SPE 97589

HPHT Completion Challenges

Ron Zeringue, SPE, Shell Exploration & Production Co.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE High Pressure/High Temperature Sour
Well Design Applied Technology Workshop held in The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 17-19 May
2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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.z`

Abstract
The industry makes a pioneering discovery: 20,000 psi SITP,
100 ppm H2S, 10 % CO2, 400 oF flowing wellhead
temperature. Now what?
Everyone wants production as soon as possible.
What challenges need to be overcome?
What equipment is available, and what needs to be
designed and tested?
How long will it take to design, build, test (and redesign,
re-test), certify, and deliver?
What challenges have yet to be identified?
If you have a failure, can you work it over?
Is there well control equipment in place?
Recent HPHT history indicates that infantile failures
happen, usually caused by something that no one considered
an issue. What are the hidden obstacles awaiting the first ultra
HPHT completion? This paper will summarize current
industry HPHT capability and more importantly, propose
questions in an attempt to stimulate discussion on issues that
we may be missing.
HPHT Completion Challenges
Industry is currently drilling wells to severe HPHT conditions,
e.g., SITP 20 ksi, BHT 470 oF, 25,000 ft depths. One day
someone may have the chance to complete one of these
monsters! Of course, everyone will want production ASAP.
Two critical questions occur:
What are the technology gaps?
WHAT ARE ISSUES THAT WE HAVENT EVEN
THOUGHT ABOUT?

Considering the latter question, Will we miss

something?
The first ultra HPHT completion will be full of Serial # 1
equipment.
History has shown that infantile failures (well failures in
the first few months of production) are more likely with
new equipment designs and service conditions. Infantile
failures have been caused by:
o A corrosion inhibitor.
o A hard spot missed by convential inspection
methods.
o A material good for the Aerospace industry, not
working in an oil field environment.
o A thread failure
We can handle (I think!) the snakes we can see, but what
about those hidden in the weeds!
Table 1 shows well conditions for several typical HPHT
wells.

SPE 97589

Table 1 Well Conditions For Several Typical HPHT Wells

SITP, psi
BHP, psi
Well Depth, ft
Surface flowing temp F

15,000
17,000
18,000
335

18,500
22,000
23,000
400

20,000
24,000
25,000
410

23,000
27,000
28,000
425

25,000
30,000
32,000
450

385

450

465

500

530

H2S pp, psi

0.6

3?

4?

7?

11 ?

CO2, %

18 ?

21 ?

BHT, oF

Assumptions
SITPs indicate approximate step changes in completion degree of difficulty.
Pressure gradient of 18.4 ppg, SITP = 0.85 * BHP
Temperature gradient of 1.5 oF/100
H2S and CO2 values based on extrapolation of published correlations, Smith for H2S and Bross for CO2.
To assess the challenges we will encounter in this arena, well completion issues and components will be covered in the following
sections. The time-to-acquire and degree of difficulty for each type of equipment has been estimated, and is described in color format
according to the key shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Color-Coded Key Descriptions
Green - Existing equipment.
Delivery times in years
Yellow - Limited sizes or not available, but designs indicate no major hurdles.
Time in years for design,testing and delivery.
Pushing limits of current technology.
Time in years for R & D, design,testing and delivery.
Major technical breakthrough required.
Time in years for R & D, design,testing and delivery.

Green been there, done that, can do again. Delivery time in years for equipment with > 4 month delivery.
Yellow sure it can be done, but either have not done yet or very limited experience. Estimated time in years for design,
testing and manufacturing.
Orange think that it can be done with current technology. Estimated time in years for R & D, design, testing and
manufacturing.
Red major technical breakthrough required. Estimated time in years for R & D, design, testing and manufacturing.

SPE 97589

HPHT CHALLENGES AND GAPS

Table 3 summarizes the gaps and expected lead times to develop equipment for shelf HPHT wells.
Table 3 Gaps and Expected Lead Times
SITP, psi
BHP, psi
Well Depth, ft
Surface flowing temp F

15,000
17,000
18,000
335

18,500
22,000
23,000
400

20,000
24,000
25,000
410

23,000
27,000
28,000
425

25,000
30,000
32,000
450

BHT, oF

385

450

465

500

530

H2S pp, psi

0.6

3?

4?

7?

11 ?

CO2,%

18 ?

21 ?

