OTC 19731

Full Field Development With Open Hole Concept at SUDP-A

S. Ashok Kumar, Mohd Reduan Sapian, and Norbashinatun Salmi, SPE, Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4–7 May 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
Sumandak Area Integrated Field Development Project comprises of 2 phases, which includes Sumandak Main, Sumandak
Tengah, Sumandak Selatan, Sumandak Tepi and Sumandak Ujong. Sumandak Main field development is considered as Phase
1 of the total Sumandak Area development. Figure A-1 shows the location of Sumandak Field Development area within
Samarang – Asam Paya blocks in Sarawak region, east of Malaysia. A 28 slots four-legged platform, Sumandak-A (SUDP-A)
platform was successfully installed at location on October 2006. SUDP-A field development project has opted for open hole
completion for all of the 21 wells. This completion system was deployed to 14 oil producers (OP), 2 water injectors (WI) , 1
gas well and 4 combination wells of OP and WI. With the advancement of technology, the drilling team decided to use open
hole completion with wire wrapped screen (WWS) for sand control and swell packer for zonal isolation. With this type of sand
control and completion, operation such as running and cementing production casing, scraper run and perforation can be
eliminated. In addition, significant rig time savings due to simple rig operations and direct tool cost savings make this
technology viable and attractive. Open hole completion has its own risks and challenges that require detail consideration
beforehand and with sheer determination, the project team has managed to calculate the risks and came up with proper solution
and recommendation. Full field development with open hole concept in Sumandak Main development Project is considered
another milestone achievement by Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (PCSB). This paper precisely discusses all the strategies and
steps taken to ensure that this concept can be successfully carried out by the project team, and also lessons learnt throughout
the operation at SUDP-A platform.

Introduction
SUDP-A Development area has unconsolidated production section, low productivity indexes with low critical drawdown; thus
a full scale evaluation was done to justify the usage of open hole completion for the entire project. The concept was introduced
in the development of SUDP-A in order to improve the productivity index of the wells, which leads to better oil production
rates besides having lower CAPEX. The concept has been studied to be the optimum technology and innovation solutions to
overcome low reserve wells assigned to Sumandak fields. The main objective of the completion design is to provide a safe and
cost effective design for all producers while maintaining well integrity and maximizing recovery over its life cycle. It was also
designed with simpler well intervention and re-completion work to be done in the future. Some of the analysis that was carried
out includes sand failure analysis, risk region analysis, sand production, multiple zone completion on stacked reservoir
analysis, sand screen retention and open hole zonal isolation analysis. All combined analysis led to the successful deployment
of the concept with realization in time and overall cost savings.

Sand Control Requirement

Sand control requirement for all development wells in Sumandak area was studied. Topics on determining the sand failure
tendency, factors that affect the sand control system selection up to proposal of sand control designs are presented below.

Sand Failure Tendency Study

Sand failure tendency study was conducted in house with analysis on compressional sonic transit time, tc, geological
description of the core samples, regional experience in sand production, calculation of mechanical properties of the sand
bodies via MPL (Schlumberger) and CME methods and worldwide experience on sand failures from water injectors.

Sonic Transit Time and Depth Relationship

Figure A-2 shows the compressional sonic transit time (tc) taken from 6 of the exploration/appraisal wells in Sumandak
area. The tc is plotted against true vertical depth (TVD) covering from 1249 to 1510 m TVDS. The wells are representing oil
sands from Unit 1.1 down to Unit 9.3. A few conclusions have been made with respect to the plot.
2 OTC 19731

First, the plot shows that the sonic transit time from different reservoirs in Sumandak is greater than 100 µsec/ft, in which from
worldwide experience indicates unconsolidated sand zones. Second, the stacking layers of reservoirs with 11 to 15 degree
dipping suggesting that the rock mechanic properties in Sumandak area are depth-dependent rather than reservoir matrix-
dependent (or on the other hand saying that any reservoir in Sumandak area from Unit 1.0 to Unit 9.3 has the possibilities to be
at the same horizontal depth and carry the same sand distribution and consolidation character). Therefore, it is proposed that
irrespective of reservoir unit demarcation, constitution and architecture, depth should be used as the primary criterion for
determining sand exclusion requirement in SUDP-A area. Sand failure at an up-dip location in any reservoir unit should not be
automatically extrapolated to other locations in this field.

Geological Description of Formations

Observation from offset exploration wells indicates lack of cementation properties in SUDP-A formations. Friable core
samples, friable cuttings and friable side wall cores are found from SMDK-1, SMDK-2, SMTP-1 and SMDK-2ST1 wells.
Based on these observations, the hydrocarbon-bearing formations in SUDP-A are geologically described as unconsolidated
formations. Thus, these formations risk catastrophic sand failure during production.

