Completion Design for a Highly

Compacting Deepwater Field

Alexander D. Procyk, SPE, David P. Jamieson, SPE, Joe A. Miller, SPE, Robert C. Burton, SPE, and
Richard M. Hodge, SPE, ConocoPhillips, and Nobuo Morita, SPE, Waseda University

Summary
The Magnolia field, located in the deepwater region of the Gulf of
Mexico, produces oil and gas from a tension leg platform (TLP)
in 4,673 ft of water. The reservoirs comprise several stacked sandstone intervals within the early to mid Pleistocene with some minor
production from the Miocene and Pliocene sands. A total of eight
wells have been completed, with the majority of the production
from the B25 sandstone. The formation-particle size is fine-grained
sand to coarse silt and has relatively low K*H compared to other
deepwater reservoirs. The reservoirs are significantly overpressured, highly compartmentalized, highly compacted, and have
experienced significant pressure declines in excess of 8,000 psi in
some cases during production.
The wells were completed with cased-hole frac packs and each
completion included a permanent downhole gauge, enabling interpretation of the K*H and skin throughout the producing history
of the wells to date. The perforating guns, frac fluids, and screens
were extensively tested before completion. The perforation-shot size
and density was carefully chosen and tested to achieve the required
production. Well test results matched inflow analysis predictions.
The initial skin values generally met expectations and improved
during production because of a combination of well cleanup and
reduced reservoir permeability from compaction. Proppant integrity
has been maintained under extreme depletion (>8,000 psi) conditions. Productivity was measured using perforation tunnel permeability (Kpt) analysis. The Kpt values were analyzed over the course
of production and compared to similar type completions. The Kpt
benchmark analysis shows that the completions are among the best
in class. Well productivity has met or is above expectations, and the
longevity has exceeded expectations in most cases.
Introduction
The Magnolia field is located in the deepwater region of the Gulf
of Mexico in Garden Banks, Blocks GB783 and GB784 (Fig. 1).
The field was discovered in 1999 with the GB783-1 exploration
well and brought on production in December 2004. The field was
developed using a TLP, which sits in 4,673 ft of water and produces
both oil and gas from eight wells (Reinhardt et al. 2006). The field
has hydrocarbon pay in at least 15 sand sequences, ten of which
have been targeted for development. Most of the reservoirs are
Pleistocene; however, two minor Pliocene reservoirs and one minor
Miocene reservoir are also present (Fig. 2). More than 80% of the
recoverable volumes are from the lowermost Pleistocene sands,
the B20, B25, and B30, with some 60% of the predicted recovery
expected from the B25 reservoir. Both oil- and gas-bearing sands
are present at various levels in the field, with everything from highly
undersaturated (4,0007,000 psi), good quality [approximately 38
API, gas/oil ratio (GOR) 1,800 standard cubic ft/stock-tank bbl
(scf/stb)] crudes in much of the B20, B25, and B30 reservoirs,
saturated crudes, rich gas condensates (>100 stb/MMscf) to dry
gases in some of the shallower intervals.
The sands are deepwater turbidite deposits, including sheet sands,
amalgamated and braided channel sands, and levee and overbank

Copyright 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 109824) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11-14 November 2007, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 13 August 2007. Revised manuscript
received for review 2 May 2008. Paper peer approved 21 August 2008.

642

facies. There is significant faulting because of deformation by an

underlying salt diaper, resulting in significant compartmentalization of the field. The main B25 reservoir is further compartmentalized stratigraphically because of three main amalgamated channel
bodies. A net pay map for the B25 is presented in Fig. 3, with the
main channel bodies and fault blocks highlighted. An east-west
seismic line through the field further highlights Magnolias structural and stratigraphic complexity (Fig. 4).
Initial reservoir pressures vary significantly by fault block and by
reservoir unit, with the initial pressure in the B25 reservoir typically
9,500 to 11,000 psia. A pressure plot of the largest reservoir, the
B25 demonstrates the significant compartmentalization (Fig. 5). The
reservoir temperature is fairly low, typically 145 to 160F.
Reservoir quality is generally poor for a deepwater field, having
coarse silt to very-fine-grained sands resulting in initial permeability values in the B25 and B30 reservoirs from 50 to 250 md
with average sand-grain sizes in the 70 micron range. The reservoir
sands are quite thick in places, resulting in quite good K*H values
between 7,50050,000 md-ft in the B25 and B30 reservoirs. The
reservoirs are mostly depletion drive with significant compaction
drive because of the very high compressibility of the rock that
increases with depletion (Fig. 6).
The compaction drive is a mixed blessing, however. While
the compaction drive pressure support increases recovery, the
realignment of the sand grains as the reservoir compacts results
in dramatic declines in the permeability-thickness (K*H) product,
with both the sand thickness and permeability decreasing. Fig. 7
presents the range of change in permeability compared with the initial permeability. As there was no means of measuring the change
in sand thickness caused by compaction, the ratio is presented as
K/Ki. Predicted decreases in K*H were as much as 80% during the
producing life of the reservoir.
Production Performance
Field production commenced in December 2004 from the A2 well.
All of the production wells were then completed sequentially and
were characterized by a ramp-up period followed by rapid production decline because of depletion and compaction effects (Fig. 8).
Cumulative production to end June 2007 was some 29.4 MM bbl
of oil equivalent (BOE). A typical oil well production performance
plot is presented in Fig. 9. The production shows excellent initial
deliverability of more than 20,000 stb/d, with rapid production
and pressure decline. The decline slows as the compaction drive
provides pressure support. The GOR is stable until the bubble point
at around 4,000 psi is reached after which the GOR has started
to climb slowly.
The final abandonment pressure significantly impacts the ultimate recovery and is a function of formation and completion integrity under high stress because of the large pressure depletion and
resultant formation compaction. To date, only one completion has
failed because of depletion, resulting in breach of the sand-control
screens in the A5 well once bottomhole pressure (BHP) reached
approximately 3,000 psia. Well A5 was originally producing from
the deeper B30 interval and after failure was selectively completed
in the overlaying B25 interval.
Completion Design
The Magnolia reservoir presented unique completion challenges.
Preliminary compaction studies showed the reservoir could experience 1 to 4% compaction strain with approximately 50% depletion.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 1Magnolia location.

