.

SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENGINEERSOF AIME

6200 North C?ntralExpressway &?RSPE 5703
Dallas,Texas 75206 -
THIS PAPER IS SUBJECTTO CORRECTION

Planning a Well Completion for Profit

By
John F. de Rochemontand C. A. Ledet, Members SPE-AIME,Baker Oil Tools

@)Copyright 1976
Americsn Xn~tituteof Mining, MetaIIurgicaI, and Petroleum Engineera, Inc.

This paper was preparedfor the Societyof PetroleumEngineersof AIME Symposiumon Fcr-
mationD8mage Control,to be held in Houston,Tx., Jan 29-30, 1976. permissionto copy is re-
strictedto an abstractof n~t more thsn 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstractshouldcontainconspicuousacknowledgmentof where and by whom the paper is presented.
Publicationelsewhereafter publicationin the JOURNAIJOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGYor the SOCIETY
OF PETROLEUMENGINEERSJOURNAL is usuallygrantedupon requestto the Editorof the appropriate
journal,providedagreementto give proper credit is made.

Discussionof this paper is invited. Three copiesof any discussionshouldbe sent to the
Societyof PetroleumEngineersoffice. Such discussionmay be presentedat the above meeting
and, with the paper, may be consideredfor publicationin one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT formation damage, resulting in lower pro-

A suggested procedure for deep well com-
pletions is presented with emphasis on a team-
work effort to arrive at an in-depth analysis
of the known well parameters. This analysis
will enable a completion team to accurately
predict the behavior of the production con-
duit, and subsurface equipment combination.
The method outlined will prevent possible
equipment failure during well treating and
production cycles, and possible formation
damage as a result thereof.
INTRODUCTION
duction rates and return on investment.
It is a well-known fact that workover
techniques over the past decade have concen-
trated on methods to avoid having to kill a
wel1. This can allow kill fluids to migrate
into producing formations and possibly affect
formation to wellbore interfaces; thus, affect
production rates.
Examples of such workover techniques are:
a) Snubbing systems which allow working
over wells under pressure.

~he costs of drilling, completing and
working over oil and gas wells is increasing
steadily. The need for more energy makes it
imperative that wedo all that is possible
to optimize production from new wells drilled
as well as wells worked over, increase pro-
duction through stimulation techniques, or
overcome production difficulties resulting
from either reservoir characteristics or
wellbore problems. This paper is devoted
primarily to new wells drilled and the
opportunities available to operators to
minimize problems, that could possibly cause
b) Coil tubing units which are used
extensively for clean out purposes
rather than pulling the tubing,
Let us consider a new well completion.
What are the opportunities available to us in
planning swell completion? Who is involved
in making these opportunities become a
reality? When shall we examine the opport-
unities available to us? How sha!lwe go about
them? These are the questions that present
themselves. Too often, lack of communication
prevents planned results. In this paperwe

