IPTC-18113-MS

Unconventionals Meets Deepwater; Lower Completion Limited Entry Liner

with Retrievable Ball Drop Diversion System Applied in a Deepwater Brazil
Carbonate Field
M.A. Fowler, R.D. Gdanski, P. Campbell, W. Bode, J.M. Baima, and S. Hensgens, Shell

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 12 December 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 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 1-972-952-9435

Abstract
In order to economically develop the Albian Carbonate Macae formation in the Campos Basin Deepwater
Brazil an extended reach horizontal well is required. Due to the tight nature (low permeability) of the rock,
stimulation of the reservoir is required. Completion designs and techniques for treating extended reach
horizontal wells in deepwater are limited. Most applications for these type wells in Deepwater are
ineffective (high skin/low PI) and inefficient (trip/time intensive) affecting project economics. A completion system was developed that allows for safe, effective and efficient stimulation and installation of
such an extended reach horizontal well in Deepwater.
This paper will describe the design, testing and execution of a unique Deepwater completion system
that adapts a known multi-stage ball drop system used in onshore unconventional reservoirs, for example
the US and Canada, to a known horizontal open hole sand control system to effectively matrix acidize a
2000 m horizontal open hole thru a Limited Entry Liner with reservoir segmentation. The system uses a
Retrievable Ball Drop Diversion System (RBDDS) consisting of multi-stage frac sleeves run on wash
pipe. The RBDDS is run inside a limited entry liner that is segmented into stages or intervals by openhole
programmable interventionless packers (Mendes et al. 2014) all run in a single trip and with no pipe
manipulation required while stimulating. It furthermore leaves behind a robust lower completion system
for the life of the field.
This 2000 m lower completion system was successfully run in the Albian Carbonate reservoir and all
stages treated with 15% HCl with minimal NPT, no harm to people or environment. At the time of
completion, this well was the longest horizontal reservoir section and longest step out well drilled and
completed in Brazil. This Limited Entry Liner System together with the RBDDS proved to be a very
efficient, effective and deepwater friendly system.

Introduction
Low permeable deepwater carbonate reservoirs have created many challenges to produce economically.
The wells typically require extensive reservoir contact that has to be stimulated in order to achieve an

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 1Field location Campos Basin, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

acceptable Productivity Index, PI. Field A, Albian Carbonate in the Campos basin offshore Brazil falls
into this challenging category. Effectively stimulating long horizontals has long been an industry
challenge onshore and even more so in a deepwater environment. With the advent of Unconventionals in
the US and Canada the ability to stimulate long horizontals has generated a great deal of focus and effort
over the last few years. The high rate and multi-stage fracture stimulations done on these wells has
resulted in the development of new industry techniques, notably using frac sleeves operated by dropping
balls, and pumping down plugs and perforating guns to isolate and perforate each stage.
This paper will review the concept selection process, detailed design work, testing, and implementation
results of an extended reach horizontal well that utilizes onshore Unconventional ball drop technology
adapted to a Deepwater setting to effectively stimulation a 2000 m long horizontal section. The well and
stimulation treatment was considered an apparaisal effort such that if the production from the well is
suitable it will open up the full Albian Carbonate for further development.

Background
The field was discovered in the early 90s and lies in the Campos basin offshore Brazil, see Figure 1
showing field location. The field is mature having been on production since the early 90s from various
Eocene sandstone reservoirs. Initially the field was produced under depletion via an early production
system up to the late 90s. Then, in early 2000s, there was a field redevelopement done, that was later
acquired by the current operator, and production was re-started in 2003 to an FPSO, now with water
injection support. The Quissama member of the Albian age Macae formation in the Campos basin
underlies the existing Eocene age reservoirs, but has not been produced to date. To help extend field life

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 2Seismic cross section showing the Albian reservoir structure

and to evaluate the production potential of this formation a development / appraisal well was planned to
be drilled/completed and hooked up to the FPSO and subsea infra-structure. The Albian Carbonate below
Field A and B lie in 769 m of water and is low permeability.
The Albian shallow water shelf carbonates comprise of three main families of facies. The best quality
reservoir units (porosities up to 28% and permeabilities up to 1000 mD) are the oolitic facies deposited
in a high-energy environment. The second family of facies is composed of the more porous (up to 25%)
but less permeable (up to 100 mD) oncolitic-peloidal packstones and grainstones, deposited in a shallow
marine environment with moderate water agitation. The third family of facies seen in the southern Campos
basin during the Albian stage are fine-grained limestones (Mudstone/Wackestone) deposited in deeper and
lower energy environments. These form reservoir quality rock with medium-high porosities (average
16%), but relatively low permeabilities (average 0.5-3.0 mD). The Field A, Albian well has been assessed
to belong to this third category.

