OTC 24179

Drilling and Completing Cascade and Chinook Wells: A Design and

Execution Case History
Flavio Dias De Moraes, Petrobras; Oswaldo Moreira, Petrobras America Inc.; Ziad Haddad, FOI Technologies;
Scott Ogier, and Jonathan Shipley, SPE, Cherokee Offshore Engineering; Mauricio Rebelo, Petrobras, Fernando
Gama, Petrobras America Inc.

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 6–9 May 2013.

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
The paper is based on work performed during the design, implementation and operation of the Cascade and
Chinook Field Development Project in ultra-deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. It describes the basis of design for
the drilling and completion of the wells, new technology selection criteria, risk and cost mitigation plans applied
during the well operations, ultra-high pressure perforating of an interval longer than 700 ft, application of the first
Single-Trip Multi-Zone Frac Pack System (3 zones) in wells deeper than 27,000 ft MD, and the unique fracturing
design approach used to deliver multiple fractures across 1200 ft of reservoir thickness. This case history paper
will describe the pre-qualification work done with all critical systems and details of the well construction operations
during the drilling and completion of the wells.

The information provided will be useful for Operators to identify the technologies that are most suited for
application in deep wells. It will also serve as a starting point for the design and construction of wells for other
operators developing projects in the Lower Tertiary play, which is a key exploratory frontier in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico (USGoM). More than 12 discoveries have been made in the Lower Tertiary, with potential recoverable
reserves of several billion barrels of oil.

The results and conclusions presented in this paper are related to the feasibility and benefits of using new
technology and prototype equipment in the Lower Tertiary environment. Field data from critical well operations will
be included.

The technical contributions of the work presented in this paper are as follows: pushing the technical limits of
Single-Trip Multi-Zone frac-pack systems to depths over 27,000 ft using high (>30 bpm) fracture rates and high
strength proppants; enhancing the knowledge gained from ultra-high pressure (>20,000 psi) tubing conveyed
perforating systems; and presenting a well design criteria suitable for high drawdown (>12,000 psi) production
operations.

Introduction
The Cascade and Chinook (C&C) development plan in the Gulf of Mexico is one of the most technologically
challenging and complex projects implemented by Petrobras. This project uses the first Floating Production
Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO) in operation in U.S. waters, at a water depth of 8200 ft. The C&C subsea
infrastructure considers the use of subsea manifolds, rigid flowlines, pipe-in-pipe pipelines, and Free Standing
Hybrid Risers (FSHR). Details about the subsea infrastructure and the FPSO are discussed in greater detail by
Porciuncula et al. (2010) and Corte et al. (2010).

The technical complexity presented in the various disciplines of the C&C project also applies to its well design.
These two fields are 15 miles apart and share several characteristics such as depth, lithology and reservoir
similarities. The Wilcox 1 and 2 sands belong to the Lower Tertiary geologic age and are part of the latest
2 OTC 24179

exploratory frontier in the USGoM. More than 12 discoveries have been made in the Lower Tertiary, holding a
potentially recoverable volume of several billion barrels of oil, highlighting the importance of this technology
development for the industry.

The producing reservoirs in both fields are composed of Lower Tertiary Wilcox 1 (Eocene) and Wilcox 2
(Paleocene) zone. These reservoirs are characterized by a large thickness of intercalated sandstones and
shales. The reservoirs show low horizontal permeability (<100 mD), and poor vertical communication between
sand layers. Other characteristics include a very high static formation pressure (>19,000 psi), a maximum
temperature of 256o F, and a low gas/oil ratio. The produced oil has CO2 concentration in the gaseous phase <
1.5%, and there is no evidence of H2S contamination.

The completion design considers up to four frac-packs communicating the various production zones with the
wellbore. Some of the most important technological features used in the well design will be presented in this
paper, including: perforating of long sections at very high pressures, multiple frac-pack assemblies deployed in a
single trip, and the execution of the frac-packs.