1U3 PLANNING A WELL COMPLETION FOR PROFIT
will cover a suggested procedure for a
typical well completion with emphasis on the
completion equipment. The well selected is
a deep high pressure gas or oil well. To
determine the suggested approach, several
assumptions are made. These assumptions are
as follows:
a) The operator has, during the drilling
of the well, ascertained the pro-
ducing formation.
b) During testing of the well, flow
potentials were determined so that
completion tubing could be sized.
c) It was established that the well
should be acidized prior to putting
it on production.
THE COMPLETION TEAM
During the initial planning of the com-
pletion procedure, it should be understood
that four distinct groups of people are
involved. They must share the information
available in order to be able to arrive at
the optimum in procedures and equipment.
The four groups are:
1. The operator or owner of the well.
2. The drilling contractor.
3. The service company responsible for
pre-production or subsequent stimu-
lation treatment of the well,
4. The service company responsible for
furnishing the subsurface equipment
required to stimulate and/or complete
the well.
The above group should form the cOrnple-
tion team.
Up to this point, the operator has more
knowledge about the well than anyone. He
should initiate the information exchange and
the planning to arrive at the best procedure
for an optimum completion. Various procedural
and equipment alternatives should be carefully
evaluated.
During the planning phase, exchange of
information is essential. The operator or
well owner should share all and every detail
available to him with the service companies
selected. This is the crucial planning stage
and will determine the ultimate success of the
completion. The operator should avail himself
of the expertise of the service companies to
accomplish the remedial and completion phases.
Unfortunately, the resources available to an
operator are not always exploited to the maxi-
e
SPE 5703
mum. Most service companies have sophisti-
cated systems to evaluate well data and
determine optimum procedure and equipment
recommendations.
The best completion will result from a
collective effort. Let us consider an
example and examine a procedure proposed,
with a limited amount of well data available.
EXAMINING THE WELL DATA
During the first meeting of the comple-
tion team, the parameters for the completion
are established and a decision is made to
ascertain which variables must be examined to
make the final equipment selection, Well data
are as follows:
Known Data:
Top of producing formation: 16,000 ft
Casing program called for: 7 in., 35 lb/ft,
casing
Tubing size planned: 2-7/8 in,, ;.9 lb/ft,
C-75 (Yield strength
169,010 lbs)
Average surface temperature: 70F
Compl@ion fluid selected: 9.5 lb/gal,
inhibited salt
water
In view of casing and tubing combinations,
applied annulus pressure is assumed to be
3,000 psi.
Surface flowing pressure: 1,000 psi
Doubtful Data:
From testing data and well logs, static
bottomhole temperature may be between 300F
and 310F.
Estimated final pump pressure at the
surface during acidizing will be 8,000 to
10,000 psi.
Estimated prod~lctionrate: 4,000 B/D, after
well is acidized
Decision Data:
1. What type acid and what quality
should be used?
2. What pumping rate should be decided
on?
3. What type of down hole completion
equipment should be selected?
SPE 5703 JOHN F. de ROCHEMONT AND C. A. LEDET
In order to be able to answer 2 and 3 it
is decided, after examination of qualitative
and quantitative analyses of subsurface cores
that: a 28% HCL, 9.52 lb/gal acid will be used.
Due to traces of H2S and possible
increases in the future, C-75 tubing is chosen.
In view of this and the depth of the well,
it is decided to run a permanent packer. A
retrievable packer will have to either be
shear released or rotationally released, both
of which are not desirable at this depth with
2-7/8 in. C-75tubing.
In order to make the final equipment
selection, it is decided that the behavior
of the tubing string under pressure and temp-
erature variations should be known.
A computer analysis of the data is per-
formed, using the following as variables:
1. Formation temperature at perfora-
tion~: 300F and 31OF.
2. Final formation pump-in pressure:
8,000 psi and 10,000 psi.
3. Planned injection rates: 5, 7 and 10
bbl/min.
4. Possible packer bore sizes: 2.68 in.
and 3.25 in.
EXAMINATION OF COMPUTER ANALYSIS
The computer output data are summarized
in Figure I and Figure II. Figure I shows
the effect of tubing contraction as a result
of treating the well. Various treating
volumes, pumping rates and packer bores along
with the original bottom hole temperature and
final pump-in pressure are used. Figure 11
shows the corresponding packer to tubing
forces which are imparted to the tubing
string if the tubing is restrained at the
packer.
After the computer analysisdata are
available, a meeting of the completion team
arrived at the following decisions:
a. Re-examination of the geological data
indicates that a 20,000 gallon acid
treatment suffices.
b. From Figure I, it is decided that
acid will be displaced at a maximum
rate of 7 bbl/min,
c. Allowanceis made for maximum pump-in
pressure ofl0,000 psi and 310F BHT.
d. A packer bore of2.68 in. is selected.
This restricts the production string
14Q
-.
at the packer to 2 in. I.D. for the
length of the seal assembly,
Thus from Figure I, it can be seen that
tubing contraction will be 212 in. if the
tubing is not constrained at the packer,
Figure II shows that the contractile
force is 67,500 lbs if the tubing is con-
strained at the packer,
The weight of 16,000 ft of 2-7/8 in. 7.9
lb/ft tubing is 126,400 lbs, therefore, total
force at the surface will be 126,400 + 67,500
193,900 lbs if the tubing is constrained.
This is above the 169,010 lbs yield strength
making it necessary that the tubing be free
to move during the treating of the well.
EQUIPMENT SELECTION
From the above, it can be seen that a
floating type seal assembly at the packer is
required to accommodate the tubing contraction
during acidizing. It is apparent that during
production, the tubing string will not be sub-
je~ted to contractile forces.
It is assumed that initially the floating
type seal assembly is located on the packer
with zer~ set down weight.
Analysis of the tubing-to-packer forces
and tubing movement during the production
phase, both flowing and shut-in, produce
the following:
Producing:
Tubing-to-packer force down = 26,342 lbs
Tubing elongation = 75 in.
Fiber stress at inner wall of tubing = 16,762
psi
Shut In:
Tubing-to-packer force up = 1,052 lbs
Tubing contraction = 3 in.
Fiber stress at inner wall of tubing = 5,375
psi
From the above it can be seen that if
the tubing is initially landed with zero
set down weight, the seal assembly will move
up 3 in. every time the well is shut in. To
prevent this upward motion of the seals, the
tubing can be landed with 2,000 lbs set down
wei~h?,on the packer, thus the seals in the
packer bore will not be subjected to movement
duri~lgthe entireproduction cycle. The maxi-
mum force down on the packer will then be
50 PLANNING
. A WELL COMPLETION FOR PROFIT
2,000 + 26,342 lbs during production which is
not excessive.
Although the total force down on the
packer will be 28,342 lbs during production,
the maximum fiber stress value in the tubing
is low and thus no tubing damage will occur.
At this point, the following equipment
can be decided upon:
1. A permanent packer with 2.68 in.
seal bore.
2. A seal assertily20 ft long.
These basic requirements can be furnished
in various packages. Ultimate choice will
have to,be made by the operator. Some of the
configurations on the market are shown in
Figure III, and listed below:
A) Permanent packerwith long seal bore
extension.
B) Permanent packer with seal bore
protector.
C) Permanent packer with no seal bore
extension.
D) Latched into permanent packer with
long seal receptacle above packer.
Figure Iv shows some seal assembly varia-
tions available on the market.
$N@ALL WELL ECONOMICS-
It can be seen that there are many alter-
natives available when deciding on equipment
and procedures.
It is pointed out that the various equip-
ment choices can vary widely. From an overall
cost standpoint, the clownhole equipment is a
small fraction of the overall well cost. The
cost impact, however, can be considerable
when one thinks about the possible conse-
quences if not enough consideration is
given to this phase ofthe project. It goes
without saying that if a well needs to be
SPE
-. --5703--
worked over, it is not only costly, but
repeated exposure of the formation to kill
fluids can affect it and its productivity
and possibly do permanent damage.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A team effort approach will insure
maximum inputs relative to well data,
treating procedures and equipment
selections.
2. Analysis of the pre-completion well
treating procedures is essential to
proper equipment selection.
3. Analysis of the production phase of
the well must be carried out to
arrive at correct tubing landing
procedures.
4. PROPER PRIOR PLANNING PRODUCES
PROFITS is a most applicable phrase
in well completions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his appre-
ciation to Baker Oil Tools for permission to
publish this paper. Special thanks is due to
Mr. L. Picard of the Applications Engineering
Group of Baker Oil Tools for his assistance
in preparing supporting graphs for this paper.
REFERENCES
1. A. Lubinski, W. S. Althouse, J. L. Logan:
Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in
Packers
Paper SPE 178, presented 36th SPE fall
meeting, Dallas, Texas
2. J. L. Logan: How to Keep Tubing Sealed
in Packers
J. Can. Pet. Tec~, Volume 2, No. 2, 1963
3. H. J. Ramey, Jr.: Wellbore Heat Trans-
mission
Paper SPE96, presented 36th SPE fall
meeting, Dallas, Texas.
 10.000 PSI TUBING. 3.000 PSI CASING, 310 F @ 16,000 FT. 6,000 PSI TUBING. 3.000 PSI CASING. 310 F @ 16.000 FT