Well Functional Specification/Requirements

As part of the well functional specification the overall objective was defined as evaluation of the
production potential of the Albian Carbonate via an appraisal / development well. In order to achieve both
the appraisal and development aspects of the well, a long horizontal lateral that transected the reservoir
was required. This was to expose as much reservoir for evaluation and production as possible. A key
desire was to find secondary permeability (fractures or vugs) even though none appeared on the available
seismic. As it is anticipated that further well stimulation may be required, the completion design must be
suitable for treatments in the future. As part of well planning efforts the following key performance
indicators were established;

Achieve a drilled length of 2000 m in the Albian Carbonate

Limit Dog Leg Severity to 2.0 degr/100ft in the reservoir section
Successfully run the lower completion to TD
Effectively stimulate the 2000 m horizontal section by matrix acidization
Achieve maximum possible well performance, by utilizing a unique stimulation system that
incorporated a limited entry concept with a retrievable ball drop diversion system (RBDDS)
Demonstrate lower FLCV integrity prior to installing the upper completion

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 3Matrix versus Acid Fracturing

Install upper completion with functional and tested production packer, downhole pressure gauges
and SSSV
Achieve objectives within budget
The well materials and equipment should be suitable for a 20 year life. Since no fluid or core samples
were available for evaluation, a review of nearby fields was made to help predict the reservoir properties
and fluid composition of the Albian Carbonate. A geo-chemical study concluded that a good analog fluid
was from the Congro and the Field A sands. Thus the upper and as much of the lower as possible
completion equipment were designed to match existing wells. The wells comprised of GRE tubing with
a SCSSSV, dual gas lift mandrels (with one unloader and one orifice valve installed), permanent
downhole gauges, and a production packer. The use of GRE tubing was required due to concerns over late
life souring and possible presence of CO2. All upper completion hardware was made of High Alloy
materials. As additional insurance downhole chemical injection was added to address any potential scaling
issues.
Subsurface pressures at the top of the reservoir are around 5000 psi and bottom-hole temperatures are
90 C. The lower completion equipment was all 13Cr material with the casing packer and Fluid Loss
Control Valve (FLCV), being the same design that was utilized on the previous wells in the Eocene sands.
The lower completion design had to be suitable for a matrix acid stimulation treatment early and late life,
thus a suitable lower and upper completion mechanical and dimensional configuration was required. Fluid
loss control was a big concern should secondary permeability be encountered while drilling or stimulating
the well. Thus the lower design had to control losses while stimulating each stage and after finalizing the
treatment and Pull out of the Hole, (POOH). If losses could not be controlled, damaging LCMs would
be required to control the well, thus negating the positive effects of the treatment.

Concepts Reviewed
Initial reviews focused on how best to improve production potential in the well. Since stimulation was
required, the treatment concepts focused on two primary options; Acid Fracturing or Matrix Stimulation.
Initial concepts sought to allow for both matrix and fracture acidizing treatments. This was to allow for
flexibility, once the well was drilled. Completion concepts that allow for both matrix or fracture acidizing
are either too costly (i.e. trip intensive) or are typically optimized towards one method over the other. Thus
a system that would allow for both optimized treating options was dropped from consideration. This
coupled with a review of case histories in the Albian Carbonate in Brazil and the fact that the reservoir
is in the grey area, for a fracture treatment and matrix treatment, it was decided to pursue only matrix
treatment options for the Albian Carbonate well. It was felt that an acid fracture treatment would not be
as effective, because of the expectation that the rock would be too soft (analog data), thus the fractures
would close once the pressure is released (Azevedo et al. 2010). The matrix option would still allow
evaluation of the production potential in a more economical and less risky scenario, thus acid fracturing
was no longer pursued for this well, see Figure 3 below showing selection criteria and scoring.
Several completion concepts were reviewed for Albian Carbonate Well. These concepts focused on
previous methods used in Brazil, the North Sea (Chalk), and Shale Unconventionals. All of the concepts

IPTC-18113-MS

had the objective of effectively completing and treating long horizontal low permeable wells. The
concepts used in Brazil (Rodrigues et al. 2007) and in the North Sea utilized a coil tubing pin point
treatment method that jetted the formation pumping down both the coil tubing and the annulus (Rodrigues
et al. 2005). Other systems utilized in the North Sea were Plug and perforate methods; the zones were
perforated, isolated then treated in successive order. Optimized variations of this system are currently
being used onshore for Unconventionals. This is then replicated for each interval. While an effective
method for treating it is expensive in a deepwater setting. The pin point systems require Coil Tubing and
pumping down the annulus with acid to be effective. Thus in a subsea environment a tie back system that
isolates the Riser, BOPs and the annulus is required. An alternate method would be to pump a gel
diverting agent down the choke or kill lines. This, however, is ineffective in treating the interval. The
systems reviewed are listed below;

Ball Drop systems

Work String Ball Drop system (selected concept)
Acid Diversion System (polished rod isolation system)
Conventional Coil Tubing
Pump down systems