Risk Region Analysis

The offset area Samarang, which is within SUDP-A development area consists of 81 wells, with and without the usage of
sand control in the completion stage. Samarang’s Sand Failure Risk Region Plot (Figure A-3) shows sand control strategies
from depth of 2644 ft TVDSS to 7358 ft TVDSS. The main sand control technique used in the field is IGP; otherwise the wells
were cased, cemented and perforated only. The solid and dotted black lines indicating the sand failure risk region from
Samarang and South West Ampa with tc ranging between 74 to 117 µsec/ft. From the figure, almost 95% of the wells equipped
with sand control (IGP) are successful without sand production occurred. It however does not show the production
performance from the wells to evaluate the well productivity between IGP and non-IGP. By referring to SUDP-A area cases,
the range of tc from sand Unit 1.0 down to Unit 9.3 is between 98 to 131 µsec/ft at deepest formation depth of 1510 m TVDSS
as penetrated by well Sumandak Selatan-1. By referring to Figure A-3, these values lie well within the risk region for all draw
downs. Figure A-4 incorporates data from a few exploration wells (sand production form DST) from Alab, Sumandak Main
and Sumandak Selatan into the Samarang’s data. The completion depths for Sumandak wells lie within the region, where sand
control is applicable in most of the wells in Samarang. By referring to Figure A-4 it clearly shows that completion at depth as
shallow as 7000 ft TVDSS is prone to sand failure. By referring to the well test results from Sumandak-1, Sumandak-2ST1
and Sumandak Selatan-1 wells, no sand production were observed. Maximum draw downs of 89 psi, 167 psi and 361 psi were
experienced across the wellbore. Although the points are close to the failure line in the risk region, no sand production has
been observed at surface throughout the main flow and multi-rate tests in each well. This might be due to the fact that no
water was produced that could exert enough drag force to cause near-wellbore sand grain migration. A line parallel to the
failure line that is drawn through the higher of the two draw downs represents the possible maximum draw down without sand
failure for Sumandak area. However, this does not remove the possibility of sand failure at lower draw downs, since even
Samarang’s risk-prone sands may or may not fail. Current data is insufficient to construct a new risk region plot and to derive
new criteria for Sumandak area.

Schlumberger’s Mechanical Properties Log (MPL)

Figure A-5 shows the Schlumberger’s MPL (Tixier et al. 1975) plot on dynamic rock elastic moduli using log-derived tc
and bulk density ρb corrected for hydrocarbon effects for the whole of Sumandak Area including oil and water bearing zones.
In Sumandak Main, the effect of oil on ρb appears to be negligible. Values in oil-bearing formations are indistinguishable from
the water-bearing formations. This could be due to the low initial solution GOR in the oil (145 scf/stb). At this point in time,
uncorrected ρb and tc from gas-saturated formations in SMDK-2 and SMDK-2ST1 are used in the calculations. It is
acknowledged that this renders the rock moduli calculated for the gas zones artificially high. For consistency, total porosities
(φz) and effective porosities (φe) derived by the petro physicist from log interpretation is directly used in the calculations
instead of tc that have been corrected for gas effects. By applying the sand failure threshold suggested by Tixier et al., only
sand units above 1575 m TVDSS (5985 ft TVDSS) (in oil-bearing zones) with G/Cb values lower than critical threshold 0.8 x
1012 psi2 may experience sand failure. Since no comparison of sonic transit time-depth trends have yet been made between
Sumandak area and the Gulf of Mexico fields that were studied by Tixier et al. when determining the failure threshold, it is
currently not possible to determine whether the criterion should be adjusted to suit conditions in Sumandak.

Combined Modulus of Elasticity (CME)

Figure A-6 shows the pseudo shear modulus, Ec used as the sand failure screening parameter in the CME approach for the
whole of Sumandak Area. Values of Ec lower than 3 x 106 psi have been proposed by the authors Stein and Hilchie (1972) as
the sand failure threshold. Ec values for the sand units calculated using log-derived tc and bulk density ρb. As in the case of the
MPL method, no corrections for gas effects have been made. Figure A-6 shows that all sand units completed in the
exploration/appraisal wells in Sumandak area risk sand failure, i.e. all hydrocarbon-bearing zones in Sumandak area require
sand exclusion. This characteristic is also similar to the water bearing zones. This broadly agrees with predictions from the
Risk Region Analysis and the MPL approaches.
OTC 19731 3

Table A-7 and A-8 summarizes the results of MPL and CME calculations on the G/Cb and Ec for Sumandak Main, Selatan and
Tepi fields. No data on sonic travel time is available for Sumandak Tengah for the studies to be conducted.

