SPE 115546

Erosion Study for a 400 MMcf/D Completion: Cannonball Field,

Offshore Trinidad
J.C. Healy, Consultant, John Martin, BP plc, Brenton McLaury, University of Tulsa, and Raynald Jagroop,
BP Trinidad and Tobago

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Cannonball Field is a one Tcf gas condensate development offshore Trinidad producing at a sustained rate in excess of
800 MMcf/D from three wells. The completion design selected was 7 inch production tubing with an open-hole gravel
pack. The initial well (CAN01) has produced at 333 MMcf/D. These rates are higher than typically experienced which has
raised concerns concerns about the resultant potential for metal erosion. As a result, a rigorous erosion study was initiated.
The objective was to quantitatively evaluate erosion at various rates over the life cycle of the well to appropriately design the
completion and select the appropriate materials.
The erosion nodes within the completion - changes in flow direction (e.g. a tee such as in the wellhead) and/or flow
constrictions - were identified as: the tree; a landing nipple profile near the surface; and a formation isolation device (FID)
positioned in the gravel pack assembly. The key parameters were defined as particles of sharp sand, with a diameter of 50
microns, at a concentration of 0.1 lbs/MMcf. Erosion rates were calculated using the erosion model - Sand Production Pipe
Saver (SPPS) - developed by the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center, University of Tulsa, USA. Erosion rates were
calculated over the life cycle starting at initial rates of 280 and 400 MMcf/D. Erosion rates were also calculated with and
without a liquid film (a protective layer on the pipe wall that can reduce the erosion rate). Erosion results (without a liquid
film) at all nodes exceeded BPs erosion limit; however, the erosion results with a thin liquid film were mostly below the
companys erosion limit. Determination of the presence and thickness of the liquid film was critical. A multi-phase pipeline
simulation calculated that a sufficient liquid film would exist at all critical areas. Erosion of the tree was further assessed by
computation fluid dynamics (CFD) models, which identified several hot spots; thus, additional cladding of all flow-wetted
surfaces and rounding of the outlet corner was required. The Cannonball completion design, including the tree, was
determined to be capable of sustained rates up to a maximum 400 MMcf/D. The three (3) well development, where initial
rates have been as high as 333 MMcf/D, has been on production for several years without any erosion issues.
Introduction
Trinidads gas production has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. In 1996, local gas production exceeded oil
production for the first time as the twin island Caribbean state of Trinidad and Tobago moved from a predominantly oil
producing country to a major gas producer. The gas growth has been driven by an increase in local demand and construction
of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, which now includes four Trains. BP Trinidad and Tobago LLCs (bpTT)
share of the gas supply to the local market has grown from less than 350 MMcf/D in 1994 to over 2 Bcf/D by mid-2007 with
production coming predominantly from several prolific gas fields located off Trinidads East Coast.
The Cannonball field is located approximately 35 miles off the southeast coast of Trinidad in 240 ft of water (Figure
1). The discovery well, Ironhorse-1 ST1, was drilled in 2002. In 2005, a minimal structure (nine slot four pile) production
platform was installed and three development wells were drilled and completed with a jack-up cantilever drilling rig. Initial
production commenced on March 12, 2006 following pipeline hook-up and commissioning. The Cannonball field was
brought on production at a sustained rate in excess of 800 MMcf/D. A previous paper1 presented a detailed review of the
design, engineering assurance, installation and performance of the Cannonball completions.
Well Design
The key project requirement for the wells team was to deliver (on schedule) a highly reliable completion that would deliver
280 MMcf/D without risk of excessive sand production in order to achieve the required plateau rate of 800 MMcf/D (Figure

SPE 115546

2). Given the key project requirement to reduce well count and maximize the production rate, the wells team decided early
on that Cannonball would be designed around the optimal completion. A right scoping process was used to methodically
evaluate various well designs to facilitate selection of the design that would best meet the project objectives.
Nodal* Analysis
The key parameters for the completion design are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. These parameters were used to
construct inflow performance relationships based on an open-hole gravel model which was used to evaluate the deliverability
of various tubing sizes including 7 inch, 7 inch, and 9 inch (Figure 3). This analysis demonstrated the extraordinary
deliverability of a Cannonball well which was 300, 390, and 600 MMcf/D for 7 inch, 7 inch, and 9 inch tubing,
respectively.
Parameter
Reservoir
Gas-in-Place
Drive Mechanism
Total Deliverability
CGR initial
CGR final
Produced Water
Condensed Water
BHP initial
BHP abandonment
Flowing BHP @ abandonment
BHT
Permeabilityeff
Gas Gravity
SITP

