TECHNOLOGY TODAY SERIES
Advanced Drilling in HP/HT: Total’s
Experience on Elgin/Franklin (UK North Sea)
J.-L. Bergerot, Total
Abstract
Drilling high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) explora-
tion wells remains a challenge, despite years of experience
acquired by the drilling/completion industry. Development
wells have further expanded the envelope of performance of
the technologies and procedures required to deliver produc-
tion from HP/HT fields safely and economically. Now comes
the time of drilling and completing infill wells, which para-
doxically appear to be more difficult as depletion increases
and the mud-weight window (MWW) diminishes.
To overcome this problem, intense engineering work has
been carried out to better understand the effect of the deple-
tion on compaction and fracturing gradient, to design and
qualify new drilling-mud systems combined with stress-cag-
ing techniques, and to prepare contingent solutions with the
deployment of expandable- and drilling-liner technologies.
Three infill wells have been drilled, completed, and put
on production by Total in the Elgin/Franklin fields on the
UK Continental Shelf. This success was achieved through
severely depleted reservoirs—with depletion greater than 800
bar—and has enabled phased HP/HT developments and deep
exploration beneath depleted horizons.
Overview of the Elgin/Franklin
Extreme-HP/HT Fields
The Elgin/Franklin fields present an extreme combination
of pressure and temperature (1,100-bar virgin pressure and
200°C, respectively) and remain the largest HP/HT gas/
condensate fields developed in the British sector of the
North Sea. The fields are approximately 200 km northeast of
Aberdeen in the Central Graben area.
Jean-Louis Bergerot, Manager
for HP/HT Wells Technology–Total
Drilling Division, joined the Total
group as a completion engineer in
1978. Assigned mostly in West Africa,
domestic operations, and the North
Sea, he was Drilling Manager for
Elf UK at the time of the Elgin-
Franklin HP/HT development. Bergerot also has served as
Well Productivity Engineering Manager and as Technical
Services Director for Total E&P UK. He holds degrees from
École Centrale and from the Institut Français du Pétrole.
116
Following discovery and appraisal from 1985 to 1994,
development started in 1996 with two unmanned wellhead
platforms tied back to a central production facility. Eleven
wells were drilled and put on stream, with deviations up to
50°, in an average drilling duration of 120 days. These wells
were drilled before a predefined limit of depletion level had
been reached, a level at which the MWW closes—calculated
for Elgin/Franklin as 100 bar. First oil production occurred
in 2001. Later, two satellite structures, Glenelg and West
Franklin, were drilled and put on production through the
existing installations in 2006 and 2007, respectively, (Fig. 1).
The reservoirs consist of Jurassic sandstones buried at
a depth exceeding 5300 m. The primary reservoir is the
Fulmar, also called Franklin, sands. Reservoir fluids are gas/
condensate with a bottomhole pressure of 1100 bar and tem-
perature of 190°C. The Fulmar reservoir is underlain by the
Pentland reservoir with bottomhole conditions of 1150 bar
and 200°C (Fig. 2). Despite the depth, the main reservoir
shows significant porosity and permeability, allowing strong
productivity. Up to 30% porosity and 1-darcy permeability
are found in some Fulmar layers
Individual wells in the field can produce up to 3.5×106 m3/d
of gas with associated condensate. Surface production condi-
tions are 860-bar wellhead shut-in pressure with an associat-
ed temperature of 180°C. The produced effluent contains 3 to
4% CO2 and 30 to 40 ppm H2S. Initially, field gas production
reached 14.6×106 m3/d, with 24 000 m3/d of condensate.
This combination explains the strong need for technology
and in-depth engineering for these wells.
Challenges of Infill Wells
Infill wells are drilled for various reasons. For conventional
field management, they can increase the recovery factor, and
hence the produced reserves, or they can accelerate delivery
or improve the effective drainage.
Infill wells are used to replace wells that have failed. In
HP/HT fields such as Elgin/Franklin, wells are exposed to
multiple threats resulting from the large amount of deple-
tion. One such threat is sand or solids production, which
can erode equipment, including the downhole safety valve,
tree, and surface production piping. Rock-mechanics studies
Copyright 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 129422. Technology Today Series articles are general, descriptive rep-
resentations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals
recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.
JPT • OCTOBER 2011
suggest that sand production is inevitable beyond some cer-
tain depletion.
Currently, no field-proven downhole-sand-control method
can be implemented in the more-severe HP/HT wells. Should
