SPE 54475
Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves
John R. Sanford, SPE, JRS Ltd.; Tamara R. Webb; Amoco Production Co.; Seb Patout, SPE; and Hugo Morales, SPE;
Dowell Schumberger.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable
held in Houston, Texas, 25–26 May 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Marginal reserves in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) shelf can
be developed using old completion technology in new ways.
Tubing-less completions or monobores are one of those
technologies. Several monobores have been performed in the
GOM, but usually, they were not the primary completion
technique. Most were performed out of necessity, either
because liners were stuck above the zone of interest or drill
pipe was stuck across the interval.
Large cost savings can be realized by utilizing monobores
as the primary completion without impairing the completion
efficiencies. By eliminating the high day rates of a
conventional platform rig, a single frac packed completion can
be performed for less than $ 500,000.
This paper describes a technical review of two 4-½”
monobore completions that were performed in Eugene Island
(EI) 273 to recover marginal reserves. The monobore
completions were planned as the primary completion
technique. However, several changes were made to the
monobore completion as compared to conventional frac
packing technology. For example, we utilized oriented,
limited entry perforating (0o/180o phased and 0.25” diameter
entry holes, 4 shots per foot (spf) and no annular pack.
Many key learnings were identified during the completions
and several changes were made prior to the second
completion. These changes resulted in an overwhelming
success both mechanically and financially. The second well,
EI 273 Well C-1ST, was performed in less than 5 days at a
cost of $ 465,000. The completion efficiency is 88 % and
maximum sustained production was 20,000 mcfd.
Introduction
The EI 273 Field is located 100 miles south of Intercoastal
City, Louisiana on the GOM shelf. The field was originally
discovered in 1962 with ten (10) productive horizons below
5,000 feet. Twenty-nine (29) wells have been drilled and
completed in the field with cumulative production of 234 bcf
and 1,900 mbo. Production, prior to the monobore
completions, was 68 mmcfd and 900 bcpd from six (6) wells
with five (5) of the wells being drilled during the 1997-drilling
program. An indication of the small reserve pools that remain
in the field is that only ± 20-25 bcf is remaining for the five
wells.
A three (3) well drill package was identified for the 1998-
drilling program. However, after reviewing the prospects only
two (2) wells were proposed. The wells were as follows:
The first well, EI 273 Well C-3ST, targeted an 8600’ sand
AVO response in the Southwest portion of Block 273. The
potential reserves of the horizon was only 3-5 bcf with 25 feet
of pay. Sand control would be required because of historical
sand production in other 8600’ producers. The drive
mechanism was assumed to be a combined depletion and weak
water drive. Therefore, a frac packed monobore was
recommended.
The second well, EI 273 Well C-1ST, targeted attic
reserves in both the 8100’ and 8600’ sands. The potential
reserves were 1 ½ - 2 bcf per zone. Like Well C-3ST, sand
control was required for both horizons because of sand
production problems identified from offset producers.
Therefore, each horizon would have to warrant completion on
a stand alone basis. A frac packed monobore was
recommended to determine if multiple pays could be exploited
with this completion technology. We believed that additional
savings could be realized for multiple well completions.
2 John R. Sanford, Tamara R. Webb, Seb Patout, and Hugo Morales
Monobore Completion Options
A monobore was defined as a wellbore that has continuous
or decreasing internal diameter (ID) with depth. An example
of our monobore completion can be seen in Figure 1.
The primary completion objectives of the EI 273
monobores were as follows:
1. Fulfill the above monobore definition.
2. Have a fully accessible wellbore which would allow future
