FP, prior
to POOH with the cross-over tool, all sleeves were tested successfully.

Case History # 4: MC 459 Well 1

Case History #4 is a summary of the execution of MC 459 Well 1. Well 1 was completed with a STPP in Sand B. A measured
depth log section of the subject completion can be seen in
Figure 7: Case History #4: MC 459 Well 1: Log Section.

The MC 459 Well 1 STPP operational summary is detailed below:

Table 4: MC 459 Well 1 Operational Summary

Phase Trip Completion Step
EL ½ Set Depth Verification tool (DVT) on EL (Datum).
MU / RIH with guns & GP Equipment
Latch Guns
Disconnect using on/off tool
Perf 1 PU 10 Stands (As Per Shock Analysis)
Pressure up entire system. Perforate Overbalanced
Guns Drop
Monitor losses
Lower GP to correct position
Set Mechanical Sump Packer
Set GP Packer
FP 0
Frac-Pack Sand B
Close Sleeves. Test same.
POOH.

MC 459 Well 1 was the first STPP performed. First a DVT was set in the well to serve as a depth reference. Then the guns
and gravel pack assembly were run in a single trip. The MC 459 Well 1 STPP assembly consisted 60ft of guns, On/Off tool, a
mechanical sump packer, two (2) joints of screen and four (4) joints of blank pipe and the upper gravel pack packer. An internal
isolation assembly with hydraulically activated sliding sleeves was run for a mechanical fluid barrier.

After locating the DVT, the guns were left in position utilizing the On/Off tool, as in Case History #2, and the GP assembly
was moved uphole a safe distance (10 stands). The entire system was pressured up and the interval was perforated with a time
delay firing head. No significant fluid losses were identified. The GP assembly was then lowered into position and the
mechanical sump packer and GP packers were set. After frac packing the interval, the mechanical sliding sleeve was closed and
tested successfully. The total number of trips required for this completion type was 1½.
6 SPE 137861

Case History # 5: MC 502 Well 3

Case History #5 is a summary of the execution of MC 502 Well 3. Well 3 was completed with a STPP in the lower zone (Sand
D) and a CSP in the upper zone (Sand C). Measured depth log sections of the subject completions can be seen in Figure 8.

The MC 502 Well 3 STPP/CSP operational summary is detailed below:

Table 5: MC 502 Well 3 Operational Summary

Phase Trip Completion Step
EL ½ Set Depth Verification tool (DVT) on EL (Datum).
MU / RIH with guns & GP Equipment
Latch Guns
Disconnect using on/off tool
Perf 1 PU 20 Stands (As Per Shock Analysis)
Pressure up entire system. Perforate Overbalanced
Guns Drop
Monitor losses
Lower GP to correct position. Set Mechanical Sump
Packer
Set GP Packer
FP 0
Frac-Pack Sand D
Close Sleeves. Test same.
POOH.
MU / RIH with packer plug, guns (Upper Interval) &
Test tools
Snap in/out of Sump Packer
Space-out to Perforate
Set TCP Packer
Perf 2 Pressure up down tubing. Perforate Overbalanced
Monitor losses
POOH & LD Guns
PU Clean-out Assembly
Wash down through perforation to packer plug
Pull Packer Plug. POOH and LD same.
PU GP Assembly
Set GP Packer
Frac-Pack Sand D
FP 1 Close Sleeves. Test same.
POOH.
Frac-Pack Sand B Upper Lobe (24 ft perfs)
Close Sleeves. Test same.

MC 502 Well 3 was a combination of completion types. The lower zone was the second STPP performed, and trhe upper zone
was a conventional stacked selective. As in Case Histories 3 & 4, a DVT was set in the well to serve as a depth reference. Then
the guns and gravel pack assembly were run in a single trip. The MC 502 Well 3 STPP assembly consisted 40ft of guns, On/Off
tool, a mechanical sump packer, two (2) joints of screen and three (3) joints of blank pipe and the upper gravel pack packer. An
internal isolation assembly with hydraulically activated sliding sleeve was run for a mechanical fluid barrier.

After locating the DVT, the guns were left in position utilizing the On/Off tool, the GP assembly was moved uphole a safe
distance (20 stands). The distance was greater for MC 502 Well 3 due to the shock analuysis program. The lower interval in the
subject well was being completed in 7¾” casing, Case History #4 was completed in 9⅞” casing. The entire system was pressured
up and the interval was perforated with a time delay firing head. No significant fluid losses were identified. The GP assembly was
then lowered into position and the mechanical sump packer and GP packers were set. After frac packing the interval, the
mechanical sliding sleeve was closed and tested successfully. The total number of trips required for this completion type was 1½.
SPE 137861 7

However, the shock analysis should be considered on a case by case basis to determine if the additional time required for tripping
the GP assembly to a safe depth affects the time analysis. MC 502 Well 3 (Lower zone) was the fastest STPP.