Drilling Design
The drilling design for the C&C wells started with several peer
reviews to select the main drilling and completion design for the
wells to be constructed. The casing design was based on
delivering an 8 ½” ID casing at TD to accommodate the
completion design. This “bottoms up” design resulted in the
typical C&C wellbore design diagram (Fig. 1) that includes a 36”,
22”, 18”, 16”, 14”, and 10 1/8” (8 ½” drift) casing/liner strings. In
this design, each string is run to its approximate design limit to
maximize leak off test (LOT) values. One of the most important
strategies of the C&C wells was the elimination of the 11 7/8”
liner, which prevents achieving adequate circulation rates for a
successful primary cement job on the 10 1/8” production casing.
The subsequent string has to lap the entire 11 7/8” liner, which
causes a very high pressure loss due to friction in the long liner
lap. Although the 11 7/8” liner is considered as a contingency
string and may be used in the presence of tar, faults, or other
geologic hazards, the C&C team tries to avoid running it. The 11
7/8” liner is usually adequate for an exploratory well design, but
should be avoided for a producing well.

In addition to the extreme differential pressures at the sand face

depth, another critical point for the well design was the annular
pressure buildup (APB) risk mitigation. APB analysis indicates
very high pressures developing in all annuli in the producing
wells. Rupture disks are used to mitigate APB effects to the large
casings (22” and 16”), and other operational measures are taken
to mitigate the effects of APB in the A annulus (production string
x production casing). Additional information on drilling in
deepwater environments in the USGoM is discussed by Cunha et
al. (2009).
Fig. 1 – Typical Wellbore Schematic

Drilling Operations
The riserless drilling phase of the wells includes jetting the 36” casing, drilling out with a 26” BHA to 12,000 ft,
running of the 22”casing with the high pressure housing, and cementing it in place. After the adequate foundation
of 36” & 22” is in place, the BOP and riser are run, latched, and function/pressure tested at the mud line. The
next three drilling phases require operations with hole-openers, which has been a major source of Non Productive
Time (NPT) in the C&C project drilling operations. Abrasive sands in the Miocene section create vibrations, which
are exacerbated with hole-opener geometry, resulting in slow ROP, premature wear, LWD failure, and a potential
for twist-offs. During the drilling operations of the first wells, losses were encountered in weak zones below the
22” casing shoe. Proper mud weight management and upgrading of the 18” casing phase from contingency to a
planned phase, was successful in mitigating the risk of major losses. In C&C wells, every string of casing must
have surge reduction hardware. In one instance during the drilling of the first wells, this equipment have been
prematurely converted, which have led to costly losses of mud and rig time. Therefore, strict casing running
OTC 24179 3

procedures must be implemented during drilling operations to prevent the premature conversion of surge
reduction hardware.

The main driver in the well design is to reach adequate LOT values in each hole section to safely reach the next
phase of drilling to TD. The most important depth target phase in the C&C wells is the drilling of the 16 ½’ OD
open hole, prior to setting the 14”x 13 ¾”casing string. The depth of the 14”x 13 ¾”casing shoe should be placed
in the Oligocene pressure ramp, about 1,000 ft above the top of the Wilcox 1 formation. Figure 2 displays the
typical pressure ramp and PP/FG profile for the C&C fields. Any wellbore issue and instability beyond this point
could require the contingency 11 7/8” liner to be run, and likely result in a poorly cemented production casing. Tar
stringers are a hazard and have been encountered in some instances in the C&C fields. Short departure side
tracks, to bypass the tar zones, have been successful however tar remains a major risk and source of NPT during
the drilling of the wells in the C&C fields and the industry.

The latest generation of “New Build” Drill Ships have been a challenge for the project team and the industry
overall. Longer than expected deliveries and extended commissioning times have increased the NPT during the
early years of operation.

