Solving Deepwater Well-Construction Problems

Grard Cuvillier
Stephen Edwards
Greg Johnson
Dick Plumb
Colin Sayers
Houston, Texas, USA
Glen Denyer
EEX Corporation
Houston, Texas
Jos Eduardo Mendona
Petrobras
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Bertrand Theuveny
Sandsli, Norway
Charlie Vise
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Alain Boitel,
Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo; Alan Christie and Ashley
Kishino, Rosharon, Texas, USA; Gary Dunlap, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil; Frank Mitton and Robin Walker, Houston, Texas; Les
Nutt, Fuchinobe, Japan; James Nutter, Macae, Brazil; and
David Viela, Luanda, Angola.
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), CDR (Compensated
Dual Resistivity), DeepCRETE, INFORM (Integrated Forward
Modeling), ISONIC (IDEAL sonic-while-drilling tool),
MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), PERFORM
(Performance Through Risk Management) and RFT
(Repeat Formation Tester) are marks of Schlumberger.

Oilfield Review

Deepwater wells are key to the oil industrys future. Constructing

wells in water depths measured in miles and kilometers requires
new solutions and challenges the industry to perform at its best.

Spring 2000

100

150

96

Other regions
Far East
West Africa
Brazil
US Gulf

75

78

54

50
40

28

25

The current water depth record in drilling for

hydrocarbons is held by a Petrobras well in 9111 ft
[2780 m] of water offshore Brazil.4 The record was
broken four times in 1999, as the depth increased
from 7718 to 9111 ft [2353 to 2780 m]as many
times as in the five preceding years, when it progressed from 6592 to 7712 ft [2009 to 2351 m].
The greatest challenges in constructing wells
in deep water are related somewhat to the great
depths, but also to the conditions encountered in
each deepwater oil province. In the deepest
waters, drilling can be accomplished only from
dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs or
drillships. Conventionally moored drilling rigs
have drilled as deep as 6023 ft [1836 m] in the
Gulf of Mexico. Conditions offshore West Africa
can be substantially different from those
encountered in the Gulf of Mexico, where the
presence of subsea currents makes drilling-riser
management more critical. More powerful and
larger rigs are required to maintain station under

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

> Recent production and the

forecast for deepwater fields.
(Adapted from Thomas, reference 1.)

Discovered and estimated potential deepwater reserves worldwide,

billions of barrels of oil equivalent

1. Thomas M: Into the Ultradeep, Deepwater Technology,

Supplement to Petroleum Engineer International 72, no. 5
(May 1999): 1-3, 5, 7.
Moritis G: Options to Produce Deepwater Oil,
Gas to Proliferate, Oil & Gas Journal 97, no. 50
(December 13, 1999): 69-72.
2. Moritis, reference 1.
3. Scientific wells can be drilled without blowout preventers
(BOPs) or drilling risers for mud return, and are not
cased or completed. Their aim is to produce information,
not hydrocarbons, and, in fact, if hydrocarbons or
overpressure are detected, drilling is terminated.
4. DeLuca M: International Focus, Offshore 60, no. 1
(January 2000): 10.

There are multiple definitions of deep

water, which vary depending on the activity
being considered. Generally, for well construction, 1500 ft, or 500 m, is considered deep.
Deeper than that, the technology requirements
change but solutions are available. And deeper
than 7000 ft, or about 2000 m, is ultradeep
water. Solutions, if available, are tailored to
each project. Government and regulatory agencies may adopt other definitions for deep, such
as beyond the break between continental shelf
and continental slope, and confer royalty or taxation relief on fields that qualify.
Scientific drilling by groups such as the internationally funded Ocean Drilling Program and its
predecessor, the Deep Sea Drilling Project, has
achieved the astounding water depth of 7044 m
[23,111 ft]. However, research holes like this one
are drilled without many of the economic and
operational constraints imposed on the offshore
E&P industry.3

Actual and forecast number of deepwater producing fields by region

Huge volumes of the worlds future oil reserves

lie in deep waters at the very limit of our current
reach, and just beyond. By all indications, tomorrow we will be drilling even deeper. The rapid
advances in deepwater exploration and production (E&P) methods over the past five years
ensure that as soon as one deepwater record is
broken, another surpasses it.
Operators are drawn to the arena of deepwater exploration by the promise of extensive
reserves and high production rates that justify the
extra expense and risk. Some deepwater fields
weigh in above the 2 billion-barrel [320 million-m3]
mark, and a single well can produce 50,000 barrels per day [8000 m3/d]. At the end of 1998, the
28 fields producing from water depths of 500 m
[1640 ft] or deeper delivered 935,000 B/D
[150,000 m3]. Most of these fields are in the Gulf
of Mexico and offshore Brazil, but even more
deepwater discoveries have been made or are
expected offshore West Africa, in the Far East
and on the North Atlantic margin (near right).
Analysts report that worldwide, an additional
43.5 billion bbl [6.9 billion m3] have been discovered in water deeper than 500 m, with the potential
for an additional 86.5 billion bbl [13.7 billion m3] (far
right).1 Only about half of the deepwater acreage
expected to hold hydrocarbons has been explored.
Some estimates suggest that 90% of the worlds
undiscovered offshore hydrocarbon reserves hide
in water depths greater than 1000 m [3280 ft].2

Total
125
Potential
Discovered
100

75

50

25

Far
East

South
America

US
Gulf

West
Africa

Antarctica
deepwater
basins

Other

> Billions of barrels of discovered

and potential deepwater reserves.
(Adapted from Thomas, reference 1.)

high currents and to carry the extra mud volume

and marine riser needed to construct the well. In
addition, the extreme water depth may also significantly impact rig downtime. For example, if a
rigs subsea blowout preventer (BOP) malfunctions, it can take three days just to retrieve it to
surface for repair.
The primary challenge facing deepwater well
construction is to drill a stable hole. In young
sedimentary basins with rapid rates of deposition, such as the Gulf of Mexico and parts of offshore Brazil and West Africa, sediments can
become undercompacted during burial. Pore
pressures can be high and fracture gradients low
compared with those in land wells at the same
depth, and the window between pore-pressure
and fracture gradient can be narrow. Safe welldesign and control practice requires advance
knowledge of pore-pressure and fracture gradient. Drilling a hydraulically stable hole can be
achieved only by keeping drilling mud weight
within the margin between fracture and porepressure gradient. In some projects, so many
strings of casing are needed to control shallow
unconsolidated sediments as well as deeper
pressure-transition zones that the reservoir cannot be reached. Or, if it is reached, the diameter
of tubing that will fit through the final casing is
so small as to render the project uneconomical
because of restricted flow rates.

In areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, shallow

flow hazards make well construction difficult.
These zones below the seabed are capable
of flowing water and, when encountered by a
drill bit, cause severe borehole stability problems. Water-flow zones also impede logging and
reentry in open hole and the setting of cement
behind casing.
In the deepest waters, todays wells are completed with wellheads and production trees on
the seafloor that connect to flowlines for transporting hydrocarbons to surface. The surface
structures may be floating production, storage
and offloading (FPSO) vessels or nearby host
platforms. Controlling live subsea wells for testing, completion and intervention requires specially designed, reliable equipment.5 Fluids often
must flow through miles of lines and sometimes
rely on submersible pumps or other artificial-lift
techniques in order to reach the surface.6 The
wells may be made more productive by implanting permanent monitoring and flow-control
devices downhole.7
Keeping fluids flowing at the highest possible rates requires not only adequate tubing size,
but also attention to conditions that can lead to
other flow blockages. At the high pressures and
low temperatures that deepwater wells
encounter near the seabed, solid, ice-like compounds called gas hydrates can form from mix-

tures of water and natural gas. These solids can

block flow in tubulars, and depressurize explosively when brought to surface. They have been
responsible for offshore drilling catastrophes in
the past. Hydrates can also form naturally at and
below the seabed, creating a drilling hazard if
penetrated. Other solids such as paraffins must
also be prevented from blocking flowlines.
To ensure cost-effective, safe and efficient
operations in deep waters, the industry must
develop solutions to these and many other problems. In some cases, the solution will be a new
tool or completely new technique; in others, an
innovative application of existing technology will
provide the answer. In this article, we describe
some of the newly proven methods and promising directions that will permit the continued
expansion of E&P activities into deeper waters.
Deepwater Excellence
The kinds of advances required to break the barriers imposed by the great oceans are not of the
sort that can be achieved single-handedly, by an
individual or even by a single company. Oil companies, service companies, drilling contractors,
academic institutions, government groups and
equipment manufacturers are all working toward
solutions. Some oil companies are setting up their
own specialized global deepwater drilling groups
to oversee drilling at the deepwater asset level.
Many operators and contractors are participating

Deepwater Center of Excellence

Well Construction

Completion Systems

Production
and Intervention

Drilling optimization

Completion technologies

Flow assurance

Riser technology

Sand-control systems

Application of coiled tubing

Alternative vessels

Perforating

Subsea tree systems

Drilling fluids

Well testing

Directional drilling

Directional drilling

Intelligent systems

Cementing technology

Zonal isolation

Cementing technology
Production systems
Intervention systems
Intervention vessels

Production equipment

Geology
and Geophysics
Seismic
(marine, borehole)
Ultradeep formation
evaluation
Geotechnical
shallow hazards
Reservoir optimization

Full field development

Floating production systems

Alliances

Other Centers of Excellence

R&D Centers

Product Engineering Centers

Subsea Engineering

> Deepwater Center of Excellence organization. The center works to identify technology gaps, prioritize needs and facilitate
the development of solutions to deepwater problems. Four technical domains link with other elements of the Schlumberger
organization to transfer knowledge.

Oilfield Review

5. Christie A, Kishino A, Cromb J, Hensley J, Kent E,

McBeath B, Stewart H, Vidal A and Koot L: Subsea Solutions, Oilfield Review 11, no. 4 (Winter 1999/2000): 2-19.
6. Fleshman R, Harryson and Lekic O: Artificial Lift for
High-Volume Production, Oilfield Review 11, no. 1
(Spring 1999): 48-63.
7. Algeroy J, Morris AJ, Stracke M, Auzerais F, Bryant I,
Raghuraman B, Rathnasingham R, Davies J, Gai H,
Johannessen O, Malde O, Toekje J and Newberry P:
Controlling Reservoirs from Afar, Oilfield Review 11,
no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 18-29.
Eck J, Ewherido U, Mohammed J, Ogunlowo R, Ford J,
Fry L, Hiron S, Osugo L, Simonian S, Oyewole T and
Veneruso T: Downhole Monitoring: The Story So Far,
Oilfield Review 11, no. 4 (Winter 1999/2000): 20-33.

Spring 2000

Conventional

Subsea Mudlift

Mud return
to surface

Drillpipe
Mud in riser
and drillpipe

Marine riser

Pressure gradient 1

Marine riser

Mud in
drillpipe
Drillpipe
Seawater
in riser

Casing
depths

Pressure gradient 2

Single pressure gradient

in industry consortia, initiatives and joint industry

projects to identify technology gaps and pool their
knowledge and resources. Examples of these are
the Deepstar consortium led by Texaco in the US,
PROCAP by Petrobras in Brazil, the Atlantic Margin Joint Industry Group (AMJIG) in the UK and
the Norwegian Deepwater Programme.
To address the demand for current and future
deepwater technical solutions, Schlumberger has
formed the Deepwater Center of Excellence, a
solutions center led by experts in Houston, Texas,
USA. The centers mission is to achieve a global
cooperative effort with the industry, focused on
identifying and developing cost-effective, best-inclass solutions to meet deepwater challenges.
The Deepwater Center of Excellence has
defined specific methods for meeting these objectives. First, the organization must recognize existing successful deepwater applications within all
the companys groups, prioritize needs for new
technology and propose technical solutions to the
engineering centers and clients. Second, internal
and external networks have to be established to
transfer knowledge and learning. Experts in the
Deepwater Center of Excellence manage and foster the development of solutions in one of four
specific technical domainswell construction,
completion systems, production and intervention,
and geology and geophysics (previous page).
These are aligned with critical well processes and
with current oil-company structures. Finally, the
center also acts as the Schlumberger representative in deepwater-related joint industry projects to
help put the acquired knowledge into practice.
Several joint industry projects (JIPs) have been
formed in attempts to overcome a wide range of
deepwater E&P obstacles. Some projects have
been established to investigate ways to reduce
costs or operate with less impact on the environment, while others are designed to enable activities in deeper waterwithout them, industry will
not develop the reserves found in ultradeep water.