Production forecasts suggested that well production would be

expected beyond 50% depletion. To cope with this compaction,
high-strength casing and liners were used (Ibetwe et al. 2003;
Eaton et al. 2007). The production liners were either 81/16-in.
54 lbm/ft, 103/4-in. 64 lbm/ft, or 103/8-in. 87.88 lbm/ft with 0.78-in.
and 0.93-in. wall thicknesses, respectively.
Formation-failure analysis predicted high sand-production potential at expected drawdown and production rates. Additionally, the

reservoir sand quality was very poor with median grain diameter
(d50) values ranging from 2 to 77 microns as shown in Fig. 10.
Initially, openhole, screen-only completions and cased-hole frac
packs were considered for the Magnolia wells. Because of the
extensive faulting, expected compaction, stacked pay, and relatively poor quality sand that comprised the majority of the producing interval, frac packs were considered the most promising
option with regard to sustainable productivity and reliability. Frac

AGE
AGE
Ma
Ma
A40
SAND
A40 SAND
A50
SAND
A50 SAND
A60
SAND
A60 SAND
A70 SAND
A70
SAND

A80
SAND
A80 SAND
A85
A85 SAND
SAND
A90
SAND
A90 SAND

1.46

B10
SAND
B10 SAND
B12
SAND
B12 SAND

B20/25/B30

B15 SAND
B15
SAND
B17
B17 SAND
SAND

B20
B20 SAND
SAND
B25 SAND
B25
SAND
B30 SAND
B30
SAND

Pleistocene
P
leistocene
Pliocene
P liocene
C50 SAND
C50
SAND
D10 SAND
D10
SAND

1.59
1.
. 59
1.. 951.952.10
2.. 10
4.. 204.204.97
5.16
5.
.16

Fig. 2Magnolia stratigraphic column.

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

643

AL
TR EL
N
CE ANN A9
CH

I1

A3

N
ER L
T
E
S
EA ANN
CH

G1

E1

H1
B25K
RN
TE EL
S
WE ANN
CH

J1

3 A2
B2 5 G

H2

G2

D2
3
C
C2

F3

F2

C1D1

A8
B1

B2

F1
B25

A5
A4

5
B2

A1

A6

Contour Interval = 50 ft

Initial B25 Completion

4000 feet

Initial B30 Completion

Fig. 3Magnolia B25 net pay map.

packs have proven to be highly reliable completions with long-term

production in similar environments (Pourciau et al. 2005; Norman
et al. 2005). However, obtaining a successful cased-hole frac pack
would require selection of an appropriately sized screen and proppant and a low-damage carrying fluid.
Screen Selection
Typically, screens for use in frac-pack completions are designed to
retain the proppant only. For the Magnolia completions, completely
packing the entire perforated multisand intervals was expected to
be problematic. If a void in the proppant pack occurred, the screen
would be exposed to produced sand, which could cause an erosional
failure of the screen, loss of sand retention, and completion failure.
To reduce the probability of screen erosion, the screen openings
were sized to retain Magnolia formation sand. Therefore, if a void

5000

Entrada

in the proppant pack was present, the screen alone would stop the
formation sand before erosional damage occurred, thus minimizing
the potential for completion failure. While this design approach
would reduce the likelihood of sand production, installing a screen
with small openings carries the additional risk of impairing well
productivity. Ideally, the screen openings must be sized to retain
whole formation sand, but also it must allow solids that are produced
through the proppant pack to pass through the screen. If solids that
pass through the proppant pack are retained on the screen, a low
permeability layer of solids will be formed at the screen resulting
in excessive pressure loss.
To determine the appropriate screen-opening size to retain
Magnolia formation sand, a series of tests was performed using
samples of commercially available screens and formation-sand
samples selected from the Magnolia core. Details of the testing

Magnolia

Titan

A Series

2.0 s

3.0 s

10000
4.0 s

B20, B25

B12
B15

15000

5.0 s
20000
Feet

B20, B25

Pliocene
C Series

Pliocene
5000 ft

Salt
GB

6.0 s

Salt
GB783

GB784

GB785

Fig. 4Magnolia regional seismic line.

644

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

GB 783/784 B20 and B25

MFDT Formation Pressure Data
14000

A6

14250
14500

A8

Sub Sea True Vertical Depth, Feet

14750

A1

15000

A5

15250

A4

15500

A2

15750
16000
16250

A3

16500

A9

16750
17000
17250
17500
9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

MFDT Pressure, Psia

Fig. 5Magnolia B25 modular-formation-dynamics tester pressure data.

Formation Compressibility vs Pressure

7.0E-05
6.0E-05

psi )

5.0E-05

Cf (10

06

4.0E-05
3.0E-05
2.0E-05
Sample 2A-7 Core no 3A 18,677'
Sample 2B-4 Core no 3A 18,743'
Sample 3A-5 Core no 3A 18,769'

1.0E-05

Sample 3B-4 Core no 3A 18,743'

Sample 3B-19 Core no 3A 18,827'

0.0E+00
500

2,500

4,500

6,500

8,500

10,500

12,500

Pressure (psia)
Fig. 6Magnolia B25 rock-compressibility measurements.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

645

K/Ki vs In-Situ Stress

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

K/Ki

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
Sample 3B-4 Core no 3A 18,743'

0.20

Base
Low

0.10

High

0.00
500

2500

4500

6500

8500

10500

12500

In situ stress (psi)

Fig. 7Magnolia B25K/Ki vs. in-situ stress.