Sand Production on Water Injectors

Due to the fact that Sumandak area is having unconsolidated formation, down hole sand control is sought for all water
injectors planned for Sumandak Main and Sumandak Tepi fields. Lessons learnt on having dramatic injectivity losses and well
damage (i.e. extremely sanded up) from other operator are adopted to prevent Sumandak from repeating the same mistake,
which contribute to a very expensive mitigation requirement. SPE paper 64297 written by Statoil Norway, the operator having
extreme losses of injectivity over short period of time from a series of water injectors concluded a few of the following points:

• There is relationship between well shut-in and injectivity losses, in which under no flow conditions corresponding to
shut-in periods, the rock around the wells is too weak to sustain the stress, hence fail.
• The permeability heterogeneity of the formations causing cross flow during shut-in periods, hence allowing sands to
be produced especially across the perforated interval.
• The particles that are unable to settle in the rat hole of the well during shut-in periods will be re-injected into the
formations when the well is restarted hence plugging the perforation tunnel.
• Observation from a standard shut-in, pressure waves as large as 1000 psi is generated via the flow back and is called
the water hammer effect and hits the formation. The formations that already weaken by the drag force from the
injected water thus undergo liquefaction and trigger a large amount of sand to be released into the well hence totally
killing the injectivity.

Similar characters are observed in Sumandak area formations, which is very unconsolidated and structurally developed by a
heterogeneous permeability distribution. Hence it strongly justifies the requirement of down hole sand control in the water
injectors together with a proper planning during operation especially to shut-in the wells and the wells shut-in duration
requirement in order to allow particles settlement into the well rat hole to minimize particles being re-injected to the
formations.

Factors that Influences Sand Control System Selection

Selection of techniques to be used for managing the sand problem for SUDP-A has been influenced by the following
considerations:
• Low critical draw down
• High fine contents and highly un-uniform formations
• Multiple zone completions to cater the stacked reservoirs
• Low reservoir productivity index

Low Critital Drawdowns

Controlled rate on production to minimise risk of sand failure is not a recommended option for SUDP-A since the wells
need to flow at a drawdown higher than the estimated critical drawdown in order to get the estimated recoverable reserve (as
predicted in the Risk Region Analysis). The only option in managing the sand failure is by applying sand control devices
downhole, across the production intervals.

High Fine Contents and Highly Un-uniform Formations

Laser particle size analysis (LPSA) has been conducted widely on core samples and side wall core samples from SMDK-1,
SMDK-2ST1 and SMTP-1 wells, which cover reservoirs from Unit 1.1 down to Unit 8.0. Tables B-1 and B-2 shows selected
grain size distribution for sand Unit 1.1, 3.0 and 8.0. From the various analyses on particle size distribution, it is concluded
that SUDP-A area formations are highly un-uniformed and contain high percentage of fine particles. The average of the
uniformity coefficient and the fine contents are described below:

Uniformity coefficient, Cu = 3 to 24
Fine contents = 5 to 38%
% D50 = 76 to 190 microns
% D10 = 124 to 300 microns

All these indicate poor sorting formation grains. Fine particles if being retained behind casing or screen may be a serious threat
to productivity as it contributes to rapid sand screen plugging in both open hole and cased hole completions. This prevents oil
to flow uniformly into the wellbore. It also contributes to rapid gravel clogging for IGP cases and totally prevents oil to flow
into the wellbore. This phenomenon is the main reason for very high skin values (skin > 10) observed in IGP system. Sand
screen is also eroded due to the concentration of velocities onto the hot spots of the screen walls created by the plugged
screens and clogged gravels. The fine particles must be produced to surface up to a certain level of amount (pptb) in order to
reduce the plugging potential hence reduce the productivity impairment caused by the catastrophic formation damage and also
screen failure due to sand erosion.
4 OTC 19731

Multiple Zone Completions to Cater the Stacked Reservoirs

Equipment configurations and dimensions as well as sand exclusion processes have to be taken into account when
completing multiple zones in 7” and 9-5/8” casings. Zonal isolations are required in between the reservoirs for reservoir
management purposes especially for Sumandak Main and Sumandak Tepi fields, where a few reservoirs with different fluid
systems are expected (Unit 3.0 and Unit 4.0 in Sumandak Main and Unit 9.3 in Sumandak Tepi field).