A system that combines the ability to treat long intervals with the flexibility to add a Limited Entry
injection profile will provide the best opportunity to stimulate the Carbonate. This technique is currently
the leading edge design for stimulating long horizontal Carbonates. (Furui, et al, 2010, Hanson et al.,
2002) Limited Entry is having defined numbers of small controlled diameter and strategically spaced
holes in the liner to ensure a more even distribution of acid across the full interval, basically mechanical
diversion. The number of holes and sizing is derived by a balance of production rates, required treating
rates, the interval length and completion sizing (i.e. allowable rates). The holes can be pre-drilled or done
via perforating as long as the perforation hole size can be controlled.
As with all subsea wells, fluid loss control after and during the stimulation treatment is important for
well control and to ensure the well productivity is not damaged by any fluid loss pill. It is thus critical to
have fluid loss control capability for any system that is used. The Fluid Lose Control Valves (FLCV) that
are typically used in deepwater sand control wells, can function as a barrier for upper completion
installation and well suspension, plus control losses after treating. These valves are opened remotely from
the host, thus intervention is not required. Because of these features it is highly desirable to have a design
that allows for the use of a conventional FLCV.
The Acid Diversion system and the workstring ball drop system (RBDDS) were the only two systems
that could incorporate a FLCV and the Limited Entry concept, thus ultimately eliminating the other
concepts. The Acid Diversion system required the pipe to be moved between each stage, thus having the
potential for acid exposure, losses between stages, and the potential troublesome issue of having to
re-pressure test all of the treating temporary pipe work (Jouti et al. 2011). In addition to the HSSE
exposure, the re-testing and pipe movement during the treatment made the system more costly than the
workstring ball drop system.
The conventional sleeve ball drop system was eliminated because it was not limited entry capable and
the removal of the balls is problematic in a deepwater well. Catching and leaving the balls in the lower
completion was also considered, but in the end concerns over plugging and potential ball debris in the
subsea systems eliminated this concept.
A ranking matrix was established to allow for subjective analysis of the features and benefits of each
system as they relate to the well functional specifications. This ranking matrix was divided into categories
that had weighted factors, see Figure 4 below. Based on these factors the chosen system was the Work
string or Retrievable Ball Drop Diversion system in combination with Limited Entry liner subs. While

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 4 Selction matrix with concept rankings

novel in the combination of components, the system utilized previously proven equipment, thus greatly
reducing any required testing, risk or development.
By only using the ball drop sleeves and openhole packers, the reservoir can be effectively segmented
into stages and allows for the independent treatment of each stage. This is a good technique for fracturing,
but does not provide the formation coverage required for effective matrix acid stimulation needed for the
Albian Carbonate well. History and more recent developments in Limited Entry stimulation techniques
(K. Furui et al. 2010) have shown greatly improved stimulated skin values from the traditional designs
with -1 to -2 skins, and -3.5 to -4 using specialized Limited Entry. For this reason, the RBDDS uses the
limited entry joints to implement affective acid coverage across the formation at specific rates thus
improving the wormholing affect. This allows for lower skin values and better zonal coverage with the
same amount of acid. Thus incorporating the Limited Entry feature into the liner and inner string has
significant value.

Detailed Design
The design concept chosen employs a concentric string that is similar to an open hole gravel pack system
but modified for the purpose of limited entry matrix acidizing. The external string was comprised of a jet
down shoe, a liner with Limited Entry subs, Interventionless openhole packers, seal bores for inner string
isolation, a FLCV and a Gravel Pack (GP) packer to secure the liner in place. The inner string consisted
of washpipe to space out the ball drop sleeves and seal assemblies, and the GP packer setting tool. The
seal assemblies were spaced out to land in the seal bores at each of the 12 openhole packers, thus
providing zonal isolation and creating an annulus between the liner ID and washpipe OD to generate the
limited entry affect between each openhole packer, (see Figure 5). The well is stimulated from the toe to
heel using successively larger diameter balls for each stage as you come up the hole. The balls open the
sleeves and provide isolation to the lower just treated zone, thus enabling independent treatment of each
stage. The inner washpipe string is run in the treating position; therefore once all the packers are set no
pipe movement is required. This feature along with the use of dual ball droppers ensured that the pipe
would not have to be manipulated or connections broken at any time during the treatment, which was a
key HSE driver. This helped to ensure the fluids, specifically the acid, stayed in the pipe during the
treatment. The lower completion also included features that allowed wash-down while running in the hole,
optional rotational release, and reverse out of any acid in the workstring should the system lock-up. The
liner and inner string are run in one trip.