Casing
depths

> Conventional (left) and subsea mudlift (right) deepwater drilling technology. In conventional drilling,
the weight of the mud column in the riser often is too high to drill without fracturing weak formations.
Subsea mudlift technology isolates mud and pumps it back to surface outside the riser to lessen the
load, allowing drilling to proceed without fracturing.

Drilling Joint Industry Projects

One such JIP is a project to design a new method
for drilling and constructing deepwater wells with
a minimum number casing strings so that deep
geological objectives can be reached with a hole
size that allows hydrocarbons to be produced at
high flow rates. In the Gulf of Mexico and basins
offshore West Africa, high depositional rates
cause sediments to accumulate rapidly and reach
considerable depths without compacting, or giving up their pore water. In these weak, unconsolidated formations, pore pressures are high and
formation fluids must be kept at bay by heavy
drilling mud. However, fracture pressures are low;
the great distance from the rig to the formation
creates an unbearably heavy column of mud in
the drillstring and riser, and the weight of the mud
fractures the formation unless casing is set. Several casing strings are set in these upper portions

of the well, reducing the number of contingency

strings left available for deeper difficulties, such
as lost-circulation zones, overpressured formations and other well-control incidents. A deepwater well in this kind of formation might cost more
than $50 million and still not reach its objective.
In 1996, 22 companies joined a JIP aimed at
removing the effect of water depth from deepwater well planning and drilling. The group determined that the most viable solution involved
reducing the weight of the mud on the formation
by changing the way mud returns to surface
(above). The Subsea Mudlift Drilling JIP, now
made up of representatives from Conoco, Chevron,
Texaco, BP Amoco, Diamond Offshore, Global
Marine, Schlumberger and Hydril, is developing
this technology and remains on track to deliver it
to the industry in 2002.

Depth

< Single-gradient conventional drilling, requiring many

casing strings. When the margin between pore pressure
and fracture pressure is narrow, conventional drilling,
with its pressure gradient referenced to the rig, requires
frequent mud-weight increases, accompanied by casing
strings to avoid fracturing.

Conventional
mud hydrostatic
pressure

Fracture
pressure

Seawater
hydrostatic
pressure

Casing
depths

Pore
pressure
Pressure

Depth

< Dual-gradient drilling for fewer casing strings. Because

the pore-, fracture- and mud-pressure gradients are referenced to the mudline rather than the rig, dual-gradient
drilling permits successful well construction with fewer
casing strings even when the margin between pore and
fracture pressure is slim.

Dual-gradient
mud hydrostatic
pressure

Fracture
pressure

Casing
depths

Seawater
hydrostatic
pressure

Pore
pressure
Pressure

8. Furlow W: Shell Moves Forward with Dual Gradient

Deepwater Drilling Solution, Offshore 60, no. 3
(March 2000): 54, 96.
9. For selected references on pore-pressure estimation:
Bowers GL: Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity
Data: Accounting for Pore-Pressure Mechanisms
Besides Undercompaction, SPE Drilling and Completion
10, no. 2 (June 1995): 89-95.
Dutta NC: Pressure Prediction from Seismic Data:
Implication for Seal Distribution and Hydrocarbon
Exploration and Exploitation in Deepwater Gulf of
Mexico, in Moller-Pedersen P and Koestler AG (eds):
Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration and
Production, NPF Special Publication, no. 7. Singapore:
Elsevier Science, 1997.

Eaton BA: The Equation for Geopressure Prediction

from Well Logs, paper SPE 5544, presented at the
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA,
September 28-October 1, 1975.
Hottman CE and Johnson RK: Estimation of Formation
Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties, Journal
of Petroleum Technology 16, no. 6 (June 1965): 717-722.
Pennebaker ES: Seismic Data Indicate Depth,
Magnitude of Abnormal Pressures, World Oil 166,
no. 7 (June 1968): 73-78.
10. Armstrong P and Nutt L: Drilling Optimization Using
Drill-Bit Seismic in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico,
paper IADC/SPE 59222, presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
February 23-25, 2000.

In conventional drilling, the mud column

extends from the rig to the bottom of the well,
forming a single mud-pressure gradient (left).
The effect of lowering the load in the riser is to
replace the single pressure gradient with a dualgradient system: a hydrostatic pressure gradient
acts from the rig to the seabed, sometimes
called the mudline; a new, higher, mud-pressure
gradient acts from the mudline to the bottom of
the hole. In the dual-gradient system, the pore-,
fracture- and mud-pressure gradients become
referenced to the mudline instead of to the rig
(below left).
The decrease in wellbore mud pressure can
save as many as four casing strings in the well
design (next page, top). The dual-gradient technology allows any well, regardless of water
depth, to reach its reservoir target with a 1214-in.
hole size. The large-bore wells made possible by
subsea mudlift drilling will be able to run 7-in.
tubing to the mudline, letting many wells achieve
their highest flow-rate potential. Alternatively,
this larger hole size will allow for horizontals or
multilaterals necessary to optimize reservoir
drainage. As a consequence, fewer wells will
need to be drilled to adequately drain a reservoir,
resulting in considerable reduction of field development capital expenditure and greater ultimate
recovery. The lower mud pressure also results in
fewer well kicks and lost-circulation problems.
The JIP estimates these benefits can lead to
savings of $5 million to $15 million per well.
There are several ways to reduce the weight
of the mud in the drilling riser. The Subsea
Mudlift Drilling JIP is developing a system with
two main components. First, a subsea rotating
diverter isolates the fluid in the riser from the
wellbore and diverts the return drilling fluid from
the base of the riser to the second key component, a mudlift pump. The mudlift pump directs
the mud back up to the rig in a flowline isolated
from the riser and keeps the hydrostatic pressure of the mud in the return line from being
transmitted back to the wellbore.
The system design and preliminary field testing will take place in the year 2000 and early
2001, and full-scale deepwater tests will follow.
The commercial system will be built in 2001 and
tested in 2002, opening the way for drilling in
hundreds of deepwater leases.

Oilfield Review

Conventional

Dual-Gradient
Casing size, in.

36
26

Casing size, in.

