SPE 95331

Marco Polo Deepwater TLP: Completion Implementation and Performance

J. Burman, SPE, Exploitation Technologies LLC, and K. Renfro, SPE, and M. Conrad, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 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.

Abstract
Novel well completion techniques and exceptional field
execution allowed the six well completions on the Anadarko
operated Marco Polo Deepwater TLP project in Green Canyon
608 to be accomplished in world-class fashion. All six wells
(seventeen frac packs) were placed on production in only 168
days, including 14 days lost due to storms, after riser tie-back
operations were complete. An operational efficiency of 85%,
with weather downtime accounting for 9% and other lost time
accounting for 6%, was obtained during the completion
campaign.
This paper will focus on how the implementation
challenges of completing seventeen zones in six deepwater
dry-tree wells with a 1000 hp rig were met, and will highlight
a number of concepts and technical firsts that can be applied to
other deepwater development projects.
Background
Anadarkos Marco Polo deepwater development project is
located in Green Canyon Block 608 in the Gulf of Mexico,
approximately 175 miles south of New Orleans, in a 4300
water depth environment.
Field Development
The Marco Polo Field was discovered in 2000, and the project
was sanctioned for development in 2001. Six development
wells were drilled in 2002 and 2003, and were temporarily
abandoned to await completion after installation of the TLP in
2004 (Refer to Figure 1, Marco Polo TLP). The TLP hull and
deck were installed in January 2004, and were designed to
accommodate a 1000-hp completion rig to run riser tiebacks
and perform completions. Only 88 persons are allowed on the
platform at a time (maximum POB) due to USCG rules, a
significant issue for rig operations.

Geological
The Green Canyon Block 608 (Marco Polo) field is located in
the southern portion of the Marco Polo salt withdrawal minibasin. The depositional model for the field is a restricted
basin floor amalgamated sheet fan sand. Moderate to strong
aquifer support was expected, although the potential presence
of internal baffles and barriers introduce uncertainty to the
extent of the aquifer support.
The trap geometry was created by salt withdrawal and
extensional faulting due to sediment loading on the eastern
side of the salt ridge. The primary trap consists of a fault
bounded graben dipping away from the salt ridge. The main
faults are west-southwest to east-northeast trending faults that
form the graben. The updip trap component to the west is salt
and/or sand punch-out. The graben is further subdivided into
separate compartments by additional faulting. Refer to Figure
2, Marco Polo M10 Sand Structure Map.
Two main fault compartments make up the Marco Polo
field. Another graben fault, downthrown to the north west and
trending in the same direction as the bounding faults,
subdivides the graben into these two main compartments,
designated as Fault Block I and Fault Block II. The two main
compartments are further subdivided into two additional
compartments by faults that are trending northwest to
southeast and downthrown to the west (towards salt). The
four main producing compartments for the Marco Polo field
are designated FB IA, FB IB, FB IIA and FB IIB (Updip
compartments are denoted A).
The productive horizons at the Marco Polo Field consist
of seven stacked Lower Pliocene sandstone reservoirs; the
M10, M20, M30, M40, M50, M60, and M70; 75% of the
reserves are concentrated in the M40 and M50 Sands.
Reservoir depths range from 11000 to 13500 tvd-ss. Refer to
Figure 3, Marco Polo Type Log.
A complete open hole logging suite was obtained on all
discovery and development wells. Continuous whole core was
obtained through both the M-40 and M-50 intervals in the GC
608 #1 ST#1 wellbore.
Reservoir
Initial reservoir pressures range from 6700 to 7600 psi.
Reservoir temperatures range from 115 to 122 oF. Ambient
mudline temperature is 38 oF at 4300 water depth. Reservoir
fluids are undersaturated black oils, with API gravities ranging
from 30-34 and GORs ranging from 700 to 1000 scf/stb.
During the exploratory and development drilling phases,
reservoir pressures were measured on nearly all productive
intervals in all wells, and reservoir fluid samples were

collected and analyzed in the main field pay zones. Refer to

Table 1, Marco Polo Reservoir Fluid Properties.
Completion Design Overview
Multiple pay sands, low reservoir temperatures, the
requirement to gas lift the wells, and the deepwater
environment drove the design of the Marco Polo completions.
After significant flow assurance modeling and evaluation, dual
barrier risers with insulating gel in all annular spaces with a
separate gas lift string (terminated in a sub-mudline or packoff
tubing hanger) were chosen as the upper completion design.
Refer to OTC 16642, Influence of Field Development and
Flow Assurance Issues on Well Completion Design at Marco
Polo Field by K.D. Renfro and J.W. Burman for additional
information on the methodology used.1
The sandface completion design focused on risk
management during completion operations with the hardware
designed to minimize future intervention risk. In brief, the 17
pay intervals in six wells were developed with multi-zone,
selective single, stacked frac pack completions, using sliding
sleeves with a concentric isolation string for zonal isolation.
Multiple chemical injection points are installed for
hydrate, paraffin, asphaltene, and scale prevention. The
installation of fiber optic technology for downhole pressure
sensing and distributed temperature along the tubing string
assisted in well surveillance and hydrate prevention.
Refer to Figure 4 for Marco Polo Generalized Wellbore
Schematic.
Wellbore Construction
All wells were drilled, cased (9-5/8 53.5# P-110, 8.5 drift),
and suspended with water based mud and surface cement plug.
Maximum hole angle is 36 degrees. Insulation placed on the
LPWHH and 36 casing above the mudline reduced heat loss
in this area. For additional information on the design and
installation of Marco Polo development wells, refer to
SPE/IADC 79809, An Innovative Approach to Development
Drilling in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico by Watson et al.2
The dual casing risers, 13-3/8 0.514 wall X-80 outer
riser with 9-5/8 0.545 wall P-110 (8.5 drift) inner riser
were installed. The 13-3/8 by 9-5/8 riser annulus was filled
with insulating gelled fluid prior to make up of the 9-5/8
internal tie back connector (ITBC). The riser tieback
operations were accomplished in batch mode over a period of
44 days (including 9 days lost due to weather). After
installing the outer risers in sequential slots, the inner risers
were installed in reverse order. Following riser installation,
the individual tree access platforms and flexible production
flowlines were installed on the first three wells to be
completed and all dynamic control umbilicals installed.
Completion Operation Efficiency and Well
Productivity
All six Marco Polo wells were successfully completed and
placed on production in only 168 days. Two wells with three
frac packs each were completed in under 22 days, rig skid to
rig skid. Refer to Figure 5 for Marco Polo Completion
Operations Timeline.
Operational efficiency for the project averaged 85%
uptime. The unplanned downtime broke down as follows:

SPE 95331

weather - 58% (including three tropical storm/hurricane

evacuations), unavoidable issues - 25% (downtime due to
helicopter, crane, fire drills and alarms, flaring), and
avoidable issues - 17% (stuck guns, misruns, damaged
equipment, re-centering the rig, etc). Refer to Figure 6 for
Marco Polo Completions Operational Efficiency.
Initial rates and drawdowns (determined from ten minute
buildup pressures) for the various wells can be found in Table
2, Marco Polo Initial Well Productivity. Average initial
productivity for the 6 wells was 9,000 BOPD with an average
drawdown of 227 psi, and an average productivity index of
39.7 bbl/day/psi.
Completion Time Saving Strategy
Some early decisions significantly contributed to the
successful reduction in operational time required for the
project. These included the completion order, the workstring
selection, prefabrication of tree instrumentation, preinstallation of fiber optic infrastructure on the facility, riser
and tubing installation SIT during rig upgrade, a novel rig
hurricane evacuation plan, and
offline wellbore
commissioning (operations took place off the rig critical path).
Completion Order
Completion order was determined considering reservoir issues
and the rig/well/platform arrangement. Due to rig design and
space limitations, no bridge crane exists below the rig
substructure for manipulating the tree, flowlines or umbilical.
If the rig is moved two slots, one of the two platform cranes
could access a given well. Refer to Figure 7, Marco Polo
Mudline and Surface Wellhead Locations. Wells identified as
being in common fault blocks were intentionally completed
together to minimize the effects of reservoir depletion on
completion operations. Also, as one well, A-5, was only a
two zone frac pack, it was completed first and the remaining
five, three zone frac wells, subsequently.
The resulting plan was that the wells were completed in
an alternating fashion (i.e. completion order by slot of 1-3-5-26-4) to allow the platform crane to perform offline well
commissioning activities.
Crane operations included
installation of the tree and flowlines.
Workstring Selection
A significant effort was made early in the planning process to
determine the type of worksting to be used on the completions.
The rig only had the capacity to rack back a full workstring of
3-1/2 IF for the deepest well. Any larger workstring would
require picking up and laying down workstring on every trip.
Extensive fracture modeling, using log derived and core
measurements of shale and reservoir material, provided pump
rate requirements for the unconsolidated intervals. Two
design cases reviewed were the zone with the longest
perforated interval (170 feet) and the zone with the highest
kh (32,000 md-ft). Thermal and flow modeling was done
using different workstring sizes and fracturing fluid types to
estimate the effect of temperature and friction on pump rate
through the different workstrings.
Hydraulic calculations indicated (and subsequent field
observations confirmed) that a 3-1/2 13.3# IF string would be

SPE 95331

sufficient for displacement and frac packing operations at up

to 25 bpm maximum rate on pad.
An internally plastic coated workstring was used for the
completion operations. This minimized pipe debris (scale)
issues3 and reduced internal friction pressure for the pumping
and displacement operations at planned rates.
Prefabrication of Tree Instrumentation
One unique quality of TLP and spar completions is the
requirement to have a flexible flowline and dynamic control
umbilical. A major goal of the operation plan is to minimize
the time an operator has to go onto an individual tree platform
for routine monitoring. As a result, remote sensing is used so
that routine pressure and temperature monitoring can be
conducted from the platform control room. Every one of these
functions was conveyed from the tree to the platform via the
dynamic control umbilical.
An extensive amount of time and labor was required to
route the various fiber optic, electric, hydraulic, and chemical
control lines from the tree or downhole line to the umbilical
(and from the end of the umbilical to the individual well
junction box). It was determined that significant time and cost
savings could be achieved if the various lines were preinstalled on the wellhead access platform, then disassembled
and marked for re-installation after the well was completed.
Use of this technique allowed the well to be ready for
production 7-10 days earlier than if the lines were totally
installed on location, at a much lower cost, and with less
personnel.
Pre-Installation of Fiber Optic Infrastructure
The use of fiber optic downhole sensing technology in all the
initial development wells at Marco Polo was an industry first.
Planning for the successful implementation of this system
downstream of the well were divided into two categories,
hardware installation on the facility and obtaining the software
and data storage capability to utilize and manage the data.
The optimal fiber optic connection fuses the glass fibers
together to obtain a low loss of light energy due to reflection.
Since the fusion process is an ignition source, running and
connection of the bus and gathering lines was done prior to the
facility leaving the fabrication yard.
After the dynamic control umbilicals installation following
riser installation, a crew went out to the platform to install a
jumper from the well outlet area through the designated hose
in the umbilical. The lines were then fusion spliced in the
individual well junction boxes. This left one fusion splice at
the wellhead outlet after the well was completed; this splice
was accomplished while wells were shut in due to rig skidding
and BOP installation on the next well.
All wells were configured with one downhole pressure
temperature gauge at the lower end of the production tubing,
and two distributed temperature sensing (DTS) lines to
monitor the external tubing temperature4.
Riser and Tubing Installation SIT
After planned rig modifications had been completed, a short
three day SIT (system integration test) of the proposed riser
and dual tubing installation equipment was performed in the
contractors yard in Harvey, LA.
The riser installation

equipment was installed on the rig and components were

checked for fit and function. Mobile cranes were located to
simulate actual rig crane location and function. Tubing
installation equipment was then installed, including equipment
required for control line installation. Actual joints of tubing
were made up and control lines and clamps installed on the
spider deck.
The exercise revealed quite a few opportunities for
improvement to equipment layout and modification, which
were successfully implemented prior to start of actual
operations.
Many other issues addressed during the rig modification
period to optimize operations included: BOP re-certification,
dual shear ram testing with actual tubing and flatpacks,
fabrication of three part adjustable bell nipple assembly (with
lubricator lockdown flange), installation of clamps and lines
for derrick deluge system, relocation of fluid pit drain valves
to optimize cleanout, lining of v-door and piperack to protect
tubulars, pre-fitting of frac pack treating lines, and installation
of frac pack hose hangers on substructure.
Hurricane Evacuation Plan
The temporary abandonment plan of these TLP wells in the
event of a hurricane was thoroughly evaluated. Storm loads
evaluated by global and rig structure analysis dictated that no
setback load could be allowed in the derrick during a
hurricane. Two days was estimated to be required to evacuate
the rig because of the time it takes the crew and cranes to
move the drill pipe from the v-door to the piperack and
remove excess variable deck load to workboats.
In the event a storm formed in the Gulf of Mexico or
Caribbean Sea, the window of time available to lay down pipe
from the derrick is determined by how long the cranes can
operate due to increased swing motor loads caused by TLP
platform acceleration and wind.
In order to improve the probability that the well, rig and
platform could be safely secured in the event of a quickly
developing storm, detailed analysis was undertaken to
determine if the riser/BOP system could be suspended with
workstring hanging below a test plug in the wellhead.
By placing standard spiral drill pipe protectors at mid joint
and at the tool joint above and below the keel and stress joint
regions, the load exerted on the inner riser was reduced from
2800 lbs to 270 lbs (reduction factor of 10.37), resulting in no
damage to the inner riser. No incremental loads were exerted
on the wellhead or riser tensioning system by the 3-1/2 13.3
ppf IF workstring.
This procedure proved very valuable when during
preparations to frac pack the lower zone in the A-8
completion, Tropical Storm Bonnie formed in the Yucatan
Strait and was headed directly for the platform. The decision
was made to proceed with the frac pack operation before
securing the rig for the storm. The frac pack was performed
trouble free (the minifrac was omitted to save valuable time).
After successful completion of the frac pack, the well and rig
secured and all rig personnel evacuated in a total of only 14
hours.
The procedure also proved to be valuable on the other two
storm evacuations during the completion campaign.