Fig. 2 – Typiccal PP/MW/FG Curves

To date the project team has not had to run the contingency 11 7/8” liner. The final phase of the well was drilled
with a conventional 12 ¼” bit and no hole-opener which lead to a good cement job on the 10 1/8” production
casing. A 9 7/8” contingency is available in case the 11 7/8” liner is run (reduced OD improves hydraulics). After
reaching the planned TD for the development well, a full suite of wireline logs are run prior to running and
cementing the production casing (10 ¾” x 10 1/8” casing string). A good primary cement job is critical to the
success of the completion while providing zonal isolation for the life of the well. The primary plan for the
production casing is a long string of 10 ¾” x 10 1/8” casing; however, in the case of poor hole conditions a
contingency 10 1/8” liner with drill down capabilities is available.

Another contingency includes a slim-hole design using a 7 ¾” (6.500” drift) casing with conventional stacked frac-
pack equipment. A 4-zone conventional stacked completion system has been developed for the 7 ¾” casing but
4 OTC 24179

has not been required to date.

The new regulations, established by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), were
implemented to improve the safety record of the industry. They include additional training of personnel,
certification of the casing designs, cement jobs and equipment while maintaining a stringent record keeping and
documentation system. The new requirements also include additional function and pressure testing (surface and
subsea) of the BOP’s, a subsea ROV intervention system and an Autodeadman system. The BOP tests are
performed once every 14 days; however the function testing of the Blind Shear Rams must be performed every
week and often requires a special trip to clear the stack to function the rams.

BSEE also requires a containment plan supported by one of two industry consortiums (MWCC or Helix). Both
groups provide equipment, people and plans to facilitate the Operator’s response in the case of a blowout. A
number of drills have been conducted with Petrobras and the regulators and this takes a dedicated group of
resources. Additionally, Petrobras has identified the potential use of its infield subsea infrastructure that could be
used to collect oil in the case of a blowout or BOP failure. Petrobras has evaluated a number of options and is
currently working on a quick response system as an additional contingency. Petrobras has worked with its
containment provider to establish a time line for deploying the capping stack equipment while focusing on
providing the internal training to handle this critical element of our industry in the post-Macondo environment.
Although the primary focus on containment is to “cap and contain” the blowout, additional planning for relief wells
and dynamic kills, is now more rigorous. This has helped the Operators to develop strategies to prepare and
manage relief well contingency planning.

Transition to Completion Operations

Rig operations switched from drilling to completing after the production casing/liner was run. For the first
development well, a 10-1/8” production liner was set. This liner was subsequently tied back with a 10-1/8” x 10-
3/4” tieback string. In the following two development wells, a single 10-1/8” x 10-3/4” production casing string was
run.

After the production casing/tieback was run and cemented and a cement evaluation log was run, the synthetic oil
based drilling mud was displaced a zinc bromide based completion brine. Following the displacement operation,
the BOP stack was removed and a 15,000 psi horizontal tree was installed using a cable with a Heave
Compensated Winch from an MSV (Multi Service Vessel) on the wellhead before reconnecting the BOP stack to
the top of the tree. All remaining completion operations occurred through the horizontal tree.

Perforating in High Pressure Environments

The implementation of a Single-Trip, Multi-Zone (STMZ) sand control completion enabled the perforating of all
completion intervals at the same time. This single perforating run greatly reduced the time required to perforate
the well as compared to individually perforating each interval.

The Wilcox reservoirs were perforated overbalanced with tubing conveyed perforating guns in a single gun run in
all the C&C wells. Each well was perforated overbalanced in two to three intervals separated by blank guns. The
perforating guns were 7” OD, 18 SPF, with big-hole charges (EHD = 0.77”). The gun system was rated to 25,000
psi. The Table 1 below lists some of the characteristics of the perforating operations.