36
26

20
16

20
5 1/2-in.
tubing

7-in.
tubing
13 3/8

13 3/8
11 3/4
9 5/8

7 5/8

9 5/8

> Fewer casing strings and greater bottomhole completion diameter using the dualgradient method. The lower number of casing strings in dual-gradient deepwater
drilling (right) compared with conventional drilling (left) saves money and results in
larger diameter tubing at bottom for greater productivity.

Other JIPs are looking into solving the same

problem in different ways. Since 1996, Shell
E&P has been funding and developing a subsea
pumping system that accomplishes dualgradient drilling with existing technology where
possible. 8 Several companies, including FMC
Kongsberg, Alcatel, Centrilift, Dril-Quip and
Robicon have participated in the project, which
involves subsea separation of larger cuttings so
that electrical submersible pumps can be used
to return mud to surface. Cuttings are left on
the seafloor.
Predicting Pressures
In typical sedimentary basins, formations compact
as they are buried. Pore fluids are expelled, sediments compact to form consolidated rocks, and
pore pressure increases hydrostatically with
depth. In basins with high rates of deposition,
such as the Gulf of Mexico, excess fluids can be
trapped in low-permeability sediments as they
continue to be buried. These formations become
undercompacted and develop overpressure, or

pore pressure greater than hydrostatic. In overpressured zones, the rock porosity, or some log
measurement sensitive to porosity, such as sonic
traveltime or resistivity, deviates from the normal
compaction trend. These overpressured zones can
be hazardous during drilling. They can cause kicks
if they are not detected and require additional casing strings to keep the mud weight within the window between pore pressure and fracture gradient.
Accurate knowledge of pore pressures is a
key requirement for safe and economic deepwater well construction. Before drilling, pore
pressure can be estimated from other properties,
such as local seismic velocities, drilling experience, mud weights, and sonic and resistivity
measurements in nearby wells.9 The worth of
the pore-pressure prediction depends on the
quality of the input data, suitability of the
method used to compute pore pressure and on
calibration with measured pressures. Although
not routinely done, the pore-pressure model can
be enhanced by updating it with local calibration
data from drilling observations, while-drilling
logs and look-ahead vertical seismic profiles
using either surface sources or the drill bit as a
source (below).10

Load Project Data

Seismic data
Offset well logs
Offset well drilling data

Seismic Processing
Interval velocity profile

Calibration Data
Mud weights
Kicks, losses
RFT, MDT pressures

Log Data Processing

Preprocess editing
Mechanical stratigraphy
Overburden stress
Vp, resistivity profile
Time-depth relationship

Pore-Pressure Prediction
Pore-pressure profile

>Pore-pressure prediction
workflow. Seismic data,
pressures and logs help
engineers develop an initial
pore-pressure prediction and
stress model, which in turn
helps fine-tune the well plan.
Real-time information acquired
while drilling can update the
well plan.

Inputs to Well Plan

Casing seats
Mud weight
Risks
New data requirements

Stress Model
Fracture gradient

Real-Time Logs
Check-shot survey
ISONIC, gamma ray,
pressure while
drilling data

Revised Well Plan

Spring 2000

This approach was the key to success in a

recent deepwater Gulf of Mexico three-well
drilling project for EEX Corporation. The first well
was spudded using a preliminary pore-pressure
prediction that required updating during the
drilling process. The prediction was updated and
calibrated with kick information.
In the second well, the new pore-pressure
prediction technique was applied. Sonic and
resistivity logs, mud weights and drilling experience in an offset well helped create the preliminary pore-pressure model. The new well was
predicted to encounter the same geology as
the offset well but would not approach the salt
that the offset well encountered near 6500 ft
[1980 m] until much deeper.
A normal compaction trend appears in the
offset-well sonic logging data down to about
8000 ft [2440 m], where a zone of higher than
normal pressure is penetrated (below). The pore
pressure predicted from the sonic data can be
calibrated by actual pressures measured
during the drilling processa kick occurred at
5000 ft [1520 m] where pore pressure surpassed
drilling mud weight. After that, drilling proceeded

overbalanced, with mud that was heavier than

necessary. A similar pore-pressure prediction was
made from resistivity data.
A danger in applying these pore-pressure
predictions in regions of active salt tectonism is
that the measurements made at the offset-well
location may not be representative of the geology traversed by the new well, especially
deeper, in salt-prone sections. The only information type common to the two sites is interval
velocity derived from processing the surface
seismic line that ties the two wells. Seismic
interval velocities produce a much lower resolution pore-pressure prediction, but still serve to
define both a normal compaction trend and a
predicted pressure trend to support the predictions from other measurements.
The seismic interval velocities over the new
well location, combined with the log-derived
predictions from the offset well, help construct
the final predrill pore-pressure prediction (next
page, top). The seismic-derived pore pressures
indicate a narrowing safe mud-weight window
with depthless than 2 lbm/gal [0.24 g/cm3] at
the target depth of 20,000 ft [6100 m].

In all three wells, the pore pressures obtained

using the Schlumberger calibration method accurately predicted the pore pressures encountered
in the well. Each well was drilled with the services of a Schlumberger PERFORM (Performance
Through Risk Management) engineer, who monitored the drilling process with while-drilling measurements and helped update the well plan.11
Refining Predrill Pressure Predictions
As the previous example shows, offset-well data
can produce a high-resolution pore-pressure prediction. However, the prediction may not hold in
the vicinity of the new well. Adding the porepressure information from seismic interval velocities provides areal coverage, but interval velocities
have several drawbacks. They are not of high
enough resolution to produce pore-pressure
predictions adequate for well-planning purposes.
They also are not physical traveltime velocities,
but rather are derived from stacking velocities
by-products of seismic data processing that happen to have the units of distance divided by time.
They can correspond to actual seismic velocities

Overburden gradient
Normal compaction trend

Depth, ft

Offset well mud weight

Normal compaction trend

Resistivity

Slowness

Resistivity points

ohm-m

sec/ft

40

Slowness porosity trend

Pore pressure, seismic

Normal compaction trend

Pore pressure, resistivity

ohm-m

300 0.1

Resistivity porosity trend

Seismic interval velocities

10 4000

ft/sec

Pore pressure, sonic

20,000 0

lbm/gal

20

2200

4400

Kick

6600

8800

11,000

13,200

> Input data from offset well and corresponding pore-pressure predictions. Sonic data, resistivity measurements and seismic velocities each
show normal compaction trends at shallow levels but deviate deeper. All three data types lead to comparable pore-pressure predictions that are
calibrated by actual pressures encountered when mud weights are insufficient to prevent kicks (black diamond in track 4).