Offline Well Commissioning

Significant rig time, estimated at 4 to 6 days per well, were
saved by skidding the rig after landing the tubing hanger and
finishing required downhole and surface well work while
doing the initial wellbore cleanout and displacement on the
following well. A third pump (high pressure, low volume)
was used specifically for this work.
Specific operations accomplished during this time
included: terminating the control lines, landing and testing the
tree, removing back pressure valves, attaching and testing the
flowline and dynamic umbilical, displacing the upper annulus
to insulating fluid, displacing the lower annulus above the
SCSSV to a hydrate proof fluid, displacing and
commissioning the downhole chemical injection lines, and
establishing flow from the well. These operations are
discussed further later in this paper.
This procedure also reduced the labor requirement on the
platform, since the wellbore cleanout phase had the lowest rig
personnel requirement.
Additional personnel for well
commissioning were easily accommodated on the platform.
Completion Operation Discussion
Operation planning focused on efficiently performing the job
as planned, and providing for contingency plans in the event
of an unplanned event. Proven technology was employed, and
procedures were worked to minimize downhole and safety risk
as well as personnel requirements. The high points of the
major completion operations (wellbore cleanout, perforating,
frac packing, tubing installation, and well commissioning) are
discussed. Efforts to speed up the implementation of these
operations, without compromising productivity or adding
undue risk, are addressed.
Rig Procedures and Operational Management
Procedures were kept short and concise. A well specific
portion contained pertinent data and objectives for the well
being completed. Operational procedures were maintained for
planned operations and contingencies. These procedures were
reviewed at a pre-completion meeting held a short time prior
to commencement of completion operations with the involved
parties. Minor revisions were made after the first well
completion to reflect lessons learned.
Operational supervision was shared among three engineers
who also developed the completion design and managed
component selection and manufacture. Clear lines of authority
and communication expedited decision-making and
maintained continuity during the project.
QA Procedure
All components used in the Marco Polo completions were
manufactured using a specific QA/QC plan and audited on site
by third party inspectors.
In addition, the proposed
completion design and implementation procedure were
audited by both internal and external peer reviews.
All components were drift tested with the actual tools,
profile locks, and shifting tools to be used in the well to assure
future access and function was possible in all envisioned
situations. A dimensionally correct dummy insert SCSSV was
used to minimize cost.

SPE 95331

Wellbore Displacement
All wells were successfully cleaned out and indirectly
displaced to calcium chloride/bromide completion fluid in one
trip. All had been temporarily abandoned after drilling with
water based mud to TD and a surface cement plug.
Non-rotating brushes and scrapers were used with various
downhole combinations of bits, mills and drill collars to drill
the surface plug and wash settled barite. The optimal
toolstring was a standard rock bit and 6-1/2 drill collars.
Bentonite gel sweeps were used while pumping at 10-12 bpm
and rotating the drill string with the kelly at +70 rpm to
achieve efficient mud and cement cleanout from the wellbore.
Once the wellbore was washed out to PBTD and displaced to
treated salt water (TSW; treated with oxygen scavenger),
chemical sweeps were pumped, a short trip made to the upper
scraper/brush (generally four were spaced out in the string),
and the well displaced again with TSW followed by calcium
chloride/bromide completion fluid.
The brush scraper system employed was of a robust
design, which allowed continuous rotation and not cause
casing damage or component failure. The internal diameter of
the tools would allow the passage of electric line severing or
cutting tools to the end of the workstring, should an
unforeseen event occur.
All wells used calcium bromide-calcium chloride (CaBr2CaCl2) blend with a density of between 11.7 and 12.6 ppg, and
contained 0.5% of a non-ionic surfactant to reduce emulsion
potential. Target true crystallization temperature (TCT) was
below 20 oF, and pressure crystallization temperature (PCT)
was below 32 oF at 10,000 psi. All completion fluids and
reservoir fluids were tested for compatibility in the laboratory
prior to completion operations, and confirmed after first
production.
Perforating Strategy
The Marco Polo perforating strategy achieved a balance
between operational efficiency and perforation performance
by perforating all individual zones overbalanced. A 6-1/2
gun (with integral tandem centralizers; collapse rating of
12,000 psi) with 14 shot per foot, big hole charges using
sintered zinc casing and liners was used. The firing system
employed redundant pressure delay firing heads to eliminate
drop bar retrieval issues. The firing heads were both placed at
the top of the gun to keep the distance from the bottom shot to
the sump packer to a minimum. This reduced the probability
of the packer plug-running tool damaging the packer plug
when the guns fired, or having a void in the bottom of the frac
pack due to a longer interval from the bottom shot to the sump
packer.
Intervals to be perforated ranged from 21 to 170
measured depth in length, and from 19 to 35 degree deviation.
In all cases the top 5 foot of reservoir quality sand was not
perforated to assist in frac pack containment. A packer plug
was used to isolate and prevent debris from falling into the
prior completed interval when perforating the upper zone(s)
in a well.
Overbalanced perforating minimizes the risk of gun
sanding, minimizes risks with packer plug retrieval, has lower
operational cost, reduces the probability of hydrate formation,
and has been documented to not reduce frac pack

SPE 95331

productivity5,6. The 6-1/2 guns with tandem centralizers are

also easier to wash over and recover from the 9-5/8 53.5#
casing than 7 guns. This minimizes the potential of
generating non-fishable debris (slabbed perf gun) and
washpipe connection torque failure should washing over be
required. A contingency plan to wash over and recover stuck
perforating guns was generated prior to starting completion
operations.
Drill Stem Test tools and retrievable packer were used in
the perforating string to control losses and isolate the zone.
Bottom hole pressure gauges below the isolation valve were
utilized to obtain a formation and baseline hydrostatic
pressure. Fast reading bottom hole gauges were used
additionally on the first two wells to better understand the
dynamic underbalance to which the zones were exposed
during the overbalanced perforating procedure.
On one occasion, when perforating the longest zone of the
program (170), the guns were stuck following firing the guns
and reversing out using the DST tools in the string. After
confirming the packer was released, the below packer safety
joint was backed out and the upper toolstring recovered. The
guns were then successfully washed over with one trip (fill
found over the bottom 36 of gun assembly), and then
recovered with an overshot (with one misrun). The packer
plug was then recovered (also with one misrun). This event
accounted for a total of 112 hours unplanned downtime.
On 16 of 17 perforating runs, fluid losses to the formation
were less than 10 barrels per hour after reversing out the
workstring and before POOH. In one instance (A-4 M-40
zone) the losses exceeded 10 bph, and a 15 bbl HEC pill was
successfully utilized to reduce losses to bph. An additional
HEC pill was required during a cleanout trip on the A-7 M-40
sand (after reversing fill, losses increased to over 10 bph).
Generally post perforating losses were on the order of 2 bph or
less.
All tool strings were preassembled and pressure tested in
rig compatible lengths prior to shipment, and fully
disassembled after being shipped in from the rig.
Overbalanced perforating is estimated to have saved 6 rig
days over the course of the project versus a 250-500 psi
underbalance procedure, with no sacrifice in well productivity,
as evidenced by the high productivity and low skins obtained
(Refer to Table 2). Refer to Table 3 for Marco Polo
Perforating Summary for actual perforating zone data.
Downhole Frac Pack Equipment
The Marco Polo frac pack strategy was to use a system which
was compatible with multiple stacked completions, provided
pressure isolation after the individual frac pack, and would
allow any debris to fall through the assemblies. A stretch goal
during the design phase was to include the ability to open the
zones initially intended to flow in a particular well without the
use of wireline or coiled tubing intervention.
Each interval utilizes concentric isolation tubing with
mechanical sliding sleeves to provide positive zonal isolation.
Two sleeves are manipulated during the frac pack operation:
one at the frac pack tool (slurry exit port from the service tool)
and one below the bottom perforation in the isolation tubing
(to provide a return fluid and pressure path, as well as
assisting in slurry dehydration during proppant placement).

