1

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

© 2014 BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE: BY ACCEPTING THIS DOCUMENT, THE RECIPIENT AGREES THAT THE DOCUMENT TOGETHER WITH ALL INFORMATION INCLUDED THEREIN IS THE

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED AND INCLUDES VALUABLE TRADE SECRETS AND/OR PROPRIETARY INF ORMATION OF BAKER HUGHES (COLLECTIVELY " INFORMATION"). BAKER HUGHES RETAINS ALL RIGHTS

UNDER COPYRIGHT LAWS AND TRADE SECRET LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. THE RECIPIENT FURTHER AGREES TH AT THE DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, TRANSMITTED, COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR

IN PART BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC, MECHANICAL, OR OTHERWISE, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BAKER HUGHES, AND MA Y NOT BE USED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY WAY DETRIMENTAL TO BAKER HUGHES’ INTEREST.

Introduction of Gravel Pack with Inflow Control

Completion in Brazil

6th European Sand Management Forum

Abrahão Jardim / Alberto Costa / Tobias Rocha / Hang Nguyen / Peter Kidd – Baker Hughes

Daniela Leite / Arcindo Santos – Statoil Brasil

2

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Agenda

▪ Objectives

▪ Reservoir Information

▪ Conventional Gravel Pack ICD Gravel Pack – Well Design

▪ Challenges

▪ Case History #1

▪ Case History # 2

▪ Conclusions

3

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Objectives

▪ Provide sand control

▪ Provide uniform inflow along long horizontal well

▪ Provide additional oil production compared with standard screens

4

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Reservoir Information

▪ Peregrino field is located 85 km offshore Brazil (Campos Basin)

▪ 24 km of extension

▪ Water depth around 100 m

▪ API: 140

▪ Unconsolidated sands and thin heavy oil-bearing sections

▪ Wells require sand control techniques

▪ Producer wells: 30

5

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Reservoir Simulation Studies

▪ Evaluate the well completion effect on the reservoir behavior of horizontal well in

Peregrino field, considering:

– OHGP with Standard Screen vs. OHGP with ICD screen completion

– Water injection effect

– Determine ICD type and rating, joint quantity and optimum flow resistance rating

– Determine additional pressure drop requirements with ICD completion

– Estimate the oil and water cumulative production with and without ICD Technology

– Estimate the oil and water influx (bpd/ft) behavior

6

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Reservoir Simulation Observations

▪ ICD completions add value in the long term when it is compared with standard

completion.

▪ ICD completion promote an evenly fluid influx along the horizontal section and delay

in the water breakthrough

▪ It is recommendable to install sliding sleeve (mechanical water shut off) in order to

control the water production (after 5 years); reservoir simulations (based on ICD with

6.4FRR flow resistance rating) show that water will come mainly from reservoir

areas with less flow resistance in the porous media (more permeability)

7

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Conventional Gravel Pack vs. ICD Gravel Pack – Well Design

Typical Architecture for Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack Wells with standard screens

Typical Architecture for Horizontal Open Hole Gravel Pack Wells with ICD screens

GP Packer 5-1/2” Standard Screens

Bull Plug

2.71 SG Proppant

GP Packer 5-1/2” ICD Screens 5-1/2” Standard Screen

Bull Plug

LWP 1.75 SG Proppant

Sliding Sleeve

8

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges

ICD screens restrict fluid from entering the screens/washpipe annulus resulting in a

lower alpha dune height

Pumping rate during beta wave placement must be slowly reduced to stay below

fracture pressure

9

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Hookup for Gravel Packing with ICD Screen

OHGP Crossover

Tool

Anti-Swabbing LBHP Tool

Shifting Tool

Indicating Collet

Indicator Couplings

Fluid Loss Control Valve

EQUALIZER Screen

Sliding Sleeve

2-Way Shifting

Tool

Perforated Tubing

10

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Configuration During Gravel Packing

EQUALIZER Screen

Double Pin Sub

Premium Screen

Bull Plug

Washpipe

Crossover Sub

Sliding Sleeve

Bull Plug

Perforated Tube

Shifting Tool

11

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Configuration During Production

EQUALIZER Screen

Double Pin Sub

Premium Screen

Bull Plug Bull Plug

Sliding Sleeve

12

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges - The Proppant Selection

Select the correct proppant to be transported at low rates without settling

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

ST

P, p

si

Lateral Length, ft

STP vs. Lateral Length

STP-alpha

STP-beta

STP-frac

Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 16/20 Carbolite, 5500 psi FP)