Low Reservoir Productivity Index

In view of low productivity indices for most reservoir units, productivity impairment whether through fines migration,
perforation tunnel collapse, annular resorting or damage to near wellbore permeability’s caused by sand exclusion processes,
must be minimize. Installation of sand control screens in cased hole whether through internal gravel packing (IGP), stand
alone screen with pre-packed gravel and expandable sand screen with or without pre-packed gravel have been evaluated to be
the most likely contributors to the highest productivity impairment. This is especially due to the high pressure drop exerted
across the production intervals together with fine migrations that cause the erosion onto the sand screens and also plugging the
packed gravels behind the screen for IGP case. Open hole completion are the most likely option for SUDP-A area sand control
method due to the lower pressure drop across the wellbore hence minimize the effect of screen erosion and plugging as cased
hole completions have. Open hole completion also helps to improve the flow efficiency of the oil into the wellbore.

Sand Control Design Selection and Consideration

SUDP-A team evaluated sand control solutions to two types of environments, namely cased hole and open hole. Sand screen
retention testing was also carried out to optimize sand screen size to formation grain size. Open hole zonal isolation testing
using swell packers was also carried out.

Cased Hole Sand Control

The high fine contents found in the core samples suggested that for a cased hole application, the IGP is to be applied with
an enhanced technique such as high rate water pack, extension pack and frak-pack in order to improve well productivity due to
wellbore damage contributed by the clogged gravel. The enhanced IGP systems are proven good in retaining sands and fines
behind the casing and the system work last long. Very low sand and fines are produced to surface however; besides having a
good sand retention performance the system is jeopardizing the flow efficiency of the fluid into the wellbore. Very high skin
values (skin > 10) are observed from many producing wells in PCSB’s wide operations. The poor well deliverability was also
observed form the neighboring project called South Furious, which experience low production rate from and IGP-wells for
over 20 years.

Open Hole Sand Control

As discussed above, the poorly sorted formations and high fine contents have limited the sand control option, which favors
sand control in open hole system due to its ability to improve the flow efficiency of the fluid into the wellbore (reducing skin
values, 0 < skin < 5). It also reduces screen erosion due to hot spotting as the pressure drop across the production intervals is
reduced. From operational point of view it is better for future well stimulation activities as open hole completion directly
exposes the well to the damaged formations which is difficult to be achieved in cased hole IGP wells. Better productivity
indices are expected from wells in SUDP-A area; 3 to 15 psi/ft/d for conventional deviated wells and above 30 psi/ft/d for
horizontal wells.

Sand Screen Retention Testing

Appreciating that SUDP-A area field development involves a large scale of open hole completion application, a detailed
study in selecting the optimum sand screen is sought especially for the area that concerns a very high percentage of fine
particles. From the qualitative evaluation, the sand retention on the fine particles falls in the borderline of the standard screen
opening size of 150 microns. The sand may or may not be retained; hence quantitative measurement was sought in order to
determine the optimum screen opening size. Therefore two sand retention tests were conducted in Sumandak-2ST1 and
SumandakTepi-1 core samples in order to determine the optimum screen type and the screen opening size as well as to
estimate the amount of fines that will be produced to surface. The tests were conducted separately in order to investigate
Expandable sand screen (ESS) sand retention performance and Stand alone screen (WWS and premium) sand retention
performance. Each set of test consists of slurry test and sand pack test. For ESS, the slurry test is important as it reflects the
wash out condition in the wellbore and the sand pack test is representing the compliant expanded of the screen. For stand-alone
screen, the slurry test is reflecting the screen in open hole condition, while the sand pack test is reflecting the screen in cased
hole condition (IGP application). By referring to the test result on the ESS, in average less than 1 pptb of fine production is
expected per 50ft of ESS installation to surface per well. During the test, 0.5 gram of sand is used as the cut-off amount of
sand allowed to flow through the screen (referring to SPE 73772). Figure C-1 shows the re-analyzed LPSA and dry sieve
analysis on two finest sand samples supplied to Weatherford, which both represent the sand Unit 1.1. The dry sieve analysis
for particle size smaller than 150 microns supported the LPSA results for the same particle size. Table B-4 shows the test
results (sand pack test) at different test flow rates of the two sand samples tested on 150 microns ESS weave opening size.
From the test the 150 micron size ESS is only reliable to retain the coarser sample (sample 1341), but the finer sample (1339)
may require smaller weave or screen opening size.
OTC 19731 5

Otherwise, the amount of sand produced to surface will exceed the allowable amount. Table C-2 shows the 123-micron ESS
performance in retaining the finer sand sample. The test indicated that more reliable sand retention could be achieved by using
smaller ESS weave opening size across production zones that have similar particle distribution as sand sample 1339. By
referring to the petro physical-interpreted log, the 1339-sand sample represents the silt streak across the net oil sand of Unit
1.1. Installing blank pipe across the silt streak is more reliable in controlling sand movement rather than installing screen with
very small opening size that will lead to screen plugging and screen erosion.