Table 1: Perforating Operations Characteristics

Cascade #A Chinook #A Cascade #B
Bottom Shot, 26,080/25,806 25,970/25,824 26,340/25,665
MD/TVD, ft
Live guns, ft 428 560 320
Number of 7,131 9,837 5,236
perforations

Because of the large number of perforations and the extreme hydrostatic pressure, a great deal of effort was
placed in modeling the initial pressure response following gun detonation and to optimize the placement of
downhole equipment to minimize the shock loads that impact the perforating hardware. As a result of this
analysis, the packer was set approximately 420’ above the top perforation and two shock absorbers were placed
between the guns and the packer. Figure 3 shows the comparison between measured and simulated dynamic
underbalance in the Chinook well. Shock loads up to 700,000 lbf were calculated based upon measured pressure
response, resultant from a maximum dynamic underbalance pressure of up to 14,000 psi. The calculated loads
OTC 24179 5

were consistent with what the pre-job modeling predicted. Even though the shock loads exceeded of the rating of
the perforating packer, there was not enough damage to the packer to compromise its integrity, probably because
the extreme dynamic loads were only present for a short period of time (<1 sec).

Fig. 3 – Simulated vs. Measured Dynamic Underbalance

A full complement of DST tools (including a packer, circulating valve, and isolation valve) was run and a fluid loss
pill was prepared in the event the post-perf losses were unmanageable. Losses experienced after perforating did
not require the spotting of a fluid loss pill. Additional details on the perforating operations are discussed in greater
detail by Sanders, et al. (2011).

Following the perforating operation, a deburr assembly was run in the well to remove all perforation burrs that
could potentially damage the packer elements of the STMZ system. In addition to removing the perforation burrs,
this run was used to pressure test the workstring to 14,000 psi prior to stimulating the wells in the next operation.
Following the first two completions in the C&C project, the deburr BHA was modified to allow pressure testing of
the sump packer and the sump area to ensure there was no loss of pressure integrity caused by the perforating
operation.

Single-Trip, Multi-Zone System

A STMZ completion system was selected for the C&C project to provide stimulation and sand control. Reservoir
modeling indicated hydraulic fracture stimulation is required to produce the wells at maximum economic rates.
Because of the reservoir thickness, each well requires multiple fractures to effectively stimulate the entire
reservoir. Conventional stacked frac-packs were considered, but ultimately, a STMZ system was selected due to
significantly reduced installation time. Extensive fracture modeling showed that the reservoirs could be
adequately stimulated with three fractures. It was anticipated that it would take 30 days and 8 round trips in the
well to install conventional three-zone stacked frac-packs. A STMZ system was estimated to take 14 days and 3
round trips to install, a significant savings of time and money.

Because the same service tool would be used to fracture all zones in the well, there was concern that the
proppant would cause excessive erosion and compromise the integrity of the tool as the proppant exited the
crossover port. Several erosion tests were performed on the fracturing service tool to ensure it would survive the
designed fracture treatments. Based on the results of the initial tests, the frac port was redesigned to handle 1.5
MMlbs of 20/40 bauxite pumped at 40 bpm.

The general procedure for running a STMZ system is as follows. The sump packer is logged on depth and set via
electric line to establish a base for the system. Then, all zones are perforated with a tubing conveyed perforating
system as discussed in the section above. Following perforating, a “deburr” run is made to remove any
perforation burrs that might damage the packer elements of the STMZ system. Finally, the entire STMZ system,
with screens, packers, and fracture service tools, is run in the well. Once on depth, all the packers are
6 OTC 24179

hydraulically set. Starting with the lower zone and moving uphole, each of the intervals is fracture stimulated. In
each zone, a monitoring sleeve is opened to allow the observation of the bottomhole treating pressure (via the
annulus pressure) and to allow the taking of returns to induce a screenout, if necessary. Following the fracturing
operation, the frac sleeve and monitoring sleeve are closed and tested before moving up to the next zone.