remedial work (production logging, acidizing and coil
tubing (CT) work).
3. Have effective sand control that would not limit
productivity.
4. Have close multiple completions.
Based on the above objectives, a tapered 4-½” 11.60#/ft
and 13.50#/ft casing/tubing string was recommended. The
recommended string would have a continuous or decreasing
ID to depth and would allow the recommended sand control
method to utilize a 2-3/8” prepacked screen. The proposed
screen and packer had a minimum ID of 1.995”. This would
allow for most types remedial work (1-11/16” tools).
Three (3) sand control options / procedures were evaluated.
The perceived advantages and disadvantages of each were as
follows:
1. Vent Screen Completion (Screen–Blank-Screen). As
defined in reference 1, a vent screen completion is a frac
pack through tubing or a monobore with the vent screen in
place. This method relies on Darcy’s law to isolate annular
flow.
The advantage of this type completion was first, that it had
been performed several times; second, it had the easiest wash-
out procedure after the frac pack had been completed (It
required the least amount of washing, therefore minimizing
fluid loss and coil tubing risk); and third, it had an annular
pack to prohibit sand production.
However, we believed the disadvantages of this option
outweigh the advantages. The disadvantages were as follows:
• Not good for close multiple horizons. The blank pipe
required for annular isolation sometimes prohibits the
completion of close multiple horizons.
• May limit productivity. Even in 4-½” tubing, the screen to
casing offset requirement reduces the size screen run in the
completion. The smaller size screen and blank pipe could
limit productivity.
• Does not allow for remedial work. Because it is a vent
screen and a smaller size, no future remedial work could be
performed.
• Potential for early screen-out. Even though this had not
been documented, there was a potential for an early screen-
out with this method due to either reduced screen / casing
offset or preferential flow in through the top vent screen
SPE 54475
then out the bottom screen. A tip screen out (TSO) was
essential to our completions, and this was the most
important perceived disadvantage.
2. Wash Down Technique. This completion type had also
been performed in through tubing gravel packs (TTGP) for
many years. The procedure entails first, frac packing /
gravel packing the zone without screen in the hole; second,
washing out to a predetermined depth above the
perforations; and finally, washing a screen to total depth
(TD).
The advantage of this technique was that it was proven and
the completion had an annular pack. However, the primary
disadvantage was that there was a large risk of sticking the
screen at the top of the perforations due to fluid loss. If this
happened, there would be a risk of covering close uphole
horizons or sticking the CT. However, we felt that this
method was a good technique for small intervals (less than 20
feet: because of the smaller screen assembly length). A
second disadvantage was that small “spaghetti” wash pipe
(less than 1” OD) was required inside the already small screen.
Any time wash pipe is used there is a risk of losing it in the
hole and impairing the well productivity.
This procedure was chosen as our contingency completion
technique, if we could not wash the well entirely clean of
proppant.
3. Close Tolerance Screen. (Recommended Option) This
procedure was chosen with some modifications because of
the following advantages:
• Frac packing well without screen in place. Like the wash
down technique, this eliminated the possibility of an early
mechanical screen-out.
• Fully accessible wellbore with 2-3/8” prepacked screen.
• Close multiple horizons could be completed because no
blank pipe was required.
• Easy to washout. Washing proppant out of a single ID
tubing string had been performed for over 20 years.
• A very small annular volume was required. The 2-3/8”
prepacked screen selected had only 0.35” radial clearance
from the tubing drift. This was equal to ± 50 # of proppant
/ 20’ of screen. This was a very small volume as compared