ICD Screen: TRUE

Q, BPM = 5.49

Ver 06-12-2012

Stop Proppant feeding when beta wave is about 800ft of heel

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

ST

P, p

si

Lateral Length, ft

STP vs. Lateral Length

STP-alpha

STP-beta

STP-frac

Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP)

ICD Screen: TRUE

Q, BPM = 5.00

Ver 06-12-2012

Stop Proppant feeding when beta wave is about 600ft of heel

STP x Lateral length (ft) for 2.71 SG proppant

STP x Lateral length (ft) for 1.75 SG proppant

13

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges - The Proppant Selection

▪ Regular shape – good roundness and sphericity;

SG = range from 1.75 to 1.90

Bulk density = range from 70 to 72 lb/ft3

Stress environments as high as 8,000 psi

Yields 35% less weight than regular ceramic

ULW-175

ULW-125

ULW-108

14

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges – The Simulation

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Du

ne

Heig

ht/

Ho

le D

iam

ete

r R

ati

o

Pu

mp

Pre

ss

ure,

ps

i

Pump Rate, BPM

Horizontal Gravel Packing Design Criteria

Ppump-alpha at bottom Ppump-beta at TOS Ppump-Frac Dune/Hole Ratio

Centralized: FALSEFluid Return Ratio = 0.95Hole Angle, deg. = 90Hole Dia., in = 8.9Screen OD/ID, in = 6.3, 5.082Wash Pipe OD, in = 4Roughness, in = 0.01Fluid Vis., cps = 1.2Fluid Dens., ppg = 9.7Mix Ratio, ppga = 1Gravel Dia., in = 0.027

Ver 06-12-2012

ICD Screen: TRUE

Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP)

Gravel pack

design software

which takes in to

account the large

increase in

pressure drop

during beta wave

placement

15

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges – The Simulation Open Hole Horizontal Gravel Packing

Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LiteProp175, 5500 psi FP)

ICD Screen: TRUE

Estimate Pump Time and Amount of Proppant Pumped

Tubular Volume above Packer, ft³ 1286.62

Dune/Hole Ratio 0.74 0.65 0.70 0.74 0.80

Pump Rate, BPM 5.00 7.68 6.37 5.00 3.16

Return Rate, BPM 4.75 7.30 6.05 4.75 3.00

Alpha Pressure, psi 369 929 623 369 132

Beta Pressure, psi 182547 431141 296282 182547 72669

Frac Pressure, psi 1706 2028 1854 1706 1563

Alpha Time 163.72 74.57 108.48 163.72 317.06

Beta Time 110.14 101.53 105.20 110.14 120.16

Time for proppant to reach Packer, min 45.81 29.82 35.97 45.81 72.53

Time at end of Alpha, min 209.53 104.40 144.45 209.53 389.58

Time at end of Beta, min 319.67 205.93 249.66 319.67 509.75

Proppant amount below Packer, lbs 54201 53535 53861 54201 54659

Proppant amount at Screen-out, lbs 63268 62601 62928 63268 63726

Minimum Rate to prevent duning in Worstring

Workstring Number 1 2 3 4 5

Workstring ID, in 4.778 4.778 4.778 4.778 4.778

Transport Rate in WS (Horizontal), BPM 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.12 7.12

Maximum deviation angle, degree 75 75 75 75 75

Correction Factor (for angle > 45°) 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707 0.6707

Transport Rate in WS, BPM 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78

Minimum Rate to prevent duning, BPM 4.78

Minimum Rate to prevent premature sandout

Pump Rate to yield 0.83 Dune/Hole ratio, BPM 2.81

Recommended Minimum Rate during Alpha-wave Placement: 4.78

16

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Challenges – The Simulation

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ra

te,

BP

M

ST

P,

psi

Time, min

STP vs. Time

STP STP_Frac PR RetRate

17

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 1 – General Data Field Peregrino

Water Depth 400ft

Last Casing 9-5/8” @ 10,397/7,600ft MD/TVD

Open Hole 8-1/2” @ 15,101 ft MD

Horizontal Pay Zone 10,394ft – 15,101ft MD

Formation Unconsolidated Sandstone

Reservoir Permeability 5,800 mD

Reservoir Porosity 28%

Fracture Gradient 0.66 psi/ft

Gravel Pack Fluid 9.7 ppg NaCl Brine

Workstring 5-1/2” OD, 4.778” ID, 21.90lb/ft

Blank Pipe 5-1/2” OD, 4.89” ID, 13%Cr, 17lb/ft

Screen 5-1/2” EQUALIZER SELECT 6.4FRR

Washpipe 4” Hydril 511, P-110, 11.6lb/ft, 3.380” ID

Average Caliper Simulated 8.9” (simulated)

18

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 1 – Circulation Test, GP Design and Simulation