Value
Gas Condensate
+1 Tcf
Volumetric
800 MMcf/D
25 bbl/MMcf
12 bbl/MMcf
None
2 bbl/MMcf
6,450 psi
1035 psi
611 psi
220oF
165 md
0.6137
5,122 psi

Source
Logs/Offset fields
Estimated
Seismic / Geology
Project SOR
Offset fields
Offset fields
Volumetric drive
Offset fields
Iron Horse MDT
Simulation
Simulation
Ironhorse MDT
PBU vs. Core Plot
Offset fields
Calculated

Table 1 Key Completion Design Parameters (Expected Case)

Constituent
C1
C2
C3
IC4
NC4
C5+
CO2
H2S

Value
93.2 Mole %
3.53 Mole %
1.32 Mole %
0.29 Mole %
0.36 Mole %
0.82 Mole %
0.43 Mole %
0 ppm

Source
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields
Offset fields

Table 2 Assumed Gas Composition

Upper Completion
Various high rate upper completion designs were evaluated including 7 inch, 7 inch, and 9 inch tubing. In bpTT, 7 inch
production tubing is the predominant size for all of the high-rate gas wells. Only one well (Mahogany B-13) had 7 inch
production tubing prior to Cannonball. The Mahogany B-13 was tested to a maximum rate of 247 MMcf/D 2. There are no
9 inch production tubing completions in Trinidad; however, extreme rate gas wells with 9 inch production tubing
completions do exist in other parts of the world 3, 4. Various 9 inch concepts were reviewed by a panel of company experts
and the concept was eventually rejected due to: a lack of fully qualified engineered equipment; the risk of on-time delivery of
serial #1 equipment; and the operational execution risk associated with a new well design. Ultimately, the project team
selected 7 inch production tubing to meet the required deliverability profile while minimizing well count. During the initial
evaluation stage of the 9 inch concept, and given the potential production rates of 600 MMcf/D, erosion became a
significant concern and thus catalyzed this study. The results of the 9 inch concept are not presented in this paper as the
focus of this paper is on the final design of the 7 inch production tubing selected.
Erosion Study
Solid particles such as sand in produced oil and gas can cause severe erosion damage even resulting in failure. Possible
erosion in ultra high-rate gas wells is of paramount significance and must be rigorously investigated by the design engineer.
The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 14E (API RP 14E) is often used by oil and gas producers to

SPE 115546

calculate an erosional flow stream. However, the non-applicability of API RP 14E to these particular situations (the
guideline does not consider sand nor does it account for many of the factors that affect erosion) has been well documented,
and has resulted in the development of various erosion prediction models by various researchers.5 Thus, a detailed and
comprehensive erosion study was undertaken in accordance with company guidelines6 to rigorously assess the predicted
erosion rates of the planned well design. This study included the use of a multi-phase erosion prediction model, computation
fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling, and a liquid film thickness study. As a result of this study, the final well design required
several equipment modifications to mitigate potential erosion areas.
Erosion Model
The Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC) at The University of Tulsa (U.S.A.) developed an erosion prediction model
for use over a broad range of operating conditions that accounted for geometry type, size, and material; fluid properties and
rate; and sand, size, and density.5 This erosion model - the Sand Production Pipe Saver (SPPS) - is one of the principle
erosion models used by the company6 and was used extensively for the study detailed herein.
Erosion Nodes
Identifying the areas in the wellbore (Figure 4) that would experience the highest erosion rates is a key step in making the
calculations. These areas were labeled as erosion nodes and are sometimes referred to as hot spots. Erosion hot spots for
well completions are typically associated with flow constrictions/expansions (e.g., nipple profiles, formation isolation devices
(FID), tubing hangers, down hole safety valves) or significant changes in flow geometry (e.g., flowline elbow, 90o tee at
Christmas tree). These features cause a major disruption in the fluid streamline which cause solids to impinge on the tubing /
equipment wall resulting in material wastage or erosion. The erosion nodes identified for Cannonball are listed in Table 3.
Erosion
Node
1
2
3

