SPE 158831

The Evolution of the NCMA Well Start-up Philosophy

R. Madray, S. Manrakhan , BG

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 1113 June 2012.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
With sand control being an issue for many operators;
there is a prevalence of Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP)
completions used in offshore reservoirs. Gravel packing is
an industry recognized method of stabilizing the well bore
and controlling sand in gas and oil producing wells. But
while ensuring the longevity of the well it also entraps the
filter cake formed by the reservoir drilling and completion
fluids. These factors result in a lower production rate well
and the need for higher drawdown. Therefore it is
essential that the filter cake be removed along the length
of the wellbore to ensure no unnecessary restrictions to
production.
This process requires an integrated approach to well startup. It begins with the completion fluid used and ends with
the start-up/bean-up procedure. The completion fluid type
is essential in determining the lift-off pressure required by
the filter cake. This pressure needs to be accounted for by
the start-up rates used. Subsequently this start-up rate
must be achieved in a safe and timely manner to ensure
that the completion is not compromised, via the bean-up
procedure. This necessitates the need for synergy between
Subsurface, Well
Engineering
and
Operations
departments.

This paper describes these improvements, challenges to

the program and attempts to examine the results to
determine any relative gains in productivity of the wells.
1. Field Overview
The NCMA Fields all lie on the Carapuna High (PataoKK High) within the West Tobago Basin, located north of
Trinidad and to the west of Tobago. The basin contains
primarily Miocene-Pleistocene aged sediments resting on
a basement of Cretaceous meta-volcanics and oceanic
material.
Reservoir quality sands were deposited under shallow
marine conditions in Lower Pliocene times. The palaeocoastline at that time was to the south of the fields. The
stratigraphically lowest MVI sands hold hydrocarbons in
the Heliconia and Bougainvillea fields. The MIV sand is
the reservoir in the Hibiscus Field while the overlying
MII sand is the reservoir in the Chaconia and Poinsettia
Fields The combination of Lower Pliocene sands limited
by truncation or pinch-out to the north and draped over
the east-west trending Carapuna High forms the play
fairway. The fields are operated by BG Trinidad and
Tobago Limited and were developed in phases to supply
gas for LNG conversion.

The North Coast Marine Area (NCMA) operated by BG

Trinidad and Tobago consists of 17 horizontal OGHP gas
production wells; hence it is imperative that a well
thought out start-up philosophy to ensure well
productivity. The sands, which these wells are completed
in, are characterized by their thin laterally extensive
nature. These sands show relatively homogenous
reservoir quality profile with good lateral connectivity.
Currently NCMA produces from the M2, M4 and M6
packages, each with a NTG over 95%. These wells have
been drilled in three phases over the past decade, the last
being October 2009 to March 2010.
Figure 1: A map of BGTT's Assets showing the NCMA field
location

SPE 158831

The NCMA fields consist of Hibiscus, Poinsettia,

Chaconia, Ixora, Heliconia and Bougainvillea and are
located off the north coast of Trinidad. The Hibiscus A
platform is designed to develop Hibiscus, Chaconia and
Ixora is located between the Hibiscus and Chaconia
fields. The Hibiscus field came onstream in August 2002.
While the Poinsettia A platform came online in 2009 and
develops the Poinsettia, Poinsettia SW, Heliconia and
Bougainvillea reservoirs.
NCMA UNIT
NCMA-1

AREA

Poinsettia
Platform

Poinsettia-1a

Poinsettia
Poinsettia SW
Block 9

Bougainvillea
Chaconia
Heliconia

Figure 3: The well locations of BGTT NCMA

Gloxinia

Ixora

Celosia

Hibiscus
Platform

Hibiscus

Figure 2: The sands consisting of the NCMA field

The first phase of development consisted of 5 horizontal

producing wells in the west of the field. In 2006 three
further Hibiscus wells were added. Well H4 in the south
western area and subsea wells EHA and EHB in the
eastern area. Chaconia came onstream in 2003 from well
C2 and a second well C3 was added in 2006. Ixora came
onstream in July 2003 from a single well. Table 1 shows
the NCMA development phases.