Open Hole Zonal Isolation

All open hole applications in SUDP-A area applied the new technology of swellable type of elastomer (swell packer) as the
open hole zonal isolation for each well completed in more than one reservoir. The elastomer will absorb hydrocarbon to make
it swell and it is an irreversible operation. 3 to 10 days are required for the elastomer to completely seal the zones. Pressure
difference of up to 2000 psi can be achieved by the packer for a good zonal isolation performance. Figures C-3 and C-4 shows
the pressure profiles for 9-5/8” and 7” sizes in open hole condition. Figure C-5 and C-6 shows the elastomer swelling profiles
for 9-5/8” and 7” packer. However, for water injector application a few considerations have to be taken seriously prior to
installing the elastomer due to following reasons. External hydrocarbon need to be spotted (diesel or xylene) directly across the
packer in the injector zones (mainly in water bearing zones) to assist the swelling of the elastomer. Second, the elastomer
packer integrity must be evaluated to handle temperature differences created by the cold injected water and hot formation
crude. From evaluation, the elastomer has been designed to swell in an irreversible process, which has not influenced
significantly by the temperature differences. Tubing and packer stress analysis will be conducted prior running the completion
of all wells. By referring to operational worldwide experience, the swellable elastomer is sealing perfectly across shale area
together with the WWS and ESS. However, it is vice versa for application with external gravel pack system due to the gravel
placement in the open hole section that makes it difficult for the elastomer to swell towards the shale hence resulting to
imperfect sealing. PDG (Permanent Down hole Gauge) is also incorporated into the completion design to evaluate zonal
isolation performance in terms of pressure and temperature reading of the desired reservoir.

Well Completion Design and Matrix

This section proposes the well completion design for Sumandak Main field. As a summary, the final design for the new
development wells are based on 1000 to 2000 bbl/d of initial oil production from standard L-80, 12ppf of 3-1/2” production
tubing. The completion design is also proposing a water injection system, which is equipped with 3-1/2” injection tubing and
down hole sand control. The completion design selection process is discussed further in the later topics on tubing size, material
selection, down hole equipment and permanent down hole monitoring system applied to the wells. A total of 21 development
wells are proposed for completion in Sumandak Main field, which consist of 15 oil producers (OP), 2 water injectors (WI) and
4 combination wells of OP and WI. The final conceptual design for the development wells that were drilled and completed in
Sumandak Main is summarized in Figure C-7.

Lesson Learnt from Running Completion

This section details the lesson learnt from application of the proposed open hole type completion, utilizing swell packers and
WWS. Analysis is carried out from two different completion perspectives, operational, in terms of running and setting
proposed completion and functionality, in terms of effectiveness of the proposed completion design.

Operational Aspects of Running Completion

The completion strings were run for all 21 wells (except for 1 well due to a geological sidetrack continued by P&A), and
all were done successfully without any major downtime. Completion design with 7” liner & 3-1/2” completion tubing was
preferred with swell packers for zonal isolation and WWS for sand retention.

Running Lower Completion Assembly

Completions were run with minimal downtime for SUDP-A drilling campaign. The production sections were drilled with
sized salt drill in fluid to reduce reservoir damage while drilling. The preferred method of completing the lower completion
was, 7” liner with WWS (200 microns) wrapped on joints of slotted 26ppf L-80 blank pipe, with oil swellable packers used for
zonal isolation with the open hole formation. Completion operation starts with scraper run to the last set casing shoe, and then
reciprocated to bottom with bottoms up circulation while conducting PST (Production Screen Test) with shaker mesh size of
225 US mesh. Permitted PST values were 30 lts/secs. 7” WWS assembly with swellable packers and blank pipes are RIH to
desired depth. TOL is set 60m above previous set casing shoe, with slip hanger biting the ID of casing and elastomeric rubber
packer to seal the annulus of the liner to the open hole. The liner is then subjected to a slack off weight for the slips to bite the
ID of the casing and a pressure test for the elastomeric packer sealing confirmation. A bridge plug is also run and installed at
the bottommost reservoir for water injector or mixed string wells to channel the flow of water to the desired reservoir without
water passing thru the bottom of reamer shoe.
6 OTC 19731