Node
Description
Tree BPV Profile
SCSSV
FID

Depth
(feet, MD)
Surface
1,500
13,160

Internal Diameter
(inch)
6.855
5.812
4.561

Table 3 Erosion Nodes for Erosion Calculations

Erosion Model Inputs

The SPPS model requires the user to select certain critical inputs. The inputs used for the Cannonball analysis are listed in
Table 4.
Description
Material Type
Erosion Geometry: Constriction/Expansion (SCSSV)
Erosion Geometry: 90o Tee (Christmas Tree)
Sand Shape (Round, Semi-Rounded, Sharp)
Sand Concentration
Particle Size (expected case)
Particle Size (worst case)
Flow Regime (single phase, stratified, annular, churn, slug)

Value
13% Chrome
1.5D Bend
Tee
Sharp
0.1 lbs/MMcf
50 microns
109 microns
Mist

Source
production tubing material
SPPS model option
SPPS model option
worst case assumption
worst case assumption
bpTT study7
calculated; based on LPSA
SPPS Model option

Table 4 Erosion Model Inputs

Erosion Limits
The normally applied company erosion limit is 0.1 mm/year. This value has been selected to avoid the synergistic erosioncorrosion that can occur with carbon / low alloy steels and 13% Chrome steels. This limit is not imposed in the case of
higher corrosion-resistant alloy (CRA) metallurgy such as duplex stainless steel, nickel alloys (e.g., Incoloy 825, Inconel
625), austenitic stainless steels (e.g., AISI 316, Sanicro 28) where past work has demonstrated that there is a very low, or
even no, risk of synergistic erosion-corrosion even under highly erosive conditions. For such cases, the maximum allowable
total erosion wastage over the service life is considered instead of a maximum allowable erosion rate.

SPE 115546

Erosion Rates
Erosion rates for two cases were calculated over the well life-cycle using a particle size of 50 and 109 microns. The results
for the 50 micron (expected case) particle size are presented below (Table 5 and Table 6) for the Project SOR case (280
MMcf/D) and the technical limit case (400 MMcf/D). The results in yellow assume a liquid film is not present. The results
in blue assume a liquid film is present. The erosion rates in red font exceed the company limit of 0.1 mm/yr.
A liquid film, formed on the internal surface of the tubing or equipment, can provide a protective barrier and act to
help mitigate the impact of solids impingement. The predicted potential benefit of a liquid film can be observed by
comparing the results in yellow to the results in blue. For a liquid film to be effective, the thickness of the film must be at
least one-half the diameter of the (impinging) solid particle (Figure 5). In the case of Cannonball, the expected particle size
was 50 microns; thus, a liquid film of at least 25 microns was required.
Scenario
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
FWHP (psi)
Gas Rate (MMcf/D)
Erosion Rates (mm/year)
Node 1 (Tree BPV Profile)
Node 2 (SCSSV @ 1500 MD)
Node 3 (FID @ 13,160 MD)
Node 1 (Tree BPV Profile)
Node 2 (SCSSV @ 1500 MD)
Node 3 (FID @ 13,160 MD)

1
6450
3625
280

2
6000
3330
280

3
5500
2810
280

4
5000
2250
280

5
4500
1650
280

6
4000
1300
260

7
3500
1300
230

0.024
0.055
0.134
0.004
0.009
0.029

0.027
0.062
0.141
0.005
0.010
0.027

0.035
0.077
0.157
0.006
0.013
0.028

0.049
0.113
0.177
0.010
0.020
0.031

0.153
0.259
0.206
0.028
0.045
0.037

0.305
0.420
0.199
0.065
0.082
0.037

0.190
0.323
0.154
0.040
0.065
0.030

Table 5 Summary of Erosion Results for 280 MMcf/D (50 micron particle size)
Scenario
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
FWHP (psi)
Gas Rate (MMcf/D)
Erosion Rates (mm/year)
Node 1 (Tree BPV Profile)
Node 2 (Nipple @ 1500 MD)
Node 3 (FID @ 13,160 MD)
Node 1 (Tree BPV Profile)
Node 2 (SCSSV @ 1500 MD)
Node 3 (FID @ 13,160 MD)