to the large volume of proppant in the perforations (greater
than 15,000 #).
The only foreseeable disadvantage was there would be no
annular pack. We planned on addressing this problem with
some of the perforating changes.
The close tolerance screen technique fulfilled all of our
completion objectives.
SPE 54475 Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves
Monobore Completion Design Changes
Several completion design changes were recommend
based on our selected sand control option. Because the close
tolerance screen would not have an annular pack, the
following changes were made:
1. Perforating: The productive horizons would be perforated
overbalanced, 4 spf at 0o/180o phasing. The guns would be
oriented along the assumed region stress field or parallel to
the regional faulting (N 60oE). See Figure 2. Additionally,
the entry hole diameter would be limited to 0.25”. These
changes were made in an attempt to:
• Treat all the perforations, thereby minimizing the chance
of single perforation or set of perforations making sand.
• Create a conduit for a stable arch, which would serve as
our second defense against sand production (The first
defense would be the lower drawdown / mcf in a frac
packed completion). The limited entry perforation (0.25”
diameter hole) was based on 10X greater size than the
proppant diameter (20/40 Econoprop).
2. Frac Design: The frac pack design would be consistent
with the conclusions and recommendation with reference
3. The main frac design criteria was as follows:
• Aggressive use of breakers and low gel loading (25 # per
1000 gal or less)
• Tip Screen-Out (TSO) would be required. If the TSO was
not achieved we were ready to over displace the job and
start from scratch.
• Time to TSO must be monitored and adjustments must be
made early in the pump schedule.
• An additional proppant stage would be pumped to ensure
proppant was left above the top of perforations.
3. Hardware Design: Prepacked screen with 20/40
Econoprop would be used as a third line of defense. The
sand size would be consistent with the recommendations of
reference 4. The basic premise would be to allow for the
finer particles to flow through the screen and out of the
well. Additionally, no blank would be required with the
selected sand control option. This allowed for very close
horizons to be completed. Finally, a retrievable packer
would be used for annular isolation, which allows for a
truly retrievable completion.
Proposed Procedure
1. Drill to TD.
2. Set 4-½” 13.50 #/ft liner and liner packer (± 20’ seal
bore). Cement and displace with 3 % KCL.
3. Run 20’ seal assembly, 4-½” 13.50 #/ft x 11.60 #/ft
tieback & 4-½” hydraulic landing nipple (HLN). Land
tubing. NU Tree. Test to 7500 psi.
4. Demobilize Rig.
3
5. Mobilize electric line (EL), wireline (WL), filtration and
CT units.
6. Swap fluids with CT and circulating wash nozzle.
7. Run gyro to determine lowside orientation.
8. Perforate 4 spf 0o/180o phasing @ N60oE.
9. Set cast iron bridge plug (CIBP) for base. Demob EL.
10. RU tree saver. Frac pack well.
11. Wash out to TD.
12. Run memory tools to determine if TD reached.
13. Run close tolerance prepacked screen.
14. Set packer.
15. Bring on line. RD. Demobilize equipment.
Additional cost savings were expected by batch
completing two wells. The wells would be perforated in
sequence then the EL would be released. The frac stimulation
boat would be mobilized once and would pump both jobs in
sequence. The cost savings for a single mobilization was
estimated @ $ 25,000.
Completion Summaries
Perforating
EI 273 Well C-1 ST: Well C-1ST penetrated the 8100’
sand and the 8600’ sand with ± 114’ of gross pay (± 52’ net)
and ± 91’ of gross pay (± 57’ net), respectively. The log
sections can be seen in Figures 3 and 4. The 8600’ sand was
completed first. The horizon was perforated decentralized,
oriented (N60oE) with 4 spf from 9376-9434’ CDR. The
perforation orientation was parallel to the regional faulting
[Figure 2]. After the well was perforated, a CIBP was set
below the perforations @ 9437’ CDR.
Well C-1ST was the first well to be perforated. Prior to
perforating, a gyro was run to determine the lowside of the