Figure 4: A completion diagram of a typical NCMA well

showing the openhole gravel pack

Table 1: The breakdown of the development phases of BGTT

NCMA
Phase
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3

Year
2001

Wells
H1, H2, H6,
H7, H8
C2

Comments
M4 Hibiscus Sand

2006

H4,
EHA,
EHB, C3

2009/10

PA, PB, PC,

PD, PH, BA,
HLA

Subsea wells in M4
Hibiscus
and
M2
Chaconia
Wells in M2 Poinsettia
Sands and M6 Sands

Phase
4

2003

M2 Sand Chaconia

Poinsettia came on production commenced in 2009

through 4 platform wells (PA, PB, PC, PH) and 1 subsea
well (PD). The first of these wells was drilled in 2008 into
the small Poinsettia South West accumulation. Heliconia
and Bougainvillea came onstream in 2009/2010 and
produce into the Poinsettia Platform. Figure 3 shows the
well locations in Hibiscus, Chaconia, Ixora and Poinsettia

All the wells in the NCMA field are horizontal wells with
open-hole gravel pack completions, upper completions of
5.5 tubing and 8.5 openhole diameters. There are downhole pressure gauges in all wells (except H2 and H8), but
the C2 and H7 gauges are non-functional. Each well is
completed in single reservoirs within the best quality and
well connected sands. Figure 5 shows a graphical
representation of the PH well in the M2 reservoir to
illustrate the trajectory of these completions.

The well operating envelope governs the well drawdown

limit. Factors that influence the WOE during the well life
cycle include:
Coning
Liquid lifting
Screen, tubing or SSSSV erosion
Hydrate formation

SPE 158831

Engineer to advise on shut-in times etc. This of course is

all overseen by the Operations department whose role it is
to ensure all activities are carried out with no damage to
personnel of platform infrastructure.

Figure 5: Trajectory of the PH well within the best quality

sands and aquifer standoff

2. BGTTs Start-up Methodology Evolution and

Discussion
Use of the openhole horizontal completion has become
popular within the E&P industry due to the increased
productivity of these wells compared to their vertical,
cased and perforated counter-parts. For reservoirs with a
risk of sand production, sand control is added usually via
a gravel-pack. This paper details the changes and
improvements of the NCMA well start-up methodology
over four (4) development phases, with focus on the latest
phase.

Figure 6: A workflow of a typical conventional well start-up

Well start-up procedure has evolved over the

Development Phases. Figure 6 shows a generic work-flow
of a well start-up. Specific procedures for unloading,
bean-up and well testing may vary in practices for
different cases. It can be seen from this workflow, a
variety of disciplines are involved in bringing a well
online. It ranges from the Well Engineer to unload the
well, The Production Technologist/Production Engineer
to bean up and Test the well along with the Reservoir

The well unloading is done infrequently during the well

life. The objective is to lift out liquid out of the wellbore
before testing for well performance and ramping up
towards the well peak-rate. Because the potential for
damaging the sand control completion is high during this
stage, as completion debris and fluids are produced from
near the wellbore, the unloading bean-up is done slow and
cautiously. Continuous monitoring of field data, such as
water cut, solids (also known as BS&W) is required to
measure the progress of the unloading. A hydrocarbon cut
has to be established before, to determine when the well is
switched from the clean-up system to the production
process train.
After the well has been unloaded, the clean-up and
beaning up to the maximum rate is a very critical step.
The specific peak rate or minimum drawdown would have
been determined using criteria such as:
Erosional velocity in the well and topsides
Drawdown to prevent wellbore failure and/or
water encroachment
The bean-up from the existing drawdown (or rate) to the
next higher drawdown (or higher rate) without shocking
the formation is examined in this paper
2.1 Previous Start-up Methodology
In the past the conventional procedures used in starting up
a new well appear to be done over long periods of time.
At the time this was believed to ensure the health of the
well by allowing time for the flowing pressures to
stabilize in-between pressure steps at a constant rate. An
excerpt of the conservative ramp-up procedure used
previously is given (step 2 in Figure 6):
1. Identify a minimum hydrate free rate that gives a
stable flow regime and stable bottom hole
pressure. This rate will be used as the first rate
during the subsequent well test
2. Bean up slowly to a maximum sand free rate
determined by the Production Technologist
taking into account the pressure drop through
the surface pipework. Monitor any sand
production when flowing through the sand
detectors and any erosion of the surface
pipework.
3. If sand production is noted during flow periods
the flow rate will be cut back until there is no
sand production. If sand production continues
the well should be closed in at surface and the
forward program discussed.
4. Monitor the wellhead flowing pressure and the
BS&W levels in the produced fluid. Guidelines
for when the well will be considered cleaned up
are as follows:

SPE 158831

5.