such an event occur, wells must be choked down and ulti-
mately can be lost, which leads to significant production loss.
Another threat is liner deformation caused by compaction
that buckles the liner or by tectonic movements along faults
or other bedding planes. Eventually, the liner may become
sheared off completely.
Both phenomena have been experienced in North Sea HP/
HT fields. Downhole measurements showed that most Elgin/
Franklin production liners have suffered a loss of internal
diameter of up to 60%. Phased measurements indicate that
these deformations are worsening with time (Fig. 3).
It also may be important to be able to phase a develop-
ment and not be obliged to drill all wells before first oil or
gas without production history to validate reservoir-manage-
ment plans. In any case, drilling infill wells in HP/HT fields
remains a strong challenge.
In such fields it is not unusual to observe very fast sig-
nificant depletion. As an example, the initial depletion rate
reached 100 bar/6 months in the Elgin/Franklin case. Two
types of issues are generated:
• Compaction of the reservoir affects the stress distribu-
tion, even in formations far above the reservoir.
• The MWW disappears.
Consequences of Compaction. Depending upon the struc-
ture’s geometry, an arching effect may develop between the
compacted reservoir and the surface where subsidence can
be seen, even if limited. This arching will generate, among
other aspects, areas of high shearing stresses that may affect
wellbore stability of the infill wells. Faults may reactivate,
West Area Development Glenelg and West Franklin
Production wells
Appraisal and
exploration wells
New development wells
Fig. 1—Central Graben development.
JPT • OCTOBER 2011
which can act as paths for the hydrocarbons initially con-
tained in the underlying reservoirs. Therefore, infill wells
may face high levels of gas in the formation where the initial
development wells did not encounter any hydrocarbon.
MWW Concept. The selection of mud density (mud weight)
required to drill a well section is driven by three main con-
siderations.
• Pore pressure (i.e., pressure of the fluid in the drilled
formation)
• Fracturing pressure (i.e., fluid pressure breaking the for-
mation and triggering a fracture)
• Borehole stability (i.e., fluid pressure maintaining the
wellbore integrity)
The range of density, between the pore-pressure- and the
fracturing-pressure-equivalent densities, is called the MWW.
Theoretically, the mud density (static and dynamic) should
remain within this window (i.e., above the value required to
balance the pore pressure, preventing any formation-fluid
influx into the well; above the value required to maintain the
borehole stability; and below the value required to fracture
the formation), avoiding severe mud losses.
In conventional wells, the MWW is relatively large, allow-
ing the mud weight to be “fine-tuned” to prevent any fluid
influx, while avoiding mud losses. However, in some cir-
cumstances, such as HP/HT or deep water, the MWW is very
narrow, making drilling very challenging.
MWW Issue. For wells drilled before reservoir depletion, an
MWW exists between the pore pressure and the fracturing
pressure. As depletion occurs, the fracturing pressure in the
reservoir decreases with the pore pressure. At the interface
between the caprock (remains at virgin pressure) and the
depleted reservoir, the MWW decreases to zero (Fig. 4).
Depending on well configuration, differentially depleted
layers will have to be drilled in the same section with a high
risk of kick and losses or a combination of shales and deplet-
ed layers will be encountered with a high risk of instability
and losses. Regardless, drilling becomes complex and diffi-
cult, and the probability of a failure increases with depletion.
Fracturing gradient
Most likely
pressure-transition
zone
Pore-pressure
gradient
Fig. 2—Pore- and fracturing-pressure profiles.
117
TECHNOLOGY TODAY SERIES
5.500
5.600
5.700
5.800
5.900
6.000
Internal Diameter Colors
Fig. 3—Example of liner deformation on HP/HT well.
Ultimately, drilling with conventional techniques, within
the fracture-pressure gradient, is not possible and new
designs, techniques, and procedures must be implemented.
On Elgin/Franklin, rock-mechanics studies estimated the
depletion limit at 100 bar. Until such time that the depletion
level was less than 100 bar, initial-development-well design
was appropriate. Beyond that point, questions arose regard-
ing use of additional strings, with the uncertainties of the
correct setting depth and consideration had to be given to
the feasibility of drilling above the fracture-pressure gradient
by reinforcing the wellbore artificially.
SG
Fig. 4—MWW disappears with depletion. FIT=formation-integrity test.
118
HP/HT Infill-Drilling State of the Art. When the first infill
well on Elgin/Franklin was evaluated, very few successful