1
6450
1300
416

2
6000
1300
403

3
5500
1300
368

4
5000
1300
335

5
4500
1300
299

6
4000
1300
260

7
3500
1300
216

1.104
0.702
0.417
0.209
0.109
0.078

1.021
0.666
0.398
0.199
0.108
0.072

0.802
0.649
0.345
0.160
0.110
0.060

0.619
0.592
0.297
0.127
0.105
0.052

0.451
0.473
0.249
0.094
0.089
0.044

0.305
0.420
0.199
0.065
0.082
0.037

0.178
0.304
0.145
0.038
0.061
0.028

Table 6 Summary of Erosion Results for 400 MMcf/D (50 micron particle size)

Liquid Film
A liquid film thickness study was performed by company experts with commercially available software commonly used for
modeling multi-phase flow in pipelines. The entire length of the completion (from reservoir to wellhead) was modeled
except for the Christmas tree. To date, attempts to identify a method to calculate the film thickness in the high velocity and
tortuous flow regime of the Christmas tree have proved unsuccessful. In addition to the flow geometry, the critical inputs are
condensate-to-gas ratio (CGR) and water-to-gas ratio (WGR). For this study, minimum case values were used for CGR and
WGR which were 12 bbls/MMcf and 1 bbls/MMcf, respectively. The key finding of the study was that the film thickness is
never thinner than 50 microns (Figure 6) for both the 280 MMcf/D and 400 MMcf/D. This provided the wells team with the
technical basis for using the erosion results assuming a liquid film is present.
Constrictions/Expansions
In SPPS, flow constrictions/expansions (e.g., nipple profiles, formation isolation devices, down hole safety valves) were
modeled as bends (Figure 7) for the purpose of these studies, since the option of a flow constriction/expansion geometry was
not available in SPPS at that time. In this case the constriction/expansion geometry was modeled as a 1.5D bend elbow
(knowing this to be a conservative approach). Erosion studies for the Cannonball development and Hapy wells allowed for a
comparison of SPPS results with CFD results (Table 7 and Table 8).8

SPE 115546

Description
CFD result
CFD result (correction factor of 5)
SPPS Bend Radius = 1.5 D
SPPS Bend Radius = 5 D
SPPS Bend Radius = 10 D
SPPS Bend Radius = 15 D
SPPS Bend Radius = 20 D

Erosion Rate
(mm/yr)
0.03
0.15
1.48
0.59
0.25
0.11
0.046

Table 7 Summary of Cannonball Erosion Assessment Results for Constriction/Expansion

CFD result (correction factor of 5)