The BS&W has been constant over the

previous two hours.
The solids/filtrate content is less than 2%.
The wellhead flowing pressure is constant.
The wellhead flowing temperature has
stabilised.
At the end of the clean up flow period, close in at
the well test choke manifold for the pressure
build-up. Length of time for the build up to be
advised. Continue to monitor and record the A
annulus pressure during any build up period

Using finite element computation and field observations

he showed that excessive pause periods between
drawdown steps are redundant. This is shown in Figure 8,
where the conventional start-up strategy for a new well is
demonstrated versus a start-up optimized for sand failure
and transport. A more effective strategy is to use small
drawdown steps with smaller time period in-between
steps.

For previous phases of NCMA this particular technique

was used. It gives a clean-up procedure consisting of long
periods of stable rate flow followed by choke change
determined by rate increase. An example of this is shown
in Figure 7.

Figure 8: Conventional ineffective mix of drawdown steps

and wait period (taken from ref 2)

M.B. Geilikman at al4 added credence to this theory by

using a methodology that described the transient gradients
of pressures that the bean-up operation could induce in a
reservoir and then follow this up with laboratory test
results that reveal how different amounts of fines could
damage the formation permeability.

Figure 7: A conventional well start-up done on well C2

Work was done by the asset to improve the start-up

philosophy regarding:
Optimization of the time and drawdown steps for
the well ramp-up
Reduction of fines mobilization
Improvement of filter cake removal
This section discusses the major improvements made and
the supporting studies and/or literature used in making
these conclusions
2.2 Fines mobilization reduction
H. Vaziri et al2 theorized that this conventional procedure
of starting up a new well uses a longer time than
necessary (in terms of overall duration), but is not
necessarily conservative as the pressure step magnitudes
are often larger than would be safe for minimizing the
potential for creating tensile failure or fines generation.

The bean-up process of increasing drawdown between

steps or with time generates transient gradients of
pressure in the reservoir. These gradients of pressure are
normally higher than those induced from steady state
production, hence causing substantial drag forces to be
generated. These drag forces are capable of mobilizing
fines and creating formation damage. It was shown that
larger particles will be mobilized earlier than smaller
particles due to the drag forces and the higher the
transient pressure achieved during bean-up the wider the
range of fines mobilized. Small fines can be produced
through the gravel-pack and screens, and if not erosive
can be handled by the facilities. However larger fines can
reduce the effective permeability by plugging the
formation in the well vicinity, thereby leading to
increased formation skin.
P.J. van den Hoek3 theorized that this procedure holds
true only for sand control completed wells. For wells
without sand control the amount of sand produced to
surface is independent of bean-up procedure.
In general from analysis of the literature some general
qualitative bean-up recommendations were used for
detailed design of the well start-up procedure:

SPE 158831

Bean-up with smaller incremental drawdown and

shorter time in-between choke changes is
preferred to bean-up procedures with a higher
drawdown but with longer waiting time between
choke changes
Continuous bean-up is better than stepwise
bean-up
Skin inflicted by bean-up is more sensitive to a
higher drawdown than to shorter total bean-up
time

2.3 Filter Cake Removal

The filter cake formed by the drilling fluid provides fluidloss control during drilling and completion. In the
NCMA field the completions are Open-hole GravelPacked. While the gravel-pack is a proven method of
stabilizing the wellbore, controlling sand and maintaining
a max well productivity index, it also entraps the
filtercake formed by the reservoir and drilling fluid
interaction. Gravel pack plugging during production is
dependent on the composition and properties of the filter
cake. While such a low permeability filter cake serves to
protect the reservoir from invasion, it represents a
significant impairment problem when production is
attempted.
To design the most reliable cleanup treatment, laboratory
tests are performed by closely simulating field conditions.
Examples of these are Formation Damage and Screen
plugging testing. The formation damage testing should be
done using field core samples or analogous cores to
examine the impact of filtrate invasion, solids (bridging
and drill solids) invasion and filtercake deposition on near
wellbore permeability. The screen plugging tests should
be performed on small-scale sections of screen to evaluate
retention and plugging resistance. As with the formation
evaluation testing all representative drill solids should be
included in these tests.
It should be noted that experimental results reported in
literature indicate that removal of most DIF filter cakes
from the core face typically require drawdown pressures
less than 10psi when properly sized bridging agents are
used to form an effective filter cake quickly and with
minimal particle and polymer invasion1.