The lower sleeve also provides live annulus monitoring of

downhole treating pressure to the annulus above the frac pack
packer via the washpipe and crossover tool. These sleeves are
closed by removing the crossover tool after the frac pack
treatment has been completed. Fluid loss control and zonal
isolation is achieved after closing both sleeves. This provides
well control when completing uphole zones and while
installing production tubing. Refer to Figure 4, Marco Polo
Wellbore Schematic.
In all wells, at least one zone was equipped with a
pressure actuated sliding sleeve which was opened during well
commissioning operations to provide a flow path without
requiring any intervention. The valve is opened when
sufficient surface pressure is applied and then bled off (with
an underbalanced tubing string) so the sleeve will open (sleeve
will not open unless the wellbore is underbalanced). When
multiple zones were required to be opened in a given well, the
sleeve system provided pressure balance between adjacent
zones, preventing the lower sleeve from opening during the
frac pack operations. In the three zone completions, the
bottom pressure actuated sleeve was shear pinned sufficiently
high to prevent shearing during frac pack operations of the top
zone, as it was not pressure balanced with the upper zone7.
The actual wireline profiles and sliding sleeves utilized
were also designed to allow concentric isolation strings to be
installed (if required) by wireline or concentric tubing. The
seal bores used were staged (i.e. seal bore size decreases
with depth) to minimize wear on the seals during potential
future installation. A combination of proven upper no-go and
selective type locking profiles were used.
This sliding sleeve system allowed future control of the
completed zones in a given well by manipulating the
individual sleeves with standard wireline methods or with a
pump-open coil tubing deployed shifting tool.
All sliding
sleeves operated as planned during the completion program.
The comprehensive contingency flowchart developed for
troubleshooting the sandface completion (should pressure
integrity not be achieved following an individual zone
completion) was never required.
For Marco Polo completions, the screen and blank
utilized 5-1/2 20ppf 13CRM-110 material (collapse rating of
+11,000 psi, minimizing the potential of equipment failure
during screen out of the frac pack). Two zones were not
equipped with any blank pipe; minimum distance between
perforated intervals was 56 feet.
The screen used was of the wire wrapped type, using
Alloy 825 0.008 gauge wire. Screen (0.090 x 0.140)
keystone wrap and rod (0.160) wires were used to improve
the erosion resistance of the screen and reduce plugging
tendencies8. The OD of the screen was 6.10; with 1-3/8
bladed centralizers designed for 1 minimum radial clearance
between the screen OD to the casing wall.
Water analysis from the exploration wells indicated that
inorganic (mineral) scale formation was likely in these wells.
Wire wrapped screen exhibit lower pressure drop across the
screen in the production direction, reducing the probability of
inorganic scale formation in the perforated blank tubing and
screen perforations.
Proppant sizing was determined after evaluation of
particle size analysis performed on whole and sidewall core

samples of the various reservoirs. Most of the reservoirs

completed had lobes of differing size distributions, as is
common throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The 30-50 mesh
gravel was determined to be able to provide sand control all of
the intervals; standardization on one size prevented pumping
of an incorrectly sized proppant. The screen was sized to
retain the 30-50 mesh ceramic proppant.
The isolation tubing was 3-1/2 9.3# 13Cr85 material,
with blast joints used across from the perforated intervals.
All sliding sleeves and locking profiles were drifted and
functionally tested in the horizontal position with the
components that would have to pass through in the completed
wellbore.
All sliding sleeves (a total of 51 were installed in the
individual frac pack assemblies) operated as designed (closed
and held pressure or opened when required) during project
execution.
The frac pack service tool used was a proven weight down
live annulus tool, with recent refinements to reduce the chance
of service tool drag caused by proppant entrapment at the
below frac port seal. Both 6 and 4-3/4 bore tools were used
for the project. Significant modeling was preformed to
evaluate the best way to manage workstring stretch and
pressure when moving the tool to reverse position following
the frac job, especially for the 6 bore jobs.
Rig timesavings were achieved by pre-assembling as many
components as possible on shore prior to shipment to the rig.
Where required, the assemblies were pressure tested.
To eliminate confusion on the rig with three different sets
of tools (and back-ups), a color coding convention was
adopted. A stop light analog was used, so the lower zone
specific components were green, the middle zone were yellow
and the upper zone specific tools were marked with red. The
same type screen, blank and isolation tubing was used for all
intervals which allowed for a sparing plan to be developed
after the perforating zones were determined during the
planning phase. The resulting plan used 40, 30, 20 and 10 foot
joints of screen and blank, with combo joints (combination of
screen and blank) configured to allow a target of 6 to 10 foot
of screen above the top perforation. The plan provided that
there always was backup of any given component, but
minimized the amount of surplus material at the end of the
project. Backup equipment on one job was generally installed
as the primary equipment on the next well.
Over the course of the project, no service tools were stuck
and no tools were lost downhole.
Frac Packing Operations
Proven tip screen out (TSO) frac packing technology using
conventional crosslinked borate fracturing fluids were
successfully used on the Marco Polo project. The design
objective for Marco Polo frac packs was to obtain a TSO
followed by a +500 psi net pressure gain, and ending with a
packed casing annulus.
Frac packing for improving well productivity has been
While arguably a mature
documented since 19649.
technology, optimizing the frac pack process in deepwater
wells still requires diligent effort to optimize performance and
to avoid operational pitfalls.
Specifically, cold riser

SPE 95331

temperatures will result in increased gel efficiency10 and

directly affects the ability to achieve a TSO.
A continuous engineering effort was used to better
understand the system and improve process performance.
Laboratory work had been done prior to operations to quantify
the effects of temperature as it relates to crosslinking and
breaking the selected gel systems, and to investigate rock
parameters. The Marco Polo formation had an estimated
Youngs Modulus of 300,000 psi.
During the frac treatments on the first well (A-5),
retrievable pressure-temperature gauges were placed just
below the mud line and above the gravel pack packer in the
workstring, and in the washpipe to record temperature and
pressure data. Permanent sensors were also installed in the
treating vessel to define the temperature of the gelled fluids
being pumped. This data was used to refine future job designs
and better understand temperature issues with the system.
Refer to Table 4 for Frac Pack Temperature Data.
On subsequent wells, only washpipe gauges were used.
Generalized Frac Pack Procedure
1. Tag sump packer, space out workstring, set gravel
pack packer.
2. Release service tool, locate positions.
3. Pickle (if bottom zone) or reverse bottoms up (or
until returns are clean); establish reverse rates and
pressures.
4. Obtain circulation rates thru screen at 1 and 2 bpm.
5. R/U frac iron and test to 11,000 psi; set pop-off
valve.
6. Spot acid (if HEC spotted) into workstring and
minifrac fluid (after going overboard and until good
crosslink fluid observed) at 10 bpm minimum rate.
7. Pump minifrac at directed rate, displace directly with
the step rate test fluid. Get hard shutdown when
displaced to bottom perforation, monitor decline.
8. Pump Step Rate Test as directed; last half of fluid to
contain enzyme and organic acid breaker.
Immediately pull service tool to reverse position and
reverse out workstring. Change to long way and
continue to circulate (keeping riser warm) until ready
to spot frac job.
9. Spot Frac Job pad after going overboard and
establishing good crosslink at 10 bpm minimum rate.
10. Pump frac pack as directed; monitor boat pressure at
pop-off valve; reduce rate when within 500 psi of
pop-off setting or per pre-determined slow down
schedule.
11. After sandout, communicate pressures needed on drill
pipe and annulus. Pull workstring as required to see
pressure change on tubing.
12. Reverse out until proppant clears up and then one
more bottoms up.
13. Slowly POOH with service tool until shifting tool is
above the isolation assembly. Pressure test down
annulus to 500 psi, monitor 10 minutes to insure all
sleeves closed and were holding pressure.
Acid was pumped ahead of the minifrac only when a HEC
pill had been spotted during the perforating operations. This
only occurred two times over the seventeen zones completed.