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 5Albian Carbonate Lower Completion Design

The chosen concept yielded the following features or benefits:

Single trip, run, set and treat decreasing HSE exposure, well cost and risk
No pipe manipulation required during the treatment reducing HSE exposure
Ability to wash-down while tripping in
Reservoir segmented into 12 stages allowing optimized treatment of each stage for the full 2000
m well bore
Isolation of each stage during and after the treatment for leak-off control
The liner in each stage had limited entry ports for effective mechanical diversion at each stage
Post treatment Fluid Loss Control via a barrier valve
The ability to isolate at each stage while POOH should losses be excessive
Full liner ID post treatment
Uses existing equipment, but configured in a unique way

For subsea completions, wellbore isolation and fluid loss control is a critical aspect of well design. The
Albian Carbonate well was designed to incorporate a fluid loss control valve (FLCV) and provide a
restriction to heavy losses. The FLCV is closed when a shifter, run at the end of the washpipe, is pulled
across it closing a ball isolating the lower zone and stopping any potential losses. As the Albian Carbonate
well is an extended reach horizontal, the ability to control losses while tripping out with the washpipe is
important. To control and limit losses while tripping, a sealbore was added below the lower packer and
heavy wall pipe was run above the last stage. The heavy wall pipe works to restrict / choke the losses and
the sealbore allows for stopping any losses should the well need to be topped off. Calculations showed
that with an over balance of 100 psi the loss rate between the washpipe and heavy wall pipe is limited to
2.0 bpm.
The shifter used to activate the FLCV has to be pushed through each of the seal bores in the completion
when being made-up and then pulled back through the same seal bores at the end of the job and still have
sufficient strength to close the FLCV. The shifter also could not damage the seal bores jeopardizing the
seal integrity and treatment effectiveness.

Testing
As part of the design the following tests were executed:
FLCV shifter test
In order to confirm that the FLCV shifter was suitable for this application a test was conducted that
simulated actual operations expected on the completion. The shifter collet was subjected to 5 initial cycles
pushing through a valve nubbing and 5 cycles pulling through the same nubbing to record the baseline
release forces of the collet. Then it was cycled 37 times each way through a 4 ft long seal bore. The design
of the collet is such that forces to push the collet through the nubbing are around of the loads than is

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 6 FLCV shifter after cycle testing

required to pull back through the nubbing. The pre-test loads were within specification, however, after 37
push and pull cycles the collet loads to shift the valve closed increased by over 70%. This is evidence that
the collets had work hardened during the test. The changes in shift forces were not evident during the seal
bore cycle testing, this could have been masked by the 30 degree lead-in angle of the seal bore. The collet
was inspected after the test and found to be within print tolerance and did not show any adverse wear or
damage, see Figure 6. Although not expected, the increase in shift value yielded a positive result, that
being able to effectively close the FLCV.
SIT of the surface ball drop system and diversion sleeves
A system integration test was conducted to verify the surface ball drop setup in combination with the
chosen manifold line up and downhole diversion sleeves. The setup consisted of the, Drill Pipe Landing
string complete with TIWs suspended vertically from a crane, the remote controlled ball drop system,
temporary pipe work configured per the planned offshore line up and a set of diversion sleeves to simulate
the downhole activation of the same. As part of the test an accoustice device was used to witness the ball
dropping at surface. The test demonstrated that the ball drop system in combination with composite
balls and an 80 lb HEC viscousified brine pill could effectively transported the activation balls 6 m
vertically into the landing string, and that the acoustic system allowed for detecting the dropping of the
balls at surface (be it the smaller sizes were harder to observe). The test also confirmed the line up would
allow for efficient offshore execution.

Openhole Isolation
A design review was conducted after the concept select stage where it was agreed that the primary means
for isolation was water Swellpackers. This would allow a single trip system and simplify the lower
completion. The objective was to spot fresh water across the interval to allow the packers to swell once
on depth and while making up and testing the temporary pipe work. A cost and risk benefit analysis was
conducted showing that even with 2 days of wait time the water Swellpacker option was still the preferred
option. To ensure that we fully understand the Swell times of the packers and to ensure that they do not
swell too early i.e. while tripping in, testing was conducted on the Water Swellpacker. The testing was
done to simulate the time that the packers will be in brine while making up the liner in the riser, tripping
in the hole and after circulating out the brine to freshwater. Testing was done with freshwater, 10% and
25% NaCl solutions to simulate residual brine left in the openhole after displacing to fresh water. The 10%
NaCl and freshwater solutions resulted a swell time of 8 days until a seal was formed. The other samples,
all done at 100 C to represent well conditions, did not reach the seal expansion point and thus were
stopped. The expansion to seal time did not allow for the Water Swellpackers to be used for this well, as
they were required to seal within 48 hrs after getting to depth.