CASING

1.0

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 2.0

2.0 2.5

CASING CONNECTION

1.0

1.5 2.0

2.0 2.5

TIE-BACK SYSTEMS &

LINER HANGERS

1.0-1.5

1.0-1.5

1.0-1.5

1.0-1.5

1.0 -1.5

1.5 - 2.0

1.5 - 2.0

2.0 3.0

0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 3.0

0.5 - 1.0
0.5 - 1.0
1.5

1.0
1.0
2.0 - 2.5
1.0

1.0 - 1.5
1.0 - 1.5
3.0
1.5

2.0 - 3.0
1.0 - 1.5
3.0
2.0

0.5?
0.5?

0.5
0.5

1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 2.0

1.5

1.5

?
2.0

2.0
1.0
?
2.0

?
?

?
?

1.5
1.0
2 - 2.5
1.0 - 2.0
?
?
?
?
?
?

1.5
1.5
3.0
1.0 - 2.0
?
?
?
?
?
?

1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 2.0
0.5
?
1.5 2.0
3.0
2.0 - 3.0
?
?
?
?
?
?

TUBING

1.0 - 1.5

TUBING CONNECTION
PACKER
SCSSV
WELLHEAD/TREE
PERFORATING - TCP

0.5
0.5
0.5 - 1.0

PERFORATING ELECTRIC LINE

LUBRICATORS
CABLES
TUBING CUTTERS
PLUGS
BOP
KILL PUMPS & PIPING
COMPLETION FLUIDS
RELIEF WELLS
SNUBBING UNITS
COIL TUBING
SAND CONTROL
FRACTURING

Casing Materials And Connections

Tieback casing design and sour service material qualification
is the critical path issue for ultra HPHT completions. Other
authors cover this topic extensively in the May 2005 SPE
HPHT ATW. Issues include:
Qualification of high strength carbon steels for the
expected pressures, temperatures, and environment.
Connection design and testing.
Nickel based CRAs may be a solution, but have never
been made in the sizes required.
Tieback weight may be beyond capacity of most rigs.
Tieback may have to be run in sections.
What casing test pressure is required on initial completion
SITP? Requires BOPs rated to SITP or test the casing
with the tree installed.
For connection qualification, should external gas testing
be performed?
o During completion operations, connections will be
exposed to large differentials with lightweight
completion fluids.
o If multiple productive zones are encountered,
connections may be exposed to large differentials
with lightweight packer fluids.
o Are heavy weight completion fluids the answer or do
they just bring other problems?
o Are there appropriate facilities for external gas
testing?
o Another potential benefit of dual seal connections,
keep the external pressure off the pin nose seal.
Tieback systems and liner hangers
o Current tieback systems and liner hanger packers
rated to maximum 20 ksi and 400 oF.
o Temperature issues to achieve 500 oF +.
Build Test fixtures rated higher than 500 oF.
Metal-to-Metal technology needed to eliminate
elastomers, existing Metal-to-Metal technology
not tested to 500 degrees.
Metal properties may be altered.
Expanding and contracting issues unknown.
o Tieback system to hold 30,000 PSI and not rely on
cement.
Maintaining ID requires skipping casing size
(7 in. x 11 in.).
Hydraulics must be isolated after tieback.
Cementing of tieback critical to anchor system to
minimize movement.
May require complete new design.
Test fixtures capable of 30,000 PSI need to be
designed and built.
Safety concerns.
o Design and testing timing 12-18 months.
Cementing Issues can we get good cement jobs?
o Top of cement in tieback may be critical to
completion design and potentially limit production
rates.
o Isolation requirements.
o Trapped annular pressure issues.

SPE 97589

Long term stability and ability to withstand multiple

temperature and pressure cycles.