MAGNOLIA PRODUCTION SUMMARY

50,000

150,000

A6
A8

45,000

135,000

40,000

120,000

Oil Rate (stb/d)

35,000

A5 B30

105,000
A3

30,000

90,000
A1

25,000
20,000

75,000

A2
A9

A5 B25

60,000

15,000

45,000

10,000

30,000

5,000

15,000
0

De
cJa 0 4
nFe 0 5
b
M - 05
ar
Ap 05
r
M - 05
ay
Ju 05
n0
Ju 5
l-0
Au 5
g
Se - 05
pO 05
ct
No 05
vDe 0 5
cJa 0 5
nFe 0 6
b
M - 06
ar
Ap 06
r- 0
M 6
ay
Ju 06
n0
Ju 6
l
Au -06
gSe 06
pO 06
ct
No 06
vDe 0 6
cJa 0 6
nFe 0 7
b
M - 07
ar
Ap 07
r- 0
M 7
ay
Ju 07
n0
Ju 7
l-0
7

Gas Rate (Mscf/d)

A4

Sales Gas

Fuel Gas

Flare Gas

Oil

Fig. 8Magnolia field daily production.

646

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

A4BP1 PRODUCTION SUMMARY

12,000

Oil Rate (stb/d)

Cum. Production to July 21, 2007 = 9,002 Mboe

20,000

10,000

16,000

8,000

12,000

6,000

8,000

4,000

4,000

2,000

Ja
n

-0
M 5
ar
-0
M 5
ay
-0
5
Ju
l- 0
Se 5
p05
N
ov
-0
5
Ja
n0
M 6
ar
-0
M 6
ay
-0
6
Ju
l- 0
Se 6
p06
N
ov
-0
6
Ja
n0
M 7
ar
-0
M 7
ay
-0
7
Ju
l- 0
7

BHP (psia) ; THP (psig) ; GOR (scf/stb)

24,000

Oil

GOR

BHP

Fig. 9A4 well performanceB25 reservoir (THP: tubing head pressure).

procedure have been presented (Hodge et al. 2002; Constien and

Skidmore 2006). Results of the testing indicated that a premium
woven-wire screen with a maximum opening in the range of 80
to 105 microns would efficiently retain the Magnolia formation
sand without plugging.
Proppant Sizing
The initial testing of proppant candidates was conducted with
formation sand samples having a median grain size (d50) of
30 microns. Proppant candidates ranging in mesh size from 100/140
to 20/40 US mesh (106150 micron and 425850 micron, respectively) were included in the study. The testing procedure has been

100

described in earlier publications. Data obtained from the proppant

testing with the formation-sand sample included initial proppant-pack
permeability, retained proppant-pack permeability, total produced
solids, incremental produced solids concentration, produced solids
particle-size distribution, and retained-screen permeability.
The initial proppant tests were conducted with a screen to
retain the proppant during the test and with a formation sand
sample having a median grain size of approximately 30 microns,
which represented the smaller-sized, productive sands present in
the Magnolia reservoir. The screens used in the proppant testing
had an opening size within the target range (80 to 105 microns)
identified in the earlier screen-only tests. Results of the proppant

Median Grain Size Variation through the Magnolia Reservoir

90

d50 Value (microns)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
18550

18600

18650

18700

18750

18800

18850

Measured Depth (ft)

Fig.10Median grain size variation through Magnolia Reservoir.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

647

250

90

%Retained Proppant K
Retained Proppant K

80

Produced Solids

200

70
60

150

50
40

100

30
20

50

10
0

Retained Proppant K (darcies) or

Total Produced Solids (lbm/1000 ft 2)

% Retained Proppant K

100

0
1

10

13

16

19

22

25

D50/d50 Ratio
100/140

50/70

40/70

30/60

30/50

20/40

% Retained Proppant K
Retained Proppant K
Total Produced Solids
Fig. 11Proppant/formation sand-particle-size-ratio analysis.

testing are shown in Fig. 11 as a function of the ratio of median

proppant size to median formation size (D50/d50). In addition to
the % retained proppant-permeability values, the final proppantpermeability values and total produced solids are shown as a function of the D50/d50 ratio. The % retained proppant-permeability
values follow the general trend reported by Saucier (1974). However, unlike the results reported by Saucier (1974), at very high
D50/d50 ratios (approximately 23), the proppant permeability was
significantly reduced because of formation sand passing through
the gravel pack, being retained by the screen, and back filling the
proppant pack.
To select the appropriate proppant size for the Magnolia frac
packs, a proppant was needed that would provide the maximum
proppant permeability while minimizing the produced solids.
As shown in Fig. 11, the proppant yielding a D50/d50 ratio of
approximately 13.5 provided the highest permeability without a
significant increase in solids production. For the formation sand
with a median grain size of 30 microns, a US mesh 30/60 ceramic
proppant would provide a D50/d50 value of approximately 13. As
discussed earlier, the d50 values of the Magnolia core samples
ranged up to 70 microns. With a 30/60 ceramic proppant, this variation in formation d50 would potentially yield D50/d50 values from
5.8 at d50 = 70 microns to 13.5 at d50 = 30 microns. To determine
if the larger formation sand sizes would provide acceptable results
(retained proppant permeability and total produced solids), a test
was performed with 30/60 ceramic proppant and a formation-sand
sample with a d50 value of 41 microns (D50/d50 ratio of 9.9).
Results from this test (% retained proppant permeability = 95
darcy and total produced solids = 130 lbm/1,000 ft2) indicate that
30/60 ceramic proppant will provide acceptable results with the
larger sands, also.
Frac-Pack Fluid Selection
Selection of a fluid composition for the Magnolia frac packs focused
on the rheological properties, formation damage/conductivity damage
potential, and compatibility with reservoir and completion fluids. A
number of frac-pack fluid compositions were available for this application including borate-crosslinked guar and viscoelastic surfactant.
However, the completion procedure for these deepwater frac packs
would present a challenge for certain fluid systems. For example, the
completion procedure required high density CaBr2 to be used before
648

and after the frac pack and on some wells the frac-pack fluid contained
a significant concentration of CaBr2 to suppress gas hydrate formation. Compatibility testing of borate-crosslinked guar with CaBr2 at
elevated temperature indicated the crosslinked fluid was not compatible. On mixing and aging 16 hours at 165F, the crosslinked-polymer
network became insoluble as shown in Fig. 12. Additionally, it was
found that residue from broken, borate-crosslinked guar would plug

Fig. 12Completion brine.