trials of HP/HT infill drilling had been achieved, and none
with a depletion level in excess of 600 bar. One HP/HT
operator faced severe losses when drilling through a forma-
tion depleted by 140 bar, leading to the abandonment of the
bottom of the well. Another HP/HT operator was unable to
reach final depth of an infill well because of insufficient for-
mation strength resulting from depletion, which prevented
safe drilling of the reservoir section.
Drilling through a 600-bar-depleted reservoir in an HP/
HT field was considered far beyond what the industry had
achieved at that date. However, driven by the need of infill
wells and, consequently, of overcoming this depletion barrier,
a feasibility study was launched that concluded that drilling
such wells was feasible in the Elgin/Franklin fields and that
identified two possible well architectures. On the basis of
these results, the development phase was launched and a
target was selected on the Franklin field.
Infill-Well-Drilling Feasibility
Uncertainty Identification. The Fulmar reservoir has three
main units.
• The C sands, at the top, have relatively poor characteris-
tics: degraded permeability and vertical baffles.
• The B sands, in the middle, have the best properties and
are the main production contributors.
• The A sands, at the bottom, are tighter, but can include
good layers at the top.
Under the main Fulmar reservoir, lie the Pentland sands
with poor characteristics. Barely depleted, they remain close
to virgin pressure.
Geomechanical Uncertainties. Rock-mechanics experts
were consulted to estimate the two main rock properties
necessary to design the well: fracture-pressure gradient of
the reservoirs and borehole stability of the caprock. The frac-
Estimated
Pore Pressure
MWW Disappears
JPT • OCTOBER 2011
ture-propagation gradient (FPG) is close to the minimum
horizontal stress and can be modeled. For Elgin/Franklin, a
full-scale rock-mechanics model, coupled with the geological
and dynamic reservoir models, had already been built and
was used for this purpose. It estimated the FPG to be 1.65-
SG equivalent mud weight (EMW). The fracture-initiation
gradient is much more difficult to predict than the FPG;
therefore, it was used only as an indication and was con-
sidered as an uncertain, but existing, margin. On this well,
it was predicted to be 1.87-SG EMW. Both gradients are a
function of formation pressure. As such, their profiles suffer
from the same uncertainty as the reservoir-pressure profiles.
The other information requested from rock mechanics was
borehole stability of the caprock. This information allowed
defining the minimum mud weight that can be used to
cross the transition zone without suffering unmanageable
borehole instability of the open hole above. Information on
the caprock is even more limited than that on the reservoir.
Geological Uncertainties. Depending on the architecture
selected, the top-reservoir-depth prediction was critical
to maximize the success of the transition-zone drilling.
Extensive geophysical techniques were used to minimize the
uncertainty of this test prediction. These included thorough
examination of seismic data and uncertainty studies on depth
conversion. The prediction was given to +30 m and −45 m.
Often in Elgin/Franklin, some thin limestone layers (centi-
meter-to-decimeter thickness) are found to be gas bearing in
the caprock. These zones can be drilled underbalanced, but
sometimes require high mud weight to enable trips.
Reservoir Uncertainties: Defining the Pore-Pressure
Profile. Monitoring the average pressure of existing Franklin
producers showed a depletion of more than 600 bar of the
main reservoir. The pressure of the Fulmar B sands was
confidently estimated at 500 bar at the planned reservoir-
penetration date. The pressure of the tighter C sands was
more difficult to predict.
The highest uncertainty was in the pressure-transition pro-
file between the caprock, believed to have remained at virgin
pressure, and the reservoir section. Is it at the very top of the
reservoir or is the bottom of the caprock affected by deple-
tion through microfractures? How thick is the transition
zone, and how steep is the pressure gradient in this zone?
Considering all uncertainties, different scenarios were
envisaged. A pressure profile along the well path was drawn,
and a probability of encountering higher pressure at top res-
ervoir was evaluated for each scenario.
Retained Well Architectures. To deal with these drilling
challenges, two architectures were defined. The first involves
use of a specially designed mud loaded with specific lost-
circulation materials (LCMs). The technique is known as
“borehole strengthening.” Once the reservoir has been pen-
etrated, the transition zone is cased off with a 7-in. liner.
The second architecture involves the use of expandable liner
to cover most of the caprock. Then, the transition zone is
drilled with a lower mud weight below the FPG. The remain-