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 7Openhole Interventionless Packer and tigger mechanism

Figure 8 Openhole packer final setting parameters

As a result of the water Swellpacker testing, an extensive review of available openhole isolation
systems that met the requirements for application in the Albian Carbonate well was conducted. To keep
the single trip feature an interventionless packer was required. An openhole packer that contained an
electronic trigger activation method was chosen. The trigger is designed to activate once a pre-defined
pressure and temperature is seen by the packer sensors. This activates a timer, that once expired activates
the e-trigger, releasing the pressure in an atmospheric chamber and setting the seal elements. The
interventionless features of the packer makes it uniquely suitable for this application (Mendes et al. 2014).
Figure 7 is a sketch of the packer with the trigger mechanism shown in the photo.
Prior to running the completion the setting parameters of the openhole packers were changed to have
them activated by pressuring up the well and holding the pressure for a pre-determined amount of time.
The early parameters focused on using the well hydrostatic pressure and temperature to set the packers,
while using the timer to control any safety factors while running in the hole (RIH). The ECDs seen while
cementing the 9 5/8 casing were sufficient to allow the change in packer setting parameters. The packer
timer starts once the pre-programmed pressures and temperatures are seen. Once the time expires the
packers set using well hydrostatic pressure. The settings were changed on the rig when connecting the
battery and turning on the packers. This was originally planned to save battery life. The temperature
settings were set to ensure that the temperature deviation was always active, thus eliminating temperature
as a setting parameter once on depth. See Figure 8 below for the packer setting parameters. The setting
pressures took into account the slight change in TVD from heel to toe. Sub-Assembly, SA-2 was the first
in the hole and placed near the toe of the well and SA-15 was at the heel.
The liner assembly contains seal bores at each OH packer and Limited Entry Liner subs in between
each OH packer. The inner string seals were spaced-out to align with liner sealbores to provide zonal
isolation in the liner to washpipe annulus for each stage. By having both the liner to washpipe and the open
hole to liner annulus isolated at each stage, acid can be effectively injected into an individual zone. This
along with the limited entry subs spaced along the liner provides the mechanical diversion via the holes
for efficient reservoir coverage. For a given rate, quantity of holes, and hole size the back-pressure and

10

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 9 Well segmentation for mechanical acid diversion

rate per hole can be estimated using a newly developed Diversion Model which takes into account the
friction driven pressure drop along washpipe to liner annulus. The Diversion model was used to optimize
the limited entry design while adhering to the stimulation principles as defined by Gdanski et al. 1999.
These principles were used to determine hole spacing and placement and volumes required per stage while
maintaining the 25/75 rule for carbonate stimulation. The 25/75 rule states that treating 25% of the zone
really well achieves the same production as treating 75% of the full zone.
The division of the wellbore into 12 zones with limited entry joint clusters in each zone allows for good
mechanical diversion of the acid to help ensure adequate coverage over the full wellbore length, see Figure
8.
Another advantage of the RBDDS is that the number of zones to be stimulated can be tailored to the
available volume and pumping horse power of the selected stimulation vessel. For the Albian wells
stimulation vessel which had a max treating rate of 20 BPM the appropriate number of stages was 12
stages allowing 1/8th inch incremental size balls), and the number and size of holes in the limited entry
liner were optimized accordingly. If a larger vessel capable of double the rate (40 BPM) had been
available it is conceivable that the number of stages could have been reduced in half.
As part of the acid stimulation pump schedule, a brine preflush was required. Due to the low perm of
the rock and effective displacement it was expected that the birne would have to be injected under fracture
conditions until the acid hits and the pressure drops allowing matrix stimulation and wormholing. A
graphical representation is shown below in Figure 10 and is based upon transient spherical flow as defined
by K. Furui, et al. 2010.

Execution
In order to ensure accurate space out of the Limited Entry Liner with isolation packers and in the inner
RBDDS, the system and components was laser tallied by two independent companies. In comparing the
two tallies, three liner joints were found to be different in length and re-measured to ensure accuracy.
In addition, prior to mobilizing the equipment offshore, the inner liner washpipe, seal assemblies, and
sleeves were spaced out against the liner in the yard. This confirmed the various tally spreadsheets made
by the service companies and Shell and enabled confidence in the final space out of each stage offshore.
The liner and washpipe joints were then loaded in sequence such that they could be run straight from
the baskets or tubing racks. This helped to ensure that the items were run in the correct order and
contributed to the reduced amount of time needed to run the liner and washpipe.
While being made-up vertically at the rotary offshore in a 9.7 ppg NaCl Brine, the washpipe space-out
was checked against the liner by tagging the float shoe with the FLCV shifter, the space-out was found
to be exactly as measured onshore. This was also confirmed by high seal drag when stabbing all the seal
assemblies at once with 25 klbs stab-in and 40 klbs pick-up force.

IPTC-18113-MS

11

Figure 10 Treatment injection flow model

Figure 11Actual Torque and Drag chart

Prior to running the completion the openhole section was logged with a very stiff and long BHA. The
BHA had an 8.5 bit on bottom with 8.375 centralizers across the logging BHA to a length of 52 m. It
is believed that this assembly cleared any ledges and reduced the severity of any micro doglegs. A
significant amount of Stick-slip was seen while working the logging BHA to TD. This affected the quality
of the logging data and resulted in a hole out of gauge.
The lower completion was run to TD without encountering any issues or significant drag. The liner slid
to TD much smoother than the logging BHA. The actual friction factor (FF) recorded was 0.25, see Figure
11. The discontinuity in the chart is a result of re-calibration of the Hookload sensor. At the time of the
writing of this paper, this well was the longest step-out and completed reservoir section in Brazil, a 1995
m horizontal.