Running Upper Completion Assembly

Once the running tool is pulled out from liner assembly, upper completion assembly is run into the well. Tubing hangers
are landed on the wellhead profile and hydraulic packers are set for isolation purposes for both dual and single completion
strings. X-mas tree is installed and pressure tested, for water injector and gas producer wells, stainless steel alloys are used as
raw material for X-mas tree fabrication. Mixed string type completion is also done, whereby water injector runs on one string
and producer runs on the other string. The advantage is seen in maintaining reservoir pressure within the same well without
drilling an independent injector well. 3-1/2” tubing is preferred medium of communication between surface and bottom hole of
the well. PDG monitoring devices are installed to monitor the success of zonal isolation using swell packer and evaluate
reservoir conditions down hole. No major NPT was realized while running upper completion in the wells.

Key Performance Indicators for Running Completion

Average days taken to run completion are 5.30 days. This included the scraper run and Production Screen Test (PST),
running and setting the liner, swell packer and screens (Lower Completion Assembly), running Upper Completion Assembly,
nippling down the BOP and installing the X-mas tree, wire line job to open Sliding Side Door (SSD) to expose desired
reservoir to production string and a displacement of diesel to create under balance prior to production. Single completion
running averages at 4.99 days, while dual completion running averages at 5.78 days. Total days including drilling and
completing the 21 wells averages at 16.68 days. Completion non-productive time (NPT) for the entire project was 6.4% with
major contributors from unsuccessful setting and leak of hydraulic packers and failure to set liner and to be replaced with
backup set. Figure D-1 shows the number of days taken for completion running per well. Figure D-2 shows the productive and
non productive time distribution for all 21 wells completed in SUDP-A. Average cost to drill and complete per well in SUDP-
A is USD 4.68 Million (Using Tender Assisted Rig for a period of 14 months).

Functionality of Completion Assembly

Completion assembly that was chosen and installed in all SUDP-A wells was utilized for production purposes to
Samarang-A mother platform. No major issue was experienced up to date on the well integrity issue and zonal isolation is
confirmed using PDG readings down hole. No failures on PDG devices have been noted and the success rate is a 100%. No
sand production issues had been noticed throughout the production time line of the wells. Average oil production on SUDP-A
wells is 9 – 11,000 BOPD with gas production of 2 MSCFD. Subsurface team has no complications in unloading the wells for
production.

Conclusions

The open hole completion concept that was initiated by SUDP-A subsurface and drilling team is a success and production of
wells can be achieved without any major hick-ups. The utilization of WWS and swell packers for sand control and zonal
isolation has proven a success, with result evaluated during the production life of the wells. The success of the completion
matrix is also observed with no water production on the producing wells, which have been isolated using combination of
completion packers and swell packers. Pressure monitoring device (PDG) has also proved the effectiveness of open hole
completion strategy in SUDP-A wells.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Petronas in their support and permission granted to publish this paper. The authors would also
like to extend appreciation to SUDP-A Subsurface and Drilling Team for their endless support and effort in succeeding the
drilling campaign.

Nomenclatures

CAPEX = Capital Expenditure

GOR = Gas Oil Ratio
TVD = True Vertical Depth
TVDSS = True Vertical Depth from Sub Sea
SAS = Stand Alone Screen
IGP = Internal Gravel Pack
DST = Drill Stem Test
PPTB = Pounds per Thousand Barrels
ESS = Expandable Sand Screen
ST = Sidetrack
L-80 = Steel Grade L with Minimum Yield Strength of 80,000 psi
PPF = Pounds per Foot
P&A = Plug and Abandonment
RIH = Run In Hole
OTC 19731 7

TOL = Top of Liner

BOP = Blowout Preventer
X-MAS = Christmas Tree
ID = Internal Diameter
BOPD = Barrels of Oil per Day
MSCFD = Thousand Standard Cubic Feet per Day

References

1. Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., and Anderson, R.A., “Estimation of Formation Strength from the Mechanical Properties Log”, JPT,
March 1975.
2. Stein, N. & Hilchie, D.W., “Estimating the Maximum Production Rate Possible from Friable Sandstones without Using Sand
Control”, JPT, Sept 1972.
3. Hodge, R.M., Burton, R.C., Constien, V. and Skidmore, V., “An Evaluation Method for Screen Only and Gravel Pack
Completions”, SPE 73772, presented at the 2002 SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control held at Lafayette,
Louisiana, Feb 2002.
4. Weissenburger, K.W., Morita, N., Martin, A.J., & Whitfill, D.L., “The Engineering Approach to Sand Production Prediction”,
SPE 16892, presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX,
Sept 1987
5. Mostafa H. Kamel & Walid M. Mabrouk, “Estimating seismic impedance and elastic parameters in hydrocarbon-bearing
reservoirs from acoustic logs”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering Vol. 45, Issues 1-2, pp 21-29, November 2004.
6. Morita, N. & Boyd, P.A., “Typical Sand Production Problems – Case Studies and Strategies for Sand Control”, SPE 22739,
presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX, Oct
1991.

