This paper addresses the hurdles that have prevented the single-trip installation of upper and lower completions in the complex world of subsea and deepwater applications. It examines the processes, technologies, and risk mitigation steps that took a concept from pilot to successful deployment This paper examines the current practice and rationales that had dictated a near 30-year industry standard methodology. This was not a case of tearing up the rule book, but of re-writing certain chapters. Our study examines the methods used to evaluate risks, mitigate same, test thought processes through to systems integration testing, and ultimately take what was a complete-the-well-on-paper exercise to a complete-the-well-in-practice outcome. The study will look at novel and not-so-novel technologies deployed; why were they chosen and how were they qualified. Offshore and deepwater activity is returning; cost control, better project management and new technologies have provided a step-change in project economics. Typically, the completion of certain deepwater wells will necessitate the separate deployment of sand face, intermediate and upper completion. But what would result if this could be done in a single trip? In the simplest terms, completing in a single trip reduces the overall completion time by half and more. The case against is well founded; building the case for the change of long-established methods in our industry has never been an easy task. The steps taken to build this case will be examined, how fear of the new was overcome, and, having established proof-of-concept and beyond, taking the project to a fruitful outcome will be explored. However, what will be explored is no silver bullet, has no universal appeal and requires diligence, planning and contingency to drive success. But the prize is there, the risks can be mitigated, and when successful, will deliver an impact on project economics that very few technologies and techniques have delivered on such a scale.
CRITICS HAVE BEEN WARY in their attempts to come to terms with the works of John Arden. The majority of them, in fact, confine themselves to an astonished description of his several works, with tolerant comments on their "diversity," "unpredictability," "uncommitedness," "amorality" and so on. Only two or three have approached the works in tentative analysis — among them John Russell Taylor and J.D. Hainsworth. And Hainsworth's article springs from a minor disagreement with a statement by Taylor. Taylor's criticism of Arden in Anger and After seeks to validate his contention that this writer changes his ground continually, seeking in every fresh playa fresh viewpoint: "There seems to be brooding one basic principle: not exactly the obvious one that today there are no causes — that would be altogether too facile, and in any case just not true — but that there are too many."
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.