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 13Screen plugging.

screens with openings in the range of 80 to 105 microns (Fig. 13). The
viscoelastic-surfactant compositions provided better compatibility with
the reservoir and completion fluids. Therefore, the rheology and formation-damage testing was focused on the viscoelastic surfactants.
Formation/conductivity damage tests were conducted with
Magnolia formation sand, 30/60 ceramic proppant, and the appropriately sized screen (80105 micron opening). The tests were performed by placing a formation-sand pack, gravel pack with screen
in a test cell and measuring the retained permeability. The permeability of the sand pack was measured in the production direction
with 6% KCl brine or filtered crude oil. The cell was opened and a
slurry (6 ppa) of the 30/60 ceramic proppant in the frac-pack fluid
was placed on top of the formation-sand pack followed by the test
screen. The cell was reassembled, and the slurry was compressed
with the excess fluid displaced through the formation-sand pack
to a closure stress of 1,000 psi. After aging for 16 hours at 150F,
the retained permeability in the production direction was measured
to 6% KCl or crude oil.
Results of the formation/conductivity damage tests with various
compositions of viscoelastic surfactant ranged from 19 to 60%,
depending on the viscoelastic surfactant composition, breaker
concentration, and whether a cleanup overflush (mutual solvent)
was included. On the basis of these results, two viscoelastic-surfactant systems were selected for the Magnolia frac packs with
each requiring a mutual solvent overflush to obtain the maximum
(approximately 60% retained permeability) cleanup. However,
only two of the eight wells were completed with this overflush.
Perforation Design
Perforation design for the Magnolia wells was critically important
to achieving target production. The heavy-walled casing used for
compaction resistance presented perforation challenges. Fig. 14
shows a nodal analysis plot of Well A2ST3 with various perforation
designs including a well test point. The implemented perforation
design was 21 shots/ft (spf) using 0.667-in. diameter perforations
(obtained from API RP18B Section 1 gun tests through cemented
Magnolia casing). The figure shows perforating schemes that
include the implemented system with various depths of penetration, a system with 12 spf and 0.66-in. diameter perforations, and
a system with 21 spf and 0.33-in. diameter perforations.
The results show that perforation length had little effect on the
inflow; perforation length of 5 in. and 1 in. yielded essentially the
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

same inflow. Perforation density had a much larger impact. At 12

spf, the maximum production rate of the well would have been
around 14,000 bbls of oil/d (BOPD). This well actually flowed at
peaks up to 17,000 BOPD, and the full 21 spf perforations were
required to achieve the high rates.
The inflow is most sensitive to perforation diameter. The original completion plan was designed with a gun system that yielded
approximately half the expected diameter in gun tests because
of the heavy-walled casing. Fig. 14 shows how poor the inflow
performance would have been with 0.33-in. perforation diameter.
The well would have produced half of its potential. The well test
data shows that the actual production performance matches the
predicted inflow performance with the implemented perforation
scheme.
Well Performance
Because of the unconsolidated nature of the Magnolia reservoirs,
permeability has significantly declined with increasing in-situ
stress. Permeability interpretation from buildup tests (Fig. 15)
showed that the actual permeability reduction was in line with
initial estimates and was not as dramatic as some of the more
extreme core test results. Fig. 16 shows permeability reduction as
a function of production. Well A4 exhibits a relatively high initial
permeability of 250 md and K*H of 45,000 md-ft, but most wells
have initial permeability and K*H values in the 50150 md and
7,00015,000 md-ft ranges, respectively. None of these wells have
high permeability compared to typical deepwater Gulf of Mexico
developments, and they decline rapidly with production. Well
A8 has the highest rate of permeability decline, but this may be
because of relative permeability effects: the well is a retrograde
condensate producer with higher initial fluid production with a
total GOR = 4,0005,000 scf/stb but later is largely a gas producer
with total GOR = 8,00010,000 scf/stb. Fig. 17 shows the effects
of average reservoir pressure (Pbar) on K*H. The results show
similar declines among the wells. Note that the reservoir pressure
has depleted beyond the 50% level that was used in the compaction
calculations, and the K*H has declined in general to 50% and in
some cases as great as 30% of the initial value.
Completion Performance Analysis
Skin. Total skin values were determined from shut-in tests using
pressures recorded from downhole pressure gauges. The total
649

Well Evaluation
A2ST3 Initial Production
Pressure at Reservoir Depth, psia

Pbar = 10777 psi, Kh=57 md, H=286 ft, Incl=25.1, Kpt /K r = 8, Lp = 5", A=80 acres and rw=0.458 ft
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000

SPF=21, Dperf=0.66 in

6000

SPF=12, Dperf =0.66 in

5000
4000
3000
2000

SPF=21, Lp=1 in, Dperf= 0.66 in

SPF=21, Lp= 1 in, Dperf = 0.33 in
VLP
PBU Analysis

1000
1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

17000

19000

Flow Rate, STB/day

Fig. 14Perforation inflow [rw: wellbore radius (ft), Lp: perforation length (in.), VLP: vertical lift performance, Kh: horizontal
reservoir permeability, Pbar: static reservoir pressure (psia)].

measured skin included darcy (S) and nondarcy (D) skin (represented as Stot = S + DQ) and included skin associated with friction in
the tubing from the top of the perforations to the pressure gauges.
Skin for only the reservoir damage and nondarcy flow effects
were obtained by correcting the measured skin for friction in the
tubing. The skin associated with friction from top of perforation to

gauge depth was determined using standard tubing friction analysis

and subtracted from the pressure buildup (PBU) skin to arrive at
the total skin because of completion damage and nondarcy flow
effects.
Figs. 18 and 19 shows friction adjusted skin vs. K*H and
skin vs. cumulative production. Both figures show that the skin