An isolation assembly including tubing and an isolation packer was run to space out for the upper completion. The isolation
packer serves as the sump or datum for perforating. The time for running the isolation assembly was not included in the evaluation
of the completion techniques.

The upper zone for MC 502 Well 3 is the Case History for the CST. The packer plug and perforating guns were run on the
next trip. After the packer plug was located in the isolation packer, the TCP were spaced out to perforate the upper sand, Sand C.
After setting the test packer, the upper sand was perforated with tubing pressure and a time delay firing head. No significant losses
were identified. The TCP were then POOH and LD. An additional clean-out trip is not run to clean any debris on top of the
packer plug and to retrieve the packer plug. A hydrostatic bailer was utilized on this run, due to the high angle, to wash any debris
off the plug. No significant debris was recovered. The final trip was the upper zone GP assembly which consisted of one (1) joint
of screen and three (3) joints of blank pipe. Isolation tubing was run with the GP assembly with a hydraulically activated annular
flow valve for fluid loss. After GP the upper zone, the mechanical sleeve was closed and tested successfully. Three (3) additional
trips were required for the selective zone. A total of 4½ trips were required for Case History #5.

Case History #5 was modified for the analysis to give a true comparison of the CSP to Case History #5: MC 502 Well 3 and
Case History #3. The fastest CS, Case History #1: MC 546 Well 1, was combined with the MC 502 Well 3 Upper Zone. The
results of the modificationis detailed as Case History #5 Modified. The total number of trips for the Case History #5 Modified is
5½.

Case History Comparison & Evaluation

The actual completion design and results are detailed in
Table 6: Completion Type & Well General Descriptions and Table 8: Completion Type & Time Comparisons, respectively. As
discussed, the comparison of the wells and completion techniques is valid because of the similarities of each (productive horizons,
MD, TVD, completion fluid, pressure regime (ppg) and hole angle).

Table 6: Completion Type & Well General Descriptions: Single Zone / Lower Zones

Well MC 546 MC 502 MC 459 MC 502

Well 1 Well 1 Well 1 Well 3
Case History 1 2 4 5
Completion Type CS CS STPP STPP
Zone Sand C Sand A Sand B Sand D
Completion Fluid, Type & ppg CaBr2 CaBr2 CaBr2 CaBr2
13.3 ppg 13.3 ppg 13.3 ppg 13.3 ppg
Angle @ Perforations 34 41 29 63

For comparison, two (2) CS were performed and two (2) STPP were performed.

Table 7: Completion Type & Well General Descriptions: Stacked Single Selectives

Well MC 502 MC 502

Well 2 Well 3
Case History 3 5
Completion Type CS STPP/CSP
Lower Zone Sand C Sand D
Upper Zone Sand C Sand C
Completion Fluid, Type & ppg CaBr2 CaBr2
13.3 ppg 13.3 ppg
Angle @ Perforations 55 63

For comparison, the MC 502 Well 2 (MST), MC 502 Well 3 (STPP/CSP) and a modified CSP (Case History #5M) are detailed
below.
8 SPE 137861

The time provided is the actual time in hours for each phase normalized for non-productive time (Actual Time – NPT).
Normalized time, without NPT or trouble, is a more accurate comparison of the time required for each technique.

A comparison of all the Case Histories is as follows:

Table 8: Completion Type & Time Comparisons

Phase MC 546 MC 502 MC 502 MC 459 MC 502 MC 546 Well 1
Well 1 Well 1 Well 2 Well 1 Well 3 MC 502 Well 3
Case History # 1 2 3 4 5 5 Modified
Completion Type CS CS MST STPP STPP/CSP CSP
EL 10 11 7 22 17 10
Perforating 42 37 39 33 26 42
Frac Packing 55 63 47 30 38 55
Lower Zone Totals (Hours) 107 111 93 85 81 107
EL 7 0 0
Perforating & Packer Plug Pull 0 76 76
Frac Packing 20 39 39
Upper Zone Totals (Hours) 27 115 115
Totals (Hours) 107 111 120 81 196 222

A summary of the results are as follows:

™ The average difference between the CS (Case Histories 1&2) and the STPP (Case Histoiries 4&5) is 26 hours.
™ Case History # 3 (MST) took only 13 hours longer than the fastest conventional single (Case History #1: MC 546
Well 1). This time is equal to the additional pumping time required for the second frac pack.
™ Case History # 3 (MST) was 102 hours less than the modified conventional stacked pack (Case History #5 Modified:
CST: MC 546 Well 1 Lower Zone & MC 502 Well 3 Upper Zone) and 76 hours faster than Case History #5.
Therefore, considering risks and NPT, the expected MST time savings for multiple intervals is approximately 5-7 days
as compared to a CSP.

Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made from the results of the case histories:

1. Conventional, Single and Multitrip systems are a all viable completion options
2. Single Trip Perforate and Pack (STPP) should be considered for ant gas interval that can be perforated overbalanced.
3. Multizone Single trip systems should be considered for any stacked gas completions, where both intervals can be
perforated overbalanced at the same time.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of ENI Petroleum, and BJ Services for permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
Bpm Barrels per minute
Bopd Barrels oil per day
EMW Equivalent Mud Weight
FP Frac pack
Ft Feet
GP Gravel pack
HRWP High rate water pack
ID Internal diameter
Lbs Pounds
LZ Lower zone
MD Measured depth
MMcfd Million cubic feet per day
SPE 137861 9

md-ft Millidarcy-feet
ppg Pounds per gallon
SW Seawater
TCP Tubing Conveyed Perforating
TD Total depth
TSO Tip screen out
TVD True vertical depth
UZ Upper zone

References
1. J.R. Sanford, E.J. Flanagan, J. Bruton, J. Woomer, J.C. Prince, ENI Petroleum; J.M. Landry, C. Hansen, BJ Services, “Multizone
Single Trip (MST): Deepwater and Downward Recompletion Case Histories” SPE 134681
2. Blane Cole, Bernard M. Franklin, SPE, BJ Services USA, Rick Cody, Rodney Littleton, SPE, Pioneer Natural Resources “The
Viability of Single Trip Sand Control Completions in Deepwater – A Case History”, SPE 97147
3. Clarkson, B., Grigsby, T., Ross, C., Sevadjian, E., Techentien, B., “Evolution of Single Trip Multizone Completion Technology: How
State-of-the-Art New Developments Can Meet Toda’s ultra Deep Needs”, SPE 116245.
4. Capra, L., Ripa, G., Ferra, G., and Travis, R., “Field Experiences and Guidlines for Using Non-Viscous Fluids in Frac Pack
Operations”, SPE 36945.
5. Maroli, R., Ripa, G., Minilli, G., and McCulloch, D., “Development of Frac-and-Pack Techniques in a Multilayer Reservoir, Offshore
Italy”, SPE 36900.
6. Vickery, E.H., Bayne, C., “New One Trip Multizone Frac Pack System with Positive Positioning”, SPE 78316.
7. Visser, R.C., “The Beta Field Development Project”, November 1982, JPT
8. Bennett, J.S., Sanders, T.K., Grigsby, T.F., Fucum, Y., Yaxin, B., “Multizone Gravel Pack Techniques: Case Studies from The South
China Sea Xijiang Development”, SPE 39650.
9. Rogers, J.T., Bennett, J.S., T.K., Grigsby, T.F., Zhang, Y.K., Yang, Y.J., “A Review of the Comnpletions and Gravel Pack Techniques
of the Xijiang Development”, SPE 29956.
10. M. Banman, E. Delattre, M. Sofyan, S. Suryadana., “Single Trip Multi-Zone gravel parking – Case Study at handil, bekapai & Sisi
Nubi Fields” IPTC 12388

Figures

Figure 1: Longhorn Field Development Area

10 SPE 137861

Figure 2: Case History #1: MC 546 Well 1: Log Section

SPE 137861 11

PAC

PAC

Figure 3: Case History #1: MC 546 Well 1: Lower Completion Design

Figure 4: Case History #2: MC 502 Well 1: Log Section

12 SPE 137861

13283

13307

13350

13362

Figure 5: Case History #3: MC 502 Well 2: Log Section

FP Upper Completion (36 klbs @ 12 bpm)

GP Packer
Sand C 80’ of Blank
Upper Lobe 38’ of Screen (Wire-Wrapped Sliding Sleeves)
13283-307’ (24 ft)
O-P1
O-P1
FP Lower Completion (18 klbs @ 12bpm)
43 ft Iso-Packer (34’ serves as blank)
No Blank
23’ of Screen (Wire-Wrapped Sliding Sleeves)
Sand C
O-P2
O-P2
Lower Lobe
13350-362’ (12 ft)

Fluid Loss Device: Wire-wrapped sliding sleeves (2 per interval)

Figure 6: Case History #3: MC 502 Well 2: Lower Completion Diagram

SPE 137861 13

Figure 7: Case History #4: MC 459 Well 1: Log Section

Sand D Sand C

Figure 8: Case History #5: MC 502 Well 3: Log Sections

14 SPE 137861

Figure 9: Case History #5: MC 502 Well 3: Lower Completion Design