hole. The guns were then turned away from the lowside to
perforate in the N60oE orientation. The gyro data retrieved
determined that the lowside of the hole was consistent within
5 % error from the lowside identified from the MWD.
Therefore, we believe that the gyro data was not required to
orient the guns. A graphical representation of the C-1ST gyro
versus MWD data can be seen on Figure 5.
EI 273 Well C-3ST: Well C-3ST penetrated the 8600’
sand with ± 38’ of gross pay (± 18’ net). The log section in
Figure 6 showed two sand lobes with water in the bottom of
the second lobe. The upper lobe was perforated decentralized,
oriented (N60oE) with 4 spf from 10692-10706’ CDR. The
perforation orientation was the same as Well C-1ST, or
parallel to the regional faulting [Figure 2]. Gun orientation
was defined by the MWD data because the gyro data was not
conclusive through the perforated interval. Casing scale was
identified just below the perforations during the gyro run
which caused the gyro to stick and spin. Therefore to
eliminate the risk of pulling debris through the perforations, a
CIBP was set below the perforations @ 10710’ CDR to isolate
the debris.
4 John R. Sanford, Tamara R. Webb, Seb Patout, and Hugo Morales
Frac Packing
EI 273 Well C-1 ST: Well C-1ST was the first well to be
frac packed. Prior to frac packing, a step rate and a DataFrac
were performed. The fracture extension, leakoff, fluid
efficiency and time to TSO were determined. To be consistent
with our original Frac design objectives, a 21,000 #, 14 ppa
stage was added to the design to ensure we had sand above the
top perforation after screen-out. Well C-1ST was frac packed
with 50,750 # of 20/40 Carbolite (Carbolite was left over from
a prior Amoco job and was already purchased). Time to TSO
was within 30 seconds of the simulated value and a TSO was
achieved with ± 2,500 psi of net pressure and 12.5 ppa slurry
at the perforations during screen-out @ 7,300 psi.
Approximately, 27,310 # of proppant (471 #/ft) was placed in
the perforations, leaving 23,440 # left in the hole (±2,700’).
An expanded scale of the stimulation treatment can be seen in
Figure 7. We believed that each of the pressure breakbacks
were the treating of individual sets of perforations or sand
lobes.
EI 273 Well C-3ST: Prior to frac packing, a step rate and
a DataFrac were performed. The fracture extension, leakoff,
fluid efficiency and time to TSO were determined. Based on
our C-1ST redesign, a smaller final stage was added to the job
(5,000 #, 12 ppa stage). Well C-3ST was frac packed with
23,300 # of 20/40 Econoprop. Time to TSO was within 30
seconds of the simulated value and a TSO was achieved with
± 1,500 psi of net pressure and 12 ppa slurry at the
perforations during screen-out @ 8,250 psi. Approximately,
18,300 # of proppant (1,300 #/ft) was placed in the
perforations, leaving 5,000 # left in the hole (± 575’). An
expanded scale of the stimulation treatment can be seen in
Figure 8. We believed the initial pressure breakback @ 23.5
minutes was height growth into the lower and the other
pressure breakbacks between 24 minutes and the screen-out
were the treating of individual sets of perforations.
Total boat time for the two frac pack treatments was only
20 hours. This included rig up, two step rate test, two
DataFracs, two frac packs and rig down. This time is typically
the time it takes to do a single conventional job.
Coiled Tubing Clean-Out
EI 273 Well C-3ST: After both wells were frac packed,
CT first rigged up on this well. This is where all the problems
began. The initial problem was that the wrong or originally
designed equipment did not show up on location. We had
smaller pumps, the wrong ID 1-1/2” CT reel and the wrong
accessory tool box. After reviewing what we had, we still
believed we could wash the well to TD, if no problems
occurred. That was when we started having equipment
failures. We replaced the CT power pack, one (1) of the
pumps and the injector head. After about a week of down
time due to equipment failures and washing problems, the CT
parted as we were pulling out of the hole on our thirteenth
SPE 54475
(13th) run. At this time we took a step back and re-evaluated