ing opened caprock would be short enough that borehole
instabilities can be managed. Then, the transition zone is
covered with a cemented 65/8-in. drilling liner. After the
reservoir has been drilled, the 65/8-in. liner is covered with
a 41/2-in. liner. After the transition zone is covered, the mud
JPT • OCTOBER 2011
weight can be decreased, but it is kept high enough to drill
the reservoir safely.
Because the main difficulty was the transition-zone cross-
ing, the architecture for the top of the well was the standard
Elgin/Franklin architecture designed for virgin pressure. This
design allowed focus on the transition-zone crossing and
provided a comfort factor because this top-of-well architec-
ture was designed to hold a well full of gas at virgin reservoir
pressure, regardless of circumstances.
Borehole Strengthening. The borehole-strengthening tech-
nique is used widely in the industry. The principle is to create
a fracture by using a mud weight higher than the fracture-
initiation pressure (FIP) and plug the fracture on creation
to prevent further growth. The plug is formed by LCM that
is continuously present in the mud. The created fracture
increases the rock stress locally, enhancing the hole’s ability to
support high mud weight. The technique is used more com-
monly with water-based mud, which exhibits high filtration
values. The high temperatures experienced on Elgin/Franklin
dictate use of oil-based mud. Because filtration of oil-based
mud is very tight, the filtration from the fracture face into the
formation is virtually nil. The consequence is that the plug at
the fracture mouth must seal tightly as soon as it is created.
The other difficulty is to define the width of the fracture
to be sealed. Rock-mechanics calculations showed a direct
relationship between fracture geometry (width and length)
and the amount of overpressure. The higher the pressure, the
wider the fracture, at a given length. In this case, it was esti-
mated that the mud could be designed to form an efficient
plug of 1-mm width, while keeping reasonable rheological
properties, despite a high solids content.
Therefore, the mud was designed and tested to be able to
seal a 1-mm gap. The LCM additives consist of sized crushed
marble and sized graphite material. Laboratory testing
enabled adjusting relative concentrations of LCM additives,
to achieve a quick and efficient plugging of 1-mm slots. In
addition to in-house tests, tests were performed in a third-
party laboratory.
Mechanical Backup—High-Collapse-Rating Expandable
and Drilling Liners. Expandable liners are used widely in
to seal off weak zones to allow increasing the mud weight to
penetrate deeper zones at higher pressure. This use makes
them work under a burst mode. In this case, the expandable
liner had to work in a collapse mode. Expanded pipe has low
collapse capacity, and this is a limitation of the technique. To
increase the collapse capacity to the required value, approxi-
mately 350 bar, a development program was undertaken
with the selected provider.
Although expandable liner has been run in high-tempera-
ture wells, the operator thought it prudent to test the expan-
sion system with high mud weight and high temperatures.
This testing was conducted in a shallow well in a special
testing facility in Dallas. The system was left soaking with
2.15-SG oil-based mud at 176°C for 18 hours before initiat-
ing expansion and expanding 18 m of pipe. Examination
of the seals and parts of the system afterward showed no
significant degradation. The system was declared qualified
for the application.
The liner-drilling technique also was becoming available
when development work was ongoing. This technique pre-
sented two main advantages: First, there is no need to trip
119
TECHNOLOGY TODAY SERIES
out of hole to run the liner, leaving the caprock in an under-
balanced condition for a long time. Second, it allows use of a
higher mud weight during drilling. If heavy losses were expe-
rienced when entering the reservoir and the hydrostatic pres-
sure applied on the caprock dropped, the formation could
collapse. With a drilled-in liner, it would collapse around the
liner, leaving the hole cased off. Isolation behind the liner
might be achieved by the collapsed formation.
Implementation
Top sections were drilled as planned. The 133/8-in. casing
was called 100 m short at 3585 m. This resulted in a leakoff-
test value of 1.84-SG EMW instead of a planned 2.10-SG
EMW. As drilling progressed in the Herring formation, 150
m before the planned phase total depth (TD) and 450 m
above top of the reservoir, the gas level increased suddenly.
Drilling was stopped, and production casing was run and
cemented successfully at 4939 m.
The main consequence of this event was that the Herring
high-pressure layer had to be crossed with the 81/2-in. sec-
tion. Its required mud weight, confirmed when crossing it
