SPE-193038-MS

Pioneering Rigless Perforating, Clean-Up Operation, Well Testing with MPLT

and Bottom Hole Sampling in Remote Platform

Preveen Kumar Rajan Preveen, Adhi Naharindra Adhi, Shazana M Zaki Shazana, and Mior Yusni Mior,
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD; Nurbaiti Baharuddin Nurbaiti, EXPROGroup

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

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
Optimization of mature fields in maximizing the hydrocarbon recovery has been a major concern for
exploration and production companies including Malaysian oil companies. Field A was discovered as gas
field in 1980. A minimum sized 4 slot remote wellhead jacket with no processing facilities and helideck was
installed for the development of the field. Oil bearing reservoirs were encountered in two blocks at Zone 5
during the gas development drilling and was not part of the original PSC.
As part of commitment to Malaysian host authority after taking over the field from an Independent Oil
Company, the Project Management Team (PMT) were required to submit the Project Field Development
(PFD) for oil reservoir development. Thus, perforation, sampling, well testing and logging were planned
at well 1 to obtain representative fluid sample for PVT analysis and flow assurance studies. Considering
the current downturn in the industry, critical decisions were made to conduct this campaign without the
assistance of a drilling or workover rig which led to challenging phase of planning and execution within
limited time frame. Through further optimization, the campaign kick started with a stringent budget and
selection of concept which eliminated the requirement of a rig in order to achieve the objective set. A
conventional Well Testing package with independent power source, lifting capability, wax management and
heat radiation control was selected in order to meet the objective with the full capability to conduct well
clean up, Multi Rate Test, Memory Production Logging and bottom hole PVT sampling.
The strategy of execution had led to a successful campaign with no HSE issues and fast tracked the project
delivery by minimizing operation duration up to 1 month which resulted in 49% of cost saving (compared
to the total planned project cost). The objectives of testing the reservoirs and understand the flow behavior
of stacked layers of sand were achieved with sufficient bottom hole samples collected for facilities studies
and field development "
2 SPE-193038-MS

Figure 1—Map offshore Malaysia

Field Background
Field A is located 140km offshore Bintulu with a water depth of 50 m. It was first discovered in 1980,
with the first discovery being gas. Field A consists of three Exploration Wells (#X1, #X2, #X3) and two
Development Wells Well #1 and Well #2) with Miocene sandstone reservoir. The platform was designed
for eight wells with minimum facility platform jacket.
The gas from the Field A DR-A platform is transported wet via a duplex steel flexible pipeline to the
Field B complex for processing. Upon FGD, there is no gas allege at the Field B gas compression facilities
to support Field A gas production. Oil was discovered in 2014, during Phase I FDP drilling by the previous
PSC operator, and oil bearing reservoirs (Zone 5) were encountered, however no oil sample was acquired
or well test conducted.

Project Strategy
Field A platform is a small, four-slot, wellhead jacket and in order to utilize standard well test and perforation
equipment, a comprehensive structural study was required as the platform was not designed to withhold
temporary equipment on the deck. A special team from PETRONAS was formed to look into this in more
depth and conduct a study into the platform structure and weight distribution. After several discussions
between PETRONAS and Expro, PETRONAS managed to give final weights that could be placed on the
platform, which was 97.5 MT. There was no requirement for strengthening the topside and the piles were
robust enough to withstand additional loading. However, if the load was to exceed from the weight indicated,
a pile ageing would have been required even though the load was only required for a short duration.

Figure 2—FIELD A Platform structural simulation

SPE-193038-MS 3

With the final weight provided by PETRONAS, Expro suggested the Light Weight Testing Package as a
solution. However due to the objective flow rate being too high to handle with the Light Weight Separator,
a conventional separator was used together with conventional flare boom. This solution also covered the
electrical requirement, instrument air, water and fuel requirement as the platform was not in operation during
well testing and perforation. PETRONAS was satisfied that the structure could handle the overall weight
of the equipment required to cover a 24hr operation.

Wax Strategy
During the equipment preparation and planning, the pore point simulation revealed that the flow close to
the wax envelope as per normal well testing required a Steam Generator and Steam Exchanger to handle
the wax problem. Standard heat exchangers and steam generators were considered, however later rejected
due to excessive weight and large footprint. With detail simulation and a further study by PETRONAS well
test team, it was decided it was not possible to flow the well without any heating method, which could
jeopardize the operation. A brainstorming between PETRONAS well test team and Expro was established
in order to come up with better solution to tackle the wax problem. With vast experience in production,
the team came up with a Heat Tracing solution. The technology is more common in winter environments
where a heating cable is wound thru the pipeline in order to heat up oil in the pipe. This option was new
to PETRONAS and Expro in Asia for well testing. Again, detailed studies and calculations were carried
out with a heat tracing vendor in Singapore, and with a series of modifications and the correct cable type,
it seemed suitable to apply to the application. With a comprehensive result provided, the heat tracing cable
would need to be applied on the upstream of the piping and need to cover the vessel of the separator in order
to heat up and maintain the temperature of the fluid.

Figure 2—Heat Tracing Cable Component

Figure 3—Modified Separator with Heat Tracing application

Burner booms are essential for burning and disposing of oil and gas safely and it is a common piece
of equipment in conventional well testing. Burner booms are a cost effective and environmentally friendly
way to dispose of oil and gas compared to utilize tank vessel, as this option is quite costly and comes with a
series of environmental problems if accidents happen. Not without their own challenges, burner booms can
create different problems such as heat radiation from the flare, and noise radiation from the burning. Heat
can damage the sensitive equipment on the rig/platform, can create a fire hazard, or the noise can create
4 SPE-193038-MS

hearing problems for workers. Installing the burner boom in the Drilling Rig is not usually a problem as
the rig is normally equipped with a water cooling system and dedicated well testing area where the noise
effect is reduced. However, on Field A there was no rig assist and again a comprehensive study and heat
radiation simulation was conducted to establish the effects of heat and noise radiation. Utilizing a normal
water cooling system was not an option due to the weight constraint.