our situation. Because we were in a rigless situation, we did
not have a high rig rate forcing us to make an immediate
decision. We could afford to delay the completion until we
had the correct equipment on location. We ordered a 1-3/4”
CT reel, a new injector and a 750 HHP pump. This delayed
our completion another two (2) weeks.
Once the new equipment was on location, this was not the
end of our problems. The brand new 1-3/4” reel was defective
and had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be repaired and
another two (2) days were lost. Total trouble or down time
cost was ± $ 700,000.
After the CT reel was repaired, the remainder of the
completion went without a problem. We washed the well to
TD in less than ½ day, ran a memory tool and identified our
true TD (CDR), ran 22’ of 2-3/8” screen, set the packer and
brought the well on line. A wellbore schematic for Well C-
3ST can be seen in Figure 9.
Total cost of the completion, after the casing was set, was
$ 1,173,000. We consider this a p(90) estimate with all the
problems that occurred.
EI 273 Well C-1ST: Clean-out operations were not
initiated on Well C-1ST until all of the equipment failures and
problems were resolved. Clean-out with the 1-3/4” CT and
the 750 HHP went as planned and concluded in less than two
(2) days. We washed the well to bottom (± 2,700’ of
proppant), ran a memory tool and identified the true TD, ran
68’ of 2-3/8” screen, set the packer and brought the well on
line. A wellbore schematic for Well C-1ST can be seen in
Figure 1.
Total cost of the completion was $ 570,000. Because we
began and ended on this well, both the mobilization and
demobilization were charged to the well. This cost was ± $
95,000.
Financial Comparisons
For a cost comparison, we had a very good database. Two
(2) wells were drilled and completed in the same field in late
1997 at the B structure, EI 273 Wells B-13ST and B-2ST.
Both wells were frac packed and costs were from swapping
fluids to NU the tree (after the casing was set). Completion
costs for Wells B-13ST and B-2ST were $ 1,555,000 and $
1,893,000, respectively. The B-13ST was the least expensive
single frac packed completion for Amoco in 1997. It was
considered the p(10) cost target.
The rigless completion costs for Wells C-1ST and C-3ST
were $ 570,000 and $ 1,173,000, respectively. This
represented a savings of $ 985,000 (63%) or $ 382,000 (25%),
respectively. A graphical representation of the cost can be
seen in Figure 10. Well C-3ST, with all of the trouble time or
SPE 54475 Utilizing 4 ½-in. Monobores and Rigless Completions to Develop Marginal Reserves
the p(90) cost estimate, was still 25 % less than the p(10) rig
completion cost. We believe we can perform the rigless
completions for less than $ 400,000.
Please note that the costs represented were both in a high
cost market. The spread rate for the rig completions was ±
$80,000 / day and the spread rate for the 1-3/4” CT and 750
HHP pump was ± $ 40,000 / day. Obviously, the current
market prices for both the rig and CT are considerably less.
Productivity Comparisons
This was the most important comparison for the rigless
completions, if we planned on utilizing this technology for
larger reserves. If completion efficiency was drastically
effected, the cost savings would most likely not be warranted.
However, we have not quantified the relationship between
completion efficiency and cost on a reserve basis.
Completion efficiency was calculated for both the rig and
the rigless completions. Completion efficiency (CE) was
defined as the producing rate divided by the zero skin rate
expressed as a percentage. The zero skin rate was calculated
by matching the current rate, the permeability and the skin,
from a pressure build-up analysis (PBU), on a NODAL
analysis. The PBU analysis and NODAL matches for Wells
C-1ST and C-3ST can be seen in Figures 11-14. The
calculated CE for Wells C-1ST and C-3ST were 88 % and 45
%, respectively. For comparison the rig CE for Wells B-13ST
and B-2ST were 105 % and 85 %, respectively. Graphical
results can be seen in Figure 15.
Well C-1ST experienced no CE or productivity loss due to