Figure 4 shows a schematic of the downhole assembly with the service tool in the fracturing position. This
configuration was used in the first two wells that were completed in the project. Prior to the completion of the third
well, the STMZ system was modified so that after a frac job, the frac sleeve and the monitoring sleeve are closed
with upward movement only, without having to break a connection at the surface. This modification was achieved
by extending the inner workstring and adding a second closing shifter. Prior to this change, the service tool had
to be stripped down in the well, by as much as 200 ft, to close the monitoring sleeve. This proved to be difficult
when the reservoir had pressured up following the frac job and would flow back when breaking a connection at
the surface.

After all the zones are fractured, the service tool is pulled out of the well, mechanically isolating the well from the
reservoir with all the sleeves closed. An isolation string is then run in the well. This isolation string consists of an
isolation packer, an isolation ball valve, and shifters on an inner workstring that open the integral production
sleeves (two or more in each zone) located in the screen assemblies. After the isolation assembly is in position,
having opened all the production sleeves, the isolation packer is hydraulically set. Upon release of the isolation
packer setting tool, the isolation ball valve is closed, providing mechanical isolation to the reservoir. This isolation
ball valve remains closed until after the upper completion is installed and the crown plugs have been set in the
horizontal tree. A series of pressure cycles are then applied down the tubing to open the isolation ball valve.

Additional details on the use of the STMZ sand control equipment in the first two wells in the C&C project are
discussed by Ogier et al. (2011).

Fig. 4 - Single-Trip Multi-Zone Equipment Schematic

OTC 24179 7

Frac-Pack Designs
The C&C wells (3 wells) were completed in the Lower Tertiary (Wilcox) formation with an average of 3 propped
fracture treatments in the Wilcox 1 & 2 (Upper and Lower) zones. Typical formation properties are: gross interval
~1200 ft, net interval ~600 ft, permeabilities < 100mD, and reservoir fluid viscosity ~12 cp. The challenge is to
complete this very thick interval while also avoiding the water contact and avoiding placing perforations near the
identified faults crossing the pay zone (Fig. 5).

SS

Wilcox 1

Calcitic SS

Wilcox 2

Silty SS

Wet SS

Shale

Wilcox 3

Porosity
(API) (OHMM) (PSI)

(g/cm3)

Fig. 5 – Cascade Well, Wilcox Formation

Major questions addressed for the preliminary design include: how many fracture treatments were needed, what
would be the desired fracture half length and conductivity, what would be the optimum perforation length and
locations, what would be the desired pump rate and was weighted frac fluid needed to fracture this deep, high-
pressure formation?

Pseudo-steady state “Folds of Increase” calculations were used to give a preliminary estimate of the desired
fracture length/conductivity. These calculations used values for net pay and permeability from Petrobras’
petrophysical analysis. The initial results suggest a desirable fracture of 150 ft ½-length, with 2+ lb/ft2 proppant
coverage using high-strength bauxite proppant (Fig. 6). This would provide 3X the deliverability of an
unstimulated well. Assuming simple radial fracture geometry, this implies a job size of 170,000 lbm of proppant
for each fracture treatment with 3 to 4 treatments needed to stimulate the entire formation thickness.
8 OTC 24179

One of the most important variables in fracturing is

young’s modulus, which is a measure of the
20/40 U.S. Mesh Size Bauxite (Damage = 0.50)
“stiffness” of a formation and is considered a major
(including non-Darcy effects, & wellbore pack)
variable in determining fracture width and 3
Wilcox 1 + Wilcox 2
controlling net pressure inside the fracture. A
3.0
“hard” rock (i.e., high modulus) causes net treating 2
pressure to be high, and thus makes fracture

Normalized PI
height growth more likely. Stress-strain tests (and
corresponding lab sonic velocity measurements) 2.5 1 lb/ft^2

were conducted on sand and shale samples

obtained from offset exploratory wells in the Normalized PI = 1 for Frac Packs is based on fracturing from
Cascade field to generate a geomechanical stress 2.0 specific, limited perforated intervals. For a gravel packed
completion, it is assumed the entire well is perforated, yielding a
profile for the Wilcox formation. Normalized PI = 1.5 due to the additional perforated interval.