List of Figures

A-1: Topography Map of Samarang – Asam Paya & Sumandak Field Development Area
A-2: Compressional Sonic Transit Time versus Formation Depth
A-3: Drawdown Pressure (psi) versus Compressional Sonic Transit Time
A-4: Completion Depth versus Drawdown Pressure (psi)
A-5: Sand Failure Prediction Using MPL (Schlumberger)
A-6: Sand Failure Prediction Using CME
A-7: Mechanical Properties and CME Analysis for Oil Zones
A-8: Mechanical Properties and CME Analysis for Water Zones
B-1: LPSA results from SMDK-2ST1 cores
B-2: LPSA results from SMTP-1 cores
B-3: LPSA and Dry Sieve during Sand Retention Testing On ESS
C-1: Sand retention test on 150 microns ESS weave
C-2: Sand retention test on 123 microns ESS weave
C-3: Swell Packer Performance; Differential Pressure Profile in Open Hole for 9-5/8” SAS
C-4: Swell Packer Performance; Differential Pressure Profile in Open Hole for 7” SAS
C-5: Swell Packer Performance; Elastomer Swelling Profile in Open Hole for 9-5/8” SAS
C-6: Swell Packer Performance; Elastomer Swelling Profile in Open Hole for 7” SAS
C-7: Sumandak Main Proposed Completion Matrix
D-1: Time Summary for Completion Running
D-2: Time Summary for Completion Running (NPT)
8 OTC 19731

Figure A-1: Topography Map of Samarang – Asam Paya & Sumandak Field Development Area

Sumandak Area Sonic Transit Time

1200.00

1250.00

1300.00
Formation Depth, m TVD

1350.00

1400.00

1450.00

1500.00

1550.00
80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00
Sonic T ransit Time, us/ft

smdk-1 u ppe r sand sm dk-1 lower san d smdk-2 u pp er sand sm dk-2 lower san d smdk-2 b ott om sm dk-2 st 1 u ppe r sa nd

smdk-2st1 lo wer sand sm dk-2 st1 bo tto m sa nd smds-1 sm ds-1 st 1 smtp -1 up per san d sm tp-1 lo wer sand

Figure A-2: Compressional Sonic Transit Time tc (μsec/ft) versus Formation Depth TVDSS (ft)
OTC 19731 9

Sa m a ra ng R i sk R e gi on Pl ot (1 9 8 4 R e vi s io n)
2500
Sama rang OH/W WS ; sand failu re
Risk Regi on
Gravel pa ck; no sand failu re
S .W . Amp a
No Failure
Risk Regio n
Ris k Gravel pa ck; sa nd failur e
2000
No san d co ntrol; n o sa nd failur e
Total drawdown, Pi - Pwf (psi)

No san d co ntrol; san d fa ilure

SMDK-01 Un it 1.1 : High est

drawdo wn without sa nd failur e
1500 SMDK-02 Un it 3 : High est dra wd own
witho ut sand fail ure
SMDS-1 Unit 9.3

1000

Po ssibl e ma ximum
dra wd own vs DT with out
sand failu re for
Su manda k

500

0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140

D T (m i cro s ec / ft)

Figure A-3: Drawdown (psi) versus Compressional Sonic Transit Time tc (μsec/ft)

S a nd C o ntr o l & M an a ge m e n t; R e gi on a l E x pe r i en c e
S a m ar a n g, A la b , S um a n da k
20 00

Black triangle: indicating well test completion

depth for 3 of Sumandak exploration wells.
30 00

Blue dotted line: indicating deepest oil

producer completion depth, ft TVD.
40 00
Completion Depth, ft TVDss

50 00

60 00

70 00

0 50 0 1 00 0 150 0 20 00 2 500
80 00
Dra w dow n P re s s ure , ps i

S M RG (1 9 8 4 ) d e v w e ll; F ail, n o s a nd co n tro l S MR G (1 9 84 ) de v we ll; Fa il, with sa n d c on t rol S MRG (19 8 4 ) d e v we ll; O K, n o s a nd co n tro l

S M RG (1 9 8 4 ) d e v w e ll; O K , with sa n d co n t rol S u ma n d a k (ex p lo rat io n DS T ); O K , n o sa n d c o n tro l A lab (e xp lo rat io n DS T ); O K , n o s an d co n tro l