our completion technique. The CE loss in Well C-3ST was
most likely due to a combination of the following reasons:
• Washing Problems. Experience tells us, the more time you
spend in a well, the greater chance you had to damage the
formation.
• Gel Damage. Because of the initial equipment problems
several gels sweeps were made in an attempt to clean the
hole. Approximately 1,450 bbls of gel were used (As
compared to 150 bbls of gel on Well C-1ST). Loss of the
gel to the formation would be very damaging.
Additionally, the time delay due to the equipment
problems caused both wells to remain shut-in with frac gel
in the formation for over one (1) month. This could also
be damaging.
• Crushed Econoprop. Thirteen (13) CT trips were made in
Well C-3ST. The last bottoms up recovered a large sample
of crushed Econoprop. If any crushed Econoprop was lost
to the formation it would cause a near wellbore skin or an
increased pressure drop.
• Turbulence. It is possible that the limited entry
perforations, the low spf and the small perforation interval
caused a near wellbore turbulence. Unfortunately, a
5
modified isochronal test was not performed to evaluate this
option.
The most conclusive evidence that the completion
technique detailed in this paper was successful is the
production profiles for the wells.
Well C-1ST has cumulatively produced ± 1.6 bcf in little
over 6 months with no sand production. A production profile
for the well can be seen in Figure 16. The well last tested ±
5,000 mcfd.
Well C-3ST has cumulatively produced ± 2.3 bcf in the
same time period with no sand production. A production
profile for the well can be seen in Figure 17. The well last
tested ± 10,500 mcfd.
Conclusions
1. Monobore completions with sand control are an economic
and effective primary completion technique for marginal
reserves.
2. The completion method detailed in this paper is an
effective sand control method with no loss of completion
efficiency or productivity.
3. The close tolerance screen is the best method for sand
control in frac packed monobores.
4. The importance of performing the job with the originally
designed equipment should not be taken lightly.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
Amoco Production Company for granting permission to
publish this paper. A special thanks to all parties that worked
together to successfully complete this project.
References
1. Ebinger, C.E.: “New Frac-Pack Procedures Reduce Completion
Cost,” World Oil, April 1996, pp. 71&75.
2. Welling, Rudy W.F.: “Conventional High Rate Completions:
Limitations of Frac&Pack, Hugh Rate Water Pack and Open
Hole Gravel Pack,” paper SPE 39475 presented at the 1998 SPE
Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A.,
18-19 February 1998.
3. Norman, W.D., Mukherjee, H, Morales, H.R., Attong, D.,
Webb, T.R.: “Optimized Fracpack Design Results in Production
Increase in the Matagorda Island Area,” paper SPE 49045
prepared for the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference, New
Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 27-30 September 1998.
4. Tiffin, D.L., King, G.E., Larese, R.E., Britt, L.K.: “New Criteria
for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control,” paper SPE
39437 prepared for presention at the 1998 SPE Formation
Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, U.S.A., 18-19
February 1998.
 OCSG 0987 Well C-1 ST PROPOSED
Eugene Island Block 273 AS IS
DIRECTIONAL DATA TUBULARS SIZE WT GRADE THREAD DEPTH WELL HEAD DATA
KOP:
1500 RKB DRIVE PIPE 20” 0.75” Weld 482’ TYPE 4-1/16” 5M
MAX:
36.5o @ 5800 RKB CONDUCTOR 16” 84# H40 BTC 917’ WP
T
5,000
MAX DOGLEG: @ RKB SURFACE 10-3/4” 40.5# K55 BTC 3,111’ R
C
A
FLANGE 4-1/16” 5M
E
DEV @ PERFS: 2 o@ RKB INTERMEDIATE E P THREAD 8rd
RET TO VERT: RKB PRODUCTION 7-5/8” 33.7# S95 LTC 5,769’ TBG HANGER DP4H5SV
PROD LINER 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 4,850’-9,628’ BTM FLANGE 11” 5M
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC TIE BACK / LS 4-1/2” 11.6# P110 H563 610’ BPV PROFILE Nat Type “H”
MONOBORE 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 610’-4,850’ ELEVATIONS RKB-TH 43.9
WD 184 RKB-MWL 104