1.5 Entire Well Perforated & Gravel Packed

Given the geology of the Wilcox formation, the
fracture treatments will have to penetrate and prop
open a fracture through shale layers. This makes
proppant embedment a major concern because the 50 100 150 200
proppant pack will be subjected to high drawdown
pressures during the life of the well, potentially Xf (ft)
reducing the conductivity. Thus, lab embedment Fig. 6 – Post-Frac Productivity Index
tests were conducted on sand and shale samples
from the Cascade field to better understand the effects of proppant embedment on the proppant pack
conductivity. Bauxite proppant was ultimately selected because of its strength and its ability to maintain good
fracture conductivity under the high confining stress environments of the Lower Tertiary formation.

In addition to the previously mentioned limitations, specific operational limits for the C&C fracturing program were
determined and included the following:
 Maximum Stimulation Vessel Capacity
o 1,500,000 lbm 20/40 US-mesh bauxite proppant
o 6,200 bbl 8.7 ppg fluid
o 30,000 gal acid
 Service Tool Erosion Limits
o 40 bpm
o 1,500,000 lbm 20/40 US-mesh bauxite proppant
 Frac Pack Completion Equipment Spacing
o 120 ft MD desired minimum distance between perforated intervals to house the completion
equipment
 Logistics
o Can the vessel be resupplied with fluid and proppant on location?
o Safety of personnel when conducting boat-to-boat transfers
o Crew fatigue from continuous operations
o Weather

Using the “Basis for design” developed for an off-set well, (including use of high viscosity cross-linked gel to
combat fluid loss in the Wilcox 1 and the use of 20/40 US-mesh bauxite proppant); fracture geometry was
determined by simulating the injection of a volume of gel at various rates from various perforated intervals (Fig. 7)
OTC 24179 9

Fig. 7 – Various 3-D Simulation Runs from a Cascade Well

The initial plans called for four fracture treatments using a total proppant volume of 800,000 lb of bauxite. Based
on the expected stresses in the Wilcox formation, the fracture geometry was expected to grow beyond each
perforated interval. Thus the perforation intervals were properly positioned to take advantage of the expected
height growth from the fracs. The results of the various completion options, presented as a PI (Productivity Index,
BOPD/psi drawdown) show that a three-frac completion can effectively cover the entire net pay in the Wilcox 1 &
2 (Fig. 8). Additional details of the C&C fracturing design program are discussed in great detail by Haddad et al.
(2011, 2012).
3.0

2.5

2.0

3 Fracs
1.5
4 Fracs

1.0

0.5

0.0
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Total

Fig. 8 – Normalized PI for Two Completion Options

10 OTC 24179

Isolation Assembly and Upper Completion

The Intermediate or Isolation Assembly had “unique” shifting profiles in the production sleeves of each interval.
This allowed all the mechanical production sliding sleeves to be opened simultaneously to minimize the
completion fluid loss to the formation. It was
important to validate the opening of the
production sliding sleeves, and to confirm
that the wellbore was isolated by a fluid loss TH 8,211' MD

control device prior to the deployment of the

upper completion. This was achieved by SCSSV 11,236' MD
running a 3.22” OD concentric string 36" @ 8,550' MD
equipped with mechanical-acting shifting
tools, a Multi-Cycle Hydraulically Actuated 22" @ 11,993' MD