3. Evolution of the Start-up Methodology

In Phase 4 of development there was greater integration
between BGTTs Subsurface- Production Technology
department and Well Engineering to create a well start-up
which minimized start-up induced skin. An overview of
this is shown in Figure 9s process flow.

Figure 9: Workflow of the optimised well start-up used in

Phase 4 of development

3.1 Drill In Fluid Design

This integration between teams begins from the start of
the completion design process with the drill-in fluid being
optimized for the gravel sizes used. For Phase 4 the lower
completion reservoir section fluid had undergone the most
extensive and rigorous design work of all of the NCMA
development drilling fluids. The section was drilled with
a non (or low) formation damaging Drill-In Fluid (DIF),
based on non-damaging polymers and sized calcium
carbonate bridging agents. The size distribution of these
bridging agents has been selected specifically for the pore
throat sizes expected in the Poinsettia reservoirs. No
barite was used at any time in this section and fluid
density was based upon a blend of sodium bromide and
potassium chloride. The latter is an important constituent
of the DIF mud system to impart potassium ion based
inhibition of the interstitial clays present in the reservoir
sands. Potassium ion was maintained at a concentration of
approximately 30 ppb (8% by wt. potassium chloride).
The solids content and MBT of the DIF mud system is a
critical issue in reducing any formation damaging
potential of the system. As such the maximum allowable
MBT will be 5.0 ppb equivalent and the maximum
allowable total drill solids 2.5% by volume (preferably
1.0%). As such, during the drilling operations the
concentration of solids content and calcium carbonate
were tested regularly. On a daily basis the mud was tested
at the rig site. During completion operations, although the
gravel pack screens were run in a solids free fluid, it was
important that any screen plugging tendency of the fluid
used to drill the section was characterised. The reason for
this was that any whole mud loss to the formation while
drilling will backflow through the gravel pack screens.
During the testing phase it was shown that 1 litre of the
DIF system as designed will pass through an EZ FLO 110
screen in 3 minutes. The solids free fluid with no added
calcium carbonate, to be spotted in hole prior to running

the gravel pack screens, was shown to pass through an EZ

FLO 110 screen at a rate of 1 litre in 30 seconds. All tests
were conducted at 20 psi applied pressure. By comparison
1 litre of water passed through the same screen at a rate of
approximately 27 seconds. Return permeability testing
has shown that this product is not formation damaging
and also has little or no impact on the ability to
subsequently remove wall cake with MudSolve designed
treatment during completion operations.
Details of the DIF used is contained within the Appendix
3.2 Start-Procedure Design
Additional work was done on revising the start-up
procedure and design. The majority of the work done was
in creating a bean-up procedure that accounted for
drawdown along well length. Each well was modeled
using a nodal analysis tool which allowed pressure drop
versus rate to be calculated along the entire well length.
The drawdown was calculated at the gauge depth, at the
heel of the well and at the toe of the well using:

SPE 158831

throughout the entire well length avoiding damage to the

reservoir while attaining a lift off pressure to remove the
filtercake. These pressures were obtained from the lab
tests on the DIF.
Once the required rates for clean-up were selected,
quantification of the bean-up steps and choke sizes could
be determined. To calculate the choke sizes required a
good understanding of choke behavior must be had. The
following table (table 2) gives the bean-up advisory for a
well where choke behavior data was substantial.
Table 2: An example of an optimised bean-up guide used in
Phase 4