again, was 2.05 SG minimum, which was considered too
high for implementing the borehole-strengthening tech-
nique. Therefore, the primary architecture was ruled out
from the start of the 81/2-in. section. A decision was made to
implement the contingent architecture.
Running Expandable Liner. Before running the liner, a cali-
per was run in the open hole to estimate the best placement
of the elastomer-bonded pipes. The hole proved to be mostly
in gauge. The liner reached TD without any problems. The
dart was dropped and the expansion process was initiated
at a much higher pressure than expected, close to the burst
pressure of the cone-launcher element. Once initiated, the
expansion process went smoothly, and the liner was installed
as planned.
Drilling With Liner. After the expandable shoe was cleared
and the stability of the well assessed, the 65/8-in. drilled-in
liner was run. The well was displaced with the specially
designed mud loaded with the LCM originally designed for
the borehole-strengthening technique. The liner drilled the
remaining portion of the caprock and penetrated the reser-
voir at 5451 m. No more than 500 L of losses was noticed
when penetrating the reservoir. These very low levels of
losses led to questioning the top-reservoir depletion. Drilling
was continued until 5484 m, where the liner hanger was
about to hang on top of the expandable liner. The liner then
was cemented in place.
Reservoir Drilling. Having achieved successful isolation
of the transition between caprock and reservoir, one would
expect that the mud weight could be decreased to drill the
remaining reservoir with a minimum overbalance. The mud
weight was decreased to 1.50 SG before drilling the shoe.
High levels of gas were experienced as soon as the shoe was
drilled. The mud weight was raised to 1.60 SG, and drilling
continued for 40 m, in the presumed poor-productivity C
sand, still with high gas levels. The well was displaced back
to 1.86-SG designer mud to allow a safe trip out of hole.
120
Well logs showed the presence of good sands at the top of
the reservoir, covered only partially by the drilled-in liner.
Reservoir pressure was 1,004 bar, requiring a higher mud
weight than planned.
The only remaining option was to drill to final depth
with the designer mud. The losses-response plan was
updated accordingly, and drilling continued at a reduced
penetration rate into the remaining C sands, the B sands,
and 55 m into the A sands. TD was reached at 5678 m with
only a seepage loss rate noticed, approximately 200 L/h for
a small period. It was difficult to ascertain which of the fol-
lowing had happened.
• The borehole was fractured, and the borehole-strength-
ening technique worked.
• The designer mud increased the FIP by creating a perfect
seal between the borehole and the formation.
• The mud-column pressure was below the initial FIP.
The final 41/2-in. liner then was run, and the well was
completed, perforated, and put on stream at an initial rate
of 2700 m3/d.
Conclusions
The first infill well was drilled successfully, completed, and
perforated in an HP/HT reservoir after 660 bar of depletion
had occurred. Two architectures were designed to achieve
this goal, and all contingencies were used. Despite the large
amount of work performed to reduce geological and reser-
voir uncertainties, surprises were encountered. The biggest
surprises were in the overburden, long before reaching the
reservoir. Most of them are believed to be the result of reser-
voir depletion.
High-permeability sands (up to 100 md) were drilled
with 660-bar overbalance without significant losses. The
formation damage created by the designer mud, if any, was
bypassed by the perforations.
This success opened new perspectives in the HP/HT domain.
• It enabled development of additional reserves in the
Elgin/Franklin reservoir. Two additional wells have been
drilled successfully through more-severely-depleted reser-
voirs (approximately 800-bar depletion).
• It provided assurance that wells that fail in the future can
be replaced, thus securing production over the life of the field.
• From a wider perspective, phased HP/HT-field develop-
ments can be contemplated. This will affect HP/HT field
economics by allowing a reduction in preinvestments.
Nevertheless, deep HP/HT infill wells are not and never
will be routine. Dedicated and integrated HP/HT teams
(drilling, geology, and others) combined with while-drilling
reactivity are keys to success. JPT
Acknowledgments
The Elgin/Franklin fields are operated by Elf Exploration UK
Ltd. on behalf of itself and its coventurers:
E.F. Oil and Gas Ltd.*, Eni Elgin/Franklin Ltd., BG
International (CNS) Ltd., Ruhrgas UK Exploration &
Production Ltd., Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd.,
Texaco Britain Ltd., Dyas UK Ltd., Oranje-Nassau (UK) Ltd.
*E.F. Oil and Gas Ltd. is a company held 77.5% by Elf Exploration UK Ltd. and
22.5% by Gaz de France.
JPT • OCTOBER 2011
RESOURCES