Figure 4—shows a comprehensive Burner Boom calculation attached to

Expro, along with a partner company, came up with the Light Weight Water cooling system, which utilizes
a Semi-Submersible pump and eliminated the surface booster pump. With this configuration, the equipment
footprint and weight was kept to a minimum, but with correct hydraulic calculation, was still able to deliver
outstanding performance to reduce the heat created from the burner boom. Expro also utilized the longest
burner in its inventory and issued double ear protection to all personnel during flaring operations to reduce
the risks associated with the noise.

Figure 5—Heat Radiation simulation

SPE-193038-MS 5

Figure 6—FIELD A platform with burner boom installed

Platform Equipment Loading Plan

As the job was executed without a drilling rig and this was the first time perforation and well testing had
been carried out in this way, a HAZOP and risk assessment was conducted to ensure the job was conducted
safely and smoothly.
Work vessel (Dayang Opal) was hired to assist with the project. The vessel was used to transport all
equipment from Labuan to Field A platform, as well as lifting equipment to the platform. The vessel was
also utilized to assist with burner boom rig up and so a comprehensive assessment was carried out, as the
vessel was required to be in several positions and deal with several anchoring jobs. In addition, the vessel
served as a floating hotel for the job as the crew were on 24hrs operation.

Figure 7—Showing number of Work Boat position in order to install burner boom and lifting activity
6 SPE-193038-MS

Figure 8—Dayang Opal Work boat used for FIELD A project

Perforation strategy
As there was no drilling rig assist to do the perforation, Tubing Conveyed Perforation (TCP) was not an
option. The two options available were wireline (e-line) perforation and slickline perforation. After a series
of discussions and comparisons against cost and effectiveness, slickline perforation was chosen based on
several reasons; it was a more cost effective option compared to wireline due to the less complex nature of
the operation in terms of rigging up the equipment; the equipment was lighter compared to wireline; and
still served the perforation objective.

Table 1—Comparison between Slickline and Wireline

The perforation job commenced by rigging up the slickline equipment and surface preparation. Next, a
tubing clearance run was performed to ensure during the RIH gun there was no obstruction or any HUD/
fluid level encounter. During this clearance run, the full length of dummy gun was rigged up to simulate the
real gun. Then TFW to create an underbalance condition which was around 500psi. Finally, another dummy
run was performed gun and GL-CCL correlation. Due to the limitation of riser length, a total of #16 add
perf run were performed in order to cover the length of perforation interval.
SPE-193038-MS 7

Table 2—Plan perforation depth

Well Testing, Sampling and PLT

The well testing equipment was then rigged up, which took around two days due to the minimum platform
facility. However, with the HAZOP and risk assessment in place, a step by step rig-up procedure was created
in order to maintain safety to personnel and to protect PETRONAS' asset. When all equipment was rigged
up, a site pressure test was carried out to ensure pipe and equipment integrity. This was done through a
series of pumps to get water as the platform was not able to supply water.

Table 3—Perforation design vs actual operation

When all tests were completed and verified, the well was ready to commence the perforation job. With
the perforation run and gun fired, the well was cleaned and substance sent to the burner boom. After the
well was considered clean, the program was diverted to main flow where important well data was captured,
and a series of MRT runs were planned in order to complete the reservoir model.
Once the data was captured and verified by the Well Test Engineer and Reservoir Engineer, the flow was
diverted to Sampling flow period, where the bottom hole sample was RIH with slickline and at the same
time, the PVT sample was captured on the surface. Well testing then commenced on maximum flow to test
the reservoir behavior. Once all data was captured and verified, the well was shut in and secured.
The PLT run was then conducted to determine zonal contribution upon establishment of stabilized flow
on surface using well test equipment. The logging interval will be between 7,363 - 10,070 ft mddf (2,707
ft interval). Estimated zonal contribution based on KH ratio as per above table 3.

Conclusion and Achievement

In conclusion, this was an extremely successful job and a great demonstration of team work between
PETRONAS and Expro. Having been executed as a rig-less operation, the campaign yielded approximately
49% cost saving from total cost project. In addition 40% increase in oil rate was achieved.
The waxy crude was successfully produced without any flow assurance issue and representative bottom
hole sample was collected for PVT analysis and FDP planning.
8 SPE-193038-MS

All objectives were achieved as per the program and all data required was captured successfully. In
addition, the job was executed with no injury or incident. The whole campaign took 37 days compared to
an estimated 42 days.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the management of PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd (PCSB), Malaysia Petroleum
Management (MPM), and EXPRO Engineering for their continuous support in performing these operations
and for their permission and encouragement to write this paper.

Nomenclature
MPM = Malaysia Petroleum Management
MRT = Multi Rate
PVT = Pressure Volume Temperature
MPLT = Memory Production Logging
FDP = Tubing Head Pressure
GOR = Gas Oil Ratio
PCSB = PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd
PLT = Production Logging
HAZOP = Hazard and Operability Study
TCP = Tubing Conveyed Perforation

References
1. PETRONAS technical standards operation management 40.036, General procedures for
production testing offshore exploration/appraisal wells, May 1991.
2. PETRONAS Procedures and Guidelines for Upstream Activities 3.0 volume 5, Exploration
management and 6, Field Development 2013.
3. Expro reference API RP 14C, API RP 14E (1981-1984) for process safety and erosion velocity.
4. Expro reference : Brzustowski and Sommer 1973, Oenbring and Sifferman 1980, API Std 521 for
heat radiation
5. API 500 and 505 for hazardous areas.