.(1)
Where
Pdrawdown- drawdown pressure
Preservoir- reservoir pressure
Pflowing_i- flowing pressure in the well in the various
locations of: 1) the gauge 2) the heel of the well and 3)
the toe of the well
The calculation of these values allowed the engineer to
have a quick reference between the pressure he/she sees at
the gauge and what was expected at the heel and toe of
the well for a particular rate. It must be noted that the
flow correlation used for within the wellbore must be
carefully selected to represent the flow behavior expected.
An example of the results is shown in figure 10

Figure 11: The relationship between the choke and rate for a
specified downstream pressure. This is used as a guide to
the Production Technologist

Figure 10: The calculated relationship between drawdown

along the length of the wellbore and rate. This was used as a
guide to generate the clean-up rate envelope

Using this graph the engineer was able to select rates that
ensure that the upper limit of drawdown is honored

The time steps have been optimized to produce a

continuous bean-up of the well and minimize the
incremental drawdown.

SPE 158831

4. Observations & Discussion

4.1 Operational
Prior to any clean-up being performed, the well is
unloaded of liquid in the well bore. This is done by
opening the well through a test skid, while measuring
solid and water/fluid content of the flow. This fluid is
flared, as passing the unloaded mixture through the
production system can cause fouling. For environmental
reasons this flaring time is optimized, hence when an
acceptable level of gas is detected. At this point the
unloading is considered completed and well is transferred
to the production system for clean-up.
It was noticed that slugging occurred at the lower choke
sizes, indicating that liquids still remained in the well. In
instances of this the slugging behavior was mitigated by
incrementally increasing the size of the well choke.
For Phase 4 of the NCMA, seven (7) wells were brought
online. These were: PA, PB, PC, PD, PH, BA, and HLA.
Due to operational constraints wells PB and BA were
shut-in prior to the clean-up section of well start-up (postunload): PB being shut-in for approximately 24 hours
while BA was shut-in for 1 hour. During that time any
unloaded liquid would stop being lifted and fall back
into the producing length of the wellbore. The risk of that
happening was the unloaded liquid infiltrating the
formation or completion causing additional skin. In order
to reduce this risk; a lessons learnt was to minimize any
shut-in time during the start-up of the well for subsequent
well start-ups.

4.2 Choke Behavior

It was noticed in several of the wells that the choke
behavior was erratic. This was due to mis-sized chokes
and hydraulic control issues. In order to overcome this
challenge an augmented clean-up procedure was
implemented to allow the Production Technologist
fluidity in making decisions as to the bean-up, while
ensuring the philosophy of a continuous bean-up with
small incremental time steps and drawdown changes is
honored. An example of this modified procedure is shown
below
1. Commence clean up by increasing the choke size
in smallest increments (1%) until a rate of ~ 50
mmscf/d is attained, or as advised by the
Production Technologist. See Additional Notes e
& f.
2. Stable FTHP and FBHP should be obtained
before further bean up. Continue bean up until a
rate of ~ 70 mmscf/d is attained or as advised by
the Production Technologist (note that the
pressure difference between SIBHP and FBHP
(downhole drawdown should not exceed 50 psig
at any time).

3.

4.

The well should be flowed at this choke size for ~

24 hours or as advised by the Production
Technologist.
After the required flow period the well should be
shut-in (hard shut in at production wing valve)
for double the time of the initial flow period.
This enables an initial reservoir pressure to be
taken.

Additional Notes:
a) To avoid any large or sudden pressure
differential across the new sand screens/gravel
pack, choke size should be increased slowly in
smallest increment (no more than 1%) and the
well allowed to stabilise (or as directed by the
BG Production Technologist) prior to each
choke change.
b) The following parameters must be monitored
continuously for anomalies and trends:
c) BHP, BHT, THT, THP, A, B annulus pressures,
gas flow rate (Wet gas meter and export gas
meter), water flow rate (wet gas meter),
condensate flow rate (wet gas meter),
downstream choke pressure & temperature,
choke bean size. If possible verify wet gas water
flow rate using water vessel level changes, as the
flotation unit water meter is not working.
i.
Acoustic sand detector (raw and g/hr
signals)
ii.
BS&W trend in produced water leg as
sampled off the installed temporary
sampling point.
iii.
Ensure A, B and C annulus
pressures do not exceed the MAASP.
d) Criteria for when the well will be considered
cleaned up are as follows:
BS&W solids/filtrate content is less than
2%.
BS&W has been constant over two hours
FTHP is stable (~1 psi fluctuation in 30
mins)
pH of produced water is close to 7.5
e) During initial well opening, it may be necessary
to bean up the well at a faster rate than desired
to avoid hydrate formation. Such accelerated
bean up should be done only as a last resort.
Attempts must be made to reduce hydrate
formation by the use of methanol injection
upstream of pressure drops. This will reduce
point stresses on the gravel pack and sand
screens. Refer to Poinsettia Platform hydrate
formation
and
mitigation
operational
procedures.
f) It should be stressed that the smallest choke
increases (1%) must be made at a time.
g) Ensure that the final clean up maximum flow
rate is free of sand/solids production based on
either BS&W trend or acoustic sand detector or
both. If sand/solid production is noted during