SPE 95331

Using a 6 inch OD service tool with a 3-1/2 workstring

posed considerable challenges. Surface stretch varied in
different wells due to slightly different directional plans.
Stripping the workstring through the annular BOP added more
variability (annular control pressure was minimized to
minimize the additional drag of 35-40 klbs determined from
pull tests). All interested parties were aware of maximum
surface overpull at each job offset. All fracs were successfully
reversed out with no stuck crossover tools over the 17 frac
packs of the project.
During the frac pack operation, all jobs were tagged with
zone specific non-radioactive chemical tracers11 to provide a
means to confirm which zones were flowing from a specific
well during flowback. Water samples were taken during the
flow back phase, and analyzed to determine the presence of
the discrete water-soluble tracers to confirm that all pressure
actuated sleeves had opened as planned.
Timesavings were achieved for the frac pack operations
during the rig up, reduced workstring pickling, and by
establishing common processes during the mini frac and frac
pack operations.
Hose hangers were mounted on the rig substructure to
allow the treating boat to maintain station at the platform for
virtually all weather conditions, and not interfere with crane
operations. Semi-permanently installed chicksan was located
and secured with whip-checks and isolated from vibration
damage by oak cradles from the hose hanger to the rig floor.
The line was rinsed clean with fresh water after every job and
some connections broken to allow the line to drain and dry
completely.
Worksting pickling was only performed on the first job in
a specific well. Only a pipe dope solvent was pumped and
captured on reverse out. Acid was not deemed to be required
to clean the internally plastic coated workstring.
Common practices were established for the frac pack
operations to improve efficiency and provide continuity. A
zone specific cheat sheet was generated prior to the frac
boat arriving on location for every well so all involved parties
understood the basic well data and job expectations.
Engineering staff were present onsite for the initial and critical
jobs, and were present in the service company remote data
transmission room. The service company dedicated one
pumping vessel to the project, so only two pumping crews
were involved in all frac packs. In most cases, the pumping
crew had the final frac design before the rig had reversed out
the workstring following the minifrac and step rate test, saving
considerable rig time.
The total rig time required for sand control operations
(including trouble time) for the project, i.e. perforating, packer
plug retrieval for the upper one or two zones, and frac
packing, was 75.1 days for 17 zones in the six wells. This
averages out to 4.4 days/zone. Refer to Table 5 for Marco
Polo Sand Control Installation Days.
Refer to Table 6 for Marco Polo Frac Pack Summary.
Production Tubing Installation
Primary objectives for tubing installation was to not damage
the control lines, not have any tubing leaks, install all
components at their objective depths, and to be able to rotate

the tubing string and land the tubing hanger without damaging
any components.
All wells utilized 4-1/2 13Cr85 12.75# production tubing
with a proven two-step, low makeup torque thread. Range
two length joints were used between the production seal
assembly and the packoff tubing hanger (POTH) set below the
mudline.
The 4-1/2 tubing above the POTH was controlled length
(all joints of the same length, +/-0.025), and were internally
coated with a phenolic compound which can reduce tubing
friction and potentially reduce paraffin deposition
The gas lift string tubing used above the pack off tubing
hanger (POTH) is 1.9 L-80 2.9# with the same two-step
thread, and is also virtually the same controlled length as the
4-1/2 tubing. The dual tubing strings were installed using
only a single 4-1/2 elevator. The 1.9 tubing was clamped to
the 4-1/2 tubing mid-joint using a non-metallic bolt fastened
centralizer which kept the production tubing from contacting
the riser casing wall. Short one and two foot pups were
installed in the 1.9 string to keep the two strings at a
convenient height while running in hole.
All tubing and tubing accessories arrived at the rig in as
run condition with respect to thread compound (no cleaning
required). Accessories were preassembled with handling
pups.
Following the final frac pack and pressure testing of
sliding sleeves in a given well, the well was displaced with
corrosion inhibitor treated packer fluid. On the trip out of the
hole, all drill pipe from 200 below the mud line was laid
down in order to provide room on the limited drill floor and to
allow setting of the storm packer on drill pipe should a rig
evacuation during tubing installation be required.
Rig Preparations
The rig preparations to run tubing included modifications to
the bell nipple (upper section removed and replaced with
funnel to obtain spider deck access), installation of the control
line manipulator, changing one set of pipe rams to dual rams
(and testing), and placement of material and equipment on the
pipe rack.
Only two control line spooling units were required, and
were located on the piperack. A novel split drum held the
upper (three component) and lower (two component) sections
of Flatpack A (containing the encapsulated Fiber Optic cable,
lower CIM control line and POTH control line), reducing
equipment and personnel requirements. The other unit held
the three component Flatpack B, which consists of SCSSV
and upper CIM control lines. Refer to Figure 10, Flatpack
Layout.
Control lines were installed on the spider deck of the rig,
which is 138 below the drill floor. Cameras, radio and
intercom were used to prevent miscommunication between the
driller and the installation crew. A hydraulically operated
traveling sheave assembly placed the control lines on the
tubing wall. This arrangement proved to be effective on this
installation due to the limited space on the rig floor by
separating the tubing make up and clamp installation
operations.