12

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 12Modeled Torque and Drag Chart

The design base case friction factors were 0.25 in the casing and 0.40 in the openhole from analog data.
The actual FF recorded while RIH matches fairly consistently with the modeling done prior to running the
completion when 0.25 FFs are used, see Figure 12. The hole was enlarged from a gauge hole of around
8.5 to an average around 9.1 to 9.6 ID with some larger sections in stage 8 of 12.6 ID. The enlarged
hole most likely resulted in lower actual FF. It is surmised that the heavy stick slip and vibration seen
while logging and drilling enlarged the hole.
After getting the completion to depth the Solids Free Drill in Fluid (DIF), which was in the OH to
reduce sliding friction and control fluid loss while RIH was circulated out. The maximum circulation rate
was limited to 3.0 bpm to prevent pre-setting of the GP & isolation packers. The pressure at the cement
unit was limited to 300 psi until sufficient volume was pumped to have the DIF out of the openhole
section. After this the rate was increased with a back pressure limited to 500 psi and below 3.0 bpm. By
controlling the pump pressure we ensured that the GP & openhole packers did not accidently set during
the displacement. The mud was completely circulated out of the hole, because if the well went on losses
after the treatment the solids free mud could have been pulled into the reservoir causing potential
impairment.
The GP packer setting ball was pumped at the end of the mud displacement and was pumped down in
a 10 bbl 80 lb HEC pill. The GP packer setting ball was the smallest of all the balls to be dropped at 1.125
OD. The GP packer was set and pressure tested. The well was pressured up to 1200 psi over hydrostatic
to set the openhole packers starting from the heel working down towards the toe. The pressure was held
to 800 psi for an hour and 20 minutes. The set time for the packers was 70 mins. The Chart below, Figure
13, shows the openhole packers setting recorded on the downhole gauges ran with the RBDDS. This was
unexpected but probably caused by the tight nature of the rock and volume displacement in the packer
hydrostatic setting chamber and packer element.
After rigging up and testing the iron on the rig and setting the pop-offs on the stimulation vessel,
stimulation operations were ready to commence. Per the program the sleeve activation balls were dropped
via the ball dropper made in line with the treating iron per the P&ID diagram shown in Figure 14. The
balls were dropped in an HEC gel pill and displaced with the cement unit. Once the ball was dropped and
the gel pill spotted, the treatment commenced via the stimulation vessel. The purpose behind dropping the

IPTC-18113-MS

13

Figure 13Openhole packer setting via the bottomhole gauges

Figure 14 P&ID of temporary pipe work on the rig

ball in a gel pill was to ensure that the balls landed on seat when required. It should be noted that some
balls landed as designed, but most did not and there were no surface indication of sleeve shearing seen
for stages 3, 5 and 12. Most balls landed early. Prior to commencing operations, reviews of previous
operations in the Eagleford were done to help gain from learnings in dropping the balls and opening the
sleeves. Spotting the balls in a gel pill was a learning used from these reviews, however, the timing of
opening the sleeves with the balls was and still is an unknown element. Further review or operational
considerations needs to be made to ensure proper stimulation on future wells. Some observations of the
ball dropping done on this well are noted below for consideration in subsequent operations;
1. The system is dynamic and with each stage the balls are getting larger and the distance the ball

14

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 15Diversion model calculated results