SPE 158831

any flow periods the flow rate will be cut back

until there is no sand production (i.e., low
acoustic response or low solids from BS&W). If
sand production continues the well should be
closed in at surface and the forward program
discussed. Collect a BS&W sample during sand
production flow for onsite analysis (supported by
the fluids offshore lab).
h) In all cases where there are difficulties in
maintaining flowrates and pressures, the
Production Technologist has the authority to
change the bean up procedure as required.
This revised procedure along with the well nodal
modeling results allowed the Production Technologist to
bean- up the well and anticipate any issues with well
drawdown along the length of the well and filtercake liftoff pressure.

4.3 Skin Analysis

In order to quantify the benefit (if any) of this optimized
start-up procedure an analysis of the mechanical skins of
all the wells on NCMA was done. To compare each well
on equal footing only the skins derived from the build-ups
directly after the start-up of the well were compared.

Figure 12: Skin analysis results for the shut-ins after well
cleanup

Although the sample size is small, the observations made

are as follows:
Out of the Phase 4 wells BA and PB have the
highest skins. This confirms the suspicion that
the shut-in during the well start-up, postunloading caused an increase in skin due to fluid
infiltration into the completion and formation
Disregarding wells PB and BA the average skin
per well for Phase 4 wells was 0.88 units as
compared to the average skin per well for the
previous phases being 5.04 units

5. Conclusion
The BGTT NCMA has incorporated its experience in
revising and improving it operating procedures. This
paper discussed the changes made to the assets well startup procedure in order to minimize formation and
completion damage. From examining the literature and
previous lessons learnt from earlier development phases
some general guidelines were implemented:
A continuous bean-up for the start-up of the well
should consist of smaller incremental drawdown
steps and shorter time steps, rather than the
traditional bean-up with a higher drawdown but
with a longer waiting time. This was to minimize
formation impairment due to fines migration and
to optimize bean-up time.
A proper DIF design and selection for efficient
flow through the gravel pack to mitigate
impairment of flow through the gravel pack and
reduce skin.
The use of well modeling to define the rates,
pressure drop and drawdown along the wellbore.
This was to optimize the clean-up envelope used.
As with all operationally based activities there is a level
of uncertainty during the start-up phase of any new well.
With that lessons learnt from the Phase 4 development of
BGTT NCMA were:
Avoid or minimize shut-in time during any point
of a well start-up until it is confirmed all DIF
fluid is lifted out of the well. Any fluid left in the
well during a shut-in can cause damage to the
completion and/or formation (manifested in a
higher skin being developed)
Optimization of the well unloading sequence
must be carried out if the process facility cannot
handle slugs of liquid. This is to ensure that the
maximum wellbore fluid is lifted out while
working within environmental consideration.
A specific, rigid bean-up procedure in terms of
rates and times will not be applicable more times
than not. There should be some flexibility built
into the bean-up procedure and the Production
Technologist should provide the guidelines of
minimize choke step sizes and time steps in
order to facilitate a more continuous bean-up.
While the sample size is low (i.e. a limited number of
wells), some observations made indicate that the
evolution of the start-up methodology has improved the
well performance immediately after start-up. Namely the
average skin for the wells in Phase 4 was significantly
lower than that for the previous phases. This provides
promising trends for future wells within the BGTT asset.
It is demonstrated through integration of disciplines such
as subsurface, well engineering and operations, along
with research and constant reviewing of best practices;
well performance and hence the overall productivity of a
field can be improved.