Pioneer Petrotech Services Inc

Proppants: PPS28 200degC

Ceramic
and Coated Sand Quartz Memory Gauge
Polybeads
Guar Gum Powder
Guar Gum Gel
Hematite • Innovative quartz

CMC hybrid technology

Xanthan Gum
• Withstands continuous

FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

high temperatures
Contact ALMA International
• Designed for critical
to make your job easier.
well testing
267-246-3416
sales@almaintl.com
www.pioneerps.com
www.almaintl.com 1–888–PP–GAUGE
1–403–282–7669

THE COMPLETE, UP-TO-DATE,

&25526,21 Practical Guide to Modern
Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
81'(5 Written by one of the world’s
,168/$7,21 most experienced professionals,
Dr. Nnaemeka Ezekwe
&5(9,&(
&25526,21
6ROYLQJSUREOHPVLQ
WKH$UFWLFDQGRIIVKRUH
IRUWKHVXSHUPDMRUV
DQGWKH861DY\
Available in
Print and Electronic
(QYLURQPHQWDOO\EHQLJQ Formats

DQGFRPSOHWHO\XQLTXH Now Available

For information and to read
ZZZUHDFWLYHJHOFRP sample material please visit
informit.com/title/9780137152834
Available from Amazon.com, informIT.com,
and other fine resellers
Download the free JPT app to read
current and past print issues.
Search “Journal of Petroleum
Technology” in the Apple® AppStore
and Andriod market.

JPT • OCTOBER 2011 121