Pump Rate (bpm)

Return Rate (bpm)

Pressure (psi)

% Return

2.0 2.0 204 100.0

4.0 4.0 530 100.0

5.0 5.0 736 100.0

6.0 6.0 1030 100.0

19

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 1 – Gravel Pack Pumping Job Parameters

20

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 2 – General Data Field Peregrino

Water Depth 400ft

Last Casing 9-5/8” @ 10,141/7,692ft MD/TVD

Open Hole 8-1/2” @ 13,422ft MD

Horizontal Pay Zone 10,141ft – 13,422ft (3,281ft MD)

Formation Unconsolidated Sandstone

Reservoir Permeability 5,800 mD

Reservoir Porosity 28%

Fracture Gradient 0.71psi/ft

Gravel Pack Fluid 9.7 ppg NaCl Brine

Workstring 5-1/2” OD, 4.778” ID, 21.90lb/ft

Blank Pipe 5-1/2” OD, 4.89” ID, 13%Cr, 17lb/ft

Screen 5-1/2” EQUALIZER SELECT 6.4FRR

Washpipe 4” Hydril 511, P-110, 11.6lb/ft, 3.380” ID

Average Caliper Simulated 8.9” (simulated)

21

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 2 – Circulation Test, GP Design and Simulation

Pump Rate (bpm)

Return Rate (bpm)

Pressure (psi)

% Return

2.0 2.0 204 100.0

4.0 4.0 530 100.0

5.0 5.0 736 100.0

6.0 6.0 1030 100.0

22

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History # 2 – Gravel Pack Pumping Job Parameters

23

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History #2 (Field Data vs. Post-Job Simulation Data) Average OH Diameter in Post-Job Simulation was based on the Amount of Proppant in Pumping Data

Field Pumping Data Post-Job Simulation Data

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Flo

w R

ate

, B

PM

| M

R,

pp

a

Pre

ssu

re

, p

si

Elapsed Time, min

B-24 OHGP Pumping Data 12 Feb 2013

STP Pump Rate RetRate MR DH_MR

Start of Beta Wave

Start of Alpha Wave

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Ra

te,

BP

M

ST

P,

psi

Time, min

STP vs. Time

STP STP_Frac PR RetRate

Statoil Brazil, Well B-24 (9.6OH, EQ Select 6.4 FRR, 20/40 LP175, ProppantCF = 1.25, FG=0.715)

24

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Case History #2 (Post-job Simulation and Actual

Pumping Data)

SUMMARY

Average Open Hole Diameter, in 9.6

ProppantCF in Simulation 1.25

Simulation Actual

Pump Rate during Alpha, BPM 6.10 6.1

Pump Rate at end of Beta, BPM 2.5 2.5

Average Mix Ratio, ppa 1 1

DHR 0.743 0.7

STP Beginning, psi 618 603

STP_Slurry at Packer, psi 536 564

STP_ Alpha at Bottom, psi 638 560

STP_Beta @ TOS, psi 1823* 1610

Start Time, minutes 0 0

Time for proppant to reach Packer, minutes 36.95 36.5

Alpha Time, minutes 191.96 164.18

Beta Time, minutes 139.07 161.18

Total GP Time (min) 367.98 361.86

Proppant amount in Alpha dune, lbs 46304 40300

Proppant amount in Beta wave, lbs 24575 29403

Proppant amount below Packer, lbs 70879 69703

Proppant amount at Screen-out, lbs 79792 77299

Proppant amount above Packer, lbs 8913 7596

Annulus Filled_Alpha 65.33% 57.82%

Annulus Filled_Beta 34.67% 42.18%

Clean Fluid Volume, bbls 1900 1870

Comment Simulation at constant

Mix Ratio. Est STP =

1823 psi if shut dow n

after pumping 78641

lbs proppant (98.6%

of total proppant

amount and Beta

w ave w as at ~ 150 ft

of top of screen)

Cut proppant w hen

pump rate is at and

below 3 BPM. No

proppant during the

last 10 minutes of

pumping.

25

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Conclusion

▪ Peregrino Field – unconsolidated sandstone reservoir demanding sand

control techniques

▪ Two GP jobs successful performed using ICD completion – pioneer

introduction of this technology in offshore Brazil

Typical completion architecture include ICD screens and a single joint of

standard premium screen at the toe enabling fluid return

▪ Special strategy to address the challenges: special software to job design,

Lightweight proppant and experience of GOM operations

26

© 2

014

Bak

er H

ughe

s In

corp

orat

ed. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

Thank you Very Much!

Questions?

Don’t forget Techno Day 3rd April, AECC, Aberdeen