travels shorter.
2. The ball drop method of shutting down to spot the ball with gell then switching over to the pumps
from the stimulation vessel, could have allowed the balls to drop out of the gell pill.
3. Upon surface inspection it was found that all sleeves had sheared. The fact that the packer ball
(1.125 OD) landed 100 bbls early leads one to believe that the other sleeves sheared early. The
1.125 ball was the smallest OD ball dropped. The ball sizes increased by 0.125 for each stage
thereafter.
4. Workstring design, specifically the IDs that the balls must pass can impact ball speed. It is
theorized that the balls once entering a restriction will speed up and continue at a higher transport
rate after passing a restriction, thus adding to the early landing of the balls.
5. It is recommended to adjust the pad stages between the acid, ball drop, and post flushes to allow
for sleeve shear inaccuracies. Based on item 4 above one could assume a much higher transport
rate once the ball is in the WP, thus the displacement rate should be slowed prior to the ball
entering the WP. The rate for each ball size and workstring configuration is not known.
6. On stage 3 the rate was increased to land the ball from 5 bpm to 10 bpm, thus it is surmised that
the sleeve sheared too fast to be seen with the gauges.
7. Options to pin the sleeves to a higher value should be considered. All sleeves were set to shear at
2500 psi with stage 6 set at 4500 psi. During the system onshore SIT we did not see the large
2.625 ball sleeve shear even at a low rate of 2 bpm. Water hammer effects could have caused the
sleeve to shift without any pressure indications via the gauges. Visual indications where observed
during the onshore test with the pipe jumping.
8. It is critical that all sleeves open and that the system does not lock-up, so sleeve pinning values
need to be reviewed and considered with a great deal of care. It is recommended to perform
additional onshore testing of pinning configuration; this could also be used to learn more about ball
transport speeds and sleeve shearing.
The treatment was pumped with all volumes displaced. One of the two primary pumps on the
stimulation vessel went down while pumping the first stage of the treatment. To compensate for this loss
in hydraulic horsepower a back up pump on the stimulation vessel and the rig cement unit was brought
online once the acid had passed below the landing string to aid in achieving target rates, see Figure 15.
The cement unit was able to add 2.0-2.5 bpm to the treatment, with total treating rates ranging from 15-18
bpm throughout the job versus the design rate of 19 bpm. Limited entry diversion models were reviewed
based upon the achievable rate of 12 - 15 bpm with the pumps remaining on the stimulation vessel and
with the addition of the cement unit. The rates checked were 10 bpm and 16 bpm against the design of
19 bpm see Figure 15 that summarizing this analysis.
The purpose of the diversion model is to calculate the rate, pressure, hole size, qty of holes and interval
spacing for the washpipe to liner annulus to ensure that sufficient volumes are displaced across the full
interval to be treated. The desired range was checked against what was achievable to ensure adequate acid
coverage with the limited entry system. At 16 bpm we could achieve the required pressures and diversion
rates. Due to concerns about over heating the cement unit it was only used while pumping the acid into
the formation.

IPTC-18113-MS

15

Figure 16 Treatment Injectivity Index per stage

Post job Stimulation Analysis

The well was stimulated from the toe to the heel
with stage 1 at the toe and stage 12 near the heel, by
dropping successively larger balls for each of the
appropriate sleeves. Figure 16 shows the Injectivity
Index for each stage. This shows the affects of the
acid on the formation. From this data one can see
the breakdown of the formation as the acid hits.
Once the Brine post flush enters the formation the
Injectivity index decreases to a value greater than Figure 17Washpipe friction as a function of distance from the Downthe pre-flush brine stage indicating etching or hole gauges
wormholing of the reservoir.
The Injectivity Index was calculated by substracting out washpipe and limited entry friction
pressures for the brine and the acid blend. The
treating pressures used to determine the Injectivity
Index were from the downhole pressure gauges run
just above the GP packer setting tool. The pipe
friction from the washpipe is a function of the
distance from the gauges, pipe roughness, ID, fluid
type and rate, see Figure 17.
The limited entry friction was determined by
calculating the pressure loss in the liner ID to washpipe OD annulus and across the limited entry holes Figure 18 Limited Entry Liner pressure drop for a given hole size
at a give rate. The objective of the design is to
ensure that one gets adequate acid coverage over the full interval or stage. Thus the design is a balance
of hole sizing and available Hydrualic Horsepower (HHP) to achieve effective rates at each of the Limited
Entry holes. Once the hole sizing and HHP where balanced then we can determine pressure loss at each
stage for a given rate, see Figure 18.
An example of the treatment at Stage 8 is shown in Figure 19. The table shows the actual calculations
at given points during the treatment. These points are defined by the dotted lines as indicated in the
pumping chart on the bottom right, with the red line indicating pump pressure and the blue pump rate. The
Bottom Hole Treating Pressures (BHTP) at each of these points where plotted with the Acid Stage shown

16

IPTC-18113-MS

Figure 19 Stage 8 Analysis summary

in the shaded section. We can see from the pressures and Injectivity Index that the formation did break
back a bit, but not as was expected. It is theorized that the Limited Entry design may have masked some
of the effects of the acid desolving the formation. Once the pumps where shut down we could see that the
reservoir trapped around 1700 psi between the well and the check in the treating lines. This was evidence
that no secondary permeability was located by the treatment.
Prior to pumping the first stage an injectivity test was conducted. During this test the ISIP was
determined to be 7183 psi. Based on this value we can see that the bulk of the treatment for this stage was
done at or above fracture pressures. Also if we assume a homogenous formation then we can expect that
we did not have any communication between stages. The Injectivity Index is used to normalize treating
pressures at various rates during the job. Figure 16 above shows the Injectivity Index that varies from
stage to stage. For some of the stages it was difficult to determine the treating pressures and rates. For all
stages we saw the pressure decline when the acid hit the formation and increase as the brine began to
displace the acid from the treatment. It is believed that based on these results that no secondary perm was
found by the treatment and that once the acid was spent the brine was injecting into low permeable rock.