Oilfield Review

when the subsurface comprises flat homogeneous layers. However, each velocity value represents an average over the spatial extent of the
seismic source and receivers usedoften up to
8 km [5 miles] in deep water. And interval velocities are not representative of true subsurface
velocities in the cases of dipping layers, lateral
variations in velocity or pressure, or changes in
layer thickness, exactly the circumstances in
which one would not be able to rely on offsetwell log data and would hope to use seismic
data for pore-pressure prediction.
Schlumberger geophysicists have devised a
way to extract physically meaningful velocities
from 3D seismic data to derive an enhancedresolution predrill pore-pressure prediction.12
The technique, called tomographic inversion,
incorporates an automated process that uses
all the traveltime patterns in the recorded seismic data to produce a laterally varying velocity
model and so an improved pore-pressure prediction (below).

Overburden gradient
Offset well mud weight
Depth, ft

Pore pressure, seismic

Normal compaction trend

Pore pressure, resistivity

Seismic interval velocities

ft/sec

5000

Pore pressure, sonic

lbm/gal

30,000 0

20

4000

8000

12,000

11. Aldred W, Plumb D, Bradford I, Cook J, Gholkar V,

Cousins L, Minton R, Fuller J, Goraya S and Tucker D:
Managing Drilling Risk, Oilfield Review 11, no. 2
(Summer 1999): 2-19.
12. Sayers CM, Johnson GM and Denyer G: Predrill
Pore Pressure Prediction Using Seismic Data, paper
IADC/SPE 59122, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
February 23-25, 2000.

16,000

20,000

< A conventional pore-pressure prediction based

on stacking velocities (left) compared with one
based on tomographic inversion (right). The initial
prediction has lower resolution, a lower range of
pore pressures and is laterally smoothed. The
refined prediction shows detail that corresponds
to subsurface geology accurately.

> Normal trend observed in seismic interval velocities (track 1) and final
predrill pore-pressure predictions (track 2) for the new well location.

Conventional Pore-Pressure Prediction

Tomography-Based Pore-Pressure Prediction

16
13.5
15
13

14

11.5

2.5

11

3
10.5
3.5

Depth, km

12

1.5

Pore pressure, lbm/gal

Depth, km

0.5

12.5

13

1.5
2

12

2.5
11

3
3.5

10

14
16

12

14

Di

sta 10
nc
e, 8
km

Spring 2000

9.5

12
10
6

8
6

Dist

anc

e, km

Pore pressure, lbm/gal

0.5

10

14
12

16

Di

sta 10
nc
e, 8
km

14

12
10
6

8
6

Dist

an

m
ce, k

0.5

1500

1.0

2000

1.5

2500

2.0

3000

2.5

3500
4000

3.0

Velocity, m/sec

Depth, km

Interval Velocities from Stacking

4500

3.5

5000

4.0

5500
4.5

6000
3000

7000

11,000

15,000

19,000

23,000

27,000

Distance, m

The method has been tested on a deepwater

well project for EEX in the Gulf of Mexico. An
existing 2D marine seismic survey was reprocessed using tomographic inversion to generate
a refined velocity model for transformation to
pore pressure (left). The resulting velocity model
has sufficient detail to derive an accurate porepressure prediction away from the offset well to
the south. A drilling trajectory between the two
salt bodies imaged in the seismic line could
encounter a predicted low-velocity zone, which
may indicate the presence of overpressure. The
spatial extent of this anomaly is not well-defined
by the stacking-velocity image. However, the
improved resolution in the tomography-based
velocities allows a more reliable predrill porepressure estimate to be made (next page, top).

1500

1.0

2000

1.5

2500

2.0

3000

2.5

3500

3.0

4000

4000

Overburden
stress gradient

4500

3.5

5000

4.0

6000

Depth, ft

0.5

Velocity, m/sec

Depth, km

Interval Velocities from Tomography

Overpressure
predictions
8000

5500

4.5

6000
3000

7000

11,000

15,000

19,000

23,000

27,000

Distance, m

> Velocity models over existing wells and proposed well location. Interval velocities derived from
stacking velocities (top) do not appear to correspond to the geological interpretation of the seismic
line. The interpretation is drawn in fine lines on the image. The refined velocity model constructed
using tomographic inversion (bottom) corresponds to subsurface salt features interpreted in seismic
section and contains enough detail to produce an accurate pore-pressure prediction.

10,000

10

12

14

16

Pressure gradient, lbm/gal

> Pore pressures predicted in the vicinity

of the proposed well location and the
low-velocity zone indicated in the seismic
velocity model. The prediction shows an
increase in pressure at about 7600 ft
[2320 m].

10

Oilfield Review

16

2000

15

4000

14

6000

13

8000

12

10,000

11

12,000

Pore pressure, lbm/gal

Depth, ft

10

14,000

9
8000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Distance, m

> Two-dimensional predrill pore-pressure prediction

developed from a tomography-based velocity model.

The proposed well location is in the vicinity

of the low-velocity zone, and the pore-pressure
prediction shows a corresponding jump in pressure at about 7600 ft [2320 m] (previous page,
right). The predicted pore pressures are in good
agreement with the actual mud weights subsequently used to drill the well.
Deepwater Drilling Solutions
A variety of other problems can hinder the wellconstruction process in deep water. The following
examples illustrate some of the latest solutions.
Wellbore stabilityCooling of the drilling
fluid in the riser can cause higher mud viscosity,
increased gel strength and high frictional pressure losses. These factors increase the likelihood of lost-circulation problems, and drilling
engineers must take appropriate steps to avoid
exceeding formation fracture pressures. Realtime measurement of annular pressure while
drilling helps monitor the equivalent circulating
density (ECD) of mud to allow drillers to keep
within the narrow stability window found in
many deepwater holes. Equivalent circulating
density is the effective mud weight at a given
depth created by the combined hydrostatic and
dynamic pressures.
13. Aldred W, Cook J, Bern P, Carpenter B, Hutchinson M,
Lovell J, Rezmer-Cooper I and Leder PC: Using Downhole Annular Pressure Measurements to Improve Drilling
Performance, Oilfield Review 10, no. 4 (Winter 1998):
40-55.