K/Ki vs In-Situ Stress

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

K/Ki

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
500

Sample 3B-4 Core no 3A 18,743'

Base
Low
High
A2
A4
A5
A6
A8

2500

4500

6500

8500

10500

12500

In situ stress (psi)

Fig. 15Permeability reduction with in-situ stress.
650

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

Magnolia
Permeability vs. Production
300
A2ST3
250
A4
A5

Perm (md)

200

A8
A6

150

100

50

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Cum. Fluid (MBOE)

Fig. 16Permeability reduction with produced fluids.

generally decreases with production and K*H decline because

of a combination of wellbore cleanup and reservoir-permeability
reduction from compaction. Only Wells A5 and A2ST3 show slight
increases in skin towards the later production periods. This may
be because of variability in measurement, but it is interesting that
these are two wells that had experienced completion problems; for
A2ST3, the frac job was halted in the middle of the job because
of frac boat problems, and for A5 perforation, debris partially
blocked a smaller concentric string connecting the lower completion to the upper completion. A large volume of perforation debris
was removed from the well, and perhaps some additional debris

K*H (md-ft)

50000

or damage may be involved in the slowly increasing skin over

time. Taken as a whole, these results show that the completions
initially cleaned up and have performed well even under extreme
compaction conditions.
Skin values generally ranged from 0 to 5, which is typical for
these types of completions. However, the initial skin of Well A6
was 22, which is very high for a frac-pack treatment and well
outside the skins observed in the other wells. Over the producing
life, it dramatically fell to S + DQ = 0.1 at Q = 42 MMscf/d,
well within the range of the other measured skins. This behavior
may have been because of the interaction of the fracture fluid

Magnolia
K*H vs Reservoir Pressure
A2ST3

45000

A4

40000

A5

35000

A8

30000

A6

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

Reservoir Pressure (Psi)

Fig. 17K*H reduction with reservoir pressure.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

651

Magnolia
Skin vs K*H
30.0

Total Skin: Stot = S+DQ

A2ST3
25.0

A4

20.0

A5
A8

15.0

A6-gas well

10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Initial K*H (md-ft)

Fig. 18Skin reduction as a function of K*H.

and produced fluids. The well was completed with a viscoelasticfracture fluid that requires liquid hydrocarbons to break the
high-viscosity micellular structure into a low-viscosity fluid for
flowback. Initial production had a relatively low condensate gas
ratio of 3040 stb/MMscf and condensate rates of 4001000
Magnolia
Skin vs. Cumulative Fluid Production

25

A8

Total Skin: Stot = S+DQ

20

A4
A5

15

A2ST3
A6-gas well

10

BOPD, and the break and cleanup of the fluid may have taken a
long time compared to the oil wells. Well A8 also was a gas producer; however, it produced high volumes of oil at the beginning
of its lifeapproximately 10,000 BOPDand in fact could be
considered an oil well in its early phase. This high volume of oil
probably helped initially break the frac fluid.
Skin-trend analysis was performed comparing skins to fracture
half-length and well deviation. In soft rock, proppant fracture
length is largely a matter of guesswork. There is no accurate
method to determine the actual fracture length based on the data
available from the fracture treatment (effective fracture half-length
to flow can be estimated from reservoir permeability and fracture
conductivity). Therefore, propped fracture length was assumed
by defining the length of a rectangle created with the volume of
proppant placed per foot of perforated interval (shown in Table 1
assuming a 1-in. frac width and 1-ft frac height). Table 2 lists
the nominal fracture half-lengths obtained by this method. An
exception was A2ST3, which had proppant placement problems; a

TABLE 1PROPPANT PLACED

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Cumulative Fluid (MBOE)

Fig. 19Skin with respect to fluid production.

Well

Proppant (lbm/ft)

A2ST3

560

A4

140

A5

534

A6

936

TABLE 2COMPLETION PARAMETERS

Well

652

Parameter

Low

Median (nominal)

High

A2ST3

Frac half-length (ft)

40

A4

Frac half-length (ft)

40

A5

Frac half-length (ft)

27

40

A6

Frac half-length (ft)

48

60

A8

Frac half-length (ft)

12

40

A9

Frac half-length (ft)

36

50

All wells

Kh/Kv

10

10

All wells

Perf D (in.)

0.58

0.666

0.82

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

Skin vs Frac Half Length

25
A2ST3
A4

20

A5
A8

Skin

15

A6

10
5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5
Frac Half Length (ft)
Fig. 20Skin vs. fracture half-length.

nominal 5-ft fracture half-length was chosen for this well. Figs. 20
and 21 show the results of skin vs. fracture half-length and skin
vs. well inclination, respectively. The higher skin values typically
were for early well production and lower values were for later
production periods, as shown in Fig. 19. The results show that
skins were not sensitive to fracture half-length beyond 5 ft. The
skins were somewhat sensitive to inclination, with the best skins
associated with deviations beyond 53 (early-time skin data from
Well A6 should be omitted from the trend analysis for the reasons
explained above).
Perforation Tunnel Permeability. Of all parameters that indicate
relative completion efficiency, it can be shown that the perforation
tunnel permeability, defined as the permeability of the proppant
in the tunnel between casing inside diameter (ID) and the drilled
wellbore diameter (not including the penetration into the reservoir),
is one of the most sensitive (Burton 1999; Burton et al. 1996a).
The total skin, including darcy S and nondarcy D terms, can be
calculated as described in the Appendix.