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT OD ID DEPTH (RKB)

CAMCO Hydraulic Landing Nipple w/ FC 5.920 3.812 434

CAMCO WRDP Wireline ret SCSSV 2.125 434
4-1/2” 14’ SWS “X” Nipple w/ FPs 5.920 3.812 550

HLN 4-1/2” 11.60# H563 x 4-1/2” 13.50# SLX (X-Over) 3.795 610
X

4-1/2” 14’ Seal Assembly w/ 4 sets Nitrile Seals 4850

4-1/2” Brown “ZXP” Liner Packer w/ PBR 4850
4,850’

7-5/8” Top of Window 5769

5,769’

4-1/2” DS Retrievable Packer 2.000 9360

2-3/8” 0.008 Ga Micropack Screen 3.043 1.995 9370
8600’ Sand: 9,376 - 9,434’ CDR (4 spf)
CIBP 9437
PJ

xo COMMENTS INTERNALLY COATED TUBING YES NO PLUG BACK 9,437 MD

8,605 TVD

TOTAL DEPTH
9,628 MD
8,798 TVD
FLUID LIH No Fluid
DATE LIH
PREPARED BY JR Sanford
9,628’ DATE
FILE
8/10/98
c1st.ppt

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY

Figure 1. EI 273 Well C-1ST Wellbore Schematic

 Eugene Island 273
8600’ SAND: SEISMIC ANOMALY

Untested 8600’ Sand

N

0E
N6
Faulting Orientation

Updip Reserves in
8100’ & 8600’ Sands

Figure 2. 8600’ Anomoly Map w/ Regional Faulting Orientation.

Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
8100’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10

8900

8950

9000

9050

9100

Figure 3. Log Section for 8100’ Sand.

Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
8600’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10

9350

9400

9450

9500

Figure 4. Log Section for 8600’ Sand.

 EI 273 Well C-1ST BP1
WELLBORE ORIENTATION
Azimuth / Lowside (Degrees from North)
170 175 180 185 190
9350
Depth (feet)

9400

GyroData

MWD Data

- 5 Degree Error

+ 5 Degree Error

9450

Figure 5. Gyro Data versus MWD Data.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
8600’ Sand
40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10
10650

10700

10750

Figure 6. Log Section for 8600’ Sand.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST BP1
FRAC PACK STIMULATION TREATMENT
5000 16

4500 14

Pump Rate(bpm) & Sand Concentration (ppa)

4000 12

3500 10
Pressure, psia

3000 8

Time to TSO
2500
2.5 minutes 6

2000 4

Net Pressure Build: 2500 psi

1500 2

1000 0
22 24 26 28 30 32
Job Time, minutes
Figure 7. Well C-1ST Stimulation Treatment.
 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
FRAC PACK STIMULATION TREATMENT
4000 16

3750 14

Pump Rate(bpm) & Sand Concentration (ppa)

3500 12

3250 10
Time to TSO
Pressure, psia

1.5 minutes
3000 8

2750 6

2500
Net Pressure Build: 1500 psi 4

2250 2

2000 0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Job Time, minutes

Figure 8. Well C-3ST Stimulation Treatment.
 OCSG 0987 Well C-3 ST PROPOSED
Eugene Island Block 273 AS IS
DIRECTIONAL DATA TUBULARS SIZE WT GRADE THREAD DEPTH WELL HEAD DATA
KOP:
5800 RKB DRIVE PIPE 20” 0.75” Weld 483’ TYPE 4-1/16” 5M
o @ 5800 16” 84# H40 905’ 5,000
MAX:
43 RKB CONDUCTOR BTC WP
T
MAX DOGLEG: @ RKB SURFACE 10-3/4” 40.5# K55 BTC 4,500’ R
C
A
FLANGE 4-1/16” 5M
E
DEV @ PERFS: 5 o@ RKB INTERMEDIATE E P THREAD 8rd
RET TO VERT: RKB PRODUCTION 7-5/8” 33.7# S95 LTC 5,800’ TBG HANGER DP4H5SV
PROD LINER 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 5,219’-10,950’ BTM FLANGE 11” 5M
WELLBORE SCHEMATIC TIE BACK / LS 4-1/2” 11.6# P110 H563 638’ BPV PROFILE Nat Type “H”
MONOBORE 4-1/2” 13.5# P110 SLX 638’-5,219’ ELEVATIONS RKB-TH 43.5
WD 184 RKB-MWL 104