Conclusions
The Limited Entry Liner with Retrievable Ball Drop Diversion System (RBDDS) proved to be an
operationally efficient system with significant potential to effectively matrix treat and develop deepwater
carbonate reservoirs. The 2000 meter system was run, set, stimulated and secured in just under 9 days. The
time to complete and stimulate the lower completion was 3.5 days less than a similar concept (Jouti et al.
2011). In addition, by designing safety into the system, significant risk related to pumping acid, pressure
testing and potential exposure to hazardous chemicals was greatly reduced. The Albian Carbonate well
was drilled and completed as the longest horizontal reservoir section and longest step-out of any well in
Brazil to date.
Pre-job testing and extensive onshore preparations had a large impact on job execution success. This
system is believed to become the system of choice for deepwater carbonate wells requiring matrix
stimulation.

IPTC-18113-MS

17

Acknowledgements
Making step changes in technology and operations is challenging, so the valued input of many individuals
greatly enhanced the design and operational effectiveness. The authors would like to thank the many
individuals that contributed to the design, development and execution of this system. We would also like
to thank Shell for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Furui, K., Burton, R.C., Burkhead, D.W., Abdelmalek, N.A., Hill, A.D., Zhu, D., and Nozaki, M.,
2010, A Comprehensive Model of High-Rate Matrix Acid Stimulation for Long Horizontal Wells
in Carbonate Reservoirs, Paper SPE 134265
2. Hansen, J.H., Nederveen, N., 2002, Controlled Acid Jet (CAJ) Technique for effective single
operation Stimulation of 14,000ft long reservoir sections, Paper SPE 78318
3. Stimulation Field Guidelines, Part III Carbonate Stimulation, Shell International Exploration and
Production, Dec 1999,
4. Gdanski, R., A Fundamentally New Model of Acid Wormholing in Carbonates, 1999, Paper SPE
54719
5. Lechner, M., Ernst, S.D., Pitts, M.J., Lopdrup, T.P., Jaafar, M.R., Case Study: Improved Reservoir
Management From a Surface Controlled Two-Zone Open hole Packer Completion in a Horizontal
Well in Al Shaheen Field, 2009, Offshore Qatar, Paper IPTC 13671
6. Rodrigues, V.F., Neumann, L.F., Torres, D., Guimaraes, C., Torres, R.S., 2007, Horizontal Well
Completion and Stimulation Techniques A review with emphasis on Low-Permeability Carbonates, Paper SPE 108075
7. Neumann, L.F., Fernandez, P.D., Rosolen, M.A., Rodrigues, V.F., Neto Silva, J.A., Redroso,
C.A., Mendez, A., Torres, D., 2010, Case Study of Multiple Hydraulic Fracture Completion in a
Subsea Horizontal well, Campos Basin, Paper, SPE 98277
8. Azevedo, C.T., Rosolen, M.A., Neumann, L.F., Melo, L.F., 2010, Challenges Faced to Execute
Hydraulic Fracturing in Brazilian Pre-Salt Wells., Paper ARMA 10-212
9. Damgaard, A.P., Bangert, D.S., Murray, D.J., Rubbo, R.P., Stout, G.W., 1992, A Unique Method
for Perforating, Fracturing and Completing Horizontal Wells, Paper, SPE 19282
10. Surjaatmadja, J.B., McDaniel, B.W., Cheng, A., Rispler, K., Rees M.J., Khallad, A., 2002,
Successful Acid Treatments in Horizontal Openholes using Dynamic Diversion and instant
response downhole mixing An In-Depth Post job Evaluation, Paper, SPE 75522
11. Soliman, M.Y., East, L., Adams, D., 2008, Geomechanics Aspects of Multiple Fracturing of
Horizontal and Vertical Wells, Paper SPE 86992
12. Rodrigues, V.F., Fernandez, P.D., Rosolen, M.A., Franco de Almeida, M.L., Neumann, L.F.,
Lima, C.B.C., Surjaatmadja, J.B., Miranda, C.G., Carneiro, F., 2005 First Application of a
Multiple Fracturing Method in Noncemented Horizontal Offshore Wells, Paper SPE 94583
13. Jouti, I., Rafainer, G., Ferreira, A., Vidal, J., Villanueva, G.J., Canas, J., Rinto, A., Cancio, D.,
Gigena, D., Scarcelli, D., Landinez, G., Barreto, W., 2011, Challenging Horizontal Ophen Hole
Completion in Carbonates: A Case History on Mechanical Isolation and Selective Stimulation in
Campos Basin, Brazil, Paper, OTC-22417-PP
14. Al-Naimi, K.M., Lee, B.O., Bartko, K.M., Kelkar, S.K., Shaheen, M., Al-Jalal, Z., Johnston, B.,
2008, Application of a Novel Open-hole Horizontal Well Completion in Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE
113553
15. Mendes, G.D., Fowler, M.A., Hensgens, S.K., 2014 Electronic-Set Openhole Packer Installation
in Campos Basin, Offshore Brazil: A Case History, Paper, SPE-170264-MS