UPPER COMPLETION
(“to-open”) Ball Valve acting as a fluid loss

11.6 PPG NaBr

control device and, a Seal Bore Isolation
16" @ 20,446' MD
Packer. The mechanical shifting tools were
carefully spaced out along the concentric
inner string to minimize fluid loss within the
time the first and last production sleeves
10-3/4" x 10-1/8" X-Over
were opened. This took place approximately
Chem.Inj. (Upper) 21,701' MD
160’ from the point where the “Isolation”
Chem.Inj. (Lower) 21,709' MD
packer reached its final setting depth. Once
P/T Gauge c 21,718' MD
all the production sleeves were
mechanically opened, the Seal Bore Prod Packer 22,241' MD
Isolation Packer was hydraulically set. The Circ. Valve 22,267' MD
14.7 PPG
Ball Valve was closed as the packer setting ZnBr

tool was retrieved, which had the ball valve Isolation Packer 22,881' MD

ISO ASSY
closing tool hanging below it. It is important
to note that the ball valve was deployed
separately from the frac-pack screen 14.7 PPG
22,990' MD
Ball Valve ZnBr

assembly in order to increase the reliability 13-5/8" @ 23,835' MD

of this device, by eliminating its exposure to
Upper FP Packer 25,067' MD
debris during the frac pack operations.

The upper completion for the C&C wells Upper Zone (Wilcox-1)
was designed to achieve multiple goals 114' Premium Screens
which included reservoir, flow assurance 2 Prod Sleeves
LOWER COMPLETION

and regulatory requirements, while

eliminating the need for downhole thru- FP ISO Packer 25,397' MD

tubing wireline or slickline operations. The

Middle Zone (Wilcox-1)
upper completion included a hydraulically 214' Premium Screens
actuated (by differential pressure-drop) 3 Prod Sleeves
circulation device, a hydraulically set 10,000
psi production packer, a 25,000 psi dual FP ISO Packer 25,710' MD
pressure/temperature gauge, a 2-point
Lower Zone (Wilcox-2)
downhole chemical injection system for
154' Premium Screens
asphaltene and scale inhibitors, and an 2 Prod Sleeves
ultra-deep set surface controlled subsurface Sump Packer 26,092' MD
safety valve (SCSSV) with a redundant
hydraulic system that is operated by a 10-1/8" @ 27,014' MD
separate control line (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9 – Conventional Completion Schematic from the C&C Project
The upper completion was deployed with 2
flatpacks. The first flatpack (triple design) had dual chemical injection lines (2ea x 3/8” OD x 0.065” wt) and a
single Tubing-Encased Conductor (TEC) for the P/T gauge. The second flatpack (dual design) had dual control
lines dedicated to the SCSSV (2ea x ¼” OD x 0.065” wt).

To facilitate the final space-out of the upper completion, a 10ft seal assembly was stabbed into 40-ft seal bore
receptacle located in the Isolation Assembly (below the seal bore isolation packer). The production packer also
provided a way to anchor the production tubing and minimize seal movement due to temperature changes
throughout the production life cycle of the C&C wells.
OTC 24179 11

The completion commissioning started after the upper completion was deployed using a Subsea Test Tree
(SSTT) to land and lock the tubing hanger. The sequence of events took maximum advantage of the multi-cycle
hydraulic operated fluid loss control
valve and were as follows: (1) A
negative and functional test for the
SCSSV was conducted as per
regulatory requirements, (2) the
chemical injection system
(including control lines) was tested,
(3) the 11.6ppg NaBr2 packer fluid
was displaced in the “A” annulus
via the circulation device (reverse
circulation), (4) the asphaltene
inhibitor line was flushed, (5) the
circulation device was hydraulically
closed, (6) the production packer
was set, (7) the crown plugs were
installed and tested in the Tubing
Hanger (Subsea Horizontal Xmas
Tree), and (8) the ball valve in the
isolation assembly was cycled
open prior to the rig leaving
location.

The first 3 wells that were

completed to date in the C&C fields
are classified as conventional
completions (described above)
which commingles all the
production from the Wilcox 1 and 2
intervals downhole. The completion
design for some future wells will
incorporate remote controlled
downhole flow control valves
(on/off hydraulic sliding sleeves) or
intelligent completion technology to
allow for the segregation of
production from the Wilcox 1 & 2
intervals (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10 – Intelligent Completion Schematic from the Cascade & Chinook Project
12 OTC 24179

Conclusions
1. The development of the C&C project required an enormous effort from all participants (Operator, Partners,
Regulatory Authorities, and Service Companies) in both technical and managerial capacities in order to
mitigate the risks and manage the many challenges of this new project.