SPPS Bend Radius = 5D
SPPS Bend Radius = 10D

Well 1
0.16
0.28
0.11

Well 2
0.18
0.38
0.16

Well 3
0.19
0.52
0.22

Well 4
0.08
0.52
0.22

Well 5
0.18
0.32
0.13

Well 6
0.16
0.47
0.20

Table 8 Summary of Hapy Wells Erosion Assessment Results for Expansion

The input data for Cannonball was as per Figure 8 without taking into consideration any possible benefit from a
liquid layer on the pipe wall (i.e., the comparison was undertaken assuming no liquids - single gas phase - since that was the
assumption used for the CFD study). It was recommended by the E/CRC to apply a correction factor of five (5) to the CFD
results on the basis of previous comparisons of experimental data with the results from CFD simulations. Six (6) Hapy wells
were also studied; the input data and schematic expansion drawings at the three (3) inch production seal assembly region are
shown in Figure 9. From the data, using a bend radius of between 5 and 10 with the full erosion rate models (in this case
SPPS), gave comparable results to CFD modeling results (with a correction factor of 5). Although these results only apply
directly to the present cases, it has demonstrated that the 1.5 D assumption for expansions is very conservative. Using a 5D
bend would prove acceptable. As a result, it was recommended that for future assessments of constrictions/expansions, when
using the full erosion rate models, a bend with a 5D radius should be assumed.
Tree Erosion
As indicated by Table 5 and Table 6, the potential erosion rates at the tree were an issue that merited further study. As a
result, a CFD study of the tree was undertaken.
CFD Study
Several CFD studies of various flow geometries were conducted. This paper focuses only on the CFD studies conducted on
the Christmas tree section. It was discovered that significant erosion was occurring at the corner (where the vertical section
and the horizational section intersect) and in the outlet section. An investigation was conducted to examine the effect of
rounding at this intersection point.
Two (2) modified corner radius geometries were considered: a radius of inch and a radius of inch. Figure 10
and Figure 11 represent the inch and inch rounded geometries, respectively. Simulations were performed for the 400
MMcf/D case using 50 micron sand for both rounded geometries. The sand rate was assumed to be 0.1 lbs/MMcf. Table 9
provides a summary of the simulation results for the current tree bore configuration with inch and inch rounding along
with the results for no rounding. The results note that the inch rounding significantly reduces the erosion in the corner
region but did not decrease the erosion in the downstream section. The inch rounding showed similar improvements in
erosion in the corner region as the inch rounding but showed a significant decrease in the erosion in the downstream
region.
Corner
Radius
No rounding
inch rounding
inch rounding

Erosion at Corner
(mpy)
(mm/yr)
2807
71.2
805
20.4
742
18.8

Erosion Downstream
(mpy)
(mm/yr)
1450
36.8
1413
35.8
547
13.8

Table 9 - Summary of Predicted Erosion Rates with and without Rounding (Inconel)

SPE 115546

Results were obtained using the current erosion model in the CFD code for carbon steel with a Brinell hardness of
140. Experimental results indicate that the erosion for Inconel is approximately half that of a comparable carbon steel used in
the simulations. The results shown in Table 9 account for this factor and present the CFD predictions for Inconel. The
present erosion equations used in the CFD simulations are currently under scrutiny. From other studies comparing
experiments to simulations it is reasonably safe to reduce the erosion rates shown in Table 9 by a factor of five. These
corrected results are presented in Table 10.
Corner
Radius
No round
inch round
inch round

Erosion at Corner
(mpy)
(mm/yr)
561
14.2
161
4.1
148
3.8

Erosion Downstream
(mpy)
(mm/yr)
290
7.4
283
7.2
109
2.8

Table 10 - Summary of Corrected (Correction Factor of 5) Predicted Erosion Rates with and without Rounding

Figure 12 is shown to demonstrate the issue of areas of localized erosion occurring and this figure is representative
of the erosion pattern seen in the CFD simulations. Both corners adjacent to the downstream branch show significant
erosion. For the 390 MMcf/D cases, the corner furthest from the inlet experienced the most erosion (the values for the corner
in Table 10 are for this corner). Large amounts of erosion are also seen in the downstream portion. Significant erosion can
be seen up to six diameters downstream of the intersection. Some erosion is also seen in the uppermost region of Figure 10.
While this erosion is less than at the corners and in the downstream region, it should be noted that this is a potential area of
localized erosion.
Tree Wastage Calculations
The CFD erosion results were used to calibrate SPPS erosion rates which enabled the calculation of cumulative wastage over
the well life cycle an example of which is presented in Figure 13. The erosion wastage calculations were based on the
assumption of a liquid film and a particle size of 50 microns. The cumulative, life cycle wastage is summarized in Table 11.
Tree Section
Corner (radius = 0.030 inches)
Corner (radius = 0.030 inches)
Outlet