Tubing And Connections

Nickel based alloys have been used successfully in many
HPHT applications. However, for ultra HPHT wells, other
concerns exist, including:
Nickel based alloys such as SM 2550, G50, C276 will
likely work but have not been tested above 450 oF.
o Testing of these alloys with a constant strain test will
require 6 to 10 months.
o SSRTs are shorter, but does it provide accurate
results? Shell does not recommend this test for this
application because it does not capture initiation
effects like pitting that is a concern with CRAs.
o Have these alloys been tested in heavy weight brines
at elevated temperatures (workover contingency)?
o How about pH effects? Possible scale issues if the
wells make water. Will the alloys stand up to
remedial acids jobs to remove scale etc. at these
higher temperatures?
o Mills may not commit to order until internal testing
done lead-time could be longer.
Current lead-time for nickel-based alloys is 1218
months. Lead time and costs going up!
Titanium Tubing?
o A possibility, but could have connection issues.
o No history of use in HPHT wells, any snakes in the
grass?
o Will acid compatibility be an issue?
Connection testing will be required for initial ultra HPHT
completions.
o Can sufficient amounts of material be obtained from
the mills for connection tests prior to delivery of the
order?
o If not, delivery times are the sum of the Tubing and
Connection times.
o Standardization of sizes and connections would be a
plus.
o Tapered tubing strings may be required due to casing
constraints, but there will be severe bending loads on
smaller string.
Packers
Packers have been designed and tested for 15 ksi applications,
but sizes are limited. Only one packer has been designed for
20-ksi service.
Limited sizes currently are available.
o 20 ksi 7 in., 55.3#.
Packers should be run with completion tubing and set
either hydraulically or hydrostatically.
o Allows for a metal-to-metal back off sub or metal-tometal threaded connection to packer.
What pressure rating is required? Should it be equal to
the bottom hole pressure or expected differential across
packer plus a safety factor to account for kill operations,
acidizing etc.

SPE 97589

Test procedure ISO V0 Is this enough? Should we

also test with cyclic loads?
Test facilities are limited to 460 oF and 20 ksi. Significant
investment required for higher temperatures and
pressures.
Limited setting range on HPHT packers.
o
May require honed or extremely tight casing
tolerances to get differential rating.
Casing stress caused by packer and tubing could be
critical if casing is unsupportive.
Milling of CRA packers is extremely difficult. Loss of
well a possibility.
What are the temperature limits of Inconel 718/725?
o At high temperatures Inconel 718/725 becomes
susceptible to corrosion and environmental cracking
when exposed to certain agents. Aging may be an
issue.
o Testing needs to include exposure to heavy weight
brines or cesium formates.
o What is the temperature effect on strength?

SCSSVs
Again, limited work has been done on SCSSVs, but not at the
ultra HPHT conditions above 20 ksi.
Limited sizes currently available with pressure rating
greater than 15 ksi.
o 4.5 in., 20 ksi OD 7.13 in., ID 3.437 in.
o 3.5 in., 20 ksi OD 5.49 in., ID 2.313 in.
o 3.5 in., 16.7 ksi - OD 5.65 in, ID 2.87 in.
With API 14A requirement of a test pressure of 1.5 times
the working pressure, maximum pressure rating is 20 ksi
and 400 oF due to verification test limits at Southwest
Research. Standard currently under review to reduce test
pressure to 5000 psi above working pressure for SCSSVs
of 10 ksi and greater. Awaiting final committee approval
and MMS approval.
Is more than one SCSSV needed?
Does the slam test requirement in API 14 A provide a
sufficient test?
o Rate is low in regulations (for instance
17.3 MMCFPD for a 3.5 in. valve), but what should
be done for prudent operations (absolute open flow AOF, maximum expected rate, etc?).
o Slam testing is done at atmospheric conditions.
Would a low rate high-pressure slam test better
simulate what would happen in a real emergency?
Test facilities do not exist for this type of testing.
SCSSVs require high strength (140 ksi) inconel 718/725.
o Very hard to obtain, typically requires hand picking
pieces.
ID/OD constraints are critical.
o OD needs to be minimized to fit in tie back strings
and potentially BOP bores.
o ID needs to be maximized to allow for electric line
operations, especially pipe recovery and perforating.
What are the temperature effects on control line fluids and
dynamic seals?
o Degradation of control line fluid and dynamic seals
over time needs to be evaluated.

Will dynamic seals be reliable at 25 ksi + and high

temperatures?
Will control line connections be reliable long term at
25 + ksi with thermal changes.
o How about the control line itself?
o Have to take into account the maximum control line
pressure required in tree design for pass through and
outlet valves.
There is an alternate valve design that may alleviate some
of the issues of high-pressure control lines, but this design
is currently not available in pressure ratings required and
has not been field proven to date.