SPE 158831

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance of E.
Sow.

Nomenclature
BHP- Bottom hole pressure
BHT- Bottom hole temperature
BGTT- BG Trinidad and Tobago Ltd.
BS&W- Base solids and water
DIF- Drill in fluid
FTHP- Flowing tubing head pressure
FBHP- Flowing bottom head pressure
LNG- Liquefied Natural Gas
MAASP- Maximum allowable annular surface pressure
MBT- Methylene Blue Test: a test to determine the
amount of clay-like materials in a water based drillingfluid
NCMA- North Coast Marine Area
OHGP- Open hole gravel pack
RDF- Reservoir drilling fluid
SITHP- shut-in tubing head pressure
THP- Tubing head pressure
THT- Tubing head temperature
WOE- Well operating envelope
Bibliography
1. C. Price Smith, C. Bennett, S.A. Ali, R.M. Hodge,
R.C. Burton, and M. Palar: Open Hole Horizontal
Well Cleaup in Sand Control Completions: State of
the Art in Field Practice and Laboratory
Development , SPE 50673, presented at the 1998
SPE European Petroleum Conference held in The
Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998
2. H. Vaziri, Robbie Allam, Gordon Kidd, C. Bennet, T.
Grouse, P. Robinson, J. Malyn: Sanding: A rigorous
Examniation of the Interplay Between Drawdown,
Depletion, Start-up Frequency and Water Cut, SPE
89895, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition Hheld in Houston, Texas,
USA, 26-29 September 2004.
3. P.J. van den Hoek and M.B. Geilikman: Prediction of
Sand Production Rate in Oil and Gas Reservoirs:
Importance of Bean-Up Guidelines, SPE 102305,
presented at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow,
Russia, 3-6 October 2006.
4. M.B. Geilikman, D.E. Dria, D.R. Stewart and G.K.
Wong: Bean-up Guidelines for Sand Control
Completions, SPE 95870, presented at the 2005 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October 2005.

5. M. Law, G. Chao. H Ab Alim, E, Samuel, A. Ejan,

A.H. Mohsen, M. Samuel: A Step Change in
Openhole Gravelpacking Methodology: Drilling Fluid
Design and Filter-Cake Removal Method, SPE
105758, presented at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil &
Gas Show and Conference held in Bahrain
International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain,
11-14 March 2007.
Appendix
Drill-in fluid details:
Properties
Fluid Type
Drill-In
Fluid (FLOPRO NT)
Weight
11.5 ppg
PV
ALAP
(meas. @ 120 F)
YP
+/- 20 lb/100
ft2
(meas. @ 120 F)
Brookfield LSRV (0.3 rpm)
>35K
cP
(meas. @ 170 F)
Gels
+/5/10
lb/100 ft2
(meas. @ 120 F)
HTHP Fluid Loss
< 3 ml/30
min (500 psi / 170F)
KCL
10 % by wt.)
Total Hardness
< 200 mg/l
pH
8.0 - 9.0
MBT
< 5.0 ppb
Drill Solids
< 2.5% by
volume
Formulation (per final barrel - not in order of addition)
(based on 12.0 ppg)3000 bbls
Fresh Water
FloVis NT
DualFlo
Potassium Chloride
Sodium Bromide

0.8000 bbl
1.25 lb
6.0 lb
48.0 lb
142 lb

SafeCor C
gal)
SafeCarb 2
SafeCarb 10
Myacide 25G
gal)
Magox

0.4 lb (0.035
22.5 lb
7.5 lb
0.2 lb (0.02
0.05 ppb

10

Treatment
Function

SPE 158831

Primary

FloVis NT
Non-clarified
/ non-dispersible xanthan gum
viscosifier (imparts elevated LSRV)
DualFloHT
Modified
starch for fluid loss control and viscosity
Potassium Chloride
Shale
stabilisation (potassium source)
Sodium Bromide
Density
SafeCor C
Corrosion
control
SafeCarb 20
Fluid
loss
control / formation invasion control
SafeCarb 10
Fluid
loss
control / formation invasion control
Safecarb 40
Fluid
loss
control / formation invasion control
Safecarb 250
Fluid
loss
control / formation invasion control
Myacide
Bactericide
Magox
pH control /
pH buffer