Rate
(MMcf/D)
400
280
390

Cumulative
Wastage (mm)
1.979
1.547
0.986

Table 11 - Cumulative Life Cycle Wastage at Christmas Tree Corner and Outlet

Christmas Tree Cladding and Modification

The surface tree selected for the Cannonball project was a 7-1/16 inch, 10,000 psi with a single outlet (Figure 14). Both the
vertical section and the outlet section were specified with the same internal diameter of 7.0625 inches. Given the erosion /
corrosion potential, the wells teams made a decision to clad all flow wetted surfaces of the Christmas tree. This allowed the
selection of a low carbon steel base material for the single body tree forging. The tree suppliers typical clad thickness is
inch (3 mm). From Table 11, the worst case wastage is 1.979 mm and this amount of wastage would result in only ~1 mm of
clad thickness remaining. Given the inherent uncertainty in the calculations and input parameters, a conservative decision
was made to specify a corner radius of inch (the suppliers standard corner radius was 0.030 inches) and to double the
cladding (2 x inches) above the upper master valve (Figure 14).
Sand Monitoring and Detection
The methods and historical experience of sand monitoring and detection of bpTT high-rate gas wells have been extensively
reported by Allahar 9 , Hedges 10 and Balgobin 11. Cannonball adopted the best practices established by previous bpTT gas
field developments which included the installation of both intrusive and non-intrusive sand monitoring devices. The sand
detection and alarming system is set to shut-in wells at a solids production rate of 0.1 lbs/MMcf which at the time of the
Cannonball development was the lowest detection level. To date, including initial well commissioning, there has not been a
single well shut-in due to sand alarming.
General vs. Local Erosion Issues
The foregoing erosion study deals only with the general/major erosion issues. Local secondary erosion issues are dealt with
separately. Theses secondary erosion areas are often less critical and are typically covered when addressing the major
erosion issues (i.e., to maximize throughput). However, especially in high rate gas wells, it is very important to not lose sight
of these secondary areas as they also need due consideration. In general, the solution is more likely to be an engineered
solution rather than by applying production limits. Examples include:

SPE 115546

Example 1: For tubular connections in high rate wells the internally flush connections such as VAM TOP are preferred over
connections which can have a connection gap such as 8-round or Buttress threads.
Example 2: For flow constrictions/expansions a gradual (tapered) transition is preferred from an erosion stand point versus a
sudden change of diameter.
Well Performance
The actual initial well performance results for all three Cannonball wells are presented in Table 12. Initial production
commenced on March 12, 2006 following pipeline hook-up and commissioning. The Cannonball field was brought on
production at a sustained rate in excess of 800 MMcf/D and to date there have been no equipment, reliability, nor sand issues.
Parameter
Gas Rate (MMcf/D)
Condensate Rate (bbl/D)
Flowing WHP (psig)
Draw Down (psig)
Mechanical Skin(Low 5)
Un-choked Flow Potential (MMcf/D)
Produced Solids

CAN01
320
7,000
3,143
430
Low
415
None

CAN02
295
6,500
2,995
800
Low
370
None

CAN03
255
5,600
3,592
500
Low
375
None

Table 12 Cannonball Actual Well Performance

Conclusions
Instead of using API RP 14E, a detailed erosion study was undertaken using a multi-phase erosion prediction model and
CFD modeling for the technical assurance of an ultra high rate (400 MMcf/D) gas well completion design.
A liquid film on the wall of the tubing / equipment can provide a protective barrier and significantly reduce erosion rates.
A liquid film study using a multiphase pipeline simulation was required to determine the film thickness along the well
profile.
CFD vs. SPPS erosion studies of constriction/expansions resulted in a recommendation that future assessments, when
using the full erosion rate models, should assume a bend with a 5D radius.
CFD erosion studies of the Christmas tree identified modifications for the standard tree design that would enable
confident management of erosion wastage over the well life cycle.
The standard tree design was modified to specify a corner radius of inch and double cladding (2 x inches) above the
upper master valve (including the outlet section).
The Cannonball field was brought on production in 2006 at a sustained rate in excess of 800 MMcf/D with individual
well rates as high as 333 MMcf/D and to date there have been no equipment, reliability, nor erosion issues.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the bpTT management for permission to publish this paper. In addition, we express our
thanks and sincere appreciation to our wells team colleagues, all of the technical experts, as well as the service companies
who made this development a success.
Nomenclature
BPV
bpTT
C&P
CFD
CGR
FID
ID
LPSA
MD
mpy
SOR
SCSSV

= Back Pressure Valve

= BP Trinidad and Tobago LLC
= Cased & Perforated
= Computation Fluid Dynamics
= Condensate Gas Ratio
= Formation Isolation Device
= Internal Diameter
= Laser Particle Size Analysis
= Measured Depth
= mils (thousandths of an inch) per year penetration
= Statement of Requirements
= Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve

* NODAL analysis is a mark of Schlumberger

SPE 115546

Conversion Factors and Units

1 mm/yr = 39.4 mpy
References
1.