Wellhead And Tree

HPHT wellheads, 20 ksi and some 30 ksi, have been built.
Most of the 30-ksi equipment was for land wells. These wells
were mostly low rate, < 20 MMCFPD. The conditions and
expected high rates of ultra HPHT wells will create new
issues.
20 ksi, 350 oF clad trees and wellheads are available 6
months to 1-year lead-time required.
New design or qualification testing required if >350 oF
and 20 ksi for:
o Tubing spools
o Back pressure valve prep
o Stem packing
o Gate valves and seats
o Chokes
Major qualification hurdle will be stem packing at
temperatures > 350 oF and pressures >20 ksi.
o Difficult to pass qualification test, which requires
temperature, cycles from 0 oF to maximum
temperature.
o Reduction in material strength will also have to be
determined for temperatures > 350 oF.
What is the long term reliability of gates, seats and hard
surfacing?
A positive and adjustable choke in series will be required
to handle pressure drops.
Perforating And Electric Line
Three options exist for perforating. TCP guns can be installed
below the permanent production packer, and then detonated
after the tree is installed. The well can be perforated through
tubing either with multiple wireline runs, or guns can be hung
off and fired hydraulically.
TCP
Gun systems, carriers and firing heads currently rated to ~
24 ksi and 450 oF.
HNS guns systems good for only 107 hrs at this
temperature.
Development of a contingency plan to perforate if TCP
guns dont work is required.
o Can guns be dropped off?
o Difficult to mill up CRA packers and unlikely to be
able to cut tubing to drop guns.
If we drop the tubing string or if guns fall off while
running in hole, will guns fire? Since it is likely

SPE 97589

completion fluid will not be kill weight the risk is very

high, even though the probability occurrence is low.
QA/QC and testing of gun system is critical to insure
performance.

Electric Line Perforating

Difficult to get both pressure and temperature ratings with
size limitations due to tubing and SCSSV restrictions.
Gamma Ray correlation tools and PIP tags will be
required due nickel alloy production liners. Current
rating is 25 ksi and 500 oF for one hr.
Lubricators And Cables
Limited availability of 20-ksi lubricators. Six month lead
time for new 20-ksi equipment, however, vendor safety
standards typically limit use to 80% of rated working
pressure.
o Lead time for development of 30-ksi equipment
(1 to 2 years).
Limited availability of MP35 N cables. Long lead time
for new cables. Cables currently rated to 500 oF.
Minimal over pull available at depths > 22,000 ft.
Tubing Cutters
No cutters currently on the market can reliably cut high
strength, thick walled nickel alloy tubulars at ultra HPHT
conditions.
Cannot test cutters under well conditions due to test
facility limitations. Tools are typically tested thermally
first, then fired under pressure at ambient temperature.
Available test facilities include:
o Navy Gun: 30,000 psi working pressure (but ambient
temperature only, does not have thermal capability).
Inside bore is 14 inches x 82 inches deep. Max.
explosive amount allowed is 125g.
o HPHT Chamber: 20,000 psi working pressure @ 400
F. Inside bore is 7.5 inches x 162 inches deep. Max.
explosive amount allowed is 70g.
Radial Cutting Torch
o 500 deg F and 10 ksi currently qualified, 15 ksi
cutters under development with some sizes currently
available. Plans are to develop 20 ksi tools in the
future.
o Successful cuts can be achieved with tool ODs
smaller than with other types of cutters.
(ie 111/16 in. tool for 2 in., 7.9 #; 2 in. tool for
3.5 in., 12.95 #)
o Successful cuts on nickel alloy tubulars have been
made with 10 ksi rated tools.
o There have been instances where the tool or parts of
the tool are lost in hole when used near the pressure
rating. Performance has improved over the years.
o Need to test high-pressure cutters on nickel alloy
tubing such as C276, 825, SM2250 etc.
Jet Cutters
o 400 degrees for 1 hour with HMX at approximately
20 ksi.
o Size that can be run limited by ID of safety valves.
Tools near the ID of the tube usually required for

successful cuts.
Can make cutters with higher temperature explosives
but performance goes down.
o For HPHT applications, cutters would likely have to
be designed and tested based on actual temperatures
and pressures and metallurgy of tubular goods.
Chemical Cutters
o Limited to 350 degrees and 20 ksi with the same size
limitations as jet cutters.
o