110.000 PSI TUBING,3,000PSI CASING,3000FQ 16.000 FT. --8,000 PSI TUBING, 3.000 PSI CASING. 300 F @ 16.000 FT. --

300

100
.. iii
0 20 40 60 60 100-0 20 40 60 60 100
TREATING FLUID (THOUSAND bALLONS)

Fig. 1 - The effect of tubing movementas a result of treatingthe well with

variationsin treating~olumes, pumping rates packer bores, originalbottom
hole temperatureand final pump-inpressure.

$
Y
~ 50

40

0 20 40 60 60 100-0 20 40 60 80 100
TREATING FLUID - (THOUSAND GALLONS)

Fig. 2 - The effect of tubing to packer force,withtubing restrained,

as a result of treatingthe well with variationsin treatingvolumes,
pumping rates;variationsof packer bores, originalbottom hole teroperature
and final pump-inpressure.
 TuBING - TUBING

SLIDING SLEEVE SLEEVE

LOCATOR SEAL R SEAL

ASSY.
:3:J;G

. CONTOUR
CASING

ENT X-TRA LONG

PERMANENT _ff:[NG
PACKER
RECEPTACLE

MILL-OUT
EXTENSION

S%A;:;G
SEAL SORk
EXTENSIOrJ
SLIDING
SLEEVE
/

ANCHOR
SEAL
ASSY.

PERMANENT
PACKER

PERMANENT PACKER PERMANENT PERMANENT PERMANENT

WITH LONG SEAL BORE PACKER WITH PACKER WITH PACKER WITH
EXTENSION SEAL PROTECTOR NO SEALBORE X-TRA LONG
EXTENSION EXTENSION TUBING SEAL
RECEPTACLE
 STEEL STAINLESS
SPACER .STEEL
EAL
ELASTOMER TEFLON

H
ELASTOMER

STANDARD SEAL PREMIUM SEAL ASSEMBLY SEAL ASSEMBLY

ASSEMBLY, WITH WITH COMPOSITE WITH MOLDED SEALS
CHEVRON TYPE SEALS CHEVRON SEALS

Fig. 4 - Seal a~sembly types.