Spring 2000

Real-time monitoring of annular pressure

while drilling helped during construction of a
deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico (below).13
Mud weight was just below the pore pressure
predicted from seismic interval velocities when
a kick occurred in Zone A. Mud weight was
increased to control the well and 13 38-in. casing
was set. The next two hole sections were drilled
without incident, then another kick was taken in
Zone B, so 9 58-in. casing was set to permit
another increase in mud weight. The heavier
mud exceeded overburden pressure and some
lost circulation was experienced in Zone C, but
drilling continued successfully thereafter.

Overburden gradient, lbm/gal

Resistivity pore pressure estimate, lbm/gal
ECD, lbm/gal
Seismic pore pressure estimate, lbm/gal

10

17
Casing, in.
20
16

Zone A

Kick

13 3/8

11 3/4

Zone B

Kick

9 5/8

Zone C

7 5/8

> Real-time annular pressure while drilling measurements indicating when effective
circulating density (ECD) begins to fall outside the margin between pore pressure and
fracture pressure. When ECD is too low, pore pressure causes kicks. Increasing mud
weight may control the well, but if the margin between pore and fracture pressure is
narrow, casing must be set to accommodate the heavier mud.

11

12

Annulus temperature

Phase-shift resistivity
ohm-m

Rate of penetration
500

ft/hr

Gamma ray
0

API

2 50

Phase-shift resistivity

150

Depth, m

Water-flow zonesSince 1987, operators

have reported hazardous water flows in 60 Gulf
of Mexico lease blocks involving 45 oil and gas
fields.14 These abnormally pressured formations
are usually sands caught in quickly slumping and
rotating fault blocks or in reworked channels
sealed by impermeable clay. Water flows have
been reported between 800 and 5500 ft [244 to
1680 m] depth below the seafloor. A flow may
contain gas and may develop solid gas hydrates
in and near seabed equipment. Uncontrolled
water flow can lead to formation cave-in, and if
influx is severe enough, the well can be lost.
Washouts can undermine the large casing, or
conductor pipe, that is the main support structure for the well.
The industry spends an average of $1.6 million per deepwater well for the prevention or
correction of problems associated with shallow
flows.15 A combination of techniques is used to
combat the problem, including acquiring measurements while drilling, setting extra casing,
drilling pilot holes, using a riser and pumping
special cements. The while-drilling measurementsby far the least expensive of the
stepsare designed to identify water-flow
zones as soon as they are encountered.
Operators have started to use real-time
annular pressure measurements to detect waterflow zones. An example comes from deepwater
Gulf of Mexico, where a water-flow zone was
identified on gamma ray, resistivity and annular
pressure while drilling logs (right).16 The jump in
equivalent circulating density indicated possible
influx of solids. Visual confirmation of water flow
was confirmed by remotely operated video at the
seafloor. Mud weight was increased to control
the flow, and drilling continued. Similar flow
zones were detected within the next few hundred meters. All the water-flow zones were
safely contained. Early warning of water influx
provided by the real-time measurements made it
possible to keep on drilling to the planned depth.
Deepwater cementingWater flows also
present problems during cementing operations.
Water influx can keep cement from solidifying,
jeopardizing the integrity of the well. A deepwater consortium including Schlumberger and
several oil companies sought to formulate a
cement for deepwater wells that would be able

ohm-m

X000

ohm-m

100

Annulus pressure
10 2000

Attenuation resistivity
0

10 8

psi
ECD
lbm/gal

3000

Water influx

X100
B-upper
B-lower
X200

Water influx

X300

X400
C
X500

X600

X700

X800
D

Water influx
X900

> Detecting water-flow zones in deepwater wells with annular pressure while drilling
measurements. Three water-flow zones A, B and D (light blue highlight) were identified
with the help of the while-drilling data. In each case, increasing the mud weight
successfully controlled the flow, and drilling continued to total depth.

to hold up against water flows but also be light

enough not to fracture weak formations. The key
was to find a cement with a short transition
timethe period when it changes from a liquid
to a solidto minimize the interval during which
its strength is too low to hold back water flow.
A foamed deepwater right-angle set (RAS)
slurry was the solution. The deepwater RAS has
the requisite short transition time and early compressive strength and thus prevents any water
flow from penetrating the cement bond. As a
foam, the cement density can be modified with
nitrogen injection during mixing to create a
slurry that is light enough to avoid fracturing
weak deepwater formations.

The deepwater RAS cement has helped stop

water flow and provided successful cement jobs
in more than 50 deepwater wells, even at
record-breaking depths. This includes cementing
the conductor and surface strings for the
Chevron Atwater 18 #1 well in 7718 ft [2352 m]
of water in the Gulf of Mexico.
Foamed cement requires a nitrogen supply, specialized equipment for injecting it, and a cementing
team trained in its useall of which may be
challenging to coordinate on a deepwater rig.

Oilfield Review

An alternative to foamed cement, DeepCRETE

technology, has been developed for such deepwater wells. DeepCRETE cement strengthens
quickly even at temperatures as low as 4C
[39F], reducing waiting-on-cement times.17
Operators offshore Angola, Africa report significant savings with DeepCRETE cement for well
construction in deepwater areas, where the lowtemperature environment causes long setting
times and ordinary cements suffer from losses due
to the low fracture gradient. In one case, using a
conventional cement in a well with a bottomhole
circulating temperature of 12C [54F], the 15.8lbm/gal [1.89-g/cm3] slurry exceeded the fracture
gradient at the seabed. It took 68 hours to achieve
the first 500-psi [3.4-MPa] setting. In the second
case, with DeepCRETE cement, a 12.5-lbm/gal
[1.5-g/cm3] slurry set in 11 hours with no evidence
of cement loss to fracturing (right). The 57-hour
reduction in rig time translated to savings of
$475,000.
Reservoir evaluationDifficulties in deepwater well construction manifest themselves
again later as challenges in formation evaluation. Low fracture gradients and water-flow
zones cause washouts and inadequate cementing, leading in turn to adverse hole conditions
for logging. Logging-while-drilling (LWD) measurements help obtain formation-evaluation
information before hole conditions deteriorate.
This technique has been successful in the
rapidly growing market offshore Angola, where
deepwater production is projected to reach 1.38
million B/D [219,000 m 3/d] by the year 2005
(right). 18 In a well drilled in 1200-m [3940-ft]
14. Minerals Management Services, US Department
of Interior. http://www.mms.gov. and
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/
wtrflow.html
15. Alberty M: Cost Analysis of SWF Preventative,
Remedial Measures in Deepwater Drilling, Offshore 60,
no. 1 (January 2000): 58, 60, 62, 64.
16. Aldred et al, reference 13.
17. Boisnault JM, Guillot D, Bourahla B, Tirlia T, Dahl T,
Holmes C, Raiturkar AM, Maroy P, Moffett C, Mejia GP,
Martinez IR, Revil P and Roemer R: Concrete Developments in Cement Technology, Oilfield Review 11, no. 1
(Spring 1999): 16-29.
18. Kuito Kicks off for Angola, Offshore Engineer 24, no. 10
(October 1999): 26-28.