The perforation tunnel skin is the dominant term in the skin

equation for these completions. Parameters important to this term
include the perforation tunnel permeability, perforation radius,
and perforation tunnel length (defined as the difference between
the drilled hole radius and the casing inside radius). Perforation
radius is a fairly well-controlled and measured variable among
wells through extensive gun testing. Perforation tunnel length is
a known and fixed quantity. Thus, completion efficiencies can be
evaluated by normalizing the perforation tunnel permeability to the
reservoir permeability (Kpt /Kr).
For each well, total skin values were predicted for a range of
Kpt /Kr ratios and compared to the total skin derived from buildup
analysis. Fig. 22 shows a typical calculation for Well A2ST3. The
Kpt /Kr value is obtained from the intersection of the PBU-measured
skin for the well with the curve derived from the skin vs. Kpt /Kr
calculations. For this example, the lines intersect at Kpt /Kr = 3.6.
Sensitivity parameters for the skin calculation included the frac
length, perforation diameter, and Kh /Kv ratio. Nominal perforation
diameter was 0.666 in. based on shot tests using actual gun charges

Skin vs Inclination
25

A2ST3
A4

20

A5
A8

Skin

15

A6

10
5
0
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Inclination (deg)
Fig. 21Skin vs. inclination.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

653

Magnolia A2ST3
Kpt /Kr Analysis
Kperm = 57 md, Kfrac = 50000 md, Wf = 1 in, Xf = 5 ft, Kmf/Kr = 0.5, rmf = 0.917 ft, Rw = .458, 21 spf, Dperf = 0.66,
Kh/Kv = 1, H=286, Incl = 25.2, A=50 acres
50
Predicted S+DQ at 7500 BPD

45

PBU Measured Skin after Friction Correction

40
35

S+DQ

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
0.1

10

100

1000

Reservoir Normalized Perforation Tunnel Permeability, Kpt /Kr

Fig. 22Normalized perforation tunnel permeability analysis [Kperm: reservoir permeability, Kfrac: fracture permeability, Wf:
width of fracture (in.), Xf: fracture half length (ft), Kmf: permeability of the mud filtrate damaged zone (ft), rmf: radius of the mud
filtrate damaged zone (ft), Rw: wellbore radius (ft), Dperf: perforation diameter (in.)].

and casing, and a nominal Kh /Kv = 10 ratio was chosen based on

best estimates from reservoir, rock, and PBU data. The sensitivity
of the Kpt /Kr analysis to these input parameters was extensively
investigated. Calculations were performed by systematically varying the frac length, perforation diameter, Kh /Kv ratio, and comparing the results to the Kpt /Kr values obtained using the nominal
parameters. The nominal parameters and variance parameters are
shown in Table 2.
A typical sensitivity analysis is shown for Well A4 in Fig. 23.
The horizontal line in Fig. 23 represents the Kpt /Kr ratio obtained
from the nominal inputs, and the histogram shows the variability
of Kpt /Kr to the selected input parameters. The results show that
the analysis has very little sensitivity to Kh /Kv ratio, but significant
sensitivity to the frac length and perforation diameter. The sensitivity was about equal in magnitude for the perforation diameter
and the frac length, and in both cases the Kpt /Kr values varied as
much as 50% from the nominal value. The perforation diameter is
a relatively well-established value from extensive perforation tests,
and the nominal value probably accurately reflects the actual average diameter. As mentioned, fracture half-length estimates were
based on proppant volume behind pipe, and the nominal values are
shown in Table 2. For sensitivity analysis, a large range of fracture
half-lengths were chosen for study, which nearly encompassed an
order of magnitude. The best guess values probably result in Kpt /Kr
variations around 25% of the reported nominal value.
Fig. 24 shows the progression of Kpt /Kr during production of
the wells. Initial values typically range from 3 to 20 (absolute Kpt
ranging from 150 md to 4 darcy). In most cases, the ratio remains
generally constant or improves during the production life.
654

The skin trends seen in Fig. 19 show more pronounced improvement of well performance with time than Kpt trends, though, as
mentioned, this could be an artifact of decreasing reservoir permeability. Fig. 25 compares the absolute value of the perforation
tunnel permeability compared to the reservoir permeability for all
wells. The results show that the performance is generally between
Kpt /Kr = 1 and 20, and averages approximately Kpt /Kr =10.
This is a surprising result. Native proppant permeability is
generally three orders of magnitude higher than formation permeability, but the results here suggest the permeability of the proppant
in the perforation tunnel is only on average one order of magnitude
higher, and in some cases significantly less. To help understand
this result, proppant permeability predictions were made with a
model that simulates permeability damage caused by gel damage,
proppant crushing, and embedment using parameters derived from
extensive testing. Although Magnolia-specific parameters such as
viscoelastic fluid and soft-rock imbedment were not included in
the models database, calculations were made on 30/60 synthetic
proppant at various levels of conventional gel damage to show the
degree of permeability reduction that could be expected in hardrock environments. The results show that the calculated proppant
permeabilities were approximately an order of magnitude higher
than those measured in this study. Therefore, the Kpt results are
most likely because of additional permeability reduction from
mixing of the soft, fine-grained sands and/or residual material in
the pipe into the proppant during placement. Although the Kpt /Kr
values appear very low compared to the native proppant and model
permeability predictions, values typically seen in other more
typical deepwater frac-pack completions examined by the same
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

Well A4
Sensitivity Analysis
Nominal: Xf=7', Kh/Kv = 10, Dperf = .666"

25

Xf = 4'

Kpt /Kr

20

Dperf = 0.58"

15

Kh/Kv = 1

Dperf = 0.666"

Xf = 7'
Kh/Kv = 10

10
Xf = 20'
Dperf = 0.82"

0
Xf

Kh/Kv

Perf diameter

Fig. 23Normalized perforation tunnel permeability sensitivity analysis.

method ranged from Kpt /Kr = 3 to 8 (Fig. 26). The average Kpt in
the Magnolia completions is significantly higher than typically
seen. However, this benchmark approach has not been conducted
on other wells with Magnolias combination of low permeability,
long completion interval, and high rates.
Conclusions
The Magnolia reservoirs undergo high compaction, with reservoir pressures and K*H values experiencing over 50% decline
during production.
Total skin values generally declined over time to a steady range of
Stot = 05, which is typical for these types of completions. After initial
decline, the skin values were stable, indicating that the completions
were stable and productive despite high degrees of compaction.