Healy, J.C. et al: Completion Design, Installation, and Performance - Cannonball Field, Offshore Trinidad, paper SPE
110524-PP presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14
November 2007.
2. Akong, S. et al.: Completion of High-Rate Gas Wells, Horizontal Gravel Pack and Filter-Cake Cleanup: A Case History
From the Mahogany Field, Trinidad, paper SPE 86515 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 18-20 February 2004.
3. Teng, D. et al,: High Rate Gas Well Design: Issues and Solutions Goodwyn Gas Condensate, NWS, Australia, paper
SPE 50081 presented at the 1998 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 12-14
October 1998.
4. Dolan, S.P. et al: Planning and Execution of Big Bore Wells Offshore NW Australia, paper SPE/IADC 67820
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February 1 March 2001.
5. McLaury, B.S. et al Generalization of API 14E for Erosive Service in Multiphase Production, paper SPE 56812
presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 3-6 October 1999.
6. Martin, J.W. et al Design and Operations Guidelines to Avoid Erosion Problems in Oil and Gas Production Systems One Operators Approach, NACE Paper No. 06592, presented at the NACE Corrosion Conference 2006..
7. Krieger, K.D. et al.: Producing Trinidad Solids Free: A Retrospective Sand Control Completion Study, paper SPE
81053 presented at the 2003 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003.
8. Internal company report
9. Allahar, I. A., Acoustic Signal Analysis for Sand Detection in Wells with Changing Fluid Profiles, paper SPE 81002
prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003.
10. Hedges, B. et al A Comparison of Monitoring Techniques for Improved Erosion Control: A Field Study, NACE Paper
No. 04355.
11. Balgobin, C. J., Sand Management of Ultra-High-Rate Gas Wells, paper SPE 94896 prepared for presentation at the
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20-23 June 2005.

SPE 115546

Figure 1 - Location Map of Cannonball Field

Figure 2 - Cannonball Required Deliverability Profile

Figure 3 - NODAL* Analysis for Various Tubing Sizes with Open Hole Gravel Pack

10

Figure 4 - Proposed Completion Schematic for Initial Cannonball Well

SPE 115546

SPE 115546

11

Figure 5 - Liquid Film

100
90

70
60
SCSSV (ID = 5.81")

50
40

Top of Well (Surface)

Film Thickness [microns]

80

FID (ID = 4.56")

30
20
10
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Length [m ]

Figure 6 - Film Thickness Plot

3000

3500

4000

4500

280mmscfd Case
400mmscfd Case

12

Figure 7 - Modeling of Constrictions/Expansion in SPPS

Figure 8 - Cannonball Input Data for Constriction/Expansion Study

SPE 115546

SPE 115546

Figure 9 - Hapy Wells Input Data for Expansion Study

13

14

Figure 10 - Tree Bore with inch Rounding.

Figure 11 - Tree Bore with inch Rounding.

SPE 115546

SPE 115546

15

Figure 12 - Representative Erosion Pattern Near Intersecting Pipes

Gas Rate vs. Tree Erosion Wastage

(Case: Liquid Film Barrier & 50 um Particles)
2.500

400

2.000

300
Gas Rate

250

1.500

Cumulative

200

Monthly

1.000

150
100

0.500

50
0.000

Figure 13 - Cumulative Wastage at Corner - 400 MMcf/D Case

Jan-15

Jan-14

Jan-13

Jan-12

Jan-11

Jan-10

Jan-09

Jan-08

Jan-07

Jan-06

Jan-05

Erosion Wastage (mm)

Gas Rate (MMCFPD

350

16

Figure 14 - Tree Schematic with Clad Thickness Identified

SPE 115546