Tubing Hanger Dummy Run

The first operation was a dummy run with the tubing hanger.
The hanger and running tool (right hand release) was made up
to the landing string (without seals). The stack was drained to
allow a visual confirmation that the hanger was landed. For
Marco Polo, the fitting for the chemical injection line acted
as an installation aid because it aligned with the casing valve
outlet. Paint was applied to show a horizontal line thru the
casing valve when the hanger was in position.
Once the hanger was landed, orientation marks were
made on the landing string at the spider deck funnel and drill
floor for both height and angular orientation. Orientation
marks were also placed on the tubing hanger running tool
before disassembly. The two joint landing string with running
tool was stored in the derrick.
Tubing Assembly to Packoff Tubing Hanger
After the production seals were made up, an assembly of a
downhole optical pressure/temperature gauge4 and chemical
injection mandrel was made up and lowered to the spider
deck. The assembly was then rotated to be aligned with the
control line manipulator.
The permanent downhole pressure gauge (PDHG)
allowed downhole pressure monitoring during installation and
throughout the wells productive life. Two DTS fibers
installed in the control line provided a wellbore temperature
snapshot during transient and steady state production. Marco
Polo is the first known application of this technology in all the
initial completions of a dry tree (DVA) deepwater
development. The fiber optic lines were connected in the field
(at the PDHG and above and below the packoff tubing hanger)
with plug in type connectors. All plug-in connectors were preinstalled and tested except for where the line connected to the
bottom of the packoff tubing hanger assembly.
After testing the PDHG, the lower chemical injection
mandrel was connected to the other component in Flatpack A
(refer to Figure 9), a 3/8 Alloy 825 control line, with a
testable fitting. The chemical injection mandrels used for the
project were one inch (1) side pocket mandrels equipped with
chemical injection valves with double checks and a shear disk
(which allowed 1500 psi to applied and monitored during
installation). The lower mandrel was designed to mitigate for
paraffin or asphaltene early in life and inorganic scale (if
needed) later in life. The two upper mandrels (one equipped
with a line and the other with a 3/8 line) were placed just
above the surface controlled subsurface safety valve (SCSSV),
and were be used primarily for hydrate prevention/mitigation.
Cross coupling protectors of the stamped low carbon steel
variety were designed and fabricated to provide protection for
the control lines at every tubing connection. Special protectors
were fabricated to protect the lines at gas lift mandrels,
chemical injection mandrels and SCSSV. A set of protectors
were also designed to protect a control line splice, should
unforeseen damage occur or if the lines had to be cut so the
well could be suspended due to an impending storm. These
protectors were installed on the spider deck, after the tubing
had been assembled and torqued on the drill floor. Safety and
efficiency were improved as a result of having these two
operations on separate locations. The driller could observe the

SPE 95331

operations on the spider deck via a video monitor, and

communication was provided with hand held radios.
Side pocket Gas Lift Mandrels (GLMs) were installed as
required in the tubing between the pack-off tubing hanger
(POTH) and lower CIM. Because the aquifer strength in the
various reservoirs was uncertain and productivity index (PI) is
variable, mandrel spacing was modeled to accommodate both
high PI, high FBHP early production and low PI, low FBHP
late production. The resulting plan had mandrel spacing that
was of a 500 to 550 ft TVD spacing above the SCSSV (and
below POTH) and of a 550-600 TVD spacing below the
SCSSV.
The GLMs utilized a 1-1/2 pocket to allow maximum
gas lift injection rates (up to 6 MMCF/D at Marco Polo system
pressures) from either pressure or orifice valves.
Since downhole drag had to be managed to allow rotating
the string to land the tubing hanger, the gas lift mandrels,
SCSSV, upper chemical injection mandrels and packoff tubing
hanger (POTH) were aligned using eight-foot pup joints of
known angular makeup. After the last joint before a given
component made up, the thread was gauged to determine the
make up point. This point was compared to the make up
point on the bottom of the component assembly. A criteria of
+/- 45 degrees was used for the installation window of a
component relative to the control line manipulator; therefore
only pup joints of 90, 180 and 270 degrees were required for
orientation.
An additional downhole control line bundle was used to
connect the SCSSV and upper chemical injection mandrels
(1/4, 3/8 and lines in Flatpack B; refer to Figure 9). The
tubing retrievable SCSSV was placed approximately 4200 ft
below mud line, where the flowing and shut-in tubing
temperature is higher than the critical hydrate formation point
(~62 oF) and anticipated wax appearance temperature (WAT;
90 oF). A spring type valve was used, requiring only one
Alloy 825 control line for operation. No elastomeric seals are
used in the valve.
The valve used is capable of having a wireline insert
SCSSV installed in the future should the original tubing
retrievable valve become inoperative. This feature also
allowed the use of higher SCSSV hold open pressures during
the well commissioning phase. Control line pressure was used
to keep the SCSSV in the open position during the tubing
installation process.
After the remaining tubing and gas lift mandrels were
installed, the POTH assembly was picked up.
Packoff Tubing Hanger
The dual bore packoff tubing hanger (POTH) allows the riser
by production tubing annulus to be filled with an insulating
gelled fluid. A 1.9 gas lift string provides a conduit for gas
lift gas through the riser area, improving flow assurance by
reducing heat loss from the production tubing by convection
of high pressure gas. The POTH was placed approximately
150 below mud line.
Since the POTH is set via a control line after the
tubing is landed, subsequent fluid displacements and effective
surface tension were extensively modeled to insure that upper
gravel pack packer seals do not move during production or

SPE 95331

shut-in cycles, and that allowable tubing stress is not

exceeded.
The packer installed has a differential rating of 5000 psi
from above and 7500 psi from below.
The packer
incorporates basket type slips to maximize contact area with
the casing, reducing packer to casing stresses and decreasing
the chance for reduction in collapse resistance of the
production casing. A debris ring above the slips increases
retrieval reliability.
Two release mechanisms are incorporated into the POTH
design. An overdrift profile (with pup joint below) is installed
above the POTH in the 4-1/2 tubing string. The pup joint is
of predetermined length to allow a standard chemical cutter to
positively locate in the overdrift profile and affect a cut in the
target cut zone of the mandrel. In the 1.9 gas lift string side,
a jar to release feature is included at the packer end of
tubing.
To facilitate field installation, splice subs were oriented
and installed above and below the packer. The assembly then
had short sections of the control lines and fiber optic cable
installed through the pass thru ports on the packer and the
bulkhead fittings are pressure tested. The control line sections
are terminated into splice blocks in the splice sub and tested;
the fiber optic cable connectors are installed and tested. This
allowed for quicker connection offshore, reducing risk of
control line damage and personnel requirements. Refer to
Figure 9, POTH Schematic.
Once the POTH assembly was oriented (if required) and
made up, the assembly was lowered to the spider deck and a
critical measurement made for placement of the lower POTH
fiber optic connector. The packoff tubing hanger was then
picked up into the derrick, allowing the lines to spool back up
on the spooling units. The splice cabin was relocated as close
as possible to the rig on the pipe rack and the lower flat pack
containing the fiber optic gauge line cut.
The installation of the fiber optic connector was a tedious
and time consuming process due to significant quality
assurance procedure.
Significant improvement in time
required was made from the initial to final well of the project.
During this time the tong for the 1.9 gas lift string was
rigged up and the floor prepared to run the dual string. Once
fiber optic splicing was completed, the POTH was lowered to
the spider deck, and the fiber optic connector attached to
confirm the spacing. The other lines were then terminated;
some adjustability existed as the splice blocks could be
exchanged with longer blocks if the initial connection leaked
and was irreparable. The assembly was then lowered and
control lines terminated into the top splice block. The same
three part line was used to the SCSSV and upper chemical
injection lines, and the third flatpack section was used. This
section was stored on the same drum as the lower section of
Flatpack A, and was separated using a butterfly flange. This
allowed the use of only two spooling units, significantly
reducing space requirements on the pipe rack.
The pre-installed fiber optic connector was attached and
the system function tested. The other lines were attached as
on the lower splice block. Internal pressure was reapplied to
re-open the SCSSV and 1500 psi applied to the chemical
injection valve lines. No pressure was applied to the POTH
setting line.