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT OD ID DEPTH (RKB)

CAMCO Hydraulic Landing Nipple w/ FC 5.920 3.812 430

CAMCO WRDP Wireline ret SCSSV 2.125 430
4-1/2” 14’ SWS “X” Nipple w/ FPs 5.920 3.812 536

HLN 4-1/2” 11.60# H563 x 4-1/2” 13.50# SLX (X-Over) 3.795 638
X

4-1/2” 14’ Seal Assembly w/ 4 sets Nitrile Seals 5219

4-1/2” Brown “ZXP” Liner Packer w/ PBR 5219
5,219’

7-5/8” Top of Window 5800

5,800’

4-1/2” DS Retrievable Packer 2.000 10677

2-3/8” 0.008 Ga Micropack Screen 3.043 1.995 10688
8600’ Sand: 10,692 - 10,706’ CDR (4 spf)
CIBP 10710
PJ

xo COMMENTS INTERNALLY COATED TUBING YES NO PLUG BACK 10,870 MD

9,889 TVD
TOTAL DEPTH
10,950 MD
9,969 TVD
FLUID LIH No Fluid
DATE LIH
PREPARED BY JR Sanford
10,950’ DATE
FILE
8/10/98
c3st.ppt

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY

Figure 9. EI 273 Well C-3ST Wellbore Schematic

 Eugene Island 273 Field
FINANCIAL COMPARISONS

$2,000
$1,893
$1,800
$1,555
$1,600
COMPLETION COST

$1,400
$1,173
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$570
$600
$400
$200
$0
B13ST B2ST C1ST BP1 C3ST
Rig Completions
Monobores

Figure 10. Eugene Island 273 Cost Comparisons.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
NODAL ANALYSIS
2500

Pr 2,480 psi
k 125 md
2450
Pressure, psia

Sk Sk
in in
= 6.5 = 0
2400

Completion Efficiency: Zero Skin Match:

CE = 9.6 MMcfd / 10.9 MMcfd = 88 % 10.9 MMcfd @ 2,362 psi bhftp

2350

FTP = 1,900 psi

Current Match:
9.6 MMcfd @ 2,355 psi bhftp

2300
0 5,000 10,000 15,000
Rate, MMcfd
Figure 11.EI 273 Well C-1ST NODAL Analysis.
Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
PBU ANALYSIS

Figure 12. EI 273 Well C-1ST PBU Analysis.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
NODAL ANALYSIS
44 00

42 00

40 00 Pr 4,138 psi
k 250 md
Sk
38 00 in
= 0
Sk
Pressure, psia

36 00
in
=
11
5

34 00

32 00 Zero Skin Match:

28.6 MMcfd @ 3,110 psi bhftp

30 00
FTP = 2,290 psi
Current Match:
28 00 12.8 MMcfd @ 2,965 psi bhftp
Completion Efficiency:
CE = 12.8 MMcfd / 28.6 MMcfd = 45 %
26 00

24 00
0 5,0 00 10 ,00 0 15 ,00 0 20 ,00 0 25 ,00 0 30 ,00 0

Rate, MMcfd
Figure 13. EI 273 Well C-3ST NODAL Analysis.
Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
PBU ANALYSIS

Figure 14. EI 273 Well C-3ST PBU Analysis.

 Eugene Island 273 Field
PRODUCTIVITY COMPARISONS

120%
105%
100% 88%
85%
COMPLETION EFFECIENCY

80%

60%
45%
40%

20%

0%
B13ST B2ST C1ST BP1 C3ST
Rig Completions
Monobores

Figure 15. Eugene Island 273 Completion Efficiency Comparisons.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-1ST
PRODUCTION PROFILE

100
MCFD

10

1
Jun-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99

Figure 16.EI 273 Well C-1ST Production Profile.

 Eugene Island 273 Well C-3ST
PRODUCTION PROFILE

100
MCFD

10

1
Jun-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99

Figure 17.EI 273 Well C-3ST Production Profile.