Conventional
cement

68

DeepCRETE
cement

11
0

25

50

75

Setting time, hr

> Faster setting DeepCRETE cement for controlling water flow and saving
rig time. In this deepwater offshore Africa example, a conventional
cement system exceeded the fracture gradient at the seabed and took
68 hours to set. The DeepCRETE cement, a less dense slurry, set in 11
hours with no fracturing.

CAMEROON
EQUATORIAL
GUINEA

GABON

CONGO
ZAIRE

AFRICA
ANGOLA

NAMIBIA

> Offshore Angola, where production from deepwater wells is estimated to

grow to 1.38 million B/D in five years.

Spring 2000

13

AIT 90
AIT 60

Depth, m

AIT 30
AIT 10
CDR-phase shift

Gamma Ray
0

API

CDR-attenuation
150

0.2

ohm-m

2000

X050

X100

deep water offshore Angola, CDR Compensated

Dual Resistivity tool measurements were made
to determine casing and coring points (left).
After drilling several hundred meters into the
reservoir with oil-base mud (OBM), substantial
mud losses were incurred. These were believed
to originate at the bottom of the hole. Wireline
AIT Array Induction Imager Tool measurements
run seven days later, after mud losses totaled
300 m 3 , showed a completely different log
response between about X050 and X130 m compared with the earlier CDR results. Increased
values of wireline resistivity indicated the shale
section had been altered and possibly fractured
by the OBM.
Similar cases often have been documented
in the past, but less common with OBM is the
reversal observed in the order of the AIT curves.
Here, the deeper reading AIT resistivities exhibit
higher values than the near-reading ones. To
understand these results, Schlumberger engineers modeled the formation, fracture and measurements using INFORM forward modeling
software. Different fracture openings and relative angles of intersection with the borehole
were tested to find the conditions under which
the observed reversal of the AIT curves would
occur (next page, top). The INFORM modeling
showed that a fracture dipping at 75 can reproduce the order of the AIT readings.

X150

X200

> Comparison between while-drilling logs from the CDR Compensated Dual Resistivity tool and wireline
logs from the AIT Array Induction Imager Tool series. The AIT curves acquired after significant mud
loss exhibit indications of alteration and fracturing between X050 and X130 m. However, the order of
the curves, with deeper reading measurements seeing higher resistivity, seemed unusual for invasion
by oil-base mud.

14

Constructing Productive Wells

Achieving optimal hydrocarbon production from
deepwater wells requires special attention to flow
assurance. Assuring flow is a multidisciplinary
effort, covering issues from asphaltene deposition
and hydrate formation to hydrocarbon flow properties and flowline reliability. Any potential problem
that could hinder flow from the reservoir to the
production export vessel or pipeline falls under the
heading of flow assurance.
Offshore Brazil and elsewhere, deepwater
development layouts have been constrained by
reservoir pressures. Reservoir pressure controlled
the distance that could be tolerated between well
and platform without critical flow loss. Pressure
decline could be combated by water injection, or
backpressure could be reduced by gas lift. However, gas-lift efficiency suffers in wells with the
long horizontal tie-backs typical of subsea completions. Sustaining oil production from these
deepwater subsea wells requires new solutions
to increase flow rates, simplify production facility
layouts, decrease the number of platforms and

Oilfield Review

Shale resistivity, 0.5 ohm-m

< Forward modeling of AIT response to inclined

fracture. INFORM forward modeling showed that
a fracture dipping at 75 can reproduce the
observed order of the AIT curves.

1 cm

10,000

For use of electrical submersible pumps to be

feasible in the deepest water, the pumps would
need to assure flow through extended tie-backs
to surface facilities. It was important to test the
viability of the method in shallow water before
investing in the development of a deepwater system. Six other companies cooperated in the
development and installation of the system: Reda
and Lasalle (both now part of Schlumberger),
Tronic, Pirelli, Cameron and Sade-Vigesa. A Reda
pump was installed in subsea well RJS-221,
powered from the Carapeba 1 fixed tower 1640 ft
[500 m] away. From there, with only the energy
from the pump, production flowed to the Pargo 1
platform 8.4 miles [13 km] away. The pump was
put into operation in October 1994 and functioned for 34 months before a failure occurred.

Fracture resistivity, 1000 ohm-m

1000

AIT curves
100

AT90
AT60
AT30
AT20
AT10

AIT-H, ohm-m

Relative angle = 75

10

0.1
-20

-10

10

20

Offset from fracture, cm

B

Campos

Campos
Roncador
Vermelho
Carapeba

Albacora
Albacora East

Pargo
Marlim

Marlim South

10
00

400
m

19. Mendona JE: Electrical-Submersible-Pump Installation

in a Deepwater Offshore Brazil Well, Journal of
Petroleum Technology 50, no. 4 (April 1998): 78-80.
Mendona JE: Deepwater Installation of an Electrical
Submersible Pump in Campos Basin, Brazil, paper OTC
8474, presented at the 1997 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May 5-6, 1997.

SOUTH
AMERICA

100

reduce investments and operating costs. Several

solutions are being investigated, including downhole boosting, subsea multiphase pumps and subsea separation.
Downhole pumpsIn 1992, the Petrobras
PROCAP program initiated a project to develop
these boosting technologies. The downhole
boosting method was the first to reach the field
in deepwater offshore Brazil, in the form of the
electrical submersible pump.19 Petrobras already
had significant experience with electrical submersible pumps on fixed towers in shallower
water and in dry completions onshore. In one
offshore development from eight fixed towers in
the area comprising the Carapeba, Pargo and
Vermelho oil fields of the Campos basin, 132
wells produce with these pumps (right).