The design of the POTH had the short string connection

2.5 ft lower than the 4-1/2 production string connection to
prevent interference with the 4-1/2 single elevator used to run
the string. One and two foot long pups were added as needed
(as mentioned previously) to adjust the height of the 1.9
connection to account for stretch in the 4-1/2 tubing.
Tubing centralizers for the riser area were manufactured
out of an elastomeric material that exhibits excellent thermal
insulation and no swelling due to gas permeation. Additional
centralizers were added above and below the stress joint area
(located just above the sub sea wellhead) to improve fatigue
life of the tubing connections.
The 1.9 string was attached to the 4-1/2 string by these
centralizers. Therefore, the tubing was always installed using
one elevator and spider, simplifying installation and
eliminating change out of equipment during the operation.
These centralizers also served to centralize the two strings in
the riser section to reduce heat transfer due to tubing to casing
contact and to reduce bending at the couplings in the subsea
wellhead area.
Dual Tubing Hanger Installation
The Marco Polo project utilizes a 4-1/16 x 2-1/16 10M dual
bore type tree. The 11 tubing hanger was installed on 4-1/2
tubing and incorporates an adjustable mandrel (8 of
adjustment) to facilitate the attachment of the 1.9 string.
Six penetrations exist in the tubing hanger. The three
(SCSSV, POTH, and gauge cable) lines and two 3/8 chemical
injection lines are secured at the hanger but pass through to
terminate in the valve bodies outside the tubing spool. The
chemical injection line terminates at the bottom of the tubing
hanger in a pressure testable connection. A pre-installed and
tested elbow on the top of the hanger connects the downhole
line via a 3/8 jumper to the external valve body.
Backpressure valve profiles for each string exist in the
tubing hanger, and an additional profile nipple located directly
below the hanger in the 4-1/2 allows a wireline retrievable
backpressure valve to be installed via the tubing landing string
or thru the tree should the primary back pressure valve profile
become damaged.
After the tubing was landed and a spaceout measurement
was made, the tubing was spaced out for attachment of the
tubing hanger assembly. A final 8-foot pup was allocated to
orient the hanger with the gas lift string. These joints were
manufactured in 30 degree increments to facilitate orientation.
The 1.9 pups were installed and the hanger made up and
orientation confirmed. The 1.9 side was then connected
using an upper/lower mandrel assembly and locked in place
with a hold down plate. The 1.9 landing was removed and
back pressure valve installed.
The landing string was then re-attached to the tubing
hanger and the assembly lowered to the spider deck. Control
lines were then cut (with the required excess) and the
assembly picked back up to the drill floor to allow the
control line to be terminated into the bottom of the hanger
with a testable fitting and the other lines to be passed through
and packed off above and below the hanger. After pressure
testing, the assembly was lowered so the landing string was
landed in the spider, and the rotary was unlocked. At this
point the seal assembly had not entered the packer bore and

10

the tubing hanger and tubing hanger running tool had not
entered the bell nipple and could be monitored.
The entire tubing assembly was then rotated to align for
tubing hanger landing. This was consistently accomplished
for all 6 wells by hand from the drill floor with right hand
rotation. Four different orientations were required for the
landing of the tubing hanger due to TLP design.
At this point the BOP stack tensioners was adjusted to
center the tubing hanger as much as possible. The spider was
also removed to give more freedom of movement as the
hanger traveled past the BOP stack, minimizing potential seal
damage.
The SCSSV line was then re-attached and the SCSSV
opened, the stack drained, and the tubing hanger landed with
visual confirmation via the casing valve. After testing the
hanger void and backside, the running tool was retrieved and a
backpressure valve installed in the 4-1/2 tubing.
Well Commissioning
After the tubing was installed and hanger landed, adjacent
wells were shut-in (if producing) and the rig was skidded at
least two slots. This allowed crane access to the well slot just
completed. The control lines were then terminated in the
tubing head outlet valves and the fiber optic fusion splice
performed while BOP nipple up operations were underway on
the next well to be completed.
All remaining completion operations were not on the
critical path, saving four to six rig days per well completion.
The tree was installed by the platform crane. Methods
were employed to assist in alignment and to mitigate
TLP/crane motion. After the tree was tested, the back
pressure valves were removed. The pre-installed flowlines
and umbilical were then connected and tested.
The SCSSV was then function tested and opened from
the tree outlet. The downhole fiber optic gauges were also
connected, tested and monitored. A three way manifold was
then rigged up to the tubing, gas lift wing, and casing valve.
The tree instrumentation lines, which had been pre-fitted to
the individual tree and platforms, were then installed and
tested with a separate crew.
At this point the completion fluid in the inner riser by
tubing annulus above the POTH was displaced to treated
seawater down the casing valve, taking returns up the gas lift
line. The circulation path was then changed and the riser
annulus circulated with additional treated seawater to insure
all traces of calcium bromide were removed from the well.
This pumping was performed by a third pumping unit while
the next completion was being displaced with treated sea
water using the two main rig pumps.
The 9.0 ppg gelled insulating fluid12, which was brought
on board out of the critical path and stored in the reserve
completion fluid tanks, was circulated in place in the same
direction. The POTH was then control line set while
monitoring the volume of fluid pumped and pressure tested
(first from above and then from below). The pressure was
then increased to shear a dump-kill valve installed in the GLM
directly above the SCSSV. The completion fluid below the
POTH and above the SCSSV was then displaced with a
hydrate-proof 8.7 ppg fluid. This was a new composition13
designed to underbalance the well for flowback

SPE 95331

(approximately 1000 psi) and to maintain fail-safe operating

conditions at the SCSSV.
After the control tubing installation was complete, the
chemical injection mandrels were commissioned by first
shearing the disk in the downhole valve, and then purging the
control lines as required to eliminate incompatibilities between
the control line installation fluid and the fluid to be injected.
At this point, the well is ready for production. Equipment
to treat the water based flowback fluids had previously been
semi-permanently installed on the lower cellar deck (tied into
the water dump of the test separator and facility safety and
electrical distribution systems).
Surface tubing pressure was then applied (while
monitoring the PDHG) to exceed the differential value of the
pressure actuated sliding sleeve. The applied pressure was
then bled down to open the sleeves in the intervals so
equipped. The well was immediately flowed back, and the
flowback fluid sampled at proscribed intervals for analysis of
the zone specific chemical tracers added to the frac fluid.
In all six Marco Polo wells, production was successfully
established in this method, reducing risk and potential
intervention cost by not requiring the use of wireline or coiled
tubing intervention.
Conclusions
1. Operational execution and well functionality will benefit
when risk mitigation is considered throughout the
completion design.
2. Completion design must address field implementation and
rig limitations for efficiency and reliability.
3. Multiple stacked zones can successfully be completed
economically and with minimum risk by using
overbalanced perforating and sliding sleeve technology.
4. Commissioning activities not requiring a rig can
successfully be performed offline, saving considerable
time and expense.
5. Intervention-less opening of sliding sleeves successfully
established production while lowering project risk and
improving economics.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
for giving us permission to publish this paper. We also want
to thank all the operating and service company personnel who
have contributed to the comprehensive planning and execution
of the successful deepwater development program.
References
1.

2.

3.

K. Renfro and J. Burman, Influence of Field Development and

Flow Assurance Issues on Well Completion Design at Marco
Polo Field, OTC 16642, presented at the 2004 OTC held in
Houston, TX, 3-6 May.
P. Watson, E. Kolstad, R. Borstmayer, T. Pope, A. Reseigh, An
Innovative Approach to Development Drilling in Deepwater
Gulf of Mexico, SPE/IADC 79809, presented at the 2003
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
19-21 February.
Robert D. Pourciau, Case History:
Internally Coated
Completion Workstring Successes, presented at the 2002
ATCE, San Antonio, TX, 29 September 2 October.