Plugs
Limited sizes of slickline plugs available with ratings
above 15 ksi and 400 oF.
Well Control
Well control in the event of an infantile failure is a major gap
HPHT completion technology.
Limited 20 ksi BOPs stacks and choke manifolds. Stacks
have not been used in years and may need reconditioning.
It will require two years for new BOP stacks. No
equipment available for pressures > 20 ksi. Is it prudent
to complete a well without having a BOP stack available
that can handle maximum SITP?
Can the shear rams shear the heavy wall, high strength
tubulars that will be run?
Well kill - Currently limited availability of 20 ksi
equipment and none available for pressures > 20 ksi.
Pumps, piping, chicksans, or coflexit would have to be
developed, 1-2 years delivery. Is it prudent to complete a
well without having equipment rated to the maximum
SITP available in industry for an emergency kill?
Height and weight of BOPs, wellheads, choke manifolds
etc. will be larger then what is currently used and may
require special handling equipment.
Kill weight completion fluids.
o Can heavy weight brines be inhibited at these high
temperatures? Corrosion inhibitors for ZnBr tend to
degrade to H2S and zinc sulfide scales. Needs to be
tested with CRAs, elastomers, high strength work
strings etc.
o Are Cesium formates the answer?
o Oil base mud will work, but there are issues.
OBM can destabilize and the weighting agent
drop out over time plugging the tubing,
complicating future work over. Clean out of the
weighting agent with coiled tubing difficult due
to low pump rates.
Potential for severe formation damage. Limited
ability to clean up formation damage with
stimulations due to pressures and temperatures.
Relief wells - Temperature limit of 350 oF of magnetic
proximity tool for detecting blowout well would limit
relief well depth. Deepest relief well to date is around
22,000 feet.
How do we want to configure the trees/wellheads for
emergency kill operations? Topsides design and layout
needs to address tree leaks, fires and emergency kill
access.

SPE 97589

Completion planning should include developing

contingency kill plans and insuring equipment availability
prior to first production.

Remedial Operations
Remedial operations are not normally planned as part of an
initial completion.
However, for ultra HPHT wells
contingency planning will be required.
Snubbing Units maximum rated snubbing units are
20,000 psi.
Coiled tubing maximum rating 15 ksi and 400 oF.
Workstrings.
o Heavy wall tiebacks and liners will limit workstring
sizes and torque ratings. May not be able to wash
over.
o S-135 workstrings can be used in inhibited mud or
completion brines before perforating (i.e. no H2S),
but can heavy weight completion brines be inhibited
sufficiently for use of S-135 for remedial operations?
o Premium connections such as XTM40 or PH6 will be
required. These connections are very susceptible to
pitting on MTM seal face in heavy weight brines.
o Workstrings that are sour gas compatible are in
limited supply and may not have sufficient strength.
Long lead time required for new strings.
Sand Control not any time soon!
o It is likely that formations will be competent initially.
o Remedial sand control may be possible after
depletion, but would have to be taken into
consideration in initial completion. Small liners,
CRA packers to mill up, temperatures, and poor
cement jobs are all issues to be considered.
Fracturing not anytime soon!
o Issues with fluids, packer loads, surface pressures etc.
o May be possible after depletion, but would have to be
taken into consideration in initial completion.
Integration And Production Operations
Good communication between drilling, completion, facility,
and production personnel is critical to insure successful
handoffs.
How many wells do you want on a platform? Should
independent jackets be used if water is shallow enough?
Wellhead growth
o Accurate modeling wellhead growth is required for
proper facility and flow line design.
o Shell has experienced growth below the mud line,
especially if several wells clustered together.
o Will casing growth put unexpected loads on
conductor casings?
Understanding and managing annular pressures
o The effect of trapped annular pressures due to
trapped fluids between cement needs to be addressed.
o A annulus pressures can be reduced by putting N2
blanket
This reduces the need to bleed off annular fluid
and reduces the risk of getting oxygen into the
annulus during shut in.
N2 blanket reduces hydrostatic head, thus

o
o

increasing external pressure differential on

casing connections.
Operations personnel need to have guidelines to
maintain the desired backpressure on the
annulus.
B annulus pressures can be affected by thermal and
communication with zones
Mud degradation and thermal affects can cause
micro-annuluses in cement. Shell has experienced
B annulus pressure due to flow from tight noncommercial zones. Possibility of corrosion issues.
Testing of casing hanger seals in both directions is
required to prevent seal failure from outer to inner
strings of casing.

Conclusion
The industry has completed HPHT wells in the past.
However, the new higher temperature and pressure horizons
being drilled today will require an industry-wide technology
and development effort in order to deliver a reliable
completion. These new ultra-HPHT completions will tax our
industry resources people and infrastructure to deliver a
safe completion in a timely fashion.
As a result of our past efforts, we are confident that the
technology to complete these wells can be made available.
However, many of those who pioneered this effort are no
longer active. There has not been a recent, strong industry
focus on HPHT wells and we are at risk of losing industry
knowledge if we do not work to capture our past learnings.
There is a stronger need than ever before to pool our efforts in
preparing for the new HPHT future.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the management of Shell Exploration
and Producing Company for the opportunity to prepare and
present this paper. I would also like to extend my appreciation
for the input into this project by other Shell personnel and
numerous equipment suppliers.