00

20

> Offshore Brazil, the site of the deepwater subsea electrical submersible pump test.

Spring 2000

15

Moored
production
platform

Power cable
and flowline

Subsea
wellhead

Electrical
submersible
pump

For the deepwater electrical submersible

pump installation, new equipment was developed for the extreme water depth and longdistance power transmission. This included the
Reda pump; Pirelli subsea power cables; Tronic
subsea power connectors; subsea power transformer and long-distance power transmission by
Siemens; and the deepwater horizontal production tree by Cameron.
This deepwater prototype has so far completed two years of run-life with no failures.
Petrobras considers the system to be proven to
its design limits.
Subsea boostingStatoil, BP Amoco,
ExxonMobil and Petrobras have investigated the
possibility of deploying subsea multiphase
boosting pumps as an alternative to subsurface
downhole pumping. This option becomes attractive when the production from a large number of
wells can be commingled subsea and boosted
from a production manifold or when the flowing
pressure in the reservoir drops below the bubblepoint. Deploying multiphase pumps on the
seafloor, closer to the reservoir than if deployed
at the sea surface, permits the efficient addition
of pressure head to the flow and allows for a
high-power system.
The equipment was first deployed in December 1997 in the Lufeng field operated by Statoil in
the South China Sea (below). Five multiphase
boosting pumps manufactured by Framo Engineering were installed in 330 m [1082 ft] of water

Perforations

> Subsea electrical submersible pump sending production from Well RJS-477 in 3632-ft
[1107-m] deep water to Albacora field Platform P-25, four miles away in shallower water.

The installation in RJS-221 demonstrated

excellent longevity compared with dry-completion
installations, and proved the method for subsea
use. This encouraged Petrobras to develop the
technology further for deep water. The deepwater
test site, well RJS-477, in the East Albacora oil
reservoir is in 3632-ft [1107-m] deep water. In
June 1998, as a result of the pump installation,
RJS-477 began to produce to Albacora field
Platform P-25, moored 4 miles [6.4 km] away in
1886 ft [575 m] of water (above). The power system has been developed for a range of 15 miles
[24 km], which will allow, for example, Campos
basin wells within the 3775-ft [1150-m] waterdepth mark to produce to high-capacity facilities
moored or fixed in shallower water.

16

The electrical submersible pump is the key to

the success of the new method.20 High intervention costs in deep water mean that equipment
reliability and longevity are crucial. Integration
of the completion system with electrical submersible pump equipment is fundamental, and
should be addressed in the planning stages of
deepwater wells. Both of the wells involved in
the test, RJS-221 and the deepwater RJS-477,
were drilled to test new reservoirs before electrical submersible pumps were considered for
these subsea wells and so were not designed to
accommodate a submersible pump. Restrictions
in the liner and casing size in RJS-477 presented
challenges to the design of the pump system.
> Deploying a multiphase boosting pump in the
Lufeng field, South China Sea.

Oilfield Review

Framo subsea
booster pumps

> Five subsea multiphase booster pumps in the Statoil development of the Lufeng field.
> The subsea multiphase boosting pump built for the
ExxonMobil operation in the Topacio field, offshore Equatorial
Guinea.

(above left). Since then, the pumps have lifted

more than 50 million barrels [8 million m3] of liquid. Pump operations have been trouble-free. The
FPSO Navion Munin can perform intervention
on the subsea pump using its own crane, thus
allowing for cost-effective retrieval if needed.
Another deployment of multiphase pumps is
under way in the Topacio field offshore Equatorial
Guinea, where ExxonMobil is running two Framo
pumps in more than 500 m of water to boost production from a satellite field (above right).
Other subsea developments that produce
from multiple wells may require a subsea multiphase flowmeter. Framo Engineering has developed a subsea multiphase flowmeter that allows
testing of individual wells. This type of solution
was selected by BP Amoco for their development of the Machar field. A separate subsea
module allows the boosting of the multiphase
production once the wells water-out.
Application of these solutions to developments
in deeper water will eventually allow for more costeffective tie-backs than are currently achievable.
Subsea separationSeveral companies are
investigating concepts in subsea fluid separation. Separating fluids subsea will avoid lifting
large volumes of water all the way to surface for
processing and disposal. This can reduce lifting
costs and allow economies in topside water processing and handling capacities. The savings
may extend the economic life of deepwater projects and reduce development risks.

Spring 2000

Deepwater Wave
Along with increases in recovery percentages in
existing fields, deep water is one of the industrys main hopes for balancing supply and
demand from the year 2005 onward. To realize
this hope, technological solutions and project
management methods must result in performance levels that will allow deepwater projects
to compete economically with other sources of
oil and gas. The industry is making measurable
progress in this direction. In the 1980s producing
a barrel of oil from a well in 200 m [656 ft] of
water cost between $13 and $15 for an average
field. Now technological advances have reduced
that figure to $5 to $7.21
The way forward into deeper water will
come from many directions. Beyond some depth,
all production will be from subsea developments. Advances in subsea flowlines, production
trees, electrical power distribution systems, fluid
separation and reinjection technology and multiphase metering and pumping will be necessary
to derive economical production from the
10,000-ft [about 3000-m] water depths that soon
will be explored. These advances will allow the
subsea industry to move an increasing amount
of activity to the seabed.

Deepwater and other offshore wells that

undergo well testing produce fluids that need to
be transported or otherwise disposed of, raising
environmental and operational safety concerns.
Schlumberger is participating in a joint industry
project with BP Amoco, Conoco and Norsk Hydro
to examine the feasibility of well testing without
producing hydrocarbons to the surface. The project will investigate technology to circulate fluids through a downhole testing system. The system will acquire pressure and flow-rate data
downhole rather than at the surface without
having to flare hydrocarbon fluids or transport
collected liquids for remote disposal. The result
will be improved operational safety and reduced
environmental impact.
The industry recognizes that deep waters
hold a key to its future survival and success.
Diverse new technologies have brought exploration in deep and ultradeep water within the
grasp of oil companies. As we go further and
deeper, we are sure to find new challenges and
opportunities.
LS

20. Reda has installed 100% of the worlds subsea electrical

submersible pumps.
21. Thomas, reference 1.

17