SPE 95331

4.

5.

6 .

7.

8.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

M. Weaver, T. Kragas, J. Burman. D. Copeland, B. Phillips, R.

Seagraves, Installation and Application of Permanent
Downhole Optical Pressure/Temperature Gauges and
Distributed Temperature Sensing in Producing Deepwater Wells
at Marco Polo, SPE 95798, presented at the 2005 ATCE,
Dallas, TX, 9-12 October.
L.F. Neumann, C.A. Pedroso, L. Moreira, R.C. Bezerra de
Melo, Lessons Learned from a Hundred Frac Packs in the
Campos Basin, SPE 73722, presented at the 2002 SPE Intl
Syposium and Exhibition for Formation Damage Control.
Lafayette, LA, February 20-21.
R. D. Pourciau, J.H. Fisk, F.J. Descant, R. B. Waltman,
Completion and Well Performance Results, Genesis Field,
Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, SPE 84415, presented at the 2003
SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.
J. W. Burman, B. Franklin, D. Turner, et al, Design
Considerations for Interventionless, Commingled Multizone
Selective Sand Control Deepwater Completions SPE 95598,
presented at the 2005 ATCE, Dallas, TX, 9-12 October.
H.C. Lau, and C.L Davis, Laboratory Studies of Plugging and
Clean-Up of Production Screens in Horizontal Wellbores, SPE
38638, presented at 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference,
San Antonio , TX, 5-8 October.
B. R. Jackson, Frac Packing for Sand Control Pays Off for
Mobil in California, World Oil, June 1964, pp 126-128.
P.S. Rovina, C.A. Pedroso, A.B. Coutinho, L.F. Neumann,
Triple Frac-Packing in a Ultra-deepwater Subsea Well in
Roncador Field, Campos Basin Maximizing the Production
Rate, SPE 63110, presented at the 2000 Annual Technical
Conference, Dallas, TX, 1-4 October.
R.A. Woodroof, M. Asadi, R.S. Leonard, M. Rainbolt,
Monitoring Fracturing Fluid Flowback and Optimizing
Fracturing Fluid Cleanup in the Bossier Sand Using Chemical
Frac Tracers, SPE 84486, presented at the 2003 SPE ATCE,
Denver Colorado, 5-8 October.
P. Javora, X. Wang, J. Burman, K. Renfro, M. Weaver, R.
Pearcy, Q. Qu, Managing Deepwater Flow Assurance: Unique
Riser Design Allows Dual Annuli Thermal Insulating Fluid
Installation, SPE 96123, presented at the 2005 ATCE, Dallas,
TX, 9-12 October.
M. Pakulski, Q. Qi, R.Pearcy, Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Well
Completion Fluid with Hydrate Inhibitors, SPE 92971,
presented at the 2005 SPE Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, TX, February 2-4.

Figure 1
Marco Polo TLP

11
Figure 2
Marco Polo M-10 Sand Structure Map

Figure 3
Marco Polo Type Log

12

Figure 4
Marco Polo Generalized Wellbore Schematic

SPE 95331

SPE 95331

13

Figure 5
Marco Polo Completion Operations Timeline

Figure 6
Marco Polo Completions Operational Effiency

Weather

Planned
Unplanned
139 days
(85%)

24 days
(15%)

14 days
(9%)

Unavoidable

6 days (4%)
Avoidable

4 days (2%)

14

SPE 95331

Figure 7
Marco Polo Mudline and Surface Wellhead Locations

Figure 9
Flatpack Layout

Slot/Keel Location
Mudline (Sub Surface) Wellhead Location

Figure 8
POTH Schematic

Table 1
Marco Polo Reservoir Fluid Properties
Property
GOR (SCF/STB)
API
Reservoir Temperature
(deg. F)
Initial Reservoir Pressure
(psia)
Bubble-Point Pressure
(psia)
CO2 Reservoir Fluid
Mole %

M10
1209
29.7

M40
1156
33.5

M50
742
31.7

M60
745
31.4

115

119

121

122

7087

7368

7433

7477

5596

4188

2771

3154

0.06

0.21

0.20

0.24

Table 2
Marco Polo Initial Well Productivity
Well
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8

Initial Rate
7,000 BOPD
3,500 BOPD
9,000 BOPD
11,500 BOPD
11,000 BOPD
12,000 BOPD

Drawdown
281 psi
100 psi
201 psi
251 psi
277 psi
249 psi

PI (bbl/d/psi)
24.9
35.0
44.8
45.8
39.7
48.1

Skin
-2.1
-2.3
-2.7
0.1
-2.8
1.1

SPE 95331

15

Table 3
Marco Polo Perforating Data Summary

Well
#
A-5
A-6

A-4

A-3

A-8

A-7

Sand
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-70
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-40
M-20
M-10

Mid
Perf
(MD)
12,354
12,215
12,993
12,765
12,530
12,470
12,357
12,230
12,192
11,738
11,630
11,935
11,788
11,641
12,540
12,234
11,960

Hole
Angle
@
Perfs
23
22
31
30
30
19
19
19
35
34
34
32
32
31
27
26
27

Gross
Perfs
92
50
35
170
60
21
83
40
28
64
40
30
105
49
80
60
64

BHP
(psi)
7,397
7,335
7,501
7,459
7,368
7,358
7,326
7,368
7,381
6,943
6,877
7,235
7,224
7,190
6,900
7,336
6,872

Temp
(deg F)
117
115
121
117
115
121
116
113
118
113
112
120
116
111
123
112
113

OB*
(psi)
578
523
508
364
368
430
483
450
280
425
465
347
267
237
1,064
477
700

* OB is the hydrostatic pressure before perforating minus the reservoir

pressure
Table 4
Marco Polo Frac Pack Temperature Data

Operation
On Bottom
Pickle
Mini Frac
SRT
Frac

Boat
74
79
79
79
79

@ Mudline
(4,344 ft)
Begin End
43
43
45
51
51
73
67
71
63
79

@ XO tool
(12, 146 ft)
Begin End
118
119
117
111
111
103
97
99
100
89

Table 5
Marco Polo Total Sand Control Installation Days

Days to Perf & Frac

Number of Zones
Average Days/Zone

A-5

A-6 A-4 A-3

A-8

A-7

Total

9.9

17.9 12.3 10.9 11.5

12.6

75.1

17

4.9

6.0

4.1

3.6

3.8

4.2

4.4

16

SPE 95331

Table 6
Marco Polo Frac Pack Summary
Well
#
A-5
A-6

A-4

A-3

A-8

A-7

Sand
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-70
M-50
M-40
M-60
M-50
M-40
M-40
M-20

Closure
psi
8,545
8,441
9,069
9,100
8,752
8,400
8,518
8,384
8,161
7,886
8,091
NA
8,377
8,067
8,433
8,348

Fluid
Efficiency
21%
15%
17%
14%
10%
46%
30%
20%
51%
14%
27%
NA
15%
19%
35%
14%

%Pad
13%
31%
30%
37%
56%
14%
17%
27%
19%
38%
25%
34%
40%
27%
13%
24%

bpm
15
18
15
25
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
15

Net
psi
428
996
552
221
302
461
328
134
294
465
602
286
214
938
146
0

lbs/ft(md)
Behind
Pipe
465
1,057
895
362
464
3,022
1,228
2,636
2,141
504
1,927
1,017
563
820
828
1,233