Figure A-4: Completion Depth TVDSS (ft) versus Drawdown Pressure (psi)
10 OTC 19731

Figure A-5: Sumandak Main, Selatan and Tepi Sand Failure Prediction Using MPL (Schlumberger)
OTC 19731 11

Figure A-6: Sumandak Main, Selatan and Tepi Sand Failure Prediction Using CME
(Stein-Hichie, Mobil)

Table A-7: Sumandak Area Mechanical Properties and CME Analysis For Oil Zones
12 OTC 19731

Table A-8: Sumandak Area Mechanical Properties and CME Analysis For Water Zones

Fines (<125 Very Fines (<65

Depth d10 d50 d40 d90 d40/d90 mic) mic) Lithology Remarks
m MD m TVDss mm mm mm mm mm % %

1319.3 1256.8 240 120 200 9 22.0 10.2 3.1 Sd vf-fg cln slty gas zone
1321.2 1258.7 300 140 160 13 12.3 9.8 1.7 Sd fg cln gas zone
1322.2 1259.7 360 210 230 100 2.3 7.9 0.0 Sd f-mg cln gas zone
1323.8 1261.2 210 110 130 20 6.5 13.2 5.0 Sd f-vfg cln gas zone
1328.6 1266.1 200 100 120 11 10.9 10.8 5.8 Sd vf-fg cln gas zone
1337.0 1274.4 160 75 91 5 18.2 8.8 8.0 Sd vfg cln oil zone; Unit 1.1
1339.9 1277.3 100 50 59 3 17.9 2.8 10.6 Sd vfg slty w/ sli carb oil zone; Unit 1.1
1342.3 1279.8 170 91 110 12 9.2 11.0 9.2 Sd vf-fg cln oil zone; Unit 1.1
1388.3 1325.5 200 110 120 11 10.9 11.6 7.1 Sd vf-fg cln water zone; Unit 1.2

Table B-1: LPSA results from SMDK-2ST1 cores

Fines (<125 Very Fines

Depth d10 d50 d40 d90 d40/d90 mic) (<65 mic) Lithology Remarks
m MD m TVDss mm mm mm mm mm % %

1332.3 1256.7 340 160 190 9 21.1 7.4 1.7 Sd fg cln oil zone; Unit 7.0
1363.5 1287.2 120 23 34 2 16.2 1.9 4.6 Sd vfg-slty w/ sli carb oil zone; Unit 8.0
1373.6 1297.1 380 120 140 6 22.2 7.5 4.9 Sd vf-fg slty water zone; Unit 8.0

Table B-2: LPSA results from SMTP-1 cores

 OTC 19731 13

Figure B-3: LPSA and Dry Sieve report by Weatherford During Sand
Retention Testing On ESS.

Sand D5 D10 D50 D90 <45mic Cu Sorting Sand Pack test Sand Pack test
Depth Q= 16 & 24 ml/min Q= 4 ml/min
m MD mTVDss μm μm μm μm % Sand Through (g) Sand Through (g)

1339 1277 92 83 42 3.7 52 16.8 2.03 1.21 0.51

0.467
1341 1278 121 105 64 4.7 34 15.4 1.7 0.307 0.118

Table C-1: Sand retention test on 150 microns ESS weave

Sand D5 D10 D50 D90 <45mic Cu Sorting Sand Pack test Sand Pack test
Depth Q= 16 & 24 ml/min Q= 4 ml/min
m MD mTVDss μm μm μm μm % Sand Through (g) Sand Through (g)

1339 1277 92 83 42 3.7 52 16.8 2.03 0.131 0.043

(repeat test)

Table C-2: Sand retention test on 123 microns ESS weave

14 OTC 19731

Figure C-3: Swell Packer Performance; Differential Pressure Profile

In Open Hole For 9-5/8” SAS

Figure C-4: Swell Packer Performance; Differential Pressure Profile

In Open Hole For 7” SAS
OTC 19731 15

Figure C-5: Swell Packer Performance; Elastomer Swelling Profile

In Open Hole For 9-5/8” SAS

Figure C-6: Swell Packer Performance; Elastomer Swelling Profile

In Open Hole For 7” SAS
16 OTC 19731

Legends: Commingle O il Producer Commingle W ater Injector

Selective O il Producer Selective W ater Injector

Figure C-7: Sumandak Main Completion Matrix

Figure D-1: Time Summary for Completion Running

OTC 19731 17

Figure D-2: Time Summary for Completion Running in terms of Productive & Non Productive Time