2. The successful drilling and completion of the first three wells in the C&C project validated the well design.
These wells were finished safely, without any lost-time incidents.

3. The use of leading edge, as well as, non-fully matured technologies was the only means for making the
project a success. Keeping control of all design and planning processes required the undivided attention of
the senior technical team looking into risk control and interface management with all areas.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Petrobras and TOTAL E&P USA, INC. for authorizing the publication of this
paper. Also, we would like to thank all the participants of the larger team that assisted in the design and
execution of these wells.

Nomenclature
APB = Annular Pressure Buildup
BHA = Bottomhole Assembly
BPM = Barrels Per Minute
BOPD = Barrels of Oil per Day
BOP = Blowout Preventers
C&C = Cascade and Chinook
DST = Drill Stim Test
EHD = Entry Hole Diameter
FG = Frac Gradient
FSHR = Free Standing Hybrid Riser
LOT = Leak Off Test
LWD = Logging While Drilling
MTMZ = Multi-Trip Multi-Zone
MW = Mud Weight
PI = Productivity Index, BOPD/psi
PP = Pore Pressure
P/T = Pressure/Temperature
ROP = Rate Of Penetration
Xf = Fracture half-length (ft)
SCSSV = Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve
SPF = Shots per Foot
STMZ = Single-Trip Multi-Zone
TCP = Tubing Conveyed Perforating
TEC = Tubing Encased Conductor
TVD = True Vertical Depth
TD = Total Depth
MD = Measured Depth
MWCC = Marine Well Containment Company
OD = Outside Diameter
ROV = Remotely Operated Vehicle
OTC 24179 13

References
Corte, A., Hartman, B. 2010. First Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading Vessel in the US Gulf of Mexico.
Paper IBP3380-10 presented at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13-16
September.
Haddad, Z., Smith, M.B. and De Moraes, F.D. 2012. Designing Multistage Frac Packs in the Lower Tertiary
Formation - Cascade and Chinook Project. SPE Drill & Compl 27 (1): 50-64. SPE-140498-PA.
Haddad, Z., Smith, M.B, De Moraes, F.D., and Moreira, O. 2011. The Design and Execution of Frac Jobs in the
Ultra Deepwater Lower Tertiary Wilcox Formation. Paper SPE 147237 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October - 2 November.
Cunha, J.C., Moreira, O., Azevedo, G.H., Pereira, B.C.M., and Rocha, L.A.S. 2009. Challenges on Drilling and
Completion Operations of Deep Wells in Ultra-Deepwater Zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper SPE 125111
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4-7
October.
De Moraes, F.D., Moreira, O., Ogier, S., Haddad, Z., Shipley, J. 2010. Well Completion Operations in Cascade
and Chinook Fields – Ultra Deepwater Challenges in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper IBP3310_10 presented at the
Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13-16 September.
Ogier, K.S., Haddad, Z., Moreira, O., De Moraes, F.D., Shipley, J. 2011. The World’s Deepest Frac-Pack
Completions Using a Single-Trip Multi-Zone System: A Gulf of Mexico Case Study in the Lower Tertiary
Formation. Paper SPE 147313 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA 30 October – 2 November.
Porciuncula, S, Ribeiro, O, Cassity, G. 2010. Cascade and Chinook Development: Subsea Overview. Paper
IBP3535_10 presented at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13-16 September.
Sanders, W., Baumann, C., Williams, H., De Moraes, F.D., Shipley, J., Bethke, M., and Ogier, S. 2011. Efficient
Perforation of High-Pressure Deepwater Wells. Paper OTC 21758 presented at the Offshore Technology
Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 2-5 May.