Well inclination had a pronounced effect on the skin. Skin was

largely independent of fracture length beyond a half-length
of 5 ft.
Well performance measured using the reservoir normalized perforation tunnel permeability shows values typically in the range
from 3 to 20 (absolute Kpt ranging from 150 md to 4 darcy). In
most cases, the ratio remains generally constant or improves during the production life, demonstrating that the completions are
stable despite high compaction and depletion. Normalized perforation tunnel permeabilities typically seen in ConocoPhillips
completions subject to similar analyses range from Kpt /Kr = 3 to
8 for frac-pack completions. Therefore, the high end of the range
observed in the Magnolia completions is significantly higher
than typically seen.

Kpt /Kr vs Cumulative Oil

Kpt /Kr

50.00
45.00

A2ST3

40.00

A4

35.00

A5

30.00

A8

25.00

A6

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cum. BOE (bbls)

Fig. 24Normalized perforation tunnel permeability vs. cumulative oil.
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

655

Magnolia
Kr vs Kpt
1000000
A2ST3
A4

100000

A5
A6

Kpt (md)

10000

A8
Kpt=Kr
Kpt=20*Kr

1000

Kpt=10*Kr
30/60 virgin

100
30/60 Prediction
with gel damage

10
10

100

1,000

Kr (md)
Fig. 25Perforation tunnel permeability with respect to reservoir permeability.

Nomenclature
D = nondarcy skin
d50 = median reservoir particle size
D50 = median proppant particle size
Diwf = nondarcy skin caused by intrawell effects (flow
through perforation tunnels, intrawell annulus, liner
perforations, prepack, and axial flow inside screen)

Dmp = nondarcy skin caused by multiphase flow

Dres = nondarcy skin caused by reservoir flow effects
Drfc = nondarcy effects caused by flow convergence from reservoir to wellbore (partial penetration and inclination)
Dwe = nondarcy skin caused by well-entry effects (mud
filtrate, perforation effects, fracture effects, convergence from frac to perforations)

Cased Hole Frac-Pack Kpt /Kr Data

10000
CHFP Database
A4

1000

A2st3

Kpt /Kr Value

A5
A8

100

A6
P50

10

Pbad
Pgood

1
30/60 virgin
Proppant
30/60 Prediction
w ith gel damage

0.1
1

10

1 00

1 00 0

1 0 00 0

Reservoir Permeability, md
Fig. 26Cased-hole frac pack perforation tunnel permeability benchmarking.
656

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

= reservoir height
= perforated-interval height
= screen height (length)
= screen-slot height (slotted liner)
= permeability in screen/casing annulus
= reservoir permeability*thickness
= permeability through screen
= permeability through open-screen liner perforations
= perforation tunnel permeability
= normalized perforation tunnel permeability (to reservoir permeability)
Kr = reservoir permeability
Krh = reservoir horizontal permeability
Kscreen axial flow = screen permeability in axial flow direction
Lperftunnel = length of perforation tunnel
Nlinerperfs = number of perforations in screen liner
Nperf = number or perforations in casing
Nscreenslot = number of slots in slotted liner
Q = flow rate (SBPD)
rconverg = screen liner flow convergence (radius)
rlinerperf = screen liner perforations (radius)
rp = casing perforation radius
rscreen ID = screen ID (radius)
rscreen OD = screen outside diameter (OD) (radius)
S = darcy skin
Sannulus = darcy skin caused by flow through annulus
Saxialflow = darcy skin caused by axial flow in annulus
Shemi converg. = darcy skin caused by convergent flow into perforations
Siwf = darcy skin caused by intrawell effects (flow through
perforation tunnels, intrawell annulus, liner perforations, prepack, and axial flow inside screen)
Smp = darcy skin caused by multiphase flow
Sperf tunnel = darcy skin through perforation tunnels
Sres = darcy skin caused by reservoir flow effects
Srfc = darcy effects caused by flow convergence from reservoir to wellbore (partial penetration and inclination)
Sscreen media = darcy skin caused by flow through screen media
Stot = total skin including nondarcy terms (Stot = S + DQ)
Swe = darcy skin caused by well entry effects (mud filtrate,
perforation effects, fracture effects, convergence
from frac to perforations)
H
Hperfinterval
Hscreen
Hslot
Kann
K*H
Kliner
Klinerperfs
Kpt
Kpt /Kr

Acknowledgments
We thank ConocoPhillips and Devon Energy Corporation for
permission to publish this paper. We also thank Gavin Fleming,
ConocoPhillips, for valuable discussions and input.
References
Burton, R.C. 1999. Use of Perforation-Tunnel Permeability to Assess
Cased Hole Gravelpack Performance. SPE Drill & Compl 14 (4):
235239. SPE-59558-PA. DOI: 10.2118/59558-PA.
Burton, R.C., MacKinlay, W.M., Hodge, R.M., and Landrum, W.R. 1996a.
Evaluating Completion Damage in High Rate, Gravel Packed Wells.
Paper SPE 31091 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1415 February. DOI:
10.2118/31091-MS.
Burton, R.C., Rester, S., and Davis, E.R. 1996b. Comparison of Numerical
and Analytical Inflow Performance Modelling of Gravelpacked and
Frac-Packed Wells. Paper SPE 31102 presented at the SPE Formation
Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1415 February. DOI: 10.2118/31102-MS.
Constien, V. and Skidmore, V. 2006. Standalone Screen Selection Using Performance Mastercurves. Paper SPE 98363 presented at the International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, 1517 February. DOI: 10.2118/98363-MS.
Eaton, L.F., Reinhardt, W.R., Bennett, J.S., Blake, K., and Morales, H.
2007. Magnolia Deepwater ExperienceFrac-Packing Long Perforated Intervals in Silt Reservoirs. Paper SPE 105541 presented at the
December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion

SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 2022 February. DOI:

10.2118/105541-MS.
Hodge, R.M., Burton, R.C., Constien, V.G., and Skidmore, V. 2002. An
Evaluation Method for Screen-Only and Gravel-Pack Completions.
Paper SPE 73772 presented at the International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2021
February. DOI: 10.2118/73772-MS.
Ibekwe, I.A., Coker, O.D. III, Fuh, G.F., and Actis, S.C. 2003. Magnolia
Casing Design for Compaction. Paper SPE 79816 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 1921 February. DOI:
10.2118/79816-MS.
Norman, W.D., Pourciau, R.D., Dusterhoft, R., and Schubarth, S. 2005.
Understanding the Effects of Reservoir Changes in Sand-Control
Completion Performance. Paper SPE 96307 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 912 October.
DOI: 10.2118/96307-MS.
Pourciau, R.D., Fisk, J.H., and Descant, F.J. 2005. Completion and
Well-Performance Results, Genesis Field, Deepwater Gulf of
Mexico. SPE Drill & Compl 20 (2): 147155. SPE-84415-PA. DOI:
10.2118/84415-PA.
Reinhardt, W.R., Williamson, R.N., Eaton, L.F., and Actis, S.A. 2006.
Magnolia Deepwater Development : Striving for Best in Class Drilling
Performance. SPE Drill & Compl 21 (4): 268278. SPE-92439-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/92439-PA.
Saucier, R.J. 1974. Considerations in Gravel Pack Design. J. Pet Tech
26 (2): 205212. SPE-4030-PA. DOI: 10.2118/4030-PA.

Appendix
Total skin is calculated as Stot = S + DQ, where S = Sres + Srfc +
Swe + Siwf + Smp and DQ = (Dres + Drfc + Dwe + Diwf + Dmp) Q. The
subscripts refer to the following:
res = skin caused by reservoir flow effects.
rfc = skin caused by flow convergence from reservoir to
wellbore (partial penetration and inclination).
we = skin caused by well entry effects (mud filtrate,
perforation effects, fracture effects, convergence from frac to
perforations.
iwf = skin caused by intrawell effects (flow through perforation tunnels, intrawell annulus, liner perforations, prepack, and
axial flow inside screen)
mp = skin caused by multiphase flow. Smp = 0 for this study
as all analyses were for flow above bubble point.
The well entry and intrawell effects dominate the skin term for these
completions. The reservoir flow convergence effects are dictated by
the penetration and angle through the reservoir, but the intrawell
effects are directly related to the parameters of the completion. Breaking the darcy Siwf term further down (Burton et al. 1996b),
Siwf = Sperf tunnel + Sannulus + Sliner perf flow+ Sscreen media + Sscreen axial flow
Sperf tunnel = (Krh /Kpt) (H/Nperf) (2 Lperftunnel/rp2) = (Krh /Kpt)*(H/
Nperf)*(2*Lperftunnel/rp2)
Sannulus = (Krh /Kann) (H/Hperfinterval) ln(rscreen ID/rscreen OD)
Shemi converg. = (Krh /Klinerperfs) (H/Nlinerperfs) (1/rlinerperf 1/rconverg)
Sscreen media = (Krh /Kliner) (H/Hperfinterval) ln(rscreenID/rscreenOD) +
Hperfinterval/(rscreenID Nscreenslot) ln(Hscreen/Hslot)
Saxialflow = Kh /Kscreen axial flow
The nondarcy D term contains similar parameters but has been
omitted for simplicity.
Alex Procyk is a completion engineer in the ConocoPhillips
Completions Technology Group. His current responsibilities
include wordwide technical support for completion-related
issues and field-modeling studies. Procyk has 16 years of
experience in sand control, completion design, and integrated
production modeling. David Jamieson has more than 19
years of petroleum engineering experience and is currently
based in Anchorage with ConocoPhillips. He has been
the reservoir engineering supervisor for the Kuparuk field in
Alaska since 2007, responsible for the reservoir management
of a mature, giant, enhanced-oil-recovery project. Jamieson
joined ConocoPhillips in 1999 in Western Australia as a reservoir
engineer working on Timor Sea assets for ConocoPhillips. He
transferred to Houston in 2004 and worked in the Deepwater
Gulf of Mexico Group and the Upstream Technology division
657

of ConocoPhillips. Jamieson has also worked for Hardy Oil

and Gas and Woodside Petroleum in Australia and with
Schlumberger as a wireline engineer in the Middle East. He
earned a petroleum engineering degree at the University
of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia in 1989. Joe A. Miller
is a reservoir engineer based in Houston. He has 20 years
of petroleum engineering experience with ConocoPhillips
including 8 years in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Group.
Millers current responsibilities include reservoir management,
modeling, and surveillance for an onshore tight gas field. He
earned a petroleum engineering degree at Marietta College
in 1989. Bob Burton is a completion engineering fellow in
the Upstream Technology Organization of ConocoPhillips,
specializing in well completions. He holds a BS in chemical
engineering from Georgia Tech (1978) and an MS in petroleum
engineering from the University of Southern California
(1986). Over his 30 year career, Burton held assignments in
California, Great Britain, and the Middle East before joining

658

the Houston-based well-completions technical-service group

of ConocoPhillips. He is a registered engineer in the states of
California and Texas. Richard Hodge is a principal scientist in the
ConocoPhillips Drilling and Production Engineering Group. His
current responsibilities include providing worldwide technical
support for completion operations. Hodges specific areas
of responsibility include hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, sand
control, and formation-damage prevention/remediation. He
has 35 years of experience in well completions and stimulation.
Nobuo Morita is a professor in the mineral resources and
environmental engineering department at Waseda University
in Tokyo, Japan. He holds a BS degree from Tokyo University, and
MS and PhD degrees from University of Texas at Austin, all in
petroleum engineering. Morita retired from ConocoPhillips as
a research fellow and has authored a number of publications
on sand control, borehole stability, casing stability, and rock
mechanics. He is a recipient of the 1989 US National Rock
Mechanics Award.

December 2009 SPE Drilling & Completion